History for ready reference, Volume 4, Nicæa to Tunis

by J. N. Larned

the Inn] formed an important factor. Next followed a league
between the Abbot of Dissentis, the nobles of the Oberland,
the Communes of that district, and its outlying dependencies.
This was called the Grey League—according to popular tradition
because the folk who swore it wore grey serge coats, but more
probably because it was a League of Counts, Gräfen, Grawen.
The third league was formed after the final dispersion of the
great inheritance of Vaz, which passed through the Counts of
Toggenburg into the hands of females and their
representatives. This took the name of Zehn Gerichte, or Ten
Jurisdictions, and embraced Davos, Belfort, Schanfigg, the
Prättigau, and Maienfeld. The date of the formation of the
Gotteshausbund is uncertain; but its origin may be assigned to
the last years of the 14th century [some writers date it
1396]. That of the Grey League, or Graue Bund, or Obere Theil,
as it is variously called, is traditionally 1424. (It is worth
mentioning that this League took precedence of the other two,
and that the three were known as the Grey Leagues.) That of
the Zehn Gerichte is 1438. In 1471 these three Leagues formed
a triple alliance, defensive and offensive, protective and
aggressive, without prejudice to the Holy Roman Empire of
which they still considered themselves to form a part, and
without due reservation of the rights acquired by inheritance
or purchase by the House of Austria within their borders. This
important revolution, which defeudalized a considerable Alpine
territory, and which made the individual members of its
numerous Communes sovereigns by the right of equal voting, was
peaceably effected. … The constitution of Graubünden after the
formation of the Leagues, in theory and practise, … was a pure
democracy, based on manhood suffrage. … The first difficulties
with which this new Republic of peasants had to contend, arose
from the neighbourhood of feudal and imperial Austria. The
Princes of the House of Habsburg had acquired extensive
properties and privileges in Graubünden. … These points of
contact became the source of frequent rubs, and gave the
Austrians opportunities for interfering in the affairs of the
Grey Leagues. A little war which broke out in the Lower
Engadine in 1475, a war of raids and reprisals, made bad blood
between the people of Tirol and their Grisons neighbours. But
the real struggle of Graubünden with Austria began in earnest,
when the Leagues were drawn into the so-called Swabian War
(1496-1499). The Emperor Maximilian promoted an association of
south German towns and nobles, in order to restore his
Imperial authority over the Swiss Cantons. They resisted his
encroachments, and formed a close alliance with the Grey
Leagues. That was the commencement of a tie which bound
Graubünden, as a separate political entity, to the
Confederation, and which subsisted for several centuries.
Graubünden acted as an independent Republic, but was always
ready to cooperate with the Swiss. … Fighting side by side [in
the Swabian War] with the men of Uri, Glarus, Zürich, the
Bündners learned the arts of warfare in the lower Rheinthal.
Afterwards, in 1499, they gained the decisive battle of this
prolonged struggle on their own ground and unassisted. In a
narrow gorge called Calven, just where the Münsterthal opens
out into the Vintschgau above Glurns, 5,000 men of the Grey
Leagues defeated the whole chivalry and levies of Tirol. Many
thousands of the foe (from 4,000 to 5,000 is the mean
estimate) were left dead upon the field." Maximilian hastened
to the scene with a fresh army, but found only deserted
villages, and was forced by famine to retreat. "The victory of
Calven raised the Grisons to the same rank as the Swiss, and
secured their reputation in Europe as fighting men of the best
quality. It also led to a formal treaty with Austria, in which
the points at issue between the two parties were carefully
defined."
J. A. Symonds,
History of Graubünden
(in Strickland's "The Engadine," pages 29-33).
During the Swabian War, in 1499, the Swiss concluded a treaty
with France. "Willibald Pirkheimer, who was present with 400
red-habited citizens of Nuremberg, has graphically described
every incident of this war. The imperial reinforcements
arrived slowly and in separate bodies; the princes and nobles
fighting in real earnest, the cities with little inclination.
The Swiss were, consequently, able to defeat each single
detachment before they could unite, and were in this manner
victorious in ten engagements." The Emperor, "dividing his
forces, despatched the majority of his troops against Basle,
under the Count von Fürstenburg, whilst he advanced towards
Geneva, and was occupied in crossing the lake when the news of
Fürstenburg's defeat and death, near Dornach, arrived. The
princes, little desirous of staking their honour against their
low-born opponents, instantly returned home in great numbers,
and the emperor was therefore compelled to make peace [1499].
{3046}
The Swiss retained possession of the Thurgau and of Basle, and
Schaffhausen joined the confederation, which was not subject
to the imperial chamber, and for the future belonged merely in
name to the empire, and gradually fell under the influence of
France."
W. Menzel,
History of Germany,
chapter 191 (volume 2).
SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1476-1477.
Defeat of Charles the Bold.
See BURGUNDY (THE FRENCH DUKEDOM): A. D. 1476-1477.
SWITZERLAND:A. D. 1481-1501.
Disagreements over the spoils of the war with Charles the Bold.
Threatened rupture.
The Convention of Stanz.
Enlargement of the Confederacy.
Its loose and precarious constitution.
"In the war with Charles the Bold, Bern had gained greatly in
extent on the west, while the immense booty taken in battle
and the tributes laid on conquered cities seemed to the
country cantons to be unfairly divided, for all were supposed
to receive an equal share. The cities protested that it was no
fair division of booty to give each one of the country states,
who had altogether furnished 14,000 men for the war, an even
share with Bern which had sent out 40,000. Another bone of
contention was the enlargement of the union. The cities had
for a long time desired to bring the cantons of Freiburg and
Solothurn into the League. … But these were municipal
governments, and the Forest States, unwilling to add more to
the voting strength of the cities and thereby place themselves
in the minority, refused again and again to admit these
cantons. The situation daily grew more critical. Schwyz, Uri,
and Unterwalden made an agreement with Glarus to stand by each
other in case of attack. Luzern, Bern, and Zurich made a
compact of mutual citizenship, a form of agreement by which
they sought to circumvent the oath they had taken in the
League of Eight to enter into no new alliances. Just at this
point there was alleged to have been discovered a plot to
destroy the city of Luzern by countrymen of Obwalden and
Entlibuch. The cities were thrown into a frenzy and peace was
strained to the utmost. Threats and recriminations passed from
side to side, but finally, as an almost hopeless effort toward
reconciliation, a Diet was called to meet at Stanz on the 8th
of December, 1481. The details of this conference read like
romance, so great was the transformation which took place in
the feelings of the confederates. … Just as the Diet was about
to break up in confusion a compromise was effected, and an
agreement was drawn up which is known as the Convention of
Stanz (Stanzerverkomniss). … As to the matter latest in
contention, it was agreed that movable booty should be divided
according to the number of men sent into war, but new
acquisitions of territory should be shared equally among the
states participating. Thus the principle of state-rights was
preserved and the idea of popular representation received its
first, and for 300 years almost its only recognition. In
another agreement, made the same day, Freiburg and Solothurn
were admitted to the League on equal terms with the others. In
1501 the confederation was enlarged by the admission of Basel,
which, on account of its situation and importance, was a most
desirable acquisition, and in the same year the addition of
Schaffhausen, like Basel, a free imperial city with outlying
territories, still further strengthened the Union. The next,
and for 285 years the last, addition to the inner membership
of the alliance was Appenzell. … Connected with the
confederacy there were, for varying periods and in different
relationships, other territories and cities more or less under
its control. One class consisted of the so-called Allied
Districts ('Zugewandte find Verbündete Orte'), who were
attached to the central body not as equal members, but as
friends for mutual assistance. This form of alliance began
almost with the formation of the league, and gradually
extended till it included St. Gallen, Biel, Neuchatel, the
Bishopric of Basel (which territory lay outside the city), the
separate confederacies of Graubünden and Valais, Geneva and
several free imperial cities of Germany, at one time so
distant as Strassburg. More closely attached to the
confederation were the 'Gemeine Vogteien.' or subject
territories [Aargau, Thurgau, etc.], whose government was
administered by various members of the league in partnership.
These lands had been obtained partly by purchase or forfeiture
of loans and partly by conquest. … Before the middle of the
16th century nearly all the territory now included in
Switzerland was in some way connected with the confederation.
Upon this territorial basis of states, subject lands and
allies, the fabric of government stood till the close of the
18th century. It was a loose confederation, whose sole organ
of common action was a Diet in which each state was entitled
to one vote. … Almost the only thread that held the Swiss
Confederation together was the possession of subject lands. In
these they were interested as partners in a business
corporation. … These common properties were all that prevented
complete rupture on several critical occasions."
J. M. Vincent,
State and Federal Government in Switzerland,
chapter 1.
SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1515.
Defeat by the French at Marignano.
Treaties of perpetual alliance with Francis I.
See FRANCE: A. D.1515; and 1515-1518.
SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1519.
Geneva in civic relations with Berne and Freiburg.
See GENEVA: A. D. 1504-1535.
SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1519-1524.
Beginning of the Reformation at Zurich, under Zwingli.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1519-1524.
SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1528-1531.
The spreading of the Reformation.
Adhesion of the Forest Cantons to Romanism.
Differences between the Swiss Reformers
and the German Protestants.
The Conference at Marburg.
Civil war among the Cantons.
Death of Zwingli.
From Zurich, "the reformed faith penetrated, but only
gradually, into the northern and eastern cantons. Bern was
reached in 1528, after a brilliant disputation held in that
city. Basel and Schaffhausen followed in 1529, and then St.
Gall, Appenzell, Graubünden, and Solothurn, though some of
them had serious struggles within themselves and fell in only
partly with the reforms. But in the Central or Forest Cantons
it was that the fiercest opposition was encountered. … From
the very simplicity of their lives the people ignored the
degeneracy of the priesthood, and amongst these pastoral
peoples the priests were of simpler manners and more moral
life than those in the cities; they disliked learning and
enlightenment.
{3047}
Then there was the old feeling of antipathy to the cities,
coupled with a strong dislike for the reforms which had
abolished 'Reislaufen' [military service under foreign pay],
that standing source of income to the cantons. Lucerne, bought
with French gold, struggled with Zurich for the lead. So far
was the opposition carried that the Catholic districts by a
majority of votes insisted (at the Diet) on a measure for
suppressing heresy in Zurich, whilst some were for expelling
that canton from the league. The Forest Cantons issued orders
that Zwingli should be seized should he be found within their
territories; consequently he kept away from the great
convocation at Baden, 1526. … Wider and wider grew the chasm
between the two religious parties, and Zwingli at length
formed a 'Christian League' between the Swiss Protestants and
some of the German cities and the Elector of Hesse. On the
other hand, the Catholics entered into an alliance with
Ferdinand of Austria, a determined enemy to the reformed
religion. At last the Protestant party was exasperated beyond
bearing, and Zurich declared war on the Forest Cantons,
Zwingli himself joining in the vicissitudes of the campaign.
His camp presented the 'picture of a well-organized,
God-fearing army of a truly Puritan stamp.' The encounter at
Kappel, in June, 1529, however, took a peaceful turn, thanks
to the mediation of Landammann Aebli, of Glarus, greatly to
the disgust of Zwingli, who prophetically exclaimed that some
day the Catholics would be the stronger party, and then they
would not show so much moderation. All ill-feeling, indeed,
subsided when the two armies came within sight of each other.
The curious and touching episode known as the 'Kappeler
Milchsuppe' took place here. A band of jolly Catholics had got
hold of a large bowl of milk, but lacking bread they placed it
on the boundary line between Zug and Zurich. At once a group
of Zurich men turned up with some loaves, and presently the
whole party fell to eating the 'Milchsuppe' right merrily. A
peace was concluded on the 29th of June, 1529, by which the
Austrian League was dissolved, and freedom of worship granted
to all. … By his treatise, 'De verâ et falsâ religione'
(1525), Zwingli had, though unwillingly, thrown the gauntlet
into the Wittenberg camp. The work was intended to be a
scientific refutation of the Catholic doctrine of
transubstantiation, and a war of words arose. The contest was
by each disputant carried on 'suo more;' by Luther with his
usual authoritative and tempestuous vehemence, by Zwingli in
his own cool reasoning, dignified, and courteous style and
republican frankness. Presently there came a strong desire for
a union between the German Protestants, and the Swiss
Reformers [called Sacramentarians by the Lutherans], … the
impulse to it being given by Charles V.'s 'Protest' against
the Protestants. Landgrave Philip of Hesse, the political
leader of the German reformers, invited Luther and Zwingli to
meet at his castle of Marburg [1529], with the view of
reconciling the two sections. The religious colloquium was
attended by many savants, princes, nobles, and all the chief
leaders of the Reformation, and might have done great things,
but came to grief through the obstinacy of Luther, as is well
known, or rather through his determination to approve of no
man's views except they should agree exactly with his own.
Luther insisted on a literal interpretation of the words 'This
is my body,' whilst Zwingli saw in them only a metaphorical or
symbolical signification. … To return for a moment to home
politics. The peace of 1529 was a short-lived one. Zwingli,
anxious only to spread the reformed faith over the whole
republic, did not realize clearly the hatred of the Forest
district against the new creed. … War was imminent, and was
indeed eagerly desired on both sides. Bern, finding that war
was likely to be injurious to her private ends, insisted on a
stoppage of mercantile traffic between the opposing districts,
but Zwingli scorned to use such a means to hunger the enemy
and so bring them to submit. However Zurich was outvoted in
the Christian League (May 16th), and the Forest was excluded
from the markets of that city and Bern. The rest may be easily
guessed. On Zurich was turned all the fury of the famished
Forest men, and they sent a challenge in October, 1531. A
second time the hostile armies met at Kappel, but the
positions were reversed. Zurich was unprepared to meet a foe
four times as numerous as her own, and Bern hesitated to come
to her aid. However Göldlin, the captain of the little force,
recklessly engaged with the opposing army, whether from
treachery or incapacity is not known, but he was certainly
opposed to the reformed faith. Zwingli had taken leave of his
friend Bullinger, as though foreseeing his own death in the
coming struggle, and had joined the Zurich force. He was with
the chief banner, and, with some 500 of his overmatched
comrades, fell in the thickest of the battle. … But the
reformation was far too deeply rooted to be thus destroyed.
Bullinger, the friend of Zwingli, and, later on, of Calvin,
worthily succeeded to the headship of the Zurich reformers."
Mrs. L. Hug and R. Stead,
Switzerland, chapter 22.
ALSO IN:
J. H. Merle d' Aubigne,
History of the Reformation in the 16th century,
books 11 and 15-16 (volume 3-4).
L. von Ranke,
History of the Reformation in Germany,
book 6, chapters 2-4 (volume 3).
SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1531-1648.
Religious divisions and conflicts.
Annexations of territory.
Peace with the Duke of Savoy.
The coming of Protestant refugees.
Industrial progress.
Peace.
"A peace at Dennikon in 1531 marks the acknowledgement of the
principle of each Canton's independence. … The Confederacy was
now fatally divided. There is, perhaps, no other instance of a
State so deeply and so permanently sundered by the
Reformation. Other governments adopted or rejected the
reformed religion for their dominions as a whole; the
Confederacy, by its constitution, was constrained to allow
each Canton to determine its religion for itself; and the
presence of Catholic and Reformed States side by side, each
clinging with obstinacy to the religion of their choice,
became the origin of jealousies and wars which have threatened
more than once to rend asunder the ties of union. Next to the
endless but uninteresting theme of religious differences comes
the history of the annexations" by which the Confederacy
extended its limits. "In the direction of the Jura was a
country divided between many governments, which the princes of
Savoy, the Hapsburgs of the West, had once effectually ruled,
but which had become morselled among many claimants during a
century and a half of weakness, and which Duke Charles III. of
Savoy was now seeking to reconcile to his authority.
{3048}
Geneva was the chief city of these parts. … Factions in favour
of or against [the rule of the Duke of Savoy] … divided the
city [see GENEVA: A. D. 1504-1535]. The alliance of Bern and
Freyburg was at length sought for; and the conclusion of a
treaty of co-citizenship in 1526 opened at once the prospect
of a collision between the House of Savoy and the Confederacy.
That collision was not long delayed. In 1536, after repeated
acts of provocation by Charles III., 7,000 men of Bern
appeared within Geneva. To reach the city they had traversed
the Pays de Vaud; after entering it they passed onwards to the
provinces of Gex and Chablais. All that they traversed they
annexed. Even the city which they had entered they would have
ruled, had not some sparks of honour and the entreaties of its
inhabitants restrained them from the annihilation of the
liberties which they had been called on to defend. The men of
Freyburg and of the Valais at the same time made humbler
conquests from Savoy. Later, the strong fortress of Chillon,
and the rich bishopric of Lausanne, were seized upon by Bern.
A wide extent of territory was thus added to the Confederacy;
and again a considerable population speaking the French tongue
was brought under the dominion of the Teutonic Cantons. These
acquisitions were extended, in 1555, by the cession of the
county of Gruyère, through the embarrassments of its last
impoverished Count. They were diminished, however, by the loss
of Gex and Chablais in 1564. The jealousy of many of the
cantons at the good fortune of their confederates, and the
reviving power of the House of Savoy, had made the conquests
insecure. Emmanuel Philibert, the hero of St. Quentin, the
ally of the great sovereigns of France and Spain, asked back
his provinces; and prudence counselled the surrender of the
two, in order to obtain a confirmation of the possession of
the rest.
See SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1559-1580.
The southern side of the Lake Leman, which had thus been
momentarily held, and which nature seemed to have intended to
belong to the Confederacy, was thus abandoned. The frontiers,
however, which were now secured became permanent ones. The
Dukes of Savoy had transferred much of their ambition, with
their capital, beyond the Alps; and the Confederates remained
secure in their remaining possessions. The Confederacy might
now have added further to its power by admitting new members
to its League. … Constance … had urged its own incorporation.
The religious tendencies of its inhabitants, however, had made
it suspected: and it was allowed to fall, in 1548, without
hope of recovery, under the dominion of Austria. Geneva … was
pleading loudly for admission. The jealousy of Bern, and later
the hostility of the Catholic Cantons to the faith of which
the city had become the centre, refused the request. She
remained a mere ally, with even her independence not always
ungrudgingly defended against the assaults of her enemies.
Religious zeal indeed was fatal during this century to
political sagacity. Under its influence the alliance with the
rich city of Mulhausen, which had endured for more than a
hundred years, was thrown off in 1587; the overtures of
Strasburg for alliance were rejected; the proposals of the
Grisons Leagues were repulsed. The opportunities of the
Confederates were thus neglected, while those of their
neighbours became proportionately increased. … The progress
that is to be traced during the 16th century is such as was
due to the times rather than to the people. The cessation of
foreign wars and the fewer inducements for mercenary service
gave leisure for the arts of peace; and agriculture and trade
resumed their progress. Already Switzerland began to be sought
by refugees from England, France, and Italy. The arts of
weaving and of dyeing were introduced, and the manufacture of
watches began at Geneva. … War, which had been almost
abandoned except in the service of others, comes little into
the annals of the Confederation as a State. … As another
century advances, there is strife at the very gates of the
Confederation. … But the Confederacy itself was never driven
into war."
C. F. Johnstone,
Historical Abstracts,
chapter 7.
ALSO IN:
H. Zschokke,
History of Switzerland,
chapters 33-41.
SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1536-1564.
Calvin's Ecclesiastical State at Geneva.
See GENEVA: A. D. 1536-1564.
SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1579-1630.
The Catholic revival and rally.
The Borromean or Golden League.
"Pre-eminent amongst those who worked for the Catholic revival
was the famous Carlo Borromeo, Archbishop of Milan and nephew
of Pius IV. He lived the life of a saint, and in due time was
canonized. To his see belonged the Swiss bailliages in the
Ticino and Valtellina. Indefatigable in his labours,
constantly visiting every part of his diocese, toiling up to
the Alpine huts, he gathered the scattered flocks into the
Papal fold, whether by mildness or by force. … For the spread
of Catholic doctrines he hit upon three different means. He
called into being the Collegium Helveticum in 1579 at Milan,
where the Swiss priests were educated free. He sent the
Jesuits into the country, and placed a nuncio at Lucerne, in
1580. In 1586 was signed, between the seven Catholic cantons,
the Borromean or Golden League, directed against the
reformers, and in the following year a coalition was, by the
same cantons, excepting Solothurn, entered into with Philip of
Spain and with Savoy. The Jesuits settled themselves in
Lucerne and Freiburg, and soon gained influence amongst the
rich and the educated, whilst the Capuchins, who fixed
themselves at Altorf, Stanz, Appenzell, and elsewhere, won the
hearts of the masses by their lowliness and devotion. In this
way did Rome seek to regain her influence over the Swiss
peoples, and the effect of her policy was soon felt in the
semi-Protestant and subject lands. … In the Valais, the
Protestant party, though strong, was quite swept out by the
Jesuits, before 1630."
Mrs. L. Hug and R. Stead,
Switzerland, chapter 25.
SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1620-1626.
The Valtelline revolt and war with the Grisons.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.
SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1648.
The Peace of Westphalia.
Acknowledged independence and
separation from the German Empire.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.
{3049}
SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1652-1789.
The Peasant Revolt and the Toggenburg War.
Religious conflicts.
Battles of Villmergen.
The Peace of Aarau.
"About the middle of the 17th century there was growing up, in
all the cantons except the Waldstätten, a feeling of strong
discontent among the peasants, who still suffered from many of
the tyrannies which had descended to them from the old days of
serfdom. They felt the painful contrast between their lot and
that of the three old cantons, where every peasant voted for
his own magistrates and his own laws, and helped to decide the
taxes and contributions which he should pay. … Now that their
liberty had been proclaimed at Westphalia, they were inspired
with the idea of trying to make it a reality. … They rose on
the occasion of the reduction of the value of their copper
coinage. … Opposition began among the Entlibuchers of Lucerne,
a tall and sturdy race, that lived in the long, fertile valley
on the banks of the Emmen. … Their spirit was soon quenched,
however, by the threats of Zurich and Berne; but though they
yielded for the moment, their example had spread, and there
were popular risings, excited in the large canton of Berne by
the same causes, which were not so easily checked. There was a
second revolt in Lucerne, which was intended to be nothing
less than a league of all the lower classes throughout the ten
cantons. The peasants of Lucerne, Berne, Basel, Solothurn, and
the territory of Aargau, all joined in this and held an
assembly at Sumiswald, in April 1653, where they chose
Nicholas Leuenberger as their chief, and proclaimed their
purpose of making themselves free as the Small Cantons. To
this union, unfortunately, they brought neither strength of
purpose nor wisdom. … Meanwhile the cities were not idle.
Zurich, the capital, gave the order for the whole confederacy
to arm, in May 1653. The struggle was short and decisive. For
a few weeks Leuenberger's soldiers robbed and murdered where
they could, and made feeble and futile attempts upon the small
cities of Aargau. Towards the end of May he met, near
Herzogenbuchsee, the Bernese troops. … A desperate fight
ensued, but the insurgents were soon overpowered. … This
battle ended the insurrection." Leuenberger was beheaded. "No
sooner was this revolt of the peasants over than the
smouldering fires of religious hatred, zealously fanned by the
clergy on both sides, broke out again. … Several families of
Arth, in Schwyz had been obliged by the Catholics to abjure
their faith, or fly from their homes." Zurich took up their
cause, and "a general war broke out. … Berne first despatched
troops to protect her own frontier, and then sent 40 banners
to the help of Zurich." The Bernese troops were so careless
that they allowed themselves to be surprised (January 14,
1656) by 4,000 Lucerners, in the territory of Villmergen, and
were ruinously defeated, losing 800 men and eleven guns. "Soon
afterwards a peace was concluded, where everything stood much
as it had stood at the beginning of this war, which had lasted
only nine weeks. … A second insurrection, on a smaller scale
than the peasants' revolt, took place in St. Gall in the first
years of the 18th century. The Swiss, free in the eyes of the
outside world, were, as we have already seen, mere serfs in
nearly all the cantons, and such was their condition in the
country of Toggenburg. … The greater part of the rights over
these estates had been sold to the abbot of St. Gall in 1468.
In the year 1700, the abbey of St. Gall was presided over by
Leodegar Burgisser as sovereign lord. … He began by
questioning all the commune rights of the Toggenburgers, and
called the people his serfs, in order that they might become
so used to the name as not to rebel against the hardness of
the condition. Even at the time when he became abbot, there
was very little, either of right or privilege, remaining to
these poor people. … When, in 1701, Abbot Leodegar ordered
them to build and keep open, at their own expense, a new road
through the Hummelwald, crushed as they had been, they
turned." After much fruitless remonstrance and appeal they
took up arms, supported by the Protestant cantons and attacked
by the Catholics, with aid contributed by the nuncio of the
pope, himself. "The contest was practically ended on the 25th
of July, 1712, by a decisive victory by the Protestants on the
battle-field of Villmergen, where they had been beaten by the
Lucerne men 56 years before. The battle lasted four hours, and
2,000 Catholics were slain. … In the month of August, a
general peace was concluded at Aarau, to the great advantage
of the conquerors. The five Catholic cantons were obliged to
yield their rights over Baden and Rapperswyl, and to associate
Berne with themselves in the sovereignty over Thurgau and the
Rheinfeld. By this provision the two religions became
equalized in those provinces. … The Toggenburgers came once
more under the jurisdiction of an abbot of St. Gall, but with
improved rights and privileges, and under the powerful
protection of Zurich and Berne. The Catholic cantons were long
in recovering from the expenses of this war. … During 86 years
from the peace of Aarau, the Swiss were engaged in neither
foreign nor civil war, and the disturbances which agitated the
different cantons from time to time were confined to a limited
stage. But real peace and union were as far off as ever.
Religious differences, plots, intrigues, and revolts, kept
people of the same canton and village apart, until the
building which their forefathers had raised in the early days
of the republic was gradually weakened and ready to fall, like
a house of cards, at the first blow from France."
H. D. S. Mackenzie,
Switzerland,
chapters 15-16.
ALSO IN:
H. Zschokke,
History of Switzerland,
chapters 42-56.
SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1792-1798.
The ferment of the French Revolution.
Invasion and subjugation by the French.
Robbing of the treasure of Berne.
Formation of the Helvetic Republic.
"The world rang with arms and cries of war, with revolutions,
battles and defeats. The French promised fraternity and
assistance to every people who wished to make themselves free.
… Their arms advanced victorious through Savoy and the
Netherlands and over the Rhine. Nearer and nearer drew the
danger around the country of the Alpine people. But the
government of the Confederate states showed no foresight in
view of the danger. They thought themselves safe behind the
shield of their innocence and their neutrality between the
contending parties. They had no arms and prepared none; they
had no strength and did not draw closer the bands of their
everlasting compact. Each canton, timidly and in silence,
cared for its own safety, but little for that of the others. …
All kinds of pamphlets stirred up the people. At Lausanne,
Vevey, Rolle and other places, fiery young men, in noisy
assemblages, drank success to the arms of emancipated France.
{3050}
Although public order was nowhere disturbed by such
proceedings, the government of Berne thought it necessary to
put a stop to them by severe measures and to compel silence by
wholesome fear. They sent plenipotentiaries supported by an
armed force. The guilty and even the innocent were punished.
More fled. This silenced Vaud, but did not quell her
indignation. The fugitives breathed vengeance. … In foreign
countries dwelt sadly many of those who, at various times, had
been banished from the Confederacy because they had, by word
or deed, too boldly or importunately defended the rights and
freedom of their fellow-citizens. Several of these addressed
the chiefs of the French republic. … Such addresses pleased
the chiefs of France. They thought in their hearts that
Switzerland would be an excellent bulwark for France, and a
desirable gate, through which the way would be always open to
Italy and Germany. They also knew of and longed for the
treasures of the Swiss cities. And they endeavored to find
cause of quarrel with the magistrates of the Confederates. …
Shortly afterwards, came the great general Napoleon
Buonaparte, and marched through Savoy into Italy against the
forces of the emperor. … In a very few months, though in many
battles, Buonaparte vanquished the whole power of Austria,
conquered and terrified Italy from one end to the other, took
the whole of Lombardy and compelled the emperor to make peace.
He made Lombardy a republic, called the Cisalpine. When the
subjects of Grisons in Valtelina, Chiavenna and Bormio saw
this, they preferred to be citizens of the neighboring
Cisalpine republic, rather than poor subjects of Grisons. For
their many grievances and complaints were rarely listened to.
But Buonaparte said to Grisons: 'If you will give freedom and
equal rights to these people, they may be your
fellow-citizens, and still remain with you. I give you time;
decide and send word to me at Milan.' … When the last period
for decision had passed, Buonaparte became indignant and
impatient, and united Valtelina, Chiavenna and Bormio to the
Cisalpine republic (22d October, 1797). … So the old limits of
Switzerland were unjustly contracted; four weeks afterwards
also, that part of the bishopric of Bale which had hitherto
been respected on account of its alliance with the Swiss, was
added to France. Thereat great fear fell on the Confederates.
… Then the rumor spread that a French army was approaching the
frontiers of Switzerland to protect the people of Vaud. They
had called for the intervention of France in virtue of ancient
treaties. But report said that the French intended to
overthrow the Confederate authorities and to make themselves
masters of the country. … Almost the whole Confederacy was in
a state of confusion and dissolution. The governments of the
cantons, powerless, distrustful and divided, acted each for
itself, without concert. … In the mean while a large army of
French advanced. Under their generals Brune and Schauenberg
they entered the territory of the Confederates, and Vaud,
accepting foreign protection, declared herself independent of
Berne. Then the governments of Switzerland felt that they
could no longer maintain their former dominion. Lucerne and
Schauffhausen declared their subjects free and united to
themselves. Zurich released the prisoners of Stafa, and
promised to ameliorate her constitution to the advantage of
the people. … Even Freiburg now felt that the change must come
for which Chenaur had bled. And the council of Berne received
into their number 52 representatives of the country and said:
'Let us hold together in the common danger.' All these reforms
and revolutions were the work of four weeks; all too late.
Berne, indeed, with Freiburg and Solothurn, opposed her troops
to the advancing French army. Courage was not wanting; but
discipline, skill in arms and experienced officers. … On the
very first day of the war (2d March, 1798), the enemy's light
troops took Freiburg and Solothurn, and on the fourth (5th
March), Berne itself. … France now authoritatively decided the
future fate of Switzerland and said: 'The Confederacy is no
more. Henceforward the whole of Switzerland shall form a free
state, one and indivisible, under the name of the Helvetian
republic. All the inhabitants, in country as well as city,
shall have equal rights of citizenship. The citizens in
general assembly shall choose their magistrates, officers,
judges and legislative council; the legislative council shall
elect the general government; the government shall appoint the
cantonal prefects and officers.' The whole Swiss territory was
divided into 18 cantons of about equal size. For this purpose
the district of Berne was parcelled into the cantons of Vaud,
Oberland, Berne and Aragau; several small cantons were united
in one; as Uri, Schwyz. Unterwalden and Zug in the canton of
Waldstatten; St. Gallen district, Rheinthal and Appenzell in
the canton of Santis; several countries subject to the
Confederacy, as Baden, Thurgau, Lugano and Bellinzona, formed
new cantons. Valais was also added as one; Grisons was invited
to join; but Geneva, Muhlhausen and other districts formerly
parts of Switzerland, were separated from her and incorporated
with France. So decreed the foreign conquerors. They levied
heavy war-taxes and contributions. They carried off the tons
of gold which Berne, Zurich and other cities had accumulated
in their treasure-chambers during their dominion. … But the
mountaineers of Uri, Nidwalden, Schwyz and Glarus, original
confederates in liberty, said: 'In battle and in blood, our
fathers won the glorious jewel of our independence; we will
not lose it but in battle and in blood.' … Then they fought
valiantly near Wollrau and on the Schindellegi, but
unsuccessfully. … But Aloys Reding reassembled his troops on
the Rothenthurm, near the Morgarten field of victory. There a
long and bloody battle took place. … Thrice did the French
troops renew the combat: thrice were they defeated and driven
back to Aegeri in Zug. It was the second of May. Nearly 2,000
of the enemy lay slain upon that glorious field. Gloriously
also fought the Waldstatten on the next day near Arth. But the
strength of the heroes bled away in their very victories. They
made a treaty, and, with sorrow in their hearts, entered the
Helvetian republic. Thus ended the old Bond of the
Confederates. Four hundred and ninety years had it lasted; in
seventy-four days it was dissolved."
H. Zschokke,
The History of Switzerland,
chapters 57 and 60.
{3051}
"A system of robbery and extortion, more shameless even than
that practised in Italy, was put in force against the cantonal
governments, against the monasteries, and against private
individuals. In compensation for the material losses inflicted
upon the country, the new Helvetic Republic, one and indivisible,
was proclaimed at Aarau. It conferred an equality of political
rights upon all natives of Switzerland, and substituted for
the ancient varieties of cantonal sovereignty a single
national government, composed, like that of France, of a
Directory and two Councils of Legislature. The towns and
districts which had been hitherto excluded from a share in
government welcomed a change which seemed to place them on a
level with their former superiors: the mountain-cantons fought
with traditional heroism in defence of the liberties which
they had inherited from their fathers; but they were
compelled, one after another, to submit to the overwhelming
force of France, and to accept the new constitution. Yet, even
now, when peace seemed to have been restored, and the whole
purpose of France attained, the tyranny and violence of the
invaders exhausted the endurance of a spirited people. The
magistrates of the Republic were expelled from office at the
word of a French Commission; hostages were seized; at length
an oath of allegiance to the new order was required as a
condition for the evacuation of Switzerland by the French
army. It was refused by the mountaineers of Unterwalden, and a
handful of peasants met the French army at the village of
Stanz, on the eastern shore of the Lake of Lucerne (September
8). There for three days they fought with unyielding courage.
Their resistance inflamed the French to a cruel vengeance:
slaughtered families and burning villages renewed, in this
so-called crusade of liberty, the savagery of ancient war."
C. A. Fyffe,
History of Modern Europe,
volume 1, chapter 4.
"Geneva at the same time [1798] fell a prey to the ambition of
the all-engrossing Republic. This celebrated city had long
been an object of their desire; and the divisions by which it
was now distracted afforded a favourable opportunity for
accomplishing the object. The democratic party loudly demanded
a union with that power, and a commission was appointed by the
Senate to report upon the subject. Their report, however, was
unfavourable; upon which General Gerard, who commanded a small
corps in the neighbourhood, took possession of the town; and
the Senate, with the bayonet at their throats, formally agreed
to a union with the conquering Republic."
Sir A. Alison,
History of Europe, 1789-1815,
chapter 25 (volume 6).
ALSO IN:
A. Thiers,
History of the French Revolution (American Edition),
volume 4, pages 248-252.
Mallet du Pan,
Memoirs and Correspondence,
volume 2, chapters 13-14.
SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1797.
Bonaparte's dismemberment of the Graubünden.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (MAY-OCTOBER).
SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1798-1799.
Battlefield of the second Coalition against France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL).
SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1799 (August-December).
Campaign of the French against the Russians.
Battle of Zurich.
Carnage in the city.
Suwarrow's retreat.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (AUGUST-DECEMBER).
SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1800.
Bonaparte's passage of the Great St. Bernard.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY).
SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1802.
Revolution instigated and enforced by Bonaparte.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1803.
SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1803-1848.
Napoleon's Act of Mediation.
Independence regained and Neutrality guaranteed by
the Congress of Vienna.
Geneva, the Valais, and Neuchâtel.
The Federal Pact of 1815.
The Sonderbund and Civil War.
The Federal Constitution of 1848.
"Bonaparte summoned deputies of both parties to Paris, and
after long consultation with them he gave to Switzerland, on
the 2d February 1803, a new Constitution termed the Act of
Mediation. Old names were restored, and in some cases what had
been subject lands were incorporated in the League, which now
consisted of 19 Cantons, each having a separate Constitution.
The additional six were: St. Gallen, the Grisons, Aargau,
Thurgau, Ticino, and Vaud. This was the fifth phase of the
Confederation. A Diet was created, there being one deputy to
each Canton, but still with limited powers, for he could only
vote according to his instructions. The 19 deputies had,
however, between them 25 votes, because every deputy who
represented a Canton with more than 100,000 inhabitants
possessed two votes, and there were six of these Cantons. The
Diet met once a year in June, by turns at Zürich, Bern,
Luzern, Freiburg, Solothurn, and Basel, the Cantons of which
these were the capitals becoming successively directing
Cantons. Three were Catholic and three Protestant. The head of
the directing Canton for the time being was Landammann of
Switzerland and President of the Diet. The Act of Mediation
was not acceptable to all parties, and before Switzerland
could become entirely independent there was to be one more
foreign intervention. The fall of the Emperor Napoleon brought
with it the destruction of his work in that country, the
neutrality and independence of which were recognized by the
Congress of Vienna [see VIENNA: CONGRESS OF), though upon
condition of the maintenance in the Confederation of the new
Cantons; and in 1814 the Valais (a Republic allied to the
Confederation from the Middle Ages till 1798), Neuchâtel
(which, from being subject to the King of Prussia, had been
bestowed by Napoleon upon Marshal Berthier), and Geneva (which
had been annexed to France under the Directory in 1798, but
was now independent and rendered more compact by the addition
of some territory belonging to France and Savoy) were added to
the existing Cantons. Finally, the perpetual neutrality of
Switzerland and the inviolability of her territory were
guaranteed by Austria, Great Britain, Portugal, Prussia, and
Russia, in an Act signed at Paris on the 20th November 1815.
Neuchâtel, however, only really gained its independence in
1857, when it ceased to be a Prussian Principality. The
Confederation now consisted of 22 Cantons, and a Federal Pact,
drawn up at Zürich by the Diet in 1815, and accepted by the
Congress of Vienna, took the place of the Act of Mediation,
and remained in force till 1848. It was in some respects a
return to the state of things previous to the French
Revolution, and restored to the Cantons a large portion of
their former sovereignty. … Then came an epoch of agitation
and discord. The Confederation suffered from a fundamental
vice, i. e. the powerlessness of the central authority. The
Cantons had become too independent, and gave to their deputies
instructions differing widely from each other. The fall of the
Bourbons in 1830 had its echo in Switzerland, the patricians
of Bern and the aristocratic class in other Cantons lost the
ascendency which they had gradually recovered since the
beginning of the century, and the power of the people was
greatly increased.
{3052}
In several months 12 Cantons, among which were Luzern and
Freiburg, modified their Constitutions in a democratic sense,
some peaceably, others by revolution. … Between 1830 and 1847
there were in all 27 revisions of cantonal Constitutions. To
political disputes religious troubles were added. In Aargau
the Constitution of 1831, whereby the Grand Council was made
to consist of 200 members, half being Protestants and half
Catholics, was revised in 1840, and by the new Constitution
the members were no longer to be chosen with any reference to
creed, but upon the basis of wide popular representation, thus
giving a numerical advantage to the Protestants. Discontent
arose among the Catholics, and eventually some 2,000 peasants
of that faith took up arms, but were beaten by Protestants of
Aargau at Villmergen in January 1841, and the consequence was
the suppression of the eight convents in that Canton, and the
confiscation of their most valuable property. … A first result
of the suppression of these convents was the fall of the
Liberal government of Luzern, and the advent to power of the
chiefs of the Ultramontane party in that Canton. Two years
later the new government convoked delegates of the Catholic
Cantons at Rothen, near Luzern, and there in secret
conferences, and under the pretext that religion was in
danger, the bases of a separate League or Sonderbund were
laid, embracing the four Forest Cantons, Zug, and Freiburg.
Subsequently the Valais joined the League, which was clearly a
violation not only of the letter but also of the spirit of the
Federal Pact. In 1844 the Grand Council of Luzern voted in
favour of the Jesuits' appeal to be entrusted with the
direction of superior public education, and this led to
hostilities between the Liberal and Ultramontane parties.
Bands of volunteers attacked Luzern and were defeated, the
expulsion of the Jesuits became a burning question, and
finally, when the ordinary Diet assembled at Bern in July
1847, the Sonderbund Cantons declared their intention of
persevering in their separate alliance until the other Cantons
had decreed the re-establishment of the Aargau convents,
abandoned the question of the Jesuits, and renounced all
modifications of the Pact. These conditions could evidently
not be accepted. … On the 4th November 1847, after the
deputies of the Sonderbund had left the Diet, this League was
declared to be dissolved, and hostilities broke out between
the two contending parties. A short and decisive campaign of
25 days ensued, Freiburg was taken by the Federal troops,
under General Dufour, later Luzern opened its gates, the small
Cantons and the Valais capitulated and the strife came to an
end. … As soon as the Sonderbund was dissolved, it became
necessary to proceed to the revision of the Federal Pact."
Sir F. O. Adams and C. D. Cunningham,
The Swiss Confederation,
chapter 1.
SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1810.
Annexation of the Valais to France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1810 (FEBRUARY-DECEMBER).
SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1817.
Accession to the Holy Alliance.
See HOLY ALLIANCE.
SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1832.
Educational reforms.
See EDUCATION, MODERN: EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.
SWITZERLAND.
SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1848-1890.
The existing Federal Constitution.
On the conclusion of the Sonderbund Secession and War, the
task of drawing up a Constitution for the Confederacy was
confided to a committee of fourteen members, and the work was
finished on the 8th of April, 1848. "The project was submitted
to the Cantons, and accepted at once by thirteen and a half;
others joined during the summer, and the new Constitution was
finally promulgated with the assent of all on the 12th
September. Hence arose the seventh and last phase of the
Confederation, by the adoption of a Federal Constitution for
the whole of Switzerland, being the first which was entirely
the work of Swiss, without any foreign influence, although its
authors had studied that of the United States. … It was
natural that, as in process of time commerce and industry were
developed, and as the differences between the legislation of
the various Cantons became more apparent, a revision of the
first really Swiss Constitution should be found necessary.
This was proposed both in 1871 and 1872, but the partisans of
a further centralization, though successful in the Chambers,
were defeated upon an appeal to the popular vote on the 12th
May 1872, by a majority of between five and six thousand, and
by thirteen Cantons to nine. The question was, however, by no
means settled, and in 1874 a new project of revision, more
acceptable to the partisans of cantonal independence, was
adopted by the people, the numbers being 340,199, to 198,013.
The Cantons were about two to one in favour of the revision,
14½ declaring for and 7½ against it. This Constitution bears
date the 29th May 1874, and has since been added to and
altered in certain particulars."
Sir F. O. Adams and C. D. Cunningham,
The Swiss Confederation,
chapter 1.
"Since 1848 … Switzerland has been a federal state, consisting
of a central authority, the Bund, and 19 entire and 6 half
states, the Cantons; to foreign powers she presents an united
front, while her internal policy allows to each Canton a large
amount of independence. … The basis of all legislative
division is the Commune or 'Gemeinde,' corresponding in some
slight degree to the English 'Parish.' The Commune in its
legislative and administrative aspect or 'Einwohnergemeinde'
is composed of all the inhabitants of a Commune. It is
self-governing and has the control of the local police; it
also administers all matters connected with pauperism,
education, sanitary and funeral regulations, the fire brigade,
the maintenance of public peace and trusteeships. … At the
head of the Commune is the 'Gemeinderath,' or 'Communal
Council,' whose members are elected from the inhabitants for a
fixed period. It is presided over by an 'Ammann,' or 'Mayor,'
or 'President.' … Above the Commune on the ascending scale
comes the Canton. … Each of the 19 Cantons and 6 half Cantons
is a sovereign state, whose privileges are nevertheless
limited by the Federal Constitution, particularly as regards
legal and military matters; the Constitution also defines the
extent of each Canton, and no portion of a Canton is allowed
to secede and join itself to another Canton. … Legislative
power is in the hands of the 'Volk'; in the political sense of
the word the 'Volk' consists of all the Swiss living in the
Canton, who have passed their 20th year and are not under
disability from crime or bankruptcy.
{3053}
The voting on the part of the people deals mostly with
alterations in the cantonal constitution, treaties, laws,
decisions of the First Council involving expenditures of Frs.
100,000 and upward, and other decisions which the Council
considers advisable to subject to the public vote, which also
determines the adoption of propositions for the creation of
new laws, or the alteration or abolition of old ones, when
such a plebiscite is demanded by a petition signed by 5,000
voters. … The First Council (Grosse Rath) is the highest
political and administrative power of the Canton. It
corresponds to the 'Chamber' of other countries. Every 1,300
inhabitants of an electoral circuit send one member. … The
Kleine Rath or special council (corresponding to the
'Ministerium' of other continental countries) is composed of
three members and has three proxies. It is chosen by the First
Council for a period of two years. It superintends all
cantonal institutions and controls the various public boards.
… The populations of the 22 sovereign Cantons constitute
together the Swiss Confederation. … The highest power of the
Bund is exercised by the 'Bundesversammlung,' or Parliament,
which consists of two chambers, the 'Nationalrath,' and the
'Ständerath.' The Nationalrath corresponds to the English
House of Commons, and the Ständerath partially to the House of
Lords; the former represents the Swiss people, the latter the
Cantons. The Nationalrath consists of 145 members. … Every
Canton or half Canton must choose at least one member; and for
the purpose of election Switzerland is divided into 49
electoral districts. The Nationalrath is triennial. … The
Ständerath consists of 44 members, each Canton having two
representatives and each half Canton one. … A bill is regarded
as passed when it has an absolute majority in both chambers,
but it does not come into force until either a plebiscite is

not demanded for a space of three months, or, if it is
demanded (for which the request of 30,000 voters is necessary)
the result of the appeal to the people is in favor of the
bill. This privilege of the people to control the decision of
their representatives is called Das Referendum. …
See REFERENDUM.
The highest administrative authority in Switzerland is the
Bundesrath, composed of seven members, which [like the
Bundesversammlung] … meets in Bern. Its members are chosen by
the Bundesversammlung and the term of office is ten years. …
The president of the Confederation (Bundespresident) is chosen
by the Bundesversammlung from the members of the Bundesrath
for one year. … The administration of justice, so far as it is
exercised by the Bund, is entrusted to a Court, the
Bundesgericht, consisting of nine members."
P. Hauri,
Sketch of the Constitution of Switzerland
(in Strickland's "The Engadine").
ALSO IN:
Sir F. O. Adams and C. D. Cunningham,
The Swiss Confederation.
J. M. Vincent,
State and Federal Government in Switzerland.
Old South Leaflets,
general series, number 18.
University of Pennsylvania,
Publications, number 8.
For the text of the Swiss Constitution,
See CONSTITUTION OF SWITZERLAND.
SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1871.
Exclusion of Jesuits.
See JESUITS: A. D. 1769-1871.
SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1894.
The President of the Swiss Federal Council for 1894 is Emile
Frey, the Vice President, Joseph Zemp. According to the latest
census, taken in 1888, the population of Switzerland was
2,917,740.
----------SWITZERLAND: End--------
SWORD, German Order of the.
See LIVONIA: 12-13TH CENTURIES.
SWORD, Swedish Order of the.
An Order, ascribed to Gustavus Vasa. It was revived, after
long neglect, by King Frederick I. in 1748.
SYAGRIUS, Kingdom of.
See GAUL: A. D. 457-486.
SYBARIS.
SYBARITES.
Sybaris and Kroton were two ancient Greek cities, founded by
Achæan colonists, on the coast of the gulf of Tarentum, in
southern Italy. "The town of Sybaris was planted between two
rivers, the Sybaris and the Krathis (the name of the latter
borrowed from a river of Achaia); the town of Kroton about
twenty-live miles distant, on the river Æsarus. … The fatal
contest between these two cities, which ended in the ruin of
Sybaris, took place in 510 B. C., after the latter had
subsisted in growing prosperity for 210 years. … We are told
that the Sybarites, in that final contest, marched against
Kroton with an army of 300,000 men. … The few statements which
have reached us respecting them touch, unfortunately, upon
little more than their luxury, fantastic self-indulgence and
extravagant indolence, for which qualities they have become
proverbial in modern times as well as in ancient. Anecdotes
illustrating these qualities were current, and served more
than one purpose in antiquity."
G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 22.
SYBOTA, Naval Battle of.
Fought, B. C. 432, between the fleets of Corinth and Corcyra,
in the quarrel which led up to the Peloponnesian War. The
Athenians had ten ships present, as allies of the Corcyreans,
intending only to watch affairs, but at the end they were
drawn into the fight. The Corcyreans were beaten.
Thucydides,
History,
book 1, section 46.
SYCOPHANTS.
"Not until now [about B. C. 428, when the demagogue Cleon rose
to power at Athens] did the activity of the Sycophants attain
to its full height; a class of men arose who made a regular
trade of collecting materials for indictments, and of bringing
their fellow citizens before a legal tribunal. These
denunciations were particularly directed against those who
were distinguished by wealth, birth and services, and who
therefore gave cause for suspicion; for the informers wished
to prove themselves zealous friends of the people and active
guardians of the constitution. … Intrigues and conspiracies
were suspected in all quarters, and the popular orators
persuaded the citizens to put no confidence in any magistrate,
envoy or commission, but rather to settle everything in full
assembly and themselves assume the entire executive. The
Sycophants made their living out of this universal suspicion.
… They threatened prosecutions in order thus to extort money
from guilty and innocent alike; for even among those who felt
free from guilt were many who shunned a political prosecution
beyond all other things, having no confidence in a jury."
E. Curtius,
History of Greece,
book 4, chapter 2 (volume 3).
SYDENHAM, and Rational Medicine.
See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17TH CENTURY.
{3054}
SYDNEY: First settlement (1788).
See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1601-1800.
SYLLA.
See SULLA.
SYLLABARIES.
"A good deal of the [Assyrian] literature was of a lexical and
grammatical kind, and was intended to assist the Semitic
student in interpreting the old Accadian texts. Lists of
characters were drawn up with their pronunciation in Accadian
and the translation into Assyrian of the words represented by
them. Since the Accadian pronunciation of a character was
frequently the phonetic value attached to it by the Assyrians,
these syllabaries, as they have been termed—in consequence of
the fact that the cuneiform characters denoted syllables and
not letters—have been of the greatest possible assistance in
the decipherment of the inscriptions."
A. H. Sayce,
Assyria, its Princes, Priests and People,
chapter 4.
SYLLABUS OF 1864, The.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1864.
SYLVANIA, The proposed State of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1784.
SYLVESTER II., Pope, A. D. 999-1003.
SYLVESTER III., Antipope, 1044.
SYMMACHIA.
An offensive and defensive alliance between two states was so
called by the Greeks.
SYMMORIÆ, The.
"In the archonship of Nausinicus in Olymp. 100,3 (B. C. 378)
the institution of what were called the symmoriæ (collegia, or
companies), was introduced [at Athens] in relation to the
property taxes. The object of this institution, as the details
of the arrangement themselves show, was through the joint
liability of larger associations to confirm the sense of
individual obligation to pay the taxes, and to secure their
collection, and also, in case of necessity, to cause those
taxes which were not received at the proper time to be
advanced by the most wealthy citizens."
A. Boeckh,
Public Economy of the Athenians
(translated by Lamb),
book 4, chapter 9.
SYMPOSIUM.
The Symposium of the ancient Greeks was that part of a feast
which ensued when the substantial eating was done, and which
was enlivened with wine, music, conversation, exhibitions of
dancing, etc.
C. C. Felton,
Greece, Ancient and Modern,
Course 2, lecture 5.
SYNHEDRION, OR SYNEDRION, The.
See SANHEDRIM.
SYNOECIA.
See ATHENS: THE BEGINNING.
SYNOD OF THE OAK, The.
See ROME: A. D. 400-518.
----------SYRACUSE: Start--------
SYRACUSE: B. C. 734.
The Founding of the city.
"Syracuse was founded the year after Naxos, by Corinthians,
under a leader named Archias, a Heracleid, and probably of the
ruling caste, who appears to have been compelled to quit his
country to avoid the effects of the indignation which he had
excited by a horrible outrage committed in a family of lower
rank. … Syracuse became, in course of time, the parent of
other Sicilian cities, among which Camarina was the most
considerable. … Forty-five years after Syracuse, Gela was
founded by a band collected from Crete and Rhodes, chiefly
from Lindus, and about a century later (B. C. 582) sent forth
settlers to the banks of the Acragas, where they built
Agrigentum."
C. Thirlwall,
History of Greece,
chapter 12.
The first settlement at Syracuse was on the islet of Ortygia.
"Ortygia, two English miles in circumference, was separated
from the main island only by a narrow channel, which was
bridged over when the city was occupied and enlarged by Gelôn
in the 72nd Olympiad, if not earlier. It formed only a small
part, though the most secure and best-fortified part, of the
vast space which the city afterwards occupied. But it sufficed
alone for the inhabitants during a considerable time, and the
present city in its modern decline has again reverted to the
same modest limits. Moreover, Ortygia offered another
advantage of not less value. It lay across the entrance of a
spacious harbour, approached by a narrow mouth, and its
fountain of Arethusa was memorable in antiquity both for the
abundance and goodness of its water."
G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 22.
SYRACUSE: B. C. 480.
Defeat of the Carthaginians at Himera.
See SICILY: B. C. 480.
SYRACUSE: B. C. 415-413.
Siege by the Athenians.
The Greek city of Syracuse, in Sicily, having been founded and
built up by colonization from Corinth, naturally shared the
deep hatred of Athens which was common among the Dorian
Greeks, and which the Corinthians particularly found many
reasons to cherish. The feeling at Athens was reciprocal, and,
as the two cities grew supreme in their respective spheres and
arrogant with the consciousness of superior power, mutual
jealousies fed their passion of hostility, although nothing in
their affairs, either politically or commercially, brought
them really into contact with one another. But Syracuse,
enforcing her supremacy in Sicily, dealt roughly with the
Ionian settlements there, and Athens was appealed to for aid.
The first call upon her was made (B. C. 428) in the midst of
the earlier period of the Peloponnesian War, and came from the
people of Leontini, then engaged in a struggle with Syracuse,
into which other Sicilian cities had been drawn. The Athenians
were easily induced to respond to the call, and they sent a
naval force which took part in the Leontine War, but without
any marked success. The result was to produce among the
Sicilians a common dread of Athenian interference, which led
them to patch up a general peace. But fresh quarrels were not
long in arising, in the course of which Leontini was entirely
destroyed, and another Sicilian city, Egesta, which Athens had
before received into her alliance, claimed help against
Syracuse. This appeal reached the Athenians at a time (B. C.
416) when their populace was blindly following Alcibiades,
whose ambition craved war, and who chafed under the restraints
of the treaty of peace with Sparta which Nicias had brought
about. They were carried by his influence into the undertaking
of a great expedition of conquest, directed against the
Sicilian capital—the most costly and formidable which any
Greek state had ever fitted out. In the summer of B. C. 415
the whole force assembled at Corcyra and sailed across the
Ionian sea to the Italian coast and thence to Sicily. It
consisted of 134 triremes, with many merchant, ships and
transports, bearing 5,100 hoplites, 480 bowmen and 700 Rhodian
slingers. The commanders were Nicias, Lamachus and Alcibiades.
On the arrival of the expedition in Sicily a disagreement
among the generals made efficient action impossible and gave
the Syracusans time to prepare a stubborn resistance.
{3055}
Meantime the enemies of Alcibiades at Athens had brought about
a decree for his arrest, on account of an alleged profanation
of the sacred Eleusinian mysteries, and, fearing to face the
accusation, he fled, taking refuge at Sparta, where he became
the implacable enemy of his country. Three months passed
before Nicias, who held the chief command, made any attempt
against Syracuse. He then struck a single blow, which was
successful, but which led to nothing; for the Athenian army
was withdrawn immediately afterwards and put into winter
quarters. In the following spring the regular operations of a
siege and blockade were undertaken, at sea with the fleet and
on land by a wall of circumvallation. The undertaking promised
well at first and the Syracusans were profoundly discouraged.
But Sparta, where Alcibiades worked passionately in their
favor, sent them a general, Gylippus, who proved to be equal
to an army, and promised reinforcements to follow. The more
vigorous Athenian general, Lamachus, had been killed, and
Nicias, with incredible apathy, suffered Gylippus to gather up
a small army in the island and to enter Syracuse with it, in
defiance of the Athenian blockade. From that day the situation
was reversed. The besieged became the assailants and the
besiegers defended themselves. Nicias sent to Athens for help
and maintained his ground with difficulty through another long
winter, until a second great fleet and army arrived, under the
capable general Demosthenes, to reinforce him. But it was too
late. Syracuse had received powerful aid, in ships and men,
from Corinth, from Sparta and from other enemies of Athens,
had built a navy and trained sailors of her own, and was full
of confident courage. The Athenians were continually defeated,
on land and sea, and hoped for nothing at last but to be able
to retreat. Even the opportunity to do that was lost for them
in the end by the weakness of Nicias, who delayed moving on
account of an eclipse, until his fleet was destroyed in a
final sea-fight and the island roads were blocked by an
implacable enemy. The flight when it was undertaken proved a
hopeless attempt, and there is nothing in history more
tragical than the account of it which is given in the pages of
Thucydides. On the sixth day of the struggling retreat the
division under Demosthenes gave up and surrendered to the
pursuers who swarmed around it. On the next day Nicias yielded
with the rest, after a terrible massacre at the river
Assinarus. Nicias and Demosthenes were put to the sword,
although Gylippus interceded for them. Their followers were
imprisoned in the Syracusan quarries. "There were great
numbers of them and they were crowded in a deep and narrow
place. At first the sun by day was still scorching and
suffocating, for they had no roof over their heads, while the
autumn nights were cold, and the extremes of temperature
engendered violent disorders. Being cramped for room they had
to do everything on the same spot. The corpses of those who
died from their wounds, exposure to the weather, and the like,
lay heaped one upon another. The smells were intolerable; and
they were at the same time afflicted by hunger and thirst.
During eight months they were allowed only about half a pint
of water and a pint of food a day. Every kind of misery which
could befall man in such a place befell them. This was the
condition of all the captives for about ten weeks. At length
the Syracusans sold them, with the exception of the Athenians
and of any Sicilian or Italian Greeks who had sided with them
in the war. The whole number of the public prisoners is not
accurately known, but they were not less than 7,000. Of all
the Hellenic actions which took place in this war, or indeed
of all Hellenic actions which are on record, this was the
greatest—the most glorious to the victors, the most ruinous to
the vanquished; for they were utterly and at all points
defeated, and their sufferings were prodigious. Fleet and army
perished from the face of the earth; nothing was saved, and of
the many who went forth few returned home. Thus ended the
Sicilian expedition."
Thucydides,
History
(translated by Jowett),
books 6-7.
ALSO IN:
E. A. Freeman,
History of Sicily,
volume 3.
G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapters 58-60.
Sir E. Creasy,
Fifteen Decisive Battles,
chapter 2.
See, also, ATHENS: B. C. 415-413.
SYRACUSE: B. C. 397-396.
Dionysius and the Carthaginians.
Eighteen years after the tragic deliverance of Syracuse from
the besieging host and fleet of the Athenians, the Sicilian
capital experienced a second great peril and extraordinary
escape of like kind. The democratic government of Syracuse had
meantime fallen and a new tyrant had risen to power.
Dionysius, who began life in a low station, made his way
upward by ruthless energy and cunning, practising skilfully
the arts of a demagogue until he had won the confidence of the
people, and making himself their master in the end. When the
sovereignty of Dionysius had acquired firmness and the
fortifications and armament of his city had been powerfully
increased, it suited his purposes to make war upon the
Carthaginians, which he did, B. C. 397. He attacked Motye,
which was the most important of their cities in Sicily, and
took it after a siege of some months' duration, slaughtering
and enslaving the wretched inhabitants. But his triumph in
this exploit was brief. Imilkon, or Himilco, the Carthaginian
commander, arrived in Sicily with a great fleet and army and
recaptured Motye with ease. That done he made a rapid march to
Messene, in the northeastern extremity of the island, and
gained that city almost without a blow. The inhabitants
escaped, for the most part, but the town is said to have been
reduced to an utter heap of ruins—from which it was
subsequently rebuilt. From Messene he advanced to Syracuse,
Dionysius not daring to meet him in the field. The Syracusan
fleet, encountering that of the Carthaginians, near Katana,
was almost annihilated, and when the vast African armament,
numbering more than seventeen hundred ships of every
description, sailed into the Great Harbor of Syracuse, there
was nothing to oppose it. The city was formidably invested, by
land and sea, and its fate would have appeared to be sealed.
But the gods interposed, as the ancients thought, and avenged
themselves for insults which the Carthaginians had put upon
them. Once more the fatal pestilence which had smitten the
latter twice before in their Sicilian Wars appeared and their
huge army was palsied by it. "Care and attendance upon the
sick, or even interment of the dead, became impracticable; so
that the whole camp presented a scene of deplorable agony,
aggravated by the horrors and stench of 150,000 unburied
bodies.
{3056}
The military strength of the Carthaginians was completely
prostrated by such a visitation. Far from being able to make
progress in the siege, they were not even able to defend
themselves against moderate energy on the part of the
Syracusans; who … were themselves untouched by the distemper."
In this situation the Carthaginian commander basely deserted
his army. Having secretly bribed Dionysius to permit the
escape of himself and the small number of native Carthaginians
in his force, he abandoned the remainder to their fate (B. C.
394). Dionysius took the Iberians into his service; but the
Libyans and other mercenaries were either killed or enslaved.
As for Imilkon, soon after his return to Carthage he shut
himself in his house and died, refusing food. The blow to the
prestige of Carthage was nearly fatal, producing a rebellion
among her subjects which assumed a most formidable character;
but it lacked capable command and was suppressed.
G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 82.
SYRACUSE: B. C. 394-384.
Conquests and dominion of Dionysius.
"The successful result of Dionysios' first Punic War seems to
have largely spread his fame in Old Greece," while it
increased his prestige and power at home. But "he had many
difficulties. He too, like the Carthaginians, had to deal with
a revolt among his mercenaries, and he had to give up to them
the town of Leontinoi. And the people of Naxos and Katanê,
driven out by himself, and the people of Messana, driven out
by Himilkôn, were wandering about, seeking for
dwelling-places. He restored Messana, but he did not give it
back to its old inhabitants. He peopled it with colonists from
Italy and from Old Greece. … He also planted a body of
settlers from the old Messenian land in Peloponnêsos," at
Tyndaris. "Thus the north-eastern corner of Sicily was held by
men who were really attached to Dionysios. And he went on
further to extend his power along the north coast. … The Sikel
towns were now fast taking to Greek ways, and we hear of
commonwealths and tyrants among them, just as among the
Greeks. Agyris, lord of Agyrium, was said to be the most
powerful prince in Sicily after Dionysios himself. … With him
Dionysios made a treaty, and also with other Sikel lords and
cities." But he attacked the new Sikel town of Tauromenion,
and was disastrously repulsed. "This discomfiture at
Tauromenion checked the plans of Dionysios for a while.
Several towns threw off his dominion. … And the Carthaginians
also began to stir again. In B. C. 393 their general Magôn,
seemingly without any fresh troops from Africa, set out from
Western Sicily to attack Messana." But Dionysios defeated him,
and the next year he made peace with the Carthaginians, as one
of the consequences of which he captured Tauromenion in 391.
"Dionysios was now at the height of his power in Sicily. … He
commanded the whole east coast, and the greater part of the
north and south coasts. … Dionysios and Carthage might be said
to divide Sicily between them, and Dionysios had the larger
share." Being at peace with the Carthaginians, he now turned
his arms against the Greek cities in Southern Italy, and took
Kaulônia, Hippônion, and Rhêgion (B. C. 387), making himself,
"beyond all doubt, the chief power, not only in Sicily, but in
Greek Italy also." Three years later (B. C. 384) Dionysios
sent a splendid embassy to the Olympic festival in Greece.
"Lysias called on the assembled Greeks to show their hatred of
the tyrant, to hinder his envoys from sacrificing or his
chariots from running. His chariots did run; but they were all
defeated. Some of the multitude made an attack on the splendid
tents of his envoys. He had also sent poems of his own to be
recited; but the crowd would not hear them."
E. A. Freeman,
The Story of Sicily,
chapter 10.
SYRACUSE: B. C. 383.
War with Carthage.
See SICILY: B. C. 383.
SYRACUSE: B. C. 344.
Fall of the Dionysian tyranny.
The elder Dionysius,—he who climbed by cunning demagoguery
from an obscure beginning in life to the height of power in
Syracuse, making himself the typical tyrant of antiquity,—died
in 367 B. C. after a reign of thirty-eight years. He was
succeeded by his son, Dionysius the younger, who inherited
nothing in character from his father but his vices and his
shameless meannesses. For a time the younger Dionysius was
largely controlled by the admirable influence of Dion,
brother-in-law and son-in-law of the elder tyrant (who had
several wives and left several families). Dion had Plato for
his teacher and friend, and strove with the help of the great
Athenian—who visited Sicily thrice—to win the young tyrant to
a life of virtue and to philosophical aims. The only result
was to finally destroy the whole influence with which they
began, and Dion, ere long, was driven from Syracuse, while
Dionysius abandoned himself to debaucheries and cruelties.
After a time Dion was persuaded to lead a small force from
Athens to Syracuse and undertake the overthrow of Dionysius.
The gates of Syracuse were joyfully opened to him and his
friends, and they were speedily in possession of the whole
city except the island-stronghold of Ortygia, which was the
entrenchment of the Dionysian tyranny. Then ensued a
protracted and desperate civil war in Syracuse, which half
ruined the magnificent city. In the end Ortygia was
surrendered, Dionysius having previously escaped with much
treasure to his dependent city of Lokri, in southern Italy.
Dion took up the reins of government, intending to make
himself what modern times would call a constitutional monarch.
He wished the people to have liberty, but such liberty as a
philosopher would find best for them. He was distrusted,—
misunderstood,—denounced by demagogues, and hated, at last, as
bitterly as the tyrants who preceded him. His high-minded
ambitions were all disappointed and his own character suffered
from the disappointment. At the end of a year of sovereignty
he was assassinated by one of his own Athenian intimates,
Kallippus, who secured the goodwill of the army and made
himself des·pot. The reign of Kallippus was maintained for
something more than a year, and he was then driven out by
Hipparinus, one of the sons of Dionysius the elder, and
half-brother to the younger of that name. Hipparinus was
presently murdered and another brother, Nysæus, took his
place. Then Nysæus, in turn, was driven out by Dionysius, who
returned from Lokri and re-established his power. The
condition of Syracuse under the restored despotism of
Dionysius was worse than it ever had been in the past, and the
great city seemed likely to perish.
{3057}
At the last extremity of suffering, in 344 B. C., its people
sent a despairing appeal to Corinth (the mother-city of
Syracuse) for help. The Corinthians responded by despatching
to Sicily a small fleet of ten triremes and a meagre army of
1,200 men, under Timoleon. It is the first appearance in
history of a name which soon shone with immortality; for
Timoleon proved himself to be one of the greatest and the
noblest of Greeks. He found affairs in Sicily complicated by
an invasion of Carthaginians, co-operating with one Hiketas,
who had made himself despot of Leontini and who hoped to
become master of Syracuse. By skilfully using the good fortune
which the gods were believed to have lavished upon his
enterprise, Timoleon, within a few months, had defeated
Hiketas in the field; had accepted the surrender of Dionysius
in Ortygia and sent the fallen tyrant to Corinth; had caused
such discouragement to the Carthaginians that they withdrew
fleet and army and sailed away to Africa. The whole city now
fell quickly into his hands. His first act was to demolish the
stronghold of tyranny in Ortygia and to erect courts of
justice upon its site. A free constitution of government was
then re-established, all exiled citizens recalled, a great
immigration of Greek inhabitants invited, and the city
revivified with new currents of life. The tyranny in other
cities was overthrown and all Sicily regenerated. The
Carthaginians returning were defeated with fearful losses in a
great battle on the Krimesus, and a peace made with them which
narrowed their dominion in Sicily to the region west of the
Halykus. All these great achievements completed, Timoleon
resigned his generalship, declined every office, and became a
simple citizen of Syracuse, living only a few years, however,
to enjoy the grateful love and respect of its people.
G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapters 84-85.
ALSO IN:
Plutarch,
Timoleon.
SYRACUSE: B. C. 317-289.
Under Agathokles.
A little more than twenty years after Timoleon expelled the
brood of the tyrant Dionysius from Syracuse, and liberated
Sicily, his work was entirely undone and a new and worse
despot pushed himself into power. This was Agathokles, who
rose, like his prototype, from a humble grade of life,
acquired wealth by a lucky marriage, was trusted with the
command of the Syracusan army—of mercenaries, chiefly—obtained
a complete ascendancy over these soulless men, and then turned
them loose upon the city, one morning at daybreak (B. C. 317),
for a carnival of unrestrained riot and massacre. "They broke
open the doors of the rich, or climbed over the roofs,
massacred the proprietors within, and ravished the females.
They chased the unsuspecting fugitives through the streets,
not sparing even those who took refuge in the temples. … For
two days Syracuse was thus a prey to the sanguinary,
rapacious, and lustful impulses of the soldiery; 4,000
citizens had been already slain, and many more were seized as
prisoners. The political purposes of Agathokles, as well as
the passions of the soldiers, being then sated, he arrested
the massacre. He concluded this bloody feat by killing such of
his prisoners as were most obnoxious to him, and banishing the
rest. The total number of expelled or fugitive Syracusans is
stated at 6,000." In a city so purged and terrorized,
Agathokles had no difficulty in getting himself proclaimed by
acclamation sole ruler or autocrat, and he soon succeeded in
extending his authority over a large part of Sicily. After
some years he became involved in war with the Carthaginians,
and suffered a disastrous defeat on the Himera (B. C. 310).
Besieged in Syracuse, as a consequence, he resorted to bolder
tactics than had been known before his time and "carried the
war into Africa." His invasion of Carthage was the first that
the Punic capital ever knew, and it created great alarm and
confusion in the city. The Carthaginians were repeatedly
beaten, Tunes, and other dependent towns, as well as Utica,
were captured, the surrounding territory was ravaged, and
Agathokles became master of the eastern coast. But all his
successes gained him no permanent advantage, and, after four
years of wonderful campaigning in Africa, he saw no escape
from the difficulties of his situation except by basely
stealing away from his army, leaving his two sons to be killed
by the furious soldiers when they discovered his flight.
Returning to Sicily, the wonderfully crafty and unscrupulous
abilities which he possessed enabled him to regain his power
and to commit outrage after outrage upon the people of
Syracuse, Egesta, and other towns, until his death in
289 B. C.
G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 97.
SYRACUSE: B. C. 212.
Siege by the Romans.
See PUNIC WARS: THE SECOND.
SYRACUSE: A. D. 279.
Sacked by Franks.
The Emperor Probus, who expelled from Gaul, A. D. 277, the
invaders then beginning to swarm upon the hapless province,
removed a large body of captive Franks to the coast of Pontus,
on the Euxine, and settled them there. The restive barbarians
soon afterwards succeeded (A. D. 279) in capturing a fleet of
vessels, in which they made their way to the Mediterranean,
plundering the shores and islands as they passed towards the
west. "The opulent city of Syracuse, in whose port the navies
of Athens and Carthage had formerly been sunk, was sacked by a
handful of barbarians, who massacred the greatest part of the
trembling inhabitants." This was the crowning exploit of the
escaping Franks, after which they continued their voyage and
reached in due time their own shores, among the islands of the
delta of the Rhine.
E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 12.
SYRACUSE: A. D. 878.
Siege and capture by the Saracens.
See SICILY: A. D. 827-878.
----------SYRACUSE: End--------
SYRIA.
"Between the Arabian Desert and the eastern coast of the
Levant there stretches—along almost the full extent of the
latter, or for nearly 400 miles—a tract of fertile land
varying from 70 to 100 miles in breadth. This is so broken up
by mountain range and valley, that it has never all been
brought under one native government; yet its well-defined
boundaries—the sea on the west, Mount Taurus on the north,
and the desert to east and south—give it a certain unity, and
separate it from the rest of the world. It has rightly,
therefore, been covered by one name, Syria. Like that of
Palestine, the name is due to the Greeks, but by a reverse
process. As 'Palestina,' which is really Philistina, was first
the name of only a part of the coast, and thence spread inland
to the desert, so Syria, which is a shorter form of Assyria,
was originally applied by the Greeks to the whole of the
Assyrian Empire from the Caucasus to the Levant, then shrank
to this side of the Euphrates, and finally within the limits
drawn above. … Syria is the north end of the Arabian world. …
The population of Syria has always been essentially Semitic. …
See SEMITES.
{3058}
Syria's position between two of the oldest homes of the human
race made her the passage for the earliest intercourse and
exchanges of civilisation. It is doubtful whether history has
to record any great campaigns … earlier than those which Egypt
and Assyria waged against each other across the whole extent
of Syria. …
See EGYPT: ABOUT B. C. 1700-1400, to B. C. 670-525].
The Hittites came south from Asia Minor over Mount Taurus, and
the Ethiopians came north from their conquest of the Nile.
Towards the end of the great duel between Assyria and Egypt,
the Scythians from north of the Caucasus devastated Syria.
When the Babylonian Empire fell, the Persians made her a
province of their empire, and marched across her to Egypt.
See EGYPT: B. C. 525-332.
At the beginning of our era, she was overrun by the Parthians.
The Persians invaded her a second time, just before the Moslem
invasion of the seventh century.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-639
She fell, of course, under the Seljuk Turks in the eleventh
[century].
See TURKS: A. D. 1063-1073, and after;
And in the thirteenth and fourteenth the Mongols thrice swept
through her. Into this almost constant stream of empires and
races, which swept through Syria from the earliest ages,
Europe was drawn under Alexander the Great. …
See MACEDONIA: B. C. 334-330, and after.
She was scoured during the following centuries by the wars of
the Seleucids and Ptolemies, and her plains were planted all
over by their essentially Greek civilisation.
See SELEUCIDÆ;
and JEWS: B. C. 332-167.
Pompey brought her under the Roman Empire, B. C. 65, and in
this she remained till the Arabs took her, 634 A. D.
See ROME: B. C. 69-63;
and JEWS: B. C. 166-40,
and MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-639.
The Crusaders held her for a century, 1098-1187, and parts of
her for a century more. …
See CRUSADES: A. D.1096-1099].
Napoleon the Great made her the pathway of his ambition
towards that empire on the Euphrates and Indus whose fate was
decided on her plains, 1799.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-AUGUST).
Since then, Syria's history has mainly consisted in a number
of sporadic at·tempts on the part of the Western world to
plant upon her both their civilisation and her former
religion."
George Adam Smith,
Historical Geography of the Holy Land,
book 1, chapter 1.
ALSO IN:
C. R. Conder,
Syrian Stone Lore.
É. Reclus,
The Earth and its Inhabitants: Asia,
volume 4, chapter 9.
See, also, DAMASCUS.
SYRIA, CŒLE.
See CŒLE-SYRIA.
SYRO-CHALDEAN LANGUAGE, The.
See SEMITIC LANGUAGES.
SYRTIS MAJOR AND SYRTIS MINOR.
These were the names given by the Greeks to the two gulfs (or
rather the two corners of the one great gulf) which deeply
indent the coast of North Africa. Syrtis Major, or the Greater
Syrtis, is now known as the Gulf of Sidra; Syrtis Minor as the
Gulf of Khabs, or Cabes.
SYSSITIA, The.
"The most important feature in the Cretan mode of life is the
usage of the Syssitia, or public meals, of which all the
citizens partook, without distinction of rank or age. The
origin of this institution cannot be traced: we learn however
from Aristotle that it was not peculiar to the Greeks, but
existed still earlier in the south of Italy among the
Œnotrians. … At Sparta [which retained this institution, in
common with Crete, to the latest times], the entertainment was
provided at the expense, not of the state, but of those who
shared it. The head of each family, as far as his means
reached, contributed for all its members; but the citizen who
was reduced to indigence lost his place at the public board.
The guests were divided into companies, generally of fifteen
persons, who filled up vacancies by ballot, in which unanimous
consent was required for every election. No member, not even
the king, was permitted to stay away, except on some
extraordinary occasion, as of a sacrifice, or a lengthened
chase, when he was expected to send a present to the table:
such contributions frequently varied the frugal repast."
C. Thirlwall,
History of Greece,
chapters 7-8.
SZATHMAR, Treaty of (1711).
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1699-1718.
SZECHENYI, and the Hungarian wakening.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1815-1844.
SZEGEDIN, Battle of (1849).
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.
SZEGEDIN, The broken Treaty of.
See TURKS (THE OTTOMANS): A. D. 1402-1451.
SZIGETH, Siege of (1566).
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1526-1567.
T
TABELLARIÆ, Leges.
"For a long period [at Rome] the votes in the Comitia were
given vivâ voce …; but voting by ballot ('per tabellas') was
introduced at the beginning of the 7th century [2d century B.
C.] by a succession of laws which, from their subject, were
named Leges Tabellariae. Cicero tells us that there were in
all four, namely:
1. Lex Gabinia, passed B. C. 139.
2. Lex Cassia, carried in B. C. 137.
3. Lex Papiria, passed B. C. 131.
4. Lex Caelia, passed B. C. 107."
W. Ramsay,
Manual of Roman Antiquity,
chapter 4.
TABLES, The.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1638.
TABORITES, The.
See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1419-1434.
TABREEZ, Battle of.
See PERSIA: A. D. 1499-1887.
TACHIES, The.
See TEXAS: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.
TACITUS, Roman Emperor, A. D. 275-276.
TACNA, Battle of (1880).
See CHILE: A. D. 1833-1884.
TACULLIES, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.
TADCASTER FIGHT (1642).
Lord Fairfax, commanding in Yorkshire for the Parliament, and
having his headquarters at Tadcaster, where he had assembled a
small force, was attacked by 8,000 royalists, under the Earl
of Newcastle, December 7, 1642, and forced to retire, after
obstinate resistance. This was one of the earliest encounters
of the great English Civil War.
C. R. Markham,
Life of the Great Lord Fairfax,
chapter 8.
{3059}
TADMOR.
See PALMYRA.
TAENSAS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: NATCHESAN FAMILY.
TAEXALI, The.
A tribe which held the northeastern coast of ancient
Caledonia.
See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.
TAGLIACOZZO, Capture of Conradin at.
See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1250-1268.
TAGLIAMENTO, Battle of the (1797).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).
TAGOS, OR TAGUS, The Greek title.
See DEMIURGI.
TAIFALÆ, The.
In the fourth century, "the Taifalæ inhabited that part of the
province of Dacia which is now called Wallachia. They are
first mentioned as allies of the Thervingi in A. D. 291
(Mamertin, Panegyr. ii. c. 17). Their ethnological relations
are uncertain. Zosimus vaguely calls them Scythians (ii. c.
31); St. Martin conjectures that they were the last remains of
the great and powerful nation of the Dacians, and Latham that
they were Slavonians. But we only know for certain that they
were constantly allies of the Visigoths, and that Farnobius,
one of their chiefs, is expressly called a Goth by Ammianus
(xxxi. c. 9). They subsequently accompanied the Visigoths in
their migrations westward, and settled on the south side of
the Liger, in the country of the Pictavi, where they were in
the time of Gregory of Tours, who calls them Theiphali, and
their district Theiphalia."
W. Smith,
Note to Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 26.
TAILLE AND GABELLE, The.
Under the old regime, before the Revolution, "the chief item
in the French budget was the taille [analogous to the English
word 'tally']. This was a direct tax imposed upon the property
of those assessed, and in theory it was in proportion to the
amount they possessed. But in the most of France it fell
chiefly upon personal property. It was impossible that with
the most exact and honest system it should be accurately
apportioned, and the system that was in force was both loose
and dishonest. The local assessors exempted some and overtaxed
others; they released their friends or their villages, and
imposed an increased burden upon others, and, to a very large
extent, exemptions or reductions were obtained by those who
had money with which to bribe or to litigate. The bulk of this
tax fell upon the peasants. From it, indeed, a large part of
the population, and the part possessing the most of the wealth
of the country, was entirely exempt. The nobility were free
from any personal tax, and under this head were probably
included 400,000 people. The clergy were free, almost all of
the officials of every kind, and the members of many
professions and trades. Many of the cities had obtained
exemption from the taille by the payment of a sum of money,
which was either nominal or very moderate. Only laborers and
peasants, it was said, still remained subject to it. Out of
11,000,000 people [in the 17th century] in those portions of
France where the taille was a personal tax, probably 2,500,000
were exempt. … Next to the taille, the most important tax was
the gabelle, and, though less onerous, it also produced a vast
amount of misery. The gabelle was a duty on salt, and it was
farmed by the government. The burden of an excessive tax was
increased by the cupidity of those who bought the right to
collect its proceeds. The French government retained a
monopoly of salt, much like that which it now possesses of
tobacco, but the price which it charged for this article of
necessity was such, that the States of Normandy declared that
salt cost the people more than all the rest of their food. In
some provinces the price fixed imposed a duty of about 3,000
per cent., and salt sold for nearly ten sous a pound, thirty
times its present price in France, though it is still subject
to a considerable duty. From this tax there were no personal
exemptions, but large portions of the country were not subject
to the gabelle. Brittany was free, Guienne, Poitou, and
several other provinces were wholly exempt or paid a trifling
subsidy. About one third of the population were free from this
duty, and the exemption was so valued that a rumor that the
gabelle was to be imposed was sufficient to excite a local
insurrection. Such a duty, on an article like salt, was also
necessarily much more oppressive for the poor than the rich.
As the exorbitant price would compel many to go without the
commodity, the tax was often rendered a direct one. The amount
of salt was fixed which a family should consume, and this they
were forced to take at the price established by the
government. … The gabelle was farmed for about 20,000,000
livres, and to cover the expenses and profits of the farmers
probably 27,000,000 in all was collected from the people. A
family of six would, on an average, pay the equivalent of
ninety francs, or about eighteen dollars a year, for this
duty."
J. B. Perkins,
France under Mazarin,
chapter 18 (volume 2).
"Not only was the price of salt rendered exorbitant by the
tax, but its consumption at this exorbitant price was
compulsory. Every human being above seven years of age was
bound to consume seven pounds of salt per annum, which salt,
moreover, was to be exclusively used with food or in cooking.
To use it for salting meat, butter, cheese, &c., was
prohibited under severe penalties. The average price of salt
[in the reign of Louis XIV.] over two-thirds of the country,
was a shilling a pound. To buy salt of anyone but the
authorised agents of the Government was punished by fines of
200, 300, and 500 livres (about £80 of our money), and
smugglers were punished by imprisonment, the galleys, and
death. … The use of salt in agriculture was rendered
impossible, and it was forbidden, under a penalty of 300
livres (about £50), to take a beast to a salt-marsh, and allow
it to drink sea-water. Salted hams and bacon were not allowed
to enter the country. The salt used in the fisheries was
supervised and guarded by such a number of vexatious
regulations that one might suppose the object of the
Government was to render that branch of commerce impossible. …
But even the Gabelle was less onerous than the Taille. The
amount of the Taille was fixed in the secret councils of the
Government, according to the exigencies of the financial
situation every year. The thirty-two Intendants of the
provinces were informed of the amount which their districts
were expected to forward to the Treasury. Each Intendant then
made known to the Elections (sub-districts) of his Généralité
the sum which they had to find, and the officers called Elus
apportioned to each parish its quota of contribution. Then, in
the parishes, was set in motion a system of blind, stupid, and
remorseless extortion, of which one cannot read even now
without a flash of indignation.
{3060}
First of all, the most flagitious partiality and injustice
presided over the distribution of the tax. Parishes which had
a friend at Court or in authority got exempt, and with them
the tax was a mere form. But these exemptions caused it to
fall with more crushing weight on their less fortunate
neighbours, as the appointed sum must be made up, whoever paid
it. The inequalities of taxation almost surpass belief. … But
this was far from being the worst feature. The chief
inhabitants of the country villages were compelled to fill, in
rotation, the odious office of collectors. They were
responsible for the gross amount to be levied, which they
might get as they could out of their parishioners. … Friends,
or persons who had powerful patrons, were exempted; while
enemies, or the unprotected, were drained of their last
farthing. … The collectors went about, we are told, always
keeping well together for fear of violence, making their
visits and perquisitions, and met everywhere with a chorus of
imprecations. As the Taille was always in arrear, on one side
of the street might be seen the collectors of the current year
pursuing their exactions, while on the other side were those
of the year previous engaged on the same business, and further
on were the agents of the Gabelle and other taxes employed in
a similar manner. From morning to evening, from year's
beginning to year's ending, they tramped, escorted by volleys
of oaths and curses, getting a penny here and a penny there;
for prompt payment under this marvellous system was not to
be thought of."
J. C. Morison,
The Reign of Louis XIV.
(Fortnightly Review, April, 1874, volume 21).
Under Colbert (1661-1683), in the reign of Louis XIV., both
the taille (or villein tax, as it was often called) and the
gabelle were greatly reduced, and the iniquities of their
distribution and collection were much lessened.
H. Martin,
History of France: Age of Louis XIV.,
volume 1, chapter 1.
For an intimation of the origin of the taille,
See FRANCE: A. D. 1453-1461.
TAIPING REBELLION, The.
See CHINA: A. D. 1850-1864.
TAJ MAHAL, The.
See INDIA: A. D. 1605-1658.
TAKBIR, The.
The Mahometan war-cry—"God is Great."
TAKILMAN FAMILY, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TAKILMAN FAMILY.
TALAJOTS.
See SARDINIA, THE ISLAND: NAME AND EARLY HISTORY.
TALAVERA, Battle of.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (FEBRUARY-JULY).
TALCA, Battle of (1818).
See CHILE: A. D. 1810-1818.
TALENT, Attic, Babylonian, &c.
"Not only in Attica, but in almost all the Hellenic States,
even in those which were not in Greece but were of Hellenic
origin, money was reckoned by talents of sixty minas, the mina
at a hundred drachmas, the drachma at six oboli. At Athens the
obolus was divided into eight chalci … the chalcûs into seven
lepta. Down to the half obolus, the Athenian money was, in
general, coined only in silver; the dichalchon, or quarter
obolus, in silver or copper; the chalcûs and the smaller
pieces only in copper. … The value of the more ancient Attic
silver talent, silver value reckoned for silver value, will be
1,500 thaler Prussian currency; of the mina, 25 thaler; of the
drachma, 6 gute groschen; of the obolus 1 g. gr.,—equivalent
to $1.026, $17.10, 71.1 cents, 2.85 cents respectively. …
Before the time of Solon, the Attic money was heavier; also
the commercial weight was heavier than that by which money was
weighed. One hundred new drachmas were equivalent to 72-73
ancient drachmas; but the ancient weight remained with very
little alteration as commercial weight, to which, in later
times, an increase was also added. Through the alterations of
Solon, the Attic money, which before stood to the Æginetan in
the relation of 5:6, had to the same the relation of 3:5. The
new was related to the ancient Attic money as 18:25. Compared
with the heavy Æginetan drachma …, the Attic was called the
light drachma. … The former was equivalent to ten Attic oboli;
so that the Æginetan talent weighed more than 10,000 Attic
drachmas. It was equal to the Babylonian talent. Nevertheless
the Æginetan money was soon coined so light that it was
related to the Attic nearly as 3:2. … The Corinthian talent is
to be estimated as originally equivalent to the Æginetan, but
it was also in later times diminished. … The Egyptian talent …
contained, according to Varro in Pliny, eighty Roman pounds,
and cannot, therefore, have been essentially different from
the Attic talent, since the Attic mina is related to the Roman
pound as 4:3. … The Euboic talent is related … to the Æginetan
as five to six, and is no other than the money-talent of the
Athenians in use before the time of Solon, and which continued
in use as commercial weight. According to the most accurate
valuation, therefore, one hundred Euboic drachmas are
equivalent to 138 8/9 drachmas of Solon. … Appian has given
the relation of the Alexandrian to the Euboic talent in round
numbers as 6 to 7 = 120 to 140; but it was rather more
accurately as 120 to 138 8/9. … So much gold … as was
estimated to be equivalent to a talent of silver, was
undoubtedly also called a talent of gold. And, finally, a

weight of gold of 6,000 drachmas, the value of which, compared
with silver, always depended upon the existing relation
between them, was sometimes thus called."
A. Boeckh,
Public Economy of Athens
(translated by Lamb),
book 1, chapters 4-5.
See, also, SHEKEL.
TALLAGE, The.
"Under the general head of donum, auxilium, and the like, came
a long series of imposts [in the period of the Norman kings],
which were theoretically gifts of the nation to the king, and
the amount of which was determined by the itinerant justices
after separate negotiation with the payers. The most important
of these, that which fell upon the towns and demesne lands of
the Crown, is known as the tallage. This must have affected
other property besides land, but the particular method in
which it was to be collected was determined by the community
on which it fell, or by special arrangement with the
justices."
W. Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 13, section 161 (volume 1).
TALLEYRAND, Prince de:
Alienation from Napoleon.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1807-1808.
TALLIGEWI, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALLEGHANS.
{3061}
TALMUD, The.
"The Talmud [from a Hebrew verb signifying 'to learn'] is a
vast irregular repertory of Rabbinical reflections,
discussions, and animadversions on a myriad of topics treated
of or touched on in Holy Writ; a treasury, in chaotic
arrangement, of Jewish lore, scientific, legal, and legendary;
a great storehouse of extra-biblical, yet biblically
referable, Jewish speculation, fancy, and faith. … The Talmud
proper is throughout of a twofold character, and consists of
two divisions, severally called the Mishna and the Gemara. …
The Mishna, in this connection, may be regarded as the text of
the Talmud itself, and the Gemara as a sort of commentary. …
The Gemara regularly follows the Mishna, and annotates upon it
sentence by sentence. … There are two Talmuds, the Yerushalmi
[Jerusalem], or, more correctly, the Palestinian, and the
Babli, that is, the Babylonian. The Mishna is pretty nearly
the same in both these, but the Gemaras are different. The
Talmud Yerushalmi gives the traditional sayings of the
Palestinian Rabbis, … the 'Gemara of the Children of the
West,' as it is styled; whereas the Talmud Babli gives the
traditional sayings of the Rabbis of Babylon. This Talmud is
about four times the size of the Jerusalem one; it is by far
the more popular, and to it almost exclusively our remarks
relate."
P. I. Hershon,
Talmudic Miscellany,
introduction.
The date of the compilation of the Babylonian Talmud is fixed
at about A. D. 500; that of Jerusalem was a century or more
earlier.
See, also, MISCHNA.
TALUKDARS.
"A Taluka [in India] is a large estate, consisting of many
villages, or, as they would be called in English, parishes.
These villages had originally separate proprietors, who paid
their revenue direct to the Government treasury. The Native
Government in former times made over by patent, to a person
called Talukdar, its right over these villages, holding him
responsible for the whole revenue. … The wealth and influence
thus acquired by the Talukdar often made him, in fact,
independent. … When the country came under British rule,
engagements for payment of the Government Revenue were taken
from these Talukdars, and they were called Zamindars."
Sir R. Temple,
James Thomason,
page 158.
See INDIA: A. D. 1785-1793.
TAMANES, Battle of.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (AUGUST-NOVEMBER).
TAMASP I., Shah of Persia, A. D. 1523-1576.
TAMASP II., Shah of Persia, 1730-1732.
TAMERLANE, OR TIMOUR.
See TIMOUR.
TAMMANY RING, The.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1863-1871.
TAMMANY SOCIETY.
TAMMANY HALL.
"Shortly after the peace of 1783, a society was formed in the
city of New York, known by the name of the Tammany Society. It
was probably originally instituted with a view of organizing
an association antagonist to the Cincinnati Society. That
society was said to be monarchical or rather aristocratical in
its tendency, and, when first formed, and before its
constitution was amended, on the suggestion of General
Washington and other original members, it certainly did tend
to the establishment of an hereditary order, something like an
order of nobility. The Tammany Society originally seems to
have had in view the preservation of our democratic
institutions. … Tammany Society, or Columbian Order, was
founded by William Mooney, an upholsterer residing in the city
of New York, some time in the administration of President
Washington. … William Mooney was one of those who, at that
early day, regarded the powers of the general government as
dangerous to the independence of the state governments, and to
the common liberties of the people. His object was to fill the
country with institutions designed, and men determined, to
preserve the just balance of power. His purpose was patriotic
and purely republican. … Tammany was, at first, so popular,
that most persons of merit became members; and so numerous
were they that its anniversary [May 12] was regarded as a
holiday. At that time there was no party politics mixed up in
its proceedings. But when President Washington, in the latter
part of his administration, rebuked "self created societies,"
from an apprehension that their ultimate tendency would be
hostile to the public tranquility, the members of Tammany
supposed their institution to be included in the reproof; and
they almost forsook it. The founder, William Mooney, and a few
others, continued steadfast. At one anniversary they were
reduced so low that but three persons attended its festival.
From this time it became a political institution, and took
ground with Thomas Jefferson.'"
J. D. Hammond,
History of Political Parties in the State of New York,
volume 1, chapter 18.
"The ideal patrons of the society were Columbus and Tammany,
the last a legendary Indian chief, once lord, it was said, of
the island of Manhattan, and now adopted as the patron saint
of America. The association was divided into thirteen tribes,
each tribe typifying a state, presided over by a sachem. There
were also the honorary posts of warrior and hunter, and the
council of sachems had at their head a grand sachem, a type
evidently of the President of the United States."
R. Hildreth,
History of the United States,
volume 4, chapter 3.
"Shortly after Washington's inauguration, May 12, 1789, the
'Tammany Society or Columbian Order' was founded. It was
composed at first of the moderate men of both political
parties, and seems not to have been recognized as a party
institution until the time of Jefferson as President. William
Mooney was the first Grand Sachem; his successor in 1790 was
William Pitt Smith, and in 1791 Josiah Ogden Hoffman received
the honor. John Pintard was the first Sagamore. De Witt
Clinton was scribe of the council in 1791. It was strictly a
national society, based on the principles of patriotism, and
had for its object the perpetuation of a true love for our own
country. Aboriginal forms and ceremonies were adopted in its
incorporation."
Mrs. M. J. Lamb,
History of the City of New York,
volume 2, page 362, foot-note.
"One must distinguish between the 'Tammany Society or
Columbian Order' and the political organization called for
shortness 'Tammany Hall.' … The Tammany Society owns a large
building on Fourteenth Street, near Third Avenue, and it
leases rooms in this building to the 'Democratic Republican
General Committee of the City of New York,' otherwise and more
commonly known as 'Tammany Hall' or 'Tammany.' Tammany Hall
means, therefore, first, the building on Fourteenth Street
where the 'Democracy' have their headquarters; and secondly,
the political body officially known as the Democratic
Republican General Committee of the City of New York. …
{3062}
The city of New York is divided by law into thirty 'assembly
districts;' that is, thirty districts, each of which elects an
assemblyman to the state legislature. In each of these
assembly districts there is held annually an election of
members of the aforesaid Democratic Republican General
Committee. This committee is a very large one, consisting of
no less than five thousand men; and each assembly district is
allotted a certain number of members, based on the number of
Democratic votes which it cast in the last preceding
presidential election. Thus the number of the General
Committeemen elected in each assembly district varies from
sixty to two hundred and seventy. There is intended to be one
General Committeeman for every fifty Democratic electors in
the district. In each assembly district there is also elected
a district leader, the head of Tammany Hall for that district.
He is always a member of the General Committee, and these
thirty men, one leader from each assembly district, form the
executive committee of Tammany Hall. 'By this committee,' says
a Tammany official, 'all the internal affairs of the
organization are directed, its candidates for offices are
selected, and the plans for every campaign are matured.' The
General Committee meets every month, five hundred members
constituting a quorum; and in October of each year it sits as
a county convention, to nominate candidates for the ensuing
election. There is also a sub-committee on organization,
containing one thousand members, which meets once a month.
This committee takes charge of the conduct of elections. There
is, besides, a finance committee, appointed by the chairman of
the General Committee, and there are several minor committees,
unnecessary to mention. The chairman of the finance committee
is at present Mr. Richard Croker. Such are the general
committees of Tammany Hall. … Each assembly district is
divided by law into numerous election districts, or, as they
are called in some cities, voting precincts,—each election
district containing about four hundred voters. The election
districts are looked after as follows: Every assembly district
has a district committee, composed of the members of the
General Committee elected from that district, and of certain
additional members chosen for the purpose. The district
committee appoints in each of the election districts included
in that particular assembly district a captain. This man is
the local boss. He has from ten to twenty-five aids, and he is
responsible for the vote of his election district. There are
about eleven hundred election districts in New York, and
consequently there are about eleven hundred captains, or local
bosses, each one being responsible to the (assembly) district
committee by which he was appointed. Every captain is held to
a strict account. If the Tammany vote in his election district
falls off without due cause, he is forthwith removed, and
another appointed in his place. Usually, the captain is an
actual resident in his district; but occasionally, being
selected from a distant part of the city, he acquires a
fictitious residence in the district. Very frequently the
captain is a liquor dealer, who has a clientele of customers,
dependents, and hangers-on, whom he 'swings,' or controls. He
is paid, of course, for his services; he has some money to
distribute, and a little patronage, such as places in the
street-cleaning department, or perhaps a minor clerkship. The
captain of a district has a personal acquaintance with all its
voters; and on the eve of an election he is able to tell how
every man in his district is going to vote. He makes his
report; and from the eleven hundred reports of the election
district captains the Tammany leaders can predict with
accuracy what will be the vote of the city."
H. C. Merwin,
Tammany Hall
(Atlantic, February, 1894).
ALSO IN:
R. Home,
The Story of Tammany
(Harper's Monthly, volume 44, pages 685,835).
TAMULS, The.
See TURANIAN RACES.
TAMWORTH MANIFESTO, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1834-1887.
TANAGRA, Battle of (B. C. 457).
See GREECE: B. C. 458-456.
TANAIM, The.
A name assumed by the Jewish Rabbins who especially devoted
themselves to the interpretation of the Mischna.
H. H. Milman,
History of the Jews,
book 19.
TANAIS, The.
The name anciently given to the Russian river now called the
Don,—which latter name signifies simply 'water.'
TANCRED, King of Naples and Sicily, A. D. 1189-1194.
TANCRED'S CRUSADE.
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099;
and JERUSALEM: A. D. 1099, and 1099-1144.
TANEY, Roger B.,
and President Jackson's removal of the Deposits.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1833-1836.
The Dred Scott Decision.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1857.
TANFANA, Feast and massacre of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 14-16.
TANIS.
See ZOAN.
TANISTRY, Law of.
"These chieftainships [in ancient Ireland], and perhaps even
the kingdoms themselves, though not partible, followed a very
different rule of succession than that of primogeniture. They
were subject to the law of tanistry, of which the principle is
defined to be that the demesne lands and dignity of
chieftainship, descended to the eldest and most worthy of the
same blood; these epithets not being used, we may suppose,
synonymously, but in order to indicate that the preference
given to seniority was to be controlled by a due regard to
desert. No better mode, it is evident, of providing for a
perpetual supply of those civil quarrels, in which the Irish
are supposed to place so much of their enjoyment, could have
been devised."
H. Hallam,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 18 (volume 3).
See, also, TUATH.
TANNENBURG, Battle of (1410).
See POLAND: A. D. 1333-1572.
TANOAN FAMILY, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TAÑOAN FAMILY.
TANTALIDÆ, The.
See ARGOS.
TAOUISM.
See CHINA: THE RELIGIONS.
TAPÆ, Battles at.
See DACIA: A. D. 102-106.
TAPIO BISCKE, Battle of (1849).
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.
TAPPANS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
TAPROBANE.
The name by which the island of Ceylon was known to the
ancients. Hipparchus advanced the opinion that it was not
merely a large island, but the beginning of another world.
E. H. Bunbury,
History of Ancient Geography,
chapter 23, section 2 (volume 2).
{3063}
TAPURIANS, The.
"To the west of the Hyrcanians, between Elburz and the
Caspian, lay the Tapurians, whose name has survived in the
modern Taberistan, and further yet, on the sea-coast, and at
the mouth of the Mardus (now Safidrud), were the Mardians."
M. Duncker,
History of Antiquity,
book 8, chapter 1 (volume 5).
TARA, The Hill, the Feis, and the Psalter of.
The Feis Teavrach, or Feis of Tara, in Irish history, was a
triennial assembly on the royal hill of Tara, in Meath, which
is claimed to have been instituted by a certain King Ollamh
Fodhla, at so remote a period as 1,300 years before Christ.
"All the chieftains or heads of septs, bards, historians, and
military leaders throughout the country were regularly
summoned, and were required to attend under the penalty of
being treated as the king's enemies. The meeting was held in a
large oblong hall, and the first three days were spent in
enjoying the hospitality of the king, who entertained the
entire assembly during its sittings. The bards give long and
glowing accounts of the magnificence displayed on these
occasions, of the formalities employed, and of the business
transacted. Tables were arranged along the centre of the hall,
and on the walls at either side were suspended the banners or
arms of the chiefs, so that each chief on entering might take
his seat under his own escutcheon. Orders were issued by sound
of trumpet, and all the forms were characterized by great
solemnity. What may have been the authority of this assembly,
or whether it had any power to enact laws, is not clear; but
it would appear that one of its principal functions was the
inspection of the national records, the writers of which were
obliged to the strictest accuracy under the weightiest
penalties."
M. Haverty,
History of Ireland,
page 24.
The result of the examination and correction of the historical
records of the kingdom were "entered in the great national
register called the Psalter of Tara, which is supposed to have
been destroyed at the period of the Norman invasion. … It is
supposed that part of the contents of the Psalter of Cashel,
which contains much of the fabulous history of the Irish, was
copied from it."
T. Wright,
History of Ireland,
book 1, chapter 2 (volume 1).
TARANTEENS,
TARENTINES,
TARRATINES.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ABNAKIS, and ALGONQUIAN FAMILY;
also, NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1675 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).
TARAS.
See TARENTUM.
TARASCANS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TARASCANS.
TARBELLI, The.
See AQUITAINE: THE ANCIENT TRIBES.
TARENTINE WAR, The.
See Rome: B. C. 282-275.
TARENTUM.
Tarentum (or Taras), the most important of the ancient Greek
cities in Italy, "lay at the northern corner of the great gulf
which still bears its name. It had an excellent harbour,
almost land-locked. On its eastern horn stood the city. Its
form was triangular; one side being washed by the open sea,
the other by the waters of the harbour, while the base or land
side was protected by a line of strong fortifications. Thus
advantageously posted for commerce the city grew apace. She
possessed an opulent middle class; and the poorer citizens
found an easy subsistence in the abundant supply of fish which
the gulf afforded. These native fishermen were always ready to
man the navy of the state. But they made indifferent soldiers.
Therefore when any peril of war threatened the state, it was
the practice of the government to hire foreign captains,
soldiers of fortune, who were often kings or princes, to bring
an army for their defence. … The origin of Lacedæmonian
Tarentum is veiled in fable. The warriors of Sparta (so runs
the well-known legend) went forth to the second Messenian war
under a vow not to see their homes till they had conquered the
enemy. They were long absent, and their wives sought paramours
among the slaves and others who had not gone out to war. When
the warriors returned, they found a large body of youth grown
up from this adulterous intercourse. These youths (the
Parthenii as they were called), disdaining subjection, quitted
their native land under the command of Phalantus, one of their
own body, and founded the colony of Tarentum."
H. G. Liddell,
History of Rome,
book 3, chapter 25 (volume 1).
See, also, SIRIS.
TARENTUM: B. C. 282-275.
Alliance with Pyrrhus and war with Rome.
See ROME: B. C. 282-275.
TARENTUM: B. C. 212.
Betrayed to Hannibal.
See PUNIC WARS: THE SECOND.
TARENTUM, Treaty of.
The treaty in which Octavius and Antony extended their
triumvirate to a second term of five years; negotiated at
Tarentum, B. C. 37.
C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapter 27.
TARGOWITZ, Confederates of.
See POLAND: A. D. 1791-1792.
TARIFA: A. D. 1291.
Taken by the Christians from the Moors.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1273-1460.
----------TARIFF LEGISLATION AND CONVENTIONS: Start--------
TARIFF: (The Netherlands): 15th Century.
Early Free Trade and Reciprocity.
In the Netherlands, at the close of a short war with the
English, in 1437, "the import of raw wool was entirely
relieved from the payment of even the ordinary customs. … And
this was then their notion of protection,—to be allowed to buy
what they liked where they liked, to live at peace with their
neighbours, and to be let alone. Four hundred years have
passed and gone since the Netherlands persuaded their rulers
to take off all duty on raw wool, and to permit half-finished
clothes to be brought into their country in order that they
might be dyed and taken out again duty free; yet we live in
the midst of tariffs whose aim it is to hinder the importation
of the raw material by prohibitory duties and to prevent
competition in every kind of fabric by so-called protecting
ones! And in England, also, at the period in question, the
suicidal spirit of commercial envy had seized hold of the
government, and in every parliament some fresh evidence was
afforded of the jealousy with which foreign skill and
competition were viewed.
{3064}
But the Dutch held on the tenour of their discerning and
sagacious way without waiting for reciprocity or resenting its
reverse. If the English would not admit their cloths, that was
no reason why they should cheat themselves of the advantage of
English and Irish wool. If not cloths, there was doubtless
something else that they would buy from them. Among other
articles, there was salt, which they had acquired a peculiar
skill in refining; and there was an extensive carrying trade
in the produce of the Northern countries, and in various
costly luxuries, which the English obtained from remoter
regions generally through them. In 1496, when Philip (father
of the Emperor Charles V.) assumed the government of the
Netherlands, as Duke of Brabant, he "presented to the senates
of the leading cities the draught of a commercial treaty with
England, conceived in a wise and liberal spirit, and eminently
fitted to advance the real welfare of both countries. Their
assent was gladly given. … Nor did they over-estimate the
value of the new compact, which long went by the name of 'The
Grand Treaty of Commerce.' Its provisions were, in all
respects, reciprocal, and enabled every kind of merchandise to
be freely imported from either country by the citizens of the
other. The entire liberty of fishing on each other's coast was
confirmed; measures were prescribed for the suppression of
piracy; and property saved from wrecks, when none of the crew
survived, 'was vested in the local authorities in trust for
the proper owners, should they appear to claim it within a
year and a day. … The industrial policy of the Dutch was
founded on ideas wholly and essentially different from that of
the kingdoms around them. 'The freedom of traffic had ever
been greater with them than amongst any of their neighbours;'
and its different results began to appear. Not only were
strangers of every race and creed sure of an asylum in
Holland, but of a welcome; and singular pains were taken to
induce those whose skill enabled them to contribute to the
wealth of the state to settle permanently in the great towns."
W. T. McCullagh,
Industrial History of Free Nations,
volume 2, pages 110-111, 150-151, 266-267.
TARIFF: (Venice): 15-17th Centuries.
Beginning of systematic exclusion and monopoly.
See VENICE: 15-17TH CENTURIES.
TARIFF: (England): A. D. 1651-1672.
The Navigation Laws and their effect on the American colonies.
See NAVIGATION LAWS: A. D. 1651;
and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1651-1672.
TARIFF: (France): A. D. 1664-1667.
The System of Colbert.
Colbert, the great minister of Louis XIV., was the first among
statesmen who had an economic system, "settled, complete and
consistent in all its parts; and it is to the eternal honor of
his name that he made it triumph in spite of obstacles of
every kind. Although this system was far from being
irreproachable in all its parts, it was an immense progress at
the time of its appearance; and we have had nothing since then
which can be compared with it, for breadth and penetration. …
It was … the need of restoring order in the finances which
gave rise to the attempts at amelioration made by Colbert.
This illustrious minister soon comprehended that the surest
way to increase public fortune was to favor private fortune,
and to open to production the broadest and freest ways. … One
of the first acts of his ministry, the reestablishment of the
taxes on a uniform basis, is an homage rendered to true
principles; and one cannot doubt that all the others would
have been in conformity with this glorious precedent, if the
science of wealth had been, at that time, as advanced as it is
to-day. Colbert would certainly have carried out in France
what Mr. Huskisson had begun in England at the time of his
sudden death. … The edict of September, 1664, reduced the
import and export duties on merchandise to suitable limits,
and suppressed the most onerous. 'It is our intention,' said
the king, 'to make known to all our governors and intendants
in what consideration we hold at present everything that may
concern commerce. … As the most solid and most essential means
for the reestablishment of commerce are the diminution and the
regulation of the duties which are levied on all commodities,
we have arranged to reduce all these duties to one single
import and one export duty, and also to diminish these
considerably, in order to encourage navigation, reestablish
the ancient manufactures, banish idleness.' … At the same time
Colbert prohibited the seizure for the tailles (villein-tax)
[see TAILLE AND GABELLE] of beds, clothes, bread, horses and
cattle serving for labor; or the tools by which artisans and
manual laborers gained their livelihood. The register of the
survey of lands was revised, so that property should be taxed
only in proportion to its value and the actual extent of the
land. The great highways of the kingdom and all the rivers
were then guarded by armies of receivers of tolls, who stopped
merchandise on its passage and burdened its transportation
with a multitude of abusive charges, to say nothing of the
delays and exactions of every kind. An edict was issued
ordering the investigation of these degrading charges; and
most of them were abolished or reduced to just limits. … The
lease of Customs duties being about to expire, Colbert
improved this occasion to revise the tariff; and although this
fatal measure has since been considered as the finest monument
of his administration, we think we should present it in its
true aspect, which seems to us to have been invariably
misapprehended. Colbert's aim in revising the customs was to
make them a means of protection for national manufactures, in
the place of a simple financial resource, as they formerly
were. Most articles of foreign manufacture had duties imposed
upon them, so as to secure to similar French merchandise the
home market. At the same time, Colbert spared neither
sacrifices nor encouragement to give activity to the
manufacturing spirit in our country. He caused the most
skilful workmen of every kind to come from abroad; and he
subjected manufactures to a severe discipline, that they
should not lose their vigilance, relying on the tariffs. Heavy
fines were inflicted on the manufacturers of an article
recognized as inferior in quality to what it should be. For
the first offence, the products of the delinquents were
attached to a stake, with a carcan and the name of the
manufacturer; in case of a second offence, the manufacturer
himself was fastened to it. These draconian rigors would have
led to results entirely contrary to those Colbert expected, if
his enlightened solicitude had not tempered by other measures
what was cruel in them.
{3065}
Thus, he appointed inspectors of the manufactures, who often
directed the workmen into the best way, and brought them
information of the newest processes, purchased from foreign
manufacturers, or secretly obtained at great expense. Colbert
was far from attaching to the customs the idea of exclusive
and blind protection that has ever been attributed to them
since his ministry. He knew very well that these tariffs would
engender reprisals, and that, while encouraging manufactures,
they would seriously hinder commerce. Moreover, all his
efforts tended to weaken their evil effects. His instructions
to consuls and ambassadors testify strongly to his
prepossessions in this regard. … The more one studies the
administrative acts of this great minister, the more one is
convinced of his lofty sense of justice; and of the liberal
tendencies of his system, which has hitherto been generally
extolled as hostile to the principle of commercial liberty. In
vain the Italians have hailed it by the name of 'Colbertism,'
to designate the exclusive system invented by themselves and
honored by the Spanish: Colbert never approved the sacrifice
of the greater part of his fellow citizens to a few privileged
ones, nor the creation of endless monopolies for the profit of
certain branches of industry. We may reproach him with having
been excessively inclined to make regulations, but not with
having enfeoffed France to a few spinners of wool and cotton.
He had himself summed up in a few words his system in the
memorial he presented to the king: 'To reduce export duties on
provisions and manufactures of the kingdom; to diminish import
duties on everything which is of use in manufactures; and to
repel the products of foreign manufactures, by raising the
duties.' Such was the spirit of his first tariff, published in
September, 1664. He had especially aimed at facilitating the
supply of raw materials in France, and promoting the interests
of her home trade by the abolition of provincial barriers, and
by the establishment of lines of customs-houses at the extreme
frontiers. … The only reproach that can be justly made against
him is the abuse of the protective instrument he had just
created, by increasing in the tariff of 1667 the exclusive
measures directed against foreign manufactures in that of
1664. It was no longer then a question of manufactures, but of
war, namely, with Holland; and this war broke out in 1672. …
From the same epoch date the first wars of commercial
reprisals between France and England, hostilities which were
to cost both nations so much blood and so many tears.
Manufactures were then seen to prosper and agriculture to
languish in France under the influence of this system."
J. A. Blanqui,
History of Political Economy in Europe,
chapter 26.
ALSO IN,
H. Martin,
History of France: The Age of Louis XIV.,
volume 1, chapter 2.
J. B. Perkins,
France under the Regency,
chapter 4.
See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 1661-1683.
TARIFF: (Pennsylvania): A. D. 1785.
Beginning of "Protection" in Pennsylvania.
"Before the Revolution Pennsylvania had always been slow to
impose burdens on trade. While Massachusetts, New York and
South Carolina were raising considerable sums from imposts,
Pennsylvania commerce was free from restrictions. In 1780,
however, the need of revenue overcame the predilection of the
Quakers for free trade and they decided 'that considerable
sums can be raised by a small impost on goods and merchandise
imported into this state without burdening commerce.'
Accordingly, low duties were laid on wines, liquors, molasses,
sugar, cocoa and tea, with 1 per cent. on all other imports.
In 1782 the duties were doubled and the revenue was
appropriated to the defence of commerce on the Delaware river
and bay. This was done at the request of the merchants who
wished to have their interests protected and 'signified their
willingness to submit to a further impost on the importation
of goods for that purpose.' When peace came, however, the
merchants at once represented it as detrimental to the
interests of the state to continue the duties, and they were
repealed. In 1784 low duties were again imposed, and later in
the same year increased. Early in 1785 more careful provisions
were made for their collection. September 20, came the
important act 'to encourage and protect the manufactures of
this state by laying additional duties on certain manufactures
which interfere with them.' … More than forty of the articles
which Pennsylvania had begun to make were taxed at high
specific rates. Coaches and carriages, paid £10 to £20;
clocks, 30s.; scythes, 15s. per dozen; beer, ale and porter,
6d. per gallon; soap or candles, 1d. per pound; shoes and
boots, 1s. to 6s. per pair; cordage and ropes, 8s. 4d. per
hundred weight; and so on. The ten per cent. schedule included
manufactures of iron and steel, hats, clothing, books and
papers, whips, canes, musical instruments and jewelry. … The
Pennsylvania act is of importance because it shows the nature
of commodities which the country was then producing, as well
as because it formed the basis of the tariff of 1789."
W. Hill,
First Stages of the Tariff Policy of the United States,
pages 53-54.
The preamble of the Pennsylvania act of 1785 set forth its
reasons as follows: "Whereas, divers useful and beneficial
arts and manufactures have been gradually introduced into
Pennsylvania, and the same have at length risen to a very
considerable extent and perfection, insomuch that in the late
war between the United States of America and Great Britain,
when the importation of European goods was much interrupted,
and often very difficult and uncertain, the artizans and
mechanics of this state were able to supply in the hours of
need, not only large quantities of weapons and other
implements, but also ammunition and clothing, without which
the war could not have been carried on, whereby their
oppressed country was greatly assisted and relieved. And
whereas, although the fabrics and manufactures of Europe, and
other foreign parts, imported into this country in times of
peace, may be afforded at cheaper rates than they can be made
here, yet good policy and a regard to the wellbeing of divers
useful and industrious citizens, who are employed in the
making of like goods, in this state, demand of us that
moderate duties be laid on certain fabrics and manufactures
imported, which do most interfere with, and which (if no
relief be given) will undermine and destroy the useful
manufactures of the like kind in this country, for this
purpose. Be it enacted" &c.
Pennsylvania Laws, 1785.
The duties enacted, which were additional to the then existing
impost of 2½ per cent., were generally specific, but ad valorem
on some commodities as on British steel, 10 per cent.; earthen
ware, the same; glass and glass-ware, 2½ per cent.; linens the
same. Looked at in the light of recent American tariffs, they
would hardly be recognized as "protective" in their character;
but the protective purpose was plainly enough declared.
{3066}
TARIFF: (United States): A. D. 1789-1791.
The first tariff enactment.
Hamilton's Report on Manufactures.
The "American System" proposed.
"The immediate necessity of raising some ready money led to
the passage of a tariff bill at the first session of Congress.
It was prepared and carried through the House chiefly by
Madison; and its contents, no less than the general tone of
the debate in which it was discussed, showed a decided leaning
towards the protective system. But this legislation was
temporary, and was at the time known to be so. The permanent
system of the country was left for subsequent and more
leisurely development. When at last Congress felt able to give
the subject due attention, it applied as usual to Hamilton to
furnish information and opinions. A topic so important and so
congenial to his tastes called forth his best exertions. A
series of extensive investigations conducted by every feasible
kind of inquiry and research, both in foreign parts and in the
United States, furnished the material for his reflections. He
took abundant time to digest as well as to collect the great
mass of information thus acquired, and it was not until nearly
two years had elapsed since the order for the report was
passed that he sent in the document to the House of
Representatives. … The inferences and arguments constituted as
able a presentation of the protectionist theory as has ever
been made. … It is, however, an incorrect construction of that
report to regard it as a vindication of the general or
abstract doctrine of protection. Hamilton was very far from
assuming any such position; protection always and everywhere
was not his theory; protection was not his ideal principle of
commercial regulation. … So far from entertaining any
predilection for protection in the abstract, it would seem
that in a perfect commercial world he would have expected to
find free trade the prevalent custom. … If free trade were the
rule of the whole commercial world, Hamilton was not prepared
to say that the United States would find it for her interest
to be singular. But such were not the premises from which he
had to draw a conclusion. … The report of Hamilton determined
the policy of the country. For good or for evil protection was
resorted to, with the avowed purpose of encouraging domestic
manufacturing as well as of raising a revenue. … The
principles upon which Hamilton based his tariff were not quite
those of pure protection, but constituted what was known as
the 'American System'; a system which has been believed in by
former generations with a warmth of conviction not easy to
withstand."
J. T. Morse, Jr.,
Life of Alexander Hamilton,
chapter 11.
Hamilton's celebrated report opens with an elaborate argument
to prove the desirability of manufacturing industries in the
country, and then proceeds: "A full view having now been taken
of the inducements to the promotion of manufactures in the
United States, accompanied with an examination of the
principal objections which are commonly urged in opposition,
it is proper, in the next place, to consider the means by
which it may be effected, as introductory to a specification
of the objects which in the present state of things appear the
most fit to be encouraged, and of the particular measures
which it may be advisable to adopt in respect to each. In
order to a better judgment of the means proper to be resorted
to by the United States, it will be of use to advert to those
which have been employed with success in other countries. The
principle of these are:
I. Protecting duties, or duties on those foreign articles
which are the rivals of the domestic ones intended to be
encouraged. Duties of this nature evidently amount to a
virtual bounty on the domestic fabrics, since by enhancing the
charges on foreign articles they enable the national
manufacturers to undersell all their foreign competitors. The
propriety of this species of encouragement need not be dwelt
upon, as it is not only a clear result from the numerous
topics which have been suggested, but is sanctioned by the
laws of the United States in a variety of instances; it has
the additional recommendation of being a resource of revenue.
Indeed, all the duties imposed on imported articles, though
with an exclusive view to revenue, have the effect in
contemplation; and, except where they fall on raw materials,
wear a beneficent aspect towards the manufacturers of the
country.
II. Prohibitions of rival articles, or duties equivalent to
prohibitions. This is another and an efficacious mean of
encouraging manufactures; but in general it is only fit to be
employed when a manufacture has made such a progress, and is
in so many hands, as to insure a due competition and an
adequate supply on reasonable terms. Of duties equivalent to
prohibitions there are examples in the laws of the United
States; and there are other cases to which the principle may
be advantageously extended, but they are not numerous.
Considering a monopoly of the domestic market to its own
manufacturers as the reigning policy of manufacturing nations,
a similar policy on the part of the United States, in every
proper instance, is dictated, it might almost be said, by the
principles of distributive justice; certainly by the duty of
endeavoring to secure to their own citizens a reciprocity of
advantages.
III. Prohibitions of the exportation of materials of
manufactures. The desire of securing a cheap and plentiful
supply for the national workmen; and, where the article is
either peculiar to the country, or of peculiar quality there,
the jealousy of enabling foreign workmen to rival those of the
nation with its own materials, are the leading motives to this
species of regulation. It ought not to be affirmed that it is
in no instance proper, but it is certainly one which ought to
be adopted with great circumspection and only in very plain
cases.
IV. Pecuniary bounties. This has been found one of the most
efficacious means of encouraging manufactures, and it is, in
some views, the best, though it has not yet been practiced
upon the government of the United States,—unless the allowance
on the exportation of dried and pickled fish and salted meat
could be considered as a bounty—and though it is less favored
by public opinion than some other modes. Its advantages are
these:
1. It is a species of encouragement more positive and direct
than any other, and for that very reason has a more immediate
tendency to stimulate and uphold new enterprises, increasing
the chances of profit, and diminishing the risks of loss in
the first attempts.
{3067}
2. It avoids the inconvenience of a temporary augmentation of
price, which is incident to some other modes, or it produces
it to a less degree, either by making no addition to the
charges on the rival foreign article, as in the case of
protecting duties, or by making a smaller addition. The first
happens when the fund for the bounty is derived from a
different object (which may or may not increase the price of
some other article according to the nature of that object);
the second when the fund is derived from the same or a similar
object of foreign manufacture. One per cent. duty on the
foreign article, converted into a bounty on the domestic, will
have an equal effect with a duty of 2% exclusive of such
bounty; and the price of the foreign commodity is liable to be
raised in the one case in the proportion of 1%, in the other
in that of 2%. Indeed, the bounty when drawn from another
source, is calculated to promote a reduction of price,
because, without laying any new charge on the foreign article,
it serves to introduce a competition with it, and to increase
the total quantity of the article in the market.
3. Bounties have not, like high protecting duties, a tendency
to produce scarcity. An increase of price is not always the
immediate, though where the progress of a domestic manufacture
does not counteract a rise, it is commonly the ultimate effect
of an additional duty. In the interval between the laying of
the duty and a proportional increase of price, it may
discourage importation by interfering with the profits to be
expected from the sale of the article.
4. Bounties are sometimes not only the best, but the only
proper expedient for uniting the encouragement of a new object
of agriculture with that of a new object of manufacture. It is
the interest of the farmer to have the production of the raw
material promoted by counteracting the interference of the
foreign material of the same kind. It is the interest of the
manufacturer to have the material abundant and cheap. If prior
to the domestic production of the material in sufficient
quantity to supply the manufacturer on good terms, a duty be
laid upon the importation of it from abroad, with a view to
promote the raising of it at home, the interest both of the
farmer and manufacturer will be disserved. By either
destroying the requisite supply, or raising the price of the
article beyond what can be afforded to be given for it by the
conductor of an infant manufacture, it is abandoned or fails;
and there being no domestic manufactories to create a demand
for the raw material which is raised by the farmer, it is in
vain that the competition of the like foreign article may have
been destroyed. It cannot escape notice that a duty upon the
importation of an article can no otherwise aid the domestic
production of it than by giving the latter greater advantages
in the home market. It can have no influence upon the
advantageous sale of the article produced in foreign markets,
no tendency, therefore, to promote its exportation. The true
way to conciliate these two interests is to lay a duty on
foreign manufactures of the material, the growth of which is
desired to be encouraged, and to apply the produce of that
duty by way of bounty either upon the production of the
material itself, or upon its manufacture at home, or upon
both. In this disposition of the thing the manufacturer
commences his enterprise under every advantage which is
attainable as to quantity or price of the raw material. And
the farmer, if the bounty be immediately to him, is enabled by
it to enter into a successful competition with the foreign
material. … There is a degree of prejudice against bounties,
from an appearance of giving away the public money without an
immediate consideration, and from a supposition that they
serve to enrich particular classes at the expense of the
community. But neither of these sources of dislike will bear a
serious examination. There is no purpose to which public money
can be more beneficially applied than to the acquisition of a
new and useful branch of industry, no consideration more
valuable than a permanent addition to the general stock of
productive labor. As to the second source of objection, it
equally lies against other modes of encouragement, which are
admitted to be eligible. As often as a duty upon a foreign
article makes an addition to its price, it causes an extra
expense to the community for the benefit of the domestic
manufacturer. A bounty does no more. But it is the interest of
the society in each case to submit to a temporary expense,
which is more than compensated by an increase of industry and
wealth, by an augmentation of resources and independence, and
by the circumstance of eventual cheapness, which has been
noticed in another place. It would deserve attention, however,
in the employment of this species of encouragement in the
United States, as a reason for moderating the degree of it in
the instances in which it might be deemed eligible, that the
great distance of this country from Europe imposes very heavy
charges on all the fabrics which are brought from thence,
amounting from 15% to 30% on their value according to their
bulk. …
V. Premiums. These are of a nature allied to bounties, though
distinguishable from them in some important features. Bounties
are applicable to the whole quantity of an article produced or
manufactured or exported, and involve a correspondent expense.
Premiums serve to reward some particular excellence or
superiority, some extraordinary exertion or skill, and are
dispensed only in a small number of cases. But their effect is
to stimulate general effort. …
VI. The exemption of the materials of manufactures from duty.
The policy of that exemption, as a general rule, particularly
in reference to new establishments, is obvious. …
VII. Drawbacks of the duties which are imposed on the
materials of manufactures. It has already been observed as a
general rule, that duties on those materials ought, with
certain exceptions, to be forborne. Of these exceptions, three
cases occur which may serve as examples. One where the
material is itself an object of general or extensive
consumption, and a fit and productive source of revenue.
Another where a manufacture of a simpler kind, the competition
of which with a like domestic article is desired to be
restrained, partakes of the nature of a raw material from
being capable by a further process to be converted into a
manufacture of a different kind, the introduction or growth of
which is desired to be encouraged. A third where the material
itself is the production of the country, and in sufficient
abundance to furnish a cheap and plentiful supply to the
national manufacturers. … Where duties on the materials of
manufactures are not laid for the purpose of preventing a
competition with some domestic production, the same reasons
which recommend, as a general rule, the exemption of those
materials from duties, would recommend, as a like general
rule, the allowance of drawbacks in favor of the manufacturer.
…
{3068}
VIII. The encouragement of new inventions and discoveries at
home, and of the introduction into the United States of such
as may have been made in other countries; particularly those
which relate to machinery. This is among the most useful and
unexceptionable of the aids which can be given to
manufactures. The usual means of that encouragement are
pecuniary rewards, and, for a time, exclusive privileges. …
IX. Judicious regulations for the inspection of manufactured
commodities. This is not among the least important of the
means by which the prosperity of manufactures may be promoted.
It is indeed in many cases one of the most essential.
Contributing to prevent frauds upon consumers at home and
exporters to foreign countries, to improve the quality and
preserve the character of the national manufactures; it cannot
fail to aid the expeditious and advantageous sale of them, and
to serve as a guard against successful competition from other
quarters. …
X. The facilitating of pecuniary remittances from place to
place—is a point of considerable moment to trade in general
and to manufactures in particular, by rendering more easy the
purchase of raw materials and provisions, and the payment for
manufactured supplies. A general circulation of bank paper,
which is to be expected from the institution lately
established, will be a most valuable means to this end. …
XI. The facilitating of the transportation of commodities.
Improvements favoring this object intimately concern all the
domestic interests of a community; but they may, without
impropriety, be mentioned as having an important relation to
manufactures. …
The foregoing are the principal of the means by which the
growth of manufactures is ordinarily promoted. It is, however,
not merely necessary that the measures of government which
have a direct view to manufactures should be calculated to
assist and protect them; but that those which only
collaterally affect them, in the general course of the
administration, should be guarded from any peculiar tendency
to injure them. There are certain species of taxes which are
apt to be oppressive to different parts of the community, and,
among other ill effects, have a very unfriendly aspect towards
manufactures. All poll or capitation taxes are of this nature.
They either proceed according to a fixed rate, which operates
unequally and injuriously to the industrious poor; or they
vest a discretion in certain officers to make estimates and
assessments, which are necessarily vague, conjectural, and
liable to abuse. … All such taxes (including all taxes on
occupations) which proceed according to the amount of capital
supposed to be employed in a business, or of profits supposed
to be made in it, are unavoidably hurtful to industry."
A. Hamilton,
Report on Manufactures
(Works, volume 3).
ALSO IN:
State Papers and Speeches on the Tariff.
R. W. Thompson,
History of Protective Tariff Laws,
chapters 6-7.
TARIFF: (England): A. D. 1815-1828.
The Corn Laws and Provision Laws.
The sliding-scale.
During the Napoleonic wars in Europe there was a prolonged
period of scarcity, approaching to famine, in Great Britain.
There were scant harvests at home and supplies from abroad
were cut off by the "Continental system" of Napoleon. "In 1801

wheat was 115 shillings and 11 pence per quarter; from 1801 to
1818 the price averaged 84s.; whilst in the 20 years ending
1874, it averaged only 52s. per quarter. … The cry of
starvation was everywhere heard amongst the working classes,
and tradesmen of all kinds suffered severely; whilst the only
well-to-do people were the Farmers and the Landlords. As soon
as the war was over, and our ports were opened for the
reception of foreign grain, prices came down rapidly. Then the
Landlords took alarm, and appealed to Parliament to resist the
importation of foreign grain, which they asserted, would be
the ruin of the English Farmers. They insisted that in this
country, the costs of cultivation were extremely heavy, as
compared with those of foreign producers of grain, and that
therefore the British Farmer must receive protection in order
to prevent his ruin. Hence a Parliament, composed mostly of
Landlords, proceeded, in 1815, to enact the Corn Law, which
excluded foreign wheat, except at high rates of duty, until
the market price should reach 80s. per quarter; and other
kinds of grain, until there was a proportionate elevation in
prices. The discussions in Parliament on this question made a
great impression, and led to a wide-spread sympathy, and to
the belief that there was need of a measure, which, according
to its advocates, would preserve our Agriculture from ruin,
and be at the same time a provision against famine. But by
many thoughtful and patriotic people this law was viewed with
intense dislike, and was characterised as an atrocious fraud.
The fact was, that … when rents ought either to have been
lowered, or the methods of cultivation improved, the Corn Law
was passed by the Landlords in order to keep out foreign corn
and to maintain high rents; and many of the common people saw,
or thought they saw, what would be the effect; for whilst the
legislature was engaged in the discussion of the question, the
people of London became riotous, and the walls were chalked
with invectives such as 'Bread or Blood,' 'Guy Fawkes for
ever,' etc. A loaf, steeped in blood, was placed on Carlton
House, (now the Tory Club House.) The houses of some of the
most unpopular of the promoters of the measure were attacked
by the mob. At Lord Eldon's house the iron railings were torn
up, whilst every pane of glass and many articles of furniture
were broken and destroyed, and it was facetiously remarked
that at last his lordship kept open house. The military were
called out, and two persons were killed; the Houses of
Parliament were guarded by soldiers, and, indeed, the whole of
London appeared to be in possession of the Army. In various
parts of the country similar disturbances prevailed. … Large
popular meetings were held at Spa Fields, in London, public
meetings were also held at Birmingham, and in many other parts
of the kingdom. … In some of the towns and populous
localities, the operatives having in view a large aggregate
meeting to be held on St. Peter's field in Manchester,
submitted themselves to marching discipline. … Regardless,
however, of the public demonstrations of dislike to the Corn
and Provision Laws, the Legislature persisted in upholding the
most stringent provisions thereof until the year 1828, when
the duties on the importation of grain were adjusted by a
sliding scale, in accordance with the average prices in the
English market.
{3069}
The following abstract may serve to denote the provisions of
the amended Law;—When the average price of wheat was 36
shillings the duty was 50 shillings 8 pence per qr.; when 46s.
the duty was 40s. 8d. per. qr.; when 56s. it was 30s. 8d. per
qr.; when 62s. it was 24s. 8d. per qr.; when 72s. it was 2s.
8d. per qr.; and when 73s. it was 1s. per qr. It was soon
found that as a means of protection to the British Farmer, the
operation of the sliding scale of duties was scarcely less
effective, by deterring imports of grain, than the previous
law, which absolutely excluded wheat until it reached 80s. per
quarter. The Act certainly provided that foreign grain might
at any time be imported, and be held in bond till the duty was
paid; a provision under which it was expected to be stored
until the price should be high, and the duty low; but the
expenses attendant upon warehousing and preserving it from
injury by keeping, were usually looked upon as an undesirable
or even dangerous investment of a merchant's capital. …
Agricultural protection, as exhibited by the Corn Law, would,
however, have been very incomplete without the addition of the
Provision Laws. By these Laws the importation of Foreign
Cattle and foreign meat were strictly prohibited. Butter and
Lard were indeed allowed to be imported, but they were not to
be used as food, and in order to provide against any
infraction of the law, the officers at the Custom Houses were
employed to 'spoil' these articles on their arrival, by
smearing them with a tarred stick. They could then be used
only as grease for wheels, or for the smearing of sheep. With
bread purposely made dear, with the import of cattle and of
flesh meat prohibited, and with lard and butter wilfully
reduced from articles of food to grease for wheels, there is
no difficulty in accounting for the frequent murmurs of
discontent, and for the starvation among the poorer classes in
every part of the Kingdom. Soup kitchens were opened almost
every winter, and coals and clothing gratuitously distributed
in many places; but such palliatives were regarded with
derision by all who understood the true causes of the evil.
Such help was scorned, and a cry for justice was raised;
scarcity was said to be created by Act of Parliament, in order
to be mitigated by philanthropy."
H. Ashworth,
Recollections of Richard Cobden,
chapter 1.
ALSO IN
D. Ricardo,
On Protection to Agriculture
(Works, pages 459-498).
J. E. T. Rogers,
The Economic Interpretation of History,
chapters 17-18.
TARIFF: (United States): A. D. 1816-1824.
The beginning of the protective policy (the "American System").
"The return of peace at the beginning of 1815 brought the
manufacturers face to face with a serious danger. War had been
their harvest time. Favored by double duties and abnormal
conditions their industry had attained a marvelous though not
always safe development. … By limitation, the double duties
were to expire one year after the conclusion of peace, and
unless Congress intervened promptly and effectually their
individual ruin was certain. … As new industries sprang up,
petitions were promptly laid before Congress praying for new
duties, for the permanence of the war duties, and for certain
prohibitions. … In laying before Congress the treaty of peace,
February, 1815, Madison called attention to the 'unparalleled
maturity' attained by manufactures, and 'anxiously recommended
this source of national independence and wealth to the prompt
and constant guardianship of Congress.' … To Dallas, Secretary
of the Treasury, the manufacturers had already turned. Six
days after the treaty of peace was ratified, the House,
February 23, 1815, called upon Dallas to report a general
tariff bill at the next session of Congress. … In his annual
report in December, 1815, Dallas had proposed the extension of
the double duties until June 30, 1816, in order to give time
for the elaboration of a new tariff bill; and after some
discussion Congress agreed to this plan. February 13 he
transmitted his reply to the resolutions of the previous
February, closing with a carefully prepared schedule of new
tariff rates. This, after being worked over in the Ways and
Means Committee, was embodied in a bill and introduced into
the House March 12, by Lowndes of South Carolina. Debate began
March 20, and continued till April 8, when the bill was
finally passed by a vote of 88 to 54. April 20 it passed the
Senate with some amendments, and April 27 received the
approval of Madison. … The features of Dallas' proposed tariff
were the enlarging of the ad valorem list from three groups at
12½, 15, and 20 per cent to eight groups at 7½, 15, 20, 22,
28, 30, and 33 1/3 per cent; the increase of specific duties
by about 42 per cent; and, most important of all, in the
article of coarse cottons, the insertion of a minimum, by
which, as far as the custom-house was concerned, no quality
was to be regarded as costing less than 25 cents per square
yard. Except in the case of coarse cottons the new rates on
articles which it was desired to protect fell slightly below
the double rates of the war. Three positions were brought out
in debate—two extremes, seeking the formulation of economic
reasons for and against the policy of protection, and a middle
party, composed mainly of men indifferent to manufacturing as
such, but accepting the establishment of manufactures as one
of the chief results of the war. … The two extremes, however,
were far from taking the positions assumed later by extreme
protectionism and extreme laissez-faire. … Only a few articles
occasioned any discussion, and these were items like sugar,
cottons, and woolens, which had been reduced in the Ways and
Means Committee from the rates proposed by Dallas. Dallas had
fixed the duty on cottons at 33 1/3 per cent, which was
reduced to 30 per cent in Lowndes' bill. Clay moved to restore
the original rate. … Later Webster proposed a sliding scale on
cottons, the rate to be 30 per cent for two years, then 25 per
cent for two more, and then 20 per cent. Clay moved to amend
by making the first period three years and the second one
year. … Lowndes assented to the motion. … Dallas proposed 28
per cent on woolens. The committee reduced this to 25 per
cent, and following the example set in the case of cottons,
Lowndes moved that after two years the rate be fixed at 20 per
cent. … After some debate the first period was made three
years, and Lowndes' amendment agreed to. The tariff of 1816
was a substantial victory for the manufacturers. … But … in
its working out the tariff of 1816 proved a bitter
disappointment to the manufacturing interest. The causes,
however, were widely varied. …
{3070}
Yet it would be easy to exaggerate the distresses of the
country. The years from 1816 to 1820 especially, were years of
depression and hard times, but the steady growth of the
country was hardly interrupted. In the main the tariff did not
fail of its legitimate object. For the most part the new
manufactures were conserved. … More and more there was a
growing impatience with the tariff of 1816, and a tendency to
lay the bad times upon its shoulders. … March 22, 1820,
Baldwin of Pennsylvania, chairman of the newly created
Committee on Manufactures, introduced a tariff bill embodying
the general demand of the protected interests. … The bill
passed the House by a vote of 90 to 69; it was defeated in the
Senate by one vote."
O. L. Elliott,
The Tariff Controversy, 1789-1833
(Leland Stanford Junior University Monographs No.1),
pages 163-211.
"The revision of the Tariff, with a view to the protection of
home industry, and to the establishment of what was then
called, 'The American System,' was one of the large subjects
before Congress at the session of 1823-24, and was the regular
commencement of the heated debates on that question which
afterwards ripened into a serious difficulty between the
federal government and some of the southern States. … Revenue
the object, protection the incident, had been the rule in the
earlier tariffs: now that rule was sought to be reversed, and
to make protection the object of the law, and revenue the
incident. … Mr. Clay, the leader in the proposed revision, and
the champion of the American System, expressly placed the
proposed augmentation of duties on this ground. … Mr. Webster
was the leading speaker on the other side, and disputed the
universality of the distress which had been described;
claiming exemption from it in New England; denied the assumed
cause for it where it did exist, and attributed it to over
expansion and collapse of the paper system, as in Great
Britain, after the long suspension of the Bank of England;
denied the necessity for increased protection to manufactures,
and its inadequacy, if granted, to the relief of the country
where distress prevailed. … The bill was carried in the House,
after a protracted contest of ten weeks, by the lean majority
of five—107 to 102-only two members absent, and the voting so
zealous that several members were brought in upon their sick
couches. In the Senate the bill encountered a strenuous
resistance. … The bill … was carried by the small majority of
four votes—25 to 21. … An increased protection to the products
of several States, as lead in Missouri and Illinois, hemp in
Kentucky, iron in Pennsylvania, wool in Ohio and New York,
commanded many votes for the bill; and the impending
presidential election had its influence in its favor. Two of
the candidates, Messrs. Adams and Clay, were avowedly for it;
General Jackson, who voted for the bill, was for it, as
tending to give a home supply of the articles necessary in
time of war, and as raising revenue to pay the public debt."
T. H. Benton,
Thirty Years' View,
volume 1, chapter 13.
ALSO IN
A. B. Hart,
Formation of the Union,
sections 122 and 132 (chapters 11-12).
A. Walker,
Science of Wealth,
page 116.
F. W. Taussig,
Tariff History of the United States,
pages 68-76.
A. S. Bolles,
Financial History of the United States, 1789-1860,
book 3, chapter 3.
TARIFF: (United States): A. D. 1828.
The "Bill of Abominations."
New England changes front.
"In 1828 came another tariff bill, so bad and so extreme in
many respects that it was called the 'bill of abominations.'
It originated in the agitation of the woollen manufacturers
which had started the year before, and for this bill Mr.
Webster spoke and voted. He changed his ground on this
important question absolutely and entirely, and made no
pretence of doing anything else. The speech which he made on
this occasion is a celebrated one, but it is so solely on
account of the startling change of position which it
announced. … A few lines from the speech give the marrow of
the whole matter. Mr. Webster said: 'New England, sir, has not
been a leader in this policy. … The opinion of New England up
to 1824 was founded in the conviction that, on the whole, it
was wisest and best, both for herself and others, that
manufactures should make haste slowly. … When, at the
commencement of the late war, duties were doubled, we were
told that we should find a mitigation of the weight of
taxation in the new aid and succor which would be thus
afforded to our own manufacturing labor. Like arguments were
urged, and prevailed, but not by the aid of New England votes,
when the tariff was afterwards arranged at the close of the
war in 1816. Finally, after a winter's deliberation, the act
of 1824 received the sanction of both Houses of Congress and
settled the policy of the country. … What, then, was New
England to do? Was she to hold out forever against the course
of the government, and see herself losing on one side and yet
make no effort to sustain herself on the other? No, sir.
Nothing was left to New England but to conform herself to the
will of others. Nothing was left to her but to consider that
the government had fixed and determined its own policy, and
that policy was protection.' … Opinion in New England changed
for good and sufficient business reasons, and Mr. Webster
changed with it. Free trade had commended itself to him as an
abstract principle, and he had sustained and defended it as in
the interest of commercial New England. But when the weight of
interest in New England shifted from free trade to protection
Mr. Webster followed, it."
H. C. Lodge,
Daniel Webster,
chapter 6.
"There was force in Webster's assertion, in reply to Hayne,
that New England, after protesting against the tariff as long
as she could, had conformed to a policy forced upon the
country by others, and had embarked her capital in
manufacturing. October 23, 1826, the Boston woollen
manufacturers petitioned Congress for more protection. … This
appeal of the woollen manufacturers brought out new demands
from other quarters. Especially the wool-growers came forward.
… May 14, 1827, the Pennsylvania Society for the Promotion of
Manufactures and the Mechanic Arts called a convention of wool
growers and manufacturers. The convention met at Harrisburg,
July 30, 1827. It was found necessary to enlarge the scope of
the convention in order to make allies of interests which
would otherwise become hostile. The convention went on the
plan of favoring protection on everything which asked for it.
The result was that iron, steel, glass, wool, woollens, hemp,
and flax were recommended for protection. Louisiana was not
represented, and so sugar was left out.
{3071}
It was voted to discourage the importation of foreign spirits
and the distillation of spirits from foreign products, by way
of protection to Western whiskey. … When the 20th Congress
met, the tariff was the absorbing question. Popular interest
had become engaged in it, and parties were to form on it, but
it perplexed the politicians greatly. … The act which resulted
from the scramble of selfish special interests was an economic
monstrosity. … May 19, 1828, the bill became a law. The duty
on wool costing less than 10 cents per pound was 15 per cent.,
on other wool 20 per cent. and 30 per cent. That on woollens
was 40 per cent. for a year, then 45 per cent., there being
four minima, 50 cents, $1.00, $2.50, $4.00. All which cost
over $4.00 were to be taxed 45 per cent. for a year, then 50
per cent. … The process of rolling iron had not yet been
introduced into this country. It was argued that rolled iron
was not as good as forged, and this was made the ground for
raising the tax on rolled iron from $30.00 to $37.00 per ton,
while the tax on forged iron was raised from $18.00 to $22.40.
Rolled iron was cheaper and was available for a great number
of uses. The tax, in this case, 'countervailed' an improvement
in the arts, and robbed the American people of their share in
the advantage of a new industrial achievement. The tax on
steel was raised from $20.00 to $30.00 per ton; that on hemp
from $35.00 to $45.00 per ton; that on molasses from 5 cents
to 10 cents per gallon; that on flax from nothing to $35.00
per ton. The tax on sugar, salt, and glass remained unchanged,
and that on tea also, save by a differential tonnage duty.
Coffee was classified and the tax reduced. The tax on wine, by
a separate act, was reduced one half or more. This was the
'tariff of abominations,' so called on account of the number
of especially monstrous provisions which it contained."
W. G. Sumner,
Andrew Jackson as a Public Man,
chapter 9.
"The tariff of 1828 … was the work of politicians and
manufacturers; and was commenced for the benefit of the
woollen interest, and upon a bill chiefly designed to favor
that branch of manufacturing industry. But, like all other
bills of the kind, it required help from other interests to
get itself along."
T. H. Benton,
Thirty Years' View,
volume 1, chapters 34.
J. Schouler,
History of the United States,
chapter 12, section 2 (volume 3).
TARIFF: (United States): A. D. 1832.
Clay's delusive act to diminish revenue.
President Jackson, in his message of December, 1831, "invited
attention to the fact that the public debt would be
extinguished before the expiration of his term, and that,
therefore, 'a modification of the tariff, which shall produce
a reduction of the revenue to the wants of the government,'
was very advisable. He added that, in justice to the interests
of the merchant as well as the manufacturer, the reduction
should be prospective, and that the duties should be adjusted
with a view 'to the counteraction of foreign policy, so far as
it may be injurious to our national interests.' This meant a
revenue tariff with incidental retaliation. He had thus
arrived at a sensible plan to avoid the accumulation of a
surplus. Clay took the matter in hand in the Senate, or rather
in Congress. … He recognized the necessity of reducing the
revenue, but he would reduce the revenue without reducing
protective duties. The 'American System' should not suffer. It
must, therefore, not be done in the manner proposed by
Jackson. He insisted upon confining the reduction to duties on
articles not coming into competition with American products. …
Instead of abolishing protective duties he would rather reduce
the revenue by making some of them prohibitory. … When
objection was made that this would be a defiance of the South,
of the President, and of the whole administration party, he
replied, as Adams reports, that 'to preserve, maintain and
strengthen the American System, he would defy the South, the
President and the devil.' He introduced a resolution in the
Senate, 'that the existing duties upon articles imported from
foreign countries, and not coming into competition with
similar articles made or produced within the United States,
ought to be forthwith abolished, except the duties upon wines
and silks, and that those ought to be reduced; and that the
Committee on Finance be instructed to report a bill
accordingly.'" After long debate Clay's" tariff resolution was
adopted, and in June, 1832, a bill substantially in accord
with it passed both houses, known as the tariff act of 1832.
It reduced or abolished the duties on many of the unprotected
articles, but left the protective system without material
change. As a reduction of the revenue it effected very little.
… The reduction proposed by Clay, according to his own
estimate, was not over seven millions; the reduction really
effected by the new tariff law scarcely exceeded three
millions. Clay had saved the American System at the expense of
the very object contemplated by the measure. It was extremely
short-sighted statesmanship. The surplus was as threatening as
ever, and the dissatisfaction in the South grew from day to
day."
C. Schurz,
Life of Henry Clay,
chapter 13 (volume 1).
ALSO IN
H. Clay,
Life, Correspondence and Speeches
(Colton edition), volume 5, pages 416-428.
TARIFF: (United States): A. D. 1833.
The Southern opposition to protection.
Nullification in South Carolina.
The compromise tariff.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1828-1833.
TARIFF: (Germany): A. D. 1833.
The Zollverein.
"The German Customs Union (Deutsche Zollverein) is an
association of states, having for its declared object to
secure freedom of trade and commerce between the contracting
states, and a common interest in the customs revenue. The
terms of the union are expressed in the treaty between Prussia
and the other states, dated 22d March, 1833, which may be
regarded as the basis of the association. The states now
[1844] forming the union are Prussia, Bavaria, Wurtemberg,
Saxony, Hesse-Cassel, Hesse-Darmstadt, Baden, Nassau, the
Thuringian states, Frankfort, Brunswick, Lippe-Schaumburg, and
Luxemburg. The population of these, with the exception of the
three last mentioned states, was, in 1839, 26,858,886.
Including these three states, which have since joined the
union, the present population cannot be less than twenty-seven
millions and a half. The German powers which have not joined
the union are Austria, with twelve millions of German
subjects, and Hanover, Oldenburg, Holstein, the two
Mecklenburgs, and the Hanse Towns, whose united population is
about three millions more.
{3072}
The inhabitants of Germany are, therefore, divided in the
proportions of twenty-seven and a half within, to fifteen
without, the sphere of the Zollverein. The treaty provides in
the thirty-eighth article, for the admission of other German
states, and the thirty-ninth article for the making of
treaties with foreign states, but these latter are not
admissible into the union. … The declared principle of the
league—namely, the commercial and financial union of the
German states—is not only one to which no foreign power has
any right to object, but is excellent in itself; and is, in
fact, the establishment of free trade among the associated
states. … But it is not merely to its avowed principle that
the league owes its successful accomplishment. There are other
motives which have entered largely into the causes of its
existence. In the first place, it has given practical effect
to that vehement desire for national unity which so generally
pervades the German mind. … Then, it so happened that this
general desire for union fell in exactly with the policy of
Prussia—a power which has not failed to seize so favourable an
opportunity of extending her political influence, and
occupying a position which, though of nominal equality, has in
reality secured her predominance among the German states. To
these inducements we regret to be obliged to add
another—namely, the prevalent opinion in Germany that their
manufacturing industry ought to be protected against foreign
competition, and that the tariff of the Zollverein ought to be
used as an instrument for the exclusion of foreign
manufactures from the German market. … Although the Congress
of Vienna had established a new Germanic confederation,
(Deutsche Bund) and a federative diet charged with the
maintenance of peace at home and abroad, yet it was soon
perceived and felt that the kind of union obtained by means of
this confederation was more formal than real. … The late King
of Prussia was one of the first to perceive, that, in order to
unite Germany in reality, something more cogent than the
federative diet was indispensable. He found his own power
rather weakened than strengthened by the addition of the
Rhenish provinces, so long as they remained separated, not
only by distance, but by the customs-barriers of intervening
states, from his ancient territories. He accordingly effected,
in 1829, a convention with those states, by which he became
the farmer of their customs-revenues, and so removed the
barriers between Eastern and Western Prussia. Some years,
however, previous to this, the Prussian Government had deemed
it expedient to comply with the demands of the manufacturers
(especially those in the Rhenish provinces) for protection
against foreign goods, which, since the peace, had begun to
make their appearance; and on the 26th May, 1818, a new
Prussian Tariff had been issued, which was designed to afford
a moderate protection to the home industry, and which may be
regarded as the groundwork of the present Tariff of the
Zollverein. … But the proceedings of Prussia were considered
in a hostile light by the manufacturers of the South. They
formed a counteracting association in 1819 which numbered from
five to six thousand members, had its headquarters in
Nuremberg, and agents in all the principal towns, and
published a weekly newspaper devoted to the cause. They
addressed the Diet, the German courts, and the Congress at
Vienna in 1820, in favor of a general customs-union. They so
far succeeded that, in 1826, the small Thuringian States,
occupying the central portion of Germany, with one or two
others, formed themselves into a customs-union, under the name
of the Mittel-Verein; and within the two succeeding years a
more important union was accomplished, consisting of Bavaria
and Wurtemberg, with their small enclosed states; the Tariff
of which union is stated to have been as high, or very nearly
so, as that of Prussia. Thus Germany contained three separate
customs-associations, with separate Tariffs, and it became
obviously desirable to unite these conflicting interests.
Prussia made overtures to the other unions, but was for a long
time unsuccessful; they objecting principally to the high
scale of Prussian duties on colonial produce. At last,
however, all obstacles were removed, (principally, as Dr. List
states, through the exertions of Baron von Cotta, the eminent
publisher, and proprietor of the Allgemeine Zeitung,) and on
the 22d of March, 1833, the treaty was signed by which, for
the first time, Germany was knit together in anything like a
binding national confederation. Between that date and the
present, the league has been enlarged by the accession of
other states; but, as we have already mentioned, Hanover and
some other northern states have hitherto refused to join it.
Hanover formed a distinct union with three neighbouring
states, viz.: Brunswick, Lippe-Schaumburg, and Oldenburg,
which assumed the title of the North-western League; but the
two former having subsequently seceded from it and joined the
Zollverein, the North-western League has been reduced to
Hanover and Oldenburg only. The Hanse towns, Mecklenburg, and
Holstein, are not yet members of any customs-union. The
revenues of the Zollverein are divided among the contracting
states according to the population of each state
respectively."
Edinburgh Review,
January, 1844
(volume 79, page 108).
ALSO IN
G. Krause,
The Growth of German Unity,
chapter 10.
F. List.
National System of Political Economy,
book 4, chapter 4.
TARIFF: (England): A. D. 1836-1839.
Beginning of the Anti-Corn-Law agitation.
"Cobden was in no sense the original projector of an organized
body for throwing off the burden of the corn duties. In 1836
an Anti-Corn-Law Association had been formed in London; its
principal members were the parliamentary radicals, Grote,
Molesworth, Joseph Hume, and Mr. Roebuck. But this group,
notwithstanding their acuteness, their logical penetration,
and the soundness of their ideas, were in that, as in so many
other matters, stricken with impotence. Their gifts of
reasoning were admirable, but they had no gifts for popular
organization. … It was not until a body of men in Manchester
were moved to take the matter in hand, that any serious
attempt was made to inform and arouse the country. The price
of wheat had risen to seventy-seven shillings in the August of
1838; there was every prospect of a wet harvesting; the
revenue was declining; deficit was becoming a familiar word;
pauperism was increasing; and the manufacturing population of
Lancashire were finding it impossible to support themselves,
because the landlords, and the legislation of a generation of
landlords before them, insisted on keeping the first necessity
of life at an artificially high rate. …
{3073}
In October, 1838, a band of seven men met at a hotel in
Manchester, and formed a new Anti-Corn Law Association. They
were speedily joined by others, including Cobden, who from
this moment began to take a prominent part in all counsel and
action. That critical moment had arrived, which comes in the
history of every successful movement, when a section arises
within the party, which refuses from that day forward either
to postpone or to compromise. The feeling among the older men
was to stop short in their demands at some modification of the
existing duty. … The more energetic members protested against
these faltering voices. … The meeting was adjourned, to the
great chagrin of the President, and when the members assembled
a week later, Cobden drew from his pocket a draft petition
which he and his allies had prepared in the interval, and
which after a discussion of many hours was adopted by an
almost unanimous vote. The preamble laid all the stress on the
alleged facts of foreign competition, in words which never
fail to be heard in times of bad trade. It recited how the
existing laws prevented the British manufacturer from
exchanging the produce of his labour for the corn of other
countries, and so enabled his foreign rivals to purchase their
food at one half of the price at which it was sold in the
English market; and finally the prayer of the petition called
for the repeal of all laws relating to the importation of
foreign corn and other foreign articles of subsistence, and
implored the House to carry out to the fullest extent, both as
affects manufactures and agriculture, the true and peaceful
principles of free-trade. In the following month, January,
1839, the Anti-Com-Law Association showed that it was in
earnest in the intention to agitate, by proceeding to raise a
subscription of an effective sum of money. Cobden threw out
one of those expressions which catch men's minds in moments
when they are already ripe for action. 'Let us,' he said,
'invest part of our property, in order to save the rest from
confiscation.' Within a month £6,000 had been raised, the
first instalment of many scores of thousands still to come. A
great banquet was given to some of the parliamentary
supporters of Free Trade; more money was subscribed,
convictions became clearer and purpose waxed more resolute. On
the day after the banquet, at a meeting of delegates from
other towns, Cobden brought forward a scheme for united action
among the various associations throughout the country. This
was the germ of what ultimately became the League."
J. Morley,
Life of Richard Cobden,
chapter 6 (volume 1).
ALSO IN
W. Robertson,
Life and Times of John Bright,
chapters 8 and 11-14.
TARIFF: (England): A. D. 1842.
Peel's modification of the Corn Laws.
His sliding-scale.
His Tariff reductions.
The first great step towards Free-Trade.
The Whig administration under Lord Melbourne gave way in
August, in 1841, to one formed by Sir Robert Peel. On the
opening of the session in February, 1842, "The Queen's Speech
recommended Parliament to consider the state of the laws
affecting the importation of corn and other commodities. It
announced the beginning of a revolution which few persons in
England thought possible, although it was to be completed in
little more than ten years. On the 9th of February Peel moved
that the House should resolve itself into a Committee to
consider the Corn Laws. His speech, which lasted nearly three
hours, was necessarily dull, and his proposal was equally
offensive to the country gentlemen and to the Anti-Corn Law
League. It amounted merely to an improvement of the
sliding-scale which had been devised by the Duke of
Wellington's Cabinet [See above: A. D. 1815-1828], and was
based on the axiom that the British farmer, taking one year
with another, could not make a profit by growing corn if
foreign corn were admitted at a price of less than 70s. a
quarter. By a calculation of prices extending over a long term
of years, Peel had satisfied himself that a price of 56s. a
quarter would remunerate the British farmer. He proposed to
modify the sliding-scale accordingly. … Peel retained the
minimum duty of 1s. when corn was selling at 73s. the quarter;
he fixed a maximum duty of 20s. when corn was selling at from
50s. to 51s. the quarter, and he so altered the graduation in
the increase of duty as to diminish the inducement to hold
grain back when it became dear. … So general was the
dissatisfaction with Peel's Corn Law that Russell ventured
once more to place before the House his alternative of a fixed
8s. duty. He was defeated by a majority of upwards of 120
votes. Two days later Mr. Villiers made his annual motion for
the total repeal of the Corn Laws, and was beaten by more than
four votes to one. The murmurs of Peel's own supporters were
easily overborne, and the Bill was carried through the House
of Commons after a month spent in debates. As soon as it had
passed, and the estimates for the army and navy had been
voted, Peel produced what was really his Budget, nominally Mr.
Goulburn's. … In every one of the last five years there had
been a deficit. … Peel therefore resolved to impose an income
tax." He also raised the duty on Irish spirits and on exports
of coal, besides making some changes in the stamp duties.
"With these and with the income tax he calculated that he
would have a surplus of £1,900,000. Peel was thus able to
propose a reduction of the tariff upon uniform and
comprehensive principles. He proposed to limit import duties
to a maximum of 5 per cent. upon the value of raw materials,
of 12 per cent. upon the value of goods partly manufactured,
and of 20 per cent. upon the value of goods wholly
manufactured. Out of the 1,200 articles then comprised in the
tariff, 750 were more or less affected by the application of
these rules, yet so trivial was the revenue raised from most
of them that the total loss was computed at only £270,000 a
year. Peel reduced the duty on coffee; he reduced the duty on
foreign and almost entirely abolished the duty on Canadian
timber. Cattle and pigs, meat of all descriptions, cheese and
butter, which had hitherto been subject to a prohibitory duty,
he proposed to admit at a comparatively low rate. He also
diminished the duty upon stage coaches. So extensive a change
in our system of national finance had never before been
effected at one stroke. … Immense was the excitement caused by
the statement of the Budget. … Every part of Peel's scheme was
debated with the utmost energy. … He procured the ratification
of all his measures subject to some slight amendments, and at
the cost of a whole session spent in discussing them. Little
or nothing else was accomplished by Parliament in this year.
Peel had returned to power as the Champion of protection. His
first great achievement was the extension of the freedom of
trade."
F. G. Montague,
Life of Sir Robert Peel,
chapter 8.
{3074}
"Notwithstanding the objections which free traders might
raise, the Budget of 1842 proved the first great advance in
the direction of free trade. It did not remove the shackles
under which trade was struggling, but it relaxed the
fastenings and lightened the load."
S. Walpole,
History of England from 1815,
chapter 18 (volume 4).
ALSO IN:
S. Walpole,
Life of Sir Robert Peel,
volume 3, chapter 5.
J. Morley,
Life of Richard Cobden,
volume 1, chapter 11.
TARIFF: (United States): A. D. 1842.
An Act to provide a necessary increase of revenue,
with incidental protection.
"There had been a lull in tariff legislation for ten years.
The free-trade party had been ascendant; and amendment of the
law, save in the slight ways mentioned, had been impossible.
During the decade, a financial tornado had swept over the
country; the United States bank had ceased to be; the
experiment of keeping the government deposits with the State
banks had been tried, and had failed; the government had kept
them several years without authority, but finally a bill had
been passed which authorized keeping them in that manner. The
time had now nearly come for reducing the duties [by the
gradual scaling down provided for in the Compromise tariff act
of 1833] to their lowest point. Manufactures were drying up at
the root. A material augmentation of the national revenue from
some source had become necessary. … Whatever difference of
opinion existed respecting the necessity of additional
protection to manufacturers, some expedient, it was
universally conceded, must be adopted to increase the public
revenue. As no one favored direct taxation, a revision of the
tariff was the only mode of enriching the treasury. … The
committee on manufactures did not report to the House until
the last of March, 1842. … The leading provisions of the bill
reported by the committee were the following:
1. A general ad valorem duty of 30 per cent, with few
exceptions, where the duty was on that principle.
2. A discrimination was made for the security of certain
interests requiring it by specific duties, in some instances
below, in others above, the rate of the general ad valorem
duty.
3. As a general principle, the duty on the articles subject to
discrimination was made at the rate at which it was in 1840,
after the deduction of four-tenths of the excess on 20 per
cent by the Act of 1833. …
The subject was discussed at great length by the House,
although the time was drawing near for making the last
reduction under the compromise law of [1833]. Something must
be done. Accordingly, Fillmore, chairman of the committee of
ways and means, reported a bill to extend the existing tariff
laws until the 1st day of August, 1842, which was immediately
passed by the House; but the Senate amended the bill by adding
a proviso that nothing therein contained should suspend the
operation of the Distribution law,—a law passed at the extra
session of the preceding year, distributing the proceeds of
the sales of the public lands among the States. … In the
debate on this bill the proviso became a prominent topic of
discussion. The distribution Act contained a proviso, that, if
at any time the duties under the compromise tariff should be
raised, the distribution should cease, and be suspended until
the cause of the suspension were removed. … Those who were in
favor of high protective duties desired the removal of the
proviso of the distribution Act in order that the tariff might
be raised without interfering with distribution. The House
having rejected an amendment proposing to strike out the
proviso which prohibited the suspension of the distribution
law, the bill was passed by the House, and afterward by the
Senate, but vetoed by the President. Another tariff bill was
introduced by Mr. Fillmore, drawn by the Secretary of the
Treasury,—to which, however, the committee added a proviso
that the … proceeds of the public lands should be distributed,
notwithstanding the increase of duties,—which passed both
Houses after a short debate. This contained a revision of a
considerable number of duties, and was also vetoed by the
President. Impelled by the necessity of providing additional
revenue, a bill was rapidly pushed through Congress, similar
to that previously passed, with the omission of the proviso
requiring distribution, and further modified by admitting free
of duty tea and coffee growing east of the Cape of Good Hope,
imported in American vessels. This bill was approved by the
President. A separate bill was then passed, repealing the
proviso of the distribution Act, and allowing the distribution
to take place, notwithstanding the increase of duties; but the
bill was retained by the President and defeated. Thus ended a
long and bitter controversy, in which public sentiment
expanded, and hardened against the chief Executive of the
nation. … That tariff remained without change during the next
four years."
A. S. Bolles,
Financial History of the United States, 1789-1860,
book 3, chapter 6.
TARIFF: (England): A. D. 1845-1846.
The Repeal of the Corn Laws.
Dissolution of the League.
"The Anti-Corn-Law agitation was one of those movements which,
being founded on right principles, and in harmony with the
interest of the masses, was sure to gather fresh strength by
any event affecting the supply of food. It was popular to
attempt to reverse a policy which aimed almost exclusively to
benefit one class of society. … The economic theorists had the
mass of the people with them. Their gatherings were becoming
more and more enthusiastic. And even amidst Conservative
landowners there were not a few enlightened and liberal minds
who had already, silently at least, espoused the new ideas. No
change certainly could be expected to be made so long as bread
was cheap and labour abundant. But when a deficient harvest
and a blight in the potato crop crippled the resources of the
people and raised grain to famine prices, the voice of the
League acquired greater power and influence. Hitherto they had
received hundreds of pounds. Now, thousands were sent in to
support the agitation. A quarter of a million was readily
contributed. Nor were the contributors Lancashire mill-owners
exclusively. Among them were merchants and bankers, men of
heart and men of mind, the poor labourer and the peer of the
realm. The fervid oratory of Bright, the demonstrative and
argumentative reasoning of Cobden, the more popular appeals of
Fox, Rawlins, and other platform speakers, filled the
newspaper press, and were eagerly read.
{3075}
And when Parliament dissolved in August 1845, even Sir Robert
Peel showed some slight symptoms of a conviction that the days
of the corn laws were numbered. Every day, in truth, brought
home to his mind a stronger need for action, and as the
ravages of the potato disease progressed, he saw that all
further resistance would be absolutely dangerous. A cabinet
council was held on October 31 of that year to consult as to
what was to be done, and at an adjourned meeting on November 5
Sir Robert Peel intimated his intention to issue an order in
council remitting the duty on grain in bond to one shilling,
and opening the ports for the admission of all species of
grain at a smaller rate of duty until a day to be named in the
order; to call Parliament together on the 27th inst., in order
to ask for an indemnity, and a sanction of the order by law;
and to submit to Parliament immediately after the recess a
modification of the existing law, including the admission at a
nominal duty of Indian corn and of British colonial corn. A
serious difference of opinion, however, was found to exist in
the cabinet on the question brought before them, the only
ministers supporting such measures being the Earl of Aberdeen,
Sir James Graham, and Mr. Sidney Herbert. Nor was it easy to
induce the other members to listen to reason. And though at a
subsequent meeting, held on November 28, Sir Robert Peel so
far secured a majority in his favour, it was evident that the
cabinet was too divided to justify him in bringing forward his
measures, and he decided upon resigning office. His resolution
to that effect having been communicated to the Queen, her
Majesty summoned Lord John Russell to form a cabinet, and, to
smooth his path, Sir Robert Peel, with characteristic
frankness, sent a memorandum to her Majesty embodying a
promise to give him his support. But Lord John Russell failed
in his efforts, and the Queen had no alternative but to recall
Sir Robert Peel, and give him full power to carry out his
measures. It was under such circumstances that Parliament was
called for January 22, 1846, and on January 27 the Government
plan was propounded before a crowded House. It was not an
immediate repeal of the corn laws that Sir Robert Peel
recommended. He proposed a temporary protection for three
years, till February 1, 1849, imposing a scale during that
time ranging from 4s. when the price of wheat should be 50s.
per quarter and upward, and 10s. when the price should be
under 48s. per quarter, providing, however, that after that
period all grain should be admitted at the uniform duty of 1s.
per quarter. The measure, as might have been expected, was
received in a very different manner by the political parties
in both Houses of Parliament. There was treason in the
Conservative camp, it was said, and keen and bitter was the
opposition offered to the chief of the party. For twelve
nights speaker after speaker indulged in personal
recriminations. They recalled to Sir Robert Peel's memory the
speeches he had made in defence of the corn laws. And as to
his assertion that he had changed his mind, they denied his
right to do so. … The passing of the measure was, however,
more than certain, and after a debate of twelve nights'
duration on Mr. Miles's amendment, the Government obtained a
majority of 97, 337 having voted for the motion and 240
against it. And from that evening the corn law may be said to
have expired. Not a day too soon, certainly, when we consider
the straitened resources of the country as regards the first
article of food, caused not only by the bad crop of grain, but
by the serious loss of the potato crop, especially in
Ireland."
L. Levi,
History of British Commerce,
part 4, chapter 4.
"On the 2nd of July the League was 'conditionally dissolved,'
by the unanimous vote of a great meeting of the leaders at
Manchester. … Mr. Cobden here joyfully closed his seven years'
task, which he had prosecuted at the expense of health,
fortune, domestic comfort, and the sacrifice of his own tastes
in every way. … Mr. Cobden had sacrificed at least £20,000 in
the cause. The country now, at the call of the other chief
Leaguers, presented him with above £80,000—not only for the
purpose of acknowledging his sacrifices, but also to set him
free for life for the political service of his country."
H. Martineau,
History of the Thirty Years' Peace,
book 6, chapter 15 (volume 4).
ALSO IN:
W. C. Taylor,
Life and Times of Sir Robert Peel,
volume 3, chapters 8-10.
J. Morley,
Life of Richard Cobden,
volume 1, chapters 15-16.
M. M. Trumbull,
The Free Trade Struggle in England.
A. Bisset,
Notes on the Anti-Corn Law Struggle.
Debate upon the Corn Laws in Session 1846.
TARIFF: (United States): A. D. 1846-1861.
Lowered duties and the disputed effects.
"In 1846 was passed what we will call the 'Walker tariff,'
from Robert J. Walker, then Secretary of the Treasury. It
reduced the duties on imports down to about the standard of
the 'Compromise' of 1833. It discriminated, however, as the
Compromise did not, between goods that could be produced at
home and those that could not. It approached, in short, more
nearly than any other, in its principles and details, to the
Hamilton tariff, although the general rate of duties was
higher. From that time up to 1857 there was a regular and
large increase in the amount of dutiable goods imported,
bringing in a larger revenue to the government. The surplus in
the treasury accumulated, and large sums were expended by the
government in buying up its own bonds at a high premium, for
the sake of emptying the treasury. Under these circumstances
the 'tariff of 1857' was passed, decidedly lowering the rates
of duties and largely increasing the free list. The financial
crisis of that year diminished the imports, and the revenue
fell off $22,000,000. It rallied, however, the next two years,
but owing to the large increase of the free list, not quite up
to the old point."
A. L. Perry,
Elements of Political Economy,
page 464.
"The free-traders consider the tariff of 1846 to be a
conclusive proof of the beneficial effect of low duties. They
challenge a comparison of the years of its operation, between
1846 and 1857, with any other equal period in the history of
the country. Manufacturing, they say, was not forced by a
hot-house process to produce high-priced goods for popular
consumption, but was gradually encouraged and developed on a
healthful and self-sustaining basis, not to be shaken as a
reed in the wind by every change in the financial world.
Commerce, as they point out, made great advances, and our
carrying trade grew so rapidly that in ten years from the day
the tariff of 1846 was passed our tonnage exceeded the tonnage
of England. The free-traders refer with especial emphasis to
what they term the symmetrical development of all the great
interests of the country under this liberal tariff.
{3076}
Manufactures were not stimulated at the expense of the
commercial interest. Both were developed in harmony, while
agriculture, the indispensable basis of all, was never more
flourishing. The farmers and planters at no other period of
our history were in receipt of such good prices, steadily paid
to them in gold coin, for their surplus product, which they
could send to the domestic market over our own railways and to
the foreign market in our own ships. Assertions as to the
progress of manufactures in the period under discussion are
denied by the protectionists. While admitting the general
correctness of the free-trader's statements as to the
prosperous condition of the country, they call attention to
the fact that directly after the enactment of the tariff of
1846 the great famine occurred in Ireland, followed in the
ensuing years by short crops in Europe. The prosperity which
came to the American agriculturist was therefore from causes
beyond the sea and not at home,—causes which were transient,
indeed almost accidental. Moreover an exceptional condition of
affairs existed in the United States in consequence of our
large acquisition of territory from Mexico at the close of the
war and the subsequent and almost immediate discovery of gold
in California. A new and extended field of trade was thus
opened in which we had the monopoly, and an enormous surplus
of money was speedily created from the products of the rich
mines on the Pacific coast. At the same time Europe was in
convulsion from the revolutions of 1848, and production was
materially hindered over a large part of the Continent. This
disturbance had scarcely subsided when three leading nations
of Europe, England, France, and Russia, engaged in the
wasteful and expensive war of the Crimea. The struggle began
in 1853 and ended in 1856, and during those years it increased
consumption and decreased production abroad, and totally
closed the grain-fields of Russia from any competition with
the United States. The protectionists therefore hold that the
boasted prosperity of the country under the tariff of 1846 was
abnormal in origin and in character. … The protectionists
maintain that from 1846 to 1857 the United States would have
enjoyed prosperity under any form of tariff, but that the
moment the exceptional conditions in Europe and in America
came to an end, the country was plunged headlong into a
disaster [the financial crisis of 1857] from which the
conservative force of a protective tariff would in large part
have saved it. … The free-traders, as an answer to this
arraignment of their tariff policy, seek to charge
responsibility for the financial disasters to the hasty and
inconsiderate changes made in the tariff in 1857, for which
both parties were in large degree if not indeed equally
answerable."
J. G. Blaine,
Twenty Years of Congress,
volume 1, chapter 9.
TARIFF: (England): A. D. 1846-1879.
Total abandonment of Protection and Navigation Laws.
The perfected tariff of Free Trade.
"With the fall of the principle of the protection in corn may
be said to have practically fallen the principle of protection
in this country altogether. That principle was a little
complicated in regard to the sugar duties and to the
navigation laws. The sugar produced in the West Indian
colonies was allowed to enter this country at rates of duty
much lower than those imposed upon the sugar grown in foreign

lands. The abolition of slavery in our colonies had made
labour there somewhat costly and difficult to obtain
continuously, and the impression was that if the duties on
foreign sugar were reduced, it would tend to enable those
countries which still maintained the slave trade to compete at
great advantage with the sugar grown in our colonies by that
free labour to establish which England had but just paid so
large a pecuniary fine. Therefore, the question of Free Trade
became involved with that of free labour; at least, so it
seemed to the eyes of many a man who was not inclined to
support the protective principle in itself. When it was put to
him, whether he was willing to push the Free Trade principle
so far as to allow countries growing sugar by slave labour to
drive our free grown sugar out of the market, he was often
inclined to give way before this mode of putting the question,
and to imagine that there really was a collision between Free
Trade and free labour. Therefore a certain sentimental plea
came in to aid the Protectionists in regard to the sugar
duties. Many of the old anti-slavery party found themselves
deceived by this fallacy, and inclined to join the agitation
against the reduction of the duty on foreign sugar. On the
other hand, it was made tolerably clear that the labour was
not so scarce or so dear in the colonies as had been
represented, and that colonial sugar grown by free labour
really suffered from no inconvenience except the fact that it
was still manufactured on the most crude, old fashioned, and
uneconomical methods. Besides, the time had gone by when the
majority of the English people could be convinced that a
lesson on the beauty of freedom was to be conveyed to foreign
sugar-growers and slave-owners by the means of a tax upon the
products of their plantations. Therefore, after a long and
somewhat eager struggle, the principle of Free Trade was
allowed to prevail in regard to sugar. The duties on sugar
were made equal. The growth of the sugar plantations was
admitted on the same terms into this country, without any
reference either to the soil from which it had sprung or to
the conditions under which it was grown."
J. McCarthy,
The Epoch of Reform,
chapter 12.
"The contest on the Navigation Laws [finally repealed in
1849-see NAVIGATION LAWS: A. D. 1849] was the last pitched
battle fought by the Protectionist party. Their resistance
grew fainter and fainter, and a few occasional skirmishes just
reminded the world that such a party still existed. Three
years afterwards their leaders came into power. In February,
1852, the Earl of Derby became Prime Minister, and Mr.
Disraeli Chancellor of the Exchequer and leader of the House
of Commons. The Free-traders, alarmed at the possibility of
some at·tempt to reverse the policy of commercial freedom
which had been adopted, took the earliest opportunity of
questioning those Ministers in Parliament on the subject. The
discreet reply was that the Government did not intend to
propose any return to the policy of protection during the
present Session, nor at any future time, unless a great
majority of members favourable to that policy should be
returned to Parliament. But far from this proving to be the
case, the general election which immediately ensued reinstated
a Liberal Government, and the work of stripping off the few
rags of protection that still hung on went rapidly forward.
{3077}
On the 18th of April, 1853, Mr. Gladstone, as Chancellor of
the Exchequer, made his financial statement in an able and
luminous speech. Such was the admirable order in which he
marshalled his topics, and the transparent lucidity with which
he treated them, that although his address occupied five hours
in the delivery, and although it bristled with figures and
statistics, he never for a moment lost the attention or
fatigued the minds of his hearers. Mr. Gladstone's financial
scheme included, among other reforms, the reduction or total
remission of imposts on 133 articles. In this way, our tariff
underwent rapid simplification. Each subsequent year was
marked by a similar elimination of protective impediments to
free commercial intercourse with other countries. In 1860,
butter, cheese, &c., were admitted duty free; in 1869, the
small nominal duty that had been left on corn was abolished;
in 1874, sugar was relieved from the remnant of duty that had
survived from previous reductions. It would be superfluous, as
well as tedious, to enter upon a detailed reference to the
various minor reforms through which we advanced towards, and
finally reached, our present free-trade tariff. In fact, all
the great battles had been fought and won by the close of the
year 1849, and the struggle was then virtually over. … Is our
present tariff one from which every shred and vestige of
protection have been discarded? Is it truly and thoroughly a
free-trade tariff? That these questions must be answered in
the affirmative it is easy to prove in the most conclusive
manner. We raise about £20,000,000 of our annual revenue by
means of customs' duties on the foreign commodities which we
import, and this fact is sometimes adduced by the advocates
for protection, without any explanation, leaving their readers
to infer that ours is not, as it really is, a free-trade
tariff. That such an inference is totally erroneous will
presently be made manifest beyond all question. We now levy
import duties on only fifteen articles. Subjoined is a list of
them, and to each is appended the amount of duty levied on it
during the financial year ending 1st of April, 1879.
Not produced in England:
Tobacco, £8,589,681;
Tea, 4,169,233;
Wine, 1,469,710;
Dried Fruit, 509,234;
Coffee, 212,002;
Chicory, 66,739;
Chocolate and Cocoa, 44,671;
Total, £15,061,270.
Produced also in England:
Spirits, £5,336,058;
Plate (Silver and Gold). 5,853;
Beer, 3,814;
Vinegar, 671;
Playing Cards, 522;
Pickles. 17;
Malt. 6;
Spruce, 3;
Total, £5,346,944.
Total of both £20,408,214. It will be seen by the above
figures that £15,000,000, or three-fourths of the total sum
levied, is levied on articles which we do not and cannot
produce in England. It is clear, therefore, that this portion
of the import duties cannot by any possibility be said to
afford the slightest protection to native industry.' Every
shilling's worth which we consume of those articles comes from
abroad, and every shilling extra that the consumer pays for
them in consequence of the duty goes to the revenue. So much
for that portion of the £20,400,000 import duties. As to the
£5,336,000 levied on foreign spirits, it consists of import
duties which are only the exact counterpart of the excise
duties, levied internally on the produce of the British
distillers. The foreign article is placed on precisely the
same footing as the native article. Both have to pay the same
duty of about 10s. per gallon on spirits of the same strength.
It would of course be an absurd stultification to admit
foreign spirits duty-free while the English producer was
burdened with a tax of 10s. per gallon; but by making the
excise duty and the customs' duty precisely the same, equality
is established, and no protection or preference whatever is
enjoyed by the native distiller. The excise duty levied in the
aforesaid year ending April, 1879, on spirits the produce of
British distilleries, was no less than £14,855,000. The
trifling amounts raised on plate, beer, vinegar, &c., are
explained in the same way. They also act as a mere
counterpoise to the excise duties levied on the British
producers of the same articles, and thus afford to the latter
no protection whatever against foreign competition. It is
evident, therefore, that our tariff does not retain within it
one solitary shred of protection."
A. Mongredien,
History of the Free Trade Movement in England,
chapter 13.
ALSO IN:
H. Hall,
History of the Customs Revenue of England.
S. Dowell,
History of Taxation and Taxes in England.
TARIFF: (France): A. D. 1853-1860.
Moderation of Protective duties.
The Cobden-Chevalier Commercial Treaty.
After the fall of Napoleon and the restoration of the Bourbons
in France, the protective system was pushed to so great an
extreme that it became in some instances avowedly prohibitive.
"The first serious attempt to alter this very severe
restrictive system was reserved for the Second Empire. The
English reforms of Peel proved the possibility of removing
most of the barriers to commerce that legislation had set up,
and consequently Napoleon III. entered with moderation on the
work of revision. Between 1853 and 1855 the duties on coal,
iron, steel, and wool were lowered, as also those on cattle,
corn, and various raw materials, the requirements for
ship-building being allowed in free. The legislative body was,
however, with difficulty brought to consent to these measures.
A more extensive proposal—made in 1856—to remove all
prohibitions on imports, while retaining protective duties of
30% on woollen and 35% on cotton goods, had to be withdrawn,
in consequence of the strong opposition that it excited. The
interest of the consumers was in the popular opinion entirely
subordinate to that of the iron-masters, cotton-spinners, and
agriculturists—one of the many instances which shows that the
long continuance of high duties does not facilitate the
introduction of free competition. It was under such
discouraging circumstances that the famous Commercial Treaty
of 1860 with England was negotiated. This important measure
(the work of Chevalier and Cobden, but owing a good deal of
its success to the efforts of the Emperor and M. Rouher),
though only a finishing step in English tariff reform,
inaugurated a new era in France."
C. F. Bastable,
The Commerce of Nations,
chapter 8.
"By the treaty of commerce of 1860, France engaged to abolish
all prohibitions, and to admit certain articles of British
produce and manufacture at duties not exceeding 30 per cent.
ad valorem, to be further reduced to duties not exceeding 25
per cent. from the 1st October, 1864. Britain, on the other
hand, bound herself to abolish the duties on French silks and
other manufactured goods, and to reduce the duties on French
wines and brandies.
{3078}
As regards coals, France engaged to reduce the import duty,
and both contracting parties engaged not to prohibit
exportation of coal, and to levy no duty upon such exports.
Whilst both contracting parties engaged to confer on the other
any favour, privilege, or reduction in the tariff of duties on
imports on the articles mentioned in the treaty which the said
power might concede to any third power; and also not to
enforce, one against another, any prohibition of importation
or exportation which should not at the same time be applicable
to all other nations. The sum and substance of the treaty was,
that France engaged to act more liberally for the future than
she had done for the past, and England made another step in
the way of liberalising her tariff, and placing all her
manufactures under the wholesome and invigorating influence of
free competition. Nor was the treaty allowed to remain limited
to France and England, for forthwith after its conclusion both
France and England entered into similar treaties with other
nations. And inasmuch as under existing treaties other nations
were bound to give to England as good treatment as they gave
to the most favoured nations, the restrictions theretofore in
existence in countries not originally parties to the French
treaty were everywhere greatly reduced, and thereby its
benefits extended rapidly over the greater part of Europe."
L. Levi,
Statistical Results of the Recent Treaties of Commerce
(Journal of the Statistical Society,
volume 40, 1877), page 3.
TARIFF: (Germany): A. D. 1853-1892.
Progress towards Free Trade arrested by Prince Bismarck.
Protection measures of 1878-1887.
"Up to the revolutionary period of 1848-50, the policy of the
German Zollverein or Custom's Union was a pronounced
protectionism. The general liberalization, so to speak, of
political life in Western Europe through the events of the
years mentioned and the larger sympathy they engendered
between nations produced, however, a strong movement in
Germany and German-Austria in favor of greater freedom of
commercial exchange between these two countries. It resulted
in the conclusion, for the term of twelve years, of the treaty
of 1853 between the Zollverein and Austria, as the first of
the international compacts for the promotion of commercial
intercourse that formed so prominent a feature of European
history during the following twenty years. The treaty was a
first, but long step towards free exchange, providing, as it
did, for uniform duties on imports from other countries, for a
considerable free list and for largely reduced duties between
the contracting countries. It also contained stipulations for
its renewal on the basis of entire free trade. … A very
influential association was formed, with free trade as the
avowed ulterior object. Its leaders, who were also the
champions of political liberalism, represented intellects of
the highest order. They included the well-known economists
Prince Smith, Mittermaier, Rau, Faucher, Michaelis, Wirth,
Schulze and Braun. An 'Economic Congress' was held annually,
the proceedings of which attracted the greatest attention, and
exercised a growing influence upon the policy of the
governments composing the Zollverein. … The beneficial results
of the treaty of 1853 were so obvious and instantaneous that
the Zollverein and Austria would have no doubt sought to bring
about improved commercial relations with other nations by the
same means, but for the disturbance of the peace of Europe by
the Crimean war, and the conflict of 1859 between France,
Italy and Austria. The bitter feelings, caused by the latter
war against the two first named countries wherever the German
tongue was spoken, rendered the negotiation of commercial
treaties with them out of the question for a time. The great
achievement of Richard Cobden and Michel Chevalier, the famous
treaty of 1860 between Great Britain and France, changed this
reluctance at once into eagerness to secure the same
advantages that those two countries had insured to each other.
The enlightened and far-seeing despot occupying the throne of
France, being once won over to the cause of free exchange by
Cobden's ardor and persistence and clear and convincing
arguments, against the views of the majority of his ministers
and with probably 90 per cent. of his subjects strongly
opposed to the abandonment of protectionism, determined, with
the zeal of a new convert, to make the most of his new
departure. He was very willing, therefore, to meet the
advances of the Zollverein, so that in the spring of 1862,
after a whole year's negotiation, a formal treaty was
consummated between it and the French Empire. It was a very
broad measure. … It comprised a copyright and trade-mark
convention, provisions for liberal modifications of the
respective navigation laws and a commercial treaty proper. The
latter provided for the free admission of raw materials, for
the abolition of transit and export duties and for equalizing
import duties as nearly as possible, and also contained a
'most favored nation' clause. … In pursuance of the terms of
the treaty of 1853 with Austria, negotiations had been
commenced early in the sixties with reference to its renewal
upon the basis of the removal of all custom-barriers between
the two countries. Austria was naturally against the
conclusion of a treaty between the Zollverein and France with
herself left out, and opposed its consummation with all the
means at her command. … After long negotiations, accompanied
by much excitement in Germany, a compromise was reached in
1864, under which the Zollverein was renewed for twelve years,
that is till 1877, and the French treaty ratified on condition
that a new treaty should be made with Austria. This was done
in 1865, but the new convention did not provide for the
complete commercial union, contemplated under that of 1853. It
was only a compact between two independent nations, but on
more liberal lines than the old treaty, and certainly
constituting a yet nearer approach to free trade. … In other
directions the Zollverein lost no time in following the
example of Napoleon by entering successively in 1865 and 1866
into commercial treaties with Belgium, Italy, Great Britain
and Switzerland, which were simple conventions, by which the
contracting parties granted to each other the position of the
most favored nation, or formal tariff regulating treaties
after the model of that between the Zollverein and France.
These additional treaties were no more than the latter the
work of Bismarck. … The general upheaval in Germany arising
from the war between Prussia and Austria and her North and
South-German Allies, while temporarily delaying the farther
progress of tariff reform, subsequently accelerated its
forward march. …
{3079}
A special treaty for the reform of the constitution, so to
speak, of the Zollverein was concluded in July, 1867, between
the North-German Federation, the new political constellation
Prussia had formed out of all Germany north of the Main, after
destroying the old Diet, and Bavaria, Wuertemberg, Baden and
Hesse, under the provisions of which the tariff and revenue
policy of all Germany was to be managed by the
'Zollparlament,' consisting of an upper house, made up of
representatives of the governments, and of a lower house of
representatives of the people elected by universal suffrage on
a population basis. Thus tariff reform was actually the chain
that bound up, as it were, the material interests of all
Germans outside of Austria for the first time, as those of one
nation. Negotiations for a new commercial treaty with the dual
monarchy of Austria-Hungary—into which Austria had changed in
consequence of the events of 1866—commenced immediately after
the restoration of peace, and were brought to a satisfactory
conclusion in March, 1868. The treaty was to run nine years,
and provided for still lower duties than under the old treaty,
the principal reductions being on all agricultural products,
wines and iron. … The Franco-German war put an end to the
treaty of 1862 between France and the Zollverein. As a
substitute for the commercial part of it, article II of the
treaty of peace of 1871 provided simply that France and
Germany should be bound for an indefinite period to allow each
other the most favorable tariff rates either of them had
granted or might grant to Great Britain, Belgium, Holland,
Switzerland, Austria-Hungary and Russia. … A large majority of
the members of the first Reichstag [under the newly created
Empire] favored further legislation in the direction of free
trade, and the work of tariff reform was vigorously taken in
hand, as soon as the constitution and the essential organic
laws of the Empire had been framed. … In the session of 1873
the National Liberals brought in a motion asking the
Government to present measures for the abolition of all duties
on raw and manufactured iron, salt and other articles. The
Government responded very readily. … Prince Bismarck was no
less pronounced for a strict revenue tariff than any of the
other government speakers. Up to the end of 1875, there was
not the slightest indication of a change of views on his part
upon this general subject. … The climax of the free trade
movement in Germany can be said to have been reached about the
time last stated. But a few months later, suspicious signs of
a new inspiration on the part of the Prince became manifest.
Rumors of dissensions between him and Minister Delbrück began
to circulate, and gradually gained strength. In May, 1876, all
Germany was startled by the announcement that the latter and
his principal co-workers had resigned. Soon it was known that
their retirement was due to a disagreement with the Prince
over tariff reform matters. A crisis had evidently set in that
was a great puzzle at first to everybody. Gradually it became
clear that the cause of it was really a sudden abandonment of
the past policy by the Prince. The new course, upon which the
mighty helmsman was starting the ship of state, was signalized
in various ways, but the full extent of his change of front
was disclosed only in a communication addressed by him to the
Federal Council, under date of December 15, 1878. It was a
most extraordinary document. It condemned boldly all that had
been done by the government under his own eyes and with his
full consent in relation to tariff reform ever since the
Franco-German treaty of 1862. … As the principal reason for
the new departure, he assigned the necessity of reforming the
public finances in order to increase the revenues of the
Government. The will of the Chancellor had become the law for
the federal council, and, accordingly, the tariff-committee
began the work of devising a general protective tariff in hot
haste. It was submitted to the Reichstag by the Prince in May,
1879. … Thus Germany was started on the downward plain of
protectionism, on which it continued for twelve years. Beyond
all question, the Chancellor was solely responsible for it. …
The tariff bill of 1879 met with vigorous opposition under the
lead of ex-Minister Delbrück, but was passed by the large
majority of 217 to 117 —showing the readiness with which the
'bon plaisir' of the master had made converts to his new
faith. It was a sweeping measure, establishing large duties on
cereals, iron, lumber and petroleum, increasing existing
duties on textile goods, coffee, wines, rice, tea, and a great
number of other minor articles and also on cattle. The
protectionist current came to a temporary stop from 1880-1883,
inasmuch as in the new Reichstag, elected in 1881, the
protection and anti-protection parties were so evenly balanced
that the Government failed to carry its proposals for still
higher duties. The elections of 1884, in which the Government
brought every influence to bear against the opposition,
resulted, however, in the return of a protectionist majority.
Accordingly, there followed in 1885 a new screwing up of
duties, tripling those on grain, doubling those on lumber, and
raising most others. In 1887 the duties on grain were even
again increased. But now the insatiateness of protection and
especially the duties put on the necessaries of life produced
a strong reaction, as evidenced by the largely increased
membership of the opposition parties in the present Reichstag.
… The Imperial Government, shortly after the retirement of
Prince Bismarck had untied its hands, entered upon
negotiations with Austria-Hungary, Italy, Switzerland and
Belgium, which resulted in … reciprocity treaties."
H. Villard,
German Tariff Policy
(Yale Review, May, 1892).
ALSO IN:
W. H. Dawson,
Bismarck and State Socialism.
TARIFF: (United States and Canada): A. D. 1854-1866.
The Reciprocity Treaty.
The Treaty commonly known in America as the Canadian
Reciprocity Treaty of 1854, between the governments of Great
Britain and the United States, was concluded on the 5th of
June, 1854, and ratifications were exchanged on the 9th of
September following. The negotiators were the Earl of Elgin
and Kincardine, on the part of the British Government, and
William L. Marcy, Secretary of State of the United States,
acting for the latter.
{3080}
By the first article of the treaty it was agreed that, "in
addition to the liberty secured to the United States fishermen
by the … convention of October 20, 1818, of taking, curing,
and drying fish on certain coasts of the British North
American Colonies therein defined, the inhabitants of the
United States shall have, in common with the subjects of Her
Britannic Majesty, the liberty to take fish of every kind,
except shell-fish, on the sea-coasts and shores, and in the
bays, harbors, and creeks of Canada, New Brunswick, Nova
Scotia, Prince Edward's Island, and of the several islands
thereunto adjacent, without being restricted to any distance
from the shore, with permission to land upon the coasts and
shores of those colonies and the islands thereof, and also
upon the Magdalen Islands, for the purpose of drying their
nets and curing their fish; provided that, in so doing, they
do not interfere with the rights of private property, or with
British fishermen, in the peaceable use of any part of the
said coast in their occupancy for the same purpose. It is
understood that the above-mentioned liberty applies solely to
the sea-fishery, and that the salmon and shad fisheries, and
all fisheries in rivers and the mouths of rivers, are hereby
reserved exclusively for British fishermen." The same article
provided for the appointment of commissioners and an
arbitrator or umpire to settle any disputes that might arise
"as to the places to which the reservation of exclusive right
to British fishermen contained in this article, and that of
fishermen of the United States contained in the next
succeeding article, apply." By the second article of the
treaty British subjects received privileges on the eastern
sea-coasts and shores of the United States north of the 36th
parallel of north latitude, identical with those given by the
first article to citizens of the United States on the coasts
and shores mentioned above. Article 3 was as follows: "It is
agreed that the articles enumerated in the schedule hereunto
annexed, being the growth and produce of the aforesaid British
colonies or of the United States, shall be admitted into each
country respectively free of duty: Schedule: Grain, flour, and
breadstuffs, of all kinds. Animals of all kinds. Fresh,
smoked, and salted meats. Cotton-wool, seeds, and vegetables.
Undried fruits, dried fruits. Fish of all kinds. Products of
fish, and of all other creatures living in the water. Poultry,
eggs. Hides, furs, skins, or tails, undressed. Stone or
marble, in its crude or unwrought state. Slate. Butter,
cheese, tallow. Lard, horns, manures. Ores of metals, of all
kinds. Coal. Pitch, tar, turpentine, ashes. Timber and lumber
of all kinds, round, hewed, and sawed, unmanufactured in whole
or in part. Firewood. Plants, shrubs, and trees. Pelts, wool.
Fish-oil. Rice, broom-corn, and bark. Gypsum, ground or
unground. Hewn, or wrought, or unwrought burr or grindstones.
Dye-stuffs. Flax, hemp, and tow, unmanufactured.
Unmanufactured tobacco. Rags." Article 4 secured to the
citizens and inhabitants of the United States the right to
navigate the River St. Lawrence and the canals in Canada
between the ocean and the great lakes, subject to the same
tolls and charges that might be exacted from Her Majesty's
subjects, but the British Government retained the right to
suspend this privilege, on due notice given, in which case the
Government of the United States might suspend the operations
of Article 3. Reciprocally, British subjects were given the
right to navigate Lake Michigan, and the Government of the
United States engaged itself to urge the State governments to
open the several State canals to British subjects on terms of
equality. It was further agreed that no export or other duty
should be levied on lumber or timber floated down the river
St. John to the sea, "when the same is shipped to the United
States from the province of New Brunswick." Article 5 provided
that the treaty should take effect whenever the necessary laws
were passed by the Imperial Parliament, the Provincial
Parliaments, and the Congress of the United States, and that
it should "remain in force for ten years from the date at
which it may come into operation, and further until the
expiration of twelve months after either of the high
contracting parties shall give notice to the other of its wish
to terminate the same." Article 6 extended the provisions of
the treaty to the island of Newfoundland, so far as
applicable, provided the Imperial Parliament, the Parliament
of Newfoundland and the Congress of the United States should
embrace the island in their laws for carrying the treaty into
effect; but not otherwise.
Treaties and Conventions between the
United States and other Powers,
edition of 1889, pages 448-452.
The Treaty was abrogated in 1866, the United States having
given the required notice in 1865.
F. E. Haynes,
The Reciprocity Treaty with Canada of 1854
(American Economic Association Publications,
volume 7, number 6).
TARIFF: (United States): A. D. 1861-1864.
The Morrill Tariff and the War Tariffs.
"In 1861 the Morrill tariff act began a change toward a higher
range of duties and a stronger application of protection. The
Morrill act is often spoken of as if it were the basis of the
present protective system. But this is by no means the case.
The tariff act of 1861 was passed by the House of
Representatives in the session of 1859-60, the session
preceding the election of President Lincoln. It was passed,
undoubtedly, with the intention of attracting to the
Republican party, at the approaching Presidential election,
votes in Pennsylvania and other States that had protectionist
leanings. In the Senate the tariff bill was not taken up in
the same session in which it was passed in the House. Its
consideration was postponed, and it was not until the next
session—that of 1860-61—that it received the assent of the
Senate and became law. It is clear that the Morrill tariff was
carried in the House before any serious expectation of war was
entertained; and it was accepted by the Senate in the session
of 1861 without material change. It therefore forms no part of
the financial legislation of the war, which gave rise in time
to a series of measures that entirely superseded the Morrill
tariff. Indeed, Mr. Morrill and the other supporters of the
act of 1861 declared that their intention was simply to
restore the rates of 1846. The important change which they
proposed to make from the provisions of the tariff of 1846 was
to substitute specific for ad-valorem duties. … The specific
duties … established were in many cases considerably above the
ad-valorem duties of 1846. The most important direct changes
made by the act of 1861 were in the increased duties on iron
and on wool, by which it was hoped to attach to the Republican
party Pennsylvania and some of the Western States. Most of the
manufacturing States at this time still stood aloof from the
movement toward higher rates. … Mr. Rice, of Massachusetts,
said in 1860: 'The manufacturer asks no additional protection.
He has learned, among other things, that the greatest evil,
next to a ruinous competition from foreign sources, is an
excessive protection, which stimulates a like ruinous and
irresponsible competition at home'.
Congressional Globe, 1859-60, page 1867.
{3081}
Mr. Sherman said: … 'The manufacturers have asked over and
over again to be let alone. The tariff of 1857 is the
manufacturers' bill; but the present bill is more beneficial
to the agricultural interest than the tariff of 1857.'
Congressional Globe, 1859-60, p. 2053.
C. F. Hunter's speech,
Congressional Globe, 1859-60, p. 3010.
In later years Mr. Morrill himself said that the tariff of
1861 'was not asked for, and but coldly welcomed, by
manufacturers, who always and justly fear instability.' …
Congressional Globe, 1869-70, p. 3295.
Hardly had the Morrill tariff been passed when Fort Sumter was
fired on. The Civil War began. The need of additional revenue
for carrying on the great struggle was immediately felt; and
as early as the extra session of the summer of 1861,
additional customs duties were imposed. In the next regular
session, in December, 1861, a still further increase of duties
was made. From that time till 1865 no session, indeed hardly a
month of any session, passed in which some increase of duties
on imports was not made. … The great acts, of 1862 and 1864
are typical of the whole course of the war measures; and the
latter is of particular importance, because it became the
foundation of the existing tariff system. … The three revenue
acts of June 30, 1864, practically form one measure, and that
probably the greatest measure of taxation which the world has
seen. The first of the acts provided for an enormous extension
of the internal-tax system; the second for a corresponding
increase of the duties on imports; the third authorized a loan
of $400,000,000. … Like the tariff act of 1862, that of 1864
was introduced, explained, amended, and passed under the
management of Mr. Morrill, who was chairman of the Committee
on Ways and Means. That gentleman again stated, as he had done
in 1862, that the passage of the tariff act was rendered
necessary in order to put domestic producers in the same
situation, so far as foreign competition was concerned, as if
the internal taxes had not been raised. This was one great
object of the new tariff. … But it explains only in part the
measure which in fact was proposed and passed. The tariff of
1864 was a characteristic result of that veritable furor of
taxation which had become fixed in the minds of the men who
were then managing the national finances. Mr. Morrill, and
those who with him made our revenue laws, seem to have had but
one principle: to tax every possible article indiscriminately,
and to tax it at the highest rates that anyone had the courage
to suggest. They carried this method out to its fullest extent
in the tariff act of 1864, as well as in the tax act of that
year. At the same time these statesmen were protectionists. …
Every domestic producer who came before Congress got what he
wanted in the way of duties. Protection ran riot; and this,
moreover, not merely for the time being. The whole tone of the
public mind toward the question of import duties became
distorted. … The average rate on dutiable commodities, which
had been 37.2 per cent. under the act of 1862, became 47.06
per cent. under that of 1864. … In regard to the duties as
they stood before 1883, it is literally true, in regard to
almost all protected articles, that the tariff act of 1864
remained in force for twenty years without reductions."
F. W. Taussig,
Tariff History of the United States,
pages 158-169, with foot-note.
Under the Morrill Tariff, which went into effect April 1,
1861, the imposts which had averaged about 19 per cent. on
dutiable articles were raised to 36 per cent.
J. G. Blaine,
Twenty Years of Congress,
volume 1, page 400.
TARIFF: (Australia): A. D. 1862-1892.
Contrasted policy of Victoria and New South Wales.
Both New South Wales and Victoria "are young countries, and
are inhabited by men of the same race, speech, and training:
capital and labour oscillate freely between them: both use
substantially the same methods and forms of government: while
against the larger territory of New South Wales may be set the
superior climate and easier development of its southern
neighbour. Whatever may be the balance of the natural
advantages, whether of climate or population, is on the side
of Victoria, whose compact, fertile, and well watered
territory gained for it, on its first discovery, the
well-deserved title of Australia Felix. The striking and
ultimate point of difference between the two countries is
their fiscal policy. Since 1866 Victoria has lived under a
system of gradually increasing Protection, while the policy of
New South Wales has been, in the main, one of Free Trade.
According to all Protectionist theory Victoria should be
prosperous and New South Wales distressed; there should be
variety and growth in the one country, stagnation in the
other. At least the progress of Victoria ought to have been
more rapid than that of New South Wales, because she has added
to the natural advantages which she already enjoyed, the
artificial benefits which are claimed for a Protective tariff.
If, in fact, neither of these conclusions is correct, and,
while both countries have been phenomenally prosperous, New
South Wales has prospered the most, one of two conclusions is
inevitable—namely, either that certain special influences have
caused the more rapid progress of New South Wales which were
not felt in Victoria, or that Protection has retarded instead
of assisted the development of Victoria's natural superiority.
Writers of all schools admit that activity in certain
departments of national life is a fair indication of
prosperity and progress. It is, for instance, generally
allowed that an increase in population, a development of
agricultural and manufacturing industry, a growth of foreign
commerce, an increase in shipping, or an improvement in the
public revenue, are all signs of health and well-being; and
that a concurrence of such symptoms over a lengthened period
indicates an increase in material wealth. Accepting these
tests of progress, our comparison proceeds thus: first, we
examine the position of the two Colonies as regards
population, foreign commerce, shipping, agriculture,
manufactures, and revenue, at the time when both of them
adhered to Free Trade; from which we find that, according to
all these indications of prosperity, Victoria was then very
much the better off: In 1866 she outnumbered New South Wales
in population by 200,000 souls: her foreign commerce was
larger by £8,300,000: she had a greater area of land under
cultivation: her manufactures were well established, while
those of New South Wales were few and insignificant: she was
ahead in shipping, and her revenue was greater by one-third.
Passing next to the years which follow 1866, we observe that
New South Wales gradually bettered her position in every
province of national activity, and that, as the fetters of
Protection became tighter, Victoria receded in the race.
{3082}
She gave way first in the department of foreign commerce, next
in population, shipping, and revenue, until, in 1887, she
maintained her old superiority in agriculture alone. From this
accumulation of facts—and not from any one of them we infer
that the rate of progress in New South Wales under Free Trade
has been greater than that of Victoria under Protection."
B. R. Wise,
Industrial Freedom,
appendix 3.
TARIFF: (Europe): A. D. 1871-1892.
Protectionist reaction on the Continent.
High Tariff in France.
"The Franco-German War (1870-1) and the overthrow of Napoleon
III. at once arrested the free-trade policy, which had little
support in the national mind, and was hardly understood
outside the small circle of French economists. The need of
fresh revenue was imperative, and M. Thiers, the most
prominent of French statesmen, was notoriously protectionist
in his leanings. Pure revenue duties on colonial and Eastern
commodities were first tried; the sugar duty was increased
30%; that on coffee was trebled; tea, cocoa, wines and
spirits, were all subjected to greatly increased charges. As
the yield thus obtained did not suffice, proposals for the
taxation of raw materials were brought forward but rejected by
the legislature in 1871, when M. Thiers tendered his
resignation. To avoid this result the measure was passed, not
however to come into operation until compensating productive
duties had been placed on imported manufactures. The existing
commercial treaties were a further obstacle to changes in
policy, and accordingly negotiations were opened with England
and Belgium, in order that the new duties might be applied to
their products. As was justifiable under the circumstances,
the former country required that if imported raw products were
to be taxed, the like articles produced in France should pay
an equivalent tax, and therefore, as the shortest way of
escape, the French Government gave notice for the termination
of the treaties (in the technical language of international
law 'denounced' them), and new conventions were agreed on; but
as this arrangement was just as unsatisfactory in the opinion
of the French Chambers, the old treaties were in 1873 restored
to force until 1877, and thus the larger part of the raw
materials escaped the new taxation. The protectionist tendency
was, too, manifested in the departure from the open system
introduced in 1866 in respect to shipping. A law of 1872
imposed differential duties on goods imported in foreign
vessels. … The advance of the sentiment in favour of a return
to the restrictive system was even more decidedly indicated in
1881. Bounties were then granted for the encouragement of
French shipping, and extra taxes imposed on indirect imports
of non-European and some European goods. In 1889 the carrying
trade between France and Algiers was reserved for native
ships. The revision of the general tariff was a more serious
task, undertaken with a view to influencing the new treaties
that the termination of the old engagements made necessary.
The tariff of 1881 (to come into force in 1882) made several
increases and substituted many specific for ad valorem duties.
Raw materials escaped taxation; half-manufactured articles
were placed under moderate duties. The nominal corn duties
were diminished by a fraction, but the duties on live stock
and fresh meat were considerably increased. … A new
'conventional tariff' speedily followed in a series of fresh
treaties with European countries. … The duties on whole or
partially-manufactured goods remained substantially unchanged
by the new treaties, which do not, in fact, vary so much from
the general tariff as was previously the case. The number of
articles included in the conventions had been reduced, and all
countries outside Europe came under the general code. The
reaction against the liberal policy of 1860 was thus as yet
very slight, and did not seriously affect manufactures. The
agricultural depression was the primary cause of the
legislation of 1885, which placed a duty of 3 francs per
quintal on wheat, 7 francs on flour, 2 francs on rye and
barley, and one franc on oats, with additional duties on
indirect importation. Cattle, sheep, and pigs came under
increases of from 50% to 100%. … Not satisfied with their
partial success, the advocates of high duties have made
further efforts. Maize, hitherto free, as being chiefly used
by farmers for feeding purposes, is now liable to duty, and
the tariff proposed in the present year (1891) raises the
rates on most articles from an average of 10% to 15% to one of
30% and 40%. … Germany did not quite as speedily come under
the influence of the economic reaction as France. … Italian
commercial policy also altered for the worse. From the
formation of the kingdom till 1875, as the various commercial
treaties and the general tariff of 1861 show, it was liberal
and tending towards freedom. About the latter date the forces
that we have indicated above as operating generally throughout
Europe, commenced to affect Italy. The public expenditure had
largely increased, and additional revenue was urgently
required. Agriculture was so depressed that, though the
country is pre-eminently agricultural, alarm was excited by
the supposed danger of foreign competition. The result was
that on the general revision of duties in 1877 much higher
rates were imposed on the principal imports. … Depression both
in agriculture and elaborative industries continued and
strengthened the protectionist party, who succeeded in
securing the abandonment of all the commercial treaties, and
the enactment of a new tariff in 1887. … The first effect of
the new system of high taxation with no conventional
privileges was to lead to a war of tariffs between France and
Italy. … Austria may be added to the list of countries in
which the protectionist reaction has been effectively shown. …
In Russia the revival (or perhaps it would be more correct to
say continued existence), of protection is decisively marked.
… Spain and Portugal had long been strongholds of
protectionist ideas. … Holland and Belgium have as yet [1891]
adhered to the system of moderate duties."
C. F. Bastable,
The Commerce of Nations,
chapter 9.
A new tariff system was elaborated by the French Chambers,
with infinite labor and discussion, during the year 1891, and
adopted early in the following year, being known as the "Loi
du 11 .Janvier, 1892." This tariff makes a great advance in
duties on most imports, with a concession of lower rates to
nations according reciprocal favors to French productions. Raw
materials in general are admitted free of duties. The
commercial treaties of France are undergoing modification.
{3083}
TARIFF: (United States): A. D. 1883.
Revision of the Tariff.
In 1882, "Congress appointed a Tariff Commission 'to take into
consideration, and to thoroughly investigate, all the various
questions relating to the agricultural, commercial,
mercantile, manufacturing, mining, and industrial interests of
the United States, so far as the same may be necessary to the
establishment of a judicious tariff, or a revision of the
existing tariff upon a scale of justice to all interests.'
Several things it was expected would be accomplished by
revising the tariff, and the measure received the assent of
nearly all the members of Congress. The free-traders expected
to get lower duties, the protectionists expected to concede
them in some cases, and in others to get such modifications as
would remove existing ambiguities and strengthen themselves
against foreign competition. The protective force of the
existing tariff had been weakened in several important
manufactures by rulings of the treasury department. … The
composition of the commission was as satisfactory to the
manufacturing class as displeasing to free-traders. … Early in
their deliberations, the commission became convinced that a
substantial reduction of the tariff duties was demanded, not
by a mere indiscriminate popular clamor, but by the best
conservative opinion of the country, including that which had
in former times been most strenuous for the preservation of
the national industrial defences. Such a reduction of the
existing tariff the commission regarded not only as a due
recognition of public sentiment, and a measure of justice to
consumers, but one conducive to the general industrial
prosperity, and which, though it might be temporarily
inconvenient, would be ultimately beneficial to the special
interests affected by such reduction. No rates of defensive
duties, except for establishing new industries, which more
than equalized the conditions of labor and capital with those
of foreign competitors, could be justified. Excessive duties,
or those above such standard of equalization, were positively
injurious to the interest which they were supposed to benefit.
They encouraged the investment of capital in manufacturing
enterprise by rash and unskilled speculators, to be followed
by disaster to the adventurers and their employees, and a
plethora of commodities which deranged the operations of
skilled and prudent enterprise. … 'It would seem that the
rates of duties under the existing tariff—fixed, for the most
part, during the war under the evident necessity at that time
of stimulating to its utmost extent all domestic
production—might be adapted, through reduction, to the present
condition of peace requiring no such extraordinary stimulus.
And in the mechanical and manufacturing industries, especially
those which have been long established, it would seem that the
improvements in machinery and processes made within the last
twenty years, and the high scale of productiveness which had
become a characteristic of their establishments, would permit
our manufacturers to compete with their foreign rivals under a
substantial reduction of existing duties.' Entertaining these
views, the commission sought to present a scheme of tariff
duties in which substantial reduction was the distinguishing
feature. … The attempt to modify the tariff brought into bold
relief the numerous conflicting interests, and the difficulty
and delicacy of the undertaking. As our industries become more
heterogeneous, the tariff also grows more complex, and the
difficulty of doing justice to all is increased. For example,
the wool manufacturers to succeed best must have free wool and
dye-stuffs; on the other hand, both these interests desired
protection. The manufacturers of the higher forms of iron must
have free materials to succeed best; on the other hand, the
ore producers, the pig-iron manufacturers, and every
succeeding class desired a tariff on their products. It was
not easy for these interests to agree, and some of them did
not. The iron-ore producers desired a tariff of 85 cents a ton
on ore; the steel-rail makers were opposed to the granting of
more than 50; the manufacturers of fence wire were opposed to
an increase of duty on wire rods used for making wire, and
favored a reduction; the manufacturers of rods in this country
were desirous of getting an increase; the manufacturers of
floor oil-cloths desired a reduction or abolition of the duty
on the articles used by them; the soap manufacturers desired
the putting of caustic soda on the free list, which the
American manufacturers of it opposed; some of the woolen
manufacturers were desirous that protection should be granted
to the manufacturers of dye-stuffs, and some were not; the
manufacturers of tanned foreign goat and sheep skins desired
the removal of the tariff on such skins; those who tanned
them, and who were much less numerous, were equally tenacious
in maintaining the tariff on the raw skins, and the same
conflict arose between other interests. The method of
determining how much protection their several interests
needed, and of adjusting differences between them, has always
been of the crudest kind. … Although not all of the
recommendations of the commission were adopted, most of them
were. Those which pertained to the simplification of the law
were adopted with only slight changes. The bill reported by
the commission contained, not including the free list, 631
articles and classifications. … Less than 25 articles, mainly
in the cotton, woolen goods, and the iron and steel schedules,
were matters of contention. The rates on 409 of the 631
articles mentioned in the tariff recommended by the commission
were adopted, and between 50 and 60 more articles have
substantially the same rates, though levied under different
clauses. Of the 170 changes, 98 were fixed at lower rates than
those proposed by the commission, 46 at higher, and 26 have
been classed as doubtful."
A. S. Bolles,
Financial History of the United States, 1861-1885,
book 2, chapter 7.
TARIFF: (United States): A. D. 1884-1888.
Attempts at Tariff Reform.
The Morrison Bills and the Hewett Bill.
President Cleveland's Message.
The Mills Bill and its defeat.
The slight concessions made in the protectionist
tariff-revision of 1883 did not at all satisfy the opinion in
the country demanding greater industrial freedom, and the
question of tariff-reform became more important than before in
American politics. The Democratic Party, identified by all its
early traditions, with the opposition to a policy of
"protection," won the election of 1884, placing Mr. Cleveland
in the Presidency and gaining control of the House of
Representatives in the 49th Congress. But it had drifted from
its old anchorage on the tariff question, and was slow in
pulling back. A large minority in the party had accepted and
become supporters of the doctrine which was hateful to their
fathers as an economic heresy.
{3084}
The majority of the Democrats in the House, however, made
strenuous efforts to accomplish something in the way of
reducing duties most complained of. Their first undertaking
was led by Mr. Morrison of Illinois, who introduced a bill
which "proposed an average reduction of 20 per cent., but with
so many exceptions that it was estimated the average reduction
on dutiable articles would be about 17 per cent. The rates
under the Morrill Act of 1861 were to form the minimum limit.
An extensive addition to the free list was proposed, including
the following articles: ores of iron, copper, lead, and
nickel, coal, lumber, wood, hay, bristles, lime, sponges,
indigo, coal tar and dyewoods." In the Committee of Ways and
Means the bill underwent considerable changes, the articles in
the free list being reduced to salt, coal, lumber and wood. It
was reported to the House March 11, and remained under debate
until May 6, when it was killed by a motion to strike out the
enacting clause, on which 118 Republicans and 41 Democrats
voted aye, against 4 Republicans and 151 Democrats voting nay.
The 4 Republicans supporting the bill were all from Minnesota;
of the 41 Democrats opposing it 12 were from Pennsylvania, 10
from Ohio, 6 from New York, 4 from California and 3 from New
Jersey. "The Morrison 'horizontal bill' having been thus
killed, Mr. Hewett, a New York Democrat, and a member of the
Ways and Means Committee, on May 12 introduced a new tariff
bill, providing for a reduction of 10 to 20 per cent. on a
considerable number of articles and placing several others on
the free list." The bill was reported favorably to the House,
but action upon it was not reached before the adjournment.
During the same session, a bill to restore the duties of 1867
on raw wool was defeated in the House; an amendment to the
shipping bill, permitting a free importation of iron and steel
steamships for employment in the foreign trade, passed the
House and was, defeated in the Senate; and a bill reducing the
duty on works of art from 20 to 10 per cent. was defeated in
the House. In the next Congress, the Forty-ninth, Mr. Morrison
led a new undertaking to diminish the protective duties which
were producing an enormous surplus of revenue. The bill which
he introduced (February 15, 1886) received radical changes in
the Ways and Means Committee, "inasmuch as it was clearly seen
that the opposition from the metal and coal interests was
sufficiently strong to destroy all chance of consideration in
the House. Accordingly, it was found preferable to make the
duties on wool and woolens the special point for assault." But
the bill modified on this new line,—lowering duties on woolens
to 35 per cent. ad valorem, and placing wool in the free list,
with lumber, wood, fish, salt, flax, hemp and jute,—was
refused consideration by a vote of 157 to 140 in the House, on
the 17th of June. Again there were 35 members of his own party
arrayed against Mr. Morrison. At the second session of the
same Congress, December 18, 1886, Mr. Morrison repeated his
attempt with no better success.
O. H. Perry,
Proposed Tariff Legislation since 1883
(Quarterly Journal of Economics, October, 1887).
The assembling of the 50th Congress, on the 6th of December,
1887, was signalized by a message from President Cleveland
which produced an extraordinary effect, decisively lifting the
tariff question into precedence over all other issues in
national politics, and compelling the Democratic Party to
array its lines distinctly and unequivocally against the

upholders of "protection" as an economic policy. He emphasized
the "paramount importance of the subject" impressively by
passing by every other matter of public concern, and devoting
his message exclusively to a consideration of the "'state of
the Union' as shown in the present condition of our Treasury
and our general fiscal situation." The condition of the
Treasury to which the President called attention was one of
unexampled plethora. "On the 30th day of June, 1885, the
excess of revenues over public expenditures, after complying
with the annual requirement of the Sinking-Fund Act, was
$17,859,735.84; during the year ended June 30, 1886, such
excess amounted to $49,405,545.20; and during the year ended
June 30, 1887, it reached the sum of $55,567,849.54." "Our
scheme of taxation," said the President, "by means of which
this needless surplus is taken from the people and put into
the public treasury, consists of a tariff or duty levied upon
importations from abroad, and internal-revenue taxes levied
upon the consumption of tobacco and spirituous and malt
liquors. It must be conceded that none of the things subjected
to internal-revenue taxation are, strictly speaking,
necessaries; there appears to be no just complaint of this
taxation by the consumers of these articles, and there seems
to be nothing so well able to bear the burden without hardship
to any portion of the people. But our present tariff laws, the
vicious, inequitable, and illogical source of unnecessary
taxation, ought to be at once revised and amended. These laws,
as their primary and plain effect, raise the price to
consumers of all articles imported and subject to duty, by
precisely the sum paid for such duties. Thus the amount of the
duty measures the tax paid by those who purchase for use these
imported articles. Many of these things, however, are raised
or manufactured in our own country, and the duties now levied
upon foreign goods and products are called protection to these
home manufactures, because they render it possible for those
of our people who are manufacturers to make these taxed
articles and sell them for a price equal to that demanded for
the imported goods that have paid customs duty. So it happens
that while comparatively a few use the imported articles,
millions of our people, who never use and never saw any of the
foreign products, purchase and use things of the same kind
made in this country, and pay therefor nearly or quite the
same enhanced price which the duty adds to the imported
articles. Those who buy imports pay the duty charged thereon
into the public treasury, but the majority of our citizens,
who buy domestic articles of the same class, pay a sum at
least approximately equal to this duty to the home
manufacturer. … The difficulty attending a wise and fair
revision of our tariff-laws is not underestimated. It will
require on the part of Congress great labor and care, and
especially a broad and national contemplation of the subject,
and a patriotic disregard of such local and selfish claims as
are unreasonable and reckless of the welfare of the entire
country. Under our present laws more than 4,000 articles are
subject to duty.
{3085}
Many of these do not in any way compete with our own
manufactures, and many are hardly worth attention as subjects
of revenue. A considerable reduction can be made in the
aggregate by adding them to the free list. The taxation of
luxuries presents no features of hardship; but the necessaries
of life used and consumed by all the people, the duty upon
which adds to the cost of living in every home, should be
greatly cheapened. The radical reduction of the duties imposed
upon raw material used in manufactures, or its free
importation, is of course an important factor in any effort to
reduce the price of these necessaries. … It is not apparent
how such a change can have any injurious effect upon our
manufacturers. On the contrary, it would appear to give them a
better chance in foreign markets with the manufacturers of
other countries, who cheapen their wares by free material.
Thus our people might have an opportunity of extending their
sales beyond the limits of home consumption—saving them from
the depression, interruption in business, and loss caused by a
glutted domestic market, and affording their employes more
certain and steady labor, with its resulting quiet and
contentment. The question thus imperatively presented for
solution should be approached in a spirit higher than
partisanship. … But the obligation to declared party policy
and principle is not wanting to urge prompt and effective
action. Both of the great political parties now represented in
the Government have, by repeated and authoritative
declarations, condemned the condition of our laws which
permits the collection from the people of unnecessary revenue,
and have, in the most solemn manner, promised its correction.
… Our progress toward a wise conclusion will not be improved
by dwelling upon the theories of protection and free trade.
This savors too much of bandying epithets. It is a condition
which confronts us—not a theory. Relief from this condition
may involve a slight reduction of the advantages which we
award our home productions, but the entire withdrawal of such
advantages should not be contemplated. The question of free
trade is absolutely irrelevant."—The President's emphatic
utterance rallied his party and inspired a more united effort
in the House to modify and simplify the tariff. Under the
chairmanship of Mr. Mills, of Texas, a bill was framed by the
Committee of Ways and Means and reported to the House on the
2d of April, 1888. "We have gone as far as we could," said the
Committee in reporting the bill, "and done what we could, in
the present condition of things, to place our manufactures
upon a firm and unshaken foundation, where they would have
advantages over all the manufacturers of the world. Our
manufacturers, having the advantage of all others in the
intelligence, skill, and productive capacity of their labor,
need only to be placed on the same footing with their rivals
in having their materials at the same cost in the open markets
of the world. In starting on this policy, we have transferred
many articles from the dutiable to the free list. The revenues
now received on these articles amount to $22,189,595.48.
Three-fourths of this amount is collected on articles that
enter into manufactures, of which wool and tin-plates are the
most important. … The repeal of all duties on wool enables us
to reduce the duties on the manufactures of wool
$12,332,211.65. The largest reduction we have made is in the
woolen schedule, and this reduction was only made possible by
placing wool on the free list. There is no greater reason for
a duty on wool than there is for a duty on any other raw
material. A duty on wool makes it necessary to impose a higher
duty on the goods made from wool, and the consumer has to pay
a double tax. If we leave wool untaxed the consumer has to pay
a tax only on the manufactured goods. … In the woolen schedule
we have substituted ad valorem for specific duties. The
specific duty is the favorite of those who are to be benefited
by high rates, who are protected against competition, and
protected in combinations against the consumer of their
products. There is a persistent pressure by manufacturers for
the specific duty, because it conceals from the people the
amount of taxes they are compelled to pay to the manufacturer.
The specific duty always discriminates in favor of the costly
article and against the cheaper one. … This discrimination is
peculiarly oppressive in woolen and cotton goods, which are
necessaries of life to all classes of people." The ad valorem
duty on woolen goods proposed by the committee in accordance
with these views, ranged from 30 to 45 per cent., existing
rates being reckoned as equivalent to about from 40 to 90 per
cent. ad valorem. Duties on cottons were fixed at 35 to 40 per
cent. On steel rails the bill proposed a reduction from $17
per ton to $11. It lowered the duty on pig-iron to $6 per ton.
It diminished the tariff on common earthenware from 60 to 35
per cent.; on china and decorated earthenware from 60 to 45
per cent.; on window-glass from 93 and 106 to 62 and 68 per
cent. It put tin plates on the free list, along with hemp,
flax, lumber, timber, salt, and other materials of manufacture
and articles in common use. These were the more important
modifications contemplated in what became known as "the Mills
Bill." After vigorous debate, it was passed by the Democrats
of the House with a nearness to unanimity which showed a
remarkable change in the sentiment of their party on the
subject. Only four Democratic representatives were found
voting in opposition to the measure. In the Senate, where the
Republicans were in the majority, the measure was wrecked, as
a matter of course. The protectionists of that body
substituted a bill which revised the tariff in the contrary
direction, generally raising duties instead of lowering them.
Thus the issue was made in the elections of 1888.
TARIFF: (United States): A. D. 1890.
The McKinley Act.
"In the campaign of 1888 the tariff question was the issue
squarely presented. … The victory of the Republicans … and the
election of President Harrison were the results. … The
election was won by a narrow margin, and was affected by
certain factors which stood apart from the main issue. The
independent voters had been disappointed with some phases of
President Cleveland's administration of the civil service, and
many who had voted for him in 1884 did not do so in 1888. … On
the whole, however, the Republicans held their own, and even
made gains, throughout the country, on the tariff issue; and
they might fairly consider the result a popular verdict in
favor of the system of protection. But their opposition to the
policy of lower duties, emphasized by President Cleveland, had
led them not only to champion the existing system, but to
advocate its further extension, by an increase of duties in
various directions. …
{3086}
Accordingly when the Congress then elected met for the session
of 1889-90, the Republican majority in the House proceeded to
pass a measure which finally became the tariff act of 1890.
This measure may fairly be said to be the direct result of Mr.
Cleveland's tariff message of 1887. The Republicans, in
resisting the doctrine of that message, were led by logical
necessity to the opposite doctrine of higher duties. …
Notwithstanding grave misgivings on the part of some of their
leaders, especially those from the northwest, the act known
popularly as the McKinley bill was pushed through."
F. W. Taussig,
Tariff History of the United States,
chapter 5.
The bill was reported to the House of Representatives by the
Chairman of its Committee on Ways and Means, Mr. McKinley, on
the 16th of April, 1890. "We have not been so much concerned,"
said the majority of the Committee in their report, "about the
prices of the articles we consume as we have been to encourage
a system of home production which shall give fair remuneration
to domestic producers and fair wages to American workmen, and
by increased production and home competition insure fair
prices to consumers. … The aim has been to impose duties upon
such foreign products as compete with our own, whether of the
soil or the shop, and to enlarge the free list wherever this
can be done without injury to any American industry, or
wherever an existing home industry can be helped without
detriment to another industry which is equally worthy of the
protecting care of the Government. … We have recommended no
duty above the point of difference between the normal cost of
production here, including labor, and the cost of like
production in the countries which seek our markets, nor have
we hesitated to give this quantum of duty even though it
involved an increase over present rates and showed an advance
of percentages and ad valorem equivalents." On the changes
proposed to be made in the rates of duty on wool and on the
manufactures of wool—the subject of most debate in the whole
measure—the majority reported as follows; "By the census of
1880, in every county in the United States except 34, sheep
were raised. In 1883 the number of sheep in the United States
was over 50,000,000, and the number of persons owning flocks
was in excess of a million. This large number of flock-masters
was, to a considerable extent, withdrawn from the business of
raising grain and other farm products, to which they must
return if wool-growing cannot be profitably pursued. The
enormous growth of this industry was stimulated by the wool
tariff of 1867, and was in a prosperous condition prior to the
act of 1883. Since then the industry has diminished in
alarming proportions, and the business has neither been
satisfactory nor profitable. … By the proposed bill the duties
on first and second class wools are made at 11 and 12 cents a
pound, as against 10 and 12 under existing law. On third-class
wool, costing 12 cents or less, the duty is raised from 2½
cents a pound to 3½ cents, and upon wool of the third class,
costing above 12 cents, the duty recommended is an advance
from 5 to 8 cents per pound. … There seems to be no doubt that
with the protection afforded by the increased duties
recommended in the bill the farmers of the United States will
be able at an early day to supply substantially all of the
home demand, and the great benefit such production will be to
the agricultural interests of the country cannot be estimated.
The production of 600,000,000 pounds of wool would require
about 100,000,000 sheep, or an addition of more than 100 per
cent to the present number. … The increase in the duty on
clothing wool and substitutes for wool to protect the wool
growers of this country, and the well-understood fact that the
tariff of 1883, and the construction given to the worsted
clause, reduced the duties on many grades of woollen goods to
a point that invited increasing importations, to the serious
injury of our woollen manufacturers and wool growers,
necessitate raising the duties on woollen yarn, cloth and
dress goods to a point which will insure the holding of our
home market for these manufactures to a much greater extent
than is now possible. The necessity of this increase is
apparent in view of the fact already stated that during the
last fiscal year there were imports of manufactures of wool of
the foreign value of $52,681,482, as shown by the undervalued
invoices, and the real value in our market of nearly
$90,000,000—fully one-fourth of our entire home
consumption—equivalent to an import of at least 160,000,000
pounds of wool in the form of manufactured goods. In revising
the woollen-goods schedule so as to afford adequate protection
to our woollen manufacturers and wool growers we have
continued the system of compound duties which have proved to
be so essential in any tariff which protects wool, providing
first for a specific compensatory pound or square yard duty,
equivalent to the duty which would be paid on the wool if
imported, for the benefit of the wool grower, and an ad
valorem duty of from 30 to 50 per cent, according to the
proportion of labor required in the manufacture of the several
classes of goods, as a protection to the manufacturer against
foreign competition, and 10 per cent additional upon ready
made clothing for the protection of the clothing
manufacturers. … In computing the equivalent ad valorem duty
on manufactures of woollens, the combinations of both the
specific duty, which is simply compensatory for the duty on
the wool used, of which the wool grower receives the benefit,
and the duty which protects the manufacturers, makes the
average resultant rate of the woollen-goods schedule proposed
91.78 per cent."
Report of the Committee on Ways and Means.
"Substantially as reported from the Committee on Ways and
Means, it [the McKinley Bill] passed the House, after two
weeks' debate, May 21 [1890]. The vote was a strictly party
one, except that two Republicans voted in the negative. June
19 the bill was reported from the Senate Committee on Finance
with a very large number of amendments, mainly in the way of a
lessening of rates. After debating the project during nearly
the whole of August and a week in September, the Senate passed
it by a strict party vote, September 10. The differences
between the houses then went to a conference committee. The
bill as reported by this committee, September 26, was adopted
by the House and Senate on the 27th and 30th respectively and
approved by the President October 1. On the final vote three
Republicans in each house declined to follow their party. The
law went into effect October 6.
{3087}
Prominent features of the new schedules are as follows:
steel rails reduced one-tenth of a cent per lb.;
tin plates increased from one cent to two and two-tenths cents
per lb., with the proviso that they shall be put on the free
list at the end of six years if by that time the domestic
product shall not have reached an aggregate equal to one-third
of the importations;
unmanufactured copper substantially reduced;
bar, block and pig tin, hitherto on the free list, receives a
duty of four cents per lb. to take effect July 1, 1893,
provided that it be restored to the free list if by July 1,
1895, the mines of the United States shall not have produced
in one year 5,000 tons;
a bounty of one and three-fourths and two cents per lb. upon
beet, sorghum, cane or maple sugar produced in the United
States between 1891 and 1905;
all imports of sugar free up to number 16, Dutch standard, in
color and all above that one-half cent per lb. (formerly from
three to three and a half cents), with one-tenth cent
additional if imported from a country that pays an export
bounty;
a heavy increase on cigar wrappers and cigars;
a general and heavy increase on agricultural products, e. g.
on beans, eggs, hay, hops, vegetables and straw;
a heavy increase on woolen goods, with a new classification of
raw wool designed to give more protection;
paintings and statuary reduced from 30 to 15 per cent.
The following (among other) additions are made to the free
list: beeswax, books and pamphlets printed exclusively in
languages other than English, blue clay, coal tar, currants
and dates, jute butts and various textile and fibrous grasses,
needles, nickel ore, flower and grass seeds and crude sulphur.
… Among the 464 points of difference between the two houses
which the conference committee had to adjust, some of the more
important were as follows: paintings and statuary, made free
by the House and kept at the old rate by the Senate, were
fixed at half the old rate; binding twine, made free by the
Senate in favor of Western grain-raisers but taxed by the
House to protect Eastern manufacturers, fixed at half the
House rate; the limit of free sugar fixed at number 16, as
voted by the House, instead of number 13, as passed by the
Senate, thus including in the free list the lower grades of
refined as well as all raw sugar. The question of reciprocity
with American nations was injected into the tariff discussion
by Secretary Blaine in June. In transmitting to Congress the
recommendation of the International American Conference for
improved commercial relations, the secretary dilated upon the
importance of securing the markets of central and South
America for our products, and suggested as a more speedy way
than treaties of reciprocity an amendment to the pending
tariff bill authorizing the President to open our ports to the
free entry of the products of any American nation which should
in turn admit free of taxation our leading agricultural and
manufactured products. In July Mr. Blaine took up the idea
again in a public correspondence with Senator Frye,
criticizing severely the removal of the tariff on sugar, as
that on coffee had been removed before, without exacting trade
concessions in return. He complained that there was not a
section or a line in the bill as it came from the House that
would open the market for another bushel of wheat or another
barrel of pork. The Senate Finance Committee acted upon the
suggestion of the secretary by introducing an amendment to the
bill authorizing and directing the President to suspend by
proclamation the free introduction of sugar, molasses, coffee,
tea and hides from any country which should impose on products
of the United States exactions which in view of the free
introduction of sugar etc. he should deem reciprocally unequal
and unreasonable. The rates at which the President is to
demand duties upon the commodities named are duly fixed. This
reciprocity provision passed the Senate and the conference
committee and became part of the law."
Political Science Quarterly:
Record of Events, December, 1890.
TARIFF: (United States): A. D. 1894.
The Wilson Act.
Protected interests and the Senate.
Two years after the embodiment of the extremest doctrines of
protection in the McKinley Act, the tariff question was
submitted again to the people, as the dominant issue between
the Republican and Democratic parties, in the presidential and
congressional elections of 1892. The verdict of 1888 was then
reversed, and tariff reform carried the day. Mr. Cleveland was
again elected President, with a Democratic majority in both
houses of Congress apparently placed there to sustain his
policy. A serious financial situation was manifesting itself
in the country at the time he resumed the presidential office,
produced by the operation of the silver-purchase law of 1890
(see MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1848-1893), and by the
extravagance of congressional appropriations, depleting the
treasury. It became necessary, therefore, to give attention,
first, to the repeal of the mischievous silver law, which was
accomplished, November 1, 1893, at a special session of
Congress called by the President. That cleared the way for the
more serious work of tariff-revision, which was taken up under
discouraging circumstances of general depression and extensive
collapse in business, throughout the country. "The Democratic
members of the House committee on ways and means began during
the special session the preparation of a tariff bill. The
outcome of their labors was the Wilson Bill, which was laid
before the whole committee and made public November 27. On the
previous day the sugar schedule was given out, in order to
terminate the manipulation of the stock market through false
reports as to the committee's conclusions. The characteristic
features of the bill, as described in the statement of
Chairman Wilson which accompanied it, were as follows: First,
the adoption, wherever practicable, of ad valorem instead of
specific duties; second, 'the freeing from taxes of those
great materials of industry that lie at the basis of
production.' Specific duties were held to be objectionable,
first, as concealing the true weight of taxation, and second,
as bearing unjustly on consumers of commoner articles. Free
raw materials were held necessary to the stimulation of
industry and the extension of foreign trade. The schedules, as
reported, showed in addition to a very extensive increase in
the free list, reductions in rates, as compared with the
McKinley Bill, on all but a small number of items. The
important additions to the free list included iron ore,
lumber, coal and wool. Raw sugar was left free, as in the
existing law, but the rate on refined sugar was reduced from
one-half to one-fourth of a cent per pound, and the bounty was
repealed one-eighth per annum until extinguished.
{3088}
Some amendments were made in the administrative provisions of
the tariff law, designed to soften, as the committee said,
features of the McKinley Bill 'that would treat the business
of importing as an outlawry, not entitled to the protection of
the government.' It was estimated that the reduction of
revenue effected would be about $50,000,000, and the committee
set to work on an internal revenue bill to make good this
deficiency. On January 8 Mr. Wilson brought up the bill in the
House, and debate began under a rule calling for a vote on the
29th. During the consideration in committee a number of
changes were made in the schedules, the most important being
in respect to sugar, where the duty was taken off refined
sugars, and the repeal of the bounty was made immediate
instead of gradual. A clause was inserted, also, specifically
repealing the reciprocity provision of the McKinley Act. The
greatest general interest was excited, however, by the
progress of the internal revenue bill, the chief feature of
which was a proposition for an income tax. The bill, after
formulation by the Democratic members of the ways and means
committee, was brought before the full committee January 22.
Besides the income tax, the measure provided for a stamp duty
on playing cards, and raised the excise on distilled spirits
to one dollar per gallon. As to incomes, the committee's bill
… imposed a tax of two per cent on all incomes so far as they
were in excess of $4,000, after allowing deductions for taxes,
losses not covered by insurance and bad debts. Declarations of
income were required from all persons having over $3,500,
under heavy penalties for neglect, refusal or fraud in the
matter. As to corporations, the same rate was levied on all
interest on bonds and on all dividends and all surplus income
above dividends, excepting premiums returned to policy holders
by mutual life insurance companies, interest to depositors in
savings banks, and dividends of building loan associations. …
The income-tax measure was immediately and very vigorously
antagonized by a considerable number of Eastern Democrats,
headed by the New York Congressmen. It was adopted by the ways
and means committee mainly through Southern and Western votes.
On the 24th of January it was reported to the House. A
Democratic caucus on the following day resolved by a small
majority, against the wish of Mr. Wilson, to attach the
measure to the Tariff Bill. Accordingly, the rule regulating
the debate was modified to allow discussion of the amendment.
The final votes were then taken on February 1. The internal
revenue bill was added to the Wilson Bill by 182 to 50, 44
Democrats voting in the minority and most of the Republicans
not voting. The measure as amended was then adopted by 204 to
140, 16 Democrats and one Populist going with the Republicans
in the negative. In the hands of the Senate finance committee
the bill underwent a thorough revision, differences of opinion
in the Democratic majority leading to a careful discussion of
the measure in a party caucus. The measure as amended was laid
before the full committee March 8, and was introduced in the
Senate on the 20th. Changes in details were very numerous. The
most important consisted in taking sugar, iron ore and coal
off the free list and subjecting each to a small duty. Debate
on the bill was opened April 2. It was soon discovered,
however, that many Democratic senators were seriously
dissatisfied with the schedules affecting the industries of
their respective states, and at the end of April there was a
lull in the debate while the factions of the majority adjusted
their differences. A scheme of changes was finally agreed to
in caucus on May 3, and laid before the Senate by the finance
committee on the 8th. The most important features were a new
sugar schedule which had given great trouble, and very
numerous changes from ad valorem to specific duties, with a
net increase in rates."
Political Science Quarterly:
Record of Political Events, June, 1894.
Very soon after the tariff bill appeared in the Senate, it
became apparent that the more powerful protected "interests,"
and conspicuously the "sugar trust" had acquired control, by
some means, of several Democratic senators, who were acting
obviously in agreement to prevent an honest fulfillment of the
pledges of their party, and especially as concerned the free
opening of the country to raw materials. Public opinion of the
conduct of the senators in question may be judged from the
expressions of so dignified an organ of the business world as
the "Banker's Magazine," which said in its issue of July,
1894: "Indifference has largely supplanted the hopes of the
friends of tariff reform, as well as the fears of the honest
advocates of high protection; and disgust, on the part of the
people, has taken the place of trust in our Government, at the
exposures of the corruption of the Senate by the most
unconscionable and greedy Trusts in existence. Hence the
indifference of everybody but the Trusts, and their Senatorial
attorneys and dummies with 'retainers' or Trust stocks in
their pockets; as it is taken for granted that no interests,
but those rich and characterless enough to buy 'protection'
will be looked after. … Nothing will be regarded as finally
settled … if the Tariff Bill, as emasculated by the Senate,
becomes a law; and it may as well be killed by the House, if
the Senate refuse to recede; or, vetoed by the President, if
it goes to him in its present shape; and let the existing
status continue, until the country can get rid of its
purchasable Senators and fill their disgraced seats with
honest men who cannot be bought up like cattle at so much per
head. This is the growing sentiment of business men
generally."
H. A. Pierce,
A Review of Finance and Business
(Banker's Magazine, July, 1894).
First in committee, and still more in the Senate after the
committee had reported, the bill was radically changed in
character from that which the House sent up. The profits of
the sugar trust were still protected, and coal and iron ore
were dropped back from the free list into the schedules of
dutiable commodities. According to estimates made, the average
rate of duty in the Wilson Bill as it passed the House was
35.52 per cent., and in the bill which passed the Senate it
was 37 per cent., as against 49.58 per cent. in the McKinley
law. Hence, the general effect of the revision in the Senate,
even as manipulated by the senators suspected of corrupt
motives, was an extensive lowering of duties. Some very
important additions to the free list made by the Wilson Bill
were left untouched by the senators—such as wool, lumber and
salt.
{3089}
In view of the extent of the gains acquired, the supporters of
tariff-reform in the House, after prolonged attempts in
conference committee to break the strength of the combination
against free sugar, free coal and free iron ore, were
reluctantly prevailed upon to accept the Senate bill. It had
passed the Senate on the 3d of July. The struggle in
conference committee lasted until the 13th of August, when the
House passed the Senate bill unchanged. The President declined
to give his signature to the act, but allowed it to become a
law. Immediately after the passage of the bill, the House
adopted special enactments admitting raw sugar, coal, iron
ore, and barbed wire, free of duty; but these bills were not
acted on in the Senate.
----------TARIFF: End--------
TARLETON, Colonel, in the War of the American Revolution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1780 (FEBRUARY-AUGUST); and 1780-1781.
TARPEIAN ROCK, The.
See CAPITOLINE HILL.
TARQUIN THE PROUD, The expulsion of.
See ROME: B. C. 510.
TARRACONENSIS.
See SPAIN: B. C. 218-25.
TARRAGONA: A. D. 1641.
Occupation by the French.
Surrender to the Spaniards.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1640-1642.
TARRAGONA: A. D. 1644.
Siege by the French.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1644-1646.
TARSUS.
See CILICIA.
TARTAN.
The title of the chief commander —under the king—of the
Assyrian armies.
TARTAR DYNASTY OF CHINA, The.
See CHINA: A. D. 1294-1882.
TARTARS, OR TATARS.
"The Chinese used the name in a general sense, to include the
greater part of their northern neighbours, and it was in
imitation of them, probably, that the Europeans applied the
name to the various nomade hordes who controlled Central Asia
after the Mongol invasion. But the name properly belonged, and
is applied by Raschid and other Mongol historians, to certain
tribes living in the north-eastern corner of Mongolia, who, as
I believe, were partially, at least, of the Tungusic race, and
whose descendants are probably to be found among the Solons of
Northern Manchuria."
H. H. Howorth,
History of the Mongols,
part 1, page 25.
"The name of Tartars, or Tatars, has been variously applied.
It was long customary among geographical writers to give this
title to the Kalmucs and Mongoles, and even to use it as a
distinguishing name for those races of men who resemble the
Kalmucs in features, and who have been supposed, whether
correctly or not, to be allied to them in descent. Later
authors, more accurate in the application of terms, have
declared this to be an improper use of the name of Tartar, and
by them the appellation has been given exclusively to the
tribes of the Great Turkish race, and chiefly to the northern
division of it, viz. to the hordes spread through the Russian
empire and independent Tartary. … Whatever may be the true
origin of the name of Tartar, custom has appropriated it to
the race of men extensively spread through northern Asia, of
whom the Ottoman Turks are a branch. It would, perhaps, be
more strictly correct to call all these nations Turks, but the
customary appellation may be retained when its meaning is
determined."
J. C. Prichard,
Researches into the Physical History
of the Races of Mankind,
chapter 5, section 1 (volume 2).
"The populations in question [the remnants, in southern Russia
and Siberia, of the great Mongol empire of the Kiptchak],
belong to one of three great groups, stocks, or families—the
Turk, the Mongol, or the Tungus. When we speak of a Tartar, he
belongs to the first, whenever we speak of a Kalmuk, he
belongs to the second, of these divisions. It is necessary to
insist upon this; because, whatever may be the laxity with
which the term Tartar is used, it is, in Russian ethnology at
least, a misnomer when applied to a Mongol. It is still worse
to call a Turk a Kalmuk."
R. G. Latham,
The Nationalities of Europe,
volume 1, chapter 23.
"Tartars (more correctly Tatars, but Tartars is the form
generally current), a name given to nearly three million
inhabitants of the Russian empire, chiefly Moslem and of
Turkish origin. The majority—in European Russia—are remnants
of the Mongol invasion of the 13th century, while those who
inhabit Siberia are survivals of the once much more numerous
Turkish population of the Ural-Altaic region, mixed to some
extent with Finnish and Samoyedic stems, as also with Mongols.
… The ethnographical features of the present Tartar
inhabitants of European Russia, as well as their language,
show that they contain no admixture (or very little) of
Mongolian blood, but belong to the Turkish branch of the
Ural-Altaic stock, necessitating the conclusion that only
Batu, his warriors, and a limited number of his followers were
Mongolians, while the great bulk of the 13th-century invaders
were Turks."
P. A. Kropotkine,
Article "Tartars" Encyclopœdia Brittanica.
ALSO IN:
H. H. Howorth,
History of the Mongols,
part 2, division 1, page 37.
See TURKS;
and MONGOLS.
TARTESSUS.
"The territory round Gades, Carteia, and the other Phenician
settlements in this district [southwestern Spain] was known to
the Greeks in the sixth century B. C. by the name of
Tartessus, and regarded by them somewhat in the same light as
Mexico and Peru appeared to the Spaniards of the sixteenth
century."
G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 18.
This was the rich region known afterwards to the Romans as
Bætica, as Turdetania, and in modern times as Andalusia.
E. H. Bunbury,
History of Ancient Geography,
chapter 21, section 2.
ALSO IN:
J. Kenrick,
Phoenicia,
chapter 4, section 3.
TARUMI, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.
TARUSATES, The.
See AQUITAINE: THE ANCIENT TRIBES.
TASHKEND OR TASHKENT, Russian capture of (1865).
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1859-1876.
TASMANIA: Discovery and naming.
See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1601-1800.
TATARS.
See TARTARS.
TAUBERBISCHOFSHEIM, Battle of.
See GERM[ANY: A. D. 1866.
{3090}
TAUNTON: A. D. 1685.
The Welcome to Monmouth.
The Maids of Taunton and their flag.
"When Monmouth marched into Taunton [A. D. 1685] it was an
eminently prosperous place. … The townsmen had long leaned
towards Presbyterian divinity and Whig politics. In the great
civil war, Taunton had, through all vicissitudes, adhered to
the Parliament, had been twice closely besieged by Goring, and
had been twice defended with heroic valour by Robert Blake,
afterwards the renowned Admiral of the Commonwealth. Whole
streets had been burned down by the mortars and grenades of
the Cavaliers. … The children of the men who, forty years
before, had manned the ramparts of Taunton against the
Royalists, now welcomed Monmouth with transports of joy and
affection. Every door and window was adorned with wreaths of
flowers. No man appeared in the streets without wearing in his
hat a green bough, the badge of the popular cause. Damsels of
the best families in the town wove colours for the insurgents.
One flag in particular was embroidered gorgeously with emblems
of royal dignity, and was offered to Monmouth by a train of
young girls." After the suppression of Monmouth's rebellion,
and while the "bloody Assizes" of Jeffreys were in progress,
these little girls were hunted out and imprisoned, and the
queen's maids of honor were permitted to extort money from
their parents for the buying of their pardon and release.
Lord Macaulay,
History of England,
chapter 5.
See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1685 (MAY-JULY).
TAURICA, TAURIC CHERSONESE.
The ancient Greek name of the Crimea, derived from the Tauri,
a savage people who once inhabited it; "perhaps," says Grote,
"a remnant of the expelled Cimmerians."
See BOSPHORUS, THE CITY, &c.;
and CIMMERIANS.
TAURIS, Naval battle near.
In the Roman civil war between Cæsar and his antagonists an
important naval battle was fought, B. C. 47, near the little
island of Tauris, on the Illyrian coast. Vatinius, who
commanded on the Cæsarian side, defeated Octavius, and drove
him out of the Adriatic.
G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 5, chapter 21.
TAVORA PLOT, The.
See JESUITS: A. D. 1757-1773.
TAWACONIES, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.
TAXIARCH.
PHYLARCH.
"The tribe appears to have been the only military
classification known to Athens, and the taxiarch the only
tribe officer for infantry, as the phylarch was for cavalry,
under the general-in-chief."
G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 8.
ALSO IN:
G. F. Schömann,
Antiquities of Greece: The State,
part 3, chapter 3.
TAYLOR, General Zachary,
The Mexican campaign of.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1846-1847.
Presidential election and administration.
Death.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1848.
TCHERNAYA, Battle of the (1855).
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854-1856.
TCHINOVNIKS.
To keep the vast and complex bureaucratic machine of Russia in
motion "it is necessary to have a large and well-drilled army
of officials. These are drawn chiefly from the ranks of the
noblesse and the clergy, and form a peculiar social class
called Tchinovniks, or men with 'Tchins.' As the Tchin plays
an important part in Russia, not only in the official world,
but also to some extent in social life, it may be well to
explain its significance. All officers, civil and military,
are, according to a scheme invented by Peter the Great,
arranged in fourteen classes or ranks, and to each class or
rank a particular name is attached. … As a general rule a man
must begin at or near the bottom of the official ladder, and
he must remain on each step a certain specified time. The step
on which he is for the moment standing, or, in other words,
the official rank or Tchin which he possesses, determines what
offices he is competent to hold. Thus rank or Tchin is a
necessary condition for receiving an appointment, but it does
not designate any actual office, and the names of the
different ranks are extremely apt to mislead a foreigner."
D. M. "Wallace,
Russia,
chapter 13.
TCHOUPRIA, Battle of (1804).
See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES:
14-19TH CENTURIES (SERVIA).
TEA: Introduction into Europe.
"The Dutch East India Company were the first to introduce it
into Europe, and a small quantity came to England from Holland
in 1666. The East India Company thereafter ordered their agent
at Bantam to send home small quantities, which they wished to
introduce as presents, but its price was 60s. per lb., and it
was little thought of. Twenty years elapsed before the Company
first decided on importing tea, but by degrees it came into
general use. In 1712 the imports of tea were only 156,000
lbs.; in 1750 they reached 2,300,000 lbs.; in 1800, 24,000,000
lbs.; in 1830, 30,500,000 lbs., and in 1870, 141,000,000 lbs."
L. Levi,
History of British Commerce,
page 239.
TEA-PARTY, The Boston.
See BOSTON: A. D. 1773.
TEA-ROOM PARTY, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1865-1868.
TEARLESS BATTLE, The (B. C. 368).
See GREECE: B. C. 371-362.
TECPANECAS, The.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1325-1502.
TECTOSAGES.
See VOLCÆ.
TECUMSEH, and his Indian League.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1811;
and 1812-1813 HARRISON'S NORTHWESTERN CAMPAIGN.
TECUNA, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.
TEGYRA, Battle of.
The first important victory won by the Thebans (B. C. 375), in
the war which broke the power of Sparta. It was fought in
Lokrian territory.
C. Thirlwall,
History of Greece,
chapter 38.
TEHUEL-CHE, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PATAGONIANS.
TEKKE TURCOMANS, Russian subjugation of.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1869-1881.
TEL EL AMARNA TABLETS, The.
See EGYPT: ABOUT B. C. 1500-1400.
TEL EL KEBIR, Battle of (1882).
See EGYPT: A. D. 1882-1883.
TELAMON, Battle of (B. C. 225).
See ROME: B. C. 295-191.
TELINGAS, The.
See TURANIAN RACES.
TELL, William, The Legend of.
See SWITZERLAND: THE THREE FOREST CANTONS.
TELMELCHES, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.
{3091}
TEMENIDÆ, The.
"The history of the Macedonian kingdom is the history of its
royal race. The members of this royal house called themselves
Temenidæ; i. e. they venerated as their original ancestor the
same Temenus who was accounted the founder of the Heraclide
dynasty in Peloponnesian Argos. Now, we remember the
disturbances at Argos during the regal period, the quarrel
between the Heraclidæ and the Dorian soldiery, and the flight
of a King Phidon to Tegea. It is therefore highly credible,
that during these troubles individual members of the royal
house emigrated, in order to seek a more favorable theatre for
their activity than was offered by the cribbed and confused
affairs of their home; and tradition points precisely to the
brother of this Phidon as the man who came to Macedonia from
the shores of Peloponnesus."
E. Curtius,
History of Greece,
book 7, chapter 1 (volume 5).
TEMENITES.
One of the suburbs of the ancient city of Syracuse was
so-called from the ground sacred to Apollo Temenites which it
contained. It afterwards became a part of the city called
Neapolis.
TEMESVAR, Battle of (1849).
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.
TEMESVAR, Siege and capture of (1716).
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1699-1718.
TEMPE, Vale of.
See THESSALY.
----------TEMPLARS: Start--------
TEMPLARS: A. D. 1118.
The founding of the Order.
"During the reign of Baldwin I. the kingdom [of Jerusalem] was
constantly harassed by the incursions of the Bedoween Arabs,
and pious pilgrims were exposed to great dangers in their
visits to the holy places. Nine valiant knights therefore, of
whom the two principal were Hugh de Payens and Godfrey of St.
Omer, vowed, in honour of the Sweet Mother of God (La douce
mère de Dieu) to unite the character of the soldier and the
monk, for the protection of pilgrims. In the presence of the
king and his barons, they took, in the year 1118, in the hands
of the patriarch, the three vows taken by the Hospitallers,
adding a fourth, that of combating the heathen, without
ceasing, in defence of pilgrims and of the Holy Land. The king
assigned them a part of his palace for their dwelling, and the
canons of the Temple gave them the open space between it and
the palace, whence they derived their appellation of Templars,
or Soldiers of the Temple. … Their garments were such as were
bestowed upon them by the charitable, and the seal of their
order, when they had attained to opulence—two knights mounted
on one horse—commemorated the time when a single war-horse had
to serve two knights of the Temple. When Baldwin II. was
released from captivity (1128), he sent envoys to Europe to
implore aid of the Christian powers. Among these were Hugh de
Payens, and some others of the brethren of the Temple. The
Templars appeared before the council of Troyes, and gave an
account of their order and its objects, which were highly
approved of by the fathers. The celebrated Bernard, abbot of
Clairvaux, took a lively interest in its welfare, and made
some improvements in its rule. A white mantle was assigned as
their habit, to which Pope Eugenius some years afterwards
added a plain red cross on the left breast; their banner was
formed of the black and white striped cloth named Bauséant,
which word became their battle-cry, and it bore the humble
inscription, 'Not unto us, O Lord, but unto thy name be
glory!' Hugh de Payens returned to Syria at the head of three
hundred knights of the noblest houses of the West, who had
become members of the order."
T. Keightley,
The Crusaders,
chapter 2.
ALSO IN:
J. A. Froude,
The Spanish Story of the Armada and other Essays,
chapter 4.
TEMPLARS: A. D. 1185-1313.
The Order in England and elsewhere.
"The Knights Templars first established the chief house of
their order in England, without Holborn Bars [London] on the
south side of the street, where Southampton House formerly
stood, adjoining to which Southampton Buildings were
afterwards erected. … This first house of the Temple,
established by Hugh de Payens himself, before his departure
from England, on his return to Palestine, was adapted to the
wants and necessities of the order in its infant state, when
the knights, instead of lingering in the preceptories of
Europe, proceeded at once to Palestine, and when all the
resources of the society were strictly and faithfully
forwarded to Jerusalem, to be expended in defence of the
faith; but when the order had greatly increased in numbers,
power, and wealth, and had somewhat departed from its original
purity and simplicity, we find that the superior and the
knights resident in London began to look abroad for a more
extensive and commodious place of habitation. They purchased a
large space of ground, extending from the White Friars
westward to Essex House without Temple Bar, and commenced the
erection of a convent on a scale of grandeur commensurate with
the dignity and importance of the chief house of the great
religio-military society of the Temple in Britain. It was
called the New Temple, to distinguish it from the original
establishment at Holborn, which came thenceforth to be known
by the name of the Old Temple. This New Temple was adapted for
the residence of numerous military monks and novices, serving
brothers, retainers, and domestics, … connected, by a range of
handsome cloisters, with the magnificent church, consecrated
by the patriarch. Alongside the river extended a spacious
pleasure ground. … The year of the consecration of the Temple
Church [A. D. 1185] Geoffrey, the superior of the order in
England, caused an inquisition to be made of the lands of the
Templars in this country. … The number of manors, farms,
churches, advowsons, demesne lands, villages, hamlets,
windmills, and water-mills, rents of assize, rights of common
and free warren, and the amount of all kinds of property
possessed by the Templars in England at the period of the
taking of this inquisition, are astonishing. … The annual
income of the order in Europe has been roughly estimated at
six millions sterling! According to Matthew Paris, the
Templars possessed nine thousand manors or lordships in
Christendom, besides a large revenue and immense riches
arising from the constant charitable bequests and donations of
sums of money from pious persons. … The Templars, in addition
to their amazing wealth, enjoyed vast privileges and
immunities."
C. G. Addison,
The Knights Templars,
chapter 3.
{3092}
When the order of the Templars was suppressed and its property
confiscated, the convent and church of the Temple in London were
granted by the king, first, in 1313, to Aymer de Valence, Earl
of Pembroke; afterwards, successively, to the Duke of
Lancaster and to Hugh le Despenser. "The Temple then came for
a short time into the hands of the Knights Hospitallers, and
during the reign of Edward III. it seems to have been occupied
by the lawyers, as tenants under the Hospitallers. When that
order was dissolved by Henry VIII., the property passed into
the hands of the Crown, the lawyers still holding possession
as tenants. This continued till the reign of James I., when a
petition was drawn up and presented to the king asking him to
assign the property to the legal body in permanence. This was
accordingly done by letters patent, in A. D. 1609, and the
Benchers of the Inner and Middle Temple received possession of
the buildings, on consideration of a small annual payment to
the Crown."
F. C. Woodhouse,
Military Religious Orders,
part 2, chapter 7.
"Many of the old retainers of the Temple became servants of
the new lawyers, who had ousted their masters. … The dining in
pairs, the expulsion from hall for misconduct, and the locking
out of chambers were old customs also kept up. The judges of
Common Pleas retained the title of knight, and the Fratres
Servientcs of the Templars arose again in the character of
learned serjeants-at-law, the coif of the modern serjeant
being the linen coif of the old Freres Serjens of the Temple."
W. Thornbury,
Old and New London,
volume 1, chapter 14.
ALSO IN:
C. G. Addison,
The Knights Templars
chapter 7.
TEMPLARS: A. D. 1299.
Their last campaign in Palestine.
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1299.
TEMPLARS: A. D. 1307-1314.
The prosecution and destruction of the order.

"When the Holy Land fell completely into Mahomedan hands on
the loss of Acre in 1291 [see JERUSALEM: A. D. 1291] they [the
Templars] abandoned the hopeless task and settled in Cyprus.
By the end of the thirteenth century they had almost all
returned to Europe. They were peculiarly strong and wealthy in
France—the strength and wealth were alike dangerous to them.
In Paris they built their fortress, the Temple, over against
the King's palace of the Louvre; and in that stronghold the
King himself had once to take refuge from the angry Parisian
mob, exasperated by his heavy extortions. During the life and
death struggle with the Papacy, the order had not taken the
side of the Church against the sovereign; for their wealth had
held them down. Philip [Philip IV], however, knew no
gratitude, and they were doomed. A powerful and secret society
endangered the safety of the state: their wealth was a sore
temptation: there was no lack of rumours. Dark tales came out
respecting the habits of the order; tales exaggerated and
blackened by the diseased imagination of the age. Popular
proverbs, those ominous straws of public opinion, were heard
in different lands, hinting at dark vices and crimes.
Doubtless the vows of the order, imposed on unruly natures,
led to grievous sins against the first laws of moral life. And
there was more than this: there were strange rumours of
horrible infidelity and blasphemy; and men were prepared to
believe everything. So no one seemed to be amazed when, in
October, 1307, the King made a sudden coup d'etat, arrested
all the Templars in France on the same day, and seized their
goods. The Temple at Paris with the Grand Master fell into his
hands. Their property was presently placed in the custody of
the Pope's nuncios in France; the knights were kept in dark
and dismal prisons. Their trial was long and tedious. Two
hundred and thirty-one knights were examined, with all the
brutality that examination then meant; the Pope also took the
depositions of more than seventy. From these examinations what
can we learn? All means were used: some were tortured, others
threatened, others tempted with promises of immunity. They
made confession accordingly; and the ghastly catalogue of
their professed ill-doings may be read in the history of the
trial. Who shall say what truth there was in it all? Probably
little or none. Many confessed and then recanted their
confession. The golden image with eyes of glowing carbuncle
which they worshipped; the trampling and spitting on the
crucifix; the names of Galla and Baphomet; the hideous
practices of the initiation;—all these things pass before us,
in the dim uncertainty, like some horrible procession of the
vices in hell. What the truth was will never be known. … The
knights made a dignified defence in these last moments of
their history; they did not flinch either at the terrible
prospect before them, or through memory of the tortures which
they had undergone. Public opinion, in and out of France,
began to stir against the barbarous treatment they had
received; they were no longer proud and wealthy princes, but
suffering martyrs, showing bravery and a firm front against
the cruelties of the King and his lawyers. Marigni, Philip's
minister and friend, and the King himself, were embarrassed by
the number and firmness of their victims, by the sight of
Europe looking aghast, by the murmurs of the people. Marigni
suggested that men who had confessed and recanted might be
treated as relapsed heretics, such being the law of the
Inquisition, (what irony was here!) and accordingly in 1310 an
enclosure was made at Paris, within which fifty-nine Templars
perished miserably by fire. Others were burnt later at Senlis.
… The King and Pope worked on the feeble Council, until in
March 1312 the abolition of the order was formally decreed;
and its chief property, its lands and buildings, were given
over to the Knights of St. John, to be used for the recovery
of the Holy Land; 'which thing,' says the Supplementor to
William of Nangis, 'came not to pass, but rather the endowment
did but make them worse than before.' The chief part of the
spoil, as might be well believed, never left the King's hands.
One more tragedy, and then all was over. The four heads of the
order were still at Paris, prisoners —Jacques de Molai, Grand
Master; Guy of Auvergne, the Master of Normandy, and two more.
The Pope had reserved their fate in his own hands, and sent a
commission to Paris, who were enjoined once more to hear the
confession of these dignitaries, and then to condemn them to
perpetual captivity. But at the last moment the Grand Master
and Guy publicly retracted their forced confessions, and
declared themselves and the order guiltless of all the
abominable charges laid against them. Philip was filled with
devouring rage. Without further trial or judgment he ordered
them to be led that night to the island in the Seine; there
they were fastened to the stake and burnt."
G. W. Kitchin,
History of France,
volume 1, book 3, chapter 10, section 3.
{3093}
In England, a similar prosecution of the Templars, instigated
by the pope, was commenced in January, 1308, when the chiefs
of the order were seized and imprisoned and subjected to
examination with torture. The result was the dissolution of
the order and the confiscation of its property; but none of
the knights were executed, though some died in prison from the
effects of their barbarous treatment. "The property of the
Templars in England was placed under the charge of a
commission at the time that proceedings were commenced against
them, and the king very soon treated it as if it were his own,
giving away manors and convents at his pleasure. A great part
of the possessions of the Order was subsequently made over to
the Hospitallers. … Some of the surviving Templars retired to
monasteries, others returned to the world, and assumed secular
habits, for which they incurred the censures of the Pope. … In
Spain, Portugal, and Germany, proceedings were taken against
the Order; their property was confiscated, and in some cases
torture was used; but it is remarkable that it was only in
France, and those places where Philip's influence was
powerful, that any Templar was actually put to death."
F. C. Woodhouse,
Military Religious Orders,
part 2, chapters 6-7 and 5.
ALSO IN:
C. G. Addison,
The Knights Templars,
chapter 7.
J. Michelet,
History of France,
book 5, chapter 3.
H. H. Milman,
History of Latin Christianity,
book 12, chapters 1-2 (volume 5).
----------TEMPLARS: End--------
TEMPLE, The (London).
See TEMPLARS: A. D. 1185-1313.
TEMPLE OF CONCORD AT ROME, The.
After the long contest in Rome over the Licinian Laws, which
were adopted B. C. 367, M. Furius Camillus—the great
Camillus—being made Dictator for the fifth time, in his
eightieth year, brought about peace between the patricians and
plebeians, in commemoration of which he vowed a temple to
Concord. "Before he could dedicate it, the old hero died. The
temple, however, was built according to his design; its site,
now one of the best known among those of ancient Rome, can
still be traced with great certainty at the north-western
angle of the Forum, immediately under the Capitoline. The
building was restored with great magnificence by the Emperor
Tiberius; and it deserved to be so, for it commemorated one of
the greatest events of Roman history."
H. G. Liddell,
History of Rome,
book 2, chapter 15 (volume 1).
TEMPLE OF DIANA.
See EPHESUS.
TEMPLE OF JANUS, The.
"The Temple of Janus was one of the earliest buildings of
Rome, founded, according to Livy (i. 19.) by Numa. It stood
near the Curia, on the northeast side of the Forum, at the
verge of a district called the Argiletum. … [it was] a small
'ædicula' or shrine, which towards the end of the Republic, or
perhaps earlier, was of bronze. It is shown with much
minuteness on a First Brass of Nero as a small cella, without
columns, but with richly ornamented frieze and cornice. Its
doors were closed on those rare occasions when Rome was at
peace with all the world. From the time of its traditional
founder, Numa, to that of Livy, it was only twice shut—once
after the first Punic War, and secondly after the victory of
Augustus at Actium. … It contained a very ancient statue,
probably by an Etruscan artist, of the double faced Janus
Bifrons, or Geminus. … The Temple of Janus gave its name to
this part of the edge of the Forum, and from the numerous
shops of the argentarii or bankers and money-lenders which
were there, the word Janus came to mean the usurers' quarter."
J. H. Middleton,
Ancient Rome in 1885,
chapter 5.
The Temple of Janus was closed, once more, by Vespasian, after
the destruction of Jerusalem and the ending of the war in
Judea, A. D. 71. "It had stood open since the German wars of
the first princeps [Augustus]; or, according to the
computation of the christian Orosius, from the birth of Christ
to the overthrow of the Jewish people: for the senate had
refused to sanction Nero's caprice in closing it on his
precarious accommodation with Parthia. Never before had this
solemn act addressed the feelings of the citizens so directly.
… The Peace of Vespasian was celebrated by a new bevy of poets
and historians not less loudly than the Peace of Augustus. A
new era of happiness and prosperity was not less passionately
predicted."
C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapter 60.
TEMPLE OF SOLOMON, The.
"As soon as David had given to his people the boon of a unique
capital, nothing could be more natural than the wish to add
sacredness to the glory of the capital by making it the centre
of the national worship. According to the Chronicles, David …
had made unheard-of preparations to build a house for God. But
it had been decreed unfit that the sanctuary should be built
by a man whose hands were red with the blood of many wars, and
he had received the promise that the great work should be
accomplished by his son. Into that work Solomon threw himself
with hearty zeal in the month Zif of the fourth year of his
reign, when his kingdom was consolidated. … He inherited the
friendship which David had enjoyed, with Hiram, King of Tyre.
… The friendliest overtures passed between the two kings in
letters, to which Josephus appeals as still extant. A
commercial treaty was made by which Solomon engaged to furnish
the Tyrian king with annual revenues of wheat, barley, and
oil, and Hiram put at Solomon's disposal the skilled labour of
an army of Sidonian wood-cutters and artisans. … Some writers
have tried to minimise Solomon's work as a builder, and have
spoken of the Temple as an exceedingly insignificant structure
which would not stand a moment's comparison with the smallest
and humblest of our own cathedrals. Insignificant in size it
certainly was, but we must not forget its costly splendour,
the remote age in which the work was achieved, and the truly
stupendous constructions which the design required. Mount
Moriah was selected as a site hallowed by the tradition of
Abraham's sacrifice, and more recently by David's vision of
the Angel of the Pestilence with his drawn sword on the
threshing-floor of the Jebusite Prince Araunah. But to utilise
this doubly consecrated area involved almost super-human
difficulties, which would have been avoided if the loftier but
less suitable height of the Mount of Olives could have been
chosen. The rugged summit had to be enlarged to a space of 500
yards square, and this level was supported by Cyclopean walls,
which have long been the wonder of the world. … The caverns,
quarries, water storages, and subterranean conduits hewn out
of the solid rock, over which Jerusalem is built, could only
have been constructed at the cost of immeasurable toil. … It
was perhaps from his Egyptian father-in-law that Solomon, to
his own cost, learnt the secret of forced labour which alone
rendered such undertakings possible. …
{3094}
Four classes were subject to it.
1. The lightest labour was required from the native freeborn
Israelites (ezrach). They were not regarded as bondsmen, … yet
30,000 of these were required in relays of 10,000 to work, one
month in every three, in the forest of Lebanon.
2. There were the strangers, or resident aliens (Gerim), such
as the Phœnicians and Giblites, who were Hiram's subjects and
worked for pay.
3. There were three classes of slaves—those taken in war, or
sold for debt, or home-born.
4. Lowest and most wretched of all, there were the vassal
Canaanites (Toshabim), from whom were drawn those 70,000
burden-bearers, and 80,000 quarry-men, the Helots of
Palestine, who were placed under the charge of 3,600 Israelite
officers.
The blotches of smoke are still visible on the walls and roofs
of the subterranean quarries where these poor serfs, in the
dim torchlight and suffocating air, 'laboured without reward,
perished without pity, and suffered without redress.' The sad
narrative reveals to us, and modern research confirms, that
the purple of Solomon had a very seamy side, and that an abyss
of misery heaved and moaned under the glittering surface of
his splendour. … Apart from the lavish costliness of its
materials the actual Temple was architecturally a poor and
commonplace structure. It was quite small —only 90 feet long,
35 feet broad, and 45 feet high. It was meant for the symbolic
habitation of God, not for the worship of great congregations.
… Of the external aspect of the building in Solomon's day we
know nothing. We cannot even tell whether it had one level
roof, or whether the Holy of Holies was like a lower chancel
at the end of it; nor whether the roof was flat or, as the
Rabbis say, ridged; nor whether the outer surface of the
three-storied chambers which surrounded it was of stone, or
planked with cedar, or overlaid with plinths of gold and
silver; nor whether, in any case, it was ornamented with
carvings or left blank; nor whether the cornices only were
decorated with open flowers like the Assyrian rosettes. Nor do
we know with certainty whether it was supported within by
pillars or not. … It required the toil of 300,000 men for
twenty years to build one of the pyramids. It took two hundred
years to build and four hundred to embellish the great Temple
of Artemis of the Ephesians. It took more than five centuries
to give to Westminster Abbey its present form. Solomon's
Temple only took seven and a half years to build; but … its
objects were wholly different from those of the great shrines
which we have mentioned. … Needing but little repair, it stood
for more than four centuries. Succeeded as it was by the
Temples of Zerubbabel and of Herod, it carried down till
seventy years after the Christian era the memory of the
Tabernacle in the wilderness, of which it preserved the
general outline, though it exactly doubled all the proportions
and admitted many innovations."
F. W. Farrar,
The First Book of Kings,
chapter 14 (Expositor's Bible).
TEN, The Council of.
See VENICE: A. D. 1032-1319.
TEN THOUSAND, The Retreat of the.
See PERSIA: B. C. 401-400.
TEN TRIBES OF ISRAEL, The.
See JEWS: THE KINGDOMS OF ISRAEL AND JUDAH.
TEN YEARS WAR, The.
The long conflict between Athens and her confederated enemies,
Sparta at the head, which is usually called the Peloponnesian
War, was divided into two periods by the Peace or Nicias. The
war in the first period, covering a decade, was known as the
Ten Years War; though the Peloponnesians called it the Attic
War.
E. Curtius,
History of Greece,
book 4, chapter 2.
See ATHENS: B. C. 421.
TENANT RIGHT, The Ulster.
The Tenant League.
See IRELAND: A. D.1848-1852.
TENCHEBRAY, Battle of (1106).
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1087-1135.
TENCTHERI, The.
See USIPETES.
TENEDOS.
See TROJA;
and ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK COLONIES.
TENEZ, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ZAPOTECS, ETC.
----------TENNESSEE: Start--------
TENNESSEE:
The aboriginal inhabitants.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SHAWANESE, and CHEROKEES.
TENNESSEE: A. D. 1629.
Embraced in the Carolina grant to Sir Robert Heath.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1629.
TENNESSEE: A. D. 1663.
Embraced in the Carolina grant to Monk,
Shaftesbury and others.
See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1663-1670.
TENNESSEE: A. D. 1748.
First English exploration from Virginia.
See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754.
TENNESSEE: A. D. 1768.
The Treaty with the Six Nations at Fort Stanwix.
Pretended cession of country south of the Ohio.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768.
TENNESSEE: A. D. 1769-1772.
The first settlers in the eastern valley.
The Watauga commonwealth and its constitution.
"Soon after the successful ending of the last colonial
struggle with France, and the conquest of Canada, the British
king issued a proclamation forbidding the English colonists
from trespassing on Indian grounds, or moving west of the
mountains.
See NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES: A. D. 1763.
But in 1768, at the treaty of Fort Stanwix, the Six Nations
agreed to surrender to the English all the lands lying between
the Ohio and the Tennessee.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768.
This treaty was at once seized upon by the backwoodsmen as
offering an excuse for settling beyond the mountains. However,
the Iroquois had ceded lands to which they had no more right
than a score or more other Indian tribes. … The great
hunting-grounds between the Ohio and the Tennessee formed a
debatable land, claimed by every tribe that could hold its own
against its rivals. The eastern part of what is now Tennessee
consists of a great hill-strewn, forest-clad valley, running
from northeast to southwest, bounded on one side by the
Cumberland, and on the other by the Great Smoky and Unaka
Mountains; the latter separating it from North Carolina. In
this valley arise and end the Clinch, the Holston, the
Watauga, the Nolichucky, the French Broad, and the other
streams, whose combined volume makes the Tennessee River. The
upper end of the valley lies in southwestern Virginia, the
headwaters of some of the rivers being well within that State;
and though the province was really part of North Carolina, it
was separated therefrom by high mountain chains, while from
Virginia it was easy to follow the watercourses down the
valley. Thus, as elsewhere among the mountains forming the
western frontier, the first movements of population went
parallel with, rather than across, the ranges.
{3095}
As in western Virginia the first settlers came, for the most
part, from Pennsylvania, so, in turn, in what was then western
North Carolina, and is now eastern Tennessee, the first
settlers came mainly from Virginia, and, indeed, in great
part, from this same Pennsylvanian stock. Of course, in each
case there was also a very considerable movement directly
westward. They were a sturdy race, enterprising and
intelligent, fond of the strong excitement inherent in the
adventurous frontier life. Their untamed and turbulent
passions, and the lawless freedom of their lives, made them a
population very productive of wild, headstrong characters;
yet, as a whole, they were a God-fearing race, as was but
natural in those who sprang from the loins of the Irish
Calvinists. Their preachers, all Presbyterians, followed close
behind the first settlers and shared their toil and dangers. …
In 1769, the year that Boon first went to Kentucky, the first
permanent settlers came to the banks of the Watauga, the
settlement being merely an enlargement of the Virginia
settlement, which had for a short time existed on the
head-waters of the Holston, especially near Wolf Hills. At
first the settlers thought they were still in the domain of
Virginia, for at that time the line marking her southern
boundary had not been run so far west. … But in 1771, one of
the new-comers, who was a practical surveyor, ran out the
Virginia boundary line some distance to the westward, and
discovered that the Watauga settlement came within the limits
of North Carolina. Hitherto the settlers had supposed that
they themselves were governed by the Virginian law, and that
their rights as against the Indians were guaranteed by the
Virginian government; but this discovery threw them back upon
their own resources. They suddenly found themselves obliged to
organize a civil government. … About the time that the Watauga
commonwealth was founded; the troubles in North Carolina came
to a head. Open war ensued between the adherents of the royal
governor, Tryon, on the one hand, and the Regulators, as the
insurgents styled themselves, on the other, the struggle
ending with the overthrow of the Regulators at the battle of
Alamance.
See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1766-1771.
As a consequence of these troubles, many people from the back
counties of North Carolina crossed the mountains, and took up
their abode among the pioneers on the Watauga and upper
Holston; the beautiful valley of the Nolichucky soon receiving
its share of this stream of immigration. Among the first
comers were many members of the class of desperate adventurers
always to be found hanging round the outskirts of frontier
civilization. … But the bulk of the settlers were men of
sterling worth; fit to be the pioneer fathers of a mighty and
beautiful state. … Such were the settlers of the Watauga, the
founders of the commonwealth that grew into the State of
Tennessee, who early in 1772 decided that they must form some
kind of government that would put down wrong-doing and work
equity between man and man. Two of their number already
towered head and shoulders above the rest in importance and
merit especial mention; for they were destined for the next
thirty years to play the chief parts in the history of that
portion of the Southwest which largely through their own
efforts became the State of Tennessee. These two men, neither
of them yet thirty years of age, were John Sevier and James
Robertson. … With their characteristic capacity for
combination, so striking as existing together with the equally
characteristic capacity for individual self-help, the settlers
determined to organize a government of their own. They
promptly put their, resolution into effect early in the spring
of 1772, Robertson being apparently the leader in the
movement. They decided to adopt written articles of agreement,
by which their conduct should be governed; and these were
known as the Articles of the Watauga Association. They formed
a written constitution, the first ever adopted west of the
mountains, or by a community composed of American-born
freemen. It is this fact of the early independence and
self-government of the settlers along the head-waters of the
Tennessee that gives to their history its peculiar importance.
They were the first men of American birth to establish a free
and independent community on the continent. … The first step
taken by the Watauga settlers, when they had determined to
organize, was to meet in general convention, holding a kind of
folk-thing, akin to the New England town-meeting. They then
elected a representative assembly, a small parliament or
'witanagemot,' which met at Robertson's station. Apparently
the freemen of each little fort or palisaded village, each
block-house that was the centre of a group of detached cabins
and clearings, sent a member to this first frontier
legislature. It consisted of thirteen representatives, who
proceeded to elect from their number five—among them Sevier
and Robertson—to form a committee or court, which should carry
on the actual business of government, and should exercise both
judicial and executive functions. This court had a clerk and a
sheriff, or executive officer, who respectively recorded and
enforced their decrees. … In fact, the dwellers, in this
little outlying frontier commonwealth, exercised the rights of
full statehood for a number of years; establishing in true
American style a purely democratic government with
representative institutions."
T. Roosevelt,
The Winning of the West,
volume 1, chapter 7.
ALSO IN:
E. Kirke (pseudonym J. R. Gilmore),
The Rear-Guard of the Revolution,
chapters 2-6.
J. Phelan,
History of Tennessee,
chapters 1-3.
TENNESSEE: A. D. 1776-1784.
Annexation to North Carolina.
Cession by that state to the Congress of the Confederation.
Consequent revolt.
Repeal of the act of cession.
"The Watauga people had hopes, when the articles of
association were adopted, of being able eventually to form an
independent government, governed as the older colonies were
governed, by royal governors. When the disagreements between
the colonies and the mother country arose, they modified their
views to the new order of things, and regarded themselves as a
distinct though as yet inchoate state. But their weakness …
rendered the protection of some more powerful state necessary
for their welfare. … They petitioned North Carolina for
annexation in 1776. Their petition was granted. … The
provincial congress of North Carolina met at Halifax in
November, 1776, and [Robertson, Sevier and two others] were
delegates from Washington District, Watauga settlement. …
{3096}
After the annexation of the Washington District the old form
of government was allowed to stand until the spring of 1777. …
In November of this year, 1777, the District of Washington
became Washington County. … From 1777 until the disturbances
of eight years later, the history of Tennessee was a part of
the history of North Carolina. … The part played by the
inhabitants of Tennessee in the war for independence was
active, and in one instance [at King's Mountain] decisive.
Their operations were chiefly of a desultory, guerrilla kind,
under the leadership of Sevier … and Shelby." Sevier was also
the leader in wars with the Indians, which were carried on
with unsparing fierceness on both sides. "In the April session
of 1784, the General Assembly of North Carolina, in accordance
with the recommendation of Congress itself, as well as with
the dictates of a far-seeing and enlightened statesmanship,
imitated the example of Virginia and New York, and ceded to
the United States all the territory which is now the State of
Tennessee.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D.1781-1786.
This of course included all the settlements. The condition of
the cession was its acceptance by Congress within two years.
Until Congress should have accepted the ceded territory, the
jurisdiction of North Carolina over it was to remain in every
respect the same as heretofore. … When the question of cession
was first broached, it was accepted by the four
representatives of the western counties at Hillsboro, as well
as by those who proposed it, as the natural and legitimate
solution of a complex problem. No one apparently dreamed of
opposition on the part of the settlers themselves. … There is
no reason to think that the Watauga people had any objection
to the cession. … The objection was against the manner of the
cession and its conditions. … The main cause of complaint was
that North Carolina had left them without any form of
government for two years. … A storm of indignation swept
through the entire settlement. … The people regarded
themselves without government, and, true to the traditions of
their race, they sought the solution of the difficulty in
their own resources. … It is one of the noteworthy facts in
the history of institutions that the possessors of English
tradition always begin with the first primal germ of local
self-government at hand, be it court leet, court of quarter
sessions, township, county, school district, or military
company, and build upward. The Watauga people had nothing so
convenient as the militia companies, and they began with them
as representing a more minutely varied constituency than the
county court. Each company elected two representatives, and
the representatives so elected in each county formed
themselves into a committee, and the three committees of
Washington, Sullivan, and Greene counties met as a kind of
impromptu or temporary legislature, and decided to call a
general convention to be elected by the people of the
different counties. This convention met on the 23d of August,
1784, at Jonesboro. John Sevier was elected president, and
Landon Carter secretary. … It is supposed that the convention
which met at Jonesboro adopted the resolution to form a
'separate and distinct State, independent of the State of
North Carolina.' … Provision was made for the calling of a
future convention in which representation was to be according
to companies. … The meeting adjourned, having fairly
inaugurated the contest with North Carolina, which still
claimed jurisdiction." Soon afterward the legislature of North
Carolina repealed the act of cession, and "for a time it was
supposed that this would terminate the agitation in favor of a
new State."
J. Phelan,
History of Tennessee,
chapters 5-10.
ALSO IN:
J. R. Gilmore,
John Sevier as a Commonwealth Builder,
chapter 2.
J. G. M. Ramsey,
Annals of Tennessee,
chapter 3.
TENNESSEE: A. D. 1780.
The Battle of King's Mountain.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780-1781.
TENNESSEE: A. D. 1785.
The organization of the State of Franklin.
"Toward the close of May [1785] the western lands being again
under discussion [in Congress], a resolution was carried
urging North Carolina to reconsider her act of the previous
November, and once more cede to Congress her possessions
beyond the mountains. Had the request been granted, there can
be no doubt, the measure would have speedily brought peace and
quiet to that distracted region. But North Carolina was too
intent on bringing her rebellious subjects to terms to think
for a moment of bestowing them with their lands and goods on
Congress. Indeed, when the news of the request was carried
into the district some months later, the malcontents expressed
much surprise. They could not, they said, understand why
Congress should apply to North Carolina; North Carolina had
nothing to do with them. The parent State had, by her act of
1784, given them away. Congress did not take them under its
protection. They belonged, therefore, to nobody, and while in
this condition had called a convention, had framed a
constitution, had formed a new State, had chosen for it a
name, and elected a Legislature which was actually in session
at the time the act of the 23d of May was passed. … Much of
what they stated was strictly true. The delegates to the
second convention had assembled early in 1785. These had given
the State the name of Franklin, and had drawn up a
constitution which they submitted to the people. It was
expected that the men of the district would consider it
carefully, and select delegates to a third convention, which
should have full power to ratify or reject. The place fixed
upon for the meeting of the convention was Greenville. But as
there was then no printing-press nearer than Charleston or
Richmond, and as much time must elapse before the constitution
could become known to all, the delegates were not to convene
till the 14th of November. Meanwhile the Legislature was to
organize. Elections were held without delay; members were
chosen after the manner in which the settlers had long been
accustomed to elect representatives to the Assembly of the
parent State, and these, meeting at Jonesboro, conducted their
business with so much dispatch that on the last day of March
they adjourned. Many acts were passed by them. But one alone
excited general comment, and was the cause of unbounded
merriment across the mountains. A list of articles at that
time scarce to be met with in the State of Franklin would be a
long one. But there would be no article in the list less
plentiful than money. … When, therefore, the Legislature came
to determine what should be the legal currency of the State,
it most wisely contented itself with fixing the value of such
articles as had, from time immemorial, been used as money.
{3097}
One pound of sugar, the law said, should pass for a
shilling-piece; the skin of a raccoon or a fox for a shilling
and threepence. A gallon of rye whiskey, it was thought, was
worth twice that sum, while a gallon of peach-brandy or a yard
of good nine hundred flax linen was each to pass for a
three-shilling piece. Some difficulty was met with in
selecting articles that could be easily carried from place to
place and expressive of large values. It was, however, finally
determined that a clean beaver-skin, an otter or a deer-skin,
should each of them be the representative of six shillings. In
this kind of money, the law further prescribed, the salary of
every officer of the State, from the Governor down to the
hangman, was to be paid. When this act became known in the
East the wits were greatly amused. … In the belief that the
new money could not be counterfeited they were much mistaken.
Many bundles of what seemed to be otter-skins were soon
passing about, which, on being opened, were found to be skins
of raccoons with tails of otters sewed to them. … The name of
the State has often been asserted to be Frankland, the land of
the Franks, or Freemen. … But letters are extant from high
officials of the State to Benjamin Franklin declaring that it
was named after him."
J. B. McMaster,
History of the People of the United States,
volume 1, chapter 3, with foot-note.
ALSO IN:
J. G. M. Ramsey,
Annals of Tennessee,
chapter 4.
TENNESSEE: A. D. 1785-1796.
The troubled history and the fall of the state of Franklin.
The rise of the state of Tennessee.
On receiving news of the organization of the independent state
of Franklin, Governor Martin, of North Carolina, issued a
proclamation which was skilfully addressed to the cooler
judgment of the mountaineers and which "was not without its
effect." But, although the adherents of North Carolina
"gradually gained ground in the new commonwealth, a majority
still clung to Sevier, and refused to recognize any government
but the one they themselves had organized. In this opposition
of parties, disorders sprang up which presently degenerated
into lawlessness. Both governments claimed jurisdiction, and
both sought to exercise it. The consequence was that both
became inefficient. Party quarrels ensued; old friends became
enemies; Tipton and his followers openly supported the claims
of North Carolina; Sevier sought to maintain his authority as
the executive officer of Franklin. This antagonistic spirit
led to the commission of various outrages. … But in the midst
of these inglorious quarrels, Governor Sevier did not neglect
to defend from Indian aggressions the state over which he had
been called to preside. … He was far less successful, however,
in giving peace to the distracted state of Franklin. The
continuance of intestine dissensions, and the nice balance of
parties which took place in 1787, induced the people to refuse
to pay taxes either to North Carolina or to the local
government, until the supremacy of one or the other should be
more generally acknowledged. In this state of affairs, with
his government tottering to its downfall, Sevier earnestly
appealed to North Carolina for a ratification of the
independence of the state of Franklin, and to Franklin
himself, and the governors of Georgia and Virginia, for
counsel and assistance. Disappointed on all sides, he finally
rested for support upon his immediate friends, conscious of
the rectitude of his own intentions. … But the people were
already weary of a feud which threatened, at every fresh
outbreak, to end in bloodshed. In 1787 the last legislature of
the state of Franklin held its session at Greenville. … The
conciliatory measures of North Carolina presently disarmed the
malecontents of all further arguments for opposing the
reunion; and in February, 1788, the state of Franklin ceased
to exist." Fierce conflicts between Sevier and Tipton and
their hotter partisans still continued for some time; until,
in October, Sevier was arrested for high treason and
imprisoned at Morgantown. He escaped soon after, through the
aid of his sons, was elected to the North Carolina senate, and
was permitted to qualify for the seat on renewing his oath of
allegiance. "His services were remembered and his faults
forgotten." Meantime, settlements on the Cumberland, founded
in 1779 by James Robertson, had prospered and grown strong,
and Nashville, the chief among them, assumed its name in 1784,
"in commemoration of the patriotic services of Colonel Francis
Nash," of North Carolina, who fell in the battle of
Germantown. In 1790, after ratifying the Federal Constitution,
North Carolina, re-enacted the cession of her western
territory, coinciding with the present state of Tennessee, to
the United States, stipulating "that no regulation made or to
be made by Congress shall tend to the emancipation of slaves."
The "Territory southwest of the Ohio" was then organized, with
William Blount for governor. Six years later (January, 1796),
the population of the Territory having been ascertained by a
census to be 67,000 free white inhabitants and 10,000 slaves,
a constitution was adopted, the State of Tennessee was formed,
with John Sevier for Governor, and, after some opposition in
Congress, it was formally admitted to its place and rank as
one of the United States of America. Its first Representative
in the House was Andrew Jackson.
W. H. Carpenter,
History of Tennessee,
chapters 13-17.
ALSO IN:
J. R. Gilmore,
John Sevier as a Commonwealth-Builder,
chapters 4-12.
TENNESSEE: A. D. 1785-1800.
The question of the Free Navigation of the Mississippi.
Discontent of the settlers and intrigues among them.
See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1785-1800.
TENNESSEE: A. D. 1813-1814.
The Creek War.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1813-1814 (AUGUST-APRIL).
TENNESSEE: A. D. 1861 (JANUARY-MAY).
The mode in which the state was dragged into Rebellion.
"The Legislature of Tennessee met on the 6th of January. On
the 12th, a bill for the calling of a state convention [with
the object of following the lead, in secession, which South
Carolina had taken on the 20th of December was passed.]
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1860 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).
{3098}
It was passed subject to the approval of the voters. The
election took place on the 8th day of February. The people
voted against holding a convention by 67,360, to 54,156. In
disregard of this vote of the people, however, the
legislature, on May 1st, passed a joint resolution authorizing
the governor to enter into a military league with the Confederate
States. The league was formed. The Governor, Isham G. Harris,
sent a message to the legislature, announcing the fact. He
stated its terms. … It stipulated that until the state should
become a member of the Confederacy, 'the whole military force
and military operations, offensive and defensive, of said
state, in the impending conflict with the United States, shall
be under the chief control and direction of the President of
the Confederate States.' It was also agreed that the state
would, as soon as it should join the Confederacy, turn over
all public property it might acquire from the United States.
The legislature ratified the league by decided majorities of
both branches. These final proceedings took place on the 7th
day of May. On the preceding day, the legislature put forth a
declaration of independence. It was submitted to the votes of
the people for ratification. This document waives the right of
secession, as follows: 'We, the people of the State of
Tennessee, waiving an expression of opinion as to the abstract
doctrine of secession, but asserting the right, as a free and
independent people,' declare that all the laws and ordinances
by which Tennessee became a member of the Federal Union, 'are
hereby abrogated.' The vote for separation was declared by the
governor to be 104,019 for, and 47,238 against that measure.
It thus appears that the Legislature of Tennessee, in
declaring the separation of the state from the Federal Union,
placed its action upon the ground of a revolutionary right,
which all admit to be inalienable, if the cause be just."
S. S. Cox,
Three Decades of Federal Legislation,
chapter 6.
ALSO IN:
F. Moore, editor,
Rebellion Record,
volume 1, documents 201-205.
O. J. Victor,
History of the Southern Rebellion,
division 4, chapter 11 (volume 2).
TENNESSEE: A. D. 1861 (April).
Governor Harris' reply to President Lincoln's call for troops.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (APRIL).
TENNESSEE: A. D. 1861 (June).
The loyalty of East Tennessee and its resistance to Secession.
"For separation and representation at Richmond, East Tennessee
gave [at the election, June 8, when the question of secession
was nominally submitted to the people, the state having been
already delivered by its governor and legislature to the
Confederacy] 14,700 votes; and half of that number were Rebel
troops, having no authority under the Constitution to vote at
any election. For 'no separation' and 'no representation,'—the
straight-out Union vote,—East Tennessee gave 33,000, or 18,300
of a majority, with at least 5,000 quiet citizens deterred
from coming out by threats of violence, and by the presence of
drunken troops at the polls to insult them. … By … fraud and
villainy, … the great State of Tennessee was carried out of
the Union. The loyal people of East Tennessee, to their great
honor, had no lot or part in the work."
W. G. Brownlow,
Sketches of the Rise, Progress and Decline of Secession,
pages 222-223.
"Finding themselves powerless before the tyranny inaugurated,
the Unionists of East Tennessee resolved, as a last resort, to
hold a Convention at Greenville, to consult as to the best
course to pursue. This Convention met June 17th. The
attendance was very large—thirty-one counties having delegates
present on the first day. Judge Nelson presided. After a four
days' session it adopted a Declaration of Grievances and
Resolutions," declaring that "we prefer to remain attached to
the Government of our fathers. The Constitution of the United
States has done us no wrong. The Congress of the United States
has passed no law to oppress us. … The secession cause has
thus far been sustained by deception and falsehood." The
Convention protested on behalf of East Tennessee against being
dragged into rebellion, and appointed commissioners to pursue
measures looking to the formation of a separate state. "Vain
protest! It was not long before those Unionists and
protestants against wrong were flying for their lives, and
were hunted down like wild beasts."
O. J. Victor,
History of the Southern Rebellion,
division 5, chapter 5 (volume 2).
ALSO IN:
T. W. Humes,
The Loyal Mountaineers of Tennessee,
chapters 6-11.
W. Rule,
Loyalists of Tennessee in the late War
(Sketches of War History, Ohio Commandery, L. L. volume 2).
TENNESSEE: A. D. 1862 (February).
The breaking of the Rebel line of defense at Fort Henry and
Fort Donelson.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE).
TENNESSEE: A. D. 1862 (March).
Andrew Johnson appointed military governor.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (MARCH-JUNE).
TENNESSEE: A. D. 1862 (April).
The continued advance of the Union armies.
Battle of Shiloh, or Pittsburg Landing.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (FEBRUARY-APRIL: TENNESSEE).
TENNESSEE: A. D. 1862 (April-May).
The Union advance upon Corinth, Mississippi.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (APRIL-MAY: TENNESSEE-MISSISSIPPI).
TENNESSEE: A. D. 1862 (June).
Evacuation of Fort Pillow and surrender
of Memphis by the Confederates.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (JUNE: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).
TENNESSEE: A. D. 1862 (June-October).
The Buell-Bragg campaign.
Chattanooga secured by the Confederates.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (JUNE-OCTOBER: TENNESSEE-KENTUCKY).
TENNESSEE: A. D. 1862-1863 (December-January).
Bragg and Rosecrans.
The Battle of Stone River, or Murfreesborough.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862-1863 (DECEMBER-JANUARY: TENNESSEE).
TENNESSEE: A. D. 1863 (February-April).
Engagements at Dover and Franklin.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (FEBRUARY-APRIL: TENNESSEE).
TENNESSEE: A. D. 1863 (June-July).
The Tullahoma campaign of Rosecrans.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (JUNE-JULY: TENNESSEE).
TENNESSEE: A. D. 1863 (August-September).
Burnside in east Tennessee.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: TENNESSEE)
BURNSIDE'S DELIVERANCE.
TENNESSEE: A. D. 1863 (August-September).
The Chickamauga campaign and battle.
The Union army at Chattanooga.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: TENNESSEE)
ROSECRANS' ADVANCE.
TENNESSEE: A. D. 1863 (October-November).
The Siege and the Battles of Chattanooga.
Lookout Mountain.
Missionary Ridge.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).
TENNESSEE: A. D. 1863 (October-December).
Siege of Knoxville.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER: TENNESSEE).
{3099}
TENNESSEE: A. D. 1863-1864 (December-April).
Winter operations.
Withdrawal of Longstreet from east Tennessee.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863-1864(DECEMBER-APRIL: TENNESSEE-MISSISSIPPI).
TENNESSEE: A. D. 1864 (April).
The Fort Pillow Massacre.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (APRIL: TENNESSEE).
TENNESSEE: A. D. 1864 (September-October).
Forrest's raid.
The capture of Athens.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER: GEORGIA).
TENNESSEE: A. D. 1864 (November).
Hood's invasion and destruction.
The Battles of Franklin and Nashville.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE),
and (DECEMBER: TENNESSEE).
TENNESSEE: A. D. 1865.
President Johnson's recognition of the
reconstructed State Government.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY).
TENNESSEE: A. D. 1865-1866.
Reconstruction.
Abolition of Slavery.
Restoration of the State to its
"former, proper, practical relation to the Union."
In the early part of 1865, Andrew Johnson, though
Vice-President-elect, was "still discharging the functions of
military governor of Tennessee. A popular convention
originating from his recommendation and assembling under his
auspices, was organized at Nashville on the 9th day of
January, 1865. Membership of the body was limited to those who
'give an active support to the Union cause, who have never
voluntarily borne arms against the Government, who have never
voluntarily given aid and comfort to the enemy.' … Tennessee,
as Johnson bluntly maintained, could only be organized and
controlled as a State in the Union by that portion of her
citizens who acknowledged their allegiance to the Government
of the Union. Under this theory of procedure the popular
convention proposed an amendment to the State constitution,
'forever abolishing and prohibiting slavery in the State,' and
further declaring that 'the Legislature shall make no law
recognizing the right of property in man.' The convention took
several other important steps, annulling in whole and in
detail all the legislation which under Confederate rule had
made the State a guilty participant in the rebellion. Thus was
swept away the ordinance of Secession, and the State debt
created in aid of the war against the Union. All these
proceedings were submitted to popular vote on the 22d of
February, and were ratified by an affirmative vote of 25,293
against a negative vote of 48. The total vote of the State at
the Presidential election of 1860 was 145,333. Mr. Lincoln's
requirement of one-tenth of that number was abundantly
complied with by the vote on the questions submitted to the
popular decision. … Under this new order of things, William G.
Brownlow, better known to the world by his soubriquet of
'Parson' Brownlow, was chosen governor without opposition on
the 4th day of March, 1865, the day of Mr. Lincoln's second
inauguration. The new Legislature met at Nashville a month
later, on the 3d of April, and on the 5th ratified the
Thirteenth Amendment; thus adding the abolition of slavery by
National authority to that already decreed by the State. The
Legislature completed its work by electing two consistent
Union men, David T. Patterson and Joseph S. Fowler, to the
United States Senate. The framework of the new Government was
thus completed and in operation before the death of Mr.
Lincoln."
J. G. Blaine,
Twenty Years of Congress,
volume 2, chapter 3.
After the organization of a loyal government in Tennessee,
more than a year passed before the restoration of the State to
its constitutional relations with the United States, by the
admission of its Senators and Representatives to Congress.
Tennessee was the first, however, among the seceded States to
obtain that recognition, by being the first to ratify the
Fourteenth Constitutional Amendment. "Immediately on the
reception of the circular of the Secretary of State containing
the proposed amendment, Governor Brownlow issued a
proclamation summoning the Legislature of Tennessee to
assemble at Nashville on the 4th of July [1866]. … Every
effort was made to prevent the assembling of the required
number [to constitute a quorum]. The powerful influence of the
President himself was thrown in opposition to ratification."
By arresting recalcitrant members, and by "the expedient of
considering the members who were under arrest and confined in
a committee room as present in their places," the quorum was
assumed to have been made up and the amendment was ratified.
"Immediately after the news was received in Washington, Mr.
Bingham, in the House of Representatives, moved to reconsider
a motion by which a joint resolution relating to the
restoration of Tennessee had been referred to the Committee on
Reconstruction," and, this motion being adopted, he introduced
a substitute which declared, "That the State of Tennessee is
hereby restored to her former, proper, practical relation to
the Union, and again entitled to be represented by Senators
and Representatives in Congress, duly elected and qualified,
upon their taking the oaths of office required by existing
laws." On the following day this joint resolution passed the
House, and a day later (July 21st), it was adopted by the
Senate.
W. H. Barnes,
History of the 39th Congress,
chapter 20.
ALSO IN:
Ira P. Jones,
Reconstruction in Tennessee
(Why the Solid South? chapter 7).
TENNESSEE: A. D. 1866-1871.
The Ku Klux Klan.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866-1871.

----------TENNESSEE: End--------
TENNIS-COURT OATH, The.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (JUNE).
TENOCHTITLAN.
The native name of the city of Mexico.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1325-1502.
TENPET, The.
See MAGIANS.
TENURE-OF-OFFICE BILL, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1866-1867 (DECEMBER-MARCH).
TEOTIHUACAN, Pyramids at.
See MEXICO, ANCIENT: THE TOLTEC EMPIRE, &c.
TEQUESTA, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TIMUQUANAN FAMILY.
TERENTILIAN LAW, The.
See ROME: B. C. 451-449.
TERMILI, The.
See LYCIANS.
TEROUENNE: Siege and capture by the English (1513).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1513-1515.
TERRA FIRMA.
See TIERRA FIRME.
{3100}
TERROR, The Reign of.
As commonly used, this phrase describes the fearful state of
things that prevailed in France during a period of the French
Revolution which ended with the fall of Robespierre, July 27
(Ninth Thermidor), 1794. The beginning of the period so called
is usually placed at the date of the coup d'état, May 31-June
2, 1793, which overthrew the Girondists and gave unrestrained
power into the hands of the Terrorists of the Mountain. The
Reign of Terror was not however fully organized as a
deliberately merciless system, and made, according to the
demand of the Paris Commune, "the order of the day," until the
following September. In another view, the Reign of Terror may
be said to have begun with the creation of the terrible
Revolutionary Tribunal, March, 1793.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (FEBRUARY-APRIL), to 1794 (JULY).
TERTIARII, The.
See BEGUINES, ETC.
TESCHEN, Treaty of (1779).
See BAVARIA: A. D. 1777-1779.
TESHER.
The name which the Egyptians gave to the Arabian desert,
signifying red earth.
See EGYPT: ITS NAMES.
TESSERA HOSPITALIS.
See HOSPES.
TEST ACT, and its Repeal.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1672-1673,
and 1827-1828 REMOVAL OF DISABILITIES.
TESTRI, Battle of (A. D. 687).
See FRANKS: A. D. 511-752.
TESTS, Religious, in the English Universities: Abolished.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1871.
TETONS, The.
See AMERICAN' ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.
TETRARCH.
As originally used, this official title, from the Greek,
signified the governor of one fourth part of a country or
province. Later, the Romans applied it to many tributary
princes, in Syria and elsewhere, to whom they wished to give a
rank inferior to that of the tributary kings.
TETZEL, and the sale of Indulgences.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1517 TETZEL.
TEUKRIANS, The.
"The elegiac poet Kallinus, in the middle of the seventh
century B. C., was the first who mentioned the Teukrians; he
treated them as immigrants from Krête, though other authors
represented them as indigenous, or as having come from Attica.
However the fact may stand as to their origin, we may gather
that, in the time of Kallinus, they were still the great
occupants of the Troad [northwestern Asia Minor]. Gradually
the south and west coasts, as well as the interior of this
region, became penetrated by successive colonies of Æolic
Greeks. … The name Teukrians gradually vanished out of present
use and came to belong only to the legends of the past."
G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 14.
TEUTECAS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ZAPOTECS, ETC.
TEUTONES.
TEUTONIC.
"In the way of evidence of there being Teutones amongst the
Germans, over and above the associate mention of their names
with that of the Cimbri [see CIMBRI], there is but little.
They are not so mentioned either by Tacitus or Strabo. …
Arguments have been taken from … the supposed connection of
the present word 'Deut-sch' =='German,' with the classical
word 'Teut-ones.' … The reasoning … runs thus: The syllable in
question is common to the word 'Teut-ones,' 'Teut-onicus,'
'Theod-iscas,' 'teud-uiscus,' 'teut-iscus,' 'tût-iske,'
'dût-iske,' 'tiut-sche,' 'deut-sch'; whilst the word Deut-sch
means German, As the 'Teut-ones' were Germans, so were the
Cimbri also. Now this line of argument is set aside by the
circumstance that the syllable 'Teut-' in Teut-ones and
Teut-onicus as the names of the confederates of the Cimbri, is
wholly unconnected with the 'Teut-' in 'theod-iscus' and
Deut-sch. This is fully shown by Grimm in his dissertation on
the words German and Dutch. In its oldest form the latter word
meant 'popular,' 'national,' 'vernacular'; it was an adjective
applied to the 'vulgar tongue,' or the vernacular German, in
opposition to the Latin. In the tenth century the secondary
form 'Teut-onicus' came in vogue even with German writers.
Whether this arose out of imitation of the Latin form
'Romanice,' or out of the idea of an historical connection
with the Teutones of the classics, is immaterial. It is clear
that the present word 'Deut-sch' proves nothing respecting the
Teutones. Perhaps, however, as early as the time of Martial
the word 'Teutonicus' was used in a general sense, denoting
the Germans in general. Certain it is that, before his time,
it meant the particular people conquered by Marius,
irrespective of origin or locality."
R. G. Latham,
The Germany of Tacitus,
appendix 3.
TEUTONIC KNIGHTS OF THE HOSPITAL:
The founding of the order.
"It is not possible to find the exact date of the foundation
of the Teutonic Order, but it was probably about A. D. 1190
that it received its full organization as one of the
recognized Religious Military Orders. Its actual commencement,
like that of the other Orders, was obscure and humble. About
1128 or 1129, a wealthy German, who had taken part in the
siege and capture of Jerusalem, settled there with his wife,
intending to spend the remainder of his life in the practice
of religion and in visiting the holy places. His attention and
interest were soon excited by the misfortunes of his poorer
countrymen, who came in great numbers as pilgrims to
Jerusalem. Many fell sick, and endured great miseries and
hardships. Moved with compassion, he received some of the more
distressing cases into his own house. But he soon found that
the work grew beyond this, and he built a hospital, with a
chapel dedicated to the Blessed Virgin. In this institution he
passed the whole of his time, nursing the sick pilgrims; and
to their maintenance he devoted the whole of his means." One
by one, others of his countrymen joined the pious German in
his benevolent work, and "banded themselves together after the
pattern of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem, and united the
care of the sick and poor with the profession of arms in their
defence, under the title of Hospitallers of the Blessed
Virgin. This little band put themselves under the direction of
the Grand Prior of the Hospitallers of St. John of Jerusalem,
although they did not actually join this Order, whose
operations they so closely imitated. … It was, however, during
the siege of Acre [A. D. 1189-1191] that the Teutonic Order
received its final and complete organization as one of the
great Military Religious Orders of Europe." At Acre, the
Hospitallers of the Blessed Virgin, then driven from Jerusalem
by Saladin's conquest, joined certain citizens of Bremen and
Lu·beck in providing a field-hospital for the wounded and
sick, and in their new sphere of labor they acquired the
designation of the Teutonic Knights of the Hospital of the
Blessed Virgin at Jerusalem. "It is said that the Order owed
its constitution to Frederick, Duke of Suabia; but there is
much obscurity, and little authentic record to determine this
or to furnish particulars of the transaction. The Order seems,
however, to have been confirmed by Pope Celestine III."
F. C. Woodhouse,
Military Religious Orders,
part 3, chapter 1.
{3101}
TEUTONIC KNIGHTS OF THE HOSPITAL:
Conquest of Prussia.
See PRUSSIA: 13TH CENTURY; and LIVONIA.
TEUTONIC KNIGHTS OF THE HOSPITAL:
Subjection to Poland, secularization of the Order
and surrender of its territories.
See POLAND: A. D. 1333-1572.
TEUTONIC KNIGHTS OF THE HOSPITAL: A. D. 1809.
Suppression by Napoleon.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JULY-DECEMBER).
TEWFIK, Khedive of Egypt, The reign of.
See EGYPT: A. D. 1875-1882; and 1882-1883.
TEWKESBURY, Battle of (1471).
The final battle of the "War of the Roses," in which Edward
IV. of England overthrew the last Lancastrian army, collected
by Queen Margaret of Anjou and her adherents; fought May 4,
1471. Three weeks previously, at Barnet, he had defeated and
slain the Earl of Warwick. At Tewkesbury Queen Margaret was
taken prisoner, her young son disappeared, how or when is
uncertain, and her husband, the deposed King Henry VI., died
mysteriously a few days afterwards in his prison in the tower.
It was the end of the Lancastrian struggle.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1455-1471.
----------TEXAS: Start--------
TEXAS:
The aboriginal inhabitants and the name.
Amongst the small tribes found early in the 19th century
existing west of the Mississippi on Red River and south of it,
and believed to be natives of that region, were the Caddoes,
"the Nandakoes, the Inies or Tachies, who have given their
name to the province of Texas, and the Nabedaches, … [who]
speak dialects of the Caddo language." Also, the Natchitoches,
the Yatassees, the Adaize, the Appelousas, etc.
A. Gallatin,
Synopsis of the Indian Tribes
(Archœologia Americana, volume 2),
introduction, section 3.
ALSO IN:
President's Message, February 19, 1806,
with accompanying documents.
See, also, AMERICAN ABORIGINES: APACHE GROUP.
TEXAS: A. D. 1685-1687.
La Salle's shipwrecked colony.
See CANADA: A. D. 1669-1687.
TEXAS: A. D. 1819-1835.
Relinquishment of American claims to Spain.
Condition as a Mexican province.
Encouragement of immigration from the United States and Europe.
"By the treaty of 1819 with Spain for the cession of the
Floridas, the United States relinquished all claim to the
western portion of Louisiana lying south of Red River and west
of the Sabine.
See FLORIDA: A. D. 1819-1821;
and LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.
After the final ratification of that treaty by both
governments, and the cession and delivery of the Floridas to
the United States, the Spaniards took formal possession of the
country west of the Sabine, and erected it into the 'Province
of Texas,' under the authority and jurisdiction of the Viceroy
of Mexico. From that time the Sabine River was the western
boundary of the United States, near the Gulf of Mexico. The
province of Texas at this time was occupied by the native
tribes of savages, interrupted only by a few Spanish
settlements. … The whole population, including some
settlements in the vicinity of the seacoast, scarcely exceeded
5,000 souls, of whom the greater portion were the remains of
old colonies formed during the Spanish dominion over the
province of Louisiana. Each principal settlement, from San
Antonio de Bexar to Nacogdoches, was placed under the
government of a military commandant, who exercised civil and
military authority within the limits of his presidio. … Such
was the province of Texas under the Spanish monarchy until the
year 1821, when Mexico became an independent nation. … On the
24th of October, 1824, the Mexican States adopted a Republican
form of government, embracing 'a confederation of independent
states,' known and designated as the 'United States of
Mexico.' In this confederation the departments of Texas and
Coahuila were admitted as one state, and were jointly
represented in the Congress of Mexico. Soon after the
establishment of independence in the United States of Mexico,
the colonization and settlement of Texas became a favorite
subject of national policy with the new government. To attract
population for the settlement of the country, colonization
laws were enacted, to encourage enterprising individuals from
foreign countries to establish large colonies of emigrants
within the limits of Texas. Under the provisions of these laws
enterprise was awakened in the United States and in some
portions of Europe. Founders of colonies, or 'Empresarios,'
were induced to enter into engagements for the occupancy and
settlement of large tracts of country, designated in their
respective 'grants'; the extent of the grant being
proportionate to the number of colonists to be introduced. The
first grant was made to Moses Austin, a native of Durham,
Connecticut, in 1821, and under its provisions he was required
by the Mexican authorities to introduce 300 families from the
United States. This enterprising man, having departed from
Bexar for the introduction of his colony, died on his journey
through the wilderness, leaving his plans of colonization to
be prosecuted by his son, Colonel Stephen F. Austin, who
possessed the talents, energy, and judgment requisite for the
arduous undertaking. Having succeeded to his father's
enterprise, he subsequently acquired more influence with the
Mexican government than any other 'empresario' in the
province. … But a few years had elapsed when nearly the whole
area of the department of Texas had been parceled out into
extensive grants for settlement by the different 'empresarios'
with their colonies. … Emigration from the United States, as
well as from Great Britain and Ireland, continued to augment
the population in all the departments until the year 1834,
when political troubles began to convulse the "Mexican
Republic." In 1835 "the whole Anglo-American population of
Texas was about 20,000; of this number General Austin's colony
comprised no less than 13,000, or more than half the entire
population. These were chiefly emigrants from the United
States. … The Mexicans within the limits of Texas at this
period scarcely exceeded 3,000, most of whom resided in the
vicinity of Bexar."
J. W. Monette,
Discovery and Settlement of the Mississippi Valley,
volume 2, pages 569-572.
ALSO IN:
H. Yoakum,
History of Texas,
volume 1, chapters 15-21.
{3102}
TEXAS: A. D. 1824-1836.
The introduction of Slavery.
Schemes of the Slave Power in the United States.
Revolutionary movement under Houston.
Independence of Mexico declared,
and practically won at San Jacinto.
The American settlers in Texas "brought their slaves with
them, and continued to do so notwithstanding a decree of the
Mexican Congress, issued in July, 1824, which forbade the
importation into Mexican territory of slaves from foreign
countries, and notwithstanding the Constitution adopted the
same year, which declared free all children thereafter born of
slaves. About that time the slave-holders in the United States
began to see in Texas an object of peculiar interest to them.
The Missouri Compromise, admitting Missouri as a Slave State
and opening to slavery all that part of the Louisiana purchase
south of 36° 30', seemed at first to give a great advantage to
the slave power. But gradually it became apparent that the
territory thus opened to slavery was, after all, too limited
for the formation of many new Slave States, while the area for
the building up of Free States was much larger. More territory
for slavery was therefore needed to maintain the balance of
power between the two sections. At the same time the Mexican
government, growing alarmed at the unruly spirit of the
American colony in Texas, attached Texas to Coahuila, the two
to form one state. The constitution of Coahuila forbade the
importation of slaves; and in 1829 the Republic of Mexico, by
the decree of September 15, emancipated all the slaves within
its boundaries. Then the American Slave States found
themselves flanked in the southwest by a power not only not in
sympathy with slavery, but threatening to become dangerous to
its safety. The maintenance of slavery in Texas, and
eventually the acquisition of that country, were thenceforth
looked upon by the slaveholding interest in this Republic as
matters of very great importance, and the annexation project
was pushed forward systematically. First the American settlers
in Texas refused to obey the Mexican decree of emancipation,
and, in order to avoid an insurrection, the Mexican
authorities permitted it to be understood that the decree did
not embrace Texas. Thus one point was gained. Then the
Southern press vigorously agitated the necessity of enlarging
the area of slavery, while an interest in the North was
created by organizing three land companies in New York, which
used pretended Mexican land grants in Texas as the basis of
issues of stock, promising to make people rich over-night, and
thus drawing Texas within the circle of American business
speculation. In 1830 President Jackson made another attempt to
purchase Texas [Henry Clay, in 1827, when Secretary of State
under John Quincy Adams, had already made a proposal to the
Mexican government for the purchase], offering five millions,
but without success. The Mexican government, scenting the
coming danger, prohibited the immigration of Americans into
Texas. This, however, had no effect. The American colony now
received a capable and daring leader in Sam Houston of
Tennessee, who had served with General Jackson in the Indian
wars. He went to Texas for the distinct object of wresting
that country from Mexico. There is reason for believing that
President Jackson was not ignorant of his intentions.
Revolutionary convulsions in Mexico gave the American
colonists welcome opportunities for complaints, which led to
collisions with the Mexican authorities. General Santa Anna,
who by a successful revolutionary stroke had put himself at
the head of the Mexican government, attempted to reduce the
unruly Americans to obedience. In 1835 armed conflicts took
place, in which the Americans frequently had the advantage.
The Texans declared their independence from Mexico on March 2,
1836. The declaration was signed by about 60 men, among whom
there were only two of Mexican nationality. The constitution
of the new republic confirmed the existence of slavery under
its jurisdiction, and surrounded it with all possible
guaranties. Meanwhile Santa Anna advanced at the head of a
Mexican army to subdue the revolutionists. Atrocious
butcheries marked the progress of his soldiery. On March 6 the
American garrison [250 men] of the Alamo San Antonio de Bexar] was massacred, and on the 27th a large
number [500] of American prisoners at Goliad met a like fate.
These atrocities created a great excitement in the United
States. But on April 21 the Texans under Houston, about 800
strong, inflicted a crushing defeat upon Santa Anna's army of
1,500 men, at San Jacinto, taking Santa Anna himself prisoner.
When captive Mexican President concluded an armistice with the
victorious Texans, promising the evacuation of the country,
and to procure the recognition of its independence; but this
the Mexican Congress refused to ratify. The government of the
United States maintained, in appearance, a neutral position.
President Jackson had indeed instructed General Gaines to
march his troops into Texas, if he should see reason to
apprehend Indian incursions. Gaines actually crossed the
boundary line, and was recalled only after the Mexican
Minister at Washington had taken his passports. The
organization of reinforcements for Houston, however, had been
suffered to proceed on American soil without interference."
C. Schurz,
Life of Henry Clay,
chapter 17 (volume 2).
ALSO IN:
H. von Holst,
Constitutional and Political History of the United States,
volume 2, chapter 7.
H. H. Bancroft,
History of the Pacific States,
volume 8 (Mexico, volume 5), chapter 7.
A. M. Williams,
Sam Houston and the War of Independence in Texas.
TEXAS: A. D. 1836-1845.
Eight years of independence.
Annexation to the United States.
The question in Congress and the country.
"Santa Anna, … constrained in his extremity to acknowledge the
independence of Texas, … was liberated, and the new republic
established in October, 1836, with a Constitution modeled on
that of the United States, and with General Houston
inaugurated as its first President. The United States
forthwith acknowledged its independence. In less than a year
application was made to the United States government to
receive the new republic into the Union, and, though this was
at the time declined, it was obvious that the question was
destined to play a most important part in American civil
policy. The North saw in the whole movement a predetermined
attempt at the extension of slavery, and in the invasive
emigration, the revolt, the proclamation of independence, the
temporary organization of a republic, and the application to
be admitted into the Union as a state, successive steps of a
conspiracy which would, through the creation of half a dozen
or more new states, give a preponderance to the slave power in
the republic.
{3103}
Mr. Van Buren, who had declined the overtures for the
annexation of Texas, was succeeded in the Presidency by
General Harrison, who, dying almost immediately after his
inauguration, was followed by the Vice President, Mr. Tyler, a
Virginian, and a supporter of extreme Southern principles. The
annexation project was now steadily pressed forward, but,
owing to the difficult circumstances under which Mr. Tyler was
placed, and dissensions arising in the party that had elected
him, nothing decisive could be done until 1844, when Mr.
Upshur, the Secretary of State, being accidentally killed by
the bursting of a cannon, Mr. Calhoun succeeded him. A treaty
of annexation was at once arranged, but, on being submitted to
the Senate, was rejected. Undiscouraged by this result, the
South at once determined to make annexation the touchstone in
the coming Presidential election. … Mr. Van Buren and Mr.
Clay, the prominent candidates of the two opposing parties for
the Presidency, were compelled to make known their views
previously to the meeting of the nominating Conventions," and
both discountenanced annexation. Van Buren was accordingly
defeated in the Democratic Convention and James K. Polk
received the nomination. Clay was nominated by the Whigs, and
made an attempt, in the succeeding canvass, to change his
ground on the Texas question; but "his attempt only served to
make the matter worse, and cost him the support of the
anti-slavery party, whose votes would have elected him." Polk
was chosen President: but the annexation of Texas did not wait
for his inauguration. "On December 19th a joint resolution was
introduced into the House of Representatives providing for
annexation. Attempts were made to secure half the country for
free labor, the other half being resigned to slavery. … This
proposition was, however, defeated. … As the measure
eventually stood, it made suitable provision for the mode in
which the 'State of Texas' should be admitted into the Union,
the disposal of its munitions of war, public property,
unappropriated lands, debts. On the main point it was arranged
that new states, not exceeding four in number, in addition to
Texas proper, should subsequently be made out of its
territory, those lying south of latitude 36° 30' to be
admitted with or without slavery, as their people might
desire; in those north of that line, slavery to be prohibited.
Mr. Tyler, on the last day of his term of office, unwilling to
leave to his successor, Mr. Polk, the honor of completing this
great Southern measure, dispatched a swift messenger to Texas;
her assent was duly secured, and the Mexican province became a
state of the Union. But the circumstances and conditions under
which this had been done left a profound dissatisfaction in
the North. The portion of territory ceded to freedom did not
belong to Texas; her boundary did not approach within 200
miles of the Missouri Compromise line. The South had therefore
secured the whole of the new acquisition; she had seized the
substance, and had deluded the North with a shadow."
J. W. Draper,
History of the American Civil War,
volume 1, chapter 22.
ALSO IN:
T. H. Benton,
Thirty Years View,
volume 2, chapters 135, 138-142, 148.
H. H. Bancroft,
History of the Pacific States,
volume 8, chapter 13.
H. Greeley,
History of the Struggle for Slavery Extension,
chapter 10.
TEXAS: A. D. 1846-1848.
The Mexican War.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1846; 1846-1847: and 1847.
TEXAS: A. D. 1848.
Territory extorted from Mexico in the
Treaty of Guadaloupe-Hidalgo.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1848.
TEXAS: A. D. 1850.
Sale of territory to the United States.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850.
TEXAS: A. D. 1861 (February).
Secession from the Union.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY).
TEXAS: A. D. 1861 (February).
Twiggs' surrender of the Federal army, posts and stores.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1860-1861 (DECEMBER-FEBRUARY).
TEXAS: A. D. 1862.
Farragut's occupation of coast towns.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (MAY-JULY: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).
TEXAS: 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).
TEXAS: A. D. 1865-1870.
Reconstruction.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY), and after, to 1868-1870.
----------TEXAS: End--------
TEZCUCO.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1325-1502.
THABORITES, The.
See MYSTICISM.
THAI RACE, The.
See SIAM.
THAMANÆANS, The.
An ancient people who occupied the region in western
Afghanistan which lies south and southeast of Herat, from the
Haroot-rud to the Helmend.
G. Rawlinson,
Five Great Monarchies, Persia,
chapter 1.
THAMES, Battle of the.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1812-1813 HARRISON'S NORTHWESTERN CAMPAIGN.
THANAGE.
An old Celtic tenure by which certain thanes' estates were
held in Scotland, and which feudalism displaced.
W. F. Skene,
Celtic Scotland,
volume 3, page 246.
THANE,
THEGN.
See COMITATUS;
and ETHEL;
and ENGLAND: A. D. 958.
THANET, The Jute Landing on.
See ENGLAND: A. D.449-473.
THANKSGIVING DAY, The American:
Its origin.
"The Pilgrims [at Plymouth], fond as they were of social
enjoyment, had since landing known no day of rest except the
sacred day of worship. Now [in 1621, the year after their
landing from the Mayflower] that the summer was past and the
harvest ended, they determined to have a period of recreation,
combined with thanksgiving for their many mercies. The
Governor thereupon sent out four huntsmen, who in one day
secured enough game to supply the Colony for nearly a week.
Hospitality was extended to Massasoit, who accepted and
brought ninety people with him. The guests remained three
days, during which they captured five deer to add to the
larder of their hosts. The motley company indulged in a round
of amusements, and the Colonists entertained their visitors
with military tactics and evolutions. Without doubt, religious
services opened each day; for the Pilgrims were cheerful
Christians, who carried religion into all their affairs. Thus
heartily and royally was inaugurated the great New England
festival of Thanksgiving. For two centuries it continued to be
a peculiarity of the Eastern States; but it has now become
national, its annual return finding a welcome along the Lake
shore and the Gulf, and from the Atlantic to the Pacific. …
{3104}
In 1623 a public day of Thanksgiving is noticed; and one is
mentioned in a letter of 1632. … I do not doubt that such a
religious festival was held after every harvest, and that it
was so much a matter of course that the records did not
mention it any more than they did the great training-day, with
its sermon and holiday features."
J. A. Goodwin,
The Pilgrim Republic,
pages 179-180, and foot-note.
THANN,
THAUN,
Battle of (1638).
See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.
Battle of (1809).
See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JANUARY-JUNE).
THAPSACUS.
Thapsacus "was situated just above the modern town of Rakka,
at the only point in the central course of the Euphrates where
that river is fordable (though even here only at certain
seasons of the year), for which reason it continued to be used
alike by the Persian, Greek and Roman armies during a long
period. It was also a commercial route of importance in
ancient times."
E. H. Bunbury,
History of Ancient Geography,
chapter 10, section 2 (volume 1).
See, also, APAMEA.
THAPSUS, The Battle of (B. C. 46).
See ROME: B. C. 47-46.
THAPSUS: The Tyrian colony.
See CARTHAGE, THE DOMINION OF.
THASOS.
THASIAN MINES.
Thasos, an island off the coast of Thrace, in the northern
part of the Ægean Sea, was celebrated in antiquity for its
gold mines, first discovered and worked by the Phœnicians.
Still more valuable mines on the neighboring Thracian coast
were developed and worked by the Thasians. They were subdued
by the Persians and subsequently became subject to Athens.
See ATHENS: B. C. 466-454.
THAUR, The Cave of Mount.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 609-632.
THAUSS, Battle of (1431).
See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1419-1434.
THEATINES, The.
The founders of the Order of the Theatines (1524) were
"Gaetano of Thiene, a native of Vicenza, and Gian Pietro
Caraffa [afterwards Pope Paul IV.]. The former had quitted a
lucrative post at the Roman court in order to transplant the
ideas of the Oratory of the Divine Love to his native city,
Venice, and Verona, and had gradually come to concentrate his
pious thoughts upon the reformation of the secular clergy of
the Church. On his return to Rome, Bonifacio da Colle, a
Lombard lawyer, became interested in his design, and then it
was enthusiastically taken up by Caraffa, whose bishopric of
Chieti, or, according to the older form, Theate, gave its name
to the new order of the Theatines."
A. W. Ward,
The Counter-Reformation,
page 28.
"To the vow of poverty they made the special addition that not
only would they possess nothing, but would even abstain from
begging, and await the alms that might be brought to their
dwellings. … They did not call themselves monks, but regular
clergy—they were priests with the vows of monks. Their
intention was to establish a kind of seminary for the
priesthood. … They devoted themselves rigidly to their
clerical duties—o preaching, the administration of the
sacraments, and the care of the sick. … The order of the
Theatines did not indeed become a seminary for priests
precisely, its numbers were never sufficient for that; but it
grew to be a seminary for bishops, coming at length to be
considered the order of priests peculiar to the nobility."
L. Ranke,
History of the Popes,
book 2, section 3 (volume 1).
THEBAIS, The.
The southern district of Upper Egypt, taking its name from
Thebes.
THEBES, Egypt.
"No city of the old world can still show so much of her former
splendour as Egyptian Thebes. … Not one of the many temples of
Thebes has wholly disappeared; some are almost complete; many
of the royal and private tombs were, until the tourist came,
fresh with colours as of yesterday. … The origin of the great
city is obscure. Unlike Memphis, Thebes, her southern rival,
rose to the headship by slow degrees. It was towards the close
of the dark age marked by the rule of Hanes, that a new line
of kings arose in the upper country, with Thebes for their
capital. At first they were merely nobles; then one became a
local king, and his successors won the whole dominion of
Egypt. These were the sovereigns of the Eleventh Dynasty.
Their date must be before Abraham, probably some centuries
earlier. … Thebes, like the other cities of Egypt, had a civil
and a religious name. The civil name was Apiu, 'the city of
thrones,' which, with the article 't' or 'ta,' became Ta-Apiu,
and was identified by the Greeks with the name of their own
famous city, by us corruptly called Thebes. The sacred name
was Nu-Amen, 'the city of Amen,' the god of Thebes; or simply
Nu, 'the city,' and Nu-ā, 'the great city.' In these names we
recognize the No-Amon and No of Scripture."
R. S. Poole,
Cities of Egypt,
chapter 4.
See, also, EGYPT: THE OLD EMPIRE AND THE MIDDLE EMPIRE.
----------THEBES, Greece: Start--------
THEBES, Greece:
The founding of the city.
"In the fruitful plain, only traversed by low hills, which
stretches from the northern declivity of Mount Cithæron to the
Bœotian lakes opposite the narrowest part of the sound which
separates Eubœa from the mainland, in the 'well-watered,
pasture-bearing region of the Aones,' as Euripides says, lay
the citadel and town of Thebes. According to Greek tradition,
it was built by Cadmus the Phœnician. The Aones, who inhabited
the country, are said to have amalgamated with the Phœnicians
whom Cadmus brought with him, into one people. The citadel lay
on a hill of moderate height between the streams Ismenus and
Dirce; it bore even in historical times the name Cadmea; the
ridge to the north of the town was called Phœnicium, i. e.
mountain of the Phœnicians. In the story of Cadmus and Europa,
Greek legend relates the Phœnician mythus of Melkarth and
Astarte. In order to seek the lost goddess of the moon,
Astarte, Cadmus-Melkarth, the wandering sun-god, sets forth.
He finds her in the far west, in Bœotia, and here in Thebes,
on the Cadmea, celebrates the holy marriage. … There are a few
relics of the wall of the citadel of Cadmea, principally on
the north side; they are great blocks, not quite regularly
hewn. Of the city wall and the famous seven gates in it
nothing remains; even this number seven points to the
Phœnicians as well as the designations which were retained by
these gates even in historical times. The Electric gate
belonged to the sun-god Baal, called by the Greeks Elector;
the Neitic gate, it would seem, to the god of war. …
{3105}
The gate Hypsistia was that of Zeus Hypsistos, whose shrine
stood on the Cadmea; … the Prœtidic gate belonged to Astarte,
whose domain was the moon; the Oncæic gate in the north-west
belonged to Athena Onca, who is expressly called a Phœnician
goddess. … It is probable that the two remaining gates, the
Homoloic and the Crenaic, were also dedicated to gods of this
circle—to the spirits of planets. According to Greek legend,
Cadmus invented the building of walls, mining, armour, and
letters. Herodotus contents himself with saying that the
Phœnicians who came with Cadmus taught much to the Greeks,
even writing: from the Phœnicians the Ionians, in whose midst
they lived, had learned letters. If even this early borrowing
of writing on the part of the Greeks is incorrect, all the
other particulars,—the legend of Cadmus, which extends to the
Homeric poems, where the inhabitants of Thebes are called
Cadmeans; the rites of the Thebans; the walls and gates,—
taken together, give evidence that the Phœnicians went over
from Eubœa to the continent, and here fixed one of their most
important and lasting colonies upon and around the hill of
Cadmea."
M. Duncker,
History of Greece,
book 1, chapter 4.
See, also, BŒOTIA.
THEBES, Greece: B. C. 509-506.
Unsuccessful war with Athens.
See ATHENS: B. C. 509-506.
THEBES, Greece: B. C. 480.
Traitorous alliance with the Persians.
See GREECE: B. C. 480 (SALAMIS).
THEBES, Greece: B. C. 479.
Siege and reduction by the confederate Greeks.
Punishment for the Persian alliance.
See GREECE: B. C. 479 (PLATÆA).
THEBES, Greece: B. C. 457-456.
War with Athens.
Defeat at Œnophyta.
Overthrow of the oligarchies.
See GREECE: B. C. 458-456.
THEBES, Greece: B. C. 447-445.
Bœotian revolution.
Overthrow of Athenian influence.
Defeat of Athens at Coronea.
See GREECE: B. C. 449-445.
THEBES, Greece: B. C. 431.
Disastrous attack on Platæa.
Opening hostilities of the Peloponnesian War.
See GREECE: B. C. 432-431.
THEBES, Greece: B. C. 404-403.
Shelter and aid to Athenian patriots.
See ATHENS: B. C. 404-403.
THEBES, Greece: B. C. 395-387.
Confederacy against Sparta and alliance with Persia.
The Corinthian War.
Battle of Coronea.
Peace of Antalcidas.
See GREECE: B. C. 399-387.
THEBES, Greece: B. C. 383.
The betrayal of the city to the Spartans.
See GREECE: B. C. 383.
THEBES, Greece: B. C. 379-371.
The liberation of the city.
Rise of Epaminondas.
Overthrow of Spartan supremacy at Leuctra.
See GREECE: B. C. 379-371.
THEBES, Greece: B. C. 378.
The Sacred Band.
"This was an institution connecting itself with earlier usages
of the land. For already in the battle of Delium a band of the
Three Hundred is mentioned, who fought, like the heroes of the
Homeric age, associated in pairs, from their chariots in front
of the main body of the soldiery. This doubtless very ancient
institution was now [B. C. 378] revived and carried out in a
new spirit under the guidance of Epaminondas and Gorgidas.
They had quietly assembled around them a circle of youths,
with whom they had presented themselves before the community
on the day of the Liberation, so that they were regarded as
the founders of the Sacred Band of Thebes. It was now no
longer a privilege of the nobility to belong to the Three
Hundred; but those among the youth of the land who were in
feeling the noblest and most high-minded, and who already
under the oppression of the Tyrants had been preparing
themselves for the struggle for freedom, were henceforth the
elect and the champions. It was their duty to stimulate the
rest eagerly to follow their example of bravery and
discipline; they were associated with one another by the bonds
of friendship and by identity of feelings. … A soldier-like
spirit was happily blended with ethical and political points
of view, and ancient national usage with the ideas of the
present and with Pythagorean principles; and it constitutes an
honorable monument of the wisdom of Epaminondas."
E. Curtius,
History of Greece,
book 6, chapter 1.
THEBES, Greece: B. C. 370-362.
Intervention in Peloponnesus.
Successive expeditions of Epaminondas.
Invasions of Sparta.
Formation of the Arcadian Union.
Battle of Mantinea and death of Epaminondas.
See GREECE: B. C. 371-362.
THEBES, Greece: B. C. 357-338.
The Ten Years Sacred War with the Phocians.
Intervention of Philip of Macedon.
Loss of independence and liberty.
See GREECE: B. C. 357-336.
THEBES, Greece: B. C. 335.
Revolt.
Destruction by Alexander the Great.
See GREECE: B. C. 336-335.
THEBES, Greece: B. C. 316.
Restoration by Cassander of Macedonia.
See GREECE: B. C. 321-312.
THEBES, Greece: B. C. 291-290.
Siege of by Demetrius.
Thebes, with other Bœotian towns, united in a revolt against
Demetrius Poliorcetes, while the latter held the throne of
Macedonia, and was reduced to submission, B. C. 290, after a
siege which lasted nearly a year.
C. Thirlwall,
History of Greece,
chapter 60.
THEBES, Greece: A. D. 1146.
Sack by the Normans of Sicily.
Abduction of silk-weavers.
See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1146.
THEBES, Greece: A. D. 1205.
Included in the Latin duchy of Athens.
See ATHENS: A. D. 1205.
THEBES, Greece: A. D. 1311.
Conquest by the Catalans.
See CATALAN GRAND COMPANY.
----------THEBES, Greece: End--------
THEGN,
THANE.
See COMITATUS; ETHEL; and ENGLAND: A. D. 958.
THEIPHALI.
THEIPHALIA.
See TAIFALÆ.
THEMES.
Administrative divisions of the Byzantine Empire. "The term
thema was first applied to the Roman legion. The military
districts, garrisoned by legions, were then called themata,
and ultimately the word was used merely to indicate
geographical administrative divisions."
G. Finlay,
History of the Byzantine Empire,
book 1, chapter 1, section 1, foot-note.
See, also, BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 717.
THEMISTOCLES, Ascendancy and fall of.
See ATHENS: B. C. 489-480, to 477-462.
THEODORA,
Empress in the East (Byzantine, or Greek),
A. D. 1042, and 1054-1056.
THEODORE, King of Corsica.
See CORSICA: A. D. 1729-1769.
Theodore I., Pope, A. D. 642-649.
Theodore II., Pope, 898.
Theodore or Feodore, II., Czar of Russia, 1584-1598.
Theodore III., Czar of Russia, 1676-1682.
Theodore Lascaris I., Greek Emperor of Nicæa, 1206-1222.
Theodore Lascaris II., Greek Emperor of Nicæa, 1255-1259.
THEODORIC, Ostrogothic kingdom of.
See GOTHS: A. D. 473-488;
and ROME: A. D. 488-526.
{3106}
THEODOSIAN CODE, The.
See CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS.
THEODOSIUS I., Roman Emperor
(Eastern), A. D. 378-395;
(Western), 392-395;
in Britain.
See BRITAIN: A. D. 367-370.
Theodosius II., Roman Emperor
(Eastern), 408-450;
(Western), 423-425.
Theodosius III., Roman Emperor (Eastern), 716-717.
THEOPHILUS,
Emperor in the East, (Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 829-842.
THEORI.
The name of Theori, among the ancient Greeks, "in addition to
its familiar signification of spectators at the theatre and
public ambassadors to foreign sanctuaries and festivals, was
specially applied to certain public magistrates, whose
function it was to superintend and take charge of religious
affairs in general, though they often possessed along with
this some more extensive political power."
G. Schumann,
Antiquities of Greece: The State,
part 2, chapter 5.
THEORICON, The.
"By means of the Theoricon …, the most pernicious issue of
the age of Pericles, there arose in a small free state
[Athens] a lavish expenditure, which was relatively not less
than in the most voluptuous courts, and which consumed large
sums, while the wars were unsuccessful for the want of money.
By it is understood the money which was distributed among the
people for the celebration of the festivals and games, partly
to restore to the citizens the sum required for their
admission into the theatre, partly to enable them to procure a
better meal. In part it was expended for sacrifices, with
which a public feast was connected. … The superintendents of
the theoricon were not called treasurers; but they evidently
had a treasury. Their office was one of the administrative
offices of the government, and indeed of the most eminent.
They were elected by the assembly of the people through
cheirotonia. Their office seems to have been annual. Their
number is nowhere given. Probably there were ten of them, one
from each tribe. … The Athenian people was a tyrant, and the
treasury of the theorica its private treasury."
A. Boeckh,
Public Economy of Athens
(translated by Lamb),
book 2, chapter 7; also chapter 13.
THEOW.
"In the earliest English laws … slaves are found; the 'theow'
[from the same root as 'dienen,' to serve] or slave simple,
whether 'wealh'—that is, of British extraction, captured or
purchased—or of the common German stock descended from the
slaves of the first colonists; the 'esne' or slave who works
for hire; the 'wite-theow' who is reduced to slavery because
he cannot pay his debts."
W. Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 5, section 37.
THERA.
The ancient name of the Greek island of Santorin, one of the
Sporades, whose inhabitants were enterprising navigators, and
weavers and dyers of purple stuffs. They are said to have
founded Cyrene, on the north African coast.
E. Curtius,
History of Greece,
book 2, chapter 3.
See CYRENAICA.
"The island was the site of one of the largest volcanic
eruptions in recorded history … about [1600 B. C.] at
the height of the Minoan civilization."
Wikipedia: Santorini.
Transcriber's Note.
THERMÆ.
"The Roman thermæ were a combination on a huge scale of the
common balneæ with the Greek gymnasia. Their usual form was
that of a large quadrangular space, the sides of which were
formed by various porticos, exedræ, and even theatres for
gymnastic and literary exercises, and in the centre of which
stood a block of buildings containing the bath rooms and
spacious halls for undergoing the complicated process of the
Roman warm bath. The area covered by the whole group of
buildings was, in many cases, very large. The court of the
Baths of Caracalla enclosed a space of 1,150 feet on each
side, with curvilinear projections on two sides. The central
mass of building was a rectangle, 730 feet by 380. … The other
great Imperial thermæ of Rome, those of Nero, Titus, Domitian,
Diocletian, and Constantine, were probably upon the same plan
as the Thermæ Caracallæ. All were built of brick, and the
interior was decorated with stucco, mosaics, or slabs of
marble, and other ornamental stones. … The public balneæ, as
distinct from thermæ, … were used simply as baths, and had
none of the luxurious accessories attached to them which were
found in the courts of the great thermæ."
R. Burn,
Rome and the Campagna,
introduction.
THERMIDOR, The month.
See FRANCE; A. D. 1793 (OCTOBER)
THE NEW REPUBLICAN CALENDAR.
THERMIDORIANS.
The Ninth of Thermidor.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (JULY), and
1794-1795 (JULY-APRIL).
THERMOPYLÆ, The Pass of.
See THESSALY.
THERMOPYLÆ, The Pass of: B. C. 480.
The defense by Leonidas against the Persians.
See GREECE: B. C. 480 (THERMOPYLÆ).
THERMOPYLÆ, The Pass of: B. C. 352.
Repulse of Philip of Macedon.
See GREECE: B. C. 357-330.
THERMOPYLÆ, The Pass of: B. C. 279.
Defense against the Gauls.
See GAULS: B. C. 280-279.
THERMOPYLÆ, The Pass of: B. C. 191.
Defeat of Antiochus by the Romans.
See SELEUCIDÆ: B. C. 224-187.
THERMOPYLÆ, The Pass of: A. D. 1822.
Greek victory over the Turks.
See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.
THERVINGI, The.
See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 376.
THESES OF LUTHER, The Ninety-five.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1517.
THESMOPHORIA, The.
See GREECE: B. C. 383.
THESMOTHETES.
See ATHENS: FROM THE DORIAN MIGRATION TO B. C. 683.
THESPROTIANS.
See EPIRUS; and HELLAS.
----------THESSALONICA: Start--------
THESSALONICA.

Therma, an unimportant ancient city of Macedonia, received the
name of Thessalonica, about 315 B. C., in honor of the sister
of Alexander the Great, who married Cassander. Cassander gave
an impetus to the city which proved lasting. It rose to a high
commercial rank, acquired wealth, and became, under the
Romans, the capital of the Illyrian provinces.
THESSALONICA: A. D. 390.
Massacre ordered by Theodosius.
A riotous outbreak at Thessalonica, A. D. 390, caused by the
imprisonment of one of the popular favorites of the circus,
was punished by the Emperor Theodosius in a manner so fiendish
that it seems wellnigh incredible. He caused the greatest
possible number of the inhabitants to be invited, in his name,
to witness certain games in the circus. "As soon as the
assembly was complete, the soldiers, who had secretly been
posted round the circus, received the signal, not of the
races, but of a general massacre.
{3107}
The promiscuous carnage continued three hours, without
discrimination of strangers or natives, of age or sex, of
innocence or guilt; the most moderate accounts state the
number of the slain at 7,000; and it is affirmed by some
writers that more than 15,000 victims were sacrificed. … The
guilt of the emperor is aggravated by his long and frequent
residence at Thessalonica."
E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 27.
THESSALONICA: A. D. 904.
Capture and pillage by the Saracens.
The capture of Thessalonica by a piratical expedition from
Tarsus, A. D. 904, was one of the most terrible experiences of
its kind in that age of blood and rapine, and one of which the
fullest account, by an eye-witness and sufferer, has come down
to posterity. The wretched inhabitants who escaped the sword
were mostly sold into slavery, and the splendid city—then the
second in the Byzantine Empire—was stripped of all its wealth.
The defense of the place had been neglected, with implicit
dependence on the goodwill and the power of St. Demetrius.
G. Finlay,
History of the Byzantine Empire, from 716 to 1057,
book 2, chapter 1, section 2.
THESSALONICA: A. D. 1204-1222.
Capital of the kingdom of Saloniki.
See SALONIKI.
THESSALONICA: A. D. 1222-1234.
The Greek empire.
See EPIRUS: A. D. 1204-1350.
THESSALONICA: A. D. 1430.
Capture by the Turks.
Thessalonica, feebly defended by Venetians and Greeks, was
taken by the Turks, under Amurath II., in February, 1430.
"'The pillage and the carnage,' relates the Greek Anagnosta,
an eye-witness of this disastrous night, 'transcended the
hopes of the Turks and the terror of the Greeks. No family
escaped the swords, the chains, the flames, the outrages of
the Asiatics fierce for their prey. At the close of the day,
each soldier drove like a herd before him, through the streets
of Salonica, troops of women, of young girls, of children, of
caloyers and anchorites, of monks of all the monasteries.
Priests were chained with virgins, children with old men,
mothers with their sons, in derision of age, of profession, of
sex, which added a barbarous irony to nudity and death
itself.'"
A. Lamartine,
History of Turkey,
book 10, section 27.
----------THESSALONICA: End--------
THESSALY.
"The northern part of Greece is traversed in its whole length
by a range of mountains, the Greek Apennines, which issue from
the same mighty root, the Thracian Scomius, in which Hæmus,
and Rhodopé and the Illyrian Alps likewise meet. This ridge
first takes the name of Pindus, where it intersects the
northern boundary of Greece, at a point where an ancient route
still affords the least difficult passage from Epirus into
Thessaly. From Pindus two huge arms stretch towards the
eastern sea and enclose the vale of Thessaly, the largest and
richest plain in Greece: on the north the Cambunian Hills,
after making a bend towards the south, terminate in the
loftier heights of Olympus, which are scarcely ever entirely
free from snow; the opposite and lower chain of Othrys
parting, with its eastern extremity, the Malian from the
Pagasæan Gulf, sinks gently towards the coast. A fourth
rampart, which runs parallel to Pindus, is formed by the range
which includes the celebrated heights of Pelion and Ossa; the
first a broad and nearly even ridge, the other towering into a
steep and conical peak, the neighbour and rival of Olympus,
with which, in the songs of the country, it is said to dispute
the pre-eminence in the depth and duration of its snows. The
mountain barrier with which Thessaly is thus encompassed is
broken only at the northeast corner by a deep and narrow
cleft, which parts Ossa from Olympus; the defile so renowned
in poetry as the vale, in history as the pass, of Tempe. The
imagination of the ancient poets and declaimers delighted to
dwell on the natural beauties of this romantic glen and on the
sanctity of the site, from which Apollo had transplanted his
laurel to Delphi. … South of this gulf [the Gulf of Pagasæ],
the coast is again deeply indented by that of Malia, into
which the Spercheius, rising from Mount Tymphrestus, a
continuation of Pindus, winds through a long, narrow vale,
which, though considered as a part of Thessaly, forms a
separate region, widely distinguished from the rest by its
physical features. It is intercepted between Othrys and Œta, a
huge, rugged pile, which stretching from Pindus to the sea at
Thermopylæ, forms the inner barrier of Greece, as the
Cambunian range is the outer, to which it corresponds in
direction and is nearly equal in height. From Mount
Callidromus, a southern limb of Œta, the same range is
continued without interruption, though under various names and
different degrees of elevation, along the coast of the Eubœan
Sea. … Another branch, issuing from the same part of Pindus,
connects it with the loftier summits of Parnassus, and
afterward skirting the Corinthian Gulf under the names of
Cirphis and Helicon, proceeds to form the northern boundary of
Attica under those of Cithæron and Parnes."
C. Thirlwall,
History of Greece,
chapter 1 (volume 1).
In the mythical legends of Greece, Thessaly was the kingdom of
Hellen, transmitted to his son Æolus and occupied originally
by the Æolic branch of the Hellenic family. The Æolians,
however, appear to have receded from the rich Thessalian
plain, into Bœotia and elsewhere, before various invading
tribes. The people who fixed their name, at last, upon the
country, the Thessalians, came into it from Epirus, crossing
the Pindus mountain-range.
See, also, GREECE: THE MIGRATIONS;
and DORIANS AND IONIANS.
THETES, The.
See DEBT, ANCIENT LEGISLATION CONCERNING: GREEK;
also, ATHENS: B. C. 594.
THEUDEBERT, King of the Franks (Austrasia), A. D. 596-612.
THIASI.
"The name denotes associations [in ancient Athens] which had
chosen as their special protector and patron some deity in
whose honour at certain times they held sacrifices and festal
banquets, whilst they pursued in addition objects of a very
varied nature, sometimes joint-stock businesses, sometimes
only social enjoyments."
G. F. Schömann,
Antiquities of Greece,
part 3, chapter 3, section 2.
THIBAULT I., King of Navarre, A. D. 1236-1253.
Thibault II., King of Navarre, 1253-1270.
THIBET.
See TIBET.
THIERRY I., King of the Franks, at Metz, A. D. 511-534.
Thierry II., King of the Franks (Austrasia), 612-613;
King of Burgundy, 596-613.
Thierry III., King of the Franks
(Neustria and Burgundy), 670-691.
Thierry IV., King of the Franks
(Neustria, Austrasia, and Burgundy), 720-737.
{3108}
THIERS, Adolphe, and the founding of the third French Republic.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1871-1876.
THIN.
THINÆ.
See CHINA: The NAMES OF THE COUNTRY.
THING.
THINGVALLA.
ALTHING.
"The judicial and legislative assembly of the Northmen
represented by the word 'thing' (from 'tinga'=to speak, and
allied to our English word 'think') can be traced in many
local names throughout England, and more especially in the
extreme North, where the Scandinavian race prevailed, and
where the 'thing' was primitively held upon the site of, or as
an appanage to, a 'hof' or temple. It is plainly seen in the
Tynwald Court or general legislative assembly for the Isle of
Man, where the distinctive feature of the primitive open-air
assembly still survives in the custom of the whole assembly
going once a year in solemn procession, attended by the
governor of the island and a military escort, to a hill known
as the Tynwald Hill, whence all the laws that have been passed
in the course of the past year are proclaimed in English and
Manx. … In Norway there is an 'Al-thing' or general assembly,
and four district 'things' for the several provinces, as well
as a Norwegian Parliament familiar to us as 'Stor-thing' or
great council."
R. R. Sharpe,
Introduction to Calendar of Wills, Court of Husting, London,
volume 1.
"By the end of the period of the first occupation of Iceland,
a number of little kingdoms had been formed all round the
coast, ruled by the priests, who, at stated times, convened
their adherents and retainers to meetings for the settlement
of matters which concerned any or all of them. These were
called 'Things'—meetings, i. e. Mot-things. Each was
independent of the other, and quarrels between the members of
two separate Things could only be settled as the quarrels of
nations are settled, by treaty or war. But the time soon
arrived when the progress of political thought began to work
upon this disjointed constitution; and then amalgamation of
local Things into an Althing, of local jurisdiction into a
commonwealth jurisdiction, was the historical result. … The
Thingvalla, or Thing-field itself, was a vast sunken plain of
lava, about four miles broad and rather more than four miles
deep, lying with a dip or slope from north-east to south-west,
between two great lips or furrows. A stream called Öxará,
(Axewater) cuts off a rocky portion of the plain, so as almost
to form an island. This is the famous Hill of Laws, or
Lögberg, which was the heart of the Icelandic body politic. …
This example of the Icelandic Thing is the most perfect that
is known to history."
G. L. Gomme,
Primitive Folk-Moots,
chapter 2.
ALSO IN:
G. W. Dasent,
introduction to "The Story of Burnt Njal."
See, also, NORMANS.
NORTHMEN: A. D. 860-1100;
and SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK-ICELAND): A. D. 1849-1874.
THINGMEN.
See HOUSECARLS.
THINIS.
See MEMPHIS, EGYPT;
also EGYPT: THE OLD EMPIRE AND THE MIDDLE EMPIRE.
THIONVILLE: A. D. 1643.
Siege and capture by the French.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1643.
THIONVILLE: A. D. 1659.
Ceded to France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.
THIRD ESTATE, The.
See ESTATES, THE THREE.
THIRTEEN COLONIES, The.
See
MASSACHUSETTS;
RHODE ISLAND;
CONNECTICUT;
NEW HAMPSHIRE;
NEW YORK;
NEW JERSEY;
PENNSYLVANIA;
DELAWARE:
MARYLAND;
VIRGINIA;
NORTH CAROLINA;
SOUTH CAROLINA;
GEORGIA;
also, NEW ENGLAND.
THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (JANUARY).
THIRTY TYRANTS OF ATHENS, The.
See ATHENS: B. C. 404-403.
THIRTY TYRANTS OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE, The.
See ROME: A. D. 192-284.
THIRTY YEARS TRUCE, The.
See GREECE: B. C. 449-445.
THIRTY YEARS WAR, The.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1608-1618, to 1648:
and BOHEMIA: A. D. 1611-1618, and 1621-1648.
THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES, The.
"In 1563 the Articles of the English Church, forty-two in
number, originally drawn up in 1551 under Edward VI., were
revised in Convocation, and reduced to their present number,
thirty-nine; but it was not until 1571 that they were made
binding upon the clergy by Act of Parliament."
T. P. Taswell-Langmead,
English Constitutional History,
chapter 12.
THIS,
THINIS.
See EGYPT: THE OLD EMPIRE AND THE MIDDLE EMPIRE;
also, MEMPHIS, EGYPT.
THISTLE: Its adoption as the national emblem of Scotland.
See SAINT ANDREW: THE SCOTTISH ORDER.
THISTLE, Order of the.
A Scottish order of knighthood instituted by James V. in 1530.
THOMAS, General George H.:
Campaign against Zollicoffer.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE).
Refusal of the command of the Army of the Ohio.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (JUNE-OCTOBER: TENNESSEE-KENTUCKY).
At Chickamauga, and in the Chattanooga Campaign.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER) ROSECRANS' ADVANCE;
and (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).
The Atlanta campaign.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (MAY: GEORGIA),
to (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER: GEORGIA).
Campaign against Hood.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE),
and (DECEMBER: TENNESSEE).
THOMAS À BECKET, Saint, and King Henry II.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1162-1170.
THOMPSON'S STATION, Battle at.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (FEBRUARY-APRIL: TENNESSEE).
THORN, Peace of (1466).
See POLAND: A. D. 1333-1572.
"THOROUGH," Wentworth and Laud's government system.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1633-1639.
THRACE: B. C. 323-281.
The kingdom of Lysimachus and its overthrow.
See MACEDONIA, &c.: B. C. 323-316 to 297-280.
{3109}
THRACIANS, The.
"That vast space comprised between the rivers Strymon and
Danube, and bounded to the west by the easternmost Illyrian
tribes, northward of the Strymon, was occupied by the
innumerable subdivisions of the race called Thracians, or
Threïcians. They were the most numerous and most terrible race
known to Herodotus: could they by possibility act in unison or
under one dominion (he says) they would be irresistible. …
Numerous as the tribes of Thracians were, their customs and
character (according to Herodotus) were marked by great
uniformity: of the Getæ, the Trausi, and others, he tells us a
few particularities. … The general character of the race
presents an aggregate of repulsive features unredeemed by the
presence of even the commonest domestic affections. … It
appears that the Thynians and Bithynians, on the Asiatic side
of the Bosphorus, perhaps also the Mysians, were members of
this great Thracian race, which was more remotely connected,
also, with the Phrygians. And the whole race may be said to
present a character more Asiatic than European; especially in
those ecstatic and maddening religious rites, which prevailed
not less among the Edonian Thracians than in the mountains of
Ida and Dindymon of Asia, though with some important
differences. The Thracians served to furnish the Greeks with
mercenary troops and slaves."
G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 26.
"Under Seuthes [B. C. 424] Thrace stood at the height of its
prosperity. It formed a connected empire from Abdera to the
Danube, from Byzantium to the Strymon. … The land abounded in
resources, in corn and flocks and herds, in gold and silver. …
No such state had as yet existed in the whole circuit of the
Ægean. … But their kingdom failed to endure. After Seuthes it
broke up into several principalities."
E. Curtius,
History of Greece,
book 7, chapter 1.
"Herodotus is not wrong in calling the Thracians the greatest
of the peoples known to him after the Indians. Like the
Illyrian, the Thracian stock attained to no full development,
and appears more as hard-pressed and dispossessed than as
having any historically memorable course of its own. … The
Thracian [language] disappeared amidst the fluctuations of
peoples in the region of the Danube and the overpowerful
influence of Constantinople, and we cannot even determine the
place which belongs to it in the pedigree of nations. … Their
wild but grand mode of worshipping the gods may perhaps be
conceived as a trait peculiar to this stock—the mighty
outburst of the joy of spring and youth, the nocturnal
mountain-festivals of torch-swinging maidens, the intoxicating
sense-confusing music, the flowing of wine and the flowing of
blood, the giddy festal whirl, frantic with the simultaneous
excitement of all sensuous passions. Dionysos, the glorious
and the terrible, was a Thracian god." Under the supremacy of
the Romans, the Thracians were governed by a native line of
vassal kings, reigning at Bizye (Wiza), between Adrianople and
the coast of the Black Sea, until the Emperor Claudius, A. D.
46, suppressed the nominal kingdom and made Thrace a Roman
province.
T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 8, chapter 6.
In the 8th and 9th centuries, "the great Thracian race, which
had once been inferior in number only to the Indian, and
which, in the first century of our era, had excited the
attention of Vespasian by the extent of the territory it
occupied, had … almost disappeared. The country it had
formerly inhabited was peopled by Vallachian and Sclavonian
tribes."
G. Finlay,
History of the Byzantine Empire,
book 1, chapter 1, section 1.
THREE CHAPTERS, The dispute of the.
A famous church dispute raised in the sixth century by the
Emperor Justinian, who discovered an heretical taint in
certain passages, called the Three Chapters, culled out of the
works of Theodore of Mopsuestia and two other doctors of the
church who had been teachers and friends of Nestorius. A
solemn Church Council called (A. D. 553) at Constantinople—the
fifth general Council—condemned the Three Chapters and
anathematized their adherents. But this touched by implication
the decrees of the Council of Chalcedon, which were especially
cherished in the Latin Church, and Rome became rebellious. In
the end, the Roman opposition prevailed, and, "in the period
of a century, the schism of the three chapters expired in an
obscure angle of the Venetian province."
E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 47.
ALSO IN:
H. H. Milman,
History of Latin Christianity,
book 1, chapter 4.
THREE F'S. The.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1873-1879.
THREE HENRYS. War of the.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1584-1589.
THREE HUNDRED AT THERMOPYLÆ, The.
See GREECE: B. C. 480 (THERMOPYLÆ).
THREE HUNDRED OF THEBES, The.
See THEBES: B. C. 378.
THREE KINGS, Battle of the.
See MAROCCO: THE ARAB CONQUEST, AND SINCE.
THREE LEGS OF MAN. The.
See TRISKELION.
THREE PRESIDENCIES OF INDIA, The.
See INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.
THUCYDIDES: The origin of his history.
See AMPHIPOLIS.
THUGS.
THUGGEE.
See INDIA: A. D. 1823-1833.
THULE.
Pytheas, a Greek traveller and writer of the time (as
supposed) of Alexander the Great, was the first to introduce
the name of Thule into ancient geography. He described it
vaguely as an island, lying six days' voyage to the north of
Britain, in a region where the sea became like neither land
nor water, but was of a thick and sluggish substance,
resembling that of the jelly fish. "It appears to me
impossible to identify the Thule of Pytheas with any approach
to certainty; but he had probably heard vaguely of the
existence of some considerable island, or group of islands, to
the north of Britain, whether the Orkneys or the Shetlands it
is impossible to say."
E. H. Bunbury,
History of Ancient Geography,
chapter 15, section 2, foot-note.
Some modern writers identify Thule with Iceland; some with the
coast of Norway, mistakenly regarded as an island. But,
whichever land it may have been, Thule to the Greeks and
Romans, was Ultima Thule,—the end of the known world,—the
most northerly point of Europe to which their knowledge
reached.
R. F. Burton,
Ultima Thule,
introduction, section 1 (volume 1).
{3110}
THUNDERING LEGION, The.
During the summer of the year 174, in a campaign which the
Emperor Marcus Aurelius Antoninus conducted against the Quadi,
on the Danube, the Roman army was once placed in a perilous
position. It was hemmed in by the enemy, cut off from all
access to water, and was reduced to despair. At the last
extremity, it is said, the army was saved by a miraculous
storm, which poured rain on the thirsty Romans, while
lightning and hail fell destructively in the ranks of the
barbarians. According to the Pagan historians, Aurelius owed
this "miraculous victory," as it was called, to the arts of
one Arnuphis, an Egyptian magician. But later Christian
writers told a different story. They relate that the
distressed army contained one legion composed entirely of
Christians, from Melitene, and that these soldiers, being
called upon by the emperor to invoke their God, united in a
prayer which received the answer described. Hence, the legion
was known thereafter, by imperial command, as the Thundering
Legion.
P. B. Watson,
Marcus Aurelius Antoninus,
chapter 5.
ALSO IN:
Eusebius,
Ecclesiastical History,
book 5, chapter 5.
THURII.
THURIUM.
See SIRIS.
THURINGIA.
THURINGIANS, The.
"To the eastward of the Saxons and of the Franks, the
Thuringians had just formed a new monarchy. That people had
united to the Varni and the Heruli, they had spread from the
borders of the Elbe and of the Undstrut to those of the
Necker. They had invaded Hesse or the country of the Catti,
one of the Frankish people, and Franconia, where they had
distinguished their conquests by frightful cruelties. … It is
not known at what period these atrocities were committed, but
Thierri [or Theoderic, one of the four Frank kings, sons of
Clovis] towards the year 528, reminds his soldiers of them to
excite their revenge; it is probable that they were the
motives which induced the Franks of Germany and those of Gaul
to unite, in order to provide more powerfully for their
defence." Thierry, the Frank king at Metz, and Clotaire, his
brother, who reigned at Soissons, united in 528 against the
Thuringians and completely crushed them. "This great province
was then united to the monarchy of the Franks, and its dukes,
during two centuries, marched under the standards of the
Merovingians."
J. C. L. S. de Sismondi,
The French under the Merovingians,
chapter 6.
ALSO IN:
W. C. Perry,
The Franks,
chapter 3.
See, also, GERMANY: A. D. 481-768.
THURINGIA:
Absorbed in Saxony.
See SAXONY: THE OLD DUCHY.
THURM AND TAXIS, Prince, and the German postal system.
See POST.
THYMBRÆAN ORACLE.
See ORACLES OF THE GREEKS.
THYNIANS. The.
See BITHYNIANS.
TIBARENIANS, The.
A people who anciently inhabited the southern coast of the
Euxine, toward its eastern extremity.
G. Rawlinson,
Five Great Monarchies: Persia,
chapter 1.
TIBBOOS, The.
See LIBYANS.
TIBERIAS, Battle of (1187).
See JERUSALEM: A. D. 1149-1187.
TIBERIAS, The Patriarch of.
See JEWS: A. D. 200-400.
TIBERIUS,
Roman Emperor, A. D. 14-37.
German campaigns.
See GERMANY: B. C. 8-A. D. 11.
Tiberius II, Roman Emperor (Eastern), 578-582.
Tiberius Absimarus, Roman Emperor (Eastern), 698-704.
TIBET.
"The name of Tibet is applied not only to the south-west
portion of the Chinese Empire, but also to more than half of
Kashmîr occupied by peoples of Tibetan origin. These regions
of 'Little Tibet' and of 'Apricot Tibet' —so called from the
orchards surrounding its villages—consist of deep valleys
opening like troughs between the snowy Himalayan and Karakorum
ranges. Draining towards India, these uplands have gradually
been brought under Hindu influences, whereas Tibet proper has
pursued a totally different career. It is variously known as
'Great,' the 'Third,' or 'East Tibet'; but such is the
confusion of nomenclature that the expression 'Great Tibet' is
also applied to Ladak, which forms part of Kashmîr. At the
same time, the term Tibet itself, employed by Europeans to
designate two countries widely differing in their physical and
political conditions, is unknown to the people themselves.
Hermann Schlagintweit regards it as an old Tibetan word
meaning 'strength,' or 'empire' in a pre-eminent sense and
this is the interpretation supplied by the missionaries of the
seventeenth century, who give the country the Italian name of
Potente, or 'Powerful.' But however this be, the present
inhabitants use the term Bod-yul alone; that is, 'land of the
Bod,' itself probably identical with Bhutan, a Hindu name
restricted by Europeans to a single state on the southern
slope of the Himalayas. The Chinese call Tibet either Si-Tsang
—that is, West Tsang, from its principal province—or
Wei-Tsang, a word applied to the two provinces of Wei and
Tsang, which jointly constitute Tibet proper. To the
inhabitants they give the name of Tu-Fan, or 'Aboriginal
Fans,' in opposition to the Si-Fan, or "Western Fans,' of
Sechuen and Kansu. … Suspended like a vast terrace some 14,000
or 16,000 feet above the surrounding plains, the Tibetan
plateau is more than half filled with closed basins dotted
with a few lakes or marshes, the probable remains of inland
seas whose overflow discharged through the breaks in the
frontier ranges. … During the present century the Tibetan
Government has succeeded better than any other Asiatic state
in preserving the political isolation of the people, thanks
chiefly to the relief and physical conditions of the land.
Tibet rises like a citadel in the heart of Asia; hence its
defenders have guarded its approaches more easily than those
of India, China, and Japan. The greater part of Tibet remains
still unexplored. … The great bulk of the inhabitants, apart
from the Mongolo-Tartar Horsoks of Khachi and the various
independent tribes of the province of Kham, belong to a
distinct branch of the Mongolian family. They are of low size,
with broad shoulders and chests, and present a striking
contrast to the Hindus in the size of their arms and calves,
while resembling them in their small and delicate hands and
feet. … The Tibetans are one of the most highly endowed people
in the world. Nearly all travellers are unanimous in praise of
their gentleness, frank and kindly bearing, unaffected
dignity. Strong, courageous, naturally cheerful, fond of
music, the dance and song, they would be a model race but for
their lack of enterprise. They are as easily governed as a
flock of sheep, and for them the word of a lama has force of
law. Even the mandates of the Chinese authorities are
scrupulously obeyed, and thus it happens that against their
own friendly feelings they jealously guard the frontiers
against all strangers.
{3111}
The more or less mixed races of East Tibet on the Chinese
frontier, on the route of the troops that plunder them and of
the mandarins who oppress them, seem to be less favourably
constituted, and are described as thievish and treacherous. …
The Tibetans have long been a civilised people. … In some
respects they are even more civilised than those of many
European countries, for reading and writing are general
accomplishments in many places, and books are here so cheap
that they are found in the humblest dwellings, though several
of these works are kept simply on account of their magical
properties. In the free evolution of their speech, which has
been studied chiefly by Foucaux, Csoma de Körös, Schiefner,
and Jäschke, the Tibetans have outlived the period in which
the Chinese are still found. The monosyllabic character of the
language, which differs from all other Asiatic tongues, has
nearly been effaced. … The Tibetan Government is in theory a
pure theocracy. The Dalia-lama, called also the
Gyalba-remboché, 'Jewel of Majesty,' or 'Sovereign Treasure,'
is at once god and king, master of the life and fortunes of
his subjects, with no limit to his power except his own
pleasure. [On Lamaism in Tibet, see LAMAS.] Nevertheless he
consents to be guided in ordinary matters by the old usages,
while his very greatness prevents him from directly oppressing
his people. His sphere of action being restricted to spiritual
matters, he is represented in the administration by a viceroy
chosen by the Emperor in a supreme council of three high
priests. … Everything connected with general politics and war
must be referred to Peking, while local matters are left to
the Tibetan authorities. … Pope, viceroy, ministers, all
receive a yearly subvention from Peking and all the Tibetan
mandarins wear on their hats the button, or distinctive sign
of the dignities conferred by the empire. Every third or fifth
year a solemn embassy is sent to Peking with rich presents,
receiving others in exchange from the 'Son of Heaven.' … The
whole land belongs to the Dalai-lama, the people being merely
temporary occupants, tolerated by the real owner. The very
houses and furniture and all movable property are held in
trust for the supreme master, whose subjects must be grateful
if he takes a portion only for the requirements of the
administration. Due of the most ordinary sentences, in fact,
is wholesale confiscation, when the condemned must leave house
and lands, betaking themselves to a camp life, and living by
begging in the districts assigned to them. So numerous are
these chong long, or official mendicants, that they form a
distinct class in the State. … Since the cession of Ladak to
Kashmir, and the annexation of Batang, Litang, Aten-tze, and
other districts to Sechuen and Yunnan, Si-tsang, or Tibet
proper, comprises only the four provinces of Nari, Tsang, Wei,
or U, and Kham. Certain principalities enclosed in these
provinces are completely independent of Lassa, and either
enjoy self-government or are directly administered from
Peking. … Even in the four provinces the Chinese authorities
interfere in many ways, and their power is especially felt in
that of Nari, where, owing to its dangerous proximity to
Kashmir and India, the old spirit of independence might be
awakened. Nor is any money allowed to be coined in Tibet,
which in the eyes of the Imperial Government is merely a
dependency of Sechuen, whence all orders are received in
Lassa."
É. Reclus,
The Earth and its Inhabitants: Asia,
volume 2, chapter 2.
ALSO IN:
H. Bower,
Diary of a Journey across Tibet,
chapter 16.
TIBISCUS, The.
The ancient name of the river Theiss.
TIBUR.
An important Latin city, more ancient than Rome, from which it
was only 20 miles distant, on the Anio. Tibur, after many
wars, was reduced by the Romans to subjection in the 4th
century, B. C., and the delightful country in its neighborhood
became a favorite place of residence for wealthy Romans in
later times. The ruins of the villa of Hadrian have been
identified in the vicinity, and many others have been named,
but without historical authority. Hadrian's villa is said to
have been like a town in its vast extent. The modern town of
Tivoli occupies the site of Tibur.
R. Burn,
Rome and the Campagna,
chapter 14.
TIBURTINE SIBYL.
See SIBYLS.
TICINUS, Battle on the.
See PUNIC WARS: THE SECOND.
TICKET-OF-LEAVE SYSTEM, The.
See LAW, CRIMINAL: A. D. 1825.
TICONDEROGA, Fort: A. D. 1731.-
Built by the French.
See CANADA: A. D. 1700-1735.
TICONDEROGA, Fort: A. D. 1756.
Reconstructed by the French.
See CANADA: A. D. 1756.
TICONDEROGA, Fort: A. D. 1758.
The bloody repulse of Abercrombie.
See CANADA: A. D. 1758.
TICONDEROGA, Fort: A. D. 1759.
Taken by General Amherst.
See CANADA: A. D. 1759 (JULY-AUGUST).
TICONDEROGA, Fort: A. D. 1775.
Surprised and taken by the Green Mountain Boys.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (MAY).
TICONDEROGA, Fort: A. D. 1777.
Recapture by Burgoyne.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).
TIEN-TSIN, Treaty of (1858).
See CHINA: A. D. 1856-1860.
TIERRA FIRME.
"The world was at a loss at first [after Columbus' discovery]
what to call the newly found region to the westward. It was
easy enough to name the islands, one after another, as they
were discovered, but when the Spaniards reached the continent
they were backward about giving it a general name. … As the
coast line of the continent extended itself and became known
as such, it was very naturally called by navigators 'tierra
firme,' firm land, in contradistinction to the islands which
were supposed to be less firm. … The name Tierra Firme, thus
general at first, in time became particular. As a designation
for an unknown shore it at first implied only the Continent.
As discovery unfolded, and the magnitude of this Firm Land
became better known, new parts of it were designated by new
names, and Tierra Firme became a local appellation in place of
a general term. Paria being first discovered, it fastened
itself there; also along the shore to Darien, Veragua, and on
to Costa Rica, where at no well defined point it stopped, so
far as the northern seaboard was concerned, and in due time
struck across to the South Sea, where the name marked off an
equivalent coast line. … As a political division Tierra Firme
had existence for a long time.
{3112}
It comprised the provinces of Darien, Veragua, and Panama,
which last bore also the name of Tierra Firme as a province.
The extent of the kingdom was 65 leagues in length by 18 at
its greatest breadth, and 9 leagues at its smallest width. It
was bounded on the east by Cartagena, and the gulf of Urabá
and its river; on the west by Costa Rica, including a portion
of what is now Costa Rica; and on the north and south by the
two seas. … Neither Guatemala, Mexico, nor any of the lands to
the north were ever included in Tierra Firme. English authors
often apply the Latin form, Terra Firma, to this division,
which is misleading."
H. H. Bancroft,
History of the Pacific States,
volume 1, page 290, foot-note.
See, also, SPANISH MAIN.
TIERS ETAT.
See ESTATES, THE THREE.
TIGORINI,
TIGURINI, in Gaul, The.
After the Cimbri had defeated two Roman armies, in 113 and 109
B. C., "the Helvetii, who had suffered much in the constant
conflicts with their north-eastern neighbours, felt themselves
stimulated by the example of the Cimbri to seek in their turn
for more quiet and fertile settlements in western Gaul, and
had, perhaps, even when the Cimbrian hosts marched through
their land, formed an alliance with them for that purpose.
Now, under the leadership of Divico, the forces of the Tougeni
(position unknown) and of the Tigorini (on the lake of Murten)
crossed the Jura and reached the territory of the Nitiobroges
(about Agen on the Garonne). The Roman army under the consul
Lucius Cassius Longinus, which they here encountered, allowed
itself to be decoyed by the Helvetii into an ambush, in which
the general himself and his legate, the consular Gaius Piso,
along with the greater portion of the soldiers, met their
death."
T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 4, chapter 5.
Subsequently the Tigorini and the Tougeni joined the Cimbri,
but were not present at the decisive battle on the Raudine
Plain and escaped the destroying swords of the legions of
Marius, by flying back to their native Helvetia.
TIGRANOCERTA, Battle of (B. C. 69).
See ROME: B. C. 78-68.
TIGRANOCERTA, The building of.
See GORDYENE.
TILDEN, Samuel J.
In the Free Soil Movement.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1848.
The overthrow of the Tweed Ring.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1863-1871.
Defeat in Presidential Election.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1876-1877.
TILLEMONT: A. D. 1635.
Stormed and sacked by the Dutch and French.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1635-1638.
TILLY, Count von: Campaigns.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1620, to 1631-1632.
TILSIT, Treaty of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1807 (JUNE-JULY).
TIMAR.
TIMARLI.
SAIM.
SPAHI.
"It was Alaeddin who first instituted a division of all
conquered lands among the 'Sipahis,' or Spahis (horsemen), on
conditions which, like the feudal tenures of Christian Europe,
obliged the holders to service in the field. Here, however,
ends the likeness between the Turkish 'Timar' and the European
fief. The 'Timarli' were not, like the Christian knighthood, a
proud and hereditary aristocracy almost independent of the
sovereign and having a voice in his councils, but the mere
creatures of the Sultan's breath. The Ottoman constitution
recognised no order of nobility, and was essentially a
democratic despotism. The institution of military tenures was
modified by Amurath I., who divided them into the larger and
smaller ('Siamet' and 'Timar'), the holders of which were
called 'Saim' and 'Timarli.' Every cavalier, or Spahi, who had
assisted to conquer by his bravery, was rewarded with a fief,
which, whether large or small, was called 'Kilidseh' (the
sword). The symbols of his investment were a sword and colours
('Kilidsch' and 'Sandjak')."
T. H. Dyer,
The History of Modern Europe,
volume 1, introduction.
See, also, SPAHIS.
TIMOCRACY.
See GEOMORI.
TIMOLEON, and the deliverance of Sicily.
See SYRACUSE: B. C. 344.
TIMOUR, The Conquests of.
"Timour the Tartar, as he is usually termed in history, was
called by his countrymen Timourlenk, that is, Timour the Lame,
from the effects of an early wound; a name which some European
writers have converted into Tamerlane, or Tamberlaine. He was
of Mongol origin [see below], and a direct descendant, by the
mother's side, of Zenghis. Khan. He was born at Sebzar, a town
near Samarcand, in Transoxiana, in 1336. … Timour's early
youth was passed in struggles for ascendeney with the petty
chiefs of rival tribes, but at the age of thirty-five he had
fought his way to undisputed pre-eminence, and was proclaimed
Khan of Zagatai by the 'couroultai,' or general assembly of
the warriors of his race. He chose Samarcand as the capital of
his dominion, and openly announced that he would make that
dominion comprise the whole habitable earth. … In the
thirty-six years of his reign he raged over the world from the
great wall of China to the centre of Russia on the north; and
the Mediterranean and the Nile were the western limits of his
career, which was pressed eastward as far as the sources of
the Ganges. He united in his own person the sovereignties of
twenty-seven countries, and he stood in the place of nine
several dynasties of kings. … The career of Timour as a
conqueror is unparalleled in history; for neither Cyrus, nor
Alexander, nor Cæsar, nor Attila, nor Zenghis Khan, nor
Charlemagne, nor Napoleon, ever won by the sword so large a
portion of the globe, or ruled over so many myriads of
subjugated fellow-creatures."
E. S. Creasy,
History of the Ottoman Turks,
chapter 3.
"Born of the same family as Jenghiz, though not one of his
direct descendants, he bore throughout life the humble title
of Emir, and led about with him a nominal Grand Khan [a
descendant of Chagatai, one of the sons of Jenghiz Khan], of
whom he professed himself a dutiful subject. His pedigree may
in strictness entitle him to be called a Mogul; but, for all
practical purposes, himself and his hordes must be regarded as
Turks. Like all the eastern Turks, such civilization as they
had was of Persian origin; and it was of the Persian form of
Islam that Timour was so zealous an assertor."
E. A. Freeman,
History and Conquests of the Saracens,
lecture 6.
{3113}
In 1378 Timour overran Khuarezm. Between 1380 and 1386 he
subjugated Khorassan, Afghanistan, Baluchistan and Sistan. He
then passed into southern Persia and forced the submission of
the Mozafferides who reigned over Fars, punishing the city of
Isfahan for a rebellious rising by the massacre of 70,000 of
its inhabitants. This done, he returned to Samarkand for a
period of rest and prolonged carousal. Taking the field again
in 1389, he turned his arms northward and shattered the famous
"Golden Horde," of the Khanate of Kiptchak, which dominated a
large part of Russia. In 1392-93 the Tartar conqueror
completed the subjugation of Persia and Mesopotamia,
extinguishing the decayed Mongol Empire of the Ilkhans, and
piling up a pyramid of 90,000 human heads on the ruins of
Bagdad, the old capital of Islam. Thence he pursued his career
of slaughter through Armenia and Georgia, and finished his
campaign of five years by a last destroying blow struck at the
Kiptchak Khan whom he is said to have pursued as far as
Moscow. Once more, at Samarkand, the red-handed, invincible
savage then gave himself up to orgies of pleasure-making; but
it was not for many months. His eyes were now on India, and
the years 1398-1399 were spent by him in carrying death and
desolation through the Punjab, and to the city of Delhi, which
was made a scene of awful massacre and pillage. No permanent
conquest was achieved; the plunder and the pleasure of
slaughter were the ends of the expedition. A more serious
purpose directed the next movement of Timour's arms, which
were turned against the rival Turk of Asia Minor, or Roum—the
Ottoman, Bajazet, or Bayezid, who boasted of the conquest of
the Roman Empire of the East. In 1402, Bajazet was summoned
from the siege of Constantinople to defend his realm. On the
20th of July in that year, on the plain of Angora, he met the
enormous hosts of Timourlenk and was overwhelmed by them—his
kingdom lost, himself a captive. The merciless Tartar hordes
swept hapless Anatolia with a besom of destruction and death.
Nicæa, Prusa and other cities were sacked. Smyrna provoked the
Tartar savage by an obstinate defense and was doomed to the
sword, without mercy for age or sex. Even then, the customary
pyramid of heads which he built on the site was not large
enough to satisfy his eye and he increased its height by
alternate layers of mud. Aleppo, Damascus, and other cities of
Syria had been dealt with in like manner the year before. When
satiated with blood, he returned to Samarkand in 1404, rested
there until January 1405, and then set out upon an expedition
to China; but he died on the way. His empire was soon broken
in pieces.
A. Vambery,
History of Bokhara,
chapters 10, 11, 12.
ALSO IN:
J. Hutton,
Central Asia,
chapters 5-6.
E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 65.
A. Lamartine,
History of Turkey,
book 7.
H. G. Smith,
Romance of History,
chapter 4.
TIMUCHI.
This was the name given to the members of the senate or
council of six hundred of Massilia—ancient Marseilles.
G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 1, chapter 21.
TIMUCUA, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TIMUQUANAN FAMILY.
TINNEH.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.
TIOCAJAS, Battles of.
See ECUADOR: ABORIGINAL KINGDOM.
TIPPECANOE, The Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1811.
TIPPERMUIR, Battle of (1644).
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1644-1645.
TIPPOO (OR TIPU) SAIB, English wars with.
See INDIA: A. D. 1785-1793, and 1798-1805.
TIROL.
See TYROL.
TIRSHATHA.
An ancient Persian title, borne by an officer whose functions
corresponded with those of High Sheriff.
H. Ewald,
History of Israel,
book 5, section 1.
TIRYNS.
See ARGOS; and HERACLEIDÆ.
TITHE.
"To consecrate to the Sanctuary in pure thankfulness towards
God the tenth of all annual profits, was a primitive tradition
among the Canaanites, Phoenicians and Carthaginians. The
custom, accordingly, very early passed over to Israel."
H. Ewald.
Antiquities of Israel,
introduction, 3d section, II., 3.
Modern "recognition of the legal obligation of tithe dates
from the eighth century, both on the continent and in England.
In A. D. 779 Charles the Great ordained that everyone should
pay tithe, and that the proceeds should be disposed of by the
bishop; and in A. D. 787 it was made imperative by the
legatine councils held in England."
W. Stubbs.
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 8, section 86 (volume 1).
TITHE OF SALADIN.
See SALADIN, THE TITHE OF.
TITHES, Irish.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1832-1833.
TITIES, The.
See ROME: THE BEGINNINGS.
TITUS, Roman Emperor, A. D. 79-81.
TIVITIVAS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.
TIVOLI.
See TIBUR.
TLACOPAN.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1325-1502.
TLASCALA.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1519 (JUNE-OCTOBER).
T'LINKETS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.
TOBACCO:
Its introduction into the Old World from the New.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1584-1586.
The systematic culture of the plant introduced in Virginia.
See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1609-1616.
TOBACCO NATION, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: HURONS;
and IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY: THEIR NAME.
TOBAS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.
TOGA, The Roman.
"The toga, the specifically national dress of the Romans, was
originally put on the naked body, fitting much more tightly
than the rich folds of the togas of later times. About the
shape of this toga, which is described as a semicircular cloak
…, many different opinions prevail. Some scholars consider it
to have been an oblong piece of woven cloth …; others
construct it of one or even two pieces cut into segments of a
circle. Here again we shall adopt in the main the results
arrived at through practical trials by Weiss ('Costümkunde,'
page 956 et seq.). The Roman toga therefore was not … a
quadrangular oblong, but 'had the shape of an oblong edged off
into the form of an oval, the middle length being equal to
about three times the height of a grown-up man (exclusive of
the head), and its middle breadth equal to twice the same
length. In putting it on, the toga was at first folded
lengthwise, and the double dress thus originated was laid in

folds on the straight edge and thrown over the left shoulder
in the simple manner of the Greek or Tuscan cloak; the toga,
however, covered the whole left side and even dragged on the
ground to a considerable extent. The cloak was then pulled
across the back and through the right arm, the ends being
again thrown over the left shoulder backwards. The part of the
drapery covering the back was once more pulled towards the
right shoulder, so as to add to the richness of the folds.' …
The simpler, that is narrower, toga of earlier times naturally
clung more tightly to the body."
E. Guhl and W. Koner,
Life of the Greeks and Romans,
section 95.
{3114}
"No tacks or fastenings of any sort indeed are visible in the
toga, but their existence may be inferred from the great
formality and little variation displayed in its divisions and
folds. In general, the toga seems not only to have formed, as
it were, a short sleeve to the right arm, which was left
unconfined, but to have covered the left arm down to the
wrist. … The material of the toga was wool; the colour, in
early ages, its own natural yellowish hue. In later periods
this seems, however, only to have been retained in the togas
of the higher orders; inferior persons wearing theirs dyed,
and candidates for public offices bleached by an artificial
process. In times of mourning the toga was worn black, or was
left off altogether. Priests and magistrates wore the 'toga
pretexta,' or toga edged with a purple border, called
pretexta. This … was, as well as the bulla, or small round
gold box suspended on the breast by way of an amulet, worn by
all youths of noble birth to the age of fifteen. … The knights
wore the 'trabea,' or toga striped with purple throughout."
T. Hope,
Costume of the Ancients,
volume 1.
TOGATI, The.
See ROME: B. C. 275.
TOGGENBURG WAR, The.
See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1652-1789.
TOGRUL BEG, Seljuk Turkish Sultan. A. D. 1037-1063.
TOHOMES, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.
TOHOPEKA, Battle of (1814).
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1813-1814 (AUGUST-APRIL).
TOISECH.
See RI.
TOISON D'OR.
The French name of the Order of Knighthood known in the
English-speaking world as the "Order of the Golden Fleece."
See GOLDEN FLEECE.
TOLBIAC, Battle of.
See ALEMANNI: A. D. 496-504;
also, FRANKS: A. D. 481-511.
TOLEDO, Ohio: A. D. 1805-1835.
Site in dispute between Ohio and Michigan.
See MICHIGAN: A. D. 1837.
TOLEDO, Spain: A. D. 531-712.
The capital of the Gothic kingdom in Spain.
See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 507-711.
TOLEDO, Spain: A. D. 712.
Surrender to the Arab-Moors.
See SPAIN: A. D. 711-713.
TOLEDO, Spain: A. D. 1083-1085.
Recovery from the Moors.
On the crumbling of the dominions of the Spanish caliphate of
Cordova, Toledo became the seat of one of the most vigorous of
the petty kingdoms which arose in Moorish Spain. But on the
death of its founder, Aben Dylnun, and under his incapable son
Yahia, the kingdom of Toledo soon sank to such weakness as
invited the attacks of the Christian king of Leon, Alfonso VI.
After a siege of three years, on the 25th of May, A. D. 1085,
the old capital of the Goths, which the Moslems had occupied
for nearly four centuries, was restored to their descendants
and successors.
S. A. Dunham,
History of Spain and Portugal,
book 3, section 1, chapter 1.
TOLEDO, Spain: A. D. 1520-1522.
Revolt against the government of Charles, the emperor.
Siege and surrender.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1518-1522.
TOLEDO, Councils of.
See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 507-711.
TOLENTINO, Treaty of (1797).
See FRANCE: A. D, 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).
TOLERATION, and the Puritan theocracy
In Massachusetts.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1631-1636.
In Maryland.
See MARYLAND: A. D. 1649.
TOLERATION ACT, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1689 (APRIL-AUGUST).
TOLOSA, Battle of Las Navas de (1211 or 1212).
See SPAIN: A. D. 1146-1232;
also, ALMOHADES.
TOLTECS, The.
See MEXICO, ANCIENT.
TOMI.
An ancient Greek city on the western shore of the Euxine,
which was Ovid's place of banishment. Its site is occupied by
the modern town of Kustendje.
TONE, Theobald Wolf, and the United Irishmen.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1793-1798.
TONIKAN FAMILY, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TONIKAN FAMILY.
TONKAWAN FAMILY, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TONKAWAN FAMILY.
TONKIN.
COCHIN-CHINA.
ANNAM.
CAMBOJA.
"The whole region which recent events have practically
converted into French territory comprises four distinct
political divisions: Tonkin in the north; Cochin-China in the
centre; Lower Cochin-China and Camboja in the south. The first
two, formerly separate States, have since 1802 constituted a
single kingdom, commonly spoken of as the empire of Annam.
This term Annam (properly An-nan) appears to be a modified
form of Ngannan, that is, 'Southern Peace,' first applied to
the frontier river between China and Tonkin, and afterwards
extended not only to Tonkin, but to the whole region south of
that river after its conquest and pacification by China in the
third century of the new era. Hence its convenient application
to the same region since the union of Tonkin and Cochin-China
under one dynasty and since the transfer of the administration
to France in 1883, is but a survival of the Chinese usage, and
fully justified on historic grounds. Tonkin (Tongking,
Tungking), that is, 'Eastern Capital,' a term originally
applied to Ha-noi when that city was the royal residence, has
in quite recent times been extended to the whole of the
northern kingdom, whose true historic name is Yüeh-nan. Under
the native rulers Tonkin was divided into provinces and
sub-divisions bearing Chinese names, and corresponding to the
administrative divisions of the Chinese empire. … Since its
conquest by Cochin-China the country has been administered in
much the same way as the southern kingdom. From this State
Tonkin is separated partly by a spur of the coast range
projecting seawards, partly by a wall built in the sixteenth
century and running in the same direction. After the erection
of this artificial barrier, which lies about 18° North
Latitude, between Hatinh and Dong-koi, the northern and
southern kingdoms came to be respectively distinguished by the
titles of Dang-ngoai and Dang-trong, that is, 'Outer' and
'Inner Route.'
{3115}
The term Cochin-China, by which the Inner Route is best known,
has no more to do with China than it has with the Indian city
of Cochin. It appears to be a modified form of Kwe-Chen-Ching,
that is, the 'Kingdom of Chen-Ching,' the name by which this
region was first known in the 9th century of the new era, from
its capital Chen-Ching. Another although less probable
derivation is from the Chinese Co-Chen-Ching, meaning 'Old
Champa,' a reminiscence of the time when the Cham (Tsiam)
nation was the most powerful in the peninsula. … Before the
arrival of the French, Cochin-China comprised the whole of the
coast lands from Tonkin nearly to the foot of the Pursat hills
in South Camboja. … From the remotest times China claimed, and
intermittently exercised, suzerain authority over Annam, whose
energies have for ages been wasted partly in vain efforts to
resist this claim, partly in still more disastrous warfare
between the two rival States. Almost the first distinctly
historic event was the reduction of Lu-liang, as Tonkin was
then called, by the Chinese in 218 B. C., when the country was
divided into prefectures, and a civil and military
organisation established on the Chinese model. … Early in the
ninth century of the new era the term Kwe-Chen-Ching
(Cochin-China) began to be applied to the southern, which had
already asserted its independence of the northern, kingdom. In
1428 the two States freed themselves temporarily from the
Chinese protectorate, and 200 years later the Annamese reduced
all that remained of the Champa territory, driving the natives
to the uplands, and settling in the plains. This conquest was
followed about 1750 by that of the southern or maritime
provinces of Camboja since known as Lower (now French)
Cochin-China. In 1775 the King of Cochin-China, who had
usurped the throne in 1774, reduced Tonkin, and was
acknowledged sovereign of Annam by the Chinese emperor. But in
1798 Gia-long, son of the deposed monarch, recovers the throne
with the aid of some French auxiliaries, and in 1802
reconstitutes the Annamese empire under the Cochin-Chinese
sceptre. From this time the relations with France become more
frequent. … After his death in 1820 the anti-European national
party acquires the ascendant, the French officers are
dismissed, and the Roman Catholic religion, which had made
rapid progress during the reign of Gia-long, is subjected to
cruel and systematic persecution. Notwithstanding the protests
and occasional intervention of France, this policy is
persevered in, until the execution of Bishop Diaz in 1857 by
order of Tu-Duc, third in succession from Gia-long, calls for
more active interference. Admiral Rigault de Genouilly
captures Tourane in 1858, followed next year by the rout of
the Annamese army at the same place, and the occupation of the
forts at the entrance of the Donnai and of Gia-diñh (Saigon),
capital of Lower Cochin-China. This virtually established
French supremacy, which was sealed by the treaty of 1862,
ceding the three best, and that of 1867 the three remaining,
provinces of Lower Cochin-China. It was further strengthened
and extended by the treaty of 1863, securing the protectorate
of Camboja and the important strategical position of
'Quatre-Bras' on the Mekhong. Then came the scientific
expedition of Mekhong (1866-68), which dissipated the hopes
entertained of that river giving access to the trade of
Southern China. Attention was accordingly now attracted to the
Song-koi basin, and the establishment of French interests in
Tonkin secured by the treaties of peace and commerce concluded
with the Annamese Government in 1874. This prepared the way
for the recent diplomatic complications with Annam and China,
followed by the military operations in Cochin-China and Tonkin
[see FRANCE: A. D. 1875-1889], which led up to the treaties of
1883 and 1884, extending the French protectorate to the whole
of Annam, and forbidding the Annamese Government all
diplomatic relations with foreign powers, China included,
except through the intermediary of France. Lastly, the
appointment in 1886 of a French Resident General, with full
administrative powers, effaced the last vestige of national
autonomy, and virtually reduced the ancient kingdoms of Tonkin
and Cochin-China to the position of an outlying French
possession."
A. H. Keane,
Eastern Geography,
pages 98-104.
"In the south-eastern extremity of Cochin-China, and in
Camboja, still survive the scattered fragments of the
historical Tsiam (Cham, Khiam) race, who appear to have been
at one time the most powerful nation in Farther India.
According to Gagelin, they ruled over the whole region between
the Menam and the Gulf of Tongking. … Like the Tsiams, the
Cambojans, or Khmers, are a race sprung from illustrious
ancestry, but at present reduced to about 1,500,000, partly in
the south-eastern provinces of Siam, partly forming a petty
state under French protection, which is limited east and west
by the Mekong and Gulf of Siam, north and south by the Great
Lake and French Cochin-China. During the period of its
prosperity the Cambojan empire overshadowed a great part of
Indo-China, and maintained regular intercourse with
Cisgangetic India on the one hand, and on the other with the
Island of Java. The centre of its power lay on the northern
shores of the Great Lake, where the names of its great cities,
the architecture and sculptures of its ruined temples, attest
the successive influences of Brahmanism and Buddhism on the
local culture. A native legend, based possibly on historic
data, relates how a Hindu prince migrated with ten millions of
his subjects, some twenty-three centuries ago, from
Indraspathi (Delhi) to Camboja, while the present dynasty
claims descent from a Benares family. But still more active
relations seem to have been maintained with Lanka (Ceylon),
which island has acquired almost a sacred character in the
eyes of the Cambojans. The term Camboja itself (Kampushea,
Kamp'osha) has by some writers been wrongly identified with
the Camboja of Sanskrit geography. It simply means the 'land
of the Kammen,' or 'Khmer.' Although some years under the
French protectorate, the political institutions of the
Cambojan state have undergone little change. The king, who
still enjoys absolute power over the life and property of his
subjects, chooses his own mandarins, and these magistrates
dispense justice in favour of the highest bidders. Trade is a
royal monopoly, sold mostly to energetic Chinese contractors;
and slavery has not yet been abolished, although the severity
of the system has been somewhat mitigated since 1877. Ordinary
slaves now receive a daily pittance, which may help to
purchase their freedom. …
{3116}
On the eastern slopes, and in the lower Mekong basin, the
dominant race are the Giao-shi (Giao-kii} or Annamese, who are
of doubtful origin, but resemble the Chinese more than any
other people of Farther India. Affiliated by some to the
Malays, by others to the Chinese, Otto Kunze regards them as
akin to the Japanese. According to the local traditions and
records they have gradually spread along the coast from
Tongking southwards to the extremity of the Peninsula. After
driving the Tsiams into the interior, they penetrated about
1650 to the Lower Mekong, which region formerly belonged to
Camboja, but is now properly called French Cochin-China. Here
the Annamese, having driven out or exterminated most of the
Cambojans, have long formed the great majority of the
population."
É. Reclus,
The Earth and its Inhabitants: Asia,
volume 3, chapter 22.
TONNAGE AND POUNDAGE.
See TUNNAGE AND POUNDAGE;
also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1629.
TONQUIN.
See TONKIN.
TONTONTEAC.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PUEBLOS.
TONTOS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: APACHE GROUP.
TOPASSES, The.
See INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.
TOPEKA CONSTITUTION, The.
See KANSAS: A. D. 1854-1859.
TOQUIS.
See CHILE: THE ARAUCANIANS.
TORBAY, Landing of William of Orange at.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1688 (JULY-NOVEMBER).
TORDESILLAS, Treaty of.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1494.
TORGAU: A. D. 1525.
Protestant League.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1525-1529.
TORGAU: A. D. 1645.
Yielded to the Swedes.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.
TORGAU: A. D. 1760.
Victory of Frederick the Great.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1760.
TORGAU: A. D. 1813.
Siege and capture by the Allies.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).
TORIES, English:
Origin of the Party and the Name.
See RAPPAREES; ENGLAND: A. D. 1680;
and CONSERVATIVE PARTY.
TORIES, English:
Of the American Revolution, and their exile.
"Before the Revolution the parties in the colonies were
practically identical with the Whigs and Tories of the mother
country, the Whigs or anti-prerogative men supporting ever the
cause of the people against arbitrary or illegal acts of the
governor or the council. In the early days of the Revolution
the ultra Tories were gradually driven into the ranks of the
enemy, until for a time it might be said that all
revolutionary America had become Whig; the name Tory, however,
was still applied to those who, though opposed to the
usurpations of George III., were averse to a final separation
from England."
G. Pellew,
John Jay,
page 269.
"The terms Tories, Loyalists, Refugees, are burdened with a
piteous record of wrongs and sufferings. It has not been found
easy or satisfactory for even the most candid historian to
leave the facts and arguments of the conflict impartially
adjusted. Insult, confiscation of property, and exile were the
penalties of those who bore these titles. … Remembering that
the most bitter words of Washington that have come to us are
those which express his scorn of Tories, we must at least look
to find some plausible, if not justifying, ground for the
patriot party. Among those most frank and fearless in the
avowal of loyalty, and who suffered the severest penalties,
were men of the noblest character and of the highest position.
So, also, bearing the same odious title, were men of the most
despicable nature, self-seeking and unprincipled, ready for
any act of evil. And between these were men of every grade of
respectability and of every shade of moral meanness. … As a
general rule, the Tories were content with an unarmed
resistance, where they were not reinforced by the resources or
forces of the enemy. But in successive places in possession of
the British armies, in Boston, Long Island, New York, the
Jerseys, Philadelphia, and in the Southern provinces, there
rallied around them Tories both seeking protection, and ready
to perform all kinds of military duty as allies. By all the
estimates, probably below the mark, there were during the war
at least 25,000 organized loyalist forces. … When the day of
reckoning came at the close of the war, it needed no spirit of
prophecy to tell how these Tories, armed or unarmed, would
fare, and we have not to go outside the familiar field of
human nature for an explanation. That it was not till six
months after the ratification of the treaty by Congress that
Sir Guy Carleton removed the British army from New York—the
delay being caused by his embarrassment from the crowds of
loyalists seeking his protection—is a reminder to us of their
forlorn condition. … From all over the seaboard of the
continent refugees made their way to New York in crowds. …
They threw themselves in despair upon the protection of the
British commander. … He pleaded his encumbrances of this
character in answer to the censures upon him for delaying his
departure, and he vainly hoped that Congress would devise some
measures of leniency to relieve him. It is difficult to
estimate with any approach to exactness the number of these
hounded victims. Many hundreds of them had been seeking refuge
in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick since the autumn of 1782, and
additional parties, in increasing number, followed to the same
provinces. An historian [Murdoch, "History of Nova Scotia">[
sets the whole number at the close of 1783 at 25,000. Large
numbers of the loyalists of the Southern provinces were
shipped to the Bahamas and to the West India Islands. At one
time Carleton had upon his hands over 12,000 Tories clamorous
for transportation. … A celebration of the centennial of the
settlement of Upper Canada by these exiles took place in 1884.
At a meeting of the royal governor, Lord Dorchester, and the
council, in Quebec, in November, 1789, in connection with the
disposal of still unappropriated crown lands in the province,
order was taken for the making and preserving of a registry of
the names of all persons, with those of their sons and
daughters, 'who had adhered to the unity of the empire, and
joined the royal standard in America before the treaty of
separation in the year 1783.' The official list contains the
names of several thousands. It was by their descendants and
representatives that the centennial occasion referred to was
observed. … Some bands passed to Canada by Whitehall, Lake
Champlain, Ticonderoga, and Plattsburg, then southward to
Cornwall, ascending the St. Lawrence, and settling on the
north bank.
{3117}
Others went from New Brunswick and Nova Scotia up the St.
Lawrence to Sorel, where they wintered, going afterwards to
Kingston. Most of the exiles ascended the Hudson to Albany,
then by the Mohawk and Wood Creek to Oneida and Ontario lakes.
… As these exiles had stood for the unity of the empire, they
took the name of the 'United Empire Loyalists'" (a name which
is often abbreviated in common use to U. E. Loyalists).
G. E. Ellis,
The Loyalists and their Fortunes
(Narrative and Critical History of America,
volume 7, pages 185-214).
"Some 10,000 refugees had, in 1784, and the few years
following, found homes in Western Canada, just as it is
estimated … that 20,000 had settled in the provinces by the
sea. Assuming full responsibility for the care and present
support of her devoted adherents, Great Britain opened her
hand cheerfully to assist them. … The sum paid by the British
Government to the suffering refugees was about $15,000,000."
G. Bryce,
Short History of the Canadian People,
chapter 7, section 2.
ALSO IN:
E. Ryerson,
The Loyalists of America and their Times.
L. Sabine,
Biographical Sketches of the Loyalists of America.
TORNOSA, Battle of.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).
TORO, Battle of (1476).
See SPAIN: A. D. 1368-1479.
TOROMONOS, The.
See BOLIVIA: ABORIGINES INHABITANTS.
TORONTO: A. D. 1749.
The hospitable origin of the city.
"The Northern Indians were flocking with their beaver-skins to
the English of Oswego; and in April, 1749, an officer named
Portneuf had been sent with soldiers and workmen to build a
stockaded trading-house at Toronto, in order to intercept
them,—not by force, which would have been ruinous to French
interests, but by a tempting supply of goods and brandy. Thus
the fort was kept well stocked, and with excellent effect."
F. Parkman,
Montcalm and Wolfe,
chapter 3 (volume 1).
TORONTO: A. D. 1813.
Taken and burned by the Americans.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1813 (APRIL-JULY).
TORONTO: A. D. 1837.
The Mackenzie rising.
Defeat of the rebels.
See CANADA: A. D. 1837-1838.
TORQUES.
"The Latin word torques has been applied in a very extended
sense to the various necklaces or collars for the neck, found
in Britain, and other countries inhabited by the Celtic
tribes. This word has been supposed to be derived from the
Welch or Irish 'torc,' which has the same signification, but
the converse is equally plausible, that this was derived from
the Latin."
S. Birch,
On the Torc of the Celts
(Archaeological Journal, volume 2).
TORRES VEDRAS, The Lines of.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1809-1810 (OCTOBER-SEPTEMBER),
and 1810-1812.
TORTONA: A. D. 1155.
Destruction by Frederick Barbarossa.
See ITALY: A. D. 1154-1162.
TORTOSA: A. D. 1640.
Spanish capture and sack.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1640-1642.
TORTUGAS:
The Rendezvous of the Buccaneers.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1639-1700.
TORTURE.
See LAW, CRIMINAL,: A. D.1708.
TORY.
See TORIES.
TOTEMS.
"A peculiar social institution exists among the [North
American] Indians, very curious in its character; and though I
am not prepared to say that it may be traced through all the
tribes east of the Mississippi, yet its prevalence is so
general, and its influence on political relations so
important, as to claim especial attention. Indian communities,
independent of their local distribution into tribes, bands,
and villages, are composed of several distinct clans. Each
clan has its emblem, consisting of the figure of some bird,
beast, or reptile; and each is distinguished by the name of
the animal which it thus bears as its device; as, for example,
the clan of the Wolf, the Deer, the Otter, or the Hawk. In the
language of the Algonquins, these emblems are known by the
name of 'Totems.' The members of the same clan, being
connected, or supposed to be so, by ties of kindred more or
less remote, are prohibited from intermarriage. Thus Wolf
cannot marry Wolf; but he may, if he chooses, take a wife from
the clan of Hawks, or any other clan but his own. It follows
that when this prohibition is rigidly observed, no single clan
can live apart from the rest; but the whole must be mingled
together, and in every family the husband and wife must be of
different clans. To different totems attach different degrees
of rank and dignity; and those of the Bear, the Tortoise, and
the Wolf are among the first in honor. Each man is proud of
his badge, jealously asserting its claims to respect; and the
members of the same clan, though they may, perhaps, speak
different dialects, and dwell far asunder, are yet bound
together by the closest ties of fraternity. If a man is
killed, every member of the clan feels called upon to avenge
him; and the wayfarer, the hunter, or the warrior is sure of a
cordial welcome in the distant lodge of the clansman whose
face perhaps he has never seen. It may be added that certain
privileges, highly prized as hereditary rights, sometimes
reside in particular clans; such as that of furnishing a
sachem to the tribe, or of performing certain religious
ceremonies or magic rites."
F. Parkman,
Conspiracy of Pontiac,
chapter 1.
"A totem is a class of material objects which a savage regards
with superstitious respect, believing that there exists
between him and every member of the class an intimate and
altogether special relation. The name is derived from an
Ojibway (Chippeway) word 'totem,' the correct spelling of
which is somewhat uncertain. It was first introduced into
literature, so far as appears, by J. Long, an Indian
interpreter of last century, who spelt it 'totam.' … The
connexion between a man and his totem is mutually beneficent;
the totem protects the man, and the man shows his respect for
the totem in various ways, by not killing it if it be an
animal, and not cutting or gathering it if it be a plant. As
distinguished from a fetich, a totem is never an isolated
individual, but always a class of objects, generally a species
of animals or of plants, more rarely a class of inanimate
natural objects, very rarely a class of artificial objects.
Considered in relation to men, totems are of at least three
kinds:—
(1) the clan totem, common to a whole clan, and passing by
inheritance from generation to generation;
(2) the sex totem, common either to all the males or to all
the females of a tribe, to the exclusion in either case of the
other sex;
(3) the individual totem, belonging to a single individual and
not passing to his descendants."
J. G. Frazer,
Totemism,
pages 1-2.
ALSO IN:
L. H. Morgan,
League of the Iroquois,
chapter 4.
L. H. Morgan,
Ancient Society,
part 2.
L. Fison and A. W. Howitt,
Kamilaroi and Kurnai,
appendix B.
W. R. Smith,
Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia,
chapter 7.
{3118}
TOTILA, King of the Ostrogoths.
See ROME: A. D. 535-553.
TOTONACOS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TOTONACOS.
TOUL: A. D. 1552-1559.
Possession acquired by France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.
TOUL: A. D. 1648.
Ceded to France in the Peace of Westphalia.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.
TOULON: A. D. 1793-1794.
Revolt against the Revolutionary Government at Paris.
English aid called in.
Siege, capture and frightful vengeance by the Terrorists.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER);
and 1793-1794 (OCTOBER-APRIL).
----------TOULOUSE: Start--------
TOULOUSE: B. C. 106.
Acquisition by the Romans.
Tolosa, modern Toulouse, was the chief town of the Volcæ
Tectosages (see VOLCÆ, THE), a Gallic tribe which occupied the
upper basin of the Garonne, between the western prolongation
of the Cevennes and the eastern Pyrenees. Some time before 106
B. C. the Romans had formed an alliance with the Tectosages
which enabled them to place a garrison in Tolosa; but the
people had tired of the arrangement, had risen against the
garrison and had put the soldiers in chains. On that
provocation, Q. Servilius Cæpio, one of the consuls of the
year 106, advanced upon the town, found traitors to admit him
within its gates, and sacked it as a Roman general knew how to
do. He found a great treasure of gold in Tolosa, the origin of
which has been the subject of much dispute. The treasure was
sent off under escort to Massilia, but disappeared on the way,
its escort being attacked and slain. Consul Cæpio was accused
of the robbery; there was a great scandal and prosecution at
Rome, and "Aurum Tolosanum"—"the gold of Toulouse"—became a
proverbial expression, applied to ill-gotten wealth.
G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 2, chapter 1.
TOULOUSE: A. D. 410-509.
The Gothic kingdom.
See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 410-419, and after.
TOULOUSE: A. D. 721.
Repulse of the Moslems.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 715-732.
TOULOUSE: A. D. 781.
Made a county of Aquitaine.
See AQUITAINE: A. D. 781.
TOULOUSE: 10-11th Centuries.
The rise of the Counts.
The counts of Toulouse "represented an earlier line of dukes
of Aquitaine, successors of the dukes of Gothia or Septimania,
under whom the capital of southern Gaul had been not Poitiers
but Toulouse, Poitou itself counting as a mere underfief. In
the latter half of the tenth century these dukes of Gothia or
Aquitania Prima, as the Latin chroniclers sometimes called
them from the Old Roman name of their country, had seen their
ducal title transferred to the Poitevin lords of Aquitania
Secunda—the dukes of Aquitaine with whom we have had to deal.
But the Poitevin overlordship was never fully acknowledged by
the house of Toulouse; and this latter in the course of the
following century again rose to great importance and
distinction, which reached its height in the person of Count
Raymond IV., better known as Raymond of St. Gilles, from the
name of the little county which had been his earliest
possession. From that small centre his rule gradually spread
over the whole territory of the ancient dukes of Septimania.
In the year of the Norman conquest of England [1066] Rouergue,
which was held by a younger branch of the house of Toulouse,
lapsed to the elder line; in [1088] the year after the
Conqueror's death Raymond came into possession of Toulouse
itself; in 1094 he became, in right of his wife, owner of half
the Burgundian county of Provence. His territorial influence
was doubled by that of his personal fame; he was one of the
chief heroes of the first Crusade; and when he died in 1105 he
left to his son Bertrand, over and above his Aquitanian
heritage, the Syrian county of Tripoli. On Bertrand's death in
1112 these possessions were divided, his son Pontius
succeeding him as count of Tripoli, and surrendering his
claims upon Toulouse to his uncle Alfonso Jordan, a younger
son of Raymond of St. Gilles. Those claims, however, were
disputed. Raymond's elder brother, Count William IV., had left
an only daughter who, after a childless marriage with King
Sancho Ramirez of Aragon, became the wife of Count William
VIII. of Poitou. From that time forth it became a moot point
whether the lord of St. Gilles or the lord of Poitiers was the
rightful count of Toulouse. … With all these shiftings and
changes of ownership the kings of France had never tried to
interfere. Southern Gaul—'Aquitaine' in the wider sense—was a
land whose internal concerns they found it wise to leave as
far as possible untouched."
K. Norgate,
England under the Angevin Kings,
volume I, chapter 10.
See, also, BURGUNDY: A. D. 1032.
TOULOUSE: 12th Century.
The joyous court.
See PROVENCE: A. D. 1179-1207.
TOULOUSE: A. D. 1209.
The beginning of the Albigensian Crusades.
See ALBIGENSES: A. D. 1209.
TOULOUSE: A. D. 1213.
Conquest by Simon de Montfort and his crusaders.
See ALBIGENSES: A. D. 1210-1213.
TOULOUSE: A. D. 1229-1271.
End of the reign of the Counts.
See ALBIGENSES: A. D. 1217-1229.
TOULOUSE: A. D. 1814.
The last battle of the Peninsular War.
Occupation of the city by the English.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1812-1814.
TOURCOIGN, Battle of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (MARCH-JULY).
TOURNAY: A. D. 1513.
Capture by the English.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1513-1515.
TOURNAY: A. D. 1581.
Siege and capture by the Spaniards.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1581-1584.
TOURNAY: A. D. 1583.
Submission to Spain.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585.
TOURNAY: A. D. 1667.
Taken by the French.
See NETHERLANDS (THE SPANISH PROVINCES): A. D. 1667.
TOURNAY: A. D. 1668.
Ceded to France.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1668.
TOURNAY: A. D. 1709.
Siege and reduction by Marlborough and Prince Eugene.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1708-1709.
{3119}
TOURNAY: A. D. 1713.
Ceded to Holland.
See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714;
and NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1713-1715.
TOURNAY: A. D. 1745-1748.
Siege.
Battle of Fontenoy and surrender to the French.
Restoration at the Peace.
See NETHERLANDS (AUSTRIAN PROVINCES):
A. D. 1745; and AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, THE CONGRESS.
TOURNAY: A. D. 1794.
Battles near the city.
Surrender to the French.
FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (MARCH-JULY).
----------TOURNAY: End--------
TOURNEY.
TOURNAMENT.
JOUST.
"The word tourney, sometimes tournament, and in Latin
'torneamentum,' clearly indicates both the French origin of
these games and the principal end of that exercise, the art of
manœuvring, of turning ('tournoyer') his horse skilfully, to
strike his adversary and shield himself at the same time from
his blows. The combats, especially those of the nobility, were
always fought on horseback, with the lance and sharp sword;
the knight presented himself, clothed in armour which covered
his whole body, and which, while it preserved him from wounds,
bent to every movement and retarded those of his war horse. It
was important, therefore, that constant exercise should
accustom the knight's limbs to the enormous weight which he
must carry, and the horse to the agility which was expected of
him. In a 'passage' or 'pass of arms' ('passage' or 'pas
d'armes') the generic name of all those games, this exercise
was composed of two parts: the joust, which was a single
combat of knight against knight, both clothed in all their
arms, and the tourney, which was the image of a general
battle, or the encounter and evolutions of two troops of
cavalry equal in number."
J. C. L. de Sismondi,
France under the Feudal System
(Translated by W. Bellingham),
chapter 8.
TOURS: A. D. 732.
Defeat of the Moors by Charles Martel.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 715-732;
also, FRANKS: A. D. 511-752.
TOURS: A. D. 1870.
Seat of a part of the provisional
Government of National Defense.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).
TOUSSAINT L'OUVERTURE, The career of.
See HAYTI: A. D. 1632-1803.
TOWER AND SWORD, The Order of the.
This was an order of knighthood founded in Portugal by Alfonso
V., who reigned from 1438 to 1481. "The institution of the
order related to a sword reputed to be carefully guarded in a
tower of the city of Fez: respecting it there was a prophecy
that it must one day come into the possession of a Christian
king; in other words, that the Mohammedan empire of
northwestern Africa would be subverted by the Christians.
Alfonso seemed to believe that he was the destined conqueror."
S. A. Dunham.
History of Spain and Portugal,
volume 3, page 225 (American edition).
TOWER OF LONDON, The.
"Built originally by the Conqueror to curb London, afterwards
the fortress-palace of his descendants, and in the end the
State prison, from which a long procession of the ill-starred
great went forth to lay their heads on the block on Tower
Hill; while State murders, like those of Henry VI. and the two
young sons of Edward IV., were done in the dark chambers of
the Tower itself."
Goldwin Smith,
A Trip to England,
page 56.
"Even as to length of days, the Tower has no rival among
palaces and prisons. … Old writers date it from the days of
Caesar; a legend taken up by Shakspeare and the poets in
favour of which the name of Caesar's Tower remains in popular
use to this very day. A Roman wall can even yet be traced near
some parts of the ditch. The Tower is mentioned in the Saxon
Chronicle, in a way not incompatible with the fact of a Saxon
stronghold having stood upon the spot. The buildings as we
have them now in block and plan were commenced by William the
Conqueror; and the series of apartments in Caesar's Tower [the
great Norman keep now called the White Tower]—hall, gallery,
council chamber, chapel—were built in the early Norman reigns
and used as a royal residence by all our Norman kings."
W. H. Dixon,
Her Majesty's Tower,
chapter 1.
"We are informed by the 'Textus Roffensis' that the present
Great or White Tower was constructed by Gundulph, Bishop of
Rochester, under the direction of King William I., who was
suspicious of the fidelity of the citizens. The date assigned
by Stow is 1078."
J. Britton and E. W. Brayley,
Memoirs of the Tower of London,
chapter 1.
ALSO IN:
Lord de Ros,
Memorials of the Tower.
TOWN.
"Burh, burgh, borough, in its various spellings and various
shades of meaning, is our native word for urbes of every kind
from Rome downward: It is curious that this word should in
ordinary speech have been so largely displaced by the vaguer
word tun, town, which means an enclosure of any kind, and in
some English dialects is still applied to a single house and
its surroundings."
E. A. Freeman,
City and Borough
(Macmillan's Magazine, May, 1889).
See, also, TOWNSHIP; BOROUGH; GUILDS; and COMMUNE.
TOWNSHEND MEASURES, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766-1767.
TOWNSHIP.
"In recent historical writing dealing with Anglo-Saxon
conditions, a great place has been occupied by the 'township.'
The example was set sixty years ago by Palgrave; but it does
not seem to have been generally followed until in 1874 Dr.
Stubbs gave the word a prominent place in his 'Constitutional
History.' With Dr. Stubbs the 'township' was 'the unit of the
constitutional machinery or local administration'; and since
then most writers on constitutional and legal history have
followed in the same direction. … The language commonly used
in this connection need not, perhaps, necessarily be
understood as meaning that the phenomenon which the writers
have in mind was actually known to the Saxons themselves as a
'township' ('tunscipe'). It may be said that 'township' is
merely a modern name which it is convenient to apply to it.
Yet, certainly, that language usually suggests that it was
under that name that the Saxons knew it. … It is therefore of
some interest, at least for historical terminology,—and
possibly for other and more important reasons,—to point out
that there is no good foundation in Anglo-Saxon sources for
such a use of the term; that 'tunscipe' in the few places
where it does appear does not mean an area of land, an extent
of territory, or even the material houses and crofts of a
village; that it is probably nothing more than a loose general
term for 'the villagers.' …
{3120}
Only three passages in Anglo-Saxon literature have as yet been
found in which the word 'tunscipe' appears,—the Saxon
translation of Bede's 'Ecclesiastical History,' volume 10, the
laws of Edgar, iv. 8, and the 'Saxon Chronicle,' s. a 1137. …
The later history of the word 'township' would probably repay
investigation. It is certainly not a common word in literature
until comparatively recent times; and, where it does appear,
its old meaning seems often to cling to it. … There is a good
deal to make one believe that 'town ' [see, above, TOWN]
continued to be the common popular term for what we may
describe in general language as a rural centre of population
even into the 18th century. … The far more general use of the
word 'town' than of 'township' in early New England is most
naturally explained by supposing that it was the word
ordinarily employed in England at the time of the
migration,—at any rate, in East Anglia. … It might very
naturally be said that the effect of the foregoing argument is
no more than to replace 'township' by town, and that such a
change is immaterial,—that it is a difference between
tweedle-dum and tweedle-dee. I cannot help thinking, however,
that the adoption of a more correct terminology will be of
scientific advantage; and for this reason. So long as we speak
of the Anglo-Saxon 'township' we can hardly help attaching to
the word somewhat of the meaning which it has borne since the
sixteenth century. We think of it as an area inhabited by
freemen with an administrative machinery in the hands of an
assembly of those inhabitants and of officers chosen by them.
We start, therefore, with a sort of unconscious presumption
that the 'township' was what we call 'free.' … Now, it is this
question as to the position of the body of the population in
the earliest Anglo-Saxon times that is just now at issue; and
no student would say that at present the question is settled."
W. J. Ashley,
The Anglo-Saxon "Township"
(Quarterly Journal of Economics, April, 1894).
TOWNSHIP AND TOWN-MEETING, The New England.
"When people from England first came to dwell in the
wilderness of Massachusetts Bay, they settled in groups upon
small irregular-shaped patches of land, which soon came to be
known as townships. … This migration … was a movement, not of
individuals or of separate families, but of
church-congregations, and it continued to be so as the
settlers made their way inland and westward. … A township
would consist of about as many farms as could be disposed
within convenient distance from the meeting-house, where all
the inhabitants, young and old, gathered every Sunday, coming
on horseback or afoot. The meeting-house was thus centrally
situated, and near it was the town pasture or 'common,' with
the school-house and the block-house, or rude fortress for
defence against the Indians. … Around the meeting-house and
common the dwellings gradually clustered into a village, and
after a while the tavern, store, and town-house made their
appearance. … Under these circumstances they developed a kind
of government which we may describe in the present tense, for
its methods are pretty much the same to-day that they were two
centuries ago. In a New England township the people directly
govern themselves; the government is the people, or, to speak
with entire precision, it is all the male inhabitants of
one-and-twenty years of age and upwards. The people tax
themselves. Once each year, usually in March but sometimes as
early as February or as late as April, a 'town-meeting' is
held, at which all the grown men of the township are expected
to be present and to vote, while anyone may introduce motions
or take part in the discussion. … The town-meeting is held in
the town-house, but at first it used to be held in the church,
which was thus a 'meeting-house' for civil as well as
ecclesiastical purposes. At the town-meeting measures relating
to the administration of town affairs are discussed and
adopted or rejected; appropriations are made for the public
expenses of the town, or in other words the amount of the town
taxes for the year is determined; and town officers are
elected for the year. … The principal executive magistrates of
the town are the selectmen. They are three, five, seven, or
nine in number. … It [the town] was simply the English parish
government brought into a new country and adapted to the new
situation. Part of this new situation consisted in the fact
that the lords of the manor were left behind. There was no
longer any occasion to distinguish between the township as a
manor and the township as a parish; and so, as the three names
had all lived on together, side by side, in England, it was
now the oldest and most generally descriptive name,
'township,' that survived, and has come into use throughout a
great part of the United States. … New York had from the very
beginning the rudiments of an excellent system of local
self-government. The Dutch villages had their assemblies,
which under the English rule were developed into
town-meetings, though with less ample powers than those of New
England. … The New York system is of especial interest,
because it has powerfully influenced the development of local
institutions throughout the Northwest."
J. Fiske,
Civil Government in the United States,
chapters 2 and 4.
"The name town first occurs in the record of the second
colonial meeting of the Court of Assistants [Massachusetts
Bay, September 7, 1630], in connection with the naming of
Boston, Charlestown and Watertown. … A rude pattern of a frame
of town government was shaped by Dorchester, when, in place of
the earlier practice of transacting business at meetings of
the whole body of its freemen (the grants of land being
certified by a committee consisting of the clergymen and
deacons), it designated certain inhabitants, twelve in number,
to meet weekly, and consult and determine upon public
affairs,—without any authority, however, beyond other
inhabitants who should choose to come and take part in their
consultations and votes. About the same time, at Watertown, it
was 'agreed by the consent of the freemen, that there should
be three persons chosen for the ordering of the civil
affairs.' In the fourth year from the settlement of Boston, at
which time the earliest extant records were made, three
persons were chosen 'to make up the ten to manage the affairs
of the town.' The system of delegated town action was there
perhaps the same which was defined in an 'Order made by the
inhabitants of Charlestown, at a full meeting [February 10,
1635], for the government of the town by Selectmen,'—the name
presently extended throughout New England to the municipal
governors. …
{3121}
The towns have been, on the one hand, separate governments,
and, on the other, the separate constituents of a common
government. In Massachusetts, for two centuries and a quarter,
the Deputies in the General Court—or Representatives, as they
have been named under the State Constitution—continued to
represent the municipal corporations. In New Hampshire,
Vermont, Connecticut and Rhode Island, that basis of
representation still subsists."
J. G. Palfrey,
History of New England,
volume 1, chapter 9.
"Boston … is the largest community that ever maintained the
town organization, probably the most generally able and
intelligent. No other town ever played so conspicuous a part
in connection with important events. It led Massachusetts, New
England, the thirteen colonies, in the struggle for
independence. Probably in the whole history of the Anglo-Saxon
race, there has been no other so interesting manifestation of
the activity of the Folk-mote. Of this town of towns, Samuel
Adams was the son of sons. … One may almost call him the
creature of the town-meeting."
J. K. Hosmer,
Samuel Adams, the Man of the Town-Meeting
(Johns Hopkins University Studies, series 2, number 4).
ALSO IN:
E. Channing,
Town and County Government in the English Colonies
(Johns Hopkins University Studies, series 2, number 10).
See, also, NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1640-1644;
and SELECTMEN.
TOWTON, Battle of (A. D. 1461).
On Palm Sunday, March 29, 1461, two armies of Englishmen met
on a "goodly plain," ten miles from the city of York, between
the villages of Towton and Saxton, to fight out the contention
of the parties of the "two roses,"—of Lancaster and York. The
battle they fought is called the bloodiest that ever dyed
English soil. It raged through an afternoon and 'a night until
the following day, and the slain of the two sides has been
variously reckoned by different historians at 20,000 to
38,000. No quarter was given by the victorious partisans of
Edward IV. and the Lancastrians were utterly crushed. Henry
VI. fled to Scotland and Queen Margaret repaired to France.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1455-1471.
C. Ransome,
Battle of Towton
(English Historical Review, July, 1889).
TOXANDRIA.
After Julian's successful campaigns against the Franks, A. D.
358, the latter were permitted to remain, as subjects of the