History for ready reference, Volume 5, Tunnage to Zyp and Supplement

by J. N. Larned

[Transcriber's Notes: These modifications are intended to provide
continuity of the text for ease of searching and reading.
1. To avoid breaks in the narrative, page numbers (shown in curly
brackets "{1234}") are usually placed between paragraphs. In this
case the page number is preceded and followed by an empty line.
To remove page numbers use the Regular Expression:
"^{[0-9]+}" to "" (empty string)
2. If a paragraph is exceptionally long, the page number is
placed at the nearest sentence break on its own line, but
without surrounding empty lines.
3. Blocks of unrelated text are moved to a nearby break
between subjects.
5. Use of em dashes and other means of space saving are replaced
with spaces and newlines.
6. Subjects are arranged thusly:
Main titles are at the left margin, in all upper case
(as in the original) and are preceded by an empty line.
Subtitles (if any) are indented three spaces and
immediately follow the main title.
Text of the article (if any) follows the list of subtitles (if
any) and is preceded with an empty line and indented three
spaces.
References to other articles in this work are in all upper
case (as in the original) and indented six spaces. They
usually begin with "See", "Also" or "Also in".
Citations of works outside this book are indented six spaces
and in italics (as in the original). The bibliography in
Volume 1, APPENDIX F on page xxi provides additional details,
including URLs of available internet versions. This volume (5)
also includes a bibliography on page 3885.
----------Subject: Start--------
----------Subject: End----------
indicates the start/end of a group of subheadings or other
large block.
To search for words separated by an unknown number of other
characters, use this Regular Expression to find the words
"first" and "second" separated by between 1 and 100 characters:
"first.{1,100}second"
End Transcriber's Notes.]
----------------------------------

Spine
HISTORY FOR READY REFERENCE
FROM THE BEST HISTORIANS, BIOGRAPHERS, AND SPECIALISTS
THEIR OWN WORDS IN A COMPLETE SYSTEM OF HISTORY
FOR ALL USES, EXTENDING TO ALL COUNTRIES AND SUBJECTS,
AND REPRESENTING FOR BOTH READERS AND STUDENTS THE BETTER
AND NEWER LITERATURE OF HISTORY IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE
BY
J. N. LARNED
WITH NUMEROUS HISTORICAL MAPS FROM ORIGINAL
STUDIES AND DRAWINGS BY
ALAN O. REILEY
IN FIVE VOLUMES
VOLUME V—TUNNAGE TO ZYP
AND SUPPLEMENT
SPRINGFIELD, MASS.
THE C. A. NICHOLS CO., PUBLISHERS
MDCCCXCV
COPYRIGHT, 1895,
BY J. N. LARNED.
The Riverside Press,
Cambridge, Massachusetts, U. S. A.
Printed by H. O. Houghton & Company.
LIST OF MAPS AND PLANS.
Map of the United States Showing its territorial development,
To follow page 3286.
Maps of the United States in 1783, in 1790, in 1803, in 1840,
and in 1860,
To follow page 3326.
Map of the principal theatre Of war in Virginia, 1861-1865,
To follow page 3434.
Map of the Vicksburg Campaign,
On page 3490.
Map of the Battle-field of Gettysburg,
On page 3501.
Map of the Battle-field of Chattanooga,
On page 3511.
Map of the Atlanta Campaign,
On page 3531.
SUPPLEMENT.
"Abelard" to "Wheatstone,"
Pages 3669 to 3811.
Chronology of important and indicative events,
Pages 3812 to 3856.
Lineage of European Sovereigns and great historical families,
Pages 3857 to 3883.
Selected Bibliography,
Pages 3885 to 3909.
List of works from which passages have been quoted
in "History for Ready Reference and Topical Reading,"
Pages 3910 to 3985.
{3129}
TUNNAGE AND POUNDAGE.
A tax or custom of two shillings on the tun of wine and
sixpence on the pound of merchandise, which became, in
England, from the fourteenth century, one of the regular
parliamentary grants to the crown, for a long period. It grew
out of an agreement with the merchants in the time of Edward
II., to take the place of the former right of prisage; the
right, that is, to take two tuns of wine from every ship
importing twenty tuns or more,—one before and one behind the
mast.
W. Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 17, sections 276-277 (volume 2).
See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1629.
TUPI, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TUPI.
TUPUYAS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TUPI, ETC.
TURAN.
"The old Persians, who spoke an Aryan tongue, called their own
land Iran, and the barbarous land to the north of it they
called Turan. In their eyes, Iran was the land of light, and
Turan was the land of darkness. From this Turan, the land of
Central Asia, came the many Turkish settlements which made
their way, first into Western Asia and then into Europe."
E. A. Freeman,
The Ottoman Power in Europe,
chapter 2.
TURANIAN RACES AND LANGUAGES.
The name Turanian has been given to a large group of peoples,
mostly Asiatic, whose languages are all in the agglutinative
stage and bear evident marks of a family relationship. "This
race, one of the largest, both numerically and with regard to
the extent of territory which it occupies, is divided into two
great branches, the Ugro-finnish and the Dravidian. The first
must be again subdivided into the Turkish, including the
populations of Turkestan and of the Steppes of Central Asia,
as well as the Hungarians who have been for a long time
settled in Europe; and the Uralo-finnish group, comprising the
Finns, the Esthonians, the Tchoudes, and, in general, nearly
all the tribes of the north of Europe and Asia. The country of
the Dravidian branch is, on the contrary, to the south. This
branch is in fact composed of the indigenous people of the
Peninsula of Hindustan; Tamuls, Telingas, Carnates, who were
subjugated by the Arian race, and who appear to have
originally driven before them the negroes of the Australian
group, the original inhabitants of the soil, who are now
represented by the almost savage tribe of the Khonds. The
Turanian race is one of the oldest in the world. … The skulls
discovered in France, England and Belgium, in caves of the
close of the quaternary epoch, appear from their
characteristics to belong to a Turanian race, to the
Uralo-finnish group, and particularly resemble those of the
Esthonians. Wherever the Japhetic or pure Indo-European race
extended, it seems to have encountered a Turanian population
which it conquered and finally amalgamated with itself."
F. Lenormant,
Manual of Ancient History of the East,
book 1, chapter 4.
"From the 'Shah-nameh,' the great Persian epic, we learn that
the Aryan Persians called their nearest non-Aryan neighbours
—the Turkic or Turcoman tribes to the north of them—by the
name Turan, a word from which we derive the familiar
ethnologic term Turanian."
I. Taylor,
Etruscan Researches,
chapter 2.
TURCOMANS, Russian subjugation of the.
See RUSSIA: A.D. 1869-1881.
TURDETANI, The.
"There is a tradition that the Turdetani (round Seville)
possessed lays from very ancient times, a metrical book of
laws, of 6,000 verses, and even historical records. At any
rate, this tribe is described as the most civilized of all the
Spanish tribes, and at the same time the least warlike."
T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 3, chapter 7.
"The most mixed portion of the Peninsular population … is that
of the water-system of the Guadalquiver and the parts
immediately south and east of it, … the country of the
Turdetani and Bastitani, if we look to the ancient
populations—Bætica, if we adopt the general name of the
Romans, Andalusia in modern geography; … it was the Iberians
of these parts who were the first to receive foreign
intermixture, and the last to lose it."
R. G. Latham,
Ethnology of Europe,
chapter 2.
TURDETANIA.
The ancient name of modern Andalusia, in Spain; known still
more anciently as Tartessus.
TURENNE, Vicomte de:
Campaigns in the Thirty Years War and the war with Spain.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645; 1643-1644; 1646-1648;
and ITALY: A. D. 1635-1659.
TURENNE, Vicomte de:
The wars of the Fronde.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1649; 1650-1651; 1651-1653.
TURENNE, Vicomte de:
Campaigns against the Spaniards under Condé.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1653-1656; and 1655-1658.
TURENNE, Vicomte de:
Last campaigns.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1667; 1672-1674;
and, 1674-1678.
TURGOT, Ministry of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1774-1788.
TURIERO, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CHIBCHAS.
----------TURIN: Start--------
TURIN: A. D. 312.
Defeat of Maxentius by Constantine.
See ROME: A. D. 305-323.
TURIN: 11-12th Centuries.
Acquisition of Republican Independence.
See ITALY: A. D. 1056-1152.
TURIN: 12th Century,
Included in the original Italian possessions
of the House of Savoy.
See SAVOY: 11-15TH CENTURIES.
TURIN: A. D. 1536-1544.
Occupation by the French and restoration to the Duke of Savoy.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.
TURIN: A. D. 1559.
Held by France while other territory of the Duke of Savoy
was restored to him.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.
TURIN: A. D. 1562-1580.
Evacuation by the French.
Establishment of the seat of government
by Duke Emanuel Philibert.
Increased importance.
See SAVOY: A. D. 1559-1580.
TURIN: A. D. 1639-1657.
Extraordinary siege within a siege.
The citadel, and its restoration by France to the Duke of Savoy.
See ITALY: A. D. 1635-1659.
TURIN: A. D. 1706.
Siege by the French and rout of the besiegers.
See ITALY (SAVOY AND PIEDMONT): A. D. 1701-1713.
----------TURIN: End--------
{3130}
TURIN PAPYRUS, The.
An Egyptian papyrus preserved in the Turin Museum, for which
it was purchased from M. Drovetti, consul-general of France.
"If this papyrus were entire, the science of Egyptian
antiquities could not possess a more valuable document. It
contains a list of all the mythical or historical personages
who were believed to have reigned in Egypt, from fabulous
times down to a period we cannot ascertain, because the end of
the papyrus is wanting. Compiled under Ramses II. (19th
dynasty), that is, in the most flourishing epoch of the
history of Egypt, this list has all the characteristics of an
official document, and gives us the more valuable assistance,
as the name of each king is followed by the duration of his
reign, and each dynasty by the total number of years during
which it governed Egypt. Unfortunately this inestimable
treasure exists only in very small pieces (164 in number),
which it is often impossible to join correctly."
F. Lenormant,
Manual of Ancient History of the East,
book 3, chapter 1, section 2.
----------TURKESTAN: Start--------
TURKESTAN.
"Few even of the leading authorities are of accord as to the
exact meaning of such common expressions as Turkestán or
Central Asia. The Russians themselves often designate as
Central Asia the second great administrative division of their
Asiatic possessions, which is mainly comprised within the
Aralo-Caspian depression. But this expression is misguiding in
a geographical sense. To the portion of this division directly
administered by the Governor-General, whose headquarters are
at Tashkent, they give the still more questionable name of
Eastern Turkestán—the true Eastern Turkestán, if there be any,
lying beyond his jurisdiction in the Chinese province of
Kashgaria. … Russian Turkestán is bordered on the west by the
Caspian, the Ural river and mountains, on the east by the
Pamir plateau, the Tian-Shan and Ala-tau ranges separating it
from the Chinese Empire, northwards by the low ridge crossing
the Kirghis steppes about the 51st parallel, and forming the
water-parting between the Aralo-Caspian and Ob basins."
Stanford's Compendium of Geography and Travel: Asia,
page 391-392.
Of the region sometimes called Chinese Turkestan, the name
"Kashgaria," "lately current in Europe, has no raison d'être
since the collapse of the independent state founded by Yakub
of Kashgar. In the same way the expression 'Kingdom of Khotan'
fell into disuse after the city of Khotan had ceased to be the
capital. The term 'Little Bokhara,' still in use some thirty
years ago, pointed at the former religious ascendancy of
Bokhara, but is now all the less appropriate that Bokhara
itself has yielded the supremacy to Tashkent. Lastly, the
expressions Eastern Turkestan and Chinese Turkestan are still
applicable, because the inhabitants are of Turki speech, while
the Chinese have again brought the country under subjection."
E. Reclus,
The Earth and its Inhabitants: Asia,
volume 2, chapter 3.
See, also, YAKOOB BEG.
TURKESTAN: Ancient.
See SOGDIANA.
TURKESTAN: 6th Century.
Turkish conquest.
See TURKS: 6TH CENTURY.
TURKESTAN: A. D. 710.
Mahometan conquest.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 710.
TURKESTAN: A. D. 1859-1865.
Russian conquest.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1859-1876.
----------TURKESTAN: Start--------
TURKEY.
See TURKS (THE OTTOMANS): A. D. 1240-1326, and after;
also, SUBLIME PORTE.
----------TURKS: Start--------
TURKS: 6th Century.
Beginning of their career.
"At the equal distance of 2,000 miles from the Caspian, the
Icy, the Chinese, and the Bengal seas, a ridge of mountains is
conspicuous, the centre, and perhaps the summit, of Asia,
which, in the language of different nations has been styled
Imaus, and Caf, and Altai, and the Golden Mountains, and the
Girdle of the Earth. The sides of the hills were productive of
minerals; and the iron-forges, for the purpose of war, were
exercised by the Turks, the most despised portion of the
slaves of the great khan of the Geougen. But their servitude
could only last till a leader, bold and eloquent, should arise
to persuade his countrymen that the same arms which they
forged for their masters might become in their own hands the
instruments of freedom and victory. They sallied from the
mountain; a sceptre was the reward of his advice. … The
decisive battle which almost extirpated the nation of the
Geougen established in Tartary the new and more powerful
empire of the Turks. … The royal encampment seldom lost sight
of Mount Altai, from whence the river Irtish descends to water
the rich pastures of the Calmucks, which nourish the largest
sheep and oxen in the world. … As the subject nations marched
under the standard of the Turks, their cavalry, both men and
horses, were proudly computed by millions; one of their
effective armies consisted of 400,000 soldiers, and in less
than fifty years they were connected in peace and war with the
Romans, the Persians, and the Chinese. … Among their southern
conquests the most splendid was that of the Nephthalites, or
White Huns, a polite and warlike people, who possessed the
commercial cities of Bochara and Samarcand, who had vanquished
the Persian monarch, and carried their victorious arms along
the banks and perhaps to the month of the Indus. On the side
of the west the Turkish cavalry advanced to the lake Mæotis
[Sea of Azov]. They passed that lake on the ice: The khan, who
dwelt at the foot of Mount Altai, issued his commands for the
siege of Bosphorus, a city the voluntary subject of Rome and
whose princes had formerly been the friends of Athens."
E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 42.
W. Smith,
Note to
E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 42.
{3131}
ALSO IN:
J. H. Newman,
Lectures on the History of the Turks
(Historical Sketches, volume 1), lectures 1-4.
See, also, TARTARS; and MONGOLS: ORIGIN, &c.;
and BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: RACES EXISTING.
TURKS: A. D. 710.
Subjugation by the Saracens.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 710.
TURKS: A. D. 815-945.
Slaves and masters of the Caliphate.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE: A. D. 815-945.
TURKS: A. D. 999-1183.
The Gaznevide empire.
The decline of the Caliphate at Bagdad in the 9th century was
signalized by the rise to practically independent power of
several dynasties in its Persian and Central Asian dominions.
Among these was the dynasty of the Samanides who ruled, for a
hundred and twenty-five years, an extensive dominion in
northern Persia and modern Afghanistan and in the Turkoman
regions to the Oxus and beyond. In this dominion of the
Samanides was included the Turkish tribes which had submitted
to Islam and which were presently to become the master
champions of the faith. Their first attainment of actual
empire in the Moslem world was accomplished by the overthrow
of the Samanide princes, and the chief instruments of that
revolution were two Turks of humble origin—Sebectagi, or
Sabektekin, and his son Mahmud. Sebectagi had been a slave (in
the service of a high official under the Samanides) who gained
the favor of his masters and acquired command of the city and
province of Gazna; whence his famous son Mahmud was called the
Gaznevide, and the wide conquests which the latter made are
sometimes distinguished as the Gaznevide empire. "For him the
title of Sultan was first invented [see SULTAN]; and his
kingdom was enlarged from Transoxiana to the neighbourhood of
Ispahan, from the shores of the Caspian to the mouth of the
Indus. But the principal source of his fame and riches was the
holy war which he waged against the Gentoos of Hindostan. …
The Sultan of Gazna surpassed the limits of the conquests of
Alexander; after a march of three months, over the hills of
Cashmir and Thibet, he reached the famous city of Kinoge, on
the Upper Ganges, and, in a naval combat on one of the
branches of the Indus, he fought and vanquished 4,000 boats of
the natives. Delhi, Lahor, and Multan were compelled to open
their gates; the fertile kingdom of Guzarat attracted his
ambition and tempted his stay." The throne of Mahmud scarcely
outlasted himself. In the reign of his son Massoud, it was
nearly overturned by another Turkish horde—later comers into
the region of Bokhara from the steppes beyond. In a great
battle fought at Zendecan, in Khorassan, A. D. 1038, Massoud
was defeated and driven from Persia to a narrowed kingdom in
Cabul and the Punjaub, which survived for more than a century
longer and then disappeared.
E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 57.
ALSO IN:
J. H. Newman,
Lectures on the History of the Turks
(Historical Sketches, volume 1), lecture 4.
See, also, INDIA: A. D. 977-1290.
TURKS: (Seljuk), A. D. 1004-1063.
Conquests of Seldjuk and Togrul Beg.
"The history of the origin of the Seldjukides is obscured by
numerous myths, but it appears from it that Seldjuk, or more
correctly Seldjik, the son of Tokmak, and Subash, commander of
the army of a prince named Pigu or Bogu, were expelled from
their native steppes for some crime, and forced to seek their
fortunes in strange countries. Seldjuk, with 100 horsemen,
1,000 camels, and 50,000 sheep, migrated to a place on the
southern confines of the desert, in the neighbourhood of Djend
[described as distant twenty fersakhs from Bokhara]. He
settled there and, with all his followers, embraced Islamism."
Under Seldjuk and his two grandsons, Togrul and Tchakar, the
Seldjukides grew formidable in numbers and power, on the
border of the empire of Mahmud the Ghaznevide, then rising on
the ruins of the principality of the Samanides. Thinking to
control these turbulent kinsmen of his race, Mahmud unwisely
proposed to them to quit the country they occupied, between
the Oxus and the Jaxartes, and to settle themselves in
Khorasan. "In the year … (1030), that is, within a year of the
death of Sultan Mahmud, we find the Seldjukides west of Merv,
on the ground now occupied by the Tekke-Turkomans, in the
neighbourhood of the southern cities of Nisa and Abiverd, from
which point they molested the rich province of Khorasan by
constant raids, as grievously as is done by the Turkomans to
this very day.' When it was too late, the Ghaznevide Sultan
attempted to expel the marauders. His armies were routed, and
the grandsons of Seldjuk were soon (A. D. 1039) in undisputed
possession of the whole of Khorasan, with the rich and
flourishing cities of Merv, Balkh, and Nishabur. A few years
later they had pushed forward "over the ruins of the former
power of the Buyyides [or Bouides, of Persia] to Azerbaïdjan,
and, in the year 446 (1054) the skirmishers of the Turkish
army, led by Togrul Beg, penetrated into the interior of the
eastern Roman Empire [that is, into Asia Minor]; and although
the bold inhabitants of the desert in their raid on the land
of the Cæsars were bent rather on plunder than on actual
conquest, yet even their temporary success against the great
name of Rome—so long one of awe to the ancient
Asiatic—increased enormously the prestige and reputation of
the Seldjukides. Togrul Beg was said to meditate a pilgrimage
to Mecca, with the object at the same time of clearing the
road thither, which the state of anarchy in Bagdad had long
rendered unsafe."
A. Vámbéry,
History of Bokhara,
chapter 6.
"Togrul Beg, under pretence of a pilgrimage to Mekka had
entered Irak at the head of a strong army, and sought to
obtain admission into Baghdad. The khalif, in opposition to
the advice of his vizier and the officers of the Turkish
militia, consented; on the 22nd Ramadan, 447 (December, 1050),
the name of Togrul was inserted in the public prayer; and
three days after he made his entry into the city. He had taken
an oath, before entering, to be the faithful and obedient
servant of the khalif; but it is needless to add that he broke
this immediately afterwards, and occupied the city in force. A
dispute broke out between the Seljuk soldiers and some
shop-keepers. The Baghdad Turks took the side of the citizens,
the foreigners were driven out, and several of them killed and
wounded. This riot was followed by a general attack upon the
ill-fated city by the army of Togrul Beg. It was useless for
the khalif and his vizier to protest their innocence. The
Turkish chief denounced them as the murderers of his soldiers,
and summoned the vizier to his camp to explain his conduct.
{3132}
On his arrival there he was arrested and flung into prison.
With this occurrence the rule of the Bouides in Baghdad may be
said to have terminated, and that of the Seljuks commenced.
Togrul Beg remained for a year inactive in Baghdad, neither
visiting the khalif nor heeding his entreaties to put an end
to the ravages and outrages perpetrated by his fierce and
lawless soldiery on the wretched townspeople." The khalif was
forced, nevertheless, to crown Sultan Togrul with two crowns,
one to represent the sovereignty of Persia and the other the
sovereignty of Arabia, and to confer on him the title of "The
Sultan of the Court, the Right Hand of the Chief of Believers,
the King of the East and of the West." The Seljuk sultan was
now master of the Asiatic Mahometan empire. But civil war was
still protracted for a period, by struggles of the partisans
of the Bouides, assisted by the Fatimite Kalif of Egypt, and
the unfortunate city of Baghdad suffered terribly at the hands
of each party in turn. Togrul Beg, in the end, destroyed the
opposition to his rule, and was at the point of marrying one
of the kalif's daughters, when a sudden illness ended his
life, A. D. 1063. He was succeeded by his nephew, Alp Arslan,
who extended the empire of the Seljukides in Asia Minor and
Armenia.
R. D. Osborn,
Islam under the Khalifs of Baghdad,
part 3, chapter 2.
TURKS: A. D. 1063-1073.
Conquests of Alp Arslan.
"Alp Arslan, the nephew and successor of Togrul Beg, carried
on the havoc and devastation which had marked the career
through life of his uncle. Togrul Beg had on two or three
occasions invaded the Asiatic territories of the Byzantine
Emperor; Alp Arslan carried these partial conquests to
completion. He invaded in person the northern parts of Armenia
and Iberia. He laid waste the country in the cruellest manner,
for it was the notion of these barbarians that a country was
not really conquered unless it was also depopulated. Iberia
had been long celebrated for the industry of its inhabitants,
the wealth of its numerous towns, and the valour of its
people. There is no doubt they could have flung back the
invaders had the Byzantine Empire come to their aid. But
avarice was the dominant passion of the Emperor, Constantine
X., and rather than disburse his loved hoards, he preferred to
look idly on, while his fairest provinces were laid waste and
overrun. The country was, in consequence, compelled to submit
to the Seljuk Turks, and the invaders settling upon it, like a
swarm of locusts, swiftly converted the happiest and most
flourishing portion of Asia into a scene of poverty and
desolation. From Iberia, Alp Arslan passed into Armenia. Ani,
the capital, was stormed and taken, after a gallant defence,
on the 6th June, 1064. … So great was the carnage that the
streets were literally choked up with dead bodies; and the
waters of the river were reddened from the quantity of bloody
corpses."
R. D. Osborn,
Islam under the Khalifs of Baghdad,
part 3, chapter 2.
"So far as one can judge from the evidence of modern and
mediæval travellers and of Byzantine historians, Asia Minor,
at the time of the Seljuk invasion of Alparslan, was thickly
occupied by races who were industrious, intelligent, and
civilised—races with a certain mixture of Greek blood and
mostly Greek as to language. The numerous provincial cities
were the centres of civilisation. Their walls and
amphitheatres, their works of art, aqueducts, and other public
buildings, give evidence of a long-continued sense of
security, of peaceful and progressive peoples, and of a
healthy municipal life. Wealth was widely diffused. … It was
against this prosperous portion of the Empire, which had
contributed largely to the wealth of the capital, that
Alparslan turned his attention when the border states were no
longer able to resist his progress. … The Strong Lion of the
Seljuks devoured many cities and devastated the fairest
provinces. Cappadocia was laid waste; the inhabitants of its
capital, Cæsarea, were massacred. … Mesopotamia, Mitylene,
Syria, and Cilicia were plundered."
E. Pears,
The Fall of Constantinople,
chapter 2.
The career of Alp Arslan in Asia Minor was opposed by a
courageous and vigorous emperor, Romanus Diogenes, or Romanus
IV.; but Romanus exposed himself and his army rashly to the
chances of a battle at Manzikert, A. D. 1071, on which all was
staked. He lost; his army was routed, and he, himself, was
taken prisoner. He was released on signing a treaty of peace
and agreeing to pay a heavy ransom; but a revolution at
Constantinople meantime had robbed him of the throne, deprived
him of the means of fulfilling his engagements, and brought
upon him, soon afterwards, a cruel end. Alp Arslan, provoked
by the repudiation of the treaty, revenged himself on the
ill-fated country which lay at his mercy. "Every calamity of
this unfortunate period sinks into insignificance when
compared with the destruction of the greater part of the Greek
race, by the ravages of the Seljouk Turks in Asia Minor."
G. Finlay,
History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires,
book 3, chapter 1, section 2.
TURKS: A. D. 1073-1092.
The empire of Malek Shah and its subordinate Sultans.
Alp Arslan, assassinated in 1073, "was succeeded by his son,
Malek Shah, in whose reign the power of the Seljukian Turks
attained its greatest height. … Turkestan, the home of his
race, including Bokhara and Samarcand, was annexed by Malek,
and the rule of the shepherd Sultan was admitted at Cashgar.
In addition to Persia and the countries just mentioned, his
territory included at one time nearly the whole of what is now
Turkey in Asia. … The Seljukian empire, however, broke up on
the death of Malek, which took place in 1092, and, after a
period of civil war, was divided into four parts. … The only
one of the divisions … with which I am concerned is that which
was carved out of the dominions of the Roman empire, and of
which the capital was, for the most part, at Iconium, a city
which to-day, under the name of Konieh, retains somewhat of a
sacred character among the Turks, because of its connection
with the first Sultans who obtained the right to be Caliphs.
Sultan Malek, eighteen years before his death, had prevented a
quarrel with Suliman, his cousin, by consenting to allow him
to be Sultan of the Seljuks in the lands of the Christian
empire. With Suliman there begins the famous line of robber
chiefs who are known as Seljukian Sultans of Rome or Roum, or
as Sultans of Iconium."
E. Pears,
The Fall of Constantinople,
chapter 2.
{3133}
"The dominion of Suleiman over the greater part of Asia Minor
was recognised by a treaty with the Byzantine empire in 1074,
when Michael VII. purchased the assistance of a Turkish
auxiliary force against the rebellion of Oursel and his own
uncle John Dukas. Nicephorus III. ratified the treaty
concluded with Michael VII., augmented the power of the Turks,
and abandoned additional numbers of Christians to their
domination, to gain their aid in dethroning his lawful prince;
and Nicephorus Melissenos, when he rebelled against Nicephorus
III., repeated a similar treason against the traitor, and, in
hopes of gaining possession of Constantinople, yielded up the
possession of Nicæa to Suleiman, which that chief immediately
made the capital of his dominions. … When Alexius ascended the
throne [Alexius I. A. D. 1081], the Seljouk conquests in Asia
Minor were still considered as a portion of the dominions of
the Grand Sultan Malekshah, the son of Alp Arslan, and
Suleiman, the sultan of Nicæa, was only his lieutenant, though
as a member of the house of Seljouk, and as cousin of
Malekshah, he was honoured with the title of Sultan. The
prominent position which his posterity occupied in the wars of
the Crusaders, their long relations with the Byzantine empire,
and the independent position they held as sultans of Iconium,
have secured to them a far more lasting place in history than
has been obtained by the superior but less durable dynasty of
the grand sultans. … Toutoush, the brother of Malekshah, who
acted as his governor at Damascus at the same time, became the
founder of the Syrian dynasty of Seljouk sultans."
G. Finlay,
History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires,
from 716 to 1453,
book 3, chapter 2, section 1.
The empire of Malek Shah "was as vast as that of the Sassanian
kings in the height of their glory. He encouraged the
cultivation of science and literature, and his reign is famous
for the reformation of the Calendar [in which work Omar
el-Khayyam, the poet, was one of the astronomers employed]. An
assembly of an the astronomers of Persia adopted a system of
computing time which Gibbon says 'surpasses the Julian and
approaches the accuracy of the Gregorian æra.' It was called
the Jalalæan æra, from Jalalu-'d-Din, 'Glory of the Faith,'
one of the titles of Malik-Shah, and commenced on March 15,
1079."
C. R. Markham,
History of Persia,
chapter 6.
TURKS: A. D. 1092-1160.
Dissolution of the empire of Malek Shah.
"Melikshah's reign was certainly the culminating point of the
glory of the Seldjukides. … Mindful of the oriental adage,
'Perfection and decay go hand in hand,' he determined as far
as possible to provide, during his own lifetime, against
discord breaking out amongst those who should come after him,
by dividing the empire between his different relations.
Anatolia was given to Suleiman Shah, whose family had hitherto
governed Gazan; Syria fell to his brother Tutush, the
adversary of the Crusaders; Nushtekin Gartcha, who had raised
himself from slavery to the rank of generalissimo, and who
became later the founder of the dynasty of the Khahrezmides,
was invested with Khahrezm; Aksonghar got Aleppo; Tchekermish
Mosul, Kobulmish Damascus, Khomartekin Fars, and his son
Sandjar was entrusted with the administration of Khorasan and
Transoxania. These precautions proved, however, ineffectual to
preserve the dynasty of the Seljukides from the common fate of
oriental sovereign races, for after the death of Melikshah,
which took place in 485 (1092), his son Berkyaruk (the Very
Brilliant One) had scarcely ascended the throne before the
flames of discord were kindled amongst the numerous members of
the family, and they speedily fell a prey to the generals and
the other relations of the deceased prince." Sandjar, who died
in 1160, "was almost the only one of all his race who took to
heart the decay of their power in their old hereditary
dominions, or made any earnest endeavour to arrest it."
A. Vámbéry,
History of Bokhara,
chapter 6.
TURKS: A. D. 1097-1099.
First encounters with the Crusaders.
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099.
TURKS: A. D. 1101-1102.
Destruction of three hosts of Crusaders.
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1101-1102.
TURKS: A. D. 1193.
Overthrow by the Khuarezmians.
See KHUAREZM
TURKS: (Ottoman): A. D. 1240-1326.
Origin and rise of the modern Turkish power.
On the final defeat and death, in Kurdistan, of the last
Khuarezmian or Carizmian prince, who was pursued relentlessly
by the Mongols of Jingis Khan and his successors, there was
dissolved an army which included various Turkish hordes. The
fragments of this Khuarezmian force were scattered and played
several important parts in the history of the troubled time.
"The bolder and more powerful chiefs invaded Syria, and
violated the holy sepulchre of Jerusalem; the more humble
engaged in the service of Aladin, Sultan of Iconium, and among
these were the obscure fathers of the Ottoman line. They had
formerly pitched their tents near the southern bank of the
Oxus, in the plains of Mahan and Nesa; and it is somewhat
remarkable that the same spot should have produced the first
authors of the Parthian and Turkish empires. At the head or in
rear of a Carizmian army, Soliman Shah was drowned in the
passage of the Euphrates. His son Orthogrul became the soldier
and subject of Aladin, and established at Surgut, on the banks
of the Sangar, a camp of four hundred families or tents, whom
he governed fifty-two years both in peace and war. He was the
father of Thaman, or Athman, whose Turkish name has been
melted into the appellation of the Caliph Othman; and if we
describe that pastoral chief as a shepherd and a robber, we
must separate from those characters all idea of ignominy and
baseness. Othman possessed, and perhaps surpassed, the
ordinary virtues of a soldier, and the circumstances of time
and place were propitious to his independence and success. The
Seljukian dynasty was no more, and the distance and decline of
the Mogul Khans soon enfranchised him from the control of a
superior. He was situate on the verge of the Greek empire. The
Koran sanctified his 'gazi,' or holy war, against the
infidels; and their political errors unlocked the passes of
Mount Olympus, and invited him to descend into the plains of
Bithynia. … It was on the 27th of July, in the year 1299 of
the Christian era, that Othman first invaded the territory of
Nicomedia; and the singular accuracy of the date seems to
disclose some foresight of the rapid and destructive growth of
the monster. The annals of the twenty-seven years of his reign
would exhibit a repetition of the same inroads; and his
hereditary troops were multiplied in each campaign by the
accession of captives and volunteers.
{3134}
Instead of retreating to the hills, he maintained the most
useful and defensible posts, fortified the towns and castles
which he had first pillaged; and renounced the pastoral life
for the baths and palaces of his infant capitals. But it was
not till Othman was oppressed by age and infirmities that he
received the welcome news of the conquest of Prusa, which had
been surrendered by famine or treachery to the arms of his son
Orchan. … From the conquest of Prusa we may date the true era
of the Ottoman empire. The lives and possessions of the
Christian subjects were redeemed by a tribute or ransom of
thirty thousand crowns of gold; and the city, by the labors of
Orchan, assumed the aspect of a Mahometan capital."
E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 64.
"Osman is the real Turkish name, which has been corrupted into
Othman. The descendants of his subjects style themselves
Osmanlis, which has in like manner been corrupted into
Ottoman."
Dr. W. Smith,
Note to
E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 64.
TURKS: A. D. 1326-1359.
Progress of conquests in Asia Minor.
The Janissaries.
"Orchan [the son and successor of Othman] had captured the
city of Nicomedia in the first year of his reign (1326); and
with the new resources for warfare which the administrative
genius of his brother [Alaeddin] placed at his command, he
speedily signalised his reign by conquests still more
important. The great city of Nice [Nicæa] (second to
Constantinople only in the Greek Empire) surrendered to him in
1330. … Numerous other advantages were gained over the Greeks:
and the Turkish prince of Karasi (the ancient Mysia), who had
taken up arms against the Ottomans, was defeated; and his
capital city, Berghama (the ancient Pergamus), and his
territory, annexed to Orchan's dominions. On the conquest of
Karasi, in the year 1336 of our era, nearly the whole of the
north-west of Asia Minor was included in the Ottoman Empire;
and the four great cities of Brusa, Nicomedia, Nice, and
Pergamus had become strongholds of its power. A period of
twenty years, without further conquests, and without war,
followed the acquisition of Karasi. During this time the
Ottoman sovereign was actively occupied in perfecting the
civil and military institutions which his brother had
introduced; in securing internal order, in founding and
endowing mosques and schools, and in the construction of vast
public edifices. … Orchan died in the year 1359 of our era, at
the age of seventy-five, after a reign of thirty-three years,
during which the most important civil and military
institutions of his nation were founded, and the Crescent was
not only advanced over many of the fairest provinces of Asia,
but was also planted on the European continent."
Sir E. S. Creasy,
History of the Ottoman Turks,
chapter 2.
It is with Othman's son Orkhan that the Ottoman Empire really
begins. He threw off his nominal allegiance to the Sultan [of
Iconium], though he still bore only the title of Emir. And in
his time the Ottomans first made good their footing in Europe.
But while his dominion was still only Asiatic, Orkhan began
one institution which did more than anything else firmly to
establish the Ottoman power. This was the institution of the
tribute children. By the law of Mahomet … the unbeliever is
allowed to purchase life, property, and the exercise of his
religion, by the payment of tribute. Earlier Mahometan rulers
had been satisfied with tribute in the ordinary sense. Orkhan
first demanded a tribute of children. The deepest of wrongs,
that which other tyrants did as an occasional outrage, thus
became under the Ottomans a settled law. A fixed proportion of
the strongest and most promising boys among the conquered
Christian nations were carried off for the service of the
Ottoman princes. They were brought up in the Mahometan faith,
and were employed in civil or military functions, according to
their capacity. Out of them was formed the famous force of the
Janissaries, the new soldiers who, for three centuries, as
long as they were levied in this way, formed the strength of
the Ottoman armies. These children, torn from their homes and
cut off from every domestic and national tie, knew only the
religion and the service into which they were forced, and
formed a body of troops such as no other power, Christian or
Mahometan, could command. … While the force founded by Orkhan
lasted in its first shape, the Ottoman armies were
irresistible. But all this shews how far the Ottomans were
from being a national power. Their victories were won by
soldiers who were really of the blood of the Greeks, Slaves,
and other conquered nations. In the same way, while the
Ottoman power was strongest, the chief posts of the Empire,
civil and military, were constantly held, not by native Turks,
but by Christian renegades of all nations. The Ottoman power
in short was the power, not of a nation, but simply of an
army."
E. A. Freeman,
The Ottoman Power in Europe,
chapter 4.
The name of Yeni Tscheri, which means 'new troops,' and which
European writers have turned into Janissaries, was given to
Orchan's young corps by the Dervish Hadji Beytarch."
Sir E. S. Creasy,
History of the Ottoman Turks,
chapter 2.
TURKS: A. D. 1360-1389.
The conquests in Europe of Amurath I.
"The dissensions of the elder and younger Andronicus [Emperors
at Constantinople, the younger—a grandson—in revolt and the
elder finally deposed, A. D. 1320-1328], and the mistaken
policy of Cantacuzene [Great Domestic of the empire, regent,
after the death of Andronicus the younger, A. D. 1341, and
then usurper of the throne from 1341 until 1355], first led to
the introduction of the Turks into Europe; and the subsequent
marriage of Orchan with a Grecian princess was acceded to by
the Byzantine court as a faint bond of peace between a dreaded
conqueror and a crouching state. The expectation of
tranquillity was, however, fatally blasted; and, in the last
quarrel of Cantacuzene with his pupil [John Palæologus, the
youthful son of Andronicus the younger, who was deprived of
his crown for fourteen years by Cantacuzene], the disastrous
ambition of the former opened the path of Solyman, the son of
Orchan, across the Hellespont [A. D. 1356], and laid the
northern provinces of the kingdom open to the temporary
ravages of the barbarians, thus inflicting a lasting and
irremediable injury on the liberties of Christendom. The
exploits of Solyman, however, led to no other permanent
results than the example which they left to the ambition of
Amurath I., who, amongst his earliest achievements, led his
victorious army across the Hellespont [A. D. 1360], ravaged
the extended district from Mount Hæmus to the Straits, and,
taking possession of Adrianople [A. D. 1361], made it the
first seat of his royalty, and the first shrine of
Mahomedanism in Europe.
{3135}
His conquests had now drawn a circle round the enfeebled
dominions of the Emperor; and the submission of John
Palæologus, together with his political views in more distant
quarters, alone prevented Amurath from contracting the
circumference to the centre, and annihilating the empire of
the East, by seating himself on the throne of Byzantium. For
the present, he turned his back upon the city, and pursued his
course towards the wilds of Bulgaria and Servia."
Sir J. E. Tennent,
History of Modern Greece,
volume 1, chapter 4.
"Hitherto the Turkish victories in Europe had been won over
the feeble Greeks; but the Ottomans now came in contact with
the far more warlike Sclavonic tribes, which had founded
kingdoms and principalities in Servia and Bosnia. Amurath also
menaced the frontiers of Wallachia and Hungary. The Roman See,
once so energetic in exciting the early crusades, had
disregarded the progress of the new Mahometan power, so long
as the heretical Greeks were the only sufferers beneath its
arms. But Hungary, a country that professed spiritual
obedience to the Pope, a branch of Latin Christendom, was now
in peril; and Pope Urban V. preached up a crusade against the
infidel Turks. The King of Hungary, the princes of Servia, of
Bosnia and Wallachia, leagued together to drive the Ottomans
out of Europe; and their forces marched towards Adrianople
until they crossed the river Marizza at a point not more than
two days' journey from that city." A single battle, fought on
the Marizza, in 1363, broke this first Sclavonic league
against the Turks, and Amurath proceeded in his acquisition of
towns and territory from the Servians and Bulgarians until
1376, when both people purchased a short peace, the former by
paying a heavy annual tribute of money and soldiers, the
latter by giving their king's daughter to the Turk. The peace
thus secured only gave an opportunity to the Sclavic nations
to organize one more great attempt to cast out their
aggressive and dangerous neighbor. Servia led the movement,
and was joined in it by the Bulgarians, the Bosnians, and the
Skipetars of Albania, with aid likewise promised and rendered
from Hungary, Wallachia, and Poland. But nothing prospered in
the undertaking; it served the ambition of the Turks and
quickened their conquest of southeastern Europe. Amurath fell
upon Bulgaria first (A. D. 1389), broke down all resistance,
dethroned the king and annexed his state to the Ottoman
dominions. A few weeks later in the same year, on the 27th of
August, 1389, the great and famous battle of Kossova was
fought, which laid the heavy yoke of Turkish tyranny upon the
necks of the Servian people, and the memory of which has been
embalmed in their literature. Amurath was assassinated in the
hour of victory by a despairing Servian nobleman, but lived
long enough to command the execution of the captive Servian
king.
Sir E. S. Creasy,
History of the Ottoman Turks,
chapter 3.
ALSO IN:
L. Ranke,
History of Servia,
chapter 2.
Madame E. L. Mijatovich,
Kossovo.
See, also,
BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: 9-16TH CENTURIES.
TURKS: A. D. 1389-1403.
The conquests of Bajazet.
The Emir becomes Sultan.
His overthrow and capture by Timour.
"The character of Bajazet, the son and successor of Amurath,
is strongly expressed in his surname of Ilderim, or the
Lightning; and he might glory in an epithet which was drawn
from the fiery energy of his soul and the rapidity of his
destructive march. In the fourteen years of his reign he
incessantly moved at the head of his armies, from Boursa to
Adrianople, from the Danube to the Euphrates. … No sooner had
he imposed a regular form of servitude on the Servians and
Bulgarians than he passed the Danube to seek new enemies and
new subjects in the heart of Moldavia. Whatever yet adhered to
the Greek empire in Thrace, Macedonia, and Thessaly,
acknowledged a Turkish master. … The humble title of emir was
no longer suitable to the Ottoman greatness; and Bajazet
condescended to accept a patent of sultan from the caliphs who
served in Egypt under the yoke of the Mamelukes—a last and
frivolous homage that was yielded by force to opinion, by the
Turkish conquerors to the House of Abbas and the successors of
the Arabian prophet. The ambition of the sultan was inflamed
by the obligation of deserving this august title; and he
turned his arms against the kingdom of Hungary, the perpetual
theatre of the Turkish victories and defeats. Sigismond, the
Hungarian king, was the son and brother of the emperors of the
West; his cause was that of Europe and the Church; and on the
report of his danger, the bravest knights of France and
Germany were eager to march under his standard and that of the
cross. In the battle of Nicopolis [September 28, A. D. 1396],
Bajazet defeated a confederate army of 100,000 Christians, who
had proudly boasted that if the sky should fall they could
uphold it on their lances. The far greater part were slain or
driven into the Danube; and Sigismond, escaping to
Constantinople by the river and the Black Sea, returned, after
a long circuit, to his exhausted kingdom. In the pride of
victory, Bajazet threatened that he would besiege Buda; that
he would subdue the adjacent countries of Germany and Italy;
and that he would feed his horse with a bushel of oats on the
altar of St. Peter at Rome. His progress was checked, not by
the miraculous interposition of the apostle, not by a crusade
of the Christian powers, but by a long and painful fit of the
gout. … At length the ambition of the victorious sultan
pointed to the conquest of Constantinople; but he listened to
the advice of his vizir, who represented that such an
enterprise might unite the powers of Christendom in a second
and more formidable crusade. His epistle to the emperor was
conceived in these words: 'By the divine clemency, our
invincible scimitar has reduced to our obedience almost all
Asia, with many and large countries in Europe, excepting only
the city of Constantinople; for beyond the walls thou hast
nothing left. Resign that city; stipulate thy reward; or
tremble for thyself and thy unhappy people at the consequences
of a rash refusal.' But his ambassadors were instructed to
soften their tone, and to propose a treaty, which was
subscribed with submission and gratitude. A truce of ten years
was purchased by an annual tribute of thirty thousand crowns
of gold." The truce was soon broken by Bajazet, who found a
pretext for again demanding the surrender of Constantinople.
He had established his blockade of the city and would surely
have won it by famine or assault if Timour's invasion of Asia
Minor (A. D. 1402) had not summarily interrupted his plans and
ended his career. Defeated at the battle of Angora and taken
prisoner by the Tartar conqueror, he died a few months
later—whether caged like a beast or held in more honorable
captivity is a question in some dispute.
E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapters 64-65.
See, also, TIMOUR.
{3136}
TURKS: A. D. 1393.
Wallachian capitulation.
See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES:
14-18TH CENTURIES (ROMANIA, ETC.).
TURKS: A. D. 1402-1451.
Prostration and recovery.
Conquests of Mahomet and Amurath II.
It is one of the marvels of history that the Ottoman empire,
broken and dismembered by Timour, recovered its vigor and
re-entered upon a long career. After the fall of Bajazet,
three fragments of his dominions were held by three of his
surviving sons, while other portions were transferred by
Timour to princes of the old Seljuk house. Civil war broke out
between the brothers of the Ottoman race; it resulted in the
triumph of Mahomet, the youngest (A. D. 1413), who reunited a
large part of the dominions of his father. He reigned but
eight years, which were years of peace for the Greeks, with
whom Mahomet maintained a friendly intercourse. His son,
Amurath II., was provoked to renew the state of war, and a
formidable attack upon Constantinople was made in August,
1422. The first assault failed, and disturbances at home
recalled Amurath before he could repeat it. The Roman capital
was reprieved for thirty years; but its trembling emperor paid
tribute to the sultan and yielded most of the few cities that
remained to him outside of his capital. The Ottoman power had
become threatening again in Europe, and Servians, Bosnians,
Albanians, Wallachians, Hungarians, and Poles now struck hands
together in a combination, once more, to oppose it. "A severe
struggle followed, which, after threatening the utter
expulsion of the house of Othman from Europe, confirmed for
centuries its dominion in that continent, and wrought the
heavier subjugation of those who were then seeking to release
themselves from its superiority. In 1442 Amurath was repulsed
from Belgrade; and his generals, who were besieging
Hermanstadt, in Transylvania, met with a still more disastrous
reverse. It was at Hermanstadt that the renowned Hunyades
first appeared in the wars between the Hungarians and the
Turks. He was the illegitimate son of Sigismond, King of
Hungary, and the fair Elizabeth Morsiney. In his early youth
he gained distinction in the wars of Italy; and Comines, in
his memoirs, celebrates him under the name of the White Knight
of Wallachia. After some campaigns in Western Christendom,
Hunyades returned to protect his native country against the
Ottomans." At Hermanstadt, and again at Vasag, Hunyades
defeated the Turks with great slaughter and rivalled them in

the ferocity with which his prisoners were treated. His fame
now gave a great impulse to the Crusade against the Turks
which Pope Eugenius had preached, and drew volunteers to his
standard from all the nations of the West. In 1443, Hunyades
led a splendid and powerful army across the Danube near
Semendra, drove the Turks beyond the Balkans, forced the
passage of the mountains with a boldness and a skill that is
compared with the exploits of Hannibal and Napoleon, and
extorted from the Sultan a treaty (of Szegeddin, July 12,
1444) which rescued a large Christian territory from the
Moslem yoke. "The Sultan resigned all claims upon Servia and
recognised George Brankovich as its independent sovereign.
Wallachia was given up to Hungary." But the peace which this
treaty secured was brief; Christian perfidy destroyed it, and
the penalty was paid by whole centuries of suffering and shame
for the Christians of the Danubian states. "Within a month
from the signature of the treaty of Szegeddin the Pope and the
Greek Emperor had persuaded the King of Hungary and his
councillors to take an oath to break the oath which had been
pledged to the Sultan. They represented that the confessed
weakness of the Ottomans, and the retirement of Amurath [who
had placed his son Mahomet on the throne and withdrawn from
the cares of sovereignty] to Asia, gave an opportunity for
eradicating the Turks from Europe which ought to be fully
employed. The Cardinal Julian [legate of the Pope] pacified
the conscientious misgivings which young King Ladislaus
expressed, by his spiritual authority in giving dispensation
and absolution in the Pope's name. … On the 1st of September,
the King, the legate, and Hunyades, marched against the
surprised and unprepared Turks with an army of 10,000 Poles
and Hungarians. The temerity which made them expect to destroy
the Turkish power in Europe with so slight a force was equal
to the dishonesty of their enterprise." They advanced through
Bulgaria to the Black Sea, and southward along its coast as
far as Varna, which they took. There they were called to
account. Amurath had resumed the sceptre, put himself at the
head of 40,000 of the best warriors of Islam and on the 10th
November he dashed them upon the Christian forces at Varna,
with the broken treaty borne like a banner at their head. His
victory was overwhelming. Cardinal Julian and the King of
Hungary were both among the slain. Hunyades fled with a little
remnant of followers and escaped to try fortune in other
fields. "This overthrow did not bring immediate ruin upon
Hungary, but it was fatal to the Sclavonic neighbours of the
Ottomans, who had joined the Hungarian King against them.
Servia and Bosnia were thoroughly reconquered by the
Mahometans; and the ruin of these Christian nations, which
adhered to the Greek Church, was accelerated by the religious
intolerance with which they were treated by their fellow
Christians of Hungary and Poland, who obeyed the Pope and
hated the Greek Church as heretical. … The bigotry of the
Church of Rome in preaching up a crusade against the sect of
the Patarenes, which was extensively spread in that country
[Bosnia], caused the speedy and complete annexation of an
important frontier province to the Ottoman Empire. Seventy
Bosnian fortresses are said to have opened their gates to the
Turks within eight days. The royal house of Bosnia was
annihilated, and many of her chief nobles embraced
Mahometanism to avoid a similar doom." After once more
attempting to escape from the throne, and being recalled by
domestic disturbances, Amurath reigned yet six years,
extending his dominions in the Peloponnesus, defeating once
more his old antagonist, Hunyades, who invaded Servia (1448),
but being successfully defied in Albania by the heroic
Scanderbeg. He died in 1451.
{3137}
Sir E. S. Creasy,
History of the Ottoman Turks,
chapter 4.
ALSO IN:
L. Ranke,
History of Servia,
chapter 2.
E. Szabad,
Hungary,
part 1, chapters 3-4.
A. Lamartine,
History of Turkey,
books 10-11.
TURKS: A. D. 1451-1481.
Conquest of Constantinople.
The Empire organized and perfected by Mahomet II.
Mahomet II., son of Amurath II., "finished the work of his
predecessors; he made the Ottoman power in Europe what it has
been ever since. He gave a systematic form to the customs of
his house and to the dominion which he had won. His first act
was the murder of his infant brother, and he made the murder
of brothers a standing law of his Empire. He overthrew the
last remnants of independent Roman rule, of independent Greek
nationality, and he fixed the relations which the Greek part
of his subjects were to bear both towards their Turkish
masters and towards their Christian fellow-subjects. He made
the northern and western frontiers of his Empire nearly what
they still remain. The Ottoman Empire, in short, as our age
has to deal with it, is, before all things, the work of
Mahomet the Conqueror. The prince whose throne was fixed in
the New Rome held altogether another place from even the
mightiest of his predecessors. Mahomet had reigned two years,
he had lived twenty-three, on the memorable day, May 29th
1453, when the Turks entered the city of the Cæsars and when
the last Emperor, Constantine, died in the breach. …
See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1453.
And now that the Imperial city was at last taken, Mahomet
seemed to make it his policy both to gather in whatever
remained unconquered, and to bring most of the states which
had hitherto been tributary under his direct rule. Greece
itself, though it had been often ravaged by the Turks, had not
been added to their dominions. The Emperors had, in the very
last days of the Empire before the fall of Constantinople,
recovered all Peloponnesos, except some points which were held
by Venice. Frank Dukes also reigned at Athens, and another
small duchy lingered on in the islands of Leukas and
Kephallenia and on the coasts of Akarnania. The Turkish
conquest of the mainland, again saving the Venetian points,
was completed by the year 1460, but the two western islands
were not taken until 1479. Euboia was conquered in 1471. … The
Empire of Trebizond was conquered in 1461, and the island of
Lesbos or Mitylene in 1462. There was now no independent Greek
state left. Crete, Corfu, and some smaller islands and points
of coast, were held by Venice, and some of the islands of the
Ægean were still ruled by Frank princes and by the Knights of
Saint John. But, after the fall of Trebizond, there was no
longer any independent Greek state anywhere, and the part of
the Greek nation which was under Christian rulers of any kind
was now far smaller than the part which was under the Turk.
While the Greeks were thus wholly subdued, the Slaves fared no
better. In 1459 Servia was reduced from a tributary
principality to an Ottoman province, and six years later
Bosnia was annexed also. … One little fragment of the great
Slavonic power in those lands alone remained. The little
district of Zeta, a part of the Servian kingdom, was never
fully conquered by the Turks. One part of it, the mountain
district called Tsernagora or Montenegro, has kept its
independence to our times. Standing as an outpost of freedom
and Christendom amid surrounding bondage, the Black Mountain
has been often attacked, it has been several times overrun,
but it has never been conquered. … To the south of them, the
Christian Albanians held out for a long time under their
famous chief George Castriot or Scanderbeg. After his death in
1459, they also came under the yoke. These conquests of
Mahomet gave the Ottoman dominion in Europe nearly the same
extent which it has now. His victories had been great, but
they were balanced by some defeats. The conquest of Servia and
Bosnia opened the way to endless inroads into Hungary,
South-eastern Germany and North-eastern Italy. But as yet
these lands were merely ravaged, and the Turkish power met
with some reverses. In 1456 Belgrade was saved by the last
victory of Huniades [see HUNGARY: A. D. 1442-1458], and this
time Mahomet the Conqueror had to flee. In another part of
Europe, if in those days it is to be counted for Europe,
Mahomet won the Genoese possessions in the peninsula of Crimea
[A. D. 1475], and the Tartar Khans who ruled in that peninsula
and the neighbouring lands became vassals of the Sultan. … The
last years of Mahomet's reign were marked by a great failure
and a great success. He failed to take Rhodes [A. D. 1480],
which belonged to the Knights of Saint John; but his troops
suddenly seized on Otranto in Southern Italy. Had this post
been kept, Italy might have fallen as well as Greece; but the
Conqueror died the next year, and Otranto was won back."
E. A. Freeman,
The Ottoman Power in Europe,
chapter 4.
ALSO IN:
A. Lamartine,
History of Turkey,
books 12-13.
Sir E. S. Creasy,
History of the Ottoman Turks,
chapters 5-6.
E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 68.
See, also, ITALY: A. D. 1447-1480.
TURKS: A. D. 1454-1479.
Treaty with Venice, followed by war.
See GREECE: A. D. 1454-1479.
TURKS: A. D. 1479.
Defeat at Kenyer-Mesö by the Hungarians and Wallachians.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1471-1487.
TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520.
The sad story of Prince Jem and the Christians.
Massacre of the Shiites.
Selim's conquests in Persia, Syria and Egypt.
The Sultan becomes the successor of the Khalifs,
the chief of Islam.
"The long reign of Bayezid [or Bajazet] II. (1481-1512) which
surpassed that of his father and grandfather, so that the
three together nearly completed a century, was marked by a
general lethargy and incapacity on the part of the Turkish
Government. … Family dissensions were indeed the leading
incidents of Bayezid's reign, and for many years he was kept
in a state of anxious uncertainty by the ingenious intrigues
of the Christian Powers concerning the custody of his brother,
the unfortunate Prince Jem. The adventures of Prince Jem (the
name is short for Jemshid, but in Europe it has been written
Zizim) cast a very unpleasant light upon the honour of the
Christians of his time, and especially upon the Knights of
Rhodes. Of the two sons of Mohammed II. Jem was undoubtedly
the one who was by nature fitted to be his successor. … Jem
however, was not the first to hear of his father's death, and
a year's warfare against his brother ended in his own defeat.
{3138}
The younger prince then sought refuge with the Knights of
Rhodes, who promised to receive him hospitably, and to find
him a way to Europe, where he intended to renew his opposition
to his brother's authority. D'Aubusson, the Grand Master of
Rhodes, was too astute a diplomatist to sacrifice the solid
gains that he perceived would accrue to his Order for the sake
of a few paltry twinges of conscience; and he had no sooner
made sure of Prince Jem's person, and induced him to sign a
treaty, by which, in the event of his coming to the throne,
the Order was to reap many sterling advantages, than he
ingeniously opened negotiations with Sultan Bayezid, with a
view to ascertain how much gold that sovereign was willing to
pay for the safe custody of his refractory brother. It is only
fair to say that Bayezid, who had no particle of cruelty in
his nature, did all he could to come to terms with Jem. … All
negotiation and compromise having proved ineffectual, he
listened to the proposals of the crafty Grand Master, and
finally agreed to pay him 45,000 ducats a year, so long as he
kept Jem under his surveillance. The Knights of St. John
possessed many commanderies, and the one they now selected for
Jem's entertainment was at Nice, in the south of France. In
1482 he arrived there, wholly unconscious of the plots that
were being woven about him. … On one pretext or another the
knights contrived to keep their prisoner at Nice for several
months, and then transferred him to Rousillon, thence to Puy,
and next to Sassenage, where the monotonies of captivity were
relieved by the delights of love, which he shared with the
daughter of the commandant, the beautiful Philipine Hélène,
his lawful spouse being fortunately away in Egypt. Meanwhile
Grand Master D'Aubusson was driving a handsome trade in his
capacity of jailor. All the potentates of Europe were anxious
to obtain possession of the claimant to the Ottoman throne,
and were ready to pay large sums in hard cash to enjoy the
privilege of using this specially dangerous instrument against
the Sultan's peace. D'Aubusson was not averse to taking the
money, but he did not wish to give up his captive; and his
knightly honour felt no smirch in taking 20,000 ducats from
Jem's desolate wife (who probably had not heard of the fair
Hélène) as the price of her husband's release, while he held
him all the tighter. Of such chivalrous stuff were made the
famous knights of Rhodes; and of such men as D'Aubusson the
Church made cardinals! A new influence now appeared upon the
scene of Jem's captivity. Charles VIII. of France considered
that the Grand Master had made enough profit out of the
unlucky prince, and the king resolved to work the oracle
himself. His plan was to restore Jem to a nominal sultanate by
the aid of Matthias Corvinus, Ferdinand of Naples, and the
Pope. He took Jem out of the hands of the knights, and
transferred him to the custody of Innocent VIII., who kindly
consented to take care of the prince for the sum of 40,000
ducats a year, to be paid by his grateful brother at
Constantinople." Innocent's successor, the terrible Borgia,
Alexander VI., unsatisfied with this liberal allowance, opened
negotiations with Constantinople looking to the payment of
some heavy lump sum for summary riddance of poor Jem. But the
sinister bargain was interrupted by Charles VIII. of France,
who invaded Italy at this juncture, passed through Rome, and
took the captive prince in his train when he went on to
Naples. Jem died on the way, and few have doubted that Pope
Alexander poisoned him, as he had poisoned many before. "The
curious conclusion one draws from the whole melancholy tale
is, that there was not apparently a single honest prince in
Christendom to take compassion upon the captive." In 1512
Bayezid was deposed by his son Selim, and did not long survive
the humiliation. To avoid troubles of the Prince Jem
character, Selim slew all his brothers and nephews, eleven in
number, making a family solitude around the throne. Then he
prepared himself for foreign conquest by exterminating the
sometimes troublesome sect of the Shias, or Shiites, in his
dominions. "A carefully organized system of detectives, whom
Selim distributed throughout his Asiatic provinces, revealed
the fact that the number of the heretical sect reached the
alarming total of 70,000. Selim … secretly massed his troops
at spots where the heretics chiefly congregated, and at a
given signal 40,000 of them were massacred or imprisoned. …
Having got rid of the enemy within his gates, Selim now
proceeded to attack the head of the Shias, the great Shah
Ismail himself [the founder of the Sufi line of Persian
sovereigns, who had lately established his authority over the
provinces of Persia]. … Selim set forth with an army estimated
at over 140,000 men, 80,000 of which were cavalry. … After
weary and painful marching, the Ottomans forced Ismail to give
battle at Chaldiran [or Tabreez—see PERSIA: A. D. 1499-1887],"
and defeated him. "The victory of Chaldiran (1514) might have
been followed by the conquest of Persia, but the privations
which the soldiery had undergone had rendered them
unmanageable, and Selim was forced to content himself with the
annexation of the important provinces of Kurdistan and
Dyarbekr, which are still part of the Turkish Empire; and then
turned homewards, to prosecute other schemes of conquest. No
peace, however, was concluded between him and the Shah, and a
frontier war continued to be waged for many years. During the
campaign against Persia, the Turks had been kept in anxiety by
the presence on their flanks of the forces of the Mamluk
Sultans of Egypt and Syria, whose frontiers now marched with
the territory of the Ottomans." Turning his arms against the
Mamluks, "Selim set out in 1516 for Syria, and meeting the
Mamluk army on the field of Marj Dabik near Aleppo,
administered a terrible defeat, in which the aged Sultan
El-Ghuri was trampled to death. He found a brave successor in
Tuman Bey, but in the interval the Turks had mastered Syria
and were advancing to Gaza. Here the Mamluks made another
stand, but the generalship of Sinan Pasha was not to be
resisted any more than the preponderance of his forces. The
final battle was fought at Reydaniya in the neighbourhood of
Cairo, in January, 1517. … Twenty-five thousand Mamluks lay
stark upon the field, and the enemy occupied Cairo. There a
succession of street-fights took place." The perfidious
Turkish Sultan finally cheated the Mamluks into submission by
offering amnesty, and then put them to the sword, giving the
city up to massacre. "Tuman Bey, after some further
resistance, was captured and executed, and Egypt became a
Turkish province. … Sultan Selim returned to Constantinople in
1518, a much more dignified personage than he had set out.
{3139}
By the conquest of the Mamluk kingdom he had also succeeded to
their authority over the sacred cities of Arabia, Mekka and
Medina, and in recognition of this position, as well as of his
undoubted supremacy among Mohammedan monarchs, he received
from the last Abbaside Khalif, who kept a shadowy court at
Cairo, the inheritance of the great pontiffs of Baghdad. The
'fainéant' Khalif was induced to make over to the real
sovereign the spiritual authority which he still affected to
exercise, and with it the symbols of his office, the standard
and cloak of the Prophet Mohammed. Selim now became not only
the visible chief of the Mohammedan State throughout the wide
dominions subdued to his sway, but also the revered head of
the religion of Islam, wheresoever it was practised in its
orthodox form. The heretical Shias of Persia might reject his
claim, but in India, in all parts of Asia and Africa, where
the traditional Khalifate was recognized, the Ottoman Sultan
henceforth was the supreme head of the church, the successor
to the spiritual prestige of the long line of the Khalifs. How
far this new title commands the homage of the orthodox Moslem
world is a matter of dispute; but there can be no doubt that
it has always added, and still adds, a real and important
authority to the acts and proclamations of the Ottoman
Sultan." Selim died in 1520, and was succeeded by his son
Suleyman, or Solyman, who acquired the name of "the
Magnificent."
S. Lane-Poole,
Story of Turkey,
chapters 8-9.
ALSO IN:
A. de Lamartine,
History of Turkey,
books 15-18 (volume 2).
A. A. Paton,
History of the Egyptian Revolution,
chapter 5.
TURKS: A. D. 1498-1502.
War with the Venetians.
"During the first 17 years of Bajazet's reign, the peace
between the Venetians and the Porte, though occasionally
menaced, remained on the whole undisturbed. The Venetians
complained of the Turkish incursions; and the definitive
occupation of Montenegro, while the Porte, on its side, was
jealous because the Republic had reduced the Duke of Naxos to
dependence, and obtained possession of Cyprus (1489). At last,
in 1498, the Turks, after making great naval preparations,
suddenly arrested all the Venetian residents at
Constantinople, and in the following year seized Lepanto,
which surrendered without striking a blow (August 1499). Soon
after, a body of 10,000 Turks crossed the Isonzo, carrying
fire and desolation almost to the lagoons of Venice. In August
1500, Modon was taken by assault. … Navarino and Koron
surrendered soon after, but towards the close of the year the
Venetians were more successful. They captured Ægina,
devastated and partly occupied Mytilene, Tenedos, and
Samothrace, and with the help of a Spanish squadron, and 7,000
troops, under Gonsalvo de Cordova, reduced the island of
Cephalonia. For this service the grateful Venetians rewarded
Gonsalvo with a present of 500 tuns of Cretan wine, 60,000
pounds of cheese, 266 pounds of wrought silver, and the
honorary freedom of their Republic. In 1501 the Venetian fleet
was joined by a French, a Papal, and a Spanish squadron, but,
through a want of cordiality among the commanders, little was
effected. The Turks, however; had not made a better figure;
and the Porte, whose attention was at that time distracted by
the affairs of Persia, was evidently inclined for peace. The
disordered state of the Venetian finances, and the decay of
their commerce through the maritime discoveries of the
Portuguese, also disposed them to negociation; although the
sale of indulgences, granted to them by the Pope for this war,
is said to have brought more than 700 pounds of gold into
their exchequer. The war nevertheless continued through 1502,
and the Venetians were tolerably successful, having captured
many Turkish ships, and, with the assistance of the French,
taken the island of Sta. Maura. But at length a treaty was
signed, December 14th, by which Venice was allowed to hold
Cephalonia, but restored Sta. Maura, and permitted the Porte
to retain its conquests, including the three important
fortresses of Modon, Koron, and Navarino."
T. H. Dyer,
History of Modern Europe,
book 1, chapter 6 (volume 1).
TURKS: A. D. 1519.
The Sultan acquires sovereignty of Algiers and Tunis.
See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1516-1535.
TURKS: A. D. 1520.
Accession of Solyman I.
TURKS: A. D. 1521-1526.
Capture of Belgrade.
Great invasion of Hungary.
Overwhelming victory of Mohacs.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1487-1526.
TURKS: A. D. 1522.
Conquest of the isle of Rhodes.
Expulsion of the Knights of St. John.
See HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN: A. D. 1522.
TURKS: A. D. 1526-1567.
The Sultan suzerain of Transylvania and master of Hungary.
Invasion of Austria and siege of Vienna.
Death of Solyman the Magnificent.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1526-1567.
TURKS: A. D. 1527.
Final subjugation of the Bosnians.
See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: 9-16TH CENTURIES.
TURKS: A. D. 1532-1553.
Frightful depredations along the coast of Southern Italy.
See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1528-1570.
TURKS: A. D. 1542.
Alliance with France.
Siege of Nice.
Ravages on the Italian coast.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.
TURKS: A. D. 1551-1560.
Unsuccessful attack on Malta.
Capture of Tripoli.
Disastrous attempt of the Christians to recover that city.
See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1543-1560.
TURKS: A. D. 1565.
Unsuccessful attack on the Knights of St. John in Malta.
See HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN: A. D. 1530-1565.
TURKS: A. D. 1566-1571.
Reign of Selim II.
War with the Holy League of Spain, Venice and the Pope.
Conquest of Cyprus.
Great defeat at Lepanto.
"In 1566, Solyman the Magnificent closed his long and
prosperous reign. His son and successor, Selim II., possessed
few of the qualities of his great father. Bred in the
Seraglio, he showed the fruits of his education in his
indolent way of life, and in the free indulgence of the most
licentious appetites. With these effeminate tastes, he
inherited the passion for conquest which belonged, not only to
his father, but to the whole of his warlike dynasty. … The
scheme which most occupied the thoughts of Selim was the
conquest of Cyprus. … Selim, resolved on the acquisition of
Cyprus, was not slow in devising a pretext for claiming it
from Venice as a part of the Ottoman empire. The republic,
though willing to make almost any concession rather than come
to a rupture with the colossal power under whose shadow she
lay, was not prepared to surrender without a struggle the
richest gem in her colonial diadem. War was accordingly
declared against her by the Porte, and vast preparations were
made for fitting out an armament against Cyprus.
{3140}
Venice, in her turn, showed her usual alacrity in providing
for the encounter. She strained her resources to the utmost.
In a very short time she equipped a powerful fleet, and took
measures to place the fortifications of Cyprus in a proper
state of defence. But Venice no longer boasted a navy such as
in earlier days had enabled her to humble the pride of Genoa,
and to ride the unquestioned mistress of the Mediterranean.
The defences of her colonies, moreover, during her long repose
had gradually fallen into decay. In her extremity, she turned
to the Christian powers of Europe, and besought them to make
common cause with her against the enemy of Christendom." The
only responses to her appeal came, first, from Pope Pius V.,
and finally, through his urgency, from Philip II. of Spain.
After much deliberation, Philip agreed, in the spring of 1570,
to enter into an alliance with Venice and the Pope against the
Ottoman Porte. "The ensuing summer, the royal admiral, the
famous John Andrew Doria, who was lying with a strong squadron
off Sicily, put to sea, by the king's orders. He was soon
after reinforced by a few galleys which were furnished by his
holiness, and placed under the command of Mark Antonio
Colonna. … On the last of August, 1570, the combined fleet
effected its junction with the Venetians at Candia, and a plan
of operations was immediately arranged. It was not long before
the startling intelligence arrived that Nicosia, the capital
of Cyprus, had been taken and sacked by the Turks, with all
the circumstances of cruelty which distinguish wars in which
the feeling of national hostility is embittered by religious
hatred. The plan was now to be changed. A dispute arose among
the commanders as to the course to be pursued. No one had
authority enough to enforce compliance with his own opinion.
The dispute ended in a rupture. The expedition was abandoned.
… Still the stout-hearted pontiff was not discouraged;" nor
did the king of Spain draw back. "Venice, on the other hand,
soon showed that the Catholic king had good reason for
distrusting her fidelity. Appalled by the loss of Nicosia,
with her usual inconstancy, she despatched a secret agent to
Constantinople, to see if some terms might not yet be made
with the sultan." Her overtures, however, were coldly received
by the sultan, and she was won back to the alliance. "Towards
the close of 1570, the deputies from the three powers met in
Rome to arrange the terms of the league." With much
difficulty, a treaty was concluded, and ratified in May, 1571,
to the effect that the operations of the league "should be
directed against the Moors of Tunis, Tripoli, and Algiers, as
well as against the Turks; that the contracting parties should
furnish 200 galleys, 100 transports and smaller vessels,
50,000 foot and 4,500 horse, with the requisite artillery and
munitions; that by April, at farthest, of every succeeding
year, a similar force should be held in readiness by the
allies for expeditions to the Levant; and that any year in
which there was no expedition in common, and either Spain or
the republic should desire to engage in one on her own account
against the infidel, the other confederates should furnish 50
galleys towards it; that if the enemy should invade the
dominions of any of the three powers, the others should be
bound to come to the aid of their ally; that three-sixths of
the expenses of the war should be borne by the Catholic king,
two-sixths by the republic, the remaining sixth by the Holy
See; … that each power should appoint a captain-general; that
the united voices of the three commanders should regulate the
plan of operations; that the execution of this plan should be
intrusted to the captain-general of the league, and that this
high office should be given to Don John of Austria [natural
son of Charles V. and half-brother of Philip II.]. … Such were
the principal provisions of the famous treaty of the Holy
League." The sultan was not dismayed. "He soon got together a
powerful fleet, partly drawn from his own dominions, and in
part from those of the Moslem powers on the Mediterranean, who
acknowledged allegiance to the Porte. The armada was placed
under the command of Selim's brother-in-law, the Pacha Piali.
… Early in the season [of 1571] the combined fleets sailed for
the Adriatic, and Piali, after landing and laying waste the
territory belonging to the republic, detached Uluch [dey of
Algiers] with his squadron to penetrate higher up the gulf.
The Algerine, in executing these orders, advanced so near to
Venice as to throw the inhabitants of that capital into …
consternation. … Meanwhile the Venetians were pushing forward
their own preparations with their wonted alacrity,—indeed with
more alacrity than thoroughness. … The fleet was placed under
the command of Sebastian Veniero," and sailed before
midsummer, "or as much of it as was then ready, for the port
of Messina, appointed as the place of rendezvous for the
allies. Here he was soon joined by Colonna, the papal
commander, with the little squadron furnished by his holiness;
and the two fleets lay at anchor … waiting the arrival of the
rest of the confederates and of Don John of Austria." The
latter reached Messina on the 25th of August. "The whole
number of vessels in the armada, great and small, amounted to
something more than 300. Of these full two thirds were 'royal
galleys.' Venice alone contributed 106, besides six
'galeazzas.' These were ships of enormous bulk. … The number
of persons on board of the fleet, soldiers and seamen, was
estimated at 80,000. … The soldiers did not exceed 29,000. …
On the 16th of September the magnificent armament … stood out
to sea." Before encountering the Turkish fleet, the allies
received tidings "that Famagosta, the second city of Cyprus,
had fallen into the hands of the enemy, and this under
circumstances of unparalleled perfidy and cruelty. … The fall
of Famagosta secured the fall of Cyprus, which thus became
permanently incorporated in the Ottoman empire." On Sunday,
October 7th, the armada of the Turks was found and attacked in
the gulf of Lepanto. The terrific fight which ensued lasted
only four hours, but those were hours of indescribable
destruction and carnage. "It was indeed a sanguinary battle,
surpassing in this particular any sea-fight of modern times.
The loss fell much the most heavily on the Turks. There is the
usual discrepancy about numbers; but it may be safe to estimate
their loss at nearly 25,000 slain and 5,000 prisoners. What
brought most pleasure to the hearts of the conquerors was the
liberation of 12,000 Christian captives, who had been chained
to the oar on board the Moslem galleys, and who now came
forth, with tears of joy streaming down their haggard cheeks,
to bless their deliverers.
{3141}
The loss of the allies was comparatively small,—less than
8,000." As to the armada of the Turks, "it may almost be said
to have been annihilated. Not more than 40 galleys escaped out
of near 250 which entered into the action. … The news of the
victory of Lepanto caused a profound sensation throughout
Christendom. … In Venice, which might be said to have gained a
new lease of existence from the result of the battle, … the
7th of October was set apart to be observed for ever as a
national anniversary. … It is a great error to speak of the
victory of Lepanto as a barren victory, which yielded no
fruits to those who gained it. True, it did not strip the
Turks of an inch of territory. … But the loss of
reputation—that tower of strength to the conqueror—was not to
be estimated."
W. H. Prescott,
History of Philip II.,
book 5, chapters 9-11.
ALSO IN:
Sir W. Stirling-Maxwell,
Don John of Austria,
volume 1, chapters 13-15.
TURKS: A. D. 1569-1570.
First collision with the Russians.
Vizir Sokolli's canal project and its frustration.
Peace with the Czar.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1569-1571.
TURKS: A. D. 1572-1573.
Withdrawal of Venice from the Holy League.
Conquest of Tunis by Don John of Austria
and its recovery, with Goletta.
"Ulucciali, whom Selim … made commander-in-chief of all his
naval forces, exerted himself with extraordinary vigour and
activity in fitting out a new fleet, to supply the place of
that which had been ruined in the battle of Lepanto; and such
at this time were the resources of the Turkish empire, that he
was ready by the month of April [1572] to leave
Constantinople, with more than 200 galleys, besides a great
number of other ships. With this fleet he coasted along
Negropont, the Morea, and Epirus; put the maritime towns into
a posture of defence; chastised with great severity many of
those Christians who had been concerned in the invitation
given to Don John [who had just been offered the sovereignty
of Albania and Macedonia by the Christians of those
countries]; and afterwards took his station at Modon in the
Morea, with an intention to watch there the motions of the
enemy. He had full leisure to finish all the preparations
which he judged to be necessary. The allies disputed long with
one another concerning the plan of their future operations."
and were also held inactive by the Spanish king's fear of an
attack from France. "It was the last day of August before the
allies could effectuate a junction of their forces; and it was
the middle of September before they came in sight of the
enemy. … Ulucciali drew out his fleet, as if he intended to
offer battle; but no sooner had he made a single discharge of
his artillery … than he retired under the fortifications of
Modon." The allies thought first of besieging Modon, but gave
up the project. They then sent Alexander Farnese, prince of
Parma—afterwards so famous in the Netherlands—to reduce
Navarino; but he had no success and abandoned the siege. The
expedition then returned to Messina. The Venetians,
dissatisfied with the conduct of the war, now faithlessly
negotiated a separate peace with the Turks; but Philip II. of
Spain maintained his alliance with the Pope (now Gregory
XIII.), and ordered his brother, Don John, to proceed the next
spring to Africa and undertake the reduction of Tunis. Don
John obeyed the order, "carrying with him for this purpose a
fleet of 2,000 sail, having 20,000 foot on board, besides 400
light horse, 700 pioneers, and a numerous train of heavy
artillery. Tunis was at this time in the hands of the Turks,
commanded by Heder Basha, whom Selim had lately sent to govern
the town and kingdom. Heder, seized with consternation at the
approach of the Spanish fleet, left Tunis with his troops and
a great number of the inhabitants, and Don John took
possession of the place without meeting with the smallest
opposition. Philip had instructed his brother, when he sent
him on this expedition, to destroy Tunis, and to strengthen
the fortifications of the isle and fortress of Goletta. But
instead of complying with these instructions, Don John
resolved to fortify the town more strongly than ever; and
having laid the foundations of a new fort, or citadel, he
treated all the inhabitants who remained with lenity and
indulgence; and engaged many of those who had fled to return
and submit to the Spanish government; after which he carried
back his fleet to Sicily." It is believed that Don John had
conceived ambitious hopes of a kingdom on the African border
of the Mediterranean. "In the summer following [1573], Selim
sent Ulucciali against Tunis, with a fleet consisting of 300
ships, having about 40,000 troops on board, under the command
of his son-in-law, Sinan Basha. The new fort which Don John
had begun to build was not yet complete. Nor was the garrison
which he had left strong enough to hold out long against so
great a force." Before Don John could reassemble a fleet with
which to make his way to the protection of his African
conquest, both Tunis and Goletta were carried by assault, and
passed again into the possession of the Turks and their
Moorish vassals.
R. Watson,
History of Philip II.,
book 9.
ALSO IN:
Sir W. Stirling-Maxwell,
Don John of Austria,
volume 2, chapters 1-3.
TURKS: A. D. 1572-1623.
Beginning of the decline of the Ottoman power.
"The conquest of Cyprus was the last great exploit which ever
added materially to the dominions of the Porte; the battle of
Lepanto was the final blow which destroyed its naval
superiority. The days of greatness had gone by. The kingdoms
of the West were developing their strength, and had learnt the
policy of union and of peace among themselves. Their armies
had acquired the discipline and had learnt the lessons in
which the Ottomans had shown so formidable an example; and
their navy rode triumphant on the seas. The Empire, no longer
in the hands of Charles V., with foreign interests to absorb
its power, could bestow an undivided strength upon its own
affairs; and the Emperor Ferdinand was looking forward with
some hope to an incorporation of Hungary, which should end the
weakness, and ensure the safety, of his eastern frontier. As
the pre-eminence of the Porte, however, and the dread of it
declined, a wider intercourse for her with Europe began. …
Slowly the Sultans were beginning to take part in the schemes
and combinations of the Christian Powers, from which they had
hitherto so contemptuously stood aloof. Five reigns succeeded
to that of Selim [the Sot, son of Solyman the Magnificent].
during which the progress of decline continued marked.
{3142}
The indolence of Amurath III. [1574-1595], the incapacity of
Mahomet III. [1595-1603], the inexperience of Achmet I.
[1603-1617], the imprudence of Othman II. [1618-1622], and the
imbecility of Mustapha [1617-1618, and 1622-1623], contributed
to bring the Ottoman Empire into a condition of anarchy and
weakness. During the reign of Amurath hostilities with Austria
were renewed, and successive losses testified to the enfeebled
state of the Ottoman arms."
C. F. Johnstone,
Historical Abstracts,
chapter 3.
TURKS: A. D. 1591-1606.
Wars in Hungary and Croatia.
Great victory at Cerestes.
Peace of Sitvatorok.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1567-1604; and 1595-1606.
TURKS: A. D. 1621-1622.
War with Poland.
Victory at Cecora and defeat at Choczim.
See POLAND: A. D. 1590-1648.
TURKS: A. D. 1623-1640.
War with Persia.
Siege and capture of Bagdad.
Horrible massacre of the inhabitants.
"During the first twelve years of the reign of Amurath IV.
[1623-1635], the Ottoman Empire had been occupied with active
hostilities in different parts of Europe, and especially with
Poland, Germany, and the maritime powers of the Mediterranean.
… In the east, however, great losses had been sustained. Shah
Abbas, a sovereign well entitled to the epithet 'Great,' had
repossessed himself of Diarbekr, Baghdad [1623], the district
of the Euphrates, with Kourdistan; and, on the north, he had
regained Armenia, and a considerable part of Anatolia. The
Sultan therefore resolved to undertake an expedition to
recover the territories thus taken from him, and to this he
was encouraged by the death of his formidable foe the Persian
monarch. Amurath marched from his capital early in 1635, to
superintend the operations of the campaign. … In passing
through Asia, he took care personally to examine into the
conduct of his various Pashas, and wherever it was requisite
he subjected them to a severe punishment. One of them, the
Pasha of Erzeroum, was put to death. Having at that city
reviewed his army, he found them to amount to 200,000 men, and
as his first object was the seizure of Armenia, the key of the
Persian provinces, he besieged Erivan, and notwithstanding a
vigorous defence, the fortress in a few days surrendered.
Tauris and the surrounding provinces speedily fell into his
hands, and Amurath returned in the winter to Constantinople,
entering the city in great triumph. The affairs of Europe were
in such a state of confusion, that it was several years ere he
again appeared in the east, the scene of so many of his
victories. The Khan of Tartary threw off his allegiance, the
Polish serfs appeared suddenly on the Caspian shores, and,
joining a body of Russians, attacked and carried the fortress
of Azof. … The European war, which at this time occurred,
rendered it unnecessary for the Sultan to entertain any
serious apprehension from his enemies in the west, who were
sufficiently occupied with their own affairs. He therefore
directed his attention to Persia, resolved to subjugate that
country, and to seize upon Baghdad. To this end his
preparations were proportionally great. An immense army was
collected on the Asiatic side of the Bosphorus. This mighty
host numbered more than 300,000 armed men, and was accompanied
by a numerous array of miners, as well as artillery. And after
having consulted an astrologer, Amurath embarked amid all the
display which Asiatic pomp could furnish, and directed his
progress toward Persia. After a successful march, this immense
army arrived at Baghdad. The city was strongly fortified, and
defended by a resolute army of 80,000 men. The Shah, however,
was absent in the northern part of his dominions, which had
been threatened by an invasion from India, under Shah Jehan,
father of the celebrated Aurungzebe. Baghdad, therefore, was
left to its own resources. The operations of the siege began
in October 1638. … The besieged made repeated sallies, with a
force of five or six thousand men at a time, who, on retiring,
were succeeded by a similar number, and thus the losses of the
Ottoman army were sometimes very great. The 200 great guns,
however, which played upon the ramparts, at length made a wide
opening in the walls, and after five days' fighting in the
breach thus made, where 'the slain lay in immense multitudes,
and the blood was stagnated like a pool to wade through,' the
city was taken. Quarter was given to 24,000 of the defenders,
who remained alive, on condition that they would lay down
their arms. But as soon as they had done so, the Sultan
perfidiously issued orders to the Janizaries, and the work of
butchery commenced, and was carried on by torch-light during
the night on which the city was taken, and an indiscriminate
slaughter took place, neither youth, nor age, nor sex being
spared by the ruthless conqueror and his merciless soldiers. …
In the morning of the 23d of December the Sultan marched into
the city, passing with his army over the innumerable bodies of
the unfortunate Persians, whose gallant defence merited a
better fate. Some 15,000 women, children and old men were all
that remained of the inhabitants, who, but a day or two
before, filled every part of the magnificent capital. … The
capture of Baghdad closed the military career of the Sultan."
R. W. Fraser,
Turkey, Ancient and Modern,
chapter 17.
"A peace with Persia, on the basis of that which Solyman the
Great had granted in 1555, was the speedy result of Amurath's
victories (15th September, 1639). Eriwan was restored by the
Porte; but the possession of Bagdad and the adjacent territory
by the Ottomans was solemnly sanctioned and confirmed. Eighty
years passed away before Turkey was again obliged to struggle
against her old and obstinate enemy on the line of the
Euphrates. … Amurath died at the age of 28, on the 9th of
February, 1640."
Sir E. S. Creasy,
History of the Ottoman Turks,
chapter 13.
TURKS: A. D. 1625-1626.
War in Hungary.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1606-1660.
TURKS: A. D. 1640.
Accession of Ibrahim.
TURKS: A. D. 1645-1669.
The war of Candia.
Conquest of Crete.
"The Turks attacked the island [of Crete] in 1645, and the war
went on till 1669, when Crete was lost. This is called the war
of Candia, from the long siege of the town of Candia, which
was most gallantly defended by the Venetians, with the help of
many volunteers from Western Europe. It must be remembered
that, though the island has sometimes got to be called Candia,
from the town of Candia and its memorable siege, yet the
island itself has never changed its name, but has always been
called Crete both by Greeks and Turks."
E. A. Freeman,
The Ottoman Power in Europe,
page 145.
{3143}
"The war which cost the republic of Venice the island of Crete
owed its origin to the incessant irritation caused by the
Western corsairs in the Archipelago. Some strong measures
adopted by the Venetians to suppress the piracies committed by
Turkish and Barbary corsairs in the Adriatic, created much
dissatisfaction on the part of the Othoman government, which
looked chiefly to the Mohammedan corsairs as a protection
against the Christian corsairs in the Levant, and considered
it the duty of the Venetians to suppress the piracies of these
Christians. The Porte at last resolved to seek a profitable
revenge, and a pretext soon presented itself. In 1644 some
Maltese galleys made a prize which offended the personal
feelings of the reigning sultan, Ibrahim. … As he feared to
attack Malta, he resolved to make the Venetians responsible
for the shelter which Crete had afforded to the corsairs. The
Porte affected to consider Venice as a tributary State, which
was bound to keep the Archipelago free from Christian
corsairs, in return for the great commercial privileges it
enjoyed in the Othoman empire. Immediate preparations were
made for attacking Crete, but the project was concealed from
the Venetian senate, under the pretence of directing the
expedition against Malta. … In the month of June 1645, the
Othoman army landed before Canea, which capitulated on the
17th of August. This treacherous commencement of the war
authorised the Christian powers to dispense with all the
formalities of international law in lending assistance to the
Venetians during the celebrated War of Candia, which lasted
nearly 25 years. During this long struggle the Venetians
generally maintained the superiority at sea, but they were
unable to prevent the Othoman navy, whenever it exerted its
full force, from throwing in supplies of fresh troops and
ample stores, by which the Othoman army was enabled to command
the whole island, and kept Candia, and the other fortresses in
the hands of the republic, either blockaded or besieged. The
Greeks generally favoured the Turks, who encouraged them to
cultivate their lands by purchasing the produce at a liberal
price, for the use of the army. … The squadrons of the
republic often ravaged the coasts of the Othoman empire, and
on one occasion they carried off about 5,000 slaves from the
coast of the Morea, between Patras and Coron. In the year
1656, after Mocenigo's great victory at the Dardanelles, they
took possession of the islands of Tenedos and Lemnos, but they
were driven from these conquests by the Othoman fleet in the
following year. At the end of the year 1666, the grand vizier,
Achmet Kueprily, one of the greatest ministers of the Othoman
empire, took the command of the siege of Candia. The whole
naval force of Venice, and numerous bands of French and
Italian volunteers, attempted to force the grand vizier to
raise the siege; but the skill of the Italian engineers, the
valour of the French nobles, and the determined perseverance
of Morosini, were vain against the strict discipline and
steady valour of the Othoman troops. The works of the
besiegers were pushed forward by the labours of a numerous
body of Greek pioneers, and the fire of the powerful batteries
at last rendered the place untenable. At this crisis Morosini
proved himself a daring statesman and a sincere patriot. When
he found that he must surrender the city, he resolved to make
his capitulation the means of purchasing peace for the
republic. … On the 27th September 1669, Achmet Kueprily
received the keys of Candia, and the republic of Venice
resigned all right to the island of Crete, but retained
possession of the three insular fortresses of Karabusa, Suda,
and Spinalonga, with their valuable ports. No fortress is said
to have cost so much blood and treasure, both to the besiegers
and the defenders, as Candia; yet the Greeks, in whose
territory it was situated, and who could have furnished an
army from the inhabitants of Crete sufficiently numerous to
have decided the issue of the contest, were the people on the
shores of the Mediterranean who took least part in this
memorable war. So utterly destitute of all national feeling
was the Hellenic race at this period."
G. Finlay,
History of Greece under Othoman and Venetian Domination,
chapter 2.
TURKS: A. D. 1649.
Accession of Mohammed IV.
TURKS: A. D. 1660-1664.
Renewed war with Austria.
Defeat at St. Gothard.
A twenty years truce.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1660-1664.
TURKS: A. D. 1664-1665.
Alliance with France broken.
War of the French with Tunis and Algiers.
See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1664-1684.
TURKS: A. D. 1670-1676.
Wars with the Poles.
See POLAND: A. D. 1668-1606.
TURKS: A. D. 1681-1684.
Rupture with France.
French attack on Scio and war with the Barbary States.
See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1664-1684.
TURKS: A. D. 1683.
Great invasion of Austria.
Siege of Vienna.
Overwhelming defeat by Sobieski and the Imperialists.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1668-1683.
TURKS: A. D. 1683-1699.
Expulsion from Hungary.
The Peace of Carlowitz.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1699.
TURKS: A. D. 1684-1696.
War with the Holy League.
Expulsion from Hungary.
Venetian conquests in Greece.
Revolution at Constantinople.
Accession of Solyman II.
Czar Peter's capture of Azov.
The first Russian acquisition on the Black Sea.
In 1684, "a league against the Turks, under the protection of
the Pope, and thence called the Holy League, was formed by the
Emperor, the King of Poland, and the Republic of Venice; and
it was resolved to procure, if possible, the accession to it
of the Czar of Muscovy. The Venetians were induced to join the
league by the hope of recovering their former possessions, and
declared war against the Sultan, Mahomet IV., July 15th. The
war which ensued, now called the Holy War, lasted till the
Peace of Carlowicz in 1609. Venice in this war put forth a
strength that was little expected from that declining state.
Many thousand Germans were enrolled in her army, commanded by
Morosini, and by Count Königsmark, a Swede. The Austrians
pursued the campaign in Hungary with success [steadily
expelling the Turks—see HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1609]. … While the
war in Hungary had been conducted by the Emperor with such
eminent success, the King of Poland had made only some
fruitless attempts upon Moldavia. The Czar of Muscovy, Ivan
Alexiowitsch, who, after settling some disputes about
boundaries with the King of Poland, had joined the Holy League
in 1686, did not fare much better. All the attempts of the
Russians to penetrate into the Crimea were frustrated by the
Tartars.
{3144}
The Venetians, on the other hand, had made some splendid
conquests. St. Maura, Koron, the mountain tract of Maina,
Navarino, Modon, Argos, Napoli di Romania, fell successively
into their hands. The year 1687 especially was almost as fatal
to the Turks in their war with Venice as in that with Hungary.
In this year the Venetians took Patras, the castles at the
entrance of the bay of Lepanto, Lepanto itself, all the
northern coast of the Morea, Corinth, and Athens. Athens had
been abandoned with the exception of the acropolis or citadel;
and it was in this siege that one of the Venetian bombs fell
into the Parthenon, which had been converted by the Turks into
a powder magazine, and destroyed the greater part of those
magnificent remains of classical antiquity. The acropolis
surrendered September 29th. The fall of Athens, added to the
disastrous news from Hungary, excited the greatest
consternation and discontent at Constantinople," and brought
about a revolution which deposed the sultan, raising his
brother Solyman to the throne (1687) in his place. "By the
capture of Malvasia in 1690, the Venetians completed the
conquest of the Morea. The Isle of Chios, taken in 1694, was
again lost the following year; but in Dalmatia and Albania the
Venetian Republic made many permanent conquests, from the
mountains of Montenegro to the borders of Croatia and the
banks of the Unna. The operations of the Poles in the Turkish
war were insignificant; but in July 1696, the Russians, under
the Czar Peter, after many long and fruitless attempts, at
length succeeded in taking Azov, at the mouth of the Don; a
most important conquest as securing for them the entry into
the Black Sea. It was the fall of this place, combined with
the defeat at Zenta [in Hungary], that chiefly induced the
Porte to enter into negociation for a peace."
T. H. Dyer,
History of Modern Europe,
book 5, chapter 4 (volume 3).
TURKS: A. D. 1691.
Accession of Achmet II.
TURKS: A. D. 1695.
Accession of Mustapha II.
TURKS: A. D. 1703.

Accession of Achmet III.
TURKS: A. D. 1709-1714.
Refuge given to Charles XII. of Sweden.
His intrigues.
Unlucky invasion of Moldavia by Peter the Great.
The Treaty of the Pruth.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1707-1718.
TURKS: A. D. 1714-1718.
War with Venice and Austria.
Recovery of the Morea and disasters in Hungary.
The Peace of Passarowitz.
"By the treaty of the Pruth the Russian conquest of Azof had
been recovered. This success encouraged the hope of repairing
the other losses that had been incurred in the former war.
There were two states which had aggrandised themselves at
Turkish expense, Austria and Venice. Of these the republic was
far the less formidable and was naturally chosen as the first
object of attack. A pretext was found in the protection which
Venice had given to some Montenegrin fugitives, and in
December, 1714, the Porte declared war. Venice was entirely
unprepared, and moreover had failed to acquire popularity
amongst her Greek subjects. In 1715, the grand vizier, Ali
Cumurgi, landed in the Morea, and by the end of the year was
master of the whole peninsula. Sailing thence he captured Suda
and Spinalonga, the two last fortresses that Venice had been
allowed to retain in Crete. The republic naturally appealed to
her old ally, Austria, which had guaranteed her possessions by
the treaty of Carlowitz. … As the Turk refused to give any
satisfaction, war was inevitable. The intervention of Austria
saved Venice from ruin. The grand vizier and the main body of
the Turkish army had to be employed in Hungary. Still a
considerable army and fleet was sent to attack Corfu. The
Venetian troops were commanded by count Schulenburg, who had
won a great reputation in the northern war, and whose services
had been procured for the republic by Eugene. A heroic defence
ended successfully, and in August, 1716, the Turks were
compelled to raise the siege. 'It was the last glorious
military exploit in the annals of the republic, and it was
achieved by a German mercenary soldier.' Meanwhile the vizier,
with an army of 150,000 men, had laid siege to Peterwardein,
the most important of the Austrian border-fortresses in
Hungary," and suffered death there, in a great defeat which
prince Eugene inflicted upon his army, August 5, 1716. The
same year, Eugene took Temesvar, and in August, 1717, he
annihilated the Turkish army before Belgrad, capturing the
town.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1699-1718.
The result was the Treaty of Passarowitz, signed in July,
1718. "Austria retained all its conquests, thus completing its
possession of Hungary by acquiring the Banat of Temesvar, and
adding to it Belgrad and a strip of Servia. The Turks, on
their side, kept the Morea, while Venice was confirmed in its
possession of Corfu and Santa Maura, together with the
conquests which it had made in 1717 in Albania and Dalmatia."
R. Lodge,
History of Modern Europe,
chapter 16.
TURKS: A. D. 1730.
Accession of Mahmoud I.
TURKS: A. D. 1735-1739.
War with Russia and Austria.
Favourable Treaty of Belgrade.
Important acquisitions of Territory from Austria.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1725-1739.
TURKS: A. D. 1754.
Accession of Othman III.
TURKS: A. D. 1757.
Accession of Mustapha III.
TURKS: A. D. 1768-1774.
War with Russia on behalf of Poland.
Concession of independence to the Crim Tartars.
The Poles, in their struggle with Catherine II. of Russia
found a strange champion in the Turk.
See POLAND: A. D. 1763-1773.
"The Sultan, Mustafa III., was opposed to intervention in
Poland; but his hand was forced by a rising in Constantinople,
and he declared war against Russia in October, 1768.
Hostilities were not commenced till the next year, and they
never assumed considerable proportions. The Turkish army was
in the last stage of inefficiency, and the Russians, who were
wholly unprepared for war, were little better. Galitzin, an
incompetent commander, defeated the grand vizier, and took
Khoczim after his first attack had been repulsed. His
successor, Romanzow, 'the Russian Turenne,' acted with greater
energy. He drove the Turks from Moldavia, and in 1770 he
occupied Wallachia, won a great victory over vastly superior
numbers at Kaghul [August 1, 1770], and advanced into the
Crimea. At the same time a Russian fleet appeared in the
Mediterranean with the avowed intention of restoring Greece to
independence. But the admiral, Alexis Orloff, mismanaged the
expedition. After encouraging the Greeks to rebel, he left
them to the horrors of a Turkish revenge, and sailed towards
Constantinople.
{3145}
A victory over the Turkish fleet gave him possession of Chios
and other islands of the Archipelago, but he refused, in spite
of his English officers, to attempt the passage of the
Dardanelles." In May, 1772, a truce was arranged and a
congress assembled to settle the terms of peace. "But the
Russian demands were too excessive for the Porte to accept,
and the Turks resumed hostilities in 1773. They attempted to
recover Moldavia and Wallachia, and for a time they succeeded
in forcing the Russians to retreat. Mustafa III. died in
December, and was succeeded by his brother Abdul Hamid. In the
next year Romanzow won a complete victory, and compelled the
grand vizier to accept the terms dictated to him at Kutschuk
Kainardji [July 16, 1774]. The Russians restored the conquered
provinces except Azof and Kinburn, only stipulating for
toleration for the Christian population. The Tartars of the
Crimea and Kuban were declared independent of the Porte, and
authorised to elect their own Khan. Russian ships were allowed
free passage through the Dardanelles, and the right of sailing
in the Turkish seas and on the Danube. Poland, for which the
Turks had undertaken the war, was not even mentioned in the
treaty."
R. Lodge,
History of Modern Europe,
chapter 20, sections 11-12.
ALSO IN:
F. C. Schlosser,
History of the 18th Century,
volume 4, pages 405-441.
See, also, RUSSIA: A. D. 1762-1796.
TURKS: A. D. 1774.
Accession of Abdul Hamid.
TURKS: A. D. 1776-1792.
Acquisition of the Crimea by the Russians.
War with Russia and Austria.
The Treaties of Sistova and Jassy.
Territorial concessions.
"A peace of some years followed the treaty of Kainarji, if,
indeed, that can be called peace where the most solemn
engagements are perpetually evaded. On that treaty Catherine
put what interpretation she pleased. … She offered her
protection to the voivods of Wallachia and Moldavia, who, in
consequence, were her vassals rather than those of the Porte.
The Christians on the opposite bank of the Danube were in
correspondence with Russia; they were encouraged to revolt, to
claim her protection, to oppose the Turkish government in
every way. … Though the Crimea had been declared independent,
she proved that the word had reference merely to the authority
of the sultan, and not to hers. … More than once … the Russian
troops appeared in that peninsula. In 1776 they deposed the
reigning khan, and elected in his stead another, who was
easily induced to solicit the protection of the empress.
Turkey threatened to resume the war. … At length … a new
treaty, or rather a modification of the former, was signed at
Constantinople in 1779. In it Russia promised to desist from
some of her obnoxious pretensions in regard both to the two
principalities and the Crimea; but promises cost little. …
Almost every year brought new complaints and evasions. The
foundation of the city of Cherson, about ten leagues from
Otzakof, gave peculiar umbrage to the Porte. This place had
now a population of 40,000; and the number of warlike vessels
constructed in its arsenal were evidently intended to overawe
Constantinople. In 1783 another insulting message was sent to
the Turkish ministers,—that, let the conduct of the empress in
regard to the Crimea be whatever it might, they should not
interfere. At the same time she prevailed on the khan whom she
had supported, Sahim Gherei, to make the most outrageous
demands from the Porte. The khan's envoy was beheaded. Under
the pretext of punishing the Turks for this insult to their
'good ally,' the Russians requested permission to march
through his territory. It was immediately granted; but no
sooner were they in the peninsula than, instead of proceeding
against the Turkish fortifications on the island of Taman,
they seized the towns, forced the Mahometan authorities, in
the khan's presence, to take the oath of allegiance to the
empress, and seized on the revenues of the country. … The khan
was now forced to resign his authority, and transfer it to
Catherine; in return, he received some estates in Russia. A
manifesto declared that the Crimea, Kuban, and Taman, were for
ever incorporated with the empire. In a document of some
length, and of great force, the Turkish ministry exposed to
the world the unprincipled encroachments of their neighbours."
But Russia responded to it by marshalling three great armies
on the frontiers, with an exhibition of formidable fleets in
the Euxine and the Baltic. "The Porte, terrified at this
menacing display, listened to the advice of France and
Austria; and, by another treaty (signed at Constantinople
early in 1784) recognised the sovereignty of the empress over
the Crimea, Taman, and a great part of Kuban. To the first and
last of these places she restored their ancient classical
names, Taurida and Caucasus." The treaty of Constantinople did
not put an end to Russian aggressions, and in August, 1787,
the Sultan declared war. "The campaign was opened with ardour.
Knowing that Otzakof would be the earliest object of
hostility, the Sultan sent a considerable force to cover it.
Another army marched to the Danube, and the vizier in person
took the field. … On the other hand, Potemkin, the
commander-in-chief, having under his orders some of the best
generals in the service, hastened to the frontiers, which were
soon covered by Russian troops. At the same time the emperor
Joseph [according to a prior agreement with Catherine] sent
80,000 Austrians into Moldavia; while a powerful fleet in the
Euxine prepared to co-operate with the allies, and another in
the Baltic was ready to sail for the Mediterranean. It seemed,
indeed, as if Catherine's favourite dream, the elevation of
her grandson Constantine to the throne of the Greek empire,
was about to be realised. Yet these mighty preparations had no
commensurate effect. An attack on Kinburn by 5,000 Turks from
the garrison of Otzakof was repulsed [by Suwarof] with heavy
loss. But this advantage was counterbalanced by the dispersion
of the Euxine fleet in a storm, with the loss of some vessels.
These were the chief events of the first campaign. The second,
of 1788, was more decisive. Otzakof was taken by assault, and
the garrison [with nearly all the inhabitants] put to the
sword. At the same time Joseph took Sobach; and his generals
captured Soubitza [Dubitza?]. On the deep, too, fortune was
equally adverse to the Turks. Their fleet was defeated in the
Euxine. … In the following campaigns the superiority of the
Russians was maintained. It would have been still more signal
but for the jealousy of Potemkin, who could not tolerate
success in any of his generals. … The death of Abdul Hamet,
and the accession of Selim III., made no difference in the
character of the war; it was still adverse to the Turks.
{3146}
Fortress after fortress [including Belgrade, taken by General
Loudon for the Austrians] was reduced by the enemy; and,
though no general engagement was risked, the loss of men was
not the less felt. Suwarof saved the Austrians [in Moldavia,
defeating the Turks, who had nearly overwhelmed them, at
Fockshani, July 30, and again at Rimnik, September 16, 1789];
Repnin forced the Seraskier, Hussein Pasha, to seek refuge in
Ismail; Komenski reduced Galatza; Ackerman fell into the power
of the Christians; Bender was forced to capitulate. In the
following campaign, the important fortress of Ismail was
assailed: the siege was conducted by Suwarof, the most dreaded
of all the Russian generals. … It was taken … though the loss
was most severe; and, in revenge, the garrison, with the
greater part of the population [nearly 40,000 in all], was put
to the sword. Other successes followed, both on the banks of
the Caspian, and on those of the Danube. Bohada was stormed;
at Kotzim 100,000 Turks were defeated by Repnin; Varna was
menaced; and the road to Adrianople lay open. The grand vizier
now sued for peace, which Catherine was ready to grant, on
conditions much less onerous than might have been expected."
Austria had already made peace with the sultan and withdrawn
from the war. By the treaty of Sistova, which the new emperor,
Leopold, signed on the 4th of August, 1791, the Austrians
relinquished all their conquests except the town of Old Orsova
and a small district in Croatia along the left bank of the
river Unna. With these slight variations the same boundary
between Austria and Turkey was reconstituted in 1791 that had
been defined by the treaty of Belgrade in 1739. The treaty of
the Turks with Russia was signed at Jassy on the 9th of
January 1792. "By that treaty, Catherine retained the whole
country between the Bog and the Dniester, but restored all the
other conquests which she had made since 1787. This was the
last of the hostilities between Russia and the Porte during
the reign of this empress; and the peace of Jassy enabled her
to carry into effect her designs on Poland."
R. Bell,
History of Russia,
volume 2, chapter 11.
ALSO IN:
Sir E. S. Creasy,
History of the Ottoman Turks,
chapter 21.
F. C. Schlosser,
History of the 18th Century,
period 5, division 1, chapter 2 (volume 6).
G. B. Malleson,
Loudon,
chapter 15.
TURKS: A. D. 1789-1812.
Attempted reforms of Sultan Selim III.
Their fate and his.
Palace revolutions.
Reign of Mahmud II.
War with Russia.
"Abd-ul-Hamid died on the 7th April, 1789, and was succeeded
by his nephew, Selim III (1789-1807). Although Selim had been
confined in the Seraglio by his uncle, he had been in other
respects well treated. His love of information and his natural
talents had induced him to carry on an active correspondence
with several servants of his father and his uncle. Their
information had, however, in no way satisfied him, and he had
commenced a correspondence with Choiseuil, the French envoy at
Constantinople in 1786, and had also sent his intimate friend
Isaac Bey to France, to enquire into the state measures and
administrative organization of that country. Selim had also
entered into correspondence with Louis XVI, and this lasted
till 1789, when the French Revolution broke out simultaneously
with Selim's ascension of the throne. All this throws a clear
light upon Selim's eventual exertions to cause reforms which
at last cost him both his throne and his life. His thirst for
knowledge leads us to presume that he was not deficient in
natural and sound talent. … But it was a mistake, that in his
pursuit of knowledge, and desire to improve the institutions
of Turkey—and the habits and character of its
inhabitants—Selim should have applied to France, and to
Frenchmen. That country was then on the eve of her great
revolution. Theories of all kinds were afloat. … Selim would
certainly have acted more wisely had he sought help from his
own sensible mind; he would have easily perceived the palpable
fact, that things which were suited for Christian nations were
utterly inapplicable to the rude, uncivilized Turks. …
Unfortunately ke set about the task with very different ideas,
and listened to the suggestions of the sciolists who
surrounded him. The first thing to which they drew his
attention was the formation of a council of state, which not
only restricted the power of the Grand Vizier, but that of the
Sultan, very materially. The Reis Effendi, Raschid, was the
soul of the council, and the boldest of these sciolists; and
he had perfect liberty to carry on the work of reform. He set
the printing presses again in activity which had been
introduced in a preceding reign, sent for French officers, who
founded an engineer academy, built arsenals and foundries, and
openly stated that he took science under his protection. But
his chief care was to form an army after the European fashion,
in order by their assistance to gain the mastery over the
Janissaries, in whom old customs and traditions found their
most zealous guardians. He took several steps, therefore, to
call into life the new military organization, called the Nizam
Djedid; and as money was required for the purpose, he laid a
tax on articles of consumption. This was quite sufficient to
cause the popular discontent to burst into a flame. The Ulema
declared themselves hostile to the Nizam Djedid, and Pashwan
Oglu, Pacha of Widdin, who placed himself at the head of the
Janissaries, openly rebelled against the Porte, which could
not effect anything to check him, but acquiesced in all that
was demanded. The extraordinary conquests of Napoleon diverted
attention from Turkey, and instead of seeking to divide the
dominions of a weak neighbour, the Great Powers of the
Continent were trembling for their own safety. Egypt became
the battle field between England and France [see FRANCE: A. D.
1798-1799 (AUGUST-AUGUST), and 1801-1802], and its invasion by
Napoleon obliged the Turks to unite with the Allied Powers
against France. When the French were expelled from Egypt, that
province was restored to Turkey, and peace concluded between
the two Powers. Selim, under the influence of General
Sebastiani who was then French ambassador at Constantinople,
signed [seized?] what was considered by him a favourable
opportunity for renewing the war with Russia [see below], in
which, however, the Turks were defeated both by land and sea.
These misfortunes the Janissaries attributed to the new troops
or Seymens. … At the end of May, 1807, the chiefs of the
Janissaries and the Ulema had already formed their plans for
the overthrow of the Sultan, when Selim accelerated the
outbreak by going to the mosque on Friday, accompanied by a
body of Seymens and the French ambassador, Sebastiani.
{3147}
The Janissaries, aroused by this, broke out in open revolt,
which soon grew of such a menacing nature by the co-operation
of the Mufti, that Selim was compelled to promise the
abolition of the Nizam, and the heads of those of his advisers
who had promoted the measure. But the insurgents were not
satisfied with this: they demanded the abdication of the
Sultan, whom the Mufti declared unworthy to be a successor of
Muhammad, through his partiality for foreigners, and marched
to the Seraglio, to carry their designs into effect. But when
the Mufti and the Ulema entered it, they found a new Sultan.
Selim, under the conviction that he could not resist the storm
his attempts at reform had created, had retired to the Harem,
where his nephew, Mustapha, was confined, and led him to the
throne: he had then attempted to destroy his own life by a cup
of poisoned sherbet, but had been prevented by Mustapha, and
was led into the apartments of the Royal Princes, with a
promise that he should ever be treated as a friend and an
uncle. On the same afternoon, Sultan Mustapha III [IV] (who
reigned from 31st May, 1807, to 28th July, 1808) rode in
solemn procession for the first time to the great mosque, was
invested in the traditional manner with the sabre of Muhammad,
then immediately did away with the Nizam Djedid, and restored
the old customs. But among the Pachas in the provinces, there
were several devoted partisans of reform. The most influential
of these was Mustapha Bairaktar, Pacha of Rustchuk, who set
out in July 1808, at the head of 18,000 men, to restore Selim
to the throne. He succeeded in taking possession of the
capital, and keeping the Sultan so long in ignorance of his
designs, until he sent him orders to resign the throne in
favour of Selim. As the Sultan had only one hour allowed him
for consideration, he was so helpless that he followed the
advice of the Mufti and had Selim cruelly murdered. As the
gates of the Seraglio were not opened at the appointed time,
and Bairaktar hurried up to enforce his authority, Selim's
lifeless body was thrown over the wall. Upon this the Pacha
ordered the Seraglio to be stormed, seized the Sultan,
destroyed all those who had advised the abolition of the plans
of reform, and placed Mustapha's younger brother on the
throne. Mahmud II, the second son of Abd-ul-Hamid, was born on
the 2nd July, 1785, and was consequently twenty-three years of
age when he ascended the throne. … Mahmud appointed Mustapha
Bairaktar his Grand Vizier, and, regardless of the fate of his
predecessor, restored all the measures of reform which Selim
had undertaken. Within three months the Janissaries were again
in open rebellion, and on the night of the 14th November,
1808, attacked the Seymens, destroyed a great number of them,
and, after storming the new barracks, forced their way into
the Grand Vizier's palace. He fled and appealed to the people
for help, but the greater portion abused him as a renegade and
joined the rebels. Bairaktar recognised his impending fate,
but still ordered the execution of Mustapha, for fear he might
reascend the throne. After this he retired with a body of
Seymens into a stone tower, where he had before collected a
quantity of gunpowder. He defended himself here for some time,
but, at last, when the Janissaries rushed up in larger masses
to the attack, he blew up the tower. The Janissaries then
attacked the Seraglio, and, but for the fact that Mahmud was
the last legitimate descendant of the race of Osman, they
would have taken his life. But even this, probably, would not
have saved him, had he not sent a deputation to the insurgents
and given an unconditional assent to their demands. … As an
additional guarantee for his own safety on the throne,
ensanguined with the blood of his uncle and his brother,
Mahmud ordered his brother's son, a child of three months old,
to be strangled, and four of the Sultanas to be thrown into
the Bosphorus. The reign of Mahmud is one of the longest and
most important in the whole of Turkish history. It commenced
with war. The Emperor Alexander menaced him on the Danube: the
Hospodar of Servia, Czerny George, had rebelled against him.
The campaign of the Turks in 1809, was, consequently, not a
prosperous one. The contest lasted till 1812, when it was
ended by the treaty of Bucharest, which surrendered the whole
of Bessarabia, as far as the Pruth, to Russia. At the same
time the Russian protectorate of the Greek Christian subjects
of the Porte, which had been stipulated in the treaty of
Kudjuk Kainardji, was again confirmed."
Sir J. Porter,
Turkey,
volume 1, pages 194-204.
ALSO IN:
Sir E. S. Creasy,
History of the Ottoman Turks,
chapters 21-24.
TURKS: A. D. 1798.
In the Coalition against France.
War declared.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL.).
TURKS: A. D. 1806-1807.
Alliance with Napoleon, and hostilities with Russia and England.
British fleet before Constantinople.
Its humiliating retreat.
The English again in Egypt.
Disastrous failure of their expedition.
"Before the end of 1806, Russia had driven Selim into the arms
of France; and war was declared at the Porte just after
Napoleon's victories in Prussia had filled Alexander with
alarm. His troops had overrun some Turkish territory before
war was declared; but just at this juncture he wanted all his
forces for the defence of his own frontier. He dreaded the
effects of withdrawing them from the Turkish provinces, which
would immediately fight for France; but he must do it. He
besought the British to undertake another of those
'diversions' which began to sound so disagreeably to the ears
of Englishmen. … The Grenville Cabinet … gave orders to Sir
John Duckworth, then cruising off Ferrol, to join Admiral
Louis at the mouth of the Dardanelles. … Neither the efforts
of Sebastiani [French representative at Constantinople] … nor
any other warning that the English were coming, had roused the
Turks to make the slightest preparation. The ships sailed
proudly up the strait [February, 1807], undelayed by the fire
of the forts at the narrowest part of the channel, and
belching out flames and cannonballs as they went. They took
and burned some Turkish ships, and appeared before
Constantinople, to the horror of the whole population, who
were absolutely without means of defence. The Divan would have
yielded at once; but Sebastiani prevented it, and instigated a
negotiation which proved a fatal snare to Sir John Duckworth,
notwithstanding express warnings and instructions, strong and
clear, from Lord Collingwood.
{3148}
He was unwilling to destroy the city, and shoot down the
defenceless inhabitants; and he allowed himself to be drawn
on, from day to day, exchanging notes and receiving promises.
… Meantime, not a moment was lost by Sebastiani and the Turks,
whom he was instructing in Napoleon's methods of warfare.
Women and children, Christians and Mohammedans, worked day and
night at the defences; and in a few days the whole coast was
bristling with artillery, and the chance was over. … There was
nothing to be done but to get away as safely as they yet
might. … For thirty miles (reckoning the windings of the
channel) the ships ran the gauntlet of an incessant fire—and
such a fire as was never seen before. Stone balls, weighing
700 or 800 lbs., broke down the masts, crushed in the decks,
snapped the rigging, and amazed the hearts of the sailors. The
hills smoked from end to end, and the roar of the artillery
rolled from side to side. In another week, Sir J. Duckworth
declared in his dispatch, any return would have been
impossible. The news of this singular affair spread fast over
Europe. Every body thought the expedition gallantly conceived,
and miserably weak in its failure. … So ended the second of
the 'diversions' proposed under the Grenville Ministry. The
third legacy of this kind that they left was a diversion on
the side of Egypt. For some time, a notion had been gaining
ground, in the minds of English politicians, that the Sultan
would, some day soon, be giving Egypt to Napoleon, in return
for the aid afforded to Constantinople, on the Danube, and
elsewhere. Egypt was in an unhappy state. Mohammed Alee, the
Viceroy, was at feud with the Memlooks; and the Arab
inhabitants were made a prey of by both. The Grenville
Ministry thought that a diversion in that direction would be
of great service to Russia, and great injury to Napoleon; and
they confidently reckoned on being enthusiastically received
by the Arab inhabitants, and probably by the Memlooks also. In
laying their plans, however, they strangely underrated the
forces and the ability of Mohammed Alee; and they sent only
between 4,000 and 5,000 men to the mouth of the Nile, instead
of an army large enough to cope with the able and warlike
Pasha of Egypt, and his Albanian troops. The small British
force was drafted from the troops in Sicily. It landed without
opposition on the 17th of March, supposing that Sir John
Duckworth must by this time have conquered the Sultan, and
that his province of Egypt would come very easily into our
hands. No opposition was made to the landing of the troops,
and Alexandria capitulated immediately. Only seven lives were
lost on the British side. Within the city, however, no
provisions were found." A detachment of 1,200 men sent to
Rosetta for supplies were trapped in the city by Mohammed
Alee's Albanians, and 400 of them, with their general, were
shot down in the streets. Then Rosetta was besieged, with
results of disastrous failure and the loss of 1,000 or 1,200
more men. General Fraser, the Commander, "was discouraged from
home, and hourly harassed by the enemy. … More and more of the
enemy came up as his little force dwindled away; and at last,
on the appearance of a column which he was unable to
encounter, he sent out a flag of truce, with an offer to
evacuate Egypt on the restoration of the prisoners taken since
the invasion. This was in August, 1807; and in September the
last English soldier left the mouth of the Nile. By this time,
the Sultan had declared war against England, and had caused a
seizure of all the British property in his dominions."
H. Martineau,
History of England, 1800-1815,
book 2, chapter 1.
TURKS: A. D. 1807.
Accession of Mustapha IV.
TURKS: A. D. 1807.
Schemes of Napoleon and Alexander I. at Tilsit
for the partition of Turkey.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1807 (JUNE-JULY).
TURKS: A. D. 1808.
Accession of Mahmud II.
TURKS: A. D. 1821-1829.
Revolt and recovery of independence by the Greeks.
Battle of Navarino.
Treaty of Adrianople.
See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.
TURKS: A. D. 1822-1823.
The Congress of Verona.
See VERONA, CONGRESS OF.
TURKS: A. D. 1826.
Reforms of Mahmud II.
Insurrection of the Janissaries.
Their subjugation and destruction.
"While the struggle in Greece was proceeding, Mahmud had been
busily engaged with his internal reforms, many of which were
of a nature to offend the prejudices of his subjects. His
great object was to give a European character to the
institutions and the manners of his country. He introduced the
western style of dress into Turkey; abandoned the use of the
turban, which Mohammedans generally regard with much
veneration; and gave musical and theatrical entertainments
within the sacred enclosure of the Seraglio. He resolved also
to recommence the military reforms of his uncle Selim, and
again to establish the Nizam Jedid, or body of troops
organized after European models. This last design roused once
more the savage fanaticism of the Janizaries. On the 15th of
June, 1826, when the Sultan and the Grand Vizier were in the
country, the dissatisfied troops rose in insurrection, and
committed great excesses. The Grand Vizier, hastily recalled
to the metropolis, took measures for vindicating his master's
authority, and at once found himself supported, not only by
the new troops, but by the Ulemas and Students. Mahmud arrived
shortly afterwards at the Seraglio, and by his orders the
Mufti unfolded the standard of the Prophet, and summoned all
faithful Mohammedans to rally round that holy symbol. The city
was soon divided into two hostile factions. The Janizaries
concentrated their forces in one of the great squares, and
threw up entrenchments. The supporters of the Sultan gathered
in their front, and an attack was made by ordnance, before
which the Janizaries retired into their fortified barracks,
where they continued to fight with the resolution of despair.
… The building was presently on fire from one end to the
other. The frightful struggle was continued in the midst of
the flames; all who endeavoured to escape were at once shot
down; and before the day was over 6,000 Janizaries had
perished at the hands of their fellow-troops. Fifteen thousand
who had not taken part in the movement were exiled to
different places in Asia Minor, and on the following day a
Hatti-Sherif pronounced the abolition of a corps which had
contributed so much to the military predominance of Turkey,
but which had at length become a source of internal danger too
great to be suffered."
E. Ollier,
Cassell's Illustrated History of the Russo-Turkish War,
volume 1, chapter 23.
{3149}
TURKS: A. D. 1826-1829.
Convention of Ackerman.
War with Russia.
Surrender of Varna and Silistria.
Disastrous battle of Koulevscha.
Treaty of Hadrianople.
Cessions of territory.
"It was not to be expected that an event so remarkable as the
destruction of the Janizaries would fail to be taken advantage
of by the court of St. Petersburg. The Emperor Nicholas had
brought with him to the Russian throne a thorough
determination to carry out that aggressive policy of the
Empress Catherine, of which the terms of the celebrated treaty
of Kutschouc-Kainardji [see above: A. D. 1768-1774] afforded
so striking an illustration, and the annihilation of the
Ottoman army, as well as the distracted condition of many of
the provinces of that empire, afforded an opportunity too
tempting to be neglected. The Czar, therefore, demanded that
the Sultan should conclude with him a treaty, the provisions
of which were made the subject of discussion at Ackerman, a
town in Bessarabia; and Mahmoud, pressed by the necessity of
his condition, … had found it requisite to conclude the
arrangement, and the celebrated convention of Ackerman was
ratified in October 1826. This treaty proved of great
importance to Russia. In addition to other provisions, it
recognised the whole stipulations of the two treaties of
Bucharest and Kainardji, by which Russia claimed the right to
interpose in behalf of the members of the Greek church in the
Ottoman dominions. … During the year which succeeded the
ratification of the convention of Ackerman, Russia was
occupied with the Persian war, which was prosecuted with great
vigour by General Paskewitch, by whom very considerable
advantages were obtained; and in November 1827 the treaty of
Tourkmantchai was concluded between Russia and Persia. … It
left the Emperor … at leisure to carry out those hostile
intentions which his ready interference in the affairs of
Greece, and a variety of other considerations, clearly proved
him to entertain. The approaching war was indicated by the
mutual recriminations of the hostile powers. Russia accused
the Porte of an endeavour to cause a revolution in the
Caucasus, and of a violation of treaties by closing the
Bosphorus against Russian ships, and by its conduct towards
its Christian subjects. There was no inconsiderable foundation
for such a complaint, and especially for the latter part of
it. … Both sides immediately prepared for the struggle, which
a variety of circumstances have proved that the Czar had long
contemplated, and only waited for a suitable opportunity of
entering upon. … In the month of May [1828] the [Russian]
force began to assemble on the banks of the Pruth, and crossed
that river at three different points. Being unopposed by the
Ottomans, the Russian forces almost immediately entered Jassy
and Bucharest, took possession of Galatz, and in a few weeks
had occupied the whole of the left bank of the Danube. To
accomplish as rapidly as possible the objects of the campaign,
as well as to avoid having their very wide]y extended line
exposed to the enemy, it was resolved by the leaders of the
Russian forces to cross the Danube at Brahilow, and thence to
advance with rapidity upon Silistria, Varna, and Schumla. This
resolution they immediately proceeded to carry into effect. …
About the middle of July, the Russian force under General
Rudiger on the right, and Generals Woinoff and Diebitcb on the
left wing, accompanied by the Emperor Nicholas, moved toward
Schumia; and the Ottoman army, whose instructions were to
avoid general actions, and to throw their whole energy upon
the defence of their fortifications, having engaged in battle
with the enemy, retired within the entrenched camp surrounding
that fortress, which now contained a force of 40,000 men. …
The Emperor … resolved … to leave a corps of observation of
30,000 men before Schumla, under General Wittgenstein, and to
direct the principal efforts of his army, in the first
instance, to the reduction of Varna. … On the 5th of
September, after having been absent at Odessa for about a
month, during which he was engaged making arrangements for
obtaining levies from Russia, and in negotiating loans in
Holland, the Emperor Nicholas arrived at Varna, to inspect the
progress and encourage the operations of the besiegers. … The
besieging force, towards the end of August, amounted to 40,000
men, which, on the arrival of the Emperor, were reinforced by
more than 20,000, with a great addition to the artillery
already possessed by the invading army. This large force was
further supported by the Russian fleet. … The details of the
siege exhibit a series of assaults repulsed with the utmost
valour and spirit by the besieged, and entailing an immense
loss upon the Russians, both in men and superior officers; but
the circumstance that the reinforcement sent to relieve the
garrison could not approach, so closely was the place
invested, and the destruction of a part of the walls by the
cannon of the Russians, led to a surrender, and Jussouf Pasha
delivered up the fortress to the Emperor on the 10th of
October, after a siege of more than two months. The utmost
efforts were made to reduce Silistria, after Varna had been
surrendered, but the advance of the season, and the
difficulties of the attempt, as well as the disastrous
circumstances of the Russian army before Schumla, soon proved
that nothing more could be attempted till the following
spring. The campaign, therefore, was brought to a conclusion,
and orders were issued for the Russians to retire beyond the
Danube, and take up their winter quarters in Wallachia. The
fall of Brahilow and Varna were the only important events of
the campaign of 1828 in Europe, and even these successes had
been attained at a vast expense of human life. Out of nearly
160,000 men who had crossed the Danube at the beginning of the
campaign, only about one-half remained. … In Asia operations
were carried on by the Russians with equal vigour and much
more success, in consequence, in a great measure, of the
military genius and experience of General Paskewitch, who
commanded the troops on the east of the Black Sea. … The first
attack of the Russians in Asia was made upon the fortress of
Anapa. … After a siege of about a month, the place was taken,
with 85 guns and 3,000 prisoners, and the fleet sailed
immediately to Varna. … After some other successes, General
Paskewitch resolved upon attacking the town and fortress of
Akhalzikh, a very important place in the pashalik of that
name, and which was not only strongly fortified by nature and
art, but had for its chief strength a resolute garrison of
10,000 Ottomans, besides the armed inhabitants of the place.
The Sultan's troops defended this important fortress with the
most undaunted resolution. … The surrender of Akhalzikh was
followed by that of other important places of strength, which
closed the campaign of 1828 in Asia. … The campaign of 1828
had rendered the most active preparations requisite on the
part of both belligerents for the commencement of hostilities
in the following spring.
{3150}
The Ottoman soldiers, according to their usual custom,
hastened from the garrisons to pass the winter in their homes,
but the utmost efforts were made by the Porte to gather an
adequate force to meet the exigencies of the struggle so soon
to be renewed. Although only 10,000 men were left in Schumla
during the winter, 40,000 assembled in that fortress early in
spring. They were, however, for the most part new levies. …
The Russians, on the other hand, were no less energetic in
their arrangements. … It was impossible, however, before the
month of May, from the condition of the Danube, to commence
the campaign with the whole force, but by the tenth of that
month the passage of the river was completed at Hirchova and
Kalavatsch, below Silistria, the siege of which was
immediately begun, while General Kouprianoff was stationed
with a force at Pravadi, a fortress on the east of Schumla,
and which, lying in the line of communication between
Silistria and Varna, was important to the Russians as the
means of keeping open a communication between the army of
General Roth near Varna and the troops destined to act upon
Silistria. Redschid Pasha, who on being recalled from Greece
had been appointed Grand Vizier, had arrived at Schumla on the
21st of March, and on perceiving the position of the invading
army, formed the well-conceived design of attacking Pravadi
and the force under General Roth. … This movement of the
Vizier became immediately known to General Roth, who by means
of a courier conveyed information of it to Count Diebitch.
That General was too acute not to perceive the purpose of his
adversary, and too enterprising not to endeavour immediately
to take advantage of it. The Count therefore adopted a
movement of the highest importance, and which, indeed, had the
effect of deciding the campaign. Instead of marching to attack
Redschid Pasha at Pravadi, he resolved to intercept his
communication with the fortress he had quitted, and thus
compel the Ottoman general either to come to a general
engagement, which could hardly fail to result to the advantage
of the Russians, or to fight his way towards Schumla through
the Russian army, or leave the fortress of Schumla to its
fate, which, feebly garrisoned as it was, could not be long
delayed. This skilful manœuvre was no sooner resolved upon
than it was carried into execution. … While the Russian force
were rapidly advancing towards Koulevscha, a village between
Pravadi and Schumla, and scarcely three miles from the latter,
the Grand Vizier remained wholly ignorant of the fact that
Diebitch had quitted Silistria, and persisted in the belief
that the only opponents of his retreat to Schumla were
Generals Roth and Rudiger. … The mistake was fatal. The
Ottoman cavalry attacked the infantry of the Russians, who
were overwhelmed by their charge; and Diebitch, having waited
in expectation that the Vizier would descend from the eminence
on which he was posted to complete his supposed victory, and
finding that he did not make this movement, broke from his
concealment among the hills, and suddenly attacked the Ottoman
troops with his whole force. The effect was instantaneous. A
universal panic seized the Vizier's forces, his cavalry and
infantry fled in confusion, every attempt to bring them to a
stand proved abortive, and he himself escaped with difficulty.
The artillery and baggage all fell into the hands of the
enemy. … The muster at Schumla on the return of the Vizier and
his remaining troops exhibited the magnitude of their loss.
Out of a fine army of 40,000 men, who a few days before had
marched from the fortress full of confidence, only 12,000 foot
and about 6,000 cavalry remained. After the fatal battle of
Koulevscha, the siege of Silistria was carried on with
redoubled vigour, and on the 30th of June the fortress
surrendered, when the whole garrison were made prisoners of
war, and to the number of 8,000, and the Russians found on the
ramparts 238 cannon, in addition to those on board the vessels
in the harbour. The fall of Silistria now determined the
Russian commander-in-chief to push across the Balkans. … After
defeating with great facility such troops as opposed their
advance, the Russian army pressed on with the utmost activity
towards Hadrianople, and entered the city not only unopposed,
but amidst the rejoicings of a multitude of the Greek
population. … The terror which this extraordinary event
inspired at Constantinople may easily be imagined to have been
extreme. The very heart of the empire had been assailed by the
victorious invaders in Europe, while the tidings from the
Asiatic provinces of the defeats sustained by the Sultan's
forces opposed to General Paskewitch, greatly contributed to
the public alarm. … In the midst of this tumult of public
feeling, the ambassadors of England and Austria exerted
themselves to the utmost to bring about a pacification; and …
the Sultan reluctantly agreed to the conclusion of a treaty of
peace. … The celebrated treaty of Hadrianople, which concluded
the war of 1828-29, … contained sixteen distinct articles, by
which, among other matters, the following conditions were
agreed upon:—The principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia, and
all the conquered places in Bulgaria and Roumelia, were
restored to the Porte, with the exception of the islands at
the mouth of the Danube, which were to remain the possession
of Russia. In Asia all the recent conquests were to revert to
the Porte, with the exception of Anapa, on the north-eastern
shore of the Black Sea, several important fortresses, together
with an extensive district situated to the north and east of a
line of demarcation supposed to be drawn from the then
existing boundary of the province of Gouriel, and thence by
that of Imeritia direct to the point where the frontiers of
Kars unite with those of Georgia. The conditions of the
treaties of Kainardji, Bucharest, and Ackerman were confirmed;
… the passage of the Dardanelles was declared open to all
Russian merchant ships, as well as the undisputed navigation
of the Black Sea; an indemnity for losses by Russian subjects
was fixed at £750,000, to be paid in eighteen months; and the
expenses of the war were to be paid to the Russian Government,
amounting to 10,000,000 ducats, about £5,000,000. … To this
treaty two separate acts were annexed, the provisions of which
are of scarcely less importance than the treaty itself.
{3151}
By these acts it was arranged that the Hospodars of Moldavia
and Wallachia should be elected for life instead of for seven
years; that no interference in the affairs of these provinces
by any of the officers of the Porte should take place; that no
fortified towns, nor any establishment of Muslims, should be
retained by the Porte on the left bank of the Danube; that the
Turkish towns on that bank of the river should belong to
Wallachia; and that the Mussulmans who possessed property in
such places should be required to sell it in the space of
eighteen months. … The conclusion of these treaties, on the
14th September 1829, terminated the war between Russia and the
Ottoman Empire."
R. W. Fraser,
Turkey, Ancient and Modern,
chapters 30-31.
ALSO IN:
Sir A. Alison,
History of Europe, from 1815 to 1852,
chapter 15.
TURKS: A. D. 1830.
Recognition of the autonomy of Servia.
See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES:
14-19TH CENTURIES (SERVIA).
TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840.
Rebellion of Mehemed Ali, Pasha of Egypt.
Intervention of Russia and the Western Powers.
Egypt made an hereditary pashalik.
"The peace of Adrianople (1829) had greatly discredited the
authority of the Porte; insurrections multiplied, and Turkish
armies had to enter Bosnia and Albania. In these and all other
matters by which the embarrassment of the Porte was increased,
the ambitious Mehemed Ali, Pasha of Egypt, had a hand. As
payment for his services against the Greeks, he had demanded
the pashalik of Damascus. Sultan Mahmoud II. had refused the
demand, and only given him the promised Candia. Hence, while
the Western powers were occupied with the consequences of the
July revolution [in France], and all Europe appeared to be on
the verge of a new upheaval, he undertook to seize his booty
for himself. In consequence of a quarrel with Abdallah, Pasha
of Acre, Ibrahim Pasha [son of Mehemed Ali], notorious for his
barbarous conduct of the war in Peloponnesus, crossed the
Egyptian frontier, October 20th, 1831, with an army organized
on the European system, took Gaza, Jaffa and Jerusalem without
resistance, and besieged Acre, which was resolutely defended
by Abdallah. Mehemed Ali now demanded both pashaliks—Damascus
and Acre. The sultan commanded him to evacuate Syria. The
demand was naturally refused; so Mehemed and his son Ibrahim
were outlawed. But the latter proceeded with his operations,
took Acre by storm May 25th, 1832, and entered Damascus. In
the mean time, a Turkish army, under Hussein Pasha, had
advanced into Syria. Mehemed Pasha, Hussein's lieutenant, was
defeated at Homs, July 9th. Hussein himself, attempting to
retrieve this loss, was defeated at Beylan July 27th, and his
army scattered. The sultan sent a new army against Ibrahim,
under Reshid Pasha, the Grand Vizier, who had displayed great
efficiency in the reduction of the Albanians and Bosnians.
Reshid … was utterly defeated at Konieh December 20th, and was
himself taken prisoner. The sultan was in a critical
situation. He could not at the moment bring together another
considerable army, while Ibrahim had 100,000 well-trained
troops, and the road to Constantinople lay open before him."
Russia, having no wish to see the energetic Pasha of Egypt in
possession of that coveted capital, offered her help to the
sultan and he was driven to accept it. "A Russian fleet
appeared in the Bosphorus, and landed troops at Scutari, while
a Russian army was on the march from the Danube to cover
Constantinople. … At length England and France perceived how
dangerous it was to forget the East in their study of the
Dutch-Belgian question. Their ambassadors had enough to do, by
a hasty peace, to make Russia's help unnecessary. As their
threats made no impression on the victorious Mehemed Ali, they
filled the sultan with distrust of Russia, and by representing
a cession of territory to his vassal as the lesser of the two
evils, persuaded him into the peace of Kutayah (May 6th,
1833), by which Mehemed Ali received the whole of Syria and
the territory of Adana, in south-eastern Asia Minor. Russia
had to retire with her object unattained, but had no sooner
been thrown out at the front door than she came in at the
back. She called the sultan's attention to the favor shown to
the insatiable pasha by England and France in the peace of
Kutayah, and concluded with him, July 8th, 1833, the treaty of
Unkiar-Skelessi, by which he entered into a defensive alliance
with Russia for eight years, and pledged himself to permit no
foreign vessel of war to pass through the Dardanelles. The
Western powers took this outwitting very ill, and from that
time on kept a sharp eye on Constantinople." Mehemed Ali was
meantime giving another direction to his ambition. "The west
coast of Arabia, as far as the English post at Aden, had been
in his possession since 1829. He now sought to extend his sway
over the eastern coast, and subdue the sultan of Muscat. … If
this were to continue, the two most important roads to the
East Indies, by Suez and by the Persian Gulf, would be in the
hands of Mehemed Ali. … With Egypt, Syria, and Arabia in his
hands, England's position in the East would receive a blow
that must be felt. So it was a foregone conclusion which side
England would take. In 1838 she concluded with the Porte a
commercial treaty by which the abolition of all monopolies, as
well as free exportation from all parts of the Turkish empire,
including Egypt and Syria, was secured to her. Mehemed Ali
hesitated about accepting this treaty; and Mahmoud, full of
hate against a vassal who threatened ultimately to devour him,
declared him a traitor, deprived him of all his dignities, and
caused an army to advance into Syria under Hasiz Pasha. But
again fortune was not favorable to the Turks. In their camp,
as military adviser of the commander-in-chief, was a Prussian
captain, Hellmuth von Moltke. For two years he had been
assisting the sultan in planning and putting into execution
military reforms. Recognizing the weakness and unreliable
character of the Turkish army, he advised Hasiz Pasha to fall
back on the strong camp at Biridshik, bring up the
re-enforcements which were under way, and then risk a battle.
But the Pasha would not listen to Moltke's advice, pronouncing
retreat a disgrace. He was completely routed at Nisib, on the
Euphrates, June 24th, 1839, and his army scattered. For the
second time the road to Constantinople lay open to Ibrahim.
Misfortunes fell thick and fast upon the Turks. Sultan Mahmoud
died June 30th, and the empire fell to a sixteen-year old
youth, his son Abdul Medshid. Five days later, Capudan Pasha,
with the Turkish fleet, sailed out of the Dardanelles under
orders to attack the Egyptians. Instead of this he went over
to Mehemed Ali with his whole fleet—in consequence of French
bribery, it was said. … In order to prevent Turkey from
casting herself a second time into Russia's arms, four great
powers—England, France, Austria, and Prussia—declared, July
27th, 1839, that they would themselves take the Eastern
question in hand.
{3152}
To save herself from being wholly left out, Russia had to give
her consent, and become a party to the treaty. But there were
very different views as to the way in which the question was
to be settled. France, which was striving after the control of
the Mediterranean, and which, since Napoleon's campaign, had
turned its eyes toward Egypt, wished to leave its friend
Mehemed Ali in full possession. England saw her interests
endangered by the pasha, thought France's occupation of
Algiers quite enough, and was afraid that if Turkey were too
weak she might become the defenceless prey of Russia. The
latter wished at no price to allow the energetic pasha to
enter upon the inheritance of Turkey, or even of a part of it,
and was pleased at seeing the cordial understanding between
France and England destroyed. Austria and Prussia supported
England and Russia, and so France was left alone. The
Anglo-Russian view found expression in the quadruple alliance
which the great powers, with the exception of France,
concluded in London, July 15th, 1840. By this the hereditary
possession of the pashalik of Egypt, and the possession for
life of a part of Syria, were secured to Mehemed Ali, in case
he submitted to the conclusions of the conference within ten
days. … The allied powers began hostilities against Mehemed
Ali, who, relying on French assistance, refused to submit. The
Anglo-Austrian fleet sailed to the Syrian coast, and took
Beirut and Acre; and Alexandria was bombarded by Commodore
Napier. This and the fall of the Thiers ministry brought
Mehemed Ali to a full realization of his mistake. He might
consider himself lucky in being allowed to hold Egypt as
hereditary pashalik upon evacuating Syria, Arabia, and Candia,
and restoring the Turkish fleet. For this favor he had to
thank England, which sought by this means to secure his
friendship and the Suez road to India. The catastrophe of the
'sick man' [the Turk] was again put off for a few years."
W. Müller,
Political History of Recent Times,
section 11.
ALSO IN:
A. A. Paton,
History of the Egyptian Revolution,
volume 2, chapters 1-20.
C. A. Fyffe,
History of Modern Europe,
volume 2, chapter 6.

S. Walpole,
History of England from 1815,
chapter 16 (volume 3).
TURKS: A. D. 1839.
Accession of Abdul Medjid.
TURKS: A. D. 1853-1856.
The Crimean War.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1853-1854, to 1854-1856.
A. D. 1861-1876.
The reign of Abd-ul-Aziz, and accession of Abd-ul-Hamid.
"Troubles broke out in the Lebanon in 1860, a French army was
dispatched to restore order, and in the adjustment of rival
claims an opportunity was afforded to Lord Dufferin for
displaying those diplomatic talents for which he is renowned.
In 1861 the Sultan Abd-ul-Mejid died, and with him passed away
the hope of regenerating Turkey. His brother and successor
Abd-ul-Aziz was an ignorant bigot, whose extravagance brought
his country to avowed insolvency (1875), and thus deprived her
of that sympathy which is seldom given to the impecunious. The
only remarkable thing he did was to travel. No Ottoman Sultan
had ever before left his own dominions, except on the war
path, but Abd-ul-Aziz ventured even as far as London, without,
however, awakening any enthusiasm on the part of his Allies.
In 1876 he was deposed, and—found dead. How he came by his
death is a matter of doubt, but his end is said to have turned
the brain of his successor, Murad V., a son of Abd-ul-Mejid,
who after three months was removed as an imbecile, and
succeeded by his brother, … Abd-ul-Hamid."
S. Lane-Poole,
The Story of Turkey,
chapter 17.
TURKS: A. D. 1861-1877.
Union of Wallachia and Moldavia.
Revolt in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Reforms demanded by the Great Powers.
War with Servia.
Conference at Constantinople.
Russian preparations for war.
"Before four years were over [after the termination of the
Crimean War by the Treaty of Paris], one of the chief
stipulations of the treaty was set aside. Wallachia and
Moldavia, which it had been the policy of the Powers to
separate, displayed a constant desire to join. Two of the
great Continental Powers—France and Russia—favoured the
junction. England, Austria, and Turkey, thinking that the
union would ultimately lead to their independence, opposed
their fusion under one prince. At last, after discussions,
which at one moment seemed likely to rekindle the flames of
war, an administrative union was arranged, which resulted, in
due course, in the formal union of the two provinces in 1861.
[In 1858, the two provinces chose the same prince, or
hospodar, in the person of Prince John Couza, who took the
title of Prince of Roumania. The Porte protested, but was
induced, in 1861, to recognize this union of the coronets.
Prince Couza aspired to absolutism, and was forced to abdicate
in 1866. Then a German, Prince Charles of Hohenzollern, was
chosen by the two provinces to be his successor.] Thus, five
years after the Peace of Paris, one of the stipulations on
which England had insisted was surrendered. In 1870 the
Franco-German War led to the obliteration of another of them.
In November, when the armies of France were either beaten or
besieged, Russia repudiated the clause of the Treaty of Paris
which had limited the forces of Russia and Turkey in the Black
Sea. The declaration of the Russian Government came as a
painful shock to the British people. The determination of a
great European state to tear up the clause of a treaty excited
indignation. It was recollected, moreover, that it was for the
sake of this clause that the Crimean War had been prolonged
after the Vienna negotiations; and that all the blood which
had been shed, and all the money which had been spent, after
the spring of 1855, were wasted in its abandonment. … All that
diplomacy was able to do was to lessen the shock by persuading
the Russian Government to submit its proposal for the
abrogation of the clause to a conference. … The conference
met. … It had practically nothing to do but to record its
assent to the Russian proposal. … For five years more the
Eastern Question remained undisturbed. In the spring of 1875
an insurrection broke out in Bosnia and Herzegovina, two of
the northern provinces of European Turkey. The Porte failed to
quench the disturbance; and, its efforts to do so increasing
its pecuniary embarrassments, was forced in the autumn to
repudiate the claims of its many creditors. … In the meanwhile
the insurrection continued to spread, and attracted the
attention of the great European Powers.
{3153}
At the instigation of Austria a note was drawn up [by Count
Andrassy, and known, therefore, as the Andrassy Note], which
was at once signed by all the European Powers except England,
and which was ultimately accepted by England also, declaring
that 'the promises of reform made by the Porte had not been
carried into effect, and that some combined action by the
Powers of Europe was necessary to insist on the fulfilment of
the many engagements which Turkey had made and broken.' As the
note failed to effect its object, the representatives of the
Northern Powers—Germany, Austria, and Russia—met at Berlin,
proposed a suspension of arms for two months, and intimated
that if Turkey in the two months failed to fulfil her broken
promises, 'force would be used to compel her' to do so. The
British Government, unwilling to join in a threat, refused to
sign this new note. The insurrection went on; Servia,
sympathising with the insurgents, declared war against Turkey;
Russian officers and Russian troops fought in the Servian
battalions; and Russia herself, setting her legions in motion,
evidently prepared for hostilities. When these events
occurred, large numbers of the English people were prepared to
support the Turk. Though they had been partially estranged
from the cause of Turkey by the repudiation of the Ottoman
debt in the previous autumn, they recollected the sacrifices
of the Crimean War; they were irritated with the manner in
which one part of the Treaty of Paris had been torn up in
1870; and they were consequently prepared to resist any
further movement on the part of Russia. The Porte, however,
dreading the extension of revolt, allowed its officers to
anticipate disorder by massacre. The atrocious cruelty with
which this policy was executed [especially in Bulgaria—see
BALKAN and DANUBIAN STATES: A. D. 1875-1878] excited a general
outburst of indignation in this country [England]; and the
British Ministry, whose leader had hitherto displayed much
sympathy with the Turks, found himself forced to observe a
strict neutrality. In the short war which ensued in the autumn
of 1876, the Servian troops proved no match for the Turkish
battalions. At the request or command of Russia the Porte was
forced to grant an armistice to the belligerents; and, on the
suggestion of the British Ministry, a Conference of the Great
Powers was held at Constantinople to provide for the better
government of the Turkish provinces. The Constantinople
Conference, held at the beginning of 1877, formed in many
respects an exact parallel to the Vienna Conference held in
the summer of 1855. … The Porte rejected all the proposals on
which the other Powers were agreed. … In each case the failure
of the Conference was followed by war. But the parallel ends
at this point. … In the Russo-Turkish war of 1877-1878, Turkey
was left to fight her own battle alone."
S. Walpole,
Foreign Relations,
chapter 3.
ALSO IN:
E. Ollier,
Cassell's Illustrated History of the Russo-Turkish War,
volume 1, chapters 1-10.
Duke of Argyll,
The Eastern Question,
volume 1, chapters 3-9.
S. Menzies,
Turkey Old and New,
book 4. chapter 4 (volume 2).
TURKS: A. D. 1877-1878.
War with Russia.
Heroic defense of Plevna.
Defeat and surrender.
"Russia had already massed large numbers of troops on her
frontier, and Turkey was also engaged in the work of
mobilization. On the 24th April the Emperor of Russia issued a
manifesto to his subjects, in which he recited the interest of
the empire in the Christian population of the Balkan
peninsula, and the general desire that their condition should
be ameliorated. He declared that all efforts at peace had been
exhausted. … He had given the orders for the army to cross the
frontier, and the advance upon Turkey was begun without delay.
… The Turks had not been idle, though their preparations were
by no means as complete as those of Russia. They had massed
heavy bodies of troops along the Danube, and were prepared to
resist the movements of the Russians south of that stream. …
The first crossing [of the Russians] was made at Galatz, on
the 22d June, by General Zimmermann, who went over with two
regiments in pontoons and drove out the Turks who were posted
on the heights on the opposite shore. Having obtained a
footing in the Dobrudja, as the peninsula between the Danube
and Black Sea is called, the Russians were able to throw
bridges over the great stream, by which the whole left wing of
the army moved across. Meantime the right wing, on the 26th
June, sent a pontoon force over the Danube from Simnitza,
under command of General Skobeleff, who drove out the small
force of Turks posted there, though not without hard fighting.
More pontoons followed, and then a bridge was thrown across on
which the army could march. … By the first week of July the
whole Russian army was safely encamped on the southern bank of
the Danube, and getting in readiness to assume the offensive.
… The advance did not begin in force until after the middle of
the month. But before that time General Gourko … had pushed
forward on the road to the Balkans, heading first for Tirnova.
… On the 5th July the cavalry occupied Biela, … and on the 7th
Gourko was in possession of Tirnova. … The Emperor joined the
army at Biela on the 8th or 9th. Gourko was soon reported past
the Balkans. … The first check of the Russians was at Plevna.
They had previously captured Nicopolis with its garrison of
7,000 men, having themselves lost about 1,300 officers and men
killed and wounded. Orders had been given to occupy Plevna as
soon as possible, and Baron Krudener sent forward General
Schilder-Schuldner to carry out the orders. …
Schilder-Schuldner had 6,500 men and 46 guns in the division
with which he went to capture Plevna; he was attacked by a
vastly superior force of Turks before he had reached his
objective point, and the first battle of Plevna was disastrous
to the Russians. … Nearly 3,000 men and 74 officers were
killed or wounded. … The Russians retired to Nicopolis, and
the Turks set to work to strengthen Plevna. … From the 20th to
the 30th of July the Russians were engaged in bringing up
reinforcements and getting ready for another attack. An order
came for the assault of the Turkish position; Baron Krudener
did not believe the assault advisable, but the command of the
Grand Duke Nicholas left him no discretion." The assault was
made on the 31st of July, and was repulsed, with a loss to the
Russians of 170 officers and 7,136 men. "There was nothing for
the Russians to do but send for reinforcements, and wait until
they arrived. The advance into Turkey had received a severe
check, from which recovery was not easy. From the offensive
the Russians were thrown upon the defensive, and all as the
result of a single battle of six or eight hours' duration.
Happily for Russia, the Turkish army had no competent leader,
or the army of the Czar might have been captured or drowned in
the Danube.
{3154}
The Turks had three armies in the field. … Mehemet Ali was at
Shumla with 65,000 men; Osman Pasha at Plevna, with 50,000;
and Suleiman Pasha at Yeni Zagra, with 40,000. … The order of
the Czar for reinforcements was quickly issued, and resulted
in the despatch of 120,000 regulars and 180,000 militia for
the front. With these reinforcements went 460 pieces of
artillery. … General Gourko took up his position in the Shipka
Pass whence Suleiman Pasha sought in vain to dislodge him. …
Towards the end of August the Russian reinforcements were
assembled in such numbers that an advance could again be
ventured. … The total Russian and Roumanian force for the
attack of Plevna amounted to 90,000 men and 440 guns, while
the Turks were estimated to have about 56,000 men—and Osman
Pasha. … The attack began with a bombardment on the 6th
September," which was kept up until the 11th, when the
Russians again endeavored to carry the Turkish works by
assault. Skobeleff, conspicuous, as he always was, in daring
and in success, took one of the redoubts and held it until the
next day, waiting vainly for reinforcements which were not
sent. Elsewhere the assault failed. "The Russian killed and
wounded were estimated at 18,000 to 20,000, and the Turkish
about 5,000 less than the Russian. The capture by assault
having been given up, the Russians sat down to invoke the aid
of that engine, more powerful than all their batteries, the
engine of starvation. … One by one the roads leading into
Plevna were occupied, but it was nearly two months from the
terrible battle of the 11th September before the routes for
supplies and reinforcements destined for Osman Pasha could be
secured. The investment was completed on the 3d November;
120,000 Russians and Roumanians were around Plevna." On the
morning of December 10 the beleaguered Turks made a desperate
sortie, attempting to break the line of investment, having
failed in which their stout-hearted commander surrendered
unconditionally. "With the fall of Plevna and the surrender of
its garrison of 40,000 men, the Turkish opposition practically
ceased. Within a month from that event General Gourko had
captured Sophia, and General Radetsky took the village of
Shipka, in the Shipka Pass, and compelled the surrender of a
Turkish army of 23,000 men. … Gourko and Skobeleff advanced
upon Philippopolis by different routes and narrowly missed
capturing Suleiman Pasha with his entire force. Skobeleff
advanced upon Adrianople, which the Turks abandoned, and
Slivno and Yeni-Zagra were occupied, all inside of thirty
days. Plevna had made the Russians the masters of the
situation, and they advanced upon Constantinople, the Turks
retiring before them, and occasionally making a feeble
resistance. Turkey asked the mediation of England, and
finally, despairing of her aid, signed an armistice that
became the basis of the treaty of San Stefano."
T. W. Knox,
Decisive Battles Since Waterloo,
chapter 21.
The campaign of the Russians in Bulgaria was accompanied by
another in Asiatic Turkey, where they, likewise, met with a
temporary check, after pushing their first advance too
confidently, and with an insufficient force. They invested
Kars and advanced against Erzeroum, in May, 1877; but were
defeated at Sevin and withdrew from both undertakings. Having
received reinforcements, they resumed the offensive in
October, attacking the main Turkish army, under Mukhtar Pasha,
in its strong position at Aladsha, or on the Little Yahni and
Great Yahni hills. Their first attack, on the 2d, was
repulsed; they repeated it on the 15th with success, driving
one wing of the enemy into Kars and forcing the other to
surrender. Kars was then besieged and taken by assault
November 17. The Turks suffered another defeat at Deve-Boyun,
near Erzeroum, November 4, and they evacuated Erzeroum itself
in February, 1878.
E. Ollier,
Cassell's Illustrated History of the Russo-Turkish War.
ALSO IN;
V. Baker,
The War in Bulgaria.
F. V. Greene,
The Russian Army and its Campaign in Turkey.
TURKS: A. D. 1878.
Excitement in England over the Russian advance.
The British fleet sent through the Dardanelles.
Arrangement of the Berlin Congress.
"At the opening of 1878 the Turks were completely prostrate.
The road to Constantinople was clear. Before the English
public had time to recover their breath and to observe what
was taking place, the victorious armies of Russia were almost
within sight of the minarets of Stamboul. Meanwhile the
English Government were taking momentous action. … Parliament
was called together at least a fortnight before the time usual
during recent years. The Speech from the Throne announced that
her Majesty could not conceal from herself that, should the
hostilities between Russia and Turkey unfortunately be
prolonged, 'some unexpected occurrence may render it incumbent
on me to adopt measures of precaution.' This looked ominous to
those who wished for peace, and it raised the spirits of the
war party. There was a very large and a very noisy war party
already in existence. It was particularly strong in London. It
embraced some Liberals as well as nearly all Tories. It was
popular in the music-halls and the public-houses of London. …
The men of action got a nickname. They were dubbed the Jingo
Party. … Some Tyrtæus of the tap-tub, some Körner of the
music-halls, had composed a ballad which was sung at one of
these caves of harmony every night amidst the tumultuous
applause of excited patriots. The refrain of this war-song
contained the spirit-stirring words:
'We don't want to fight,
but, by Jingo, if we do,
We've got the ships,
we've got the men,
we've got the money too.'
Some one whose pulses this lyrical outburst of national pride
failed to stir called the party of its enthusiasts the
Jingoes. … The name was caught up at once, and the party were
universally known as the Jingoes. … The Government ordered the
Mediterranean fleet to pass the Dardanelles and go up to
Constantinople. The Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that
he would ask for a supplementary estimate of six millions for
naval and military purposes. Thereupon Lord Carnarvon, the
Colonial Secretary, at once resigned. … Lord Derby was also
anxious to resign, and indeed tendered his resignation, but he
was prevailed upon to withdraw it. The fleet meanwhile was
ordered back from the Dardanelles to Besika Bay. It had got as
far as the opening of the Straits when it was recalled.
{3155}
The Liberal Opposition in the House of Commons kept on
protesting against the various war measures of the Government,
but with little effect. … While all this agitation in and out
of Parliament was going on … the news came that the Turks,
utterly broken down, had been compelled to sign an armistice,
and an agreement containing a basis of peace, at Adrianople.
Then, following quickly on the heels of this announcement,
came a report that the Russians, notwithstanding the
armistice, were pushing on towards Constantinople with the
intention of occupying the Turkish capital. A cry of alarm and
indignation broke out in London. One memorable night a sudden
report reached the House of Commons that the Russians were
actually in the suburbs of Constantinople. The House for a
time almost entirely lost its head. The lobbies, the
corridors, St. Stephen's Hall, the great Westminster Hall
itself, and Palace Yard beyond it, became filled with wildly
excited and tumultuous crowds. If the clamour of the streets
at that moment had been the voice of England, nothing could
have prevented a declaration of war against Russia. Happily,
however, it was proved that the rumour of Russian advance was
unfounded. The fleet was now sent in good earnest through the
Dardanelles, and anchored a few miles below Constantinople.
Russia at first protested that if the English fleet passed the
Straits Russian troops ought to occupy the city. Lord Derby
was firm, and terms of arrangement were found—English troops
were not to be disembarked, and the Russians were not to
advance. Russia was still open to negotiation. Probably Russia
had no idea of taking on herself the tremendous responsibility
of an occupation of Constantinople. She had entered into a
treaty with Turkey, the famous Treaty of San Stefano, by which
she secured for the populations of the Christian provinces
almost complete independence of Turkey, and was to create a
great new Bulgarian State with a seaport on the Egean Sea. The
English Government refused to recognise this Treaty. Lord
Derby contended that it involved an entire readjustment of the
Treaty of Paris, and that that could only be done with the
sanction of the Great Powers assembled in Congress. Lord
Beaconsfield openly declared that the Treaty of San Stefano
would put the whole south-east of Europe directly under
Russian influence. Russia offered to submit the Treaty to the
perusal, if we may use the expression, of a Congress; but
argued that the stipulations which merely concerned Turkey and
herself were for Turkey and herself to settle between them.
This was obviously an untenable position. … Turkey meanwhile
kept feebly moaning that she had been coerced into signing the
Treaty. The Government determined to call out the Reserves, to
summon a contingent of Indian troops to Europe, to occupy
Cyprus, and to make an armed landing on the coast of Syria. …
The last hope of the Peace Party seemed to have vanished when
Lord Derby left his office [which he did on the 28th of
March]. Lord Salisbury was made Foreign Minister. … Lord
Salisbury's first act in the office of Foreign Secretary was
to issue a circular in which he declared that it would be
impossible for England to enter a Congress which was not free
to consider the whole of the provisions of the Treaty of San
Stefano. … Prince Bismarck had often during these events shown
an inclination to exhibit himself in the new attitude of a
peaceful mediator. He now interposed again and issued
invitations for a congress to be held in Berlin to discuss the
whole contents of the Treaty of San Stefano. After some delay,
discussion, and altercation, Russia agreed to accept the
invitation on the conditions proposed, and it was finally
resolved that a Congress should assemble in Berlin on the
approaching June 13. To this Congress it was supposed by most
persons that Lord Salisbury would be sent to represent
England. Much to the surprise of the public, Lord Beaconsfield
announced that he himself would attend, accompanied by Lord
Salisbury, and conduct the negotiations in Berlin. The event
was, we believe, without precedent. … The Congress was held in
the Radzivill Palace, a building with a plain unpretending
exterior in one of the principal streets of Berlin, and then
in the occupation of Prince Bismarck. The Prince himself
presided. … The Congress discussed the whole or nearly the
whole of the questions opened up by the recent war. … The
great object of most of the statesmen who were concerned in
the preparation of the Treaty which came of the Congress, was
to open for the Christian populations of the south-east of
Europe a way into gradual self-development and independence.
But on the other hand it must be owned that the object of some
of the Powers, and especially, we are afraid, of the English
Government, was rather to maintain the Ottoman Government than
to care for the future of the Christian races. These two
influences, acting and counteracting on each other, produced
the Treaty of Berlin."
J. McCarthy,
History of Our Own Time,
chapter 65 (volume 4).
ALSO IN: J. A. Froude,
Lord Beaconsfield,
chapter 16.
H. D. Traill,
The Marquis of Salisbury,
chapter 11.
R. Wilson,
Life and Times of Queen Victoria,
volume 2, chapter 21.
TURKS: A. D. 1878.
The Treaties of San Stefano and Berlin.
"The First Article of the Treaty of San Stefano had reference
to the new boundaries to be assigned to Montenegro. The
accession of territory, which was not very large, was taken
from the provinces of Bosnia and Albania, and lay to the
north, east, and south of the original State. … It gave to the
mountaineers their much-coveted admission to the sea. It was
next provided that a European Commission, on which the Sublime
Porte and the Government of Montenegro were to be represented,
should be charged with fixing the definite limits of the
Principality. … By Article II., the Sublime Porte recognized
definitively the independence of the Principality of
Montenegro. … Article III. dealt with Servia, which was
recognized as independent. The new frontier of this
Principality was to follow the course of the Drina, the
Dezevo, the Raska, the Ibar, the Morava, and some other
streams, and was drawn so as to give Little Zwornik, Zakar,
Leskovatz, Ak Palanka, and Nisch, to the Servians. … In
Article V., the Sublime Porte undertook to recognize the
independence of Roumania, which would thus acquire a right to
an indemnity, to be hereafter discussed between the two
countries. The most important sections of the Treaty were of
course those which had relation to Bulgaria. They commenced
with Article VI., which set forth that Bulgaria was
constituted an autonomous, tributary Principality, with a
Christian Government and a national militia.
{3156}
The definitive frontiers of the new Principality were to be
traced by a special Russo-Turkish Commission before the
evacuation of Roumelia by the Russian army. … The new Bulgaria
was of very considerable dimensions. It extended from the
Danube in the north to the Ægean in the south; and from the
borders of Albania in the west to the Black Sea in the east.
All that was left to Turkey in this part of her Empire was an
irregular and somewhat narrow territory, running westward from
Constantinople along the shores of the Sea of Marmora and the
Ægean until it touched the limits of the new Principality, and
extending no farther north than was sufficient to include
Adrianople and its immediate neighbourhood. By this
arrangement, the territory so left to the Sultan was
completely separated from Thessaly and Albania. … According to
Article VII., the Prince of Bulgaria was to be freely elected
by the people, and confirmed by the Sublime Porte with the
assent of the Powers. No member of the reigning dynasties of
the Great European Powers should be capable of being elected
Prince of Bulgaria. … The introduction of the new system into
Bulgaria, and the superintendence of its working, would be
entrusted for two years to an Imperial Russian Commissioner. …
By Article VIII., the Ottoman army would no longer remain in
Bulgaria, and all the ancient fortresses would be razed at the
expense of the local Government. … Until the complete
formation of a native militia, the country would be occupied
by Russian troops. … Article IX. declared that the amount of
the annual tribute which Bulgaria was to pay the Suzerain
Court would be determined by an agreement between Russia, the
Ottoman Government, and the other Cabinets. … By Article X.,
the Sublime Porte was to have the right to make use of
Bulgaria for the transport, by fixed routes, of its troops,
munitions, and provisions, to the provinces beyond the
Principality, and vice versa. … Article XII. provided that all
the Danubian fortresses should be razed, and that in future
there should be no strongholds on the banks of the Danube, nor
any men-of-war in the waters of Roumania, Servia, or Bulgaria.
… Article XIV. imposed on Turkey the obligation to introduce
reforms into Bosnia and the Herzegovina." Articles XV. and
XVI. stipulated reforms in government of Crete, Epirus,
Thessaly, Armenia, and other parts of the Ottoman Empire. "The
question of the war-indemnities was arranged in Article XIX.,
which set forth that the Emperor of Russia claimed, in all,
1,410,000,000 roubles for losses imposed on Russia during the
contest. … The Emperor, however, did not desire to receive the
whole of this indemnity in the form of money-payments, but,
taking into consideration the financial embarrassments of
Turkey, and acting in accordance with the wishes of the
Sultan, was willing to substitute for the greater part of the
sums enumerated certain territorial cessions, consisting of
the Sandjak of Tultcha, on the Danube (including the Delta
Islands and the Isle of Serpents), and, in Asia, Ardahan,
Kars, Batoum, Bayazid, and the territory extending as far as
the Soghanli Dagh. With respect to the Sandjak of Tultcha and
the Delta Islands, Russia, not wishing to annex that
territory, reserved to herself the right of exchanging it for
the part of Bessarabia detached from her by the Treaty of
1856. … The ceded territories in Europe and Asia were to be
taken as an equivalent for the sum of 1,100,000,000 roubles."
The remaining Articles of the Treaty of San Stefano related to
details of minor importance. "The Treaty of Berlin, signed by
the Plenipotentiaries on the 13th of July, 1878, and of which
the ratifications were exchanged on the 3rd of August, was the
Treaty of San Stefano, with additions, subtractions, and
amendments. … Speaking generally, it may be said that the
objects of the Treaty of Berlin, as distinguished from its
predecessor, were to place the Turkish Empire in a position of
independence, and to protect the jeopardised rights of Europe.
These ends it accomplished, or partially accomplished, by
several important provisions. It divided the so-called
Bulgaria into two provinces, of which the one to the north of
the Balkans was formed into a tributary Principality, while
the one to the south, which was to be designated Eastern
Roumelia, was to remain under the direct authority of the
Sultan, with administrative autonomy and a Christian
Governor-General. It left to the Sultan the passes of the
mountains, and the right of sending troops into the interior
of Eastern Roumelia whenever there might be occasion. It
reduced the stay of the Russian army in European Turkey. … It
secured to Roumania, as compensation for the loss of that
portion of Bessarabia which had been annexed to Moldavia by
the Treaty of Paris (1856), a larger amount of territory,
south of the Danube, than had been granted at San Stefano. It
restored to Turkey the whole of the northern shores of the
Ægean, a wide extent of country in Europe, and, in Asia, the
valley of Alashgerd and the town of Bayazid. … It gave far
ampler guarantees for religious liberty than had entered into
the projects of the Czar."
E. Ollier,
Cassell's Illustrated History of the Russo-Turkish War,
volume 2, chapter 9 and 21.
"In her private agreement with Russia, England had consented
to the cession of Batoum, but she now sought to diminish the
value of that post by stipulating that the fortifications
should be demolished and the port declared free. The dispute,
which at one time assumed a serious character, was finally
settled by a declaration on the part of the Czar that Batoum
should be a free port. Kars, Ardahan, and Batoum were ceded to
Russia, the district of Khotur to Persia, and the Sultan
pledged himself to carry out the requisite reforms in Armenia
without loss of time, and to protect the inhabitants against
the Kurds and Circassians. At the same time a secret treaty
was made known which had been contracted between England and
Turkey on the 4th of June. By this treaty the Porte pledged
itself to carry out reforms in Asia Minor, and England, on her
part, guaranteed the integrity of the Sultan's Asiatic
possessions. To put England in a position to fulfil her part
of the treaty, and as a pledge for the execution of the
promised reforms, the Porte surrendered Cyprus to England as a
naval and military station, the latter agreeing to regard the
island as an integral part of the Turkish empire, and to make
over the surplus revenue to the Sultan. This treaty, which had
received the consent of Germany and Russia at the time of its
execution, aroused great indignation in France and Italy. … To
pacify the former state, Beaconsfield and Salisbury entered
into a secret arrangement with Waddington, in accordance with
which England was to put no obstacles in the way of a French
occupation of Tunis—an arrangement of which the French
government finally took advantage in the year 1881.
{3157}
The English representatives had also entered into an
arrangement with Austria in reference to Bosnia and
Herzegovina. In the sitting of June 29th Andrassy read a
memorandum in which he set forth that Austria had been
disturbed for a whole year by the insurrection in those
provinces, and had been compelled to receive and provide for
over 150,000 Bosnian fugitives, who positively refused again
to submit to the hardships of Turkish misrule; that Turkey was
not in a position to restore order in the disturbed districts.
… Thereupon the Marquis of Salisbury moved that Austria be
charged with the occupation and administration of Bosnia and
Herzegovina, and … the congress … decided to hand over those
two provinces to Austro-Hungary. … The independence of Servia
and Montenegro was recognized on condition that full freedom
and political equality were accorded to the members of all
religions. Servia received an addition to her population of
280,000 souls, her most important acquisition being the city
and fortress of Nish. She also assumed a part of the Turkish
debt. The recognition of Roumanian independence was
conditioned on the cession of Bessarabia to Russia, and the
admission to political equality of the members of all
religions—a condition which had special reference to the Jews.
In compensation for Bessarabia Roumania was to receive the
Dobrudsha and the islands at the mouth of the Danube. …
Austria took possession of her share of the booty at once, but
not without the most obstinate resistance."
W. Müller,
Political History of Recent Times,
section 30.
ALSO IN:
Sir E. Hertslet,
The Map of Europe by Treaty,
volume 4, Numbers 518, 524-532.
Duke of Argyll,
The Eastern Question,
volume 2, chapter 13.
See, also, BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: A. D. 1878.
TURKS: A. D. 1894.
Reported Atrocities in Armenia.
A disturbance of some nature—the causes and extent of which
have not yet been ascertained—occurring in Turkish Armenia
during the late weeks of summer or early part of autumn, gave
occasion for what is claimed to have been more horrible
atrocities on the part of the Turkish soldiery than were
committed in Bulgaria during the year 1877. The scene of
alleged massacres is in the mountainous district of Sassoun,
near the western end of Lake Van, where 6,000 men, women and
children are said to have been slain. The Christian world
having been roused, though not very promptly, by the reports
of this fresh outbreak of barbarism, the Porte has been forced
by pressure from the Powers to consent to the formation of a
commission to investigate the affair. England, France and
Russia are to be represented on the commission.
----------TURKS: End--------
TURLUPINS, The.
See BEGUINES.
TURNER, Nat, The Insurrection of.
See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1828-1832.
TURONES, The.
A tribe in ancient Gaul who gave their name to Touraine, the
district which they inhabited, and to Tours, the chief town of
that district.
See GAULS; also, VENETI OF WESTERN GAUL.
----------TUSCANY:Start--------
TUSCANY: A. D. 685-1115.
The founding of the duchy.
The reign of Countess Matilda.
The rise of the free cities.
"The first Lombard duke of whom any sure record remains is a
certain 'Alovisino' who flourished about the year 685; and the
last, though of more doubtful existence, is 'Tachiputo,' in
the 8th century, when Lucca was the principal seat of
government, with the privilege of coining, although her Counts
were not always Dukes and Marquises of Tuscany. About the year
800, the title of Duke seems to have changed to that of Count,
and although both are afterwards used the latter is most
common: Muratori says, that this dignity was in 813 enjoyed by
a certain Boniface whom Sismondi believes to be the ancestor
of Countess Matilda; but her father, the son of Tedaldo,
belonged to another race: he was the grandson to Attone, Azzo,
or Adelberto, Count of Cannosa. … The line of Boniface I.
finished in 1001 by the death of Hugo the Great. … After him,
on account of the civil wars between Ardoino and Henry, there
was no permanent Duke until 1014, when the latter appointed
Ranieri, whom Conrad the Salique deposed in 1027, making room
for Boniface the father of Countess Matilda. This heroine died
in 1115 after a reign of active exertion for herself and the
Church against the Emperors, which generated the infant and as
yet nameless factions of Guelph and Ghibeline. …
See 'War of Investitures,'
PAPACY: A. D. 1056-1122]
The fearless assertion of her own independence by successful
struggles with the Emperor was an example not overlooked by
the young Italian communities under Matilda's rule. … These
seeds of liberty began first to germinate amongst the Lombard
plains, but quickly spreading over the Apennines were welcomed
throughout Tuscany. …
See ITALY: A. D. 1056-1152.
It seems probable that in Tuscany, towards the commencement of
the 12th century, the Count's authority had passed entirely
into the principal communities, leaving that of the Marquis as
yet untouched; but there are reasons for believing that the
Countess Matilda in some of her difficulties was induced to
sell or cede a portion of her power, and probably all that of
the Count's. … Altogether, there appears little reason to
doubt the internal freedom of most Tuscan cities very early in
the 11th century."
H. E. Napier,
Florentine History,
book 1, chapter 4 (volume 1).
ALSO IN:
P. Villari,
The Two First Centuries of Florentine History,
volume I, chapter 2.
TUSCANY: A. D. 925-1020.
The rise of Pisa.
See PISA.
TUSCANY: A. D. 1063-1200.
Cultivation of architecture at Pisa.
See PISA: A. D. 1063-1293.
TUSCANY: A. D. 1077-1115.
Countess Matilda and her Donation to the Holy See.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1077-1102.
TUSCANY: A. D. 1215.
Beginning of the wars of Guelfs and Ghibellines.
See ITALY: A. D. 1215.
TUSCANY: A. D. 1248-1278.
The Guelf and Ghibelline wars.
See FLORENCE: A. D. 1248-1278.
TUSCANY: A. D. 1250-1293.
Development of the popular constitution
of the Florentine Commonwealth.
See FLORENCE: A. D. 1250-1293.
TUSCANY: A. D. 1282-1293.
War between Pisa and Genoa.
Battle of Meloria.
War of Florence and Lucca against Pisa.
See PISA: A. D. 1063-1293.
{3158}
TUSCANY: A. D. 1300-1313.
The new factions of Florence.
Bianchi and Neri.
See FLORENCE: A. D. 1295-1300; and 1301-1313.
TUSCANY: A. D. 1310-1313.
The visitation of the Emperor, Henry VII.
His war with the Guelfic cities.
See ITALY: A. D. 1310-1313.
TUSCANY: A. D. 1313-1328.
The wars of Florence and Pisa.
The subjection of Lucca to Castruccio Castracani
and his war with the Florentines.
The hostile visitation of the Emperor Louis of Bavaria.
See ITALY: A. D. 1313-1330.
TUSCANY: A. D 1336-1338.
War of Florence with Mastino della Scala, of Verona.
See VERONA: A. D. 1260-1338.
TUSCANY: A. D. 1341-1343.
Defeat of the Florentines by the Pisans before Lucca.
Brief tyranny of the Duke of Athens at Florence.
See FLORENCE: A. D. 1341-1343.
TUSCANY: A. D. 1353-1359.
Sufferings and deliverance from "the Great Company."
See ITALY: A. D. 1343-1393.
TUSCANY: A. D. 1378-1427.
The democratizing of Florence.
The Tumult of the Ciompi.
First appearances of the Medici.
See FLORENCE: A. D. 1378-1427.
TUSCANY: A. D. 1390-1402.
Resistance of Florence to the conquests of the Duke of Milan.
See FLORENCE: A. D. 1390-1402.
TUSCANY: A. D. 1433-1464.
The ascendancy of Cosimo de' Medici at Florence.
See FLORENCE: A. D. 1433-1464.
TUSCANY: A. D. 1452-1454.
War of Florence and Milan against Venice, Naples,
Siena and other states.
See MILAN: A. D. 1447-1454.
TUSCANY: A. D. 1469-1492.
The government of Lorenzo de' Medici, the Magnificent,
at Florence.
See FLORENCE: A. D. 1469-1492.
TUSCANY: A. D. 1494-1509.
The French deliverance of Pisa.
The long struggle and reconquest by Florence.
See PISA: A. D. 1494-1509.
TUSCANY: A. D. 1502-1569.
Restoration of the Medici in Florence and
their creation of the grand duchy of Tuscany.
See FLORENCE: A. D. 1502-1569.
TUSCANY: A. D. 1725.
Reversion of the grand duchy pledged to the Infant of Spain.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725;
and ITALY: A. D. 1715-1735.
TUSCANY: A. D. 1735.
Reversion of the duchy secured to the ex-Duke of Lorraine.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735;
and ITALY: A. D.1715-1735.
TUSCANY: A. D. 1796.
Seizure of Leghorn by the French.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER).
TUSCANY: A. D. 1801.
The grand duchy transformed into the Kingdom of Etruria
and given to the son of the Duke of Parma.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.
TUSCANY: A. D. 1807.
End of the Kingdom of Etruria.
Cession and annexation to France.
See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1807.
TUSCANY: A. D. 1814-1815.
Restored to Ferdinand III.
See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF;
and ITALY: A. D. 1814-1815.
TUSCANY: A. D. 1848-1849.
Revolution.
Expulsion of the Grand Duke.
Proclamation of a Republic and union with Rome.
The old order restored.
See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.
TUSCANY: A. D. 1859-1861.
Flight of the Grand Duke.
Formation of a provisional government.
Annexation to Sardinia.
Absorption in the new Kingdom of Italy.
See ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859; and 1859-1861.
----------TUSCANY: End--------
TUSCARORAS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY,
and IROQUOIS TRIBES OF THE SOUTH.
TUSCULAN VILLAS.
"In Cicero's time the number of country-houses which a wealthy
Roman considered it necessary to possess had evidently become
considerable, and the amount spent upon them very great. The
orator himself had villas at Tusculum, Antium, Formiæ, Bairn,
and Pompeii, besides his town-house on the Palatine, and his
family seat at Arpinum. … The Tusculanum of Cicero had
formerly been in the possession of Sylla. … Close to the Villa
of Cicero, and so near that he could go across to fetch books
from the library, was the Villa of Lucullus. … Many other
Roman villas, lay on the Tusculan hills."
R. Burn,
Rome and the Campagna,
chapter 14, part 3.
TUSCULUM.
"In the times of the Latin League, from the fall of Alba to
the battle of Lake Regillus, Tusculum was the most prominent
town in Latium. It suffered, like the other towns in Latium, a
complete eclipse during the later Republic and the Imperial
times; but in the ninth, tenth, eleventh and twelfth
centuries, under the Counts of Tusculum, it became again a
place of great importance and power, no less than seven popes
of the house of Tusculum having sat in the chair of St.
Peter." The ruins of Tusculum, about fifteen miles from Rome,
on the Alban hills, have been considerably explored.
R. Burn,
Rome and the Campagna,
chapter 14, part 2.
See, also, ALBA.
TUTELOES, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.
TUTTLINGEN,
DÜTLINGEN, Battle of (1643).
See GERMANY: A. D. 1643-1644.
TWEED RING, The.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1863-1871.
TWELVE APOSTLES OF IRELAND.
See CLONARD, MONASTERY OF.
TWELVE CÆSARS, The.
See ROME: A. D. 68-96.
TWELVE PEERS OF FRANCE.
The Twelve Peers of France were the nobles and prelates "who
held the great fiefs immediately from the Crown. … Their
number had been fixed by Louis VII. at twelve; six lay and six
ecclesiastical. They were the Dukes of Normandy, Burgundy,
Guienne, the Counts of Champagne, Flanders, Toulouse; the
Archbishop of Rheims, and the Bishops of Laon, Noyon, Châlons,
Beauvais and Langres. … The immediate vassals of the Duchy of
France, who held of the King as Duke, not as King, were not
Peers of France."
G. W. Kitchin,
History of France,
volume 1, book 3, chapter 6, with foot-note.
TWELVE TABLES OF THE LAW, The.
See ROME: B. C. 451-449.
TWENTY-SECOND PRAIRIAL, Law of the.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (JUNE-JULY).
TWIGGS, General, Treacherous surrender of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1860-1861 (DECEMBER-FEBRUARY).
TWIGHTWEES, OR MIAMIS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY,
also ILLINOIS AND MIAMIS, and SACS, ETC.
TWILLER, Wouter Van, The governorship of.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1638-1647.
{3159}
TWO SICILIES, The Kingdom of the.
The kingdom founded in Southern Italy and Sicily by the Norman
conquest in the 11th century (see ITALY: A. D. 1000-1090, and
1081-1194) maintained its existence until recent times,
sometimes as a unit, and sometimes divided into the two
dominions, insular and peninsular, of Sicily and Apulia, or
Naples. The division occurred first after the rising against
the French and the massacre known as "the Sicilian Vespers".
See ITALY: A. D. 1282-1300.
The crown of Sicily was then acquired by Peter, king of
Aragon, succeeded by his son Frederick. Charles of Anjou and
his successors were left in possession of the kingdom of
Naples, alone, although still claiming Sicily in union with
it. "As the king who reigned at Naples would not give up his
right to Sicily, … his kingdom is often called Sicily as well
as the Island Kingdom; and so when at last the two kingdoms
became one [again-see ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447], the strange
name of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies arose."
W. Hunt,
History of Italy,
page 93.
See, also, NAPLES, and SICILY.
TYCHE.
One of the variously named parts of the ancient city of
Syracuse, Sicily. Its position was northwest of Achradina.
TYCOON,
SHOGUN.
See JAPAN: SKETCH OF HISTORY.
TYLER. John:
Vice-Presidential election.
Succession to the Presidency.
Administration.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1840, to 1845.
TYLER, Wat, The Rebellion of.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1381.
TYLIS, Celtic Empire of.
"The empire of Tylis in the Haemus, which the Celts, not long
after the death of Alexander [the Great], and nearly at the
same time with their permanent settlement in Asia Minor, had
founded in the Moeso-Thracian territory, destroyed the seed of
Greek civilisation within its sphere, and itself succumbed
during the Hannibalic war to the assaults of the Thracians,
who extirpated these intruders to the last man."
T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 8, chapter 7.
TYNDARIS, Naval battle at (B. C. 257).
See PUNIC WARS: THE FIRST.
TYNWALD, Court of.
See MANX KINGDOM;
and, also, THING.
TYRANTS, Greek.
"A 'tyranny,' in the Greek sense of the word, was the
irresponsible dominion of a single person, not founded on
hereditary right, like the monarchies of the heroic ages and
of many barbarian nations, nor on a free election, like that
of a dictator or æsymnete, but on force. It did not change its
character when transmitted through several generations, nor
was any other name invented to describe it when power, which
had been acquired by violence, was used for the public good;
though Aristotle makes it an element in the definition of
tyranny, that it is exercised for selfish ends. But, according
to the ordinary Greek notions, and the usage of the Greek
historians, a mild and beneficent tyranny is an expression
which involves no contradiction."
C. Thirlwall,
History of Greece,
chapter 10.
"In spite of the worst which has been said against them, the
tyrants hold a legitimate place in the progress of Greek
constitutional history. They were the means of breaking down
the oligarchies in the interests of the people. … It was at
Sicyon that the first tyrannis arose. … About the year 670 B.
C. a certain Orthagoras, who is said to have been a cook,
succeeded in establishing himself as tyrant in Sicyon. Of his
reign no incident is recorded. He was succeeded by his son
Myron."
E. Abbott,
History of Greece,
part 1, chapter 12.
ALSO IN:
J. P. Mahaffy,
Problems in Greek History,
chapter 4.
See, also, DESPOTS.
TYRAS, The.
The ancient name of the river Dniester.
TYRCONNEL'S DOMINATION IN IRELAND.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1685-1688.
----------TYRE: Start--------
TYRE.
"Justin represents Tyre as having been founded a year before
the Capture of Troy, thus apparently reducing by about 1,500
years the date assigned to it by the priests of the temple of
Hercules. … Josephus places the settlement of Tyre 240 years
before the building of Solomon's Temple. He refers no doubt to
the same event as Justin, the occupation of the island by the
Sidonians, as he cannot have been ignorant of the mention of
Tyre in the Old Testament more than 240 years before Solomon.
The date of the building of Solomon's Temple is itself
disputed, estimates varying from 1012 B. C. to 969 B. C. …
Tyre consisted of two parts, an island about three-quarters of
a mile in length, separated from the mainland by a strait four
stadia, about half a mile, in width at its northern end, and a
town on the shore. The latter was distinguished as Palæ-Tyrus,
or Ancient Tyre, and was the chief seat of the population,
till the wars of the Assyrian monarchs against Phœnicia. It
extended along the shore from the river Leontes in the north
to the fountain of Rusel-Ain in the south, a distance of seven
miles, great part of which would be suburb rather than city.
Pliny, who wrote when its boundaries could still be traced,
computes the circuit of Palæ-Tyrus and the island together at
nineteen Roman miles, that of the island town being 22 stadia.
… Though called Old Tyre, because it lay in ruins, when the
younger city on the island was in the height of its
prosperity, it was from the first connected with it; and the
name of Tyre (Tsour), 'a rock,' would hardly be appropriate,
except to the island. … It is probable that, from the first,
the island, from the excellence of its natural harbour, was a
naval station to the city on the mainland, and, as a place of
security, the seat of the worship of the national deities,
Astarte, Belus, Hercules. … The situation of Palæ-Tyrus was
one of the most fertile spots on the coast of Phœnicia. The
plain is here about five miles wide, the soil is dark, and the
variety of its productions excited the wonder of the
Crusaders. Near the southern extremity of the city was a

fountain, which, communicating with some natural receptacle in
the mountains above, poured forth copious and perennial
streams of pure and cool water. An aqueduct distributed them
through the town. … Whatever may have been the relative
importance of Palæ-Tyrus and the island, previous to the great
migration from Sidon, occasioned by the victory of the
Ascalonites, there can be no doubt that from this time the
population of the island greatly increased. The colonization
of Gades took place about a century later. But we have no
connected history of Tyre till near the age of Solomon."
J. Kenrick,
Phœnicia: History,
chapter 1.
See, also, PHŒNICIANS.
TYRE:
The founding of the colony of Carthage.
See CARTHAGE: THE FOUNDING OF.
TYRE: B. C. 598-585.
Siege by Nebuchadnezzar.
See PHŒNICIANS: B. C. 850-538.
{3160}
TYRE: B. C. 332.
Siege and capture by Alexander the Great.
After defeating the Persians at Issus (see MACEDONIA: B. C.
334-330), Alexander turned his attention to the tributary
Phœnician cities, whose fleets gave to the Great King a naval
power more formidable than the hosts of the nations which
marched at his command. Sidon, Byblus, and other towns
submitted promptly to the conqueror. Tyre offered a qualified
surrender, which did not satisfy the haughty Macedonian, and
he instantly laid siege to the city. Having no adequate fleet
with which to reach the island-town, he resolved to carry a
causeway across the channel which separated the island from
Old Tyre, on the mainland, and he demolished the buildings of
the latter to provide materials for the work. It was an
undertaking of immense magnitude and difficulty, and the
ingenious Tyrians found many modes of interfering with it.
They succeeded in destroying the mole when half of it had been
built; but Alexander, with obstinate perseverance, began his
work anew, on a larger scale than before. He also collected a
strong fleet of war-galleys, from Cyprus and from the
Phœnicians who had submitted to him, with which the opposition
of the enemy was checked and his own operations advanced.
After seven months of prodigious labor and incessant battle,
the strong walls of Tyre were beaten down and the city taken.
"It soon became a scene of unresisted carnage and plunder. The
Macedonians, exasperated by the length and labours of the
siege, which had lasted seven months, and by the execution of
their comrades [Greek prisoners, whom the Tyrians had put to
death on the walls, before the eyes of the besiegers, and cast
into the sea], spared none that fell into their hands. The
king—whom the Greeks call Azelmicus—with the principal
inhabitants, and some Carthaginian envoys who had been sent
with the usual offerings to Melkart, took refuge in his
sanctuary: and these alone, according to Arrian, were exempted
from the common lot of death or slavery. It was an act of
clemency, by which the conqueror at the same time displayed
his piety to the god. Of the rest, 8,000 perished in the first
slaughter, and 30,000, including a number of foreign
residents, were sold as slaves. But if we may believe Curtius,
15,000 were rescued by the Sidonians [of Alexander's navy],
who first hid them in their galleys, and afterwards
transported them to Sidon—not, it must be presumed, without
Alexander's connivance or consent. It sounds incredible, that
he should have ordered 2,000 of the prisoners to be crucified.
… Tyre was still occupied as a fortress, and soon recovered
some measure of her ancient prosperity."
C. Thirlwall,
History of Greece,
chapter 50.
ALSO IN:
Arrian,
Anabasis of Alexander,
book 2, chapters 15-24.
TYRE: B. C. 332-A. D. 638.
Under Greek and Roman domination.
"The Carians, with whom Alexander repeopled the city [of Tyre]
fell into the habits of the former population, and both Tyre
and Sidon recovered much of their commercial greatness. After
a long struggle be·tween the kingdoms of Egypt and Syria,
Phœnicia was finally secured to the latter by Antiochus the
Great (B. C. 198). But the commercial rivalry of Egypt proved
more serious even than political subjection; and the
foundation of Berenice on the Red Sea diverted to Alexander
much of the oriental commerce that had previously flowed
through Tyre and Sidon. But still they did not succumb to
their younger rival. Under the Romans, to whom Phœicia was
subjected with Syria [by Pompeius the Great, B. C. 64], Tyre
was still the first commercial city of the world."
P. Smith,
History of the World: Ancient,
chapter 24.
TYRE: A. D. 638.
Capture by the Moslems.
After the taking of Jerusalem by the Caliph Omar, the Moslems
made themselves masters of the remainder of Palestine very
quickly. Tripoli was first won by treachery, and then the same
traitor who had delivered it, making his way to Tyre,
succeeded in bringing about the betrayal of that place. Many
of the inhabitants were put to the sword; but many others are
said to have saved their lives by accepting the religion of
the victors. The fall of Tyre was followed by the flight from
Cæsarea of Constantine, son of the Emperor Heraclius, who
commanded in Syria, and the entire abandonment of that rich
province to the Moslems.
S. Ockley,
History of the Saracens,
pages 251-253 (Bohn ed.).
TYRE: A. D. 1124.
Siege and Conquest by the Venetians and Crusaders.
The Venetians took little or no part in the First Crusade,
being largely engaged in commerce with the Saracens. But in
1124—a full quarter of a century after the taking of
Jerusalem—they found it wise to obtain an interest in the
Christian conquests that were spreading along the Levantine
coasts. They accordingly sent their doge, with a formidable
fleet, to offer aid to the Latin king of Jerusalem—then
Baldwin II.—for the reduction of either Ascalon or Tyre, both
of which cities were still held by the Moslems. Finding it
difficult to make choice between the two places, a solemn
drawing of lots took place, at the altar of the Holy
Sepulchre, as a means of ascertaining the will of God. The lot
decided that Tyre should be attacked, and operations were
accordingly begun. But "the Venetians, more devoted to the
interests of their commerce and of their nation than to those
of a Christian kingdom, demanded, before beginning the siege
of Tyre, that they should enjoy a church, a street, a common
oven, and a national tribunal in every city in Palestine. They
further demanded other privileges and the possession of a
third of the conquered city." The demands of the Venetians
were complied with, and Tyre, after a siege of over five
months, beleaguered by land and sea, was taken. The
capitulation was an honorable one and honorably respected. The
Moslem inhabitants were permitted to leave the city; the
Christians entered it triumphally, and the day on which the
news reached Jerusalem was made a festival.
J. F. Michaud,
History of the Crusades,
book 5.
----------TYRE: End--------
TYROL:
Origin of the county and its name.
"Tyrol freed herself from the suzerainty of Bavaria in very
early times. She was divided among a number of princes, lay
and ecclesiastical. The principal of these were the counts of
the Adige or of the Tyrol, and the counts of Andechs, who
obtained the title of duke from Frederick I. [1152-1190], and
called themselves dukes of Meran. Their race came to an end in
1248, and their domains were united to those of the counts of
Tyrol who thus be·came possessed of the larger part of the
lands between the Inn and the Adige. Tyrol takes its name from
the castle of Tirol, which was built on the site of the Roman
station Teriolis, not far from Meran, on the upper waters of
the Adige."
L. Leger,
History of Austro-Hungary,
page 144, footnote.
{3161}
"After the dissolution of the classic Roman Empire, the
Province of Rætia split up into parcels. … It is impossible,
in a sketch like this, to follow the various dynastic and
other changes, most of them extremely perplexed and obscure,
which ensued between the 5th and 10th centuries. At the end of
this period, the main constituents of the old province had
assumed something like the shape which they now bear. That is
to say, Rætia Secunda was separated from Rætia Prima, which
had also lost what formerly belonged to it south of the Alpine
ridge. … Tirol again had been detached from Rætia Prima, and
had begun to form a separate entity. Meanwhile a power of
first rate importance in the future history of Graubünden [the
Grisons] had arisen: namely the Bishopric of Chur. … The
Bishops of Chur took rank as feudal lords of the first class.
… Originally an insignificant house, exercising … the
functions of Bailies to the See of Chur, the Counts of Tirol
acquired influence and territory under the shadow of distant
ecclesiastical superiors."
J. A. Symonds,
History of Graubünden
(In Strickland's "The Engadine"),
pages 23-27.
TYROL: A. D. 1363.
Acquired by the House of Austria.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1330-1364.
TYROL: A. D. 1805.
Taken from Austria and annexed to Bavaria.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1806.
TYROL: A. D. 1809.
Heroic rising under Hofer, against the Bavarians and the French.
The crushing of the revolt.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1809-1810 (APRIL-FEBRUARY).
TYROL: A. D. 1814-1815.
Restored to Austria.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE);
and VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.
----------TYROL: End--------
TYRONE'S REBELLIONS.
The Wars of the O'Neils.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1559-1603.
TYRRHENIANS.
TYRRHENIAN SEA.
The ancient race of people in western Italy whom the Romans
called Etrusci, and who called themselves the Rasenna, were
known to the Greeks as the Turrhenoi, or Tyrrhenians. They
were an enterprising maritime people, and hence the Greeks
called that part of the Mediterranean which washes the western
Italian coast the Tyrrhenian Sea.
See ETRUSCANS.
TZAR,
CZAR.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1547.
TZOMBOR, Battle of (1849).
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.
U.
U. C.,
A. U. C.,
A. U.
Anno Urbis Conditæ: the "Year of Rome," reckoned from the
founding of the city.
See ROME: B. C. 753.
U. E. LOYALISTS.
See TORIES OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION.
UAUPE, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.
UBERTI FAMILY, The.
See FLORENCE: A. D. 1248-1278.
UCHEES, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: UCHEAN FAMILY.
UCLES,
Battle of (1108).
See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1095-1325.
Battle of (1809).
See SPAIN: A. D. 1808-1809 (DECEMBER-MARCH).
UDAIPORE,
OODEYPOOR.
See RAJPOOTS.
UDHA-NALA, Battle of (1763).
See INDIA: A. D. 1757-1772.
UGANDA.
"It was in 1858 that the travellers Burton and Speke, starting
from Zanzibar, first made Europe acquainted with the existence
of that vast inland sea, the Victoria Lake, of which Rebmann
and Ernhardt had already heard native reports. Four years
later Speke and Grant, passing round the western shore,
reached Uganda; and they found here, if I may employ the
paradox, a singular, barbaric civilisation. Combined with the
most barbarous usages and the grossest superstition were many
of those advances in the scale of humanity which we are wont
to accept as indications of civilisation. There was an appeal
to law, and cases were decided after a formal hearing. The
administration was vested in the king,—an absolute despot,
—and from him downwards there existed a regular chain of
delegated power and control. Well-made roads, kept constantly
in repair, intersected the country in all directions. Rough
bridges were constructed across river swamps. An army was
maintained, and also a fleet of canoes on the waters of the
lake. The arts of building, smith-work, &c., were very far in
advance of anything to be found between Uganda and the coast.
The ideas of decency, the use of clothing, and the planting of
trees, were indications of long years of development, of which
the intricate customs and etiquettes surrounding the Court
were an additional proof. Speke traces the earliest
developments of this civilisation to Unyoro and its shepherd
kings, descendants of a nomadic, pastoral race—the Wahuma—whom
he supposes to be an offshoot from the Abyssinians or Gallas.
Uganda and the countries lying along the lake shore, being the
richest province of this Wahuma empire—called Kitara—had to
bring large quantities of produce to Unyoro for the king's
use, and their inhabitants were looked on as slaves. The
legend relates that a hunter named Uganda headed a revolt, and
was proclaimed king under the name of Kimera. Mtesa was the
seventh of the dynasty, according to Speke, which shows it to
be of some little antiquity. Speke was enthusiastic about the
fertility of Uganda, and the development of its people as
compared with the savage tribes of Africa. The next European
to visit the country was Colonel Chaillé Long, who was sent by
Gordon in the summer of 1874. Stanley followed in 1875, and
simultaneously Linant arrived in the country. In 1876 Gordon
sent Emin with a party of soldiers to Mtesa's capital. They
were for some time quartered there, and Gordon had views of
annexing Uganda to the Egyptian Sudan. … Stanley was even
louder in his praises of Uganda than Speke had been, and
described it as the 'Pearl of Africa.' In consequence of his
appeal on behalf of the people, a fund was started, and
missionaries were despatched to Uganda. These arrived in June
1877. … Some two years later—February 1879—the French (Roman
Catholic) Algerian Mission despatched a party of 'White
Fathers' to begin mission-work in Uganda.
{3162}
The religious differences between these two conflicting
creeds, which marked the very inauguration of the Roman
Catholic mission, much puzzled and confused Mtesa, since both
alike called themselves 'Christians.' The Arabs from the coast
had already settled in Uganda, and brought with them the
religion of Islam. … Mtesa showed great toleration to all
creeds, though at one time he had leaned to Mohammedanism, and
had ordered all Uganda to embrace that creed. Shortly after,
however, as the followers of Islam refused to eat the king's
meat because it was not killed in the orthodox way according
to the Koran, he ordered the massacre of all Mohammedans.
Mtesa died in the autumn of 1884, and Mwanga, then about
eighteen years old, succeeded him—being selected from among
Mtesa's sons on account of his personal likeness to the late
king, since in Uganda paternity is often difficult to prove.
At this time the three religions had made great progress, and
their disintegrating influences on the old customs began to be
more and more apparent. This was especially the case with
regard to the Christians, who no longer regarded the king as
divine, nor his acts, however gross and cruel, as having a
divine sanction. They owned a Higher allegiance, though they
remained obedient subjects, and distinguished themselves by
bravery in war. Such an attitude was, of course, intolerable
to a cruel despot like Mwanga. … There was still a further
reason for suspicion and fear of the white men. … The Egyptian
flag had been hoisted at Mruli and Fauvera in Unyoro, only
just beyond the borders of Uganda, and Gordon's envoys—Colonel
Long and Emin—and his troops had penetrated to Mtesa's
capital. The Arabs also told of the doings of the Belgians on
the Congo. At a later period reports reached Mwanga of German
annexations in Usagara on the East Coast. Last, and most
disturbing of all, was the news of Mr. Thomson's arrival near
Usoga in the East—the route from the coast by which native
tradition said that the conquerors of Uganda would come.
Mwanga had succeeded his father in November 1884. Early in
1885 he determined to stamp out those dangerous religions,
Mohammedan and Christian alike, which were disintegrating his
country. The missionaries Mackay and Ashe, were seized, and
their followers persecuted. But the religion spread the more.
A plot to depose Mwanga was discovered and crushed. With
varying fortunes—sometimes treated leniently, sometimes the
victims of violent persecution—the missionaries held their own
till the autumn of 1885. Then came news of Bishop Hannington's
approach." Unhappily the Bishop came by the forbidden Usoga
route, and Mwanga ordered that he be killed, with all his men,
which was done in October, 1885. "After this the position of
the Europeans was very precarious, but not till the following
May (1886) did the storm burst. Mwanga then threw aside all
restraint, and butchered the Christian converts wholesale. …
But in spite of the martyrdom by torture and burning, the
religion grew. … The heroism inspired by religion in the early
history of our own Church was repeated here in the heart of
Africa." At length, in 1888, there was a revolt, in which
Christians and Mohammedans seem to have combined, and Mwanga
fled to an island at the south of the Lake. His brother Kiwewa
was made king, and for a time, the Christians were in control
of affairs. But the Mohammedans grew jealous, and by a sudden
rising drove the Christians out. Kiwewa refusing to accept the
creed of Islam, was deposed, and another brother, Karema, was
raised to the throne. The exiled Christians now made overtures
to Mwanga, and an alliance was concluded, which resulted in
the overthrow of the Mohammedan or Arab party, and the
restoration of Mwanga to the throne, in October, 1889. The two
Christian factions, Catholic and Protestant, or French and
English, divided the country and all the offices of government
between them, but were bitterly jealous of each other and
perpetually quarreled, while the defeated Mohammedans were
still strong and unsubdued. Affairs were in this state when
Dr. Peters, the explorer in command of the German "Emin Relief
Expedition," came to Uganda, having learned of the rescue of
Emin Pasha by Stanley. Dr. Peters, with the aid of the French
party, succeeded in arranging some kind of treaty with Mwanga,
and this alarmed the Imperial British East Africa Company (see
AFRICA: A. D. 1884-1891) when news of it had been received.
That alarm was soon increased by intelligence that Emin Pasha
had entered the German service and was about to conduct a
strong expedition to the south of Lake Victoria Nyanza. These
and other circumstances led to the despatching of Captain
Lugard with a small force to Uganda to represent the British
East Africa Company and establish its influence there. Captain
Lugard arrived at Mengo, the capital of Uganda, on the 18th of
December, 1890. Meantime Great Britain and Germany, by the
Anglo-German Agreement of July 1, 1890 (see AFRICA: A. D.
1884-1891) had settled all questions between them as to their
respective "spheres of influence," and Uganda had been
definitely placed within the British "sphere." This enabled
Captain Lugard to secure the signing of a treaty which
recognized the suzerainty of the Company, established its
protectorate over Uganda, and conceded to it many important
commercial and political powers. He remained in the country
until June, 1892, during which time he was driven to take part
in a furious war that broke out between the Catholic and
Protestant parties. The war ended in a partition of territory
between the factions, and three small provinces were, at the
same time, assigned to the Mohammedans. After maintaining
Captain Lugard and his force in the country for eighteen
months, the Company found the cost so heavy and the prospect
of returns so distant, that it came to a resolution to
withdraw; but was induced by a subscription of £16,000 from
the Church Missionary Society to remain for another year in
the exercise of the control which it had acquired. At the end
of 1892 the Company renewed its resolution to evacuate the
region west of Lake Victoria, and the British Government was
urgently pressed to take upon itself the administration of the
country. It was only persuaded, however, to assume the cost of
a further occupation of Uganda for three months by the
Company's officers, in order to give more time for ensuring
the safety of missionaries and other Europeans. It consented,
moreover, to despatch a Commissioner to investigate the
situation and report upon it. The official selected for that
duty was Sir Gerald Porter, Consul-General at Zanzibar.
{3163}
Sir Gerald returned to England with his report in December,
1893, and died of typhoid fever in the month following. His
report urged the maintenance of an effective control over the
government of Uganda, to be exercised directly by the British
Government, in the form of a Protectorate, keeping the king on
his throne, with a Commissioner at his side to direct his
action in all important particulars. After much discussion,
the decision of the Government was announced at the beginning
of June, 1894. It determined to establish the proposed
Protectorate in Uganda, not extending to Unyoro, and to place
a Sub-Commissioner on duty between Lake Victoria and the sea,
for the purpose of watching over communications, and
apparently without political powers. The Government declined
to undertake the building of the railway from Mombassa on the
coast to the Lake, for which the Imperial British East Africa
Company had made surveys.
Captain F. D. Lugard,
The Rise of our East African Empire.
ALSO IN:
Sir Gerald Porter,
The British Mission to Uganda in 1893.
P. L. McDermott,
British East Africa, or Ibea.
The Spectator, June 9, 1894.
See, also, AFRICAN EXPLORATION, &c., in Supplement.
UGRI.
See HUNGARIANS.
UGRO-FINNISH RACES.
See TURANIAN.
UHILCHES, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.
UIRINA, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.
UKASE.
An edict of the Russian government, deriving the force of law
from the absolute authority of the Czar.
UKRAINE, The.
See RUSSIA, GREAT, &c.;
also COSSACKS.
ULADISLAUS I.,
King of Poland, A. D. 1083-1102.
Uladislaus II., King of Bohemia, 1471-1516.
Uladislaus II., Duke of Poland, 1138-1146.
Uladislaus III., Duke of Poland, 1296-1333.
Uladislaus IV. (Jagellon), King of Bohemia, 1471-1516;
V. of Hungary, 1490-1516.
Uladislaus V. (Jagellon), King of Poland
and Duke of Lithuania, 1385-1434.
Uladislaus VI., King of Poland, 1434-1444.
Uladislaus VII., King of Poland, 1632-1648.
ULCA, Battle of the (A. D. 488).
See Rom:: A. D. 488-526.
ULEMA.
See SUBLIME PORTE.
----------ULM: Start--------
ULM: A. D. 1620.
Treaty of the Evangelical Union with the Catholic League.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1618-1620.
ULM: A. D. 1702-1704.
Taken by the Bavarians and French,
and recovered by Marlborough.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1702; and 1704.
ULM: A. D. 1805.
Mack's capitulation.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1805 (MARCH-DECEMBER).
----------ULM: End--------
ULMENES.
See CHILE: THE ARAUCANIANS.
ULSTER, The Plantation of.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1607-1611.
ULSTER TENANT-RIGHT.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1848-1852.
ULTIMA THULE.
See THULE.
ULTRA VIRES.
See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1846.
ULTRAMONTANE.
ULTRAMONTANISM.
The term ultramontane (beyond the mountain) has been used for
so long a time in France and Germany to indicate the extreme
doctrines of Papal supremacy maintained beyond the Alps—that
is, in Italy, and especially at Rome—that it has come to have
no other meaning. The ultramontanists in each country are
those who make themselves partisans of these doctrines, in
opposition to the more independent division of the Roman
Catholic Church.
UMBRIANS, The.
"The Umbrians at one time possessed dominion over great part
of central Italy. Inscriptions in their language also remain,
and manifestly show that they spoke a tongue not alien to the
Latin. The irruption of the Sabellian and of the Etruscan
nations was probably the cause which broke the power of the
Umbrians, and drove them back to a scanty territory between
the Æsis, the Rubicon, and the Tiber."
H. G. Liddell,
History of Rome,
introduction, section 2.
See, also, ITALY: ANCIENT.
UNALACHTIGOS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: DELAWARES, and ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
UNAMIS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: DELAWARES, and ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
UNCIA, The.
See As;
also, FOOT, THE ROMAN.
UNCTION.
See CORONATION.
UNDERGROUND RAILROAD.
See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D, 1840-1860.
UNELLI, The.
The Unelli were one of the Armorican tribes of ancient Gaul.
Their country was "the Cotantin of the ante-revolutionary
period, the present department of Manche."
G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 4, chapter 6.
UNIFORMITY, Acts of.
Two Acts of Uniformity were passed by the English Parliament
in the reign of Edward VI. (1548 and 1552), both of which were
repealed under Mary. In 1559, the second year of Elizabeth, a
more thorough-going law of the same nature was enacted, by the
provisions of which, "
(1) the revised Book of Common Prayer as established by Edward
VI. in 1552, was, with a few alterations and additions,
revised and confirmed.
(2) Any parson, vicar, or other minister, whether beneficed or
not, wilfully using any but the established liturgy, was to
suffer, for the first offence, six months' imprisonment, and,
if beneficed, forfeit the profits of his benefice for a year;
for the second offence, a year's imprisonment; for the third,
imprisonment for life.
(3) All persons absenting themselves, without lawful
or reasonable excuse, from the service at their parish church
on Sundays and holydays, were to be punished by ecclesiastical
censures and a fine of one shilling for the use of the poor."
T. P. Taswell-Langmead,
English Constitutional History,
chapter 12.
See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1559.
In 1662 soon after the Restoration, another Act of Uniformity
was passed, the immediate effect of which was to eject about
2,000 ministers from the established Church.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1662-1665.
UNIGENITUS, The Bull.
See PORT ROYAL, AND THE JANSENISTS: A. D.1702-1715.
UNION, The German Protestant (17th Century).
See GERMANY: A. D. 1608-1618.
UNION JACK.
The national flag of Great Britain and Ireland, uniting the
red cross of St. George and the diagonal crosses of St. Andrew
and St. Patrick, on a blue ground.
{3164}
UNION LEAGUE, The.
A secret political society formed in the United States soon
after the outbreak of the American Civil War, having for its
object a closer and more effective organization of the
supporters of the national government. It was very large in
numbers for a time, but declined as the need of such an
organization disappeared.
UNION OF BRUSSELS.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1577-1581.
UNION OF CALMAR, The.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1018-1397; and 1397-1527.
UNION OF HEILBRONN, The.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1632-1634.
UNION OF UTRECHT, The.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1577-1581.
UNITARIANISM.
"In its restricted sense Unitarianism means belief in the
personal unity of God instead of in a community of divine
persons. … Among the articles of Unitarian faith so
understood, besides the doctrine of one supreme divine person,
may be enumerated belief in human nature, in moral freedom, in
human reason, in character as of more worth than ritual or
creed, in the equal justice not to say mercy of God, in the
unreality of a devil, not to say of evil, and in the ultimate
salvation, or evolution into something better, of all souls.
Without being in any sense the first article of the faith,
either in the historical order as having been the
starting-point, or in the logical order as underlying the
whole system, or in the order of importance as being with us
the doctrine of doctrines, it has happened in spite of a
thousand protests that belief in God's personal unity has
given its name to the entire confession. The movement first
called Socinian, then Arminian, and finally Unitarian, began
as a protest of the 'natural man' against two particularly
hateful doctrines of Calvinism, that of total depravity and
that of predestination."
S. C. Beach,
Unitarianism and the Reformation
(Unitarianism: its Origin and History).
"The establishment of distinct Unitarian churches in England
dates back to 1774, when Theophilus Lindsey left the Church of
England and went up to London to start the first avowedly
Unitarian place of worship in the country. But that was not
the beginning of Unitarianism. Centuries before this,
Unitarianism began in England as an individual opinion, had
first its martyr-age, then a period when it was a great
ferment of controversy, and finally the distinct development
of it which stands today in our English Unitarian body. The
names of some of the Unitarian martyrs on the continent of
Europe are comparatively well known,—Servetus, burned by
Calvin; Valentine Gentilis the Italian; and other isolated
students here and there, who had been stirred up by the
Reformation spirit to read the Bible for themselves, and who
could not stop where Luther and Calvin stopped. … What is
called the 'era of toleration' began immediately after the
overthrow of the Stuarts in 1688. The sects were now at
liberty to go quietly on in their own way. On the one hand
there was the great established Episcopal Church,—at a pretty
low ebb in religious life, for its most earnest life had gone
out of it on that 'black Bartholomew's Day, 1662,' when the
two thousand Puritan clergy were ejected.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1662-1665.
On the other hand were these Puritans,—'Dissenters' they began
now to be called,—divided into three great sects, Baptists,
Independents, and English Presbyterians. Now, these were all
free. They could build churches, and they did. From 1693 to
1720 was the great 'chapel'-building time. … But now, in this
great development of chapel-building by these three
denominations, a curious thing took place, which unexpectedly
affected their after history. That curious thing was, that
while the Baptists and Independents (or Congregationalists)
tied down all these new chapels to perpetual orthodox uses by
rigid doctrinal trust-deeds, … the English Presbyterians left
theirs free. It seems strange that they should do so; for the
Presbyterians had begun by being the narrowest sect of the
Puritans, and the Scotch Presbyterians always remained so. But
the English Presbyterians had very little to do with the
Scotch ones, and through all the changes and sufferings they
had had to go through they had become broadened; and so it
carne to pass that now, when they were building their churches
or chapels up and down the country, they left them free. … The
English Presbyterians, thus left free, began to grow more
liberal. … A general reverence for Christ took the place of
the old distinct belief in his deity. … They opened the
communion to all; they no longer insisted on the old
professions of 'church-membership,' but counted all who
worshipped with them 'the church.' Thus things were going on
all through the middle of the last century. Of course it was
not the same everywhere; some still held the old views. … One
man among them, … Dr. Joseph Priestley, … was one of the
leading scientists of his time,—a restless investigator, and
at the same time an earnest religious thinker and student,
just as eager to make out the truth about religion as to
investigate the properties of oxygen or electricity. So he
investigated Christianity, studied the creeds of the churches,
came to the conclusion that they were a long way from the
Christianity of Christ, and gradually came to be a
thoroughgoing Unitarian. When he came to this conclusion he
did not hide it; he proclaimed it and preached it. … The
upshot of it was, that at length he aroused a large part of
the body to the consciousness that they were really
Unitarians. They still did not take the name; they disliked
sect-names altogether. … And so, though they mostly continued
to call themselves English Presbyterians, or simply
Presbyterians, all the world began to call them Unitarians;
and more and more the Baptists and Independents, or
Congregationalists, who had formerly fellowshipped and worked
with them, drew apart, and left them, as they are to-day, in
the reluctant isolation of a separate Unitarian body. Two
other movements of thought of a somewhat similar kind
increased and strengthened this development of a separate
Unitarian body,—one among the General Baptists, the other in
the great Episcopal Church itself."
B. Herford,
Unitarianism in England
(Unitarianism: its Origin and History).
{3165}
"It is hard to trace the early history of Unitarianism in New
England. The name was seldom used, yet not omitted with any
view to concealment; for we have abundant proof that the
ministers to whom it belonged preached what they believed
clearly and fully. … But a marvellous change had taken place
in the last century, at the beginning of which the denial of
the Trinity would have seemed no better than blasphemy; while
at its close nearly all the clergy of Boston and its vicinity
and many others in Massachusetts were known to dissent from
the ancestral creed, to have ceased to use Trinitarian
doxologies, and to preach what was then known as Arianism,
regarding Jesus Christ as the greatest and oldest of created
beings, but in no proper sense as God. At the same time, so
little stress was laid on the Trinity by its professed
believers that, with two or three exceptions, these Arians
remained in full church fellowship with those of the orthodox
faith. In the territory now within the limits of Boston there
were, a century ago, but two professedly Trinitarian
ministers, one of them being Dr. Thacher, of the liberal
Brattle Square Church, while Dr. Eckley, of the Old South
Church, was known to entertain doubts as to the deity of
Christ."
A. P. Peabody,
Early New England Unitarians
(Unitarianism: its Origin and History).
UNITED BRETHREN (Unitas Fratrum).
See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1434-1457, and 1621-1648;
also MORAVIAN OR BOHEMIAN BRETHREN.
UNITED EMPIRE LOYALISTS.
See TORIES OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION.
UNITED IRISHMEN, The Society of.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1793-1798.
UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN, Formation of the.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1707.
UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND, Creation of the.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1798-1800.
UNITED NETHERLANDS,
or United Provinces, or United States of the Netherlands.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1577-1581, 1581-1584,
1584-1585, and after.
UNITED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, The.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1843.
----------UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Start--------
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1492-1620.
Discovery and exploration of the Atlantic coast.
See AMERICA.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1607-1752.
First settlement and organization of the
thirteen original English colonies.
The earliest attempts at European settlement (as distinct from
exploration) within the present limits of the United States
were made by French Huguenots, under the patronage of Admiral
Coligny; first at Port Royal, on Beaufort River, Florida,
where Jean Ribaut, in 1562, placed a few colonists who soon
abandoned the spot, and, two years later, at Fort Caroline, on
St. John's River, in the same peninsula. The second colony,
commanded by René de Laudonnière, was considerable in numbers
but unpromising in character, and not likely to gain a footing
in the country, even if it had been left in peace. It was
tragically extinguished, however, by the Spaniards in
September, 1565. The Spaniards had then established themselves
in a fortified settlement at St. Augustine. It was surprised
and destroyed in 1567 by an avenging Huguenot, but was
promptly restored, and has survived to the present day,—the
oldest city in the United States. (See FLORIDA.)—The first
undertakings at colonization from England were inspired and
led by Sir Walter Raleigh. After unsuccessful attempts, in
conjunction with his elder half-brother, Sir Humphrey Gilbert,
to establish settlements in Newfoundland, Raleigh obtained a
grant from Queen Elizabeth, in 1584, under which he planted a
colony of 108 settlers, commanded by Ralph Lane, on Roanoke
Island, within the boundaries of the present State of North
Carolina. In honor of the virgin queen of England, the name
Virginia was given to the region at large. Lane's colonists
had expected to find gold, silver and pearls, and lost
interest in the country when none could be discovered. In
June, 1586, they persuaded Sir Francis Drake, who had touched
at Roanoke with his fleet, to carry them home. Soon
afterwards, several ships, sent out by Raleigh with
reinforcements and supplies, arrived at the island, to find it
deserted. They left fifteen men to hold the ground; but a year
passed before another expedition reached the place. The fort
was then found in ruins; the fifteen men had disappeared, and
nothing of their fate could be learned. The new colony
perished in the same way—its fate an impenetrable secret of
the savage land. This was Raleigh's last venture in
colonization. His means were exhausted; England was absorbed
in watching and preparing for the Spanish Armada; the time had
not come to "plant an English nation in America." Sir Walter
assigned his rights and interests in Virginia to a company of
merchant adventurers, which accomplished nothing permanently.
Twenty years passed before another vigorous effort of English
colonization was made. In 1606 King James issued a royal
charter to a company singularly formed in two branches or
divisions, one having its headquarters at London, and known as
the London Company, the other established at Plymouth and
known as the Plymouth Company. Between them they were given
authority to occupy territory in America from the 34th to the
45th degree of latitude; but the two grants overlapped in the
middle, with the intention of giving the greater domain to the
company which secured it by the earliest actual occupation.
The London Company, holding the southward grant, despatched to
Virginia a company of 105 emigrants, who established at
Jamestown, on the northerly bank of James River (May 13,
1607), the first permanent English settlement in America, and
founded there the colony and the subsequent State of Virginia.
The colony survived many hardships and trials, owing its
existence largely to the energy and courage of the famous
Captain John Smith, who was one of its chief men from the
beginning. Its prosperity was secured after a few years by the
systematic cultivation of tobacco, for which the demand in
England grew fast. In 1619, negro slavery was introduced; and
by that time the white inhabitants of Virginia had increased
to nearly 4,000 in number, divided between eleven settlements.
See VIRGINIA.
{3166}
Meantime, the Plymouth Company had done nothing effectively in
the northward region assigned to it. Bartholomew Gosnold, in
1602, had examined the coast from Maine to Cape Cod, and built
a lonely house on the island of Cuttyhunk; Martin Pring, in 1603,
had loaded two ships with sassafras in Massachusetts Bay; a
colony named in honor of the chief justice of England, Sir
John Popham, had shivered through the winter of 1607-8 near
the mouth of Kennebec River and then gone home; Captain John
Smith, in 1614, had made a voyage to the country, in the
interest of London merchants, and had named it New England;
but no lasting English settlement had been made anywhere
within the bounds of King James' grant to the Plymouth
Company, at the waning of the year 1620, when Virginia was
well grown. It was then by chance, rather than by design, that
the small ship Mayflower landed a little company of religious
exiles on the Massachusetts coast, at Plymouth (December 21,
1620), instead of bearing them farther south. Driven from
England into Holland by persecutions, twelve years before,
this congregation of Independents, or Separatists, now sought
liberty of conscience in the New World. They came with a
patent from the London, or South Virginia Company, and
expected to plant their settlement within that company's
territorial bounds. But circumstances which seemed adverse at
the time bent their course to the New England shore, and they
accepted it for a home, not doubting that the proprietors of
the land, who desired colonists, would permit them to stay.
The next year they received a patent from the Council for New
England, which had succeeded to the rights of the Plymouth
Company. Of the hardships which these Pilgrim Fathers endured
in the first years of their Plymouth Plantation, who does not
know the story! Of the courage, the constancy and the prudence
with which they overcame their difficulties, who has not
admired the spectacle! For eight years they remained the only
successful colony in New England. Then came the memorable
movement of Puritans out of Old England into New England,
beginning with the little settlement at Salem, under John
Endicott; expanding next year into the "Governor and Company
of Massachusetts Bay"; founding Dorchester, Roxbury,
Charlestown, Watertown, and Boston, in 1630, and rapidly
possessing and putting the stamp of the stern, strong Puritan
character on the whole section of America which it planted
with towns. In the Puritan colony of Massachusetts Bay a
cleavage soon occurred, on lines between democratic and
aristocratic or theocratic opinion, and democratic seceders
pushed southwestwards into the Connecticut Valley, where Dutch
and English were disputing possession of the country. There
they settled the question decisively, in 1635 and 1636, by
founding the towns of Hartford, Windsor, Wethersfield and
Springfield. Three years later the three towns first named
confederated themselves in a little republic, with a frame of
government which is the first known written constitution, and
so gave birth to the future State of Connecticut. In 1638 New
Haven was founded by a company of wealthy nonconformists from
England, under the lead of their minister, John Davenport, and
was a distinct colony until 1662, when it was annexed to
Connecticut by a royal charter. Another State, the smallest of
the New England commonwealths, was taking form at this same
time, in a little wedge of territory on Narragansett Bay,
between Connecticut and Massachusetts. Roger Williams, the
great apostle of a tolerant Christianity, driven from Salem by
the intolerant Puritanism of the Bay, went forth with a few
followers into the wilderness, bought land from the
Narragansett Indians, and laid the foundations (1636) of the
town of Providence. In that same year another small company of
people, banished from Boston for receiving the teachings of
Mrs. Anne Hutchinson, bought the island of Aquidneck or
Aquetnet from the Indians and settled at its northern end.
This community was soon divided, and part of it removed to the
southern end of the island, beginning a settlement which grew
to be the town of Newport. The island as a whole received the
name of the Isle of Rhodes, or Rhode Island; and in 1644 its
two settlements were united with Providence, under a charter
procured in England by Roger Williams, forming the colony of
Providence Plantations. In 1643 the colonies of Massachusetts,
Plymouth, Connecticut and New Haven, entered into a
confederation, from which Rhode Island was excluded, calling
themselves "The United Colonies of New England." The object of
the confederation was common action in defence against the
Indians and the Dutch on the Hudson. It was the beginning of
the cementing of New England. Before this time, small
settlements had been planted here and there in northern New
England, within territory covered by grants made to Sir
Ferdinando Gorges and Captain John Mason. The province claimed
by Gorges was subsequently called Maine, and that of Mason,
New Hampshire; but Maine never rose to an independent colonial
existence. After years of dispute and litigation, between
1651, and 1677, the jurisdiction of Massachusetts was extended
over the province, and it remained the "District of Maine"
until 1820, when Massachusetts yielded the separation which
made it a sovereign state in the American Union. The New
Hampshire settlements were also annexed to Massachusetts, in
1641, after Captain Mason's death; were separated in 1679, to
be organized as a royal province; were temporarily reclaimed
without royal authority in 1685; but finally parted from
Massachusetts in 1692, from which time until the Revolution
they remained a distinct colony.
See NEW ENGLAND;
also MASSACHUSETTS, CONNECTICUT, RHODE ISLAND,
NEW HAMPSHIRE, and MAINE.
While the English were thus colonizing New England at the
north and Virginia at the south, the Dutch, not recognizing
their claims to the country between, had taken possession of
the important valley of the Hudson River and the region around
its mouth, and had named the country "New Netherland." The
river had been discovered in 1609 by Henry Hudson, an English
sailor, but exploring in the service of the Dutch. Trading
with the Indians for furs was begun the next year; the coast
and the rivers of the region were actively explored; a New
Netherland Company was chartered; a trading-house, called Fort
Nassau, was built on the Hudson as far to the north, or nearly
so, as Albany; but no real colonization was undertaken until
1623. The New Netherland Company had then been superseded by
the Dutch West India Company, with rights and powers extending
to Africa as well as the West Indies and the North American
coasts. It bought Manhattan Island and large tracts of land
from the Indians, but had little success for several years in
settling them. In 1629 it introduced a strange experiment,
creating a kind of feudal system in the New World, by
conveying great estates to individuals, called Patroons, or
Patrons, who would undertake to colonize them, and who
received with their territorial grant much of the powers and
many of the characteristics of a feudal lord.
{3167}
Several Patroon colonies were established on a baronial scale;
but, generally, the system did not produce satisfactory
results, and in 1640 the Company tried the better experiment
of making the trade of New Netherland free to all comers,
offering small independent grants of land to settlers, and
limiting the Patroons in their appropriation of territory. The
Company government, however, as administered by the directors
or governors whom it sent out, was too arbitrary to permit a
colonial growth at all comparable with that of New England.
Collisions with the English in Connecticut arose, over
questions of boundary, but the latter held their ground.
Southward, on the Delaware, the Swedes made a settlement where
the city of Wilmington now stands, and refused to be warned
off by the Dutch, who claimed the region. This Swedish colony
prospered and enlarged itself during sixteen years, but was
overcome by Director Stuyvesant of New Netherland in 1654. A
little later than the appearance of the Swedes on the
Delaware, certain colonists from New Haven bought lands from
the Indians on both banks of the Delaware and made attempts at
settlement, in what is now New Jersey and on the site of the
future city of Philadelphia. The Dutch and Swedes combined
against them and they failed. In 1664 the whole situation in
this middle region was changed by the English conquest of New
Netherland. The territory so acquired—or regained, if the
original English claim had been good—passed then, by royal
grant, to the Duke of York (afterwards King James II.), and
became the proprietary province of New York.
See NEW YORK.
The Duke of York, in turn, the same year, transferred to Lord
John Berkeley and Sir George Carteret the part of his domain
which lay between the Hudson and the Delaware, and it received
the name of New Cæsarea, or New Jersey. Under encouragement
from Berkeley and Carteret the New Haven colonization was
resumed. Ten years later Berkeley sold his rights to a party
of Quakers who were seeking a refuge for their persecuted sect
in the New World. A division of the province was made and the
Quaker proprietors received West Jersey, while East Jersey
remained to Carteret.
See NEW JERSEY.
Before this time, William Penn had become the principal owner
of the West Jersey interest. Not long afterwards (1681), by
surrendering a claim which his father held against the British
government, Penn procured from King Charles II. a much greater
proprietary domain, on the western side of the Delaware, being
no less than the vast tract, 40,000 square miles in extent,
which received the name of Pennsylvania. To his title from the
king he added a deed of purchase from the Indians. Penn's
scheme of colonization was very liberally framed, and it was
conducted with marked success. Philadelphia, first laid out in
1683, had 2,000 inhabitants in 1685, and Pennsylvania at large
had 8,000. Penn himself did not find peace or happiness in his
position as a princely proprietor; but he founded a great and
prosperous commonwealth on noble lines.
See PENNSYLVANIA.
In order to possess one bank of the Delaware River and Bay to
the sea, William Penn, after securing his grant from the king,
bought additionally from the Duke of York the claims of the
latter to that strip of territory which the Swedes had settled
on and struggled for with the Dutch, and which took an
independent political form in later days as the State of
Delaware. The Delaware "territories," as they were called,
never accepted their dependent relationship to Pennsylvania,
and as early as 1702 it was found necessary to concede them a
separate legislature, though they continued under Penn's
proprietary government.

See DELAWARE.
Adjoining Penn's province on the south was the domain of
another great proprietor, Lord Baltimore, whose title deed,
from the same royal source as that of Penn, but prior in time
by half a century, gave rise to conflicts which troubled the
whole life of the peaceful Friend. The first Lord Baltimore
(George Calvert) received from James I. in 1632 a patent which
gave him territory on the northerly side of the Potomac River,
stretching to the Delaware Bay and River and to the 40th
parallel of north latitude. By its terms it did undoubtedly
take in Delaware and part of Pennsylvania; but the intervening
occupation by the Swedes and Dutch, the English conquest, and
the royal grant to the Duke of York, confused the title. The
controversy was not settled until 1761-7, when "Mason and
Dixon's line" was run as the accepted boundary between
Maryland and Pennsylvania. The lords proprietary of Maryland
had been in conflict long before Penn's time with their
neighbors at the south, in Virginia, and had many difficulties
to encounter and many troubles in their undertaking to found a
state. The powers they had received with their grant from the
king were the largest that royalty could concede to a subject,
and gave to their province the character of a palatine
principality. But they exercised their substantial sovereignty
with an admirable moderation. They were Catholics, and the
early settlers in Maryland were largely though not wholly of
that faith. But they introduced a policy of tolerance which
was strange at the time to every other part of the New World
except Rhode Island, and made their province free to all
religions. Numerous Puritans entered it, especially from
Virginia, where they were unwelcome; and these, it can hardly
be denied, made ill returns for the tolerant hospitality they
received. During the time of the Civil War, the Commonwealth
and the Protectorate in England, the Maryland Puritans were
hostile, not only to the proprietary government, but to its
tolerant principles, and used the ascendancy which they
frequently gained in a spirit that does not compare favorably
with that of their adversaries. Subsequently the ascendancy of
the Puritans gave way to that of the Anglican Church, without
restoring the toleration which Catholicism in power had
established—a rare instance in history—and which Protestantism
in power had suppressed.
See MARYLAND.
Beyond the Virginia plantations, in the South, the coasts to
which Raleigh had sent his first colonists, and to which the
virgin queen had intended to give her name, waited long for
settlement. The first durable colony within that territory
which took its name in time from a less worthy sovereign was
planted in 1653, at Albemarle, on the Chowan River, by a small
company of dissenters from Virginia.
{3168}
In 1665 a considerable party of emigrants from the Barbadoes,
headed by a wealthy planter of that island, Sir John Yeamans,
established themselves on Cape Fear River, near its mouth, in
the district which was afterwards called Clarendon. Two years
before this time, in 1663, King Charles II. had discharged
some part of his heavy obligations to his loyal supporters by
granting that whole section of the American continent which
lies between the 31st and 36th parallels of latitude to a
company of courtiers, including Clarendon, Monk, Shaftesbury,
and others, and the province was named Carolina. It was
divided into two great counties, Albemarle and Clarendon, and
these corresponded somewhat nearly to the North Carolina and
South Carolina of the present day. In 1670 the lords
proprietors sent out a colony under William Sayle, which
settled first at Port Royal; but Sayle died soon after
landing, and the colonists were induced to migrate northwards
to the Ashley River, where Sir John Yeamans met them with a
considerable part of his Clarendon colony, and became the head
of the united settlements. There they founded "Old
Charleston," and, after a few years, shifting the site to the
confluence of the Ashley and the Cooper, they began the
building of the present city of Charleston. This became the
nucleus of the subsequently distinct colony of South Carolina,
as Albemarle did of that of North Carolina. The division was
made in 1729, when the rights of the Proprietors were bought
by the Crown, and the Carolinas became crown colonies. Until
that time, the southern colony had made far greater progress
than its northern twin. It had received a considerable
immigration of Huguenots from France and of Scotch-Irish from
the north of Ireland, as well as of English, and Charleston
was becoming an important port, especially frequented by
buccaneers. But after the displacement of the proprietary
government, North Carolina began quickly to receive more than
its share of the Scotch-Irish immigration and no small number
of Highland Scotch. The colony was developed almost wholly in
the agricultural direction, with few and small towns. Slavery
was introduced at an early day, and rooted itself in the
industrial system, as it did in that of all the southern
settlements.
See NORTH CAROLINA and SOUTH CAROLINA.
The last of the "Thirteen Colonies" to come into existence was
the colony of Georgia, founded so late as 1733 by General
James Oglethorpe. It occupied territory too close in
neighborhood to the Spaniards of Florida to be attractive to
settlers in the 17th century. Its colonization was undertaken
by General Oglethorpe primarily as a philanthropic enterprise
for the benefit of unfortunate English debtors, who were
released from prison and permitted to emigrate under his care;
but secondarily to strengthen the defence of the English
colonies against the Spaniards. He obtained his grant from
George II. "in trust for the poor," and the colony was
governed by trustees until 1752, when it was surrendered to
the crown. The first emigrants left England in the fall of
1732, and early in the next year Savannah was laid out by
Oglethorpe in person. His scheme of colonization proved highly
attractive, not only in England but on the continent, and
numbers of Protestant Germans came over to become part of the
original population of Georgia. At the outset, slavery was
strictly prohibited; but the settlers thought themselves
grievously oppressed by the denial of slaves, and their
discontent became so great that in 1749 the trustees rescinded
the prohibition.
See GEORGIA.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1620-1776.
Constitutional relations of the colonies to the English Crown
and Parliament.
The working of the leaven of independence
in New England Puritanism.
The history of the development of the question between England
and her colonies, as to their constitutional relations to one
another, "falls naturally into two periods: first, from the
beginning of English colonization in America to the Revolution
of 1688; second, from 1688 to the Declaration of Independence.
… Passing now to the history of the first period, it is to be
observed that the leading institution in the English
government at that time was the King in Council. … But in the
17th century, owing to a combination of very strong political
and religious forces, the struggle between the King in
Parliament and the King in Council was … opened and pushed
with vigor. It continued with alternations of success, but on
the whole with results favorable to Parliament, till 1688.
Then the King in Parliament finally gained the ascendancy, and
this result was so secured by statute as never afterwards to
be seriously called in question. The supremacy of Parliament
was established by a series of royal concessions. The
parliamentary party viewed these as compromises between
Parliament and king. This gave color to the theory of social
contract, which was now given new impulse and form by the
parliamentarian writers of the 16th and 17th centuries. … It
naturally follows from what has been said that the
administration of colonial affairs previous to 1688 was in the
hands of the King in Council. Such was the fact. The
enterprises of discovery were fitted out under the patronage
of the crown; the territories discovered or visited were taken
possession of in its name; and grants of land, of rights of
government and trade, were made to actual settlers by the
kings. Every colonial charter is a proof of this. As the king
was by the theory of English law feudal proprietor of England,
so he became proprietor of colonial territory, though that
territory was granted out in socage, one of the freest forms
of English tenure. Certain superficial distinctions were
introduced in the form of colonial governments, as royal,
proprietary, and charter; but they all emanated from the
crown. Its supremacy extended around and beneath them all. The
fact that they were established by grant is proof of this,
even though there had been no subsequent acts to enforce the
control. They were colonies of the English crown; their
inhabitants were its subjects. The true doctrine of
sovereignty and allegiance necessitates this conclusion. …
Parliament passed few statutes affecting the colonies. Yet,
not to mention others, there were five such of very great
importance which fall within this period: the Act of Supremacy
(I Eliz. cap. I), and the four Navigation acts. In all these
the colonies were expressly mentioned. But the relative
position of crown and Parliament is illustrated by the fact
that when in 1624 the Council was proceeding to annul the
third Virginia charter, the House tried to interfere but was
warned off—because the business concerned only the king and
his advisers.
{3169}
Moreover there was no lack of precedents for the extension not
only of common law but of royal ordinances and statute law
outside of the original realm of England. … Such in outline
was the status of English colonial law previous to 1688. It
was in the process of formation and adaptation to the new
empire. There were ample precedents for the exercise of the
rights of British sovereignty in America, but those rights had
not yet been called into the fullest operation. Their
legitimacy however was in general fully acknowledged by the
colonists. They had been allowed great liberty in establishing
their governments, erecting courts, levying taxes, organizing
and calling out their militia for defence against the Indians.
Colonial society had been allowed to develop freely in all
lines and the product was far different from anything which
existed in the mother country. It was democratic rather than
aristocratic; it was also extremely particularistic, and too
remote from England to feel much interest in the general
concerns of the empire. In this divergence of social
organization and interests, as between the colonies and the
mother country, lay the germ which might develop into
resistance on the part of the plantations, if at any time
England should attempt to enforce her rightful supremacy over
them. But as yet there was too little of the spirit of union
among the colonists to make possible any combined action. Also
those dynasties whose government had been most arbitrary in
England, the Tudors and Stuarts, had, till the reign of James
II, treated the colonies with great leniency. But the
statements just made do not cover the whole ground. They
describe the attitude of the colonies in general toward the
mother country, but they do not describe the special
conditions which prevailed in New England. If we wish to know
how the theory of colonial independence originated, we must
look in that direction. The American revolution cannot be
explained without reference to the political character and
tendencies of Puritanism. … Puritanism then was a political as
well as a religious movement. On the one hand its doctrines
contained a strong democratic leaven; on the other they
contained principles which might lead to the separation of
church and state. How the former tendency worked itself out in
New England is familiar; how the latter failed of
accomplishment there is equally well known. The Puritans of
Massachusetts were not opposed to the union of church and
state or to the employment of the secular power to enforce
religious conformity. … What they were opposed to was every
other form of state church except their own. … In order to
maintain her peculiar system, Massachusetts had to be on her
guard against all interference from outside. … The
Massachusetts charter was brought over to this country. A few
years later the Plymouth company was dissolved, and
representation of the colony in England, except by such agents
as she might send, ceased. The terms of the charter were very
liberal; but like all the others it was a royal grant, and
expressly stated that the inhabitants of the colony were to be
subjects of England and were to enjoy all the liberties and
immunities of such, as if they were in the realm of England.
The oaths of supremacy and allegiance were to be administered
to all who should go to the colony. The company was made a
'body corporate and politic' and was given ample powers of
government; but its laws, statutes, and ordinances were not to
be contrary to the laws of England. The admission of freemen
was left in the hands of the corporation. How did the Puritan
oligarchy make use of this charter for serving the purposes of
their government? In a word, they interpreted the expression
'body corporate and politic' to mean an independent state, and
virtually abandoned all legal connection with England except
an empty acknowledgment of allegiance. The oath of allegiance
was not administered, but instead an oath of fidelity to the
government of Massachusetts. An ecclesiastical system wholly
different from that of England was established. Only those
were admitted to political rights, made freemen, who were
members of a Congregational church. … The colony also
exercised full legislative and judicial powers, and denied the
right of appeal both practically and theoretically. The proof
of this is most direct and convincing. To illustrate: in 1646
the General Court refused to permit the appeal of Dr. Child
and others who, as Presbyterians, desired to lay before
Parliament the wrongs they suffered in Massachusetts. Not only
was the right denied, but the petitioners were prevented by
force from carrying their case to England. The same course was
pursued in reference to appeals in ordinary judicial cases.
During the discussion of the affair just mentioned it was
boldly affirmed in the General Court that subjects were bound
by English laws only so long as they lived in England; that
neither statutes nor royal ordinances were in force beyond the
seas. A little later than this both the magistrates and the
elders were called upon to give their views on the legal
relations between the colony and England. Both agreed that by
their charter they 'had absolute power of government'; that
their government was perfect and sufficient in all its parts,
not needing the help of any superior to make it complete. They
acknowledged that they had received the charter from England,
and 'depended upon that state for protection and immunities as
freeborn Englishmen'; but the duties which were correlative to
those immunities, and which are necessary to a true conception
of allegiance, were not mentioned. This position was
consistently maintained by the Puritans of Massachusetts as
long as they remained in power. In their correspondence with
the home government and its officials between 1664 and 1684
the right of appeal was always denied. Its exercise was never
allowed. If we add to this the further statements that
Massachusetts coined money; strove to enlarge the bounds of
her patent, not only without consulting the king, but in
defiance of his absolute prohibition; taxed English imports;
and, without the consent of the home government, entered the
New England confederation, some notion can be formed of the
degree of independence claimed and exercised by that colony.
The exercise of this independence however did not make it
legal. It only illustrates the fact that the roots of the
American revolution extend back into the times of which we are
speaking. … It was to be expected that England would interfere
to bring Massachusetts within the bounds of constitutional
dependence. Complaints against the colony, on the part of
Gorges and of those who had been banished by the Puritans,
began very early.
{3170}
These led to 'quo warranto' proceedings for the recall of the
charter in 1635. But civil strife at home compelled the
government of Charles I to abandon the project. Then came the
period of the Commonwealth, when the views of the English
government were so fully in harmony with those of the New
England leaders that the practical independence of the colony
was ignored. … From the restoration dates the beginning of a
more comprehensive colonial policy." With the fall of the
Massachusetts charter, in 1684, "closes the first stage in the
development of the idea of colonial independence. The struggle
between the Puritans of Massachusetts and the crown is the
most significant fact in American history previous to 1760.
The Puritans were defeated; the authority of England was
reasserted. … But for our purpose the important result is that
the Puritans left behind them an armory full of precedents and
arguments in favor of colonial independence. They had
constructed the American theory on that subject. That was the
chief permanent result of their experiment. They had from
first to last adhered to the theory which expediency taught
them to adopt. They taught the colonists how to resist the
exercise of the ecclesiastical and judicial supremacy of the
crown. If now at any time in the future the Americans should
consider themselves aggrieved by the acts of the English
government, the Puritan spirit and theory would be likely to
appear. Such was the aspect of affairs at the close of the
first period of colonial history. After the revolution of
1688, Parliament assumes more and more the control of American
concerns. Statutes on those subjects multiply. The
administration of the colonies becomes a branch of the
ministerial government of Great Britain. The development of an
imperial as distinguished from an insular policy is begun. The
interference of England in colonial affairs became more
frequent and the control asserted more extensive than
heretofore. … The attitude of the colonists during this period
was one of passive rather than active resistance.
Parliamentary restrictions were so far evaded as not to be
burdensome. … The records show that the burden of opinion in
the colonies was jealousy of all government, so far as it
operated as a restraint. The interference of government,
whether colonial or imperial, was welcomed by the colonists,
when it could be used for the advancement of their private or
local interests; when larger objects were aimed at, it was if
possible ignored or resisted. … The political condition of the
colonies was for the first time clearly revealed during the
French and Indian war. The history of Germany can furnish no
more vivid spectacle of the evils of particularism than does
that struggle. … The condition of anarchy and helplessness
revealed by the war was such as to convince all the servants
of the crown in America that active parliamentary interference
was necessary, if the colonies were to be defended and
retained as an integral part of the British empire. The fact
that the British government, within a reasonable time after
the close of the war, proceeded to put this suggestion into
execution, implies nothing arbitrary or unreasonable. It had
the undoubted constitutional right to do so; and so far as
could be seen at the time, expediency prompted in the same
direction. But during the century since the Puritan oligarchy
of Massachusetts yielded to the supremacy of the crown, the
theory of social contract had been fully developed. It had
formulated the needs of the opposition in all the European
countries to the system of absolutism. It was the theory of
government very generally held by the Puritans in both England
and America. … This theory, as soon as it was understood,
would naturally find general acceptance in the colonies. … The
American revolution, as truly as the French, was the outgrowth
of the doctrine of natural rights and social contract. By this
I mean simply that the doctrine in question formed the
theoretical basis of both movements. So far as the American
revolution is concerned the proof of this statement is
contained in the writings of the patriot leaders at the time,
the various state papers that were issued, and the doctrine
that was held respecting the right of imperial taxation. No
man contributed so much to bringing about the revolution as
Samuel Adams; and his mind was saturated with the theory of
social contract. He made it the basis of all his reasonings. …
The reason why New England became the leader of the movement
clearly appears. The process of development through which the
colonies passed was a natural, and therefore a necessary one.
It was slow and obscure, and therefore could not be clearly
recognized at the time. But that it was nevertheless
revolutionary becomes evident when we compare the views and
aims of the colonists with the constitution of the British
empire. When the two systems came into collision the colonists
adopted a theory which was 'in the air' at the time, but one
under which no government can be successfully carried on. When
they came to erect a government of their own, they had to
abandon it. It is not claimed that the doctrine of natural
rights ever found such general acceptance in America as in
France. The character of the people and the absence of a
despotic government prevented that. But that the American
revolution cannot be explained without assigning it a
prominent place is evident. It is not intended to convey the
impression that the colonists had no grievances. There were
causes for complaint, but they were doubtless greatly
exaggerated. A mind filled with the democratic theories of the
times, and with the loose notions concerning sovereignty and
allegiance which then prevailed, could easily imagine that
Parliament, unless resisted, would establish a despotic
government in America."
Professor H. L. Osgood,
England and the Colonies
(Political Science Quarterly, September, 1887).
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1651-1672.
The Navigation Acts and the colonies.
Spirit and objects of the English restrictive commercial system.
To the Act of Navigation, passed in 1651 (see NAVIGATION LAWS)
is due a change in the relations of the colonies to the
mother-country. "Henceforth they were regarded mainly as
feeders to its carrying-trade, as consumers of its
manufactures, as factories for the distribution of its
capital, and, in a word, as mere commercial appendages of what
was now the great commercial power. Dominion became
subordinate to trade. … Beginning … with the re-enactment of
the Navigation Act after the Restoration, we find that the new
system which is to regulate colonial trade and define the
relations of the colonies to the parent, is contained in three
Acts of Parliament.
{3171}
First, in the re-enactment itself of the Act of Navigation in
1660; secondly, in an act, passed in 1663, entitled 'an Act
for the encouragement of trade'; and, thirdly, in an act,
passed in 1672, and entitled 'an Act for the encouragement of
the Greenland and Eastland fisheries, and for the better
securing the plantation trade.' … The three acts which created
the system, were all passed in the reign of Charles II.; the
others followed rapidly, and in great numbers, for a century,
until the failure of the attempt to transform this system of
trade into one of trade and revenue, by means of what is known
as the Stamp Act. St. John's Navigation Act was reenacted in
1660, under Charles II., as the first-fruits of the
Restoration. This act forbade importation into or exportation
out of the colonies, save what came and went in English ships,
and its object was, to shut the doors of the colonies against
foreign trade. In 1663 another step was taken, and an act was
passed with the object, openly avowed in its fifth section, of
keeping the colonies in 'a firmer dependence' upon England,
and of making that kingdom the staple, or place of
distribution, not only of colonial produce, 'but also of the
commodities of other countries and places, for the supplying
of them.' To effect this, the Act of 1663 went beyond that of
1660, and exacted, that no European products or manufactures
should be imported into any colony, except what had been
actually laden and shipped in an English port, and carried
'directly thence' to the importing colony. This act forced the
colonists to get such supplies as they could not themselves
furnish in England only, and thus not only could none but
mariners of whom three fourths were English transport
merchandise to and from the colonies, but the colonists
themselves were not suffered to go anywhere but to England for
that which they could not get at home. … This position of
factor between the colonies and foreign markets was a
lucrative one. But the spirit of trade is such, that it
regards much as only a stepping-stone to more, and the next
enactment concerning colonial trade, or that of 1672, betrays
this characteristic. The existing factorage was maintained
only between the colonial and foreign trade; it had no place
in intercolonial traffic. … As this intercolonial trade
developed, it attracted the observation of the English
merchants, who at last demanded the control of it. In
compliance with this demand, an act was passed in 1672,
subjecting any enumerated commodity to a duty specified in the
statute—and thus was destroyed the freedom, and, to a great
extent, the incentive of intercolonial traffic. This act was
well entitled 'an Act for the encouragement of the Greenland
and Eastland fisheries, and for the better securing of the
plantation trade.' History is silent respecting the fisheries,
but it has been very outspoken concerning its effect on the
plantations. The effect was this: if Rhode Island wished to be
supplied by Massachusetts with one of the enumerated
commodities, and Massachusetts desired to furnish Rhode Island
with that commodity, the delivery of the goods could not be
made by the producer to the consumer, but the article would
have to be sent to England first, and landed there, and then
be sent back from England to Rhode Island before the consumer
could touch it. A line drawn from Boston, in Massachusetts, to
Bristol, in England, and thence back to Newport, in Rhode
Island, will show the course which such article must take, if
sold by Massachusetts to Rhode Island, before the demands of
English commerce were satisfied; it will in all probability
likewise show the least angle with the longest sides ever
subtended on the chart of trade. Should, however, the parties
to the transaction desire to avoid the risk and delay incident
to this phenomenal voyage, they could do so by paying the
certain rates and duties prescribed by this statute."
E. G. Scott,
The Development of Constitutional Liberty
in the English Colonies of America,
chapter 8 (with corrections by the author).
"Unfortunately there does not exist any history of the
commerce of the American colonies, from the Commonwealth to
1774, as affected by navigation laws, acts of trade, and
revenue measures. No one who has read the 29 acts which
comprise this legislation will recommend their perusal to
another; for, apart from their volume, the construction of
these acts is difficult,—difficult even to trained lawyers
like John Adams, whose business it was to advise clients in
respect to them. Nor have special students, like Bancroft,
stated their effect with exact precision."
M. Chamberlain,
The Revolution Impending: Critical Essay
(Narrative and Critical History of America, volume 6),
page 64.
ALSO IN:
G. L. Beer,
The Commercial Policy of England toward the American Colonies
(Columbia College Studies, volume 3, number 2).
W. B. Weeden,
Economic and Social History of New England,
chapter 7 (volume 1).
J. E. T. Rogers,
Economic Interpretation of History,
chapter 15.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1690.
The First American Congress.
King William's War.
"After the accession [in England, A. D. 1689] of William and
Mary, hostilities were declared between France and England,
which extended to America; and thus began the first
inter-colonial war [commonly known in American history as King
William's War]. The French soon planned an invasion of Boston
and New York. … On the 8th of February, 1690, a war-party, who
had come stealthily from Canada, entered the open gates of the
town of Schenectady, when it was snowing, and broke the
stillness of midnight with the terrible yell and whoop of the
savages. Men, women, and children, for two hours, were
mercilessly butchered. Their dwellings were burned. The whole
town was sacked. … The intelligence flew through the colonies.
… Schenectady was the Fort Sumter of that day. The event had a
political effect. It shamed the factions in New York at least
into a truce. It roused a spirit of patriotism. The governor
of Massachusetts urged, in letters to other colonies, the
necessity for immediate action to provide for the common
defence. … The General Court [of Massachusetts], in view of
organizing a joint effort of the colonies, proposed to hold a
congress. The call for a meeting is dated the 19th of March,
1690. It relates, that their majesties' subjects had been
invaded by the French and Indians; that many of the colonists
had been barbarously murdered, and were in danger of greater
mischiefs; and it proposed, as a measure of prevention, that
the neighboring colonies, and Virginia, Maryland, and the
parts adjacent, should be invited to meet at New York, and
conclude on suitable methods for assisting each other for the
safety of the whole land. The governor of New York was desired
to transmit this invitation to the southern colonies. Such was
the first call for a general congress in America.
{3172}
It is free from narrowness. It is liberal in its spirit,
simple in its terms, and comprehensive in its object. … The
call elicited from several colonies interesting replies.
Governor Hinckley, of Plymouth, entered with zeal into the
measure, and, though the General Court was not in session,
appointed a commissioner. The Quaker-governor of Rhode Island,
Henry Bull, replied in an excellent spirit. … Though the time
was too short to convene the assembly for the appointment of
commissioners, he promised the aid of that colony to the
utmost of its ability to resist the French and Indians. The
head of the convention of Maryland wrote, that it was the
design of the assembly to send arms and men to aid in the
general defence. … President Bacon, of Virginia, replied, that
the proposition would require the action of the assembly, and
that nothing would be done until the arrival of the daily
expected governor. The replies to the invitation were cordial.
The commissioners of four colonies [Massachusetts, Plymouth,
Connecticut, and New York] met at New York. … The
deliberations led to a unanimous result. On the 1st of May, an
agreement was signed by the delegates, in behalf of the five
colonies [including Maryland under its promise], to raise a
force of 855 men for the strengthening of Albany, and, 'by the
help of Almighty God, subduing the French and Indian enemies.'
It was agreed, that the lieutenant-governor of New York should
name the commander of this force; that it should not be
employed on any other service without the consent of the five
colonies; and that the officers should be required to preserve
among their men good order, punish vice, keep the Sabbath, and
maintain the worship of God. No proposition appears to have
been entertained for a permanent organization. … Efforts were
made to obtain additional aid from New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
and Rhode Island. … I need only state, as the result of this
congress, that it was resolved to attempt the reduction of
Canada by two lines of attack,—one to conquer Acadia, and then
to move on Quebec; and the other, by the route of Lake
Champlain, to assault Montreal. The New England forces under
Sir William Phips, assigned to the first route, captured
Acadia and Port Royal, and sailed for Quebec, in the
expectation of being aided by the other forces who marched by
the Champlain route. But they, under Fitz-John Winthrop, with
the title of major, were not successful. Leisler [see NEW
YORK: A. D. 1689-1691], with characteristic rashness, accused
the commander of treachery; while the officers charged the
commissary, Jacob Milborne, of New York, with inefficiency in
procuring supplies. The failure of Winthrop occasioned the
retreat of Phips."
R. Frothingham,
The Rise of the Republic of the United States,
chapter 3.
ALSO IN:
Doc. History of New York,
volume 2 (Leisler's administration).
Documents relating to Colonial History of New York,
volume 3.
See, also, CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1696-1697.
The Board of Trade for the Supervision of the Colonies.
Plans of Colonial Union by Penn and others.
"The king attempted a more efficient method of administering
the colonies; and, in May 1696, a Board of Commissioners for
Trade and Plantations, consisting of the chancellor, the
president of the privy council, the keeper of the privy seal,
the two secretaries of state, and eight special commissioners,
was called into being. To William Blathwayte, who had drafted
the new charter of Massachusetts, John Locke, and the rest of
the commission, instructions were given by the crown 'to
inquire into the means of making the colonies most useful and
beneficial to England; into the staples and manufactures which
may be encouraged there, and the means of diverting them from
trades which May prove prejudicial to England; to examine into
and weigh the acts of the assemblies; to set down the
usefulness or mischief of them to the crown, the kingdom, or
the plantations themselves; to require an account of all the
moneys given for public uses by the assemblies of the
plantations, and how the same are employed.' The
administration of the several provinces had their unity in the
person of the king, whose duties with regard to them were
transacted through one of the secretaries of state; but the
Board of Trade was the organ of inquiries and the centre of
colonial information. Every law of a provincial legislature,
except in some of the charter governments, if it escaped the
veto of the royal governor, might be arrested by the
unfavorable opinion of the law officer of the crown, or by the
adverse report of the Board of Trade. Its rejection could come
only from the king in council. … The Board of Trade was hardly
constituted before it was summoned to plan unity in the
military efforts of the provinces; and Locke with his
associates despaired, on beholding them 'crumbled into little
governments, disunited in interests, in an ill posture and
much worse disposition to afford assistance to each other for
the future.' The Board, in 1697, 'after considering with their
utmost care,' could only recommend the appointment of 'a
captain-general of all the forces and all the militia of all
the provinces on the continent of North America, with power to
levy and command them for their defence, under such
limitations and instructions as to his majesty should seem
best.' … With excellent sagacity—for true humanity perfects
the judgment—William Penn matured a plan of a permanent
union, by a national representation of the American States. On
the 8th day of February 1697, he delivered his project for an
annual 'congress,' as he termed it, of two delegates from each
province. … But the ministry adopted neither the military
dictatorship of Locke and his associates, nor the peaceful
congress of William Penn."
G. Bancroft,
History of the United States
(Author's last revision),
part 3, chapter 4 (volume 2).
The following is the Plan of Union drafted by Penn: "A Briefe
and Plaine Scheam how the English Colonists in the North parts
of America, viz.: Boston, Connecticut, Road Island, New York,
New Jerseys, Pensilvania, Maryland, Virginia, and Carolina may
be made more usefull to the Crowne, and one another's peace
and safty with an universall concurrence.
1st. That the severall Colonies before mentioned do meet once
a year, and oftener if need be, during the war, and at least
once in two years in times of peace by their stated and
appointed Deputies, to debate and resolve of such measures as
are most adviseable for their better understanding, and the
public tranquility and safety.
{3173}
2d. That in order to it two persons well qualified for sence,
sobriety and substance be appointed by each Province, as their
Representatives or Deputies, which in the whole make the
Congress to consist of twenty persons.
3d. That the King's Commissioner for that purpose specially
appointed shall have the chaire and preside in the said
Congresse.
4th. That they shall meet as near as conveniently may be to
the most centrall Colony for use of the Deputies.
5th. Since that may in all probability, be New York both
because it is near the Center of the Colonies and for that it
is a Frontier and in the King's nomination, the Governor of
that Colony may therefore also be the King's High Commissioner
during the Session after the manner of Scotland.
6th. That their business shall be to hear and adjust all
matters of Complaint or difference between Province and
Province.
As,
1st, where persons quit their own Province and goe to another,
that they may avoid their just debts, tho they be able to pay
them,
2nd, where offenders fly Justice, or Justice cannot well be
had upon such offenders in the Provinces that entertaine them,
3dly, to prevent or cure injuries in point of Commerce,
4th, to consider of ways and means to support the union and
safety of these Provinces against the public enemies. In which
Congresse the Quotas of men and charges will be much easier,
and more equally sett, then it is possible for any
establishment made here to do; for the Provinces, knowing
their own condition and one another's, can debate that matter
with more freedome and satisfaction and better adjust and
ballance their affairs in all respects for their common safty.
7ly. That in times of war the King's High Commissioner shall
be generall or chief Commander of the severall Quotas upon
service against a common enemy as he shall be advised, for the
good and benefit of the whole."
H. W. Preston,
Documents illustrative of American History,
page 146.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1696-1749.
Growing despotism of the English mercantile policy.
Systematic suppression of colonial manufactures.
"By the erection, in 1696, of a new Standing Council, or Board
of Trade, under the denomination of 'The Lords Commissioners
for Trade and Plantations,' the interests of British commerce
and the affairs of Colonial trade and government were confided
to that body, which thenceforward became the repository of all
official intelligence upon those subjects, and the medium of
communication with the several governors and assemblies of the
Colonies. Yearly reports of the state of the Provinces were
required from the governors, in answer to queries addressed to
them by the Board. An Act of Parliament of the same year still
further restricted commercial intercourse, by limiting trade
between England and her Colonies to English, Irish and
Colonial built vessels, and by prohibiting Colonial produce
from going to the ports of Ireland or Scotland. … The feeble
attempts of the Colonists to make a portion of their own
clothing from their abundant materials had not been unnoticed
in England. Three years after—the Board of Trade having
received complaints from English merchants and manufacturers,
that the wool and woolen manufactures of Ireland and the North
American plantations began to be exported to foreign markets
formerly supplied by England—an Act passed the British
Parliament, … dictated by that sleepless vigilance which
guarded the staple manufacture of England. It prohibited the
exportation of any wool or woolen manufacture from Ireland,
except to certain ports in England; but, by way of
compensation, virtually surrendered to Ireland the linen
manufacture, then little regarded in comparison with the
woolen interests. In reference to the Colonies, it was enacted
that 'After the first day of December, 1699, no wool,
woolfels, yarn, cloth, or woolen manufactures of the English
plantations in America shall be shipped in any of the said
English plantations, or otherwise loaden, in order to be
transported thence to any place whatsoever, under the penalty
of forfeiting ship and cargo, and £500 for each offence.' … A
letter from New England to the Board of Trade [in 1715] …
reiterates the necessity of employing the New England people
in producing naval stores, to turn them from manufactures. …
The discouragement of American manufactures, from this time,
became the settled and avowed policy of the government, and,
three years later, the Bill prohibiting the erection of forges
and iron mills was introduced, and declared that the erecting
of Manufactories in the Colonies 'tends to lessen their
dependence upon Great Britain.' … The company of Feltmakers,
in London, petitioned Parliament, in February, 1731, to
prohibit the exportation of hats from the American Colonies,
representing that foreign markets were almost altogether
supplied from thence, and not a few sent to Great Britain. The
petition was referred to a special committee, who reported
that, in New York and New England, beaver hats were
manufactured to the number, it was estimated, of 10,000
yearly. … The exports were to the Southern plantations, the
West Indies, and Ireland. In consequence of this evidence, and
that furnished by the Board of Trade in the same session, an
act was passed (5 George II. c. 22) that 'no hats or felts,
dyed or undyed, finished or unfinished, shall be put on board
any vessel in any place within any of the British plantations;
nor be laden upon any horse or other carriage to the intent to
be exported from thence to any other plantation, or to any
other place whatever, upon forfeiture thereof, and the
offender shall likewise pay £500 for every such offence.' …
This severe and stringent law continued in force in the
Colonies until the Revolution. It aimed at the prostration of
one of the oldest and, on account of the abundance and
cheapness of beavers and other furs, one of the most
profitable branches of industry."
J. L. Bishop,
History of American Manufactures,
volume 1, chapter 14.
In 1749 an act of Parliament was passed "to encourage the
importation of pig and bar iron from his majesty's colonies in
America, and to prevent the erection of any mill or other
engine for slitting or rolling of iron, or any plateing forge
to work with a tilt hammer, or any furnace for making steel in
any of the said colonies." "Pig iron was allowed to be
imported free to all parts of the kingdom, so as to secure
cheap bar iron. But bar iron could not be imported at any port
but London, and carried no further than ten miles from that
city. This clause was intended to aid the owners of woods. In
order to protect the nail trade, all slitting-mills in the
colonies were ordered to be destroyed."
J. B. Pearse,
Concise History of the Iron Manufacture
of the American Colonies,
page 121.
ALSO IN:
W. B. Weeden,
Economic and Social History of New England,
volume 2.
G. L. Beer,
Commercial Policy of England toward the Colonies
(Col. Col. Studies, volume 3).
See, also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1763 and 1764.
{3174}
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:A. D. 1704-1729.
The first colonial newspapers.
See PRINTING AND PRESS: A. D. 1704-1729.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1748-1754.
First collisions with the French in the Ohio Valley.
"As the year 1750 approached, there came upon the colonies two
changes, destined to lead to a new political life. In the
first place, the colonies at last began to overrun the
mountain barrier which had hemmed them in on the west, and
thus to invite another and more desperate struggle with the
French. The first settlement made west of the mountains was on
a branch of the Kanawha (1748); in the same season several
adventurous Virginians hunted and made land-claims in Kentucky
and Tennessee. Before the close of the following year (1749)
there had been formed the Ohio Company, composed of wealthy
Virginians, among whom were two brothers of Washington. King
George granted them 500,000 acres, on which they were to plant
100 families and build and maintain a fort. The first attempt
to explore the region of the Ohio brought the English and the
French traders into conflict; and troops were not long in
following, on both sides.
See OHIO VALLEY: A. D. 1748-1754.
At the same time the home government was awaking to the fact
that the colonies were not under strict control. In 1750 the
Administration began to consider means of stopping unlawful
trade."
R. G. Thwaites,
The Colonies, 1492-1750
(Epochs of American History),
chapter 14, section 130.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1749-1755.
Unsettled boundary disputes of England and France.
Preludes of the last French War.
See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755;
CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753; 1755;
and OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1754.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1750-1753.
The eve of the great French war.
Attitude of the colonies.
"The quarrel in which the French and English now engaged was
exclusively a colonial one. The possession and defence of the
Americans had already cost, over and over again, a larger sum
than the whole produce of their trade would have produced. The
English had the mortification of observing that the colonists
claimed an the security of Englishmen against attack, and
repudiated their obligation to take a share of the burdens
which their defence occasioned. Were they attacked by the
French,—they were Englishmen, and had a right to the ægis
which that name throws over all subjects of the crown; were
they called upon for a subscription in aid of the war,—they
were men who would not submit to be taxed without their own
consent; were they taken at their word, and requested through
their own assemblies to tax themselves,—they sometimes
refused, and sometimes doled out a minute supply, taking care
to mix up with their money bill some infringement on the royal
prerogative, which rendered it impossible, except under severe
exigency of the public service, for the governor to accept the
terms offered. … The action of the colonies at this crisis was
in accordance with their invariable policy. As soon as they
perceived that the French meditated a war of aggression in
America, a chorus of complaint and apprehension came at once
from the colonists. Shirley, Governor of Massachusetts, and
Clinton, Governor of New York, had convened an assembly at
Albany during the last year of the last war, to concert
measures for uniting an the colonies for common defence;
Massachusetts and the other New England States were, of
course, anxious that the union should be carried out. They
were the barrier between the Canadas and the southern
colonies, and if any attack was made they must bear the brunt
of it. … The Congress of Albany, and especially the
Legislature of Massachusetts, advocated the erection of a line
of detached forts which might be so arranged as to overawe the
French frontier, and defend the New England colonies from
attack. … It was all in vain; every colony, with the exception
of Massachusetts, Connecticut, and South Carolina, refused to
contribute one farthing towards the expense. … Even in 1753,
when the French were actually on the Ohio, and Washington had
brought back certain intelligence of their intentions and
views, the Virginians refused supplies to Dinwiddie because
they declared themselves 'easy on account of the French.' When
at last the French had actually established themselves in
fortified posts at Niagara, at Le Bœuf, and at Venango, when
Contrecœur had driven a colonial officer out of a post which
he held on the forks of the Monongahela, when Fort du Quesne
had arisen on the ruins of an English stockade, they could no
longer close their eyes to the danger which was actually
within the boundaries of their State. They granted £10,000 of
their currency; but Dinwiddie wrote home that the bill was so
clogged with encroachments on the prerogative, that he would
not have given his assent had not the public service rendered
the supply imperatively necessary."
Viscount Bury,
Exodus of the Western Nations,
volume 2, chapter 7.
"The attitude of these various colonies towards each other is
hardly conceivable to an American of the present time. They
had no political tie except a common allegiance to the British
Crown. Communication between them was difficult and slow, by
rough roads traced often through primeval forests. Between
some of them there was less of sympathy than of jealousy
kindled by conflicting interests or perpetual disputes
concerning boundaries. The patriotism of the colonist was
bounded by the lines of his government, except in the compact
and kindred colonies of New England, which were socially
united, though politically distinct. The country of the New
Yorker was New York, and the country of the Virginian was
Virginia. The New England colonies had once confederated; but,
kindred as they were, they had long ago dropped apart. … Nor
was it this segregation only that unfitted them for war. They
were all subject to popular legislatures, through whom alone
money and men could be raised; and these elective bodies were
sometimes factious and selfish, and not always either
far-sighted or reasonable. Moreover, they were in a state of
ceaseless friction with their governors, who represented the
king, or, what was worse, the feudal proprietary. These
disputes, though varying in intensity, were found everywhere
except in the two small colonies which chose their own
governors; and they were premonitions of the movement towards
independence which ended in the war of Revolution. The
occasion of difference mattered little. Active or latent, the
quarrel was always present. … Divided in government; divided
in origin, feelings, and principles; jealous of each other,
jealous of the Crown; the people at war with the executive,
and, by the fermentation of internal politics, blinded to an
outward danger that seemed remote and vague,—such were the
conditions under which the British colonies drifted into a war
that was to decide the fate of the continent."
F. Parkman,
Montcalm and Wolfe,
chapter 1 (volume 1).
{3175}
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1754.
The Congress at Albany and its Plans of Union.
Franklin's account.
"In 1754, war with France being again apprehended, a congress
of commissioners from the different colonies was, by an order
of the Lords of Trade, to be assembled at Albany, there to
confer with the chiefs of the Six Nations concerning the means
of defending both their country and ours. Governor Hamilton
[of Pennsylvania], having received this order, acquainted the
House with it, requesting they would furnish proper presents
for the Indians, to be given on this occasion; and naming the
speaker (Mr. Norris) and myself to join Mr. Thomas Penn and
Mr. Secretary Peters as commissioners to act for Pennsylvania.
(The House approved the nomination, and provided the goods for
the present, and tho' they did not much like treating out of
the provinces;) and we met the other commissioners at Albany
about the middle of June. In our way thither, I projected and
drew a plan for the union of all the colonies under one
government, so far as might be necessary for defense, and
other important general purposes. As we passed thro' New York,
I had there shown my project to Mr. James Alexander and Mr.
Kennedy, two gentlemen of great knowledge in public affairs,
and, being fortified by their approbation, I ventured to lay
it before the Congress. It then appeared that several of the
commissioners had formed plans of the same kind. A previous
question was first taken, whether a union should be
established, which passed in the affirmative unanimously. A
committee was then appointed, one member from each colony, to
consider the several plans and report. Mine happened to be
preferred, and, with a few amendments, was accordingly
reported. … The debates upon it in Congress went on daily,
hand in hand with the Indian business. Many objections and
difficulties were started, but at length they were all
overcome, and the plan was unanimously agreed to, and copies
ordered to be transmitted to the Board of Trade and to the
assemblies of the several provinces. Its fate was singular:
the assemblies did not adopt it, as they all thought there was
too much 'prerogative' in it, and in England it was judged to
have too much of the 'democratic.' The Board of Trade
therefore did not approve of it, nor recommend it for the
approbation of his majesty; but another scheme was formed,
supposed to answer the same purpose better, whereby the
governors of the provinces, with some members of their
respective councils, were to meet and order the raising of
troops, building of forts, etc., and to draw on the treasury
of Great Britain for the expense, which was afterwards to be
refunded by an act of Parliament laying a tax on America. …
The different and contrary reasons of dislike to my plan makes
me suspect that it was really the true medium; and I am still
of opinion it would have been happy for both sides the water
if it had been adopted. The colonies, so united, would have
been sufficiently strong to have defended themselves; there
would then have been no need of troops from England; of
course, the subsequent pretence for taxing America, and the
bloody contest it occasioned, would have been avoided."
B. Franklin,
Autobiography
(edited by John Bigelow)
volume 1, pages 308-310.
"When the members assembled at the Court House in Albany on
the 19th of June, it was found that Pennsylvania, was not
alone in appointing a distinguished citizen to represent her.
On the roll of the congress were the names of
Lieutenant-governor De Lancey, of New York, who presided; and
from the same province William Smith, the historian, and the
future Sir William Johnson, not yet made a baronet. From the
proprietary provinces of Pennsylvania and Maryland were the
well known officials, John Penn, grandson of the founder;

Richard Peters; and Benjamin Tasker. From the province of New
Hampshire were her future governor, Meshech Weare, and
Theodore Atkinson; and from the province of Massachusetts Bay,
the late Lieutenant-governor, Thomas Hutchinson, Colonel John
Chandler, of Worcester, and Oliver Partridge, a man of
commanding influence in western Massachusetts. Lastly, the two
colonies which had so tenaciously preserved their charter
governments through the vicissitudes of more than a
century,—Connecticut and Rhode Island,—had acceded to the
repeated solicitations of the home government, and with
unfeigned reluctance, we may be sure, had sent as
representatives men of such wide experience in their colonial
concerns as Roger Wolcott, Jr., and Stephen Hopkins,
'America,' says Mr. Bancroft, 'had never seen an assembly so
venerable for the states that were represented, or for the
great and able men who composed it.' They were detained in
this hospitable old Dutch town for more than three weeks. …
Franklin's plan … was not approved by a single one of the
colonial assemblies before which it was brought; and … no
action was ever taken on it in England. Yet there is no
contribution to constructive statesmanship preceding the year
1776, which had a profounder effect on the subsequent growth
and development of the idea of American nationality. Even in
the amended form in which it was 'approved' by the congress,
it was, says a recent writer, 'in advance of the Articles [of
Confederation] in its national spirit, and served as the
prototype of the constitution itself.'"
W. E. Foster,
Stephen Hopkins: a Rhode Island Statesman,
chapter 6 (part 1).
The Plan of Union, as adopted by the Congress at Albany, was
accompanied by a "Representation of the Present State of the
Colonies." The following is the full text of the
Representation, followed by that of the Plan of Union:
"That His Majesty's Title to the Northern Continent of
America, appears to be founded on the Discovery thereof first
made, and the Possession thereof first taken in 1497, under a
Commission from Henry the VIIth, of England, to Sebastian
Cabot. That the French have possessed themselves of several
Parts of this Continent, which by Treaties, have been ceded
and confirmed to them: That the Rights of the English to the
whole Sea Coast, from Georgia, on the South, to the River St.
Lawrence, on the North, excepting the Island of Cape-Breton,
in the Bay of St. Lawrence, remains plain and indisputable.
{3176}
That all the Lands or Countries Westward from the Atlantic
Ocean to the South Sea, between 48 and 34 Degrees of North
Latitude, were expressly included in the Grant of King James
the First, to divers of his Subjects, so long since, as the
Year 1606, and afterwards confirmed in 1620; and under this
Grant, the Colony of Virginia claims an Extent as far West as
to the South Sea; and the antient Colonies of the
Massachusetts-Bay and Connecticut, were by their respective
Charters, made to extend to the said South Sea; so that not
only the Right to the Sea Coast, but to all the Inland
Countries, from Sea to Sea, have at all Times been asserted by
the Crown of England. That the Province of Nova Scotia or
Accadia, hath known and determinate Bounds, by the original
Grant from King James the First; and that there is abundant
Evidence of the same, [and of the Knowledge] which the French
had of these Bounds, while they were in Possession of it; and
that these Bounds being thus known, the said Province by the
Treaty of Utrecht, according to its antient Limits, was ceded
to Great-Britain, and remained in Possession thereof, until
the Treaty of Aix la Chapelle, by which it was confirmed; but
by said Treaty it is stipulated, That the Bounds of the said
Province shall be determined by Commissioners, &c. That by the
Treaty of Utrecht, the Country of the Five Cantons of the
Iroquoise, is expressly acknowledged to be under the Dominion
of the Crown of Great-Britain. That the Lake Champlain,
formerly called Lake Iroquoise, and the Country Southward of
it, as far as the Dutch or English Settlements, the Lake
Ontario, Erie, and all the Countries adjacent, have by all
antient Authors, French and English, been allowed to belong to
the Five Cantons or Nations; and the whole of those Countries,
long before the said Treaty of Utrecht, were by the said
Nations, put under the Protection of the Crown of
Great-Britain. That by the Treaty of Utrecht, there is a
Reserve to the French, a Liberty of frequenting the Countries
of the Five Nations, and other Indians in Friendship with
Great-Britain, for the Sake of Commerce; as there is also to
the English, a Liberty of frequenting the Countries of those
in Friendship with France, for the same Purpose. That after
the Treaty of Utrecht, the French built several Fortresses in
the Country of the Five Nations, and a very strong one at a
Place called Crown-Point, to the South of the Lake Champlain.
That the French Court have evidently, since the Treaty of Aix
la Chapelle, made this Northern Continent more than ever, the
Object of its Attention. That the French have most unjustly
taken Possession of a Part of the Province of Nova-Scotia; and
in the River St. John's, and other Parts of said Province,
they have built strong Fortresses; and from this River they
will have, during the Winter and Spring Season, a much easier
Communication between France and Canada, than they have
heretofore had, and will be furnished with a Harbour more
commodiously situated for the Annoying the British Colonies by
Privateers and Men of War, than Louisbourg itself. That they
have taken Possession of, and begun a Settlement at the Head
of the River Kennebeck, within the Bounds of the Province of
Main, the most convenient Situation for affording Support, and
a safe Retreat, to the Eastern Indians, in any of their
Attempts upon the Governments of New England. That it appears
by the Information of the Natives, the French have been making
Preparations for another Settlement, at a Place called Cohass,
on Connecticut River, near the Head thereof, where 'tis but
about ten Miles distant from a Branch of Merrimack River; and
from whence, there is a very near and easy Communication with
the Abnekais Indians, who are settled on the River St.
Francois, about forty Miles from the River St. Lawrence; and
it is certain, the Inhabitants of New-Hampshire, in which
Province this Cohass is supposed to lie, have been interrupted
and impeded by the French Indians, from making any Settlement
there. That since the Treaty of Aix la Chapelle, the French
have increased the Number of their Forts in the Country of the
great Lakes, and on the Rivers which run into the Mississippi,
and are securing a Communication between the two Colonies of
Louisiana and Canada, and at the same Time, putting themselves
into a Capacity of annoying the Southern British Colonies, and
preventing any further Settlements of His Majesty's Dominions.
That they have been gradually increasing their Troops in
America, transporting them in their Ships of War, which return
to France with a bare Complement of Men, leaving the rest in
their Colonies; and by this Means, they are less observed by
the Powers of Europe, than they would be, if Transports as
usual heretofore, were provided for this Purpose. That they
have taken Prisoners diverse of His Majesty's Subjects,
trading in the Country of the Iroquoise, and other inland
Parts, and plundered such Prisoners of several Thousand Pounds
Sterling; and they are continually exciting the Indians to
destroy or make Prisoners the Inhabitants of the Frontiers of
the British Colonies; which Prisoners are carried to Canada,
and a Price equal to what Slaves are sold in the Plantations,
is demanded for their Redemption and Release. That they are
continually drawing off the Indians from the British Interest,
and have lately perswaded one Half of the Onondago Tribe, with
many from the other Nations along with them, to remove to a
Place called Oswegachie, on the River Cadaracqui, where they
have built them a Church and Fort; and many of the Senecas,
the most numerous Nation, appear to be wavering, and rather
inclined to the French. And it is a melancholy Consideration,
that not more than 150 Men of all the several Nations, have
attended this Treaty, altho' they had Notice, that all the
Governments would be here by their Commissioners, and that a
large Present would be given. That it is the evident Design of
the French to surround the British Colonies, to fortify
themselves on the Back thereof, to take and keep Possession of
the Heads of all the important Rivers, to draw over the
Indians to their Interest, and with the Help of such Indians,
added to such Forces as are already arrived, and may be
hereafter sent from Europe, to be in a Capacity of making a
general Attack upon the several Governments; and if at the
same Time, a strong Naval Force be sent from France, there is
the utmost Danger, that the whole Continent will be subjected
to that Crown: And that the Danger of such a Naval Force is
not merely imaginary, may be argued from past Experience. For
had it not been by the most extraordinary Interposition of
Heaven, every Sea Port Town on the Continent, in the Year
1746, might have been ravaged and destroyed, by the Squadron
under the Command of the Duke D'Anville, notwithstanding the
then declining State of the French, and the very flourishing
State of the British Navy, and the further Advantage accruing
to the English, from the Possession of Cape-Breton.
{3177}
That the French find by Experience, they are able to make
greater and more secure Advantages upon their Neighbours, in
Peace than in War. What they unjustly possessed themselves of,
after the Peace of Utrecht, they now pretend they have a Right
to hold, by Virtue of the Treaty of Aix la Chapelle, until the
true Boundary between the English and French be settled by
Commissioners; but their Conquests made during War, they have
been obliged to restore. That the French Affairs relative to
this Continent, are under one Direction, and constantly
regarded by the Crown and Ministry, who are not insensible how
great a Stride they would make towards an Universal Monarchy,
if the British Colonies were added to their Dominions, and
consequently the whole Trade of North-America engrossed by
them. That the said Colonies being in a divided, disunited
State, there has never been any joint Exertion of their Force,
or Council, to repel or defeat the Measures of the French; and
particular Colonies are unable and unwilling to maintain the
Cause of the whole. That there has been a very great Neglect
of the Affairs of the Iroquoise, as they are commonly called,
the Indians of the Six Nations, and their Friendship and
Alliance has been improved to private Purposes, for the Sake
of the Trade with them, and the Purchase or Acquisition of
their Lands, more than the Public Services. That they are
supplied with Rum by the Traders, in vast and almost
incredible Quantities; the Laws of the Colonies now in Force,
being insufficient to restrain the Supply. And the Indians of
every Nation, are frequently drunk, and abused in their Trade,
and their Affections thereby alienated from the English; they
often wound and murder one another in their Liquor, and to
avoid Revenge, fly to the French; and perhaps more have been
lost by these Means than by the French Artifice. That
Purchases of Land from the Indians by private Persons, for
small trifling Considerations, have been the Cause of great
Uneasiness and Discontents; and if the Indians are not in fact
imposed on and injured, yet they are apt to think they have
been; and indeed, they appear not fit to be entrusted at
Large, with the Sale of their own Lands: And the Laws of some
of the Colonies, which make such Sales void, unless the
Allowance of the Government be first obtained, seem to be well
founded. That the Granting or Patenting vast Tracts of Land to
private Persons or Companies, without Conditions of speedy
Settlements, has tended to prevent the Strengthening the
Frontiers of the particular Colony where such Tracts lie, and
been Prejudicial to the rest. That it seems absolutely
necessary, that speedy and effectual Measures be taken, to
secure the Colonies from the Slavery they are threatened with:
that any farther Advances of the French should be prevented;
and the Encroachments already made, removed. That the Indians
in Alliance or Friendship with the English, be constantly
regarded under some wise Direction or Superintendency. That
Endeavours be used for the Recovery of those Indians who are
lately gone over to the French, and for securing those that
remain. That some discreet Person or Persons be appointed to
reside constantly among each Nation of Indians; such Person to
have no Concern in Trade, and duly to communicate all Advices
to the Superintendents. That the Trade with the said Indians
be well regulated, and made subservient to the Public
Interest, more than to private Gain. That there be Forts built
for the Security of each Nation, and the better carrying on
the Trade with them. That warlike Vessels be provided,
sufficient to maintain His Majesty's Right to a free
Navigation on the several Lakes. That all future Purchases of
Lands from the Indians be void, unless made by the Government
where such Lands lie, and from the Indians in a Body, in their
public Councils. That the Patentees or Possessors of large
unsettled Territories, be enjoined to cause them to be settled
in a reasonable Time, on Pain of Forfeiture. That the
Complaints of the Indians, relative to any Grants or
Possessions of their Lands, fraudulently obtained, be inquired
into, and all Injuries redressed. That the Bounds of those
Colonies which extend to the South Seas, be contracted and
limited by the Alleghenny or Apalachian Mountains; and that
Measures be taken, for settling from time to time, Colonies of
His Majesty's Protestant Subjects, Westward of said Mountains,
in convenient Cantons, to be assigned for that Purpose. And
finally, that there be an Union of His Majesty's several
Governments on the Continent, that so their Councils,
Treasure, and Strength, may be employed in due Proportion,
against their common Enemy."
The Plan of Union, adopted on the 10th of July, was as
follows:
"Plan of a proposed Union of the several Colonies of
Massachusetts-Bay, New-Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode-Island,
New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia,
North-Carolina, and South Carolina, for their mutual Defence
and Security, and for the Extending the British Settlements in
North-America. That humble Application be made for an Act of
the Parliament of Great-Britain, by Virtue of which One
General Government may be formed in America, including all the
said Colonies; within and under which Government, each Colony
may retain its present Constitution, except in the Particulars
wherein a Change may be directed by the said Act, as hereafter
follows. That the said General Government be administered by a
President General, to be appointed and supported by the Crown;
and a Grand Council, to be chosen by the Representatives of
the People of the several Colonies, met in their respective
Assemblies. That within Months after the Passing of such Act,
the House of Representatives in the several Assemblies, that
happen to be sitting within that Time, or that shall be
especially for that Purpose convened, may and shall chuse
Members for the Grand Council, in the following Proportions;
that is to say: Massachusetts-Bay, 7; New-Hampshire, 2;
Connecticut, 5; Rhode-Island, 2; New-York, 4; New-Jersey, 3;
Pennsylvania, 6; Maryland, 4; Virginia, 7, North-Carolina, 4;
South Carolina, 4: = 48. Who shall meet for the first Time at
the City of Philadelphia in Pennsylvania, being called by the
President General, as soon as conveniently may be, after his
Appointment. That there shall be a new Election of Members for
the Grand Council every three Years; and on the Death or
Resignation of any Member, his Place shall be supplied by a
new Choice, at the next Sitting of the Assembly of the Colony
he represented.
{3178}
That after the first three Years, when the Proportion of Money
arising out of each Colony to the General Treasury, can be
known, the Number of Members to be chosen for each Colony,
shall from time to time, in all ensuing Elections, be
regulated by that Proportion (yet so as that the Number to be
chosen by any one Province, be not more than seven, nor less
than two). That the Grand Council shall meet once in every
Year, and oftener if Occasion require, at such Time and Place
as they shall adjourn to at the last preceding Meeting, or as
they shall be called to meet at by the President General on
any Emergency; he having first obtained in writing, the
Consent of seven of the Members to such Call, and sent due and
timely Notice to the whole. That the Grand Council have Power
to chuse their Speaker, and shall neither be dissolved,
prorogued, nor continue sitting longer than six Weeks at one
Time, without their own Consent, or the special Command of the
Crown. That the Members of the Grand Council shall be allowed
for their Service, Ten Shillings Sterling per Diem, during
their Session and Journey to and from the Place of Meeting,
twenty Miles to be reckoned a Day's Journey. That the Assent
of the President General be requisite to all Acts of the Grand
Council; and that it be his Office and Duty to cause them to
be carried into Execution. That the President General, with
the Advice of the Grand Council, hold or direct all Indian
Treaties, in which the general Interest or Welfare of the
Colonies may be concerned; and to make Peace or declare War
with Indian Nations. That they make such Laws as they judge
necessary for regulating all Indian Trade. That they make all
Purchases from Indians for the Crown, of the Lands now not
within the Bounds of particular Colonies, or that shall not be
within their Bounds, when some of them are reduced to more
convenient Dimensions. That they make new Settlements on such
Purchases, by granting Lands in the King's Name, reserving a
Quit-Rent to the Crown for the Use of the General Treasury.
That they make Laws for regulating and governing such new
Settlements, 'till the Crown shall think fit to form them into
particular Governments. That they may raise and pay Soldiers,
and build Forts for the Defence of any of the Colonies, and
equip Vessels of Force to guard the Coast, and protect the
Trade on the Ocean, Lakes, or great Rivers; but they shall not
impress Men in any Colony, without the Consent of its
Legislature. That for those Purposes, they have Power to make
Laws, and lay and levy such general Duties, Imposts, or Taxes,
as to themselves appear most equal and just, considering the
Ability and other Circumstances of the Inhabitants in the
several Colonies, and such as may be collected with the least
Inconvenience to the People; rather discouraging Luxury, than
loading industry with unnecessary Burthens. That they may
appoint a general Treasurer and a particular Treasurer in each
Government, when necessary; and from time to time, may order
the Sums in the Treasuries of each Government, into the
General Treasury, or draw on them for special Payments, as
they find most convenient; yet no Money to issue, but by joint
Orders of the President General and Grand Council, except
where Sums have been appropriated to particular Purposes, and
the President General is previously impowered by an Act, to
draw for such Sums. That the general Accounts shall be yearly
settled, and reported to the several Assemblies. That a Quorum
of the Grand Council, impowered to act with the President
General, do consist of Twenty-five Members; among whom there
shall be one or more from a Majority of the Colonies. That the
Laws made by them for the Purposes aforesaid, shall not be
repugnant, but as near as may be agreeable, to the Laws of
England, and shall be transmitted to the King in Council, for
Approbation, as soon as may be, after their passing; and if
not disapproved within three Years after Presentation, to
remain in Force. That in Case of the Death of the President
General, the Speaker of the Grand Council for the Time being,
shall succeed, and be vested with the same Power and
Authorities, and continue 'till the King's Pleasure be known.
That all Military Commission Officers, whether for Land or Sea
Service, to act under this General Constitution, be nominated
by the President General, but the Approbation of the Grand
Council is to be obtained, before they receive their
Commissions. And all Civil Officers are to be nominated by the
Grand Council, and to receive the President General's
Approbation, before they officiate. But in Case of Vacancy, by
Death or Removal of any Officer, Civil or Military, under this
Constitution, the Governor of the Provinces in which such
Vacancy happens, may appoint, 'till the Pleasure of the
President General and Grand Council can be known. That the
particular Military as well as Civil Establishments in each
Colony, remain in their present State, this General
Constitution notwithstanding; and that on sudden Emergencies,
any Colony may defend itself, and lay the Accounts of Expense
thence arisen, before the President General and Grand Council,
who may allow and order Payment of the same, as far as they
judge such Accounts just and reasonable."
Stephen Hopkins,
A True Representation of the Plan formed at Albany in 1754,
for uniting all the British Northern Colonies;
with introduction and notes by S. S. Rider
(Rhode Island Historical Tracts, Number 9).
ALSO IN:
Proceedings of Commissioners at Albany
(Doc. Hist. of New York, volume 2, pages 545-617).
T. C. Haliburton,
Rule and Misrule of the English in America,
pages 253-258.
J. R. Brodhead, editor,
Documents relative to Colonial History of New York,
volume 6, pages 853-905.
Journal of Congress at Albany in 1754
(Massachusetts Historical Society Collection,
series 3, volume 5).
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1755.
Demand of the royal governors in America for taxation
of the colonies by act of Parliament.
At the congress of American governors which General Braddock
convened at Alexandria, in April, 1755, on his first arrival
in America as commander-in-chief of the British forces,
"Braddock directed their attention, first of all, to the
subject of a colonial revenue, on which his instructions
commanded him to insist, and his anger kindled 'that no such
fund was already established.' The governors present,
recapitulating their strifes with their assemblies, made
answer: 'Such a fund can never be established in the colonies
without the aid of parliament. Having found it impracticable
to obtain in their respective governments the proportion
expected by his majesty toward defraying the expense of his
service in North America, they are unanimously of opinion that
it should be proposed to his majesty's ministers to find out
some method of compelling them to do it, and of assessing the
several governments in proportion to their respective
abilities.'
{3179}
This imposing document Braddock sent forthwith to the
ministry, himself urging the necessity of laying some tax
throughout his majesty's dominions in North America. … I have
had in my hands vast masses of correspondence, including
letters from servants of the crown in every royal colony in
America; from civilians, as well as from Braddock and Dunbar
and Gage; from Delancey and Sharpe, as well as from Dinwiddie
and Shirley; and all were of the same tenor. The British
ministry heard one general clamor from men in office for
taxation by act of parliament. … In England, the government
was more and more inclined to enforce the permanent authority
of Great Britain."
G. Bancroft,
History of the United States
(Author's last Revision),
volume 2, pages. 416-417.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1755-1760.
The French and Indian War, known in Europe
as the Seven Years War:
The English conquest of Canada.
See CANADA: A. D. 1750-1773, to 1760;
NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755; 1755;
OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754, to 1755;
CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760;
also, for an account of the accompanying Cherokee War.
See SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1759-1761.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1760-1775.
Crown, Parliament and Colonies.
The English theory and the American theory of their relations.
"The people of every colony were subject to two jurisdictions,
one local and one general, that must be adjusted to each
other. To effect such adjustment caused no little friction;
and the Colonies and the Mother Country got on peaceably as
long as they did, only because neither one pushed its theory
of colonial relations to an extreme, each yielding something
to the other and thus effecting a compromise. The Colonies
held that the dominion which the Cabots discovered in America
belonged to the King, rather than to the Kingdom, of England.
Englishmen adventuring into this dominion to plant colonies
were entitled to all the privileges of free-born Englishmen at
home; trial by jury, habeas corpus, and exemption from taxes
that their own representatives had not voted. The British
Empire was not one dominion, but several dominions. Everyone
of these dominions had, or should have, its own legislature to
enact laws for its government. The Colonies were not one
dominion, but 13 dominions; and in everyone the legislature
was as supreme as Parliament was in England. Parliament,
therefore, had nothing more to do with Massachusetts or
Virginia than the legislatures of those colonies had to do
with England. The King, who alone had a voice in the matter,
had, in their charters, guaranteed to the Colonies the common
law so far as this was applicable to their condition, and he
was now powerless to withdraw what he had thus conceded. Such,
in outline, was the American theory of colonial relations.
Still, no one pretended that this theory had ever been fully
carried out in practice. It must also be said that it did not
appear fully formed at once, but grew up gradually. The
British theory was that Englishmen continued Englishmen when
they emigrated to the American dominions of the King; that the
power of Parliament, to which they were subject in the old
home, followed them to the new one; and that Parliament could
yield them more or fewer powers of self-government for a time,
and then withdraw them. It was also claimed that the Colonies
were already represented in the House of Commons; since the
several members of that body did not represent particular
districts or constituencies, but the whole British Empire.
Besides, it was asserted that the Colonies themselves had
repeatedly acknowledged the authority of Parliament by
submitting to its legislation. Still no one pretended that
this theory had ever been fully carried out."
B. A. Hinsdale,
The American Government,
sections 92-93.
ALSO IN:
R. Frothingham,
Life and Times of Joseph Warren,
pages 30-32.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1761.
Enforcement of revenue laws in Massachusetts.
The Writs of Assistance and Otis' speech.
"Immediately after the conquest of Canada was completed,
rumors were widely circulated … that the charters would be
taken away, and the colonies reduced to royal governments. The
officers of the customs began at once to enforce with
strictness all the acts of parliament regulating the trade of
the colonies, several of which had been suspended, or become
obsolete, and thus had never been executed at all. The good
will of the colonists or their legislatures, was no longer
wanted in the prosecution of the war; and the commissioners of
the customs were permitted and directed to enforce the
obnoxious acts. Governor Bernard [of Massachusetts], who was
always a supporter of the royal prerogative, entered fully
into these views, and shewed by his opinion, his appointments
and his confidential advisers, that his object would be, to
extend the power of the government to any limits, which the
ministry might authorize. The first demonstration of the new
course intended to be pursued, was the arrival of an order in
Council to carry into effect the Acts of trade, and to apply
to the supreme judicature of the Province [Massachusetts], for
Writs of Assistance, to be granted to the officers of the
customs. In a case of this importance there can be no doubt,
that Mr. Paxton, who was at the head of the customs in Boston,
consulted with the Government and all the crown officers, as
to the best course to be taken. The result was, that he
directed his deputy at Salem, Mr. Cockle, in November, 1760,
to petition the Superior Court, then sitting in that town, for
'writs of assistance.' Stephen Sewall who was the Chief
Justice, expressed great doubt of the legality of such a writ,
and of the authority of the Court to grant it. None of the
other judges said a word in favour of it; but as the
application was on the part of the Crown, it could not be
dismissed without a hearing, which after consultation was
fixed for the next term of the Court, to be held in February,
1761, at Boston, when the question was ordered to be argued.
In the interval, Chief Justice Sewall died, and Lieutenant
Governor Hutchinson was made his successor, thereby uniting in
his person, the office of Lieutenant Governor with the
emoluments of the commander of the castle, a member of the
Council, Judge of Probate and Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court! … The mercantile part of the community was in a state
of great anxiety as to the result of this question. The
officers of the Customs called upon Otis for his official
assistance, as Advocate General, to argue their cause.
{3180}
But, as he believed these writs to be illegal and tyrannical,
be refused. He would not prostitute his office to the support
of an oppressive act; and with true delicacy and dignity,
being unwilling to retain a station, in which he might be
expected or called upon to argue in support of such odious
measures, he resigned it though the situation was very
lucrative, and if filled by an incumbent with a compliant
spirit, led to the highest favours of government. The
merchants of Salem and Boston, applied to Mr. Pratt to
undertake their cause, who was also solicited to engage on the
other side; but he declined taking any part, being about to
leave Boston for New York, of which province he had been
appointed Chief Justice. They also applied to Otis and
Thacher, who engaged to make their defence, and probably both
of them without fees, though very great ones were offered. The
language of Otis was, 'in such a cause, I despise all fees.' …
The trial took place in the Council Chamber of the Old Town
House, in Boston. … The judges were five in number, including
Lieutenant Governor Hutchinson, who presided as Chief Justice.
The room was filled with all the officers of government, and
the principal citizens, to hear the arguments in a cause that
inspired the deepest solicitude. The case was opened by Mr.
Gridley, who argued it with much learning, ingenuity, and
dignity, urging every point and authority; that could be found
after the most diligent search, in favour of the Custom house
petition; making all his reasoning depend on this
consideration—'if the parliament of Great Britain is the
sovereign legislator of the British Empire.' He was followed
by Mr. Thacher on the opposite side, whose reasoning was
ingenious and able, delivered in a tone of great mildness and
moderation. 'But,' in the language of President Adams, 'Otis
was a flame of fire; with a promptitude of classical
allusions, a depth of research, a rapid summary of historical
events and dates, a profusion of legal authorities, a
prophetic glance of his eyes into futurity, and a rapid
torrent of impetuous eloquence, he hurried away all before
him. American Independence was then and there born. The seeds
of patriots and heroes, to defend the 'Non sine Diis animosus
infans'; to defend the vigorous youth, were then and there
sown. Every man of an immense crowded audience appeared to me
to go away as I did, ready to take arms against Writs of
Assistance. Then and there, was the first scene of the first
act of opposition, to the arbitrary claims of Great Britain.
Then and there, the child Independence was born. In fifteen
years, i. e. in 1776, he grew up to manhood and declared
himself free.' 'There were no stenographers in those days,' to
give a complete report of this momentous harangue. How gladly
would be exchanged for it, a few hundred verbose speeches on
some of the miserable, transient topics of the day, that are
circulated in worthless profusion. Yet on this occasion, 'the
seeds were sown,' and though some of them doubtless fell by
the wayside or on stony places, others fell on good ground,
and sprang up and increased and brought forth in due season,
thirty, sixty and an hundred fold. … After the close of his
argument, the Court adjourned for consideration, and at the
close of the term, Chief Justice Hutchinson pronounced the
opinion: 'The Court has considered the subject of writs of
assistance, find can see no foundation for such a writ; but as
the practice in England is not known, it has been thought best
to continue the question to the next term, that in the
meantime opportunity may be given to know the result.' No
cause in the annals of colonial jurisprudence had hitherto
excited more public interest; and none had given rise to such
powerful argument. … An epoch in public affairs may be dated
from this trial. Political parties became more distinctly
formed, and their several adherents were more marked and
decided. The nature of ultra-marine jurisdiction began to be
closely examined; the question respecting raising a revenue
fully discussed. The right of the British parliament to impose
taxes was openly denied. 'Taxation without representation is
tyranny,' was the maxim, that was the guide and watch word of
all the friends of liberty. The crown officers and their
followers adopted openly the pretensions of the British
ministry and parliament, and considering their power to be
irresistible, appealed to the selfishness of those who might
be expectants of patronage, and to the fears of all quiet and
timid minds, to adopt a blind submission, as the only safe or
reasonable alternative. Otis took the side of his country, and
as has been shewn, under circumstances that made his decision
irrevocable. He was transferred at once from the ranks of
private life, not merely to take the side, but to be the guide
and leader of his country, in opposition to the designs of the
British ministry. 'Although' says President Adams, 'Mr. Otis
had never before interfered in public affairs, his exertions
on this single occasion secured him a commanding popularity
with the friends of their country, and the terror and
vengeance of her enemies; neither of which ever deserted him.'
His popularity was instantaneous, and universal; and the
public were impatient for the approaching election, when they
could make him a representative of Boston."
W. Tudor,
Life of James Otis,
chapters 5-7.
See also, MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1761.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1763.
The Treaty of Paris.
Acquisition of Florida and Eastern Louisiana
(as well as Canada) by Great Britain.
See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1763.
The King's proclamation excluding settlers from the
Western territory lately acquired from France.
See NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1763.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1763.
General effects, economically and politically,
of the English trade regulations.
"Economically the general results of the trade regulations
were important. Robert Giffen has repeatedly pointed out how
difficult it is, even with modern comparatively accurate
methods, to obtain reliable results from the use of export and
import statistics. This difficulty is immeasurably enhanced
when we have to rely on the meagre figures of a century and a
half ago. For we neither know how these statistics were taken,
nor at all how accurate they are; while their inadequacy
becomes clearly evident when we consider the large amount of
smuggling carried on both in England and the colonies. One
general proposition, however, can be formulated from the
examination of these statistics, and that is the balance of
trade between England and the colonies was unfavorable to the
latter. And this was an inherent consequence of the mercantile
system, by which England regulated these commercial relations.
{3181}
The colonies were unable to pay England for her manufactures
entirely in raw materials, and the residue was paid in coin
obtained from the favorable trade with Spain, Portugal, and
the West Indies. All metal had to be sent to England; it was,
as De Foe says, 'snatched up for returns to England in
specie.' An important consequence followed from this
continuous drain of specie. The colonies could with difficulty
retain coin, and hence were forced either to fall back on
barter, or to issue paper money. … While, on the one hand, the
acts of trade and navigation are partially responsible for
many sad passages in the fiscal history of the colonies, on
the other hand they conduced to the development of a most
important colonial industry. This industry was ship-building,
for which the colonies were especially adapted on account of
the cheapness of lumber. In developing this natural fitness,
the protection afforded to English and colonial shipping by
the Navigation Acts was an important factor. As a rule England
did not discriminate against colonial and in favor of English
ships, although the colonies frequently attempted by
legislation to secure advantages for their own shipping. As a
result of this policy ship building and the carrying trade
increased rapidly, especially in the New England colonies. …
So important did this industry become that in 1724 the ship
carpenters of the Thames complained to the King, 'that their
trade was hurt and their workmen emigrated since so many
vessels were built in New England.' Massachusetts built ships
not only for England, but also for European countries, and for
the West Indies. … Politically the commercial regulations were
not so important. Up to 1763 only slight political importance
attaches to the system, for only in a negative way did it
affect the political ideas of the colonists. The colonies were
peopled by men of varied race and religion, who had little
common consciousness of rights and wrongs and few common
political ideals. The centrifugal forces among them were
strong. Among centripetal forces, such as a common sovereign
and a common system of private law, must be reckoned the fact
that their commerce was regulated by a system which, as a
rule, was uniform for all the colonies. When the acts of trade
worked to their advantage, the colonists reaped common
benefits; when they inflicted hardships, the colonists made
common complaint. Moreover, the fact that England was unable
to enforce certain of her acts, especially the Molasses Act,
caused contempt for parliamentary authority. The continued
and, by the very nature of things, the necessary violation of
this law lead to a questioning of its sanction, while the open
favoritism shown in it towards the West India colonies
naturally aroused disaffection in those of the continent. The
colonial system, as it was administered before 1763,
contributed but slightly in bringing about the revolution of
1776. As Mr. Ramsay has said, 'if no other grievances had been
superadded to what existed in 1763, they would have been soon
forgotten, for their pressure was neither great, nor
universal. It was only when the fundamental basis of the acts
was changed from one of commercial monopoly to one of revenue,
that the acts became of vital political importance."
G. L. Beer,
The Commercial Policy of England toward
the American Colonies
(Columbia College Studies in History, etc.,
volume 3, number 2), chapter 7, section 2.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1763-1764.
Pontiac's War.
See PONTIAC'S WAR.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1763-1764.
Determination in England to tax the colonies.
The Sugar (or Molasses) Act.-"
It did not take four years after the peace of 1763 to show how
rapidly the new situation of affairs was bearing fruit in
America. … The overthrow of their ancient enemy [the French in
Canada], while further increasing the self-confidence of the
Americans, at the same time removed the principal check which
had hitherto kept their differences with the British
government from coming to an open rupture. Formerly the dread
of French attack had tended to make the Americans complaisant
toward the king's ministers, while at the same time it made
the king's ministers unwilling to lose the good will of the
Americans. Now that the check was removed, the continuance or
revival of the old disputes at once foreboded trouble; and the
old occasions for dispute were far from having ceased. On the
contrary the war itself had given them fresh vitality. If
money had been needed before, it was still more needed now.
The war had entailed a heavy burden of expense upon the
British government as well as upon the colonies. The national
debt of Great Britain was much increased, and there were many
who thought that, since the Americans shared in the benefits
of the war, they ought also to share in the burden which it
left behind it. People in England who used this argument did
not realize that the Americans had really contributed as much
as could reasonably be expected to the support of the war, and
that it had left behind it debts to be paid in America as well
as in England. But there was another argument which made it
seem reasonable to many Englishmen that the colonists should
be taxed. It seemed right that a small military force should
be kept up in America, for defence of the frontiers against
the Indians, even if there were no other enemies to be
dreaded. The events of Pontiac's war now showed that there was
clearly need of such a force; and the experience of the royal
governors for half a century had shown that it was very
difficult to get the colonial legislatures to vote money for
any such purpose. Hence there grew up in England a feeling
that taxes ought to be raised in America as a contribution to
the war debt and to the military defence of the colonies; and
in order that such taxes should be fairly distributed and
promptly collected, it was felt that the whole business ought
to be placed under the direct supervision and control of
parliament. … It was in 1763 that George Grenville became
prime minister, a man of whom Macaulay says that he knew of
'no national interests except those which are expressed by
pounds, shillings, and pence.' Grenville proceeded to
introduce into Parliament two measures which had consequences
of which he little dreamed. The first of these measures was
the Molasses Act [often called the Sugar Act], the second was
the Stamp Act. Properly speaking, the Molasses Act was an old
law which Grenville now made up his mind to revive and
enforce. The commercial wealth of the New England colonies
depended largely upon their trade with the fish which their
fishermen caught along the coast and as far out as the banks
of Newfoundland. The finest fish could be sold in Europe, but
the poorer sort found their chief market in the French West
Indies.
{3182}
The French government, in order to ensure a market for the
molasses raised in these islands, would not allow the planters
to give any thing else in exchange for fish. Great quantities
of molasses were therefore carried to New England, and what
was not needed there for domestic use was distilled into rum,
part of which was consumed at home, and the rest carried
chiefly to Africa wherewith to buy slaves to be sold to the
southern colonies. All this trade required many ships, and
thus kept up a lively demand for New England lumber, besides
finding employment for thousands of sailors and shipwrights.
Now in 1733 the British government took it into its head to
'protect' its sugar planters in the English West Indies by
compelling the New England merchants to buy all their molasses
from them; and with this end in view it forthwith laid upon
all sugar and molasses imported into North America from the
French islands a duty so heavy that, if it had been enforced,
it would have stopped all such importation. … It proved to be
impossible to enforce the act without causing more disturbance
than the government felt prepared to encounter. Now in 1764
Grenville announced that the act was to be enforced, and of
course the machinery of writs of assistance was to be employed
for that purpose. Henceforth all molasses from the French
islands must either pay the prohibitory duty or be seized
without ceremony. Loud and fierce was the indignation of New
England over this revival of the Molasses Act. Even without
the Stamp Act, it might very likely have led that part of the
country to make armed resistance, but in such case it is not
so sure that the southern and middle colonies would have come
to the aid of New England. But in the Stamp Act, Grenville
provided the colonies with an issue which concerned one as
much as another."
J. Fiske,
The War of Independence,
chapter 4.
ALSO IN:
J. G. Palfrey,
History of New England,
book 6, chapters 2-3 (volume 5).
W. B. Weeden,
Economic and Social History of New England,
chapter 19 (volume 2).
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1764.
The climax of the mercantile colonial policy of England,
and its consequences.
"Historians, in treating of the American rebellion, have
confined their arguments too exclusively to the question of
internal taxation, and the right or policy of exercising this
prerogative. The true source of the rebellion lay deeper, in
our traditional colonial policy. Just as the Spaniards had
been excited to the discovery of America by the hope of
obtaining gold and silver, the English merchants utilized the
discovery by the same fallacious method, and with the same
fallacious aspirations. … A hundred years ago the commercial
classes believed that the prime object of their pursuits was
to get as much gold and silver into England as they could.
They sought, therefore, to make their country, as nearly as
they might, a solitary centre of the exportation of
non-metallic commodities, that so she might be also the great
reservoir into which the precious metals would flow in a
return stream. On this base their colonial policy was erected.
… So long as the colonies remained in their infancy the
mercantile policy was less prejudicial to their interests. The
monopoly of their commerce, the limitation of their markets,
the discouragement of their manufactures, in some cases
amounting to absolute prohibition, were all less fatal in a
country where labour was dear, than they would be in a state
where population was more fully developed and land had become
scarcer. … A contraband trade sprung up between them and the
colonies of Spain. Our settlers imported goods from England,
and re-exported them to the Spanish colonies, in return for
bullion and other commodities. The result of this was that the
Spanish colonists had access to useful commodities from which
they would otherwise have been debarred, that the American
colonists could without distress remit the specie which was
required by the nature of their dealings with England, and
that a large market was opened for English products. This
widely beneficial trade was incontinently suppressed in 1764,
by one of those efforts of short-sighted rigour which might be
expected from any government where George Grenville's
influence was prominent. All smuggling was to be put down, and
as this trade was contraband, it must be put down like the
rest. The Government probably acted as they did in answer to
the prayers of the mercantile classes, who could not see that
they were cutting off the streams that fed their own
prosperity. They only saw that a colonial trade had sprung up,
and their jealousy blinded them to the benefits that accrued
to themselves as a consequence of it. Their folly found them
out. The suppression of the colonial trade was entrusted to
the commanders of men-of-war. … We may be sure that the
original grievance of the colonists was not softened by the
manners of the officers who had to put the law into execution.
The result of the whole transaction was the birth of a very
strong sense in the minds of the colonists that the mother
country looked upon them as a sponge to be squeezed. This
conviction took more than a passing hold upon them. It was
speedily inflamed into inextinguishable heat, first by the
news that they were to be taxed without their own consent, and
next by the tyrannical and atrocious measures by which it was
proposed to crush their resistance. The rebellion may be
characterised as having first originated in the blind
greediness of the English merchants, and as having then been
precipitated by the arbitrary ideas of the patricians, in the
first instance, and afterwards of the King and the least
educated of the common people. If the severe pressure of the
mercantile policy, unflinchingly carried out, had not first
filled the colonists with resentment and robbed them of their
prosperity, the imperial claim to impose taxes would probably
have been submitted to without much ado. And if the
suppression of their trade in 1764 had not been instantly
followed by Grenville's plan for extorting revenue from them,
they would probably in time have been reconciled to the blow
which had been dealt to their commerce. It was the conjunction
of two highly oppressive pieces of policy which taught them
that they would certainly lose more by tame compliance than
they could possibly lose by an active resistance."
J. Morley,
Edmund Burke,
chapter 4.
ALSO IN:
W. Massey,
History of England, Reign of George III.,
volume 1, chapter 5.
{3183}
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1764-1767.
Patriotic self-denials.
"Upon the news of the intention to lay [the Stamp Tax] … on
the colonies, many people, the last year, had associated, and
engaged to forbear the importation, or consumption, of English
goods; and particularly to break off from the custom of
wearing black clothes, or other mourning [it being generally
of British manufacture—Foot-note], upon the death of
relations. This agreement was then signed by some of the
council, and representatives, and by great numbers of people
in the town of Boston, and the disuse of mourning soon became
general. This was intended to alarm the manufacturers in
England. And now [in 1765], an agreement was made, and signed
by a great proportion of the inhabitants of Boston, to eat no
lamb during the year. This was in order to increase the
growth, and, of course, the manufacture of wool in the
province. Neither of these measures much served the purpose
for which they were professedly intended, but they served to
unite the people in an unfavourable opinion of parliament."
T. Hutchinson,
History of the province of Massachusetts Bay, 1749-1774,
pages 116-117.
The movement thus started in Boston before the passage of the
Stamp Act spread rapidly through the other provinces after the
Act had been passed, and continued to be for several years a
very serious expression of colonial patriotism and opposition
to the oppressive policy of the mother country.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765.
The Stamp Act.
"The scheme of the imposition by Parliament of a tax on the
American colonists to be collected by stamps was not a new
one. Nearly forty years before this time, 'Sir William Keith,
the late Governor of Pennsylvania, presented an elaborate
disquisition to the King … proposing the extension of the
stamp duties to the Colonies by Act of Parliament.' It had
been one of the projects of the factious Dunbar, during his
short career of turbulence and intrigue in New Hampshire.
Governor Sharpe of Maryland and Governor Dinwiddie of Virginia
had recommended a resort to it at the time of the abortive
movement for a union of the Colonies. Its renewal at this time
has been said to have been especially due to Charles
Jenkinson, then only private secretary to Lord Bute, but who
rose afterwards to be Earl of Liverpool. The project, as now
resolved upon, was pursued with inconsiderate obstinacy,
though it encountered a spirited debate when it was brought
into the House of Commons [February, 1765]. … The bill was
pending in the House between three and four weeks, at the end
of which time it was passed, the largest number of votes which
had been given against it in any stage of its progress not
having amounted to fifty. It was concurred in by the House of
Lords, where it appears to have met no resistance, and in due
course [March 22] received the royal assent. No apprehension
of consequences counselled a pause. The Stamp Act—as it has
ever since been called by eminence—provided … for the payment,
by British subjects in America to the English Exchequer, of
specified sums, greater or less, in consideration of obtaining
validity for each of the common transactions of business."
J. G. Palfrey,
History of New England,
book 6, chapter 3 (volume 5).
The following is the text of the Stamp Act:
Whereas, by an act made in the last session of parliament,
several duties were granted, continued, and appropriated,
towards defraying the expenses of defending, protecting, and
securing the British colonies and plantations in America: and
whereas, it is first necessary, that provision be made for
raising a further revenue within your majesty's dominions in
America, towards defraying the said expenses; we, your
majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the commons of
Great Britain, in parliament assembled, have therefore
resolved, to give and grant unto your majesty the several
rites and duties hereinafter mentioned; and do most humbly
beseech your majesty that it may be enacted, And be it
enacted, by the king's most excellent majesty, by and with the
advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal, and
commons in this present parliament assembled, and by the
authority of the same, That from and after the first day of
November, one thousand seven hundred and sixty five, there
shall be raised, levied, collected and paid, unto his majesty,
his heirs and successors, throughout the colonies and
plantations in America, which now are, or hereafter may be,
under the dominion of his majesty, his heirs and successors.
1. For every skin of vellum or parchment, or sheet or piece of
paper, on which shall be engrossed, written or printed, any
declaration, plea, replication, rejoinder, demurrer, or other
pleading, or any copy thereof, in any court of law within the
British colonies and plantations in America, a stamp duty of
three pence.

2. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet or
piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written or
printed, any special bail, and appearance upon such bail in
any such court, a stamp duty of two shillings.
3. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet or
piece of paper, on which may be engrossed, written or printed,
any petition, bill, or answer, claim, plea, replication,
rejoinder, demurrer, or other pleading, in any court of
chancery or equity, within the said colonies and plantations,
a stamp duty of one shilling and six pence.
4. For every skin or piece of vellum, or parchment, or sheet
or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written, or
printed, any copy of any petition, bill, answer, claim, plea,
replication, rejoinder, demurrer, or other pleading, in any
such court, a stamp duty of three pence.
5. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet or
piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written, or
printed, any monition, libel, answer, allegation, inventory,
or renunciation, in ecclesiastical matters, in any court of
probate, court of the ordinary, or other court exercising
ecclesiastical jurisdiction within the said colonies and
plantations, a stamp duty of one shilling.
6. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet or
piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written or
printed, any copy of any will, (other than the probate
thereof,) monition, libel, answer, allegation, inventory, or
renunciation, in ecclesiastical matters, in any such court, a
stamp duty of six pence.
7. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet or
piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written or
printed, any donation, presentation, collation or institution,
of or to any benefice, or any writ or instrument for the like
purpose, or any register, entry, testimonial or certificate of
any degree taken in any university, academy, college, or seminary
of learning, within the said colonies and plantations, a stamp
duty of two pounds.
{3184}
8. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet or
piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written or
printed, any monition, libel, claim, answer, allegation,
information, letter of request, execution, renunciation,
inventory, or other pleading, in any admiralty court within
the said colonies and plantations, a stamp duty of one
shilling.
9. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet or
piece of paper, on which any copy of any such monition, libel,
claim, answer, allegation, information, letter of request,
execution, renunciation, inventory or other pleading, shall be
engrossed, written or printed, a stamp duty of six pence.
10. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet
or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written or
printed, any appeal, writ of error, writ of dower, 'ad quod
damnum,' certiorari, statute merchant, statute staple,
attestation, or certificate, by any officer, or
exemplification of any record or proceeding, in any court
whatsoever within the said colonies and plantations, (except
appeals, writs of error, certiorari, attestations,
certificates, and exemplifications, for, or relating to the
removal of any proceedings from before a single justice of the
peace,) a stamp duty of ten shillings.
11. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet
or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written or
printed, any writ of covenant for levying fines, writ of entry
for suffering a common recovery, or attachment issuing out of,
or returnable into any court within the said colonies and
plantations, a stamp duty of five shillings.
12. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet
of piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written or
printed, any judgment, decree, or sentence, or dismission, or
any record of nisi prius or postea, in any court within the
said colonies or plantations, a stamp duty of four shillings.
13. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet
or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written or
printed, any affidavit, common bail, or appearance,
interrogatory, deposition, rule, order or warrant of any
court, or any 'dedimus potestatem,' capias, subpæna, summons,
compulsory citation, commission, recognisance, or any other
writ, process, or mandate, issuing out of, or returnable into,
any court, or any office belonging thereto, or any other
proceeding therein whatsoever, or any copy thereof, or of any
record not herein before charged, within the said colonies and
plantations, (except warrants relating to criminal matters,
and proceedings thereon, or relation thereto,) a stamp duty of
one shilling.
14. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet
or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written or
printed, any note or bill of lading, which shall be signed for
any kind of goods, wares, or merchandize, to be exported from,
or any docket or clearance granted within the said colonies
and plantations, a stamp duty of four pence.
15. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet
or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written or
printed, letters of mart or commission for private ships of
war, within the said colonies and plantations, a stamp duty of
twenty shillings.
16. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet
or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written or
printed, any grant, appointment, or admission of or to any
public beneficial office or employment, for the space of one
year, or any lesser time, of or above twenty pounds per annum,
sterling money, in salary, fees, and perquisites, within the
said colonies and plantations, (except commissions and
appointments of officers of the army, navy, ordnance, or
militia, of judges, and of justices of the peace,) a stamp
duty of ten shillings.
17. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet
or piece of paper, on which any grant of any liberty,
privilege, or franchise, under the seal or sign manual, of any
governor, proprietor, or public officer, alone, or in
conjunction with any other person or persons, or with any
council, or any council and assembly, or any exemplification
of the same, shall be engrossed, written, or printed, within
the said colonies and plantations, a stamp duty of six pounds.
18. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet
or' piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written or
printed, any license for retailing of spirituous liquors, to
be granted to any person who shall take out the same, within
the said colonies and plantations, a stamp duty of twenty
shillings.
19. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet
or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written or
printed, any license for retailing of wine, to be granted to
any person who shall not take out a license for retailing of
spirituous liquors, within the said colonies and plantations,
a stamp duty of four pounds.
20. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet
or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written or
printed, any license for retailing of wine, to be granted to
any person who shall take out a license for retailing of
spirituous liquors, within the said colonies and plantations,
a stamp duty of three pounds.
21. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet
or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written or
printed, any probate of wills, letters of administration, or
of guardianship for any estate above the value of twenty
pounds sterling money, within the British colonies [and]
plantations upon the continent of America, the islands
belonging thereto, and the Bermuda and Bahama islands, a stamp
duty of five shillings.
22. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet
or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written or
printed, any such probate, letters of administration or of
guardianship, within all other parts of the British dominions
in America, a stamp duty of ten shillings.
23. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet
or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written, or
printed, any bond for securing the payment of any sum of
money, not exceeding the sum of ten pounds sterling money,
within the British colonies and plantations upon the continent
of America, the islands belonging thereto, and the Bermuda and
Bahama islands, a stamp duty of six pence.
{3185}
24. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet
or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written or
printed, any bond for securing the payment of any sum of money
above ten pounds, and not exceeding twenty pounds sterling
money, within such colonies, plantations and islands, a stamp
duty of one shilling.
25. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet
or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written or
printed, any bond for securing the payment of any sum of money
above twenty pounds, and not exceeding forty pounds sterling
money, within such colonies, plantations and islands, a stamp
duty of one shilling and six pence.
26. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet
or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written or
printed, any order or warrant for surveying or setting out any
quantity of land, not exceeding one hundred acres, issued by
any governor, proprietor, or any public officer, alone, or in
conjunction with any other person or persons, or with any
council, or any council and assembly, within the British
colonies and plantations in America, a stamp duty of six
pence.
27. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet
or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written or
printed, any such order or warrant for surveying or setting
out any quantity of land above one hundred and not exceeding
two hundred acres, within the said colonies and plantations, a
stamp duty of one shilling.
28. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet
or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written or
printed, any such order or warrant for surveying or setting
out any quantity of land above two hundred and not exceeding
three hundred and twenty acres, and in proportion for every
such order or warrant for surveying or setting out every other
three hundred and twenty acres, within the said colonies and
plantations, a stamp duty of one shilling and six pence.
29. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet
or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written or
printed, any original grant or deed, mesne conveyance, or
other instrument whatever, by which any quantity of land, not
exceeding one hundred acres, shall be granted, conveyed, or
assigned, within the British colonies and plantations upon the
continent of America, the islands belonging thereto, and the
Bermuda and Bahama islands (except leases for any term not
exceeding the term of twenty-one years) a stamp duty of one
shilling and six pence.
30. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet
or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written or
printed, any such original grant, or any such deed, mesne
conveyance, or other instrument whatsoever, by which any
quantity of land, above one hundred and not exceeding two
hundred acres, shall be granted, conveyed, or assigned, within
such colonies, plantations and islands, a stamp duty of two
shillings.
31. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet
or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written or
printed, any such original grant, or any such deed, mesne
conveyance, or other instrument whatsoever, by which any
quantity of land, above two hundred, and not exceeding three
hundred and twenty acres, shall be granted, conveyed, or
assigned, and in proportion for every such grant, deed, mesne
conveyance, or other instrument, granting, conveying or
assigning every other three hundred and twenty acres, within
such colonies, plantations and islands, a stamp duty of two
shillings and six pence.
32. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet
or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written or
printed, any such original grant, or any such deed, mesne
conveyance, or other instrument whatsoever, by which any
quantity of land, not exceeding one hundred acres, shall be
granted, conveyed, or assigned, within all other parts of the
British dominions in America, a stamp duty of three shillings.
33. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet
or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written or
printed, any such original grant, or any such deed, mesne
conveyance, or other instrument whatsoever, by which any
quantity of land, above one hundred and not exceeding two
hundred acres, shall be granted, conveyed, or assigned, within
the same parts of the said dominions, a stamp duty of four
shillings.
34. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet
or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written, or
printed, any such original grant, or any such deed, mesne
conveyance, or other instrument whatsoever, by which any
quantity of land, above two hundred and not exceeding three
hundred and twenty acres, shall be granted, conveyed, or
assigned, and in proportion for every such grant, deed, mesne
conveyance, or other instrument, granting, conveying, or
assigning every other three hundred and twenty acres, within
the same parts of the said dominions, a stamp duty of five
shillings.
35. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet
or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written, or
printed, any grant, appointment, or admission, of or to any
beneficial office or employment, not hereinbefore charged,
above the value of twenty pounds per annum sterling money, in
salary, fees, or perquisites, or any exemplification of the
same, within the British colonies and plantations upon the
continent of America, the islands belonging thereto, and the
Bermuda and Bahama islands, (except commissions of officers of
the army, navy, ordnance, or militia, and of justices of the
peace,) a stamp duty of four pounds.
36. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet
or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written, or
printed, any such grant, appointment, or admission, of or to
any such public beneficial office or employment, or any
exemplification of the same, within all other parts of the
British dominions in America, a stamp duty of six pounds.
37. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet
or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written, or
printed, any indenture, lease, conveyance, contract,
stipulation, bill of sale, charter party, protest, articles of
apprenticeship or covenant, (except for the hire of servants
not apprentices, and also except such other matters as
hereinbefore charged,) within the British colonies and
plantations in America, a stamp duty of two shillings and six
pence.
{3186}
38. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet
or piece of paper, on which any warrant or order for auditing
any public accounts, beneficial warrant, order, grant, or
certificate, under any public seal, or under the seal or sign
manual of any governor, proprietor, or public officer, alone,
or in conjunction with any other person or persons, or with
any council, or any council and assembly, not herein before
charged, or any passport or let pass, surrender of office, or
policy of assurance, shall be engrossed, written, or printed,
within the said colonies and plantations, (except warrants or
orders for the service of the army, navy, ordnance, or
militia, and grants of offices under twenty pounds per annum,
in salary, fees, and perquisite,) a stamp duty of five
shillings.
39. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet
or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written, or
printed, any notarial act, bond, deed, letter of attorney,
procuration, mortgage, release, or other obligatory
instrument, not herein before charged, within the said
colonies and plantations, a stamp duty of two shillings and
three pence.
40. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet
or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written, or
printed, any register, entry, or enrolment of any grant, deed,
or other instrument whatsoever, herein before charged, within
the said colonies and plantations, a stamp duty of three
pence.
41. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet
or piece of paper, on which shall be engrossed, written, or
printed, any register, entry, or enrolment of any grant, deed,
or other instrument whatsoever not herein before charged,
within the said colonies and plantations, a stamp duty of two
shillings.
42. And for and upon every pack of playing cards, and all
dice, which shall be sold or used within the said colonies and
plantations, the several stamp duties following: (that is to
say,)
43. For every pack of such cards, one shilling.
44. And for every pair of such dice, ten shillings.
45. And for and upon every paper called a pamphlet, and upon
every newspaper, containing public news, or occurrences, which
shall be printed, dispersed, and made public, within any of
the said colonies and plantations, and for and upon such
advertisements as are hereinafter mentioned, the respective
duties following; (that is to say,)
46. For every such pamphlet and paper, contained in a half
sheet, or any lesser piece of paper, which shall be so
printed, a stamp duty of one half penny for every printed copy
thereof.
47. For every such pamphlet and paper, (being larger than half
a sheet, and not exceeding one whole sheet,) which shall be so
printed, a stamp duty of one penny for every printed copy
thereof.
48. For every pamphlet and paper, being larger than one whole
sheet, and not exceeding six sheets in octavo, or in a lesser
page, or not exceeding twelve sheets in quarto, or twenty
sheets in folio, which shall be so printed, a duty after the
rate of one shilling for every sheet of any kind of paper
which shall be contained in one printed copy thereof.
49. For every advertisement to be contained in any gazette,
newspaper, or other paper, or any pamphlet which shall be so
printed, a duty of two shillings.
50. For every almanac or calendar, for any one particular
year, or for any time less than a year, which shall be written
or printed on one side only of any one sheet, skin, or piece
of paper, parchment, or vellum, within the said colonies and
plantations, a stamp duty of two pence.
51. For every other almanac, or calendar, for any one
particular year, which shall be written or printed within the
said colonies and plantations, a stamp duty of four pence.
52. And for every almanac or calendar, written or printed in
the said colonies and plantations, to serve for several years,
duties to the same amount respectively shall be paid for every
such year.
53. For every skin or piece of vellum or parchment, or sheet
or piece of paper, on which any instrument, proceeding, or
other matter or thing aforesaid, shall be engrossed, written,
or printed, within the said colonies and plantations, in any
other than the English language, a stamp duty of double the
amount of the respective duties before charged thereon.
54. And there shall be also paid, in the said colonies and
plantations, a duty of six pence for every twenty shillings,
in any sum not exceeding fifty pounds sterling money, which
shall be given, paid, contracted, or agreed for, with or in
relation to any clerk or apprentice, which shall be put or
placed to or with any master or mistress, to learn any
profession, trade, or employment. 2. And also a duty of one
shilling for every twenty shillings, in any sum exceeding
fifty pounds, which shall be given, paid, contracted, or
agreed for, with, or in relation to, any such clerk or
apprentice.
55. Finally, the produce of all the aforementioned duties
shall be paid into his majesty's treasury; and there held in
reserve, to be used, from time to time, by the parliament, for
the purpose of defraying the expenses necessary for the
defense, protection, and security of the said colonies and
plantations.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765.
News of the Stamp Act in the Colonies.
Colonel Barre's speech and the Sons of Liberty.
Patrick Henry's speech in the Virginia Assembly.
Formal protests and informal mob-doings in Philadelphia,
New York and Boston.
In the course of the debate in the British House of Commons,
on the Stamp Act, February 6, 1765, Charles Townshend, after
discussing the advantages which the American colonies had
derived from the late war, asked the question: "And now will
these American children, planted by our care, nourished up to
strength and opulence by our indulgence, and protected by our
arms, grudge to contribute their mite to relieve us from the
heavy burden under which we lie?" This called to his feet
Colonel Isaac Barre who had served in America with Wolfe, and
who had a knowledge of the country and people which most
members of Parliament lacked. "They planted by your care!"
exclaimed Barré. "No: your oppressions planted them in
America. They fled from your tyranny to a then uncultivated,
unhospitable country, where they exposed themselves to almost
all the hardships to which human nature is liable; and, among
others, to the cruelties of a savage foe, the most subtle,
and, I will take upon me to say, the most formidable of any
people upon the face of God's earth; and yet, actuated by
principles of true English liberty, they met all hardships
with pleasure, compared with those they suffered in their own
country from the hands of those who should have been their
friends.
{3187}
They nourished up by your indulgence! They grew by your
neglect of them. As soon as you began to care about them, that
care was exercised in sending persons to rule them in one
department and another, who were, perhaps, the deputies of
deputies to some members of this house, sent to spy out their
liberties, to misrepresent their actions, and to prey upon
them; men whose behavior on many occasions has caused the
blood of those sons of Liberty to recoil within them; men
promoted to the highest seats of justice, some who, to my
knowledge, were glad, by going to a foreign country, to escape
being brought to the bar of a court of justice in their own.
They protected by your arms! They have nobly taken up arms in
your defence; have exerted a valor amidst their constant and
laborious industry, for the defence of a country whose
frontier was drenched in blood, while its interior parts
yielded all its little savings to your emolument. And believe
me—remember I this day told you so—the same spirit of freedom
which actuated that people at first will accompany them still.
But prudence forbids me to explain myself further. God knows I
do not at this time speak from motives of party heat; what I
deliver are the genuine sentiments of my heart. However
superior to me in general knowledge and experience the
respectable body of this house may be, yet I claim to know
more of America than most of you, having seen and been
conversant in that country. The people, I believe, are as
truly loyal as any subjects the king has; but a people jealous
of their liberties, and who will vindicate them, if ever they
should be violated. But the subject is too delicate; I will
say no more." Notes of Colonel Barré's speech were taken by a
Mr. Ingersoll, one of the agents for Connecticut, who sat in
the gallery. He sent home a report of it, which was published
in the newspapers at New London, and soon the name of the
"Sons of Liberty," which the eloquent defender of the
resisting colonists had given to them, was on every lip.
G. Bancroft,
History of the United States
(Author's last revision),
volume 3, chapter 8.
"Meantime [in 1765], 'The Sons of Liberty'—a term that grew
into use soon after the publication of Barre's speech—were
entering into associations to resist, by all lawful means, the
execution of the Stamp Act. They were long kept secret, which
occasioned loyalists to say that there was a private union
among a certain sect of republican principles from one end of
the continent to the other. As they increased in numbers, they
grew in boldness and publicity, announcing in the newspapers
their committees of correspondence, and interchanging solemn
pledges of support."
R. Frothingham,
The Rise of the Republic of the United States,
page 183.
The Stamp Act was passed March 22, 1765. A copy of it was
printed in the 'Pennsylvania Gazette' on April 18th, but this
must necessarily have been in advance of news of its passage.
The people of Philadelphia began at once to show their
determination to make it [the Stamp Act] a nullity so far as
revenue was concerned. An enforced frugality was the first
step. … In the 'Pennsylvania Gazette' of April 18th there was
an article against expensive and ostentatious funerals, the
writer saying that often £70 or £100 were squandered on such
occasions. August 15th, when Alderman William Plumsted was
buried at St. Peter's Church, the funeral, by his own wish,
was conducted in the plainest way, no pall, no mourning worn
by relatives. In March, the Hibernia Fire Company resolved,
'from motives of economy, and to reduce the present high price
of mutton and encourage the breweries of Pennsylvania, not to
purchase any lamb this season, nor to drink any foreign beer:
Other fire companies and many citizens copied this example. …
On October 25th the merchants and traders of Philadelphia
subscribed to a non-importation agreement, such as were then
being signed all over the country. In this article the
subscribers agreed that, in consequence of the late acts of
Parliament and the injurious regulations accompanying them,
and of the Stamp Act, etc., in justice to themselves and in
hopes of benefit from their example
(1) to countermand all orders for English goods until the
Stamp Act should be repealed;
(2) a few necessary articles, or shipped under peculiar
circumstances, are excepted;
(3) no goods received for sale on commission to be disposed of
until the Stamp Act should be repealed; and this agreement to
be binding on each and all, as a pledge of word of honor."
J. T. Scharf and T. Westcott,
History of Philadelphia,
chapter 10 (volume 1).
The first stern note of defiance came from Virginia. Patrick
Henry had lately been elected to the colonial assembly. Having
waited in vain for the older leaders of the house to move in
the matter of expressing the feeling of the colony on the
subject, on the 29th of May, when the session was within three
days of its expected close, "Mr. Henry introduced his
celebrated resolutions on the stamp act. I will not withhold
from the reader a note of this transaction from the pen of Mr.
Henry himself. It is a curiosity, and highly worthy of
preservation. After his death, there was found among his
papers one sealed, and thus endorsed: 'Enclosed are the
resolutions of the Virginia assembly in 1765, concerning the
stamp act. Let my executors open this paper.' Within was found
the following copy of the resolutions, in Mr. Henry's
handwriting:—'Resolved, That the first adventurers and
settlers of this, his majesty's colony and dominion, brought
with them, and transmitted to their posterity, and all other
his majesty's subjects, since inhabiting in this, his
majesty's said colony, all the privileges, franchises, and
immunities, that have at any time been held, enjoyed, and
possessed by the people of Great Britain. Resolved, That by
two royal charters, granted by King James I., the colonists,
aforesaid, are declared entitled to all the privileges,
liberties, and immunities of denizens and natural-born
subjects, to all intents and purposes, as if they had been
abiding and born within the realm of England. Resolved, That
the taxation of the people by themselves, or by persons chosen
by themselves to represent them, who can only know what taxes
the people are able to bear, and the easiest mode of raising
them, and are equally affected by such taxes themselves, is
the distinguishing characteristic of British freedom, and
without which the ancient constitution cannot subsist.
{3188}
Resolved, That his majesty's liege people of this most ancient
colony, have uninterruptedly enjoyed the right of being thus
governed by their own assembly, in the article of their taxes
and internal police, and that the same hath never been
forfeited, or any other way given up, but hath been constantly
recognised by the king and people of Great Britain. Resolved,
therefore, That the general assembly of this colony have the
sole right and power to lay taxes and impositions upon the
inhabitants of this colony; and that every attempt to vest
such power in any person or persons whatsoever, other than the
general assembly aforesaid, has a manifest tendency to destroy
British as well as American freedom.' On the back of the paper
containing these resolutions, is the following endorsement,
which is also in the handwriting of Mr. Henry himself:—'The
within resolutions passed the house of burgesses in May, 1765.
They formed the first opposition to the stamp act, and the
scheme of taxing America by the British parliament. All the
colonies, either through fear, or want of opportunity to form
an opposition, or from influence of some kind or other, had
remained silent. I had been for the first time elected a
burgess, a few days before, was young, inexperienced,
unacquainted with the forms of the house, and the members that
composed it. Finding the men of weight averse to opposition,
and the commencement of the tax at hand, and that no person
was likely to step forth, I determined to venture, and alone,
unadvised, and unassisted, on a blank leaf of an old law-book
wrote the within. Upon offering them to the house, violent
debates ensued. Many threats were uttered, and much abuse cast
on me, by the party for submission. After a long and warm
contest, the resolutions passed by a very small majority,
perhaps of one or two only. The alarm spread throughout
America with astonishing quickness, and the ministerial party
were overwhelmed. The great point of resistance to British
taxation was universally established in the colonies. This
brought on the war, which finally separated the two countries,
and gave independence to ours. Whether this will prove a
blessing or a curse will depend upon the use our people make
of the blessings which a gracious God hath bestowed on us. If
they are wise, they will be great and happy. If they are of a
contrary character, they will be miserable. Righteousness
alone can exalt them as a nation. Reader! whoever thou art,
remember this; and in thy sphere, practise virtue thyself, and
encourage it in others.—P. Henry.' Such is the short, plain,
and modest account which Mr. Henry has left of this
transaction. … It is not wonderful that even the friends of
colonial rights who knew the feeble and defenceless situation
of this country should be startled at a step so bold and
daring. That effect was produced; and the resolutions were
resisted, not only by the aristocracy of the house, but by
many of those who were afterward distinguished among the
brightest champions of American liberty. The following is Mr.
Jefferson's account of this transaction: 'Mr. Henry moved and
Mr. Johnston seconded these resolutions successively. They
were opposed by Messrs. Randolph, Bland, Pendleton, Wythe, and
all the old members, whose influence in the house had, till
then, been unbroken. They did it, not from any question of our
rights, but on the ground that the same sentiments had been,
at their preceding session, expressed in a more conciliatory
form, to which the answers were not yet received. But torrents
of sublime eloquence from Henry, backed by the solid reasoning
of Johnston, prevailed. The last, however, and strongest
resolution was carried but by a single vote. The debate on it
was most bloody. I was then but a student, and stood at the
door of communication between the house and the lobby (for as
yet there was no gallery) during the whole debate and vote;
and I well remember that, after the numbers on the division
were told and declared from the chair, Peyton Randolph (the
attorney-general) came out at the door where I was standing,
and said, as he entered the lobby: "By God, I would have given
500 guineas for a single vote": for one would have divided the
house, and Robinson was in the chair, who he knew would have
negatived the resolution. Mr. Henry left town that evening;
and the next morning, before the meeting of the house, Colonel
Peter Randolph, then of the council, came to the hall of
burgesses, and sat at the clerk's table till the house-bell
rang, thumbing over the volumes of journals, to find a
precedent for expunging a vote of the house. … Some of the
timid members, who had voted for the strongest resolution, had
become alarmed; and as soon as the house met, a motion was
made and carried to expunge it from the journals.' … The
manuscript journal of the day is not to be found; whether it
was suppressed, or casually lost, must remain a matter of
uncertainty; it disappeared, however, shortly after the
session. … In the interesting fact of the erasure of the fifth
resolution, Mr. Jefferson is supported by the distinct
recollection of Mr. Paul Carrington, late a judge of the court
of appeals of Virginia. and the only surviving member, it is
believed, of the house of burgesses of 1765. The statement is
also confirmed, if indeed further confirmation were necessary,
by the circumstance that instead of the five resolutions, so
solemnly recorded by Mr. Henry, as having passed the house,
the journal of the day exhibits only … four. … 'By these
resolutions,' says Mr. Jefferson, 'and his manner of
supporting them, Mr. Henry took the lead out of the hands of
those who had, theretofore, guided the proceedings of the
house; that is to say, of Pendleton, Wythe, Bland, Randolph.'
It was, indeed, the measure which raised him to the zenith of
his glory. He had never before had a subject which entirely
matched his genius, and was capable of drawing out all the
powers of his mind. … It was in the midst of this magnificent
debate, while he was descanting on the tyranny of the
obnoxious act, that he exclaimed in a voice of thunder, and
with the look of a god: 'Cesar had his Brutus—Charles the
First, his Cromwell—and George the Third—('Treason!' cried the
speaker—'Treason, treason!' echoed from every part of the
house. It was one of those trying moments which is decisive of
character. Henry faltered not for an instant; but rising to a
loftier attitude, and fixing on the speaker an eye of the most
determined fire, he finished his sentence with the firmest
emphasis)—may profit by their example. If this be treason,
make the most of it.' This was the only expression of defiance
which escaped him during the debate. He was, throughout life,
one of the most perfectly and uniformly decorous speakers that
ever took the floor of the house. … From the period of which
we have been speaking, Mr. Henry became the idol of the people
of Virginia; nor was his name confined to his native state.
His light and heat were seen and felt throughout the
continent; and he was every where regarded as the great
champion of colonial liberty."
W. Wirt,
Sketches of the Life and Character of Patrick Henry,
section 2.
{3189}
"The publication of Mr. Henry's resolutions against the Stamp
Act created a widespread and intense excitement. They were
hailed as the action of the oldest, and hitherto the most
loyal of the colonies; and as raising a standard of resistance
to the detested Act. Mr. Otis pronounced them treasonable, and
this was the verdict of the Government party. But, treasonable
or not, they struck a chord which vibrated throughout America.
Hutchinson declared that, 'nothing extravagant appeared in the
papers till an account was received of the Virginia resolves.'
Soon the bold exclamation of Mr. Henry in moving them was
published, and he was hailed as the leader raised up by
Providence for the occasion. The 'Boston Gazette' declared:
'The people of Virginia have spoken very sensibly, and the
frozen politicians of a more northern government say they have
spoken treason.' But the people were no longer to be held down
by 'the frozen politicians,' north or south. They commenced to
form secret societies pledged to the resistance of the Act by
all lawful means, which we called 'The Sons of Liberty.'"
W. W. Henry,
Patrick Henry: Life, Correspondence and Speeches,
volume 1, pages 93-94.
At New York, "in May articles began to appear in the papers
congratulating the public on the patriotic and frugal spirit
that was beginning to reign in the Province of New York. The
principal gentlemen of the city clad themselves in country
manufactures or 'turned clothes.' Weyman printed in large type
in his paper, the New York Gazette, the patriotic motto 'It is
better to wear a homespun coat than lose our liberty.'
Spinning was daily in vogue; materials being more wanting than
industrial hands; a need the farmers were endeavoring to
remedy by sewing more flax seed and keeping more sheep, and
finally we notice the odd statement 'that little lamb came to
market as no true lovers of their country or whose sympathetic
breasts feel for its distresses will buy it, and that
sassafras, balm and sage were greatly in use instead of tea
and allowed to be more wholesome.' Funerals and mourning,
which were then expensive luxuries, were modified and their
extravagance curtailed. The Society for promoting Arts and
Manufactures resolved to establish a bleaching field and to
erect a flax spinning school where the poor children of the
city should be taught the art. They also ordered large numbers
of spinning wheels to be made and loaned to all who would use
them. In September we find it announced that women's shoes
were made, cheaper and better than the renowned Hoses,' by
Wells, Lasher, Bolton, and Davis, and that there was a good
assortment on hand; that boots and men's shoes were made, in
every quarter of the city, better than the English made for
foreign sale; wove thread stockings in sundry places; the
making of linen, woolen, and cotton stuffs was fast
increasing; gloves, hats, carriages, harness and cabinet work
were plenty. The people were now self dependent; cards now
appeared recommending that no true friend of his country
should buy or import English goods, and the dry goods men were
warned that their importations would lie on hand to their cost
and ruin. There being now a sufficiency of home made goods it
was proposed on the 19th October to establish a market for all
kinds of Home Manufactures; and a market was opened under the
Exchange in Broad Street on the 23d. From the shortness of the
notice the design was not sufficiently known in the country
and there was neither plenty nor variety; but numbers of
buyers appeared and everything went off readily at good
prices. The gentlemen merchants of the city, as they were
styled, were not behind any class in patriotism or sacrifice.
A meeting was called for Monday 28th October at Jones' house
in the Fields, 'The Freemasons Arms,' but the attendance,
owing to the short notice, not being sufficient to enter upon
business, they were again summoned on the 30th October to meet
the next day at four o'clock at Mr. Burns' long room at the
City Arms to fall upon such methods as they shall then think
most advisable for their reciprocal interest. On the 31st
there was a general meeting of the principal merchants at this
tavern, which was known under the various names of the City
Arms, the Province Arms, the New York Arms, and stood on the
upper corner of Broadway and Stone, now Thames street, on the
site later occupied by the City Hotel. Resolutions were
adopted and subscribed by upwards of two hundred of the
principal merchants; 1st, to accompany all orders to Great
Britain for goods or merchandize of any nature kind or quality
whatever with instructions that they be not shipped unless the
Stamp Act be repealed; 2nd, to countermand all outstanding
orders unless on the conditions mentioned in the foregoing
resolution; 3rd, not to vend any goods sent on commission,
shipped after the 1st January succeeding, unless upon the same
condition. In consequence of these resolutions the retailers
of goods subscribed a paper obliging themselves not to buy any
goods, wares or merchandize after the 1st January unless the
Stamp Act were repealed. This was the first of the famous Non
Importation Agreement, the great commercial measure of offense
and defense against Great Britain. It punished friends and
foes alike and plunged a large portion of the English people
into the deepest distress; at the same time it taught the
Colonies the value and extent of their own resources."
J. A. Stevens,
The Stamp Act in New York
(Magazine of American History, June, 1877).
The Stamp Act was reprinted in New York "with a death's-head
upon it in place of the royal arms, and it was hawked about
the streets under the title of 'The Folly of England and the
Ruin of America.' In Boston, the church-bells were tolled, and
the flags on the shipping put at half-mast. But formal
defiance came first from Virginia." Patrick Henry had just
been elected to the colonial assembly. "In a committee of the
whole house, he drew up a series of resolutions, declaring
that the colonists were entitled to all the liberties and
privileges of natural-born subjects, and that 'the taxation of
the people by themselves, or by persons chosen by themselves
to represent them, … is the distinguishing characteristic of
British freedom, without which the ancient constitution cannot
exist.'
{3190}
It was further declared that any attempt to vest the power of
taxation in any other body than the colonial assembly was a
menace to British no less than to American freedom; that the
people of Virginia were not bound to obey any law enacted in
disregard of these fundamental principles; and that anyone who
should maintain the contrary should be regarded as a public
enemy. It was in the lively debate which ensued upon these
resolutions, that Henry uttered those memorable words
commending the example of Tarquin and Cæsar and Charles I. to
the attention of George III. Before the vote had been taken
upon all the resolutions, Governor Fauquier dissolved the
assembly; but the resolutions were printed in the newspapers,
and hailed with approval all over the country. Meanwhile, the
Massachusetts legislature, at the suggestion of Otis, had
issued a circular letter to all the colonies, calling for a
general congress, in order to concert measures of resistance
to the Stamp Act. The first cordial response came from South
Carolina, at the instance of Christopher Gadsden, a wealthy
merchant of Charleston and a scholar learned in Oriental
languages, a man of rare sagacity and most liberal spirit. …
The first announcement of the Stamp Act had called into
existence a group of secret societies of workingmen known as
'Sons of Liberty,' in allusion to a famous phrase in one of
Colonel Barre's speeches. These societies were solemnly
pledged to resist the execution of the obnoxious law. On the
14th of August, the quiet town of Boston witnessed some
extraordinary proceedings. …
See LIBERTY TREE.
Twelve days after, a mob sacked the splendid house of Chief
Justice Hutchinson, threw his plate into the street, and
destroyed the valuable library which he had been thirty years
in collecting, and which contained many manuscripts, the loss
of which was quite irreparable. As usual with mobs, the
vengeance fell in the wrong place, for Hutchinson had done his
best to prevent the passage of the Stamp Act. In most of the
colonies, the stamp officers were compelled to resign their
posts. Boxes of stamps arriving by ship were burned or thrown
into the sea. … In New York, the presence of the troops for a
moment encouraged the lieutenant-governor, Colden, to take a
bold stand in behalf of the law. He talked of firing upon the
people, but was warned that if he did so he would be speedily
hanged on a lamp-post, like Captain Porteous of Edinburgh. A
torchlight procession, carrying images of Colden and of the
devil, broke into the governor's coach-house, and, seizing his
best chariot, paraded it about town with the images upon it,
and finally burned up chariot and images on the Bowling Green,
in full sight of Colden and the garrison, who looked on from
the Battery, speechless with rage, but afraid to interfere.
Gage did not dare to have the troops used, for fear of
bringing on a civil war; and the next day the discomfited
Colden was obliged to surrender all the stamps to the common
council of New York, by whom they were at once locked up in
the City Hall. Nothing more was needed to prove the
impossibility of carrying the Stamp Act into effect."
J. Fiske,
The American Revolution,
volume 1, chapter 1.
In Connecticut the stamp agent, Mr. Ingersoll, was compelled
by a body of armed citizens to resign.
See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1765.
ALSO IN:
D. R. Goodloe,
The Birth of the Republic,
chapter 1,
(a compilation of accounts of proceedings in the
several colonies).
W. Tudor,
Life of James Otis,
chapter 14.
W. V. Wells,
Life of Samuel Adams,
volume 1, chapter 2.
I. W. Stuart,
Life of Jonathan Trumbull,
chapters. 7-8.
T. Hutchinson,
History of Province of Massachusetts Bay, 1749-1774,
pages 117-141.
H. S. Randall,
Life of Jefferson,
volume 1, chapter 2.
M. C. Tyler,
Patrick Henry,
chapter 5.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765.
The Stamp Act Congress.
The delegates chosen, on the invitation of Massachusetts, to
attend a congress for consultation on the circumstances of the
colonies, met, October 7, 1765, in the City Hall at New York.
"In no place were the Sons of Liberty more determined, or were
their opponents more influential. It was the headquarters of
the British force in America, the commander of which, General
Gage, wielded the powers of a viceroy. A fort within the city
was heavily mounted with cannon. Ships of war were moored near
the wharves. The executive, Lieutenant-governor Colden, was
resolved to execute the law. When the Massachusetts delegates
called on him, he remarked that the proposed congress would be
unconstitutional, and, unprecedented, and he should give it no
countenance. The congress consisted of twenty-eight delegates
from nine of the colonies; four, though sympathizing with the
movement, not choosing representatives. Here several of the
patriots, who had discussed the American question in their
localities, met for the first time. James Otis stood in this
body the foremost speaker. His pen, with the pens of the
brothers Robert and Phillip Livingston, of New York, were
summoned to service in a wider field. John Dickinson, of
Pennsylvania, was soon to be known through the colonies by
'The Farmer's Letters.' Thomas McKean and Cæsar Rodney were
pillars of the cause in Delaware. Edward Tilghman was an
honored name in Maryland. South Carolina, in addition to the
intrepid Gadsden, had, in Thomas Lynch and John Rutledge, two
patriots who appear prominently in the subsequent career of
that colony. Thus this body was graced by large ability,
genius, learning, and common sense. It was calm in its
deliberations, seeming unmoved by the whirl of the political
waters. The congress organized by the choice, by one vote, of
Timothy Ruggles, a Tory,—as the chairman,—and John Cotton,
clerk. The second day of its session, it took into
consideration the rights, privileges, and grievances of the
British American colonists.' After eleven days' debate, it
agreed—each colony having one vote—upon a declaration of
rights and grievances and ordered it to be inserted in the
journal. [The following is the 'Declaration': 'The members of
this congress, sincerely devoted, with the warmest sentiments
of affection and duty, to his majesty's person and government,
inviolably attached to the present happy establishment of the
protestant succession, and with minds deeply impressed by a
sense of the present and impending misfortunes of the British
colonies on this continent; having considered, as maturely as
time will permit, the circumstances of the said colonies,
esteem it our indispensable duty to make the following
declarations of our humble opinion, respecting the most
essential rights and liberties of the colonists, and of the
grievances under which they labor by reason of several late
acts of parliament.
{3191}
1. That his majesty's subjects in these colonies owe the same
allegiance to the crown of Great Britain that is owing from
his subjects born within the realm, and all due subordination
to that august body the parliament of Great Britain.
2. That his majesty's liege subjects in these colonies are
entitled to all the inherent rights and liberties of his
natural born subjects within the kingdom of Great Britain.
3. That it is inseparably essential to the freedom of a
people, and the undoubted right of Englishmen, that no taxes
be imposed on them, but with their own consent, given
personally, or by their representatives.
4. That the people of these colonies are not, and from their
local circumstances cannot be, represented in the house of
commons of Great Britain.
5. That the only representatives of these colonies are persons
chosen therein by themselves, and that no taxes ever have been
or can be constitutionally imposed upon them, but by their
respective legislatures.
6. That all supplies to the crown being free gifts from the
people, it is unreasonable and inconsistent with the
principles and spirit of the British constitution for the
people of Great Britain to grant to his majesty the property
of the colonists.
7. That trial by jury is the inherent and invaluable right of
every British subject in these colonies.
8. That the late act of parliament entitled 'an act for
granting and applying certain stamp duties, and other duties,
in the British colonies and plantations in America,' &c., by
imposing taxes on the inhabitants of these colonies; and the
said act, and several other acts, by extending the
jurisdiction of the court of admiralty beyond its ancient
limits, have a manifest tendency to subvert the rights and
liberties of the colonists.
9. That the duties imposed by several late acts of parliament,
from the peculiar circumstances of these colonies, will be
extremely burdensome and grievous; and from the scarcity of
specie, the payment of them absolutely impracticable.
10. That as the profits of the trade of these colonies
ultimately center in Great Britain, to pay for the
manufactures which they are obliged to take from thence, they
eventually contribute very largely to all supplies granted to
the crown.
11. That the restrictions imposed by several late acts of
parliament on the trade of these colonies, will render them
unable to purchase the manufactures of Great Britain.
12. That the increase, prosperity, and happiness of these
colonies depend on the full and free enjoyment of their rights
and liberties, and an intercourse with Great Britain mutually
affectionate and advantageous.
13. That it is the right of the British subjects in these
colonies to petition the king, or either house of parliament.
14. That it is the indispensable duty of these colonies, to
the best of sovereigns, to the mother country, and to
themselves, to endeavor, by a loyal and dutiful address to his
majesty, and humble application to both houses of parliament,
to procure the repeal of the act for granting and applying
certain stamp duties, of all clauses of any other acts of
parliament whereby the jurisdiction of the admiralty is
extended as aforesaid, and of the other late acts for the
restriction of American commerce.'] …
The delegates present from only six of the colonies—except
Ruggles and Ogden—signed the petition; those from New York,
Connecticut, and South Carolina not being authorized to sign.
On the 25th of October, the congress adjourned. Special
measures were taken to transmit the proceedings to the
unrepresented colonies. The several assemblies, on meeting,
heartily approved of the course of their delegates who
concurred in the action of congress; but Ruggles, of
Massachusetts, was reprimanded by the speaker, in the name of
the House, and Ogden, of New Jersey, was hung in effigy by the
people. The action of the assemblies was announced in the
press. Meanwhile the Sons of Liberty, through their committees
of correspondence, urged a continental Union; pledged a mutual
support in case of danger; in some instances stated the
numbers of armed men that might be relied on; and thus evinced
a common determination to resist the execution of the Stamp
Act."
R. Frothingham,
Rise of the Republic of the United States,
chapter 5.
ALSO IN:
T. Pitkin,
History of the United States,
volume 1, appendices 5-9.
H. Niles,
Principles and Acts of the Revolution (edition of 1876),
pages 155-168.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768.
Treaties with the Indians at German Flats and Fort Stanwix.
Cession of Iroquois claims to western Pennsylvania,
West Virginia and Kentucky.
The drawing of the Indian boundary line.
"After the success of Bradstreet and Bouquet [see PONTIAC'S
WAR], there was no difficulty in concluding a treaty with all
the Western Indians; and late in April, 1765, Sir William