[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
   Johnson, at the German Flats, held a conference with the
   various nations, and settled a definite peace. At this meeting
   two propositions were made; the one to fix some boundary line,
   west of which the Europeans should not go; and the savages
   named, as this line, the Ohio or Alleghany and Susquehannah;
   but no definite agreement was made, Johnson not being
   empowered to act. The other proposal was, that the Indians
   should grant to the traders, who had suffered in 1763, a tract
   of land in compensation for the injuries then done them, and
   to this the red men agreed. … During the very year that
   succeeded the treaty of German Flats, settlers crossed the
   mountains and took possession of lands in western Virginia and
   along the Monongahela. The Indians, having received no pay for
   these lands, murmured, and once more a border war was feared.
   … And not only were frontier men thus passing the line tacitly
   agreed on, but Sir William himself was even then meditating a
   step which would have produced, had it been taken, a general
   Indian war again. This was the purchase and settlement of an
   immense tract south of the Ohio River, where an independent
   colony was to be formed. How early this plan was conceived we
   do not learn, but, from Franklin's letters, we find that it
   was in contemplation in the spring of 1766. At that time
   Franklin was in London, and was written to by his son,
   Governor Franklin of New Jersey, with regard to the proposed
   colony. The plan seems to have been to buy of the Six Nations
   the lands south of the Ohio, a purchase which it was not
   doubted Sir William might make, and then to procure from the
   King a grant of as much territory as the Company which it was
   intended to form would require. Governor Franklin,
   accordingly, forwarded to his father an application for a
   grant, together with a letter from Sir William, recommending
   the plan to the ministry; all of which was duly communicated
   to the proper department. But at that time there were various
   interests bearing upon this plan of Franklin. The old Ohio
   Company [see OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754] was still suing,
   through its agent, Colonel George Mercer, for a perfection of
   the original grant. …
{3192}
   General Lyman, from Connecticut we believe, was soliciting a
   new grant similar to that now asked by Franklin; and the
   ministers themselves were divided as to the policy and
   propriety of establishing any settlements so far in the
   interior,—Shelburne being in favor of the new colony,
   Hillsborough opposed to it. The Company was organized,
   however, and the nominally leading man therein being Mr.
   Thomas' Walpole, a London banker of eminence, it was known as
   the Walpole Company. … Before any conclusion was come to, it
   was necessary to arrange definitely that boundary line which
   had been vaguely talked of in 1765, and with respect to which
   Sir William Johnson had written to the ministry, who had
   mislaid his letters and given him no instructions. The
   necessity of arranging this boundary was also kept in mind by
   the continued and growing irritation of the Indians, who found
   themselves invaded from every side. … Franklin, the father,
   all this time, was urging the same necessity upon the
   ministers in England; and about Christmas of 1767, Sir
   William's letters on the subject having been found, orders
   were sent him to complete the proposed purchase from the Six
   Nations, and settle all differences. But the project for a
   colony was for the time dropped, a new administration coming
   in which was not that way disposed. Sir William Johnson having
   received, early in the spring, the orders from England
   relative to a new treaty with the Indians, at once took steps
   to secure a full attendance. Notice was given to the various
   colonial governments, to the Six Nations, the Delawares, and
   the Shawanese, and a Congress was appointed to meet at Fort
   Stanwix during the following October. It met upon the 24th of
   that month, and was attended by representatives from New
   Jersey, Virginia, and Pennsylvania; by Sir William and his
   deputies; by the agents of those traders who had suffered in
   the war of 1763; and by deputies from all of the Six Nations,
   the Delawares, and the Shawanese. The first point to be
   settled was the boundary line which was to determine the
   Indian lands of the West from that time forward; and this line
   the Indians, upon the 1st of November, stated should begin on
   the Ohio at the mouth of the Cherokee (or Tennessee) river;
   thence go up the Ohio and Alleghany to Kittaning; thence
   across to the Susquehannah, &c.; whereby the whole country
   south of the Ohio and Alleghany, to which the Six Nations had
   any claim, was transferred to the British. One deed, for a
   part of this land, was made on the 3d of November to William
   Trent, attorney for twenty-two traders, whose goods had been
   destroyed by the Indians in 1763. The tract conveyed by this
   was between the Kenhawa and Monongahela, and was by the
   traders named 'Indiana.' Two days afterward, a deed for the
   remaining western lands was made to the King, and the price
   agreed on paid down. These deeds were made upon the express
   agreement, that no claim should ever be based upon previous
   treaties, those of Lancaster, Logstown, &c.; and they were
   signed by the chiefs of the Six Nations, for themselves, their
   allies and dependents, the Shawanese, Delawares, Mingoes of
   Ohio, and others; but the Shawanese and Delaware deputies
   present did not sign them. Such was the treaty of Stanwix,
   whereon rests the title by purchase to Kentucky, western
   Virginia, and Pennsylvania. It was a better foundation,
   perhaps, than that given by previous treaties, but was
   essentially worthless; for the lands conveyed were not
   occupied or hunted on by those conveying them. In truth, we
   cannot doubt that this immense grant was obtained by the
   influence of Sir William Johnson, in order that the new
   colony, of which he was to be governor, might be founded
   there. … The white man could now quiet his conscience when
   driving the native from his forest home, and feel sure that an
   army would back his pretensions. … Meantime more than one bold
   man had ventured for a little while into the beautiful valleys
   of Kentucky, and, on the 1st of May, 1769, there was one going
   forth from his 'peaceable habitation on the Yadkin river in
   North Carolina,' whose name has since gone far and wide over
   this little planet of ours, he having become the type of his
   class. This was Daniel Boone. He crossed the mountains, and
   spent that summer and the next winter in the West. But, while
   he was rejoicing in the abundance of buffalo, deer, and
   turkeys among the cane-brakes, longer heads were meditating
   still that new colony, the plan of which had been lying in
   silence for two years and more. The Board of Trade was again
   called on to report upon the application, and Lord
   Hillsborough, the President, reported against it. This called
   out Franklin's celebrated 'Ohio Settlement,' a paper written
   with so much ability, that the King's Council put by the
   official report, and granted the petition, a step which
   mortified the noble lord so much that he resigned his official
   station. The petition now needed only the royal sanction,
   which was not given until August 14th, 1772; but in 1770, the
   Ohio Company was merged in Walpole's, and, the claims of the
   soldiers of 1756 being acknowledged both by the new Company
   and by government, all claims were quieted. Nothing was ever
   done, however, under the grant to Walpole, the Revolution soon
   coming upon America. After the Revolution, Mr. Walpole and his
   associates petitioned Congress respecting their lands, called
   by them 'Vandalia,' but could get no help from that body. What
   was finally done by Virginia with the claims of this and other
   companies, we do not find written, but presume their lands
   were all looked on as forfeited."

      J. H. Perkins,
      English Discoveries in the Ohio Valley
      (North American Review, July, 1839).

      ALSO IN:
      W. L. Stone,
      Life and Times of Sir William Johnson,
      volume 2, chapter 16.

      B. Franklin, Works,
      (edited by Sparks),
      volume 4, pages 233-241, and 302-380.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766.
   Examination of Dr. Franklin before Parliament.

   On the 28th of January, 1766, while the bill for the repeal of
   the Stamp Act was pending in Parliament, Dr. Franklin was
   examined before the House of Commons, in Committee. The
   questions and answers of this very interesting examination, as
   reported in the Parliamentary History, were as follows:

   Q. What is your name, and place of abode?
   A. Franklin, of Philadelphia.

   Q. Do the Americans pay any considerable taxes among
   themselves?
   A. Certainly many, and very heavy taxes.

   Q. What are the present taxes in Pennsylvania,
   laid by the laws of the colony?
   A. There are taxes on all estates real and personal, a
   poll-tax, a tax on all offices, professions, trades, and
   businesses, according to their profits; an excise on all wine,
   rum, and other spirit; and a duty of ten pounds per head on all
   negroes imported, with some other duties.

{3193}

   Q. For what purposes are those taxes laid?
   A. For the support of the civil and military establishments
   of the country, and to discharge the heavy debt contracted
   in the last war.

   Q. How long are those taxes to continue?
   A. Those for discharging the debt are to continue till 1772,
   and longer, if the debt should not be then all discharged. The
   others must always continue.

   Q. Was it not expected that the debt would have been sooner
   discharged?
   A. It was, when the peace was made with France and Spain; but
   a fresh war breaking out with the Indians, a fresh load of
   debt was incurred, and the taxes, of course, continued longer
   by a new law.

   Q. Are not all the people very able to pay those taxes?
   A. No. The frontier counties, all along the continent, having
   been frequently ravaged by the enemy, and greatly
   impoverished, are able to pay very little tax. And therefore,
   in consideration of their distresses, our late tax laws do
   expressly favour those counties, excusing the sufferers; and I
   suppose the same is done in other governments.

   Q. Are not you concerned in the management of the post office
   in America?
   A. Yes; I am deputy post-master general of North America.

   Q. Don't you think the distribution of stamps, by post, to all
   the inhabitants, very practicable, if there was no opposition?
   A. The posts only go along the sea coasts; they do not, except
   in a few instances, go back into the country; and if they did,
   sending for stamps by post would occasion an expense of
   postage, amounting, in many cases, to much more than that of
   the stamps themselves.

   Q. Are you acquainted with Newfoundland?
   A. I never was there.

   Q. Do you know whether there are any post-roads on that
   island?
   A. I have heard that there are no roads at all; but that the
   communication between one settlement and another is by sea
   only.

   Q. Can you disperse the stamps by post in Canada?
   A. There is only a post between Montreal and Quebec. The
   inhabitants live so scattered and remote from each other, in
   that vast country, that posts cannot be supported among them,
   and therefore they cannot get stamps per post. The English
   colonies too, along the frontiers, are very thinly settled.

   Q. From the thinness of the back settlements,
   would not the Stamp Act be extremely inconvenient
   to the inhabitants if executed?
   A. To be sure it would; as many of the inhabitants could not
   get stamps when they had occasion for them, without taking
   long journeys, and spending, perhaps, three or four pounds,
   that the crown might get sixpence.

   Q. Are not the colonies, from their circumstances, very able
   to pay the stamp duty?
   A. In my opinion, there is not gold and silver enough in the
   colonies to pay the stamp duty for one year.

   Q. Don't you know that the money arising from the stamps was
   all to be laid out in America?
   A. I know it is appropriated by the act to the American
   service; but it will be spent in the conquered colonies, where
   the soldiers are, not in the colonies that pay it.

   Q. Is there not a balance of trade due from the colonies where
   the troops are posted, that will bring back the money to the
   old colonies?
   A. I think not. I believe very little would come back. I know
   of no trade likely to bring it back. I think it would come
   from the colonies where it was spent directly to England; for
   I have always observed, that in every colony the more plenty
   of means of remittance to England, the more goods are sent
   for, and the more trade with England carried on.

   Q. What number of white inhabitants do you think there are in
   Pennsylvania?
   A. I suppose there may be about 160,000.

   Q. What number of them are Quakers?
   A. Perhaps a third.

   Q. What number of Germans?
   A. Perhaps another third; but I cannot speak with certainty.

   Q. Have any number of the Germans seen service, as soldiers,
   in Europe?
   A. Yes, many of them, both in Europe and America.

   Q. Are they as much dissatisfied with the stamp duty as the
   English?
   A. Yes, and more; and with reason, as their stamps are, in
   many cases, to be double.

   Q. How many white men do you suppose there are in North
   America?
   A. About 300,000, from 16 to 60 years of age.

   Q. What may be the amount of one year's imports into
   Pennsylvania from Britain?
   A. I have been informed that our merchants compute the imports
   from Britain to be above 500,000l.

   Q. What may be the amount of the produce of your province
   exported to Britain?
   A. It must be small, as we produce little that is wanted
   in Britain. I suppose it cannot exceed 40,000l.

   Q. How then do you pay the balance?
   A. The balance is paid by our produce carried to the West
   Indies, and sold in our own islands, or to the French,
   Spaniards, Danes, and Dutch; by the same carried to other
   colonies in North America, as to New England, Nova Scotia,
   Newfoundland, Carolina, and Georgia; by the same carried to
   different parts of Europe, as Spain, Portugal and Italy. In
   all which places we receive either money, bills of exchange,
   or commodities that suit for remittance to Britain; which,
   together with all the profits on the industry of our merchants
   and mariners, arising in those circuitous voyages, and the
   freights made by their ships, centre finally in Britain to
   discharge the balance, and pay for British manufactures
   continually used in the province, or sold to foreigners by our
   traders.

   Q. Have you heard of any difficulties lately laid on the
   Spanish trade?
   A. Yes, I have heard that it has been greatly obstructed by
   some new regulations, and by the English men of war and
   cutters stationed all along the coast in America.

   Q. Do you think it right, that America should be protected by
   this country, and pay no part of the expense?
   A. That is not the case. The colonies raised, clothed and
   paid, during the last war, nearly 25,000 men, and spent many
   millions.

   Q. Were you not reimbursed by parliament? A. We were only
   reimbursed what, in your opinion, we had advanced beyond our
   proportion, or beyond what might reasonably be expected from
   us; and it was a very small part of what we spent.
   Pennsylvania, in particular, disbursed about 500,000l,
   and the reimbursements, in the whole, did not exceed
   60,000l.

   Q. You have said that you pay heavy taxes in Pennsylvania;
   what do they amount to in the pound?
   A. The tax on all estates, real and personal, is eighteen
   pence in the pound, fully rated; and the tax on the profits of
   trades and professions, with other taxes, do, I suppose, make
   full half a crown in the pound.

{3194}

   Q. Do you know any thing of the rate of exchange in
   Pennsylvania, and whether it has fallen lately?
   A. It is commonly from 170 to 175. I have heard that it has
   fallen lately from 175 to 162 and a half, owing, I suppose, to
   their lessening their orders for goods; and when their debts
   to this country are paid, I think the exchange will probably
   be at par.

   Q. Do not you think the people of America would submit to pay
   the stamp duty, if it was moderated?
   A. No, never, unless compelled by force of arms.

   Q. Are not the taxes in Pennsylvania laid on unequally, in
   order to burden the English trade, particularly the tax on
   professions and business?
   A. It is not more burdensome in proportion than the tax on
   lands. It is intended, and supposed to take an equal
   proportion of profits.

   Q. How is the assembly composed? Of what kinds of people are
   the members, landholders or traders?
   A. It is composed of landholders, merchants, and artificers.

   Q. Are not the majority landholders?
   A. I believe they are.

   Q. Do not they, as much as possible, shift the tax off from
   the land, to ease that; and lay the burthen heavier on trade?
   A. I have never understood it so. I never heard such a thing
   suggested. And indeed an attempt of that kind could answer no
   purpose. The merchant or trader is always skilled in figures,
   and ready with his pen and ink. If unequal burdens are laid on
   his trade, he puts an additional price on his goods; and the
   consumers, who are chiefly landholders, finally pay the
   greatest part, if not the whole.

   Q. What was the temper of America towards Great Britain before
   the year 1763?
   A. The best in the world. They submitted willingly to the
   government of the crown, and paid, in all their courts,
   obedience to acts of parliament. Numerous as the people are in
   the several old provinces, they cost you nothing in forts,
   citadels, garrisons or armies, to keep them in subjection.
   They were governed by this country at the expense only of a
   little pen, ink, and paper. They were led by a thread. They
   had not only a respect, but an affection for Great Britain,
   for its laws, its customs and manners, and even a fondness for
   its fashions, that greatly increased the commerce. Natives of
   Britain were always treated with particular regard; to be an
   Old-England man was, of itself, a character of some respect,
   and gave a kind of rank among us.

   Q. And what is their temper now?
   A. O, very much altered.

   Q. Did you ever hear the authority of parliament to make laws
   for America questioned till lately?
   A. The authority of parliament was allowed to be valid in all
   laws, except such as should lay internal taxes. It was never
   disputed in laying duties to regulate commerce.

   Q. In what proportion hath population increased in America?
   A. I think the inhabitants of all the provinces together,
   taken at a medium, double in about 25 years. But their demand
   for British manufactures increases much faster, as the
   consumption is not merely in proportion to their numbers, but
   grows with the growing abilities of the same numbers to pay
   for them. In 1723, the whole importation from Britain to
   Pennsylvania, was but about 15,000l. sterling; it is
   now near half a million.

   Q. In what light did the people of America use to consider the
   parliament of Great Britain?
   A. They considered the parliament as the great bulwark and
   security of their liberties and privileges, and always spoke
   of it with the utmost respect and veneration. Arbitrary
   ministers, they thought, might possibly, at times, attempt to
   oppress them; but they relied on it, that the parliament, on
   application, would always give redress. They remembered, with
   gratitude, a strong instance of this, when a bill was brought
   into parliament, with a clause to make royal instructions laws
   in the colonies, which the House of Commons would not pass,
   and it was thrown out.

   Q. And have they not still the same respect for parliament?
   A. No; it is greatly lessened.

   Q. To what causes is that owing?
   A. To a concurrence of causes; the restraints lately laid on
   their trade, by which the bringing of foreign gold and silver
   into the colonies was prevented; the prohibition of making
   paper money among themselves; and then demand a new and heavy
   tax by stamps; taking away at the same time, trials by juries,
   and refusing to receive and hear their humble petitions.

   Q. Don't you think they would submit to the Stamp Act, if it
   was modified, the obnoxious parts taken out, and the duty
   reduced to some particulars, of small moment?
   A. No; they will never submit to it.

   Q. What do you think is the reason that the people of America
   increase faster than in England?
   A. Because they marry younger, and more generally.

   Q. Why so?
   A. Because any young couple that are industrious, may easily
   obtain land of their own, on which they can raise a family.

   Q. Are not the lower rank of people more at their ease in
   America than in England?
   A. They may be so, if they are sober and diligent, as they
   are better paid for their labour.

   Q. What is your opinion of a future tax, imposed on the same
   principle with that of the Stamp Act, how would the Americans
   receive it?
   A. Just as they do this. They would not pay it.

   Q. Have not you heard of the resolution of this House, and of
   the House of Lords, asserting the right of parliament relating
   to America, including a power to tax the people there?
   A. Yes, I have heard of such resolutions.

   Q. What will be the opinion of the Americans on those
   resolutions?
   A. They will think them unconstitutional and unjust.

   Q. Was it an opinion in America before 1763, that the
   parliament had no right to lay taxes and duties there?
   A. I never heard any objection to the right of laying duties
   to regulate commerce; but a right to lay internal taxes was
   never supposed to be in parliament, as we are not represented
   there.

   Q. On what do you found your opinion, that the people in
   America made any such distinction?
   A. I know that whenever the subject has occurred in
   conversation where I have been present, it has appeared to be
   the opinion of every one, that we could not be taxed in a
   parliament where we were not represented. But the payment of
   duties laid by act of parliament, as regulations of commerce,
   was never disputed.

{3195}

   Q. But can you name any act of assembly, or public act of
   any of your governments, that made such distinction?
   A. I do not know that there was any; I think there was never
   an occasion to make any such act, till now that you have
   attempted to tax us: that has occasioned resolutions of
   assembly, declaring the distinction, in which I think every
   assembly on the continent, and every member in every assembly,
   have been unanimous.

   Q. What then could occasion conversations on that subject
   before that time?
   A. There was, in 1754, a proposition made (I think it came
   from hence) that in case of a war, which was then apprehended,
   the governors of the colonies should meet, and order the
   levying of troops, building of forts, and taking every other
   necessary measure for the general defence; and should draw on
   the treasury here, for the sums expended, which were
   afterwards to be raised in the colonies by a general tax, to
   be laid on them by act of parliament. This occasioned a good
   deal of conversation on the subject, and the general opinion
   was, that the parliament neither would, nor could lay any tax
   on us, till we were duly represented in parliament, because it
   was not just, nor agreeable to the nature of an English
   constitution.

   Q. Don't you know there was a time in New York, when it was
   under consideration to make an application to parliament, to
   lay taxes on that colony, upon a deficiency arising from the
   assembly's refusing or neglecting to raise the necessary
   supplies for the support of the civil government?
   A. I never heard of it.

   Q. There was such an application under consideration in New
   York; and do you apprehend they could suppose the right of
   parliament to lay a tax in America was only local, and
   confined to the case of a deficiency in a particular colony,
   by a refusal of its assembly to raise the necessary supplies?
   A. They could not suppose such a case, as that the assembly
   would not raise the necessary supplies to support its own
   government. An assembly that would refuse it, must want common
   sense, which cannot be supposed. I think there was never any
   such case at New York, and that it must be a
   misrepresentation, or the fact must be misunderstood. I know
   there have been some attempts, by ministerial instructions
   from hence, to oblige the assemblies to settle permanent
   salaries on governors, which they wisely refused to do; but I
   believe no assembly of New York, or any other colony, ever
   refused duly to support government, by proper allowances, from
   time to time, to public officers.

   Q. But in case a governor, acting by instruction, should call
   on an assembly to raise the necessary supplies, and the
   assembly should refuse to do it, do you not think it would
   then be for the good of the people of the colony, as well as
   necessary to government, that the parliament should tax them?
   A. I do not think it would be necessary. If an assembly could
   possibly be so absurd as to refuse raising the supplies
   requisite for the maintenance of government among them, they
   could not long remain in such a situation; the disorders and
   confusion occasioned by it, must soon bring them to reason.

   Q. If it should not, ought not the right to be in Great
   Britain of applying a remedy?
   A. A right only to be used in such a case, I should have no
   objection to, supposing it to be used merely for the good of
   the people of the colony.

   Q. But who is to judge of that, Britain or the colony?
   A. Those that feel can best judge.

   Q. You say the colonies have always submitted to external
   taxes, and object to the right of parliament only in laying
   internal taxes; now can you shew that there is any kind of
   difference between the two taxes to the colony on which they
   may be laid?
   A. I think the difference is very great. An external tax is a
   duty laid on commodities imported; that duty is added to the
   first cost, and other charges on the commodity, and when it is
   offered to sale, makes a part of the price. If the people do
   not like it at that price, they refuse it: they are not
   obliged to pay it. But an internal tax is forced from the
   people without their consent, if not laid by their own
   representatives. The Stamp Act says, we shall have no
   commerce, make no exchange of property with each other,
   neither purchase nor grant, nor recover debts; we shall
   neither marry nor make our wills, unless we pay such sums, and
   thus it is intended to extort our money from us, or ruin us by
   the consequences of refusing to pay it.

   Q. But supposing the internal tax or duty to be laid on the
   necessaries of life imported into your colony, will not that
   be the same thing in its effects as an internal tax?
   A. I do not know a single article imported into the northern
   colonies, but what they can either do without or make
   themselves.

   Q. Don't you think cloth from England absolutely necessary to
   them?
   A. No, by no means absolutely necessary; with industry and
   good management, they may very well supply themselves with all
   they want.

   Q. Will it not take a long time to establish that manufacture
   among them; and must they not in the mean while suffer
   greatly?
   A. I think not. They have made a surprising progress already.
   And I am of opinion, that before their old clothes are worn
   out, they will have new ones of their own making.

   Q. Can they possibly find wool enough in North America?
   A. They have taken steps to increase the wool. They entered
   into general combination to eat no more lamb, and very few
   lambs were killed last year. This course persisted in, will
   soon make a prodigious difference in the quantity of wool. And
   the establishing of great manufactories, like those in the
   clothing towns here, is not necessary, as it is where the
   business is to be carried on for the purposes of trade. The
   people will all spin and work for themselves, in their own
   houses.

   Q. Can there be wool and manufacture enough in one or two
   years?
   A. In three years, I think, there may.

   Q. Does not the severity of the winter, in the northern
   colonies, occasion the wool to be of bad quality?
   A. No, the wool is very fine and good.

   Q. In the more southern colonies, as in Virginia, don't you
   know that the wool is coarse, and only a kind of hair?
   A. I don't know it. I never heard it. Yet I have been
   sometimes in Virginia. I cannot say I ever took particular
   notice of the wool there, but I believe it is good, though I
   cannot speak positively of it; but Virginia, and the colonies
   south of it, have less occasion for wool; their winters are
   short, and not very severe, and they can very well clothe
   themselves with linen and cotton of their own raising for the
   rest of the year.

{3196}

   Q. Are not the people in the more northern colonies obliged to
   fodder their sheep all the winter?
   A. In some of the most northern colonies they may be obliged
   to do it some part of the winter.

   Q. Considering the resolutions of parliament as to the right,
   do you think, if the Stamp Act is repealed, that the North
   Americans will be satisfied?
   A. I believe they will.

   Q. Why do you think so?
   A. I think the resolutions of right will give them very little
   concern, if they are never attempted to be carried into
   practice. The colonies will probably consider themselves in
   the same situation, in that respect, with Ireland; they know
   you claim the same right with regard to Ireland, but you never
   exercise it. And they may believe you never will exercise it
   in the colonies, any more than in Ireland, unless on some very
   extraordinary occasion.

   Q. But who are to be the judges of that extraordinary
   occasion? Is not the parliament?
   A. Though the parliament may judge of the occasion, the people
   will think it can never exercise such right, till
   representatives from the colonies are admitted into
   parliament, and that whenever the occasion arises,
   representatives will be ordered.

   Q. Did you never hear that Maryland, during the last war, had
   refused to furnish a quota towards the common defence?
   A. Maryland has been much misrepresented in that matter.
   Maryland, to my knowledge, never refused to contribute, or
   grant aids to the crown. The assemblies every year, during the
   war, voted considerable sums, and formed bills to raise them.
   The bills were, according to the constitution of that
   province, sent up to the council, or upper house, for
   concurrence, that they might be presented to the governor, in
   order to be enacted into laws. Unhappy disputes between the
   two houses, arising from the defects of that constitution
   principally, rendered all the bills but one or two abortive.
   The proprietary's council rejected them. It is true, Maryland
   did not contribute its proportion, but it was, in my opinion,
   the fault of the government, not of the people.

   Q. Was it not talked of in the other provinces as a proper
   measure to apply to parliament to compel them?
   A. I have heard such discourse: but as it was well known that
   the people were not to blame, no such application was ever
   made, or any step taken towards it.

   Q. Was it not proposed at a public meeting?
   A. Not that I know of.

   Q. Do you remember the abolishing of the paper currency in New
   England, by act of assembly?
   A. I do remember its being abolished in the Massachusetts Bay.

   Q. Was not lieutenant governor Hutchinson principally
   concerned in that transaction?
   A. I have heard so.

   Q. Was it not at that time a very unpopular law?
   A. I believe it might, though I can say little about it, as I
   lived at a distance from that province.

   Q. Was not the scarcity of gold and silver an argument used
   against abolishing the paper?
   A. I suppose it was.

   Q. What is the present opinion there of that law? Is it as
   unpopular as it was at first?
   A. think it is not
   .
   Q. Have not instructions from hence been sometimes sent over
   to governors, highly oppressive and unpolitical?
   A. Yes.

   Q. Have not some governors dispensed with them for that
   reason?
   A. Yes, I have heard so.

   Q. Did the Americans ever dispute the controuling
   power of parliament to regulate the commerce?
   A. No.

   Q. Can any thing less than a military force carry the Stamp
   Act into execution?
   A. I do not see how a military force can be applied to that
   purpose.

   Q. Why may it not?
   A. Suppose a military force sent into America, they
   will find nobody in arms; what are they then to do?
   They cannot force a man to take stamps who chuses
   to do without them. They will not find a rebellion;
   they may indeed make one.

   Q. If the act is not repealed, what do you think will be the
   consequences?
   A. A total loss of the respect and affection the people of
   America bear to this country, and of all the commerce that
   depends on that respect and affection.

   Q. How can the commerce be affected?
   A. You will find, that if the act is not repealed, they will
   take very little of your manufactures in a short time.

   Q. Is it in their power to do without them?
   A. I think they may very well do without them.

   Q. Is it their interest not to take them?
   A. The goods they take from Britain are either necessaries,
   mere conveniencies, or superfluities. The first, as cloth, &c.
   with a little industry they can make at home: the second they
   can do without, till they are able to provide them among
   themselves; and the last, which are much the greatest part,
   they will strike off immediately. They are mere articles of
   fashion, purchased and consumed, because the fashion in a
   respected country, but will now be detested and rejected. The
   people have already struck off, by general agreement, the use
   of all goods fashionable in mournings, and many thousand
   pounds worth are sent back as unsaleable.

   Q. Is it their interest to make cloth at home?
   A. I think they may at present get it cheaper from Britain, I
   mean of the same fineness and neatness of workmanship; but
   when one considers other circumstances, the restraints on
   their trade, and the difficulty of making remittances, it is
   their interest to make every thing.

   Q. Suppose an act of internal regulations connected with the
   tax, how would they receive it?
   A. I think it would be objected to.

   Q. Then no regulation with a tax would be submitted to?
   A. Their opinion is, that when aids to the crown are wanted,
   they are to be asked of the several assemblies according to
   the old established usage, who will, as they have always done,
   grant them freely. And that their money ought not to be given
   away, without their consent, by persons at a distance,
   unacquainted with their circumstances and abilities. The
   granting aids to the crown, is the only means they have of
   recommending themselves to their sovereign, and they think it
   extremely hard and unjust, that a body of men, in which they
   have no representatives, should make a merit to itself of
   giving and granting what is not its own, but theirs, and
   deprives them of a right they esteem of the utmost value and
   importance, as it is the security of all their other rights.

   Q. But is not the post office, which they have long received,
   a tax as well as a regulation?
   A. No; the money paid for the postage of a letter is not of
   the nature of a tax; it is merely a quantum meruit for a
   service done; no person is compellable to pay the money, if he
   does not chuse to receive the service. A man may still, as
   before the act, send his letter by a servant, a special
   messenger, or a friend, if he thinks it cheaper and safer.

{3197}

   Q. But do they not consider the regulations of the
   post-office, by the act of last year, as a tax?
   A. By the regulations of last year the rate of postage was
   generally abated near thirty per cent. through all America;
   they certainly cannot consider such abatement as a tax.

   Q. If an excise was laid by parliament, which they might
   likewise avoid paying, by not consuming the articles excised,
   would they then not object to it?
   A. They would certainly object to it, as an excise is
   unconnected with any service done, and is merely an aid which
   they think ought to be asked of them, and granted by them if
   they are to pay it, and can be granted for them, by no others
   whatsoever, whom they have not impowered for that purpose.

   Q. You say they do not object to the right of parliament, in
   laying duties on goods to be paid on their importation; now,
   is there any kind of difference between a duty on the
   importation of goods and an excise on their consumption?
   A. Yes; a very material one; an excise, for the reasons I have
   just mentioned, they think you can have no right to lay within
   their country. But the sea is yours; you maintain, by your
   fleets, the safety of navigation in it, and keep it clear of
   pirates; you may have therefore a natural and equitable right
   to some toll or duty on merchandizes carried through that part
   of your dominions, towards defraying the expense you are at in
   ships to maintain the safety of that carriage.

   Q. Does this reasoning hold in the case of a duty laid on the
   produce of their lands exported? And would they not then
   object to such a duty?
   A. If it tended to make the produce so much dearer abroad as
   to lessen the demand for it, to be sure they would object to
   such a duty; not to your right of laying it, but they would
   complain of it as a burden, and petition you to lighten it.

   Q. Is not the duty paid on the tobacco exported a duty of that
   kind?
   A. That, I think, is only on tobacco carried coastwise from
   one colony to another, and appropriated as a fund for
   supporting the college at Williamsburgh, in Virginia.

   Q. Have not the assemblies in the West Indies the same natural
   rights with those in North America?
   A. Undoubtedly.

   Q. And is there not a tax laid there on their sugars exported?
   A. I am not much acquainted with the West Indies, but the duty
   of four and a half per cent., on sugars exported, was, I
   believe, granted by their own assemblies.

   Q. How much is the poll tax in your province laid on unmarried
   men?
   A. It is, I think, fifteen shillings, to be paid by every
   single freeman, upwards of twenty one years old.

   Q. What is the annual amount of all the taxes in Pennsylvania?
   A. I suppose about 20,000l. sterling.

   Q. Supposing the Stamp Act continued, and enforced, do you
   imagine that ill humour will induce the Americans to give as
   much for worse manufactures of their own and use them,
   preferably to better of ours?
   A. Yes, I think so. People will pay as freely to gratify one
   passion as another, their resentment as their pride.

   Q. Would the people at Boston discontinue their trade?
   A. The merchants are a very small number compared with the
   body of the people, and must discontinue their trade, if
   nobody will buy their goods.

   Q. What are the body of the people in the colonies?
   A. They are farmers, husbandmen or planters.

   Q. Would they suffer the produce of their lands to rot?
   A. No; but they would not raise so much. They would
   manufacture more, and plough less.

   Q. Would they live without the administration of justice in
   civil matters, and suffer all the inconveniencies of such a
   situation for any considerable time, rather than take the
   stamps, supposing the stamps were protected by a sufficient
   force, where everyone might have them?
   A. I think the supposition impracticable, that the stamps
   should be so protected as that everyone might have them. The
   Act requires sub-distributors to be appointed in every county
   town, district, and village, and they would be necessary. But
   the principal distributors, who were to have had a
   considerable profit on the whole, have not thought it worth
   while to continue in the office, and I think it impossible to
   find sub-distributors fit to be trusted, who, for the trifling
   profit that must come to their share, would incur the odium,
   and run the hazard that would attend it; and if they could be
   found, I think it impracticable to protect the stamps in so
   many distant and remote places.

   Q. But in places where they could be protected, would not the
   people use them rather than remain in such a situation, unable
   to obtain any right, or recover, by law, any debt?
   A. It is hard to say what they would do. I can only judge what
   other people will think, and how they will act, by what I feel
   within myself. I have a great many debts due to me in America,
   and I had rather they should remain unrecoverable by any law
   than submit to the Stamp Act. They will be debts of honour. It
   is my opinion the people will either continue in that
   situation, or find some way to extricate themselves, perhaps
   by generally agreeing to proceed in the courts without stamps.

   Q. What do you think a sufficient military force to protect
   the distribution of the stamps in every part of America?
   A. A very great force; I cannot say what, if the disposition
   of America is for a general resistance.

   Q. What is the number of men in America able to bear arms, or
   of disciplined militia?
   A. There are, I suppose, at least—[Question objected to. He
   withdrew. Called in again.]

   Q. Is the American Stamp Act an equal tax on that country?
   A. I think not.

   Q. Why so?
   A. The greatest part of the money must arise from lawsuits for
   the recovery of debts, and be paid by the lower sort of
   people, who were too poor easily to pay their debts. It is
   therefore a heavy tax on the poor, and a tax upon them for
   being poor.

   Q. But will not this increase of expense be a means of
   lessening the number of lawsuits?
   A. I think not; for as the costs all fall upon the debtor, and
   are to be paid by him, they would be no discouragement to the
   creditor to bring his action.

   Q. Would it not have the effect of excessive usury?
   A. Yes, as an oppression of the debtor.

{3198}

   Q. How many ships are there laden annually in
   North America with flax seed for Ireland?
   A. I cannot speak to the number of ships, but I know that in
   1752, 10,000 hogsheads of flax seed, each containing seven
   bushels, were exported from Philadelphia to Ireland. I suppose
   the quantity is greatly increased since that time; and it is
   understood that the exportation from New York is equal to that
   from Philadelphia.

   Q. What becomes of the flax that grows with that flax seed?
   A. They manufacture some into coarse, and some into a middling
   kind of linen.

   Q. Are there any slitting mills in America?
   A. I think there are three, but I believe only one at present
   employed. I suppose they will all be set to work, if the
   interruption of the trade continues.

   Q. Are there any fulling mills there?
   A. A great many.

   Q. Did you never hear that a great quantity of stockings were
   contracted for, for the army, during the war, and manufactured
   in Philadelphia?
   A. I have heard so.

   Q. If the Stamp Act should be repealed, would not the
   Americans think they could oblige the parliament to repeal
   every external tax law now in force?
   A. It is hard to answer questions what people at such a
   distance will think.

   Q. But what do you imagine they will think were the motives of
   repealing the Act?
   A. I suppose they will think that it was repealed from a
   conviction of its inexpediency; and they will rely upon it,
   that while the same inexpediency subsists, you will never
   attempt to make such another.

   Q. What do you mean by its inexpediency?
   A. I mean its inexpediency on several accounts; the poverty
   and inability of those who were to pay the tax; the general
   discontent it has occasioned; and the impracticability of
   enforcing it. If the Act should be repealed, and the
   legislature should shew its resentment to the opposers of the
   Stamp Act, would the colonies acquiesce in the authority of
   the legislature?

   Q. What is your opinion they would do?
   A. I don't doubt at all, that if the legislature repeal the
   Stamp Act, the colonies will acquiesce in the authority.

   Q. But if the legislature should think fit to ascertain its
   right to lay taxes, by any act laying a small tax, contrary to
   their opinion, would they submit to pay the tax?
   A. The proceedings of the people in America have been
   considered too much together. The proceedings of the
   assemblies have been very different from those of the mobs,
   and should be distinguished, as having no connection with each
   other. The assemblies have only peaceably resolved what they
   take to be their rights; they have not built a fort, raised a
   man, or provided a grain of ammunition, in order to such
   opposition. The ringleaders of riot they think ought to be
   punished; they would punish them themselves, if they could.
   Every sober, sensible man would wish to see rioters punished,
   as otherwise peaceable people have no security of person or
   estate. But as to an internal tax, how small soever, laid by
   the legislature here on the people there, while they have no
   representatives in this legislature, I think it will never be
   submitted to.—They will oppose it to the last.—They do not
   consider it as at all necessary for you to raise money on them
   by your taxes, because they are, and always have been, ready
   to raise money by taxes among themselves, and to grant large
   sums, equal to their abilities, upon requisition from the
   crown.—They have not only granted equal to their abilities,
   but, during all the last war, they granted far beyond their
   abilities, and beyond their proportion with this country, you
   yourselves being judges, to the amount of many hundred
   thousand pounds, and this they did freely and readily, only on
   a sort of promise from the secretary of state, that it should
   be recommended to parliament to make them compensation. It was
   accordingly recommended to parliament, in the most honourable
   manner, for them. America has been greatly misrepresented and
   abused here, in papers, and pamphlets, and speeches, as
   ungrateful, and unreasonable, and unjust, in having put this
   nation to immense expense for their defence, and refusing to
   bear any part of that expense. The colonies raised, paid, and
   clothed, near 25,000 men during the last war, a number equal
   to those sent from Britain, and far beyond their proportion;
   they went deeply into debt in doing this, and all their taxes
   and estates are mortgaged, for many years to come, for
   discharging that debt. Government here was at that time very
   sensible of this; The colonies were recommended to parliament.
   Every year the King sent down to the House a written message
   to this purpose, That his Majesty, being highly sensible of
   the zeal and vigour with which his faithful subjects in North
   America had exerted themselves, in defence of his Majesty's
   just rights and possessions, recommended it to the House to
   take the same into consideration, and enable him to give them
   a proper compensation. You will find those messages on your
   own journals every year of the war to the very last, and you
   did accordingly give 200,000l. annually to the crown,
   to be distributed in such compensation to the colonies. This
   is the strongest of all proofs that the colonies, far from
   being unwilling to bear a share of the burden, did exceed
   their proportion; for if they had done less, or had only
   equalled their proportion, there would have been no room or
   reason for compensation. Indeed the sums reimbursed them, were
   by no means adequate to the expense they incurred beyond their
   proportion; but they never murmured at that; they esteemed
   their sovereign's approbation of their zeal and fidelity, and
   the approbation of this House, far beyond any other kind of
   compensation; therefore there was no occasion for this act, to
   force money from a willing people; they had not refused giving
   money for the purposes of the act; no requisition had been
   made: they were al ways willing and ready to do what could
   reasonably be expected from them, and in this light they wish
   to be considered.

   Q. But suppose Great Britain should be engaged in a war in
   Europe, would North America contribute to the support of it?
   A. I do think they would, as far as their circumstances would
   permit. They consider themselves as a part of the British
   empire, and as having one common interest with it; they may be
   looked on here as foreigners, but they do not consider
   themselves as such. They are zealous for the honour and
   prosperity of this nation, and while they are well used, will
   always be ready to support it, as far as their little power
   goes. In 1739 they were called upon to assist in the
   expedition against Carthagena, and they sent 3,000 men to join
   your army. It is true Carthagena is in America, but as remote
   from the northern colonies as if it had been in Europe. They
   make no distinction of wars, as to their duty of assisting in
   them.
{3199}
   I know the last war is commonly spoke of here as entered into
   for the defence, or for the sake of the people of America. I
   think it is quite misunderstood. It began about the limits
   between Canada and Nova Scotia, about territories to which the
   crown indeed laid claim, but were not claimed by any British
   colony; none of the lands had been granted to any colonist; we
   had therefore no particular concern or interest in that
   dispute. As to the Ohio, the contest there began about your
   right of trading in the Indian country, a right you had by the
   treaty of Utrecht, which the French infringed; they seized the
   traders and their goods, which were your manufactures; they
   took a fort which a company of your merchants, and their
   factors and correspondents, had erected there to secure that
   trade. Braddock was sent with an army to re-take that fort
   (which was looked on here as another incroachment on the
   King's territory) and to protect your trade. It was not till
   after his defeat that the colonies were attacked. They were
   before in perfect peace with both French and Indians; the
   troops were not therefore sent for their defence. The trade
   with the Indians, though carried on in America, is not an
   American interest. The people of America are chiefly farmers
   and planters; scarce any thing that they raise or produce is
   an article of commerce with the Indians. The Indian trade is a
   British interest; it is carried on with British manufactures,
   for the profit of British merchants and manufacturers;
   therefore the war, as it commenced for the defence of
   territories of the crown, the property of no American, and for
   the defence of a trade purely British, was really a British
   war—and yet the people of America made no scruple of
   contributing their utmost towards carrying it on, and bringing
   it to a happy conclusion.

   Q. Do you think then that the taking possession of the King's
   territorial rights, and strengthening the frontiers, is not an
   American interest?
   A. Not particularly, but conjointly a British and an American
   interest.

   Q. You will not deny that the preceding war, the war with
   Spain, was entered into for the sake of America; was it not
   occasioned by captures made in the American seas?
   A. Yes; captures of ships carrying on the British trade there,
   with British manufactures.

   Q. Was not the late war with the Indians, since the peace with
   France, a war for America only?
   A. Yes: it was more particularly for America than the former,
   but it was rather a consequence or remains of the former war,
   the Indians not having been thoroughly pacified, and the
   Americans bore by much the greatest share of the expense. It
   was put an end to by the army under general Bouquet; there
   were not above 300 regulars in that army, and above 1,000
   Pennsylvanians.

   Q. Is it not necessary to send troops to America, to defend
   the Americans against the Indians?
   A. No, by no means; it never was necessary. They defended
   themselves when they were but a handful, and the Indians much
   more numerous. They continually gained ground, and have driven
   the Indians over the mountains, without any troops sent to
   their assistance from this country. And can it be thought
   necessary now to send troops for their defence from those
   diminished Indian tribes, when the colonies are become so
   populous, and so strong? There is not the least occasion for
   it; they are very able to defend themselves.

   Q. Do you say there were no more than 300 regular troops
   employed in the late Indian war?
   A, Not on the Ohio, or the frontiers of Pennsylvania, which
   was the chief part of the war that affected the colonies.
   There were garrisons at Niagara, Fort Detroit, and those
   remote posts kept for the sake of your trade; I did not reckon
   them, but I believe that on the whole the number of Americans,
   or provincial troops, employed in the war, was greater than
   that of the regulars. I am not certain, but I think so.

   Q. Do you think the assemblies have a right to levy money on
   the subject there, to grant to the crown?
   A. I certainly think so; they have always done it.

   Q. Are they acquainted with the Declaration of Rights; and do
   they know that by that statute, money is not to be raised on
   the subject but by consent of parliament?
   A. They are very well acquainted with it.

   Q. How then can they think they have a right to levy money for
   the crown, or for any other than local purposes?
   A. They understand that clause to relate to subjects only
   within the realm; that no money can be levied on them for the
   crown, but by consent of parliament. The colonies are not
   supposed to be within the realm; they have assemblies of their
   own, which are their parliaments, and they are, in that
   respect, in the same situation with Ireland. When money is to
   be raised for the crown upon the subject in Ireland, or in the
   colonies, the consent is given in the parliament of Ireland,
   or in the assemblies of the colonies. They think the
   parliament of Great Britain cannot properly give that consent
   till it has representatives from America; for the Petition of
   Right expressly says, it is to be by common consent in
   parliament, and the people of America have no representatives
   in parliament, to make a part of that common consent.

   Q. If the Stamp Act should be repealed, and an act should
   pass, ordering the assemblies of the colonies to indemnify the
   sufferers by the riots, would they obey it?
   A. That is a question I cannot answer.

   Q. Suppose the King should require the colonies to grant a
   revenue, and the parliament should be against their doing it,
   do they think they can grant a revenue to the King, without
   the consent of the parliament of Great Britain?
   A. That is a deep question. As to my own opinion I should
   think myself at liberty to do it, and should do it, if I liked
   the occasion.

   Q, When money has been raised in the colonies, upon
   requisitions, has it not been granted to the King?
   A. Yes, always; but the requisitions have generally been for
   some service expressed, as to raise, clothe, and pay troops,
   and not for money only.

   Q. If the act should pass, requiring the American Assemblies
   to make compensation to the sufferers, and they should disobey
   it, and then the parliament should, by another act, lay an
   internal tax, would they obey it?
   A. The people will pay no internal tax: and I think an act to
   oblige the assemblies to make compensation is unnecessary, for
   I am of opinion, that as soon as the present heats are abated,
   they will take the matter into consideration, and if it is
   right to be done, they will do it of themselves.

{3200}

   Q. Do not letters often come into the post offices in America,
   directed into some inland town where no post goes?
   A. Yes.

   Q. Can any private person take up those letters, and carry
   them as directed?
   A. Yes; any friend of the person may do it, paying the postage
   that has accrued.

   Q. But must not he pay an additional postage for the distance
   to such an inland town?
   A. No.

   Q. Can the post-master answer delivering the letter, without
   being paid such additional postage?
   A. Certainly he can demand nothing, where he does no service.

   Q. Suppose a person, being far from home, finds a letter in a
   post office directed to him, and he lives in a place to which
   the post generally goes, and the letter is directed to that
   place, will the post-master deliver him the letter, without
   his paying the postage received at the place to which the
   letter is directed?
   A. Yes; the office cannot demand postage for a letter that it
   does not carry, or farther than it does carry it.

   Q. Are not ferrymen in America obliged, by act of parliament,
   to carry over the posts without pay?
   A. Yes.

   Q. Is not this a tax on the ferrymen?
   A. They do not consider it as such, as they have an advantage
   from persons travelling with the post.

   Q. If the Stamp Act should be repealed, and the crown should
   make a requisition to the colonies for a sum of money, would
   they grant it?
   A. I believe they would.

   Q. Why do you think so?
   A. I can speak for the colony I live in; I had it in
   instruction from the assembly to assure the ministry, that as
   they always had done, so they should always think it their
   duty to grant such aids to the crown as were suitable to their
   circumstances and abilities, whenever called upon for the
   purpose, in the usual constitutional manner; and I had the
   honour of communicating this instruction to that honorable
   gentleman then minister.

   Q. Would they do this for a British concern; as suppose a war
   in some part of Europe, that did not affect them?
   A. Yes, for any thing that concerned the general interest.
   They consider themselves as a part of the whole.

   Q. What is the usual constitutional manner of calling on the
   colonies for aids?
   A. A letter from the secretary of state.

   Q. Is this all you mean, a letter from the secretary of state?
   A. I mean the usual way of requisition, in a circular letter
   from the secretary of state, by his Majesty's command,
   reciting the occasion, and recommending it to the colonies to
   grant such aids as became their loyalty, and were suitable to
   their abilities.

   Q. Did the secretary of state ever write for money for the
   crown?
   A. The requisitions have been to raise clothe, and pay men,
   which cannot be done without money.

   Q. Would they grant money alone, if called on?
   A. In my opinion they would, money as well as men, when they
   have money, or can procure it.

   Q. If the parliament should repeal the Stamp Act, will the
   assembly of Pennsylvania rescind their resolutions?
   A. I think not.

   Q. Before there was any thought of the Stamp Act, did they
   wish for a representation in parliament?
   A. No.

   Q. Don't you know that there is, in the Pennsylvania charter,
   an express reservation of the right of parliament to lay taxes
   there?
   A. I know there is a clause in the charter, by which the King
   grants that he will levy no taxes on the inhabitants, unless
   it be with the consent of the assembly, or by an act of
   parliament.

   Q. How then could the assembly of Pennsylvania assert, that
   laying a tax on them by the Stamp Act was an infringement of
   their rights?
   A. They understand it thus: by the same charter, and
   otherwise, they are entitled to all the privileges and
   liberties of Englishmen; they find in the Great Charters, and
   the Petition and Declaration of Rights, that one of the
   privileges of English subjects is, that they are not to be
   taxed but by their common consent; they have therefore relied
   upon it, from the first settlement of the province, that the
   parliament never would, nor could, by colour of that clause in
   the charter, assume a right of taxing them, till it had
   qualified itself to exercise such right, by admitting
   representatives from the people to be taxed, who ought to make
   a part of that common consent.

   Q. Are there any words in the charter that justify that
   construction?
   A. The common rights of Englishmen, as declared by Magna
   Charta, and the Petition of Right, all justify it.

   Q. Does the distinction between internal and external taxes
   exist in the words of the charter?
   A. No, I believe not.

   Q. Then may they not, by the same interpretation, object to
   the parliament's right of external taxation?
   A. They never have hitherto. Many arguments have been lately
   used here to shew them that there is no difference, and that
   if you have no right to tax them internally, you have none to
   tax them externally, or make any other law to bind them. At
   present they do not reason so, but in time they may possibly
   be convinced by these arguments.

   Q. Do not the resolutions of the Pennsylvania assemblies say,
   all taxes?
   A. If they do, they mean only internal taxes; the same words
   have not always the same meaning here and in the colonies. By
   taxes they mean internal taxes; by duties they mean customs;
   these are the ideas of the language.

   Q. Have you not seen the resolutions of the Massachusetts Bay
   assembly?
   A. I have.

   Q. Do they not say, that neither external nor internal taxes
   can be laid on them by parliament?
   A. I don't know that they do; I believe not.

   Q. If the same tax should say neither tax nor imposition could
   be laid, does not that province hold the power of parliament
   can lay neither?
   A. I suppose that by the word imposition, they do not intend
   to express duties to be laid on goods imported, as regulations
   of commerce.

   Q. What can the colonies mean then by imposition as distinct
   from taxes?
   A. They may mean many things, as impressing of men, or of
   carriages, quartering troops on private houses, and the like;
   there may be great impositions that are not properly taxes.

   Q. Is not the post-office rate an internal tax laid by act of
   parliament?
   A. I have answered that.

   Q. Are all parts of the colonies equally able to pay taxes?
   A. No, certainly; the frontier parts, which have been ravaged
   by the enemy, are greatly disabled by that means, and
   therefore, in such cases, are usually favoured in our tax
   laws.

{3201}

   Q. Can we, at this distance, be competent judges of what
   favours are necessary?
   A. The parliament have supposed it, by claiming a right to
   make tax laws for America; I think it impossible.

   Q. Would the repeal of the Stamp Act be any discouragement of
   your manufactures? Will the people that have begun to
   manufacture decline it?
   A. Yes, I think they will; especially if, at the same time,
   the trade is opened again, so that remittances can be easily
   made. I have known several instances that make it probable. In
   the war before last, tobacco being low, and making little
   remittance, the people of Virginia went generally into family
   manufactures. Afterwards, when tobacco bore a better price,
   they returned to the use of British manufactures. So fulling
   mills were very much disused in the last war in Pennsylvania,
   because bills were then plenty, and remittances could easily
   be made to Britain for English cloth and other goods.

   Q. If the Stamp Act should be repealed, would it induce the
   assemblies of America to acknowledge the right of parliament
   to tax them, and, would they erase their resolutions?
   A. No, never.

   Q. Is there no means of obliging them to erase those
   resolutions?
   A. None, that I know of; they will never do it, unless
   compelled by force of arms.

   Q. Is there a power on earth that can force them to erase
   them?
   A. No power, how great soever, can force men to change their
   opinions.

   Q. Do they consider the post office as a tax, or as a
   regulation?
   A. Not as a tax, but as a regulation and conveniency; every
   assembly encouraged it, and supported it in its infancy, by
   grants of money, which they would not otherwise have done; and
   the people have always paid the postage.

   Q. When did you receive the instructions you mentioned?
   A. I brought them with me, when I came to England, about 15
   months since.

   Q. When did you communicate that instruction to the minister?
   A. Soon after my arrival, while the stamping of America was
   under consideration, and before the Bill was brought in.

   Q. Would it be most for the interest of Great Britain, to
   employ the hands of Virginia in tobacco, or in manufactures?
   A. In tobacco, to be sure.

   Q. What used to be the pride of the Americans?
   A. To indulge in the fashions and manufactures of Great
   Britain.

   Q. What is now their pride?
   A. To wear their old clothes over again, till they can make
   new ones.

   Withdrew.

      Parliamentary History of England,
      volume 16, pages 138-160.

   "Mr. Sparks very justly says that there was no event in
   Franklin's life more creditable to his talents and character,
   or which gave him so much celebrity, as this examination
   before the House of Commons. His further statement, however,
   that Franklin's answers were given without premeditation and
   without knowing beforehand the nature or form of the question
   that was to be put, is a little too sweeping. In a memorandum
   which Franklin gave to a friend who wished to know by whom the
   several questions were put, he admitted that many were put by
   friends to draw out in answer the substance of what he had
   before said upon the subject."

      J. Bigelow,
      Life of Benjamin Franklin,
      volume 1, page 507, foot-note.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766.
   The repeal of the Stamp Act and passage of the
   Declaratory Act.
   Speech of Pitt.

   "The Grenville Ministry had fallen in July [1765], and had
   been succeeded by that of Rockingham; and Conway, who had been
   one of the few opponents of the Stamp Act, was now Secretary
   of State for the Colonies. … The Stamp Act had contributed
   nothing to the downfall of Grenville; it attracted so little
   attention that it was only in the last days of 1765 or the
   first days, of 1766 that the new ministers learnt the views of
   Pitt upon the subject; it was probably a complete surprise to
   them to learn that it had brought the colonies to the verge of
   rebellion, and in the first months of their power they appear
   to have been quite uncertain what policy they would pursue. …
   Parliament met on December 17, 1765, and the attitude of the
   different parties was speedily disclosed. A powerful
   Opposition, led by Grenville and Bedford, strenuously urged
   that no relaxation or indulgence should be granted to the
   colonists. … Pitt, on the other hand, rose from his sick-bed,
   and in speeches of extraordinary eloquence, and which produced
   an amazing effect on both sides of the Atlantic, he justified
   the resistance of the colonists."

      W. E. H. Lecky,
      History of England in the 18th Century,
      chapter 12 (volume 3).

   The following is the main part of the speech delivered by Pitt
   (not yet made Lord Chatham) on the 14th of January, 1766, as
   imperfectly reported: "It is my opinion, that this kingdom has
   no right to lay a tax upon the colonies. At the same time, I
   assert the authority of this kingdom over the colonies to be
   sovereign and supreme, in every circumstance of government and
   legislation whatsoever. They are the subjects of this kingdom;
   equally entitled with yourselves to all the natural rights of
   mankind and the peculiar privileges of Englishmen; equally
   bound by its laws, and equally participating in the
   constitution of this free country, The Americans are the sons,
   not the bastards of England! Taxation is no part of the
   governing or legislative power. The taxes are a voluntary gift
   and grant of the Commons alone. In legislation the three
   estates of the realm are alike concerned; but the concurrence
   of the peers and the Crown to a tax is only necessary to
   clothe it with the form of a law. The gift and grant is of the
   Commons alone. … When … in this House, we give and grant, we
   give and grant what is our own. But in an American tax, what
   do we do? 'We, your Majesty's Commons for Great Britain, give
   and grant to your Majesty'—what? Our own property! No! 'We
   give and grant to your Majesty' the property of your Majesty's
   Commons of America! It is an absurdity in terms. … There is an
   idea in some that the colonies are virtually represented in
   the House. I would fain know by whom an American is
   represented here. Is he represented by any knight of the
   shire, in any county in this kingdom? Would to God that
   respectable representation was augmented to a greater number!
   Or will you tell him that he is represented by any
   representative of a borough? a borough which, perhaps, its own
   representatives never saw! This is what is called the rotten
   part of the Constitution. It cannot continue a century. If it
   does not drop, it must be amputated. The idea of a virtual
   representation of America in this House is the most
   contemptible idea that ever entered into the head of a man. It
   does not deserve a serious refutation. The Commons of America
   represented in their several assemblies, have ever been in the
   possession of this, their constitutional right, of giving and
   granting their own money.
{3202}
   They would have been slaves if they had not enjoyed it! At the
   same time, this kingdom, as the supreme governing and
   legislative power, has always bound the colonies by her laws,
   by her regulations, and restrictions in trade, in navigation,
   in manufactures, in every thing, except that of taking their
   money out of their pockets without their consent. Here I would
   draw the line. … Gentlemen, sir, have been charged with giving
   birth to sedition in America. They have spoken their
   sentiments with freedom against this unhappy act, and that
   freedom has become their crime. Sorry I am to hear the liberty
   of speech in this House imputed as a crime. But the imputation
   shall not discourage me. It is a liberty I mean to exercise.
   No gentleman ought to be afraid to exercise it. It is a
   liberty by which the gentleman who calumniates it might have
   profited. He ought to have desisted from his project. The
   gentleman tells us America is obstinate; America almost in
   open rebellion. I rejoice that America has resisted. Three
   millions of people, so dead to all the feelings of liberty as
   voluntarily to submit to be slaves, would have been fit
   instruments to make slaves of the rest. … Since the accession
   of King William, many ministers, some of great, others of more
   moderate abilities, have taken the lead of government. … None
   of these thought or even dreamed, of robbing the colonies of
   their constitutional rights. That was reserved to mark the era
   of the late administration. Not that there were wanting some,
   when I had the honor to serve his Majesty, to propose to me to
   burn my fingers with an American stamp act. With the enemy at
   their back, with our bayonets at their breasts, in the day of
   their distress, perhaps the Americans would have submitted to
   the imposition; but it would have been taking an ungenerous,
   an unjust advantage. The gentleman boasts of his bounties to
   America! Are not these bounties intended finally for the
   benefit of this kingdom? If they are not, he has misapplied
   the national treasures! I am no courtier of America. I stand
   up for this kingdom. I maintain that the Parliament has a
   right to bind, to restrain America. Our legislative power over
   the colonies is sovereign and supreme. I would advise every
   gentleman to sell his lands, if he can, and embark for that
   country. When two countries are connected together like
   England and her colonies, without being incorporated, the one
   must necessarily govern. The greater must rule the less. But
   she must so rule it as not to contradict the fundamental
   principles that are common to both. … The gentleman asks, When
   were the colonies emancipated? I desire to know, when were
   they made slaves? But I dwell not upon words. When I had the
   honor of serving his Majesty, I availed myself of the means of
   information which I derived from my office. I speak,
   therefore, from knowledge. My materials were good. I was at
   pains to collect, to digest, to consider them; and I will be
   bold to affirm, that the profits to Great Britain from the
   trade of the colonies through all its branches, is two
   millions a year. This is the fund that carried you
   triumphantly through the last war. The estates that were
   rented at two thousand pounds a year, three-score years ago,
   are at three thousand at present. Those estates sold then from
   fifteen to eighteen years purchase; the same may now be sold
   for thirty. You owe this to America. This is the price America
   pays you for her protection. And shall a miserable financier
   come with a boast, that he can bring 'a pepper-corn' into the
   exchequer by the loss of millions to the nation? I dare not
   say how much higher these profits may be augmented. … I am
   convinced on other grounds that the commercial system of
   America may be altered to advantage. You have prohibited where
   you ought to have encouraged. You have encouraged where you
   ought to have prohibited. Improper restraints have been laid
   on the continent in favor of the islands. You have but two
   nations to trade with in America. Would you had twenty! Let
   acts of Parliament in consequence of treaties remain; but let
   not an English minister become a custom-house officer for
   Spain, or for any foreign power. Much is wrong! Much may be
   amended for the general good of the whole! … A great deal has
   been said without doors of the power, of the strength of
   America. It is a topic that ought to be cautiously meddled
   with. In a good cause, on a sound bottom, the force of this
   country can crush America to atoms. I know the valor of your
   troops. I know the skill of your officers. There is not a
   company of foot that has served in America, out of which you
   may not pick a man of sufficient knowledge and experience to
   make a governor of a colony there. But on this ground, on the
   Stamp Act, which so many here will think a crying injustice, I
   am one who will lift up my hands against it. In such a cause
   your success would be hazardous. America, if she fell, would
   fall like the strong man; she would embrace the pillars of the
   State, and pull down the Constitution along with her. Is this
   your boasted peace—not to sheathe the sword in its scabbard,
   but to sheathe it in the bowels of your countrymen? … The
   Americans have not acted in all things with prudence and
   temper: they have been wronged: they have been driven to
   madness by injustice. Will you punish them for the madness you
   have occasioned? Rather let prudence and temper come first
   from this side. I will undertake for America that she will
   follow the example. … Upon the whole I will beg leave to tell
   the House what is my opinion. It is that the Stamp Act be
   repealed absolutely, totally and immediately. That the reason
   for the repeal be assigned, viz., because it was founded on an
   erroneous principle. At the same time, let the sovereign
   authority of this country over the colonies be asserted in as
   strong terms as can be devised, and be made to extend to every
   point of legislation whatsoever; that we may bind their trade,
   confine their manufactures, and exercise every power
   whatsoever except that of taking their money out of their
   pockets without their consent."

      Representative British Orations,
      pages 98-119.

   The views of Pitt "were defended in the strongest terms by
   Lord Camden, who pledged his great legal reputation to the
   doctrine that taxation is not included under the general right
   of legislation, and that taxation and representation are
   morally inseparable. … The task of the ministers in dealing
   with this question was extremely difficult. The great majority
   of them desired ardently the repeal of the Stamp Act; but the
   wishes of the King, the abstention of Pitt, and the divided
   condition of parties had compelled Rockingham to include in
   his Government Charles Townshend, Barrington, and Northington,
   who were all strong advocates of the taxation of America. …
{3203}
   In addition to all these difficulties the ministers had to
   deal with the exasperation which was produced in Parliament by
   the continual outrages and insults to which all who
   represented the English Government in America were exposed.
   Their policy consisted of two parts. They asserted in the
   strongest and most unrestricted form the sovereignty of the
   British Legislature, first of all by resolutions and then by a
   Declaratory Act affirming the right of Parliament to make laws
   binding the British colonies 'in all cases whatsoever,' and
   condemning as unlawful the votes of the colonial Assemblies
   which had denied to Parliament the right of taxing them. Side
   by side with this measure they brought in a bill repealing the
   Stamp Act. … The great and manifest desire of the commercial
   classes throughout England had much weight; the repeal was
   carried [March, 1766] through the House of Commons, brought up
   by no less than 200 members to the Lords, and finally carried
   amid the strongest expressions of public joy. Burke described
   it as 'an event that caused more universal joy throughout the
   British dominions than perhaps any other that can be
   remembered.'"

      W. E. H. Lecky,
      History of England in the 18th Century,
      chapter 12 (volume 3).

      ALSO IN:
      Parliamentary History,
      volume 16, pages 112-205.

      B. Franklin,
      Works (Sparks' editor),
      volume 4.

      Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
      History of England 1713-1783,
      chapter 45.

      See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1765-1768.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766-1767.
   The Townshend measures.

   "The liberal Rockingham administration, after a few months of
   power, disappeared [July, 1766], having signalized itself as
   regarded America by the repeal of the Stamp Act, and by the
   Declaratory Act. Of the new ministry the leading spirit was
   Charles Townshend, a brilliant statesman, but unscrupulous and
   unwise. His inclinations were arbitrary; he regretted the
   repeal of the Stamp Act, as did also the king and Parliament
   in general, who felt themselves to have been humiliated. Pitt,
   indeed, now Earl of Chatham, was a member of the government;
   but, oppressed by illness, he could exercise no restraint upon
   his colleague, and the other members were either in sympathy
   with Townshend's views, or unable to oppose him. Townshend's
   three measures affecting America, introduced on the 13th of
   May, 1767, were: a suspension of the functions of the
   legislature of New York for contumacy in the treatment of the
   royal troops; the establishment of commissioners of the
   customs, appointed with large powers to superintend laws
   relating to trade; and lastly an impost duty upon glass, red
   and white lead, painters' colors, paper, and tea [see ENGLAND:
   A. D. 1765-1768]. This was an 'external' duty to which the
   colonists had heretofore expressed a willingness to submit;
   but the grounds of the dispute were shifting. Townshend had
   declared that he held in contempt the distinction sought to be
   drawn between external and internal taxes, but that he would
   so far humor the colonists in their quibble as to make his tax
   of that kind of which the right was admitted. A revenue of
   £40,000 a year was expected from the tax, which was to be
   applied to the support of a 'civil list,' namely, the paying
   the salaries of the new commissioners of customs, and of the
   judges and governors, who were to be relieved wholly or in
   part from their dependence upon the annual grants of the
   Assemblies; then, if a surplus remained, it was to go to the
   payment of troops for protecting the colonies. To make more
   efficient, moreover, the enforcement of the revenue laws, the
   writs of assistance, the denunciation of which by James Otis
   had formed so memorable a crisis, were formally legalized. The
   popular discontent, appeased by the repeal of the Stamp Act,
   was at once awake again, and henceforth in the denial of the
   right of Parliament to tax, we hear no more of acquiescence in
   commercial restrictions and in the general legislative
   authority of Parliament. … The plan for resistance adopted by
   the cooler heads was that of Samuel Adams, namely, the
   non-importation and the non-consumption of British products.
   From Boston out, through an impulse proceeding from him,
   town-meetings were everywhere held to encourage the
   manufactures of the Province and reduce the use of
   superfluities, long lists of which were enumerated. Committees
   were appointed everywhere to procure subscriptions to
   agreements looking to the furtherance of home industries and
   the disuse of foreign products. … Before the full effects of
   the new legislation could be seen, Townshend suddenly died;
   but in the new ministry that was presently formed Lord North
   came to the front, and adopted the policy of his predecessor,
   receiving in this course the firm support of the king, whose
   activity and interest were so great in public affairs that he
   'became his own minister.'"

      J. K. Hosmer,
      Samuel Adams,
      chapter 7.

      ALSO IN:
      R. Frothingham,
      Life and Times of Joseph Warren,
      chapter 3.

      W. Belsham,
      Memoirs of the Reign of George III.,
      volume 1, page 139-142.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1767-1768.
   The Farmer's Letters of John Dickinson.
   The Circular Letter of Massachusetts,
   and the "Unrescinding Ninety-two."

   "The English ministry was probably misled by the strong
   emphasis which had been laid here during the controversies
   concerning the Stamp Act upon the alleged distinction between
   external and internal taxation. We had refused to submit to
   the latter, but admitted that the former might be binding upon
   the whole empire as a commercial regulation. In form the
   duties levied on paints, glass, tea, etc., were undoubtedly
   such a regulation, but it was at once contended here that, in
   point of fact and of principle, this was as much an exercise
   of the alleged right of Parliamentary taxation for the purpose
   of raising a revenue for imperial purposes as the Stamp Act
   itself. Although it was passed by the opponents of the Stamp
   Act, and by the Rockingham ministry, who professed to be our
   friends, the act met at once with opposition here. Late in
   October, 1767, it was denounced by a public meeting in Boston,
   which suggested a non-importation agreement as the best means
   of rendering its operations ineffective. These agreements were
   favorite expedients for manifesting political discontent in
   those days, but, as they were voluntary, their obligation sat
   somewhat loosely upon those who signed them. The truth is,
   that those who were most decided in opposition to the course
   of the ministry were somewhat puzzled as to the plan they
   should adopt to exhibit the earnestness of their discontent. …
   While the leaders of the opposition throughout the country
   were doubtful and hesitating, there appeared in the
   Pennsylvania Chronicle for the 2d of December, 1767, the first
   of a series of letters on the political situation, afterwards
   known as the 'Farmer's Letters.'
{3204}
   … The letters, fourteen in number, followed one another in
   quick succession, and they were read by men of all classes and
   opinions throughout the continent as no other work of a
   political kind had been hitherto read in America. It was, of
   course, soon known that John Dickinson was their author, and
   people remembered that he was the person who had formulated
   what was a genuine Bill of Rights in the Stamp Act Congress.
   The more these letters were read, the more convinced people
   became that in the comprehensive survey they took of our
   political relations with the mother-country, especially as
   these were affected by the last obnoxious act of Parliament,
   and in the plans which were proposed to remedy the evil, Mr.
   Dickinson had struck the true key-note of the opposition to
   the ministerial measures. He appeared at this crisis, as he
   did in the Stamp Act Congress, as the leader and guide in the
   controversy. From this time until the Declaration of
   Independence the Pennsylvania idea, which was embodied by Mr.
   Dickinson in these Farmer's Letters, 'controlled the destinies
   of the country;' and Mr. Bancroft only does justice to Mr.
   Dickinson's position when he recognizes fully his commanding
   influence during that period. We may say with pardonable pride
   (and it is one of those truths which many of our historians
   have managed in various ways to relegate to obscurity), that,
   as the leading spirit in the Stamp Act Congress, Dickinson
   gave form and color to the agitation in this country which
   brought about the repeal of that act, and that the arguments
   by which the claim of the ministry to tax us for revenue by
   such an act of Parliament as that levying duties on glass,
   paints, etc. was answered in the 'Farmer's Letters' first
   convinced the whole body of our countrymen, groping blindly
   for a cure for their grievances, that there was a legal
   remedy, and then forced the ministry to consent in a measure
   to the demand for a repeal of some of its most obnoxious
   provisions. It is worth remarking that when the ministry
   yielded at all it yielded to argument, and not to the boastful
   threats which were so common. The 'Farmer's Letters' gave
   courage and force to those who in February denounced the law
   in Pennsylvania; they formed the mainspring of the movement
   which resulted in the circular letter sent by the legislature
   of Massachusetts on the 17th of that month to the Assemblies
   of the other Colonies; in short, they had the rare good
   fortune not only of convincing those who suffered that the
   remedy was in their own hands, but also of pursuading those
   who had the power to abandon, or at least to modify their
   arbitrary measures. … Mr. Dickinson begins these grave essays
   with an air of simplicity as charming as it is calculated to
   attract the attention of the reader. 'I am a farmer,' he says,
   'settled, after a variety of fortunes, near the banks of the
   river Delaware, in the Province of Pennsylvania. I received a
   liberal education, and have been engaged in the busy scenes of
   life, but am now convinced that a man may be as happy without
   bustle as with it. Being generally master of my time, I spend
   a good deal of it in my library, which I think the most
   valuable part of my small estate. I have acquired, I believe,
   a greater knowledge of history and of the laws and
   constitution of my country than is generally attained by men
   of my class,' etc. He then explains the nature of the
   controversy with the mother-country, making it so clear that
   the points in dispute are comprehensible by a child. … As to
   our method of asserting our rights, he says, with an elevation
   of sentiment which reminds one of Edmund Burke more than of
   any other political writer, 'The cause of liberty is a cause
   of too much dignity to be sullied by turbulence and tumult. It
   ought to be maintained in a manner suitable to her nature.
   Those who engage in it should breathe a sedate yet fervent
   spirit, animating them to actions of prudence, justice,
   modesty, bravery, humanity, and magnanimity.' He shrinks,
   evidently with terror, from speaking of what may be the
   consequences of the persistent refusal of England to change
   her oppressive measures. … After showing in the most striking
   manner the nature of our wrongs, the letters turn gladly to
   the remedy that lies open to us. That remedy is based upon a
   cultivation of the spirit of conciliation on both sides, and
   Mr. Dickinson urges again and again upon his English readers
   the folly of their policy, by showing them the value of the
   American Colonies to them, and especially how the trade and
   wealth of the English merchants are bound up in the adoption
   of a liberal policy towards us. This is one of the most
   interesting and important topics discussed in these letters,
   and the subject is treated with elaborate skill, leading to
   convincing conclusions drawn from our history. It must not be
   forgotten that prior to the Revolution an impression widely
   prevailed among the most thoughtful of our own people, as well
   as among our friends in England, that if the English people
   could be made to understand the frightful losses they would
   suffer in case of a war in which we should be fighting for our
   independence, or even during a short interruption of the trade
   between the two countries, they would force the government to
   yield rather than run the risk of the consequences. … Even Dr.
   Franklin in London, who had had so many proofs of the
   indifference and contempt with which the representations of
   the Colonies in England were regarded … thought the appeal of
   the Farmer to Englishmen so irresistible that, although no
   friend of Dickinson's, he arranged that these letters should
   be reprinted in London."

      C. J. Stillé,
      The Life and Times of John Dickinson,
      chapter 4.

   In February, 1768, "the Legislature of Massachusetts sent a
   Circular Letter [ascribed to Samuel Adams] to the Assemblies
   of the other colonies, in which was set forth the necessity of
   all acting together harmoniously, and of freely communicating
   the mind of each to the others. The course Massachusetts had
   pursued was described, with the contents of the petition and
   letters which had been written, and with the hope expressed
   that she would have their cordial co-operation in resistance
   to the ministerial measures. The notion that political
   independence was aimed at was strenuously denied, and the
   trust was entertained that what had been done would meet the
   approval of their 'common head and father,' and that the
   liberties of the colonies would be confirmed. This letter
   elicited response from some, others returned none officially,
   but all who answered replied favorably. It gave, however, the
   greatest offence to the ministry, and particularly to Lord
   Hillsborough, the Secretary of State for the Colonies.
{3205}
   It seems that he read it entirely by the light which a letter
   from Governor Bernard to Lord Barrington had shed upon it.
   This epistle declared the real motive of the colonies to be a
   determination to be independent. Hillsborough, filled with
   this idea, communicated it to the other members of the
   cabinet, and thus the Circular Letter was laid before them,
   prejudged. It was determined that it merited consideration,
   but that the only notice to be given it should be one of
   censure, and, on the spur of the moment, they resolved upon
   two things: to require the Massachusetts Assembly to rescind
   the Letter, and to require the other legislatures before whom
   it had been laid to reject it. This was done, and the
   consequences were, that the General Court, or Legislature, of
   Massachusetts voted, by ninety-two to seventeen, that they
   would do nothing of the kind, and that the other legislatures
   gave the outcast a hearty welcome. As for the people, they
   showed their approval of their representatives by toasting,
   from one end of the country to the other, 'The unrescinding
   Ninety-two,' with whom was coupled the number Forty-five, or
   that of the famous' North Briton'; while the Bostonians added
   fuel to the flame by a riot on the score of the sloop Liberty,
   in which they attacked the houses of the Commissioners of the
   Customs, and made a bonfire of the Collector's boat. Shortly
   afterward, (but not by reason of the riot), four ships of war
   anchored in Boston harbor, and two regiments of soldiers were
   quartered on the town."

      E. G. Scott,
      The Development of Constitutional Liberty,
      chapter 10 (with corrections by the author).

      ALSO IN:
      R. Frothingham,
      The Rise of the Republic of the United States,
      chapter 6.

      W. Thornton,
      The Pulpit of the Revolution,
      page 150.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1768-1770.
   The quartering of troops in Boston.
   The Massacre, and the removal of the troops.

      See BOSTON: A. D. 1768; and 1770.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1769.
   Massachusetts threatened, and Virginia roused to her support.

   "The proceedings in Massachusetts attracted in England the
   greatest attention, elicited the severest comment, and,
   because a military force had been ordered to Boston to support
   the stand of the administration, created the greatest
   solicitude. … The king, on opening parliament, characterized
   the action of Boston as a subversion of the Constitution and
   evincing a disposition to throw off dependence on Great
   Britain. The indictment against the colonies was presented in
   sixty papers laid before parliament. Both Houses declared that
   the proceedings of the Massachusetts assembly in opposition to
   the revenue acts were unconstitutional, and derogatory to the
   rights of the crown and the parliament; that the Circular
   Letter tended to create unlawful combinations; that the call
   of a convention by the selectmen of Boston was proof of a
   design of setting up an independent authority; and both Houses
   proposed to transport the originators of the obnoxious
   proceedings to England for trial and condign punishment, under
   the cover of an obsolete act of Henry VIII. … The
   administration determined to make an example of Massachusetts,
   as the ring-leading province in political mischief, by
   transporting its popular leaders to England to be tried for
   their lives in the king's bench. Such was the purport of an
   elaborate despatch which Lord Hillsborough sent to Governor
   Bernard, directing an inquiry to be instituted into the
   conduct of any persons who had committed any overt act of
   resistance to the laws. … Thus a great issue was created that
   affected all the colonies. … There was no adequate step taken
   to meet the threatened aggression until the House of Burgesses
   of Virginia convened in May."

      R. Frothingham,
      The Rise of the Republic of the United States,
      chapter 6.

   "On the day of the prorogation of parliament [May 9, 1769] the
   legislature of Virginia assembled at Williamsburg. Great men
   were there; some who were among the greatest—Washington,
   Patrick Henry, and, for the first time, Jefferson. Botetourt
   [the governor], who opened the session in state, was in
   perfect harmony with the council, received from the house of
   burgesses a most dutiful address, and entertained fifty-two
   guests at his table on the first day, and as many more on the
   second. … But the assembly did not forget its duty, and
   devised a measure which became the example for the continent.
   It claimed the sole right of imposing taxes on the inhabitants
   of Virginia. With equal unanimity, it asserted the lawfulness
   and expediency of a concert of the colonies in defence of the
   violated rights of America. It laid bare the flagrant tyranny
   of applying to America the obsolete statute of Henry VIII.;
   and it warned the king of 'the dangers that would ensue' if
   any person in any part of America should be seized and carried
   beyond sea for trial. It consummated its work by communicating
   its resolutions to every legislature in America, and asking
   their concurrence. The resolves were concise, simple, and
   effective; so calm in manner and so perfect in substance that
   time finds no omission to regret, no improvement to suggest.
   The menace of arresting patriots lost its terrors; and
   Virginia's declaration and action consolidated union. … The
   next morning, the assembly had just time to adopt an address
   to the king, when the governor summoned them, and said: 'I
   have heard of your resolves, and augur ill of their effects;
   you have made it my duty to dissolve you, and you are
   dissolved accordingly.' Upon this, the burgesses met together
   as patriots and friends, with their speaker as moderator. They
   adopted the resolves which "Washington had brought with him
   from Mount Vernon, and which formed a well-digested,
   stringent, and practicable scheme of non-importation, until
   all the 'unconstitutional' revenue acts should be repealed. …
   The voice of the Old Dominion roused the merchants of
   Pennsylvania to approve what had been done. The assembly of
   Delaware adopted the Virginia resolves word for word; and
   every colony south of Virginia followed the example."

      G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States (Author's last revision),
      pages 347-348.

      ALSO IN:
      W. Irving,
      Life of Washington,
      volume 1, chapter 29.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1770.
   Repeal of the Townshend duties except on Tea.

   On the 5th of March, 1770—the same day on which the tragical
   encounter of the king's troops with citizens of Boston
   occurred—Lord North introduced a motion in Parliament for the
   partial repeal of Townshend's revenue act; "not on the
   petitions of America, because they were marked by a denial of
   the right, but on one from merchants and traders of London.
   'The subject,' said he, 'is of the highest importance.
{3206}
   The combinations and associations of the Americans for the
   temporary interruption of trade have already been called
   unwarrantable in an address of this house; I will call them
   insolent and illegal. The duties upon paper, glass, and
   painters' colors bear upon the manufacturers of this country,
   and ought to be taken off. It was my intention to have
   extended the proposal to the removal of the other duties; but
   the Americans have not deserved indulgence. The preamble to
   the act and the duty on tea must be retained, as a mark of the
   supremacy of parliament and the efficient declaration of its
   right to govern the colonies.' … Thomas Pownall moved the
   repeal of the duty on tea. The house of commons, like Lord
   North in his heart, was disposed to do the work of
   conciliation thoroughly. … Had the king's friends remained
   neutral, the duty on tea would have been repealed; with all
   their exertions, in a full house, the majority for retaining
   it was but 62. Lord North seemed hardly satisfied with his
   success; and reserved to himself liberty to accede to the
   repeal, on some agreement with the East India Company. The
   decision came from the king."

      G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States
      (Author's last revision),
      volume 3, pages 381-382.

      ALSO IN:
      Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
      History of England, 1713-1783,
      chapter 48 (volume 5.)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1771.
   Suppression of the Regulators of North Carolina.

      See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1766-1771.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1772.
   The Watauga Association.
   The founding of the State of Tennessee.

      See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1769-1772.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1772.
   The burning of the Gaspe.

   "One of the first overt acts of resistance that took place in
   this celebrated struggle [in the war of independence] occurred
   in 1772, in the waters of Rhode Island. A vessel of war had
   been stationed on the coast to enforce the laws, and a small
   schooner, with a light armament and twenty-seven men, called
   the Gaspé, was employed as a tender, to run into the shallow
   waters of that coast. On the 17th of June, 1772, a Providence
   packet, that plied between New York and Rhode Island, named
   the Hannah, and commanded by a Captain Linzee, hove in sight
   of the man-of-war, on her passage up the bay. The Hannah was
   ordered to heave-to, in order to be examined; but her master
   refused to comply; and being favoured by a fresh southerly
   breeze, that was fast sweeping him out of gunshot, the Gaspé
   was signalled to follow. The chase continued for
   five-and-twenty miles, under a press of sail, when the Hannah
   coming up with a bar, with which her master was familiar, and
   drawing less water than the schooner, Captain Linzee led the
   latter on a shoal, where she struck. The tide falling, the
   Gaspé … was not in a condition to be removed for several
   hours. The news of the chase was circulated on the arrival of
   the Hannah at Providence. A strong feeling was excited among
   the population, and towards evening the town drummer appeared
   in the streets, assembling the people in the ordinary manner.
   As soon as a crowd was collected, the drummer led his
   followers in front of a shed that stood near one of the
   stores, when a man disguised as an Indian suddenly appeared on
   the roof, and proclaimed a secret expedition for that night,
   inviting all of 'stout hearts' to assemble on the wharf,
   precisely at nine, disguised like himself. At the appointed
   hour, most of the men in the place collected at the spot
   designated, when sixty-four were selected for the bold
   undertaking that was in view. This party embarked in eight of
   the launches of the different vessels lying at the wharves,
   and taking with them a quantity of paving stones, they pulled
   down the river in a body. … On nearing the Gaspé, about two in
   the morning, the boats were hailed by a sentinel on deck. This
   man was driven below by a volley of the stones. The commander
   of the Gaspé now appeared, and ordering the boats off, he
   fired a pistol at them. This discharge was returned from a
   musket, and the officer was shot through the thigh. By this
   time, the crew of the Gaspé had assembled, and the party from
   Providence boarded. The conflict was short, the schooner's
   people being soon knocked down and secured. All on board were
   put into the boats, and the Gaspé was set on fire. Towards
   morning she blew up."

      J. F. Cooper,
      Naval History of the United States,
      volume 1, chapter 3.

      ALSO IN:
      S. G. Arnold,
      History of Rhode Island,
      chapter 19 (volume 2).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1772-1173.
   The instituting of the Committees of Correspondence.
   The Tea Ships and "the Boston Tea-Party."

   "The surest way to renew and cement the union [of the
   colonies] was to show that the ministry had not relaxed in its
   determination to enforce the principal of the Townshend acts.
   This was made clear in August, 1772, when it was ordered that
   in Massachusetts the judges should henceforth be paid by the
   crown. Popular excitement rose to fever heat, and the judges
   were threatened with impeachment should they dare accept a
   penny from the royal treasury. The turmoil was increased next
   year by the discovery in London of the package of letters
   which were made to support the unjust charge against
   Hutchinson and some of his friends that they had instigated
   and aided the most extreme measures of the ministry. In the
   autumn of 1772 Hutchinson refused to call an extra session of
   the assembly to consider what should be done about the judges.
   Samuel Adams then devised a scheme by which the towns of
   Massachusetts could consult with each other and agree upon
   some common course of action in case of emergencies. For this
   purpose each town was to appoint a standing committee, and as
   a great part of their work was necessarily done by letter they
   were called 'committees of correspondence.' This was the step
   that fairly organized the Revolution."

      J. Fiske,
      The War of Independence,
      chapter 5.

   "The town records of Boston [November 2, 1772] say:—
   'It was then moved by Mr. Samuel Adams that a Committee of
   Correspondence be appointed, to consist of twenty-one persons,
   to state the rights of the colonists and of this Province in
   particular as men and Christians and as subjects; and to
   communicate and publish the same to the several towns and to
   the world as the sense of this town, with the infringements
   and violations thereof that have been or from time to time may
   be made.' The motion occasioned some debate and seems to have
   been carried late at night; the vote in its favor, at last,
   was nearly unanimous. The colleagues of Adams, who had left
   him almost alone thus far, now declined to become members of
   the committee, regarding the scheme as useless or trifling.
   The committee was at last constituted without them; it was
   made up of men of little prominence but of thorough
   respectability. James Otis, in another interval of sanity, was
   made chairman, a position purely honorary, the town in this
   way showing its respect for the leader whose misfortunes they
   so sincerely mourned.
{3207}
   The Committee of Correspondence held its first meeting in the
   representatives' chamber at the town-house, November 3, 1772,
   where at the outset each member pledged himself to observe
   secrecy as to their transactions, except those which, as a
   committee, they should think it proper to divulge. According
   to the motion by which the committee was constituted, three
   duties were to be performed: 1st, the preparation of a
   statement of the rights of the colonists, as men, as
   Christians, and as subjects; 2d, a declaration of the
   infringement and violation of those rights; 3d, a letter to be
   sent to the several towns of the Province and to the world,
   giving the sense of the town. The drafting of the first was
   assigned to Samuel Adams, of the second to Joseph Warren, of
   the third to Benjamin Church. In a few days tidings came from
   the important towns of Marblehead, Roxbury, Cambridge, and
   Plymouth, indicating that the example of Boston was making
   impression and was likely to be followed. On November 20, at a
   town-meeting in Faneuil Hall, the different papers were
   presented: Otis sat as moderator, appearing for the last time
   in a sphere where his career had been so magnificent. The
   report was in three divisions, according to the motion. … In
   the last days of 1772, the document, having been printed, was
   transmitted to those for whom it had been intended, producing
   at once an immense effect. The towns almost unanimously
   appointed similar committees; from every quarter came replies
   in which the sentiments of Samuel Adams were echoed. In the
   library of Bancroft is a volume of manuscripts, worn and
   stained by time, which have an interest scarcely inferior to
   that possessed by the Declaration of Independence itself, as
   the fading page hangs against its pillar in the library of the
   State Department at Washington. They are the original replies
   sent by the Massachusetts towns to Samuel Adams's committee
   sitting in Faneuil Hall, during those first months of 1773.
   One may well read them with bated breath, for it is the touch
   of the elbow as the stout little democracies dress up into
   line, just before they plunge into actual fight at Concord and
   Bunker Hill. There is sometimes a noble scorn of the
   restraints of orthography, as of the despotism of Great
   Britain, in the work of the old town clerks, for they
   generally were secretaries of the committees; and once in a
   while a touch of Dogberry's quaintness, as the punctilious
   officials, though not always 'putting God first,' yet take
   pains that there shall be no mistake as to their piety by
   making every letter in the name of the Deity a rounded
   capital. Yet the documents ought to inspire the deepest
   reverence. They constitute the highest mark the town-meeting
   has ever touched. Never before and never since have
   Anglo-Saxon men, in lawful folk-mote assembled, given
   utterance to thoughts and feelings so fine in themselves and
   so pregnant with great events. To each letter stand affixed
   the names of the committee in autograph. This awkward scrawl
   was made by the rough fist of a Cape Ann fisherman, on shore
   for the day to do at town-meeting the duty his fellows had
   laid upon him: the hand that wrote this other was cramped from
   the scythe-handle, as its possessor mowed an intervale on the
   Connecticut; this blotted signature, where smutted fingers
   have left a black stain, was written by a blacksmith of
   Middlesex, turning aside a moment from forging a barrel that
   was to do duty at Lexington. They were men of the plainest;
   but as the documents containing statements of the most
   generous principles find the most courageous determination,
   were read in the town-houses, the committees who produced
   them, and the constituents for whom the committees stood, were
   lifted above the ordinary level. Their horizon expanded to the
   broadest; they had in view not simply themselves, but the
   welfare of the continent; not solely their own generation, but
   remote posterity. It was Samuel Adams's own plan, the
   consequences of which no one foresaw, neither friend nor foe.
   Even Hutchinson, who was scarcely less keen than Samuel Adams
   himself, was completely at fault. 'Such a foolish scheme,' he
   called it, 'that the faction must necessarily make themselves
   ridiculous.' But in January the eyes of men were opening. One
   of the ablest of the Tories, Daniel Leonard, wrote:—'This is
   the foulest, subtlest, and most venomous serpent ever issued
   from the egg of sedition. I saw the small seed when it was
   implanted; it was a grain of mustard. I have watched the plant
   until it has become a great tree.' It was the transformation
   into a strong cord of what had been a rope of sand."

      J. K. Hosmer,
      Samuel Adams,
      chapter 13.

   "In the spring of 1773, Virginia carried this work of
   organization a long step further, when Dabney Carr suggested
   and carried a motion calling for committees of correspondence
   between the several colonies. From this point it was a
   comparatively short step to a permanent Continental Congress.
   It happened that these preparations were made just in time to
   meet the final act of aggression which brought on the
   Revolutionary War. The Americans had thus far successfully
   resisted the Townshend acts and secured the repeal of all the
   duties except on tea. As for tea they had plenty, but not from
   England; they smuggled it from Holland in spite of
   custom-houses and search-warrants. Clearly unless the
   Americans could be made to buy tea from England and pay the
   duty on it, the king must own himself defeated. Since it
   appeared that they could not be forced into doing this, it
   remained to be seen if they could be tricked into doing it. A
   truly ingenious scheme was devised. Tea sent by the East India
   Company to America had formerly paid a duty in some British
   port on the way. This duty was now taken off, so that the
   price of the tea for America might be lowered. The company's
   tea thus became so cheap that the American merchant could buy
   a pound of it and pay the threepence duty beside for less than
   it cost him to smuggle a pound of tea from Holland. It was
   supposed that the Americans would of course buy the tea which
   they could get most cheaply, and would thus be beguiled into
   submission to that principle of taxation which they had
   hitherto resisted. Ships laden with tea were accordingly sent
   in the autumn of 1773 to Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and
   Charleston; and consignees were appointed to receive the tea
   in each of these towns. Under the guise of a commercial
   operation, this was purely a political trick.
{3208}
   It was an insulting challenge to the American people, and
   merited the reception which they gave it. They would have
   shown themselves unworthy of their rich political heritage had
   they given it any other. In New York, Philadelphia, and
   Charleston mass-meetings of the people voted that the
   consignees should be ordered to resign their offices, and they
   did so. At Philadelphia the tea-ship was met and sent back to
   England before it had come within the jurisdiction of the
   custom-house. At Charleston the tea was landed, and as there
   was no one to receive it or pay the duty, it was thrown into a
   damp cellar and left there to spoil. In Boston things took a
   different turn."

      J. Fiske,
      The War of Independence,
      chapter 5.

   "Acting upon the precedent of the time of the Stamp Act, when
   Oliver, the stamp commissioner, had resigned his commission
   under the Liberty Tree, a placard was posted everywhere on the
   3d of November, inviting the people of Boston and the
   neighboring towns to be present at Liberty Tree that day at
   noon, to witness the resignation of the consignees of the tea,
   and hear them swear to re-ship to London what teas should
   arrive. The placard closed,—'Show me the man that dares take
   this town.' At the time appointed, representatives Adams,
   Hancock, and Phillips, the selectmen and town clerk, with
   about five hundred more, were present at the Liberty Tree. But
   no consignees arrived, whereupon Molineux and Warren headed a
   party who waited upon them. The consignees, Clarke, a rich
   merchant, and his sons, Benjamin Faneuil, Winslow, and the two
   sons of Hutchinson, Thomas and Elisha, sat together in the
   counting-house of Clarke in King Street. Admittance was
   refused the committee, and a conversation took place through a
   window, during which the tone of the consignees was defiant.
   There was some talk of violence, and when an attempt was made
   to exclude the committee and the crowd attending them from the
   building, into the first story of which they had penetrated,
   the doors were taken off their binges and threats uttered.
   Molineux, generally impetuous enough, but now influenced
   probably by cooler heads, dissuaded the others from violence.
   … A town-meeting on November 5, in which an effort of the
   Tories to make head against the popular feeling came to
   naught, showed how overwhelming was the determination to
   oppose the introduction of the tea. … When news arrived on the
   17th that three tea-ships were on the way to Boston, for a
   second time a town-meeting demanded through a committee, of
   which Samuel Adams was a member, the resignation of the
   consignees. They evaded the demand; the town-meeting voted
   their answer not satisfactory, and at once adjourned without
   debate or comment. The silence was mysterious; what was
   impending none could tell. … On the 28th, the first of the
   tea-ships, the Dartmouth, Captain Hall, sailed into the
   harbor. Sunday though it was, the Committee of Correspondence
   met, obtained from Benjamin Rotch, the Quaker owner of the
   Dartmouth, a promise not to enter the vessel until Tuesday,
   and made preparations for a mass-meeting at Faneuil Hall for
   Monday forenoon, to which Samuel Adams was authorized to
   invite the surrounding towns. A stirring placard the next
   morning brought the townsmen and their neighbors to the place.
   After the organization, Samuel Adams, arising among the
   thousands, moved that: 'As the town have determined at a late
   meeting legally assembled that they will to the utmost of
   their power prevent the landing of the tea, the question be
   now put,—whether this body are absolutely determined that the
   tea now arrived in Captain Hall shall be returned to the place
   from whence it came.' There was not a dissenting voice. … In
   the afternoon, the meeting having resolved that the tea should
   go back in the same ship in which it had come, Rotch, the
   owner of the Dartmouth, protested, but was sternly forbidden,
   at his peril, to enter the tea. Captain Hall also was
   forbidden to enter any portion of it. 'Adams was never in
   greater glory,' says Hutchinson. The next morning, November
   30, the people again assembling, the consignees made it known
   that it was out of their power to send the tea back; but they
   promised that they would store it until word should come from
   their 'constituents' as to its disposal. … The Dartmouth each
   night was watched by a strong guard; armed patrols, too, were
   established, and six couriers held themselves ready, if there
   should be need to alarm the country. … During the first week
   in December arrived the Eleanor and the Beaver, also
   tea-ships, which were moored near the Dartmouth, and subjected
   to the same oversight. The 'True Sons of Liberty' posted about
   the town the most spirited placards. … The days flew by. At
   length came the end of the time of probation. If the cargo of
   the Dartmouth had not been 'entered' within that period, the
   ship according to the revenue laws, must be confiscated.
   Rotch, the Quaker owner, had signified his willingness to send
   the ship back to England with the cargo on board, if he could
   procure a clearance. The customs officials stood on
   technicalities; under the circumstances a clearance could not
   be granted. The grim British admiral ordered the Active and
   the Kingfisher from his fleet to train their broadsides on the
   channels, and sink whatever craft should try to go to sea
   without the proper papers. The governor alone had power to
   override these obstacles. It was competent for him to grant a
   permit which the revenue men and the admiral must respect. If
   he refused to do this, then on the next day the legal course
   was for the revenue officers to seize the Dartmouth and land
   the tea under the guns of the fleet. It was the 16th of
   December. A crowd of seven thousand filled the Old South and
   the streets adjoining. Nothing like it had ever been known.
   Town-meeting had followed town-meeting until the excitement
   was at fever heat. The indefatigable Committee of
   Correspondence had, as it were, scattered fire throughout the
   whole country. … Poor Quaker Rotch … felt himself, probably,
   the most persecuted of men, when the monster meeting forced
   him in the December weather to make his way out to Milton Hill
   to seek the permit from Hutchinson. … Meantime darkness had
   fallen upon the short winter day. The crowd still waited in
   the gloom of the church, dimly lighted here and there by
   candles. Rotch reappeared just after six, and informed the
   meeting that the governor refused to grant the permit until
   the vessels were properly qualified. As soon as the report had
   been made, Samuel Adams arose, for it was he who had been
   moderator, and exclaimed: 'This meeting can do nothing more to
   save the country.'
{3209}
   It was evidently a concerted signal, for instantly … the
   famous war-whoop was heard, and the two or three score of
   'Mohawks' rushed by the doors, and with the crowd behind them
   hurried in the brightening moonlight to Griffin's wharf, where
   lay the ships. The tea could not go back to England; it must
   not be landed. The cold waters of the harbor were all that
   remained for it. Three hundred and forty-two chests were cast
   overboard. Nothing else was harmed, neither person nor
   property. All was so quiet that those at a distance even could
   hear in the calm air the ripping open of the thin chests as
   the tea was emptied. The 'Mohawks' found helpers, so that in
   all perhaps one hundred and fifty were actively concerned. Not
   far off in the harbor lay the ships of the fleet, and the
   Castle with the 'Sam Adams Regiments.' But no one interfered."

      J. K. Hosmer,
      Samuel Adams,
      chapter 16.

      ALSO IN:
      W. V. Wells,
      Life of Samuel Adams,
      volume 1, pages 372-375, 495-512;
      volume 2, pages 1-9, 24-29, 61-63, 80-81, 103-130.

      R. Frothingham,
      Life of Joseph Warren,
      chapter 9.

      Force's American Archives,
      volume 1.

      See, also, BOSTON: A. D. 1773;
      and NEW YORK: A. D. 1773-1774.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774 (March-April).
   The Boston Port Bill.
   The Massachusetts Act and the Quebec Act.

   "The spoken defiance of the other colonies had been quite as
   efficient as the combination of threats and force to which
   Boston was compelled to resort, but Lord North launched the
   first retaliatory and punitive measure against that city. …
   The first of Lord North's bills was the Boston Port Act, which
   closed the harbor until indemnity for the tea there destroyed
   should be paid and the king be satisfied that thereafter the
   city would obey the laws. The demand for indemnity was fair
   but the indefinite claim of obedience was not only infamous in
   itself but, as Burke said, punished the innocent with the
   guilty. … North's second bill was a virtual abrogation of the
   Massachusetts charter. The council of twenty-eight had been
   hitherto elected every year in joint session of the assembly.
   The king might now appoint the whole body to any number, from
   twelve to thirty-six, and remove them at pleasure. The men so
   appointed were designated mandamus councillors. Thereafter
   town-meetings could be held only by permission of the governor
   and for the sole purpose of electing officers [General Gage
   was made governor under this act, and four regiments were
   placed in Boston for his support]. Sheriffs were to return all
   juries, and were to be named by the governor and hold office
   during his pleasure. The third bill was really a device of the
   king's, and it is said that the ministry was confused and
   shamefaced in presenting it. It ordained that magistrates,
   revenue officers, or other officials indicted in Massachusetts
   for capital offences were to be tried either in Nova Scotia or
   Great Britain. Another measure made legal the billeting of
   troops, against which Boston had hitherto striven with
   success, and a fifth, known as the Quebec Act, though
   depriving that province of the right of habeas corpus,
   restored the French customary law ('coutume de Paris'),
   established Roman Catholicism as the state religion, and by
   extending its boundaries to the Ohio and Mississippi, shut off
   the Northern English Colonies from westward extension. This
   was intended as an arbitrary settlement of a vexed question.
   The Puritans, however, … exclaimed that the next step would be
   the establishment among them of English episcopacy."

      W. M. Sloane,
      The French War and the Revolution,
      chapter 14.

      ALSO IN:
      A. Johnston,
      The United States: its History and Constitution,
      sections. 57-58.

      Parliamentary History,
      volume 17.

      American Archives,
      series 4, volume 1, pages 35-220.

      Lord Fitzmaurice,
      Life of the Earl of Shelburne,
      volume 2, chapter 8.

   On the Quebec Act.

      See, also, CANADA: A. D. 1763-1774.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774 (April-October).
   Lord Dunmore's War with the Indians.
   The Western territorial claims of Virginia.

      See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1774.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774 (May-June).
   Effects of the Boston Port Bill.
   The call for a Continental Congress.

   "The Boston Port Bill was received in America with honors not
   accorded even to the Stamp Act. It was cried through the
   streets as 'A barbarous, cruel, bloody, and inhuman murder,'
   and was burnt by the common hangman on a scaffold forty-five
   feet high. The people of Boston gathered together in
   town-meeting at Faneuil Hall, and expresses were sent off with
   an appeal to all Americans throughout America. The responses
   from the neighborhood came like snow-flakes. Marblehead
   offered the use of its wharves to the Boston merchants; Salem
   averred that it would be lost to all feelings of humanity were
   it to raise its fortunes on the ruins of its neighbor.
   Newburyport voted to break off trade with Great Britain, and
   to lay up its ships. Connecticut, as her wont is, when moved
   by any vital occurrence, betook herself to prayer and
   humiliation, first, however, ordering an inventory to be taken
   of her cannon and military stores. Virginia, likewise,
   resolved to invoke the divine interposition, but, before
   another resolution which called for a Congress could be
   introduced, her House was precipitately dissolved; whereupon
   the resolution was brought up and passed at a meeting called
   in 'the Apollo,' where it was further declared that an attack
   on one colony was an attack upon all. Two days later the
   Massachusetts letter itself was received, upon which the
   Virginians called a convention. From all parts contributions
   in money poured into Boston, and resolutions were everywhere
   passed, declaring that no obedience was due the late acts of
   Parliament; that the right of imperial taxation did not exist;
   that those who had accepted office under pay of the king had
   violated their public duty; that the Quebec act establishing
   Roman Catholicism in Canada was hostile to the Protestant
   religion, and that the inhabitants of the colonies should use
   their utmost diligence to acquaint themselves with the art of
   war, and for that purpose should turn out under arms at least
   once a week. In the fulness of time, a cordon of ships was
   drawn around Boston, and six regiments and a train of
   artillery were encamped on the Common—the only spot in the
   thirteen colonies where the government could enforce an order.
   The conflict between constitutional liberty and absolutism had
   now reached that dangerous point where physical force became
   one of its elements. … The situation was at once recognized
   throughout the colonies, and the knowledge that in union there
   is strength, manifested itself in one general impulse toward a
   Colonial Congress. Committees of Correspondence were organized
   in every county, and throngs attended the public meetings.
{3210}
   'One great, wise, and noble spirit; one masterly soul
   animating one vigorous body,' was the way John Adams described
   this impulse. The Canadas alone remained inanimate. … But not
   so those to whom constitutional liberty was as the breath of
   life. On the 17th of June (1774) the Massachusetts Assembly,
   which had been removed by a royal order to Salem, answered
   Virginia by resolving on a call for a Continental Congress at
   Philadelphia. The governor, hearing of what was going on, sent
   the secretary of the colony to dissolve the Assembly, but,
   finding the doors shut upon him, he had to content himself
   with reading the message to the crowd outside. The House went
   on with its work, while, at the same time, a great meeting,
   with John Adams in the chair, was being held at Boston in
   Faneuil Hall. Twelve colonies agreed to send delegates to a
   Continental Congress to be held at Philadelphia in September."

      E. G. Scott,
      The Development of Constitutional Liberty in the
      English Colonies of America,
      chapter 11 (with corrections by the author).

      ALSO IN:
      G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States
      (Author's last revision)
      volume 4, chapter 1.

      See, also, BOSTON: A. D. 1774.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774(May-July).
   Governor Hutchinson's departure for England.
   His conversation with King George.

   In May, 1774, Governor Hutchinson, of Massachusetts, who had
   applied some months before for leave of absence to visit
   England, was relieved by General Gage and took his departure.
   General Gage was temporarily commissioned to be "Captain
   General and Governor-in-Chief" of the Province of
   Massachusetts, and "Vice-Admiral of the same," combining the
   civil and military powers in himself. It was then supposed
   that Hutchinson's absence would be brief; but, to his endless
   grief, he never saw the country again. Soon after his arrival
   in England he had an interview with the king, which is
   reported at length in his Diary. The conversation is one of
   great historical interest, exhibiting King George's knowledge
   and ideas of American affairs, and representing the opinions
   of a high-minded American loyalist. It is reprinted here
   exactly as given in Governor Hutchinson's Diary, published by
   his great-grandson in 1883:

   "July 1st.—Received a card from Lord Dartmouth desiring to see
   me at his house before one o'clock. I went soon after 12, and
   after near an hour's conversation, his Lordship proposed
   introducing me immediately to the King. I was not dressed as
   expecting to go to Court, but his Lordship observing that the
   King would not be at St. James's again until Wednesday [this
   was Friday], I thought it best to go; but waited so long for
   his Lordship to dress, that the Levée was over; but his
   Lordship going in to the King, I was admitted, contrary, as
   Lord Pomfret observed to me, to custom, to kiss His Majesty's
   hand in his closet: after which, as near as I can recollect,
   the following conversation passed.

   K.—How do you do Mr. H. after y voyage?

   H.—Much reduced Sir by sea-sickness; and unfit upon that
   account, as well as my New England dress, to appear before
   your Majesty. Lord D. observed—Mr. H. apologised to me for his
   dress, but I thought it very well, as he is just come ashoar;
   to which the K. assented.

   K.—How did you leave your Government, and how did the people
   receive the news of the late measures in Parliament?

   H.—When I left Boston we had no news of any Act of Parliament,
   except the one for shutting up the port, which was extremely
   alarming to the people.

   (Lord D. said, Mr. H. came from Boston the day that Act was to
   take place, the first of June. I hear the people of Virginia
   have refused to comply with the request to shut up their
   ports, from the people of Boston, and Mr. H. seems to be of
   opinion that no colony will comply with that request.)

   K.—Do you believe, Mr. H., that the account from Virginia is
   true?

   H.—I have no other reason to doubt it, except that the
   authority for it seems to be only a newspaper; and it is very
   common for articles to be inserted in newspapers without any
   foundation. I have no doubt that when the people of Rhode
   Island received the like request, they gave this answer—that
   if Boston would stop all the vessels they then had in port,
   which they were hurrying away before the Act commenced, the
   people of R. Island would then consider of the proposal. The
   King smiled.

   Lord D.—Mr. H., may it please your Majesty, has shewn me a
   newspaper with an address from a great number of Merchants,
   another from the Episcopal Clergy, another from the Lawyers,
   all expressing their sense of his conduct in the most
   favourable terms. Lord Dartmouth thereupon took the paper out
   of his pocket and shewed it.

   K.—I do not see how it could be otherwise. I am sure his
   conduct has been universally approved of here by people of all
   parties.

   H.—I am very happy in your Majesty's favourable opinion of my
   administration.

   K.—I am intirely satisfied with it. I am well acquainted with
   the difficulties you have encountered, and with the abuse &
   injury offered you. Nothing could be more cruel than the
   treatment you met with in betraying your private letters.

   The K., turning to Lord D.—My Lord, I remember nothing in them
   to which the least exception could be taken.

   Lord D.—That appears, Sir, from the report of the Committee of
   Council, and from your Majesty's orders thereon.

   H.—The correspondence, Sir, was not of my seeking. It was a
   meer matter of friendly amusement, chiefly a narrative of
   occurrences, in relating of which I avoided personalities as
   much as I could, and endeavoured to treat persons, when they
   could not be avoided, with tenderness, as much as if my
   letters were intended to be exposed; whereas I had no reason
   to suppose they ever would be exposed.

   K.—Could you ever find Mr. H. how those letters came to New
   England?

   H.—Doctor F., may it please your Majesty, has made a publick
   declaration that he sent them, and the Speaker has
   acknowledged to me that he received them: I do not remember
   that he said directly from Doctor F., but it was understood
   between us that they came from him. I had heard before that
   they came either direct from him, or that he had sent them
   through another channel, and that they were to be communicated
   to six persons only, and then to be returned without suffering
   any copies to be taken, I sent for the Speaker and let him
   know what I had heard, which came from one of the six to a
   friend, and so to me. The Speaker said they were sent to him,
   and that he was at first restrained from shewing them to any
   more than six persons.

{3211}

   K.—Did he tell you who were the persons?

   H.—Yes, sir. There was Mr. Bowdoin, Mr. Pitts, Doctor
   Winthrop, Doctor Chauncy, Doctor Cooper, and himself. They are
   not all the same which had been mentioned before. The two Mr.
   Adamses had been named to me in the room of Mr. Pitts and
   Doctor Winthrop.

   K.—Mr. B. I have heard of Lord D.—I think he is father-in-law
   to Mr. T. [Temple].

   K.—Who is Mr. Pitts?

   H.—He is one of the Council—married Mr. B.'s sister.

   K.—I have heard of Doctor Ch. and Doctor Cooper, but who is
   Doctor Winthrop?

   H.—He is not a Doctor of Divinity, Sir, but of Law; a
   Professor of Mathematicks and Natural Philosophy at the
   College, and last year was chose of the Council.

   K.—I have beard of one Mr. Adams, but who is the other?

   H.—He is a Lawyer, Sir.

   K.—Brother to the other?

   H. No, Sir, a relation. He has been of the House, but is not
   now. He was elected by the two Houses to be of the Council,
   but negatived. The speaker further acquainted me that, after
   the first letter, he received another, allowing him to shew
   the Letters to the Committee of Correspondence; and afterwards
   a third, which allowed him to shew them to such persons as he
   could confide in, but always enjoined to send them back
   without taking copies. I asked him how he could be guilty of
   such a breach of trust as to suffer them to be made publick?
   He excused it by saying that he was against their being
   brought before the House, but was overruled; and when they had
   been read there, the people abroad compelled their
   publication, or would not be satisfied without it. Much more
   passed with which I will not trouble your Majesty; but after
   the use had been made of the Letters, which is so well known,
   they were all returned.

   K., turning to Lord D—This is strange:—where is Doctor F., my
   lord?

   Lord D.—I believe, Sir, he is in Town. He was going to
   America, but I fancy he is not gone.

   K.—I heard he was going to Switzerland, or to some part of the
   Continent.

   Lord D.—I think, Sir, there has been such a report.

   K.—In such abuse, Mr. H., as you met with, I suppose there
   must have been personal malevolence as well as party rage?

   H.—It has been my good fortune, Sir, to escape any charge
   against me in my private character. The attacks have been upon
   my publick conduct, and for such things as my duty to your
   Majesty required me to do, and which you have been pleased to
   approve of. I don't know that any of my enemies have
   complained of a personal injury.

   K.—I see they threatened to pitch and feather you.

   H.—Tarr & feather, may it please your Majesty; but I don't
   remember that ever I was threatened with it.

   Lord D.—Oh! yes, when Malcolm was tarred and feathered
   [Almanac for 1770, May, MS. Note], the committee for tarring
   and feathering blamed the people for doing it, that being a
   punishment reserved for a higher person, and we suppose you
   was intended.

   H.—I remember something of that sort, which was only to make
   diversion, there being no such committee, or none known by
   that name.

   K.—What guard had you, Mr. H.?

   H.—I depended, Sir, on the protection of Heaven. I had no
   other guard. I was not conscious of having done anything of
   which they could justly complain, or make a pretence for
   offering violence to my person. I was not sure, but I hoped
   they only meant to intimidate. By discovering that I was
   afraid, I should encourage them to go on. By taking measures
   for my security I should expose myself to calumny, and being
   censured as designing to render them odious for what they
   never intended to do. I was, therefore, obliged to appear to
   disregard all the menaces in the newspapers, and also private
   intimations from my friends who frequently advised me to take
   care of myself.

   K.—I think you generally live in the country,
   Mr. H.; what distance are you from town?

   H.—I have lived in the country, Sir, in the summer for 20
   years; but, except the winter after my house was pulled down,
   I have never lived in the country in winter until the last. My
   house is 7 or 8 miles from the Town, a pleasant situation, and
   most gentlemen from abroad say it has the finest prospect from
   it they ever saw, except where great improvements have been
   made by art, to help the natural view. The longest way the
   road is generally equal to the turnpike roads here; the other
   way rather rough.

   K.—Pray, what does Hancock do now? How will the late affair
   affect him?

   H.—I don't know to what particular affair your Majesty refers.

   K.—Oh, a late affair in the city, his bills being refused.
   (Turning to Lord D.) Who is that in the city, my Lord?

   Lord D. not recollecting—

   H.—I have heard, Sir, that Mr. Haley, a merchant in the city,
   is Mr. Hancock's principal correspondent.

   K.—Ay, that's the name.

   H.—I heard, may it please your Majesty, before I came from New
   England, that some small sums were returned, but none of
   consequence.

   K.—Oh, no, I mean within this month, large sums.

   Lord D.—I have heard such rumours, but don't know the
   certainty.

   H.—Mr. Hancock, Sir, had a very large fortune left him by his
   uncle, and I believe his political engagements have taken off
   his attention from his private affairs. He was sensible not
   long ago of the damage it was to him, and told me he was
   determined to quit all publick business, but soon altered his
   mind.

   K.—Then there's Mr. Cushing: I remember his name a long time:
   is not he a great man of the party?

   H.—He has been many years Speaker, but a Speaker, Sir, is not
   always the person of the greatest influence. A Mr. Adams is
   rather considered as the opposer of Government, and a sort of
   Wilkes in New England.

{3212}

   K.—What gave him his importance?

   H.—A great pretended zeal for liberty, and a most inflexible
   natural temper. He was the first that publickly asserted the
   Independency of the colonies upon the Kingdom, or the supreme
   Authority of it.

   K.—I have heard, Mr. H., that your ministers preach that, for
   the sake of promoting liberty or the publick good, any
   immorality or less evil may be tolerated?

   H.—I don't know, Sir, that such doctrine has ever been
   preached from the pulpit; but I have no doubt that it has been
   publickly asserted by some of the heads of the party who call
   themselves sober men, that the good of the publick is above
   all other considerations, and that truth may be dispensed
   with, and immorality is excusable, when this great good can be
   obtained by such means.

   K.—That's a strange doctrine, indeed. Pray, Mr. H., what is
   your opinion of the effect from the new regulation of the
   Council? Will it be agreeable to the people, and will the new
   appointed Councillors take the trust upon them?

   H.—I have not, may it please your Majesty, been able to inform
   myself who they are. I came to Town late last evening, and
   have seen nobody. I think much will depend upon the choice
   that has been made.

   K.—Enquiry was made and pains taken that the most suitable
   persons should be appointed.

   H.—The body of the people are Dissenters from the Church of
   England; what are called Congregationalists. If the Council
   shall have been generally selected from the Episcopalians, it
   will make the change more disagreeable.

   K.—Why are they not Presbyterians?

   H.—There are very few Churches which call themselves
   Presbyterians, and form themselves voluntarily into a
   Presbytery without any aid from the civil government, which
   the Presbyterian Church of Scotland enjoys.

   Lord D.—The Dissenters in England at this day are scarce any
   of them Presbyterians, but like those in New England,
   Congregationalists, or rather Independents.

   K.—Pray, what were your Ancestors, Mr. H.?

   H.—In general, Sir, Dissenters.

   K.—Where do you attend?

   H.—With both, Sir. Sometimes at your Majesty's chapel, but
   more generally at a Congregational church, which has a very
   worthy minister, a friend to Government, who constantly prays
   for your Majesty, and all in authority under you.

   K.—What is his name?

   H.—Doctor Pemberton.

   K.—I have heard of Doctor Pemberton that he is a very good
   man. Who is minister at the chapel?

   H.—The Rector is Dr. Caner, a very worthy man also, who
   frequently inculcates upon his hearers due subjection to
   Government, and condemns the riotous violent opposition to it;
   and besides the prayers in the Liturgy, generally in a short
   prayer before sermon, expressly prays for your Majesty, and
   for the chief Ruler in the Province.

   K.—Why do not the Episcopal ministers in general do the same?

   H.—In general, Sir, they use no other prayer before sermon
   than a short collect out of the Liturgy.

   K.—No—(turning to Lord D.) It is not so here, my Lord?

   Lord D.—I believe it is, Sir. In your Majesty's Chapel they
   always use such a prayer. It is a form adapted.

   K.—I think you must be mistaken.

   Lord D.—No, Sir. This prayer used to be printed formerly, but
   of late it has not been printed with the service. In general
   the ministers use a collect, as Mr. Hutchinson says; sometimes
   the collect in the Communion service—'Prevent us, O Lord,'
   &c., but I think oftener the collect for the second Sunday in
   Advent.

   H.—My education, Sir, was with the Dissenters. I conceive
   there is no material difference between reading a prayer out
   of a book, and saying it 'memoriter,' without book.

   Lord D.—I think, Sir, it is not very material. The prayers of
   the Dissenters are in substance very much the same with those
   in the service of' the church.

   K.—I see no material difference, if the prayers be equally
   good, but will not that depend upon the minister? But, pray,
   Mr. H., why do your ministers generally join with the people
   in their opposition to Government?

   H.—They are, Sir, dependent upon the people. They are elected
   by the people, and when they are dissatisfied with them, they
   seldom leave till they get rid of them.

   K.—That must be very dangerous. If the people oblige them to
   concur with them in their erroneous principles on Government,
   they may do it in religion also, and this must have a most
   fatal tendency.

   H.—There is one check, Sir, upon the people. Unless a minister
   be dismissed by a council of Churches, the Province law makes
   provision for the recovery of the salary; but we have no
   instance where a minister, for any length of time, has brought
   suits for the recovery of his salary, after the people refuse
   to hear him. They generally weary him, and sooner or later
   they get clear of him.

   Lord D.—That's a considerable tye, however.

   K.—Pray, Mr. H., does population greatly increase in your
   Province?

   H.—Very rapidly, Sir. I used to think that Doctor F., who has
   taken such pains in his calculations, carried it too far when
   he supposed the inhabitants of America, from their natural
   increase, doubled their number in 25 years; but I rather think
   now that he did not; and I believe it will appear from the
   last return I made to the Secretary of State, that the
   Massachusets has increased in that proportion. And the
   increase is supposed, including the importation of foreigners,
   to be, upon the whole, greater in most of the Southern
   Colonies than in the Massachusets. We import no settlers from
   Europe, so as to make any sensible increase.

   K.—Why do not foreigners come to your Province as well as to
   the Southern Governments?

   H.—I take it, Sir, that our long cold winters discourage
   them. Before they can bring the land to such a state as to be
   able in summer to provide for their support in winter, what
   little substance they can bring with them is expended, and
   many of them have greatly suffered. The Southern colonies are
   more temperate.

   K.—What is the reason you raise no wheat in your Province?

{3213}

   H.—In most places, especially near the sea, it blasts.

   K.—To what cause is that owing?

   H.—It has been observed that when the grain is so forward as
   to be out of the milk the beginning of July, it seldom blasts;
   and that about the 8th or 10th of that month the weather
   becomes exceeding hot, and what are called the honey dews of
   the night are fixed upon the grains by the scalding sun in a
   hot morning, and if the grain be then in the milk it shrivels
   up, and the straw becomes rusty and black. This is a pretty
   general opinion of the cause.

   K.—To what produce is your climate best adapted?

   H.—To grazing, Sir; your Majesty has not a finer Colony for
   grass in all your dominions: and nothing is more profitable in
   America that pasture, because labour is very dear.

   K.—Then you import all your bread corn from the other
   Colonies?

   H.—No, Sir, scarce any, except for the use of the maritime
   towns. In the country towns the people raise grain enough for
   their own expending, and sometimes for exportation. They live
   upon coarse bread made of rye and corn mixed, and by long use
   they learn to prefer this to flour or wheat bread.
   K.—What corn?

   H.—Indian corn, or, as it is called in Authors, Maize.

   K.—Ay, I know it. Does that make good bread?

   H.—Not by itself, Sir; the bread will soon be dry and husky;
   but the Rye keeps it moist, and some of our country people
   prefer a bushel of Rye to a bushel of Wheat, if the price
   should be the same.

   K.—That's very strange.

   Lord D.—In many parts of Scotland, Sir, Rye is much esteemed
   as making good and wholesome bread.

   The King enquired very particularly into many other parts of
   the produce of the country, and the natural history of it, to
   which I gave the best answers I was capable of.

   K.—New York, I think, comes the next to Boston in their
   opposition to Government?

   H.—Does your Majesty think nearer than Pennsilvania?

   K.—Why, I can't say that they do of late.

   K.—Rhode Island, Mr. H., is a strange form of Government.

   H.—They approach, Sir, the nearest to a Democracy of any of
   your Colonies. Once a year all power returns to the people,
   and all their Officers are new elected. By this means the
   Governor has no judgment of his own, and must comply with
   every popular prejudice.

   K.—Who is their Governor now?

   H.—His name, Sir, is Wanton, a Gentleman who I have reason to
   think wishes to see Government maintained as much as any they
   could find in the Colonies.

   K.—How is it with Connecticut? are they much better?

   H.—The constitutions, Sir, are much the same; but Connecticut
   are a more cautious people; strive to make as little noise as
   may be, and have in general retained a good share of that
   virtue which is peculiarly necessary in such a form of
   Government.

   More was said upon the state of these and some of the other
   Colonies. There being something of a pause about this time, I
   turned to Lord Dartmouth and asked—Does your Lordship remember
   when you had the first account of the Lieutenant Governor's
   death, and whether it was before the Letters which I wrote by
   Governor Tryon?

   Lord D.—Oh, yes, I had a letter from you several weeks before
   that, giving an account of it.

   H.—There was a vessel sailed for Lisbon the day after he died,
   and I gave a letter to the master in charge, to put it on
   board the first Vessel for London, but was doubtful of the
   conveyance.

   K.—We never could find out which way that letter came. Is the
   present L. Governor a relation to the late Mr. Oliver?

   H.—No, Sir, not of the same family. I have no connection with
   him, nor did I ever let him know that I had mentioned him as
   one of the persons I thought might be proper for a Lieutenant
   Governor.

   K.—The Chief Justice, I think, is brother to the late
   Lieutenant Governor?

   H.—Yes, Sir.

   K.—We had thought of him, but as he was not one of those you
   had named, the present Gentleman, upon enquiry, appeared under
   all circumstances the most proper.

   H.—I had some particular inducement not to mention the Chief
   Justice. He is related to me, and his appointment would have
   increased the envy against both of us.

   K.—How is he related to you?

   H.—One of his sons, Sir, married one of my daughters. I was,
   besides, uncertain whether the salary would be continued; and
   if it should be, his salary as Chief Justice exceeded it,
   except in case of my absence, and then the expense of living,
   and the additional trouble from his post, I considered as more
   than an equivalent. I considered further, that the controversy
   in which he had been engaged as Chief Justice would render the
   administration peculiarly difficult just at that time; and I
   supposed it would immediately devolve upon him by my absence,
   having then no expectation of being superseded. I never took
   more pains to divest myself of all personal views than in
   mentioning proper persons for this place. I should have been
   more anxious, if I had not thought it not improbable that some
   person might be appointed, and sent from England.

   K.—What number of Indians had you in your Government?

   H.—They are almost extinct. Perhaps there are 50 or 60
   families at most upon the Eastern Frontier, where there is a
   small fort maintained; tho' I conceive the inhabitants would
   not be in the least danger. It looks, Sir, as if in a few
   years the Indians would be extinct in all parts of the
   Continent.

   K.—To what is that owing?

   H.—I have thought, Sir, in part to their being dispirited at
   their low despicable condition among the Europeans, who have
   taken possession of their country, and treat them as an
   inferior race of beings; but more to the immoderate use of
   spirituous liquors. There are near 100 families, perhaps more,
of Indians who are domiciliated, and live, some in other towns,
   but most of them at a place called Mashpee, where they have a
   church, and a Missionary to preach to them, and also an Indian
   Minister who has been ordained, and preaches sometimes in
   their own language.

   K.—What, an Episcopal Minister?

   H.—No, Sir, of the Congregational persuasion or form of
   worship.

{3214}

   The King was particular in many other enquiries relative to my
   Administration, to the state of the Province, and the other
   Colonies. I have minuted what remained the clearest upon my
   mind, and as near the order in which they passed as I am able.
   He asked also what part of my family I brought with me, and
   what I left behind, and at length advised me to keep house a
   few days for the recovery of my health. I then withdrew. I was
   near two hours in the K. closet. Lord D. feared I was tired so
   long standing. I observed that so gracious a reception made me
   insensible of it."

      Diary and Letters of Thomas Hutchinson.
      chapter 5.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774 (September).
   The meeting of the First Continental Congress.

   "On the 5th day of September most of the delegates elected to
   the congress were in Philadelphia. They were invited by the
   speaker of the Pennsylvania assembly to hold their sessions in
   the State House, but decided to meet in the hall owned by the
   carpenters,—a fine brick building, having commodious rooms for
   the use of the committees, and an excellent library in the
   chambers. It is still in good preservation. At ten o'clock in
   the morning the delegates met at the City Tavern, walked to
   Carpenters' Hall, and began the sessions of the Continental
   Congress. This assembly, when all the members had taken their
   seats, consisted of 55 delegates, chosen by 12 colonies. They
   represented a population of 2,200,000, paying a revenue of
   £80,000 sterling. Georgia, which did not elect delegates, gave
   a promise to concur with her 'sister colonies' in the effort
   to maintain their right to the British Constitution. … In
   general, the delegates elect were men of uncommon ability, who
   had taken a prominent part in the political action of their
   several localities. … New England presented, in John Sullivan,
   vigor; in Roger Sherman, sterling sense and integrity; in
   Thomas Cushing, commercial knowledge; in John Adams, large
   capacity for public affairs; in Samuel Adams, a great
   character, with influence and power to organize. The Middle
   colonies presented, in Philip Livingston, the merchant prince
   of enterprise and liberality; in John Jay, rare public virtue,
   juridical learning, and classic taste; in William Livingston,
   progressive ideas tempered by conservatism; in John Dickinson,
   'The Immortal Farmer,' erudition and literary ability; in
   Cæsar Rodney and Thomas McKean, working power; in James Duane,
   timid Whiggism, halting, but keeping true to the cause; in
   Joseph Galloway, downright Toryism, seeking control, and at
   length going to the enemy. The Southern colonies presented, in
   Thomas Johnson, the grasp of a statesman; in Samuel Chase,
   activity and boldness; in the Rutledges, wealth and
   accomplishment; in Christopher Gadsden, the genuine American;
   and in the Virginia delegation, an illustrious group,—in
   Richard Bland, wisdom; in Edmund Pendleton, practical talent;
   in Peyton Randolph, experience in legislation; in Richard
   Henry Lee, statesmanship in union with high culture; in
   Patrick Henry, genius and eloquence; in Washington, justice
   and patriotism. 'If,' said Patrick Henry, 'you speak of solid
   information and sound judgment, Washington unquestionably is
   the greatest man of them all.' … The congress was organized by
   the choice of Peyton Randolph of Virginia for President, and
   Charles Thomson of Philadelphia, not a member, for Secretary.
   … A discussion … arose on the rules to be observed in
   determining questions, … which was renewed the next day, when
   it was agreed that each colony should have one vote."

      R. Frothingham,
      The Rise of the Republic of the United States,
      chapter 9.

      ALSO IN:
      J. T. Scharf and. T. Westcott,
      History of Philadelphia,
      volume 1, chapter 16.

      C. J. Stillé,
      Life and Times of John Dickinson,
      chapter 5.

      V. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,
      Popular History of the! United States,
      volume 3, chapter 13.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774 (September-October).
   The action of the Congress.

   "The Congress first resolved 'to state the rights of the
   colonies in general, the several instances in which those
   rights were violated or infringed, and the means most proper
   for a restoration of them.' Next, 'to examine and report the
   several statutes which affect the trade and manufactures of
   the colonies,' not earlier than the last nine years. While
   these subjects were under consideration, resolutions of Boston
   and its neighbors [Middlesex and Suffolk counties] were laid
   before them, stating their wrongs and merely defensive
   measures to which they would adhere, 'as long as such conduct
   may be vindicated by reason and the principles of
   self-preservation, but no longer.' … Congress unanimously
   approved and recommended 'a perseverance in this firm and
   temperate conduct,' trusting a change in the councils of the
   British nation. The merchants were urged not to order goods,
   and to suspend those ordered; and it was resolved, that after
   the first of next December there should be no importation of
   British goods, and no consumption of, or traffic in them. A
   loyal petition to the king was ordered, assuring him that by
   abolishing the system of laws and regulations of which the
   colonies complained, enumerating them, the jealousies they had
   caused would be removed, and harmony restored. 'We ask but for
   peace, liberty and safety. We wish not a diminution of the
   prerogative, nor do we solicit the grant of any new right in
   our favor. Your royal authority over us, and our connection
   with Great Britain, we shall always carefully and zealously
   endeavor to support and maintain.' General Gage was entreated
   to discontinue the erection of the fortifications on Boston
   Neck, and to prevent all injuries on the part of the troops;
   and Massachusetts was asked 'temporarily to submit to a
   suspension of the administration of justice where it could not
   be procured in a legal and peaceable manner.' Persons
   accepting office under the recent act, changing the form of
   her government, were denounced, 'as the wicked tools of that
   despotism which is preparing to destroy those rights which
   God, nature, and compact have given to America.' A memorial
   was next ordered to the inhabitants of the British colonies
   there represented, exposing their common wrongs and urging a
   united 'commercial opposition,' warning them to extend their
   views 'to mournful events,' to be 'in all respects prepared
   for every contingency, and to implore the favor of Almighty
   God.'
{3215}
   An appeal was made to the enlightened sympathies of the
   British people. … Finally, an address was made to the
   inhabitants of the Province of Quebec, inviting their
   co-operation. In the meantime, the form of a non-exportation,
   non-consumption association was adopted, and signed by each of
   the delegates. … A declaration of the rights and injuries of
   the colonies was made, in which the most difficult question
   was disposed of. The right to participate in the legislative
   council of their common country, was declared to be the
   foundation of English liberty and of all free government. … Of
   all these proceedings the language was that of peace, except
   where other language was demanded. For they approved the
   opposition of the inhabitants of Massachusetts Bay to the
   execution of the late acts of Parliament, and declared, 'If
   these acts shall be attempted to be carried into execution by
   force, in such case all America ought to support them in their
   opposition,' and 'that seizing or attempting to seize any
   person in America, in order to transport such person beyond
   the sea for trial of offences committed within the body of a
   county in America, being against law, will justify, and ought
   to meet with, resistance and reprisal.' These were the
   essential resolutions. They bound the colonies to a common
   resistance to acts of force against all, or any one of them.
   They also declared their opinion of the necessity that another
   Congress should be held in the ensuing month of May, unless
   the redress of grievances which they had desired was obtained
   before that time, and that all the colonies in North America
   choose deputies, as soon as possible, to attend such Congress.
   On the twenty-sixth of October, after a secret session of
   fifty-one days, this body adjourned. The recommendations of
   this Congress were received with marked respect among the
   patriots of the colonies."

      J. C. Hamilton,
      History of the United States as traced
      in the Writings of Alexander Hamilton,
      chapter 3 (volume 1).

   "Trained in all the theories of the mercantile system, America
   had been taught to believe (1) that two countries could
   continue to trade, though one of necessity did so at a loss;
   (2) that in the trade between England and the colonies, the
   former both through natural advantages and through law was the
   party to which the profit accrued; (3) that England was 'a
   shop-keeping nation,' whose very existence depended on her
   trade and manufactures. A suspension of trade between England
   and America therefore would mean misery, if not ruin, to the
   mother country, while the colonies would 'both save and gain.'
   With measures of non-importation, non-exportation and
   non-consumption, accordingly, did this otherwise powerless
   body hope to coerce the English people and government. Though
   founded on an economic fallacy, this method of action was
   certain to have a great effect in England. Twice already had
   it been employed on a limited scale—against the Stamp Act and
   against the revenue acts,—and each time with sufficient
   success to warrant the belief that its wider application would
   result in victory. Now the agents of the colonies in London
   were writing home: 'If you have virtue enough to resolve to
   stop, and to execute the resolution of stopping, your exports
   and imports for one year, this country must do you justice.' …
   In both England and America the temporary destruction of
   British trade was viewed not merely as an effective weapon,
   but as the only peaceful one which the colonies possessed. A
   failure to unite in a non-importation agreement against
   England would, according to a prominent English politician,
   leave nothing for the colonies 'but to decide between ruin and
   submission.' The question for the Congress was not, therefore,
   a choice of remedies, but merely whether, and to how great an
   extent, the dele·gates could be brought to agree to the only
   one within their reach. For even while accepting the system as
   effective against Great Britain, the delegates and their
   constituents had so far progressed as to realize that it bore
   with uneven force on the different colonies. The southern
   colonies were really no more diversified in their industries
   than the West India islands. South Carolina grew rice and
   indigo; North Carolina depended largely on tar, pitch and
   turpentine; Virginia raised tobacco. Unless these products
   could be exported to Europe, those colonies might suffer for
   the necessaries of life. … The first consideration of the
   subject in the Congress revealed serious difficulties. The
   Virginia delegation, 'to avoid the heavy injury that would
   arise,' were prevented by their instructions from agreeing to
   an immediate cessation of trade relations. Imports would cease
   on November 1, 1774, but exports must continue till August 10,
   1775. It was in vain they were told 'that a non-exportation at
   a future day cannot avail,' and that at the Virginia date
   non-exportation would not operate before the fall of 1776. The
   Virginians had determined to cure and sell their tobacco crop
   of 1774 before 'consideration of interest and of equality of
   sacrifice should be laid aside.' So vital, however, did most
   of the delegates consider the immediate enforcement, that it
   was proposed to act without Virginia; for Boston and New
   England, it was said, would need active support before that
   date. This proposition was defeated by the refusal of the
   delegates of North Carolina and Maryland to join unless
   Virginia should also make the sacrifice. With sorry grace the
   Congress had to accept the dictation of Virginia. But the
   trouble did not end here. Virginia's selfish interest having
   been triumphant, the South Carolina delegation sought for an
   equal advantage, and demanded that the two great products of
   that colony should be especially reserved from the
   non-exportation clause. … Rather than yield, the Congress
   preferred a cessation of business for several days, in order
   'to give Our [South Carolina] deputies time to recollect
   themselves.' But when the Association was ready for signing,
   the South Carolina delegates, with but one exception, seceded
   from the Congress, and their assent was only secured
   eventually through a compromise, by virtue of which rice alone
   was excluded from the agreement, while indigo was brought
   under its terms. Such were the secret deliberations of the
   Congress, in endeavoring to unite the colonies in the use of
   their only weapon. The first public results appeared in the
   form of a unanimous resolution, passed and published on
   September 22, requesting 'the merchants and others in the
   several colonies not to send to Great Britain any orders for
   goods,' and to delay or suspend orders already sent. Five days
   later it was unanimously resolved that after December 1, 1774,
   'there should be no importation into British America from
   Great Britain or Ireland, or from any other place,' of any
   goods, wares or merchandise exported from Great Britain or
   Ireland.
{3216}
   Three days later, with no assertion of unanimity, a resolution
   was announced to the effect 'that from and after the 10th day
   of September, 1775, the exportation of all merchandise and
   every commodity whatsoever to Great Britain, Ireland and the
   West Indies ought to cease, unless the grievances of America
   are redressed before that time,' and a committee was appointed
   to draft a plan for carrying into effect these resolves. On
   October 12 this committee brought in a report, which, after
   consideration and amendment, was on the 18th of October agreed
   to and ordered signed. On October 20 it was signed and ordered
   to be printed. Possessed of no real power, the Congress relied
   on the people to enforce this agreement. It was recommended
   that in every county, city and town a committee be chosen
   'whose business it shall be attentively to observe the conduct
   of all persons touching this Association.' With hardly an
   exception, this recommendation was adopted. … As America had
   refused to trade with Great Britain and her colonies, the
   government replied by acts prohibiting any such trade. The
   policy of 'exhausting its opponent by injuring itself' was at
   last to have a fair trial, but through British, not American
   action. The colonies were by law interdicted from all
   commerce, trade and fishing. But before the legislation went
   into effect blood had been shed at Lexington. The contest
   could no longer be fought with acts of Parliament and resolves
   of Congress; 'blows must decide.' The Association was
   distinctively a peace weapon. Had the Congress really expected
   war, no action could have been more foolish. A garrison soon
   to be beleaguered virtually shut its ports to supplies. No
   better proof is needed of how little the delegates wished or
   worked for separation."

      P. L. Ford,
      The Association of the First Congress
      (Political Science Quarterly, December, 1891.)

   'That the foundation of English liberty, and of all free
   government, is a right in the people to participate in their
   legislative council; and us the English colonists are not
   represented, and from their local and other circumstances
   cannot be properly represented in the British Parliament, they
   are entitled to a free and exclusive power of legislation in
   their several provincial legislatures, where their rights of
   representation can alone be preserved, in all cases of
   taxation and internal polity, subject only to the negative of
   their sovereign, in such manner as has been heretofore used
   and accustomed. But from the necessity of the case, and a
   regard to the mutual interest of both countries, we cheerfully
   consent to the operation of such acts of the British
   Parliament as are bona fide restrained to the regulation of
   our external commerce, for the purpose of securing the
   commercial advantages of the whole empire to the mother
   country; and the commercial benefits of its respective
   members; excluding every idea of taxation, internal or
   external, for raising a revenue on the subjects in America,
   without their consent.' This was not precisely what John Adams
   wanted, but it was much. When this declaration went forth, the
   cause of Massachusetts, in whatever it might eventuate, was
   the cause of the colonies. It was nationalized. This was John
   Adams's greatest feat of statesmanship. On it the Success of
   the impending war, and the Declaration of Independence
   rested."

      M. Chamberlain,
      John Adams, the Statesman of the
      American Revolution,
      pages 78-80.

   "How far the authority of this first congress extended,
   according to the instructions of the delegates, it is
   impossible to determine with certainty at this distance of
   time. But it is probable that the original intention was that
   it should consult as to the ways and means best calculated to
   remove the grievances and to guaranty the rights and liberties
   of the colonies, and should propose to the latter a series of
   resolutions, furthering these objects. But the force of
   circumstances at the time compelled it to act and order
   immediately, and the people, by a consistent following of its
   orders, approved this transcending of their written
   instructions. The congress was therefore not only a
   revolutionary body from its origin, but its acts assumed a
   thoroughly revolutionary character. The people, also, by
   recognizing its authority, placed themselves on a
   revolutionary footing, and did so not as belonging to the
   several colonies, but as a moral person; for to the extent
   that congress assumed power to itself and made bold to adopt
   measures national in their nature, to that extent the
   colonists declared themselves henceforth to constitute one
   people, inasmuch as the measures taken by congress could be
   translated from words into deeds only with the consent of the
   people. This state of affairs essentially continued up to
   March 1, 1781.
{3217}
   Until that time, that is, until the adoption of the articles
   of confederation by all the states, congress continued a
   revolutionary body, which was recognized by all the colonies
   as 'de jure' and 'de facto' the national government, and which
   as such came in contact with foreign powers and entered into
   engagements, the binding force of which on the whole people
   has never been called in question. The individual colonies, on
   the other hand, considered themselves, up to the time of the
   Declaration of Independence, as legally dependent upon England
   and did not take a single step which could have placed them
   before the mother country or the world in the light of 'de
   facto' sovereign states. They remained colonies until the
   'representatives of the United States' 'in the name of the
   good people of these colonies' solemnly declared 'these united
   colonies' to be 'free and independent states.' The
   transformation of the colonies into 'states' was, therefore,
   not the result of the independent action of the individual
   colonies. It was accomplished through the 'representatives of
   the United States'; that is, through the revolutionary
   congress, in the name of the whole people. Each individual
   colony became a state only in so far as it belonged to the
   United States and in so far as its population constituted a
   part of the people."

      H. von Holst,
      Constitutional and Political History of the
      United States,
      volume 1, chapter 1.

      ALSO IN:
      W. V. Wells,
      Life of Samuel Adams,
      volume 2, pages 213-247.

      J. Adams,
      Diary (Works, volume 2)
      pages 358-401.

      Journal of the Congress which met at Philadelphia
      September 5, 1774
      (London: J. Almon).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774-1775.
   Provincial Congress of Massachusetts and
   Committee of Safety.
   Military preparations.

   "Governor Gage issued writs, dated September 1, convening the
   General Court at Salem on the 5th of October, but dissolved it
   by a proclamation dated September 28, 1774. The members
   elected to it, pursuant to the course agreed upon, resolved
   themselves into a Provincial Congress. This body, on the 26th
   of October, adopted a plan for organizing the militia,
   maintaining it, and calling it out when circumstances should
   render it necessary. It provided that one quarter of the
   number enrolled should be held in readiness to muster at the
   shortest notice, who were called by the popular name of
   minute-men. An executive authority—the Committee of
   Safety—was created, clothed with large discretionary powers;
   and another called the Committee of Supplies. On the 27th
   Jedediah Preble, (who did not accept,) Artemas Ward, and Seth
   Pomeroy, were chosen general officers; and on the 28th, Henry
   Gardner was chosen treasurer of the colony, under the title of
   Receiver-General. Among the energetic acts of this memorable
   Congress, was one authorizing the collection of military
   stores. It dissolved December 10. The committee of safety, as
   early as November, authorized the purchase of materials for an
   army, and ordered them to be deposited at Concord and
   Worcester. These proceedings were denounced by General Gage,
   in a proclamation dated November 10, as treasonable, and a
   compliance with them was forbidden. In a short time the king's
   speech and the action of Parliament were received, which
   manifested a firm determination to produce submission to the
   late acts, and to maintain 'the supreme authority' of Great
   Britain over the colonies. General Gage regarded this
   intelligence as having 'cast a damp upon the faction,' and as
   having produced a happy effect upon the royalist cause.
   However, a second Provincial Congress (February 1 to 16, 1775)
   renewed the measures of its predecessor; and gave definiteness
   to the duties of the committee of safety, by 'empowering and
   directing' them (on the 9th of February) to assemble the
   militia whenever it was required to resist the execution of
   the two acts, for altering the government and the
   administration of justice. At the same time it appointed two
   additional generals, John Thomas, and William Heath, and made
   it the duty of the five general officers to take charge of the
   militia when called out by the committee of safety, and to
   'effectually oppose and resist such attempt or attempts as
   shall be made for carrying into execution by force' the two
   acts. … The conviction was fast becoming general that force
   only could decide the contest. Stimulated and sustained by
   such a public opinion, the committees of safety and supplies
   were diligent, through the gloomy months of winter, in
   collecting and storing at Concord and Worcester materials for
   the maintenance of an army."

      R. Frothingham, Jr.,
      History of the Siege of Boston,
      chapter 1. 

   The following citizens composed the Committee of Public
   Safety, viz., "John Hancock, Joseph Warren, Benjamin Church,
   Richard Devens, Benjamin White, Joseph Palmer, Abraham Watson,
   Azor Orne, John Pigeon, William Heath, and Thomas Gardner. The
   following 'Committee of Supplies' was announced, viz.,
   Elbridge Gerry, David Cheever, Benjamin Lincoln, Moses Gill,
   and Benjamin Hall. … By the first day of January, 1775, the
   garrison of Boston had been increased to thirty-five hundred
   men, and mounted three hundred and seventy men as a daily
   guard-detail, besides a field officers' guard of one hundred
   and fifty men on Boston Neck. Three brigades were organized
   and were officered, respectively by Generals Lord Percy,
   Pigott and Jones. In November of 1774, General Gage had
   advised the British government, that he, 'was confident, that
   to begin with an army twenty thousand strong, would in the end
   save Great Britain blood and treasure.' Meanwhile, the militia
   drilled openly, rapidly completed company organizations, and
   made many sacrifices to procure arms, powder and other
   materials of war. The Home government, in view of the serious
   aspect of affairs, ordered Generals Howe, Clinton, and
   Burgoyne to join General Gage, and announced that 'ample
   reinforcements would be sent out, and the most speedy and
   effectual measures would be taken to put down the rebellion,'
   then pronounced to already exist. On the eighth of April, the
   Provincial Congress resolved to take effectual measures to
   raise an army, and requested the cooperation of Rhode Island,
   New Hampshire and Connecticut. On the thirteenth, it voted to
   raise six companies of artillery, to pay them and keep them at
   drill. On the fourteenth it advised citizens to leave Boston
   and to remove to the country. On the fifteenth, it solemnly
   appointed a day for 'Public Fasting and Prayer,' and adjourned
   to the tenth day of May. The Committee of Public Safety at
   once undertook the task of securing powder, cannon and small
   arms. A practical embargo was laid upon all trade with Boston.
   The garrison could obtain supplies only with great difficulty,
   and, as stated by Gordon, 'nothing was wanting but a spark, to
   set the whole continent in a flame.'"

      H. B. Carrington,
      Battles of the American Revolution.
      chapter 2.

      ALSO IN:
      J. Fiske,
      The American Revolution,
      chapter 3 (volume 1).

{3218}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (January-March).
   Vain efforts toward pacific statesmanship in the British
   Parliament, by Chatham, Burke, and others.

   A newly elected British Parliament "met on November 30, 1774;
   but no serious measure relating to America was taken till
   January 1775, when the House reassembled after the Christmas
   vacation. The Ministers had a large majority, and even apart
   from party interest the genuine feeling of both Houses ran
   strongly against the Americans. Yet at no previous period were
   they more powerfully defended. I have already noticed that
   Chatham, having returned to active politics after his long
   illness in 1774, had completely identified himself with the
   American cause, and had advocated with all his eloquence
   measures of conciliation. He … moved an address to the King
   praying that he would as soon as possible, 'in order to open
   the way towards a happy settlement of the dangerous troubles
   in America,' withdraw the British troops stationed in Boston.
   In the course of his speech he represented the question of
   American taxation as the root-cause of the whole division, and
   maintained that the only real basis of conciliation was to be
   found in a distinct recognition of the principle that
   'taxation is theirs, and commercial regulation ours;' that
   England has a supreme right of regulating the commerce and
   navigation of America, and that the Americans have an
   inalienable right to their own property. He fully justified
   their resistance, predicted that all attempts to coerce them
   would fail, and eulogised the Congress at Philadelphia as
   worthy of the greatest periods of antiquity. Only eighteen
   peers voted for the address, while sixty-eight opposed it. On
   February 1 he reappeared with an elaborate Bill for settling
   the troubles in America. It asserted in strong terms the right
   of Parliament to bind the colonies in all matters of imperial
   concern, and especially in all matters of commerce and
   navigation. It pronounced the new colonial doctrine that the
   Crown had no right to send British soldiers to the colonies
   without the assent of the Provincial Assemblies, dangerous and
   unconstitutional in the highest degree, but at the same time
   it recognised the sole right of the colonists to tax
   themselves, guaranteed the inviolability of their charters,
   and made the tenure of their judges the same as in England. It
   proposed to make the Congress which had met at Philadelphia an
   official and permanent body, and asked it to make a free grant
   for imperial purposes. England, in return, was to reduce the
   Admiralty Courts to their ancient limits, and to suspend for
   the present the different Acts complained of by the colonists.
   The Bill was not even admitted to a second reading. Several
   other propositions tending towards conciliation were made in
   this session. On March 22, 1775, Burke, in one of his greatest
   speeches, moved a series of resolutions recommending a repeal
   of the recent Acts complained of in America, reforming the
   Admiralty Court and the position of the judges, and leaving
   American taxation to the American Assemblies, without touching
   upon any question of abstract right. A few days later, Hartley
   moved a resolution calling upon the Government to make
   requisitions to the colonial Assemblies to provide of their
   own authority for their own defence; and Lord Camden in the
   House of Lords and Sir G. Savile in the House of Commons
   endeavoured to obtain a repeal of the Quebec Act. All these
   attempts, however, were defeated by enormous majorities. The
   petition of Congress to the King was referred to Parliament,
   which refused to receive it, and Franklin, after vain efforts
   to effect a reconciliation, returned from England to America."

      W. E. H. Lecky,
      History of England in the 18th Century,
      chapter 12. (volume 3).

   The following are the more important passages of the speech of
   Burke, on moving the resolutions which he introduced in the
   House of Commons, March 22, 1775:

   "The proposition is peace. Not peace through the medium of
   war; not peace to be hunted through the labyrinth of intricate
   and endless negotiations; not peace to arise out of universal
   discord, fomented from principle, in all parts of the empire;
   not peace to depend on the juridical determination of
   perplexing questions, or the precise marking the shadowy
   boundaries of a complex government. It is simple peace, sought
   in its natural course and in its ordinary haunts. It is peace
   sought in the spirit of peace, and laid in principles purely
   pacific. I propose, by removing the ground of the difference,
   and by restoring the former unsuspecting confidence of the
   colonies in the mother country, to give permanent satisfaction
   to your people,—and (far from a scheme of ruling by discord)
   to reconcile them to each other in the same act and by the
   bond of the very same interest which reconciles them to
   British government. My idea is nothing more. Refined policy
   ever has been the parent of confusion,—and ever will be so, as
   long as the world endures. Plain good intention, which is as
   easily discovered at the first view as fraud is surely
   detected at last, is, let me say, of no mean force in the
   government of mankind. Genuine simplicity of heart is an
   healing and cementing principle. … The capital leading
   questions on which you must this day decide are these two:
   First, whether you ought to concede; and secondly, what your
   concession ought to be. On the first of these questions we
   have gained … some ground. But I am sensible that a good deal
   more is still to be done. Indeed, Sir, to enable us to
   determine both on the one and the other of these great
   questions with a firm and precise judgment, I think it may be
   necessary to consider distinctly the true nature and the
   peculiar circumstances of the object which we have before us:
   because, after all our struggle, whether we will or not, we
   must govern America according to that nature and to those
   circumstances, and not according to our own imaginations, not
   according to abstract ideas of right, by no means according to
   mere general theories of government, the resort to which
   appears to me, in our present situation, no better than arrant
   trifling. … The first thing that we have to consider with
   regard to the nature of the object is the number of people in
   the colonies. I have taken for some years a good deal of pains
   on that point. I can by no calculation justify myself in
   placing the number below two millions of inhabitants of our
   own European blood and color,—besides at least 500,000 others,
   who form no inconsiderable part of the strength and opulence
   of the whole. This, Sir, is, I believe, about the true number.
   There is no occasion to exaggerate, where plain truth is of so
   much weight and importance. But whether I put the present
   numbers too high or too low is a matter of little moment.
{3219}
   Such is the strength with which population shoots in that part
   of the world, that, state the numbers as high as we will,
   whilst the dispute continues, the exaggeration ends. Whilst we
   are discussing any given magnitude, they are grown to it.
   Whilst we spend our time in deliberating on the mode of
   governing two millions, we shall find we have millions more to
   manage. Your children do not grow faster from infancy to
   manhood than they spread from families to communities, and
   from villages to nations. … But the population of this
   country, the great and growing population, though a very
   important consideration, will lose much of its weight, if not
   combined with other circumstances. The commerce of your
   colonies is out of all proportion beyond the numbers of the
   people. … The trade with America alone is now within less than
   £500,000 of being equal to what this great commercial nation,
   Eng]and, carried on at the beginning of this century with the
   whole world! … But, it will be said, is not this American
   trade an unnatural protuberance, that has drawn the juices
   from the rest of the body? The reverse. It is the very food
   that has nourished every other part into its present
   magnitude. Our general trade has been greatly augmented, and
   augmented more or less in almost every part to which it ever
   extended, but with this material difference: that of the six
   millions which in the beginning of the century constituted the
   whole mass of our export commerce the colony trade was but one
   twelfth part; it is now (as a part of sixteen millions)
   considerably more than a third of the whole. … I choose, Sir,
   to enter into these minute and particular details; because
   generalities, which in all other cases are apt to heighten and
   raise the subject, have here a tendency to sink it. When we
   speak of the commerce of our colonies, fiction lags after
   truth, invention is unfruitful, and imagination cold and
   barren. … I pass … to the colonies in another point of
   view,—their agriculture. This they have prosecuted with such a
   spirit, that, besides feeding plentifully their own growing
   multitude, their annual export of grain, comprehending rice,
   has some years ago exceeded a million in value. Of their last
   harvest, I am persuaded, they will export much more. At the
   beginning of the century some of these colonies imported corn
   from the mother country. For some time past the Old World has
   been fed from the New. The scarcity which you have felt would
   have been a desolating famine, if this child of your old age,
   with a true filial piety, with a Roman charity, had not put
   the full breast of its youthful exuberance to the mouth of its
   exhausted parent. As to the wealth which the colonies have
   drawn from the sea by their fisheries, you had all that matter
   fully opened at your bar. You surely thought those
   acquisitions of value, for they seemed even to excite your
   envy; and yet the spirit by which that enterprising employment
   has been exercised ought rather, in my opinion, to have raised
   your esteem and admiration. And pray, Sir, what in the world
   is equal to it? Pass by the other parts, and look at the
   manner in which the people of New England have of late carried
   on the whale-fishery. Whilst we follow them among the tumbling
   mountains of ice, and behold them penetrating into the deepest
   frozen recesses of Hudson's Bay and Davis's Straits, whilst we
   are looking for them beneath the arctic circle, we hear that
   they have pierced into the opposite region of polar cold, that
   they are at the antipodes, and engaged under the frozen
   serpent of the South. Falkland Island, which seemed too remote
   and romantic an object for the grasp of national ambition, is
   but a stage and resting-place in the progress of their
   victorious industry. Nor is the equinoctial heat more
   discouraging to them than the accumulated winter of both the
   poles. … I am sensible, Sir, that all which I have asserted in
   my detail is admitted in the gross, but that quite a different
   conclusion is drawn from it. America, gentlemen say, is a
   noble object,—it is an object well worth fighting for.
   Certainly it is, if fighting a people be the best way of
   gaining them. Gentlemen in this respect will be led to their
   choice of means by their complexions and their habits. Those
   who understand the military art will of course have some
   predilection for it. Those who wield the thunder of the state
   may have more confidence in the efficacy of arms. But I
   confess, possibly for want of this knowledge, my opinion is
   much more in favor of prudent management than of
   force,—considering force not as an odious, but a feeble
   instrument, for preserving a people so numerous, so active, so
   growing, so spirited as this, in a profitable and subordinate
   connection with us. First, Sir, permit me to observe, that the
   use of force alone is but temporary. It may subdue for a
   moment; but it does not remove the necessity of subduing
   again: and a nation is not governed which is perpetually to be
   conquered. My next objection is its uncertainty. Terror is not
   always the effect of force, and an armament is not a victory.
   If you do not succeed, you are without resource: for,
   conciliation failing, force remains; but, force failing, no
   further hope of reconciliation is left. Power and authority
   are sometimes bought by kindness; but they can never be begged
   as alms by an impoverished and defeated violence. A further
   objection to force is, that you impair the object by your very
   endeavors to preserve it. The thing you fought for is not the
   thing which you recover, but depreciated, sunk, wasted, and
   consumed in the contest. Nothing less will content me than
   whole America. I do not choose to consume its strength along
   with our own; because in all parts it is the British strength
   that I consume. I do not choose to be caught by a foreign
   enemy at the end of this exhausting conflict, and still less
   in the midst of it. I may escape, but I can make no insurance
   against such an event. Let me add, that I do not choose wholly
   to break the American spirit; because it is the spirit that
   has made the country. Lastly, we have no sort of experience in
   favor of force as an instrument in the rule of our colonies.
   Their growth and their utility has been owing to methods
   altogether different. Our ancient indulgence has been said to
   be pursued to a fault. It may be so; but we know, if feeling
   is evidence, that our fault was more tolerable than our
   attempt to mend it, and our sin far more salutary than our
   penitence. These, Sir, are my reasons for not entertaining
   that high opinion of untried force by which many gentlemen,
   for whose sentiments in other particulars I have great
   respect, seem to be so greatly captivated. But there is still
   behind a third consideration concerning this object, which
   serves to determine my opinion on the sort of policy which
   ought to be pursued in the management of America, even more
   than its population and its commerce: I mean its temper and
   character.
{3220}
   In this character of the Americans a love of freedom is the
   predominating feature which marks and distinguishes the whole.
   … This fierce spirit of liberty is stronger in the English
   colonies, prob·ably, than in any other people of the earth,
   and this from a great variety of powerful causes; which, to
   understand the true temper of their minds, and the direction
   which this spirit takes, it will not be amiss to lay open
   somewhat more largely. First, the people of the colonies are
   descendants of Englishmen. England, Sir, is a nation which
   still, I hope, respects, and formerly adored, her freedom. The
   colonists emigrated from you when this part of your character
   was most predominant; and they took this bias and direction
   the moment they parted from your hands. They are therefore not
   only devoted to liberty, but to liberty according to English
   ideas and on English principles. … Your mode of governing
   them, whether through lenity or indolence, through wisdom or
   mistake, confirmed them in the imagination, that they, as well
   as you, had an interest in these common principles. They were
   further confirmed in this pleasing error by the form of their
   provincial legislative assemblies. Their governments are
   popular in an high degree: some are merely popular; in all,
   the popular representative is the most weighty; and this share
   of the people in their ordinary government never fails to
   inspire them with lofty sentiments, and with a strong aversion
   from whatever tends to deprive them of their chief importance.
   If anything were wanting to this necessary operation of the
   form of government, religion would have given it a complete
   effect. Religion, always a principle of energy, in this new
   people is no way worn out or impaired; and their mode of
   professing it is also one main cause of this free spirit. The
   people are Protestants, and of that kind which is the most
   adverse to all implicit submission of mind and opinion. … All
   Protestantism, even the most cold and passive, is a sort of
   dissent. But the religion most prevalent in our northern
   colonies is a refinement on the principle of resistance; it is
   the dissidence of dissent, and the protestantism of the
   Protestant religion. … Permit me, Sir, to add another
   circumstance in our colonies, which contributes no mean part
   towards the growth and effect of this untractable spirit: I
   mean their education. In no country, perhaps, in the world is
   the law so general a study. The profession itself is numerous
   and powerful, and in most provinces it takes the lead. The
   greater number of the deputies sent to the Congress were
   lawyers. But all who read, and most do read, endeavour to
   obtain some smattering in that science. I have been told by an
   eminent bookseller, that in no branch of his business, after
   tracts of popular devotion, were so many books as those on the
   law exported to the plantations. The colonists have now fallen
   into the way of printing them for their own use. I hear that
   they have sold nearly as many of Blackstone's 'Commentaries'
   in America as in England. General Gage marks out this
   disposition very particularly in a letter on your table. He
   states, that all the people in his government are lawyers, or
   smatterers in law,—and that in Boston they have been enabled,
   by successful chicane, wholly to evade many parts of one of
   your capital penal constitutions. … The last cause of this
   disobedient spirit in the colonies is hardly less powerful
   than the rest, as it is not merely moral, but laid deep in the
   natural constitution of things. Three thousand miles of ocean
   lie between you and them. No contrivance can prevent the
   effect of this distance in weakening government. Seas roll,
   and months pass, between the order and the execution; and the
   want of a speedy explanation of a single point is enough to
   defeat an whole system. … Then, Sir, from these six capital
   sources, of descent, of form of government, of religion in the
   northern provinces, of manners in the southern, of education,
   of the remoteness of situation from the first mover of
   government,—from all these causes a fierce spirit of liberty
   has grown up. It has grown with the growth of the people in
   your colonies, and increased with the increase of their
   wealth: a spirit, that, unhappily meeting with an exercise of
   power in England, which, however lawful, is not reconcilable
   to any ideas of liberty, much less with theirs, has kindled
   this flame that is ready to consume us. … The question is not,
   whether their spirit deserves praise or blame,—what, in the
   name of God, shall we do with it? You have before you the
   object, such as it is,—with all its glories, with all its
   imperfections on its head. You see the magnitude, the
   importance, the temper, the habits, the disorders. By all
   these considerations we are strongly urged to determine
   something concerning it. We are called upon to fix some rule
   and line for our future conduct, which may give a little
   stability to our politics, and prevent the return of such
   unhappy deliberations as the present. … It should seem, to my
   way of conceiving such matters, that there is a very wide
   difference, in reason and policy, between the mode of
   proceeding on the irregular conduct of scattered individuals,
   or even of bands of men, who disturb order within the state,
   and the civil dissensions which may, from time to time, on
   great questions, agitate the several communities which compose
   a great empire. It looks to me to be narrow and pedantic to
   apply the ordinary ideas of criminal justice to this great
   public con·test. I do not know the method of drawing up an
   indictment against an whole people. … I am not ripe to pass
   sentence on the gravest public bodies, intrusted with
   magistracies of great authority and dignity, and charged with
   the safety of their fellow-citizens, upon the very same title
   that I am. I really think that for wise men this is not
   judicious, for sober men not decent, for minds tinctured with
   humanity not mild and merciful."

   In the closing part of his speech, Mr. Burke introduced
   successively and commented upon the following propositions, or
   resolutions, which formed in their entirety his plan of
   conciliation. At the end of his speaking they were rejected by
   a vote of 270 against 78:

   "That the colonies and plantations of Great Britain in North
   America, consisting of 14 separate governments, and containing
   two mil·lions and upwards of free inhabitants, have not had
   the liberty and privilege of electing and sending any knights
   and burgesses, or others, to represent them in the high court
   of Parliament.

{3221}

   That the said colonies and plantations have been made liable
   to, and bounden by, several subsidies, payments, rates, and
   taxes, given and granted by Parliament, though the said
   colonies and plantations have not their knights and burgesses
   in the said high court of Parliament, of their own election,
   to represent the condition of their country; by lack whereof
   they have been oftentimes touched and grieved by subsidies,
   given, granted, and assented to, in the said court, in a
   manner prejudicial to the common wealth, quietness, rest, and
   peace of the subjects inhabiting within the same.

   That, from the distance of the said colonies, and from other
   circumstances, no method hath hitherto been devised for
   procuring a representation in Parliament for the said
   colonies.

   That each of the said colonies hath within itself a body,
   chosen, in part or in the whole, by the freemen, freeholders,
   or other free inhabitants thereof, commonly called the General
   Assembly, or General Court, with powers legally to raise,
   levy, and assess, according to the several usages of such
   colonies, duties and taxes towards defraying all sorts of
   public services.

   That the said general assemblies, general courts, or other
   bodies legally qualified as aforesaid, have at sundry times
   freely granted several large subsidies and public aids for his
   Majesty's service, according to their abilities, when required
   thereto by letter from one of his Majesty's principal
   Secretaries of State; and that their right to grant the same,
   and their cheerfulness and sufficiency in the said grants,
   have been at sundry times acknowledged by Parliament. That it
   hath been found by experience, that the manner of granting the
   said supplies and aids by the said general assemblies hath
   been more agreeable to the inhabitants of said colonies, and
   more beneficial and conducive to the public service, than the
   mode of giving and granting aids and subsidies in Parliament,
   to be raised and paid in the said colonies.

   That it may be proper to repeal an act, made in the 7th year
   of the reign of his present Majesty, intituled, 'An act for
   granting certain duties in the British colonies and
   plantations in America; for allowing a drawback of the duties
   of customs, upon the exportation from this kingdom, of coffee
   and cocoa-nuts, of the produce of the said colonies or
   plantations; for discontinuing the drawbacks payable on China
   earthen ware exported to America; and for more effectually
   preventing the clandestine running of goods in the said
   colonies and plantations.'

   That it may be proper to repeal an act, made in the 14th year
   of the reign of his present Majesty, intituled, 'An act to
   discontinue, in such manner and for such time as are therein
   mentioned, the landing and discharging, lading or shipping, of
   goods, wares, and merchandise, at the town and within the
   harbor of Boston, in the province of Massachusetts Bay, in
   North America.'

   That it may be proper to repeal an act, made in the 14th year
   of the reign of his present Majesty, intituled, 'An act for
   the impartial administration of justice, in the cases of
   persons questioned for any acts done by them, in the execution
   of the law, or for the suppression of riots and tumults, in
   the province of the Massachusetts Bay, in New England.'

   That it may be proper to repeal an act, made in the 14th year
   of the reign of his present Majesty, intituled, 'An act for
   the better regulating the government of the province of the
   Massachusetts Bay, in New England.'

   That it may be proper to explain and amend an act, made in the
   35th year of the reign of King Henry VIII., intituled, 'An act
   for the trial of treasons committed out of the king's
   dominions.'

   That, from the time when the general assembly, or general
   court, of any colony or plantation in North America, shall
   have appointed, by act of assembly duly confirmed, a settled
   salary to the offices of the chief justice and other judges of
   the superior courts, it may be proper that the said chief
   justice and other judges of the superior courts of such colony
   shall hold his and their office and offices during their good
   behaviour, and shall not be removed therefrom, but when the
   said removal shall be adjudged by his Majesty in council, upon
   a hearing on complaint from the general assembly, or on a
   complaint from the governor, or the council, or the house of
   representatives, severally, of the colony in which the said
   chief justice and other judges have exercised the said
   offices.

   That it may be proper to regulate the courts of admiralty or
   vice-admiralty, authorized by the 15th chapter of the 4th
   George III., in such a manner as to make the same more
   commodious to those who sue or are sued in the said courts;
   and to provide for the more decent maintenance of the judges
   of the same."

      Edmund Burke,
      Works,
      volume 2.

      ALSO IN:
      T. MacKnight,
      Life and Times of Edmund Burke,
      chapter 21 (volume 2).

      J. Adolphus,
      History of England, Reign of George III.,
      chapter 25 (volume 2).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (January-April).
   Aims at independence disclaimed.

   "The denial that independence was the final object, was
   constant and general. To obtain concessions and to preserve
   the connection with England was affirmed everywhere; and John
   Adams, after the peace, went farther than this, for he
   said:—'There was not a moment during the Revolution, when I
   would not have given everything I possessed for a restoration
   to the state of things before the contest began, provided we
   could have had a sufficient security for its continuance.' If
   Mr. Adams be regarded as expressing the sentiments of the
   Whigs, they were willing to remain Colonists, provided they
   could have had their rights secured to them; while the Tories
   were contented thus to continue, without such security. Such,
   as it appears to me, was the only difference between the two
   parties prior to hostilities. … Franklin's testimony, a few
   days before the affair at Lexington, was, that he had 'more
   than once travelled almost from one end of the continent to
   the other, and kept a variety of company, eating, drinking,
   and conversing with them freely, [and] never had heard from
   any person, drunk or sober, the least expression of a wish for
   a separation, or a hint that such a thing would be
   advantageous to America.' Mr. Jay is quite as explicit.
   'During the course of my life,' said he, 'and until the second
   petition of Congress in 1775, I never did hear an American of
   any class, or of any description, express a wish for the
   independence of the Colonies.' 'It has always been, and still
   is, my opinion and belief, that our country was prompted and
   impelled to independence by necessity, and not by choice.'
{3222}
   Mr. Jefferson affirmed, 'What, eastward of New York, might
   have been the dispositions towards England before the
   commencement of hostilities, I know not; but before that I
   never heard a whisper of a disposition to separate from Great
   Britain; and after that its possibility was contemplated with
   affliction by all.' Washington, in 1774, fully sustains these
   declarations, and, in the 'Fairfax County Resolves,' it was
   complained that 'malevolent falsehoods' were propagated by the
   ministry to prejudice the mind of the king: 'particularly that
   there is an intention in the American Colonies to set up for
   independent States.' Mr. Madison was not in public life until
   May, 1776, but he says, 'It has always been my impression,
   that a reëstablishment of the Colonial relations to the parent
   country, as they were previous to the controversy, was the
   real object of every class of the people, till the despair of
   obtaining it,' &c. … The only way to dispose of testimony like
   this, is to impeach the persons who have given it."

      L. Sabine,
      Biographical Sketches of Loyalists
      of the American Revolution,
      volume 1, pages 64-66.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (January-September).
   Revolution in South Carolina.

      See SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1775.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (April).
   The Beginning of the War of the American Revolution.
   Lexington.
   Concord.

   "On April 19, 1775, the Committees of safety could only count
   up twelve field-pieces in Massachusetts; and there had been
   collected in that colony 21,549 fire-arms, 17,441 pounds of
   powder, 22,191 pounds of ball, 144,699 flints, 10,108
   bayonets, 11,979 pouches, 15,000 canteens. There were also
   17,000 pounds of salt fish, 35,000 pounds of rice, with large
   quantities of beef and pork. Viewed as an evidence of the
   forethought of the colonists, these statistics are remarkable;
   but there was something heroic and indeed almost pathetic in
   the project of going to war with the British government on the
   strength of twelve field-pieces and seventeen thousand pounds
   of salt fish. Yet when, on the night of the 18th of April,
   1775, Paul Revere rode beneath the bright moonlight through
   Lexington to Concord, with Dawes and Prescott for comrades, he
   was carrying the signal for the independence of a nation. He
   had seen across the Charles River the two lights from the
   church-steeple in Boston which were to show that a British
   force was going out to seize the patriotic supplies at
   Concord; he had warned Hancock and Adams at Reverend Jonas
   Clark's parsonage in Lexington, and had rejected Sergeant
   Monroe's caution against unnecessary noise, with the
   rejoinder, 'You'll have noise enough here before long—the
   regulars are coming out.' As he galloped on his way the
   regulars were advancing with steady step behind him, soon
   warned of their own danger by alarm-bells and signal-guns.
   When Revere was captured by some British officers who happened
   to be near Concord, Colonel Smith, the commander of the
   expedition, had already halted, ordered Pitcairn forward, and
   sent back prudently for reinforcements. It was a night of
   terror to all the neighboring Middlesex towns, for no one knew
   what excesses the angry British troops might commit on their
   return march. The best picture we have of this alarm is in the
   narrative of a Cambridge woman, Mrs. Hannah Winthrop,
   describing 'the horrors of that midnight cry,' as she calls
   it. The women of that town were roused by the beat of drums
   and ringing of bells; they hastily gathered their children
   together and fled to the outlying farm-houses; seventy or
   eighty of them were at Fresh Pond, within hearing of the guns
   at Menotomy, now Arlington. The next day their husbands bade
   them flee to Andover, whither the college property had been
   sent, and thither they went, alternately walking and riding,
   over fields where the bodies of the slain lay unburied. Before
   5 A. M. on April 19, 1775, the British troops had reached
   Lexington Green, where thirty-eight men, under Captain Parker,
   stood up before six hundred or eight hundred to be shot at,
   their captain saying, 'Don't fire unless you are fired on; but
   if they want a war let it begin here.' It began there; they
   were fired upon; they fired rather ineffectually in return,
   while seven were killed and nine wounded. The rest, after
   retreating, reformed and pursued the' British towards Concord,
   capturing seven stragglers—the first prisoners taken in the
   war. Then followed the fight at Concord, where four hundred
   and fifty Americans, instead of thirty-eight, were rallied to
   meet the British. The fighting took place between two
   detachments at the North Bridge, where 'once the embattled
   farmers stood, And fired the shot heard round the world.'
   There the American captain, Isaac Davis, was killed at the
   first shot—he who had said, when his company was placed at the
   head of the little column, 'I haven't a man that is afraid to
   go.' He fell and Major Buttrick gave the order, 'Fire! for
   God's sake fire!' in return. The British detachment retreated
   in disorder, but their main body was too strong to be
   attacked, so they disabled a few cannon, destroyed some
   barrels of flour, cut down the liberty-pole, set fire to the
   court-house and then began their return march. It ended in a
   flight; they were exposed to a constant guerilla fire;
   minute-men flocked behind every tree and house; and only the
   foresight of Colonel Smith in sending for reinforcements had
   averted a surrender. At 2 P. M., near Lexington, Percy with
   his troops met the returning fugitives, and formed a hollow
   square, into which they ran and threw themselves on the ground
   exhausted. Then Percy in turn fell back. Militia still came
   pouring in from Dorchester, Milton, Dedham, as well as the
   nearer towns. A company from Danvers marched sixteen miles in
   four hours. The Americans lost ninety-three in killed, wounded
   and missing that day; the British, two hundred and
   seventy-three. But the important result was that every
   American colony now recognized that war had begun."

      T. W. Higginson,
      History of the United States of America,
      chapter 10.

      ALSO IN:
      R. Frothingham,
      History of the Siege of Boston,
      chapter 2.

      E. H. Goss,
      Life of Paul Revere,
      volume 1, chapter 7.

      J. L. Watson,
      Paul Revere's Signal
      (Massachusetts Historical Society Proceedings,
      November 1876).

      P. Force, editor,
      American Archives,
      series 4, volume 2. 

      E. Phinney,
      History of Battle at Lexington.

      C. Hudson,
      History of Lexington,
      chapters 6-8.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (April).
   The first Provincial Convention in New York.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1775 (APRIL).

{3223}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (April-May).
   The siege of Boston begun.

   "Reinforcements of foreign troops and supplies were constantly
arriving in Boston. Howe, Clinton, and Burgoyne came, as
   generals, on the 25th of May. Bitterness, ridicule, and
   boasting, with all the irritating taunts of a mercenary
   soldiery, were freely poured on the patriots and on the 'mixed
   multitude' which composed the germ of their army yet to be.
   The British forces had cooped themselves up in Bos·ton, and
   the provincials determined that they should remain there, with
   no mode of exit save by the sea. The pear-shaped peninsula,
   hung to the mainland only by the stem called the 'Neck,' over
   which the tide-waters sometimes washed, was equally an
   inconvenient position for crowding regiments in war-like
   array, and a convenient one for the extemporized army which
   was about to beleaguer them there. … The town of Charlestown,
   which lay under the enemy's guns, had contained a population
   of between two and three thousand. The interruption of all the
   employments of peace, and the proximity of danger, had brought
   poverty and suffering upon the people. They had been steadily
   leaving the town, with such of their effects as they could
   carry with them. It proved to be well for them that they had
   acted upon the warning. It would seem that there were less
   than 200 of its inhabitants remaining in it at the time of the
   battle, when the flames kindled by the enemy and bombs from a
   battery on Copp's Hill laid it in ashes. On the third day
   after the affair at Concord, the Provincial Congress again
   assembled, voted to raise at once 13,000 men, to rally at
   Cambridge and the neighborhood, and asked aid from the other
   provinces, to which Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New
   Hampshire responded. The forts, magazines, and arsenals, such
   as they then were, were secured for the country. … Of the
   15,000 men then gathered, by the cry of war, at Cambridge and
   Roxbury, all virtually, but not by formal investment, under
   the command of General Ward, nearly 10,000 belonged to
   Massachusetts, and the remainder to New Hampshire, Rhode
   Island, and Connecticut. They have been designated since, at
   various times and by different writers, under the extreme
   contrast of terms, as an 'organized army,' and a 'mob.' Either
   of these terms would be equally inappropriate. … Our troops
   were 'minute-men' extemporized into fragmentary companies and
   skeleton regiments. The officers, chosen on the village-green
   or in its public-house, paying for the honor by a treat, or
   perhaps because they kept the premises where the treat could
   be most conveniently furnished, were not commissioned or
   ranked as the leaders of an army for campaign service. The
   yeomen of town and village had not come together at the
   summons of a commander-in-chief through adjutant, herald, or
   advertisement. They came unbidden, at an alarm from the bell
   on their meeting-house, or from a post-rider, or from the
   telegrams transmitted by tongue and ear. … And for the most
   part they were as free to go away as they had been to come.
   They were enlisted after a fashion, some prime conditions of
   which were their own convenience or pleasure. … Such of them
   as came from the seaboard might bring with them old sails for
   tents, while the midsummer days made it scarcely a hardship to
   many to have only the heavens for a roof. Generally their
   towns were expected to keep them supplied with food. … The
   forces then mustered at Cambridge as a central camp, and,
   stretching from the left at Chelsea almost round to Dorchester
   on the right, for nearly three quarters of a circle, were
   indeed not organized, nor yet had they any characteristic of a
   mere mob. They combined in fact four inde·pendent armies,
   united in resistance to a foreign enemy. … Each of the
   Provinces had raised, commissioned, and assumed the supply of
   its respective forces, holding them subject to their several
   orders. After the battle in Charlestown, the Committee of War
   in Connecticut ordered their generals, Spencer and Putnam,
   while they were on the territory of this Province, to regard
   General Ward as the commander-in-chief, and suggested to Rhode
   Island and New Hampshire to issue the same instructions to
   their soldiers. … General Artemas Ward was a conscientious and
   judicious patriot. In the French war he had earned some
   military experience and fame. … On October 27, 1774, the
   Provincial Congress, in which he was a delegate, appointed him
   a general officer, and on May 19 following,
   Commander-in-chief. As such he served at Cambridge till the
   arrival of Washington. On the very day of the battle in
   Charlestown, when the great chieftain was selected for his
   high service, Ward was chosen by the Continental Congress as
   its first major-general. Though he was only in his 48th year
   when he was burdened with the responsibility of the opening
   warfare, his body was infirm from disease and exposure.
   Lieutenant-General Thomas, two years the senior of Ward, was
   second in command. … General Israel Putnam preceded his
   Connecticut troops in hurrying to the scene of war on the news
   of the affair at Lexington and Concord. His men soon followed
   him, with like enthusiasm. The New Hampshire troops, on their
   arrival at Medford, made choice of Colonel John Stark as their
   leader. Colonel Nathaniel Greene commanded a regiment from
   Rhode Island. … A few days after the affair at Lexington, when
   virtually the siege began, General Gage, the British
   commander, at the solicitation of some of the leading citizens
   assembled in Faneuil Hall, had, by a mutual understanding,
   entered into an agreement that such of the inhabitants as
   wished to depart from the town should be at liberty to do so,
   if they would leave their arms behind them and covenant not to
   engage in any hostility against his army. The agreement was
   availed of by many of the suffering and frightened people. …
   But the original freedom and fulness of this understanding, on
   the part of General Gage, were soon reduced by a very strict
   examination of those who sought to go out of the town, and by
   a rigid search of the effects which they wished to take with
   them. … Several of the inhabitants remained in it from
   different motives: some as devoted loyalists; some as timid
   neutrals; some as spies, to watch each hostile movement and to
   communicate it to their friends outside. … After hostilities
   commenced, General Gage, of course, regarded the citizens as
   alike prisoners, either in the same sense in which he was
   himself under restraint, or as abettors of those who were his
   enemies. … The population of the town, independent of the
   military, was then about 18,000. To all those who were not in
   sympathy with them the British behaved in an insulting and
   exasperating manner. … To show, as members of the English
   Church establishment, their contempt of congregational places
   of worship, they removed the pews and pulpit from the Old
   South meeting-house, and, covering the floor with earth, they
   converted it into a riding-school for Burgoyne's squadron of
   cavalry.
{3224}
   The two eastern galleries were allowed to remain, one for
   spectators, the other for a liquor-shop, while the fire in the
   stove was occasionally kindled by books and pamphlets from the
   library of a former pastor, Dr. Prince, which were in a room
   in the tower. … At the time of the skirmishes at Lexington and
   Concord there were about 4,000 British troops in Boston and at
   the Castle. The number was increased to more than 10,000
   before the action in Charlestown."

      G. E. Ellis,
      History of the Battle of Bunker's Hill,
      pages 4-26.

      ALSO IN:
      R. Frothingham,
      History of the Siege of Boston,
      chapter 3.

      George Washington,
      Writings,
      edited by W. C. Ford,
      volume 3.

      Joseph Reed,
      Life and Correspondence,
      volume 1.

      C. Stedman [English],
      History of the American War,
      volume 1, chapters 1 and 5.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (April-June).
   The spreading of revolt.
   All the colonies in line with New England.

   "On the 23d of April, the day after the dissolution of the
   provincial Congress of New York, the news from Lexington burst
   upon the city. Though it was Sunday, the inhabitants speedily
   unloaded two sloops which lay at the wharfs, laden with flour
   and supplies for the British at Boston, of the value of
   £80,000. … The royal government lay hopelessly prostrate.
   Isaac Sears concerted with John Lamb to stop all vessels going
   to Quebec, Newfoundland, Georgia, or Boston, where British
   authority was still supreme. The people shut up the
   custom-house, and the merchants whose vessels were cleared out
   dared not let them sail. In the following days the military
   stores of the city of New York were secured, and volunteer
   companies paraded in the streets. … On the 1st of May the
   people, at the usual places of election, chose for the city
   and county a new general committee of one hundred, who
   'resolved in the most explicit manner to stand or fall with
   the liberty of the continent.' All parts of the colony were
   summoned to send delegates to a provincial convention, to
   which the city and county of New York deputed one-and-twenty
   as their representatives. … On the 2d of May the New Jersey
   committee of correspondence called a provincial congress for
   the 23d at Trenton. To anticipate its influence, the governor
   convened the regular assembly eight days earlier at
   Burlington, and laid before them the project of Lord North
   [adopted by the British parliament in February, offering to
   each colony freedom from taxation on its making satisfactory
   provision for the general defense and for support of
   government]. The assembly could see in the proposition no
   avenue to reconciliation, and declared their intention to
   'abide by the united voice of the continental congress.' Such,
   too, was the spirit of Pennsylvania. 'Let us not have it said
   of Philadelphia that she passed noble resolutions and
   neglected them,' were the words of Mifflin, youngest of the
   orators who on the 25th of April addressed the town-meeting
   called in that city on receiving the news from Lexington.
   Thousands were present, and agreed 'to associate for the
   purpose of defending with arms their lives, their property,
   and liberty.' Thomas Paine from that day 'rejected the sullen
   Pharaoh of the British throne forever.' … In Philadelphia,
   thirty companies, with 50 to 100 in each, daily practiced the
   manual exercise of the musket. One of them was raised from the
   Quakers. … The Pennsylvania assembly, which met on the first
   day of May, rejecting the overtures of the governor, 'could
   form no prospect of lasting advantages for Pennsylvania but
   from a communication of rights and property with the other
   colonies.' … On the 5th Franklin arrived, after a voyage over
   the smoothest seas, and the next morning was unanimously
   elected a deputy to the congress. … In Maryland, at the
   request of the colonels of militia, Eden, at Annapolis, gave
   up the arms and ammunition of the province to the freemen of
   the county. Pleased with his concession, the provincial
   convention distinguished itself by its moderation; and its
   delegates to congress determined to labor for a
   reconciliation. In Virginia [where, in the night of April
   20th, Governor Dunmore had carried off the gunpowder stored in
   the colony's magazine at Williamsburg, and where, as a
   consequence, the excited people were already in arms, though
   no further action had yet been taken], on the 2d of May, at
   the cry from Lexington, the independent company of Hanover and
   its county committee were called together by Patrick Henry.
   The soldiers, most of them young men, elected him their chief,
   and marched for Williamsburg, on the way greatly increasing in
   numbers. Alarmed by the 'insurrections,' Dunmore convened the
   council, and in a proclamation of the 3d pretended that he had
   removed the ammunition, lest it should be seized by slaves.
   Message after message could not arrest the march or change the
   purpose of Henry. … At sunrise on the 4th the governor's
   messenger met Henry at New Kent, and, as a compensation for
   the gunpowder taken out of the magazine, paid him £330, for
   which he was to account to the convention of Virginia. The sum
   was found to be more than the value of the powder, and the
   next Virginia convention directed the excess to be paid back.
   … In twelve or thirteen days the message from Lexington was
   borne to Newbern, in North Carolina, where it 'wrought a great
   change.' The governor, in his panic, ordered the cannon in the
   town to be dismounted; and, after a remonstrance made in the
   name of the inhabitants by Abner Nash, 'the oracle of their
   committee and a principal promoter of sedition,' he shipped
   his wife to New York and fled to Fort Johnston, where a
   sloop-of-war had its station. In South Carolina, Charles
   Pinckney, on learning the inflexibility of parliament, using
   power intrusted to him by the provincial congress, appointed a
   committee of five to place the colony in a state of defence;
   on the 21st of April, the very night after their organization,
   men of Charleston, without disguise, under their direction,
   seized all the powder in the public magazines, and removed 800
   stand of arms and other military stores from the royal
   arsenal. The tidings from Lexington induced the general
   committee to hasten the meeting of the provincial congress,
   whose members, on the 2d of June, Henry Laurens being their
   president, associated themselves for defence against every
   foe; 'ready to sacrifice their lives and fortunes to secure
   her freedom and safety.' They resolved to raise two regiments
   of infantry and a regiment of rangers. … The people of
   Charleston are as mad as they are here in Boston,' was the
   testimony of Gage. The skirmish at Lexington became known in
   Savannah on the 10th of May, and added Georgia to the union.
   At that time she had about 17,000 white inhabitants and 15,000
   Africans. Her militia was not less than 3,000.
{3225}
   Her frontier, which extended from Augusta to St. Mary's, was
   threatened by the Creeks, with 4,000 warriors; the Chickasas,
   with 450; the Cherokees, with 3,000; the Choctas, with 2,500.
   But danger could not make her people hesitate. On the night of
   the 11th, Noble Wimberley Jones, Joseph Habersham, Edward
   Telfair, and others, broke open the king's magazine in the
   eastern part of the city, and took from it over 500 pounds of
   powder. To the Boston wanderers they sent 63 barrels of rice
   and £122 in specie; and they kept the king's birthday by
   raising a liberty-pole."

      G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States
      (Author's last revision),
      volume 4, chapter 11.

      ALSO IN:
      T. Jones,
      History of New York during the Revolution,
      volume 1, chapter 2.

      W. Wirt,
      Life of Patrick Henry,
      section 5.

      W. B. Stevens,
      History of Georgia,
      book 4, chapter 1 (volume 2).

      Proceedings of New York Provincial Congress
      (New York State Archives, volume 1).

      W. H. Egle,
      History of Pennsylvania,
      chapter 8.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (May).
   The surprising of Ticonderoga and Crown Point.

   "Early in the year 1775, as soon as it was made manifest by
   the attitude assumed on the part of the British government
   against the colonies, and by the conduct of General Gage in
   Boston, that open hostilities must inevitably commence in a
   short time, it began to be secretly whispered among the
   principal politicians in New England that the capture of
   Ticonderoga was an object demanding the first attention. In
   the month of March, Samuel Adams and Dr. Joseph Warren, as
   members of the Committee of Correspondence in Boston, sent an
   agent privately into Canada, on a political mission, with
   instructions to ascertain the feelings of the people there in
   regard to the approaching contest, and to make such reports as
   his observations should warrant. … This agent sent back
   intelligence from Montreal, and among other things advised,
   that by all means the garrison of Ticonderoga should be seized
   as quickly as possible after the breaking out of hostilities,
   adding that the people of the New Hampshire Grants had already
   agreed to undertake the task, and that they were the most
   proper persons to be employed in it. This hint was given three
   weeks anterior to the battle of Lexington, and how far it
   influenced future designs may not be known; but it is certain
   that, eight days after that event, several gentlemen at that
   time attending the Assembly in Hartford, Connecticut,
   concerted a plan for surprising Ticonderoga and seizing the
   cannon in that fortress, for the use of the army then marching
   from all quarters to the environs of Boston."

      J. Sparks,
      Life of Ethan Allen
      (Library of American Biographies, volume 1),
      page 270.

   The gentlemen above mentioned "borrowed of the Connecticut
   Treasury some 1,800 dollars, and enlisted Mott and Phelps of
   Hartford, and Blagden of Salisbury, to beat up recruits. With
   these they went northward, and at Pittsfield got the
   co-operation of Captains Easton and Brown. No time was to be
   lost, and they pushed on with some forty men to find that
   Vermont giant, Ethan Allen, at Bennington. Allen at once
   agreed to go; he sought out Seth Warner, and roused the 'Green
   Mountain Boys,' who were mostly Connecticut and Massachusetts
   men; so that, in a few days, there gathered at Castleton (7th
   of May, 1775) two hundred and seventy strong men. Allen was
   their first leader, Easton second, and Warner third. Their
   larger body was to cross the Lake in boats from Shoreham, and
   surprise 'Ty.' Captain Herrick, with thirty men, was to seize
   the pass of Skenesborough (now Whitehall) at the head of the
   Lake, and Captain Douglass was to search for and seize all
   boats and batteaux. While these things were in progress, the
   ambitious, active, and daring Benedict Arnold heard of this
   expedition, and at once got leave from the Committee of Safety
   at Cambridge, to lead it. He rode post-haste through
   Massachusetts to raise men, and, with a single follower,
   reached Castleton, and claimed the command. These rough cubs
   of the forest could not well understand why he should lead
   them, for had they not Allen, and Warner, and Easton, and
   Phelps, and Biggelow, and others? But they consented that he
   should join Allen as an equal; and so forward they went. On
   the 8th of May Captain Noah Phelps, disguised with rough
   farmer clothes, and a long beard, blundered into the fort at
   Ticonderoga, pretending he wanted to be shaved. He found the
   gates open, and discipline loose; for no telegraph had carried
   the Lexington news to them, nor had the winds wafted the smell
   of blood, or the sounds of muskets there. When the darkness
   was deepest on the night of the 9th, Allen and Arnold, with 83
   men, pulled across the Lake, landed near the fort, and then
   sent back the boats for Warner and his men. They had a boy,
   Nathan Beman, for a guide, and were full of courage. Allen
   formed his men, made them a little speech, and all was ready,
   when the question arose as to who should have the honor of
   entering the fort first. The dispute was warm between Arnold
   and Allen, but was finally quieted; and, side by side, at
   daylight, they rushed through the gate of the fort, defended
   only by sleeping men. The sentinel snapped his musket, and
   ran, giving the alarm; the garrison hastily turned out, to
   find themselves in the face of superior numbers. Allen sought
   and found the Commander's bed-room, and when Captain Delaplace
   waked, he saw any thing but an Angel of Mercy with white
   wings. Delaplace opened the door, with trowsers in hand, and
   there the great gaunt Ethan stood, with a drawn sword in his
   hand. 'Surrender!' said Ethan. 'To you?' asked Delaplace.
   'Yes, to me, Ethan Allen.' 'By whose authority?' asked
   Laplace. Ethan was growing impatient, and raising his voice,
   and waving his sword, he said: 'In the name of the Great
   Jehovah, and of the Continental Congress, by God!' Delaplace
   little comprehended the words, but surrendered at once. Thus,
   on the morning of 10th of May, the strong fortress of
   Ticonderoga was taken by the border-men, and with it 44
   prisoners, 120 iron cannon, with swivels, muskets, balls, and
   some powder, without the loss of a single man. The surprise
   was planned and paid for by Connecticut, and was led by Allen,
   a Connecticut-born man, but was carried out by the 'Green
   Mountain Boys.' Skenesborough (Whitehall) was surprised and
   seized, while Major Skene was out shooting. Arnold at once
   manned a schooner, taken at Skenesborough, and led an attack
   against an armed sloop at St. John's; he took her and the
   place, and returned in triumph to meet Allen, who, in
   batteaux, was coming to sustain him. Warner led a party
   against Crown Point, and took it, with its hundred cannon, and
   small garrison of 12 men.

{3226}

   News of these things was carried to the Continental Congress,
   reassembled at Philadelphia, which caused almost as much
   surprise there, as Allen's demand did to Captain Delaplace,
   and more exultation. They requested the Committees of Safety
   of New York and Albany, to have an inventory made of the
   stores, so that they might be returned 'when the restoration
   of harmony between Great Britain and the Colonies' should
   render it safe."

      C. W. Elliott,
      The New England History,
      volume 2, chapter 18.

      ALSO IN:
      J. Fiske,
      The American Revolution,
      chapter 3 (volume 1).

      W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,
      Popular History of the United States,
      volume 3, chapter 17.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (May).
   The Mecklenburg Declaration.

      See NORTH CAROLINA:. A. D. 1775 (MAY).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (May-August).
   The Second Continental Congress and its work.
   Its powers, theoretical and actual.
   Its opportunity.
   Its influence.
   The New England Army adopted as the "Continental Army,"
   and Washington made Commander-in-chief.

   "The second General Congress assembled at Philadelphia on the
   10th of May. Peyton Randolph was again elected as president;
   but being obliged to return, and occupy his place as speaker
   of the Virginia Assembly, John Hancock, of Massachusetts, was
   elevated to the chair. … Many of those most active in
   vindicating colonial rights, and Washington among the number,
   still indulged the hope of an eventual reconciliation, while
   few entertained, or, at least, avowed the idea of complete
   independence. A second 'humble and dutiful' petition to the
   king was moved, but met with strong opposition. John Adams
   condemned it as an imbecile measure, calculated to embarrass
   the proceedings of Congress. He was for prompt and vigorous
   action. Other members concurred with him. Indeed, the measure
   itself seemed but a mere form, intended to reconcile the
   half-scrupulous; for subsequently, when it was carried,
   Congress, in face of it, went on to assume and exercise the
   powers of a sovereign authority. A federal union was formed,
   leaving to each colony the right of regulating its internal
   affairs according to its own individual constitution, but
   vesting in Congress the power of making peace or war; of
   entering into treaties and alliances; of regulating general
   commerce; in a word, of legislating on all such matters as
   regarded the security and welfare of the whole community. The
   executive power was to be vested in a council of twelve,
   chosen by Congress from among its own members, and to hold
   office for a limited time. Such colonies as had not sent
   delegates to Congress might yet become members of the
   confederacy by agreeing to its conditions. Georgia, which had
   hitherto hesitated, soon joined the league, which thus
   extended from Nova Scotia to Florida. Congress lost no time in
   exercising their federated powers. In virtue of them, they
   ordered the enlistment of troops, the construction of forts in
   various parts of the colonies, the provision of armies,
   ammunition, and military stores; while, to defray the expense
   of these, and other measures, avowedly of self-defence, they
   authorized the emission of notes to the amount of $3,000,000,
   bearing the inscription of 'The United Colonies'; the faith of
   the confederacy being pledged for their redemption. A
   retaliating decree was passed, prohibiting all supplies of
   provisions to the British fisheries; and another, declaring
   the province of Massachusetts Bay absolved from its compact
   with the crown, by the violation of its charter; and
   recommending it to form an internal government for itself. …
   The situation of the New England army, actually besieging
   Boston, became an early and absorbing consideration. It was
   without munitions of war, without arms, clothing, or pay; in
   fact, without legislative countenance or encouragement. Unless
   sanctioned and assisted by Congress, there was danger of its
   dissolution. … The disposition to uphold the army was general;
   but the difficult question was, who should be
   commander-in-chief? … The opinion evidently inclined in favor
   of Washington; yet it was promoted by no clique of partisans
   or admirers. More than one of the Virginia delegates, says
   Adams, were cool on the subject of this appointment. … Adams,
   in his diary, claims the credit of bringing the members of
   Congress to a decision. … On the 15th of June, the army was
   regularly adopted by Congress, and the pay of the
   commander-in-chief fixed at $500 a month. Many still clung to
   the idea, that in all these proceedings they were merely
   opposing the measures of the ministry, and not the authority
   of the crown, and thus the army before Boston was designated
   as the Continental Army, in contradistinction to that under
   General Gage, which was called the Ministerial Army. In this
   stage of the business, Mr. Johnson, of Maryland, rose, and
   nominated Washington for the station of commander-in-chief.
   The election was by ballot, and was unanimous. It was formally
   announced to him by the president, on the following day, when
   he had taken his seat in Congress. Rising in his place, he
   briefly expressed his high and grateful sense of the honor
   conferred on him, and his sincere devotion to the cause.
   'But,' added he, 'lest some unlucky event should happen
   unfavorable to my reputation, I beg it may be remembered by
   every gentleman in the room, that I this day declare, with the
   utmost sincerity, I do not think myself equal to the command I
   am honored with. As to pay, I beg leave to assure the Congress
   that, as no pecuniary consideration could have tempted me to
   accept this arduous employment, at the expense of my domestic
   ease and happiness, I do not wish to make any profit on it. I
   will keep an exact account of my expenses. Those, I doubt not,
   they will discharge, and that is all I desire.'" Four
   major-generals,—Artemas Ward, Charles Lee, Philip Schuyler and
   Israel Putnam,—and eight brigadier-generals—Seth Pomeroy,
   Richard Montgomery, David Wooster, William Heath, Joseph
   Spencer, John Thomas, John Sullivan, and Nathaniel Greene—were
   appointed. "At Washington's express request, his old friend,
   Major Horatio Gates, then absent at his estate in Virginia,
   was appointed adjutant-general, with the rank of brigadier."

      W. Irving,
      Life of Washington,
      volume 1, chapter 39.

   "The Congress of 1775 was not content with mere expression of
   opinions. It took a large view of its powers. It realized that
   its efficiency depended wholly upon the acceptance of its acts
   by the principals of the different delegations; but, following
   its judgment as to what the patriotism of the colonies would
   approve and sustain, it initiated action of various kinds,
   which, from the beginning, assumed the certainty of adoption
   by the colonies, and derived all its energy from the
   probability of such ratification.
{3227}
   The Congress doubtless exceeded the letter of the instructions
   received by a portion of its members; but this was not from
   any misconception of those instructions. … In pointing out to
   the colonies the direction which their preparations for
   resistance ought to take, the Congress no more acted upon an
   imagined authority to command the colonies than does the
   lookout at the bow of the ship, when he reports the direction
   of danger to the officer of the deck. The Congress
   unquestionably enjoyed a prestige at this juncture which it
   subsequently lost. The people, and even the provincial
   conventions, occasionally addressed it in a tone which
   indicated that they unconsciously attributed to it power which
   it plainly did not possess."

      A. W. Small,
      The Beginnings of American Nationality
      (Johns Hopkins University Studies, 8th series, 1-2)
      page 73.

   "With the energy and recklessness of a French revolutionary
   body it might have blotted out the distinctions between
   colonies, and established a centralized government, to be
   modified in time by circumstances. In fact, it took no such
   direction. It began its course by recommendations to the new
   colonial governments; it relied on them for executive acts;
   and, as soon as the new colonies were fairly under way, they
   seized on the power of naming and recalling the delegates to
   the Congress. From that time the decadence of the Congress was
   rapid; the national idea became dimmer; and the assertions of
   complete sovereignty by the political units became more
   pronounced."

      A. Johnston,
      The United States: its History and Constitution,
      sections 63-66 (chapter 3).

      ALSO IN:
      R. Frothingham,
      The Rise of the Republic,
      chapter 10.

      H. von Holst,
      Constitutional and Political History of the United States,
      volume 1, chapter 1.

      P. Force,
      American Archives,
      volume 2.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (June).
   End of Royal Government in New Hampshire.

      See NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1775-1776.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (June).
   The end of Royal Government In Virginia.

      See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1775.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (June).
   The Battle of Bunker Hill.

   "British reinforcements, under three generals, Howe, Clinton,
   and Burgoyne, arrived at Boston soon after the fight at
   Lexington. Gage had now about 10,000 men. These occupied the
   town of Boston, which lay on a peninsula covering the middle
   of the harbor. Around them, on the hills of the mainland,
   there were about twice their number of undisciplined and
   poorly-armed Americans, without cannon and almost without
   food. Just north of Boston, another peninsula ran out into the
   harbor. On it there were several hills, and the Americans
   determined to seize and fortify one of them, called Bunker
   Hill. About 1,000 men, under Colonel Prescott, were sent into
   the peninsula for this on a suitable night. For some reason,
   they passed beyond Bunker Hill, and seized Breed's Hill, much
   closer to Boston. Breed's Hill is now usually called Bunker
   Hm, and the Bunker Hill monument is erected upon it. The
   American fortification was continued silently and swiftly
   through the night. In the morning of June 17, 1775, the
   British in Boston woke to see a long line of intrenchments
   running across the hill above them, and an American
   working-party busily strengthening it. For a time, the British
   frigates in the harbor kept up a slow and distant fire, to
   which the working-party paid no attention; but at noon the
   work was stopped, for the British troops were coming across
   the harbor in boats. Three thousand well armed, uniformed, and
   drilled soldiers, who had never known defeat in equal fight,
   landed near Charlestown, under General Howe. Here they formed
   at the water-side, and in a long, steady line began to move
   upward to scatter the 1,500 farmers who were watching them
   from the top of the hill. From the roofs of the houses in
   Boston, the rest of the British army and the townspeople were
   watching, anxious to see 'whether the Yankees would fight.'
   Most of the watchers expected to see the untrained soldiers in
   the fort fire a few hasty shots at a safe distance, and run.
   The fort held a threatening silence until the attacking column
   was within 150 feet. Then, at the word, came a sheet of fire
   from the marksmen within; and, when the smoke lifted, part of
   the British line was lying dead or wounded, and the rest were
   retreating hastily down the hill. The British were not
   cowards: the officers re-formed the line at the bottom of the
   hill, and, after setting fire to Charlestown, again advanced
   to the attack. Again there was a steady silence in the fort, a
   close and deadly fire, and the British line was driven down
   the hill again. The British then moved up the hill for the
   third time. The powder in the fort was now gone, and the
   garrison fought for a few minutes with gun stocks and stones
   against the British bayonets. But such a struggle was
   hopeless, and the British gained the fort. They were too tired
   to pursue the garrison, who escaped to the mainland."

      A. Johnston,
      History of the United States for schools,
      sections 195-197.

   "As soon as Prescott saw the defence was hopeless, he ordered
   a retreat, and friend and foe mingled together as they surged
   out of the sally-port amid the clouds of dust which the
   trampling raised, for a scorching sun had baked the new-turned
   soil. It was now, while the confused mass of beings rocked
   along down the rear slope of the hill, that Warren [who had
   joined the defending force that morning as a volunteer] fell,
   shot through the head. No one among the Americans knew
   certainly that he was dead, as they left him. … Prescott did
   not conceal his indignation at not having been better
   supported, when he made his report at Ward's headquarters. He
   knew he had fought well; but neither he nor his contemporaries
   understood at the time how a physical defeat might be a moral
   victory. Not knowing this, there was little else than
   mortification over the result,—indeed, on both sides. … The
   general opinion seems to be that the Americans had about 1,500
   men engaged at one time, and that from 3,000 to 4,000 at
   different times took some part in it. The British had probably
   about the same numbers in all, but were in excess of the
   Americans at all times while engaged. The conflict with small
   arms lasted about ninety minutes."

      J. Winsor,
      The Conflict Precipitated
      (Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 6, chapter 2). 

   "How can we exaggerate the relative importance of this day's
   action? Did it not, in fact, not only open, but make the
   contest, dividing into two parties not only those determined
   for the ministry or for enfranchisement, but also all timid,
   hesitating, reluctant neutrals? It was impossible after this
   to avoid taking a side. It rendered all reconciliation
   impossible, till it should offer itself in the shape of
   independence.
{3228}
   It echoed the gathering cry that brought together our people
   from their farms and workshops, to learn the terrible art
   which grows more merciful only as it is more ferociously, that
   is, skilfully, pursued. The day needs no rhetoric to magnify
   it in our revolutionary annals. When its sun went down, the
   provincials had parted with all fear, hesitation, and
   reluctance. They found that it was easy to fight. … General
   Gage's account of the battle, acknowledging the loss of 226
   killed and 828 wounded, was received in London, July 25th.
   While the ministry received with dismay this official
   intelligence, and kept it back from publication, many private
   letters accompanying it in its transit anticipated with
   exaggerations its humiliating details."

      G. E. Ellis,
      History of the Battle of Bunker's Hill,
      pages 102-105.

      ALSO IN:
      R. Frothingham,
      History of the Siege of Boston,
      chapters 4-7.

      R. Frothingham,
      Life and Times of Joseph Warren,
      chapter 16.

      I. N. Tarbox,
      Life of Israel Putnam,
      chapters 7-11.

      H. B. Dawson,
      Bunker Hill
      (Historical Magazine, June, 1868).

      S. A. Drake,
      Historic Fields and Mansions of Middlesex,
      chapter 3.

      P. Force, editor,
      American Archives,
      series 4, volume 2.

      F. Moore, editor,
      Diary of the American Revolution,
      volume 1, pages 97-103.

      B. J. Lossing,
      Field Book of the American Revolution,
      volume 1.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (August-December).
   Unsuccessful expedition to Canada.

   "The exploits of Allen and Arnold at Ticonderoga … had invited
   further conquests; but the Continental Congress hesitated to
   take any steps which might seem to carry war across the line
   till the Canadians had the opportunity of casting in their lot
   with their neighbors. On the 1st of June, 1775, Congress had
   distinctly avowed this purpose of restraint; and they well
   needed to be cautious, for the Canadian French had not
   forgotten the bitter aspersions on their religion which
   Congress had, with little compunction, launched upon its
   professors, under the irritation of the Quebec Act. Still
   their rulers were aliens, and the traditional hatred of
   centuries between races is not easily kept in abeyance. Ethan
   Allen was more eager to avail himself of this than Congress
   was to have him; but the march of events converted the
   legislators, and the opportunity which Allen grieved to see
   lost was not so easily regained when Congress at last
   authorized the northern invasion. Arnold and Allen had each
   aimed to secure the command of such an expedition, the one by
   appealing to the Continental Congress, the other by
   representations to that of New York. Allen had also gone in
   person to Philadelphia, and he and his Green Mountain Boys
   were not without influence upon Congress, in their quaint and
   somewhat rough ways, as their exuberant patriotism later made
   the New York authorities forget their riotous opposition to
   the policy which that province had been endeavoring to enforce
   in the New Hampshire Grants. Connecticut had already sent
   forward troops to Ticonderoga to hold that post till Congress
   should decide upon some definite action; and at the end of
   June, 1775, orders reached Schuyler which he might readily
   interpret as authorizing him, if the Canadians did not object,
   to advance upon Canada. He soon started to assume command, but
   speedily found matters unpromising. The Johnsons were arming
   the Indians up the Mohawk and beyond in a way that boded no
   good, and they had entered into compacts with the British
   commanders in Canada. Arnold had been at Ticonderoga, and had
   quarrelled with Hinman, the commander of the Connecticut
   troops. Schuyler heard much of the Green Mountain Boys, but he
   only knew them as the lawless people of the Grants, and soon
   learned that Allen and Warner had themselves set to
   quarrelling. … In August the news from Canada began to be
   alarming. Richard Montgomery, an Irish officer who had some
   years before left the army to settle on the Hudson and marry,
   was now one of the new brigadiers. He urged Schuyler to
   advance and anticipate the movement now said to be intended by
   Carleton, the English general commanding in Canada. At this
   juncture Schuyler got word from Washington that a coöperating
   expedition would be dispatched by way of the Kennebec, which,
   if everything went well, might unite with Schuyler's before
   Quebec."

      J. Winsor,
      The Conflict Precipitated
      (Narrative and Critical History of America, volume 6).

   The two movements were made, from Ticonderoga and from the
   Kennebec, with results which will be found related under
   CANADA: A. D. 1775-1776. "No expedition during the American
   Revolution had less elements of permanent value than those
   which were undertaken against Canada during the year 1775.
   Great results were anticipated, but none were realized. The
   obstacles were too substantial, and failure was inevitable.
   Wonderful endurance and great physical courage were
   manifested, and these were accompanied by a prodigious amount
   of faith, but there was neither ability nor opportunity for
   works commensurate with the faith. Certain Acts of Parliament,
   known as the Canadian Acts, were as offensive to Canadians as
   other legislation was to Americans; but the former were not
   pressed to the extremity of armed resistance. The people
   themselves having no harmony of religious or political views,
   were equally divided in language and race. Neither did the
   Canadians invite the aid of the colonies. The hypothesis that
   Canada would blend her destiny with that of New England, and
   would unite in resistance to the crown, certainly involved
   some identity of interest as well as of action. But the
   characters of the two people were too unlike to be unified by
   simple opposition to English legislation, and Canadians had no
   antecedents such as would prompt a hearty sympathy with New
   England and its controlling moral sentiment. Neither was there
   such a neighborly relation as admitted of prompt and adequate
   aid from one to the other, in emergencies calling for a
   combined effort. As a base of operations for a British army
   moving upon the colonies, Canada had the single advantage of
   being less distant from England than an Atlantic base, and
   many supplies could be procured without the expense and delay
   of their transportation across the Atlantic; but between
   Canada and the American colonies there was an actual
   wilderness. Hence a British offensive movement from Canada
   involved constant waste of men and materials, a deep line
   through an uninhabited or hostile region, and such a constant
   backing, as was both inconsistent with the resources of the
   base, and with a corresponding support of armies resting upon
   the sea coast. The British government was not ready for
   operations so extensive and so exhaustive of men and treasure;
   neither did it realize the necessity for that expenditure.
{3229}
   There were two alternatives, one illustrated by General
   Carleton's plan, viz., to hold the forts of Lake Champlain, as
   advanced, defensive positions; and the other, that of
   Burgoyne, to strike through the country and depend upon
   support from the opposite base. The true defense of the
   colonies from such expeditions depended upon the prompt
   seizure and occupation of the frontier posts. An American
   advance upon Canada was not only through a country
   strategically bad, but the diversion of forces for that
   purpose endangered the general issue, and entrusted its
   interests to the guardianship of an army already insufficient
   to meet the pressing demands of the crisis. The occupation of
   New York in 1775, by an adequate British force, would have
   infinitely outweighed all possible benefit from the complete
   conquest of Canada. At the very time when Washington could
   hardly hold the British garrison of Boston in check,—when he
   had an average of but nine rounds of ammunition per man, he
   was required to spare companies, ammunition, and supplies for
   a venture, profitless at best,—with the certainty that
   reinforcements could not be supplied as fast as the enemy
   could draw veteran regiments from Great Britain and Ireland,
   to defend or recover Canadian soil. In giving a rapid outline
   of this first attempt of the colonies to enlarge the theatre
   of active operations, it should be noticed that the initiative
   had been taken before General Washington had been elected
   commander-in-chief, and that Congress itself precipitated the
   final movement."

      H. B. Carrington,
      Battles of the American Revolution,
      chapter 19.

      ALSO IN:
      B. J. Lossing,
      Life and Times of Philip Schuyler,
      volume 1, chapters 19-29,
      and volume 2, chapters 1-4.

      J. Armstrong,
      Life of Richard Montgomery
      (Library of American Biographies, volume 1).

      J. Henry,
      Account of Arnold's Campaign against Quebec,
      by one of the Survivors.

      I. N. Arnold,
      Life of Benedict .Arnold,
      chapters 3-5.

      W. Irving,
      Life of Washington.
      volume 2, chapters 4-5, 8-9, 12, 15-16, 19-20.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (September).
   Flight of Govern or Tryon from New York.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1775 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775-1776.
   Washington in command at Cambridge.
   The British forced out of Boston.

   Washington "arrived in Cambridge, Massachusetts, on the 2d of
   July [1775], and on the following day presented himself at the
   head of the army. His head-quarters remained at Cambridge,
   till the evacuation of Boston by the royal forces on the 17th
   of March, 1776. The position of affairs was one of vast
   responsibility and peril. The country at large was highly
   excited, and expected that a bold stroke would be struck and
   decisive successes obtained. But the army was without
   organization and discipline; the troops unused to obey, the
   officers for the most part unaccustomed, some of them
   incompetent, to command. A few of them only had had a limited
   experience in the Seven Years' War. Most of the men had rushed
   to the field on the first alarm of hostilities, without any
   enlistment; and when they were enlisted, it was only till the
   end of the year. There was no military chest; scarce anything
   that could be called a commissariat. The artillery consisted
   of a few old field-pieces of various sizes, served with a very
   few exceptions by persons wholly untrained in gunnery. There
   was no siege train, and an almost total want of every
   description of ordnance stores. Barrels of sand, represented
   as powder, were from time to time brought into the camp, to
   prevent the American army itself from being aware of its
   deficiency in that respect. In the autumn of 1775, an alarm of
   small-pox was brought from Boston, and the troops were
   subjected to inoculation: There was no efficient power, either
   in the Provincial Assembly or the Congress at Philadelphia, by
   which these wants could be supplied and these evils remedied.
   Such were the circumstances under which General Washington
   took the field, at the head of a force greatly superior in
   numbers to the royal army, but in all other respects a very
   unequal match. Meantime the British were undisputed masters of
   the approaches to Boston by water. Washington's letters
   disclose extreme impatience under the inaction to which he was
   condemned; but the gravest difficulties attended the expulsion
   of the royal forces from Boston. It could only be effected by
   the bombardment and assault of that place; an attempt which
   must in any event have been destructive to the large
   non-combatant population, that had been unable to remove into
   the country, and which would have been of doubtful success,
   for the want of a siege train, and with troops wholly unused
   to such an undertaking. Having in the course of the year
   received some captured ordnance from Canada [from Fort
   Ticonderoga], and a supply of ammunition taken by privateers
   at sea, Washington was strongly disposed to assault the town,
   as soon as the freezing of the bay on the western side of the
   peninsula would allow the troops to pass on the ice. The
   winter, however, remained open longer than usual, and a
   council of war dissuaded this attempt. He then determined to
   occupy Nook's Hill (an eminence at the extremity of Dorchester
   'Neck,' as it was called, separated from Boston by a narrow
   arm of the harbor), and Dorchester Heights, which commanded
   Nook's Hill and the town itself. In this way the royal forces
   would be compelled to take the risk of a general action, for
   the purpose of dislodging the Americans, or else to evacuate
   the town. The requisite preparations having been made with
   secrecy, energy, and despatch, the heights were covered with
   breastworks on the night of the 4th of March, 1776, as 'by
   enchantment.' A partial movement, undertaken by the royal army
   to dislodge the Americans, was frustrated by stress of
   weather; and on the 17th of March, in virtue of an agreement
   to that effect with the municipal government, the town and
   harbor of Boston were evacuated by the British army and army
   without firing a gun. Thus, without a battle and without the
   destruction of a building in Boston, the first year of the war
   was brought to a successful and an auspicious close."

      E. Everett,
      Life of Washington,
      chapter 5.

      ALSO IN:
      G. Washington,
      Writings; edited. by Ford,
      volume 3.

      R. Frothingham,
      History of the Siege of Boston,
      chapters 8-13.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775-1776.
   The beginning of the American Navy,
   and the early fitting out of Privateers.

   "Before the end of 1775 the Continental Congress ordered that
   five ships of 32 guns should be built, five of 28, and three
   of 24. This order was carried out, and these vessels are the
   proper beginning of the navy of the United States. Almost
   everyone of them, before the war was over, had been captured,
   or burned to avoid capture.
{3230}
   But the names of the little fleet will always be of interest
   to Americans, and some of those names have always been
   preserved on the calendar of the navy. They are the
   'Washington,' 'Raleigh,' 'Hancock,' 'Randolph,' 'Warren,'
   'Virginia,' 'Trumbull,' 'Effingham,' 'Congress,' 'Providence,'
   'Boston,' 'Delaware,' 'Montgomery.' The State of Rhode Island,
   at the very outbreak of hostilities, commissioned Abraham
   Whipple, who went with his little vessel as far as Bermuda,
   and, from his experience in naval warfare earned in the French
   War, he was recognized as commodore of the little fleet of
   American cruisers. … Meanwhile, every maritime State issued
   commissions to privateers, and established admiralty or prize
   courts, with power to condemn prizes when brought in.
   Legitimate commerce had been largely checked, and … the seamen
   of the country, who had formerly been employed in the
   fisheries, or in our large foreign trade with the West India
   Islands and with Europe, gladly volunteered in the private
   service. Till the end of the war the seamen preferred the
   privateer service to that of the government. … The larger
   maritime States had in commission one or more vessels from the
   beginning, but they found the same difficulty which the
   Congress found in enlisting seamen, when any bold privateer
   captain came into rivalry with them. … As early as the 22d of
   December, in 1775, Congress had appointed Esek Hopkins, of
   Rhode Island, commander-in-chief of its navy, and had named
   four captains besides, with several lieutenants, the first of
   whom was John Paul Jones. … On the 10th of October [1776] a
   resolution of Congress fixed the rank of captains in the navy,
   … Paul Jones eighteenth on a list of twenty-four. Jones was
   not pleased that his rank was not higher, but eventually his
   achievements were such that his reputation probably now stands
   higher as a successful officer than that of any of the
   number."

      E. E. Hale,
      Naval History of the American Revolution
      (Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 6, chapter 7).

      ALSO IN:
      J. F. Cooper,
      Naval History of the United States,
      volume 1, chapters 4-6.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (January).
   Adoption of a Constitution in New Hampshire.

      See NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1775-1776.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (January-June).
   King George's war measures and Paine's "Common Sense."
   The setting of the tide of opinion toward national independence.

   "Disastrous news arrived from England before the close of the
   winter of 1775-6. The King had opened Parliament with a speech
   in which he had denounced the Colonists as rebels, seeking,
   with deceitful pretences, to establish an independent empire;
   and his Majesty recommended decisive, coercive measures
   against them. … The answer to the Royal Address (adopted by a
   vote of seventy-six to thirty-three in the Lords, and two
   hundred and seventy-eight to one hundred and eight in the
   Commons) gave assurances of the firm support of Parliament to
   the proposed measures. The very moderately conciliatory
   propositions made by the Duke of Richmond, Mr. Burke, and the
   Duke of Grafton, were summarily voted down, and not far from
   the middle of December the atrocious' Prohibitory Act,' as it
   was generally designated, passed. It was, in effect, a
   declaration of war, and a war unrestrained by the customs, and
   unmitigated by the decencies of civilization. It authorized
   the confiscation of American vessels and cargoes, and those of
   all nations found trading in American ports. It authorized
   British commanders to impress American crews into the British
   Navy, and to place them on the same footing with voluntarily
   enlisted seamen; that is, to give them a choice between
   parricide and being hung at a yardarm! Finally, it referred
   all future negotiations to two Commissioners, to be sent out
   along with a conquering armament, who were allowed to grant
   pardons to individuals and Colonies, on submission, thus
   leaving no future alternative opposed to the latter but the
   sword, and indicating that henceforth all appeals to King or
   Parliament were cut off. … Concurrently with these legislative
   steps, the practical ones for carrying on the war, with a
   large army, were entered upon. Finding it difficult or
   impossible to obtain the necessary recruits at home, and that
   the existing English and Irish regiments embarked with such
   reluctance that it was necessary to keep a guard upon the
   transports 'to keep them from deserting by wholesale,' the
   Ministry successively applied to Russia, the States-General,
   and finally, several of the German States for mercenaries. …
   The infamy of filling up the British armament was reserved for
   the Princes of three or four petty German States. … As the
   news of these events successively reached the American
   Congress and people, in the winter and spring of 1775-6, the
   contest took a new coloring. Not only the bold, but the
   moderate began now to see the real alternative before them.
   And at a critical moment the remedy, and the path to it, were
   pointed out by a master hand. 'Common Sense' was published by
   Thomas Paine, and a more effective popular appeal never went
   to the bosoms of a nation. Its tone, its manner, its biblical
   illusions, its avoidance of all openly impassioned appeals to
   feeling, and its unanswerable common sense were exquisitely
   adapted to the great audience to which it was addressed; and
   calm investigation will satisfy the historical student that
   its effect in preparing the popular mind for the Declaration
   of Independence, exceeded that of any other paper, speech, or
   document made to favor it, and it would scarcely be
   exaggeration to add, than all other such means put together.
   John Adams, with a childish perpetuance, and with a rancor so
   vehement that it appears ridiculous, spares no occasion to
   underrate Paine's services, and to assault his opinions and
   character. … His transparent motive seems to be to decry the
   author of a paper which had too much the credit of preparing
   the public mind for the Declaration of Independence, a credit
   which Mr. Adams was more than anxious to monopolize. Let us be
   just. Paine's services in paving the way to the Declaration
   are not to be mentioned on the same page with John Adams's.
   Moreover, Independence would have been declared, and, perhaps,
   nearly as early, had Paine never written. But he did, at a
   propitious moment, and with consummate adaptation, write a
   paper which went like the arrow which pierces the centre of
   the target. Its effect was instantaneous and tremendous. … The
   work ran through innumerable editions in America and France.
   The world rung with it. … It admits of no doubt that pretty
   early in 1776, all the true Whigs in Congress, moderates as
   well as ultras, became satisfied of the necessity and
   expediency of separation, and that henceforth it was only a
   question of time with them.
{3231}
   Enactments placing the struggle on the footing of open war,
   instead of mere insurrection—issuing letters of marque and
   reprisal against the enemies of our commerce—advising the
   local authorities to disarm the disaffected—opening the ports
   of the country to all nations but Great Britain—directing
   negotiations for foreign alliances to be undertaken—were
   successively made. Finally, on the 10th of May, a resolution,
   prepared by John Adams and R. H. Lee, passed the House,
   advising all the Colonies to form governments for themselves;
   and in this, unlike preceding instances of giving advice on
   the same subject, no limitation of the duration of the
   governments to be formed 'to the continuance of the present
   dispute' was inserted. This, with a befitting preamble,
   written by John Adams, was adopted on the 15th, … and was,
   obviously, a long and bold stride in the direction of
   independence, and must have been understood by all as its
   signal and precursor. … Congress cheered on those whom
   peculiar circumstances had rendered more backward, and it
   tarried for them a little by the way; on the other hand, it
   prudently waited for the prompting of the more forward. Thus
   it avoided the appearance of dominating over public
   opinion—thus it 'kept front and rear together.' Early in April
   (12th), North Carolina 'empowered' her delegates 'to concur
   with the delegates of other Colonies in declaring
   independency.' At its 'May session' (the day of the month not
   appearing in the record under our eye), the General Assembly
   of Rhode Island abolished its act of allegiance, and directed
   all commissions and legal processes henceforth to issue in the
   name and under the authority of the 'Governor and Company.'
   The Connecticut General Assembly, which met on the 9th of May,
   before its adjournment (date not before us), repealed its act
   against high treason, and made the same order with Rhode
   Island in regard to legal processes. On the 15th of May,
   Virginia took a still more decisive step, by instructing its
   delegates in Congress to move for a Declaration of
   Independence. … The Virginia delegates in Congress made choice
   of Richard H. Lee to move the resolutions contained in their
   instructions of May 15th; and he did so on Friday, the 7th day
   of June, John Adams seconding them. Their consideration was
   postponed until the next day, when they were referred to a
   committee of the whole, and debated throughout Saturday and
   the succeeding Monday. On the latter day (10th) Congress
   resolved: 'That the consideration of the first resolution be
   postponed to Monday, the first day of July next; and in the
   meanwhile, that no time be lost, in case the Congress agree
   thereto, that a committee be appointed to prepare a
   declaration to the effect of the said first resolution, which
   is in these words: That these Colonies are, and of right ought
   to be, free and independent States; that they are absolved
   from all allegiance to the British Crown; and that all
   Political connection between them and the State of Great
   Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.'"

      H. S. Randall,
      Life of Jefferson,
      volume 1, chapter 4.

      ALSO IN:
      G. Bancroft,
      History of United States
      (Author's last revision),
      volume 4, chapters 24-28.

      R. Frothingham,
      Rise of the Republic,
      chapter 11.

      W. C. Rives,
      Life and Times of Madison,
      volume 1, chapters 4-5.

      American Archives,
      series 4, volume 6.

      E. G. Scott,
      The Development of Constitutional Liberty in the
      English Colonies,
      chapter 11.

      C. J. Stille,
      Life and Times of John Dickinson,
      chapter 5.

      See, also, NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1775-1776;
      and VIRGINIA: A. D. 1776.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (January-June).
      Engagement of hireling Hessians
      to reinforce the British arms.

   "The [British] Cabinet had entertained some hopes of Russian
   auxiliaries [application for 20,000 of whom had been made to
   the Empress Catherine, who refused them with hardly concealed
   scorn], but the negotiation for that object could not be
   matured. Early in the year treaties were signed with the
   Landgrave of Hesse for taking into British pay 12,000 of his
   men; with the Duke of Brunswick and other petty potentates of
   Germany for 5,000 more. These little princes, seeing the need
   of England, which did not choose to lean, as she might and
   should have done, on her own right arm, insisted on obtaining,
   and did obtain, most usurious terms. Under the name of
   levy-money, there was to be paid to them the price of 30
   crowns for every foot-soldier. Under the name of subsidy, each
   of their Serene Highnesses was moreover to be indulged with a
   yearly sum, irrespective of the pay and subsistence of the
   troops; and on the plea that in this case no certain number of
   years was stipulated as the term of service, the Landgrave of
   Hesse claimed and was promised a double subsidy, namely
   450,000 crowns a year. The men were to enter into pay before
   they began to march! The subsidies were to be continued for
   one full year at least after the war was over and the troops
   had returned to their respective homes. Never yet, in short,
   was the blood of brave men sold on harder terms. The disgrace
   of this transaction to the German Princes who engaged in it
   requires little comment. … The ablest by far of the German
   Princes at that time, Frederick of Prussia, was not in general
   a man of compassionate feelings. He had no especial love or
   care for the North American cause. … Yet even Frederick
   expressed in strong terms his contempt for the scandalous
   man-traffic of his neighbours. It is said that whenever any of
   the newly hired Brunswickers or Hessians had to pass through
   any portion of his territory he claimed to levy on them the
   usual toll as for so many head of cattle, since he said they
   had been sold as such! Nor can the British ministry in this
   transaction be considered free from blame. … Certain it is
   that among the various causes which at this period wrought
   upon our trans-Atlantic brethren to renounce their connection
   with us, there was none more cogent in their minds than the
   news that German mercenaries had been hired and were coming to
   fight against them."

      Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
      History of England, 1713-1783,
      chapter 53 (volume 6).

   "The first German troops to start for America were the
   Brunswickers. These marched from Brunswick on February 22d,
   1776, 2,282 strong, and were embarked at Stade, near the mouth
   of the Elbe. The second division of Brunswickers embarked at
   the end of May—about 2,000 men. The first Hessians set out
   from Cassel early in March, and were shipped at Bremerlehe,
   near the mouth of the Weser. The second division was embarked
   in June. Together they numbered between 12,000 and 13,000 men.
{3232}
   They were for the most part excellent troops and well
   equipped, for the Landgrave's little army was one of the best
   in Germany. … The Prince of Waldeck sent his regiment through
   Cassel without trouble. The Prince of Hesse-Hanau, the
   Margrave of Anspach-Bayreuth, and the Prince of Anhalt-Zerbst
   had a longer road."

      E. J. Lowell,
      The Hessians in the Revolutionary War,
      chapter 5.

      ALSO IN:
      M. von Eelking,
      Memoirs of General Riedesel,
      volume 1, pages 18-88, and appendix.

      G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States
      (Author's last revision),
      volume 4, chapter 22.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (February).
   Flight of the Royal Governor from Georgia.

      See GEORGIA: A. D. 1775-1777.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (March).
   State government organized and a Constitution adopted in
   South Carolina.

      See SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1776 (FEBRUARY-APRIL).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (April).
   North Carolina the first colony to declare for independence.

      See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1775-1776.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (May).
   Rhode Island renounces allegiance to the King.

      See RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1776.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (May).
   Popular vote for independence in Massachusetts.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1776 (APRIL-MAY).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (May).
   Arnold's retreat from Canada.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1775-1776.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (May-June).
   Independence declared and Constitution adopted in Virginia.

      See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1776.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (June).
   The British repulsed at Charleston.

   "Early in 1776 the task was assigned to Clinton, who had in
   January departed from Boston, … to force and hold the Southern
   colonies to their allegiance.

      See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1775-1776.

   Cornwallis, with troops, was sent over under convoy of Sir
   Peter Parker's fleet, to give Clinton the army he needed. The
   fleet did not reach North Carolina till May. In March,
   [Charles] Lee, while in New York, had wished to be ordered to
   the command in Canada, as 'he was the only general officer on
   the continent who could speak and think in French.' He was
   disappointed, and ordered farther south. By May he was in
   Virginia, ridding the country of Tories, and trying to find
   out where Parker intended to land. It was expected that
   Clinton would return north to New York in season to operate
   with Howe, when he opened the campaign there in the early
   summer, as that general expected to do, and the interval for a
   diversion farther south was not long. Lee had now gone as far
   as Charleston (South Carolina), and taken command in that
   neighborhood, while in charge of the little fort at the
   entrance of the harbor was William Moultrie, upon whom Lee was
   inculcating the necessity of a slow and sure fire, in case it
   should prove that Parker's destination, as it might well be,
   was to get a foothold in the Southern provinces, and break up
   the commerce which fed the rebellion through that harbor. The
   people of Charleston had been for some time engaged on their
   defences, and 'seem to wish a trial of their mettle,' wrote a
   looker-on. The fort in question was built of palmetto logs,
   and was unfinished on the land side. Its defenders had four
   days' warning, and the neighboring militia were summoned. On
   the 4th of June the hostile fleet appeared, and having landed
   troops on an adjacent island, it was not till the 27th that
   their dispositions were made for an attack. Their ships threw
   shot at the fort all day, which did very little damage, while
   the return fire was rendered with a precision surprising in
   untried artillerists, and seriously damaged the fleet, of
   which one ship was grounded and abandoned. The expected land
   attack from Clinton's troops, already ashore on Long Island,
   was not made. A strong wind had raised the waters of the
   channel between that island and Sullivan's Island so high that
   it could not be forded, and suitable boats for the passage
   were not at hand. A few days later the shattered vessels and
   the troops left the neighborhood, and Colonel Moultrie had
   leisure to count the cost of his victory, which was twelve
   killed and twice as many wounded. The courage of Sergeant
   Jasper, in replacing on the bastion a flag which had been shot
   away, became at once a household anecdote."

      J. Winsor,
      The Conflict Precipitated
      (Narrative and Critical History of America.
      volume 6, chapter 2).

      ALSO IN:
      H. Flanders,
      Life of John Rutledge,
      chapter 10
      (Lives of the Chief Justices, volume 1).

      C. B. Hartley,
      Life of General William Moultrie
      (Heroes and Patriots of the South),
      chapter 2.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (June).
   Resolutions for Independence.
   Making ready for the Declaration.

   "Things were now verging on every side to the same point.
   North Carolina had conferred the necessary powers to vote for
   independence and foreign alliances as early as the 12th of
   April. And now came the news from Richard Lee, to Mr. Adams,
   that on the very day of the passage of the significant
   preamble in congress, the 15th of May, the convention of
   Virginia had gone a step further, and had instructed their
   delegates to propose independence. Authority to assent to its
   natural consequences, a confederation and foreign alliances,
   followed as a matter of course. On the other hand, the
   convention of Massachusetts had referred the subject back to
   the people, to be considered and acted upon at their primary
   town meetings, and the responses had been for some time
   corning in unequivocally enough. So decided was the feeling
   that Joseph Hawley, impatient of the delay, was stimulating
   the nowise reluctant Gerry to greater exertions. Perceiving
   these encouraging indications in opposite quarters, the
   friends of independence now consulted together, and made up
   their minds that the moment had come for a final
   demonstration. Resolutions, embracing the three great points,
   were carefully matured, which it was arranged that Richard
   Henry Lee, on behalf of the delegates of Virginia, should
   present, and John Adams should second, for Massachusetts. The
   movement took place, accordingly, on the 7th of June. It
   appears on the journal, recorded with the customary caution,
   as follows:

   'Certain resolutions respecting independency being moved and
   seconded,—Resolved, that the consideration of them be referred
   till to-morrow morning; and that the members be enjoined to
   attend punctually at ten o'clock, in order to take the same
   into their consideration.' It was well that a measure of so
   momentous a character should be accompanied with as much of
   the forms of notice and special assignment as the body could
   properly give it. The record of what passed at the appointed
   time has come down to us very barren of details.
{3233}
   We only know that the resolutions were referred to the
   committee of the whole, where they were debated with great
   spirit during that day, Saturday, and again on Monday, the
   10th, by which time it had become quite clear that a majority
   of the colonies were prepared to adopt the first and leading
   resolution. This majority was composed of the four New
   England, and three out of the four southern colonies. But it
   being deemed unadvisable to place this great act upon so
   narrow a basis, and a prospect being held out of securing a
   more general concurrence by delaying the decision, a
   postponement until the 1st of July was effected by a change of
   the votes of two colonies. In the mean while, however, as it
   was thought suitable to accompany the act with an elaborate
   exposition of the causes which were held to justify it, a
   committee was ordered to have in charge the preparation of
   such a paper in season for the adjourned debate. … At the same
   time that Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin,
   Roger Sherman, and Robert R. Livingston, all but the last
   named being of the movement, were appointed the committee to
   prepare a declaration, as mentioned, the congress formally
   voted a second committee, with powers to prepare and digest a
   form of confederation to be entered into between the colonies;
   and yet a third, to mature a plan of treaties to be proposed
   to foreign powers. In this compass were included all the
   elements of national sovereignty abroad and at home. … The
   bulk of opposition now centred in the five middle colonies,
   and the pillar upon which it leaned was John Dickinson. But
   under the combined assaults conducted by the leading colonies
   of Virginia and Massachusetts, it was plain that victory was
   become a mere question of time. Jonathan D. Sergeant, who had
   left congress to hasten a change in the counsels of New
   Jersey, had been so successful in spiriting up the assembly as
   to be able to write, on the 15th of June, to Mr. Adams, that
   the delegates about to be elected would be on the spot by the
   1st of July, the day to which the question had been assigned,
   and that they would 'vote plump.' Equally favorable news soon
   came from Maryland. … Thus were two States secured. But
   Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New York yet remained to move. In
   the first of these, recourse was had once more to the
   so-called committees of conference. … And here, on the 23d of
   June, Dr. Benjamin Rush, then a young man, but acting entirely
   in sympathy and co-operation with the leaders in congress,
   moved and carried the appointment of a committee to declare
   the sense of the conference with respect to an independence of
   the province on the crown of Great Britain. He and James Smith
   were then joined with Thomas McKean, the chairman of the
   conference, in a committee, which was ready the next day with
   a report affirming the willingness of the deputies of the
   conference to concur in a vote declaring the United Colonies
   free and independent States. The report was adopted
   unanimously, was presented to congress on the 25th, and,
   doubtless, had its effect in determining those delegates of
   the colony to absent themselves on the final vote, upon whose
   resistance its adverse decision depended. As the hesitation of
   Delaware was chiefly owing to the feeling that pervaded the
   county of Sussex, Mr. Rodney had repaired thither for the
   purpose of bringing about a favorable change, in which errand
   the news came that he was laboring with success. The delegates
   from New York, no longer interposing any active opposition,
   yet unwilling to assume a responsibility which their
   constituents had not authorized, preferred to withdraw from
   participation in the decision. Such was the state of affairs
   on the 1st of July, to which day the discussion had been
   adjourned. There was then little doubt of an affirmative vote
   on the part of all but four colonies."

      J. Q. Adams and C. F. Adams,
      Life of John Adams,
      volume 1, pages 308-318.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (June).
   End of proprietary and royal government in Maryland.

      See MARYLAND: A. D. 1776.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (July).
   Authorship, adoption and signing
   of the Declaration of Independence.

   For the last hundred years one of the first facts taught to
   any child of American birth is, that Jefferson wrote the
   Declaration of Independence. The original draft in his
   handwriting was afterward deposited in the State Department.
   It shows two or three trifling alterations, interlined in the
   handwritings of Franklin and Adams. Otherwise it came before
   Congress precisely as Jefferson wrote it. Many years afterward
   John Adams gave an account of the way in which Jefferson came
   to be the composer of this momentous document, differing
   slightly from the story told by Jefferson. But the variance is
   immaterial. … Jefferson's statement seems the better entitled
   to credit, and what little corroboration is to be obtained for
   either narrator is wholly in his favor. He says simply that
   when the Committee came together he was pressed by his
   colleagues unanimously to undertake the draft; that he did so;
   that, when he had prepared it, he submitted it to Dr. Franklin
   and Mr. Adams, separately, requesting their corrections,
   'which were two or three only and merely verbal,' 'interlined
   in their own handwritings'; that the report in this shape was
   adopted by the committee, and a 'fair copy,' written out by
   Mr. Jefferson, was then laid before Congress. A somewhat more
   interesting discussion concerns the question, how Jefferson
   came to be named first on the committee, to the entire
   exclusion of Lee, to whom, as mover of the resolution,
   parliamentary etiquette would have assigned the chairmanship.

       See, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (JANUARY-JUNE).

   Many explanations have been given, of which some at least
   appear the outgrowth of personal likings and dislikings. It is
   certain that Jefferson was not only preëminently fitted for
   the very difficult task of this peculiar composition, but also
   that he was a man without an enemy. His abstinence from any
   active share in debate had saved him from giving irritation;
   and it is a truth not to be concealed, that there were cabals,
   bickerings, heart-burnings, perhaps actual enmities among the
   members of that famous body, which, grandly as it looms up,
   and rightly too, in the mind's eye, was after all composed of
   jarring human ingredients. It was well believed that there was
   a faction opposed to Washington, and it was generally
   suspected that irascible, vain, and jealous John Adams, then
   just rising from the ranks of the people, made in this matter
   common cause with the aristocratic Virginian Lees against
   their fellow-countrymen. … So it is likely enough that a
   timely illness of Lee's wife was a fortunate excuse for
   passing him by, and that partly by reason of admitted
   aptitude, partly because no risk could be run of any
   interference of personal feelings in so weighty a matter,
   Jefferson was placed first on the committee, with the natural
   result of doing the bulk of its labor.
{3234}
   On July 1, pursuant to assignment, Congress, in committee of
   the whole, resumed consideration of Mr. Lee's resolution, and
   carried it by the votes of nine colonies. South Carolina and
   Pennsylvania voted against it. The two delegates from Delaware
   were divided. Those from New York said that personally they
   were in favor of it and believed their constituents to be so,
   but they were hampered by instructions drawn a twelvemonth
   since and strictly forbidding any action obstructive of
   reconciliation, which was then still desired. The committee
   reported, and then Edward Rutledge moved an adjournment to the
   next day, when his colleagues, though disapproving the
   resolution, would probably join in it for the sake of
   unanimity. This motion was carried, and on the day following
   the South Carolinians were found to be converted; also a third
   member 'had come post from the Delaware counties' and caused
   the vote of that colony to be given with the rest;
   Pennsylvania changed her vote; and a few days later the
   Convention of New York approved the resolution, 'thus
   supplying the void occasioned by the withdrawing of her
   delegates from the vote.' On the same day, July 2, the House
   took up Mr. Jefferson's draft of the Declaration, and debated
   it during that and the following day and until a late hour on
   July 4. Many verbal changes were made, most of which were
   conducive to closer accuracy of statement, and were
   improvements. Two or three substantial amendments were made by
   the omission of passages; notably there was stricken out a
   passage in which George III. was denounced for encouraging the
   slave-trade. … No interpolation of any consequence was made.
   Jefferson had ample cause to congratulate himself upon this
   event of the discussion. … He himself spoke not a word in the
   debate. … The burden of argument, from which Jefferson wisely
   shrank, was gallantly borne by John Adams, whom Jefferson
   gratefully called 'the colossus of that debate.' Jefferson
   used afterward to take pleasure in tingeing the real solemnity
   of the occasion with a coloring of the ludicrous. The debate,
   he said, seemed as though it might run on interminably, and
   probably would have done so at a different season of the year.
   But the weather was oppressively warm, and the room occupied
   by the deputies was hard by a stable, whence the hungry flies
   swarmed thick and fierce, alighting on the legs of the
   delegates and biting hard through their thin silk stockings.
   Treason was preferable to discomfort, and the members voted
   for the Declaration and hastened to the table to sign it and
   escape from the horse-fly. John Hancock, making his great
   familiar signature, jestingly said that John Bull could read
   that without spectacles; then, becoming more serious, began to
   impress on his comrades the necessity of their 'all hanging
   together in this matter.' 'Yes, indeed,' interrupted Franklin,
   'we must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang
   separately.' … Amid such trifling, concealing grave thoughts,
   Jefferson saw his momentous document signed at the close of
   that summer afternoon."

      J. T. Morse, Jr.,
      Thomas Jefferson,
      chapter 3.

   "The statements relative to signing the Declaration are
   conflicting. Jefferson states that it was signed generally on
   the 4th (Memoirs i, 94), and he in other places reiterates
   this statement, but this manuscript is not known to be extant.
   … According to the journals, Congress, on the 19th of July,
   resolved that the 'declaration, passed on the 4th, be fairly
   engrossed on parchment, with the title and style of "The
   unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of
   America," and that the same, when engrossed, be signed by
   every member of Congress.' On the 2d day of August, the
   journals say, 'The Declaration being engrossed, and compared
   at the table, was signed by the members.' … This manuscript is
   preserved in the office of the Secretary of State."

      R. Frothingham,
      The Rise of the Republic,
      page 545 and foot-note.

   "Because statesmen like Dickinson and communities like
   Maryland were slow in believing that the right moment for a
   declaration of independence had come, the preposterous theory
   has been suggested that the American Revolution was the work
   of an unscrupulous and desperate minority, which, through
   intrigue mingled with violence, succeeded in forcing the
   reluctant majority to sanction its measures. Such a
   misconception has its root in an utter failure to comprehend
   the peculiar character of American political life, like the
   kindred misconception which ascribes the rebellion of the
   colonies to a sordid unwillingness to bear their due share of
   the expenses of the British Empire. It is like the
   misunderstanding which saw an angry mob in every town-meeting
   of the people of Boston, and characterized as a 'riot' every
   deliberate expression of public opinion. No one who is
   familiar with the essential features of American political
   life can for a moment suppose that the Declaration of
   Independence was brought about by any less weighty force than
   the settled conviction of the people that the priceless
   treasure of self-government could be preserved by no other
   means. It was but slowly that this unwelcome conviction grew
   upon the people; and owing to local differences of
   circumstances it grew more slowly in some places than in
   others. Prescient leaders, too, like the Adamses and Franklin
   and Lee, made up their minds sooner than other people. Even
   those conservatives who resisted to the last, even such men as
   John Dickinson and Robert Morris, were fully agreed with their
   opponents as to the principle at issue between Great Britain
   and America, and nothing would have satisfied them short of
   the total abandonment by Great Britain of her pretensions to
   impose taxes and revoke charters. Upon this fundamental point
   there was very little difference of opinion in America. As to
   the related question of independence, the decision, when once
   reached, was everywhere alike the reasonable result of free
   and open discussion; and the best possible illustration of
   this is the fact that not even in the darkest days of the war
   already begun did any state deliberately propose to reconsider
   its action in the matter. The hand once put to the plough,
   there was no turning back."

      J. Fiske,
      The American Revolution,
      chapter 4 (volume 1). 

      ALSO IN:
      G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States
      (Author's last revision),
      volume 4, chapter 28.

      H. S. Randall,
      Life of Jefferson,
      volume 1, chapter 5.

      C. F. Adams,
      Life of John Adams,
      chapter 4.

      J. Madison,
      Papers,
      volume 1, pages 9-27.

      J. Sanderson,
      Biographies of the Signers of the Declaration.

      See, also, INDEPENDENCE HALL.

{3235}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (July).
   Text of the Declaration of Independence.

   The following is the text of the great manifesto:

   "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for
   one people to dissolve the political bands which have
   connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of
   the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of
   Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to
   the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the
   causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these
   truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
   that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
   unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the
   pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments
   are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the
   consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government
   becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the
   People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new
   Government, laying its foundation on such principles and
   organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most
   likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed,
   will dictate that Governments long established should not be
   changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all
   experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to
   suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves
   by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when
   a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably
   the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute
   Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off
   such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future
   security.—Such has been the patient sufferance of these
   Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them
   to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of
   the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated
   injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the
   establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To
   prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world. He has
   refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary
   for the public good. He has forbidden his Governors to pass
   Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in
   their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when
   so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. He
   has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large
   districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the
   right of Representation in the Legislature, a right
   inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only. He has
   called together legislative bodies at places unusual,
   uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public
   Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into
   compliance with his measures. He has dissolved Representative
   Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his
   invasions on the rights of the people. He has refused for a
   long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be
   elected; whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of
   Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their
   exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all
   the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
   He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States;
   for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of
   Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their
   migration hither, and raising the conditions of new
   Appropriations of Lands. He has obstructed the Administration
   of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing
   Judiciary Powers. He has made Judges dependent on his Will
   alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and
   payment of their salaries. He has erected a multitude of New
   Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our
   People, and eat out their substance. He has kept among us, in
   times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our
   legislature. He has affected to render the Military
   independent of and superior to the Civil Power. He has
   combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign
   to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving
   his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: For
   quartering large bodies of armed troops among us: For
   protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any
   Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these
   States: For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
   For imposing taxes on us without our Consent: For depriving us
   in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury: For
   transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended
   offences: For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a
   neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary
   government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at
   once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same
   absolute rule into these Colonies: For taking away our
   Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering
   fundamentally the Forms of our Governments: For suspending our
   own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with Power
   to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. He has abdicated
   Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and
   waging War against us. He has plundered our seas, ravaged our
   Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our
   people. He is at this time transporting large armies of
   foreign mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation
   and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty &
   perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and
   totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation. He has
   constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas
   to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners
   of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their
   Hands. He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and
   has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers,
   the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is
   an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, and
   conditions. In every stage of these Oppressions We have
   Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated
   Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A
   Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may
   define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free People.
   Nor have We been wanting in attention to our Brittish
   brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by
   their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over
   us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our
   emigration and settlement here.
{3236}
   We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and
   we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to
   disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt
   our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to
   the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore,
   acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation,
   and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War,
   in Peace Friends. We, therefore, the Representatives of the
   united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled,
   appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude
   of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the
   good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare,
   That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free
   and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all
   Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political
   connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and
   ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and
   Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude
   Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all
   other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right
   do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm
   reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually
   pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred
   Honor.

      John Hancock.
   New Hampshire
      Josiah Bartlett,
      Wm. Whipple,
      Matthew Thornton.
   Massachusetts Bay
      Saml. Adams, John Adams, Robt. Treat Paine,
      Elbridge Gerry.
   Rhode Island
      Step. Hopkins, William Ellery.
   Connecticut.
      Roger Sherman, Sam'el Huntington, Wm. Williams,
      Oliver Wolcott.
   New York
      Wm. Floyd, Phil. Livingston, Frans. Lewis, Lewis Morris.
   New Jersey
      Richd. Stockton, Jno. Witherspoon, Fras. Hopkinson,
      John Hart, Abra. Clark.
   Pennsylvania
      Robt. Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benja. Franklin, John Morton,
      Geo. Clymer, Jas. Smith, Geo. Taylor, James Wilson,
      Geo. Ross.
   Delaware.
      Cæsar Rodney, Geo. Read, Tho. M'Kean.
   Maryland
      Samuel Chase, Wm. Paca, Thos. Stone,
      Charles Carroll of Carrollton.
   Virginia.
      George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Th Jefferson,
      Benja. Harrison, Thos. Ne]son, jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee,
      Carter Braxton.
   North Carolina.
      Wm. Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn.
   South Carolina.
      Edward Rutledge, Thos. Heyward, Junr.,
      Thomas Lynch, Junr., Arthur Middleton.
   Georgia.
      Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, Geo. Walton."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (July).
   Constitutional effect of the Declaration of Independence.

   "The Declaration of Independence did not create thirteen
   sovereign states, but the representatives of the people
   declared that the former English colonies, under the name
   which they had assumed of the United States of America,
   became, from the 4th day of July, 1776, a sovereign state and
   a member of the family of nations, recognized by the law of
   nations; and further, that the people would support their
   representatives with their blood and treasure, in their
   endeavor to make this declaration a universally recognized
   fact. Neither congress nor the people relied in this upon any
   positive right belonging either to the individual colonies
   or to the colonies as a whole. Rather did the Declaration of
   Independence and the war destroy all existing political jural
   relations, and seek their moral justification in the right of
   revolution inherent in every people in extreme emergencies. …
   Political theories had nothing to do with this development of
   things. It was the natural result of given circumstances and
   was an accomplished fact before anyone thought of the legal
   consequences which might subsequently be deduced from it."

      H. von Holst,
      Constitutional and Political History of the United States,
      volume 1, chapter 1.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (July).
   Independence declared in New Jersey
   and Governor Franklin arrested.

      See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1774-1776.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (August).
   The struggle for New York and the Hudson.
   Battle of Long Island.

   "Washington had been informed, early in January, that General
   Sir Henry Clinton had sailed from Boston, with a considerable
   body of troops, on a secret expedition. Apprehending that the
   city of New York was his destination, he immediately
   dispatched General Charles Lee to Connecticut to raise troops,
   and to proceed to that city to watch and oppose Clinton
   wherever he might attempt to land. Six weeks before the
   evacuation of Boston [March 17, 1776], Lee had encamped near
   New York with twelve hundred militia. Already the Sons of
   Liberty had been busy, and overt acts of rebellion had been
   committed by them. They had seized the cannons at Fort George,
   and driven Tryon, the royal governor, on board the Asia, a
   British armed vessel in the harbor. In March, Clinton arrived
   at Sandy Hook, just outside New York harbor, and on the same
   day, the watchful Lee providentially entered the city. The
   movement, although without a knowledge of Clinton's position,
   was timely, for it kept him at bay. Foiled in his attempt upon
   New York, that commander sailed southward. … The destination
   of Howe, when he left Boston, was also unknown to Washington.
   Supposing he, too, would proceed to New York, he put the main
   body of his army in motion toward that city, as soon as he had
   placed Boston in a state of security. He arrived in New York
   about the middle of April [April 14], and proceeded at once to
   fortify the town and vicinity, and also the passes of the
   Hudson Highlands, fifty miles above. In the mean while,
   General Lee, who had been appointed to command the American
   forces in the South, had left his troops in the charge of
   General Lord Stirling [March 7], and was hastening toward the
   Carolinas to watch the movements of Clinton, arouse the Whigs,
   and gather an army there. … Pursuant to instructions, General
   Howe proceeded toward New York, to meet General Clinton and
   Parker's fleet. He left Halifax on the 11th of June, [1776],
   and arrived at Sandy Hook on the 29th. On the 2d of July he
   took possession of Staten Island, where he was joined by Sir
   Henry Clinton [July 11], from the South, and his brother,
   Admiral Lord Howe [July 12], with a fleet and a large land
   force, from England. Before the first of August, other vessels
   arrived with a part of the Hessian troops, and on that day,
   almost 30,000 soldiers, many of them tried veterans, stood
   ready to fall upon the republican army of 17,000 men, mostly
   militia, which lay intrenched in New York and vicinity, less
   than a dozen miles distant. The grand object in view was the
   seizure of New York and the country along the Hudson, so as to
   keep open a communication with Canada, separate the patriots of
   New England from those of the other states, and to overrun the
   most populous portion of the revolted colonies.
{3237}
   This was the military plan, arranged by ministers. They had
   also prepared instructions to their commanding generals, to be
   pacific, if the Americans appeared disposed to submit. Lord
   Howe and his brother, the general, were commissioned to 'grant
   pardon to all who deserved mercy,' and to treat for peace, but
   only on terms of absolute submission on the part of the
   colonies, to the will of the King and parliament. After making
   a foolish display of arrogance and weakness, in addressing
   General Washington as a private gentleman, and being assured
   that the Americans had been guilty of no offense requiring a
   'pardon' at their hands, they prepared to strike an immediate
   and effective blow. The British army was accordingly put in
   motion on the morning of the 22d of August [1776], and during
   that day, 10,000 effective men, and forty pieces of cannon,
   were landed on the western end of Long Island, between the
   present Fort Hamilton and Gravesend village. Already
   detachments of Americans under General Sullivan, occupied a
   fortified camp at Brooklyn, opposite New York, and guarded
   seven passes on a range of hills which extend from the Narrows
   to the village of Jamaica. When intelligence of the landing of
   the invading army reached Washington, he sent General Putnam,
   with large reinforcements, to take the chief command on Long
   Island; and to prepare to meet the enemy. The American troops
   on the island now [August 26], numbered about 5,000. The
   British moved in three divisions. The left, under General
   Grant, marched along the shore toward Gowanus; the right,
   under Clinton and Cornwallis, toward the interior of the
   island; and the center, composed chiefly of Hessians, under De
   Heister, marched up the Flatbush road, south of the hills.
   Clinton moved under cover of night, and before dawn on the
   morning of the 27th, he had gained possession of the Jamaica
   pass, near the present East New York. At the same time, Grant
   was pressing forward along the shore of New York Bay, and at
   day-break, he encountered Lord Stirling, where the monuments
   of Greenwood cemetery now dot the hills. De Heister advanced
   from Flatbush at the same hour, and attacked Sullivan, who,
   having no suspicions of the movements of Clinton, was watching
   the Flatbush Pass. A bloody conflict ensued, and while it was
   progressing, Clinton descended from the wooded hills, by the
   way of Bedford, to gain Sullivan's rear. As soon as the latter
   perceived his peril, he ordered a retreat to the American
   lines at Brooklyn. It was too late; Clinton drove him back
   upon the Hessian bayonets, and after fighting desperately,
   hand to hand, with the foe in front and rear, and losing a
   greater portion of his men, Sullivan was compelled to
   surrender. As usual, misfortunes did not come single. While
   these disasters were occurring on the left, Cornwallis
   descended the port-road to Gowanus, and attacked Stirling.
   They fought desperately, until Stirling was made prisoner.
   Many of his troops were drowned while endeavoring to escape
   across the Gowanus Creek, as the tide was rising; and a large
   number were captured. At noon the victory for the British was
   complete. About 500 Americans were killed or wounded, and
   1,100 were made prisoners. These were soon suffering dreadful
   horrors in prisons and prison-ships, at New York. The British
   loss in killed, wounded, and prisoners, was 367. It was with
   the deepest anguish that Washington had viewed, from New York,
   the destruction of his troops, yet he dared not weaken his
   power in the city, by sending reinforcements to aid them. He
   crossed over on the following morning [August 28], with
   Mifflin, who had come down from the upper end of York island
   with a thousand troops, and was gratified to find the enemy
   encamped in front of Putnam's lines, and delaying an attack,
   until the British fleet should co-operate with him. This delay
   allowed Washington time to form and execute a plan for the
   salvation of the remainder of the army, now too weak to resist
   an assault with any hope of success. Under cover of a heavy
   fog, which fell upon the hostile camps at midnight of the
   29th, and continued until the morning of the 30th, he silently
   withdrew them from the camp, and, unperceived by the British,
   they all crossed over to New York in safety, carrying
   everything with them but their heavy cannons. … Howe, who felt
   sure of his prey, was greatly mortified, and prepared to make
   an immediate attack upon New York, before the Americans should
   become reinforced, or should escape from it."

      B. J. Lossing,
      Family History of the United States,
      period 5, chapter 3.

      ALSO IN:
      H. P. Johnston,
      The Campaign of 1776 around New York and Brooklyn,
      chapters 1-5,
      (Members of Long Island History Society, volume 3).

      T. W. Field,
      The Battle of Long island
      (Members of Long Island History Society, volume 2).

      W. A. Duer,
      Life of Wm. Alexander, Earl of Stirling,
      chapter 5.

      J. Fiske,
      The American Revolution,
      chapter 5 (volume 1).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (September).
   Quiet death of proprietary government in Pennsylvania
   and adoption of a State Constitution.

      See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1776.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (September-November).
   The struggle for New York and the Hudson.
   Successes of the British.
   Washington's retreat into New Jersey.

   "At daybreak the British awoke, but it was too late. They had
   fought a successful battle, they had had the American army in
   their grasp, and now all was over. The victory had melted
   away, and, as a grand result, they had a few hundred
   prisoners, a stray boat with three camp-followers, and the
   deserted works in which they stood. To make such a retreat as
   this was a feat of arms as great as most victories, and in it
   we see, perhaps as plainly as anywhere, the nerve and
   quickness of the man who conducted it. It is true it was the
   only chance of salvation, but the great man is he who is
   entirely master of his opportunity, even if he have but one.
   The outlook, nevertheless, was, as Washington wrote, 'truly
   distressing.' The troops were dispirited, and the militia
   began to disappear, us they always did after a defeat.
   Congress would not permit the destruction of the city,
   different interests pulled in different directions,
   conflicting opinions distracted the councils of war, and, with
   utter inability to predict the enemy's movements, everything
   led to halfway measures and to intense anxiety, while Lord
   Howe tried to negotiate with Congress, and the Americans
   waited for events, Washington, looking beyond the confusion of
   the moment, saw that he had gained much by delay, and had his
   own plan well defined. … Everyone else, however, saw only past
   defeat and present peril.

{3238}

   The British ships gradually made their way up the river, until
   it became apparent that they intended to surround and cut off
   the American army. Washington made preparations to withdraw,
   but uncertainty of information came near rendering his
   precautions futile. September 15th the men-of-war opened fire,
   and troops were landed near Kip's Bay. The militia in the
   breastworks at that point had been at Brooklyn and gave way at
   once, communicating their panic to two Connecticut regiments.
   Washington, galloping down to the scene of battle, came upon
   the disordered and flying troops. He dashed in among them,
   conjuring them to stop, but even while he was trying to rally
   them they broke again on the appearance of some sixty or
   seventy of the enemy, and ran in all directions. In a tempest
   of anger Washington drew his pistols, struck the fugitives
   with his sword, and was only forced from the field by one of
   his officers seizing the bridle of his horse and dragging him
   away from the British, now within a hundred yards of the spot.
   … The rout and panic over, Washington quickly turned to deal
   with the pressing danger. With coolness and quickness he
   issued his orders, and succeeded in getting his army off,
   Putnam's division escaping most narrowly. He then took post at
   King's Bridge, and began to strengthen and fortify his lines.
   While thus engaged, the enemy advanced, and on the 16th a
   sharp skirmish was fought, in which the British were repulsed,
   and great bravery was shown by the Connecticut and Virginia
   troops, the two commanding officers being killed. This affair,
   which was the first gleam of success, encouraged the troops,
   and was turned to the best account by the general. Still a
   successful skirmish did not touch the essential difficulties
   of the situation, which then as always came from within,
   rather than without. To face and check 25,000 well equipped
   and highly disciplined soldiers, Washington had now some
   12,000 men, lacking in everything which goes to make an army,
   except mere individual courage and a high average of
   intelligence. Even this meagre force was an inconstant and
   diminishing quantity, shifting, uncertain, and always
   threatening dissolution. The task of facing and fighting the
   enemy was enough for the ablest of men; but Washington was
   obliged also to combat and overcome the inertness and dullness
   born of ignorance, and to teach Congress how to govern a
   nation at war. … Meanwhile the days slipped along, and
   Washington waited on the Harlem Plains, planning descents on
   Long Island, and determining to make a desperate stand where
   he was, unless the situation decidedly changed. Then the
   situation did change, as neither he nor anyone else apparently
   had anticipated. The British warships came up the Hudson past
   the forts, brushing aside our boasted obstructions, destroying
   our little fleet, and getting command of the river. Then
   General Howe landed at Frog's Point, where he was checked for
   the moment by the good disposition of Heath, under
   Washington's direction. These two events made it evident that
   the situation of the American army was full of peril, and that
   retreat was again necessary. Such certainly was the conclusion
   of the council of war, on the 16th, acting this time in
   agreement with their chief. Six days Howe lingered on Frog's
   Point, bringing up stores or artillery or something, … and
   gave six days to Washington. They were of little value to
   Howe, but they were of inestimable worth to Washington, who
   employed them in getting everything in readiness, in holding
   his council of war, and then on the 17th in moving
   deliberately off to very strong ground at White Plains. … On
   the 28th, Howe came up to Washington's position, and found the
   Americans quite equal in numbers, strongly intrenched, and
   awaiting his attack with confidence. He hesitated, doubted,
   and finally feeling that he must do something, sent 4,000 men
   to storm Chatterton Hill, an outlying post, where some 1,400
   Americans were stationed. There was a short, sharp action, and
   then the Americans retreated in good order to the main army,
   having lost less than half as many men as their opponents.
   With caution now much enlarged, Howe sent for reinforcements,
   and waited two days. The third day it rained, and on the
   fourth Howe found that Washington had withdrawn to a higher
   and quite impregnable line of hills, where he held all the
   passes in the rear and awaited a second attack. Howe
   contemplated the situation for two or three days longer, and
   then broke camp and withdrew to Dobbs Ferry. Such were the
   great results of the victory of Long Island, two wasted
   months, and the American army still untouched. Howe was
   resolved, however, that his campaign, should not be utterly
   fruitless, and therefore directed his attention to the
   defences of the Hudson, Fort Lee, and Fort Washington, and
   here he met with better success. Congress, in its military
   wisdom, had insisted that these forts must and could be held.
   … An attempt was made to hold both forts, and both were lost,
   as he [Washington] had foreseen. From Fort Lee the garrison
   withdrew in safety. Fort Washington was carried by storm,
   after a severe struggle. Twenty-six hundred men and all the
   munitions of war fell into the hands of the enemy. It was a
   serious and most depressing loss, and was felt throughout the
   continent. Meantime Washington had crossed into the Jerseys,
   and, after the loss of Fort Lee, began to retreat before the
   British, who, flushed with victory, now advanced rapidly under
   Lord Cornwallis."

      H. C. Lodge,
      George Washington,
      volume 1, chapter 6.

      ALSO IN:
      H. B. Carrington,
      Battles of the American Revolution,
      chapters 33-36.

      G. W. Greene,
      Life of Nathanael Greene,
      chapters 8-11 (volume 1).

      B. J. Lossing,
      Field Book of the American Revolution,
      volume 2, chapter 23.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (October).
   Connecticut assumes independence and sovereignty.

      See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1776.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1777.
   Washington's retreat through New Jersey and his
   masterly return movement.
   The victories at Trenton and Princeton
   retrieving the situation.

   "On the 17th [of November] Washington ordered Lee [who had
   lately returned from the south, and who had command of 7,000
   men at Northcastle] to come over and join him; but Lee
   disobeyed, and in spite of repeated orders from Washington he
   stayed at Northcastle till the 2d of December. General Ward
   had some time since resigned, so that Lee now ranked next to
   Washington. A good many people were finding fault with the
   latter for losing the 3,000 men at Fort Washington, although,
   as we have seen, that was not his fault but the fault of
   Congress.
{3239}
   Lee now felt that if Washington were ruined, he would surely
   become his successor in the command of the army, and so,
   instead of obeying his orders, he spent his time in writing
   letters calculated to injure him. Lee's disobedience thus
   broke the army in two, and did more for the British than they
   had been able to do for themselves since they started from
   Staten Island. It was the cause of Washington's flight through
   New Jersey, ending on the 8th of December, when he put himself
   behind the Delaware river, with scarcely 3,000 men. Here was
   another difficulty. The American soldiers were enlisted for
   short terms, and when they were discouraged, as at present,
   they were apt to insist upon going home as soon as their time
   had expired. It was generally believed that Washington's army
   would thus fall to pieces within a few days. Howe did not
   think it worth while to be at the trouble of collecting boats
   wherewith to follow him across the Delaware. Congress fled to
   Baltimore. People in New Jersey began taking the oath of
   allegiance to the crown. Howe received the news that he had
   been knighted for his victory on Long Island, and he returned
   to New York to celebrate the occasion. While the case looked
   so desperate for Washington, events at the north had taken a
   less unfavourable turn. Carleton [who began preparations to
   invade the province of New York as soon as Arnold retreated
   from Canada] had embarked on Lake Champlain early in the
   autumn with his fine army and fleet. Arnold had fitted up a
   small fleet to oppose his advance, and on the 11th of October
   there had been a fierce naval battle between the two near
   Valcour Island, in which Arnold was defeated, while Carleton
   suffered serious damage. The British general then advanced
   upon Ticonderoga, but suddenly made up his mind that the
   season was too late for operations in that latitude. The
   resistance he had encountered seems to have made him despair
   of achieving any speedy success in that quarter, and on the 3d
   of November he started back for Canada. This retreat relieved
   General Schuyler at Albany of immediate cause for anxiety, and
   presently he detached seven regiments to go southward to
   Washington's assistance. On the 2d of December Lee crossed the
   Hudson with 4,000 men, and proceeded slowly to Morristown.
   Just what he designed to do was never known, but clearly he
   had no intention of going beyond the Delaware to assist
   Washington, whom he believed to be ruined. Perhaps he thought
   Morristown a desirable position to hold, as it certainly was.
   Whatever his plans may have been, they were nipped in the bud.
   For some unknown reason he passed the night of the 12th at an
   unguarded tavern, about four miles from his army; and there he
   was captured next morning by a party of British dragoons, who
   carried him off to their camp at Princeton. The dragoons were
   very gleeful over this unexpected exploit, but really they
   could not have done the Americans a greater service than to
   rid them of such a worthless creature. The capture of Lee came
   in the nick of time, for it set free his men to go to the aid
   of Washington. Even after this force and that sent by Schuyler
   had reached the commander-in-chief, he found he had only 6,000
   men fit for duty. With this little force Washington instantly
   took the offensive. It was the turning-point in his career and
   in the history of the Revolutionary War. On Christmas, 1776,
   and the following nine days, an Washington's most brilliant
   powers were displayed. The British centre, 10,000 strong, lay
   at Princeton. The principal generals, thinking the serious
   business of the war ended, had gone to New York. An advanced
   party of Hessians, 1,000 strong, was posted on the bank of the
   Delaware at Trenton, and another one lower down, at
   Burlington. Washington decided to attack both these outposts,
   and arranged his troops accordingly, but when Christmas night
   arrived, the river was filled with great blocks of floating
   ice, and the only division which succeeded in crossing was the
   one that Washington led in person. It was less than 2,500 in
   number, but the moment had come when the boldest course was
   the safest. By daybreak Washington had surprised the Hessians
   at Trenton and captured them all. The outpost at Burlington,
   on hearing the news, retreated to Princeton. By the 31st
   Washington had got all his available force across to Trenton.
   Some of them were raw recruits just come in to replace others
   who had just gone home. At this critical moment the army was
   nearly helpless for want of money, and on New Year's morning
   Robert Morris was knocking at door after door in Philadelphia,
   waking up his friends to borrow the $50,000, which he sent off
   to Trenton before noon. The next day Cornwallis arrived at
   Princeton, and taking with him all the army, except a
   rear-guard of 2,000 men left to protect his communications,
   came on toward Trenton. When he reached that town, late in the
   afternoon, he found Washington entrenched behind a small creek
   just south of the town, with his back toward the Delaware
   river. 'Oho!' said Cornwallis, 'at last we have run down the
   old fox, and we will bag him in the morning.' He sent back to
   Princeton, and ordered the rearguard to come up. He expected
   next morning to cross the creek above Washington's right, and
   then press him back against the broad and deep river, and
   compel him to surrender. Cornwallis was by no means a careless
   general, but he seems to have gone to bed on that memorable
   night and slept the sleep of the just. Washington meanwhile
   was wide awake. He kept his front line noisily at work digging
   and entrenching, and made a fine show with his camp-fires.
   Then he marched his army to the right and across the creek,
   and got around Cornwallis's left wing and into his rear, and
   so went on gayly toward Princeton. At daybreak he encountered
   the British rear-guard, fought a sharp battle with it and sent
   it flying, with the loss of one-fourth of its number. The
   booming guns aroused Cornwallis too late. To preserve his
   communications with New York, he was obliged to retreat with
   all haste upon New Brunswick, while Washington's victorious
   army pushed on and occupied the strong position at Morristown.
   There was small hope of dislodging such a general from such a
   position. But to leave Washington in possession of Morristown
   was to resign to him the laurels of this half-year's work. For
   that position guarded the Highlands of the Hudson on the one
   hand, and the roads to Philadelphia on the other. Except that
   the British had taken the city of New York-which from the
   start was almost a foregone conclusion—they were no better off
   than in July when Lord Howe had landed on Staten Island. In
   nine days the tables had been completely turned.
{3240}
   The attack upon, an outpost had developed into a campaign
   which quite retrieved the situation. The ill-timed
   interference of Congress, which had begun the series of
   disasters, was remedied; the treachery of Lee was checkmated;
   and the cause of American Independence, which on Christmas Eve
   had seemed hopeless, was now fairly set on its feet. Earlier
   successes had been local; this was continental. Seldom has so
   much been done with such slender means."

      J. Fiske,
      The War of Independence,
      chapter 6.

   "The effect of these two unexpected strokes at Trenton and
   Princeton was to baffle Howe, and utterly disconcert his
   plans. Expecting to march upon Philadelphia at his leisure, he
   suddenly finds Washington turning about and literally cutting
   his way through the British posts, back to a point where he
   threatened Howe's flank and rear. The enemy were at once
   compelled to retire from all their positions below Brunswick,
   give up the thought of wintering in Philadelphia, and fall
   back to the vicinity of New York. When Horace Walpole heard of
   these movements, he wrote to Sir Horace Mann: 'Washington has
   shown himself both a Fabius and a Camillus. His march through
   our lines is allowed to have been a prodigy of generalship. In
   one word, I look upon a great part of America as lost to this
   country.' Here the campaign closed. Washington could not be
   dislodged from his strong mountain position, and Howe was
   satisfied to rest his troops and postpone further operations
   until the next season. Meantime the country took heart,
   Congress voted troops and supplies, and the army was recruited
   and organized on a better basis. 'The business of war is the
   result of Experience,' wrote Wolcott from Congress, with faith
   unshaken during the darkest hours of the campaign; and
   experience was now put to good profit. The crisis was passed.
   Events proved decisive. Hardship and anxiety were yet to come
   during succeeding years of the war; but it was the result of
   this year's struggle that cleared away misgivings and
   confirmed the popular faith in final success. England could do
   no more than she had done to conquer America; while America
   was now more ready than ever to meet the issue. Independence
   was established in the present campaign—in the year of its
   declaration; and more than to any others we owe this political
   privilege to the men who fought from Long Island to
   Princeton."

      H. P. Johnston,
      Campaign of 1776,
      Memoirs of the Long Island Historical Society,
      volume 3, part 1, chapter 8.

      ALSO IN:
      J. F. Hageman,
      History of Princeton,
      chapter 4, sections 4-5 (volume 1).

      J. O. Raum,
      History of New Jersey,
      chapter 20 (volume 2).

      W. B. Reed,
      Life of Joseph Reed,
      volume 1, chapter 4.

      W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,
      Popular History of the United States,
      volume 3, chapter 21.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1777.
   Prisoners and exchanges.
   British treatment of captives.
   The Jersey Prison-ship and the Sugar-house prison.

   In New York, during the British occupation of the city,
   "wretched indeed was the condition of the poor refugee, of the
   sick soldier, and, above all, the patriot prisoner. The
   newspapers are filled with calls for charitable contributions
   for women and children perishing with cold and hunger, for
   disabled soldiers and families without a shelter. … But if the
   favored Tories suffered, what must have been the condition of
   the patriot prisoners, confined by thousands in bleak
   barracks, churches, and prison-ships? Let us pass up Broadway,
   amidst the uncleared ruins, and, turning down Liberty Street,
   pause before a huge brick building near the Middle Dutch
   Church. It is five stories high, with broken windows, through
   which the fierce winds of winter rush unrestrained. Through
   its imperfect roof and various openings, snow, ice, and water
   penetrate to every part of the building. Sentries pace round
   its walls prepared to fire upon any of its maddened inmates
   who attempt in desperation to escape. Wounded men crawl to the
   windows begging aid; but the impassive sentinel turns back the
   gifts of the charitable. No communication with the prisoners
   can be allowed. The walls within are bare and cheerless, nor
   do any of the common conveniences of life soften the horrors
   of those dreary chambers. Yet the old Sugar-House is the most
   crowded building in New York, and hundreds of prisoners, some
   chained, others at large, fill its comfortless interior. In
   the old Sugar-House were confined the prisoners of Long
   Island, the captives of sudden forays, the patriot citizen,
   and the heroes of the rebel army. Clothed in rags and scarcely
   covered from the winter air, crowded in narrow apartments and
   broken by hunger and disease, the prisoners died by thousands.
   The sick lay down on beds of snow to perish; the feeble
   wounded quivered in the February blast. Food of the coarsest
   kind was served out to them in scanty measure, and devoured
   with the eagerness of famine. Every night ten or twenty died;
   every day their corpses were thrown into pits without a single
   rite of burial. When led out to be exchanged, the glad hope of
   freedom gave them no joy—they died on the way to their
   friends, or lingered out a few weeks of miserable decline in
   the hospitals of the Jerseys. So wretched was their condition
   that Washington refused to consider them fit subjects for
   exchange. 'You give us only the dead or dying,' he wrote to
   Howe, 'for our well-fed and healthy prisoners.' Howe, as if in
   mockery, replied that they had been kept in 'airy, roomy
   buildings,' on the same fare as his own soldiers. Washington
   pointed to the condition in which they reached him—diseased,
   famished, emaciated, and dying, as they were conducted to his
   quarters. Across the river, in Wallabout Bay, lay the
   prison-ship 'Jersey.' She was the hulk of a 64 gun ship, long
   unseaworthy, her masts and rigging gone, her figurehead broken
   off, and her whole appearance singularly repulsive. Yet on
   board of the Jersey were confined 1,200 captured seamen. She
   was never cleansed, and lay in that condition seven years. No
   fires warmed her occupants in winter, no screen sheltered them
   from the August sun; no physician visited the sick, no
   clergyman consoled the dying there. Poor and scanty food, the
   want of clothing, cleanliness, and exercise, and raging
   diseases that never ceased their ravages, made the Jersey a
   scene of human suffering to which the Black Hole of Calcutta
   might favorably compare. Benevolent Tories would sometimes
   convey by stealth food or clothing to her unhappy inmates; but
   this was little. Toward the close of the war the British, from
   shame or pity, made some improvement in her condition; but she
   remained throughout the contest a centre of sickness and
   death, always decimated by disease and always replenished with
   new victims. The bones of her dead, estimated at 11,000, lie
   buried on the Brooklyn shore. The crowded city itself was
   never free from contagion. In winter the smallpox made fearful
   ravages."

      E. Lawrence,
      New York in the Revolution
      (Harper's Magazine, July, 1868).

      ALSO IN:
      Force's American Archives,
      4th Series, volume 6,
      5th Series, volumes 1-3.

      History Magazine, 1866, sup.

      W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,
      Popular History of the United States,
      volume 3, chapter 21.

{3241}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1778.
   Attitude and feeling of France.
   Her disposition to aid the colonies and the reasons for it.
   The American embassy to the French court.
   Silas Deane and Beaumarchais.
   Franklin at Passy.

   "On March 17, 1776, Vergennes presented to his associates in
   the cabinet—Maurepas, Turgot (controller-general), Sartine
   (secretary of the navy), and St. Germain (secretary of war)—a
   paper entitled 'Considerations,' which, after for many years
   evading the search of historians, … was brought to light by De
   Witt and republished by Doniol. In this important paper
   Vergennes, after some general reflections on the advantages
   which the two crowns of France and Spain derived from the
   continuance of the civil war in America, and, on the other
   hand, on the inconveniences which might arise from the
   independence of the Colonies, and the probability that, in
   case of failure in North America, England would, to recover
   its credit, turn its arms against the French and Spanish
   possessions in America, proceeds to consider the course at
   once to be pursued. He bitterly attacks the English for their
   habitual breach of good faith, violation of treaties, and
   disregard of that observance of the sacred laws of morality
   which distinguish the French, and infers that they will take
   the first opportunity to declare war against France or invade
   Mexico. No doubt, if the kings of France and Spain had martial
   tendencies; if they obeyed the dictates of their own
   interests, and perhaps the justice of their cause, which was
   that of humanity, so often outraged by England; if their
   military resources were in a sufficiently good condition, they
   would feel that Providence had evidently chosen that very hour
   for humiliating England and revenging on her the wrongs she
   had inflicted on those who had the misfortune to be her
   neighbors and rivals, by rendering the resistance of the
   Americans as desperate as possible. The exhaustion produced by
   this internecine war would prostrate both England and her
   Colonies, and would afford an opportunity to reduce England to
   the condition of a second-rate power; to tear from her the
   empire she aimed at establishing in the four quarters of the
   world with so much pride and injustice, and relieve the
   universe of a tyranny which desires to swallow up both all the
   power and all the wealth of the world. But the two crowns not
   being able to act in this way, they must have recourse to a
   circumspect policy." Vergennes "draws the following
   inferences:
   (1) That they should continue dexterously to keep the English
   ministry in a state of false security with respect to the
   intentions of France and Spain.
   (2) That it would be politic to give the insurgents secret
   assistance in military stores and money; that the admitted
   utility would justify this little sacrifice, and no loss of
   dignity or breach of equity would be involved in it.
   (3) That it would not be consistent with the king's dignity or
   interest to make an open contract with the insurgents until
   their independence was achieved.
   (4) That in case France and Spain should furnish assistance,
   they should look for no other return than the success of the
   political object they had at that moment in view, leaving
   themselves at liberty to be guided by circumstances as to any
   future arrangements.
   (5) That perhaps a too-marked inactivity at the present crisis
   might be attributed by the English to fear, and might expose
   France to insults to which it might not be disposed to submit.
   The English, he adds, respect only those who can make
   themselves feared.
   (6) That the result to which all these considerations led was
   that the two crowns should actively prepare means to resist or
   punish England, more especially as, of all possible issues,
   the maintenance of peace with that power was the least
   probable.
   … It would be a mistake, however, to attribute the French
   support of America exclusively to a feeling of revenge for the
   humiliations of the prior war. Other motives came in and
   exercised a decisive influence. There was a conviction, and a
   right one, in France that for Britain to hold under control
   the whole of North America as well as of India would give her
   a maritime supremacy, as well as a superiority in wealth,
   which would constitute a standing menace to the rest of the
   civilized world. There was, again, an enthusiasm among the
   young nobility and among officers in the army for America,
   which, even aside from the bitterness towards Britain with
   which it was mingled, had great effect on people as well as on
   court; and to this was added the sympathy of doctrinaire
   political philosophers who then and for some time afterwards
   had great power in forming French public opinion. By the
   enthusiasm of the young nobility the queen—brilliant, bold,
   weary of the traditions of the old court, inconsiderate as to
   ultimate political results—was affected, and through her her
   husband was reached. But above this was the sense of right
   which was uppermost in the breast of the unfortunate sovereign
   who then, with little political experience but high notions of
   duty as well as of prerogative, occupied the throne."

      F. Wharton, editor,
      Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence
      of the United States,
      Introduction, chapter 4 (volume 1).

   "From the earliest moment France had been hopefully regarded
   by the colonists as probably their friend and possibly their
   ally. To France, therefore, the first American envoy was
   dispatched with promptitude [receiving his instructions in
   March and reaching Paris in the following June, 1776] even
   before there was a declaration of independence or an
   assumption of nationality. Silas Deane was the man selected.
   He was the true Yankee jack-at-all-trades; he had been
   graduated at Yale College, then taught school, then practiced
   law, then engaged in trade, had been all the while advancing
   in prosperity and reputation, had been a member of the first
   and second congresses, had failed of reëlection to the third,
   and was now without employment. Mr'. Parton describes him as
   'of somewhat striking manners and good appearance, accustomed
   to live and entertain in liberal style, and fond of showy
   equipage and appointment.' Perhaps his simple-minded
   fellow-countrymen of the provinces fancied that such a man
   would make an imposing figure at an European court.
{3242}
   He developed no other peculiar fitness for his position; he
   could not even speak French; and it proved an ill hour for
   himself in which he received this trying and difficult honor.
   … Deane arrived in France in June, 1776. He had with him a
   little ready money for his immediate personal expenses, and
   some letters of introduction from Franklin. It was intended to
   keep him supplied with money by sending cargoes of tobacco,
   rice, and indigo consigned to him, the proceeds of which would
   be at his disposal for the public service. He was instructed
   to seek an interview with de Vergennes, the French minister
   for foreign affairs, and to endeavor with all possible
   prudence and delicacy to find out what signs of promise the
   disposition of the French government really held for the
   insurgents. He was also to ask for equipment for 25,000
   troops, ammunition, and 200 pieces of field artillery, all to
   be paid for—when Congress should be able! In France he was to
   keep his mission cloaked in secure secrecy, appearing simply
   as a merchant conducting his own affairs. … Before the arrival
   of Deane the interests of the colonies had been already taken
   in hand and substantially advanced in France by one of the
   most extraordinary characters in history. Caron de
   Beaumarchais was a man whom no race save the French could
   produce, and whose traits, career, and success lie hopelessly
   beyond the comprehension of the Anglo-Saxon. Bred a
   watchmaker, he had the skill, when a mere youth, to invent a
   clever escapement balance for regulating watches; had he been
   able to insert it into his own brain he might have held more
   securely his elusive good fortunes. From being an ingenious
   inventor he became an adventurer general, watchmaker to the
   king, the king's mistresses, and the king's daughters, the
   lover, or rather the beloved, of the wife of the controller of
   the king's kitchen, then himself the controller, thence a
   courtier, and a favorite of the royal princesses. Through a
   clever use of his opportunities he was able to do a great
   favor to a rich banker, who in return gave him chances to
   amass a fortune, and lent him money to buy a patent of
   nobility. This connection ended in litigation, which was near
   ruining him; but he discovered corruption on the part of the
   judge, and thereupon wrote his Memorials, of which the wit,
   keenness, and vivacity made him famous. He then rendered a
   private, personal, and important service to Louis XV., and
   soon afterwards another to the young Louis XVI. … He became
   frenzied in the American cause. In long and ardent letters he
   opened upon King Louis and his ministers a rattling fire of
   arguments sound and unsound, statements true and untrue,
   inducements reasonable and unreasonable, forecastings probable
   and improbable, politics wise and unwise, all designed to show
   that it was the bounden duty of France to adopt the colonial
   cause."

      J. T. Morse, Jr.,
      Benjamin Franklin,
      chapter 9.

   Soon after the arrival of Deane in Paris, the American
   Congress, having determined to declare the independence of the
   states represented in it, appointed a committee "to prepare
   the plan of a treaty to be proposed to foreign powers, which,
   after a long discussion, was at length agreed to, and
   ministers were appointed to negotiate the treaties proposed.
   Mr. Franklin, Mr. Deane, and Mr. Jefferson, were elected; but,
   the last mentioned gentleman having declined accepting the
   appointment offered him, Mr. Arthur Lee, then in London, was
   chosen in his place. These transactions were placed on the
   secret journals, and no member was permitted to give any
   specific information concerning them; or to state more than,
   'that congress had taken such steps as they judged necessary
   for obtaining foreign alliances.' The secret committee were
   directed to make an effectual lodgment in France of £10,000
   sterling, subject to the order of these commissioners. They
   assembled in Paris early in the winter, and had an immediate
   interview with the count De Vergennes. It was perceived that
   the success of the American cruisers, whose captures had been
   so considerable as to raise the price of insurance higher than
   it had been at any time during the war with both France and
   Spain, had excited a very favourable opinion of the capacities
   and energies of the nation. They were assured that the ports
   of France would remain open to their ships, and that the
   American merchants might freely vend in them every article of
   commerce, and purchase whatever might be useful for their
   country. But it was apparent that the minister wished to avoid
   a rupture with England, and was, therefore, unwilling to
   receive them openly as the ministers of the United States, or
   to enter into any formal negotiation with them."

      J. Marshall,
      Life of Washington,
      volume 3, chapter 7.

   "It is … a settled rule of diplomacy that a minister should
   not be pressed upon a foreign court by which it is understood
   that he will not be received. To this may be added the rule
   that applications for loans should, unless as part of a treaty
   alliance, be made through business channels. In disregard of
   these rules the majority of Congress, under the influence of
   Richard H. Lee and Samuel Adams, instituted a series of
   missions to European courts for the bare purpose of borrowing
   money, when the courts so addressed not only gave no
   intimation that they would receive these envoys, but when,
   from the nature of things, as well as from unofficial
   intimation, it should have been known that such reception
   would be refused. With France there was no difficulty, as
   France had intimated unofficially that such envoys would be
   received, at least in a private capacity, France being then
   ready to take the consequence of war with Britain. And this
   reception was accorded … first to Silas Deane, then to
   Franklin, and then to Arthur Lee. Here Franklin thought
   Congress should stop, saying that ministers should not be sent
   to sovereigns without first having some sort of assurance of
   recognition of the United States as an independent
   sovereignty, and that a 'virgin' republic, as he called it,
   should wait till there was some such recognition before
   thrusting embassies on foreign courts with demands for money.
   Congress thought differently. Arthur Lee was instructed to go
   to Madrid with an alternate commission to Berlin; William Lee
   was sent to Vienna, Dana to St. Petersburg, Adams to The
   Hague, Izard to Florence, and the instructions in each case
   were to demand not only recognition, but subsidy. … The policy
   of sending ministers to European courts where such ministers
   were not received worked injuriously to the United States from
   the mere fact of their non-reception. Another difficulty arose
   from the circumstance that several of these ministers took up
   their residence in Paris, and, without specific authority,
   considered it their duty to take part in the counsels of the
   American legation.
{3243}
   Thus Ralph Izard, commissioned to Tuscany, never went there,
   but remained in Paris, claiming a right to be informed of all
   the details of the negotiations with France, and occupying no
   small share of the time and care of Franklin with discussions
   of this claim, which Franklin could not accede to, but on
   which Izard continued to insist. When the triple legation of
   Franklin, Deane, and Arthur Lee (and afterwards Franklin,
   Arthur Lee, and Adams), was commissioned, it was understood
   that its members were to divide, so that one (Franklin) should
   remain in Paris, while the others should take charge of the
   missions to other capitals. But Arthur Lee, when he found that
   he could not be received in Madrid, or in Vienna, or in
   Berlin, made but brief excursions to Spain, to Austria, and to
   Berlin, reporting himself after each short trip promptly at
   Paris, there to differ from Franklin not only as to important
   business details, but as to the whole policy of the mission.
   When Adams was in Paris, during their joint mission, he
   concurred with Arthur Lee in what turned out to be the
   disastrous measure of removing Williams as commercial agent
   and putting in his place William Lee, with a nephew of William
   and Arthur Lee as clerk; while on the whole question of
   sending legations to foreign courts which had not consented to
   receive them, and in the still more important question of the
   attitude to be assumed by the commissioners to the French
   court, Adams agreed with Lee. … It is due to Adams to say that
   he saw the inherent difficulties of permanent missions
   conducted by three joint commissioners; that he recommended
   that there should be but one permanent minister to France; and
   that he recognized Franklin's great influence with the French
   ministry as a strong reason for his retention though without
   colleagues. But there can be no doubt that down to the period
   when Franklin became sole minister, the American cause in
   Europe was much embarrassed by the fact that he had colleagues
   associated with him."

      F. Wharton,
      Introduction to The Revolutionary Diplomatic
      Correspondence of The United States,
      chapter 1, sections 16-17,
      and chapter 9, section 106 (volume 1).

   Before Franklin or Lee reached France, Silas Deane had already
   entered into negotiations with Beaumarchais and opened a train
   of dealings which proved unfortunate for both. Leaving aside
   "all the long controversy about the rights and wrongs of
   Beaumarchais, which have never been completely and
   satisfactorily solved, … it appears that a large part of the
   misunderstanding between him and Deane and Arthur Lee is
   attributable to a change of plan between April and July, 1776.
   Beaumarchais's scheme of operation, when he saw Lee in London,
   was to expend money which should, at least in pretence and
   form, be obtained from the voluntary contributions of wealthy
   Frenchmen in aid of the American cause; but in July, when he
   saw Deane, that scheme had been dropped, and the project was
   that he should appear as a merchant. … In May, there was a
   plan on the part of the French government to employ a real
   merchant; now the plan was to employ a comedy merchant. This
   was exactly the role which Beaumarchais was qualified to fill,
   and he proceeded to establish and open a large house, with all
   the accessories of a house of business, as the same are
   understood and represented on the stage, At that time it was
   believed that the colonists had plenty of exportable products
   which they could and would contribute for the purpose
   [purchase?] of arms and ammunition. It was thought that their
   main difficulty would be to find any market in which they
   could purchase contraband of war. The chief assistance,
   therefore, which they would need from France would be secret
   permission to make this exchange in France. Beaumarchais's
   commercial operations would be real commercial operations, and
   at worst could only issue in some expenses and losses, on the
   balance of account, which the French government might have to
   make good. Beaumarchais approached Deane with all the forms
   and reality of a commercial proposition, and Deane assured him
   that he should have some returns in six months, and full pay
   for everything which he supplied in a year. Two days later
   they made a contract by which Congress was to pay the current
   price of the goods in America when they should arrive, or take
   them at the cost price, with insurance, charges, and
   commission 'proportioned to the trouble and care, which cannot
   now be fixed.' … August 18, Beaumarchais writes to the
   Committee of Secret Correspondence that, led by esteem for a
   people struggling for liberty, he has established an extensive
   commercial house, solely for the purpose of supplying them
   with all things useful, even gold for the payment of troops;
   and that without waiting for their consent he has already
   procured 200 cannons, 200,000 pounds of powder, 20,000 guns,
   with balls, lead, clothing, etc. He wants the cargoes
   consigned to him in return, and promises that he has great
   power to use any consignments whatsoever; but he wants
   especially tobacco. He signs this letter Roderique Hortales &
   Co. … A million livres were advanced by Spain to Beaumarchais,
   August 11, 1776, and the Farmers-general of France advanced a
   million livres, but took advantage of the distress of the
   Americans to stipulate that it should be paid for in tobacco
   at half its then current price. Beaumarchais also advanced
   money to Deane for his personal expenses; and it has never
   been doubted that he exerted himself with the utmost energy,
   if not always with the greatest prudence, to expedite the
   shipment of the goods. Of the three ships which he despatched
   at the end of the year, two were captured by the English; but
   the one which arrived was of the greatest possible value to
   the cause. … When Arthur Lee received his appointment as
   Commissioner to France and entered upon the discharge of his
   duties, he found that the promises made to him by Beaumarchais
   … had not been kept. He reported to the Committee of Secret
   Correspondence that a change in the mode of sending had been
   settled between Deane and Hortales. … Arthur Lee always held
   the attitude of suspicion that Deane and Beaumarchais were in
   a conspiracy to levy contributions for themselves on the free
   gifts of France to the United States. Franklin always affected
   to ignore the dealings with Beaumarchais, and to treat them as
   exclusively in the hands of Deane; while Congress always
   showed themselves very careful not to pay for anything which
   possibly was intended as a gift. Therefore Deane and
   Beaumarchais were left for years to claim and protest that
   there had been genuine mercantile contracts which had not been
   fulfilled, and they could scarcely obtain attention. … September
   8, 1777, Congress voted that Deane had no authority to make
   contracts with persons to come to America.
{3244}
   November 21, they voted to recall him. Undoubtedly the
   vexation which Deane had caused them by sending over a great
   number of persons to serve in the army, under contracts which
   enabled them to demand large pay and high rank, was the chief
   cause of irritation against him; but Arthur Lee had also been
   poisoning the mind of his brother, and through him, of the
   whole Lee-Adams faction in Congress, with suspicions of
   Deane's honesty. Deane had found himself transferred, within a
   period of two or three years, from an utterly obscure
   existence at Wethersfield, Connecticut, to the position of a
   quasi-ambassador at the court of France. He adopted a large
   and expensive style of living, and kept open house for the
   Americans at Paris. It is very reasonable to suppose that this
   large expenditure on his part was one of the chief grounds of
   belief that he was making great gain out of his position. …
   The affair of Silas Deane has importance far beyond the merits
   or the fate of that individual. The quarrel over him and his
   rights and wrongs, as will presently be seen, entered into the
   hottest party contests in Congress during the next two or
   three years, and it comes up again often subsequently. It has
   even been asserted that the intimacy into which John Adams was
   thrown with the Lees, in this connection, was what made him
   President of the United States, by winning him votes from
   Virginia in 1796. January 1, 1778, Beaumarchais, having heard
   that money had been given to the Americans through Grand, the
   banker, writes to Vergennes: 'So I have lost the fruit of the
   most noble and incredible labour by those very exertions which
   conduct others to glory.' … He is in terror of bankruptcy.
   Inasmuch as a treaty of alliance between France and the United
   States was now made, matters had entered upon a new stage.
   Beaumarchais, with his fictitious firm of Hortales, was no
   longer necessary or useful. The French government dealt
   directly with the American envoys in granting supplies and
   subsidies. April 7, Congress made a contract with Hortales
   that they should pay, for all the cargoes already shipped and
   those to be shipped, the first cost, charges, and freight, in
   France. The contract between Beaumarchais and Deane is
   recognized. Hortales is to pay bills drawn every two months at
   double usance for twenty-four million livres annually. This
   article, however, is subject to ratification by the house in
   Paris and the American Commissioners at Paris. American
   produce is to be exported and consigned to this house.
   Interest is to be paid on all sums due, with a commission of
   two and a half per cent. From this time Beaumarchais falls out
   of sight as an agent of aid and supplies to the American
   cause, and becomes a claimant, who considers that he has been
   treated with injustice and ingratitude by the United States."

      W. G. Sumner,
      The Financier and the Finances of the American Revolution,
      chapter 8 (volume 1).

   "The episode of Beaumarchais … was a survival of the secret
   diplomacy of Louis XV, for a short time exercising an
   extraordinary influence in the first period of the reign of
   Louis XVI. Louis XVI, on reaching the throne, found the
   machinery of secret diplomacy so ingeniously constructed by
   his predecessor in full operation; and, … for one or two
   delicate inquiries at the outset of the new reign,
   Beaumarchais, who of all the diplomatists of this peculiar
   breed was the most adroit and fertile in expedients, was well
   fitted. Hence came his employment, and from his employment
   came his suggestions, full of brilliant wit and effective
   reasoning, as to America. But the antagonism between him and
   Vergennes was too marked to permit sustained political
   relationship; and when Franklin entered into diplomatic life
   in Paris Beaumarchais ceased to take a prominent political
   position. And even during the period of Beaumarchais' greatest
   activity it must be remembered that he was not technically
   Vergennes' subordinate. It was one of the peculiarities of the
   secret diplomacy of Louis XIV and Louis XV, as depicted by
   Broglie in his admirable treatise on that topic, that even the
   existence of the secret agent was not to be supposed to be
   known to the king's ostensible ministers. This was not the
   case with Beaumarchais; but at the same time Beaumarchais'
   political influence ceased … when, on the arrival of Franklin,
   Vergennes, with Franklin's aid, took control of Anglo-American
   diplomacy."

      F. Wharton,
      Introduction to The Revolutionary Diplomatic
      Correspondence of the United States,
      chapter 4, section 55 (volume 1).

      ALSO IN:
      E. E. Hale,
      Franklin in France.

      J. Bigelow, editor,
      Life of Franklin, by himself,
      volume 2, chapters 13-15.

      J. Parton,
      Life of Franklin,
      part 6 (volume 2).

      L. de Lomenie,
      Beaumarchais and his Times,
      chapters 20-23 (volume 3).

      Papers in relation to the Case of Silas Deane
      (Seventy-Six Society, 1855).

      C. Tower, Jr.,
      The Marquis de La Fayette in the American Revolution,
      volume 1, chapter 5.

      See, also,
      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778 (FEBRUARY).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1779.
   The Thirteen Colonies become States.
   The framing and adoption of State Constitutions.

   "The recommendations to form governments proceeded from the
   general congress; the work was done by the several states, in
   the full enjoyment of self-direction. Each of them claimed to
   be of right a free, sovereign, and independent state; each
   bound its officers to bear to it true allegiance, and to
   maintain its freedom and independence. Massachusetts, which
   was the first state to frame a government independent of the
   king, deviated as little as possible from the letter of its
   charter; and, assuming that the place of governor was vacant
   from the 19th of July 1775, it recognised the council as the
   legal successor to executive power. On the 1st day of May
   1776, in all commissions and legal processes, it substituted
   the name of its 'government and people' for that of the king.
   In June 1777, its legislature assumed power to prepare a
   constitution; but, on a reference to the people, the act was
   disavowed. In September 1779, a convention, which the people
   themselves had specially authorized, framed a constitution. It
   was in a good measure the compilation of John Adams, who was
   guided by the English constitution, by the bill of rights of
   Virginia, and by the experience of Massachusetts herself; and
   this constitution, having been approved by the people, went
   into effect in 1780. On the 5th of January 1776, New Hampshire
   shaped its government with the fewest possible changes from
   its colonial forms, like Massachusetts merging the executive
   power in the council. Not till June 1783 did its convention
   agree upon a more perfect instrument, which was approved by
   the people, and established on the 31st of the following
   October.
{3245}
   The provisional constitution of South Carolina dates from the
   26th of March 1776. In March 1778, a permanent constitution
   was introduced by an act of the legislature. Rhode Island
   enjoyed under its charter a form of government so thoroughly
   republican that the rejection of monarchy, in May 1776,
   required no change beyond a renunciation of the king's name in
   the style of its public acts. A disfranchisement of Catholics
   had stolen into its book of laws; but, so soon as it was
   noticed, the clause was expunged. In like manner, Connecticut
   had only to substitute the people of the colony for the name
   of the king; this was done provisionally on the 14th of June
   1776, and made perpetual on the 10th of the following October.
   Before the end of June of the same year Virginia, sixth in the
   series, first in the completeness of her work, by a
   legislative convention without any further consultation of the
   people, framed and adopted a bill of rights, a declaration of
   independence, and a constitution. On the second of July 1776,
   New Jersey perfected its new, self-created charter. Delaware
   next proclaimed its bill of rights, and, on the 20th of
   September 1776, the representatives in convention having been
   chosen by the freemen of the state for that very purpose,
   finished its constitution. The Pennsylvania convention adopted
   its constitution on the 28th of September 1776; but the
   opposition of the Quakers whom it indirectly disfranchised,
   and of a large body of patriots, delayed its thorough
   organization for more than five months. The delegates of
   Maryland, meeting on the 14th of August 1776, framed its
   constitution with great deliberation; it was established on
   the 9th of the following November. On the 18th of December
   1776, the constitution of North Carolina was ratified in the
   congress which framed it. On the 5th of February 1777, Georgia
   perfected its organic law by the unanimous agreement of its
   convention. Last of the thirteen came New York, whose
   empowered convention, on the 20th of April 1777, established a
   constitution that, in humane liberality, excelled them all.
   The privilege of the suffrage had been far more widely
   extended in the colonies than in England; by general consent,
   the extension of the elective franchise was postponed. The age
   of twenty-one was a qualification universally required. So,
   too, was residence, except that in Virginia and South Carolina
   it was enough to own in the district or town a certain
   freehold or 'lot.' South Carolina required the electors to
   'acknowledge the being of a God, and to believe in a future
   state of rewards and punishments.' 'White men alone could
   claim the franchise in Virginia, in South Carolina, and in
   Georgia; but in South Carolina a benign interpretation of the
   law classed the free octaroon as a white, even though
   descended through an unbroken line of mothers from an imported
   African slave; the other ten states raised no question of
   color. In Pennsylvania, in New Hampshire, and partially in
   North Carolina, the right to vote belonged to every resident
   taxpayer; Georgia extended it to any white inhabitant 'of any
   mechanic trade'; with this exception, Georgia and all the
   other colonies required the possession of a freehold, or of
   property variously valued, in Massachusetts at about $200, in
   Georgia at £10. Similar conditions had always existed, with
   the concurrence or by the act of the colonists themselves.
   Maryland prescribed as its rule that votes should be given by
   word of mouth; Virginia and New Jersey made no change in their
   usage; in Rhode Island each freeman was in theory summoned to
   be present in the general court; he therefore gave his proxy
   to his representative by writing his own name on the back of
   his vote; all others adopted the ballot, New York at the end
   of the war, the other eight without delay."

      G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States
      (Author's last revision),
      volume 5, chapter 9.

      ALSO IN:
      American Archives,
      series 5, volumes 2-3 (as indexed).

      See, also,
      VIRGINIA: A. D. 1776;
      SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1776 (FEBRUARY-APRIL);
      NEW YORK: A. D. 1777;
      CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1776;
      NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1774-1776;
      PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1776;
      MARYLAND: A. D. 1776;
      GEORGIA: A. D. 1775-1777;
      NEW HAMPSHIRE: 1775-1776.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777 (January-December).
   The campaign on the Delaware.
   Lord Howe in possession of Philadelphia.
   Battles on the Brandywine and at Germantown.
   The winter of Washington's army at Valley Forge.

   "Washington remained at Morristown from the 7th of January
   until the 28th of May, during which time no military movement
   of importance took place. His men left for their homes as soon
   as their terms of service expired, and as few militia entered
   the camp to take their places, at times it seemed as if the
   army would be so reduced as to be unworthy of the name. It was
   not until late in the spring that the new levies reached
   headquarters. On the 28th of May the Americans marched to
   Middlebrook and took position behind the Raritan. On the 13th
   of June Howe marched from Brunswick and … endeavored to bring
   on a general engagement, … but Washington refused to leave the
   strong position he occupied, and Howe retired to Amboy. Early
   in April Howe had settled upon a campaign having for its
   object the capture of Philadelphia. He determined to embark
   his troops and transport them to the banks of the Delaware or
   Chesapeake, and march directly on the city. … On the 23d of
   July, after Howe's troops had been three weeks on the vessels,
   the fleet sailed, shaping its course southwesterly. … Signal
   fires were lighted along the Jersey coast as it was seen from
   time to time by those who were watching for it, and messengers
   carried inland the news of its progress. At last, on the 30th,
   it was spoken off the capes of Delaware, but Lord Howe deemed
   it too hazardous to sail up that river, and after consulting
   with his brother, the general, continued on his course
   southward. On the 15th of August he entered Chesapeake Bay,
   and on the 25th the troops were landed at Elk Ferry."
   Meantime, Washington had been in great uncertainty as to the
   destination and intentions of his antagonist, but had drawn
   his army near to Philadelphia. It had just been joined by
   several distinguished foreign officers, Lafayette, De Kalb and
   Pulaski in the number. At Philadelphia there was consternation
   on the approach of the enemy, but "the pacific influence which
   the presence of a large Quaker population exercised seemed to
   bear down all military efforts. … To impress the lukewarm with
   the strength of his forces, and to inspire hopes in the
   breasts of the patriotic, on the 24th of August Washington
   marched his army through the streets of Philadelphia.
{3246}
   The men were poorly armed and clothed, and to give them some
   uniformity they wore sprigs of green in their hats." The
   advance of Howe from Elk Ferry was slow, and it was not until
   the 11th of September that the Americans encountered him, at
   Chad's Ford, on the Brandywine, where they had taken position.
   In the battle which occurred that day the British gained a
   clear victory, by means of a successful flank movement which
   Cornwallis executed, crossing the river some miles above,
   while General Knyphausen made feigned attempts at Chad's Ford.
   "The American loss was about 1,000, killed, wounded, and
   prisoners; that of the British, 579. … The day after the
   battle Washington marched from Chester to Philadelphia. He
   rested his army two days at Germantown, and then recrossed the
   Schuylkill; public opinion demanding that another battle
   should be risked before the city should be given up. On the
   16th the two armies met on the high ground south of Chester
   Valley and prepared for action. The skirmishing had actually
   begun, when a violent storm stopped the engagement by ruining
   the ammunition of both armies. Washington withdrew to the
   hills north of the valley, and, finding it impossible to
   repair the damage done by the storm, retreated again over the
   Schuylkill, leaving Wayne behind him to watch the enemy and
   attack their rear should they attempt to follow." But Wayne
   was surprised at Paoli, and Washington was deceived by a
   feigned movement, so that Howe succeeded in entering
   Philadelphia without another battle, on the 26th, having
   occupied Germantown the day before. "The main portion of
   Howe's army remained at Germantown, a village of a single
   street, two miles in length, and five from the city." Here, on
   the morning of October 4th, Washington attacked him, and, for
   a time, with great success; but confusion and
   misunderstandings on the part of the attacking columns arose,
   which turned the half-won victory into a defeat. "The
   Americans lost nearly 1,100 killed, wounded, and prisoners;
   the British 521. … While the Americans were defeated in their
   object, the moral results of the battle were in their favor.
   It inspired them with confidence, and showed the world that,
   though driven from the field of Brandywine, they were still
   aggressive." The next few weeks were employed by Howe in
   reducing the forts which commanded the Delaware. Fort Mifflin
   was taken after a severe siege, and this compelled the
   abandonment of Fort Mercer, from which the British had been
   repulsed with heavy loss. Early in December Howe moved upon
   Washington's lines, at Whitemarsh, intending an attack; but
   found them so strong that he dared not venture the attempt,
   and returned to Philadelphia. "As the season was advancing,
   and the Americans were in no condition to keep the field, it
   was decided to go into winter-quarters at Valley Forge, on the
   west side of the Schuylkill, where the Valley Creek empties
   into the river. The surrounding hills were covered with woods
   and presented an inhospitable appearance. The choice was
   severely criticised, and De Kalb described it as a wilderness.
   But the position was central and easily defended. The army
   arrived there about the middle of December, and the erection
   of huts began. They were built of logs, and were 14 by 15 feet
   each. The windows were covered with oiled paper, and the
   openings between the logs were closed with clay. The huts were
   arranged in streets, giving the place the appearance of a
   city. It was the first of the year, however, before they were
   occupied, and previous to that the suffering of the army had
   become great. Although the weather was intensely cold the men
   were obliged to work at the buildings, with nothing to support
   life but flour mixed with water, which they baked into cakes
   at the open fires. … The horses died of starvation by
   hundreds, and the men were obliged to haul their own
   provisions and firewood. As straw could not be found to
   protect the men from the cold ground, sickness spread through
   their quarters with fearful rapidity. 'The unfortunate
   soldiers,' wrote Lafayette in after-years, 'were in want of
   everything; they had neither coats, hats, shirts, nor shoes;
   their feet and their legs froze till they became black, and it
   was often necessary to amputate them. … The army frequently
   remained whole days without provisions, and the patient
   endurance of both soldiers and officers was a miracle which
   each moment served to renew.' … While the country around
   Valley Forge was so impoverished by the military operations of
   the previous summer as to make it impossible for it to support
   the army, the sufferings of the latter were chiefly owing to
   the inefficiency of Congress. That body met at Lancaster after
   leaving Philadelphia, and at once adjourned to York, where its
   sessions were continued. But it in no way equalled the
   congresses which had preceded it. 'The Continental Congress
   and the currency,' wrote Gouverneur Morris in 1778, 'have
   greatly depreciated.'"

      F. D. Stone,
      The Struggle for the Delaware
      (Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 6, chapter 5).

   The sufferings of the army at Valley Forge, and the shameful
   neglect which it experienced, were indignantly described by
   Washington, in a letter addressed to the President of
   Congress, December 23, 1777: "Since the month of July," he
   wrote, "we have had no assistance from the
   quartermaster-general, and to want of assistance from this
   department the commissary-general charges great part of his
   deficiency. To this I am to add, that, notwithstanding it is a
   standing order, and often repeated, that the troops shall
   always have two days' provisions by them, that they might be
   ready at any sudden call; yet an opportunity has scarcely ever
   offered, of taking an advantage of the enemy, that has not
   been either totally obstructed, or greatly impeded on this
   account. And this, the great and crying evil, is not all. The
   soap, vinegar, and other articles allowed by Congress, we see
   none of, nor have we seen them, I believe, since the battle of
   Brandywine. The first, indeed, we have now little occasion
   for; few men having more than one shirt, many only the moiety
   of one, and some none at all. In addition to which, as a proof
   of the little benefit received from a clothier-general, and as
   a further proof of the inability of an army, under the
   circumstances of this, to perform the common duties of
   soldiers, (besides a number of men confined to hospitals for
   want of shoes, and others in farmers' houses on the same
   account,) we have, by a field-return this day made, no less
   than two thousand eight hundred and ninety-eight men now in
   camp unfit for duty, because they are barefoot and otherwise
   naked.
{3247}
   By the same return it appears, that our whole strength in
   Continental troops, including the eastern brigades, which have
   joined us since the surrender of General Burgoyne, exclusive
   of the Mary]and troops sent to Wilmington, amounts to more
   than eight thousand two hundred in camp fit for duty;
   notwithstanding which; and that since the 4th instant, our
   numbers fit for duty, from the hardships and exposures they
   have undergone, particularly on account of blankets (numbers
   having been obliged, and still are, to sit up all night by
   fires, instead of taking comfortable rest in a natural and
   common way), have decreased near two thousand men. We find
   gentlemen, without knowing whether the army was really going
   into winter-quarters or not (for I am sure no resolution of
   mine would warrant the Remonstrance), reprobating the measure
   as much as if they thought the soldiers were made of stocks or
   stones, and equally insensible of frost and snow; and
   moreover, as if they conceived it easily practicable for an
   inferior army, under the disadvantages I have described ours
   to be, which are by no means exaggerated, to confine a
   superior one, in all respects well-appointed and provided for
   a winter's campaign, within the city of Philadelphia, and to
   cover from depredation and waste the States of Pennsylvania
   and Jersey. But what makes this matter still more
   extraordinary in my eye is, that these very gentlemen,—who
   were well apprized of the nakedness of the troops from ocular
   demonstration, who thought their own soldiers worse clad than
   others, and who advised me near a month ago to postpone the
   execution of a plan I was about to adopt, in consequence of a
   resolve of Congress for seizing clothes, under strong
   assurances that an ample supply would be collected in ten days
   agreeably to a decree of the State (not one article of which,
   by the by, is yet come to hand),—should think a winter's
   campaign, and the covering of these States from the invasion
   of an enemy, so easy and practicable a business. I can assure
   those gentlemen, that it is a much easier and less distressing
   thing to draw remonstrances in a comfortable room by a good
   fireside, than to occupy a cold, bleak hill, and sleep under
   frost and snow, without clothes or blankets. However, although
   they seem to have little feeling for the naked and distressed
   soldiers, I feel superabundantly for them, and, from my soul,
   I pity those miseries, which it is neither in my power to
   relieve or prevent. It is for these reasons, therefore, that I
   have dwelt upon the subject; and it adds not a little to my
   other difficulties and distress to find, that much more is
   expected of me than is possible to be performed, and that upon
   the ground of safety and policy I am obliged to conceal the
   true state of the army from public view, and thereby expose
   myself to detraction and calumny."

      George Washington,
      Writings,
      edited by W. C. Ford,
      volume 6, pages 259-262.

   It was during this trying winter, while the army suffered at
   Valley Forge, that it was joined by Baron Steuben, an
   accomplished Prussian officer, trained in the school of
   Frederick the Great, with a record of distinguished service in
   the Seven Years War. He came as a volunteer, and was welcomed
   by Washington, who found in him the organizer, the
   disciplinarian, the instructor, which the rudely formed
   American army so greatly needed. The services rendered by
   Baron Steuben during that first winter of his stay in America
   were especially valuable, beyond measure. In his own account
   of the state of things which he found he says: "'My
   determination must have been very firm that I did not abandon
   my design when I saw the troops. Matters had to be remedied,
   but where to commence was the great difficulty. In the first
   place, I informed myself relative to the military
   administration. I found that the different branches were
   divided into departments. There were those of the
   quarter-master general, war commissary, provisions commissary,
   commissary of the treasury, or paymaster of forage, etc., etc.
   But they were all bad copies of a bad original. That is to
   say, they had imitated the English administration, which is
   certainly the most imperfect in Europe. The general asked me
   to give him some statements concerning the arrangements of the
   departments, and their various branches in the European
   armies. I gave them to him, and, detailing therein the duties
   of each department and of its different branches, dilated upon
   the functions of the quarter-masters (maréchaux généraux de
   logis) in particular, in which branch I had served myself for
   a long time in the Seven Years' War. But the English system,
   bad as it is, had already taken root. Each company and
   quarter-master had a commission of so much per cent. on all
   the money he expended. It was natural, therefore, that expense
   was not spared—that wants were discovered where there were
   none; and it was also natural that the dearest articles were
   those that suited the commissioners best. Hence the
   depreciation of our currency—hence the expense of so many
   millions. I pointed out to General Washington and several
   members of Congress the advantages of the contract system. I
   even drew up a memorandum on the subject, which Colonel
   Laurens translated into English, showing the way in which
   things were contracted for in the Prussian and French armies.
   But whether it was that they thought such a system
   impracticable in this country, or whether they were unable to
   check the torrent of expense, things remained as they were. I
   directed my attention to the condition of the troops, and I
   found an ample field, where disorder and confusion were
   supreme. … The number of men in a regiment was fixed by
   Congress, as well as in a company—so many infantry, cavalry,
   and artillery. But the eternal ebb and flow of men engaged for
   three, six, and nine months, who went and came every day,
   rendered it impossible to have either a regiment or a company
   complete; and the words company, regiment, brigade, and
   division, were so vague that they did not convey any idea upon
   which to form a calculation, either of a particular corps or
   of the army in general. They were so unequal in their number,
   that it would have been impossible to execute any maneuvers.
   Sometimes a regiment was stronger than a brigade. I have seen
   a regiment consisting of thirty men, and a company of one
   corporal! … The soldiers were scattered about in every
   direction. The army was looked upon as a nursery for servants,
   and every one deemed it his right to have a valet; several
   thousand soldiers were employed in this way. We had more
   commissaries and quarter-masters at that time than all the
   armies of Europe together; the most modest had only one
   servant, but others had two and even three.
{3248}
   If the captains and colonels could give no account of their
   men, they could give still less an account of their arms,
   accouterments, clothing, ammunition, camp equipage, etc.
   Nobody kept an account but the commissaries, who furnished all
   the articles. A company, which consisted, in May, of fifty
   men, was armed, clothed and equipped in June. It then
   consisted of thirty men; in July it received thirty recruits,
   who were to be clothed, armed and equipped; and not only the
   clothes, but the arms were carried off by those who had
   completed their time of service. General Knox assured me that,
   previous to the establishment of my department, there never
   was a campaign in which the military magazines did not furnish
   from 5,000 to 8,000 muskets to replace those which were lost
   in the way I have described above. The loss of bayonets was
   still greater. The American soldier, never having used this
   arm, had no faith in it, and never used it but to roast his
   beefsteak, and indeed often left it at home. This is not
   astonishing when it is considered that the majority of the
   States engaged their soldiers for from six to nine months.
   Each man who went away took his musket with him, and his
   successor received another from the public store. No captain
   kept a book. Accounts were never furnished nor required. As
   our army is, thank God, little subject to desertion, I venture
   to say that during an entire campaign there have not been
   twenty muskets lost since my system came into force. … The men
   were literally naked, some of them in the fullest extent of
   the word. The officers who had coats had them of every color
   and make. I saw officers, at a grand parade at Valley Forge,
   mounting guard in a sort of dressing-gown, made of an old
   blanket or woolen bed-cover. With regard to their military
   discipline, I may safely say no such thing existed. … I
   commenced operations by drafting 120 men from the line, whom I
   formed into a guard for the general-in-chief. I made this
   guard my military school. I drilled them myself twice a day;
   and to remove that English prejudice which some officers
   entertained, namely, that to drill a recruit was a sergeant's
   duty and beneath the station of an officer, I often took the
   musket myself to show the men the manual exercise which I
   wished to introduce. All my inspectors were present at each
   drill. We marched together, wheeled, etc., etc., and in a
   fortnight my company knew perfectly how to bear arms, had a
   military air, knew how to march, to form in column, deploy,
   and execute some little maneuvers with excellent precision. …
   I paraded them in presence of all the officers of the army,
   and gave them an opportunity of exhibiting all they knew. They
   formed in column; deployed; attacked with the bayonet; changed
   front, etc., etc. It afforded a new and agreeable sight for
   the young officers and soldiers. Having gained my point, I
   dispersed my apostles, the inspectors, and my new doctrine was
   eagerly embraced. I lost no time in extending my operations on
   a large scale. I applied my system to battalions, afterward to
   brigades, and in less than three weeks I executed maneuvers
   with an entire division in presence of the
   commander-in-chief.' … The most interesting narrative of the
   energy employed by Steuben, and the success of his system, is
   given by his favorite aid-de-camp and intimate friend, William
   North, who was with him from the beginning. He says in his
   biographical sketch: 'Certainly it was a brave attempt!
   Without understanding a word of the English language, to think
   of bringing men, born free, and joined together to preserve
   their freedom, into strict subjection; to obey without a word,
   a look, the mandates of a master! that master once their
   equal, or possibly beneath them, in whatever might become a
   man! It was a brave attempt, which nothing but virtue, or
   high-raised hopes of glory, could have supported. At the first
   parade, the troops neither understanding the command, nor how
   to follow in a changement to which they had not been
   accustomed, even with the instructor at their head, were
   getting fast into confusion. At this moment, Captain B.
   Walker, then of the second New York regiment, advanced from
   his platoon, and offered his assistance to translate the
   orders and interpret to the troops. "If," said the baron, "I
   had seen an angel from heaven, I should not have more
   rejoiced." … Walker became from that moment his aid-de-camp,
   and remained to the end of the baron's life his dear and most
   worthy friend. From the commencement of instruction, no time,
   no pains, no fatigue were thought too great, in pursuit of
   this great object. Through the whole of each campaign, when
   troops were to maneuver, and that was almost every day, the
   baron rose at three o'clock; while his servant dressed his
   hair he smoked a single pipe and drank one cup of coffee, was
   on horseback at sunrise, and, with or without his suite,
   galloped to the parade. There was no waiting for a tardy
   aid-de-camp, and those who followed wished they had not slept.
   Nor was there need of chiding; when duty was neglected, or
   military etiquette infringed, the baron's look was quite
   sufficient.' … Steuben enjoyed the confidence of both officers
   and men, and every thing he proposed was executed with as much
   precision as if it were an order from the commander-in-chief.
   Although he was only a volunteer, without any specific rank in
   the army, he had greater power and authority than any general
   could boast of."

      F. Kapp,
      Life of Frederick William von Steuben,
      chapter 6.

      ALSO IN:
      W. Irving,
      Life of Washington,
      volume 3, chapters 13, 18-19, and 23-27.

      G. W. Greene,
      Life of General Nathanael Greene,
      book 2, chapters 16-25 (volume l).

      J. T. Scharf and T. Westcott,
      History of Philadelphia,
      chapter 17 (volume l).

      C. J. Stille,
      Major-General Anthony Wayne,
      Chapter 3.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777 (June).
   Vermont denied admission to the Union.

      See VERMONT; A. D. 1777-1778.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777 (July).
   The coming of Lafayette.

   "La Fayette, barely nineteen years old, was in garrison at
   Metz, when he was invited to a dinner that his commander, the
   Count de Broglie, gave to the brother of the king of England,
   the Duke of Gloucester, then on his way through the city. News
   had just been received of the proclamation of the independence
   of the United States, and, the conversation having naturally
   fallen on this subject, La Fayette plied the duke with
   questions to acquaint himself with the events, entirely new to
   him, which were happening in America. Before the end of the
   dinner he had made his decision, and, from that moment, he no
   longer thought of anything else except setting out for the new
   world.
{3249}
   He went to Paris and confided his project to his friends, the
   Count de Segur and the Viscount de Noailles, who were to
   accompany him. The Count de Broglie, whom he also informed,
   tried to turn him from his design. 'I saw your uncle die in
   Italy,' he said to him, 'and your father at Min·den, and I do
   not wish to contribute to the ruin of your family by allowing
   you to go.' Nevertheless, he put La Fayette in communication
   with the former agent of Choiseul in Canada, the Baron de
   Kalb, who became his friend. De Kalb presented him to Silas
   Deane, who, considering him too young, wished to dissuade him
   from his project. But the news of the disasters experienced by
   the Americans before New York, at White Plains and in New
   Jersey, confirmed La Fayette in his resolution. He bought and
   fitted out a vessel at his own expense, and disguised his
   preparations by making a journey to London. Nevertheless his
   design was disclosed at Court. His family became angry with
   him. He was forbidden to go to America, and, to render this
   order effective, a lettre de cachet was issued against him.
   Nevertheless he left Paris with an officer named Mauroy,
   disguised himself as a courier, went on board his ship at
   Passage in Spain, and set sail April the 26th, 1777. He had
   several officers on board. La Fayette successfully avoided the
   English cruisers and the French vessels sent in pursuit of
   him. Finally, after a hazardous passage of seven weeks, he
   reached Georgetown, and, furnished with letters of
   recommendation from Deane, he reported to Congress."

      T. Balch,
      The French in America during the War of Independence,
      chapter 7.

   In consideration of the great personal sacrifice he had made
   in quitting France, and his offer to serve the American cause
   at his own expense and without pay, Congress, with hesitation,
   conferred on the young marquis the rank of Major General, but
   without command. He succeeded, too, in procuring a like
   commission for Baron de Kalb, who had accompanied him. While
   Lafayette was still busy with these arrangements, Washington
   came to Philadelphia, and they met at a dinner party. They
   seem to have been drawn to one another at the first exchange
   of words, and a friendship began which lasted through their
   lives. Lafayette was soon invited to become a member of the
   military family of the commander-in-chief.

      B. Tuckerman,
      Life of General Lafayette,
      chapter 2.

      ALSO IN:
      C. Tower, Jr.,
      The Marquis de La Fayette in the American Revolution,
      volume 1, chapter 1.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777 (July-October).
   The struggle for the Hudson.
   Burgoyne's expedition from Canada.
   His surrender at Saratoga.

   Early in the summer of 1777 a formidable expedition under
   General Burgoyne was set in motion from Canada toward Lake
   Champlain. "It was a part of Burgoyne's plan, not merely to
   take Ticonderoga, but to advance thence upon Albany, and, with
   the co-operation of the troops at New York, to get possession
   also of the posts in the Highlands. The British would then
   command the Hudson through its whole extent, and New England,
   the head of the rebellion, would be completely cut off from
   the middle and southern colonies. Burgoyne started on this
   expedition with a brilliant army of 8,000 men, partly British
   and partly Germans, besides a large number of Canadian
   boatmen, laborers and skirmishers. On the western shore of
   Lake Champlain, near Crown Point, he met the Six Nations in
   council, and after a feast and a speech, some 400 of their
   warriors joined this army. His next step was to issue a
   proclamation … threatening with all the extremities of war all
   who should presume to resist his arms. Two days after the
   issue of this proclamation, Burgoyne appeared [July 1] before
   Ticonderoga." The commander of that important fort, General
   St. Clair, found defense impracticable and evacuated the
   place. He was vigorously pursued in his retreat and only
   escaped with the loss of most of his bag·gage and stores,
   besides several hundred men, in killed, wounded, and
   prisoners. "After a seven days' march, he joined Schuyler at
   Fort Edward, on the Hudson. Here was assembled the whole force
   of the northern army, amounting to about 5,000 men; but a
   considerable part were militia hastily called in; many were
   without arms; there was a great deficiency of ammunition and
   provisions; and the whole force was quite disorganized. The
   region between Skenesborough [now Whitehall, where Burgoyne
   had halted] and the Hudson was an almost unbroken wilderness.
   Wood Creek was navigable as far as Fort Anne [which the
   Americans had fired and abandoned]; from Fort Anne to the
   Hudson, over an exceedingly rough country, … extended a single
   military road. While Burgoyne halted a few days at
   Skenesborough to put his forces in order, and to bring up the
   necessary supplies, Schuyler hastened to destroy the
   navigation of Wood Creek," and to make the road from Fort Anne
   as nearly impassable as a wilderness road can be made. "All
   the stock in the neighborhood was driven off, and the militia
   of New England was summoned to the rescue. … The advance from
   Skenesborough cost the British infinite labor and fatigue; but
   … [the] impediments were at length overcome; and Burgoyne,
   with his troops, artillery, and baggage, presently appeared
   [July 29] on the banks of the Hudson. … Fort Edward was
   untenable. As the British approached, the Americans crossed
   the river, and retired, first to Saratoga, and then to
   Stillwater, a short distance above the mouth of the Mohawk.
   Hardly had Schuyler taken up this position, when news arrived
   of another disaster and a new danger. While moving up Lake
   Champlain, Burgoyne had detached Colonel St. Leger, with 200
   regulars, Sir John Johnson's Royal Greens, some Canadian
   Rangers, and a body of Indians under Brant, to harass the New
   York frontier from the west. St. Leger laid siege to Fort
   Schuyler, late Fort Stanwix, near the head of the Mohawk, then
   the extreme western post of the State of New York. General
   Herkimer raised the militia of Tryon county, and advanced to
   the relief of this important post, which was held by
   Gansevoort and Willett, with two New York regiments. About six
   miles from the fort [near Oriskany, August 6], owing to want
   of proper precaution, Herkimer fell into an ambush. Mortally
   wounded, he supported himself against a stump, and encouraged
   his men to the fight. By the aid of a successful sally by
   Willett, they succeeded at last in repulsing the assailants,
   but not without a loss of 400, including many of the leading
   patriots of that region, who met with no mercy at the hands of
   the Indians and refugees. Tryon county, which included the
   whole district west of Albany, abounded with Tories.
{3250}
   It was absolutely necessary to relieve Fort Schuyler." General
   Arnold was accordingly despatched thither, with three
   regiments, and on his approach St. Leger, deserted by most of
   his Indian allies, retreated precipitately, leaving most of
   his stores and baggage behind. Meantime, Burgoyne was
   beginning to find his situation serious. To feed and otherwise
   supply his army was the chief difficulty. He could bring
   enough of stores to the head of Lake George, by the water
   carriage which he commanded, from Canada; but to transport
   them thence to the Hudson, though the distance was only
   eighteen miles, proved nearly impracticable. "The roads were
   so bad, and the supply of draft cattle so small, that, after a
   fortnight's hard labor, the British army had only four days'
   provision in advance." To improve his supplies, and partly,
   moreover, in the hope of finding discontent among the settlers
   of the New Hampshire Grants, Burgoyne sent 800 men, under
   Colonel Baum, into Vermont, They were defeated [August 16] at
   Bennington by the New Hampshire and Vermont militia under
   Colonel John Stark, and again defeated a second time the same
   day, after reinforcements had been sent to them. "Besides the
   killed, about 200 in number, the Americans took near 600
   prisoners, 1,000 stand of arms, as many swords, and four
   pieces of artillery. … The American loss was only 14 killed
   and 42 wounded. … The victory of Stark had a magical effect in
   reviving the spirits of the people and the courage of the
   soldiers."

      R. Hildreth,
      History of the United States,
      chapter 36 (volume 3).

   "Burgoyne's position was by this time very dangerous. His
   Indians were leaving him; many of his best men had been killed
   or captured; and he was getting short of provisions. The army
   opposed to him was increasing: Congress was hurrying men up
   the Hudson; and the country militia were coming in rapidly.
   Burgoyne, therefore, desperately attempted to force his way
   through the American army. He crossed the Hudson, and moved
   slowly down its west bank toward the Mohawk. About the same
   time, Gates, who had been sent by Congress to take Schuyler's
   place, felt strong enough to move up the west bank of the
   Hudson, away from the Mohawk. The two armies met [September
   19] at Bemis Heights, between Saratoga Lake and the Hudson.
   The battle which followed [called by some writers the battle
   of Freeman's Farm] was not decisive: the British held the
   ground; but the Americans had shown that Burgoyne could not
   break through."

      A. Johnston,
      History of the United States for Schools,
      sections 222-223.

   "Burgoyne now halted again, and strengthened his position by
   field-works and redoubts; and the Americans also improved
   their defences. The two armies remained nearly within
   cannon-shot of each other for a considerable time, during
   which Burgoyne was anxiously looking for intelligence of the
   promised expedition from New York, which, according to the
   original plan, ought by this time to have been approaching
   Albany from the south. At last, a messenger from Clinton made
   his way, with great difficulty, to Burgoyne's camp, and
   brought the information that Clinton was on his way up the
   Hudson to attack the American forts which barred the passage
   up that river to Albany. Burgoyne, in reply, on the 30th of
   September, urged Clinton to attack the forts as speedily as
   possible, stating that the effect of such an attack, or even
   the semblance of it, would be to move the American army from
   its position before his own troops. By another messenger, who
   reached Clinton on the 5th of October, Burgoyne informed his
   brother general that he had lost his communications with
   Canada, but had provisions which would last him till the 20th.
   Burgoyne described himself as strongly posted, and stated that
   though the Americans in front of him [at Stillwater] were
   strongly posted also, he made no doubt of being able to force
   them, and making his way to Albany; but that he doubted
   whether he could subsist there, as the country was drained of
   provisions. He wished Clinton to meet him there, and to keep
   open a communication with New York. Burgoyne had
   over-estimated his resources, and in the very beginning of
   October found difficulty and distress pressing him hard. The
   Indians and Canadians began to desert him; while, on the other
   hand, Gates's army was continually reinforced by fresh bodies
   of the militia. … Finding the number and spirit of the enemy
   to increase daily, and his own stores of provisions to
   diminish, Burgoyne determined on attacking the Americans in
   front of him, and by dislodging them from their position, to
   gain the means of moving upon Albany, or at least of relieving
   his troops from the straitened position in which they were
   cooped up. Burgoyne's force was now reduced to less than 6,000
   men. The right of his camp was on some high ground a little to
   the west of the river; thence his entrenchments extended along
   the lower ground to the bank of the Hudson, the line of their
   front being nearly at a right angle with the course of the
   stream. The lines were fortified with redoubts and
   field-works. … The numerical force of the Americans was now
   greater than the British, even in regular troops, and the
   numbers of the militia and volunteers which had joined Gates
   and Arnold were greater still. General Lincoln, with 2,000 New
   England troops, had reached the American camp on the 29th of
   September. Gates gave him the command of the right wing, and
   took in person the command of the left wing, which was
   composed of two brigades under Generals Poor and Leonard, of
   Colonel Morgan's rifle corps, and part of the fresh New
   England Militia. The whole of the American lines had been ably
   fortified under the direction of the celebrated Polish
   General, Kosciusko, who was now serving as a volunteer in
   Gates's army. The right of the American position, that is to
   say, the part of it nearest to the river, was too strong to be
   assailed with any prospect of success: and Burgoyne therefore
   determined to endeavour to force their left. For this purpose
   he formed a column of 1,500 regular troops, with two
   twelve-pounders, two howitzers, and six six-pounders. He
   headed this in person, having Generals Philips, Riedesel; and
   Fraser under him. The enemy's force immediately in front of
   his lines was so strong that he dared not weaken the troops
   who guarded them, by detaching any more to strengthen his
   column of attack. It was on the 7th of October that Burgoyne
   led his column forward; and on the preceding day, the 6th,
   Clinton had successfully executed a brilliant enterprise
   against the two American forts which barred his progress up
   the Hudson.
{3251}
   He had captured them both, with severe loss to the American
   forces opposed to him; he had destroyed the fleet which the
   Americans had been forming on the Hudson, under the protection
   of their forts; and the upward river was laid open to his
   squadron. He had also, with admirable skill and industry,
   collected in small vessels, such as could float within a few
   miles of Albany, provisions sufficient to supply Burgoyne's
   army for six months. He was now only 156 miles distant from
   Burgoyne; and a detachment of 1,700 men actually advanced
   within 40 miles of Albany. Unfortunately Burgoyne and Clinton
   were each ignorant of the other's movements; but if Burgoyne
   had won his battle on the 7th, he must on advancing have soon
   learned the tidings of Clinton's success, and Clinton would
   have heard of his. A junction would soon have been made of the
   two victorious armies, and the great objects of the campaign
   might yet have been accomplished. All depended on the fortune
   of the column with which Burgoyne, on the eventful 7th of
   October, 1777, advanced against the American position." It
   failed in the attempt to break the American line. Arnold, who
   bad been deprived of his command by Gates, rushed into the
   fight at its fiercest stage and assumed a lead, without
   authority, which contributed greatly to the result. General
   Fraser, on the British side, was wounded mortally by a
   sharp-shooter under Morgan's command. Burgoyne's whole force
   was driven back, with heavy losses in killed and wounded,
   leaving six cannon behind them, and the Americans, pursuing,
   carried part of their entrenchments by storm. By this success,
   the latter "acquired the means of completely turning the right
   flank of the British, and gaining their rear. To prevent this
   calamity, Burgoyne effected during the night an entire change
   of position. With great skill he removed his whole army to
   some heights near the river, a little northward of the former
   camp, and he there drew up his men, expecting to be attacked
   on the following day. But Gates was resolved not to risk the
   certain triumph which his success had already secured for him.
   He harassed the English with skirmishes, but attempted no
   regular attack. Meanwhile he detached bodies of troops on both
   sides of the Hudson to prevent the British from recrossing
   that river, and to bar their retreat. When night fell, it
   became absolutely necessary for Burgoyne to retire again, and,
   accordingly, the troops were marched through a stormy and
   rainy night towards Saratoga, abandoning their sick and
   wounded, and the greater part of their baggage, to the enemy.
   … Burgoyne now took up his last position on the heights near
   Saratoga; and hemmed in by the enemy, who refused any
   encounter, and baffled in all his attempts at finding a path
   of escape, he there lingered until famine compelled him to
   capitulate. The fortitude of the British army during this
   melancholy period has been justly eulogised by many native
   historians, but I prefer quoting the testimony of a foreign
   writer, as free from all possibility of partiality. Botta
   says: 'It exceeds the power of words to describe the pitiable
   condition to which the British army was now reduced. The
   troops were worn down by a series of toil, privation,
   sickness, and desperate fighting. They were abandoned by the
   Indians and Canadians; and the effective force of the whole
   army was now diminished by repeated and heavy losses, which
   had principally fallen on the best soldiers and the most
   distinguished officers, from 10,000 combatants to less than
   one-half that number. Of this remnant, little more than 3,000
   were English. In these circumstances, and thus weakened, they
   were invested by an army of four times their own number, whose
   position extended three parts of a circle round them; who
   refused to fight them, as knowing their weakness, and who,
   from the nature of the ground, could not be attacked in any
   part. In this helpless condition, obliged to be constantly
   under arms, while the enemy's cannon played on every part of
   their camp, and even the American rifle-balls whistled in many
   parts of the lines, the troops of Burgoyne retained their
   customary firmness, and while sinking under a hard necessity,
   they showed themselves worthy of a better fate. They could not
   be reproached with an action or a word, which betrayed a want
   of temper or of fortitude.' At length the 13th of October
   arrived, and as no prospect of assistance appeared, and the
   provisions were nearly exhausted, Burgoyne, by the unanimous
   advice of a council of war, sent a messenger to the American
   camp to treat of a convention. General Gates in the first
   instance demanded that the royal army should surrender
   prisoners of war. He also proposed that the British should
   ground their arms. Burgoyne replied, 'This article is
   inadmissible in every extremity; sooner than this army will
   consent to ground their arms in their encampment, they will
   rush on the enemy, determined to take no quarter.' After
   various messages, a convention for the surrender of the army
   was settled, which provided that 'The troops under General
   Burgoyne were to march out of their camp with the honours of
   war, and the artillery of the intrenchments, to the verge of
   the river, where the arms and artillery were to be left. The
   arms to be piled by word of command from their own officers. A
   free passage was to be granted to the army under
   Lieutenant-General Burgoyne to Great Britain, upon condition
   of not serving again in North America during the present
   contest.' The articles of capitulation were settled on the
   15th of October; and on that very evening a messenger arrived
   from Clinton with an account of his successes, and with the
   tidings that part of his force had penetrated as far as
   Esopus, within 50 miles of Burgoyne's camp. But it was too
   late. The public faith was pledged; and the army was, indeed,
   too debilitated by fatigue and hunger to resist an attack if
   made; and Gates certainly would have made it, if the
   convention had been broken off. Accordingly, on the 17th, the
   convention of Saratoga was carried into effect. By this
   convention 5,790 men surrendered themselves as prisoners. The
   sick and wounded left in the camp when the British retreated
   to Saratoga, together with the numbers of the British, German,
   and Canadian troops, who were killed, wounded, or taken, and
   who had deserted in the preceding part of the expedition, were
   reckoned to be 4,689. The British sick and wounded who had
   fallen into the hands of the Americans after the battle of the
   7th, were treated with exemplary humanity; and when the
   convention was executed, General Gates showed a noble delicacy
   of feeling, which deserves the highest degree of honour. Every
   circumstance was avoided which could give the appearance of
   triumph.
{3252}
   The American troops remained within their lines until the
   British had piled their arms; and when this was done, the
   vanquished officers and soldiers were received with friendly
   kindness by their victors, and their immediate wants were
   promptly and liberally supplied. Discussions and disputes
   afterwards arose as to some of the terms of the convention;
   and the American Congress refused for a long time to carry
   into effect the article which provided for the return of
   Burgoyne's men to Europe; but no blame was imputable to
   General Gates or his army, who showed themselves to be
   generous as they had proved themselves to be brave."

      Sir E. Creasy,
      Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World,
      chapter 13.

      ALSO IN:
      General J. Burgoyne,
      State of the Expedition from Canada.

      S. A. Drake,
      Burgoyne's Invasion.

      W. L. Stone,
      Campaign of Burgoyne.

      M. von Eelking,
      Memoir of General Riedesel,
      volume 1, pages 88-218.

      B. J. Lossing,
      Life and Times of Philip Schuyler,
      volume 2, chapters 6-21.

      Colonel M. Willett,
      Narrative of Military Actions,
      chapter 5.

      C. Stark,
      Memoir of General John Stark,
      pages 46-140.

      T. Dwight,
      Travels in New England and New York,
      volume 3, pages 220-233.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777-1778.
   The British in Philadelphia.
   Their gay winter.

      See PHILADELPHIA: A. D. 1777-1778.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777-1778.
   The Conway Cabal.

   The capitulation of Burgoyne at Saratoga "was an all-important
   event in its influence on the progress of the war; but its
   immediate effect was unpropitious to the reputation of the
   Commander-in-chief, who was compelled, at the close of the
   year, to place his army in a state of almost total destitution
   in winter-quarters at Valley Forge. The brilliant success of
   General Gates at Saratoga, in contrast with the reverses which
   had befallen the American Army under the immediate command of
   Washington, encouraged the operations of a cabal against him,
   which had been formed by certain disaffected officers of the
   army, and was countenanced by a party in Congress. The design
   was, by a succession of measures implying a want of
   confidence, to drive Washington to retire from the service in
   disgust: and, when this object was effected, to give the
   command of the army to General Gates, who lent a willing ear
   to these discreditable intrigues. A foreign officer in the
   American Army, of the name of Conway, was the most active
   promoter of the project, which was discovered by the
   accidental disclosure of a part of his correspondence with
   Gates. Washington bore himself on this occasion with his usual
   dignity, and allowed the parties concerned, in the army and in
   Congress, to take refuge in explanations, disclaimers, and
   apologies, by which those who made them gained no credit, and
   those who accepted them were not deceived. A part of the
   machinery of this wretched cabal was the publication, in
   London, and the republication in New York of [a] collection of
   forged letters … bearing the name of Washington, and intended
   to prove his insincerity in the cause of the Revolution.
   Nothing perhaps more plainly illustrates his conscious
   strength of character, than the disdainful silence with which
   he allowed this miserable fabrication to remain for twenty
   years without exposure. It was only in the year 1796, and when
   about to retire from the Presidency, that he filed, in the
   department of Slate, a denial of its authenticity."

      E. Everett,
      Life of Washington,
      chapter 6.

   In a letter written May 30, 1778, addressed to Landon Carter,
   from the camp at Valley Forge, Washington alluded to the
   subject of the cabal as follows: "With great truth I think I
   can assure you, that the information you received from a
   gentleman at Sabine Hall, respecting a disposition in the
   northern officers to see me superseded in my command by
   General G--s is without the least foundation. I have very
   sufficient reasons to think, that no officers in the army are
   more attached to me, than those from the northward, and of
   those, none more so than the gentlemen, who were under the
   immediate command of G--s last campaign. That there was a
   scheme of this sort on foot, last fall, admits of no doubt:
   but it originated in another quarter; with three men who
   wanted to aggrandize themselves; but finding no support, on
   the contrary, that their conduct and views, when seen into,
   were likely to undergo severe reprehension, they slunk back,
   disavowed the measure, and professed themselves my warmest
   admirers. Thus stands the matter at present. Whether any
   members of Congress were privy to this scheme, and inclined to
   aid and abet it, I shall not take upon me to say; but am well
   informed, that no whisper of the kind was ever heard in
   Congress."

      George Washington,
      Writings,
      edited by W. C. Ford,
      volume 7, page 39.

      ALSO IN:
      W. Irving,
      Life of Washington,
      volume 3, chapters 28-30.

      J. C. Hamilton,
      History of the United States
      in the Writings of Alexander Hamilton,
      volume 1, chapters 13-14.

      J. Sparks,
      Life of Gouverneur Morris,
      volume 1, chapter 10.

      W. V. Wells,
      Life of Samuel Adams,
      chapter 46 (volume 2).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777-1781.
   Adoption and ratification of the Articles of Confederation.

   "On the 11th of June, 1776, the same day on which the
   committee for preparing the declaration of independence was
   appointed, congress resolved, that 'a committee be appointed
   to prepare and digest the form of a confederation to be
   entered into between these colonies'; and on the next day a
   committee was accordingly appointed, consisting of a member
   from each colony. Nearly a year before this period (viz. on
   the 21st of July, 1775), Dr. Franklin had submitted to
   congress a sketch of articles of confederation, which does
   not, however, appear to have been acted on. … On the 12th of
   July, 1776, the committee appointed to prepare articles of
   confederation presented a draft, which was in the hand-writing
   of Mr. Dickenson, one of the committee, and a delegate from
   Pennsylvania. The draft, so reported, was debated from the 22d
   to the 31st of July, and on several days between the 5th and
   20th of August, 1776. On this last day, congress, in committee
   of the whole, reported a new draft, which was ordered to be
   printed for the use of the members. The subject seems not
   again to have been touched until the 8th of April, 1777, and
   the articles were debated at several times between that time
   and the 15th of November of the same year. On this last day
   the articles were reported with sundry amendments, and finally
   adopted by congress. A committee was then appointed to draft,
   and they accordingly drafted, a circular letter, requesting
   the states respectively to authorize their delegates in
   congress to subscribe the same in behalf of the state. … It
   carried, however, very slowly conviction to the minds of the
   local legislatures. Many objections were stated, and many
   amendments were proposed.
{3253}
   All of them, however, were rejected by congress, not probably
   because they were all deemed inexpedient or improper in
   themselves; but from the danger of sending the instrument back
   again to all the states, for reconsideration. Accordingly, on
   the 26th of June, 1778, a copy, engrossed for ratification,
   was prepared, and the ratification begun on the 9th day of
   July following. It was ratified by all the states, except
   Delaware and Maryland, in 1778; by Delaware in 1779, and by
   Maryland on the 1st of March, 1781, from which last date its
   final ratification took effect, and was joyfully announced by
   congress. In reviewing the objections taken by the various
   states to the adoption of the confederation in the form in
   which it was presented to them, … that which seemed to be of
   paramount importance, and which, indeed, protracted the
   ratification of the confederation to so late a period, was the
   alarming controversy in respect to the boundaries of some of
   the states, and the public lands, held by the crown, within
   these reputed boundaries."

      J. Story,
      Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States,
      book 2, chapter 2 (volume 1).

   The following is the text of the Articles of Confederation:

   "Article I.
   The style of this Confederacy shall be,
   'The United States of America.'

   Article II.
   Each State retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence,
   and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this
   Confederation expressly delegated to the United States in
   Congress assembled.

   Article III.
   The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of
   friendship with each other, for their common defense, the
   security of their liberties, and their mutual and general
   welfare, binding themselves to assist each other against all
   force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them,
   on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other
   pretense whatever.

   Article IV.
   The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and
   intercourse among the people of the different States in this
   Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers,
   vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be
   entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in
   the several States; and the people of each State shall have
   free ingress and egress to and from any other State, and shall
   enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce subject
   to the same duties, impositions, and restrictions as the
   inhabitants thereof respectively; provided that such
   restrictions shall not extend so far as to prevent the removal
   of property imported into any State to any other State of
   which the owner is an inhabitant; provided also, that no
   imposition, duties, or restriction shall be laid by any State
   on the property of the United States or either of them. If any
   person guilty of, or charged with, treason, felony, or other
   high misdemeanor in any State shall flee from justice and be
   found in any of the United States, he shall, upon demand of
   the governor or executive power of the State from which he
   fled, be delivered up and removed to the State having
   jurisdiction of his offense. Full faith and credit shall be
   given in each of these States to the records, acts, and
   judicial proceedings of the courts and magistrates of every
   other State.

   Article V.
   For the more convenient management of the general interests of
   the United States, delegates shall be annually appointed in
   such manner as the Legislature of each State shall direct, to
   meet in Congress on the first Monday in November, in every
   year, with a power reserved to each State to recall its
   delegates, or any of them, at any time within the year, and to
   send others in their stead for the remainder of the year. No
   State shall be represented in Congress by less than two, nor
   by more than seven members; and no person shall be capable of
   being a delegate for more than three years in any term of six
   years; nor shall any person, being a delegate, be capable of
   holding any office under the United States for which he, or
   another for his benefit, receives any salary, fees, or
   emolument of any kind. Each State shall maintain its own
   delegates in any meeting of the States and while they act as
   members of the Committee of the States. In determining
   questions in the United States in Congress assembled, each
   State shall have one vote. Freedom of speech and debate in
   Congress shall not be impeached or questioned in any court or
   place out of Congress; and the members of Congress shall be
   protected in their persons from arrests and imprisonment
   during the time of their going to and from, and attendance on,
   Congress, except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace.

   Article VI.
   No State, without the consent of the United States, in
   Congress assembled, shall send any embassy to, or receive any
   embassy from, or enter into any conference, agreement,
   alliance, or treaty with any king, prince, or state; nor shall
   any person holding any office of profit or trust under the
   United States, or any of them, accept of any present,
   emolument, office, or title of any kind whatever from any
   king, prince, or foreign state; nor shall the United States,
   in Congress assembled, or any of them, grant any title of
   nobility. No two or more States shall enter into any treaty,
   confederation, or alliance whatever between them, without the
   consent of the United States, in Congress assembled,
   specifying accurately the purposes for which the same is to be
   entered into, and how long it shall continue. No State shall
   lay any imposts or duties which may interfere with any
   stipulations in treaties entered into by the United States, in
   Congress assembled, with any king, prince, or state, in
   pursuance of any treaties already proposed by Congress to the
   courts of France and Spain. No vessel of war shall be kept up
   in time of peace by any State, except such number only as
   shall be deemed necessary by the United States, in Congress
   assembled, for the defense of such State or its trade, nor
   shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of
   peace, except such number only as, in the judgment of the
   United States, in Congress assembled, shall be deemed
   requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of
   such State; but every State shall always keep up a
   well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and
   accoutred, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use
   in public stores a due number of field-pieces and tents, and a
   proper quantity of arms, ammunition, and camp equipage. No
   State shall engage in any war without the consent of the
   United States, in Congress assembled, unless such State be
   actually invaded by enemies, or shall have received certain
   advice of a resolution being formed by some nation of Indians
   to invade such State, and the danger is so imminent as not to
   admit of a delay till the United States, in Congress
   assembled, can be consulted; nor shall any State grant
   commissions to any ships or vessels of war, nor letters of
   marque or reprisal, except it be after a declaration of war by
   the United States, in Congress assembled, and then only
   against the kingdom or state, and the subjects thereof,
   against which war has been so declared, and under such
   regulations as shall be established by the United States, in
   Congress assembled, unless such State be infested by pirates,
   in which case vessels of war may be fitted out for that
   occasion, and kept so long as the danger shall continue, or
   until the United States, in Congress assembled, shall
   determine otherwise.

{3254}

   Article VII.
   When land forces are raised by any State for the common
   defense, all officers of or under the rank of Colonel shall be
   appointed by the Legislature of each State respectively by
   whom such forces shall be raised, or in such manner as such
   State shall direct, and all vacancies shall be filled up by
   the State which first made the appointment.

   Article VIII.
   All charges of war, and all other expenses that shall be
   incurred for the common defense, or general welfare, and
   allowed by the United States, in Congress assembled, shall be
   defrayed out of a common treasury, which shall be supplied by
   the several States in proportion to the value of all land
   within each State, granted to, or surveyed for, any person, as
   such land and the buildings and improvements thereon shall be
   estimated, according to such mode as the United States, in
   Congress assembled, shall, from time to time, direct and
   appoint. The taxes for paying that proportion shall be laid
   and levied by the authority and direction of the Legislatures
   of the several States, within the time agreed upon by the
   United States, in Congress assembled.

   Article IX.
   The United States, in Congress assembled, shall have the sole
   and exclusive right and power of determining on peace and war,
   except in the cases mentioned in the sixth Article; of sending
   and receiving ambassadors; entering into treaties and
   alliances, provided that no treaty of commerce shall be made,
   whereby the legislative power of the respective States shall
   be restrained from imposing such imposts and duties on
   foreigners as their own people are subjected to, or from
   prohibiting the exportation or importation of any species of
   goods or commodities whatever; of establishing rules for
   deciding, in all cases, what captures on land and water shall
   be legal, and in what manner prizes taken by land or naval
   forces in the service of the United States shall be divided or
   appropriated; of granting letters of marque and reprisal in
   times of peace; appointing courts for the trial of piracies
   and felonies committed on the high seas; and establishing
   courts for receiving and determining finally appeals in all
   cases of captures; provided that no member of Congress shall
   be appointed a judge of any of the said courts. The United
   States, in Congress assembled, shall also be the last resort
   on appeal in all disputes and differences now subsisting, or
   that hereafter may arise between two or more States concerning
   boundary, jurisdiction, or any other cause whatever; which
   authority shall always be exercised in the manner following:
   Whenever the legislative or executive authority, or lawful
   agent of any State in controversy with another, shall present
   a petition to Congress, stating the matter in question, and
   praying for a hearing, notice thereof shall be given by order
   of Congress to the legislative or executive authority of the
   other State in controversy, and a day assigned for the
   appearance of the parties by their lawful agents, who shall
   then be directed to appoint, by joint consent, commissioners
   or judges to constitute a court for hearing and determining
   the matter in question; but if they cannot agree, Congress
   shall name three persons out of each of the United States, and
   from the list of such persons each party shall alternately
   strike out one, the petitioners beginning, until the number
   shall be reduced to thirteen; and from that number not less
   than seven nor more than nine names, as Congress shall direct,
   shall, in the presence of Congress, be drawn out by lot; and
   the persons whose names shall be so drawn, or any five of
   them, shall be commissioners or judges, to hear and finally
   determine the controversy, so always as a major part of the
   judges who shall hear the cause shall agree in the
   determination; and if either party shall neglect to attend at
   the day appointed, without showing reasons which Congress
   shall judge sufficient, or being present, shall refuse to
   strike, the Congress shall proceed to nominate three persons
   out of each State, and the secretary of Congress shall strike
   in behalf of such party absent or refusing; and the judgment
   and sentence of the court, to be appointed in the manner
   before prescribed, shall be final and conclusive; and if any
   of the parties shall refuse to submit to the authority of such
   court, or to appear or defend their claim or cause, the court
   shall nevertheless proceed to pronounce sentence or judgment,
   which shall in like manner be final and decisive; the judgment
   or sentence and other proceedings being in either case
   transmitted to Congress, and lodged among the acts of Congress
   for the security of the parties concerned; provided, that
   every commissioner, before he sits in judgment, shall take an
   oath, to be administered by one of the judges of the supreme
   or superior court of the State where the cause shall be tried,
   'well and truly to hear and determine the matter in question,
   according to the best of his judgment, without favor,
   affection, or hope of reward.' Provided, also, that no State
   shall be deprived of territory for the benefit of the United
   States. All controversies concerning the private right of soil
   claimed under different grants of two or more States, whose
   jurisdictions, as they may respect such lands, and the States
   which passed such grants are adjusted, the said grants or
   either of them being at the same time claimed to have
   originated antecedent to such settlement of jurisdiction,
   shall, on the petition of either party to the Congress of the
   United States, be finally determined, as near as may be, in
   the same manner as is before prescribed for deciding disputes
   respecting territorial jurisdiction between different States.
   The United States, in Congress assembled, shall also have the
   sole and exclusive right and power of regulating the alloy and
   value of coin struck by their own authority, or by that of the
   respective States; fixing the standard of weights and measures
   throughout the United States; regulating the trade and
   managing all affairs with the Indians, not members of any of
   the States; provided that the legislative right of any State,
   within its own limits, be not infringed or violated;
{3255}
   establishing and regulating post-offices from one State to
   another, throughout all the United States, and exacting such
   postage on the papers passing through the same as may be
   requisite to defray the expenses of the said office;
   appointing all officers of the land forces in the service of
   the United States, excepting regimental officers; appointing
   all the officers of the naval forces, and commissioning all
   officers whatever in the service of the United States; making
   rules for the government and regulation of the said land and
   naval forces, and directing their operations. The United
   States, in Congress assembled, shall have authority to appoint
   a committee, to sit in the recess of Congress, to be
   denominated 'A Committee of the States,' and to consist of one
   delegate from each State, and to appoint such other committees
   and civil officers as may be necessary for managing the
   general affairs of the United States under their direction; to
   appoint one of their number to preside; provided that no
   person be allowed to serve in the office of president more
   than one year in any term of three years; to ascertain the
   necessary sums of money to be raised for the service of the
   United States, and to appropriate and apply the same for
   defraying the public expenses; to borrow money or emit bills
   on the credit of the United States, transmitting every half
   year to the respective States an account of the sums of money
   so borrowed or emitted; to build and equip a navy; to agree
   upon the number of land forces, and to make requisitions from
   each State for its quota, in proportion to the number of white
   inhabitants in such State, which requisition shall be binding;
   and thereupon the Legislature of each State shall appoint the
   regimental officers, raise the men, and clothe, arm, and equip
   them in a soldier-like manner, at the expense of the United
   States; and the officers and men so clothed, armed, and
   equipped shall march to the place appointed, and within the
   time agreed on by the United States, in Congress assembled;
   but if the United States, in Congress assembled, shall, on
   consideration of circumstances, judge proper that any State
   should not raise men, or should raise a smaller number than
   its quota, and that any other State should raise a greater
   number of men than the quota thereof, such extra number shall
   be raised, officered, clothed, armed, and equipped in the same
   manner as the quota of such State, unless the Legislature of
   such State shall judge that such extra number can not be
   safely spared out of the same, in which case they shall raise,
   officer, clothe, arm, and equip as many of such extra number
   as they judge can be safely spared, and the officers and men
   so clothed, armed, and equipped shall march to the place
   appointed, and within the time agreed on by the United States,
   in Congress assembled. The United States, in Congress
   assembled, shall never engage in a war, nor grant letters of
   marque and reprisal in time of peace, nor enter into any
   treaties or alliances, nor coin money, nor regulate the value
   thereof, nor ascertain the sums and expenses necessary for the
   defense and welfare of the United States, or any of them, nor
   emit bills, nor borrow money on the credit of the United
   States, nor appropriate money, nor agree upon the number of
   vessels of war to be built or purchased, or the number of land
   or sea forces to be raised, nor appoint a commander-in-chief
   of the army or navy, unless nine States assent to the same,
   nor shall a question on any other point, except for adjourning
   from day to day, be determined, unless by the votes of a
   majority of the United States, in Congress assembled. The
   Congress of the United States shall have power to adjourn to
   any time within the year, and to any place within the United
   States, so that no period of adjournment be for a longer
   duration than the space of six months, and shall publish the
   journal of their proceedings monthly, except such parts
   thereof relating to treaties, alliances, or military
   operations as in their judgment require secrecy; and the yeas
   and nays of the delegates of each State, on any question,
   shall be entered on the journal when it is desired by any
   delegate; and the delegates of a State, or any of them, at his
   or their request, shall be furnished with a transcript of the
   said journal except such parts as are above excepted, to lay
   before the Legislatures of the several States.

   Article X.
   The Committee of the States, or any nine of them, shall be
   authorized to execute, in the recess of Congress, such of the
   powers of Congress as the United States, in Congress
   assembled, by the consent of nine States, shall, from time to
   time, think expedient to vest them with; provided that no
   power be delegated to the said Committee, for the exercise of
   which, by the Articles of Confederation, the voice of nine
   States in the Congress of the United States assembled is
   requisite.

   Article XI.
   Canada, acceding to this Confederation, and joining in the
   measures of the United States, shall be admitted into, and
   entitled to all the advantages of this Union; but no other
   colony shall be admitted into the same, unless such admission
   be agreed to by nine States.

   Article XII.
   All bills of credit emitted, moneys borrowed, and debts
   contracted by or under the authority of Congress, before the
   assembling of the United States, in pursuance of the present
   Confederation, shall be deemed and considered as a charge
   against the United States, for payment and satisfaction
   whereof the said United States and the public faith are hereby
   solemnly pledged.

   Article XIII.
   Every State shall abide by the determinations of the United
   States, in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this
   Confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this
   Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and
   the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any
   time hereafter be made in any of them, unless such alteration
   be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be
   afterwards confirmed by the Legislatures of every State. AND
   WHEREAS it hath pleased the great Governor of the world to
   incline the hearts of the Legislatures we respectively
   represent in Congress to approve of, and to authorize us to
   ratify, the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual
   Union, know ye, that we, the undersigned delegates, by virtue
   of the power and authority to us given for that purpose, do,
   by these presents, in the name and in behalf of our respective
   constituents, fully and entirely ratify and confirm each and
   every of the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual
   Union, and all and singular the matters and things therein
   contained. And we do further solemnly plight and engage the
   faith of our respective constituents, that they shall abide by
   the determinations of the United States, in Congress
   assembled, on all questions which by the said Confederation
   are submitted to them; and that the Articles thereof shall be
   inviolably observed by the States we respectively represent,
   and that the Union shall be perpetual.
{3256}
   In witness whereof we have hereunto set our hands in Congress.
   Done at Philadelphia in the State of Pennsylvania the ninth
   day of July in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred
   and seventy-eight, and in the third year of the independence
   of America."

   "Under these Articles of Confederation the treaty of peace
   with England was concluded and the American nation was
   governed until the final adoption of the Constitution of the
   United States. The main defect of the Articles of
   Confederation was, that although powers sufficiently adequate
   to create a government were ceded, there was no power to raise
   revenue, to levy taxes, or to enforce the law, except with the
   consent of nine States; and although the government had power
   to contract debts, there were no means by which to discharge
   them. The government had power to raise armies and navies, but
   no means wherewith to pay them, unless the means were voted by
   the States themselves; they could make treaties with foreign
   powers, but had no means to coerce a State to obey such
   treaty. In short, it was a government which had the power to
   make laws, but no power to punish infractions thereof.
   Washington himself said: 'The Confederation appears to me to
   be little more than the shadow without the substance, and
   Congress a nugatory body.' Chief Justice Story, in summing up
   the leading defects of the Articles of Confederation, says:
   'There was an utter want of all coercive authority to carry
   into effect its own constitutional measures; this of itself
   was sufficient to destroy its whole efficiency as a
   superintendent government, if that may be called a government
   which possessed no one solid attribute of power. In truth,
   Congress possessed only the power of recommendation. Congress
   had no power to exact obedience or punish disobedience of its
   ordinances; they could neither impose fines nor direct
   imprisonments, nor divest privileges, nor declare forfeitures,
   nor suspend refractory officers. There was no power to
   exercise force.'"

      S. Sterne,
      Constitutional History of the United States,
      chapter 1.

   "The individual states had attributed to themselves, in the
   Articles of Confederation, no powers which could place them in
   relation to foreign nations in the light of sovereign states.
   They felt that all such claims would be considered ridiculous,
   because back of these claims there was no real corresponding
   power. Congress therefore remained, as heretofore, the sole
   outward representative of sovereignty. But the power to
   exercise the prerogatives was taken from it, and this without
   placing it in any other hands. The changes effected by the
   Articles of Confederation were rather of a negative than of a
   positive nature. They did not give the State which was just
   coming into being a definite form, but they began the work of
   its dissolution. … The practical result … was that the United
   States tended more and more to split up into thirteen
   independent republics, and … virtually ceased to be a member
   of the family of nations bound together by the 'jus gentium.'"

      H. von Holst,
      Constitutional and Political History of the United States,
      volume 1, chapter 1.

      ALSO IN:
      G. Bancroft,
      History of the Formation of the Constitution,
      volume 1, chapter 1.

      D. R. Goodloe,
      The Birth of the Republic,
      pages 353-366.

      H. W. Preston,
      Documents illustrative of American History,
      pages 218-231.

   On the operation and failure of the Articles of Confederation.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1783-1787.

   On the question of the western territorial claims of several
   of the States, and the obstacle which it brought in the way of
   the ratification of the Articles of Confederation.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: 1781-1786.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778 (February).
   The Treaty with France.

   "The account of Burgoyne's surrender, which was brought to
   France by a swift-sailing ship from Boston, threw Turgot and
   all Paris into transports of joy. None doubted the ability of
   the states to maintain their independence. On the 12th of
   December their commissioners had an interview with Vergennes.
   'Nothing,' said he, 'has struck me so much as General
   Washington's attacking and giving battle to General Howe's
   army. To bring troops raised within the year to this, promises
   everything. The court of France, in the treaty which is to be
   entered into, intend to take no advantage of your present
   situation. Once made, it should be durable; and therefore it
   should contain no condition of which the Americans may
   afterward repent, but such only as will last as long as human
   institutions shall endure, so that mutual amity may subsist
   forever. Entering into a treaty will be an avowal of your
   independence. Spain must be consulted, and Spain will not be
   satisfied with an undetermined boundary on the west. Some of
   the states are supposed to run to the South Sea, which might
   interfere with her claim to California.' It was answered that
   the last treaty of peace adopted the Mississippi as a
   boundary. 'And what share do you intend to give us in the
   fisheries?' asked Vergennes; for in the original draft of a
   treaty the United States had proposed to take to themselves
   Cape Breton and the whole of the island of Newfoundland.
   Explanations were made by the American commissioners that
   their later instructions removed all chances of disagreement
   on that subject. … The question of a French alliance … was
   discussed by Vergennes with the Marquis d'Ossun, the late
   French ambassador in Madrid, as the best adviser with regard
   to Spain, and the plan of action was formed. Then these two
   met the king at the apartment of Maurepas, where the plan,
   after debate, was finally settled. Maurepas, at heart opposed
   to the war, loved ease and popularity too well to escape the
   sway of external opinion; and Louis XVI. sacrificed his own
   inclination and his own feeling of justice to policy of state
   and the opinion of his advisers. So, on the 6th of February, a
   treaty of amity and commerce and an eventual defensive treaty
   of alliance were concluded between the king of France and the
   United States, on principles of equality and reciprocity, and
   for the most part in conformity to the proposals of congress.
   In commerce each party was to be placed on the footing of the
   most favored nation. The king of France promised his good
   offices with the princes and powers of Barbary. As to the
   fisheries, each party reserved to itself the exclusive
   possession of its own. Accepting the French interpretation of
   the treaties of Utrecht and of Paris, the United States
   acknowledged the right of French subjects to fish on the banks
   of Newfoundland, and their exclusive right to half the coast
   of that island for drying-places.
{3257}
   On the question of ownership in the event of the conquest of
   Newfoundland the treaty was silent. The American proposal,
   that free ships give freedom to goods and to persons, except
   to soldiers in actual service of an enemy, was adopted.
   Careful lists were made out of contraband merchandises. The
   absolute and unlimited independence of the United States was
   described as the essential end of the defensive alliance; and
   the two parties mutually engaged not to lay down their arms
   until it should be assured by the treaties terminating the
   war. Moreover, the United States guaranteed to France the
   possessions then held by France in America, as well as those
   which it might acquire by a future treaty of peace; and, in
   like manner, the king of France guaranteed to the United
   States their present possessions and acquisitions during the
   war from the dominions of Great Britain in North America. A
   separate and secret act reserved to the king of Spain the
   power of acceding to the treaties. Within forty-two hours of
   the signature of these treaties of commerce and alliance the
   British ministry received the news by special messenger from
   their spy in Paris, but it was not divulged." It was
   officially communicated to the British government on the 13th
   of March, when ambassadors were withdrawn on both sides and
   war soon followed.

      G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States
      (Author's last revision),
      volume 5, chapter 17.

      ALSO IN:
      Treaties and Conventions of the United States
      (edition of 1889),
      page 296.

      T. Balch,
      The French in America during the War of Independence,
      chapter 8.

      See, also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1778.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778 (June).
   Peace-proposals from England.
   British evacuation of Philadelphia and march to New York.
   Battle of Monmouth.

   "On May 11th, Sir Henry Clinton relieved Sir William Howe at
   Philadelphia, and the latter took his departure in a blaze of
   mock glory. … The new commander was more active than his
   predecessor, but no cleverer, and no better fitted to cope
   with Washington. … Expecting a movement by the enemy,
   Washington sent Lafayette forward to watch Philadelphia.
   Clinton, fresh in office, determined to cut him off, and by a
   rapid movement nearly succeeded in so doing. Timely
   information, presence of mind, and quickness, alone enabled
   the young Frenchman to escape, narrowly but completely.
   Meantime, a cause for delay, that curse of the British
   throughout the war, supervened. A peace commission, consisting
   of the Earl of Carlisle, William Eden, and Governor Johnstone,
   arrived. They were excellent men, but they came too late.
   Their propositions three years before would have been well
   enough, but as it was they were worse than nothing. Coolly
   received, they held a fruitless interview with a committee of
   Congress, tried to bribe and intrigue, found that their own
   army had been already ordered to evacuate Philadelphia [in
   apprehension of the arrival of the expected French fleet]
   without their knowledge, and finally gave up their task in
   angry despair, and returned to England to join in the chorus
   of fault-finding which was beginning to sound very loud in
   ministerial ears. Meanwhile, Washington waited and watched,
   puzzled by the delay, and hoping only to harass Sir Henry with
   militia on the march to New York. But, as the days slipped by,
   the Americans grew stronger, while Sir Henry weakened himself
   by sending 5,000 men to the West Indies, and 3,000 to Florida.
   When he finally started [evacuating Philadelphia June 17], he
   had with him less than 10,000 men, while the Americans had
   13,000, nearly all continental troops. Under these
   circumstances, Washington determined to bring on a battle. He
   was thwarted at the outset by his officers, as was wont to be
   the case. Lee had returned more whimsical than ever, and at
   the moment was strongly adverse to an attack. … Washington was
   harassed of course by all this, but he did not stay his
   purpose, and as soon as he knew that Clinton actually had
   marched, he broke camp at Valley Forge and started in pursuit.
   There were more councils of an old-womanish character, but
   finally Washington took the matter into his own hands, and
   ordered forth a strong detachment to attack the British
   rear-guard. They set out on the 25th, and as Lee, to whom the
   command belonged, did not care to go, Lafayette [see above: A.
   D. 1777 (JULY)] was put in charge. As soon as Lafayette had
   departed, however, Lee changed his mind, and insisted that all
   the detachments in front, amounting to 6,000 men, formed a
   division so large that it was unjust not to give him the
   command. Washington, therefore, sent him forward next day with
   two additional brigades, and then Lee by seniority took
   command on the 27th of the entire advance. In the evening of
   that day, Washington came up, reconnoitred the enemy, and saw
   that, although their position was a strong one, another day's
   unmolested march would make it still stronger. He therefore
   resolved to attack the next morning, and gave Lee then and
   there explicit orders to that effect. In the early dawn he
   despatched similar orders, but Lee apparently did nothing
   except move feebly forward, saying to Lafayette, 'You don't
   know the British soldiers; we cannot stand against them.' He
   made a weak attempt to cut off a covering party, marched and
   countermarched, ordered and countermanded, until Lafayette and
   Wayne, eager to fight, knew not what to do, and sent hot
   messages to Washington to come to them. Thus hesitating and
   confused, Lee permitted Clinton to get his baggage and train
   to the front, and to mass all his best troops in the rear
   under Cornwallis, who then advanced against the American
   lines. Now there were no orders at all, and the troops did not
   know what to do, or where to go. They stood still, then began
   to fall back, and then to retreat. A very little more and
   there would have been a rout. As it was, Washington alone
   prevented disaster. … As the ill tidings grew thicker,
   Washington spurred sharper and rode faster through the deep
   sand and under the blazing mid-summer sun. At last he met Lee
   and the main body all in full retreat. He rode straight at
   Lee, savage with anger, not pleasant to look at, one may
   guess, and asked fiercely and with a deep oath, tradition
   says, what it all meant. … Lee gathered himself and tried to
   excuse and palliate what had happened, but although the brief
   words that followed are variously reported to us across the
   century, we know that Washington rebuked him in such a way,
   and with such passion, that all was over between them. Lee …
   went to the rear, thence to a court-martial, thence to
   dismissal and to a solitary life. … Having put Lee aside,
   Washington rallied the broken troops, brought them into
   position, turned them back, and held the enemy in check.
{3258}
   It was not an easy feat, but it was done, and when Lee's
   division again fell back in good order the main army was in
   position, and the action became general. The British were
   repulsed, and then Washington, taking the offensive, drove
   them back until he occupied the battlefield of the morning.
   Night came upon him still advancing. He halted his army, lay
   down under a tree, his soldiers lying on their arms about him,
   and planned a fresh attack, to be made at daylight. But when
   the dawn came it was seen that the British had crept off, and
   were far on their road. The heat prevented a rapid pursuit,
   and Clinton got into New York. Between there and Philadelphia
   he had lost 2,000 men, Washington said, and modern authorities
   put it at about 1,500, of whom nearly 500 fell at Monmouth. …
   Monmouth has never been one of the famous battles of the
   Revolution, and yet there is no other which can compare with
   it as an illustration of Washington's ability as a soldier. …
   Its importance lies in the evidence which it gives of the way
   in which Washington, after a series of defeats, during a
   winter of terrible suffering and privation, had yet developed
   his ragged volunteers into a well-disciplined and effective
   army. The battle was a victory, but the existence and the
   quality of the army that won it were a far greater triumph.
   The dreary winter at Valley Forge had indeed borne fruit."

      H. C. Lodge,
      George Washington,
      volume 1, chapter 7.

      ALSO IN:
      H. B. Carrington,
      Battles of the American Revolution,
      chapters 54-56.

      Mrs. M. Campbell,
      Life of General W. Hull,
      chapter 14.

      The Lee Papers,
      volumes 2-3
      (New York Historical Society Collection, 1872-1873).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778 (June-November).
   The war on the border.
   Activity of Tories and Indians.
   The Massacre at Cherry Valley.

   "The Six Nations were stirred to hostility by Sir John Johnson
   and the Mohawk chief Joseph Brant, with Walter Butler, of
   infamous name. Their tory partisans were more cruel than the
   red men. At Cobleskill, Schoharie county, June 1, 1778, Brant
   won a savage triumph with a mixed force, and burned and
   plundered the settlement. Springfield was also destroyed, and
   the assailants retired. A month later the Indians were again
   at Cobleskill, and, burning where they went, beat off a force
   that attempted to check them. The valley of the Schohariekill
   was in the succeeding year subjected to invasions from the
   Senecas, and suffered severely. About Fort Stanwix the tories
   and red men were continually hovering, and more than once
   persons were pounced upon and scalped in sight of the works.
   In 1778, in the early autumn, German Flats was visited by
   Brant and his followers, and was entirely destroyed, although
   all the inhabitants but two were warned in season to escape
   with their lives. An expedition was sent after the Indians,
   but failed to bring the warriors to battle, and was rewarded
   only by laying waste the Indian villages of Unadilla and
   Oquaga, and capturing a large supply of cattle and provisions.
   At Cherry Valley a fort had been built, and the village was
   occupied by a band of colonial troops under Colonel Ichabod
   Alden. He rested in security, and the settlers were scattered
   in their habitations, regardless of warnings of approaching
   foes. Under cover of a severe storm of snow and rain, November
   11, Brant and Butler, with 800 Indians and tories, swooped
   upon the homes, and 43 persons, including women and children,
   were butchered, 40 taken prisoners, all the buildings were
   burned, and the domestic animals seized. So brutal was the
   massacre that Brant charged Butler and the tories with acting
   against his protests. Brant himself was content, July 19,
   1779, with destroying the church, mills, houses, and barns at
   Minnisink, Orange county, without sacrificing lives, but
   turned upon a party sent in pursuit, and, after capturing a
   detachment, butchered the wounded, and slew 45 who tried to
   escape. Such deeds produced a terror in the colony. No one
   knew where the red men and tories would strike next. To check
   and counteract them, excursions were made against the tribes
   in their homes. One of these was led by Colonels Van Schaick
   and Willett from Fort Stanwix in April, 1779). Proceeding by
   Wood Creek and Oneida Lake, they penetrated the villages of
   the Onondagas, which they destroyed, and seized the provisions
   and even the weapons of the red men, who fled into the
   wilderness."

      E. H. Roberts,
      New York,
      chapter 24 (volume 2).

   The following account of the attack on Cherry Valley is from a
   pen friendly to Butler and from sources favorable to the Tory
   side: "After an exhausting march next day through a blinding
   snow-storm and over ground covered with deep wet snow and mud,
   Butler halted his men at dark in a pine wood which afforded
   them some shelter, six miles from Cherry Valley. He assembled
   the chiefs and proposed that as soon as the moon rose, they
   should resume their march and surround the house occupied by
   the officers, while he made a rush upon the fort with the
   rangers. They readily assented, but before the time appointed
   arrived it began to rain violently, and they obstinately
   refused to move until daybreak. It was then arranged that
   Captain McDonnel with 50 picked rangers and some Indians
   should storm the house, while Butler with the remainder
   assailed the fort. Without tents, blankets or fires, they
   spent a sleepless night cowering beneath the pines, and were
   glad to move as soon as day appeared. They had approached
   unperceived within a mile of the fort by passing through a
   dense swamp, when the Indians in front fired at two men
   cutting wood. One fell dead; the other, though bleeding, ran
   for his life and the entire body of Indians set up a whoop and
   followed at full speed. Unhappily the rangers had just been
   halted to fix flints and load their rifles, and the Indians
   obtained a long start. The Continental officers attempted to
   escape to the fort but only two or three reached it. The
   colonel, five other officers and twenty soldiers, were killed
   on the way and the lieutenant-colonel, three subalterns, and
   ten privates were taken. The colors of the regiment were
   abandoned in the house and burnt in it. The garrison of the
   fort was fully alarmed, and opened a fierce fire of artillery
   and small arms. The rangers seized and burnt a detached
   block-house, and fired briskly at the loop-holes in the
   palisades for ten minutes, when Butler saw with horror and
   consternation that the Indians had set their officers at
   defiance, and dispersed in every direction to kill and
   plunder. Their wretched misconduct forced him to collect all
   the rangers into a compact body on an eminence near the
   principal entrance to the fort, to oppose a sally by the
   garrison, which then undoubtedly outnumbered them
   considerably.
{3259}
   There he was obliged to remain inactive all day under a
   ceaseless, chilling rain, while blazing houses and shrieks of
   agony told their pitiful tale in the settlement below. At
   nightfall he marched a mile down the valley and encamped. He
   then struggled with indifferent success to rescue the
   prisoners. Those surrendered were placed next the camp fires
   and protected by his whole force. Next morning most of the
   Indians and the feeblest men among the rangers were sent away
   with a huge drove of captured cattle for the supply of the
   garrison at Niagara, and McDonnel and Brant, with 60 rangers
   and 50 Indians, swept the valley from end to end, ruthlessly
   burning every building and stack in sight, while Butler, with
   the remainder, again stood guard at the gate of the fort. He
   hoped that this appalling spectacle would provoke the garrison
   to sally out and fight, but the lesson of Wyoming had not been
   lost on them, and they continued to look on from the walls in
   silent fury. Another great herd of cattle was collected, and
   Butler leisurely began his retreat, having had only two
   rangers and three Indians wounded during the expedition. He
   did not disguise the dark side of the story in his letter to
   Colonel Bolton of the 17th November. 'I have much to lament,'
   he said, 'that notwithstanding my utmost precautions to save
   the women and children, I could not prevent some of them
   falling victims to the fury of the savages. They have carried
   off many of the inhabitants and killed more, among them Colin
   Cloyd, a very violent rebel. I could not prevail on the
   Indians to leave the women and children behind, though the
   second morning Captain Johnson (to whose knowledge of the
   Indians and address in managing them I am much indebted) and I
   got them to permit twelve, who were loyalists, and whom I
   concealed, with the humane assistance of Mr. Joseph Brant and
   Captain Jacobs of Ochquaga, to return. The death of the women
   and children on this occasion may, I believe, be truly
   ascribed to the rebels having falsely accused the Indians of
   cruelty at Wyomen. This has much exasperated them, and they
   are still more incensed at finding that the colonel and those
   who had then laid down their arms, soon after marching into
   their country intending to destroy their villages, and they
   declared that they would be no more accused falsely of
   fighting the enemy twice, meaning they would in future give no
   quarter.'"

      E. Cruikshank,
      The Story of Butler's Rangers,
      pages 55-56.

      ALSO IN:
      W. W. Campbell,
      Annals of Tryon County,
      chapter 5.

      Centennial Celebrations of New York,
      pages 359-383.

      W. L. Stone,
      Life of Brant,
      volume 1, chapter 17.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778 (July).
   The war on the border.
   Bloody work of the Tories and their Indian allies.
   The Massacre at Wyoming.

   "In 1778, according to the plan of campaign as given by Guy
   Johnson in his correspondence, the English forces on the
   western borders of New York were divided into two bodies: one,
   consisting of Indians under Brant, to operate in New York,
   while Deputy Superintendent Butler with the other should
   penetrate the settled district on the Susquehanna. Brant
   [Joseph Brant, the Mohawk chief], who, according to Colonel
   Claus, 'had shown himself to be the most faithful and zealous
   subject his majesty could have in America,' did his work
   unsparingly, and ruin marked his track. In the valley of the
   upper Mohawk and the Schoharie nothing but the garrison-houses
   escaped, and labor was only possible in the field when muskets
   were within easy reach. Occasionally blows were struck at the
   larger settlements. … In July, 1778, the threatened attack on
   Wyoming took place. This region was at that time formally
   incorporated as the county of Westmoreland of the colony of
   Connecticut. … In the fall of 1776, two companies, on the
   Continental establishment, had been raised in the valley, in
   pursuance of a resolution of Congress, and were shortly
   thereafter ordered to join General Washington. Several
   stockaded forts had been built during the summer at different
   points. The withdrawal of so large a proportion of the
   able-bodied men as had been enlisted in the Continental
   service threw upon the old men who were left behind the duty
   of guarding the forts. … In March, 1778, another military
   company was organized, by authority of Congress, to be
   employed for home defence. In May, attacks were made upon the
   scouting parties by Indians, who were the forerunners of an
   invading army. The exposed situation of the settlement, the
   prosperity of the inhabitants, and the loyalty with which they
   had responded to the call for troops, demanded consideration
   from Connecticut, to whose quota the companies had been
   credited, and from Congress, in whose armies they had been
   incorporated; but no help came. On June 30th, an armed labor
   party of eight men, which went out from the upper fort, was
   attacked by Major Butler, who, with a force estimated by the
   American commander in his report at 800 men, Tories and
   Indians in equal numbers, had arrived in the valley. This
   estimate was not far from correct; but if we may judge from
   other raiding forces during the war, the proportion of whites
   is too large, for only a few local Tories had joined Butler.
   The little forts at the upper end of the valley offered no
   resistance to the invaders. On July 3d, there were collected
   at 'Forty Fort,' on the banks of the river, about three miles
   above Wilkesbarre, 230 Americans, organized in six companies
   (one of them being the company authorized by Congress for home
   defence), and commanded by Colonel Zebulon Butler, a resident
   in the valley and an officer in the Continental army. It was
   determined, after deliberation, to give battle. In the
   afternoon of that day, this body of volunteers, their number
   being swelled to nearly 300 by the addition of old men and
   boys, marched up the valley. The invaders had set fire to the
   forts of which they were in possession. This perplexed the
   Americans, as was intended, and they pressed on towards the
   spot selected by the English officer for giving battle. This
   was reached about four in the afternoon, and the attack was at
   once made by the Americans, who fired rapidly in platoons. The
   British line wavered, but a flanking fire from a body of
   Indians concealed in the woods settled the fate of the day
   against the Americans. They were thrown into confusion. No
   efforts of their officers could rally them while exposed to a
   fire which in a short time brought down every captain in the
   band. The Indians now cut off the retreat of the
   panic-stricken men, and pressed them towards the river. All
   who could saved their lives by flight. Of the 300 who went out
   that morning from Forty Fort, the names are recorded of 162
   officers and men killed in the action or in the massacre which
   followed.
{3260}
   Major Butler, the British officer in command, reported the
   taking of 'two hundred and twenty-seven scalps' 'and only five
   prisoners.' Such was the exasperation of the Indians,
   according to him, that it was with difficulty he saved these
   few. He gives the English loss at two whites killed and eight
   Indians wounded. During the night the worst passions of the
   Indians seem to have been aroused in revenge for Oriskany.
   Incredible tales are told of the inhumanity of the Tories.
   These measures of vengeance fell exclusively upon those who
   participated in the battle, for all women and children were
   spared. As soon as the extent of the disaster was made known,
   the inhabitants of the lower part of the valley deserted their
   homes, and fled in the direction of the nearest settlements.
   Few stayed behind who had strength and opportunity to escape.
   In their flight many of the fugitives neglected to provide
   themselves with provisions, and much suffering and some loss
   of life ensued. The fugitives from the field of battle took
   refuge in the forts lower down the valley. The next day,
   Colonel Zebulon Butler, with the remnants of the company for
   home defence, consisting of only fourteen men, escaped from
   the valley. Colonel Denison, in charge of Forty Fort,
   negotiated with Major Butler the terms of capitulation which
   were ultimately signed. In these it was agreed that the
   inhabitants should occupy their farms peaceably, and their
   lives should be preserved 'intire and unhurt.' With the
   exception that Butler executed a British deserter whom he
   found among the prisoners, no lives were taken at that time.
   Shortly thereafter, the Indians began to plunder, and the
   English commander, to his chagrin, found himself unable to
   check them. Miner even goes so far as to say that he promised
   to pay for the property thus lost. Finding his commands
   disregarded, Butler mustered his forces and withdrew, without
   visiting the lower part of the valley. The greater part of the
   Indians went with him, but enough remained to continue the
   devastation, while a few murders committed by straggling
   parties of Indians ended the tragedy. The whole valley was
   left a scene of desolation."

      A. McF. Davis,
      The Indians and the Border Warfare of the Revolution
      (Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 6, chapter 8).

   "Rarely, indeed, does it happen that history is more at fault
   in regard to facts than in the case of Wyoming. The remark may
   be applied to nearly every writer who has attempted to narrate
   the events connected with the invasion of Colonel John Butler.
   Ramsay, and Gordon, and Marshall—nay, the British historians
   themselves—have written gross exaggerations. Marshall,
   however, in his revised edition, has made corrections. … Other
   writers, of greater or less note, have gravely recorded the
   same fictions, adding, it is to be feared, enormities not even
   conveyed to them by tradition. The grossest of these
   exaggerations are contained in Thatcher's Military Journal and
   Drake's Book of the Indians. The account of the marching out
   of a large body of Americans from one of the forts, to hold a
   parley, by agreement, and then being drawn into an ambuscade
   and all put to death, is false; the account of 70 Continental
   soldiers being butchered, after having surrendered, is also
   totally untrue. No regular troops surrendered, and all escaped
   who survived the battle of the 3d. … There is still another
   important correction to be made. … This correction regards the
   name and the just fame of Joseph Brant, whose character has
   been blackened with all the infamy, both real and imaginary,
   connected with this bloody expedition. Whether Captain Brant
   was at any time in company with this expedition is doubtful;
   but it is certain, in the face of every historical authority,
   British and American, that, so far from being engaged in the
   battle, he was many miles distant at the time of its
   occurrence. … It will, moreover, be seen, toward the close of
   the present work, that after the publication of Campbell's
   'Gertrude of Wyoming,' in which poem the Mohawk chieftain was
   denounced as 'the Monster Brant,' his son repaired to England,
   and, in a correspondence with the poet, successfully
   vindicated his father's memory."

      W. L. Stone,
      Life of Joseph Brant,
      volume 1, page 339, foot-note, page 338 and footnote.

   "No lives were taken by the Indians after the surrender; but
   numbers of women and children perished in the dismal swamp on
   the Pokono range of mountains, in the flight. … The whole
   number of people killed and missing was about 300. … The
   greatest barbarities of this celebrated massacre were
   committed by the tories."

      W. L. Stone,
      Poetry and History of Wyoming,
      chapter 6.

      ALSO IN:
      W. P. Miner,
      History of Wyoming,
      Letters 17-18.

      G. Peck,
      Wyoming.

      J. Fiske,
      The American Revolution,
      chapter 11 (volume 2).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778 (July-November).
   The French fleet and army and their undertakings.
   Ill fortune and ill-feeling between the new allies.
   The failure at Newport.

   "The first minister of France to the United States, M. Gérard,
   came accompanied by a fleet and army, under D'Estaing, (July.)
   'Unforeseen and unfavorable circumstances,' as Washington
   wrote, 'lessened the importance of the French services in a
   great degree.' In the first place, the arrival was just late
   enough to miss the opportunity of surprising the British fleet
   in the Delaware, not to mention the British army on its
   retreat to New York. In the next place, the French vessels
   proved to be of too great draught to penetrate the channel and
   cooperate in an attack upon New York. Thus disappointing and
   disappointed, D'Estaing engaged in an enterprise against
   Newport, still in British hands. It proved another failure.
   But not through the French alone; the American troops that
   were to enter the island at the north being greatly
   behindhand. The same day that they took their place, under
   Sullivan, Greene, and Lafayette, the French left theirs at the
   lower end of the island, in order to meet the British fleet
   arriving from New York, (August 10.) A severe storm prevented
   more than a partial engagement; but D'Estaing returned to
   Newport only to plead the injuries received in the gale as
   compelling his retirement to Boston for repairs. The orders of
   the French government had been peremptory, that in case of any
   damage to the fleet it should put into port at once. So far
   was D'Estaing from avoiding action on personal grounds, that
   when Lafayette hurried to Boston to persuade his countrymen to
   return, the commander offered to serve as a volunteer until
   the fleet should be refitted. The Americans, however, talked
   of desertion and of inefficiency,—so freely, indeed, as to
   affront their faithful Lafayette.
{3261}
   At the same time, large numbers of them imitated the very
   course which they censured, by deserting their own army. The
   remaining forces retreated from their lines to the northern
   end of the island, and, after an engagement, withdrew to the
   mainland, (August 30.) It required all the good offices of
   Lafayette, of Washington, and of Congress, to keep the peace
   between the Americans and their allies. D'Estaing, soothed by
   the language of those whom he most respected, was provoked, on
   the other hand, by the hostility of the masses, both in the
   army and amongst the people. Collisions between his men and
   the Bostonians kept up his disgust; and, when his fleet was
   repaired, he sailed for the West Indies, (November.) … On the
   part of the British, there was nothing attempted that would
   not have been far better unattempted. Marauding parties from
   Newport went against New Bedford and Fairhaven. Others from
   New York went against Little Egg Harbor. Tories and Indians
   —'a collection of banditti,' as they were rightly styled by
   Washington, descended from the northern country to wreak
   massacre at Wyoming and at Cherry Valley. The war seemed to be
   assuming a new character: it was one of ravages unworthy of
   any cause, and most unworthy of such a cause as the British
   professed to be. Affairs were at a low state amongst the
   Americans."

      S. Eliot,
      History of the United States,
      part 3, chapter 5.

      ALSO IN:
      S. G. Arnold,
      History of Rhode Island,
      chapters 21-22 (volume 2).

      O. W. B. Peabody,
      Life of General John Sullivan
      (Library of American Biographies,
      series 2, volume 3).

      J. Marshall,
      Life of Washington,
      volume 3, chapter 9.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778 (December).
   Anxieties of Washington.
   His opinion of Congress.
   The serious defects and errors of that body.

   "Much of the winter was passed by Washington in Philadelphia,
   occupied in devising and discussing plans for the campaign of
   1779. It was an anxious moment with him. Circumstances which
   inspired others with confidence, filled him with solicitude.
   The alliance with France had produced a baneful feeling of
   security, which, it appeared to him, was paralyzing the
   energies of the country. England, it was thought, would now be
   too much occupied in securing her position in Europe, to
   increase her force or extend her operations in America. Many,
   therefore, considered the war as virtually at an end; and were
   unwilling to make the sacrifices, or supply the means
   necessary for important military undertakings. Dissensions,
   too, and party feuds were breaking out in Congress, owing to
   that relaxation of that external pressure of a common and
   imminent danger, which had heretofore produced a unity of
   sentiment and action. That august body had, in fact, greatly
   deteriorated since the commencement of the war. Many of those
   whose names had been as watchwords at the Declaration of
   Independence had withdrawn from the national councils;
   occupied either by their individual affairs, or by the affairs
   of their individual States. Washington, whose comprehensive
   patriotism embraced the whole Union, deprecated and deplored
   the dawning of this sectional spirit."

      W. Irving,
      Life of Washington,
      volume 3, chapter 38.

   The following, from a letter written by Washington in
   December, 1778, to Benjamin Harrison, Speaker of the Virginia
   House of Delegates, intimates the grave anxieties which filled
   his mind, and the opinion of Congress with which he had
   returned from a visit to Philadelphia:

   "It appears as clear to me as ever the Sun did in its meridian
   brightness, that America never stood in more eminent need of
   the wise, patriotic, and spirited exertions of her Sons than
   at this period; and if it is not a sufficient cause for
   general lamentation, my misconception of the matter impresses
   it too strongly upon me, that the States, separately, are too
   much engaged in their local concerns, and have too many of
   their ablest men withdrawn from the general council, for the
   good of the common weal. … As there can be no harm in a pious
   wish for the good of one's Country, I shall offer it as mine,
   that each State would not only choose, but absolutely compel
   their ablest men to attend Congress; and that they would
   instruct them to go into a thorough investigation of the
   causes, that have produced so many disagreeable effects in the
   army and Country; in a word, that public abuses should be
   corrected & an entire reformation worked. Without these, it
   does not in my Judgment require the spirit of divination to
   foretell the consequences of the present administration; nor
   to how little purpose the States individually are framing
   constitutions, providing laws, and filling offices with the
   abilities of their ablest men. These, if the great whole is
   mismanaged, must sink in the general wreck, and will carry
   with it the remorse of thinking, that we are lost by our own
   folly and negligence, or the desire perhaps of living in ease
   and tranquillity during the expected accomplishment of so
   great a revolution, in the effecting of which the greatest
   abilities, and the honestest men our (i. e. the American)
   world affords, ought to be employed. It is much to be feared,
   my dear Sir, that the States, in their separate capacities,
   have very inadequate ideas of the present danger. Removed
   (some of them) far distant from the scene of action, and
   seeing and hearing such publications only, as flatter their
   wishes, they conceive that the contest is at an end, and that
   to regulate the government and police of their own State is
   all that remains to be done; but it is devoutly to be wished,
   that a sad reverse of this may not fall upon them like a
   thunder-clap, that is little expected. I do not mean to
   designate particular States. I wish to cast no reflections
   upon any one. The Public believe (and, if they do believe it,
   the fact might almost as well be so), that the States at this
   time are badly represented, and that the great and important
   concerns of the nation are horribly conducted, for want either
   of abilities or application in the members, or through the
   discord & party views of some individuals. … P. S.
   Philadelphia: 30th. This letter was to have gone by Post from
   Middlebrook but missed that conveyance, since which I have
   come to this place at the request of Congress whence I shall
   soon return. I have seen nothing since I came here (on the 22d
   Inst.) to change my opinion of Men or Measrs., but abundant
   reason to be convinced that our affairs are in a more
   distressed, ruinous and deplorable condition than they have
   been in since the commencement of the War.—By a faithful
   laborer then in the cause—By a man who is daily injuring his
   private Estate without even the smallest earthly advantage not
   common to all in case of a favorable Issue to the dispute—By
   one who wishes the prosperity of America most devoutly and
   sees or thinks he sees it, on the brink of ruin, you are
   beseeched most earnestly, my dear Colonel Harrison, to exert
   yourself in endeavoring to rescue your Country by (let me add)
   sending your ablest and best Men to Congress—these characters
   must not slumber nor sleep at home in such times of pressing
   danger—they must not content themselves in the enjoyment of
   places of honor or profit in their own Country while the
   common interests of America are mouldering and sinking into
   irretrievable (if a remedy is not soon applied) ruin in which
   theirs also must ultimately be involved.
{3262}
   If I was to be called upon to draw a picture of the times and
   of Men, from what I have seen, and heard, and in part know, I
   should in one word say that idleness, dissipation &
   extravagance seems to have laid fast hold of most of
   them.—That speculation—peculation—and an insatiable thirst
   for riches seems to have got the better of every other
   consideration and almost of every order of Men.—That party
   disputes and personal quarrels are the great business of the
   day whilst the momentous concerns of an empire—a great and
   accumulated debt—ruined finances—depreciated money—and want
   of credit (which in their consequences is the want of
   everything) are but secondary considerations and postponed
   from day to day—from week to week as if our affairs wear the
   most promising aspect—after drawing this picture, which from
   my Soul I believe to be a true one, I need not repeat to you
   that I am alarmed and wish to see my Countrymen roused.—I
   have no resentments, nor do I mean to point at any particular
   characters,—this I can declare upon my honor for I have every
   attention paid me by Congress that I can possibly expect and
   have reason to think that I stand well in their estimation,
   but in the present situation of things I cannot help asking—
   Where is Mason—Wythe—Jefferson—Nicholas—Pendleton—Nelson—and
   another I could name—and why, if you are sufficiently
   impressed with your danger do you not (as New York has done in
   the case of Mr. Jay) send an extra member or two for at least
   a certain limited time till the great business of the Nation
   is put upon a more respectable and happy establishment.—Your
   Money is now sinking 5 Pr. ct. a day in this city; and I shall
   not be surprized if in the course of a few months a total stop
   is put to the currency of it.—And yet an Assembly—a concert—a
   Dinner—or supper (that will cost three or four hundred pounds)
   will not only take Men off from acting in but even from thinking
   of this business while a great part of the Officers of ye Army
   from absolute necessity are quitting the service and ye more
   virtuous few rather than do this are sinking by sure degrees
   into beggary and want.—I again repeat to you that this is not
   an exaggerated acct.; that it is an alarming one I do not
   deny, and confess to you that I feel more real distress on
   account of the prest. appearances of things than I have done
   at any one time since the commencement of the dispute—but it
   is time to bid you once more adieu.—Providence has heretofore
   taken me up when all other means and hope seemed to be
   departing from me in this."

      George Washington,
      Writings,
      edited by W: C. Ford,
      volume 7, pages 297-303.

   "The first Continental Congress enjoyed and deserved in a
   remarkable degree the respect and confidence of the country.
   The second Congress was composed of eminent men, and
   succeeded, for a time, to the honors and reputation of the
   first. But when it attempted to pass from discussion to
   organization, and to direct as well as to frame the machinery
   of administration, its delays and disputes and errors and
   contradictions and hesitations excited a well-founded distrust
   of its executive skill. Conscious of this distrust, it became
   jealous of its authority; and instead of endeavoring to
   regain, by correcting its errors, the ground which it had lost
   by committing them, it grew suspicious and exacting in
   proportion to the decay of its strength. And while this
   critical change in its relations to the country was taking
   place, important changes took place also in the materials of
   which it was composed,—some of its wisest members being
   removed by death, or imperative calls to other fields of duty,
   or by failing of re-election at the regular expiration of
   their terms of office. Among the first elements with which it
   was brought into collision were the newly organized
   governments of the States. The question of State rights, that
   unsolved problem of our history, begins almost with the
   beginning of the war. How abundant and active the materials of
   disunion were, and how difficult it was even for leading men
   to rise above them might be proved by numerous passages in the
   letters of Washington and Greene, if it were not still more
   evident from the conduct of the local legislatures. How far
   this spirit might have been counteracted or controlled if the
   policy of the Congress had been that policy of prompt decision
   and energetic action which, commanding respect at all times,
   commands in times of general danger general and implicit
   obedience, it is impossible to say. … Another element with
   which it was brought into immediate and constant relations was
   the army; and, unfortunately for both, these relations, from
   their very nature, brought into immediate and constant
   contrast the elements of opposition which they both contained,
   rather than the elements of harmonious action, which they also
   contained in an almost equal degree. If the Congress was
   composed of the representatives of the people, the army was
   composed in a large proportion of the constituents of the
   Congress. More than once also, during the course of the war,
   men who had done good work for their country as soldiers,
   withdrawing from their original field of action, did equally
   good service for her as statesmen. And more than once, too,
   men who had proved themselves wise and eloquent in counsel
   were found at the head of a regiment, or even in more
   subordinate positions in the army. … The real interest and the
   real object of the citizen in arms and of the citizen in the
   toga were still the same. But their point of view was
   different. The ever-present object of Congress was discussion
   as a means of organization. The ever-present object of the
   leaders of the army was decision as a means of action.
   Congress counted obstacles, weighed difficulties, balanced
   opposing advantages, eating and sleeping meanwhile and
   refreshing mind and body as nature bade. But while Congress
   was deliberating upon the best way of procuring meat, the army
   was often brought to the verge of starvation for the want of
   it. While Congress was discussing by a warm fire the most
   eligible method of providing the army with tents and blankets,
   half the army was sleeping on the snow without either blanket
   or tent.
{3263}
   While Congress was framing elaborate resolutions, and drawing
   out and equipping regiments upon paper, officers in the field
   were standing disheartened before their thinned and
   disheartened ranks. … Errors of statesmanship, like errors of
   generalship, would easily have been forgiven and forgotten;
   for both statesmen and generals had still much to learn.
   Unfortunately, while the best generals strove earnestly to
   correct their errors by their experience, Congress, in too
   many things, clung obstinately to its errors, in spite of the
   most decisive experience. Those errors were twofold,—errors of
   policy and errors of principle,—the one tending to undermine
   the respect which, in the beginning, was felt for their
   wisdom; the other, to awaken a general distrust of their
   justice. The first year of the war demonstrated the danger of
   short enlistments and temporary levies. But more than half the
   second year was allowed to pass before it was decided to raise
   an army for the whole duration of the war. The first campaign
   demonstrated the necessity of providing by regularly organized
   departments for the food, clothing, and transportation of the
   army; but it was not till late in the second year that a board
   of war was organized; and not till later still that the
   Quartermaster-General and Commissary-General were allowed to
   devote themselves to their duty in camp, instead of waiting
   idly for orders at the door of Congress. All experience and
   the simplest reasoning showed the importance of strengthening
   the hands of their General by passing promptly all the acts
   needed for the conduct of an army in the field, or the support
   and instruction of an army in quarters; but, in spite of all
   experience and the plainest reason, Congress persisted in its
   unseasonable delays. … The policy of the Congress, in the
   organization and support of the army, was a policy of
   tergiversation and delay. No wonder that the army, leaders and
   all, should early lose their confidence in its wisdom! But the
   dissatisfaction did not end here. One of the earliest felt of
   the numerous wants of the army was the want of good officers.
   … To select them in the beginning from the mass of unproved
   candidates was impossible; but in the course of two campaigns,
   the characters and pretensions of men were well tried, the
   chaff thoroughly sifted, and what remained might be
   confidently accepted as sound. … It was evidently the policy
   of Congress to secure by all proper and reasonable inducements
   the services of such officers for the war. It was the duty of
   Congress, in its dealings with them, to remember that in
   becoming soldiers, and exposing themselves to the dangers and
   privations of a soldier's life, they adopted, with the ideas
   of subordination that lie at the basis of military discipline,
   the ideas of rank and grade which define and circumscribe that
   subordination. But Congress remembered nothing of this. It
   required of them the service of officers, but gave them a pay
   hardly sufficient to enable them to live like private
   soldiers. It demanded the present sacrifice of cold, hunger,
   hard service, and exposure to sickness, wounds, and death; and
   refused the prospective reward of half-pay or pension when
   sickness or wounds should have incapacitated them for further
   exertion, or death should have made their wives unprotected
   widows, and their children helpless orphans. Forgetting that
   pride is an essential element of the military character, and
   that self-respect is essential to a healthy and sustaining
   pride, it trifled with their claims to rank by the accepted
   rules of service, and claimed and exercised the power of
   dealing with commissions according to its own good pleasure."

      G. W. Greene,
      Life of Nathanael Greene,
      book 2, chapter 18 (volume 1).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778-1779.
   Clark's conquest of the Northwest for Virginia, and its
   annexation to the district of Kentucky.

   "Virginia … had more western enterprise than any other colony.
   In 1774 Dunmore's war gave her the 'back-lands,' into which
   her frontiersmen had been for some time pressing. Boone was a
   Carolinian, but Kentucky was a distinctively Virginia colony.
   In 1776 the Virginia legislature erected the County of
   Kentucky, and the next year a Virginia judge dispensed justice
   at Harrodsburg. Soon the colony was represented in the
   legislature of the parent state. While thus extending her
   jurisdiction over the region southwest of the Ohio, the Old
   Dominion did not forget the language of [her charter] of 1609,
   'up into the land throughout from sea to sea, west and
   northwest.' George Rogers Clark, a Virginian who had made
   Kentucky his home, was endowed with something of the general's
   and statesman's grasp. While floating down the Ohio in 1776,
   being then 24 years of age, he conceived the conquest of the
   country beyond the river. … Clark says he had since the
   beginning of the war taken pains to make himself acquainted
   with the true situation of the Northwestern posts; and in 1777
   he sent two young hunters to spy out the country more
   thoroughly, and especially to ascertain the sentiments of the
   'habitants.' On the return of these hunters with an
   encouraging report, he went to Williamsburg, then the capital
   of Virginia, where he enlisted Governor Patrick Henry and
   other leading minds in a secret expedition to the Illinois.
   Acting under a vaguely worded law, authorizing him to aid 'any
   expedition against their Western enemies,' Governor Henry gave
   Clark some vague public instructions, directing him to enlist,
   in any county of the commonwealth, seven companies of men who
   should act under his command as a militia, and also private
   instructions that were much more full and definite. … Both the
   public and private instructions are dated January 2, 1778. The
   governor also gave the young captain a small supply of money.
   Clark immediately re-crossed the mountains and began to
   recruit his command. … Overcoming as best he could the
   difficulties that environed him, he collected his feeble
   command at the Falls of the Ohio. On June 26, 1778, he began
   the descent of the river. Leaving the Ohio at Fort Massac,
   forty miles above its mouth, he began the march to Kaskaskia.
   This fell into his hands, July 5th, and Cahokia soon after,
   both without the loss of a single life. Clark found few
   Englishmen in these villages, and the French, who were weary
   of British rule, he had little difficulty in attaching to the
   American interest. Vincennes, soon after, surrendered to a
   mere proclamation, when there was not an American soldier
   within one hundred miles of the place. … Clark prevailed upon
   100 men to re-enlist for eight months; he then filled up his
   companies with recruits from the villages, and sent an urgent
   call to Virginia for re-enforcements. The salutary influence
   of the invasion upon the Indians was felt at once; it 'began
   to spread among the nations even to the border of the lakes;'
   and in five weeks Clark settled a peace with ten or twelve
   different tribes. …
{3264}
   And now Clark began really to feel the difficulties of his
   situation. Destitute of money, poorly supplied, commanding a
   small and widely scattered force, he had to meet and
   circumvent an active enemy who was determined to regain what
   he had lost. Governor Hamilton [the British governor at
   Detroit] projected a grand campaign against the French towns
   that had been captured and the small force that held them. The
   feeble issue was the capture, in December, 1778, of Vincennes,
   which was occupied by but two Americans. Clark, who was in the
   Illinois at the time of this disaster, at once put his little
   force in motion for the Wabash, knowing, he says, that if he
   did not take Hamilton, Hamilton would take him; and, February
   25, 1779, at the end of a march of 250 miles, that ranks in
   peril and hardship with Arnold's winter march to Canada, he
   again captured the town, the fort, the governor, and his whole
   command. Hamilton was sent to Virginia a prisoner of war,
   where he was found guilty of treating American prisoners with
   cruelty, and of offering the Indians premiums for scalps, but
   none for prisoners." Clark was ambitious to extend his march
   to Detroit, but could not compass the necessary means.
   "'Detroit lost for a few hundred men,' was his pathetic lament
   as he surrendered an enterprise that lay near his heart. Had
   he been able to achieve it, he would have won and held the
   whole Northwest. As it was he won and held the Illinois and
   the Wabash in the name of Virginia and of the United States.
   The bearing of this conquest on the question of western
   boundaries will be considered in another place, but here it is
   pertinent to remark that the American Commissioners, in 1782,
   at Paris, could plead 'uti possidetis' in reference to much of
   the country beyond the Ohio, for the flag of the Republic,
   raised over it by George Rogers Clark, had never been lowered.
   It would not be easy to find in our history a case of an
   officer accomplishing results that were so great and
   far-reaching with so small a force. Clark's later life is
   little to his credit, but it should not be forgotten that he
   rendered the American cause and civilization a very great
   service. All this time the British were not idle. War-party
   after war-party was sent against the American border. In 1780
   a grand expedition was organized at Detroit and sent to
   Kentucky under the command of Captain Bird. But it
   accomplished nothing commensurate with its magnitude and cost.
   … The Northwest had been won by a Virginia army, commanded by
   a Virginia officer, put in the field at Virginia's expense.
   Governor Henry had promptly announced the conquest to the
   Virginia delegates in Congress. … But before Patrick Henry
   wrote this letter, Virginia had welded the last link in her
   chain of title to the country beyond the Ohio. In October,
   1778, her Legislature declared: 'All the citizens of the
   commonwealth of Virginia, who are actually settlers there, or
   who shall hereafter be settled, on the west side of the Ohio,
   shall be included in the district of Kentucky which shall be
   called Illinois County.' Nor was this all. Soon after,
   Governor Henry appointed a lieutenant-commandant for the new
   county, with full instructions for carrying on the government.
   The French settlements remained under Virginia jurisdiction
   until March, 1784."

      B. A. Hinsdale,
      The Old Northwest,
      chapter 9.

      ALSO IN:
      Clark's Campaign in the Illinois
      (Ohio Valley History Series, 3).

      J. H. Perkins,
      Annals of the West,
      chapter 7.

      A. Davidson and B. Stuvé,
      History of Illinois,
      chapters 16-18.

      T. Roosevelt,
      The Winning of the West,
      volume 2, chapters 2-3.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778-1779.
   The French Alliance.
   Peril of France.
   Doubtful feeling in America.
   Spanish mediation with England.

   "From the third volume of Doniol's comprehensive work on the
   'Participation de la France a l'etablissement des Ètats Unis,'
   published in 1888, we are able to learn for the first time the
   extreme peril of France in 1778-1779. When Vergennes advised
   the recognition of the independence of the United States, it
   was on the same grounds that Canning advised the recognition
   of the independence of the Spanish South American States many
   years afterwards. The fair distribution of power in the
   civilized world, which was threatened in the latter period by
   the Holy Alliance, was threatened in the former period by the
   assumption of maritime supremacy by Britain. In each the
   object was to call up a new sovereignty in America, so as to
   check an undue concentration of sovereignty in Europe,
   Undoubtedly Vergennes was aided, as Canning was aided, by the
   enthusiasm felt by men of liberal views for a revolution that
   was expected to extend the domain of liberalism; but with
   Vergennes, as with Canning, the object was the establishing of
   a power abroad which could resist a dangerous aggression at
   home. When in February, 1778, France acknowledged the
   independence of the United States, Vergennes had good reason
   to hold either that Britain would not resent the insult by
   war, or that she would find that in such a war the odds were
   against her. A British army had just capitulated at Saratoga.
   America, so it was reported to Vergennes and so he believed,
   was unanimous in determining to defend her liberties to the
   last. In Holland there was a strong party which was expected
   to force the States-General into a recognition of their sister
   republic. Spain had already secretly advanced a million of
   francs to the American commissioners. From Frederick the
   Great, delighted to see his British relatives, who had not
   always supported him in his troubles, annoyed by a revolt in
   their own domain, came words very encouraging to the American
   envoys. Catharine II listened with apparent satisfaction to a
   scheme which would relieve her infant shipping from British
   oppression. It looked as if, should Britain declare war
   against France, she would have against her the armies and
   navies of all continental Europe, aided by the people of her
   American Colonies in a compact mass. But in a few months there
   came a great change. The British army under Howe was so
   largely reenforced as for the immediate present to give it a
   great superiority over any army Congress could bring against
   it in open field. … It is true that the news in April of the
   French treaty revived the energies of the revolutionists; but
   this treaty had its drawbacks, as the old dislike of France,
   in part inherited from England, in part the product of the
   Seven-years war, intensified the yearning for the mother
   country which in many hearts still remained. French officers
   complained that on their first arrival in New England they
   were received with sullen aversion by the people, though
   welcomed by the revolutionary leaders.
{3265}
   The French army and navy, for the first year in which they
   were engaged in America, did no good to the American cause;
   and so great was the popular irritation at their inactivity,
   so strong, it was said, continued to be the old race
   attachment to England, that intelligent French observers in
   America advised Vergennes that he must move warily, for at any
   moment America might make a separate peace with Britain and
   then join the British forces against France. No doubt these
   reports, so far as they pronounced this to be the drift of a
   large minority in Congress, were unfounded in fact. They were
   nevertheless communicated under high sanction to Vergennes,
   and produced in his mind the liveliest anxiety. … English
   influence had for a time regained its ascendency in Holland.
   Prussia and Russia, having tasted the delights of neutral
   commerce, let it be plainly understood that they would not
   abandon a neutrality so profitable for the risks of
   belligerency. And Spain had taken alarm and was backing out
   not merely from the family compact, but from her recent
   promise to aid the insurgents. Aiding the insurgents, her
   minister declared, would be cutting her own throat, and no aid
   to the insurgents should be given except on a very heavy
   equivalent. If France was to meet the shock of the British
   navy alone she might be swept from the seas, and, aside from
   this danger, her finances were in such a ruinous condition
   that her bankruptcy was imminent. One of two courses must be
   adopted, not only to save France but to save the independence
   of the United States and the consequent equipoise of power for
   which France has gone to war. There must be either a general
   peace, which would include the independence of the United
   States, or there must be war, with Spain joining the allies. …
   It was in this condition of affairs that the position of Spain
   in 1778-1779 became of commanding importance. She offered
   herself as mediator between the allies and their common enemy,
   and through her the terms of pacification were discussed. In
   the negotiations, protracted and on both sides largely
   insincere, between Spain and Britain relative to the proposed
   pacification, the winter of 1778-1779 was consumed."

      F. Wharton,
      Introduction to The Revolutionary Diplomatic
      Correspondence of the United States,
      chapter 5, section 86 (volume 1).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778-1779.
   The War carried into the South.
   Savannah taken and Georgia subdued.

   Towards the end of November, 1778, a "body of troops, under
   Lieutenant-colonel Campbell, sailed [from New York] for
   Georgia In the squadron of Commodore Hyde Parker; the British
   cabinet having determined to carry the war into the Southern
   States. At the same time General Prevost, who commanded in
   Florida, was ordered by Sir Henry Clinton to march to the
   banks of the Savannah River, and attack Georgia in flank,
   while the expedition under Campbell should attack it in front
   on the seaboard. … The squadron of Commodore Hyde Parker
   anchored in the Savannah River towards the end of December. An
   American force of about 600 regulars, and a few militia under
   General Robert Howe, were encamped near the town, being the
   remnant of an army with which that officer had invaded
   Florida, in the preceding summer, but had been obliged to
   evacuate it by a mortal malady which desolated his camp.
   Lieutenant-colonel Campbell landed his troops on the 29th of
   December, about three miles below the town. The whole country
   bordering the river is a deep morass, cut up by creeks, and
   only to be traversed by causeways. Over one of these, 600
   yards in length, with a ditch on each side, Colonel Campbell
   advanced, putting to flight a small party stationed to guard
   it. General Howe had posted his little army on the main road,
   with the river on his left and a morass in front. A negro gave
   Campbell information of a path leading through the morass, by
   which troops might get unobserved to the rear of the
   Americans. Sir James Baird was detached with the light
   infantry by this path, while Colonel Campbell advanced in
   front. The Americans, thus suddenly attacked in front and
   rear, were completely routed; upwards of 100 were either
   killed on the spot, or perished in the morass; 38 officers and
   415 privates were taken prisoners, the rest retreated up the
   Savannah River and crossed into South Carolina. Savannah, the
   capital of Georgia, was taken possession of by the victors,
   with cannon, military stores and provisions; their loss was
   only seven killed and nineteen wounded. Colonel Campbell
   conducted himself with great moderation; protecting the
   persons and property of the inhabitants, and proclaiming
   security and favor to all that should return to their
   allegiance. Numbers in consequence flocked to the British
   standard: the lower part of Georgia was considered as subdued,
   and posts were established by the British to maintain
   possession. While Colonel Campbell had thus invaded Georgia in
   front, General Prevost" entered the State from Florida, "took
   Sunbury, the only remaining fort of importance, and marched to
   Savannah, where he assumed the general command, detaching
   Colonel Campbell against Augusta. By the middle of January
   (1779) all Georgia was reduced to submission. A more
   experienced American general than Howe had by this time
   arrived to take command of the Southern Department,
   Major-general Lincoln, who had gained such reputation in the
   campaign against Burgoyne, and whose appointment to this
   station had been solicited by the delegates from South
   Carolina and Georgia. He had received his orders from
   Washington in the beginning of October."

      W. Irving,
      Life of Washington,
      volume 3, chapter 37.

      ALSO IN:
      W. B. Stevens,
      History of Georgia,
      book 4, chapter 4 (volume 2).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778-1779.
   Washington guarding the Hudson.
   The storming of Stony Point.
   Marauding warfare of the British.

   "After Clinton slipped away from Monmouth and sought refuge in
   New York, Washington took post at convenient points and
   watched the movements of the enemy. In this way the summer
   passed. As always, Washington's first object was to guard the
   Hudson, and while he held this vital point firmly, he waited,
   ready to strike elsewhere if necessary. It looked for a time
   as if the British intended to descend on Boston, seize the
   town, and destroy the French fleet, which had gone there to
   refit. Such was the opinion of Gates, then commanding in that
   department, and as Washington inclined to the same belief, the
   fear of this event gave him many anxious moments.
{3266}
   He even moved his troops so as to be in readiness to march
   eastward at short notice; but he gradually became convinced
   that the enemy had no such plan. … The main army, therefore,
   remained quiet, and when the autumn had passed went into
   winter-quarters in well-posted detachments about New York. In
   December Clinton made an ineffectual raid [in New Jersey], and
   then all was peaceful again, and Washington was able to go to
   Philadelphia and struggle with Congress, leaving his army more
   comfortable and secure than they had been in any previous
   winter. … He now hoped and believed that the moment would come
   when, by uniting his army with the French, he should be able
   to strike the decisive blow. Until that time came, however, he
   knew that he could do nothing on a great scale, and he felt
   that meantime the British, abandoning practically the eastern
   and middle States, would make one last desperate struggle for
   victory, and would make it in the south. Long before anyone
   else, he appreciated this fact, and saw a peril looming large
   in that region. … All this, however, did not change his own
   plans one jot. He believed that the south must work out its
   own salvation, as New York and New England had done with
   Burgoyne, and he felt sure that in the end it would be
   successful. But he would not go south, nor take his army
   there. … The British might overrun the north or invade the
   south, but he would stay where he was, with his grip upon New
   York and the Hudson River. The tide of invasion might ebb and
   flow in this region or that, but the British were doomed if
   they could not divide the eastern colonies from the others.
   When the appointed hour came, he was ready to abandon
   everything and strike the final and fatal blow; but until then
   he waited and stood fast with his army, holding the great
   river in his grasp. He felt much more anxiety about the south
   than he had felt about the north, and expected Congress to
   consult him as to a commander, having made up his mind that
   Greene was the man to send. But Congress still believed in
   Gates, who had been making trouble for Washington all winter;
   and so Gates was sent, and Congress in due time got their
   lesson, and found once more that Washington understood men
   better than they did. In the north the winter was
   comparatively uneventful. The spring passed, and in June
   Clinton came out and took possession of Stony Point and
   Verplanck's Point, and began to fortify them. It looked a
   little as if Clinton might intend to get control of the Hudson
   by slow approaches, fortifying, and then advancing until he
   reached West Point. With this in mind, Washington at once
   determined to check the British by striking sharply at one of
   their new posts. Having made up his mind, he sent for Wayne
   and asked him if he would storm Stony Point. Tradition says
   that Wayne replied, 'I will storm hell, if you will plan it.'
   A true tradition, probably, in keeping with Wayne's character,
   and pleasant to us to-day as showing with a vivid gleam of
   rough human speech the utter confidence of the army in their
   leader, that confidence which only a great soldier can
   inspire. So Washington planned, and Wayne stormed [July 15,
   1779], and Stony Point fell. It was a gallant and brilliant
   feat of arms, one of the most brilliant of the war. Over 500
   prisoners were taken, the guns were carried off, and the works
   destroyed, leaving the British to begin afresh with a good
   deal of increased caution and respect. Not long after, Harry
   Lee stormed Paulus Hook with equal success, and the British
   were checked and arrested, if they intended any extensive
   movement. On the frontier, Sullivan, after some delays, did
   his work effectively. … In these various ways Clinton's circle
   of activity was steadily narrowed, but it may be doubted
   whether he had any coherent plan. The principal occupation of
   the British was to send out marauding expeditions and cut off
   outlying parties. Tryon burned and pillaged in Connecticut [at
   New Haven, Fairfield and Norwalk], Matthews in Virginia [at
   Norfolk, Portsmouth and elsewhere], and others on a smaller
   scale elsewhere in New Jersey and New York. … It was enough
   for Washington to hold fast to the great objects he had in
   view, to check Clinton and circumscribe his movements.
   Steadfastly he did this through the summer and winter of
   1779."

      H. C. Lodge,
      George Washington,
      volume 1, chapter 8.

      ALSO IN:
      W. Irving,
      Life of Washington,
      volume 3, chapters 38-40,
      and volume 4, chapter 1.

      B. J. Lossing,
      Field-book of the Revolution,
      volume 1, chapter 31.

      J. Armstrong,
      Life of Anthony Wayne
      (Library of American Biographies, volume 4).

      C. J. Stillé,
      Major-General Anthony Wayne,
      chapter 5

      G. W. Greene,
      Life of Nathaniel Greene,
      book 3, chapters 3-7 (volume. 2).

      See, also, WEST POINT.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1779 (August-September).
   General Sullivan's expedition against the Senecas.

   For the purpose of putting an end to the destructive and
   bloody incursions of Tories and Indians from western New York,
   directed against the border settlements of that state and
   Pennsylvania—as at Cherry Valley and Wyoming—General
   Washington, in the early part of the year 1779, determined
   upon a measure for carrying the war into the home of the
   invaders. "The command was entrusted to General Sullivan. The
   army organized for the expedition was in three divisions. That
   part of it under the immediate command of General Sullivan,
   coming from Pennsylvania, ascended the Susquehannah to Tioga
   Point. Another division under the command of General James
   Clinton, constructing batteaux at Schenectady, ascended the
   Mohawk and rendezvoused at Canajoharrie, opened a road to the
   head of Otsego Lake, and from thence proceeded in a formidable
   fleet of over 200 batteaux, to Tioga Point, forming a junction
   with the force under General Sullivan, on the 22d of August.
   Previous to the arrival of General Clinton, Sullivan had sent
   forward a detachment which fell in with a scouting party of
   Indians, and a skirmish ensued. The combined forces amounted
   to 5,000 men. The expedition had been so long preparing, and
   upon the march, that the enemy were well apprized of an that
   was going on. Their plan of defence contemplated a decisive
   engagement upon the Chemung river. For this purpose the
   Rangers and regular British troops, under the command of
   Colonel John Butler, Colonels Guy and Sir John Johnson, Major
   Walter N. Butler and Captain M'Donald, and the Indians under
   Brant, had concentrated their forces upon a bend of the river,
   near the present village of Elmira [then called Newtown],
   where they had thrown up a long breast work of logs. The
   united forces of the British allies, as computed by General
   Sullivan, was about 1,500.
{3267}
   Having ascertained their position, General Sullivan marched in
   full force and attacked them in the forenoon of the 29th of
   August. … The battle had been waged about two hours, when the
   British and Indians perceiving their forces inadequate, and
   that a maneuver to surround them was likely to be successful,
   broke and fled in great disorder. 'This,' says John Salmon, of
   Livingston county, who belonged to the expedition and gave an
   account of it to the author of the Life of .Mary Jemison, 'was
   the only regular stand made by the Indians. In their retreat
   they were pursued by our men to the Narrows, where they were
   attacked and killed in great numbers, so that the sides of the
   rocks next the River looked as if blood had been poured on
   them by pailfuls.' The details of all that transpired in this
   campaign are before the public in so many forms, that their
   repetition here is unnecessary. The route of the army was via
   'French Catherine's Town,' head of Seneca Lake, down the east
   shore of the Lake to the Indian village of Kanadesaga (Old
   Castle), and from thence to Canandaigua, Honeoye, head of
   Conesus Lake, to Groveland. The villages destroyed (with the
   apple trees and growing crops of the Indians,) were at
   Catherinestown, Kendai, or 'Apple Town' on the east side of
   the Lake, eleven miles from its foot, Kanadesaga, Honeoye,
   Conesus, Canascraga, Little Beard's Town, Big Tree, Canawagus,
   and on the return of the army, Scawyace, a village between the
   Cayuga and Seneca Lakes, and several other Cayuga villages. …
   The march of Sullivan, the devastations committed by his army,
   would at this distant period seem like Vandalism, in the
   absence of the consideration that he was acting under strict
   orders; and that those orders were approved, if not dictated,
   by Washington. The campaign was a matter of necessity; to be
   effectual, it was not only necessary that its acts should be
   retaliatory and retributive, but that the haunts, the
   retreats, of a foe so ruthless, must be broken up. The object
   was to destroy all the means of subsistence of the Senecas,
   desolate their homes, prevent their return to them, and if
   possible, induce their permanent retreat beyond the Niagara
   River. The imprudence, the want of sagacity, which Colonel
   Stone has imputed to General Sullivan in alarming every
   village he approached by the sound of his cannon, the author
   conceives a misapprehension of his motives. Stealthy, quiet
   approaches, would have found as victims, in every village, the
   old men, the women and children—the warriors away, banded with
   their British allies. Humanity dictated the forewarning, that
   those he did not come to war against could have time to flee.
   … The march of General Sullivan, after leaving the Chemung,
   was bloodless, except in a small degree—just as it should have
   been, if he could not make victims of those he was sent to
   punish. The third expedition of this campaign, which has
   generally been lost sight of by historians, was that of
   General Broadhead. He left Fort Pitt in August with 600 men,
   and destroyed several Mingo and Muncey tribes living on the
   Allegany, French Creek, and other tributaries of the Ohio. The
   heavy artillery that General Sullivan brought as far as
   Newton, would indicate that Niagara was originally the
   destination. There the General and his officers, seeing how
   long it had taken to reach that point, in an probability
   determined that too much of the season had been wasted, to
   allow of executing their tasks in the Indian country, making
   their roads and moving the army and all its appointments to
   Niagara before the setting in of winter. Besides, before the
   army had reached the valley of the Chemung, the fact was
   ascertained that there would be a failure in a contemplated
   junction with the army under General Broadhead. After the
   expedition of General Sullivan, the Indians never had any
   considerable permanent re-occupancy of their villages east of
   the Genesee river. They settled down after a brief flight, in
   their villages on the west side of the river in the
   neighborhood of Geneseo, Mt. Morris and Avon, and at Gardeau,
   Canadea, Tonawanda, Tuscarora, Buffalo Creek, Cattaraugus and
   Allegany."

      O. Turner,
      History of the Pioneer Settlement
      of Phelps and Gorham's Purchase,
      part 1, chapter 4.

   "In his general orders of the 17th of October, General
   Washington announced to the army the result of the expedition,
   as follows: 'The Commander-in-chief has now the pleasure of
   congratulating the army on the complete and full success of
   Major General Sullivan, and the troops under his command,
   against the Seneca and other tribes of the Six Nations, as a
   just and necessary punishment for their wanton depredations,
   their unparalleled and innumerable cruelties, their deafness
   to all remonstrances and entreaty, and their perseverance in
   the most horrid acts of barbarity. Forty of their towns have
   been reduced to ashes, some of them large and commodious; that
   of the Genesee alone containing one hundred and twenty-eight
   houses. Their crops of corn have been entirely destroyed,
   which, by estimation, it is said, would have provided 160,000
   bushels, besides large quantities of vegetables of various
   kinds. Their whole country has been overrun and laid waste,
   and they themselves compelled to place their security in a
   precipitate flight to the British fortress at Niagara. And the
   whole of this has been done with the loss of less than forty
   men on our part, including the killed, wounded, captured, and
   those who died natural deaths. The troops employed in this
   expedition, both officers and men, throughout the whole of it,
   and in the action they had with the enemy, manifested a
   patience, perseverance and valor that do them the highest
   honor. In the course of it, when there still remained a large
   extent of the enemy's country to be prostrated, it became
   necessary to lessen the issues of provisions to half the usual
   allowance. In this the troops acquiesced with a most general
   and cheerful concurrence, being fully determined to surmount
   every obstacle, and to prosecute the enterprise to a complete
   and successful issue. Major General Sullivan, for his great
   perseverance and activity, for his order of march and attack,
   and the whole of his dispositions; the Brigadiers and officers
   of all ranks, and the whole of the soldiers engaged in the
   expedition, merit and have the Commander-in-chief's warmest
   acknowledgements for their important services upon this
   occasion.' On the 9th of November, 1779, General Sullivan
   wrote to the President of Congress: 'It is with the deepest
   regret I find myself compelled to request from Congress
   liberty to retire from the army. My health is so much impaired
   by a violent bilious disorder, which seized me in the
   commencement and continued during the whole of the western
   expedition, that I have not the smallest hope of a perfect
   recovery.' …
{3268}
   General Sullivan, in transmitting to Congress an official
   account of his operations, reported that … 'Every creek and
   river has been traced, and the whole country explored in
   search of Indian settlements, and I am well persuaded that,
   except one town situated near the Alleghany, about fifty-eight
   miles from Chinesee, there is not a single town left in the
   country of the Five Nations. … I flatter myself that the
   orders with which I was entrusted are fully executed, as we
   have not left a single settlement or field of corn in the
   country of the Five Nations, or is there even the appearance
   of an Indian on this side of Niagara. Messengers and small
   parties have been constantly passing, and some imprudent
   soldiers who straggled from the army mistook the route and
   went back almost to Chinesee without discovering even the
   track of an Indian.' Sullivan was mistaken in regard to the
   destruction of all the Indian towns as there were several
   small villages undiscovered by his troops. The principal
   villages, however, and probably nine-tenths of the growing
   crops, upon which the Indians had depended for sustenance
   during the following winter, were effectually destroyed. …
   While Sullivan fully accomplished the task given him to
   perform, the results expected were not fully realized. The
   power of the savages had been weakened, but they were not
   entirely subdued until years afterward, when 'Mad Anthony
   Wayne' defeated the confederated bands of the Indians of the
   west, in 1794, a measure which thoroughly humbled the Indians
   of Western New York, and gave to the settlers peace and
   security. Sullivan's expedition was fruitful of great results
   in other ways, however, than the temporary subjugation of the
   Indians. The fertile and beautiful country now forming the
   western part of the State of New York, was then an unknown
   wilderness, and its value and attractiveness were first made
   known to the white people through this expedition. … Soon
   after the close of the war the tide of emigration commenced to
   flow westward. From the New England States, Pennsylvania and
   New Jersey, came hardy pioneers, led on by the glowing
   accounts they had heard of the new country, and the vicinity
   of the inland lakes, the borders of the flowing streams, the
   forest-covered hills became the dwelling places of a rapidly
   growing band of settlers. The road which Sullivan had opened
   from the Susquehanna valley was followed by many of the
   settlers, even to the banks of the Genesee. Thus many of those
   who had shared the perils and privations of Sullivan's
   expedition against the Indian tribes of Western New York,
   afterward became settlers of the land they had aided to
   conquer."

      A. T. Norton,
      History of Sullivan's Campaign against the Iroquois,
      chapter 11.

      ALSO IN:
      L. L. Doty,
      History of Livingston County, New York,
      chapter 7.

      O. W. B. Peabody,
      Life of John Sullivan
      (Library of American Biographies,
      series 2, volume. 3), chapter 7.

      Journals of the Military Expedition of Major General John
      Sullivan, with records of Centennial Celebrations
      (including Historical Address by Reverend David Craft,
      pages 331-388).

      J. E. Seaver,
      Life of Mary Jemison,
      appendix 2.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1779 (September).
   Paul Jones' great sea-fight.
   The Bon Homme Richard and the Serapis.

   "Near the end of July [1779], Paul Jones, a Scot by birth, in
   the service of the United States, sailed from l'Orient as
   commander of a squadron, consisting of the Poor Richard ['Bon
   Homme Richard,' Jones named her, in compliment to Franklin and
   to the language of the country from which Franklin's influence
   procured the ship] of 40 guns, many of them unserviceable; the
   Alliance of 36 guns, both American ships-of-war; the Pallas, a
   French frigate of 32; and the Vengeance, a French brig of 12
   guns. They ranged the western coast of Ireland, turned
   Scotland, and, cruising off Flamborough Head, descried the
   British merchant fleet from the Baltic, under the convoy of
   the Serapis of 44 guns and the Countess of Scarborough of 20
   guns. An hour after sunset, on the 23d of September, the
   Serapis, having a great superiority in strength, engaged the
   Poor Richard. Paul Jones, after suffering exceedingly in a
   contest of an hour and a half within musket-shot, bore down
   upon his adversary, whose anchor he hooked to his own quarter.
   The muzzles of their guns touched each other's sides. Jones
   could use only three nine-pounders beside muskets from the
   round-tops, but combustible matters were thrown into every
   part of the Serapis, which was on fire no less than ten or
   twelve times. There were moments when both ships were on fire.
   After a two-hours' conflict in the first watch of the night,
   the Serapis struck its flag. Jones raised his pendant on the
   captured frigate, and the next day had but time to transfer to
   it his wounded men and his crew before the Poor Richard went
   down. The French frigate engaged and captured the Countess of
   Scarborough. The Alliance, which from a distance had raked the
   Serapis during the action, not without injuring the Poor
   Richard, had not a man injured. On the fourth of October the
   squadron entered the Texel with its prizes. The British
   ambassador, of himself and again under instructions, reclaimed
   the captured British ships and their crews, 'who had been
   taken by the pirate Paul Jones of Scotland, a rebel and a
   traitor.' 'They,' he insisted, 'are to be treated as pirates
   whose letters of marque have not emanated from a sovereign
   power.' The grand pensionary would not apply the name of
   pirate to officers bearing the commissions of congress. In
   spite of the stadholder, the squadron enjoyed the protection
   of a neutral port."

      G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States
      (Author's last revision),
      volume 5, page 350.

      ALSO IN.
      A. S, Mackenzie,
      Life of Paul Jones,
      chapters 8-9 (volume 1).

      Life and Correspondence of John Paul Jones,
      pages 179-235.

      W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,
      Popular History of the United States,
      volume 3, chapter 24.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1779 (September-October).
   Unsuccessful attack on Savannah by the Americans and French.

   "The state of affairs in the South had called so imperatively
   for the attention of Congress that a portion of Washington's
   army had been detached to join General Lincoln. Washington
   solicited more powerful aid from D'Estaing, who then commanded
   in the West Indies an army sufficiently powerful to crush
   entirely the English in Georgia. The French admiral received
   this application just after having fought a hard battle
   against Commodore Byron without any decisive result, yet such
   as obliged the latter to go into port to refit. The former,
   being thus for a time master of the sea, determined at once to
   comply with the request, took on board 6,000 land-troops, and
   steered direct for Savannah, where, arriving quite
   unexpectedly, he captured by surprise a fifty-gun ship and
   three frigates. Prevost, too, was very unprepared, having his
   force broken up into detachments distributed along the
   frontier; but these being instantly ordered in, obeyed with
   such promptitude that, before the French had landed and formed
   a junction with Lincoln, nearly all had arrived.
{3269}
   On the 16th of September, D'Estaing appeared before the place
   and summoned it to surrender. Prevost, under pretext of
   negotiation, obtained a suspension for twenty-four hours,
   during which Colonel Maitland entered with the last and
   largest detachment, eluding the Americans by a route supposed
   impassable; and the full determination to resist was then
   announced. The opinion of all military men now is that
   D'Estaing was guilty of the most outrageous folly in not
   marching at once to the attack of the city, without summoning
   the weakened garrison to surrender at all. The surprise would
   have then been complete, and the victory sure. … A regular
   siege was now commenced. Heavy ordnance and stores were
   brought up from the fleet, and the besieging army broke
   ground. By the 1st of October they had pushed their sap within
   300 yards of the abattis, on the left of the British lines.
   Several batteries were opened on the besieged, which played
   almost incessantly upon their works, but made no impression on
   them. The situation of D'Estaing was becoming critical. More
   time had already been consumed on the coast of Georgia than he
   had supposed would be necessary for the destruction of the
   British force in that State. He became uneasy for the
   possessions of France in the West Indies, and apprehensive for
   the safety of the ships under his command. The naval officers
   remonstrated strenuously against longer exposing his fleet on
   an insecure coast, at a tempestuous season of the year, and
   urged the danger of being overtaken by a British squadron when
   broken and scattered by a storm." D'Estaing accordingly
   decided that he must either raise the siege or attempt the
   enemy's works by storm. "The latter part of the alternative
   was adopted. … On the morning of the 9th of October, before
   day, … about 3,500 French and 1,000 Americans, of whom between
   600 and 700 were regulars and the residue militia of
   Charleston, advanced in three columns, led by D'Estaing and
   Lincoln, aided by the principal officers of both nations, and
   made a furious assault on the British lines. Their reception
   was warmer than had been expected. … Both the French and
   Americans planted their standards on the walls, and were
   killed in great numbers while endeavoring to force their way
   into the works. For about fifty minutes the contest was
   extremely obstinate." Then the assailants gave way and a
   retreat was ordered. "In this unsuccessful attempt the French
   lost in killed and wounded about 700 men. Among the latter
   were the Count D'Estaing himself, Major General De Fontanges,
   and several other officers of distinction. The continental
   troops lost 234 men, and the Charleston militia, who, though
   associated with them in danger, were more fortunate, had one
   captain killed and six privates wounded. Count Pulaski was
   among the slain. The loss of the garrison was astonishingly
   small. In killed and wounded it amounted only to 55. So great
   was the advantage of the cover afforded by their works. …
   Count D'Estaing, having committed a blunder at the beginning,
   had committed a worse blunder at the end, by insisting on the
   assault, as unnecessary as it was rash. … He [now] insisted on
   raising the siege, and both the French and American armies
   moved from their ground on the evening of the 18th of October.
   D'Estaing sailed for the West Indies; and Lincoln recrossed
   the Savannah at Zubly's Ferry and again encamped in South
   Carolina."

      C. B. Hartley,
      Life of General Marion
      (Heroes and Patriots of the South),
      chapter 11.

      ALSO IN:
      C. C. Jones, Jr.,
      History of Georgia,
      volume 2, chapters 20-21.

      J. Sparks,
      Life of Pulaski
      (Library of American Biographies,
      series 2, volume 4).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780 (January-April).
   The gloomy winter at Morristown.
   Depreciation to worthlessness of the Continental Currency.
   Consequent sufferings of the army and the country.

   "The year 1780 opened upon a famishing camp. 'For a fortnight
   past,' writes Washington, on the 8th of January, 'the troops,
   both officers and men, have been almost perishing with want.
   Yet,' adds he, feelingly, 'they have borne their sufferings
   with a patience that merits the approbation, and ought to
   excite the sympathies, of their countrymen.' The severest
   trials of the Revolution, in fact, were not in the field,
   where there were shouts to excite and laurels to be won; but
   in the squalid wretchedness of ill-provided camps, where there
   was nothing to cheer and everything to be endured. To suffer
   was the lot of the revolutionary soldier. A rigorous winter
   had much to do with the actual distresses of the army, but the
   root of the evil lay in the derangement of the currency.
   Congress had commenced the war without adequate funds, and
   without the power of imposing direct taxes. To meet pressing
   emergencies, it had emitted paper money, which, for a time,
   passed currently at par; but sank in value as further
   emissions succeeded, and that already in circulation remained
   unredeemed. The several States added to the evil by emitting
   paper in their separate capacities: thus the country gradually
   became flooded with a 'continental currency,' as it was
   called; irredeemable, and of no intrinsic value. The
   consequence was a general derangement of trade and finance.
   The continental currency declined to such a degree that forty
   dollars in paper were equivalent to only one in specie.
   Congress attempted to put a stop to this depreciation by
   making paper money a legal tender, at its nominal value, in
   the discharge of debts, however contracted. This opened the
   door to knavery, and added a new feature to the evil. The
   commissaries now found it difficult to purchase supplies for
   the immediate wants of the army, and impossible to provide any
   stores in advance. They were left destitute of funds, and the
   public credit was prostrated by the accumulating debts
   suffered to remain uncancelled. The changes which had taken
   place in the commissary department added to this confusion.
   The commissary-general, instead of receiving, as heretofore, a
   commission on expenditures, was to have a fixed salary in
   paper currency, and his deputies were to be compensated in
   like manner, without the usual allowance of rations and
   forage. No competent agents could be procured on such terms. …
   In the present emergency Washington was reluctantly compelled,
   by the distresses of the army, to call upon the counties of
   the State for supplies of grain and cattle, proportioned to
   their respective abilities. … Wherever a compliance with this
   call was refused, the articles required were to be impressed:
   it was a painful alternative, yet nothing else could save the
   army from dissolution or starving. … As the winter advanced,
   the cold increased in severity.
{3270}
   It was the most intense ever remembered in the country. The
   great bay of New York was frozen over. … The insular security
   of the place was at an end. … Washington was aware of the
   opportunity which offered itself for a signal 'coup de main,'
   but was not in a condition to profit by it."

      W. Irving,
      Life of Washington,
      volume 4, chapters 1 and 4.

   "Paper for $9,000,000 was issued before any depreciation
   began. The issues of the separate colonies must have affected
   it, but the popular enthusiasm went for something. Pelatiah
   Webster, almost alone as it seems, insisted on taxation, but a
   member of Congress indignantly asked if he was to help tax the
   people when they could go to the printing-office and get a
   cartload of money. In 1776, when the depreciation began,
   Congress took harsh measures to try to sustain the bills.
   Committees of safety also took measures to punish those who
   'forestalled' or 'engrossed,' these being the terms for
   speculators who bought up for a rise. … The enemy, perceiving
   the terrible harm the Americans were doing themselves, thought
   it well to help on the movement. They counterfeited the bills
   and passed them through the lines. At the end of 1779 Congress
   was at its wit's end for money. Its issues had put specie
   entirely out of reach, and the cause was in danger of being
   drowned under the paper sea. … The French alliance helped more
   by giving means of procuring loans in Europe than by military
   assistance. Congress promised to limit its issues to
   $200,000,000, and tried a new form of note; also loan offices
   and lotteries. Over 350,000,000 were issued in all, but it is
   doubtful if more than 200,000,000 were out at any one time. In
   the spring of 1780 the bills were worth two cents on the
   dollar, and then ceased to circulate. Specie now came into
   circulation, being brought by the French, and also that
   expended by the English passing the lines. The paper was now
   worth more for an advertisement or a joke than for any
   prospect of any kind of redemption. A barber's shop in
   Philadelphia was papered with it, and a dog, coated with tar,
   and with the bills stuck all over him, was paraded in the
   streets."

      W. G. Sumner,
      History of American Currency,
      pages 44-47.

      ALSO IN:
      W. G. Sumner,
      The Financier and Finances of the American Revolution,
      chapter 4 (volume 1).

      A. S. Bolles,
      Financial History of the United States, 1774-1789,
      book 1.

      J. J. Knox,
      United States Notes,
      chapter 2.

      See, also, MONEY AND BANKING, A. D. 1775-1780.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780 (February-August).
   The siege and capture of Charleston by the British.
   Defeat of Gates at Camden.
   South Carolina subdued.

   "After the failure of the attack on Savannah was learned by
   Sir Henry Clinton, he sent a large additional force to the
   South. Reinforcements were also sent on to Lincoln, while the
   main body of the American army went into winter quarters near
   Morristown, New Jersey. Sir Henry Clinton, as soon as his
   forces, which had been dispersed by a storm, had been
   collected at Savannah, proceeded to invest Charleston,"
   landing his troops on St. John's Island in February. The
   blockading of the port and operations for the investment of
   the city were conducted cautiously and with success. On the
   12th of May, the American commander, General Lincoln, "finding
   himself incapable of defending Charleston, decided on
   capitulating; and he acceded to the terms which the besiegers
   had first offered. The fortifications, shipping, artillery,
   and public stores were all surrendered. The garrison, and all
   who had borne arms, were prisoners of war. The militia were
   allowed to return home on parole. In the siege the British
   lost 76 killed, and 189 wounded. The Americans about an equal
   number. The prisoners, exclusive of sailors, amounted to
   5,618, counting all the adult males of the town. To bring the
   country entirely under subjection, Clinton sent forth three
   detachments. The first and largest, in the northern part of
   the State, was under Lord Cornwallis. He detached Colonel
   Tarleton with his legion of cavalry and mounted infantry, to
   disperse Colonel Buford, then encamped near the North Carolina
   line. [Buford] was overtaken at the Waxhaws, and, on his
   refusal to surrender, Tarleton made a furious charge on
   Buford's men, when some, in dismay, threw down their arms and
   asked for quarter, and some fired on the enemy. After this
   partial resistance, no quarter was given. Colonel Buford, with
   a few of the horse, and about 100 infantry, escaped; 113 were
   killed on the spot; 150 so badly wounded as to be incapable of
   being moved; and 53 were brought away as prisoners. The
   American officers deny (what the British assert), that any who
   had laid down their arms had again taken them up. All further
   resistance to the enemy in South Carolina and Georgia seems
   then to have ceased. The two other detachments of the British
   army every where received the submission of the inhabitants,
   who either gave their parole not again to bear arms against
   the king, or took the oath of allegiance. In a proclamation
   for settling the government, Sir Henry Clinton required all to
   return to their allegiance on pain of being treated as rebels
   and enemies. He then returned to New York, leaving Lord
   Cornwallis in command, with 4,000 troops. … Lord Cornwallis,
   considering South Carolina as entirely reannexed to Great
   Britain, would admit of no neutrality among the inhabitants;
   but insisted on their taking the oath of allegiance, which,
   however, was generally taken with reluctance by the people of
   the lower country. … A considerable force, under Baron de
   Kalb, had been ordered for the Southern army by Congress; but,
   for want of money, and a sufficient Commissary department,
   they were so delayed in their march, that it was late in July
   before they reached Cape Fear River. Here they were joined by
   General Gates, who had been appointed to the command of the
   Southern army. The men of this detachment, ill-fed, suffered
   greatly from dysentery. In South Carolina, Gates was joined by
   Porterfield's Virginia regiment, Rutherford's corps of North
   Carolina militia, and Armaud's legion. … Gates having under
   him about 4,000 men, of whom the regulars were less than
   1,000, took post at Clermont. As the force of the Americans
   was daily increasing, Cornwallis, having under him about 2,000
   men, of whom 1,900 were regulars, decided on attacking the
   American army. It so happened, that the period chosen by
   Cornwallis to surprise Gates, was the very moment in which
   Gates proposed to surprise his adversary; and thus the
   advanced corps of both armies unexpectedly met at two o'clock
   in the morning [August 6, near Camden].
{3271}
   After some skirmishing, in which the British seemed to have
   had a decided advantage, both parties suspended their
   operations till the morning. On the first onset of the
   British, the Virginia militia under General Stevens fled with
   precipitation, and were followed by the infantry of Armstrong;
   and, except Colonel Dixon's regiment, the whole South Carolina
   division followed the example. Very few of the militia of
   either State discharged a single musket. Gates was borne away
   by the torrent, and, with General Caswell, retreated to
   Clermont, in the hope of collecting a sufficient number of the
   fugitives to cover the retreat of the regulars; but the hope
   was vain. He was fain to proceed to Hillsborough, to concert
   the future plan of operations. Thus left with an inadequate
   force on the field, De Kalb made a stout resistance; but in an
   impetuous charge he fell, after having received twelve wounds.
   His troops were then unable to rally, and their discomfiture
   was complete. Their loss, in killed, wounded and prisoners,
   could not have been less than 1,000 men. The British lost 325
   men. Just before the action, Sumter had captured a convoy, and
   made 200 prisoners; but was subsequently surprised by
   Tarleton, who recaptured the stores, killed 150, and took 300
   prisoners. Sumter escaped with difficulty. There was no longer
   any armed American force in South Carolina, and Cornwallis
   resorted to energetic means of preventing disaffection. All
   those who were found in arms after they had submitted to
   British protection were considered as having forfeited their
   lives, and several of them were hung on the spot. But these
   severities, instead of their intended effect, produced a
   strong reaction; and Sumter was able to collect a new force,
   with which he greatly annoyed the north-western parts of the
   State."

      G. Tucker,
      History of the United States,
      chapter 3 (volume 1).

      ALSO IN:
      D. Ramsey,
      History of South Carolina,
      section 7 (volume l).

      H. Lee,
      Memoirs of the War in the Southern Department,
      chapter 17.

      F. Bowen,
      Life of Benjamin Lincoln,
      chapter 5.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780 (July).
   Fresh help from France.
   The arrival of Rochambeau and his army, with a fleet.

   "La Fayette's second visit to his native country [1770], was
   most opportune. He arrived in Paris at the moment when the war
   for the independence of America was in high popularity
   throughout France. He was put in arrest a week for his
   disobedience to the order not to leave France, but this was a
   mere formality. Vergennes received him in private. His example
   had roused the spirit of the French nobles. The stage
   resounded with his applauses. Crowds followed his steps. Marie
   Antoinette, with her quick, enthusiastic spirit, joyed at his
   distinction. The council of state, the Parliament, the towns,
   the corporations mingled in the noble excitement. The Royal
   Treasury was assured support by patriotic offers of
   contributions, and then was formed the auxiliary army that was
   to bear succor to America. This public enthusiasm triumphed
   over the hesitating reluctance of Maurepas, and the economical
   prudence of Necker. The army, placed under the command of the
   veteran Rochambeau, commended for his 'steadiness, wisdom,
   ability and prudence,' a pupil of the Marshal de Belle Isle,
   distinguished in frequent service, was to be composed of 6,000
   troops. Among these shone forth the most brilliant of the
   nobility."

      J. C. Hamilton,
      History of the United States,
      as traced in the Writings of Alexander Hamilton,
      chapter 20 (volume 2).

   "La Fayette … made the ministers understand that if he was not
   placed in command of the expedition, which would surprise the
   Americans, at least it was imperative to place over it a
   French general who would consent to serve under the American
   commander-in-chief. But he knew well that his old companions
   in arms in France were jealous of his rapid military fortune
   and brilliant renown. He knew still better that the officers
   who were his seniors in rank would be unwilling to serve under
   him. His first proposition, therefore, was only made to
   satisfy public feeling in America, which left the management
   of this affair almost entirely in his hands. In view of the
   serious difficulties that necessarily would result from the
   adoption of such a decision—difficulties that might have most
   disastrous consequences for the cause to which he had devoted
   himself—he promised to make the Americans understand that he
   had preferred remaining at the head of one of their divisions
   and that he had refused the command of the French forces. But
   he insisted upon this point, that, in order to avoid wounding
   the self-respect of the Americans, it was indispensable to
   choose a general to command the expedition, whose promotion
   had been recent and whose talents were certainly equal to his
   mission, but who, considering this mission as a distinction,
   would consent to acknowledge General Washington's supremacy.
   The choice that was made, under these conditions, of the Count
   de Rochambeau was perfectly satisfactory to him, and, without
   waiting for the departure of the expedition, he embarked at
   Rochefort, on February the 18th, 1780, on board the frigate
   Hermione, which the king had given him as being a swift
   sailer. … He was anxious to inform Washington of the good news
   himself, and immediately upon his landing at Boston, on April
   the 28th, he hastened to Morristown to rejoin his well-beloved
   and revered friend, as he called him in his letters. … General
   Heath, who commanded the militia in the State of Rhode Is]and,
   announced on the 11th of July, the arrival of the French
   squadron to General Washington, who was then with his staff at
   Bergen. La Fayette set out almost immediately, provided with
   instructions from the commander-in-chief, dated the 15th, to
   repair to the French general and admiral to confer with them.
   For some time Washington had been considering a plan of
   offensive operation for the capture of the city and the
   garrison of New York. This plan, which conformed with the
   wishes of the French government, was only to be carried out
   upon certain conditions. First, it was necessary that the
   French troops should unite with the American forces, and,
   secondly, that the French should have a naval superiority over
   the forces of Admirals Graves and Arbuthnot, who had effected
   their junction at New York the day after the arrival of the
   French at Newport. This last condition was far from being
   fulfilled. … It had been foreseen that the English, who had
   concentrated their land and naval forces at New York, would
   not give the French time to establish themselves on Rhode
   Island; and Washington informed Rochambeau that Sir Henry
   Clinton was embarking his troops and would come shortly to
   attack the forces of the expedition with the squadrons
   assembled under the command of Admiral Arbuthnot, which were
   anchored at Sandy Hook, beyond New York, at the mouth of the
   Hudson River.
{3272}
   The American general watched these movements, and, while he
   gave frequent information to the French of the projected
   attack upon them, he tried to prevent it. … At the same time,
   Washington crossed the Hudson above West Point with the
   greater part of his troops, and proceeded to King's Bridge, at
   the northern end of the island, where he made some hostile
   demonstrations. This manœuvre detained General Clinton, who
   had already embarked eight thousand men upon the ships of
   Arbuthnot. He landed his troops and gave up his project.
   Nevertheless, the English admiral set sail and appeared before
   Rhode Island with eleven ships of the line and a few frigates,
   twelve days after the French had landed. … On August the 9th,
   when La Fayette had returned to the headquarters of
   Washington, which were at Dobb's Ferry, ten miles above King's
   Bridge, on the right bank of the North River, he wrote to
   Rochambeau and de Ternay an urgent dispatch, in which he
   finished, in the name of the American general, by proposing to
   the French generals to come at once to attempt an attack on
   New York. … On the other hand, the same courier brought a
   letter from Washington which made no mention of this project,
   but which only replied by a kind of refusal to the request of
   Rochambeau for a conference, 'wherein in an hour of
   conversation they could agree upon more things than in volumes
   of correspondence.' Washington said with truth that he did not
   dare to leave his army in front of New York, for it might be
   attacked at any moment, and that by his presence he prevented
   the departure of the large body of the English forces that
   might have been sent against Rhode Island. Indeed, it is
   certain that if some differences had not arisen between
   General Clinton and Admiral Arbuthnot, the French might have
   found themselves in a dangerous position at the beginning.
   From the earliest letters exchanged upon this occasion some
   discord resulted between La Fayette, Rochambeau and
   Washington, but, owing to the good sense of Rochambeau,
   matters were soon smoothed over. He wrote in English to the
   American general to ask him thereafter to address himself
   directly to him, and to explain the reasons that induced him
   to postpone assuming the offensive. At the same time he
   urgently requested a conference. From that moment the
   relations between the two leaders were excellent. The mere
   presence of the French squadron and army, though they were
   still paralyzed and really blockaded by Admiral Arbuthnot, had
   effected a useful diversion, since the English had not been
   able to profit by all the advantages resulting from the
   capture of Charleston, and, instead of carrying on operations
   in the Carolinas with superior forces, they had had to bring
   the greater part of them back to New York."

      T. Balch,
      The French in America in the War of Independence,
      chapters 10-11.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780 (August-September).
   The Treason of Benedict Arnold.

   "Washington contemplated the aspect of affairs with the
   greatest alarm. Doubtful if the army could be kept together
   for another campaign, he was exceedingly anxious to strike
   some decisive blow. He proposed to Rochambeau, commanding the
   French troops at Newport, an attack upon New York; but that
   was not thought feasible without a superior naval force.
   Letters were sent to the French admiral in the West Indies
   entreating assistance; and Washington presently proceeded to
   Hartford, there to meet Rochambeau, to devise some definite
   plan of operations. During Washington's absence at Hartford, a
   plot came to light for betraying the important fortress of
   West Point and the other posts of the Highlands into the hands
   of the enemy, the traitor being no other than Arnold, the most
   brilliant officer and one of the most honored in the American
   army. The qualities of a brilliant soldier are unfortunately
   often quite distinct from those of a virtuous man and a good
   citizen. … Placed in command at Philadelphia, … he [Arnold]
   lived in a style of extravagance far beyond his means, and he
   endeavored to sustain it by entering into privateering and
   mercantile speculations, most of which proved unsuccessful. He
   was even accused of perverting his military authority to
   purposes of private gain. The complaints on this point, made
   to Congress by the authorities of Pennsylvania, had been at
   first unheeded; but, being presently brought forward in a
   solemn manner, and with some appearance of offended dignity on
   the part of the Pennsylvania council, an interview took place
   between a committee of that body and a committee of Congress,
   which had resulted in Arnold's trial by a court martial.
   Though acquitted of the more serious charges, on two points he
   had been found guilty, and had been sentenced to be
   reprimanded by the commander-in-chief. Arnold claimed against
   the United States a large balance, growing out of the
   unsettled accounts of his Canada expedition. This claim was
   greatly cut down by the treasury officers and when Arnold
   appealed to Congress, a committee reported that more had been
   allowed than was actually due. Mortified and soured, and
   complaining of public ingratitude, Arnold attempted, but
   without success, to get a loan from the French minister. Some
   months before, he had opened a correspondence with Sir Henry
   Clinton under a feigned name, carried on through Major Andre,
   adjutant general of the British army. Having at length made
   himself known to his correspondents, to give importance to his
   treachery, he solicited and obtained from Washington, who had
   every confidence in him, the command in the Highlands, with
   the very view of betraying that important position into the
   hands of the enemy. To arrange the terms of the bargain, an
   interview was necessary with some confidential British agent;
   and Andre, though not without reluctance, finally volunteered
   for that purpose. Several previous attempts having failed, the
   British sloop-of-war Vulture, with Andre on board, ascended
   the Hudson as far as the mouth of Croton River, some miles
   below King's Ferry. Information being sent to Arnold under a
   flag, the evening after Washington left West Point for
   Hartford he dispatched a boat to the Vulture, which took Andre
   on shore, for an interview on the west side of the river, just
   below the American lines. Morning appeared before the
   arrangements for the betrayal of the fortress could be
   definitely completed, and Andre was reluctantly persuaded to
   come within the American lines, and to remain till the next
   night at the house of one Smith, a dupe or tool of Arnold's,
   the same who had been employed to bring Andre from the ship.
{3273}
   For some reason not very clearly explained, Smith declined to
   convey Andre back to the Vulture. … Driven thus to the
   necessity of returning by land, Andre laid aside his uniform,
   assumed a citizen's dress, and, with a pass from Arnold in the
   name of John Anderson, a name which Andre had often used in
   their previous correspondence, he set off toward sunset on
   horseback, with Smith for a guide. They crossed King's Ferry,
   passed all the American guards in safety, and spent the night
   near Crom Pond, with an acquaintance of Smith's. The next
   morning, having passed Pine's Bridge, across Croton River,
   Smith left Andre to pursue his way alone. The road led through
   a district extending some thirty miles above the island of New
   York, not included in the lines of either army, and thence
   known as the 'Neutral Ground,' a populous and fertile region,
   but very much infested by bands of plunderers called 'Cow
   Boys' and 'Skinners.' The 'Cow Boys' lived within the British
   lines, and stole or bought cattle for the supply of the
   British army. The rendezvous of the 'Skinners' was within the
   American lines. They professed to be great patriots, making it
   their ostensible business to plunder those who refused to take
   the oath of allegiance to the State of New York." On the
   morning of Andre's journey, the road to Tarrytown, on which he
   rode, was being guarded by a small party of men, who watched
   for cattle thieves, and for suspicious travelers generally.
   Three of these intercepted the unfortunate young officer and
   discovered his character. Arnold received intelligence of what
   had happened in time to make his escape to the Vulture. Andre
   was examined before a board of which Lafayette, Steuben and
   Greene were members, and on his own statements was executed as
   a spy. The sympathy with him was very great, among Americans
   as well as among his own countrymen; but lenity in the case
   appeared too dangerous to Washington and his military
   advisers.

      R. Hildreth,
      History of the United States,
      chapter 41 (volume 3).

      ALSO IN:
      W. Irving,
      Life of Washington,
      volume 4, chapters 2, 7, and 9-11.

      B. J. Lossing,
      The Two Spies.

      J. Sparks,
      Life and Treason of Benedict Arnold
      (Library of American Biographies,
      volume 3, chapters 8-15).

      W. Sargent,
      Life of Major John André,
      chapters 11-21.

      I. N. Arnold,
      Life of Benedict Arnold,
      chapters 13-18.

      J. H. Smith,
      Authentic Narrative of the Causes which led
      to the Death of Major André.

      B. J. Lossing,
      Field-book of the Revolution,
      volume 1, chapters 30-32.

      See, also, WEST POINT.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780 (August-December).
   Partisan warfare in South Carolina.
   Sumter and Marion.

   A name "which recalls thrilling tales of desperate enterprise,
   surprises at midnight, sudden attacks in the gray twilight of
   morning, lurking-places in the depths of forests, restless
   activity, and untiring perseverance, is the name of Thomas
   Sumter. He comes before us tall, vigorous, dauntless, with a
   bold bearing, and imperious brow, stern to look upon, fierce
   in his self-will, arrogant in his decisions, tenacious in his
   prejudices, resolute and vigorous in the execution of his own
   plans, remiss and almost luke-warm in carrying out the plans
   of others. Born in South Carolina just as that colony had
   passed from the control of the Proprietaries to the control of
   the King, he lived to see her take the first decided step
   towards passing out of the Union. Little has been preserved of
   his early life, although his subsequent career in the Senate
   of the United States proves that he was not deficient in
   education then, wherever or whenever acquired. In the
   Revolution be took an early part, and soon made himself
   conspicuous as a bold and enterprising officer. But it was not
   till after the siege of Charleston that his talents were
   brought fully into play. Then at the head of a body of
   volunteers he moved rapidly from point to point, keeping alive
   the hopes of the Whigs and the fears of the Tories in the
   regions watered by the Broad River, the Ennoree, and the
   Tiger. … History, like tradition, has her favorite characters,
   on which she dwells with peculiar fondness, delighting herself
   in preserving the memory of every exploit, and giving the
   brightest tints to every circumstance connected with their
   career. … Of these children of a happy star, no one holds in
   our Revolutionary history the same place as Francis Marion.
   His story, irregularly told by a friend and companion, took an
   early hold upon the heart of the people; and the romantic
   traits of his career, warming the imagination of a great poet,
   have been recorded in beautiful verse. Impartial judgment and
   sober research have left his own laurels unimpaired, although
   they have dissipated the halo which tradition and fancy had
   shed around his men. His life forms one of those pictures upon
   which the mind loves to dwell, from the singular combination
   of rare qualities which it displays. His ancestors were
   Huguenot exiles, who took refuge in South Carolina, from the
   dragonnades of Louis XIV. His father was a planter near
   Georgetown, who, portioning out his estate to his children as
   they came of age, had nothing left for Francis, the youngest,
   and his next nearest brother, while they were yet children. At
   sixteen Francis found himself compelled to choose a pursuit
   for his support. With only a common English education, and no
   money to carry him through the preparatory courses, he could
   neither be a physician nor a lawyer. He resolved to be a
   sailor, and started upon a voyage to the West Indies. But his
   ship was burnt in a gale, and after tossing about eight days
   in an open boat, without water and with nothing but the raw
   flesh and skin of a single dog to eat, and seeing several of
   his companions die of hunger, he, with the starving survivors,
   were rescued, barely alive. He renounced the sea, returned to
   Georgetown, and engaged in farming. The Cherokee war of 1759
   found him hard at his work. He was now twenty-six, small in
   frame, low in stature, but vigorous, active, and healthy. By
   nature he was taciturn and reticent, with nothing in the
   expression of his face to attract or interest a casual
   observer, but still inspiring confidence and commanding
   respect in those who were brought into intimate relations with
   him. When, therefore, a company of volunteers was raised to
   serve against the Indians, he was chosen lieutenant. In a
   second expedition, which soon after became necessary, he was
   made captain. Next came the War of Independence; and joining
   the first South Carolina levies, he was presently made a
   major; and with this rank took part in the gallant defense of
   Fort Moultrie in 1776. His next promotion was to the command
   of a regiment as lieutenant-colonel.
{3274}
   During the siege of Charleston his leg was accidentally
   broken, a lucky accident, which left him free when the city
   fell, to engage in an adventurous system of warfare which was
   the only possible system in that low state of our fortunes.
   In the course of this he was promoted by Governor Rutledge to
   a brigadiership. When he first appeared in Gates's camp, he
   had but twenty men with him, or rather twenty between men and
   boys. Some of them were negroes. With these he rescued 150 of
   the prisoners of Camden, coming upon the British escort by
   surprise and overpowering it. Early in September a body of 200
   Tories attempted to surprise him. He had 53 men with him when
   he heard of their intention, and instantly setting forward,
   surprised an advance party of 45, killing or wounding all but
   15, and then attacked the main body of 200, and put them to
   flight. Before the end of the month he surprised another body
   of 60 men; and in October one of 200. His force was constantly
   fluctuating between 20 men and 70. Up to the 18th of October
   he had never had over 70. They went and came as they chose,
   their number ever ebbing and flowing like the tide. Sometimes
   the very men who had fought with him were ranged in arms
   against him; a few only serving from honest zeal and true love
   of country. … As his slender form concealed a lion heart, so
   under his cold, impassive face, there was a perpetual glow of
   tender sympathies. … Without claiming for Marion those powers
   of combination which belong to the highest order of military
   genius, he must be allowed to have excelled in all the
   qualities which form the consummate partisan,—vigilance,
   promptitude, activity, energy, dauntless courage, and unshaken
   self-control. … Two principles controlled all his actions, and
   shaped all his ends; the love of country, pure, earnest, and
   profound; the love of right, sincere, undeviating, and
   incorruptible."

      G. W. Greene,
      Life of Nathanael Greene,
      book 4, chapter 7 (volume 3).

   "The other partisans … had been compelled to take refuge in
   the mountains. Marion found his security in the swamps. This
   able partisan maintained his ground below and along the Santee
   river, and managed, among the defiles and swamps of that
   region, to elude all the activity of his enemies. His force
   had been collected chiefly among his own neighbors, were
   practised in the swamps, and familiar with the country. Like
   Sumter, utterly unfurnished with the means of war at first, he
   procured them by similar means. He took possession of the saws
   from the mills, and converted them into sabres. So much was he
   distressed for ammunition that he has engaged in battle when
   he had not three rounds of powder to each man of his party. …
   Various were the means employed to draw off or drive away his
   followers. The houses on the banks of the Pedee, Lynch's
   Creek, and Black river, from whence they were chiefly taken,
   were destroyed by fire, the plantations devastated, and the
   negroes carried away. But the effect of this wantonness was
   far other than had been intended. Revenge and despair
   confirmed the patriotism of these ruined men, and strengthened
   their resolution. … For months, their only shelter was the
   green wood and the swamp—their only cover the broad forest and
   the arch of heaven. … With a policy that nothing could
   distract—a caution that no artifice could mislead—Marion led
   his followers from thicket to thicket in safety, and was never
   more perfectly secure than when he was in the neighborhood of
   his foe. He hung upon his flanks along the march—he skirted
   his camp in the darkness of the night—he lay in wait for his
   foraging parties—he shot down his sentries, and, flying or
   advancing, he never failed to harass the invader, and extort
   from him a bloody toll at every passage through swamp,
   thicket, or river, which his smaller parties made. In this
   sort of warfare—which is peculiarly adapted to the
   peculiarities of the country in Carolina, and consequently to
   the genius of her people—he contrived almost wholly to break
   up the British communications by one of the most eligible
   routes between the seaboard and the interior."

      W. G. Simms,
      History of South Carolina,
      book 5, chapter 6.

      ALSO IN:
      C. B. Hartley,
      Life of General Francis Marion
      (Heroes and Patriots of the South),
      chapters 14-15.

      W. G. Simms,
      Life of Francis Marion.

      Horry and Weems,
      Life of Marion.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780-1781.
   Vermont as an independent State negotiating with the British.

      See VERMONT: A. D. 1781.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780-1781.
   Greene's campaign in the south.
   King's Mountain.
   The Cowpens.
   Guilford Court House.
   Hobkirk's Hill.
   Eutaw Springs.
   The British shut up in Charleston.
   Cornwallis withdrawn to Virginia.

   "After his victory at Camden, Lord Cornwallis found it
   necessary to give his army some rest from the intense August
   heat. In September he advanced into North Carolina, boasting
   that he would soon conquer all the states south of the
   Susquehanna river. … In traversing Mecklenburg county
   Cornwallis soon found himself in a very hostile and dangerous
   region, where there were no Tories to befriend him. One of his
   best partisan commanders, Major Ferguson, penetrated too far
   into the mountains. The back-woodsmen of Tennessee and
   Kentucky, the Carolinas, and western Virginia were aroused;
   and under their superb partisan leaders—Shelby, Sevier,
   Cleaveland, McDowell, Campbell, and Williams—gave chase to
   Ferguson, who took refuge upon what he deemed an impregnable
   position on the top of King's Mountain. On the 7th of October
   the backwoodsmen stormed the mountain, Ferguson was shot
   through the heart, 400 of his men were killed and wounded, and
   all the rest, 700 in number, surrendered at discretion. The
   Americans lost 28 killed and 60 wounded. … In the series of
   events which led to the surrender of Cornwallis, the battle of
   King's Mountain played a part similar to that played by the
   battle of Bennington in the series of events which led to the
   surrender of Burgoyne. It was the enemy's first serious
   disaster, and its immediate result was to check his progress
   until the Americans could muster strength enough to overthrow
   him. The events, however, were much more complicated in
   Cornwallis's case, and took much longer to unfold themselves.
   … As soon as he heard the news of the disaster he fell back to
   Winnsborough, in South Carolina, and called for
   reinforcements. While they were arriving, the American army,
   recruited and reorganized since its crushing defeat at Camden,
   advanced into Mecklenburg county. Gates was superseded by
   Greene, who arrived upon the scene on the 2d of December.
   Under Greene were three Virginians of remarkable
   ability,—Daniel Morgan; William Washington, who was a distant
   cousin of the commander-in-chief; and Henry Lee, familiarly
   known as 'Light-horse Harry,' father of the great general,
   Robert Edward Lee.
{3275}
   The little army numbered only 2,000 men, but a considerable
   part of them were disciplined veterans, fully a match for the
   British infantry." To increase this small force, Baron
   Steuben, the military organizer and disciplinarian of the
   Revolutionary armies, was sent down to Virginia, for the
   purpose of recruiting and organizing troops.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777 (JANUARY-DECEMBER).

   Thereupon detachments from the British army at New York were
   dispatched by sea to Virginia, and Arnold, the traitor, was
   given command of them. "The presence of these subsidiary
   forces in Virginia was soon to influence in a decisive way the
   course of events. Greene, on reaching South Carolina, acted
   with boldness and originality. He divided his little army into
   two bodies, one of which cooperated with Marion's partisans in
   the northeastern part of the state, and threatened
   Cornwallis's communications with the coast. The other body he
   sent under Morgan to the southwestward, to threaten the inland
   posts and their garrisons. Thus worried on both flanks,
   Cornwallis presently divided his own force, sending Tarleton
   with 1,100 men to dispose of Morgan. Tarleton came up with
   Morgan on the 17th of January, 1781, at a grazing-ground known
   as the Cowpens, not far from King's Mountain. The battle which
   ensued was well fought, and on Morgan's part it was a
   wonderful piece of tactics. With only 900 men in open field he
   surrounded and nearly annihilated a superior force. The
   British lost 230 in killed and wounded, 600 prisoners, and all
   their guns. Tarleton escaped with 270 men. The Americans lost
   12 killed and 61 wounded. The two battles, King's Mountain and
   the Cowpens, deprived Cornwallis of nearly all his light-armed
   troops, and he was just entering upon a game where swiftness
   was especially required. It was his object to intercept Morgan
   and defeat him before he could effect a junction with the
   other part of the American army. It was Greene's object to
   march the two parts of his army in converging directions
   northwards across North Carolina and unite them in spite of
   Cornwallis. By moving in this direction Greene was always
   getting nearer to his reinforcements from Virginia, while
   Cornwallis was always getting further from his supports in
   South Carolina. … The two wings of the American army came
   together and were joined by the reinforcements; so that at
   Guilford Court House, on the 15th of March, Cornwallis found
   himself obliged to fight against heavy odds, 200 miles from
   the coast and almost as far from the nearest point in South
   Carolina at which he could get support. The battle of Guilford
   was admirably managed by both commanders and stubbornly fought
   by the troops. At nightfall the British held the field, with
   the loss of nearly one third of their number, and the
   Americans were repulsed. But Cornwallis could not stay in such
   a place, and could not afford to risk another battle. There
   was nothing for him to do but retreat to Wilmington, the
   nearest point on the coast. There he stopped and pondered. His
   own force was sadly depleted, but he knew that Arnold in
   Virginia was being heavily reinforced from New York. The only
   safe course seemed to march northward and join the operations
   in Virginia; then afterwards to return southward. This course
   Cornwallis pursued, arriving at Petersburg and taking command
   of the troops there on the 20th of May. Meanwhile Greene,
   after pursuing Cornwallis for about 50 miles from Guilford,
   faced about and marched with all speed upon Camden, 160 miles
   distant. … Lord Rawdon held Camden. Greene stopped at
   Hobkirk's Hill, two miles to the north, and sent Marion and
   Lee to take Fort Watson, and thus cut the enemy's
   communications with the coast. On April 23 Fort Watson
   surrendered; on the 25th Rawdon defeated Greene at Hobkirk's
   Hill, but as his communications were cut the victory did him
   no good. He was obliged to retreat toward the coast, and
   Greene took Camden on the 10th of May. Having thus obtained
   the commanding point, Greene went on until he had reduced
   every one of the inland posts. At last, on the 8th of
   September, he fought an obstinate battle at Eutaw Springs, in
   which both sides claimed the victory. … Here, however, as
   always after one of Greene's battles, it was the enemy who
   retreated and he who pursued. His strategy never failed. After
   Eutaw Springs the British remained shut up in Charleston under
   cover of their ships, and the American government was
   reëstablished over South Carolina. Among all the campaigns in
   history that have been conducted with small armies, there have
   been few, if any, more brilliant than Greene's."

      J. Fiske,
      The War of Independence,
      chapter 7.

      ALSO IN:
      J. Fiske,
      The American Revolution,
      chapter 15 (volume 2).

      H. B. Carrington,
      Battles of the American Revolution,
      chapters 65-71.

      G. W. Greene,
      Life of Nathanael Greene,
      volume 3, chapters 1-23.

      L. C. Draper,
      King's Mountain and its Heroes.

      H. Lee,
      Memoirs of the War in the Southern Department,
      chapters 18-34.

      J. Graham,
      Life of General Daniel Morgan,
      chapters 13-17.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781 (January).
   The Mutiny of the Pennsylvania Line.

   "As the year 1781 opened and the prospect of a new year of
   struggle became certain, and the invasion of the Southern
   States began to indicate the prospect of a southern campaign,
   which was at all times unpopular with northern troops, a
   disaffection was developed which at last broke forth in open
   mutiny, and a peremptory demand for discharge. This irritation
   was aggravated by hunger, cold, and poverty. Marshall says:
   'The winter brought not much relaxation from toil, and none
   from suffering. The soldiers were perpetually on the point of
   starvation, were often entirely without food, were exposed
   without proper clothing to the rigors of winter; and had now
   served almost twelve months without pay.' … On the 1st of
   January the Pennsylvania line revolted; Captain Billings was
   killed in an attempt to suppress the mutiny; General Wayne was
   powerless to restore order, and 1,300 men, with six guns,
   started to Princeton, with the declared purpose to march to
   Philadelphia, and obtain redress. They demanded clothing, the
   residue of their bounty, and full arrears of pay. A committee
   from Congress and the State authorities of Pennsylvania at
   once entered into negotiations with the troops for terms of
   compromise. The American Commander-in-chief was then at New
   Windsor. A messenger from General Wayne informed him on the 3d
   of January of the revolt, and the terms demanded. It appears
   from Washington's letters that it was his impulse, at the
   first intimation of the trouble, to go in person and attempt
   its control. His second impression was to reserve his
   influence and authority until all other means were exhausted.
{3276}
   The complaint of the mutineers was but a statement of the
   condition of all the army, so far as the soldiers had served
   three years; and the suffering and failure to receive pay were
   absolutely universal. Leaving the preliminary discussion with
   the civil authorities who were responsible for much of the
   trouble, the Commander-in-chief appealed to the Governors of
   the northern States for a force of militia to meet any attacks
   from New York, and declined to interfere until he found that
   the passion had passed and he could find troops who would at
   all hazards execute his will. It was one of the most difficult
   passages in the war, and was so handled that the
   Commander-in-chief retained his prestige and regained control
   of the army. … General Clinton received information of the
   revolt as early as Washington, on the morning of the 23d, and
   sent messengers to the American army with propositions,
   looking to their return to British allegiance. He entirely
   misconceived the nature of the disaffection, and his agents
   were retained in custody. It is sufficient to say that a
   portion of the troops were discharged without critical
   examination of their enlistments, on their own oath; that many
   promptly reenlisted, that as soon as Washington found that he
   had troops who did not share in the open mutiny, he used force
   and suppressed the disaffection, and that the soldiers
   themselves hung several agents who brought propositions from
   General Clinton which invited them to abandon their flag and
   join his command. The mutiny of the American army at the
   opening of the campaign of 1781, was a natural outbreak which
   human nature could not resist, and whatever of discredit may
   attach to the revolt, it will never be unassociated with the
   fact that, while the emergency was one that overwhelmed every
   military obligation by its pressure, it did not affect the
   fealty of the soldiers to the cause for which they took up
   arms. … La Fayette thus wrote to his wife, 'Human patience has
   its limits. No European army would suffer the tenth part of
   what the Americans suffer. It takes citizens to support
   hunger, nakedness, toil, and the total want of pay, which
   constitute the condition of our soldiers, the hardiest and
   most patient that are to be found in the world.'"

      H. B. Carrington,
      Battles of the American Revolution,
      chapter 67.

      ALSO IN:
      W. H. Egle,
      History of Pennsylvania,
      chapter 12.

      C. J. Stillé,
      Major-General Anthony Wayne,
      chapter 6.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781 (January-May).
   Benedict Arnold and the British in Virginia.
   Opening of Lafayette's campaign in that state.

   "In January, 1781, the news reached headquarters in the
   Highlands of New York that General [Benedict] Arnold had
   landed in Virginia with a considerable force, was laying waste
   the country, and had already destroyed the valuable stores
   collected at Richmond; opposed to him were only the small
   commands of Steuben and Muhlenberg. The situation was very
   alarming, and threatened to place all the Southern States in
   the hands of the British. If Arnold succeeded in destroying
   the few American troops in Virginia, he could then march to
   the assistance of Cornwallis, who, with a superior force, was
   pressing General Greene very hard in the Carolinas. To defeat
   or capture Arnold before he could further prosecute his
   designs was, therefore, of the utmost importance. For this
   purpose it was necessary to send a detachment from the main
   army against Arnold by land, and a naval force to Chesapeake
   Bay to prevent his escape by sea. Washington at once
   communicated the state of affairs to Rochambeau, who, with the
   French fleet, had long been blockaded at Newport. Taking
   advantage of the serious injuries lately suffered by the
   blockading English fleet in consequence of a storm, Admiral
   Destouches despatched M. de Tilly to the Chesapeake with a
   ship-of-the-line and two frigates. To cooperate with these
   French vessels, Washington detached 1,200 light infantry from
   the main army, and placed them under the command of Lafayette.
   That officer was particularly chosen for this important trust,
   because the confidence reposed in him by both the American and
   French troops made him, in Washington's opinion, the fittest
   person to conduct a combined expedition. Thus opened the only
   campaign in America which afforded Lafayette an opportunity to
   show what abilities he possessed as an independent commander,
   and on this campaign his military reputation must chiefly
   rest. Lafayette moved rapidly southward," to Annapolis; but,
   the coöperating movement of the French fleet having, meantime,
   been frustrated by an attack from the English squadron, his
   instructions required him to abandon the expedition and
   return. He had already set his troops in motion northward when
   different instructions reached him. Two more British regiments
   had been sent to Virginia, under General Philips, who now took
   command of all the forces there, and this had increased the
   anxiety of Washington. "The situation of the Southern States
   had become extremely perilous. General Greene had all he could
   do to fight Lord Cornwallis's superior force in North
   Carolina. Unless a vigorous opposition could be made to
   Philips, he would have no difficulty in dispersing the militia
   of Virginia, and in effecting a junction with Cornwallis.
   With their forces so combined, the British would be masters in
   the South. Washington at once determined to place the defence
   of Virginia in Lafayette's hands. … Lafayette marched with
   such rapidity … that he reached Richmond, where there were
   valuable stores to be protected, a day in advance of General
   Philips. From his post on the heights of the town he saw the
   British set fire to the tobacco warehouses at Manchester, just
   across the river, but there were neither men nor boats enough
   to make an attack possible. Philips, on his part, was too much
   impressed with the show of strength made by the Americans to
   prosecute his plans on Richmond, and retreating down the James
   river, burning and laying waste as he went, he camped at Hog
   Island. Lafayette followed, harassing the enemy's rear, as far
   as the Chickahominy. Here the situation underwent a
   considerable change. Lord Cornwallis, after his long and
   unsuccessful campaign against Greene in North Carolina, made
   up his mind that his exhausting labors there would prove
   unprofitable until Virginia should be subjugated. His men were
   worn out with incessant marching and fighting, while no
   substantial advantage had been gained. Hearing that General
   Greene had marched to attack Lord Rawdon at Camden in South
   Carolina, he determined to join Philips.
{3277}
   That officer, accordingly, received orders while at Hog Island
   to take possession of Petersburg and there await Cornwallis's
   arrival. … On the 13th of May, General Philips died at
   Petersburg of a fever. … Cornwallis arrived at Petersburg on
   the 20th of May. His forces now amounted to over 5,000 men,
   which number was soon increased to 8,000."

      B. Tuckerman,
      Life of Lafayette,
      chapter 6.

      ALSO IN:
      J. E. Cooke,
      Virginia,
      part 3, chapter 17.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781 (May-October).
   Cornwallis in Virginia and the trap into which he fell.
   Siege of Yorktown by the French and Americans.
   Surrender of the British army.

   "On the 24th of May, Cornwallis, having rested his troops,
   marched from Petersburg, and endeavored to engage the American
   forces. But Lafayette, having removed the military stores from
   Richmond, retreated across the Chickahominy to Fredericksburg,
   where he expected to meet General Wayne and a battalion of
   Pennsylvania troops, without whose assistance he could not
   venture any fighting. … Cornwallis … moved between Lafayette
   and the town of Albemarle, where had been placed a great part
   of the military stores from Richmond, which now seemed doomed
   to destruction. But on the 10th of June Lafayette had received
   his expected reënforcement of Wayne's Pennsylvanians, and thus
   strengthened felt able to assume the offensive. Rapidly
   crossing the Rapidan he approached close to the British army
   which blocked the road to Albemarle. Nothing could have better
   suited Cornwallis, who prepared for a conflict in which he
   felt sure of a decisive victory. Lafayette, however, had not
   lost sight of the vital feature of his campaign,—to protect
   the property of the State without losing his army. Through his
   scouts he discovered an old unused road to Albemarle, unknown
   to the enemy. While Cornwallis was preparing for battle, he
   had the road cleared, and under cover of the night marched his
   men through it and took up a strong position before the town.
   There he was joined by militia from the neighboring mountains,
   and he showed so strong a front that the British commander did
   not venture an attack. … The British commander, so far foiled
   in his objects, had to march back to Richmond and thence to
   Williamsburg, near the coast, thus practically abandoning
   control over any part of Virginia except where naval forces
   gave possession. Lafayette effected a junction with Baron
   Steuben on the 18th of June, and thus increased his force to
   about four thousand men. The Americans had now become the
   pursuers instead of the pursued, and followed the British,
   harassing their rear and flanks."

      B. Tuckerman,
      Life of General Lafayette,
      volume 1, chapter 6.

   "There now came a pause in the Virginia Campaign, at least in
   daily operations and excitements. The State north of the James
   was relieved. Cornwallis crossed to the south side, at Cobham,
   on the 7th [July]; and Lafayette, retiring up the river,
   encamped, about the 20th, on the now historic Malvern Hill,
   then described as one of the healthiest and best watered spots
   in the State. … The entire British army was soon after
   concentrated at Portsmouth, and preparations made to transport
   a considerable portion of it to New York. Lafayette,
   meanwhile, at Malvern Hill, could only await developments. He
   thought of sending re-enforcements to Greene, and asked
   Washington if, in case Cornwallis left Virginia, he might not
   return to the Northern army. … But while the marquis and
   Washington and Greene were speculating on the future movements
   of Cornwallis and were persuaded, from embarkations at
   Portsmouth, that he was to be deprived of a large part of his
   force by Clinton, unexpected intelligence came to hand.
   Instead of any part going to New York, the British force
   suddenly made its appearance, during the first days in August,
   at Yorktown, on the Virginia peninsula, which it had abandoned
   but three weeks before. Here again was a new situation.
   Cornwallis, at last, at Yorktown—the spot he was not to leave
   except as a prisoner of war. Why he went there is a simple
   explanation. Clinton decided, upon certain dissenting opinions
   expressed by Cornwallis respecting the situation in Virginia,
   not to withdraw the force in the Chesapeake which he had
   called for, and which was about to sail for New York, but
   permitted Cornwallis to retain the whole—all with which he had
   been pursuing Lafayette and the large garrison at Portsmouth,
   a total of about seven thousand, rank and file. His new
   instructions, conveyed at the same time, were to the effect
   that his Lordship should abandon Portsmouth, which both
   generals agreed was too unhealthy for the troops, and fortify
   Old Point Comfort, where Fort Monroe now stands, as a naval
   station for the protection of the British shipping. In
   addition, if it appeared necessary, for the better security of
   the Point, to occupy Yorktown also, that was to be done.
   Obeying these instructions, Cornwallis ordered a survey of Old
   Point Comfort; but, upon the report of his engineers, was
   obliged to represent to Clinton that it was wholly unfit and
   inadequate for a naval station, as it afforded little
   protection for ships, and could not command the channel, on
   account of its great width. Then, following what he believed
   to be the spirit of his orders, Cornwallis, before hearing
   from Clinton, moved up to Yorktown, and began to fortify it in
   connection with Gloucester, on the opposite shore, as the best
   available naval station. Clinton made no subsequent
   objections, and there Cornwallis remained until his surrender.
   His occupation of the place was simply an incident of the
   campaign—a move taken for convenience and in the interests of
   the navy and the health of his command."

      H. P. Johnston,
      The Yorktown Campaign,
      chapter 3.

   "The march of Lord Cornwallis into Virginia was the first
   emphatic fact which enabled General Washington to plan an
   efficient offensive. The repeated detachment of troops from
   New York so sensibly lessened the capacity of its garrison for
   extensive field service at the north, that the American
   Commander-in-chief determined to attack that post, and as a
   secondary purpose, thereby to divert General Clinton from
   giving further aid to troops in the Southern States. As a
   matter of fact, the prudent conduct of the Virginia campaign
   eventually rallied to the support of General La Fayette an
   army, including militia, nearly as large as that of
   Washington, and the nominal strength of the allied army near
   Yorktown, early in September, was nearly or quite as great as
   that of Lord Cornwallis. There were other elements which, as
   in previous campaigns, hampered operations at the north. The
   Indians were still troublesome in Western New York, and the
   Canadian frontier continued to demand attention. The American
   navy had practically disappeared.
{3278}
   The scarcity of money and a powerless recruiting service,
   increased the difficulties of carrying on the war in a manner
   that would use to the best advantage the troops of France. …
   The position of the American Commander-in-chief at this time
   was one of peculiar personal mortification. Appeals to State
   authorities failed to fill up his army. Three thousand Hessian
   reinforcements had landed at New York, and the government as
   well as himself would be compromised before the whole world by
   failure to meet the just demands which the French auxiliaries
   had a right to press upon his attention. Relief came most
   opportunely. The frigate Concorde arrived at Newport, and a
   reiteration of the purpose of Count de Grasse to leave St.
   Domingo on the 3d of August, for the Chesapeake direct, was
   announced by a special messenger. The possibilities of the
   future at once quickened him to immediate action. With a
   reticence so close that the army could not fathom his plans,
   he re-organized his forces for a false demonstration against
   New York and a real movement upon Yorktown. … Letters to the
   Governors of northern States called for aid as if to capture
   New York. Letters to La Fayette and the Count de Grasse
   embodied such intimations of his plans as would induce proper
   caution to prevent the escape of Lord Cornwallis, and secure
   transportation at Head of Elk. Other letters to authorities in
   New Jersey and Philadelphia, expressly defining a plan of
   operations against New York via Staten Island, with the
   assurance of ample naval support, were exposed to interception
   and fell into the hands of General Clinton. As late as the
   19th, the roads leading to King's Bridge were cleared of
   obstructions, and the army was put in readiness to advance
   against New York Island. On the same day the New Jersey
   regiment and that of Colonel Hazen crossed the Hudson at
   Dobb's Ferry, to threaten Staten Island, and ostensibly to
   cover some bake-houses which were being erected for the
   purpose of giving color to the show of operations against New
   York. The plan of a large encampment had been prepared, which
   embraced Springfield and the Chatham Pass to Morristown, and
   this was allowed to find its way to Clinton's headquarters.
   General Heath was assigned to command of the Hudson-river
   posts, with two regiments from New Hampshire, ten from
   Massachusetts, five from Connecticut, the Third artillery,
   Sheldon's dragoons, the invalid corps, all local companies,
   and the militia. The following forces were selected to
   accompany the Commander-in-chief, viz., the light infantry
   under Colonel Scammel, four light companies from New York and
   Connecticut, the Rhode Island regiment, under the new army
   establishment, two New York regiments, that of New Jersey and
   Hazen's regiment, (the last two already across the Hudson) and
   Lamb's artillery, in all about 2,000 men. The American troops
   crossed on the 21st, at King's Ferry, and encamped near
   Haverstraw. The French army followed, and the army was united
   on the 25th. … General Washington and suite reached
   Philadelphia about noon, August 30th. The army had already
   realized the fact that they were destined southward. Some
   dissatisfaction was manifested; but Count de Rochambeau
   advanced $20,000 in gold upon the pledge of Robert Morris that
   he would refund the sum by the 1st of October, and the effect
   upon the troops, who had long been without any pay, was
   inspiring."

      H. B. Carrington,
      Battles of the American Revolution,
      chapter 74.

   "Leaving Philadelphia, with the Army, on the 5th of September,
   Washington meets an express near Chester, announcing the
   arrival, in Chesapeake Bay, of the Count de Grasse, with a
   fleet of twenty-eight ships of the line, and with 3,500
   additional French troops, under the command of the Marquis de
   St. Simon, who had already been landed at Jamestown, with
   orders to join the Marquis de La Fayette! 'The joy' says the
   Count William de Deux-Ponts, in his precious journal, 'the joy
   which this welcome news produces among all the troops, and
   which penetrates General Washington and the Count de
   Rochambeau, is more easy to feel than to express.' But, in a
   foot-note to that passage, he does express and describe it, in
   terms which cannot be spared and could not be surpassed, and
   which add a new and charming illustration of the emotional
   side of Washington's nature. 'I have been equally surprised
   and touched,' says the gallant Deux-Ponts, 'at the true and
   pure joy of General Washington. Of a natural coldness and of a
   serious and noble approach, which in him is only true dignity,
   and which adorn so well the chief of a whole nation, his
   features, his physiognomy, his deportment, all were changed in
   an instant. He put aside his character as arbiter of North
   America, and contented himself for a moment with that of a
   citizen, happy at the good fortune of his country. A child,
   whose every wish had been gratified, would not have
   experienced a sensation more lively, and I believe I am doing
   honor to the feelings of this rare man in endeavoring to
   express all their ardor.' Thanks to God, thanks to France,
   from all our hearts at this hour, for 'this true and pure joy'
   which lightened the heart, and at once dispelled the anxieties
   of our incomparable leader. It may be true that Washington
   seldom smiled after he had accepted the command of our
   Revolutionary Army, but it is clear that on the 5th of
   September he not only smiled but played the boy. … 'All now
   went merry,' with him, 'as a marriage bell.' Under the
   immediate influence of this joy, which he had returned for a
   few hours to Philadelphia to communicate in person to
   Congress, … and while the Allied Armies are hurrying
   southward, he makes a hasty trip with Colonel Humphreys to his
   beloved Mount Vernon and his more beloved wife—his first visit
   home since he left it for Cambridge in 1775. Rochambeau, with
   his suite, joins him there on the 10th, and Chastellux and his
   aids on the 11th; and there with Mrs. Washington, he dispenses
   for two days, 'a princely hospitality' to his foreign guests.
   But the 13th finds them all on their way to rejoin the Army at
   Williamsburg, where they arrive on the 15th, 'to the great joy
   of the troops and the people,' and where they dine with the
   Marquis de St. Simon. On the 18th Washington and Rochambeau,
   with Knox and Chastellux and Du Portail, and with two of
   Washington's aids, Colonel Cobb of Massachusetts, and Colonel
   Jonathan Trumbull, jr., of Connecticut, embark on the
   'Princess Charlotte' for a visit to the French fleet. … A few
   days more are spent at Williamsburg on their return, where
   they find General Lincoln already arrived with a part of the
   troops from the North, having hurried them as Washington
   besought him, 'on the wings of speed,' and where the word is
   soon given, 'On, on, to York and Gloucester!'
{3279}
   Washington takes his share of the exposure of this march, and
   the night of the 28th of September finds him, with all his
   military family, sleeping in an open field within two miles of
   Yorktown, without any other covering, as the journal of one of
   his aids states, 'than the canopy of the heavens, and the
   small spreading branches of a tree,' which the writer predicts
   'will probably be rendered venerable from this circumstance
   for a length of time to come.' … Everything now hurries,
   almost with the rush of a Niagara cataract, to the grand fall
   of Arbitrary Power in America. Lord Cornwallis had taken post
   here at Yorktown as early as the 4th of August, after being
   foiled so often by 'that boy' as he called La Fayette, whose
   Virginia campaign of four months was the most effective
   preparation for all that was to follow, and who, with singular
   foresight, perceived at once that his lordship was now fairly
   entrapped, and wrote to Washington, as early as the 21st of
   August, that 'the British army must be forced to surrender.'
   Day by day, night by night, that prediction presses forward to
   its fulfillment. The 1st of October finds our engineers
   reconnoitering the position and works of the enemy. The 2d
   witnesses the gallantry of the Duke de Lauzun and his legion
   in driving back Tarleton, whose raids had so long been the
   terror of Virginia and the Carolinas. On the 6th, the Allied
   Armies broke ground for their first parallel, and proceeded to
   mount their batteries on the 7th and 8th. On the 9th, two
   batteries were opened—Washington himself applying the torch to
   the first gun; and on the 10th three or four more were in
   play—silencing the enemy's works, and making,' says the
   little diary of Colonel Cobb, 'most noble music.' On the 11th,
   the indefatigable Baron Steuben was breaking the ground for
   our second parallel, within less than four hundred yards of
   the enemy, which was finished the next morning, and more
   batteries mounted on the 13th and 14th. But the great
   achievement of the siege still awaits its accomplishment. Two
   formidable British advanced redoubts are blocking the way to
   any further approach, and they must be stormed. The allied
   troops divide the danger and the glory between them, and
   emulate each other in the assault. One of these redoubts is
   assigned to the French grenadiers and chasseurs, under the
   general command of the Baron de Viomesnil. The other is
   assigned to the American light infantry, under the general
   command of La Fayette. But the detail of special leaders to
   conduct the two assaults remains to be arranged. Viomesnil
   readily designates the brave Count William to lead the French
   storming party, who, though he came off from his victory
   wounded, counts it 'the happiest day of his life.' A question
   arises as to the American party, which is soon solved by the
   impetuous but just demand of our young Alexander Hamilton to
   lead it. And lead it he did, with an intrepidity, a heroism,
   and a dash unsurpassed in the whole history of the war. … Both
   redoubts were soon captured; and these brilliant actions
   virtually sealed the fate of Cornwallis. 'A small and
   precipitate sortie,' as Washington calls it, was made by the
   British on the following evening, resulting in nothing; and
   the next day a vain attempt to evacuate their works, and to
   escape by crossing over to Gloucester, was defeated by a
   violent and, for us … most providential storm of rain and
   wind. … A suspension of hostilities, to arrange terms of
   capitulation, was proposed by Cornwallis on the 17th; the 18th
   was occupied at Moore's House in settling those terms; and on
   the 19th the articles were signed by which the garrison of
   York and Gloucester, together with all the officers and seamen
   of the British ships in the Chesapeake, 'surrender themselves
   Prisoners of War to the Combined Forces of America and
   France.'"

      Robert C. Winthrop,
      Address at the Centennial Celebration of the Surrender
      of Lord Cornwallis at Yorktown, Oct. 19, 1881.

      ALSO IN:
      Marquis Cornwallis,
      Correspondence,
      volume 1, chapters 4-5.

      Marquis Cornwallis,
      Answer to Sir H. Clinton.

      Count de Deux-Ponts,
      My Campaigns in America, 1781.

      T. Balch,
      The French in America during the War of Independence,
      chapters 13-22.

      W. Irving,
      Life of Washington,
      volume 4, chapter 25-26, and 28.

      George Washington,
      Writings, edited by W. C. Ford,
      volume 9.

      C. Tower,
      The Marquis de La Fayette in the American Revolution,
      volume 2, chapters 25-28.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A, D, 1781-1782.
   Practical suspension of hostilities.
   Difficulty of maintaining the army.
   Financial distress of the country.

   "Immediately after the surrender of Yorktown Washington
   returned with his army to the vicinity of New York [see
   NEWBURGH], but he felt himself far too weak to attempt its
   capture, and hostilities were restricted to a few indecisive
   skirmishes or predatory enterprises. It is curious to notice
   how far from sanguine Washington appeared even after the event
   which in the eyes of most men, outside America, had determined
   the contest without appeal. It was still impossible, he
   maintained, to do anything decisive unless the sea were
   commanded by a naval force hostile to England, and France
   alone could provide this force. The difficulties of
   maintaining the army were unabated. 'All my accounts,' he
   wrote in April 1782, 'respecting the recruiting service are
   unfavourable; indeed, not a single recruit has arrived to my
   knowledge from any State except Rhode Island, in consequence
   of the requisitions of Congress in December last.' He strongly
   urged the impossibility of recruiting the army by voluntary
   enlistment, and recommended that, in addition to the
   compulsory enrolment of Americans, German prisoners should be
   taken into the army. Silas Deane, in private letters,
   expressed at this time his belief that it would be utterly
   impossible to maintain the American army for another year; and
   even after the surrender of Cornwallis, no less a person than
   Sir Henry Clinton assured the Government that, with a
   reinforcement of only 10,000 men he would be responsible for
   the conquest of America. … Credit was gone, and the troops had
   long been unpaid. 'The long sufferance of the army,' wrote
   Washington in October 1782, 'is almost exhausted. It is high
   time for a peace.' Nothing, indeed, except the great
   influence, the admirable moderation and good sense, and the
   perfect integrity of Washington could have restrained the army
   from open revolt. … Holland, immediately after the surrender
   of Yorktown, had recognised the independence of America, which
   had as yet only been recognised by France. John Adams was
   received as representative at the Hague, and after several
   abortive efforts he succeeded in raising a Dutch loan. France,
   as her ablest ministers well knew, was drifting rapidly
   towards bankruptcy, yet two American loans, amounting together
   to £600,000, were extorted in the last year of the war.
{3280}
   Up to the very eve of the formal signature of peace, and long
   after the virtual termination of the war, the Americans found
   it necessary to besiege the French Court for money. As late as
   December 5, 1782, Franklin wrote from Paris to Livingston
   complaining of the humiliating duty which was imposed on him.
   … The reply of Livingston was dated January 6, 1783, and it
   paints vividly the extreme distress in America. 'I see the
   force,' he writes, 'of your objections to soliciting the
   additional twelve millions, and I feel very sensibly the
   weight of our obligations to France, but every sentiment of
   this kind must give way to our necessities. It is not for the
   interest of our allies to lose the benefit of all they have
   done by refusing to make a small addition to it. … The army
   demand with importunity their arrears of pay. The treasury is
   empty, and no adequate means of filling it presents itself.
   The people pant for peace; should contributions be exacted, as
   they have hitherto been, at the point of the sword, the
   consequences may be more dreadful than is at present
   apprehended. I do not pretend to justify the negligence of the
   States in not providing greater supplies. Some of them might
   do more than they have done; none of them all that is
   required. It is my duty to confide to you, that if the war is
   continued in this country, it must be in a great measure at
   the expense of France. If peace is made, a loan will be
   absolutely necessary to enable us to discharge the army, that
   will not easily separate without pay.' It was evident that the
   time for peace had come. The predatory expeditions which still
   continued in America could only exasperate still further both
   nations, and there were some signs—especially in the conflicts
   between loyalists and revolutionists—that they were having
   this effect. England had declared herself ready to concede the
   independence America demanded. Georgia and South Carolina,
   where the English had found so many faithful friends, were
   abandoned in the latter half of 1782, and the whole force of
   the Crown was now concentrated at New York and in Canada.
   France and Spain for a time wished to protract negotiations in
   hopes that Rodney might be crushed, that Jamaica and
   afterwards Gibraltar might be captured; but all these hopes
   had successively vanished. … If the war continued much longer
   America would almost certainly drop away, and France, and
   perhaps Spain, become bankrupt."

      W. E. H. Lecky,
      History of England in the 18th Century,
      chapter 15 (volume 4).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.
   The cession of Western Territory
   by the States to the Federal Union.
   The Western Reserve of Connecticut.

   Although the Articles of Confederation were adopted by
   Congress in 1777 and ratified immediately by most of the
   States, it was not until 1781 that they became operative by
   the assent of all. "New Jersey, Delaware and Maryland held out
   against ratifying them for from two to four years. The secret
   of their resistance was in the claims to the western
   territory. … The three recalcitrant States had always had
   fixed western boundaries, and had no legal claim to a share in
   the western territory. … New Jersey and Delaware gave up the
   struggle in 1778 and 1779; but Maryland would not and did not
   yield, until her claims were satisfied. Dr. H. B. Adams has
   shown that the whole question of real nationality for the
   United States was bound up in this western territory; that
   even a 'league government' could not continue long to govern a
   great and growing territory like this without developing into
   a real national government, even without a change of strict
   law; and that the Maryland leaders were working under a
   complete consciousness of these facts."

      A. Johnston,
      The United States: Its History and Constitution,
      sections 89-90.

   The western claims of Virginia were the most sweeping and were
   founded upon the oldest historical document. "The charter
   granted by James I. to South Virginia, in 1600 [see VIRGINIA:
   A. D. 1609-1616] … embraced the entire north-west of North
   America, and, within certain limits, all the islands along the
   coast of the South Sea or Pacific Ocean. … The following is
   the grant: 'All those lands, countries and territories
   situate, lying and being in that part of America called
   Virginia, from the point of land called Cape or Point Comfort,
   all along the sea-coast to the northward 200 miles; and from
   the said Point or Cape Comfort, all along the sea-coast to the
   southward 200 miles; and all that space and circuit of land
   lying from the sea-coast of the precinct aforesaid, up into
   the land throughout, from sea to sea, west and north-west; and
   also all the islands lying within 100 miles along the coast of
   both seas of the precinct aforesaid.' The extraordinary
   ambiguity of this grant of 1609, which was always appealed to
   as a legal title by Virginia, was first shown by Thomas Paine.
   … The chief ambiguity … lay in the interpretation of the words
   'up into the land throughout, from sea to sea, west and
   north-west.' From which point was the north-west line to be
   drawn, from the point on the sea-coast 200 miles above, or
   from the point 200 miles below Cape Comfort? … The more
   favorable interpretation for Virginia and, perhaps, in view of
   the expression 'from sea to sea,' more natural interpretation,
   was to draw the north-western line from the point on the
   sea-coast 200 miles above Point Comfort, and the western line
   from the southern limit below Point Comfort. This gave
   Virginia the greater part, at least, of the entire north-west,
   for the lines diverged continually. … At the outbreak of the
   Revolution, Virginia had annexed the 'County of Kentucky' to
   the Old Dominion, and, in 1778, after the capture of the
   military posts in the north-west by Colonel George Rogers
   Clarke, … that enterprising State proceeded to annex the lands
   beyond the Ohio, under the name of the County of Illinois

      See, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778-1779,
      CLARKE'S CONQUEST.

   The military claims of Virginia were certainly very strong,
   but it was felt by the smaller States that an equitable
   consideration for the services of other colonies in defending
   the back country from the French, ought to induce Virginia to
   dispose of a portion of her western territory for the common
   good. It is easy now to conceive how royal grants to
   Massachusetts and Connecticut of lands stretching from ocean
   to ocean, must have conflicted with the charter claims and
   military title of Virginia to the great north-west. … The
   claims of Massachusetts were based upon the charter granted by
   William and Mary, in 1691, and those of Connecticut upon the
   charter granted by Charles II., in 1662. …
{3281}
   The former's claim embraced the lands which now lie in
   southern Michigan and Wisconsin, or, in other words, the
   region comprehended by the extension westward of her present
   southern boundary and of her ancient northern limit, which was
   'the latitude of a league north of the inflow of Lake
   Winnipiseogee in New Hampshire. The western claims of
   Connecticut [the zone lying between her northern and southern
   boundaries—41° and 42° 2' north latitude—extended westward]
   covered portions of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan. …
   The extension of charter boundaries over the far west by
   Massachusetts and Connecticut led to no trespass on the
   intervening charter claims of New York. Connecticut fell into
   a serious controversy, however, with Pennsylvania, in regard
   to the possession of certain lands in the northern part of the
   latter State, but the dispute, when brought before a court
   appointed by Congress, was finally decided in favor of
   Pennsylvania. But in the western country, Massachusetts and
   Connecticut were determined to assert their chartered rights
   against Virginia and the treaty claims of New York; for, by
   virtue of various treaties with the Six Nations and allies,
   the latter State was asserting jurisdiction over the entire
   region between Lake Erie and the Cumberland mountains, or, in
   other words, Ohio and a portion of Kentucky. These claims were
   strengthened by the following facts: First, that the chartered
   rights of New York were merged in the Crown by the accession
   to the throne, in 1685, of the Duke of York as James II.;
   again, that the Six Nations and tributaries had put themselves
   under the protection of England, and that they had always been
   treated by the Crown as appendant to the government of New
   York; moreover, in the third place, the citizens of that State
   had borne the burden of protecting these Indians for over a
   hundred years. New York was the great rival of Virginia in the
   strength and magnitude of her western claims." In 1780,
   Maryland still insisting upon the surrender of these western
   land claims to the federal government, and refusing to ratify
   the Articles of Confederation until such cession was made, the
   claimant States began to yield to her firmness. On the 1st of
   March, 1781, the offer of New York to cede her claims,
   providing Congress would confirm her western boundary, was
   made in Congress. "On that very day, Maryland ratified the
   Articles and the first legal union of the United States was
   complete. The coincidence in dates is too striking to admit of
   any other explanation than that Maryland and New York were
   acting with a mutual understanding. … The offer of Virginia,
   reserving to herself jurisdiction over the County of Kentucky;
   the offer of Connecticut, withholding jurisdiction over all
   her back lands; and the offer of New York, untrammeled by
   burdensome conditions and conferring upon Congress complete
   jurisdiction over her entire western territory,—these three
   offers were now prominently before the country. … On the 29th
   of October, 1782, Mr. Daniel Carroll, of Maryland, moved that
   Congress accept the right, title, jurisdiction, and claim of
   New York, as ceded by the agents of that state on the first of
   March, 1781. … On the 13th day of September, 1783, it was
   voted by Congress to accept the cession offered by Virginia,
   of the territory north-west of the Ohio, provided that state
   would waive the obnoxious conditions concerning the guaranty
   of Virginia's boundary, and the annulling of all other titles
   to the north-west territory. Virginia modified her conditions
   as requested, and on the 20th of October, 1783, empowered her
   delegates in Congress to make the cession, which was done by
   Thomas Jefferson, and others, March 1, 1784."

      H. B. Adams,
      Maryland's Influence upon Land Cessions to the United States
      (Johns Hopkins University Studies, 3d series, Number 1),
      pages 9-11, 19-22, 36-39.

   The Massachusetts deed of cession was executed April 19, 1785.
   It conveyed the right and title of the state to all lands
   "west of a meridian line drawn through the western bent or
   inclination of Lake Ontario, provided such line should fall 20
   miles or more west of the western limit of the Niagara River"
   —that being the western boundary of New York, fixed four years
   before. In May, 1786, Connecticut authorized a cession which
   was not complete. Instead of beginning at the western boundary
   line of Pennsylvania, her conveyance was of lands beyond a
   line 120 miles west of the Pennsylvania line—thus retaining
   her claim to the large tract in Ohio known subsequently as the
   Western Reserve, or Connecticut Reserve. "The acceptance of
   this cession was strongly opposed in Congress. … After a
   severe struggle it was accepted, May 26, 1786, Maryland alone
   voting in the negative."

      B. A. Hinsdale,
      The Old Northwest,
      chapter 13.

   South Carolina executed the cession of her western claims in
   1787; North Carolina in 1790, and Georgia in 1802.

      A. Johnston,
      Connecticut,
      chapter 15.

      ALSO IN:
      T. Donaldson,
      The Public Domain: its History,
      chapter 3.

      See, also, OHIO: A. D. 1786-1796.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1782 (February-May).
   Peace Resolutions in the British House of Commons.
   Retirement of Lord North.
   Pacific overtures through General Carleton.

   "Fortunately for the United States, the temper of the British
   nation on the question of continuing the American war was not
   in unison with that of its sovereign. That war into which the
   nation had entered with at least as much eagerness as the
   minister had now become almost universally unpopular. Motions
   against the measures of administration respecting America were
   repeated by the opposition, and on every new experiment the
   strength of the minority increased. At length, on the 27th of
   February [1782], general Conway moved in the house of commons,
   'that it is the opinion of this house that a further
   prosecution of offensive war against America, would, under
   present circumstances, be the means of weakening the efforts
   of this country against her European enemies, and tend to
   increase the mutual enmity so fatal to the interests both of
   Great Britain and America.' The whole force of administration
   was exerted to get rid of this question, but was exerted in
   vain; and the resolution was carried. An address to the king
   in the words of the motion was immediately voted, and was
   presented by the whole house. The answer of the crown being
   deemed inexplicit, it was on the 4th of March resolved by the
   commons, 'that the house will consider as enemies to his
   majesty and the country, all those who should advise or
   attempt a further prosecution of offensive war on the
   continent of North America.' These votes were soon followed by
   a change of administration [Lord North resigning and being
   succeeded by Lord Rockingham, with Fox, Shelburne, Burke and
   Sheridan for colleagues], and by instructions to the
   commanding officers of his Brittanic majesty's forces in
   America which conformed to them. …
{3282}
   Early in May, Sir Guy Carleton, who had succeeded Sir Henry
   Clinton in the command of all the British forces in the United
   States, arrived at New York. Having been also appointed in
   conjunction with admiral Digby a commissioner to negotiate a
   peace, he lost no time in conveying to general Washington
   copies of the votes of the British parliament, and of a bill
   which had been introduced on the part of administration,
   authorizing his majesty to conclude a peace or truce with
   those who were still denominated the revolted colonies of
   North America. These papers he said would manifest the
   dispositions prevailing with the government and people of
   England towards those of America, and if the like pacific
   temper should prevail in this country, both inclination and
   duty would lead him to meet it with the most zealous
   concurrence. He had addressed to congress, he said, a letter
   containing the same communications, and he solicited from the
   American general a passport for the person who should convey
   it. At this time, the bill enabling the British monarch to
   conclude a peace or truce with America had not passed into a
   law; nor was any assurance given that the present
   commissioners possessed the power to offer other terms, than
   those which had formerly been rejected. General Carleton
   therefore could not hope that negotiations would commence on
   such a basis; nor be disappointed that the passports he
   requested were refused by congress, to whom the application
   was, of course, referred. … The several states passed
   resolutions expressing their objections to separate
   negotiations, and declaring those to be enemies to America who
   should attempt to treat without the authority of congress. But
   the public votes which have been stated, and probably the
   private instructions given to the British general, restrained
   him from offensive war, and the state of the American army
   disabled general Washington from making any attempt on the
   posts held by the enemy. The campaign of 1782 consequently
   passed away without furnishing any military operations of
   moment between the armies under the immediate direction of the
   respective commanders in chief."

      J. Marshall,
      Life of Washington,
      volume 4, chapter 11.

      ALSO IN:
      Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope)
      History of England, 1713-1783,
      chapter 65 (volume 7).

      See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1782-1783.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1782 (April).
   Recognition by the Dutch Republic.

   "Henry Laurens, the American plenipotentiary to the
   Netherlands, having been taken captive and carried to England,
   John Adams was appointed in his place. The new envoy had
   waited more than eight months for an audience of reception.
   Encouraged by the success at Yorktown, on the 9th of January
   1782 Adams presented himself to the president of the
   states-general, renewed his formal request for an opportunity
   of presenting his credentials, and 'demanded a categorical
   answer which he might transmit to his sovereign.' He next went
   in person to the deputies of the several cities of Holland,
   and, following the order of their rank in the confederation,
   repeated his demand to each one of them. The attention of
   Europe was drawn to the sturdy diplomatist, who dared, alone
   and unsupported, to initiate so novel and bold a procedure.
   Not one of the representatives of foreign powers at the Hague
   believed that it could succeed;" but, beginning with
   Friesland, in February, the seven states, one by one, declared
   in favor of receiving the American envoy. "On the day which
   chanced to be the seventh anniversary of 'the battle of
   Lexington' their high mightinesses, the states-general,
   reporting the unanimous decision of the seven provinces,
   resolved that John Adams should be received as the minister of
   the United States of America. The Dutch republic was the
   second power in the world to recognise their independence."

      G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States
      (Author's last revision),
      volume 5, page 527.

      ALSO IN:
      J. Q. and C. F. Adams,
      Life of John Adams,
      chapter 6 (volume 1).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1782 (September).
   The opening of negotiations for Peace.

   The Rockingham ministry, which succeeded Lord North's in the
   British government, in March, 1782 (see ENGLAND: A. D.
   1782-1783), "though soon dissolved by the death of the Marquis
   of Rockingham, were early distracted by a want of unanimity,
   and early lost the confidence of the people. The negotiation
   with America during May and June made no progress. Mr. Oswald
   was the agent of Lord Shelburne, known to be opposed to the
   acknowledgment, and Mr. Grenville, of Mr. Fox. This ministry
   had been forced upon the king by a vote of the House of
   Commons. The hopes of regaining America were again excited by
   the decisive victory of Lord Rodney in the West Indies [see
   ENGLAND: A. D. 1780-1782], and the unexpected successes of Sir
   Eyre Coote against Hyder Ali in the East; and, if credit may
   be given to the reports of the day, the government looked
   forward with some confidence to the making a separate peace
   with Congress by means of Sir Guy Carleton, who had been
   appointed to the command of the forces in North America. … Mr.
   Adams, writing from the Hague, June 13, 1782, observes, 'I
   cannot see a probability that the English will ever make
   peace, until their finances are ruined, and such distress
   brought upon them, as will work up their parties into a civil
   war.' It was not till September of the same year, under Lord
   Shelburne's administration, formed upon the dissolution of the
   Rockingham, that the British government took a decisive and
   sincere step to make peace, and authorized their commissioner,
   Mr. Oswald, at Paris, to acknowledge the independence of the
   colonies. … This is the first instruction given by the British
   Ministry in which it was proposed to recognize the celebrated
   act of July 4th, 1776. A great and immediate progress was now
   made in the preliminaries. … The commission, under which the
   preliminaries of the treaty were actually concluded, was
   issued by Congress in June 1781. It empowered 'John Adams,
   Benjamin Franklin, John Jay, Henry Laurens, and Thomas
   Jefferson, or the majority of them, or such of them as may
   assemble, or in case of the death, absence, indisposition, or
   other impediment of the others, to any one of them, full power
   and authority, general and special commission, … to sign, and
   thereupon make a treaty or treaties, and to transact every
   thing that may be necessary for completing, securing and
   strengthening the great work of pacification, in as ample
   form, and with the same effect, as if we were personally
   present and acted therein.'
{3283}
   All the commissioners, except Mr. Jefferson, were present
   during the discussions, being in Europe at the time the
   meeting was appointed. Mr. Jefferson was in America, and did
   not leave it, as a report reached the government that the
   preliminaries were already signed. Mr. Oswald's commission in
   proper form was not issued till the 21st of September."

      The Diplomacy of the United States,
      chapter 8.

   "At the moment … that negotiations were set on foot, there
   seemed but little hope of finding the Court of France
   peaceably inclined. Fox alone among the Ministers, though
   strongly opposed to a French alliance, inclined to a contrary
   opinion, and imagined that the independence of America once
   recognized, no further demands would be made upon England. It
   was therefore his wish to recognize that independence
   immediately, and by a rapid negotiation to insure the
   conclusion of what he believed would prove a favourable peace.
   Shelburne on the contrary believed that further concessions
   would be asked by France, and that the best chance England
   possessed of obtaining honourable terms, was to reserve the
   recognition of independence as part of the valuable
   consideration to be offered to the Colonies for favourable
   terms, and to use the points where the interests of France,
   Spain, and the Colonies were inconsistent, to foment
   difficulties between them, and be the means of negotiating, if
   necessary, a separate peace with each of the belligerents, as
   opportunity might offer. The circumstances of the time
   favoured the design. Vergennes had not gone to war for the
   sake of American independence, but in order to humiliate
   England. He not only did not intend to continue the war a day
   longer than was necessary to establish a rival power on the
   other side of the Atlantic, but was desirous of framing the
   peace on conditions such as would leave England, Spain, and
   the United States to balance one another, and so make France
   paramount. He therefore intended to resist the claim which the
   Colonies had invariably advanced of pushing their frontiers as
   far west as the Mississippi, and proposed following the
   example of the Proclamation of 1763, to leave the country
   between Florida and the Cumberland to the Indians, who were to
   be placed under the protection of Spain and the United States,
   and the country north of the Ohio to England, as arranged by
   the Quebec Act of 1774. Nor was he prepared to support the
   claim of the New Englandmen to fish on the banks off
   Newfoundland, over a considerable portion of which he desired
   to establish an exclusive right for his own countrymen, in
   keeping with the French interpretation of the Treaties of
   Utrecht and Paris. Of a still more pronounced character were
   the views of Spain. Her troops had recently conquered West
   Florida and threatened East Florida as well. She had
   determined to obtain formal possession of these territories,
   and to claim that they ran into the interior till they reached
   the great lakes. The United States, according to both the
   French and Spanish idea, were therefore to be restricted to a
   strip of land on the coast of the Atlantic Ocean, bounded by
   almost the same line which France had contended for against
   England after the Treaty of Utrecht. In 1779, when the
   alliance of France was not a year old, and the great triumph
   over Burgoyne was fresh, Congress notwithstanding the pressure
   of M. Gerard, the French envoy, had adopted the following
   conditions as the ultimatum of peace:

   (l.) The acknowledgment of the independence of the United
   States by Great Britain, previous to any treaty or negotiation
   for peace.

   (2.) The Mississippi as their western boundary.

   (3.) The navigation of that river to the southern boundary of
   the States with a port below it.

   They also passed a resolution to the effect that any
   interference after the conclusion of peace by any power with
   the fishery off Newfoundland hitherto exercised by the
   inhabitants of the Colonies, should be regarded as a casus
   belli. 'The advice of the allies, their knowledge of American
   interests, and their own discretion,' were in other matters to
   guide the American Commissioners sent to the European Courts.
   As however the war progressed, and French assistance,
   especially in money, became of greater and greater importance
   to the Congress, the tone of their instructions became
   sensibly modified, under the pressure, first of M. Gérard and
   then of Count Luzerne, his successor. On the 25th January
   1780, M. Gérard having obtained the appointment of a Committee
   of Congress, informed them that the territories of the United
   States extended no further west than the limits to which
   settlements were permitted by the English proclamation of
   1763; that the United States had no right to the navigation of
   the Mississippi, having no territories adjoining any part of
   the river; that Spain would probably conquer both Floridas,
   and intended holding them; and that the territory on the east
   side of the Mississippi belonged to Great Britain, and would
   probably be conquered by Spain. He at the same time urged upon
   Congress the immediate conclusion of an alliance with that
   power, to which Jay had been sent as Commissioner in 1779. On
   the 15th February, Congress having considered this
   communication, resolved to instruct Jay to abandon the claim
   to the navigation of the Mississippi. This practically implied
   the abandonment of the claim to that river as the western
   boundary. Shortly after, and again on the demand of Luzerne,
   the instructions to Adams, who had been appointed Commissioner
   for negotiating a peace, and was then in Europe, were altered.
   Independence was to be the sole ultimatum, and Adams was to
   undertake to submit to the guidance of the French Minister in
   every respect. 'You are to make the most candid and
   confidential communications,' so his amended instructions ran,
   'upon all subjects to the Ministers of our generous ally the
   King of France; to undertake nothing in the negotiations for
   peace or truce without their knowledge or concurrence, and to
   make them sensible how much we rely upon his Majesty's
   influence for effectual support in every thing that may be
   necessary to the present security or future prosperity of the
   United States of America.' As a climax Count Luzerne suggested
   and Congress agreed to make Jay, Franklin, Jefferson, and
   Laurens, joint Commissioners with Mr. Adams. Of the body thus
   appointed Jefferson refused to serve, while Laurens, as
   already seen, was captured on his way to England. Of the
   remaining Commissioners, John Adams was doubly odious to the
   diplomatists of France and Spain, because of his fearless
   independence of character, and because of the tenacity with
   which as a New Englander he clung to the American rights in
   the Newfoundland fisheries; Jay had been an enthusiastic
   advocate for the Spanish alliance, but the cavalier treatment
   he had received at Madrid, and the abandonment of the
   Mississippi boundary by Congress, had forced upon him the
   conviction that his own country was being used as a tool by
   the European powers, for their own ulterior objects. The
   French he hated.
{3284}
   He said 'they were not a moral people, and did not know what
   it was.' Not so Franklin, influenced partly by his long
   residence in the French capital, and by the idea that the
   Colonies were more likely to obtain their objects, by a firm
   reliance upon France than by confidence in the generosity of
   England. He also pointed to the terms of the treaty he had
   negotiated with the former power, which forbade either party
   to conclude a separate peace without the leave previously
   obtained of the other, as imposing a moral and legal
   obligation on his countrymen to follow the policy which he
   believed their interests as a power required them to adopt.
   Meanwhile the King of France congratulated Congress on having
   entrusted to his care the interests of the United States, and
   warned them that if France was to be asked to continue
   hostilities for purely American objects it was impossible to
   say what the result might be, for the system of France
   depended not merely on America, but on the other powers at
   war."

      Lord E. Fitzmaurice,
      Life of William, Earl of Shelburne,
      volume 3, chapter 4.

   "Benjamin Franklin, now venerable with years, had been doing
   at the court of Versailles a work hardly less important than
   that of Washington on the battle-fields of America. By the
   simple grace and dignity of his manners, by his large good
   sense and freedom of thought, by his fame as a scientific
   discoverer, above all by his consummate tact in the management
   of men, the whilom printer, king's postmaster-general for
   America, discoverer, London colonial agent, delegate in the
   Continental Congress, and signer of the Declaration of
   Independence, had completely captivated elegant, free-thinking
   France. Learned and common folk, the sober and the frivolous
   alike swore by Franklin. Snuff-boxes, furniture, dishes, even
   stoves were gotten up 'à la Franklin.' The old man's portrait
   was in every house. That the French Government, in spite of a
   monarch who was half afraid of the rising nation beyond sea,
   had given America her hearty support, was in no small measure
   due to the influence of Franklin. And his skill in diplomacy
   was of the greatest value in the negotiations now pending."

      E. B. Andrews,
      History of the United States,
      volume 1, pages 208-209.

      ALSO IN:
      E. E. Hale,
      Franklin in France,
      volume 2, chapters 3-4.

      Lord J. Russell,
      Life of Fox,
      chapters 16-17 (volume 1).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1782 (September-November).
   The Peace parleyings at Paris.
   Distrust of French aims by Jay and Adams.
   A secret and separate negotiation with England.

   "The task of making a treaty of peace was simplified both by
   [the change of ministry which placed Lord Shelburne at the
   head of affairs in England] … and by the total defeat of the
   Spaniards and French at Gibraltar in September [see ENGLAND;
   A. D. 1780-1782]. Six months before, England had seemed
   worsted in every quarter. Now England, though defeated in
   America was victorious as regarded France and Spain. The
   avowed object for which France had entered into alliance with
   the Americans, was to secure the independence of the United
   States, and this point was now substantially gained. The chief
   object for which Spain had entered into alliance with France
   was to drive the English from Gibraltar, and this point was
   now decidedly lost. France had bound herself not to desist
   from the war until Spain should recover Gibraltar; but now
   there was little hope of accomplishing this, except by some
   fortunate bargain in the treaty, and Vergennes tried to
   persuade England to cede the great stronghold, in exchange for
   West Florida, which Spain had lately conquered, or for Oran or
   Guadaloupe. Failing in this, he adopted a plan for satisfying
   Spain at the expense of the United States; and he did this the
   more willingly as he had no love for the Americans, and did
   not wish to see them become too powerful. France had strictly
   kept her pledges; she had given us valuable and timely aid in
   gaining our independence; and the sympathies of the French
   people were entirely with the American cause. But the object
   of the French government had been simply to humiliate England,
   and this end was sufficiently accomplished by depriving her of
   her thirteen colonies. The immense territory extending from
   the Alleghany Mountains to the Mississippi River, and from the
   border of West Florida to the Great Lakes, had passed from the
   hands of France into those of England at the peace of 1763;
   and by the Quebec Act of 1774 England had declared the
   southern boundary of Canada to be the Ohio River. … Vergennes
   maintained that the Americans ought to recognize the Quebec
   Act, and give up to England all the territory north of the
   Ohio River. The region south of this limit should, he thought,
   be made an Indian territory, and placed under the protection
   of Spain and the United States. … Upon another important point
   the views of the French government were directly opposed to
   American interests. The right to catch fish on the banks of
   Newfoundland had been shared by treaty between France and
   England; and the New England fishermen, as subjects of the
   king of Great Britain, had participated in this privilege. The
   matter was of very great importance, not only to New England,
   but to the United States in general. … The British government
   was not inclined to grant the privilege, and on this point
   Vergennes took sides with England, in order to establish a
   claim upon her for concessions advantageous to France in some
   other quarter. … Jay [who had lately arrived in Paris to take
   part in the negotiations] soon began to suspect the designs of
   the French minister. He found that he was sending M. de
   Rayneval as a secret emissary to Lord Shelburne under an
   assumed name; he ascertained that the right of the United
   States to the Mississippi valley was to be denied; and he got
   hold of a dispatch from Marbois, the French secretary of
   legation at Philadelphia, to Vergennes, opposing the American
   claim to the Newfoundland fisheries. As soon as Jay learned
   these facts, he sent his friend Dr. Benjamin Vaughan to Lord
   Shelburne to put him on his guard, and while reminding him
   that it was greatly for the interest of England to dissolve
   the alliance between America and France, he declared himself
   ready to begin the negotiations without waiting for the
   recognition of independence, provided that Oswald's commission
   should speak of the thirteen United States of America, instead
   of calling them colonies and naming them separately.
{3285}
   This decisive step was taken by Jay on his own responsibility,
   and without the knowledge of Franklin, who had been averse to
   anything like a separate negotiation with England. It served
   to set the ball rolling at once. … Lord Shelburne at once
   perceived the antagonism that had arisen between the allies,
   and promptly took advantage of it. A new commission was made
   out for Oswald, in which the British government first
   described our country as the United States; and early in
   October negotiations were begun and proceeded rapidly. On the
   part of England the affair was conducted by Oswald, assisted
   by Strachey and Fitzherbert, who had succeeded Grenville. In
   the course of the month John Adams arrived in Paris, and a few
   weeks later Henry Laurens. … The arrival of Adams fully
   decided the matter as to a separate negotiation with England.
   He agreed with Jay that Vergennes should be kept as far as
   possible in the dark until everything was cut and dried, and
   Franklin was reluctantly obliged to yield. The treaty of
   alliance between France and the United States had expressly
   stipulated that neither power should ever make peace without
   the consent of the other. … In justice to Vergennes, it should
   be borne in mind that he had kept strict faith with us in
   regard to every point that had been expressly stipulated. … At
   the same time, in regard to matters not expressly stipulated,
   Vergennes was clearly playing a sharp game against us; and it
   is undeniable that, without departing technically from the
   obligations of the alliance, Jay and Adams—two men as
   honourable as ever lived—played a very sharp defensive game
   against him. … The treaty with England was not concluded until
   the consent of France had been obtained, and thus the express
   stipulation was respected; but a thorough and detailed
   agreement was reached as to what the purport of the treaty
   should be, while our not too friendly ally was kept in the
   dark."

      J. Fiske,
      The Critical Period of American History,
      chapter 1.

   "If his [Vergennes'] policy had been carried out, it seems
   clear that he would have established a claim for concessions
   from England by supporting her against America on the
   questions of Canada and the Canadian border and the
   Newfoundland fishery. … The success of such a policy would
   have been extremely displeasing to the Congress, and Jay and
   Adams defeated it. … The act was done, and if it can be
   justified by success, that justification, at least, is not
   wanting."

      W. E. H. Lecky,
      History of England in the 18th Century,
      chapter 15 (volume 4).

   "The instructions of congress, given to the American
   commissioners under the instigation of the French court, were
   absolute and imperative, 'to undertake nothing without the
   knowledge and concurrence of that court, and ultimately to
   govern themselves by their advice and opinion.' These orders,
   transmitted at the time of the enlargement of the commission,
   had just been reinforced by assurances given to quiet the
   uneasiness created in France by the British overtures through
   Governor Carleton. Thus far, although the commissioners had
   felt them to be derogatory to the honor of their country, as
   well as to their own character as its representatives, there
   had been no necessity for action either under or against them.
   But now that matters were coming to the point of a serious
   negotiation, and the secondary questions of interest to
   America were to be determined, especially those to which
   France had shown herself indifferent, not to say adverse, it
   seemed as if no chance remained of escaping a decision. Mr.
   Jay, jealous of the mission of De Rayneval, of which not a
   hint had been dropped by the French court, suspicious of its
   good faith from the disclosures of the remarkable dispatch of
   Marbois, and fearful of any advice like that of which he had
   received a foretaste through M. de Rayneval, at the same time
   provoked that the confidence expected should be all on one
   side, the Count communicating nothing of the separate French
   negotiation, came to the conclusion that the interests of
   America were safest when retained in American hands. He
   therefore declared himself in favor of going on to treat with
   Great Britain, without consulting the French court. Dr.
   Franklin, on the other hand, expressing his confidence in that
   court, secured by his sense of the steady reception of
   benefits by his country, signified his willingness to abide by
   the instructions he had received. Yet it is a singular fact,
   but lately disclosed, that, notwithstanding this general
   feeling, which was doubtless sincerely entertained, Dr.
   Franklin had been the first person to violate those
   instructions, at the very inception of the negotiations, by
   proposing to Lord Shelburne the cession of Canada, and
   covering his proposal with an earnest injunction to keep it
   secret from France, because of his belief that she was adverse
   to the measure. … It may fairly be inferred that, whatever
   Franklin might have been disposed to believe of the French
   court, his instincts were too strong to enable him to trust
   them implicitly with the care of interests purely American.
   And, in this, there can be no reasonable cause for doubt that
   he was right. The more full the disclosures have been of the
   French policy from their confidential papers, the more do they
   show Count de Vergennes assailing England in America, with
   quite as fixed a purpose as ever Chatham had to conquer
   America in Germany. Mr. Adams had no doubt of it. He had never
   seen any signs of a disposition to aid the United States from
   affection or sympathy. On the contrary, he had perceived their
   cause everywhere made subordinate to the general
   considerations of continental politics. Perhaps his
   impressions at some moments carried him even further, and led
   him to suspect in the Count a positive desire to check and
   depress America. In this he fell into the natural mistake of
   exaggerating the importance of his own country. In the great
   game of nations which was now playing at Paris under the
   practised eye of France's chief (for Count de Maurepas was no
   longer living), the United States probably held a relative
   position, in his mind, not higher than that of a pawn, or
   possibly a knight, on a chess-table. Whilst his attention was
   absorbed in arranging the combinations of several powers, it
   necessarily followed that he had not the time to devote that
   attention to any one, which its special representative might
   imagine to be its due. But even this hypothesis was to Mr.
   Adams justification quite sufficient for declining to submit
   the interests of his country implicitly to the Count's
   control. If not so material in the Count's eyes, the greater
   the necessity of keeping them in his own care. He therefore
   seized the first opportunity to announce to his colleagues his
   preference for the views of Mr. Jay.
{3286}
   After some little reflection, Dr. Franklin signified his
   acquiescence in this decision. His objections to it had
   doubtless been increased by the peculiar relations he had
   previously sustained to the French court, and by a very proper
   desire to be released from the responsibility of what might
   from him be regarded as a discourteous act. No such delicacy
   was called for on the part of the other commissioners. Neither
   does it appear that Count de Vergennes manifested a sign of
   discontent with them at the time. He saw that little
   confidence was placed in him, but he does not seem to have
   made the slightest effort to change the decision or even to
   get an explanation of it. The truth is, that the course thus
   taken had its conveniences for him, provided only that the
   good faith of the American negotiators, not to make a separate
   peace, could be depended upon. Neither did he ever affect to
   complain of it, excepting at one particular moment when he
   thought he had cause to fear that the support he relied on
   might fail."

      J. Q. and C. F. Adams,
      The Life of John Adams,
      volume 2, chapter 7.

   "The radical difference between Franklin and his colleagues
   was in the question of trust. Franklin saw no reason to
   distrust the fidelity of France at any time to her engagements
   to the United States during the revolutionary war. His
   colleagues did not share this confidence, and yet, while
   impressed by this distrust of their ally, they made no appeal
   for explanation. The weight of opinion, as will hereafter be
   more fully seen, is now that Franklin was right, and they in
   this respect wrong. But whatever may have been the correctness
   of their view, it was proper that, before making it the basis
   of their throwing off the burden of treaty obligation and
   their own instructions, they should have first notified France
   of their complaint. Obligations cannot be repudiated by one
   party on the ground of the failure of the other party to
   perform some condition imposed on him, without giving him
   notice of the charge against him, so that he could have the
   opportunity of explanation. It may be added, on the merits,
   that the extenuation set up by Jay and Adams, that France was
   herself untrue to her obligations, however honestly they
   believed it, can not now be sustained. Livingston, who knew
   more of the attitude of France than any public man on the
   American side except Franklin, swept it aside as groundless.
   Edward Everett, one of the most accomplished historical
   writers and diplomatists the country has ever produced,
   speaks, as we shall see, to the same effect, and other
   historical critics of authority, to be also hereafter cited,
   give us the same conclusion. Yet there are other reasons which
   may excuse their course, and that of Franklin, who concurred
   with them rather than defeat a peace. In the first place, such
   was their isolation, that their means of communication with
   Congress was stopped; and they might well have argued that if
   Congress knew that the English envoys refused to treat with
   them except in secret conference their instructions would have
   been modified. In the second place we may accept Adams'
   statement that Vergennes was from time to time informally
   advised of the nature of the pending propositions. In the
   third place, the articles agreed on in 1782 were not to be a
   definite treaty except with the assent of France. … It now
   appears that the famous Marbois letter, handed to Jay by one
   of the British loyalists, and relied on by him as showing
   France's duplicity, was disavowed by Marbois; and there are,
   aside from this, very strong reasons to distrust its
   genuineness. In the second place, we have in the
   correspondence of George III a new light thrown, on the action
   taken by Jay in consequence of this letter. … Benjamin
   Vaughan, while a gentleman of great amiability and personal
   worth, was, when Jay sent him without Franklin's knowledge on
   a confidential mission to the British ministry, in the employ
   of that ministry as secret agent at Paris. It is due to Jay to
   say that he was ignorant of this fact, though he would have
   been notified of it had he consulted Franklin. One of the most
   singular incidents of this transaction is that George III,
   seeking double treachery in thus sending back to him his own
   agent in the guise of an agent from the American legation,
   regarded it as a peculiarly subtle machination of Franklin,
   which it was his duty to baffle by utterly discrediting
   Benjamin Vaughan. It should be added that Franklin's
   affection for Benjamin Vaughan was in no wise diminished by
   Vaughan's assumption, with an honesty which no one who knew
   him would question, of this peculiar kind of mediatorship. And
   in Jay Franklin's confidence was unabated. He more than once
   said that no one could be found more suited than Jay to
   represent the United States abroad. And when, in view of
   death, he prepared to settle his estate, he selected; Jay as
   his executor."

      F. Wharton,
      The Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence
      of the United States,
      chapter 9, section 111,
      and chapter 13, section 158 (volume 1).

   Writing to M. de la Luzerne, the French Minister in the United
   States, under date of December 19, 1782, Count de Vergennes
   expressed himself on the conduct of the American Commissioners
   as follows: "You will surely be gratified, as well as myself,
   with the very extensive advantages, which our allies, the
   Americans, are to receive from the peace; but you certainly
   will, not be less surprised than I have been, at the conduct
   of the Commissioners. According to the instructions of
   Congress, they ought to have done nothing without our
   participation. I have informed you, that the King did not seek
   to influence the negotiation any further than his offices
   might be necessary to his friends. The American Commissioners
   will not say that I have interfered, and much less that I have
   wearied them with my curiosity. They have cautiously kept
   themselves at a distance from me. Mr. Adams, one of them,
   coming from Holland, where he had been received and served by
   our ambassador, had been in Paris nearly three weeks, without
   imagining that he owed me any mark of attention, and probably
   I should not have seen him till this time, if I had not caused
   him to be reminded of it. Whenever I have had occasion to see
   anyone of them, and inquire of them briefly respecting the
   progress of the negotiation, they have constantly clothed
   their speech in generalities, giving me to understand that it
   did not go forward, and that they had no confidence in the
   sincerity of the British ministry. Judge of my surprise, when,
   on the 30th of November, Dr. Franklin informed me that the
   articles were signed. The reservation retained on our account
   does not save the infraction of the promise, which we have
   mutually made, not to sign except conjointly.
{3287}
   I owe Dr. Franklin the justice to state, however, that on the
   next day he sent me a copy of the articles. He will hardly
   complain that I received them without demonstrations of
   sensibility. It was not till some days after, that, when this
   minister had come to see me, I allowed myself to make him
   perceive that his proceeding in this abrupt signature of the
   articles had little in it, which could be agreeable to the
   King. He appeared sensible of it, and excused, in the best
   manner he could, himself and his colleagues. Our conversation
   was amicable."

      J. Bigelow,
      Life of Benjamin Franklin,
      volume 3, page 207, note.

      ALSO IN:
      J. Jay,
      The Peace Negotiations of 1782-3
      (Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 7, chapter 2).

      E. Fitzmaurice,
      Life of the Earl of Shelburne,
      volume 3, chapter 6.

      E. E. Hale,
      Franklin in France,
      volume 2, chapters 5-8.

      H. Doniol,
      Histoire de la Participation de la France
      à l'établissement des États-Unis d'Amérique, tome 5.

      See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1782-1783.

Map of the United States.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1782-1783.
   Grievances of the Army.
   The Newburgh Addresses.

   "Nothing had been done by Congress for the claims of the army,
   and it seemed highly probable that it would be disbanded
   without even a settlement of the accounts of the officers, and
   if so, that they would never receive their dues. Alarmed and
   irritated by the neglect of Congress; destitute of money and
   credit and of the means of living from day to day; oppressed
   with debts; saddened by the distresses of their families at
   home, and by the prospect of misery before them,—they
   presented a memorial to Congress in December [1782], in which
   they urged the immediate adjustment of their dues, and offered
   to commute the half-pay for life, granted by the resolve of
   October, 1780, for full pay for a certain number of years, or
   for such a sum in gross as should be agreed on by their
   committee sent to Philadelphia to attend the progress of the
   memorial through the house. It is manifest from statements in
   this document, as well as from other evidence, that the
   officers were nearly driven to desperation, and that their
   offer of commutation was wrung from them by a state of public
   opinion little creditable to the country. … The committee of
   the officers were in attendance upon Congress during the whole
   winter, and early in March, 1783, they wrote to their
   constituents that nothing had been done. At this moment, the
   predicament in which Washington stood, in the double relation
   of citizen and soldier, was critical and delicate in the
   extreme. In the course of a few days, all his firmness and
   patriotism, all his sympathies as an officer, on the one side,
   and his fidelity to the government, on the other, were
   severely tried. On the 10th of March, an anonymous address was
   circulated among the officers at Newburgh, calling a meeting
   of the general and field officers, and of one officer from
   each company, and one from the medical staff, to consider the
   late letter from their representatives at Philadelphia, and to
   determine what measures should be adopted to obtain that
   redress of grievances which they seemed to have solicited in
   vain. It was written with great ability and skill [by John
   Armstrong, afterwards General]. … Washington met the crisis
   with firmness, but also with conciliation. He issued orders
   forbidding an assemblage at the call of an anonymous paper,
   and directing the officers to assemble on Saturday, the 15th,
   to hear the report of their committee, and to deliberate what
   further measures ought to be adopted as most rational and best
   calculated to obtain the just and important object in view.
   The senior officer in rank present [General Gates] was
   directed to preside, and to report the result to the
   Commander-in-chief. On the next day after these orders were
   issued, a second anonymous address appeared from the same
   writer. In this paper he affected to consider the orders of
   General Washington, assuming the direction of the meeting, as
   a sanction of the whole proceeding which he had proposed.
   Washington saw, at once, that he must be present at the
   meeting himself, or that his name would be used to justify
   measures which he intended to discountenance and prevent. He
   therefore attended the meeting, and under his influence,
   seconded by that of Putnam, Knox, Brooks, and Howard, the
   result was the adoption of certain resolutions, in which the
   officers, after reasserting their grievances, and rebuking all
   attempts to seduce them from their civil allegiance, referred
   the whole subject of their claims again to the consideration
   of Congress. Even at this distant day, the peril of that
   crisis can scarcely be contemplated without a shudder. Had the
   Commander-in-chief been other than Washington, had the leading
   officers by whom he was surrounded been less than the noblest
   of patriots, the land would have been deluged with the blood
   of a civil war."

      G. T. Curtis,
      History of the Constitution of the United States,
      book 2, chapter 1 (volume 1).

      ALSO IN:
      J. Marshall,
      Life of Washington,
      volume 4, chapter 11.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1782-1784.
   Persecution and flight of the Tories or Loyalists.

      See TORIES OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1783 (April).
   Formation of the Society of the Cincinnati.

      See CINCINNATI, THE SOCIETY OF THE.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1783 (September).
   The definitive Treaty of Peace between Great Britain and
   the United States.

   The four difficult questions on which the British and American
   negotiators at Paris arrived, after much discussion and wise
   compromise, at a settlement of differences originally wide,
   were
   (1) Boundaries;
   (2) Fishing rights;
   (3) Payment of debts from American to British merchants that
   were outstanding when the war began;
   (4) Amnesty to American loyalists, or Tories, and restoration
   of their confiscated property.

   Within two months after the separate negotiations with England
   opened an agreement had been reached, and preliminary or
   provisional articles were signed on the 30th of November,
   1782. The treaty was not to take effect, otherwise than by the
   cessation of hostilities, until terms of peace should be
   agreed upon between England and France. This occurred in the
   following January, and on the 3d of September, 1783, the
   definitive Treaty of Peace between Great Britain and the
   United States was signed [at Paris]. Its essential provisions
   were the following:

    "Article 1.
    His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States,
    viz. New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island, and
    Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey,
    Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina,
    South Carolina, and Georgia, to be free, sovereign and
    independent States; that he treats with them as such, and for
    himself, his heirs and successors, relinquishes all claims to
    the Government, propriety and territorial rights of the same,
    and every part thereof.

{3288}

   Article II.
   And that all disputes which might arise in future, on the
   subject of the boundaries of the United States may be
   prevented, it is hereby agreed and declared, that the
   following are, and shall be their boundaries, viz: From the
   north-west angle of Nova Scotia, viz. that angle which is
   formed by a line drawn due north from the source of Saint
   Croix River to the Highlands; along the said Highlands which
   divide those rivers that empty themselves into the river St.
   Lawrence, from those which fall into the Atlantic Ocean, to
   the northwestern most head of Connecticut River; thence down
   along the middle of that river, to the 45th degree of north
   latitude; from thence, by a line due west on the said
   latitude, until it strikes the river Iroquois or Cataraquy;
   thence along the middle of said river into Lake Ontario,
   through the middle of said lake until it strikes the
   communication by water between that lake and Lake Erie; thence
   along the middle of said communication into Lake Erie, through
   the middle of said lake until it arrives at the water
   communication between that lake and Lake Huron; thence along
   the middle of said water communication into the Lake Huron;
   thence through the middle of said lake to the water
   communication between that lake and Lake Superior; thence
   through Lake Superior northward of the Isles Royal and
   Philipeaux, to the Long Lake; thence through the middle of
   said Long Lake, and the water communication between it and the
   Lake of the Woods, to the said Lake of the Woods; thence through
   the said lake to the most northwestern point thereof, and from
   thence on a due west course to the river Mississippi; thence
   by a line to be drawn along the middle of the said river
   Mississippi until it shall intersect the northernmost part of
   the 31st degree of north latitude. South, by a line to be
   drawn due east from the determination of the line last
   mentioned, in the latitude of 31 degrees north of the Equator,
   to the middle of the river Apalachicola or Catahouche; thence
   along the middle thereof to its junction with the Flint River;
   thence strait to the head of St. Mary's River; and thence down
   along the middle of St. Mary's River to the Atlantic Ocean.
   East, by a line to be drawn along the middle of the river St.
   Croix, from its mouth in the Bay of Fundy to its source, and
   from its source directly north to the aforesaid Highlands,
   which divide the rivers that fall into the Atlantic Ocean from
   those which fall into the river St. Lawrence; comprehending all
   islands within twenty leagues of any part of the shores of the
   United States, and lying between lines to be drawn due east
   from the points where the aforesaid boundaries between Nova
   Scotia on the one part, and East Florida on the other, shall
   respectively touch the Bay of Fundy and the Atlantic Ocean;
   excepting such islands as now are, or heretofore have been,
   within the limits of the said province of Nova Scotia.

   Article III.
   It is agreed that the people of the United States shall
   continue to enjoy unmolested the right to take fish of every
   kind on the Grand Bank, and on all the other banks of
   Newfoundland; also in the Gulph of Saint Lawrence, and at all
   other places in the sea where the inhabitants of both
   countries used at any time heretofore to fish. And also that
   the inhabitants of the United States shall have liberty to
   take fish of every kind on such part of the coast of
   Newfoundland as British fishermen shall use (but not to dry or
   cure the same on that island) and also on the coasts, bays, and
   creeks of all other of His Britannic Majesty's dominions in
   America; and that the American fishermen shall have liberty to
   dry and cure fish in any of the unsettled bays, harbours, and
   creeks of Nova Scotia, Magdalen Islands, and Labrador, so long
   as the same shall remain unsettled; but so soon as the same or
   either of them shall be settled, it shall not be lawful for
   the said fishermen to dry or cure fish at such settlement,
   without a previous agreement for that purpose with the
   inhabitants, proprietors, or possessors of the ground.

   Article IV.
   It is agreed that creditors on either side shall meet with no
   lawful impediment to the recovery of the full value in
   sterling money, of all bona fide debts heretofore contracted.

   Article V.
   It is agreed that the Congress shall earnestly recommend it to
   the legislatures of the respective States, to provide for the
   restitution of all estates, rights, and properties which have
   been confiscated, belonging to real British subjects, and also
   of the estates, rights, and properties of persons resident in
   districts in the possession of His Majesty's arms, and who
   have not borne arms against the said United States. …

   Article VI.
   That there shall be no future confiscations made, nor any
   prosecutions commenced, against any person or persons for, or
   by reason of the part which he or they may have taken in the
   present war. …

   Article VII.
   There shall be a firm and perpetual peace between His
   Britannic Majesty and the said States, and between the
   subjects of the one and the citizens of the other, wherefore
   all hostilities, both by sea and land, shall from henceforth
   cease: All prisoners on both sides shall be set at liberty,
   and His Britannic Majesty shall, with all convenient speed,
   and without causing any destruction, or carrying away any
   negroes or other property of the American inhabitants,
   withdraw all his armies, garrisons, and fleets from the said
   United States. …

   Article VIII.
   The navigation of the river Mississippi, from its source to
   the ocean, shall forever remain free and open to the subjects
   of Great Britain, and the citizens of the United States."

      Documents Illustrative of American History,
      edited by H. W. Preston,
      page 232.

      ALSO IN:
      Treaties and Conventions between the United States
      and other Powers (edition of 1889),
      pages 370-379.

      Parliamentary History of England,
      volume 23.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1783 (November-December).
   The British evacuation of New York.
   Dissolution of the Continental Army and Washington's
   farewell to it.

   "The definitive treaty had been signed at Paris on the 3d of
   September, 1783, and was soon to be ratified by the United
   States in Congress assembled. The last remnant of the British
   army in the east had sailed down the Narrows on the 25th of
   November, a day which, under the appellation of Evacuation
   Day, was long held in grateful remembrance by the inhabitants
   of New York, and was, till a few years since, annually
   celebrated with fireworks and with military display. Of the
   continental army scarce a remnant was then [at the beginning
   of 1784] in the service of the States, and these few were
   under the command of General Knox. His great work of
   deliverance over, Washington had resigned his commission, had
   gone back to his estate on the banks of the Potomac, and was
   deeply engaged with plans for the improvement of his
   plantations.
{3289}
   The retirement to private life of the American Fabius, as the
   newspapers delighted to call him, had been attended by many
   pleasing ceremonies, and had been made the occasion for new
   manifestations of affectionate regard by the people. The same
   day that witnessed the departure of Sir Guy Carleton from New
   York also witnessed the entry into that city of the army of
   the States. Nine days later Washington bid adieu to his
   officers. About noon on Thursday, the 4th of December, the
   chiefs of the army assembled in the great room of Fraunces's
   Tavern, then the resort of merchants and men of fashion, and
   there Washington joined them. Rarely as he gave way to his
   emotions, he could not on that day get the mastery of them. …
   He filled a glass from a decanter that stood on the table,
   raised it with a trembling hand, and said: 'With a heart full
   of love and gratitude I now take leave of you, and most
   devoutly wish your latter days may be as prosperous and happy
   as your former ones have been glorious and honorable.' Then he
   drank to them, and, after a pause, said: 'I cannot come to
   each of you to take my leave, but shall be obliged if you will
   each come and shake me by the hand.' General Knox came forward
   first, and Washington embraced him. The other officers
   approached one by one, and silently took their leave. A line
   of infantry had been drawn up extending from the tavern to
   Whitehall ferry, where a barge was in waiting to carry the
   commander across the Hudson to Paulus Hook. Washington, with
   his officers following, walked down the line of soldiers to
   the water. The streets, the balconies, the windows, were
   crowded with gazers. All the churches in the city sent forth a
   joyous din. Arrived at the ferry, he entered the barge in
   silence, stood up, took off his hat and waved farewell. Then,
   as the boat moved slowly out into the stream amid the shouts
   of the citizens, his companions in arms stood bareheaded on
   the shore till the form of their illustrious commander was
   lost to view."

      J. B. McMaster,
      History of the People of the United States,
      chapter 2 (volume 1).

      ALSO IN:
      W. Irving,
      Life of Washington,
      volume 4, chapter 33.

      Mrs. M. J. Lamb,
      History of the City of New York,
      volume 2, chapters 6-7.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1783-1787.
   After the war.
   Resistance to the stipulations of the Treaty of Peace.
   National feebleness and humiliation.
   Failure of the Articles of Confederation.
   Movements toward a firmer Constitution.

   "The revolution was at last accomplished. The evils it had
   removed, being no longer felt, were speedily forgotten. The
   evils it had brought pressed heavily upon them. They could
   devise no remedy. They saw no way of escape. They soon began
   to grumble, became sullen, hard to please, dissatisfied with
   themselves and with everything done for them. The States,
   differing in habits, in customs, in occupations, had been
   during a few years united by a common danger. But the danger
   was gone; old animosities and jealousies broke forth again
   with all their strength, and the union seemed likely to be
   dissolved. In this state of public discontent the House met at
   Philadelphia early in January, 1784. Some days were spent in
   examining credentials of new members, and in waiting for the
   delinquents to come in. It was not till the 14th of the month
   that the definitive treaty was taken under consideration and
   duly ratified. Nothing remained, therefore, but to carry out
   the stipulations with as much haste as possible. But there
   were some articles which the people had long before made up
   their minds never should be carried out. While the treaty was
   yet in course of preparation the royal commissioners had
   stoutly insisted on the introduction of articles providing for
   the return of the refugees and the payment of debts due to
   British subjects at the opening of the war. The commissioners
   on behalf of the United States, who well knew the tempers of
   their countrymen, had at first firmly stood out against any
   such articles. But some concessions were afterward made by
   each party, and certain stipulations touching the debts and
   the refugees inserted. Adams, who wrote in the name of his
   fellow-commissioners, … hoped that the middle line adopted
   would be approved. The middle line to which Adams referred was
   that Congress should recommend the States to make no more
   seizures of the goods and property of men lately in arms
   against the Confederation, and to put no bar in the way of the
   recovery of such as had already been confiscated. It was
   distinctly understood by each side that these were
   recommendations, and nothing more than recommendations. Yet no
   sooner were they made known than a shout of indignation and
   abuse went up from all parts of the country. The community in
   a moment was divided between three parties. The smallest of
   the three was made up of the Tories, who still hoped for place
   and power, and still nursed the delusion that the past would
   be forgotten. Yet they daily contributed to keep the
   remembrance of it alive by a strong and avowed attachment to
   Great Britain. Opposed to these was the large and influential
   body of violent Whigs, who insisted vehemently that every
   loyalist should instantly be driven from the States. A less
   numerous and less violent body of Whigs constituted the third
   party." The fury of the violent Whigs proved generally
   irresistible and great numbers of the obnoxious Tories fled
   before it.

      See TORIES OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION.

   Some "sought a refuge in Florida, then a possession of Spain,
   and founded settlements which their descendants have since
   raised to prosperous and beautiful villages, renowned for
   groves of orange-trees and fields of cane. Others embarked on
   the British ships of war, and were carried to Canada or the
   island of Bermuda; a few turned pirates, obtained a sloop, and
   scoured the waters of Chesapeake bay. Many went to England,
   beset the ministry with petitions for relief, wearied the
   public with pathetic stories of the harsh ingratitude with
   which their sufferings had been requited, and were accused,
   with much show of reason, by the Americans of urging the
   severe restrictions which England began to lay on American
   commerce. Many more … set out for Nova Scotia. … The open
   contempt with which, in all parts of the country, the people
   treated the recommendation of Congress concerning the refugees
   and the payment of the debts, was no more than any man of
   ordinary sagacity could have foretold. Indeed, the state into
   which Congress had fallen was most wretched. … Each of the
   thirteen States the Union bound together retained all the
   rights of sovereignty, and asserted them punctiliously against
   the central government.
{3290}
   Each reserved to itself the right to put up mints, to strike
   money, to levy taxes, to raise armies, to say what articles
   should come into its ports free and what should be made to pay
   duty. Toward the Continental Government they acted precisely
   as if they were dealing with a foreign power. In truth, one of
   the truest patriots of New England had not been ashamed to
   stand up in his place in the Massachusetts House of Deputies
   and speak of the Congress of the States as a foreign
   government. Every act of that body was scrutinized with the
   utmost care. The transfer of the most trivial authority beyond
   the borders of the State was made with protestations, with
   trembling, and with fear. Under such circumstances, each
   delegate felt himself to have much the character, and to be
   clothed with very much of the power, of ambassadors. He was
   not responsible to men, he was responsible to a State. … From
   beginning to end the system of representation was bad. By the
   Articles of Confederation each of the thirteen little
   republics was annually to send to Congress not more than seven
   and not less than two delegates. No thought was taken of
   population. … But this absolute equality of the States was
   more apparent than real. Congress possessed no revenue. The
   burden of supporting the delegates was cast on those who sent
   them, and, as the charge was not light, a motive was at once
   created for preferring a representation of two to a
   representation of seven, or, indeed, for sending none at all.
   While the war was still raging and the enemy marching and
   counter-marching within the border of every State, a sense of
   fear kept up the number of delegates to at least two. Indeed,
   some of the wealthier and more populous States often had as
   many as four congressmen on the floor of the House. But the
   war was now over. The stimulus derived from the presence of a
   hostile army was withdrawn, and the representation and
   attendance fell off fast. Delaware and Georgia ceased to be
   represented. From the ratification of the treaty to the
   organization of the Government under the Constitution six
   years elapsed, and during those six years Congress, though
   entitled to 91 members, was rarely attended by 25. The House
   was repeatedly forced to adjourn day after day for want of a
   quorum. On more than one occasion these adjournments covered a
   period of thirteen consecutive days. … No occasion, however
   impressive or important, could call out a large attendance.
   Seven States, represented by twenty delegates, witnessed the
   resignation of Washington. Twenty-three members, sitting for
   eleven States, voted for the ratification of the treaty. … It
   is not surprising, therefore, that Congress speedily
   degenerated into a debating club, and a debating club of no
   very high order. Neglected by its own members, insulted and
   threatened by its mutinous troops, reviled by the press, and
   forced to wander from city to city in search of an abiding
   place, its acts possessed no national importance whatever. It
   voted monuments that never were put up, rewarded meritorious
   services with sums of money that never were paid, formed wise
   schemes for the relief of the finances that never were carried
   out, and planned on paper a great city that never was built.
   In truth, to the scoffers and malcontents of that day, nothing
   was more diverting than the uncertain wanderings of Congress.
   … In the coffee-houses and taverns no toasts were drunk with
   such uproarious applause as 'A hoop to the barrel' and 'Cement
   to the Union'; toasts which not long before had sprung up in
   the army and come rapidly into vogue. … The men who, in after
   years, came to eminence as the framers of the Constitution,
   who became renowned leaders of the Federalists, presidents,
   cabinet ministers, and constitutional statesmen, were then in
   private life, abroad, or in the State Assemblies. Washington
   was busy with his negroes and tobacco; Adams was minister to
   Holland; Jefferson still sat in Congress, but was soon to be
   sent as minister to France; Madison sat in the Virginia House
   of Deputies; Hamilton was wrangling with Livingston and Burr
   at the bar of New York; Jay was minister to Spain."

      J. B. McMaster,
      History of the People of the United States,
      volume 1, chapter 2.

   Hamilton's description, in one of the papers of the
   Federalist, of the state of the country in 1787, is very
   graphic: "We may indeed, with propriety," he wrote, "be said
   to have reached almost the last stage of National humiliation.
   There is scarcely anything that can wound the pride, or
   degrade the character of an independent nation, which we do
   not experience. Are there engagements, to the performance of
   which we are held by every tie respectable among men? These
   are the subjects of constant and unblushing violation. Do we
   owe debts to foreigners, and to our own citizens, contracted
   in a time of imminent peril, for the preservation of our
   political existence! These remain without any proper or
   satisfactory provision for their discharge. Have we valuable
   territories and important posts in the possession of a foreign
   power, which, by express stipulations, ought long since to
   have been surrendered! These are still retained, to the
   prejudice of our interests not less than of our rights. Are we
   in a condition to resent or to repel the aggression? We have
   neither troops, nor treasury, nor Government. Are we even in a
   condition to remonstrate with dignity? The just imputations on
   our own faith, in respect to the same treaty, ought first to
   be removed. Are we entitled by nature and compact to a free
   participation in the navigation of the Mississippi? Spain
   excludes us from it. Is public credit an indispensable
   resource in time of public danger? We seem to have abandoned
   its cause as desperate and irretrievable. Is commerce of
   importance to National wealth? Ours is at the lowest point of
   declension. Is respectability in the eyes of foreign powers a
   safeguard against foreign encroachments? The imbecility of our
   Government even forbids them to treat with us. Our ambassadors
   abroad are the mere pageants of mimic sovereignty. Is a
   violent and unnatural decrease in the value of land a symptom
   of National distress? The price of improved land in most parts
   of the country is much lower than can be accounted for by the
   quantity of waste land at market, and can only be fully
   explained by that want of private and public confidence, which
   are so alarmingly prevalent among all ranks, and which have a
   direct tendency to depreciate property of every kind. Is
   private credit the friend and patron of industry? That most
   useful kind which relates to borrowing and lending is reduced
   within the narrowest limits, and this still more from an
   opinion of insecurity than from the scarcity of money.
{3291}
   To shorten an enumeration of particulars which can afford
   neither pleasure nor instruction, it may in general be
   demanded what indication is there of National disorder,
   poverty, and insignificance, that could befall a community so
   peculiarly blessed with natural advantages as we are, which
   does not form a part of the dark catalogue of our public
   misfortunes? … The great and radical vice in the construction
   of the existing Confederation is in the principle of
   legislation for States or Governments, in their corporate or
   collective capacities, and as contradistinguished from the
   individuals of which they consist. Though this principle does
   not run through all the powers delegated to the Union, yet it
   pervades and governs those on which the efficacy of the rest
   depends. Except as to the rule of apportionment, the United
   States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for
   men and money, but they have no authority to raise either, by
   regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.
   The consequence of this is, that, though in theory their
   resolutions concerning those objects are laws,
   constitutionally binding on the members of the Union, yet in
   practice they are mere recommendations, which the States
   observe or disregard at their option. … There is nothing
   absurd or impracticable in the idea of a league or alliance
   between independent nations, for certain defined purposes
   precisely stated in a treaty; regulating all the details of
   time, place, circumstance, and quantity; leaving nothing to
   future discretion; and depending for its execution on the good
   faith of the parties. … If the particular States in this
   country are disposed to stand in a similar relation to each
   other, and to drop the project of a general discretionary
   superintendence, the scheme would indeed be pernicious, and
   would entail upon us all the mischiefs which have been
   enumerated under the first head; but it would have the merit
   of being, at least, consistent and practicable. Abandoning all
   views towards a Confederate Government, this would bring us to
   a simple alliance offensive and defensive; and would place us
   in a situation to be alternately friends and enemies of each
   other, as our mutual jealousies and rivalships, nourished by
   the intrigues of foreign nations, should prescribe to us. But
   if we are unwilling to be placed in this perilous situation;
   if we still will adhere to the design of a National
   Government, or, which is the same thing, of a superintending
   power, under the direction of a common Council, we must
   resolve to incorporate into our plan those ingredients which
   may be considered as forming the characteristic difference
   between a league and a Government; we must extend the
   authority of the Union to the persons of the citizens,—the
   only proper objects of Government."

      Alexander Hamilton,
      The Federalist,
      number 15.

   "Many of the States refused or neglected to pay even their
   allotted shares of interest upon the public debt, and there
   was no power in Congress to compel payment. Eighteen months
   were required to collect only one-fifth of the taxes assigned
   to the States in 1783. The national credit became worthless.
   Foreign nations refused to make commercial treaties with the
   United States, preferring a condition of affairs in which they
   could lay any desired burden upon American commerce without
   fear of retaliation by an impotent Congress. The national
   standing army had dwindled to a corps of 80 men. In 1785
   Algiers declared war against the United States. Congress
   recommended the building of five 40-gun ships of war. But
   Congress had only power to recommend. The ships were not
   built, and the Algerines were permitted to prey on American
   commerce with impunity. England still refused to carry out the
   Treaty of 1783, or to send a Minister to the United States.
   The Federal Government, in short, was despised abroad and
   disobeyed at home. The apparent remedy was the possession by
   Congress of the power of levying and collecting internal taxes
   and duties on imports, but, after long urging, it was found
   impossible to gain the necessary consent of all the States to
   the article of taxation by Congress. In 1786, therefore, this
   was abandoned, and, as a last resort, the States were asked to
   pass an Amendment intrusting to Congress the collection of a
   revenue from imports. This Amendment was agreed to by all the
   States but one. New York alone rejected it, after long debate,
   and her veto seemed to destroy the last hope of a continuance
   of national union in America. Perhaps the dismay caused by the
   action of New York was the most powerful argument in the minds
   of many for an immediate and complete revision of the
   government. The first step to Revision was not so designed. In
   1785 the Legislatures of Maryland and Virginia, in pursuance
   of their right to regulate commerce, had appointed
   Commissioners to decide on some method of doing away with
   interruptions to the navigation of Chesapeake Bay. The
   Commissioners reported their inability to agree, except in
   condemning the Articles of Confederation. The Legislature of
   Virginia followed the report by a resolution, inviting the
   other States to meet at Annapolis, consider the defects of the
   government, and suggest some remedy. In September, 1786,
   delegates from five of the Middle States assembled, but
   confined themselves to discussion, since a majority of the
   States were not represented. The general conclusion was that
   the government, as it then stood, was inadequate for the
   protection, prosperity or comfort, of the people, and that
   some immediate and thorough reform was needed. After drawing
   up a report for their States and for Congress, recommending
   another Convention to be held at Philadelphia, in May, 1787,
   they adjourned. Congress, by resolution, approved their report
   and the proposed Convention. The Convention met, as proposed,
   May 14th, 1787."

      A. Johnston,
      History of American Politics,
      2d edition, chapter 1.

   "Four years only elapsed, between the return of peace and the
   downfall of a government which had been framed with the hope
   and promise of perpetual duration. … But this brief interval
   was full of suffering and peril. There are scarcely any evils
   or dangers, of a political nature, and springing from
   political and social causes, to which a free people can be
   exposed, which the people of the United States did not
   experience during that period."

      G. T. Curtis,
      History of the Constitution,
      book 3, chapter 1.

   "It is not too much to say that the period of five years
   following the peace of 1783 was the most critical moment in
   all the history of the American people."

      J. Fiske,
      Critical Period of American History,
      page 55.

      ALSO IN:
      J. S. Landon,
      Constitutional History and Government of the United States,
      lecture 3.

{3292}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1783-1789.
   Depressed state of Trade and Industry.
   Commercial consequences of the want of nationality.

   "The effect of the Revolutionary War on the merchant marine of
   the colonies, which thereby secured their independence as the
   United States, was not so disastrous as might have been
   expected. Many ships were lost or captured, and the gains of
   maritime commerce were reduced; but to offset these losses an
   active fleet of privateers found profitable employment in the
   seizure of English merchantmen, and thus kept alive the
   maritime spirit of the country, and supplied a revenue to the
   shipowners whose legitimate pursuits were suspended by the
   war. In 1783, therefore, the American merchant marine was in a
   fairly healthy condition. During the next six years the
   disadvantages of the new situation made themselves felt.
   Before the Revolution the colonies had had open trade with
   their fellow-subjects in the British West India Islands. The
   commerce thus carried on was a very profitable business. The
   island colonies were supplied with lumber, corn, fish, live
   stock, and surplus farm produce, which the continent furnished
   in abundance, together with rough manufactured articles such
   as pipe staves, and in return the ships of New York and New
   England brought back great quantities of coffee, sugar,
   cotton, rum, and indigo. … As a result of independence, the
   West India business was entirely cut off. The merchantmen of
   the United States then came in on the footing of foreign
   vessels, and all such vessels, under the terms of the
   Navigation Act, were rigorously excluded from trade with the
   British colonies. It was evident, however, that the sudden
   cessation of this trade, whatever loss it might inflict on the
   newly created state, would be tenfold more harmful to the
   islands, which had so long depended upon their neighbors of
   the mainland for the necessaries of life. Pitt, then
   Chancellor of the Exchequer, appreciated this difficulty, and
   in 1783 brought a bill into Parliament granting open trade as
   to articles that were the produce of either country. The
   measure failed, owing to Pitt's resignation, and the next
   ministry, in consequence of the violent opposition of British
   shipowners, passed a merely temporary act, vesting in the
   crown the power of regulating trade with America. This power
   was occasionally exercised by suspending certain provisions of
   the navigation laws, under annual proclamations, but it did
   not serve to avert the disaster that Pitt had foreseen.
   Terrible sufferings visited the population of the West India
   colonies, and between 1780 and 1787 as many as 15,000 slaves
   perished from starvation, having been unable to obtain the
   necessary supply of food when their own crops had been
   destroyed by hurricanes. Apart from the unfavorable condition
   of the West India trade, another and more important cause had
   operated to check the prosperous development of American
   commerce. The only bond of political union at this time was
   that formed by the Articles of Confederation, constituting a
   mere league of independent States, any one of which could pass
   laws calculated to injure the commerce of the others."

      J. R. Soley,
      Maritime Industries of America
      (The United States of America, edition by N. S. Shaler,
      volume 1, chapter 10).

   "The general commerce of the granulated mass of communities
   called the United States, from 1783 to 1780, was probably the
   poorest commerce known in the whole history of the country.
   England sent America £3,700,000 worth of merchandise in 1784,
   and took in return only £750,000. The drain of specie to meet
   this difference was very severe, and merchants could not meet
   the engagements so rashly made. They had imported luxuries for
   customers who were poor, and non-payment through all the
   avenues of trade was the consequence. One circumstance and
   detail of the internal management of this commerce added to
   the distress and to the necessary difficulties of the time.
   Immediately after the peace, British merchants, factors, and
   clerks came across the seas in streams, to take advantage of
   the new opportunities for trade. It seemed to the citizens to
   be a worse invasion of their economic rights than the coming
   of the troops had been to the political rights of the old
   colonists. The whole country was agitated, but action was
   initiated in Boston in 1785. The merchants met and discussed
   all these difficulties. They pledged themselves to buy no more
   goods of British merchants or factors in Boston. In about
   three weeks the mechanics and artisans met in the old Green
   Dragon Tavern and committed themselves to the same policy. But
   the merchants went beyond mere non-intercourse with traders at
   home. The root of the difficulty was in the ill-regulation or
   want of regulation of our commerce with all foreign countries.
   The confederation was giving and not getting. Where it should
   have gotten, foreigners were getting, because the parts of the
   country had not agreed to unite in acquiring for the common
   benefit, lest some part should be injured in the process.
   Congress made treaties for the Confederation. But if unable to
   treat with any} power which excluded American shipping from
   its ports, or laid duties on American produce, Congress did
   not control our ports in an equivalent manner. Each individual
   state was to decide whether the unfriendly power should trade
   at its own ports. This in effect nullified any retaliatory
   action. England, being the best market, virtually controlled
   any change in commerce, as it was then conducted. Her ports
   were closed to American products unless they were brought in
   British vessels. France admitted our vessels to her ports, but
   her merchants cried out against the competition. It was feared
   that the ministers would be obliged to yield to their clamor
   and close the ports. Probably the poor economic condition of
   the country affected the foreign trade even more than the bad
   adjustment of foreign relations. All causes combined to form
   two parties, one advocating imposts upon foreign trade or a
   Navigation Act, the other opposing this scheme, and insisting
   upon absolute freedom of commerce. It was in this direction
   that the Boston people moved, after they had instituted
   non-intercourse in their own market with British traders. They
   petitioned Congress to remedy these embarrassments of trade,
   and sent a memorial to their own legislature. This document
   urged that body to insist on action by Congress. They formed a
   Committee of Correspondence to enforce these plans upon the
   whole country."

      W. B. Weeden,
      Economic and Social History of New England, 1620-1780,
      chapter 22 (volume 2).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1784.
   Plans for new States in the Northwest Territory.

      See NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES: A. D. 1784.

{3293}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1784.
   Revolt in Tennessee against the
   territorial cession to Congress.
   The State of Franklin.

      See TENNESSEE; A. D. 1776-1784; and 1785.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1784.
   The first daily Newspaper publication.

      See PRINTING and PRESS; A. D. 1784-1813.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1784.
   The financial administration of Robert Morris.
   Cost of the war.

   From May, 1781, until April, 1785, the burden of the financial
   management of the revolutionary struggle rested upon Robert
   Morris, of Philadelphia, who held the office which Congress
   had created and entitled "the Superintendent of Finances."
   Morris's detractors argued that he deserved no great credit
   for his management of the finances as compared with his
   predecessors, because in his time everything turned in his
   favour. It is true that if things had remained as before, he
   could not have restored the finances; for the miracle of
   carrying on a war without means has never yet been performed
   by anybody. The events which gave him an opportunity to
   restore the finances, by intelligent and energetic action,
   were as follows. The first was the collapse of the paper
   currency and its absolute removal from circulation, in May,
   1781, just before he took office. As soon as it was out of the
   way, specie came in. He was able to throw aside all the
   trammels in which the treasury operations had been entangled
   by the paper system. It is true that he did not succeed in his
   attempt to relieve himself entirely from these anticipations,
   which, inasmuch as they were anticipations, would have used up
   the revenues of his time; but it was a great gain for him to
   be able to conduct his current operations at least in terms of
   specie. The second thing in his favour was the great help
   granted by France in 1781, and especially the importation of a
   part of this in specie. This enabled him to found the bank,
   from which he borrowed six times what he put into it. The
   chief use of the bank to him, however, was to discount the
   notes which he took for bills of exchange. Then also it was
   possible for him to reduce the expenses in a way which his
   predecessors had not had the courage or the opportunity to
   accomplish, because in their time the abuses of the old method
   had not gone far enough to force acquiescence in the reforms.
   In Morris's time, and chiefly, as it appears, by his exertions
   and merit, the expenditures were greatly reduced for an army
   of a given size. When the war came to an end, it was possible
   for him to reduce the entire establishment to a very low
   scale. Next we notice that the efforts to introduce taxation
   bore fruit which, although it was trivial in one point of
   view, was large enough to be very important to him in his
   desperate circumstances. Finally, when his need was the
   greatest, and these advantages and opportunities proved
   inadequate, the rise of American credit made the loan in
   Holland possible, and this carried him through to the result.
   … By the Report of 1790 the total amount of expenditures and
   advances at the treasury of the United States, during the war,
   in specie value, was estimated as follows;

   1775 and 1776, $20,064,666.
   1777,          $24,986,646.
   1778,          $24,289,438.
   1779,          $10,794,620.
   1780,          $ 3,000,000.
   1781,          $ 1,942,465.
   1782,          $ 3,632,745.
   1783,          $ 3,226,583.
   1784,          $   548,525 to November 1.
   Total          $92,485,693.

   This table shows how the country lapsed into dependence on
   France after the alliance was formed. The round number
   opposite 1780 is very eloquent. It means anarchy and
   guesswork. … According to the best records we possess, the
   cost of the war to the United States, reduced to specie value
   year by year at the official scale of depreciation, which,
   being always below the truth, makes these figures too high,
   was, as above stated, $92,485,693, at the treasury. There were
   also certificates of indebtedness out for $16,708,009. There
   had been expended in Europe, which never went through the
   treasury, $5,000,000. The States were estimated to have
   expended $21,000,000. Total, $135,000,000. Jefferson
   calculated it at $140,000,000, by adding the debts incurred
   and the continental currency. The debt contracted by England
   during the war was £115,000,000, for which £91,000,000 were
   realized. The Comptroller of the Treasury of France said that
   it cost 60,000,000 livres a year to support the army in
   America. Vergennes told Lafayette, in November, 1782, that
   France had expended 250,000,000 livres in the war. There is an
   often-repeated statement that the war cost France
   1,200,000,000 livres, or 1,280,000,000, or 1,500,000,000.
   Arthur Young put it at £50,000,000, sterling. Probably if
   60,000,000 a year for five years, or $60,000,000, was taken as
   the amount directly expended for and in America by France, it
   would be as fair a computation as could be made of her
   contribution to American independence. She had large
   expenditures elsewhere in the prosecution of her war against
   Great Britain, and her incidental losses of ships, etc., were
   great. When England abandoned the effort to subdue the
   colonies, she was in a far better position for continuing it
   than either of her adversaries. George III. was by no means
   stupid in his comments and suggestions about the war. No
   Englishman of the period said things which now seem wiser in
   the retrospect. As early as September, 1780, he said: 'America
   is distressed to the greatest degree. The finances of France,
   as well as Spain, are in no good situation: This war, like the
   last, will prove one of credit.' This opinion was fully
   justified in 1782. French finances were then hastening toward
   bankruptcy, so that France could not continue the war expenses
   or the loans and subsidies to America. English credit was
   high. October 2, 1782, Vergennes wrote to Montmorin, that the
   English fleet was stronger than at the beginning of the war,
   while the fleets of France and Spain were weaker; that French
   finances were greatly weakened, while English credit was high;
   that England had recovered influence in Russia, and through
   Russia on Prussia and Austria. He wanted peace and
   reconciliation with England in order to act with her in
   eastern Europe. If England had chosen to persevere in the war,
   the matter of credit would have been the most important
   element in her chances of success, aside from the natural
   difficulties of the enterprise."

      W. G. Sumner,
      The Financier and the Finances of the American Revolution,
      chapter 23 (volume 2).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1784-1788.
   Disputes with England over the execution of the Treaty of Peace.
   Difficulties with Spain.
   The question of the Navigation of the Mississippi.
   Eastern jealousy and Western excitement.

{3294}

   "Serious disputes soon arose, concerning the execution of the
   treaty of peace; and each nation complained of infractions by
   the other. On the part of the United States, it was alleged
   that negroes had been carried away, contrary to the treaty;
   and as early as May, 1783, congress instructed their ministers
   for negotiating peace to remonstrate to the British court
   against this conduct of their commander in America, and to
   take measures to obtain reparation. The United States, also,
   complained that the western posts had not been sur·rendered,
   agreeably to treaty stipulations. Great Britain, on her part,
   alleged that legal impediments had been interposed to prevent
   the collection of British debts in America; and that the 5th
   and 6th articles, relating to the property of the loyalists,
   had not been complied with. In June, 1784, the legislature of
   Virginia not only declared that there had been an infraction
   on the part of Great Britain of the 7th article, in detaining
   the slaves and other property of the citizens of the United
   States, but instructed their delegates in congress to request
   that a remonstrance be presented to the British court against
   such infraction and to require reparation. They also directed
   them to inform congress that the state of Virginia conceived a
   just regard to the national honor and interest obliged her
   assembly to withhold their co-operation in the complete
   fulfilment of the treaty until the success of such
   remonstrance was known, or they should have further directions
   from congress. They at the same time declared, that as soon as
   reparation for such infraction should be made, or congress
   should judge it indispensably necessary, such acts as
   inhibited the recovery of British debts should be repealed,
   and payment made, in such time and manner as should consist
   with the exhausted situation of the state. In consequence of
   these difficulties and disputes, congress, early in the year
   1785, determined to send a minister plenipotentiary to Great
   Britain; and on the 24th of February John Adams was appointed
   to represent the United States at the court of London. He was
   instructed 'in a respectful but firm manner to insist that the
   United States be put, without further delay, into possession
   of all the posts and territories within their limits which are
   now held by British garrisons.' … Mr. Jefferson was soon after
   appointed to represent the United States at the court of
   Versailles, in the room of Dr. Franklin, who had leave to
   return home, after an absence of nine years. Mr. Livingston
   having resigned the office of secretary of foreign affairs,
   Mr. Jay, in March, 1784, and before his return from Europe,
   was appointed in his place. Mr. Adams repaired to the British
   court, and was received as the first minister from the United
   States since their independence was acknowledged. … In
   December, 1785, Mr. Adams presented a memorial to the British
   secretary of state, in which, after stating the detention of
   the western posts contrary to the stipulations in the treaty
   of peace, he in the name and in behalf of the United States
   required 'that all his majesty's armies and garrisons be
   forthwith withdrawn from the said United States, from all and
   every of the posts and fortresses before enumerated, and from
   every port, place and harbor, within the territory of the said
   United States, according to the true intention of the
   treaties.' To this memorial the British secretary, lord
   Carmarthen, returned an answer, on the 28th of February, 1786,
   in which he acknowledges the detention of the posts, but
   alleges a breach of the 4th article of the treaty of peace on
   the part of the United States, by interposing impediments to
   the recovery of British debts in America. … This answer was
   accompanied with a statement of the various instances in which
   the 4th article had been violated by acts of the states. The
   complaints of Great Britain also extended to breaches of the
   5th and 6th articles of the treaty, relating to the recovery
   of certain property and to confiscations. The answer of the
   British secretary was submitted to congress; and in order to
   remove the difficulties complained of, that body, in March,
   1787, unanimously declared that all the acts, or parts of
   acts, existing in any of the states, repugnant to the treaty
   of peace, ought to be repealed; and they recommended to the
   states to make such repeal by a general law. … A circular
   letter to the states accompanied these declarations, in which
   congress say, 'we have deliberately and dispassionately
   examined and considered the several facts and matters urged by
   Great Britain, as infractions of the treaty of peace, on the
   part of America, and we regret that, in some of the states,
   too little attention has been paid to the public faith pledged
   by that treaty.' In consequence of this letter, the states of
   New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut,
   Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina, passed acts
   complying with the recommendations contained in it. The
   operation of the act of Virginia, however, which repealed all
   acts preventing the recovery of debts due to British subjects,
   was suspended until the governor of that state should issue a
   proclamation, giving notice that Great Britain had delivered
   up the western posts, and was also taking measures for the
   further fulfilment of the treaty of peace by delivering up the
   negroes belonging to the citizens of that state, carried away
   contrary to the 7th article of the treaty, or by making
   compensation for the same. … The British court was not yet
   disposed to enter into any commercial treaty with the United
   States. The ministers were, no doubt, satisfied that the
   advantages they enjoyed under their own regulations were
   greater than could be obtained by any treaty they could make
   with America. And this was, probably, one of the principal
   reasons of their refusal to enter into any such treaty. As the
   British court declined sending a minister to the United
   States, Mr. Adams, in October, 1787, at his request, had leave
   to return home. … The United States had also at this period to
   encounter difficulties with Spain as well as Great Britain.
   The two Floridas having been ceded to his catholic majesty,
   serious disputes soon arose, not only on the old subject of
   the navigation of the Mississippi, but with respect to the
   boundaries of Louisiana and the ceded territory. The Spanish
   court still persisted in its determination to exclude the
   Americans from the navigation of the Mississippi. … In
   December, 1784, congress declared it necessary to send a
   minister to Spain, for the purpose of adjusting the
   interfering claims of the two nations respecting the
   navigation of the Mississippi, and other matters highly
   interesting to the peace and good understanding which ought to
   subsist between them. This was prevented by the appointment of
   Don Diego Gardoqui, a minister from Spain, who arrived in the
   United States and was acknowledged by congress in the summer
   of 1785.
{3295}
   Soon after his arrival, Mr. Jay, then secretary of foreign
   affairs, was appointed to treat with the Spanish minister on
   the part of the United States. … As Mr. Jay, by his
   instructions, was not to conclude a treaty until the same was
   communicated to congress and approved by them, and was also
   specially directed to obtain a stipulation acknowledging the
   right of the United States to their territorial claims and the
   free navigation of the Mississippi, as established in their
   treaty with Great Britain, he, on the 3d of August, 1786,
   submitted to congress the … plan of a commercial treaty, and
   stated the difficulties in obtaining the stipulation required.
   … 'Circumstanced as we are [said Mr. Jay] I think it would be
   expedient to agree that the treaty should be limited to twenty
   five or thirty years, and that one of the articles should
   stipulate that the United States would forbear to use the
   navigation of that river below their territories to the ocean.
   Thus the duration of the treaty and of the forbearance in
   question should be limited to the same period.' … Among other
   reasons, Mr. Jay stated that the navigation of the Mississippi
   was not at that time very important, and would not probably
   become so in less than twenty five or thirty years, and that a
   forbearance to use it, while it was not wanted, was no great
   sacrifice—that Spain then excluded the people of the United
   States from that navigation; and that it could only be
   acquired by war, for which the United States were not then
   prepared; and that in case of war France would no doubt join
   Spain. Congress were much divided on this interesting subject.
   The seven states at the north, including Pennsylvania, were
   disposed, in case a treaty could not otherwise be made, to
   forbear the use of the navigation of the Mississippi below the
   southern boundary of the United States, for a limited time,
   and a resolution was submitted to congress repealing Mr. Jay's
   instructions of the 25th of August, 1785, and which was
   carried, seven states against five. … This, however, was to be
   on the express condition that a stipulation of forbearance
   should not be construed to extinguish the right of the United
   States, independent of such stipulation, to use and navigate
   said river from its source to the ocean; and that such
   stipulation was not to be made unless it should be agreed in
   the same treaty that the navigation and use of the said river
   above such intersection to its source should be common to both
   nations—and Mr. Jay was to make no treaty unless the
   territorial limits of the United States were acknowledged and
   secured according to the terms agreed between the United
   States and Great Britain. … As by the confederation the assent
   of nine states was necessary in making a treaty the same
   number was considered requisite in giving specific
   instructions in relation to it; … and it was questioned
   whether the previous instructions given to Mr. Jay could be
   rescinded without the assent of nine states. These proceedings
   in congress, though with closed doors, soon became partly
   known, and excited great alarm in Virginia and in the western
   settlements. … While these negociations were pending, the
   fertile country at the west was settling with a rapidity
   beyond the most sanguine calculations; and it is not
   surprising that the news of an actual or intended abandonment
   of the navigation of the Mississippi, the only outlet for
   their productions, should have excited great alarm among its
   inhabitants. They were much exasperated by the seizure and
   confiscation of American property by the Spaniards, on its way
   down the river, which took place about the same time. The
   proposition made in congress was magnified into an actual
   treaty, and called from the western people most bitter
   complaints and reproaches. … To quiet the apprehensions of the
   western inhabitants, the delegates from North Carolina, in
   September, 1788, submitted to congress a resolution declaring
   that 'whereas many citizens of the United States, who possess
   lands on the western waters, have expressed much uneasiness
   from a report that congress are disposed to treat with Spain
   for the surrender of their claim to the navigation of the
   river Mississippi; in order therefore to quiet the minds of
   our fellow citizens by removing such ill founded
   apprehensions, resolved, that the United States have a clear,
   absolute, and unalienable claim to the free navigation of the
   river Mississippi, which claim is not only supported by the
   express stipulations of treaties, but by the great law of
   nature.' The secretary of foreign affairs, to whom this
   resolution was referred, reported, that as the rumor mentioned
   in the resolution was not warranted by the negociations
   between the United States and Spain, the members be permitted
   to contradict it, in the most explicit terms. Mr. Jay also
   stated, there could be no objection to declaring the right of
   the United States to the navigation of the river clear and
   absolute—that this had always been his opinion; and that the
   only question had been whether a modification of that right
   for equivalent advantages was advisable; and though he
   formerly thought such a modification might be proper, yet that
   circumstances and discontents had since interposed to render
   it questionable. He also advised that further negociations
   with Spain be transferred to the new general government. On
   this report, congress, on the 16th of September, 1788, in
   order to remove the apprehensions of the western settlers,
   declared that the members be permitted to contradict the
   report referred to by the delegates from North Carolina; and
   at the same time resolved 'that the free navigation of the
   river Mississippi is a clear and essential right of the United
   States, and that the same ought to be considered and supported
   as such.' All further negociations with Spain were also
   referred to the new federal government."

      T. Pitkin,
      Political and Civil History of the United States,
      chapter 17 (volume 2).

   "It was important for the frontiersmen to take the Lake Posts
   from the British; but it was even more important to wrest from
   the Spaniards the free navigation of the Mississippi. While
   the Lake Posts were held by the garrisons of a foreign power,
   the work of settling the northwestern territory was bound to
   go forward slowly and painfully; but while the navigation of
   the Mississippi was barred, even the settlements already
   founded could not attain to their proper prosperity and
   importance. … The Westerners were right in regarding as
   indispensable the free navigation of the Mississippi. They
   were right also in their determination ultimately to acquire
   the control of the whole river, from the source to the mouth.
   However, the Westerners wished more than the privilege of
   sending down stream the products of their woods and pastures
   and tilled farms.
{3296}
   They had already begun to cast longing eyes on the fair
   Spanish possessions. … Every bold, lawless, ambitious leader
   among the frontier folk dreamed of wresting from the Spaniard
   some portion of his rich and ill-guarded domain. It was not
   alone the attitude of the frontiersmen towards Spain that was
   novel, and based upon a situation for which there was little
   precedent. Their relations with one another, with their
   brethren of the seaboard, and with the Federal Government,
   likewise had to be adjusted without much chance of profiting
   by antecedent experience. Many phases of these relations
   between the people who stayed at home and those who wandered
   off to make homes, between the frontiersmen as they formed
   young States, and the Central Government representing the old
   States, were entirely new, and were ill-understood by both
   parties. … The attitude towards the Westerners of certain
   portions of the population in the older States, and especially
   in the northeastern States, was one of unreasoning jealousy
   and suspicion; and though this mental attitude rarely
   crystallized into hostile deeds, its very existence, and the
   knowledge that it did exist, embittered the men of the West. …
   In the northeastern States, and in New England especially,
   this feeling showed itself for two generations after the close
   of the Revolutionary War. On the whole the New Englanders have
   exerted a more profound and wholesome influence upon the
   development of our common country than has ever been exerted
   by any other equally numerous body of our people. They have
   led the nation in the path of civil liberty and sound
   governmental administration. But too often they have viewed
   the nation's growth and greatness from a narrow and provincial
   standpoint, and have grudgingly acquiesced in, rather than led
   the march towards, continental supremacy. In shaping the
   nation's policy for the future their sense of historic
   perspective seemed imperfect. … The extreme representatives of
   this northeastern sectionalism not only objected to the growth
   of the West at the time now under consideration, but even
   avowed a desire to work it harm, by shutting the Mississippi,
   so as to benefit the commerce of the Atlantic States. … These
   intolerant extremists not only opposed the admission of the
   young western States into the Union, but at a later date
   actually announced that the annexation by the United States of
   vast territories beyond the Mississippi offered just cause for
   the secession of the northeastern States. Even those who did
   not take such an advanced ground felt an unreasonable dread
   lest the West might grow to overtop the East in power. … A
   curious feature of the way many honest men looked at the West
   was their inability to see how essentially transient were some
   of the characteristics to which they objected. Thus they were
   alarmed at the turbulence and the lawless shortcomings of
   various kinds which grew out of the conditions of frontier
   settlement and sparse population. They looked with anxious
   foreboding to the time when the turbulent and lawless people
   would be very numerous, and would form a dense and powerful
   population; failing to see that in exact proportion as the
   population became dense, the conditions which caused the
   qualities to which they objected would disappear. Even the men
   who had too much good sense to share these fears, even men as
   broadly patriotic as Jay, could not realize the extreme
   rapidity of western growth. Kentucky and Tennessee grew much
   faster than any of the old frontier colonies had ever grown;
   and from sheer lack of experience, eastern statesmen could not
   realize that this rapidity of growth made the navigation of
   the Mississippi a matter of immediate and not of future
   interest to the West. … While many of the people on the
   eastern seaboard thus took an indefensible position in
   reference to the trans-Alleghany settlements, in the period
   immediately succeeding the Revolution, there were large bodies
   of the population of these same settlements, including very
   many of their popular leaders, whose own attitude towards the
   Union was, if anything, more blameworthy. They were clamorous
   about their rights, and were not unready to use veiled threats
   of disunion when they deemed these rights infringed; but they
   showed little appreciation of their own duties to the Union. …
   They demanded that the United States wrest from the British
   the Lake Posts, and from the Spaniards the navigation of the
   Mississippi. Yet they seemed incapable of understanding that
   if they separated from the Union they would thereby forfeit
   all chance of achieving the very purposes they had in view,
   because they would then certainly be at the mercy of Britain,
   and probably, at least for some time, at the mercy of Spain
   also. They opposed giving the United States the necessary
   civil and military power, although it was only by the
   possession and exercise of such power that it would be
   possible to secure for the westerners what they wished. In all
   human probability, the whole country round the Great Lakes
   would still be British territory, and the mouth of the
   Mississippi still in the hands of some European power, had the
   folly of the separatists won the day and had the West been
   broken up into independent states. … This final triumph of the
   Union party in these first-formed frontier States was fraught
   with immeasurable good."

      T. Roosevelt,
      The Winning of the West,
      volume 3, chapter 3.

      See FLORIDA: A. D. 1783-1787;
      and LOUISIANA: A. D. 1785-1800.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1785-1787.
   First troubles and dealings with the Barbary pirates.

      See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1785-1801.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1786-1787.
   Shay's Rebellion in Massachusetts.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1786-1787.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787.
   The, Ordinance for the Government of the Northwest Territory.
   Exclusion of Slavery forever.

      See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1787;
      also, EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1785-1880.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787.
   The framing of the Federal Constitution.
   The Union constructed of compromises.

   The convention of delegates appointed to revise the Articles
   of Confederation, but which took upon itself the task of
   framing anew a Federal Constitution for the States, assembled
   at Philadelphia on the 25th of May, 1787, eleven days later
   than the day appointed for its meeting. "The powers conferred
   by the several states were not uniform. Virginia,
   Pennsylvania, and New Jersey appointed their delegates 'for
   the purpose of revising the Federal Constitution;' North
   Carolina, New Hampshire, Delaware, and Georgia 'to decide upon
   the most effectual means to remove the defects of the Federal
   Union;' New York, Massachusetts, and Connecticut 'for the sole
   and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation;'
   South Carolina and Maryland 'to render the Federal
   Constitution entirely adequate to the actual situation.'
{3297}
   Rhode Island held aloof. She was governed by a class of men
   who wanted to pay their debts in paper money, and she did not
   wish to surrender her power to collect duties upon the goods
   that came into her port. The trade of Newport at that day
   surpassed that of New York. Connecticut came in reluctantly,
   and New Hampshire late in July, 1787. … Washington was made
   president of the convention. … Many names great in the
   revolutionary struggle were absent from the roll of delegates.
   John and Samuel Adams, and John Hancock, were not there.
   Patrick Henry of Virginia refused to attend. Thomas Jefferson
   and John Jay were absent from the country. George Washington
   and Benjamin Franklin, however, were there. … Among the
   younger men was James Madison of Virginia. … Alexander
   Hamilton came from New York. … Charles C. Pinckney was a
   delegate from South Carolina. … James Wilson of Pennsylvania
   was a Scotchman. He surpassed all others in his exact
   knowledge of the civil and common law, and the law of nations.
   … Oliver Ellsworth and Roger Sherman came from Connecticut. …
   Many of the 55 delegates shared Hamilton's contempt for a
   democracy, but the strength they would repose in a government
   they preferred to retain in the states. … The first business
   of the convention was the adoption of rules. Each state was to
   have one vote. Such was the rule in the Confederate Congress.
   Seven states made a quorum. The convention was to sit with
   closed doors, and everything was to be kept secret: nothing
   was to be given to the public except the completed work. This
   injunction of secrecy was never removed. Fortunately James
   Madison kept a pretty full account of the debates and
   proceedings, all in his own hand."

      J. S. Landon,
      Constitutional History and Government of the United States,
      lecture 3.

   "Madison tells us in his report of these debates that previous
   to the opening of the Convention it had been a subject of
   discussion among the members present, as to how the States
   should vote in the Convention. Several of the members from
   Pennsylvania had urged that the large States unite in refusing
   to the small States an equal vote, but Virginia, believing
   this to be injudicious if not unjust, ' discountenanced and
   stilled the project.' On the 29th the real business of the
   Convention was opened by Edmund Randolph, who as Governor of
   Virginia was put forward as spokesman by his colleagues. He
   began by saying that as the Convention had originated from
   Virginia, and the delegation from this State supposed that
   some proposition was expected from them, the task had been
   imposed on him. After enumerating the defects of the
   Confederation, he detailed the remedy proposed. This latter
   was set forth in fifteen resolutions and was called afterwards
   the Virginia plan of government. Charles Pinckney from South
   Carolina had also a draft of a federal government, which was
   read and like the former referred to a committee of the whole
   House. … The Committee of the Whole … debated from day to day
   the resolutions contained in the Virginia plan, and on the
   13th of June they reported nineteen resolutions based upon
   those of Virginia, forming a system of government in outline.
   On the following day Mr. Paterson, of New Jersey, asked for
   time to prepare another plan founded on the Articles of
   Confederation. This was submitted to the Convention on the
   15th. The Virginia and the New Jersey plan were contrasted
   briefly by one of the members: Virginia plan proposes two
   branches in the legislature, Jersey, a single legislative
   body; Virginia, the legislative powers derived from the
   people, Jersey, from the States; Virginia, a single executive,
   Jersey, more than one; Virginia, a majority of the legislature
   can act, Jersey, a small majority can control; Virginia, the
   legislature can legislate on all national concerns, Jersey,
   only on limited objects; Virginia, legislature to negative all
   State laws, Jersey, giving power to the executive to compel
   obedience by force; Virginia, to remove the executive by
   impeachment, Jersey, on application of a majority of the
   States; Virginia, for the establishment of inferior judiciary
   tribunals, Jersey, no provision. Neither of these plans
   commended themselves to men like Hamilton, who wanted a strong
   government, and were afraid of democracy or giving power to
   the people. He thought the Virginia plan 'but pork still with
   a little change of the sauce.' The Articles of Confederation
   amended, as in the New Jersey plan, set forth a government
   approved of by the opposite wing of the Convention, consisting
   of men like Lansing, who professed an ultra devotion to the
   rights and autonomy of the States. … The Convention did not go
   again into committee of the whole, but continued to debate the
   nineteen resolutions from the 19th of June until the 23d of
   July. Some of these were referred to grand committees,
   consisting of one member from each State, or they were
   referred to select committees consisting of five members."

      K. M. Rowland,
      Life of George Mason,
      volume 2, chapter 4.

   "The plan presented by Mr. Patterson, called the New Jersey
   plan, was concerted and arranged between the deputations of
   that State, of Delaware, of New York, and of Connecticut, with
   the individual cooperation of Mr. Luther Martin, one of the
   delegates of Maryland. The extreme jealousy … manifested by
   the representatives of the two first-named States with regard
   to the equal suffrage of the States in the common councils of
   the Confederacy, was the principal source of their aversion to
   the plan reported by the committee of the whole. The delegates
   of Connecticut, and Messrs. Lansing and Yates,—forming a
   majority of the delegation of New York,—united with the
   deputations of New Jersey and Delaware, not so much from an
   exclusive attachment to the principle of the sovereignty and
   equality of the States, as from the policy of preserving the
   existing framework of the confederation, and of simply vesting
   in Congress, as then organized, a few additional powers. It
   was under the influence of these mixed political views that
   the New Jersey plan was conceived and prepared. It proposed to
   vest in the existing Congress,—a single body in which all the
   States had an equal suffrage,—in addition to the powers
   already given to it by the articles of confederation, that of
   raising revenue by imposts and stamp and postage duties, and
   also that of passing acts for the regulation of commerce with
   foreign nations and between the States; leaving the
   enforcement of all such acts, in the first instance, to the
   State courts, with an ultimate appeal to the tribunals of the
   United States.
{3298}
   Whenever requisitions on the States for contributions should
   be made, and any State should fail to comply with such
   requisitions within a specified time, Congress was to be
   authorized to direct their collection in the non-complying
   States, and to pass the requisite acts for that purpose. None
   of the foregoing powers, however, were to be exercised by
   Congress without the concurrence of a certain number of the
   States, exceeding a bare majority of the whole. The plan also
   proposed the organization of a Federal executive and a Federal
   judiciary. … It was, finally, provided that if any State, or
   any body of men in any State, shall oppose or prevent the
   carrying into execution any act of Congress passed in virtue
   of the powers granted to that body, or any treaty made and
   ratified under the authority of the United States, the Federal
   executive shall be authorized to call forth the power of the
   confederated States, or so much thereof as may be necessary,
   to enforce and compel an obedience to the acts, or an
   observance of the treaties, whose execution shall have been so
   opposed or prevented. Such were the salient features of the
   plan now brought forward as a substitute for the Virginia
   propositions, as reported by the committee of the whole. … In
   the progress of the discussion upon the two plans, Colonel
   Hamilton, of New York, made an elaborate speech, declaring
   himself to be opposed to both, and suggesting a third and more
   absolute plan, which he thought was alone adequate to the
   exigencies of the country. He frankly avowed his distrust of
   both republican and federal government, under any
   modification. He entered into a minute analysis of the various
   sources and elements of political power, in order to show that
   all these would be on the side of the State governments, so
   long as a separate political organization of the States was
   maintained, and would render them an over-match for any
   general government that could be established, unless a
   'complete sovereignty' was vested in the latter. He thought it
   essential, therefore, to the ends of a good and efficient
   government of the whole country, that the State governments,
   with their vast and extensive apparatus, should be
   extinguished; though 'he did not mean,' he said, 'to shock
   public opinion by proposing such a measure.' He also expressed
   his despair of the practicability of establishing a republican
   government over so extensive a country as the United States.
   He was sensible, at the same time, that it would be unwise to
   propose one of any other form. Yet 'he had no scruple,' he
   said, 'in declaring that, in his private opinion, the British
   government was the best in the world, and that he doubted much
   whether any thing short of it would do in America.' He
   descanted upon the securities against injustice, violence, and
   innovation, afforded, in the English system, by the permanent
   constitution of the House of Lords, and by the elevated and
   independent position of the monarch. He thence deduced the
   necessity of as permanent a tenure as public opinion in this
   country would bear, of the leading branches of the new
   government. 'Let one branch of the legislature,' he said,
   'hold their places for life, or at least during good behavior.
   Let the executive also be for life.' In concluding, he
   expressed his conviction that 'a great progress was going on
   in the public mind; that the people will, in time, be
   unshackled from their prejudices; and, whenever that happens,
   they will themselves not be satisfied at stopping where the
   plan brought forward by Mr. Randolph [the Virginia plan] would
   place them, but would be ready to go as far, at least, as he
   proposed.' He then read a plan of government he had prepared,
   which, he said, he did not submit as a proposition to the
   convention, but as giving a correct sketch of his ideas, and
   to suggest the amendment which he should probably offer to the
   Virginia plan in the future stages of its consideration. … The
   convention now had presented for their consideration three
   distinct schemes of government: one purely Federal, founded
   upon the idea of preserving undiminished the sovereignty and
   equality of the States, and of constituting a special
   political agency in Congress for certain purposes, but still
   under the dependence and control of the States; another of a
   consolidated character, bottomed on the principle of a virtual
   annihilation of the State sovereignties and the creation of a
   central government, with a supreme and indefinite control over
   both individuals and communities; the third a mixed and
   balanced system, resting upon an agreed partition of the
   powers of sovereignty between the States and the Union,—one
   portion to be vested in the Union for certain objects of
   common and national concern, the residue retained by the
   States for the regulation of the general mass of their
   interior and domestic interests. … On the 19th of June … Mr.
   King, of Massachusetts, moved that 'the committee do now rise,
   and report that they do not agree to the propositions offered
   by the Honorable Mr. Patterson; and that they report to the
   House the resolutions offered by the Honorable Mr. Randolph,
   heretofore reported from a committee of the whole.' The motion
   was carried by the votes of Massachusetts, Connecticut,
   Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and
   Georgia, in the affirmative,—New York, New Jersey, and
   Delaware voting in the negative; and Maryland, divided."

      W. C. Rives,
      Life and Times of James Madison,
      chapter 29.

   "It appeared," wrote Madison, in a letter to Jefferson,
   October 24th "to be the sincere and unanimous wish of the
   Convention to cherish and preserve the Union of the States. No
   proposition was made, no suggestion was thrown out, in favor
   of a partition of the Empire into two or more Confederacies.
   It was generally agreed that the objects of the Union could
   not be secured by any system founded on the principle of a
   confederation of Sovereign States. A voluntary observance of
   the federal law by all the members could never be hoped for. A
   compulsive one could evidently never be reduced to practice,
   and if it could, involved equal calamities to the innocent and
   the guilty, the necessity of a military force, both obnoxious
   and dangerous, and, in general, a scene resembling much more a
   civil war than the administration of a regular Government.
   Hence was embraced the alternative of a Government which,
   instead of operating on the States, should operate without
   their intervention on the individuals composing them; and
   hence the change in the principle and proportion of
   representation.
{3299}
   This ground-work being laid, the great objects
   which presented themselves were:
   1. To unite a proper energy in the Executive, and a proper
   stability in the Legislative departments, with the essential
   characters of Republican Government:
   2. To draw a line of demarkation which would give to the
   General Government every power requisite for general purposes,
   and leave to the States every power which might be most
   beneficially administered by them.
   3. To provide for the different interests of different parts
   of the Union.
   4. To adjust the clashing pretensions of the large and small
   States.

   Each of these objects was pregnant with difficulties. The
   whole of them together formed a task more difficult than can
   well be conceived by those who were not concerned in the
   execution of it. Adding to these considerations the natural
   diversity of human opinions on all new and complicated
   subjects, it is impossible to consider the degree of concord
   which ultimately prevailed as less than a miracle. The first
   of these objects, as respects the Executive, was peculiarly
   embarrassing. On the question whether it should consist of a
   single person or a plurality of co-ordinate members, on the
   mode of appointment, on the duration in office, on the degree
   of power, on the re-eligibility, tedious and reiterated
   discussions took place. The plurality of co-ordinate members
   had finally but few advocates. Governor Randolph was at the
   head of them. The modes of appointment proposed were various;
   as by the people at large, by electors chosen by the people,
   by the Executives of the States, by the Congress; some
   preferring a joint ballot of the two Houses; some, a separate
   concurrent ballot, allowing to each a negative on the other
   house; some, a nomination of several candidates by one House,
   out of whom a choice should be made by the other. Several
   other modifications were started. The expedient at length
   adopted seemed to give pretty general satisfaction to the
   members. As to the duration in office, a few would have
   preferred a tenure during good behaviour; a considerable
   number would have done so in case an easy and effectual
   removal by impeachment could be settled. It was much agitated
   whether a long term, seven years for example, with a
   subsequent and perpetual ineligibility, or a short term, with
   a capacity to be re-elected, should be fixed. In favor of the
   first opinion were urged the danger of a gradual degeneracy of
   re-elections from time to time, into first a life and then a
   hereditary tenure, and the favorable effect of an incapacity
   to be reappointed on the independent exercise of the Executive
   authority. On the other side it was contended that the
   prospect of necessary degradation would discourage the most
   dignified characters from aspiring to the office; would take
   away the principal motive to the faithful discharge of its
   duties—the hope of being rewarded with a reappointment; would
   stimulate ambition to violent efforts for holding over the
   constitutional term; and instead of producing an independent
   administration and a firmer defence of the constitutional
   rights of the department, would render the officer more
   indifferent to the importance of a place which he would soon
   be obliged to quit forever, and more ready to yield to the
   encroachments of the Legislature, of which he might again be a
   member. The questions concerning the degree of power turned
   chiefly on the appointment to offices, and the controul on the
   Legislature. An absolute appointment to all offices, to some
   offices, to no offices, formed the scale of opinions on the
   first point. On the second, some contended for an absolute
   negative, as the only possible means of reducing to practice
   the theory of a free Government, which forbids a mixture of
   the Legislative and Executive powers. Others would be content
   with a revisionary power, to be overruled by three-fourths of
   both Houses. It was warmly urged that the judiciary department
   should be associated in the revision. The idea of some was,
   that a separate revision should be given to the two
   departments; that if either objected, two-thirds, if both,
   three-fourths, should be necessary to overrule. In forming the
   Senate, the great anchor of the government, the questions, as
   they come within the first object, turned mostly on the mode
   of appointment, and the duration of it. The different modes
   proposed were:

   1. By the House of Representatives.
   2. By the Executive.
   3. By electors chosen by the people for the purpose.
   4. By the State Legislatures.

   On the point of duration, the propositions descended from good
   behaviour to four years, through the intermediate terms of
   nine, seven, six, and five years. The election of the other
   branch was first determined to be triennial, and afterwards
   reduced to biennial. The second object, the due partition of
   power between the General and local Governments, was perhaps,
   of all, the most nice and difficult. A few contended for an
   entire abolition of the States; some, for indefinite power of
   Legislation in the Congress, with a negative on the laws of
   the States; some, for such a power without a negative; some,
   for a limited power of legislation, with such a negative; the
   majority, finally, for a limited power without the negative.
   The question with regard to the negative underwent repeated
   discussions, and was finally rejected by a bare majority. … I
   return to the third object above mentioned, the adjustments of
   the different interests of different parts of the continent.
   Some contended for an unlimited power over trade, including
   exports as well as imports, and over slaves as well as other
   imports; some, for such a power, provided the concurrence of
   two-thirds of both Houses were required; some, for such a
   qualification of the power, with an exemption of exports and
   slaves; others, for an exemption of exports only. The result
   is seen in the Constitution. South Carolina and Georgia were
   inflexible on the point of the slaves. The remaining object
   created more embarrassment, and a greater alarm for the issue
   of the Convention, than all the rest put together. The little
   States insisted on retaining their equality in both branches,
   unless a compleat abolition of the State Governments should
   take place; and made an equality in the Senate a sine qua non.
   The large States, on the other hand, urged that as the new
   Government was to be drawn principally from the people
   immediately, and was to operate directly on them, not on the
   States; and, consequently, as the States would lose that
   importance which is now proportioned to the importance of
   their voluntary compliance with the requisitions of Congress,
   it was necessary that the representation in both Houses should
   be in proportion to their size. It ended in the compromise
   which you will see, but very much to the dissatisfaction of
   several members from the large States."

      J. Madison,
      Letters and other Writings,
      volume 1, pages 344-354.

{3300}

   "Those who proposed only to amend the old Articles of
   Confederation and opposed a new Constitution, objected that a
   government formed under such a Constitution would be not a
   federal, but a national, government. Luther Martin said, when
   he returned to Maryland, that the delegates 'appeared totally
   to have forgot the business for which we were sent. … We had
   not been sent to form a government over the inhabitants of
   America considered as individuals. … That the system of
   government we were intrusted to prepare was a government over
   these thirteen States; but that in our proceedings we adapted
   principles which would be right and proper only on the
   supposition that there were no state governments at all, but
   that all the inhabitants of this extensive continent were in
   their individual capacity, without government, and in a state
   of nature.' He added that, 'in the whale system there was but
   one federal feature, the appointment of the senators by the
   States in their sovereign capacity, that is by their
   legislatures, and the equality of suffrage in that branch; but
   it was said that this feature was only federal in appearance.'
   The Senate, the second house as it was called in the
   convention, was in part created, it is needless to say, to
   meet, or rather in obedience to, reasoning like this. … The
   Luther Martin protestants were too radical to remain in the
   convention to the end, when they saw that such a confederacy
   as they wanted was impossible. But there were not many who
   went the length they did in believing that a strong central
   government was necessarily the destruction of the state
   governments. Still fewer were those who would have brought
   this about if they could. … The real difficulty, as Madison
   said in the debate on that question, and as he repeated again
   and again after that question was settled, was not between the
   larger and smaller States, but between the North and South;
   between those States that held slaves and those that had none.
   Slavery in the Constitution, which has given so much trouble
   to the Abolitionists of this century, and, indeed, to
   everybody else, gave quite as much in the last century to
   those who put it there. Many of the wisest and best men of the
   time, Southerners as well as Northerners, and among them
   Madison, were opposed to slavery. … Everywhere north of South
   Carolina, slavery was looked upon as a misfortune which it was
   exceedingly desirable to be free from at the earliest possible
   moment; everywhere north of Mason and Dixon's Line, measures
   had already been taken, or were certain soon to be taken, to
   put an end to it; and by the Ordinance for the government of
   all the territory north of the Ohio River, it was absolutely
   prohibited by Congress, in the same year in which the
   Constitutional Congress met. But it was, nevertheless, a thing
   to the continued existence of which the anti-slavery people of
   that time could consent without any violation of conscience.
   Bad as it was, unwise, wasteful, cruel, a mockery of every
   pretense of respect for the rights of man, they did not
   believe it to be absolutely wicked. … The question with the
   North was, how far could it yield; with the South, how far
   could it encroach. It turned mainly an representation. … There
   were some who maintained at first that the slave population
   should not be represented at all. Hamilton proposed in the
   first days of the convention 'that the rights of suffrage in
   the national legislature ought to be proportioned to the
   number of free inhabitants.'"

      S. H. Gay,
      James Madison,
      chapters 7-8.

   "When the great document was at last drafted by Gouverneur
   Morris, and was all ready far the signatures [September 17,
   1787], the aged Franklin produced a paper, which was read for
   him, as his voice was weak. Same parts of this Constitution,
   he said, he did not approve, but he was astonished to find it
   so nearly perfect. Whatever opinion he had of its errors he
   would sacrifice to the public good, and he hoped that every
   member of the convention who still had objections would on
   this occasion doubt a little of his own infallibility, and for
   the sake of unanimity put his name to this instrument.
   Hamilton added his plea. A few members, he said, by refusing
   to sign, might do infinite mischief. … From these appeals, as
   well as from Washington's solemn warning at the outset, we see
   how distinctly it was realized that the country was on the
   verge of civil war. Most of the members felt so, but to some
   the new government seemed far too strong, and there were three
   who dreaded despotism even more than anarchy. Mason, Randolph,
   and Gerry refused to sign. … In the signatures the twelve
   states which had taken part in the work were all represented,
   Hamilton signing alone for New York."

      J. Fiske,
      The Critical Period of American History,
      page 303.

   A "popular delusion with regard to the Constitution is that it
   was created out of nothing; or, as Mr. Gladstone puts it, that
   ·It is the greatest work ever struck off at any one time by
   the mind and purpose of man.' The radical view on the other
   side is expressed by Sir Henry Maine, who informs us that the
   'Constitution of the United States is a modified version of
   the British Constitution … which was in existence between 1760
   and 1787.' The real source of the Constitution is the
   experience of Americans. They had established and developed
   admirable little commonwealths in the colonies; since the
   beginning of the Revolution they had had experience of State
   governments organized on a different basis from the colonial;
   and, finally, they had carried on two successive national
   governments, with which they had been profoundly discontented.
   The general outline of the new Constitution seems to be
   English; it was really colonial. The President's powers of
   military command, of appointment, and of veto were similar to
   those of the colonial governor. National courts were created
   on the model of colonial courts. A legislature of two houses
   was accepted because such legislatures had been common in
   colonial times. In the English Parliamentary system as it
   existed before 1760 the Americans had had no share; the later
   English system of Parliamentary responsibility was not yet
   developed, and had never been established in colonial
   governments; and they expressly excluded it from their new
   Constitution. They were little more affected by the experience
   of other European nations. … The chief source of the details
   of the Constitution was the State constitutions and laws then
   in force. Thus the clause conferring a suspensive veto on the
   President is an almost literal transcript from the
   Massachusetts constitution. In fact, the principal experiment
   in the Constitution was the establishment of an electoral
   college; and of all parts of the system this has worked least
   as the framers expected. The Constitution represents,
   therefore, the accumulated experience of the time. … The real
   boldness of the Constitution is the novelty of the federal
   system which it set up."

      A. B. Hart,
      Formation of the Union
      (Epochs of American History),
      section 62.

{3301}

   "That a constitution should be framed in detail by a body of
   uninstructed delegates, expressly chosen for that purpose, was
   familiar in the States of the Union; but was perhaps
   unexampled elsewhere in the world, and was certainly
   unexampled in the history of federations. That the instrument
   of federal government should provide for proportional
   representation in one house, and for a federal court, was a
   step in federal organization which marks a new federal
   principle. For many purposes the Union then created was
   stronger than the Prussian monarchy at that moment. In many
   respects the States were left stronger than the little
   nominally independent German principalities. The great merit
   of the members of the convention is their understanding of the
   temper of their own countrymen. They selected out Of English,
   or colonial, or State usages such practices and forms as
   experience had shown to be acceptable to the people. … The
   Convention had further the wisdom to express their work in
   general though carefully stated principles. All previous
   federal governments had been fettered either by an imperfect
   and inadequate statement, as in the constitution of the United
   Netherlands, or by an unwritten constitution with an
   accumulation of special precedents, as in the Holy Roman
   Empire. The phrases of the Constitution of 1787 were broad
   enough to cover cases unforeseen. A third distinction of the
   federal Convention is the skill with which it framed
   acceptable compromises upon the three most difficult questions
   before it. The two Houses of Congress satisfied both large and
   small States; the three-fifths representation of slaves
   postponed an inevitable conflict; the allowance of the slave
   trade for a term of years made it possible for Congress to
   perfect commercial legislation. The Convention had profited by
   the experience of the Confederation: on every page of the
   Constitution may be found clauses which would not have stood
   there had it been framed in 1781. An adequate revenue was
   provided; foreign and interstate commerce was put under the
   control of Congress; the charge of foreign affairs was given
   entirely to the central authority; the powers of government
   were distributed among three departments."

      A. B. Hart,
      Introduction to the Study of Federal Government,
      chapter 4.

      ALSO IN:
      I. Eliot,
      Debates in the Convention at Philadelphia, 1787.

      J. Madison,
      Debates on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution.

      W. C. Rives,
      Life and Times of James Madison,
      chapters 27-33 (volume 2).

      G. Bancroft,
      History of the Formation of the Constitution of
      the United States.

      G. T. Curtis,
      History of the Constitution of the United States.

      C. E. Stevens,
      Sources of the Constitution of the United States.

      J. H. Robinson,
      The Original and Derived Features of the Constitution.
      (Annals of the American Academy of Political and
      Social Science, volume l).

   For the text of the Constitution.

      See CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787-1789.
   The struggle for the Federal Constitution in the States.
   Its ratification.
   The end of the Confederation.

   The fate of the proposed Constitution remained doubtful for
   many months after the adjournment of the convention. Hamilton
   said it would be arrogance to conjecture the result. …
   Delaware was the first state to accept it, [December 7, 1787].
   Gratified by the concession of equality in the federal Senate,
   the ratification was prompt, enthusiastic, and unanimous.
   Pennsylvania was the second [December 12]. The opposition was
   sharp, but Franklin was president of the state, and Wilson a
   delegate to the state convention. Their influence was great. …
   The ratification was effected by a vote of 46 to 23. Then New
   Jersey [December 18] and Georgia [January 2, 1788] followed
   unanimously. Next came Connecticut [January 9] by a vote of
   128 to 40. The result in these five states was the more easily
   obtained because the friends of the Constitution were prompt
   to act. With delay in the other states came a bitterness of
   contention which made the result doubtful. The first close
   struggle was in Massachusetts. The public creditor favored the
   proposed Constitution. He saw in it some hope of his long
   deferred pay. But the debtor class opposed it; for it would
   put an end to cheap paper money, with which they hoped to pay
   their debts, when it became still cheaper. … Hancock and Adams
   scarcely favored the Constitution. They feared it infringed
   upon the rights of the people, and especially upon the rights
   of the states. … Hancock finally came forward as a mediator.
   He proposed that the Constitution be ratified, with an
   accompanying recommendation that it be amended in the
   particulars in which it was thought to be defective. His
   proposition was adopted, and the Constitution was ratified
   [February 6] by a vote of 187 to 168. Maryland next ratified
   the Constitution with much unanimity [April 28],
   notwithstanding the strenuous opposition of Luther Martin. …
   South Carolina followed next [May 23], and ratified the
   Constitution by a majority of 76, but recommended amendments
   substantially like those of Massachusetts. South Carolina was
   the eighth state; and, if one more could be obtained, the
   Constitution would take effect between the nine ratifying
   states. There remained the five states of Virginia, New York,
   New Hampshire, North Carolina, and Rhode Island. The state
   convention of Virginia was called for the 2d of June 1788, of
   New York for the 17th, and of New Hampshire for the 18th of
   the same month. The result was expected to be adverse in
   everyone of these states. In Virginia the opposition was led
   by Patrick Henry. … Henry was ably seconded by Richard Henry
   Lee, William Grayson, and George Mason. … James Monroe
   followed their lead. James Madison and Governor Randolph were
   the leading champions of the new Constitution. … John
   Marshall, afterwards chief justice, came to their assistance.
   … The debate lasted a month. It may be read with instruction,
   as it is reported in the volumes of Elliot. The ratification
   prevailed [June 25] by a majority of ten in a vote of 186.
   After all, the influence of Washington procured the result. …
   Meanwhile, the state of New Hampshire had ratified the
   Constitution [June 21], but the fact was not known in
   Virginia. The opposition to the Constitution was great and
   bitter in the State of New York. Fortunately the convention
   was held so late that New Hampshire, the ninth state, had
   ratified while the New York convention was engaged in its
   heated discussions. Two thirds of the delegates were elected
   to oppose it. … The friends of the Constitution felt, long
   before the convention assembled, that public discussion might
   be useful in overcoming the hostile attitude of the state.
{3302}
   Accordingly, a series of essays in exposition of the
   Constitution was written by Hamilton, Madison, and Jay, over
   the common signature of 'Publius.' These essays were published
   in a newspaper, between October, 1787, and June, 1788. … They
   were subsequently collected and published in a volume styled
   'The Federalist.' From that day to this, 'The Federalist' has
   held unequalled rank as an authority upon the construction of
   the Constitution." On the 24th of June a fleet courier,
   employed by Hamilton, brought from Concord to Poughkeepsie,
   where the New York convention sat, news of the ratification of
   the Constitution by New Hampshire, the ninth state. "Now,
   indeed, the situation was changed. There was no longer a
   confederacy; the Union was already formed. … The state must
   either join the new system or stay out of it. New York was not
   favorably situated for a separate nation. New England on the
   east, and New Jersey and Pennsylvania on the south, belonged
   to the new Union. Canada was on the north. … Delay, with its
   altered circumstances, finally brought to Hamilton and his
   party the victory that had been denied to argument and
   eloquence. But the Anti-Federalists were reluctant to yield,
   and the debate was prolonged," until the 26th of July, when
   the ratification was carried by 30 votes against 27. "North
   Carolina remained out of the Union until November, 1789, and
   Rhode Island until June, 1790. … The ratification by nine
   states having been certified to the Congress of the
   Confederacy, that body adopted a resolution fixing the first
   Wednesday of March, 1789, as the day when the new government
   should go into operation. As the day fell on the 4th of March,
   that day became fixed for the beginning and the end of
   congressional and presidential terms."

      J. S. Landon,
      Constitutional History and Government of the United States,
      lecture 4.

      ALSO IN:
      J. Fiske,
      The Critical Period of American History,
      chapter 7.

      G. T. Curtis, History of the Constitution of
      the United States,
      book 5 (volume 2).

      G. Bancroft,
      History of the Formation of the Constitution,
      book 4 (volume 2).

      J. Elliot, editor,
      Debates in the State Convention on the Adoption
      of the Federal Constitution.

      The Federalist.

      A. Hamilton,
      Works,
      volume 2.

      W. C. Rives,
      Life and Times of Madison,
      chapters 34-36 (volume 2).

      K. M. Rowland,
      Life of George Mason.
      volume 2, chapters 6-8.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789.
   The First Presidential Election.
   Washington called to the head of the new Government.

   "The adoption of the Federal constitution was another epoch in
   the life of Washington. Before the official forms of an
   election could be carried into operation a unanimous sentiment
   throughout the Union pronounced him the nation's choice to
   fill the presidential chair. He looked forward to the
   possibility of his election with characteristic modesty and
   unfeigned reluctance; as his letters to his confidential
   friends bear witness. … The election took place at the
   appointed time [the first Wednesday in January, 1789], and it
   was soon ascertained that Washington was chosen President for
   the term of four years from the 4th of March. By this time the
   arguments and entreaties of his friends, and his own
   convictions of public expediency, had determined him to
   accept. … From a delay in forming a quorum of Congress the
   votes of the electoral college were not counted until early in
   April, when they were found to be unanimous in favor of
   Washington 'The delay,' said he in a letter to General Knox,
   'may be compared to a reprieve; for in confidence I tell you
   (with the world it would obtain little credit), that my
   movements to the chair of government will be accompanied by
   feelings not unlike those of a culprit, who is going to the
   place of his execution; so unwilling am I, in the evening of a
   life nearly consumed in public cares, to quit a peaceful abode
   for an ocean of difficulties, without that competency of
   political skill, abilities and inclination, which are
   necessary to manage the helm.' … At length on the 14th of
   April he received a letter from the president of Congress,
   duly notifying him of his election; and he prepared to set out
   immediately for New York, the seat of government."

      W. Irving,
      Life of Washington,
      volume 4, chapter 37.

   The secondary electoral votes, by which the Vice President
   was, at that time, chosen, were scattered among eleven
   candidates. John Adams received the greater number (34) though
   not quite a majority of the 69, and was elected.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789.
   Passage of the Act of Congress organizing the
   Supreme Court of the United States.

      See SUPREME COURT.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789-1792.
   Hamilton's report on Manufactures.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES): A. D. 1789-1791.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789-1792;
   Organization of the Federal government
   and first administration of Washington.
   The dividing of Parties.
   Federalists and Democratic Republicans.

   "March 4th, 1789, had been appointed for the formal
   inauguration of the new Government, but the members elect had
   not yet unlearned the Confederacy's slovenly habits. It was
   not until April 6th that a sufficient number of members of
   Congress arrived in New York to form a quorum and count the
   electoral votes. At that time, and until 1805, no electoral
   votes were cast distinctively for President and
   Vice-President. Each elector voted by ballot for two persons.
   If a majority of all the votes were cast for any person, he
   who received the greatest number of votes became President,
   and he who received the next greatest number became
   Vice-President. When the votes were counted in 1789 they were
   found to be, for George Washington, of Virginia, 69 (each of
   the electors having given him one vote), for John Adams, of
   Massachusetts, 34, and 35 for various other candidates.
   Washington received notice of his election, and, after a
   triumphal progress northward from his home at Mount Vernon,
   was sworn into office April 30th [at Federal Hall, corner Wall
   and Nassau Streets, New York]. The Vice-President had taken
   his place as presiding officer of the Senate a few days
   before. Frederick A. Muhlenberg, of Pennsylvania, was chosen
   Speaker of the House, but the vote had no party divisions, for
   Parties were still in a state of utter confusion. Between the
   extreme Anti-federalists, who considered the Constitution a
   long step toward a despotism, and the extreme Federalists, who
   desired a monarchy modeled on that of England, there were all
   varieties of political opinion. … The extreme importance of
   Washington lay in his ability, through the universal
   confidence in his integrity and good judgment, to hold
   together this alliance of moderate men for a time, and to
   prevent party contests upon the interpretation of federal
   powers until the Constitution should show its merit and be
   assured of existence.
{3303}
   The President selected his Cabinet with a careful regard to
   the opposite opinions of his supporters. The Treasury
   Department was given to Alexander Hamilton, of New York, a
   Federalist. … The War Department was given to General Henry
   Knox, of Massachusetts, also a Federalist. The State
   Department was given to Thomas Jefferson, of Virginia, an
   Anti-federalist. … Edmund Randolph, of Virginia, also an
   Anti-federalist, was appointed Attorney-General, and John Jay,
   of New York, a Federalist, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
   Twelve Amendments were adopted by this Session of Congress, in
   order to meet the conscientious objections of many moderate
   Anti-federalists, and to take the place of a 'Bill of Rights.'
   Ten of these, having received the assent of the necessary
   number of States, became a part of the Constitution, and now
   stand the first ten of the Amendments. They were intended to
   guarantee freedom of religion, speech, person, and property. …
   January 9th [1790] Hamilton offered his famous Report on the
   Settlement of the Public Debt. It consisted of three
   recommendations, first, that the foreign debt of the
   Confederacy should be assumed land paid in full; second, that
   the domestic debt of the Confederacy, which had fallen far
   below par and had become a synonym for worthlessness, should
   also be paid at its par value; and third, that the debts
   incurred by the States during the Revolution, and still
   unpaid, should be assumed and paid in full by the Federal
   Government. Hamilton's First recommendation was adopted
   unanimously. The Second was opposed, even by Madison and many
   moderate Anti-federalists, on the ground that the domestic
   debt was held by speculators, who had bought it at a heavy
   discount, and would thus gain usurious interest on their
   investment. Hamilton's supporters argued that, if only for
   that reason, they should be paid in full, that holders of
   United States securities might learn not to sell them at a
   discount, and that the national credit might thus be
   strengthened for all time to come. After long debate the
   second recommendation was also adopted. Hamilton's Third
   recommendation involved a question of the powers of the
   Federal Government. It therefore for the first time united all
   the Anti-federalists in opposition to it. They feared that the
   rope of sand of the Confederacy was being carried to the
   opposite extreme; that the 'money power' would, by this
   measure, be permanently attached to the Federal Government;
   and that the States would be made of no importance. But even
   this recommendation was adopted, though only by a vote of 31
   to 26 in the House. A few days later, however, the
   Anti-federalists received a reinforcement of seven newly
   arrived North Carolina members. The third resolution was at
   once reconsidered, and voted down by a majority of two.
   Hamilton secured the final adoption of the third resolution by
   a bargain which excited the deep indignation of the
   Anti-federalists. A National Capital was to be selected. The
   Federalists agreed to vote that it should be fixed upon the
   Potomac River [see WASHINGTON (CITY): A. D. 1791], after
   remaining ten years in Philadelphia, and two Anti-federalist
   members from the Potomac agreed in return to vote for the
   third resolution, which was then finally adopted. Hamilton's
   entire report was thus successful. Its immediate effects were
   to appreciate the credit of the United States, and to enrich
   the holders of the Continental debt. Its further effect was to
   make Hamilton so much disliked by Anti-federalists that,
   despite his acknowledged talents, his party never ventured to
   nominate him for any elective office. … Party Organization may
   be considered as fairly begun about the close [of the first
   Session of the Second Congress, in 1792]. … The various
   Anti-federalist factions, by union in resisting the
   Federalists, had learned to forget minor differences and had
   been welded into one party which only lacked a name. That of
   Anti-federalist was no longer applicable, for its opposition
   to the Federal Union had entirely ceased. A name was supplied
   by Jefferson, the recognized leader of the party, after the
   French Revolution had fairly begun its course. That political
   convulsion had, for some time after 1789, the sympathy of both
   Federalists and Anti-federalists, for it seemed the direct
   outgrowth of the American Revolution. But, as its leveling
   objects became more apparent, the Federalists grew cooler and
   the Anti-federalists warmer towards it. The latter took great
   pains, even by dress and manners, to show the keenness of
   their sympathy for the Republicans of France, and about this
   time adopted the name Democratic-Republican, which seemed
   sufficiently comprehensive for a full indication of their
   principles. This has always been the official party title. It
   is now abbreviated to Democratic, though the name Democrat was
   at first used by Federalists as one of contempt, and the party
   called itself Republican, a title which it could hardly claim
   with propriety, for its tendency has always been toward a
   democracy, as that of its opponents has been toward a strong
   republic. The name Republican, therefore, belongs most
   properly to its present possessors (1879). But it must be
   remembered that the party which will be called Republican
   until about 1828 was the party which is now called
   Democratic."

      A. Johnston,
      History of American Politics,
      chapter 2.

   Jefferson's bitterness of hostility to the Federalists was due
   to the belief that they aimed at the overthrow of the
   Republic. His conviction as to these really treasonable
   purposes in the leaders of the party was often expressed, but
   never more distinctly than in a letter written in 1813 to an
   English traveller, Mr. Melish. At the same time, he set forth
   the principles and aims of his own party: "Among that section
   of our citizens called federalists," he wrote, "there are
   three shades of opinion. Distinguishing between the leaders
   and people who compose it, the leaders consider the English
   constitution as a model of perfection, some, with a correction
   of its vices, others, with all its corruptions and abuses.
   This last was Alexander Hamilton's opinion, which others, as
   well as myself, have often heard him declare, and that a
   correction of what are called its vices would render the
   English an impracticable government. This government they
   wished to have established here, and only accepted and held
   fast, at first, to the present constitution, as a
   stepping-stone to the final establishment of their favorite
   model. This party has therefore always clung to England as
   their prototype and great auxiliary in promoting and effecting
   this change. A weighty minority, however, of these leaders,
   considering the voluntary conversion of our government into a
   monarchy as too distant, if not desperate, wish to break off
   from our Union its eastern fragment, as being, in truth, the
   hot-bed of American monarchism, with a view to a commencement
   of their favorite government, from whence the other States may
   gangrene by degrees, and the whole be thus brought finally to
   the desired point.
{3304}
   For Massachusetts, the prime mover in this enterprise, is the
   last State in the Union to mean a final separation, as being
   of all the most dependent on the others. Not raising bread for
   the sustenance of her own inhabitants, not having a stick of
   timber for the construction of vessels, her principal
   occupation, nor an article to export in them, where would she
   be, excluded from the ports of the other States, and thrown
   into dependence on England, her direct, and natural, but now
   insidious rival? At the head of this minority is what is
   called the Essex Junto of Massachusetts. But the majority of
   these leaders do not aim at separation. In this, they adhere
   to the known principle of General Hamilton, never, under any
   views, to break the Union. Anglomany, monarchy, and
   separation, then, are the principles of the Essex federalists.
   Anglomany and monarchy, those of the Hamiltonians, and
   Anglomany alone, that of the portion among the people who call
   themselves federalists. These last are as good republicans as
   the brethren whom they oppose, and differ from them only in
   their devotion to England and hatred of France which they have
   imbibed from their leaders. The moment that these leaders
   should avowedly propose a separation of the Union, or the
   establishment of regal government, their popular adherents
   would quit them to a man, and join the republican standard;
   and the partisans of this change, even in Massachusetts, would
   thus find themselves an army of officers without a soldier.
   The party called republican is steadily for the support of the
   present constitution. They obtained at its commencement all
   the amendments to it they desired. These reconciled them to it
   perfectly, and if they have any ulterior view, it is only,
   perhaps, to popularize it further, by shortening the
   Senatorial term, and devising a process for the responsibility
   of judges, more practicable than that of impeachment. They
   esteem the people of England and France equally, and equally
   detest the governing powers of both. This I verily believe,
   after an intimacy of forty years with the public councils and
   characters, is a true statement of the grounds on which they
   are at present divided, and that it is not merely an ambition
   for power. An honest man can feel no pleasure in the exercise
   of power over his fellow citizens. And considering as the only
   offices of power those conferred by the people directly, that
   is to say, the executive and legislative functions of the
   General and State governments, the common refusal of these,
   and multiplied resignations, are proofs sufficient that power
   is not alluring to pure minds, and is not, with them, the
   primary principle of contest. This is my belief of it; it is
   that on which I have acted; and had it been a mere contest who
   should be permitted to administer the government according to
   its genuine republican principles, there has never been a
   moment of my life in which I should have relinquished for it
   the enjoyments of my family, my farm, my friends and books.
   You expected to discover the difference of our party
   principles in General Washington's valedictory, and my
   inaugural address. Not at all. General Washington did not
   harbor one principle of federalism. He was neither an
   Angloman, a monarchist, nor a separatist. He sincerely wished
   the people to have as much self-government as they were
   competent to exercise themselves. The only point on which he
   and I ever differed in opinion, was, that I had more
   confidence than he had in the natural integrity and discretion
   of the people, and in the safety and extent to which they
   might trust themselves with a control over their government.
   He has asseverated to me a thousand times his determination
   that the existing government should have a fair trial, and
   that in support of it he would spend the last drop of his
   blood. He did this the more repeatedly, because he knew
   General Hamilton's political bias, and my apprehensions from
   it."

      T. Jefferson,
      Letter to Mr. Melish, January 13, 1813
      (Writings, edited by Washington, volume 6).

   The view taken at the present day of the Federalism and the
   Federalists of the first three decades of the Union, among
   those who see more danger in the centrifugal than in the
   centripetal forces in government, are effectively stated in
   the following: "The popular notion in regard to Federalism is
   that to which the name naturally gives rise. By Federalists
   are commonly understood those men who advocated a union of the
   States and an efficient Federal government. This conception is
   true, but is at the same time so limited that it may fairly be
   called superficial. The name arose from its first object which
   the friends of the Constitution strove to achieve; but this
   object, the more perfect union, and even the Constitution
   itself, were but means to ends of vastly more importance. The
   ends which the Federalists sought formed the great principles
   on which the party was founded, and it can be justly said that
   no nobler or better ends were ever striven for by any
   political party or by any statesmen. The first and paramount
   object of the Federalists was to build up a nation and to
   create a national sentiment. For this they sought a more
   perfect union. Their next object was to give the nation they
   had called into existence not only a government, but a strong
   government. To do this, they had not only to devise a model,
   to draw a constitution, to organize a legislature, executive,
   and judiciary, but they had to equip the government thus
   formed with all those adjuncts without which no government can
   long exist under the conditions of modern civilization. The
   Federalists had to provide for the debt, devise a financial
   and foreign policy, organize an army, fortify the ports, found
   a navy, impose and collect taxes, and put in operation an
   extensive revenue system. We of the English race—whose creed
   is that governments and great political systems grow and
   develop slowly, are the results of climate, soil, race,
   tradition, and the exigencies of time and place, who wholly
   disavow the theory that perfect governments spring in a night
   from the heated brains of Frenchmen or Spaniards—can best
   appreciate the task with which our ancestors grappled. … Upon
   a people lately convulsed by civil war, upon a people who had
   lost their old political habits and traditions without finding
   new ones in their stead, it was necessary to impose a
   government, and to create a national sentiment. This the
   Federalists did, and they need no other eulogy.
{3305}
   With no undue national pride, we can justly say that the
   adoption and support of the Constitution offer an example of
   the political genius of the Anglo-Saxon race to which history
   cannot furnish a parallel. The political party to whose
   exertions these great results were due was the Federal party.
   They were the party of order, of good government, and of
   conservatism. Against them was ranged a majority of their
   fellow-citizens. But this majority was wild, anarchical,
   disunited. The only common ground on which they could meet was
   that of simple opposition. The only name they had was
   anti-Federalists. They had neither leaders, discipline,
   objects, nor even a party cry. Before the definite aims and
   concentrated ability of the Federalists, they fled in helpless
   disorder, like an unarmed mob before advancing soldiers. But,
   though dispersed, the anti-Federalists were still in a
   numerical majority. They needed a leader, organization, and
   opportunity, and they soon found all three. Thomas Jefferson
   arrived in New York, not only to enter into Washington's
   cabinet, and lend the aid of his great talents to the success
   of the new scheme, but soon also to put himself at the head of
   the large though demoralized opposition to the administration
   he had sworn to support. Filled with the wild democratic
   theories which his susceptible nature had readily imbibed in
   France, Jefferson soon infused them into the minds of most of
   his followers. Instead of a vague dislike to any and all
   government, he substituted a sharp and factious opposition to
   each and every measure proposed by the friends of the
   Constitution."

      H. C. Lodge,
      Life and Letters of George Cabot,
      chapter 11.

      ALSO IN:
      W. C. Rives,
      Life and Times of Madison,
      chapters 37-46 (volume 3).

      J. Parton,
      Life of Jefferson,
      chapters 42-47.

      M. Van Buren,
      Political Parties in the United States,
      chapters 2-4.

      J. D. Hammond,
      History of Political Parties in New York,
      volume 1, chapters 1-2.

      W. Irving,
      Life of Washington,
      volume 5, chapters 1-16.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789-1810.
   Founding of the Roman Episcopate.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1789-1810.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1790.
   The First Census.

   Total population, 3,929,827,
   classed and distributed as follows:


North.

                White.   Free black. Slave.
Connecticut.    232,581      2,801    2,759
Maine.           96,002        538        0
Massachusetts.  373,254      5,463        0
New Hampshire.  141,111        630      158
New Jersey.     169,954      2,762   11,423
New York.       314,142      4,654   21,324
Pennsylvania.   424,099      6,537    3,737
Rhode Island.    64,689      3,469      952
Vermont.         85,144        255       17
                    ---        ---      ---
Total         1,900,976     27,109   40,370

South.

                White.   Free black. Slave.
Delaware.        46,310      3,899    8,887
Georgia.         52,886        398   29,264
Kentucky.        61,133        114   11,830
Maryland.       208,649      8,043  103,036
North Carolina. 288,204      4,975  100,572
South Carolina. 140,178      1,801  107,094
Tennessee.       32,013        361    3,417
Virginia.       442,115     12,766  293,427
                    ---        ---      ---
Total         1,271,488     32,357  657,527

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1790-1795.
   War with the Indian tribes of the Northwest.
   Disastrous expeditions of Harmar and St. Clair,
   and Wayne's decisive victory.

      See NORTHWESTERN TERRITORY: A. D. 1790-1795.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1791.
   Admission of Vermont to the Union.

      See VERMONT: A. D. 1790-1791.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1791.
   Incorporation of the first Bank of the United States.

      See MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1791-1816.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1791.
   The founding of the Federal Capital.

      See WASHINGTON (CITY): A. D. 1791.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1791.
   Adoption of the first ten Amendments
   to the Federal Constitution.

   The first ten amendments to the Constitution (see CONSTITUTION
   OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA), embodying a declaration of
   rights which was thought to be necessary by many who had
   consented to the adoption of the Constitution, but only with
   the understanding that such amendments should be added, were
   proposed to the legislatures of the several States by the
   First Congress, on the 25th of September, 1789. At different
   dates between November 20, 1789 and December 15, 1791, they
   were ratified by eleven of the then fourteen States. "There is
   no evidence on the journals of Congress that the legislatures
   of Connecticut, Georgia, and Massachusetts ratified them."

      Constitution,
      Rules and Manual of the UNITED STATES SENATE (1885)
      page 61.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1792.
   Admission of Kentucky to the Union.
   Slavery in the Constitution of the new State.

      See KENTUCKY: A. D. 1789-1792.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1792.
   Second Presidential Election.

   George Washington re-elected with unanimity, receiving 132
   votes of the Electoral College, John Adams, Vice President,
   receiving 77 votes, with 50 cast for George Clinton, 4 for
   Jefferson and 1 for Burr.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1793.
   The First Fugitive Slave Law.

   For some time after the adoption of the Federal Constitution,
   its provision relating to the rendition of persons "held to
   service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof,
   escaping into another" remained without legislation to execute
   it; "and it is a striking fact that the call for legislation
   came not from the South, but from a free State; and that it
   was provoked, not by fugitive slaves, but by kidnappers. … A
   free negro named John was seized at Washington, Pennsylvania,
   in 1791, and taken to Virginia. The Governor of Pennsylvania,
   at the instigation of the Society for the Abolition of
   Slavery, asked the return of the three kidnappers; but the
   Governor of Virginia replied that, since there was no national
   law touching such a case, he could not carry out the request.
   On the matter being brought to the notice of Congress by the
   Governor of Pennsylvania," a bill was passed which "became law
   by the signature of the President, February 12, 1793. … The
   act provided at the same time for the recovery of fugitives
   from justice and from labor; but the alleged criminal was to
   have a protection through the requirement of a requisition, a
   protection denied to the man on trial for his liberty only.
   The act was applicable to fugitive apprentices as well as to
   slaves, a provision of some importance at the time. In the
   Northwest Territory there were so-called negro apprentices,
   who were virtually slaves, and to whom the law applied, since
   it was in terms extended to all the Territories. Proceedings
   began with the forcible seizure of the alleged fugitive. The
   act, it will be observed, does not admit a trial by jury.
{3306}
   It allowed the owner of the slave, his agent or attorney, to
   seize the fugitive and take him before any judge of a United
   States Circuit or District Court, or any local magistrate. The
   only requirement for the conviction of the slave was the
   testimony of his master, or the affidavit of some magistrate
   in the State from which he came, certifying that such a person
   had escaped. Hindering arrest or harboring a slave was
   punishable by a fine of five hundred dollars. The law thus
   established a system allowing the greatest harshness to the
   slave and every favor to the master. Even at that time, when
   persons might still be born slaves in New York and New Jersey,
   and gradual emancipation had not yet taken full effect in
   Rhode Island and Connecticut, it was repellent to the popular
   sense of justice; there were two cases of resistance 'to the
   principle of the act before the close of 1793. Until 1850 no
   further law upon this subject was passed, but as the
   provisions of 1793 were found ineffectual, many attempts at
   amendment were made."

      M. G. McDougall,
      Fugitive Slaves, 1619-1865
      (Fay House Monographs, number 3), pages 17-19.

   "The fugitive-slave clause in the Constitution is of course
   obligatory, but there is a wide distinction between the
   fugitive-slave clause and the fugitive-slave law. The
   Constitution gives no power to Congress to legislate on the
   subject, but imposes on the States the obligation of
   rendition. Chief-Justice Hornblower, of New York, and
   Chancellor Walworth, of New York, long since pronounced the
   fugitive law of '93 unconstitutional on this very ground."

      William Jay,
      Letter to Josiah Quincy
      (quoted in B. Tuckerman's "William Jay and the
      Constitutional Movement for the Abolition of Slavery").

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1793.
   Popular sympathy with the French Revolution.
   Washington's Proclamation of Neutrality.
   Insolent conduct of the French minister, Genet.

   "The French Revolution, as was natural from the all-important
   services rendered by France to the United States in their own
   revolutionary struggle, enlisted the warm sympathy of the
   American people. … As the United States were first introduced
   to the family of nations by the alliance with France of 1778,
   the very important question arose, on the breaking out of the
   war between France and England, how far they were bound to
   take part in the contest. The second article of the treaty of
   alliance seemed to limit its operation to the then existing
   war between the United States and Great Britain; but by the
   eleventh article the two contracting powers agreed to
   'guarantee mutually from the present time and forever, against
   all other powers,' the territories of which the allies might
   be in possession respectively at the moment the war between
   France and Great Britain should break out, which was
   anticipated as the necessary consequence of the alliance. Not
   only were the general sympathies of America strongly with
   France, but the course pursued by Great Britain toward the
   United States, since the peace of 1783, was productive of
   extreme irritation, especially her refusal to give up the
   western posts, which … had the effect of involving the
   northwestern frontier in a prolonged and disastrous Indian
   war. These causes, together with the recent recollections of
   the revolutionary struggle, disposed the popular mind to make
   common cause with France, in what was regarded as the war of a
   people struggling for freedom against the combined despots of
   Europe. Washington, however, from the first, determined to
   maintain the neutrality of the country;" and, with the
   unanimous advice of his cabinet, he issued (April 22, 1793) a
   proclamation of neutrality. "This proclamation, though
   draughted by Mr. Jefferson and unanimously adopted by the
   Cabinet, was violently assailed by the organs of the party
   which followed his lead. … The growing excitement of the
   popular mind was fanned to a flame by the arrival at
   Charleston, South Carolina [April 9], of 'Citizen' Genet, who
   was sent as the minister of the French Republic to the United
   States. Without repairing to the seat of government, or being
   accredited in any way, in his official capacity, he began to
   fit out privateers in Charleston, to cruise against the
   commerce of England. Although the utmost gentleness and
   patience were observed by the executive of the United States
   in checking this violation of their neutrality, Genet assumed
   from the first a tone of defiance, and threatened before long
   to appeal from the government to the people. These insolent
   demonstrations were of course lost upon Washington's firmness
   and moral courage. They distressed, but did not in the
   slightest degree intimidate him; and their effect on the
   popular mind was to some extent neutralized by the facts, that
   the chief measures to maintain the neutrality of the country
   had been unanimously advised by the Cabinet, and that the duty
   of rebuking his intemperate course had devolved upon the
   secretary of state [Jefferson], the recognized head of the
   party to which Genet looked for sympathy."

      E. Everett,
      Life of Washington,
      chapter 8.

   A demand for "Genet's recall was determined on during the
   first days of August. There was some discussion over the
   manner of requesting the recall, but the terms were made
   gentle by Jefferson, to the disgust of the Secretary of the
   Treasury and the Secretary of War [Hamilton and Knox], who
   desired direct methods and stronger language. As finally toned
   up and agreed upon by the President and cabinet, the document
   was sufficiently vigorous to annoy Genet, and led to bitter
   reproaches addressed to his friend in the State Department. …
   The letter asking Genet's recall, as desired by Washington,
   went in due time, and in the following February came a
   successor. Genet, however, did not go back to his native land,
   for he preferred to remain here and save his head, valueless
   as that article would seem to have been. He spent the rest of
   his days in America, married, harmless, and quite obscure. His
   noise and fireworks were soon over, and one wonders now how he
   could ever have made as much flare and explosion as he did."

      H. C. Lodge,
      George Washington,
      volume 2, pages 155-156.

      ALSO IN:
      H. S. Randall,
      Life of Jefferson,
      volume 2, chapter 4.

      J. T. Morse,
      Life of Hamilton,
      volume 2, chapter 3.

      American State Papers,
      volume 1, pages 140-188, 243-246, and 311-314.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1793.
   Whitney's Cotton-gin and the series of inventions
   which it made complete.
   Their political effect.
   The strengthening of the Slave Power, and the
   strengthening of Unionism.

   "Some English artisans, who, about the middle of the last
   century, were obtaining a scanty living by spinning, weaving
   and other such occupations, turned their inventive talent to
   the improvement of their art.
{3307}
   Paul and Wyatt introduced the operation of spinning by
   rollers; Highs, or Hargreaves, invented the jenny, by which a
   great many threads could be spun as easily as one. Paul
   devised the rotating carding-engine; Crompton the mule;
   Arkwright the water-frame, which produced any number of
   threads of any degree of fineness and hardness. These
   ingenious machines constituted a very great improvement on the
   spindle and distaff of ancient times, and on the
   spinning-wheel, originally brought from Asia, or perhaps
   reinvented in Europe. At length one spinner was able to
   accomplish as much work as one hundred could have formerly
   done. While the art of producing threads was undergoing this
   singular improvement, Cartwright, a clergyman, invented, in
   1785, the power-loom, intended to supersede the operation of
   weaving by hand, and to make the production of textile fabrics
   altogether the result of machinery. After some modifications,
   that loom successfully accomplished the object for which it
   was devised. As these inventions succeeded, they necessarily
   led to a demand for motive power. In the first little cotton
   factory, the germ of that embodiment of modern industry, the
   cotton-mill, a water-wheel was employed to give movement to
   the machinery. The establishment was, therefore, necessarily
   placed near a stream, where a sufficient fall could be
   obtained. The invention of the steam-engine by Watt, which was
   the consequence of the new and correct views of the nature of
   vapors that had been established by Dr. Black, supplied, in
   due time, the required motive power, and by degrees the
   water-wheel went almost out of use. Textile manufacture needed
   now but one thing more to become of signal importance—it
   needed a more abundant supply of raw material. … Cotton, the
   fibre chiefly concerned in these improvements, was obtained in
   limited quantities from various countries; but, at the time of
   the adoption of the Constitution, not a single pound was
   exported from the United States. What was grown here was for
   domestic consumption. Every good housewife had her
   spinning-wheel, every plantation its hand-loom. The difficulty
   of supplying cotton fibre in quantity sufficient to meet the
   demands of the new machinery was due to the imperfect means in
   use for separating the cotton from its seeds—a tedious
   operation, for the picking was done by hand. Eli Whitney, a
   native of Massachusetts, by his invention of the cotton-gin in
   1793, removed that difficulty. The fibre could be separated
   from the seeds with rapidity and at a trifling cost. There was
   nothing now to prevent an extraordinary development in the
   English manufactures. A very few years showed what the result
   would be. In 1790 no cotton was exported from the United
   States. Whitney's gin was introduced in 1793. The next year
   about 1½ million of pounds were exported; in 1795, about 5¼
   millions; in 1860, the quantity had reached 2,000 millions of
   pounds. The political effect of this mechanical invention,
   which thus proved to be the completion of all the previous
   English inventions, being absolutely necessary to give them
   efficacy, was at once seen in its accomplishing a great
   increase and a redistribution of population in England. … In
   the United States the effects were still more important.
   Cotton could be grown through all the Southern Atlantic and
   the Gulf States. It was more profitable than any other
   crop—but it was raised by slaves. Whatever might have been the
   general expectation respecting the impending extinction of
   slavery, it was evident that at the commencement of this
   century the conditions had altogether changed. A powerful
   interest had come into unforeseen existence both in Europe and
   America which depended on perpetuating that mode of labor.
   Moreover, before long it was apparent that, partly because of
   the adaptation of their climate to the growth of the plant,
   partly because of the excellence of the product, and partly
   owing to the increasing facilities for interior
   transportation, the cotton-growing states of America would
   have a monopoly in the supply of this staple. But, though
   mechanical invention had reinvigorated the slave power by
   bestowing on it the cotton-gin, it had likewise strengthened
   unionism by another inestimable gift—the steam-boat. At the
   very time that the African slave-trade was prohibited, Fulton
   was making his successful experiment of the navigation of the
   Hudson River by steam. This improvement in inland navigation
   rendered available, in a manner never before contemplated, the
   river and lake system of the continent; it gave an
   instantaneous value to the policy of Jefferson, by bringing
   into effectual use the Mississippi and its tributaries; it
   crowded with population the shores of the lakes; it threw the
   whole continent open to commerce, it strengthened the central
   power at Washington by diminishing space, and while it
   extended geographically the domain of the republic, it
   condensed it politically. It bound all parts of the Union more
   firmly together. … In the Constitution it had been agreed that
   three fifths of the slaves should be accounted as federal
   numbers in the apportionment of federal representation. A
   political advantage was thus given to slave labor. This closed
   the eyes of the South to all other means of solving its
   industrial difficulties. … To the cotton-planter two courses
   were open. He might increase his manual force, or he might
   resort to machinery. … It required no deep political
   penetration for him to perceive that the introduction of
   machinery must in the end result in the emancipation of the
   slave. Machinery and slavery are incompatible—the slave is
   displaced by the machine. In the Southern States political
   reasons thus discouraged the introduction of machinery. Under
   the Constitution an increased negro force had a political
   value, machinery had none. The cotton interest was therefore
   persuaded by those who were in a position to guide its
   movements, that its prosperity could be secured only through
   increased manual labor."

      Dr. J. W. Draper,
      History of the American Civil War,
      section 3, chapter 16 (volume 1).

      See, also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1818-1821.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1794.
   Resistance to the Excise.
   The Whisky Insurrection in Pennsylvania.

      See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1794.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1794-1795.
   Threatening relations with Great Britain.
   The Jay Treaty.

   "The daily increasing 'love-frenzy for France,' and the
   intemperate language of the Democratic press, naturally
   emphasized in England that reaction against America which set
   in with the treaty of peace. On the other hand, the retention
   of the frontier posts in violation of that treaty was a thorn
   in the side of the young Republic. In the course of the war
   England had adopted, by successive Orders in Council, a policy
   ruinous to the commerce of neutral nations, especially of the
   United States.
{3308}
   In the admiralty courts of the various British West India
   islands hundreds of ships from New England were seized and
   condemned, for carrying French produce or bearing cargoes of
   provisions chartered to French ports. The New England
   fishermen and shipowners were vociferous for war, and the
   Democratic clubs denounced every British insult and celebrated
   every French victory. On March 26, 1794, an embargo against
   British ships was proclaimed for thirty days, and then
   extended for thirty days longer. The day after the embargo was
   laid, Dayton, of New Jersey, moved in Congress to sequester
   all moneys due to British creditors, and apply it towards
   indemnifying shipowners for losses incurred through the Orders
   in Council; and on April 21st the Republicans moved a
   resolution to suspend, all commercial intercourse with Great
   Britain till the western posts should be given up, and
   indemnity be paid for injuries to American commerce in
   violation of the rights of neutrals. The passage of such an
   act meant war; and for war the United States was never more
   unprepared. … Peace could be secured only by immediate
   negotiation and at least a temporary settlement of the causes
   of neutral irritation, and for such a task the ministers at
   London and Washington were incompetent or unsuited. … In this
   crisis Washington decided to send to England a special envoy.
   Hamilton was his first choice, but Hamilton had excited bitter
   enmities." On Hamilton's recommendation, John Jay, the Chief
   Justice, was chosen for the difficult mission, and he sailed
   for England in May, 1794, landing at Falmouth on the 8th of
   June. Within the succeeding five months he accomplished the
   negotiation of a treaty, which was signed on the 19th of
   November. "The main points that Jay had been instructed to
   gain were compensation for negroes [carried away by the
   British armies on the evacuation of the country in 1783],
   surrender of the posts, and compensation for spoliations; in
   addition, a commercial treaty was desired. When Secretary for
   Foreign Affairs, Jay had argued that the negroes, some 3,000
   in number, who, at the time of the evacuation, were within the
   British lines, relying on proclamations that offered freedom,
   and who followed the troops to England, came within that
   clause of the treaty of peace which provided that the army
   should be withdrawn without 'carrying away any negroes or
   other property.' Lord Grenville, however, insisted upon
   refusing any compensation. Once within the British lines, he
   said, slaves were free for good and all. … From any point of
   view the matter was too insignificant to wreck the treaty upon
   it, and Jay waived the claim. As to the western posts [Oswego,
   Niagara, Detroit, Mackinaw, etc.], it was agreed that they
   should be surrendered by June 12, 1796. But compensation for
   the detention was denied on the ground that it was due to the
   breach of the treaty by the United States in permitting the
   States to prevent the recovery of British debts." For the
   determination and payment of such debts, it was now provided
   that a board of five commissioners should sit at Philadelphia;
   while another similar board at London should award
   compensation for irregular and illegal captures or
   condemnations made during the war between Great Britain and
   France. "Under this clause American merchants received
   $10,345,000. … The disputed questions of boundaries, arising
   from the construction of the treaty of peace, were referred to
   joint commissioners: properly enough, as the confusion was due
   to ignorance of the geography of the Northwest. British and
   American citizens holding lands at the time respectively in
   the United States and in any of the possessions of Great
   Britain were secured in their rights; a clause much objected
   to in America, but which was obviously just. A still more
   important provision followed, a novelty in international
   diplomacy, and a distinct advance in civilization: that war
   between the two countries should never be made the pretext for
   confiscation of debts or annulment of contracts between
   individuals. In the War of 1812 the United States happened for
   the moment to be the creditor nation, and the millions which
   this provision saved to her citizens it would be difficult to
   estimate. … It was the commercial articles which excited the
   most intense hostility in America. … To unprejudiced eyes,
   after the lapse of a hundred years, considering the mutual
   exasperation of the two peoples, the pride of England in her
   successes in the war with France, the weakness and division of
   the United States, the treaty seems a very fair one. Certainly
   one far less favorable to America would have been infinitely
   preferable to a war, and would probably in the course of time
   have been accepted as being so. The commercial advantages were
   not very considerable, but they at least served as 'an
   entering wedge,' to quote Jay's expression, and they were 'pro
   tanto' a clear gain to America. … The treaty was not published
   till July 2d. … Even before its contents were known, letters,
   signed 'Franklin,' appeared abusing the treaty; and in
   Philadelphia an effigy of Jay was placed in the pillory, and
   finally taken down, guillotined, the clothes fired, and the
   body blown up. It was clear, then, that it was not this
   particular treaty, but any treaty at all with Great Britain,
   that excited the wrath of the Republicans. On July 4th toasts
   insulting Jay or making odious puns on his name, were the
   fashion. … On June 24th the treaty was ratified by the Senate,
   with the exception of the article about the West India trade.
   On August 15th it was signed, with the same exception by
   Washington."

      G. Pellew,
      John Jay,
      chapter 11.

   "The reception given to the treaty cannot be fully explained
   by the existing relations between the United States and
   England. It was only in consequence of its Francomania that
   the opposition assumed the character of blind rage."

      H. von Holst,
      Constitutional and Political History of the United States,
      volume 1, page 124.

      ALSO IN:
      H. S. Randall,
      Life of Jefferson,
      volume 2, chapters 4-6.

      W. Jay,
      Life of John Jay,
      volume 1, chapters 8-10
      and volume 2, pages 216-264.

      American State Papers,
      volume 1, pages 464-525.

      J. B. McMaster,
      History of the People of the United States,
      volume 2, chapter 9.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1796.
   Admission of Tennessee to the Union.

      See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1785-1796.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1796.
   Washington's Farewell Address.

   "The period for the presidential election was drawing near,
   and great anxiety began to be felt that Washington would
   consent to stand for a third term. No one, it was agreed, had
   greater claim to the enjoyment of retirement, in consideration
   of public services rendered; but it was thought the affairs of
   the country would be in a very precarious condition should he
   retire before the wars of Europe were brought to a close.
{3309}
   Washington, however, had made up his mind irrevocably on the
   subject, and resolved to announce, in a farewell address, his
   intention of retiring. Such an instrument, it will be
   recollected, had been prepared for him from his own notes, by
   Mr. Madison, when he had thought of retiring at the end of his
   first term. As he was no longer in confidential intimacy with
   Mr. Madison, he turned to Mr. Hamilton as his adviser and
   coadjutor, and appears to have consulted him on the subject
   early in the present year [1796], for, in a letter dated New
   York, May 10th, Hamilton writes: 'When last in Philadelphia,
   you mentioned to me your wish that I should "re-dress" a
   certain paper which you had prepared. As it is important that
   a thing of this kind should be done with great care and much
   at leisure, touched and retouched, I submit a wish that, as
   soon as you have given it the body you mean it to have, it may
   be sent to me.' The paper was accordingly sent, on the 15th of
   May, in its rough state, altered in one part since Hamilton
   had seen it. 'If you should think it best to throw the whole
   into a different form,' writes Washington, 'let me request,
   notwithstanding, that my draft may be returned to me (along
   with yours) with such amendments and corrections as to render
   it as perfect as the formation is susceptible of; curtailed if
   too verbose, and relieved of all tautology not necessary to
   enforce the ideas in the original or quoted part. My wish is,
   that the whole may appear in a plain style; and be handed to
   the public in an honest, unaffected, simple garb.' We forbear
   to go into the vexed question concerning this address; how
   much of it is founded on Washington's original 'notes and
   heads of topics'; how much was elaborated by Madison, and how
   much is due to Hamilton's recasting and revision. The whole
   came under the supervision of Washington; and the instrument,
   as submitted to the press, was in his handwriting, with many
   ultimate corrections and alterations. Washington had no pride
   of authorship; his object always was to effect the purpose in
   hand, and for that he occasionally invoked assistance, to
   ensure a plain and clear exposition of his thoughts and
   intentions. The address certainly breathes his spirit
   throughout, is in perfect accordance with all his words and
   actions, and 'in an honest, unaffected, simple garb,' embodies
   the system of policy on which he had acted throughout his
   administration. It was published in September [17], in a
   Philadelphia paper called the Daily Advertiser. The
   publication of the Address produced a great sensation. Several
   of the State legislatures ordered it to be put on their
   journals."

      W. Irving,
      Life of Washington,
      volume 5, chapter 30.

   The following is the text of the Address.

   "To the people of the United States.
   Friends and Fellow-Citizens:
   The period for a new election of a citizen, to administer the
   executive government of the United States, being not far
   distant, and the time actually arrived, when your thoughts
   must be employed in designating the person, who is to be
   clothed with that important trust, it appears to me proper,
   especially as it may conduce to a more distinct expression of
   the public voice, that I should now apprize you of the
   resolution I have formed, to decline being considered among
   the number of those, out of whom a choice is to be made. I beg
   you, at the same time, to do me the justice to be assured,
   that this resolution has not been taken without a strict
   regard to an the considerations appertaining to the relation,
   which binds a dutiful citizen to his country; and that, in
   withdrawing the tender of service, which silence in my
   situation might imply, I am influenced by no diminution of
   zeal for your future interest; no deficiency of grateful
   respect for your past kindness; but am supported by a full
   conviction that the step is compatible with both. The
   acceptance of, and continuance hitherto in, the office to
   which your suffrages have twice called me, have been a uniform
   sacrifice of inclination to the opinion of duty, and to a
   deference for what appeared to be your desire. I constantly
   hoped, that it would have been much earlier in my power,
   consistently with motives, which I was not at liberty to
   disregard, to return to that retirement, from which I had been
   reluctantly drawn. The strength of my inclination to do this,
   previous to the last election, had even led to the preparation
   of an address to declare it to you; but mature reflection on
   the then perplexed and critical posture of our affairs with
   foreign nations, and the unanimous advice of persons entitled
   to my confidence, impelled me to abandon the idea. I rejoice,
   that the state of your concerns, external as well as internal,
   no longer renders the pursuit of inclination incompatible with
   the sentiment of duty, or propriety; and am persuaded,
   whatever partiality may be retained for my services, that, in
   the present circumstances of our country, you will not
   disapprove my determination to retire. The impressions, with
   which I first undertook the arduous trust, were explained on
   the proper occasion. In the discharge of this trust, I will
   only say, that I have, with good intentions, contributed
   towards the organization and administration of the government
   the best exertions of which a very fallible judgment was
   capable. Not unconscious, in the outset, of the inferiority of
   my qualifications, experience in my own eyes, perhaps still
   more in the eyes of others, has strengthened the motives to
   diffidence of myself; and every day the increasing weight of
   years admonishes me more and more, that the shade of
   retirement is as necessary to me as it will be welcome.
   Satisfied, that, if any circumstances have given peculiar
   value to my services, they were temporary, I have the
   consolation to believe, that, while choice and prudence invite
   me to quit the political scene, patriotism does not forbid it.
   In looking forward to the moment, which is intended to
   terminate the career of my public life, my feelings do not
   permit me to suspend the deep acknowledgment of that debt of
   gratitude, which I owe to my beloved country for the many
   honors it has conferred upon me; still more for the steadfast
   confidence with which it has supported me; and for the
   opportunities I have thence enjoyed of manifesting my
   inviolable attachment, by services faithful and persevering,
   though in usefulness unequal to my zeal. If benefits have
   resulted to our country from these services, let it always be
   remembered to your praise, and as an instructive example in
   our annals, that under circumstances in which the passions,
   agitated in every direction, were liable to mislead, amidst
   appearances sometimes dubious, vicissitudes of fortune often
   discouraging, in situations in which not unfrequently want of
   success has countenanced the spirit of criticism, the
   constancy of your support was the essential prop of the
   efforts, and a guarantee of the plans by which they were
   effected.
{3310}
   Profoundly penetrated with this idea, I shall carry it with me
   to my grave, as a strong incitement to unceasing vows that
   Heaven may continue to you the choicest tokens of its
   beneficence; that your union and brotherly affection may be
   perpetual; that the free constitution, which is the work of
   your hands, may be sacredly maintained; that its
   administration in every department may be stamped with wisdom
   and virtue; that, in fine, the happiness of the people of
   these States, under the auspices of liberty, may be made
   complete, by so careful a preservation and so prudent a use of
   this blessing, as will acquire to them the glory of
   recommending it to the applause, the affection, and adoption
   of every nation, which is yet a stranger to it. Here, perhaps,
   I ought to stop. But a solicitude for your welfare, which
   cannot end but with my life, and the apprehension of danger,
   natural to that solicitude, urge me, on an occasion like the
   present, to offer to your solemn contemplation, and to
   recommend to your frequent review, some sentiments, which are
   the result of much reflection, of no inconsiderable
   observation, and which appear to me all-important to the
   permanency of your felicity as a People. These will be offered
   to you with the more freedom, as you can only see in them the
   disinterested warnings of a parting friend, who can possibly
   have no personal motive to bias his counsel. Nor can I forget,
   as an encouragement to it, your indulgent reception of my
   sentiments on a former and not dissimilar occasion. Interwoven
   as is the love of liberty with every ligament of your hearts,
   no recommendation of mine is necessary to fortify or confirm
   the attachment. The unity of Government, which constitutes you
   one people, is also now dear to you. It is justly so: for it
   is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the
   support of your tranquillity at home, your peace abroad; of
   your safety; of your prosperity; of that very Liberty, which
   you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee, that, from
   different causes and from different quarters, much pains will
   be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the
   conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your
   political fortress against which the batteries of internal and
   external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though
   often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite
   moment, that you should properly estimate the immense value of
   your national Union to your collective and individual
   happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and
   immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think
   and speak of it as of the Palladium of your political safety
   and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous
   anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a
   suspicion, that it can in any event be abandoned; and
   indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt
   to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to
   enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various
   parts. For this you have every inducement of sympathy and
   interest. Citizens, by birth or choice, of a common country,
   that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The
   name of American, which belongs to you, in your national
   capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism, more
   than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With
   slight shades of difference, you have the same religion,
   manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a
   common cause fought and triumphed together; the Independence
   and Liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and
   joint efforts, of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.
   But these considerations, however powerfully they address
   themselves to your sensibility, are greatly outweighed by
   those, which apply more immediately to your interest. Here
   every portion of our country finds the most commanding motives
   for carefully guarding and preserving the Union of the whole.
   The North, in an unrestrained intercourse with the South,
   protected by the equal laws of a common government, finds, in
   the productions of the latter, great additional resources of
   maritime and commercial enterprise and precious materials of
   manufacturing industry. The South, in the same intercourse,
   benefiting by the agency of the North, sees its agriculture
   grow and its commerce expand. Turning partly into its own
   channels the seamen of the North, it finds its particular
   navigation invigorated; and, while it contributes, in
   different ways, to nourish and increase the general mass of
   the national navigation, it looks forward to the protection of
   a maritime strength, to which itself is unequally adapted. The
   East, in a like intercourse with the West, already finds, and
   in the progressive improvement of interior communications by
   land and water, will more and more find, a valuable vent for
   the commodities which it brings from abroad, or manufactures
   at home. The West derives from the East supplies requisite to
   its growth and comfort, and, what is perhaps of still greater
   consequence, it must of necessity owe the secure enjoyment of
   indispensable outlets for its own productions to the weight,
   influence, and the future maritime strength of the Atlantic
   side of the Union, directed by an indissoluble community of
   interest as one nation. Any other tenure by which the West can
   hold this essential advantage, whether derived from its own
   separate strength, or from an apostate and unnatural connexion
   with any foreign power, must be intrinsically precarious.
   While, then, every part of our country thus feels an immediate
   and particular interest in Union, all the parts combined
   cannot fail to find in the united mass of means and efforts
   greater strength, greater resource, proportionably greater
   security from external danger, a less frequent interruption of
   their peace by foreign nations; and, what is of inestimable
   value, they must derive from Union an exemption from those
   broils and wars between themselves, which so frequently
   afflict neighbouring countries not tied together by the same
   governments, which their own rivalships alone would be
   sufficient to produce, but which opposite foreign alliances,
   attachments, and intrigues would stimulate and embitter.
   Hence, likewise, they will avoid the necessity of those
   overgrown military establishments, which, under any form of
   government, are inauspicious to liberty and which are to be
   regarded as particularly hostile to Republican Liberty. In
   this sense it is, that your Union ought to be considered as a
   main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought
   to endear to you the preservation of the other.
{3311}
   These considerations speak a persuasive language to every
   reflecting and virtuous mind, and exhibit the continuance of
   the Union as a primary object of Patriotic desire. Is there a
   doubt, whether a common government can embrace so large a
   sphere? Let experience solve it. To listen to mere speculation
   in such a case were criminal. We are authorized to hope, that
   a proper organization of the whole, with the auxiliary agency
   of governments for the respective subdivisions, will afford a
   happy issue to the experiment. It is well worth a fair and
   full experiment. With such powerful and obvious motives to
   Union, affecting all parts of our country, while experience
   shall not have demonstrated its impracticability, there will
   always be reason to distrust the patriotism of those, who in
   any quarter may endeavour to weaken its bands. In
   contemplating the causes, which may disturb our Union, it
   occurs as matter of serious concern, that any ground should
   have been furnished for characterizing parties by Geographical
   discriminations, Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western;
   whence designing men may endeavour to excite a belief, that
   there is a real difference of local interests and views. One
   of the expedients of party to acquire influence, within
   particular districts, is to misrepresent the opinions and aims
   of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much
   against the jealousies and heart-burnings, which spring from
   these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each
   other those, who ought to be bound together by fraternal
   affection. The inhabitants of our western country have lately
   had a useful lesson on this head; they have seen, in the
   negotiation by the Executive, and in the unanimous
   ratification by the Senate, of the treaty with Spain, and in
   the universal satisfaction at that event, throughout the
   United States, a decisive proof how unfounded were the
   suspicious propagated among them of a policy in the General
   Government and in the Atlantic States unfriendly to their
   interests in regard to the Mississippi; they have been
   witnesses to the formation of two treaties, that with Great
   Britain, and that with Spain, which secure to them every thing
   they could desire, in respect to our foreign relations,
   towards confirming their prosperity. Will it not be their
   wisdom to rely for the preservation of these advantages on the
   Union by which they were procured? Will they not henceforth be
   deaf to those advisers, if such there are, who would sever
   them from their brethren, and connect them with aliens? To the
   efficacy and permanency of your Union, a Government for the
   whole is indispensable. No alliances, however strict, between
   the parts can be an adequate substitute; they must inevitably
   experience the infractions and interruptions, which all
   alliances in all times have experienced. Sensible of this
   momentous truth, you have improved upon your first essay, by
   the adoption of a Constitution of Government better calculated
   than your former for an intimate Union, and for the
   efficacious management of your common concerns. This
   Government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and
   unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature
   deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the
   distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and
   containing within itself a provision for its own amendment,
   has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect
   for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in
   its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of
   true Liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right
   of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of
   Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists,
   till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole
   people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the
   power and the right of the people to establish Government
   presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the
   established Government. All obstructions to the execution of
   the Laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever
   plausible character, with the real design to direct, control,
   counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the
   constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental
   principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize
   faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to
   put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the
   will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising
   minority of the community; and, according to the alternate
   triumphs of different parties, to make the public
   administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous
   projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and
   wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by
   mutual interests. However combinations or associations of the
   above descriptions may now and then answer popular ends, they
   are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent
   engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men
   will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to
   usurp for themselves the reins of government; destroying
   afterwards the very engines, which have lifted them to unjust
   dominion. Towards the preservation of your government, and the
   permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not
   only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to
   its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care
   the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious
   the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect, in the
   forms of the constitution, alterations, which will impair the
   energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be
   directly overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be
   invited, remember that time and habit are at least as
   necessary to fix the true character of governments, as of
   other human institutions; that experience is the surest
   standard, by which to test the real tendency of the existing
   constitution of a country; that facility in changes, upon the
   credit of mere hypothesis and opinion, exposes to perpetual
   change, from the endless variety of hypothesis and opinion;
   and remember, especially, that, for the efficient management
   of your common interests, in a country so extensive as ours, a
   government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect
   security of liberty is indispensable. Liberty itself will find
   in such a government, with powers properly distributed and
   adjusted, its surest guardian. It is, indeed, little else than
   a name, where the government is too feeble to withstand the
   enterprise of faction, to confine each member of the society
   within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all
   in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person
   and property.
{3312}
   I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the
   state, with particular reference to the founding of them on
   geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more
   comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner
   against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally.
   This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature,
   having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind.
   It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or
   less stilled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the
   popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is
   truly their worst enemy. The alternate domination of one
   faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge,
   natural to party dissension, which in different ages and
   countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is
   itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a
   more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and
   miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to
   seek security and repose in the absolute power of an
   individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing
   faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors,
   turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation,
   on the ruins of Public Liberty. Without looking forward to an
   extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be
   entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of
   the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and
   duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it. It serves
   always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the
   Public Administration. It agitates the Community with
   ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity
   of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and
   insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and
   corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government
   itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy
   and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and
   will of another. There is an opinion, that parties in free
   countries are useful checks upon the administration of the
   Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty.
   This within certain limits is probably true; and in
   Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with
   indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But
   in those of the popular character, in Governments purely
   elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their
   natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of
   that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being
   constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of
   public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be
   quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its
   bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should
   consume. It is important, likewise, that the habits of
   thinking in a free country should inspire caution, in those
   intrusted with its administration, to confine themselves
   within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in
   the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon
   another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the
   powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create,
   whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just
   estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it,
   which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to
   satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of
   reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by
   dividing and distributing it into different depositories, and
   constituting each the Guardian of the Public Weal against
   invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments
   ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our
   own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to
   institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the
   distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be
   in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment
   in the way, which the constitution designates. But let there
   be no change by usurpation; for, though this, in one instance,
   may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by
   which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must
   always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or
   transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield. Of all
   the dispositions and habits, which lead to political
   prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports.
   In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who
   should labor to subvert these great pillars of human
   happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and
   Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man,
   ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace
   all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it
   simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for
   reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation
   desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation
   in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the
   supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion.
   Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education
   on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both
   forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in
   exclusion of religious principle. It is substantially true,
   that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular
   government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force
   to every species of free government. Who, that is a sincere
   friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to
   shake the foundation of the fabric? Promote, then, as an
   object of primary importance, institutions for the general
   diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a
   government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that
   public opinion should be enlightened. As a very important
   source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One
   method of preserving it is, to use it as sparingly as
   possible; avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace,
   but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for
   danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel
   it; avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by
   shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertions in
   time of peace to discharge the debts, which unavoidable wars
   may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity
   the burthen, which we ourselves ought to bear. The execution
   of these maxims belongs to your representatives, but it is
   necessary that public opinion should cooperate.
{3313}
   To facilitate to them the performance of their duty, it is
   essential that you should practically bear in mind, that
   towards the payment of debts there must be Revenue; that to
   have Revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be
   devised, which are not more or less inconvenient and
   unpleasant, that the intrinsic embarrassment, inseparable from
   the selection of the proper objects (which is always a choice
   of difficulties), ought to be a decisive motive for a candid
   construction of the conduct of the government in making it,
   and for a spirit of acquiescence in the measures for obtaining
   revenue, which the public exigencies may at any time dictate.
   Observe good faith and justice towards all Nations; cultivate
   peace and harmony with all. Religion and Morality enjoin this
   conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally
   enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and, at
   no distant period, a great Nation, to give to mankind the
   magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by
   an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt, that, in
   the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would
   richly repay any temporary advantages, which might be lost by
   a steady adherence to it? Can it be, that Providence has not
   connected the permanent felicity of a Nation with its Virtue?
   The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment
   which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible
   by its vices? In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more
   essential, than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against
   particular Nations, and passionate attachments for others,
   should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and
   amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The
   Nation, which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or
   an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave
   to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is
   sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest.
   Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more
   readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight
   causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when
   accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence
   frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody
   contests. The Nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment,
   sometimes impels to war the Government, contrary to the best
   calculations of policy. The Government sometimes participates
   in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what
   reason would reject; at other times, it makes the animosity of
   the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by
   pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives.
   The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of Nations has
   been the victim. So likewise, a passionate attachment of one
   Nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for
   the favorite Nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary
   common interest, in cases where no real common interest
   exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other
   betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and
   wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or
   justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite
   Nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to
   injure the Nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily
   parting with what ought to have been retained; and by exciting
   jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the
   parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives
   to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens, (who devote
   themselves to the favorite nation,) facility to betray or
   sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium,
   sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances
   of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for
   public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base
   of foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or
   infatuation. As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable
   ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly
   enlightened and independent Patriot. How many opportunities do
   they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practise the
   arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or
   awe the Public Councils! Such an attachment of a small or
   weak, towards a great and powerful nation, dooms the former to
   be the satellite of the latter. Against the insidious wiles of
   foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me,
   fellow-citizens,) the jealousy of a free people ought to be
   constantly awake; since history and experience prove, that
   foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of
   Republican Government. But that jealousy, to be useful, must
   be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very
   influence to be avoided, instead of a defence against it.
   Excessive partiality for one foreign nation, and excessive
   dislike of another, cause those whom they actuate to see
   danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the
   arts of influence on the other. Real patriots, who may resist
   the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected
   and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and
   confidence of the people, to surrender their interests. The
   great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations,
   is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them
   as little political connexion as possible. So far as we have
   already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect
   good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary
   interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation.
   Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the
   causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns.
   Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate
   ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of
   her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of
   her friendships or enmities. Our detached and distant
   situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course.
   If we remain one people, under an efficient government, the
   period is not far off, when we may defy material injury from
   external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will
   cause the neutrality, we may at any time resolve upon, to be
   scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the
   impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly
   hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or
   war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel. Why
   forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our
   own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our
   destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace
   and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship,
   interest, humor, or caprice? It is our true policy to steer
   clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign
   world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for
   let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity
   to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable
   to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the
   best policy.
{3314}
   I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in
   their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and
   would be unwise to extend them. Taking care always to keep
   ourselves, by suitable establishments, on a respectable
   defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances
   for extraordinary emergencies. Harmony, liberal intercourse
   with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and
   interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal
   and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive
   favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of
   things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams
   of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing, with powers so
   disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define
   the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to
   support them, conventional rules of intercourse, the best that
   present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but
   temporary, and liable to be from time to time abandoned or
   varied, as experience and circumstances shall dictate;
   constantly keeping in view, that it is folly in one nation to
   look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay
   with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept
   under that character; that, by such acceptance, it may place
   itself in the condition of having given equivalents for
   nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude
   for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to
   expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It
   is an illusion, which experience must cure, which a just pride
   ought to discard. In offering to you, my countrymen, these
   counsels of an old and affectionate friend, I dare not hope
   they will make the strong and lasting impression I could wish;
   that they will control the usual current of the passions, or
   prevent our nation from running the course, which has hitherto
   marked the destiny of nations. But, if I may even flatter
   myself, that they may be productive of some partial benefit,
   some occasional good; that they may now and then recur to
   moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the
   mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures
   of pretended patriotism; this hope will be a full recompense
   for the solicitude for your welfare, by which they have been
   dictated. How far in the discharge of my official duties, I
   have been guided by the principles which have been delineated,
   the public records and other evidences of my conduct must
   witness to you and to the world. To myself, the assurance of
   my own conscience is, that I have at least believed myself to
   be guided by them. In relating to the still subsisting war in
   Europe, my Proclamation of the 22d of April, 1793, is the
   index to my Plan. Sanctioned by your approving voice, and by
   that of your Representatives in both Houses of Congress, the
   spirit of that measure has continually governed me,
   uninfluenced by any attempts to deter or divert me from it.
   After deliberate examination, with the aid of the best lights
   I could obtain, I was well satisfied that our country, under
   all the circumstances of the case, had a right to take, and
   was bound in duty and interest to take, a neutral position.
   Having taken it, I determined, as far as should depend upon
   me, to maintain it, with moderation, perseverance, and
   firmness. The considerations, which respect the right to hold
   this conduct, it is not necessary on this occasion to detail.
   I will only observe, that, according to my understanding of
   the matter, that right, so far from being denied by any of the
   Belligerent Powers, has been virtually admitted by all. The
   duty of holding a neutral conduct may be inferred, without
   anything more, from the obligation which justice and humanity
   impose on every nation, in cases in which it is free to act,
   to maintain inviolate the relations of peace and amity towards
   other nations. The inducements of interest for observing that
   conduct will best be referred to your own reflections and
   experience. With me, a predominant motive has been to
   endeavour to gain time to our country to settle and mature its
   yet recent institutions, and to progress without interruption
   to that degree of strength and consistency, which is necessary
   to give it, humanly speaking, the command of its own fortunes.
   Though, in reviewing the incidents of my administration, I am
   unconscious of intentional error, I am nevertheless too
   sensible of my defects not to think it probable that I may
   have committed many errors. Whatever they may be, I fervently
   beseech the Almighty to avert or mitigate the evils to which
   they may tend. I shall also carry with me the hope, that my
   Country will never cease to view them with indulgence; and
   that, after forty-five years of my life dedicated to its
   service with an upright zeal, the faults of incompetent
   abilities will be consigned to oblivion, as myself must soon
   be to the mansions of rest. Relying on its kindness in this as
   in other things, and actuated by that fervent love towards it,
   which is so natural to a man, who views in it the native soil
   of himself and his progenitors for several generations; I
   anticipate with pleasing expectation that retreat, in which I
   promise myself to realize, without alloy, the sweet enjoyment
   of partaking, in the midst of my fellow-citizens, the benign
   influence of good laws under a free government, the ever
   favorite object of my heart, and the happy reward, as I trust,
   of our mutual cares, labors, and dangers.
      GEORGE WASHINGTON."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1796.
   Third Presidential Election.
   Washington succeeded by John Adams.

   After the appearance of Washington's Farewell Address, the
   result of the Presidential election became exceedingly
   doubtful. "There was no second man to whom the whole of the
   nation could be won over. The Federalists … could not bring
   forward a single candidate who could calculate on the
   unanimous and cheerful support of the entire party. There
   still prevailed at the time a feeling among the people that
   the vice-president had a sort of claim to the succession to
   the presidency. But even apart from this, Adams would have
   been one of the most prominent candidates of the Federalists.
   The great majority of them soon gave him a decided preference
   over all other possible candidates. On the other hand, some of
   the most distinguished and influential of the Federalists
   feared serious consequences to the party and the country from
   the vanity and violence as well as from the egotism and
   irresolution with which he was charged. But to put him aside
   entirely was not possible, nor was it their wish. They
   thought, however, to secure a greater number of electoral
   votes for Thomas Pinckney, the Federal candidate for the
   vice-presidency, which, as the constitution then stood, would
   have made him president and Adams vice-president.
{3315}
   Although this plan was anxiously concealed from the people, it
   caused the campaign to be conducted by the party with less
   energy than if the leaders had been entirely unanimous. France
   was naturally desirous of Jefferson's success. … Wolcott
   asserted that Adet had publicly declared that France's future
   policy towards the United States would depend on the result of
   the election. Some did not hesitate to say that, on this
   account, Jefferson should have the preference, but on the more
   thoughtful Federalists it exerted the very opposite influence.
   There is no reason for the assumption that the issue of the
   election would have been different, had Adet behaved more
   discreetly. But his indiscretion certainly contributed to make
   the small majority expected for Adams completely certain,
   while Hamilton's flank movement in favor of Pinckney helped
   Jefferson to the vice-presidency. … The result of the
   election, however, left the country in a very serious
   condition. Washington's withdrawal removed the last restraint
   from party passion."

      H. von Holst,
      The Constitutional and Political History of the United States,
      volume 1, chapter 3.

   Adams received 71 votes in the Electoral College and Jefferson
   68. As the constitution then provided, the majority of votes
   elected the President and the next greatest number of votes
   elected the Vice President.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1797-1799.
   Troubles with the French Republic.
   The X, Y, Z correspondence.
   On the brink of war.

   "Mr. Adams took his cabinet from his predecessor; it was not a
   strong one, and it was devoted to Hamilton, between whom and
   the new President there was soon a divergence, Hamilton being
   fond of power, and Adams having a laudable purpose to command
   his own ship. The figure of speech is appropriate, for he
   plunged into a sea of troubles, mainly created by the
   unreasonable demands of the French government. The French
   'Directory,' enraged especially by Jay's treaty with England,
   got rid of one American minister by remonstrance, and drove
   out another [Pinckney] with contempt. When Mr. Adams sent
   three special envoys [Gerry, Marshall, and Pinckney], they
   were expected to undertake the most delicate negotiations with
   certain semi-official persons designated in their
   correspondence only by the letters X, Y, Z. The plan of this
   covert intercourse came through the private secretary of M. de
   Talleyrand, then French Minister for Foreign Affairs; and the
   impudence of these three letters of the alphabet went so far
   as to propose a bribe of 1,200,000 francs (some $220,000) to
   be paid over to this minister. 'You must pay money, a great
   deal of money,' remarked Monsieur Y ('Il faut de l'argent,
   beaucoup de l'argent'). The secret of these names was kept,
   but the diplomatic correspondence was made public, and created
   much wrath in Europe as well as in America. Moreover, American
   vessels were constantly attacked by France, and yet Congress
   refused to arm its own ships. At last the insults passed
   beyond bearing, and it was at this time that 'Millions for
   defence, not one cent for tribute,' first became a proverbial
   phrase, having been originally used by Charles C. Pinckney. …
   Then, with tardy decision, the Republicans yielded to the
   necessity of action, and the Federal party took the lead. War
   was not formally proclaimed, but treaties with France were
   declared to be no longer binding. An army was ordered to be
   created, with Washington as Lieutenant-general and Hamilton as
   second in command; and the President was authorized to appoint
   a Secretary of the Navy and to build twelve new ships-of-war.
   Before these were ready, naval hostilities had actually begun;
   and Commodore Truxtun, in the United States frigate
   Constellation, captured a French frigate in West Indian waters
   (February 9. 1799), and afterwards silenced another, which
   however escaped. Great was the excitement over these early
   naval successes of the young nation. Merchant-ships were
   authorized to arm themselves, and some 300 acted upon this
   authority. … The result of it all was that France yielded.
   Talleyrand, the very minister who had dictated the insults,
   now disavowed them, and pledged his government to receive any
   minister the United States might send. The President, in the
   most eminently courageous act of his life, took the
   responsibility of again sending ambassadors; and did this
   without even consulting his cabinet, which would, as he well
   knew, oppose it. They were at once received, and all danger of
   war with France was at an end. This bold stroke separated the
   President permanently from at least half of his own party,
   since the Federalists did not wish for peace with France. His
   course would have given him a corresponding increase of favor
   from the other side, but for the great mistake the Federalists
   had made in passing certain laws, called the 'Alien' law and
   the 'Sedition' law."

      T. W. Higginson,
      Larger History of the United States,
      chapter 14.

      ALSO IN:
      J. T. Austin,
      Life of Elbridge Gerry,
      volume 2, chapters 5-8.

      John Quincy and Charles Francis Adams,
      Life of John Adams,
      chapter 10 (volume 2).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1797-1800.
   Early attitude of the Slavocracy in Congress.
   Treatment of Free Blacks.

   "Many people will not allow the least blame to be cast on this
   period [the later years of the 18th century], because it does
   not harmonize with their admiration of the 'fathers,' and
   because they have adopted, without any proof, the common view
   that the deeper shadows of slavery and slavocracy first
   appeared comparatively late. … In reading through the debates
   [in Congress], single striking instances of injustice do not
   make the deepest impression. It is the omnipresent
   unwillingness to practice justice towards colored
   persons,—yes, even to recognize them as actual beings. When
   the defense of their rights is demanded, then congress has
   always a deaf ear. … Swanwick of Pennsylvania laid before the
   house of representatives, January 30, 1797, a petition from
   four North Carolina negroes who had been freed by their
   masters. Since a state law condemned them to be sold again,
   they had fled to Philadelphia. There they had been seized
   under the fugitive slave law … and now prayed congress for its
   intervention. Blount of North Carolina declared that only when
   it was 'proved' that these men were free, could congress
   consider the petition. Sitgreaves of Pennsylvania asked, in
   reply to this, what sort of proof was offered that the four
   negroes were not free. This question received no answer. Smith
   of South Carolina and Christie of Maryland simply expressed
   their amazement that any member whatever could have presented
   a petition of 'such an unheard-of nature.'
{3316}
   Swanwick and some other representatives affirmed that the
   petition must be submitted to a committee for investigation
   and consideration, because the petitioners complained of
   violation of their rights under a law of the Union. No reply
   could be made to this and no reply was attempted. This
   decisive point was simply set aside, and it was voted by fifty
   ayes to thirty-three noes not to receive the petition. … In
   order to reach this result, Smith had produced the customary
   impression by the declaration that the refusal of the demand
   made by the representatives from the southern states would
   drive a 'wedge' into the Union. When, three years later, the
   same question was brought before congress again by a petition
   of the free negroes of Philadelphia, Rutledge of South
   Carolina declared in even plainer terms that the south would
   be forced to the sad necessity of going its own way. … The
   whites who troubled themselves about slaves or free colored
   persons had no better reception. Year after year the Quakers
   came indefatigably with new petitions, and each time had to
   undergo the same scornful treatment. … In all the cases
   mentioned, the tactics of the representatives of the
   slaveholding interest were the same and they maintained them
   unchanged up to the last. If congress was urged to act in any
   way which did not please them, then slavery was always a
   'purely municipal affair.'"

      H. von Holst,
      Constitutional and Political History of the United States,
      volume 1, chapter 8.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1798.
   The Alien and Sedition Laws and
   the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions.

   "The outrages which we suffered from the injustice of England
   and France gave additional bitterness to the strife between
   parties at home. The anti-federal press was immoderate in its
   assaults upon the administration. It so happened that several
   of the anti-federal papers were conducted by foreigners.
   Indeed, there were many foreigners in the country whose
   sympathies were with the French, and their hostility to the
   administration was open and passionate. The federal leaders
   determined to crush out by the strong arm of the law these
   publishers of slanders and fomenters of discontent. Hence the
   famous 'alien and sedition laws' were passed. The remedy
   devised was far worse than the disease. It hastened the
   federal party to its tomb, and was the occasion of the
   formulation of that unfortunate creed of constitutional
   construction and of state sovereignty known as the 'Virginia
   and Kentucky Resolutions' of 1798-99."

      J. S. Landon,
      Constitutional History and Government of the United States,
      lecture 6.

   The series of strong measures carried by the Federalists
   comprised the Naturalization Act of June 18, the Alien Act of
   June 25, the second Alien Act, of July 6, and the Sedition Act
   of July 14, 1798.

   The text of the Naturalization Act is as follows:

   June 18, 1798. Acts of the Fifth Congress,
   Statute II., Chapter liv.:

   "An Act supplementary to, and to amend the act, intituled 'An
   act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization; and to
   repeal the act heretofore passed on that subject.'

   Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
   Representatives of the United States of America in Congress
   assembled, That no alien shall be admitted to become a citizen
   of the United States, or of any state, unless in the manner
   prescribed by the act, intituled 'An act to establish an
   uniform rule of naturalization; and to repeal the act
   heretofore passed on that subject,' he shall have declared his
   intention to become a citizen of the United States, five
   years, at least, before his admission, and shall, at the time
   of his application to be admitted, declare and prove, to the
   satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction in the case,
   that he has resided within the United States fourteen years,
   at least, and within the state or territory where, or for
   which such court is at the time held, five years, at least,
   besides conforming to the other declarations, renunciations
   and proofs, by the said act required, anything therein to the
   contrary hereof notwithstanding: Provided, that any alien, who
   was residing within the limits, and under the jurisdiction of
   the United States, before the twenty-ninth day of January, one
   thousand seven hundred and ninety-five, may, within one year
   after the passing of this act—and any alien who shall have
   made the declaration of his intention to become a citizen of
   the United States, in conformity to the provisions of the act,
   intituled 'An act to establish an uniform rule of
   naturalization; and to repeal the act heretofore passed on
   that subject,' may, within four years after having made the
   declaration aforesaid, be admitted to become a citizen, in the
   manner prescribed by the said act, upon his making proof that
   he has resided five years, at least, within the limits, and
   under the jurisdiction of the United States: And provided
   also, that no alien, who shall be a native, citizen, denizen
   or subject of any nation or state with whom the United States
   shall be at war, at the time of his application, shall be then
   admitted to become a citizen of the United States."

      Statutes at Large of the United States, edition 1850.
      volume 1, pages 566-567.

   The following is the text of the two Alien Acts:

   June 25, 1798. Statute II., Chapter lviii.
   "An Act Concerning Aliens.

   Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
   Representatives of the United States of America in Congress
   assembled, That it shall be lawful for the President of the
   United States at any time during the continuance of this act,
   to order all such aliens as he shall judge dangerous to the
   peace and safety of the United States, or shall have
   reasonable grounds to suspect are concerned in any treasonable
   or secret machinations against the government thereof, to
   depart out of the territory of the United States, within such
   time as shall be expressed in such order, which order shall be
   served on such alien by de·livering him a copy thereof, or
   leaving the same at his usual abode, and returned to the
   office of the Secretary of State, by the marshal or other
   person to whom the same shall be directed. And in case any
   alien, so ordered to depart, shall be found at large within
   the United States after the time limited in such order for his
   departure, and not having obtained a license from the
   President to reside therein, or having obtained such license
   shall not have conformed thereto, every such alien shall, on
   conviction thereof, be imprisoned for a term not exceeding
   three years, and shall never after be admitted to become a
   citizen of the United States.
{3317}
   Provided always and be it further enacted, that if any alien
   so ordered to depart shall prove to the satisfaction of the
   President, by evidence to be taken before such person or
   persons as the President shall direct, who are for that
   purpose hereby authorized to administer oaths, that no injury
   or danger to the United States will arise from suffering such
   alien to reside therein, the President may grant a license to
   such alien to remain within the United States for such time as
   he shall judge proper, and at such place as he may designate.
   And the President may also require of such alien to enter into
   a bond to the United States, in such penal sum as he may
   direct, with one or more sufficient sureties to the
   satisfaction of the person authorized by the President to take
   the same, conditioned for the good behavior of such alien
   during his residence in the United States, and not violating
   his license, which license the President may revoke whenever
   he shall think proper.

   Section 2. And be it further enacted, That it shall be lawful
   for the President of the United States, whenever he may deem
   it necessary for the public safety, to order to be removed out
   of the territory thereof, any alien who may or shall be in
   prison in pursuance of this act; and to cause to be arrested
   and sent out of the United States such of those aliens as
   shall have been ordered to depart therefrom and shall not have
   obtained a license as aforesaid, in all cases where, in the
   opinion of the President, the public safety requires a speedy
   removal. And if any alien so removed or sent out of the United
   States by the President shall voluntarily return thereto,
   unless by permission of the President of the United States,
   such alien on conviction thereof, shall be imprisoned so long
   as, in the opinion of the President, the public safety may
   require.

   Section 3. And be it further enacted, That every master or
   commander of any ship or vessel which shall come into any port
   of the United States after the first day of July next, shall
   immediately on his arrival make report in writing to the
   collector, or other chief officer of the customs of such port,
   of all aliens, if any, on board his vessel, specifying their
   names, age, the place of nativity, the country from which they
   shall have come, the nation to which they belong and owe
   allegiance, their occupation and a description of their
   persons, as far as he shall be informed thereof, and on
   failure, every such master and commander shall forfeit and pay
   three hundred dollars, for the payment whereof on default of
   such master or commander, such vessel shall also be holden,
   and may by such collector or other officer of the customs be
   detained. And it shall be the duty of such collector, or other
   officer of the customs, forthwith to transmit to the officer
   of the department of state true copies of all such returns.

   Section 4. And be it further enacted, That the circuit and
   district courts of the United States, shall respectively have
   cognizance of all crimes and offences against this act. And
   all marshals and other officers of the United States are
   required to execute all precepts and orders of the President
   of the United States issued in pursuance or by virtue of this
   act.

   Section 5. And be it further enacted, That it shall be lawful
   for any alien who may be ordered to be removed from the United
   States, by virtue of this act, to take with him such part of
   his goods, chattels, or other property, as he may find
   convenient; and all property left in the United States by any
   alien, who may be removed, as aforesaid, shall be, and remain
   subject to his order and disposal, in the same manner as if
   this act had not been passed.

   Section 6. And be it further enacted, That this act shall
   continue and be in force for and during the term of two years
   from the passing thereof.

   Approved, June 25, 1798."

      Statutes at Large of the United States, edition 1850,
      Volume I., pages 570-572.

   July 6, 1798. Statute II., Chapter lxvi.
   "An Act respecting Alien Enemies.

   Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
   Representatives of the United States of America in Congress
   assembled, That whenever there shall be a declared war between
   the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any
   invasion or predatory incursion shall be perpetrated,
   attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United
   States, by any foreign nation or government, and the President
   of the United States shall make public proclamation of the
   event, all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the
   hostile nation or government, being males of the age of
   fourteen years and upwards, who shall be within the United
   States, and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be
   apprehended, restrained, secured and removed, as alien
   enemies. And the President of the United States shall be, and
   he is hereby authorized, in any event, as aforesaid, by his
   proclamation thereof or other public act, to direct the
   conduct to be observed, on the part of the United States,
   towards the aliens who shall become liable as aforesaid; the
   manner and degree of the restraint to which they shall be
   subject, and in what cases, and upon what security their
   residence shall be permitted, and to provide for the removal
   of those, who, not being permitted to reside within the United
   States, shall refuse or neglect to depart therefrom; and to
   establish any other regulations which shall be found necessary
   in the premises and for the public safety; Provided, that
   aliens resident within the United States, who shall become
   liable as enemies, in the manner aforesaid, and who shall not
   be chargeable with actual hostility, or other crime against
   the public safety, shall be allowed for the recovery,
   disposal, and removal of their goods and effects, and for
   their departure, the full time which is, or shall be
   stipulated by any treaty, where any shall have been between
   the United States and the hostile nation or government, of
   which they shall be natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects:
   and when no such treaty shall have existed, the President of
   the United States may ascertain and declare such reasonable
   time as may be consistent with the public safety, and
   according to the dictates of humanity and national
   hospitality.

   Section 2. And be it further enacted, That after any
   proclamation shall be made as aforesaid, it shall be the duty
   of the several courts of the United States, and of each state,
   having criminal jurisdiction, and of the several judges and
   justices of the courts of the United States, and they shall
   be, and are hereby respectively, authorized upon complaint,
   against any alien or alien enemies, as aforesaid, who shall be
   resident and at large within such jurisdiction or district, to
   the danger of the public peace or safety, and contrary to the
   tenor or intent of such proclamation, or other regulations
   which the President of the United States shall and may
   establish in the premises, to cause such alien or aliens to be
   duly apprehended and convened before such court, judge or
   Justice; and after a full examination and hearing on such
   complaint, and sufficient cause therefor appearing, shall and
   may order such alien or aliens to be removed out of the
   territory of the United States, or to give such sureties for
   their good behaviour, or to be otherwise restrained,
   conformably to the proclamation or regulations which shall or
   may be established as aforesaid, and may imprison, or
   otherwise secure such alien or aliens, until the order which
   shall and may be made, as aforesaid, shall be performed.

{3318}

   Section 3. And be it further enacted, That it shall be the
   duty of the marshal of the district in which any alien enemy
   shall be apprehended, who by the President of the United
   States, or by the order of any court, judge or justice, as
   aforesaid, shall be required to depart, and to be removed, as
   aforesaid, to provide therefor, and to execute such order, by
   himself or his deputy, or other discreet person or persons to
   be employed by him, by causing a removal of such alien out of
   the territory of the United States; and for such removal the
   marshal shall have the warrant of the President of the United
   States, or of the court, judge or justice ordering the same,
   as the case may be.

   Approved, July 6, 1798."

      Statutes at Large of the United States, edition of 1850,
      Volume I, page 577.

   The text of the Sedition Act is as follows:

   JULY 14, 1798. Chapter lxxiv.

   "An Act in addition to the act, entitled 'An Act for the
   punishment of certain crimes against the United States.'

   Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
   Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress
   assembled, That if any persons shall unlawfully combine or
   conspire together, with intent to oppose any measure or
   measures of the government of the United States, which are or
   shall be directed by proper authority, or to impede the
   operation of any law of the United States, or to intimidate or
   prevent any person holding a place or office in or under the
   government of the United States, from undertaking, performing
   or executing, his trust or duty; and if any person or persons,
   with intent as aforesaid, shall counsel, advise or attempt to
   procure any insurrection, riot, unlawful assembly, or
   combination, whether such conspiracy, threatening, counsel,
   advice, or attempt shall have the proposed effect or not, he
   or they shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor, and on
   conviction before any court of the United States having
   jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not
   exceeding five thousand dollars and by imprisonment during a
   term not less than six months nor exceeding five years; and
   further at the discretion of the court may be holden to find
   sureties for his good behavior in such sum, and for such time,
   as the said court may direct.

   Section 2. And be it further enacted, That if any person shall
   write, print, utter, or publish, or shall cause or procure to
   be written, printed, uttered or published or shall knowingly
   and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering or
   publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or
   writings against the government of the United States, or
   either house of the Congress of the United States, or the
   President of the United States, with intent to defame the said
   government, or either house of the said Congress, or the said
   President, or to bring them or either of them, into contempt
   or disrepute; or to excite against them, or either, or any of
   them, the hatred of the good people of the United States, or
   to stir up sedition within the United States, or to excite any
   unlawful combinations therein, for opposing or resisting any
   law of the United States, or any act of the President of the
   United States, and one in pursuance of any such law, or of the
   powers in him vested by the constitution of the United States,
   or to resist, oppose or defeat any such law or act, or to aid,
   encourage or abet any hostile designs of any foreign nation
   against the United States, their people or government, then
   such person, being thereof convicted before any court of the
   United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished
   by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by
   imprisonment not exceeding two years.

   Section 3. And be it further enacted and declared, That if any
   person shall be prosecuted under this act, for the writing or
   publishing any libel aforesaid, it shall be lawful for the
   defendant, upon the trial of the cause, to give in evidence in
   his defence, the truth of the matter contained in the
   publication charged as a libel. And the jury who shall try the
   cause, shall have a right to determine the law and the fact,
   under the direction of the court, as in other cases.

   Section 4. And be it further enacted, That this act shall
   continue and be in force until the third day of March, one
   thousand eight hundred and one, and no longer: Provided that
   the expiration of the act shall not prevent or defeat a
   prosecution and punishment of any offence against the law,
   during the time it shall be in force. Approved July 14, 1798."

   "There has been a general effort on the part of biographers to
   clear their respective heroes from all responsibility for
   these ill-fated measures. The truth is, that they had the full
   support of the congressmen and senators who passed, them, of
   the President who signed them, and of all the leaders in the
   States, who almost all believed in them; and they also met
   with very general acceptance by the party in the North.
   Hamilton went as far in the direction of sustaining the
   principle of these laws as any one. He had too acute a mind to
   believe with many of the staunch Federalist divines of New
   England, that Jefferson and Madison were Marats and
   Robespierres, and that their followers were Jacobins who, when
   they came to power, were ready for the overthrow of religion
   and society, and were prepared to set up a guillotine and pour
   out blood in the waste places of the federal city. But he did
   believe, and so wrote to Washington, after the appearance of
   the X. Y. Z. letters that there was a party in the country
   ready to 'new model' the constitution on French principles, to
   form an offensive and defensive alliance with France, and make
   the United States a French province. He felt, in short, that
   there was a party in America ready for confiscation and social
   confusion. A year later, in 1799, he wrote to Dayton, the
   speaker of the national House of Representatives, a long
   letter in which he set forth very clearly the policy which he
   felt ought to be pursued.
{3319}
   He wished to give strength to the government, and increase
   centralization by every means, by an extension of the national
   judiciary, a liberal system of internal improvements, an
   increased and abundant revenue, an enlargement of the army and
   navy, permanence in the laws for the volunteer army, extension
   of the powers of the general government, subdivision of the
   States as soon as practicable, and finally a strong sedition
   law, and the power to banish aliens. This was what was termed
   at that day a 'strong and spirited' policy; it would now be
   called repressive, but by whatever name it is designated, it
   was the policy of Hamilton, and is characteristic of both his
   talents and temperament. Except as to the subdivision of
   States, it was carried out pretty thoroughly in all its main
   features by the Federalists. The alien and sedition laws,
   although resisted in Congress, did not much affect public
   opinion at the elections which immediately ensued, and the
   Federalists came into the next Congress with a large
   majority."

      Henry Cabot Lodge,
      Alexander Hamilton,
      chapter 9.

   "The different portions of the country were affected according
   to the dominant political opinion. Where the Federalists were
   strong political feeling bore them headlong into prosecutions
   under the new powers. In the Republican States a sense of
   injury and danger went hand in hand, and the question of the
   hour was how to repel the threatening destruction. Mr.
   Jefferson did not fail to see that the great opportunity for
   his party had come. His keen political sagacity detected in an
   instant the fatal mistake the administration had made, and he
   began at once to look about him for the best means to turn his
   opponents' mistake to his own advantage. Naturally he felt
   some delicacy in appearing too forward in assailing a
   government of which he himself was the second in office.
   Nevertheless he lent himself willingly to the task of
   organizing, in a quiet way, a systematic assault upon these
   laws of Congress, and at once opened a correspondence
   calculated to elicit the best judgment of his coadjutors and
   gradually drew out a programme of action. Virginia was by no
   means unanimous in reprobating these laws. She had a large and
   influential body of Federalists. … But the influence of
   Jefferson was paramount and the result of Jeffersonian
   principles soon appeared on every hand. Meetings were held in
   many of the counties upon their county court days at which
   were adopted addresses or series of resolutions condemning or
   praying for the repeal of these laws. … New York, New Jersey,
   and Pennsylvania sent petitions of appeal to Congress. … But
   it was in Kentucky that the greatest resistance was evoked.
   The feeling in that State was, indeed, little short of frenzy,
   and a singular unanimity was displayed even in the most
   extreme acts and sentiments. This grew out of no passing
   passion. It was based upon the most vigorous elements in her
   character as a people. Kentucky was at this time somewhat
   apart from the rest of the Union. … Her complaints, just and
   unjust, had been many, but hitherto she had not gained the
   nation's ear. But the time was now ripe for her to assert
   herself."

      E. D. Warfield,
      The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798,
      chapter 1.

   The famous Kentucky Resolutions, substantially drafted by
   Jefferson, as he acknowledged fifteen years afterwards, but
   introduced in the Legislature of Kentucky by John
   Breckenridge, on the 8th of November, 1798, were adopted by
   that body, in the lower branch on the 10th and in the upper on
   the 13th. Approved by the Governor on the 16th, they were
   immediately printed and copies officially sent to every other
   state and to members of Congress. They were as follows:

   "I. Resolved, that the several states composing the United
   States of America, are not united on the principle of
   unlimited submission to their General Government; but that by
   compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the
   United States and of amendments thereto, they constituted a
   General Government for special purposes, delegated to that
   Government certain definite powers, reserving each state to
   itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self
   Government; and that whensoever the General Government assumes
   undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and
   are of no force: That to this compact each state acceded as a
   state, and is an integral party, its co-states forming as to
   itself, the other party: That the Government created by this
   compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the
   extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would
   have made its discretion, and not the constitution, the
   measure of its powers; but that as in all other cases of
   compact among parties having no common judge, each party has
   an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as
   of the mode and measure of redress.

   II. Resolved, that the Constitution of the United States
   having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason,
   counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United
   States, piracies and felonies committed on the High Seas, and
   offences against the laws of nations, and no other crimes
   whatever, and it being true as a general principle, and one of
   the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, 'that
   the powers not delegated to the United States by the
   Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved
   to the states respectively, or to the people,' therefore also
   the same act of Congress passed on the 14th day of July, 1798,
   and entitled 'An act in addition to the act entitled an act
   for the punishment of certain crimes against the United
   States;' as also the act passed by them on the 27th of June,
   1798, entitled 'An act to punish frauds committed on the Bank
   of the United States' (and all other their acts which assume
   to create, define, or punish crimes other than those
   enumerated in the constitution) are altogether void and of no
   force, and that the power to create, define, and punish such
   other crimes is reserved, and of right appertains solely and
   exclusively to the respective states, each within its own
   Territory.

{3320}

   III. Resolved, that it is true as a general principle, and is
   also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the
   Constitution that 'the powers not delegated to the United
   States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the
   states, are reserved to the states respectively or to the
   people;' and that no power over the freedom of religion,
   freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to
   the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to
the states, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right
   remain, and were reserved to the states, or to the people:
   That thus was manifested their determination to retain to
   themselves the right of judging how far the licentiousness of
   speech and of the press may be abridged without lessening
   their useful freedom, and how far those abuses which cannot be
   separated from their use, should be tolerated, rather than the
   use be destroyed; and thus also they guarded against all
   abridgment by the United States of the freedom of religious
   opinions and exercises, and retained to themselves the right
   of protecting the same, as this state by a Law passed on the
   general demand of its Citizens, had already protected them
   from all human restraint or interference; and that in addition
   to this general principle and express declaration, another and
   more special provision has been made by one of the amendments
   to the Constitution which expressly declares that 'Congress
   shall make no law respecting an Establishment of religion, or
   prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the
   freedom of speech, or of the press,' thereby guarding in the
   same sentence, and under the same words, the freedom of
   religion, of speech, and of the press, insomuch, that whatever
   violates either, throws down the sanctuary which covers the
   others, and that libels, falsehoods, and defamation, equally
   with heresy and false religion, are withheld from the
   cognizance of federal tribunals. That therefore the act of the
   Congress of the United States passed on the 14th day of July,
   1798, entitled 'An act in addition to the act for the
   punishment of certain crimes against the United States,' which
   does abridge the freedom of the press, is not law, but is
   altogether void and of no effect.

   IV. Resolved, that alien friends are under the jurisdiction
   and protection of the laws of the state wherein they are; that
   no power over them has been delegated to the United States,
   nor prohibited to the individual states distinct from their
   power over citizens; and it being true as a general principle,
   and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also
   declared, that 'the powers not delegated to the United States
   by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the states are
   reserved to the states respectively or to the people,' the act
   of the Congress of the United States passed on the 22d day of
   June, 1798, entitled 'An act concerning aliens,' which assumes
   power over alien friends not delegated by the Constitution, is
   not law, but is altogether void and of no force.

   V. Resolved, that in addition to the general principle as well
   as the express declaration, that powers not delegated are
   reserved, another and more special provision inserted in the
   Constitution from abundant caution has declared, 'that the
   migration or importation of such persons as any of the states
   now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be
   prohibited by the Congress prior to the year 1808.' That this
   Commonwealth does admit the migration of alien friends
   described as the subject of the said act concerning aliens;
   that a provision against prohibiting their migration, is a
   provision against all acts equivalent thereto, or it would be
   nugatory; that to remove them when migrated is equivalent to a
   prohibition of their migration, and is therefore contrary to
   the said provision of the Constitution, and void.

   VI. Resolved, that the imprisonment of a person under the
   protection of the Laws of this Commonwealth on his failure to
   obey the simple order of the President to depart out of the
   United States, as is undertaken by the said act entitled 'An
   act concerning aliens,' is contrary to the Constitution, one
   amendment to which has provided, that 'no person shall be
   deprived of liberty without due process of law,' and that
   another having provided 'that in all criminal prosecutions the
   accused shall enjoy the right to a public trial by an
   impartial jury, to be informed of the nature and cause of the
   accusation, to be confronted with the witnesses against him,
   to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his
   favour, and to have the assistance of counsel for his
   defence,' the same act undertaking to authorize the President
   to remove a person out of the United States who is under the
   protection of the Law, on his own suspicion, without
   accusation, without jury, without public trial, without
   confrontation of the witnesses against him, without having
   witnesses in his favour, without defence, without counsel, is
   contrary to these provisions also of the Constitution, is
   therefore not law but utterly void and of no force. That
   transferring the power of judging any person who is under the
   protection of the laws, from the Courts to the President of
   the United States, as is undertaken by the same act concerning
   Aliens, is against the article of the Constitution which
   provides, that 'the judicial power of the United States shall
   be vested in Courts, the Judges of which shall hold their
   offices during good behaviour,' and that the said act is void
   for that reason also; and it is further to be noted, that this
   transfer of Judiciary powers is to that magistrate of the
   General Government who already possesses all the Executive,
   and a qualified negative in all the Legislative power.

   VII. Resolved, that the construction applied by the General
   Government (as is evinced by sundry of their proceedings) to
   those parts of the Constitution of the United States which
   delegate to Congress a power to lay and collect taxes, duties,
   imposts, and excises; to pay the debts, and provide for the
   common defence, and general welfare of the United States, and
   to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for
   carrying into execution the powers vested by the Constitution
   in the Government of the United States, or any department
   thereof, goes to the destruction of all the limits prescribed
   to their power by the Constitution—That words meant by that
   instrument to be subsidiary only to the execution of the
   limited powers, ought not to be so construed as themselves to
   give unlimited powers, nor a part so to be taken, as to
   destroy the whole residue of the instrument: That the
   proceedings of the General Government under colour of these
   articles, will be a fit and necessary subject for revisal and
   correction at a time of greater tranquility, while those
   specified in the preceding resolutions call for immediate
   redress.

   VIII. Resolved, that the preceding Resolutions be transmitted
   to the Senators and Representatives in Congress from this
   Commonwealth, who are hereby enjoined to present the same to
   their respective Houses, and to use the best endeavours to
   procure at the next session of Congress, a repeal of the
   aforesaid unconstitutional and obnoxious acts.

{3321}

   IX. Resolved lastly, that the Governor of this Commonwealth
   be, and is hereby authorised and requested to communicate the
   preceding Resolutions to the Legislatures of the several
   States, to assure them that this Commonwealth considers Union
   for specified National purposes, and particularly for those
   specified in their late Federal compact, to be friendly to the
   peace, happiness, and prosperity of all the states: that
   faithful to that compact, according to the plain intent and
   meaning in which it was understood and acceded to by the
   several parties, it is sincerely anxious for its preservation:
   that it does also believe, that to take from the states all
   the powers of self government, and transfer them to a general
   and consolidated Government, without regard to the special
   delegations and reservations solemnly agreed to in that
   compact, is not for the peace, happiness, or prosperity of
   these states: And that therefore, this Commonwealth is
   determined, as it doubts not its Co-states are, tamely to
   submit to undelegated and consequently unlimited powers in no
   man or body of men on earth: that if the acts before specified
   should stand, these conclusions would flow from them; that the
   General Government may place any act they think proper on the
   list of crimes and punish it themselves, whether enumerated or
   not enumerated by the Constitution as cognizable by them: that
   they may transfer its cognizance to the President or any other
   person, who may himself be the accuser, counsel, judge, and
   jury, whose suspicions may be the evidence, his order the
   sentence, his officer the executioner, and his breast the sole
   record of the transaction: that a very numerous and valuable
   description of the inhabitants of these states, being by this
   precedent reduced as outlaws to the absolute dominion of one
   man and the barrier of the Constitution thus swept away from
   us all, no rampart now remains against the passions and the
   power of a majority of Congress, to protect from a like
   exportation or other more grievous punishment the minority of
   the same body, the Legislatures, Judges, Governors, and
   Counsellors of the states, nor their other peaceable
   inhabitants who may venture to reclaim the constitutional
   rights and liberties of the states and people, or who for
   other causes, good or bad, may be obnoxious to the views or
   marked by the suspicions of the President, or be thought
   dangerous to his or their elections or other interests public
   or personal: that the friendless alien has indeed been
   selected as the safest subject of a first experiment: but the
   citizen will soon follow, or rather has already followed; for
   already has a Sedition Act marked him as its prey: that these
   and successive acts of the same character, unless arrested on
   the threshold, may tend to drive these states into revolution
   and blood, and will furnish new calumnies against Republican
   Governments, and new pretexts for those who wish it to be
   believed that man cannot be governed but by a rod of iron:
   that it would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the
   men of our choice to silence our fears for the safety of our
   rights: that confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism:
   free government is founded in jealousy and not in confidence;
   it is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited
   Constitutions to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust
   with power: that our Constitution has accordingly fixed the
   limits to which and no further our confidence may go; and let
   the honest advocate of confidence read the Alien and Sedition
   Acts, and say if the Constitution has not been wise in fixing
   limits to the Government it created, and whether we should be
   wise in destroying those limits? Let him say what the
   Government is if it be not a tyranny, which the men of our
   choice have conferred on the President, and the President of
   our choice has assented to and accepted over the friendly
   strangers, to whom the mild spirit of our Country and its laws
   had pledged hospitality and protection: that the men of our
   choice have more respected the bare suspicions of the
   President than the solid rights of innocence, the claims of
   justification, the sacred force of truth, and the forms and
   subsistence of law and justice. In questions of power then let
   no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from
   mischief by the chains of the Constitution. That this
   Commonwealth does therefore call on its Co-states for an
   expression of their sentiments on the acts concerning Aliens,
   and for the punishment of certain crimes hereinbefore
   specified, plainly declaring whether these acts are or are not
   authorized by the Federal Compact? And it doubts not that
   their sense will be so announced as to prove their attachment
   unaltered to limited Government, whether general or
   particular, and that the rights and liberties of their
   Co-states will be exposed to no dangers by remaining embarked
   on a common bottom with their own: That they will concur with
   this Commonwealth, in considering the said acts so palpably
   against the Constitution as to amount to an undisguised
   declaration, that the compact is not meant to be the measure
   of the powers of the General Government, but that it will
   proceed in the exercise over these states of all powers
   whatsoever: That they will view this as seizing the rights of
   the states and consolidating them in the hands of the General
   Government with a power assumed to bind the states (not merely
   in cases made federal) but in all cases whatsoever, by laws
   made, not with their consent, but by others against their
   consent: That this would be to surrender the form of
   Government we have chosen, and to live under one deriving its
   powers from its own will, and not from our authority; and that
   the Co-states recurring to their natural right in cases not
   made federal, will concur in declaring these acts void and of
   no force, and will each unite with this Commonwealth in
   requesting their repeal at the next session of Congress."

   In the month following this declaration from Kentucky, on the
   21st of December, Virginia affirmed substantially the same
   threatening doctrine, more temperately and cautiously set
   forth in resolutions drawn by Madison as follows:

   "Resolved, that the General Assembly of Virginia doth
   unequivocally express a firm resolution to maintain and defend
   the constitution of the United States, and the constitution of
   this state against every aggression, either foreign or
   domestic, and that they will support the government of the
   United States in all measures warranted by the former.

   That this Assembly most solemnly declares a warm attachment to
   the union of the states, to maintain which, it pledges all its
   powers; and that for this end it is their duty to watch over
   and oppose every infraction of those principles which
   constitute the only basis of that union, because a faithful
   observance of them can alone secure its existence, and the
   public happiness.

{3322}

   That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare
   that it views the powers of the Federal Government, as
   resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties;
   as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument
   constituting that compact; as no farther valid than they are
   authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact, and that
   in case of a deliberate, palpable and dangerous exercise of
   other powers not granted by the said compact, the states who
   are parties thereto have the right, and are in duty bound to
   interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for
   maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities,
   rights and liberties appertaining to them.

   That the General Assembly doth also express its deep regret
   that a spirit has in sundry instances, been manifested by the
   Federal Government, to enlarge its powers by forced
   constructions of the constitutional charter which defines
   them; and that indications have appeared of a design to
   expound certain general phrases (which having been copied from
   the very limited grant of powers in the former articles of
   confederation were the less liable to be misconstrued), so as
   to destroy the meaning and effect of the particular
   enumeration, which necessarily explains and limits the general
   phrases; and so as to consolidate the states by degrees into
   one sovereignty, the obvious tendency and inevitable
   consequence of which would be to transform the present
   republican system of the United States into an absolute, or at
   best a mixed monarchy. That the General Assembly doth
   particularly protest against the palpable and alarming
   infractions of the Constitution, in the two late cases of the
   'Alien and Sedition Acts,' passed at the last session of
   Congress, the first of which exercises a power nowhere
   delegated to the Federal Government; and which by uniting
   legislative and judicial powers to those of executive,
   subverts the general principles of free government, as well as
   the particular organization and positive provisions of the
   federal constitution: and the other of which acts, exercises
   in like manner a power not delegated by the constitution, but
   on the contrary expressly and positively forbidden by one of
   the amendments thereto; a power which more than any other
   ought to produce universal alarm, because it is levelled
   against the right of freely examining public characters and
   measures, and of free communication among the people thereon,
   which has ever been justly deemed the only effectual guardian
   of every other right.

   That this state having by its convention which ratified the
   federal constitution, expressly declared, 'that among other
   essential rights, the liberty of conscience and of the press
   cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified by any
   authority of the United States,' and from its extreme anxiety
   to guard these rights from every possible attack of sophistry
   or ambition, having with other states recommended an amendment
   for that purpose, which amendment was in due time annexed to
   the constitution, it would mark a reproachful inconsistency
   and criminal degeneracy, if an indifference were now shown to
   the most palpable violation of one of the rights thus declared
   and secured, and to the establishment of a precedent which may
   be fatal to the other.

   That the good people of this commonwealth having ever felt and
   continuing to feel the most sincere affection to their
   brethren of the other states, the truest anxiety for
   establishing and perpetuating the union of all, and the most
   scrupulous fidelity to that constitution which is the pledge
   of mutual friendship, and the instrument of mutual happiness:
   The General Assembly doth solemnly appeal to the like
   dispositions of the other states, in confidence that they will
   concur with this commonwealth in declaring, as it does hereby
   declare, that the acts aforesaid are unconstitutional, and
   that the necessary and proper measures will be taken by each
   for cooperating with this state, in maintaining unimpaired the
   authorities, rights, and liberties, reserved to the states
   respectively, or to the people. That the Governor be desired
   to transmit a copy of the foregoing resolutions to the
   executive authority of each of the other states, with a
   request, that the same may be communicated to the legislature
   thereof.

   And that a copy be furnished to each of the Senators and
   Representatives, representing this state in the Congress of
   the United States."

   In later years, after Calhoun and his school had pushed these
   doctrines to their logical conclusion, Madison shrank from the
   result, and endeavored to disown the apparent meaning of what
   Jefferson had written and he had seemed to endorse in 1798. He
   denounced Nullification and Secession as "twin heresies," and
   denied that they were contained or implied in the resolutions
   of 1798—either those adopted in Kentucky or the responsive
   ones written by himself for the legislature of Virginia. The
   Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 were followed in 1799 by another
   series, in which the right of a sovereign State to nullify
   obnoxious laws of the Federal Government was no longer
   asserted by implication, but was put into plain terms—as
   follows: "That the principle and construction, contended for
   by sundry of the state legislatures, that the general
   government is the exclusive judge of the extent of the powers
   delegated to it, stop not short of despotism,—since the
   discretion of those who administer the government, and not the
   Constitution, would be the measure of their powers: That the
   several states who formed that instrument, being sovereign and
   independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of the
   infraction; and, That a nullification, by those sovereignties,
   of all unauthorized acts done under color of that instrument,
   is the rightful remedy." It was Mr. Madison's desire to cast
   on these resolutions of 1799, with which Jefferson had nothing
   to do, the odium of the nullification doctrine, and to remove
   the stigma from the resolutions of 1798, in which the word
   "nullification" makes no appearance; "neither that," pleaded
   Madison, "nor any equivalent term." But, when Madison made
   this plea, in 1830, "it was not then generally known, whether
   Mr. Madison knew it or not, that one of the resolutions and
   part of another which Jefferson wrote to be offered in the
   Kentucky legislature in 1798 were omitted by Mr. Nicholas [to
   whom Mr. Jefferson had entrusted them], and that therein was
   the assertion … 'where powers are assumed which have not been
   delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy.'
{3323}
   The next year, when additional resolutions were offered by Mr.
   Breckenridge, this idea in similar, though not in precisely the
   same language, was presented [as quoted above]. … In 1832,
   this fact, on the authority of Jefferson's grandson and
   executor, was made public; and further, that another
   declaration of Mr. Jefferson's in the resolution not used was
   an exhortation to the co-States, 'that each will take measures
   of its own for providing that neither these acts nor any
   others of the general government, not plainly and
   intentionally authorized by the Constitution, shall be
   exercised within their respective territories.'"

      S. H. Gay,
      James Madison,
      chapter 15.

   "The publication of the Kentucky resolutions … was instantly
   followed by a new crop of remonstrances and petitions from the
   people. … Memorials by scores came in from each State, and the
   signatures appended to some were as many as sixteen hundred.
   Those from Pennsylvania alone bore over eighteen thousand
   names. … Such memorials as reached the House were sent to a
   committee, who, late in February, reported. … The report
   closed with three resolutions, and these were: that it was not
   in the interest of the public good to repeal either the Alien
   Law, or the Sedition Law, or any of the laws respecting the
   army, the navy, or the revenue of the United States. On the
   twenty-fifth of February, the House being in Committee of the
   Whole, the three resolutions were taken up one by one.
   Gallatin spoke long and well against the first; but it was
   carried. Mr. Nicholas spoke at greater length against
   agree·ing to the second. But the Federalists had made up their
   minds to accept the report, and, as Nicholas went on, treated
   him with great disrespect. They assembled in groups about the
   House, laughed, coughed, and talked at the top of their
   voices; nor would the Speaker command order in the room. When
   Nicholas finished, shouts of 'Question! Question!' rose from
   all sides. A member from North Carolina hoped the question
   would not be taken. The hour was late. Other members had
   something to say. An hour or two on the morrow might well be
   spent in discussion. He moved the committee should rise. … The
   motion to rise was lost, the question on the second resolution
   was carried, the question on the third resolution was carried,
   then the committee rose. The House then agreed to the action
   of the committee on each of the three resolutions. The Federal
   party was now at the height of its prosperity and power. It
   controlled the Senate. It controlled the House. Outwardly it
   was great and powerful, but within that dispute had begun
   which, in a few short months, drove Pickering and M'Henry from
   the Cabinet, split the party in twain, and gave to the country
   the strange spectacle of staunch and earnest Federalists
   wrangling and contending and overwhelming each other with
   abuse."

      J. B. McMaster,
      A History of the United States,
      chapter 11 (volume 2).

      ALSO IN:
      H. S. Randall,
      Life of Jefferson,
      volume 2, chapter 8.

      J. Madison,
      Works,
      volume 4, pages 95-110, and 506-555.

      T. Jefferson,
      Works,
      volume 7, page 229;
      and volume 9, pages 464-471.

      H. von Holst,
      Constitutional and Political History of the United States,
      volume 1, page 148.

      J. T. Morse,
      Life of Hamilton,
      volume 2, chapter 6.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1800.
   The convention with France and the French Spoliation Claims
   incident to it.

   "In the instructions to the American envoys in France they had
   been directed to secure a claims commission, the abrogation of
   the former treaties, and the abolition of the guarantee of
   1778, as it was called, contained in Article XI. of the Treaty
   of Alliance of that year, and covering 'the present
   possessions of the Crown of France in America, as well as
   those which it may acquire by the future treaty of peace.'
   Upon none of these points were the envoys able to carry out
   their instructions. In reference to claims, a distinction,
   which was finally embodied in the treaty, was drawn by the
   French government between two classes of claims: first, debts
   due from the French government to American citizens for
   supplies furnished, or prizes whose restoration had been
   decreed by the courts; and secondly, indemnities for prizes
   alleged to have been wrongfully condemned. The treaty provided
   that the first class, known as debts, should be paid, but
   excluded the second, or indemnity class. In reference to the
   indemnity claims, and to the questions involved in the old
   treaties, including, of course, the guarantee of 1778, as the
   envoys were not able to come to an agreement, the treaty
   declared that the negotiation was postponed. The Senate of the
   United States expunged this latter article, inserting in its
   place a clause providing for the duration of the present
   convention; and this amendment was accepted by the French
   government, with the proviso that both governments should
   renounce the pretensions which were the object of the original
   article. To this the Senate also agreed, and upon this basis
   the convention was finally ratified. It thus appears that the
   United States surrendered the claims of its citizens against
   France for wrongful seizures, in return for the surrender by
   France of whatever claim it might have had against the United
   States for the latter's failure to fulfil the obligations
   assumed in the earlier treaties [especially the guaranty of
   the possessions of France in America, which was undertaken in
   the treaty of 1778]. The United States, therefore, having
   received a consideration for its refusal to prosecute the
   claims of its citizens, thereby took the place, with respect
   to the claimants, of the French government, and virtually
   assumed the obligations of the latter. … The claims for
   indemnity thus devolving upon the United States, known as the
   French Spoliation Claims, have been from that day to this the
   subject of frequent report and discussion in Congress, but
   with no result until the passage of the act of January 20,
   1885, referring them to the Court of Claims. At the present
   time (1888) they are undergoing judicial examination before
   that tribunal."

      J. R. Soley,
      The Wars of the United States, 1789-1850
      (Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 7, chapter 6; and editor's foot-note).

      ALSO IN:
      F. Wharton,
      Digest of the International Law of the United States,
      section 248 (volume 2, pages 714-728).

      D. Webster,
      Works,
      volume 4, pages 152-178.

      T. H. Benton,
      Thirty Years' View,
      volume 1, chapters 117-120.

      W. H. Seward,
      Works,
      volume 1, pages 132-155.

      Report of Secretary of State
      (United States Senate, Ex. Doc. no. 74 and 102,
      49th Congress 1st session).

   Spoliations committed by the French in the Revolutionary and
   Napoleonic wars subsequently to the year 1800, were
   indemnified under the provisions of the treaty for the
   Louisiana purchase (see LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803); under the
   treaty with Spain in 1819, and under a later treaty with
   France which was negotiated in Andrew Jackson's most
   imperative manner in 1831. These do not enter into what have
   become historically specialized as the French Spoliation
   Claims.

{3324}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1800.
   The Second Census.

   Total population, 5,305,937, (an increase of slightly more
   than 35 per cent. since 1790), classed and distributed as
   follows:

North.

                 White.   Free black.  Slave.
Connecticut.    244,721    5,330         951
Indiana.          4,577      163         135
Maine.          150,901      818           0
Massachusetts.  416,793    6,452           0
New Hampshire.  182,898      856           8
New Jersey.     195,125    4,402      12,422
New York.       556,039   10,374      20,343
Ohio.            45,028      337           0
Pennsylvania.   586,094   14,561       1,706
Rhode Island.    65,437    3,304         381
Vermont.        153,908      557           0
                    ---      ---         ---
Total         2,601,521   47,154      35,946

South.

                        White.   Free black.   Slave.
Delaware.               49,852      8,268      6,153
District of Columbia.   10,066        783      3,244
Georgia.               101,678      1,019     59,404
Kentucky.              179,871        741     40,343
Maryland.              216,326     19,587    105,635
Mississippi.            5,179        182      3,489
North Carolina.        337,764      7,043    133,296
South Carolina.        196,255      3,185    146,151
Tennessee.              91,709        309     13,584
Virginia.              514,280     20,124    345,796
                           ---        ---        ---
Total                1,702,980     61,241    857,095


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1800-1801.
   The Fourth Presidential Election
   Inauguration of Jefferson.

   "Adams, whom Dr. Franklin aptly described as 'always an honest
   man, often a wise one, but sometimes and in some things
   absolutely out of his senses,' was approaching the end of his
   term as President, and public attention was absorbed in the
   task of choosing a successor. … At the time of Adams's
   election, a sectional feeling, destined in the future to work
   so much evil, had already been developed; and he in
   consequence received from States south of the Potomac but two
   electoral votes. New York had given him her twelve, yet the
   entire majority over his competitor was but three in all the
   colleges. The national parties were not unequally matched in
   the State; and it was evident that, could its vote be diverted
   to Jefferson in the next contest, his victory would be
   assured. Hence, strenuous efforts were made to accomplish this
   end, and for months society was like a seething caldron. The
   trouble with France had, for the moment, swelled the numbers
   of the Federalists, and closed up their ranks; but the
   capricious course of the President, and the violent disruption
   of the cabinet, rent them asunder, never to be re-united. …
   During the French excitement, it seemed almost certain that,
   after the local election, they would have a majority in the
   new Legislature, and thus retain for their candidate the
   electoral vote of New York. This pleasing prospect was soon
   obscured. When its people found Mr. Adams sternly enforcing
   the Sedition Law, and exercising the power it conferred in an
   unfeeling manner upon one of their most esteemed citizens
   [Judge Peck], they turned with disgust from a party which they
   held responsible for its enactment, as well as for this
   violent procedure. The permanent ascendency which the
   Republicans seemed to have acquired in the metropolis had been
   wrested from them, in the spring of 1799, by the unpopularity
   of a scheme of Burr's, already conspicuous in the State as an
   unscrupulous political tactician. He had been a member of the
   assembly the preceding year, and, under the pretence of
   supplying pure and wholesome water, obtained a charter which
   enabled the corporators to engage in banking. In consequence
   of the feeling this aroused, he did not dare present himself
   again as a candidate, but, with great tact and unwearied
   efforts, succeeded in healing divisions in his party, and
   nominating a delegation for the assembly, which embraced the
   Republicans most eminent for wealth, station, or family
   influence. Governor Clinton headed the list. … The result
   followed which Burr had anticipated. The Federal majority of
   the last year was overcome, and New York City secured by the
   Republicans, giving them control of the State. Adams
   subsequently received but four electoral votes south of
   Maryland, and Jefferson became his successor. Burr, to whose
   untiring exertions this great victory was due, was thereby
   inducted into the office of Vice-President. At that time, the
   Legislature appointed the electors for the State; and the
   Republicans, then anticipating a defeat, had at a previous
   session advocated that, for the future, these should be chosen
   directly by the people in separate districts, hoping thus to
   secure a sufficient number to elect their Presidential
   candidate. The Federalists, thinking their supremacy in the
   assembly assured, refused to support the plan. Now, however,
   when it became known that their adversaries had gained a
   majority in the Legislature on which would devolve the duty of
   choosing the electors, Hamilton addressed a letter to Governor
   Jay, suggesting that the present body, whose term would not
   expire before July, should be again convened, in order to pass
   a measure which, when before proposed by the Republicans, had
   been denounced as unconstitutional. Jay had too much regard
   for principle to entertain the idea. After his death, the
   letter was found among his papers, endorsed, 'Proposing a
   measure for party purposes which I think it would not become
   me to adopt.' It is related that a noted French duellist, when
   required to forgive his enemies before receiving absolution,
   exclaimed, My enemies? I have none. I have killed them all!
   Mr. Jefferson might have responded in the same manner, the
   morrow after the Presidential election. To the one party, the
   result seemed like the breaking up of an ice gorge—the
   harbinger of spring. To the other it appeared as an avalanche
   of French principles, destructive alike of religion and
   established government. Both were at fault. President
   Jefferson was quite as unable to destroy the work of his
   predecessors as he was to depart from their policy of
   neutrality. The Sedition and Alien Laws soon expired by
   limitation; but the great measures of the former
   administrations were too wise, and had struck their roots too
   deep into the national sentiment, to be suddenly overturned."

      W. Whitelock,
      Life and Times of John Jay,
      chapter 22.

{3325}

   In the Electoral College, Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr,
   both Democratic Republicans, received an equal number of votes
   (73), and the election was carried into the House of
   Representatives, where Jefferson was chosen President and Burr
   Vice President. "Adams, stung to the heart by the election of
   Jefferson, refused to witness the hateful spectacle of his
   successor's inauguration. He spent his last hours in filling
   up vacancies to place patronage out of Jefferson's reach; then
   he departed, the old order in his person giving place with a
   frown and a shudder to the new. Adams did not hate monarchy,
   he thought that for England it was good. In the eyes of
   Jefferson monarchy was the incarnate spirit of evil and to rid
   mankind of it by example was the mission of the American
   Republic. Every vestige of the half monarchical state which
   Washington had retained was now banished from the President's
   mansion and life. No more coaches-and-six, no more court
   dress, no more levees. Although Jefferson did not, as legend
   says, ride to his inauguration and tie his horse to the fence,
   he was inaugurated with as little ceremony as possible. He
   received an ambassador in slippers down at the heel, and in
   the arrangement of his dinner parties was so defiant of the
   rules of etiquette as to breed trouble in the diplomatic
   circle. Yet with all his outward simplicity the Virginian
   magnate and man of letters, though he might be a Republican,
   could not in himself be a true embodiment of democracy. He was
   the friend of the people, but not one of them. … The desired
   day had come when the philosopher was to govern. The words of
   the address which Jefferson, unlike the demagogic sons of
   thunder in the present day, read in a very low voice, are the
   expression by its great master and archetype of the republican
   idea which has hitherto reigned supreme in the mind of the
   American people. These words are monumental, 'Equal and exact
   justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious
   or political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all
   nations, entangling alliances with none; the support of the
   State governments in all their rights, as the most competent
   administrations for our domestic concerns and the surest
   bulwarks against anti-republican tendencies, the preservation
   of the general government in its whole constitutional vigour,
   as the sheet-anchor of our peace at home and safety abroad; a
   jealous care of the right of election by the People; a mild
   and safe correction of abuses which are lopped by the sword of
   revolution where peaceable remedies are unprovided; absolute
   acquiescence in the decisions of the majority, the vital
   principle of republics, from which there is no appeal but to
   force, the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism;
   a well-disciplined militia, our best reliance in peace and for
   the first movements in war, till regulars may relieve them;
   the supremacy of the civil over the military authority;
   economy in the public expense, that labour may be lightly
   burdened; the honest payment of our debts, and sacred
   preservation of the public faith; encouragement of
   agriculture, and of commerce as its handmaid, the diffusion of
   information, and arraignment of all abuses at the bar of
   public reason; freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and
   freedom of person under the protection of the "habeas corpus,"
   and trial by jurors impartially selected;—these principles
   form the bright constellation which has gone before us and
   guided our steps through an age of revolution and
   reformation.' Jefferson's wand was the pen. Yet he is
   strangely apt to fall into mixed metaphors and even into
   platitudes. This address has not escaped criticism."

      Goldwin Smith,
      The United States,
      chapter 3.

   "Jefferson had reached the presidential chair at a most
   fortunate moment. … The prospect of a speedy peace in Europe
   promised effectual and permanent relief from those serious
   embarrassments to which, during war on the ocean, American
   commerce was ever exposed from the aggressions of one or of
   all the belligerents. The treasury was fuller, the revenue
   more abundant than at any previous period. Commerce was
   flourishing, and the pecuniary prosperity of the country very
   great. All the responsibility of framing institutions, laying
   taxes, find providing for debts, had fallen on the ousted
   administration. Succeeding to the powers and the means of the
   Federal government without sharing any of the unpopularity at
   the expense of which they had been attained, and ambitious not
   so much of a splendid as of a quiet and popular
   administration, the new president seemed to have before him a
   very plain and easy path. … To the offices of Secretary of
   State, Secretary of the Treasury, and Attorney General, left
   vacant by the resignation of the late incumbents, Jefferson
   nominated James Madison, Henry Dearborn, and Levi Lincoln, the
   latter an early leader of the opposition in Massachusetts. …
   As the Senate stood at present, still containing, as it did,
   of the members present a majority of Federalists, Jefferson
   did not think proper to make any further nominations; but,
   soon after the adjournment, he appointed as Secretary of the
   Treasury Albert Gallatin, all along the financial member of
   the opposition. … The Navy Department, after being refused by
   Chancellor Livingston, was given to Robert Smith, brother of
   the Baltimore member of Congress. Livingston, however, having
   reached the age of sixty, and being obliged, under a
   Constitutional provision, to vacate the chancellorship of New
   York, consented to accept the embassy to France. … Habersham
   was continued as post-master-general for some six months, …
   but he presently gave way to Gideon Granger, a leader of the
   Connecticut Republicans."

      R. Hildreth,
      History of the United States, 2d series,
      chapter 16 (volume 2, or volume 5 of whole work).

   "The first act of the new Cabinet was to reach a general
   understanding in regard to the objects of the Administration.
   These appear to have been two only in number: reduction of
   debt and reduction of taxes, and the relation to be preserved
   between them."

      H. Adams,
      Life of Albert Gallatin,
      page 276.

   "Under President Jefferson, the heads of the great departments
   of the government were changed, nor was there any just reason
   to complain of this measure; as they formed a part of his
   political council; and, as the chief executive officer of
   government, he had a perfect right to select his confidential
   friends and advisers. But when afterwards, and within a few
   months, he removed able and upright men from offices of a
   subordinate grade, his conduct was considered improper and
   arbitrary, and as partaking somewhat of the 'right of
   prerogative,' usually claimed and exercised by royal princes.
   … In his inaugural address, Mr. Jefferson said, 'We have
   gained little, if we encourage a political intolerance as
   wicked as impolitic. We are all brethren of the same
   principles; we are all republicans, and all federalists.'
{3326}
   Yet in less than fifty days he removed fourteen federal
   officers; without any allegation of unfaithfulness or
   inefficiency: on the plea, indeed, that his predecessor had
   removed two public officers on account of their political
   opinions; and had appointed none to office in the government
   but such as were of the same sentiments and views as the
   administration. 'Few died, and none resigned,' he said; and
   therefore, to equalize public offices between the two great
   political parties, it was necessary, in his opinion, to remove
   a part of those then employed, and to appoint others more
   friendly to the new administration. For a very few of the
   removals there might have been sufficient or justifiable
   reasons offered; but in most instances the changes were made
   merely for political opinions."

      A. Bradford,
      History of the Federal Government, 1789-1839,
      chapter 6.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1801.
   Appointment of John Marshall to be
   Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
   His Constitutional decisions.

   On the 31st of January, 1801, near the close of the term of
   President Adams, the latter appointed John Marshall, who had
   been Secretary of State in his cabinet since the previous May,
   to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. It was a memorable
   appointment,—the most memorable, perhaps, that has ever been
   made by official and not popular selection, in America, since
   Washington was appointed to the command of the continental
   army. Its result was to place the new, uninterpreted, plastic
   Constitution of the Federal Republic under the hands of a
   master, during thirty-four years of the period in which it
   hardened into practical, determined law. It decided the
   character of the Constitution, and by that decision the great
   instrument was made a bond of nationality, firm, strenuous and
   enduring. "The abilities of the new Chief Justice were
   recognized by the profession and the public at the time of his
   appointment, but the attractive qualities of his heart and his
   kindly manners soon caused respect and reverence to ripen into
   affection. Perhaps no American citizen except Washington ever
   conciliated so large a measure of popularity and public
   esteem. … In surveying the results of the labors of
   thirty-four years recorded in thirty-two volumes of reports,
   it is obvious that it was in the decision of cases involving
   international and constitutional law that the force and
   clearness of the Chief Justice's intellect shone most
   conspicuous. Such was the ready assent of his colleagues on
   the bench to his supremacy in the exposition of constitutional
   law, that in such causes a dissenting opinion was almost
   unknown. Having had occasion to discuss and thoroughly study
   the Constitution, both in the Virginia convention which
   adopted it and afterward in the legislature, he had
   preconceived opinions concerning it, as well as perfect
   familiarity with it. But in the hot contest waging between the
   friends of a strict and those of a liberal construction of its
   language, he wished to take no part. He stated that there
   should be neither a liberal nor a strict construction, but
   that the simple, natural, and usual meaning of its words and
   phrases should govern their interpretation. In the case of
   Gibbons v. Ogden, in which he is called upon to define the
   true rule of construction of the United States Constitution
   regarding the rights of the States and the rights and powers
   of the general government, he studiously avoids each extreme,
   steering safely in the middle course. He lays down his own
   rule thus clearly and definitely:—'This instrument contains
   an enumeration of powers expressly granted by the people to
   their government. It has been said that these powers ought to
   be construed strictly; but why ought they to be so construed?
   Is there one sentence in the Constitution which gives
   countenance to this rule? In the last of the enumerated
   powers, that which grants expressly the means for carrying all
   others into execution, Congress is authorized to make all laws
   that shall be necessary and proper for the purpose. But this
   limitation on the means which may be used is not extended to
   the powers which are conferred, nor is there one sentence in
   the Constitution which has been pointed out by the gentlemen
   of the bar, or which we have been able to discern, that
   prescribes this rule. We do not therefore think ourselves
   justified in adopting it. If they contend only against that
   enlarged construction which would extend words beyond their
   natural and obvious import, we might question the application
   of the term but should not controvert the principle. If they
   contend for that narrow construction which, in support of some
   theory not to be found in the Constitution, would deny to the
   government those powers which the words of the grant, as
   usually understood, import, and which are consistent with the
   general views and objects of the instrument; for that narrow
   construction which would cripple the government, and render it
   unequal to the objects for which it is declared to be
   instituted, and to which the powers given, as fairly
   understood, render it competent; then we cannot perceive the
   propriety of this strict construction, nor adopt it as a rule
   by which the Constitution is to be expounded.' … Marshall's
   dictum that there must be neither a strict nor a liberal
   construction of the Constitution, but that the natural meaning
   of the words must govern, was undoubtedly sound and wise. The
   broad proposition was above criticism; it meant only that the
   language of the instrument should not be stretched or wrenched
   in any direction; and however politicians or even statesmen
   might feel, there was no other possible ground for a judge to
   take. Jefferson might regard it as a duty to make the
   Constitution as narrow and restricted as possible; Hamilton
   might feel that there was an actual obligation upon him to
   make it as broad and comprehensive as its words would admit.
   But Jefferson and Hamilton, in a different department of
   public life from Marshall, had duties and obligations
   correspondingly different from his. They might properly try to
   make the Constitution mean what it seemed to them for the
   public welfare that it should mean. Marshall could not
   consider any such matter; he had only to find and declare what
   it did mean, what its words actually and properly declared,
   not what they might possibly or desirably be supposed or
   construed to declare. This was the real force and the only
   real force of his foregoing assertion. As an abstract
   statement of his function it was impregnable. But, as with
   most broad principles, the difficulty lay in the application
   of it to particular cases. The constitutional questions which
   came before Marshall chiefly took the form of whether or not
   the Constitution conferred some power or authority upon
   Congress, or upon the Executive. Then the Federalist lawyers
   tried to show how much the language could mean, and the
   anti-Federalist counsel sought to show how little it could
   mean, and each urged that public policy was upon his side.
{3327}
   The decision must be yes or no; the authority did or did not
   rest in the government. It was easy to talk about the natural
   and proper meaning of the words; but after all it was the
   question at issue; did they (not could they) say yes, or did
   they (not could they) say no, to the special authority sought
   to be exercised. Now it is one thing to be impartial and
   another to be colorless in mind. Judge Marshall was impartial
   and strongly possessed of the judicial instinct or faculty.
   But he was by no means colorless. He could no more eliminate
   from his mind an interest in public affairs, and opinions as
   to the preferable forms of government and methods of
   administration, than he could cut out and cast away his mind
   itself. Believing that the Constitution intended to create and
   did create a national government, and having decided notions
   as to what such a government must be able to do, he was
   subject to a powerful though insensible influence to find the
   existence of the required abilities in the government. … The
   great majority of his decisions were in accordance with
   Federalist principles of construction and of policy. The
   Republicans all denounced him as a Federalist, even of an
   extreme type."

      A. B. Magruder,
      John Marshall,
      chapter 10.

      ALSO IN:
      H. Flanders,
      Lives and Times of the Chief Justices of the Supreme Court,
      volume 2.

      J. Story,
      John Marshall
      (North American Review, volume 26).

The United States in 1860.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1801.
   First American naval demonstration against the Barbary Pirates.

      See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1785-1801.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1802.
   Admission of Ohio to the Union.

      See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1788-1802.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1802-1804.
   Land cessions of Georgia annexed to Mississippi Territory.

      See MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1798-1804.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1803.
   The Louisiana Purchase.
   Its constitutional and political aspects.

   "The Mississippi question, which had played so important a
   part in the times of the confederation, had arisen again and
   demanded a solution, as Spain had, on the 1st of October,
   1800, ceded the whole of Louisiana to France. The United
   States had had experience enough already of how dangerous and
   how great an obstacle in the way of the commercial development
   of the country it might become, if the mouth of the
   Mississippi were in the possession of a foreign power, even if
   it were no stronger than Spain. Jefferson had not shared in
   this experience in vain. This was one of the instances in
   which he gave evidence of a really statesmanlike insight. He
   wrote on the 18th of April, 1802, to his embassador Livingston
   in Paris: This cession 'completely reverses all the political
   relations of the United States, and will form a new epoch in
   our political course. … There is on the globe one single spot,
   the possessor of which is our natural and habitual enemy.'
   Livingston was instructed to enter into negotiations
   immediately for the cession of New Orleans and the Floridas,
   in case France should consider the possession of Louisiana
   indispensably necessary. As Bonaparte at this very time
   entertained the idea of resuming the old French colonial
   policy, the negotiations remained long without result. The
   uprising of the negroes in San Domingo and the warlike turn
   which the affairs of Europe began again to assume, disposed
   him more favorably towards the American offer. On the 30th of
   April, 1803, the treaty, ceding the whole of Louisiana to the
   United States for $15,000,000, was concluded in Paris.

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.

   Hamilton shared Jefferson's view, that the purchase of
   Louisiana was a question of the greatest, and even of vital,
   importance for the Union. His opposition on other occasions to
   the policy of the administration, and his personal enmity to
   the president, did not prevent his lending him a helping hand
   in this matter when an opportunity offered. The great majority
   of the Federalists opposed this increase of the territory of
   the Union with as much decision as Hamilton advocated it. They
   showed in their attitude towards this question a
   short-sightedness which would have been astonishing even among
   the doctrinarians of the opposite party."

      H. von Holst,
      Constitutional and Political History of the United States,
      volume 1, pages 183-185.

   "Mr. Jefferson belonged to the school of strict construction,
   and was in fact its leader and apostle. … Under a construction
   of the Constitution as strict as he had been insisting upon,
   it was plain that the government would have no power to
   acquire foreign territory by purchase, and that any attempt in
   that direction would be usurpation. … To give the necessary
   authority an amendment of the Constitution would be essential,
   and amendment would be a slow process which might not be
   accomplished in time to meet the emergency. The case would be
   complicated by the fact that if the territory was acquired a
   considerable population would be brought into the Union and
   thus made citizens by a process of naturalization not
   contemplated by the Constitution. Mr. Madison, the Secretary
   of State, agreed with the President in his views. To use Mr.
   Jefferson's words, "The Constitution has made no provision for
   our holding foreign territory; still less for incorporating
   foreign nations into our Union.' But under circumstances so
   imperative he thought the political departments of the
   government should meet the emergency by consummating the
   purchase, and 'then appeal to the nation for an additional
   article in the Constitution approving and confirming an act
   which the nation had not previously authorized.' He did not
   conceal from himself, however, that in so doing ground would
   be occupied which it would be difficult to defend, and he
   proceeds to say: 'The less that is said about any
   constitutional difficulty the better. Congress should do what
   is necessary in silence. I find but one opinion as to the
   necessity of shutting up the Constitution for some time.' Mr.
   John Quincy Adams held similar views. … But it is difficult to
   conceive of any doctrine more dangerous or more distinctly
   antagonistic to the fundamental ideas of the American Union
   than the doctrine that the Constitution may be 'shut up' for a
   time in order that the government may accomplish something not
   warranted by it. The political immorality was obvious and
   glaring; more so in the case of the apostle of strict
   construction than it could have been if advanced by any other
   statesman of the day. … But Mr. Jefferson's political mistake
   was scarcely greater than that committed by his opponents:
   and, indeed, from a party standpoint it was no mistake
   whatsoever, but a bold measure of wise policy.

{3328}

   … The purchase, according to the Federal view of the
   Constitution, was perfectly legitimate. … But the Federalists
   in general took narrow and partisan views, and in order to
   embarrass the administration resorted to quibbles which were
   altogether unworthy the party which had boasted of Washington
   as its chief and Hamilton as the exponent of its doctrines. …
   The Federal leaders did not stop at cavils; they insisted that
   the unconstitutional extension of territory was in effect a
   dissolution of the Union, so that they were at liberty to
   contemplate and plan for a final disruption."

      Judge T. M. Cooley,
      The Acquisition of Louisiana
      (Indiana Historical Society Pamphlets, number 3).

   The result of the debates on the Louisiana treaty, in the
   Senate and the House, "decided only one point. Every speaker,
   without distinction of party, agreed that the United States
   government had the power to acquire new territory either by
   conquest or by treaty; the only difference of opinion regarded
   the disposition of this territory after it was acquired. Did
   Louisiana belong to the central government at Washington, or
   to the States? … Whether the government at Washington could
   possess Louisiana as a colony or admit it as a State, was a
   difference of no great matter if the cession were to hold
   good; the essential point was that for the first time in the
   national history all parties agreed in admitting that the
   government could govern. … Even in 1804 the political
   consequences of the act were already too striking to be
   overlooked. Within three years of his inauguration Jefferson
   bought a foreign colony without its consent and against its
   will, annexed it to the United States by an act which he said
   made blank paper of the Constitution; and then he who had
   found his predecessors too monarchical, and the Constitution
   too liberal in powers,—he who had nearly dissolved the bonds
   of society rather than allow his predecessor to order a
   dangerous alien out of the country in a time of threatened
   war,—made himself monarch of the new territory, and wielded
   over it, against its protests, the powers of its old kings.
   Such an experience was final; no century of slow and
   half-understood experience could be needed to prove that the
   hopes of humanity lay thenceforward, not in attempting to
   restrain the government from doing whatever the majority
   should think necessary, but in raising the people themselves
   till they should think nothing necessary but what was good."

      H. Adams,
      History of the United States of America
      during the first Administration of Jefferson,
      volume 2, chapters 4-6.

      ALSO IN:
      Treaties and Conventions between the United States
      and other Powers (edition of 1889),
      pages 331-342. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1803.
   Report on the British impressment of seamen from American ships.

   "In consequence of a resolution of the Senate, calling upon
   the President for information respecting the violation of the
   national flag, and the impressment of American seamen, he
   communicated to that body a letter from the Secretary of
   State, specifying all the cases of impressment which had come
   to the knowledge of that Department. The Secretary had no
   information of the violation of the national flag, except in
   the recent aggression of Morocco. It appeared, by this report,
   that 43 citizens of the United States had been impressed by
   the British, of whom 12 had protections. Ten were natives of
   the British dominions, and 17 of other countries, none of whom
   were stated to have been naturalized. Thus a practice which,
   even within the British dominions, violates the dearest rights
   of personal liberty, and which their courts have never
   ventured to justify, and which is excused and acquiesced in on
   the plea of necessity, was unhesitatingly exercised by British
   navy officers on board of American vessels."

      G. Tucker,
      History of the United States,
      chapter 12 (volume 2).

   "When the captain of a British frigate overhauled an American
   merchant-vessel for enemy's property or contraband of war, he
   sent an officer on board who mustered the crew, and took out
   any seamen whom he believed to be British. The measure, as the
   British navy regarded it, was one of self-protection. If the
   American government could not or would not discourage
   desertion, the naval commander would recover his men in the
   only way he could. Thus a circle of grievances was established
   on each side. … The growth of American shipping stimulated
   desertions from the British service to the extent of injuring
   its efficiency; and these desertions in their turn led to a
   rigorous exercise of the right of impressment. To find some
   point at which this vicious circle could be broken was a
   matter of serious consequence to both countries, but most so
   to the one which avowed that it did not mean to protect its
   interest by force. Great Britain could have broken the circle
   by increasing the pay and improving the condition of her
   seamen; but she was excessively conservative, and the burdens
   already imposed on her commerce were so great that she could
   afford to risk nothing. … Conscious of her own power, she
   thought that the United States should be first to give way.
   Had the American government been willing to perform its
   neutral obligations strictly, the circle might have been
   broken without much trouble; but the United States wished to
   retain their advantage, and preferred to risk whatever England
   might do rather than discourage desertion, or enact and
   enforce a strict naturalization law, or punish fraud, The
   national government was too weak to compel the States to
   respect neutral obligations, even if it had been disposed to
   make the attempt. The practice of impressment brought the two
   governments to a deadlock on an issue of law. No one denied
   that every government had the right to command the services of
   its native subjects, and as yet no one ventured to maintain
   that a merchant-ship on the high seas could lawfully resist
   the exercise of this right; but the law had done nothing to
   define the rights of naturalized subjects or citizens. The
   British government might, no doubt, impress its own subjects;
   but almost every British sailor in the American service
   carried papers of American citizenship, and although some of
   these were fraudulent, many were genuine. The law of England,
   as declared from time out of mind by every generation of her
   judges, held that the allegiance of a subject was
   indefeasible, and therefore that naturalization was worthless.
   The law of the United States, as declared by Chief-Justice
   Ellsworth in 1799, was in effect the same."

      H. Adams,
      History of the United States of America, during
      the first Administration of Thomas Jefferson,
      volume 2, chapter 14.

{3329}

   "Great Britain was clearly in the wrong. She ought to have
   kept her seamen by increasing their pay and putting an end to
   the grievances which produced the mutiny of the Nore. In
   heartlessly neglecting to render the service just to the
   common sailor, and at the same time making a brutal use of
   impressment, aristocratic government showed its dark side. It
   is true that impressment was conscription in a coarse form,
   and that the extreme notion of indefeasible allegiance still
   prevailed. But the practice, however lawful, was intolerable,
   and its offensiveness was sure to be aggravated by the conduct
   of British commanders full of the naval pride of their nation
   and perhaps irritated by the loss of their crews; for it is
   not denied that many British seamen were seduced from the
   service and that the American marine, both mercantile and
   national, was largely manned in this way."

      Goldwin Smith,
      The United States,
      chapter 3.

      See, also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1809.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1803-1804.
   Federalist Secession movement.

   "In the winter … of 1803-4, immediately after, and as a
   consequence of, the acquisition of Louisiana, certain leaders
   of the Federal party conceived the project of the dissolution
   of the Union, and the establishment of a Northern Confederacy.
   The justifying causes to those who entertained it were, that
   the annexation of Louisiana to the Union transcended the
   constitutional powers of the government of the United States;
   that it created, in fact, a new confederacy, to which the
   States, united by the former compact, were not bound to
   adhere; that it was oppressive to the interests and
   destructive to the influence of the Northern section of the
   Confederacy, whose right and duty it therefore was to secede
   from the new body politic, and to constitute one of their own.
   It was lamented that one inevitable consequence of the
   annexation of Louisiana to the Union would be to diminish the
   relative weight and influence of the Northern section; that it
   would aggravate the evil of the slave representation; and
   endanger the Union itself, by the expansion of its bulk, and
   the enfeebling extension of its line of de·fence against
   foreign invasion. A Northern Confederacy was thought to be the
   only probable counterpoise to the manufacture of new States in
   the South. This project was quietly and extensively discussed
   at the time, by the members of Congress from Massachusetts and
   Connecticut especially. General Hamilton, indeed, was chosen
   as the person to be placed, at the proper time, at the head of
   the military movement which, it was foreseen, would be
   necessary for carrying the plan into execution. He was
   consulted on the subject; and although it is quite certain
   that he was opposed to it, he consented to attend a meeting of
   Federalists in Boston in the autumn of 1804, but his untimely
   death, in the summer of that year, prevented the meeting. To
   whatever proportions, however, the project might otherwise
   have gone, it was checked by the advantage which was evident
   to all of the securing of so large a domain, by the great
   desirableness of preventing France from holding the mouth of
   our great river, and by the settlement of the question of our
   national boundaries. These considerations gave a quietus for a
   time to the suggestions of sectional jealousy."

      C. F. Robertson,
      The Louisiana Purchase in its Influence
      upon the American System
      (Papers of the American Historical Association, volume 1),
      pages 262-263.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804.
   Fifth Presidential Election.

   Thomas Jefferson, Democratic Republican, reelected by the vote
   of 162 Electors in the College, against 14 voting for Charles
   C. Pinckney, Federalist. George Clinton was chosen Vice
   President.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1805.
   Impeachment and trial of Judge Chase.

   In the closing hours of the session of Congress which expired
   March 4, 1803, proceedings of impeachment were begun for the
   removal from the bench of Judge Pickering, United States
   District Judge of New Hampshire, who had become mentally
   incapable of discharging the duties of his office. "By the
   federalists, the attack on Judge Pickering was taken as the
   first of a series of impeachments, intended to revolutionize
   the political character of the courts, but there is nothing to
   prove that this was then the intent of the majority. The most
   obnoxious justice on the supreme bench was Samuel Chase of
   Maryland, whose violence as a political partisan had certainly
   exposed him to the danger of impeachment; but two years had
   now passed without producing any sign of an intention to
   disturb him, and it might be supposed that the administration
   thus condoned his offences. Unluckily, Judge Chase had not the
   good taste or the judgment to be quiet. He irritated his
   enemies by new indiscretions, and on May 13, 1803, nearly
   three months after Pickering's impeachment, Mr. Jefferson, in
   a letter to Joseph H. Nicholson, suggested that it would be
   well to take him in hand:—'You must have heard of the
   extraordinary charge of Chase to the grand jury at Baltimore.
   Ought this seditious and official attack on the principles of
   our Constitution and on the proceedings of a State to go
   unpunished? And to whom so pointedly as yourself will the
   public look for the necessary measures? I ask these questions
   for your consideration. As for myself, it is better that I
   should not interfere.' … Nicholson seems to have passed on to
   Randolph the charge he had received from the President. … On
   January 5, 1804, Randolph rose to move for an inquiry into the
   conduct of Judge Chase. … After a long debate, the inquiry was
   ordered, and Randolph, with his friend Nicholson, was put at
   the head of the committee. On March 26, 1804, they reported
   seven articles of impeachment. … With this the session ended,
   and the trial went over to the next year. … The impeachment of
   Justice Chase is a landmark in American history, because it
   was here that the Jeffersonian republicans fought their last
   aggressive battle, and, wavering under the shock of defeat,
   broke into factions which slowly abandoned the field and
   forgot their discipline. That such a battle must one day be
   fought for the control of the Judiciary was from the beginning
   believed by most republicans who understood their own
   principles. Without controlling the Judiciary, the people
   could never govern themselves in their own way; and although
   they might, over and over again, in every form of law and
   resolution, both state and national, enact and proclaim that
   theirs was not a despotic but a restricted government, which
   had no right to exercise powers not delegated to it, and over
   which they, as States, had absolute control, it was none the
   less certain that Chief Justice Marshall and his associates
   would disregard their will, and would impose upon them his
   own. The people were at the mercy of their creatures. The
   Constitutions of England, of Massachusetts, of Pennsylvania,
   authorized the removal of an obnoxious judge on a mere address
   of the legislature, but the Constitution of the United States
   had so fenced and fortified the Supreme Court that the
   legislature, the Executive, the people themselves, could
   exercise no control over it.
{3330}
   A judge might make any decision, violate any duty, trample on
   any right, and if he took care to commit no indictable offence
   he was safe in office for life. On this license the
   Constitution imposed only one check: it said that all civil
   officers should be removed from office 'on impeachment for,
   and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and
   misdemeanors.' This right of impeachment was as yet undefined,
   and if stretched a little beyond strict construction it might
   easily be converted into something for which it had not been
   intended. … Judge Chase's offences were serious. The immediate
   cause of impeachment, his address to the grand jury at
   Baltimore on the 2d May, 1803, proved that he was not a proper
   person to be trusted with the interpretation of the laws. In
   this address he said that those laws were rapidly destroying
   all protection to property and all security to personal
   liberty. 'The late alteration of the federal Judiciary,' said
   he, 'by the abolition of the office of the sixteen circuit
   judges, and the recent change in our state Constitution by the
   establishing of universal suffrage, and the further alteration
   that is contemplated in our state Judiciary, if adopted, will,
   in my judgment, take away all security for property and
   personal liberty. The independence of the national Judiciary
   is already shaken to its foundations, and the virtue of the
   people alone can restore it.' That by this reference to the
   virtue of the people he meant to draw a contrast with the want
   of virtue in their government was made clear by a pointed
   insult to Mr. Jefferson: 'The modern doctrines by our late
   reformers, that all men in a state of society are entitled to
   enjoy equal liberty and equal rights, have brought this mighty
   mischief upon us, and I fear that it will rapidly progress
   until peace and order, freedom and property, shall be
   destroyed.' … There was gross absurdity in the idea that the
   people who, by an immense majority, had decided to carry on
   their government in one way should be forced by one of their
   own servants to turn about and go in the opposite direction;
   and the indecorum was greater than the absurdity, for if Judge
   Chase or any other official held such doctrines, even though
   he were right, he was bound not to insult officially the
   people who employed him. On these grounds Mr. Jefferson
   privately advised the impeachment, and perhaps Randolph might
   have acted more wisely had he followed Mr. Jefferson's hint to
   rely on this article alone, which in the end came nearer than
   any other to securing conviction. … The articles of
   impeachment which Randolph presented to the House on March 26,
   1804, and which were, he claimed, drawn up with his own hand,
   rested wholly on the theory of Chase's criminality; they
   contained no suggestion that impeachment was a mere inquest of
   office. But when Congress met again, and, on December 3, the
   subject came again before the House, it was noticed that two
   new articles, the fifth and sixth, had been quietly
   interpolated, which roused suspicion of a change in Randolph's
   plan. … No one could doubt that Randolph and his friends,
   seeing how little their ultimate object would be advanced by a
   conviction on the old charges, inserted these new articles in
   order to correct their mistake and to make a foundation for
   the freer use of impeachment as a political weapon. The
   behavior of Giles and his friends in the Senate strengthened
   this suspicion. He made no concealment of his theories, and
   labored earnestly to prevent the Senate from calling itself a
   court, or from exercising any functions that belonged to a
   court of law."

      H. Adams,
      John Randolph,
      chapters 4-6.

   The doctrine of impeachment which Giles (Senator from
   Virginia) and John Randolph maintained, in connection with the
   trial of Judge Chase, and which seems to have been acquiesced
   in by the majority of their party, is reported by John Quincy
   Adams from a conversation to which he was a listener. In Mr.
   Adams' Memoirs, under date of December 21, 1804, the incident
   is related as follows: "There was little business to do [in
   the Senate], and the adjournment took place early. Sitting by
   the fireside afterwards, I witnessed a conversation between
   Mr. Giles and Mr. Israel Smith, on the subject of
   impeachments; during which Mr. John Randolph came in and took
   part in the discussion. Giles labored with excessive
   earnestness to convince Smith of certain principles, upon
   which not only Mr. Chase, but all the other Judges of the
   Supreme Court, excepting the one last appointed, must be
   impeached and removed. He treated with the utmost contempt the
   idea of an 'independent' judiciary—said there was not a word
   about such an independence in the Constitution, and that their
   pretensions to it were nothing more nor less than an attempt
   to establish an aristocratic despotism in themselves. The
   power of impeachment was given without limitation to the House
   of Representatives; the power of trying impeachments was given
   equally without limitation to the Senate; and if the Judges of
   the Supreme Court should dare, as they had done, to declare an
   act of Congress unconstitutional, or to send a mandamus to the
   Secretary of State, as they had done, it was the undoubted
   right of the House of Representatives to impeach them, and of
   the Senate to remove them, for giving such opinions, however
   honest and sincere they may have been in entertaining them.
   Impeachment was not a criminal prosecution; it was no
   prosecution at all. The Senate sitting for the trial of
   impeachments was not a court, and ought to discard and reject
   all process of analogy to a court of justice. A trial and
   removal of a judge upon impeachment need not imply any
   criminality or corruption in him. Congress had no power over
   the person, but only over the office. And a removal by
   impeachment was nothing more than a declaration by Congress to
   this effect: You hold dangerous opinions, and if you are
   suffered to carry them into effect you will work the
   destruction of the nation. We want your offices, for the
   purpose of giving them to men who will fill them better. In
   answer to all this, Mr. Smith only contended that honest error
   of opinion could not, as he conceived, be a subject of
   impeachment. And in pursuit of this principle he proved
   clearly enough the persecution and tyranny to which those of
   Giles and Randolph inevitably lead. It would, he said,
   establish 'a tyranny over opinions,' and he traced all the
   arguments of Giles to their only possible issue of rank
   absurdity. In all this conversation I opened my lips but once,
   in which I told Giles that I could not assent to his
   definition of the term impeachment."

      J. Q. Adams,
      Memoirs,
      edited by C. F. Adams,
      volume 1, pages 322-323.

{3331}

   The trial of Judge Chase was opened on the 9th of February,
   1805, and ended on the 23d. By votes ranging from 15 to 34
   (the total number of Senators being 34), he was acquitted on
   each of the charges—a result attributed considerably to the
   offensive and incapable manner in which the prosecution had
   been conducted by John Randolph.

      J. Schouler,
      History of the United States,
      volume 2, page 77.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1805.
   Expedition of Lewis and Clark across the continent.
   The first exploration of the Missouri and beyond.

   Captain Meriwether Lewis and Captain William Clark "were the
   first men to cross the continent in our zone, the truly golden
   zone. A dozen years before them, Mackenzie had crossed in
   British dominions far north, but settlements are even now
   sparse in that parallel. Still earlier had Mexicans traversed
   the narrowing continent from the Gulf to the Pacific, but
   seemed to find little worth discovery. It was otherwise in the
   zone penetrated by Lewis and Clark. There development began at
   once and is now nowhere surpassed. Along their route ten
   States, with a census in 1890 of eight and a half millions,
   have arisen in the wilderness. … The credit of our Great
   Western discovery is due to Jefferson, though he never crossed
   the Alleghanies. When Columbus saw the Orinoco rushing into
   the ocean with irrepressible power and volume, he knew that he
   had anchored at the mouth of a continental river. So
   Jefferson, ascertaining that the Missouri, though called a
   branch, at once changed the color and character of the
   Mississippi, felt sure that whoever followed it would reach
   the innermost recesses of our America. Learning afterward that
   Captain Gray had pushed into the mouth of the Columbia only
   after nine days' breasting its outward current, he deemed that
   river a worthy counterpart of the Missouri, and was convinced
   that their headwaters could not be far apart in longitude.
   Inaugurated in 1801, before his first Presidential term was
   half over he had obtained, as a sort of secret-service fund,
   the small sum which sufficed to fit out the expedition. He had
   also selected Lewis, his private secretary, for its head, and
   put him in a course of special training. But the actual voyage
   up the Missouri, purchased April 30, 1803, was not begun till
   the middle of May, 1804. Forty-five persons in three boats
   composed the party. … After 171 days the year's advance ended
   with October, for the river was ready to freeze. The distance
   up stream they reckoned at 1,600 miles, or little more than 9
   miles a day, a journey now made by railroad in forty-four
   hours. … Winter quarters were thirty miles above the Bismarck
   of our day. Here they were frozen in about five months. The
   huts they built and abundant fuel kept them warm. Thanks to
   their hunters and Indian traffic, food was seldom scarce.
   Officials of the Hudson's Bay Company (who had a post within a
   week's journey) and many inquisitive natives paid them visits.
   From all these it was their tireless endeavor to learn
   everything possible concerning the great unknown of the river
   beyond. Scarcely one could tell about distant places from
   personal observation, but some second-hand reports were
   afterward proved strangely accurate, even as to the Great
   Falls, which turned out to be a thousand miles away. It was
   not long, however, before they learned that the wife of
   Chaboneau, whom they had taken as a local interpreter, was a
   captive whose birth had been in the Rocky Mountains. She,
   named the Bird-woman, was the only person discoverable after a
   winter's search who could by possibility serve them as
   interpreter and guide among the unknown tongues and
   labyrinthine fastnesses which they must encounter. Early in
   April, 1805, the explorers, now numbering thirty-two, again
   began to urge their boats up the river, for their last year's
   labors had brought them no more than half-way to their first
   objective, its source. No more Indian purveyors or pilots:
   their own rifles were the sole reliance for food. Many a
   wigwam, but no Indian, was espied for four months and four
   days after they left their winter camp. It was through the
   great Lone Land that they groped their dark and perilous way.
   In twenty days after the spring start they arrived at the
   Yellowstone, and in thirty more they first sighted the Rocky
   Mountains. Making the portage at the Great Falls cost them a
   month of vexatious delay. Rowing on another month brought them
   on August 12 to a point where one of the men stood with one
   foot each side of the rivulet, and 'thanked God that he had
   lived to bestride the Missouri, heretofore deemed endless.'
   They dragged their canoes, however, up the rivulet for five
   days longer. It was 460 days since they had left the mouth of
   the river, and their mileage on its waters had been 3,096
   miles. A mile further they stood on the great divide, and
   drank of springs which sent their water to the Pacific. But
   meantime they had been ready to starve in the mountains. Their
   hunters were of the best, but they found no game: buffaloes
   had gone down into the lowlands, the birds of heaven had fled,
   and edible roots were mostly unknown to them. For more than
   four months they had looked, and lo! there was no man. It was
   not till August 13 that, surprising a squaw so encumbered with
   pappooses that she could not escape, and winning her heart by
   the gift of a looking-glass and painting her cheeks, they
   formed friendship with her nation, one of whose chiefs proved
   to be a brother of their Bird-woman. Horses were about all
   they could obtain of these natives, streams were too full of
   rapids to be navigable, or no timber fit for canoes was within
   reach. So the party, subsisting on horse-flesh, and afterwards
   on dog-meat, toiled on along one of the worst possible routes.
   Nor was it till the 7th of October that they were able to
   embark in logs they had burned hollow, upon a branch of the
   Columbia, which, after manifold portages and perils, bore them
   to its mouth and the goal of their pilgrimage, late in
   November. Its distance from the starting-point, according to
   their estimate, was 4,134 miles. … Many an episode in this
   eventful transcontinental march and countermarch will
   hereafter glorify with romantic associations islands, rivers,
   rocks, cañons, and mountains all along its track. Among these
   none can be more touching than the story of the Bird-woman,
   her divination of routes, her courage when men quailed, her
   reunion with a long-lost brother, her spreading as good a
   table with bones as others could with meat, her morsel of
   bread for an invalid benefactor, her presence with her infant
   attesting to savages that the expedition could not be hostile.
   But when bounties in land and money were granted to others,
   she was unthought of. Statues of her, however, must yet be
   reared by grateful dwellers in lands she laid open for their
   happy homes. Western poets will liken her to Ariadne and
   Beatrice."

      The Nation,
      October 26, 1893
      (Reviewing Dr. Coues' edition of "History of the
      Expedition under the Command of Lewis and Clark").

{3332}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1805,
   Jefferson's Plans of National defense.
   His Gunboat fleet.

   Mr. Jefferson's views as to the measures required for national
   defense, in the disturbed foreign relations of the country,
   were indicated in his message to Congress, when it assembled
   in November, 1804, but were afterwards communicated more fully
   to Mr. Nicholson, of Maryland, chairman of the committee to
   which the subject was referred. "Concerning fortifications, he
   remarks that the plans and estimates of those required for our
   principal harbours, made fifty millions of dollars necessary
   for their completion. It would require 2,000 men to garrison
   them in peace, and 50,000 in war. When thus completed and
   manned, they would avail but little, as all military men agree
   that when vessels might pass a fort without tacking, though it
   may annoy, it cannot prevent them. Two modes of effecting the
   same object might be 'adopted in aid of each other.' 1. Heavy
   cannon on travelling carriages, with militia trained to the
   management of them. 2. Floating batteries or gunboats. There
   were, he estimated, fifteen harbours in the United States
   needing and deserving defence. They would require 250
   gunboats. The cost of these had been estimated at 2,000
   dollars each, but he puts it down at 4,000, amounting in all
   to 1,000,000 dollars. Such of them as were kept under a
   shelter, ready to be launched, when wanted, would cost nothing
   more than an inclosure, or sentinel; those that were afloat,
   with men enough to take care of them, about 2,000 dollars a
   year each; and those fully manned for action about 8,000
   dollars a year. He thought twenty-five of the second
   description enough, when France and England were at war. When
   at war ourselves, some of the third description would be
   required, the precise number depending on circumstances. There
   were ten then built and building, and fifteen more it was
   thought would be sufficient to put every harbour into a
   respectable state of defence. Congress, neither fulfilling the
   wishes of the President, nor altogether resisting them, gave
   the President the means of partially trying his favourite
   scheme, by the appropriation of 60,000 dollars. The
   sufficiency of this species of naval defence occasioned a good
   deal of discussion about this time between the opponents and
   the supporters of the administration. … The scheme was
   vehemently assailed by his adversaries in every form of
   argument and ridicule, and was triumphantly adduced as a
   further proof that he was not a practical statesman. The
   officers of the navy were believed to be, with scarcely an
   exception, opposed to the system of gunboats, especially those
   who were assigned to this service, partly because it was found
   to be personally very uncomfortable, and yet more, perhaps,
   because the power they wielded was so inferior, and their
   command so insignificant, compared with that to which they had
   been familiarized. It was like compelling a proud man to give
   up a fine richly caparisoned charger for a pair of panniers
   and a donkey. To stem the current of public opinion, which so
   far as it was manifested, set so strong against these
   gunboats, and to turn it in their favour, Mr. Jefferson
   prevailed on Paine, who had since his return been addressing
   the people of the United States on various topics, through the
   newspapers, to become their advocate. He set about it with his
   wonted self-confidence and real talent in enforcing his views,
   and proceeded to show that a gun from a gunboat would do the
   same execution as from a seventy-four, and cost no more,
   perhaps less; but a ship carrying seventy-four guns, could
   bring only one half to bear on an enemy at once, whereas if
   they were distributed among seventy-four boats, they could all
   be equally effective at once. In spite of this logic, the
   public, pinning its faith on experienced men, remained
   incredulous; and when, soon afterwards, many of the new marine
   were driven ashore in a tempest, or were otherwise destroyed,
   no one seemed to regard their loss as a misfortune, and the
   officers of the navy did not affect to conceal their
   satisfaction: nor has any attempt been since made to replace
   them. … The error of Mr. Jefferson was not, as his enemies
   charged, in adopting a visionary scheme of defence, but in
   limiting his views from a motive of economy, to the protection
   of the harbours, and in leaving his country's commerce and
   seamen, on the ocean, defenceless."

      G. Tucker,
      The Life of Thomas Jefferson,
      volume 2, chapter 8.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1809.
   Difficulties with Great Britain.
   Neutral rights.
   The Right of Search.
   Impressment.
   Blockade by Orders in Council and the Berlin and Milan Decrees.
   Embargo and Non-intercourse.

   For a time, after 1803, almost the whole carrying trade of
   Europe was in American hands. "The merchant flag of every
   belligerent, save England, disappeared from the sea. France
   and Holland absolutely ceased to trade under their flags.
   Spain for a while continued to transport her specie and her
   bullion in her own ships protected by her men-of-war. But
   this, too, she soon gave up, and by 1806 the dollars of Mexico
   and the ingots of Peru were brought to her shores in American
   bottoms. It was under our flag that the gum trade was carried
   on with Senegal; that the sugar trade was carried on with
   Cuba; that coffee was exported from Caracas; and hides and
   indigo from South America. From Vera Cruz, from Carthagena,
   from La Plata, from the French colonies in the Antilles, from
   Cayenne, from Dutch Guiana, from the Isles of France and
   Reunion, from Batavia and Manilla, great fleets of American
   merchantmen sailed for the United States, there to neutralize
   the voyage and then go on to Europe. They filled the
   warehouses at Cadiz and Antwerp to overflowing. They glutted
   the markets of Embden and Lisbon, Hamburg and Copenhagen with
   the produce of the West Indies and the fabrics of the East,
   and, bringing back the products of the looms and forges of
   Germany to the New World, drove out the manufactures of
   Yorkshire, Manchester, and Birmingham. But this splendid trade
   was already marked for destruction. That Great Britain should
   long treat it with indifference was impossible. … She
   determined … to destroy it, and to destroy it in two ways: by
   paper blockades and by admiralty decisions. In January, 1804,
   accordingly, Great Britain blockaded the ports of Guadeloupe
   and Martinique. In April her commander at Jamaica blockaded
   Curaçoa. In August she extended the blockade to the Straits of
   Dover and the English Channel."

      J. B. McMaster,
      History of the People of the United States,
      volume 3, pages 225-226.

{3333}

   "It had not yet come to be the acknowledged law of nations
   that free ships make free goods. But nearly the same purpose
   was answered, if the property of belligerents could be safely
   carried in neutral ships under the pretense of being owned by
   neutrals. The products of the French colonies, for example,
   could be loaded on board of American vessels, taken to the
   United States and reshipped there for France as American
   property. England looked upon this as an evasion of the
   recognized public law that property of belligerents was good
   prize. … It was denied that neutrals could take advantage of a
   state of war to enter upon a trade which had not existed in
   time of peace; and American ships were seized on the high
   seas, taken into port, and condemned in the Admiralty Courts
   for carrying enemy's goods in such a trade. The exercise of
   that right, if it were one by the recognized law of nations,
   would be of great injury to American commerce, unless it could
   be successfully resisted. … A war with England must be a naval
   war; and the United States not only had no navy of any
   consequence, but it was a part of Mr. Jefferson's policy, in
   contrast with the policy of the preceding administrations,
   that there should be none, except … gunboats kept on wheels
   and under cover in readiness to repel an invasion. But there
   was no fear of invasion, for by that England could gain
   nothing. 'She is renewing,' Madison wrote in the autumn of
   1805, 'her depredations on our commerce in the most ruinous
   shapes, and has kindled a more general indignation among our
   merchants than was ever before expressed.' These depredations
   were not confined to the seizing and confiscating American
   ships under the pretense that their cargoes were contraband.
   Seamen were taken out of them on the charge of being British
   subjects and deserters, not only on the high seas in larger
   numbers than ever before, but within the waters of the United
   States. No doubt these seamen were often British subjects and
   their seizure was justifiable, provided England could
   rightfully extend to all parts of the globe and to the ships
   of all nations the merciless system of impressment to which
   her own people were compelled to submit at home. … But even if
   it could be granted that English naval officers might seize
   such men without recourse to law, wherever they should be
   found and without respect for the flag of another nation, it
   was a national insult and outrage, calling for resentment and
   resistance, to impress American citizens under the pretense
   that they were British subjects. But what was the remedy? As a
   last resort in such cases, nations have but one. Diplomacy and
   legislation may be first tried, but if these fail, war must be
   the final ordeal. For this the Administration made no
   preparation, and the more evident the unreadiness the less was
   the chance of redress in any other way. … The first measure
   adopted to meet the aggressions of the English was an act
   prohibiting the importation of certain British products. This
   had always been a favorite policy with Madison. … The
   President and Secretary were in perfect accord; for Jefferson
   preferred anything to war, and Madison was persuaded that
   England would be brought to terms by the loss of the best
   market for her manufactures. … But the Administration did not
   rely upon legislation alone in this emergency. The President
   followed up the act prohibiting the introduction of British
   goods by sending William Pinkney to England in the spring of
   1806, to join Monroe, the resident minister, in an attempt at
   negotiation. These commissioners soon wrote that there was
   good reason for hoping that a treaty would be concluded, and
   thereupon the non-importation act was for a time suspended. In
   December came the news that a treaty was agreed upon, and soon
   after it was received by the President. … Monroe and Pinkney
   were enjoined, in tho instructions written by the Secretary of
   State, to make the abandonment of impressment the first
   condition of a treaty. A treaty, nevertheless, was agreed
   upon, without this provision. … Without consulting the Senate,
   though Congress was in session when the treaty was received,
   and although the Senate had been previously informed that one
   had been agreed upon, the President rejected it. … As
   England's need of seamen increased, the captains of her
   cruisers, encouraged by the failure of negotiation, grew
   bolder in overhauling American ships. … In the summer of 1807
   an outrage was perpetrated on the frigate Chesapeake, as if to
   emphasize the contempt with which a nation must be looked upon
   which only screamed like a woman at wrongs which it wanted the
   courage and strength to resent, or the wisdom to compound for.
   The Chesapeake was followed out of the harbor of Norfolk by
   the British man-of-war Leopard, and when a few miles at sea,
   the Chesapeake being brought to under the pretense that the
   English captain wished to put some dispatches on board for
   Europe, a demand was made for certain deserters supposed to be
   on the American frigate. Commodore Barron replied that he knew
   of no deserters on his ship, and that he could permit no
   search to be made, even if there were. After some further
   altercation the Englishman fired a broadside, killing and
   wounding a number of the Chesapeake's crew. Commodore Barron
   could do nothing else but surrender, for he had only a single
   gun in readiness for use, and that was fired only once and
   then with a coal from the cook's galley. The ship was then
   boarded, the crew mustered, and four men arrested as
   deserters. Three of them were negroes,—two natives of the
   United States, the other of South America. The fourth man,
   probably, was an Englishman. … For this direct national
   insult, explanation, apology, and reparation were demanded,
   and at the same time the President put forth a proclamation
   forbidding all British ships of war to remain in American
   waters. … Some preparation was made for war, but it was only
   to call upon the militia to be in readiness, and to order Mr.
   Jefferson's gunboats to the most exposed ports. Great Britain
   was not alarmed. The captain of the Leopard, indeed, was
   removed from his command, as having exceeded his duty; but a
   proclamation on that side was also issued, requiring all ships
   of war to seize British seamen on board foreign merchantmen,
   to demand them from foreign ships of war, and if the demand
   was refused to report the fact to the admiral of the fleet. …
   New perils all the while were besetting American commerce.
{3334}
   In November, 1806, Napoleon's Berlin decree was promulgated,
   forbidding the introduction into France of the products of
   Great Britain and her colonies, whether in her own ships or
   those of other nations. … The decree, it was declared, was a
   rightful retaliation of a British order in council of six
   months before, which had established a partial blockade of a
   portion of the French coast. … In the autumn of 1807 [the
   President] called a special session of Congress. … He sent a
   special message to the Senate, recommending an embargo. An act
   was almost immediately passed, which, if anything more was
   needed to complete the ruin of American commerce, supplied
   that deficiency. A month before this time the English ministry
   had issued a new order in council—the news of which reached
   Jefferson as he was about to send in his message—proclaiming a
   blockade of pretty much all Europe, and forbidding any trade
   in neutral vessels, unless they had first gone into some
   British port and paid duties on their cargoes; and within 24
   hours of the President's message, recommending the embargo,
   Napoleon proclaimed a new decree from Milan, by which it was
   declared that any ship was lawful prize that had anything
   whatever to do with Great Britain. … Within four months of its
   enactment, Josiah Quincy of Massachusetts declared, in a
   debate in Congress, that 'an experiment, such as is now
   making, was never before—I will not say tried—it never before
   entered into the human imagination. There is nothing like it
   in the narrations of history or in the tales of fiction.' …
   The prosperity and tranquillity which marked the earlier years
   of Jefferson's administration disappeared in its last year. …
   The mischievous results of the embargo policy were evident
   enough to a sufficient number of Republicans to secure, in
   February, 1809, the repeal [by the Non-intercourse Bill] of
   that measure, to take effect the next month as to all
   countries except England and France."

      S. H. Gay,
      James Madison,
      chapter 17.

   The Non-intercourse Bill which repealed the general provisions
   of the Embargo Act "excluded all public and private vessels of
   France and England from American waters; forbade under severe
   penalties the importation of British or French goods; … and
   gave the President authority to reopen by proclamation the
   trade with France or England in case either of these countries
   should cease to violate neutral rights. … Such a
   non-intercourse merely sanctioned smuggling."

      H. Adams,
      History of the United States:
      Second Administration of Jefferson,
      volume 2, page 445.

      ALSO IN:
      H. S. Randall,
      Life of Jefferson,
      volume 3, chapters 3-7.

      E. Schuyler,
      American Diplomacy,
      chapters 5 and 7.

      A. T. Mahan,
      Influence of Sea Power on the French Revolution,
      chapters 17-18 (volume 2).

      F. Wharton,
      Digest of the International Law of the United States,
      chapters 7, 16, and 21 (volume 2-3).

      See, also,
      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1803;
      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812,
      and FRANCE: A. D. 1806-1810.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1806-1807.
   Aaron Burr's filibustering scheme.
   His arrest and trial.

   Aaron Burr had been chosen vice-president in 1800. But he had
   lost all his friends in both parties in the election. In the
   course of a bitter political quarrel in New York, in 1804, he
   challenged Hamilton to a duel. Hamilton was mad enough to
   accept the challenge and was killed. Burr, "after his duel
   with General Hamilton, and after the term of his office as
   vice-president had expired, … seemed to be left alone, and
   abandoned by all political parties. The state of public
   feeling in New York was such, after the death of Hamilton,
   that his presence in that city could not be endured. In New
   Jersey he had been indicted by a grand jury for murder. Thus
   situated, his ambitious, active and restless spirit rendered
   his condition intolerable to himself. On the 22nd March, but a
   few days after he left forever the presidency of the United
   States senate, he wrote to his son-in-law, Mr. Joseph Alston,
   that he 'was under ostracism. In New York,' said he, 'I am to
   be disfranchised, and in New Jersey to be hanged. Having
   substantial objections to both, I shall not, for the present,
   hazard either, but shall seek another country.' Accordingly,
   early in May, he left Philadelphia for the western country,
   and arrived at Lexington, in Kentucky, on the 20th of that
   month. After travelling with great rapidity through that
   state, he directed his course to Nashville, in Tennessee, and
   from thence he journied through the woods to Natchez. From
   Natchez he went by land to New Orleans, where he arrived on
   the 25th June, 1805. At that time, General Wilkinson was in
   that city, or in its neighborhood, and commanded the United
   States troops stationed there. It does not appear that he
   remained long in New Orleans, but soon again returned to
   Lexington, in Kentucky, by the way of Nashville. He was at
   Cincinnati, and at several places in Ohio, but in a very short
   time made his appearance at St. Louis, in Missouri, and from
   thence he travelled to Washington, at which place he arrived
   on the 29th day of November. These immense journies he
   performed in a little more than six months; before the great
   western rivers were rendered navigable by steam, and when the
   roads were badly constructed; and through a considerable part
   of the country traversed by him there were no roads at all.
   His movements were veiled in mystery, and all men wondered
   what could be the motive which induced these extraordinary
   journies. From January, 1806, to the month of August
   following, he spent his time principally in Washington and
   Philadelphia; but, in the month of August, he again set his
   face towards the west, and was soon afterwards found in
   Kentucky. About this time boats were provided, provisions and
   munitions of war were collected, and men were gathering at
   different points on the Ohio and Cumberland rivers. Government
   now began to be alarmed. Mr. Tiffin, governor of Ohio, under
   the advice of the president (Jefferson), seized the boats and
   their cargo, and Burr was arrested in Kentucky; but no
   sufficient proof appearing against him he was discharged. On
   the 23d January, 1807, Mr. Jefferson sent a message to
   congress, accompanied by several affidavits, in which he gave
   the history of Burr's transactions, so far as they had come to
   the knowledge of the administration. The message stated that,
   on the 21st of October, General Wilkinson wrote to the
   president that, from a letter he had received from Burr, he
   had ascertained that his objects were, a severance of the
   union on the line of the Allegany mountains, an attack upon
   Mexico, and the establishment of an independent government in
   Mexico, of which Burr was to be the head. That to cover his
   movements, he had purchased, or pretended to have purchased,
   of one Lynch, a tract of country claimed by Baron Bastiop,
   lying near Natchitoches, on which he proposed to make a
   settlement.
{3335}
   That he had found, by the proceedings of the governor and
   people of Ohio and Kentucky, that the western people were not
   prepared to join him; but notwithstanding, there was reason to
   believe that he intended, with what force he could collect, to
   attack New Orleans, get the control of the funds of the bank,
   seize upon the military and naval stores which might be found
   there, and then proceed against Mexico. The president assured
   congress that there was no reason to apprehend that any
   foreign power would aid Colonel Burr. A considerable part of
   the evidence going to show that Burr entertained criminal
   designs, depended on the affidavit of Wilkinson. It is not my
   intention to examine into the proofs of the guilt or innocence
   of Burr, further than to remark, that from the character of
   the vain, vaporing and unprincipled Wilkinson, as before and
   since developed, no dependence can safely be placed upon his
   statements, unless supported by strong circumstances, or other
   evidence; and I believe it will not at this day be doubted,
   that if Burr plotted treason, Wilkinson, in the first
   instance, agreed to be his accomplice; that, as their
   operations progressed, he began seriously to doubt of success,
   and then communicated his knowledge of the affair to the
   government, in order to save himself, and perhaps obtain a
   reward. … That Burr himself was deceived by Wilkinson, there
   can be no doubt. … But there was other evidence besides that
   of Wilkinson, against Burr, which has never been explained. …
   If his object was merely an attack upon Mexico, why did he not
   openly avow it, when charged and indicted for treason against
   his country? … Again, unless Colonel William Eaton, the man
   who had then recently so gallantly distinguished himself on
   the Barbary coasts, has perjured himself, Burr did form a
   treasonable plot against his country. Colonel Eaton, on the
   26th January, deposed, in open court, held before Judge Cranch
   and others, at Washington, that during the preceding winter
   (1806), Burr called upon him, and, in the first instance,
   represented that he was employed by the government to raise a
   military force to attack the Spanish Provinces in North
   America, and invited Eaton to take a command in the
   expedition; that Eaton, being a restless, enterprising man,
   readily acceded to the proposal; that Burr made frequent calls
   upon him, and in his subsequent interviews complained of the
   inefficiency and timidity of the government, and, eventually,
   fully developed his project; which was to separate the western
   states from the union, and establish himself as sovereign of
   the country. … Burr did not succeed in collecting and
   organizing a force on the western waters; but, on the 1st day
   of March, he was discovered wandering alone in the Tombigbee
   country, near the line of Florida. … The trial of the
   indictment against Burr, for treason, occupied many weeks, but
   he was finally acquitted by the jury, without swearing any
   witness in his defence. The acquittal seems to have been on
   technical grounds. … After his acquittal, Colonel Burr appears
   still to have persevered in the project of making an effort to
   detach Mexico from the Spanish government. On the 7th of June,
   1808, he sailed from New York for Europe, it would seem in the
   hope of engaging the British government to fit out an
   expedition against Mexico, in which he would take a part. In
   this he was entirely unsuccessful. His application to the
   French government was equally vain and useless. He spent four
   years wandering about in Europe."

      J. D. Hammond,
      History of Political Parties in the State of New York,
      chapter 12 (volume 1).

      ALSO IN:
      W. H. Safford,
      The Blennerhassett Papers,
      chapters 6-15.

      M. L. Davis,
      Memoirs of Burr,
      volume 2, chapters 17-20.

      J. Parton,
      Life of Burr,
      chapters 21-26 (volume 2).

      H. Adams,
      History of the United States:
      Second Administration of Jefferson,
      volume 1, chapters 10-14 and 19.

      D. Robertson,
      Report of Trials of Burr.

      See BLENNERHASSETT'S ISLAND.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1806-1812.
   The Cumberland Road.
   The first National work of "Internal Improvement."

   "In 1806 the United States began the Cumberland Road, its
   first work of the kind; but it was intended to open up the
   public lands in Ohio and the country west, and was nominally
   paid for out of the proceeds of those public lands. Just as
   the embargo policy was taking effect, Gallatin, encouraged by
   the accumulation of a surplus in the Treasury, brought in a
   report, April 4, 1808, suggesting the construction of a great
   system of internal improvements: it was to include coastwise
   canals across the isthmuses of Cape Cod, New Jersey, upper
   Delaware and eastern North Carolina; roads were to be
   constructed from Maine to Georgia, and thence to New Orleans,
   and from Washington westward to Detroit and St. Louis. He
   estimated the cost at twenty millions, to be provided in ten
   annual instalments. Jefferson himself was so carried away with
   this prospect of public improvement that he recommended a
   constitutional amendment to authorize such expenditures. The
   whole scheme disappeared when the surplus vanished; but from
   year to year small appropriations were made for the Cumberland
   Road, so that up to 1812 more than $200,000 had been expended
   upon it."

      A. B. Hart,
      Formation of the Union
      (Epochs of American History),
      section 121.

   "The Cumberland Road was always a pet enterprise with Mr.
   Clay. … Its eastern terminus was Cumberland on the Potomac,
   from which it takes its name. Thence it was projected to
   Wheeling on the Ohio, crossing the Alleganies; from Wheeling
   to Columbus, Ohio; and thence westward through Indiana,
   Illinois, and Missouri, to Jefferson, the capital of the
   latter State. … After Mr. Clay went to Congress in 1806, and
   while he was there, this great national work required and
   realized his constant attention and zealous advocacy. It was
   owing to his exertions chiefly that it ever reached Wheeling,
   and passed on so far into the State of Ohio. The last
   appropriations made for this road were in 1834 and 1835, with
   a view of repairing it, and giving it over to the States
   through which it passed, if they would accept it, and keep it
   in repair."

      C. Colton,
      Life, Correspondence, and Speeches of Henry Clay,
      volume 6, page 7.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1807.
   Practical beginning of steam-boat navigation.

      See STEAM NAVIGATION.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1807.
   Abolition of the Slave-Trade.
   The measure in Congress.
   Significance of Southern action.

   By the terms of the Constitution, Congress was deprived of
   power to interfere with the importation of slaves before the
   year 1808, but no longer. The time now approached when that
   restraint would cease, and the President in his annual message
   brought the subject to notice.
{3336}
   "It was referred to a committee of which Mr. Early of Georgia
   was the chairman. There was no difference of opinion as to the
   prohibition of the traffic, or at least no expression of any;
   but the practical details of the law, the penalties by which
   it was to be enforced, and, above all, the disposition to be
   made of such negroes as might be brought into the country in
   violation of it, gave rise to violent and excited debates. The
   committee reported a law prohibiting the slave-trade after the
   31st of December, 1807, imposing certain penalties for its
   breach, and providing that all negroes imported after that
   date should be forfeited. The object of this provision
   undoubtedly was to obtain directly what the Constitution only
   gave indirectly and by implication,—the sanction of the
   government of the United States to the principle of
   slave-holding, by making it hold and sell men as property. The
   astuteness of the slave-holding mind on all points touching
   slavery was shown in this proposition, and all the tactics of
   bullying and bluster with which later Congressional campaigns
   have made us familiar, were employed in the debate to which it
   gave rise. It having been moved that the words 'shall be
   entitled to his or her freedom' should be inserted after the
   word 'forfeited,' a furious fight ensued over this amendment.
   The Southern members resisted it, on the ground that the
   emancipation of the imported Africans would increase the
   number of free negroes, who, as Mr. Early affirmed, 'were
   considered in the States where they are found in considerable
   numbers as instruments of murder, theft, and conflagration.'
   And so craftily was this proposition of forfeiture to the
   government qualified, that its drift was not at first
   discerned by the Northern members. For, strong as was their
   disapprobation of slavery in the abstract, they felt no
   disposition to expose their Southern brethren to all the
   horrors of insurrection which it was assumed would follow the
   multiplication of free negroes. Indeed, Mr. Early candidly
   said, that, if these negroes were left free in the Southern
   States, not one of them would be alive in a year. And although
   the Federalists as a party, and Mr. Quincy eminently among
   them, regarded the political element of slavery as full of
   dangers to the future of the nation, these opinions had worked
   no personal and social alienation between Northern and
   Southern men, such as has since taken place. … There was,
   therefore, quite disposition enough to arrange this matter in
   the way the most satisfactory to the masters, without so rigid
   a regard to the rights of the negroes as, it is to be hoped,
   would have been had in later times. Mr. Quincy at first
   opposed striking out the forfeiture clause, on the ground that
   this was the only way in which the United States could get the
   control of the Africans, so as to dispose of them in the
   manner most for their own interest. … These views influenced a
   majority of the Northern members until the question of the
   final passage of the bill approached. At last they came to a
   sense of the disgrace which the forfeiture of the negroes to
   the government, and the permission to it to sell them as
   slaves if it so pleased, would bring upon the nation, and the
   whole matter was recommitted to a committee of one from each
   State. … This committee reported a bill providing that such
   imported negroes should be sent to such States as had
   abolished slavery, there to be bound out as apprentices for a
   term of years, at the expiration of which they should be free.
   This bill produced a scene of great and violent excitement on
   the part of the slaveholders. Mr. Early declared that the
   people of the South would resist this provision with their
   lives! This resistance to a measure which proposed doing all
   the slaveholders had demanded for their own safety, to wit,
   removing the imported negroes from the slaveholding domain and
   providing for them in the Free States, showed that their
   purpose was, at least in part, to have the negroes sold as
   slaves to themselves. This object they did virtually gain at
   last, as the final settlement was by a bill originating in the
   Senate, providing that, though neither importer nor purchaser
   should have a title to such negroes, still the negroes should
   be subject to any regulation for their disposal that should be
   made by the States into which they might be brought. The
   design of the slaveholding party to make the United States
   recognize the rightfulness of property in man was thus
   avoided, but it was at the cost of leaving the imported
   Africans to the tender mercies of the Slave States. The fact
   that the slaveholders were greatly incensed at the result, and
   regarded it as an injury and an affront, does not make this
   disposition of these unfortunates any the less discreditable
   to Congress or the nation."

      E. Quincy,
      Life of Josiah Quincy,
      chapter 5.

      See, also, SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1792-1807.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1808.
   The effects of the Embargo.

   "The dread of war, radical in the Republican theory, sprang
   not so much from the supposed waste of life or resources as
   from the retroactive effects which war must exert upon the
   form of government; but the experience of a few months showed
   that the embargo as a system was rapidly leading to the same
   effects. … Personal liberties and rights of property were more
   directly curtailed in the United States by embargo than in
   Great Britain by centuries of almost continuous foreign war. …
   While the constitutional cost of the two systems was not
   altogether unlike, the economical cost was a point not easily
   settled. No one could say what might be the financial expense
   of embargo as compared with war. Yet Jefferson himself in the
   end admitted that the embargo had no claim to respect as an
   economical measure. … As the order was carried along the
   seacoast, every artisan dropped his tools, every merchant
   closed his doors, every ship was dismantled. American
   produce—wheat, timber, cotton, tobacco, rice—dropped in value
   or became unsalable; every imported article rose in price;
   wages stopped; swarms of debtors became bankrupt; thousands of
   sailors hung idle round the wharves trying to find employment
   on coasters, and escape to the West Indies or Nova Scotia. A
   reign of idleness began; and the men who were not already
   ruined felt that their ruin was only a matter of time. The
   British traveller, Lambert, who visited New York in 1808,
   described it as resembling a place ravaged by pestilence:—'The
   port indeed was full of shipping, but they were dismantled and
   laid up; their decks were cleared, their hatches fastened
   down, and scarcely a sailor was to be found on board. Not a
   box, bale, cask, barrel, or package was to be seen upon the
   wharves.' … In New England, where the struggle of existence
   was keenest, the embargo struck like a thunderbolt, and
   society for a moment thought itself at an end.
{3337}
   Foreign commerce and shipping were the life of the people,
   —the ocean, as Pickering said, was their farm. The outcry of
   suffering interests became every day more violent, as the
   public learned that this paralysis was not a matter of weeks,
   but of months or years. … The belief that Jefferson, sold to
   France, wished to destroy American commerce and to strike a
   deadly blow at New and Old England at once, maddened the
   sensitive temper of the people. Immense losses, sweeping away
   their savings and spreading bankruptcy through every village,
   gave ample cause for their complaints. Yet in truth, New
   England was better able to defy the embargo than she was
   willing to suppose. She lost nothing except profits which the
   belligerents had in any case confiscated; her timber would not
   harm for keeping, and her fish were safe in the ocean. The
   embargo gave her almost a monopoly of the American market for
   domestic manufactures; no part of the country was so well
   situated or so well equipped for smuggling. … The growers of
   wheat and live stock in the Middle States were more hardly
   treated. Their wheat, reduced in value from two dollars to
   seventy-five cents a bushel, became practically unsalable. …
   The manufacturers of Pennsylvania could not but feel the
   stimulus of the new demand; so violent a system of protection
   was never applied to them before or since. Probably for that
   reason the embargo was not so unpopular in Pennsylvania as
   elsewhere, and Jefferson had nothing to fear from political
   revolution in this calm and plodding community. The true
   burden of the embargo fell on the Southern States, but most
   severely upon the great State of Virginia. Slowly decaying,
   but still half patriarchal, Virginia society could neither
   economize nor liquidate. Tobacco was worthless; but 400,000
   negro slaves must be clothed and fed, great establishments
   must be kept up, the social scale of living could not be
   reduced, and even could not clear a large landed estate
   without creating new encumbrances in a country bankruptcy
   where land and negroes were the only forms of property on
   which money could be raised. Stay-laws were tried, but served
   only to prolong the agony. With astonishing rapidity Virginia
   succumbed to ruin, while continuing to support the system that
   was draining her strength."

      H. Adams,
      History of the United States:
      Second Administration of Jefferson,
      volume 2, chapter 12.

   "'Our passion,' said Jefferson, 'is peace.' He not only
   recoiled as a philanthropist from bloodshed, but as a
   politician he with reason dreaded military propensities and
   sabre sway. Such preparations for war as he could be induced
   to make were scrupulously defensive, and his fleet of
   gun-boats for the protection of the coast to be launched when
   the invader should appear excited a smile. Alone among all
   statesmen he tried to make war without bloodshed by means of
   an embargo on trade. … It is not the highest of his titles to
   fame in the eyes of his countrymen, but it may be not the
   lowest in the court of humanity, that he sacrificed his
   popularity in the attempt to find a bloodless substitute for
   war. His memory recovered from the shock and his reign over
   American opinion endured."

      Goldwin Smith,
      The United States:
      An outline of Political History, 1492-1871,
      chapter 3.

      ALSO IN:
      H. A. Hill,
      Trade and Commerce of Boston, 1780-1880
      (Memorial History of Boston,
      volume 4, part 2, chapter 8).

      E. Quincy,
      Life of Josiah Quincy,
      chapters 6-7.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1808.
   Sixth Presidential Election.
   Jefferson succeeded by Madison.

   "In anticipation of Jefferson's retirement there had been … no
   little dispute and lively canvassing as to the next incumbency
   of the presidential chair. … Upon Madison, it was generally
   considered that Jefferson had fixed his personal preference. …
   But Madison had many political enemies in the Republican ranks
   among Virginians themselves. … Monroe was the growing
   favorite. Republicans in Congress, who, from one cause or
   another, had become disaffected to the Secretary of State,
   made their new choice manifest. The Quids [see QUIDS], having
   courted Monroe by letter when he was abroad, crowded about him
   when he passed through Washington on his way home, just as the
   Embargo became a law. … Monroe hesitated, unwilling to make a
   breach; and rather than hazard the Republican cause, or the
   future prospects of their favorite, his more temperate friends
   took him off the list of candidates, so that at the usual
   Congressional caucus, held at the capital, Madison was
   nominated almost unanimously for President, and George Clinton
   for Vice-President. But out of 139 Republican Senators and
   Representatives only 89 were present at this caucus, some
   being sick or absent from the city, and others keeping away
   because dissatisfied. Clinton had been a disappointed
   candidate, as well as Monroe, for the highest honors. … His
   ambition was pursued beyond the caucus, notwithstanding his
   renomination as Vice-President, until the friends of Madison,
   who had profited by the diversion among competitors,
   threatened to drop Clinton from the regular ticket unless he
   relinquished his pretensions to a higher place than that
   already assigned him. Meantime the schismatic Republicans had
   united in protesting to the country against Congressional
   dictation, at the same time pronouncing that the caucus which
   had nominated Madison was irregularly held. This open letter
   was signed by 17 Republican members of Congress. …
   Unfortunately for their influence in the canvass, however,
   they could not agree as to whether Monroe or Clinton should
   head the ticket. Objectionable, moreover, as the Congressional
   caucus might be, many more Presidential terms elapsed before
   other nominating machinery superseded it. National delegates,
   the national congress or convention of a party, was an idea
   too huge as yet for American politics to grasp in these days
   of plain frugality. … Harassed with foes within and without,
   with dissensions among the friends of rival candidates for the
   succession, with an odious and profitless measure to execute,
   against which citizens employed both cunning and force, it
   seemed, at one time, as if the administration party would go
   down in the fall elections. But Jefferson's wonderful
   popularity and the buoyancy of Republican principles carried
   the day. The regular Presidential ticket prevailed, not
   without a diminished majority."

      J. Schouler,
      History of the United States,
      chapter 6, section 2 (volume 2).

   James Madison, Democratic Republican, was elected, receiving
   122 votes in the Electoral College; George Clinton, of the
   same party, receiving 6, and Charles C. Pinckney, Federalist,
   47. George Clinton was chosen Vice President.

{3338}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1808-1810.
   Substitution of Non-intercourse for Embargo.
   Delusive conduct of Napoleon.

   "All through the year 1808 and the first two months of 1809,
   the heavy hand of the embargo was laid on American commerce.
   The close of Jefferson's administration was signalized by an
   important change in the policy of the American Government.
   Almost the last act which Jefferson performed as President was
   to sign the new law which repealed the embargo, and
   substituted non-intercourse—a law which instead of universal
   prohibition of trade, merely prohibited commerce with Great
   Britain and with the countries under French control. The
   statute further authorized the President to suspend this
   prohibition as to either Great Britain or France as soon as
   one or the other should desist from violating neutral rights.
   An excuse for renewing commercial relations was not long
   delayed. On April 21, 1809, immediately upon the rather
   unexpected conclusion of a liberal and satisfactory diplomatic
   arrangement with Erskine, the British minister in Washington,
   the non-intercourse act was suspended as to Great Britain; and
   foreign trade, long dormant, suddenly sprang into excessive
   activity. This happy truce was short-lived. Erskine had
   effected his arrangement by a deliberate and almost defiant
   disregard of Canning's instructions; and his acts were
   promptly disavowed by his government. His recall was followed
   by a renewal of non-intercourse under a presidential
   proclamation of August 9, 1809. But notwithstanding the
   disavowal of Erskine, the British Government had made an
   apparent concession to the United States by the adoption of
   new orders in council which revoked the stringent prohibitions
   of the orders of 1807, and substituted a paper blockade of all
   ports and places under the government of France—a distinction
   which, on the whole, was perhaps without any important
   difference. France, on the other hand, entered upon a course
   of further aggressions. Louis Bonaparte was driven from his
   kingdom of Holland because he refused to attack neutral
   commerce, and all American ships found lying at Amsterdam were
   seized. Finally, by the decree of Rambouillet, every American
   ship found in any French port was confiscated and ordered
   sold. England and the United States thus seemed for the moment
   to be slowly drawing together in the presence of a common
   enemy, when suddenly the whole situation of affairs was
   changed by the formal announcement on August 5, 1810, of the
   Emperor's intended revocation of the decrees of Berlin and
   Milan, such revocation to take place on the first day of the
   following November, provided the British Government revoked
   their orders in council, or (and this was the important
   provision) the United States caused their rights to be
   respected. This promise, as Napoleon had privately pointed out
   a few days before, committed him to nothing; but it was
   accepted with all seriousness on the part of the United
   States. In reliance upon the imperial word, commercial
   intercourse with Great Britain—which had been once more
   resumed in May, 1810—was for the third time suspended. This,
   it was thought, was 'causing American rights to be respected';
   and although the condemnation of American ships went on
   without a pause in every continental port, the Government of
   the United States clung with the strongest pertinacity to the
   belief that Napoleon's declarations were sincere. The
   practical effect of all this was to bar the door against any
   possible settlement with Great Britain. Commerce was now
   permanently suspended; there was a long list of grievances to
   be redressed, and negotiation was exhausted."

      G. L. Rives, editor,
      Selections from the Correspondence of Thomas Barclay,
      chapter 6.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1810.
   The Third Census.

   Total population, 7,215,791 (being an increase of nearly 36½
   per cent. over the population shown in 1800), classed and
   distributed as follows:

North.

                     White.    Free black.  Slave.
Connecticut.         255,279      6,453        310
Illinois.             11,501        613        168
Indiana.              23,890        393        237
Maine.               227,736        969          0
Massachusetts.       465,303      6,737          0
Michigan.              4,618        120         24
New Hampshire.       213,390        970          0
New Jersey.          226,861      7,843     10,851
New York.            918,699     25,333     15,017
Ohio.                228,861      1,899          0
Pennsylvania.        786,804     22,492        795
Rhode Island.         73,314      3,609        108
Vermont.             216,963        750          0
                     -------     ------     ------
Total              3,653,219     78,181     27,510

South.

                     White.    Free black.  Slave.
Delaware.             55,361     13,136      4,177
District of Columbia. 16,079      2,549      5,395
Georgia.             145,414      1,801    105,218
Kentucky.            324,237      1,713     80,561
Louisiana.            34,311      7,585     34,660
Maryland.            235,117     33,927    111,502
Mississippi.          23,024        240     17,088
Missouri.             17,227        607      3,011
North Carolina.      376,410     10,266    168,824
South Carolina.      214,196      4,554    196,365
Tennessee.           215,875      1,317     44,535
Virginia.            551,534     30,570    392,518
                     -------    -------    -------
                   2,208,785    108,265  1,163,854

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1810-1812.
   Continued provocation from England and France.
   The "War of 1812" against Great Britain declared.

   "Congress, on May 1, 1810, passed an act providing that
   commercial non-intercourse with the belligerent powers should
   cease with the end of the session, only armed ships being
   excluded from American ports; and further, that, in case
   either of them should recall its obnoxious orders or decrees,
   the President should announce the fact by proclamation, and if
   the other did not do the same within three months, the
   non-intercourse act should be revived against that one,—a
   measure adopted only because Congress, in its helplessness,
   did not know what else to do. The conduct of France had
   meanwhile been no less offensive than that of Great Britain.
   On all sorts of pretexts American ships were seized in the
   harbors and waters controlled by French power. A spirited
   remonstrance on the part of Armstrong, the American Minister,
   was answered by the issue of the Rambouillet Decree in May,
   1810, ordering the sale of American vessels and cargoes
   seized, and directing like confiscation of all American
   vessels entering any ports under the control of France.
{3339}
   This decree was designed to stop the surreptitious trade that
   was still being carried on between England and the continent
   in American bottoms. When it failed in accomplishing that end,
   Napoleon instructed his Minister of Foreign Affairs,
   Champagny, to inform the American Minister that the Berlin and
   Milan Decrees were revoked, and would cease to have effect on
   November 1, 1810, if the English would revoke their Orders in
   Council, and recall their new principles of blockade, or if
   the United States would 'cause their rights to be respected by
   the English,'—in the first place restore the non-intercourse
   act as to Great Britain. … The British government, being
   notified of this by the American Minister, declared on
   September 29 that Great Britain would recall the Orders in
   Council when the revocation of the French decrees should have
   actually taken effect, and the commerce of neutrals should
   have been restored. … Madison, … leaning toward France, as was
   traditional with the Republican party, and glad to grasp even
   at the semblance of an advantage, chose to regard the
   withdrawal of the Berlin and Milan Decrees as actual and done
   in good faith, and announced it as a matter of fact on
   November 1, 1810. French armed ships were no longer excluded
   from American ports. On February 2, 1811, the non-importation
   act was revived as to Great Britain. In May the British Court
   of Admiralty delivered an opinion that no evidence existed of
   the withdrawal of the Berlin and Milan Decrees, which resulted
   in the condemnation of a number of American vessels and their
   cargoes. Additional irritation was caused by the capture, off
   Sandy Hook, of an American vessel bound to France, by some
   fresh cases of search and impressment, and by an encounter
   between the American frigate President and the British sloop
   Little Belt, which fired into one another, the British vessel
   suffering most. But was American commerce safe in French
   ports? By no means. … Outrages on American ships by French
   men-of-war and privateers went on as before, … The pretended
   French concession was, therefore, a mere farce. Truly, there
   were American grievances enough. Over 900 American ships had
   been seized by the British, and more than 550 by the French. …
   By both belligerents the United States had been kicked and
   cuffed like a mere interloper among the nations of the earth,
   who had no rights entitled to respectful consideration. Their
   insolence seemed to have been increased by the irresolution of
   the American government, the distraction of counsel in
   Congress, and the division of sentiment among the people. …
   But … young Republican leaders came to the front to interpret
   the 'national spirit and expectation.' They totally eclipsed
   the old chiefs by their dash and brilliancy. Foremost among
   them stood Henry Clay; then John C. Calhoun, William Lowndes,
   Felix Grundy, Langdon Cheves, and others. They believed that,
   if the American Republic was to maintain anything like the
   dignity of an independent power, and to preserve, or rather,
   regain, the respect of mankind in any degree,—ay, its
   self-respect,—it must cease to submit to humiliation and
   contemptuous treatment; it must fight,—fight somebody who had
   wronged or insulted it. The Republicans having always a tender
   side for France, and the fiction of French concessions being
   accepted, the theory of the war party was that, of the two
   belligerents, England had more insolently maltreated the
   United States. Rumors were spread that an Indian war then
   going on, and resulting in the battle of Tippecanoe on
   November 7, 1811, was owing to English intrigues. Adding this
   to the old Revolutionary reminiscences of British oppression,
   it was not unnatural that the national wrath should generally
   turn against Great Britain. … Not only the regular army was
   increased, but the President was authorized to accept and
   employ 50,000 volunteers. Then a bill was introduced providing
   for the building of ten new frigates. … The war spirit in the
   country gradually rose, and manifested itself noisily in
   public meetings, passing resolutions, and memorializing
   Congress. It was increased in intensity by a sensational
   'exposure,' a batch of papers laid before Congress by the
   President in March, 1812. They had been sold to the government
   by John Henry, an Irish adventurer, and disclosed a
   confidential mission to New England, undertaken by Henry in
   1809 at the request of Sir James Craig, the governor of
   Canada, to encourage a disunion movement in the Eastern
   States. This was the story. Whatever its foundation, it was
   believed, and greatly increased popular excitement." On the
   4th of April the President signed a bill laying an embargo on
   commerce with Great Britain for ninety days. "All over the
   country the embargo was understood as meaning an immediate
   preparation for war. … In May, 1812, President Madison was
   nominated for reelection by the congressional caucus. It has
   been said that he was dragooned into the war policy by Clay
   and his followers with the threat that, unless he yielded to
   their views, another candidate for the presidency would be
   chosen. This Clay denied, and there was no evidence to
   discredit his denial. Madison was simply swept into the
   current by the impetuosity of Young America. … On June 1 the
   President's war message came. On June 18 a bill in accordance
   with it, which had passed both Houses, was signed by the
   President, who proclaimed hostilities the next day. Thus Young
   America, led by Henry Clay, carried their point. But there was
   something disquieting in their victory. The majority they
   commanded in Congress was not so large as a majority for a
   declaration of war should be. In the House, Pennsylvania and
   the states south and west of it gave 62 votes for the war, and
   32 against it; the states north and east of Pennsylvania gave
   17 yeas and 32 nays,—in all 79 for and 49 against war. This
   showed a difference of sentiment according to geographical
   divisions. Not even all the Republicans were in favor of war.
   … Nor were the United States in any sense well prepared for a
   war with a first-class power."

      C. Schurz,
      Life of Henry Clay,
      volume 1, chapter 5.

      ALSO IN:
      S. Perkins,
      History of the Late War,
      chapters 1-2.

      C. J. Ingersoll,
      Historical Sketch of the Second War between
      the United States and Great Britain,
      volume 1, chapter 1.

      E. Quincy,
      Life of Josiah Quincy,
      chapters 9-12.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1811.
   Refusal to re-charter the Bank of the United States.

      See MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1791-1816.

{3340}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1811.
   General Harrison's campaign against Tecumseh and his league.
   The Battle of Tippecanoe.

   "During the interval between the Tripolitan war and the war of
   1812, one noticeable campaign was made against the Indians.
   The operation took place in 1811, under General William H.
   Harrison, governor of Indiana Territory, and was directed
   against the Shawnees and other tribes which adhered to
   Tecumseh. This chief, with his brother, known as 'the
   Prophet,' had been engaged since 1806 in planning a species of
   crusade against the whites, and had acquired great influence
   among the northwestern Indians. For the previous two years
   Harrison's suspicions had been aroused by reports of
   Tecumseh's intrigues, and attempts had been made from time to
   time to negotiate with him, but without satisfactory results.
   In the summer of 1811 it was decided to strike a decisive blow
   at the Indians, and in the autumn Harrison, with a regiment of
   regulars under Colonel Boyd, and a force of militia, marched
   upon Tecumseh's town, situated on the Tippecanoe River. On the
   7th of November the Indians, in Tecumseh's absence, attempted
   to surprise Harrison's camp, but in the battle which followed
   they were driven off, and presently abandoned their town,
   which Harrison burned. The invading force then retired. The
   importance of the expedition was largely due to the military
   reputation which Harrison acquired by it."

      J. R. Soley,
      The Wars of the United States
      (Narrative and Critical History of the United States,
      volume 7, chapter 6).

      ALSO IN:
      American State Papers: Indian Affairs,
      volume 1, page 776.

      E. Eggleston and L. E. Seelye,
      Tecumseh,
      chapters 12-23.

      H. Adams,
      History of the United States:
      First Administration of Madison,
      volume 2, chapters 4-5.

      J. B. Dillon,
      History of Indiana,
      chapters 35-38.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812 (April).
   Admission of Louisiana into the Union.

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1812.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812 (June-October).
   Rioting at Baltimore.
   The opening of the war and the unreadiness of the nation for it.
   Hull's disastrous campaign and surrender, at Detroit.

   "It was perhaps characteristic of the conduct of the war, that
   the first blood spilled should be American blood, shed by
   Americans. … In the night of June 22d, three days after the
   proclamation of war, a mob in Baltimore sacked the office of
   the 'Federal Republican,' edited by Alexander Hanson, because
   he had opposed the war policy. The mob also attacked the
   residences of several prominent Federalists, and burned one of
   them. Vessels in the harbor, too, were visited and plundered.
   About a month later Hanson resumed the publication of his
   paper, and in the night of July 26th the mob gathered again."
   This time they were resisted and one was killed; whereupon the
   authorities seized Hanson and his friends and lodged them in
   jail. "The rioters, thus encouraged by those whose business it
   was to punish them, attacked the jail the next night, murdered
   General Lingan [one of Hanson's defenders], injured General
   [Henry] Lee so that he was a cripple for the rest of his life,
   and beat several of the other victims and subjected them to
   torture. The leaders of the mob were brought to trial, but
   were acquitted! In this state of affairs, the war party in the
   country being but little stronger than the peace party, the
   youngest and almost the weakest of civilized nations went to
   war with one of the oldest and most powerful. The regular army
   of the United States numbered only 6,000 men; but Congress had
   passed an act authorizing its increase to 25,000, and in
   addition to this the President was empowered to call for
   50,000 volunteers, and to use the militia to the extent of
   100,000. Henry Dearborn, of Massachusetts, was made a
   major-general and appointed to command the land forces.
   Against the thousand vessels and 144,000 sailors of the
   British navy, the Americans had 20 war-ships and a few
   gunboats, the whole carrying about 300 guns. But these
   figures, taken alone, are deceptive; since a very large part
   of the British force was engaged in the European wars, and the
   practical question was, what force the United States could
   bring against so much as England could spare for operations on
   the high seas and on this side of the Atlantic. In that
   comparison, the discrepancy was not so great, and the United
   States had an enormous element of strength in her fine
   merchant marine. Her commerce being temporarily suspended to a
   large degree, there was an abundance both of ships and
   sailors, from which to build up a navy and fit out a fleet of
   privateers. Indeed, privateering was the business that now
   offered the largest prizes to mariners and ship-owners. … War
   with Great Britain being determined upon, the plan of campaign
   that first and most strongly presented itself to the
   Administration was the conquest of the British provinces on
   our northern border. … In planning for the invasion of Canada,
   the Administration counted largely upon a supposed readiness
   of the Canadians to throw off their allegiance to Great
   Britain and join with the United States. Such expectations
   have almost never been realized, and in this instance they
   were completely disappointed. In the preceding February,
   William Hull, Governor of the Territory of Michigan, who had
   rendered distinguished service in the Revolution, had been
   made a brigadier-general and placed in command of the forces
   in Ohio, with orders to march them to Detroit, to protect the
   Territory against the Indians, who were becoming troublesome.
   In June he was in command of about 2,000 men, in northern
   Ohio, moving slowly through the wilderness. On the day when
   war was declared, June 18th, the Secretary of War wrote him
   two letters. The first, in which the declaration was not
   mentioned, was despatched by a special messenger, and reached
   General Hull on the 24th. The other informed him of the
   declaration of war, but was sent by mail to Cleveland, there
   to take its chance of reaching the General by whatever
   conveyance might be found. The consequence was, that he did
   not receive it till the 2d of July. But every British
   commander in Canada learned the news several days earlier.
   Hull arrived at Detroit on the 5th of July and set about
   organizing his forces. On the 9th he received from the War
   Department orders to begin the invasion of Canada by taking
   possession of Malden, 15 miles below Detroit, on the other
   side of the river, if he thought he could do so with safety to
   his own posts. He crossed on the 12th, and issued a
   proclamation to the Canadians." He found the enemy too
   strongly fortified at Malden to be prudently assaulted with
   raw troops and without artillery. "So it was decided to defer
   the attack, and in a few days came the news that, on the
   declaration of war, a force of over 600—British and
   Indians—had promptly moved against the American post at
   Michilimackinac—on the rocky little island of Mackinaw,
   commanding the strait between Lake Huron and Lake Michigan—and
   the garrison of 61 officers and men capitulated on the 16th of
   July.
{3341}
   This disaster to the Americans roused the Indians to renewed
   hostility against them, while it proportionately disheartened
   Hull, and seems to have been the first step in the breaking
   down of his courage. After a few skirmishes, he recrossed to
   Detroit on the 7th of August. Meanwhile the British Colonel
   Proctor had arrived at Malden with reënforcements, and on
   Hull's withdrawal to Detroit he threw a force across the river
   to intercept his supplies. This force consisted of a small
   number of British regulars and a considerable number of
   Indians commanded by the famous Tecumseh." Two considerable
   engagements occurred between this force and detachments sent
   out to meet an expected supply train. In the first, the
   Americans were badly beaten; in the second, they drove the
   enemy to their boats with heavy loss; but the supply train was
   not secured. "During this gloomy state of things at Detroit, a
   bloody affair took place on ground that is now within the city
   of Chicago. Fort Dearborn stood at the mouth of Chicago River,
   and was occupied by a garrison of about 50 soldiers, with
   several families. Captain Nathan Heald, commanding the post,
   had been ordered by General Hull to abandon it and remove his
   force to Detroit. "To conciliate the neighboring Indians who
   professed friendliness, he promised to give them all the
   property in the fort which he could not carry; but before
   making the delivery to them he foolishly destroyed all the
   arms, the gunpowder and the liquors. Enraged by this
   proceeding, which they considered a trick, the savages pursued
   Captain Heald's small party, waylaid them among the Sand-hills
   on the lake shore, and massacred the greater part, twelve
   children included. The scalps which they took were sold to
   Colonel Proctor, "who had offered a premium for American
   scalps." The same day on which this occurred, August 15th,
   "the British General Isaac Brock, who had arrived at Malden a
   few days before and assumed command there, formally demanded
   the surrender of Detroit. This demand included a plain threat
   of massacre in case of refusal. Said Brock in his letter: 'It
   is far from my intention to join in a war of extermination;
   but you must be aware that the numerous bodies of Indians who
   have attached themselves to my troops will be beyond my
   control the moment the contest commences.' … Brock's force,
   according to his own testimony, numbered 1,330 men, including
   600 Indians, and he had also two ships of war. Hull had
   present for duty about 1,000 men. Brock sent a large body of
   Indians across the river that night, at a point five miles
   below the fort, and early in the morning crossed with the
   remainder of his troops, and at once marched on the place." On
   the approach of the attacking force Hull offered to surrender.
   "The articles of capitulation were drawn up, and the American
   general surrendered, not merely the fort and its garrison, but
   the whole Territory of Michigan, of which he was Governor. …
   Hull's officers were incensed at his action, and he was
   subsequently court-martialled, convicted of cowardice, and
   condemned to death; but the President pardoned him, in
   consideration of his age and his services in the Revolution. …
   Subsequent investigations, if they do not exonerate General
   Hull, have at least greatly modified the blame attached to
   him."

      R. Johnson,
      History of the War of 1812-15,
      chapter 2.

      ALSO IN:
      J. F. Clarke,
      History of the Campaign of 1812 and
      Surrender of the Post at Detroit.

      B. J. Lossing,
      Hull's Surrender
      (Potter's American Monthly, August, 1875).

      F. S. Drake,
      Memorials of the Massachusetts Society of the Cincinnati,
      pages 341-354.

      S. C. Clark,
      Hull's Surrender at Detroit
      (Magazine of American History, volume 27).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812.
   The opposition of the Federalists to the war.

   "Unfortunately for the Federalists, while they were wholly
   right in many of their criticisms on the manner in which the
   war came about, they put themselves in the wrong as to its
   main feature. We can now see that in their just wrath against
   Napoleon they would have let the nation remain in a position
   of perpetual childhood and subordination before England. No
   doubt there were various points at issue in the impending
   contest, but the most important one, and the only one that
   remained in dispute all through the war, was that of the right
   of search and impressment. … It must be understood that this
   was not a question of reclaiming deserters from the British
   navy, for the seamen in question had very rarely belonged to
   it. There existed in England at that time an outrage on
   civilization, now abandoned, called impressment, by which any
   sailor and many who were not sailors could be seized and
   compelled to serve in the navy. The horrors of the
   'press-gang,' as exhibited in the sea-side towns of England,
   have formed the theme of many novels. It was bad enough at
   home, but when applied on board the vessels of a nation with
   which England was at peace, it became one of those outrages
   which only proceed from the strong to the weak, and are never
   reciprocated. Lord Collingwood said well, in one of his
   letters, that England would not submit to such an aggression
   for an hour. Merely to yield to visitation for such a purpose
   was a confession of national weakness; but the actual case was
   far worse than this. … We have … Cobbett's statement of the
   consequences. 'Great numbers of Americans have been
   impressed,' he adds, 'and are now in our navy. … That many of
   these men have died on board our ships, that many have been
   worn out in the service, there is no doubt.' … In 1806 the
   merchants of Boston had called upon the general government to
   'assert our rights and support the dignity of the United
   States.' … Yet it shows the height of party feeling that when,
   in 1812, Mr. Madison's government finally went to war for
   these very rights, the measure met with the bitterest
   opposition from the whole Federalist party, and from the
   commercial States generally. A good type of the Federalist
   opposition on this particular point is to be found in the
   pamphlets of John Lowell. John Lowell was the son of the
   eminent Massachusetts judge of that name; he was a
   well-educated lawyer, who was president of the Massachusetts
   Agricultural Society, and wrote under the name of 'A New
   England Farmer.' In spite of the protests offered half a dozen
   years before by his own neighbors, he declared the whole
   outcry against impressment to be a device of Mr. Madison's
   party. … He argued unflinchingly for the English right of
   search, called it a 'consecrated' right, maintained that the
   allegiance of British subjects was perpetual, and that no
   residence in a foreign country could absolve them. …
{3342}
   While such a man, with a large party behind him, took this
   position, it must simply be said that the American republic
   had not yet asserted itself to be a nation. Soon after the
   Revolution, when some one spoke of that contest to Franklin as
   the war for independence, he said, 'Say rather the war of the
   Revolution; the war for independence is yet to be fought.' The
   war of 1812 was just the contest he described. To this
   excitement directed against the war, the pulpit very largely
   contributed, the chief lever applied by the Federalist clergy
   being found in the atrocities of Napoleon. … The Federalist
   leaders took distinctly the ground that they should refuse to
   obey a conscription law to raise troops for the conquest of
   Canada; and when that very questionable measure failed by one
   vote in the Senate, the nation may have escaped a serious
   outbreak. … It might, indeed, have been far more dangerous
   than the Hartford Convention of 1814 [see UNITED STATES OF
   AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (DECEMBER)], which was, after all, only a
   peaceable meeting of some two dozen men, with George Cabot at
   their head—men of whom very few had even a covert purpose of
   dissolving the Union, but who were driven to something very
   near desperation by the prostration of their commerce and the
   defencelessness of their coast."

      T. W. Higginson,
      Larger History of the United States,
      chapter 15.

      ALSO IN:
      H. von Holst,
      Constitutional and Political History of the United States,
      volume 1, chapter 6.

      H. C. Lodge,
      Life and Letters of George Cabot,
      chapters 11-12.

      E. Quincy,
      Life of Josiah Quincy,
      chapters 11-14.

      See, also, BLUE-LIGHT FEDERALISTS.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812 (September-November).
   The opening of the war on the New York frontier.
   The Battle of Queenstown Heights.

   "To put Dearborn [who commanded in the northern department] in
   a condition to act with effect, Governor Tompkins [of the
   state of New York] made the greatest efforts to get out the
   New York quota of militia. The Democratic Legislature of
   Vermont voted to add to the pay of their militia in service as
   much as was paid by the United States. At the same time they
   passed a stringent drafting law, and offered $30 bounty to
   volunteers. By the co-operating exertions of these states and
   of the war department, some 3,000 regulars and 2,000 militia
   were presently assembled on Lake Champlain, under Dearborn's
   immediate command. Another force of 2,000 militia was
   stationed at different points along the south bank of the St.
   Lawrence, their left resting on Sackett's Harbor. A third army
   was collected along the Niagara River, from Fort Niagara to
   Buffalo, then a village of a thousand or two inhabitants, in
   the midst of a newly-settled district. This latter force of
   nearly 6,000 men, half regulars and volunteers and half
   militia, was under the immediate command of Major-general Van
   Rensselaer, a Federalist. … The first skirmishes on the New
   York frontier grew out of attempts, not unsuccessful, made
   principally from Ogdensburg, a new but much the largest
   village on the American side of the St. Lawrence, to intercept
   the British supplies proceeding upward in boats. The militia
   officer in command at Ogdensburg was General Jacob Brown. A
   Pennsylvanian by birth, a Quaker by education, while employed
   as a teacher in the city of New York, some newspaper essays of
   his had attracted the attention of Alexander Hamilton, to
   whom, during the quasi war of '98, he became military
   secretary. Removing afterward to the new settlements of
   Northwestern New York, his enterprise had founded the
   flourishing village of Brownsville, not far from Sackett's
   Harbor. … His success in repulsing a British force of 700 men,
   which attempted to cross from Prescott to attack Ogdensburg,
   laid the foundation of a military reputation which soon placed
   him at the head of the American army. There had been built on
   Lake Ontario, out of the gun-boat appropriations, but by a
   fortunate improvement upon Jefferson's model, a sloop of war
   of light draft, mounting 16 guns. This vessel, called the
   Oneida, just before the breaking out of the war had been
   furnished with a regular-bred commander and crew. She was
   attacked shortly after at Sackett's Harbor by five British
   vessels, three of them larger than herself, but manned only by
   lake watermen. By landing part of her guns, and establishing a
   battery on shore, she succeeded, however, in beating them off.
   Hull's failure having shown how important was the control of
   the lakes, a judicious selection was made of Captain Chauncey,
   hitherto at the head of the New York Navy Yard, to take
   command on those waters. Along with Henry Eckford as naval
   constructor, and soon followed by ship-carpenters, naval
   stores, guns, and presently by parties of seamen, he was sent
   to Sackett's Harbor [September, 1812], then held by a garrison
   of 200 regulars. That newly-settled region could supply
   nothing but timber; every thing else had to be transported
   from Albany at vast expense. … A 24-gun ship was at once
   commenced; for immediate use, Chauncey purchased six of the
   small schooners employed in the then infant commerce of the
   lake, which, though very ill adapted for war, he armed with
   four guns each. With these and the Oneida he put out on the
   lake, and soon [November 8] drove the British ships into
   Kingston. … While thus employed, Chauncey had sent Lieutenant
   Elliot to Buffalo, with a party of seamen, to make
   arrangements for a force on the upper lakes. Elliot, soon
   after his arrival, succeeded in cutting out [October 9] from
   under the guns of Fort Erie, nearly Opposite Buffalo, two
   British vessels just arrived from Detroit. One, the late
   Adams, which the British had armed and equipped, grounded, and
   it became necessary to destroy her. The other, the Caledonia,
   of two guns, was brought off, and became the nucleus of the
   naval force of Lake Erie. Elliot also purchased several small
   schooners lying in the Niagara River; but they, as well as the
   Caledonia, lay blockaded at Black Rock [now a part of the city
   of Buffalo], the passage into the lake being commanded by the
   guns of Fort Erie. The troops along the Niagara frontier,
   highly excited by Elliot's exploit, demanded to be led against
   the enemy; and, under the idea that the British village of
   Queenstown, at the foot of the falls [a few miles below] might
   furnish comfortable winter quarters for a part of his troops,
   Van Rensselaer resolved to attack it."

      R. Hildreth,
      History of the United States,
      2d series, chapter 25 (volume 3).

{3343}

   The Niagara River, 35 miles long, which conducts the waters of
   the upper lakes through Erie into Ontario, constituted an
   important military frontier in such a war; its banks sparsely
   settled, and the crossing a narrow one. Below the roaring
   cataracts had assembled another little army, supplied in great
   measure by regiments of the New York quota, Major-General Van
   Rensselaer, of the militia of that State, a prominent
   Federalist, being in command. Hull's sudden surrender left
   Brock free to confront this second adversary with a moderate
   force from the Canada side, not without feeling uncertain as
   to where the American blow would be struck. By October Van
   Rensselaer had 6,000 men, half of them regulars; and, yielding
   to the impatience of his volunteers and the public press, he
   gave orders to cross the river from Lewiston to Queenston.
   High bluffs arose on either side. There were not boats enough
   provided to carry more than half the advance party at a time.
   Too much reliance was placed upon militia, while regulars won
   the laurels. Wool, a young captain, and Lieutenant-Colonel
   Scott did gallant work on Queenston Heights; and General
   Brock, the conqueror of Detroit, fell mortally wounded; but
   reinforcements crossed too slowly, and with the green militia
   dreading death, many of the reserve pleading legal exemption
   from service in an enemy's country, their deserted comrades on
   the Canada side, unable to return, were forced to surrender.
   Van Rensselaer, whose advance had been premature, resigned in
   disgust, leaving a less capable but more pretentious officer,
   of Virginia birth, General Alexander Smyth, to succeed him.
   Smyth had a gift of windy composition, which fortunately,
   imposed upon the inhabitants of Western New York just long
   enough to check despondency and restore a glow to the
   recruiting service. 'Come on, my heroes,' was his cry, 'and
   when you attack the enemy's batteries, let your rallying word
   be: "The cannon lost at Detroit, or death!". All this inkshed
   promised an exploit for invading Canada from the upper end of
   the Niagara, between Fort Erie and Chippewa. By the 27th of
   November Smyth had concentrated at Black Rock, near Buffalo, a
   fair army, 4,500 troops, comprising, in addition to the
   regulars, volunteer regiments from Maryland, Pennsylvania, and
   New York; the last under the command of General Porter, the
   representative in Congress, whose report, twelve months
   before, had given the first loud note of war. The big moment
   approached; but, notwithstanding the sonorous promise of
   'memorable to-morrows,' and an embarkation to the music of
   'Yankee Doodle,' one or two shivering attempts were made to
   land on the opposite shore, and then the volunteers were
   dismissed to their homes, and regulars ordered into
   winter-quarters. Disorderly scenes ensued. Our insubordinate
   and mortified soldiers discharged their muskets in all
   directions. Porter having openly charged Smyth with cowardice,
   the two crossed to Grand Island to fight a duel, and then
   shook hands. … But the country could not be reconciled to such
   generalship, and Smyth was presently cashiered."

      J. Schouler,
      History of the United States,
      volume 2, chapter 8, section 2.

      ALSO IN:
      S. Van Rensselaer,
      Narrative of the Affair of Queenstown.

      J. Symons,
      The Battle of Queenstown Heights.

      General W. Scott,
      Memoirs, by himself,
      volume 1, chapter 6.

      W. H. Merritt,
      Journal during the War of 1812.

      H. Adams,
      History of the United States:
      First Administration of Madison,
      volume 2, chapter 16.

      F. B. Tupper,
      Life and Correspondence of Major-General Sir Isaac Brock,
      chapters 13-14.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812.
   Seventh Presidential Election.

   James Madison was re-elected, receiving in the electoral
   college 128 votes, against 89 cast for DeWitt Clinton,
   Federalist. Elbridge Gerry was elected Vice President.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812-1813.
   Possession of West Florida taken from the Spaniards.

      See FLORIDA: A. D. 1810-1813.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812-1813.
   Indifference to the Navy at the beginning of the war.
   Its Efficiency and its Early Successes.

   "The young leaders of the war party in congress looked to
   successes on land and territorial conquest, and had an
   indifference to the field which the ocean afforded. And yet
   the triumphs of our young fleet in the Revolution, the alarm
   which John Paul Jones excited in English homes, and, later,
   the brilliant achievements in the Mediterranean, the heroes of
   which were still in the prime of their service, might have
   inspired better counsel. Madison's cabinet were said to have
   without exception opposed the increase and use of our navy;
   indeed, somewhat after Jefferson's idea in imposing the
   embargo—to save our vessels by laying them up. The advice of
   Captains Charles Stewart and William Bainbridge, who happened
   to be in Washington at the time of the declaration of war,
   determined Madison to bring the navy into active service. One
   of the chief causes of the war being the impressment of our
   seamen, it seems to-day surprising that their ardor in defense
   of 'Free Trade and Sailors' Rights,'—the cry under which our
   greatest triumphs were won—should have been either passed by
   or deprecated."

      J. A. Stevens,
      Second War with Great Britain
      (Magazine of American History, May-June, 1893).

   "Although [the American navy] had never been regarded by the
   government with favor, it happened that the three most
   essential measures had been adopted to secure its efficiency,—
   the ships built for it were the best of their class in the
   world, the officers had been carefully selected (200 out of a
   total of 500 having been retained under the Peace
   Establishment Act), and they had received—at least a large
   number of them—in Preble's squadron at Tripoli a training such
   as had fallen to the lot of few navies, either before or
   since. To these three causes the successes of 1812 were
   directly due; and although Commodore Preble died in 1807, the
   credit of the later war belongs more to him than to any other
   one man. It was not only that he formed many of the individual
   officers who won the victories of 1812-15,—for Hull, Decatur,
   Bainbridge, Macdonough, Porter, Lawrence, Biddle, Chauncey,
   Warrington, Charles Morris, and Stewart were all in his
   squadron,—but he created in the navy the professional spirit
   or idea, which was the main quality that distinguished it from
   the army in the war with Great Britain. At the outbreak of the
   war there were 18 vessels in the navy, ranging from 44-gun
   frigates to 12-gun brigs. There were also 176 gunboats, on
   which a large sum of money had been expended, but which were
   of no use whatever. … Immediately after the declaration of
   war, the frigates in commission in the home ports, together
   with two of the sloops, put to sea as a squadron under
   Commodore John Rodgers. They fell in with the English frigate
   'Belvidera,' but she got away from them; and after an
   ineffectual cruise across the Atlantic, they returned home,
   without meeting anything of consequence.

{3344}

   Three weeks later, the 'Constitution,' under Captain Hull,
   sailed from Annapolis. Soon after leaving the Chesapeake she
   came upon a British squadron of one sixty-four and four
   frigates, and then ensued the famous three days' chase, in the
   course of which, by a marvel of good seamanship and good
   discipline, the American frigate escaped. After a short
   respite in Boston, Hull set out again, and on the 19th of
   August he fought and captured the 'Guerrière,' Captain Dacres,
   in an engagement lasting about an hour. The 'Constitution,'
   being armed with 24-pounders instead of 18's, threw at a
   broadside a weight of shot half as large again as that of the
   'Guerrière,' and her crew was numerically superior in a still
   greater degree. Nevertheless, the immensely greater
   disproportion in the casualties which the 'Constitution'
   inflicted and received, and the short time which she took to
   do the work, cannot be explained by the difference in force
   alone; for the 'Guerrière' had five times as many killed and
   wounded as her opponent, and at the close of the engagement
   she was a dismasted wreck, while the 'Constitution' had
   suffered no injury of importance. The essential point of
   difference lay in the practical training and skill of the
   crews in gunnery. … In the next action, in October, the sloop
   'Wasp,' Captain Jacob Jones, captured the English brig
   'Frolic,' of approximately the same force. The relative loss
   of English and Americans was again five to one. Both vessels
   were soon after taken by a seventy-four. Later in the same
   month, another frigate action took place, the 'United States,'
   under Decatur, capturing the 'Macedonian.' The advantage of
   the Americans in men was about the same as in the first
   action, while in guns it was greater. The American casualties
   were 13, the English 104. This difference was not due to the
   fact that the American guns were 24's and 42's, instead of
   18's and 32's, or that the Americans had three more of them in
   a broadside; it was really due to the way in which the guns on
   both sides were handled. Shortly after this capture, a cruise
   in the Pacific was projected for a squadron to be composed of
   the 'Constitution,' 'Essex,' and 'Hornet.' The 'Essex' failed
   to meet the other vessels at the rendezvous off the coast of
   Brazil, and went on the Pacific cruise alone [having great
   success]. The 'Constitution,' now commanded by Bainbridge, met
   the frigate 'Java,' near Brazil, on the 29th of December. The
   antagonists were more nearly matched than in the previous
   frigate actions, but the fight, lasting a little over an hour,
   resulted in the total defeat and surrender of the 'Java,' with
   a loss of 124 to the Americans' 34. The 'Java' was a wreck,
   and could not be taken into port, and Bainbridge returned
   home. Two months later, February 24, 1813, the 'Hornet,'
   commanded by Lawrence, met the 'Peacock' off the Demerara, and
   reduced her in fifteen minutes to a sinking condition, while
   the 'Hornet's' hull was hardly scratched. The English sloop
   sank so quickly that she carried down part of her own crew and
   three of the 'Hornet's' who were trying to save them. The
   casualties, apart from those drowned, were 5 in the 'Hornet'
   and 38 in the 'Peacock.' … The moral effect in England of
   these defeats was very great. … In March, 1813, Admiral Sir
   John Warren assumed the command of the British squadron on the
   American coast. Although rather past his prime, his defects
   were more than compensated by the activity of his second in
   command, Rear-Admiral Cockburn, who during this summer and the
   next kept the coasts of Chesapeake Bay in a continuous state
   of alarm by successful raids, in which much valuable property
   was destroyed. Among the more important of the actions of 1813
   were the capture and destruction (in part) of Havre de Grace,
   Md., early in May, and an attack on the village of Hampton,
   Va., on the 25th of June. 'Acts of rapine and violence' on the
   part of the invading forces characterized the latter attack,
   which excited intense indignation throughout the country. … In
   the summer of 1813 occurred the first serious reverse of the
   navy during the war. On the 1st of June the frigate
   'Chesapeake,' Captain James Lawrence, sailed from Boston to
   engage the 'Shannon,' which was lying outside, waiting for the
   battle. The two ships were nearly matched in guns and men,
   what slight difference there was being in favor of the
   'Chesapeake'; but the crew of the latter had been recently
   shipped and was partly composed of disaffected men, and
   Lawrence had had no time to discipline them. The engagement
   was short and decisive. Ranging up alongside of the 'Shannon,'
   whose crew had been brought to the highest state of efficiency
   by Captain Broke their commander, the 'Chesapeake' at the
   first fire received a severe injury in the loss of several of
   her officers. Falling foul of the 'Shannon' she was
   effectually raked, and presently a boarding party, led by
   Captain Broke, got possession of her deck. The great mortality
   among the officers [including Captain Lawrence, who had
   received a mortal wound just before his ship was boarded, and
   whose dying appeal, 'Don't give up the ship,' became the
   battle cry of the American navy during the remainder of the
   war], and the want of discipline in the crew, resulted in a
   victory for the boarders. The battle lasted fifteen minutes
   only, and the 'Chesapeake' was carried as a prize to Halifax.
   During this summer the naval war on the ocean continued with
   varying fortunes, two important actions being fought. The brig
   'Argus,' Captain Allen, after a successful voyage in the Irish
   Sea, in which many prizes were taken and destroyed, was
   captured by the English brig 'Pelican,' on the 14th of August.
   Early in September the brig 'Enterprise,' commanded by
   Lieutenant Burrows, captured the English brig 'Boxer,' near
   Portland, Me."

      J. R. Soley,
      The Wars of the United States
      (Narrative and Critical History of the United States,
      volume 7, chapter 6).

      ALSO IN:
      T. Roosevelt,
      The Naval War of 1812,
      chapters 2-5.

      J. F. Cooper,
      History of the Navy of the United States,
      volume 2, chapters 9-22.

      A. S. Mackenzie,
      Life of Decatur,
      chapters 10-12.

      D. D. Porter,
      Memoirs of Commander David Porter.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812-1813.
   Harrison's northwestern campaign.
   Winchester's defeat.
   Perry's naval victory on Lake Erie.
   The Battle of the Thames and death of Tecumseh.
   Recovery of Detroit and Michigan.

   "Great was the indignation of the West, great the
   mortification of our whole people, on learning that, instead
   of capturing Upper Canada at the first blow, we had lost our
   whole Michigan Territory. The task now was to retake Detroit
   under a competent commander. Ohio and Kentucky went on filling
   rapidly their quotas, while urging the administration to march
   them under Harrison.
{3345}
   The President hesitated, doubtful whether Harrison was a man
   of sufficient military experience. He proposed that Monroe
   should go to the scene, as a volunteer, if not to command; but
   Monroe restrained his first military ardor, as was prudent,
   and Winchester, of Tennessee, another of the recent
   brigadiers, and a revolutionary veteran, was selected. The
   selection, however, gave umbrage to the Kentuckians, whose
   State government had already made Harrison a brevet
   major-general of militia. The hero of Tippecanoe was finally
   assigned to the chief command of the Western army, Madison
   countermanding his first orders. Harrison's route for Detroit
   was by way of Fort Wayne and Fort Defiance to the falls of the
   Maumee. But it was late in the fall [October 1812] before the
   new military arrangements could be completed; and through a
   swampy wilderness, infested as it was with hostile Indians,
   the progress of the column was toilsome and discouraging; and,
   except for the destruction of a few Indian villages on the
   way, the deeds of prowess were reserved for a winter campaign.
   … The winter expedition of the Northwest army … [was] retarded
   by a disaster which overtook Winchester's command near the
   Maumee Rapids, at a little village on the River Raisin. By
   Harrison's orders Winchester had started for these Rapids,
   whence, having first concentrated troops as if for winter
   quarters, the design was that he should advance 50 miles
   farther, when weather permitted, cross the frozen Detroit, and
   fall suddenly upon Malden. Winchester not only pushed on
   incautiously to his first destination, but, with a design more
   humane than prudent, undertook to protect against a British
   and Indian raid the alarmed inhabitants of Frenchtown [now
   Monroe, Michigan], a place 30 miles nearer Malden. Here
   [January 22, 1813] he was overpowered by the enemy, which fell
   upon the American force suddenly at daybreak, with yells and a
   shower of bomb-shells and canister. Winchester having been
   taken prisoner, Colonel Proctor, the British commander,
   extorted from him the unconditional surrender of all his
   troops, some 700 in number, as the only means of saving them
   from the tomahawk and scalping-knife. … Our sick and wounded …
   the British commander shamefully abandoned to their fate. …
   Officers and men, many of them the flower of Kentucky,
   perished victims to barbarities … abhorrent to civilized
   warfare, of which the British Colonel Proctor and Captain
   Elliott were not innocent. Besides the American loss in
   prisoners at the sad affair of the Raisin, nearly 200 were
   killed and missing. Hearing at the Upper Sandusky of
   Winchester's intended movement, Harrison had pressed to his
   relief with reinforcements, but fugitives from Frenchtown
   brought the melancholy tidings of disaster; and Harrison fell
   back to the Rapids, there to strengthen the post known as Fort
   Meigs, and go into winter quarters. The terms of many of his
   troops having now expired, the Northwestern army was for many
   months too feeble to begin a forward movement. But Harrison
   possessed the unabated confidence of the West, and, promoted
   to be one of the new major-generals, he received, through the
   zealous co-operation of Ohio and Kentucky, whose people were
   inflamed to take vengeance, enough volunteer reinforcements
   [May] to relieve Fort Meigs [which was twice besieged in 1813
   by British and Indians] from Proctor's investment in the
   spring, and at length the quota requisite for resuming the
   offensive; other frontier plans of the War Department having
   long deranged his own in this quarter. The splendid
   co-operation of an American flotilla on Lake Erie opened the
   way to Detroit and victory. For that memorable service
   Commodore Chauncey had detailed an aspiring young naval
   officer, Captain Oliver H. Perry, of Rhode Island. Our little
   Lake squadron was tediously constructed at Presqu' Isle (now
   Erie). When all at last was ready [in August, 1813], Perry,
   who had long chafed in spirit while the British fleet hovered
   in sight like a hawk, sailed forth to dispute the supremacy of
   the broad inland waters. His heavier vessels were floated over
   the bar not without difficulty. After conferring at Sandusky
   upon the combined plan of operations with General Harrison,
   from whom he received a small detail of soldiers to act as
   marines and supply vacancies in his crews, he offered battle
   to Barclay, the British commander,—the latter a veteran in
   naval experience, who had served under Nelson at Trafalgar.
   Barclay had lain idly for several weeks at Malden, in hopes of
   procuring additional sailors, purposely avoiding an action
   meanwhile. But Proctor's army having now run short of
   provisions, longer delay was inexpedient. At sunrise on
   September 10th Perry descried the approaching British fleet
   from his look-out, a group of islands off Sandusky. Ten miles
   to the north of this locality, which was known as Put-in-bay,
   the two squadrons at noon engaged one another,—Perry
   approaching at an acute angle, and keeping the weather-gage,
   while Barclay's vessels hove to in close order. In officers
   and men the fleets were about equally matched; there were 6
   British vessels to the American 9, but the former carried more
   guns, and were greatly superior for action from a distance.
   With 30 long guns to Perry's 15, Barclay had the decided
   advantage at first, and our flag-ship, the Lawrence, exposed
   to the heaviest of the British cannonade, became terribly
   battered, her decks wet with carnage, her guns dismounted.
   Undismayed by this catastrophe, Perry dropped into a little
   boat with his broad pennant and banner, and crossed to his
   next largest vessel, the Niagara, the target for 15 minutes of
   a furious fire while being rowed over. Climbing the Niagara's
   deck, and hoisting once more the emblems of commander, our
   brave captain now pierced the enemy's line with his new
   flag-ship, followed by his smaller vessels, and, gaining at
   last that advantage of a close engagement which for nearly
   three hours had eluded him, he won the fight in eight minutes.
   The colors of the Detroit, Barclay's flag-ship, struck first,
   three others followed the example, and two of the British
   squadron attempting to escape were overtaken and brought back
   triumphantly. 'We have met the enemy and they are ours,' was
   Perry's laconic dispatch to Harrison, written in pencil on the
   back of an old letter, with his navy-cap for a rest; 'two
   ships, two brigs, one schooner, and one sloop.' … Barclay lay
   dangerously wounded, and his next in command died that
   evening. … To Harrison's expectant army, augmented by 3,500
   mounted Kentuckians, whom Governor Shelby led in person, the
   word of advance was now given. …
{3346}
   Perry's flotilla, aided by the captured vessels, presently
   landed the American troops on the Canada side. Proctor had
   already begun the retreat, having first dismantled the fort at
   Malden and burned the barracks. Harrison pursued him beyond
   Sandwich, covered by the flotilla, until near a Moravian town,
   up the river Thames [some 30 miles east of Lake St. Clair],
   the enemy was overtaken, with Tecumseh's braves. Here, upon
   well-chosen ground, the British made a final stand [October
   5], but at the first impetuous charge of our cavalry their
   line broke, and only the Indians remained to engage in a
   desperate hand-to-hand fight. Among the slain was the famous
   Tecumseh, dispatched, as tradition asserts, by the pistol of
   Colonel Johnson, a Kentucky officer prominent in the battle.
   Proctor himself escaped in a carriage with a few followers,
   incurring afterwards the royal reprimand. … The baleful
   British and Indian alliance was broken up by these victories,
   while Detroit, Michigan, and all that Hull had lost, and a
   fair portion of Upper Canada besides, passed into American
   control. Among American generals in this war Harrison enjoyed
   the rare felicity of having fully accomplished his
   undertaking."

      J. Schouler,
      History of the United States,
      chapter 8, section 2
      and chapter 9, section 1 (volume 2).

   "The victory of Lake Erie was most important, both in its
   material results and in its moral effect. It gave us complete
   command of all the upper lakes, prevented any fears of
   invasion from that quarter, increased our prestige with the
   foe and our confidence in ourselves, and ensured the conquest
   of Upper Canada; in all these respects its importance has not
   been overrated. But the 'glory' acquired by it most certainly
   has been estimated at more than its worth. … The simple truth
   is, that, where on both sides the officers and men were
   equally brave and skilful, the side which possessed the
   superiority in force, in the proportion of three to two, could
   not well help winning. … Though we had nine guns less, yet, at
   a broadside, they threw half as much metal again as those of
   our antagonist."

      T. Roosevelt,
      The Naval War of 1812,
      chapter 6.

      ALSO IN:
      C. D. Yonge,
      History of the British Navy,
      chapter 36 (volume 3).

      E. Eggleston and L. E. Seelye,
      Tecumseh,
      chapters 26-34.

      I. R. Jackson,
      Life of W. H. Harrison,
      chapters 7-9.

      B. J. Lossing,
      Field Book of the War of 1812,
      chapters 16-17, and 23-26.

      G. Bancroft,
      History of the Battle of Lake Erie.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1813 (April-July).
   The burning of Toronto.
   The capture of Fort George.

   "The American fleet on Lake Ontario had been increased, and in
   1813 controlled the lake. General Sheaffe had succeeded Brock
   as Governor as well as commander of the forces. Some 600
   troops were in York [now Toronto], the capital. York had about
   1,000 inhabitants, and was not regarded as of strategic
   importance. The Americans, however, set sail from Sackett's
   Harbour with 16 sail and 2,500 men to attack it. The enemy
   landed [April 27] to the west of the town, and General Sheaffe
   evacuated the works, and retired down the Kingston Road. The
   Americans invested the town, and though skirmishing took
   place, had an easy victory. The land force was under General
   Pike, an officer well known as having, when a lieutenant,
   explored the sources of the Mississippi. Just as the Americans
   had well filled the fort, the powder-magazine exploded with
   violence, killing and wounding about 250. General Pike, struck
   in the breast by a flying stone, died soon after. The
   Americans, contrary to the articles of surrender, shamefully
   burnt the town, and retired from York on the 2nd of May, 1813.
   While the squadron was absent, Sackett's Harbour was attacked
   by a strong force. The garrison seemed to be on the point of
   surrendering the fort, when Sir George Prevost, to the
   surprise of all, ordered a retreat. Little York taken,
   Commodore Chauncey then crossed the lake to Fort George at the
   mouth of the Niagara River. General Vincent commanded the
   fort. Twenty-four of Hull's guns frowned from its bastions.
   Its defender had 1,340 men. The American army on the Niagara
   frontier numbered 6,000. Chauncey had eleven war-vessels and
   900 seamen. On the 27th of May the expected day came. Vincent
   drew his men out about a mile from the fort and awaited the
   attack. He was overpowered and retired, having lost nearly 450
   soldiers. The Canadian force retired to a strong position,
   'Beaver Dams,' twelve miles from Niagara on the heights,
   having given up Fort Erie and Chippewa and blown up Fort
   George. Vincent had now 1,600 men, and with these he retired
   to Burlington Heights, near the present city of Hamilton. An
   American army of 2,500 men followed General Vincent to Stoney
   Creek. On the night of the 8th of June, Colonel Harvey of the
   British force, with upwards of 750 men, fell stealthily on the
   sleeping American army, scattered the troops, killed many,
   captured the American generals Chandler and Winder, and about
   100 men, along with guns and stores. The adventurers then
   retired to their camp. The scattered American soldiers
   reassembled in the morning and retired in a disorderly manner
   down the country to Fort George. Vincent now followed the
   retreating army and reoccupied Beaver Dams. One of his
   outposts was held by Lieutenant Fitzgibbon and 30 men.
   Smarting with defeat, the American general sought to surprise
   this station as a basis for future attacks. He secretly
   despatched Colonel Boerstler with nearly 700 men to capture
   it. A wounded militiaman, living within the lines at
   Queenston, heard by chance of the expedition. … The alarm was
   given [by the militiaman's wife, who travelled 20 miles
   through the forest, at night] and that night the men lay on
   their arms. Early next morning the American party came, but an
   ambuscade had been prepared for them, and after severe
   fighting 542 men surrendered into the hands of some 260.
   General Dearborn soon after retired from the command of the
   American army, to be succeeded by General Boyd. British
   parties captured Fort Schlosser and Black Rock on the Niagara
   River at this time, though at the latter place with the loss
   of Colonel Bishopp, the idol of his men. Colonel Scott, in
   command of troops on board Commodore Chauncey's fleet, again
   scoured Lake Ontario. Landing at Burlington Heights on the
   31st of July, they did nothing more than reconnoitre the works
   and depart. Afterwards the second attack on York was made and
   the barracks burnt. After this a trial of strength took place
   between Sir James Yeo's fleet, now sent forth from Kingston
   Harbour, and Chauncey's squadron. The Americans lost two
   vessels in a squall, and two were captured by the British, but
   the result between the two fleets was indecisive."

      G. Bryce,
      Short History of the Canadian People,
      chapter 8, section 5.

      ALSO IN:
      R. Johnson,
      History of the War of 1812-1815,
      chapter 7.

{3347}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1813 (October-November).
   The abortive expedition against Montreal.

   "While Perry and Harrison were … reclaiming our lost ground on
   Lake Erie and in the northwest, Armstrong was preparing to
   carry out his favorite plan of a descent on Kingston and
   Montreal. When he accepted the post of Secretary of War, he
   transferred his department from Washington to Sackett's
   Harbor, so that he might superintend in person the progress of
   the campaign. … Although Wilkinson had superseded Dearborn, as
   commander-in-chief of this district in July, he did not issue
   his first orders to the army till the 23d of August. … General
   Wade Hampton, who had been recalled from the fifth military
   district to the northern frontier, encamped with his army,
   4,000 strong, at Plattsburg, on Lake Champlain. The plan
   finally adopted by the Secretary was, to have Wilkinson drop
   down the St. Lawrence, and without stopping to attack the
   English posts on the river, form a junction with General
   Hampton, when the two armies should march at once on Montreal.
   These two Generals were both Revolutionary officers, and
   consequently too advanced in years to carry such an expedition
   through with vigor and activity. Besides, a hostile feeling
   separated them, rendering each jealous of the other's command.
   … Chauncey, In the mean time, after an action with Yeo, in
   which both parties claimed the victory, forced his adversary
   to take refuge in Burlington Bay. He then wrote to Wilkinson
   that the lake was clear of the enemy, and reported himself
   ready to transport the troops down the St. Lawrence. The
   greatest expectations were formed of this expedition. The
   people knew nothing of the quarrel between Wilkinson and
   Hampton, and thought only of the strength of their united
   force. … While Wilkinson was preparing to fulfill his part of
   the campaign, Hampton made a bold push into Canada on his own
   responsibility. Advancing from Plattsburg, he marched directly
   for St. John, but finding water scarce for his draft cattle,
   owing to a severe drought, he moved to the left, and next day
   arrived at Chateaugay Four Corners, a few miles from the
   Canada line. Here he was overtaken by an order from Armstrong,
   commanding him to remain where he was, until the arrival of
   Wilkinson. But jealous of his rival, and wishing to achieve a
   victory in which the honor would not be divided, he resolved
   to take upon himself the responsibility of advancing alone.
   Several detachments of militia had augmented his force of
   4,000, and he deemed himself sufficiently strong to attack
   Prevost, who he was told had only about 2,000 ill assorted
   troops under him. He therefore gave orders to march, and
   cutting a road for 24 miles through the wilderness, after five
   days great toil, reached the British position. Ignorant of its
   weakness, he dispatched Colonel Purdy at night by a circuitous
   route to gain the enemy's flank and rear and assail his works,
   while he attacked them in front. Bewildered by the darkness,
   and led astray by his guide, Colonel Purdy wandered through
   the forest, entirely ignorant of the whereabouts of the enemy
   or of his own. General Hampton, however, supposing that he had
   succeeded in his attempt, ordered General Izard to advance
   with the main body of the army, and as soon as firing was
   heard in the rear to commence the attack in front. Izard
   marched up his men and a skirmish ensued, when Colonel De
   Salaberry, the British commander, who had but a handful of
   regulars under him, ordered the bugles, which had been placed
   at some distance apart on purpose to represent a large force,
   to sound the charge. The ruse succeeded admirably, and a halt
   was ordered. The bugles brought up the lost detachment of
   Purdy, but suddenly assailed by a concealed body of militia,
   his command was thrown into disorder and broke and fled.
   Disconcerted by the defeat of Purdy, Hampton ordered a
   retreat, without making any attempt to carry the British
   intrenchments. … Hampton, defeated by the blasts of a few
   bugles, took up his position again at the Four Corners, to
   wait further news from Wilkinson's division. The latter having
   concentrated his troops at Grenadier Island, embarked them
   again the same day that Hampton advanced, against orders,
   towards Montreal. Three hundred boats, covering the river for
   miles, carried the infantry and artillery, while the cavalry,
   500 strong, marched along the bank. … They were two weeks in
   reaching the river. Wilkinson, who had been recalled from New
   Orleans, to take charge of this expedition, was prostrated by
   the lake fever, which, added to the infirmities of age,
   rendered him wholly unfit for the position he occupied.
   General Lewis, his second in command, was also sick. The
   season was already far advanced—the autumnal storms had set
   in earlier than usual—everything conspired to ensure defeat;
   and around this wreck of a commander, tossed an army,
   dispirited, disgusted, and doomed to disgrace. General Brown
   led the advance of this army of invasion, as it started for
   Montreal, 180 miles distant. … When it reached the head of the
   long rapids at Hamilton, 20 miles below Ogdensburg, Wilkinson
   ordered General Brown to advance by land and cover the passage
   of the boats through the narrow defiles, where the enemy had
   established block houses. In the mean time the cavalry had
   crossed over to the Canadian side and, with 1,500 men under
   General Boyd, been despatched against the enemy, which was
   constantly harassing his rear. General Boyd, accompanied by
   Generals Swartwout and Covington as volunteers, moved forward
   in three columns. Colonel Ripley advancing with the 21st
   Regiment, drove the enemy's sharp shooters from the woods, and
   emerged on an open space, called Chrystler's Field, and
   directly in front of two English regiments. Notwithstanding
   the disparity of numbers this gallant officer ordered a
   charge, which was executed with such firmness that the two
   regiments retired. Rallying and making a stand, they were
   again charged and driven back. … At length the British retired
   to their camp and the Americans maintained their position on
   the shore, so that the flotilla passed the Saut in safety.
   This action [called the battle of Chrystler's Farm, or
   Williamsburg] has never received the praise it deserves—the
   disgraceful failure of the campaign having cast a shadow upon
   it. The British, though inferior in numbers, had greatly the
   advantage in having possession of a stone house in the midst
   of the field. …
{3348}
   Nearly one-fifth of the entire force engaged were killed or
   wounded. … The army, however, still held its course for
   Montreal. Young Scott, who had joined the expedition at
   Ogdensburg, was 15 miles ahead, clearing, with a detachment of
   less than 800 men, the river banks as he went. Montreal was
   known to be feebly garrisoned, and Wilkinson had no doubt it
   would fall an easy conquest. He therefore sent forward to
   Hampton to join him at St. Regis, with provisions. Hampton, in
   reply, said, that his men could bring no more provisions than
   they wanted for their own use, and informed him, in short,
   that he should not co-operate with him at all, but make the
   best of his way back to Lake Champlain. On receiving this
   astounding news, Wilkinson called a council of war, which
   reprobated in strong terms the conduct of Hampton, and decided
   that in consideration of his failure, and the lateness of the
   season, the march should be suspended, and the army retire to
   winter quarters. This was carried into effect, and Wilkinson
   repaired to French Mills, on Salmon river, for the winter, and
   Hampton to Plattsburg."

      J. T. Headley,
      The Second War with England,
      volume 1, chapter. 13.

      ALSO IN:
      W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,
      Popular History of the United States,
      volume 4, chapter 8.

      S. Perkins,
      History of the Late War,
      chapter 12.

      J. Armstrong,
      Notices of the War of 1812,
      volume 2, chapter 1.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1813 (December).
   Retaliatory devastation of the Niagara frontier.
   Fort Niagara surprised.
   The burning of Buffalo.

   "The withdrawal of troops from the Niagara frontier to take
   part in Wilkinson's expedition left the defence of that line
   almost entirely to militia, and the term for which the militia
   had been called out expired on the 9th of December. The next
   day General George McClure, who had been left in command at
   Fort George, found himself at the head of but 60 effective
   men, while the British General Drummond had brought up to the
   peninsula 400 troops and 70 Indians—released by the failure of
   Wilkinson's expedition—and was preparing to attack him.
   McClure thereupon determined to evacuate the fort, as the only
   alternative from capture or destruction, and remove his men
   and stores across the river to Fort Niagara. He also
   determined to burn the village of Newark, that the enemy might
   find no shelter. The laudable part of this plan was but
   imperfectly carried out; he failed to destroy the barracks,
   and left unharmed tents for 1,500 men, several pieces of
   artillery, and a large quantity of ammunition, all of which
   fell into the hands of Drummond's men. But the inexcusable
   part—the burning of a village in midwinter, inhabited by
   noncombatants who had been guilty of no special offence—was
   only too faithfully executed. The inhabitants were given
   twelve hours in which to remove their goods, and then the
   torch was applied, and not a house was left standing. This
   needless cruelty produced its natural result; Drummond
   determined upon swift and ample retaliation. In the night of
   December 18th, just one week after the burning of Newark, he
   threw across the Niagara a force of 550 men. They landed at
   Five Mile Meadows, three miles above Fort Niagara, and marched
   upon it at once, arriving there at four o'clock in the
   morning. McClure, who had received an intimation of the
   enemy's intention to devastate the American frontier, had gone
   to Buffalo to raise a force to oppose him. The garrison of the
   fort consisted of about 450 men, a large number of whom were
   in the hospital. The command had been left to a Captain
   Leonard, who at this time was three miles away, sleeping at a
   farm-house. The most elaborate preparations had been made for
   the capture of the fort, including scaling-ladders for
   mounting the bastions. But the Americans seemed to have
   studied to make the task as easy as possible. The sentries
   were seized and silenced before they could give any alarm, and
   the main gate was found standing wide open, so that the
   British had only to walk straight in and begin at once the
   stabbing which had been determined upon. The guard in the
   south-east block-house tired one volley, by which the British
   commander, Colonel Murray, was wounded, and a portion of the
   invalids made what resistance they could. A British lieutenant
   and five men were killed, and a surgeon and three men wounded.
   Sixty-five Americans, two-thirds of whom were invalids, were
   bayoneted in their beds; 15 others, who had taken refuge in
   the cellars, were despatched in the same manner, and 14 were
   wounded; 20 escaped, and all the others, about 340, were made
   prisoners. … On the same morning, General Riall, with a
   detachment of British troops and 500 Indians, crossed from
   Queenstown." Lewiston, Youngstown, Tuscarora and Manchester
   (now Niagara Falls) were plundered and burned, and the houses
   and barns of farmers along the river, within a belt of several
   miles, were destroyed. "The bridge over Tonawanda Creek had
   been destroyed by the Americans, and at this point the enemy
   turned back, and soon recrossed the Niagara to the Canada
   side. The alarm at Buffalo brought General Hall, of the New
   York militia, to that village, where he arrived the day after
   Christmas. He found collected there a body of 1,700 men, whom
   it would have been gross flattery to call a 'force.' They were
   poorly supplied with arms and cartridges, and had no
   discipline and almost no organization. Another regiment of 300
   soon joined them, but without adding much to their efficiency.
   On the 28th of December, Drummond reconnoitred the American
   camp, and determined to attack it; for which purpose he sent
   over General Riall on the evening of the 29th with 1,450 men,
   largely regulars, and a body of Indians. One detachment landed
   two miles below Black Rock, crossed Canajokaties [or
   Scajaquada] Creek in the face of a slight resistance, and took
   possession of a battery. The remainder landed at a point
   between Buffalo and Black Rock [two villages then, now united
   in one city], under cover of a battery on the Canadian shore.
   Poor as Hall's troops were, they stood long enough to fire
   upon the invaders and inflict considerable loss. … Both sides
   had artillery, with which the action was opened. As it
   progressed, however, the American line was broken in the
   centre, and Hall was compelled to fall back. His subsequent
   attempts to rally his men were of no avail, and he himself
   seems to have lost heart, as Lieutenant Riddle, who had about
   80 regulars, offered to place them in front for the
   encouragement of the militia to new exertion, but Hall
   declined. … Both Buffalo and Black Rock were sacked and
   burned, and no mercy was shown. With but two or three
   exceptions, those of the inhabitants who were not able to run
   away were massacred. …
{3349}
   It is related that in Buffalo a widow named St. John 'had the
   address to appease the ferocity of the enemy so far as to
   remain in her house uninjured.' Her house and the stone jail
   were the only buildings not laid in ashes. In Black Rock every
   building was either burned or blown up, except one log house,
   in which a few women and children had taken refuge. … Five
   vessels lying at the wharves were also burned. In this
   expedition the British lost 108 men, killed, wounded or
   missing. More than 50 of the Americans were found dead on the
   field. Truly, an abundant revenge had been taken for the
   burning of Newark. … On New Year's day of 1814 the settlers
   along the whole length of the Niagara—those of them who
   survived—were shivering beside the smouldering embers of
   their homes."

      R. Johnson,
      History of the War of 1812-1815,
      chapter 9.

      ALSO IN:
      C. Johnson,
      Centennial History of Erie County, New York,
      chapters 24-25.

      W. Ketchum,
      History of Buffalo,
      volume 2, chapter 15.

      O. Turner,
      Pioneer History of the Holland Purchase,
      pages 589-606.

      W. Dorsheimer,
      Buffalo during the war of 1812
      (Buffalo Historical Society Publication, volume 1).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1813-1814.
   British blockade of the Atlantic coast.

   "The blockade of the Atlantic coast was enforced by British
   vessels from the beginning of the year 1813. At first they
   were inclined to spare the coast of New England, which they
   supposed to be friendly to Great Britain, but this policy was
   soon abandoned, and the whole coast was treated alike. Groups
   of war-vessels were stationed before each of the principal
   sea-ports, and others were continually in motion along the
   coast, from Halifax on the north to the West Indies. Early in
   1813, they took possession of the mouth of Chesapeake Bay as a
   naval station, and the American Government ordered all the
   lights to be put out in the neighboring light-houses. The
   Atlantic coast was thus kept in a state of almost constant
   alarm, for the British vessels were continually landing men at
   exposed points to burn, plunder, and destroy. … In 1813, the
   defenceless towns of Lewes, Havre de Grace, and Hampton (near
   Fortress Monroe) were bombarded, and Stonington, Conn., in
   1814; and a number of smaller towns were burned or plundered.
   Attacks on New York and other larger cities were prevented
   only by fear of torpedoes, by means of which the Americans had
   nearly blown up one or two British ships which ventured too
   near New York. … Maine, as far as the Penobscot River, was
   seized by the British in 1814, and was held until the end of
   the war."

      A. Johnston,
      History of the United States for Schools,
      sections 384-386.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1813-1814 (August-April).
   The Creek War.
   General Jackson's first campaign.

   The great Indian chief Tecumseh had been trying for years to
   unite all the red men against the whites. There would have
   been an Indian war if there had been no war with England, but
   the latter war seemed to be Tecumseh's opportunity. Among the
   southwestern Indians he found acceptance only with the Creeks,
   who were already on the verge of civil war, because some
   wanted to adopt civilized life, and others refused. The latter
   became the war party, under Weatherford [Red Eagle], a very
   able half-breed chief. The first outbreak in the Southwest,
   although there had been some earlier hostilities, was the
   massacre of the garrison and refugees at Fort Mims, at the
   junction of the Alabama and Tombigbee rivers, August 30, 1813.
   There were 553 persons in the fort, of whom only 5 or 6
   escaped. … The result of the massacre at Fort Mims was that
   Alabama was almost abandoned by whites. Terror and desire for
   revenge took possession of Georgia and Tennessee. September
   25th the Tennessee Legislature voted to raise men and money to
   aid the people of Mississippi territory against the Creeks."
   Andrew Jackson, one of the two major-generals of the Tennessee
   militia, was then confined to his bed by a wound received in a
   recent fight with Thomas H. Benton and Benton's brother. "As
   soon as he possibly could, Jackson took the field. Georgia had
   a force in the field under General Floyd. General Claiborne
   was acting at the head of troops from Louisiana and
   Mississippi. This Indian war had a local character and was
   outside the federal operations, although in the end it had a
   great effect upon them. … The Creek war was remarkable for
   three things: (1) the quarrels between the generals, and the
   want of concert of action; (2) lack of provisions; (3)
   insubordination in the ranks. … On three occasions Jackson had
   to use one part of his army to prevent another part from
   marching home, he and they differing on the construction of
   the terms of enlistment. He showed very strong qualities under
   these trying circumstances. … In the conduct of the movements
   against the enemy his energy was very remarkable. So long as
   there was an enemy unsubdued Jackson could not rest, and could
   not give heed to anything else. … At the end of March [1814]
   Jackson destroyed a body of the Creeks at Tohopeka, or
   Horse-Shoe Bend, in the northeast corner of the present
   Tallapoosa County, Alabama. With the least possible delay he
   pushed on to the last refuge of the Creeks, the Hickory
   Ground, at the confluence of the Coosa and Tallapoosa, and the
   Holy Ground a few miles distant. The medicine men, appealing
   to the superstition of the Indians, had taught them to believe
   that no white man could tread the latter ground and live. In
   April the remnant of the Creeks surrendered or fled to
   Florida, overcome as much by the impetuous and relentless
   character of the campaign against them as by actual blows.
   Fort Jackson was built on the Hickory Ground. The march down
   through Alabama was a great achievement, considering the
   circumstances of the country at the time. … The Creek campaign
   lasted only seven months. In itself considered, it was by no
   means an important Indian war, but in its connection with
   other military movements it was very important. Tecumseh had
   been killed at the battle of the Thames, in Canada, October 5,
   1813. His scheme of a race war died with him. The Creek
   campaign put an end to any danger of hostilities from the
   southwestern Indians, in alliance either with other Indians or
   with the English. … This campaign … was the beginning of
   Jackson's fame and popularity, and from it dates his career.
   He was 47 years old. On the 31st of May he was appointed a
   major-general in the army of the United States, and was given
   command of the department of the South. He established his
   headquarters at Mobile in August, 1814."

      W. G. Sumner,
      Andrew Jackson as a Public Man,
      chapter 2.

{3350}

      ALSO IN:
      G. C. Eggleston,
      Red Eagle.

      J. W. Monette,
      Discovery and Settlement of the Valley of the Mississippi,
      book 5, chapter 14 (volume 2).

      B. J. Lossing,
      Field Book of the War of 1812,
      chapters 33-34.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (July-September).
   On the Niagara Frontier.
   Chippewa.
   Lundy's Lane.
   Fort Erie.

   "After the desolation of the Niagara frontier in 1813, there
   appeared to be nothing for the parties to contend for in that
   quarter. No object could be obtained by a victory on either
   side, but the temporary occupation of a vacant territory; yet
   both parties seemed to have selected this as the principal
   theatre on which to display their military prowess in the year
   1814. Lieutenant General Drummond, governor of Upper Canada,
   concentrated the forces of that province at Fort George, and
   retained the possession of Niagara. The American Generals
   Smyth, Hampton, Dearborn, and Wilkinson, under whose auspices
   the campaigns of 1812 and 1813, on the Canada border, were
   conducted, had retired from that field; and General Brown was
   appointed major general, and, with the assistance of
   Brigadiers Scott and Ripley, designated to the command of the
   Niagara frontier. He left Sackett's Harbour in May, with a
   large portion of the American troops. … On his arrival at
   Buffalo, calculating upon the co-operation of the Ontario
   fleet, he determined on an attempt to expel the British from
   the Niagara peninsula. With this view he crossed the river on
   the 3d of July. … On the same day he invested Fort Erie, and
   summoned it to surrender, allowing the commandant two hours to
   answer the summons. At five in the afternoon the fort
   surrendered, and the prisoners, amounting to 137, were removed
   to Buffalo. On the morning of the fourth General Scott
   advanced with his brigade and corps of artillery, and took a
   position on the Chippewa plain, half a mile in front of the
   village, his right resting on the river, and his front
   protected by a ravine. The British were encamped in force at
   the village. In the evening General Brown joined him with the
   reserve under General Ripley, and the artillery commanded by
   Major Hindman. General Porter arrived the next morning, with
   the New York and Pennsylvania volunteers, and a number of
   Indians of the six nations. … At four in the afternoon,
   General Porter advanced, taking the woods in order to conceal
   his approach, and … met the whole British force approaching in
   order of battle. General Scott, with his brigade and Towser's
   artillery, met them on the plain, in front of the American
   encampment, and was directly engaged in close action with the
   main body. General Porter's command gave way. … The reserve
   were now ordered up, and General Ripley passed to the woods in
   left of the line to gain the rear of the enemy; but before
   this was effected, General Scott had compelled the British to
   retire. Their whole line now fell back, and were eagerly
   pursued. … The British left 200 dead on the ground. … The
   American loss was 60 killed, and 268 wounded and missing.
   After the battle of Chippewa, the British retired to Fort
   George; and General Brown took post at Queenston, where he
   remained some time, expecting reinforcements. … On the 20th,
   General Brown advanced with his army towards Fort George,
   drove in the outposts, and encamped near the fort, in the
   expectation that the British would come out and give him
   battle. On the 22d, he returned to his former position at
   Queenston; here he received a letter from General Gaines,
   informing him that the heavy guns, and the rifle regiment,
   which he had ordered from Sackett's harbour, together with the
   whole fleet, were blockaded in that port, and no assistance
   was to be expected from them. On the 24th, he fell back to
   Chippewa, and on the 25th received intelligence that the
   enemy, having received large reinforcements from Kingston,
   were advancing upon him. The first brigade under General
   Scott, Towser's artillery, all the dragoons and mounted men,
   were immediately put in motion on the Queenston road. On his
   arrival at the Niagara cataract, General Scott learned that
   the British were in force directly in his front, separated
   only by a narrow piece of wood. Having despatched this
   intelligence to General Brown, he advanced upon the enemy, and
   the action commenced at six o'clock in the afternoon. … The
   British artillery had taken post on a commanding eminence, at
   the head of Lundy's lane, supported by a line of infantry,
   out of the reach of the American batteries. This was the key
   of the whole position; from hence they poured a most deadly
   fire on the American ranks. It became necessary either to
   leave the ground, or to carry this post and seize the height.
   The latter desperate task was assigned to Colonel Miller. On
   receiving the order from General Brown, he calmly surveyed the
   position, and answered 'I will try, sir,' which expression was
   afterwards the motto of his regiment. … Colonel Miller
   advanced coolly and steadily to his object, amid a tremendous
   fire, and at the point of the bayonet, carried the artillery
   and the height. The guns were immediately turned upon the
   enemy; General Ripley now brought up the 23d regiment, to the
   support of Colonel Miller; the first regiment was rallied and
   brought into line, and the British were driven from the hill.
   … The British rallied under the hill, and made a desperate
   attempt to regain their artillery, and drive the Americans
   from their position, but without success; a second and third
   attempt was made with the like result. General Scott was
   engaged in repelling these attacks, and though with his
   shoulder fractured, and a severe wound in the side, continued
   at the head of his column, endeavouring to turn the enemy's
   right flank. The volunteers under General Porter, during the
   last charge of the British, precipitated themselves upon their
   lines, broke them, and took a large number of prisoners.
   General Brown … received a severe wound on the thigh, and in
   the side, and … consigned the command to General Ripley. At
   twelve o'clock, both parties retired from the field to their
   respective encampments, fatigued and satiated with slaughter.
   … The battle [called Lundy's Lane, or Bridgewater, or Niagara]
   was fought to the west of, and within half a mile of the
   Niagara cataract. … Considering the numbers engaged, few
   contests have ever been more sanguinary. … General Brown
   states his loss to be, killed, 171; wounded, 572; missing,
   117; [total] 860. General Drummond acknowledges a loss of,
   killed, 84; wounded, 559; missing and prisoners, 235; [total]
   878. … General Ripley, on the 26th, fell back to Fort Erie.
   General Brown retired to Buffalo, and General Scott to
   Batavia, to recover from their wounds."

      S. Perkins,
      History of the Late War,
      chapter 17.

{3351}

   "Fort Erie was a small work with two demi-bastions; one upon
   the north and the other upon the south front. It was built of
   stone, but was not of sufficient strength to resist ordnance
   heavier than the field artillery of that day. Ripley at once
   commenced to strengthen the position. Fortunately, General
   Drummond delayed his advance for two days, giving the
   Americans an opportunity of which they industriously availed
   themselves. … Fort Erie was changed into an entrenched camp,
   with its rear open toward the river. General Drummond appeared
   before the fort, on the 3d of August, with a force of 5,350
   men. He established his camp two miles distant, back of
   Waterloo, and commenced a double line of entrenchments within
   400 yards of the main work. The same morning he threw a force
   of about 1,000 men across the river, and landed them below
   Squaw Island, with the intention of seizing Buffalo,
   destroying the stores gathered there, and interrupting the
   communications of the American army. This soldierly plan was
   happily frustrated by Major Morgan with a battalion of the
   First Rifles, 250 strong. … During the following fortnight
   several skirmishes occurred in front of Fort Erie, in one of
   which the gallant Colonel Morgan was killed. General Drummond,
   having been still further reinforced, determined not to wait
   for the slow results of a siege, but to carry the place by
   assault. At two o'clock in the morning of the 3d of August,
   the British army moved to the attack in three columns. One was
   ordered to carry the Douglass battery, upon the extreme right
   of our position; another column was to engage the fort itself;
   but the main attack was directed against the Towson battery
   upon Snake Hill. Brigadier-General Gaines, who had lately
   arrived, was now in command of the American forces. … The
   evening before, a shell had exploded a small magazine in Fort
   Erie, and General Gaines was apprehensive that the enemy would
   take advantage of this disaster and attack him,—one-third of
   the troops were therefore kept at their post through the
   night, which was dark and rainy. His precautions were well
   taken. At half-past two the tramp of a heavy column was heard
   approaching Towson's redoubt. Instantly a sheet of fire
   flashed from our lines, lighting up the night, and revealing
   the enemy 1,500 strong. They had been ordered to attack with
   the bayonet; and, to insure obedience, the flints had been
   removed from their muskets. With complete courage they
   approached to within reach of the light abattis, between Snake
   Hill and the lake. But after a desperate struggle they fell
   back. Again they advanced, and this time succeeded in planting
   scaling ladders in the ditch in front of the redoubt. But
   their ladders were too short, and the assailants were driven
   off with severe loss. Meanwhile a detachment endeavored to
   turn our position by wading out into the river, and passing
   round our left. Ripley met them promptly. Numbers were killed
   or wounded, and were carried off by the current, and the
   remainder of the detachment were captured: Five times the
   obstinate English returned to the assault, but each time
   without success. … The other British columns waited until the
   engagement on the left was at its height. On our right the
   enemy advanced to within 50 yards of the Douglass battery, but
   were then driven back. At the fort the contest was more
   severe. The assailants, led by Colonel Drummond, an officer of
   singular determination, advanced through a ravine north of the
   fort, and attacking simultaneously all the salient points,
   they swarmed over the parapet into the north bastion. … The
   garrison of the fort rallied, and after a severe contest
   succeeded in regaining possession of the bastion. A second and
   third time Drummond returned to the assault with no better
   success. But with invincible tenacity he clung to his purpose.
   Moving his troops, under cover of the night and the dense
   cloud of battle which hung along the ramparts, silently round
   the ditch, he suddenly repeated the charge. The English ran up
   their ladders so quickly that they gained the top of the
   glacis before the defenders could rally to resist them. … The
   garrison of the fort made repeated unsuccessful efforts to
   retake the bastion; but at day-break it was still in the
   enemy's possession. Powerful detachments were then brought up
   from the left and center, and a combined attempt was made from
   several different directions to drive the British from their
   position; but, after a desperate struggle, this likewise
   failed. The guns of the Douglass battery, and those under
   Captain Fanning, were turned upon the bastion, and Captain
   Biddle was placing a piece of artillery to enfilade it, while
   several hundred of the American reserve stood ready to rush
   upon it. At this moment a loud explosion shook the earth, and
   the whole bastion leaped into the air, carrying with it both
   its assailants and defenders. The cause of this explosion has
   never been accurately ascertained. It is generally supposed to
   have been accidental. … The shattered columns of the foe now
   retired to their encampment. The British report stated their
   loss at 905 killed, wounded and missing; of whom 222 were
   killed, including 14 officers; 174 wounded; and 186 prisoners
   remained in our hands. Our loss, including 11 prisoners, was
   84 men. In the bombardment of the day before we had 45 killed
   and wounded; swelling our total loss to 129. A few days after
   this, Drummond was reinforced by two regiments, and reopened
   fire along his own line. The bombardment continued through the
   remainder of the month of August. On the 28th, General Gaines
   was wounded by a shell, which fell into his quarters, and
   General Ripley again assumed the command, but was soon
   superseded by General Brown, who had recovered from the wound
   received at Lundy's Lane. General Porter, by dint of
   superhuman efforts, gathered a considerable body of militia at
   Buffalo, to reinforce the fort. … Notwithstanding the victory
   I have just described, and the reinforcements brought by
   Porter, the American army at Fort Erie was in a very dangerous
   situation. Their foe was daily increasing in number, and three
   new batteries were thrown up, whose fire was rapidly making
   the position untenable. … Under the pressure of this great
   necessity, General Porter planned a sortie, which was
   submitted to General Brown; who approved it, and ordered it to
   be carried out. … By this enterprise, altogether the most
   brilliant military event which occurred on this frontier
   during the war, all of the enemy's guns in position were made
   useless, and their entrenchments destroyed. We took 385
   prisoners, including 11 commissioned officers, and killed or
   wounded 600 men. Our own loss was 510. … Four days after this,
   General Drummond raised the siege, and fell back to Fort
   George."

      W. Dorsheimer,
      Buffalo during the War of 1812
      (Buffalo Historical Society Publications, volume 1).

      ALSO IN:
      E. Cruikshank,
      The Battle of Lundy's Lane
      (Lundy's Lane Historical Society).

      Gen. W. Scott,
      Memoirs by himself,
      chapters 9-11 (volume 1).

      C. Johnson,
      Centennial History of Erie County, New York,
      chapter 26.

      B. J. Lossing,
      Field Book of the War of 1812,
      chapters 35-36.

      The Attack on Fort Erie
      (Portfolio, February, 1816).

{3352}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (August-September).
   Capture and destruction of the national Capital.
   Attempt against Baltimore.

   Early in the "summer of 1814, rumors spread through the
   capital of a great British armament preparing at Bermuda, some
   said for an attack on New York, others on Baltimore and
   Annapolis, while others asserted quite as vehemently that the
   national capital was the chosen object of British vengeance.
   How easy it would be, they argued, for Admiral Sir George
   Cockburn, who had been a year with his fleet in Chesapeake
   Bay, when reinforced by the Bermuda armament to disembark a
   strong column at any point on the western shore of the
   Chesapeake—but forty miles distant—and by a forced march
   capture the city. But by some strange fatuity, the President
   and his cabinet treated these possibilities as unworthy of
   credence. 'The British come here!' a Cabinet officer is
   reported to have said, in answer to the representations of
   citizens. "What should they come here for?' Sure enough: a
   provincial village of 6,000 inhabitants. But then there were
   the state papers and public buildings, the moral effect of
   capturing an enemy's capital, and the satisfaction of
   chastising the city where a British minister had been obliged
   to ask for his recall on the ground of ill-treatment. …
   Colonel James Monroe, a gallant soldier of the Revolution, was
   now Secretary of State; another Revolutionary soldier, General
   Armstrong, was Secretary of War, and acting on their advice,
   President Madison did substantially nothing for the defence of
   his capital. Fort Washington, commanding the Potomac, which
   Major L'Enfant had planned early in the war, was hurried
   forward to completion; but no defences on the landward side
   were erected, and no army was called out to defend it. What
   was done was this: The District of Columbia, Maryland, and
   that part of Virginia north of the Rappahannock, were created
   a tenth military district under command of General W. H.
   Winder, a brave officer, who had seen service in the
   Northwest, and who had recently returned from long detention
   in Canada as prisoner of war. General Winder on taking command
   (June 26, 1814) found for the defence of Washington
   detachments of the 36th and 38th regulars, amounting to a few
   hundred men, but nothing more—no forts, no guns, no army. A
   force of 13 regiments of Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania
   militia had been drafted, but were not to be called into
   active service until the enemy should appear—an arrangement
   against which General Winder protested in vain. … While these
   weak and ineffectual preparations are being made, the enemy
   has been marshalling his forces. Early in August Rear-Admiral
   Cockburn's blockading squadron had been joined in the Potomac
   by the fleet of Vice-Admiral Cochrane, who as ranking officer
   at once took command." A few days later the expected Bermuda
   expedition arrived bringing 4,000 troops—veterans from
   Wellington's army—under General Ross. A little flotilla of
   gunboats on the Chesapeake, commanded by Commodore Barney, was
   driven into Patuxent River and there abandoned and burned.
   Then the enemy landed in force at Benedict and marched on
   Washington, while the Secretary or War still insisted that
   Baltimore must be, in the nature of things, the place they
   would strike, At Bladensburg they were met (August 24th) by
   General Winder with some 5,000 hastily collected militia and
   volunteers and less than 1,000 regular troops, sailors, and
   marines—poor materials for an army with which to face 4,000
   hardened veterans of the Peninsular War. The battle ended in
   the utter routing of the American forces and the abandonment
   of Washington to the British invaders.

      C. B. Todd,
      The Story of Washington,
      chapter 8.

   "This battle, by which the fate of the American capital was
   decided, began about one o'clock in the afternoon, and lasted
   till four. The loss on the part of the English was severe,
   since, out of two-thirds of the army, which were engaged,
   upwards of 500 men were killed and wounded; and what rendered
   it doubly severe was, that among these were numbered several
   officers of rank and distinction. … On the side of the
   Americans the slaughter was not so great. Being in possession
   of a strong position, they were of course less exposed in
   defending than the others in storming it; and had they
   conducted themselves with coolness and resolution, it is not
   conceivable how the battle could have been won. But the fact
   is that, with the exception of a party of sailors from the gun
   boats, under the command of Commodore Barney, no troops could
   behave worse than they did."

      G. R. Gleig,
      Campaign of the British Army at Washington and New Orleans,
      chapter 9.

   When Winder's troops abandoned Washington "fire was put at the
   navy yard to a new frigate on the stocks, to a new
   sloop-of-war lately launched, and to several magazines of
   stores and provisions, for the destruction of which ample
   preparations had been made. By the light of this fire, made
   lurid by a sudden thunder-gust, Ross, toward evening, advanced
   into Washington, at that time a straggling village of some
   8,000 people, but, for the moment, almost deserted by the male
   part of the white inhabitants. From Gallatin's late residence,
   one of the first considerable houses which the column reached,
   a shot was fired which killed Ross's horse, and which was
   instantly revenged by putting fire to the house. After three
   or four volleys at the Capitol, the two detached wings were
   set on fire. The massive walls defied the flames, but all the
   interior was destroyed, with many valuable papers, and the
   library of Congress—a piece of Vandalism alleged to be in
   revenge for the burning of the Parliament House at York.
   [Chaplain Gleig, who was with the British forces under Ross,
   states in the narrative quoted from above that the party fired
   upon from Gallatin's house bore a flag of truce, and that
   Ross's destructive proceedings in Washington were consequent
   on that fact.] … The president's house, and the offices of the
   Treasury and State Departments near by, were set on fire. …
   The next morning the War Office was burned. …
{3353}
   Several private houses were burned, and some private
   warehouses broken open and plundered; but, in general, private
   property was respected." On the night of the 20th the British
   withdrew, returning as they came; but on the 29th their
   frigates, ascending the Potomac, arrived at Alexandria and
   plundered that city heavily. "Within less than a fortnight
   after the re-embarkation of Ross's army, the British fleet,
   spreading vast alarm as it ascended the Chesapeake, appeared
   off the Patapsco [September 12]. … A landing was effected the
   next day at North Point, on the northern shore of that
   estuary, some eight miles up which was Fort M'Henry, an open
   work only two miles from Baltimore, commanding the entrance
   into the harbor, which found, however, its most effectual
   protection in the shallowness of the water. The defense of the
   city rested with some 10,000 militia. … A corps 3,000 strong
   had been thrown forward toward North Point. As Ross and
   Cockburn, at the head of a reconnoitering party, approached
   the outposts of this advanced division, a skirmish ensued, in
   which Ross was killed. … The fleet, meanwhile, opened a
   tremendous cannonade on Fort M'Henry; but … at such a distance
   as to render their fire ineffectual. It was under the
   excitement of this cannonade that the popular song of the
   'Star Spangled Banner' was composed, the author [Francis Scott
   Key] being then on board the British fleet, whither he had
   gone to solicit the release of certain prisoners, and where he
   was detained pending the attack. An attempt to land in boats
   also failed; and that same night, the bombardment being still
   kept up, the British army, covered by rain and darkness,
   retired silently to their ships and re-embarked."

      R. Hildreth,
      History of the United States,
      volume 6, pages 510-520.

      ALSO IN:
      J. S. Williams,
      Invasion and Capture of Washington.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (September).
   Prevost's invasion of New York.
   Macdonough's naval victory on Lake Champlain.

   Lake Champlain, "which had hitherto played but an
   inconspicuous part, was now to become the scene of the
   greatest naval battle of the war. A British army of 11,000 men
   under Sir George Prevost undertook the invasion of New York by
   advancing up the western bank of Lake Champlain. This advance
   was impracticable unless there was a sufficiently strong
   British naval force to drive back the American squadron at the
   same time. Accordingly, the British began to construct a
   frigate, the Confiance, to be added to their already existing
   force, which consisted of a brig, two sloops, and 12 or 14
   gun-boats. The Americans already possessed a heavy corvette, a
   schooner, a small sloop, and 10 gun-boats or row-galleys; they
   now began to build a large brig, the Eagle, which was launched
   about the 16th of August. Nine days later, on the 25th, the
   Confiance was launched. The two squadrons were equally
   deficient in stores, etc.; the Confiance having locks to her
   guns, some of which could not be used, while the American
   schooner Ticonderoga had to fire her guns by means of pistols
   flashed at the touchholes (like Barclay on Lake Erie).
   Macdonough and Downie were hurried into action before they had
   time to prepare themselves thoroughly; but it was a
   disadvantage common to both, and arose from the nature of the
   case, which called for immediate action. The British army
   advanced slowly toward Plattsburg, which was held by General
   Macomb with less than 2,000 effective American troops. Captain
   Thomas Macdonough, the American commodore, took the lake a day
   or two before his antagonist, and came to anchor in Plattsburg
   harbor. The British fleet, under Captain George Downie, moved
   from Isle-aux-Noix on September 8th, and on the morning of the
   11th sailed into Plattsburg harbor." The American force
   consisted of the ship Saratoga, Captain Macdonough, the brig
   Eagle, the schooner Ticonderoga, the sloop Preble, and ten
   row-galleys, or gunboats mounting one or two guns each—"in
   all, 14 vessels of 2,244 tons and 882 men, with 86 guns
   throwing at a broadside 1,194 lbs. of shot, 480 from long, and
   714 from short guns. The force of the British squadron in guns
   and ships is known accurately, as most of it was captured." It
   consisted of the frigate Confiance, the brig Linnet, the
   sloops Chubb and Finch, and twelve gunboats—"in all, 16
   vessels, of about 2,402 tons, with 937 men, and a total of 92
   guns, throwing at a broadside 1,192 lbs., 660 from long and
   532 from short pieces. … Young Macdonough (then but 28 years
   of age) calculated all … chances very coolly and decided to
   await the attack at anchor in Plattsburg Bay, with the head of
   his line so far to the north that it could hardly be turned. …
   The morning of September 11th opened with a light breeze from
   the northeast. Downie's fleet weighed anchor at daylight, and
   came down the lake with the wind nearly aft, the booms of the
   two sloops swinging out to starboard. At half-past seven, the
   people in the ships could see their adversaries' upper sails
   across the narrow strip of land ending in Cumberland Head,
   before the British doubled the latter. … As the English
   squadron stood bravely in, young Macdonough, who feared his
   foes not at all, but his God a great deal, knelt for a moment,
   with his officers, on the quarter-deck; and then ensued a few
   minutes of perfect quiet." The fierce battle which followed
   lasted about two hours and a half, with terribly destructive
   effects on both sides. The British commander, Downie, was
   killed early in the action. "On both sides the ships had been
   cut up in the most extraordinary manner; the Saratoga had 55
   shot-holes in her hull, and the Confiance 105 in hers, and the
   Eagle and Linnet had suffered in proportion. The number of
   killed and wounded can not be exactly stated; it was probably
   about 200 on the American side, and over 300 on the British. …
   The effects of the victory were immediate and of the highest
   importance. Sir George Prevost and his army [which had arrived
   before Plattsburg on the 6th, and which, simultaneously with
   the naval advance, had made an unsuccessful attack on the
   American defensive works, at the mouth of the Saranac, held by
   General Alexander Macomb] at once fled in great haste and
   confusion back to Canada, leaving our northern frontier clear
   for the remainder of the war; while the victory had a very
   great effect on the negotiations for peace. In this battle the
   crews on both sides behaved with equal bravery, and left
   nothing to be desired in this respect; but from their rawness
   they of course showed far less skill than the crews of most of
   the American and some of the British ocean cruisers. …
   Macdonough in this battle won a higher fame than any other
   commander of the war, British or American.
{3354}
   He had a decidedly superior force to contend against, the
   officers and men of the two sides being about on a par in
   every respect; and it was solely owing to his foresight and
   resource that we won the victory. He forced the British to
   engage at a disadvantage by his excellent choice of position,
   and he prepared beforehand for every possible contingency. …
   Down to the time of the Civil War he is the greatest figure in
   our naval history."

      T. Roosevelt,
      The Naval War of 1812,
      chapter 8.

      ALSO IN:
      R. Johnson,
      History of the War of 1812-1815,
      chapter 15.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (December).
   The Hartford Convention.

   "The commercial distress in New England, the possession by the
   enemy of a large part of the District of Maine, the fear of
   their advance along the coast, and the apparent neglect of the
   Federal Government to provide any adequate means of
   resistance, had led the Legislature of Massachusetts, in
   October, to invite the other New England States to send
   delegates to Hartford, Connecticut, 'to confer upon the
   subject of their public grievances.' Delegates [26 in number]
   from Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut, and from
   parts of Vermont and New Hampshire, met at Hartford in
   December and remained in session for three weeks. In their
   report to their State Legislatures they reviewed the state of
   the country, the origin and management of the war, and the
   strong measures lately proposed in Congress, and recommended
   several Amendments to the Constitution, chiefly with intent to
   restrict the powers of Congress over commerce, and to prevent
   naturalized citizens from holding office. In default of the
   adoption of these Amendments, another convention was advised,
   'in order to decide on the course which a crisis so momentous
   might seem to demand.' This was the famous Hartford
   Convention. The peace which closely followed its adjournment
   removed all necessity or even desire for another session of
   it. Its objects seem to have been legitimate. But the
   unfortunate secrecy of its proceedings, and its somewhat
   ambiguous language, roused a popular suspicion, sufficient for
   the political ruin of its members, that a dissolution of the
   Union had been proposed, perhaps resolved upon, in its
   meetings. Some years afterward those concerned in it were
   compelled in self-defense to publish its journal, in order to
   show that no treasonable design was officially proposed. It
   was then, however, too late, for the popular opinion had
   become fixed. Neither the Federal party which originated, nor
   the Federalist politicians who composed, the assembly, were
   ever freed from the stigma left by the mysterious Hartford
   Convention."

      A. Johnston,
      History of American Politics, 2d ed.,
      chapter 8.

   The language of the report of the Hartford Convention "was so
   skillfully selected that it cannot be said with certainty
   whether the convention deduced from the nature of the Union a
   positive right in the individual states to withdraw from the
   Union, or whether it claimed only a moral justification for
   revolution. It was prudent enough in the declaration of its
   position on the constitutional question not to venture beyond
   vague, double-meaning expressions, except so far as it could
   appeal to its opponents. But it went just far enough to repeat
   almost verbatim the declaration of faith laid down in the
   Kentucky resolutions of 1798. If the members of the
   convention, and those in sympathy with them, were 'Maratists,'
   they could claim that they had become so in the school of
   Madison and Jefferson."

      H. von Holst,
      Constitutional and Political History of the United States,
      volume 1, page 268.

      ALSO IN:
      T. Dwight,
      History of the Hartford Convention.

      H. C. Lodge,
      Life and Letters of George Cabot,
      chapters 11-13.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (December).
   The Treaty of Peace concluded at Ghent.

   "In September, 1812, Count Romanzoff suggested to Mr. [John
   Quincy] Adams the readiness of the Emperor [of Russia] to act
   as mediator in bringing about peace between the United States
   and England. The suggestion was promptly acted upon, but with
   no directly fortunate results. The American government acceded
   at once to the proposition, and, at the risk of an impolitic
   display of readiness, dispatched Messrs. Gallatin and Bayard
   to act as Commissioners jointly with Mr. Adams in the
   negotiations. These gentlemen, however, arrived in St.
   Petersburg only to find themselves in a very awkward
   position," since the offered mediation of the Czar was
   declined by England. The latter power preferred to negotiate
   directly with the United States, and presently made proposals
   to that effect, intimating her readiness "to send
   Commissioners to Gottingen, for which place Ghent was
   afterwards substituted, to meet American Commissioners and
   settle terms of pacification. The United States renewed the
   powers of Messrs. Adams, Bayard, and Gallatin, … and added
   Jonathan Russell, then Minister to Sweden, and Henry Clay.
   England deputed Lord Gambier, an Admiral, Dr. Adams, a
   publicist, and Mr. Goulbourn, a member of Parliament and Under
   Secretary of State. These eight gentlemen accordingly met in
   Ghent on August 7, 1814. It was upwards of four months before
   an agreement was reached. … The eight were certainly an odd
   assemblage of peacemakers. The ill-blood and wranglings
   between the opposing Commissions were bad enough, yet hardly
   equalled the intestine dissensions between the American
   Commissioners themselves. … The British first presented their
   demands, as follows: 1. That the United States should conclude
   a peace with the Indian allies of Great Britain, and that a
   species of neutral belt of Indian territory should be
   established between the dominions of the United States and
   Great Britain, so that these dominions should be nowhere
   conterminous, upon which belt or barrier neither power should
   be permitted to encroach even by purchase, and the boundaries
   of which should be settled in this treaty. 2. That the United
   States should keep no naval force upon the Great Lakes, and
   should neither maintain their existing forts nor build new
   ones upon their northern frontier; it was even required that
   the boundary line should run along the southern shore of the
   lakes; while no corresponding restriction was imposed upon
   Great Britain, because she was stated to have no projects of
   conquest as against her neighbor. 3. That a piece of the
   province of Maine should be ceded, in order to give the
   English a road from Halifax to Quebec. 4. That the
   stipulations of the treaty of 1783, conferring on English
   subjects the right of navigating the Mississippi, should be
   now formally renewed. The Americans were astounded; it seemed
   to them hardly worth while to have come so far to listen to
   such propositions."
{3355}
   But, after long and apparently hopeless wrangling, events in
   Europe rather than in America brought about a change of
   disposition on the part of the British government;
   instructions to the commissioners were modified on both sides,
   and, quite to their own surprise, they arrived at agreements
   which were formulated in a Treaty and signed, December 24,
   1814. "Of the many subjects mooted between the negotiators
   scarcely any had survived the fierce contests which had been
   waged concerning them. The whole matter of the navigation of
   the Mississippi, access to that river, and a road through
   American territory, had been dropped by the British; while the
   Americans had been well content to say nothing of the
   Northeastern fisheries, which they regarded as still their
   own.

      See FISHERIES, NORTH AMERICAN: A. D. 1814-1818.

   The disarmament on the lakes and along the Canadian border,
   and the neutralization of a strip of Indian territory, were
   yielded by the English. The Americans were content to have
   nothing said about impressment; nor was anyone of the many
   illegal rights exercised by England formally abandoned. The
   Americans satisfied themselves with the reflection that
   circumstances had rendered these points now only matters of
   abstract principle, since the pacification of Europe had
   removed all opportunities and temptations for England to
   persist in her previous objectionable courses. For the future
   it was hardly to be feared that she would again undertake to
   pursue a policy against which it was evident that the United
   States were willing to conduct a serious war. There was,
   however, no provision for indemnification. Upon a fair
   consideration, it must be admitted that, though the treaty was
   silent upon all the points which the United States had made
   war for the purpose of enforcing, yet the country had every
   reason to be gratified with the result of the negotiation."

      J. T. Morse,
      John Quincy Adams,
      pages 75-96.

   "Instead of wearing themselves out over impracticable, perhaps
   impossible, questions, the commissioners turned their
   attention to the northern boundary between the two countries,
   and it was by them forever settled, and in such manner as to
   give the United States the foundation for its future
   greatness. … The victory of the American diplomats at Ghent
   was two-fold: first, they secured the benefits desired without
   enumerating them—even to a greater extent than if the benefits
   had been enumerated; and second, if they had insisted upon an
   enumeration of the benefits obtained, it is apparent they
   would have periled the entire treaty and lost all."

      T. Wilson,
      The Treaty of Ghent
      (Magazine of American History, November, 1888).

      ALSO IN:
      C. Schurz,
      Life of Henry Clay,
      chapter 6 (volume l).

      J. Q. Adams,
      Memoirs (Diary)
      chapter 9 (volumes 2-3).

   Following is the text of the treaty:

   Article I.
   There shall be a firm and universal peace between His
   Britannic Majesty and the United States, and between their
   respective countries, territories, cities, towns, and people,
   of every degree, without exception of places or persons. All
   hostilities, both by sea and land, shall cease as soon as this
   treaty shall have been ratified by both parties, as
   hereinafter mentioned. All territory, places, and possessions
   whatsoever, taken by either party from the other during the
   war, or which may be taken after the signing of this treaty,
   excepting only the islands hereinafter mentioned, shall be
   restored without delay, and without causing any destruction or
   carrying away any of the artillery or other public property
   originally captured in the said forts or places, and which
   shall remain therein upon the exchange of the ratifications of
   this treaty, or any slaves or other private property. And all
   archives, records, deeds, and papers, either of a public
   nature or belonging to private persons, which, in the course
   of the war, may have fallen into the hands of the officers of
   either party, shall be, as far as may be practicable,
   forthwith restored and delivered to the proper authorities and
   persons to whom they respectively belong. Such of the islands
   in the Bay of Passamaquoddy as are claimed by both parties,
   shall remain in the possession of the party in whose
   occupation they may be at the time of the exchange of the
   ratifications of this treaty, until the decision respecting
   the title to the said islands shall have been made in
   conformity with the fourth article of this treaty. No
   disposition made by this treaty as to such possession of the
   islands and territories claimed by both parties shall, in any
   manner whatever, be construed to affect the right of either.

   Article II.
   Immediately after the ratification of this treaty by both
   parties, as hereinafter mentioned, orders shall be sent to the
   armies, squadrons, officers, subjects and citizens of the two
   Powers to cease from all hostilities. And to prevent all
   causes of complaint which might arise on account of the prizes
   which may be taken at sea after the said ratifications of this
   treaty, it is reciprocally agreed that all vessels and effects
   which may be taken after the space of twelve days from the
   said ratifications, upon all parts of the coast of North
   America, from the latitude of twenty-three degrees north to
   the latitude of fifty degrees north, and as far eastward in
   the Atlantic Ocean as the thirty-sixth degree of west
   longitude from the meridian of Greenwich, shall be restored on
   each side: that the time shall be thirty days in all other
   parts of the Atlantic Ocean north of the equinoctial line or
   equator, and the same time for the British and Irish Channels,
   for the Gulf of Mexico, and all parts of the West Indies;
   forty days for the North Seas, for the Baltic, and for all
   parts of the Mediterranean; sixty days for the Atlantic Ocean
   south of the equator, as far as the latitude of the Cape of
   Good Hope; ninety days for every other part of the world south
   of the equator; and one hundred and twenty days for all other
   parts of the world, without exception.

   Article III.
   All prisoners of war taken on either side, as well by land as
   by sea, shall be restored as soon as practicable after the
   ratifications of this treaty, as hereinafter mentioned, on
   their paying the debts which they may have contracted during
   their captivity. The two contracting parties respectively
   engage to discharge, in specie, the advances which may have
   been made by the other for the sustenance and maintenance of
   such prisoners.

{3356}

   Article IV.
   Whereas it was stipulated by the second article in the treaty
   of peace of one thousand seven hundred and eighty-three,
   between His Britannic Majesty and the United States of
   America, that the boundary of the United States should
   comprehend all islands within twenty leagues of any part of
   the shores of the United States, and lying between lines to be
   drawn due east from the points where the aforesaid boundaries,
   between Nova Scotia on the one part, and East Florida on the
   other, shall respectively touch the Bay of Fundy and the
   Atlantic Ocean, excepting such islands as now are, or
   heretofore have been, within the limits of Nova Scotia; and
   whereas the several islands in the Bay of Passamaquoddy, which
   is part of the Bay of Fundy, and the Island of Grand Menan, in
   the said Bay of Fundy, are claimed by the United States as
   being comprehended within their aforesaid boundaries, which
   said islands are claimed as belonging to His Britannic
   Majesty, as having been, at the time of and previous to the
   aforesaid treaty of one thousand seven hundred and
   eighty-three, within the limits of the Province of Nova
   Scotia: In order, therefore, finally to decide upon these
   claims, it is agreed that they shall be referred to two
   Commissioners to be appointed in the following manner, viz:
   One Commissioner shall be appointed by His Britannic Majesty,
   and one by the President of the United States, by and with the
   advice and consent of the Senate thereof; and the said two
   Commissioners so appointed shall be sworn impartially to
   examine and decide upon the said claims according to such
   evidence as shall be laid before them on the part of His
   Britannic Majesty and of the United States respectively. The
   said Commissioners shall meet at St. Andrews, in the Province
   of New Brunswick, and shall have power to adjourn to such
   other place or places as they shall think fit. The said
   Commissioners shall, by a declaration or report under their
   hands and seals, decide to which of the two contracting
   parties the several islands aforesaid do respectively belong,
   in conformity with the true intent of the said treaty of peace
   of one thousand seven hundred and eighty-three. And if the
   said Commissioners shall agree in their decision, both parties
   shall consider such decision as final and conclusive. It is
   further agreed that, in event of the two Commissioners
   differing upon all or any of the matters so referred to them,
   or in the event of both or either of the said Commissioners
   refusing, or declining, or wilfully omitting to act as such,
   they shall make, jointly or separately, a report or reports,
   as well to the Government of His Britannic Majesty as to that
   of the United States, stating in detail the points on which
   they differ, and the grounds upon which their respective
   opinions have been formed, or the grounds upon which they, or
   either of them, have so refused, declined, or omitted to act.
   And His Britannic Majesty and the Government of the United
   States hereby agree to refer the report or reports of the said
   Commissioners to some friendly sovereign or State, to be then
   named for that purpose, and who shall be requested to decide
   on the differences which may be stated in the said report or
   reports, or upon the report of one Commissioner, together with
   the grounds upon which the other Commissioner shall have
   refused, declined or omitted to act, as the case may be. And
   if the Commissioner so refusing, declining or omitting to act,
   shall also wilfully omit to state the grounds upon which he
   has so done, in such manner that the said statement may be
   referred to such friendly sovereign or State, together with
   the report of such other Commissioner, then such sovereign or
   State shall decide ex parte upon the said report alone. And
   His Britannic Majesty and the Government of the United States
   engage to consider the decision of such friendly sovereign or
   State to be final and conclusive on all the matters so
   referred.

   Article V.
   Whereas neither that point of the highlands lying due north
   from the source of the river St. Croix, and designated in the
   former treaty of peace between the two Powers as the northwest
   angle of Nova Scotia, nor the north-westernmost head of
   Connecticut River, has yet been ascertained; and whereas that
   part of the boundary line between the dominions of the two
   Powers which extends from the source of the river St. Croix
   directly north to the above mentioned northwest angle of Nova
   Scotia, thence along the said highlands which divide those
   rivers that empty themselves into the river St. Lawrence from
   those which fall into the Atlantic Ocean to the northwestern
   most head of Connecticut River, thence down along the middle
   of that river to the forty-fifth degree of north latitude;
   thence by a line due west on said latitude until it strikes
   the river Iroquois or Cataraquy, has not yet been surveyed: it
   is agreed that for these several purposes two Commissioners
   shall be appointed, sworn, and authorized to act exactly in
   the manner directed with respect to those mentioned in the
   next preceding article, unless otherwise specified in the
   present article. The said Commissioners shall meet at St.
   Andrews, in the Province of New Brunswick, and shall have
   power to adjourn to such other place or places as they shall
   think fit. The said Commissioners shall have power to
   ascertain and determine the points above mentioned, in
   conformity with the provisions of the said treaty of peace of
   one thousand seven hundred and eighty-three, and shall cause
   the boundary aforesaid, from the source of the river St. Croix
   to the river Iroquois or Cataraquy, to be surveyed and marked
   according to the said provisions. The said Commissioners shall
   make a map of the said boundary, and annex to it a declaration
   under their hands and seals, certifying it to be the true map
   of the said boundary, and particularizing the latitude and
   longitude of the northwest angle of Nova Scotia, of the
   northwesternmost head of Connecticut River, and of such other
   points of the said boundary as they may deem proper. And both
   parties agree to consider such map and declaration as finally
   and conclusively fixing the said boundary. And in the event of
   the said two Commissioners differing, or both or either of
   them refusing, declining, or wilfully omitting to act, such
   reports, declarations, or statements shall be made by them, or
   either of them, and such reference to a friendly sovereign or
   State shall be made in all respects as in the latter part of
   the fourth article is contained, and in as full a manner as if
   the same was herein repeated.

{3357}

   Article VI.
   Whereas by the former treaty of peace that portion of the
   boundary of the United States from the point where the
   forty-fifth degree of north latitude strikes the river
   Iroquois or Cataraquy to the Lake Superior, was declared to be
   "along the middle of said river into Lake Ontario, through the
   middle of said lake, until it strikes the communication by
   water between that lake and Lake Erie, thence along the middle
   of said communication into Lake Erie, through the middle of said
   lake until it arrives at the water communication into the Lake
   Huron, thence through the middle of said lake to the water
   communication between that lake and Lake Superior;" and
   whereas doubts have arisen what was the middle of the said
   river, lakes, and water communications, and whether certain
   islands lying in the same were within the dominions of His
   Britannic Majesty or of the United States: In order,
   therefore, finally to decide these doubts, they shall be
   referred to two Commissioners, to be appointed, sworn, and
   authorized to act exactly in the manner directed with respect
   to those mentioned in the next preceding article, unless
   otherwise specified in this present article. The said
   Commissioners shall meet, in the first instance, at Albany, in
   the State of New York, and shall have power to adjourn to such
   other place or places as they shall think fit. The said
   Commissioners shall, by a report or declaration, under their
   hands and seals, designate the boundary through the said
   river, lakes and water communications, and decide to which of
   the two contracting parties the several islands lying within
   the said rivers, lakes, and water communications, do
   respectively belong, in conformity with the true intent of the
   said treaty of one thousand seven hundred and eighty-three.
   And both parties agree to consider such designation and
   decision as final and conclusive. And in the event of the said
   two Commissioners differing, or both or either of them
   refusing, declining, or wilfully omitting to act, such
   reports, declarations, or statements shall be made by them, or
   either of them, and such reference to a friendly sovereign or
   State shall be made in all respects as in the latter part of
   the fourth article is contained, and in as full a manner as if
   the same was herein repeated.

   Article VII.
   It is further agreed that the said two last-mentioned
   Commissioners, after they shall have executed the duties
   assigned to them in the preceding article, shall be, and they
   are hereby, authorized upon their oaths impartially to fix and
   determine, according to the true intent of the said treaty of
   peace of one thousand seven hundred and eighty-three, that
   part of the boundary between the dominions of the two Powers
   which extends from the water communication between Lake Huron
   and Lake Superior, to the most northwestern point of the Lake
   of the Woods, to decide to which of the two parties the
   several islands lying in the lakes, water communications, and
   rivers, forming the said boundary, do respectively belong, in
   conformity with the true intent of the said treaty of peace of
   one thousand seven hundred and eighty-three; and to cause such
   parts of the said boundary as require it to be surveyed and
   marked. The said Commissioners shall, by a report or
   declaration under their hands and seals, designate the
   boundary aforesaid, state their decision on the points thus
   referred to them, and particularize the latitude and longitude
   of the most northwestern point of the Lake of the Woods, and
   of such other parts of the said boundary as they may deem
   proper. And both parties agree to consider such designation
   and decision as final and conclusive. And in the event of the
   said two Commissioners differing, or both or either of them
   refusing, declining, or wilfully omitting to act, such
   reports, declarations, or statements shall be made by them, or
   either of them, and such reference to a friendly sovereign or
   State shall be made in all respects as in the latter part of
   the fourth article is contained, and in as full a manner as if
   the same was herein repeated.

   Article VIII.
   The several boards of two Commissioners mentioned in the four
   preceding articles shall respectively have power to appoint a
   Secretary, and to employ such surveyors or other persons as
   they shall judge necessary. Duplicates of all their respective
   reports, declarations, statements and decisions and of their
   accounts, and of the journal of their proceedings, shall be
   delivered by them to the agents of His Britannic Majesty and
   to the agents of the United States, who may be respectively
   appointed and authorized to manage the business on behalf of
   their respective Governments. The said Commissioners shall be
   respectively paid in such manner as shall be agreed between
   the two contracting parties, such agreement being to be
   settled at the time of the exchange of the ratifications of
   this treaty. And all other expenses attending the said
   Commissions shall be defrayed equally by the two parties. And
   in the case of death, sickness, resignation or necessary
   absence, the place of every such Commissioner, respectively,
   shall be supplied in the same manner as such Commissioner was
   first appointed, and the new Commissioner shall take the same
   oath or affirmation, and do the same duties. It is further
   agreed between the two contracting parties, that in case any
   of the islands mentioned in any of the preceding articles,
   which were in the possession of one of the parties prior to
   the commencement of the present war between the two countries,
   should, by the decision of any of the Boards of Commissioners
   aforesaid, or of the sovereign or State so referred to, as in
   the four next preceding articles contained, fall within the
   dominions of the other party, all grants of land made previous
   to the commencement of the war, by the party having had such
   possession, shall be as valid as if such island or islands
   had, by such decision or decisions, been adjudged to be within
   the dominions of the party having had such possession.

   Article IX.
   The United States of America engage to put an end, immediately
   after the ratification of the present treaty, to hostilities
   with all the tribes or nations of Indians with whom they may
   be at war at the time of such ratification; and forthwith to
   restore to such tribes or nations, respectively, all the
   possessions, rights and privileges which they may have enjoyed
   or been entitled to in one thousand eight hundred and eleven,
   previous to such hostilities: Provided always that such tribes
   or nations shall agree to desist from all hostilities against
   the United States of America, their citizens and subjects,
   upon the ratification of the present treaty being notified to
   such tribes or nations, and shall so desist accordingly. And
   His Britannic Majesty engages, on his part, to put an end
   immediately after the ratification of the present treaty, to
   hostilities with all the tribes or nations of Indians with
   whom he may be at war at the time of such ratification, and
   forthwith to restore to such tribes or nations respectively
   all the possessions, rights and privileges which they may have
   enjoyed or been entitled to in one thousand eight hundred and
   eleven, previous to such hostilities: Provided always that
   such tribes or nations shall agree to desist from all
   hostilities against His Britannic Majesty, and his subjects,
   upon the ratification of the present treaty being notified to
   such tribes or nations, and shall so desist accordingly.

{3358}

   Article X.
   Whereas the traffic in slaves is irreconcilable with the
   principles of humanity and justice, and whereas both His
   Majesty and the United States are desirous of continuing their
   efforts to promote its entire abolition, it is hereby agreed
   that both the contracting parties shall use their best
   endeavors to accomplish so desirable an object.

   Article XI.
   This treaty, when the same shall have been ratified on both
   sides, without alteration by either of the contracting
   parties, and the ratifications mutually exchanged, shall be
   binding on both parties and the ratifications shall be
   exchanged at Washington, in the space of four months from this
   day, or sooner if practicable. In faith whereof we, the
   respective Plenipotentiaries, have signed this treaty, and
   have thereunto affixed our seals. Done, in triplicate, at
   Ghent, the twenty-fourth day of December, one thousand eight
   hundred and fourteen.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814.
   The last fighting at Sea.
   The exploits of "Old Ironsides."

   "During the latter part of the war, as might have been
   foreseen, there was little opportunity for American frigates
   to show that they could keep up the fame they had so
   gloriously won. The British were determined that none of them
   that ventured out to sea should escape; and by stationing a
   squadron, which their great resources enabled them to do,
   before each port where a frigate lay, they succeeded in
   keeping it cooped up and inactive. … The 'Adams,' which had
   been a 28-gun frigate, but which was now a corvette, managed
   to slip out from Washington in January, 1814, under the
   command of Charles Morris. … Six months were passed in
   cruising, part of the time off the Irish coast, but with no
   great success." Returning home, the "Adams" went ashore at the
   mouth of the Penobscot, but was got off, much injured, and was
   taken up the river for repairs. An English expeditionary force
   pursued the crippled vessel, and her commander was forced to
   set her on fire. "At this time the 'Constitution' [Old
   Ironsides, as she was popularly called] was … lying at Boston,
   watched by a squadron of the enemy. She had proved a lucky
   ship, … and her present captain, Charles Stewart, who had been
   one of Preble's lieutenants at Tripoli, was certainly a man
   well fitted to make the most of any chance he had. The frigate
   had been in port since April, at first repairing, and later
   unable to get out owing to the presence of the enemy's
   squadron." In December, however, the " Constitution" contrived
   to give the blockaders the slip and made her way across the
   Atlantic to the neighborhood of Madeira, where she fought and
   captured, at one time, two British war vessels—the corvette
   "Cyana" of 22 guns, and the sloop "Levant," of 20 guns. A few
   days afterwards, as the "Constitution," with her two prizes,
   was lying at anchor in Port Praya, Cape de Verde Islands,
   Captain Stewart sighted, outside, no less than three ships of
   the very blockading squadron which he had slipped away from at
   Boston, and which had pursued him across the ocean. He made
   his escape from the port, with both his prizes, in time to
   avoid being hemmed in, and speedily outsailed his pursuers.
   The latter, giving up hope of the "Constitution," turned their
   attention to one of the prizes and succeeded in recovering
   her. "The only other frigate that left port in the last year
   of the war was less fortunate than the 'Constitution.' This
   was the 'President,' now under Commodore Decatur. She was at
   New York, and for some time had lain at anchor off Staten
   Island watching for an opportunity to pass the blockading
   squadron." On a stormy night in January, 1815 (after the
   treaty of peace had been actually signed at Ghent, but before
   news of it had reached America), he made the attempt, but was
   discovered and chased by four of the blockading ships. After a
   race which lasted from dawn until nearly midnight, and a
   running fight of two hours, Decatur found escape to be
   impossible and surrendered his ship.

      J. R. Soley,
      The Boys of 1812,
      chapter 17.

      ALSO IN:
      T. Roosevelt,
      The Naval War of 1812,
      chapters 7-9.

      B. J. Lossing,
      Field Book of the War of 1812,
      chapter 41.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1815 (January).
   Jackson's victory at New Orleans.

   In October of the last year "dispatches from the American
   envoys abroad announced that 12,000 to 15,000 British troops
   would leave Ireland early in September for New Orleans and
   Mobile. Intelligence reached Washington, December 9th, by way
   of Cuba, that the British Chesapeake force, under Admiral
   Cochrane, had united at Jamaica with these other troops, and
   all were ready to sail for the mouths of the Mississippi.
   'Hasten your militia to New Orleans,' now urged Monroe upon
   the Executives of Tennessee, Kentucky, and Georgia; 'do not
   wait for this government to arm them; put all the arms you can
   find into their hands; let every man bring his rifle or musket
   with him; we shall see you paid.' … Great results had been
   expected by Great Britain from the secret expedition fitted
   out against Louisiana. … Fifty British vessels, large and
   small, bore 7,000 British land troops—comprising the invading
   force from the Chesapeake and a veteran reinforcement from
   England—across the Gulf of Mexico from Jamaica to the ship
   channel near the entrance of Lake Borgne, thus approaching New
   Orleans midway between the Mississippi River and Mobile Bay.
   Here the fleet anchored; and, after dispersing a meagre
   flotilla of American gunboats, which opposed their progress in
   vain, the invaders took full possession of Lake Borgne, and,
   by means of lighter transports, landed troops upon a lonely
   island at the mouth of the Pearl River, which served as the
   military rendezvous. Crossing thence to the northwestern end
   of Lake Borgne, a sparsely-settled region, with plantations
   and sugar-works, half of this invading army, by the 23d
   [December], struck the Mississippi at a point within nine
   miles of New Orleans. Not a gun had been fired since the
   trifling engagement with the American flotilla. The British
   believed their near approach unknown, and even unsuspected, in
   the city; they meant to capture it by an assault both
   brilliant and sudden. … But Jackson had received his
   instructions in good season, and from the 2d of December New
   Orleans had been, under his vigilant direction, a camp in
   lively motion." Martial law was proclaimed; "free men of color
   were enrolled; convicts were released to become soldiers; the
   civic force was increased to its utmost.
{3359}
   Jackson inspected and strengthened the defences in the
   vicinity, erect·ing new batteries. … With his newly arrived
   volunteers from neighboring States, quite expert, many of
   them, in the use of the rifle and eager for fight, Jackson
   found himself presently at the head of 5,000 effective men,
   less than 1,000 of whom were regulars." With a portion of
   these, supported by one of the two armed vessels on the river,
   he boldly attacked the enemy, on the evening of the 23d, but
   accomplished little more than to demonstrate the energy of the
   defence he was prepared to make. On the 28th the English
   (having previously destroyed one of the troublesome vessels in
   the river, the Carolina, with hot shot) returned the attack,
   but did not break the American lines. Then General Pakenham,
   the English commander, brought up heavy guns from the fleet,
   and soon convinced General Jackson that cotton bales, which
   the latter had piled up before his men, were too light and too
   combustible for breastworks against artillery; but the lesson
   proved more useful than otherwise, and the British batteries
   were answered with fully equal effect by an American
   cannonade. "Pakenham's last and boldest experiment was to
   carry Jackson's lines by storm on both sides of the river; and
   this enterprise, fatal, indeed, to those who conceived it,
   gives immortal date to the 8th of January,—the day on which
   the battle of New Orleans was fought. Four days before this
   momentous battle, over 2,000 Kentucky militia, under General
   Adair, arrived at New Orleans, ready soldiers, but miserably
   equipped. Of their number 700 were marched to the front.
   Pakenham's army, swelled by a body of reinforcements,
   commanded by General Lambert, another of Wellington's
   officers, now consisted in all of 10,000 troops, the flower of
   Brit·ish veterans. On the day of the battle Jackson had only
   half as many soldiers on the New Orleans side of the river,
   and of these the greater part were new recruits under
   inexperienced officers. On the opposite bank General Morgan,
   with about 1,500 men, among them detachments of Kentuckians
   and Louisiana militia, had intrenched himself in expectation
   of an assault. Jackson had penetrated the enemy's design,
   which was to make the main attack upon his lines, while a
   lesser force crossed the Mississippi to drive Morgan up the
   bank. Jackson's grand defences, extending for a mile and a
   half from the Mississippi, along his ditch or canal, to an
   impassable cypress swamp, consisted of earthworks, a redoubt
   next the river to enfilade the ditch, and eight batteries, all
   well mounted. The schooner Louisiana and Commander Patterson's
   marine battery across the river protected this line. Another
   intrenchment had been thrown up a mile and a half in the rear,
   as a rallying-point in case of need. There was a third line
   just below the city. … The morn·ing fog rolled away on the 8th
   of January. Pakenham, under the fire of a battery he had
   erected during the night, advanced with the main body of
   British troops to storm Jackson's position." The Americans,
   behind their breastworks, withheld their fire until the
   storming columns were 200 yards away, and then poured volley
   on volley into the approaching mass of men. "This, with the
   steady fire from the American batteries all along the line, as
   the foe advanced over a large bare plain, made hideous gaps in
   the British ranks, throwing them into utter confusion. It was
   a fearful slaughter. Dead bodies choked the ditch and strewed
   the plain. Gallant Highlanders flung themselves forward to
   scale the ramparts only to fall back lifeless. Soldiers who
   had served under Wellington in Spain broke, scattered, and
   ran. Of the four British generals commanding, Pakenham was
   killed, Gibbs mortally wounded, Keane disabled by a shot in
   the neck; only Lambert remained. Thornton, across the river,
   had driven Morgan from his lines meantime, and silenced
   Patterson's battery; but this enterprise might have cost him
   dearly, had he not in season received orders from Lambert to
   return instantly. In this battle the British lost not less
   than 2,600, all but 500 of whom were killed or wounded; while
   only 8 were killed and 13 wounded on the American side. Having
   buried his dead presently under a flag of truce, Lambert, whom
   this calamity had placed in command, retreated hastily under
   cover of the night, abandoning the expedition. Re-embarking at
   Lake Borgne, and rejoining the fleet, he next proceeded to
   invest Fort Bowyer, at the entrance of Mobile Bay, only to
   learn, after its little garrison had surrendered, that a
   treaty of peace [signed December 24, 1814, two weeks before
   the battle of New Orleans was fought] annulled the conquest. …
   Rude and illiterate as he was, Jackson showed at New Orleans
   the five prime attributes of military genius: decision,
   energy, forethought, dispatch, skill in employing resources."

      J. Schouler,
      History of the United States of America,
      chapter 9, section 1 (volume 2).

      ALSO IN:
      A. Walker,
      Jackson and New Orleans.

      J. Parton,
      Life of Andrew Jackson,
      volume 2, chapters 1-23.

      G. R. Gleig,
      Campaigns of the British Army at Washington and New Orleans,
      chapters 18-23.

      M. Thompson,
      The Story of Louisiana,
      chapter 9.

      G. W. Cable,
      The Creoles of Louisiana,
      chapters 26-27.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1815.
   Final war with the Algerines and suppression of their piracies.

      See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1815.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1816.
   Incorporation of the second Bank of the United States.

      See MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1791-1816; and 1817-1833.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1816.
   Admission of Indiana into the Union.

      See INDIANA: A. D. 1800-1818.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1816.
   The increased Tariff.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES): A. D. 1816-1824.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1816.
   Organization of the American Colonization Society.

      See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1816-1849.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1816.
   Eighth Presidential Election.

   James Monroe, Democratic Republican, was elected over Rufus
   King, Federalist, receiving 183 out of 217 votes cast in the
   electoral college. Daniel D. Tompkins was chosen Vice
   President. "Opposition to the War of 1812 proved fatal to the
   Federal party, which ceased to exist as a national party with
   the close of Mr. Madison's administration. Not only did the
   odium of opposing the war tend to annihilate that party, but
   the questions upon which the two parties differed were, in a
   great measure, settled or disposed of by the war; others,
   relating to the general interests of the country, such as a
   tariff, internal improvements, the chartering of a national
   bank, erecting fortifications, etc., taking their place, and
   finding advocates and opponents in both the old parties.
   Candidates for President and Vice-President were then selected
   by the respective parties by what was termed a Congressional
   caucus.
{3360}
   Mr. Monroe was placed in nomination for President by a caucus
   of the Republican members of Congress, Daniel D. Tompkins, of
   New York, being nominated by the same caucus for
   Vice-President. Mr. Crawford, of Georgia, was Mr. Monroe's
   competitor, and fell but few votes behind him in the caucus.
   Rufus King was the candidate of the Federal party, or what
   there was left of it, against Mr. Monroe. The latter received
   183 electoral votes, the former 34. No President ever
   encountered less opposition during his four or eight years'
   service than Mr. Monroe. Parties and the country seemed to be
   tired of contention, and desirous to enjoy repose. A most able
   cabinet was selected, consisting of Mr. J. Q. Adams as
   Secretary of State; William H. Crawford, Secretary of the
   Treasury; John C. Calhoun, Secretary of War; Smith Thompson,
   Secretary of the Navy; and William Wirt, Attorney-General."

      N. Sargent,
      Public Men and Events, 1817-1853,
      volume 1, chapter 1.

   "Remembering only the almost unopposed election and second
   election of Mr. Monroe, we are apt to think of him as the
   natural and easy choice of the people. As a matter of fact he
   was not a great favorite with Republican politicians. He was
   first nominated by a narrow majority. … Numerous meetings were
   held in various parts of the country to protest against the
   caucus system, the most noteworthy of which, perhaps, was held
   in Baltimore, in which meeting Roger B. Taney, afterward Chief
   Justice, took a most prominent part. The nomination being
   made, the presidential election was practically decided. There
   was no canvass, worthy of the name."

      E. Stanwood,
      History of Presidential Elections,
      chapter 9.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1816-1817.
   The opening of the question of "Internal Improvements."

   "The passage of the bank bill in 1816 was to give the United
   States a million and a half of dollars. Calhoun, therefore,
   came forward, December 23, 1816, with a bill proposing that
   this sum be employed as a fund 'for constructing roads and
   canals and improving the navigation of watercourses.' 'We
   are,' said he, 'a rapidly—I was about to say a
   fearfully—growing country. … This is our pride and danger, our
   weakness and our strength.' The constitutional question he
   settled with a phrase: 'If we are restricted in the use of our
   money to the enumerated powers, on what principle can the
   purchase of Louisiana be justified?' The bill passed the House
   by 86 to 84; it was strongly supported by New York members,
   because it was expected that the general government would
   begin the construction of a canal from Albany to the Lakes; it
   had also large support in the South, especially in South
   Carolina. In the last hours of his administration Madison
   vetoed it. His message shows that he had selected this
   occasion to leave to the people a political testament; he was
   at last alarmed by the progress of his own party, and, like
   Jefferson, he insisted that internal improvements were
   desirable, but needed a constitutional amendment. The
   immediate effect of the veto was that New York, seeing no
   prospect of federal aid, at once herself began the
   construction of the Erie Canal, which was opened eight years
   later."

      A. B. Hart,
      Formation of the Union
      (Epochs of American History),
      section 121.

   "Mr. Monroe came out, in his first message to Congress,
   coinciding, on this point, with Mr. Madison's veto. It is due
   to both of them, however, to say that they were the advocates
   of internal improvement, and recommended an amendment of the
   constitution with that view. Nevertheless, Mr. Madison, by his
   veto, had dashed the cup from the lips to the ground, as he
   went out of office; and Mr. Monroe coming in, at least for
   four years, probably for eight—it proved to be eight—broke the
   cup in advance, so that it could not be used during his term
   of office, without an amendment of the constitution. … Three
   presidents successively, Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Madison, and Mr.
   Monroe, had officially expressed their opinion adverse to a
   power vested in Congress by the constitution for projects of
   internal improvement, as contemplated by the measures
   proposed. Not satisfied with these decisions, Mr. Clay and his
   friends were instrumental in having a resolution brought
   forward, in the fifteenth Congress, declaring that Congress
   had power, under the constitution, to make appropriations for
   the construction of military roads, post-roads, and canals. …
   The resolution declaring the power to be vested in Congress by
   the constitution, to make appropriations for the construction
   of military roads, post-roads, and canals, was adopted by a
   vote of 90 to 75; and the principle involved has been
   practically applied by acts of Congress, from that time to the
   present."

      C. Colton,
      Life, Correspondence, and Speeches of Henry Clay,
      volume 1, chapter 19.

      ALSO IN:
      H. G. Wheeler,
      History of Congress, comprising a
      History of Internal Improvements,
      volume 2, page 109, and after.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1816-1818.
   The First Seminole War.
   Jackson's arbitrary conquest of Florida.

      See FLORIDA: A. D. 1816-1818.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1817.
   Admission of Mississippi into the Union.

      See MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1817.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1818.
   Treaty with Great Britain relating to Fisheries.

      See FISHERIES: A. D. 1814-1818.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1818.
   Admission of Illinois into the Union.

      See INDIANA: A. D. 1800-1818.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1818-1819.
   The Dartmouth College Case.

      See SUPPLEMENT: DARTMOUTH COLLEGE CASE.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1818-1821.
   The first bitter Conflict concerning Slavery.
   The Missouri Compromise,
   on the admission of Missouri to the Union.

   "On March 6, 1818, a petition was presented in the House of
   Representatives praying that Missouri be admitted as a state.
   A bill authorizing the people of Missouri to form a state
   government was taken up in the House on February 13, 1819, and
   Tallmadge of New York moved, as an amendment, that the further
   introduction of slavery should be prohibited, and that all
   children born within the said state should be free at the age
   of twenty-five years. Thus began the struggle on the slavery
   question in connection with the admission of Missouri, which
   lasted, intermittently, until March, 1821. No sooner had the
   debate on Tallmadge's proposition begun than it became clear
   that the philosophical anti-slavery sentiment of the
   revolutionary period had entirely ceased to have any influence
   upon current thought in the South.

      See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1776-1808.

   The abolition of the foreign slave-trade had not, as had been
   hoped, prepared the way for the abolition of slavery or
   weakened the slave interest in any sense. On the contrary,
   slavery had been immensely strengthened by an economic
   development making it more profitable than it ever had been
   before. The invention of the cotton-gin by Eli Whitney, in
   1793, had made the culture of cotton a very productive source
   of wealth.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1793.

{3361}

   In 1800 the exportation of cotton from the United States was
   19,000,000 pounds, valued at $5,700,000. In 1820 the value of
   the cotton export was nearly $20,000,000, almost all of it the
   product of slave labor. The value of slaves may be said to
   have at least trebled in twenty years. The breeding of slaves
   became a profitable industry. Under such circumstances the
   slave-holders arrived at the conclusion that slavery was by no
   means so wicked and hurtful an institution as their
   revolutionary fathers had thought it to be. … On the other
   hand, in the Northern States there was no such change of
   feeling. Slavery was still, in the nature of things, believed
   to be a wrong and a sore. … The amendment to the Missouri
   bill, providing for a restriction with regard to slavery, came
   therefore in a perfectly natural way from that Northern
   sentiment which remained still faithful to the traditions of
   the revolutionary period. And it was a great surprise to most
   Northern people that so natural a proposition should be so
   fiercely resisted on the part of the South. It was the sudden
   revelation of a change of feeling in the South which the North
   had not observed in its progress. 'The discussion of this
   Missouri question has betrayed the secret of their souls,'
   wrote John Quincy Adams. The slave-holders watched with
   apprehension the steady growth of the Free States in
   population, wealth, and power. In 1790 the population of the
   two sections had been nearly even. In 1820 there was a
   difference of over 600,000 in favor of the North in a total of
   less than ten millions. In 1790 the representation of the two
   sections in Congress had been about evenly balanced. In 1820
   the census promised to give the North a preponderance of more
   than 30 votes in the House of Representatives. As the
   slave-holders had no longer the ultimate extinction, but now
   the perpetuation, of slavery in view, the question of
   sectional power became one of first importance to them, and
   with it the necessity of having more Slave States for the
   purpose of maintaining the political equilibrium at least in
   the Senate. A struggle for more Slave States was to them a
   struggle for life. This was the true significance of the
   Missouri question. The debate was the prototype of all the
   slavery debates which followed in the forty years to the
   breaking out of the civil war. … The dissolution of the Union,
   civil war, and streams of blood were freely threatened by
   Southern men, while some anti-slavery men declared themselves
   ready to accept all these calamities rather than the spread of
   slavery over the territories yet free from it. … On February
   16, 1819, the House of Representatives adopted the amendment
   restricting slavery, and thus passed the Missouri bill. But
   the Senate, eleven days afterwards, struck out the
   anti-slavery provision and sent the bill back to the House. A
   bill was then passed organizing the Territory of Arkansas, an
   amendment moved by Taylor of New York prohibiting the further
   introduction of slavery there having been voted down. … Thus
   slavery was virtually fastened on Arkansas. But the Missouri
   bill failed in the fifteenth Congress. The popular excitement
   steadily increased. The sixteenth Congress met in December,
   1819. In the Senate the admission of Missouri with slavery was
   coupled with the admission of Maine, on the balance-of-power
   principle that one free state and one slave state should
   always be admitted at the same time. An amendment was moved
   absolutely prohibiting slavery in Missouri, but it was voted
   down. Then Mr. Thomas, a Senator from Illinois, on January 18,
   1820, proposed that no restriction as to slavery be imposed
   upon Missouri in framing a state constitution, but that in all
   the rest of the country ceded by France to the United States
   north of 30° 30', this being the southern boundary line of
   Missouri, there should be neither slavery nor involuntary
   servitude. This was the essence of the famous Missouri
   Compromise, and, after long and acrimonious debates and
   several more votes in the House for restriction and in the
   Senate against it, this compromise was adopted. By it the
   slave power obtained the present tangible object it contended
   for; free labor won a contingent advantage in the future. …
   Clay has been widely credited with being the 'father' of the
   Missouri Compromise. As to the main features of the measure
   this credit he did not deserve. So far he had taken a
   prominent but not an originating part in the transaction."
   But, at the next session of Congress, when the Missouri
   question was unexpectedly reopened, and as threateningly as
   ever, Clay assumed a more important part in connection with
   the final settlement of it. "The bill passed at the last
   session had authorized the people of Missouri to make a state
   constitution without any restriction as to slavery. The formal
   admission of the state was now to follow. But the Constitution
   with which Missouri presented herself to Congress not only
   recognized slavery as existing there; it provided also that it
   should be the duty of the legislature to pass such laws as
   would be necessary to prevent free negroes or mulattoes from
   coming into or settling in the state." This provoked a new
   revolt on the part of the Northern opponents of slavery, and
   it was only through Clay's exertions as a pacificator that
   Missouri was conditionally admitted to the Union at length
   [March 3, 1820], the condition being that "the said state
   shall never pass any law preventing any description of persons
   from coming to or settling in the said state who now are, or
   hereafter may become, citizens of any of the states of this
   Union." The legislature of Missouri gave its assent, as
   required, to this "fundamental condition," and the
   "compromise" became complete. "The public mind turned at once
   to things of more hopeful interest, and the Union seemed safer
   than ever. The American people have since become painfully
   aware that this was a delusion."

      C. Schurz,
      Life of Henry Clay,
      chapter 8 (volume 1).

   "The immediate contest was not over the question of the
   prohibition of slavery in the Territories. The great struggle
   lasted for nearly three years, but the final proposition which
   closed the controversy and which prohibited slavery in almost
   all the then Federal territory was probably not debated more
   than three hours. It was accepted without discussion by the
   great bulk of the advocates of Missouri's free admission. Very
   few slavery extensionists questioned the right and power of
   Congress to prevent the spread of slavery to the Territories.
{3362}
   That question, in the minds of those who opposed restriction
   in Missouri, was incidental to the question of the right of
   Congress to impose conditions upon a State. Incidentally the
   question of slavery in the Territories came up in the case of
   Arkansas, a country south of Missouri, in which slavery was
   already a fact. The restrictionists themselves recognized the
   fact that the plain, simple issue 'of limiting the area of
   human slavery would be strengthened by bringing it before the
   country unincumbered with the question of imposing conditions
   on a State, though most of them never wavered in their belief
   that conditions might be imposed. On the one hand it was only
   Southern zealots who denied to Congress the power to prohibit
   slavery in the Territories; on the other hand many in the
   North who opposed slavery believed that Congress might not
   impose conditions upon a State. In the cabinet of Monroe, in
   which sat Wirt, Crawford, and Calhoun, it was unanimously
   agreed that Congress had power to prohibit slavery in the
   Territories. But John Quincy Adams, also a member of that
   cabinet, who hated slavery with all the strength of his soul,
   thought it was unconstitutional to bind a State by conditions.
   … The struggle indicated a notable change in the southern mind
   on the slavery question, and that a slave power was forming
   which would attempt to control all legislation of the federal
   Union affecting slavery. … The struggle and the compromise
   afford the first clear demarcation between the sections. From
   this time the equilibrium of political power was a matter of
   first concern to a section of States and to a powerful
   political interest. Mason and Dixon's line is extended toward
   the west, and now marks a political division. The slave States
   were now, and for the first time, clearly separated from the
   free. A geographical line dividing the sections was
   established."

      J. A. Woodburn,
      Historical Significance of the Missouri Compromise
      (Report of American Historical Association, 1893),
      pages 289-294.

      ALSO IN:
      H. von Holst,
      Constitutional and Political History of the United States,
      volume 2, chapter 9.

      J. Quincy,
      Life of John Quincy Adams,
      chapter 5.

      H. Greeley,
      The American Conflict,
      volume 1, chapter 7.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1819.
   Admission of Alabama into the Union.

      See ALABAMA: A. D. 1817-1819.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1819-1821.
   Acquisition of Florida from Spain.
   Definition of the boundary of the Louisiana Purchase.

      See FLORIDA: A. D. 1819-1821.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1820.
   Admission of Maine into the Union as a State.

      See MAINE: A. D. 1820;
      also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1818-1821.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1820.
   Ninth Presidential Election.

   "Monroe like Washington was re-chosen President by a vote
   practically unanimous. One, however, of the 232 electoral
   votes cast was wanting to consummate this exceptional honor;
   for a New Hampshire elector, with a boldness of discretion
   which, in our days and especially upon a close canvass, would
   have condemned him to infamy, threw away upon John Quincy
   Adams the vote which belonged like those of his colleagues to
   Monroe, determined, so it is said, that no later mortal should
   stand in Washington's shoes. Of America's Presidents elected
   by virtual acclamation history furnishes but these two
   examples; and as between the men honored by so unapproachable
   a tribute of confidence, Monroe entered upon his second term
   of office with less of real political opposition than
   Washington."

      J. Schouler,
      History of the United States,
      chapter 10, section. 2 (volume 3).

   Daniel D. Tompkins was re-elected Vice President.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1820.
   The Fourth Census.

   Total population, 9,638,191 (an increase exceeding 33 per
   cent. over the enumeration of 1810), classed and distributed
   as follows:

North.

                 White.   Free black.   Slave.
Connecticut.     267,161     7,844        97
Illinois.         53,788       457       917
Indiana.         145,758     1,230       190
Maine.           297,340       929         0
Massachusetts.   516,419     6,740         0
Michigan.          8,591       174         0
New Hampshire.   243,236       786         0
New Jersey.      257,409    12,460     7,557
New York.      1,332,744    29,279    10,088
Ohio.            576,572     4,723         0
Pennsylvania.  1,017,094    30,202       211
Rhode Island.     79,413     3,554        48
Vermont.         234,846       903         0
                     ---       ---       ---
Total          5,030,371    99,281    19,108

South.

                 White.  Free black.   Slave.
Alabama.          85,451       571    41,879
Arkansas          12,579        59     1,617
Delaware.         55,282    12,958     4,509
District of
  Columbia.       22,614     4,048     6,377
Georgia.         189,566     1,763   149,654
Kentucky.        434,644     2,759   126,732
Louisiana.        73,383    10,476    69,064
Maryland.        260,223    39,730   107,397
Mississippi.      42,176       458    32,814
Missouri.         55,988       347    10,222
North Carolina.  419,200    14,612   205,017
South Carolina.  237,440     6,826   258,475
Tennessee.       339,927     2,727    80,107
Virginia.        603,087    36,889   425,153
                     ---       ---       ---
Total          2,831,560   134,223 1,519,017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1821.
   Beginning of emigration to Texas.

      See TEXAS: A. D. 1819-1835.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1821-1824.
   The Era of Good Feeling.

   With the closing of the war of 1812-14, and the disappearance
   of the party of the Federalists, there came a period of
   remarkable quietude in the political world. "Then followed the
   second administration of Monroe, to which was given, perhaps
   by the President himself, a name which has secured for the
   whole period a kind of peaceful eminence. It was probably
   fixed and made permanent by two lines in Halleck's once famous
   poem of 'Alnwick Castle,' evidently written during the poet's
   residence in England in 1822-23. Speaking of the change from
   the feudal to the commercial spirit, he says: "'Tis what our
   President Monroe, Has called "the era of good feeling."' … It
   would seem from this verse that Monroe himself was credited
   with the authorship of the phrase; but I have been unable to
   find it in his published speeches or messages, and it is
   possible that it may be of newspaper origin, and that Halleck,
   writing in England, may have fathered it on the President
   himself."

      T. W. Higginson,
      Larger History of the United States,
      page 394.

{3363}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1823.
   The enunciation of the Monroe Doctrine.

   One lasting mark of distinction was given to the
   administration of President Monroe by the importance which
   came to be attached to his enunciation of the principle of
   policy since known as the "Monroe Doctrine." This was simply a
   formal and official statement of the national demand that
   foreign nations shall not interfere with the affairs of the
   two American continents. "There has been a good deal of
   dispute as to the real authorship of this announcement,
   Charles Francis Adams claiming it for his father, and Charles
   Sumner for the English statesman Canning. Mr. Gilman, however,
   in his late memoir of President Monroe, has shown with
   exhaustive research that this doctrine had grown up gradually
   into a national tradition before Monroe's time, and that he
   merely formulated it, and made it a matter of distinct record.
   The whole statement is contained in a few detached passages of
   his message of December 2, 1823. In this he announces that
   'the American continents, by the free and independent
   condition which they have assumed and maintain, are not to be
   considered as subjects for colonization by European powers.'
   Further on he points out that the people of the United States
   have kept aloof from European dissensions, and ask only in
   return that North and South America should be equally let
   alone. 'We should consider any attempt on their part to extend
   their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to
   our peace and safety;' and while no objection is made to any
   existing colony or dependency of theirs, yet any further
   intrusion or interference would be regarded as 'the
   manifestation of an unfriendly spirit towards the United
   States.' This in brief, is the 'Monroe doctrine' as originally
   stated; and it will always remain a singular fact that this
   President—the least original or commanding of those who early
   held that office—should yet be the only one whose name is
   identified with what amounts to a wholly new axiom of
   international law."

      T. W. Higginson,
      Larger History of the United States,
      chapter 16.

   "At a cabinet meeting May 13, 1818, President Monroe
   propounded several questions on the subject of foreign
   affairs, of which the fifth, as recorded by J. Q. Adams, was
   this: 'Whether the ministers of the United States in Europe
   shall be instructed that the United States will not join in
   any project of interposition between Spain and the South
   Americans, which should not be to promote the complete
   independence of those provinces; and whether measures shall be
   taken to ascertain if this be the policy of the British
   government, and if so to establish a concert with them for the
   support of this policy.' He adds that all these points were
   discussed, without much difference of opinion. On July 31,
   1818, Rush had an important interview with Castelreagh in
   respect to a proposed mediation of Great Britain between Spain
   and her colonies. The coöperation of the United States was
   desired. Mr. Rush informed the British minister that 'the
   United States would decline taking part, if they took part at
   all, in any plan of pacification, except on the basis of the
   independence of the colonies.' 'This,' he added, 'was the
   determination to which his government had come on much
   deliberation.' … Gallatin writes to J. Q. Adams, June 24,
   1823, that before leaving Paris he had said to M.
   Chateaubriand on May 13, 'The United States would undoubtedly
   preserve their neutrality provided it were respected, and
   avoid every interference with the politics of Europe. … On the
   other hand, they would not suffer others to interfere against
   the emancipation of America.' … After Canning had proposed to
   Rush (September 19, 1823) that the United States should
   coöperate with England in preventing European interference
   with the Spanish-American colonies, Monroe consulted Jefferson
   as well as the cabinet, on the course which it was advisable
   to take, and with their approbation prepared his message. …
   Enough has been quoted to show that Mr. Sumner is not
   justified in saying that the 'Monroe doctrine proceeded from
   Canning,' and that he was 'its inventor, promoter, and
   champion, at least so far as it bears against European
   intervention in American affairs.' Nevertheless, Canning is
   entitled to high praise for the part which he took in the
   recognition of the Spanish republics, a part which almost
   justified his proud utterance, 'I called the New World into
   existence to redress the balance of the Old.'"

      D. C. Gilman,
      James Monroe,
      chapter 7.

      ALSO IN:
      C. Sumner,
      Prophetic Voices concerning America,
      page 157.

      G. F. Tucker,
      The Monroe Doctrine.

      F. Wharton,
      Digest of the International Law of the United States,
      section 57 (volume 1).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1824.
   The Protective Tariff.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES): A. D. 1816-1824.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1824.
   Tenth Presidential Election.
   No choice by the People.
   Election of John Quincy Adams by the House of Representatives.

   "In 1823, as the Presidential election approached, the
   influences to control and secure the interests predominating
   in the different sections of the country became more active.
   Crawford of Georgia, Calhoun of South Carolina, Adams of
   Massachusetts, and Clay of Kentucky, were the most prominent
   candidates. In December, Barbour of Virginia was superseded,
   as Speaker of the House of Representatives, by Clay of
   Kentucky; an event ominous to the hopes of Crawford, and to
   that resistance to the tariff and to internal improvements
   which was regarded as dependent on his success. The question
   whether a Congressional caucus, by the instrumentality of
   which Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe had obtained the
   Presidency, should be again held to nominate a candidate for
   that office, was the next cause of political excitement. The
   Southern party, whose hopes rested on the success of Crawford,
   were clamorous for a caucus. The friends of the other
   candidates were either lukewarm or hostile to that expedient.
   Pennsylvania, whose general policy favored a protective tariff
   and public improvements, hesitated. … But the Democracy of
   that state … held meetings at Philadelphia, and elsewhere,
   recommending a Congressional caucus. This motion would have
   been probably adopted, had not the Legislature of Alabama,
   about this time, nominated Andrew Jackson for the Presidency,
   and accompanied their resolutions in his favor with a
   recommendation to their representatives to use their best
   exertions to prevent a Congressional nomination of a
   President. The popularity of Jackson, and the obvious
   importance to his success of the policy recommended by
   Alabama, fixed the wavering counsels of Pennsylvania, so that
   only three representatives from that state attended the
   Congressional caucus, which was soon after called, and which
   consisted of only 60 members, out of 261, the whole number of
   the House of Representatives; of which Virginia and New York,
   under the lead of Mr. Van Buren, constituted nearly one half.
{3364}
   Notwithstanding this meagre assemblage, Mr. Crawford was
   nominated for the Presidency. … But the days of Congressional
   caucuses were now numbered. The people took the nomination of
   President into their own hands [and John Quincy Adams and
   Henry Clay were brought into the field]. … The result of this
   electioneering conflict was that, by the returns of the
   electoral colleges of the several states, it appeared that
   none of the candidates had the requisite constitutional
   majority; the whole number of votes being 261—of which Andrew
   Jackson had 99, John Quincy Adams 84, William H. Crawford 41,
   and Henry Clay 37. [The popular vote cast as nearly as can be
   determined, was: Jackson, 153,544; Adams, 108,740; Crawford,
   46,618; Clay, 47,136.] For the office of Vice-President, John
   C. Calhoun had 180 votes, and was elected. … Of the 84 votes
   cast for Mr. Adams, not one was given by either of the three
   great Southern slaveholding states. Seventy-seven were given
   to him by New England and New York. The other seven were cast
   by the Middle or recently admitted states. The selection of
   President from the candidates now devolved on the House of
   Representatives, under the provisions of the constitution.
   But, again, Mr. Adams had the support of none of those
   slaveholding states, with the exception of Kentucky, and her
   delegates were equally divided between him and General
   Jackson. The decisive vote was, in effect, in the hands of Mr.
   Clay, then Speaker of the House, who cast it for Mr. Adams; a
   responsibility he did not hesitate to assume, notwithstanding
   the equal division of the Kentucky delegation, and in defiance
   of a resolution passed by the Legislature of that state,
   declaring their preference for General Jackson. On the final
   vote Andrew Jackson had 7 votes, William H. Crawford 4, and
   John Quincy Adams 13; who was, therefore, forthwith declared
   President of the United States for four years ensuing the 4th
   of March, 1825. … Immediately after his inauguration, Mr.
   Adams appointed Henry Clay, of Kentucky, Secretary of State. …
   General Jackson was deeply mortified and irritated by Mr.
   Clay's preference of Mr. Adams. … He immediately put into
   circulation among his friends and partisans an unqualified
   statement to the effect that Mr. Adams had obtained the
   Presidency by means of a corrupt bargain with Henry Clay, on
   the condition that he should be elevated to the office of
   Secretary of State. To this calumny Jackson gave his name and
   authority, asserting that he possessed evidence of its truth;
   and, although Mr. Clay and his friends publicly denied the
   charge, and challenged proof of it, two years elapsed before
   they could compel him to produce his evidence. This, when
   adduced, proved utterly groundless, and the charge false; the
   whole being but the creation of an irritated and disappointed
   mind. Though detected and exposed, the calumny had the effect
   for which it was calculated. Jackson's numerous partisans and
   friends made it the source of an uninterrupted stream of abuse
   upon Mr. Adams, through his whole administration."

      J. Quincy,
      Memoir of the Life of John Quincy Adams,
      chapters 6-7.

   The new administration "stood upon the same political basis as
   that of Mr. Monroe. It was but a continuance of the same party
   ascendency. It looked to no change of measures, and to no
   other change of men than became inevitably necessary to supply
   the vacancies which the accidents of political life had
   created. Mr. Clay was called to the State Department [and was
   maliciously accused of having bargained for it when he threw
   his influence at last in Mr. Adams' favor]. … The country …
   indulged the hope of a prosperous career in the track which
   had been opened by Mr. Madison, and so successfully pursued by
   Mr. Monroe. Less confidently, however, it indulged the hope of
   a continuance of that immunity from party contention and
   exasperation which had characterized the last eight years. The
   rising of an opposition was seen, at the very commencement of
   this administration, like a dark cloud upon the horizon, which
   gradually spread towards the zenith, not without much rumbling
   of distant thunder and angry flashes of fire. It was quite
   obvious to shrewd observers that the late election had
   disappointed many eager spirits, whose discontent was likely
   to make head against the predominant party, and, by uniting
   the scattered fragments of an opposition which had heretofore
   only slept, whilst the country had supposed it extinct, would
   present a very formidable antagonist to the new
   administration. The extraordinary popularity of General
   Jackson, the defeat of his friends by the vote of the House of
   Representatives, the neutrality of his political position, his
   avowed toleration towards political opponents, and what was
   thought to be his liberal views in regard to prominent
   political measures—for as yet nothing was developed in his
   opinions to set him in direct opposition to the policy or
   principles which governed the administration either of Madison
   or Monroe—all these considerations gave great strength to the
   position which he now occupied, and, in the same degree,
   emboldened the hopes of those who looked to him as the proper
   person to dispute the next election against the present
   incumbent. Many of those who had hoped to see the reign of
   good feeling and of abstinence from party strife prolonged,
   will remember with what surprise they saw this gathering of
   hostile elements, and heard it proclaimed by an authoritative
   political leader [Colonel Richard M. Johnson], in the first
   days of the new administration, that it should be and ought to
   be opposed, 'even if it were as pure as the angels at the
   right hand of the throne of God.' Such a declaration was not
   less ominous of what was to come than it was startling for its
   boldness and its novelty in the history of the government. …
   The opposition … took an organized form—became compact,
   eager, intolerant and even vindictive."

      J. P. Kennedy,
      Memoirs of the Life of William Wirt,
      volume 2, chapter 10.

   "Monroe was the last President of the Virginian line, John
   Quincy Adams the last from New England. The centre of power
   was passing from the east to the west. Adams was a genuine New
   Englander of the Puritan stock, austerely moral, from his
   boyhood laboriously self-trained, not only staid but solemn in
   his teens, intensely self-conscious, ever engaged in
   self-examination, the punctual keeper of a voluminous diary,
   an invariably early riser, a daily reader of the Bible even in
   the White House, scrupulously methodical and strictly upright
   in all his ways; but testy, unconciliatory, unsympathetic,
   absolutely destitute of all the arts by which popularity is
   won.
{3365}
   His election does the highest credit to the respect of the
   electors for public virtue unadorned. The peculiar features of
   his father's character were so intensified in him that he may
   be deemed the typical figure rather than his father. In
   opinions he was a Federalist who having broken with his party
   on the question of foreign relations and the embargo had been
   put out of its pale but had retained its general mould. As he
   was about the last President chosen for merit not for
   availability, so he was about the last whose only rule was not
   party but the public service. So strictly did he observe the
   principle of permanency and purity in the Civil Service, that
   he refused to dismiss from office a Postmaster-General whom he
   knew to be intriguing against him. The demagogic era had come
   but he would not recognize its coming. He absolutely refused
   to go on the stump, to conciliate the press, to do anything
   for the purpose of courting popularity and making himself a
   party. His obstinacy was fatal to his ambition but is not
   dishonourable to his memory."

      Goldwin Smith,
      The United States,
      chapter 4.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1824-1825.
   The visit of Lafayette.

   One of the most deeply interesting events of the year 1824 was
   the arrival in the country of the honored Lafayette, companion
   of Washington and friend of the American Republic in its
   struggle for independence. He came on the invitation of the
   national Government and was entertained as its guest. "He
   arrived at Staten Island on Sunday, 15th of August, 1824,
   accompanied by his son, George Washington Lafayette, and his
   son-in-]aw, M. Le Vasseur. Here he remained until Monday, and
   was then met and welcomed by a distinguished committee from
   New York, who escorted him to that city. … The arrival of
   Lafayette was an event which stirred the whole country;
   everybody was anxious to see him, and every State and city in
   the Union extended an invitation to him to visit such State or
   city; and he did so, being everywhere received with the most
   enthusiastic manifestations of love and respect. … He spent a
   little over a year in the United States, traveling most of the
   time. … Having visited every portion of the United States and
   received the affectionate homage of the people, General
   Lafayette returned to Washington, where he became in fact 'the
   Nation's Guest' at the Presidential mansion. Soon after the
   meeting of Congress, in December, 1824, a bill was reported by
   a joint committee of the two Houses granting to him a township
   of land and the sum of $200,000, which became a law."

      N. Sargent,
      Public Men and Events, 1817-1853,
      volume 1, page 89-91.

      ALSO IN:
      A. Levasseur,
      Lafayette in America, in 1824-1825.

      B. Tuckerman,
      Life of General Lafayette,
      volume 2, chapter 7.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1824-1836.
   Schemes of the Slave Power for acquiring Texas.

      See TEXAS: A. D. 1824-1836.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1825-1828.
   Opposition to the Administration.
   The question of Internal Improvements.
   Reconstruction of Parties.
   Democrats and National Republicans.

   The inaugural address of President Adams "furnished a topic"
   against him, and "went to the reconstruction of parties on the
   old line of strict, or latitudinous, construction of the
   constitution. It was the topic of internal national
   improvement by the federal government. The address extolled
   the value of such works, considered the constitutional
   objections as yielding to the force of argument, expressed the
   hope that every speculative (constitutional) scruple would be
   solved in a practical blessing; and declared the belief that,
   in the execution of such works, posterity would derive a
   fervent gratitude to the founders of our Union and most deeply
   feel and acknowledge the beneficent action of our government.
   The declaration of principles which would give so much power
   to the government … alarmed the old republicans, and gave a
   new ground of opposition to Mr. Adams's administration, in
   addition to the strong one growing out of the election in the
   House of Representatives. … This new ground of opposition was
   greatly strengthened at the delivery of the first annual
   message, in which the topic of internal improvement was again
   largely enforced, other subjects recommended which would
   require a liberal use of constructive powers, and Congress
   informed that the President had accepted an invitation from
   the American States of Spanish origin, to send ministers to
   their proposed Congress on the Isthmus of Panama.

      See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1826.

   It was, therefore, clear from the beginning that the new
   administration was to have a settled and strong opposition. …
   There was opposition in the Senate to the confirmation of Mr.
   Clay's nomination to the State department, growing out of his
   support of Mr. Adams in the election of the House of
   Representatives, and acceptance of office from him; but
   overruled by a majority of two to one."

      T. H. Benton,
      Thirty Years' View,
      volume 1, chapter 21.

   "From the very beginning of this Administration both factions
   of the Strict Constructionists united in an opposition to the
   President which became stronger through his whole term of
   office, until it overcame him. His ill-advised nomination of
   Clay to a post in his Cabinet gave color to the charge of a
   corrupt bargain between him and Clay, by which Adams was to
   receive the Clay vote in the House, and Clay was to be
   rewarded by the position of Secretary of State, which was then
   usually considered a stepping stone to the Presidency. Clay
   angrily denied any such bargain, and the renewal of charges
   and denials, each with its appropriate arguments, gave
   abundant material for debate. The Clay and Adams factions soon
   united and took the distinctive party name of National
   Republicans. Some years afterward this name was changed to
   that of Whigs. They maintained the loose constructionist
   principles of the Federalists, and, in addition, desired a
   Protective Tariff and a system of public improvements at
   national expense. … In October, 1825, the Tennessee
   Legislature nominated Jackson for the Presidency in 1828, and
   Jackson accepted the nomination. Crawford's continued
   ill-health compelled his adherents to look elsewhere for a
   candidate, and they gradually united upon Jackson. At first
   the resulting coalition was known as 'Jackson Men,' but, as
   they began to take the character of a national party, they
   assumed the name of Democrats, by which they have since been
   known. They maintained the strict constructionist principles
   of the Republican party, though the Crawford faction in the
   South went further, and held the extreme ground of the
   Kentucky Resolutions of 1799."

      A. Johnston,
      History of American Politics, 2d edition,
      chapter 11.

      ALSO IN:
      C. Schurz,
      Life of Henry Clay,
      volume 1, chapters 10-12.

{3366}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1828.
   The Tariff "Bill of Abominations."
   Change of front in New England.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES: A. D. 1828).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1828.
   Eleventh Presidential Election.
   Triumph of Jackson and the new Democracy.

   Andrew Jackson was again put in nomination for the Presidency,
   while President Adams was supported for re-election by the
   National Republicans. "The campaign was conducted, on both
   sides, on very ruthless methods. Niles said it was worse than
   the campaign of 1798. Campaign extras of the 'Telegraph' were
   issued weekly, containing partisan material, refutations of
   charges against Jackson, and slanders on Adams and Clay. The
   Adams party also published a monthly of a similar character.
   The country was deluged with pamphlets on both sides. These
   pamphlets were very poor stuff, and contain nothing important
   on any of the issues. They all appeal to low tastes and
   motives, prejudices and jealousies. … In September, 1827, the
   Tammany General Committee and the Albany 'Argus' came out for
   Jackson, as it had been determined, in the programme, that
   they should do. A law was passed for casting the vote of New
   York in 1828 by districts. The days of voting throughout the
   country ranged from October 31st to November 19th. The votes
   were cast by the Legislature in Delaware and South Carolina;
   by districts in Maine, New York, Maryland, Tennessee;
   elsewhere, by general ticket. Jackson got 178 votes to 83 for
   Adams. The popular vote was 648,273 for Jackson; 508,064 for
   Adams. Jackson got only one vote in New England. … For
   Vice-President, Richard Rush got all the Adams votes; Calhoun
   [who was elected] got all the Jackson votes except 7 of
   Georgia, which were given to William Smith, of South Carolina.
   General Jackson was therefore triumphantly elected President
   of the United States, in the name of reform, and as the
   standard-bearer of the people, rising in their might to
   overthrow an extravagant, corrupt, aristocratic, federalist
   administration, which had encroached on the liberties of the
   people, and had aimed to corrupt elections by an abuse of
   federal patronage. Many people believed this picture of
   Adams's administration to be true. Andrew Jackson no doubt
   believed it. Many people believe it yet. Perhaps no
   administration, except that of the elder Adams, is under such
   odium. There is not, however, in our history any
   administration which, upon a severe and impartial scrutiny,
   appears more worthy of respectful and honorable memory. Its
   chief fault was that it was too good for the wicked world in
   which it found itself. In 1836 Adams said, in the House, that
   he had never removed one person from office for political
   causes, and that he thought that was one of the principal
   reasons why he was not reëlected."

      W. G. Sumner,
      Andrew Jackson as a Public Man,
      chapter 5.

   "In this election there was a circumstance to be known and
   remembered. Mr. Adams and Mr. Rush were both from the
   non-slaveholding, General Jackson and Mr. Calhoun from the
   slaveholding States, and both large slave owners themselves,
   and both received a large vote (73 each) in the free
   States—and of which at least 40 were indispensable to their
   election. There was no jealousy, or hostile or aggressive
   spirit in the North at that time against the South!"

      T. H. Benton,
      Thirty Years' View,
      volume 1, chapter 38.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1828-1833.
   The Nullification doctrine and ordinance of South Carolina.
   The Hayne and Webster debate.
   President Jackson's proclamation.
   The Compromise Tariff.

   "In May, 1828, a meeting of the South Carolina delegation in
   Congress was held in Washington, at the rooms of General
   Hayne, one of the Senators of that State, to concert measures
   against the tariff and the protective policy which it
   embodied. From the history of the times, and the disclosures
   subsequently made, it is apparent that some violent things
   were said at this meeting, but it broke up without any
   definite plan. In the course of the following summer, there
   were many popular meetings in South Carolina, largely
   attended, at which the tariff of 1824 was treated as an act of
   despotism and usurpation, which ought to be openly resisted. …
   They occasioned anxiety and regret among the friends of the
   Union throughout the country, though nothing more. But, in the
   autumn, the Legislature of South Carolina adopted an
   'Exposition and Protest,' which gave form and substance to the
   doctrines which thenceforward became known as 'Nullification.'
   In order to understand them, however, as a theory of the
   Federal Constitution, it is necessary to state the theory to
   which they are opposed, and to overthrow which they were
   brought forward. The Government of the United States, under
   the Constitution, had hitherto been administered upon the
   principle that the extent of its powers is to be finally
   determined by its supreme judicial tribunal, not only when
   there is any conflict of authority between its several
   departments, but also when the authority of the whole
   Government is denied by one or more of the States. … Aside
   from the authority of [the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions
   of 1798]—an authority that was doubtful, because their
   interpretation was not clear—there had been no important
   assertion of the principle that a State can determine for its
   citizens whether they are to obey an act of Congress, by
   asserting its unconstitutional character, and that the right
   to do this is implied as a right inherent in a State, under
   the Constitution, and results from the nature of the
   Government. This, however, was what the advocates of
   nullification now undertook to establish. The remedy which
   they sought, against acts which they regarded as usurpations,
   was not revolution, and not the breaking up the Union, as they
   claimed; but it was a remedy which they held to exist within
   the Union, and to have been contemplated by the people of the
   States when they established the Constitution. How far they
   considered such a theory compatible with the continued
   existence of the Union, I am not aware that they undertook to
   explain. … Although the Legislature of South Carolina had thus
   propounded a theory of resistance, and held that there was
   then a case in the tariff which would justify a resort to it,
   no steps were yet taken toward the immediate exercise of the
   asserted power." In the great debate between General Hayne of
   South Carolina and Daniel Webster, which occurred in the
   Senate, in January, 1830, the doctrine of nullification
   received for the first time a discussion which sank deep into
   the mind of the nation.
{3367}
   The original subject-matter of the debate was a resolution
   relating to Western land sales; but Hayne in his first speech
   made an attack on New England which drew out Webster in
   vindication, and then, when the South Carolinian replied, he
   boldly and broadly set forth the nullifying theory which his
   State had accepted from the sophistical brain of John C.
   Calhoun. It received its refutation then and there, in
   Webster's final speech. "The effect of this speech upon the
   country, that immediately followed its delivery, it is not
   easy for us at the present day to measure. … Vast numbers of
   Mr. Webster's speech were … published and circulated in
   pamphlet editions, after all the principal newspapers of the
   country had given it entire to their readers. The popular
   verdict, throughout the Northern and Western and many of the
   Southern States was decisive. A great majority of the people
   of the United States, of all parties, understood, appreciated,
   and accepted the view maintained by Mr. Webster of the nature
   of the Constitution, and the character of the government which
   it establishes."

      G. T. Curtis,
      Life of Daniel Webster,
      chapter 16 (volume 1).

   If Webster's speech had solidified the majority opinion of the
   country in resistance to nullification, it had not paralyzed
   the nullifying movement. In the summer of 1831, and again in
   August, 1832, Calhoun published addresses to the people of
   South Carolina, elaborating his doctrine, and "urging an
   immediate issue on account of the oppressive tariff
   legislation under which the South was then suffering. The
   Legislature of South Carolina was convened by the governor to
   meet on October 22, for the purpose of calling a convention
   'to consider the character and extent of the usurpations of
   the general government.' The convention met on November 19,
   and adopted without delay an 'ordinance' declaring that the
   tariff act of 1828, and the amendments thereto passed in 1832,
   were null and void; that it should be held unlawful to enforce
   the payment of duties thereunder within the State of South
   Carolina; that it should be the duty of the legislature to
   make laws giving effect to the ordinance; … and that, if the
   general government should attempt to use force to maintain the
   authority of the federal law, the State of South Carolina
   would secede from the Union,—the ordinance to go into full
   effect on February 1, 1833. The legislature, which met again
   on November 19, passed the 'appropriate' laws. But these
   enactments were not very fierce; as Webster said, they 'limped
   far behind the ordinance.' Some preparation, although little,
   was made for a conflict of arms;" nor was there any certain
   show of readiness in other Southern States to stand by South
   Carolina in the position she had taken. "President Jackson's
   annual message, which went to Congress on December 4, 1832,
   was remarkably quiet in tone," and neither alarmed the
   nullifiers nor gave confidence to the friends of the Union;
   but "six days later, on December 10, came out Jackson's famous
   proclamation against the nullifiers, which spoke thus: 'The
   Constitution of the United States forms a government, not a
   league. … Our Constitution does not contain the absurdity of
   giving power to make laws, and another power to resist them.
   To say that any state may at pleasure secede from the Union is
   to say that the United States are not a nation.' He appealed
   to the people of South Carolina, in the tone of a father, to
   desist from their ruinous enterprise; but he gave them also
   clearly to understand that, if they resisted by force, the
   whole power of the Union would be exerted to maintain its
   authority. All over the North, even where Jackson had been
   least popular, the proclamation was hailed with unbounded
   enthusiasm. … The nullifiers in South Carolina received the
   presidential manifesto apparently with defiance. The governor
   of the state issued a counter-proclamation. Calhoun resigned
   the vice-presidency, and was immediately sent to the Senate to
   fight the battle for nullification there." The president, now
   thoroughly roused, called on Congress for extraordinary powers
   to meet the emergency, and a bill embodying his wishes—called
   the "Force Bill"—was introduced. But, at the same time, while
   they showed this bold front to the nullifiers, Congress and
   the executive began to prepare a retreat from the ground they
   had held on the tariff. Henry Clay took the field again, in
   the exercise of his peculiar talents for compromise, and the
   result was the nearly simultaneous passage (February 26 and
   27, 1833) through Congress of the "Force bill" and of a
   compromise tariff bill, which latter provided for a graduated
   reduction of the duties year by year, until 1842, when they
   should stand at 20 per cent., as a horizontal rate, with a
   large free-list. "The first object of the measure was
   attained: South Carolina repealed her nullification ordinance.
   … But before long it became clear that beyond the repeal of
   the nullification ordinance, the compromise had settled
   nothing. The nullifiers strenuously denied that they had in
   any sense given up their peculiar doctrine."

      C. Schurz,
      Life of Henry Clay,
      chapter 14 (volume 2).

   "The theory of nullification, as set forth by Calhoun, even
   now, after it has received the benefit of careful study and
   able expounding by historians, is not clear. He always avowed
   a loyalty to the Union, but the arguments by which he sought
   to demonstrate that nullification was compatible with the
   existence of the Union, and indeed a guarantee of its
   perpetuity, did not occasion much solicitude to the majority
   of his party. But no one at the North understood the fallacy
   of his reasoning or the real end and aim of his party more
   clearly than did the Union men of his state. They reasoned
   simply. Said the Camden, S. C. 'Gazette': 'We know of only two
   ways, under our government, to get rid of obnoxious
   legislation. We must convince a majority of the nation that a
   given enactment is wrong and have it repealed in the form
   prescribed by the constitution, or resist it
   extra-constitutionally by the sword. … But this everlasting
   cant of devotion to the Union, accompanied by a recommendation
   to do those acts that must necessarily destroy it, is beyond
   patient endurance from a people not absolutely confined in
   their own mad-houses.' … A fact … that historians have failed
   to lay any stress upon, and that nevertheless deserves some
   notice, is the holding of a state convention of the Union
   party of South Carolina immediately after the nullification
   convention had completed its work. It was the last important
   action of that party in the state.
{3368}
   Randell Hunt, who presented the first resolutions, epitomized
   the views of the convention and the question it should
   consider in three sentences: 'That the Union party
   acknowledges no allegiance to any government except that of
   the United States. That in referring this resolution to the
   general committee they be instructed to inquire whether it is
   not expedient to give a military organization to the Union
   party throughout the state. Whether it will not be necessary
   to call in the assistance of the general government for
   maintaining the laws of the United States against the
   arbitrary violence which is threatened by the late
   convention.' The resolutions which were adopted declared that
   the ordinance of nullification violated the constitution of
   the United States and had virtually destroyed the Union, since
   by preventing the general government from enforcing its laws
   within the boundaries of the state, it made the state a
   sovereignty paramount to the United States. They denounced the
   provisions of the ordinance as tyrannical and oppressive, and
   the test oath as especially incompatible with civil liberty,
   in that it disfranchised nearly half the citizens of the
   state. They pointed scornfully to the project of a standing
   army in the state. … They concluded by declaring the continued
   opposition of the signers to the tariff, and their
   determination to protect themselves against intolerable
   oppression. The resolutions were signed by all the members of
   the convention, about 180 in number. In point of fact, the
   Unionists were not disposed to favor any compromise measures,
   and looked rather with disfavor upon Mr. Clay's bill, as a
   measure which was being forced upon the country. Congress,
   they thought, ought not to modify the tariff until the
   nullification ordinance had been repealed. But the greater
   force was with the nullifiers, and the number of their
   opponents was dwindling. Caught by the enthusiasm and fighting
   spirit of their neighbors, some of the Unionists joined the
   nullification military companies that were being organized,
   and others, seeing the hopelessness of the struggle against a
   superior force, in sorrow and disgust shook the dust of South
   Carolina from their feet, preferring to begin life over again
   in other parts of the South, less charged with sentiments that
   they believed to be treasonable. … The Unionist party, crushed
   and helpless, was only too anxious to bury all feuds. It never
   was an active force in the state again, but the bold spirit
   which had actuated its members was manifested later, when the
   struggle for state sovereignty was more widespread; and some
   of the most intrepid Union men of the South in the civil war
   were those who had fled from South Carolina years before, when
   the nullification party had triumphed."

      G. Hunt,
      South Carolina during the Nullification Struggle
      (Political Science Quarterly, June, 1891).

      ALSO IN:
      W. G. Sumner,
      Andrew Jackson as a Public Man,
      chapters 10 and 13.

      H. von Holst,
      Constitutional and Political History of the United States,
      volume 1, chapter 12.

      J. Parton,
      Life of Andrew Jackson,
      volume 3, chapters 32-34.

      T. H. Benton,
      Thirty Years' View,
      volume 1, chapters 78-89.

      J. C. Calhoun,
      Works,
      volume 6
      (Reports and Public Letters).

      O. L. Elliott,
      The Tariff Controversy in the United States,
      chapter 5.

   The following is the text of the "Ordinance to nullify certain
   acts of the Congress of the United States, purporting to be
   laws laying duties and imposts on the importation of foreign
   commodities," adopted by the State Convention of South
   Carolina on the 24th of November, 1832:

   "Whereas the Congress of the United States by various acts,
   purporting to be acts laying duties and imposts on foreign
   imports, but in reality intended for the protection of
   domestic manufactures, and the giving of bounties to classes
   and individuals engaged in particular employments, at the
   expense and to the injury and oppression of other classes and
   individuals, and by wholly exempting from taxation certain
   foreign commodities, such as are not produced or manufactured
   in the United States, to afford a pretext for imposing higher
   and excessive duties on articles similar to those intended to
   be protected, hath exceeded its just powers under the
   constitution, which confers on it no authority to afford such
   protection, and hath violated the true meaning and intent of
   the constitution, which provides for equality in imposing the
   burdens of taxation upon the several States and portions of
   the confederacy: And whereas the said Congress, exceeding its
   just power to impose taxes and collect revenue for the purpose
   of effecting and accomplishing the specific objects and
   purposes which the constitution of the United States
   authorizes it to effect and accomplish, hath raised and
   collected unnecessary revenue for objects unauthorized by the
   constitution. We, therefore, the people of the State of South
   Carolina, in convention assembled, do declare and ordain, and
   it is hereby declared and ordained, that the several acts and
   parts of acts of the Congress of the United States, purporting
   to be laws for the imposing of duties and imposts on the
   importation of foreign commodities, and now having actual
   operation and effect within the United States, and, more
   especially, an act entitled 'An act in alteration of the
   several acts imposing duties on imports,' approved on the
   nineteenth day of May, one thousand eight hundred and
   twenty-eight, and also an act entitled 'An act to alter and
   amend the several acts imposing duties on imports,' approved
   on the fourteenth day of July, one thousand eight hundred and
   thirty-two, are unauthorized by the constitution of the United
   States, and violate the true meaning and intent thereof and
   are null, void, and no law, nor binding upon this State, its
   officers or citizens; and all promises, contracts, and
   obligations, made or entered into, or to be made or entered
   into, with purpose to secure the duties imposed by said acts,
   and all judicial proceedings which shall be hereafter had in
   affirmance thereof, are and shall be held utterly null and
   void. And it is further ordained, that it shall not be lawful
   for any of the constituted authorities, whether of this State
   or of the United States, to enforce the payment of duties
   imposed by the said acts within the limits of this State; but
   it shall be the duty of the legislature to adopt such measures
   and pass such acts as may be necessary to give full effect to
   this ordinance, and to prevent the enforcement and arrest the
   operation of the said acts and parts of acts of the Congress
   of the United States within the limits of this State, from and
   after the 1st day of February next, and the duty of all other
   constituted authorities, and of all persons residing or being
   within the limits of this State, and they are hereby required
   and enjoined to obey and give effect to this ordinance, and
   such acts and measures of the legislature as may be passed or
   adopted in obedience thereto.
{3369}
   And it is further ordained, that in no case of law or equity,
   decided in the courts of this State, wherein shall be drawn in
   question the authority of this ordinance, or the validity of
   such act or acts of the legislature as may be passed for the
   purpose of giving effect thereto, or the validity of the
   aforesaid acts of Congress, imposing duties, shall any appeal
   be taken or allowed to the Supreme Court of the United States,
   nor shall any copy of the record be permitted or allowed for
   that purpose; and if any such appeal shall be attempted to be
   taken, the courts of this State shall proceed to execute and
   enforce their judgments according to the laws and usages of
   the State, without reference to such attempted appeal, and the
   person or persons attempting to take such appeal may be dealt
   with as for a contempt of the court. And it is further
   ordained, that all persons now holding any office of honor,
   profit, or trust, civil or military, under this State (members
   of the legislature excepted), shall, within such time, and in
   such manner as the legislature shall prescribe, take an oath
   well and truly to obey, execute, and enforce this ordinance,
   and such act or acts of the legislature as may be passed in
   pursuance thereof, according to the true intent and meaning of
   the same; and on the neglect or omission of any such person or
   persons so to do, his or their office or offices shall be
   forthwith vacated, and shall be filled up as if such person or
   persons were dead or had resigned; and no person hereafter
   elected to any office of honor, profit, or trust, civil or
   military (members of the legislature excepted), shall, until
   the legislature shall otherwise provide and direct, enter on
   the execution of his office, or be in any respect competent to
   discharge the duties thereof until he shall, in like manner,
   have taken a similar oath; and no juror shall be empanelled in
   any of the courts of this State, in any cause in which shall
   be in question this ordinance, or any act of the legislature
   passed in pursuance thereof, unless he shall first, in
   addition to the usual oath, have taken an oath that he will
   well and truly obey, execute, and enforce this ordinance, and
   such act or acts of the legislature as may be passed to carry
   the same into operation and effect, according to the true
   intent and meaning thereof. And we, the people of South
   Carolina, to the end that it may be fully understood by the
   government of the United States, and the people of the
   co-States, that we are determined to maintain this our
   ordinance and declaration, at every hazard, do further declare
   that we will not submit to the application of force on the
   part of the federal government, to reduce this State to
   obedience; but that we will consider the passage, by Congress,
   of any act authorizing the employment of a military or naval
   force against the State of South Carolina, her constitutional
   authorities or citizens; or any act abolishing or closing the
   ports of this State, or any of them, or otherwise obstructing
   the free ingress and egress of vessels to and from the said
   ports, or any other act on the part of the federal government,
   to coerce the State, shut up her ports, destroy or harass her
   commerce, or to enforce the acts hereby declared to be null
   and void, otherwise than through the civil tribunals of the
   country, as inconsistent with the longer continuance of South
   Carolina in the Union; and that the people of this State will
   henceforth hold themselves absolved from all further
   obligation to maintain or preserve their political connection
   with the people of the other States; and will forthwith
   proceed to organize a separate government, and do all other
   acts and things which sovereign and independent States may of
   right do. Done in convention at Columbia, the twenty-fourth
   day of November, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight
   hundred and thirty-two, and in the fifty-seventh year of the
   declaration of the independence of the United States of
   America."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1829.
   Introduction of the "Spoils System."

      See CIVIL-SERVICE REFORM IN THE UNITED STATES.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1829.
   The Kitchen Cabinet of President Jackson.

   Major Lewis, one of the Tennessee friends of General Jackson,
   who accompanied him to Washington and was persuaded to remain,
   with his residence at the White House; General Duff Green,
   editor of the "United States Telegraph"; Isaac Hill, editor of
   the "New Hampshire Patriot," and Amos Kendall, late the editor
   of a Jackson paper in Kentucky, but a native of
   Massachusetts:—"these were the gentlemen … who, at the
   beginning of the new administration, were supposed to have
   most of the President's ear and confidence, and were
   stigmatized by the opposition as the Kitchen Cabinet."

      J. Parton,
      Life of Andrew Jackson,
      volume 3, chapter 16.

   After the breach between Jackson and Calhoun, Duff Green
   adhered to the latter. The "Globe" newspaper was then founded,
   to be the organ of the administration, and Francis P. Blair,
   called from Kentucky to undertake the editorship, acquired at
   the same time Duff Green's vacated seat in the Kitchen
   Cabinet.

      J. Schouler,
      History of the United States,
      volume 3, page 501.

   "The establishment of the 'Globe,' the rupture with Calhoun,
   and the breaking up of the first cabinet had inaugurated a
   bitter war between the two rival papers, though really between
   the President and Mr. Calhoun, in consequence of which there
   were rich revelations made to the public."

      N. Sargent,
      Public Men and Events, 1817-1853,
      volume 1, page 186.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1829-1832.
   Rise of the Abolitionists.

   "Between the years 1829 and 1832 took place a remarkable
   series of debates in Virginia on the subject of slavery,
   brought about by dissatisfaction with the State constitution
   and by the Nat Turner massacre, in which a number of slaves
   had risen against their masters. In these debates the evils of
   slavery were exposed as clearly as they were afterwards by the
   Abolitionists, and with an outspoken freedom which, when
   indulged in by Northern men, was soon to be denounced as
   treasonable and incendiary. These Southern speakers were
   silenced by the Slave Power. But there were men in the North
   who thought the same and who would not be silenced. Chief
   among these was William Lloyd Garrison. He had begun his
   memorable career by circulating petitions in Vermont in 1828
   in favor of emancipation in the District of Columbia. Having
   joined Lundy in Baltimore in editing the 'Genius of Universal
   Emancipation,' he had suffered ignominy in the cause, in a
   Southern jail; drawing from persecution and hardship only new
   inspiration, he began the publication of the 'Liberator', at
   Boston in January, 1831.
{3370}
   In the following year, under his leadership, was formed the
   New England Anti-Slavery Society, which placed itself on the
   new ground that immediate, unconditional emancipation, without
   expatriation, was the right of every slave and could not be
   withheld by his master an hour without sin. In March, 1833,
   the 'Weekly Emancipator' was established in New York, with the
   assistance of Arthur and Lewis Tappan, and under the
   editorship of William Goodell. In the same year appeared at
   Haverhill, Massachusetts, a vigorous pamphlet by John G.
   Whittier, entitled 'Justice and Expediency, or Slavery
   considered with a View to its Rightful and Effectual Remedy,
   Abolition.' Nearly simultaneously were published Mrs. Lydia
   Maria Child's 'Appeal in Behalf of that Class of Americans
   called Africans,' and a pamphlet by Elizur Wright, Jr., a
   professor in the Western Reserve College, on 'The Sin of
   Slavery and its Remedy.' These publications and the doctrines
   of the 'Liberator' produced great excitement throughout the
   country."

      B. Tuckerman,
      William Jay and the Constitutional Movement for the
      Abolition of Slavery,
      chapter 3.

   The "Liberator" "was a weekly journal, bearing the names of
   William Lloyd Garrison and Isaac Knapp as publishers. Its
   motto was, 'Our Country is the World, Our Countrymen are
   Mankind,' a direct challenge to those whose motto was the
   Jingo cry of those days, 'Our Country, right or wrong!' It was
   a modest folio, with a page of four columns, measuring
   fourteen inches by nine and a quarter. … The paper had not a
   dollar of capital. It was printed at first with borrowed type.
   Garrison and Knapp did all the work of every kind between
   them, Garrison of course doing the editorials. That he wrote
   them can hardly be said: his habit was often to set up without
   manuscript. … The publishers announced in their first issue
   their determination to go on as long as they had bread and
   water to live on. In fact, they lived on bread and milk, with
   a little fruit and a few cakes, which they bought in small
   shops below. Garrison apologizes for the meagreness of the
   editorials, which, he says, he has but six hours, and those at
   midnight, to compose, all the rest of his time and the whole
   of that of his companion being taken up by the mechanical
   work. … It was against nothing less than the world, or at
   least the world in which he lived, that this youth of
   twenty-six, with his humble partner, took up arms. Slavery was
   at the height of its power. … The salutatory of the
   'Liberator' avowed that its editor meant to speak out without
   restraint. 'I will be as harsh as truth and as uncompromising
   as justice. On this subject I do not wish to think or speak or
   write with moderation. No! No! Tell a man whose house is on
   fire to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue
   his wife from the hands of the ravisher; tell the mother to
   gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has
   fallen—but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the
   present. I am in earnest—I will not equivocate—I will not
   excuse—I will not retreat a single inch—and I will be heard.'
   This promise was amply kept. … In private and in his family he
   was all gentleness and affection. Let it be said, too, that he
   set a noble example to controversial editors in his fair
   treatment of his opponents. Not only did he always give
   insertion to their replies, but he copied their criticisms
   from other journals into his own. Fighting for freedom of
   discussion, he was ever loyal to his own principle. What is
   certain is that the 'Liberator,' in spite of the smallness of
   its circulation, which was hardly enough to keep it alive,
   soon told. The South was moved to its centre. The editorials
   probably would not have caused much alarm, as the slaves could
   not read. What was likely to cause more alarm was the
   frontispiece, which spoke plainly enough to the slave's eye.
   It represented an auction at which 'slaves, horses and other
   cattle' were being offered for sale, and a whipping-post at
   which a slave was being flogged. In the background was the
   Capitol at Washington, with a flag inscribed 'Liberty'
   floating over the dome. … On seeing the 'Liberator' the realm
   of slavery bestirred itself. A Vigilance Association took the
   matter in hand. First came fiery and bloodthirsty editorials;
   then anonymous threats; then attempts by legal enactment to
   prevent the circulation of the 'Liberator' at the South. The
   Grand Jury of North Carolina found a true bill against
   Garrison for the circulation of a paper of seditious tendency,
   the penalty for which was whipping and imprisonment for the
   first offence, and death without benefit of clergy for the
   second. The General Assembly of Georgia offered a reward of
   five thousand dollars to anyone who, under the laws of that
   State, should arrest the editor of the 'Liberator', bring him
   to trial, and prosecute him to conviction. The South
   reproached Boston with allowing a battery to be planted on her
   soil against the ramparts of Southern institutions. Boston
   felt the reproach, and showed that she would gladly have
   suppressed the incendiary print and perhaps have delivered up
   its editor; but the law was against her, and the mass of the
   people, though wavering in their allegiance to morality on the
   question of slavery, were still loyal to freedom of opinion. …
   It was just at this time that the South and its clientage at
   the North were thrown into a paroxysm of excitement by the
   Bloody Monday, as Nat Turner's rising at Southampton was
   called. The rising was easily suppressed, and Virginia saw, as
   Jamaica has since seen, how cruel is the panic of a dominant
   race. Not the slightest connection of the outbreak with
   Northern abolitionism was traced. That Garrison or anyone
   connected with him ever incited the slaves to revolt, or said
   a word intentionally which could lead to servile war, seems to
   be utterly untrue. His preaching to the slaves, on the
   contrary, was always patience, submission, abstinence from
   violence, while in his own moral code he carried
   non-resistance to an extreme. Moreover, his championship held
   out hope, and what goads to insurrection is despair."

      Goldwin Smith,
      William Lloyd Garrison,
      pages 60-65.

   "Mr. Emerson once said, 'Eloquence is dog-cheap in
   anti-slavery meetings.' … On the platform you would always see
   Garrison; with him was … Sam May. Stephen S. Foster was always
   there. … Parker Pilsbury, James Buffum, Arnold Buffum, Elizur
   Wright, Henry C. Wright, Abigail Kelley, Lucy Stone, Theo. D.
   Weld, the sisters Grimké, from South Carolina; John T.
   Sargent, Mrs. Chapman, Mrs. Lydia M. Child, Fred Douglas, Wm.
   W. Brown and Francis Jackson. The last was a stern Puritan,
   conscientious, upright, clear-minded, universally respected.
   Edmund Quincy also was there, and he never spoke without
   saying something that had a touch of wit as well as of logic.
   Oliver Johnson … was one of the very first members of the
   Society. Theodore Parker, Samuel J. May, John Pierpont,
   Charles L. Stearns, Charles L. Redwood, George Thompson
   (another wonderfully eloquent man), and, above all, Wendell
   Phillips."

      J. F. Clarke,
      Anti-Slavery Days,
      chapter 3.

      See, also, SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1828-1832.

{3371}

A. D. 1830.
   The Fifth Census.

   Total population, 12,866,020 (being about 33½ per cent. more
   than in 1820), classed and distributed as follows:


North.

                       White.   Free black. Slave.
Connecticut.          289,603    8,047         25
Illinois.             155,061    1,637        747
Indiana.              339,399    3,629          3
Maine                 398,263    1,190          2
Massachusetts.        603,359    7,048          1
Michigan.              31,346      261         32
New Hampshire.        268,721      604          3
New Jersey.           300,266   18,303      2,254
New York.           1,873,663   44,870         75
Ohio.                 928,329    9,568          6
Pennsylvania.       1,309,900   37,930        403
Rhode Island.          93,621    3,561         17
Vermont.              279,771      881          0

Total               6,871,302  137,529      3,568

South.
                       White.   Free black. Slave.
Alabama.              190,406    1,572    117,549
Arkansas.              25,671      141      4,576
Delaware.              57,601   15,855      3,292
District of Columbia.  27,563    6,152      6,119
Florida.               18,385      844     15,501
Georgia.              296,806    2,486    217,531
Kentucky.             517,787    4,917    165,213
Louisiana.             89,441   16,710    109,588
Maryland.             291,108   52,938    102,994
Mississippi            70,443      519     65,659
Missouri.             114,795      569     25,091
North Carolina.       472,843   19,543    245,601
South Carolina.       257,863    7,921    315,401
Tennessee.            535,746    4,555    141,603
Virginia.             694,300   47,348    469,757

Total               3,660,758  182,070  2,005,475


   In the decade between 1820 and 1830 the immigrant arrivals in
   the United States, as officially recorded, numbered 143,439,
   of which 75,803 were from the British Islands. Prior to 1821,
   there is no official record of immigration.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1830-1831.
   The first railroads.

      See STEAM LOCOMOTION ON LAND.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1832.
   The Black Hawk War.

      See ILLINOIS: A. D. 1832.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1832.
   The prospective surplus and necessary tariff reduction.
   Clay's delusive measure.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES): A. D. 1832.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1832.
   Twelfth Presidential Election.
   Re-election of General Jackson.

   General Jackson, renominated by his party almost without
   question, was re-elected over three competitors, the popular
   vote being as follows: Andrew Jackson, Democrat, 687,502;
   Henry Clay, National Republican, 530,189; William Wirt,
   Anti-Masonic, 33,108; John Floyd (voted for only in South
   Carolina, where electors were chosen by the legislature). The
   vote in the electoral college stood: Jackson 219, Clay 49,
   Floyd 11, Wirt 7. Martin Van Buren was elected Vice President.

   "This election is notable for several reasons. It marks the
   beginning of the system of national nominating conventions; it
   gave Jackson a second term of office, in which he was to
   display his peculiar qualities more conspicuously than ever;
   it compacted and gave distinct character to the new Democratic
   party; and it practically settled directly the fate of the
   Bank of the United States, and indirectly the question of
   nullification. Jackson was easily re-elected, for he had
   established a great popularity, and the opposition was
   divided. A new party came into the field, and marked its
   advent by originating the national nominating convention. This
   was the Anti-Masonic party".

      See NEW YORK: A. D.1826-1832.

   Both the Democratic and the National Republican parties
   adopted the invention of the Anti-Masons, and made their
   nominations for the first time by the agency of great national
   conventions.

      W. Wilson,
      Division and Reunion, 1829-1889,
      page 62.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1833-1836.
   President Jackson's overthrow of the United States Bank.
   The removal of the Deposits.

   "The torrents of paper-money issued during the revolutionary
   war, which sunk in value to nothing, converted the old
   prejudice against paper promises-to-pay into an aversion that
   had the force of an instinct. To this instinctive aversion, as
   much as to the constitutional objections urged by Mr.
   Jefferson and his disciples, was owing the difficulty
   experienced by Alexander Hamilton in getting his first United
   States bank chartered. Hence, also, the refusal of Congress to
   recharter that bank in 1811. Hence the unwillingness of Mr.
   Madison to sanction the charter of the second bank of the
   United States in 1816. But the bank was chartered in 1816, and
   went into existence with the approval of all the great
   republican leaders, opposed only by the extreme Jeffersonians
   and by the few federalists who were in public life. … But,
   long before General Jackson came into power, the bank appeared
   to have lived down all opposition. In the presidential
   campaign of 1824 it was not so much as mentioned, nor was it
   mentioned in that of 1828. … At the beginning of the
   administration of General Jackson, the Bank of the United
   States was a truly imposing institution. Its capital was
   thirty-five millions. The public money deposited in its vaults
   averaged six or seven millions; its private deposits, six
   millions more; its circulation, twelve millions; its
   discounts, more than forty millions a year; its annual
   profits, more than three millions. Besides the parent bank at
   Philadelphia, with its marble palace and hundred clerks, there
   were 25 branches in the towns and cities of the Union. … Its
   bank-notes were as good as gold in every part of the country.
   … The bank and its branches received and disbursed the entire
   revenue of the nation. … There is a tradition in Washington to
   this day, that General Jackson came up from Tennessee to
   Washington, in 1829, resolved on the destruction of the Bank
   of the United States, and that he was only dissuaded from
   aiming a paragraph at it in his inaugural address by the
   prudence of Mr. Van Buren. … General Jackson had no thought of
   the bank until he had been President two months. He came to
   Washington expecting to serve but a single term, during which
   the question of re-chartering the bank was not expected to
   come up.
{3372}
   The bank was chartered in 1816 for twenty years, which would
   not expire until 1836." But, in 1829, the influence of Isaac
   Hill, one of the so-called "Kitchen Cabinet" at Washington,
   involved the irascible President in an endeavor to bring about
   the removal of Jeremiah Mason, a political opponent, who had
   been appointed to the presidency of the branch of the United
   States Bank at Portsmouth, New Hampshire. "The correspondence
   began in June and ended in October. I believe myself warranted
   in the positive assertion, that this correspondence relating
   to the desired removal of Jeremiah Mason was the direct and
   real cause of the destruction of the bank."

      J. Parton,
      Life of Andrew Jackson,
      volume 3, chapter 20.

   "As soon as the issue between him and the Bank of the United
   States was declared, Jackson resolved that the bank must be
   utterly destroyed. The method was suggested by Kendall and
   Blair, of the Kitchen Cabinet. It was to cripple the available
   means of the bank by withdrawing from it and its branches the
   deposits of public funds. In the message of December, 1832,
   Jackson had expressed his doubt as to the safety of the
   government deposits in the bank, and recommended an
   investigation. The House, after inquiry, resolved on March 2,
   by 109 to 46 votes, that the deposits were safe. The bank was
   at that period undoubtedly solvent, and there seemed to be no
   reason to fear for the safety of the public money in its
   custody. But Jackson had made up his mind that the bank was
   financially rotten; that it had been employing its means to
   defeat his reëlection; that it was using the public funds in
   buying up members of Congress for the purposes of securing a
   renewal of its charter, and of breaking down the
   administration; and that thus it had become a dangerous agency
   of corruption and a public enemy. Therefore the public funds
   must be withdrawn, without regard to consequences. But the law
   provided that the public funds should be deposited in the Bank
   of the United States or its branches, unless the Secretary of
   the Treasury should otherwise 'order and direct,' and in that
   case the Secretary should report his reasons for such
   direction to Congress. A willing Secretary of the Treasury was
   therefore needed. In May, 1833, Jackson reconstructed his
   Cabinet for the second time. … For the Treasury Department
   Jackson selected William J. Duane of Philadelphia, who was
   known as an opponent of the bank. Jackson, no doubt, expected
   him to be ready for any measure necessary to destroy it. In
   this he was mistaken. Duane earnestly disapproved of the
   removal of the deposits as unnecessary, and highly dangerous
   to the business interests of the country. … A majority of the
   members of the Cabinet thought the removal of the deposits
   unwise. … In the business community there seemed to be but one
   voice about it. The mere rumor that the removal of the
   deposits was in contemplation greatly disturbed the money
   market. But all this failed to stagger Jackson's resolution. …
   The Cabinet, with the exception of the Secretary of the
   Treasury, bowed to Jackson's will. But Duane would not shelter
   himself behind the President's assumed responsibility to do an
   act which, under the law, was to be his act. He also refused
   to resign. If he had to obey or go, he insisted upon being
   removed. Jackson then formally dismissed him, and transferred
   Roger B. Taney from the attorney generalship to the treasury.
   Benjamin F. Butler of New York, a friend of Van Buren, was
   made Attorney General. Taney forthwith ordered the removal of
   the deposits from the Bank of the United States; that is to
   say, the public funds then in the bank were to be drawn out as
   the government required them, and no new deposits to be made
   in that institution. The new deposits were to be distributed
   among a certain number of selected state banks, which became
   known as the 'pet banks.' … The money market became stringent.
   Many failures occurred. The general feeling in business
   circles approached a panic." But the very disturbance was
   charged upon the Bank, itself; the people rallied to the
   support of their favorite, "Old Hickory," and when the
   national charter of the Bank expired, in March, 1836, there
   was no hope of its renewal. It obtained a charter from the
   State of Pennsylvania, and continued business as a State
   institution until it went to pieces in the general commercial
   shipwreck of 1837-41.

      C. Schurz,
      Life of Henry Clay,
      chapter 15 (volume 2).

      ALSO IN:
      W. G. Sumner,
      Andrew Jackson as a Public Man,
      chapters 11-14.

      T. H. Benton,
      Thirty Years' View,
      volume 1, chapters 49, 56, 64-67, 77, and 92-111.

      M. St. C. Clarke and D. A. Hall,
      History of the Bank of the United States.

      See, also, MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1817-1833.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1834.
   Organization of the Whig Party.

   The largest section of the opposition to the Jacksonian
   Democracy "was organized in 1834 as the Whig party. According
   to the 'Whig Almanac' for 1838, the party as then constituted
   comprised: '(1) Most of those who, under the name of National
   Republicans, had previously been known as supporters of Adams
   and Clay, and advocates of the American system [of
   tariff-protection]; (2) Most of those who, acting in defence
   of what they deemed the assailed or threatened rights of the
   States, had been stigmatized as Nullifiers, or the less
   virulent State Rights' men, who were thrown into a position of
   armed neutrality towards the administration by the doctrines
   of the proclamation of 1832 against South Carolina; (3) A
   majority of those before known as Anti-Masons; (4) Many who
   had up to that time been known as Jackson men, but who united
   in condemning the high-handed conduct of the Executive, the
   immolation of Duane, and the subserviency of Taney; (5)
   Numbers who had not before taken any part in politics, but who
   were now awakened from their apathy by the palpable
   usurpations of the Executive and the imminent peril of our
   whole fabric of constitutional liberty and national
   prosperity.' It was not to be expected that a party composed
   of such various elements would be able to unite on one
   candidate with heartiness; and, as the event proved, it was
   necessary that some time should elapse before anything like
   homogeneity could be given to the organization. Nullification
   was not popular among the Whigs of the North, nor did the
   State Rights' people of South Carolina and other States care
   about the war on the bank and the removal of the deposits."

      E. Stanwood,
      History of Presidential Elections,
      chapter 14.

{3373}

   "It was now felt instinctively that, in the existing struggle
   between the parties actually arrayed against each other, and
   in the principles and doctrines of those who were in power,
   there was a peculiar fitness in the revival of a term which,
   on both sides of the Atlantic, had been historically
   associated with the side of liberty against the side of power.
   The revival of the name of Whigs was sudden, and it was a
   spontaneous popular movement. In progress of time, it enabled
   the public men who were leading the opposition to the party of
   the Administration to consolidate an organization of distinct
   political principles, and to strengthen it by accessions from
   those who had found reason to be dissatisfied with the
   opinions prevailing among the friends of the President."

      G. T. Curtis,
      Life of Daniel Webster,
      volume 1, page 499.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1835.
   First Petitions for the Abolition of Slavery
   in the District of Columbia.
   Exclusion of Antislavery literature from the Mails.

   "It was during the Twenty-third Congress, 1835, that the
   abolition of slavery, especially in the District of Columbia,
   may be said to have begun to move the public mind at the
   North. The first petitions presented to Congress for the
   abolition of slavery, at least the first to attract attention,
   were presented by Mr. Dickson, from the Canandaigua district,
   New York, who addressed the House in support of the prayer of
   the petitioners. Perhaps his speech, more than the petition he
   presented, served to stir up a feeling on the part of Southern
   men, and to cause other and numerous similar petitions to be
   gotten up at the North and sent to Congress. … The labors of
   the enemies of slavery, or 'Abolitionists,' had commenced, and
   by indefatigable men who believed they were serving God and
   the cause of humanity, and consequently it was with them a
   labor of conscience and duty, with which nothing should be
   allowed to interfere. Instead of petitions to Congress, they
   now sent large boxes of tracts, pamphlets, and various
   publications which the Southern people denominated
   'incendiary,' to the post-office at Charleston, South
   Carolina, and other cities, to be distributed, as directed, to
   various persons. This increased the complaints and
   inflammatory articles in the Southern papers. The publications
   thus sent were stopped in the post-office, and the postmasters
   addressed the head of the department, Amos Kendall, on the
   subject, who replied that though the law authorized the
   transmission of newspapers and pamphlets through the mail, yet
   the law was intended to promote the general good of the
   public, and not to injure any section; and intimated that,
   such being the effect of these publications at the South,
   postmasters would be justified in withholding them."

      N. Sargent,
      Public Men and Events, 1817-1853,
      volume 1, page 294-295.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1835-1837.
   The inflation of credits, and Speculation.
   The great collapse.

   "When the United States Bank lost the government deposits,
   late in 1833, they amounted to a little less than $10,000,000.
   On January 1, 1835, more than a year after the state banks
   took the deposits, they had increased to a little more than
   $10,000,000. But the public debt being then paid and the outgo
   of money thus checked, the deposits had by January 1, 1836,
   reached $25,000,000, and by June 1, 1836, $41,500,000. This
   enormous advance represented the sudden increase in the sales
   of public lands, which were paid for in bank paper, which in
   turn formed the bulk of the government deposits. … The
   increase in the sales of public lands was the result of all
   the organic causes and of all the long train of events which
   had seated the fever of speculation so profoundly in the
   American character of the day. … The increase of government
   deposits was only fuel added to the flames. The craze for
   banks and credits was unbounded before the removal of the
   deposits had taken place, and before their great increase
   could have had serious effect. … The insanity of speculation
   was in ample though unobserved control of the country while
   Nicholas Biddle [President of the United States Bank] still
   controlled the deposits, and was certain to reach a climax
   whether they stayed with him or went elsewhere. … The
   distribution of the surplus among the states by the law of
   1836 was the last and in some respects the worst of the
   measures which aided and exaggerated the tendency to
   speculation. By this bill, all the money above $5,000.000 in
   the treasury on January 1, 1837, was to be 'deposited' with
   the states in four quarterly installments commencing on that
   day. … From the passage of the deposit bill in June, 1836,
   until the crash in 1837, this superb donation of thirty-seven
   millions was before the enraptured and deluded vision of the
   country. Over nine millions and a quarter to be poured into
   'improvements' or loaned to the needy,—what a luscious
   prospect! The lesson is striking and wholesome, and ought not
   to be forgotten, that, when the land was in the very midst of
   these largesses, the universal bankruptcy set in. During 1835
   and 1836 there were omens of the coming storm. Some perceived
   the rabid character of the speculative fever. William L.
   Marcy, governor of New York, in his message of January, 1836,
   answering the dipsomaniac cry for more banks, declared that an
   unregulated spirit of speculation had taken capital out of the
   state; but that the amount so transferred bore no comparison
   to the enormous speculations in stocks and in real property
   within the state. … The warning was treated contemptuously;
   but before the year was out the federal administration also
   became anxious, and the increase in land sales no longer
   signified to Jackson an increasing prosperity. … So Jackson
   proceeded with his sound defense of the famous specie
   circular, long and even still denounced as the 'causa cansans'
   of the crisis of 1837. By this circular, issued on July 11,
   1836, the secretary of the treasury had required payment for
   public lands to be made in specie, with an exception until
   December 15, 1836, in favor of actual settlers and actual
   residents of the state in which the lands were sold. …
   Jackson's specie circular toppled over the house of cards,
   which at best could have stood but little longer. … An
   insignificant, part of the sales had been lately made to
   settlers. They were chiefly made to speculators. … Of the real
   money necessary to make good the paper bubble promises of the
   speculators not one tenth part really existed. Banks could
   neither make their debtors pay in gold and silver, nor pay
   their own notes in gold and silver. So they suspended. The
   great and long concealed devastation of physical wealth and of
   the accumulation of legitimate labor by premature improvements
   and costly personal living, became now quickly apparent.
   Fancied wealth sank out of sight."

      E. M. Shepard,
      Martin Van Buren,
      chapter 8.

      ALSO IN:
      W. G. Sumner,
      History of American Currency,
      pages 102-161.

      F. A. Walker,
      Money,
      chapter 21.

      C. Juglar,
      Brief History of Panics,
      page 58.

{3374}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1835-1843.
   The Second Seminole War.

      See FLORIDA: A. D. 1835-1843.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1836.
   The Atherton Gag.

   "At this time [1835-36], the Northern abolitionists sent
   petitions to Congress for the abolition of slavery in the
   District of Columbia. They contended that as this territory
   was under the control of the United States' Government, the
   United States was responsible for slavery there; and that the
   Free States were bound to do what they could to have slavery
   brought to an end in that District. But the Slave States were
   not willing to have anything said on the subject, so they
   passed what was called a 'gag' law in the House of
   Representatives, and ruled that all petitions which had any
   relation to slavery should be laid on the table without being
   debated, printed or referred. John Quincy Adams opposed this
   rule resolutely, maintaining that it was wrong and
   unconstitutional. … He continued to present petitions, as
   before, for the abolition of slavery in the District. When the
   day came for petitions he was one of the first to be called
   upon; and he would sometimes occupy nearly the whole hour in
   presenting them, though each one was immediately laid on the
   table. One day he presented 511."

      J. F. Clarke,
      Anti-Slavery Days,
      page 45.

   The gag-law has sometimes taken the name of the Atherton gag
   from its New Hampshire author.

      W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,
      Popular History of the United States,
      volume 4, page 338.

      ALSO IN:
      J. H. Gidding,
      History of the Rebellion,
      pages 104-124.

      J. T. Morse, Jr.,
      John Quincy Adams,
      pp. 246-280.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1836.
   Admission of Arkansas into the Union.

      See ARKANSAS: A. D. 1819-1836.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1836.
   Jackson's administration reviewed.

   "What of the administration as a whole? Parton's view is as
   follows: 'I must avow explicitly the belief that,
   notwithstanding the good done by General Jackson during his
   presidency, his elevation to power was a mistake on the part
   of the people of the United States. The good which he effected
   has not continued, while the evil which he began remains.'
   Sumner, in commenting on 'Jackson's modes of action in his
   second term,' says: 'We must say of Jackson that he stumbled
   along through a magnificent career, now and then taking up a
   chance without really appreciating it; leaving behind him
   disturbed and discordant elements of good and ill just fit to
   produce turmoil and dis·aster in the future.' Later he adds:
   'Representative institutions are degraded on the Jacksonian
   theory just as they are on the divine-right theory, or on the
   theory of the democratic empire. There is not a worse
   perversion of the American system of government conceivable
   than to regard the President as the tribune of the people.'
   The view of von Holst may be inferred from the following
   passages: 'In spite of the frightful influence, in the real
   sense of the expression, which he exercised during the eight
   years of his presidency, he neither pointed out nor opened new
   ways to his people by the superiority of his mind, but only
   dragged them more rapidly onward on the road they had long
   been travelling, by the demoniacal power of his will.' The
   meaning of the bank struggle is thus defined: 'Its
   significance lay in the elements which made Jackson able
   actually and successfully to assert his claims, in conflict
   both with the constitution and with the idea of republicanism,
   to a position between Congress and the people as patriarchal
   ruler of the republic.' Elsewhere he tells us that the 'curse
   of Jackson's administration' is that it weakened respect for
   law; that 'the first clear symptom' of 'the decline of a
   healthy political spirit' was the election and re-election of
   Jackson to the presidency; that his administration paved a
   'broad path for the demoralizing transformation of the
   American democracy'; and that 'his "reign" receives the stamp
   which characterizes it precisely from the fact that the
   politicians knew how to make his character, with its texture
   of brass, the battering-ram with which to break down the last
   ramparts which opposed their will.' According to Parton,
   Sumner, and von Holst, as I understand them, the net result of
   Jackson's influence upon the American people was to hasten
   their progress toward political ruin. I think this conclusion
   erroneous. The gravest accusation against Jackson is, that his
   influence undermined respect for law. It is plausibly argued
   that, since he himself was impatient of authority, his example
   must have stimulated lawlessness in his followers. It may be
   urged, in reply, that the history of the country does not
   support the charge. The worst exhibitions of general
   lawlessness which have disgraced the United States were the
   anti-abolitionist mobs of Jackson's own day—for which he was
   not responsible. Since then, the American people, in spite of
   the demoralizations of the war and reconstruction periods,
   have steadily grown in obedience to law. … It is a curious
   circumstance that the relation of Jackson to sectionalism has
   received very little attention; and yet the growth of
   sectionalism, i. e., the tendency to divide the Union into two
   portions, politically separate and independent, is the fact
   which, from the Missouri Compromise of 1820 to the ordinances
   of secession in 1860, gives our political history its
   distinctive character. The one important question concerning
   Jackson, as indeed concerning every public man during the
   forty years which precede the Civil War, is: What did he do
   towards saving the Union from sectionalism? … Jackson came
   before the country as a disciple of Jefferson, and therefore
   as a believer in state rights. There was, it is true, much in
   his temper and situation which favored centralization;
   nevertheless, he was an honest, though moderate and somewhat
   inconsistent Jeffersonian, and he won and retained the
   confidence of the state-rights element in the democratic
   party. Moreover, he identified himself with the newly
   enfranchised and poorer citizens just rising to political
   self-consciousness. In these ways, his following came to
   include a large majority of his fellow-citizens, and, what was
   of the utmost importance, by far the larger proportion of
   those whose political character and opinions were as yet
   plastic. … Jackson became, to a degree never realized by any
   other man in our history, the trusted leader and teacher of
   the masses. … This intimate relation to the people, and this
   unparalleled power over the people, Jackson used to impress
   upon them his own love of the Union and his own hatred of
   sectionalism. … His character was altogether national. It is
   easy to think of Calhoun as a southerner and a South
   Carolinian; but it would not be easy to think of Jackson as
   belonging to Tennessee or to the border states.
{3375}
   The distribution of his support in the election of 1832 is
   instructive. New Hampshire, New York and Pennsylvania, as well
   as Tennessee, Georgia, Missouri, were Jackson's states. He was
   not looked upon as the representative of any particular
   section. His policy as President showed no trace of
   sectionalism. Its aim was the welfare of the masses
   irrespective of section. To him state lines had little
   meaning; sectional lines, absolutely none. There is another
   way in which he rendered great though unconscious service to
   the cause of national unity: he made the government, hitherto
   an unmeaning abstraction, intelligible and attractive to the
   people. … The chief value, then, of Jackson's political
   career, was its educational effect. His strong conviction of
   the national character of the Union, his brave words and acts
   in behalf of the rights of the Union, sank deep into the
   hearts of followers and opponents."

      A. D. Morse,
      Political Influence of Andrew Jackson
      (Political Science Quarterly, June, 1886).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1836.
   Thirteenth Presidential Election.
   Martin Van Buren chosen.

   "As Vice-president, Van Buren was at the side of Jackson
   during his second term as President. It was the period of the
   first experiment in producing panics; of reckless expansions
   of the currency; of extravagant speculation; of an
   accumulating surplus revenue; of the last struggles of the
   Bank of the United States for the continuance of its powers.
   There was not a difficult question on which Jackson did not
   open his mind to the Vice-president with complete and
   affectionate confidence. He has often been heard to narrate
   incidents illustrating the prompt decision and bold judgment
   of his younger friend; and in those days of vehement conflicts
   between the power of the people and interests embodied against
   that power, the daring energy of the one was well united with
   the more tranquil intrepidity of the other. How fully this was
   recognized by the people appears from the action of the
   Democratic party of the Union. In May, 1835, it assembled in
   convention at Baltimore, and by a unanimous vote placed Van
   Buren in nomination as their candidate for the Presidency. …
   The Democracy of the Union supported Van Buren with entire
   unanimity. Out of two hundred and eighty-six electoral votes
   he received one hundred and seventy; and, for the first time,
   the Democracy of the North saw itself represented in the
   Presidential chair. Electoral votes were given for Van Buren
   without regard to geographical divisions: New York and
   Alabama, Missouri and Maine, Virginia and Connecticut, were
   found standing together. His election seemed friendly to the
   harmony and the perpetuity of the Union."

      G. Bancroft,
      Martin Van Buren.
      chapter 5.

   Mr. Van Buren received a clear majority of the popular vote
   cast at the election, namely, 762,678, against 735,651 cast in
   opposition, but divided between four Whig candidates, namely,
   William H. Harrison, who received 73 electoral votes, Hugh L.
   White, who received 26, Daniel Webster who received 14, and
   Willie P. Mangum, who received 11. Richard M. Johnson was
   chosen Vice President.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1837.
   Admission of Michigan into the Union.

      See MICHIGAN: A. D. 1837.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1837.
   The introduction of the Sub-treasury system.

   "When the banks went down, they had the government deposits:
   this was in May, 1837. Van Buren's administration was only two
   months old. The President was a warm admirer of Jackson, and
   had formally announced that he would continue his
   predecessor's policy with respect to the management of the
   deposits. But the 'experiment' had suddenly culminated. The
   government deposits were not in its control, and could not be
   regained; their transfer from one part of the country to
   another had ceased. … Once more, therefore, the government was
   confronted with a grave question touching its deposits and the
   circulating medium. It now essayed a brand-new experiment.
   This was nothing less than keeping the deposits itself, and
   transferring and paying them as occasion required; while the
   people were left to regulate the currency themselves. This was
   a very wide departure from any former policy. The mode
   proposed of keeping the public deposits may be briefly
   described. The treasury building at Washington was to
   constitute the treasury of the United States, and the public
   money was to be kept within its vaults. The mint at
   Philadelphia, the branch at New Orleans, the new custom-houses
   in New York and Boston, were also to contain branch treasury
   vaults. Places were also to be prepared at Charleston, St.
   Louis, and elsewhere. The treasurer of the United States at
   Washington, and the treasurers of the mints at Philadelphia
   and New Orleans, were to be 'receivers-general,' to keep the
   public money. … At the extra session of Congress in 1837, the
   Executive recommended the sub-treasury experiment. Congress
   refused to try it, although a majority in both Houses belonged
   to the same political party as the President. Nevertheless,
   the system was continued, without legislative sanction, until
   1840, when Congress finally passed a bill legalizing the
   measure. At the presidential election in 1840 a party
   revolution occurred, and the sub-treasury system, which had
   formed a prominent issue in the campaign, was unqualifiedly
   condemned by the people. Congress repealed the law, and passed
   a bill creating another national bank," which President Tyler
   vetoed.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1841.

   "Thus the keeping of the public money remained in the hands of
   the government officials, without legislative regulation,
   until the passage of the sub-treasury bill, in 1846. The
   system established at that time has been maintained ever
   since."

      A. S. Bolles,
      Financial History of the United States, 1789-1860,
      book 3, chapter 2.

      ALSO IN:
      T. H. Benton,
      Thirty Years' View,
      volume 2, chapters 29, 41, 64-65.

      D. Kinley,
      The Independent Treasury of the United States.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1837-1838.
   Antislavery Petitions in the Senate.
   Calhoun's Resolutions, forcing the issue.

   "The movements for and against slavery in the session of
   1837-1838 deserve to be noted, as of disturbing effect at the
   time; and as having acquired new importance from subsequent
   events. Early in the session a memorial was presented in the
   Senate from the General Assembly of Vermont, remonstrating
   against the annexation of Texas to the United States, and
   praying for the abolition of slavery in the District of
   Columbia—followed by many petitions from citizens and
   societies in the Northern States to the same effect; and,
   further, for the abolition of slavery in the Territories—for
   the abolition of the slave trade between the States—and for
   the exclusion of future slave States from the Union. …
{3376}
   The question which occupied the Senate was as to the most
   judicious mode of treating these memorials, with a view to
   prevent their evil effects: and that was entirely a question
   of policy, on which senators disagreed who concurred in the
   main object. Some deemed it most advisable to receive and
   consider the petitions—to refer them to a committee—and
   subject them to the adverse report which they would be sure to
   receive; as had been done with the Quakers' petitions at the
   beginning of the government. Others deemed it preferable to
   refuse to receive them. The objection raised to this latter
   course was, that it would mix up a new question with the
   slavery agitation which would enlist the sympathies of many
   who did not co-operate with the Abolitionists—the question of
   the right of petition. … Mr. Clay, and many others were of
   this opinion; Mr. Calhoun and his friends thought otherwise;
   and the result was, so far as it concerned the petitions of
   individuals and societies, what it had previously been—a
   half-way measure between reception and rejection—a motion to
   lay the question of reception on the table. This motion,
   precluding all discussion, got rid of the petitions quietly,
   and kept debate out of the Senate. In the case of the memorial
   from the State of Vermont, the proceeding was slightly
   different in form, but the same in substance. As the act of a
   State, the memorial was received; but after reception was laid
   on the table. Thus all the memorials and petitions were
   disposed of by the Senate in a way to accomplish the two-fold
   object, first, of avoiding discussion; and, next, condemning
   the object of the petitioners. It was accomplishing all that
   the South asked; and if the subject had rested at that point,
   there would have been nothing in the history of this session,
   on the slavery agitation, to distinguish it from other
   sessions about that period: but the subject was revived; and
   in a way to force discussion, and to constitute a point for
   the retrospect of history. Every memorial and petition had
   been disposed of according to the wishes of the senators from
   the slaveholding States; but Mr. Calhoun deemed it due to
   those States to go further, and to obtain from the Senate
   declarations which should cover all the questions of federal
   power over the institution of slavery: although he had just
   said that paper reports would do no good. For that purpose, he
   submitted a series of resolves—six in number—which derive
   their importance from their comparison, or rather contrast,
   with others on the same subject presented by him in the Senate
   ten years later; and which have given birth to doctrines and
   proceedings which have greatly disturbed the harmony of the
   Union, and palpably endangered its stability. The six
   resolutions of this period (1837-1838) undertook to define the
   whole extent of the power delegated by the States to the
   federal government on the subject of slavery; to specify the
   acts which would exceed that power; and to show the
   consequences of doing anything not authorized to be done—
   always ending in a dissolution of the Union. The first four of
   these related to the States; about which, there being no
   dispute, there was no debate. The sixth, without naming Texas,
   was prospective, and looked forward to a case which might
   include her annexation; and was laid upon the table to make
   way for an express resolution from Mr. Preston on the same
   subject. The fifth related to the territories, and to the
   District of Columbia, and was the only one which excited
   attention, or has left a surviving interest. It was in these
   words: 'Resolved that the intermeddling of any State, or
   States, or their citizens, to abolish slavery in this
   District, or any of the territories, on the ground or under
   the pretext that it is immoral or sinful, or the passage of
   any act or measure of Congress with that view, would be a
   direct and dangerous attack on the institutions of all the
   slaveholding States.' The dogma of 'no power in Congress to
   legislate upon the existence of slavery in territories' had
   not been invented at that time; and, of course, was not
   asserted in this resolve, intended by its author to define the
   extent of the federal legislative power on the subject. The
   resolve went upon the existence of the power, and deprecated
   its abuse." Mr. Clay offered an amendment, in the nature of a
   substitute, consisting of two resolutions, the first of which
   was in these words: "'That the interference by the citizens of
   any of the States, with the view to the abolition of slavery
   in this District, is endangering the rights and security of
   the people of the District; and that any act or measure of
   Congress, designed to abolish slavery in this District, would
   be a violation of the faith implied in the cessions by the
   States of Virginia and Maryland—a just cause of alarm to the
   people of the slaveholding States—and have a direct and
   inevitable tendency to disturb and endanger the Union.' The
   vote on the final adoption of the resolution was: (Yeas 37,
   Nays 8]. … The second resolution of Mr. Clay applied to
   slavery in a territory where it existed, and deprecated any
   attempt to abolish it in such territory, as alarming to the
   slave States, and as violation of faith towards its
   inhabitants, unless they asked it; and in derogation of its
   right to decide the question of slavery for itself when
   erected into a State. This resolution was intended to cover
   the case of Florida, and ran thus: 'Resolved that any attempt
   of Congress to abolish slavery in any territory of the United
   States in which it exists would create serious alarm and just
   apprehension in the States sustaining that domestic
   institution, and would be a violation of good faith towards
   the inhabitants of any such territory who have been permitted
   to settle with, and hold, slaves therein; because the people
   of any such territory have not asked for the abolition of
   slavery therein; and because, when any such territory shall be
   admitted into the Union as a State, the people thereof shall
   be entitled to decide that question exclusively for
   themselves.' And the vote upon it was—[Yeas 35, Nays 9]. …
   The general feeling of the Senate was that of entire
   repugnance to the whole movement—that of the petitions and
   memorials on the one hand, and Mr. Calhoun's resolutions on
   the other. The former were quietly got rid of, and in a way to
   rebuke, as well as to condemn their presentation; that is to
   say, by motions (sustained by the body) to lay them on the
   table. The resolutions could not so easily be disposed of,
   especially as their mover earnestly demanded discussion, spoke
   at large, and often himself; and 'desired to make the
   question, on their rejection or adoption, a test question.'"

      T. H. Benton,
      Thirty Years' View,
      volume 2, chapter 33.

{3377}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1840.
   The Sixth Census.

   Total population, 17,069,453 (exceeding that of 1830 by nearly
   33 per cent.), classed and distributed as follows:

North.
                        White.  Free black.     Slave.
Connecticut.           301,856    8,105            17
Illinois.              472,254    3,598           331
Indiana.               678,698    7,165             3
Iowa.                   42,924      172             16
Maine.                 500,438    1,355             0
Massachusetts.         729,030    8,669             0
Michigan.              211,560      707             0
New Hampshire.         284,036      537             1
New Jersey.            351,588   21,044           674
New York.            2,378,890   50,027             4
Ohio.                1,502,122   17,342             3
Pennsylvania.        1,676,115   47,854            64
Rhode Island.          105,587    3,238             5
Vermont.               291,218      730             0
Wisconsin.              30,749      185            11

Total                9,557,065   170,728        1,129

South.

                         White.  Free black.    Slave.
Alabama.               335,185    2,039       253,532
Arkansas.               77,174      465        19,935
Delaware.               58,561   16,919         2,605
District of Columbia.   30,657    8,361         4,694
Florida.                27,943      817        25,717
Georgia.               407,695    2,753       280,944
Kentucky.              590,253    7,817       182,258
Louisiana.             158,457   25,502       168,452
Maryland.              318,204   62,078        89,737
Mississippi.           179,074    1,366       195,211
Missouri.              323,888    1,574        58,240
North Carolina.        484,870   22,732       245,817
South Carolina.        259,084    8,276       327,038
Tennessee.             640,627    5,524       183,059
Virginia.              740,858   49,852       449,087

Total                4,632,530  215,575     2,486,326

   The number of immigrants arriving in the United States between
   1830 and 1840, according to official reports, was 599,125, of
   whom 283,191 were from the British Islands, and 212,497 from
   other parts of Europe.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1840.
   Fourteenth Presidential Election.
   The Log-cabin and Hard-cider campaign.

   William Henry Harrison, Whig, was elected President, over
   Martin Van Buren, Democrat, and James G. Birney, candidate of
   the "Liberty Party." The popular vote cast was: Harrison
   1,275,016, Van Buren 1,129,102, Birney 7,069. The electoral
   vote stood: Harrison 234, Van Buren 60, Birney none. John
   Tyler was elected Vice President. In the early part of the
   campaign, a Baltimore newspaper, making a foolish attempt to
   cast ridicule on General Harrison, said that a pension of a
   few hundred dollars and a barrel of hard cider would content
   him in his log cabin for life. This fatuous remark gave the
   Whigs a popular cry which they used with immense effect, and
   "the log-cabin and hard-cider campaign," as it is known in
   American history, was memorable for its song-singing
   enthusiasm.—"If one could imagine a whole nation declaring a
   holiday or season of rollicking for a period of six or eight
   months, and giving themselves up during the whole time to the
   wildest freaks of fun and frolic, caring nothing for business,
   singing, dancing, and carousing night and day, he might have
   some faint notion of the extraordinary scenes of 1840. It
   would be difficult, if not impossible, otherwise to form even
   a faint idea of the universal excitement, enthusiasm,
   activity, turmoil, and restlessness which pervaded the country
   during the spring, summer, and fall of that memorable year.
   Log cabins large enough to hold crowds of people were built in
   many places. Small ones, decorated with 'coon-skins, were
   mounted on wheels and used in processions. The use of the
   'coon-skins soon led to the adoption of the 'coon (raccoon)
   itself as an emblem and adjunct of the log cabin, and its
   'counterfeit presentment' was hoisted in all the Whig papers.
   Meetings were everywhere, and every day, held in
   neighborhoods, school-houses, villages, towns, counties,
   cities, States, varying in number from ten to one hundred
   thousand; and wherever there was a gathering there were also
   speaking and singing. Ladies attended these meetings, or
   conventions, in great numbers, and joined in the singing.
   Farmers, with big teams and wagons, would leave their fields
   and travel ten, twenty, or thirty miles, accompanied by their
   families and neighbors, to attend a convention or a barbecue
   and listen to distinguished orators. Crowds on the road,
   multitudes in big wagons drawn by four, six, or eight horses,
   made the welkin ring with their log-cabin songs. Nobody slept,
   nobody worked, nobody rested; at least so it seemed, for all
   were on the 'qui vive' and in motion. The entire population
   seemed to be absorbed in the great duty of electing General
   Harrison and thus changing the government. …

   What has caused this great commotion, motion, motion,
   Our country through?
   It is the ball a rolling on
   For Tippecanoe and Tyler too,
   For Tippecanoe and Tyler too.'

   The original or special friends of General Harrison very
   naturally claimed that it was his popularity which produced
   such an unprecedented 'commotion' 'our country through.' But
   in this they were mistaken. The popularity of no one man could
   have produced such a universal outpouring of the people from
   day to day for weeks and months unceasingly, abandoning
   everything else, and giving time and money unstintedly to
   carry the election. General Harrison was but the
   figure-head,—the representative of the Whig party for the time
   being. Few had ever heard of him. The people knew from history
   and the campaign papers that he had been a general in the then
   late war with England; that he had won a victory at the battle
   of Tippecanoe over the British and Indians, and also at the
   battle of the Thames, in Canada, where Tecumseh, the noted
   Indian warrior, was killed. This was enough to make a hero of
   him by those who had a purpose to serve in doing so. As to his
   fitness for the Presidency, the people knew nothing and cared
   nothing. A change in the government was what they desired and
   were determined to have."

      N. Sargent,
      Public Men and Events,
      volume 2, pages 107-110.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1840-1841.
   The McLeod case.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1840-1841.

{3378}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1841.
   The Death of President Harrison.
   Breach between President Tyler and the Whig Party
   which elected him.

   President Harrison died suddenly on the 4th of April, 1841,
   and Vice President John Tyler became President. Tyler was a
   Calhoun Democrat in politics, although nominated and elected
   by the Whigs, and the financial measures favored by the latter
   were especially obnoxious to him. "Congress met May 31st,
   1841. … A bill to abolish the Sub-Treasury of the previous
   Administration was passed by both Houses and signed by the
   President. A bill to incorporate 'The Fiscal Bank of the
   United States' was passed by both Houses. It was weeded of
   many of the objectionable features of the old United States
   Bank, but was hardly less odious to the Democrats. It was
   vetoed by the President. … An effort to pass the bill over the
   veto did not receive a two-thirds majority. The Whig leaders,
   anxious to prevent a party disaster, asked from the President
   an outline of a bill which he would sign. After consultation
   with the Cabinet, it was given, and passed by both Houses.
   September 9th the President vetoed this bill also, and an
   attempt to pass it over the veto did not receive a two-thirds
   majority. The action of the President, in vetoing a bill drawn
   according to his own suggestions, and thus apparently
   provoking a contest with the party which had elected him,
   roused the unconcealed indignation of the Whigs. The Cabinet,
   with one exception [Daniel Webster, Secretary of State, who
   remained in President Tyler's cabinet until May, 1843], at
   once resigned. The Whig members of Congress issued Addresses
   to the People, in which they detailed the reforms designed by
   the Whigs and impeded by the President, and declared that 'all
   political connection between them and John Tyler was at an end
   from that day forth.' … The President filled the vacancies in
   the Cabinet by appointing Whigs and Conservatives. His
   position was one of much difficulty. His strict
   constructionist opinions, which had prevented him from
   supporting Van Buren, would not allow him to approve a
   National Bank, and yet he had accepted the Vice-Presidency
   from a party pledged to establish one. The over hasty
   declaration of war by the Whigs put a stop to his
   vacillations, and compelled him to rely upon support from the
   Democrats. But only a few members of Congress, commonly known
   as 'the corporal's guard,' recognized Tyler as a leader."

      A. Johnston,
      History of American Politics, 2d ed.,
      chapter 15, sections 2-4.

      ALSO IN:
      L. G. Tyler,
      Letters and Times of the Tylers,
      volume 2, chapters 1-4.

      C. Colton,
      Life and Times of Henry Clay,
      chapters 14-15.

      T. H. Benton,
      Thirty Years' View,
      volume 2, chapters 80-85.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1842.
   Victory of John Quincy Adams in defending the Right of Petition.

   "January 21, 1842, Mr. Adams presented a petition from 45
   citizens of Haverhill, Massachusetts, praying for the
   dissolution of the Union, and moved it be referred to a select
   committee, with instructions to report why the petition should
   not be granted. There was at once great excitement and members
   called out, 'Expel him,' 'Censure him.' After a good deal of
   fruitless endeavor to accomplish something, the House
   adjourned, and forty or fifty slaveholders met to decide what
   kind of resolutions should be presented to meet the case.
   Thomas F. Marshall of Kentucky was selected by this caucus
   from Congress to propose the resolutions, which were to the
   effect that for presenting such a petition to a body each of
   whom had taken an oath to maintain the Constitution, Mr. Adams
   was virtually inviting them to perjure themselves, and that
   therefore he deserved the severest censure. Marshall supported
   this with a very violent speech. Mr. Wise followed in another.
   Then Mr. Adams arose and asked the clerk to read the first
   paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, being the one
   which recognizes the right of every people to alter or abolish
   their form of Government when it ceases to accomplish its
   ends. He said that those who believed that the present
   Government was oppressive had the right (according to the
   Declaration of Independence, on which the whole of our
   national unity reposes), to petition Congress to do what they
   believed was desirable; and all that Congress could properly
   do would be to explain to them why such an act could not be
   performed. He replied with great severity to Mr. Wise and said
   that Mr. Wise had come into that Hall a few years before with
   his hands dripping with the blood of one of his fellow beings.
   In this he alluded to the part which Mr. Wise had taken in the
   duel between Mr. Graves of Kentucky, and Cilley of Maine, in
   which the latter had been killed. As for Mr. Marshall, who had
   accused him of treason, he spoke of him with great scorn. 'I
   thank God!' said he 'that the Constitution of my country has
   defined treason, and has not left it to the puny intellect of
   this young man from Kentucky to say what it is. If I were the
   father of this gentleman from Kentucky, I should take him from
   this House and put him to school where he might study his
   profession for some years until he became a little better
   qualified to appear in this place.' Mr. Adams had on his desk
   a great many books and references prepared for his use by some
   anti-slavery gentlemen then in Washington; after he had gone
   on for some time with his speech he was asked how much more
   time he would probably occupy. He replied 'I believe Mr. Burke
   took three months for his speech on Warren Hastings'
   indictment. I think I may probably get through in ninety days,
   perhaps in less time.' Thereupon they thought it just as well
   to have the whole thing come to an end and it was moved that
   the matter should be laid on the table. Mr. Adams consented,
   and it was done."

      J. F. Clarke,
      Anti-Slavery Days,
      pages 57-59.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1842.
   The tariff act.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES): A. D. 1842.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1842.
   The Ashburton Treaty with England.
   Settlement of Northeastern boundary questions.

   "It was arranged in December by the Peel ministry that Lord
   Ashburton should be sent to Washington as a special minister
   from Great Britain, with full powers to settle the boundary,
   and all other pending disputes with the United States. …
   Ashburton, formerly Alexander Baring, of the eminent banking
   firm of Baring Brothers, and a son of its original founder,
   was now an old man, who had retired on a princely fortune, and
   being indifferent to fame, aspired only to bring these two
   countries to more friendly terms. Like his father before him,
   he had tact and plain good sense, and understood well the
   American character, having married here during his youth. Lord
   Ashburton arrived early the next April, and on the 13th of
   June entered upon the duties of his mission.
{3379}
   Maine and Massachusetts, the States most interested in the
   disputed boundary, sent commissioners of their own to yield an
   assent in this branch of the business. The whole business as
   conducted at our capital had an easy and informal character.
   Webster and Lord Ashburton represented alone their respective
   governments; no protocols were used, nor formal records; and
   the correspondence and official interviews went on after a
   friendly fashion in the heat of summer, and while Congress was
   holding its long regular session. … This Washington or
   Ashburton treaty, as it is called to this day, bore date of
   the day [August 9] when it was formally signed. It passed by
   the Oregon or north-western boundary, a point on which harmony
   was impossible, and this was the most pregnant omission of
   all; it passed by the 'Caroline' affair; it ignored, too, the
   'Creole' case, for Great Britain would not consent to
   recognize the American claim of property in human beings. Nor,
   on the other side, were the debts of delinquent States assumed
   by the United States, as many British creditors had desired.
   Mutual extradition in crimes under the law of nations, and the
   delivery of fugitives from justice, were stipulated. But the
   two chief features of this treaty were: a settlement of the
   boundary between Great Britain and the United States on the
   north-east, extending westward beyond the great lakes, and a
   cruising convention for the mutual suppression of the
   slave-trade. As to the northeast territory in dispute, which
   embraced some 12,000 square miles, seven-twelfths, or about as
   much as the King of the Netherlands had awarded, were set off
   to the United States; Great Britain taking the residue and
   securing the highlands she desired which frown upon the
   Canadian Gibraltar, and a clear though circuitous route
   between Quebec and Halifax. Our government was permitted to
   carry timber down the St. John's River, and though becoming
   bound to pay Maine and Massachusetts $300,000 for the strip of
   territory relinquished to Great Britain, gained in return
   Rouse's Point, on Lake Champlain, of which an exact survey
   would have deprived us. By the cruising convention clause,
   which the President himself bore a conspicuous part in
   arranging, the delicate point of 'right of search' was
   avoided; for instead of trusting Great Britain as the police
   of other nations for suppressing the African slave-trade, each
   nation bound itself to do its full duty by keeping up a
   sufficient squadron on the African coast. It so happened that
   Great Britain, by softening the old phrase 'right of search'
   into 'right of visitation,' had been inducing other nations to
   guarantee this police inspection of suspected slave vessels.
   In December, 1841, ambassadors of the five great European
   powers arranged in London a quintuple league of this
   character. But France, hesitating to confirm such an
   arrangement, rejected that league when the Ashburton treaty
   was promulgated, and hastened to negotiate in its place a
   cruising convention similar to ours on the slave-trade
   suppression; nor was the right of search, against which
   America had fought in the war of 1812, ever again invoked,
   even as a mutual principle, until by 1862 the United States
   had grown as sincere as Great Britain herself in wishing to
   crush out the last remnant of the African traffic. This
   cruising convention, however, left the abstract question of
   search untouched, and in that light Sir Robert Peel defended
   himself in Parliament. The Ashburton treaty was honorable, on
   the whole, for each side; what it arranged was arranged
   fairly, and what it omitted was deferred without prejudice. …
   So satisfactory, in fine, was the treaty, despite all
   criticism, that the Senate ratified it by more than a
   three-fourths vote, and at a time, too, when the Whig Congress
   was strongly incensed against the administration, and Webster
   had made bitter enemies."

      J. Schouler,
      History of the United States,
      volume 4, chapter 17, pages 400-403.

      ALSO IN:
      D. Webster,
      Diplomatic and Official Papers.

      G. T. Curtis,
      Life of Webster,
      chapters 28-29 (volume 2).

      Treaties and Conventions between the United States and
      other countries (edition of 1889),
      pages 432-438.

      I. Washburn, Jr.,
      The Northeastern Boundary
      (Maine Historical Society Collections, volume 8).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1844.
   Fifteenth Presidential Election.
   Choice of James K. Polk.

   The Texas treaty of annexation had been held in committee in
   the Senate "till the national conventions of the two parties
   should declare themselves. Both conventions met in Baltimore,
   in May, to name candidates and avow policies. The Whigs were
   unanimous as to who should be their candidate: it could be no
   one but Henry Clay. Among the Democrats there was a very
   strong feeling in favor of the renomination of Van Buren. But
   both Clay and Van Buren had been asked their opinion about the
   annexation of Texas, both had declared themselves opposed to
   any immediate step in that direction, and Van Buren's
   declaration cost him the Democratic nomination. He could have
   commanded a very considerable majority in the Democratic
   convention, but he did not command the two-third's majority
   required by its rules, and James K. Polk of Tennessee became
   the nominee of his party." Polk had been Speaker of the House
   of Representatives, and was honorably though slightly known to
   the country. The only new issue presented in the party
   "platforms" was offered by the Democrats in their resolution
   demanding "'the reoccupation of Oregon and the reannexation of
   Texas, at the earliest practicable period'; and this proved
   the makeweight in the campaign. … The 'Liberty Party,' the
   political organization of the Abolitionists, commanded now, as
   it turned out, more than 60,000 votes. … Had the 'Liberty' men
   in New York voted for Clay, he would have been elected."

      W. Wilson,
      Division and Reunion, 1829-1889,
      section 73 (chapter 6).

   Polk received of the popular votes, 1,337,243, against
   1,299,062 cast for Henry Clay, Whig, and 62,300 cast for James
   G. Birney, candidate of the Liberty Party. Electoral vote:
   Polk, 170; Clay, 105; Birney, none. George M. Dallas was
   elected Vice President.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1844-1845,
   The annexation of Texas and the agitation preceding it.

      See TEXAS: A. D. 1836-1845.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1844-1846.
   The Oregon boundary question and its settlement.

      See OREGON: A. D. 1844-1846.

{3380}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1845.
   Preserving the equilibrium between Free and Slave States.
   Admission of Iowa and Florida.

   "The slave-masters … had long pretended that the equilibrium
   between the free and slave States must be preserved at all
   hazards, and twice had they resorted to the violent device of
   arbitrarily linking two measures that had nothing in common
   for that purpose,—in 1820 combining the bills for the
   admission of Missouri and Maine, and in 1836 those for the
   admission of Michigan and Arkansas. In pursuance of the same
   purpose and line of policy, they were now unwilling to receive
   without a consideration the free State of Iowa, which had
   framed a constitution in the autumn of 1844, and was asking
   for admission. Some makeweight must be found before this
   application could be complied with. This they managed to
   discover in an old constitution, framed by the Territory of
   Florida five years before. Though Florida was greatly
   deficient in numbers, and her constitution was very
   objectionable in some of its features, they seized this
   occasion to press its claims, and to make its admission a
   condition precedent to their consent that Iowa should be
   received. The House Committee on Territories reported in favor
   of the admission of the two in a single measure. In the
   closing hours of the XXVIIIth Congress the bill came up for
   consideration. … The constitution of Florida not only
   expressly denied to the legislature the power to emancipate
   slaves, but gave it the authority to prevent free colored
   persons from immigrating into the State, or from being
   discharged from vessels in her ports." All attempts to require
   an amendment of the Florida constitution in these particulars
   before recognizing that ill-populated territory as a State,
   were defeated, and the bill admitting Florida and Iowa became
   a law on the 3d of March, 1845.

      H. Wilson,
      History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America,
      volume 2, chapter 1.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1845-1846.
   The Slavery question in the Democratic Party.
   Hunkers and Barnburners.
   The Wilmot Proviso.

   "With Polk's accession and the Mexican war, the schism in the
   Democratic ranks over the extension of American slave
   territory became plainer. Even during the canvass of 1844 a
   circular had been issued by William Cullen Bryant, David
   Dudley Field, John W. Edmonds, and other Van Buren men,
   supporting Polk, but urging the choice of congressmen opposed
   to annexation. Early in the new administration the division of
   New York Democrats into 'Barnburners' and 'Old Hunkers'
   appeared. The former were the strong pro-Van Buren, anti-Texas
   men, or 'radical Democrats,' who were likened to the farmer
   who burned his barn to clear it of rats. The latter were the
   'northern men with southern principles,' the supporters of
   annexation, and the respectable, dull men of easy consciences,
   who were said to hanker after the offices. The Barnburners
   were led by men of really eminent ability and exalted
   character: Silas Wright, then governor, Benjamin F. Butler,
   John A. Dix, chosen in 1845 to the United States senate,
   Azariah C. Flagg, the famous comptroller, and John Van Buren,
   the ex-president's son. … Daniel S. Dickinson and William L.
   Marcy were the chief figures in the Hunker ranks. Polk seemed
   inclined, at the beginning, to favor, or at least to placate,
   the Barnburners. … Jackson's death in June, 1845, deprived the
   Van Buren men of the tremendous moral weight which his name
   carried, and which might have daunted Polk. It perhaps also
   helped to loosen the weight of party ties on the Van Buren
   men. After this the schism rapidly grew. In the fall election
   of 1845 the Barnburners pretty thoroughly controlled the
   Democratic party of the state [of New York] in hostility to
   the Mexican war, which the annexation of Texas had now
   brought. Samuel J. Tilden of Columbia county, and a profound
   admirer of Van Buren, became one of their younger leaders. Now
   arose the strife over the 'Wilmot proviso,' in which was
   embodied the opposition to the extension of slavery into new
   territories. Upon this proviso the modern Republican party was
   formed eight years later; upon it, fourteen years later,
   Abraham Lincoln was chosen president; and upon it began the
   war for the Union, out of whose throes came the vastly grander
   and unsought beneficence of complete emancipation. David
   Wilmot was a Democratic member of Congress from Pennsylvania;
   in New York he would have been a Barnburner. In 1846 a bill
   was pending to appropriate $3,000,000 for use by the president
   in a purchase of territory from Mexico as part of a peace.
   Wilmot proposed an amendment that slavery should be excluded
   from any territory so acquired. All the Democratic members, as
   well as the Whigs from New York, and most strongly the Van
   Buren or Wright men, supported the proviso. The Democratic
   legislature [of New York] approved it by the votes of the
   Whigs with the Barnburners and the Soft Hunkers, the latter
   being Hunkers less friendly to slavery. It passed the house at
   Washington, but was rejected by the senate."

      E. M. Shepard,
      Martin Van Buren,
      chapter 11.

   In the slang nomenclature which New York politics have always
   produced with great fertility Hard-Shell and Soft-Shell were
   terms often used instead of Hunker and Barnburner.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1846.
   The Walker Tariff.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES): A. D. 1846-1861.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1846-1847.
   War with Mexico.
   Conquest of California and New Mexico.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1846; 1846-1847; and 1847;
      also, CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1846-1847;
      and NEW MEXICO: A. D. 1846.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1847.
   Calhoun's aggressive policy of agitation, forcing the
   Slavery issue upon the North.
   His program of disunion.

   "On Friday, the 19th of February [1847], Mr. Calhoun
   introduced into the Semite his new slavery resolutions,
   prefaced by an elaborate speech, and requiring an immediate
   vote upon them. They were in these words: 'Resolved, That the
   territories of the United States belong to the several States
   composing this Union, and are held by them as their joint and
   common property. Resolved, That Congress, as the joint agent
   and representative of the States of this Union, has no right
   to make any law, or do any act whatever, that shall directly,
   or by its effects, make any discrimination between the States
   of this Union, by which any of them shall be deprived of its
   full and equal right in any territory of the United States
   acquired or to be acquired. Resolved, That the enactment of
   any law which should directly, or by its effects, deprive the
   citizens of any of the States of this Union from emigrating,
   with their property, into any of the territories of the United
   States, will make such discrimination, and would, therefore,
   be a violation of the constitution, and the rights of the
   States from which such citizens emigrated, and in derogation
   of that perfect equality which belongs to them as members of
   this Union, and would tend directly to subvert the Union
   itself.
{3381}
   Resolved, That it is a fundamental principle in our political
   creed, that a people, in forming a constitution, have the
   unconditional right to form and adopt the government which
   they may think best calculated to secure their liberty,
   prosperity, and happiness; and that, in conformity thereto, no
   other condition is imposed by the federal constitution on a
   State, in order to be admitted into this Union, except that
   its constitution shall be republican; and that the imposition
   of any other by Congress would not only be in violation of the
   constitution, but in direct conflict with the principle on
   which our political system rests.' These resolutions, although
   the sense is involved in circumlocutory phrases, are
   intelligible to the point, that Congress has no power to
   prohibit slavery in a territory, and that the exercise of such
   a power would be a breach of the constitution, and leading to
   the subversion of the Union. … Mr. Calhoun demanded the prompt
   consideration of his resolutions, giving notice that he would
   call them up the next day and press them to a speedy and final
   vote. He did call them up, but never called for the vote, nor
   was any ever had. … In the course of this year, and some
   months after the submission of his resolutions in the Senate
   denying the right of Congress to abolish slavery in a
   territory, Mr. Calhoun wrote a letter to a member of the
   Alabama Legislature, which furnishes the key to unlock his
   whole system of policy in relation to the slavery agitation,
   and its designs, from his first taking up the business in
   Congress in the year 1835, down to the date of the letter; and
   thereafter. The letter was in reply to one asking his opinion
   'as to the steps which should be taken' to guard the rights of
   the South. … It opens with this paragraph: 'I am much
   gratified with the tone and views of your letter, and concur
   entirely in the opinion you express, that instead of shunning,
   we ought to court the issue with the North on the slavery
   question. I would even go one step further, and add that it is
   our duty—due to ourselves, to the Union, and our political
   institutions, to force the issue on the North. We are now
   stronger relatively than we shall be hereafter, politically
   and morally. Unless we bring on the issue, delay to us will be
   dangerous indeed. It is the true policy of those enemies who
   seek our destruction. Its effects are, and have been, and will
   be to weaken us politically and morally, and to strengthen
   them. Such has been my opinion from the first. Had the South,
   or even my own State backed me, I would have forced the issue
   on the North in 1835, when the spirit of abolitionism first
   developed itself to any considerable extent. It is a true
   maxim, to meet danger on the frontier, in politics as well as
   war. Thus thinking, I am of the impression, that if the South
   act as it ought, the Wilmot Proviso, instead of proving to be
   the means of successfully assailing us and our peculiar
   institution, may be made the occasion of successfully
   asserting our equality and rights, by enabling us to force the
   issue on the North. Something of the kind was indispensable to
   rouse and unite the South. On the contrary, if we should not
   meet it as we ought, I fear, greatly fear, our doom will be
   fixed. It would prove that we either have not the sense or
   spirit to defend ourselves and our institutions.' The phrase
   'forcing the issue' is here used too often, and for a purpose
   too obvious, to need remark. The reference to his movement in
   1835 confirms all that was said of that movement at the time
   by senators from both sections of the Union. … At that time
   Mr. Calhoun characterized his movement as defensive—as done in
   a spirit of self-defence: it was then characterized by
   senators as aggressive and offensive: and it is now declared
   in this letter to have been so. He was then openly told that
   he was playing into the hands of the abolitionists, and giving
   them a champion to contend with, and the elevated theatre of
   the American Senate for the dissemination of their doctrines,
   and the production of agitation and sectional division. All
   that is now admitted, with a lamentation that the South, and
   not even his own State, would stand by him then in forcing the
   issue. So that chance was lost. Another was now presented. The
   Wilmot Proviso, so much deprecated in public, is privately
   saluted as a fortunate event, giving another chance for
   forcing the issue. The letter proceeds: 'But in making up the
   issue, we must look far beyond the proviso. It is but one of
   many acts of aggression, and, in my opinion, by no means the
   most dangerous or degrading, though more striking and
   palpable.' … So that, while this proviso was, publicly, the
   Pandora's box which filled the Union with evil, and while it
   was to Mr. Calhoun and his friends the theme of endless
   deprecation, it was secretly cherished as a means of keeping
   up discord, and forcing the issue between the North and the
   South. Mr. Calhoun then proceeds to the serious question of
   disunion, and of the manner in which the issue could be
   forced. 'This brings up the question, how can it be so met,
   without resorting to the dissolution of the Union? … There is,
   in my opinion, but one way in which it can be met; and that is
   … by retaliation.' … Then follows an argument to justify
   retaliation. … Retaliation by closing the ports of the State
   against the commerce of the offending State: and this called a
   constitutional remedy, and a remedy short of disunion. … The
   letter proceeds with further instructions upon the manner of
   executing the retaliation: 'My impression is, that it should
   be restricted to sea-going vessels, which would leave open the
   trade of the valley of the Mississippi to New Orleans by
   river, and to the other Southern cities by railroad; and tend
   thereby to detach the North-western from the North-eastern
   States.' … This confidential letter from Mr. Calhoun to a
   member of the Alabama legislature of 1847, has come to light,
   to furnish the key which unlocks his whole system of slavery
   agitation which he commenced in the year 1835. That system was
   to force issues upon the North under the pretext of
   self-defence, and to sectionalize the South, preparatory to
   disunion, through the instrumentality of sectional
   conventions, composed wholly of delegates from the
   slaveholding States."

      T. H. Benton,
      Thirty Years' View,
      volume 2, chapters 167-168.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1848.
   Peace with Mexico.
   The Treaty of Guadaloupe Hidalgo.
   The acquisition of Territory.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1848.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1848.
   Admission of Wisconsin into the Union.

      See WISCONSIN: A. D. 1805-1848.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1848.
   Increased reservation of public lands for School support.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1785-1880.

{3382}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1848.
   The Free Soil Convention at Buffalo and its nominations.

   The "Barnburner" Democrats of New York, or Free Soilers as
   they began to be called, met in convention at Utica, February
   16, 1848, and chose delegates to the approaching national
   Democratic Convention at Baltimore. In April the Barnburner
   members of the Legislature issued an elaborate address,
   setting forth the Free Soil principles of the Democratic
   fathers. The authors of the address were afterwards known to
   be Samuel J. Tilden and Martin and John Van Buren. The
   national Democratic Convention assembled in May, 1848. "It
   offered to admit the Barnburner and Hunker delegations
   together to cast the vote of the State. The Barnburners
   rejected the compromise as a simple nullification of the vote
   of the State, and then withdrew. Lewis Cass was nominated for
   president, the Wilmot proviso being thus emphatically
   condemned. For Cass had declared in favor of letting the new
   territories themselves decide upon slavery. The Barnburners,
   returning to a great meeting in the City Hall Park at New
   York, cried 'The lash has resounded through the halls of the
   Capitol!' and condemned the cowardice of northern senators who
   had voted with the South. … The delegates issued an address
   written by Tilden, fearlessly calling Democrats to independent
   action. In June a Barnburner convention met at Utica," which
   named Van Buren for the Presidency and called a national
   convention of all Free Soilers to meet at Buffalo, August 9,
   1848. "Charles Francis Adams, the son of John Quincy Adams,
   presided at the Buffalo convention; and in it Joshua R.
   Giddings, the famous abolitionist, and Salmon P. Chase, were
   conspicuous. To the unspeakable horror of every Hunker there
   participated in the deliberations a negro, the Rev. Mr. Ward.
   Butler [Benjamin F., of New York], reported the resolutions in
   words whose inspiration is still fresh and ringing. … At the
   close were the stirring and memorable words: 'We inscribe on
   our banner, Free Soil, Free Speech, Free Labor, and Free Men;
   and under it we will fight on and fight ever, until a
   triumphant victory shall reward our exertions.' Joshua Leavitt
   of Massachusetts, one of the 'blackest' of abolitionists,
   reported to the convention the name of Martin Van Buren for
   president." The nomination was acclaimed with enthusiasm, and
   Charles Francis Adams was nominated for vice-president. "In
   September, John A. Dix, then a Democratic senator, accepted
   the Free-soil nomination for governor of New York. The
   Democratic party was aghast. The schismatics had suddenly
   gained great dignity and importance. … The Whigs had in June
   nominated Taylor, one of the two heroes of the Mexican war. …
   The anti-slavery Whigs hesitated for a time: but Seward of New
   York and Horace Greeley in the New York Tribune finally led
   most of them to Taylor, rather than, as Seward said, engage in
   'guerrilla warfare' under Van Buren. … This launching of the
   modern Republican party was, strangely enough, to include in
   New York few besides Democrats."

      E. M. Shepard,
      Martin Van Buren,
      chapter 11.

   "The Buffalo Convention was one of the more important
   upheavals in the process of political disintegration which
   went steadily on between the years 1844, when the 'Birneyites'
   deprived Henry Clay of the electoral vote of New York, and
   1856, when the Whig party disappeared, and the pro-slavery
   Democracy found itself confronted by the anti-slavery
   Republican organization of the North. In 1848, though the Whig
   party was already doomed, its time had not yet come. The Free
   Soil movement of 1848 was, therefore, premature; and moreover,
   as the result afterwards showed, there was something almost
   ludicrous in a combination of 'Conscience Whigs' of
   Massachusetts, in revolt over the nomination of the
   slave-owning General Taylor, with the 'Barnburning' Democrats
   of New York, intent only upon avenging on Cass the defeat of
   Van Buren. None the less the Free Soil movement of 1848
   clearly foreshadowed the Republican uprising of 1856, and of
   the men who took part in the Buffalo convention an unusually
   large proportion afterwards became prominent as political
   leaders."

      C. F. Adams,
      Richard Henry Dana,
      volume 1, chapter 7.

      ALSO IN:
      H. Wilson,
      History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America,
      volume 2, chapter 13.

      J. W. Schuckers,
      Life of Salmon P. Chase,
      chapter 11.

      R. B. Warden,
      Life of Salmon P. Chase,
      chapter 21.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1848-1849.
   Sixteenth Presidential Election.
   Inauguration and death of General Taylor.

   In the Presidential election of 1848, the Democratic party put
   forward as its candidate Lewis Cass; the Whigs named General
   Zachary Taylor; and the Free Soil Party placed Martin Van
   Buren in nomination. That the Whig Party should again have set
   aside its distinguished leader, Henry Clay, caused great grief
   among his devoted followers and friends. "But there were those
   in it who had grown gray in waiting for office under the
   banner of Mr. Clay, and whose memories were refreshed with
   what was effected by the éclat of military glory under General
   Jackson. It was hard, and might seem ungrateful, to abandon a
   great and long-tried leader. But the military feather waved
   before their eyes, and they were tempted. … It needed a
   leader, or a few leaders to give the signal of defection; and
   they were not wanting. One after another of the great names of
   the party fell off from Mr. Clay and inclined to General
   Taylor; and when the national Whig Convention met at
   Philadelphia, in June, 1848, to nominate a candidate for the
   Presidency, the first ballot showed that seven out of twelve
   of the Kentucky delegation, against the expectations and
   wishes of their constituency, had deserted Mr. Clay, and gone
   over to General Taylor. The influence of this fact was
   great—perhaps decisive. For if Mr. Clay's own State was
   against him, what could be expected of the other States? On
   the fourth ballot General Taylor had 52 majority, and was
   declared the nominee. … In November following, General Taylor
   was elected President of the United States, and Millard
   Fillmore Vice-President. As in the case of General Harrison,
   who died in thirty days after his inauguration, so in the case
   of General Taylor … he, too, died in sixteen months after he
   had entered on the duties of his office."

      C. Colton,
      Life, Correspondence and Speeches of Henry Clay,
      volume 3, chapter 4.

   The popular vote cast at the election was, for Taylor,
   1,360,099; Cass, 1,220,544; for Van Buren, 291,263. The
   electoral vote was, for Taylor, 163; for Cass, 127; for Van
   Buren, none. Millard Fillmore, elected Vice President,
   succeeded to the Presidency on the death of General Taylor,
   July 9, 1850.

      O. O. Howard,
      General Taylor,
      chapters 21-24.

{3383}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850.
   The Seventh Census.

   Total population, 23,191,876, nearly 36 per cent. greater than
   in 1840. The remnant of slavery in the northern States which
   appears in this census, still lingering in New Jersey, was not
   quite extinguished in the succeeding decade. The
   classification and distribution of population was as follows:



North.

                        White.    Free black.   Slave.
California.             91,635        962           0
Connecticut.           363,099      7,693           0
Illinois.              846,034      5,436           0
Indiana.               977,154     11,262           0
Iowa.                  191,881        333           0
Maine.                 581,813      1,356           0
Massachusetts.         985,450      9,064           0
Michigan.              395,071      2,583           0
Minnesota.               6,038         39           0
New Hampshire.         317,456        520           0
New Jersey.            465,509     23,810         236
New York.            3,048,325     49,069           0
Ohio.                1,955,050     25,279           0
Oregon.                 13,087        207           0
Pennsylvania.        2,258,160     53,626           0
Rhode Island.          143,875      3,670           0
Utah.                   11,354          0          26
Vermont.               313,402        718           0
Wisconsin.             304,756        635           0

                    13,269,149    196,262         262

South.

                        White.   Free black.  Slave.
Alabama.               426,514      2,265     342,844
Arkansas.              162,189        608      47,100
Delaware.               71,169     18,073       2,290
District of Columbia.   37,941     10,059       3,687
Florida.                47,203        932      39,310
Georgia.               521,572      2,931     381,682
Kentucky.              761,413     10,011     210,981
Louisiana.             255,491     17,462     244,809
Maryland.              417,943     74,723      90,368
Mississippi.           295,718        930     309,878
Missouri.              592,004      2,618      87,422
New Mexico.             61,547          0           0
North Carolina.        553,028     27,463     288,548
South Carolina.        274,563      8,960     384,984
Tennessee.             756,836      6,422     239,459
Texas.                 154,034        397      58,161
Virginia.              894,800     54,333     472,528

Total                6,283,965    238,187   3,204,051



   The immigration in the decade preceding this census had risen
   to 1,713,251 in number of persons, 1,047,763 coming from the
   British Islands (mostly from Ireland), and 549,739 from other
   parts of Europe.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850.
   Henry Clay's last "Compromise."
   Free California, and the Fugitive Slave Law.
   Webster's Seventh of March Speech
   and Seward's Declaration of the "Higher Law."

   "In 1848 gold was discovered in California. The tide of
   adventurers poured in. They had no slaves to take with them
   and no desire to acquire any. In less than a year the newly
   gathered people outnumbered the population of some of the
   smaller states. They organized a state government with an
   antislavery constitution, and demanded admission into the
   Union. True, the greater part of the proposed state lies north
   of 36° 30' [the dividing line of the Missouri Compromise], but
   its climate, tempered by the Pacific Ocean, is of rare
   mildness. If any part of the newly acquired territory should
   be opened to slavery, it seemed that California was the part
   best suited for it. If California repelled slavery, there was
   small hope that the remainder of the new territory would
   embrace it. Congress debated for ten months over the admission
   of California. The threatened inequality in numbers of the
   free and slave states was the central subject of contention,
   and the Union seemed again in danger of disruption."

      J. S. Landon,
      Constitutional History and Government of the United States,
      lecture 8.

   "One day toward the close of January [January 29, 1850], Henry
   Clay rose from his chair in the Senate Chamber, and waving a
   roll of papers, with dramatic eloquence and deep feeling,
   announced to a hushed auditory that he held in his hand a
   series of resolutions proposing an amicable arrangement of all
   questions growing out of the subject of slavery. Read and
   explained by its author this plan of compromise was to admit
   California, and to establish territorial governments in New
   Mexico, and the other portions of the regions acquired from
   Mexico, without any provisions for or against slavery—to pay
   the debt of Texas and fix her western boundary—to declare
   that it was 'inexpedient' to abolish slavery in the District
   of Columbia, but 'expedient' to put some restrictions on the
   slave trade there, to pass a new and more stringent fugitive
   slave law, and to formally deny that Congress had any power to
   obstruct the slave trade between the States. Upon this plan of
   compromise and the modifications afterward made in it, began
   that long debate, since become historic, which engrossed the
   attention of Congress and the country for eight weary months.
   At the outset, many of those who had threatened 'Disunion,'
   opposed 'Clay's Compromise,' because it did not go far enough,
   while the 'Wilmot Proviso' men were equally resolute in
   opposing it, because it went too far. Seward with many other
   Northern Whigs, adhered to the 'President's Plan' [which
   simply favored the admission of California and New Mexico
   under constitutions which he had invited their people to
   frame], as being a much more just and speedy way of solving
   the problem. Avowing himself unterrified by the threats of
   'Disunion,' he insisted that neither 'Compromise' nor the
   'Fugitive Slave Law' was necessary, and that it was both the
   right and the duty of Congress to admit the Territories as
   free States, to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia,
   and the slave trade between the States. Southern feeling was
   predominant in the Senate Chamber, as it had been for many
   years. Neither of the two great parties was opposed to
   slavery, and the recognized leaders of both were men of
   Southern birth. … Mr. Clay's resolutions, unsatisfactory as
   they were, to anti-slavery men, at first met with objections
   from Southern members. One 'deeply regretted the admission
   that slavery did not exist in the territories.' Several would
   'never assent to the doctrine that slaveholders could not go
   there, taking their property with them.' Some questioned the
   validity of the Mexican decree, abolishing slavery in New
   Spain, and doubted the constitutionality of any attempt on the
   part of Congress to exclude it. Prognostications and threats
   of 'disunion' were freely made.
{3384}
   On the other hand, there began to be signs of a growing
   disposition, on the part of many Northern men, to give up the
   'Proviso' for the sake of peace; and to follow the lead of Mr.
   Clay. Conservative Southern Whigs were quite ready to meet
   these half way. Seward's position was regarded as 'ultra' by
   both classes; and it not unfrequently happened that, on
   questions in the Senate relating to slavery, only three
   Senators, Seward, Chase, and Hale, would be found voting
   together, on one side, while all the other Senators present
   were arrayed against them, on the other. Newspapers, received
   from all parts of the country, showed that elsewhere, as well
   as at the capital, the proposed compromise was an engrossing
   topic. Great meetings were held at the North in support of it.
   State Legislatures took ground, for and against it. Fresh fuel
   was added to the heated discussion by a new 'Fugitive Slave
   Law,' introduced by Senator Mason of Virginia, and by the talk
   of Southern Conventions, and 'Secret Southern Caucuses.' …
   March was an eventful month. Time enough had elapsed for each
   Senator to receive, from the press and people of his State,
   their response, in regard to Clay's proposed compromise.
   Resolutions pro and con had come from different Legislatures.
   … Each of the leaders in senatorial debate felt that the hour
   had come for him to declare whether he was for or against it.
   … Mr. Calhoun, though in failing health, obtained the floor
   for a speech. Everybody awaited it with great interest,
   regarding him as the acknowledged exponent of Southern
   opinion. … An expectant throng filled the Senate Chamber. His
   gaunt figure and attenuated features attested that he had
   risen from a sick bed; but his fiery eyes and unshaken voice
   showed he had no intention of abandoning the contest. In a few
   words he explained that his health would not permit him to
   deliver the speech he had prepared, but that 'his friend the
   Senator behind him (Mason) would read it for him.' Beginning
   by saying that he had 'believed from the first that the
   agitation of the subject of slavery would, if not prevented by
   some timely and effective measure, end in "disunion,"' the
   speech opposed Clay's plan of adjustment; attacked the
   President's plan; adverted to the growing feeling that the
   South could not remain in Union 'with safety and honor';
   pointed out the gradual snapping, one after another, of the
   links which held the Union together, and expressed the most
   gloomy forebodings for the future. Three days later a similar,
   or greater, throng gathered to listen to Webster's great '7th
   of March speech,' which has ever since been recorded as
   marking an era in his life. He rose from his seat near the
   middle of the chamber, wearing his customary blue coat with
   metal buttons, and with one hand thrust into the buff vest,
   stood during his opening remarks, as impassive as a statue;
   but growing slightly more animated as he proceeded. Calm,
   clear, and powerful, his sonorous utterances, while they
   disappointed thousands of his friends at the North, lent new
   vigor to the 'Compromisers,' with whom, it was seen, he would
   henceforth act."

      F. W. Seward,
      Seward at Washington, 1846-1861,
      chapter 16.

   The first and longer part of Mr. Webster's speech was an
   historical review of the slavery question, and an argument
   maintaining the proposition, as he afterwards stated it in a
   few words, that there is "not a square rod of territory
   belonging to the United States the character of which, for
   slavery, or no slavery is not already fixed by some
   irrepealable law." The concluding part of his speech contained
   the passages which caused most grief among and gave most
   offense to his friends and admirers at the North. They are
   substantially comprised in the quotations following,—together
   with his eloquent declamation against the thought of
   secession: Mr. President, in the excited times in which we
   live, there is found to exist a state of crimination and
   recrimination between the North and South. There are lists of
   grievances produced by each; and those grievances, real or
   supposed, alienate the minds of one portion of the country
   from the other, exasperate the feelings, and subdue the sense
   of fraternal affection, patriotic love, and mutual regard. I
   shall bestow a little attention, Sir, upon these various
   grievances existing on the one side and on the other. I begin
   with complaints of the South. I will not answer, further than
   I have, the general statements of the honor·able Senator from
   South Carolina, that the North has prospered at the expense of
   the South in consequence of the manner of administering this
   government, in the collecting of its revenues, and so forth.
   These are disputed topics, and I have no inclination to enter
   into them. But I will allude to other complaints of the South,
   and especially to one which has in my opinion just foundation;
   and that is, that there has been found at the North, among
   individuals and among legislators, a disinclination to perform
   fully their constitutional duties in regard to the return of
   persons bound to service who have escaped into the free
   States. In that respect, the South, in my judgment, is right,
   and the North is wrong. Every member of every Northern
   legislature is bound by oath, like every other officer in the
   country, to support the Constitution of the United States; and
   the article of the Constitution which says to these States
   that they shall deliver up fugitives from service is as
   binding in honor and conscience as any other article. No man
   fulfils his duty in any legislature who sets himself to find
   excuses, evasions, escapes from this constitutional
   obligation. I have always thought that the Constitution
   addressed itself to the legislatures of the States or to the
   States themselves. It says that those persons escaping to
   other States 'shall be delivered up,' and I confess I have
   always been of the opinion that it was an injunction upon the
   States themselves. When it is said that a person escaping into
   another State, and coming therefore within the jurisdiction of
   that State, shall be delivered up, it seems to me the import
   of the clause is, that the State itself, in obedience to the
   Constitution, shall cause him to be delivered up. That is my
   judgment. I have always entertained that opinion, and I
   entertain it now. But when the subject, some years ago, was
   before the Supreme Court of the United States, the majority of
   the judges held that the power to cause fugitives from service
   to be delivered up was a power to be exercised under the
   authority of this government. I do not know, on the whole,
   that it may not have been a fortunate decision. My habit is to
   respect the result of judicial deliberations and the solemnity
   of judicial decisions.
{3385}
   As it now stands, the business of seeing that these fugitives
   are delivered up resides in the power of Congress and the
   national judicature, and my friend at the head of the
   Judiciary Committee has a bill on the subject now before the
   Senate, which with some amendments to it, I propose to
   support, with all its provisions, to the fullest extent. And I
   desire to call the attention of all sober-minded men at the
   North, of all conscientious men, of all men who are not
   carried away by some fanatical idea or some false impression,
   to their constitutional obligations. I put it to all the sober
   and sound minds at the North as a question of morals and a
   question of conscience. What right have they, in their
   legislative capacity or any other capacity, to endeavor to get
   round this Constitution, or to embarrass the free exercise of
   the rights secured by the Constitution to the persons whose
   slaves escape from them? None at all; none at all. Neither in
   the forum of conscience, nor before the face of the
   Constitution, are they, in my opinion, justified in such an
   attempt. … I repeat, therefore, Sir, that here is a
   well-founded ground of complaint against the North, which
   ought to be removed, which it is now in the power of the
   different departments of this government to remove; which
   calls for the enactment of proper laws authorizing the
   judicature of this government, in the several States, to do
   all that is necessary for the recapture of fugitive slaves and
   for their restoration to those who claim them. … Complaint has
   been made against certain resolutions that emanate from
   legislatures at the North, and are sent here to us, not only
   on the subject of slavery in this District, but sometimes
   recommending Congress to consider the means of abolishing
   slavery in the States. I should be sorry to be called upon to
   present any resolutions here which could not be referable to
   any committee or any power in Congress; and therefore I should
   be unwilling to receive from the legislature of Massachusetts
   any instructions to present resolutions expressive of any
   opinion whatever on the subject of slavery, as it exists at
   the present moment in the States, for two reasons: first,
   be·cause I do not consider that the legislature of
   Massachusetts has anything to do with it; and next, because I
   do not consider that I, as her representative here, have
   anything to do with it. It has become, in my opinion, quite
   too common; and if the legislatures of the States do not like
   that opinion, they have a great deal more power to put it down
   than I have to uphold it; It has become in my opinion quite
   too common a practice for the State legislatures to present
   resolutions here on all subjects and to instruct us on all
   subjects. There is no public man that requires instruction
   more than I do, or who requires information more than I do, or
   desires it more heartily; but I do not like to have it in too
   imperative a shape. … Then Sir, there are the Abolition
   societies, of which I am unwilling to speak, but in regard to
   which I have very clear notions and opinions. I do not think
   them useful. I think their operations for the last twenty
   years have produced nothing good or valuable. At the same
   time, I believe thousands of their members to be honest and
   good men, perfectly well-meaning men. They have excited
   feelings; they think they must do something for the cause of
   liberty; and, in their sphere of action, they do not see what
   else they can do than to contribute to an Abolition press, or
   an Abolition society, or to pay an Abolition lecturer. I do
   not mean to impute gross motives even to the leaders of these
   societies, but I am not blind to the consequences of their
   proceedings. I cannot but see what mischiefs their
   interference with the South has produced. And is it not plain
   to every man? Let any gentleman who entertains doubts on this
   point recur to the debates in the Virginia House of Delegates
   in 1832, and he will see with what freedom a proposition made
   by Mr. Jefferson Randolph for the gradual abolition of slavery
   was discussed in that body. Everyone spoke of slavery as he
   thought; very ignominious and disparaging names and epithets
   were applied to it. The debates in the House of Delegates on
   that occasion, I believe, were all published. They were read
   by every colored man who could read, and to those who could
   not read, those debates were read by others. At that time
   Virginia was not unwilling or afraid to discuss this question,
   and to let that part of her population know as much of the
   discussion as they could learn. That was in 1832. As has been
   said by the honorable member from South Carolina, these
   Abolition societies commenced their course of action in 1835.
   It is said, I do not know how true it may be, that they sent
   incendiary publications into the slave States; at any rate,
   they attempted to arouse, and did arouse, a very strong
   feeling; in other words they created great agitation in the
   North against Southern slavery. Well, what was the result? The
   bonds of the slaves were bound more firmly than before, their
   rivets were more strongly fastened. Public opinion, which in
   Virginia had begun to be exhibited against slavery, and was
   opening out for the discussion of the question, drew back and
   shut itself up in its castle. I wish to know whether any body
   in Virginia can now talk openly as Mr. Randolph, Governor
   McDowell, and others talked in 1832, and sent their remarks to
   the press? We all know the fact, and we all know the cause;
   and everything that these agitating people have done has been,
   not to enlarge, but to restrain, not to set free, but to bind
   faster, the slave population of the South. Again, Sir, the
   violence of the Northern press is complained of. The press
   violent! Why, Sir, the press is violent everywhere. There are
   outrageous reproaches in the North against the South, and
   there are reproaches as vehement in the South against the
   North. Sir, the extremists of both parts of this country are
   violent; they mistake loud and violent talk, for eloquence and
   for reason. They think that he who talks loudest reasons best.
   And this we must expect, when the press is free, as it is
   here, and I trust always will be. … Well, in all this I see no
   solid grievance, no grievance presented by the South, within
   the redress of the government, but the single one to which I
   have referred; and that is, the want of a proper regard to the
   injunction of the Constitution for the delivery of fugitive
   slaves. There are also complaints of the North against the
   South. I need not go over them particularly. The first and
   gravest is, that the North adopted the Constitution,
   recognizing the existence of slavery in the States, and
   recognizing the right, to a certain extent, of the
   representation of slaves in Congress, under a state of
   sentiment and expectation which does not now exist; and that,
   by events, by circumstances, by the eagerness of the South to
   acquire territory and extend her slave population, the North
   finds itself, in regard to the relative influence of the South
   and the North, of the free States and the slave States, where
   it never did expect to find itself when they agreed to the
   compact of the Constitution.
{3386}
   They complain, therefore, that, instead of slavery being
   regarded as an evil, as it was then, an evil which all hoped
   would be extinguished gradually, it is now regarded by the
   South as an institution to be cherished, and preserved, and
   extended; an institution which the South has already extended
   to the utmost of her power by the acquisition of new
   territory. Well, then, passing from that, every body in the
   North reads; and every body reads whatsoever the newspapers
   contain; and the newspapers, some of them, especially those
   presses to which I have alluded, are careful to spread about
   among the people every reproachful sentiment uttered by any
   Southern man bearing at all against the North; every thing
   that is calculated to exasperate and to alienate; and there
   are many such things, as every body will admit, from the
   South, or some portion of it, which are disseminated among the
   reading people; and they do exasperate, and alienate, and
   produce a most mischievous effect upon the public mind at the
   North. Sir, I would not notice things of this sort appearing
   in obscure quarters; but one thing has occurred in this debate
   which struck me very forcibly. An honorable member from
   Louisiana addressed us the other day on this subject. I
   suppose there is not a more amiable and worthy gentleman in
   this chamber, nor a gentleman who would be more slow to give
   offence to any body, and he did not mean in his remarks to
   give offence. But what did he say? Why, Sir, he took pains to
   run a contrast between the slaves of the South and the
   laboring people of the North, giving the preference, in all
   points of condition, and comfort, and happiness, to the slaves
   of the South. The honorable member, doubtless, did not suppose
   that he gave any offence, or did any injustice. He was merely
   expressing his opinion. But does he know how remarks of that
   sort will be received by the laboring people of the North?
   Why, who are the laboring people of the North? They are the
   whole North. They are the people who till their own farms with
   their own hands; freeholders, educated men, independent men.
   Let me say, Sir, that five sixths of the whole property of the
   North is in the hands of the laborers of the North; they
   cultivate their farms, they educate their children, they
   provide the means of independence. … There is a more tangible
   and irritating cause of grievance at the North. Free blacks
   are constantly employed in the vessels of the North, generally
   as cooks or stewards. When the vessel arrives at a Southern
   port, these free colored men are taken on shore, by the police
   or municipal authority, imprisoned, and kept in prison till
   the vessel is again ready to sail. This is not only
   irritating, but exceedingly unjustifiable and oppressive. Mr.
   Hoar's mission, some time ago, to South Carolina, was a
   well-intended effort to remove this cause of complaint. The
   North thinks such imprisonments illegal and unconstitutional;
   and as the cases occur constantly and frequently, they regard
   it as a great grievance. Now, Sir, so far as any of these
   grievances have their foundation in matters of law, they can
   be redressed, and ought to be redressed; and so far as they
   have their foundation in matters of opinion, in sentiment, in
   mutual crimination and recrimination, all that we can do is to
   endeavor to allay the agitation, and cultivate a better
   feeling and more fraternal sentiments between the South and
   the North. Mr. President, I should much prefer to have heard
   from every member on this floor declarations of opinion that
   this Union could never be dissolved, than the declaration of
   opinion by any body, that, in any case, under the pressure of
   any circumstances, such a dissolution was possible. I hear
   with distress and anguish the word 'secession,' especially
   when it falls from the lips of those who are patriotic, and
   known to the country, and known all over the world, for their
   political services. Secession! Peaceable secession! Sir, your
   eyes and mine are never destined to see that miracle. The
   dismemberment of this vast country without convulsion! The
   breaking up of the fountains of the great deep without
   ruffling the surface! Who is so foolish, I beg every body's
   pardon, as to expect to see any such thing? Sir, he who sees
   these States, now revolving in harmony around a common centre,
   and expects to see them quit their places and fly off without
   convulsion, may look the next hour to see the heavenly bodies
   rush from their spheres, and jostle against each other in the
   realms of space, without causing the wreck of the universe.
   There can be no such thing as a peaceable secession. Peaceable
   secession is an utter impossibility. Is the great Constitution
   under which we live, covering this whole country, is it to be
   thawed and melted away by secession, as the snows on the
   mountain melt under the influence of a vernal sun, disappear
   almost unobserved, and run off? No, Sir! No, Sir! I will not
   state what might produce the disruption of the Union; but,
   Sir, I see as plainly as I see the sun in heaven what that
   disruption itself must produce; I see that it must produce
   war, and such a war as I will not describe, in its two-fold
   character. Peaceable secession! Peaceable secession! The
   concurrent agreement of all the members of this great republic
   to separate! A voluntary separation, with alimony on one side
   and on the other. Why, what would be the result? Where is the
   line to be drawn? What States are to secede? What is to remain
   American? What am I to be? An American no longer? Am I to
   become a sectional man, a local man, a separatist, with no
   country in common with the gentlemen who sit around me here,
   or who fill the other house of Congress? Heaven forbid! Where
   is the flag of the republic to remain? Where is the eagle
   still to tower? or is he to cower, and shrink, and fall to the
   ground? Why, Sir, our ancestors, our fathers, and our
   grandfathers, those of them that are yet living amongst us
   with prolonged lives, would rebuke and reproach us; and our
   children and our grandchildren would cry out shame upon us, if
   we of this generation should dishonor these ensign of the
   power of the government and the harmony of that Union which is
   every day felt among us with so much joy and gratitude. … Sir,
   nobody can look over the face of this country at the present
   moment, nobody can see where its population is the most dense
   and growing, without being ready to admit, and compelled to
   admit, that ere long the strength of America will be in the
   Valley of the Mississippi.
{3387}
   Well, now, Sir, I beg to inquire what the wildest enthusiast
   has to say on the possibility of cutting that river in two,
   and leaving free States at its source and on it branches, and
   slave States down near its mouth, each forming a separate
   government? … To break up this great government! to dismember
   this glorious country! To astonish Europe with an act of folly
   such as Europe for two centuries has never beheld in any
   government or any people! No, Sir! no, Sir! There will be no
   secession! Gentlemen are not serious when they talk of
   secession."

      Daniel Webster,
      Works,
      volume 5, page 324.

   "The speech, if exactly defined, is, in reality, a powerful
   effort, not for compromise or for the Fugitive Slave Law, or
   any other one thing, but to arrest the whole anti-slavery
   movement, and in that way put an end to the dangers which
   threatened the Union and restore lasting harmony between the
   jarring sections. It was a mad project. Mr. Webster might as
   well have attempted to stay the incoming tide at Marshfield
   with a rampart of sand as to seek to check the anti-slavery
   movement by a speech. Nevertheless, he produced a great
   effect. … The blow fell with terrible force, and here … we
   come to the real mischief which was wrought. The 7th of March
   speech demoralized New England and the whole North. The
   abolitionists showed by bitter anger the pain, disappointment,
   and dismay which this speech brought. The Free-Soil party
   quivered and sank for the moment beneath the shock. The whole
   anti-slavery movement recoiled. The conservative reaction
   which Mr. Webster endeavored to produce came and triumphed.
   Chiefly by his exertions the compromise policy was accepted
   and sustained by the country. The conservative elements
   everywhere rallied to his support, and by his ability and
   eloquence it seemed as if he had prevailed and brought the
   people over to his opinions. It was a wonderful tribute to his
   power and influence, but the triumph was hollow and
   short-lived. He had attempted to compass an impossibility.
   Nothing could kill the principles of human liberty, not even a
   speech by Daniel Webster, backed by all his intellect and
   knowledge, his eloquence and his renown. The anti-slavery
   movement was checked for the time, and pro-slavery democracy,
   the only other positive political force, reigned supreme. But
   amid the falling ruins of the Whig party, and the evanescent
   success of the Native Americans, the party of human rights
   revived; and when it rose again, taught by the trials and
   misfortunes of 1850, it rose with a strength which Mr. Webster
   had never dreamed of."

      H. C. Lodge,
      Daniel Webster,
      chapter 9.

   "A public meeting in Faneuil Hall condemned the action of
   Webster. Theodore Parker, who was one of the principal
   speakers, said: 'I know no deed in American history done by a
   son of New England to which I can compare this but the act of
   Benedict Arnold. … The only reasonable way in which we can
   estimate this speech is as a bid for the presidency.' In the
   main, the Northern Whig press condemned the salient points of
   the speech. … Whittier, in a song of plaintive vehemence
   called 'Ichabod,' mourned for the 'fallen' statesman whose
   faith was lost, and whose honor was dead. … This was the
   instant outburst of opinion; but friends for Webster and his
   cause came with more deliberate reflections. … When the first
   excitement had subsided, the friends of Webster bestirred
   themselves, and soon testimonials poured in, approving the
   position which he had taken. The most significant of them was
   the one from eight hundred solid men of Boston, who thanked
   him for 'recalling us to our duties under the Constitution,'
   and for his 'broad national and patriotic views.' The tone of
   many of the Whig papers changed, some to positive support,
   others to more qualified censure. The whole political
   literature of the time is full of the discussion of this
   speech and its relation to the compromise. It is frequently
   said that a speech in Congress does not alter opinions; that
   the minds of men are determined by set political bias or
   sectional considerations. This was certainly not the case in
   1850. Webster's influence was of the greatest weight in the
   passage of the compromise measures, and he is as closely
   associated with them as is their author. Clay's adroit
   parliamentary management was necessary to carry them through
   the various and tedious steps of legislation. But it was
   Webster who raised up for them a powerful and much-needed
   support from Northern public sentiment. At the South the
   speech was cordially received; the larger portion of the press
   commended it with undisguised admiration. … On the 11th of
   March, Seward spoke. … When Seward came to the territorial
   question, his words created a sensation, 'We hold,' he said,
   'no arbitrary authority over anything, whether acquired
   lawfully or seized by usurpation. The Constitution regulates
   our stewardship; the Constitution devotes the domain (i. e.
   the territories not formed into States) to union, to justice,
   to defence, to welfare, and to liberty. But there is a higher
   law than the Constitution, which regulates our authority over
   the domain, and devotes it to the same noble purposes. The
   territory is a part, no inconsiderable part, of the common
   heritage of mankind, bestowed upon them by the Creator of the
   Universe. We are his stewards, and must so discharge our trust
   as to secure in the highest attainable degree their
   happiness.' This remark about 'a higher law,' while far
   inferior in rhetorical force to Webster's 'I would not take
   pains uselessly to reaffirm an ordinance of Nature, nor to
   re-enact the will of God,' was destined to have transcendent
   moral influence. A speech which can be condensed into an
   aphorism is sure to shape convictions. These, then, are the
   two maxims of this debate; the application of them shows the
   essential points of the controversy."

      J. F. Rhodes,
      History of the United States from the Compromise of 1850.
      volume 1, chapter 2.

   In the political controversies which accompanied and followed
   the introduction of the Compromise measures, the Whigs who
   supported the Compromise were called "Silver-Grays," or
   "Snuff-Takers," and those who opposed it were called
   "Woolly-Heads," or "Seward-Whigs."

{3388}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850.
   Mr. Clay's last compromise.
   The Omnibus Bill.
   The Fugitive Slave Law as passed.

   On the 17th of April, "a select committee of the Senate,
   headed by Mr. Clay, reported a bill consisting of 39 sections,
   embodying most of the resolutions which had been discussed.
   From its all-comprehensive nature it was called the Omnibus
   Bill. The points comprehended in the omnibus bill were as
   follows:

   1st. When new states formed out of Texas present themselves,
   it shall be the duty of Congress to admit them;

   2d. The immediate admission of California, with the boundaries
   which she has proposed;

   3d. The establishment of territorial governments for Utah and
   New Mexico, without the Wilmot proviso;

   4th. The combination of points 2 and 3 in one bill;

   5th. The excission from Texas of all New Mexico, rendering
   therefor a pecuniary equivalent;

   6th. The enactment of a law for the effectual rendition of
   fugitive slaves escaping into the free states;

   7th. No interference with slavery in the District of Columbia,
   but the slave trade therein should be abolished, under heavy
   penalties.

   This bill was discussed until the last of July, and then
   passed by the Senate, but it had been so pruned by successive
   amendments that it contained only a provision for the
   organization of a territorial government for Utah. In this
   condition it was sent to the House. There, as a whole, the
   bill was rejected, but its main heads were passed in August as
   separate bills, and were designated the compromise measures of
   1850, and, in their accepted shape, required:

   (1) Utah and New Mexico to be organized into territories,
   without reference to slavery;

   (2) California to be admitted as a free state;

   (3) $10,000,000 to be paid to Texas for her claim to New
   Mexico;

   (4) fugitive slaves to be returned to their masters; and

   (5) the slave trade to be abolished in the District of
   Columbia.

   The compromises were received by the leaders of the two great
   parties as a final settlement of the vexed questions which had
   so long troubled Congress and agitated the country, but the
   storm was only temporarily allayed. In accordance with these
   measures California became a state of the Union September 9,
   1850. The most important feature of this bill, in its bearing
   upon future struggles and conflicts, was the fugitive slave
   law. … In the midst of the discussion of these topics occurred
   the death of the President, July 9, 1850, one year and four
   months after his inauguration. … Mr. Fillmore was inaugurated
   on the 10th of July, 1850. He departed from the policy of his
   predecessor, organized a new cabinet, used his influence in
   favor of the compromise measures," and gave his signature to
   the Fugitive Slave Law.

      W. R. Houghton,
      History of American Politics,
      chapter 15.

   "It was apparent to everyone who knew anything of the
   sentiments of the North that this law could not be executed to
   any extent. Seward had truly said that if the South wished
   their runaway negroes returned they must alleviate, not
   increase, the rigors of the law of 1793; and to give the
   alleged fugitive a jury trial, as Webster proposed, was the
   only possible way to effect the desired purpose. If we look
   below the surface we shall find a strong impelling motive of
   the Southern clamor for this harsh enactment other than the
   natural desire to recover lost property. Early in the session
   it took air that a part of the game of the disunionists was to
   press a stringent fugitive slave law, for which no Northern
   man could vote; and when it was defeated, the North would be
   charged with refusing to carry out a stipulation of the
   Constitution. Douglas stated in the Senate that while there
   was some ground for complaint on the subject of surrender of
   fugitives from service, it had been greatly exaggerated. The
   excitement and virulence were not along the line bordering on
   the free and slave States, but between Vermont and South
   Carolina, New Hampshire and Alabama, Connecticut and
   Louisiana. Clay gave vent to his astonishment that Arkansas,
   Louisiana, Georgia, and South Carolina, States which very
   rarely lost a slave, demanded a stricter law than Kentucky,
   which lost many. After the act was passed Senator Butler, of
   South Carolina, said: 'I would just as soon have the law of
   1793 as the present law, for any purpose, so far as regards
   the reclamation of fugitive slaves;' and another Southern
   ultra never thought it would be productive of much good to his
   section. Six months after the passage of the law, Seward
   expresses the matured opinion 'that political ends—merely
   political ends—and not real evils, resulting from the escape
   of slaves, constituted the prevailing motives to the
   enactment.'"

      J. F. Rhodes,
      History of the United States from the Compromise of 1850,
      chapter 2 (volume 1).

   "The fugitive-slave law was to make the citizens of the Free
   States do for the slave-holders what not a few of the
   slave-holders were too proud to do for themselves. Such a law
   could not but fail. But then it would increase the
   exasperation of the slave-holders by its failure, while
   exasperating the people of the Free States by the attempts at
   enforcement. Thus the compromise of 1850, instead of securing
   peace and harmony, contained in the most important of its
   provisions the seeds of new and greater conflicts. One effect
   it produced which Calhoun had clearly predicted when he warned
   the slave-holding states against compromises as an invention
   of the enemy: it adjourned the decisive conflict until the
   superiority of the North over the South in population and
   material resources was overwhelming."

      C. Schurz,
      Life of Henry Clay,
      chapter 26 (volume 2).

      ALSO IN:
      H. von Holst,
      Constitutional and Political History of the United States,
      volume 3, chapters 15-16.

      H. Clay,
      Life, Correspondence, and Speeches; edited by Colton,
      volume 6.

      W. H. Seward,
      Works,
      volume 1, pages 51-131.
      and volume 4.

      J. S. Pike,
      First Blows of the Civil War,
      pages 1-98.

      H.Wilson,
      History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power,
      volume 2, chapters 18-28.

      J. F. Rhodes,
      History of the United States from the Compromise of 1850,
      chapter. 2 (volume 1).

      See, also, HIGHER LAW DOCTRINE.

   The following is the complete text of the Fugitive Slave Law:
   "An act to amend, and supplementary to, the Act entitled 'An
   Act respecting Fugitives from Justice, and Persons escaping
   from the Service of their Masters,' approved February twelfth,
   one thousand seven hundred and ninety-three.

   Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
   the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
   persons who have been, or may hereafter be, appointed
   commissioners, in virtue of any act of Congress, by the
   Circuit Courts of the United States, and who, in consequence
   of such appointment, are authorized to exercise the powers
   that any justice of the peace, or other magistrate of any of
   the United States, may exercise in respect to offenders for
   any crime or offence against the United States, by arresting,
   imprisoning, or bailing the same under and by virtue of the
   thirty-third section of the act of the twenty-fourth of
   September seventeen hundred and eighty-nine, entitled 'An Act
   to establish the judicial courts of the United States,' shall
   be, and are hereby, authorized and required to exercise and
   discharge all the powers and duties conferred by this act.

{3389}

   SECTION 2. And be it further enacted, That the Superior Court
   of each organized Territory of the United States shall have
   the same power to appoint commissioners to take
   acknowledgments of bail and affidavits, and to take
   depositions of witnesses in civil causes, which is now
   possessed by the Circuit Court of the United States; and all
   commissioners who shall hereafter be appointed for such
   purposes by the Superior Court of any organized Territory of
   the United States, shall possess all the powers, and exercise
   all the duties, conferred by law upon the commissioners
   appointed by the Circuit Courts of the United States for
   similar purposes, and shall moreover exercise and discharge
   all the powers and duties conferred by this act.

   SECTION 3. And be it further enacted, That the Circuit Courts
   of the United States, and the Superior Courts of each
   organized Territory of the United States, shall from time to
   time enlarge the number of commissioners, with a view to
   afford reasonable facilities to reclaim fugitives from labor,
   and to the prompt discharge of the duties imposed by this act.

   SECTION 4. And be it further enacted, That the commissioners
   above named shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the judges
   of the Circuit and District Courts of the United States, in
   their respective circuits and districts within the several
   States, and the judges of the Superior Courts of the
   Territories, severally and collectively, in term-time and
   vacation; and shall grant certificates to such claimants, upon
   satisfactory proof being made, with authority to take and
   remove such fugitives from service or labor, under the
   restrictions herein contained, to the State or Territory from
   which such persons may have escaped or fled.

   SECTION 5. And be it further enacted, That it shall be the
   duty of all marshals and deputy marshals to obey and execute
   all warrants and precepts issued under the provisions of this
   act, when to them directed; and should any marshal or deputy
   marshal refuse to receive such warrant, or other process, when
   tendered, or to use all proper means diligently to execute the
   same, he shall, on conviction thereof, be fined in the sum of
   one thousand dollars, to the use of such claimant, on the
   motion of such claimant by the Circuit or District Court for
   the district of such marshal; and after arrest of such
   fugitive, by such marshal or his deputy, or whilst at any time
   in his custody under the provisions of this act, should such
   fugitive escape, whether with or without the assent of such
   marshal or his deputy, such marshal shall be liable, on his
   official bond, to be prosecuted for the benefit of such
   claimant, for the full value of the service or labor of said
   fugitive in the State, Territory, or District whence he
   escaped: and the better to enable the said commissioners, when
   thus appointed, to execute their duties faithfully and
   efficiently, in conformity with the requirements of the
   Constitution of the United States and of this act, they are
   hereby authorized and empowered, within their counties
   respectively, to appoint, in writing under their hands, any
   one or more suitable persons, from time to time, to execute
   all such warrants and other process as may be issued by them
   in the lawful performance of their respective duties; with
   authority to such commissioners, or the persons to be
   appointed by them, to execute process as aforesaid, to summon
   and call to their aid the bystanders, or posse comitatus of
   the proper county, when necessary to insure a faithful
   observance of the clause of the Constitution referred to, in
   conformity with the provisions of this act; and all good
   citizens are hereby commanded to aid and assist in the prompt
   and efficient execution of this law, whenever their services
   may be required, as aforesaid, for that purpose; and said
   warrants shall run, and be executed by said officers, anywhere
   in the State within which they are issued.

   SECTION 6. And be it further enacted, That when a person held
   to service or labor in any State or Territory of the United
   States, has heretofore or shall hereafter escape into another
   State or Territory of the United States, the person or persons
   to whom such service or labor may be due, or his, her, or
   their agent or attorney, duly authorized, by power of
   attorney, in writing, acknowledged and certified under the
   seal of some legal officer or court of the State or Territory
   in which the same may be executed, may pursue and reclaim such
   fugitive person, either by procuring a warrant from some one
   of the courts, judges, or commissioners aforesaid, of the
   proper circuit, district, or county, for the apprehension of
   such fugitive from service or labor, or by seizing and
   arresting such fugitive, where the same can be done without
   process, and by taking, or causing such person to be taken,
   forthwith before such court, judge, or commissioner, whose
   duty it shall be to hear and determine the case of such
   claimant in a summary manner; and upon satisfactory proof
   being made, by deposition or affidavit, in writing, to be
   taken and certified by such court, judge, or commissioner, or
   by other satisfactory testimony, duly taken and certified by
   some court, magistrate, justice of the peace, or other legal
   officer authorized to administer an oath and take depositions
   under the laws of the State or Territory from which such
   person owing service or labor may have escaped, with a
   certificate of such magistracy or other authority, as
   aforesaid, with the seal of the proper court or officer
   thereto attached, which seal shall be sufficient to establish
   the competency of the proof, and with proof, also by
   affidavit, of the identity of the person whose service or
   labor is claimed to be due as aforesaid, that the person so
   arrested does in fact owe service or labor to the person or
   persons claiming him or her, in the State or Territory from
   which such fugitive may have escaped as aforesaid, and that
   said person escaped, to make out and deliver to such claimant,
   his or her agent or attorney, a certificate setting forth the
   substantial facts as to the service or labor due from such
   fugitive to the claimant, and of his or her escape from the
   State or Territory in which such service or labor was due, to
   the State or Territory in which he or she was arrested, with
   authority to such claimant, or his or her agent or attorney,
   to use such reasonable force and restraint as may be
   necessary, under the circumstances of the case, to take and
   remove such fugitive person back to the State or Territory
   whence he or she may have escaped as aforesaid. In no trial or
   hearing under this act shall the testimony of such alleged
   fugitive be admitted in evidence; and the certificates in this
   and the first [fourth] section mentioned, shall be conclusive
   of the right of the person or persons in whose favor granted,
   to remove such fugitive to the State or Territory from which
   he escaped, and shall prevent all molestation of such person
   or persons by any process issued by any court, judge,
   magistrate, or other person whomsoever.

{3390}

   SECTION 7. And be it further enacted, That any person who
   shall knowingly and willingly obstruct, hinder, or prevent
   such claimant, his agent or attorney, or any person or persons
   lawfully assisting him, her, or them, from arresting such a
   fugitive from service or labor, either with or without process
   as aforesaid, or shall rescue, or attempt to rescue, such
   fugitive from service or labor, from the custody of such
   claimant, his or her agent or attorney, or other person or
   persons lawfully assisting as aforesaid, when so arrested,
   pursuant to the authority herein given and declared; or shall
   aid, abet, or assist such person so owing service or labor as
   aforesaid, directly or indirectly, to escape from such
   claimant, his agent or attorney, or other person or persons
   legally authorized as aforesaid; or shall harbor or conceal
   such fugitive, so as to prevent the discovery and arrest of
   such person, after notice or knowledge of the fact that such
   person was a fugitive from service or labor as aforesaid,
   shall, for either of said offences, be subject to a fine not
   exceeding one thousand dollars, and imprisonment not exceeding
   six months, by indictment and conviction before the District
   Court of the United States for the district in which such
   offence may have been committed, or before the proper court of
   criminal jurisdiction, if committed within any one of the
   organized Territories of the United States; and shall moreover
   forfeit and pay, by way of civil damages to the party injured
   by such illegal conduct, the sum of one thousand dollars, for
   each fugitive so lost as aforesaid, to be recovered by action
   of debt, in any of the District or Territorial Courts
   aforesaid, within whose jurisdiction the said offence may have
   been committed.

   SECTION 8. And be it further enacted, That the marshals, their
   deputies, and the clerks of the said District and Territorial
   Courts, shall be paid, for their services, the like fees as
   may be allowed to them for similar services in other cases;
   and where such services are rendered exclusively in the
   arrest, custody, and delivery of the fugitive to the claimant,
   his or her agent or attorney, or where such supposed fugitive
   may be discharged out of custody for the want of sufficient
   proof as aforesaid, then such fees are to be paid in the whole
   by such claimant, his agent or attorney; and in all cases
   where the proceedings are before a commissioner, he shall be
   entitled to a fee of ten dollars in full for his services in
   each case, upon the delivery of the said certificate to the
   claimant, his or her agent or attorney; or a fee of five
   dollars in cases where the proof shall not, in the opinion of
   such commissioner, warrant such certificate and delivery,
   inclusive of all services incident to such arrest and
   examination, to be paid, in either case, by the claimant, his
   or her agent or attorney. The person or persons authorized to
   execute the process to be issued by such commissioners for the
   arrest and detention of fugitives from service or labor as
   aforesaid, shall also be entitled to a fee of five dollars
   each for each person he or they may arrest and take before any
   such commissioner as aforesaid, at the instance and request of
   such claimant, with such other fees as may be deemed
   reasonable by such commissioner for such other additional
   services as may be necessarily performed by him or them; such
   as attending at the examination, keeping the fugitive in
   custody, and providing him with food and lodging during his
   detention, and until the final determination of such
   commissioner; and, in general, for performing such other
   duties as may be required by such claimant, his or her
   attorney or agent, or commissioner in the premises, such fees
   to be made up in conformity with the fees usually charged by
   the officers of the courts of justice within the proper
   district or county, as near as may be practicable, and paid by
   such claimants, their agents or attorneys, whether such
   supposed fugitives from service or labor be ordered to be
   delivered to such claimants by the final determination of such
   commissioners or not.

   SECTION 9. And be it further enacted, That, upon affidavit
   made by the claimant of such fugitive, his agent or attorney,
   after such certificate has been issued, that he has reason to
   apprehend that such fugitive will be rescued by force from his
   or their possession before he can be taken beyond the limits
   of the State in which the arrest is made, it shall be the duty
   of the officer making the arrest to retain such fugitive in
   his custody, and to remove him to the State whence he fled,
   and there to deliver him to said claimant, his agent, or
   attorney. And to this end, the officer aforesaid is hereby
   authorized and required to employ so many persons as he may
   deem necessary to overcome such force, and to retain them in
   his service so long as circumstances may require. The said
   officer and his assistants, while so employed, to receive the
   same compensation, and to be allowed the same expenses, as are
   now allowed by law for transportation of criminals, to be
   certified by the judge of the district within which the arrest
   is made, and paid out of the treasury of the United States.

   SECTION 10. And be it further enacted, That when any person
   held to service or labor in any State or Territory, or in the
   District of Columbia, shall escape therefrom, the party to
   whom such service or labor shall be due, his, her, or their
   agent or attorney, may apply to any court of record therein,
   or judge thereof in vacation, and make satisfactory proof to
   such court, or judge in vacation, of the escape aforesaid, and
   that the person escaping owed service or labor to such party.
   Whereupon the court shall cause a record to be made of the
   matters so proved, and also a general description of the
   person so escaping, with such convenient certainty as may be;
   and a transcript of such record, authenticated by the
   attestation of the clerk and of the seal of the said court,
   being produced in any other State, Territory, or district in
   which the person so escaping may be found, and being exhibited
   to any judge, commissioner, or other officer authorized by the
   law of the United States to cause persons escaping from
   service or labor to be delivered up, shall be held and taken
   to be full and conclusive evidence of the fact of escape, and
   that the service or labor of the person escaping is due to the
   party in such record mentioned. And upon the production by the
   said party of other and further evidence if necessary, either
   oral or by affidavit, in addition to what is contained in the
   said record of the identity of the person escaping, he or she
   shall be delivered up to the claimant.
{3391}
   And the said court, commissioner, judge, or other person
   authorized by this act to grant certificates to claimants of
   fugitives, shall, upon the production of the record and other
   evidences aforesaid, grant to such claimant a certificate of
   his right to take any such person identified and proved to be
   owing service or labor as aforesaid, which certificate shall
   authorize such claimant to seize or arrest and transport such
   person to the State or Territory from which he escaped:
   Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed as
   requiring the production of a transcript of such record as
   evidence as aforesaid. But in its absence the claim shall be
   heard and determined upon other satisfactory proofs, competent
   in law. Approved, September 18, 1850."

      Statutes at Large,
      ix. 462-465.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850.
   The Clayton-Bulwer Treaty with Great Britain.

      See NICARAGUA: A. D. 1850.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850-1851.
   The Hülsemann Letter.
   Kossuth in America.

   In July, 1850, Daniel Webster became Secretary of State in the
   cabinet of President Fillmore and retained that post until his
   death, in October, 1852. "The best-known incident of this
   period was that which gave rise to the famous 'Hülsemann
   letter.' President Taylor had sent an agent to Hungary to
   report upon the condition of the revolutionary government,
   with the intention of recognizing it if there were sufficient
   grounds for doing so. When the agent arrived, the revolution
   was crushed, and he reported to the President against
   recognition. These papers were transmitted to the Senate in
   March, 1850. Mr. Hülsemann, the Austrian Charge, thereupon
   complained of the action of our administration, and Mr.
   Clayton, then Secretary of State, replied that the mission of
   the agent had been simply to gather information. On receiving
   further instructions from his government, Mr. Hülsemann
   rejoined to Mr. Clayton, and it fell to Mr. Webster to reply,
   which he did on December 21, 1850. The note of the Austrian
   Chargé was in a hectoring and highly offensive tone, and Mr.
   Webster felt the necessity of administering a sharp rebuke.
   'The Hülsemann letter,' as it was called, was, accordingly
   dispatched. It set forth strongly the right of the United
   States and their intention to recognize any de facto
   revolutionary government, and to seek information in all
   proper ways in order to guide their action. … Mr. Webster had
   two objects. One was to awaken the people of Europe to a sense
   of the greatness of this country, the other to touch the
   national pride at home. He did both. … The affair did not,
   however, end here. Mr. Hülsemann became very mild, but he soon
   lost his temper again. Kossuth and the refugees in Turkey were
   brought to this country in a United States frigate. The
   Hungarian hero was received with a burst of enthusiasm that
   induced him to hope for substantial aid, which was, of course,
   wholly visionary. The popular excitement made it difficult for
   Mr. Webster to steer a proper course, but he succeeded, by
   great tact, in showing his own sympathy, and, so far as
   possible, that of the government, for the cause of Hungarian
   independence and for its leader, without going too far. … Mr.
   Webster's course, … although carefully guarded, aroused the
   ire of Mr. Hülsemann, who left the country, after writing a
   letter of indignant farewell to the Secretary of State."

      H. C. Lodge,
      Daniel Webster,
      chapter 10.

      ALSO IN:
      D. Webster,
      Works,
      volume 6, pages 488-504.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1851.
   The Lopez Filibustering expedition to Cuba.

      See CUBA: A. D. 1845-1860.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1852.
   Appearance of the Know Nothing or American Party.

   "A new party had by this time risen to active importance in
   American politics. It appeared in 1852, in the form of a
   secret, oath-bound organization, of whose name, nature, and
   objects nothing was told even to its members until they had
   reached its higher degrees. Their consequent declaration that
   they knew nothing about it gave the society its popular name
   of Know Nothings. It accepted the name of the American Party.
   Its design was to oppose the easy naturalization of
   foreigners, and to aid the election of native-born citizens to
   office. Its nominations were made by secret conventions of
   delegates from the various lodges, and were voted for by all
   members under penalty of expulsion in case of refusal. At
   first, by endorsing the nominations of one or other of the two
   great parties, it decided many elections. After the passage of
   the Kansas-Nebraska Bill, the Know Nothing organization was
   adopted by many Southern Whigs who were unwilling to unite
   with the Democracy, and became, for a time, a national party.
   It carried nine of the State elections in 1855, and in 1856
   nominated Presidential candidates. After that time its
   Southern members gradually united with the Democracy, and the
   Know Nothing party disappeared from politics."

      A. Johnston,
      History of American Politics, 2d edition,
      chapter 18, section 4.

   The ritual, rules, etc., of the American, or Know Nothing
   party are given in the following work.

      T. V. Cooper,
      American Politics,
      pages 56-68.

      ALSO IN:
      A. Holmes,
      Parties and their Principles,
      pages 287-295.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1852.
   Seventeenth Presidential Election.
   Franklin Pierce.

   "The question of slavery, in its comprehensive bearings,
   formed the turning point in the presidential canvass of 1852.
   … The national democratic convention which nominated Mr.
   Pierce, unanimously adopted a platform approving the
   compromise of 1850 as the final decision of the slavery
   question. The Whig party were widely divided on the question
   of acquiescence in the compromise measures, and still more at
   variance in regard to the claims of rival candidates for the
   presidency. Mr. Seward's friends in the free states united in
   the support of General Scott, who had, to a considerable
   extent, stood aloof from the agitations of the last few years.
   On the other hand, the exclusive supporters of the compromise,
   as a condition of party allegiance, were divided between
   Millard Fillmore, at that time acting president, and Daniel
   Webster, secretary of state. The Whig convention met in
   Baltimore on the 17th of June, 1852, two weeks after the
   democratic convention, and nominated General Scott as their
   candidate for president. A large majority of the delegates
   from New York, and a considerable number from other states,
   maintained their opposition to the test resolutions which were
   proposed by the other branch of the party. These resolutions,
   however, were adopted, and a platform was thus established
   resembling, in its main features, that of the democrats. …
   Supported by several advocates of this new platform on the
   ground of his personal popularity, General Scott received the
   nomination.
{3392}
   He was, however, regarded with great suspicion by a large
   number of whigs in the slaveholding states. … Many ardent
   friends of the compromise … refused to rally around General
   Scott, distrusting his fidelity to the compromise platform;
   while a large number of the Whigs of the free states, through
   aversion to the platform, assumed a neutral position or gave
   their support to a third candidate. Another portion of the
   Whig party nominated Mr. Webster, who died [October 24, 1852],
   not only refusing to decline the nomination, but openly
   avowing his disgust with the action of the party."

      G. E. Baker,
      Memoir of William. H. Seward
      (Seward's Works, volume 4).

   "The Democratic convention was held, first, on June 1, 1852,
   at Baltimore. It was a protracted convention, for it did not
   adjourn until the 6th of the month, but it was not very
   interesting. … After a short contest, the two-thirds rule was
   adopted by an overwhelming majority. The struggle over the
   nomination was protracted. On the first ballot, General Cass
   had 116; James Buchanan, 93; William L. Marcy, 27; Stephen A.
   Douglas, 20; Joseph Lane, 13; Samuel Houston, 8; and there
   were 4 scattering. The number necessary to a choice was 188. …
   On the twenty-ninth trial, the votes were: for Cass, 27; for
   Buchanan, 93; for Douglas, 91; and no other candidate had more
   than 26. At this point Cass began to recover his strength, and
   reached his largest number on the thirty-fifth trial, namely,
   131. On that same ballot, Virginia gave 15 votes to Franklin
   Pierce. Mr. Pierce gained 15 more votes on the thirty-sixth
   trial; but at that point his increase ceased, and was then
   slowly resumed, as the weary repetition of balloting without
   effect went on. The forty-eighth trial resulted as follows:
   for Cass, 73; for Buchanan, 28; for Douglas, 33; for Marcy,
   90; for Pierce, 55; for all others, 8. The forty-ninth trial
   was the last. There was a 'stampede' for Pierce, and he
   received 282 votes to 6 for all others. Ten candidates were
   voted for as a candidate for the vice-presidency.—On the
   second ballot, William R. King of Alabama was unanimously
   nominated. … The anti-slavery organization, the Free Soil
   Democrats, though a much less important political factor than
   they had been four years earlier, held their convention in
   Pittsburg on August 11. Henry Wilson of Massachusetts
   presided. John P. Hale of New Hampshire was nominated for
   President, and George W. Julian of Indiana for Vice-President.
   … The canvass was not a very spirited one. All the early
   autumn elections were favorable to the Democrats, and the
   result in November was a crushing defeat of the Whigs in the
   popular vote and one still more decisive in the electoral
   vote. … The popular and electoral votes were as follows."
   Popular vote: Franklin Pierce, 1,601,274; Winfield Scott,
   1,386,580; John P. Hale, 155,825. Electoral vote: Pierce, 254;
   Scott, 42.

      E. Stanwood,
      History of Presidential Elections,
      chapter 18.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1852.
   The appearance of Uncle Tom's Cabin, and its effect.

   "Of the literary forces that aided in bringing about the
   immense revolution in public sentiment between 1852 and 1860,
   we may affirm with confidence that by far the most weighty was
   the influence spread by this book. This story, when published
   [1851-1852] as a serial in the 'National Era,' an anti-slavery
   newspaper at Washington, attracted little attention, but after
   it was given to the world in book form in March, 1852, it
   proved the most successful novel ever written. The author felt
   deeply that the Fugitive Slave law was unjust, and that there
   was cruelty in its execution; this inspired her to pour out
   her soul in a protest against slavery. She thought that if she
   could only make the world see slavery as she saw it, her
   object would be accomplished; she would then have induced
   people to think right on the subject. The book was composed
   under the most disheartening circumstances. Worn out with the
   care of many young children; overstrained by the domestic
   trials of a large household, worried because her husband's
   small income did not meet their frugal needs; eking out the
   poor professor's salary by her literary work in a house too
   small to afford a study for the author—under such conditions
   there came the inspiration of her life. … The effect produced
   by the book was immense. Whittier offered up 'thanks for the
   Fugitive Slave law; for it gave occasion for Uncle Tom's
   Cabin.' Longfellow thought it was one of the greatest triumphs
   in literary history, but its moral effect was a higher triumph
   still. Lowell described the impression which the book made as
   a 'whirl of excitement.' Choate is reported to have said:
   'That book will make two millions of abolitionists.' Garrison
   wrote the author: 'All the defenders of slavery have let me
   alone and are abusing you.'"

      J. F. Rhodes,
      History of the United States from 1850,
      volume 1, pages 278-280.

   Writing only nine months after the publication of "Uncle Tom's
   Cabin," C. F. Briggs, in Putnam's Monthly Magazine, said:
   "Never since books were first printed has the success of Uncle
   Tom been equalled; the history of literature contains nothing
   parallel to it, nor approaching it; it is, in fact, the first
   real success in bookmaking, for all other successes in
   literature were failures when compared with the success of
   Uncle Tom. … There have been a good many books which were
   considered popular on their first appearance, which were
   widely read and more widely talked about. But what were they
   all, compared with Uncle Tom, whose honest countenance now
   overshadows the reading world, like the dark cloud with a
   silver lining. Don Quixote was a popular book on its first
   coming out, and so was Gil Blas, and Richardson's Pamela, and
   Fielding's Tom Jones, and Hannah More's Cœlebs, and Gibbon's
   Decline and Fall; and so were the Vicar of Wakefield, and
   Rasselas, and the Tale of a Tub, and Evelina, the Lady of the
   Lake, Waverley, the Sorrows of Werter, Childe Harold, the Spy,
   Pelham, Vivian Grey, Pickwick, the Mysteries of Paris, and
   Macaulay's History. These are among the most famous books that
   rose suddenly in popular esteem on their first appearance, but
   the united sale of the whole of them, within the first nine
   months of their publication, would not equal the sale of Uncle
   Tom in the same time. … It is but nine months since this Iliad
   of the blacks, as an English reviewer calls Uncle Tom, made
   its appearance among books, and already its sale has exceeded
   a million of copies; author and publisher have made fortunes
   out of it, and Mrs. Stowe, who was before unknown, is as
   familiar a name in all parts of the civilized world as that of
   Homer or Shakspeare. Nearly 200,000 copies of the first edition
   of the work have been sold in the United States, and the
   publishers say they are unable to meet the growing demand.
{3393}
   The book was published on the 20th of last March, and on the
   1st of December there had been sold 120,000 sets of the
   edition in two volumes. 50,000 copies of the cheaper edition
   in one, and 3,000 copies of the costly illustrated edition. …
   They [the publishers] have paid to the author $20,300 as her
   share of the profits on the actual cash sales of the first
   nine months. But it is in England where Uncle Tom has made his
   deepest mark. Such has been the sensation produced by the book
   there, and so numerous have been the editions published, that
   it is extremely difficult to collect the statistics of its
   circulation with a tolerable degree of exactness. But we know
   of twenty rival editions in England and Scotland, and that
   millions of copies have been produced. … We have seen it
   stated that there were thirty different editions published in
   London, within six months of the publication of the work here,
   and one firm keeps 400 men employed in printing and binding
   it. … Uncle Tom was not long in making his way across the
   British Channel, and four rival editions are claiming the
   attention of the Parisians, one under the title of 'le Père
   Tom,' and another of 'la Case de l'Oncle Tom.'"

      Uncle Tomitudes
      (Putnam's Monthly Magazine, January, 1853).

   "In May, 1852. Whittier wrote to Garrison: 'What a glorious
   work Harriet Beecher Stowe has wrought. Thanks for the
   Fugitive Slave Law. Better for slavery that that law had never
   been enacted, for it gave occasion for Uncle Tom's Cabin.' …
   Macaulay wrote, thanking her for the volume, assuring her of
   his high respect for the talents and for the benevolence of
   the writer. Four years later, the same illustrious author,
   essayist, and historian wrote to Mrs. Stowe: 'I have just
   returned from Italy, where your fame seems to throw that of
   all other writers into the shade. There is no place where
   Uncle Tom, transformed into Il Zio Tom, is not to be found.'
   From Lord Carlisle she received a long and earnest epistle, in
   which he says he felt that slavery was by far the 'topping'
   question of the world and age, and that he returned his 'deep
   and solemn thanks to Almighty God, who has led and enabled you
   to write such a book.' The Rev. Charles Kingsley, in the midst
   of illness and anxiety, sent his thanks, saying: 'Your book
   will do more to take away the reproach from your great and
   growing nation than many platform agitations and
   speechifyings.' Said Lord Palmerston, 'I have not read a novel
   for thirty years; but I have read that book three times, not
   only for the story, but for the statesmanship of it.' Lord
   Cockburn declared: 'She has done more for humanity than was
   ever before accomplished by any single book of fiction.'
   Within a year Uncle Tom's Cabin was scattered all over the
   world. Translations were made into all the principal
   languages, and into several obscure dialects, in number
   variously estimated from twenty to forty. The librarian of the
   British Museum, with an interest and enterprise which might
   well put our own countrymen to blush, has made a collection
   which is unique and very remarkable in the history of books.
   American visitors may see there thirty-five editions (Uncle
   Tom's Cabin) of the original English, and the complete text,
   and eight of abridgments and adaptations. Of translations into
   different languages there are nineteen, viz.: Armenian, one;
   Bohemian, one; Danish, two distinct versions; Dutch, one;
   Flemish, one; French, eight distinct versions, and two dramas;
   German, five distinct versions, and four abridgments;
   Hungarian, one complete version, one for children, and one
   versified abridgment; Illyrian, two distinct versions;
   Italian, one; Polish, two distinct versions; Portuguese, one;
   Roman, or modern Greek, one; Russian, two distinct versions;
   Spanish, six distinct versions; Swedish, one; Wallachian, two
   distinct versions; Welsh, three distinct versions."

      Mrs. F. T. McCray,
      Uncle Tom's Cabin
      (Magazine of American History, January, 1890).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1852-1854.
   The Perry Expedition.
   Opening of intercourse with Japan.

      See JAPAN: A. D. 1852-1888.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1853.
   The Gadsden Purchase of Arizona.

      See ARIZONA: A. D. 1853.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1854.
   The Kansas-Nebraska Bill.
   Repeal of the Missouri Compromise.
   The doctrine of "Squatter Sovereignty."

   "The slavery agitation apparently had died away both in
   congress and throughout the country. This calm, however, was
   doomed to a sudden interruption. The prospect of … beneficent
   legislation was destroyed by the introduction of a measure
   which at once supplanted all other subjects in congress and in
   the political interests of the people. This was the novel and
   astounding proposal of Mr. Douglas [Senator Stephen A.
   Douglas, of Illinois], in relation to the Kansas and Nebraska
   territories. … The measure … alluded to … was a provision in
   the bill for the organization of a territory in Nebraska,
   declaring that the states which might at any future time be
   formed in the new territory should leave the question of
   slavery to be decided by the inhabitants thereof on the
   adoption of their constitution,—[this being in accordance with
   the doctrine which its advocates styled 'Popular Sovereignty,'
   but which took the commoner name of 'Squatter Sovereignty'
   from its opponents]. This provision was, as explained by the
   bill itself, the application of the compromise policy of 1850
   to Nebraska, and, as was evident, virtually repealed the
   Missouri Compromise of 1820, which guarantied that slavery
   should be forever excluded from the territory in question.
   But, in order to bring the supporters of the bill and its
   opponents to a more decided test, an amendment was moved
   expressly annulling that portion of the Missouri Compromise
   which related to the subject. Mr. Douglas, after some
   deliberation, accepted the amendment, and modified his plan so
   far as to introduce a new bill for the organization of
   Nebraska and Kansas within the same limits, instead of the
   territory of Nebraska alone, according to the original
   programme. The administration lost no time in adopting this
   policy as their own. It was at first proposed to hasten the
   passage of the bill through both houses so rapidly as to
   prevent any remonstrance on the part of the people. But the
   opponents of the measure, including Mr. Seward, Mr. Chase, Mr.
   Sumner, Mr. Truman Smith, Mr. Wade, Mr. Everett, Mr. Bell, Mr.
   Houston, and Mr. Fessenden, combined against it such an
   earnest and effective resistance that the attention of the
   country was aroused, and an indignant protest called forth
   from the people of the free states. The bill, however, passed
   the senate on the 4th day of March, 1854, after a discussion
   which had occupied nearly every day of the session since the
   23d of January. …
{3394}
   On the 21st of March, Mr. Richardson of Illinois, in the
   house, moved to refer the bill, as it came from the senate, to
   the committee on territories, of which he was the chairman.
   Mr. Francis B. Cutting, of New York, moved that it be sent to
   the committee of the whole, where it could be freely
   discussed. His motion was carried, after a severe struggle, by
   a vote of 110 to 95. This was regarded as a triumph of the
   enemies of the bill and inspired hopes of its ultimate defeat
   in the house. On the 22d of May, after a most exciting
   contest, lasting nearly two months, in committee of the whole,
   Mr. Alex. H. Stephens of Georgia, by an extraordinary
   stratagem in parliamentary tactics, succeeded in closing the
   debate and bringing the bill to a vote in the house, where it
   finally passed, before adjournment, by a vote of 113 to 100."
   Returned to the senate, on account of amendments which had
   been made to it, it passed that body again "by vote of 35 to
   13; and amid the firing of cannon and the shouting of its
   friends, it was sent to the president for his signature, at
   three o'clock in the morning of May 26, 1854. President Pierce
   promptly gave it his approval, and the odious measure became
   the law of the land. Thus was abrogated the Missouri
   Compromise—a law enacted thirty years before with all the
   solemnity of a compact between the free and the slave
   states—and a territory as large as the thirteen original
   states opened to slavery. The act was consummated by the
   cooperation of the north. Originating with a senator from a
   free state, it was passed by a congress containing in each
   branch a majority of members from the free states, and was
   sanctioned by the approval of a free state president. The
   friends of this legislation attempted to defend it on the
   pretence that it was not an original act, but only declaratory
   of the true intent and significance of the compromise measures
   of 1850."

      G. E. Baker,
      Memoir of William H. Seward
      (volume 4 of Seward's Works),
      pages 24-27.

   Senator Douglas' explanation of the reasons on which he
   grounded his Kansas-Nebraska Bill is given in a report made by
   Lieutenant-Colonel Cutts, of conversations held by him with
   the Senator in 1859, and taken down in writing at the time, in
   the exact language of Mr. Douglas. "There was," said Senator
   Douglas, "a necessity for the organization of the Territory,
   which could no longer be denied or resisted. … Mr. Douglas, as
   early as the session of 1843, had introduced a bill to
   organize the Territory of Nebraska, for the purpose of opening
   the line of communication between the Mississippi Valley and
   our possessions on the Pacific Ocean, known as the Oregon
   country, and which was then under the operation of the treaty
   of joint occupation, or rather non occupation, with England,
   and was rapidly passing into the exclusive possession of the
   British Hudson's Bay Fur Company, who were establishing posts
   at every prominent and commanding point in the country. … Mr.
   Douglas renewed the introduction of his bill for the
   organization of Nebraska Territory, each session of Congress,
   from 1844 to 1854, a period of ten years, and while he had
   failed to secure the passage of the act, in consequence of the
   Mexican war intervening, and the slavery agitation which
   ensued, no one had objected to it upon the ground that there
   was no necessity for the organization of the Territory. During
   the discussions upon our Territorial questions during this
   period, Mr. Douglas often called attention to the fact that a
   line of policy had been adopted many years ago, and was being
   executed each year, which was entirely incompatible with the
   growth and development of our country. It had originated as
   early as the administration of Mr. Monroe, and had been
   continued by Mr. Adams, General Jackson, Mr. Van Buren,
   Harrison, and by Tyler, by which treaties had been made with
   the Indians to the east of the Mississippi River, for their
   removal to the country bordering upon the States west of the
   Mississippi or Missouri Rivers, with guaranties in said
   treaties that the country within which these Indians were
   located should never be embraced within any Territory or
   State, or subjected to the jurisdiction of either, so long as
   grass should grow and water should run. These Indian
   settlements, thus secured by treaty, commenced upon the
   northern borders of Texas, or Red River, and were continued
   from year to year westward, until when, in 1844, Mr. Douglas
   introduced his first Nebraska Bill, they had reached the
   Nebraska or Platte River, and the Secretary of War was then
   engaged in the very act of removing Indians from Iowa, and
   settling them in the valley of the Platte River, with similar
   guaranties of perpetuity, by which the road to Oregon was
   forever to be closed. It was the avowed object of this Indian
   policy to form an Indian barrier on the western borders of
   Arkansas, Missouri, and Iowa, by Indian settlements, secured
   in perpetuity by a compact that the white settlements should
   never extend westward of that line. This policy originated in
   the jealousy, on the part of the Atlantic States, of the
   growth and expansion of the Mississippi Valley, which
   threatened in a few years to become the controlling power of
   the nation. … This restrictive system received its first cheek
   in 1844, by the introduction of the Nebraska Bill, which was
   served on the Secretary of War, by its author, on the day of
   its introduction, with a notice that Congress was about to
   organize the Territory, and therefore he must not locate any
   more Indians there. In consequence of this notice, the
   Secretary (by courtesy) suspended his operations until
   Congress should have an opportunity of acting upon the bill;
   and inasmuch as Congress failed to act that session, Mr.
   Douglas renewed his bill and notice to the Secretary each
   year, and thus prevented action for ten years, and until he
   could procure action on the bill. … When Congress assembled at
   the session of 1853-1854, in view of this state of facts, Mr.
   Douglas renewed his Nebraska Act, which was modified, pending
   discussion, by dividing into two Territories, and became the
   Kansas-Nebraska Act. … The jealousies of the two great
   sections of the Union, North and South, had been fiercely
   excited by the slavery agitation. The Southern States would
   never consent to the opening of those Territories to
   settlement, so long as they were excluded by act of Congress
   from moving there and holding their slaves; and they had the
   power to prevent the opening of the country forever, inasmuch
   as it had been forever excluded by treaties with the Indians,
   which could not be changed or repealed except by a two-third
   vote in the Senate.
{3395}
   But the South were willing to consent to remove the Indian
   restrictions, provided the North would at the same time remove
   the Missouri restriction, and thus throw the country open to
   settlement on equal terms by the people of the North and
   South, and leave the settlers at liberty to introduce or
   exclude slavery as they should think proper." The same report
   gives a distinction which Senator Douglas drew between
   "Popular Sovereignty" and "Squatter Sovereignty," as follows:
   "The name of Squatter Sovereignty was first applied by Mr.
   Calhoun, in a debate in the United States Senate in 1848,
   between himself and General Cass, in respect to the right of
   the people of California to institute a government for
   themselves after the Mexican jurisdiction had been withdrawn
   from them, and before the laws of the United States had been
   extended over them. General Cass contended that in such a case
   the people had a right, an inherent and inalienable right, to
   institute a government for themselves and for their own
   protection. Mr. Calhoun replied that, with the exception of
   the native Californians, the inhabitants of that country were
   mere squatters upon the public domain, who had gone there in
   vast crowds, without the authority of law, and were in fact
   trespassers as well as squatters upon the public lands, and to
   recognize their right to set up a government for themselves
   was to assert the doctrine of 'Squatter Sovereignty.' The term
   had no application to an organized Territory under the
   authority of Congress, or to the powers of such organized
   Territory, but was applied solely to an unorganized country
   whose existence was not recognized by law. On the other hand,
   what is called 'Popular Sovereignty' in the Territories, is a
   phrase used to designate the right of the people of an
   organized Territory, under the Constitution and laws of the
   United States, to govern themselves in respect to their own
   internal polity and domestic affairs."

      S. A. Douglas,
      Brief Treatise upon Constitutional and Party Questions
      (reported by J. M. Cutts),
      pages 86-92, and 123-124.

   "The repeal of the Missouri Compromise was the beginning of
   the end, the fatal step of the South on its road to
   destruction. Throughout the North the conviction grew that
   Union and slavery could not exist much longer together. On the
   4th of July, 1854, Garrison publicly burned a copy of the
   Constitution of the United States with the words, 'The Union
   must be dissolved!' He represented only an extreme sentiment.
   But the people at large began to calculate the value of this
   Union for which so many sacrifices had been made. Slavery
   became odious to many persons hitherto indifferent to the
   subject, on the ground that it persistently and selfishly
   placed the Union in peril."

      B. Tuckerman,
      William Jay and the Constitutional Movement for
      the Abolition of Slavery,
      chapter 7.

      ALSO IN:
      M. Van Buren,
      Inquiry into the Origin and Course of Political Parties,
      chapter 8.

      G. T. Curtis,
      Life of James Buchanan,
      chapter 9.

      S. A. Douglas,
      Popular Sovereignty in the Territories
      (Harper's Magazine, September, 1859).

      H. von Holst.
      Constitutional and Political History of the United States,
      volume 4, chapters 6-8.

      H. Greeley,
      History of the Struggle for Slavery Extension,
      chapter 14.

      J. F. Rhodes,
      History of the United States from 1850,
      chapter 5.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1854.
   The Ostend Manifesto.

      See CUBA: A. D. 1845-1860.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1854-1855.
   Solidification of Anti-slavery sentiment in the North.
   The birth of the new Republican Party.

   "The determined purpose of the Slave Power to make slavery the
   predominating national interest was never more clearly
   revealed than by the proposed repeal of the Missouri
   compromise. This was a deliberate and direct assault upon
   freedom. Many, indeed, under the pleas of fraternity and
   loyalty to the Union, palliated and apologized for this breach
   of faith; but the numbers were increasing every hour, as the
   struggle progressed, who could no longer be deceived by these
   hollow pretences. … Pulpits and presses which had been dumb,
   or had spoken evasively and with slight fealty to truth, gave
   forth no uncertain sound. … To the utterances of the sacred
   desk were added the action of ecclesiastical bodies,
   contributions to the press, and petitions to State
   legislatures and to Congress. … These discussions from pulpit,
   platform, and press, all pointed to political action as the
   only adequate remedy. In the Northern States there were
   Abolitionists, Free-Soilers, anti-slavery Whigs, anti-Nebraska
   Democrats, and anti-slavery members of the American party,
   which had just come into existence. … As the conflict
   progressed, large and increasing numbers saw that no help
   could be reasonably hoped but through the formation of a new
   party that could act without the embarrassment of a Southern
   wing. But the formation of a national and successful party
   from materials afforded by the disintegration of hitherto
   hostile organizations was a work of great delicacy and
   difficulty. Such a party could not be made;—it must grow out
   of the elements already existing. It must be born of the
   nation's necessities and of its longings for relief from the
   weakness, or wickedness, of existing organizations. The mode
   of organizing this new party of freedom varied according to
   the varying circumstances of different localities and the
   convictions of different men. … One of the earliest, if not
   the earliest, of the movements that contemplated definite
   action and the formation of a new party, was made in Ripon,
   Fond du Lac County, Wisconsin, in the early months of 1854." A
   public meeting, held in one of the churches of the town, was
   followed by a second meeting, on the 20th of March, at which
   definite proceedings were taken. "By formal vote the town
   committees of the Whig and Free Soil parties were dissolved,
   and a committee of five, consisting of three Whigs, one
   Free-Soiler, and one Democrat, was chosen. 'The work done on
   that evening,' says Mr. Bovey [one of its originators], 'was
   fully accepted by the Whig and Free Soil parties of all this
   section immediately; and very soon—that is to say, in a few
   months—by those parties throughout the entire State.' A State
   convention was held in July, by which the organization of the
   party was perfected for the State, a majority of the
   delegation was secured for the next Congress, and a
   Free-Soiler, Charles Durkee, was elected to the Senate of the
   United States. At the meeting of the 20th of March, Mr. Bovey,
   though stating his belief that the party should and probably
   would take the name of 'Republican,' advised against such a
   christening at that time and by that small local body of men.
   He, however, wrote to the editor of the New York 'Tribune,'
   suggesting the name. … But that 'little eddy' on that far-off
   margin was only one of many similar demonstrations,—signs of a
   turn of the tide in the great sea of American politics.
{3396}
   In Washington, on the morning after the passage of the
   Kansas-Nebraska bill, there was a meeting of some thirty
   members of the House at the rooms of Thomas D. Eliot and
   Edward Dickinson, of Massachusetts, called at the instance of
   Israel Washburn, Jr., of Maine, for consultation in regard to
   the course to be adopted in the exigencies of the case. The
   hopelessness of any further attempts through existing
   organizations was generally admitted; though a few still
   counselled adherence to the Whig party, in the expectation of
   securing its aid for freedom. But most present had become
   convinced that in a new party alone lay any reasonable hope of
   successful resistance to the continued aggressions of the
   arrogant and triumphant Slave Power. The name 'Republican' was
   suggested, discussed, and finally agreed upon as appropriate
   for the new organization. … But, whatever suggestions others
   may have made, or whatever action may have been taken
   elsewhere, to Michigan belongs the honor of being the first
   State to form and christen the Republican Party." A mass
   convention of Whigs and Free Soilers in that State was held on
   the 6th of July, at which the name was formally adopted, along
   with a "platform" of principles opposing the extension of
   slavery and demanding its abolition in the District of
   Columbia. "Though the Republican Party was not immediately
   organized in all the free States, its spirit inspired and its
   ideas largely pervaded the North. Within one year eleven
   Republican Senators were elected and fifteen States had
   secured anti-Nebraska majorities. Out of 142 Northern members
   of the House, 120 were opposed to the iniquitous measure. They
   were in sufficient numbers not only to control the election of
   Speaker, but they were able, by a majority of 15, to declare
   that 'in the opinion of this House, the repeal of the Missouri
   compromise of 1820, prohibiting slavery north of 36° 30', was
   an example of useless and factious agitation of the slavery
   question, unwise and unjust to the American people.' Several
   States which had failed to organize a Republican Party in 1854
   did so in 1855."

      H. Wilson,
      Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America,
      volume 2, chapter 31.

   "The refusal of the Whigs in many States to surrender their
   name and organization, and more especially the abrupt
   appearance of the Know-Nothings on the field of parties,
   retarded the general coalition between the Whigs and the
   Free-soilers which so many influences favored. As it turned
   out, a great variety of party names were retained or adopted
   in the Congressional and State campaigns of 1854, the
   designation of 'anti-Nebraska' being perhaps the most common,
   and certainly for the moment the most serviceable, since
   denunciation of the Nebraska bill was the one all-pervading
   bond of sympathy and agreement among men who differed very
   widely on almost all other political topics. This affiliation,
   however, was confined exclusively to the free States. In the
   slave States, the opposition to the Administration dared not
   raise the anti-Nebraska banner, nor could it have found
   followers; and it was not only inclined but forced to make its
   battle either under the old name of Whigs, or as became more
   popular, under the new appellation of 'Americans,' which grew
   into a more dignified synonym for Know-Nothings. … While the
   measure was yet under discussion in the House in March, New
   Hampshire led off by an election completely obliterating the
   eighty-nine Democratic majority in her Legislature.
   Connecticut followed in her footsteps early in April. Long
   before November it was evident that the political revolution
   among the people of the North was thorough, and that election
   day was anxiously awaited merely to record the popular verdict
   already decided. The influence of this result upon parties,
   old and new, is perhaps best illustrated in the organization
   of the Thirty-fourth Congress, chosen at these elections
   during the year 1854, which witnessed the repeal of the
   Missouri Compromise. Each Congress, in ordinary course, meets
   for the first time about one year after its members are
   elected by the people, and the influence of politics during
   the interim needs always to be taken into account. In this
   particular instance this effect had, if anything, been
   slightly reactionary, and the great contest for the
   Speakership during the winter of 1855-1856 may therefore be
   taken as a fair manifestation of the spirit of politics in
   1854. The strength of the preceding House of Representatives,
   which met in December, 1853, had been: Whigs, 71;
   Free-soilers, 4; Democrats, 159—a clear Democratic majority of
   84. In the new Congress there were in the House, as nearly as
   the classification could be made, about 108 anti-Nebraska
   members, nearly 40 Know-Nothings, and about 75 Democrats; the
   remaining members were undecided. The proud Democratic
   majority of the Pierce election was annihilated."

      J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 1, chapter 20.

      ALSO IN:
      J. D. Long, editor,
      The Republican Party: its History, etc.

      A. Holmes,
      Parties and their Principles,
      pages 274-278.

      J. F. Rhodes,
      History of the United States from 1850,
      chapter 7 (volume 2).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1854-1856.
   The beginning of the struggle for Kansas.
   Free-state settlers against Missouri "Border-ruffians."

      See KANSAS: A. D. 1854-1859.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1854-1866.
   The Canadian Reciprocity Treaty and its abrogation.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION, &c.
      (UNITED STATES AND CANADA): A. D. 1854-1866.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1855-1856.
   Long contest for the Speakership of the House.
   Election of Mr. Banks, Republican.
   Mr. Giddings' account.

   "The free-soil party was now rapidly increasing in numbers and
   influence. The Whig organization had disbanded: Yet its
   leaders had too much pride of opinion to admit that the
   anti-slavery men were right in their policy or in their
   construction of the Constitution. Indeed, their prejudices
   were too strong to permit them to join any other existing
   organization. They therefore instituted a new party called the
   'Know Nothings' or 'American party.' Their leading policy was
   the exclusion of foreigners from office. … It was a secret
   society, known to each other by signs, grips and passwords. It
   increased rapidly in numbers, and in the autumn of 1844 they
   elected a large majority of officers in all of the free
   States. … The effect of their success became apparent at the
   assembling of the thirty-fourth Congress. It had placed the
   democratic party in a very decided minority in the House of
   Representatives. … And the Free-soilers or Republicans were
   placed in a most critical position. Their difficulty arose
   from the determination of aspiring politicians to give all
   influence into the hands of the organization which had
   recently sprung up.
{3397}
   Members of this new party were at the city of Washington some
   weeks before the assembling of Congress, making such political
   arrangements as they regarded necessary to secure the success
   for the 'Know Nothings.' But all were conscious that neither
   they nor the Free-soilers could succeed except by uniting with
   each other." A partial combination of Know Nothings with the
   Republicans was effected at a meeting on Friday before the
   opening of the session of Congress. "Late in the day a
   resolution was introduced pledging the members to vote for any
   man on whom a majority of the members should unite, provided
   he stood pledged by his past life or present declarations so
   to arrange the committees of the House as to give respectful
   answers to petitions concerning slavery. This resolution was
   adopted by a unanimous vote of more than 70 members. But the
   leading members of the 'Know Nothings' did not appear at any
   of the caucuses. It was in this unorganized form that members
   opposed to the extension of slavery met their associates on
   Monday in the Hall of Representatives, to enter upon a contest
   unequalled in the previous history of our Government. The
   House consisted of 234 members—225 of whom answered to their
   names at the first calling of the roll. The first business in
   order was the election of Speaker: And the ballots being
   counted, it was found that William A. Richardson, the
   democratic candidate, had 74 votes; Lewis D. Campbell, of
   Ohio, the 'Know Nothing' candidate, had 53 votes; Humphrey
   Marshall, of Kentucky, the southern Know Nothing candidate, 30
   votes; Nathaniel P. Banks, of Massachusetts, was supported by
   those Free-soilers or Republicans who refused to support any
   man placed in nomination by the Know Nothings; and Hiram M.
   Fuller, of Pennsylvania, received the votes of 17 members of
   the Know Nothing party who refused to support any other
   candidate. There were several other ballots cast during the
   day, with little change. The voting continued on the second,
   third, fourth and fifth days, without material change, except
   that Mr. Campbell's vote rose on one occasion as high as 75.
   After the result of the twenty-third ballot was announced, Mr.
   Campbell withdrew his name from the list of candidates. On the
   withdrawal of Mr. Campbell, Mr. Banks' rose regularly until
   the 15th December, when it reached 107. … On the 19th
   December, the ballot showed Mr. Banks to have 106, and Mr.
   Richardson 75. Messrs. Marshall and Fuller, with their
   adherents, continuing to vote by themselves. During the
   debates the Republicans were constantly assailed, and as the
   writer [Joshua R. Giddings, of Ohio] was the oldest member of
   that party, he felt constrained to vindicate their cause. He
   assured the Democrats and 'Know Nothings' that the Republicans
   must soon come into power: And when once in power they would
   not permit southern members to dissolve the Union. This seemed
   to arouse much angry feeling. Mr. McMullen, of Virginia,
   replied with much spirit, declaring that whenever a northern
   President should be elected the South would dissolve the
   Union. This is believed to be the first distinct enunciation
   in Congress that the Union was to be dissolved upon the
   election of a northern President. Northern Democrats appeared
   mortified at the imprudence of Mr. McMullen. Mr. Banks, in a
   public speech made some two years previously in Maine, had
   said, that if we were to extend slavery or dissolve the Union,
   he would say, 'Let the Union slide.' This saying was now
   seized upon by southern men as an insuperable objection to Mr.
   Banks' election: While, at the same time, Mr. Brooks, of South
   Carolina, assured the House and the country that unless
   slavery were extended he desired to see the Union slide.
   Members appeared by common consent to enter upon a general
   debate, which was suspended on the 24th so long as to take a
   ballot, which showed no substantial change in the parties. On
   the 27th, four ballots were taken with a similar result. … On
   the 28th December the balloting was resumed, and continued
   through that and the following day without material change of
   parties, and debate was again renewed. … The President of the
   United States sent his annual message to the Senate on the
   31st December, and his private secretary appeared at the
   entrance of the House of Representatives and announced that he
   had brought with him the annual message of the President, to
   be presented to that body. Aware that this was intended to
   exert an influence against the Republicans, the author at once
   objected to receiving it, as it was an attempt to introduce a
   new practice—for up to that time no President had ever
   presumed to thrust his message upon an unorganized body—and
   that it could not constitutionally be received by members
   until a Speaker were elected. But a majority voted to receive
   it. The next attempt was to read it to the House; but it was
   again objected that it was not addressed to members in their
   disorganized condition, but was addressed to the Senate and
   House of Representatives, which had not then been organized.
   This objection was sustained, and although they had received
   the message, they refused to read it. The new year found the
   House unorganized, with the President's message lying upon the
   Clerk's desk unopened and unread. One ballot was taken. A
   motion was next made to take up and read the President's
   message; but, after debate, the motion was laid on the table.
   Members now began to make arrangements for continuing the
   contest indefinitely. Most of them had expected to draw their
   mileage to defray their current expenses; but being unable to
   do that until the House were organized, found themselves out
   of funds. In many Republican districts the people met in
   public conventions and passed resolutions approving the action
   of their Representatives, made provisions for their members to
   draw on their local banks for such funds as they deemed
   necessary for defraying expenses at Washington. To meet these
   expenses, some State Legislatures made appropriations from
   their State funds. Soon as the republican party became
   consolidated, its members became more confident. Those of
   greatest experience assured their friends that as the
   President, officers of government, and the army and navy must
   go without pay until the House should be organized, the
   pressure would soon be so great upon the democratic party that
   they would be compelled to submit to the election of a
   republican Speaker. Some State Legislatures passed resolutions
   sustaining the action of their Representatives, declaring the
   issue involved to be the extension or non-extension of
   slavery. …
{3398}
   On the 29th January several propositions were made for an
   immediate organization. They were rejected, but by such small
   majorities as to indicate an organization at no very distant
   period; and the Republicans now felt one, and only one doubt
   in regard to success. The southern 'Know Nothings' had been
   Whigs, and bitterly hated the Democrats; and the question now
   presented was, whether they would unite with their old enemies
   rather than see a republican Speaker elected. On the 3d
   February a resolution was presented, declaring that three more
   ballots should be taken and if no election were had, the
   candidate having the highest number of votes on the 4th ballot
   should be declared Speaker. Soon after this vote was announced
   the House adjourned. Members now felt that the contest was
   drawing to a close. The next morning … Mr. Aiken, of South
   Carolina, was announced as the democratic candidate. And the
   first ballot, under the resolution, showed little change of
   parties. Banks received 102 votes; Aiken, 92; Fuller, 13;
   Campbell, 4; and Wells, 2. By this time the spacious galleries
   were filled with eager spectators, the lobbies and passages
   were crowded by men and ladies anxious for the result. The
   next ballot was taken without any change of parties. A motion
   was made to adjourn, but it was voted down by 159 to 52. Mr.
   Fuller announced that he was no longer a candidate. The result
   now appeared to be anticipated by all, and as the Clerk
   commenced calling the roll of members for the final vote,
   there appeared to be the most intense interest felt on all
   sides of the House. … When the roll had been called through
   there was so much confusion that it was difficult for anyone
   to be heard. But the clerks and tellers proceeded in their
   duties, and when the count was completed, Mr. Benson, of Maine
   —one of the tellers—rose, and in a loud voice proclaimed that
   'On the one hundred and thirty-third ballot Nathaniel P. Banks
   had received 103 votes; Mr. Aiken had received 100 votes; Mr.
   Fuller had received 6 votes; and Mr. Campbell had received 4
   votes. That Mr. Banks having received the highest number of
   votes on this ballot, was declared duly elected Speaker of the
   thirty-fourth Congress.' At this announcement the spectators
   in the galleries broke forth in wild excitement. Cheer after
   cheer went up, amid the waving of handkerchiefs and
   demonstrations of unrestrained exultation, which were
   responded to by hisses from the Administration side of the
   House. … The effect of this victory was felt through the
   country. … Sixteen years before this occurrence Mr. Adams and
   the author of these sketches were the only representatives in
   Congress of the doctrines now supported by a majority of the
   House. The slaveholders and those who sympathized with them
   appeared to realize that political power was gradually
   escaping from their grasp, and that the day was rapidly
   approaching when the people would resume control of the
   Government."

      J. R. Giddings,
      History of the Rebellion,
      chapter 26.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1855-1860.
   Walker's Filibustering in Nicaragua.

      See NICARAGUA: A. D. 1855-1860.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1856.
   Refusal to sign the Declaration of Paris.
   Proposed amendment.

      See DECLARATION OF PARIS.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1856.
   Senator Sumner's speech on "The Crime against Kansas,"
   and the assault upon him by Brooks of South Carolina.

   "The most startling speech made during the debate [on affairs
   in Kansas], and which, from the events succeeding, became the
   most celebrated, was that of Charles Sumner. It was delivered
   on the 19th and 20th days of May and was published under the
   title of 'The Crime against Kansas.' … If there had been no
   more to Sumner's speech than the invective against the slave
   power, he would not have been assaulted by Preston Brooks. Nor
   is it probable that the bitter attack which the senator made
   on South Carolina would have provoked the violence, had it not
   been coupled with personal allusions to Senator Butler, who
   was a kinsman of Brooks. … It was said that Seward, who read
   the speech before delivery, advised Sumner to tone down its
   offensive remarks, and he and Wade regretted the personal
   attack. But Sumner was not fully 'conscious of the stinging
   force of his language.' To that, and because he was terribly
   in earnest, must be attributed the imperfections of the
   speech. He would annihilate the slave power, and he selected
   South Carolina and her senator as vulnerable points of attack.
   … Two days after this exciting debate (May 22d) when the
   Senate at the close of a short session adjourned, Sumner
   remained in the Chamber, occupied in writing letters. Becoming
   deeply engaged, he drew his arm-chair close to his desk, bent
   over his writing, and while in this position was approached by
   Brooks, a representative from South Carolina and a kinsman of
   Senator Butler. Brooks, standing before and directly over him,
   said: 'I have read your speech twice over carefully. It is a
   libel on South Carolina and Mr. Butler, who is a relative of
   mine.' As he pronounced the last word, he hit Sumner on the
   head with his cane with the force that a dragoon would give to
   a sabre-blow. Sumner was more than six feet in height and of
   powerful frame, but penned under the desk he could offer no
   resistance, and Brooks continued the blows on his defenceless
   head. The cane broke, but the South Carolinian went on beating
   his victim with the butt. The first blows stunned and blinded
   Sumner, but instinctively and with powerful effort he wrenched
   the desk from its fastenings, stood up, and with spasmodic and
   wildly directed efforts attempted unavailingly to protect
   himself. Brooks took hold of him, and, while he was reeling
   and staggering about, struck him again and again. The
   assailant did not desist until his arm was seized by one who
   rushed to the spot to stop the assault. At that moment Sumner,
   reeling, staggering backwards and sideways, fell to the floor
   bleeding profusely and covered with his blood. The injury
   received by Sumner was much more severe than was at first
   thought by his physicians and friends. Four days after the
   assault, he was able to give at his lodgings his relation of
   the affair to the committee of the House of Representatives.
   But, in truth, the blows would have killed most men. Sumner's
   iron constitution and perfect health warded off a fatal
   result; but it soon appeared that the injury had affected the
   spinal column. The next three years and a half was a search
   for cure. … At last he went to Paris and put himself under the
   care of Dr. Brown-Séquard, whose treatment of actual
   cauterization of the back eventually restore him to a fair
   degree of health; but he never regained his former physical
   vigor.
{3399}
   He was not able to enter regularly again on his senatorial
   career until December, 1859. … The different manner in which
   the North and the South regarded this deed is one of the many
   evidences of the deep gulf between these two people caused by
   slavery. … When Brooks returned to South Carolina he received
   an enthusiastic welcome. He was honored as a glorious son of
   the Palmetto State, and making him the present of a cane was a
   favorite testimonial. … At the North the assault of Brooks was
   considered brutal and cowardly; at the South, his name was
   never mentioned without calling him gallant or courageous,
   spirited or noble. … A committee was appointed by the House
   which took a large amount of evidence, and the majority
   reported a resolution in favor of the expulsion of Brooks. On
   this resolution, the vote was 121 to 95; but as it required
   two thirds, it was not carried. Only three Southern
   representatives publicly condemned the assault; only one voted
   to expel Brooks. After the decision by the House, Brooks made
   a speech, which he ended by resigning his place as
   representative. His district re-elected him almost
   unanimously: there were only six votes against him."

      J. F. Rhodes,
      History of the United States from 1850,
      chapter 7 (volume 2).

      ALSO IN:
      C. Sumner,
      Works,
      volume 4, pages 125-342.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1856.
   Eighteenth Presidential Election.
   Buchanan made President.

   "The presidential campaign of … 1856, showed a striking
   disintegration and re-formation of political groups. Nominally
   there were four parties in the field: Democrats, Whigs, Native
   Americans or Know-Nothings, and Republicans. The Know-Nothings
   had lately won some State elections, but were of little
   account as a national organization, for they stood upon an
   issue hopelessly insignificant in comparison with slavery.
   Already many had gone over to the Republican camp; those who
   remained nominated as their candidates Millard Fillmore and
   Andrew J. Donelson. The Whigs were the feeble remnant of a
   really dead party, held together by affection for the old
   name; too few to do anything by themselves, they took by
   adoption the Know-Nothing candidates. The Republican party had
   been born only in 1854. Its members, differing on other
   matters, united upon the one doctrine, which they accepted as
   a test: opposition to the extension of slavery. They nominated
   John C. Fremont and William L. Dayton, and made a platform
   whereby they declared it to be 'both the right and the duty of
   Congress to prohibit in the Territories those twin relics of
   barbarism, polygamy and slavery.' … In this Convention 110
   votes were cast for Lincoln for the second place on the
   ticket. … In the Democratic party there were two factions. The
   favorite candidate of the South was Franklin Pierce, for
   reelection, with Stephen A. Douglas as a substitute or second
   choice; the North more generally preferred James Buchanan, who
   was understood to be displeased with the repeal of the
   Missouri Compromise. The struggle was sharp, but was won by
   the friends of Buchanan, with whom John C. Breckenridge was
   coupled. The campaign was eager, for the Republicans soon
   developed a strength beyond what had been expected and which
   put the Democrats to their best exertions. The result was:
   popular vote, Democrats [Buchanan] 1,838,169, Republicans
   [Fremont] 1,341,264, Know-Nothings and Whigs [Fillmore]
   874,534; electoral vote, Democrats 174, Republicans 114,
   Know-Nothings and Whigs, 8. Thus James Buchanan became
   President of the United States, March 4, 1857. … Yet, while
   the Democrats triumphed, the Republicans enjoyed the presage
   of the future; they had polled a total number of votes which
   surprised everyone; on the other hand, the Democrats had lost
   ten States which they had carried in 1852 and had gained only
   two others, showing a net loss of eight States; and their
   electoral votes had dwindled from 254 to 174."

      J. T, Morse, Jr.,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 1, chapter 4.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1856-1859.
   The continued struggle in Kansas.
   The Topeka vs. the Lecompton Constitution.

      See KANSAS: A. D. 1854-1859.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1857.
   The Dred Scott decision.

   "Dred Scott was a negro slave, the property of Dr. Emerson, a
   surgeon in the army. In 1834, Dred was carried by his master
   from the slave state of Missouri, first, to the military post
   at Rock Island in the free state of Illinois, where he
   remained till April or May, 1836; and, thence, to Fort
   Snelling, in the territory known as Upper Louisiana, and lying
   north of the line of the Missouri Compromise, in both of which
   places he was held as a slave. At Fort Snelling, in the year
   1836, he was married to Harriet, a negro slave, who had also
   been brought to Fort Snelling by her master, Major Taliaferro,
   and there sold to Dr. Emerson. In 1838, Dred, with his wife
   and a child which had been born to him, was carried back by
   his master to the state of Missouri. Subsequently, Dred, with
   his wife, his daughter Eliza, and another daughter, Lizzie,
   who was born after the return of her family to Missouri, was
   sold to John F. A. Sandford—the defendant in the present case.
   Dred commenced his efforts for the establishment of the
   freedom of himself and family in the state courts of Missouri.
   The suit was brought in the Circuit Court of St. Louis county.
   Before this court, the judgment was in his favor, but, on
   appeal by writ of error to the Supreme Court of the state,
   this judgment was reversed, and the case remanded to the court
   below,—where it remained, awaiting the decision of the suit
   which, in the meanwhile, Dred had brought in the United States
   courts. This second suit was brought before the Circuit Court
   of the United States for the district of Missouri, and thence
   carried, by writ of error, to the Supreme Court at Washington.
   It may be added that the first suit was brought against Dr.
   Emerson, but the second against Mr. Sandford, to whom Dred had
   been sold. The action, though brought to assert the title of
   Dred Scott and his family to freedom, was, in form, an action
   of trespass 'vi et armis,' which is the usual form employed in
   that state to try questions of this kind. The plaintiff,
   Scott, in his writ both makes a declaration of the acts of
   trespass—which of course are the acts of restraint necessarily
   implied in holding himself and family as slaves—and avers,
   what was necessary to give the court jurisdiction, that he and
   the defendant are citizens of different states; that is, that
   he is a citizen of Missouri, and the defendant a citizen of
   New York. At the April term of the court, in 1854, the
   defendant Sandford pleads, that the court has not
   jurisdiction, because the plaintiff is not a citizen of
   Missouri, but a negro of African descent, whose ancestors, of
   pure African blood, were brought into this country and sold as
   slaves.
{3400}
   To this plea the plaintiff demurs as insufficient; the
   demurrer is argued at the same term, and is sustained by the
   court, that is, the court asserts its jurisdiction over the
   case." It was on this plea that the case went finally to the
   Supreme Court of the United States and was decided in 1857.
   "The question of negro citizenship came up in the
   consideration of the question of jurisdiction. For the
   question of jurisdiction was the question, whether the
   plaintiff was a citizen of Missouri, as he had averred in his
   declaration; and the only fact pleaded to disprove his
   citizenship was the fact that Scott was a negro of African
   descent, whose ancestors had been sold as slaves in the United
   States. The court, however, decided that this fact did not
   exclude the possibility of his being a citizen; in other
   words, it decided that a negro of this description can be a
   citizen of the United States. The first question before the
   Supreme Court was, whether it could rejudge this determination
   of the circuit court."

      W. A. Larned,
      Negro Citizenship
      (New Englander, August, 1857).

   The decision of the Supreme Court, delivered by Chief Justice
   Taney, March 6, 1857, not only closed the door of freedom to
   Dred Scott, but shut the doors of the United States courts
   against him and all those of his race who were or had been
   slaves, or who sprang from an ancestry in the servile state.
   The opinion of Chief Justice Taney was concurred in by all the
   justices except Curtis and McLean-Justice Nelson dissenting on
   one point only. The arguments and the sentiments in the
   opinion which gave most offence to the conscience and the
   reason of the country were the following: "It becomes … our
   duty to decide whether the facts stated in the plea are or are
   not sufficient to show that the plaintiff is not entitled to
   sue as a citizen in a court of the United States. This is
   certainly a very serious question, and one that now for the
   first time has been brought for decision before this court.
   But it is brought here by those who have a right to bring it,
   and it is our duty to meet it and decide it. The question is
   simply this: Can a negro, whose ancestors were imported into
   this country, and sold as slaves, become a member of the
   political community formed and brought into existence by the
   Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled
   to all the rights, and privileges, and immunities, guarantied
   by that instrument to the citizen? One of which rights is the
   privilege of suing in a court of the United States in the
   cases specified in the Constitution. It will be observed, that
   the plea applies to that class of persons only whose ancestors
   were negroes of the African race, and imported into this
   country, and sold and held as slaves. The only matter in issue
   before the court, therefore, is whether the descendants of
   such slaves, when they shall be emancipated, or who are born
   of parents who had become free before their birth, are
   citizens of a State, in the sense in which the word citizen is
   used in the Constitution of the United States. And this being
   the only matter in dispute on the pleadings, the court must be
   understood as speaking in this opinion of that class only,
   that is, of those persons who are the descendants of Africans
   who were imported into this country, and sold as slaves. … The
   words 'people of the United States' and 'citizens' are
   synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe
   the political body who, according to our republican
   institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and
   conduct the Government through their representatives. They are
   what we familiarly call the 'sovereign people,' and every,
   citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of
   this sovereignty. The question before us is, whether the class
   of persons described in the plea in abatement compose a
   portion of this people, and are constituent members 'of this
   sovereignty? We think they are not, and that they are not
   included, and were not intended to be included, under the word
   'citizens' in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none
   of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides
   for and secures to citizens of the United States. On the
   contrary, they were at that time considered as a subordinate
   and inferior class of beings, who had been subjugated by the
   dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained
   subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges
   but such as those who held the power and the Government might
   choose to grant them. It is not the province of the court to
   decide upon the justice or injustice, the policy or impolicy,
   of these laws. The decision of that question belonged to the
   political or law-making power. … In discussing this question,
   we must not confound the rights of citizenship which a State
   may confer within its own limits, and the rights of
   citizenship as a member of the Union. It does not by any means
   follow, because he has all the rights and privileges of a
   citizen of a State, that he must be a citizen of the United
   States. He may have all of the rights and privileges of the
   citizen of a State, and yet not be entitled to the rights and
   privileges of a citizen in any other State. … The question
   then arises, whether the provisions of the Constitution, in
   relation to the personal rights and privileges to which the
   citizen of a State should be entitled, embraced the negro
   African race, at that time in this country, or who might
   afterwards be imported, who had then or should afterwards be
   made free in any State; and to put it in the power of a single
   State to make him a citizen of the United States, and endue
   him with the full rights of citizenship in every other State
   without their consent? … The court think the affirmative of
   these propositions cannot be maintained. And if it cannot, the
   plaintiff in error could not be a citizen of the State of
   Missouri, within the meaning of the Constitution of the United
   States, and, consequently, was not entitled to sue in its
   courts. It is true, every person, and every class and
   description of persons, who were at the time of the adoption
   of the Constitution recognised as citizens in the several
   States, became also citizens of this new political body; but
   none other. … It becomes necessary, therefore, to determine
   who were citizens of the several States when the Constitution
   was adopted. And in order to do this, we must recur to the
   Governments and institutions of the thirteen colonies, when
   they separated from Great Britain and formed new
   sovereignties, and took their places in the family of
   independent nations. We must inquire who, at that time, were
   recognised as the people or citizens of a State, whose rights
   and liberties had been outraged by the English Government; and
   who declared their independence, and assumed the powers of
   Government to defend their rights by force of arms.
{3401}
   In the opinion of the court, the legislation and histories of
   the times, and the language used in the Declaration of
   Independence, show that neither the class of persons who had
   been imported as slaves, nor their descendants, whether they
   had become free or not, were then acknowledged as a part of
   the people, nor intended to be included in the general words
   used in that memorable instrument. It is difficult at this day
   to realize the state of public opinion in relation to that
   unfortunate race, which prevailed in the civilized and
   enlightened portions of the world at the time of the
   Declaration of Independence, and when the Constitution was
   framed and adopted. But the public history of every European
   nation displays it in a manner too plain to be mistaken. They
   had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of
   an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the
   white race, either in social or political relations; and so
   far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was
   bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully
   be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold,
   and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic,
   whenever a profit could be made by it. This opinion was at
   that time fixed and universal in the civilized portion of the
   white race." Finally, having, with great elaboration, decided
   the question of citizenship adversely to Dred Scott and all
   his kind, the Court proceeded to obliterate the antislavery
   provision of the Missouri Compromise, which constituted one of
   the grounds on which Dred Scott claimed his freedom. "It is
   the opinion of the court," wrote Chief Justice Taney, "that
   the act of Congress which prohibited a citizen from holding
   and owning property of this kind in the territory of the
   United States north of the line therein mentioned, is not
   warranted by the Constitution, and is therefore void; and that
   neither Dred Scott himself, nor any of his family, were made
   free by being carried into this territory; even if they had
   been carried there by the owner, with the intention of
   becoming a permanent resident. We have so far examined the
   case, as it stands under the Constitution of the United
   States, and the powers thereby delegated to the Federal
   Government. But there is another point in the case which
   depends on State power and State law. And it is contended, on
   the part of the plaintiff, that he is made free by being taken
   to Rock Island, in the State of Illinois, independently of his
   residence in the territory of the United States; and being so
   made free, he was not again reduced to a state of slavery by
   being brought back to Missouri. Our notice of this part of the
   case will be very brief; for the principle on which it depends
   was decided in this court, upon much consideration, in the
   case of Strader et al. v. Graham, reported in 10th Howard, 82.
   In that case, the slaves had been taken from Kentucky to Ohio,
   with the consent of the owner, and afterwards brought back to
   Kentucky. And this court held that their status or condition,
   as free or slave, depended upon the laws of Kentucky, when
   they were brought back into that State, and not of Ohio; and
   that this court had no jurisdiction to revise the judgment of
   a State court upon its own laws. This was the point directly
   before the court, and the decision that this court had not
   jurisdiction turned upon it, as will be seen by the report of
   the case. So in this case. As Scott was a slave when taken
   into the State of Illinois by his owner, and was there held as
   such, and brought back in that character, his status, as free
   or slave, depended on the laws of Missouri, and not of
   Illinois. … Upon the whole, therefore, it is the judgment of
   this court, that it appears by the record before us that the
   plaintiff in error is not a citizen of Missouri, in the sense
   in which that word is used in the Constitution; and that the
   Circuit Court of the United States, for that reason, had no
   jurisdiction in the case, and could give no judgment in it.
   Its judgment for the defendant must, consequently, be
   reversed, and a mandate issued, directing the suit to be
   dismissed for want of jurisdiction."

      Report of the Decision of the Supreme Court of the
      United States in the case of
      Dred Scott vs. John F. A. Sandford
      (Howard's Reports, volume 19).

   "By this presentation of the iniquity, naked and in its most
   repulsive form, Taney did no small harm to the party which he
   intended to aid. It has been said that slavery plucked ruin on
   its own head by its aggressive violence. It could not help
   showing its native temper, nor could it help feeding its
   hunger of land, insisting on the restoration of its runaways,
   or demanding a foreign policy such as would fend off the
   approach of emancipation. But Taney's judgment was a
   gratuitous aggression and an insult to humanity at the same
   time, for which, supposing that the Southern leaders inspired
   it, they paid dear. If the slave was mere property, his owner
   might be entitled to take him anywhere, and thus slavery might
   be made national. The boast of a daring partisan of slavery
   might be fulfilled, that the day would come when men might be
   bought and sold in Boston as freely as any other goods. The
   issue, which all the politicians had striven to keep out of
   sight, was presented in its most startling and shocking form."

      Goldwin Smith,
      The United States,
      page 235.

      ALSO IN:
      H. Wilson,
      Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America,
      volume 2, chapter 39.

      S. Tyler,
      Memoirs of Roger B. Taney,
      chapters 4-5.

      A. Johnston,
      The United States: Its History and Constitution,
      section 249.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1857.
   Tariff reduction.
   The financial collapse.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES): A. D. 1846-1861.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1857-1859.
   The Mormon rebellion in Utah.

      See UTAH: A. D. 1857-1859.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1858.
   Treaty with China.

      See CHINA: A. D. 1857-1868.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1858.
   The Lincoln and Douglas debate in Illinois.

   The senatorial term of Mr. Stephen A. Douglas being about to
   expire, the choice of his successor became an issue which
   controlled the election of members of the Illinois
   Legislature, in the fall of 1858. Mr. Douglas received an
   endorsement at the hands of the Democratic State Convention,
   in April, which virtually nominated him for re-election.
   Abraham Lincoln, who had come markedly to the front in his
   state during the Kansas discussions, "was the man already
   chosen in the hearts of the Republicans of Illinois for the
   same office, and therefore with singular appropriateness they
   passed, with great unanimity, at their convention in
   Springfield on the 16th of June, the characteristic
   resolution: 'That Hon. Abraham Lincoln is our first and only
   choice for United States Senator to fill the vacancy about to
   be created by the expiration of Mr. Douglas' term of office.'
{3402}
   There was of course no surprise in this for Mr. Lincoln. He
   had been all along led to expect it, and with that in view had
   been earnestly and quietly at work preparing a speech in
   acknowledgment of the honor about to be conferred on him. This
   speech he wrote on stray envelopes and scraps of paper, as
   ideas suggested themselves, putting them into that
   miscellaneous and convenient receptacle, his hat. As the
   convention drew near he copied the whole on connected sheets,
   carefully revising every line and sentence, and fastened them
   together, for reference during the delivery of the speech, and
   for publication. The former precaution, however, was
   unnecessary, for he had studied and read over what he had
   written so long and carefully that he was able to deliver it
   without the least hesitation or difficulty. … Before
   delivering his speech he invited a dozen or so of his friends
   over to the library of the State House, where he read and
   submitted it to them. After the reading he asked each man for
   his opinion. Some condemned and not one endorsed it. One man,
   more forcible than elegant, characterized it as a 'd-d fool
   utterance;' another said the doctrine was 'ahead of its time;'
   and still another contended that it would drive away a good
   many voters fresh from the Democratic ranks. Each man attacked
   it in his criticism. I was the last to respond. Although the
   doctrine announced was rather rank, yet it suited my views,
   and I said, 'Lincoln, deliver that speech as read and it will
   make you President.' At the time I hardly realized the force
   of my prophecy. Having patiently listened to these various
   criticisms from his friends—all of which with a single
   exception were adverse—he rose from his chair, and after
   alluding to the careful study and intense thought he had given
   the question, he answered all their objections substantially
   as follows: 'Friends, this thing has been retarded long
   enough. The time has come when these sentiments should be
   uttered; and if it is decreed that I should go down because of
   this speech, then let me go down linked to the truth—let me
   die in the advocacy of what is just and right.' The next day,
   the 17th, the speech was delivered just as we had heard it
   read. [The part of this famous speech which made the
   profoundest impression and gave rise to the most discussion
   was the opening part, contained in the following sentences:
   'If we could first know where we are, and whither we are
   tending, we could better judge what to do, and how to do it.
   We are now far into the fifth year since a policy was
   initiated with the avowed object and confident promise of
   putting an end to slavery agitation. Under the operation of
   that policy, that agitation has not only not ceased, but has
   constantly augmented. In my opinion, it will not cease until a
   crisis shall have been reached and passed. "A house divided
   against itself cannot stand." I believe this government cannot
   endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect
   the Union to be dissolved—I do not expect the house to
   fall—but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will
   become all one thing, or all the other. Either the opponents
   of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it
   where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in
   the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push
   it forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the
   States, old as well as new, North as well as South. Have we no
   tendency to the latter condition? Let anyone who doubts
   carefully contemplate that now almost complete legal
   combination—piece of machinery, so to speak—compounded of the
   Nebraska doctrine and the Dred Scott decision. Let him
   consider not only what work the machinery is adapted to do,
   and how well adapted; but also let him study the history of
   its construction, and trace, if he can, or rather fail, if he
   can, to trace the evidences of design and concert of action
   among its chief architects, from the beginning.'] … Lincoln
   had now created in reality a more profound impression than he
   or his friends anticipated. Many Republicans deprecated the
   advanced ground he had taken, the more so as the Democrats
   rejoiced that it afforded them an issue clear and
   well-defined. Numbers of his friends distant from Springfield,
   on reading his speech, wrote him censorious letters; and one
   well-informed co-worker predicted his defeat, charging it to
   the first ten lines of the speech. These complaints, coming
   apparently from every quarter, Lincoln bore with great
   patience. To one complainant who followed him into his office
   he said proudly, 'If I had to draw a pen across my record, and
   erase my whole life from sight, and I had one poor gift or
   choice left as to what I should save from the wreck, I should
   choose that speech and leave it to the world unerased.'
   Meanwhile Douglas had returned from Washington to his home in
   Chicago. Here he rested for a few days until his friends and
   co-workers had arranged the details of a public reception on
   the 9th of July, when he delivered from the balcony of the
   Tremont House a speech intended as an answer to the one made
   by Lincoln in Springfield. Lincoln was present at this
   reception, but took no part in it. The next day, however, he
   replied. Both speeches were delivered at the same place.
   Leaving Chicago, Douglas passed on down to Bloomington and
   Springfield, where he spoke on the 16th and 17th of July
   respectively. On the evening of the latter day Lincoln
   responded again in a most effective and convincing effort. The
   contest now took on a different phase. Lincoln's Republican
   friends urged him to draw Douglas into a joint debate, and he
   accordingly sent him a challenge on the 24th of July. … On the
   30th Douglas finally accepted the proposition to 'divide time,
   and address the same audiences,' naming seven different
   places, one in each Congressional district, outside of Chicago
   and Springfield, for joint meetings. The places and dates
   were, Ottawa, August 21; Freeport, August 27; Jonesboro,
   September 15; Charleston, September 18; Galesburg, October 7;
   Quincy, October 13; and Alton, October 15. … During the
   canvass Mr. Lincoln, in addition to the seven meetings with
   Douglas, filled thirty-one appointments made by the State
   Central Committee, besides speaking at many other times and
   places not previously advertised. … The election took place on
   the second of November, and while Lincoln received of the
   popular vote a majority of over 4,000, yet the returns from
   the legislative districts foreshadowed his defeat. In fact,
   when the Senatorial election took place in the Legislature,
   Douglas received 54 and Lincoln 46 votes—one of the results of
   the lamentable apportionment law then in operation."

      W. H. Herndon and J. W. Weik,
      Lincoln, the True Story of a Great Life,
      chapter 13 (volume 2).

{3403}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1859.
   Admission of Oregon into the Union, with a constitution
   excluding free colored People.

      See OREGON: A. D. 1859.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1859.
   John Brown's attack on Slavery in Virginia.
   The tragedy at Harper's Ferry.

   "On the 17th of October, 1859, this country was bewildered and
   astounded while the fifteen Slave States were convulsed with
   fear, rage, and hate, by telegraphic dispatches from Baltimore
   and Washington, announcing the outbreak, at Harper's Ferry, of
   a conspiracy of Abolitionists and negroes, having for its
   object the devastation and ruin of the South, and the massacre
   of her white inhabitants. … As time wore on, further advices,
   with particulars and circumstances, left no room to doubt the
   substantial truth of the original report. An attempt had
   actually been made to excite a slave insurrection in Northern
   Virginia, and the one man in America to whom such an
   enterprise would not seem utter insanity and suicide, was at
   the head of it." This was John Brown, of Osawatomie, who had
   been fighting slavery and the border ruffians in Kansas (see
   KANSAS: A. D. 1854-1859) for five years, and had now changed
   his field. "A secret convention, called by Brown, and attended
   only by such whites and blacks as he believed in thorough
   sympathy with his views, had assembled in a negro church at
   Chatham, Canada West, May 8, 1858; at which Convention a
   'Provisional Constitution and Ordinances for the People of the
   United States' had been adopted. It was, of course, drafted by
   Brown, and was essentially an embodiment of his political
   views. … John Brown was chosen Commander-in-Chief; J. H. Kagi,
   Secretary of War; Owen Brown (son of John), Treasurer; Richard
   Realf, Secretary of State. Brown returned to the States soon
   after his triumphal entry into Canada as a liberator. … He was
   in Hagerstown, Maryland, on the 30th [of June, 1859], where he
   registered his name as 'Smith, and two sons, from Western New
   York.' He told his landlord that they had been farming in
   Western New York, but had been discouraged by losing two or
   three years' crops by frost, and they were now looking for a
   milder climate, in a location adapted to wool-growing, etc.
   After looking about Harper's Ferry for several days, they
   found, five or six miles from that village, a large farm, with
   three unoccupied houses, the owner, Dr. Booth Kennedy, having
   died the last Spring. These houses they rented for a trifle
   until the next March, paying the rent in advance. … After they
   had lived there a few weeks, attracting no observation, others
   joined them from time to time, including two of Brown's young
   daughters; and one would go and another come, without exciting
   any particular remark. … Meantime, the greater number of the
   men kept out of sight during the day, so as not to attract
   attention, while their arms, munitions, etc., were being
   gradually brought from Chambersburg, in well-secured boxes. No
   meal was eaten on the farm, while old Brown was there, until a
   blessing had been asked upon it; and his Bible was in daily
   requisition. The night of the 24th of October was originally
   fixed upon by Brown for the first blow against Slavery in
   Virginia, by the capture of the Federal Arsenal at Harper's
   Ferry; and his biographer, Redpath, alleges that many were on
   their way to be with him on that occasion, when they were
   paralyzed by the intelligence that the blow had already been
   struck, and had failed. The reason given for this, by one who
   was in his confidence, is, that Brown, who had been absent on
   a secret journey to the North, suspected that one of his party
   was a traitor, and that he must strike prematurely, or not at
   all. But the women who had been with them at the Kennedy
   farm—the wives or daughters of one or another of the party—had
   already been quietly sent away; and the singular complexion of
   their household had undoubtedly begun to excite curiosity, if
   not alarm, among their neighbors. … Harper's Ferry was then a
   village of some 5,000 inhabitants, lying on the Virginia side
   of the Potomac, and on either side of its principal tributary,
   the Shenandoah, which here enters it from the South. Its site
   is a mere nest or cup among high, steep mountains. … Here the
   Baltimore and Ohio Railroad crosses the Potomac. … Washington
   is 57 miles distant by turnpike; Baltimore 80 miles by
   railroad. … One of its very few streets was entirely occupied
   by the work-shops and offices of the National Armory, and had
   an iron railing across its entrance. In the old Arsenal
   building, there were usually stored from 100,000 to 200,000
   stand of arms. The knowledge of this had doubtless determined
   the point at which the first blow of the liberators was to be
   struck. The forces with which Brown made his attack consisted
   of seventeen white and five colored men, though it is said
   that others who escaped assisted outside, by cutting the
   telegraph wires and tearing up the railroad track. The
   entrance of this petty army into Harper's Ferry on Sunday
   evening … seems to have been effected without creating alarm.
   They first rapidly extinguished the lights of the town; then
   took possession of the Armory buildings, which were only
   guarded by three watchmen, whom, without meeting resistance or
   exciting alarm, they seized and locked up in the guardhouse.
   It is probable that they were aided, or, at least, guided, by
   friendly negroes belonging in the village. … At a quarter-past
   one, the western train arrived, and its conductor found the
   bridge guarded by armed men. … A little after midnight, the
   house of Colonel Washington was visited by six of Brown's men
   under Captain Stevens, who captured the Colonel, seized his
   arms, horses, etc., and liberated his slaves. On their return,
   Stevens and party visited the house of Mr. Alstadtt and his
   son, whom they captured, and freed their slaves. These, with
   each male citizen as he appeared in the street, were confined
   in the Armory until they numbered between forty and fifty.
   Brown informed his prisoners that they could be liberated on
   condition of writing to their friends to send a negro apiece
   as ransom. At daylight, the train proceeded, Brown walking
   over the bridge with the conductor. Whenever anyone asked the
   object of their captors, the uniform answer was, 'To free the
   slaves;' and when one of the workmen, seeing an armed guard at
   the Arsenal gate, asked by what authority they had taken
   possession of the public property, he was answered, 'By the
   authority of God Almighty!' The passenger train that sped
   eastward from Harper's Ferry, by Brown's permission, in the
   early morning of Monday, October 17th, left that place completely
   in the military possession of the insurrectionists. …
{3404}
   But it was no longer entirely one-sided. The white Virginians,
   who had arms, and who remained unmolested in their houses,
   prepared to use them. … Several Virginians soon obtained
   possession of a room overlooking the Armory gates, and fired
   thence at the sentinels who guarded them, one of whom was
   mortally wounded. Still, throughout the forenoon, the
   liberators remained masters of the town. … Had Brown chosen to
   fly to the mountains with his few followers, he might still
   have done so, though with a much slenderer chance of impunity
   than if he had, according to his original plan, decamped at
   midnight, with such arms and ammunition as he could bear away.
   Why he lingered, to brave inevitable destruction, is not
   certain; but it may fairly be presumed that he had private
   assurances that the negroes of the surrounding country would
   rise. … At all events, if his doom was already sealed, his
   delay at least hastened it. Half an hour after noon, a militia
   force, 100 strong, arrived from Charlestown, the county seat,
   and were rapidly disposed so as to command every available
   exit from the place. … Militia continued to pour in; the
   telegraph and railroad having been completely repaired, so
   that the Government at Washington, Governor Wise at Richmond,
   and the authorities at Baltimore, were in immediate
   communication with Harper's Ferry, and hurrying forward troops
   from all quarters. … Night found Brown's forces reduced to
   three unwounded whites beside himself, with perhaps half a
   dozen negroes from the vicinity. Eight of the insurgents were
   already dead; another lay dying beside the survivors; two were
   captives mortally wounded, and one other unhurt. Around the
   few survivors were 1,500 armed, infuriated foes. … During that
   night, Colonel Lee, with 90 United States marines and two
   pieces of artillery, arrived, and took possession of the
   Armory guard, very close to the engine-house. … At seven in
   the morning, after a parley which resulted in nothing, the
   marines advanced to the assault, broke in the door of the
   engine-house by using a ladder as a battering-ram, and rushed
   into the building. One of the defenders was shot and two
   marines wounded; but the odds were too great; in an instant,
   all resistance was over. Brown was struck in the face with a
   saber and knocked down, after which the blow was several times
   repeated, while a soldier ran a bayonet twice into the old
   man's body."

      H. Greeley, The American Conflict,
      volume 1, chapter 20.

   "The Virginians demonstrated amply during the Civil War that
   they were not cowards. What made them shake in their shoes was
   not John Brown and his handful of men, but the shadows which
   their excited imagination saw standing behind them. … The best
   evidence of the frightful genuineness of the panic is the
   brazen impudence with which it was brought forward as the
   justifying motive for the many atrocities which marked the
   trial. The brutalizing influences of slavery came to light
   with terrible vividness. Kapp's statement that Brown 'enjoyed
   very careful treatment' is not mistaken, but it is true only
   of the later period of his imprisonment. Watson Brown, whose
   life was prolonged until the early morning of the 19th of
   October, complained of the hard bench he was forced to lie on,
   His fellow-prisoner, Coppoc, begged for a mattress, or at
   least a blanket, for the dying man, but could obtain neither.
   Both Brown himself and Stevens, who was even more seriously
   wounded, had nothing furnished them but wretched straw.
   Redpath (page 373) assures us that 'from October 19 till
   November 7 no clean clothing was given to Brown, but that he
   lay in his soiled and blood-stained garments just as he had
   fallen at Harper's Ferry.' On the 25th of October he was
   brought before the court; he was not at first carried there on
   a camp-bed, as was the case afterward, but compelled to walk,
   leaning on two men. Virginia could not wait till he could
   stand. … There was no such haste to carry out the sentence as
   there had been to bring the trial to a close. On the 2d of
   November, Brown was sentenced to suffer death by hanging on
   the 2d of December."

      H. von Holst,
      John Brown,
      pages 139-155.

   "Brown actually expected that the raid on Harper's Ferry would
   be the stroke with which Moses called forth water from the
   rock. The spring was to turn southward, and in its swift
   course to swell to a mighty river. He declared expressly to
   Governor Wise, and later still in his letters, that he had not
   intended simply to break the chains of a few dozen or a few
   hundred slaves, and to take them again to Canada. Emancipation
   was to be spread farther and farther, and the freedmen were to
   remain in the Southern States. Heaven itself could not have
   brought this about, unless it had sent the angel of judgment
   to cast down into the dust the whole white population from
   Florida to Maine." At the last, when John Brown, wounded and a
   prisoner, lay waiting his death, "he did not perceive that his
   undertaking could not have succeeded under any circumstances;
   but he did see that his failure and its consequences achieved
   much greater results than its most complete success could have
   done. … 'I can leave to God,' he writes, 'the time and manner
   of my death, for I believe now that the sealing of my
   testimony before God and man with my blood will do far more to
   further the cause to which I have earnestly devoted myself,
   than anything else I have done in my life.' And a few days
   later, 'My health improves slowly, and I am quite cheerful
   concerning my approaching end, since I am convinced that I am
   worth infinitely more on the gallows than I could be anywhere
   else.' … One year after the execution of Brown, on the 20th of
   December, 1860, South Carolina declared its secession from the
   Union, and on May 11, 1861, the Second Massachusetts Regiment
   of infantry was raised, which was first to sing on its march
   South:
      'John Brown's body lies mouldering in the grave,
      His soul goes marching on.'"

      H. von Holst,
      John Brown,
      pages 139-155, 125-126, 167-175.

   "Editors persevered for a good while in saying that Brown was
   crazy; but at last they said only that it was 'a crazy
   scheme,' and the only evidence brought to prove it was that it
   cost him his life. I have no doubt that if he had gone with
   5,000 men, liberated 1,000 slaves, killed a hundred or two
   slaveholders, and had as many more killed on his own side, but
   not lost his own life, these same editors would have called it
   by a more respectable name. Yet he has been far more
   successful than that."

      H. D. Thoreau,
      The Last Days of John Brown
      (Anti-Slavery and Reform Papers).

      ALSO IN:
      H. Wilson,
      Rise and Fall of the Slave Power,
      volume 2, chapter 45.

      F. B. Sanborn,
      Life and Letters of John Brown,
      chapters 15-17.

      J. Redpath,
      Public Life of Captain John Brown.

{3405}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860.
   The Eighth Census.

   Total population, 31,443,322, being an increase exceeding 35½
   per cent. over the population of 1850; classified and
   distributed as follows:

North.
                        White.   Free black.  Slave.
California.            361,353     4,086          0
Colorado.               34,231        46          0
Connecticut.           451,520     8,627          0
Dakota.                  2,576         0          0
Illinois.            1,704,323     7,628          0
Indiana.             1,339,000    11,428          0
Iowa.                  673,844     1,069          0
Kansas.                106,579       625          2
Maine.                 626,952     1,327          0
Massachusetts.       1,221,464     9,602          0
Michigan.              742,314     6,799          0
Minnesota.             171,864       259          0
Nebraska.               28,759        67         15
Nevada.                  6,812        45          0
New Hampshire.         325,579       494          0
New Jersey.            646,699    25,318         18
New York.            3,831,730    49,005          0
Ohio.                2,302,838    36,673          0
Oregon.                 52,337       128          0
Pennsylvania.        2,849,266    56,849          0
Rhode Island.          170,668     3,952          0
Utah.                   40,214        30         29
Vermont.               314,389       709          0
Washington.             11,138        30          0
Wisconsin.             774,710     1,171          0
                           ---       ---        ---
Total               18,791,159   225,967         64

South.

                        White.  Free black.  Slave.
Alabama.               526,431     2,690    435,080
Arkansas.              324,191       144    111,115
Delaware.               90,589    19,829      1,798
District of Columbia.   60,764    11,131      3,185
Florida.                77,748       932     61,745
Georgia.               591,588     3,500    462,198
Kentucky.              919,517    10,684    225,483
Louisiana.             357,629    18,647    331,726
Maryland.              515,918    83,942    87,189
Mississippi.           353,901       773    436,631
Missouri.            1,063,509     3,572    114,931
New Mexico              82,924        85          0
North Carolina.        631,100    30,463    881,059
South Carolina.        291,388     9,914    402,406
Tennessee.             826,782     7,300    275,719
Texas.                 421,294       855    182,566
Virginia.            1,047,411    58,042    490,865
                          ----       ---        ---
Total                8,182,684   262,008  8,958,696

   Immigration in the preceding decade added 2,598,214 to the
   population, being 1,388,098 from the British Islands, and
   1,114,564 from other parts of Europe.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860.
   The Southern view of Slavery.

   The state of opinion and feeling on the subject of slavery to
   which the people of the southern states had arrived in 1860 is
   set forth with brevity and distinctness in Claiborne's Life of
   General Quitman, which was published that year: "In the early
   stages of African slavery in the South," says the writer, "it
   was by many considered an evil, that had been inflicted upon
   the country by British and New England cupidity. The Africans
   were regarded as barbarians, and were governed by the lash.
   The very hatred of the 'evil' forced upon us was, in a
   measure, transferred to the unhappy victims. They were treated
   with severity, and no social relations subsisted between them
   and the whites. By degrees slavery began to be considered 'a
   necessary evil,' to be got rid of by gradual emancipation, or
   perhaps not at all, and the condition of the slave sensibly
   improved. The natural sense of justice in the human heart
   suggested that they had been brought here by compulsion, and
   that they should be regarded not as savages, but as captives,
   who were to be kindly treated while laboring for their
   ultimate redemption. The progress of anti-slavery sentiment in
   the Northern States (once regarded by the South as a harmless
   fanaticism), the excesses it has occasioned, and the
   unconstitutional power it claims, at length prompted a general
   and searching inquiry into the true status of the negro. The
   moment that the Southern mind became convinced, that slavery,
   as it exists among us, instead of being a moral, social, and
   political evil, is a moral, social, and political good, and is
   the natural condition of the negro, as ordained by Providence,
   and the only condition in which he can be civilized and
   instructed, the condition of the Southern slave underwent a
   thorough change. As a permanent fixture, as a hereditary
   heirloom, as a human being with an immortal soul, intrusted to
   us by God for his own wise purposes, his value increased, and
   his relation to his owner approximated to the relation of
   guardian and ward. Interest taught us that it would be wise to
   cherish what was to be the permanent means of production and
   profit, and religion exacted the humane and judicious
   employment of the 'talent' committed to our care. Thus the
   most powerful influences that sway the heart and the judgment
   are in operation for the benefit of the slave, and hence his
   present comfortable and constantly ameliorating condition. It
   is due, almost solely, to the moral convictions of the
   slaveholder. Our laws protect the slave in life and limb, and
   against cruel and inordinate punishment. Those laws are
   rigorously applied, though rarely necessary, for public
   opinion, more formidable than law, would condemn to execration
   and infamy the unjust and cruel master. Since these
   convictions in regard to slavery have been adopted almost
   unanimously in the South, the value of negroes has quadrupled.
   This, however, is in some measure an evil, because the
   tendency is to concentrate the slaves in the hands of the few,
   who are able to pay the extraordinary rates now demanded. It
   would be better for the commonwealth, and give additional
   solidity to our system of domestic servitude, if every family
   had an interest in it, secured, to a limited extent, against
   liability for debt. It should constitute in the South, if
   practicable, a part of every homestead, and then interest, and
   household tradition, and the friendly, confidential, and even
   affectionate relations that in the present state of public
   feeling prevail between master and slave, would unite all men
   in its defense. Neither land, nor slaves, which are here more
   valuable than land, should, by either direct or indirect
   legislation, be concentrated in few hands. Every citizen
   should have, if possible, that immediate interest in them
   which would make him feel that, in defending the commonwealth
   and its institutions, he is defending his own inheritance."

      J. F. H. Claiborne,
      Life and Correspondence of John A. Quitman,
      volume 1, chapter 4.

{3406}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (April-November).
   Nineteenth Presidential Election.
   Division of the Democratic Party.
   Four candidates in the field.
   A victory for freedom in the choice of Abraham Lincoln.

   "Mr. J. W. Fell, a politician of Pennsylvania, says that after
   the debates of 1858 [with Douglas] he urged Lincoln to seek
   the Republican nomination for the presidency in 1860. Lincoln,
   however, replied curtly that men like Seward and Chase were
   entitled to take precedence, and that no such 'good luck' was
   in store for him. … In the winter of 1859-60 sundry 'intimate
   friends,' active politicians of Illinois, pressed him to
   consent to be mentioned as a candidate. He considered the
   matter over night and then gave them the desired permission,
   at the same time saying that he would not accept the
   vice-presidency. … With the opening of the spring of 1860 the
   several parties began the campaign in earnest. The Democratic
   Convention met first, at Charleston, April 23; and immediately
   the line of disruption opened. Upon the one side stood
   Douglas, with the moderate men and nearly all the Northern
   delegates, while against him were the advocates of extreme
   Southern doctrines, supported by the administration and by
   most of the delegates from the 'Cotton States.' The majority
   of the committee appointed to draft the platform were
   anti-Douglas men; but their report was rejected, and that
   offered by the pro-Douglas minority was substituted, 165 yeas
   to 138 nays. Thereupon the delegations of Alabama,
   Mississippi, Florida, and Texas, and sundry delegates from
   other States, withdrew from the Convention, taking away 45
   votes out of a total of 303. Those who remained declared the
   vote of two thirds of a full Convention, i. e., 202 votes, to
   be necessary for a choice. Then during three days 57 ballots
   were cast, Douglas being always far in the lead, but never
   polling more than 152½ votes. At last, on May 3, an
   adjournment was had until June 18, at Baltimore. At this
   second meeting contesting delegations appeared, and the
   decisions were uniformly in favor of the Douglas men, which
   provoked another secession of the extremist Southern men. A
   ballot showed 173½ votes for Douglas out of a total of 191½;
   the total was less than two thirds of the full number of the
   original Convention, and therefore it was decided that any
   person receiving two thirds of the votes cast by the delegates
   present should be deemed the nominee. The next ballot gave
   Douglas 181½. Herschel V. Johnson of Georgia was nominated for
   vice-president. On June 28, also at Baltimore [after a meeting
   and adjournment from Richmond, June 11], there came together a
   collection composed of original seceders at Charleston, and of
   some who had been rejected and others who had seceded at
   Baltimore. Very few Northern men were present, and the body in
   fact represented the Southern wing of the Democracy. Having,
   like its competitor, the merit of knowing its own mind, it
   promptly nominated John C. Breckenridge of Kentucky and Joseph
   Lane of Oregon, and adopted the radical platform which had
   been reported at Charleston. These doings opened, so that it
   could never be closed, that seam of which the thread had long
   been visible athwart the surface of the old Democratic party.
   … In May the Convention of the Constitutional Union party met,
   also at Baltimore. This organization was a sudden outgrowth
   designed only to meet the present emergency. … The party died,
   of necessity, upon the day when Lincoln was elected, and its
   members were then distributed between the Republicans, the
   Secessionists, and the Copperheads. John Bell, of Tennessee,
   the candidate for the presidency, joined the Confederacy;
   Edward Everett, of Massachusetts, the candidate for the
   vice-presidency, became a Republican. The party never had a
   hope of electing its men; but its existence increased the
   chance of throwing the election into Congress; and this hope
   inspired exertions far beyond what its own prospects
   warranted. On May 16 the Republican Convention came together
   at Chicago, where the great 'Wigwam' had been built to hold
   10,000 persons. … Many candidates were named, chiefly Seward,
   Lincoln, Chase, Cameron, Edward Bates of Missouri, and William
   L. Dayton of New Jersey. Thurlow Weed was Seward's lieutenant.
   Horace Greeley, chiefly bent upon the defeat of Seward, would
   have liked to achieve it by the success of Bates. David Davis,
   aided by Judge Logan and a band of personal friends from
   Illinois, was manager for Lincoln. Primarily the contest lay
   between Seward and Lincoln. … Upon the third ballot … those
   who were keeping the tally saw that it stood:—Seward, 180;
   Lincoln, 231½; Chase, 24½; Bates, 22; Dayton, 1; McLean, 5;
   Scattering, 1. … Before the count could be announced, a
   delegate from Ohio transferred four votes to Lincoln. This
   settled the matter; and then other delegations followed, till
   Lincoln's score rose to 354. … Later in the day the convention
   nominated Hannibal Hamlin of Maine, on tho second ballot, by
   367 votes, for the vice-presidency. … Almost from the
   beginning it was highly probable that the Republicans would
   win, and it was substantially certain that none of their
   competitors could do so. The only contrary chance was that no
   election might be made by the people, and that it might be
   thrown into Congress."

      J. T. Morse, Jr.,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 1, chapter 6.

   At the popular election, the votes were:
   Lincoln, 1,866,452
      (Free-States vote, 1,840,022, Slave States vote, 26,430);
   Douglas, 1,375,157
      (Free States vote, 1,211,632, Slave States vote, 163,525);
   Breckenridge, 847,953
      (Free States vote, 277,082, Slave States vote, 570,871);
   Bell, 590,631
      (Free States vote, 74,658, Slave States vote, 515,973).

   In the Electoral College, the four candidates were voted
   for as follows:
      Lincoln, 180;
      Breckenridge, 72;
      Bell, 39;
      Douglas, 12.

      E. Stanwood,
      History of Presidential Elections,
      chapter 20.

      ALSO IN:
      H. W. Raymond,
      Life of Lincoln,
      chapter 4.

      E. McPherson,
      Political History of the United States during the
      Great Rebellion,
      page 1.

      J. G. Holland,
      Life of Lincoln,
      chapters 15-16.

      J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 2, chapters 13-16.

      J. F. Rhodes,
      History of the United States from 1850,
      chapter 11 (volume 2).

{3407}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (November-December).
   The plotting of the rebellion.
   Secession of South Carolina.

   "The long-hoped-for opportunity of trying the experiment of
   secession was now at last presented. Abraham Lincoln had been
   elevated to the presidency by a strictly sectional vote; and
   though the fact could not be denied that he had been elected
   in a perfectly constitutional manner, … yet, no sooner was it
   ascertained that it was almost certain that he would receive a
   majority of the electoral votes of the whole Union, than steps
   began to be taken for carrying into effect a revolutionary
   project which had engrossed the thoughts and sensibilities of
   a small class of extreme Southern politicians, mainly confined
   to the State of South Carolina, for some thirty years
   preceding. … So thoroughly matured was the project of
   secession in the minds of Southern extremists in South
   Carolina, that they are known actually to have commenced
   movements looking to this desired end before even the
   presidential election had taken place, and when the result
   which soon ensued was yet but a strong probability.
   Accordingly we find Governor Gist, as early as the 5th of
   November, 1860, addressing a message to the South Carolina
   Legislature, embodying the following bold and explicit
   declarations. … 'That an exposition of the will of the people
   may be obtained on a question involving such momentous
   consequences, I would earnestly recommend that, in the event
   of Abraham Lincoln's election to the presidency, a Convention
   of the people of this state be immediately called, to consider
   and determine for themselves the mode and measure of redress.
   My own opinions of what the Convention should do are of little
   moment; but, believing that the time has arrived when
   everyone, however humble he may be, should express his
   opinions in unmistakable language, I am constrained to say
   that the only alternative left, in my judgment, is the
   secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union. The
   indications from many of the Southern States justify the
   conclusion that the secession of South Carolina will be
   immediately followed, if not adopted simultaneously by them,
   and ultimately by the entire South. … I would also
   respectfully recommend a thorough reorganization of the
   militia, so as to place the whole military force of the state
   in a position to be used at the shortest notice and with the
   greatest efficiency. … In addition to this general
   preparation, I would recommend that the services of 10,000
   volunteers be immediately accepted.' … I desire not to
   particularize on this painful subject to an extent which might
   now prove annoying, and therefore proceed briefly to state
   that the Legislature of South Carolina provided for the
   assemblage of a state Convention, the members of which were to
   be elected on the 6th of December, while the conventional body
   itself was to come together on the 19th of the same month;
   that the Convention did assemble on the last-mentioned day,
   and, after an excited debate of several days' continuance,
   adopted an Ordinance of Secession on the 20th of December.
   Commissioners were sent with a copy of the ordinance to each
   of the slave states, in order to quicken co-operative action,
   and notification was duly made as to these events to the
   Federal government in Washington City. The next secession
   movement it was expected would come off in the State of
   Georgia. A Convention for this purpose had been already
   called. It was known that Alexander H. Stephens, Herschel V.
   Johnson, and other public men, of elevated standing and of
   extended influence, would be members of the Convention, and it
   was expected that they would exert themselves to the utmost to
   prevent the imitation by the State of Georgia of the rash
   example which had just been set by South Carolina; and it was
   likewise known that eminent personages from the State of South
   Carolina would attend the Convention of Georgia, in order to
   urge immediate co-operation. Under these circumstances, I took
   it upon myself to persuade the public men of most influence in
   the city of Nashville, where I was then residing, to send ten
   or fifteen delegates forthwith to Milledgeville, respectfully
   and earnestly to protest against extreme action on the part of
   Georgia. … I urged these views for several days most
   zealously, but, I regret to say, without success; some
   supposing that there was no serious danger of the Convention
   of Georgia adopting an Ordinance of Secession, and others that
   there was reason to fear, if we should send delegates to
   Milledgeville, it might result in fatally compromising our own
   attitude. The manly opposition made by Mr. Stephens to the
   attempt to draw Georgia into the Secession maelstrom is well
   known. This want of success is a circumstance which I shall
   ever deplore as the most unfortunate event of a public nature
   which has occurred within my recollection. Alabama, Florida,
   Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas were now soon enrolled among
   the seceded States. Tennessee, North Carolina, Virginia,
   Arkansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, and Delaware still
   stood firm, despite all the efforts essayed to shake their
   constancy. It is indeed true, as Mr. Greeley has deliberately
   recorded, that after the secession 'conspiracy had held
   complete possession of the Southern mind for three months,
   with the Southern members of the cabinet, nearly all the
   Federal officers, most of the governors and other state
   functionaries, and seven eighths of the prominent and active
   politicians pushing it on, and no force exerted against nor in
   any manner threatening to resist it, a majority of the slave
   states, with two thirds of the free population of the entire
   slaveholding region, was openly and positively adverse to it,
   either because they regarded the alleged grievances of the
   South as exaggerated if not unreal, or because they believed
   that those wrongs would rather be aggravated than cured by
   disunion.'"

      H. S. Foote,
      War of the Rebellion,
      chapter 15.

      ALSO IN:
      J. G. Nicolay,
      The Outbreak of Rebellion,
      chapter 1.

      S. W. Crawford,
      The Genesis of the Civil War,
      chapters 2-5.

      F. Moore, editor,
      Rebellion Record,
      volume 1.

   The following is the South Carolina Ordinance of Secession,
   adopted December 20, together with the Declaration of Causes
   which was promulgated by the Convention four days later:

   "An Ordinance to dissolve the Union between the State of South
   Carolina and other States united with her under the compact
   entitled 'The Constitution of the United States of America.'
   We, the People of the State of South Carolina, in Convention
   assembled, do declare and ordain, and it is hereby declared
   and ordained. That the Ordinance adopted by us in Convention,
   on the twenty-third day of May, in the year of our Lord one
   thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, whereby the
   Constitution of the United States of America was ratified, and
   also, all Acts and parts of Acts of the General Assembly of this
   State, ratifying amendments of the said Constitution, are
   hereby repealed; and that the union now subsisting between
   South Carolina and other States, under the name of 'The United
   States of America,' is hereby dissolved."

{3408}

   "Declaration of the immediate causes which induce and justify
   the secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union:

   The People of the State of South Carolina, in Convention
   assembled, on the 26th day of April, A. D., 1852, declared
   that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United
   States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon
   the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State
   in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference
   to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States,
   she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that
   time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and
   further forbearance ceases to be a virtue. And now the State
   of South Carolina having resumed her separate and equal place
   among nations, deems it due to herself, to the remaining
   United States of America, and to the nations of the world,
   that she should declare the immediate causes which have led to
   this act. In the year 1765, that portion of the British Empire
   embracing Great Britain, undertook to make laws for the
   government of that portion composed of the thirteen American
   Colonies. A struggle for the right of self-government ensued,
   which resulted, on the 4th July, 1776, in a Declaration, by
   the Colonies, 'that they are, and of right ought to be, free
   and independent States; and that, as free and independent
   States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace,
   contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other
   acts and things which independent States may of right do.'
   They further solemnly declared that whenever any 'form of
   government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was
   established, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish
   it, and to institute a new government.' Deeming the Government
   of Great Britain to have become destructive of these ends,
   they declared that the Colonies 'are absolved from all
   allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political
   connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and
   ought to be, totally dissolved.' In pursuance of this
   Declaration of Independence, each of the thirteen States
   proceeded to exercise its separate sovereignty; adopted for
   itself a Constitution, and appointed officers for the
   administration of government in all its
   departments—Legislative, Executive and Judicial. For purposes
   of defence, they united their arms and their counsels; and, in
   1778, they entered into a League known as the Articles of
   Confederation, whereby they agreed to entrust the
   administration of their external relations to a common agent,
   known as the Congress of the United States, expressly
   declaring, in the first article, 'that each State retains its
   sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power,
   jurisdiction and right which is not, by this Confederation,
   expressly delegated to the United States in Congress
   assembled. Under this Confederation the War of the Revolution
   was carried on, and on the 3d September, 1783, the contest
   ended, and a definitive Treaty was signed by Great Britain, in
   which she acknowledged the Independence of the Colonies in the
   following terms:

   'Article 1.—His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United
   States, viz: New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island
   and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey,
   Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina,
   South Carolina and Georgia, to be free, sovereign and
   independent States; that he treats with them as such; and for
   himself, his heirs and successors, relinquishes all claims to
   the government, propriety and territorial rights of the same
   and every part thereof.' Thus were established the two great
   principles asserted by the Colonies, namely: the right of a
   State to govern itself; and the right of a people to abolish a
   Government when it becomes destructive of the ends for which
   it was instituted. And concurrent with the establishment of
   these principles, was the fact, that each Colony became and
   was recognized by the mother Country as a free, sovereign and
   independent State. In 1787, Deputies were appointed by the
   States to revise the Articles of Confederation, and on 17th
   September, 1787, these Deputies recommended, for the adoption
   of the States, the Articles of Union, known as the
   Constitution of the United States. The parties to whom this
   Constitution was submitted, were the several sovereign States;
   they were to agree or disagree, and when nine of them agreed,
   the compact was to take effect among those concurring; and the
   General Government, as the common agent, was then to be
   invested with their authority. If only nine of the thirteen
   States had concurred, the other four would have remained as
   they were—separate sovereign States, independent of any of the
   provisions of the Constitution. In fact, two of the States did
   not accede to the Constitution until long after it had gone
   into operation among the other eleven; and during that
   interval, they each exercised the functions of an independent
   nation. By this Constitution, certain duties were imposed upon
   the several States, and the exercise of certain of their
   powers was restrained, which necessarily implied their
   continued existence as sovereign States. But, to remove all
   doubt, an amendment was added, which declared that the powers
   not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
   prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States,
   respectively, or to the people. On 23d May, 1788, South
   Carolina, by a Convention of her people, passed an Ordinance
   assenting to this Constitution, and afterwards altered her own
   Constitution, to conform herself to the obligations she had
   undertaken. Thus was established, by compact between the
   States, a Government, with defined objects and powers, limited
   to the express words of the grant. This limitation left the
   whole remaining mass of power subject to the clause reserving
   it to the States or to the people, and rendered unnecessary
   any specification of reserved rights. We hold that the
   Government thus established is subject to the two great
   principles asserted in the Declaration of Independence; and we
   hold further, that the mode of its formation subjects it to a
   third fundamental principle, namely: the law of compact. We
   maintain that in every compact between two or more parties,
   the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the
   contracting parties to perform a material part of the
   agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other; and
   that where no arbiter is provided, each party is remitted to
   his own judgment to determine the fact of failure, with all
   its consequences.

{3409}

   In the present case, that fact is established with certainty.
   We assert, that fourteen of the States have deliberately
   refused for years past to fulfil their constitutional
   obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.
   The Constitution of the United States, in its 4th Article,
   provides as follows: 'No person held to service or labor in
   one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another,
   shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be
   discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered
   up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be
   due.' This stipulation was so material to the compact, that
   without it that compact would not have been made. The greater
   number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had
   previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a
   stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the
   government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now
   composes the States north of the Ohio river. The same article
   of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the
   several States of fugitives from justice from the other
   States. The General Government, as the common agent, passed
   laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States.
   For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing
   hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the
   Institution of Slavery has led to a disregard of their
   obligations, and the laws of the General Government have
   ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States
   of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut,
   Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana,
   Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either
   nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to
   execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is
   discharged from the service or labor claimed, and in none of
   them has the State Government complied with the stipulation
   made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early
   day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional
   obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led
   her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the
   remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress.
   In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave
   has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and
   Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged
   with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the
   State of Virginia. Thus the constitutional compact has been
   deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding
   States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is
   released from her obligation. The ends for which this
   Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be 'to form
   a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic
   tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the
   general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to
   ourselves and our posterity.' These ends it endeavored to
   accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was
   recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own
   institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized
   by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving
   them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct
   taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the
   importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for
   the rendition of fugitives from labor. We affirm that these
   ends for which this Government was instituted have been
   defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive
   of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those
   States have assumed the right of deciding upon the propriety
   of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of
   property established in fifteen other States and recognized by
   the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the
   institution of Slavery; they have permitted the open
   establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is
   to disturb the peace and to claim the property of the citizens
   of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands
   of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have
   been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile
   insurrection. For twenty-five years this agitation has been
   steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the
   power of the Common Government. Observing the forms of the
   Constitution, a sectional party has found within that article
   establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting
   the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn
   across the Union, and all the States north of that line have
   united in the election of a man to the high office of
   President of the United States whose opinions and purposes are
   hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the
   administration of the Common Government, because he has
   declared that that 'Government cannot endure permanently half
   slave, half free,' and that the public mind must rest in the
   belief that Slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.
   This sectional combination for the subversion of the
   Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by
   elevating to citizenship, persons, who, by the Supreme Law of
   the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes
   have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the
   South, and destructive of its peace and safety. On the 4th
   March next, this party will take possession of the Government.
   It has announced, that the South shall be excluded from the
   common Territory; that the Judicial Tribunals shall be made
   sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until
   it shall cease throughout the United States. The Guaranties of
   the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights
   of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no
   longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection,
   and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.
   Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation,
   and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that
   public opinion at the North has invested a great political
   error with the sanctions of a more erroneous religious belief.
   We, therefore, the people of South Carolina, by our delegates,
   in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the
   world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly
   declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State
   and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that
   the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the
   nations of the world, as a separate and independent State;
   with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract
   alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and
   things which independent States may of right do."

{3410}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (December).
   President Buchanan's surrender.
   His disunion message and its evil effects.

   Congress met on the first Monday of December and received from
   President Buchanan "his mischievous and deplorable message …
   —a message whose evil effect can never be estimated, and whose
   evil character can hardly be exaggerated. The President
   informed Congress that 'the long-continued and intemperate
   interference of the Northern people with the question of
   slavery in the Southern States has at last produced its
   natural effect.' … The President found that the chief
   grievance of the South was in the enactments of the Free
   States known as 'personal liberty laws' [designed to protect
   free citizens, black or white, in their right to trial by
   jury, which the fugitive slave law denied to a black man
   claimed as a slave]. … Very likely these enactments, inspired
   by an earnest spirit of liberty, went in many cases too far,
   and tended to produce conflicts between National and State
   authority. That was a question to be determined finally and
   exclusively by the Federal Judiciary. Unfortunately Mr.
   Buchanan carried his argument beyond that point. … After
   reciting the statutes which he regarded as objectionable and
   hostile to the constitutional rights of the South, and after
   urging their unconditional repeal upon the North, the
   President said: 'The Southern States, standing on the basis of
   the Constitution, have a right to demand this act of justice
   from the States of the North. Should it be refused, then the
   Constitution, to which all the States are parties, will have
   been willfully violated. … In that event, the injured States,
   after having used all peaceful and constitutional means to
   obtain redress, would be justified in revolutionary resistance
   to the government of the Union.' By this declaration the
   President justified, and in effect advised, an appeal from the
   constitutional tribunals of the country to a popular judgment
   in the aggrieved States, and recognized the right of those
   States, upon such popular judgment, to destroy the
   Constitution and the Union. … Mr. Buchanan proceeded to argue
   ably and earnestly against the assumption by any State of an
   inherent right to secede from the government at its own will
   and pleasure. But he utterly destroyed the force of his
   reasoning by declaring that, 'after much serious reflection'
   he had arrived at 'the conclusion that no power has been
   delegated to Congress, or to any other department of the
   Federal Government, to coerce a State into submission which is
   attempting to withdraw, or has actually withdrawn,' from the
   Union. … Under these doctrines the Government of the United
   States was shorn of all power to preserve its own existence,
   and the Union might crumble and fall while its constituted
   authorities stood paralyzed and impotent. This construction
   was all that the extremists of the South desired. With so much
   conceded, they had every thing in their own hands. … Men who,
   under the wholesome restraint of executive power, would have
   refrained from taking aggressive steps against the National
   Government, were by Mr. Buchanan's action forced into a
   position of hostility. Men in the South, who were disposed to
   avoid extreme measures, were by taunt and reproach driven into
   the ranks of Secession. … The evil effects of Mr. Buchanan's
   message were not confined to the slave States. It did
   incalculable harm in the free States. It fixed in the minds of
   tens of thousands of Northern men who were opposed to the
   Republican party, the belief that the South was justified in
   taking steps to break up the government, if what they termed a
   war on Southern institutions should be continued. This feeling
   had in turn a most injurious influence in the South."

      J. G. Blaine,
      Twenty Years in Congress,
      volume 1, chapter 10.
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/21128

      ALSO IN:
      G. T. Curtis,
      Life of James Buchanan,
      volume 2, chapters 16-17.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (December).
   Vain concessions and humiliations of the North proposed.
   The Crittenden compromise.

   "When, in the House of Representatives, Mr. Boteler, of
   Virginia, proposed to refer so much of the President's Message
   as related to the perilous condition of the country to a
   committee of thirty-three—one from each state—not less than
   52 members from the Slave States refused to vote. 'I pay no
   attention to any action taken in this body,' said one. 'I am
   not sent here to patch up difficulties,' said another. The
   Democratic members from the Free States did their utmost to
   compose the dissension—some of them who subsequently became
   conspicuous in the war—suggesting concessions which doubtless
   they looked back upon with regret. It was proposed that
   persons of African blood should never be considered as
   citizens of the United States; that there should never be any
   interference with slavery in the Territories, nor with the
   interstate slave-trade; that the doctrine of state-rights
   should be admitted, and power of coercion denied to the
   government. Among the dissatisfied members, one would allow
   any state at pleasure to secede, and allot it a fair share of
   the public property and territory. Another would divide the
   Union into four republics; another would abolish the office of
   President, and have in its stead a council of three, each of
   whom should have a veto on every public act. Propositions such
   as these show to what length the allies of the slave power
   would have gone to preserve it and give it perpetuity. At this
   stage, Mr. Crittenden [Senator John J. Crittenden of
   Kentucky], proposed in the Senate certain amendments of the
   Constitution, and resolutions known subsequently as the
   Crittenden Compromise. The essential features of his plan were
   the re-establishing of the Missouri Compromise: that in all
   territory of the United States north of 36° 30' slavery should
   be prohibited; in all south of that line, not only permitted,
   but protected; that from such territory north or south states
   might be admitted with or without slavery, as the Constitution
   of each might determine; that Congress should have no power to
   abolish slavery in places under its jurisdiction in a slave
   state, nor in the District of Columbia, without the consent of
   the adjoining states, nor without compensation to the
   slaveholders, nor to prevent persons connected with the
   government bringing their slaves into the District; that
   Congress should have no power to hinder the interstate or
   territorial transport of slaves; that the national government
   should pay a full value to the owner of a fugitive slave who
   might have been rescued from the officers; that no amendments
   of the Constitution should ever be made which might affect
   these amendments, or other slave compromises already existing
   in the Constitution.
{3411}
   He also recommended to the states that had enacted laws in
   conflict with the existing fugitive slave acts, their repeal;
   and in four resolutions made provision for the more perfect
   execution of those acts. But the dissension was too deep to be
   closed by such a measure as Mr. Crittenden's, which contained
   nothing that could satisfy the North. The South was resolved
   not to be satisfied with any thing. It had taken what was
   plainly an irreversible step. According]y, Mr. Crittenden's
   proposition was eventually lost."

      J. W. Draper,
      History of the American Civil War,
      chapter 31 (section 6, volume 1).

      ALSO IN:
      H. Greeley,
      The American Conflict,
      volume 1, chapter 24.

      E. McPherson, Political History of the United States
      during the Great Rebellion,
      pages 48-90.

      J. A. Logan,
      The Great Conspiracy,
      chapter 8.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (December).
   Major Anderson at Fort Sumter.
   Floyd's treachery in the War Department.
   Cabinet rupture.
   Loyalty reinstated in the national government.

   "In November, 1860, the fortifications of Charleston Harbor
   consisted of three works—Castle Pinckney, an old-fashioned,
   circular brick fort, on Shute's Folly Island, and about one
   mile east of the city; Fort Moultrie, on Sullivan's Island,
   still farther to the east, and famous as being on the site of
   the old fort of palmetto logs, where, during the long
   bombardment by the British fleet in Revolutionary days, the
   gallant William Jasper leaped from the low rampart upon the
   beach below, and seizing the flag that had been shot down,
   rehoisted it above the fort; and lastly, Fort Sumter, an
   unfinished fortification, named after General Thomas Sumter,
   the famous partisan leader of the Revolution, and who was
   familiarly known as the 'gamecock of the Carolinas.' The
   armament of Castle Pinckney consisted of 22 cannon, 2 mortars,
   and 4 light pieces; that of Moultrie of 45 cannon and 7 light
   pieces; while Sumter mounted 78 heavy guns of various calibre.
   The entire force of United States troops in these
   fortifications was composed of two weak companies of artillery
   under command of Major Robert Anderson, and a few engineer
   employees under Captain John G. Foster. Of these a sergeant
   and squad of men were stationed at Castle Pinckney for the
   care of the quarters and the guns; a similar handful were at
   Sumter; while most of the little force were at Moultrie, where
   Anderson had his headquarters. Such was the military situation
   when South Carolina began to proclaim, without disguise, her
   purpose to secede and to possess herself of the fortifications
   on her coast. … Our Government paid no apparent heed, and yet
   the authorities at Washington were fully and betimes
   forewarned. … On the files of the Engineer Department I found
   a letter, which still remains there, dated as early as
   November 24, 1860, from Captain Foster to Colonel De Russy,
   then the chief of the engineer corps, in which the captain
   states that, at the request of Major Anderson, he has, in
   company with that officer, made a thorough inspection of the
   forts in the harbor; that, in the opinion of Anderson, one
   additional company of artillery should at once be sent to
   garrison Castle Pinckney, which in the terse language of the
   letter, 'commands the city of Charleston.' Upon the back of
   the letter is the simple but significant indorsement, in his
   own hand-writing, 'Return to Governor Floyd.' You may recall
   him as Mr. Buchanan's Secretary of War. On November 30,
   Captain Foster again writes to Colonel De Russy, saying: 'I
   think that more troops should have been sent here to guard the
   forts, and I believe that no serious demonstration on the part
   of the populace would have met such a course.' On this is
   indorsed: 'Colonel Cooper says this has been shown to the
   Secretary of War. H. G. W.' The initials, placed there by
   himself, are those of the gallant Horatio G. Wright, who
   succeeded to the command of the Sixth Army Corps after the
   loved Sedgwick fell. On December 2, application was made by
   Captain Foster for the small supply of four boxes of muskets
   and sixty rounds of cartridge per man, to arm the few
   civilians or hired laborers who constituted the engineer
   corps. These arms and ammunition were in the United States
   arsenal at Charleston, a building which still had a Federal
   keeper, and over which still floated the Federal flag. On this
   application is the following indorsement, also in General
   Wright's handwriting: 'Handed to adjutant-general, and by him
   laid before the Secretary of War on the sixth of December.
   Returned by adjutant-general on the seventh. Action deferred
   for the present. See Captain Foster's letter of December 4.' …
   On December 17, Captain Foster, acting on his own patriotic
   judgment, but without orders, went to Charleston and took from
   the Federal arsenal forty muskets, with which to arm his
   laborers. Early on the morning of the 19th, he received a
   telegram from Secretary Floyd, directing him instantly to
   return the arms to the arsenal. On the next day, the 20th, the
   South Carolinians decided, in State convention, to secede, and
   proclaimed their State an independent sovereignty. … All alike
   were delirious with the epidemic madness of the hour, were
   hopeful, resolute, enthusiastic. Bells pealed and cannon
   boomed. … But few ventured to breast the storm. There was one,
   whose name should live honored in in a nation's memory, a
   wise, true man, the greatest lawyer of his State, James L.
   Pettigrew, who, when his minister first dropped from the
   service the prayer for the President of the United States,
   rose in his pew in the middle aisle of Charleston's most
   fashionable church, and slowly and with distinct voice
   repeated: 'Most humbly and heartily we beseech Thee with Thy
   favor to behold and bless Thy servant, the President of these
   United States.' Then, placing his prayer-book in the rack, and
   drawing his wife's arm within his own, he left the church, nor
   entered it again until his body was borne there for burial. To
   their honor be it said, that even the Carolinians respected
   his sincerity and candor, and never molested him. … On the
   night of December 26, Major Anderson evacuated Fort Moultrie,
   which was untenable by his small force, spiked his guns,
   burned the gun-carriages, and transferred his small command in
   two schooners to Fort Sumter. This act was without orders and
   against the do-nothing and helpless policy which had thus far
   controlled the Government. But it showed the wisdom and prompt
   decision of the trained soldier and the spirit of the loyal
   citizen. … Let us recall the appearance of Sumter when
   Anderson transferred his feeble garrison to its protection.
   The fort was built on an artificial island, which had been
   constructed by dumping stone upon a shoal that lay on the
   south side of the principal ship channel to Charleston Harbor.
   Sumter was pentagonal in form, and its five sides of brick,
   made solid by concrete, rose 60 feet above the water. It was
   pierced for an armament of 135 guns, which were to be placed
   in three tiers.
{3412}
   Two tiers were to be in casemates, and one 'en barbette,' or
   on the top of the wall. The embrasures of the upper tier of
   casemates were never completed. They were filled up with brick
   during Major Anderson's occupation of the fort, and so
   remained during all the succeeding operations and siege.
   Seventy-eight guns of various calibre composed its then
   armament, the most efficient of which were placed 'en
   barbette.' On the east and west sides of the parade were
   barracks for the privates, and on the south side were the
   officers' quarters. These were all wooden structures. The
   wharf by which access was had to the fort was on the southern
   side against the gorge wall. Looking from the sea front,
   Sumter lay nearly midway between Sullivan's Island on the
   north and the low, sandy ridges of Morris on the south, and
   about 1,400 yards from either. The main ship channel was
   between Sumter and Sullivan's Island. The water between the
   fort and Morris Island was for the most part comparatively
   shallow. James Island lay to the west and southwest, while to
   the northwest, and at a distance of three and one-third miles,
   rose the steeples of Charleston. The city could have been
   barely reached by the heaviest guns of the barbette battery.
   Castle Pinckney lay in the direction of the city, and was
   distant about two and one-third miles. Sullivan's, Morris, and
   James Islands thus formed a segment of three-fourths of a
   circle around Sumter. They were so close under the guns of the
   fort that, with the then limited experience in the
   construction of earthworks, no batteries could have been
   erected under fire from Sumter sufficiently strong to prevent
   the re-enforcement and supplying of the fort, had Anderson
   been allowed to open fire at the first upon the rebel working
   parties. … At noon of December 27, the flag of the nation was
   raised over the defenders of the fort. Major Anderson knelt,
   holding the halliards, while Reverend Matthew Harris, an army
   chaplain, offered fervent prayer for that dear flag and for
   the loyal few who stood beneath its folds. … And then all
   wearily the days and weeks dragged on. New fortifications rose
   day by day on each sandhill about the harbor; vessels of war,
   bearing the Confederate flag, steamed insultingly near, and
   the islands were white as harvest fields, with the tents of
   the fast-gathering rebel soldiery; and still, by positive
   orders, Anderson was bidden to stand in idle helplessness
   beside his silent indignant cannon."

      General Stewart L. Woodford,
      The Story of Fort Sumter
      (Personal Recollections of the War of the Rebellion,
      pages 259-266).

   On the 29th of December, three days after Anderson had
   transferred his command to Fort Sumter, Floyd gave up his work
   of treachery in the War Department, and resigned. Howell Cobb
   had resigned the Treasury Department previously, on the 10th.
   A few days later, January 8, Jacob Thompson withdrew from the
   Interior Department. Loyal men now replaced these
   secessionists in the Cabinet. Joseph Holt of Kentucky took the
   place of Floyd in the War Department; John A. Dix of New York
   succeeded Cobb in the Treasury, and the place of Thompson was
   not filled. Edwin M. Stanton entered the Cabinet as
   Attorney-General, taking the place of Jeremiah S. Black who
   became Secretary of State. General Cass had held the State
   Department until December 12, when he, too, resigned, but for
   reasons opposite to those of Floyd and Cobb. He left the
   Government because it would not reinforce the Charleston
   forts.

      E. McPherson,
      Political History of the United States during the
      Great Rebellion,
      page 28.

      ALSO IN:
      S. W. Crawford,
      Genesis of the Civil War: The Story of Sumter,
      chapters 1, and 6-10.

      J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 2, chapters 18-29,
      and volume 3, chapter 1-6.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860-1861 (December-February).
   Seizure of arms, arsenals, forts, and other
   public property by the Southern insurgents.
   Base surrender of an army by Twiggs.

   "Directly after Major Anderson's removal to Fort Sumter, the
   Federal arsenal in Charleston, containing many thousand stand
   of arms and a considerable quantity of military stores, was
   seized by the volunteers, now flocking to that city by
   direction of the State authorities; Castle Pinckney, Fort
   Moultrie, and Sullivan's Island were likewise occupied by
   them, and their defenses vigorously enlarged and improved. The
   Custom-House, Post-Office, etc., were likewise appropriated,
   without resistance or commotion. … Georgia having given
   [January 2, 1861] a large popular majority for Secession, her
   authorities immediately took military possession of the
   Federal arsenal at Augusta, as also of Forts Pulaski and
   Jackson, commanding the approaches by sea to Savannah. North
   Carolina had not voted to secede, yet Governor Ellis
   simultaneously seized the United States Arsenal at
   Fayetteville, with Fort Macon, and other fortifications
   commanding the approaches to Beaufort and Wilmington. Having
   done so, Governor Ellis coolly wrote to the War Department
   that he had taken the step to preserve the forts from seizure
   by mobs! In Alabama, the Federal arsenal at Mobile was seized
   on the 4th, by order of Governor Moore. It contained large
   quantities of arms and munitions. Fort Morgan, commanding the
   approaches to Mobile, was likewise seized, and garrisoned by
   State troops. … In Louisiana, the Federal arsenal at Baton
   Rouge was seized by order of Governor Moore on the 11th. Forts
   Jackson and St. Philip, commanding the passage up the
   Mississippi to New Orleans, and Fort Pike, at the entrance of
   Lake Pontchartrain, were likewise seized and garrisoned by
   State troops. The Federal Mint and Custom-House at New Orleans
   were left untouched until February 1st, when they, too, were
   taken possession of by the State authorities. … In Florida,
   Fort Barrancas and the Navy Yard at Pensacola were seized by
   Florida and Alabama forces on the 13th; Commander Armstrong
   surrendering them without a struggle. He ordered Lieutenant
   Slemmer, likewise, to surrender Forts Pickens and McRae; but
   the intrepid subordinate defied the order, and, withdrawing
   his small force from Fort McRae to the stronger and less
   accessible Fort Pickens, announced his determination to hold
   out to the last. He was soon after besieged therein by a
   formidable volunteer force; and a dispatch from Pensacola
   announced that 'Fort McRae is being occupied and the guns
   manned by the allied forces of Florida, Alabama, and
   Mississippi.' … The revenue cutter Cass, stationed at Mobile,
   was turned over by Captain J. J. Morrison to the authorities
   of Alabama at the end of January.
{3413}
   The McClellan, Captain Breshwood, stationed on the Mississippi
   below New Orleans, was, in like manner, handed over to those
   of Louisiana. General Dix had sent down a special agent to
   secure them, but he was too late. The telegraph dispatch
   whereby General Dix directed him, 'If any person' attempts to
   haul down the American flag, shoot him on the spot,' sent an
   electric thrill through the loyal heart of the country.
   Finally, tidings reached Washington, about the end of
   February, that Brigadier-General Twiggs, commanding the
   department of Texas, had disgracefully betrayed his trust, and
   turned over his entire army, with all the posts and
   fortifications, arms, munitions, horses, equipments, etc., to
   General Ben. M'Culloch, representing the authorities of Texas,
   now fully launched upon the rushing tide of treason. The Union
   lost by that single act at least half its military force, with
   the State of Texas, and the control of our Mexican frontier. …
   The defensive fortifications located within the seceding
   States were some 30 in number, mounting over 3,000 guns, and
   having cost at least $20,000,000. Nearly all these had been
   seized and appropriated by the Confederates before Mr.
   Lincoln's inauguration, with the exception of Fortress Monroe
   (Virginia), Fort Sumter (South Carolina), Fort Pickens
   (Florida), and the fortresses on Key West and the Tortugas,
   off the Florida coast."

      H. Greeley,
      The American Conflict,
      volume 1, chapter 26.

      ALSO IN:
      Official Records of the War of the Rebellion,
      series 1, volume 1.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (January-February).
   Secession of Georgia, Mississippi, Florida, Louisiana,
   Alabama, and Texas.
   Opposition of Alexander H. Stephens, in Georgia.

   "On the 9th day of January, 1861, the State of Mississippi
   seceded from the Union. Alabama and Florida followed on the
   11th day of the same month; Georgia on the 20th; Louisiana on
   the 26th; and Texas on the 1st of February. Thus, in less than
   three mouths after the announcement of Lincoln's election, all
   the Cotton States … had seceded from the Union, and had,
   besides, secured every Federal fort within their limits,
   except the forts in Charleston harbor, and Fort Pickens, below
   Pensacola, which were retained by United States troops."

      E. A. Pollard,
      The First Year of the War,
      chapter 1.

   The secession of Georgia was powerfully but vainly opposed by
   the foremost citizen of that state, Alexander H. Stephens,
   whose speech before the Legislature of Georgia, in protest
   against the disruption of the Union, had been one of the
   notable utterances of the time. "Shall the people of the
   South," asked Mr. Stephens, "secede from the Union in
   consequence of the election of Mr. Lincoln to the Presidency
   of the United States? My countrymen, I tell you frankly,
   candidly, and earnestly, that I do not think that they ought.
   In my judgment, the election of no man, constitutionally
   chosen to that high office, is sufficient cause for any State
   to separate from the Union. It ought to stand by and aid still
   in maintaining the constitution of the country. To make a
   point of resistance to the government, to withdraw from it
   because a man has been constitutionally elected, puts us in
   the wrong. We are pledged to maintain the constitution. Many
   of us have sworn to support it. Can we, therefore, for the
   mere election of a man to the presidency, and that, too, in
   accordance with the prescribed forms of the constitution, make
   a point of resistance to the government, without becoming the
   breakers of that sacred instrument ourselves, by withdrawing
   ourselves from it? Would we not be in the wrong? Whatever fate
   is to befall this country, let it never be laid to the charge
   of the people of the South, and especially to the people of
   Georgia, that we were untrue to our national engagements. Let
   the fault and the wrong rest upon others. … Let the fanatics
   of the North break the constitution, if such is their fell
   purpose. Let the responsibility be upon them. … We went into
   the election with this people. The result was different from
   what we wished; but the election has been constitutionally
   held. Were we to make a point of resistance to the government
   and go out of the Union on that account, the record would be
   made up hereafter against us. But it is said Mr. Lincoln's
   policy and principles are against the constitution, and that,
   if he carries them out, it will be destructive of our rights.
   Let us not anticipate a threatened evil. If he violates the
   constitution, then will come our time to act. Do not let us
   break it because, forsooth, he may. If he does, that is the
   time for us to strike. I think it would be injudicious and
   unwise to do this sooner. I do not anticipate that Mr. Lincoln
   will do anything to jeopard our safety or security, whatever
   may be his spirit to do it; for he is bound by the
   constitutional checks which are thrown around him, which at
   this time render him powerless to do any great mischief. This
   shows the wisdom of our system. The President of the United
   States is no emperor, no dictator—he is clothed with no
   absolute power. He can do nothing unless he is backed by power
   in Congress. The House of Representatives is largely in a
   majority against him. In the very face and teeth of the heavy
   majority which he has obtained in the northern States, there
   have been large gains in the House of Representatives to the
   conservative constitutional party of the country, which here I
   will call the national democratic party, because that is the
   cognomen it has at the North. … Is this the time, then, to
   apprehend that Mr. Lincoln, with this large majority in the
   House of Representatives against him, can carry out any of his
   unconstitutional principles in that body? In the Senate he
   will also be powerless. There will be a majority of four
   against him. … Mr. Lincoln cannot appoint an officer without
   the consent of the Senate—he cannot form a cabinet without the
   same consent. He will be in the condition of George the Third
   (the embodiment of toryism), who had to ask the whigs to
   appoint his ministers, and was compelled to receive a cabinet
   utterly opposed to his views; and so Mr. Lincoln will be
   compelled to ask of the Senate to choose for him a cabinet, if
   the democracy of that party chose to put him on such terms. He
   will be compelled to do this, or let the government stop, if
   the national democratic men (for that is their name at the
   North), the conservative men in the Senate, should so
   determine. Then how can Mr. Lincoln obtain a cabinet which
   would aid him, or allow him to violate the constitution? Why
   then, I say, should we disrupt the ties of this Union when his
   hands are tied—when he can do nothing against us?"

      A. H. Stephens,
      Speech against Secession, November 14, 1860
      (in "Alexander H. Stephens in Public and Private;
      by H. Cleveland").

{3414}

   But when Georgia, despite his exertions, was drawn into the
   movement of rebellion, Mr. Stephens surrendered to it, and
   lent his voice to the undertaking which he had proved to be
   without excuse.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (MARCH).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (February).
   The Peace Convention.

   "The General Assembly of Virginia, on the 19th of January,
   adopted resolutions inviting representatives of the several
   States to assemble in a Peace Convention at Washington, which
   met on the 4th of February. It was composed of 133
   Commissioners, many from the border States, and the object of
   these was to prevail upon their associates from the North to
   unite with them in such recommendations to Congress as would
   prevent their own States from seceding and enable them to
   bring back six of the cotton States which had already
   seceded." On the 15th of February a committee of the
   Convention reported certain proposed amendments to the
   Constitution which "were substantially the same with the
   Crittenden Compromise;

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (DECEMBER)
      VAIN CONCESSIONS;

   but on motion of Mr. Johnson, of Maryland, the general terms
   of the first and by far the most important section were
   restricted to the present Territories of the United States. On
   motion of Mr. Franklin, of Pennsylvania, this section was
   further amended, but not materially changed, by the adoption
   of the substitute offered by him. Nearly in this form it was
   afterwards adopted by the Convention. The following is a copy:

   'In all the present territory of the United States north of
   the parallel of thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes of north
   latitude, involuntary servitude, except in punishment of
   crime, is prohibited. In all the present territory south of
   that line, the status of persons held to involuntary service
   or labor, as it now exists, shall not be changed; nor shall
   any law be passed by Congress or the Territorial Legislature
   to prevent the taking of such persons from any of the States
   of this Union to said territory, nor to impair the rights
   arising from said relation; but the same shall be subject to
   judicial cognizance in the Federal courts, according to the
   course of the common law. When any Territory north or south of
   said line, within such boundary as Congress may prescribe,
   shall contain a population equal to that required for a member
   of Congress, it shall, if its form of government be
   republican, be admitted into the Union on an equal footing
   with the original States, with or without involuntary
   servitude, as the Constitution of such State may provide.'…

   More than ten days were consumed in discussion and in voting
   upon various propositions offered by individual commissioners.
   The final vote was not reached until Tuesday, the 26th
   February, when it was taken on the first vitally important
   section, as amended. This section, on which all the rest
   depended, was negatived by a vote of eight States to eleven.
   Those which voted in its favor were Delaware, Kentucky,
   Maryland, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and
   Tennessee. And those in the negative were Connecticut,
   Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Missouri, New York,
   North Carolina, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Virginia." A
   reconsideration of the vote was moved, however, and on the day
   following (February 27), "the first section was adopted, but
   only by a majority of nine to eight States, nine being less
   than a majority of the States represented. … From the nature
   of this vote, it was manifestly impossible that two-thirds of
   both Houses of Congress should act favorably on the amendment,
   even if the delay had not already rendered such action
   impracticable before the close of the session. The remaining
   sections of the amendment were carried by small majorities,"
   and the proposed amendment of the Constitution was reported to
   Congress, with a request that it be submitted to the
   Legislatures of the States, but no action upon it was taken.

      T. V. Cooper,
      American Politics,
      pages 106-108.

   "Most of the Southerners thought these propositions worse than
   nothing. Hunter preferred the present position under the
   constitution, with the Dred Scott decision as its exposition.
   Mason, the other Senator from the state that had issued the
   call for the Peace Convention, said that he would consider
   himself a traitor if he should recommend such propositions.
   Wigfall of Texas, however, bore off the palm by saying: 'If
   those resolutions were adopted, and ratified by three-fourths
   of the states of this Union, and no other cause ever existed,
   I make the assertion that the seven states now out of the
   Union would go out upon that.' Many of the Republicans were
   equally strong in their opposition to them. Chandler of
   Michigan spoke the substance of the opinions of several on his
   side of the Senate when he expressed himself in the language
   of the 'stump' by saying: 'No concession, no compromise,—ay,
   give us strife, even to blood,—before a yielding to the
   demands of traitorous insolence.' … John Tyler, the president
   of the convention that passed them, and Seddon returned to
   their state and denounced the recommendations of the Peace
   Convention as a delusion, a sham and an insult to the South. …
   Hawkins of Florida told the House, when the question was first
   touched upon, that the day of compromise was past and that he
   and his state were opposed to all and every compromise. Pugh
   and Clopton of Alabama both spoke boldly for secession and
   against any temporizing policy. Congress had been in session
   but ten days, and neither of the committees on compromise had
   had time to report, when a large number of the members of
   Congress from the extreme Southern States issued a manifesto
   declaring that 'argument was exhausted' and that 'the sole and
   primary aim of each slaveholding state ought to be its speedy
   and absolute separation from an unnatural and hostile Union.'
   … The boldness of these facts is startling, even when viewed
   at this distance. They make it perfectly evident that it was
   not the constitution which the South was desirous of saving,
   but the institution of slavery which she was determined to
   preserve. Likewise on the Northern side we find that those who
   were courageous, logical, and intellectually vigorous in
   political speculation considered the constitution of less
   importance than the development of their ideas of freedom.
   These people were called Abolitionists. Although their
   political strength was not great, some one of their many ideas
   found sympathy in the mind of almost every Northerner of
   education or of clear moral intentions. This explains how John
   A. Andrew could be elected governor of Massachusetts, although
   known to have presided over a John Brown meeting.
{3415}
   The purpose of the Abolitionists was 'the utter extermination
   of slavery wheresoever it may exist.' Wendell Phillips
   surprised very few Abolitionists when, knowing that the
   Confederacy was forming, he rejoiced that 'the covenant with
   death' was annulled and 'the agreement with hell' was broken
   in pieces, and exclaimed: 'Union or no Union, constitution or
   no constitution, freedom for every man between the oceans, and
   from the hot Gulf to the frozen pole! You may as well dam up
   Niagara with bulrushes as bind our anti-slavery purpose with
   Congressional compromise.' Congress had to consider such facts
   as these, as well as the compromises which were proposed.
   Stephen A. Douglas felt compelled to say, as early as January,
   1861, that there were Democrats in the Senate who did not want
   a settlement. And it was plain to all that most of the
   Republicans discouraged further concessions. Nor would a
   constitutional amendment have been possible unless the
   Northern members had first recognized the seven states as
   being out of the Union, for it would otherwise have required
   the support of all but one of the states that were still
   active. That the 'personal liberty' laws were a violation of
   the constitution, and that the execution of the fugitive slave
   law of 1850 had been unconstitutionally obstructed, were
   unquestioned facts, directly or indirectly recognized by many
   of the Republican leaders. Nevertheless, the North was much
   more inclined to continue in this unconstitutional position
   than to yield to the demands of the South."

      F. Bancroft,
      The Final Efforts at Compromise
      (Political Science Quarterly, September, 1891).

      ALSO IN:
      H. A. Wise,
      Seven Decades of the Union,
      chapter 15.

      L. G. Tyler,
      Letters and Times of the Tylers,
      volume 2, chapter 20.

      L. E. Chittenden,
      Report of Debates and Proceedings in Secret Session
      of the Conference Convention, Washington, 1861.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (February).
   Adoption of a Constitution for
   "The Confederate States of America."
   Election of a President and Vice President.

   "Early in February, 1861, a convention of six seceding states,
   South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana,
   Florida, was held at Montgomery, Alabama. They were
   represented by 42 persons. Measures were taken for the
   formation of a provisional government. After the vote on the
   provisional Constitution was taken, Jefferson Davis was
   elected President, and Alexander H. Stephens Vice-President of
   the Confederacy for the current year. The inauguration of Mr.
   Davis took place on February 18th. Both were shortly after
   re-elected permanently for six years. … The permanent
   Constitution adopted for 'The Confederate States of America,'
   the title now assumed, was modeled substantially on that of
   the United States. It was remarked that, after all, the old
   Constitution was the most suitable basis for the new
   Confederacy. Among points of difference must be noticed that
   the new instrument broadly recognized, even in its preamble,
   the contested doctrine of state-rights. … Inducements and
   threats were applied to draw Virginia and the other Border
   States into the Confederacy. … With an ominous monition, the
   second article reads, 'Congress shall … have power to prohibit
   the introduction of slaves from any state not a member of this
   Confederacy.' At this time Virginia was receiving an annual
   income of $12,000,000 from the sale of slaves. In 1860 12,000
   slaves were sent over her railroads to the South and
   Southwest. One thousand dollars for each was considered a low
   estimate. Notwithstanding this, the Ordinance of Secession did
   not pass the Virginia Convention until some weeks subsequently
   (April 17)."

      J. W. Draper,
      History of the American Civil War,
      chapter 32 (volume 1).

   The preamble of the Constitution declared that "the people of
   the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and
   independent character, invoking the favor and guidance of
   Almighty God, ordained a Constitution to form a permanent
   Federal Government and for other purposes. The change in
   phraseology was obviously to assert the derivative character
   of the Federal Government and to exclude the conclusion which
   Webster and others had sought to draw from the phrase, 'We,
   the people of the United States.' In the Executive department,
   the Constitution provided, in accordance with the early
   agreement of the Convention of 1787, that the President should
   be elected for six years and be ineligible. A seat upon the
   floor of either House of Congress might be granted to the
   principal officer in each of the Executive departments with
   the privilege of discussing any measures appertaining to his
   department. The President was empowered to remove at pleasure
   the principal officer in each of the Executive departments and
   all persons connected with the diplomatic service. To give
   entire control of Cabinet officers and of foreign ministers
   was considered to be necessary for the proper discharge of the
   President's duties and for the independence of his department.
   All other civil officers could be removed when their services
   were unnecessary, or for dishonesty, inefficiency, misconduct,
   or neglect of duty, but the removals in such cases, with the
   reasons therefor, were to be reported to the Senate, and no
   person rejected by the Senate could be reappointed to the same
   office during the recess of the Senate. The President was
   empowered, while approving portions of an appropriation bill,
   to disapprove particular items, as in other like cases of
   veto, the object being to defeat log-rolling combinations
   against the Treasury. Admitting members of the Cabinet to
   seats upon the floor of Congress with right of discussion
   (which worked well during the brief life of the Confederacy),
   was intended to secure greater facility of communication
   betwixt the Executive and the Legislative departments and
   enforce upon the heads of the departments more direct personal
   responsibility. By ineligibility of the President and
   restriction of the power of removal, the Congress, acting as a
   convention, sought to secure greater devotion to public
   interests, freedom from the corrupting influences of Executive
   patronage, and to break up the iniquitous spoils system which
   is such a peril to the purity and perpetuity of our
   Government. The Judicial department was permitted to remain
   substantially as it was in the old Government. The only
   changes were to authorize a tribunal for the investigation of
   claims against the Government, the withholding from the
   Federal Courts jurisdiction of suits between citizens of
   different States, and the enactment of a wise provision that
   any judicial or other Federal officer, resident and acting
   solely within the limits of any State, might be impeached by a
   vote of two thirds of both branches of the Legislature
   thereof.

{3416}

   The provisions in reference to the election of Senators and
   Representatives and the powers and duties of each House were
   unaltered except that the electors of each State were required
   to be citizens, and the Senators were to be chosen by the
   Legislatures of the State at the session next immediately
   preceding the beginning of the term of service. In reference
   to the general powers of Congress, some of the changes were
   more vital. The general welfare clause was omitted from the
   taxing grant. Bounties from the Treasury and extra
   compensation to contractors, officers, and agents were
   prohibited. 'A Protective Tariff' was so far forbidden that no
   duties or taxes on importations could be laid to promote or
   foster any branch of industry. Export duties were allowed with
   the concurrence of two thirds of both Houses. Congress was
   forbidden to make internal improvements except to furnish
   lights, beacons, buoys, to improve harbors, and to remove
   obstructions in river navigation, and the cost of these was to
   be paid by duties levied on the navigation facilitated. That
   the objects might be better attained, States, with the consent
   of Congress and under certain other restrictions, were allowed
   to lay a duty on the sea-going tonnage participating in the
   trades of the river or harbor improved. States, divided by
   rivers, or through which rivers flowed, could enter into
   compacts for improving their navigation. Uniform laws of
   naturalization and bankruptcy were authorized, but bankruptcy
   could not affect debts contracted prior to the passage of the
   law. A two-thirds vote was made requisite to appropriate money
   unless asked and estimated for by some one of the heads of the
   departments. Every law must relate but to one subject, and
   that was to be expressed in the title. To admit new States
   required a vote of two thirds of each House, the Senate voting
   by States. Upon the demand of any three States, legally
   assembled in their several conventions, Congress could summon
   a convention to consider amendments to the Constitution, but
   the convention was confined in its action to propositions
   suggested by the States making the call. … 'The importation of
   negroes of the African race was forbidden, and Congress was
   required to pass laws effectually to prevent it.' The right of
   transit or sojourn with slaves in any State was secured and
   fugitive slaves—called 'slaves' without the euphemism of the
   old instrument—were to be delivered up on the claim of the
   party to whom they belonged. Congress could prohibit the
   introduction of slaves from States and Territories not
   included in the Confederacy, and laws impairing the right of
   property in negro slaves were prohibited. Slaves could be
   carried into any Territory of the Confederacy by citizens of
   the Confederate States and be protected as property. This
   clause was intended to forbid 'squatter sovereignty,' and to
   prevent adverse action against property in slaves, until the
   Territory should emerge from a condition of pupilage and
   dependence into the dignity, equality, and sovereignty of a
   State, when its right to define 'property' would be beyond the
   interference or control of Congress."

      J. L. M. Curry,
      The Southern States of the American Union,
      chapter 13.

   Alexander H. Stephens, in his "Constitutional view of the late
   War between the States," expresses the opinion that the
   selection of Jefferson Davis for the Presidency of the
   Confederacy was due to a misunderstanding. He says that a
   majority of the states were looking to Georgia for the
   President, and the Georgia delegation had unanimously agreed
   to present Mr. Toombs, who would have been acceptable. But a
   rumor got currency that Georgia would put forward Howell Cobb,
   whereupon the other states took up Davis, and united upon him.
   It was generally understood, says Mr. Stephens, that Davis
   "did not desire the office of President. He preferred a
   military position, and the one he desired above all others was
   the chief command of the army."

      A. H. Stephens,
      Constitutional View of the War between the States,
      volume 2, page 328-333.

      ALSO IN:
      R. B. Rhett,
      The Confederate Government at Montgomery
      (Battles and Leaders of the Civil War,
      volume 1, pages 99-111).

      Jefferson Davis,
      Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government,
      part 3, chapter. 5, and appendix K (volume 1).

   The text of both the Provisional and the Permanent
   Constitution of the Confederate States is given in the
   appendix referred to.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (February).
   Urgency of South Carolina for the reduction of Fort Sumter
   before the inauguration of President Lincoln.

   "I am perfectly satisfied," wrote Governor Pickens of South
   Carolina to Howell Cobb, "President of the Provisional
   Congress" of the Confederacy, in a letter dated February 13,
   1861,—"I am perfectly satisfied that the welfare of the new
   confederation and the necessities of the State require that
   Fort Sumter should be reduced before the close of the present
   administration at Washington. If an attack is delayed until
   after the inauguration of the incoming President of the United
   States, the troops now gathered in the capital may then be
   employed in attempting that which, previous to that time, they
   could not be spared to do. They dare not leave Washington now
   and do that which then will be a measure too inviting to be
   resisted. Mr. Lincoln cannot do more for this State than Mr.
   Buchanan has done. Mr. Lincoln will not concede what Mr.
   Buchanan has refused. Mr. Buchanan has placed his refusal upon
   grounds which determine his reply to six States, as completely
   as to the same demand if made by a single State. If peace can
   be secured, it will be by the prompt use of the occasion, when
   the forces of the United States are withheld from our harbor.
   If war can be averted, it will be by making the capture of
   Fort Sumter a fact accomplished during the continuance of the
   present administration, and leaving to the incoming
   administration the question of an open declaration of war.
   Such a declaration, separated, as it will be, from any present
   act of hostilities during Mr. Lincoln's administration, may
   become to him a matter requiring consideration. That
   consideration will not be expected of him, if the attack on
   the fort is made during his administration, and becomes,
   therefore, as to him, an act of present hostility. Mr.
   Buchanan cannot resist, because he has not the power. Mr.
   Lincoln may not attack, because the cause of the quarrel will
   have been, or may be, considered by him as past. Upon this
   line of policy I have acted, and upon the adherence to it may
   be found, I think, the most rational expectation of seeing
   that fort, which is even now a source of danger to the State,
   restored to the possession of the State without those
   consequences which I should most deeply deplore."

      Official Records,
      volume 1, page 256.

{3417}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (February-March).
   The inauguration and the
   inaugural address of President Lincoln.

   "On the 11th of February, with his family and some personal
   friends, Lincoln left his home at Springfield for Washington.
   … On his way to Washington, he passed through the great states
   of Indiana, Ohio, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, and
   was everywhere received with demonstrations of loyalty, as the
   representative of the national government. He addressed the
   people at the capitals of these states, and at many of their
   chief towns and cities. The city of Washington was surrounded
   by slave territory, and was really within the lines of the
   insurgents. Baltimore was not only a slaveholding city, but
   nowhere was the spirit of rebellion more hot and ferocious
   than among a large class of its people. The lower classes, the
   material of which mobs are made, were reckless, and ready for
   any outrage. From the date of his election to the time of his
   start for Washington, there had often appeared in the press
   and elsewhere, vulgar threats and menaces that he should never
   be inaugurated, nor reach the capital alive. Little attention
   was paid to these threats, yet some of the President's
   personal friends, without his knowledge, employed a detective,
   who sent agents to Baltimore and Washington to investigate. …
   The detectives ascertained the existence of a plot to
   assassinate the President elect, as he passed through
   Baltimore. The first intelligence of this conspiracy was
   communicated to Lincoln at Philadelphia. On the facts being
   laid before him, he was urged to take the train that night
   (the 21st of February), by which he would reach Washington the
   next morning, passing through Baltimore earlier than the
   conspirators expected, and thus avoid the danger. Having
   already made appointments to meet the citizens of Philadelphia
   at, and raise the United States flag over, Independence Hall,
   on Washington's birthday, the 22nd, and also to meet the
   Legislature of Pennsylvania at Harrisburgh, he declined
   starting for Washington that night. Finally his friends
   persuaded him to allow the detectives and the officers of the
   railways to arrange for him to return from Harrisburgh, and,
   by special train, to go to Washington the night following the
   ceremonies at Harrisburgh. … He went to Harrisburgh according
   to arrangement, met the Legislature, and retired to his room.
   In the meanwhile, General Scott and Mr. Seward had learned,
   through other sources, of the existence of the plot to
   assassinate him, and had despatched Mr. F. W. Seward, a son of
   Senator Seward, to apprise him of the danger. Information
   coming to him from both of these sources, each independent of
   the other, induced him to yield to the wishes of his friends,
   and anticipate his journey to Washington. Besides, there had
   reached him from Baltimore no committee, either of the
   municipal authorities or of citizens, to tender him the
   hospitalities, and to extend to him the courtesies of that
   city, as had been done by every other city through which he
   had passed. He was persuaded to permit the detective to
   arrange for his going to Washington that night. The telegraph
   wires to Baltimore were cut, Harrisburgh was isolated, and,
   taking a special train, he reached Philadelphia, and driving
   to the Baltimore depot, found the Washington train waiting his
   arrival, stepped on board, and passed on without interruption
   through Baltimore to the national capital. … He afterwards
   declared: 'I did not then, nor do I now believe I should have
   been assassinated, had I gone through Baltimore as first
   contemplated, but I thought it wise to run no risk where no
   risk was necessary.' … On the 4th of March, 1861, he was
   inaugurated President of the United States. … In the open air,
   and with a voice so clear and distinct that he could be heard
   by thrice ten thousand men, he read his inaugural address, and
   on the very verge of civil war, he made a most earnest appeal
   for peace."

      I. N. Arnold,
      Life of Abraham Lincoln,
      chapters 11-12.

      ALSO IN:
      J. G. Blaine,
      Twenty Years of Congress,
      volume 1, chapter 13.

      J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 3, chapters 19-21. 

      H. J. Raymond,
      Life of Abraham Lincoln,
      chapters 5-6.

   The following is the full text of the inaugural address, from
   Lincoln's "Complete Works."

   "Fellow-Citizens of the United States: In compliance with a
   custom as old as the government itself, I appear before you to
   address you briefly, and to take, in your presence, the oath
   prescribed by the Constitution of the United States to be
   taken by the President 'before he enters on the execution of
   his office.' I do not consider it necessary, at present, for
   me to discuss those matters of administration about which
   there is no special anxiety or excitement. Apprehension seems
   to exist among the people of the southern states, that, by the
   accession of a republican administration, their property and
   their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There
   has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension.
   Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the
   while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found
   in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses
   you. I do but quote from one of those speeches, when I declare
   that 'I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere
   with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists.
   I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no
   inclination to do so.' Those who nominated and elected me did
   so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar
   declarations, and had never recanted them. And, more than
   this, they placed in the platform, for my acceptance, and as a
   law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution
   which I now read: 'Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of
   the rights of the states, and especially the right of each
   state to order and control its own domestic institutions
   according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to
   that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of
   our political fabric depend, and we denounce the lawless
   invasion by armed force of the soil of any state or territory,
   no matter under what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.'
   I now reiterate these sentiments; and in doing so I only press
   upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of
   which the case is susceptible, that the property, peace, and
   security of no section are to be in any wise endangered by the
   now incoming administration. I add, too, that all the
   protection which, consistently with the Constitution and the
   laws, can be given, will be cheerfully given to all the states
   when lawfully demanded, for whatever cause—as cheerfully to
   one section as to another.
{3418}
   There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives
   from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly
   written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions:
   'No person held to service or labor in one state under the
   laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of
   any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service
   or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to
   whom such service or labor may be due.' It is scarcely
   questioned that this provision was intended by those who made
   it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the
   intention of the law-giver is the law. All members of Congress
   swear their support to the whole Constitution—to this
   provision as much as to any other. To the proposition, then,
   that slaves whose cases come within the terms of this clause
   'shall be delivered up,' their oaths are unanimous. Now, if
   they would make the effort in good temper, could they not,
   with nearly equal unanimity, frame and pass a law by means of
   which to keep good that unanimous oath? There is some
   difference of opinion whether this clause should be enforced
   by national or by state authority; but surely that difference
   is not a very material one. If the slave is to be surrendered,
   it can be of but little consequence to him or to others by
   which authority it is done. And should anyone, in any case, be
   content that this oath shall go unkept on a merely
   unsubstantial controversy as to how it shall be kept? Again,
   in any law upon this subject, ought not all the safeguards of
   liberty known in civilized and humane jurisprudence to be
   introduced, so that a free man be not, in any case,
   surrendered as a slave? And might it not be well at the same
   time to provide by law for the enforcement of that clause in
   the Constitution which guarantees that 'the citizens of each
   state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of
   citizens in the several states'? I take the official oath
   today with no mental reservations, and with no purpose to
   construe the Constitution or laws by any hypercritical rules.
   And while I do not choose now to specify particular acts of
   Congress as proper to be enforced, I do suggest that it will
   be much safer for all, both in official and private stations,
   to conform to and abide by all those acts which stand
   unrepealed, than to violate any of them, trusting to find
   impunity in having them held to be unconstitutional. It is
   seventy-two years since the first inauguration of a President
   under our National Constitution. During that period, fifteen
   different and greatly distinguished citizens have in
   succession administered the executive branch of the
   Government. They have conducted it through many perils, and
   generally with great success. Yet, with all this scope of
   precedent, I now enter upon the same task, for the brief
   constitutional term of four years, under great and peculiar
   difficulty. A disruption of the Federal Union, heretofore only
   menaced, is now formidably attempted. I hold that in the
   contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution, the
   union of these states is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if
   not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national
   governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper
   ever had a provision in its organic law for its own
   termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of
   our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever,
   it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not
   provided for in the instrument itself. Again, if the United
   States be not a government proper, but an association of
   states in the nature of a contract merely, can it, as a
   contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who
   made it? One party to a contract may violate it—break it, so
   to speak; but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?
   Descending from these genera] principles, we find the
   proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is
   perpetual, confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The
   Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in
   fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured
   and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It
   was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen
   states expressly plighted and engaged that it should be
   perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation, in 1778. And
   finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining
   and establishing the Constitution was 'to form a more perfect
   Union.' But if the destruction of the Union by one or by a
   part only of the states be lawfully possible, the Union is
   less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the
   vital element of perpetuity. It follows from these views that
   no state, upon its own mere motion, can lawfully get out of
   the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are
   legally void; and that acts of violence within any state or
   states against the authority of the United States are
   insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.
   I therefore consider that, in view of the Constitution and the
   laws, the Union is unbroken; and, to the extent of my ability,
   I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly
   enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully
   executed in all the states. Doing this I deem to be only a
   simple duty on my part; and I shall perform it so far as
   practicable, unless my rightful masters, the American people,
   shall withhold the requisite means, or in some authoritative
   manner direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded
   as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union
   that it will constitutionally defend and maintain itself. In
   doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and
   there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national
   authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold,
   occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the
   Government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond
   what may be necessary for these objects there will be no
   invasion, no using of force against or among the people
   anywhere. Where hostility to the United States in any interior
   locality shall be so great and universal as to prevent
   competent resident citizens from holding the federal offices,
   there will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers among
   the people for that object. While the strict legal right may
   exist in the Government to enforce the exercise of these
   offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating, and so
   nearly impracticable withal, that I deem it better to forego,
   for the time, the uses of such offices. The mails, unless
   repelled, will continue to be furnished in all parts of the
   Union. So far as possible, the people everywhere shall have
   that sense of perfect security which is most favorable to calm
   thought and reflection.
{3419}
   The course here indicated will be followed, unless current
   events and experience shall show a modification or change to
   be proper; and in every case and exigency my best discretion
   will be exercised according to circumstances actually
   existing, and with a view and a hope of a peaceful solution of
   the national troubles, and the restoration of fraternal
   sympathies and affections. That there are persons, in one
   section or another, who seek to destroy the Union at all
   events, and are glad of any pretext to do it, I will neither
   affirm nor deny; but if there be such, I need address no word
   to them. To those, however, who really love the Union, may I
   not speak? Before entering upon so grave a matter as the
   destruction of our national fabric, with all its benefits, its
   memories, and its hopes, would it not be wise to ascertain
   precisely why we do it? Will you hazard so desperate a step,
   while there is any possibility that any portion of the ills
   you fly from have no real existence? Will you, while the
   certain ills you fly to are greater than all the real ones you
   fly from—will you risk the commission of so fearful a mistake?
   All profess to be content in the Union if all constitutional
   rights can be maintained. Is it true, then, that any right,
   plainly written in the Constitution, has been denied? I think
   not. Happily the human mind is so constituted that no party
   can reach to the audacity of doing this. Think, if you can, of
   a single instance in which a plainly written provision of the
   Constitution has ever been denied. If, by the mere force of
   numbers, a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly
   written constitutional right, it might, in a moral point of
   view, justify revolution—certainly would if such a right were
   a vital one. But such is not our case. All the vital rights of
   minorities and of individuals are so plainly assured to them
   by affirmations and negations, guarantees and prohibitions in
   the Constitution, that controversies never arise concerning
   them. But no organic law can ever be framed with a provision
   specifically applicable to every question which may occur in
   practical administration. No foresight can anticipate, nor any
   document of reasonable length contain, express provisions for
   all possible questions. Shall fugitives from labor be
   surrendered by national or by state authority? The
   Constitution does not expressly say. May Congress prohibit
   slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not
   expressly say. Must Congress protect slavery in the
   Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say. From
   questions of this class spring all our constitutional
   controversies, and we divide upon them into majorities and
   minorities. If the minority will not acquiesce, the majority
   must, or the Government must cease. There is no other
   alternative; for continuing the Government is acquiescence on
   one side or the other. If a minority in such case will secede
   rather than acquiesce, they make a precedent which, in turn,
   will divide and ruin them; for a minority of their own will
   secede from them whenever a majority refuses to be controlled
   by such minority. For instance, why may not any portion of a
   new Confederacy, a year or two hence, arbitrarily secede
   again, precisely as portions of the present Union now claim to
   secede from it? All who cherish disunion sentiments are now
   being educated to the exact temper of doing this. Is there
   such perfect identity of interests among the states to compose
   a new Union as to produce harmony only, and prevent renewed
   secession? Plainly, the central idea of secession is the
   essence of anarchy. A majority held in restraint by
   constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing
   easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and
   sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people.
   Whoever rejects it, does, of necessity, fly to anarchy or to
   despotism. Unanimity is impossible; the rule of a minority, as
   a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that,
   rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism, in
   some form, is all that is left. I do not forget the position
   assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decide
   by the Supreme Court; nor do I deny that such decisions must
   he binding in any case upon the parties to a suit, as to the
   object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high
   respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other
   departments of the Government; and while it is obviously
   possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given
   case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to
   that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled
   and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be
   borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the
   same time the candid citizen must confess that if the policy
   of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole
   people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme
   Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation
   between parties in personal actions, the people will have
   ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent
   practically resigned their Government into the hands of that
   eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon
   the Court or the Judges. It is a duty from which they may not
   shrink, to decide cases properly brought before them, and it
   is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions
   to political purposes. One section of our country believes
   slavery is right and ought to be extended, while the other
   believes it is wrong and ought not to be extended. This is the
   only substantial dispute. The fugitive-slave clause of the
   Constitution, and the law for the suppression of the foreign
   slave-trade, are each as well enforced, perhaps, as any law
   can ever be in a community where the moral sense of the people
   imperfectly supports the law itself. The great body of the
   people abide by the dry legal obligation in both cases, and a
   few break over in each. This, I think, cannot be perfectly
   cured; and it would be worse in both cases after the
   separation of the sections than before. The foreign
   slave-trade, now imperfectly suppressed, would be ultimately
   revived, without restriction, in one section; while fugitive
   slaves, now only partially surrendered, would not be
   surrendered at all by the other. Physically speaking, we
   cannot separate; we cannot remove our respective sections from
   each other, nor build an impassable wall between them. A
   husband and wife may be divorced, and go out of the presence
   and beyond the reach of each other; but the different parts of
   our country cannot do this. They cannot but remain face to
   face; and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must
   continue between them. Is it possible, then, to make that
   intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory after
   separation than before? Can aliens make treaties easier than
   friends can make laws?
{3420}
   Can treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens than
   laws can among friends? Suppose you go to war, you cannot
   fight always; and when, after much loss on both sides and no
   gain on either, you cease fighting, the identical old
   questions as to terms of intercourse are again upon you. This
   country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who
   inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing
   government, they can exercise their constitutional right of
   amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or
   overthrow it. I cannot be ignorant of the fact that many
   worthy and patriotic citizens are desirous of having the
   National Constitution amended. While I make no recommendation
   of amendments, I fully recognize the rightful authority of the
   people over the whole subject, to be exercised in either of
   the modes prescribed in the instrument itself; and I should,
   under existing circumstances, favor, rather than oppose, a
   fair opportunity being afforded the people to act upon it. I
   will venture to add that to me the convention mode seems
   preferable, in that it allows amendments to originate with the
   people themselves, instead of only permitting them to take or
   reject propositions originated by others not especially chosen
   for the purpose, and which might not be precisely such as they
   would wish to either accept or refuse. I understand a proposed
   amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have
   not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal
   Government shall never interfere with the domestic
   institutions of the states, including that of persons held to
   service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I
   depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments,
   so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be
   implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being
   made express and irrevocable. The Chief Magistrate derives all
   his authority from the people, and they have conferred none
   upon him to fix terms for the separation of the states. The
   people themselves can do this also if they choose, but the
   Executive, as such, has nothing to do with it. His duty is to
   administer the present government as it came to his hands, and
   to transmit it unimpaired by him to his successor. Why should
   there not be a patient confidence in the ultimate justice of
   the people? Is there any better or equal hope in the world? In
   our present differences is either party without faith of being
   in the right? If the Almighty Ruler of Nations, with his
   eternal truth and justice, be on your side of the North, or on
   yours of the South, that truth and that justice will surely
   prevail by the judgment of this great tribunal, the American
   people. By the frame of the Government under which we live,
   this same people have wisely given their public servants but
   little power for mischief; and have with equal wisdom provided
   for the return of that little to their own hands at very short
   intervals. While the people retain their virtue and vigilance,
   no administration, by any extreme of wickedness or folly, can
   very seriously injure the Government in the short space of
   four years. My countrymen, one and all, think calmly and well
   upon this whole subject. Nothing valuable can be lost by
   taking time. If there be an object to hurry any of you, in hot
   haste, to a step which you would never take deliberately, that
   object will be frustrated by taking time; but no good object
   can be frustrated by it. Such of you as are now dissatisfied
   still have the old Constitution unimpaired, and on the
   sensitive point, the laws of your own framing under it; while
   the new administration will have no immediate power, if it
   would, to change either. If it were admitted that you who are
   dissatisfied hold the right side in the dispute, there still
   is no single good reason for precipitate action. Intelligence,
   patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on Him who has
   never yet forsaken this favored land, are still competent to
   adjust, in the best way, all our present difficulty. In your
   hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is
   the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not
   assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves
   the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to
   destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one
   to 'preserve, protect, and defend it.' I am loth to close. W
   are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though
   passion may have strained, it must not break, our bonds of
   affection. The mystic cords of memory, stretching from every
   battle-field and patriot grave to every living heart and
   hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the
   chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will
   be, by the better angels of our nature."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (March).
   President Lincoln and his Cabinet.
   Secretary Seward.

   President Lincoln, "in selecting his cabinet, which he did
   substantially before he left Springfield for Washington, …
   thought it wise to call to his assistance the strong men of
   his party, especially those who had given evidence of the
   support they commanded as his competitors in the Chicago
   convention. … This was sound policy under the circumstances.
   It might indeed have been foreseen that among the members of a
   cabinet so composed, troublesome disagreements and rivalries
   would break out. But it was better for the President to have
   these strong and ambitious men near him as his coöperators
   than to have them as his critics in Congress, where their
   differences might have been composed in a common opposition to
   him. As members of his cabinet he could hope to control them,
   and to keep them busily employed in the service of a common
   purpose, if he had the strength to do so. Whether he did
   possess this strength was soon tested by a singularly rude
   trial. There can be no doubt that the foremost members of his
   cabinet, Seward and Chase, the most eminent Republican
   statesmen, had felt themselves wronged by their party when in
   its national convention it preferred to them for the
   presidency a man whom, not unnaturally, they thought greatly
   their inferior in ability and experience as well as in
   service. … Seward, who, as Secretary of State, considered
   himself next to the Chief Executive, and who quickly
   accustomed himself to giving orders and making arrangements
   upon his own motion, thought it necessary that he should
   rescue the direction of public affairs from hands so
   unskilled, and take full charge of them himself. At the end of
   the first month of the administration he submitted a
   'memorandum' to President Lincoln, which has been first
   brought to light by Nicolay and Hay, and is one of their most
   valuable contributions to the history of those days.

{3421}

   In that paper Seward actually told the President that, at the
   end of a month's administration, the government was still
   without a policy, either domestic or foreign; that the slavery
   question should be eliminated from the struggle about the
   Union; that the matter of the maintenance of the forts and
   other possessions in the South should be decided with that
   view; that explanations should be demanded categorically from
   the governments of Spain and France, which were then
   preparing, one for the annexation of San Domingo, and both for
   the invasion of Mexico; that if no satisfactory explanations
   were received war should be declared against Spain and France
   by the United States; that explanations should also be sought
   from Russia and Great Britain, and a vigorous continental
   spirit of independence against European intervention be
   aroused all over the American continent; that this policy
   should be incessantly pursued and directed by somebody; that
   either the President should devote himself entirely to it, or
   devolve the direction on some member of his cabinet, whereupon
   all debate on this policy must end. This could be understood
   only as a formal demand that the President should acknowledge
   his own incompetency to perform his duties, content himself
   with the amusement of distributing post offices, and resign
   his power as to all important affairs into the hands of his
   Secretary of State. … Had Lincoln, as most Presidents would
   have done, instantly dismissed Seward, and published the true
   reason for that dismissal, it would inevitably have been the
   end of Seward's career. But Lincoln did what not many of the
   noblest and greatest men in history would have been noble and
   great enough to do. He considered that Seward was still
   capable of rendering great service to his country in the place
   in which he was, if rightly controlled. He ignored the insult,
   but firmly established his superiority. In his reply, which he
   forthwith dispatched, he told Seward that the administration
   had a domestic policy as laid down in the inaugural address
   with Seward's approval; that it had a foreign policy as traced
   in Seward's dispatches with the President's approval; that if
   any policy was to be maintained or changed, he, the President,
   was to direct that on his responsibility; and that in
   performing that duty the President had a right to the advice
   of his secretaries. Seward's fantastic schemes of foreign war
   and continental policies Lincoln brushed aside by passing them
   over in silence. Nothing more was said. Seward must have felt
   that he was at the mercy of a superior man."

      Carl Schurz,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      pages 67-73.

      ALSO IN:
      J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
      Abraham Lincoln: a History,
      volume 3, chapters 22 and 26.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (March).
   Surrender of Alexander H. Stephens to Secession.
   His "Corner-stone" speech at Savannah.

   The following is from a speech made by Alexander H. Stephens
   at Savannah, on the evening after the secession of Georgia,
   which he had opposed, but to which he now yielded himself
   without reserve. It is a speech that became famous on account
   of its bold declaration that Slavery formed the "corner-stone"
   of the New Confederacy. "The new constitution," said Mr.
   Stephens, "has put at rest, forever, all the agitating
   questions relating to our peculiar institution—African slavery
   as it exists amongst us—the proper status of the negro in our
   form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late
   rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast,
   had anticipated this, as the 'rock upon which the old Union
   would split.' He was right. What was conjecture with him, is
   now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the
   great truth upon which that rock stood and stands may be
   doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of
   the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old
   constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in
   violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in
   principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil
   they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion
   of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order
   of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass
   away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution,
   was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is
   true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution
   while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly
   urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured,
   because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas,
   however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the
   assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was
   a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when
   the 'storm came and the wind blew.' Our new government is
   founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are
   laid, its corner-stone rests upon the great truth, that the
   negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery
   —subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal
   condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the
   history of the world, based upon this great physical,
   philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in
   the process of its development, like all other truths in the
   various departments of science. It has been so even amongst
   us."

      A. H. Stephens,
      Speech in Savannah, March 21, 1861
      (in "Alexander H. Stephens in Public and Private;
      by H. Cleveland").

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (March-April).
   The breaking of rebellion into open war
   by the attack on Fort Sumter.
   President Lincoln's statement of the circumstances.
   His first difficulties.
   Attitude of the Border States.

   The circumstances under which the first blow of the civil war
   was struck by the rebels at Charleston were recited by
   President Lincoln, in his Message to Congress, at the special
   session convened July 4, 1861; "On the 5th of March (the
   present incumbent's first full day in office), a letter of
   Major Anderson, commanding at Fort Sumter, written on the 28th
   of February and received at the War Department on the 4th of
   March, was by that department placed in his hands. This letter
   expressed the professional opinion of the writer that
   reinforcements could not be thrown into that fort within the
   time for his relief, rendered necessary by the limited supply
   of provisions, and with a view of holding possession of the
   same, with a force of less than 20,000 good and
   well-disciplined men. This opinion was concurred in by all the
   officers of his command, and their memoranda on the subject
   were made inclosures of Major Anderson's letter.
{3422}
   The whole was immediately laid before Lieutenant-General
   Scott, who at once concurred with Major Anderson in opinion.
   On reflection, however, he took full time, consulting with
   other officers, both of the army and the navy, and at the end
   of four days came reluctantly but decidedly to the same
   conclusion as before. He also stated at the same time that no
   such sufficient force was then at the control of the
   government, or could be raised and brought to the ground
   within the time when the provisions in the fort would be
   exhausted. In a purely military point of view, this reduced
   the duty of the administration in the case to the mere matter
   of getting the garrison safely out of the fort. It was
   believed, however, that to so abandon that position, under the
   circumstances, would be utterly ruinous; that the necessity
   under which it was to be done would not be fully understood;
   that by many it would be construed as a part of a voluntary
   policy; that at home it would discourage the friends of the
   Union, embolden its adversaries, and go far to insure to the
   latter a recognition abroad; that, in fact, it would be our
   national destruction consummated. This could not be allowed.
   Starvation was not yet upon the garrison, and ere it would be
   reached Fort Pickens might be reinforced. This last would be a
   clear indication of policy, and would better enable the
   country to accept the evacuation of Fort Sumter as a military
   necessity. An order was at once directed to be sent for the
   landing of the troops from the steamship 'Brooklyn' into Fort
   Pickens. This order could not go by land, but must take the
   longer and slower route by sea. The first return news from the
   order was received just one week before the fall of Fort
   Sumter. The news itself was that the officer commanding the
   'Sabine,' to which vessel the troops had been transferred from
   the 'Brooklyn,' acting upon some quasi armistice of the late
   administration (and of the existence of which the present
   administration, up to the time the order was despatched, had
   only too vague and uncertain rumors to fix attention), had
   refused to land the troops. To now reinforce Fort Pickens
   before a crisis would be reached at Fort Sumter was
   impossible—rendered so by the near exhaustion of provisions in
   the latter-named fort. In precaution against such a
   conjuncture, the government had, a few days before, commenced
   preparing an expedition as well adapted as might be to relieve
   Fort Sumter, which expedition was intended to be ultimately
   used, or not, according to circumstances. The strongest
   anticipated case for using it was now presented, and it was
   resolved to send it forward. As had been intended in this
   contingency, it was also resolved to notify the governor of
   South Carolina that he might expect an attempt would be made
   to provision the fort; and that, if the attempt should not be
   resisted, there would be no effort to throw in men, arms, or
   ammunition, without further notice, or in case of an attack
   upon the fort. This notice was accordingly given; whereupon
   the fort was attacked and bombarded to its fall, without even
   awaiting the arrival of the provisioning expedition. It is
   thus seen that the assault upon and reduction of Fort Sumter
   was in no sense a matter of self-defense on the part of the
   assailants."

      Abraham Lincoln,
      Complete Works,
      volume 2, pages 56-57.

   The President's delay of action in the case of Fort Sumter was
   mainly due, on the political side of the question, to the
   state of things in the border states—especially in Virginia.
   "There were fifteen slave states, which those engaged in the
   rebellion hoped to lead or to force into secession. At the
   time of the inauguration, only seven of these fifteen—less
   than a majority—had revolted. The cotton states alone had
   followed the lead of South Carolina out of the Union. Several
   weeks had passed since a state had seceded; and unless other
   states could be dragooned into the movement, the rebellion
   would be practically a failure from the start. Such a
   confederacy could not hope to live a year, and would be
   obliged to find its way back into the Union upon some terms.
   In the meantime, two or three conventions in the border states
   [Virginia, April 4, and Missouri, March], delegated freshly
   from the people, had voted distinctly and decidedly not to
   secede. [Kentucky and Tennessee had refused even the call of
   conventions; while North Carolina, February 28, and Arkansas,
   March 18, of the states farther south, had voted secession
   down.] The affairs of the confederacy were really in a very
   precarious condition when Mr. Lincoln came into power. The
   rebel government was making very much more bluster than
   progress. It became Mr. Lincoln's policy so to conduct affairs
   as to strengthen the Union feeling in the border states, and
   to give utterance to no sentiment and to do no deed which
   should drive these states toward the confederacy. … The
   confederacy found that it must make progress or die. The rebel
   Congress passed a measure for the organization of an army, on
   the 9th of March, and on the 12th two confederate
   commissioners—Mr. Forsyth of Alabama and Mr. Crawford of
   Georgia—presented themselves at the State Department at
   Washington for the purpose of making a treaty with the United
   States. They knew, of course, that they could not be received
   officially, and that they ought to be arrested for treason.
   The President would not recognize them, but sent to them a
   copy of his inaugural, as the embodiment of the views of the
   government. … In the meantime, Lieutenant Talbot, on behalf of
   Mr. Lincoln, was having interviews with Governor Pickens of
   South Carolina and with General Beauregard, in command of the
   confederate forces there, in which he informed them that
   provisions would be sent to Fort Sumter, peaceably if
   possible,—otherwise by force. This was communicated to L. P.
   Walker, then rebel Secretary of War. Before Talbot had made
   his communication, Beauregard had informed Major Anderson, in
   command of Fort Sumter, that he must have no further
   intercourse with Charleston; and Talbot himself was refused
   permission to visit that gallant and faithful officer. … The
   wisdom of Mr. Lincoln's waiting became evident at a day not
   too long delayed. Fort Pickens, which the rebels had not
   taken, was quietly reinforced [April 12], and when the vessels
   which carried the relief [to Sumter] were dispatched, Mr.
   Lincoln gave official information to General Beauregard that
   provisions were to be sent to Major Anderson in Fort Sumter,
   by an unarmed vessel. He was determined that no hostile act on
   the part of the government should commence the war, for which
   both sides were preparing; although an act of open war had
   already transpired in Charleston harbor"—the rebel batteries
   having fired upon and driven off the unarmed steamer Star of
   the West, which had been sent to convey troops and provisions
   to Fort Sumter on the 9th of January, two months before
   Lincoln's inauguration.
{3423}
   "Beauregard laid this last intelligence before his Secretary
   of War, and, under special instructions, on the 12th of April,
   he demanded the surrender of Fort Sumter. He was ready to make
   the demand, and to back it by force. The city of Charleston
   was full of troops, and, for months, batteries had been in
   course of construction, with the special purpose of compelling
   the surrender of the fort. Major Anderson had seen these
   batteries going up, day after day, without the liberty to fire
   a gun. He declined to surrender. He was called upon to state
   when he would evacuate the fort. He replied that on the 15th
   he would do so, should he not meantime receive controlling
   instructions from the government, or additional supplies. The
   response which he received was that the confederate batteries
   would open on Fort Sumter in one hour from the date of the
   message. The date of the message was 'April 12, 1861, 3:30 A.
   M.' Beauregard was true to his word. At half past four the
   batteries opened upon the Fort, which, after a long and
   terrible bombardment, and a gallant though comparatively
   feeble defense by a small and half-starved garrison, was
   surrendered the following day. … The fall of Sumter was the
   resurrection of patriotism. The North needed just this. Such a
   universal burst of patriotic indignation as ran over the North
   under the influence of this insult to the national flag has
   never been witnessed. It swept away all party lines as if it
   had been flame and they had been flax."

      J. G. Holland,
      Life of Lincoln,
      chapter 18.

      ALSO IN:
      F. W. Seward,
      Seward at Washington,
      chapter 56.

      S. W. Crawford,
      Genesis of the Civil War: The Story of Sumter,
      chapters 24-32.

      A. Doubleday,
      Reminiscences of Forts Sumter and Moultrie,
      chapters 8-11.

      A. Roman,
      Military Operations of General Beauregard,
      volume 1, chapters 2-4.

      Battles and Leaders of the Civil War,
      The Century Company,
      volume 1, pages 40-83.

      S. L. Woodford,
      The Story of Fort Sumter
      (Personal Recollections of the War:
      N. Y. Com. L. L. of the United States).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (April).
   President Lincoln's call to arms.
   The mighty uprising of the North.
   The response of disloyal Governors.

   "By the next morning (Sunday April 14) the news of the close
   of the bombardment and capitulation of Sumter was in
   Washington. In the forenoon, at the time Anderson and his
   garrison were evacuating the fort, Lincoln and his Cabinet,
   together with sundry military officers, were at the Executive
   Mansion, giving final shape to the details of the action the
   Government had decided to take. A proclamation, drafted by
   himself, copied on the spot by his secretary, was concurred in
   by his Cabinet, signed, and sent to the State Department to be
   sealed, filed, and copied for publication in the next
   morning's newspapers. The document bears date April 15
   (Monday), but was made and signed on Sunday." It was as
   follows:

   "Whereas the laws of the United States have been for some time
   past and now are opposed, and the execution thereof
   obstructed, in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama,
   Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, by combinations
   too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of
   judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals
   by law: Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the
   United States, in virtue of the power in me vested by the
   Constitution and the laws, have thought fit to call forth, and
   hereby do call forth, the militia of the several States of the
   Union, to the aggregate number of seventy-five thousand, in
   order to suppress said combinations, and to cause the laws to
   be duly executed. The details for this object will be
   immediately communicated to the State authorities through the
   War Department. I appeal to all loyal citizens to favor,
   facilitate, and aid this effort to maintain the honor, the
   integrity, and the existence of our National Union, and the
   perpetuity of popular government; and to redress wrongs
   already long enough endured. I deem it proper to say that the
   first service assigned to the forces hereby called forth will
   probably be to repossess the forts, places, and property which
   have been seized from the Union; and in every event the utmost
   care will be observed, consistently with the objects
   aforesaid, to avoid any devastation, any destruction of or
   interference with property, or any disturbance of peaceful
   citizens in any part of the country. And I hereby command the
   persons composing the combination aforesaid to disperse and
   retire peacefully to their respective abodes within twenty
   days from date. Deeming that the present condition of public
   affairs presents an extraordinary occasion, I do hereby, in
   virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution, convene
   both Houses of Congress. Senators and Representatives are
   therefore summoned to assemble at their respective chambers,
   at twelve o'clock noon, on Thursday the fourth day of July
   next, then and there to consider and determine such measures
   as, in their wisdom, the public safety and interest may seem
   to demand. In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand,
   and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed. Done
   at the city of Washington, this 15th day of April, in the year
   of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one, and of
   the Independence of the United States the eighty-fifth.
   Abraham Lincoln. By the President: William H. Seward,
   Secretary of State."

      Abraham Lincoln,
      Complete Works,
      volume 2, page 34.

   "In view of the subsequent gigantic expansion of the civil
   war, eleventh-hour critics continue to insist that a larger
   force should have been called at once. They forget that this
   was nearly five times the then existing regular army; that
   only very limited quantities of arms, equipments, and supplies
   were in the Northern arsenals; that the treasury was bankrupt;
   and that an insignificant eight million loan had not two weeks
   before been discounted nearly six per cent. by the New York
   bankers, some bids ranging as low as eighty-five. They forget
   that the shameful events of the past four months had elicited
   scarcely a spark of war feeling; that the loyal States had
   suffered the siege of Sumter and firing on the 'Star of the
   West' with a dangerous indifference. They forget the doubt and
   dismay, the panic of commerce, the division of counsels, the
   attacks from within, the sneers from without—that faith seemed
   gone and patriotism dead. Twenty-four hours later all this was
   measurably changed, … The guns of the Sumter bombardment woke
   the country from the political nightmare which had so long
   tormented and paralyzed it.
{3424}
   The lion of the North was fully roused. Betrayed, insulted,
   outraged, the free States arose as with a cry of pain and
   vengeance. War sermons from pulpits; war speeches in every
   assemblage; tenders of troops; offers of money; military
   proclamations and orders in every newspaper; every city
   radiant with bunting; every village-green a mustering ground;
   war appropriations in every legislature and in every city or
   town council; war preparations in every public or private
   workshop; gun-casting in the great foundries; cartridge-making
   in the principal towns; camps and drills in the fields;
   parades, drums, flags, and bayonets in the streets; knitting,
   bandage-rolling, and lint-scraping in nearly every household.
   Before the lapse of forty-eight hours a Massachusetts
   regiment, armed and equipped, was on its way to Washington;
   within the space of a month the energy and intelligence of the
   country were almost completely turned from the industries of
   peace to the activities of war."

      J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 4, chapters 4-5.

   "In intelligence no army, except perhaps the Athenian, can
   have ever equalled or approached that of the North. Most of
   the soldiers carried books and writing materials in their
   knapsacks, and mail bags heavily weighted with letters were
   sent from every cantonment. Such privates would sometimes
   reason instead of obeying, and they would see errors of their
   commanders to which they had better have been blind. But on
   the whole, in a war in which much was thrown upon the
   individual soldier, intelligence was likely to prevail. In
   wealth, in the means of providing the weapons and ammunitions
   of war, the North had an immense advantage, which, combined
   with that of numbers, could not fail, if, to use Lincoln's
   homely phrase, it 'pegged away,' to tell in the end. It was
   also vastly superior in mechanical invention; which was
   destined to play a great part, and in mechanical skill; almost
   every Yankee regiment was full of mechanics, some of whom
   could devise as well as execute. In artillery and engineering
   the North took the lead from the first, having many civil
   engineers, whose conversion into military civil engineers was
   easy. The South, to begin with, had the contents of Federal
   arsenals and armouries, which had been well stocked by the
   provident treason of Buchanan's Minister of War. … But when
   these resources were exhausted, replacement was difficult, the
   blockade having been established, though extraordinary efforts
   in the way of military manufacture were made. To the wealthy
   North, besides its own factories, were opened the markets of
   England and the world. Of the small regular army the
   Confederacy had carried off a share, with nearly half the
   regular officers. The South had the advantage of the
   defensive, which, with long-range muskets and in a difficult
   country, was reckoned in battle as five to two. The South had
   the superiority of the unity, force, and secrecy which
   autocracy lends to the operations of war. On the side of the
   North these were comparatively wanting."

      Goldwin Smith,
      The United States,
      chapter 5.

   In six of the eight Slave-labor States included in the call,
   the President's Proclamation and the requisition of the
   Secretary of War "were treated by the authorities with words
   of scorn and defiance. The exceptions were Maryland and
   Delaware. In the other States, disloyal Governors held the
   reins of power. 'I have only to say,' replied Governor Letcher
   of Virginia, 'that the militia of this State will not be
   furnished to the powers at Washington for any such purpose as
   they have in view. Your object is to subjugate the Southern
   States, and a requisition made upon me for such an object—an
   object, in my judgment, not within the province of the
   Constitution or the Act of 1795—will not be complied with. You
   have chosen to inaugurate civil war, and, having done so, we
   will meet it in a spirit as determined as the Administration
   has exhibited toward the South.' Governor Ellis, of North
   Carolina, answered:—'Your dispatch is received, and if
   genuine, which its extraordinary character leads me to doubt,
   I have to say in reply, that I regard the levy of troops, made
   by the Administration for the purpose of subjugating the
   States of the South, as in violation of the Constitution, and
   a usurpation of power. I can be no party to this wicked
   violation of the laws of the country, and to this war upon the
   liberties of a free people. You can get no troops from North
   Carolina.' Governor Magoffin, of Kentucky, replied:—'Your
   dispatch is received. I say emphatically that Kentucky will
   furnish no troops for the wicked purpose of subduing her
   sister Southern States.' Governor Harris, of Tennessee,
   said:—'Tennessee will not furnish a single man for coercion,
   but 50,000, if necessary, for the defense of our rights, or
   those of our Southern brethren.' Governor Rector, of Arkansas,
   replied:—'In answer to your requisition for troops from
   Arkansas to subjugate the Southern States, I have to say that
   none will be furnished. The demand is only adding insult to
   injury.' … Governor Jackson, of Missouri, responded:—'There
   can be, I apprehend, no doubt that these men are intended to
   make war upon the seceded States. Your requisition, in my
   judgment, is illegal, unconstitutional, and revolutionary in
   its objects, inhuman and diabolical, and cannot be complied
   with. Not one man will the State of Missouri furnish to carry
   on such an unholy crusade.' … Governor Hicks, of Maryland,
   appalled by the presence of great dangers, and sorely pressed
   by the secessionists on every side, hastened, in a
   proclamation, to assure the people of his State that no troops
   would be sent from Maryland unless it might be for the defense
   of the National Capital, and that they (the people) would, in
   a short time, 'have the opportunity afforded them, in a
   special election for members of the Congress of the United
   States, to express their devotion to the Union, or their
   desire to see it broken up.' Governor Burton, of Delaware,
   made no response until the 26th, when he informed the
   President that he had no authority to comply with his
   requisition. At the same time he recommended the formation of
   volunteer companies for the protection of the citizens and
   property of Delaware, and not for the preservation of the
   Union. … In the seven excepted Slave-labor States in which
   insurrection prevailed, the proclamation and the requisition
   produced hot indignation, and were assailed with the bitterest
   scorn. … Even in the Free-labor States, there were vehement
   opposers of the war policy of the Government from its
   inception." But, speaking generally, "the uprising of the
   people of the Free-labor States in defense of Nationality was
   a sublime spectacle. Nothing like it had been seen on the
   earth since the preaching of Peter the Hermit and of Pope
   Urban the Second filled all Christian Europe with religious
   zeal, and sent armed hosts, with the cry of 'God wills it! God
   wills it!' to rescue the sepulcher of Jesus from the hands of
   the infidel."

      B. J. Lossing,
      Field Book of the Civil War,
      volume 1, chapter 14.

      ALSO IN:
      F. Moore, editor,
      Rebellion Record,
      volume 1.

      W. J. Tenney,
      Military and Naval History of the Rebellion,
      chapters 4-6.

{3425}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (April).
   The Morrill Tariff Act.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION: A. D. 1861-1864 (UNITED STATES).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (April).
   Secession of Virginia.

   See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1861 (JANUARY-JUNE).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (April).
   Activity of Rebellion in Virginia and Maryland.
   Peril of the national capital.
   Attack on Massachusetts volunteers in Baltimore.

   "Massachusetts, always the most zealous, was the first in the
   field [with troops in response to the President's call], and
   on the 17th [April] she forwarded a regiment of volunteers
   from Boston to Washington. Pennsylvania, although nearly
   one-half of her votes had been given for Mr. Breckinridge,
   followed this example; and, owing to her geographical
   position, her volunteers reached the shores of the Potomac in
   advance of all the others. After passing through the great
   city of Baltimore in the midst of an incipient insurrection,
   they encamped around the Capitol, on the 18th of April. The
   seceders, on their side, had not lost a moment in Virginia.
   They were in possession of Richmond, where the convention was
   in session. … The workshops and arsenal of Harper's Ferry,
   situated at the confluence of the Potomac and the Shenandoah,
   on a spot which was destined to play an important part during
   the war, were only guarded by a detachment of 64 dismounted
   dragoons; and the Virginia volunteers, assembled in the
   valleys of the Blue Ridge, were ready to take possession of
   them as soon as the ordinance for the secession of Virginia
   should furnish them a pretext. They were then to cross the
   Potomac and join the insurgents of Maryland, for the purpose
   of attempting the capture of Washington, where their
   accomplices were expecting them. On the morning of the 18th
   [April], a portion of them were on their march, in the hope of
   seizing the prey which was to be of so much value to the
   future armies of the Confederacy. But Lieutenant Jones, who
   was in command at Harper's Ferry, had been informed of the
   approach of the Confederate troops under the lead of Ashby—a
   chief well known since; notwithstanding their despatch, they
   only arrived in sight of Harper's Ferry in time to see from a
   distance a large conflagration that was consuming the
   workshops, store-houses, and the enormous piles of muskets
   heaped in the yards, while the Federal soldiers who had just
   kindled it were crossing the Potomac on their way to
   Washington. The Confederates found nothing but smoking ruins,
   and some machinery, which they sent to Richmond; their allies
   from Maryland had not made their appearance, and they did not
   feel strong enough to venture alone to the other side of the
   Potomac. During the last few days the authorities of Virginia
   had been making preparations for capturing the Norfolk [or
   Gosport] arsenal (navy-yard). That establishment possessed a
   magnificent granite basin, construction docks, and a depot of
   artillery with more than 2,000 guns; a two-decked vessel was
   on the stocks, two others, with a three-decker, three
   frigates, a steam sloop, and a brig, lay dismantled in the
   port; the steam frigate Merrimac was there undergoing repairs;
   the steam sloop Germantown was in the harbor ready to go to
   sea, while the sailing sloop Cumberland was lying to at the
   entrance of the port. … Commodore McCauley, the Federal
   commandant, was surrounded by traitors," and, being deficient
   in energy and capability, he allowed himself to be put in a
   position where he thought it necessary to sink all the vessels
   in the harbor except the Cumberland. As they were sinking,
   reinforcements arrived from Washington, under Captain
   Paulding, who superseded McCauley in command. But they came
   too late. Captain Paulding could do nothing except hastily
   destroy as far as possible the sinking ships and the arsenal
   buildings, and then retreat. "The Confederates found abundant
   resources in artillery and 'materiel' of every description in
   Norfolk; the fire was soon extinguished, the docks repaired,
   and they succeeded in raising the Merrimac, which we shall see
   at work the following year. Fort Monroe had just been occupied
   by a small Federal garrison. Its loss would have been even
   more disastrous to the Federal cause than that of the Norfolk
   navy-yard and arsenal, because the Confederates, instead of
   having to cover Richmond, would have been able to blockade
   Washington by sea and besiege it by land. … The example of
   Virginia fired the enthusiasm of the secessionists everywhere,
   and they applied themselves to the task of drawing into the
   conflict those slave States which were still hesitating. … The
   sight of the Pennsylvania volunteers had caused a great
   irritation in Baltimore. That city, the largest in the slave
   States, … warmly sympathized with the South. Her location on
   the railway line which connects Washington with the great
   cities of the North imparted to her a peculiar importance.
   Consequently, the accomplices of the South, who were numerous
   in Baltimore, determined to seize the first opportunity that
   might offer to drag that city into the rebellion. … The
   looked-for opportunity occurred … April 19. When the Sixth
   Massachusetts Regiment, with a few battalions of Pennsylvania
   volunteers, arrived at the northern station, an immense crowd
   bore down upon them. A line of rails, laid in the centre of
   the streets, connected this with the southern station, and
   enabled the cars, drawn by horses, to pass through the city.
   The crowd surround the soldiers of the Sixth Massachusetts,
   who occupy these cars. The last cars are stopped, and the
   occupants, being obliged to get out, endeavor to make their
   way through the crowd. But, being hemmed in on all sides, they
   are soon attacked by a shower of stones, which wound many of
   them, and injure a few mortally. The soldiers have to defend
   themselves, and the first discharge of musketry, which has
   considerable effect, opens them a passage. But the aggressors,
   being armed, rally, and a regular battle ensues. … The ground
   is strewn with the wounded of both parties. At last, the
   Massachusetts soldiers rejoin their comrades at the southern
   station," and are conveyed to Washington. "Baltimore was
   thenceforth in possession of the secessionists, who were fully
   determined to take advantage of the situation of that city to
   intercept all communications between Washington and the North.
{3426}
   Accordingly, they hastened to burn the railroad bridges which
   had been constructed over large estuaries north of Baltimore,
   and to cut the telegraph wires. Deprived of all sources of
   information from the North, the capital of the Union was soon
   wrapped in mournful silence. For some days the occupant of the
   White House was unable to forward any instructions to the
   people who had remained faithful to the Union; but their zeal
   did not abate on that account. Patriotism extinguished all
   party animosities in the hearts of most of the Democrats who
   had opposed the election of Mr. Lincoln. In the presence of
   the national peril they loyally tendered their assistance to
   the President; and breaking loose from their former
   accomplices of the South, they assumed the name of War
   Democrats in opposition to that of Peace Democrats."

      Comte de Paris,
      History of the Civil War in America,
      volume 1, book 2, chapter 4.

      ALSO IN:
      J. W. Hanson,
      History of the Sixth Massachusetts Volunteers,
      pages 21-57.

      G. W. Brown,
      Baltimore and the 29th of April, 1861
      (Johns Hopkins University Studies, extra volume 3).

      Official Records of the War of the Rebellion,
      series 1, volume 2.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (April: South Carolina).
   Monarchical cravings.
   Intensity of the Carolinian hatred of New England and the North.

   Mr. Russell, who was famous in his day as a correspondent of
   "The Times" (London), spent some time in South Carolina at the
   beginning of the war, and described the state of feeling there
   in a letter from Charleston, written at the end of April:
   "Nothing I could say," he wrote, "can be worth one fact which
   has forced itself upon my mind in reference to the sentiments
   which prevail among the gentlemen of this State. I have been
   among them for several days. I have visited their plantations,
   I have conversed with them freely and fully, and I have
   enjoyed that frank, courteous and graceful intercourse which
   constitutes an irresistible charm of their society. From all
   quarters have come to my ears the echoes of the same voice. …
   That voice says, 'If we could only get one of the royal race
   of England to rule over us, we should be content.' Let there
   be no misconception on this point. That sentiment, varied in a
   hundred ways, has been repeated to me over and over again.
   There is a general admission that the means to such an end are
   wanting, and that the desire cannot be gratified. But the
   admiration for monarchical institutions on the English model,
   for privileged classes, and for a landed aristocracy and
   gentry, is undisguised and apparently genuine. With the pride
   of having achieved their independence is mingled in the South
   Carolinians' hearts a strange regret at the result and
   consequences, and many are they who 'would go back tomorrow if
   we could.' An intense affection for the British connection, a
   love of British habits and customs, a respect for British
   sentiment, law, authority, order, civilization, and
   literature, preeminently distinguish the inhabitants of this
   State, who, glorying in their descent from ancient families on
   the three islands, whose fortunes they still follow, and with
   whose members they maintain not unfrequently familiar
   relations, regard with an aversion of which it is impossible
   to give an idea to one who has not seen its manifestations,
   the people of New England and the populations of the Northern
   States, whom they regard as tainted beyond cure by the venom
   of 'Puritanism.' Whatever may be the cause, this is the fact
   and the effect. 'The State of South Carolina was,' I am told,
   'founded by gentlemen.' It was not established by
   witch-burning Puritans, by cruel persecuting fanatics, who
   implanted in the North the standard of Torquemada, and
   breathed into the nostrils of their newly-born colonies all
   the ferocity, blood-thirstiness, and rabid intolerance of the
   Inquisition. … We could have got on with these fanatics if
   they had been either Christians or gentlemen,' says [one],
   'for in the first case they would have acted with common
   charity, and in the second they would have fought when they
   insulted us; but there are neither Christians nor gentlemen
   among them!' 'Any thing on earth!' exclaims [another], 'any
   form of government, any tyranny or despotism you will; but
   '—and here is an appeal more terrible than the adjuration of
   all the Gods—'nothing on earth shall ever induce us to submit
   to any union with the brutal, bigoted blackguards of the New
   England States, who neither comprehend nor regard the feelings
   of gentlemen! Man, woman and child, we'll die first.' … The
   hatred of the Italian for the Tedesco, of the Greek for the
   Turk, of the Turk for the Russ, is warm and fierce enough to
   satisfy the prince of darkness, not to speak of a few little
   pet aversions among allied powers and the atoms of composite
   empires; but they are all mere indifference and neutrality of
   feeling compared to the animosity evinced by the 'gentry' of
   South Carolina for the 'rabble of the North.' The contests of
   Cavalier and Roundhead, of Vendean and Republican, even of
   Orangeman and Croppy, have been elegant joustings, regulated
   by the finest rules of chivalry, compared with those which
   North and South will carry on if their deeds support their
   words. 'Immortal hate, the study of revenge' will actuate
   every blow, and never in the history of the world, perhaps,
   will go forth such a 'væ victis' as that which may be heard
   before the fight has begun. There is nothing in all the dark
   caves of human passion so cruel and deadly as the hatred the
   South Carolinians profess for the Yankees. That hatred has
   been swelling for years, till it is the very life-blood of the
   state. … Believe a southern man as he believes himself, and
   you must regard New England and the kindred States as the
   birthplace of impurity of mind among men and of unchastity in
   women—the home of free love, of Fourrierism, of infidelity, of
   abolitionism, of false teachings in political economy and in
   social life; a land saturated with the drippings of rotten
   philosophy, with the poisonous infections of a fanatic press;
   without honor or modesty; whose wisdom is paltry cunning,
   whose valor and manhood have been swallowed up in a corrupt,
   howling demagogy, and in the marts of a dishonest commerce."

      W. H. Russell,
      Letter to the Times (London), April 30, 1861.

{3427}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (April-May).
   Proclamation by the Confederate President.
   President Lincoln's proclamation of a Blockade of Southern ports.
   The Queen's proclamation of British neutrality.

   On the 17th of April, two days after President Lincoln's call
   for troops, Jefferson Davis, the chief of the rebellious
   Confederacy, published a counter-proclamation, giving notice
   of the intention of the government at Montgomery to issue
   letters of marque to privateers, for the destruction of
   American commerce. It was as follows:

   "Whereas, Abraham Lincoln, the President of the United States
   has, by proclamation announced the intention of invading this
   Confederacy with an armed force, for the purpose of capturing
   its fortresses, and thereby subverting its independence, and
   subjecting the free people thereof to the dominion of a
   foreign power; and whereas it has thus become the duty of this
   Government to repel the threatened invasion, and to defend the
   rights and liberties of the people by all the means which the
   laws of nations and the usages of civilized warfare place at
   its disposal; Now, therefore, I, Jefferson Davis, President of
   the Confederate States of America, do issue this my
   Proclamation, inviting all those who may desire, by service in
   private armed vessels on the high seas, to aid this Government
   in resisting so wanton and wicked an aggression, to make
   application for commissions or Letters of Marque and Reprisal,
   to be issued under the Seal of these Confederate States. And I
   do further notify all persons applying for Letters of Marque,
   to make a statement in writing, giving the name and a suitable
   description of the character, tonnage, and force of the
   vessel, and the name and place of residence of each owner
   concerned therein, and the intended number of the crew, and to
   sign said statement and deliver the same to the Secretary of
   State, or to the Collector of any port of entry of these
   Confederate States, to be by him transmitted to the Secretary
   of State. And I do further notify all applicants aforesaid
   that before any commission or Letter of Marque is issued to
   any vessel, the owner or owners thereof, and the commander for
   the time being, will be required to give bond to the
   Confederate States, with at least two responsible sureties,
   not interested in such vessel, in the penal sum of five
   thousand dollars; or if such vessel be provided with more than
   one hundred and fifty men, then in the penal sum of ten
   thousand dollars, with condition that the owners, officers,
   and crew who shall be employed on board such commissioned
   vessel, shall observe the laws of these Confederate States and
   the instructions given to them for the regulation of their
   conduct. That they shall satisfy all damages done contrary to
   the tenor thereof by such vessel during her commission, and
   deliver up the same when revoked by the President of the
   Confederate States. And I do further specially enjoin on all
   persons holding offices, civil and military, under the
   authority of the Confederate States, that they be vigilant and
   zealous in discharging the duties incident thereto; and I do,
   moreover, solemnly exhort the good people of these Confederate
   States as they love their country, as they prize the blessings
   of free government, as they feel the wrongs of the past and
   these now threatened in aggravated form by those whose enmity
   is more implacable because unprovoked, that they exert
   themselves in preserving order, in promoting concord, in
   maintaining the authority and efficacy of the laws, and in
   supporting and invigorating all the measures which may be
   adopted for the common defence, and by which, under the
   blessing of Divine Providence, we may hope for a speedy, just,
   and honorable peace.
      In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and
      caused the Seal of the Confederate States to be affixed,
      this seventeenth day of April 1861.
      By the President,
      (Signed) Jefferson Davis. R. Toombs, Secretary of State."

   The response to this menace was a second proclamation by
   President Lincoln, announcing a blockade of the ports of the
   Confederacy, and warning all persons who should accept and act
   under the proposed letters of marque that they would be held
   amenable to the laws against piracy. This proclamation was in
   the following language:

   "Whereas an insurrection against the government of the United
   States has broken out in the States of South Carolina,
   Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas,
   and the laws of the United States for the collection of the
   revenue cannot be effectually executed therein conformably to
   that provision of the Constitution which requires duties to be
   uniform throughout the United States: And whereas a
   combination of persons engaged in such insurrection have
   threatened to grant pretended letters of marque to authorize
   the bearers thereof to commit assaults on the lives, vessels,
   and property of good citizens of the country lawfully engaged
   in commerce on the high seas, and in waters of the United
   States: And whereas an executive proclamation has been already
   issued requiring the persons engaged in these disorderly
   proceedings to desist therefrom, calling out a militia force
   for the purpose of repressing the same, and convening Congress
   in extraordinary session to deliberate and determine thereon:
   Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United
   States, with a view to the same purposes before mentioned, and
   to the protection of the public peace, and the lives and
   property of quiet and orderly citizens pursuing their lawful
   occupations, until Congress shall have assembled and
   deliberated on the said unlawful proceedings, or until the
   same shall have ceased, have further deemed it advisable to
   set on foot a blockade of the ports within the States
   aforesaid, in pursuance of the laws of the United States, and
   of the law of nations in such case provided. For this purpose
   a competent force will be posted so as to prevent entrance and
   exit of vessels from the ports aforesaid. If, therefore, with
   a view to violate such blockade, a vessel shall approach or
   shall attempt to leave either of the said ports, she will be
   duly warned by the commander of one of the blockading vessels,
   who will indorse on her register the fact and date of such
   warning, and if the same vessel shall again attempt to enter
   or leave the blockaded port, she will be captured and sent to
   the nearest convenient port, for such proceedings against her
   and her cargo, as prize, as may be deemed advisable. And I
   hereby proclaim and declare that if any person, under the
   pretended authority of the said States, or under any other
   pretense, shall molest a vessel of the United States, or the
   persons or cargo on board of her, such person will be held
   amenable to the laws of the United States for the prevention
   and punishment of piracy. In witness whereof, I have hereunto
   set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be
   affixed. Done at the city of Washington, this nineteenth day
   of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred
   and sixty-one, and of the independence of the United States
   the eighty-fifth. Abraham Lincoln. By the President: William
   H. Seward, Secretary of State."

      Abraham Lincoln,
      Complete Works,
      volume 2, pages 35-36.

{3428}

   Apparently on unofficial information of these announcements,
   indicating a state of civil war in the United States, the
   Government of Great Britain made haste—unfriendly haste, as
   the United States complained—to declare neutrality between the
   belligerents, thus placing the insurgent Confederacy on an
   exactly equal footing with the United States so far as a
   foreign recognition might do so. The Queen's Proclamation was
   as follows:

   "Whereas, We are happily at peace with all Sovereigns, Powers,
   and States; And whereas hostilities have unhappily commenced
   between the Government of the United States of America and
   certain States styling themselves 'the Confederate States of
   America'; And whereas we, being at peace with the Government
   of the United States, have declared our Royal determination to
   maintain a strict and impartial neutrality in the contest
   between the said contending parties; We, therefore, have
   thought fit, by and with the advice of our Privy Council, to
   issue this our Royal Proclamation: And we do hereby strictly
   charge and command all our loving subjects to observe a strict
   neutrality in and during the aforesaid hostilities, and to
   abstain from violating or contravening either the laws and
   statutes of the realm in this behalf, or the law of nations in
   relation thereto, as they will answer to the contrary at their
   peril." After reciting the language of certain statutes which
   forbid the subjects of Her Majesty to engage, without leave
   and license from the Crown, in any foreign military or naval
   service, or to furnish or equip any ship or vessel for service
   against any state with which Her Majesty is not at war, the
   Proclamation proceeds as follows: "Now, in order that none of
   our subjects may unwarily render themselves liable to the
   penalties imposed by said statute, we do hereby strictly
   command, that no person or persons whatsoever do commit any
   act, matter or thing whatsoever, contrary to the provisions of
   the said statute, upon pain of the several penalties by the
   said statute imposed, and of our high displeasure. And we do
   hereby further warn all our loving subjects, and all persons
   whatsoever entitled to our protection, that if any of them
   shall presume, in contempt of this Royal Proclamation, and of
   our high displeasure, to do any acts in derogation of their
   duty as subjects of a neutral sovereign, in the said contest,
   or in violation or contravention of the law of nations in that
   behalf—as, for example and more especially, by entering into
   the military service of either of the said contending parties
   as commissioned or non-commissioned officers or soldiers; or
   by serving as officers, sailors, or marines on board any ship
   or vessel of war or transport of or in the service of either
   of the said contending parties; or by serving as officers,
   sailors, or marines on board any privateer bearing letters of
   marque of or from either of the said contending parties; or by
   engaging to go or going to any place beyond the seas with
   intent to enlist or engage in any such service, or by
   procuring or attempting to procure, within Her Majesty's
   dominions, at home or abroad, others to do so; or by fitting
   out, arming, or equipping, any ship or vessel to be employed
   as a ship-of-war, or privateer, or transport, by either of the
   said contending parties; or by breaking, or endeavoring to
   break, any blockade lawfully and actually established by or on
   behalf of either of the said contending parties; or by
   carrying officers, soldiers, despatches, arms, military stores
   or materials, or any article or articles considered and deemed
   to be contraband of war according to the law of modern usage
   of nations, for the use or service of either of the said
   contending parties, all persons so offending will incur and be
   liable to the several penalties and penal consequences by the
   said statute, or by the law of nations, in that behalf imposed
   or denounced. And we do hereby declare that all our subjects
   and persons entitled to our protection who may misconduct
   themselves in the premises will do so at their peril and of
   their own wrong, and that they will in no wise obtain any
   protection from us against any liability or penal
   consequences, but will, on the contrary, incur our high
   displeasure by such misconduct.
      Given at our Court at the White Lodge, Richmond Park, this
      13th day of May, in the year of our Lord 1861, and in the
      24th year of our reign. God save the Queen."

   In the complaint of the United States subsequently submitted
   to the Tribunal of Arbitration at Geneva, the facts attending
   this remarkably hastened Proclamation of Neutrality were set
   forth as follows: "Before any armed collision had taken place,
   there existed an understanding between Her Majesty's
   Government and the Government of the Emperor of the French,
   with a view to securing a simultaneous and identical course of
   action of the two Governments on American questions. … The
   fact that it had been agreed to by the two Governments was
   communicated to Mr. Dallas, by Lord John Russell, on the first
   day of May, 1861. There was nothing in the previous relations
   between Great Britain and the United States which made it
   necessary for Her Majesty's Government to seek the advice or
   to invite the support of the Emperor of the French in the
   crisis which was threatened. … When the news of the bloodless
   attack upon Fort Sumter became known in Europe, Her Majesty's
   Government apparently assumed that the time had come for the
   joint action which had been previously agreed upon; and,
   without waiting to learn the purposes of the United States, it
   announced its intention to take the first step by recognizing
   the insurgents as belligerents. The President's Proclamation,
   which has since been made the ostensible reason for this
   determination, was issued on the 19th of April, and was made
   public in the Washington newspapers of the morning of the
   20th. An imperfect copy of it was also telegraphed to New
   York, and from thence to Boston, in each of which cities it
   appeared in the newspapers of the morning of the 20th. The New
   York papers of the 20th gave the substance of the
   Proclamation, without the official commencement and close, and
   with several errors of more or less importance. The Boston
   papers of the same date, in addition to the errors in the New
   York copy, omitted the very important statement in regard to
   the collection of the revenue, which appears in the
   Proclamation as the main cause of its issue.
{3429}
   During the morning of the 19th of April, a riot took place in
   Baltimore, which ended in severing direct communication, by
   rail or telegraph, between Washington and New York.
   Telegraphic communication was not restored until the 30th of
   the month. The regular passage of the mails and trains was
   resumed about the same time. … It is absolutely certain that
   no full copy of the text of the Proclamation could have left
   Washington by the mails of the 19th, and equally certain that
   no copy could have reached New York from Washington after the
   19th for several days. On the 20th the steamer Canadian sailed
   from Portland, taking the Boston papers of that day, with the
   imperfect copy of the Proclamation, in which the clause in
   regard to the collection of the revenue was suppressed. This
   steamer arrived at Londonderry on the 1st of May, and the
   'Daily News' of London, of the 2d of May, published the
   following telegraphic items of news: 'President Lincoln has
   issued a Proclamation, declaring a blockade of all the ports
   in the seceded States. The Federal Government will condemn as
   pirates all privateer-vessels which may be seized by Federal
   ships.' The Canadian arrived at Liverpool on the 2d of May,
   and the 'Daily News,' of the 3d, and the 'Times,' of the 4th
   of May, published the imperfect Boston copy of the
   Proclamation. … No other than the Boston copy of the
   Proclamation appears to have been published in the London
   newspapers. It is not likely that a copy was received in
   London before the 10th, by the Fulton from New York. It was on
   this meager and incorrect information that the advice of the
   British Law Officers was based, upon which that Government
   acted. … On the 5th of May the steamship Persia arrived at
   Liverpool with advices from New York to the 25th of April.
   Lord John Russell stated on Monday, the 6th of May, in a
   communication to Lord Cowley, 'that Her Majesty's Government
   received no dispatches from Lord Lyons by the mail which has
   just arrived, [the Persia,] the communication between
   Washington and New York being interrupted.' In the same
   dispatch Lord Cowley is informed 'that Her Majesty's
   Government cannot hesitate to admit that such Confederacy is
   entitled to be considered as a belligerent, and as such
   invested with all the rights and prerogatives of a
   belligerent,' and he is instructed to invite the French
   Government to a joint action, and a line of joint policy with
   the British Government, toward the United States."

      The Case of the United States before the Tribunal
      of Arbitration at Geneva
      [42d congress, 2d session, Senate ex. doc. 31],
      pages 24-27.

   "The British government is accustomed to preserve an attitude
   of neutrality towards contending nations; but it would seem
   that neutrality does not so far interfere with the sympathies
   and freedom of its subjects as to compel it to issue
   proclamations against Irishmen enlisting with Francis Joseph,
   or Englishmen fighting for Victor Emanuel and Garibaldi. … In
   the case of the United States, the laws of England and its
   treaty stipulations with our Government already forbade its
   subjects from engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow our
   institutions. The proclamation, therefore, in forbidding
   English subjects to fight in the service of the rebels against
   the United States, simply declared the law as it was already
   understood; while in forbidding Englishmen to fight for the
   United States against the rebels, it intervened to change the
   existing practice, to revive the almost obsolete act of Geo.
   III. forbidding English subjects from engaging in foreign
   service without the royal consent, which had slumbered in
   regard to Austria and Italy, for the purpose of forbidding
   Englishmen from assisting to maintain in the United States
   constitutional order against conspiracy and rebellion, and the
   cause of freedom against chattel slavery. The first effect of
   the proclamation, therefore, was to change the position in
   which England and Englishmen stood to the United States, to
   the disadvantage of the latter. Before the proclamation, for
   an Englishman to serve the United States Government in
   maintaining its integrity was regarded honorable; after the
   proclamation such service became a crime. The proclamation
   makes it an offence now for an Englishman to fight for the
   Government at Washington as great as it was for Englishmen
   before the proclamation to fight for the rebels of Montgomery.
   It thus, in a moral view, lowered the American Government to
   the level of the rebel confederacy, and in the next place, it
   proceeded, in an international view, to place the rebel
   confederacy on a par with the American Government. … No
   ingenuity can blind us to these facts:—Before the
   proclamation, to support our Government was an honorable
   office for the subjects of Great Britain, and the rebels were
   insurgents, with no rights save under the American
   Constitution. After the proclamation, for an Englishman to
   serve the United States is a crime, and the rebels are
   elevated into a belligerent power—and this intervention of
   England, depriving us of a support which her practice
   permitted, and giving the rebels a status and right they did
   not possess, we are coolly told is neutrality. … What would
   England have said to such a proclamation of neutrality from us
   in her domestic troubles in Canada, in Ireland, or in India?
   What would the English people have thought of a state paper
   from Washington, declaring it the sovereign will of the people
   of the United States to remain perfectly neutral in the
   contest being waged in Hindostan between the British
   government on the one side and the Mogul dynasty on the other,
   and forbidding American citizens to enter the services of
   either of the said belligerents? What would they have thought
   of the American President intimating with cold etiquette that
   it was a matter of profound indifference to this Government
   which of the belligerents should be victorious, the King of
   Oude and Nana Sahib, or Lord Canning and the immortal
   Havelock?"

      John Jay,
      The Great Conspiracy:
      Address at Mount Kisco, July 4, 1861.

      ALSO IN:
      J. H. Soley,
      The Blockade and the Cruisers,
      chapter 2.

      W. H. Seward,
      Works,
      volume 5
      (Diplomatic History of the War).

      J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 4, chapter 15.

      M. Bernard,
      Historical Account of the Neutrality of Great Britain
      during the American Civil War,
      chapters 4-10.

      See, also, ALABAMA CLAIMS.

{3430}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (April-May: Maryland).
   The ending of rebellious trouble in Baltimore and the state.
   General Butler in the field.

   The Eighth Massachusetts Regiment, Colonel Monroe, arrived at
   Philadelphia on the 20th of April, the day following the
   passage of the Sixth Massachusetts Regiment through Baltimore,
   and its battle with the rebel mob of that city. The Eighth was
   accompanied by General Benjamin F. Butler, who had been
   appointed by the Governor of Massachusetts to command the
   first brigade from that state. At Philadelphia General Butler
   "first heard of the attack on the Sixth, in Baltimore. His
   orders commanded him to march through that city. It was now
   impossible to do so with less than 10,000 armed men. He
   counselled with Major-General Robert Patterson, who had just
   been appointed commander of the 'Department of Washington,'
   which embraced the States of Pennsylvania, Delaware, and
   Maryland, and the District of Columbia, and whose
   head-quarters were at Philadelphia. Commodore Dupont,
   commandant of the Navy Yard there, was also consulted, and it
   was agreed that the troops should go by water from Perryville,
   at the mouth of the Susquehanna River, to Annapolis, and
   thence across Maryland to Washington." This route was
   accordingly taken by General Butler. Colonel Lefferts, who had
   reached Philadelphia with the New York Seventh Regiment,
   preferred to attempt going directly to Washington by a steamer
   which he secured for the purpose; but a report of rebel
   batteries on the Potomac turned him back, and his regiment,
   likewise, proceeded to Annapolis, arriving there some hours
   after the Eighth Massachusetts. Despite the protests and
   remonstrances of the Governor of Maryland-who was striving
   hard to put his state in an attitude of "neutrality," and to
   persuade the national government to respect it by passing no
   armed troops across Maryland soil—both regiments were landed,
   and took possession of the town, where the secessionists were
   making ready to capture the Naval Academy and the training
   ship Constitution. The track of the railroad from Annapolis
   had been torn up and the locomotives disabled. The mechanics
   of the Massachusetts Eighth proceeded quickly to repair both,
   and the two regiments moved forward. "The troops reached
   Annapolis Junction on the morning of the 25th, when the
   co-operation of the two regiments ceased, the Seventh New York
   going on to Washington, and the Eighth Massachusetts remaining
   to hold the road they had just opened. Before their departure
   from Annapolis, the Baltic, a large steamship transport, had
   arrived there with troops, and officers speedily followed.
   General Scott ordered General Butler to remain there, hold the
   town and the road, and superintend the forwarding of troops to
   the Capital. The 'Department of Annapolis,' which embraced the
   country twenty miles on each side of the railway, as far as
   Bladensburg, was created, and General Butler was placed in
   command of it, with ample discretionary powers to make him a
   sort of military dictator. … At the close of April, General
   Butler had full 10,000 men under his command at Annapolis, and
   an equal number were guarding the seat of Government
   [Washington]." Meantime, Baltimore had been given up to the
   control of the Secessionists, though the Maryland Unionists
   were numerous and strong and were gathering courage to assert
   themselves. But the rebellious and riotous city was now
   brought to its senses. On the 5th of May General Butler sent
   two regiments to occupy the Relay House, within nine miles of
   Baltimore. On the 9th, a force of 1,200 Pennsylvania troops
   and regulars, ordered forward by General Patterson from
   Philadelphia, were landed near Fort McHenry, under the guns of
   a United States vessel, and marched through the city. On the
   night of the 13th, General Butler, in person, with about 1,000
   men, including the Massachusetts Sixth, entered the place and
   took a commanding position on Federal Hill, which was
   afterwards permanently fortified. From that day the disloyalty
   in Baltimore gave no trouble to the Government.

      B. J. Lossing,
      Field Book of the Civil War,
      volume 1, chapter 18.

      ALSO IN:
      Official Records of the War of the Rebellion,
      series 1, volume 2.

      J. Parton,
      General Butler in New Orleans,
      chapters 4-5.

      T. Winthrop,
      New York Seventh Regiment: Our March to Washington
      (Life in the Open Air).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (May).
   Call for additional volunteers.

   On the 3d of May the President issued a call for forty
   additional regiments of volunteers; directed an increase of
   the regular army by ten regiments, and ordered the enlistment
   of 18,000 seamen—acts subsequently legalized by Congress.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (May).
   Exportation of cotton from the Confederacy,
   excepting through its seaports, prohibited.

   On the 21st of May, 1861, the Congress of the Confederate
   States passed an act declaring that "from and after the 1st
   day of June next, and during the existence of the blockade of
   any of the ports of the Confederate States of America by the
   Government of the United States, it shall not be lawful for
   any person to export any raw cotton or cotton yarn from the
   Confederate States of America except through the seaports of
   the said Confederate States."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (May).
   Secession of North Carolina.

      See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1861 (JANUARY-MAY).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (May).
   General Butler at Fortress Monroe and his "Contrabands."
   The first military thrust at Slavery.

   General Butler was commissioned as Major-General of Volunteers
   on the 16th of May, and on the 20th he was ordered to the
   command at Fortress Monroe. He arrived at the Fortress on the
   22d and assumed the command. "On the evening of the second day
   after his arrival at the post, the event occurred which will
   for ever connect the name of General Butler with the history
   of the abolition of slavery in America. Colonel Phelps's visit
   to Hampton [the previous day] had thrown the white inhabitants
   into such alarm that most of them prepared for flight, and
   many left their homes that night, never to see them again. In
   the confusion three negroes escaped, and, making their way
   across the bridges, gave themselves up to a Union picket,
   saying that their master, Colonel Mallory, was about to remove
   them to North Carolina to work upon rebel fortifications
   there, far away from their wives and children, who were to be
   left in Hampton. They were brought to the fortress, and the
   circumstance was reported to the general in the morning. … He
   needed laborers. He was aware that the rebel batteries that
   were rising around him were the work chiefly of slaves,
   without whose assistance they could not have been erected in
   time to give him trouble. He wished to keep these men. The
   garrison wished them kept. The country would have deplored or
   resented the sending of them away. If they had been Colonel
   Mallory's horses, or Colonel Mallory's spades, or Colonel
   Mallory's percussion caps, he would have seized them and used
   them without hesitation.
{3431}
   Why not property more valuable for the purposes of the
   rebellion than any other? He pronounced the electric words,
   'These men are Contraband of War; set them at work.' 'An
   epigram,' as Winthrop remarks, 'abolished slavery in the
   United States.' The word took; for it gave the country an
   excuse for doing what it was longing to do. … By the time the
   three negroes were comfortably at work upon the new
   bake-house, General Butler received the following brief
   epistle, signed 'J. B. Carey, major-acting, Virginia
   volunteers': 'Be pleased to designate some time and place when
   it will be agreeable to you to accord to me a personal
   interview.' The general complied with the request." The
   interview occurred that afternoon, and was not between
   strangers; for General Butler and Major Carey were old
   political allies—hard-shell democrats both. The essential part
   of the conversation which ensued was as follows: "Major Carey:
   'I am informed that three negroes, belonging to Colonel
   Mallory, have escaped within your lines. I am Colonel
   Mallory's agent and have charge of his property. What do you
   intend to do with regard to those negroes?' General Butler: 'I
   propose to retain them.' Major Carey: 'Do you mean, then, to
   set aside your constitutional obligations?' General Butler: 'I
   mean to abide by the decision of Virginia, as expressed in her
   ordinance of secession, passed the day before yesterday. I am
   under no constitutional obligations to a foreign country,
   which Virginia now claims to be.' Major Carey: 'But you say,
   we can't secede, and so you cannot consistently detain the
   negroes.' General Butler: 'But you say, you have seceded, and
   so you cannot consistently claim them. I shall detain the
   negroes as contraband of war. You are using them upon your
   batteries. It is merely a question whether they shall be used
   for or against the government. Nevertheless, though I greatly
   need the labor which has providentially fallen into my hands,
   if Colonel Mallory will come into the fort, and take the oath
   of allegiance to the United States, he shall have his negroes,
   and I will endeavor to hire them from him.' Major Carey:
   'Colonel Mallory is absent.' The interview here terminated,
   and each party, with polite farewell, went its way. This was
   on Friday, May 24. On Sunday morning, eight more negroes came
   in. … They continued to come in daily, in tens, twenties,
   thirties, till the number of contrabands in the various camps
   numbered more than 900. A commissioner of negro affairs was
   appointed, who taught, fed and governed them." General Butler
   reported his action to the Government, and on the 30th of May
   the Secretary of War wrote to him: "Your action in respect to
   the negroes who came within your lines, from the service of
   the rebels, is approved. … While … you will permit no
   interference, by persons under your command, with the
   relations of persons held to service under the laws of any
   state, you will, on the other hand, so long as any state
   within which your military operations are conducted remain
   under the control of … armed combinations, refrain from
   surrendering to alleged masters any persons who come within
   your lines." "So the matter rested for two months, at the
   expiration of which events revived the question."

      J. Parton,
      General Butler in New Orleans,
      chapter 6.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (May: Virginia).
   First Advance of Union Troops across the Potomac.
   Death of Ellsworth at Alexandria.

   "Already 'Confederate' pickets were occupying Arlington
   Heights and the Virginia shore of the Long Bridge, which spans
   the Potomac at Washington City; and engineers had been seen on
   those heights selecting eligible positions for batteries. A
   crisis was evidently at hand, and the General-in-chief was now
   persuaded to allow an immediate invasion of Virginia. Orders
   were at once issued [May 23] for the occupation of the shores
   of the Potomac opposite, and also the city of Alexandria, nine
   miles below, by National troops. General Mansfield was in
   command of about 13,000 men at the Capital. Toward midnight,
   these forces in and around Washington were put in motion for
   the passage of the river, at three different points. One
   column was to cross at the Aqueduct Bridge, at Georgetown;
   another at the Long Bridge, at Washington; and a third was to
   proceed in vessels, and seize the city of Alexandria. The
   three invading columns moved almost simultaneously. … The
   troops moving by land and water reached Alexandria at about
   the same time. The National frigate Pawnee was lying off the
   town, and her commander had already been in negotiation for
   the evacuation of Alexandria by the insurgents. A detachment
   of her crew, bearing a flag of truce, now hastened to the
   shore in boats, and leaped eagerly upon the wharf just before
   the zouaves [the New York Fire Zouave Regiment, under Colonel
   Ellsworth] reached it. They were fired upon by some Virginia
   sentries, who instantly fled from the town. Ellsworth,
   ignorant of any negotiations, advanced to the center of the
   city, and took possession of it in the name of his Government,
   while the column under Wilcox marched through different
   streets to the Station of the Orange and Alexandria Railway,
   and seized it, with much rolling stock. They there captured a
   small company (thirty-five men) of Virginia cavalry, under
   Captain Ball. Other Virginians, who had heard the firing of
   the insurgent pickets, escaped by way of the railroad.
   Alexandria was now in quiet possession of the National troops,
   but there were many violent secessionists there who would not
   submit. Among them was a man named Jackson, the proprietor of
   an inn called the Marshall House. The Confederate flag had
   been flying over his premises for many days, and had been
   plainly seen from the President's house in Washington. It was
   still there, and Ellsworth went in person to take it down.
   When descending an upper staircase with it, he was shot by
   Jackson, who was waiting for him in a dark passage, with a
   double-barreled gun, loaded with buckshot. Ellsworth fell
   dead, and his murderer met the same fate an instant afterward,
   at the hands of Francis E. Brownell, of Troy, who, with six
   others, had accompanied his commander to the roof of the
   house. He shot Jackson through the head with a bullet, and
   pierced his body several times with his saber-bayonet. …
   Ellsworth was a very young and extremely handsome man, and was
   greatly beloved for his generosity, and admired for his
   bravery and patriotism. His death produced great excitement
   throughout the country. It was the first of note that had
   occurred in consequence of the National troubles, and the very
   first since the campaign had actually begun, a few hours
   before.
{3432}
   It intensified the hatred of rebellion and its abettors; and a
   regiment was raised in his native State (New York) called the
   Ellsworth Avengers. Intrenching tools were sent over the
   Potomac early on the morning of the 24th, and the troops
   immediately commenced casting up intrenchments and redoubts,
   extending from Roach's Spring, on the Washington and
   Alexandria Road, across Arlington Heights, almost to the Chain
   Bridge."

      B. J. Lossing,
      Field Book of the Civil War,
      volume 1, chapter 20.

      ALSO IN:
      F. Moore,
      Anecdotes, Poetry and Incidents of the War,
      page 391.

      J. T. Headley,
      The Great Rebellion,
      chapter 5.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (May-June).
   Tennessee dragged into the rebel Confederacy.
   Loyal resistance of East Tennessee.

      See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1861 (JANUARY-MAY) and (JUNE).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (May-July: Missouri).
   The baffling of the 'Secessionists in Missouri.
   Lyon's capture of Camp Jackson.
   The Battle of Boonville.

      See MISSOURI: A. D. 1861 (FEBRUARY-JULY).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (May-September: Kentucky).
   The struggle for the state.
   Secession and Neutrality overcome.

      See KENTUCKY: A. D. 1861 (JANUARY-SEPTEMBER).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (June: Virginia).
   The fight at Big Bethel.

   "Major-General Butler and staff arrived at Fortress Monroe
   Wednesday afternoon, May 22d. … Colonel Magruder—late Colonel
   in the United States service, and an officer of much
   distinction as an obstinate combatant—was placed in command
   (rebel) of the Peninsula. … Troops rapidly poured into
   Butler's department, and he soon found himself in a condition
   to act on the offensive. Magruder's scouts and cavalry greatly
   annoyed the two camps mentioned. They had, also, seized
   several Union men. These raids became so frequent and annoying
   that a night attack was concerted upon their positions at
   Little Bethel and Big Bethel—the latter, near the north branch
   of Back River, where it was understood Magruder's outposts
   were throwing up strong works. Brigadier-General Pierce, of
   the Massachusetts troops, was detailed to command the
   expedition. … Approaching the enemy's position at Big Bethel,
   it was found that their guns commanded all points of approach.
   The road leading up to the bridge over the creek was swept by
   their artillery. A thick woods to the left of the road
   afforded some protection to the Federal left. An open field on
   the right of the approach only offered a house and
   out-buildings as a cover. The enemy occupied a hill, beyond
   the creek, which almost completely secured their front. At
   their rear was a dense wood. This gave them the advantage of
   ground, greatly. A reconnaissance would have demonstrated the
   futility of a front attack except by artillery. The only hope
   for the Federals was in a flank movement, higher up the creek,
   by which, the stream being passed, the enemy could be
   assaulted in their works, at the point of the bayonet, if
   necessary. This movement was only attempted partially at a
   late hour in the day. The rebels were well prepared, and only
   awaited the appearance of the head of the Federal advance to
   open a sharp fire. … The fight was, from the first, extremely
   unequal. A front attack was sheer folly. But, the flank
   movement was not ordered. … The fortunes of the day needed but
   a master-hand to direct them, to have turned in favor of the
   Union troops. … Lieutenant-Colonel Washburne had … arranged
   for a flank movement which, with a combined attack from the
   front, must have ended the struggle; but the order for retreat
   was given before the movement could be executed. … The Federal
   loss was 14 killed, 49 wounded and five missing. Among the
   killed were two of the most gallant and noble men in the
   service—Major Theodore Winthrop, Secretary and Aid to General
   Butler, and first-Lieutenant John T. Greble, of the United
   States regular artillery, Second regiment. The rebels
   pronounced their loss to have been but one killed and four
   wounded. The retreat was accomplished in good order—the enemy
   not pursuing."

      O. J. Victor,
      History of the Southern Rebellion,
      volume 2, division 4, chapter 18.

      ALSO IN:
      W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,
      Popular History of the United States,
      volume 4, chapter 17.

      Life and Poems of Theodore Winthrop,
      chapter 9.

      Official Records,
      series 1, volume 2.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (June-July: West Virginia).
   General McClellan's campaign in the mountains.
   Rich Mountain and Carrick's Ford.

   "Although some thousands of West Virginians had volunteered to
   fight for the Union, none of them were encamped on the soil of
   their State until after the election held [May 23] to ratify
   or reject the Ordinance of Secession. …

      See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1861 (JANUARY-JUNE)]

   The Virginians who volunteered were mustered in and organized
   at Camp Carlile, in Ohio, opposite Wheeling, under the command
   of Colonel Kelly, himself a Virginian. George B. McClellan,
   who had been appointed a Major-General and assigned to the
   command of the Department of the Ohio, remained at Cincinnati,
   his home. Three days after the election aforesaid, he issued
   from that city a spirited address 'To the Union men of Western
   Virginia.' … A brief and stirring address to his soldiers was
   issued simultaneously with the above; and, both being read to
   those in Camp Carlile that evening, the 1st Virginia, 1,100
   strong, Colonel Kelly, crossed to Wheeling early next morning,
   closely followed by the 16th Ohio, Colonel Irvine. The 14th
   Ohio, Colonel Steedman, crossed simultaneously, and quietly
   occupied Parkersburg, the terminus of the Northwestern branch
   of the Baltimore and Ohio road. A Rebel force, then holding
   Grafton, which connected the branch aforesaid with the main or
   Wheeling division of the railroad, had meditated a descent on
   Wheeling; but, finding themselves anticipated and outnumbered,
   they obstructed and destroyed the railroad west of them," and
   fell back to Philippi, some fifteen miles southward. "General
   McClellan having ordered that Philippi be captured by
   surprise, the attempt was made on the night of June 2d. Two
   brigades of two regiments each approached the Rebel camp by
   different roads" and dispersed it completely, with some loss
   on both sides, capturing the tents, provisions and munitions.
   The Rebel commander, Colonel Porterfield, "gathering up such
   portion of his forces as he could find, retreated hastily to
   Beverly, and thence to Huttonsville; where the Rebel array was
   rapidly increased by conscription, and Governor Wise placed in
   command. General McClellan arrived at Grafton on the 23d. …
   His forces were rapidly augmented, till they amounted, by the
   4th of July, to over 30,000 men; while the Rebels in his front
   could hardly muster 10,000 in all.
{3433}
   He therefore resolved to advance. The Rebel main force,
   several thousand strong, under General Robert S. Garnett, was
   strongly intrenched on Laurel Hill, a few miles north of
   Beverly, … while a smaller detachment, under Colonel John
   Pegram was intrenched upon the summit and at either base of
   Rich Mountain … three or four miles distant from the Rebel
   main body." General Rosecrans, sent by a detour of eight miles
   through the mountains to Pegram's rear, drove the rebels (July
   11) from their position, at the point of the bayonet; and the
   following day their commander, with about 600 men, was forced
   to surrender. "General McClellan pushed on to Beverly, which
   he entered early next morning, flanking General Garnett's
   position at Laurel Hill and compelling him to a precipitate
   flight northward. Six cannon, 200 tents, 60 wagons and over
   100 prisoners, were the trophies of this success. The Rebel
   loss in killed and wounded was about 150; the Union about 50.
   General Garnett, completely flanked, thoroughly worsted, and
   fearfully outnumbered, abandoned his camp at Laurel Hill
   without a struggle, crossing the Laurel Mountains eastward, by
   a by-road, into the narrow valley of Cheat river. … At length,
   having crossed the Cheat at a point known as Carrick's Ford,
   which proffered an admirable position for defense. Garnett
   turned [July 14] to fight." But the Union force which pursued
   him was overpowering; Garnett himself was killed in the battle
   at the Ford and his command fled in confusion. General
   McClellan telegraphed to Washington, next day, from
   Huttonsville: "We have completely annihilated the enemy in
   Western Virginia. Our loss is about 13 killed and not more
   than 40 wounded; while the enemy's loss is not far from 200
   killed; and the number of prisoners we have taken will amount
   to at least 1,000. We have captured seven of the enemy's guns
   in all. A portion of Garnett's forces retreated; but I look
   for their capture by General Hill, who is in hot pursuit."
   "This expectation was not realized. The pursuit was only
   continued two miles beyond the ford; when our weary soldiers
   halted, and the residue of the Rebels, under Colonel Ramsey,
   turning sharply to the right, made their way across the
   mountains, and joined General Jackson at Monterey." Meantime,
   simultaneously with General McClellan's advance on Beverly,
   another strong Union force, under General Cox, had moved from
   Guyandotte to the Kanawha, and up that river to Charleston,
   which it reached on the 25th of July. Governor Wise, who
   commanded the rebels in the Kanawha Valley, retreated, General
   Cox pursuing, until the pursuit was checked on the 29th by
   Wise's destruction of Gauley bridge. The rebels then made good
   their flight to Lewisburg, in Greenbrier county, where Wise
   was reinforced and superseded by General John B. Floyd.

      H. Greeley,
      The American Conflict,
      volume 1, chapter 32.

   "The war in Western Virginia seemed to have ended with the
   dispersion of Garnett's forces, and there was much rejoicing
   over the result. It was premature. The 'Confederates' were not
   disposed to surrender to their enemy the granaries that would
   be needed to supply the troops in Eastern Virginia, without a
   severer struggle. General Robert E. Lee succeeded Garnett, and
   more important men than Wise and Floyd took the places of
   these incompetents. Rosecrans succeeded McClellan, who was
   called to the command of the Army of the Potomac, and the war
   in the mountain region of Virginia was soon renewed."

      B. J. Lossing,
      Field Book of the Civil War,
      volume 1, chapter 22.

      ALSO IN:
      Official Records of the War of the Rebellion,
      series 1, volume 2, page 193-293.

      V. A. Lewis,
      History of West Virginia,
      chapter 28.

      J. D. Cox,
      McClellan in West Virginia
      (Battles and Leaders of the Civil War, volume 1).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (July).
   First depredations of the Confederate cruiser Sumter.

      See ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1861-1862.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (July: Virginia).
   The seat of the rebel government transferred to Richmond.

      See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1861 (JULY).

The Principal Theatre of War in Virginia.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (July: Virginia).
   On to Richmond.
   The First Battle of Bull Run, or Manassas.

   "The Southern Government having inclined to the defensive
   policy as that upon which they should act, their first object
   was to prevent an advance of any Federal force into Virginia.
   Early in the month of May troops were assembled in Richmond,
   and pushed forward toward the northeastern boundary of the
   State, to a position known as Manassas Junction. … It is here
   that a railroad from Alexandria, another from Staunton up the
   valley and through Manassas Gap, and another from Gordonsville
   unite. At Gordonsville the railroad from Richmond and the line
   from East Tennessee unite. As a point for concentration none
   more eligible exists in northeastern Virginia. The advantages
   for fortification are naturally such that the place can be
   rendered impregnable. Here the centre of the northern force of
   the Southern army was posted, with the left wing pushed
   forward to Winchester [under the command of General Joseph E.
   Johnston, with the Union General Patterson opposed to him] and
   the right extended to the Potomac, and sustained by heavy
   batteries which served to blockade the river. The Federal
   force, the advance of which was assembled at Washington for
   the defence of that city against any attack by the Southern
   troops, was posted on the Virginia side of the Potomac, on
   Arlington Heights, which were strongly fortified. Their right
   was pushed some distance up the Potomac, and chiefly on the
   Maryland side, while their left occupied Alexandria. The
   armies of both sides consisted of raw militia hastily brought
   together, and of volunteers who for the first time had put on
   the uniform, and taken up the weapons of the soldier. On both
   sides the forces were constantly accumulating. On the morning
   of June 27th, the consolidated report of General Mansfield,
   commanding the Department of Washington, gives the number of
   troops in that city and vicinity. The privates, including
   regulars and volunteers present for duty, numbered 22,846 men.
   The grand aggregate of the force, including officers, etc.,
   present and absent, was 34,160 men. The force of General
   Patterson, commanding in Maryland above Washington, and also
   on the Virginia side of the Potomac, on the 28th of June, was
   returned, embracing officers and men enlisted and present for
   duty, 15,923. Of these about 550 were reported as sick."

      W. J. Tenney,
      Military and Naval History of the Rebellion,
      page 67.

{3434}

   "The return of Johnston's [Confederate] army for June 30th
   showed his total force present for duty to have been 10,654;
   but this includes some troops which, though assigned to his
   army, did not join him till after July 3d. … A prime object of
   Johnston in taking post at Winchester was, that he might be
   enabled to join the army at Manassas in case of need. On June
   2d, only a week after Johnston's arrival at Harper's Ferry,
   Beauregard had reached Manassas and assumed command. He and
   Johnston at once communicated with each other, and agreed in
   their views of the importance of mutual support. … As soon as
   Johnston ascertained … that McClellan [from West Virginia] was
   not moving on Romney and Winchester, the feasibility of this
   movement to Manassas at the right time became greater. The
   only problem then remaining was to so time it as to arrive
   just long enough before the impending battle to take part in
   it, and not so long as to cause, by the news of his arrival, a
   corresponding transfer of Patterson. … It was for the purpose
   of gaining as much start as possible on Patterson that
   Johnston had retired to Winchester, instead of remaining
   opposite the Northern force at Martinsburg. He kept his
   cavalry well out, in order to be informed as promptly as
   possible of the slightest change in Patterson's position.
   Meanwhile the grand Federal advance upon Manassas had
   commenced."

      R. M. Hughes,
      General Johnston,
      pages 47-51.

   The advance from Washington, which began on the 16th of July,
   and which resulted in the grievous defeat of the Union forces
   at Bull Run, or Manassas, on Sunday, the 21st, was undertaken
   to appease the impatient, ignorant clamor of Northern
   newspapers, and in opposition to the judgment and the plans of
   General Scott, who was then at the head of the National army.
   The cry "On to Richmond" was taken up by Congressmen and
   Senators, and the pressure on the government became too strong
   to be resisted. Instead of keeping the raw troops, hurriedly
   gathered at Washington, in camps of instruction, until they
   were properly drilled and until their officers had acquired
   some experience in handling them, they were hurriedly pushed
   into a serious campaign movement, against an enemy likewise
   untrained, to be sure, but who was far better prepared to
   receive an attack than the assailants were to make one.
   General Irwin McDowell had been recently placed in command of
   the army intended for the field, with General Mansfield
   commanding the troops in Washington. The former had "entered
   on his new and responsible duties with great alacrity, working
   night and day to prepare his command for the approaching
   conflict. … McDowell was laboring at a great
   disadvantage—drilling and preparing his troops as best he
   could—under the heavy pressure from the North to deliver
   battle to the enemy in his front. Secretary Chase was the
   champion, in the Cabinet, of the intense feeling in the North
   that the war should be pushed at once, with a vigor that would
   end it soon. … There is no doubt that General Scott was
   weakened with the administration, for the reason that he did
   not believe in the prevailing opinion that a few days would
   crush the rebellion; and the more the old hero insisted, or
   faithfully stood by his views, the more it antagonized the
   opinion of those who hoped and said it would end speedily. At
   the Cabinet meeting a week before, General Hamilton says:
   'General Montgomery Blair said he would march to Richmond with
   10,000 men, armed with lathes.' 'Yes,' said General Scott, 'as
   prisoners of war.' Continuing General Hamilton's statement of
   the events which occurred prior to the battle and during its
   progress, he says: 'On the Sunday preceding the battle of Bull
   Run, Scott directed me, his military secretary, to say to
   McDowell that he wished him to dine with him without fail. At
   the dinner, at which General McDowell appeared, General Scott
   used every possible argument to dissuade General McDowell from
   fighting the first battle of Bull Run under the then existing
   condition of public affairs. … He then begged General McDowell
   to go to Secretary Chase, his kinsman, and aid him (General
   Scott) in preventing a forward movement at that moment; one of
   the arguments used by General Scott being that the Union
   sentiment of the South had been surprised by the suddenness
   and promptitude of the movement in favor of secession; that he
   (General Scott) was well advised that the Union sentiment was
   recovering itself, and gaining head in the South; that from
   the moment blood was shed the South would be made a unit.
   General McDowell regretted that he could not agree with
   General Scott in his views, and arose and retired. … In the
   course of the succeeding week General McDowell reported to
   General Scott his proposed plan of battle. It was hung upon
   the wall, and I followed with a pointer the positions
   indicated by General McDowell as those he intended the forces
   under his command should occupy. After General McDowell had
   gone through a detailed statement of his plan, and had
   finished, General Scott remarked, "General McDowell, that is
   as good a plan of battle as I ever saw upon paper." General
   McDowell said in rep]y: "General Scott, the success of this
   whole plan depends upon General Patterson holding General
   Johnston in check at Winchester." General Scott remarked that
   General Johnston was a very able soldier, that he had a
   railroad at his command with which to move his troops, and if
   General McDowell's plan of battle, which had just been
   presented to him, depended upon General Patterson holding
   General Johnston in check, his plan was not worth the paper it
   was drawn upon.' That ended that interview."

      J. H. Stine,
      History of the Army of the Potomac,
      pages 7-10.

   Says General McDowell, in his subsequent report of the
   movement and the disastrous battle:
   "When I submitted to the General-in-Chief, in compliance with
   his verbal instructions, the plan of operations and estimate
   of force required, the time I was to proceed to carry it into
   effect was fixed for the 8th of July (Monday). Every facility
   possible was given me by the General-in-Chief and heads of the
   administrative departments in making the necessary
   preparations. But the regiments, owing, I was told, to want of
   transportation, came over slowly. Many of them did not come
   across until eight or nine days after the time fixed upon, and
   went forward without my ever seeing them and without having
   been together before in a brigade. The sending re-enforcements
   to General Patterson by drawing off the wagons was a further
   and unavoidable cause of delay. Notwithstanding the herculean
   efforts of the Quartermaster-General, and his favoring me in
   every possible way, the wagons for ammunition, subsistence,
   &c., and the horses for the trains and for the artillery, did
   not all arrive for more than a week after the time appointed
   to move.
{3435}
   I was not even prepared as late as the 15th ultimo, and the
   desire I should move became great, and it was wished I should
   not, if possible, delay longer than Tuesday, the 10th ultimo.
   When I did set out on the 10th I was still deficient in wagons
   for subsistence, but I went forward, trusting to their being
   procured in time to follow me. The trains thus hurriedly
   gotten together, with horses, wagons, drivers, and
   wagon-masters all new and unused to each other, moved with
   difficulty and disorder, and was the cause of a day's delay in
   getting the provisions forward, making it necessary to make on
   Sunday the attack we should have made on Saturday. I could
   not, with every exertion, get forward with the troops earlier
   than we did. I wished them to go to Centreville the second
   day, which would have taken us there on the 17th, and enabled
   us, so far as they were concerned, to go in to action on the
   19th instead of the 21st; but when I went forward from Fairfax
   Court-House beyond Germantown to urge them forward, I was told
   it was impossible for the men to march farther. They had only
   come from Vienna, about 6 miles, and it was not more than 6½
   miles farther to Centreville, in all a march of 12½ miles; but
   the men were foot-weary, not so much, I was told, by the
   distance marched, as by the time they had been on foot, caused
   by the obstructions in the road and the slow pace we had to
   move to avoid ambuscades. The men were, moreover, unaccustomed
   to marching, their bodies not in condition for that kind of
   work, and not used to carrying even the load of 'light
   marching order.'"

      Brig. General I. McDowell,
      Report
      (Official Records, series 1, volume 2, pages 323-324).

   The advance of the Union Army was made "in five divisions,
   commanded by Generals Tyler, Hunter, Heintzelman, Runyon, and
   Miles. Among the brigade commanders that afterward rose to
   eminence were William T. Sherman, Ambrose E. Burnside, Erastus
   D. Keyes, and Oliver O. Howard. The total force was somewhat
   over 34,000 men; but Runyon's division was left to guard the
   line of communication with Washington, and the number that
   actually moved against the enemy was about 28,000 with 49 guns
   and a battalion of cavalry. So little did strict military
   discipline as yet enter into the policy of the Government that
   a large number of civilians, including several members of
   Congress, obtained passes enabling them to ride out in
   carriages, close in the rear of the army, to witness the
   expected battle. … The troops marched by the Warrenton
   turnpike, and found themselves in the presence of the enemy on
   the banks of Bull Run on the 18th. … The enemy's outposts had
   fallen back as the army advanced, and the first serious
   opposition was met at Blackburn's Ford," where some sharp
   fighting occurred between Tyler's division and the Confederate
   troops under Longstreet. "McDowell, finding that Beauregard
   was very strongly intrenched on his right, and that the roads
   in that direction were not good, changed his plan and
   determined to attack on the north or left wing. Another reason
   for doing this lay in the fact that McDowell had distrusted
   Patterson from the first, having no faith that he would hold
   Johnston. … The action at Blackburn's Ford had been fought on
   Thursday. Friday and Saturday were consumed in reconnoissances
   and searching for a suitable ford on the upper part of the
   stream, where a column could cross and, marching down on the
   right bank, uncover the fords held by the enemy and enable the
   remainder of the army to cross. Such a ford was found at
   length, and on Sunday morning, the 21st, the army was put in
   motion. McDowell did not know that Johnston had easily eluded
   Patterson and with two fifths of his forces joined Beauregard
   on Saturday. … The Confederate commanders had actually ordered
   a forward movement of their own right wing; but as they saw
   the development of McDowell's plan they recalled that, and
   gradually strengthened their left to meet the onset. … The
   battleground was a plateau, wooded and broken."

      R. Johnson,
      Short History of the War of Rebellion,
      chapter 4.

   In the Report of the Confederate General Beauregard, the
   plateau which now became the principal battle ground of the
   conflict is described as follows: "It is inclosed on three
   sides by small water-courses, which empty into Bull Run within
   a few yards of each other a half a mile to the south of the
   stone bridge. Rising to an elevation of quite 100 feet above
   the level of Bull Run at the bridge, it falls off on three
   sides to the level of the enclosing streams in gentle slopes,
   but which are furrowed by ravines of irregular direction and
   length, and studded with clumps and patches of young pines and
   oaks. The general direction of the crest of the plateau is
   oblique to the course of Bull Run in that quarter and to the
   Brentsville and turnpike roads, which intersect each other at
   right angles. Immediately surrounding the two houses …
   [mentioned below] are small open fields of irregular outline,
   not exceeding 150 acres in extent. The houses, occupied at the
   time, the one by the Widow Henry and the other by the free
   negro Robinson, are small wooden buildings, the latter densely
   embowered in trees and environed by a double row of fences on
   two sides. Around the eastern and southern brow of the plateau
   an almost unbroken fringe of second-growth pines gave
   excellent shelter for our marksmen, who availed themselves of
   it with the most satisfactory skill. To the west, adjoining
   the fields, a broad belt of oaks extends directly across the
   crest on both sides of the Sudley road, in which during the
   battle regiments of both armies met and contended for the
   mastery. From the open ground of this plateau the view
   embraces a wide expanse of woods and gently undulating open
   country of broad grass and grain fields in all directions."

      General G. T. Beauregard,
      Report
      (Official Records, series 1, volume 2, pages 493-494).

   At an early hour in the afternoon, the Union forces had driven
   the enemy from this plateau and seemed to be in a position
   which promised victory to them. Says General McDowell in his
   official report: "The enemy was evidently disheartened and
   broken. But we had then been fighting since 10.30 o'clock in
   the morning, and it was after 3 o'clock in the afternoon. The
   men had been up since 2 o'clock in the morning, and had made
   what to those unused to such things seemed a long march before
   coming into action, though the longest distance gone over was
   not more that 9½ miles; and though they had three days'
   provisions served out to them the day before, many, no doubt,
   either did not get them, or threw them away on the march or
   during the battle, and were therefore without food. They had
   done much severe fighting.
{3436}
   Some of the regiments which had been driven from the hill in
   the first two attempts of the enemy to keep possession of it
   had become shaken, were unsteady, and had many men out of the
   ranks. It was at this time that the enemy's re-enforcements
   came to his aid from the railroad train (understood to have
   just arrived from the valley with the residue of Johnston's
   army). They threw themselves in the woods on our right, and
   opened a fire of musketry on our men, which caused them to
   break and retire down the hillside. This soon degenerated into
   disorder, for which there was no remedy. Every effort was made
   to rally them, even beyond the reach of the enemy's fire, but
   in vain. The battalion of regular infantry alone moved up the
   hill opposite to the one with the house, and there maintained
   itself until our men could get down to and across the
   Warrenton turnpike on the way back to the position we occupied
   in the morning. The plain was covered with the retreating
   groups, and they seemed to infect those with whom they came in
   contact. The retreat soon became a rout, and this soon
   degenerated still further into a panic. Finding this state of
   affairs was beyond the efforts of all those who had assisted
   so faithfully during the long and hard day's work in gaining
   almost the object of our wishes, and that nothing remained on
   that field but to recognize what we could no longer prevent, I
   gave the necessary orders to protect their withdrawal, begging
   the men to form a line, and offer the appearance, at least, of
   organization and force. They returned by the fords to the
   Warrenton road, protected, by my order, by Colonel Porter's
   force of regulars. Once on the road, and the different corps
   coming together in small parties, many without officers, they
   became intermingled, and all organization was lost."

      Brigadier General I. McDowell,
      Report
      (Official Records, series 1, volume 2, page 320).

   "The battle of Bull Run was a misfortune, and not a disgrace,
   to the Federal arms; but the reports of losses on both sides
   prove that it was bravely disputed. … The rout—or, in other
   words, the panic— … was one of those accidents to which even
   victorious armies are sometimes liable, and against which old
   troops are not always able to guard. The importance of the
   battle of Bull Run cannot be measured by the amount of losses
   sustained by the two contending parties. … Its immediate
   effect upon military operations was to produce a sudden change
   in the attitude of the belligerents. The possession of
   Virginia, with the exception of that portion which had been
   recaptured by McClellan, was secured to the Confederates.
   Richmond was beyond danger of any attack, and Washington was
   threatened anew. … But it was chiefly through its moral effect
   that this first encounter was to exercise a powerful influence
   upon the war of which it was only the prelude. The South saw
   in this victory a kind of ratification of her claims. It was
   not only the Federal soldiers who were vanquished on that day,
   but with them all who had remained more or less openly loyal
   to the Union in the Southern States. … This disaster, which
   might have discouraged the North, proved, on the contrary, a
   salutary lesson."

      Comte de Paris,
      History of the Civil War in America,
      volume 1, book 3, chapter 2.

   "Those only can realize the condition of our Army, at that
   time, who can recall the incidents of this memorable campaign
   and the battle with which it closed. The crowds of curious and
   impertinent spectators who accompanied and often rode through
   our ranks; the long and fatal delay of Hunter's column, on the
   morning of the battle—a delay occasioned by a few
   baggage-waggons, which should have been miles in rear—the many
   ludicrous, yet sad, scenes on the field; the heroic, but
   fruitless, gallantry of separate regiments, each attempting,
   in detail, the accomplishment of a work which required the
   combined effort of all; the dread, on the part of our men, of
   those terrible 'masked batteries' and 'the fierce Black-horse
   Cavalry,' neither of which ever had an existence except in the
   imaginative brains of our newspaper reporters, all help to
   fill up the picture. … I believe the plan of this battle to
   have been well-conceived, notwithstanding its disastrous
   result. We were compelled to take the offensive against troops
   in position, and upon a field, the topography of which was
   unknown to nearly all our officers. Notwithstanding these
   facts, successes would have been achieved but for the
   impatient spirit which hurried us on, without the slightest
   preparation. Of the march, the battle, the rout, and the
   disorderly retreat to Washington, the description given by
   William H. Russell was not greatly exaggerated. It was far
   more truthful than many of the descriptions given by the
   reporters of our own papers. Who has forgotten the newspaper
   accounts of the conduct of the celebrated Fire Zouaves—of the
   prodigies of valor performed by them—of their bayonet
   charges—of their heroic assaults—of the fearful destruction
   inflicted by them upon the enemy—and, finally, when the order
   to retreat came, of the great difficulty experienced by the
   officers in forcing 'these gallant, but bloodthirsty lambs,'
   as they were called, to cease fighting and commence
   retreating? We all remember these accounts, and many others of
   a similar character; and yet, every intelligent officer who
   was on the field knows that this regiment dispersed at the
   first fire, and so thoroughly was it dispersed that it was
   from that day never again known as a military organization.
   This campaign, and every subsequent one, of the War, taught us
   that the rough element of our cities—the prize-fighter, the
   veteran of a score of street-fights—does not necessarily make
   the most valuable soldier. On the contrary, many a pale-faced
   boy, who, from a sense of duty, has left school or
   counting-room to join our Army, has exhibited a degree of
   endurance on the march and of bravery on the field, seldom
   equalled by the rough element of our cities."

      General H. W. Slocum,
      Military Lessons taught by the War
      (Historical Magazine, February 1871).

   "The failure of the Confederate army to pursue after the
   battle of Manassas has been much criticised, and has caused
   much acrimonious discussion. General Johnston, however, never
   hesitated to assume his share of the responsibility for the
   action taken, though insisting that the course pursued was
   proper, and the only practicable one under the circumstances.
   … The troops who had been actually engaged all day, in the hot
   summer season, were in no condition to follow up the enemy.
   But the great obstacle to any effective pursuit was the
   weakness of the cavalry arm in the Southern army. Its entire
   strength was considerably under 2,000 men, and a large
   proportion of these were not in call.
{3437}
   Many of those within reach had been fighting for hours, and
   were in little better condition than the infantry. All who
   were available were sent off in immediate pursuit, with the
   result of greatly swelling the number of prisoners and
   captured guns. But by the time the captors turned their prizes
   over to proper guards, the Northern army had covered a
   sufficient distance to be out of danger, being protected in
   their retreat by large bodies of troops that had not been
   engaged. This was all that could be accomplished. … The fact
   that the condition of the Confederate troops put any active
   pursuit out of the question is established by the official
   reports. General Johnston's report says: 'Our victory was as
   complete as one gained by infantry and artillery can be.' …
   The same reasons apply with equal force to any attempted
   advance during the few days succeeding the battle. The army
   was not in a condition to make the movement, being itself much
   demoralized by the engagement. Many thought the war over and
   went home; many accompanied wounded comrades to their homes;
   for the ties of discipline were not as strong then as in a
   veteran army. But a yet stronger obstacle to an advance was
   the lack of necessary transportation. … Even if the
   Confederates had advanced and captured the intrenchments
   opposite Washington, they could have accomplished nothing.
   They could not have crossed the river on the bridge under the
   fire of the Federal vessels of war. They had no artillery of
   sufficient range to bombard Washington from the southern side,
   even if they had been disposed to wage war in that manner.
   They had no sufficient supply of ammunition."

      R. M. Hughes,
      General Johnston,
      chapter 6.

      ALSO IN:
      W. T. Sherman,
      Memoirs,
      volume 1, chapter 8.

      J. G. Nicolay,
      Outbreak of the Rebellion,
      chapters 13-16.

      J. B. Fry and others,
      Campaign of the First Bull Run
      (Battles and Leaders of the Civil War, volume 1).

      J. E. Cook,
      Stonewall Jackson,
      part 1, chapter 12.

      A. Roman,
      Military Operations of General Beauregard,
      volume 1, chapter 9.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (JULY).
   Enlistment of volunteers authorized by Congress.

   The enlistment of 500,000 volunteers was authorized by Acts of
   Congress passed July 22 and 25.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (July-September: Missouri).
   Sigel's well-conducted retreat from Carthage.
   Death of Lyon at Wilson's Creek.
   Siege of Lexington.
   Fremont in command.

   The flight of Governor Jackson and his followers from
   Booneville was westward, to Warsaw, on the Osage, first, and
   thence into Vernon County, where they were joined, July 3, by
   General Sterling Price.

      See MISSOURI: A. D. 1861 (FEBRUARY-JULY).

   "Their united force is stated by Pollard, at 3,600. Being
   pursued by Lyon, they continued their retreat next day,
   halting at 9 P. M., in Jasper County, 23 miles distant. Ten
   miles hence, at 10 A. M. next morning, they were confronted by
   a Union force 1,500 strong, under Colonel Franz Sigel, who had
   been dispatched from St. Louis by the 'Southwestern Pacific
   road, to Rolla, had marched thence to Springfield, and had
   pushed on to Mount Vernon, Lawrence County, hoping to prevent
   a junction between Jackson and some forces which his
   Brigadiers were hurrying to his support. Each army appears to
   have started that morning with intent to find and fight the
   other; and such mutual intentions are seldom frustrated. Sigel
   found the Rebels, halted after their morning march, well
   posted, vastly superior in numbers and in cavalry, but
   inferior in artillery, which he accordingly resolved should
   play a principal part in the battle. In the cannonade which
   ensued, he inflicted great damage on the Rebels and received
   very little, until, after a desultory combat of three or four
   hours, the enemy resolved to profit by their vast superiority
   in cavalry by outflanking him, both right and left. This
   compelled Sigel to fall back. … The retreat was made in
   perfect order … to Carthage, and through that town to
   Sarcoxie, some fifteen miles eastward. It was well, indeed,
   that he did so; for Jackson's force was augmented, during that
   night and next morning, by the arrival of Price from the
   southward, bringing to his aid several thousand Arkansas and
   Texas troops, under Generals Ben McCulloch and Pearce. Our
   loss in the affair of Carthage was 13 killed and 31
   wounded—not one of them abandoned to the enemy; while the
   Rebels reported their loss at 40 to 50 killed and 125 to 150
   wounded. Sigel, now outnumbered three or four to one, was
   constrained to continue his retreat, by Mount Vernon, to
   Springfield; where General Lyon, who had been delayed by lack
   of transportation, joined and outranked him on the 10th."

      H. Greeley,
      The American Conflict,
      volume 1, chapter 35.

   "The month of August came, and found General Lyon at
   Springfield, hoping to receive reenforcements; but the battle
   of Bull Run had occurred, and rendered it impossible to send
   him aid. Major General Fremont had been appointed [July 9] to
   the command of the Western Department, and had reached St.
   Louis (July 25). Meantime Confederate troops were pouring over
   the southern frontier of Missouri, and Lyon, finding that they
   were advancing upon him in two columns, determined to strike
   before he should be overwhelmed by the combined Louisiana,
   Missouri, Arkansas, and Texas troops. His force did not exceed
   5,500, his antagonist had more than 12,000. A skirmish
   occurred at Dug Spring (August 1st), in which he had the
   advantage; but he could not prevent the junction of the two
   columns. Hereupon he fell back to Springfield. His position
   had now become one of great difficulty. Political as well as
   military considerations rendered it almost impossible for him
   to retreat farther. He therefore determined to resume the
   offensive, and compensate for his weakness by audacity. Moving
   out of Springfield on a very dark night (August 9-10), and
   having ordered Sigel, with 1,200 men and six guns, to gain the
   enemy's rear by their right, he was ready, as soon as day
   broke, to make an attack on their front [on Wilson's Creek].
   But the disparity of force was too great. Sigel was
   overwhelmed. He lost five out of his six guns, and more than
   half his men. The attack in front was conducted by Lyon in
   person with very great energy. His horse was shot under him;
   he was twice wounded, the second time in the head. In a final
   charge he called to the Second Kansas Regiment, whose colonel
   was at that moment severely wounded, 'Come on, I will lead
   you,' and in so doing was shot through the heart. After the
   death of Lyon the battle was still continued, their artillery
   preserving the national troops from total defeat. News then
   coming of Sigel's disaster, a retreat to Springfield, distant
   about nine miles, was resolved on. It was executed without
   difficulty.
{3438}
   In this battle of Wilson's Creek there were 223 killed, 721
   wounded, 292 missing, on the national side; and, as may be
   inferred from the determined character of the assault, the
   loss of the Confederates was very great. They had been so
   severely handled that they made no attempt at pursuit, and the
   retreat was continued by the national troops, who, on the
   19th, had fallen back to Rolla. After this action, the
   Confederate commanders, McCulloch and Price, quarreling with
   each other, and unable to agree upon a plan for their
   campaign, the former returned to Arkansas, the latter advanced
   from Springfield toward Lexington. Here he found a national
   force of about three thousand (2,780) under Colonel Mulligan.
   Attempts were made by General Fremont to re-enforce Mulligan,
   but they did not succeed. Meantime the assailing forces were
   steadily increasing in number, until they eventually reached
   28,000, with 13 pieces of artillery. They surrounded the
   position and cut off the beleaguered troops from water. They
   made repeated assaults without success until [September] 20th,
   when they contrived a movable breastwork of hemp-bales, which
   they rolled before them as they advanced, and compelled
   Mulligan, who had been twice wounded, to surrender
   unconditionally. On receiving news of this disaster, Fremont
   at once left St. Louis with the intention of attacking Price,
   but that general instantly retreated, making his way back to
   the southwest corner of the state, where he rejoined McCulloch
   and his Confederate troops."

      J. W. Draper,
      History of the American Civil War,
      chapter 47 (volume 2).

      ALSO IN:
      T. L. Snead,
      The Fight for Missouri,
      chapters 11-14.

      J. Peckham,
      General Lyon and Missouri in 1861,
      book 4.

      J. C. Fremont, F. Sigel and others,
      Wilson's Creek, Lexington and Pea Ridge
      (Battles and Leaders of the Civil War', volume 1).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (July-November).
   McClellan's rise to the chief command.
   Creation of the Army of the Potomac.
   Reorganization of the western armies.

   "Immediately after the battle of Bull Run, Major General
   McClellan was assigned to the command of the Military
   Department of Washington and Northeastern Virginia. Lieutenant
   General Scott retained his command as general in chief of the
   American army, until the end of October. 'I found,' says
   General McClellan in his report, 'no army to command—a mere
   collection of regiments cowering on the banks of the Potomac,
   some perfectly raw, others dispirited by the recent defeat.
   Nothing of any consequence had been done to secure the
   southern approaches to the capital by means of defensive
   works; nothing whatever had been undertaken to defend the
   avenues to the city on the northern side of the Potomac. The
   number of troops in and around the city was about 50,000
   infantry, less than 1,000 cavalry, 650 artillerymen, with nine
   imperfect field batteries of 30 pieces.' … General McClellan
   at once commenced the organization of the great army
   authorized by Congress. His views of the military position and
   appropriate military conduct were, for the most part,
   accepted, and such was the patriotism of the people, the
   resolution of Congress, the energy of the executive, that the
   Army of the Potomac had reached, on October 27th, a strength
   of … 168,318. It was the general's opinion that the advance
   upon the enemy at Manassas should not be postponed beyond the
   25th of November. It was his desire that all the other armies
   should be stripped of their superfluous strength, and, as far
   as possible, every thing concentrated in the force under his
   command. On the 31st of October, General Scott, having found
   his bodily infirmities increasing, addressed a letter to the
   Secretary of War requesting to be placed on the retired list.
   … His desire was granted. An order was simultaneously issued
   appointing General McClellan commander-in-chief under the
   President. This change in his position at once produced a
   change in General McClellan's views. Hitherto he had
   undervalued the importance of what was to be done in the West.
   He had desired the Western armies to act on the defensive. Now
   he wished to institute an advance on East Tennessee, and
   capture Nashville contemporaneously with Richmond. … In
   preparation for this, the Department of the West was
   reorganized. On the day following that of McClellan's
   promotion, Fremont was removed from his command. His
   department was subdivided into three: (1.) New Mexico, which
   was assigned to Colonel Canby; (2.) Kansas, to General Hunter;
   (3.) Missouri, to General Halleck. To General Buell was
   assigned the Department of the Ohio, and to General Rosecrans
   that of West Virginia. The end of November approached, and
   still the Army of the Potomac had not moved. The weather was
   magnificent, the roads excellent. … Winter at last came, and
   nothing had been done. … Considering the military condition of
   the nation when General McClellan undertook the formation and
   organization of the great Army of the Potomac, the time
   consumed in bringing that force into a satisfactory condition
   was far from being too long. … From the resources furnished
   without stint by Congress McClellan created that army. Events
   showed that his mental constitution was such that he could not
   use it on the battlefield. … There probably never was an army
   in the world so lavishly supplied as that of the Potomac
   before the Peninsular expedition. General McDowell, who knew
   the state of things well, declared, in his testimony before
   the Congressional Committee on the Conduct of the War, 'There
   never was an army in the world supplied as well as ours. I
   believe a French army of half the size could be supplied with
   what we waste.'"

      J. W. Draper,
      History of the American Civil War,
      chapters 44 and 49 (volume 2).

   "Some persons, who ought to have known better, have supposed
   that in organizing the Army of the Potomac I set too high a
   model before me and consumed unnecessary time in striving to
   form an army of regulars. This was an unjustifiable error on
   their part. I should, of course, have been glad to bring that
   army to the condition of regulars, but no one knew better than
   myself that, with the means at my command, that would have
   been impossible within any reasonable or permissible time.
   What I strove for and accomplished was to bring about such a
   condition of discipline and instruction that the army could be
   handled on the march and on the field of battle, and that
   orders could be reasonably well carried out. … In spite of all
   the clamor to the contrary, the time spent in the camps of
   instruction in front of Washington was well bestowed, and
   produced the most important and valuable results. Not a day of
   it was wasted.
{3439}
   The fortifications then erected, both directly and indirectly,
   saved the capital more than once in the course of the war, and
   enabled the army to manœuvre freely and independently. … No
   other army we possessed could have met and defeated the
   Confederate Army of Northern Virginia. And, with all the
   courage, energy, and intelligence of the Army of the Potomac,
   it probably would not have been equal to that most difficult
   task without the advantage it enjoyed during its sojourn in
   the camps around Washington."

      G. B. McClellan,
      McClellan's Own Story,
      chapter 6.

      ALSO IN:
      G. B. McClellan,
      Report on the Organization and Campaigns
      of the Army of the Potomac.

      Prince de Joinville,
      The Army of the Potomac.

      Report of Joint Commission on the Conduct of the War,
      37th Congress, 3d session, H. R., part. 1.

      W. Swinton,
      Campaigns of the Army of the Potomac,
      chapter 3.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (August).
   Act of Congress freeing Slaves employed
   in the service of the Rebellion.

   In August, Congress passed an "Act to confiscate property used
   for insurrectionary purposes." As originally framed, it only
   confiscated "any property used or employed in aiding, abetting
   or promoting insurrection, or resistance to the laws," which
   would not include slaves. A new section was added, declaring
   that "whenever hereafter during the present insurrection
   against the Government of the United States, any person held
   to labor or service under the law of any State shall be
   required or permitted by the person to whom such labor or
   service is due to take up arms against the United States, or
   to work in or upon any fort, dock, navy-yard, armory,
   intrenchment or in any military or naval service whatever
   against the Government of the United States, the person to
   whom such service or labor is due shall forfeit his claim
   thereto." The law further provided that, "whenever any person
   shall seek to enforce his claim to a slave, it shall be a
   sufficient answer to such claim, that the slave had been
   employed in the military or naval service against the United
   States contrary to the provisions of this Act."

      J. G. Blaine,
      Twenty Years of Congress,
      volume 1, page 342.

      ALSO IN:
      H. Greeley,
      The American Conflict,
      volume 1, pages 568-570.

      E. McPherson,
      Political History of the United States during the Rebellion,
      page 195.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (August: North Carolina).
   The Hatteras expedition.

   "General Wool relieved General Butler August 16th, 1861, of
   the command at Fortress Monroe. Butler was detailed to active
   duty. The War and Navy Departments having arranged the first
   of a series of expeditions against the Southern coast, the
   command of the land forces was conferred upon Butler—Commodore
   S. H. Stringham directing the naval arm. Materials for the
   adventure were rapidly gathered at Fortress Monroe from the
   date of August 16th to the 26th, on which day the fleet took
   its departure. … Not until the vessels were at sea were any
   but the directors of the enterprize aware of the point of
   attack. Forts Hatteras and Clark commanded the entrance to the
   Sounds of Pamlico and Albemarle, whose waters were a great
   rendezvous for traders running the blockade. … Fort Hatteras
   was an exceedingly formidable battery. It was nearly
   surrounded by water, and was only approached by a circuitous
   and narrow neck of land. … The secrecy and rapidity of
   preparation by the Federals caught the rebels somewhat
   unprepared for the attack. … The bombardment opened Wednesday
   morning, at ten o'clock, preparatory to the landing of the
   land forces on the beach above Fort Hatteras. … A heavy surf
   rolled in upon the treacherous sands. After infinite labor,
   and the beaching of three small boats, the landing was
   suspended for the day. Those already on shore—315 in
   number—were safe under the guns of the fleet. … The
   bombardment continued during the entire first day. No land
   assault was attempted. Fort Hatteras replied with great vigor,
   but with little avail. … On the morning of the 29th, the
   cannonade opened early. A cloudless sky and a clear sea
   blessed the cause of the assailants. During the night a
   transport heavily laden with troops reenforced the fort,
   running down the Sound which was yet open. Fort Clark was
   occupied by the Federal forces, and refused its aid to assist
   its late confederate. The conflict soon raged with extreme
   vigor on both sides. At eleven o'clock the Confederate flag
   fluttered uneasily a moment—then ran down the halyards and a
   white flag was slowly run to the peak. … Articles of
   capitulation were signed on board the flag-ship Minnesota.
   Butler then landed and took formal possession of the largest
   fortification. The number of prisoners surrendered was 615,
   who were all placed on the Minnesota. In four days time they
   were in New York harbor. … The first design, it would appear,
   was to destroy the forts, stop up the channel with old hulks,
   and to return, temporarily at least, to Fortress Monroe with
   the entire force; but the place proved to be so strong that
   Butler left Weber and Hawkins' commands in possession."

      O. J. Victor,
      History of the Southern Rebellion,
      volume 2, division 5, chapter 11.

      ALSO IN:
      D. Ammen,
      The Navy in the Civil War: The Atlantic Coast,
      chapter 8.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (August-October: Missouri).
   Fremont's premature proclamation of freedom to slaves of
   rebels and Lincoln's modification of it.
   The change of command.

   "On the 31st of August, General Fremont [commanding in the
   West] issued a proclamation declaring martial law, defining
   the lines of the army of occupation, and threatening with
   death by the bullet all who should be found within those lines
   with arms in their hands. Furthermore, the real and personal
   property of all persons in the state [Missouri] who should
   take up arms against the United States was declared
   confiscated to the public use, and their slaves, if they had
   any, were declared free men. This proclamation produced a
   strong effect upon the public mind. The proclaiming of freedom
   to the slaves of rebels struck the popular chord, particularly
   among thoroughly loyal men in the free states. Of course, it
   maddened all the sympathizers with the rebellion, infuriated
   the rebels themselves, and perplexed those loyal men who had
   upon their hands the task of so conducting affairs as to hold
   to their allegiance the border slave states which had not
   seceded. Mr. Lincoln did not approve some features of General
   Fremont's proclamation. As soon as he read it, he wrote, under
   date of September 2d, to the General, that there were two
   points in it which gave him anxiety. The first was, that, if
   he should shoot a man according to his proclamation, 'the
   confederates would certainly shoot our best men in their hands
   in retaliation, and so, man for man, indefinitely.'
{3440}
   He therefore ordered him to allow no man to be shot under the
   proclamation without first having his (the President's)
   approbation or consent. The second cause of anxiety was that
   the paragraph relating to the confiscation of property and the
   liberation of slaves of traitorous owners would alarm
   Unionists at the South, and perhaps ruin the fair prospect of
   saving Kentucky to the Union. He, therefore, wished General
   Fremont, as of his own motion, so to modify his proclamation
   as to make it conformable to the confiscation act just passed
   by the extra session of Congress, which only freed such slaves
   as were engaged in the rebel service. … General Fremont
   received the President's letter respectfully, and replied to
   it September 8th, stating the difficulties under which he
   labored, with communication with the government so difficult,
   and the development of perplexing events so rapid in the
   department under his command. As to the part of his
   proclamation concerning the slaves, he wished the President
   openly to order the change desired, as, if he should do it of
   his own motion, it would imply that he thought himself wrong,
   and that he had acted without the reflection which the gravity
   of the point demanded. This the President did, in a dispatch
   under date of September 11th, in the words: 'It is therefore
   ordered that the said clause of said proclamation be so
   modified, held, and constructed, as to conform to, and not to
   transcend, the provisions on the same subject contained in the
   act of Congress entitled, An act to confiscate property used
   for insurrectionary purposes, approved August 6, 1861; and
   that such act be published at length with this order.' Before
   this order had been received, or on the day following its
   date, General Fremont, though acquainted with the President's
   wishes, manumitted two slaves of Thomas L. Snead of St. Louis,
   in accordance with the terms of his proclamation. Although Mr.
   Lincoln desired General Fremont so to modify his proclamation
   as to make it accordant with the act of Congress approved
   August 6th, it is hardly to be supposed that he did it solely
   out of respect to that act. … If he had believed that the time
   had come for the measure of liberating the slaves of rebels by
   proclamation, the act of Congress would not have stood in his
   way. This act was an embodiment of his policy at that time,
   and he used it for his immediate purpose. … Complications in
   the personal relations of General Fremont and Colonel F. P.
   Blair, under whose personal and family influence General
   Fremont had received his position, occurred at an early day.
   Colonel Blair doubtless thought that he had not sufficient
   weight in the General's counsels, and the General, doubtless,
   exercised his right in choosing his own counselors. … It was a
   very unhappy quarrel, and it is quite likely that there was
   blame upon both sides, though it occurred between men equally
   devoted to the sacred cause of saving the country to freedom
   and justice. … Mr. Lincoln always gave to each the credit due
   to his motives, and so far refused to mingle in the general
   quarrel that grew out of the difficulty, that he kept the
   good-will of both sides, and compelled them to settle their
   own differences. … General Fremont at length took the field in
   person. On the 8th of October he left Jefferson City for
   Sedalia. As he advanced with his forces, Price retreated,
   until it was widely reported that he would give battle to the
   national forces at Springfield. Just as Fremont was making
   ready to engage the enemy, he was overtaken by an order
   relieving him of his command. He was succeeded by General
   Hunter; but Hunter's command was brief, and was transferred at
   an early day to General Halleck. General Fremont was relieved
   of his command by the President not because of his
   proclamation, not because he hated slavery, and not because he
   believed him corrupt or vindictive or disloyal. He relieved
   him simply because he believed that the interests of the
   country, all things considered, would be subserved by
   relieving him and putting another man in his place. The matter
   was the cause of great excitement in Missouri, and of much
   complaint among the radical anti-slavery men of the country:
   but the imputations sought to be cast upon the President were
   not fastened to him; and did not, four years later, when
   Fremont himself became a candidate for the presidency, prevent
   the warmest anti-slavery men from giving Mr. Lincoln their
   support. The federal army under General Hunter retreated
   without a battle; and thus the campaign, inaugurated with
   great show and immense expense, was a flat failure."

      J. G. Holland,
      Life of Abraham Lincoln,
      chapter 20.

      ALSO IN:
      J. C. Fremont,
      In Command in Missouri
      (Battles and Leaders of the Civil War, volume 1),
      pages 278-288.

      W. Dorsheimer,
      Fremont's Hundred Days in Missouri
      (Atlantic Monthly, volume 9, 1862).

      Official Record,
      series 1, volume 3, pages 466-564.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861
(August-December: West Virginia).
   Rosecrans against Lee.
   Battles of Carnifex Ferry and Cheat Summit.

   "When General McClellan was called [July 22] to take General
   McDowell's place at the head of the Army of the Potomac,
   Brigadier-General William S. Rosecrans was left in command of
   the troops in West Virginia. General Robert E. Lee, the
   Confederate commander, who had gathered together the forces
   which had been defeated under Garnett and Pegram, and some
   others, found himself in August at the head of about 16,000
   men. Lee made his headquarters at Huntersville, while General
   John B. Floyd … took up a position on the Gauley River for the
   purpose of cutting off General Cox of Ohio, who, with a
   brigade of Rosecrans's army, had just driven a Confederate
   force under ex-Governor Henry A. Wise of Virginia out of the
   Kanawha Valley. Floyd surprised and routed the Seventh Ohio
   under Colonel Tyler, and then moved to a place on the Gauley
   River called Carnifex Ferry, hoping to cut off Cox from
   Rosecrans. But early in September Rosecrans, leaving part of
   his army under General Joseph J. Reynolds to watch Lee,
   marched southward with about 10,000 men and [September 10]
   attacked Floyd, who had strongly fortified himself with about
   2,000 men on the banks of the river. After a severe fight of
   three or four hours, in which the Union troops lost heavily,
   Rosecrans, finding the position much stronger than he
   expected, gave orders at twilight to stop the assault until
   morning; but when morning came no enemy was to be seen; Floyd,
   finding his enemy much superior in numbers, had crossed the
   river in the night over a bridge hastily built of logs, and
   retreated to the mountains 30 miles away. Rosecrans followed,
   but finally fell back again to the Gauley. When Rosecrans
   marched against Floyd, Reynolds took up a strong position on
   Cheat Mountain."

      J. D. Champlin,
      Young Folks' History of the War for the Union,
      chapter 10.

{3441}

   "General Lee proposed first to win a victory, if possible,
   over Reynolds. He was combative, anxious to strike, but many
   difficulties confronted him. He fully realized he had been
   sent to West Virginia to retrieve Confederate disasters, and
   that he had a most difficult task to perform. The Federal
   commander [his main force at Elk Water] held the center summit
   of Cheat Mountain pass, the mountain having three well-defined
   summits. … It was necessary first to carry this well-selected
   position of the Federal troops. A citizen surveyor, in
   sympathy with the South and familiar with the mountain paths,
   had made a trip to an elevated point where he could clearly
   see the Federal position, and reported his observations to
   General Lee. Afterward he made a second reconnoissance,
   accompanied by Colonel Albert Rust, of the Third Arkansas
   Regiment, who was anxious to see the nature of the ground and
   the strength of the position for himself. They reported to
   General Lee that in their opinion the enemy's position could
   be assailed with success with troops which could be guided to
   the point they had reached. General Lee decided to make the
   attack, and gave to Rust a column of 1,200 infantry. … The
   movement was to begin at night, which happened to be a very
   rainy one. All the troops, however, got in the positions
   assigned to them without the knowledge of the enemy, where
   they waited, every moment expecting to hear the rattle of
   Rust's muskets, who had been charged with the capture of the
   pass on Cheat Mountain; but hour after hour passed, and no
   sounds were heard. After a delay of many hours, and the enemy
   had divined the nature of the attack, the troops were ordered
   back to their former position. There had been only a small
   conflict between cavalry, in which Colonel John A. Washington,
   General Lee's aid-de-camp, who had been sent with Major W. H.
   F. Lee to reconnoiter the enemy, was killed from an ambuscade.
   … Rust claims in his reports that spies had communicated the
   movements of the Confederate troops to the enemy. This officer
   evidently did not attack, because he found, on getting close
   to the Federal position, that it was much stronger than he had
   thought it was from the preliminary reconnoissances he had
   made. As the attack of the whole depended on the assault of
   this force, the failure to attack caused a corresponding
   failure of the whole movement. … This movement having failed,
   and knowing that the enemy would be prepared for any second
   attempt which, from the nature of the country, would have to
   be similar to the one already tried, General Lee decided to
   turn his attention to the commands of Wise and Floyd in front
   of Rosecrans, leaving General H. R. Jackson in Reynolds's
   front. He proceeded at once to Floyd's command, which he
   reached on September 20th, and then to Wise's camp, closely
   inspecting both. He at once perceived that Wise's position was
   the strongest and offered the best means for successful
   defense, and promptly concentrated his forces at that point. …
   Rosecrans had advanced to the top of Big Sewell Mountain and
   had placed his army in a strong position. General Lee, with te
   troops of Wise, Floyd, and Loring—about 8,000 men—occupied a
   position on a parallel range. The two armies were now in close
   proximity to each other, both occupying strong defensive
   positions. Lee and Rosecrans, having been officers of the
   engineers, were fully aware of the great disadvantage an
   attacking army would have, and each waited, hoping the other
   would attack. After occupying these positions for twelve days,
   Rosecrans, on the night of October 6th, retreated. The
   condition of the roads, the mud, the swollen streams, the
   large numbers of men with typhoid fever and measles, the
   condition of the horses, of the artillery, and transportation,
   were such that Lee decided not to pursue. … The rapid approach
   of winter and the rainy season terminated the campaign in this
   section. … At the termination of this campaign of General
   Lee's the Confederate Government did not bestow much attention
   upon this section. The majority of the people seemed inclined
   to support the Federal side. … It must be admitted that
   General Lee retired from West Virginia with diminished
   military reputation. Great results had been expected from his
   presence there. Garnett's defeat and death were to be avenged,
   and the whole of that portion of Virginia speedily wrested
   from the Federal arms. The public did not understand the
   difficulties of the situation, or comprehend why he did not
   defeat Reynolds, or the failure to attack Rosecrans."

      F. Lee,
      General Lee,
      chapter 6.

   After Lee left General H. R. Jackson in front of Reynolds'
   position, the former established himself in a fortified camp
   on Buffalo Hill, and was unsuccessfully attacked there by
   Reynolds, October 3. Two months later, on the 13th of
   December, the attack was repeated by Reynolds' successor in
   command, General Milroy, and again without success. Meantime,
   Floyd had been driven into the mountains, with little
   fighting, by Rosecrans, and military operations, for the time,
   were at an end.

      Comte de Paris,
      History of the Civil War in America,
      volume 1, book 4, chapter 2.

      ALSO IN:
      V. A. Lewis,
      History of West Virginia,
      chapter 28.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861
(September-November: On the Mississippi).
   General Grant's first battle, at Belmont.

   In August, General Ulysses S. Grant, who had been serving for
   a few weeks in Missouri, first as Colonel of the 21st Illinois
   Regiment, and later as a brigadier-general, was assigned by
   General Fremont to "the command of the district of south-east
   Missouri, embracing all the territory south of St. Louis, in
   Missouri, as well as all southern Illinois." On the 4th of
   September he established his headquarters at Cairo, Illinois,
   and the next day, having learned from a scout that the rebels
   were preparing to seize Paducah, at the mouth of the Tennessee
   River, he placed a couple of regiments of troops and a light
   battery on board of steamers: and occupied the place on the
   6th,—telegraphing meanwhile for orders, but not waiting for
   them. His movement anticipated the enemy by a few hours, only,
   and secured a command of the Tennessee, the importance of
   which was afterward demonstrated by Grant, himself, when he
   moved on Forts Henry and Donelson. In his "Memoirs" General
   Grant says: "From the occupation of Paducah up to the early
   part of November, nothing important occurred with the troops
   under my command.
{3442}
   I was reinforced from time to time and the men were drilled
   and disciplined preparatory for the service which was sure to
   come. By the 1st of November I had not fewer than 20,000 men.
   … About the 1st of November I was directed from department
   headquarters to make a demonstration on both sides of the
   Mississippi River with the view of detaining the rebels within
   their lines. Before my troops could be got off, I was notified
   from the same quarter that there were some 3,000 of the enemy
   on the St. Francis River about 50 miles west, or south-west,
   from Cairo, and was ordered to send another force against
   them. I dispatched Colonel Oglesby at once with troops
   sufficient to compete with the reported number of the enemy.
   On the 5th word came from the same source that the rebels were
   about to detach a large force from Columbus to be moved by
   boats down the Mississippi and up the White River, in
   Arkansas, in order to reinforce Price, and I was directed to
   prevent this movement if possible." To carry out these orders,
   General Grant directed a demonstration to be made from Paducah
   towards Columbus, while, at the same time, he conveyed some
   3,000 troops down the river, in steamers, and attacked a camp
   of rebels at Belmont, immediately opposite Columbus. The
   battle was a severe one. "The officers and men engaged at
   Belmont were then under fire for the first time. Veterans,"
   says General Grant, "could not have behaved better than they
   did up to the moment of reaching the rebel camp. At this point
   they became demoralized from their victory and failed to reap
   its full reward. … The moment the camp was reached our men
   laid down their arms and commenced rummaging the tents to pick
   up trophies. Some of the higher officers were little better
   than the privates. They galloped about from one cluster of men
   to another and at every halt delivered a short eulogy upon the
   Union cause and the achievements of the command." The result
   was a rallying of the defeated rebels and a reinforcement from
   Columbus which forced the Unionists to retire with haste. "Our
   loss at Belmont was 485 in killed, wounded and missing. About
   125 of our wounded fell into the hands of the enemy. We
   returned with 175 prisoners and two guns, and spiked four
   other pieces. The loss of the enemy, as officially reported,
   was 642 men, killed, wounded and missing. We had engaged about
   2,500 men, exclusive of the guard left with the transports.
   The enemy had about 7,000; but this includes the troops
   brought over from Columbus who were not engaged in the first
   defence of Belmont. The two objects for which the battle of
   Belmont was fought were fully accomplished. The enemy gave up
   all idea of detaching troops from Columbus. … If it had not
   been fought, Colonel Oglesby would probably have been captured
   or destroyed with his 3,000 men. Then I should have been
   culpable indeed."

      U. S. Grant,
      Personal Memoirs,
      chapters 19-20 (volume 1).

      ALSO IN:
      A. Badeau,
      Military History of U. S. Grant,
      chapter 1.

      W. P. Johnston,
      Life of General Albert Sidney Johnston,
      chapter 24.

      Official Records,
      series 1, volume 3.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (October: Virginia).
   Confederate project for the invasion of the North
   vetoed by Jefferson Davis.

   "Between the 4th of August and the 15th of October more than
   110 regiments and thirty batteries, comprising at least
   100,000 men, were added to the forces in Washington and its
   neighborhood, and there appeared to be no limit to the
   resources and patriotism of the North. Moreover, the Northern
   troops were so well provided for in all respects, owing to the
   immense resources at the disposal of the United States
   Government, that there was every reason to expect in the
   spring of 1862 a decidedly improved condition in health and
   vigor, in self-confidence, and in all soldierly qualities, on
   the part of the soldiers. The army at Manassas, on the other
   hand, owing to the straitened means of the Confederate
   Government, was barely kept comfortable in the matter of
   clothing and shelter, and its chief officers looked forward
   with undisguised apprehension to the coming winter. … It was
   easy for any one instructed in military matters to see that if
   the Federal authorities would only be content to defer active
   operations until the patriotic levies of the North should have
   learned 'the trade of the soldier,'—should have acquired
   familiarity with the use of arms, habits of obedience, trust
   in their officers and superiors, discipline,—the Federal
   general would enter on the next campaign with all those
   chances of success which attend largely superior numbers,
   better arms and equipment, and a sound and thorough
   organization of his army. Such in fact was the view of the
   situation taken by the sagacious officer who commanded the
   lately victorious army at Manassas Junction, Joseph E.
   Johnston. In his opinion his two corps commanders, Beauregard
   … and G. W. Smith, … entirely concurred. They saw that
   something must be done to break up this constantly increasing
   Federal army while it was yet in the process of formation. The
   Confederate generals determined to urge their views upon the
   President of the Southern Confederacy. Mr. Davis responded at
   once to their expressed wish for a conference upon the
   military situation, and he reached Manassas on September 30,
   1861. The conference was held the next day. The generals
   strongly advised Mr. Davis to reinforce the army at Manassas
   so that they might cross the Potomac, cut the communications
   of Washington with the North, and carry the war into the
   enemy's country. Johnston and Beauregard fixed the strength of
   an army adequate to these tasks at 60,000 men. Smith was
   content with a force of 50,000. Additional transportation and
   supplies of ammunition were also demanded. The army then at
   Manassas numbered about 40,000 men. With the quality of the
   soldiers the generals seemed to be perfectly content. They
   only asked that the additional troops sent should be of an
   equal degree of efficiency,—'seasoned soldiers' as
   distinguished from 'fresh volunteers.' But President Davis
   decided that he could not furnish the required reinforcement
   without 'a total disregard of the safety of other threatened
   positions.' The project was therefore dropped, and no further
   attempt was made during the ensuing autumn and winter to
   interfere with the uninterrupted development of the Federal
   army at and near Washington in organization and efficiency. …
   It is altogether probable that the Confederate army was at
   that time decidedly the superior of its antagonist in many
   important respects. It had the prestige of victory. … We may
   fairly say therefore, that an invasion of the North,
   undertaken in October, 1861, held out a very fair promise of a
   successful result for the Confederate arms."

      J. C. Ropes,
      The Story of the Civil War,
      chapter 10.

{3443}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (October: Virginia).
   The affair at Ball's Bluff, or Leesburg.

   "The true story of the affair of Ball's Bluff, is, in brief,
   as follows: One of General Stone's officers, Captain
   Philbrick, of the 15th Massachusetts, thought that he had
   discovered a camp of the enemy about one mile beyond
   Harrison's island in the direction of Leesburg. Having
   completed the feint of crossing made in the course of the
   20th, General Stone at 10.30 P. M. of the same day issued his
   orders for the surprise of the supposed camp at daybreak of
   the 21st. Colonel Devens, of the 15th Massachusetts, was
   entrusted with the duty, with four companies of his regiment.
   Colonel Lee, of the 20th Massachusetts, was directed to
   replace Colonel Devens in Harrison's island with four
   companies of his own regiment, one of which was to pass over
   to the Virginia shore and hold the heights there to cover
   Colonel Devens's return. Colonel Devens was directed to
   'attack the camp at daybreak, and, having routed, to pursue
   them as far as he deems prudent, and to destroy the camp, if
   practicable, before returning.' … Having accomplished this
   duty, Colonel Devens will return to his present position,
   unless he shall see one on the Virginia side near the river
   which he can undoubtedly hold until reinforced, and one which
   can be successfully held against largely superior numbers. In
   which case he will hold on and report.' In obedience to these
   orders Colonel Devens crossed about midnight with five
   companies (instead of four), numbering about 300 men, and
   halted until daybreak in an open field near the bluffs
   bordering the shore. While there he was joined by Colonel Lee
   with 100 men of the 20th Massachusetts, who halted here to
   cover his return. At daybreak he advanced about a mile towards
   Leesburg, and then discovered that the supposed camp did not
   exist. After examining the vicinity and discovering no traces
   of the enemy, he determined not to return at once, but at
   about half-past six A. M. sent a non-commissioned officer to
   report to General Stone that he thought he could remain where
   he was until reinforced. At about seven o'clock a company of
   hostile riflemen were observed on the right, and a slight
   skirmish ensued. A company of cavalry being soon observed on
   the left, the skirmishers were drawn back to the woods, and,
   after waiting half an hour for attack, the command was
   withdrawn to the position held by Colonel Lee; but, after
   again scouting the woods, Colonel Devens returned to his
   advanced position. About eight o'clock the messenger returned
   from General Stone with orders for Colonel Devens to remain
   where he was, and that he would be reinforced. The messenger
   was again sent back to report the skirmish that had taken
   place. Colonel Devens then threw out skirmishers and awaited
   reinforcements. At about ten o'clock the messenger again
   returned with the information that Colonel Baker [Senator
   Edward D. Baker, of California] would soon arrive with his
   brigade and take command. Between nine and eleven Colonel
   Devens was joined by Lieutenant-Colonel Learned with the
   remainder of the 15th. bringing up his command to 28 officers
   and 625 men. About midday Colonel Devens learned that the
   enemy were gathering on his left, and about half-past twelve
   or one he was strongly attacked; and as he was in great danger
   of being outflanked, and no reinforcements had arrived, at
   about a quarter-past two he fell back to the bluff, where he
   found Colonel Baker, who directed him to take the right of the
   position he proposed to occupy. … At about three o'clock the
   enemy attacked in force, the weight of his attack being on our
   centre and left. At about four our artillery was silenced, and
   Colonel Devens was ordered to send two of his companies to
   support the left of our line; shortly after he learned that
   Colonel Baker had been killed. Colonel Coggswell then assumed
   command, and, after a vain attempt to cut his way through to
   Edward's Ferry, was obliged to give the order to retreat to
   the river-bank and direct the men to save themselves as best
   they could. I have gone thus much into detail because at the
   time I was much criticised and blamed for this unfortunate
   affair, while I was in no sense responsible for it."

      G. B. McClellan,
      McClellan's Own Story,
      chapter 11.

   In connection with the disaster at Ball's Bluff (called the
   battle of Leesburg by the Confederates) a great wrong seems to
   have been done to General Stone. Accused of disloyalty, he was
   arrested, but on no specific charge, imprisoned for six
   months, denied a trial, and set free without explanation. He
   went abroad and for many years was Chief of the General Staff
   to the Khedive of Egypt.

      J. G. Blaine,
      Twenty Years of Congress,
      volume 1, chapter 17.

      ALSO IN:
      R. B. Irwin,
      Ball's Bluff and the arrest of General Stone
      (Battles and Leaders of the Civil War,
      volume 2, pages 123-134).

      Report of Joint Commission on the Conduct of the War,
      37th Congress, 3d session, H. R., part 2.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861
(October-December: South Carolina-Georgia).
   The Port Royal Expedition.
   Capture of Hilton Head.
   Extensive occupation of the coast.
   Savannah threatened.

   "On the 29th of October, another and far stronger naval and
   military expedition [than that against the Hatteras forts] set
   forth from Hampton Roads, and, clearing the capes of Virginia,
   moved majestically southward. Genera] T. W. Sherman [not to be
   confused with General William T. Shennan of the Western
   armies] commanded the land forces, consisting of 13 volunteer
   regiments, forming three brigades, and numbering not less than
   10,000 men; while the fleet—commanded by Commodore Samuel F.
   Du Pont—embraced the steam-frigate Wabash, 14 gun-boats, 22
   first-class and 12 smaller steamers, with 26 sailing vessels.
   After a stormy passage, in which several transports were
   disabled and four absolutely lost, Commodore Du Pont, in his
   flag-ship, came to off Port Royal, South Carolina, during the
   night of November 3d and 4th; and, after proper soundings and
   reconnoissances, which developed the existence of a new fort
   on either side of the entrance, the commodore brought his most
   effective vessels into action at 9 A. M., on Thursday,
   November 7th, taking the lead in his flagship, the Wabash—the
   gunboats to follow at intervals in due order. Thus the
   fighting portion of the fleet steamed slowly up the bay by the
   forts, receiving and returning the fire of the batteries on
   Bay Point as they passed up, and exchanging like compliments
   with the stronger fort on Hilton Head as they came down. Thus
   no vessel remained stationary under fire; so that the enemy
   were at no time enabled to gain, by experiment and
   observation, a perfect aim. The day was lovely; the spectacle
   magnificent; the fight spirited, but most unequal.
{3444}
   Despite the general presumption that batteries, well manned
   and served, are superior to ships when not ironclad, the
   terrible rain of shot and shell upon the gunners in the Rebel
   forts soon proved beyond human endurance. … The battle … raged
   nearly five hours, with fearful carnage and devastation on the
   part of the Rebels, and very little on ours, when the
   overmatched Confederates, finding themselves slaughtered to no
   purpose, suddenly and unanimously took to flight. … The Rebel
   forts were fully manned by 1,700 South Carolinians, with a
   field battery of 500 more stationed not far distant. The
   negroes, save those who had been driven off by their masters,
   or shot while attempting to evade them, had stubbornly
   remained on the isles."

      H. Greeley,
      The American Conflict,
      chapter 36.

   "The effect of the battle of Port Royal was as largely felt in
   the North, where it revived the hopes of her people, as in the
   South, to whose people it revealed the presence of a new and
   pressing danger. The Federals had conquered a strong base of
   operations on the enemy's coast; they had carried the war into
   South Carolina. … Sherman might, perhaps, at the first moment
   of his adversary's disorder, have been able to push his
   success farther, and to lead his army upon Charleston, or
   Savannah. But he was afraid of risking such a venture. … The
   occupation of most of the islands in the vicinity of the St.
   Helena group was the natural consequence of the victory of
   Hilton Head. It was effected gradually before the end of the
   year. Among all the points of the coast which the Federals had
   thus seized without striking a blow, thanks to the prestige of
   their success, the most important was Tybee Island, at the
   entrance of the Savannah River. Situated on the right bank of
   the mouth of that river, and being the spot where the
   lighthouse stands, Tybee Island enabled the Federals, as soon
   as they became masters of it, to obstruct the passage of the
   blockade-runners on their way to the great mart of Savannah.
   At a distance of about 600 feet from its borders, on an islet
   in the middle of the river, stood Fort Pulaski. … A few days
   after, the navy extended its conquests still farther south,"
   occupying the channel between the Tybee Island group and the
   Warsaw Islands, "and thus opening a passage for future
   operations, which would enable them to reach Savannah by
   turning Fort Pulaski. … At the end of the year, Dupont's
   fleet, supported by detachments from Sherman's army, was in
   possession of the five large bays of North Edisto, St. Helena,
   Port Royal, Tybee, Warsaw, and the whole chain of islands
   which forms the coast of Carolina and Georgia between those
   bays."

      Comte de Paris,
      History of the Civil War in America,
      book 4, chapter 3 (volume 1).

      ALSO IN:
      C. B. Boynton,
      History of the Navy during the Rebellion,
      volume 1, chapter 26.

      D. Ammen,
      The Navy in the Civil War: The Atlantic Coast,
      chapter 2.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (November).
   The Trent affair.
   Arrest of Mason and Slidell.

   "On the 8th of November, 1861, Captain Charles Wilkes, of the
   United States Steamer San Jacinto, intercepted on the ocean H.
   B. M. [His Britannic Majesty] mail packet boat Trent, having
   on board four rebel emissaries bound for England. Having
   boarded the Trent, an officer of the San Jacinto, with an
   armed guard, arrested the rebels Mason, Slidell, McFarland and
   Eustis, and transferred them to the San Jacinto. The Trent
   then proceeded on her voyage. Captain Wilkes conveyed his
   captives to Boston, where they were consigned to Fort Warren,
   then a receptacle for political prisoners. When this
   transaction became known to the British government, immediate
   preparations were made for war. In the United States, the act
   was hailed as a victory. The Secretary of the Navy publicly
   applauded Captain Wilkes, and the House of Representatives did
   the same. The Secretary of State, upon whom the chief
   responsibility in the matter rested, saw, more clearly than
   others, that a breach of international law had been committed
   by the commander of the San Jacinto. The President coincided
   with Mr. Seward, and it was at once resolved to restore the
   rebel captives to the protection of the British flag."

      G. E. Baker,
      Biographical Memoir of William H. Seward
      (volume 5 of Seward's Works, pages 10-11).

   In his diplomatic correspondence as quoted in the volume cited
   above, under the caption "Diary or Notes on the War,"
   Secretary Seward wrote:

   "November 30, 1861.—Captain Wilkes, in the Steamer San
   Jacinto, has boarded a British colonial steamer, and taken
   from her deck two insurgents who were proceeding to Europe on
   an errand of treason against their own country. Lord Lyons has
   prudently refrained from opening the subject to me, as, I
   presume, waiting instructions from home. We have done nothing
   on the subject to anticipate the discussion, and we have not
   furnished you with any explanations. We adhere to that course
   now, because we think it more prudent that the ground taken by
   the British government should be first made to us here, and
   that the discussion, if there must be one, shall be had here.
   In the capture of Messrs. Mason and Slidell on board a British
   vessel, Captain Wilkes having acted without any instructions
   from the government, the subject is therefore free from the
   embarrassment which might have resulted if the act had been
   specially directed by us. …

   January 20, 1862.—We have reason to be satisfied with our
   course in the Trent affair. The American people could not have
   been united in a war which, being waged to maintain Captain
   Wilkes's act of force, would have practically been a voluntary
   war against Great Britain. At the same time it would have been
   a war in 1861 against Great Britain for a cause directly the
   opposite of the cause for which we waged war against the same
   power in 1812." In a despatch to Lord Lyons, British Minister,
   Mr. Seward had written: "If I decide this case in favor of my
   own government, I must disavow its most cherished principles,
   and reverse and forever abandon its essential policy. The
   country cannot afford the sacrifice. If I maintain those
   principles, and adhere to that policy, I must surrender the
   case itself. It will be seen, therefore, that this government
   could not deny the justice of the claim presented to us in
   this respect upon its merits. We are asked to do to the
   British nation just what we have always insisted all nations
   ought to do to us. … By the adjustment of the present case
   upon principles confessedly American, and yet, as I trust,
   mutually satisfactory to both of the nations concerned, a
   question is finally and rightly settled between them, which,
   heretofore exhausting not only all forms of peaceful
   discussion, but also the arbitrament of war itself, for more
   than half a century alienated the two countries from each
   other."

      W. H. Seward,
      To Lord Lyons, December 26, 1861
      (Works, volume 5, Diplomatic History of the War,
      pages 308-309).

      ALSO IN:
      M. Bernard,
      Historical Account of the Neutrality of Great Britain,
      chapter 9.

      D. M. Fairfax,
      Captain Wilkes's Seizure of Mason and Slidell
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 2, pages 135-142).

{3445}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861-1862
(December-March: Virginia).
   Protracted inaction of McClellan.
   His Plan of Campaign and its frustration by
   the rebel evacuation of Centreville.

   "When Congress assembled … in the beginning of December, 1861,
   so successful had been the exertions of the authorities, and
   so zealously had the people responded to their country's call,
   that the consolidated morning reports, furnished your
   committee by the adjutant general of the army, showed that,
   exclusive of the command of General Dix, at Baltimore, the
   army of the Potomac consisted of about 185,000 men. During the
   time this large army had been collecting and organizing,
   nothing of importance had transpired in connexion with it,
   except the closing of the navigation of the Potomac by the
   rebels, which your committee treat of more at length in
   another part of this report, and the melancholy disaster of
   Ball's Bluff, which is made the subject of a separate report.
   The weather during the fall season, and for some weeks after
   the convening of Congress, continued unusually favorable for
   active military operations. As month after month passed
   without anything being done by the army of the Potomac, the
   people became more and more anxious for the announcement that
   the work of preparation had been completed and active
   operations would soon be commenced. From the testimony before
   your committee it appeared that the army of the Potomac was
   well armed and equipped, and had reached a high state of
   discipline by the last of September or the first of October.
   The men were ready and eager to commence active operations.
   The generals in command of the various divisions were opposed
   to going into winter quarters, and the most of them declared
   they had no expectation of doing so. … Your committee
   endeavored to obtain as accurate information, as possible in
   relation to the strength and position of the enemy in front of
   Washington. The testimony of the officers in our army here
   upon that point, however, was far from satisfactory. Early in
   December an order had been issued from headquarters
   prohibiting the commanders in the front from examining any
   persons who should come into our lines from the direction of
   the enemy; but all such persons were to be sent, without
   examination, to the headquarters of the army. Restrictions
   were also placed upon the movements of scouts. The result was,
   that the generals examined appeared to be almost entirely
   ignorant of the force of the enemy opposed to them, having
   only such information as they were allowed to obtain at
   headquarters. The strength of the enemy was variously
   estimated at from 70,000 to 210,000 men. Those who formed the
   highest estimate based their opinion upon information received
   at headquarters. … Subsequent events have proved that the
   force of the enemy was below even the lowest of these
   estimates, and the strength of their fortifications very
   greatly overestimated. Your committee also sought to ascertain
   what number of men could be spared from this army for
   offensive operations elsewhere, assuming that the works of the
   enemy in front were of such a character that it would not be
   advisable to move directly upon them. The estimate of the
   force necessary to be left in and around Washington to act
   entirely on the defensive, to render the capital secure
   against any attack of the enemy, as stated by the witnesses
   examined upon that point, was from 50,000 to 80,000 men,
   leaving 100,000 or upwards that could be used for expeditions
   at other points. … The subject of the obstruction of the
   navigation of the Potomac naturally demanded the consideration
   of your committee. … As was well urged by the Navy Department,
   the whole question amounted simply to this: Would the army
   co-operate with the navy in securing the unobstructed
   navigation of the Potomac, or, by withholding that cooperation
   at that time, permit so important a channel of communication
   to be closed. After repeated efforts, General McClellan
   promised that 4,000 men should be ready at a time named to
   proceed down the river. … The troops did not arrive, and the
   Navy Department was informed of the fact by Captain Craven.
   Assistant Secretary Fox, upon inquiring of General McClellan
   why the troops had not been sent according to agreement, was
   informed by him that his engineers were of the opinion that so
   large a body of troops could not be landed, and therefore he
   had concluded not to send them. Captain Fox replied that the
   landing of the troops was a matter of which the Navy
   Department had charge. … It was then agreed that the troops
   should be sent the next night. Captain Craven was again
   notified, and again had his flotilla in readiness for the
   arrival of the troops. But no troops were sent down at that
   time, nor were any ever sent down for that purpose. Captain
   Fox, in answer to the inquiry of the committee as to what
   reason was assigned for not sending the troops according to
   the second agreement, replied that the only reason, so far as
   he could ascertain, was, that General McClellan feared it
   might bring on a general engagement. … Upon the failure of
   this plan of the Navy Department, the effective vessels of the
   Potomac flotilla left upon the Port Royal expedition. The
   navigation of the river was almost immediately thereafter
   closed, and remained closed until the rebels voluntarily
   evacuated their batteries in the March following, no steps
   having been taken, in the meantime, for reopening
   communication by that route. On the 19th of January, 1862, the
   President of the United States, as commander-in-chief of the
   army and navy, issued orders for a general movement of all the
   armies of the United States, one result of which was the
   series of victories at Fort Henry, Fort Donelson, &c., which
   so electrified the country and revived the hopes of every
   loyal man in the land. After this long period of inaction of
   the army of the Potomac, the President of the United States,
   on the 31st of January, 1862, issued the following order: …
   'Ordered, That all the disposable force of the army of the
   Potomac, after providing safely for the defence of Washington,
   be formed into an expedition for the immediate object of
   seizing and occupying a point upon the railroad southwestward
   of what is known as Manassas Junction; all details to be in
   the discretion of the general-in-chief, and the expedition to
   move before or on the 22d day of February next. Abraham
   Lincoln.'

{3446}

   To this order General McClellan wrote an elaborate reply of
   the same date, objecting to the plan therein indicated as
   involving 'the error of dividing our army by a very difficult
   obstacle, (the Occoquan,) and by a distance too great to
   enable the two portions to support each other, should either
   be attacked by the masses of the enemy, while the other is
   held in check.' He then proceeded to argue in favor of a
   movement by way of the Rappahannock or Fortress Monroe, giving
   the preference to the Rappahannock route. He stated that 30
   days would be required to provide the necessary means of
   transportation. He stated that he regarded 'success as
   certain, by all the chances of war,' by the route he proposed,
   while it was 'by no means certain that we can beat them (the
   enemy) at Manassas.' … Your committee have no evidence, either
   oral or documentary, of the discussions that ensued or the
   arguments that were submitted to the consideration of the
   President that led him to relinquish his own line of
   operations and consent to the one proposed by Genera]
   McClellan, except the result of a council of war, held in
   February, 1862. That council, the first, so far as your
   committee have been able to ascertain, ever called by General
   McClellan, and then by direction of the President, was
   composed of twelve generals. … To them was submitted the
   question whether they would indorse the line of operations
   which General McClellan desired to adopt. The result of the
   deliberation was a vote of eight to four in favor of the
   movement by way of Annapolis, and thence down the Chesapeake
   bay, up the Rappahannock, landing at Urbana, and across the
   country to Richmond. The four generals who voted against the
   proposed movement were Generals McDowell, Sumner, Heintzelman,
   and Barnard. General Keyes voted for it with the qualification
   that no change should be made until the enemy were driven from
   their batteries on the Potomac. … Before the movement by way
   of Annapolis could be executed, the enemy abandoned their
   batteries upon the Potomac, and evacuated their position at
   Centreville and Manassas, retiring to the line of the
   Rappahannock. When General McClellan, then in the city of
   Washington, heard that the enemy had evacuated Manassas, he
   proceeded across the river and ordered a general movement of
   the whole army in the direction of the position lately
   occupied by the enemy. The enemy moved on the morning of the
   10th of March, the greater part of it proceeding no further
   than Fairfax Court-House. A small force of the army proceeded
   to Manassas and beyond to the line of the Rappahannock,
   ascertaining that the enemy had retired beyond that river and
   destroyed the railroad bridge across it. … On the 13th of
   March General McClellan convened at Fairfax Court-House a
   council of war, consisting of four of the five commanders of
   army corps, (General Banks being absent,) and informed them
   that he proposed to abandon his plan of movement by way of the
   Rappahannock, and submitted to them instead a plan of movement
   by way of the York and James rivers."

      Report of Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War,
      37th Congress, 3d session, H. R. Rep.,
      part 1, pages 6-12.

   The Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War, consisting of
   Senators Wade, Chandler, and Andrew Johnson, and of
   Representatives Gooch, Covode, Julian, and Odell, was
   appointed in December, 1861. This Committee "was for four
   years one of the most important agencies in the country. It
   assumed, and was sustained by Congress in assuming, a great
   range of prerogative. It became a stern and zealous censor of
   both the army and the Government; it called soldiers and
   statesmen before it, and questioned them like refractory
   schoolboys. … It was often hasty and unjust in its judgments,
   but always, earnest, patriotic, and honest. … General
   McClellan and his immediate following treated the committee
   with something like contempt. But the President, with his
   larger comprehension of popular forces, knew that he must take
   into account an agency of such importance; and though he
   steadily defended General McClellan and his deliberateness of
   preparation before the committee, he constantly assured him in
   private that not a moment ought to be lost in getting himself
   in readiness for a forward movement. … December was the fifth
   month that General McClellan had been in command of the
   greatest army ever brought together on this continent. It was
   impossible to convince the country that a longer period of
   preparation was necessary before this army could be led
   against one inferior in numbers, and not superior in
   discipline or equipment. … McClellan reported to the Secretary
   of War, that Johnston's army, at the end of October, numbered
   150,000, and that he would therefore require, to make an
   advance movement with the Army of the Potomac, a force of
   240,000. Johnston's report of that date shows an effective
   total of 41,000 men. … Aware that his army was less than
   one-third as strong as the Union forces, Johnston contented
   himself with neutralizing the army at Washington, passing the
   time in drilling and disciplining his troops, who, according
   to his own account, were seriously in need of it. He could not
   account for the inactivity of the Union army. Military
   operations, he says, were practicable until the end of
   December; but he was never molested."

      J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 5, chapter 9.

   McClellan says, "It certainly was not till late in November,
   1861, that the Army of the Potomac was in any condition to
   move, nor even then were they capable of assaulting entrenched
   positions. By that time the roads had ceased to be practicable
   for the movement of armies, and the experience of subsequent
   years proved that no large operations could be advantageously
   conducted in that region during the winter season. Any success
   gained at that time in front of Washington could not have been
   followed up and a victory would have given us the barren
   possession of the field of battle, with a longer and more
   difficult line of supply during the rest of the winter. If the
   Army of the Potomac had been in condition to move before
   winter, such an operation would not have accorded with the
   general plan I had determined upon after succeeding General
   Scott as general in command of the armies"

      G. B. McClellan,
      McClellan's Own Story,
      pages 199-200.

      ALSO IN:
      J. E. Johnston,
      Narrative of Military Operations,
      chapters 3-4.

      A. S. Webb,
      The Peninsula
      (Campaigns of the Civil War, volume 3) chapter 2.

      Comte de Paris,
      History of the Civil War in America,
      book 5, chapter 4 (volume 1).

      G. B. McClellan,
      The Peninsular Campaign
      (Battles and Leaders of the Civil War,
      volume 2, pages 160-187).

      G. B. McClellan,
      Complete Report.

      J. G. Barnard,
      The Peninsular Campaign and its Antecedents.

      J. C. Ropes,
      Gen. McClellan's Plans
      (Massachusetts Military Historical Society Papers, volume 1).

{3447}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861-1862
(December-April: Virginia).
   Jackson's first campaign in the Shenandoah Valley.
   Battle of Kernstown.

   "Soon after the battle of Bull Run Stonewall Jackson was
   promoted to major-general, and the Confederate Government
   having on the 21st of October, 1861, organized the Department
   of Northern Virginia, under command of General Joseph E.
   Johnston, it was divided into the Valley District, the Potomac
   District, and Aquia District, to be commanded respectively by
   Major-Generals Jackson, Beauregard, and Holmes," In November,
   Jackson's force was about 10,000 men. "His only movement of
   note in the winter of 1861-62 was an expedition at the end of
   December to Bath and Romney, to destroy the Baltimore and Ohio
   railroad and a dam or two near Hancock, on the Chesapeake and
   Ohio canal. … In March Johnston withdrew from Manassas, and
   General McClellan collected his army of more than 100,000 men
   on the Peninsula. … Jackson's little army in the Valley had
   been greatly reduced during the winter from various causes, so
   that at the beginning of March he did not have over 5,000 men
   of all arms available for the defense of his district, which
   began to swarm with enemies all around its borders,
   aggregating more than ten times his own strength. Having
   retired up the Valley, he learned that the enemy had begun to
   withdraw and send troops to the east of the mountains to
   cooperate with McClellan. This he resolved to stop by an
   aggressive demonstration against Winchester, occupied by
   General Shields, of the Federal army, with a division of 8,000
   to 10,000 men. A little after the middle of March, Jack·son
   concentrated what troops he could, and on the 23d he occupied
   a ridge at the hamlet of Kernstown, four miles south of
   Winchester. Shields promptly attacked him, and a severe
   engagement of several hours ensued, ending in Jackson's
   repulse about dark, followed by an orderly retreat up the
   Valley to near Swift Run Gap in Rockingham county. The pursuit
   was not vigorous nor persistent. Although Jackson retired
   before superior numbers, he had given a taste of his fighting
   qualities that stopped the withdrawal of the enemy's troops
   from the Valley. The result was so pleasing to the Richmond
   government and General Johnston that it was decided to
   reënforce Jackson by sending General Ewell's division to him
   at Swift Run Gap, which reached him about the 1st of May."

      J. D. Imboden,
      Stonewall Jackson in the Shenandoah
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 2, pages 282-285).

   "The losses at Kernstown were:
      Union, 118 killed, 450 wounded, 22 missing=590;
      Confederate, 80 killed, 375 wounded, 263 missing=718."

      N. Kimball,
      Fighting Jackson at Kernstown
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 2, page 307, footnote).

      ALSO IN:
      G. H. Gordon,
      Brook Farm to Cedar Mountain,
      chapter 3.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861-1863.
   President Lincoln's suspension of the writ of Habeas Corpus.

   On the 27th of April, 1861, President Lincoln issued the
   following order "To the Commanding General, Army of the United
   States"—at that time, General Scott: "You are engaged in
   suppressing an insurrection against the laws of the United
   States. If at any point on or in the vicinity of any military
   line which is now or which shall be used between the city of
   Philadelphia and the city of Washington you find resistance
   which renders it necessary to suspend the writ of habeas
   corpus for the public safety, you personally, or through the
   officer in command at the point at which resistance occurs,
   are authorized to suspend that writ." On the 2d of July,
   another order was issued in exactly the same language, except
   that it gave authority to suspend the writ at "any point on or
   in the vicinity of any military line … between the city of New
   York and the city of Washington." On the 14th of October, a
   third order to General Scott declared: "The military line of
   the United States for the suppression of the insurrection may
   be extended so far as Bangor, Maine. You and any officer
   acting under your authority are hereby authorized to suspend
   the writ of habeas corpus in any place between that place and
   the city of Washington." On the 2d of December a specific
   order to General Halleck, commanding in the Department of
   Missouri, authorized the suspension of the writ within the
   limits of his command; and a similar order, long previously,
   had specially empowered the commander of the forces of the
   United States on the coast of Florida to do the same. On the
   24th of September, 1862, a general proclamation by the
   President subjected to martial law "all rebels and insurgents,
   their aiders and abettors within the United States, and all
   persons discouraging volunteer enlistments, resisting militia
   drafts, or guilty of any disloyal practice affording aid and
   comfort to rebels against the authority of the United States";
   and suspending the writ of habeas corpus "in respect to all
   persons arrested, or who are now, or hereafter during the
   rebellion shall be, imprisoned in any fort, camp, arsenal,
   military prison, or other place of confinement, by any
   military authority, or by the sentence of any court martial or
   military commission." On the 3d of March, 1863, the authority
   of the President to suspend habeas corpus (which some thought
   questionable) was confirmed by act of Congress; and on the
   15th of September in that year another general proclamation
   was issued, referring to the act and declaring a suspension of
   the writ "throughout the United States, in the cases where, by
   the authority of the President of the United States, military,
   naval, and civil officers of the United States, or any of
   them, hold persons under their command, or in their custody,
   either as prisoners of war, spies, or aiders or abettors of
   the enemy, or officers, soldiers, or seamen enrolled or
   drafted or mustered or enlisted in, or belonging to, the land
   or naval forces of the United States, or as deserters
   therefrom, or otherwise amenable to military law, or the rules
   and articles of war, or the rules or regulations prescribed
   for the military or naval service by authority of the
   President of the United States; or for resisting a draft, or
   for any other offense against the military or naval service."

      Abraham Lincoln,
      Complete Works,
      volume 2, pages 38, 45, 54, 85, 93, 239, 406.

{3448}

   "Whether it is the President or Congress that has power under
   the constitution to suspend the privilege of the writ of
   habeas corpus was a burning question during the civil war. …
   The case of John Merryman … was the first to come up for
   judicial interpretation. Merryman lived near Baltimore, and
   appears to have been suspected of being captain of a secession
   troop, of having assisted in destroying railroads and bridges
   for the purpose of preventing troops from reaching Washington,
   and of obstructing the United States mail. By order of General
   Keim of Pennsylvania he was arrested at night in his own
   house, and taken to Fort McHenry at that time in command of
   General George Cadwallader. Taney, who was then chief justice
   of the United States, granted a habeas corpus, but Cadwallader
   refused to obey it, saying that the privilege had been
   suspended by the President. On the return of the writ, the
   Chief Justice filed an opinion denying that the President had
   any power to suspend habeas corpus and affirming that such
   power rested with Congress alone. Lincoln continued to arrest
   and imprison without any regard to this opinion, and indeed
   was advised by his Attorney-General that he was not bound to
   notice it. … The writ of habeas corpus was … not suspended by
   Congress until the rebellion was half over. In other words,
   Lincoln suspended it for two years of his own accord and
   without authority from anyone; for two years he made arrests
   without warrants and held men in prison as long as he pleased.
   … There are few things in American history more worthy of
   discussion than the power exercised by Lincoln in those two
   years. It was absolute and arbitrary and, if unauthorized, its
   exercise was a tremendous violation of the constitution.
   Whether it was justifiable and necessary is another matter. If
   it was unconstitutional and yet necessary in order to save the
   Union, it shows that the constitution is defective in not
   allowing the government the proper means of protecting itself.
   That Lincoln used this power with discretion and forbearance
   there is no doubt. He was the most humane man that ever
   wielded such authority. He had no taste for tyranny, and he
   knew the temper of the American people. But, nevertheless,
   injustice was sometimes done. His subordinates had not always
   their master's nature."

      S. G. Fisher,
      The Suspension of Habeas Corpus
      during the War of the Rebellion
      (Political Science Quarterly,
      September, 1888).

   The view which President Lincoln himself entertained, and
   under which he assumed and exercised authority to suspend the
   writ of habeas corpus, was submitted to Congress in his first
   Message, when it convened in special session, July 4, 1861. He
   said: "Soon after the first call for militia, it was
   considered a duty to authorize the commanding general in
   proper cases, according to his discretion, to suspend the
   privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, or, in other words, to
   arrest and detain, without resort to the ordinary processes
   and forms of law, such individuals as he might deem dangerous
   to the public safety. This authority has purposely been
   exercised but very sparingly. Nevertheless, the legality and
   propriety of what has been done under it are questioned, and
   the attention of the country has been called to the
   proposition that one who has sworn to 'take care that the laws
   be faithfully executed' should not himself violate them. Of
   course some consideration was given to the questions of power
   and propriety before this matter was acted upon. The whole of
   the laws which were required to be faithfully executed were
   being resisted and failing of execution in nearly one third of
   the States. Must they be allowed to finally fail of execution,
   even had it been perfectly clear that by the use of the means
   necessary to their execution some single law, made in such
   extreme tenderness of the citizen's liberty that, practically,
   it relieves more of the guilty than of the innocent, should to
   a very limited ex·tent be violated? To state the question more
   directly, are all the laws but one to go unexecuted, and the
   government itself go to pieces lest that one be violated? Even
   in such a case, would not the official oath be broken if the
   government should be overthrown, when it was believed that
   disregarding the single law would tend to preserve it? But it
   was not believed that this question was presented. It was not
   believed that any law was violated. The provision of the
   Constitution that 'the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
   shall not be suspended, unless when, in cases of rebellion or
   invasion, the public safety may require it,' is equivalent to
   a provision—is a provision—that such privilege may be
   suspended when, in case of rebellion or invasion, the public
   safety does require it. It was decided that we have a case of
   rebellion, and that the public safety does require the
   qualified suspension of the privilege of the writ which was
   authorized to be made. Now it is insisted that Congress, and
   not the executive, is vested with this power. But the
   Constitution itself is silent as to which or who is to
   exercise the power; and as the provision was plainly made for
   a dangerous emergency, it cannot be believed the framers of
   the instrument intended that in every case the danger should
   run its course until Congress could be called together, the
   very assembling of which might be prevented, as was intended
   in this case, by the rebellion. … Whether there shall be any
   legislation upon the subject, and if any, what, is submitted
   entirely to the better judgment of Congress."

      Abraham Lincoln,
      Complete Works,
      volume 2, pages 59-60.

   Congress gave tacit approval to this view of the President's
   powers by passing no act on the subject until nearly two years
   afterwards, as shown above.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
(January-February: Kentucky—Tennessee).
   The first breaking of the Confederate line.
   Grant's capture of Fort Henry and Fort Donelson.

   "At the beginning of the new year the Union armies were over
   660,000 strong, backed by a fleet of 212 vessels. McClellan
   lay quiet upon the Potomac all winter, drilling, organizing,
   disciplining the Army of the Potomac. In his front was Joe
   Johnston, with a much smaller force, pushing forward with
   equal energy the schooling of his soldiers. The Western
   generals were more active. Albert Sidney Johnston, perhaps the
   most promising Southern officer, was in command in the West,
   with headquarters at Bowling Green. Buell lay in Johnston's
   front, having superseded Sherman, whose 'crazy' suggestion
   that 250,000 men would be required for operations on the
   Western field had lost him the confidence of his superiors.
   There was abundant method in his madness, as time all too
   fully showed. In [Eastern] Kentucky the Confederate Humphrey
   Marshall had been creating more or less political trouble, and
   General Garfield was sent against him with some 2,000 men.
   Marshall somewhat outnumbered Garfield; but in a vigorous
   January campaign [beginning at Paintsville, January 7, and]
   culminating at Prestonburg [January 10], Garfield quite
   dispersed his forces, and drove him into the mountains.

{3449}

   About the same time, Zollicoffer, with some 12,000 men, had
   retreated from his post in advance of Cumberland Gap, where he
   held the extreme right of the Southern line, to Mill Spring,
   in Central Kentucky. General George H. Thomas was charged with
   the duty of disposing of him. With about an equal force Thomas
   promptly moved upon his enemy, and in a sharp action at Mill
   Spring [January 19] utterly broke up his army. He thus early
   showed the rare vigor he afterwards so fully developed.
   Zollicoffer was killed. This first of our substantial western
   victories (called 'Fishing Creek' by the enemy) [and also
   called the battle of Logan Cross Roads by some Union writers]
   was a great encouragement to our arms. Crittenden, who
   succeeded to the command, withdrew his troops across the
   Cumberland, abandoning his artillery and trains. Eastern
   Kentucky was thus freed from the Confederates. Halleck's first
   task as commander of the Western armies was to penetrate the
   Confederate line of defense. This could be done by breaking
   its centre or by turning one of its flanks. The former
   appeared most feasible to Grant, and Commodore Foote, who
   commanded the naval forces. Under instructions from Halleck,
   seven of the gun-boat flotilla, with Grant's 17,000 men in
   reserve, moved up the Tennessee river to attack Fort Henry and
   essay the value of gun-boats in amphibious warfare. Grant
   landed below the fort, and Foote then opened fire upon it.
   Tilghman, in command, foreseeing its capture, was shrewd
   enough to send off the bulk of his force to Fort Donelson. He
   himself made a mock defense with a handful of men,
   surrendering the fort after the garrison was well on its way.
   Without the twin citadel of Donelson [distant about eleven
   miles, southeastwardly, on the Cumberland River], however,
   Fort Henry was but a barren triumph, for no column could
   advance up the Tennessee river while this garrison threatened
   its flank. It was here that Grant earned his first laurels as
   a stanch soldier, by compelling, after a stubborn fight, the
   surrender of this second fortress with its entire garrison.
   Every effort had been made by Johnston to hold the place. He
   must here fight for the possession of Nashville. Fort Donelson
   was strongly fortified and garrisoned. Grant moved against it
   from Fort Henry with 15,000 men; 5,000 less than the enemy.
   The ground is difficult; the troops are green. But
   reinforcements and the fleet come to Grant's assistance. The
   fort is fully invested, under great difficulties from severity
   of weather and the inexperience of the men. Happily there is
   not much ability in the defense. Floyd, the senior officer,
   determines to cut his way out. He falls heavily upon Grant's
   right, held by McClernand and backed by Wallace, thinking to
   thrust them aside from the river and to escape over the road
   so won. A stubborn resistance defeats this sortie, though but
   narrowly. A general assault is ordered, which effects a
   lodgment in the works. Divided responsibilities between Floyd,
   Buckner, and Pillow weaken the defense so as to operate a
   surrender. Our loss was 2,300. The Confederates captured were
   over 15,000 men. These successes broke through the centre of
   the Confederate line, established with so much pains, and
   compromised its flanks. Johnston found that he must retire to
   a new line. This lay naturally along the Memphis and
   Charleston Railroad. He had retreated from Bowling Green on
   receipt of the news of the fall of Fort Henry, and was forced
   thereby to cede to Buell possession of Nashville, and
   practically of Kentucky. The advanced flank on the Mississippi
   at Columbus was likewise compromised, and with the bulk of the
   armament was withdrawn to Island No. 10, some forty miles
   below Cairo. We could congratulate ourselves upon a very
   substantial gain."

      T. A. Dodge,
      Bird's-Eye View of Our Civil War,
      chapter 6.

      ALSO IN:
      U. S. Grant,
      Personal Memoirs,
      chapters 21-23.

      J. M. Hoppin,
      Life of Rear Admiral Foote,
      chapters 16-18.

      W. P. Johnston,
      Life of General Albert Sidney Johnston,
      chapters 26-28.

      Official Records,
      series 1, volume 7.

      Battles and Leaders of the Civil War,
      volume 1.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
(January-March: Missouri-Arkansas).
   Expulsion of the Confederates from Missouri.
   Battle of Pea Ridge.

   "Late in December General Samuel R. Curtis took command of
   12,000 National troops at Rolla, and advanced against Price,
   who retreated before him to the northwestern corner of
   Arkansas, where his force was joined by that of General
   McCulloch, and together they took up a position in the Boston
   Mountains. Curtis crossed the line into Arkansas, chose a
   strong place on Pea Ridge, in the Ozark Mountains, intrenched,
   and awaited attack. Because of serious disagreements between
   Price and McCulloch, General Earl Van Dorn, who ranked them
   both, was sent to take command of the Confederate force,
   arriving late in January. There is no authentic statement as
   to the size of his army. He himself declared that he had but
   14,000 men, while no other estimate gave fewer than twice that
   number. Among them was a large body of Cherokee Indians,
   recruited for the Confederate service by Albert Pike, who
   thirty years before had won reputation as a poet. On March 5,
   1862, Van Dorn moved to attack Curtis, who knew of his coming
   and formed his line on the bluffs along Sugar Creek, facing
   southward. His divisions were commanded by Generals Franz
   Sigel and Alexander S. Asboth and Colonels Jefferson C. Davis
   and Eugene A. Carr, and he had somewhat more than 10,000 men
   in line, with 48 guns. The Confederates, finding the position
   too strong in front, made a night march to the west, with the
   intention of striking the Nationals on the right flank. But
   Curtis discovered their movement at dawn, promptly faced his
   line to the right about, and executed a grand left wheel. His
   army was looking westward toward the approaching foe, Carr's
   division being on the right, then Davis, then Asboth, and
   Sigel on the left. But they were not fairly in position when
   the blow fell. Carr was struck most heavily, and, though
   reenforced from time to time, was driven back a mile in the
   course of the day. Davis, opposed to the corps of McCulloch,
   was more successful; that General was killed and his troops
   were driven from the field. In the night Curtis reformed and
   strengthened his lines, and in the morning the battle was
   renewed. This day Sigel executed some brilliant and
   characteristic manœvres. To bring his division into its place
   on the left wing, he pushed a battery forward, and while it
   was firing rapidly its infantry supports were brought up to it
   by a right wheel; this movement was repeated with another
   battery and its supports to the left of the first, and again,
   till the whole division had come into line, pressing back the
   enemy's right.
{3450}
   Sigel was now so far advanced that Curtis's whole line made a
   curve, enclosing the enemy, and by a heavy concentrated
   artillery fire the Confederates were soon driven to the
   shelter of the ravines, and finally put to rout. The National
   loss in this action [called the battle of Elk Horn by the
   Confederates]—killed, wounded, and missing—was over 1,300,
   Carr and Asboth being among the wounded. The Confederate loss
   is unknown. Generals McCulloch and McIntosh were killed, and
   Generals Price and Slack wounded. Owing to the nature of the
   ground, any effective pursuit of Van Dorn's broken forces was
   impracticable."

      R. Johnson,
      Short History of the War of Secession,
      chapter 6.

      ALSO IN:
      W. Baxter,
      Pea Ridge and Prairie Grove.

      O. J. Victor,
      History of the Southern Rebellion,
      volume 3, pages 56-71.

      Official Records, series 1,
      volume 8, pages 189-330.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
(January-April: North Carolina).
   Burnside's expedition to Roanoke and
   capture of Newbern and Beaufort.

   "Roanoke Island, lying behind Bodie's Island, the sand-bar
   that shuts off Upper North Carolina from the Atlantic Ocean,
   offers some of the most interesting souvenirs of early
   American history. … As stated by General Wise, to whom its
   defense was intrusted by the Confederate government, it was
   the key to all the rear defenses of Norfolk. It unlocked two
   sounds, eight rivers, four canals, two railroads. It guarded
   more than four fifths of the supplies of Norfolk. The seizure
   of it endangered the subsistence of the Confederate army
   there, threatened the navy yard, interrupted the communication
   between Norfolk and Richmond, and intervened between both and
   the South. … After the capture of Hatteras Inlet in August,
   1861, light-draught steamers, armed with a rifle gun, often
   stealthily came out of these waters to prey upon commerce. …
   An expedition for operating on this part of the North Carolina
   coast was placed under command of General Burnside, who was
   ordered (January 7th, 1862) to unite with Flag-officer
   Goldsborough, in command of the fleet, at Fortress Monroe,
   capture Newbern, seize the Weldon Railroad, and reduce Fort
   Macon. The force consisted of 31 steam gun-boats, some of them
   carrying heavy guns; 11,500 troops, conveyed in 47 transports;
   a fleet of small vessels for the transportation of sixty days'
   supplies. It left Hampton Roads on the night of January 11th,
   and arrived off Hatteras in two days, as a storm was coming
   on. The commander found with dismay that the draught of
   several of his ships was too great to permit them to enter. …
   Some dishonest ship-sellers in New York had, by
   misrepresentation, palmed off on the government unsuitable
   transport vessels, of which several were lost in that
   tempestuous sea. … It was only by the greatest exertion and
   perseverance, and not until a whole fortnight had elapsed,
   that the entrance to Pamlico Sound was completed. The villainy
   that led to this delay gave the Confederates ample time for
   preparation. Not until the end of another week (February 7th)
   had the reorganized expedition gained the entrance to Croatan
   Sound, and worked through its shallow, marshy passes. The
   weather was beautiful by day; there was a bright moonshine at
   night. The gun-boats found a Confederate fleet drawn up behind
   the obstructions, across the channel, near Pork Point. They
   opened fire on the fort at that point. It was returned both
   from the works and the shipping. Meantime troops were being
   landed at Ashby's, a small force, which was attempting to
   resist them, being driven off by the fire of the ships. The
   debarkation went on, though it was raining heavily and night
   had set in. It was continued until 10,000 men had been landed
   on the marsh. Before dark, however, the work at Pork Point had
   been silenced, and the Confederate fleet had retired to Weir's
   Point. … When day broke, Burnside commenced forcing his way up
   the island. He moved in three columns, the central one,
   preceded by a howitzer battery, upon the only road, the right
   and left through the woods. The battery that obstructed this
   road was soon carried, though not without resistance. The men
   had to wade waist-deep in the water of the pond that protected
   it. … Toward Nag's Head the Confederate force, expelled from
   the captured work, attempted to retreat. They were, however,
   overtaken, and the rest of the command on the north of the
   island, 2,500 strong, was compelled to surrender. The
   Confederate fleet was pursued to Elizabeth City, whither it
   had fled, and there destroyed. A large part of the town was
   burned. A portion of the national fleet went into the harbor
   of Edenton and captured that town. Winton, on the Chowan
   River, shared the same fate. Burnside next made an attack
   (March 14th) on Newbern, one of the most important sea-ports
   of North Carolina. As the troops advanced from the place of
   landing, the gun-boats shelled the woods in front of them, and
   thereby cleared the way. A march of 18 miles in a rain-storm,
   and over execrable roads, did not damp the energy of the
   soldiers. … Newbern was captured, and with it 46 heavy guns, 3
   batteries of light artillery, and a large amount of stores.
   Burnside's losses were 90 killed and 466 wounded. Preparations
   were next made for the reduction of Fort Macon, which commands
   the entrance of Beaufort Harbor. On April 25th it was
   bombarded by three steamers and three shore batteries; the
   former, however, in the course of an hour and a half, were
   compelled to withdraw. But the shore batteries, continuing
   their attack, silenced the guns of the garrison, and, in the
   course of the afternoon, compelled the surrender of the fort.
   In connection with this expedition some operations of minor
   importance occurred. … The chief result, however, was the
   closure of the ports and suppression of commerce. General
   Burnside's forces were eventually, for the most part,
   withdrawn. They were taken to Alexandria, and joined the army
   of General Pope."

      J. W. Draper,
      History of the American Civil War,
      chapter 59 (volume 2).

      ALSO IN:
      D. Ammen,
      The Navy in the Civil War: The Atlantic Coast,
      chapters 8-9.

      A. Woodbury,
      Burnside and the 9th Army Corps,
      part 1, chapters 3-5.

      B. P. Poore,
      Life of Burnside,
      chapters 12-14.

{3451}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
(February-April: Georgia-Florida).

   Siege and capture of Fort Pulaski.
   Temporary occupation of Florida.
   Discouragement of Unionists.

   The blockade of Fort Pulaski may be dated from the 22d of
   February. Preparations were then made on Tybee Island to
   bombard it. The most of the work had to be done in the night.
   The work was carried on under the supervision of General
   Gillmore, who was in chief command, and on the 9th of April
   eleven batteries, containing an aggregate of 36 guns, were in
   readiness to open fire. General David Hunter, who had just
   succeeded General Sherman in command of the Department,
   arrived at Tybee on the evening of the 8th. At sunrise, on the
   morning of the 10th, Hunter sent Lieutenant J. H. Wilson to
   the fort, with a summons to the commander of the garrison to
   surrender. The latter refused, saying: "I am here to defend
   this fort, not to surrender it." At a few minutes after eight
   o'clock the batteries opened fire, and at the end of thirty
   hours the garrison surrendered. In reporting the capture,
   General Hunter wrote: "At the end of eighteen hours' firing
   the fort was breached in the southeast angle, and at the
   moment of surrender, 2 p. m. on the 11th instant, we had
   commenced preparations for storming. The whole armament of the
   fort—47 guns, a great supply of fixed ammunition, 40,000
   pounds of powder, and large quantities of commissary stores,
   have fallen into our hands; also 360 prisoners, of whom the
   officers will be sent North by the first opportunity that
   offers. The result of this bombardment must cause, I am
   convinced, a change in the construction of fortifications as
   radical as that foreshadowed in naval architecture by the
   conflict between the Monitor and Merrimac. No works of stone
   or brick can resist the impact of rifled artillery of heavy
   caliber." General Benham, immediately commanding the
   operations, remarked in his report: "This siege is … the first
   trial, at least on our side of the Atlantic, of the modern
   heavy and rifled projectiles against forts erected and
   supposed to be sufficiently strong prior to these inventions,
   almost equaling, as it would appear, the revolution
   accomplished in naval warfare by the iron-clad vessels
   recently constructed." Captain (acting Brigadier-General) Q.
   A. Gillmore, the officer immediately in charge of the works on
   Tybee Island, has given, in a report made in 1865 to the
   Adjutant-General of the United States of America, an account
   of the difficulties under which the batteries which performed
   the chief part in the siege were erected: "Tybee Island is
   mostly a mud marsh, like other marsh islands on this coast.
   Several ridges and hummocks of firm ground, however, exist
   upon it, and the shore of Tybee Roads, where the batteries
   were located, is partially skirted by low sand banks, formed
   by the gradual and protracted action of the wind and tides.
   The distance along this shore from the landing place to the
   advanced batteries is about 2½ miles. The last mile of this
   route, on which the seven most advanced batteries were placed,
   is low and marshy, lies in full view of Fort Pulaski, and is
   within effective range of its guns. The construction of a
   causeway resting on fascines and brush-wood over this swampy
   portion of the line; the erection of the several batteries,
   with the magazines, gun platforms, and splinter-proof
   shelters; the transportation of the heaviest ordnance in our
   service by the labor of men alone; the hauling of ordnance
   stores and engineer supplies, and the mounting of the guns and
   mortars on their carriages and beds had to be done almost
   exclusively at night, alike regardless of the inclemency of
   the weather and of the miasma from the swamps. No one except
   an eye-witness can form any but a faint conception of the
   herculean labor by which mortars of 8½ tons' weight and
   columbiads but a trifle lighter were moved in the dead of
   night over a narrow causeway, bordered by swamps on either
   side, and liable at any moment to be overturned and buried in
   the mud beyond reach. The stratum of mud is about 12 feet
   deep, and on several occasions the heaviest pieces,
   particularly the mortars, became detached from the
   sling-carts, and were with great difficulty, by the use of
   planks and skids, kept from sinking to the bottom. Two hundred
   and fifty men were barely sufficient to move a single piece on
   sling-carts. The men were not allowed to speak above a
   whisper, and were guided by the notes of a whistle. The
   positions selected for the five most advanced batteries were
   artificially screened from view from the fort by a gradual and
   almost imperceptible change, made little by little every
   night, in the condition and appearance of the brush-wood and
   bushes in front of them. No sudden alteration of the outline
   of the landscape was permitted. After the concealment was once
   perfected to such a degree as to afford a good and safe
   parapet behind it less care was taken, and some of the work in
   the batteries requiring mechanical skill was done in the
   daytime, the fatigue parties going to their labor before break
   of day and returning in the evening after dark. … The three
   breaching batteries—Sigel, Scott, and McClellan—were
   established at a mean distance of 1,700 yards from the scarp
   walls of Fort Pulaski. The circumstance, altogether new in the
   annals of sieges, that a practicable breach, which compelled
   the surrender of the work, was made at that distance in a wall
   7½ feet thick, standing obliquely to the line of fire and
   backed by heavy casemate piers and arches, cannot be ignored
   by a simple reference to the time-honored military maxims that
   'Forts cannot sustain a vigorous land attack,' and that 'All
   masonry should be covered from land batteries.'"

      Official Records,
      series 1, volume 6, pages 134-135, 155, 161.

   "By this victory, won on the first anniversary of the fall of
   Fort Sumter [April 12], the port of Savannah was sealed
   against blockade-runners. The capture of Fort Jackson above,
   and of the city, would have been of little advantage to the
   Nationals then, for the forces necessary to hold them were
   needed in more important work farther down the coast. While
   Gillmore and Viele were besieging Fort Pulaski, Commodore
   Dupont and General Wright were making easy conquests on the
   coast of Florida." Fort Clinch, on Amelia Island, Fernandina,
   Jacksonville, St. Augustine, and other places, were abandoned
   by the Rebels on the approach of the National forces. But
   these conquests proved rather unfortunate than otherwise. "At
   first, the hopes they inspired in the breasts of the Union
   people developed quite a widespread loyalty. A Union
   convention was called to assemble at Jacksonville on the 10th
   of April, to organize a loyal State Government, when, to the
   dismay of those engaged in the matter, General Wright prepared
   to withdraw his forces, two days before the time when the
   convention was to meet. … In consequence, … very little Union
   feeling was manifested in Florida during the remainder of the
   war."

      B. J. Lossing,
      Field Book of the Civil War,
      volume 2, chapter 12.

{3452}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (February-April: Tennessee).
   The advance up River.
   Battle of Shiloh, or Pittsburg Landing.

   "By the end of February, 1862, Major-General Halleck commanded
   all the armies in the valley of the Mississippi, from his
   headquarters in St. Louis. These were, the Army of the Ohio,
   Major-General Buell, in Kentucky; the Army of the Tennessee,
   Major-General Grant, at Forts Henry and Donelson; the Army of
   the Mississippi, Major-General Pope; and that of General S. R.
   Curtis, in Southwest Missouri. He posted his chief of staff,
   General Cullum, at Cairo, and me [General Sherman] at Paducah,
   chiefly to expedite and facilitate the important operations
   then in progress up the Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers. …
   General Buell had also followed up the rebel army, which had
   retreated hastily from Bowling Green to and through Nashville,
   a city of so much importance to the South that it was at one
   time proposed as its capital. Both Generals Grant and Buell
   looked to its capture as an event of great importance. On the
   21st General Grant sent General Smith with his division to
   Clarksville, 50 miles above Donelson, toward Nashville, and on
   the 27th went himself to Nashville to meet and confer with
   General Buell, but returned to Donelson the next day." Orders
   sent by General Halleck to Grant did not reach the latter, and
   a supposed disobedience occurred which caused him to be
   hastily relieved from his command, which was transferred to
   General C. F. Smith, on the 4th of March. Halleck's purpose
   "was evidently to operate up the Tennessee River, to break up
   Bear Creek Bridge and the railroad communications between the
   Mississippi and Tennessee Rivers, and no doubt he was provoked
   that Generals Grant and Smith had turned aside to Nashville.
   In the mean time several of the gunboats, under Captain
   Phelps, United States Navy, had gone up the Tennessee as far
   as Florence, and on their return had reported a strong Union
   feeling among the people along the river. On the 10th of
   March, having received the necessary orders from General
   Halleck, I embarked my division at Paducah. … I … steamed up
   the Tennessee River, following the two gunboats, and, in
   passing Pittsburg Landing, was told by Captain Gwin that, on
   his former trip up the river, he had found a rebel regiment of
   cavalry posted there, and that it was the usual landing-place
   for the people about Corinth, distant 30 miles. I sent word
   back to General Smith that, if we were detained up the river,
   he ought to post some troops at Pittsburg Landing. We went on
   up the river cautiously, till we saw Eastport and Chickasaw,
   both of which were occupied by rebel batteries and a small
   rebel force of infantry. We then dropped back quietly to the
   mouth of Yellow River, a few miles below," where the troops
   were landed and an attempt made to push out and destroy the
   Memphis and Charleston railroad; but heavy rains had so
   swollen all the streams that the expedition was foiled and
   returned. "Once more embarked, I concluded to drop down to
   Pittsburg Landing, and to make the attempt from there. During
   the night of the 14th, we dropped down to Pittsburg Landing,
   where I found Hurlbut's division in boats. Leaving my command
   there, I steamed down to Savannah, and reported to General
   Smith in person, who saw in the flooded Tennessee the full
   truth of my report; and he then instructed me to disembark my
   own division, and that of General Hurlbut, at Pittsburg
   Landing; to take positions well back, and to leave room for
   his whole army; telling me that he would soon come up in
   person, and move out in force to make the lodgment on the
   railroad, contemplated by General Halleck's orders. … Within a
   few days, Prentiss's division arrived and camped on my left,
   and afterward McClernand's and W. H. L. Wallace's divisions,
   which formed a line to our rear. Lew Wallace's division
   remained on the north side of Snake Creek, on a road leading
   from Savannah or Crump's Landing to Purdy. General C. F. Smith
   remained back at Savannah, in chief command, and I was only
   responsible for my own division. I kept pickets well out on
   the roads, and made myself familiar with all the ground inside
   and outside my lines. … We were all conscious that the enemy
   was collecting at Corinth, but in what force we could not
   know, nor did we know what was going on behind us. On the 17th
   of March, General U. S. Grant was restored to the command of
   all the troops up the Tennessee River, by reason of General
   Smith's extreme illness, and because he had explained to
   General Halleck satisfactorily his conduct after Donelson; and
   he too made his headquarters at Savannah, but frequently
   visited our camps. … From about the 1st of April we were
   conscious that the rebel cavalry in our front was getting
   bolder and more saucy. … On Sunday morning, the 6th, early,
   there was a good deal of picket-firing, and I got breakfast,
   rode out along my lines, … and saw the rebel lines of battle
   in front coming down on us as far as the eye could reach. All
   my troops were in line of battle, ready, and the ground was
   favorable to us. … In a few minutes the battle of 'Shiloh'
   began with extreme fury, and lasted two days. … Probably no
   single battle of the war gave rise to such wild and damaging
   reports. It was publicly asserted at the North that our army
   was taken completely by surprise; that the rebels caught us in
   our tents; bayoneted the men in their beds; that General Grant
   was drunk; that Buell's opportune arrival saved the Army of
   the Tennessee from utter annihilation, etc. These reports were
   in a measure sustained by the published opinions of Generals
   Buell, Nelson, and others, who had reached the
   steamboat-landing from the east, just before nightfall of the
   6th, when there was a large crowd of frightened, stampeded
   men, who clamored and declared that our army was all destroyed
   and beaten. Personally I saw General Grant, who with his staff
   visited me about 10 A. M. of the 6th, when we were desperately
   engaged. But we had checked the headlong assault of our enemy,
   and then held our ground. This gave him great satisfaction,
   and he told me that things did not look as well over on the
   left. … He came again just before dark, and described the last
   assault made by the rebels at the ravine, near the
   steamboat-landing, which he had repelled by a heavy battery
   collected under Colonel J. D. Webster and other officers, and
   he was convinced that the battle was over for that day. He
   ordered me to be ready to assume the offensive in the morning,
   saying that, as he had observed at Fort Donelson at the crisis
   of the battle, both sides seemed defeated, and whoever assumed
   the offensive was sure to win.
{3453}
   General Grant also explained to me that General Buell had
   reached the bank of the Tennessee River opposite Pittsburg
   Landing, and was in the act of ferrying his troops across at
   the time he was speaking to me. About half an hour afterward
   General Buell himself rode up to where I was. … Buell said
   that Nelson's, McCook's, and Crittenden's divisions of his
   army, containing 18,000 men, had arrived and could cross over
   in the night, and be ready for the next day's battle. I argued
   that with these reënforcements we could sweep the field. Buell
   seemed to mistrust us, and repeatedly said that he did not
   like the looks of things, especially about the boat-landing,
   and I really feared he would not cross over his army that
   night, lest he should become involved in our general disaster.
   … Buell did cross over that night, and the next day we assumed
   the offensive and swept the field, thus gaining the battle
   decisively. Nevertheless, the controversy was started and kept
   up, mostly to the personal prejudice of General Grant, who as
   usual maintained an imperturbable silence. … Beauregard [who
   took the rebel command after General Albert Sidney Johnston
   fell in the first day's battle afterward reported his entire
   loss as 10,699. Our aggregate loss, made up from official
   statements, shows 1,700 killed, 7,495 wounded, 3,022
   prisoners; aggregate, 12,217, of which 2,167 were in Buell's
   army, leaving for that of Grant 10,050. This result is a fair
   measure of the amount of fighting done by each army. … The
   battle of Shiloh, or Pittsburg Landing, was one of the most
   fiercely contested of the war. On the morning of April 6,
   1862, the five divisions of McClernand, Prentiss, Hurlbut, W.
   H. L. Wallace, and Sherman, aggregated about 32,000 men. We
   had no intrenchments of any sort, on the theory that as soon
   as Buell arrived we would march to Corinth to attack the
   enemy. The rebel army, commanded by General Albert Sidney
   Johnston, was, according to their own reports and admissions,
   45,000 strong."

      W. T. Sherman,
      Memoirs, 4th edition,
      chapter 10 (volume 1);
      or 1st edition, chapter 9 (volume 1).

      ALSO IN:
      U. S. Grant,
      Personal Memoirs,
      chapters 23-25.

      W. P. Johnston,
      Life of General Albert Sidney Johnston,
      chapters 30-35.

      U. S. Grant, D. C. Buell, and others,
      Shiloh
      (Battles and Leaders of the Civil War, volume 1).

      Official Records,
      Series 1, volume 10.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (March).
   President Lincoln's proposal of Compensated Emancipation
   approved by Congress.

   On the 6th of March President Lincoln addressed to Congress
   the following Special Message: "Fellow-citizens of the Senate
   and House of Representatives: I recommend the adoption of a
   joint resolution by your honorable bodies, which shall be
   substantially as follows: Resolved, That the United States
   ought to cooperate with any State which may adopt gradual
   abolishment of slavery, giving to such State pecuniary aid, to
   be used by such State, in its discretion, to compensate for
   the inconveniences, public and private, produced by such
   change of system. If the proposition contained in the
   resolution does not meet the approval of Congress and the
   country, there is the end; but if it does command such
   approval, I deem it of importance that the States and people
   immediately interested should be at once distinctly notified
   of the fact, so that they may begin to consider whether to
   accept or reject it. The Federal Government would find its
   highest interest in such a measure, as one of the most
   efficient means of self-preservation. The leaders of the
   existing insurrection entertain the hope that this government
   will ultimately be forced to acknowledge the independence of
   some part of the disaffected region, and that all the slave
   States north of such part will then say, 'The Union for which
   we have struggled being already gone, we now choose to go with
   the Southern section.' To deprive them of this hope
   substantially ends the rebellion; and the initiation of
   emancipation completely deprives them of it as to all the
   States initiating it. The point is not that all the States
   tolerating slavery would very soon, if at all, initiate
   emancipation; but that while the offer is equally made to all,
   the more Northern shall, by such initiation, make it certain
   to the more Southern that in no event will the former ever
   join the latter in their proposed confederacy. I say
   'initiation' because, in my judgment, gradual and not sudden
   emancipation is better for all. In the mere financial or
   pecuniary view, any member of Congress, with the census tables
   and treasury reports before him, can readily see for himself
   how very soon the current expenditures of this war would
   purchase, at fair valuation, all the slaves in any named
   State. Such a proposition on the part of the General
   Government sets up no claim of a right by Federal authority to
   interfere with slavery within State limits, referring, as it
   does, the absolute control of the subject in each case to the
   State and its people immediately interested. It is proposed as
   a matter of perfectly free choice with them. In the annual
   message, last December, I thought fit to say, 'The Union must
   be preserved, and hence all indispensable means must be
   employed.' I said this not hastily, but deliberate]y. War has
   been made, and continues to be, an indispensable means to this
   end. A practical reacknowledgment of the national authority
   would render the war unnecessary, and it would at once cease.
   If, however, resistance continues, the war must also continue;
   and it is impossible to foresee all the incidents which may
   attend and all the ruin which may follow it. Such as may seem
   indispensable, or may obviously promise great efficiency,
   toward ending the struggle, must and will come. The
   proposition now made, though an offer only, I hope it may be
   esteemed no offense to ask whether the pecuniary consideration
   tendered would not be of more value to the States and private
   persons concerned than are the institution and property in it,
   in the present aspect of affairs? While it is true that the
   adoption of the proposed resolution would be merely
   initiatory, and not within itself a practical measure, it is
   recommended in the hope that it would soon lead to important
   practical results. In full view of my great responsibility to
   my God and to my country, I earnestly beg the attention of
   Congress and the people to the subject. Abraham Lincoln,
   Washington, March 6, 1862."

      Abraham Lincoln,
      Complete Works,
      volume 2, pages 129-130.

{3454}

   "Mr. Stevens, of Pennsylvania, having moved and carried a
   reference of this Message by the House to a Committee of the
   Whole on the State of the Union, and Mr. R. Conkling, of New
   York, having moved the resolve above recommended, a debate
   sprung up thereon; which is notable only as developing the
   repugnance of the Unionists of the Border Slave States, with
   that of the Democrats of all the States, to compensated or any
   other Emancipation. … It passed the House by 89 Yeas
   (Republicans, West Virginians, and a few others not strictly
   partisans) to 31 Nays." On the 2d of April, the resolution
   passed the Senate, by 32 Yeas to 10 Nays. "The President of
   course approved the measure; but no single Slave State ever
   claimed its benefits; and its only use inhered in its
   demonstration of the willingness of the Unionists to increase
   their already heavy burdens to pay for the slaves of the
   Border States—a willingness which the infatuation of the
   ruling class in those States rendered abortive."

      H. Greeley,
      The American Conflict,
      volume 2, chapter 12.

      ALSO IN:
      H. Wilson,
      History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America,
      volume 3, chapter 23.

      J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 5, chapter 12.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (March).
   The Battle of the Monitor and the Merrimac.

   "In August 1861 the Northern States had determined to obtain
   ironclad steam vessels, and at the end of that month Ericsson
   offered to construct in a few months a vessel which would
   destroy the rebel squadron. A board of officers was appointed
   to consider plans proposed, and in September it recommended
   that a vessel on Ericsson's design should be built. She was
   commenced in October, launched on January 30th, 1862, and
   completed on February 15th, 1862. The design provided for a
   hull not more than 2 ft. above the water, and with a flat
   bottom, that the draught might not exceed 10 ft. The sides, to
   a short distance below the water line, were protected with
   4-in. plates. In the centre of the deck was built a circular
   turret, revolving on a central spindle, and protected with 8
   in. of iron. Inside the turret were mounted two 11-in. smooth
   bore guns, pointing through port holes. They could thus fire
   in any direction without turning the vessel, an obvious
   advantage not only on the open sea but especially in narrow
   waters, for which she was more intended. Such was the famous
   'Monitor,' a name given by Ericsson to his creation to
   admonish the leaders of the Southern Rebellion, and to be also
   a monitor to the Lords of the Admiralty in England, suggesting
   to them doubts as to the propriety of their building four
   broadside ironclads at three and a half million dollars each."

      S. Eardley-Wilmot,
      The Development of Navies,
      chapter 4.

   "While the Secretary of the Navy was urging forward the
   construction of the first iron-clads, it was known that the
   rebel government was making great exertions in the same
   direction. Iron-clad vessels were under way at New Orleans,
   Charleston, and at some other points, while at Norfolk the
   Merrimack [the old frigate of that name, roofed slopingly with
   railroad iron, was very near completion in the winter of
   1861-62.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: 1861 (APRIL)
      ACTIVITY OF REBELLION.

   The formidable character of this mailed frigate constrained
   the Government to make every effort to complete the Monitor
   [the first of the turreted iron-clads, invented by John C.
   Ericsson] in season to meet her whenever she should come out;
   and it is stated that information obtained by a rebel spy of
   the state of forwardness in which the Monitor was, induced the
   rebels to put a double force upon their frigate, so that she
   might be able to attack our fleet in Hampton Roads before the
   Monitor's arrival, and, if possible, also to make a raid upon
   Washington or the Northern cities. This extra labor, it is
   said, gained the one day in which the Merrimack destroyed the
   Cumberland and Congress. … The Monitor, commanded by
   Lieutenant John L. Worden, reached the scene of late disaster
   to our cause, and of her coming triumph, on the 8th of March,
   at 9 o'clock P. M., and Lieutenant Worden reported for orders
   to Captain Marston, the commander of the Roanoke. The
   Minnesota, one of our noblest frigates, the Roanoke of the
   same class, but partially disabled, the frigate Congress, and
   the sloop Cumberland, had been stationed at the mouth of the
   James River to watch for, to engage, and, if possible,
   destroy, capture, or stop the expected rebel iron-clad frigate
   then ready for sea at Norfolk. These vessels carried very
   heavy batteries, and it was hoped that they would be able to
   cope with the Merrimack. How vain such an expectation was, her
   first day's operations fully and sadly demonstrated. It is
   probably no exaggeration to say that she would have destroyed
   easily, and without any material damage to herself, every
   wooden ship then in our Navy, had they been within her reach,
   and with none but themselves to oppose her."

      C. B. Boynton,
      History of the Navy during the Rebellion,
      chapter 21.

   "Such was the state of affairs when the Monitor arrived at
   Hampton Roads, that the sturdy commanders trembled in face of
   the coming day, and all was silence and gloom. The
   sloop-of-war Cumberland, having a crew of 300 men, and
   mounting 24 guns, now lay on the bottom with only her
   top-gallant masts and pennant above the water, marking the
   spot where 117 mangled bodies lay buried beneath the waves.
   The Congress, a 50-gun frigate, had also met her destruction,
   and now lay on shore with the flames kindled by hot shot of
   the Merrimac sweeping out her hull. The Roanoke and Minnesota,
   steam frigates of 40 guns each, the pride of the navy and the
   most perfect of any men-of-war of the period, laid hard and
   fast on shore, with broken machinery and as powerless as if
   they had been unarmed. The capture or entire destruction of
   the Federal fleet at Hampton Roads and the escape of the
   Merrimac and the rebel cruisers seemed inevitable." Arriving
   in the evening of the 8th, the Monitor anchored near the
   frigate Minnesota at Newport News. "At half-past five in the
   morning all hands were called, and the ship was immediately
   cleared of her sea-rig and got ready for battle. … At
   half-past seven o'clock a long line of black smoke was seen,
   preceded by the steamers Jamestown, Patrick Henry and Teazer.
   It was the signal for battle. The crews of the different
   vessels stood by their guns, fuzes in hands. The Monitor
   steamed slowly from beneath the bows of the Minnesota, where
   she had been partly concealed, to meet the challenger in an
   open field. It was alike an astonishment to the rebels and our
   own people; neither had seen her when she arrived, and many
   were the conjectures of what it could be. Some said a huge
   water tank; others an infernal machine; none that she had
   guns, and not till they saw steam rise from her deck did they
   think she had power to move herself. … The Merrimac stopped
   her engines, as if to survey and wonder at the audacity of the
   nondescript. The Monitor was approaching on her starboard bow.
{3455}
   Then, as if seized with impulsive rage, and as if a huge
   breath would waft her enemy away, the Merrimac poured a
   broadside of solid shot at her. For an instant she was
   enveloped in smoke, and people who were looking on held their
   breath in doubt of seeing the Monitor again. It was a moment
   of great suspense. Then as a gentle breeze swept over the
   scene the Monitor appeared. At this instant the flash of her
   own guns was seen, and then their report, louder than any
   cannon that had ever been heard, thundered across the sea. It
   seemed to jar the very earth, and the iron scales of the
   invincible crumbled and cracked from their fastenings. One on
   board the Merrimac at this time has told me that, though at
   first entirely confident of victory, consternation took hold
   of them all. 'D-n it!' said one, 'the thing is full of guns!'
   The enthusiasm at this moment among the thousand of civilians
   and soldiers, who lined the shore to witness the fight, was
   beyond description and their own control. Such a spontaneous
   burst of cheers was never before heard. Men were frantic with
   joy. The Monitor continued her approach, reserving fire that
   every shot might take effect, until she came parallel with the
   Merrimac, but heading in the opposite direction. In this way
   they passed slowly within a few yards of each other, both
   delivering and receiving the other's fire. … Captain Worden
   headed again towards the Merrimac with renewed confidence and
   engaged her at close quarters. Again they joined in close
   combat, the Monitor lying bow on, at times touching, both
   delivering their fire as rapidly as possible. At the same time
   the marines on the Merrimac poured an incessant fire of
   musketry at the peek-holes about the pilot-house and turret.
   The speed of the two vessels was about equal, but the light
   draught of the Monitor gave her an advantage. The rebels
   finding that they could make nothing of the invulnerable
   cheese-box, as they called her, and foiled and maddened at the
   loss of their coveted prize, turned towards the Minnesota,
   determined, if possible, to destroy her. The Merrimac went
   head on and received a full broadside of the Minnesota. Fifty
   solid nine-inch shot struck square. Any wooden vessel that
   ever floated would have gone to pieces under such a fire. The
   Merrimac was unharmed. She returned the fire with her forward
   rifle guns. One shell passed through four rooms, tearing away
   partitions and setting the ship on tire. Another passed
   through the boiler of the steamer Dragon which lay alongside,
   blowing her up and killing and wounding 17 men. Before a third
   was fired the Monitor interposed, compelling the Merrimac to
   change her position. The two combatants then made a complete
   circle in their endeavors to get a favorable position, each
   seeking to discharge a broadside into some vital part. The
   Merrimac then turned sharp and made a plunge towards the
   Minnesota, but Worden was vigilant, and crossed the stern of
   the Merrimac, sending two solid shot into her. To get back
   again between her and the Minnesota, the Monitor had almost to
   cross her bow. The Merrimac steamed up quickly, and finding
   that the Monitor would be struck with her prow Worden sheered
   towards the enemy's stern, avoiding a direct blow, and, as
   they came into collision, each vessel delivered a broadside
   into the other. At this point a shell from the Merrimac struck
   the pilot-house exactly over the peek-hole through which
   Captain Worden was looking. The shell exploding, filled his
   face and eyes with powder and fragments of iron, utterly
   blinding and for a time rendering him unconscious. Lieutenant
   Greene, who had been in charge of the turret division,
   immediately left the guns and spent full thirty minutes
   nursing the wounded commander, during which time the gunners
   shotted the guns, and, as the Merrimac was turning away,
   discharged them at close range into her stern, a blow that
   made her whole frame shudder and seemed at once to be fatal.
   There was no officer to direct the movements of the vessel
   except the pilot Howard. As the two combatants parted from the
   struggle they were headed in opposite directions, both away
   from their goal. Presuming that the fight would be continued,
   Pilot Howard ran the vessel a short distance down the channel
   and turning brought her again close to the protection of the
   Minnesota, when Lieutenant Greene stepped into the pilot-house
   and assumed command. It was then observed that the Merrimac
   had taken the channel and was heading towards Norfolk. She was
   soon joined by her consorts, and taken up to their refuge
   under the batteries of Craney Island, the Merrimac apparently
   sagging down astern. Thus ended the greatest naval battle of
   the world. … The only perceptible danger to those on board the
   Monitor, after the first round from the Merrimac, was to those
   in the turret, who were in great danger from the flying of
   bolt heads driven with great force across the turret, and from
   the concussion, which would for a time paralyze a man if he
   should in any way be in contact with the turret when struck by
   a shot."

      F. B. Butts,
      The Monitor and the Merrimac
      (Soldiers' and Sailors' Historical Society of Rhode Island,
      Fourth series, Number 6).

   "The engagement in Hampton Roads on the 8th of March, 1862,
   between the Confederate iron-clad Virginia, or the Merrimac,
   as she is known at the North, and the United States wooden
   fleet, and that on the 9th, between the Virginia and the
   Monitor, was, in its results, in some respects the most
   momentous naval conflict ever witnessed. No battle was ever
   more widely discussed or produced a greater sensation. It
   revolutionized the navies of the world. … Rams and iron-clads
   were in future to decide all naval warfare. In this battle old
   things passed away, and the experience of a thousand years of
   battle and breeze was forgotten. The naval supremacy of
   England vanished in the smoke of this fight, only to reappear
   some years later more commanding than ever. The effect of the
   news was best described by the London 'Times,' which said:
   'Whereas we had available for immediate purposes 149
   first-class war-ships: we have now two, these two being the
   Warrior and her sister Ironside. There is not now a ship in
   the English navy apart from these two that it would not be
   madness to trust to an engagement with that little Monitor.'
   The Admiralty at once proceeded to reconstruct the navy. … The
   same results were produced in France, which had but one
   sea-going iron-clad, La Gloire, and this one, like the
   Warrior, was only protected amidships. … And so with all the
   maritime powers. In this race the United States took the lead,
   and at the close of the war led all the others in the numbers
   and efficiency of its iron-clad fleet. … Our loss [that is,
   the Confederate loss on the Virginia, or Merrimac, in the
   first day's battle, with the wooden ships] in killed and
   wounded was 21.
{3456}
   The armor was hardly damaged, though at one time our ship was
   the focus on which were directed at least 100 heavy guns
   afloat and ashore. But nothing outside escaped. … We slept at
   our guns, dreaming of other victories in the morning. But at
   daybreak we discovered, lying between us and the Minnesota, a
   strange-looking craft, which we knew at once to be Ericsson's
   Monitor, which had long been expected in Hampton Roads, and of
   which, from different sources, we had a good idea. She could
   not possibly have made her appearance at a more inopportune
   time for us, changing our plans, which were to destroy the
   Minnesota, and then the remainder of the fleet below Fortress
   Monroe. She appeared but a pigmy compared with the lofty
   frigate which she guarded. But in her size was one great
   element of her success. … After an early breakfast, we got
   under way and steamed out toward the enemy, opening fire from
   our bow pivot, and closing in to deliver our starboard
   broadside at short range, which was returned promptly from her
   11-inch guns. Both vessels then turned and passed again still
   closer. The Monitor was firing every seven or eight minutes,
   and nearly every shot struck. Our ship was working worse and
   worse, and after the loss of the smoke-stack, Mr. Ramsay,
   chief engineer, reported that the draught was so poor that it
   was with great difficulty he could keep up steam. Once or
   twice the ship was on the bottom. Drawing 22 feet of water, we
   were confined to a narrow channel, while the Monitor, with
   only 12 feet immersion, could take any position, and always
   have us in range of her guns. … Several times the Monitor
   ceased firing, and we were in hopes she was disabled, but the
   revolution again of her turret and the heavy blows of her
   11-inch shot on our sides soon undeceived us. … Lieutenant
   Jones now determined to run her down or board her. For nearly
   an hour we manœuvred for a position. … The ship was as
   unwieldy as Noah's Ark. … And so, for six or more hours, the
   struggle was kept up. At length, the Monitor withdrew over the
   middle ground where we could not follow. … The battle was a
   drawn one, so far as the two vessels engaged were concerned.
   But in its general results the advantage was with the
   Monitor."

      J. T. Wood,
      The First Fight of Iron Clads
      (Battles and Leaders of the Civil War,
      volume 1, pages 692-711).

      ALSO IN:
      J. Ericsson,
      The Building of the Monitor
      (Battles and Leaders. volume 1, pages 730-744).

      W. C. Church,
      Life of John Ericsson,
      chapters 15-18 (volume 1).

      Gideon Welles,
      The First Iron-Clad Monitor
      (Annals of the War by leading Participants),
      page 17.

      C. B. Boynton,
      History of the Navy during the Rebellion,
      chapter 21.

   On the evacuation of Norfolk by the Confederates, in May,
   1862, the Merrimac was destroyed. The following December the
   Monitor went down in a storm at sea, while on her way to
   Charleston, and only a few of her crew were saved.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (March).
   Amendment of the Military Code.
   Officers forbidden to surrender fugitive Slaves.

   "As the formal orders of the government regarding the
   treatment of slaves who sought refuge near the armies were not
   always executed, Congress determined to give them a legal
   sanction; and on the 25th of February and the 13th of March
   both the Senate and the House of Representatives introduced a
   new article in the military code, prohibiting officers, at the
   risk of dismissal, from interfering to restore fugitive slaves
   to their masters. Notwithstanding the powers with which the
   government was thus armed, great difficulty was experienced in
   applying this law in those regiments whose commanders openly
   professed their sympathies in favor of slavery."

      Comte de Paris,
      History of the Civil War in America,
      volume 2, page 733.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
(March-April: On the Mississippi).
   New Madrid and Island No. 10.

   On the surrender of Fort Donelson to General Grant, Columbus,
   on the Mississippi, was hastily abandoned by the rebels, who
   fell back to Island Number Ten, thirty miles below, where
   strong works had been erected. These it was hoped would
   command the passage of the river. "Following the course of the
   Mississippi, this island is about ten miles above New Madrid,
   Missouri, which is 79 miles below Cairo; but on account of a
   long bend in the river … the island is really further south
   than New Madrid. New Madrid is at the most northerly part of
   the bend, and its guns were so placed as to be able to fire at
   vessels coming either way. Besides Fort Thompson, named after
   Jeff Thompson, it was defended by several batteries and by six
   gunboats, mounting heavy guns, which had come up the river
   from New Orleans and were under the command of Commodore
   Hollins. … As the land around New Madrid is very flat, these
   gunboats could fire upon troops approaching the place by land.
   On the same day when the flag of the Union was hoisted over
   the deserted works of the Confederates at Columbus [March 4],
   a Union army under General John Pope, who had been commanding
   in eastern Missouri, appeared before New Madrid. Seeing that
   he could do but little with his field artillery, he sent to
   Cairo for heavy guns; and while waiting for these he built a
   battery at Point Pleasant, about ten miles below New Madrid,
   so as to blockade the river at that place and prevent supplies
   from being sent up to the town. Meanwhile the Confederates
   strengthened their works and reinforced the garrison with men
   from Island Number Ten, while their fleet of gunboats was
   increased to nine. Four heavy guns were sent from Bird's Point
   to General Pope by the Cairo and Fulton Railway, which brought
   them within 20 miles of where they were wanted. … On the night
   of March 12 a thousand spades were at work within half a mile
   of Fort Thompson, and at daylight the guns were in position
   ready for action. Pope opened a cannonade at once on the
   gunboats and on Fort Thompson, both of which replied
   vigorously. The fight raged all day long; several of the gun
   boats were disabled and the Union army was gradually shutting
   in the Confederates on the land side, when their commander,
   General McCown, seeing the danger of capture, left the place
   in the night, during a heavy thunder-storm, and removed all
   his troops to Island Number Ten. … General Pope lost 51 men in
   killed and wounded during the day's bombardment; the loss of
   the Confederates is not known, but is thought to have been
   more than a hundred. About the time of the capture of New
   Madrid, Commodore Foote sailed from Cairo with a fleet of
   seven iron-clad gunboats, one wooden gunboat, and ten
   mortar-boats, for the purpose of aiding General Pope in the
   attack on Island Number Ten. He came in sight of the island on
   Saturday, March 15, and on the next morning opened the
   bombardment with the rifled guns of the Benton, his flag-ship.
{3457}
   The mortar-boats, moored at convenient places along the shore,
   soon took part in the firing, and rained bombs into the
   Confederate works. … Commodore Foote kept up the bombardment
   for many days, without doing much damage to the Confederate
   works. But while he kept the enemy busy, General Pope had been
   engaged in digging a canal across the swampy peninsula formed
   by the bend of the river, so that vessels could go through to
   New Madrid without having to pass Island Number Ten. … A large
   number of men were employed, and after nineteen days of hard
   labor a channel deep enough for light-draught vessels was cut
   through. In the night of April 1 a few men from the gunboats,
   aided by some of Pope's soldiers, landed on the Kentucky
   shore, opposite Island Number Ten, took one of the batteries
   by surprise and spiked its six guns. … A few nights afterward
   the Carondelet [gunboat] ran safely by all the batteries at
   midnight, during a heavy thunderstorm. … Two nights afterward
   the Pittsburgh, another gunboat, performed the same feat, with
   the same good fortune; and a few days later the Confederates
   were astonished to see a fleet of transports laden with troops
   and several floating batteries join the gunboats at New
   Madrid. … The gunboats soon silenced the one-gun batteries on
   the opposite side of the river below New Madrid," and the
   Confederates, attempting to escape, were intercepted and
   captured (April 7), both those on the mainland and those on
   the Island.

      J. D. Champlin, Jr.,
      Young Folks' History of the War for the Union,
      chapter 16.

   Said General Pope in his report: "It is almost impossible to
   give a correct account of the immense quantity of artillery,
   ammunition, and supplies of every description which fell into
   our hands. Three generals, 273 field and company officers,
   6,700 privates, 123 pieces of heavy artillery, 35 pieces of
   field artillery (all of the very best character and latest
   patterns), 7,000 stand of small-arms, tents for 12,000 men,
   several wharf-boat loads of provisions, an immense quantity of
   ammunition of all kinds, many hundred horses and mules, with
   wagons and harness, &c., are among the spoils. Very few, if
   any, of the enemy escaped, and only by wading and swimming
   through the swamps. The conduct of the troops was splendid
   throughout, as the results of this operation and its whole
   progress very plainly indicate. We have crossed this great
   river, the banks of which were lined with batteries and
   defended by 7,000 men. We have pursued and captured the whole
   force of the enemy and all his supplies and material of war,
   and have again recrossed and reoccupied the camps at New
   Madrid, without losing a man or meeting with any accident.
   Such results bespeak efficiency, good conduct, high
   discipline, and soldierly deportment of the best character far
   more conclusively than they can be exhibited in pitched battle
   or the storming of fortified places."

      Official Records,
      series 1, volume 8.

   "In the years since 1862, Island No. 10 … has disappeared. The
   river, constantly wearing at its upper end, has little by
   little swept away the whole. … On the other shore a new No. 10
   has risen."

      A. T. Mahan,
      The Navy in the Civil War: The Gulf and Inland Waters,
      chapter 2.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (March-May: Virginia).
   The Peninsular Campaign.
   McClellan before Yorktown.

   "When Manassas had been abandoned by the enemy [see UNITED
   STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861-1862 (December-March: Virginia)]
   and he had withdrawn behind the Rapidan, the Urbana movement
   lost much of its promise, as the enemy was now in position to
   reach Richmond before we could do so. The alternative remained
   of making Fort Monroe and its vicinity the base of operations.
   The plan first adopted was to commence the movement with the
   First Corps as a unit, to land north of Gloucester and move
   thence on West Point; or, should circumstances render it
   advisable, to land a little below Yorktown to turn the
   defenses between that place and Fort Monroe. The Navy
   Department were confident that we could rely upon their
   vessels to neutralize the Merrimac and aid materially in
   reducing the batteries on the York River. … As transports
   arrived very slowly, especially those for horses, and the
   great impatience of the Government grew apace, it became
   necessary to embark divisions as fast as vessels arrived, and
   I decided to land them at Fort Monroe, holding the First Corps
   to the last, still intending to move it in mass to turn
   Gloucester. On the 17th of March the leading division embarked
   at Alexandria. The campaign was undertaken with the intention
   of taking some 145,000 troops, to be increased by a division
   of 10,000 drawn from the troops in the vicinity of Fort
   Monroe. … On the 12th of March I learned that there had
   appeared in the daily papers the order relieving me from the
   general command of all the armies and confining my authority
   to the Department of the Potomac. I had received no previous
   intimation of the intention of the Government in this respect.
   … On my arrival at Fort Monroe on the 2d of April, I found
   five divisions of infantry, Sykes's brigade of regulars, two
   regiments of cavalry, and a portion of the reserve artillery
   disembarked. Another cavalry regiment and a part of a fourth
   had arrived, but were still on shipboard; comparatively few
   wagons had come. … The best information obtainable represented
   the Confederate troops around Yorktown as numbering at least
   15,000, with about an equal force at Norfolk; and it was clear
   that the army lately at Manassas, now mostly near
   Gordonsville, was in position to be thrown promptly to the
   Peninsula. … On my arrival at Fort Monroe I learned, in an
   interview with Flag-Officer Goldsborough, that he could not
   protect the James as a line of supply, and that he could
   furnish no vessels to take an active part in the reduction of
   the batteries at York and Gloucester or to run by and gain
   their rear. He could only aid in the final attack after our
   land batteries had essentially silenced their fire. I thus
   found myself with 53,000 men in condition to move, faced by
   the conditions of the problem just stated. Information was
   received that Yorktown was already being reenforced from
   Norfolk, and it was apprehended that the main Confederate army
   would promptly follow the same course. I therefore determined
   to move at once with the force in hand, and endeavor to seize
   a point—near the Halfway House—between Yorktown and
   Williamsburg, where the Peninsula is reduced to a narrow neck,
   and thus cut off the retreat of the Yorktown garrison and
   prevent the arrival of reenforcements.
{3458}
   The advance commenced on the morning of the 4th of April, and
   was arranged to turn successively the intrenchments on the two
   roads; the result being that, on the afternoon of the 5th, the
   Third Corps was engaged with the enemy's outposts in front of
   Yorktown and under the artillery fire of the place. The Fourth
   Corps came upon Lee's Mills and found it covered by the
   unfordable line of the Warwick, and reported the position so
   strong as to render it impossible to execute its orders to
   assault. Thus all things were brought to a stand-still, and
   the intended movement on the Halfway House could not be
   carried out. Just at this moment came a telegram, dated the
   4th, informing me that the First Corps [McDowell's] was
   withdrawn from my command. Thus, when too deeply committed to
   recede, I found that another reduction of about 43,000 …
   diminished my paper force to 92,000, instead of the 155,000 on
   which the plans of the campaign had been founded, … which
   reduced the numbers actually available for battle to some
   67,000 or 68,000. The order withdrawing the First Corps also
   broke up the Department of the Potomac, forming out of it the
   Department of the Shenandoah, under General Banks, and the
   Department of the Rappahannock, under General McDowell, the
   latter including Washington. … In our front was an intrenched
   line, apparently too strong for assault, and which I had now
   no means of turning, either by land or water. … Whatever may
   have been said afterward, no one at the time—so far as my
   knowledge extended—thought an assault practicable without
   certain preliminary siege operations. … We were thus obliged
   to resort to siege operations in order to silence the enemy's
   artillery fire, and open the way to an assault. All the
   batteries would have been ready to open fire on the 5th, or,
   at latest, on the morning of the 6th of May; … but during the
   night of the 3d and 4th of May the enemy evacuated his
   positions. … Meanwhile, on the 22d of April, Franklin's
   division of McDowell's corps had joined me by water, in
   consequence of my urgent calls for reënforcements … [and, May
   7th] disembarked near West Point and took up a suitable
   position to hold its own and cover the landing of
   reënforcements."

      G. B. McClellan,
      The Peninsular Campaign
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 2, pages 160-187).

   General Joseph E. Johnston, who assumed command of the
   Confederate forces on the Peninsula, April 17, says in his
   "Narrative": "I went to the Peninsula as soon as possible,
   reaching General Magruder's headquarters early in the morning.
   … That officer had estimated the importance of at least
   delaying the invaders until an army capable of coping with
   them could be formed; and opposed them with about a tenth of
   their number, on a line of which Yorktown, intrenched, made
   the left flank. This boldness imposed upon the Federal
   general, and made him halt to besiege instead of assailing the
   Confederate position. This resolute and judicious course on
   the part of General Magruder was of incalculable value. It
   saved Richmond, and gave the Confederate Government time to
   swell that officer's handful to an army. … The arrival of
   Smith's and Longstreet's divisions increased the army on the
   Peninsula to about 53,000 men, including 3,000 sick. … I could
   see no other object in holding the position than that of
   delaying the enemy's progress, to gain time."

      J. E. Johnston,
      Narrative of Military Operations,
      chapters 4-5.

      ALSO IN:
      J. C. Palfrey,
      The Siege of Yorktown
      (Massachusetts Military Historical Society Papers,
      volume 1, pages 31-92).

      Comte de Paris,
      History of the Civil War in America,
      volume 2, book 1, chapter 1.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (March-June).
   Appointment of Military Governors in Tennessee,
   North Carolina, and Louisiana.

   "By the Union victories in the spring of 1862 very
   considerable areas of territory in States in rebellion came
   under the control and occupation of the Union armies. … The
   sudden change from Confederate to Federal authority involved
   everywhere either a serious derangement or total cessation of
   the ordinary administration of local civil law, and the
   displacement from the occupied territory of State governments
   and State officials who claimed to be exercising functions
   under ordinances of secession, and yielding obedience to the
   self-styled Confederate States. A similar displacement had
   occurred in Virginia and in Missouri during the year 1861, but
   in those States prompt remedies were available," by means of
   popular movements, through delegated conventions, which
   abrogated the rebellious and reinstated loyal State
   governments in operation. The courses pursued in Virginia and
   Missouri were not practicable, however, in other cases, and "a
   substitute was found in the appointment of military governors
   to represent and exert such State and local authority as the
   anomalous conditions made practicable, and as the supreme
   military necessities might allow. The first of these
   appointments occurred in Tennessee. Nashville, the capital,
   having been evacuated about February 23, 1862, President
   Lincoln nominated, and the Senate confirmed, Andrew Johnson
   (March 4, 1862) as military governor with the rank of
   brigadier-general. … Conforming to this precedent, Mr.
   Lincoln, through the Secretary of War, appointed Edward
   Stanley military governor of North Carolina, 'with authority
   to exercise and perform, within the limits of that State, all
   and singular the powers, duties, and functions pertaining to
   the office of military governor (including the power to
   establish all necessary offices and tribunals, and suspend the
   writ of habeas corpus) during the pleasure of the President,
   or until the loyal inhabitants of that State shall organize a
   civil government in conformity with the Constitution of the
   United States.' … In like manner, soon after news was received
   of the successes in the Gulf, Colonel G. F. Shepley (of the
   12th Maine Infantry) of Butler's army was appointed military
   governor of Louisiana, this selection being made because
   General Butler had already designated him to act as mayor of
   the city of New Orleans, and it was thought best to combine
   both functions in the same individual."

      J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 6, chapter 16.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (April: On the Mississippi).
   Farragut's passage of the lower forts
   and capture of New Orleans.

   "About the close of the gloomy and disastrous year 1861, the
   Government of the United States determined to regain control
   of the Mississippi. … After long consideration, Farragut was
   chosen as the naval officer to command in the Gulf. The story
   of his southern birth, and of his steadfast loyalty to his
   flag, is too well known to be here repeated. His formal orders
   put him in command of the 'Western Gulf Blockading Squadron,'
   and these were issued in January, 1862.
{3459}
   But confidential instructions were also given him, by which he
   was especially charged with the 'reduction of the defences
   guarding the approaches to New Orleans, and the taking
   possession of that city.' He was to be assisted by a
   mortar-fleet of schooners, under commander D. D. Porter. … On
   February 2d, 1862, Farragut sailed for the Gulf, in the
   sloop-of-war Hartford, which was so long to bear his flag,
   successfully, through manifold dangers. The Hartford was a
   wooden screw-steamer, full ship-rigged, and of 1,900 tons
   burthen. She was of comparatively light draught, and,
   therefore, well suited to the service she was called upon to
   perform. … The Hartford arrived at her rendezvous, Ship
   Island, 100 miles north-northeast of the mouths _ of the
   Mississippi, on February 20th. A military force, to co-operate
   with Farragut's fleet, was sent out, under General B. F.
   Butler, and arrived at Ship Island on March 25th."

      E. Shippen,
      Naval Battles,
      chapter 41.

   "At a point about 30 miles above the head of the passes, where
   the river makes its last great bend—the lowest favorable
   locality for defense before reaching the Gulf—the United
   States Government had erected two forts, St. Philip on the
   left or north bank, and Jackson a little farther down stream
   on the right. … The Confederate Government had early taken
   possession of these forts, and put them in complete order.
   When Farragut's fleet appeared before them, Fort Jackson, with
   its water battery, mounted 75 guns, and St. Philip about 40. …
   Just above the forts lay a rebel fleet of 15 vessels, under
   Commodore J. K. Mitchell, including the iron-clad ram Manassas
   and an immense floating battery covered with railroad iron,
   called the Louisiana. Just below Fort Jackson the Confederates
   had obstructed the river with a heavy chain, brought from
   Pensacola. … The task that lay before Farragut was, to break
   through the obstructions, pass between the forts, conquer the
   rebel fleet, and then steam up to New Orleans, lay the city
   under his guns, and demand its surrender. For its
   accomplishment he had 6 sloops-of-war, 16 gunboats, 21
   schooners, each carrying a 13-inch mortar, and 5 other
   vessels. The fleet carried over 200 guns. … The schooners
   sailed up partly, or were towed by steamers, and on the
   morning of the 18th of April they had all reached their
   positions, ready to open fire. … For six days and nights the
   mortars kept up an unremitting fire, mainly on Fort Jackson,
   throwing nearly 6,000 shells. The Confederates acknowledged a
   loss of 14 killed and 39 wounded by the bombardment. …
   Farragut's patience was sorely tried by this delay. He had
   never had much faith in the mortars, and now it was evident,
   as he had anticipated, that almost the only practical effect
   of the bombardment was, to give the enemy long warning of the
   attack by the ships. … Having decided to run by the forts, he
   confided to his trusted Fleet Captain, Bell, the dangerous
   mission of proceeding with the gunboats Pinola and Itasca to
   make a passage for his fleet through the chain obstructions. …
   A sufficient opening was made for the fleet to pass through,
   in spite of the heavy fire to which the party were subjected.
   … Farragut had made up his mind to run by the forts at the
   close of the fifth day's bombardment; but the necessity of
   repairing damages to two of his vessels delayed him
   twenty-four hours longer. He had intended to lead the column
   in his flag-ship Hartford; but in the final disposition he
   gave that post to Captain Theodorus Bailey, at his own earnest
   request, who hoisted his red flag on the gunboat Cayuga. … The
   attempt to pass was to be made in the night, April 23-24;
   and, as the moon would rise about half past 3 o'clock in the
   morning, the fleet were warned to expect the signal for
   sailing at about 2 o'clock. … Lieutenant Commanding Caldwell
   sent up in the Itasca to examine the obstructions and find
   whether the passage was still open. At 11 o'clock he gave the
   signal that it was, and about the same time the enemy opened
   fire on him, sent down burning rafts, and lighted the immense
   piles of wood which they had prepared on the shore near the
   ends of the chain. … It was half past 3, the hour of moonrise,
   before all was ready. In the light of the blazing rafts and
   bonfires, moon or no moon made little difference now. …
   Captain Bailey led off with his division of 8 vessels, whose
   objective was Fort St. Philip, and all of them passed through
   the opening in the cable. Both forts opened fire upon his
   flag-ship, the Cayuga, soon after she had passed the hulks.
   Five minutes later she was pouring grape and canister into St.
   Philip, and in ten minutes more she had passed beyond range of
   that work, to find herself surrounded by 11 rebel gun-boats.
   Three of them attempted to board her at once. An 11-inch shot
   was sent through one of them at the close range of 30 yards,
   and she immediately ran aground and burned up. The Parrott gun
   on the forecastle drove off another; and Bailey was preparing
   to close with the third, when the Oneida and Varuna, which had
   run in close to St. Philip, thus avoiding the elevated guns of
   the fort, while they swept its bastions with grape and
   scrapnel, came up to the assistance of the Cayuga. The Oneida
   ran under full steam into one of the rebel ships, cut her
   nearly in two, and left her to float down stream a helpless
   wreck. She fired right and left into the others, and then went
   to the assistance of the Varuna, which was ashore on the left
   bank, hard pressed by the Governor Moore and another, said to
   be the Manassas. The Varuna was rammed by them both, and sank
   at the end of 15 minutes; but in that time it is claimed that
   she put three 8-inch shells into the Governor Moore, and so
   crippled her with solid shot that she surrendered to the
   Oneida, and drove five 8-inch shells into another, which sent
   her ashore. Still another of her shells exploded the boiler of
   a rebel steamer. The Pensacola steamed steadily but slowly by,
   firing with great deliberation and regularity. … The
   Mississippi was fought regularly in line, like the Pensacola,
   but escaped with light losses. She encountered the ram
   Manassas, which gave her a severe cut on the port quarter
   below the water-line, and disabled her machinery. But she
   riddled the ram with shot, boarded her, and set her on fire,
   so that she drifted below the forts and blew up. The Katahdin
   ran close to the forts, steamed by rapidly, and got near the
   head of the line, where she put a few good shots into the
   iron-clad Louisiana. The Kineo ran by close under St. Philip,
   and then assisted the Mississippi in handling the ram
   Manassas; but she was afterward attacked by three rebel gun
   boats at once, and, her pivot-gun carriage becoming injured,
   she withdrew and continued on up stream.
{3460}
   The Wissahickon ran ashore before she reached the forts, got
   off, passed them, and above ran ashore again. Most of these
   operations were carried on in the darkness occasioned by the
   thick smoke, lighted, however, by the lurid flashes of more
   than 200 guns. The Hartford, bearing Flag-Officer Farragut,
   led the second division of the fleet. … In attempting to avoid
   a fire-raft, she grounded on a shoal near St. Philip. At the
   same time the ram Manassas pushed a raft upon her port
   quarter, and in an instant she was on fire. A part of the crew
   went to 'fire quarters' and soon subdued the flames, while the
   working of her guns was steadily continued, and she was then
   backed off into deep water. This movement turned the ship's
   head down stream, and it was with some difficulty that she was
   turned around against the current; but this was finally
   accomplished, and she continued to steam up the river, firing
   into several of the enemy's vessels as she passed. Among these
   was a steamer full of men, apparently a boarding-party. She
   was making straight for the Hartford when Captain Broome's
   gun, manned by marines, planted a shell in her, which
   exploded, and she disappeared. … The Brooklyn got out of her
   course, ran over one of the hulks, and became entangled in the
   raft, where she suffered a raking fire from Fort Jackson, and
   a pretty severe one from St. Philip. Scarcely was she
   disentangled and on her way up stream when she was butted by
   the Manassas, which, however, had not headway enough to damage
   her much, and slid off in the darkness. Then she was attacked
   by a large rebel steamer, but gave her the port broadside at
   fifty yards and set her on fire. Groping along through a black
   cloud of smoke from a fire-raft, she came close abreast of St.
   Philip, into which she poured such tremendous broadsides that
   by the flashes the gunners were seen running to shelter, and
   for the time the fort was silenced. The Brooklyn then passed
   on, and engaged several of the enemy's gunboats at short
   range. One of these, the Warrior, came under the port
   broadside, when eleven 5-second shells were instantly planted
   in her, all of which exploded, setting her on fire, and she
   was run ashore. The Brooklyn was under fire an hour and a
   half, and her losses were almost as severe as those of the
   Pensacola. The Richmond, a slow ship, brought up the rear of
   the second division, steaming steadily and working her guns
   with great regularity. … The Sciota, carrying Fleet-Captain
   Bell, led the third division. She steamed by the forts, firing
   as she passed, and above them burned two steamboats. … The
   Iroquois passed within 50 yards of Fort Jackson without
   injury, but was subjected to a terrible raking cross-fire from
   St. Philip, and was also raked by the McCrea. … Her losses
   were heavy. The Pinola passed up in line, firing her 11-inch
   pivot-gun and Parrott rifles at the flashes of Fort Jackson's
   guns, which at first were all that could be seen; then she
   emerged from the cloud of smoke, stood over toward St. Philip,
   and in the light of the blazing rafts received the discharges
   of its 40 guns. She was the last vessel that passed the forts,
   and got up in time to put one or two shells into the gunboats
   of the enemy. The Kennebec got out of her course, became
   entangled in the rafts, and did not get free till it was broad
   daylight and too late to attempt a passage. The Itasca,
   arriving in front of Fort Jackson, received a shot in her
   boiler, which made it impossible for her to proceed, and was
   turned down stream. The Winona got astray among the hulks, and
   lost so much time that when she came within range of Fort
   Jackson it was daylight, and the fleet had passed on. The
   first three or four shots from the fort swept away the entire
   crew of her rifled gun, save one man. Still she kept on, until
   the lower battery of St. Philip opened on her at less than
   point-blank range; this was too much for her, and she
   prudently headed down stream and ran out of the fire. Thus was
   accomplished a feat in naval warfare which had no precedent,
   and which is still without a parallel except the one furnished
   by Farragut himself, two years later, at Mobile. Starting with
   17 wooden vessels, he had passed with all but 3 of them,
   against the swift current of a river but half a mile wide,
   between two powerful earthworks which had long been prepared
   for him, his course impeded by blazing rafts, and immediately
   thereafter had met the enemy's fleet of 15 vessels, two of
   them iron-clad, and either captured or destroyed every one of
   them. And all this with a loss of but one ship from his own
   squadron."

      L. Farragut,
      Life of Farragut,
      chapters 18-19.

   Commander Porter, who kept up the mortar fire while Farragut
   was forcing his way, says of the battle: "No grander or more
   beautiful sight could have been realized than the scenes of
   that night. From silence, disturbed now and then only by the
   slow fire of the mortars,—the phantom-like movements of the
   vessels giving no sound—an increased roar of heavy guns began,
   while the mortars burst forth into rapid bombardment, as the
   fleet drew near the enemy's works. Vessel after vessel added
   her guns to those already at work, until the very earth seemed
   to shake from their reverberations. A burning raft added its
   lurid glare to the scene, and the fiery tracks of the
   mortar-shells, as they passed through the darkness aloft, and
   sometimes burst in mid-air, gave the impression that heaven
   itself had joined in the general strife. The succeeding
   silence was almost as sudden. From the weighing of the
   anchors, one hour and ten minutes saw the vessels by the
   forts, and Farragut on his way to New Orleans, the prize
   staked upon the fierce game of war just ended."

      D. D. Porter,
      Naval History of the Civil War,
      page 185.

   "General Lovell, who was in command at New Orleans, had come
   down the river in a steamboat to observe the operations and
   was very nearly captured; he hastened back to the city to
   withdraw his forces. When the news spread through the streets
   that the Federal fleet had passed the forts and had destroyed
   the Confederate flotilla, a strange scene followed; a scene
   impossible, perhaps, in any other American city under parallel
   circumstances. The brave, active, fighting men of New Orleans
   were far away in the armies of the South; but they had left
   behind a slinking swarm of human vermin. … These, when they
   saw a hopeless panic seize the good people of the city, poured
   forth from their dens and began an indiscriminate pillaging of
   houses, shops, and storage-sheds. Thus while the better class
   of citizens were frantically setting fire to the cotton (some
   12,000 bales) the cut-throats and ruffians, the hardened women
   and even the lawless children, were raging from place to
   place, back and forth, here and there, wildly plundering and
   aimlessly destroying. … All the public materials, consisting
   of army supplies, were heaped up in the middle of the streets
   and burned.
{3461}
   General Lovell withdrew his soldiers on the evening of the
   24th, leaving the city at the mercy of the Federal fleet,
   which at 1 o'clock on the following day steamed up the river
   and anchored in the middle of the stream not far from the foot
   of Canal Street. … The mob which lately had been committing
   such foul deeds, now swayed back and forth in the streets,
   hooting, yelling and cursing, urging the people to resist the
   landing of the Federals. Commodore Farragut demanded the
   formal surrender of the city, but the mayor was powerless. He
   could not surrender the city while the people were controlled
   by an unreasoning mob. Consequently, on the 20th, a detachment
   under command of Fleet Captain H. H. Bell was sent ashore to
   take possession of the public buildings."

      M. Thompson,
      The Story of Louisiana,
      chapter 11.

   "The success was almost beyond price to the Union Government
   from its moral importance on both sides of the Atlantic. As to
   the material advantage won, it may be best judged of by the
   statement of the well-known Confederate writer, Mr. Pollard: …
   'It was a heavy blow to the Confederacy. It annihilated us in
   Louisiana; separated us from Texas and Arkansas; diminished
   our resources and supplies by the loss of one of the greatest
   grain and cattle countries within the limits of the
   Confederacy; gave to the enemy the Mississippi River, with all
   its means of navigation, for a base of operations.' … In
   calling the capture of New Orleans 'one of the most remarkable
   triumphs in the whole history of naval operations' he [Mr.
   Welles, Secretary of the Navy] is fully justified."

      C. C. Chesney,
      Essays in Military Biog.,
      page 167-168.

      ALSO IN:
      D. D. Porter, J. R. Bartlett and others,
      The Capture of New Orleans
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 2).

      A. T. Mahan,
      Admiral Farragut,
      chapter 7.

      Official Records,
      series 1, volume 6.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (April-May: Alabama).
   General Mitchell's expedition.

   The division of Buell's army commanded by General Ormsby M.
   Mitchell left Nashville with the other divisions of that army,
   late in March, but took the road to Murfreesboro, while the
   latter marched toward Pittsburg Landing. On the 4th of April
   General Mitchell marched from Murfreesboro to Shelbyville, 26
   miles distant. "On the 7th he advanced to Fayetteville, 27
   miles farther, and the next forenoon, the 8th, 15 miles
   beyond, he crossed the State line of Alabama. Continuing his
   march six miles farther, and being within ten miles of
   Huntsville, Alabama, he halted for the artillery and infantry
   to come up." At an early hour the next morning he entered the
   town, taking it completely by surprise. "Before the close of
   the day 100 miles of the Memphis and Charleston railroad were
   in his possession, stretching in one direction as far as
   Stevenson, and in the other as far as Decatur. … From Decatur
   he pushed on at once to Tuscumbia. Thus, without the loss of a
   single life, General Mitchell placed his army midway between
   Corinth and Chattanooga, prevented the destruction of a fine
   bridge at Decatur, opened communication with General Buell,
   and also the navigation of the Tennessee. The occupation of
   Huntsville also cut off all communication between the east and
   west by the Memphis and Charleston railroad. … This extension
   of General Mitchell's lines to hold the railroad rendered his
   situation precarious. Soon the enemy began to gather in force
   and threaten him. … He was raised to the rank of a
   major-general, and ordered to report directly to the [war]
   department, and his force was constituted an independent
   corps. But he got no reënforcements, he was left in such a
   condition that he at first hardly had anything to report but
   that he had been gradually driven from those positions, the
   gaining of which had made him a major-general." Subsequently
   he advanced upon Chattanooga; but that important position was
   not secured. A little later General Mitchell was transferred
   to Port Royal, South Carolina.

      W. J. Tenney,
      Military and Naval History of the Rebellion,
      chapter 15.

   It was in connection with General Mitchell's expedition that
   the thrilling episode of the railroad raid in Georgia
   occurred, narratives of which have been published by one of
   the participants, Reverend William Pittenger, first under the
   title of "Capturing a Locomotive," and afterwards with the
   title "Daring and Suffering," and also as "The Great
   Locomotive Chase." Volume Two of "Battles and Leaders of the
   Civil War" also contains the story, entitled "The Locomotive
   Chase in Georgia," preceded by General Buell's critical
   account of Mitchell's entire operations.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
(April-May: Tennessee-Mississippi).
   The bloodless and bootless conquest of Corinth.

   "General Halleck arrived at Pittsburg landing on the 11th of
   April and immediately assumed command in the field. On the
   21st General Pope arrived with an army 30,000 strong, fresh
   from the capture of Island Number Ten in the Mississippi
   River. He went into camp at Hamburg landing five miles above
   Pittsburg. Halleck had now three armies: the Army of the Ohio,
   Buell commanding; the Army of the Mississippi, Pope
   commanding; and the Army of the Tennessee. His orders divided
   the combined force into the right wing, reserve, centre, and
   left wing. … I [General Grant] was named second in command of
   the whole, and was also supposed to be in command of the right
   wing and reserve. … Preparations were at once made upon the
   arrival of the new commander for an advance on Corinth. …
   Corinth, Mississippi, lies in a south-westerly direction from
   Pittsburg landing and about 19 miles away as the bird would
   fly, but probably 22 by the nearest wagon-road. It is about
   four miles south of the line dividing the States of Tennessee
   and Mississippi, and at the junction of the Mississippi and
   Chattanooga Railroad with the Mobile and Ohio road which runs
   from Columbus to Mobile. … Corinth was a valuable strategic
   point for the enemy to hold, and consequently a valuable one
   for us to possess ourselves of. We ought to have seized it
   immediately after the fall of Donelson and Nashville, when it
   could have been taken without a battle, but failing then it
   should have been taken, without delay, on the concentration of
   troops at Pittsburg landing after the battle of Shiloh. In
   fact, the arrival of Pope should not have been awaited. There
   was no time from the battle of Shiloh up to the evacuation of
   Corinth when the enemy would not have left if pushed. … On the
   30th of April the grand army commenced its advance from Shiloh
   upon Corinth. The movement was a siege from the start to the
   close.

{3462}

   The National troops were always behind intrenchments, except
   of course the small reconnoitring parties sent to the front to
   clear the way for an advance. Even the commanders of these
   parties were cautioned, 'not to bring on an engagement.' … For
   myself, I was little more than an observer. Orders were sent
   direct to the right wing or reserve, ignoring me, and advances
   were made from one line of intrenchments to another without
   notifying me. My position was so embarrassing in fact that I
   made several applications during the siege to be relieved. …
   On the 28th of May, General Logan, whose command was then on
   the Mobile and Ohio railroad, said to me that the enemy had
   been evacuating for several days, and that if allowed he could
   go into Corinth with his brigade. … Beauregard published his
   orders for the evacuation of Corinth on the 26th of May and
   fixed the 29th for the departure of his troops, and on the
   30th of May General Halleck had his whole army drawn up
   prepared for battle and announced in orders that there was
   every indication that our left was to be attacked that
   morning. Corinth had already been evacuated and the National
   troops marched on and took possession without opposition.
   Everything had been destroyed or carried away. The Confederate
   commander had instructed his soldiers to cheer on the arrival
   of every train, to create the impression among the Yankees
   that reinforcements were arriving. There was not a sick or
   wounded man left by the Confederates, nor stores of any kind.
   Some ammunition had been blown up—not removed—but the trophies
   of war were a few Quaker guns, logs of about the diameter of
   ordinary cannon, mounted on wheels of wagons and pointed in
   the most threatening manner towards us. The possession of
   Corinth by the National troops was of strategic importance,
   but the victory was barren in every other particular. …
   General Halleck at once commenced erecting fortifications
   around Corinth on a scale to indicate that this one point must
   be held if it took the whole National army to do it. … They
   were laid out on a scale that would have required 100,000 men
   to fully man them. … These fortifications were never used. …
   After the capture of Corinth a movable force of 80,000 men,
   besides enough to hold all the territory acquired, could have
   been set in motion for the accomplishment of any great
   campaign for the suppression of the rebellion. In addition to
   this fresh troops were being raised to swell the effective
   force. But the work of depletion commenced."

      U. S. Grant,
      Personal Memoirs,
      chapter 26 (volume 1).

      ALSO IN:
      M. F. Force,
      From Fort Henry to Corinth
      (Campaigns of the Civil War, volume 2),
      chapter 8.

      A. Roman,
      Military Operations of General Beauregard,
      chapter 24 (volume 1).

      Official Records,
      series 1, volume 10.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (April-June).
   Abolition of Slavery in the District of Columbia
   and in the Territories.

   On the 16th of December, 1861, Mr Wilson, of Massachusetts,
   introduced in the Senate of the United States a bill for the
   immediate emancipation of the slaves in the District of
   Columbia; "for the payment to their loyal owners of an average
   sum of $300; for the appointment of a commission to assess the
   sum to be paid; and the appropriation of $1,000,000. This bill
   was reported back on the 13th of February, 1862, with
   amendments. On the 24th he introduced a bill which, he said,
   was supplementary to that already before the Senate, to repeal
   the act extending the laws of Maryland over the District, and
   to annul all those statutes which gave the cities of
   Washington and Georgetown authority to pass ordinances
   discriminating against persons on account of color. On the
   12th of March it came up for debate in committee of the whole.
   The debate on these resolutions, the bill, and other cognate
   measures exhibit elements of interest hardly found in any
   other session of the American Congress on record. It was
   emphatically a new departure. … No important change was made,
   and on the 3d of April, 1862, the bill introduced by Mr.
   Wilson more than three months before was passed by a vote of
   29 to 14. The bill was taken up in the House the next week,
   and gave rise to a brief but brilliant debate. … The bill …
   passed the House by a vote of 92 to 38, and received the
   approval of the President on the 16th day of April, 1862. The
   President, in his message accompanying his approval of the
   bill, had stated some objections to it. These objections were
   that certain classes, such as married women, minors, and
   persons absent from the District, were not sufficiently
   protected and provided for; and he suggested that these
   defects should be remedied by additional legislation"—which
   was done. "On the 24th of March, 1862, Mr. Arnold, of
   Illinois, introduced a bill into the House of Representatives
   to render freedom national and slavery sectional. It was
   referred to the Committee on Territories, was reported on the
   1st of May, with an amendment, and made the order of the day
   for the 8th. It provided that freedom should be the
   fundamental law of the land, and that slavery should no longer
   exist in all places under the direct and exclusive control of
   the Federal government. It prohibited slavery in all
   Territories, then or thereafter existing; in all places
   purchased by the government, with the consent of the
   legislatures of the several States, for forts, magazines,
   arsenals, doek-yards, and other needful buildings; in all
   vessels on the high seas, and on all national highways, beyond
   the territory and jurisdiction of the several States. … The
   difficulties, … real or seeming, constitutional or other, were
   too great to secure the united action of the friends of the
   underlying principle of the bill as reported by the committee.
   Mr. Lovejoy, therefore, moved a substitute restricting its
   action entirely to the Territories. The substitute was
   accepted, and the bill as thus amended was carried by a vote
   of 85 to 50. The preamble was so amended as to read, 'An act
   to secure freedom to all persons within the Territories of
   the United States.' In the Senate, on the 15th of May, Mr.
   Browning, reported the bill from the Committee on Territories
   with an amendment that, from and after the passage of the act,
   there should be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in
   any existing Territory, or in any Territory thereafter formed
   or acquired. It was, substantially, the application of the
   principle of the ordinance of 1787 to all the territory then
   possessed or thereafter to be acquired. On the 9th of June the
   Senate proceeded to its consideration, adopted the amendment,
   and passed the bill by a vote of 28 to 10. The House agreed to
   the Senate amendment, and the bill thus amended was passed on
   the 17th, and approved by the President on the 19th of June."

      H. Wilson,
      History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America,
      volume 3, chapters 21 and 24.

      ALSO IN:
      M. Tremain,
      Slavery in the District of Columbia
      (University of Nebraska: Seminary Papers Number 2).

{3463}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (May).
   Passage of the Homestead Act.

   "The homestead bill, or the granting of free homes from and on
   the public domain, became a national question in 1852. The
   Free Soil Democracy, at Pittsburg, Pa., August 11, 1852, in
   National Convention, nominated John P. Hale, of New Hampshire,
   and George W. Julian, of Indiana, for President and
   Vice-President, and adopted the following as the 12th plank or
   resolution in their platform: 'That the public lands of the
   United States belong to the people, and should not be sold to
   individuals, nor granted to corporations, but should be held
   as a sacred trust for the benefit of the people, and should be
   granted in limited quantities, free of cost, to landless
   settlers.' Thereafter it became a national question until its
   passage in 1862, and was in the platforms of political
   parties. It was petitioned for and against. Public sentiment
   was aroused. It was a serious innovation and would cause an
   almost entire change in the settlement laws. Instead of the
   public lands being sold for cash, for profit, or being taken,
   first, under the pre-emption system, which eventuated in cash
   purchases, they were to be given to actual settlers who would
   occupy, improve, and cultivate them for a term of years, and
   then receive a patent free of acreage charges, with fees paid
   by the homesteader sufficient to cover cost of survey and
   transfer of title. … The rich and fertile lands of the
   Mississippi Valley were fast filling up with settlers.
   Agricultural lands in the Middle States, which, after the year
   1824, were bought for $1.25 per acre, now sold at from $50 to
   $80 per acre. Former purchasers of these Government lands in
   the Middle, Western, and Southern States, were selling their
   early purchases for this great advance, and moving west, to
   Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Missouri, and there again
   taking cheap Government lands under the pre-emption laws. The
   western emigration caused a rush—a migration of neighborhoods
   in many localities of the older Western States. Following the
   sun, their pillar of fire, these State founders moved
   westward, a resistless army of agents of American
   civilization, and there was a demand for homes on the public
   lands, and a strong pressure for the enactment of a law which
   should confine locators to small tracts, and require actual
   occupation, improvement, and cultivation. A fierce political
   battle now ensued, beginning in 1854, and continuing until
   1862, the year of the passage of the law. The demand of the
   settlers was incessant and constant." Mr. Galusha A. Grow, of
   Pennsylvania, made himself the special champion of the measure
   in Congress. On the 1st of February, 1859, a bill embodying
   its principles was carried in the House, but was not permitted
   to reach a vote in the Senate. The slaveholding interest was
   almost solidly against it. In March, 1860, a similar bill was
   again passed by the House. The Senate substituted a bill
   granting homesteads to actual settlers at twenty-five cents
   per acre, instead of free of cost. After protracted
   conferences, the House was forced to accept the Senate bill,
   with slight amendments. But if the enemies of the measure had
   so nearly lost their control of Congress, they still owned the
   President—Buchanan—and he killed it by a veto. Then came the
   rebellion and civil war, absorbing all minor questions, and
   nearly two years went by before the law which opened the
   public lands freely to all actual settlers was adopted. It
   became a law by the signature of President Lincoln on the 20th
   of May, 1862. The following are the essential provisions of
   the Act: "That any person who is the head of a family, or who
   has arrived at the age of twenty-one years, and is a citizen
   of the United States, or who shall have filed his declaration
   of intention to become such, as required by the naturalization
   laws of the United States, and who has never borne arms
   against the United States Government or given aid and comfort
   to its enemies, shall, from and after the first January,
   eighteen hundred and sixty-three, be entitled to enter one
   quarter-section or a less quantity of unappropriated public
   lands, upon which said person may have filed a pre-emption
   claim, or which may, at the time the application is made, be
   subject to pre-emption at one dollar and twenty-five cents, or
   less, per acre; or eighty acres or less of such unappropriated
   lands, at two dollars and fifty cents per acre, to be located
   in a body, in conformity to the legal subdivisions of the
   public lands, and after the same shall have been surveyed:
   Provided, That any person owning or residing on land may,
   under the provisions of this act, enter other land lying
   contiguous to his or her said land, which shall not, with the
   land so already owned and occupied, exceed in the aggregate
   one hundred and sixty acres. … That the person applying for
   the benefit of this act shall, upon application to the
   register of the land office in which he or she is about to
   make such entry, make affidavit before the said register or
   receiver that he or she is the head of a family, or is
   twenty-one or more years of age, or shall have performed
   service in the Army or Navy of the United States, and that he
   has never borne arms against the Government of the United
   States or given aid and comfort to its enemies, and that such
   application is made for his or her exclusive use and benefit,
   and that said entry is made for the purpose of actual
   settlement and cultivation, and not, either directly or
   indirectly, for the use or benefit of any other person or
   persons whomsoever; and upon filing the said affidavit with
   the said register or receiver, and on payment of ten dollars,
   he or she shall thereupon be permitted to enter the quantity
   of land specified: Provided, however, That no certificate
   shall be given or patent issued therefor until the expiration
   of five years from the date of such entry; and if, at the
   expiration of such time, or at any time within two years
   thereafter, the person making such entry—or if he be dead,
   his widow; or in case of her death, his heirs or devisee; or
   in case of a widow making such entry, her heirs or devisee, in
   case of her death—shall prove by two credible witnesses that
   he, or she, or they have resided upon or cultivated the same
   for the term of five years immediately succeeding the time of
   filing the affidavit aforesaid, and shall make affidavit that
   no part of said land has been alienated, and that he has borne
   true allegiance to the Government of the United States; then,
   in such case, he, she, or they, if at that time a citizen of
   the United States, shall be entitled to a patent, as in other
   cases provided for by law:
{3464}
   And provided, further, That in case of the death of both
   father and mother, leaving an infant child or children under
   twenty-one years of age, the right and fee shall inure to the
   benefit of said infant child or children; and the executor,
   administrator, or guardian may, at any time within two years
   after the death of the surviving parent, and in accordance
   with the laws of the State in which such children for the time
   being have their domicil, sell said land for the benefit of
   said infants, but for no other purpose; and the purchaser
   shall acquire the absolute title by the purchase, and be
   entitled to a patent from the United States, on payment of the
   office fees and sum of money herein specified. … That if, at
   any time after the filing of the affidavit, … and before the
   expiration of the five years aforesaid, it shall be proven,
   after due notice to the settler, to the satisfaction of the
   register of the land office, that the person having filed such
   affidavit shall have actually changed his or her residence, or
   abandoned the said land for more than six months at any time,
   then and in that event the land so entered shall revert to the
   Government.' … This original homestead act has been amended
   several times. … The principal amendments were in the nature
   of extension of its privileges, and the limit of 80 acres of
   land of the double minimum class, $2.50 per acre, within
   certain road limits, has since been done away with by acts of
   March 3, 1879, July 1, 1879, and June 15, 1880; there now
   being but one class of agricultural lands, so for as regards
   the minimum quantity in homestead entries. The act of June 8,
   1872, was known as the soldiers' and sailors' homestead act.
   It gave honorably discharged soldiers and sailors from the
   Army and Navy of the United States lands under the homestead
   act in any locality, and deducted from the five years'
   residence which was required to make title their term of
   service in the Army and Navy during the war of the Rebellion.
   One year's residence and cultivation, however, were necessary.
   … The soldiers' additional homestead provision was to give
   those soldiers who had had the benefit of the homestead act,
   to the extent of a quantity under 160 acres, an additional
   amount, so as to make their allowance 160 acres."

      T. Donaldson,
      The Public Domain,
      chapter 27.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (May).
   General Hunter's Emancipation Order,
   rescinded by President Lincoln.

   Major General David Hunter, having lately succeeded to the
   command at Hilton Head, South Carolina, issued, on the 9th of
   May, 1862, a General Order (No. 11), declaring martial law in
   Georgia, Florida and South Carolina, and adding: "Slavery and
   martial law in a free country are altogether incompatible; the
   persons in these States … heretofore held as slaves are
   therefore declared forever free." This order was rescinded by
   President Lincoln in a Proclamation, dated May 19, in which he
   used the following language: "Whether it be competent for me,
   as Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy, to declare the
   slaves of any State or States free; and whether at any time,
   or in any case, it shall have become a necessity indispensable
   to the maintenance of the Government, to exercise such
   supposed power, are questions which, under my responsibility,
   I reserve to myself, and which I cannot feel justified in
   leaving to the decision of commanders in the field."

      E. McPherson,
      Political History of the United States during
      the Great Rebellion,
      pages 250—251.

      ALSO IN:
      J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 6, ch. 5.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (May: South Carolina).
   Employment of the freed Negroes as armed soldiers.

   The negroes within the Union lines in South Carolina, at
   Hilton Head and elsewhere, were placed under the charge, at
   first, of agents appointed by the Treasury Department; but
   disagreements arose between these agents and the military
   authorities, and the former were recalled. "These several
   agents had been replaced by a superior officer of the staff,
   General Saxton, who was himself placed under the orders Of
   General Hunter with the rank of a military commander. By this
   action the government at Washington sustained Hunter in his
   conflict with the agents Of the Treasury Department—a
   conflict originating in very serious causes, for it affected
   the question of slavery in its most vital points. … Mr.
   Cameron [Secretary of the Treasury] had authorized General
   Sherman to organize the negroes into squads and companies. The
   latter had at first only been employed in manual labor, such
   as the construction of forts, roads and wharves; but Hunter,
   on taking Sherman's place, saw that he could give a much wider
   interpretation to the Secretary's instructions. He substituted
   muskets for the pick-axes used by the detachments of negro
   laborers organized by his predecessor; and, instead of making
   them dig the earth, he had them taught military exercises. Nor
   did he stop here; but wishing to increase the number of these
   new soldiers, he gathered all the adult negroes residing on
   the adjoining islands at Hilton Head on the 12th of May, in
   order to induce them to enter the military service. … The
   civil agents complained bitterly of the trouble this measure
   had created among the people entrusted to their charge, and
   thence sprung the quarrel which Mr. Lincoln cut short by
   deciding in favor of Hunter. The protection granted to
   fugitive slaves was the first logical consequence of the war,
   their enrolment in the Federal armies was the second. As
   untimely and impolitic as was the proclamation by which Hunter
   had taken upon himself to free the slaves outside of his
   jurisdiction, the creation Of the first negro regiment was an
   act skilfully conceived. It was essentially a military act; it
   raised and ennobled the freedman by entrusting him with arms;
   its legality was unquestionable from the moment that the
   President approved of it, for there was no law to prevent him
   from enlisting colored volunteers. In short, it showed to the
   Confederates that the Washington government was determined not
   to allow itself to be any longer paralyzed by the vain hope Of
   reconciliation. … But notwithstanding the success of this
   first experiment, considerable time elapsed before the Federal
   government concluded to follow Hunter in this direction."

      Comte de Paris,
      History of the Civil War in America,
      volume 2, book 7, chapter 3.

      ALSO IN:
      G. W. Williams,
      History of Negro troops in the War of the Rebellion,
      chapter 5.

{3465}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (May: Virginia).
   The Peninsular Campaign: The Battle of Williamsburg
   and the slow advance to the Chickahominy.

   On the evacuation Of the rebel works at Yorktown, "our columns
   followed on in pursuit, McClellan remaining in Yorktown, busy
   with questions of transportation. The enemy under Longstreet
   had awaited our approach at Williamsburg. Hooker first
   attacked, having been brought to a stand by a work known as
   Fort Magruder, and kept up a heavy pounding all the forenoon
   [May 5). Kearny came to his rescue when Hooker's men were all
   but spent. Hancock moved around the enemy's left, seized some
   abandoned redoubts, and made a brilliant diversion. But there
   was no cooperation in our attack; no one on the field was in
   supreme command, and the day was fruitlessly spent in partial
   blows. The enemy retreated at night. Our loss was 2,200;
   theirs in all probability less."

      T. A. Dodge,
      Bird's-eye View of our Civil War,
      chapter 11.

   "General Johnston says [' Narrative,' p. 124]:
   'We fought for no other purpose than to hold the ground long
   enough to enable our baggage-trains to get out of the way of
   the troops. This object was accomplished without difficulty.
   There was no time during the day when the slightest
   uncertainty appeared.' He also says that Longstreet's and
   Hill's divisions slept on the field; that what deserves to be
   called fighting ceased two hours before dark, yet the
   Confederates held the field until the next morning, when they
   resumed their march. … There may be a little rose-color about
   these statements, but the substantial facts seem to be
   accurately stated. … General McClellan made no pursuit after
   Williamsburg, for reasons which he who will may find stated in
   his Report; and we may pass on with the single additional
   remark that the battle of Williamsburg was unnecessary, for
   the position might have been turned by a movement by our
   right. This was actually accomplished by Hancock, after Hooker
   had met with all his heavy loss; and it might as well have
   been done before as after. … The three weeks which followed
   the battle of Williamsburg were so devoid of incident that it
   seems to be sufficient to say that the Confederates moved up
   the Peninsula in two columns. The right column, composed of
   the divisions of Smith and Magruder, followed the road by New
   Kent Court House, and in three marches reached the Baltimore
   Cross Roads, 19 miles from Barhamsville. The left column,
   composed of the divisions of Longstreet and D. H. Hill,
   reached in the same number of marches the Long Bridges. The
   army remained five days in this position, facing to the east.
   … The iron-clad Virginia [better known as the Merrimac] was
   destroyed on, or just before, the 14th of May. This event
   opened the James River to our navy; and, to be ready to meet
   an advance up that river as well as from the direction of West
   Point, the Confederate forces were ordered to cross the
   Chickahominy on the 15th May. On the 17th their army encamped
   about three miles from Richmond, in front of the line of
   redoubts constructed in 1861. … During this period the weather
   was generally fine, cool and breezy, but gradually tending
   towards heat. … McClellan sent out cavalry reconnoissances
   from Williamsburg on the 5th and 7th May. … The advance of the
   main body began on the 8th; and on the 10th headquarters were
   at Roper's Church, 19 miles from Williamsburg, with all the
   troops which had arrived by land, except Hooker's, in the
   vicinity of that place. … By the 15th, headquarters, and the
   divisions of Franklin, Porter, Sykes, and Smith, reached
   Cumberland on the Pamunkey. … On the 19th of May, headquarters
   and the corps of Porter and Franklin moved to Tunstall's
   Station on the railroad, five miles from White House. On the
   20th, Casey's division forded the Chickahominy, where Bottom's
   Bridge had been, and occupied the opposite heights. Bottom's
   Bridge was immediately rebuilt. … On the 22d, headquarters
   moved to Cold Harbor. On the 24th, we carried the village of
   Mechanicsville, but the enemy destroyed the bridge on which
   the Mechanicsville Turnpike crossed the river. On the same day
   our left advance secured a position at Seven Pines, the point
   of junction of the Nine-Mile Road with the Williamsburg road,
   which last road crosses the Chickahominy at Bottom's Bridge. …
   It is difficult to account for, or justify, the slowness of
   McClellan's march. The distance from Williamsburg to the
   middle of a line drawn from Bottom's Bridge to Cold Harbor,
   measuring by the road, is about 40 miles. That from West Point
   to the same point, measuring in the same way, is considerably
   less. One might almost say that, in the three weeks which
   McClellan took to accomplish this distance, he might have
   marched his army all the way in order of battle, bridging
   streams, felling trees, making roads, and supplying his army
   as he advanced. 'I had hoped,' he says, 'by rapid movements to
   drive before me, or capture, the enemy on the Peninsula, open
   the James River, and press on to Richmond, before he should be
   materially re-enforced.' What was there to hinder his making
   the attempt? Instead of that he followed him at the average
   rate of rather less than two miles a day."

      F. W. Palfrey,
      After the fall of Yorktown
      (Massachusetts Military Historical Society Papers,
      volume 1, pages 95-114).

      ALSO IN:
      J. E. Johnston,
      Narrative of Military Operations,
      chapter 5.

      Report of Joint Commission on the Conduct of the War,
      38th Congress 2d session, volume 1.

      Official Records,
      series 1, volume 11, part 1.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (May: Virginia).
   Evacuation of Norfolk by the Rebels.
   Destruction of the Merrimac.

   "The movement of our grand army up the Peninsula, in
   connection with Burnside's successes and captures in North
   Carolina, had rendered the possession of Norfolk by the Rebels
   no longer tenable. … General Wool, commanding at Fortress
   Monroe, having organized an expedition designed to reduce that
   important city, led it thither on the 10th; finding the bridge
   over Tanner's Creek on fire, but no enemy to dispute
   possession of Norfolk, which was quietly surrendered by its
   Mayor. The Navy Yard and Portsmouth were in like manner
   repossessed; the Rebels, ere they left, destroying every thing
   that would burn, partially blowing up the Dry Dock, and
   completely destroying their famous iron-clad known to us as
   the Merrimac. They left about 200 cannon. … Two unfinished
   iron-clads were among the vessels fired by the Rebels ere they
   left."

      H. Greeley,
      The American Conflict,
      volume 2, page 127.

{3466}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (May: Virginia).
   The Peninsular Campaign: Fair Oaks, or Seven Pines.

   "On the 25th of May General McClellan issued a general order,
   which was read throughout the camps, directing the troops, as
   they advanced beyond the Chickahominy, to be prepared for
   battle at a moment's notice, and to be entirely unencumbered,
   with the exception of ambulances; to carry three days rations
   in their haversacks, leaving their knapsacks with their
   wagons, which were on the eastern side of the river, carefully
   parked. … The divisions from the corps of Generals Heintzelman
   and Keyes were among the first to cross the Chickahominy. They
   took a position on the right bank somewhat advanced therefrom.
   The right wing rested near New Bridge, the centre at Seven
   Pines, and the left flank on the White Oak Swamp. General
   Sumner's corps remained on the east side of the river. On the
   30th the Confederate General Johnston made arrangements for an
   attack upon the Federal army, for the purpose of cutting off,
   if possible, the corps of Generals Heintzelman and Keyes
   before they could be joined by General Sumner. He selected the
   divisions of Generals Longstreet, Huger, G. W. Smith, D. H.
   Hill, and Whiting. His plan was that Generals Hill and
   Longstreet should advance by the road to Williamsburg and make
   the attack in front, and that General Huger should move on the
   road to Charles City and attack in flank the troops assailed
   by Generals Hill and Longstreet. General Smith was ordered to
   the junction of the New Bridge Road and the Nine Mile Road,
   and to be in readiness to fall on the right flank of General
   Keyes and to cover the left of General Longstreet. The forces
   of Generals Hill, Longstreet, and Smith were in position early
   on the morning of Saturday, May 31, and waited until afternoon
   for General Huger to get into position. Prince de Joinville,
   who was a competent spectator, thus describes ['Campagne de l'
   Armèe du Potomac, Mars-Juillet, 1862'] the scenes which
   followed this attack: 'At the moment it was thus attacked the
   Federal army occupied a position having the form of a V. The
   base of the V is at Bottom's Bridge, where the railroad
   crosses the Chickahominy. The left arm stretches toward
   Richmond, with this railroad and the road from that city to
   Williamsburg. There stood the left wing, composed of four
   divisions echeloned, one behind the other, between Fair Oaks
   and Savage stations, and encamped in the woods on both sides
   of the road. The other arm of the V, the right, follows the
   left bank of the river; that is the right wing. There are
   these five divisions and the reserve. Should one desire to
   communicate from one extremity to the other of those two
   wings, going by Bottom's Bridge, the way is very long, not
   less than 12 or 15 miles. In an air line the distance, on the
   contrary, is very trifling, but between the two arms of the V
   flows the Chickahominy. It was to connect both arms, in the
   space between them, that the construction of 3 or 4 bridges
   had been undertaken, only one of which was serviceable on the
   31st of May. It had been built by General Sumner, nearly half
   way between Bottom's Bridge and the most advanced point of the
   Federal lines. It saved the army that day from a disaster.'
   The other bridges were not ready. They were structures of
   logs, and time was required to build them. The approaches were
   always bad, and the tedious labor of corduroying long
   distances was necessary. 'It was against the left wing of the
   army that every effort of the enemy was directed. That wing
   had its outposts at Fair Oaks station, on the York river
   railroad, and at a place called Seven Pines, on the
   Williamsburg road. There the Federals had thrown up a redoubt
   in a clearing, where a few houses were to be seen, and
   constructed abatis, to increase the field for sharpshooting of
   the troops posted there. The rest of the country was
   completely covered with woods. The previous day there had been
   a frightful storm, with torrents of rain, and the roads were
   frightful. All at once, about one o'clock in the afternoon,
   the weather being dark and gloomy, a very spirited fusilade is
   heard. The pickets and sentries are violently driven in; the
   woods which surround Fair Oaks and Seven Pines are filled with
   clouds of the enemy's sharpshooters. The troops rush to arms
   and fight in desperation; but their adversaries' forces
   constantly increase, and their losses do not stop them. The
   redoubt of the Seven Pines is surrounded, and its defenders
   die bravely. … Meanwhile Heintzelman rushes to the rescue with
   his two divisions. As at Williamsburg, Kearney arrives in good
   time to reëstablish the fight. Berry's brigade, of this
   division, composed of Michigan regiments and an Irish
   battalion, advances firm as a wall into the midst of the
   disordered mass which wanders over the battle field, and does
   more by its example than the most powerful reënforcements.
   About a mile of ground has been lost, 15 pieces of cannon, the
   camp of the division of the advance guard, that of General
   Casey; but now we hold our own. A sort of line of battle is
   formed across the woods, perpendicularly to the road and the
   railroad, and there the repeated assaults of the enemy's
   masses are resisted. The left cannot be turned, where is the
   White Oak Swamp, an impassable morass; but the right may be
   surrounded. At this very moment, in fact, a strong column of
   Confederates has been directed against that side. If it
   succeeds in interposing between Bottom's Bridge and the
   Federal troops, which hold beyond Savage's Station, the entire
   left wing is lost. It will have no retreat, and is doomed to
   yield to numbers; but precisely at this moment—that is to say,
   at 6 o'clock in the evening—new actors appear on the scene.
   General Sumner, who has succeeded in passing the Chickahominy,
   with Sedgwick's division, over the bridge constructed by his
   troops, and who, like a brave soldier, has marched straight
   through the woods to the sound of the cannon, arrived suddenly
   on the left flank of the column with which the enemy is
   endeavoring to cut off Heintzelman and Keyes. He plants in the
   clearing a battery which he has succeeded in bringing with
   him. … In vain Johnston sends against this battery his best
   troops, those of South Carolina—the Hampton Legion among
   others. In vain he rushes on it himself; nothing can shake the
   Federals, who, at nightfall, valiantly led by General Sumner
   in person, throw themselves upon the enemy at the point of the
   bayonet, and drive him furiously, with frightful slaughter and
   fear, back as far as Fair Oaks Station. Night put an end to
   the combat. On both sides nothing was known of the result of
   the battle but what each one had seen with his own eyes. …
   Evidently Johnston had flattered himself, in throwing all his
   forces on the four divisions of the left wing, that he could
   annihilate them before any aid could come to them from the
   main body of the army on the left bank of the Chickahominy.
   For the moment he had recoiled before the energetic resistance
   of those four divisions, and also before the furious and
   unforeseen attack of Sumner's troops.
{3467}
   No doubt he had counted on the terrible storm of the previous
   day to have swelled the Chickahominy so as to render the
   establishment of a bridge impossible, or to sweep away in its
   overflowing waters those already established; but the
   capricious river baffled his plans, as it did some hours later
   those of his adversaries. The effect of the deluge was not
   immediate; the rise in the water delayed its appearance 24
   hours. Was this unhoped-for delay turned to account with all
   desirable activity on the part of the Federals? That is a
   question which will remain always in dispute. … It was not
   until 7 o'clock in the evening that the idea of securing all
   the bridges without delay, and causing the whole army to cross
   at daybreak to the right bank of the Chickahominy, was
   entertained. It was now too late. Four hours had been lost,
   and the opportunity—that moment so fleeting, in war as in
   other circumstances—had gone. The rise, on which Johnston had
   vainly counted, and which had not hindered Sumner from
   crossing, came on during the night. The river rose suddenly
   from two feet, and continued to swell with rapidity, carrying
   away the new bridges, tearing up and sweeping off the trees
   which formed the planking of Sumner's bridges, and covering
   the entire valley with its overflowing waters. Nothing could
   cross. At the earliest dawn of day the combat was resumed with
   great fury on the left bank. The enemy came on in a body, but
   without order or method, and rushed upon the Federals, who,
   knowing that they were inferior in numbers and without hope of
   being supported, did not attempt to do more than resist and
   hold their ground. They fought with fierce determination on
   both sides, without any noise, without any cries, and whenever
   they were too hardly pressed they made a charge with the
   bayonet. … Toward midday the fire gradually diminished, then
   ceased. The enemy retreated; but the Federals were not in a
   position to pursue them. No one then knew what a loss the
   Southerners had just suffered in the person of their
   commander, General Johnston, who was severely wounded. It was
   to his absence that was owing, in a great measure, the
   unskilful attacks against the Federal army in the morning. …
   Who can say what would have been the result if at this moment
   the 35,000 fresh troops left on the other side of the
   Chickahominy had appeared on the flank of this disordered mass
   after having successfully crossed the bridges?'"

      W. J. Tenney,
      Military and Naval History of the Rebellion,
      chapter 19 (quoting and translating from
      Prince de Joinville's "Campagne de l'Armée du Potomac").

   "After this battle of Seven Pines—or Fair Oaks, as the
   Northern people prefer to call it—General McClellan made no
   step forward, but employed his troops industriously in
   intrenching themselves."

      J. E. Johnston,
      Narrative of Military Operations,
      page 142.

      ALSO IN:
      G. W. Smith,
      Two days of Battle at Seven Pines
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 2, pages 220-263).

      Official Records,
      series 1, volume 11, part 1.

      W. Allan,
      The Army of Northern Virginia in 1862,
      chapter 7-8.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (May-June: Virginia).
   Stonewall Jackson's second campaign in the Shenandoah Valley.
   Winchester.
   Cross Keys.
   Port Republic.

   "At the time the Army of the Potomac was toiling painfully up
   the Peninsula towards Richmond, the remaining forces in
   Northern Virginia presented the extraordinary spectacle of
   three distinct armies, planted on three separate lines of
   operations, under three independent commanders. The highland
   region of West Virginia had been formed into the 'Mountain
   Department' under command of General Fremont; the Valley of
   the Shenandoah constituted the 'Department of the Shenandoah'
   under General Banks; and the region covered by the direct
   lines of approach to Washington had been erected into the
   'Department of the Rappahannock,' and assigned to General
   McDowell. … The Administration, growing more easy touching the
   safety of the capital, determined, in response to General
   McClellan's oft-repeated appeals for re-enforcements, to send
   forward McDowell's corps,—not, indeed, as he desired, to
   re-enforce him by water, but to advance overland to attack
   Richmond in co-operation with the Army of the Potomac. … After
   numerous delays, the time of advance of this column was at
   length fixed for the 26th of May, a date closely coincident
   with the arrival of the Army of the Potomac on the
   Chickahominy. The head of McDowell's column had already been
   pushed eight miles south of Fredericksburg; and McClellan, to
   clear all opposition from his path, sent forward Porter's
   corps to Hanover Junction, where he had a sharp encounter with
   a force of the enemy under General Branch, whom he repulsed
   with a loss of 200 killed and 700 prisoners, and established
   the right of the Army of the Potomac within fifteen miles, or
   one march, of McDowell's van. McDowell was eager to advance,
   and McClellan was equally anxious for his arrival, when there
   happened an event which frustrated this plan and all the hopes
   that had been based thereon. This event was the irruption of
   Stonewall Jackson in the Shenandoah Valley. The keen-eyed
   soldier at the head of the main Confederate army, discerning
   the intended junction between McDowell and McClellan, quickly
   seized his opportunity, and intrusted the execution of a bold
   'coup' to that vigorous lieutenant who had already made the
   Valley ring with his exploits." Jackson, who had been resting
   for a time in a position between the south fork of the
   Shenandoah and Swift Run Gap, was joined, on the 30th of
   April, by Ewell's division from Gordonsville, and by other
   re-enforcements, which "raised his force to about 15,000 men.
   Banks' force, reduced by the detachment of Shields' division,
   sent to General McDowell, to about 5,000 men, was posted at
   Harrisonburg. Fremont was at Franklin, across the mountains;
   but one of his brigades, under Milroy, had burst beyond the
   limits of the Mountain Department, and seemed to be moving to
   make a junction with Banks, with the design, as Jackson
   thought, of advancing on Staunton. Jackson determined to
   attack these forces in detail. Accordingly, he posted Ewell so
   as to hold Banks in check, whilst he himself moved to
   Staunton. From here he threw forward five brigades, under
   General Edward Johnson (May 7), to attack Milroy. The latter
   retreated to his mountain fastness, and took position at a
   point named McDowell, where, re-enforced by the brigade of
   Schenck, he engaged Johnson, but was forced to retire on
   Fremont's main body at Franklin. Having thus thrown off Milroy
   eccentrically from communication with Banks, Jackson returned
   (May 14) to destroy the force under that officer." Banks
   retreated down the Valley, followed by Jackson, who diverged a
   little to capture a garrison of 700 men at Front Royal.
{3468}
   On the 24th, Banks made a stand on the heights of Winchester
   and gave fight, "till, being assailed on both flanks, he
   retired hastily to the north bank of the Potomac (May 25),
   making a march of 53 miles in 48 hours. Jackson continued the
   pursuit as far as Halltown, within two miles of Harper's
   Ferry, where he remained till the 30th, when, finding heavy
   forces converging on his rear, he began a retrograde movement
   up the Valley. The tidings of Jackson's apparition at
   Winchester on the 24th, and his subsequent advance to Harper's
   Ferry, fell like a thunderbolt on the war-council at
   Washington. The order for McDowell's advance from
   Fredericksburg, to unite with McClellan, was instantly
   countermanded; and he was directed to put 20,000 men in motion
   at once for the Shenandoah Valley, by the line of the Manassas
   Gap Railroad. … In vain he pointed out that it was impossible
   for him either to succor Banks or co-operate with Fremont; …
   that it would take him a week or ten days to reach the Valley,
   and that by this time the occasion for his services would have
   passed by. In vain General McClellan urged the real motive of
   the raid—to prevent re-enforcements from reaching him."
   McDowell moved from the east and Fremont from the west,
   converging on Strasburg. "The two columns moved rapidly; they
   had almost effected a junction on the 31st; but that very day
   Jackson, falling back from Harper's Ferry, slipped between the
   two, and made good his retreat up the Valley. … The pursuers
   did their best: they pushed on, Fremont following in the path
   of Jackson up the Valley of the Shenandoah; while McDowell
   sent forward Shields' division by the lateral Luray Valley,
   with a view to head him off when he should attempt to break
   through the gaps of the Blue Ridge." On the 8th of June
   Ewell's division of Jackson's army "repulsed Fremont, while
   Jackson held Shields in check. Early next morning, drawing in
   Ewell and concentrating his forces, Jackson threw himself
   across the river, burned the bridge to prevent Fremont from
   following; fell upon Shields' advance, consisting of two
   brigades under General Tyler, and repulsed him, capturing his
   artillery. The former of these affairs figures in history as
   the battle of Cross Keys, and the latter as the battle of Port
   Republic. In this exciting month's campaign, Jackson made
   great captures of stores and prisoners; but this was not its
   chief result. Without gaining a single tactical victory he had
   yet achieved a great strategic victory; for by skilfully
   manœuvring 15,000 men he succeeded in neutralizing a force of
   60,000. It is perhaps not too much to say that he saved
   Richmond."

      W. Swinton,
      Campaigns of the Army of the Potomac,
      pages 122-128.

      ALSO IN:
      J. D. Imboden,
      Stonewall Jackson in the Shenandoah
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 2, page 282-301).

      J. E. Cooke,
      Stonewall Jackson: a Military Biography,
      part 2, chapters 8-17.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (May-July: On the Mississippi).
   The first undertakings against Vicksburg.

   "New Orleans once secured and handed over to General Butler,
   Farragut pushed up the Mississippi, and in the course of the
   next two months the Union flag was hoisted at Baton Rouge,
   Natchez, and every town of importance as high as Vicksburg.
   This city, strong by its natural position on high bluffs
   sloping gently landward, and already partly converted into a
   fortress by intrenchments heavily armed, was now (since the
   surrender of Memphis on the 6th of June) the only point of
   importance held by the Confederates on the banks of the great
   river. It at once, therefore, assumed an importance well
   warranted by its later history. Summoned on the 18th of May to
   evacuate the place, General M. L. Smith, who held it, gave a
   decided refusal; and Farragut found it necessary to await once
   more the arrival of Porter's flotilla, which was not brought
   up and reported ready until the 27th of June. On the 28th a
   general attack took place, Farragut succeeding in taking two
   of his three frigates and six gun-boats above the batteries,
   but producing no effect on the defences. 'The enemy leave
   their guns for the moment,' says his hasty report, 'but return
   to them as soon as we have passed, and rake us.' About 50 men
   were killed and wounded on board, and the Brooklyn frigate,
   with two gun-boats, forced to retreat below the place. The
   bombardment continued at intervals, pending an application to
   General Halleck at Corinth for a corps of his army to aid the
   fleet, and the result of an experiment (the first of three)
   made to cut a ship canal through the isthmus opposite
   Vicksburg, and leave the Federal ships an independent passage.
   On the 15th of July their possession of the river was suddenly
   challenged by a large ram, the Arkansas, which the
   Confederates had been fitting on the Yazoo, a considerable
   stream entering the Mississippi just above Vicksburg. … Her
   plating, however, proved to be weak, and her machinery very
   defective." The career of the Arkansas was brief and harmless.
   In August she was knocked to pieces by the shells of the
   Essex, "whose commander had taken charge of the Lower
   Mississippi on the departure of Farragut. The latter officer,
   in compliance with orders from Mr. Welles, had abandoned his
   contest with the Vicksburg works on the 20th of July, and made
   down stream for New Orleans, whence he proceeded with his
   squadron to carry on operations along the coast of Texas,
   where the chief posts were (for the time) recovered to the
   Union by his detachments in the course of a few weeks. 'All we
   want,' he wrote on the 15th of October, 'is a few soldiers to
   hold the places, and we will soon have the whole coast. It is
   a more effectual blockade to have the vessels inside instead
   of outside.'"

      C. C. Chesney,
      Essays in Military Biography,
      pages 169-171.

      ALSO IN:
      L. Farragut,
      Life of David G. Farragut,
      chapter. 20.

      D. D. Porter,
      Naval History of the Civil War,
      chapter 21.

      R. B. Irwin,
      History of the 19th Army Corps.
      chapters 2-3.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (May-December: Louisiana).
   New Orleans under General Butler.

   The army which accompanied Farragut's naval expedition against
   New Orleans, to assist its operations and to occupy the city
   and the lower Mississippi region when taken, was placed under
   the command of General Benjamin F. Butler. It consisted
   nominally of 18,000 men, but is said to have actually mustered
   less than 14,000. It was composed of regiments which had been
   raised by Butler in New England especially for the enterprise,
   his preparations having commenced as early as September, 1861.
   These troops were partly gathered at Ship Island, in the Gulf,
   some time before Farragut made ready his fleet; the remainder
   were at the rendezvous in good time, and the whole were in
   waiting, on board transports, at the passes, when Farragut
   carried his fleet past Forts Jackson and St. Philip.
{3469}
   "General Butler … now proceeded to execute his part of the
   duty. He brought his forces into the rear of St. Philip,
   Porter keeping up a bombardment. On the 27th of April the
   garrison had become so demoralized as to refuse to fight any
   longer. The forts were therefore surrendered on the next day.
   … On the 1st of May New Orleans 'was formally occupied by
   United States troops. The loss on the national side in
   achieving this great victory was 40 killed and 177 wounded. …
   General Butler now entered on the difficult task of governing
   New Orleans. Its population, though greatly diminished to
   strengthen the Confederate armies in the Border States—a cause
   of bitter complaint to the inhabitants—still numbered about
   140,000. Almost one half of it was of foreign birth. Perhaps
   no city in the world had in its lower classes a more dangerous
   and desperate population. There was a wide-spread hope that a
   French force would soon come to their help. By firmness,
   strict yet considerate, he controlled the municipal
   authorities; by severity he put down the mob. He was a terror
   to tricky tradesmen, a benefactor to the starving poor. He
   cleaned the streets, enforced sanitary regulations, and kept
   out yellow fever. He put an effectual stop to the operations
   of Confederate agents, who were illicitly obtaining supplies
   for their cause. … He arrested Mumford, the person who had
   hauled down the national flag at the Mint [where it had been
   raised by one of Farragut's officers before the arrival of the
   troops], brought him before a military commission, convicted
   and executed him." This execution of Mumford (by hanging) drew
   from the Confederate President, Davis, a proclamation
   denouncing Butler as "an outlaw and common enemy of mankind";
   directing that, if captured, he should be immediately hung;
   declaring the commissioned officers of his command "not
   entitled to be considered as soldiers engaged in honorable
   warfare, but as robbers and criminals"; and ordering that "no
   commissioned officer of the United States taken captive shall
   be released on parole before exchange until the said Butler
   shall have met with due punishment for his crimes." "Some
   women of New Orleans, relying on the immunity of their sex,
   gratified their animosity by insulting national officers in
   public places. One of them ventured so far as to spit in the
   face of an officer who was quietly walking in the street.
   Hereupon was issued 'General Order No. 28' [known as 'the
   Woman Order,' which gave notice that] … 'hereafter, when any
   female shall, by word, gesture, or movement, insult or show
   contempt for any officer or soldier of the United States, she
   shall be regarded and held liable to be treated as a woman of
   the town plying her vocation.' … The feeling of personal
   hatred to Butler grew daily more and more intense. He was
   accused of improper tampering with the banks, speculating in
   sequestrated property, and, through the agency of his brother,
   carrying on illegal but profitable transactions in sugar and
   cotton. In South Carolina a reward of $10,000 had been offered
   for his assassination. Throughout the Confederacy he received
   an ignominious surname, and was known as 'Butler the Beast.'
   The government felt constrained to send a commission to New
   Orleans to investigate his transactions. Its conclusion was
   that he had evidently acted 'under a misapprehension, to be
   referred to the patriotic zeal which governs him.'" In
   December General Butler was recalled and General Banks was
   sent to take his place.

      J. W. Draper,
      History of the American Civil War,
      chapter 52 (volume 2).

      ALSO IN:
      B. J. Lossing,
      Field Book of the Civil War,
      volume 2, chapter 13.

      J. Parton,
      General Butler in New Orleans,
      chapters 11-32.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (June: On the Mississippi).
   The capture of Memphis.
   The naval fight before the city.

   After the evacuation of Corinth by Beauregard, "Fort Pillow,
   40 miles above Memphis, was no longer of any account, for the
   Union army could take it from the rear. The Confederates,
   therefore, spiked the guns, burned their barracks and what
   supplies they could not take away; and the Confederate
   gunboats went down the river to Memphis, where several of the
   boats had been built. Commodore Montgomery commanded the
   fleet. He had eight vessels. … Fort Pillow evacuated! It was
   astounding news to the people of Memphis. They learned it at
   noon, June 5th. The merchants closed their stores. Some of
   them began to pack their goods. Some of the citizens jumped on
   board the cars and fled from the city. The Confederate fleet
   made its appearance. 'I shall retreat no farther,' said
   Commodore Montgomery; 'I shall fight a battle in front of the
   city, and to-morrow morning you will see Lincoln's gunboats
   sent to the bottom.' The dawn is breaking when I step from the
   Benton, the flag-ship of Commodore Davis [commanding the Union
   river fleet], to the tugboat Jessie Benton. … The Union fleet
   is at anchor three miles above the city. 'Drop down below the
   city and see if you can discover the Confederate fleet,' is
   the order to the captain of the Jessie Benton. We sweep around
   the majestic bend of the river and behold the city. The first
   rays of the sun are gilding the spires of the churches. A
   crowd of people is upon the levee—men, women, and children—who
   have come out to see the Union fleet sent to the bottom. …
   Suddenly a vessel with a black cloud of smoke rolling from the
   chimneys shoots into the stream. It is the Little Rebel,
   Commodore Montgomery's flag-ship. One by one the other vessels
   follow, forming in two lines of battle. In the front line,
   nearest the city, is the Beauregard, next the Little Rebel,
   then the Price and Sumter. In the second line, behind the
   Beauregard, is the Lovell, then the Thompson, Bragg, and Van
   Dorn. … There are five gunboats in the Union fleet. The Benton
   is nearest the Tennessee shore, then the Carondelet,
   Louisville, St. Louis, and Cairo. There are also two rams—the
   Queen City and Monarch. The rams are river steamers, with
   thick oak sides; they carry no cannon, but on each boat are
   100 riflemen. 'Round to; head down stream; keep in line with
   the flag-ship,' was the order which we on board the Jessie
   Benton carried to each boat of the line." In the fight which
   followed, and which is graphically described by the
   eye-witness here quoted, the Price and the Beauregard were run
   down by the rams; the Little Rebel, the Lovell, the Thompson
   and the Bragg were destroyed by shot and shell; the Sumter
   driven ashore, and the Van Dorn alone escaped. On the Union
   side, only the ram Queen City was disabled.
{3470}
   "In an hour's time the Confederate fleet was annihilated. … It
   is not known how many men were lost on the Confederate side,
   but probably from 80 to 100. Colonel Ellet was the only one
   injured on board the Union fleet. … The victory opens the
   Upper Mississippi from Cairo to Vicksburg."

      C. C. Coffin,
      Drumbeat of the Nation,
      chapter 10.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (June: Virginia).
   The Peninsular Campaign: McClellan fortifying and Lee
   preparing for a bold attack.

   "When McClellan crossed the Chickahominy it was thought he
   would advance immediately upon Richmond. This expectation was
   disappointed, however, for instead of advancing he began to
   fortify his position. The right wing rested on the
   Chickahominy a little below New Bridge, and the left extended
   to the White Oak Swamp, embracing a front of about four miles,
   nearly parallel with that of the Confederates. The opposing
   lines were separated by an interval but little exceeding a
   mile, but each was obscured from the other's view by the
   intervening forest. The picket-lines were often within close
   musket-range of each other. … The strength of the Confederate
   force was always greatly overestimated by McClellan, and his
   frequent and urgent calls for reinforcements exposed his want
   of confidence in his own strength. General Lee [who took
   command of the Confederate army June 1, General Johnston being
   disabled], knowing this uneasy, insecure feeling of his
   antagonist, and McDowell's force, which had always been a
   thorn in his side, being about this time withdrawn from
   Fredericksburg for the support of Banks and Shields in the
   Valley, prepared … to assume the offensive. He conceived the
   bold plan of crossing the Chickahominy, and, attacking the
   Federal right wing, to force it back and seize McClellan's
   line of communication with his base of operations. This plan
   being successfully executed, the Federal general would be
   compelled to save his army as best he could by retreat.
   Preparatory to the execution of this plan General J. E. B.
   Stuart was ordered to make a reconnoissance in the rear of the
   Federal position. This officer, with a force of about 1,000
   cavalry, executed his instructions with great boldness and
   success. He made the entire circuit of the Federal army and
   gained much important information, … captured many prisoners
   and destroyed Federal stores to the value of $7,000,000. … His
   design being confirmed by Stuart's successful reconnoissance,
   Lee proceeded to organize a force requisite for the
   accomplishment of his proposed enterprise. The troops that
   could be conveniently spared from North Carolina, South
   Carolina, and Georgia were ordered to Richmond. … At the same
   time General Jackson was ordered to withdraw secretly from the
   Valley and proceed with such expedition as would enable him to
   reach Hanover Junction by the afternoon of the 25th of June.
   In order to mask his designs from the Federals, Lee directed
   Whiting's division and Lawton's brigade to proceed to
   Staunton, apparently with the view of reinforcing Jackson, but
   really under orders to return immediately and join that
   general on the 25th at Hanover Junction. This movement further
   strengthened McClellan in his opinion of Lee's vastly superior
   force, and completely blinded him in regard to the real
   intentions of that general. General Lee determined to attack
   the Federal right wing on the morning of the 26th of June."

      A. L. Long,
      Memoirs of Robert E. Lee,
      page 169.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (June-July: Virginia).
   The Peninsular Campaign: The Seven Days Battle and Retreat.
   Mechanicsville.
   Gaines' Mill.
   Savage Station.
   Glendale.'
   Malvern Hill.

   "Since the battle of Fair Oaks the Second Corps (Sumner) had
   remained on the right bank of the Chickahominy, where it had
   been followed in the month of June by the Sixth Corps
   (Franklin). So that only the Fifth Corps (Porter) remained on
   the left bank, recently reënforced by McCall's division. All
   the efforts of the enemy were made there, and there the great
   seven days' contest commenced. On the 26th of June, A. P.
   Hill, preceding Jackson by twenty-four hours, endeavored to
   force the passage of Beaver Dam Creek, defended by the
   Pennsylvanians under McCall. He was repulsed with considerable
   loss on the Mechanicsville road. But, during the night, Porter
   was compelled to fall back to a position more tenable against
   a force become much superior to his own, Jackson and
   Longstreet having united against his lines. On the 27th, then,
   the Fifth Corps, with about 25,000 men, was assailed by 70,000
   Confederates on Gaines' Mill Heights, and defended itself
   there obstinately, until our own cavalry came fatally to the
   enemy's aid. Unskilfully handled and roughly repulsed, it fell
   back in disorder on our lines, where it put everything into
   confusion, artillery and infantry. The Confederates, coming on
   at the charge, finished the overthrow, and the Fifth Corps
   would have been destroyed if the coming of the night had not
   enabled our decimated troops to cross to the right bank of the
   Chickahominy, destroying the bridges behind them. [This
   battle, called Gaines' Mill by the Federals, was named Cold
   Harbor, or Chickahominy, by the Rebels.] … As soon as Porter
   had crossed safely on the 28th, the general retreat commenced.
   Keyes crossed White Oak swamp first, and took position to
   protect the passage of the immense army trains and the great
   herds of cattle. Then, on the 29th, after having repulsed a
   cavalry attack, he continued his way towards the James, where
   he arrived on the 30th, at the same time that Porter reached
   Haxall's Landing. Much less favored, the three other corps
   suspended their march only to fight and ceased to fight only
   to march. But all this was done without any general system, in
   the absence of superior supervision, and of orders in
   accordance with circumstances. On the 29th the enemy crossed
   the Chickahominy to unite all his force on the right bank;
   Franklin advised Sumner, and the two, acting together, fell
   back on Savage Station, where they took up position, with the
   intention, aided by Heintzelman, of repelling the dangerous
   attack which menaced them. But Heintzelman, adhering to his
   general instructions, after destroying the material of the
   railroad, the provisions, munitions of war, arms and baggage
   that there was neither time nor means of carrying away,
   hastened to cross White Oak swamp, uncovering Sumner's left.
   The latter learned of the retreat of the Third Corps only from
   a furious attack by the enemy on the very side which he
   believed protected by Heintzelman. He did not the less sustain
   the shock with an unshakable solidity, and fought all the
   afternoon with four divisions without being broken at any
   point.
{3471}
   The enemy, worn out by the useless attacks, retired at
   nightfall. Then only did he receive any news from McClellan;
   under the form of an order to Sumner to fall back, along with
   Franklin, to the other side of White Oak swamp, abandoning our
   general hospitals at Savage Station, and the 2,500 sick and
   wounded in them. On the Morning of the 30th, Jackson presented
   himself, to cross the swamp after us. He found the bridge
   destroyed, and endeavored to force a passage at several
   points. He was everywhere repulsed and kept in check the whole
   day by the obstinate resistance of Franklin, while farther on,
   towards the James, Longstreet was held by Heintzelman and
   McCall, who prevented him from cutting our army in two at
   Glendale. This was not done without hard fighting. The
   Confederates, arriving by the New Market road at a right angle
   to the Quaker road, which was our line of march, struck, in
   the first place, the Pennsylvania reserves, broke their line,
   outflanking it on the right and on the left, captured a
   battery of artillery, and pushed resolutely on through that
   dangerous breach. They then struck Hooker's division, which
   threw them obliquely on Sumner's Corps. Soon afterward,
   Kearney occupied the vacant space, and, as on the evening
   before, the sun set with the rebels unsuccessful. [This day's
   battle is variously named after Glendale, New Market,
   Frazier's Farm, and Nelson's Farm.] But, the same evening,
   Franklin, left without orders, and seeing his position was
   becoming more and more dangerous, abandoned White Oak swamp
   and fell back towards the James. At that news, which was
   promptly sent to him from several directions, Heintzelman sent
   in vain to headquarters to ask for instructions. Left to his
   own devices, he concluded that the wisest course was to follow
   the retrograde movement, and retreated with his corps. Sumner
   still remained, and, seeing himself left alone and without
   support, he decided, in his turn, to do as the others had
   done. On the morning of the 31st, he arrived on the Malvern
   Heights, where the three corps, the Second, Third, and Sixth,
   found themselves united, not, as has been benevolently said,
   by the wise combinations of General McClellan, but by the
   fortunate inspiration of the commanders, who had received no
   orders to that effect. 'At daylight,' said General Sumner, in
   his testimony before the Congressional committee, 'I called on
   General McClellan, on the banks of the James. He told me that
   he had intended that the army should hold the position it had
   the night before, and that no order for retreat had been sent;
   but that, since the rest of the army had fallen back, he was
   glad that I had done the same.' It was found that the plateau
   of Malvern Hill was admirably formed for a defensive position.
   General Humphreys, of the corps of topographical engineers,
   was ordered to examine the position, and he traced a
   formidable line with the left resting at Haxall's Landing on
   the James, where it was protected by the gun-boats, while the
   right was thrown back on some fields covered with thick woods,
   and cut up by marshy streams. The summits and slopes of the
   plateau were bristling with cannon, sweeping the plain over
   the heads of our infantry deployed in front of them. In that
   position, the army awaited a last attack. The enemy played
   there his last card, and lost the game. … He tried his fortune
   and gave battle July 1. On every point his columns were thrown
   back in disorder, crushed in every attack by the double fire
   of artillery and infantry. Dash was not enough now. On this
   occasion, the enemy was compelled to acknowledge himself
   beaten and incapable of pursuing us any further. But our men
   were slow to believe in success. On receiving the order, a few
   hours later, after night had put an end to the contest, to
   retire to Harrison's Landing, they naturally concluded that we
   were not strong enough to hold out long against the enemy. …
   Worn out by fatigue and fighting, exhausted by privations and
   by vigils, discouraged, and suspecting that it was not fortune
   alone that had betrayed them, they dragged themselves along
   without order … during that last night march, which had all
   the character of a rout."

      R. de Trobriand,
      Four Years with the Army of the Potomac,
      chapter 13.

   "If McClellan deserves sharp criticism for not having sooner
   made up his mind, and still more for his failure to discover
   and use the absence of the Confederates in his front, where
   his advance in mass, according to General Magruder's
   officially expressed opinion, 'would have insured his success,
   and the occupation of the works about Richmond, and
   consequently the city,' his character as a commander never
   shone so brightly as in the hour of disaster and danger, when
   Porter's wing was driven in upon his centre. The ill-success
   of his campaign as a whole has caused his conduct at this
   crisis to be done scant justice to. But there is no military
   reputation in the world which would not be increased by the
   manner in which that retreat to the James was conducted from
   the moment it began."

      C. C. Chesney,
      Essays in Military Biog.,
      page 114.

      ALSO IN:
      W. Allan,
      The Army of Northern Virginia in 1862,
      chapters 12-17.

      A. S. Webb,
      Campaigns of the Civil War,
      volume 3: The Peninsula, chapter 9.

      F. J. Porter, W. B. Franklin, D. H. Hill, and others,
      The Seven Days' Fighting
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 2).

      G. B. McClellan,
      Complete Report,
      part 2.

      Official Records,
      series 1, volume 11, parts. 1-2.

      Report of Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War
      (Senate Reports, 37th Congress,
      3d session, volume 2, part 1).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
(June-October: Tennessee-Kentucky).
   Ineffective dispersion of Western armies.
   Failure to secure Chattanooga and Vicksburg.
   Bragg's invasion of Kentucky.
   The race for Louisville.
   Battle of Perryville.
   End of Buell's campaign.

   "We left the Federals in possession of Corinth and Memphis,
   the army of Beauregard disappearing in the depths of
   semi-tropical forests where the Tombigbee takes its source,
   and Montgomery's ships lying at the bottom of the Mississippi.

      See, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
      (APRIL-MAY: TENNESSEE-MISSISSIPPI)
      and (JUNE: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

   The part to be played by the Federal fleets was fully laid
   out; Farragut, by ascending the river, and Davis, by
   descending it, were to endeavor to join hands and destroy all
   the obstacles which still obstructed its course. What, in the
   mean time, was the large army encamped at Corinth going to do?
   It had allowed Beauregard to escape at the very moment when it
   felt sure of crushing him; but it could yet strike some
   decisive blows either to eastward or westward, the
   Confederates being nowhere sufficiently numerous to make any
   strong opposition.
{3472}
   Eastward, Mitchell had forced open the way to Chattanooga and
   approached the gap which opens south-east of that town, before
   which, at a subsequent period, so much blood was shed at the
   battles of Chickamauga and Missionary Ridge. He was master of
   the passes of the Tennessee, and the Federals, stationed at
   Corinth, could reach Chattanooga much more speedily than their
   adversary encamped at Tupelo. They might probably conquer by
   the same stroke the whole upper course of the river which
   waters this town. Westward, the Federals could sweep both
   sides of the Mississippi, cause all the Confederate works
   which defended them to fall, and perhaps prevent the enemy
   from erecting the formidable citadels of Vicksburg and Port
   Hudson, the capture of which, at a later period, cost so dear.
   … Everything … was in favor of prompt and vigorous action. But
   Halleck divided his army, and, notwithstanding the resources
   he had at his disposal, allowed his adversaries to forestall
   him everywhere. … The army of the Ohio left Corinth on the
   10th of June, and Buell was ordered to proceed with it in the
   direction of Chattanooga, where Mitchell was beginning to be
   sorely pressed; but this movement was slowly executed.
   Sherman, at the head of his own division and that of Hurlbut,
   proceeded toward Memphis, dropping detachments of troops as
   far as Holly Springs to cover his left flank. The rebuilding
   of the Mobile Railway, which had been completely destroyed by
   the enemy, was a considerable undertaking. Begun on the 9th of
   June, it was only finished on the 26th. The Confederates had
   profited by this delay. The new general-in-chief, Braxton
   Bragg [who had superseded Beauregard], had boldly divided his
   army and abandoned the position of Tupelo, which Halleck still
   believed him to occupy. He had determined to cover at once the
   two points we have already indicated as being of the greatest
   importance for the future of the war, Chattanooga and
   Vicksburg. He proceeded toward the first with all the old army
   of Johnston, consisting of the corps of Hardee and Polk, as
   rapidly as the difficulties of communication in that portion
   of the Southern States allowed. He had the merit and good
   fortune to reach Chattanooga before Buell. It was not too
   soon, for a few days previous, the 7th of June, the Federal
   General Negley, with his single brigade and some cannon, had
   nearly taken possession of this city by surprise. Bragg found
   it of great advantage to transfer the war to the vicinity of
   Chattanooga. Master of this position, indeed, he could menace
   either Tennessee or Kentucky, Nashville or Louisville and
   wrest from the Federals all the conquests they had achieved
   during the last few months by taking them in rear. He was also
   drawing near Virginia."

      Comte de Paris,
      History of the Civil War in America,
      volume 2, book 2, chapter 3.

   "Halleck soon leaves for Washington to assume supreme control
   of the Union forces from the War Department. Grant is left in
   command of the Army of the Tennessee, Buell of the Army of the
   Ohio, Pope of the Army of the Mississippi. Everyone is without
   definite instructions; there is no one head; and the Western
   armies are practically put upon the defensive. Rosecrans
   succeeds Pope, who is transferred to Virginia, and to Grant's
   lot now fall the armies of the Mississippi and Tennessee,
   42,000 effectives, with which to keep open his communications
   with Buell and guard the railroad from Memphis to Decatur.
   While Grant and Sherman devote their energies to the line of
   the Mississippi, Buell is ordered to regain East Tennessee,
   where the loyal population is in extreme suffering. Mitchell's
   [General O. M. Mitchell] capture of Huntsville [in Alabama,
   which he surprised, by a remarkable forced march, from
   Nashville, in April], and some hundred miles of the Memphis
   and Charleston Railroad, which he had held, together with all
   territory north of the Tennessee river, had been full of
   possibilities. Had he but received the authority, he might
   readily have anticipated Bragg in taking possession of
   Chattanooga, and have saved much subsequent blood and
   treasure. For this town is the key to that entire strategic
   field. … Buell supposed that Bragg would attempt to turn his
   right in order to obtain possession of Nashville. He therefore
   concentrated the bulk of his force at Murfreesboro. Thomas,
   then commanding a wing of the Army of the Ohio, whose military
   intuitions were as keen as his judgment was reliable, … was
   shrewd enough to recognize Bragg's crossing of the Tennessee
   river as a threat to invade Kentucky. Not so Buell, to his
   sorrow. By a sudden movement, Bragg steals a march around
   Buell's left, through the Sequatchie Valley [August 28], and
   marches straight toward Louisville, while Kirby Smith turns
   Cumberland Gap, defeats Nelson at Richmond, and makes for
   Cincinnati. … Thoroughly alarmed, as is also the country,
   Buell at once swings his left in pursuit of Bragg, while he
   endeavors to retain his grasp on Nashville with his right.
   Bragg has the shorter line and the start. But he is delayed a
   day or two [September 16-17] by the capture of Mumfordsville,
   and by scattering his forces instead of pushing home. This is
   a serious fault on Bragg's part. He fairly holds success in
   his hand, but forfeits it by this delay. After some rapid
   marching and manœuvring, Buell enters Louisville just ahead of
   his opponent. The authorities in Washington have lost all
   confidence in Buell. He is summarily relieved from command and
   Thomas appointed to succeed him. But this magnanimous soldier,
   though far from always agreeing with the methods of his chief,
   declines the proffered honor, and, at his earnest
   solicitation, Buell is reinstated. The Army of the Ohio
   marches out to meet Bragg, with Thomas second in command.
   Bragg expects to defend the line of the Kentucky and Duck
   rivers, but divides his forces, leaving Kirby Smith near
   Frankfort. Buell makes a demonstration upon Bragg's
   communications. After some cautious feeling, Buell comes upon
   Hardee with only 15,000 men, at Perryville, where, had he at
   once attacked, he could have punished Bragg severely for this
   division. But, owing to lack of water, one-half of Buell's
   army is distant from the field, and he in turn pays the
   penalty of lack of concentration. Polk joins Hardee, and the
   latter [October 8] falls heavily upon McCook, who holds
   Buell's left, and bears him back. But he cannot break the
   Union centre; and after a stubborn conflict Bragg retires,
   leaving to our forces the field. Our left has not been
   engaged. The loss is nearly 5,000 men on either side, a
   quarter of the numbers actually engaged. On being followed up,
   Bragg retreats through Cumberland Gap, and leaves Kentucky and
   Tennessee once more in our possession. His retreat ends only
   at Chattanooga.
{3473}
   What Bragg expected to obtain in Kentucky was a vast accession
   of recruits and horses, as did Lee in Maryland. Both fell
   short of their calculations, though Bragg carried off a goodly
   train of supplies. Forgetful of what he had really done, the
   South was bitter in its criticism of Bragg's failure to hold
   Eastern Tennessee and Kentucky. … Halleck now insists that
   Buell shall undertake a campaign in East Tennessee, still
   occupied by the enemy. But Buell alleges the utter
   impossibility of subsisting his troops so far from the
   railroad; and again concentrates at Nashville. Here he is
   relieved [October 30] and General Rosecrans is appointed to
   the command."

      T. A. Dodge,
      Bird's-Eye View of Our Civil War,
      chapter 15.

      ALSO IN:
      D. C. Buell, J. Wheeler, and others,
      The Perryville Campaign
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 3).

      T. B. Van Horne,
      History of the Army of the Cumberland,
      chapters 12-15 (volume 1).

      J. B. Fry,
      Operations of the Army under Buell.

      Official Records,
      series 1, volume 16.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (July).
   Three hundred thousand more.

   On the 2d of July, 1862, the President issued his proclamation
   calling for 300,000 volunteers.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (July).
   Land-grant for agricultural and mechanical Colleges.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1862.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (July).
   Prescription of the Ironclad Oath.
   See IRONCLAD OATH.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (July).
   The fitting out of the Rebel cruiser, Alabama, at Liverpool.

      See ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1862-1864.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (July).
   Confiscation of the property of rebels,
   giving freedom to their slaves.

   Immediately on the assembling of Congress at its regular
   session in December, 1861, "Mr. Trumbull of Illinois
   introduced a bill, providing that the slaves of all who had
   taken up arms against the United States should 'become forever
   thereafter free, any law to the contrary notwithstanding.' …
   On the 25th of February it came up for general debate, which
   was very extended. … Divergences of views, even among those
   who had been most prominent and pronounced in their
   antislavery action, and the general drift of the discussion,
   seemed to preclude any reasonable hope of agreement upon any
   motion or measure then before the Senate. It was therefore
   moved by Mr. Clark of New Hampshire to refer the whole matter,
   the original bill, and all motions, amendments, and
   substitutes, to a select committee. This, too, gave rise to a
   sharp debate. … The motion was carried by a vote of 24 to 14;
   and the committee, consisting of Clark, Collamer, Trumbull,
   Cowan, Wilson, Harris, Sherman, Henderson, and Willey, was
   appointed. Mr. Trumbull declining, Mr. Harlan was appointed in
   his place. The committee reported 'a bill to suppress
   insurrection, and punish treason and rebellion'; and on the
   16th of May it came up for consideration. Its main provision
   was that at any time after the passage of the act, the
   President might issue his proclamation that the slaves of
   persons found, 30 days after the issuing of the proclamation,
   in arms against the government, will be free, any law or
   custom to the contrary; that no slave escaping from his master
   shall be given up, unless the claimant proves he has not given
   aid or comfort to the Rebellion; and that the President shall
   be authorized to employ persons of African descent for the
   suppression of the Rebellion. … The bill was further debated,
   but did not reach a vote. In the House a substantially similar
   course was pursued. On the first day of the regular session
   Mr. Eliot of Massachusetts introduced a resolution
   confiscating the property and freeing the slaves of those
   engaged in the Rebellion. It did not, however, come up for
   consideration till the close of the following week. … A motion
   was finally made and carried to refer the whole subject to a
   select committee of seven, consisting of Olin, Eliot, Noell,
   Hutchins, Mallory, Beaman, and Cobb. Mr. Olin was excused, and
   Mr. Sedgwick of New York was appointed in his place. On the
   14th of May Mr. Eliot from the committee reported two
   bills,—the one confiscating Rebel property, and the other
   freeing the slaves of Rebels,—and opened the debate on 'the
   twin measures of confiscation and emancipation.' … On the 26th
   of May Mr. Eliot closed the debate, and the two bills he had
   reported from the special committee were brought to a vote.
   The first, or that providing for the confiscation of Rebel
   property, was passed by a strong majority. The second, or that
   freeing the slaves of Rebels, coming up for action, the first
   business was the disposal of the several amendments that had
   been offered. The amendments having all been voted down, the
   original bill was lost by a vote of 74 to 78. That vote was,
   however, reconsidered and the bill was recommitted. On the
   18th of June Mr. Eliot moved a substitute for the bill
   reported by the committee, which was accepted by the House,
   and the bill, as thus amended, was passed by a vote of 82 to
   54. The gist of this bill consisted in the provision, that all
   slaves of persons found in rebellion 60 days after the
   President shall issue his proclamation should be free; and the
   President should appoint commissioners to carry its provisions
   into effect. The House confiscation bill was taken up in the
   Senate on the 23d of June. An amendment was moved by Mr. Clark
   combining confiscation and emancipation. The amendment was
   sharply debated, but was adopted on the 28th. The bill as
   amended was adopted by a vote of 28 to 13. The bill as thus
   amended was taken up in the House on the 3d of July, and the
   House non-concurred in the Senate's amendment. … A committee
   of conference was appointed, which reported, on the 11th, in
   substance the Senate amendment. The report was accepted by
   both bodies, … and the President gave it his approval on the
   17th. It provided that all slaves of Rebels coming into the
   possession or under the protection of the government should be
   deemed captives of war, and made free; that fugitive slaves
   should not be surrendered; that no person engaged in the
   military or naval service should render fugitives on pain of
   being dismissed from the service; and that the President might
   employ persons of the African race for the suppression of the
   Rebellion in such manner as he might deem best."

      H. Wilson,
      History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America,
      volume 3, chapter 25.

      ALSO IN:
      J. G. Blaine,
      Twenty Years of Congress,
      volume 1, pages 373-377.

      E. McPherson,
      Political History of the United States during the Rebellion,
      pages 196-203.

{3474}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (July-August: Virginia).
   The end of the Peninsular Campaign.
   The army at Harrison's Landing.
   Results of the Seven Days fighting.
   Withdrawal from the Peninsula.

   "On reaching Harrison's Landing there were scarcely 50,000 men
   in the ranks, but on the 4th of July, when the corps
   commanders made their reports, it was found that the net
   losses of the army since the 20th of June amounted to 15,249
   men, of whom 1,582 had been killed, 7,700 wounded, and 5,958
   missing. This last figure comprised, besides prisoners, all
   the soldiers who had been left on the field of battle, whose
   fate, whether killed or wounded, could not be ascertained; to
   this number may be added, without exaggeration, 6,000 sick or
   lame who had gone to the hospital in consequence of the
   excessive fatigues of the preceding days. McClellan therefore
   found himself with about 84,000 men under arms, not counting
   those who had just joined him. The losses of Lee's army during
   the seven days amounted to 20,000 men, to which number must
   also be added at least 5,000 rendered unfit for active service
   by the same causes which had operated with his adversaries;
   this army, therefore, had undergone a diminution of 25,000
   men. This was more than one-fourth of its effective force on
   the 26th of June. An interlude was to follow this great
   struggle. While McClellan was fortifying himself at Harrison's
   Landing, Lee, hampered like himself by the difficulty of
   subsisting his army, was obliged to fall back as far as the
   environs of Richmond. … In the estimation of those who did not
   allow themselves to be troubled by foolish alarms and were not
   blinded by party prejudices, McClellan's situation was far
   from bad. … Planted on the James, McClellan could, either by
   ascending this river or by seizing upon Petersburg, strike
   much deadlier blows at Richmond than when his army lay across
   the Chickahominy, far from any water communication. Such was
   the position of the two armies about the 7th of July. On this
   day the steamer coming from Fortress Monroe landed a passenger
   at Harrison's Landing, whose dress, as simple as his manners,
   did not at first attract any attention, but in whom people
   soon recognized President Lincoln. He had come to consult with
   the commander of the army of the Potomac about the measures to
   be adopted under those grave circumstances. … On the occasion
   of his interview with McClellan at Harrison's Landing, the
   latter had so thoroughly demonstrated the importance of that
   position that [the President] went back fully determined to
   allow the chief of the army of the Potomac full freedom of
   action. But General Halleck … claimed for himself, as
   commander-in-chief [lately so appointed], the exclusive
   direction of all the armies in the field, and Mr. Lincoln,
   conscious of his own incompetency, submitted to this new
   authority." Measures taken during July for placing the army of
   the Potomac again upon the offensive were altered on the 3d of
   August, when Halleck gave orders to McClellan to transfer his
   army with all possible expedition to Aquia Creek, on the
   Potomac, for the support of General Pope and the Army of
   Virginia.

      Comte de Paris,
      History of the Civil War in America,
      volume 2, book 1, chapter 4
      and book 3, chapter 1.

      ALSO IN:
      J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 5, chapter 24.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (July-August: Virginia).
   The beginning of Pope's campaign: Cedar Mountain, or Cedar Run.

   "While Lee and McClellan were resting, important events were
   taking place at Washington and in Northern Virginia. The
   Federal administration, satisfied of the impolicy of the
   separate departments and independent commands which they had
   organized in that region, had determined to unite under one
   leader the three armies of Banks, Fremont, and McDowell, which
   Jackson had beaten or baffled in succession. … Their united
   armies were henceforth to be styled the Army of Virginia,
   while McClellan's forces continued to be known as the Army of
   the Potomac. General John Pope, whose deeds and still more his
   dispatches in the West, had given him some reputation, was
   called to Washington and placed at the head of the new army.
   General Pope was assigned to command on the 26th of June. …
   The unification of these commands under Pope was followed by
   another and still more important change of the same kind. The
   dissatisfaction of the Federal administration with General
   McClellan had been steadily growing for many months. This
   officer's caution often exposed him, and sometimes not
   unjustly, to the charge of timidity. … No doubt other causes,
   such as his moderation and his conservative political views,
   rendered him distasteful to the progressive radicals who at
   this time predominated in Mr. Lincoln's cabinet; but it must
   be confessed that McClellan's military conduct was not such as
   to inspire confidence or diminish antagonisms, and it, alone,
   is sufficient to account for the manner in which he was
   treated by his government. … After the Seven Days' Battles,
   the Federal government called General Halleck from the West …
   and placed him in chief command of the armies of the United
   States, the position from which McClellan had been deposed in
   March. The order assigning General Halleck was dated July 11,
   but the latter did not arrive in Washington and enter upon his
   duties until Ju]y 23. By this appointment it was designed to
   give a common head to the two armies in Virginia, and insure
   the cooperation of McClellan and Pope. The first great
   question that presented itself to Halleck was, what to do with
   McClellan's forces, and on the day after assuming command he
   left Washington to visit this army. The visit seems to have
   satisfied him of the propriety of withdrawing the Army of the
   Potomac at once from the Peninsula, and of placing it on the
   line of the Rappahannock. … During the month of Ju]y, while
   McClellan was resting at Westover, General Pope, though in
   Washington, was not idle. Having devoted some days to the
   reorganization and equipment of his command, he directed the
   concentration of the mass of his forces at the eastern base of
   the Blue Ridge Mountains in Rappahannock County, from which
   position he could cover the approach to Washington, or
   threaten the flank of any columns going toward the Shenandoah
   Valley, while he prepared for an aggressive campaign. …
   General Lee on July 13 ordered Jackson with the veteran troops
   of his own and Ewell's division to Gordonsville to oppose
   Pope's advance. The force thus sent numbered about 11,000 men.
   Robertson's brigade of cavalry, which was already in Pope's
   front, added 1,000 or 1,200 more. General Lee remained with
   some 65,000 men between McClellan and Richmond. General
   Jackson reached the vicinity of Gordonsville on July 19. His
   arrival was opportune. The Federal reconnoitring parties had
   already advanced through Culpeper to the Rapidan, and on July
   14 Banks had been ordered to send forward all his cavalry
   under Hatch to seize Gordonsville."

      William Allan,
      The Army of Northern Virginia in 1862,
      chapter 20.

{3475}

   "After ascertaining that the enemy were in large force under
   General Pope … Jackson applied to General Lee for
   reinforcements. The division of A. P. Hill was immediately
   sent to him, and, with this accession to his small army,
   Jackson had no intention of remaining idle or of awaiting an
   attack from so powerful a foe, but determined to strike a blow
   himself before the enemy had time to concentrate all their
   forces. He therefore advanced towards them on the 7th of
   August. Before taking this step, it was observed that he was
   much in prayer, but this was his custom previous to every
   battle. … Pope's army was gathering in all its strength at
   Culpepper Court-House, and on the 9th of August Jackson's
   little army came in contact with his advance-guard about six
   miles from the Court-House, on the borders of a little stream
   called Cedar Run. Here hostilities began by a furious
   cannonade on both sides, lasting two hours, when, about five
   o'clock in the afternoon, the infantry of both armies became
   hotly engaged. The conflict was fierce and stubborn, but the
   overwhelming numbers of the enemy swept down with such
   impetuosity that the weaker party were forced to yield, and it
   looked as if it were doomed to destruction. Ewell, Early, A.
   P. Hill, Winder, and other commanders all fought their bravest
   and best—the gallant Winder receiving a mortal wound—and
   still they were pressed back. 'It was at this fearful moment,'
   says his late chief-of-staff, Dr. Dabney, 'that the genius of
   the storm reared his head, and in an instant the tide was
   turned, Jackson appeared in the mid-torrent of the highway, …
   he drew his own sword (the first time in the war), and shouted
   to the broken troops with a voice which pealed higher than the
   roar of battle: "Rally, brave men, and press forward! Your
   general will lead you! Jackson will lead you† Follow me!" This
   appeal was not in vain, and the Federals, startled by this
   unexpected rally, were driven from the field. They afterwards
   made an attempt to retrieve the fortunes of the day, which
   they had so nearly won, by an assault from a magnificent body
   of cavalry, but even this was repelled, and the troopers
   driven in full retreat.' … This battle of Cedar Run [called
   Cedar Mountain by the Unionists] Jackson himself pronounced
   the most successful of his exploits. … In this battle the
   Confederates had between eighteen and twenty thousand men
   engaged, while the Federals, according to their own returns,
   had thirty-two thousand. Jackson, however, had one
   incalculable advantage over the enemy, which he gained by his
   promptitude in seizing and holding Slaughter's Mountain—an
   elevation which commanded all the surrounding plains, and
   enabled him to overlook the whole scene of action. … It was to
   the advantage of this position as well as the bravery of his
   troops that he was indebted for his complete success. By this
   victory Pope received such a blow that he was deterred from
   making another advance until he could gather reinforcements.
   Burnside's corps was withdrawn from North Carolina and sent on
   to Culpepper Court-House, and it was believed that McClellan's
   remaining forces would be recalled from James River and sent
   also to swell the ranks of the grand 'Army of Virginia,' as
   the command of Pope was called. At all events, General Lee was
   convinced that McClellan was incapable of further aggression,
   and that the most effective way to dislodge him from the
   Peninsula was to threaten Washington! He therefore determined
   to move his army from Richmond to Gordonsville. He began his
   march on the 13th, and four days after, on the 17th, McClellan
   evacuated the Peninsula and removed his troops to the
   Potomac." Pope's army was withdrawn behind the Rappahannock.
   "General Lee now ordered Jackson to cross the Rappahannock
   high up, and by a forced march go to Manassas and get in
   Pope's rear. Other divisions were sent to Pope's front, and
   the two hostile armies marched along on either side of the
   stream, opening fire upon each other whenever the opportunity
   offered. Jackson continued his march up stream until he
   reached Warrenton Springs, on the 22d, where he found the
   bridge destroyed, but he passed Early's brigade over on a
   mill-dam, and took possession of the Springs. Before other
   troops could be crossed to his support, a sudden and heavy
   rainfall swelled the river so as to render it impassable, and
   Early was thus cut off from his friends and surrounded by the
   enemy. His situation was one of extreme peril, but he managed
   to conceal his troops in the woods, and hold his foes at bay
   with artillery, until Jackson had constructed a temporary
   bridge, and by the dawn of the morning of the 24th the gallant
   Early, with his command, had recrossed the river without the
   loss of a man. While a fierce artillery duel was going on
   across the river between A. P. Hill and the enemy, Jackson
   left the river-bank a few miles, and marched to the village of
   Jeffersonton. He was thus lost sight of by the Federals, and
   to Longstreet was given the task of amusing Pope by the
   appearance of a crossing at Warrenton Springs. Jackson was now
   preparing to obey Lee's order to separate himself from the
   rest of the army, pass around Pope to the westward, and place
   his corps between him and Washington at Manassas Junction.

      Mrs. M. A. Jackson,
      Life and letters of General Thomas J. Jackson,
      chapter 17.

      ALSO IN:
      G. H. Gordon.
      History of the Campaign of the Army of Virginia,
      chapters 1-3.

      W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,
      Popular History of the United States,
      volume 4, chapter 19.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
(July-September: Missouri-Arkansas).
   Warfare with the Rebel Guerrillas.

   "Since the autumn of 1861, General J. M. Schofield, Lyon's
   second at the battle of Wilson's Creek, had been in command of
   the militia of Missouri, and in June, 1862, that State was
   erected into a separate military district, with Schofield at
   its head. He was vigilant and active; but when Curtis withdrew
   to the Mississippi, and left Arkansas and Southern Missouri
   open to the operations of guerrilla bands, then numerous in
   the western part of the former State, he found his forces
   inadequate to keep down the secessionists in his district.
   When Price crossed the Mississippi, early in May, he sent back
   large numbers of Missourians to recruit guerrilla bands for
   active service during, the summer, and these, at the middle of
   July, were very numerous in the interior, and were preparing
   to seize important points in the State. To meet the danger,
   Schofield obtained authority from the Governor to organize all
   the militia of the State.
{3476}
   This drew a sharp dividing line between the loyal and disloyal
   inhabitants. He soon had 50,000 names on his rolls, of whom
   nearly 20,000 were ready for effective service at the close of
   July, when the failure of the campaign against Richmond so
   encouraged the secessionists in Missouri that it was very
   difficult to keep them in check. Schofield's army of
   volunteers and militia was scattered over Missouri in six
   divisions, and for two months a desperate and sanguinary
   guerrilla warfare was carried on in the bosom of that
   Commonwealth, the chief theater being northward of the
   Missouri River, in McNeill's division, where insurgent bands
   under leaders like Poindexter, Porter, Cobb, and others, about
   5,000 strong, were very active." They were also aided by
   incursions from Arkansas, under Hughes, Coffey and other
   leaders. The encounters were many and fierce. At Kirksville,
   August 6, and Chariton River, four days later, the loyal
   forces achieved considerable victories; at Independence (which
   was captured) August 11, and at Lone Jack, about the same
   time, they suffered defeat. These were the principal
   engagements of the month. With the cooperation of General
   Blunt, commanding in Kansas, the Arkansas invasion was driven
   back. Missouri was now somewhat relieved, but the Confederates
   were gathering in force in Arkansas, where they were joined by
   conscripts from Southern Missouri and a large number of troops
   from Texas. Their entire number was estimated to be 50,000 at
   the middle of September, with General T. C. Hindman in chief
   command. … So threatening was this gathering that Schofield
   took the field in person, and General Curtis succeeded him in
   command of the District of Missouri." Schofield's vanguard,
   under General Salomon, encountered the enemy at Newtonia,
   September 30, and was defeated; but the Confederates retreated
   before the united forces of Schofield and Blunt and "were
   chased about 30 miles into Arkansas."

      B. J. Lossing,
      Field Book of the Civil War,
      volume 2, chapter 20.

      ALSO IN:
      Comte de Paris,
      History of the Civil War in America,
      volume 2, book 4, chapter 3.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (August).
   Draft of Militia for nine months.

   By proclamation, August 4, the President ordered a draft of
   300,000 militia, for nine months service unless sooner
   discharged.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (August).
   President Lincoln's "policy" explained to Horace Greeley.

   "Executive Mansion, Washington, August 22, 1862.
   Hon. Horace Greeley.
   Dear Sir:
   I have just read yours of the 19th, addressed to myself
   through the New York 'Tribune.' If there be in it any
   statements or assumptions of fact which I may know to be
   erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there
   be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely
   drawn, I do not, now and here, argue against them. If there be
   perceptible in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive
   it in deference to an old friend whose heart I have always
   supposed to be right. As to the policy I 'seem to be
   pursuing,' as you say, I have not meant to leave anyone in
   doubt. I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest
   way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority
   can be restored, the nearer the Union will be the Union as it
   was.' If there be those who would not save the Union unless
   they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with
   them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless
   they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree
   with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the
   Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I
   could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it;
   and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do
   it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others
   alone, I would also do that. What I do about slavery and the
   colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the
   Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe
   it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I
   shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do
   more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause.
   I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors, and I
   shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true
   views. I have here stated my purpose according to my view of
   official duty; and I intend no modification of my
   oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be
   free.
      Yours, A. Lincoln."

      Abraham Lincoln,
      Complete Works,
      volume 2, page 227-228.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (August: Virginia.)
   General Pope's campaign: Stonewall Jackson's movement
   into the rear of the Federal Army.

   "By the capture of Pope's papers [effected in a raid of
   Stuart's cavalry to the Federal rear] Lee gained an accurate
   knowledge of the situation of the Federal army. Acting on it,
   he ordered Jackson to advance his corps to Jeffersonton and
   secure the bridge over the Rappahannock at Warrenton Springs.
   … Jackson, on arriving at Jeffersonton in the afternoon of the
   22d, found that the bridge on the Warrenton turnpike had been
   destroyed by the Federals. … On the 23d Lee ordered
   Longstreet's corps to follow Jackson and mass in the vicinity
   of Jeffersonton. The headquarters of the army was also moved
   to that place. … General Longstreet made a feint on the
   position of Warrenton on the morning of the 24th, under cover
   of which Jackson's corps was withdrawn from the front to the
   vicinity of the road from Jeffersonton to the upper fords of
   the Rappahannock. Jackson was then directed to make
   preparations to turn the Federal position and seize their
   communications about Manassas Junction. Longstreet continued
   his cannonade at intervals throughout the day, to which the
   Federals replied with increasing vigor, showing that Pope was
   massing his army in Lee's front. It was the object of Lee to
   hold Pope in his present position by deluding him with the
   belief that it was his intention to force a passage of the
   river at that point, until Jackson by a flank movement could
   gain his rear. Longstreet, on the morning of the 25th, resumed
   his cannonade with increased energy, and at the same time made
   a display of infantry above and below the bridge. Jackson
   then, moved up the river to a ford eight miles above; crossing
   at that point and turning eastward, by a rapid march he
   reached the vicinity of Salem. Having made a march of 25
   miles, he bivouacked for the night. Stuart's cavalry covered
   his right flank, the movement being masked by the natural
   features of the country. The next morning at dawn the march
   was resumed by the route through Thoroughfare Gap. The
   cavalry, moving well to the right, passed around the west end
   of Bull Run Mountain and joined the infantry at the village of
   Gainesville, a few miles from the Orange and Alexandria Railroad.
{3477}
   Pressing forward, still keeping the cavalry well to the right,
   Jackson struck the railroad at Bristoe Station late in the
   afternoon, where he captured two empty trains going east.
   After dark he sent a detachment under Stuart to secure
   Manassas Junction, the main depot of supplies of the Federal
   army. The cavalry moved upon the flanks of this position,
   while the infantry, commanded by Trimble, assaulted the works
   in front and carried them with insignificant loss, capturing
   two batteries of light artillery with their horses and a
   detachment of 300 men, besides an immense amount of army
   supplies. The next morning, after effectually destroying the
   railroad at Bristoe, Jackson … moved his main body to
   Manassas, where he allowed his troops a few hours to refresh
   themselves upon the abundant stores that had been captured.
   About 12 o'clock the sound of artillery in the direction of
   Bristoe announced the Federal advance. Not having
   transportation to remove the captured supplies, Jackson
   directed his men to take what they could carry off, and
   ordered the rest to be destroyed. General Ewell, having
   repulsed the advance of two Federal columns [at Bristoe
   Station], rejoined Jackson at Manassas. The destruction of the
   captured stores having been completed, Jackson retired with
   his whole force to Bull Run, and took a position for the
   night, a part of his troops resting on the battle-field of the
   previous year. Pope, … upon learning that Jackson was in his
   rear, … immediately abandoned his position on the Rappahannock
   and proceeded with al despatch to intercept him before he
   could be reinforced by Lee. His advance having been arrested
   on the 27th by Ewell, he did not proceed beyond Bristoe that
   day. Lee on the 26th withdrew Longstreet's corps from its
   position in front of Warrenton Springs, covering the
   withdrawal by a small rear-guard and artillery, and directed
   it to follow Jackson by the route he had taken the day before.
   … The corps bivouacked for the night in the vicinity of Salem.
   On the morning of the succeeding day, the 27th, a messenger
   appeared bringing the important and cheering news of the
   success of Jackson at Bristoe and Manassas. … Thoroughfare Gap
   was reached about noon of the 28th. It was quickly found to be
   occupied by a Federal force. Some slight attempt was made to
   dislodge the enemy, but without success, as their position
   proved too strong, and it seemed as if the movement of the
   Confederate army in that direction was destined to be
   seriously interfered with. Meanwhile, nothing further had been
   heard from Jackson, and there was a natural anxiety in regard
   to his position and possible peril. … Under these critical
   circumstances General Lee made every effort to find some
   available route over the mountains," and had already succeeded
   in doing so when his adversary saved him further trouble.
   "Pope … had ordered McDowell to retire from the Gap and join
   him to aid in the anticipated crushing of Jackson. McDowell
   did so, leaving Rickett's division to hold the Gap. In evident
   ignorance of the vicinity of Longstreet's corps, this force
   was also withdrawn during the night, and on the morning of the
   29th Lee found the Gap unoccupied, and at once marched through
   at the head of Longstreet's column. … Pope had unknowingly
   favored the advance of the Confederate commander. His removal
   of McDowell from his position had been a tactical error of
   such magnitude that it could not well be retrieved. … The
   cannonade at the Gap on the 28th had informed Jackson of Lee's
   proximity. He at once took a position north of the Warrenton
   turnpike, his left resting on Bull Run. … About three o'clock
   the Federals bore down in heavy force upon Ewell and
   Taliaferro, who maintained their positions with admirable
   firmness, repelling attack after attack until night. The loss
   on both sides was considerable. … Jackson, with barely 20,000
   men, now found himself confronted by the greater part of the
   Federal army. Any commander with less firmness would have
   sought safety in retreat. But having heard the Confederate
   guns at Thoroughfare Gap, he knew that Lee would join him the
   next day. Therefore he determined to hold his position at all
   hazards. By the morning of the 29th … Hood's division had
   reached the south side of the mountain, and early in the day
   was joined by the remainder of Longstreet's corps, by way of
   the open Gap. While these important movements were in
   progress, Pope had resumed his attack upon Jackson. … On the
   arrival of Lee, Pope discontinued his attack, and retired to
   the position which the year before had been the scene of the
   famous battle of Bull Run, or Manassas."

      A. L. Long,
      Memoirs of Robert E. Lee,
      chapter 11.

      ALSO IN:
      R. L. Dabney,
      Life and Campaigns of General Thomas J. Jackson.

      G. H. Gordon,
      History of the Campaign of the Army of Virginia,
      chapters 4-10.

      W. B. Taliaferro,
      Jackson's Raid around Pope
      (Battles and Leader, volume 2, pages 501-511).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (August-September: Virginia).
   The end of General Pope's campaign: Groveton.
   Second Bull Run.
   Chantilly.

   "By contradictory orders and the useless marches and
   counter-marches they involved, Pope's opportunity was thrown
   away, and instead of fighting Jackson's corps alone, it was
   the entire army of Lee with which he had to deal,—this, too,
   with his forces very much out of position, and he himself
   ignorant both of his own situation and that of the enemy.
   When, towards noon [August 29], Pope, coming from Centreville,
   reached the field near Groveton, he found the situation as
   follows: Heintzelman's two divisions, under Hooker and
   Kearney, on the right, in front and west of the Sudley Springs
   road; Reno and Sigel holding the centre,—Sigel's line being
   extended a short distance south of the Warrenton turnpike;
   Reynolds with his division on the left. But the commander was
   ignorant of the whereabouts of both Porter and McDowell, and
   he knew not that Longstreet had joined Jackson! The troops had
   been considerably cut up by the brisk skirmishing that had
   been going on all morning. An artillery contest had also been
   waged all forenoon between the opposing lines; but it was at
   long range and of no effect. The position of the troops in
   front of Jackson's intrenched line was one that promised very
   little success for a direct attack, and especially for a
   partial attack. Nevertheless, at three o'clock, Pope ordered
   Hooker to assault. The attempt was so unpromising that that
   officer remonstrated against it; but the order being
   imperative, he made a very determined attack with his
   division," and was driven back.
{3478}
   "Too late for united action, Kearney was sent to Hooker's
   assistance, and he also suffered repulse. Meanwhile, Pope had
   learnt the position of Porter's command, and, at half-past
   four in the afternoon, sent orders to that officer to assail
   the enemy's right flank and rear,—Pope erroneously believing
   the right flank of Jackson, near Groveton, to be the right of
   the Confederate line. Towards six, when he thought Porter
   should be coming into action, he directed Heintzelman and Reno
   to assault the enemy's left. The attack was made with vigor,
   especially by Kearney," but the enemy brought up heavy
   reserves and repelled the assault. "Turning now to the left,
   where Porter was to have assailed the Confederate left
   [right], it appears that the order which Pope sent at
   half-past four did not reach Porter till about dusk. He then
   made dispositions for attack, but it was too late. It is,
   however, more than doubtful that, even had the order been
   received in time, any thing but repulse would have resulted
   from its execution. … Contrary to Pope's opinion, he [Porter]
   had then, and had had since noon, Longstreet's entire corps
   before him. So, as firing now died away in the darkling woods
   on the right, a pause was put for the day to the chaos and
   confusion of this mismanaged battle [known as the battle of
   Groveton], in which many thousand men had fallen on the Union
   side. It would have been judicious for General Pope, in the
   then condition of his army, to have that night withdrawn
   across Bull Run and taken position at Centreville, or even
   within the fortifications of Washington. By doing so he would
   have united with the corps of Franklin and Sumner, then
   between Washington and Centreville. … With untimely obstinacy,
   Pope determined to remain and again try the issue of battle.
   To utilize Porter's corps, he drew it over from the isolated
   position it had held the previous day to the Warrenton road. …
   Now, by one of those curious conjunctures which sometimes
   occur in battle, it so was that the opposing commanders had
   that day formed each the same resolution: Pope had determined
   to attack Lee's left flank, and Lee had determined to attack
   Pope's left flank. And thus it came about that when
   Heintzelman pushed forward to feel the enemy's left, the
   refusal of that flank by Lee, and his withdrawal of troops to
   his right for the purpose of making his contemplated attack on
   Pope's left, gave the impression that the Confederates were
   retreating up the Warrenton turnpike towards Gainesville. …
   Pope … telegraphed to Washington that the enemy was
   'retreating to the mountains,'—a dispatch which, flashed
   throughout the land, gave the people a few hours, at least, of
   unmixed pleasure. To take advantage of the supposed 'retreat'
   of Lee, Pope ordered McDowell with three corps—Porter's in the
   advance—to follow up rapidly on the Warrenton turnpike, and
   'press the enemy vigorously during the whole day.' But no
   sooner were the troops put in motion to make this pursuit of a
   supposed flying foe, than the Confederates, hitherto concealed
   in the forest in front of Porter, uncovered themselves." The
   result of this misdirected movement was a fatal check,
   Porter's troops being fearfully cut up and driven back.
   "Jackson immediately took up the pursuit, and was joined by a
   general advance of the whole Confederate line—Longstreet
   extending his right so as, if possible, to cut off the retreat
   of the Union forces." In this attempt, however, he was foiled,
   and "under cover of the darkness the wearied troops retired
   across Bull Run, by the stone bridge, and took position on the
   heights of Centreville. Owing to the obscurity of the night,
   and the uncertainty of the fords of Bull Run, Lee attempted no
   pursuit." The engagement of this day is called the Second
   Battle of Bull Run, or the Second Battle of Manassas, as it
   was named by the Confederate victors. "At Centreville, Pope
   united with the corps of Franklin and Sumner, and he remained
   there during the whole of the 31st. But Lee had now yet given
   up the pursuit. Leaving Longstreet on the battle-field, he
   sent Jackson by a detour on Pope's right, to strike the Little
   River turnpike, and by that route to Fairfax Courthouse; to
   intercept, if possible, Pope's retreat to Washington.
   Jackson's march was much retarded by a heavy storm that
   commenced the day before and still continued. Pope, meantime,
   fell back to positions covering Fairfax Courthouse and
   Germantown; and on the evening of the 1st of September,
   Jackson struck his right, posted at Ox Hill." The short but
   severe action which then occurred (called the battle of
   Chantilly) was indecisive. Jackson's attack was repelled, but
   the repulse cost the lives of two excellent officers of high
   rank and reputation, Generals Kearney and Stevens, besides
   many men. "On the following day, September 2d, the army was,
   by order of General Halleck, drawn back within the lines of
   Washington."

      W. Swinton,
      Campaigns of the Army of the Potomac,
      pages 184-193.

   "The Second Battle of Bull Hun … was a severe defeat for
   General Pope; but it was nothing else. It was not a rout, nor
   anything like a rout. … Lee claims to have captured in these
   engagements 30 pieces of artillery and 7,000 unwounded
   prisoners."

      J. C. Ropes,
      The Army under Pope
      (Campaigns of the Civil War, volume 4),
      chapters 8-11.

      ALSO IN:
      G. H. Gordon,
      History of the Campaign of the Army of Virginia,
      chapters 11-13.

      The Virginia Campaign of General Pope
      (Massachusetts Military Historical Society Papers, volume 2).

      J. Pope,
      The Second Battle of Bull Run
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 2, pages 449-494).

      Official Records,
      Series 1, volume 12, part 2.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (September: Maryland).
   Lee's first invasion: His cold reception and disappointment.

   "The defeat of General Pope opened the way for movements not
   contemplated, probably, by General Lee, when he marched from
   Richmond. … He accordingly determined to advance into
   Maryland—the fortifications in front of Washington, and the
   interposition of the Potomac, a broad stream easily defended,
   rendering a movement in that direction unpromising. On the 3d
   of September, therefore, and without waiting to rest his army,
   which was greatly fatigued with the nearly continuous marching
   and fighting since it had left the Rapidan, General Lee moved
   toward Leesburg, crossed his forces near that place, and to
   the music of the bands playing the popular air, 'Maryland, my
   Maryland,' advanced to Frederick City, which he occupied on
   the 7th of September. Lee's object in invading Maryland has
   been the subject of much discussion. … It can only be said
   that General Lee, doubtless, left the future to decide his
   ultimate movements; meanwhile he had a distinct and
   clearly-defined aim, which he states in plain words.
{3479}
   His object was to draw the Federal forces out of Virginia. …
   The condition of affairs in Maryland, General Lee says,
   'encouraged the belief that the presence of our army, however
   inferior to that of the enemy, would induce the Washington
   Government to retain all its available force to provide for
   contingencies which its course toward the people of that State
   gave it reason to apprehend,' and to cross the Potomac 'might
   afford us an opportunity to aid the citizens of Maryland in
   any efforts they might be disposed to make to recover their
   liberty.' It may be said, in summing up on this point, that
   Lee expected volunteers to enroll themselves under his
   standard, tempted to do so by the hope of throwing off the
   yoke of the Federal Government, and the army certainly shared
   this expectation. The identity of sentiment generally between
   the people of the States of Maryland and Virginia, and their
   strong social ties in the past, rendered this anticipation
   reasonable, and the feeling of the country at the result
   afterward was extremely bitter. Such were the first designs of
   Lee; his ultimate aim seems as clear. By advancing into
   Maryland and threatening Baltimore and Washington, he knew
   that he would force the enemy to withdraw all their troops
   from the south bank of the Potomac, where they menaced the
   Confederate communications with Richmond; when this was
   accomplished, as it clearly would be, his design was, to cross
   the Maryland extension of the Blue Ridge, called there the
   South Mountain, advance by way of Hagerstown into the
   Cumberland Valley, and, by thus forcing the enemy to follow
   him, draw them to a distance from their base of supplies,
   while his own communications would remain open by way of the
   Shenandoah Valley. … The Southern army was concentrated in the
   neighborhood of Frederick City by the 7th of September, and on
   the next day General Lee Issued an address to the people of
   Maryland. … This address, couched in terms of such dignity,
   had little effect upon the people. Either their sentiment in
   favor of the Union was too strong, or they found nothing in
   the condition Of affairs to encourage their Southern feelings.
   A large Federal force was known to be advancing; Lee's army,
   in tatters, and almost without supplies, presented a very
   uninviting appearance to recruits, and few joined his
   standard, the population in general remaining hostile or
   neutral. … Lee soon discovered that he must look solely to his
   own men for success in his future movements. He faced that
   conviction courageously; and, without uttering a word of
   comment, or indulging in any species of crimination against
   the people of Maryland, resolutely commenced his movements
   looking to the capture of Harper's Ferry and the invasion of
   Pennsylvania."

      J. E. Cooke,
      Life of Robert E. Lee,
      part 5, chapters 1-2.

      ALSO IN:
      A. L. Long,
      Memoirs of Robert E. Lee,
      chapter 12.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (September: Maryland).
   Lee's first invasion: Harper's Ferry.
   South Mountain.
   Antietam.

   "On the 2d of September the President went to General
   McClellan's house in Washington, asked him to take command
   again of the Army of the Potomac, in which Pope's army had now
   been merged, and verbally authorized him to do so at once. The
   first thing that McClellan wanted was the withdrawal of
   Miles's force, 11,000 men, from Harper's Ferry—where, he said,
   it was useless and helpless—and its addition to his own force.
   All authorities agree that in this he was obviously and
   unquestionably right; but the marplot hand of Halleck
   intervened, and Miles was ordered to hold the place. Halleck's
   principal reason appeared to be a reluctance to abandon a
   place where so much expense had been laid out. Miles, a worthy
   subordinate for such a chief, interpreted Halleck's orders
   with absolute literalness, and remained in the town, instead
   of holding it by placing his force on the heights that command
   it. As soon as it was known that Lee was in Maryland,
   McClellan set his army in motion northward, to cover
   Washington and Baltimore and find an opportunity for a
   decisive battle. He arrived with his advance in Frederick on
   the 12th, and met with a reception in striking contrast to
   that accorded to the army that had left the town two days
   before. … But this flattering reception was not the best
   fortune that befell the Union army in Frederick. On his
   arrival in the town General McClellan came into possession of
   a copy of General Lee's order, dated three days before, in
   which the whole campaign was laid out. … General Lee had taken
   it for granted that Martinsburg and Harper's Ferry would be
   evacuated at his approach (as they should have been); and when
   he found they were not, he had so far changed or suspended the
   plan with which he set out as to send back a large part of his
   army to capture those places and not leave a hostile force in
   his rear." This was easily accomplished by Jackson and McLaws,
   the latter of whom took possession of the heights commanding
   the town, where Miles waited to be trapped. "A bombardment the
   next day compelled a surrender when Jackson was about to
   attack. General Miles was mortally wounded by one of the last
   shots. About 11,000 men were included in the capitulation,
   with 73 guns. … Jackson, leaving the arrangements for the
   sur·render to A. P. Hill, hurried with the greater part of his
   force to rejoin Lee, and reached Sharpsburg on the morning of
   the 16th. The range known as the South Mountain, which is a
   continuation of the Blue Ridge north of the Potomac, is about
   1,000 feet high. The two principal gaps are Turner's and
   Crampton's, each about 400 feet high, with the hills towering
   600 feet above it. When McClellan learned the plans of the
   Confederate commander, he set his army in motion to thwart
   them. He ordered Franklin's corps to pass through Crampton's
   Gap and press on to relieve Harper's Ferry; the corps of Reno
   and Hooker, under command of Burnside, he moved to Turner's
   Gap. The movement was quick for McClellan, but not quite quick
   enough for the emergency. He might have passed through the
   Gaps on the 13th with little or no opposition, and would then
   have had his whole army between Lee's divided forces, and
   could hardly have failed to defeat them disastrously and
   perhaps conclusively. But he did not arrive at the passes till
   the morning of the 14th; and by that time Lee had learned of
   his movement and recalled Hill and Longstreet, from Boonsboro
   and beyond, to defend Turner's Gap, while he ordered McLaws to
   look out for Crampton's. … There was stubborn and bloody
   fighting all day, with the Union forces slowly but constantly
   gaining ground, and at dark the field was won," at both the
   passes. The two engagements were called the battle of South
   Mountain by the Federals, the Battle of Boonsboro by the
   Confederates.
{3480}
   At Turner's Gap there was a loss of about 1,500 on each side,
   and 1,500 Confederates were made prisoners; at Crampton's Gap,
   the loss in killed and wounded was some 500 on each side, with
   400 Confederate prisoners taken. The Union army had forced the
   passage of the mountains, but Lee had gained time to unite his
   scattered forces. "He withdrew across the Antietam, and took
   up a position on high ground between that stream and the
   village of Sharpsburg. … Lee now had his army together and
   strongly posted. But it had been so reduced by losses in
   battle and straggling that it numbered but little over 40,000
   combatants. … McClellan had somewhat over 70,000 men. … The
   ground occupied by the Confederate army, with both flanks
   resting on the Potomac, and the Antietam flowing in front, was
   advantageous. The creek was crossed by four stone bridges and
   a ford, and all except the northernmost bridge were strongly
   guarded. The land was occupied by meadows, cornfields, and
   patches of forest, and was much broken by outcropping ledges.
   McClellan only reconnoitered the position on the 15th. On the
   16th he developed his plan of attack, which was simply to
   throw his right wing across the Antietam by the upper and
   unguarded bridge, assail the Confederate left, and when this
   had sufficiently engaged the enemy's attention and drawn his
   strength to that flank, to force the bridges and cross with
   his left and centre. … All day long an artillery duel was kept
   up. … It was late in the afternoon when Hooker's corps crossed
   by the upper bridge, advanced through the woods, and struck
   the left flank, which was held by two brigades of Hood's men.
   Scarcely more than a skirmish ensued, when darkness came on,
   and the lines rested for the night where they were." At
   sunrise, next morning, Hooker assaulted Jackson and was
   seriously wounded in the fighting which followed. Sumner's
   corps finally joined in the attack, and all the forenoon the
   battle was desperate in that part of the field. "But while
   this great struggle was in progress on McClellan's right, his
   centre and left, under Porter und Burnside, did not make any
   movement to assist. At noon Franklin arrived from Crampton's
   Gap, and was sent over to help Hooker and Sumner, being just
   in time to check a new advance by more troops brought over
   from the Confederate right. At eight o'clock in the morning
   Burnside had been ordered to carry the bridge in his front,
   cross the stream, and attack the Confederate right. But,
   though commanded and urged repeatedly, it was one o'clock
   before he succeeded in doing this, and two more precious hours
   passed away before he had carried the ridge commanding
   Sharpsburg and captured the Confederate battery there. Then
   came up the last division of Lee's forces (A. P. Hill's) from
   Harper's Ferry, 2,000 strong, united with the other forces on
   his left, and drove Burnside from the crest and re-took the
   battery. Here ended the battle; not because the day was
   closed, or any apparent victory had been achieved, but because
   both sides had been so severely punished that neither was
   inclined to resume the fight. Every man of Lee's force had
   been actively engaged, but not more than two thirds of
   McClellan's. The reason why the Confederate army was not
   annihilated or captured must be plain to any intelligent
   reader. … General McClellan reported his entire loss at
   12,469, of whom 2,010 were killed. General Lee reported his
   total loss in the Maryland battles as 1,567 killed and 8,724
   wounded, saying nothing of the missing; but the figures given
   by his division commanders foot up 1,842 killed, 9,399
   wounded, and 2,292 missing—total 13,533. … Nothing was done on
   the 18th, and when McClellan determined to renew the attack on
   the 19th, he found that his enemy had withdrawn from the field
   and crossed to Virginia by the ford at Shepherdstown. The
   National commander reported the capture of more than 6,000
   prisoners, 13 guns, and 39 battle-flags, and that he had not
   lost a gun or a color. As he was also in possession of the
   field … and had rendered Lee's invasion fruitless of anything
   but the prisoners carried off from Harper's Ferry, the victory
   was his."

      R. Johnson,
      Short History of the War of Secession,
      chapter 12.

      ALSO IN:
      F. W. Palfrey,
      The Antietam and Fredericksburg
      (Campaigns of the Civil War, volume 5).

      Comte de Paris,
      History of the Civil War in America,
      volume 2, book 3, chapter 4.

      F. A. Walker,
      History of the Second Army Corps,
      chapter 4.

      A. Woodbury,
      Burnside and the 9th. Army Corps,
      part 2, chapters 2-3.

      Official Records,
      series 1, volume 19.

      G. B. McClellan,
      McClellan's Own Story,
      chapters 33-38.

      D. H. Hill, J. D. Cox, J. Longstreet, and others,
      Lee's Invasion of Maryland
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 2).

      W. Allan,
      The Army of Northern Virginia in 1862,
      chapters 37-48.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (September).
   President Lincoln's Preliminary Proclamation of Emancipation,
   and the attitude of Northern parties on the Slavery question.

   Abraham Lincoln "believed that without the Union permanent
   liberty for either race on this continent would be impossible.
   And because of this belief, he was reluctant, perhaps more
   reluctant than most of his associates, to strike slavery with
   the sword. For many months, the passionate appeals of millions
   of his associates seemed not to move him. He listened to all
   the phases of the discussion, and stated in language clearer
   and stronger than any opponent had used, the dangers, the
   difficulties, and the possible futility of the act. In
   reference to its practical wisdom, Congress, the Cabinet, and
   the country were divided. Several of his generals had
   proclaimed the freedom of slaves within the limits of their
   commands. The President revoked their proclamations. His first
   Secretary of War had inserted a paragraph in his annual report
   advocating a similar policy. The President suppressed it. On
   the 19th of August, 1862, Horace Greeley published a letter
   addressed to the President, entitled 'The Prayer of Twenty
   Millions,' in which he said, 'On the face of this wide earth,
   Mr. President, there is not one disinterested, determined,
   intelligent champion of the Union cause who does not feel that
   all attempts to put down the rebellion and at the same time
   uphold its inciting cause are preposterous and futile.' To
   this the President responded in that ever memorable reply of
   August 22, in which he said:—'If there be those who would not
   save the Union unless they could at the same time save
   slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would
   not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy
   slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object is to
   save the Union, and not either to save or to destroy slavery.
{3481}
   If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would
   do it. If I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would
   do it,—and if I could do it by freeing some and leaving
   others alone, I would also do that. What I do about slavery
   and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save
   the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not
   believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less
   whenever I shall believe that what I am doing hurts the cause,
   and I shall do more whenever I believe doing more will help
   the cause.' Thus, against all importunities on the one hand
   and remonstrances on the other, he took the mighty question to
   his own heart, and, during the long months of that terrible
   battle-summer, wrestled with it alone. But at length he
   realized the saving truth, that great unsettled questions have
   no pity for the repose of nations. On the 22d of September, he
   summoned his Cabinet to announce his conclusion. It was my
   good fortune, on that same day, and a few hours after the
   meeting, to hear, from the lips of one who participated, the
   story of the scene. As the chiefs of the Executive Departments
   came in, one by one, they found the President reading a
   favorite chapter from a popular humorist. He was lightening
   the weight of the great burden which rested upon his spirit.
   He finished the chapter, reading it aloud. And here I quote,
   from the published Journal of the late Chief Justice, an
   entry, written immediately after the meeting, and bearing
   unmistakable evidence that it is almost a literal transcript
   of Lincoln's words: 'The President then took a graver tone and
   said: "Gentlemen I have, as you are aware, thought a great
   deal about the relation of this war to slavery; and you all
   remember that, several weeks ago, I read to you an order I had
   prepared upon the subject, which, on account of objections
   made by some of you, was not issued. Ever since then my mind
   has been much occupied with this subject, and I have thought
   all along that the time for acting on it might probably come.
   I think the time has come now. I wish it was a better time. I
   wish that we were in a better condition. The action of the
   army against the rebels has not been quite what I should have
   best liked. But they have been driven out of Maryland, and
   Pennsylvania is no longer in danger of invasion. When the
   rebel army was at Frederick, I determined as soon as it should
   be driven out of Maryland to issue a proclamation of
   emancipation, such as I thought most likely to be useful. I
   said nothing to any one, but I made a promise to myself and
   (hesitating a little) to my Maker. The rebel army is now
   driven out, and I am going to fulfil that promise. I have got
   you together to hear what I have written down. I do not wish
   your advice about the main matter, for that I have determined
   for myself. This I say without intending anything but respect
   for any one of you. But I already know the views of each on
   this question. They have been heretofore expressed, and I have
   considered them as thoroughly and carefully as I can. What I
   have written is that which my reflections have determined me
   to say. If there is anything in the expressions I use, or in
   any minor matter which any of you thinks had best be changed,
   I shall be glad to receive your suggestions. One other
   observation I will make, I know very well that many others
   might, in this matter as in others, do better than I can; and
   if I was satisfied that the public confidence was more fully
   possessed by any one of them than by me, and knew of any
   constitutional way in which he could be put in my place, he
   should have it. I would gladly yield it to him. But though I
   believe I have not so much of the confidence of the people as
   I had some time since, I do not know that, all things
   considered, any other person has more; and, however this may
   be, there is no way in which I can have any other man put
   where I am. I am here. I must do the best I can and bear the
   responsibility of taking the course which I feel I ought to
   take." The President then proceeded to read his Emancipation
   Proclamation, making remarks on the several parts as he went
   on, and showing that he had fully considered the subject in
   all the lights under which it had been presented to him.' The
   Proclamation was amended in a few matters of detail. It was
   signed and published that day."

      J. A. Garfield,
      Works,
      volume 2, pages 538-540.

   "I was alone with Mr. Lincoln more than two hours of the
   Sunday next after Pope's defeat in August, 1802. That was the
   darkest day of the sad years of the war. … When the business
   to which I had been summoned by the President was over—strange
   business for the time: the appointment of assessors and
   collectors of internal revenue—he was kind enough to ask my
   opinion as to the command of the army. The way was thus opened
   for conversation, and for me to say at the end that I thought
   our success depended upon the emancipation of the slaves. To
   this he said: 'You would not have it done now, would you? Must
   we not wait for something like a victory?' This was the second
   and most explicit intimation to me of his purpose in regard to
   slavery. In the preceding July or early in August, at an
   interview upon business connected with my official duties, he
   said, 'Let me read two letters,' and taking them from a
   pigeon-hole over his table he proceeded at once to do what he
   had proposed. I have not seen the letters in print. His
   correspondent was a gentleman in Louisiana, who claimed to be
   a Union man. He tendered his advice to the President in regard
   to the reorganization of that State, and he labored zealous]y
   to impress upon him the dangers and evils of emancipation. The
   reply of the President is only important from the fact that
   when he came to that part of his correspondent's letter he
   used this expression: 'You must not expect me to give up this
   government without playing my last card.' Emancipation was his
   last card. He waited for the time when two facts or events
   should coincide. Mr. Lincoln was as devoted to the
   Constitution as was ever Mr. Webster. In his view, a military
   necessity was the only ground on which the overthrow of
   slavery in the States could be justified. Next, he waited for
   a public sentiment in the loyal States not only demanding
   emancipation but giving full assurance that the act would be
   sustained to the end. As for himself, I cannot doubt that he
   had contemplated the policy of emancipation for many months,
   and anticipated the time when he should adopt it."

      G. S. Boutwell,
      Reminiscences of Abraham Lincoln by
      Distinguished Men of his Time,
      pages 123-125.

{3482}

   "It was after all efforts for voluntary emancipation by the
   states interested, with pecuniary aid from the national
   treasury, had failed [that the President determined to decree
   emancipation in the rebellious states by a military order]. To
   Mr. Seward and myself the President communicated his purpose,
   and asked our views, on the 13th of July 1862. It was the day
   succeeding his last unsuccessful and hopeless conference with
   the representatives in Congress from the border slave states,
   at a gloomy period of our affairs, just after the reverses of
   our armies under McClellan before Richmond. The time, be said,
   had arrived when we must determine whether the slave element
   should be for or against us. Mr. Seward … was appalled and not
   prepared for this decisive step, when Mr. Lincoln made known
   to us that he contemplated, by an executive order, to
   emancipate the slaves. Startled with so broad and radical a
   proposition, he informed the President that the consequences
   of such an act were so momentous that he was not prepared to
   advise on the subject without further reflection. … While Mr.
   Seward hesitated and had the subject under consideration, the
   President deliberately prepared his preliminary proclamation,
   which met the approval, or at least the acquiescence, of the
   whole Cabinet, though there were phases of opinion not
   entirely in accord with the proceedings. Mr. Blair, an
   original emancipationist, and committed to the principle,
   thought the time to issue the order inopportune, and Mr. Bates
   desired that the deportation of the colored race should be
   coincident with emancipation. Aware that there were shades of
   difference among his counsellors, and hesitation and doubt
   with some, in view of the vast responsibility and its
   consequences, the President devised his own scheme, held
   himself alone accountable for the act, and, unaided and
   unassisted, prepared each of the proclamations of freedom."

      G. Welles,
      Lincoln and Seward,
      pages 210-212.

   The preliminary or monitory Proclamation of Emancipation,
   issued on the 22d of September, 1862, was as follows:

   "'I. Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States of
   America, and Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy thereof,
   do hereby proclaim and declare that hereafter, as heretofore,
   the war will be prosecuted for the object of practically
   restoring the constitutional relations between the United
   States and each of the States and the people thereof, in which
   States that relation is or may be suspended or disturbed. That
   it is my purpose, upon the next meeting of Congress, to again
   recommend the adoption of a practical measure, tendering
   pecuniary aid to the free acceptance or rejection of all the
   slave States, so-called, the people whereof may not then be in
   rebellion against the United States, and which States may then
   have voluntarily adopted, or thereafter may voluntarily adopt,
   the immediate or gradual abolishment of slavery within their
   respective limits; and that the effort to colonize persons of
   African descent, with their consent, upon this continent or
   elsewhere, with the previously obtained consent of the
   governments existing there, will be continued. That on the
   first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand
   eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves
   within any State, or designated part of a State, the people
   whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States,
   shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the
   Executive Government of the United States, including the
   military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and
   maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or
   acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts
   they may make for their actual freedom. That the Executive
   will, on the first day of January aforesaid, by proclamation,
   designate the States, or parts of States if any, in which the
   people thereof, respectively, shall then be in rebellion
   against the United States; and the fact that any State, or the
   people thereof, shall, on that day, be in good faith
   represented in the Congress of the United States by members
   chosen thereto at elections, wherein a majority of the
   qualified voters of such State shall have participated, shall,
   in the absence of strong countervailing testimony, be deemed
   conclusive evidence that such State, and the people thereof,
   are not then in rebellion against the United States.' Then,
   after reciting the language of 'An act to make an additional
   article of war,' approved March 13, 1862, and also sections 9
   and 10 of the Confiscation Act, approved July 17, 1862, and
   enjoining their enforcement upon all persons in the military
   and naval service, the proclamation concludes: 'And I do
   hereby enjoin upon and order all persons engaged in the
   military and naval service of the United States to observe,
   obey, and enforce, within their respective spheres of service,
   the acts and sections above recited. And the Executive will,
   in due time, recommend that all citizens of the United States,
   who shall have remained loyal thereto throughout the
   rebellion, shall, upon the restoration of the constitutional
   relations between the United States and the people, if that
   relation shall have been suspended or disturbed, be
   compensated for all losses by acts of the United States,
   including the loss of slaves.'"

      J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 6, chapters 6 and 8.

      ALSO IN:
      J. G. Blaine,
      Twenty Years of Congress,
      volume 1, chapter 20.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
(September-October: Mississippi).
   Union successes under Grant.
   Iuka and Corinth.

   "In July, Pope was ordered to Virginia, and on the 17th of
   that month Halleck was assigned to the command of all the
   armies, superseding McClellan. He repaired at once to
   Washington, and Grant was directed to establish his
   headquarters at Corinth. Grant's jurisdiction was not,
   however, enlarged by the promotion of Halleck: on the
   contrary, the new general-in-chief first offered the command
   of the Army of the Tennessee to Colonel Robert Allen, a
   quarter-master, who declined it, whereupon it was allowed to
   remain under Grant. He was, however, left somewhat more
   independent than while Halleck had heen immediately present in
   the field. Four divisions of his army (including Thomas's
   command), were within the next two months ordered to Buell,
   who was stretching out slowly, like a huge, unwieldy snake,
   from Eastport to Decatur, and from Decatur towards
   Chattanooga. This subtraction put Grant entirely on the
   defensive. He had possession of Corinth, the strategic point,
   but was obliged to hold the railroads from that place and
   Bolivar, north to Columbus, which last, on account of the low
   water in the Tennessee, he had made his base of supplies. … He
   remained himself eight weeks at Corinth, narrowly watching the
   enemy, who, commanded by Van Dorn and Price, harassed and
   threatened him continually.

{3483}

   During this time, he directed the strengthening and
   remodelling of the fortifications of Corinth. … New works,
   closer to the town, were … erected. … Van Dorn at last
   determined to move part of his force (under Price), east of
   Grant, apparently with a view to crossing the Tennessee and
   reënforcing Bragg in the Kentucky campaign. Grant notified
   Halleck of the probability of such a movement, and of his
   intention to prevent it. … On the 13th [of September], Price
   advanced from the south and seized Iuka, 21 miles east of
   Corinth. … Grant had called in his forces some days before to
   the vicinity of Corinth, had repeatedly cautioned all his
   commanders to hold their troops in readiness, and when the
   enemy's cavalry moved towards Iuka, and cut the railroad and
   telegraph wires between that place and Burnsville, seven miles
   to the westward, Grant began his operations. Price was at
   Iuka, and Van Dorn four days off, to the southwest,
   threatening Corinth. Grant's object was to destroy Price,
   before the two could concentrate, and then to get back to
   Corinth and protect it against Van Dorn. He accordingly
   ordered Brigadier-General Rosecrans, whose troops were posted
   south of Corinth, to move by way of Renzi, along the south
   side of the Memphis and Charleston Railroad, and attack Iuka
   from that direction; while Major-General Ord, with a force
   brought hurriedly from Bolivar and Jackson, was to push
   towards Burnsville, and from there take roads on the north
   side of the railroad, attacking Iuka from that quarter. Ord
   had 8,000 men, and Rosecrans reported 9,000, a greater force
   combined than Price had, according to Grant's estimate."
   Rosecrans's movement was delayed, and he was attacked
   (September 19) in heavy force as he neared Iuka, Ord's advance
   having been held back waiting for him. He kept his ground, but
   lost in the action a battery of artillery, besides 736 men,
   killed and wounded. That night the enemy retreated from Iuka,
   over a road which Rosecrans was expected to occupy, but did
   not. "By the battle of Iuka, the enemy was simply checked in
   his plans, not seriously crippled in his force. Price moved
   around by a circuitous route and joined Van Dorn, and the same
   state of affairs continued which had annoyed Grant for so many
   weeks. He put Rosecrans in command at Corinth, and Ord at
   Bolivar, and on the 23d of September removed his own
   headquarters to Jackson, from which point he could communicate
   more readily with all points of his district, including
   Memphis and Cairo. The rebels were in force at La Grange and
   Ripley. … At last it was rendered certain … that Corinth was
   to be the place of attack. Grant thereupon directed Rosecrans
   to call in his forces, and sent Brigadier-General McPherson to
   his support from Jackson, with a brigade of troops." He also
   "hurried Ord and Hurlbut by way of Pocahontas from Bolivar, 44
   miles away, to be ready to strike Van Dorn in flank or rear,
   as he advanced, and at least to create a diversion, if they
   could not get into the town. On the 2d of October the rebel
   array, under Van Dorn, Price, Lovell, Villepigue, and Rust,
   appeared in front of Corinth. … On the 3d the fighting began
   in earnest. Rosecrans had about 19,000 men, and the enemy had
   collected 38,000 for this important movement, which was to
   determine the possession of northern Mississippi and West
   Tennessee. Rosecrans pushed out about five miles, towards
   Chewalla, Grant having ordered him to attack, if opportunity
   offered; but the enemy began the fight, and, on the afternoon
   of the 3d, the battle turned in favor of Van Dorn. Rosecrans
   was driven back to his defences on the north side of Corinth,
   and it was now found how important was the labor bestowed on
   these fortifications, by Grant's order, a month previous. The
   enemy was checked until morning; but, early on the 4th, the
   whole rebel army, flushed with the success of the day before,
   assaulted the works. The fighting was fierce; the rebels
   charging almost into the town, when an unexpected fire from
   the forts drove them back in confusion. Again and again, they
   advanced to the works, but each time were received with a
   determination equal to their own. Once, the national troops
   came near giving way entirely, but Rosecrans rallied them in
   person, and the rebels were finally repulsed before noon, with
   a loss admitted by themselves to be double that of Rosecrans.
   The national loss was 315 killed, 1,812 wounded, and 232
   prisoners and missing. Rosecrans reported the rebel dead at
   1,423, and took 2,225 prisoners. … The repulse was complete,
   by 11 o'clock in the morning, but unfortunately was not
   followed up by Rosecrans, till the next day. The rebels,
   however, started off in haste and disorder immediately after
   the fight; and on the 5th, while in full retreat, were struck
   in flank, as Grant had planned, by Hurlbut and Ord, and the
   disaster was rendered final. This occurred early on the
   morning of the 5th, at the crossing of the Hatchie river,
   about ten miles from Corinth. … A battery of artillery and
   several hundred men were captured, and the advance was
   dispersed or drowned. … Had Rosecrans moved promptly the day
   before, he would have come up in the rear of Van Dorn, either
   as he was fighting Ord, or while attempting to pass this
   defile [six miles up the stream, where Van Dorn finally made
   his crossing]. In either event, the destruction of the rebels
   must have been complete. … These two fights relieved the
   command of West Tennessee from all immediate danger."

      A. Badeau,
      Military History of Ulysses S. Grant,
      volume 1, chapter 4.

   "Satisfied that the enemy was retreating [on the 4th], I
   ordered Sullivan's command to push him with a heavy skirmish
   line, and to keep constantly feeling them. I rode along the
   lines of the commands, told them that, having been moving and
   fighting for three days and two nights, I knew they required
   rest, but that they could not rest longer than was absolutely
   necessary. I directed them to proceed to their camps, provide
   five days' rations, take some needed rest, and be ready early
   next morning for the pursuit."

      W. S. Rosecrans,
      The Battle of Corinth
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 2), page 753.

{3484}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
(September-December: Missouri-Arkansas).
   Social demoralizations of the Civil War.
   Battle of Prairie Grove.

   "The dispersion and suppression of the guerrilla bands [in
   Missouri] did not serve wholly to terminate local disturbances
   and offenses. The restraints of a common public opinion no longer
   existed. Neighborhood good-will had become changed to
   neighborhood hatred and feud. Men took advantage of the
   license of war to settle personal grudges by all the
   violations of law, varying from petty theft to assassination;
   and parallel with this thirst for private revenge was the
   cupidity which turned crime into a source of private gain. … A
   rearrangement of military command appears in an order of the
   President under date of September 19, 1862, directing that
   Missouri, Arkansas, Kansas, and the bordering Indian Territory
   should constitute a new department to be called the Department
   of the Missouri, to be commanded by Major-General Samuel R.
   Curtis. … This new arrangement served to change the relative
   positions of Schofield and Curtis. The former, gathering what
   troops he could, took the field in a campaign towards
   Southwest Missouri to meet the expected invasion from
   Arkansas, while the latter, recalled from a short leave of
   absence, came to St. Louis (September 24, 1862) to take up his
   headquarters and assume the general administration of the new
   Department of the Missouri. … The difficulties in the military
   situation had grown primarily out of the error of Halleck … in
   postponing the opening of the Mississippi River. When, in the
   spring and summer of 1862, Halleck abandoned all thought of
   pursuing that prime and comprehensive object, and left
   Vicksburg to grow up into an almost impregnable Confederate
   citadel, he blighted the possibility of successful Union
   campaigns on both sides of the great river. … From the
   midsummer of 1862, therefore, until the fall of Vicksburg in
   midsummer of 1863, military campaigning in the
   trans-Mississippi country ceases to have any general
   significance. … The only action of importance which marks the
   military administration of Curtis was the battle of Prairie
   Grove in the northwest corner of Arkansas, where on the 7th of
   December the detachments respectively commanded by the Union
   generals James G. Blunt (who had been hovering all summer
   along the border of Kansas) and Francis J. Herron, who,
   finding Blunt pressed by the enemy coming northward with a
   view of entering Missouri, advanced by forced marches from
   near Springfield and formed a junction with Blunt just in the
   nick of time to defeat the Confederates under General Hindman.
   The losses on each side were about equal, and on the day
   following the engagement the Confederates retreated southward
   across the protecting barrier of the Boston Mountains. It was
   in a diminished degree a repetition of the battle of Pea
   Ridge, fought in the preceding March within 20 or 30 miles of
   the same place. … So effectually did this engagement serve to
   scatter the rebel forces that Schofield reported January 31,
   1863, 'There is no considerable force of the enemy north of
   the Arkansas River; indeed I believe they have all gone or are
   going, as rapidly as possible, to Vicksburg. Ten thousand
   infantry and artillery can be spared from Southern Missouri
   and Northern Arkansas.'"

      J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 6, chapter 18.

      ALSO IN:
      W. Baxter,
      Pea Ridge and Prairie Grove.

      O. J. Victor,
      History of the Southern Rebellion,
      division 10, chapter 4 (volume 3).

      W. Britton,
      Memoirs of the Rebellion on the Border,
      chapter 1.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (October-December: Virginia).
   The final removal of McClellan.
   Burnside at Fredericksburg.

   "Both armies … felt the need of some repose; and, glad to be
   freed from each other's presence, they rested on their
   arms—the Confederates in the Shenandoah Valley, in the
   vicinity of Winchester, and the army of the Potomac near the
   scene of its late exploits, amid the picturesque hills and
   vales of Southwestern Maryland. The movement from Washington
   into Maryland to meet Lee's invasion was defensive in its
   purpose, though it assumed the character of a
   defensive-offensive campaign. Now that this had been
   accomplished and Lee driven across the frontier, it remained
   to organize on an adequate scale the means of a renewal of
   grand offensive operations directed at the Confederate army
   and towards Richmond. The completion of this work, including
   the furnishing of transportation, clothing, supplies, etc.,
   required upwards of a month, and during this period no
   military movement occurred, with the exception of a raid into
   Pennsylvania by Stuart. About the middle of October, that
   enterprising officer, with twelve or fifteen hundred troopers,
   crossed the Potomac above Williamsport, passed through
   Maryland, penetrated Pennsylvania, occupied Chambersburg,
   where he burnt considerable government stores, and after
   making the entire circuit of the Union army, recrossed the
   Potomac below the mouth of the Monocacy. He was all the way
   closely pursued by Pleasonton with 800 cavalry. … On the
   recrossing of the Potomac by Lee after Antietam, McClellan
   hastened to seize the débouehé of the Shenandoah Valley, by
   the possession of Harper's Ferry. … At first McClellan
   contemplated pushing his advance against Lee directly down the
   Shenandoah Valley, as he found that, by the adoption of the
   line east of the Blue Ridge, his antagonist, finding the door
   open, would again cross to Maryland. But this danger being
   removed by the oncoming of the season of high-water in the
   Potomac, McClellan determined to operate by the east side of
   the Blue Ridge, and on the 26th his advance crossed the
   Potomac by a ponton-bridge at Berlin, five miles below
   Harper's Ferry. By the 2d November the entire army had crossed
   at that point. Advancing due southward towards Warrenton, he
   masked the movement by guarding the passes of the Blue Ridge,
   and by threatening to issue through these, he compelled Lee to
   retain Jackson in the Valley. With such success was this
   movement managed, that on reaching Warrenton on the 9th, while
   Lee had sent half of his army forward to Culpepper to oppose
   McClellan's advance in that direction, the other half was
   still west of the Blue Ridge, scattered up and down the
   Valley, and separated from the other moiety by at least two
   days' march. McClellan's next projected move was to strike
   across obliquely westward and interpose between the severed
   divisions of the Confederate force; but this step he was
   prevented from taking by his sudden removal from the command
   of the Army of the Potomac, while on the march to Warrenton.
   Late on the night of November 7th, amidst a heavy snow-storm,
   General Buckingham, arriving post-haste from Washington,
   reached the tent of General McClellan at Rectortown. He was
   the bearer of the following dispatch, which he handed to
   General McClellan: … 'By direction of the President of the
   United States, it is ordered that Major-General McClellan be
   relieved from the command of the Army of the Potomac, and that
   Major-General Burnside take the command of that army.' … It
   chanced that General Burnside was at the moment with him in
   his tent.
{3485}
   Opening the dispatch and reading it, without a change of
   countenance or of voice, McClellan passed over the paper to
   his successor, saying, as he did so: 'Well, Burnside, you are
   to command the army.' Thus ended the career of McClellan as
   head of the Army of the Potomac. … The moment chosen was an
   inopportune and an ungracious one; for never had McClellan
   acted with such vigor and rapidity-never had he shown so much
   confidence in himself or the army in him. And it is a notable
   fact that not only was the whole body of the army—rank and
   file as well his officers—enthusiastic in their affection for
   his person, but that the very general appointed as his
   successor was the strongest opponent of his removal."

      W. Swinton,
      Campaigns of the Army of the Potomac,
      chapter 6, sections 2-3. 

   "It is dangerous to shift commanders on the eve of battle, and
   our cavalry had already engaged the Confederates'; it is more
   dangerous to change the plans of troops moving in the vicinity
   of the enemy. But as if impelled to do some new thing … the
   new commander of the Army of the Potomac determined upon a
   flank movement by his left on the north of the river towards
   Fredericksburg. … Only by movements equally wary and rapid, as
   well as by sure means of crossing the river, could Burnside's
   manœuvre possibly succeed. In this last element he counted on
   Halleck, and, of course, failed. The promised pontoons did
   not, and could scarcely have been expected to come. Arrived at
   Fredericksburg Burnside still might have crossed by the fords,
   for the water was low. And once in possession of the heights
   beyond the city he could afford to wait. But, slower than even
   his predecessor, Burnside sat down at Falmouth, on the north
   side of the river, while Lee, having learned of his movement,
   by forced marches concentrated his army on the opposite bank,
   and prepared to erect impregnable defences in his front. …
   Before Burnside got ready to take any active steps, Marye's
   Heights, back of Fredericksburg, had been crowned by a triple
   line of works, and Lee had brought together nearly 90,000
   troops to man them. Two canals and a stone wall in front of
   the left, as well as open, sloping ground on both flanks,
   served to retain an attacking party for a long period under
   fire. To assault these works in front was simple madness. To
   turn them below necessitated the crossing of a wide and now
   swollen river, in the face of a powerful enemy in his
   immediate front. … To turn them above was practicable, but it
   was a confessed return to McClellan's plan. Burnside chose the
   first. Preparations foe crossing were begun. The better part
   of three days [December 11-13] was consumed in throwing the
   bridges and putting over the two Grand Divisions of Franklin
   and Sumner, all of which was accomplished under fire. But Lee
   was by no means unwilling to meet the Army of the Potomac
   after this fashion. Such another happy prospect for him was
   not apt soon again to occur. He did not dispute the crossing
   in force. Burnside's one chance in a hundred lay in a
   concentrated assault sharply pushed home before the enemy
   could oppose an equal force. But in lieu of one well-sustained
   attack, or of two quite simultaneous, Burnside frittered away
   this single chance by putting in Franklin on the left and
   Sumner on the right, without concerted action." Both assaults
   were bloodily repulsed. "Hooker is ordered across. Under
   protest, and yet Hooker lacked not stomach for a fight, he
   obeys the useless order, and leads his men into the slaughter
   pen. … All is in vain. Even the Army of the Potomac cannot do
   the impossible. The defeated troops are huddled into
   Fredericksburg, and gradually withdrawn across the river.
   Burnside was insane enough to wish to repeat the assault next
   day. But the counsels of his officers prevailed on him to
   desist. No such useless slaughter, with the exception,
   perhaps, of Cold Harbor, occurred during our war, and 13,000
   men paid the penalty. The enemy's loss was but one in three of
   ours."

      T. A. Dodge,
      Bird's-Eye View of Our Civil War,
      chapter 21.

      ALSO IN:
      A. Woodbury,
      Burnside and the Ninth Army Corps,
      part 2, chapters 4-8.

      F. A. Walker,
      History of the Second Army Corps,
      chapters 5-6.

      B. P. Poore,
      Life of Burnside,
      chapters 18-19.

      Official Records,
      series 1, volume 21.

      J. Longstreet,
      D. N. Couch, and others,
      Burnside at Fredericksburg,
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 3).

      F. W. Palfrey,
      The Antietam and Fredericksburg
      (Campaigns of the Civil War, volume 5), pages 129-135.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (December: On the Mississippi).
   The second attempt against Vicksburg.
   General Sherman and Admiral Porter.
   Miscarriage of Grant's plans.

   "Rear-Admiral Porter took command of the Mississippi squadron
   in October, 1862. … Up to this time the gun-boats had,
   strictly speaking, been under the control of the Army, but now
   all this was changed, and the Mississippi Squadron, like all
   the other naval forces, was brought directly under the
   supervision of the Secretary of the Navy. … The new
   arrangement left the commander of the squadron at liberty to
   undertake any expedition he thought proper, and he was not in
   the least hampered by any instructions from the Navy
   Department. … Before Admiral Porter left Washington he was
   informed by the President that General McClernand had been
   ordered to raise an Army at Springfield, Illinois, to
   prosecute the siege of Vicksburg. The President expressed the
   hope that the rear-admiral would co-operate heartily with
   General McClernand in the operations to be carried on. But as
   Vicksburg never would have been taken if it had depended on
   General McClernand's raising an Army sufficient for the
   purpose, the Admiral, immediately on his arrival at Cairo,
   sent a message to General Grant, at Holly Springs,
   Mississippi, informing him of McClernand's intention; that he,
   Porter, had assumed command of the Mississippi Squadron, and
   was ready to cooperate with the Army on every occasion where
   the services of the Navy could be useful. A few days
   afterwards General Grant arrived at Cairo and proposed an
   expedition against Vicksburg, and asking the rear-admiral, if
   he could furnish a sufficient force of gun-boats, to accompany
   it. Grant's plan was to embark Sherman from Memphis, where he
   then was, with 30,000 soldiers, to be joined at Helena,
   Arkansas, by 10,000 more. Grant himself would march from Holly
   Springs with some 60,000 men upon Granada. General Pemberton
   would naturally march from Vicksburg to stop Grant at Granada,
   until reinforcements could be thrown into Vicksburg from the
   south, and while Pemberton was thus absent with the greater
   part of his Army, Sherman and Porter could get possession of
   the defences of Vicksburg.
{3486}
   General Grant having been informed that the gun-boats would be
   ready to move at short notice, and having sent orders to
   Sherman to put his troops aboard the transports as soon as the
   gun-boats arrived in Memphis, returned immediately to Holly
   Springs to carry out his part of the programme. … The
   expedition from Memphis got away early in December, 1862.
   Commander Walke, in the 'Carondelet,' being sent ahead with
   [three iron-clads and two so-called 'tin-clads'] … to clear
   the Yazoo River of torpedoes and cover the landing of
   Sherman's Army when it should arrive. This arduous and
   perilous service was well performed," but one of the
   iron-clads engaged in it, the Cairo, was sunk by a torpedo.
   "General Sherman moved his transports to a point on the river
   called Chickasaw Bayou without the loss of a man from
   torpedoes or sharpshooters, his landing [December 27] being
   covered in every direction by the gunboats. Sherman first made
   a feint on Haines' Bluff, as if to attack the works, and then
   landed at Chickasaw Bayou. Owing to the late heavy rains he
   found the roads to Vicksburg heights almost impassable, and
   when he attempted to advance with his Army he was headed off
   by innumerable bayous, which had to be bridged, or corduroy
   roads built around them. It was killing work. Even at this
   time Vicksburg had been fortified at every point, and its only
   approaches by land led through dense swamps or over boggy open
   ground, where heavy guns were placed, so as to mow down an
   advancing Army. A general has seldom had so difficult a task
   assigned him, and there was little chance of Sherman's
   succeeding unless Pemberton had drawn off nearly all his
   forces to oppose Grant's advance on Granada. … Sherman and his
   Army overcame everything and at last reached terra firma. In
   the meanwhile the Navy was doing what it could to help the
   Army. … Grant had left Holly Springs with a large Army at the
   time he had appointed, merely with the design of drawing
   Pemberton from Vicksburg and thus helping Sherman in his
   attack on that place. … Grant moved towards Granada, and
   everything looked well; but the Confederate General, Earl Van
   Dorn, dashed into Holly Springs, 28 miles in the rear of the
   Union Army, capturing the garrison and all their stores. At
   the same time General Forrest pushed his cavalry into West
   Tennessee, cutting the railroad to Columbus at several points
   between that place and Jackson. … Due precautions had been
   taken to prevent this mishap by leaving a strong force behind
   at Holly Springs, but the commanding officer was not on the
   alert and his capture was a complete surprise. In this raid of
   the Confederates a million dollars' worth of stores were
   destroyed. Under the circumstances it was impossible for Grant
   to continue his march on Granada, which Pemberton perceiving,
   the latter returned to Vicksburg in time to assist in
   Sherman's repulse. … Sherman made all his arrangements to
   attack the enemy's works on the 20th of December, 1862, and
   the assault took place early on that day. One division
   succeeded in occupying the batteries on the heights, and hoped
   shortly to reach those commanding the city of Vicksburg, but
   the division that was to follow the advance was behind time
   and the opportunity was lost. A portion of Pemberton's Army
   had returned from Granada just in time to overwhelm and drive
   back the small force that had gained the hills. … The enemy
   did not follow, being satisfied with driving our troops from
   the heights, and there was nothing left for Sherman to do but
   to get his Army safely back to the transports."

      D. D. Porter,
      Naval History of the Civil War,
      chapter 24.

      ALSO IN:
      S. M. Bowman and R. B. Irwin,
      Sherman and his Campaigns,
      chapter 7.

      W. T. Sherman,
      Memoirs,
      volume 1, chapter 11.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862-1863
(December-January: Tennessee).
   Bragg and Rosecrans.
   The Battle of Stone River, or Murfreesborough.

   "The Confederate government was greatly disappointed with the
   issue of Bragg's campaign. Scarcely had he reached Chattanooga
   when he was ordered to move northward again. Rosecrans, on
   assuming command of Buell's army, … concentrated his forces at
   Nashville, and there accumulated large supplies. … Bragg had
   already reached Murfreesborough on his second northward march
   from Chattanooga. Rosecrans had given out that it was his
   intention to take up his winter quarters at Nashville, and
   Bragg, supposing that this would be the case, sent out strong
   detachments of cavalry under Morgan and Forrest, the former
   being ordered to break Rosecrans's communications. As it was
   about the season of Christmas, Murfreesborough was the scene
   of much gayety … and the giddy Confederates danced on floors
   carpeted with the American flag. Suddenly, on the 26th of
   December, Rosecrans moved. His march commenced in a heavy min.
   The Confederate outposts retired before his advance, the
   pressure upon them being so vigorous that they had not time to
   destroy the bridges on the Jefferson and Murfreesborough
   turnpikes. On the 30th, Bragg, finding he was about to be
   assailed, had concentrated his army a couple of miles in front
   of Murfreesborough. The position of the national army, which
   was 43,000 strong on the evening of that day, was on the west
   side of Stone River, a sluggish stream fringed with cedar
   brakes, and here flowing in a north-northwesterly course. The
   line ranged nearly north and south, and was three or four
   miles in length. Crittenden was on its left, with three
   divisions. Wood, Vancleve, Palmer; Thomas in the centre, with
   two divisions, Negley and Rousseau, the latter in reserve;
   McCook on the right with three, Sheridan, Davis, Johnson. The
   left wing touched the river. … Bragg's army, 62,000, stood
   between Rosecrans and Murfreesborough. … Breckinridge's
   division formed his right, in his centre, under Polk, were two
   divisions, those of Withers and Cheatham; on his left, under
   Hardee, two divisions, Cleburne and McCown. The river
   separated Breckinridge from the rest of the Confederate army.
   Rosecrans had concentrated two thirds of his force on his
   left. His intention was that his right wing, standing on the
   defensive, should simply hold its ground; but his extreme
   left, the divisions of Wood and Vancleve, crossing Stone
   River, should assail Breckinridge's division, exposed there,
   and seize the heights. … On his part, also, Bragg had
   determined to take the offensive. … Both intended to strike
   with the left, and therefore both massed their force on that
   wing. … In the dawn of the last day of the year (1862), while
   Rosecrans's left was rapidly crossing Stone River to make its
   expected attack, Bragg, with his left, had already anticipated
   him. Coming out of a fog which had settled on the
   battle-field, he fell furiously upon Johnson's division, and
   so unexpectedly that two of its batteries were taken before a
   gun could be fired.
{3487}
   The Confederate success was decisive. Johnson's division,
   which was on the extreme national right, was instantly swept
   away. Davis, who stood next, was assailed in front and on his
   uncovered flank. He made a stout resistance, but the shock was
   too great; he was compelled to give way, with the loss of many
   guns. And now the triumphant Confederate left, the centre also
   coming into play, rushed upon the next division—but that was
   commanded by Sheridan. Rosecrans's aggressive movement was
   already paralyzed; nay, more, it had to be abandoned. He had
   to withdraw his left for the purpose of saving his right and
   defending his communications. He must establish a new line.
   The possibility of doing this—the fate of the battle—rested on
   Sheridan." He held his ground for an hour, until "the
   cartridge-boxes of his men were empty. The time had come when
   even Sheridan must fall back. But, if he had not powder, he
   had steel. The fixed bayonets of his reserve brigade covered
   him, and he retired, unconquered and unshaken, out of the
   cedar thicket toward the Nashville road. In this memorable and
   most glorious resistance he had lost 1,630 men. 'Here's all
   that are left,' he said to Rosecrans, whom he had saved and
   now met. After Sheridan had been pushed back, there was
   nothing for Negley but to follow. … Meantime, on a knoll in
   the plain to which these divisions had receded, Rosecrans had
   massed his artillery. He was forming a new line, in which the
   army would face southwestwardly, with the Nashville turnpike
   on its rear." Against this new line the Confederates dashed
   themselves, desperately but vainly, four times that day, and
   were repelled with horrible slaughter. "Bragg, unwilling to be
   foiled, now brought Breckinridge, who had hitherto been
   untouched, across the river to make a final attempt on
   Rosecrans's left flank with 7,000 fresh men. His first attack
   was repulsed; he made a second; it shared the same fate. So
   stood affairs when night came, … the closing night of 1862. On
   New Year's Day nothing was done; the two armies, breathless
   with their death-struggle, stood looking at each other. On
   January 2d Rosecrans was found, not retreating, but busily
   engaged in trying to carry out his original plan. He had made
   his position impregnable; he had thrown a force across Stone
   River, and, as he at first intended, was getting ready to
   crown with artillery the heights beyond the east bank.
   Hereupon Bragg brought Breckinridge back to his old position,
   ordering him to drive the enemy across the river—a task which
   that officer bravely tried, but only imperfectly accomplished,
   for the artillery on the opposite bank tore his division to
   pieces. In twenty minutes he lost 2,000 men. A violent storm
   prevented the renewal of the battle on the 3d. On that night
   Bragg, despairing of success, withdrew from Murfreesborough,
   retreating to Tullahoma. … In these dreadful battles the
   Confederates lost 14,700 men. On the national side there were
   killed 1,553, wounded more than 7,000, prisoners more than
   3,000; more than one third of its artillery and a large
   portion of its train were taken. The losses were about one
   fourth of each army. Henceforth the Confederates abandoned all
   thought of crossing the Ohio River."

      J. W. Draper,
      History of the American Civil War,
      chapter 53 (volume 2).

   "The enemy in retiring did not fall back very far—only behind
   Duck River to Shelbyville and Tullahoma—and but little
   endeavor was made to follow him. Indeed, we were not in
   condition to pursue, even if it had been the intention at the
   outset of the campaign. … The victory quieted the fears of the
   West and Northwest, destroyed the hopes of the secession
   element in Kentucky, renewed the drooping spirits of the East
   Tennesseans, and demoralized the disunionists in Middle
   Tennessee; yet it was a negative victory so far as concerned
   the result on the battle-field. Rosecrans seems to have
   planned the battle with the idea that the enemy would continue
   passive, remain entirely on the defensive, and that it was
   necessary only to push forward our left in order to force the
   evacuation of Murfreesboro'. … Had Bragg followed up with the
   spirit which characterized its beginning the successful attack
   by Hardee on our right wing—and there seems no reason why he
   should not have done so—the army of Rosecrans still might have
   got back to Nashville, but it would have been depleted and
   demoralized."

      P. H. Sheridan,
      Personal Memoirs,
      volume 1, chapters 12-14.

      ALSO IN:
      A. F. Stevenson,
      Battle of Stone's River.

      T. B. Van Horne,
      History of the Army of the Cumberland,
      chapters 16-17 (volume 1).

      Official Records,
      series 1, volume 20.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (January).
   The final Proclamation of Emancipation.

   The immediate practical effect of the warning Proclamation of
   Emancipation issued by President Lincoln on the 22d of
   September, 1862, "did, perhaps, more nearly answer the
   apprehensions of the President than the expectations of those
   most clamorous for it. It did, as charged, very much 'unite
   the South and divide the North.' The cry of 'the perversion of
   the war for the Union into a war for the negro' became the
   Democratic watchword, and was sounded everywhere with only too
   disastrous effect, as was plainly revealed by the fall
   elections with their large Democratic gains and Republican
   losses. Indeed, it was the opinion of Mr. Greeley that, could
   there have been a vote taken at that time on the naked issue,
   a large majority would have pronounced against emancipation.
   But Mr. Lincoln did not falter. Notwithstanding these
   discouraging votes at the North, and the refusal of any
   Southern State to avail itself of the proffered immunity and
   aid of his Proclamation of September, he proceeded, at the
   close of the hundred days of grace allowed by it, to issue his
   second and absolute Proclamation, making all the slaves of the
   Rebel States and parts of States forever and irreversibly
   free." It was in the following words:

   "Whereas, on the twenty-second day of September, in the year
   of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two, a
   proclamation was issued by the President of the United States,
   containing, among other things, the following, to wit: 'That
   on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one
   thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as
   slaves within any state, or designated part of a state, the
   people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United
   States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and
   the Executive Government of the United States, including the
   military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and
   maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or
   acts to repress such persons or any of them, in any efforts
   they may make for their actual freedom.
{3488}
   That the Executive will, on the first day of January
   aforesaid, by proclamation, designate the states and parts of
   states, if any, in which the people thereof respectively shall
   then be in rebellion against the United States; and the fact
   that any state, or the people thereof, shall on that day be in
   good faith represented in the Congress of the United States,
   by members chosen thereto at elections wherein a majority of
   the qualified voters of such state shall have participated,
   shall, in the absence of strong countervailing testimony, be
   deemed conclusive evidence that such state, and the people
   thereof, are not then in rebellion against the United States.'
   Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United
   States, by virtue of the power in me vested as
   Commander-in-Chief of the army and navy of the United States,
   in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and
   government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary
   war measure for suppressing said rebellion, do, on this first
   day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight
   hundred and sixty-three, and in accordance with my purpose so
   to do, publicly proclaimed for the full period of one hundred
   days from the day first above mentioned, order and designate,
   as the states and parts of states wherein the people thereof
   respectively are this day in rebellion against the United
   States, the following, to wit: Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana
   (except the parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson,
   St. John, St. Charles, St. James, Ascension, Assumption, Terre
   Bonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including
   the city of New Orleans), Mississippi, Alabama, Florida,
   Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia (except
   the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also
   the counties of Berkeley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth
   City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of
   Norfolk and Portsmouth), and which excepted parts are for the
   present left precisely as if this proclamation were not
   issued. And, by virtue of the power and for the purpose
   aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as
   slaves within said designated states and parts of states are
   and henceforward shall be free; and that the Executive
   Government of the United States, including the military and
   naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the
   freedom of said persons. And I hereby enjoin upon the people
   so declared to be free, to abstain from all violence, unless
   in necessary self-defense; and I recommend to them that, in
   all cases when allowed, they labor faithfully for reasonable
   wages. And I further declare and make known that such persons
   of suitable condition will be received into the armed service
   of the United States, to garrison forts, positions, stations,
   and other places, and to man vessels of all sorts in said
   service. And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of
   justice, warranted by the Constitution, upon military
   necessity, I invoke the considerate judgment of mankind and
   the gracious favor of Almighty God.
      In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused
      the seal of the United States to be affixed.
      Done at the city of Washington, this first day of January,
      in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and
      sixty-three, and of the Independence of the United States
      of America the eighty-seventh.
      Abraham Lincoln.
      By the President: William H. Seward, Secretary of State."

   "Though the immediate effects of the Proclamation might not
   have answered all that was expected of it, it was not many
   months before its happy influences became manifest. Its
   tendency from the first was to unify and consolidate the
   antislavery and Christian sentiment of the land, to give
   dignity and consistency to the conflict. … It strengthened,
   too, the cause immensely with other nations, secured the
   sympathy and moral support of Christendom, and diminished, if
   it did not entirely remove, the danger of foreign
   intervention."

      H. Wilson,
      History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power,
      volume 3, chapter 28.

   "Fame is due Mr. Lincoln, not alone because he decreed
   emancipation, but because events so shaped themselves under
   his guidance as to render the conception practical and the
   decree successful. Among the agencies he employed none proved
   more admirable or more powerful than this two-edged sword of
   the final proclamation, blending sentiment with force,
   leaguing liberty with Union, filling the voting armies at home
   and the fighting armies in the field. In the light of history
   we can see that by this edict Mr. Lincoln gave slavery its
   vital thrust, its mortal wound. It was the word of decision,
   the judgment without appeal, the sentence of doom."

      J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
      Abraham Lincoln.
      volume 6, chapter 19.

      ALSO IN:
      O. J. Victor,
      History of the Southern Rebellion,
      division 10, chapter 9 (volume 3).

      W. P. and F. J. Garrison,
      William Lloyd Garrison,
      volume 4. chapters 3-4.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (January: Arkansas).
   The capture of Arkansas Post, or Fort Hindman.

   Sherman withdrew his troops from the attempt against Vicksburg
   on the 2d of January, and on the 4th he relinquished the
   command to General McClernand, who had come down the river
   with orders to assume it. On that same day "the expedition
   sailed on the same transports that had brought them from
   Vicksburg, convoyed by Admiral Porter's fleet of gunboats, to
   attack Fort Hindman, commonly known as Arkansas Post, an old
   French settlement situated on the left or north bank of the
   Arkansas River, 50 miles from its mouth and 117 below Little
   Rock. … The expedition moved up the White River through the
   cut-off which unites its waters with those of the Arkansas, up
   the latter stream to Notrib's farm, three miles below Fort
   Hindman. … By noon on the 10th the landing was completed, and
   the troops were on the march to invest the post. … The
   gunboats opened a terrific fire upon the enemy during the
   afternoon, to distract his attention. By nightfall the troops
   were in position." Next morning a combined attack began, which
   the garrison endured until 4 o'clock P. M. when the white flag
   was raised. "Our entire loss in killed was 129; in wounded,
   831; and in missing, 17; total, 977. … By the surrender there
   fell into our hands 5,000 men. … After sending the prisoners
   to St. Louis, having destroyed the defences and all buildings
   used for military purposes, on the 15th of January the troops
   re-embarked on the transports and proceeded to Napoleon,
   Arkansas, whence on the 17th … they returned to Milliken's
   Bend."

      S. M. Bowman and R B. Irwin,
      Sherman and his Campaigns,
      chapters 7-8.

{3489}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (January-April: Virginia).
   Command given to Hooker.
   President Lincoln's Letter to him.
   Demoralized state of the Army of the Potomac,
   and its improvement.

   "General Burnside retired from a position he had never sought,
   to the satisfaction, and, be it said to his credit, with the
   warm personal regard of all. Sumner, whom the weight of years
   had robbed of strength, but not of gallantry, was relieved at
   his own request; Franklin was shelved. Hooker thus became
   senior general officer, and succeeded to the command. No man
   enjoyed a more enviable reputation in the Army of the Potomac.
   … His commands so far had been limited; and he had a frank,
   manly way of winning the hearts of his soldiers. He was in
   constant motion about the army while it lay in camp; his
   appearance always attracted attention; and he was as well
   known to almost every regiment as its own commander. He was a
   representative man. … Nothing shows more curiously a weak spot
   in Hooker's character than the odd pride he took in Mr.
   Lincoln's somewhat equivocal letter to him at the time of his
   appointment: … 'I have placed you [wrote the President] at the
   head of the Army of the Potomac. Of course, I have done this
   upon what appears to me to be sufficient reasons, and yet I
   think it best for you to know that there are some things in
   regard to which I am not quite satisfied with you. I believe
   you to be a brave and skilful soldier, which of course I like.
   I also believe you do not mix politics with your profession,
   in which you are right. You have confidence in yourself; which
   is a valuable, if not an indispensable quality. You are
   ambitious, which, within reasonable bounds, does good rather
   than harm; but I think that, during General Burnside's command
   of the army, you have taken counsel of your ambition and
   thwarted him as much as you could, in which you did a great
   wrong to the country and to a most meritorious and honorable
   brother-officer. I have heard, in such a way as to believe it,
   of your recently saying that both the army and the Government
   needed a dictator. Of course, it was not for this, but in
   spite of it, that I have given you the command. Only those
   generals who gain success can set up dictators. What I now ask
   of you is military success, and I will risk the dictatorship.
   The Government will support you to the utmost of its ability,
   which is neither more nor less than it has done or will do for
   all commanders. I much fear that the spirit you have aided to
   infuse into the army, of criticising their commander and
   withholding confidence from him, will now turn upon you. I
   shall assist you as far as I can to put it down. Neither you
   nor Napoleon, if he were alive again, could get any good out
   of an army while such a spirit prevails in it. And now, beware
   of rashness! Beware of rashness, but with energy and sleepless
   vigilance go forward, and give us victories!' … Hooker was
   appointed Jan. 26, 1863; and Burnside, with a few earnest
   words, took leave of the army. The troops received their new
   chief with a heartiness and confidence which, since
   McClellan's re-instatement, had not been equalled. Hooker was
   to all the soul and embodiment of the growth and history of
   this weather-beaten Army of the Potomac. And the salutary
   changes he at once began to make,—for Hooker never lacked the
   power of organization—were accepted with alacrity; and a
   spirit of cheerful willingness succeeded speedily to what had
   been almost a defiant obedience. The army was in a lamentably
   low state of efficiency. Politics mingled with camp duties;
   and the disaffection of officers and men, coupled with an
   entire lack of confidence in the ability of the Army of the
   Potomac to accomplish anything, were pronounced. Desertions
   occurred at the rate of 200 a day. … Hooker states that he
   found 2,922 officers, and 81,964 enlisted men, entered as
   absent on the rolls of the army, a large proportion from
   causes unknown. Sharp and efficient measures were at once
   adopted, which speedily checked this alarming depletion of the
   ranks. … The testimony of all general officers of the Army of
   the Potomac concurs in awarding the highest praise to Hooker
   for the manner in which he improved the condition of the
   troops during the three months he was in command prior to
   Chancellorsville. … On the 30th of April the Army of the
   Potomac, exclusive of provost-guard, consisted of about
   130,000 men under the colors,—'for duty equipped,' according
   to the morning report. … While the Army of the Potomac lay
   about Falmouth [opposite Fredericksburg], awaiting orders to
   move, Lee occupied the heights south of the Rappahannock, from
   Banks's Ford above to Port Royal (or Skenker's Neck), below
   Fredericksburg, a line some 15 miles in length as the crow
   flies. … Lee's forces numbered about 60,000 men, for duty."

      T. A. Dodge,
      The Campaign of Chancellorsville,
      chapters 3-4.

      ALSO IN:
      F. A. Walker,
      History of the 2nd Army Corps,
      chapter 7.

      R. De Trobriand,
      Four Years with the Army of the Potomac,
      chapter 20.

{3490}

Map of Vicksburg and Vicinity.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863
(January-April: On the Mississippi).
   Grant's Campaign against Vicksburg.
   Futile operations of the first four months.

   "General Grant took personal command of the movement against
   Vicksburg on the 30th of January, 1863. … The first plan made
   was to dig a canal across the neck of land, or peninsula in
   front of Vicksburg,—below the city,—at a point where the
   isthmus was only a mile and a fifth in width. This had been
   begun before General Grant's arrival. If a canal could have
   been made large enough for large steamboats, then no matter
   how strong were the fortifications of Vicksburg, the boats
   would pass through, far away from their fire. So a canal ten
   feet wide and six deep was made here, in the hope that the
   freshets of the river would widen it, and so make it large
   enough for large steamers. But very little came of the canal.
   When the river did rise, it would not flow where it was meant
   to do. It flooded the camps of the workmen. Meanwhile the
   Rebels had made new batteries below it. Thus ended plan number
   one. Another similar plan, to open a route by Lake Providence
   and Bayou Baxter, Bayou Macon, and the Washita and Red River,
   did not succeed better. The canals attempted here were both on
   the west of the river. A very bold attempt was made on the
   east side, by what was known as the Yazoo Pass, into the
   Tallahatchee and Yazoo River. The expeditions sent out by this
   route would come out above Vicksburg; but it was hoped that
   thus the Rebel gunboats on the Yazoo River might be destroyed.
   If a practicable route were made here, the whole army could be
   moved to Haine's Bluff,—above Vicksburg,—an upland region very
   desirable for occupation.
{3491}
   But nothing came of this movement, though some hard work and
   some hard fighting were done in it. What resulted of
   importance was, that the troops found their way into the
   granary from which Vicksburg had been fed; and in the
   resistance, many of the Rebels were destroyed. In such
   attempts February and March passed away. Meanwhile Admiral
   Farragut, of the navy, ran by the Rebel batteries at Port
   Hudson, so that he communicated with Grant below
   Vicksburg,—and Grant could communicate with General Banks, who
   was trying to do at Port Hudson what Grant was trying to do
   above. The distance from Vicksburg to Port Hudson is about 120
   miles in a straight line, and more than twice that by the
   crooked river. Grant now determined to pass the city of
   Vicksburg on the west side of the river by marching his army
   by land—with the help of boats on some bayous if possible—from
   Milliken's Bend, which is twenty miles above Vicksburg, to New
   Carthage, which is about as far below. At his request Admiral
   Porter sent seven of his iron-clads, with three steamers and
   ten barges, down the river, past the Rebel batteries. They
   were well laden with forage and supplies. The crews of all but
   one refused to go. But volunteers from the army offered,
   enough to man a hundred vessels had they been needed. On a
   dark night of the 16th of April, led by Admiral Porter, they
   steamed down, with the barges in tow. They turned the bend
   without being noticed. Then the first batteries opened on
   them. The Rebels set fire to houses so as to light up the
   scene; and from the ships the crews could see the men at the
   batteries and in the streets of Vicksburg. Though every vessel
   was hit, all got by, except the Henry Clay steamer. Finding
   she was sinking, her commander cut off the barge he was
   towing, which drifted safely down, and, soon after, the vessel
   herself took fire. The crew escaped in their boats,—the vessel
   blazed up and lighted up all around. At last, however, after
   the boats had been under fire two hours and forty minutes, the
   whole fleet except the Henry Clay arrived safely below the
   batteries. Grant had thus secured, not only forage and stores,
   but the means of transportation. On the 26th of April five
   more vessels passed successfully, one being lost as before.
   Grant was now strong enough to cross the Mississippi River.
   His army had to march seventy miles on the west side by muddy
   roads, scarcely above the river line. He feared he might have
   to go as far down as a little town called Rodney for a good
   landing-place on the east side. But a friendly negro man, who
   knew the country, brought in information that there was a good
   road inland from Bruinsburg,—and so it proved. Grand Gulf, on
   the river, where the Rebels had a post, was still between
   Grant and Bruinsburg. Porter attacked it with his gunboats,
   and Grant was ready to land 10,000 troops to storm the place
   if the batteries were silenced. But Porter did not succeed.
   Grant therefore marched his troops down on the west side of
   the river. Porter ran by Grand Gulf with transports in the
   night, and, on the morning of the 30th of April, Grant crossed
   the river with 10,000 men. They did not carry a tent nor a
   wagon. General Grant and his staff went without their horses.
   It was said afterwards that his whole baggage was a
   toothbrush! Other divisions followed, and on the 3d of May he
   left the river, and marched, not directly on Vicksburg, but
   more inland, to cut off all communication with that city. His
   army took three days' rations with them, and relied
   principally for provisions on the stores in the rich country
   through which they marched."

      E. E. Hale,
      Stories of War told by Soldiers,
      chapter 7.

      ALSO IN:
      F. V. Greene,
      The Mississippi
      (Campaigns of the Civil War, volume 8), chapter 4.

      U. S. Grant,
      Personal Memoirs,
      volume 1, chapters 31-32.

      G. W. Brown,
      The Mississippi Squadron and the Siege of Vicksburg
      (Personal Recollections of the War:
      New York Com. L. L. of the United States).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D.1863(February-April: Tennessee).
   Engagements at Dover and Franklin.

   "In February [on the 3d], General Wheeler, Bragg's chief of
   Cavalry, tried to capture Fort Donaldson, so as to stop the
   navigation of the Cumberland River, by which some of
   Rosecrans's supplies came in steamboats to Nashville. The fort
   had not been repaired after its capture by Grant, but the
   Village of Dover near it had been fortified, and it was then
   held by Colonel A. C. Harding with about 600 men. The Union
   men fought bravely, and in the evening the gunboat Fair Play
   came up and opened a fire on the Confederates which drove them
   away in confusion, with a loss of more than 500 men. Harding's
   loss was 126. Early in March, General Van Dorn appeared near
   Franklin [a little below Nashville] with a large force of
   mounted men. Colonel Colburn, of the 33d Indiana, moved
   Southward from Franklin with 2,700 men. Van Dorn and Forrest
   met him, and after a fight of several hours [March 5] Colburn
   had to surrender with 1,300 of his men."

      J. D. Champlin, Jr.,
      Young Folks' History of the War for the Union,
      chapter 31.

   "Sheridan, with his division, and about 1,800 cavalry, under
   Colonel Minty, first swept down toward Shelbyville, and then
   around toward Franklin, skirmishing in several places with
   detachments of Van Dorn's and Forrest's men. In a sharp fight
   at Thompson's Station, he captured some of the force which
   encountered Colburn. He finally drove Van Dorn beyond the Duck
   River, and then returned to Murfreesboro', with a loss during
   his ten days' ride and skirmishing of only five men killed and
   five wounded. His gain was nearly 100 prisoners. On the 18th
   of March, Colonel A. S. Hall, with a little over 1,400 men,
   moved eastward from Murfreesboro' to surprise a Confederate
   camp at Gainesville. He was unexpectedly met by some of
   Morgan's cavalry, when he fell back to Milton, twelve miles
   northeast of Murfreesboro' and took a strong position on
   Vaught's Hill. There he was attacked by 2,000 men, led by
   Morgan in person. With the aid of Harris's Battery skilfully
   worked, Hall repulsed the foe after a struggle of about three
   hours. Morgan lost between 300 and 400 men killed and wounded.
   Among the latter was himself. Hall's loss was 55 men, of whom
   only 6 were killed. Early in April, General Granger, then in
   command at Franklin, with nearly 5,000 troops, was satisfied
   that a heavy force under Van Dorn was about to attack him. He
   was then constructing a fort (which afterwards bore his name),
   but only two siege-guns and two rifled cannon, belonging to an
   Ohio battery, were mounted upon it.
{3492}
   The fort … completely commanded the approaches to Franklin. …
   On the 10th, Van Dorn, with an estimated force of 9,000
   mounted men and two regiments of foot, pressed rapidly forward
   along the Columbia and Lewisburg turnpikes, and fell upon
   Granger's front. The guns from the fort opened destructively
   upon the assailants, and their attack was manfully met by
   Granger's troops. Van Dorn soon found himself in a perilous
   situation, for Stanley [commanding cavalry] came up and struck
   him a heavy blow on the flank. Smith [with cavalry] was
   ordered forward to support Stanley, and Baird's troops
   were_thrown across the river to engage in the fight. The
   Confederates were routed at all points on Granger's front,
   with a heavy Joss in killed and wounded, and about 500
   prisoners. Van Dorn then turned his whole force upon Stanley
   before Smith reached him, and with his overwhelming numbers
   pushed him back and recovered most of the captured men. By
   this means Van Dorn extricated himself from his perilous
   position, and, abandoning his attempt to capture Franklin, he
   retired to Spring Hill, with a loss of about three hundred men
   in killed, wounded and prisoners. The Union loss was about 37
   killed, wounded and missing."

      B. J. Lossing,
      Field Book of the Civil War,
      volume 3, chapter 4.

      ALSO IN:
      T. B. Van Horne,
      History of the Army of the Cumberland,
      chapter 18, (volume 1).

      Official Records,
      Series 1, volume 23.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (March).
   The Conscription Act.

   "The Rebel Congress having long since passed [April 16, 1862]
   a conscription act whereby all the "White males in the
   Confederacy between the ages of 18 and 35 were placed at the
   disposal of their Executive, while all those already in the
   service, though they had enlisted and been accepted for
   specific terms of one or two years, were held to serve through
   the war, our Congress was constrained to follow afar off in
   the footsteps of the enemy; since our ranks, [after] our heavy
   losses in the bloody struggles of 1862, were filled by
   volunteers too slowly for the exigencies of the service. The
   act providing 'for the enrollment of the National forces' was
   among the last passed [March 3, 1863] by the XXXVIIth Congress
   prior to its dissolution. It provided for the enrollment, by
   Federal provost-marshals and enrolling officers, of all
   able-bodied male citizens (not Whites only), including aliens
   who had declared their intention to become naturalized,
   between the ages of 18 and 45—those between 20 and 35 to
   constitute the first class; all others the second class—from
   which the President was authorized, from and after July 1, to
   make drafts at his discretion of persons to serve in the
   National armies for not more than three years; anyone drafted
   and not reporting for service to be considered and treated as
   a deserter. A commutation of $300 was to be received in lieu
   of such service: and there were exemptions provided of certain
   heads of Executive Departments; Federal judges; Governors of
   States; the only son of a widow, or of an aged and infirm
   father, dependent on that son's labor for support; the father
   of dependent motherless children under 12 years of age, or the
   only adult brother of such children, being orphans; or the
   residue of a family which has already two members in the
   service, &c., &c. The passage and execution of this act
   inevitably intensified and made active the spirit of
   opposition to the War. Those who detested every form of
   'coercion' save the coercion of the Republic by the Rebels,
   with those who especially detested the National effort under
   its present aspects as 'a war not for the Union, but for the
   Negro,' were aroused by it to a more determined and active
   opposition. The bill passed the House by Yeas 115, Nays 49—the
   division being so nearly as might be, a party one—while in the
   Senate a motion by Mr. Bayard that it be indefinitely
   postponed was supported by 11 Yeas (all Democrats) to 35 Nays:
   consisting of every Republican present, with Messrs.
   McDougall, of California, Harding and Nesmith of Oregon. The
   bill then passed without a call of the Yeas and Nays."

      H. Greeley,
      The American Conflict,
      volume 2, chapter 21.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (April: South Carolina).
   The naval attack on Charleston.
   Repulse of the Monitors.

   "The engagements in which turret iron-clads had been concerned
   had given to the government and the public a high opinion of
   their offensive and defensive qualities. It seemed as if
   nothing could withstand the blow of their heavy shot, and no
   projectile penetrate their invulnerable turrets. It was
   supposed that a fleet of such ships could without difficulty
   force a passage through Charleston Harbor, in spite of its
   numerous defenses, and, appearing before the city, compel its
   surrender. … On the 7th of April [1863] Admiral Dupont made
   the experiment. He had seven Ericsson Monitors, the frigate
   Ironsides, partially iron-clad, and a frailer iron-clad, the
   Keokuk, constructed on a plan differing from that of the
   Monitors. His intention was to disregard the batteries on
   Morris's Island, attack the northwest face of Sumter, and
   force his way up to the city. His fleet had 32 guns; the
   opposing forts, in the aggregate, 300. At noon on that day the
   signal was given to weigh anchor. The Weehawken, a Monitor,
   took the lead. She had a raft-like contrivance attached to her
   bows, for the purpose of removing obstructions and exploding
   torpedoes. This occasioned some delay at the outset, through
   its interference with her movements. On her way up she
   exploded a torpedo, which, though it lifted her a little, did
   no damage. At 2.10 P, M. she encountered obstructions
   extending across the harbor from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter;
   beyond these, piles were seen extending from James's Island to
   the Middle Ground. At 2.50 P. M. the guns of Fort Moultrie
   opened upon her, followed shortly after by all the batteries
   on Sullivan's Island, Morris's Island, and Fort Sumter. Not
   being able to pass the obstructions, the Weehawken, and
   subsequently other Monitors, the Passaic, Nahant, etc., were
   obliged to turn, which threw the line into confusion, as the
   other vessels, advancing, approached. This was particularly
   the case with the flag-ship Ironsides, which became entangled
   with the Monitors, and could not bring her batteries to bear
   upon Fort Sumter without risk of firing into them; she was
   obliged, on her way up, to anchor twice to avoid going ashore,
   on one of these occasions in consequence of having come into
   collision with two of the Monitors. The plan of the
   Confederates was, by means of obstructions, to detain the
   ships, while a concentrated fire was poured upon them in this
   the 'first circle,' as it was termed.
{3493}
   Two other still more powerful circles of fire must be passed
   before the city could be reached. While in the centre of the
   first circle, it was apparent that the Monitors were at a
   fearful disadvantage. The forts and earth-works were armed
   with heavy guns of the best construction. No ship was exposed
   to the severest fire of the enemy for more than forty minutes,
   yet in that brief period time of the ironclads were wholly or
   partially disabled. In these forty minutes the battle was
   substantially over, the question settled. The Keokuk was
   struck 99 times, of which 19 were under her water-line. She
   was in a sinking condition. She had been able to return only
   three shots. The Passaic was struck 27 times; her turret was
   jammed, and could not for some time be turned. The Nahant was
   most seriously damaged; her turret was jammed, her captain
   wounded, her quarter-master killed by a bolt which flew off
   and struck him on the head. Many of the bolts of both turret
   and pilot-house were thus broken; the latter became nearly
   untenable in consequence of the nuts and ends flying across
   it. All the other Monitors had received damages more or less
   severe. The mailed frigate Ironsides had lost one port
   shutter, her bow was penetrated by a red-hot shot. The damage
   inflicted on Fort Sumter was comparatively insignificant. It
   was Dupont's belief that, had the iron-clads been in action
   half an hour longer, they would all have been disabled. 'To my
   regret,' he says, 'I soon became convinced of the utter
   impracticability of taking the city of Charleston by the force
   under my command.' … The iron-clad fleet had therefore been
   unable to pass the first line of obstructions, or to get out
   of 'the first circle of fire.' The slowness of its fire was no
   match for the rapidity and weight of that of the forts. The
   iron-clads were able to fire only 139 times from the 14 guns
   they could bring into action; the forts, from 76 guns, fired
   2,209 times. The projectiles they used were wrought-iron
   bolts, some of them tipped with steel, solid shot, shells, of
   which 40 were filled with melted cast-iron, others with
   incendiary composition. The total amount of cannon-powder used
   by the forts was 21,093 pounds. The government, thus satisfied
   that its iron-clad fleet was insufficient for the forcing of
   Charleston Harbor and the capture of the city, now changed its
   purposes, restricting its attempts to a more complete
   blockade, the detention of a large confederate force in the
   vicinity by continually threatening military operations, and
   the destruction of Fort Sumter for the sake of a moral
   effect."

      J. W. Draper,
      History of the American Civil War,
      chapter 72 (volume 3).

      ALSO IN:
      D. D. Porter,
      Naval History of the War,
      chapter 33.

      C. B. Boynton,
      History of the Navy during the Rebellion,
      volume 2, chapter 33.

      W. C. Church,
      Life of Ericsson,
      chapter 21 (volume 2).

      A. Roman,
      Military Operations of General Beauregard,
      chapter 30 (volume 2).

      Official Records,
      Series 1, volume 14.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (April-May: Virginia).
   Hooker's disastrous movement.
   Chancellorsville.
   Stonewall Jackson's last flank movement.

   "Being now [April 28] fully prepared for active operations,
   Hooker determined to take the initiative by moving on the left
   of his opponent's position. By careful study of Lee's position
   he correctly concluded that his left was his most vulnerable
   point. In order to mask his real design he sent forward a
   force of 10,000 cavalry under General Stoneman to operate upon
   Lee's lines of communication with Richmond, and sent Sedgwick
   with a force of 30,000 men still further to mask his movement.
   Stoneman crossed the Rappahannock at Kelly's Ford on the 29th,
   and Sedgwick appeared on the 28th on the heights below
   Fredericksburg. These preparatory measures having been taken,
   Hooker proceeded to the execution of his plan. Swinton, after
   a picturesque description of the passage of the Rappahannock
   and the Rapidan, tells us 'that on the afternoon of the 30th
   of April four corps of the Federal army had gained the
   position of Chancellorsville, where Hooker at the same time
   established his headquarters.' Chancellorsville is situated
   ten miles southwest of Fredericksburg. It is not, as its name
   implies, a town or village, but simply a farm-house with its
   usual appendages, situated at the edge of a small field
   surrounded by a dense thicket of second growth, which sprang
   up after the primeval forest had been cut to furnish fuel to a
   neighboring furnace. This thicket extends for miles in every
   direction, and its wild aspect very properly suggests its
   name, The Wilderness. The intersection of several important
   roads gives it the semblance of strategic importance, while in
   reality a more unfavorable place for military operations could
   not well be found. Hooker, however, seemed well pleased with
   his acquisition, for on reaching Chancellorsville on Thursday
   night he issued an order to the troops in which he announced
   that 'the enemy must either ingloriously fly or come out from
   behind his defences and give us battle on our own ground,
   where certain destruction awaits him.' … General Lee was fully
   aware of the preparations that were being made by his
   adversary, but calmly awaited the complete development of his
   plans before exerting his strength to oppose him. … On the
   28th … Lee ordered Jackson to concentrate his whole corps in
   the immediate vicinity of Fredericksburg. Early on the morning
   of the 29th Sedgwick crossed the Rappahannock below the mouth
   of Deep Run, but made no other aggressive movement on that day
   or the day following. On the night of the 30th, Lee was
   informed of Hooker's arrival at Chancellorsville. He had been
   previously informed of Stoneman's movements against his line
   of operations by General Stuart, and was now satisfied that
   the main attack of the enemy would come from the direction of
   Chancellorsville. Therefore on the morning of the 1st of May
   he made the necessary preparations to meet it. Accompanied by
   his staff, he took a position on a height where one of his
   batteries overlooked the Rappahannock. He there observed
   carefully the position of Sedgwick, while waiting for
   information from the direction of Chancellorsville. … Very
   soon the sound of cannon indicated that the work had begun. At
   the same time couriers arrived from Stuart and Anderson
   informing the general that the enemy were advancing on the old
   turnpike, the plank road, and on the river roads, and asking
   for reinforcements. McLaws was immediately ordered to the
   support of Anderson, and shortly after Jackson was ordered to
   follow with three of his divisions, leaving … a force of about
   9,000 men and 45 pieces of artillery in observation of
   Sedgwick. When Jackson joined McLaws and Anderson a lively
   skirmish was in progress, in which he immediately
   participated.
{3494}
   When General Lee arrived he found the Federals were being
   driven back to Chancellorsville. At the close of the afternoon
   they had retired within their lines. General Lee occupied the
   ridge about three-quarters of a mile south-east and south of
   Chancellorsville. The opposing armies were hidden from each
   other by the intervening thicket of brushwood. … It was
   obvious that the Federal position was too formidable to be
   attacked in front with any hope of success; therefore Lee
   proceeded to devise a plan by which the position of Hooker
   might be turned and a point of attack gained from which no
   danger was apprehended by the Federal commander. … The
   execution of a movement so much in accordance with his genius
   and inclination was assigned to General Jackson. … At dawn on
   the morning of the 2d, Jackson's corps, 22,000 strong, was in
   motion, and while it was making one of the most famous flank
   movements on record, General Lee, with the divisions of
   Anderson and McLaws, with 20 pieces of artillery, a force not
   exceeding 12,000 men, occupied the position he had assumed the
   previous evening, and General Hooker, with 90,000 men, lay
   behind his breastworks awaiting the Confederate attack. …
   After making a circuitous march of 15 miles, Jackson reached a
   point on the Orange Courthouse road three miles in the rear of
   Chancellorsville. Had Hooker possessed a handful of cavalry
   equal in spirit to the 'Virginia horsemen' under W. H. F. Lee
   that neutralized Stoneman's ten thousand, he might have
   escaped the peril that now awaited him. On the arrival of
   Jackson on the plank road, Fitz Lee, who had covered his
   movement with his brigade of cavalry, conducted him to a
   position from which he obtained a view of the enemy, which
   disclosed the following scene: 'Below and but a few hundred
   yards distant ran the Federal line of battle. There was the
   line of defence, with abatis in front, and long lines of
   stacked arms in rear. … The soldiers were in groups in the
   rear, laughing, chatting, and smoking, probably engaged here
   and there in games of cards and other amusements indulged in
   while feeling safe and comfortable, awaiting orders. In the
   rear of them were other parties driving up and butchering
   beeves.' Returning from this point of observation, Jackson
   proceeded to make his dispositions of attack, which by six
   o'clock were completed. … Howard's corps was first assailed.
   This corps, being surprised, was panic-stricken and fled
   precipitately, and in its flight communicated the panic to the
   troops through which it passed. Jackson's forces followed,
   routing line after line, until arrested by the close of day.
   The rout of the Federal army was fast becoming general, and it
   was only saved from entire defeat by the interposition of
   night. When compelled to halt Jackson remarked that with one
   more hour of daylight he could have completed the destruction
   of the Federal army. This, the most famous of all Jackson's
   brilliant achievements, closed his military career. After his
   troops had halted, and while the lines were being adjusted, he
   rode forward with several of his staff to reconnoitre the
   Federal position." The party were mistaken by some of their
   own men for Federal horsemen and received a volley which
   struck down Stonewall Jackson. He was wounded in both arms by
   three bullets, and died from the effects eight days afterward.
   "Early on the morning of the 3d the attack was resumed by the
   Confederates with great vigor. Hooker, taking advantage of the
   night, had restored order in his army and strengthened his
   position; his troops regained courage and contested the field
   with great stubbornness until ten o'clock when they yielded at
   every point and rapidly retreated … within the strong line of
   defences which had been previously constructed to cover the
   road to the United States Ford. … While the operations above
   described were in progress at Chancellorsville, General Early,
   by skilful manœuvring, had detained Sedgwick at Fredericksburg
   until the 3d, when that general, by a determined advance,
   forced back Early, carried Marye's Heights, and proceeded
   toward Chancellorsville. The condition of affairs was
   communicated to General Lee during the fore·noon. Wilcox's
   brigade, then at Banks's Ford, was ordered to intercept
   Sedgwick and retard his advance, while McLaws's division was
   ordered to support him. Wilcox on reaching Salem Church, six
   miles from Chancellorsville, encountered the Federal advance,
   and after a sharp conflict he repulsed it with loss. The
   success of Wilcox delayed Sedgwick until Anderson and McLaws
   could come up. The premeditated attack on Hooker being thus
   interrupted, Lee, on the forenoon of the 4th, repaired to the
   neighborhood of Fredericksburg. A combined attack was then
   directed to be made by Early on the rear, while McLaws and
   Anderson bore down upon the front. The battle was hotly
   contested during the afternoon, in which the forces of
   Sedgwick were defeated, and were only saved from destruction
   by a night-passage across the Rappahannock at Banks's Ford. On
   the 5th Lee collected his forces at Chancellorsville to give
   the 'coup de grace' to Hooker, but that general, under cover
   of a dark and stormy night, effected his retreat beyond the
   Rappahannock at the United States Ford."

      A. L. Long,
      Memoirs of Robert E. Lee,
      chapter 14.

   The Federal loss at Chancellorsville, in killed and wounded,
   was 12,197; missing 5,000; total, 17,197. Confederate loss,
   killed and wounded, 10,266; missing 2,753; total, 13,019.

      A. Doubleday,
      Chancellorsville and Gettysburg
      (Campaigns of the Civil War, volume 6), chapter 8.

      ALSO IN:
      T. A. Dodge,
      Campaign of Chancellorsville.

      W. Swinton,
      Campaigns of the Army of the Potomac,
      chapter 8.

      D. N. Couch, O. O. Howard, and others,
      Chancellorsville
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 3).

      J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 7, chapter 4.

      Official Records,
      Series 1, volume 25.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (April-May: Mississippi).
   Grierson's Raid.

   Reporting to headquarters at Washington, on the 5th of May,
   1863, General Hurlbut, commanding at Memphis, Tennessee, said:
   "As the spring opened, I was daily more and more impressed
   with the feasibility of a plan, long entertained, of pushing a
   flying column of cavalry through the length of Mississippi,
   cutting the Southern Railroad. By consent and approval of
   General Grant, I prepared a system of movements along my
   entire line from Memphis to Corinth for the purpose of
   covering this cavalry dash. At the same time General Rosecrans
   proposed to me to cover a movement of 1,800 cavalry from
   Tuscumbia down into Alabama and Georgia.
{3495}
   This did not interfere with my plan, but simply required extra
   force to be developed from Corinth. Delays incident to
   combined movements, especially from separate commands, kept
   his expeditionary column back for six days. I commenced the
   movement from Corinth on the 15th [April]. … On the 17th,
   Colonel B. H. Grierson, Sixth Illinois Cavalry, with his own
   regiment, the Seventh Illinois, and Second Iowa, moved from La
   Grange, by way of Pontotoc, with orders, after passing
   Pontotoc, to proceed straight down, throwing one regiment to
   the left toward Okolona, and to push for and destroy the
   Chunkey River Bridge and any others they could reach, and
   either return, or proceed to Baton Rouge, as might be found
   advisable. On the same day, April 17, a column of infantry
   1,500 strong, and one battery, moved by railroad from La
   Grange to Coldwater, with orders to push rapidly between
   Coldwater and the Tallahatchee, and take Chalmers in flank and
   rear while attacked in front by three regiments, a battery,
   and 200 cavalry from Memphis, which left here on the 18th. I
   considered that the effect of these movements would be to
   puzzle the enemy and withdraw his force from the central line,
   which has proven to be correct. … Grierson, on the 19th,
   detached the Second Iowa below Pontotoc, which fought its way
   gallantly back to La Grange and came home well mounted. The
   main cavalry column (Sixth and Seventh Illinois) proceeded,
   without loss or engagement, to Newton, on the Southern
   Mississippi Railroad, and there destroyed bridges." Colonel
   Grierson, in his own full report of the remarkable expedition
   thus set on foot, after narrating the proceedings of his
   command until it struck Newton Station, on the 24th of April,
   continues: "From captured mails and information obtained by my
   scouts, I knew that large forces had been sent out to
   intercept our return, and having instructions from
   Major-General Hurlbut and Brigadier-General Smith to move in
   any direction from this point which, in my judgment, would be
   best for the safety of my command and the success of the
   expedition, I at once decided to move south, in order to
   secure the necessary rest and food for men and horses, and
   then return to La Grange through Alabama, or make for Baton
   Rouge, as I might hereafter deem best. … After resting about
   three hours, we moved south to Garlandville. At this point we
   found the citizens, many of them venerable with age, armed
   with shot-guns and organized to resist our approach. As the
   advance entered the town, these citizens fired upon them and
   wounded one of our men. We charged upon them and captured
   several. After disarming them, we showed them the folly of
   their actions, and released them. Without an exception they
   acknowledged their mistake, and declared that they had been
   grossly deceived as to our real character. One volunteered his
   services as guide, and upon leaving us declared that hereafter
   his prayers should be for the Union Army. I mention this as a
   sample of the feeling which exists, and the good effect which
   our presence produced among the people in the country through
   which we passed. Hundreds who are skulking and hiding out to
   avoid conscription, only await the presence of our arms to
   sustain them, when they will rise up and declare their
   principles; and thousands who have been deceived, upon the
   vindication of our cause would immediately return to loyalty."
   It was not until the 2d of May that Grierson and his small
   force reached the Union lines at Baton Rouge. The total
   accomplishments of the expedition—aside from the important
   revelation it made of the condition of things in that region
   of the Confederacy—are summed up in the Colonel's report as
   follows: "During the expedition we killed and wounded about
   100 of the enemy, captured and paroled over 500 prisoners,
   many of them officers, destroyed between 50 and 60 miles of
   railroad and telegraph, captured and destroyed over 3,000
   stand of arms, and other army stores and Government property
   to an immense amount; we also captured 1,000 horses and mules.
   Our loss during the entire journey was 3 killed, 7 wounded, 5
   left on the route sick; the sergeant-major and surgeon of the
   Seventh Illinois left with Lieutenant-Colonel Blackburn, and 9
   men missing, supposed to have straggled. We marched over 600
   miles in less than sixteen days. The last twenty-eight hours
   we marched 76 miles, had four engagements with the enemy, and
   forded the Comite River, which was deep enough to swim many of
   the horses. During this time the men and horses were without
   food or rest. Much of the country through which we passed was
   almost entirely destitute of forage and provisions, and it was
   but seldom that we obtained over one meal per day. Many of the
   inhabitants must undoubtedly suffer for want of the
   necessaries of life, which have reached most fabulous prices."

      Official Records,
      series 1, volume 24, part 1, pages 520-529.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863
(April-July: On the Mississippi).
   Grant's Campaign against Vicksburg.
   The final operations.
   His personal account of the siege and capture.

   "April 30th was spent in transporting troops across the river
   [to Bruinsburg]. The troops were moved out towards Port Gibson
   as fast as they were landed. On the 1st of May the advance met
   the enemy under Bowen about four miles west of Port Gibson,
   where quite a severe battle was fought, resulting in the
   defeat of the enemy, who were driven from the field. On May 2d
   our troops moved into Port Gibson, and, finding that the
   bridges over Bayou Pierre were destroyed, spent the balance of
   the day in rebuilding and crossing them, and marching to the
   North Fork, where we encamped for the night. During the night
   we rebuilt the bridge across the North Fork, which had also
   been destroyed, and the next day (the 3d) pushed on, and,
   after considerable skirmishing, reached the Big Black, near
   Hankinson's Ferry, and the Mississippi at Grand Gulf. … Here I
   [General Grant] … received a letter from Banks stating that he
   could not be at Port Hudson [which Grant had intended to join
   Banks in attacking, before he turned against Vicksburg] for
   some days, and then, with an army of only 15,000 men. As I did
   not regard this force of as much value as the time which would
   be lost in waiting for it, I determined to move on to
   Vicksburg. The 4th, 5th, and 6th of May were spent in
   reconnoitering towards Vicksburg, and also in crossing
   Sherman's troops over to Grand Gulf. On the 7th, Sherman
   having joined the main body of the army, the troops across the
   Big Black were withdrawn, and the movement was commenced to
   get in position on the Vicksburg and Jackson railroad so as to
   attack Vicksburg from the rear. This occupied the army from the
   7th to the 12th, when our position was near Fourteen Mile
   creek, Raymond being our right flank, our left resting on the
   Big Black.
{3496}
   To obtain this position we fought the battle of Raymond, where
   Logan's and Crocker's divisions of McPherson's corps defeated
   the Confederates under General Gregg, driving him back on
   Jackson; Sherman and McClernand both having some skirmishing
   where they crossed Fourteen Mile creek. As the army under
   Pemberton was on my left flank, and that under General Joseph
   E. Johnston on my right at Jackson, I determined to move the
   army rapidly on Jackson, capturing and destroying that place
   as a military depot; then turn west and destroy the army under
   Pemberton, or drive it back into Vicksburg. The 13th was spent
   in making the first of these moves. On the 14th Jackson was
   attacked with Sherman's and McPherson's corps. The place was
   taken, and all supplies that could be of service to the enemy
   were destroyed, as well as the railroad bridge. On the 15th
   the troops were faced to the west and marched towards
   Pemberton, who was near Edwards's Station. The next day, the
   16th, we met the enemy at Champion's Hill, and, after a
   hard-fought battle, defeated and drove him back towards
   Vicksburg, capturing 18 guns and nearly 3,000 men. This was
   the hardest-fought battle of the campaign. On the 17th we
   reached the Big Black, where we found the enemy intrenched.
   After a battle of two or three hours' duration we succeeded in
   carrying their works by storm, capturing much artillery and
   about 1,200 men. … We crossed on the morning of the 18th, and
   the outworks of Vicksburg were reached before night, the army
   taking position in their front. On the 19th there was
   continuous skirmishing with the enemy while we were getting
   into better positions. … At two o'clock I ordered an assault.
   It resulted in securing more advanced positions for all our
   troops, where they were fully covered from the fire of the
   enemy, and the siege of Vicksburg began. … Most of the army
   had now been for three weeks with only five days' rations
   issued by the commissary. They had had an abundance of food,
   however, but had begun to feel the want of bread. … By the
   night of the 21st full rations were issued to all the troops.
   … I now determined on a second assault. … The attack was
   ordered to commence on all parts of the line at ten o'clock A.
   M. on the 22d with a furious cannonade from every battery in
   position. All the corps commanders set their time by mine, so
   that all might open the engagement at the same minute. The
   attack was gallant, and portions of each of the three corps
   succeeded in getting up to the very parapets of the enemy …
   but at no place were we able to enter. … As soon as it was
   dark our troops that had reached the enemy's line and had been
   obliged to remain there for security all day were withdrawn,
   and thus ended the last assault on Vicksburg. A regular siege
   was now determined upon. … The Union force that had crossed
   the Mississippi river up to this time was less than 43,000
   men. … The enemy had at Vicksburg, Grand Gulf, Jackson, and on
   the roads between these places, quite 60,000 men. … My line
   was more than 15 miles long, extending from Haines's Bluff to
   Vicksburg, thence to Warrenton. The line of the enemy was
   about seven. In addition to this, having an enemy at Canton
   and Jackson in our rear, who was being constantly reënforced,
   we required a second line of defense, facing the other way. I
   had not troops enough under my command to man this. General
   Halleck appreciated the situation and, without being asked for
   reinforcements, forwarded them with all possible dispatch. …
   Johnston … abstained from making an assault on us, because it
   would simply have inflicted loss on both sides without
   accomplishing any result. We were strong enough to have taken
   the offensive against him; but I did not feel disposed to take
   any risk of loosing our hold upon Pemberton's army, while I
   would have rejoiced at the opportunity of defending ourselves
   against an attack by Johnston." The siege was of six weeks'
   duration, ending on the memorable 4th of July with the
   surrender of Pemberton and 31,000 men, who were released on
   parole. "Our men were no sooner inside the lines than the two
   armies began to fraternize, We had had full rations from the
   time the siege commenced to the close. The enemy had been
   suffering, particularly towards the last. I myself saw our men
   taking bread from their haversacks and giving it to those whom
   they had so recently been engaged in starving out."

      U. S. Grant,
      The Siege of Vicksburg
      (Century Magazine, September, 1885).

      ALSO IN:
      U. S. Grant,
      Personal Memoirs,
      volume 1, chapters 31-30.

      The Vicksburg Year
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 3).

      J. E. Johnston,
      Narrative of Military Operations,
      chapters 6-8.

      F. V. Greene,
      The Mississippi
      (Campaigns of the Civil War, volume 8), chapters 5-6.

      W. Swinton,
      Twelve Decisive Battles of the War,
      chapter 7.

      W. T. Sherman,
      Memoirs,
      volume 1, chapter 12.

      Official Records,
      series 1, volume 24.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (May-June).
   The arrest of Vallandigham.
   President Lincoln to the Copperheads.

   "The man whose name became unfortunately pre-eminent for
   disloyalty at this time was Clement L. Vallandigham, a
   Democrat, of Ohio. General Burnside was placed in command of
   the Department of the Ohio, March 25, 1863, and having for the
   moment no Confederates to deal with, he turned his attention
   to the Copperheads, whom he regarded with even greater
   animosity. His Order No. 38, issued on April 13, … warned
   persons with treasonable tongues that, unless they should keep
   that little member in order, they might expect either to
   suffer death as traitors, or to be sent southward within the
   lines of 'their friends.' Now Mr. Vallandigham had been a
   member of Congress since 1856; … he was the popular and rising
   leader of the Copperhead wing of the Democracy. Such was his
   position that it would have been ignominious for him to allow
   any Union general to put a military gag in his mouth. Nor did
   he. On the contrary he made speeches which at that time might
   well have made Unionists mad with rage, and which still seem
   to have gone far beyond the limit of disloyalty which any
   government could safely tolerate. Therefore on May 4 he was
   arrested by a company of soldiers, brought to Cincinnati, and
   thrown into jail. His friends gathered in anger, and a riot
   was narrowly avoided. At once, by order of General Burnside,
   he was tried by a military commission. He was charged with
   'publicly expressing sympathy for those in arms against the
   government of the United States, and declaring disloyal
   sentiments and opinions, with the object and purpose of
   weakening the power of the Government in its efforts to
   suppress an unlawful rebellion.' …
{3497}
   The evidence conclusively sustained the indictment, and the
   officers promptly pronounced him guilty, whereupon he was
   sentenced by Burnside to confinement in Fort Warren. … The
   Democrats throughout the North, rapidly surveying the
   situation, seized the opportunity which perhaps had been too
   inconsiderately given them. The country rang with plausible
   outcries and high sounding oratory concerning military
   usurpation, violation of the Constitution, and stifling
   freedom of speech. … Mr. Lincoln only showed that he felt the
   pressure of the criticism and denunciation by commuting the
   sentence, and directing that Vallandigham should be released
   from confinement and sent within the Confederate lines,—which
   was, indeed, a very shrewd and clever move, and much better
   than the imprisonment. Accordingly the quasi rebel was
   tendered to and accepted by a Confederate picket, on May 25.
   He protested vehemently, declared his loyalty, and insisted
   that his character was that of a prisoner of war. But the
   Confederates, who had no objection whatsoever to his peculiar
   methods of demonstrating 'loyalty' to their opponents,
   insisted upon treating him as a friend, the victim of an enemy
   common to themselves and him; and instead of exchanging him as
   a prisoner, they facilitated his passage through the blockade
   on his way to Canada. There he arrived in safety, and thence
   issued sundry manifestoes to the Democracy. On June 11 the
   Democratic Convention of Ohio nominated him as their candidate
   for governor, and it seems that for a while they really
   expected to elect him. … On May 16 a monster meeting of 'the
   Democrats of New York' was told by Governor Seymour that the
   question was: 'whether this war is waged to put down rebellion
   at the South, or to destroy free institutions at the North.'
   Excited by such instigation, the audience passed sundry
   damnatory resolutions and sent them to the President. Upon
   receiving these Mr. Lincoln felt that he must come down into
   the arena, without regard to official conventionality. On June
   12 he replied by a full presentation of the case, from his
   point of view. He had once more to do the same thing in
   response to another address of like character which was sent
   to him on June 11 by the Democratic State Convention of Ohio."

      J. T. Morse,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 2, chapter 6.

   To the New York Democrats, Mr. Lincoln said: "It is asserted
   in substance, that Mr. Vallandigham was, by a military
   commander, seized and tried 'for no other reason than words
   addressed to a public meeting in criticism of the course of
   the administration, and in condemnation of the military orders
   of the general.' Now, if there be no mistake about this, if
   this assertion is the truth and the whole truth, if there was
   no other reason for the arrest, then I concede that the arrest
   was wrong. But the arrest, as I understand, was made for a
   very different reason. Mr. Vallandigham avows his hostility to
   the war on the part of the Union; and his arrest was made
   because he was laboring, with some effect, to prevent the
   raising of troops, to encourage desertions from the army, and
   to leave the rebellion without an adequate military force to
   suppress it. He was not arrested because he was damaging the
   political prospects of the administration or the personal
   interests of the commanding general, but because he was
   damaging the army, upon the existence of which the life of the
   nation depends. He was warring upon the military, and this
   gave the military constitutional jurisdiction to lay hands
   upon him. If Mr. Vallandigham was not damaging the military
   power of the country, then his arrest was made on mistake of
   fact, which I would be glad to correct on reasonably
   satisfactory evidence. I understand the meeting whose
   resolutions I am considering to be in favor of suppressing the
   rebellion by military force—by armies. Long experience has
   shown that armies cannot be maintained unless desertion shall
   be punished by the severe penalty of death. The case requires,
   and the law and the Constitution sanction, this punishment.
   Must I shoot a simple-minded soldier boy who deserts, while I
   must not touch a hair of a wily agitator who induces him to
   desert? This is none the less injurious when effected by
   getting a father, or brother, or friend into a public meeting,
   and there working upon his feelings till he is persuaded to
   write the soldier boy that he is fighting in a bad cause, for
   a wicked administration of a contemptible government, too weak
   to arrest and punish him if he shall desert. I think that, in
   such a case, to silence the agitator and save the boy is not
   only constitutional, but withal a great mercy. If I be wrong
   on this question of constitutional power, my error lies in
   believing that certain proceedings are constitutional when, in
   cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety requires
   them, which would not be constitutional when, in absence of
   rebellion or invasion, the public safety does not require
   them: in other words, that the Constitution is not in its
   application in all respects the same in cases of rebellion or
   invasion involving the public safety, as it is in times of
   profound peace and public security. The Constitution itself
   makes the distinction, and I can no more be persuaded that the
   government can constitutionally take no strong measures in
   time of rebellion, because it can be shown that the same could
   not be lawfully taken in time of peace, than I can be
   persuaded that a particular drug is not good medicine for a
   sick man because it can be shown to not be good food for a
   well one. Nor am I able to appreciate the danger apprehended
   by the meeting, that the American people will by means of
   military arrests during the rebellion lose the right of public
   discussion, the liberty of speech and the press, the law of
   evidence, trial by jury, and habeas corpus throughout the
   indefinite peaceful future which I trust lies before them, any
   more than I am able to believe that a man could contract so
   strong an appetite for emetics during temporary illness as to
   persist in feeding upon them during the remainder of his
   healthful life. In giving the resolutions that earnest
   consideration which you request of me, I cannot overlook the
   fact that the meeting speak as 'Democrats.' Nor can I, with
   full respect for their known intelligence, and the fairly
   presumed deliberation with which they prepared their
   resolutions, be permitted to suppose that this occurred by
   accident, or in any way other than that they preferred to
   designate themselves 'Democrats' rather than 'American
   citizens.'
{3498}
   In this time of national peril I would have preferred to meet
   you upon a level one step higher than any party platform,
   because I am sure that from such more elevated position we
   could do better battle for the country we all love than we
   possibly can from those lower ones where, from the force of
   habit, the prejudices of the past, and selfish hopes of the
   future, we are sure to expend much of our ingenuity and
   strength in finding fault with and aiming blows at each other.
   But since you have denied me this, I will yet be thankful for
   the country's sake that not all Democrats have done so. He on
   whose discretionary judgment Mr. Vallandigham was arrested and
   tried is a Democrat, having no old party affinity with me, and
   the judge who rejected the constitutional view expressed in
   these resolutions, by refusing to discharge Mr. Vallandigham
   on habeas corpus is a Democrat of better days than these,
   having received his judicial mantle at the hands of President
   Jackson. And still more, of all those Democrats who are nobly
   exposing their lives and shedding their blood on the
   battle-field, I have learned that many approve the course
   taken with Mr. Vallandigham, while I have not heard of a
   single one condemning it. I cannot assert that there are none
   such."

      Abraham Lincoln,
      Complete Works,
      volume 2, pages 849-350.

   To the Ohio Democrats, the President wrote as follows; "You
   claim, as I understand, that according to my own position in
   the Albany response, Mr. Vallandigham should be released; and
   this because, as you claim, he has not damaged the military
   service by discouraging enlistments, encouraging desertions or
   otherwise; and that if he had he should have been turned over
   to the civil authorities under the recent acts of Congress. I
   certainly do not know that Mr. Vallandigham has specifically
   and by direct language advised against enlistments and in
   favor of desertion and resistance to drafting. We all know
   that combinations, armed in some instances, to resist the
   arrest of deserters began several months ago; that more
   recently the like has appeared in resistance to the enrolment
   preparatory to a draft; and that quite a number of
   assassinations have occurred from the same animus. These had
   to be met by military force, and this again has led to
   bloodshed and death. And now, under a sense of responsibility
   more weighty and enduring than any which is merely official, I
   solemnly declare my belief that this hindrance of the
   military, including maiming and murder, is due to the course
   in which Mr. Vallandigham has been engaged in a greater degree
   than to any other cause; and it is due to him personally in a
   greater degree than to any other one man. These things have
   been notorious, known to all, and of course known to Mr.
   Vallandigham. Perhaps I would not be wrong to say they
   originated with his special friends and adherents. With
   perfect knowledge of them, he has frequently if not constantly
   made speeches in Congress and before popular assemblies; and
   if it can be shown that, with these things staring him in the
   face, he has ever uttered a word of rebuke or counsel against
   them, it will be a fact greatly in his favor with me, and one
   of which is yet I am totally ignorant. When it is known that
   the whole burden of his speeches has been to stir up men
   against the prosecution of the war, and that in the midst of
   resistance to it he has not been known in any instance to
   counsel against such resistance, it is next to impossible to
   repel the inference that he has counseled directly in favor of
   it. With all this before their eyes, the convention you
   represent have nominated Mr. Vallandigham for governor of
   Ohio, and both they and you have declared the purpose to
   sustain the National Union by all constitutional means. But of
   course they and you in common reserve to yourselves to decide
   what are constitutional means; and, unlike the Albany meeting,
   you omit to state or intimate that in your opinion an army is
   a constitutional means of saving the Union against a
   rebellion, or even to intimate that you are conscious of an
   existing rebellion being in progress with the avowed object of
   destroying that very Union. At the same time your nominee for
   governor, in whose behalf you appeal, is known to you and to
   the world to declare against the use of an army to suppress
   the rebellion. Your own attitude, therefore, encourages
   desertion, resistance to the draft, and the like, because it
   teaches those who incline to desert and to escape the draft to
   believe it is your purpose to protect them, and to hope that
   you will become strong enough to do so. After a short personal
   intercourse with you, gentlemen of the committee, I cannot say
   I think you desire this effect to follow your attitude; but I
   assure you that both friends and enemies of the Union look
   upon it in this light. It is a substantial hope, and by
   consequence a real strength to the enemy. If it is a false
   hope and one which you would willingly dispel, I will make the
   way exceedingly easy. I send you duplicates of this letter in
   order that you, or a majority of you, may, if you choose,
   indorse your names upon one of them and return it thus
   indorsed to me with the understanding that those signing are
   thereby committed to the following propositions and to nothing
   else;

   1. That there is now a rebellion in the United States, the
   object and tendency of which is to destroy the National Union;
   and that, in your opinion, an army and navy are constitutional
   means for suppressing that rebellion;

   2. That no one of you will do anything which, in his own
   judgment, will tend to hinder the increase, or favor the
   decrease, or lessen the efficiency of the army or navy while
   engaged in the effort to suppress that rebellion; and

   3. That each of you will, in his sphere, do all he can to have
   the officers, soldiers, and seamen of the army and navy, while
   engaged in the effort to suppress the rebellion, paid, fed,
   clad, and otherwise well provided for and supported.

   And with the further understanding that upon receiving the
   letter and names thus indorsed, I will cause them to be
   published, which publication shall be, within itself, a
   revocation of the order in relation to Mr. Vallandigham. It
   will not escape observation that I consent to the release of
   Mr. Vallandigham upon terms not embracing any pledge from him
   or from others as to what he will or will not do. I do this
   because he is not present to speak for himself, or to
   authorize others to speak for him; and because I should expect
   that on his returning he would not put himself practically in
   antagonism with the position of his friends. But I do it
   chiefly because I thereby prevail on other influential
   gentlemen of Ohio to so define their position as to be of
   immense value to the army—thus more than compensating for the
   consequences of any mistake in allowing Mr. Vallandigham to
   return; so that, on the whole, the public safety will not have
   suffered by it. Still, in regard to Mr. Vallandigham and all
   others, I must hereafter, as heretofore, do so much as the
   public safety may seem to require. I have the honor to be
   respectfully yours."

      Abraham Lincoln,
      Complete Works,
      volume 2, page 362-363.

      ALSO IN:
      J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay, .
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 7, chapter 12.

{3499}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (May-July: On the Mississippi).
   Siege and Capture of Port Hudson.
   The clear opening of the great River.

   "About the middle of May all the available force near the
   river was concentrated at Baton Rouge, to assist in the attack
   on Port Hudson. Thence Generals Augur and Sherman moved to the
   south and east of that position, to cooperate with General
   Banks. From Simmesport General Banks moved his army to invest
   Port Hudson. … It was on the 21st of May that General Banks
   landed, and on the next day a junction was effected with the
   advance of Major-General Augur and Brigadier-General Sherman.
   … On the 25th, the enemy was compelled to abandon his first
   line of works. On the next day General Weitzel's brigade,
   which had covered the rear in the march from Alexandria,
   arrived, and on the morning of the 27th a general assault was
   made on the fortifications. Port Hudson, or Hickey's Landing,
   as it was called some years ago, is situated on a bend in the
   Mississippi river, about 22 miles above Baton Rouge, and 147
   above New Orleans." It was strongly fortified and well
   defended by Colonel Frank Gardner. The artillery of General
   Banks opened fire on the 27th, and at ten o'clock the same day
   an assault was made, in which the colored soldiers showed much
   firmness and bravery. The assault failed and the losses in it
   were heavy. "A bombardment of the position had been made by
   the fleet under Admiral Farragut, for a week previous to this
   assault. Reconnoissances had discovered that the defences were
   very strong, consisting of several lines of intrenchments and
   rifle pits, with abatis of heavy trees felled in every
   direction. The upper batteries on the river were attacked by
   the Hartford and Albatross, which had run the blockade, and
   the lower by the Monongahela, Richmond, Genesee, and Essex. On
   the 14th of June, after a bombardment of several days, another
   assault on Port Hudson was made. … All the assaulting columns
   were compelled to fall back under the deadly fire of the
   enemy, and the fighting finally ceased about 11 o'clock in the
   morning. The loss of General Banks was nearly 700 in killed
   and wounded. … After these two attempts to reduce Port Hudson
   by a land assault, on the 27th of May and 14th of June, the
   purpose to make another was given up by General Banks, until
   he had fully invested the place by a series of irresistible
   approaches. He was thus engaged in pushing forward his works
   when Vicksburg was surrendered. Information of this surrender
   was sent to General Banks, and it was made the occasion for
   firing salutes and a general excitement in his camp, which
   attracted the attention of the enemy, to whom the surrender
   was communicated. General Gardner, upon receiving the
   information, sent by flag of truce, about midnight of the 7th,
   the following note to General Banks: … 'Having received
   information from your troops that Vicksburg has been
   surrendered, I make this communication to request you to give
   me the official assurance whether this is true or not, and if
   true, I ask for a cessation of hostilities, with a view to the
   consideration of terms for surrendering this position.'"

      W. J. Tenney,
      Military and Naval History of the Rebellion,
      chapter 29.

      ALSO IN:
      F. V. Greene,
      The Mississippi
      (Campaigns of the Civil War, volume 8), chapter 7.

      R. B. Irwin,
      Port Hudson
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 3).

      R. B. Irwin,
      History of the 19th Army Corps,
      chapters 15-18.

      Official Records,
      Series 1, volume. 26.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (June).
   Call for Six-Months Men.

   A call for 100,000 men to serve six months, for the repulse of
   the invasion of Pennsylvania, Maryland, West Virginia, and
   Ohio, was issued June 15.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (June: Virginia).
   Lee's second movement of invasion and the inducements to it.
   Northern invitation and Southern clamor.
   The Southern view.

   "The defeat of General Hooker at Chancellorsville was the
   turning-point of the war, and for the first time there was
   apparently a possibility of inducing the Federal Government to
   relinquish its opposition to the establishment of a separate
   authority in the South. The idea of the formation of a
   Southern Confederacy, distinct from the old Union, had, up to
   this time, been repudiated by the authorities at Washington as
   a thing utterly out of the question; but the defeat of the
   Federal arms in the two great battles of the Rappahannock had
   caused the most determined opponents of separation to doubt
   whether the South could be coerced to return to the Union;
   and, what was equally or more important, the proclamations of
   President Lincoln, declaring the slaves of the South free, and
   placing the United States virtually under martial law, aroused
   a violent clamor from the great Democratic party of the North,
   who loudly asserted that all constitutional liberty was
   disappearing. This combination of non-success in military
   affairs and usurpation by the Government emboldened the
   advocates of peace to speak out plainly, and utter their
   protest against the continuance of the struggle, which they
   declared had only resulted in the prostration of all the
   liberties of the country. Journals and periodicals, violently
   denunciatory of the course pursued by the Government, all at
   once made their appearance in New York and elsewhere. A peace
   convention was called to meet in Philadelphia. … On all sides
   the advocates of peace on the basis of separation were heard
   raising their importunate voices. … The plan of moving the
   Southern army northward, with the view of invading the Federal
   territory, seems to have been the result of many
   circumstances. The country [Southern] was elated with the two
   great victories of Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville, and
   the people were clamorous for active operations against an
   enemy who seemed powerless to stand the pressure of Southern
   steel. The army, which had been largely augmented by the
   return of absentees to its ranks, new levies, and the recall
   of Longstreet's two divisions from Suffolk, shared the general
   enthusiasm; and thus a very heavy pressure was brought to bear
   upon the authorities and on General Lee, in favor of a forward
   movement, which, it was supposed, would terminate in a signal
   victory and a treaty of peace. Lee yielded to this view of
   things rather than urged it. … Another important consideration
   was the question of supplies. … More than ever before, these
   supplies were now needed; and when General Lee sent, in May or
   June, a requisition for rations to Richmond, the
   commissary-general is said to have endorsed upon the paper,
   'If General Lee wishes rations, let him seek them in
   Pennsylvania.'
{3500}
   The considerations here stated were the main inducements for
   that great movement northward which followed the battle of
   Chancellorsville. … Throughout the month of May, Lee was
   busily engaged in organizing and equipping his forces for the
   decisive advance. Experience had now dictated many alterations
   and improvements in the army. It was divided into three 'corps
   d'armée,' each consisting of three divisions, and commanded by
   an officer with the rank of lieutenant-general. Longstreet
   remained at the head of his former corps. Ewell succeeded
   Jackson in command of 'Jackson's old corps', and A. P. Hill
   was assigned to a third corps made up of portions of the two
   others. … On the last day of May, General Lee had the
   satisfaction of finding himself in command of a well-equipped
   and admirably-officered army of 68,352 bayonets, and nearly
   10,000 cavalry and artillery—in all, about 80,000 men. … Lee
   began his movement northward on the 3d day of June, just one
   month after the battle of Chancellorsville. … Pursuing his
   design of manœuvring the Federal army out of Virginia, without
   coming to action, Lee first sent forward one division of
   Longstreet's corps in the direction of Culpepper, another then
   followed, and, on the 4th and 5th of June, Ewell's entire
   corps was sent in the same direction—A. P. Hill remaining
   behind on the south bank of the Rappahannock, near
   Fredericksburg, to watch the enemy there, and bar the road to
   Richmond. These movements became speedily known to General
   Hooker, whose army lay north of the river near that point, and
   on the 5th he laid a pontoon just below Fredericksburg, and
   crossed about a corps to the south bank, opposite Hill. This
   threatening demonstration, however, was not suffered by Lee to
   arrest his own movements. … He continued the withdrawal of his
   troops, by way of Culpepper, in the direction of the
   Shenandoah Valley." On the morning of the 9th of June, "two
   divisions of Federal cavalry, supported by two brigades of
   'picked infantry,' were sent across the river at Kelly's and
   Beverley's Fords, east of the court-house, to beat up the
   quarters of Stuart and find what was going on in the Southern
   camps. The most extensive cavalry fight [known as the battle
   of Brandy Station, or the battle of Fleetwood], probably, of
   the whole war, followed. … This reconnoisance in force … had
   no other result than the discovery of the fact that Lee had
   infantry in Culpepper. … This attempt of the enemy to
   penetrate his designs had not induced General Lee to interrupt
   the movement of his infantry toward the Shenandoah Valley. The
   Federal corps sent across the Rappahannock at Fredericksburg,
   still remained facing General Hill, and, two days after the
   Fleetwood fight, General Hooker moved up the river with his
   main body, advancing the Third Corps to a point near
   Beverley's Ford. But these movements were disregarded by Lee.
   On the same day Ewell's corps moved rapidly toward Chester
   Gap, passed through that defile in the mountain, pushed on by
   way of Front Royal, and reached Winchester on the evening of
   the 13th, having in three days marched 70 miles. The position
   of the Southern army now exposed it to very serious danger,
   and at first sight seemed to indicate a deficiency of
   soldiership in the general commanding it. In face of an enemy
   whose force was at least equal to his own, Lee had extended
   his line until it stretched over a distance of about 100
   miles. … When intelligence now reached Washington that the
   head of Lee's column was approaching the Upper Potomac, while
   the rear was south of the Rappahannock, the President wrote to
   General Hooker: 'If the head of Lee's army is at Martinsburg,
   and the tail of it on the plank road, between Fredericksburg
   and Chancellorsville, the animal must be very slim
   somewhere—could you not break him?' … It would seem that
   nothing could have been plainer than the good policy of an
   attack upon Hill at Fredericksburg, which would certainly have
   checked Lee's movement by recalling Longstreet from Culpepper,
   and Ewell from the Valley. But … instead of reënforcing the
   corps sent across at Fredericksburg and attacking Hill,
   General Hooker withdrew the corps, on the 13th, to the north
   bank of the river, got his forces together, and began to fall
   back toward Manassas."

      J. E. Cooke,
      Life of General Robert E. Lee,
      part 6, chapters 9-12.

      ALSO IN:
      H. Greeley,
      The American Conflict,
      volume 2, chapter 21.

      W. Swinton,
      Campaigns of the Army of the Potomac,
      chapter 9.

{3501}

Map of the Battlefield of Gettysburg. July 1-3, 1863.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (June-July: Pennsylvania).
   Lee's Invasion.
   The Battle of Gettysburg.

   "Hooker started toward Washington. Ewell gained possession of
   Winchester and Martinsburg, but not of Harper's Ferry. There
   is a rocky and thickly wooded range of heights called the Bull
   Run Mountains, running from Leesburg south. As Hooker had not
   occupied them but was farther to the East, Lee desired to do
   so, for it would give him a strong position on Hooker's flank
   and bring him (Lee) very near to Washington. He therefore
   directed his cavalry to reconnoiter in that direction.
   Stuart's reconnoitering party met the Union cavalry at Aldie,
   and after a hard battle retreated. A series of cavalry combats
   ensued, ending in the retreat of Stuart's cavalry behind the
   Blue Ridge. Hooker was strongly posted east of the Bull Run
   range and could not be attacked with much chance of success.
   As Lee could not well remain inactive or retreat, he resolved
   to invade Pennsylvania. This was a hazardous enterprise, for
   Hooker might intervene between him and Richmond. Stuart's
   cavalry was left to prevent this catastrophe by guarding the
   passes in the Blue Ridge. Stuart was also directed to harass
   Hooker and attack his rear should he attempt to cross the
   Potomac in pursuit of Lee. Lee reached Chambersburg with
   Longstreet's and Hill's corps. Ewell's corps was in advance at
   Carlisle [June 27] and York," and advance bodies of cavalry
   were threatening Harrisburg. The militia of Pennsylvania, New
   York and Maryland were called out in force, but arms and
   ammunition for them were inadequate. "On June 28th, Hooker
   determined to send Slocum's corps and the garrison of Harper's
   Ferry—the latter about 10,000 strong—to operate against Lee's
   rear. This was an excellent plan, but Hooker's superior,
   General Halleck, refused to allow him to remove the troops
   from Harper's Ferry; and Hooker said if he could not manage
   the campaign in his own way, he preferred to give up the
   command of the army."
{3502}
   He was accordingly relieved and the command was given to
   Major-General George G. Meade, of the Fifth Corps. Meantime
   (June 25-27) the Union army had crossed the Potomac and
   advanced to Frederick, Maryland. "On June 28th, Lee learned
   from a scout that the Union army was in his rear and that his
   communication with Richmond was seriously endangered. … In
   this emergency he concluded to threaten Baltimore. As a
   preliminary measure, he directed his entire army to move on
   Gettysburg. This he hoped would induce Meade to concentrate in
   his front and leave his rear free; which was precisely what
   Meade did do. … Under the impression that Lee's army was
   spread out along the Susquehanna from Carlisle to York, Meade
   threw out his own forces fan-shaped to march in that
   direction. … The Union corps were marching on and getting
   farther apart, while the enemy were concentrating. The advance
   of Hill's corps, on the morning of July 1st, struck Buford's
   division of Union cavalry a short distance to the west of
   Gettysburg, and in spite of a stout resistance forced it
   slowly back towards the town. The First Corps at this time was
   five miles south of Gettysburg. General Reynolds went to the
   support of Buford with the nearest division of the First
   Corps—Wadsworth's—and directed that the others follow. While
   forming his line of battle he was killed. General Howard
   succeeded to the command of the field, but did not issue any
   orders to the First Corps until the afternoon. In the meantime
   General Doubleday continued the contest, captured a great part
   of the forces that had assailed him, and cleared his immediate
   front of all enemies. Before the Eleventh Corps came up the
   enemy could have walked right over the small force opposed to
   them, but owing to the absence of Stuart's cavalry [which, not
   crossing the Potomac to follow Lee until the 27th, had
   undertaken a long raid around the Union forces, and did not
   succeed in joining the main body of the Confederates until
   July 2d] they had not been kept informed as to the movements
   Meade was making, and fearing that the whole Union army was
   concentrated in their front they were overcautious. There was
   now a lull in the battle for about an hour. The remainder of
   the First Corps came up and was followed soon after by the
   Eleventh Corps under General Schurz. About the same time the
   Confederate corps of General Ewell arrived and made a junction
   with that of Hill. General Howard assumed command of the Union
   forces. Repeated attacks were now made against the First Corps
   by Ewell from the north and Hill from the west; but the
   Confederate charges were successfully repulsed. … Ewell's
   attack also struck the Eleventh Corps on the right and front
   with great force. … General Meade, when he heard of Reynold's
   death, was 14 miles from Gettysburg at Taneytown, preparing to
   form line of battle along Pipe Creek. He at once sent General
   Hancock forward with orders to assume command of the field.
   Hancock, perceiving that Cemetery Ridge [about half a mile
   south of Gettysburg] was an admirable position for a defensive
   battle, determined to hold it if possible. This was not an
   easy thing to do, for the enemy were in overwhelming force,
   and the feeble remnants of the First and Eleventh Corps were
   not in a condition to make a prolonged resistance. … Hancock
   directed Doubleday to send a force to Culp's Hill on the
   right, while he instructed Buford to parade up and down on the
   extreme left with his cavalry. The enemy were thus led to
   suppose that the Union line was a long one and had been
   heavily reënforced. As the losses on both sides had been
   tremendous, probably not exceeded for the same number of
   troops during the war, the enemy hesitated to advance,
   particularly as some movements of Kilpatrick's cavalry seemed
   to threaten their rear. They therefore deferred action until
   Meade concentrated the next day. On General Hancock's
   recommendation General Meade ordered his entire army to
   Gettysburg. By dusk part of the Third Corps had arrived, and
   soon after the Twelfth Corps and the Second Corps were close
   at hand. … Most of the troops, though worn out with hard
   marching, arrived by midday of July 2d. The Sixth Corps had 34
   miles to march and came later in the afternoon. … The attack
   as ordered by General Lee was to begin with Longstreet on the
   right and be made 'en échelon.' That is, as soon as Longstreet
   was fairly engaged, Hill's corps was to take up the fight and
   go in, and as soon as Hill was fairly engaged, Ewell's corps
   on the right was to attack. The object was to keep the whole
   Union line in a turmoil at once, and prevent reënforcements
   going from any corps not engaged to another that was fighting;
   but Hill did not act until Longstreet's fight was over, and
   Ewell did not act until Hill had been repulsed. … The enemy …
   failed in every attack against Meade's main line, with the
   exception of that portion south of Culp's Hill. Elated by the
   fact that he had made a lodgement there, Ewell determined to
   hold on at all hazards and sent heavy reënforcements during
   the night to aid Johnson to make an attack in the morning. …
   So ended the battle of the second day. At day dawn [July 3]
   General Warren, acting for General Meade, established a cordon
   of troops and batteries which drove Johnson out of his
   position on the right. … Lee having failed in his attacks both
   on Meade's left and right had to decide at once whether he
   would give up the contest and retreat, or make another attempt
   to force the Union line. As he had been reënforced by Stuart's
   cavalry, and as a fresh division under Pickett was available,
   he determined to try to pierce the left center of the Union
   army and disperse the force opposed to him. To this end he
   directed Longstreet to form a strong column of attack to be
   composed of Pickett's division and Pettigrew's division and
   two brigades of Pender's division, under Trimble, of Hill's
   corps. To create confusion and prevent General Meade from
   sending reënforcements to the menaced point, Stuart was
   ordered to ride around the right of the Union army and make an
   attack in rear. And still more to facilitate the attack 135
   guns were to concentrate their fire against the Union center
   and disperse the forces assembled there. About 1 P. M. the
   terrific cannonade began and lasted for two hours, by which
   time the Confederate ammunition was nearly exhausted. …
   Stuart's cavalry attack proved abortive, for it was met and
   frustrated by two brigades of Gregg's cavalry aided by
   Custer's brigade, after a severe battle, which was hotly
   contested on both sides. Stuart's further progress was checked
   and he was forced to retreat. … Pickett formed his great
   column of attack and came forward as soon as the fire from the
   Union batteries slackened."
{3503}
   Fresh guns had, however, been brought into position and swept
   the ground over which Pickett moved. His charge, one of the
   most desperately determined of the whole war, was heroically
   met by Gibbon's division of the Second Corps and by part of
   the First Corps, under the personal direction of General
   Hancock, who was severely wounded in the terrible conflict.
   Pickett was forced to retreat with the survivors of his
   onslaught, and "the whole plain was soon covered with
   fugitives; but, as no pursuit was ordered, General Lee in
   person succeeded in rallying them and in re-forming the line
   of battle. The next day, July 4th, General Lee drew back his
   flanks and at evening began his retreat by two routes—the main
   body on the direct road to Williamsport through the mountains,
   the other via Chambersburg, the latter including the immense
   train of the wounded. Gregg's division (except Huey's brigade)
   was sent in pursuit by way of Chambersburg, but the enemy had
   too much the start to render the chase effective. Kilpatrick,
   however, got in front of the main body on the direct route
   and, after a midnight battle at Monterey, fought during a
   terrific thunder storm, succeeded in making sad havoc of
   Ewell's trains. … Lee concentrated his army in the vicinity of
   Williamsport, but as French had destroyed his pontoon bridge,
   and as the Potomac had risen, he was unable to cross. He
   therefore fortified his position. Meade did not follow Lee
   directly, but went around by way of Frederick. After
   considerable delay the Union army again confronted that of Lee
   and were about—under orders from President Lincoln-to make an
   attack, when Lee slipped away on the night of July 14th to the
   Virginia side of the Potomac. This ended the campaign of
   Gettysburg. The Union loss was 3,072 killed, 14,497 wounded,
   5,434 missing=Total, 23,003. The Confederate loss was 2,592
   killed, 12,709 wounded, 5,150 missing=Total, 20,451."

      A. Doubleday,
      Gettysburg made plain (with 29 maps).

      ALSO IN:
      A. Doubleday,
      Chancellorsville and Gettysburg
      (Campaigns of the Civil War, volume 6, part 2).

      J. Longstreet, H. J. Hunt and others,
      Gettysburg
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 3).

      F. A. Walker,
      History of the Second Army Corps,
      chapter 8.

      A. L. Long,
      Memoirs of Robert E. Lee,
      chapter 15.

      Comte de Paris,
      History of the American Civil War,
      volume 3, book 3, chapter 4.

      D. X. Junkin and F. H. Norton,
      Life of General Hancock,
      chapters 11-13.

      Official Records,
      Series 1, volume 27.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (June-July: Tennessee).
   The Tullahoma campaign.

   "During the first six months of the year 1863 the Army of the
   Cumberland remained at Murfreesboro' and was comparatively
   inactive. The troops were employed in the construction of
   elaborate fortifications and in divers minor operations with
   defensive or tentative objects. … Late in June the Army of the
   Cumberland advanced against its old enemy, the Confederate
   Army of the Tennessee, then holding the line of Duck River. In
   this movement the Fourteenth Corps [General Thomas] was in the
   centre, its appropriate place, and drove the enemy from
   Hoover's Gap and from several positions in front of that gap.
   General McCook [Twentieth Corps] on the right had a severe
   combat at Liberty Gap, but finally pressed the enemy from the
   hills. General Crittenden [Twenty-first Corps] on the left did
   not meet much opposition. When Bragg's army had been driven
   from its defensive line on Duck River, General Rosecrans moved
   his army towards Manchester, and regarding this movement as
   indicating either an attack upon his position at Tullahoma, or
   the interruption of his communications, Bragg fell back from
   that place. He did not consider himself strong enough to meet
   Rosecrans in battle, and he consequently retreated first to
   the Cumberland Mountains, and, soon after, across the
   Tennessee River to Chattanooga. The Tullahoma campaign was
   begun on the 23d of June and terminated on the 4th of July.
   The enemy fought at the gaps of the mountains, but the defense
   on the whole was feeble. The result was the possession by the
   Army of the Cumberland of the region from Murfreesboro' to
   Bridgeport, Alabama. At the close of the campaign the army
   advanced to the northern base of the Cumberland Mountains, and
   there halted to make preparations for a campaign south of the
   Tennessee River."

      T. B. Van Horne,
      Life of General George H. Thomas,
      chapter 5.

      ALSO IN:
      T. B. Van Horne,
      History of the Army of the Cumberland,
      chapter 19 (volume 1).

      H. M. Cist,
      The Army of the Cumberland
      (Campaigns of the Civil War, volume 7).

      P. H. Sheridan,
      Personal Memoirs,
      volume 1, chapter 14.

      D. S. Stanley,
      The Tullahoma Campaign
      (Sketches of War History,
      Ohio Commandery L. L. of the United States, volume 3).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (July: On the Mississippi).
   The Defence of Helena.

   "One of the most brilliant of the minor victories of the war
   was gained at Helena, Arkansas, on the west bank of the
   Mississippi, on the 4th of July, General Holmes [Confederate]
   had asked and received permission to take that place, in the
   middle of June, and had mustered for that purpose an army of
   nearly 10,000 men. The garrison of Helena consisted of a
   division of the Thirteenth Corps and a brigade of cavalry
   numbering in all 4000 men, commanded by Major-General B. M.
   Prentiss. Holmes felt so sure of victory that he doubtless
   selected the 4th of July for his attack in a mere spirit of
   bravado. He assaulted at daylight with converging columns, two
   of which made considerable impression upon the outworks, but
   never reached the town. The defense of the Union troops was
   singularly skilful and energetic, and, after a few hours of
   fighting, Holmes, finding himself utterly defeated, retired at
   half-past ten. The little army of Prentiss was, of course, too
   small to pursue. The last Confederate attempt to hold the
   Mississippi River thus ended in a complete and most
   humiliating repulse."

      J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 7, chapter 11.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (July: Mississippi).
   The capture and destruction of Jackson.

   When Vicksburg surrendered, Johnston was hovering in the rear
   of Grant's army, and Sherman was watching his movements. On
   the very day the surrender was completed the latter marched
   rapidly upon Jackson, with 50,000 men, Johnston retreating
   before him. The city was invested on the 10th, and defended by
   the Confederates until the night of the 16th when they
   evacuated with haste. General Sherman, writing to Admiral
   Porter on the 19th of July, said: "We … have 500 prisoners,
   are still pursuing and breaking railroads, so that the good
   folks of Jackson will not soon again hear the favorite
   locomotive whistle.
{3504}
   The enemy burned nearly all the handsome dwellings round about
   the town because they gave us shelter or to light up the
   ground to prevent night attacks. He also set fire to a chief
   block of stores in which were commissary supplies, and our
   men, in spite of guards, have widened the circle of fire, so
   that Jackson, once the pride and boast of Mississippi, is now
   a ruined town. State-house, Governor's mansion, and some fine
   dwellings, well within the lines of intrenchments, remain
   untouched. I have been and am yet employed in breaking up the
   railroad 40 miles north and 60 south; also 10 miles east. My
   10-miles break west, of last May, is still untouched, so that
   Jackson ceases to be a place for the enemy to collect stores
   and men."

      Official Records,
      series 1, volume 24, part 3, page 531.

      ALSO IN:
      J. E. Johnston,
      Narrative of Military Operations,
      chapter 8.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (July: Kentucky).
   John Morgan's Raid into Ohio and Indiana.

   "The most famous raid of this time was that made in July by
   John Morgan across the Ohio River. General Buckner was then in
   East Tennessee, near the borders of Kentucky, getting ready to
   make another dash toward Louisville, and Morgan went ahead to
   prepare the way. He crossed the Cumberland River into Kentucky
   with about 3,000 mounted men, sacked Columbia, captured
   Lebanon with 400 prisoners, and rode on through Bardstown to
   Brandenburg on the Ohio River, plundering and destroying as he
   went. Many Kentuckians had joined him on the way, and he then
   had 4,000 men and ten pieces of artillery. The advance of
   Rosecrans's army just at that time prevented Buckner from
   joining him, and Morgan determined to cross into Indiana.
   There were two gunboats in the river, but he kept them off
   with his artillery while his men crossed on two captured
   steamboats. Morgan then rode through Indiana toward Cincinnati
   fighting home guards, tearing up railroads, burning bridges
   and mills and capturing much property. The whole State was
   aroused by the danger, and thousands of armed men started
   after the bold riders. Morgan became alarmed, and after
   passing around Cincinnati, almost within sight of its
   steeples, turned toward the Ohio to cross again into Kentucky.
   A large Union force was following, others were advancing on
   his flanks, and gunboats and steamboats filled with armed men
   were moving up the river to cut him off. The people aided the
   pursuers all they could by cutting down trees and barricading
   the roads to stop Morgan's march. He was so delayed by these
   and other things that he did not reach the Ohio until July
   19th. He hoped to cross at a place called Buffington Ford, but
   the Union men were upon him and he had to turn and fight.
   After a severe battle, in which the Union troops were helped
   by gunboats which cut off the raiders from crossing the ford,
   about 800 of Morgan's men surrendered, and the rest, with
   Morgan himself, fled up the river fourteen miles to Bellville,
   where they tried to cross by swimming their horses. About 300
   men had succeeded in getting over when the gunboats came up
   and opened fire on them. A fearful scene ensued, for it was a
   struggle of life and death. … Some got across, some were shot
   and some drowned. Morgan was not among the fortunate ones who
   escaped. With about 200 men he fled further up the river to
   New Lisbon, where he was surrounded and forced to surrender.
   This was a wonderful raid, but it did not do the Confederate
   cause any good. A large part of the property destroyed was
   private property, and this roused the anger of all the people
   of the Border States. … Morgan and some of his officers were
   sent to Columbus and confined in the penitentiary, from which
   he and six others escaped in the following November by making
   a hole through the bottom of their cell and digging a tunnel
   under the foundations of the building."

      J. D. Champlin Jr.,
      Young Folk's History of the War for the Union,
      chapter 31.

      ALSO IN:
      B. W. Duke,
      History of Morgan's Cavalry,
      chapters 14-15.

      Official Records,
      Series 1, volume 23.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (July: New York).
   The Draft Riots.

      See NEW YORK (CITY): A. D. 1863.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (July: South Carolina).
   The lodgement on Morris Island, and the assault on Fort Wagner.

   After Du Pont's attack upon the forts in Charleston harbor
   "the Confederates enjoyed two months of undisturbed leisure
   for the construction and strengthening of their works, though
   all this time the matter of a new essay at the reduction of
   Sumter occupied more than its proper share of the attention of
   the Government.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863
      (APRIL: South CAROLINA).

   The forces in the Department of the South were not sufficient
   to undertake a siege of Charleston by land, and the exigencies
   of the more important campaigns going forward in Virginia,
   Tennessee and Mississippi prevented their being reenforced. It
   was resolved, therefore, to restrict operations to the harbor
   and the islands immediately adjoining, and Admiral John A.
   Dahlgren—after the death of Admiral Foote, who had been
   designated for the purpose—and General Q. A. Gillmore were
   charged with the command of the military and naval forces
   engaged. … Admiral Dahlgren … assumed command on the 6th of
   July. Gillmore had already been on the ground some three
   weeks, and had nearly completed his preparations for a descent
   upon Morris Island, when Dahlgren arrived. The admiral,
   without a moment's delay, entered into the plans of the
   general, and within forty-eight hours collected his scattered
   monitors and steamed away to the harbor of Charleston. Morris
   Island is a low strip of sandy beach, which lies to the south
   of Charleston and, with Sullivan's Island to the north, guards
   the entrance to the harbor, the two stretching out to sea like
   the open jaws of an alligator. They are each about three and a
   half miles long, separated from the mainland on the north, and
   from the high ground of James Island on the south, by miry and
   impracticable marshes stretching a distance of two or three
   miles. Their inner ends are a little less than four miles from
   the Charleston wharves, with Fort Sumter lying midway.
   Gillmore resolved to make his attack from Folly Island, which
   lies on the coast directly south of Morris, which it greatly
   resembles in conformation, and from which it is separated by
   Light House Inlet. It was occupied by a brigade under General
   Israel Vogdes, who had fortified the southern end of it,
   controlling the waters of Stono harbor and the approaches of
   James Island.
{3505}
   There was a heavy growth of underbrush at both ends of the
   island; taking advantage of this, Vogdes, under Gillmore's
   direction, constructed ten powerful batteries near its
   southern extremity, completely masked from the enemy's view;
   their purpose being to operate against the enemy's guns near
   the landing place, to protect the debarkation of the troops,
   and to cover their retreat in case of necessity. Most of this
   work was done at night, and all of it as silently as possible.
   … Alfred H. Terry's division of 4,000 and George C. Strong's
   brigade of 2,500 were quietly brought together on Folly
   Island, and on the afternoon of the 8th of July the former
   force was sent up the Stono to make a demonstration against
   James Island, while Strong's brigade was ordered to descend
   upon Morris Island at daybreak of the 9th. Colonel T. W.
   Higginson of the First South Carolina Volunteers, colored, was
   ordered at the same time to cut the railroad between
   Charleston and Savannah; a duty in which General Gillmore says
   he 'signally failed.' The others punctually performed the
   tasks assigned them. Terry's feint against Stono was so
   imposing as to be taken for the real attack, by Beauregard,
   who hastily gathered together a considerable force to resist
   him, and paid little attention to the serious movement on the
   beach." The Confederate troops on Morris Island, taken by
   surprise, were "speedily driven out of all their batteries
   south of Wagner, and abandoned to Gillmore three-fourths of
   the island, with 11 pieces of heavy ordnance. The next day he
   ordered Strong's brigade to assault Fort Wagner, an attempt
   which failed, with slight loss on each side. On the 16th Terry
   was attacked by a superior force on James Island, and although
   he repulsed the enemy with the assistance of the gunboats
   which accompanied him, he was recalled to Fol]y Island, the
   purpose of his demonstration having been accomplished.
   Although General Gillmore had as yet no conception of the
   enormous strength of Fort Wagner, the assault and repulse of
   the 11th of July convinced him that it could not be carried
   offhand. He therefore determined, on consultation with Admiral
   Dahlgren, to establish counter-batteries against it, hoping
   with the combined fire of these and the gunboats to dismount
   the guns of the work and so shake its defense as to carry it
   by a determined assault. The preparations were made with great
   energy, and by the morning of the 18th, exactly one week after
   the first assault, General Gillmore was ready for the second."
   The batteries and the fleet opened fire on the fort at noon of
   July 18th; its defenders were soon driven from the parapets,
   and "in the course of the afternoon the whole work seemed to
   be beaten out of shape"; but, being constructed of fine quartz
   sand, it had suffered damage only in appearance. At twilight,
   the storming party, headed by Colonel Robert G. Shaw and his
   Fifty-fourth Massachusetts Regiment of colored troops, made a
   most brave and resolute assault, actually climbing the parapet
   of the fort, but only to leave 1500 dead, dying and wounded
   upon its treacherous sands. The heroic young Colonel Shaw fell
   dead among the foremost men; General Strong, Colonel Chatfield
   and Colonel Putnam were killed or mortally wounded; General
   Truman Seymour was wounded severely, and many other excellent
   officers were in the lists of the slain or the sadly disabled.
   "The death of Colonel Shaw was widely lamented, not only
   because of his personal worth, but because he had become in a
   certain sense the representative of the best strain of New
   England anti-slavery sentiment. The Confederates recognized
   this representative character by their treatment of his
   corpse, replying to a request of his friends for his remains,
   that they 'had buried him under a layer of his niggers.'"

      J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 7, chapter 15.

      ALSO IN:
      T. W. Higginson,
      Army Life in a Black Regiment.

      G. W. Williams,
      History of the Negro Troops,
      chapter 9.

      M. V. Dahlgren,
      Memoirs of John A. Dahlgren,
      chapter 14.

      A. Roman,
      Military Operations of General Beauregard,
      chapter 31 (volume 2).

      D. Ammen,
      The Navy in the Civil War,
      volume 2: The Atlantic Coast, chapter 7.

      Official Records,
      Series 1, volume 28.

      L. F. Emilio,
      History of the 54th Regiment Massachusetts Volunteers,
      chapters. 4-5.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (July-November: Virginia).
   Meade and Lee on the Rapidan.
   Bristoe Station.
   Rappahannock Station.
   Kelly's Ford.
   Mine Run.

   The 18th of July found the whole army of General Meade once
   more on the Virginia side of the Potomac. "His plan for the
   pursuit of Lee was not unlike that of McClellan a year before,
   but although he displayed much greater expedition and energy
   in the execution of it than were shown by his predecessor, the
   results, through no fault of his own, were unimportant.
   General French, who had taken no part in the battle of
   Gettysburg, had been placed in command of the Third Corps; he
   was an old officer of the regular army, excellent in drill, in
   routine, and all the every-day details of the service, but
   utterly unfit for an enterprise requiring great audacity and
   celerity. He was assigned upon this expedition to the duty of
   throwing his corps through Manassas Gap and attacking the
   flank of the enemy as he moved southward by Front Royal. Meade
   succeeded in getting French into the Gap in time to have
   broken the rebel army in two; but when he attacked, it was in
   so inefficient a Manner, and with so small a portion of his
   force, that the day was wasted and the enemy made their way
   down the Valley to the lower gaps. This failure was a source
   of deep mortification to General Meade. … The pursuit of the
   enemy was not continued further. … The months of August and
   September were a period of repose for the Army of the Potomac.
   It was in fact in no condition to undertake active operations;
   a considerable body of troops had been taken from Meade for
   service in South Carolina, and a strong detachment had been
   sent to the City of New York for the purpose of enforcing the
   draft there. General Lee had retired behind the Rapidan for
   several weeks of rest; neither army was ready at that time to
   attack the other." Early in September Longstreet's Corps was
   detached from Lee's army and sent west to strengthen Bragg at
   Chattanooga, and in the latter part of the same month about
   13,000 men (Eleventh and Twelfth Corps) were taken from Meade
   and sent, under Hooker's command, to the same scene of pending
   conflict. "But, even with this reduction of his command, after
   the return of the troops detached to the North, Meade found
   himself with an army of about 68,000 men; and, knowing this
   force to be somewhat superior to that of the enemy, he
   resolved to cross the Rapidan and attack him; but again, as so
   often happened in the history of the contending armies in
   Virginia, Lee had formed the project of a similar enterprise,
   and began its execution a day or two in advance. He had
   learned of the departure of two corps for the West." On the
   9th of October "he began a flanking movement to the right of
   the Union line."

      J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 8, chapter 9.

{3506}

   "Conceiving that the Confederates would move by the Warrenton
   pike, in order to cross Bull Run and get possession of
   Centreville—thus to interpose between the Federal army and
   Washington—Meade retired as speedily as possible. He had, in
   reality, the start in the race, notwithstanding the day's loss
   in the return movement. … On the morning of the 14th, Lee
   advanced from Warrenton in two columns, but not by the 'pike.'
   The left, under Hill, moving by the turnpike to New Baltimore,
   was ordered to strike the railroad at Bristoe Station; the
   right column, under Ewell, taking a more easterly route, was
   directed to effect a junction at the same point. When Hill
   approached Bristoe, Meade's army, with the exception of
   Warren's corps, had passed that point. As the head of this
   column came up, the 5th Corps, under General Sykes, had just
   crossed Broad Run. Hill at once formed a line of battle to
   attack the rear of that corps, when Warren came up, and, by a
   bold onset, drove the enemy back, securing 450 prisoners and 5
   guns. The National army, having won the race for position, and
   obtained possession of the heights of Centreville, Lee's
   movement was at an end, and he had but to retire to his old
   line again … and, on the 18th, began his retrograde movement.
   The following day Meade commenced pursuit, with the intention
   of attacking the enemy on his retreat, but did not overtake
   him, being detained by a heavy ruin storm, which so raised
   Bull Run as to render it unfordable. … On the 7th of November
   the whole army was put in motion toward the Rappahannock,
   along which river the enemy was in position at Rappahannock
   Station and Kelly's Ford. In two columns Meade advanced toward
   these points. General French, commanding the left
   wing—composed of the 1st, 2d and 3d Corps—was directed to
   cross at Kelly's Ford, while the right wing—comprising the
   5th and 6th Corps, under General Sedgwick—marched upon
   Rappahannock Station. The 3d Corps, under Birney, led the
   advance on Kelly's Ford. Reaching that point, without waiting
   for pontoons, Birney crossed his own division by wading,
   carried the rifle-pits, captured 500 prisoners and prevented
   the enemy re-enforcing their troops at the Ford, by means of
   batteries which he planted on the hills that commanded the
   crossing. At the same time the right wing was contending
   against more formidable obstacles at Rappahannock Station.
   Early's division of Ewell's corps occupied a series of works
   on the north side of the river. … Gaining a good position,
   commanding the fort from the rear, Sedgwick planted his guns
   and opened a fierce cannonade upon the enemy's several
   batteries. Under cover of this fire, the temporary works were
   assaulted and carried at the bayonet's point. Over 1,500
   prisoners, 4 guns and 8 standards were captured. Sedgwick's
   loss was about 300 in killed and wounded. The right column now
   crossed the river without opposition, and, uniting with
   French's forces, advanced to Brandy Station. November 8th was
   lost in getting forward the trains, and in reconnoitering.
   Under cover of that night Lee withdrew across the Rapidan.
   Taking position between the Rappahannock and the Rapidan,
   Meade remained quietly and undisturbed for two weeks. Finding
   Lee indisposed for action, the Federal leader resolved once
   more to try and bring on a general engagement. … The
   Confederate army having gone into winter quarters, was located
   over a wide extent of country. … This separation of the
   enemy's corps, led Meade to hope, that, by crossing the lower
   fords of the Rapidan, and advancing rapidly on the plank and
   turnpike roads to Orange, C. H., he could concentrate his army
   against Ewell's corps, cripple or destroy it, and then be able
   to turn upon Hill, and in this way break Lee's army in
   detail." But delays occurred which "frustrated the object of
   the movement; … disclosed Meade's intention to the enemy, who
   at once concentrated his entire force behind Mine Run, having
   also time given for additional entrenchments along the menaced
   points. The enemy's position was found to be exceedingly
   strong by nature, and further perfected by the skill of busy
   hands. … In front was Mine Run, a shallow stream, but
   difficult to cross on account of its steep banks, the marshy
   nature of the ground, and the dense undergrowth with which it
   was flanked. … 'In view of the season of the year [said
   General Meade in his subsequent report], the impossibility of
   moving from that place if there came on even a couple of days
   of rain; having failed in my first plan, which was to attack
   the enemy before they could concentrate; and then having
   failed in my plan to attack them after they had concentrated,
   in the manner which I have related, I concluded that, under
   the circumstances, it was impossible for me to do anything
   more.' And this was the end of a movement, which, like
   Hooker's advance to flank Fredericksburg, opened with fair
   promise of success, and, like that advance, was a failure from
   incidents which the situation permitted rather than asserted."

      O. J. Victor,
      History of the Southern Rebellion,
      division 12, chapter 1 (volume 4).

      ALSO IN:
      W. Swinton,
      Campaigns of the Army of the Potomac,
      chapter 10.

      J. E. Cooke,
      Life of General Robert E. Lee,
      part 7.

      Official Records,
      Series 1, volume 29.

      A. A. Humphreys,
      From Gettysburg to the Rapidan.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (August: Missouri-Kansas).
   Quantrell's guerrilla raid.
   The sacking and burning of Lawrence.

   "Since the fall of Vicksburg many rebel soldiers had returned
   from Arkansas to their homes in Western Missouri, and under
   the secret orders so frequently sent from commanders in the
   South into that State, the guerrilla bands along the Kansas
   border suddenly grew in numbers and audacity. Though the whole
   region was patrolled almost day and night by Union detachments
   and scouts, a daring leader named Quantrell, who had been for
   some weeks threatening various Kansas towns, assembled a band
   of 300 picked and well-mounted followers at a place of
   rendezvous near the line, about sunset of August 20. His
   object being divined, half a dozen Union detachments from
   different points started in chase of him; but skilfully
   eluding all of them by an eccentric march, Quantrell crossed
   the State line, and, reaching the open prairie country, where
   roads were unnecessary, pushed directly for Lawrence, Kansas.
{3507}
   … This town was 40 miles in the interior, and had no reason to
   apprehend an attack, and though it could have assembled
   several hundred men under arms in half an hour, its
   inhabitants had no dream of danger when the marauders entered
   the place at sunrise of August 21. Quantrell stationed
   detachments to prevent any assembling or concentration of the
   citizens, and then began a scene of pillage, arson and
   massacre too horrible to relate. Stores and banks were robbed,
   185 buildings burned, and from 150 to 200 inhabitants murdered
   with a cold-blooded fiendishness which seems impossible to
   believe of Americans. The direful work occupied but three or
   four hours, when the perpetrators remounted their horses and
   departed. Though they managed their retreat with such skill as
   to avoid a general encounter, the pursuit was so hot that in
   several skirmishes, and by cutting off stragglers and
   laggards, 100 or more of the band were killed. The sudden
   calamity raised excitement on the Kansas border to almost a
   frenzy."

      J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 8, page 211.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (August-September: Tennessee).
   Burnside's deliverance of East Tennessee.
   The Union Army in Knoxville.

   "Ever since the Federals had become masters of Kentucky they
   had projected all expedition into East Tennessee. … Early In
   the year 1862 the Federals had taken the defile of Cumberland
   Gap, the principal door to East Tennessee; but drawn into the
   pursuit of their adversaries in other directions, they had
   very wisely renounced proceeding beyond the gap, and shortly
   thereafter the Confederates had retaken the defile. In 1863
   the role of liberator of East Tennessee was reserved for
   General Burnside: it was an honorable compensation accorded to
   the unfortunate but gallant soldier vanquished at
   Fredericksburg. Two divisions of the Ninth Corps designated to
   undertake this campaign having been, on June 4th, sent to the
   aid of Grant, it became necessary to commence new
   preparations. The scattered troops in Kentucky, several
   regiments recruited in that State or composed of refugees from
   East Tennessee, and a part of the fresh levies made in Ohio
   and Indiana, formed the Twenty-third Corps, under the orders
   of General Hartsuff. At the end of June … this little army was
   in readiness to move, when Morgan started on his raid [and
   Burnside's troops were sent in the pursuit]. Six weeks were
   lost. It was the beginning of August. The Ninth Corps was
   coming back from Vicksburg. But the men, worn out by the
   climate, had need of rest. Burnside could not wait for them."
   He set out upon his movement into East Tennessee with about
   20,000 men, leaving Camp Nelson, near Lexington, on the 16th
   of August. The Confederate General Buckner opposed him with an
   equal number, including 3000 under General Fraser at
   Cumberland Gap. Instead of attempting to force the passage of
   the gap, Burnside "determined to make a flank movement around
   the defile, by traversing more to the south, in the State of
   Tennessee, the high table-land which on that side bears the
   designation of Cumberland plateau. The roads which Burnside
   would have to cross were long and difficult to travel, and
   that portion of the country was little known, besides being
   bare of resources; but the very difficult character of the
   roads warranted the belief that the Confederates would be illy
   prepared for defence in that region. No precaution was
   neglected to ensure the success of this laborious and perilous
   march," and the success achieved was perfect. "One can
   understand with what joy the Federals, after eleven days of
   toilsome march, entered the rich valley, a kind of promised
   land, which stretched out before them. Public rumor had
   greatly exaggerated their numbers. … Bragg, fearing with
   reason lest by its flanking movements it [the division which
   Burnside led in person] should separate him from Buckner and
   then fall upon Chattanooga, had sent his lieutenant an order
   to evacuate Knoxville." Buckner withdrew and Burnside made a
   triumphal entry into Knoxville on the 3d of September.
   "According to the testimony of eye-witnesses, the joy of the
   people was beyond description. Innumerable Federal flags which
   had been preserved in secret were displayed at the windows."
   Frazer, who had not been withdrawn from Cumberland Gap, found
   himself entrapped, when, on the 9th of September, Burnside
   appeared before his works, and he surrendered without a shot.

      Comte de Paris,
      History of the Civil War in America,
      volume 4, book 1, chapter 2.

      ALSO IN:
      A. Woodbury,
      Burnside and the 9th Army Corps,
      part 3, chapters 4-5.

      T. W. Humes,
      The Loyal Mountaineers of East Tennessee,
      chapter 13.

      Official Records,
      Series 1, volume 30, part 2.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (August-September: Tennessee).
   Rosecrans's advance to Chattanooga.
   Evacuation of the place by the Confederates.
   Battle of Chickamauga.

   "The seizure and occupation of the strategic point Chattanooga
   was an essential part of the campaign by the national forces
   against the Confederates. The Atlantic portion of the Southern
   States is separated from the Mississippi Valley by majestic
   folds of the earth's surface, constituting the Appalachian
   Ranges. These folds run, in a general manner, parallel to each
   other, and at intervals are crossed by transverse depressions
   or gaps. Such passages or gateways are therefore of great
   commercial, political and military importance. Chattanooga,
   which in the Cherokee language means 'The Hawk's Nest,' is a
   little town seated in one of these transverse depressions,
   through which the Tennessee River and a system of railroads
   pass. … From the region of Chattanooga the earth-folds range
   in a southwesterly direction. Enumerating such of them as are
   of interest on the present occasion, they are from west to
   east as follows: Raccoon or Sand Mountain, Lookout Mountain,
   Missionary Ridge, Pigeon Mountain, Chickamauga Hills. …
   Chattanooga Valley … through which runs a stream of the same
   name, is formed on the west by Lookout Mountain, here about
   2,400 feet high, and on the east by Missionary Ridge, so
   called because Catholic Missionaries had established, many
   years ago, churches and schools upon it among the Cherokee
   Indians. From the summit of Lookout Mountain portions of not
   fewer than six States may be seen." In his Tullahoma campaign)
   Rosecrans, in July, had compelled Bragg and the Confederate
   army, by skilful flanking movements, to fan back to
   Chattanooga.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: 1863 (June-July: Tennessee).

{3508}

   He had ever since been urged from Washington to pursue his
   attack and dislodge the enemy from the mountains. But he
   delayed further movements for a month, repairing his railroad
   communications, asking for reinforcements, and waiting for
   corn to ripen for food and forage. When he advanced, it was to
   turn the left of Bragg's position at Chattanooga, and "reach
   his rear between Dalton and Atlanta. To do this, he had to
   cross the Tennessee River below Chattanooga, and then pass the
   three or four successive mountain ridges. … Rosecrans reached
   the Tennessee River on the evening of the 20th of August, and
   shelled Chattanooga from the heights on the north bank on the
   21st. Bridges were thrown over the river at Caperton's Ferry,
   mouth of Battle Creek, and Shell Mound, and the army, except
   the cavalry, safely crossed in face of the enemy. By the 8th
   of September" the several movements planned for Thomas, McCook
   and Crittenden were successfully accomplished, and Chattanooga
   was abandoned by the Confederates. "Thus the first object of
   Rosecrans's campaign was accomplished: the important strategic
   point Chattanooga was obtained. … Rosecrans, believing himself
   perfectly secure in Chattanooga, and being convinced that
   Bragg was fleeing southward, did nothing to fortify himself.
   Taking measures to pursue his antagonist, he directed
   Crittenden to leave one brigade at Chattanooga as a garrison,
   and with the rest move forward to Ringgold. Thomas was to
   march to Lafayette, and McCook upon Alpine and Summer Creek.
   But Bragg, so far from continuing, had stopped his retreat—he
   was concentrating at Lafayette. He had received, or was on the
   point of receiving, the powerful re-enforcements directed to
   join him. He was strictly ordered to check the farther advance
   of the Army of the Cumberland. … Rosecrans had separated three
   corps of his army by mountain ridges and by distances greater
   than those intervening between each of them and the enemy.
   Bragg had concentrated opposite his centre, and was holding
   such a position that he could attack any of them with
   overwhelming numbers. He had caused deserters and citizens to
   go into Rosecrans's lines to confirm him in the impression
   that the Confederates were in rapid retreat. … On the 11th of
   September, Crittenden, not stopping to fortify Chattanooga,
   pushed on toward Ringgold to cut off Buckner, who he had heard
   was coming from East Tennessee to the support of Bragg.
   Finding that Buckner had already passed, he turned toward
   Lafayette to follow him, going up the east side of the
   Chickamauga, but meeting a steadily increasing resistance he
   took alarm, and fell back across that stream at Lee and
   Gordon's Mills. The forces he had encountered were Cheatham's
   and Walker's divisions. Thomas, who had now discovered Bragg's
   position, directed McCook, who was advancing on Rome, to fall
   back instantly and connect with him. Rosecrans's troops had
   thus become scattered along an extended line from Lee and
   Gordon's Mills to Alpine, a space of about forty miles. By the
   17th they were brought more within supporting distance, and on
   the morning of the 18th a concentration was begun toward
   Crawfish Spring, but it was slowly executed. At this time the
   two armies were confronting each other on the opposite banks
   of the Chickamauga, a stream which, rising at the junction of
   Missionary Ridge and Pigeon Mountain … empties into the
   beautiful Tennessee River above Chattanooga. In the Indian
   tongue Chickamauga means 'The Stagnant Stream,' 'The River of
   Death'—a name, as we shall soon find, of ominous import.
   Rosecrans was on the west bank of the Chickamauga. … On the
   18th his right was … at Gordon's Mills, his left near the road
   across from Rossville. Bragg's intention was to flank this
   left and interpose between it and Chattanooga. … On the 18th
   Longstreet's troops were arriving from Virginia, and Bragg was
   ready. … The battle of Chickamauga commenced on the morning of
   the 19th." Bragg's flanking movement, executed under General
   Polk, and directed against the left of Rosecrans's line, where
   Thomas had command, did not succeed. "The centre was then
   assailed and pressed back, but, having been re-enforced, it
   recovered its ground. Night came, and the battle was thus far
   indecisive. … The night was spent in preparation. Thomas
   constructed abatis and breastworks before his lines. … Bragg
   was still determined to flank the national left, and intervene
   between it and Chattanooga. He had ordered Polk to begin the
   battle as soon as it was light enough to see," but Polk
   delayed and it was not until 10 o'clock that "Breckenridge's
   division, followed by Cleburne's, advanced against the
   breastworks of Thomas, which were mostly in Cleburne's front.
   Cleburne moved directly upon them, Breckenridge swinging round
   to flank them. With so much energy were these attacks made,
   that Thomas had to send repeatedly to Rosecrans for help. The
   Confederates had been gaining ground, but with these
   re-enforcements Thomas succeeded in driving back Cleburne with
   very great loss, and even in advancing on the right of
   Breckenridge." But, presently, by some blunder in the giving
   or construing of an order, one division—that of General
   "Wood—was withdrawn from Rosecrans line and posted uselessly
   in the rear. "By this unfortunate mistake a gap was opened in
   the line of battle, of which Hindman, of Longstreet's corps,
   took instant advantage, and, striking Davis in flank and rear,
   threw his whole division into confusion. … That break in the
   line was never repaired. Longstreet's masses charged with such
   terrible energy that it was impossible to check them. The
   national right and centre were dispersed, flying toward
   Rossville and Chattanooga. Sheridan, however, at length
   succeeded in rallying a considerable portion of his division,
   and managed to reach Thomas. On Thomas, who, in allusion to
   these events, is often called 'The Rock of Chickamauga.' the
   weight of the battle now fell. Everything depended on his
   firmness. … In the flight of the right and part of the centre
   from the field, Rosecrans, McCook and Crittenden were
   enveloped and carried away. … Rosecrans … went to Chattanooga,
   and thence telegraphed to Washington that his army had been
   beaten. Thomas still remained immovable in his position," and
   at a critical moment he was saved from a movement into his
   rear, by General Gorden Granger, who pushed to the front with
   some reserves. "Night came, and the Confederates were still
   unable to shake him. But, as most of the army had retreated to
   Chattanooga, he now deliberately fell back to Rossville. … The
   dead and wounded he left in the hands of the enemy. On the
   21st he offered battle again, and that night withdrew into the
   defences of Chattanooga."

      J. W. Draper,
      History of the American Civil War,
      chapter 67, volume 3.

{3509}

   "During the heavy fighting of the 20th, Thomas was the only
   general officer on the field of rank above a division
   commander. … Well was he called the 'Rock of Chickamauga,' …
   There is nothing finer in history than Thomas at Chickamauga.
   All things considered, the battle of Chickamauga, for the
   forces engaged, was the hardest fought and the bloodiest
   battle of the Rebellion. … The largest number of troops
   Rosecrans had of all arms on the field during the two days'
   fighting was 55,000 effective men. … Rosecrans's losses
   aggregated killed, 1,687; wounded, 9,394; missing, 5,255.
   Total loss, 16,336. Bragg, during the battle, when his entire
   five corps were engaged, had about 70,000 effective troops in
   line. … His losses, in part estimated, were 2,673 killed,
   16,274 wounded, and 2,003 missing, a total of 20,950. A full
   report of the rebel losses was never made."

      H. M. Cist,
      The Army of the Cumberland
      (Campaigns of the Civil War, volume 7), chapters 11-12.

      ALSO IN:
      Comte de Paris,
      History of the Civil War in America,
      volume 4, book 1, chapters 2-6.

      T. B. Van Horne,
      History of the Army of the Cumberland,
      volume 1, chapter 20.

      T. B. Van Horne,
      Life of Major-General George H. Thomas,
      chapters 6-7.

      W. B. Hazen,
      Narrative of Military Service,
      chapters 8-9.

      D. H. Hill, E. Opdycke, and others,
      Chickamauga
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 3).

      Official Records,
      Series 1, volume 30.

      P. H. Sheridan,
      Personal Memoirs,
      volume 1, chapter 15.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863
(August-October: Arkansas-Missouri).
   The breaking of Confederate authority in Arkansas.
   Occupation of Little Rock by national forces.
   Rebel raids into Missouri.

   "After the surrender of Vicksburg, the Federal General Steele
   was sent to Helena, with a considerable force, and instructed
   to form a junction with General Davidson, who was moving south
   from Missouri, by way of Crowley's Ridge, west of the St.
   Francis, and with the combined force drive the Confederates
   south of the Arkansas River. Having effected this junction and
   established his depot and hospitals at Duvall's Bluff, on the
   White River, General Steele, on the 1st of August, advanced
   against the Confederate army, which fell back toward Little
   Rock. After several successful skirmishes, he reached the
   Arkansas River, and threw part of his force upon the south
   side, to threaten the Confederate communications with
   Arkadelphia, their depot of supplies, and flank their position
   at Little Rock. General Marmaduke was sent out with a cavalry
   force to beat the Federals back, but was completely routed.
   Seeing what must be the inevitable result of this movement of
   General Steele, the Confederate General Holmes destroyed what
   property he could, and after a slight resistance retreated
   with his army in great disorder, pursued by the Federal
   cavalry, and on the 10th of September General Steele, with the
   Federal army, entered the capital of Arkansas. His entire
   losses in killed, wounded and missing, in this whole movement,
   did not exceed 100. He captured 1,000 prisoners, and such
   public property as the Confederates had not time to destroy.
   The Federal cavalry continued to press the retreating
   Confederates southward; but a small force, which had eluded
   pursuit and moved eastward, attacked the Federal garrison at
   Pine Bluff, on the Arkansas, south of Little Rock, hoping to
   recapture it and thus cripple the Federals and break their
   communications. The attempt, which was made on the 28th of
   October, was repulsed with decided loss on the part of the
   confederates, and the same day the Federal cavalry occupied
   Arkadelphia, and the Confederates retreated toward the Red
   River. This completely restored Arkansas to the Federal
   authority, except a small district in the extreme southwest,
   and the region of Northwest Arkansas, over which the guerrilla
   and other irregular troops of the Confederates continued to
   roam, in their plundering excursions into Missouri, Kansas,
   and the Indian Territory. Some of these were conducted on a
   large scale. … The Confederate General Cabell, collecting
   together as many of the guerrillas and Indians as possible,
   and some of the routed troops driven from Little Rock and its
   vicinity, started with a force variously estimated at from
   4,000 to 10,000, in the latter part of September, from the
   Choctaw settlements of the Indian Territory, crossed the
   Arkansas River east of Fort Smith, and, on the 1st of October,
   a detachment of his troops, under General Shelby, joined
   Coffee at Crooked Prairie, Missouri, intending to make a raid
   into Southwestern Missouri. This combined force, numbering
   2,000 or 2,500 men, penetrated as far as the Missouri River at
   Booneville, but were pursued by the Missouri militia, and
   finally brought to a stand about eight miles southwest of
   Arrow Rock, on the evening of the 12th of October. General E.
   B. Brown who commanded the Federal troops, fought them till
   dark that evening, and during the night, having detached a
   small force to attack them in the rear, renewed the battle the
   next morning at eight A. M. After a sharp contest they fled,
   completely routed and broken up, with a loss of several
   hundred in killed, wounded and prisoners. They were pursued to
   the Arkansas line and prisoners gleaned all the way. … With
   these last convulsive throes, the active existence of the
   Confederate authority in Arkansas died out. On the 12th of
   November a meeting was held at Little Rock, to consult on
   measures for the restoration of the State to the Union, and
   was succeeded by others in different parts of the State."

      W. J. Tenney,
      Military and Naval History of the Rebellion,
      chapter 36.

      ALSO IN:
      Comte de Paris,
      History of the Civile war in America,
      volume 4, book 3, chapter 3.

      W. Britton,
      Memoirs of the Rebellion on the Border,
      chapters 21-22.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863
(August-December: South Carolina).
   Siege and Reduction of Fort Wagner.
   Bombardment of Fort Sumter and Charleston.

   After the unsuccessful assault and bloody repulse of July 18th
   General Gillmore began against Fort Wagner the operations of a
   regular siege.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863
      (JULY: SOUTH CAROLINA)

   "Trenches were dug, and by the middle of August the batteries
   were within a quarter-mile of Wagner and within two and a half
   miles of Sumter. The work on these batteries had to be done
   mostly by night, for the forts kept up a heavy fire. Another
   battery was also begun in the marsh on the west side of Morris
   Island. The black mud there was so soft that it would not bear
   the weight of a man, and was at least 16 feet deep. After the
   site was chosen, a lieutenant was ordered to superintend the
   work, and told to call for whatever materials he wanted. Being
   something of a wag, he sent to the quartermaster for 100 men 18
   feet high, to work in mud 16 feet deep; but as men of that
   height could not be had, he had to be satisfied with workmen
   of common stature.
{3510}
   All the work had to be done in the dark, for it was within
   range of the guns of the forts. During fourteen nights piles
   were driven through the mud into the solid ground beneath, and
   on them were piled 15,000 bags of sand to form a parapet.
   After breaking down several trucks, a monster eight-inch
   Parrott gun, a 200-pounder, was dragged across the swamp and
   mounted, and about the middle of August the Swamp Angel, as
   the soldiers named it, was ready to throw shells into
   Charleston, nearly five miles away. On the 17th of August
   twelve land-batteries and the monitors opened fire on Sumter,
   Wagner, and Gregg. The heaviest of the fire was aimed at
   Sumter, as General Gillmore wished to silence it before he
   made another assault on Wagner. The bombardment was kept up
   for seven days, when Gillmore sent a dispatch to General
   Halleck, saying: 'Fort Sumter is to-day (August 24) a
   shapeless and harmless mass of ruins.' On the 21st of August,
   General Gillmore wrote to General Beauregard, who was in
   command in Charleston, demanding the evacuation of Fort Sumter
   and of Morris Island, threatening, in case of refusal, to
   bombard Charleston. Not hearing from him, he ordered a few
   shells to be thrown into the city from the Swamp Angel. Some
   of them fell in the streets and frightened the people, but did
   little damage. Beauregard then wrote him a letter in which he
   accused him of barbarity in 'turning his guns against the old
   men, the women and children, and the hospitals of a sleeping
   city,' and called the act 'unworthy of any soldier. General
   Gillmore replied that it was the duty of the commander of an
   attacked place to 'see to it that the non-combatants were
   removed,' and that he (Beauregard) had had forty days' time in
   which to do it. But the Swamp Angel was fired only a few
   times. At the thirty-sixth shot it burst and blew out the
   whole of its breech, and no other gun was mounted in its
   place. Gillmore then turned his attention once more to Fort
   Wagner, which he determined to assault again. To do this it
   was necessary to silence its guns and drive its defenders into
   the bomb-proofs; so a heavy fire was opened on it by the
   batteries, while the armored frigate New Ironsides poured
   eleven-inch shells into it from the sea side. The bombardment
   was kept up day and night, strong calcium lights being used by
   night to blind the Confederates and to show all parts of their
   works. The Confederates, driven from their guns, were obliged
   to fly for safety to their bomb-proofs. In the morning of
   September 7, the troops, under General Terry, were about ready
   to make the assault, when it was reported that the fort was
   empty. The garrisons of both Wagner and Gregg had fled during
   the night, and the whole of Morris Island was at last in
   possession of the Union troops. The next night an attack was
   made on Sumter by thirty boat-loads of men from the fleet.
   They reached the base of the walls and began to go up,
   thinking that the garrison was asleep; but before they reached
   the top a fire of musketry and hand-grenades was opened on
   them by the Confederates within, aided by some gun boats
   outside, and the assailants were driven off with a loss of
   about 200. But little more was done against Charleston during
   the rest of the year. General Gillmore thought that, as
   Sumter's guns were silenced, the fleet might easily pass into
   the harbor and capture Charleston. But Admiral Dahlgren did
   not care to run the risk of the torpedoes and powder-mines
   over which he knew he would have to pass. Besides, General
   Beauregard had taken advantage of the long delay in taking
   Wagner to strengthen the inner forts. Fort Johnson had been
   made into a powerful earthwork, and the fleet, even if Sumter
   were passed, would meet with as hot a fire as had been
   experienced outside. General Gillmore therefore contented
   himself with repairing Wagner and Gregg and turning their guns
   on Charles·ton and the forts defending it. As they were a mile
   nearer the city than the Swamp Angel battery, a slow
   bombardment was kept up until near the end of the year. About
   half of Charleston was reached by the shells, and many
   buildings were greatly injured. As the wharfs and most of the
   harbor were under fire, blockade-runners could no longer run
   in, and the business of the city was thus wholly destroyed."

      J. D. Champlin, Jr.,
      Young Folk's History of the War for the Union,
      chapter 32.

      ALSO IN:
      Comte de Paris,
      History of the Civil War in America,
      volume 4, book 3, chapter 2.

      A. Roman,
      Military Operations of General Beauregard,
      volume 2, chapters 32-34.

      C. B. Boynton,
      History of the Navy during the Rebellion,
      volume 2, chapter 35.

      L. F. Emilio,
      History of the 54th Regiment Massachusetts Volunteers.,
      chapters 6-7.

{3511}

Map of the Battlefield of Chattanooga. 1863.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (October-November: Tennessee).
   The raising of the siege of Chattanooga.
   "Battle above the Clouds," on Lookout Mountain.
   Assault of Missionary Ridge.
   The Rout of Bragg's army.

   After its defeat at Chickamauga the National Army was
   practically besieged on Chattanooga. Bragg acquired strong
   positions on Lookout Mountain and Missionary Ridge, and was
   able to cut off all of Rosecrans's routes of supply, except
   one long and difficult wagon-road. On the 17th of October an
   important reorganization of the Union armies in the West was
   effected. "The departments of the Ohio, the Cumberland, and
   the Tennessee, were united under the title of Military
   Division of the Mississippi, of which General Grant was made
   commander, and Thomas superseded Rosecrans in command of the
   Army of the Cumberland. General Hooker, with two corps, was
   sent to Tennessee. Grant arrived at Chattanooga on the 23d of
   October, and found affairs in a deplorable condition. It was
   impossible to supply the troops properly by the one
   wagon-road, and they had been on short rations for some time,
   while large numbers of the mules and horses were dead. Grant's
   first care was to open a new and better line of supply.
   Steamers could come up the river as far as Bridgeport, and he
   ordered the immediate construction of a road and bridge to
   reach that point by way of Brown's Ferry, which was done
   within five days, the 'cracker line,' as the soldiers called
   it, was opened, and thenceforth they had full rations and
   abundance of everything. The enemy attempted to interrupt the
   work on the road; but Hooker met them at Wauhatchie, west of
   Lookout Mountain, and after a three-hours' action drove them
   off [with It loss of 416 killed and wounded, the Confederate
   loss being unknown]. Chattanooga was now no longer in a state
   of siege; but it was still seriously menaced by Bragg's army,
   which held a most singular position.
{3512}
   Its flanks were on the northern ends of Lookout Mountain and
   Mission Ridge, the crests of which were occupied for some
   distance, and its centre stretched across Chattanooga valley.
   This line was twelve miles long, and most of it was well
   intrenched. Grant ordered Sherman [coming from Memphis] to
   join him with one corps, and Sherman promptly obeyed, but as
   he did considerable railroad repairing on the way, he did not
   reach Chattanooga till the 15th of November. Meanwhile
   Longstreet with 20,000 troops had been detached from Bragg's
   army and sent against Burnside at Knoxville. After Sherman's
   arrival, Grant had about 80,000 men."

      R. Johnson,
      Short History of the War of Secession,
      chapter 20.

   "My orders for battle," writes General Grant, "were all
   prepared in advance of Sherman's arrival, except the dates,
   which could not be fixed while troops to be engaged were so
   far away. The possession of Lookout Mountain was of no special
   advantage to us now. Hooker was instructed to send Howard's
   corps to the north side of the Tennessee, thence up behind the
   hills on the north side, and to go into camp opposite
   Chattanooga; with the remainder of the command, Hooker was, at
   a time to be afterwards appointed, to ascend the western slope
   between the upper and lower palisades, and so get into
   Chattanooga Valley. The plan of battle was for Sherman to
   attack the enemy's right flank, form a line across it, extend
   our left over South Chickamauga River so as to threaten or
   hold the railroad in Bragg's rear, and thus force him either
   to weaken his lines elsewhere or lose his connection with his
   base at Chickamauga Station. Hooker was to perform like
   service on our right. His problem was to get from Lookout
   Valley to Chattanooga Valley in the most expeditious way
   possible; cross the latter valley rapidly to Rossville, south
   of Bragg's line on Missionary Ridge, form line there across
   the ridge facing north, with his right flank extended to
   Chickamauga Valley east of the ridge, thus threatening the
   enemy's rear on that flank and compelling him to reinforce
   this also. Thomas, with the Army of the Cumberland, occupied
   the centre, and was to assault while the enemy was engaged
   with most of his forces on his two flanks. To carry out this
   plan, Sherman was to cross at Brown's Ferry and move east of
   Chattanooga to a point opposite the north end of Mission
   Ridge, and to place his command back of the foot-hills out of
   sight of the enemy on the ridge." Remaining in this concealed
   position until the time of attack, Sherman's army was then,
   under cover of night, to be rapidly brought back to the south
   side of the Tennessee, at a point where Missionary Ridge
   prolonged would touch the river, this being done by pontoons
   ready provided at a spot also concealed. The execution of the
   plan was delayed by heavy rains until November 23, when
   Burnside's distress at Knoxville forced Grant to begin his
   attack on Bragg by an advance of Thomas's army, at the center,
   before the flanking preparations were completed. "This
   movement [General Grant's narrative continues] secured to us a
   line fully a mile in advance of the one we occupied in the
   morning, and the one which the enemy had occupied to this
   time. The fortifications were rapidly turned to face the other
   way. During the following night they were made strong. We lost
   in this preliminary action about 1,100 killed and wounded,
   while the enemy probably lost quite as heavily, including the
   prisoners that were captured. With the exception of the firing
   of artillery, kept up from Missionary Ridge and Fort Wood
   until night closed in, this ended the fighting for the first
   day. … By the night of the 23d Sherman's command was in a
   position to move," and by daylight two divisions of his
   command were on the south side of the river, "well covered by
   the works they had built. The work of laying the bridge, on
   which to cross the artillery and cavalry, was now begun. … By
   a little past noon the bridge was completed, as well as one
   over the South Chickamauga … and all the infantry and
   artillery were on the south side of the Tennessee. Sherman at
   once formed his troops for assault on Missionary Ridge. … By
   half-past three Sherman was in possession of the height
   without having sustained much loss. … Artillery was dragged to
   the top of the hill by hand, The enemy did not seem to be
   aware of this movement until the top of the hill was gained.
   There had been a drizzling rain during the day, and the clouds
   were so low that Lookout Mountain and the top of Missionary
   Ridge were obscured from the view of persons in the valley.
   But now the enemy opened fire upon their assailants, and made
   several attempts with their skirmishers to drive them away,
   but without avail. Later in the day a more determined attack
   was made, but this, too, failed, and Sherman was left to
   fortify what he had gained. … While these operations were
   going on to the east of Chattanooga, Hooker was engaged on the
   west. He had three divisions … all west of Lookout Creek. The
   enemy had the east bank of the creek strongly picketed and
   entrenched. … The side of Lookout Mountain confronting
   Hooker's command was rugged, heavily timbered, and full of
   chasms. … Early on the morning of the 24th Hooker moved
   Geary's division, supported by a brigade of Cruft's, up
   Lookout Creek, to effect a crossing. The remainder of Cruft's
   division was to seize the bridge over the creek, near the
   crossing of the railroad. … This attracted the enemy so that
   Geary's movement farther up was not observed. A heavy mist
   obscured him from the view of the troops on the top of the
   mountain. He crossed the creek almost unobserved, and captured
   the picket of over 40 men on guard near by. He then commenced
   ascending the mountain directly in his front. … By noon Geary
   had gained the open ground on the north slope of the mountain,
   with his right close up to the base of the upper palisade, but
   there were strong fortifications in his front. The rest of the
   command coming up, a line was formed from the base of the
   upper palisade to the mouth of Chattanooga Creek. Thomas and I
   were on the top of Orchard Knob. Hooker's advance now made our
   line a continuous one. … The day was hazy, so that Hooker's
   operations were not visible to us except at the moments when
   the clouds would rise. But the sound of his artillery and
   musketry was heard incessantly. The enemy on his front was
   partially fortified, but was soon driven out of his works.
   During the afternoon the clouds, which had so obscured the top
   of Lookout all day as to hide whatever was going on from the
   view of those below, settled down and made it so dark where
   Hooker was as to stop operations for the time. At four o'clock
   Hooker reported his position as impregnable.
{3513}
   By a little after five direct communication was established,
   and a brigade of troops was sent from Chattanooga to reinforce
   him. … The morning of the 25th opened clear and bright, and
   the whole field was in full view from the top of Orchard Knob.
   It remained so all day. Bragg's headquarters were in full
   view. … Sherman was out as soon as it was light enough to see,
   and by sunrise his command was in motion. Three brigades held
   the hill already gained. Morgan L. Smith moved along the east
   base of Missionary Ridge; Loomis along the west base … and
   Corse with his brigade was between the two, moving directly
   towards the hill to be captured." The fighting was severe for
   hours, and Bragg moved heavy masses of troops to resist
   Sherman's advance, while a division from Thomas was sent to
   reinforce the latter. "It had now got to be late in the
   afternoon, and I had expected before this to see Hooker
   crossing the ridge in the neighborhood of Rossville and
   compelling Bragg to mass in that direction also. The enemy had
   evacuated Lookout Mountain during the night, as I expected he
   would. In crossing the valley he burned the bridge over
   Chattanooga Creek, and did all he could to obstruct the roads
   behind him. Hooker was off bright and early, with no
   obstructions in his front but distance and the destruction
   above named. He was detained four hours crossing Chattanooga
   Creek, and thus was lost the immediate advantage I expected
   from his forces. … But Sherman's condition was getting so
   critical that the assault for his relief could not be delayed
   any longer. Sheridan's and Wood's divisions had been lying
   under arms from early morning, ready to move the instant the
   signal was given. I now directed Thomas to order the charge at
   once." In this splendid charge the Union troops drove the
   Confederates from the first line of their works and then
   pushed on, with no further orders, to the second line, with
   the same success. "The retreat of the enemy along most of his
   line was precipitate, and the panic so great that Bragg and
   his officers lost all control over their men. Many were
   captured and thousands threw away their arms in their flight.
   Sheridan pushed forward until he reached the Chickamauga River
   at a point above where the enemy crossed. … To Sheridan's
   prompt movement the Army of the Cumberland and the nation are
   indebted for the bulk of the capture of prisoners, artillery,
   and small arms that day. … The enemy confronting Sherman, now
   seeing everything to their left giving way, fled also. …
   Hooker [pushing on to Rossville as soon as he had succeeded in
   getting across Chattanooga Creek] … came upon the flank of a
   division of the enemy, which soon commenced a retreat along
   the ridge. This threw them on Palmer. They could make but
   little resistance in the position they were caught in, and as
   many of them as could do so escaped. Many, however, were
   captured. … The victory at Chattanooga was won against great
   odds, considering the advantage the enemy had of position."

      U. S. Grant,
      Personal Memoirs,
      chapters 42-44 (volume 2).

   "Grant's losses in these battles were 757 killed, 4,529
   wounded, and 330 missing; total 5,616. The enemy's losses were
   fewer in killed and wounded, owing to the fact that he was
   protected by intrenchments, while the national' soldiers were
   without cover. Grant captured 6,142 prisoners, 40 pieces of
   artillery, 69 artillery carriages and caissons, and 7,000
   stand of small arms; by far the greatest capture, in the open
   field, which had then been made during the war. The battle of
   Chattanooga was the grandest ever fought west of the
   Alleghanies. It covered an extent of 13 miles, and Grant had
   over 60,000 men engaged. The rebels numbered only 45,000 men,
   but they enjoyed immense advantages of position in every part
   of the field." Pursuit of the retreating Confederates began
   early in the morning of the 26th, and considerable fighting
   occurred on that day and the next. At Ringgold, Hooker was
   checked by Cleburne's division, which held an easily defended
   gap while the main column with its trains were moved beyond
   reach. In this battle at Ringgold Hooker lost 65 killed and
   377 wounded. He took three pieces of artillery and 230
   prisoners.

      A. Badeau,
      Military History of Ulysses S. Grant,
      chapters 11-12 (volume 1).

      ALSO IN:
      J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 8, chapter 5.

      H. M. Cist,
      The Army of the Cumberland
      (Campaigns of the Civil War, volume 7),
      chapters 13-14.

      Comte de Paris,
      History of the Civil War in America,
      volume 4, book 2.

      W. T. Sherman,
      Memoirs,
      chapter 13 (volume 1).

      P. H. Sheridan,
      Memoirs,
      volume 1, chapter 16.

      T. B. Van Horne,
      History of the Army of the Cumberland,
      chapters 21-22 (volume 1).

      Official Records,
      Series 1, volume 31.

      B. F. Taylor,
      Mission Ridge and Lookout Mountain.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (October-December: Tennessee).
   The Siege of Knoxville.

   "The Army of the Cumberland remaining quiet at Chattanooga,
   Bragg (or his superiors) conceived the idea of improving his
   leisure by a movement on Burnside, which Longstreet was
   assigned to lead. Burnside had by this time spread his force
   very widely, holding innumerable points and places southward
   and eastward of Knoxville by brigades and detachments; and
   Longstreet advancing silently and rapidly, was enabled to
   strike heavily [October 20] at the little outpost of
   Philadelphia, held by Colonel F. T. Wolford, with the 1st,
   11th, and 12th Kentucky cavalry and 45th Ohio mounted
   infantry—in all about 2,000 men. Wolford … withstood several
   hours, hoping that the sound of guns would bring him
   assistance from Loudon in his rear; but none arrived; and he
   was at length obliged to cut his way out; losing his battery
   and 32 wagons, but bringing off most of his command, with 51
   prisoners. … Our total loss in prisoners to Longstreet
   southward of Loudon is stated by Halleck at 650. The enemy
   advancing resolutely yet cautiously, our troops were withdrawn
   before them from Lenoir and from Loudon, concentrating at
   Campbell's Station—General Burnside, who had hastened from
   Knoxville at the tidings of danger, being personally in
   command. Having been joined by his old (9th) corps, he was now
   probably as strong as Longstreet; but a large portion of his
   force was still dispersed far to the eastward, and he
   apprehended being flanked by an advance from Kingston on his
   left. He found himself so closely pressed, however, that he
   must either fight or sacrifice his trains; so he chose an
   advantageous position and suddenly faced the foe: his
   batteries being all at hand, while those of his pursuers were
   behind; so that he had decidedly the advantage in the fighting
   till late in the afternoon, when they brought up three
   batteries and opened, while their infantry were extended on
   either hand, as if to outflank him.
{3514}
   He then fell back to the next ridge, and again faced about;
   holding his position firmly till after nightfall; when—his
   trains having meantime obtained a fair start—he resumed his
   retreat, and continued it unmolested until safe within the
   sheltering intrenchments of Knoxville. Our loss in this affair
   was about 800; that of the enemy was probably greater. …
   Longstreet continued his pursuit and in due time beleaguered
   the city [November 17], though he can hardly be said to have
   invested it. … The defenses were engineered by Captain Poe,
   and were signally effective. Directly on getting into
   position, a smart assault was delivered on our right, held by
   the 12th Illinois, 45th Ohio, 3d Michigan, and 12th Kentucky,
   and a hill carried; but it was not essential to the defenses.
   Our loss this day was about 100; among them was General W. P.
   Sanders, of Kentucky, killed. Shelling and skirmishing barely
   served to break the monotony for ten weary days, when—having
   been reenforced by Sam Jones, and one or two other small
   commands from Virginia—Longstreet delivered an assault, by a
   picked storming party of three brigades, on an unfinished but
   important work known as Fort Sanders, on our left, but was
   bloodily repelled by General Ferrero, who held it—the loss of
   the assailants being some 800, … while on our side the entire
   loss that night was about 100; only 15 of these in the fort.
   And now—Bragg having been defeated by Grant before
   Chattanooga, and a relieving force under Sherman being close
   at hand—Longstreet necessarily abandoned the siege, and moved
   rapidly eastward unassailed to Russellville, Virginia: our
   entire loss in the defense having been less than 1,000; while
   his must have been twice or thrice that number. Sherman's
   advance reached the city, and Burnside officially announced
   the raising of the siege, December 5th."

      H. Greeley,
      The American Conflict,
      volume 2, chapter 18.

      ALSO IN:
      A. Woodbury,
      Burnside and the Ninth Army Corps,
      part 3, chapter 6.

      Official Records,
      Series 1, volume 31, part 1.

      T. W. Humes.
      The Loyal Mountaineers of East Tennessee,
      chapters 14-16.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (November).
   President Lincoln's Address at Gettysburg.

   "By the retreat of Lee from Gettysburg and the immediate
   pursuit by Meade, the burial of the dead and care of the
   wounded on that great battlefield were left largely to the
   military and local authorities of the State of Pennsylvania.
   Governor Andrew G. Curtin gave the humane and patriotic duty
   his thoughtful attention; and during its execution the
   appropriate design of changing a portion of the field into a
   permanent cemetery, where the remains of the fallen heroes
   might be brought together, and their last resting-place
   suitably protected and embellished, was conceived and begun.
   The citizen soldiery from seventeen of the loyal States had
   taken part in the conflict on the Union side, and the several
   Governors of these States heartily cooperated in the project,
   which thus acquired a National character. This circumstance
   made it natural that the dedication ceremonies should be of
   more than usual interest and impressiveness. Accordingly, at
   the beginning of November, 1863, when the work was approaching
   its completion, Mr. David Wills, the special agent of Governor
   Curtin, and also acting for the several States, who had not
   only originated, but mainly superintended, the enterprise,
   wrote the following letter of invitation to President Lincoln:
   'The several States having soldiers in the Army of the
   Potomac, who were killed at the battle of Gettysburg, or have
   since died at the various hospitals which were established in
   the vicinity, have procured grounds on a prominent part of the
   battlefield for a cemetery, and are having the dead removed to
   them and properly buried. These grounds will be consecrated
   and set apart to this sacred purpose, by appropriate
   ceremonies, on Thursday, the 19th instant. Honorable Edward
   Everett will deliver the oration. I am authorized by the
   Governors of the different States to invite you to be present
   and participate in these ceremonies, which will doubtless be
   very imposing and solemnly impressive. It is the desire that
   after the oration, you, as Chief Executive of the nation,
   formally set apart these grounds to their sacred use by a few
   appropriate remarks. It will be a source of great
   gratification to the many widows and orphans that have been
   made almost friendless by the great battle here, to have you
   here personally; and it will kindle anew in the breasts of the
   comrades of these brave dead, who are now in the tented field
   or nobly meeting the foe in the front, a confidence that they
   who sleep in death on the battlefield are not forgotten by
   those highest in authority; and they will feel that, should
   their fate be the same, their remains will not be uncared-for.
   We hope you will be able to be present to perform this last
   solemn act to the soldier dead on this battlefield.' President
   Lincoln expressed his willingness to perform the duty
   requested of him. … At the appointed hour on the 19th a vast
   procession, with military music, moved to the cemetery grounds
   where, in the midst of a distinguished auditory, the orator of
   the day, Edward Everett, made an address worthy alike of his
   own fame and the extraordinary occasion. … Mr. Everett ended
   in a brilliant peroration, the echoes of which were lost in
   the long and hearty plaudits of the great multitude, and then
   President Lincoln arose to fill the part assigned him in the
   programme. It was a trying ordeal to fittingly crown with a
   few brief sentences the ceremonies of such a day, and such an
   achievement in oratory; finished, erudite, apparently
   exhaustive of the theme, replete with all the strength of
   scholastic method and the highest graces of literary culture.
   If there arose in the mind of any discriminating listener on
   the platform a passing doubt whether Mr. Lincoln would or
   could properly honor the unique occasion, that doubt vanished
   with his opening sentence; for then and there the President
   pronounced an address of dedication so pertinent, so brief yet
   so comprehensive, so terse yet so eloquent, linking the deeds
   of the present to the thoughts of the future, with simple
   words, in such living, original, yet exquisitely molded,
   maxim-like phrases that the best critics have awarded it an
   unquestioned rank as one of the world's masterpieces in
   rhetorical art.
{3515}
   He said:

   'Four-score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on
   this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and
   dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
   Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that
   nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long
   endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We
   have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final
   resting-place for those who here gave their lives that that
   nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we
   should do this. But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate—we
   cannot consecrate—we cannot hallow—this ground. The brave men,
   living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far
   above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little
   note, nor long remember, what we say here, but it can never
   forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to
   be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought
   here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to
   be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us,—that
   from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that
   cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—
   that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have
   died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new
   birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the
   people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.'"

      J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 8, chapter 7.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (December).

   The President's Message to Congress, at the opening of its
   session, December 8, was accompanied by the following
   Proclamation of Amnesty, which made known the terms of
   political reconstruction and rehabilitation that would be
   favored by the Executive, in dealing with rebellious citizens
   who might return to their allegiance:

   "Whereas, in and by the Constitution of the United States, it
   is provided that the President 'shall have power to grant
   reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States,
   except in cases of impeachment;' and Whereas a rebellion now
   exists whereby the loyal State governments of several States
   have for a long time been subverted, and many persons have
   committed and are now guilty of treason against the United
   States; and 'Whereas, with reference to said rebellion and
   treason, laws have been enacted by Congress declaring
   forfeitures and confiscation of property and liberation of
   slaves, all upon terms and conditions therein stated, and also
   declaring that the President was thereby authorized at any
   time thereafter, by proclamation, to extend to persons who may
   have participated in the existing rebellion, in any State or
   part thereof, pardon and amnesty, with such exceptions and at
   such times and on such conditions as he may deem expedient for
   the public welfare; and Whereas the congressional declaration
   for limited and conditional pardon accords with well
   established judicial exposition of the pardoning power; and
   Whereas, with reference to said rebellion, the President of
   the United States has issued several proclamations, with
   provisions in regard to the liberation of slaves; and Whereas
   it is now desired by some persons heretofore engaged in said
   rebellion to resume their allegiance to the United States, and
   to reinaugurate loyal State governments within and for their
   respective States: Therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of
   the United States, do proclaim, declare and make known to all
   persons who have directly, or by implication, participated in
   the existing rebellion, except as hereinafter excepted, that a
   full pardon is hereby granted to them and each of them, with
   restoration of all rights of property, except as to slaves,
   and in property cases where rights of third parties shall have
   intervened, and upon the condition that every such person
   shall take and subscribe an oath, and thenceforward keep and
   maintain said oath inviolate; and which oath shall be
   registered for permanent preservation, and shall be of the
   tenor and effect following, to wit:

    'I, ------, do solemnly swear, in presence of Almighty God,
    that I will henceforth faithfully support, protect, and
    defend the Constitution of the United States, and the union
    of the States thereunder; and that I will, in like manner,
    abide by and faithfully support all acts of Congress passed
    during the existing rebellion with reference to slaves, so
    long and so far as not repealed, modified, or held void by
    Congress, or by decision of the Supreme Court; and that I
    will, in like manner, abide by and faithfully support all
    proclamations of the President made during the existing
    rebellion having reference to slaves, so long and so far as
    not modified or declared void by decision of the Supreme
    Court. So help me God.'

   The persons excepted from the benefits of the foregoing
   provisions are all who are, or shall have been, civil or
   diplomatic officers or agents of the so-called Confederate
   Government; all who have left judicial stations under the
   United States to aid the rebellion; all who are, or shall have
   been, military or naval officers of said so-called Confederate
   Government above the rank of colonel in the Army, or of
   lieutenant in the Navy; all who left seats in the United
   States Congress to aid the rebellion; all who resigned
   commissions in the Army or Navy of the United States, and
   afterwards aided the rebellion; and all who have engaged in
   any way in treating colored persons, or white persons in
   charge of such, otherwise than lawfully as prisoners of war,
   and which persons may have been found in the United States
   service as soldiers, seamen, or in any other capacity. And I
   do further proclaim, declare, and make known that whenever in
   any of the States of Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi,
   Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, [Virginia?], Florida, South
   Carolina, and North Carolina, a number of persons, not less
   than one tenth in number of the votes cast in such State at
   the presidential election of the year of our Lord one thousand
   eight hundred and sixty, each having taken the oath aforesaid
   and not having since violated it, and being a qualified voter
   by the election law of the State existing immediately before
   the so-called act of secession, and excluding all others,
   shall re-establish a State government which shall be
   republican, and in nowise contravening said oath, such shall
   be recognized as the true government of the State, and the
   State shall receive thereunder the benefits of the
   constitutional provision which declares that 'the United
   States shall guaranty to every State in this Union a
   republican form of government, and shall protect each of them
   against invasion; and, on application of the Legislature, or
   the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened),
   against domestic violence.' And I do further proclaim,
   declare, and make known that any provision which may be
   adopted by such State government in relation to the freed
   people of such State, which shall recognize and declare their
   permanent freedom, provide for their education, and which may
   yet be consistent, as a temporary arrangement, with their
   present condition as a laboring, landless, and homeless class,
   will not be objected to by the national Executive.
{3516}
   And it is suggested as not improper, that, in constructing a
   loyal State government in any State, the name of the State,
   the boundary, the subdivisions, the constitution, and the
   general code of laws, as before the rebellion, be maintained,
   subject only to the modifications made necessary by the
   conditions hereinbefore stated, and such others, if any, not
   contravening said conditions, and which may be deemed
   expedient by those framing the new State government. To avoid
   misunderstanding, it may be proper to say that this
   proclamation, so far as it relates to State governments, has
   no reference to States wherein loyal State governments have
   all the while been maintained. And for the same reason, it may
   be proper to further say, that whether members sent to
   Congress from any State shall be admitted to seats
   constitutionally rests exclusively with the respective Houses,
   and not to any extent with the Executive. And still further,
   that this proclamation is intended to present the people of
   the States wherein the national authority has been suspended,
   and loyal State governments have been subverted, a mode in and
   by which the national authority and loyal State governments
   may be re-established within said States, or in any of them;
   and, while the mode presented is the best the Executive can
   suggest, with his present impressions, it must not be
   understood that no other possible mode would be acceptable.
   Given under my hand, at the City of Washington, the eighth day
   of December, in the year of our Lord, one thousand eight
   hundred and sixty-three, and of the independence of the United
   States of America the eighty-eighth.
   ABRAHAM LINCOLN."

   In the Message Mr. Lincoln gave his reasons for the
   Proclamation, and explained the grounds on which he rested the
   policy declared in it, as follows: "On examination of this
   proclamation it will appear, as is believed, that nothing is
   attempted beyond what is amply justified by the Constitution.
   True, the form of an oath is given, but no man is coerced to
   take it. The man is only promised a pardon in case he
   voluntarily takes the oath. The Constitution authorizes the
   Executive to grant or withhold the pardon at his own absolute
   discretion; and this includes the power to grant on terms, as
   is fully established by judicial and other authorities. It is
   also proffered that if, in any of the States named, a State
   government shall be, in the mode prescribed, set up, such
   government shall be recognized and guaranteed by the United
   States, and that under it the State shall, on the
   constitutional conditions, be protected against invasion and
   domestic violence. The constitutional obligation of tire
   United States to guarantee to every State in the Union a
   republican form of government, and to protect the State, in
   the cases stated, is explicit and full. But why tender the
   benefits of this provision only to a State government set up
   in this particular way? This section of the Constitution
   contemplates a case wherein the element within a State,
   favorable to republican government, in the Union, may be too
   feeble for an opposite and hostile element external to or even
   within the State; and such are precisely the cases with which
   we are now dealing. An attempt to guarantee and protect a
   revived State government, constructed in whole, or in
   preponderating part, from the very element against whose
   hostility and violence it is to be protected, is simply
   absurd. There must be a test by which to separate the opposing
   elements so as to build only from the sound; and that test is
   a sufficiently liberal one which accepts as sound whoever will
   make a sworn recantation of his former unsoundness. But if it
   be proper to require, as a test of admission to the political
   body, an oath of allegiance to the Constitution of the United
   States, and to the Union under it, why also to the laws and
   proclamations in regard to slavery? Those laws and
   proclamations were enacted and put forth for the purpose of
   aiding in the suppression of the rebellion. To give them their
   fullest effect, there had to be a pledge for their
   maintenance. In my judgment they have aided, and will further
   aid, the cause for which they were intended. To now abandon
   them would be not only to relinquish a lever of power, but
   would also be a cruel and an astounding breach of faith. I may
   add at this point, that while I remain in my present position
   I shall not attempt to retract or modify the Emancipation
   Proclamation; nor shall I return to slavery any person who is
   free by the terms of that proclamation, or by any of the acts
   of Congress. For these and other reasons it is thought best
   that support of these measures shall be included in the oath;
   and it is believed the Executive may lawfully claim it in
   return for pardon and restoration of forfeited rights, which
   he has clear constitutional power to withhold altogether, or
   grant upon the terms which he shall deem wisest for the public
   interest. It should be observed, also, that this part of the
   oath is subject to the modifying and abrogating power of
   legislation and supreme judicial decision. The proposed
   acquiescence of the national Executive in any reasonable
   temporary State arrangement for the freed people is made with
   the view of possibly modifying the confusion and destitution
   which must at best attend all classes by a total revolution of
   labor throughout whole States. It is hoped that the already
   deeply afflicted people in those States may be somewhat more
   ready to give up the cause of their affliction, if, to this
   extent, this vital matter be left to themselves; while no
   power of the national Executive to prevent an abuse is
   abridged by the proposition. The suggestion in the
   proclamation as to maintaining the political frame-work of the
   States on what is called reconstruction, is made in the hope
   that it may do good without danger of harm. It will save
   labor, and avoid great confusion. But why any proclamation now
   upon this subject? This question is beset with the conflicting
   views that the step might be delayed too long or be taken too
   soon. In some States the elements for resumption seem ready
   for action, but remain inactive, apparently for want of a
   rallying-point—a plan of action. Why shall A adopt the plan of
   B, rather than B that of A? And if A and B should agree, how
   can they know but that the General Government here will reject
   their plan? By the proclamation a plan is presented which may
   be accepted by them as a rallying-point, and which they are
   assured in advance will not be rejected here. This may bring
   them to act sooner than they otherwise would. The objection to
   a premature presentation of a plan by the national Executive
   consists in the danger of committals on points which could be
   more safely left to further developments. Care has been taken
   to so shape the document as to avoid embarrassments from this
   source.
{3517}
   Saying that, on certain terms, certain classes will be
   pardoned, with rights restored, it is not said that other
   classes, or other terms, will never be included. Saying that
   reconstruction will be accepted if presented in a specified
   way, it is not said it will never be accepted in any other
   way. The movements, by State action, for emancipation in
   several of the States, not included in the Emancipation
   Proclamation, are matters of profound gratulation. And while I
   do not repeat in detail what I have heretofore so earnestly
   urged upon this subject, my general views and feelings remain
   unchanged; and I trust that Congress will omit no fair
   opportunity of aiding these important steps to a great
   consummation. In the midst of other cares, however important,
   we must not lose sight of the fact that the war power is still
   our main reliance. To that power alone we can look, yet for a
   time, to give confidence to the people in the contested
   regions, that the insurgent power will not again overrun them.
   Until that confidence shall be established, little can be done
   anywhere for what is called reconstruction. Hence our chiefest
   care must still be directed to the army and navy, who have
   thus far borne their harder part so nobly and well. And it may
   be esteemed fortunate that in giving the greatest efficiency
   to these indispensable arms, we do also honorably recognize
   the gallant men, from commander to sentinel, who compose them,
   and to whom, more than to others, the world must stand
   indebted for the home of freedom disenthralled, regenerated,
   enlarged, and perpetuated.
   Abraham Lincoln."

      A. Lincoln,
      Complete Works,
      volume 2, pages 442-456.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863-1864
(December-April: Tennessee-Mississippi).
   Winter operations.
   Sherman's Meridian Expedition.
   Longstreet's withdrawal from East Tennessee.

   "Sherman was at Vicksburg. On a line with Vicksburg, but
   almost on the eastern boundary of the State, was the town of
   Meridian. Here two railroads crossed, one running north and
   south, extending from Mobile into the heart of Tennessee, and
   the other extending to the eastward into Alabama and Georgia.
   Railroads were few in the South at that time and the junction
   had made Meridian an important point. Here the Confederates
   had erected great warehouses for the storage of provisions and
   munitions of war. A considerable body of troops, too, was
   maintained at this point, whence they could be sent speedily
   by rail north or south, east or west, as the necessity might
   arise. General Sherman determined to fall upon Meridian, drive
   away the Confederate garrison, burn the arsenal and tear up
   the railroads so as to isolate the different parts of the
   Confederacy thenceforth. But in addition to accomplishing this
   he desired to effect the defeat and dispersal of the
   Confederate cavalry force under General Forrest, which was
   operating in Northern Mississippi and Southern Tennessee.
   Forrest was a brave and dashing leader. His men were hardy
   troopers, used to quick marches and reckless of danger. To
   crush him and annihilate his command would be a notable
   victory for the Union cause. Full of this project, Sherman
   boarded a steamer at Vicksburg and set out for Memphis, where
   were the headquarters of General W. Sooy Smith, then chief of
   cavalry in the division of the Mississippi. The river was full
   of great cakes of floating ice that bumped against the prow of
   the boat and ground against her sides until those on board
   feared that she might be sent to the bottom. But Memphis was
   reached without accident, and Sherman and the chief of cavalry
   were soon in earnest consultation. General Smith was ordered
   to take the field against Forrest with a force of 7,000 men. …
   It was agreed that General Smith should start from Memphis on
   February 1 and march southeast, while Sherman should leave
   Vicksburg February 3, and march due east. Thus they would
   effect a junction in the vicinity of Meridian. Sherman then
   re-embarked on the icy river and made his way back to
   Vicksburg. Promptly on the appointed day the head of Sherman's
   column passed out through the chain of earthworks that girdled
   the land ward side of Vicksburg. It was to be an expedition of
   destruction—a raid. His force of 25,000 men was in light
   marching order and advanced with such rapidity that the
   Confederates were driven from the very first, without having
   time to rally and oppose the advance of the invaders. Jackson
   was reached without any fighting, other than slight
   skirmishing with Polk's cavalry. The ministerial general had
   but 9,000 men in all, so he dared not make a determined stand
   against Sherman, but fled, without even destroying his pontoon
   bridge across the Pearl River, whereby the Federal advance was
   much expedited. From Jackson eastward the path of Sherman's
   army was marked by a broad belt of ashes and desolation. No
   public property was spared, nor anything which could be
   applied to public uses. Mills, railway stations, and rolling
   stock were burned. Railway tracks were torn up, the ties
   heaped on roaring fires and the rails heated red· hot and
   twisted out of shape. Sometimes the soldiers would twine a hot
   rail about a young tree, making what they facetiously termed
   'Jeff Davis's neck-ties.' To Sherman's lines came escaping
   slaves in droves, old and young men, women and pickaninnies. …
   The slaves still further impoverished their masters by taking
   horses and mules with them when they fled, so that after
   Sherman's army had passed, most of the plantations in its
   track were stripped of their live-stock, both cattle and
   human. When Meridian was reached its defenders were nowhere to
   be seen. Sherman took possession and waited for Smith. Days
   passed without any word coming from the cavalry column. After
   a week in Meridian, Sherman set the torch to the public
   buildings and retraced his steps toward Vicksburg. He had
   taken 400 prisoners, destroyed 150 miles of track, 67 bridges,
   20 locomotives and 28 cars; had burned several thousand bales
   of cotton, a number of steam mills, and over 2,000,000 bushels
   of corn. Over 1,000 Union white refugees and 8,000 negroes
   followed in his wake. In 1866, the historian Lossing, passing
   through Meridian, asked the Mayor of the town if Sherman had
   done the place much injury. 'Injury!' was the emphatic reply,
   'Why, he took it away with him.'"

      W. J. Abbot,
      Battle Fields and Victory,
      chapter 1.

{3518}

   General Smith, in his report to General Sherman, gave the
   reasons for the falling back of the cavalry expedition, as
   follows: "We advanced to West Point and felt of the enemy, who
   was posted back of the Sakatonchee on our right and the Oktibbeha
   in our front, in force fully equal to my own that was
   available for service, encumbered as we were with our
   pack-mules and the captured stock, which by this time must
   have numbered full 3,000 horses and mules. The force consisted
   of mounted infantry, which was dismounted and in strong
   position under good cover, and beyond obstacles which could
   only be passed by defiles. To attempt to force my way through
   under such circumstances would have been the height of folly.
   I could not cross the Tombigbee, as there were no bridges and
   the stream could not be forded. To have attempted to turn the
   position by our right would have carried me all the way round
   to Houston again, and Forrest could again check me at the
   Houlka Swamp. I was ten days behind time; could get no
   communication through to you; did not know but what you were
   returning, and so determined to make a push at Forrest in
   front while I retired all my incumbrances and my main body
   rapidly toward Okolona, just in time to prevent a rebel
   brigade from getting in my rear, which had been thrown back
   for that purpose. We then retired, fighting for over 60 miles
   day and night."

      Official Records,
      Series 1, volume 32, part 1, page 252.

   In East Tennessee, during the winter little was done by either
   army. A slight encounter occurred at Dandridge, in January,
   between Longstreet's forces and those of the Union General
   Parke. In April Longstreet was recalled by Lee, and the Ninth
   Corps, with Burnside again in command, went back to the army
   of the Potomac.

      J. D. Cox,
      Atlanta
      (Campaigns of the Civil War, volume 9),
      chapters 1-2.

      ALSO IN:
      A. Badeau,
      Military History of Ulysses S. Grant,
      volume 1, chapter 13.

      Comte de Paris,
      History of the Civil War in America,
      volume 4, book 4, chapter 1.

      W. T. Sherman,
      Memoirs,
      volume 1, chapter 14.

      W. J. Tenney,
      Military and Naval History,
      chapter 38.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863-1864 (December-July).
   President Lincoln's plan of reconstruction, and its
   application to Louisiana.
   The opposing Congressional plan.

   "The proclamation which accompanied the Annual Message of the
   President for 1864 embodied the first suggestions of the
   Administration on the important subject of reconstructing the
   Governments of those States which had joined in the secession
   movement. The matter had been canvassed somewhat extensively
   by the public press, and by prominent politicians, in
   anticipation of the overthrow of the rebellion. … A
   considerable number of the friends of the Government, in both
   houses, maintained that, by the act of secession, the revolted
   States had put themselves outside the pale of the
   Constitution, and were henceforth to be regarded and treated,
   not as members of the Union, but as alien enemies:—that their
   State organizations and State boundaries had been expunged by
   their own act; and that they were to be readmitted to the
   jurisdiction of the Constitution, and to the privileges of the
   Union, only upon such terms and conditions as the Federal
   Government of the loyal States might prescribe. … After the
   appearance of the President's proclamation, the movement
   towards reconstruction in Louisiana assumed greater
   consistency, and was carried forward with greater steadiness
   and strength. On the 8th of January a very large Free State
   Convention was held at New Orleans, at which resolutions were
   adopted indorsing all the acts and proclamations of the
   President, and urging the immediate adoption of measures for
   the restoration of the State to its old place in the Union. On
   the 11th, General Banks issued a proclamation, appointing an
   election for State officers on the 22d of February, who were
   to be installed on the 4th of March, and another election for
   delegates to a convention to revise the Constitution of the
   State on the first Monday in April. The old Constitution and
   laws of Louisiana were to be observed, except so far as they
   relate to slavery. … Under this order, parties were organized
   for the election of State officers. The friends of the
   National Government were divided, and two candidates were put
   in nomination for Governor, Honorable Michael Hahn being the
   regular nominee, and representing the supporters of the policy
   of the President, and Honorable B. F. Flanders being put in
   nomination by those who desired a more radical policy than the
   President had proposed. Both took very decided ground against
   the continued existence of slavery within the State. … The
   election resulted in the election of Mr. Hahn. … Mr. Hahn was
   inaugurated as Governor on the 4th of March. On the 15th he
   was clothed with the powers previously exercised by General
   Banks, as military governor. … On March 16th, Governor Hahn
   issued a proclamation, notifying the electors of the State of
   the election for delegates to the convention previously
   ordered by General Banks. The party which elected Governor
   Hahn succeeded also in electing a large majority of the
   delegates to the convention, which met in New Orleans on the
   6th of April. On the 11th of May it adopted, by a vote of 70
   to 16, a clause of the new Constitution, by which slavery was
   forever abolished in the State. The Constitution was adopted
   on the 5th of September, by a vote of 6,836 to 1,566. Great
   umbrage was taken at these proceedings by some of the best
   friends of the cause, as if there had been an unauthorized and
   unjustifiable interference on the part of the President. … In
   Arkansas, where a decided Union feeling had existed from the
   outbreak of the rebellion, the appearance of the proclamation
   was the signal for a movement to bring the State back into the
   Union. On the 20th of January, a delegation of citizens from
   that State had an interview with the President, in which they
   urged the adoption of certain measures for the
   re-establishment of a legal State Government, and especially
   the ordering of an election for Governor. … Meantime, a
   convention had assembled at Little Rock, composed of delegates
   elected without any formality, and not under the authority of
   the General Government, and proceeded to form a new State
   Constitution, and to fix a day for an election. … The
   convention framed a constitution abolishing slavery, which was
   subsequently adopted by a large majority of the people. It
   also provided for the election of State officers on the day
   appointed for the vote upon the constitution; and the
   legislature chosen at that election elected two gentlemen,
   Messrs. Fishback and Baxter, as United States Senators, and
   also Representatives. These gentlemen presented their
   credentials at Washington. … The whole matter was referred to
   the Judiciary Committee, who … reported on the 27th of June
   that on the facts it did not appear that the rebellion was so
   far suppressed in Arkansas as to entitle the State to
   representation in Congress, and that therefore Messrs.
   Fishback and Baxter were not entitled to seats as Senators
   from the State of Arkansas. And the Senate on the next day
   adopted their report by a vote of 27 to 6.
{3519}
   In the House, meanwhile, the Committee on Elections, to whom
   the application of the Arkansas members had been referred,
   reported to postpone their admission until a commission could
   be sent to inquire into and report the facts of the election,
   and to create a commission for the examination of all such
   cases. This proposition was, however, laid on the table, and
   the members were not admitted. … The cause of the rejection of
   these Senators and Representatives was, that a majority in
   Congress had not agreed with the President in reference to the
   plan of reconstruction which he proposed. A bill for the
   reconstruction of the States was introduced into the Senate,
   and finally passed both Houses on the last day of the session.
   It provided that the President should appoint, for each of the
   States declared in rebellion, a Provisional Governor, who
   should be charged with the civil administration of the State
   until a State Government should be organized and such other
   civil officers as were necessary for the civil administration
   of the State; that as soon as military resistance to the
   United States should be suppressed and the people had
   sufficiently returned to their obedience, the Governor should
   make an enrolment of the white male citizens, specifying which
   of them had taken the oath to support the Constitution of the
   United States, and if those who had taken it were a majority
   of the persons enrolled, he should order an election for
   delegates to a Constitutional Convention, to be elected by the
   loyal white male citizens of the United States aged twenty-one
   years. … The bill further provided that when a constitution
   containing … provisions [excluding rebels from office,
   prohibiting slavery, and repudiating Confederate debts] should
   have been framed by the convention and adopted by the popular
   vote, the Governor should certify that fact to the President,
   who, after obtaining the assent of Congress, should recognize
   this government so established as the Government of the State,
   and from that date senators and representatives and electors
   for President and Vice-President should be elected in the
   State. … This bill thus passed by Congress was presented to
   the President just before the close of the session, but was
   not signed by him."

      H. J. Raymond,
      Life and Public Services of Abraham Lincoln,
      chapter 16.

   The President's reasons for not signing the bill were given to
   the public as well as to Congress in the following
   Proclamation:

   "Whereas, at the late session, Congress passed a bill to
   'guarantee to certain States, whose governments have been
   usurped or overthrown, a republican form of government,' a
   copy of which is hereunto annexed; And whereas the said bill
   was presented to the President of the United States for his
   approval less than one hour before the sine die adjournment of
   said session, and was not signed by him; And whereas the said
   bill contains, among other things, a plan for restoring the
   States in rebellion to their proper practical relation in the
   Union, which plan expresses the sense of Congress upon that
   subject, and which plan it is now thought fit to lay before
   the people for their consideration: Now, therefore, I, Abraham
   Lincoln, President of the United States, do proclaim, declare,
   and make known, that, while I am (as I was in December last,
   when by proclamation I propounded a plan for restoration)
   unprepared, by a formal approval of this bill, to be
   inflexibly committed to any single plan of restoration; and,
   while I am also unprepared to declare that the free-State
   constitutions and governments already adopted and installed in
   Arkansas and Louisiana shall be set aside and held for nought,
   thereby repelling and discouraging the loyal citizens who have
   set up the same as to further effort, or to declare a
   constitutional competency in Congress to abolish slavery in
   States, but am at the same time sincerely hoping and expecting
   that a constitutional amendment abolishing slavery throughout
   the nation may be adopted, nevertheless I am fully satisfied
   with the system for restoration contained in the bill as one
   very proper plan for the loyal people of any State choosing to
   adopt it, and that I am, and at all times shall be, prepared
   to give the executive aid and assistance to any such people,
   so soon as the military resistance to the United States shall
   have been suppressed in any such State, and the people thereof
   shall have sufficiently returned to their obedience to the
   Constitution and the laws of the United States, in which cases
   military governors will be appointed, with directions to
   proceed according to the bill.

   In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused
   the seal of the United States to be affixed. Done at the city
   of Washington, this eighth day of July, in the year of our
   Lord one thousand eight hundred an sixty-four, and of the
   independence of the United States the eighty-ninth.
   Abraham Lincoln. By the President: William H. Seward,
   Secretary of State."

      A. Lincoln,
      Complete Works,
      volume 2, page 545.

      ALSO IN:
      J. G. Blaine,
      Twenty Years of Congress,
      volume 2, chapter 3.

      J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 8, chapters 16-17.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (January-February: Florida).
   Unsuccessful Operations.
   Battle of Olustee.

   "Early in the winter of 1863-64, General Gillmore, commanding
   the Department of the South, … resolved upon an expedition
   into Florida to take possession of such portions of the
   Eastern and Northern sections of the State as could be easily
   held by small garrisons. … He afterwards added another detail
   to his plan: to assist in bringing Florida back into the
   Union, in accordance with the President's Proclamation of
   December 8, 1863. This came in time to be regarded by the
   opponents of the Administration as the sole purpose of the
   expedition, and Mr. Lincoln has received a great deal of
   unjust censure for having made a useless sacrifice of life for
   a political end. … The expedition to Florida was under the
   immediate charge of General Truman Seymour, an accomplished
   and gallant officer of the regular army. He landed at
   Jacksonville and pushed forward his mounted force 20 miles to
   Baldwin. … Gillmore himself arrived at Baldwin on the 9th of
   February, and after a full conference and, as he thought,
   understanding with Seymour, returned to Jacksonville. … On the
   18th he was surprised at receiving a letter from Seymour,
   dated the day before, announcing his intention of moving at
   once to the Suwanee River without supplies, and asking for a
   strong demonstration of the army and navy in the Savannah
   River to assist his movement. … Gillmore wrote a peremptory
   letter, ordering him to restrict himself to holding Baldwin
   and the south prong of the St. Mary's River and occupying
   Palatka and Magnolia, and dispatched a staff officer to
   Florida with it. He arrived too late.
{3520}
   Seymour had made up his mind that there was less risk in going
   forward than in staying at Baldwin, and like the brave and
   devoted soldier that he was had resolved to take the
   responsibility. He marched rapidly out towards Olustee, where
   the enemy under General Joseph Finegan was supposed to be, but
   came upon them unexpectedly about two miles east of that
   place. The forces were equal in numbers, about 5,500 on each
   side; the advantage to the Confederates was that they were in
   a strong position selected by themselves and ready for the
   fight. General J. R. Hawley, who commanded a brigade of
   infantry in the battle, says: 'We rushed in, not waiting for
   the proper full formation, and were fought in detail.' …
   Seymour's attack was constantly repulsed with heavy loss,
   until at nightfall he fell back to a new line. He was not
   pursued, and retired in good order and unmolested to
   Jacksonville. The Union loss was 1861; the Confederate, 940.
   This misadventure put an end for the moment to the attempt to
   occupy Florida."

      J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 8, chapter 11.

      ALSO IN:
      S. Jones and J. R. Hawley,
      Olustee
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 4).

      L. F. Emilio,
      History of the 54th Regiment Massachusetts Volunteers,
      chapter 8.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (February-March: Virginia).
   Kilpatrick's and Dahlgren's Raid to Richmond.

   "Public feeling throughout the North had been greatly excited
   by the deplorable condition of the prisoners of war held at
   Richmond. Early in the year, before the opening of the great
   campaign, some expeditions had been undertaken both from the
   Army of the Potomac and from Fortress Monroe, with the
   intention of relieving them. On February 27th, Custer, with
   1500 horse, had crossed the Rapidan on a feint to the west of
   the Confederate army, while Kilpatrick, starting on the
   following day, moved down on its opposite flank, by
   Spottsylvania Court House, to within 3½ miles of Richmond,
   passing its first and second lines of defenses [March], but
   being obliged to fall back from its third. Pursued by a force
   of the enemy, he was compelled to cross the White House
   Railroad and move down the peninsula. A detachment of
   Kilpatrick's force, 400 strong, under Colonel Ulric Dahlgren,
   leaving the main body at Spottsylvania, had gone to the right
   through Louisa and Goochland Counties, intending to cross the
   James River and enter Richmond from the south, while
   Kilpatrick attacked it on the north. But the river was found
   to be too deep to be forded. Dahlgren passed down the north
   bank to the fortifications of Richmond, forcing his way
   through the outer works, but being repulsed from the inner.
   Finding that Kilpatrick's attempt had miscarried, he moved
   toward King and Queen Court House; but after crossing the
   Mattapony at Dabney's Ferry, he fell into an ambuscade [March
   3], his command being scattered, and himself killed. Under a
   false pretense that papers were found upon him showing an
   intention to set fire to Richmond, and take the lives of Davis
   and his cabinet, his corpse was insulted and the place of its
   interment concealed. At the time of his death he was but 21
   years of age."

      J. W. Draper,
      History of the American Civil War,
      chapter 82 (volume 3).

   "The document alleged to have been found upon the person of
   Colonel Dahlgren is utterly discredited by the fact that the
   signature attached to it cannot possibly be his own, because
   it is not his name,—a letter is misplaced, and the real name
   Dahlgren is spelled 'Dalhgren'; hence it is undeniable that
   the paper is not only spurious, but is a forgery. … It is
   entirely certain that no such orders were ever issued by
   Colonel Dahlgren."

      Admiral J. A. Dahlgren,
      Memoirs of Ulric Dahlgren,
      pages 233-234.

      ALSO IN:
      C. C. Chesney,
      Essays in Military Biography,
      page 185.

      B. J. Lossing,
      Field Book of the Civil War,
      volume 3, chapter 10.

      Official Records,
      Series 1, volume 33.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (March-April).
   General Grant in chief command of the whole army.
   His plans of campaign.

   "Immediate]y after the victories at Chattanooga Mr. Washburne
   of Illinois, the devoted friend and firm supporter of General
   Grant through good and evil report, introduced a bill in
   Congress to revive the grade of lieutenant-general in the
   army. The measure occasioned a good deal of discussion. This
   high rank had never been conferred on any citizen of the
   republic except Washington, who held it for a short time
   before his death. It was discontinued for more than half a
   century and then conferred by brevet only upon General Scott.
   There were those who feared, or affected to fear, that so high
   a military rank was threatening to the liberties of the
   republic. The great majority of Congress, however, considered
   the liberties of the republic more robust than this fear would
   indicate, and the bill was finally passed on the 26th cf
   February, and received the approval of the President on the
   29th of February. … Immediately upon signing the bill the
   President nominated Grant to the Senate for the office created
   by it. … The Senate immediately confirmed his nomination, and
   on the 3d of March the Secretary of War directed him to report
   in person to the War Department as early as practicable. … He
   started for Washington the next day, but in the midst of his
   hurried preparations for departure he found time to write a
   letter of the most warm and generous friendship to Sherman."
   Grant's commission as Lieutenant-General of the Army of the
   United States was formally presented to him by President
   Lincoln on the 9th of March. "After the presentation of the
   commission a brief conversation took place. General Grant
   inquired what special service was expected of him. The
   President replied that our country wanted him to take
   Richmond; he said our generals had not been fortunate in their
   efforts in that direction and asked if the Lieutenant-General
   could do it. Grant, without hesitation, answered that he could
   if he had the troops. These the President assured him he
   should have. There was not one word said as to what route to
   Richmond should be chosen. The next day Grant visited General
   Meade at the headquarters of the Army of the Potomac at Brandy
   Station. … Meade said that it was possible Grant might want an
   officer to command the Army of the Potomac who had been with
   him in the West, and made especial mention of Sherman. He
   begged him if that was the case not to hesitate about making
   the change. … Grant assured him that he had no thought of
   making any change; and that Sherman could not be spared from
   the West. He returned to Washington on the 11th. The next day
   he was placed in command of all the armies by orders from the
   War Department; but without waiting for a single day to accept
   the lavish proffers of hospitality which were showered upon
   him, he started West again on the evening of the 11th of
   March.
{3521}
   In that short time he had utterly changed his views and plans
   for the future conduct of the war. He had relinquished the
   purpose he had hitherto firmly held of leading the Western
   armies on the great campaign to Atlanta and the sea, and had
   decided to take the field with the Army of the Potomac. …
   Sherman at his request was promoted to command the Military
   Division of the Mississippi, McPherson succeeded to Sherman's
   command of the Department of the Tennessee, and Logan was
   promoted to the command of McPherson's corps." The necessary
   arrangements were quickly made. General Sherman assumed his
   enlarged command on the 18th of March, and General Grant a few
   days later was with the Army of the Potomac. He "established
   his headquarters at Culpeper Court House near the end of
   March, and spent a month in preparations for the great
   campaign which he, in common with the entire North, hoped
   would end the war. … The plan of the Lieutenant-General, as
   set forth in his report, was extremely simple. So far as
   practicable, the armies were to move together, and towards one
   common center. Banks was to finish his operations in
   Louisiana, and, leaving a small garrison on the Rio Grande,
   was to concentrate an army of some 25,000 men, and move on
   Mobile. Sherman was to move simultaneously with the other
   armies, General Johnston's army being his objective, and the
   heart of Georgia his ultimate aim. Sigel, who was in command
   in the Shenandoah, was to move to the front in two columns,
   one to threaten the enemy in the Valley, the other to cut the
   railroads connecting Richmond with the Southwest. Gillmore was
   to be brought north with his corps, and in company with
   another corps, under W. F. Smith, was to form an army under
   General B. F. Butler to operate against Richmond south of the
   James. Lee's army was to be the objective point of Meade,
   reënforced by Burnside. As to the route by which the Army of
   the Potomac was to advance, Grant reserved his decision until
   just before he started upon his march. … The two armies lay in
   their intrenchments on both sides of the Rapidan. The
   headquarters … of Lee [were] at Orange Court House; the Army
   of Northern Virginia guarded the south bank of the river for
   18 or 20 miles, Ewell commanding the right half, A. P. Hill
   the left. The formidable works on Mine Run secured the
   Confederate right wing, which was further protected by the
   tangled and gloomy thickets of the Wilderness. Longstreet had
   arrived from Tennessee with two fine divisions, and was held
   in reserve at Gordonsville. The two armies were not so
   unequally matched as Confederate writers insist. The strength
   of the Army of the Potomac, present for duty equipped, on the
   30th of April, was 122,146; this includes the 22,708 of
   Burnside's Ninth Corps. The Army of Northern Virginia numbered
   at the opening of this campaign not less than 61,953. While
   this seems like a great disparity of strength, it must not be
   forgotten that the Confederate general had an enormous
   advantage of position. The dense woods and the thickly
   timbered swamps … were as well known to him as the lines of
   his own hand, and were absolutely unknown to his antagonist."

      J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 8, chapters 13-14.

      ALSO IN:
      U. S. Grant,
      Personal Memoirs,
      chapters 46-47 (volume 2).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (March-May: Louisiana).
   The Red River Expedition.

   "As the third year began, General Banks conceived the idea
   that the trade of Western Louisiana could be opened by the
   medium of the Red river, and projected an expedition to take
   possession of the country adjacent to its course. This river
   is open for navigation by larger vessels, only during the high
   water of March and April. Porter was to command the fleet of
   twenty of the finest vessels on the Mississippi, and Sherman
   was persuaded to lend some of his troops for the purpose. A.
   J. Smith was to start from Vicksburg with 10,000 men, while
   Banks would proceed up river from New Orleans, with Franklin's
   division. Steele from Little Rock was to operate towards
   Shreveport to join the main army. General Taylor was in
   command of the enemy's forces at Shreveport. The fleet started
   up the Red river in company with the transports carrying A. J.
   Smith's column. Fort De Russy was captured [March 14], the
   enemy retiring before our troops, and Alexandria and
   Nachitoches fell into our hands as the joint force advanced.
   Banks put in an appearance a week later. There was more or
   less skirmishing with the enemy's horse and outposts along the
   entire route; and near Mansfield, at Sabine Cross-Roads, the
   vanguard met the enemy in force. Sufficient care had not been
   taken to keep the several bodies concentrated. It was on Smith
   that the attack fell [April 8], and though this general's
   record for endurance is of the best, he was nevertheless badly
   worsted with a loss of 2,000 men out of 8,000 engaged, and
   some twenty guns. Retiring to Pleasant Hill, another stand was
   made for the possession of what had been so far gained. … The
   fleet had meanwhile reached Grand Écore. High water was coming
   to an end, and Porter was obliged to return down river, to
   Alexandria. Here it was found that most of the vessels were of
   too heavy draught to pass the falls below the town; and the
   loss of most of them would have been certain, but for a dam
   and waterway ably constructed by Colonel Bailey, an engineer
   remarkably fertile in expedients. By means of this device the
   fleet was safely floated over. On the retreat, Alexandria was
   burned [May 15] by accident, traceable to no particular cause,
   though, naturally enough laid by the Confederates to our
   spirit of revenge."

      T. A. Dodge,
      Bird's-Eye View of our Civil war,
      chapter 31.

   "We prefer not to enter into the bitter discussions to which
   this disastrous campaign gave rise on both sides of the line.
   A life-long quarrel sprang up between Kirby Smith and Taylor,
   between Banks and Porter, while Franklin, Charles P. Stone
   (Banks's chief-of-staff), and Albert L. Lee, all of whom
   relinquished their commands, added their quota of
   misunderstanding and resentment. … The Committee on the
   Conduct of the War made an investigation of the matter in the
   year 1865, at the time when the antagonism between Mr. Lincoln
   and the Radicals in relation to the subject of reconstruction
   had assumed an acute form. … The charge was made by the
   committee against Banks, that what he had in view was to carry
   out measures for the establishment of a State government in
   Louisiana, and to afford an egress for cotton and other
   products of that region, and that the attention directed to
   the accomplishment of these objects exerted an unfavorable
   influence on the expedition. … The honorable poverty in which
   General Banks has passed his subsequent life is the best
   answer to the reckless charges of his enemies."

      J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 8, chapter 11.

      ALSO IN:
      D. D. Porter,
      Naval History of the Civil War,
      chapters 41-42.

      Report of Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War,
      38th Congress, 2d Session, volume 2.

      Official Records,
      Series 1, volume 33.

      R. B. Irwin,
      History of the 19th Army Corps,
      chapters 23-28.

{3522}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864
(March-October: Arkansas-Missouri).
   Last important operations in the West.
   Price's raid.

   "During the winter of 1863-1864 the forces of Generals Steele
   and Blunt held the Arkansas River as a Federal line of
   advance. … During this period of inactivity, however, Steele
   was making preparations for a vigorous spring campaign. It was
   decided that the column under General Banks and the columns
   under General Steele from Little Rock and Fort Smith should
   converge toward Shreveport, Louisiana. The Federal columns
   under Steele left Little Rock and Fort Smith the latter part
   of March, moved toward the Southern part of the State, and
   after some fighting and manœuvring drove General Price's
   forces from Camden, Arkadelphia and Washington. In the midst
   of these successful operations, Steele received information
   that Banks' army had been defeated and was retreating and that
   Price had received reënforcements from Kirby Smith of 5000
   infantry and a complement of artillery, and would at once
   assume the offensive.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864
      (March-May: Louisiana).

   Not feeling strong enough to fight the combined Confederate
   forces, Steele determined to fall back upon Little Rock. He
   had scarcely commenced his retrograde movement when Smith and
   Price began to press him vigorously. A retreating fight was
   kept up for several days, until the Federal army reached
   Jenkins's Ferry on the Saline River," where Smith and Price
   made an energetic attack on the Federal army (April 30) and
   were repulsed with heavy loss. "After the battle of Jenkins's
   Ferry, instead of making preparations to attack the Federal
   forces at Little Rock and Fort Smith, Price commenced
   organizing his forces for an expedition into Missouri. …
   Price's army for the invasion of Missouri numbered some 15,000
   men and 20 pieces of artillery before crossing the Arkansas
   River, and consisted of three divisions, commanded by Generals
   Fagan, Marmaduke and Shelby. … About the 1st of September,
   while strong demonstrations were being made against Fort Smith
   and Little Rock, Price, with his army, crossed the Arkansas
   River about half-way between those points, at Dardanelle, and
   marched to the northern part of the State without opposition,
   and, in fact, without his movements being definitely known to
   General Rosecrans, who then commanded the Department of the
   Missouri at St. Louis," to which he had been appointed in
   January. At Pilot Knob, where they arrived September 26th, the
   Confederates were opposed by General Thomas Ewing, Jr., with a
   small force of 1051 men. The fortifications at Pilot Knob were
   strong and Ewing held them against the vigorous attacks of
   Price throughout the 27th, but evacuated that night, blowing
   up the magazine and retreating safely. The Confederate
   invaders then marched on St. Louis and attacked the outer
   defences of the city, some miles to the south of it, but found
   themselves opposed by the veterans of General A. J. Smith's
   division, which had been opportunely stopped on its way down
   the Mississippi River to join Sherman. Foiled at St. Louis,
   Price then moved upon Jefferson City, the State capital, but
   was closely pursued and driven off. Advancing westward, he was
   met at Lexington, October 20th, by forces from Kansas, under
   General Blunt, but forced the latter to retire from the town,
   after severe fighting. Thence to Independence his progress was
   steadily resisted by Generals Blunt and Curtis, with
   volunteers and militia from Kansas. At Independence, on the
   22d, Pleasonton's cavalry, of Rosecrans's army, came up and
   formed a junction with the forces of Curtis, and the next day
   they engaged Price in battle near Westport. "The opposing
   armies fought over an area of five or six square miles, and at
   some points the fighting was furious. … About the middle of
   the afternoon Price's lines began to give way, and by sundown
   the entire Confederate army was in full retreat southward
   along the State line, closely pursued by the victorious
   Federal forces." At the crossing of the Marais des Cygnes
   River he lost ten pieces of his artillery and a large number
   of prisoners, including Generals Marmaduke and Cabell. "At
   Newtonia in south-west Missouri, on the 28th of October, Price
   made another stand, and was attacked by the pursuing forces …
   and finally driven from the field with heavy loss. This was
   next to the severest battle of the campaign. Blunt, and some
   of the Missouri troops, continued the pursuit to the Arkansas
   River, but Price did not again attempt to make a stand. His
   line of march from Westport to Newtonia was strewn with the
   debris of a routed army. He crossed the Arkansas River above
   Fort Smith with a few pieces of artillery, with his army
   demoralized and reduced by captures and dispersion to perhaps
   less than 5,000 men. Most of the noted guerrilla bands
   followed him from the State. The 'Price raid,' as it was
   called in the West, was the last military operation of much
   consequence that took place in Missouri and Arkansas. It is
   certain that Price lost more than he gained in war material
   and that the raid did not tend to strengthen the Confederate
   cause in the West."

      W. Britton,
      Résumé of Military Operations in
      Missouri and Arkansas, 1864-1865
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 4).

   "In General Price's report occurs the following summary of the
   campaign: 'I marched 1,434 miles, fought 43 battles and
   skirmishes, captured and paroled over 3,000 Federal officers
   and men, captured 18 pieces of artillery, 3,000 stand of
   small-arms, 16 stand of colors … and destroyed property to the
   cost of $10,000,000. I lost ten pieces of artillery. 2 stand
   of colors, 1,000 small arms, while I do not think I lost 1,000
   prisoners. … I brought with me at least 5,000 recruits.'"

      Editor's note to above.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (April: Tennessee).
   The Massacre at Fort Pillow.

   After General Sherman's return from his raid to Meridian, and
   General William Sooy Smith's return to Memphis, the
   Confederate cavalry leader Forrest advanced into Tennessee,
   devastating the country. "He captured Jackson in that State,
   on the 23d of March, and moving northward, appeared before
   Paducah, held by Colonel Hicks with 650 men.
{3523}
   His demand for a surrender was accompanied with a threat: 'If
   you surrender, you shall be treated as prisoners of war; but
   if I have to storm your works, you may expect no quarter:' he
   made three assaults, and then retired, having lost 1,500 men.
   On the 12th of April he was at Fort Pillow, which was
   garrisoned by 19 officers and 538 men, of whom 262 were
   negroes. This force was not a part of the army, but a
   nondescript body in process of formation, placed there to
   cover a trading-post for the convenience of families supposed
   to be friendly, or at least not hostile; it had been left in
   violation of Sherman's peremptory orders. The attack was made
   before sunrise; and after some severe fighting, Major Booth,
   the commanding officer of the garrison, was killed. Major
   Brodford, who succeeded him, drew the troops from the outer
   line of intrenchments into the fort, and continued the contest
   until afternoon. A gun-boat which had been co-operating in the
   defense, withdrew to cool or clean her guns, and, the fire
   slackening, Forrest sent a summons to surrender, and shortly
   after a second, demanding that the surrender should be made in
   twenty minutes. These terms were declined by Bradford. But
   while the negotiations were in progress, the assailants were
   stealthily advancing, and gaining such positions that they
   could rush upon the fort. Accordingly, as soon as Bradford's
   answer was received, they sprang forward. The fort was
   instantly carried. Its garrison threw down their arms and
   fled, seeking refuge wherever they could. And now was
   perpetrated one of the most frightful acts of all recorded
   history. The carnage did not cease with the struggle of the
   storming, but was continued as a carnival of murder until
   night, and renewed again the next morning. Without any
   discrimination of color, age, or sex, the fugitives were
   dragged from their hiding-places, and cruelly murdered.
   Wounded men, who had made a gallant defense, were atrociously
   compelled to stand up and be shot; some were burnt in their
   tents, some were stabbed. For the black soldiers there was no
   mercy. 'They were massacred because they were niggers,' and
   the whites 'because they were fighting with niggers.' General
   Stephen E. Lee, the superior of Forrest, partly denying and
   partly excusing this atrocity, says, 'It is generally conceded
   by all military precedent that, when the issue has been fairly
   presented and the ability displayed, fearful results are
   expected to follow a refusal to surrender. The case under
   consideration is almost an extreme one. You had a servile race
   armed against their masters, and in a country which had been
   desolated by almost unprecedented outrages.' The Committee of
   Congress on the Conduct of the War appointed a sub-committee
   to go to such places as they might deem necessary, and take
   testimony in relation to the Fort Pillow massacre. Their
   report presents facts in connection with this massacre of the
   deepest atrocity. Men were not only shot in cold blood and
   drowned, but were even crucified, buried alive, nailed to the
   floors of houses, which were then set on fire. 'No cruelty,'
   says this committee, 'which the most fiendish malignity could
   devise, was omitted by these murderers.' 'From 300 to 400 men
   are known to have been killed at Fort Pillow, of whom at least
   300 were murdered in cold blood after the post was in
   possession of the rebels, and our men had thrown down their
   arms and ceased to offer resistance.' … It should be mentioned
   in behalf of General Forrest that one of the witnesses, who
   had been rewounded, testified that 'Forrest gave orders to
   stop the firing.'"

      J. W. Draper,
      History of the American Civil War,
      chapter 74 (volume 3).

   "I arrived off the fort at 6 a. m. on the morning of the 13th
   inst. [April]. … About 8 a. m. the enemy sent in a flag of
   truce with a proposal from General Forrest that he would put
   me in possession of the fort and the country around until 5 p.
   m. for the purpose of burying our dead and removing our
   wounded, whom he had no means of attending to. I agreed to the
   terms proposed. … We found about 70 wounded men in the fort
   and around it, and buried, I should think, 150 bodies. … All
   the wounded who had strength enough to speak agreed that after
   the fort was taken an indiscriminate slaughter of our troops
   was carried on by the enemy with a furious and vindictive
   savageness which was never equalled by the most merciless of
   the Indian tribes. Around on every side horrible testimony to
   the truth of this statement could be seen. … Strewn from the
   fort to the river bank, in the ravines and hollows, behind
   logs and under the brush where they had crept for protection
   from the assassins who pursued them, we found bodies
   bayoneted, beaten, and shot to death, showing how cold blooded
   and persistent was the slaughter of our unfortunate troops."

      Report of Acting-Master W. Ferguson,
      United States Steamer Silver Cloud
      (Official Records, Series 1, volume 32, part 1, page 571).

      ALSO IN:
      Report of Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War
      (30th Congress, 1st Session, H. R. Report Number 65).

      Comte de Paris,
      History of the Civil War in America,
      volume 4., book 4, chapter 1.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (April-May: North Carolina).
   Exploits of the ram Albemarle.
   Surrender of Plymouth.

   In the squadron [of the Confederates] we were gladdened by the
   success of our iron-clad ram Albemarle, which vessel, under
   Captain James B. Cooke, had (after overcoming innumerable
   difficulties) succeeded in descending the Roanoke river, April
   19th [1864], and dispersing the Federal squadron off Plymouth,
   North Carolina. She sunk the steamer Southfield, and drove the
   other vessels off; and her presence led to the recapture of
   Plymouth by the Confederates. On the 5th of May the Albemarle
   started from Plymouth with the small steamer Bombshell in
   company, on what was called a secret expedition. I think it
   probable the intention was to destroy the wooden men-of-war in
   the sounds, and then tow troops in barges to Hatteras and
   retake it. If this could have been done the Albemarle would
   have had it all her own way, and Roanoke island, Newbern and
   other places would again have fallen into the hands of the
   Confederates. Shortly after leaving Plymouth the Albemarle
   fell in with the Federal squadron, consisting of the steamers
   Mattabesett, Sassacus, Wyalusing, Whitehead, Miami, Ceres,
   Commodore Hull and Seymour—all under the command of Captain
   Melancton Smith, and after a desperate combat was forced to
   return to Plymouth."

      W. H. Parker,
      Recollections of a Naval Officer,
      page 339.

      ALSO IN:
      J. R. Soley,
      The Blockade and the Cruisers
      (The Navy in the Civil War, volume 1), chapter 4.

      D. Ammen,
      The Atlantic Coast
      (same Series, volume 2), chapter 9.

      B. Boynton,
      History of the Navy,
      volume 2, chapter 36.

{3524}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (May: Virginia).
   Grant's movement on Richmond.
   The Battle of the Wilderness.

   "The movement of the Army of the Potomac commenced early on
   the morning of the 4th of May, under the immediate direction
   and orders of Major-General Mead, pursuant to instructions.
   Before night the whole army was across the Rapidan—the Fifth
   and Sixth Corps crossing at Germanna Ford, and the Second
   Corps at United States' (Ely's) Ford, the cavalry, under
   Major-General Sheridan, moving in advance,—with the greater
   part of its trains, numbering about 4,000 wagons, meeting with
   but slight opposition. The average distance traveled by the
   troops that day was about 12 miles. This I regarded as a great
   success, and it removed from my mind the most serious
   apprehensions I had entertained, that of crossing the river in
   the face of an active, large, well-appointed, and ably
   commanded army, and how so large a train was to be carried
   through a hostile country and protected. Early on the 5th, the
   advance corps (the Fifth, Major General G. K. Warren
   commanding), met and engaged the enemy outside his
   intrenchments near Mine Run. The battle raged furiously all
   day, the whole army being brought into the fight as fast as
   the corps could be got upon the field, which, considering the
   density of the forest and narrowness of the roads, was done
   with commendable promptness.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863
      (April-May: Virginia).

   General Burnside, with the Ninth Corps, was at the time the
   Army of the Potomac moved, left with the bulk of his corps at
   the crossing of the Rappahannock River and Alexandria
   railroad, holding the road back to Bull Run, with instructions
   not to move until he received notice that a crossing of the
   Rapidan was secured, but to move promptly as soon as such
   notice was received. This crossing he was apprised of on the
   afternoon of the 4th. By 6 o'clock of the morning of the 6th
   he was leading his corps into action near the Wilderness
   Tavern, some of his troops having marched a distance of over
   30 miles, crossing both the Rappahannock and Rapidan Rivers.
   Considering that a large proportion (probably two-thirds), of
   his command was composed of new troops, unaccustomed to
   marches and carrying the accouterments of a soldier, this was
   a remarkable march. The battle of the Wilderness was renewed
   by us at 5 o'clock on the morning of the 6th, and continued
   with unabated fury until darkness set in, each army holding
   substantially the same position that they had on the evening
   of the 5th. After dark the enemy made a feeble attempt to turn
   our right flank, capturing several hundred prisoners and
   creating considerable confusion. But the promptness of General
   Sedgwick, who was personally present and commanded that part
   of our line, soon reformed it and restored order. On the
   morning of the 7th reconnaissances showed that the enemy had
   fallen behind his intrenched lines, with pickets to the front,
   covering a part of the battle-field. From this it was evident
   to my mind that the two days' fighting had satisfied him of
   his inability to further maintain the contest in the open
   field, notwithstanding his advantage of position, and that he
   would await an attack behind his works. I therefore determined
   to push on and put my whole force between him and Richmond,
   and orders were at once issued for a movement by his right
   flank. On the night of the 7th the march was commenced toward
   Spottsylvania Court House, the Fifth Corps moving on the most
   direct road. But the enemy having become apprised of our
   movement, and having the shorter line, was enabled to reach
   there first."

      Gen. U. S. Grant,
      Official Report
      (Official Records, Series 1, volume 36, part 1, page 18).

   The casualties of the Army of the Potomac and Burnside's Ninth
   Corps (then not incorporated with it) in the battle of the
   Wilderness were "2,265 killed, 10,220 wounded, and 2,902
   missing. Total, 15,387. Killed and wounded, 12,485. … The
   woods took fire in many places, and it is estimated that 200
   of our wounded perished in the flames and smoke. According to
   the tabular statement, Part First, 'Medical and Surgical
   History of the War,' the casualties in the Army of Northern
   Virginia were 2,000 killed, 6,000 wounded, and 3,400 missing.
   The authority for this statement is not given, and I do not
   find anywhere records of the loss of that army in the
   Wilderness. … Both sides lost many valuable officers in this
   battle, [including, on the Union side, General Wadsworth]. …
   So far as I know, no great battle ever took place before on
   such ground. But little of the combatants could be seen, and
   its progress was known to the senses chiefly by the rising and
   falling sounds of a vast musketry that continually swept along
   the lines of battle many miles in length, sounds which at
   times approached to the sublime."

      A. A. Humphreys,
      The Virginia Campaign of 1864 and 1865
      (Campaigns of the Civil war, volume 12), chapter 2.

   "All the peculiar advantages of the Army of the Potomac were
   sacrificed in the jungle-fighting into which they were thus
   called to engage. Of what use here were the tactical skill and
   the perfection of form, acquired through long and patient
   exercise; of what use here the example and the personal
   influence of a Hays or a Hancock, a Brooke or a Barlow? How
   can a battle be fitly ordered in such a tangle of wood and
   brush, where troops can neither be sent straight to their
   destination nor seen and watched over, when, after repeatedly
   losing direction and becoming broken into fragments in their
   advance through thickets and jungles, they at last make their
   way up to the line of battle, perhaps at the point they were
   designed to reinforce, perhaps far from it? … It will never
   cease to be an object of amazement to me that, with such a
   tract in prospect, the character of it being known, in
   general, to army headquarters through the Chancellorsville
   campaign … a supreme effort was not made … to carry the Army
   of the Potomac either through these jungles toward Mine Run,
   or past it, toward Spottsylvania."

      F. A. Walker,
      History of the Second Army Corps,
      chapter 13.

      ALSO IN:
      E. M. Law, A. S. Webb, and others,
      The Wilderness Campaign
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 4).

      U. S. Grant,
      Personal Memoirs,
      chapters 50-51 (volume 2).

      W. Swinton,
      The Twelve Decisive Battles of the War,
      chapter 9.

      A. L. Long,
      Memoirs of Robert E. Lee,
      chapter 17.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (May: Virginia).
   Sheridan's raid to Richmond.

   "When the Army of the Potomac emerged from the Wilderness,
   Sheridan was sent to cut Lee's communications. This was the
   first of the remarkable raids of that remarkable leader, in
   Virginia, and, though short, was a destructive one. He took
   with him a greater portion of the cavalry led by Merritt,
   Gregg and Wilson, and, cutting loose from the army, he swept
   over the Po and the Ta, crossed the North Anna on the 9th, and
   struck the Virginia Central railway at Beaver Dam Station,
   which he captured.
{3525}
   He destroyed ten miles of the railway; also its rolling stock,
   with a million and a half of rations, and released 400 Union
   prisoners, on their way to Richmond from the Wilderness. There
   he was attacked in flank and rear by General J. E. B. Stuart
   and his cavalry, who had pursued him from the Rapid Anna
   [Rapidan], but was not much impeded thereby. He pushed on,
   crossed the South Anna at Ground-squirrel Bridge, and at
   daylight on the morning of the 11th, captured Ashland Station,
   on the Fredericksburg road, where he destroyed the railway
   property, a large quantity of stores, and the road itself for
   six miles. Being charged with the duty of not only destroying
   these roads, but of menacing Richmond and communicating with
   the army of the James, … Sheridan pressed on in the direction
   of the Confederate capital, when he was confronted by Stuart
   at Yellow Tavern, a few miles north of Richmond, where that
   able leader, having made a swift circuitous march, had
   concentrated all of his available cavalry. Sheridan attacked
   him at once, and, after a sharp engagement, drove the
   Confederates toward Ashland, on the north fork of the
   Chickahominy, with a loss of their gallant leader, who, with
   General Gordon, was mortally wounded. Inspirited by this
   success, Sheridan pushed along the now open turnpike toward
   Richmond, and made a spirited dash upon the outer works.
   Custer's brigade carried them at that point and made 100
   prisoners. As in the case of Kilpatrick's raid, so now, the
   second line of works were too strong to be carried by cavalry.
   The troops in and around the city had rallied for their
   defense, and in an attack the Nationals were repulsed. Then
   Sheridan led his command across the Chickahominy, at Meadow
   Bridge, where he beat off a considerable force of infantry
   sent out from Richmond, and who attacked him in the rear,
   while another force assailed his front. He also drove the foe
   on his front, when he destroyed the railway bridge there, and
   then pushed on southward to Haxall's Landing, on the James
   River, where he rested three days and procured supplies. Then,
   by way of White House and Hanover Court House, he leisurely
   returned to the Army of the Potomac, which he rejoined on the
   25th of May."

      B. J. Lossing,
      Field Book of the Civil War,
      volume 3, chapter 11.

      ALSO IN:
      P. H. Sheridan,
      Personal Memoirs,
      volume 1, chapters 18-19.

      H. B. McClellan,
      Life and Campaigns of Major-General J. E. B. Stuart,
      chapter 20.

      J. B. Jones,
      A Rebel War Clerk's Diary,
      volume 2, pages 202-208.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (May: Virginia).
   Grant's movement upon Richmond: Spottsylvania Court House.
   The Bloody Angle.

   "Throughout the entire day succeeding this first great
   conflict [in The Wilderness], General Lee remained quiet,
   watching for some movement of his adversary. His success in
   the preliminary struggle had been gratifying, considering the
   great disproportion of numbers, but he indulged no expectation
   of a retrograde movement across the Rapidan, on the part of
   General Grant. He expected him rather to advance, and
   anxiously awaited some development of this intention. There
   were no indications of such a design up to the night of the
   7th, but at that time, to use the words of a confidential
   member of Lee's staff, 'he all at once seemed to conceive the
   idea that his enemy was preparing to forsake his position, and
   move toward Hanover Junction via the Spottsylvania
   Court-House, and, believing this, he at once detailed
   Anderson's division with orders to proceed rapidly toward the
   court-house. General Anderson commenced his march about nine
   o'clock at night, when the Federal column was already upon its
   way. A race now began for the coveted position, and General
   Stuart, with his dismounted sharp-shooters behind improvised
   breastworks, harassed and impeded the Federal advance, at
   every step, throughout the night. This greatly delayed their
   march, and their head of column did not reach the vicinity of
   Spottsylvania Court-House until past sunrise. General Warren,
   leading the Federal advance, then hurried forward, followed by
   General Hancock, when suddenly he found himself in front of
   breastworks, and was received with a fire of musketry. Lee had
   succeeded in interposing himself between General Grant and
   Richmond. On the same evening the bulk of the two armies were
   facing each other on the line of the Po. … General Lee had
   taken up his position on the south bank of one of the four
   tributaries of the Mattapony. These four streams are known as
   the Mat, Ta, Po, and Nye Rivers, and bear the same relation to
   the main stream that the fingers of the open hand do to the
   wrist. General Lee was behind the Po, which is next to the
   Nye, the northern-most of these water-courses. Both were
   difficult to cross, and their banks heavily wooded. It was now
   to be seen whether, either by a front attack or a turning
   movement, General Grant could oust his adversary, and whether
   General Lee would stand on the defensive or attack. All day,
   during the 9th, the two armies were constructing breastworks
   along their entire fronts, and these works, from the Rapidan
   to the banks of the Chickahominy, remain yet [1871] in
   existence. On the evening of this day a Federal force was
   thrown across the Po, on the Confederate left, but soon
   withdrawn; and on the 10th a similar movement took place near
   the same point, which resulted in a brief but bloody conflict,
   during which the woods took fire, and many of the assaulting
   troops perished miserably in the flames. The force was then
   recalled, and, during that night and the succeeding day,
   nothing of importance occurred, although heavy skirmishing and
   an artillery-fire took place along the lines. On the morning
   of the 12th, at the first dawn of day, General Grant made a
   more important and dangerous assault than any yet undertaken
   in the campaign. This was directed at a salient on General
   Lee's right centre, occupied by Johnson's division of Ewell's
   corps, and was one of the bloodiest and most terrible
   incidents of the war. For this assault [made by three
   divisions of Hancock's corps] General Grant is said to have
   selected his best troops. These advanced in a heavy charging
   column, through the half-darkness of dawn, passed silently
   over the Confederate skirmishers, scarcely firing a shot, and,
   just as the first streak of daylight touched the eastern
   woods, burst upon the salient, which they stormed at the point
   of the bayonet. The attack was a complete surprise, and
   carried everything before it. The Southern troops, asleep in
   the trenches, woke to have the bayonet thrust into them, to be
   felled with clubbed muskets, and to find the works apparently
   in secure possession of the enemy before they could fire a
   shot.
{3526}
   Such was the excellent success of the Federal movement, and
   the Southern line seemed to be hopelessly disrupted. Nearly
   the whole of Johnson's division were taken prisoners—the
   number amounting to more than 3,000—and 18 pieces of artillery
   fell into the hands of the assaulting column. The position of
   affairs was now exceedingly critical; and, unless General Lee
   could reform his line at the point, it seemed that nothing was
   left him but an abandonment of his whole position. The Federal
   army had broken his line; was pouring into the opening; and,
   to prevent him from concentrating at the point to regain
   possession of the works, heavy attacks were begun by the enemy
   on his right and left wings. It is probable that at no time
   during the war was the Southern army in greater danger of a
   bloody and decisive disaster. At this critical moment General
   Lee acted with the nerve and coolness of a soldier whom no
   adverse event can shake. … Line of battle was promptly formed
   a short distance in rear of the salient then in the enemy's
   possession, and a fierce charge was made by the Southerners,
   under the eye of Lee, to regain it. … The word ferocious best
   describes the struggle which followed. It continued throughout
   the entire day, Lee making not less than five distinct
   assaults in heavy force to recover the works. The fight
   involved the troops on both flanks, and was desperate and
   unyielding. The opposing flags were at times within only a few
   yards of each other, and so incessant and concentrated was the
   fire of musketry that a tree of about 18 inches in diameter
   was cut down by bullets, and is still preserved, it is said,
   in the city of Washington, as a memorial of this bloody
   struggle. The fighting only ceased several hours after dark.
   Lee had not regained his advanced line of works, but he was
   firmly rooted in an interior and straighter line, from which
   the Federal troops had found it impossible to dislodge him."

      J. E. Cooke,
      Life of General Robert E. Lee,
      part 8, chapter 4.

   "For the distance of nearly a mile, amid a cold, drenching
   rain, the combatants [on the 12th, at the salient] were
   literally struggling across the breastworks. They fired
   directly into each other's faces, bayonet thrusts were given
   over the intrenchments; men even grappled their antagonists
   across the piles of logs and pulled them over, to be stabbed
   or carried to the rear as prisoners. … Never before, since the
   discovery of gunpowder, had such a mass of lead been hurled
   into a space so narrow as that which now embraced the scene of
   combat. Large standing trees were literally cut off and
   brought to the ground by infantry fire alone; their great
   limbs whipped into basket stuff that could be woven by the
   hand of a girl. … If any comparisons can be made between the
   sections involved in that desperate contest, the fiercest and
   deadliest fighting took place at the west angle, ever
   afterwards known as 'The Bloody Angle.' … All day the bloody
   work went on. … The trenches had more than once to be cleared
   of the dead, to give the living a place to stand. All day
   long, and even into the night, the battle lasted, for it was
   not till twelve o'clock, nearly twenty hours after the command
   'Forward' had been given to the column at the Brown House,
   that the firing died down, and the Confederates, relinquishing
   their purpose to retake the captured works, began in the
   darkness to construct a new line to cut off the salient."

      F. A. Walker,
      History of the Second Army Corps,
      chapter 15.

   General Humphreys estimates Grant's losses in killed and
   wounded on the 12th at 6,020; missing 800. Lee's losses that
   day in killed, wounded and prisoners he concludes to have been
   between 9,000 and 10,000. His estimate of losses on the 10th
   is 4,100 (killed and wounded) on the Union side, and 2,000 on
   the Confederate side. Major General John Sedgwick, commanding
   the Sixth Army Corps, was killed in the skirmishing of the
   9th.

      A. A. Humphreys,
      The Virginia Campaign of 1864 and 1865,
      chapter 3.

      ALSO IN:
      C. N. Galloway,
      Hand to Hand Fighting at Spotsylvania
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 4).

      Official Records,
      Series 1, volume 36.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (May: Virginia).
   Grant's movement upon Richmond:
   from Spottsylvania to the Chickahominy.

   "The lines of Spottsylvania remained still intact, and General
   Grant, who might easily have turned the position and manœuvred
   his antagonist out of it, seemed bent on carrying it by direct
   attack. Accordingly, during the succeeding week [after the
   battle of the 12th], various movements of corps were made from
   flank to flank, in the endeavor to find a spot where the lines
   could be broken. These attempts were skilfully met at every
   point—the Confederates extending their line to correspond
   with the shiftings of the army; so that wherever attack was
   essayed, the enemy bristled out in breastworks, and every
   partial assault made was repulsed. Day by day Grant continued
   to throw out towards the left, in the hope of overlapping and
   breaking in the Confederate right flank: so that from
   occupying, as the army did on its arrival, a line extending
   four or five miles to the northwest of Spottsylvania
   Courthouse, it had at the end of ten days assumed a position
   almost due east of that place, the left resting at a distance
   of four miles at Massaponax Church. After twelve days of
   effort, the carrying of the position was seen to be hopeless;
   and General Grant, abandoning the attempt, resolved by a
   turning operation to disengage Lee from a position seen to be
   unassailable. Preparations for this movement were begun on the
   afternoon of the 19th; but the enemy, observing these,
   retarded its execution by a bold demonstration against the
   Union right. … This attack somewhat disconcerted the
   contemplated movement, and delayed it till the following
   night, May 20th, when the army, moving by the left, once more
   took up its march towards Richmond. Before the lines of
   Spottsylvania the Army of the Potomac had for twelve days and
   nights engaged in a fierce wrestle, in which it had done all
   that valor may do to carry a position by nature and art
   impregnable. … Language is inadequate to convey an impression
   of the labors, fatigues, and sufferings of the troops. … Above
   40,000 men had already fallen in the bloody encounters of the
   Wilderness and Spottsylvania [General Humphreys—in 'Virginia
   Campaign of 1864 and 1865,' page 117—makes the total of
   killed and wounded from May 5 to 21, to be 28,207, and the
   entire losses of the army, including the missing and the sick
   sent back to Washington, 37,335]. … The exhausted army began
   to lose its spirit.
{3527}
   It was with joy, therefore, that it at length turned its back
   upon the lines of Spottsylvania. … The two armies once fairly
   on the march … neither … seems to have sought to deal the
   other a blow … and both headed, as for a common goal, towards
   the North Anna. … The advances of the 21st and 22d brought the
   different corps [of the Army of the Potomac], which had moved
   on parallel roads at supporting distance, within a few miles
   of the North Anna River. Resuming the march on the morning of
   Monday, May 23d, the army in a few hours reached the northern
   bank of that stream. But it was only to descry its old enemy
   planted on the opposite side." Warren's corps crossed the
   river at Jericho Ford without resistance, but was furiously
   assailed late in the afternoon and held its ground, taking
   nearly 1,000 prisoners. The left column, under Hancock, forced
   a passage in the face of the enemy, carrying a bridge by
   storm. But nothing was gained by these successes. "While Lee,
   after the passage of Hancock on the left, threw his right wing
   back from the North Anna, and on the passage of Warren on the
   right threw back his left wing, he continued to cling with his
   centre to the river; so that … his army took up a very
   remarkable line in the form of an obtuse-angled triangle. …
   The game of war seldom presents a more effectual checkmate
   than was here given by Lee; for after Grant had made the
   brilliantly successful passage of the North Anna, the
   Confederate commander, thrusting his centre between the two
   wings of the Army of the Potomac, put his antagonist at
   enormous disadvantage, and compelled him, for the
   reenforcement of one or the other wing, to make a double
   passage of the river. The more the position of Lee was
   examined, the more unpromising attack was seen to be; and
   after passing the two following days in reconnoissances, and
   destroying some miles of the Virginia Central Railroad,
   General Grant determined to withdraw across the North Anna and
   take up a new line of advance. The withdrawal from the North
   Anna was begun at dark of the 26th of May, when the Second,
   Fifth and Sixth Corps retired by different bridges to the
   north bank. … The Second Corps held position till the morning
   of the 27th, when it covered the rear. From the North Anna the
   line of march of the army made a wide circuit eastward and
   then southward to pass the Pamunkey. This river is formed by
   the confluence of the North and South Anna; and the Pamunkey
   in turn uniting with the Mattapony forms the York River,
   emptying into Chesapeake Bay. Thus the successful passage of
   the Pamunkey would not only dislodge Lee from the lines of the
   North and South Anna, but would bring the army in
   communication with a new and excellent water-base." The
   crossing of the Pamunkey, at and near Hanovertown, was
   accomplished without difficulty on the 27th and 28th, "and the
   routes to White House, at the head of York River, being opened
   up, the army was put in communication with the ample supplies
   floated by the waters of Chesapeake Bay. Grant's new turning
   movement was met by a corresponding retrograde movement on the
   part of Lee, and as he fell back on a direct line less than
   half the distance of the great detour made by the Army of the
   Potomac, it was not remarkable that, on crossing the Pamunkey,
   the Confederate force was again encountered, ready to accept
   the gage of battle. Lee assumed a position in advance of the
   Chickahominy. … The region in which the army was now operating
   revived many reminiscences in the minds of those who had made
   the Peninsular Campaign under McClellan. … Gaines' Mill and
   Mechanicsville were within an hour's ride; Fair Oaks could be
   reached in a two hours' trot; Richmond was ten miles off. …
   Reconnoissances showed Lee to be in a very strong position
   covering the approaches to the Chickahominy, the forcing of
   which it was now clear must cost a great battle."

      W. Swinton,
      Campaigns of the Army of the Potomac,
      part 11, chapters 3-5.

      ALSO IN:
      A. Badeau,
      Military History of Ulysses S. Grant,
      chapters 18-19 (volume 2).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (May: Virginia).
   The Co-operative movement of the Army of the James.

   In the plan and arrangement of General Grant's campaign,
   General Butler, commanding at Fortress Monroe, was instructed
   "to collect all the forces of his command that could be spared
   from garrison duty estimated at not less than 20,000, and
   operate on the south side of James river, Richmond being his
   objective. To his force 10,000 men from South Carolina, under
   Gillmore, were to be added. He was ordered to take City Point
   as soon as notification of movement was given, and fortify it.
   By this common advance from the Rapidan and Fortress Monroe
   the two armies would be brought into co-operation. … As
   arranged, Butler moved from Fortress Monroe on May 4th,
   Gillmore having joined him with the 10th Corps. The next day
   he occupied, without opposition, both City Point and Bermuda
   Hundred, his movement being a complete surprise. On the 7th he
   made a reconnoissance against the Richmond and Petersburg
   Railroad, destroying a portion of it after some fighting. On
   the night of the 9th he received dispatches from Washington
   informing him that Lee was retreating to Richmond and Grant in
   pursuit. He had, therefore, to act with caution, fearing that
   he might have Lee's whole army on his hands. On the evening of
   the 13th and morning of the 14th he carried a portion of the
   enemy's first line of defenses at Drury's Bluff, or Fort
   Darling. The time thus consumed from the 6th left no
   possibility of surprising and capturing Richmond and
   Petersburg, enabling, as it did, Beauregard to collect his
   forces in North and South Carolina, and bring them to the
   defense of these places. On the 16th the Confederates attacked
   Butler in his position in front of Drury's Bluff, forced him
   back into his entrenchments between the forks of James and
   Appomattox Rivers [in the district called Bermuda Hundred],
   and, intrenching strongly in his front, not only covered the
   railroads and city, but completely neutralized his forces. …
   Butler's army being confined at Bermuda Hundred, most of the
   re-enforcements from the South were now brought against the
   Potomac Army. In addition to this, probably not less than
   15,000 men, under Breckenridge, arrived from the Western part
   of Virginia. The position of Bermuda Hundred being easy to
   defend, Grant, leaving only enough to secure what had heen
   gained, took from it all available forces under W. F. Smith,
   and joined them to the Army of the Potomac."

      J. W. Draper,
      History of the American Civil War,
      volume 3, pages 368 and 382-385.

      ALSO IN:
      A. A. Humphreys,
      The Virginia Campaign of 1864 and 1865,
      chapter 5.

      Official Records,
      Series 1, volume 36, part 2.

{3528}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (May: Georgia).
   Sherman's Movement upon Atlanta: Johnston's Retreat.

   Sherman now held command of the three armies of the Tennessee,
   the Cumberland, and the Ohio, having McPherson, Thomas and
   Schofield for their subordinate commanders, respectively. The
   main army of the rebellion in the West, Joe Johnston
   commanding, was at Dalton, northern Georgia, confronting
   Thomas at Chattanooga. "Grant and Sherman had agreed to act in
   concert. While the former should thrust Lee back upon
   Richmond, his late lieutenant was to push Johnston towards
   Atlanta. And Banks was to transfer his forces from New Orleans
   to Mobile and thence move towards and join hands with the
   Western armies. Sherman devoted his earliest energies to the
   question of transportation and railroads. Baggage was reduced
   to the lowest limits, the higher officers setting the example.
   Actual supplies and fighting-material were alone to be
   carried. Luxuries were to be things of the past; comforts to
   be forgotten. War's stern reality was to be each one's lot.
   Probably no officer in such high command ever lived so
   entirely from hand to mouth as did Sherman and his military
   family during the succeeding campaigns. The entire equipment
   of his army head-quarters would have shamed the shabbiest
   regimental outfit of 1861. Spring was to open with a general
   advance. It was agreed to put and keep the Confederates on the
   defensive by a policy of constant hammering. Bragg had been
   removed to satisfy public opinion in the South, but was
   nominally called to Richmond to act as Mr. Davis'
   chief-of-staff. Johnston, as commander of the Department, had
   personally undertaken to hold head against Sherman. But the
   fact that he possessed neither the President's good will nor
   that of his new adviser, militated much against a happy
   conduct of the campaign. Sherman's forces occupied a front
   sixteen miles in advance of Ringgold, just south of
   Chattanooga. McPherson and the Army of the Tennessee was on
   his right with 25,000 men and 100 guns. Thomas and the Army of
   the Cumberland held the centre with 60,000 men and 130 guns.
   Schofield and the Army of the Ohio formed the left wing. His
   command was 15,000 men and 30 guns. This grand total of
   100,000 men and 260 guns formed an army of as good stuff as
   ever bore arms, and the confidence of the leader in his men
   and of the men in their leader was unbounded. Johnston himself
   foresaw the necessity of a strictly defensive campaign, to
   which his far from sanguine character, as well as his judgment
   as to what the existing conditions demanded, made him
   peculiarly suited. Counted after the same fashion as Sherman's
   army, Johnston had some 75,000 men. … He intrenched every step
   he took; he fought only when attacked; he invited battle only
   when the conditions were largely in his favor. Subsequent
   events showed how wise beyond his critics he could be. Sherman
   took the measure of the intrenchments at Dalton with care,
   and, though he outnumbered his antagonist, preferred not to
   hazard an engagement at such odds when he might force one on
   better ground. This conduct shows in strong contrast with
   Grant's, when the latter first met his opponent at this same
   moment in Virginia. Sherman despatched McPherson towards
   Resaca, on the railroad in Johnston's rear, with instructions
   to capture the town if possible. Combined with this flanking
   movement, a general advance was made upon the Confederate
   lines, and after tactical manœuvring of several days in front
   of Rocky Face Ridge, Johnston concluded to retire from his
   stronghold. McPherson had strangely failed to seize Resaca,
   though an excellent chance had offered, and at this place the
   Confederate army took up its new stand. … Sherman faced his
   antagonist on the line of Camp Creek in front of Resaca, with
   his right flank resting on the Oostanaula. From this position
   he operated by unintermitted tapping upon Johnston's defences
   at constantly varying points, without, however, bringing on a
   general engagement [though the losses were 2,747 Union and
   2,800 Confederate]. … Sherman's uniform tactics during this
   campaign, varied indefinitely in details, consisted, as will
   be seen, in forcing the centre of the army upon Johnston's
   lines, while with the right and left he operated upon either
   flank as chance or ground best offered. Johnston did not
   propose to hazard an engagement unless all conditions were in
   his favor. He attempted a stand at Adairsville, twenty miles
   south of Resaca, but shortly withdrew to Kingston and
   Cassville. Each captain manœuvred for a chance to fight the
   other at a disadvantage. … From Cassville, Johnston retired
   across the Etowah. So far this campaign had been one of
   manœuvres. Neither combatant had suffered material loss. Like
   two wrestlers, as yet ignorant of each other's strength or
   quickness, they were sparring for a hold. … The Union army was
   growing skillful. Local difficulties multiplied many fold by
   bad maps and hostile population were overcome in considerable
   measure by an able corps of topographical engineers. … Bridges
   were uniformly burned and railroads wrecked by the retreating
   Confederates. To save delays in rebuilding, so far as
   possible, trestles were fitted in the rear to a scale with
   interchangeable timbers, so that bridges could be constructed
   with a speed never before dreamed of. No sooner had the
   Confederates put torch to a bridge, than a new one arose as by
   magic, and the whistle of the locomotive always followed hard
   upon the heels of the army."

      T. A. Dodge,
      Bird's-Eye View of our Civil War,
      chapters 42-43.

      ALSO IN:
      W. T. Sherman,
      Memoirs,
      chapter 15 (volume 2).

      T. B. Van Horn,
      History of the Army of the Cumberland,
      chapters 25-28 (volume 2).

      Official Records,
      Series 1, volume 38, part 1.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (May-June: Virginia).
   Grant's Movement upon Richmond: The Battle of Cold Harbor.

   "The passage of [the Pamunkey] had been completed on May 28,
   and then, after three days of marching, interspersed with the
   usual amount of fighting, the army found itself again
   confronted by Lee's main line on the Totopotomoy. The
   operations which followed were known as the battle of Cold
   Harbor. On the afternoon of May 31st, Sheridan, who was on the
   left flank of the army, carried, with his cavalry, a position
   near the old well and cross roads known as Old Cold Harbor,
   and, with his men dismounted behind rough breast-works, held
   it against Fitzhugh Lee until night. To this point, during the
   night, marched the van·guard of the Army of the Potomac. …
   About 9 the next day (June 1st) the head of the column reached
   Sheridan's position, and the cavalry was withdrawn.
{3529}
   The enemy, who had been seriously threatening Sheridan,
   withdrew from our immediate front within their lines and
   awaited us, occupying a strong outer line of intrenchments in
   front of our center, somewhat in advance of their main
   position, which included that on which the battle of Gaines'
   Mill had been fought two years before. It covered the
   approaches to the Chickahominy, which was the last formidable
   obstacle we had to meet before standing in front of the
   permanent works of Richmond. A large detachment, composed of
   the Eighteenth Corps and other troops from the Army of the
   James, under General W. F. Smith, had disembarked at White
   House on the Pamunkey, and was expected to connect that
   morning with the Sixth Corps at Cold Harbor. A mistake in
   orders caused an unnecessary march and long delay. In the
   afternoon, however, Smith was in position on the right of the
   Sixth Corps. Late in the afternoon both corps assaulted. The
   attack was made vigorously and with no reserves. The outer
   line in front of the right of the Sixth and the left of the
   Eighteenth was carried brilliantly, and the enemy was forced
   back, leaving several hundred prisoners in our hands. … This
   left the well and the old tavern at Cold Harbor in our rear,
   and brought us in front of the most formidable position yet
   held by the enemy. In front of him was a wooded country,
   interspersed with clearings here and there, sparsely
   populated, and full of swamps. Before daylight the Army of the
   Potomac stood together once more almost within sight of the
   spires of Richmond, and on the very ground where, under
   McClellan, they had defended the passage of the river they
   were now endeavoring to force. On the 2d of June our
   confronting line, on which the burden of the day must
   necessarily fall, consisted of Hancock on the left, Wright in
   the center, and Smith on the right. Warren and Burnside were
   still farther to the right, their lines refused, or drawn
   back, in the neighborhood of Bethesda Church, but not
   confronting the enemy. … No reconnoissance had been made other
   than the bloody one of the evening before. Everyone felt that
   this was to be the final struggle. No further flanking marches
   were possible. Richmond was dead in front. No further wheeling
   of corps from right to left by the rear; no further dusty
   marches possible on that line, even 'if it took all summer.'
   The general attack was fixed for the afternoon of the 2d, and
   all preparations had been made, when the order was
   countermanded and the attack postponed until half-past four
   the following morning. Promptly at the hour named on the 3d of
   June the men moved from the slight cover of the rifle-pits,
   thrown up during the night, with steady, determined advance,
   and there rang out suddenly on the summer air such a crash of
   artillery and musketry as is seldom heard in war. No great
   portion of the advance could be seen from any particular
   point, but those of the three corps that passed through the
   clearings were feeling the fire terribly. Not much return was
   made at first from our infantry, although the fire of our
   batteries was incessant. The time of actual advance was not
   over eight minutes. In that little period more men fell
   bleeding as they advanced than in any other like period of
   time throughout the war. A strange and terrible feature of
   this battle was that as the three gallant corps moved on
   [necessarily diverging, the enemy's line forming an arc of a
   circle, with its concave side toward them] each was enfiladed
   while receiving the full force of the enemy's direct fire in
   front. … At some points the slashings and obstructions in the
   enemy's front were reached. Barlow, of Hancock's corps, drove
   the enemy from an advanced position, but was himself driven
   out by the fire of their second line. R. O. Tyler's brigade
   (the Corcoran Legion) of the same corps swept over an advance
   work, capturing several hundred prisoners. One officer alone;
   the colonel of the 164th New York [James P. McMahon], seizing
   the colors of his regiment from the dying color-bearer as he
   fell, succeeded in reaching the parapet of the enemy's main
   works, where he planted his colors and fell dead near the
   ditch, bleeding from many wounds. Seven other colonels of
   Hancock's command died within those few minutes. No troops
   could stand against such a fire, and the order to lie down was
   given all along the line. At points where no shelter was
   afforded, the men were withdrawn to such cover as could be
   found, and the battle of Cold Harbor, as to its result at
   least, was over. … Shortly after midday came the order to
   suspend for the present all further operations, and directing
   corps commanders to intrench, 'including their advanced
   positions,' and directing also that reconnoissances be made,
   'with a view to moving against the enemy's works by regular
   approaches'. … When night came on the groans and moaning of
   the wounded, all our own, who were lying between the lines,
   were heart-rending. Some were brought in by volunteers from
   our intrenchments, but remained for three days uncared for
   beneath the hot summer suns and the unrefreshing dews of the
   sultry summer nights. … An impression prevails in the popular
   mind, and with some reason perhaps, that a commander who sends
   a flag of truce asking permission to bury his dead and bring
   in his wounded, has lost the field of battle. Hence the
   reluctance upon our part to ask a flag of truce. In effect it
   was done at last on the evening of the third day after the
   battle, when, for the most part, the wounded needed no further
   care and our dead had to be buried almost where they fell."

      M. T. McMahon,
      Cold Harbor
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 4).

   "According to the report of the Medical Director, Surgeon
   McParlin, the wounded brought to the hospitals from the battle
   of the 3d of June numbered 4,517. The killed were at least
   1,100. The wounded brought to the hospitals from the battle of
   the 1st of June were 2,125; the killed were not less than 500.
   The wounded on the 1st and 3d of June were, therefore, 6,642,
   and the killed not less than 1,600; but, adopting the number
   of killed and missing furnished General Badeau from the
   Adjutant General's office, 1,769 killed, 1,537 missing
   (many—most, indeed—of them, no doubt, killed), we have 8,411
   for the killed and wounded, and for the total casualties,
   9,948."

      A. A. Humphreys,
      The Virginia Campaign of 1864 and 1865
      (Campaigns of the Civil War),
      page 191.

   "I have always regretted that the last assault at Cold Harbor
   was ever made. … At Cold Harbor no advantage whatever was
   gained to compensate for the heavy loss we sustained. Indeed,
   the advantages other than those of relative losses, were on
   the Confederate side. … This charge seemed to revive their
   hopes temporarily; but it was of short duration. The effect
   upon the Army of the Potomac was the reverse. When we reached
   the James River, however, all effects of the battle of Cold
   Harbor seemed to have disappeared."

      U. S. Grant,
      Personal Memoirs,
      chapter. 55 (volume 2).

      Official Records,
      Series 1, volume 36.

{3530}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (May-June: Virginia).
   The Campaigning in the Shenandoah Valley, and
   Sheridan's raid to Trevillian Station.

   "In the spring of 1864, the Department of West Virginia, which
   included the Shenandoah Valley, was under the command of
   Major-General Franz Sigel. A large portion of his forces was
   in the Kanawha region, under Brigadier-General George Crook. …
   In opening his Virginia campaign, Lieutenant-General Grant
   directed Sigel to form two columns, whereof one, under Crook,
   should break the Virginia and Tennessee Railroad at the New
   River bridge, and should also, if possible, destroy the
   salt-works at Saltville; while the other column, under Sigel
   himself, proceeding up the Shenandoah Valley, was to distract
   attention from Crook by menacing the Virginia Central Railroad
   at Staunton."

      G. E. Pond,
      The Shenandoah Valley in 1864
      (Campaigns of the Civil War, volume 11),
      chapter 2.

   "Early in May, General Sigel entered the Valley with a force
   of 10,000 or 12,000 men [6,000 or 7,000, according to Pond, as
   above], and proceeded to advance toward Staunton. The Valley
   at that time was occupied only by a small force under General
   Imboden, which was wholly inadequate for its defence. General
   Breckenridge was therefore withdrawn from South-Western
   Virginia to oppose Sigel. On the 15th of May, Breckenridge
   with a force of 3,000 men [4,600 to 5,000—Pond] encountered
   Sigel at Newmarket and defeated him and compelled him to
   retire behind Cedar Creek. The cadets of the Virginia Military
   Institute formed a portion of Breckenridge's division, and
   behaved with distinguished gallantry. … After the battle of
   Newmarket Breckenridge was withdrawn from the Valley to
   reinforce Lee … in the neighborhood of Hanover Junction. In
   the meantime Crook and Averill had reached the Virginia and
   Tennessee Railroad, where they inflicted some damage, but were
   compelled to retire by a force sent against them by General
   Sam Jones. They then proceeded to join the main column
   operating in the Valley. After the battle of Newmarket, Sigel
   was relieved by General David Hunter, who was instructed by
   General Grant to advance upon Staunton, thence to
   Charlottesville, and on to Lynchburg if circumstances favored
   that movement. Breckenridge having been withdrawn, General W.
   E. Jones was ordered to the Valley to oppose Hunter, who
   slowly advanced, opposed by Imboden with an almost nominal
   force. About the 4th of June, Imboden was joined by General
   Jones in the neighborhood of Harrisonburg with a force of
   between 3,000 and 4,000 men, which he had hastily collected in
   Southwestern Virginia. … Although greatly outnumbered, he
   [Jones] engaged Hunter near Port Republic [at the village of
   Piedmont, which gives its name to the battle], where he was
   defeated and killed. … After the fall of Jones, McCauslin
   opposed Hunter with gallantry and vigor, but his small force
   was no match for the greatly superior force against which he
   contended. The affairs in the Valley now began to attract the
   attention of the commanding generals of both armies. It was
   evident that if Hunter could succeed in taking Lynchburg and
   breaking up the canal and Central Railroad, it would only be
   necessary to tap the Richmond and Danville and the Petersburg
   and Weldon railroads to complete a line of circumvallation
   around Richmond and Petersburg. On the 7th of June General
   Grant detached General Sheridan, with a large cavalry force,
   with instructions to break up the Central Railroad between
   Richmond and Gordonsville, then proceed to the James River and
   Kanawha Canal, break that line of communication with Richmond,
   and then to co-operate with Hunter in his operations against
   Lynchburg. About the same time General Lee sent General
   Breckenridge with his division, 2,500 strong, to occupy
   Rockfish Gap of the Blue Ridge to deflect Hunter from
   Charlottesville and protect the Central Railroad as far as
   practicable. A few days later General Early was detached by
   General Lee to oppose Hunter, and take such other steps as in
   his judgment would tend to create a diversion in favor of
   Richmond. General Sheridan, in compliance with his
   instructions, proceeded by a circuitous route to strike the
   railroad somewhere in the neighborhood of Gordonsville. This
   movement was, however, discovered by General Hampton, who,
   with a considerable force of cavalry encountered Sheridan on
   the 12th of June at Travillians [or Trevillian's] Station.
   After much severe and varied fighting Sheridan was defeated,
   and in order to escape was obliged to make a night-retreat.
   [In his 'Memoirs,' Sheridan claims the victory, having forced
   Hampton back and taken 500 prisoners; but learning that Hunter
   would not meet him, as expected, at Charlottesville, he turned
   back to rejoin Grant south of Richmond]. … This was one of the
   most masterly and spirited cavalry engagements of the war.
   Hunter, finding Rockfish Gap occupied in force, was unable to
   comply with that part of his instructions which directed him
   to Charlottesville. He therefore continued his march up the
   Valley, with the view of reaching Lynchburg by way of some one
   of the passes of the Blue Ridge south of the James River. In
   the neighborhood of Staunton he was joined by Crook and
   Averill, increasing his force to about 20,000 men, including
   cavalry and artillery. From Staunton he advanced by way of
   Lexington and Buchanan, burning and destroying everything that
   came in his way, leaving a track of desolation rarely
   witnessed in the course of civilized warfare." Before Hunter's
   arrival at Lynchburg, General Early, who withdrew his corps
   (formerly Stonewall Jackson's, and lately commanded by Ewell),
   from Richmond on the 13th of June, had reached that city and
   was prepared to defend it. "Hunter, finding himself
   unexpectedly confronted by Early, relinquished his intended
   attack upon the city and sought safety in a rapid
   night-retreat."

      A. L. Long,
      Memoirs of Robert E. Lee,
      chapter 18.

      ALSO IN:
      P. H. Sheridan,
      Personal Memoirs,
      volume 1. chapter 21.

{3531}

Map of the Atlanta Campaign. Page 331.

{3532}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (May-September: Georgia).
   Sherman's Movement upon Atlanta: New Hope Church.
   Kenesaw.
   Peach Tree Creek.
   The siege and capture of the city.

   From Cassville, for reasons given in his memoirs, Johnston
   continued his retreat behind the next spur of mountains to
   Allatoona. "Pausing for a few days," writes General Sherman,
   "to repair the railroad without attempting Allatoona, of which
   I had personal knowledge acquired in 1844, I resolved to push
   on toward Atlanta by way of Dallas; Johnston quickly detected
   this, and forced me to fight him, May 25th-28th, at New Hope
   Church, four miles north of Dallas, with losses of 3,000 to
   the Confederates and 2,400 to us. The country was almost in a
   state of nature—with few or no roads, nothing that a European
   could understand; yet the bullet killed its victim there as
   surely as at Sevastopol. Johnston had meantime picked up his
   detachments, and had received reënforcements from his rear
   which raised his aggregate strength to 62,000 men, and
   warranted him in claiming that he was purposely drawing us far
   from our base, and that when the right moment should come he
   would turn on us and destroy us. We were equally confident,
   and not the least alarmed. He then fell back to his position
   at Marietta, with Brush Mountain on his right, Kenesaw his
   center and Lost Mountain his left. His line of ten miles was
   too long for his numbers, and he soon let go his flanks and
   concentrated on Kenesaw. We closed down in battle array,
   repaired the railroad up to our very camps, and then prepared
   for the contest. Not a day, not an hour, not a minute was
   there a cessation of fire. Our skirmishers were in absolute
   contact, the lines of battle and the batteries but little in
   rear of the skirmishers; and thus matters continued until June
   27th, when I ordered a general assault, with the full
   cooperation of my great lieutenants, Thomas, McPherson and
   Schofield, as good and true men as ever lived or died for
   their country's cause; but we failed, losing 3,000 men to the
   Confederate loss of 630. Still, the result was that within
   three days Johnston abandoned the strongest possible position
   and was in full retreat for the Chattahoochee River. We were
   on his heels; skirmished with his rear at Smyrna Church on the
   4th day of July, and saw him fairly across the Chattahoochee
   on the 10th, covered and protected by the best line of field
   intrenchments I have ever seen, prepared long in advance. … We
   had advanced into the enemy's country 120 miles, with a
   single-track railroad, which had to bring clothing, food,
   ammunition, everything requisite for 100,000 men and 23,000
   animals. The city of Atlanta, the gate city, opening the
   interior of the important State of Georgia, was in sight; its
   protecting army was shaken but not defeated, and onward we had
   to go. … We feigned to the right, but crossed the
   Chattahoochee by the left, and soon confronted our enemy
   behind his first line of intrenchments at Peach Tree Creek,
   prepared in advance for this very occasion. At this critical
   moment the Confederate Government rendered us most valuable
   service. Being dissatisfied with the Fabian policy of General
   Johnston, it relieved him, and General Hood was substituted to
   command the Confederate army [July 18]. Hood was known to us
   to be a 'fighter' … and I confess I was pleased at this
   change. … I was willing to meet the enemy in the open country,
   but not behind well-constructed parapets. Promptly, as
   expected, General Hood sallied from his Peach Tree line on the
   20th of July, about midday, striking the Twentieth Corps
   (Hooker), which had just crossed Peach Tree Creek by
   improvised bridges. The troops became commingled and fought
   hand to hand desperately for about four hours, when the
   Confederates were driven back within their lines, leaving
   behind their dead and wounded. These amounted to 4,796 men, to
   our loss of 1,710. We followed up and Hood fell back to the
   main lines of the city of Atlanta. We closed in, when again
   Hood, holding these lines with about one-half his force, with
   the other half made a wide circuit by night, under cover of
   the woods, and on the 22d of July enveloped our left flank 'in
   air,' a movement that led to the hardest battle of the
   campaign. He encountered the Army of the Tennessee—skilled
   veterans who were always ready to fight, were not alarmed by
   flank or rear attacks, and met their assailants with heroic
   valor. The battle raged from noon to night, when the
   Confederates, baffled and defeated, fell back within the
   intrenchments of Atlanta. Their losses are reported 8,499 to
   ours of 8,641; but among our dead was McPherson, the commander
   of the Army of the Tennessee. While this battle was in
   progress, Schofield at the center and Thomas on the right made
   efforts to break through the intrenchments at their fronts,
   but found them too strong to assault. The Army of the
   Tennessee was then shifted, under its new commander (Howard),
   from the extreme left to the extreme right, to reach if
   possible, the railroad by which Hood drew his supplies, when,
   on the 28th of July, he repeated his tactics of the 22d,
   sustaining an overwhelming defeat, losing 4,632 men to our
   700. These three sallies convinced him that his predecessor,
   General Johnston, had not erred in standing on the defensive.
   Thereafter the Confederate army in Atlanta clung to its
   parapets. I never intended to assault these, but gradually
   worked to the right to reach and destroy his line of supplies,
   because soldiers, like other mortals, must have food. Our
   extension to the right brought on numerous conflicts, but
   nothing worthy of note, till about the end of August I
   resolved to leave one corps to protect our communications to
   the rear, and move with the other five to a point (Jonesboro')
   on the railroad 20 miles below Atlanta, not fortified. This
   movement was perfectly strategic, was successful, and resulted
   in our occupation of Atlanta, on the 2d of September, 1864.
   The result had a large effect on the whole country, at the
   time, for solid and political reasons. I claim no special
   merit to myself, save that I believe I followed the teachings
   of the best masters of the 'science of war' of which I had
   knowledge. … But I had not accomplished all, for Hood's army,
   the chief 'objective,' had escaped. Then began the real
   trouble. We were in possession of Atlanta, and Hood remained
   at Lovejoy's Station, 30 miles south-east, on the Savannah
   Railroad, with an army of about 40,000 veterans inured to war,
   and with a fair amount of wagons to carry his supplies,
   independent of the railroads."

      W. T. Sherman and others,
      Atlanta
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 4).

      ALSO IN:
      W. T. Sherman,
      Memoirs,
      chapters 15-18 (volume 2).

      J. D. Cox,
      Atlanta
      (Campaigns of the Civil War, volume 9),
      chapters 7-16.

      C. C. Chesney,
      The Atlanta Campaign
      (Fort. Rev., Nov. 1895).

      J. E. Johnston,
      Narrative,
      chapters 9-11.

      Official Records,
      series 1, volume 38.

      J. B. Hood,
      Advance and Retreat,
      chapters 12-13.

{3533}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (May-November).
   The Twentieth Presidential Election.
   Renomination and Re-election of Abraham Lincoln.

   "Preparations for the nomination of candidates had begun to be
   made, as usual, early in the spring of 1864. Some who saw most
   clearly the necessities of the future, had for some months
   before expressed themselves strongly in favor of the
   renomination of President Lincoln. But this step was contested
   with great warmth and activity by prominent members of the
   political party by which he had been nominated and elected
   four years before. Nearly all the original Abolitionists and
   many of the more decidedly anti-slavery members of the
   Republican party were dissatisfied, that Mr. Lincoln had not
   more rapidly and more sweepingly enforced their extreme
   opinions. Many distinguished public men resented his rejection
   of their advice, and many more had been alienated by his
   inability to recognize their claims to office. The most
   violent opposition came from those who had been most
   persistent and most clamorous in their exactions. And as it
   was unavoidable that, in wielding so terrible and so absolute
   a power in so terrible a crisis, vast multitudes of active and
   ambitious men should be disappointed in their expectations of
   position and personal gain, the renomination of Mr. Lincoln
   was sure to be contested by a powerful and organized effort.
   At the very outset this movement acquired consistency and
   strength by bringing forward the Honorable S. P. Chase,
   Secretary of the Treasury, a man of great political boldness
   and experience, and who had prepared the way for such a step
   by a careful dispensation of the vast patronage of his
   department, as the rival candidate. But it was instinctively
   felt that this effort lacked the sympathy and support of the
   great mass of the people, and it ended in the withdrawal of
   his name as a candidate by Mr. Chase himself. The National
   Committee of the Union Republican party had called their
   convention, to be held at Baltimore, on the 8th of June."
   Those who opposed Mr. Lincoln's nomination issued a call for a
   convention to be held at Cleveland, Ohio, on the 31st of May.
   The Cleveland Convention, attended by about 150 persons, put
   in nomination General John C. Fremont, for President, and
   General John Cochrane, of New York, for Vice President.
   "General Fremont's letter of acceptance was dated June 4th.
   Its main scope was an attack upon Mr. Lincoln for
   unfaithfulness to the principles he was elected to defend, and
   upon his administration for incapacity and selfishness. … He
   intimated that if the Baltimore convention would nominate
   anyone but Mr. Lincoln he would not stand in the way of a
   union of all upon the nominee. … The Convention, the
   nomination and the letter of acceptance, fell dead upon the
   popular feeling [and Fremont withdrew his candidacy in
   September]. … The next form which the effort to prevent Mr.
   Lincoln's nomination and election took was an effort to bring
   forward General Grant as a candidate." But this was decisively
   checked by General Grant, himself. The Convention at
   Baltimore, when it assembled on the 8th of June, showed no
   hesitation in nominating Abraham Lincoln for reelection, and
   it associated with him, Andrew Johnson, of Tennessee, as its
   candidate for Vice President. The National Convention of the
   Democratic party was held at Chicago, beginning August 29th,
   The second resolution which it adopted in its platform
   declared that, "after four years of failure to restore the
   Union by the experiment of war … justice, humanity, liberty
   and the public welfare demand that immediate efforts be made
   for a cessation of hostilities, with a view to an ultimate
   convention of the States or other peaceable means, to the end
   that, at the earliest practicable moment, peace may be
   restored on the basis of the Federal Union of the States." On
   this issue, having nominated General George B. McClellan for
   President, and George H. Pendleton, of Ohio, for Vice
   President, the opponents of the war went to the country in the
   election, in November, and were overwhelmingly defeated. "Of
   all the States which voted on that day, General McClellan
   carried but three—New Jersey, Delaware and Kentucky."

      H. J. Raymond,
      Life and Public Services of Abraham Lincoln,
      chapter 18.

   The electoral vote was for Lincoln 212, for McClellan 21. The
   popular vote cast was, for Lincoln 2,213,665, for McClellan,
   1,802,237. Many of the States had made provision for taking
   the votes of soldiers in the field, and the army vote was
   116,887 for Lincoln against 33,748 for McClellan.

      E. Stanwood,
      History of Presidential Elections,
      chapter 21.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (June).
   Repeal of the Fugitive Slave Laws.

   At every session of Congress from 1861 to 1864 ineffectual
   attempts were made in the Senate and in the House of
   Representatives to accomplish the repeal of the Fugitive Slave
   Laws of 1793 and 1850. It was not until June of the latter
   year that the necessary bill was passed—by the House on the
   6th, by a vote of 82 to 57, and by the Senate on the 22d by 27
   to 12. The President approved it on the 28th, and it became a
   law.

      H. Wilson,
      History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power,
      volume 3, chapter 29.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (June).
   Revenue Measures.
   The War Tariff and Internal Taxes.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION: A. D. 1861-1864 (UNITED STATES).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (June).
   The destruction of the Alabama by the Kearsarge.

      See ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1862-1864.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (June: Virginia).
   Grant's movement to the south of James River.
   The Siege of Petersburg.

   "In consequence of the check at Cold Harbor, a restlessness
   was becoming general among the people, which the government in
   vain pretended not to notice. … Public opinion, shaken in its
   confidence, already began to listen to the sinister
   interpretations of the opposition journals, when, in the last
   half of June, it learned that the lieutenant: general had
   boldly crossed the James and laid siege before Petersburg. …
   This passage of the James was … a very fine movement, as ably
   executed as it was boldly conceived. It inaugurated a new
   phase in the campaign. … Henceforth, the battering not having
   produced the expected effect, Grant was about to try the
   resources of military science, and give precedence to
   strategic combinations. In the first place, he took his
   measures so well to conceal his intentions from the enemy that
   the latter did not recognize the character of the movement
   until it was already executed. Warren was ordered to occupy
   Lee's attention by the menace of an advance on Richmond from
   the direction of White Oak Swamp, while Smith (W. F.)
   reëmbarked from White House to return to Bermuda Hundred, and
   Hancock, with the Second Corps, would be transferred to the
   right bank of the James by a flotilla of large steamers
   collected at Wilcox Landing for that purpose.
{3534}
   At the same time, a bridge of boats was thrown across a little
   below, where there were thirteen fathoms of water in the
   channel, and where the river was more than 2,000 feet broad.
   The Fifth and Sixth Corps crossed over on the bridge. Grant
   hoped to get hold of Petersburg by a 'coup de main.' If he had
   succeeded, the fall of Richmond would have soon followed in
   all probability. Unfortunately, delays occurred and
   contretemps which caused the opportunity to fail and
   completely modified the course of events. General Smith (W.
   F.), after having carried the first line, which was defended
   by militia only, did not know how to take advantage of his
   first success. Proceeding methodically and cautiously, where
   it was, above all, necessary to act with vigor and promptness,
   he put off the serious work until the next morning. Hancock,
   in his turn, debarked on the right bank, did not receive the
   order to march on Petersburg until he had been delayed to wait
   for rations which were behind-hand, and went astray in his
   march owing to false indications on a map which had been sent
   to him as correct. In short, he lost precious hours in the
   afternoon of June 15, and on the morning of the 16th it was
   too late; Lee's troops had arrived. Nevertheless, the
   intrenchments thrown up hastily by the enemy were not so
   formidable that they might not be carried. In the morning, a
   fresh attack, with Birney's and Gibbon's divisions, met with
   some success, but with no decisive results. In the afternoon,
   the Ninth Corps having arrived, the attempt was renewed on a
   greater scale, and it ended by carrying the line at sundown,
   after a hard fight and considerable loss. On the next morning,
   a new assault, always by the Second Corps, supported by the
   Ninth. The enemy lost more ground and a redoubt of importance.
   In the evening, he succeeded in surprising the intrenchments
   which Burnside had taken from him. All these fights were not
   without cost; the loss of that day alone, on our side,
   amounted to 4,000 men. The Confederates defended the ground
   step by step, with such determination, only to gain the time
   necessary to finish a stronger and better selected line, on
   the hills immediately around the city. They retired to these
   lines in the following night, and during the whole of the 18th
   they sustained in them a series of attacks which met with no
   success. From that day, the siege of Petersburg was resolved
   upon, and regular works were begun. It must be remarked that
   this siege was not a siege, properly speaking. The place was
   never even invested. It lies 22 miles south of Richmond, on
   the right, bank of the Appomattox, eight miles southwest of
   City Point, where that river empties into the James, and where
   the new base of supplies of the army was naturally
   established. So that we had turned Richmond to put ourselves
   across a part of the enemy's communications with the South,
   and directly threaten the rest. These communications were: the
   railroads to Norfolk, Weldon and Lynchburg, and the Jerusalem
   and Boydton roads, all ending at Petersburg. Besides these,
   the Confederate capital had only the James River Canal, to the
   west, and the Dansville railroad, to the south. The latter did
   not extend beyond the limits of Virginia, but it crossed the
   Lynchburg railroad at Burksville, which doubled its resources.
   If, then, we succeeded in enveloping Petersburg only on the
   right bank of the Appomattox, the population and the
   Confederate army would be reduced to draw all their supplies
   from Richmond by a single-track railroad. To accomplish that
   was our effort; to prevent it, the enemy's: that was the point
   towards which all the operations of the siege were directed
   for nine months. On the day on which we finally succeeded,
   Petersburg and Richmond fell at the same blow, and the whole
   structure of the rebellion crumbled with these two cities."

      R. de Trobriand,
      Four Years with the Army of the Potomac,
      chapter 28.

      ALSO IN:
      F. A. Walker,
      History of the Second Army Corps,
      chapters 19-23.

      U. S. Grant,
      Personal Memoirs,
      chapter 56 (volume 2).

      Official Records,
      Series 1, volume 40.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (July).
   The Greeley and the Jaques-Gilmore Peace Missions.

   "Two abortive efforts to open a door to accommodation between
   the belligerents were made during this gloomy period. One of
   these originated with certain Confederates then in Canada, one
   of whom wrote [July 5, 1864] to the author of this work
   [Horace Greeley], averring that Messrs. Clement C. Clay, of
   Alabama, James P. Holcombe, of Virginia, and George N. Sanders
   (the writer) would proceed to Washington in the interest of
   Peace, if full protection were accorded them. Being otherwise
   confidentially assured that the two former had full powers
   from Richmond, Mr. Greeley forwarded the application to
   President Lincoln, urging that it be responded to, and
   suggesting certain terms of reunion and peace which he judged
   might be advantageously proffered to the Rebels, whether they
   should be accepted or rejected. … The 'Plan of Adjustment,'
   which he suggested that the President might advantageously
   offer," contemplated the restoration of the Union, abolition
   of slavery, with $400,000,000 paid in compensation to the
   slave states, and complete amnesty for all political offenses.
   "The President hereupon saw fit—alike to the surprise and the
   regret of his correspondent—to depute him to proceed to
   Niagara, and there communicate with the persons in question.
   He most reluctantly consented to go, but under a
   misapprehension which insured the failure of the effort in any
   event. Though he had repeatedly and explicitly written to the
   President that he knew nothing as to what the Confederates in
   Canada might or would propose as a basis of adjustment … it
   was expected on the President's part that he was virtually and
   substantially to negotiate and settle the basis of a
   pacification with them; so that their visit to Washington was,
   in effect, to be the result, and not the possible occasion, of
   adjustment und peace. … The whole matter thus terminated in
   failure and disappointment, with some exasperation on the
   Rebel side, and very decided condemnation on the part of the
   opposition. … Happily, another negotiation—even more irregular
   and wholly clandestine—had simultaneously been in progress at
   Richmond, with a similar result. Rev. Colonel James F. Jaques,
   73d Illinois, with Mr. J. R. Gilmore, of New York, had, with
   President Lincoln's knowledge, but without his formal
   permission, paid a visit to the Confederate capital on a Peace
   errand; being allowed to pass through the lines of both armies
   for the purpose.
{3535}
   Arrived in Richmond they addressed a joint letter to Judah P.
   Benjamin, Secretary of State, requesting an interview with
   President Davis, which was accorded; and a long, familiar,
   earnest colloquy ensued, wherein the Confederate chief
   presented his ultimatum in these terms: … The North was mad
   and blind; it would not let us govern ourselves; and so the
   war came; and now it must go on till the last man of this
   generation falls in his tracks, and his children seize his
   musket and fight our battle, unless you acknowledge our right
   to self-government. We are not fighting for Slavery, we are
   fighting for Independence; and that or extermination we will
   have'. … Thus it was not only incontestably settled but
   proclaimed, through the volunteered agency of two citizens,
   that the War must go on until the Confederacy should be
   recognized as an independent power, or till it should be
   utterly, finally overthrown. The knowledge of this fact was
   worth more than a victory to the National cause."

      H. Greeley,
      The American Conflict,
      volume 2, chapter 30.

      ALSO IN:
      E. McPherson,
      Political History of the United States
      during the Great Rebellion,
      pages 301-307.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (July: Virginia-Maryland.)
   Early in the Shenandoah Valley.
   His invasion of Maryland and approach to Washington.

   "… [General Jubal Anderson] Early had forced Hunter into the
   Kanawha region far enough to feel assured that Lynchburg could
   not again be threatened from that direction;

   See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA).

   [Early then] united to his own corps General John C.
   Breckenridge's infantry division and the cavalry of Generals
   J. H. Vaughn, John McCausland, B. T. Johnson, and J. D.
   Imboden, which heretofore had been operating in southwest and
   western Virginia under General Robert Ransom, Jr., and with
   the column thus formed, was ready to turn his attention to the
   lower Shenandoah Valley. At Early's suggestion General Lee
   authorized him to move north at an opportune moment, cross the
   upper Potomac into Maryland and threaten Washington. … By
   rapid marching Early reached Winchester on the 2d of July, and
   on the 4th occupied Martinsburg, driving General Sigel out of
   that place the same day that Hunter's troops, after their
   fatiguing retreat through the mountains, reached Charlestown,
   West Virginia. Early was thus enabled to cross the Potomac
   without difficulty, when, moving around Harper's Ferry,
   through the gaps of the South Mountain, he found his path
   unobstructed till he reached the Monocacy, where Ricketts's
   division of the Sixth Corps, and some raw troops that had been
   collected by General Lew Wallace, met and held the
   Confederates till the other reinforcements that had been
   ordered to the capital from Petersburg could be brought up.
   Wallace contested the line of the Monocacy with obstinacy, but
   had to retire finally toward Baltimore. The road was then open
   to Washington, and Early marched to the outskirts and began
   against the capital the demonstrations [July 11-12] which were
   designed to divert the Army of the Potomac from its main
   purpose in front of Petersburg. Early's audacity in thus
   threatening Washington had caused some concern to the
   officials in the city, but as the movement was looked upon by
   General Grant as a mere foray which could have no decisive
   issue, the Administration was not much disturbed till the
   Confederates came in close proximity. Then was repeated the
   alarm and consternation of two years before, fears for the
   safety of the capital being magnified by the confusion and
   discord existing among the different generals in Washington
   and Baltimore; and the imaginary dangers vanished only with
   the appearance of General Wright, who with the Sixth Corps and
   one division of the Nineteenth Corps, pushed out to attack
   Early as soon as he could get his arriving troops in hand, but
   under circumstances that precluded celerity of movement; and
   as a consequence the Confederates escaped with little injury,
   retiring across the Potomac to Leesburg, unharassed save by
   some Union cavalry that had been sent out into Loudoun County
   by Hunter, who in the meantime had arrived at Harper's Ferry
   by the Baltimore and Ohio railroad. From Leesburg Early
   retired through Winchester toward Strasburg, but when the head
   of his column reached this place he found that he was being
   followed by General Crook with the combined troops of Hunter
   and Sigel only, Wright having returned to Washington under
   orders to rejoin Meade at Petersburg. This reduction of the
   pursuing force tempting Early to resume the offensive, he
   attacked Crook at Kernstown, and succeeded in administering
   such a check as to necessitate this general's retreat to
   Martinsburg, and finally to Harper's Ferry. Crook's withdrawal
   restored to Early the line of the upper Potomac, so,
   recrossing this stream, he advanced again into Maryland, and
   sending McCausland on to Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, laid that
   town in ashes [July 30] leaving 3,000 non-combatants without
   shelter or food. … This second irruption of Early and his
   ruthless destruction of Chambersburg led to many
   recommendations on the part of General Grant looking to a
   speedy elimination of the confusion then existing among the
   Union forces along the upper Potomac, but for a time the
   authorities at Washington would approve none of his
   propositions. … Finally the manœuvres of Early and the raid to
   Chambersburg compelled a partial compliance, though Grant had
   somewhat circumvented the difficulty already by deciding to
   appoint a commander for the forces in the field that were to
   operate against Early. On the 31st of July General Grant
   selected me as this commander. … On the evening of August 1, I
   was relieved from immediate duty with the Army of the Potomac,
   but not from command of the cavalry as a corps organization. I
   arrived at Washington on the 4th of August, and the next day
   received instructions from General Halleck, to report to
   General Grant at Monocacy Junction, whither he had gone direct
   from City Point, in consequence of a characteristic despatch
   from the President indicating his disgust with the confusion,
   disorder and helplessness prevailing along the upper Potomac,
   and intimating that Grant's presence there was necessary."

      P. H. Sheridan,
      Personal Memoirs,
      volume 1, chapter 23.

      ALSO IN:
      G. E. Pond,
      The Shenandoah Valley in 1864,
      chapters 4-6.

      F. Sigel,
      Sigel in the Shenandoah Valley in 1864
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 4).

{3536}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (July: Virginia).
   The siege of Petersburg: The Mine.

   "Burnside's corps held a position directly in front of
   Petersburg, including a point where our lines, owing to the
   nature of the ground, had been pushed up to within 150 yards
   of the enemy's, where a fort projected beyond their average
   front. Under this fort a mine had been run from a convenient
   ravine or hollow within our lines, which was entirely screened
   from the enemy's observation; and this mine would seem to have
   been completed not only without countermining by the Rebels,
   but without being even suspected by them; though a report of
   its existence (probably founded on the story of some deserter
   or prisoner) was printed in one of the Richmond journals. All
   being ready, the morning of July 30th was fixed for springing
   the mine; which was to be instantly followed, of course, by
   the opening of our guns all along the front, and by an assault
   at the chasm opened in the enemy's defences by the explosion.
   … The explosion took place; hoisting the fort into the air,
   annihilating its garrison of 300 men, and leaving in its stead
   a gigantic hollow or crater of loose earth, 150 feet long by
   some 60 wide and 25 to 30 deep. Instantly, our guns opened all
   along the front; and the astounded enemy may well have
   supposed them the thunders of doom. But it was indispensable
   to success that a column of assault should rush forward
   instantly and resolutely, so as to clear the chasm and gain
   the crest before the foe should recover from his surprise;
   and, on this vital point failure had already been secured. The
   9th corps, as then constituted, was not that from which any
   commanding general would have selected a storming party; yet
   because it was Burnside's mine, his corps was, without
   discussion, allowed to furnish the column of assault. His
   inspecting officer had reported that, of its four divisions,
   that composed of Blacks was fittest for this perilous service;
   but Grant, discrediting this, had directed that one of the
   three White divisions should be chosen. Thereupon, the leaders
   of these divisions were allowed to cast lots to see which of
   them should go in—or rather which two of them should stay
   out—and the lot fell on the 1st, Brigadier-General Ledlie—and
   no man in the army believed this other than the worst choice
   of the three. … Several minutes passed—precious, fatal
   minutes!—before Ledlie's division, clearing with difficulty
   the obstacles in its path—went forward into the chasm, and
   there stopped, though the enemy at that point were still
   paralyzed and the deciding crest completely at our mercy. Then
   parts of Burnside's two remaining White divisions (Potter's
   and Wilcox's) followed; but once in the crater, Ledlie's men
   barred the way to a farther advance, and all huddled together,
   losing their formation and becoming mixed up; General Potter
   finally extricating himself, and charging toward the crest;
   but with so slender a following that he was soon obliged to
   fall back. Two hours were thus shamefully squandered, while
   the Rebels recovering their self-possession, were planting
   batteries on either side, and mustering their infantry in an
   adjacent ravine; and now—when more men in the crater could
   only render the confusion more hopeless and magnify the
   disaster—Burnside threw in his Black division; which, passing
   beyond and rather to the right of the crater, charged toward
   the crest, but were met by a fire of artillery and musketry
   which speedily hurled them back into the crater, where all
   order was lost, all idea of aught beyond personal safety
   abandoned, while the enemy's shells and balls poured into it
   like hail, rendering it an arena of unresisted slaughter. … A
   first Rebel assault on our unfortunates was repulsed in sheer
   desperation; and thousands of course took the risk of darting
   out of the death-trap and racing at top speed to our lines;
   but our loss in killed, wounded, and prisoners was 4,400;
   while that of the enemy, including 300 blown up in the fort,
   was barely 1,000."

      H. Greeley,
      The American Conflict,
      volume 2, pages 590-591.

      ALSO IN:
      W. H. Powell and others,
      The Battle of the Petersburg Crater
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 4).

      A. Woodbury,
      Burnside and the 9th Army Corps,
      part 4, chapter 5.

      A. A. Humphreys,
      The Virginia Campaign of 1864 and 1865,
      chapter 9.

      Report of Joint Commission on the Conduct of the War,
      38th Congress, 2d Session: volume 1.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (August: Virginia).
   The Siege of Petersburg: Fighting for the Weldon Road.
   Battle of Reams's Station.
   The Dutch Gap Canal.

   "Taking advantage of the absence of many of Lee's troops from
   Petersburg, Grant made a vigorous movement for securing
   possession of the Weldon road, not more than three miles from
   the left flank of his lines on the Jerusalem plank road. This
   movement was made by Warren, with the Fifth Corps, on the
   morning of the 18th of August, and at noon he reached the
   coveted railway without opposition, where he left Griffin to
   hold the point seized, while with the divisions of Ayres and
   Crawford he moved toward Petersburg. He had marched but a
   short distance when a division of Confederates suddenly and
   heavily fell upon his flank. … Warren held the ground he had
   gained at a cost of 1,000 men killed, wounded and prisoners."
   The next day (August 19), Lee sent Hill with a heavy force to
   drive Warren from the road, and the attempt, desperately made,
   was nearly successful, but not quite. Two days later it was
   repeated, and the Confederates were repulsed with a loss of
   1,200 men. "In his entire movement for the possession of the
   road Warren lost, in killed, wounded and missing, 4,450 men.
   He now rendered his position almost impregnable, and General
   Lee was compelled to see one of his most important lines of
   communication wrested from him. On the day of Warren's Victory
   [August 21], Hancock, who … had been called from the north
   bank of the James [where an unsuccessful demonstration towards
   Richmond had been made from Deep Bottom], and who had moved
   with part of his corps rapidly toward the Weldon road, in the
   rear of Warren, struck that highway north of Reams's Station,
   and destroyed the track to that point and some miles south of
   it. He formed an intrenched camp at Reams's," and was attacked
   there on the 25th by Hill with such determination that he was
   forced back to a rear line, "where the troops had been
   rallied, and when night fell Hancock withdrew from Reams's
   Station. He had lost in the fight 2,400 of his 8,000 men, and
   five guns; 1,700 of the men were made prisoners. Hill's loss
   was but little less, and he, too, withdrew from Reams's. But
   this disaster did not loosen Warren's hold upon the Weldon
   road. … For about a month after the battle of Reams's Station
   there was comparative quiet along the lines of the opposing
   armies. … A strong party of colored soldiers had been set to
   work by General Butler on the north side of the James, under
   cover of a battery on that side mounting 100-pounder Parrott
   guns, in digging a canal across the narrow isthmus of a
   peninsula formed by a sharp bend in the river, called Farrar's
   Island.
{3537}
   By this canal it was intended to secure a nearer base of
   operations against Richmond, and afford a passage for the
   National war vessels, by which they might flank several
   important works of the Confederates." The Dutch Gap Canal, as
   it was called, did not prove successful, the necessary depth
   of water never being secured during the war, though the canal
   has been brought into use since.

      B. J. Lossing,
      Field Book of the Civil War,
      volume 3, chapter 13.

      ALSO IN:
      P. S. Michie,
      Dutch Gap Canal
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 4, page 575).

      O. B. Willcox,
      Actions on the Weldon Railroad
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 4, page 568).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (August: Alabama).
   The Battle of Mobile Bay.
   Capture of Confederate forts and fleet.

   "After the capitulation of Vicksburg the vessels of the
   so-called Gulf Squadron which had been cruising on the lower
   Mississippi and its tributaries were in part joined to the
   Upper Squadron, under the command of Admiral Porter. The
   remainder were recalled to their duties on the outside
   blockade. Admiral Farragut was now free to turn his whole
   attention to the coast of the Gulf, whither he returned in
   January, 1864, after a well-earned rest at the North. Mobile
   was now the principal port in the possession of the
   Confederates in this quarter, and earnestly did the Admiral
   desire to attack and reduce the forts at the entrance of the
   bay. But troops were required to invest the forts after the
   fleet had passed them, and at this moment it seemed that there
   were no troops to be spared. It was also much to be desired
   that at least a few monitors should be added to the fleet, but
   neither were these as yet available. So the time wore on;
   winter passed into spring and spring into summer, but still
   the attack was not made. This delay was of incalculable
   advantage to the enemy, enabling him to complete his
   preparations. The Confederate force afloat in Mobile Bay was
   commanded by Admiral Franklin Buchanan. … This force consisted
   of only four vessels, but they nevertheless made an important
   addition to the defences of the place. Three of them were only
   paddle-wheel gun-boats … while the fourth was the iron-clad
   ram Tennessee … the most formidable vessel that the
   Confederates had ever built. … The City of Mobile lies at the
   head of a long bay, which is about 20 miles wide at its lower
   end. The greater portion of the bay is very shallow, too
   shallow even for vessels of moderate draft. The entrance lies
   between a long sandspit … and a shoal. … The ship-channel
   between the shoals, five miles in length, is perhaps half a
   mile wide at its narrowest point. Two forts guarded the
   passage,—on the right hand Fort Morgan, on Mobile Point, and
   on the left Fort Gaines, on Dauphin Island. … In addition to
   the land and naval defences, additional protection had been
   given by obstructions in the water. A line of piles ran out
   from Fort Gaines, which was continued nearly across the main
   ship-channel by a triple line of torpedoes. The eastern end of
   the row of torpedoes was marked by a red buoy, and between the
   buoy and Fort Morgan the channel had been left open for
   blockade runners. The open space, only 100 yards wide, lay
   directly under the guns of the fort, and it was through this
   narrow passage that Admiral Farragut intended to carry his
   fleet. The ships were gradually assembled toward the latter
   part of July. The Admiral's plan of action was simple, but in
   the highest degree effective. His fleet consisted of four
   monitors and fourteen wooden vessels, seven of the latter
   large and seven small. The wooden vessels were arranged in
   pairs, as at Port Hudson, each of the larger vessels having a
   smaller one lashed to her port side, so that if one was
   disabled the engines of the other would carry both past the
   forts. The four monitors were placed in a flanking column
   inshore, between the fleet and Fort Morgan. … At six o'clock
   on the morning of the 5th of August the fleet started with the
   flood tide. The Admiral took up his position in the port main
   rigging of the Hartford, so that he might have a good post of
   observation. [According to accounts given by officers who were
   on board the Hartford, Admiral Farragut climbed the rigging,
   after the battle began, in order to get above the thickest of
   the smoke, and Captain Drayton sent a man to lash him where he
   stood, so that, if wounded, he might not fall to the deck]. …
   Above the fort, and just beyond the obstructions, lay the
   Confederate ram Tennessee and her three attendant gunboats. …
   Soon after half-past six the Tecumseh [the leading monitor]
   fired the first two shots at Fort Morgan. For half an hour
   after this, the ships advanced in silence. Then the fort
   opened on the Brooklyn, and presently the whole line of
   vessels was hotly engaged. Their concentrated fire kept down
   that of the enemy, and all seemed at this time to be going
   well with the fleet. The Tecumseh, though all the while
   advancing, was now silent, reserving her fire for the
   Tennessee, which lay beyond the obstructions. Captain Craven
   saw the red buoy, but it seemed so close to the beach that he
   thought there must have been a mistake in his orders; and
   altering his course, he headed straight for the Tennessee,
   passing to the westward of the buoy right over the line of
   torpedoes. Suddenly there came a frightful explosion; the huge
   mass of iron gave a lurch first to one side, then to the
   other; her bow made one downward plunge, her screw was seen
   for a moment revolving high in air, and she sank to the bottom
   of the channel. Of 120 men on board only 21 were saved. … From
   the Brooklyn, leading the main column, something was now
   descried in the water ahead which resembled torpedo-buoys, and
   the sloop, with the Octorara lashed to her side, suddenly
   stopped, and in a moment they were backing down on the vessels
   astern of them. The bows of the two ships turned, falling off
   towards the fort, so that they blocked up the channel. The
   Hartford, the Admiral's flag-ship, which was next astern, also
   stopped to prevent a collision, but she was drifting fast with
   the Metacomet toward the two vessels ahead, and the Richmond
   and Port Royal were close upon them, followed by the others.
   At that moment it seemed as if nothing could save the vessels
   of the fleet from being thrown into hopeless confusion, massed
   together as they were directly under the guns of the fort. It
   was in that moment, at the crisis of the battle, that the calm
   and dauntless spirit of the Admiral rose to its greatest
   height. … 'Captain Drayton, go ahead! Jouett, full speed!'
   came the command, in clear, ringing tones from the Admiral's
   place in the rigging.
{3538}
   In a moment the Hartford had turned, and dashing with the
   Metacomet past the Brooklyn, rushed straight over the barrier.
   Snap, snap, went the primers of the torpedoes under the bottom
   of the ship,—the officers and men could hear them,—but no
   explosion followed, and the Hartford passed safely into the
   waters above. Meanwhile the four ships lay entangled under
   Fort Morgan. A collision seemed inevitable, but Captain
   Jenkins of the Richmond, an officer of cool head and splendid
   courage, backed away from the others, and began a furious
   cannonade on the fort with his whole broadside, driving the
   enemy out of the water-batteries. The Brooklyn was by this
   means able to recover, and presently she steamed ahead,
   followed by the Richmond and the rest of the fleet. … No
   sooner was the battle with the fort over than a new battle
   began with the Tennessee. The moment that the ships had fairly
   entered the bay, the Confederate ram … came charging down the
   whole line, taking each vessel in turn," but doing no serious
   injury to any. On the arrival of the monitors, which had
   lagged behind, "the Tennessee took refuge under the guns of
   the fort, and the fleet rejoined the Hartford, now four miles
   up the bay." Meantime the Hartford and the Metacomet had
   disposed of two of the Confederate gunboats: the Selma, which
   surrendered, and the Gaines, which had been run ashore and set
   on fire. The third, the Morgan, took shelter, with the
   Tennessee, near the fort. "The Hartford had by this time come
   to anchor, and her crew went to breakfast. The other ships
   gradually joined her. But the battle was not yet over. It was
   now a little before nine o'clock, and suddenly the Tennessee
   was reported approaching." In the battle which ensued, the
   stout iron-clad was rammed repeatedly by the Monongahela, the
   Lackawanna, the Hartford and the Ossipee, and pounded by the
   terrible guns of the monitor Chickasaw, until, with her
   commander wounded, her tiller-chains and smoke stack gone, her
   port shutters jammed, and her armor starting from the frame,
   she raised the white flag. "A few days later the forts
   surrendered, and Mobile, as a Confederate port, ceased to
   exist. The fall of the city did not come about until some time
   afterward; indeed no immediate attempt was made upon it, for
   the capture of the forts and the occupation of Mobile Bay
   served every purpose of the Federal Government."

      J. R. Soley,
      The Sailor Boys of '61,
      chapter 13.

   "This great victory cost the Union fleet 335 men. … The losses
   in the rebel fleet were 10 killed and 16 wounded—confined to
   the Tennessee and Selma—and 280 prisoners taken. The loss in
   the forts is unknown."

      Loyal Farragut,
      Life of David Glasgow Farragut,
      chapter 27.

      ALSO IN:
      J. O. Kinney and J. D. Johnston;
      Farragut at Mobile Bay,
      and
      The Ram Tennessee at Mobile Bay,
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 3).

      A. T. Mahan,
      The Gulf and Inland Waters
      (The Navy in the Civil War, volume 3),
      chapter 8.

      A. T. Mahan,
      Admiral Farragut,
      chapter 10.

      Official Records,
      Series 1, volume 39.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (August-October: Virginia).
   Sheridan's Victories in the Shenandoah Valley.
   Winchester.
   Fisher's Hill.
   Cedar Creek.
   The famous Ride.

   "The events of July showed the urgent need of unity of command
   in Northern Virginia, and the lieutenant-general, in August,
   consolidated these four departments [of Washington, the
   Susquehanna, West Virginia and the Middle Department] into
   one, named the Middle Military Division, under General Hunter.
   That officer, however, before entering on the proposed
   campaign, expressed a willingness to be relieved, and General
   P. H. Sheridan, who had been transferred from the Army of the
   Potomac to the command of the forces in the field under
   Hunter, was appointed in his stead." General Sheridan was
   appointed to the command on the 7th of August, and took the
   field with an effective force (which included the Sixth and
   Nineteenth Corps) of 40,000 men, 10,000 being cavalry. "His
   operations during that month and the fore part of September
   were mainly confined to manœuvres having for their object to
   prevent the Confederates from gaining the rich harvests of the
   Shenandoah Valley. But after once or twice driving Early
   southward to Strasburg, he each time returned on his path
   towards Harper's Ferry. General Grant had hesitated in
   allowing Sheridan to take a real initiative, as defeat would
   lay open to the enemy the States of Maryland and Pennsylvania
   before another army could be interposed to check him. Finding,
   however, while on a personal visit to General Sheridan, in the
   month of September, that that officer expressed great
   confidence of success, he authorized him to attack. At this
   time the Confederate force held the west bank of Opequan
   Creek, covering Winchester; and the Union force lay in front
   of Berryville, twenty miles south of Harper's Ferry. The
   situation of the opposing armies was peculiar: each threatened
   the communications of the other, and either could bring on a
   battle at any time. It would appear that General Early had
   designed assuming the offensive." He made a movement which
   General Sheridan was prompt to take advantage of, on the
   morning of September 19th, and a battle ensued—known as the
   battle of Winchester, but some times called the battle of
   Opequan Creek—which resulted in a victory for the latter. "It
   is due to state that there was a great disparity in the
   numbers engaged—Early's force consisting of 8,500 muskets and
   3,000 sabres, while Sheridan's strength was thrice that of the
   aggregate Confederate force. Sheridan's preponderance in horse
   enabled him to extend far beyond and overlap the Confederate
   left, and when, after several hours of indecisive fighting
   between the infantry, a general advance was, at four P. M.,
   made by the whole line, the cavalry, by an impetuous charge,
   carried the fortified heights: the Confederates … broke in
   confusion, retiring from the field and through Winchester,
   with the Union forces in pursuit. Night, however, prevented
   Sheridan from following up the victory, among the trophies of
   which were 2,500 prisoners, five pieces of artillery, and nine
   battle-flags. … After his defeat at Winchester, Early did not
   pause in his southward retreat till he reached Fisher's Hill,
   near Strasburg, 30 miles south of Winchester. This is a very
   defensible position, commanding the débouché of the narrow
   Strasburg valley between the north fork of the Shenandoah
   River and the North Mountain. On these obstacles Early rested
   his flank. In front of this position Sheridan arrived on the
   morning of the 22d and formed his force for a direct attack,
   while he sent Torbert with two divisions of cavalry by the
   parallel Luray Valley, to gain New Market, 20 miles in Early's
   rear. After much manœuvring, and several ineffectual efforts
   to force the position, an attack of cavalry was made from the
   right.
{3539}
   Under cover of this mask a corps of infantry was moved to that
   flank, and by an impetuous assault carried the Confederate
   left resting on the North Mountain. A general attack in front
   then disrupted Early's whole line, and the Confederates
   retired in great disorder, leaving behind 16 pieces of
   artillery and several hundred prisoners. … Early's retreat was
   not stayed until he reached the lower passes of the Blue
   Ridge, whither he retired with a loss of half his army.
   Sheridan, after pushing the pursuit as far as Staunton, and
   operating destructively against the Virginia Central Railroad,
   returned and took position behind Cedar Creek near Strasburg.
   Previously to abandoning the country south of Strasburg, it
   was laid waste by the destruction of all barns, grain, forage,
   farming implements, and mills. The desolution of the
   Palatinate by Turenne was not more complete. On the withdrawal
   of Sheridan, Early, after a brief respite, and being
   re-enforced by Kershaw's division of infantry and 600 cavalry
   from Lee's army, again marched northward down the Valley, and
   once more ensconced himself at Fisher's Hill. Sheridan
   continued to hold position on the north bank of Cedar Creek.
   Nothing more important than cavalry combats, mostly favorable
   to the Federal arms, took place, until the 19th of October,
   when Early assumed a bold offensive that was near giving him a
   victory as complete as the defeat he had suffered. … The army
   was, at this time, temporarily under the command of General
   Wright—Sheridan being absent at Washington. The position held
   by the Union force was too formidable to invite open attack,
   and Early's only opportunity was to make a surprise. This that
   officer now determined on, and its execution was begun during
   the night of the 18-19th of October." A flanking column,
   "favored by a heavy fog … attained, unperceived, the rear of
   the left flank of the Union force, formed by Crook's Corps …
   and rushed into the camp—the troops awaking only to find
   themselves prisoners. To rally the men in their bewilderment
   was impossible, and Crook's Corps, being thoroughly broken up,
   fled in disorder, leaving many guns in the hands of the enemy.
   As soon as this flank attack was developed, Early, with his
   other column, emerged from behind the hills west of Cedar
   Creek, and crossing that stream, struck directly the troops on
   the right of Crook. This served to complete the disaster, and
   the whole Union left and centre became a confused mass,
   against which the Confederates directed the captured artillery
   (18 guns), while the flanking force swept forward to the main
   turnpike. Such was the scene on which the light of day dawned.
   The only force not yet involved in the enemy's onset was the
   Sixth Corps, which by its position was somewhat in rear. With
   this General Ricketts quickly executed a change of front,
   throwing it forward at right angles to its former position,
   and firmly withstood the enemy's shock. Its chief service was,
   however, to cover the general retreat which Wright now
   ordered, as the only practicable means of reuniting his force.
   … At the first good position between Middletown and Newtown,
   Wright was able to rally and reform the troops, form a compact
   line, and prepare either to resist further attack, or himself
   resume the offensive. It was at this time, about half-past ten
   A. M., that General Sheridan arrived upon the field from
   Winchester, where he had slept the previous night. Hearing the
   distant sounds of battle rolling up from the south, Sheridan
   rode post to the front, where arriving, his electric manner
   had on the troops a very inspiriting effect. General Wright
   had already brought order out of confusion and made
   dispositions for attack. … A counter-charge was begun at three
   o'clock in the afternoon. … A large part of Early's force, in
   the intoxication of success, had abandoned their colors and
   taken to plundering the abandoned Federal camps. The refluent
   wave was as resistless as the Confederate surge had been. …
   The retreat soon became a rout. … In the pursuit all the
   captured guns were retaken and 23 in addition, The captures
   included, besides, near 1,500 prisoners. … With this defeat of
   Early all operations of moment in the Shenandoah forever
   ended," and most of the troops on both sides were recalled to
   the main field of operations, at Petersburg.

      W. Swinton,
      Campaigns of the Army of the Potomac,
      chapter 12, part 8.

      ALSO IN:
      P. H. Sheridan,
      Personal Memoirs,
      volume 2, chapters 1-4.

      G. E. Pond,
      The Shenandoah Valley in 1864,
      chapters 7-13.

      M. M. Granger,
      The Battle of Cedar Creek
      (Sketches of War History, Ohio Commandery,
      L. L. of the United States, volume 3).

      W. Merritt,
      Sheridan in the Shenandoah Valley.

      J. A. Early,
      Winchester, Fisher's Hill, and Cedar Creek
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 4).

      R. B. Irwin,
      History of the 19th Army Corps,
      chapters 33-34.

      H. C. King,
      The Battle of Cedar Creek
      (Personal Recollections of the War:
      New York Com. L. L. of the United States).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (September-October: Georgia)
   Atlanta cleared of its former inhabitants.
   Sherman's Preparations for the March to the Sea.
   Hood's Raid to the rear.

   "During the month of September, Sherman's army remained
   grouped about Atlanta. … The Army of the Cumberland, under
   Major-General Thomas, held Atlanta; the Army of the Tennessee,
   commanded by Major-General Howard, was at East Point; and the
   Army of the Ohio occupied Decatur. … Sherman now determined to
   make Atlanta exclusively a military post. On the 4th of
   September he issued the following orders: 'The city of Atlanta
   belonging exclusively for warlike purposes, it will at once be
   vacated by all except the armies of the United States and such
   civilian employes as may be retained by the proper departments
   of the Government.' … This order fell upon the ears of the
   inhabitants of Atlanta like a thunderbolt." To a remonstrance
   addressed to him by the mayor and two councilmen of the city,
   he replied: "We must have peace, not only at Atlanta, but in
   all America. To secure this we must stop the war that now
   desolates our once happy and favored country. To stop the war,
   we must defeat the rebel armies that are arrayed against the
   laws and Constitution, which all must respect and obey. To
   defeat these armies, we must prepare the way to reach them in
   their recesses. … My military plans make it necessary for the
   inhabitants to go away, and I can only renew my offer of
   services to make their exodus in any direction as easy and
   comfortable as possible. … War is cruelty and you cannot
   refine it; and those who brought war on our country deserve
   all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out. … You
   might as well appeal against the thunder-storm as against
   these terrible hardships of war." A truce of ten days was
   arranged, during which "446 families were moved south,
   comprising 705 adults, 860 children and 79 servants, with an
   average of 1,651 pounds of furniture and household goods of
   all kinds to each family."

      S. M. Bowman and R. B. Irwin,
      Sherman and his Campaigns,
      chapter 18.

{3540}

   "Gen. Hood, meanwhile, kept his forces in the neighborhood of
   Jonesboro, receiving his supplies by the Macon road. His army
   numbered about 40,000 men, exclusive of the Georgia militia;
   and, as if to show that no immediate offensive movement was
   contemplated, the latter were withdrawn from him by Governor
   Brown soon after the evacuation of Atlanta. … To allow their
   principal Southern army to rust in inactivity, was not however
   the intention of the rebel authorities. … Something must be
   done, and that speedily, to arrest the progress of the Federal
   army, or Georgia and perhaps the Gulf States, would be
   irretrievably lost. … The whole army of General Hood, it was
   decided, should rapidly move in a compact body to the rear of
   Atlanta, and, after breaking up the railroad between the
   Chattahoochee and Chattanooga, push on to Bridgeport and
   destroy the great railroad bridge spanning the Tennessee river
   at that place. Should this be accomplished, Atlanta would be
   isolated from Chattanooga, and the latter in turn isolated
   from Nashville, and General Sherman, cut off from his primary
   and secondary bases, would find Atlanta but a barren conquest
   to be relinquished almost as soon as gained, and would be
   obliged to return to Tennessee. Atlanta would then fall from
   lack of provisions, or in consequence of the successful
   attacks of the Georgia militia. In connection with this
   movement, General Forrest, confessedly their ablest cavalry
   officer, was already operating in Southern Tennessee. … A week
   sufficed to complete General Hood's arrangements, and by the
   2d of October his army was across the Chattahoochee and on the
   march to Dallas, where the different corps were directed to
   concentrate. At this point he was enabled to threaten Rome and
   Kingston, as well as the fortified places on the railroad to
   Chattanooga; and there remained open, in case of defeat, a
   line of retreat southwest into Alabama. From Dallas he
   advanced east toward the railroad, and, on the 4th, captured
   the insignificant stations of Big Shanty and Ackworth,
   effecting a thorough destruction of the road between the two
   places. He also sent a division under General French to
   capture the Federal post at Allatoona Pass, where he had
   ascertained that a million and a half of rations for the
   Federal army were stored, on which he probably depended to
   replenish his commissariat. … General Sherman, … immediately
   upon hearing that General Hood had crossed the Chattahoochee,
   … despatched General Corse with reënforcements to Rome, which
   he supposed the enemy were aiming at. During the previous week
   he had sent General Thomas with troops to Nashville to look
   after Forrest. His bridges having meanwhile been carried away
   by a freshet which filled the Chattahoochee, he was unable to
   move his main body until the 4th, when three pontoons were
   laid down, over which the armies of the Cumberland, the
   Tennessee, and the Ohio crossed, and took up their march in
   the direction of Marietta, with 15 days' rations. The 20th
   corps, General Slocum, was left to garrison Atlanta. Learning
   that the enemy had captured Big Shanty and Ackworth, and were
   threatening Allatoona, and alive to the imperative necessity
   of holding the latter place, General Sherman at once
   communicated by signals instruction to General Corse at Rome
   to reënforce the small garrison and hold the defences until
   the main body of the Federal army could come to his
   assistance. Upon receiving the message General Corse placed
   900 men on the cars, and reached Allatoona before the attack
   of French. With this addition the garrison numbered 1,700 men,
   with six guns. Early on the morning of the 5th, General
   French, with 7,000 troops, approached Allatoona, and summoned
   the Federal commander, 'in order to save the unnecessary
   effusion of blood,' to make an immediate surrender; to which
   the latter replied: 'I shall not surrender, and you can
   commence the unnecessary effusion of blood whenever you
   please.' The battle opened at 8 A. M., and was waged hotly
   until 2 o'clock in the afternoon. Driven from fort to fort,
   until they reached their last defence, the garrison fought
   with an obstinacy and desperation worthy of the great stake
   for which they contended. Their general was wounded early in
   the action, but relaxed in no degree his efforts to repel the
   enemy. … During the heat of the contest General Sherman
   reached the summit of Kenesaw Mountain, whence he repeatedly
   signalled to General Corse to hold out to the last. The
   announcement of approaching succor animated the garrison to
   renewed exertions, and they threw back the assaulting columns
   of the enemy again and again, finally compelling them to
   retire, beaten and disheartened, in the direction of Dallas.
   Their retreat was hastened by the rapid approach of Stanley's
   (4th) corps from the direction of Pine Mountain. The enemy
   left 700 to 800 killed, wounded and prisoners in the hands of
   the Federals, and their total loss must have exceeded 1,000.
   The garrison lost 600 men. The town of Allatoona was reduced
   to a mere wreck by the [severe fire of the enemy, and all the
   Federal artillery and cavalry horses were killed; but the
   valuable stores were saved, and the fort and pass held. The
   only important injury done by the rebels, was the destruction
   of six or seven miles of railroad between Big Shanty and
   Allatoona, which General Sherman immediately commenced to
   repair. For several days subsequent to the fight at Allatoona,
   General Sherman remained in the latter place, watching the
   movements of Hood, who, he suspected, would march for Rome,
   and thence toward Bridgeport, or else to Kingston. … General
   Hood, however, crossing the Etowah and avoiding Rome, moved
   directly north, and on the 12th Stuart's corps of his army
   appeared in front of Resaca, the defences of which were held
   by Colonel Weaver with 600 men and three pieces of artillery.
   … No serious attack was made upon the garrison, the enemy
   being more intent upon destroying the railroad toward Dalton
   than wasting their time or strength upon the reduction of a
   post, the possession of which they wisely considered would be
   of no particular advantage to them. … Meanwhile the rebel
   army, pursuing its devastating march north, reached Dalton on
   the 14th. … The 14th and 15th were employed by the enemy in
   continuing the destruction of the railroad as far as Tunnel
   Hill. …
{3541}
   The approach of the Federal columns now warned General Hood to
   move off to the west, and the 16th found him in full retreat
   for Lafayette, followed by General Sherman. … From Lafayette
   the enemy retreated in a southwesterly direction into Alabama
   through a broken and mountainous country, but scantily
   supplied with food for man or beast; and passing through
   Summerville, Gaylesville, and Blue Pond, halted at Gadsdens,
   on the Coosa River, 75 miles from Lafayette. Here he paused
   for several days, receiving a few reënforcements brought up by
   General Beauregard, who had on the 17th assumed command of the
   Confederate military division of the West. … General Hood
   still retained his special command, subject to the supervision
   or direction of General Beauregard, and his army, after
   remaining a few days in Gadsden, moved, about the 1st of
   November, for Warrington, on the Tennessee River, 30 miles
   distant. General Sherman meanwhile remained at Gaylesville,
   which place his main body reached about the 21st, watching the
   enemy's movements. … Whatever … might be the final result of
   Hood's flanking movement, it had entirely failed to interrupt
   the Federal communications to a degree that would compel the
   evacuation of Atlanta. … In the light of subsequent events it
   would now appear that General Sherman, making only a show of
   following his adversary, deliberately lured him into Northern
   Alabama, for the purpose of pursuing an uninterrupted march
   with his own army through the heart of Georgia. The
   ill-advised plan of General Hood had given him the very
   opportunity which he desired, and he prepared at once to avail
   himself of it."

      W. J. Tenney,
      Military and Naval History in the United States,
      chapter 45. 

      ALSO IN:
      J. D. Cox,
      Atlanta
      (Campaigns of the Civil war, volume 9),
      chapter 17.

      W. T. Sherman,
      Memoirs,
      chapter 19 (volume 2).

      T. B. Van Horne,
      Life of Major-General George H. Thomas,
      volume 2, chapter 12.

      J. B. Hood,
      Advance and Retreat,
      chapter 15.

      Official Records,
      1st Series, volume 39.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (October).
   Admission of Nevada into the Union.

      See NEVADA: A. D. 1848-1864.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (October).
   Report on secret disloyal associations in the North.
   Knights of the Golden Circle, etc.

   "During more than a year past [this report bears date October
   8, 1864], it has been generally known to our military
   authorities that a secret and treasonable organization,
   affiliated with the Southern Rebellion, and chiefly military
   in its character, has been rapidly extending itself throughout
   the West. A variety of agencies … have been employed, and
   successfully, to ascertain its nature and extent, as well as
   its aims and its results; and, as this investigation has led
   to the arrest, in several States, of a number of its prominent
   members, as dangerous public enemies, it has been deemed
   proper to set forth in full the acts and purposes of this
   organization. … This secret association first developed itself
   in the West in the year 1862, about the period [August] of the
   first conscription of troops, which it aimed to obstruct and
   resist. Originally known in certain localities as the 'Mutual
   Protection Society,' the 'Circle of Honor,' or the 'Circle' or
   'Knights of the Mighty Host,' but more widely as the 'Knights
   of the Golden Circle,' it was simply an inspiration of the
   Rebellion, being little other than an extension, among the
   disloyal and disaffected at the North, of the association of
   the latter name, which had existed for some years at the South
   [see GOLDEN CIRCLE, KNIGHTS OF], and from which it derived all
   the chief features of its organization. During the Summer and
   Fall of 1863, the Order, both at the North and South,
   underwent some modifications as well as a change of name. In
   consequence of a partial exposure which had been made of the
   signs and ritual of the Knights of the Golden Circle, Sterling
   Price had instituted, as its successor in Missouri, a secret
   political association, which he called the Corps de Belgique,
   or Southern League, his principal coadjutor being Charles L.
   Hunt, of St. Louis, then Belgian Consul at that city. …
   Meanwhile, also, there had been instituted at the North, in
   the autumn of 1863, by sundry disloyal persons, prominent
   among whom were Vallandigham and P. C. Wright, of New York, a
   secret, Order intended to be general throughout the country …
   and which was termed, and has since been widely known as the
   O. A. K., or 'Order of American Knights.' … The secret signs
   and character of the Order having become known to our military
   authorities, further modifications in the ritual and forms
   were introduced, and its name was finally changed to that of
   the O. S. L., or 'Order of the Sons of Liberty,' or the
   'Knights of the Order of the Sons of Liberty.' These later
   changes are represented to have been first instituted … in May
   last [1864], but the new name was at once generally adopted
   throughout the West, though in some localities the association
   is still better known as the 'Order of American Knights.'
   Meanwhile, also, the Order has received certain local
   designations. In parts of Illinois it has been called at times
   the 'Peace Organization,' in Kentucky the 'Star Organization,'
   and in Missouri the 'American Organization;' these, however,
   being apparently names used outside of the lodges of the
   Order. Its members have also been familiarly designated as
   'Butternuts' by the country people of Illinois, Indiana, and
   Ohio. … The 'Temples' or 'Lodges' of the Order are numerously
   scattered through the States of Indiana, Illinois, Ohio,
   Missouri, and Kentucky. They are also officially reported as
   established, to a less extent, in Michigan and the other
   Western States, as well as in New York, Pennsylvania, New
   Hampshire, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, Maryland,
   Delaware, and Tennessee. … It has been asserted by delegates
   to the Supreme Council of February last, that the number was
   there represented to be from 800,000 to 1,000,000; but
   Vallandigham, in his speech last summer at Dayton, Ohio,
   placed it at 500,000, which is probably much nearer the true
   total. … Although the Order has, from the outset, partaken of
   the military character, it was not till the summer or fall of
   1863 that it began to be generally organized as an armed
   body.' … In March last the entire armed force of the Order
   capable of being mobilized for effective service was
   represented to be 340,000 men."

      J. Holt,
      Judge Advocate General's Report on Secret Associations
      and Conspiracies against the Government.

      ALSO IN:
      E. McPherson,
      Political History of the United States
      during the Great Rebellion,
      appendix, pages 445-454.

      J. A. Logan,
      The Great Conspiracy,
      page 499, and appendix chapter B.

      J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 8, chapter 1.

      See, also, COPPERHEADS.

{3542}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (October).
   The St. Albans Raid.

   "Along the Northern border … the rebel agents, sent thither on
   'detached service' by the Rebel Government, were active in
   movements intended to terrify and harass the people. On the
   19th of October, a party of them made a raid into St. Albans,
   Vermont, robbing the banks there, and making their escape
   across the lines into Canada with their plunder, having killed
   one of the citizens in their attack. Pursuit was made, and
   several of the marauders were arrested in Canada. Proceedings
   were commenced to procure their extradition [which were
   protracted until after the close of the war]. … The Government
   received information that this affair was but one of a
   projected series, and that similar attempts would be made all
   along the frontier. More than this, there were threats,
   followed by actual attempts, to set fire to the principal
   Northern cities."

      H. J. Raymond,
      Life and Public Services of Abraham Lincoln,
      page 611.

      ALSO IN:
      J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 8, chapter 1.

      Correspondence relating to the Fenian Invasion
      and the Rebellion of the Southern States
      (Ottawa, 1869), pages 117-138.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (October: North Carolina).
   The destruction of the ram Albemarle.

   The ram Albemarle, which had proved in the spring so dangerous
   an antagonist to the blockading vessels in the North Carolina
   Sounds, was still lying at Plymouth, in the Roanoke River, and
   another attack from her was feared by the fleet.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864
      (APRIL-MAY: NORTH CAROLINA).

   "She was finally destroyed by a brave young lieutenant,
   William B. Cushing, who blew her up with a torpedo. Though
   only twenty years old, he was one of the most daring officers
   in the navy, and he had become noted for his fearlessness in
   the expeditions in the sounds and rivers of North Carolina.
   One dark night (October 27) he set out from the fleet in a
   steam launch—a long open boat used by naval vessels—with a
   crew of thirteen officers and men. The launch was fitted with
   a torpedo which could be run out forward on the end of a long
   boom so as to be thrust under the vessel to be attacked.
   Cushing got within sixty feet of the Albemarle before his boat
   was seen. The guards then shouted the alarm, rang the boat's
   bell, and began firing their muskets at the launch. There was
   a raft of logs thirty feet wide around the Albemarle to
   protect her from just such attacks, but Cushing ran the bow of
   the launch upon the logs, lowered the boom so that the torpedo
   came right under the side of the vessel, and fired it. At the
   same moment a shot from one of the great guns of the ram
   crashed through the launch, and it was overwhelmed by a flood
   of water thrown up by the explosion of the torpedo. The
   Confederates called out to Cushing to surrender, but he
   refused, and ordering his men to save themselves as they best
   could, he sprang into the water amid a shower of musket balls
   and swam down the river. He succeeded in reaching the shore,
   almost exhausted, and hid himself during the next day in a
   swamp, where he was cared for by some negroes. From them he
   heard that the Albemarle had been sunk by his torpedo. The
   next night he found a small boat in a creek, paddled in it
   down the river, and before midnight was safe on board one of
   the vessels of the fleet. Only one other man of the party
   escaped, all the rest being either drowned or captured. The
   Albemarle being thus put out of the way, Plymouth was
   recaptured a few days afterward."

      J. D. Champlin, Jr.
      Young Folks' History of the War for the Union,
      chapter 33.

      ALSO IN:
      W. B. Cushing, E. Holden, and others,
      The Confederate Ram Albemarle
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 4).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (November: Tennessee).
   Hood's advance Northward.
   The Battle of Franklin.

   When General Sherman started on his march to the sea General
   Thomas was left to oppose Hood. "The force Thomas had for this
   purpose was curiously small, considering how formidable Hood's
   army had been in the Atlanta Campaign, and still was. All
   Thomas had for immediate field service were the Fourth and
   Twenty-Third Corps, numbering together about 22,000 infantry,
   and also about 3,000 cavalry. These troops were sent to
   Pulaski, Tennessee, in command of General Schofield, Thomas,
   himself remaining at Nashville. A little after the middle of
   November, 1864, Hood crossed the Tennessee River and
   inaugurated his campaign by a flank movement. He made a rapid
   march upon Columbia, with the view of getting in behind
   Schofield, who was at Pulaski. But Schofield retired to
   Columbia in time to frustrate Hood's plans. The two armies
   remained in close proximity to each other at Columbia until
   November 28th, when Hood made another skilfully-planned flank
   movement … to Spring Hill, in rear of Schofield. Again Hood
   was foiled. … General Thomas at Nashville wanted the
   Confederates held back as long as possible, in order that he
   might have time to receive there his expected reinforcement of
   A. J. Smith's corps. It was, therefore, Schofield's duty to
   check Hood's advance as long as he could. … He started General
   Stanley, with a division of 5,000 men, and a great part of his
   artillery, to Spring Hill (12 miles north of Columbia) early
   in the morning. He put two other divisions on the road. He
   held one division in front of Columbia, and prevented the
   enemy from crossing the river during the entire day, and also
   that night. Stanley reached Spring Hill in time to prevent
   Hood from occupying that place. He skirmished and fought with
   Hood's advance troops at Spring Hill during the afternoon of
   November 29th. … Schofield … accomplished exactly what he
   believed he could accomplish. He held back his enemy at
   Columbia with one hand and fenced off the blow at Spring Hill
   with the other. … The beneficial result of all this bold
   management of Schofield, November 29th, was apparent the next
   day in the battle of Franklin. Hood fought that great battle
   practically without his artillery. He only had the two
   batteries which he took with him on his detour to Spring Hill.
   Those two he used. … But his vast supply of artillery had all
   been detained at Columbia too long to be of any service at the
   time and place it was most needed. … The Federal troops left
   Spring Hill in the night for Franklin, ten miles distant.
   Early in the morning of November 30th they began to arrive at
   Franklin, and were placed in position covering the town. Early
   the same morning the Confederates moved up from Spring Hill,
   following hard upon the rearmost of the Federals. …
{3543}
   General Stanley says, in his official report: 'From one
   o'clock until four in the evening, the enemy's entire force
   was in sight and forming for attack. Yet, in view of the
   strong position we held, and reasoning from the former course
   of the rebels during the campaign, nothing appeared so
   improbable as that they would assault.'" The assault was made,
   however, with a terrible persistency which proved the ruin of
   Hood's army, for it failed. "The Confederate loss in this
   dreadful battle can be estimated from data given. There is
   good authority for stating the killed at 1,750. The usual
   proportion of killed and wounded is four or five to one. This
   would make the killed and wounded not less than 7,000 or
   8,000. The attacking force numbered full 20,000. … Hood's loss
   was, indeed, more than one-third of the attacking force. The
   Federal loss was much smaller, being 1,222 killed and wounded.
   … One of the features of this battle was the enormous
   expenditure of ammunition [100 wagon loads] in the short time
   of its duration. … The expenditure of so much ammunition
   produced a dense smoke, which hung over the field, and brought
   on sudden darkness, like an eclipse. So noticeable was this
   phenomenon, it is mentioned in all the official reports. … In
   the darkness of the night the battle ended. The Confederates
   desisted, and the Federal line became quiet. … In their front,
   and so near that the outstretched hand could almost reach
   them, were thousands of men in the agonies of death. The wail
   that went up from that field as the thunder of the battle
   ceased can never be forgotten by those who heard it. … The
   [Federal] troops were quietly withdrawn before midnight. A
   silent rapid march brought them to Nashville the next morning,
   and weary with fighting and marching they bivouacked in the
   blue grass pastures under the guns of Fort Negley."

      T. Speed,
      The Battle of Franklin
      (Sketches of War History,
      Ohio Commandery L. L. of the United States, volume 3). 

      ALSO IN:
      T. B. Van Horne,
      Life of General George H. Thomas,
      chapter 13.

      J. B. Hood,
      Advance and Retreat,
      chapters 10-17.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (November-December: Georgia).
   Sherman's March to the Sea.

   "It was at Alatoona, probably, that Sherman first realized
   that, with the forces at his disposal, the keeping open of his
   line of communications with the North would be impossible if
   he expected to retain any force with which to operate
   offensively beyond Atlanta.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864
      (September-October: Georgia).

   He proposed, therefore, to destroy the roads back to
   Chattanooga, when all ready to move, and leave the latter
   place garrisoned. … Sherman thought Hood would follow him,
   though he proposed to prepare for the contingency of the
   latter moving the other way while he was moving south, by
   making Thomas strong enough to hold Tennessee and Kentucky. I
   myself [writes General Grant] was thoroughly satisfied that
   Hood would go north, as he did. On the 2d of November I
   telegraphed Sherman authorizing him definitely to move
   according to the plan he had proposed: that is, cutting loose
   from his base, giving up Atlanta and the railroad back to
   Chattanooga. … Atlanta was destroyed so far as to render it
   worthless for military purposes before starting, Sherman
   himself remaining over a day to superintend the work and see
   that it was well done. Sherman's orders for this campaign were
   perfect. Before starting, he had sent back all sick, disabled
   and weak men, retaining nothing but the hardy, well-inured
   soldiers to accompany him on his long march in prospect. … The
   army was expected to live on the country. … Each brigade
   furnished a company to gather supplies of forage and
   provisions for the command to which they belonged. … The skill
   of these men, called by themselves and the army 'bummers,' in
   collecting their loads and getting back to their respective
   commands, was marvellous."

      U. S. Grant,
      Personal Memoirs,
      chapter 59 (volume 2).

   All preparations being completed, General Sherman caused the
   foundries, mills and shops of every kind in Rome to be
   destroyed on the 10th of November, and "started on the 12th
   with his full staff from Kingston to Atlanta. … As Sherman
   rode towards Atlanta that night he met railroad trains going
   to the rear with furious speed. He was profoundly impressed
   with the strange aspect of affairs: two hostile armies
   marching in opposite directions, each in the full belief that
   it was achieving a final and conclusive result in the great
   war. 'I was strongly inspired,' he writes, 'with a feeling
   that the movement on our part was a direct attack upon the
   rebel army and the rebel capital at Richmond, though a full
   thousand miles of hostile country intervened; and that for
   better or worse it would end the war.' The result was a
   magnificent vindication of this soldierly intuition. His army
   consisted in round numbers of 60,000 men, the most perfect in
   strength, health, and intelligence that ever went to war. He
   had thoroughly purged it of all inefficient material, sending
   to the rear all organizations and even all individuals that he
   thought would be a drag upon his celerity or strength. His
   right wing, under Howard, consisted of the Fifteenth Corps,
   commanded by Osterhaus, in the absence of John A. Logan; and
   the Seventeenth Corps, commanded by Frank P. Blair, Jr. The
   left wing, commanded by Slocum, comprised the Fourteenth
   Corps, under Jeff. C. Davis, and the Twentieth Corps, under A.
   S. Williams. In his general orders he had not intimated to the
   army the object of their march. 'It is sufficient for you to
   know,' he said, 'that it involves a departure from our present
   base and a long, difficult march to a new one.' His special
   field orders are a model of clearness and conciseness. The
   habitual order of march was to be, wherever practicable, by
   four roads as nearly parallel as possible, and converging at
   points to be indicated from time to time. There was to be no
   general train of supplies; behind each regiment should follow
   one wagon and one ambulance; a due proportion of wagons for
   ammunition and provision behind each brigade; the separate
   columns were to start at seven in the morning and make about
   fifteen miles a day. The army was to subsist liberally on the
   country; forage parties, under the command of discreet
   officers, were to gather near the routes traveled whatever was
   needed by the command, aiming to keep in the wagons a reserve
   of at least ten days' provisions; soldiers were strictly
   forbidden to enter dwellings of inhabitants or commit
   trespasses; the power to destroy mills, houses, cotton gins,
   etc., was intrusted to corps commanders alone.
{3544}
   No destruction of property was to be permitted in districts
   where the army was unmolested; but relentless devastation was
   ordered in case of the manifestation of local hostility by the
   shooting of soldiers or the burning of bridges. … Precisely at
   seven o'clock on the morning of the 16th of November the great
   army started on its march. A band struck up the anthem of
   'John Brown's body lies a-moldering in the grave'; the
   soldiers caught up the refrain, and, to the swelling chorus of
   'Glory, Hallelujah,' the great march was begun. The month that
   followed will always remain to those 60,000 men the most
   romantic and inspiring memory of their lives. The weather was
   favorable all the way; to veterans the marches were of
   reasonable length; the work of destroying the Southern
   railroads was so easy to their experienced hands that it
   hardly delayed the day's march. With the exception of the
   affair on the 22d of November, when P. J. Phillips with a
   division of Smith's Georgia troops attacked C. C. Walcutt's
   Brigade, which was marching as the rear-guard of the right
   wing at Griswoldville, and met with a severe repulse, and a
   series of cavalry fights between Wheeler and Kilpatrick near
   'Waynesboro', there was no fighting to do between Atlanta and
   Savannah. A swarm of militia and irregular cavalry hung, it is
   true, about the front and flank of the marching army, but were
   hardly a source of more annoyance than so many mosquitoes
   would have been. The foragers brought in every evening their
   heterogeneous supplies from the outlying plantations, and
   although they had to defend themselves every day from
   scattered forces of the enemy, the casualties which they
   reported each evening were insignificant. The utmost efforts
   of Sherman and his officers to induce the negroes to remain
   quietly at home were not entirely successful. The promise of
   freedom which was to come to them from the victory of the
   Union cause was too vague and indefinite to content them. …
   The simple-hearted freedmen gathered in an ever-increasing
   cloud in rear of the army; and when the campaign was over they
   peopled the sea-islands of Georgia and furnished, after the
   war, the principal employment of the Freedmen's Commission.
   The march produced an extraordinary effervescence throughout
   the Confederacy. If words could avail anything against heavy
   battalions, Sherman would have been annihilated in his first
   day's march. … As Sherman drew near to Milledgeville on the
   23d of November the Georgia Legislature passed an act to levy
   the population en masse; but this act of desperate legislation
   had no effect in checking the march of the 'Yankees,' and the
   Governor, State officers, and Legislature fled in the utmost
   confusion as Sherman entered the place. The Union general
   occupied the Executive Mansion for a day; some of the soldiers
   went to the State House, organized themselves into a
   constituent assembly, and after a spirited mock-serious
   debate, repealed the ordinance of secession. Sherman took the
   greatest possible pains to prevent any damage to the city and
   marched out on the 24th on the way to Millen. … Finding it
   impossible to stop him, the Georgia State troops by sharp
   marching had made their way directly to the vicinity of
   Savannah, where Sherman himself arrived and invested the city
   from the Savannah to the little Ogeechee River, on the 10th of
   December."

      J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 9, chapter 20.

   On the 13th, Fort McAllister, which commanded the Ogeechee
   River, was stormed and taken by Hazen's division, and
   communication was opened with Admiral Dahlgren, and with
   General Foster, the Union commander at Port Royal. On the
   17th, General Hardee, the Confederate commander at Savannah,
   refused a demand for the surrender of the city, but on the
   night of the 20th he escaped, with his forces, and on the 22d
   General Sherman telegraphed to President Lincoln: "I beg to
   present to you as a Christmas gift the city of Savannah, with
   150 heavy guns and plenty of ammunition; also about 25,000
   bales of cotton."

      ALSO IN:
      J. D. Cox,
      The March to the Sea
      (Campaigns of the Civil War, volume 10),
      chapter 3.

      O. O. Howard, and others,
      Sherman's March
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 4).

      W. T. Sherman,
      Memoirs,
      chapter 20 (volume 2).

      G. W. Nichols,
      The Story of the Great March.

      W. B. Hazen,
      Narrative of Military Service,
      chapters 21-22.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (December: Tennessee).
   The Battle of Nashville and the destruction of Hood's army.

   After the battle of Franklin Hood went forward to Nashville,
   with his badly shaken army, and invested that place.

      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).

   Thomas was strongly fortified, and quietly took his time to
   make ready before striking his audacious antagonist, unmoved
   by repeated demands for an advance, from the War Office, the
   President, and General Grant. "With all just confidence in
   Thomas' ability, the entire North insisted on instant action,
   and Grant finally ordered Thomas either to move upon Hood at
   once or else turn over the command to Schofield. Thomas
   quietly replied that he would cheerfully do the latter, if
   directed, but would not attack Hood until he was satisfied
   that the time was ripe. He desired both favorable weather and
   to increase his force of mounted men. But the enemy was
   devastating a considerable part of Tennessee and was forcing
   all the young men into their ranks; and everyone was fearful
   of a repetition of Bragg's march to the Ohio in 1862. Logan
   was finally ordered to Nashville to supplant Thomas. But
   before he could reach the ground, Thomas had struck his blow.
   His preparations had been two weeks before substantially
   completed. Small detachments were at Murfreesboro',
   Chattanooga, and along the railroad. This latter had been,
   however, interrupted by Hood for a number of days. A heavy
   storm of sleet and ice had made the country almost impassable
   and would render the operations of the attacking party
   uncertain. Thomas had made up his mind to wait for clearing
   weather. Finally came sunshine and with it Thomas' advance.
   Hood lay in his front, with Stewart on his left, Lee in the
   centre and Cheatham on the right, while a portion of Forrest's
   cavalry was operating out upon his left. He had some 44,000
   men, but his check and heavy losses at Franklin had seriously
   impaired the 'morale' of his army as well as thinned his
   ranks. Hood could, however, not retreat. He was committed to a
   death-struggle with Thomas. It was his last chance as a
   soldier. The Union general had placed A. J. Smith on his
   right, the Fourth corps in the centre, and Schofield on the
   left. He advanced on Hood, bearing heavily with his right,
   while sharply demonstrating with his left. The position of the
   Confederate Army had placed A. J. Smith's corps obliquely to
   their general line of battle, an advantage not to be
   neglected.
{3545}
   Smith pushed in, later supported by Schofield, and
   successively capturing the field-works erected by the enemy's
   main line and reserves, disastrously crushed Hood's left
   flank. Meanwhile Wood was making all but equal headway against
   Hood's right, and the first day closed with remarkable success
   for the amount of loss sustained. Still this was not victory.
   The morrow might bring reverse. Hood's fight promised to be
   with clenched teeth. Hood seriously missed Forrest, whom he
   had detached on a raiding excursion and without whose cavalry
   his flanks were naked. Cheatham he moved during the night over
   from the right to sustain his left, which had proved the
   weaker wing. On the morning of the next day he lay intrenched
   upon the hills back of his former line, with either flank
   somewhat refused. Thomas sent Wilson with his cavalry to work
   his way unobserved around the extreme left flank thus thrown
   back. At 4 P. M. a general assault was made all along the
   line. Upon our left, Wood's advance did not meet with success.
   On the right, however, A. J. Smith's onset, concentrated at
   the salient of Hood's left centre, proved heavy enough to
   break down the Confederate defense. Sharply following up his
   successes, allowing no breathing time to the exultant troops,
   Smith pushed well home, and overcoming all resistance, drove
   the enemy in wild confusion from the field. Meanwhile Wilson's
   troopers, dismounted, fell upon the Confederate flank and rear
   and increased the wreck tenfold. This advantage again enabled
   Wood to make some headway, and with renewed joint effort the
   rout of the enemy became overwhelming. Almost all organization
   was lost in Hood's army as it fled across the country towards
   Franklin. Pursuit was promptly undertaken, but though
   seriously harassed, Hood saved himself beyond the Tennessee
   river with the remnants of his army. Thomas' losses were 3,000
   men, Hood's were never officially given, but our trophies
   included 4,500 prisoners and 53 guns. Thomas had settled all
   adverse speculation upon his slowness in attacking Hood by the
   next to annihilation he wrought when he actually moved upon
   him. No army was so completely overthrown during our war."

      T. A. Dodge,
      Bird's-Eye View of our Civil War,
      chapter 58.

      ALSO IN:
      T. B. Van Horne,
      History of the Army of the Cumberland,
      chapter 35 (volume 2).

      W. Swinton,
      The Twelve Decisive Battles of the War,
      chapter 11.

      J. D. Cox,
      The March to the Sea, Franklin and Nashville
      (Campaigns of the Civil War, volume 10),
      chapters 6-7.

      H. Stone,
      Repelling Hood's Invasion
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 4).

      H. Coppée,
      General Thomas,
      chapter 11-12.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864-1865
(December-January: North Carolina).
   The Capture of Fort Fisher.

   "In the latter part of 1864 two ports only, Wilmington and
   Charleston, remained to the Confederates. … The northward
   march of Sherman would cut off Charleston, too, so that the
   Confederates would have to abandon it. The National government
   now desired to complete its work by capturing Fort Fisher, and
   thus finally shutting off the Confederacy from all
   communication with the foreign world. The accomplishment of
   this task was in no wise easy. … The army and navy co-operated
   in the attempts to reduce Fort Fisher. There were more than 50
   men-of-war tossing on the waves before the lowering sea-front
   of the work. Six thousand five hundred men were in the
   military force. They were in command of General B. F. Butler,
   whom we saw last in New Orleans. The General's active and
   ingenious mind conceived a plan for destroying the fort
   without sacrificing a single Federal soldier. He procured an
   old gun-boat, painted it white and otherwise disguised it, so
   as to look like a blockade-runner, stored 250 tons of
   gunpowder in its hold with fuses penetrating every part, ran
   the craft in within 1,500 feet of the works and exploded it.
   Butler expected that the shock would demolish the seaward face
   of the fort altogether, and perhaps bury the guns under great
   masses of sand, but in this he was mistaken, for the heavy
   bastions were not in the least disturbed by the shock. … The
   navy then took its turn, and for some hours the heavy vessels
   of Admiral Porter's fleet poured so rapid and well aimed a
   fire upon the work, that the garrison were driven from their
   guns, and only the occasional report of a heavy cannon told
   that the fort was still tenanted. But secure in their heavy
   bomb-proofs, the garrison minded the storm of shells and solid
   shot no more than the well-housed farmer heeds a hailstorm. It
   was very clear that Fort Fisher could not be taken at long
   range. … The original plan had contemplated an assault as soon
   as the fire of the fleet should have silenced the guns of the
   fort, and in pursuance of this 700 men had been landed from
   the army transports. But the weather was too rough to permit
   of landing more troops that day, and the next morning General
   Butler concluded that Fort Fisher was impregnable, withdrew
   his men already landed, and sailed away, greatly to the
   disgust of the navy. This was on the 25th of December, 1864.
   The chagrin of the whole North over the failure of the
   expedition was so great that it was speedily determined to
   renew the attempt. January 13th saw a new Federal force, this
   time under command of General A. H. Terry, landing on the
   shore of the sandy neck of land above the fort. … At early
   dawn of the 15th the attack was begun. The ships arranged in a
   great semicircle poured their fire upon the fort, dismantling
   guns, driving the garrison to the bomb-proofs, and mowing down
   the stockade. A line of sharp-shooters, each carrying a shovel
   in one hand and a gun in the other, spring out from Terry's
   most advanced lines, rush forward to within 175 yards of the
   fort and dig pits for their protection before the Confederates
   can attack them. Then the sharpshooters and the navy occupy
   the attention of the enemy, while Curtis's brigade dashes
   forward and digs a trench within 500 yards of the fort. By
   this time too a party of 2,000 sailors and marines has been
   landed from the fleet. They are to storm the sea-wall of the
   fort while the army attacks its landward face. Suddenly the
   thunder of the naval artillery is stilled. There is a moment
   of silence, and then the shrill scream of the whistles rises
   from every steamer in the fleet. It is the signal for the
   assault. The sailors on the beach spring to their feet and
   dash forward at a rapid run; they fire no shot, for they carry
   no guns. Cutlasses and pistols, the blue-jackets' traditional
   weapons, are their only arms. Toward the other side of the
   fort came Terry's troops. … The fate of the naval column is
   quickly determined. Upon it is concentrated the fire of the
   heaviest Confederate batteries, Napoleon guns, Columbiads, and
   rifles shotted with grape and cannister.
{3546}
   The blue-jackets, unable to reply to this murderous fire, and
   seeing their companions falling fast around them, waver, halt,
   and fall back to the beach, throwing themselves upon the
   ground to escape the enemy's missiles. But though repulsed
   they have contributed largely to the capture of the fort.
   While the chief attention of Confederates has been directed
   toward them, the troops have been carrying all before them on
   the other front. Colonel Lamb turns from his direction of the
   defense against the naval column to see three Union flags
   waving over other portions of the work. … The Confederates
   were determined, even desperate. Long after the fort was
   virtually in the hands of its captors they stubbornly clung to
   a bomb-proof. Finally they retreated to Battery Buchanan and
   there maintained themselves stoutly until late at night when,
   all hope being at an end, they surrendered themselves, and the
   National victory was complete."

      W. J. Abbot,
      Battle-Fields and Victory,
      chapter 15.

      ALSO IN:
      D. D. Porter,
      Naval History of the Civil War,
      chapters 49-51.

      W. Lamb and T. O. Selfridge, Jr.,
      The Capture of Fort Fisher
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 4).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (January).
   Congressional adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment.

   "On the last day of [January, 1865] … one of the grandest
   events of the century was witnessed in the House of
   Representatives in the final passage of the Constitutional
   Amendment [the Thirteenth] forever prohibiting slavery.
   Numerous propositions on the subject had been submitted, but
   the honor of drafting the one adopted belongs to Lyman
   Trumbull, who had introduced it early in the first session of
   this Congress. It passed the Senate on the 8th of April, 1864,
   only six members voting against it, … but failed in the House
   on the 15th of June following. It now came up on the motion of
   Mr. Ashley to reconsider this vote. Congress had abolished
   slavery in the District of Columbia, and prohibited it in all
   the Territories. It had repealed the Fugitive Slave law, and
   declared free all negro soldiers in the Union armies and their
   families; and the President had played his grand part in the
   Proclamation of Emancipation. But the question now to be
   decided completely overshadowed all others. The debate on the
   subject had been protracted and very spirited. … The time for
   the momentous vote had now come, and no language could
   describe the solemnity and impressiveness of the spectacle
   pending the roll-call. The success of the measure had been
   considered very doubtful, and depended upon certain
   negotiations, the result of which was not fully assured, and
   the particulars of which never reached the public. The anxiety
   and suspense during the balloting produced a deathly
   stillness, but when it became certainly known that the measure
   had prevailed the cheering in the densely-packed hall and
   galleries surpassed all precedent and beggared all
   description. Members joined in the general shouting, which was
   kept up for several minutes, many embracing each other, and
   others completely surrendering themselves to their tears of
   joy. It seemed to me I had been born into a new life."

      G. W. Julian,
      Political Recollections,
      chapter 11.

   "The Joint Resolution passed [the House of Representatives, on
   the 31st of January], 119 to 56, 8 not voting, 10 Democrats
   voting aye. … It was the greatest day the House had ever seen,
   nor is it likely ever to see a greater."

      O. J. Hollister,
      Life of Schuyler Colfax,
      page 245.

   The Thirteenth Amendment, which was ratified before the close
   of the year by three-fourths of the States, and its embodiment
   in the Constitution of the United States proclaimed by the
   Secretary of State on the 18th of December, 1865, is as
   follows:

   "Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except
   as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been
   duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any
   place subject to their jurisdiction.

   Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article
   by appropriate legislation."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (February).
   The Hampton Roads Peace Conference.

   "Several informal attempts at opening negotiations for the
   termination of hostilities were made in the course of this
   Winter—Honorable Francis P. Blair, of Maryland, visiting
   Richmond twice on the subject, with the consent, though not by
   the request, of President Lincoln. At length, upon their
   direct application, Messrs. Alex. H. Stephens, John A.
   Campbell, and Robert M. T. Hunter, were permitted to pass
   General Grant's lines before Petersburg, and proceed to
   Fortress Monroe; where [on board a steamer in Hampton Roads]
   they were met by Gov. [Secretary of State] Seward, followed by
   President Lincoln; and a free, full conference was had."

      H. Greeley,
      The American Conflict,
      volume 2, chapter 30.

   Secretary Seward first went to meet the three Confederate
   Commissioners, with the following letter of instructions from
   President Lincoln, dated January 31, 1865: "Honorable William
   H. Seward, Secretary of State: You will proceed to Fortress
   Monroe, Virginia, there to meet and informally confer with
   Messrs. Stephens, Hunter, and Campbell, on the basis of my
   letter to F. P. Blair, Esq., of January 18, 1865, a copy of
   which you have. You will make known to them that three things
   are indispensable, to wit:
   1. The restoration of the national authority throughout all
   the States.
   2. No receding by the executive of the United States on the
   slavery question from the position assumed thereon in the late
   annual message to Congress, and in preceding documents.
   3. No cessation of hostilities short of an end of the war and
   the disbanding of all forces hostile to the government.

   You will inform them that all propositions of theirs, not
   inconsistent with the above, will be considered and passed
   upon in a spirit of sincere liberality. You will hear all they
   may choose to say, and report it to me. You will not assume to
   definitely consummate anything. Yours, etc., Abraham Lincoln."
   Two days later, the President followed him, persuaded by a
   telegram from General Grant to meet the Commissioners
   personally. In a subsequent message to the Senate, Mr. Lincoln
   reported the results of the conference as follows: "On the
   morning of the 3d, the three gentlemen, Messrs. Stephens,
   Hunter, and Campbell, came aboard of our steamer, and had an
   interview with the Secretary of State and myself, of several
   hours' duration. No question of preliminaries to the meeting
   was then and there made or mentioned. No other person was
   present; no papers were exchanged or produced; and it was, in
   advance, agreed that the conversation was to be informal and
   verbal merely.
{3547}
   On our part the whole substance of the instructions to the
   Secretary of State, hereinbefore recited, was stated and
   insisted upon, and nothing was said inconsistent therewith;
   while, by the other party, it was not said that in any event
   or on any condition, they ever would consent to reunion; and
   yet they equally omitted to declare that they never would so
   consent. They seemed to desire a postponement of that
   question, and the adoption of some other course first which,
   as some of them seemed to argue, might or might not lead to
   reunion; but which course, we thought, would amount to an
   indefinite postponement. The conference ended without result."

      A. Lincoln,
      Complete Works,
      volume 2, pages 644-649.

      ALSO IN:
      B. J. Lossing,
      Field Book of the Civil War,
      volume 3, chapter 20.

      J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 10, chapter 6.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (February: South Carolina).
   Evacuation of Charleston by the Confederates.
   Federal occupation of the City.

   While General Hardee, with 14,000 men, waited at Charleston
   for the expected coming of General Sherman to attack that
   city, the latter pursued a movement which made Charleston
   untenable and shook it like a ripened apple into the hands of
   General Gillmore, who was waiting at the gates. The
   Confederates evacuated the city in haste and with reckless
   disorder, and it was occupied by the Federal troops on the
   morning of the 18th of February. The following is the report
   of Colonel A. G. Bennett, who was the first to enter the city:
   "On the morning of February the 18th I received information
   that led me to believe the defences and lines guarding the
   city of Charles·ton had been deserted by the enemy. I
   immediately proceeded to Cummings Point, from whence I sent a
   small boat in the direction of Fort Moultrie, which boat, when
   40 yards east from Fort Sumter, was met by a boat from
   Sullivan's Island, containing a full corps of band musicians
   abandoned by the enemy. These con·firmed my belief of an
   evacuation. I had no troops that could be available under two
   hours, as, except in a few pontoon boats, there were no means
   whatever of landing troops near the enemy's works or into the
   city. I directed Major Hennessy to proceed to Fort Sumter and
   there replace our flag. The flag was replaced over the
   southeast angle of Fort Sumter at 9 o'clock A. M. I now pushed
   for the city, stopping at Fort Ripley and Castle Pinckney,
   from which works Rebel flags were hauled down and the American
   flag substituted. … I landed at Mill's wharf, Charleston, at
   10 o'clock A. M. where I learned that a part of the enemy's
   troops yet remained in the city, while mounted patrols were
   out in every direction applying the torch and driving the
   inhabitants before them. I at once addressed to the Mayor of
   the city [a communication demanding its surrender]. … My whole
   force consisted of five officers and the armed crews of two
   small boats, comprising in all 22 men. Both officers and men
   volunteered to advance from the wharf into the city; but no
   reenforcements being in sight, I did not deem it expedient to
   move on. Public buildings, stores, warehouses, private
   dwellings, shipping, etc., were burning and being fired by
   armed Rebels, but with the force at my disposal it was
   impossible to save the cotton and other property. While
   awaiting the arrival of my troops at Mill's wharf, a number of
   explosions took place. The Rebel commissary depot was blown
   up, and with it is estimated that not less than 200 human
   beings—most of whom were women and children—were blown to
   atoms. These people were engaged in procuring food for
   themselves and their families by permission from the Rebel
   military authorities. … Observing a small boat sailing toward
   the bay under a flag of truce, I put off to it, and received
   from a member of the common council a letter [from the Mayor,
   announcing the evacuation of the city by the Confederate
   military authorities]. … The deputation sent to convey the
   above letter represented to me that the city was in the hands
   of either the Rebel soldiery or the mob. They entreated of me
   in the name of humanity to interpose my military authority and
   save the city from utter destruction. … Two companies of the
   52d Pennsylvania regiment and about 30 men of the 3d Rhode
   Island volunteer heavy artillery having landed, I proceeded
   with them to the citadel. I here established my headquarters,
   and sent small parties in all directions with instructions to
   impress negroes wherever found, and to make them work the fire
   apparatus, until all fires were extinguished."

      A. G. Bennett,
      Report, February 24, 1865
      (quoted in Tenney's Military and Naval History
      of the Rebellion, chapter 49).

   At noon on the 14th of April, 1865, the fourth anniversary of
   the lowering of the flag of the United States at Fort Sumter,
   it was formally raised by General Anderson over the ruins of
   the fort, with impressive ceremonies, in which many visitors
   from the North took part. An address was delivered on the
   occasion by the Reverend Henry Ward Beecher.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865
(February-March: The Carolinas).
   Sherman's march from Savannah to Goldsboro.
   The burning of Columbia.
   The Battle of Bentonsville.

   "By the middle of January, a lodgment had been effected in
   South Carolina [at Pocotaligo, on the railroad between
   Savannah and Charleston], and Sherman had his whole army once
   more in hand as a moving column. He had no idea of wasting
   time on either Charleston or Augusta, but he determined to
   play upon the fears of the rebels, and compel them to retain a
   force to protect those places. … Accordingly he gave out with
   some ostentation that he was moving upon either Charles·ton or
   Augusta. Early in January the heavy winter rains set in,
   rendering the roads almost impassable. … This flood delayed
   the departure of the column for quite two weeks. … On the 1st
   of February, the army designed for the active campaign from
   Savannah northward was again 60,000 strong; and, as before,
   was composed of two wings, the right under Howard and the left
   under Slocum. Kilpatrick was once more chief of cavalry.
   Sixty-eight guns accompanied the command. The wagons were
   2,500 in number, and carried an ample supply of ammunition for
   one great battle, forage for a week, and provisions for twenty
   days. For fresh meat Sherman depended on beeves driven on the
   hoof, and such cattle, hogs, and poultry as might be gathered
   on the march. … Sherman … started on his northward march on
   the 1st of February. On that day his right wing was south of
   the Salkehatchie river, and his left still struggling in the
   swamps of the Savannah, at Sister's Ferry. … The division
   generals led their columns through the swamps, the water up to
   their shoulders, crossed over to the pine land beyond, and
   then, turning upon the rebels who had opposed the passage,
   drove them off in utter disorder.
{3548}
   All the roads northward had been held for weeks by Wheeler's
   cavalry, and details of negro laborers had been compelled to
   fell trees and burn bridges to impede the national march.
   Sherman's pioneers, however, removed the trees, and the heads
   of columns rebuilt the bridges before the rear could close up,
   and the rebels retreated behind the Edisto river at
   Branchville. … Sherman determined to waste no time on
   Branchville, which the enemy could no longer hold, and turned
   his columns directly north upon Columbia, where it was
   supposed the rebels would concentrate. Attempts were made to
   delay him at the crossings of the rivers; there were numerous
   bridge-heads with earth or cotton parapets to carry, and
   cypress swamps to cross; but nothing stayed his course. On the
   13th, he learned that there was no enemy in Columbia except
   Hampton's cavalry. Hardee, at Charleston, took it for granted
   that Sherman was moving upon that place, and the rebels in
   Augusta supposed that they were Sherman's object; so
   Charleston and Augusta were protected, while Columbia was
   abandoned to the care of the cavalry." With little or no
   resistance, Sherman entered the capital of South Carolina on
   the 17th of February. "Hampton had ordered all cotton, public
   and private, to be moved into the streets and fired. Bales
   were piled up everywhere, the rope and bagging cut, and the
   tufts of cotton blown about by the wind, or lodged in the
   trees and against the houses, presented the appearance of a
   snow-storm. Some of these piles of cotton were burning in the
   heart of the town. Sherman, meanwhile, had given orders to
   destroy the arsenals and public property not needed by his
   army, as well as railroad stations and machines, but to spare
   all dwellings, colleges, schools, asylums, and 'harmless
   private property'; and the fires lighted by Hampton were
   partially subdued by the national soldiers. But before the
   torch had been put to a single building by Sherman's order,
   the smouldering fires set by Hampton were rekindled by the
   wind and communicated to the buildings around. About dark the
   flames began to spread, and were soon beyond the control of
   the brigade on duty in the town. An entire division was now
   brought in, but it was found impossible to check the
   conflagration, which by midnight had become quite
   unmanageable. It raged till about four A. M. on the 18th, when
   the wind subsided, and the flames were got under control. …
   Beauregard, meanwhile, and the rebel cavalry, had retreated
   upon Charlotte, in North Carolina, due north from Columbia;
   and on the 20th and 21st Sherman followed as far as Winnsboro.
   … At Winnsboro, however, Sherman turned his principal columns
   northeastward towards Goldsboro, still 200 miles away. Heavy
   rains again impeded his movements … and it was not till the 3d
   of March that the army arrived at Cheraw. At this point large
   quantities of guns and ammunition were captured, brought from
   Charleston under the supposition that here, at least, they
   would be secure. Hardee had moved due north from Charleston by
   his only remaining railroad, through Florence, but only
   reached Cheraw in time to escape with his troops across the
   Pedee river, just before Sherman arrived. … Having secured the
   passage of the Pedee … Sherman had but little uneasiness about
   the future. … On the 11th of March, Fayetteville was reached,
   and Sherman had traversed the entire extent of South Carolina.
   On the 12th, he sent a dispatch to Grant, the first since
   leaving the Savannah. … On the 15th of March, the command
   began its march for Goldsboro." The scattered Confederate
   forces were now getting together and General Johnston had been
   put in command of them. "Sherman estimated the entire rebel
   force at 37,000 infantry and 8,000 cavalry; but only Hardee,
   with 10,000 infantry and one division of cavalry, was in the
   immediate front." On the 15th Hardee was encountered at
   Averysboro, where he attempted to check Sherman's advance
   while Johnston concentrated in the rear. Some sharp fighting
   occurred, in which Sherman lost 77 men killed and 477 wounded.
   Hardee reported his loss at 500. In the morning he had
   disappeared. "From Averysboro both wings turned eastward by
   different roads, and on the night of the 18th of March the
   army was within 27 miles of Goldsboro, and only five from
   Bentonsville. The columns were now about ten miles apart." At
   Bentonsville, on the 19th, Slocum's wing was attacked by
   Johnston, who had marched his whole command with great
   rapidity, hoping to "overwhelm Sherman's left flank before it
   could be relieved by its co-operating column." But Slocum held
   his ground that day against six distinct assaults, and the
   next day Sherman brought his whole army into position. He did
   not push the enemy, however, either on the 20th or on the
   21st, being uncertain as to Johnston's strength. During the
   night of the 21st the latter retreated. "The total national
   loss was 191 killed, and 1,455 wounded and missing. Johnston
   states his losses to have been 223 killed, 1,467 wounded, and
   653 missing; but Sherman captured 1,621 prisoners. Sherman
   admits that he committed an error in not overwhelming his
   enemy. Few soldiers, however, are great enough to accuse
   themselves of an error, and fewer still but might accuse
   themselves of greater ones than can ever be laid at Sherman's
   door. At daybreak on the 22d … the army moved to Goldsboro,
   where Schofield had already arrived.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: 1865
      (FEBRUARY-MARCH: NORTH CAROLINA).

   … Thus was concluded one of the longest and most important
   marches ever made by an organized army in civilized war."

      A. Badeau,
      Military History of Ulysses S. Grant,
      chapter 31 (volume 3).

   At Columbia, "I observed, as I passed along the street, that
   many shops had been gutted, and that paper, rags, and litter
   of all kinds lay scattered on the floors, in the open
   doorways, and on the ground outside. I was told on good
   authority that this had been done by the Confederate troops
   before our arrival. It was a windy day, and a great deal of
   loose cotton had been blown about and caught on the fences and
   in the branches of the shade trees along the street. It has
   been said that this had something to do with spreading the
   fire which afterward took place. I think this very doubtful. …
   I have never doubted that Columbia was deliberately set on
   fire in more than a hundred places. No one ordered it, and no
   one could stop it. The officers of high rank would have saved
   the city if possible; but the army was deeply imbued with the
   feeling that as South Carolina had begun the war she must
   suffer a stern retribution."

      W. B. Hazen,
      Narrative of Military Service,
      chapters 23-25.

{3549}

   "I disclaim on the part of my army any agency in this fire,
   but, on the contrary, claim that we saved what of Columbia
   remains unconsumed."

      Sherman's Official Report
      (Rebellion Record, volume 11).

      ALSO IN:
      S. M. Bowman and R. B. Irwin,
      Sherman and his Campaigns,
      chapters 26-29.

      H. W. Slocum and W. Hampton,
      Sherman's March and The Battle of Bentonville
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 4).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865
(February-March: North Carolina).
   Occupation of Wilmington.
   Battle of Kinston.
   Junction with Sherman at Goldsboro.

   On the 9th of February, General Schofield, transferred from
   the west, arrived at Fort Fisher with Cox's division of the
   Twenty-third Corps, and took command of the newly created
   Department of North Carolina. Advancing on Wilmington, the
   Confederates, under Hoke, retreating before him, he occupied
   that city on the 22d. This accomplished, General Cox was sent
   to Newberne to take command of forces ordered there, and to
   open communication thence by railroad with Goldsboro,
   preparatory to the arrival of General Sherman at that point.
   In the prosecution of this undertaking, he fought the battle
   of Kinston, March 10, repelling a fierce attack by Bragg with
   the forces which were being collected against Sherman: "After
   Bragg's retreat, Schofield steadily pressed the work of
   rebuilding the railway. Kinston was occupied on March 14th."
   On the 21st Schofield entered Goldsboro, "and there, in a
   couple of days more, was reassembled the grand army under
   Sherman, whose march from Savannah had been quite as
   remarkable as the former one from Atlanta to the sea."

      J. D. Cox,
      The March to the Sea
      (Campaigns of the Civil War),
      chapter 9.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (February-March: Virginia).
   Sheridan's destroying march through Central Virginia.
   Battle of Waynesborough.

   "The last campaign against Lee may be said to have been
   inaugurated when General Sheridan started with his cavalry
   from Winchester, Virginia, on the 27th of February, 1865, with
   a sort of carte blanche of destruction as to the enemy's
   supply depots and communications. The general's instructions
   looked to his crossing the James River above Richmond, and his
   possible junction with the command of General Sherman
   somewhere in North Carolina; but the swollen condition of the
   James and the destruction of the bridges prevented his
   crossing. … General Sheridan's command on this expedition
   consisted of the first cavalry division, under Brevet
   Major-General Wesley Merritt, and the third cavalry division,
   under Brevet Major-General George A. Custer, to whose division
   was added one brigade of the cavalry of the old army of West
   Virginia, under Colonel Capehart. … They left Winchester on a
   damp, disagreeable morning. … But the spirits of the bold
   dragoons were not dampened, and they felt lively enough to
   push on to Waynesborough to the camp of General Jubal Early,
   late of the Confederacy, upon whom the brilliant Custer fell
   with his division, and soon had his guns, and men, and
   'materiel,' and would have had him but that he had sufficient
   presence of mind to absent his person when he found how things
   were going. This was General Early's last appearance in public
   life. … Early's command at Waynesborough being now dispersed
   or captured, … General Sheridan proceeded to occupy
   Charlottesville. … Then on again toward Lynchburg and the
   James River. … When it was found impossible to cross the James
   River, attention was for a while directed to the demolition of
   the James River and Kanawha Canal. … When the ingenious
   destruction corps could devise no further damage here, the
   command turned off to try its hand upon a railroad or two. All
   the time the rains had descended—the flood-gates of the clouds
   were up and the water kept pouring through. … Although nothing
   short of a flotilla seemed likely to ride out the storm, the
   cavalry rode on hopefully, and came safely to harbor at the
   White House, on the Pamunkey, where supplies were furnished
   them, and where the March winds blew them dry again. …
   Immediately upon his arrival at this depot, General Sheridan
   reported to General Grant, at City Point, for orders."

      With General Sheridan in Lee's Last Campaign;
      by a Staff Officer,
      chapter 2.

      ALSO IN:
      G. E. Pond,
      The Shenandoah Valley in 1864,
      chapter 14.

      A. Badeau,
      Military History of Ulysses S. Grant,
      chapter 31 (volume 3).

      P. H. Sheridan,
      Personal Memoirs,
      volume 2, chapter 4.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (March).
   Emancipation of the families of colored soldiers.

   "The President in his annual message, December, 1863, had
   estimated the colored soldiers in the service at 'nearly
   100,000.' They were mostly from the border States, and the
   slaves of loyal masters. While they were fighting the battles
   of the country, their masters, who were generally opposed to
   their enlistment, could sell into perpetual slavery their
   wives and children. To deter slaves from enlisting, or to
   punish them when they did enlist, slave-masters made
   merchandise of the wives and children of colored soldiers, and
   often sold them into a harsher bondage. To put an end to a
   practice so cruel, unjust, injurious, and dishonorable to the
   country, Mr. Wilson introduced into the Senate on the 8th of
   January [1864], in his bill to promote enlistments, a
   provision declaring that when any man or boy of African
   descent, owing service or labor in any State, under its laws,
   should be mustered into the military or naval service of the
   United States, he, and his mother, wife, and children, should
   be forever free." The bill was warmly debated and its
   supporters did not succeed in bringing it to a vote during
   that session of Congress. At the next session, on the 13th of
   December, 1864, Mr. Wilson introduced a joint resolution "to
   make free the wives and children of persons who had been, or
   might be, mustered into the service of the United States."
   This passed the Sen·ate a few days later, by a vote of 27 to
   10; was passed by the House on the 22d of February, 1865, and
   signed by the President on the 3d of March.

      H. Wilson,
      History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power,
      volume 3, chapter 30.

{3550}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (March).
   President Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address.

   "The days of the Confederacy were evidently numbered. Only the
   last blow remained to be struck. Then Lincoln's second
   inauguration came [March 4, 1865], and with it his second
   inaugural address. Lincoln's famous 'Gettysburg speech has
   been much and justly admired. But far greater, as well as far
   more characteristic, was that inaugural in which he poured out
   the whole devotion and tenderness of his great soul. It had
   all the solemnity of a father's last admonition and blessing
   to his children before he lay down to die. … No American
   President had ever spoken words like these to the American
   people. America never had a President who found such words in
   the depth of his heart."

      C. Schurz,
      Abraham Lincoln: an Essay,
      pages 103-104.

   The following is the text of the Inaugural Address:

   "Fellow-countrymen: At this second appear·ing to take the oath
   of the presidential office, there is less occasion for an
   extended address than there was at the first. Then a
   statement, somewhat in detail, of a course to be pursued,
   seemed fitting and proper. Now, at the expiration of four
   years, during which public declarations have been constantly
   called forth on every point and phase of the great contest
   which still absorbs the attention and engrosses the energies
   of the nation, little that is new could be presented. The
   progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is
   as well known to the public as to myself; and it is, I trust,
   reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all. With high hope
   for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured. On
   the occasion corresponding to this four years ago, all
   thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war.
   All dreaded it—all sought to avert it. While the inaugural
   address was being delivered from this place, devoted
   altogether to saving the Union without war, insurgent agents
   were in the city seeking to destroy it without war—seeking to
   dissolve the Union, and divide effects, by negotiation. Both
   parties deprecated war; but one of them would make war rather
   than let the nation survive; and the other would accept war
   rather than let it perish. And the war came. One-eighth of the
   whole population were colored slaves, not distributed
   generally over the Union, but localized in the Southern part
   of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful
   interest. All knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause
   of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this
   interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend
   the Union, even by war; while the government claimed no right
   to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it.
   Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the
   duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated
   that the cause of the conflict might cease with, or even
   before, the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an
   easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding.
   Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each
   invokes his aid against the other. It may seem strange that
   any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing
   their bread from the sweat of other men's faces; but let us
   judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could
   not be answered—that of neither has been answered fully. The
   Almighty has his own purposes. 'Woe unto the world because of
   offenses! for it must needs be that offenses come; but woe to
   that man by whom the offense cometh.' If we shall suppose that
   American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the
   providence of God, must needs come, but which, having
   continued through his appointed time, he now wills to remove,
   and that he gives to both North and South this terrible war,
   as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we
   discern therein any departure from those divine attributes
   which the believers in a living God always ascribe to him?
   Fondly do we hope—fervently do we pray—that this mighty
   scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that
   it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondman's 250
   years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop
   of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn
   with the sword, as was said 3,000 years ago, so still it must
   be said, 'The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous
   altogether.' With malice toward none; with charity for all;
   with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right,
   let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the
   nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the
   battle, and for his widow, and his orphan—to do all which may
   achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves,
   and with all nations."

      A. Lincoln,
      Complete Works,
      volume 2, pages 656-657.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (March-April: Virginia).
   The Flanking of Lee's lines.
   Battle of Five Forks.
   Final assault at Petersburg and Confederate retreat.

   "One of the most anxious periods of my experience during the
   rebellion," wrote General Grant, "was the last few weeks
   before Petersburg. I felt that the situation of the
   Confederate army was such that they would try to make an
   escape at the earliest practicable moment, and I was afraid,
   every morning, that I would awake from my sleep to hear that
   Lee had gone, and that nothing was left but a picket line. … I
   was naturally very impatient for the time to come when I could
   commence the spring campaign, which I thoroughly believed
   would close the war. … Sherman was anxious that I should wait
   where I was until he could come up, and make a sure thing of
   it; but I had determined to move as soon as the roads and
   weather would admit of my doing so. I had been tied down
   somewhat in the matter of fixing any time at my pleasure for
   starting, until Sheridan, who was on his way from the
   Shenandoah Valley to join me, should arrive, as both his
   presence and that of his cavalry were necessary to the
   execution of the plans which I had in mind. However,
   [Sheridan] having arrived at White House on the 19th of March,
   I was enabled to make my plans. … It is now known that early
   in the month of March Mr. Davis and General Lee had a
   consultation about the situation of affairs in and about
   Richmond and Petersburg, and they both agreed that these
   places were no longer tenable for them, and that they must get
   away as soon as possible. They, too, were waiting for dry
   roads, or a condition of the roads which would make it
   possible to move. General Lee, in aid of his plan of escape,
   and to secure a wider opening to enable them to reach the
   Danville road with greater security than he would have in the
   way the two armies were situated, determined upon an assault
   upon the right of our lines around Petersburg." The assault
   was made by General Gordon early in the morning of March 25th,
   and Fort Stedman, with three contiguous batteries, were taken
   by surprise. The captured fort and batteries were soon
   recovered, however, and the Confederate troops who entered
   them were made prisoners.
{3551}
   "This effort of Lee's cost him about 4,000 men, and resulted
   in their killing, wounding and capturing about 2,000 of ours.
   … The day that Gordon was making dispositions for this attack
   (24th of March) I issued my orders for the movement to
   commence on the 29th. Ord, with three divisions of infantry
   and Mackenzie's cavalry, was to move in advance on the night
   of the 27th, from the north side of the James River, and take
   his place on our extreme left, 30 miles away. … Ord was at his
   place promptly. Humphreys and Warren were then on our extreme
   left with the 2d and 5th corps. They were directed on the
   arrival of Ord, and on his getting into position in their
   places, to cross Hatcher's Run and extend out west toward Five
   Forks, the object being to get into a position from which we
   could strike the South Side Railroad and ultimately the
   Danville Railroad. There was considerable fighting in taking
   up these new positions for the 2d and 5th corps, in which the
   Army of the James had also to participate somewhat, and the
   losses were quite severe. This was what was known as the
   battle of White Oak Road. … The 29th of March came, and
   fortunately, there having been a few days free from rain, the
   surface of the ground was dry, giving indications that the
   time had come when we could move. On that day I moved out with
   all the army available after leaving sufficient force to hold
   the line about Petersburg. It soon set in raining again,
   however, and in a very short time the roads became practically
   impassable for teams, and almost so for cavalry. … It became
   necessary … to build corduroy roads every foot of the way as
   we advanced, to move our artillery upon, The army had become
   so accustomed to this kind of work, and were so well prepared
   for it, that it was done very rapidly. The next day, March
   30th, we had made sufficient progress to the south-west to
   warrant me in starting Sheridan with his cavalry over by
   Dinwiddie with instructions to then come up by the road
   leading north-west to Five Forks, thus menacing the right of
   Lee's line, … The column moving detached from the army still
   in the trenches was, excluding the cavalry, very small. The
   forces in the trenches were themselves extending to the left
   flank. Warren was on the extreme left when the extension
   began, but Humphreys was marched around later and thrown into
   line between him and Five Forks. My hope was that Sheridan
   would be able to carry Five Forks, get on the enemy's right
   flank and rear, and force them to weaken their centre to
   protect their right, so that an assault in the centre might be
   successfully made. General Wright's corps had been designated
   to make this assault, which I intended to order as soon as
   information reached me of Sheridan's success. … Sheridan moved
   back to Dinwiddie Court-House on the night of the 30th, and
   then took a road leading northwest to Five Forks. He had only
   his cavalry with him. Soon encountering the rebel cavalry he
   met with a very stout resistance. He gradually drove them back
   however until in the neighborhood of Five Forks. Here he had
   to encounter other troops, besides those he had been
   contending with, and was forced to give way. In this condition
   of affairs he notified me of what had taken place and stated
   that he was falling back toward Dinwiddie gradually and
   slowly, and asked me to send Wright's corps to his assistance.
   I replied to him that it was impossible to send Wright's corps
   … and that I would send Warren. Accordingly orders were sent
   to Warren to move at once that night (the 31st) to Dinwiddie
   Court-House and put himself in communication with Sheridan as
   soon as possible, and report to him. He was very slow in
   moving, some of his troops not starting until after 5 o'clock
   next morning. … Warren reported to Sheridan about 11 o'clock
   on the 1st, but the whole of his troops were not up so as to
   be much engaged until late in the afternoon. … Sheridan
   succeeded by the middle of the afternoon or a little later in
   advancing up to the point from which to make his designed
   assault upon Five Forks itself. He was very impatient to make
   the assault and have it all over before night, because the
   ground he occupied would be untenable for him in bivouac
   during the night. … It was at this junction of affairs that
   Sheridan wanted to get Crawford's division in hand, and he
   also wanted Warren. He sent staff officer after staff officer
   in search of Warren, directing that general to report to him,
   but they were unable to find him. At all events Sheridan was
   unable to get that officer to him. Finally he went himself. He
   issued an order relieving Warren and assigning Griffin to the
   command of the 5th corps. The troops were then brought up and
   the assault successfully made. … It was dusk when our troops
   under Sheridan went over the parapets of the enemy. The two
   armies were mingled together there for a time in such manner
   that it was almost a question which one was going to demand
   the surrender of the other. Soon, however, the enemy broke and
   ran in every direction; some 6,000 prisoners, besides
   artillery and small-arms in large quantities, falling into our
   hands. … Pursuit continued until about 9 o'clock at night,
   when Sheridan halted his troops, and knowing the importance to
   him of the part of the enemy's line which had been captured,
   returned. … This was the condition which affairs were in on
   the night of the 1st of April. I then issued orders for an
   assault by Wright and Parke at 4 o'clock on the morning of the
   2d." The assault was successfully made, and the outer works of
   Petersburg were soon in the hands of the National troops.
   Early in the morning of the 3d the enemy evacuated Petersburg
   and Grant and Meade took possession of the city. The following
   day they were visited there by President Lincoln, who had been
   at City Point for a week, or more, watching the course of
   events.

      U. S. Grant,
      Personal Memoirs,
      chapters 63-65 (volume 2).

      ALSO IN:
      P. H. Sheridan,
      Personal Memoirs,
      volume 2, chapters 5-6.

      A. A. Humphreys,
      The Virginia Campaign of 1864 and 1865,
      chapters 12-13.

      H. Porter,
      Five Forks and the Pursuit of Lee
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 4).

      R. de Trobriand,
      Four years with the Army of the Potomac,
      chapter 34.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (April 11).
   President Lincoln's last public address.
   His view of Reconstruction in Louisiana.

   On the evening of the 11th of April, a great multitude of
   people gathered about the White House, to convey their
   congratulations to the President and to signify their joy at
   the sure prospect of peace. Mr. Lincoln came out and spoke to
   them, expressing first his participation in their gladness,
   and then turning to discuss briefly the criticism which had
   opened upon his policy of reconstruction, as practically
   illustrated in Louisiana.
{3552}
   He spoke of his message and proclamation of December, 1863
   (quoted above); of the approval given to them by every member
   of his cabinet; of the entire silence at the time of all who
   had become critics and objectors since action under the plan
   had been taken in Louisiana. He then went on as follows: "When
   the message of 1863, with the plan before mentioned, reached
   New Orleans, General Banks wrote me that he was confident that
   the people, with his military cooperation, would reconstruct
   substantially on that plan. I wrote to him and some of them to
   try it. They tried it, and the result is known. Such has been
   my only agency in getting up the Louisiana government. As to
   sustaining it, my promise is out, as before stated. But as bad
   promises are better broken than kept, I shall treat this as a
   bad promise, and break it whenever I shall be convinced that
   keeping it is adverse to the public interest; but I have not
   yet been so convinced. I have been shown a letter on this
   subject, supposed to be an able one, in which the writer
   expresses regret that my mind has not seemed to be definitely
   fixed on the question whether the seceded States, so called,
   are in the Union or out of it. It would perhaps add
   astonishment to his regret were he to learn that since I have
   found professed Union men endeavoring to make that question, I
   have purposely forborne any public expression upon it. As
   appears to me, that question has not been, nor yet is, a
   practically material one, and that any discussion of it, while
   it thus remains practically immaterial, could have no effect
   other than the mischievous one of dividing our friends. As
   yet, whatever it may hereafter become, that question is bad as
   the basis of a controversy, and good for nothing at all—a
   merely pernicious abstraction. We all agree that the seceded
   States, so called, are out of their proper practical relation
   with the Union, and that the sole object of the government,
   civil and military, in regard to those States is to again get
   them into that proper practical relation. I believe that it is
   not only possible, but in fact easier, to do this without
   deciding or even considering whether these States have ever
   been out of the Union, than with it. Finding themselves safely
   at home, it would be utterly immaterial whether they had ever
   been abroad. Let us all join in doing the acts necessary to
   restoring the proper practical relations between these States
   and the Union, and each forever after innocently indulge his
   own opinion whether in doing the acts he brought the States
   from without into the Union, or only gave them proper
   assistance, they never having been out of it. The amount of
   constituency, so to speak, on which the new Louisiana
   government rests, would be more satisfactory to all if it
   contained 50,000, or 30,000, or even 20,000, instead of only
   about 12,000, as it does. It is also unsatisfactory to some
   that the elective franchise is not given to the colored man. I
   would myself prefer that it were now conferred on the very
   intelligent, and on those who serve our cause as soldiers.
   Still, the question is not whether the Louisiana government,
   as it stands, is quite all that is desirable. The question is,
   will it be wiser to take it as it is and help to improve it,
   or to reject and disperse it? Can Louisiana be brought into
   proper practical relation with the Union sooner by sustaining
   or by discarding her new State government? Some 12,000 voters
   in the heretofore slave State of Louisiana have sworn
   allegiance to the Union, assumed to be the rightful political
   power of the State, held elections, organized a State
   government, adopted a free-State constitution, giving the
   benefit of public schools equally to black and white, and
   empowering the legislature to confer the elective franchise
   upon the colored man. Their legislature has already voted to
   ratify the constitutional amendment recently passed by
   Congress, abolishing slavery throughout the nation. These
   12,000 persons are thus fully committed to the Union and to
   perpetual freedom in the State—committed to the very things,
   and nearly all the things, the nation wants—and they ask the
   nation's recognition and its assistance to make good their
   committal. Now, if we reject and spurn them, we do our utmost
   to disorganize and disperse them. We, in effect, say to the
   white man: You are worthless or worse; we will neither help
   you, nor be helped by you. To the blacks we say: This cup of
   liberty which these, your old masters, hold to your lips we
   will dash from you, and leave you to the chances of gathering
   the spilled and scattered contents in some vague and undefined
   when, where, and how. If this course, discouraging and
   paralyzing both white and black, has any tendency to bring
   Louisiana into proper practical relations with the Union, I
   have so far been unable to perceive it. If, on the contrary,
   we recognize and sustain the new government of Louisiana, the
   converse of all this is made true. We encourage the hearts and
   nerve the arms of the 12,000 to adhere to their work, and
   argue for it, and proselyte for it, and fight for it, and feed
   it, and grow it, and ripen it to a complete success. The
   colored man, too, in seeing all united for him, is inspired
   with vigilance, and energy, and daring, to the same end. Grant
   that he desires the elective franchise, will he not attain it
   sooner by saving the already advanced steps toward it than by
   running backward over them? Concede that the new government of
   Louisiana is only to what it should be as the egg is to the
   fowl, we shall sooner have the fowl by hatching the egg than
   by smashing it. Again, if we reject Louisiana we also reject
   one vote in favor of the proposed amendment to the national
   Constitution. To meet this proposition it has been argued that
   no more than three-fourths of those States which have not
   attempted secession are necessary to validly ratify the
   amendment. I do not commit myself against this further than to
   say that such a ratification would be questionable, and sure
   to be persistently questioned, while a ratification by
   three-fourths of all the States would be unquestioned and
   unquestionable. I repeat the question: Can Louisiana be
   brought into proper practical relation with the Union sooner
   by sustaining or by discarding her new State government? What
   has been said of Louisiana will apply generally to other
   States. And yet so great peculiarities pertain to each State,
   and such important and sudden changes occur in the same State,
   and withal so new and unprecedented is the whole case that no
   exclusive and inflexible plan can safely be prescribed as to
   details and collaterals. Such exclusive and inflexible plan
   would surely become a new entanglement. Important principles
   may and must be inflexible. In the present situation, as the
   phrase goes, it may be my duty to make some new announcement
   to the people of the South. I am considering, and shall not
   fail to act when satisfied that action will be proper."

      A. Lincoln,
      Complete Works,
      volume 2, pages 673-675.

{3553}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (April: Virginia).
   The abandonment of Richmond and retreat of Lee.
   Battle of Sailor's Creek.
   Surrender at Appomattox Court House.

   "The success of the Federal army in breaking the lines of
   Petersburg had rendered the retreat of the Confederate force
   imperative. An effort to hold Richmond with every line of
   communication with the South broken or in imminent danger
   would have been madness. But by abandoning his works and
   concentrating his army, which still amounted to about 30,000
   men, General Lee might retire to some natural stronghold in
   the interior, where the defensible features of the country
   would enable him to oppose Grant's formidable host until he
   could rally strength to strike an effective blow. This course
   was at once decided upon, and early on the morning of the 2d
   of April, Lee sent a despatch to the Government authorities at
   Richmond informing them of the disastrous situation of affairs
   and of the necessity of his evacuating Petersburg that night.
   Orders were also sent to the forces north of the James to move
   at once and join him, while all the preparations necessary for
   the evacuation of Richmond, both as the seat of government and
   as a military post, were expeditiously made. There was,
   indeed, no time to be lost. … By midnight the evacuation was
   completed. … As the troops moved noiselessly onward in the
   darkness that just precedes the dawn, a bright light like a
   broad flash of lightning illumined the heavens for an instant;
   then followed a tremendous explosion. 'The magazine at Fort
   Drewry is blown up,' ran in whispers through the ranks, and
   again silence reigned. Once more the sky was overspread by a
   lurid light, but not so fleeting as before. It was now the
   conflagration of Richmond that lighted the night-march of the
   soldiers, and many a stout heart was wrung with anguish at the
   fate of the city and its defenceless inhabitants. The burning
   of public property of little value had given rise to a
   destructive fire that laid in ashes nearly one-third of the
   devoted city. … The retreat of Lee's army did not long remain
   unknown to the Federals. The explosion of the magazine at Fort
   Drewry and the conflagration of Richmond apprised them of the
   fact, and they lost no time in taking possession of the
   abandoned works and entering the defenceless cities. On the
   morning of the 3d of April the mayor of Richmond surrendered
   the city to the Federal commander in its vicinity, and General
   Weitzel took immediate possession. He at once proceeded to
   enforce order and took measures to arrest the conflagration,
   while with great humanity he endeavored to relieve the
   distressed citizens. … As soon as Grant became aware of Lee's
   line of retreat he pushed forward his whole available force,
   numbering 70,000 or 80,000 men, in order to intercept him on
   the line of the Richmond and Danville Railroad. Sheridan's
   cavalry formed the van of the pursuing column, and was closely
   followed by the artillery and infantry. Lee pressed on as
   rapidly as possible to Amelia Court-house, where he had
   ordered supplies to be deposited for the use of his troops on
   their arrival. … The hope of finding a supply of food at this
   point, which had done much to buoy up the spirits of the men,
   was destined to be cruelly dispelled. Through an unfortunate
   error or misapprehension of orders the provision-train had
   been taken on to Richmond without unloading its stores at
   Amelia Court-house. … It was a terrible blow alike to the men
   and to their general. … The only chance remaining to the Army
   of Northern Virginia was to reach the hill-country without
   delay. Yet here it was detained by the error of a railroad
   official, while the precious minutes and hours moved
   remorselessly by. … Yet no murmur came from the lips of the
   men to the ear of their commander, and on the evening of that
   unfortunate day [April 5th] they resumed their weary march in
   silence and composure. Some small amount of food had been
   brought in by the foragers, greatly inadequate for the wants
   of the soldiers, yet aiding them to somewhat alleviate the
   pangs of hunger. A handful of corn was now a feast to the
   weary veterans as they trudged onward through the April night.
   … Sheridan's cavalry was already upon the flank of the
   Confederate army, and the infantry was following with all
   speed. … During the forenoon of [the 6th] the pursuing columns
   thickened and frequent skirmishes delayed the march. These
   delays enabled the Federals to accumulate in such force that
   it became necessary for Lee to halt his advance in order to
   arrest their attack till his column could close up, and the
   trains and such artillery as was not needed for action could
   reach a point of safety. This object was accomplished early in
   the afternoon. Ewell's, the rearmost corps in the army, closed
   upon those in front at a position on Sailor's Creek, a small
   tributary of the Appomattox River. … His corps was surrounded
   by the pursuing columns and captured with but little
   opposition. About the same time the divisions of Anderson,
   Pickett, and Bushrod Johnson were almost broken up, about
   10,000 men in all being captured. The remainder of the army
   continued its retreat during the night of the 6th, and reached
   Farmville early on the morning of the 7th, where the troops
   obtained two days' rations, the first regular supplies they
   had received during the retreat. At Farmville a short halt was
   made to allow the men to rest and cook their provisions. The
   effective portion of the Army of Northern Virginia did not now
   exceed 10,000 men. This great reduction had been caused by the
   disaster of the previous day at Sailor's Creek, by desertions
   on the retreat, and by an exhaustion which obliged many to
   leave the ranks. Those who still remained by their colors were
   veterans whose courage never failed, and who were yet ready to
   face any odds. The heads of the Federal columns beginning to
   appear about eleven o'clock, the Confederates resumed their
   retreat." On the afternoon of the 7th, Lee received a note
   from Grant calling upon him to surrender, and replied to it,
   asking what terms would be offered. Further notes were
   exchanged between the two commanders the following day, while
   the retreat continued. Lee hoped to reach Appomattox Court
   House and secure supplies that were there, which might enable
   him to "push on to the Staunton River and maintain himself
   behind that stream until a junction could be made with
   Johnston." But when, in the afternoon of April 8th, he reached
   the neighborhood of Appomattox Court House, "he was met by the
   intelligence of the capture of the stores placed for his army
   at the station two miles beyond.
{3554}
   Notwithstanding this overwhelming news, he determined to make
   one more effort to force himself through the Federal toils
   that encompassed him." This attempt was made at three o'clock
   on the morning of the 9th of April, General Gordon leading the
   attack, which failed. Lee then yielded to his fate, and sent a
   flag of truce, asking for an interview with Grant to arrange
   terms of surrender. "Grant had not yet come up, and while
   waiting for his arrival General Lee seated himself upon some
   rails which Colonel Talcott of the Engineers had fixed at the
   foot of an apple tree for his convenience. This tree was half
   a mile distant from the point where the meeting of Lee and
   Grant took place, yet wide-spread currency has been given to
   the story that the surrender took place under its shade, and
   'apple-tree' jewelry has been profusely distributed from the
   orchard in which it grew. About 11 o'clock General Lee,
   accompanied only by Colonel Marshall of his staff, proceeded
   to the village to meet General Grant, who had now arrived. The
   meeting between the two renowned generals took place at the
   house of a Mr. McLean at Appomattox Court-house, to which
   mansion, after exchanging courteous salutations, they repaired
   to settle the terms on which the surrender of the Army of
   Northern Virginia should be concluded. … The written
   instrument of surrender covered the following points:
   Duplicate rolls of all the officers and men were to be made,
   and the officers to sign paroles for themselves and their men,
   all agreeing not to bear arms against the United States unless
   regularly exchanged. The arms, artillery, and public property
   were to be turned over to an officer appointed to receive
   them, the officers retaining their side-arms and private
   horses and baggage. In addition to this, General Grant
   permitted every man of the Confederate army who claimed to own
   a horse or mule to retain it for farming purposes, General Lee
   remarking that this would have a happy effect. … After
   completion of these measures General Lee remarked that his men
   were badly in need of food, that they had been living for
   several days on parched corn exclusively, and requested
   rations and forage for 25,000 men. These rations were granted
   out of the car-loads of Confederate provisions which had been
   stopped by the Federal cavalry. … Three days after the
   surrender the Army of Northern Virginia had dispersed in every
   direction, and three weeks later the veterans of a hundred
   battles had changed the musket and the sword for the
   implements of husbandry. … Thousands of soldiers were set
   adrift on the world without a penny in their pockets to enable
   them to reach their homes. Yet none of the scenes of riot that
   often follow the disbanding of armies marked their course."

      A. L. Long,
      Memoirs of Robert E. Lee,
      chapter 21.

   "General Grant's behavior at Appomattox was marked by a desire
   to spare the feelings of his great opponent. There was no
   theatrical display; his troops were not paraded with bands
   playing and banners flying, before whose lines the
   Confederates must march and stack arms. He did not demand
   Lee's sword, as is customary, but actually apologized to him
   for not having his own, saying it had been left behind in the
   wagon; promptly stopped salutes from being fired to mark the
   event, and the terms granted were liberal and generous. 'No
   man could have behaved better than General Grant did under the
   circumstances,' said Lee to a friend in Richmond. 'He did not
   touch my sword; the usual custom is for the sword to be
   received when tendered, and then handed back, but he did not
   touch mine,' Neither did the Union chief enter the Southern
   lines to show himself or to parade his victory, or go to
   Richmond or Petersburg to exult over a fallen people, but
   mounted his horse and with his staff started for Washington.
   Washington, at Yorktown, was not as considerate and thoughtful
   of the feelings of Cornwallis or his men. Charges were now
   withdrawn from the guns, flags furled, and the Army of the
   Potomac and the Army of Northern Virginia turned their backs
   upon each other for the first time In four long, bloody
   years,"

      F. Lee,
      General Lee,
      chapter 15.

      ALSO IN:
      U. S. Grant,
      Personal Memoirs,
      chapter 65-67.

      H. Porter,
      The Surrender at Appomattox Court House
      (Battles and Leaders, volume 4).

      A. Badeau,
      Military History of Ulysses S. Grant,
      chapter 33-34 (volume 3).

      J. W. Keifer,
      The Battle of Sailor's Creek
      (Sketches of War History,
      Ohio Commandery L. L. of the United States, volume 3).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (April: Virginia).
   President Lincoln at Richmond.
   The assembling and dispersing of "the gentlemen who have
   acted as the Legislature of Virginia."
   Virtual Proclamations of the end of the war.

   "President Lincoln had been at City Point and vicinity for
   several days before the fall of Richmond, in constant
   communication with the General-in-chief, at the front,
   receiving dispatches from him and transmitting them instantly
   to the Secretary of War, whence they were diffused over the
   country, by the telegraph. On the day after Richmond was
   evacuated, he went up to that city in Admiral Porter's
   flag-ship, the Malvern, Captain Ralph Chandler, with the
   Sangamon, several tugs, and 30 small boats, with about 300
   men, had already cleared the channel of the river of
   torpedoes, and made the navigation comparatively safe. When
   near Rocketts, the President and the Admiral left the Malvern,
   and proceeded to the city in the commander's gig. With its
   crew, armed with carbines, they landed and walked to Weitzel's
   quarters, in the late residence of Davis, cheered on the way
   by the huzzas and grateful ejaculations of a vast concourse of
   emancipated slaves, who had been told that the tall man was
   their Liberator. They crowded around him so thickly, in their
   eagerness to see him, and to grasp his hand, that a the of
   soldiers were needed to clear the way, After a brief rest at
   Weitzel's, the President rode rapidly through the principal
   streets of Richmond, in an open carriage, and, at near sunset,
   departed for City Point. Two days afterward, the President
   went to Richmond again, accompanied by his wife, the
   Vice-President, and several Senators, when he was called upon
   by leading Confederates, several of them members of the rebel
   Virginia Legislature, whose chief business was to endeavor to
   arrange a compromise whereby the equivalent for submission
   should be the security to the Virginia insurgents, as far as
   possible, of their political power and worldly possessions.
{3555}
   The President was assured by Judge Campbell a member of the
   Confederate 'Government' (who, for two years, had been
   satisfied, he said, that success was impossible), that the
   so-called Virginia Legislature, if allowed to reassemble, with
   the Governor, would work for the reconstruction of the Union,
   their first step being the withdrawal of the Virginia troops
   from the field, on condition that the confiscation of property
   in Virginia should not be allowed. Anxious to end the war
   without further bloodshed, if possible, and satisfied that the
   withdrawal of the Virginia troops—in other words, nearly all
   of Lee's army—would accomplish it, he left with General
   Weitzel, on his departure from Richmond [April 6], authority
   to allow 'the gentlemen who have acted as the Legislature of
   Virginia, in support of the rebellion, to assemble at Richmond
   and take measures to withdraw the Virginia troops and other
   support from resistance to the General Government.' A
   safeguard was given. The fugitives returned, with the
   Governor, but instead of performing in good faith what had
   been promised in their name, they began legislating generally,
   as if they were the legal representatives of the people of
   Virginia. So soon as notice of this perfidy was given to the
   President after his return to Washington, he directed Weitzel
   to revoke the safeguard, and allow 'the gentlemen who had
   acted as the Legislature of Virginia' to return to private
   life. The surrender of Lee had, meanwhile, made the
   contemplated action unnecessary. The President was blamed by
   the loyal people for allowing these men to assemble with
   acknowledged powers; and the Confederates abused him for
   dissolving the assembly. The President returned to Washington
   City on the day of Lee's surrender, where he was the recipient
   of a multitude of congratulations because of the dawn of
   peace. On the 11th he issued proclamations, one declaring the
   closing, until further notice, of certain ports in the
   Southern States, whereof the blockade had been raised by their
   capture, respectively; and the other, demanding, henceforth,
   for our vessels in foreign ports, on penalty of retaliation,
   those privileges and immunities which had hitherto been denied
   them on the plea of according equal belligerent rights to the
   Republic and its internal enemies. … On the following day an
   order was issued from the War Department, which had been
   approved by General Grant, putting an end to all drafting and
   recruiting for the National army, and the purchase of
   munitions of war and supplies; and declaring that the number
   of general and staff officers would be speedily reduced, and
   all military restrictions on trade and commerce be removed
   forthwith. This virtual proclamation of the end of the war
   went over the land on the anniversary of the evacuation of
   Fort Sumter [April 14], while General Anderson was replacing
   the old flag over the ruins of that fortress."

      B. J. Lossing,
      Field Book of the Civil War,
      volume 3, chapter 21.

      ALSO IN:
      H. J. Raymond,
      Life and Public Services of Abraham Lincoln,
      chapter 20.

      C. C. Coffin,
      Late Scenes in Richmond
      (Atlantic Monthly, June, 1865).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (April 14th).
   The Assassination of President Lincoln.

   "From the very beginning of his Presidency, Mr. Lincoln had
   been constantly subject to the threats of his enemies and the
   warnings of his friends. … Although he freely discussed with
   the officials about him the possibilities of danger, he always
   considered them remote, as is the habit of men
   constitutionally brave, and positively refused to torment
   himself with precautions for his own safety. He would sum the
   matter up by saying that both friends and strangers must have
   daily access to him in all manner of ways and places; his life
   was therefore in reach of anyone, sane or mad, who was ready
   to murder and be hanged for it; that he could not possibly
   guard against all danger unless he were to shut himself up in
   an iron box, in which condition he could scarcely perform the
   duties of a President; by the hand of a murderer he could die
   only once; to go continually in fear would be to die over and
   over. He therefore went in and out before the people, always
   unarmed, generally unattended. … Four years of threats and
   boastings, of alarms that were unfounded, and of plots that
   came to nothing thus passed away; but precisely at the time
   when the triumph of the nation over the long insurrection
   seemed assured, and a feeling of peace and security was
   diffused over the country, one of the conspiracies, not
   seemingly more important than the many abortive ones, ripened
   in the sudden heat of hatred and despair. A little band of
   malignant secessionists, consisting of John Wilkes Booth, an
   actor, of a family of famous players, Lewis Powell, alias
   Payne, a disbanded rebel soldier from Florida, George
   Atzerodt, formerly a coach maker, but more recently a spy and
   blockade runner of the Potomac, David E. Herold, a young
   druggist's clerk, Samuel Arnold and Michael O'Laughlin,
   Maryland secessionists and Confederate soldiers, and John H.
   Surratt, had their ordinary rendezvous at the house of Mrs.
   Mary E. Surratt, the widowed mother of the last named,
   formerly a woman of some property in Maryland, but reduced by
   reverses to keeping a small boarding-house in Washington.
   Booth was the leader of the little coterie. He was a young man
   of twenty-six. … He was a fanatical secessionist; had assisted
   at the capture and execution of John Brown, and had imbibed at
   Richmond and other Southern cities where he had played, a
   furious spirit of partisanship against Lincoln and the Union
   party. After the reelection of Mr. Lincoln, which rang the
   knell of the insurrection, Booth, like many of the
   secessionists North and South, was stung to the quick by
   disappointment. He visited Canada, consorted with the rebel
   emissaries there, and at last—whether or not at their
   instigation cannot certainly be said—conceived a scheme to
   capture the President and take him to Richmond. He spent a
   great part of the autumn and winter inducing a small number of
   loose fish of secession sympathies to join him in this
   fantastic enterprise. … There are indications in the evidence
   given on the trial of the conspirators that they suffered some
   great disappointment in their schemes in the latter part of
   March, and a letter from Arnold to Booth, dated March 27,
   showed that some of them had grown timid of the consequences
   of their contemplated enterprise and were ready to give it up.
   He advised Booth, before going further, 'to go and see how it
   will be taken in R---d.' But timid as they might be by nature,
   the whole group was so completely under the ascendency of
   Booth that they did not dare disobey him when in his presence;
   and after the surrender of Lee, in an access of malice and rage
   which was akin to madness, he called them together and
   assigned each his part in the new crime, the purpose of which
   had arisen suddenly in his mind out of the ruins of the
   abandoned abduction scheme.
{3556}
   This plan was as brief and simple as it was horrible. Powell,
   alias Payne, the stalwart, brutal, simple-minded boy from
   Florida, was to murder Seward; Atzerodt, the comic villain of
   the drama, was assigned to remove Andrew Johnson; Booth
   reserved for himself the most difficult and most conspicuous
   role of the tragedy; it was Herold's duty to attend him as a
   page and aid in his escape. Minor parts were assigned to stage
   carpenters and other hangers-on, who probably did not
   understand what it all meant. Herold, Atzerodt, and Surratt
   had previously deposited at a tavern at Surrattsville,
   Maryland, owned by Mrs. Surratt, but kept by a man named
   Lloyd, a quantity of ropes, carbines, ammunition, and whisky,
   which were to be used in the abduction scheme. On the 11th of
   April Mrs. Surratt, being at the tavern, told Lloyd to have
   the shooting irons in readiness, and on Friday, the 14th,
   again visited the place and told him they would probably be
   called for that night. The preparations for the final blow
   were made with feverish haste; it was only about noon of the
   14th that Booth learned the President was to go to Ford's
   Theater that night. It has always been a matter of surprise in
   Europe that he should have been at a place of amusement on
   Good Friday; but the day was not kept sacred in America,
   except by the members of certain churches. It was not,
   throughout the country, a day of religious observance. The
   President was fond of the theater; it was one of his few means
   of recreation. It was natural enough that, on this day of
   profound national thanksgiving, he should take advantage of a
   few hours' relaxation to see a comedy. Besides, the town was
   thronged with soldiers and officers, all eager to see him; it
   was represented to him that appearing occasionally in public
   would gratify many people whom he could not otherwise meet. …
   From the moment Booth ascertained the President's intention to
   attend the theater in the evening his every action was alert
   and energetic. He and his confederates, Herold, Surratt and
   Atzerodt, were seen on horseback in every part of the city. He
   had a hurried conference with Mrs. Surratt before she started
   for Lloyd's tavern. … Booth was perfectly at home in Ford's
   Theater, where he was greatly liked by all the employees,
   without other reason than the sufficient one of his youth and
   good looks. Either by himself or with the aid of his friends
   he arranged his whole plan of attack and escape during the
   afternoon. He counted upon address and audacity to gain access
   to the small passage behind the President's box; once there,
   he guarded against interference by an arrangement of a wooden
   bar to be fastened by a simple mortice in the angle of the
   wall and the door by which he entered, so that the door could
   not be opened from without. He even provided for the
   contingency of not gaining entrance to the box by boring a
   hole in its door, through which he might either observe the
   occupants or take aim and shoot. He hired at a livery stable a
   small, fleet horse, which he showed with pride during the day
   to barkeepers and loafers among his friends. The moon rose
   that night at ten o'clock A few minutes before that hour he
   called one of the underlings of the theater to the back door
   and left him there holding his horse. He then went to a saloon
   near by, took a drink of brandy, and, entering the theater,
   passed rapidly through the crowd in rear of the dress circle
   and made his way to the passage leading to the President's
   box. He showed a card to a servant in attendance and was
   allowed to pass in. He entered noiselessly, and, turning,
   fastened the door with the bar he had previously made ready,
   without disturbing any of the occupants of the box, between
   whom and himself there yet remained the slight partition and
   the door through which he had bored the hole. … Holding a
   pistol in one hand and a knife in the other, he opened the box
   door, put the pistol to the President's head, and fired;
   dropping the weapon, he took the knife in his right hand, and
   when Major Rathbone sprang to seize him he struck savagely at
   him. Major Rathbone received the blow on his left arm,
   suffering a wide and deep wound. Booth, rushing forward, then
   placed his left hand on the railing of the box and vaulted
   lightly over to the stage. It was a high leap, but nothing to
   such a trained athlete. … He would have got safely away but
   for his spur catching in the folds of the Union flag with
   which the front of the box was draped. He fell on the stage,
   the torn flag trailing on his spur, but instantly rose as if
   he had received no hurt, though in fact the fall had broken
   his leg; he turned to the audience, brandishing his dripping
   knife, and shouting the State motto of Virginia, 'Sic Semper
   Tyrannis,' and fled rapidly across the stage and out of sight.
   Major Rathbone had shouted, 'Stop him!' The cry went out, 'He
   has shot the President.' From the audience, at first stupid
   with surprise, and afterwards wild with excitement and horror,
   two or three men jumped upon the stage in pursuit of the
   flying assassin; but he ran through the familiar passages,
   leaped upon his horse, which was in waiting in the alley
   behind, rewarded with a kick and a curse the call-boy who had
   held him, and rode rapidly away in the light of the just risen
   moon. The President scarcely moved; his head drooped forward
   slightly, his eyes closed. … It was afterward ascertained that
   a large derringer bullet had entered the back of the head on
   the left side, and, passing through the brain, had lodged just
   behind the left eye. By direction of Rathbone and Crawford,
   the President was carried to a house across the street and
   laid upon a bed in a small room at the rear of the hall, on
   the ground floor. … The President had been shot a few minutes
   past ten. The wound would have brought instant death to most
   men, but his vital tenacity was extraordinary. … At twenty-two
   minutes after seven he died. Stanton broke the silence by
   saying, 'Now he belongs to the ages.'" At the same hour in
   which the President was murdered, an attempt was made by one
   of Booth's fellow conspirators to kill the Secretary of State.
   Mr. Seward had been thrown from his carriage a few days before
   and was prostrated by the serious injuries received.
   Pretending to bring a prescription from his physician, the
   assassin, Payne, made his way into the sick-room of the
   Secretary and stabbed him three times, but not fatally, in the
   neck and cheek. Two sons, Frederick and Augustus Seward, were
   seriously wounded in defending their father, and a
   soldier-nurse who was present struggled bravely with the
   assassin, though weaponless, and was stabbed repeatedly.
{3557}
   Payne escaped for the time, but was caught a few days later.
   Booth made his way to Port Tobacco, and thence across the
   Potomac, into Virginia, assisted and concealed by numerous
   sympathizers. He eluded his pursuers until the 25th of April,
   when he was hunted down by a party of soldiers, while sleeping
   in a barn, below Fredericksburg, and, refusing to surrender,
   was shot. "The surviving conspirators, with the exception of
   John H. Surratt, were tried by a military commission sitting
   in Washington in the months of May and June. … Mrs. Surratt,
   Payne, Herold, and Atzerodt were hanged on the 7th of July;
   Mudd, Arnold, and O'Laughlin were imprisoned for life at the
   Tortugas, though the term was afterwards shortened; and
   Spangler, the scene shifter at the theater, was sentenced to
   six years in jail. John H. Surratt escaped to Canada," and
   thence to England. "He wandered over Europe, enlisted in the
   Papal Zouaves, deserted and fled to Egypt, where he was
   detected and brought back to Washington in 1867. His trial
   lasted two months and ended in a disagreement of the jury."

      J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 10. chapters 14-15.

      ALSO IN:
      H. J. Raymond,
      Life and Public Services of Abraham Lincoln,
      chapter 21.

      J. G. Holland,
      Life of Lincoln,
      chapter 30.

      B. P. Poore,
      Reminiscences,
      volume 2, chapter 15.

      B. Pittman,
      Report of the Trial of the Conspirators.
      Trial of John H. Surratt.

      T. M. Harris,
      Assassination of Lincoln: a History.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (April 15th).
   Succession of Andrew Johnson, Vice President, to the Presidency.

   "On the day after the assassination, Mr. Johnson, having been
   apprised of the event, took the oath of office, at his rooms,
   in the presence of the Cabinet, and of several members of
   Congress, and was thus quietly inducted into the high position
   so summarily vacated by the martyred President. In the few
   remarks made on the occasion, as to 'an indication of any
   policy which may be pursued,' he said it 'must be left for
   development as the administration progresses'; and his own
   past course in connection with the Rebellion 'must be regarded
   as a guaranty for the future.' To several delegations which
   waited upon him he was, however, more explicit. … 'I know it
   is easy, gentlemen [he said to a delegation from New
   Hampshire], for any one who is so disposed to acquire a
   reputation for clemency and mercy. But the public good
   imperatively requires a just discrimination in the exercise of
   these qualities. … The American people must be taught to know
   and understand that treason is a crime. … It must not be
   regarded as a mere difference of political opinion. It must
   not be excused as an unsuccessful rebellion, to be overlooked
   and forgiven.' … It is not surprising, therefore, with
   utterances like these, in such seeming harmony with his
   antecedents as a Southern Unionist,—antecedents which had
   secured his nomination and election to the
   Vice-Presidency,—that many were disposed to regard his
   advancement to the Presidency at that particular juncture as
   but another evidence of Providential favor, if not of Divine
   interposition, by which the nation was to be saved from what
   many feared might prove Mr. Lincoln's ill-timed leniency and
   misplaced confidence. … Such gratulations, however, were of
   short continuance. Whatever the cause or design, the new
   President soon revealed the change that had taken place and
   the purpose to adopt and pursue a policy the exact reverse of
   what, with such prompt and unequivocal words, he had
   indicated."

      H. Wilson,
      Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America,
      volume 3, chapter 43.

   "Johnson was inaugurated at 11 o'clock on the morning of the
   15th, and was at once surrounded by radical and conservative
   politicians, who were alike anxious about the situation. I
   spent most of the afternoon in a political caucus, held for
   the purpose of considering the necessity for a new Cabinet and
   a line of policy less conciliatory than that of Mr. Lincoln;
   and while everybody was shocked at his murder, the feeling was
   nearly universal that the accession of Johnson to the
   Presidency would prove a godsend to the country. Aside from
   Mr. Lincoln's known policy of tenderness to the Rebels, which
   now so jarred upon the feelings of the hour, his well-known
   views on the subject of reconstruction were as distasteful as
   possible to radical Republicans. … On the following day, in
   pursuance of a previous engagement, the Committee on the
   Conduct of the War met the President at his quarters in the
   Treasury Department. He received us with decided cordiality,
   and Mr. Wade said to him: 'Johnson we have faith in you. By
   the gods, there will be no trouble now in running the
   government!'"

      G. W. Julian,
      Political Recollections,
      chapter 11.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (April 26th).
   General Johnston's surrender.

   On the 11th of April, at Smithfield, North Carolina, General
   Sherman had news of the surrender of Lee. Entering Raleigh on
   the 13th, he received, next day, a communication from the
   Confederate General Johnston proposing a truce "to permit the
   civil authorities to enter into the needful arrangements to
   terminate the existing war." In reply he invited a conference
   with Johnston, which occurred on the 17th—the day on which
   news of the assassination of President Lincoln was received.
   "Sherman said frankly that he could not recognize the
   Confederate civil authority as having any existence, and could
   neither receive nor transmit to Washington any proposition
   coming from them. He expressed his ardent desire for an end to
   devastation, and offered Johnston the same terms offered by
   Grant to Lee. Johnston replied that he would not be justified
   in such a capitulation, but suggested that they might arrange
   the terms of a permanent peace. The suggestion pleased General
   Sherman; the prospect of ending the war without the shedding
   of another drop of blood was so tempting to him that he did
   not sufficiently consider the limits of his authority in the
   matter." The result was that, on the 18th, Sherman and
   Johnston signed a memorandum of agreement which provided for
   the disbanding of all the Confederate armies, the recognition
   of the State governments of the several States lately forming
   the rebel Confederacy, the complete restoration of their old
   status in the Union, and complete amnesty to all concerned in
   the rebellion. This was forwarded to Washington, and, of
   course, it was disapproved, but with an unnecessary
   publication of sharp censure of General Sherman, and with
   expressions that seemed to imply distrust of the loyalty of
   his motives. General Grant was ordered to proceed to General
   Sherman's headquarters and to direct further operations.
{3558}
   He executed this mission with great delicacy, and his presence
   with Sherman was hardly known. The latter held a second
   conference with Johnston on the 26th, and there General
   Johnston made the surrender of his army on the same terms that
   had been granted to Lee.

      J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 10, chapter 12.

      ALSO IN:
      W. T. Sherman,
      Memoirs,
      chapter 23 (volume 2).

      J. W. Draper,
      History of the American Civil War,
      chapter 92 (volume 3).

      J. E. Johnston,
      Narrative of Military Operations,
      chapter 12.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (April-May).
   The end of the Rebellion.
   Fall of Mobile.
   Stoneman's Raid.
   Wilson's Raid.
   Capture of Jefferson Davis.
   The final surrenders.

   After the surrender of Johnson, "there were still a few
   expeditions out in the South that could not be communicated
   with, and had to be left to act according to the judgment of
   their respective commanders. … The three expeditions which I
   had tried so hard to get off from the commands of Thomas and
   Canby did finally get off: one under Canby himself, against
   Mobile, late in March; that under Stoneman from East Tennessee
   on the 20th; and the one under Wilson, starting from Eastport,
   Mississippi, on the 22d of March. They were all eminently
   successful, but without any good result. Indeed much valuable
   property was destroyed and many lives lost at a time when we
   would have liked to spare them. … Stoneman entered North
   Carolina and then pushed north to strike the Virginia and
   Tennessee Railroad. He got upon that road, destroyed its
   bridges at different places and rendered the road useless to
   the enemy up to within a few miles of Lynchburg. His approach
   caused the evacuation of that city about the time we were at
   Appomattox, and was the cause of a commotion we heard of
   there. He then pushed south, and was operating in the rear of
   Johnston's army about the time the negotiations were going on
   between Sherman and Johnston for the latter's surrender. In
   this raid Stoneman captured and destroyed a large amount of
   stores, while 14 guns and nearly 2,000 prisoners were the
   trophies of his success. Canby appeared before Mobile on the
   27th of March. The city of Mobile was protected by two forts,
   besides other intrenchments—Spanish Fort, on the east side of
   the bay, and Fort Blakely, north of the city. These forts were
   invested. On the night of the 8th of April, the National
   troops having carried the enemy's works at one point, Spanish
   Fort was evacuated; and on the 9th, the very day of Lee's
   surrender, Blakely was carried by assault, with a considerable
   loss to us. On the 11th the city was evacuated. … Wilson moved
   out [from Eastport, Mississippi] with full 12,000 men, well
   equipped and well armed. He was an energetic officer and
   accomplished his work rapidly. Forrest was in his front, but
   with neither his old-time army nor his old-time prestige. … He
   had a few thousand regular cavalry left, but not enough to
   even retard materially the progress of Wilson's cavalry. Selma
   fell on the 2d of April. … Tuscaloosa, Montgomery and West
   Point fell in quick succession. These were all important
   points to the enemy by reason of their railroad connections,
   as depots of supplies, and because of their manufactories of
   war material. … Macon surrendered on the 21st of April. Here
   news was received of the negotiations for the surrender of
   Johnston's army. Wilson belonged to the military division
   commanded by Sherman, and of course was bound by his terms.
   This stopped all fighting. General Richard Taylor had now
   become the senior Confederate officer still at liberty east of
   the Mississippi River, and on the 4th of May he surrendered
   everything within the limits of this extensive command.
   General E. Kirby Smith surrendered the trans-Mississippi
   department on the 26th of May, leaving no other Confederate
   army at liberty to continue the war. Wilson's raid resulted in
   the capture of the fugitive president of the defunct
   confederacy before he got out of the country. This occurred at
   Irwinville, Georgia, on the 11th of May. For myself, and I
   believe Mr. Lincoln shared the feeling, I would have been very
   glad to have seen Mr. Davis succeed in escaping, but for one
   reason: I feared that, if not captured, he might get into the
   trans-Mississippi region and there set up a more contracted
   confederacy. … Much was said at the time about the garb Mr.
   Davis was wearing when he was captured. [Mr. Davis, in his own
   narrative, and Captain G. W. Lawton, of the 4th Michigan
   Cavalry, which made the capture, agree in stating that the
   fugitive chief of the Confederacy wore when taken a lady's
   'waterproof,' with a shawl over his head and shoulders. Mr.
   Davis says that he picked up his wife's waterproof in mistake
   for his own when he ran from the tent in which he was
   surprised, while camping, and that his wife threw the shawl
   over him. Captain Lawton asserts that he carried a tin-pail,
   that he affected to be bent with age, and that when he stepped
   out Mrs. Davis asked the soldiers at the tent entrance to let
   her 'old mother' go to the run for water.] I cannot settle
   this question from personal knowledge of the facts; but I have
   been under the belief, from information given to me by General
   Wilson shortly after the event, that when Mr. Davis learned
   that he was surrounded by our cavalry he was in his tent
   dressed in a gentleman's dressing gown. Naturally enough, Mr.
   Davis wanted to escape, and would not reflect much how this
   should be accomplished provided it might be done successfully.
   … Every one supposed he would be tried for treason if
   captured, and that he would be executed. Had he succeeded in
   making his escape in any disguise it would have been adjudged
   a good thing afterwards by his admirers."

      U. S. Grant,
      Personal Memoirs,
      chapter 69 (volume 2).

   "Davis was taken, via Savannah and the ocean, to Fortress
   Monroe; where he was long closely and rigorously imprisoned,
   while his family were returned by water to Savannah and there
   set at liberty. Secretary Reagan—the only person of
   consequence captured with Davis—was taken to Boston, and
   confined, with Vice-President Stephens (captured about this
   time also in Georgia), in Fort Warren; but each was liberated
   on parole a few months thereafter."

      H. Greeley,
      The American Conflict,
      volume 2, chapter 35.

      ALSO IN:
      Major-General Wilson,
      How Jefferson Davis was overtaken.

      J. H. Reagan,
      Flight and Capture of Jefferson Davis
      (in Annals of the War by leading Participants).

      G. W. Lawton,
      "Running at the Heads"
      (Atlantic Monthly, September, 1865).

      J. Davis,
      Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government,
      chapter 54 (volume 2).

      C. C. Andrews,
      History of the Campaign of Mobile.

{3559}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (May).
   Feeling of surrendered Confederate officers.

   After the surrender of Johnston, General Jacob D. Cox was put
   in command of the military district within which the surrender
   occurred, and had charge of the arrangements made for paroling
   and disbanding the Confederate forces. In a paper prepared for
   the Ohio Commandery of the Military Order of the Loyal Legion
   of the United States, General Cox has given an interesting
   report of conversations which he had in that connection with
   General Johnston and General Hardee. Talking with General
   Hardee of the war, the latter was asked "what had been his own
   expectation as to the result, and when had he himself
   recognized the hopelessness of the contest. 'I confess,' said
   he, laughing, 'that I was one of the hot Southerners who
   shared the notion that one man of the South could whip three
   Yankees; but the first year of the war pretty effectually
   knocked that nonsense out of us, and, to tell the truth, ever
   since that time we military men have generally seen that it
   was only a question how long it would take to wear our army
   out and destroy it. We have seen that there was no real hope
   of success, except by some extraordinary accident of fortune,
   and we have also seen that the politicians would never give up
   till the army was gone. So we have fought with the knowledge
   that we were to be sacrificed with the result we see to-day,
   and none of us could tell who would live to see it. We have
   continued to do our best, however, and have meant to fight as
   if we were sure of success.' … Johnston was very warm in his
   recognition of the soldierly qualities and the wonderful
   energy and persistence of our army and the ability of Sherman.
   Referring to his own plans, he said he had hoped to have had
   time enough to have collected a larger force to oppose
   Sherman, and to give it a more complete and efficient
   organization. The Confederate government had reckoned upon the
   almost impassable character of the rivers and swamps to give a
   respite till spring—at least they hoped for this. 'Indeed,'
   said he, with a smile, 'Hardee here,' giving a friendly nod of
   his head toward his subordinate, 'reported the Salkehatchie
   Swamps as absolutely impassable; but when I heard that Sherman
   had not only started, but was marching through those very
   swamps at the rate of thirteen miles a day, making corduroy
   road every foot of the way, I made up my mind there had been
   no such army since the days of Julius Cæsar.' Hardee
   laughingly admitted his mistaken report from Charleston, but
   justified it by saying that all precedent was against such a
   march, and that he would still have believed it impossible if
   he had not seen it done."

      J. D. Cox,
      The Surrender of Johnston's Army
      (Sketches of War History, Ohio Commandery,
      Loyal Legion, United States,
      volume 2, page 249-256).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (May).
   Statistics of the Civil War.

   "In a statistical exhibit of deaths in the Union army,
   compiled (1885), under the direction of Adjutant-General Drum,
   by Joseph W. Kirkley, the causes of death are given as
   follows:
   Killed in action, 4,142 officers, 62,916 men;
   died of wounds received in action, 2,223 officers, 40,789 men,
   of which number 99 officers and 1,973 men were prisoners of war;
   died of disease, 2,795 officers and 221,791 men, of which
   83 officers and 24,783 men were prisoners;
   accidental deaths (except drowned), 142 officers and 3,972 men,
   of which 2 officers and 5 men were prisoners;
   drowned, 106 officers and 4,838 men,
   of which 1 officer and 6 men were prisoners;
   murdered, 37 officers and 483 men;
   killed after capture, 14 officers and 90 men;
   committed suicide, 26 officers and 365 men;
   executed by United States military authorities, 267 men;
   executed by the enemy, 4 officers and 60 men;
   died from sunstroke, 5 officers and 308 men, of which 20
   men were prisoners;
   other known causes, 62 officers and 1,972 men,
   of which 7 officers and 312 men were prisoners;
   causes not stated, 28 officers and 12,093 men,
   of which 9 officers and 2,030 men were prisoners.
   Total 9,584 officers, and 349,944 men,
   of which 219 officers and 29,279 men were prisoners.
   Grand aggregate, 359,528;
   aggregate deaths among prisoners, 29,498.

   Since 1885 the Adjutant-General has received evidence of the
   death in Southern prisons of 694 men not previously accounted
   for, which increases the number of deaths among prisoners to
   30,192, and makes a grand aggregate of 360,222." Total number
   of men furnished to the United States Army and Navy during the
   War from the several States and Territories, 2,778,304; of
   which number, 2,494,592 were white troops, 101,207 were
   sailors and marines, and 178,975 were colored troops. "The
   work of mustering out volunteers began April 29th and up to
   August 7th 640,806 troops had been discharged; on September
   14th the number had reached 741,107, and on November 15th
   800,963. On November 22d, 1865, the Secretary of War reported
   that Confederate troops surrendered and were released on
   parole" to the number of 174,223. Official returns show the
   whole number of men enrolled (present and absent) in the
   active armies of the Confederacy, as follows:

   January 1, 1862, 318,011;
   January 1, 1863, 465,584;
   January 1, 1864, 472,781;
   January 1, 1865, 439,675.

   "Very few, if any, of the local land forces, and none of the
   naval are included in the tabular exhibit. If we take the
   472,000 men in service at the beginning of 1864, and add
   thereto at least 250,000 deaths occurring prior to that date,
   it gives over 700,000. The discharges for disability and other
   causes and the desertions would probably increase the number
   (inclusive of the militia and naval forces) to over 1,000,000.
   Northern writers have assumed that the Confederate losses
   equalled the Union losses; no data exist for a reasonably
   accurate estimate."

      Battles and Leaders of the Civil War,
      volume 4, pages 767-768.

   "In the four years of their service the armies of the Union,
   counting every form of conflict, great and small, had been in
   2,265 engagements with the Confederate troops. From the time
   when active hostilities began until the last gun of the war
   was fired, a fight of some kind—a raid, a skirmish, or a
   pitched battle—occurred at some point on our widely extended
   front nearly eleven times per week upon an average. Counting
   only those engagements in which the Union loss in killed,
   wounded, and missing exceeded 100, the total number was
   330,—averaging one every four and a half days. From the
   northernmost point of contact to the southernmost, the
   distance by any practicable line of communication was more
   than 2,000 miles. From East to West the extremes were 1,500
   miles apart.
{3560}
   During the first year of hostilities—one of preparation on
   both sides—the battles were … 35 in number, of which the most
   serious was the Union defeat at Bull Run. In 1862 the war had
   greatly 'increased in magnitude and intensity, as is shown by
   the 84 engagements between the armies. The net result of the
   year's operations was highly favorable to the Rebellion. In
   1863 the battles were 110 in number—among them some of the
   most significant and important victories for the Union. In
   1864 there were 73 engagements, and in the winter and early
   spring of 1865 there were 28. In fact, 1864-65 was one
   continuous campaign. … Not only in life but in treasure the
   cost of the war was enormous. In addition to the large
   revenues of the Government which had been currently absorbed,
   the public debt at the close of the struggle was
   $2,808,549,437.55. The incidental losses were innumerable in
   kind, incalculable in amount. Mention is made here only of the
   actual expenditure of money—estimated by the standard of gold.
   The outlay was indeed principally made in paper, but the faith
   of the United States was given for redemption in coin—a faith
   which has never been tarnished, and which in this instance has
   been signally vindicated by the steady determination of the
   people. Never, in the same space of time, has there been a
   National expenditure so great. … For the three years of the
   rebellion, after the first year, our War Department alone
   expended $603,314,411.82. $690,391,048.66, and $1,030,690,400
   respectively. … At the outbreak of hostilities the Government
   discovered that it had no Navy at command. The Secretary, Mr.
   Welles, found upon entering his office but a single ship in a
   Northern port fitted to engage in aggressive operations. … By
   the end of the year 1863 the Government had 600 vessels of war
   which were increased to 700 before the rebellion was subdued.
   Of the total number at least 75 were ironclad."

      J. G. Blaine,
      Twenty Years of Congress,
      volume 2, chapter 2,
      and volume 1, chapter 25.

   "Eleven Confederate cruisers figured in the 'Alabama claims'
   settlement between the United States and Great Britain. They
   were the Alabama, Shenandoah, Florida, Tallahassee, Georgia,
   Chickamauga, Nashville, Retribution, Sumter, Sallie and
   Boston. The actual losses inflicted by the Alabama
   ($6,547,609) were only about $60,000 greater than those
   charged to the Shenandoah. The sum total of the claims filed
   against the eleven cruisers for ships and cargoes was
   $17,900,633, all but about $4,000,000 being caused by the
   Alabama and Shenandoah. … In the 'Case of the United States' …
   it is stated that while in 1860 two-thirds of the commerce of
   New York was carried on in American bottoms, in 1863
   three-fourths was carried on in foreign bottoms. The transfer
   of American vessels to the British flag to avoid capture is
   stated thus:
   In 1861, vessels 126, tonnage 71,673;
   in 1862, vessels 135, tonnage 64,578;
   in 1863, vessels 348, tonnage 252,579;
   in 1864, vessels 106, tonnage 92,052.

   … The cruisers built or purchased in England for the
   Confederate navy, were the Florida, Alabama, Shenandoah and
   Rappahannock. The latter never made a cruise, and the others
   were procured for the government by James D. Bulloch, naval
   agent. … He also had constructed in France the armored ram
   Stonewall."

      J. T. Scharf,
      History of the Confederate States Navy,
      chapter 26.

      See ALABAMA CLAIMS.

   "The greatest of all the lessons afforded to humanity by the
   Titanic struggle in which the American Republic saved its life
   is the manner in which its armies were levied, and, when the
   occasion for their employment was over, were dismissed. Though
   there were periods when recruiting was slow and expensive, yet
   there were others, when some crying necessity for troops was
   apparent, that showed almost incredible speed and efficiency
   in the supply of men. Mr. Stanton, in his report for 1865,
   says: 'After the disasters on the Peninsula in 1862, over
   80,000 troops were enlisted, organized, armed, equipped, and
   sent into the field in less than a month. Sixty thousand
   troops have repeatedly gone to the field within four weeks;
   and 90,000 infantry were sent to the armies from the five
   States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, and Wisconsin within
   twenty days.'"

      J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 10, chapter 17.

      See also, PRISONS AND PRISON-PENS, CONFEDERATE.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (May-July).
   President Johnson's measures of Reconstruction
   in the Insurrectionary States.

   "On the 10th of May the President [Andrew Johnson] issued a
   proclamation declaring substantially that actual hostilities
   had ceased, and that 'armed resistance to the authority of the
   Government in the insurrectionary States may be regarded at an
   end.' This great fact being officially recognized, the
   President found himself face to face with the momentous duty
   of bringing the eleven States of the Confederacy into active
   and harmonious relations with the Government of the Union. …
   An extra session of Congress seemed specially desirable at the
   time, and had one been summoned by the President, many of the
   troubles which subsequently resulted might have been averted.
   … Declining to seek the advice of Congress, in the
   embarrassments of his position, President Johnson necessarily
   subjected himself to the counsel and influence of his
   Cabinet," in which he had made no changes since President
   Lincoln's death. Among the members of the cabinet, the one who
   succeeded in obtaining ascendancy was Mr. Seward, who had
   rapidly recovered from his injuries and resumed the direction
   of the Department of State. Mr. Seward "was firmly persuaded
   that the wisest plan of reconstruction was the one which would
   be speediest; that for the sake of impressing the world with
   the strength and the marvelous power of self-government, with
   its Law, its Order, its Peace, we should at the earliest
   possible moment have every State restored to its normal
   relations with the Union. He did not believe that guarantee of
   any kind beyond an oath of renewed loyalty was needful. He was
   willing to place implicit faith in the coercive power of
   self-interest operating upon the men lately in rebellion. … By
   his arguments and by his eloquence Mr. Seward completely
   captivated the President. He effectually persuaded him that a
   policy of anger and hate and vengeance could lead only to evil
   results. … The President was gradually influenced by Mr.
   Seward's arguments, though their whole tenor was against his
   strongest predilections and against his pronounced and public
   committals to a policy directly the reverse. … Mr. Seward's
   influence was supplemented and enhanced by the timely and
   artful interposition of clever men from the South. … He
   [President Johnson] was not especially open to flattery, but
   it was noticed that words of commendation from his native
   section seemed peculiarly pleasing to him. …
{3561}
   On the 29th of May … two decisive steps were taken in the work
   of reconstruction. Both steps proceeded on the theory that
   every act needful for the rehabilitation of the seceded States
   could be accomplished by the Executive Department of the
   Government. … The first of these important acts of
   reconstruction, upon the expediency of which the President and
   Mr. Seward had agreed, was the issuing of a Proclamation of
   Amnesty and Pardon to 'all persons who have directly or
   indirectly participated in the existing Rebellion,' upon the
   condition that such persons should take and subscribe an
   oath—to be registered for permanent preservation—solemnly
   declaring that henceforth they would 'faithfully support,
   protect, and defend, the Constitution of the United States and
   the union of the States thereunder;' and that they would also
   'abide by and faithfully support all laws and proclamations
   which have been made during the existing Rebellion, with
   reference to the emancipation of slaves.' … The general
   declaration of amnesty was somewhat narrowed in its scope by
   the enumeration, at the end of the proclamation, of certain
   classes which were excepted from its benefit." Of the thirteen
   classes thus excepted, the first six were nearly identical
   with those excepted in President Lincoln's proclamation of
   December 8, 1863.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863-1864 (DECEMBER-JULY).

   The classes added were: "Seventh, 'All persons who have been,
   or are, absentees from the United States for the purpose of
   aiding the Rebellion.' … Eighth, 'All officers in the rebel
   service who had been educated at the United-States Military or
   Naval Academy.' … Ninth, 'All men who held the pretended
   offices of governors of States in insurrection against the
   United States.' … Tenth, 'All persons who left their homes
   within the jurisdiction and protection of the United States,
   and passed beyond the Federal military lines into the
   pretended Confederate States for the purpose of aiding the
   Rebellion.' … Eleventh, 'All persons who have been engaged in
   the destruction of the commerce of the United States upon the
   high seas … and upon the lakes and rivers that separate the
   British Provinces from the United States.' … Twelfth, 'All
   persons who, at the time when they seek to obtain amnesty and
   pardon, are in military, naval, or civil confinement, as
   prisoners of war, or persons detained for offenses of any kind
   either before or after conviction.' … Thirteenth, 'All
   participants in the Rebellion, the estimated value of whose
   taxable property is over $20,000.' … Full pardon was granted,
   without further act on their part, to all who had taken the
   oath prescribed in President Lincoln's proclamation of
   December 8, 1863, and who had thenceforward kept and
   maintained the same inviolate. … A circular from Mr. Seward
   accompanied the proclamation, directing that the oath might
   'be taken and subscribed before any commissioned officer,
   civil, military, or naval, in the service of the United
   States, or before any civil or military officer of a loyal
   State or Territory, who, by the laws thereof, may be qualified
   to administer oaths.' Everyone who took the oath was entitled
   to a certified copy of it, … and a duplicate, properly
   vouched, was forwarded to the State Department. … With these
   details complete, a second step of great moment was taken by
   the Government on the same day (May 29). A proclamation was
   issued appointing William W. Holden provisional governor of
   the State of North Carolina. … The proclamation made it the
   duty of Governor Holden, 'at the earliest practicable period,
   to prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary
   and proper for assembling a convention—composed of delegates
   who are loyal to the United States and no others—for the
   purpose of altering or amending the Constitution thereof, and
   with authority to exercise, within the limit of said State,
   all the powers necessary and proper to enable the loyal people
   of the State of North Carolina to restore said State to its
   constitutional relations to the Federal Government.' … It was
   specially provided in the proclamation that in 'choosing
   delegates to any State Convention no person shall be qualified
   as an elector or eligible as a member unless he shall have
   previously taken the prescribed oath of allegiance, and unless
   he shall also possess the qualifications of a voter as defined
   under the Constitution and Laws of North Carolina as they
   existed on the 20th of May, 1861, immediately prior to the
   so-called ordinance of secession.' Mr. Lincoln had in mind, as
   was shown by his letter to Governor Hahn of Louisiana, to try
   the experiment of negro suffrage, beginning with those who had
   served in the Union Army, and who could read and write; but
   President Johnson's plan confined the suffrage to white men,
   by prescribing the same qualifications as were required in
   North Carolina before the war. … A fortnight later, on the
   13th of June, a proclamation was issued for the reconstruction
   of the civil government of Mississippi, and William L. Sharkey
   was appointed provisional governor. Four days later, on the
   17th of June, a similar proclamation was issued for Georgia
   with James Johnson for provisional governor, and for Texas
   with Andrew J. Hamilton for provisional governor. On the 21st
   of the same month Lewis E. Parsons was appointed provisional
   governor of Alabama, and on the 30th Benjamin F. Perry was
   appointed provisional governor of South Carolina. On the 13th
   of July the list was completed by the appointment of William
   Marvin as provisional governor of Florida. The precise text of
   the North Carolina proclamation, 'mutatis mutandis,' was
   repeated in each one of those relating to these six States. …
   For the reconstruction of the other four States of the
   Confederacy different provisions were made." In Virginia, the
   so-called "Pierpont government"—see VIRGINIA: A. D. 1861
   (JUNE-NOVEMBER)—"the shell of which had been preserved after
   West Virginia's separate existence had been recognized by the
   National Government, with its temporary capital at Alexandria,
   was accepted by President Johnson's Administration as the
   legitimate Government of Virginia. All its archives, property,
   and effects, as was afterwards said by Thaddeus Stevens, were
   taken to Richmond in an ambulance. … A course not dissimilar
   to that adopted in Virginia was followed in Louisiana,
   Arkansas, and Tennessee. In all of them the so-called
   'ten-per-cent' governments established under Mr. Lincoln's
   authority were now recognized. … The whole scheme of
   reconstruction, as originated by Mr. Seward and adopted by the
   President, was in operation by the middle of July, three
   months after the assassination of Mr. Lincoln.
{3562}
   Every step taken was watched with the deepest solicitude by
   the loyal people. The rapid and thorough change in the
   President's position was clearly discerned and fully
   appreciated. His course of procedure was dividing the
   Republican party, and already encouraging the hopes of those
   in the North who had been the steady opponents of Mr.
   Lincoln's war policy, and of those in the South who had sought
   for four years to destroy the Great Republic."

      J. G. Blaine,
      Twenty Years of Congress,
      volume 2, chapters 3-4.

      ALSO IN:
      S. S. Cox,
      Three Decades of Federal Legislation,
      chapters 18-20.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (July-December).
   Reports of Carl Schurz and General Grant on the condition
   of affairs in the lately rebellious States.

   In the summer of 1865 the Honorable Carl Schurz was
   commissioned by President Johnson to visit the Southern States
   and investigate the condition of affairs in them. Mr. Schurz,
   on returning from this mission, made a report of the result of
   his observations and inquiries, and the conclusions to which
   they led him, which was transmitted to the Senate, by the
   President, on the 18th of December. The views thus submitted
   were summarized at the close of the report, as follows: "I may
   sum up all I have said in a few words. If nothing were
   necessary but to restore the machinery of government in the
   States lately in rebellion in point of form, the movements
   made to that end by the people of the south might be
   considered satisfactory. But if it is required that the
   southern people should also accommodate themselves to the
   results of the war in point of spirit, those movements fall
   far short of what must be insisted upon. The loyalty of the
   masses and most of the leaders of the southern people consists
   in submission to necessity. There is, except in individual
   instances, an entire absence of that national spirit which
   forms the basis of true loyalty and patriotism. The
   emancipation of the slaves is submitted to only in so far as
   chattel slavery in the old form could not be kept up. But
   although the freedman is no longer considered the property of
   the individual master, he is considered the slave of society,
   and all independent State legislation will share the tendency
   to make him such. The ordinances abolishing slavery passed by
   the conventions under the pressure of circumstances will not
   be looked upon as barring the establishment of a new form of
   servitude. Practical attempts on the part of the southern
   people to deprive the negro of his rights as a freeman may
   result in bloody collisions, and will certainly plunge
   southern society into restless fluctuations and anarchical
   confusion. Such evils can be prevented only by continuing the
   control of the national government in the States lately in
   rebellion until free labor is fully developed and firmly
   established, and the advantages and blessings of the new order
   of things have disclosed themselves. This desirable result
   will be hastened by a firm declaration on the part of the
   government, that national control in the south will not cease
   until such results are secured. Only in this way can that
   security be established in the south which will render
   numerous immigration possible, and such immigration would
   materially aid a favorable development of things. The solution
   of the problem would be very much facilitated by enabling all
   the loyal and free-labor elements in the south to exercise a
   healthy influence upon legislation. It will hardly be possible
   to secure the freedman against oppressive class legislation
   and private persecution, unless he be endowed with a certain
   measure of political power. As to the future peace and harmony
   of the Union, it is of the highest importance that the people
   lately in rebellion be not permitted to build up another
   'peculiar institution' whose spirit is in conflict with the
   fundamental principles of our political system; for as long as
   they cherish interests peculiar to them in preference to those
   they have in common with the rest of the American people,
   their loyalty to the Union will always be uncertain. I desire
   not to be understood as saying that there are no well-meaning
   men among those who were compromised in the rebellion. There
   are many, but neither their number nor their influence is
   strong enough to control the manifest tendency of the popular
   spirit. There are great reasons for hope that a determined
   policy on the part of the national government will produce
   innumerable and valuable conversions. This consideration
   counsels lenity as to persons, such as is demanded by the
   humane and enlightened spirit of our times, and vigor and
   firmness in the carrying out of principles, such as is
   demanded by the national sense of justice and the exigencies
   of our situation." With the report of Mr. Schurz, the
   President transmitted to the Senate, at the same time, a
   letter written by General Grant after making a hurried tour of
   inspection in some of the Southern States, during the last
   week of November and early in December. General Grant wrote:
   "Four years of war, during which law was executed only at the
   point of the bayonet throughout the States in rebellion, have
   left the people possibly in a condition not to yield that
   ready obedience to civil authority the American people have
   generally been in the habit of yielding. This would render the
   presence of small garrisons throughout those States necessary
   until such time as labor returns to its proper channel, and
   civil authority is fully established. I did not meet anyone,
   either those holding places under the government or citizens
   of the southern States, who think it practicable to withdraw
   the military from the south at present. The white and the
   black mutually require the protection of the general
   government. There is such universal acquiescence in the
   authority of the general government throughout the portions of
   country visited by me, that the mere presence of a military
   force, without regard to numbers, is sufficient to maintain
   order. The good of the country, and economy, require that the
   force kept in the interior, where there are many freedmen,
   (elsewhere in the southern States than at forts upon the
   seacoast no force is necessary,) should all be white troops.
   The reasons for this are obvious without mentioning many of
   them. The presence of black troops, lately slaves, demoralizes
   labor, both by their advice and by furnishing in their camps a
   resort for the freedmen for long distances around. White
   troops generally excite no opposition, and therefore a small
   number of them can maintain order in a given district. Colored
   troops must be kept in bodies sufficient to defend themselves.
   It is not the thinking men who would use violence towards any
   class of troops sent among them by the general government, but
   the ignorant in some places might; and the late slave seems to
   be imbued with the idea that the property of his late master
   should, by right, belong to him, or at least should have no
   protection from the colored soldier.
{3563}
   There is danger of collisions being brought on by such causes.
   My observations lead me to the conclusion that the citizens of
   the southern States are anxious to return to self-government,
   within the Union, as soon as possible; that whilst
   reconstructing they want and require protection from the
   government; that they are in earnest in wishing to do what
   they think is required by the government, not humiliating to
   them as citizens, and that if such a course were pointed out
   they would pursue it in good faith. It is to be regretted that
   there cannot be a greater commingling, at this time, between
   the citizens of the two sections, and particularly of those
   intrusted with the lawmaking power. … In some instances, I am
   sorry to say, the freedman's mind does not seem to be
   disabused of the idea that a freedman has the right to live
   without care or provision for the future. The effect of the
   belief in division of lands is idleness and accumulation in
   camps, towns, and cities. In such cases I think it will be
   found that vice and disease will tend to the extermination or
   great reduction of the colored race. It cannot be expected
   that the opinions held by men at the south for years can be
   changed in a day, and therefore the freedmen require, for a
   few years, not only laws to protect them, but the fostering
   care of those who will give them good counsel, and on whom
   they rely."

      39th Congress, 1st Session,
      Senate Ex. Doc. no. 2, pages 45-46, 106-107.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (December).
   The end of Slavery.
   Proclamation of the adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (JANUARY).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865-1866.
   The creation of the Freedmen's Bureau.

   On the last day of the 38th Congress, March 3, 1865, an Act
   was passed to establish a bureau for the relief of freedmen
   and refugees. It was among the last Acts approved by Mr.
   Lincoln, and was designed as a protection to the freedmen of
   the South and to the class of white men known as "refugees,"—
   driven from their homes on account of their loyalty to the
   Union. The Act provided that the Bureau should have
   "supervision and management of all abandoned lands, and the
   control of all subjects relating to refugees and freedmen from
   rebel States, or from any district of country within the
   territory embraced in the operations of the army, under such
   rules and regulations as may be prescribed by the head of the
   bureau and approved by the President. The said bureau shall be
   under the management and control of a commissioner, to be
   appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent
   of the Senate. … The Secretary of War may direct such issues
   of provisions, clothing, and fuel as he may deem needful for
   the immediate and temporary shelter and supply of destitute
   and suffering refugees and freedmen, and their wives and
   children, under such rules and regulations as he may direct. …
   The President may, by and with the advice and consent of the
   Senate, appoint an assistant commissioner for each of the
   States declared to be in insurrection, not exceeding ten. …
   Any military officer may be detailed and assigned to duty
   under this act without increase of pay or allowances. … The
   commissioner, under the direction of the President, shall have
   authority to set apart for the use of loyal refugees and
   freedmen such tracts of land, within the insurrectionary
   States, as shall have been abandoned, or to which the United
   States shall have acquired title by confiscation, or sale, or
   otherwise. And to every male citizen, whether refugee or
   freedman, as aforesaid, there shall be assigned not more than
   40 acres of such land, and the person to whom it is so
   assigned shall be protected in the use and enjoyment of the
   land for the term of three years, at an annual rent not
   exceeding 6 per centum upon the value of said land as it was
   appraised by the State authorities in the year 1860. … At the
   end of said term, or at any time during said term, the
   occupants of any parcels so assigned may purchase the land and
   receive such title thereto as the United States can convey. …
   On the 20th of May, 1865, Major-General O. O. Howard was
   appointed Commissioner of the Freedmen's Bureau. He gave great
   attention to the subject of education; and after planting
   schools for the freedmen throughout a great portion of the
   South, in 1870—five years after the work was begun—he made a
   report. It was full of interest. In five years there were
   4,239 schools established, 9,307 teachers employed, and
   247,333 pupils instructed. In 1868 the average attendance was
   89,396; but in 1870 it was 91,398, or 79¾ per-cent. of the
   total number enrolled. The emancipated people sustained 1,324
   schools themselves, and owned 592 school buildings. The
   Freedmen's Bureau furnished 654 buildings for school
   purposes."

      G. W. Williams,
      History of the Negro Race in America,
      part 8, chapters 21-22 (volume 2).

   As the original act, "by experience, had proved somewhat
   inadequate for the ends in view, Congress, in the early part
   of February, 1866, submitted an act amendatory … for executive
   approval. Its main features consisted in the reservation of
   three millions of acres of public land in the South from the
   operation of the homestead and pre-emption laws for occupation
   by former slaves at a rental to be approved by designated
   authorities, an extension of the former means of relief in the
   way of food and clothing, and the punishment, by tribunals
   composed of the agents and officials of the bureau, of all
   persons who should violate the rights under this act of its
   designated beneficiaries. … The President, chafing under the
   non-admission to their representation in Congress of the
   Southern States which under his policy had been restored,
   vetoed the bill February 19 on various grounds, among the more
   important of which, and the only ones of particular import,
   were that the measure violated constitutional guarantees in
   that no person by our organic code should be deprived of life,
   liberty or property without due process of law, and that
   taxation should never be imposed without representation. …
   February 21st the bill was again put upon its passage, but not
   obtaining a two-thirds vote in the Senate, consequently failed
   to become a law. … The third Freedmen's Bureau bill, of July,
   1866, was another attempt to amend the original law of March
   3, 1865, as to juridical measures for the enforcement thereof,
   and to perfect the distribution of the abandoned and
   confiscated lands of the South among the blacks. It was much
   milder in form than the one vetoed in February of the same
   year, as it did not make violations of the proposed law a
   criminal offence.
{3564}
   It proposed to give jurisdiction of such violations, however,
   to military tribunals, made up of the agents and officers of
   the bureau, until the Southern States had been restored to
   their representation in Congress. … July 16, 1866, the
   President vetoed the bill as a matter of course. He could have
   pursued no other action without self-contradiction. Congress,
   moreover, could not have reasonably expected a different
   result. It framed the bill not with an eye for executive
   approval, but with regard to its ability to pass it over the
   disapproval of that official, which it did on the same day the
   veto message was received, thereby making it a law of the
   land."

      O. Skinner,
      The Issues of American Politics,
      part 2, chapter 2.

   "The law made the agents of this Bureau guardians of freedmen,
   with power to make their contracts, settle their disputes with
   employers, and care for them generally. The position of Bureau
   agent was one of power, of responsibility, capable of being
   used beneficently, and sometimes, no doubt, it was; but these
   officials were subjected to great temptation. … Nearly every
   one of these agents who remained South after reconstruction
   was a candidate for office; and many actually became
   Governors, Judges, Legislators, Congressmen, Postmasters,
   Revenue officers, etc."

      H. A. Herbert,
      Why the Solid South?
      chapter 1.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865-1866 (December-April).
   The Reconstruction question in Congress.
   The Joint Committee of Fifteen.
   The shaping of the Fourteenth Amendment.

   The "independent measures of the Executive for reconstruction
   were far from giving satisfaction to the Republican party.
   Within a few days after the meeting of Congress, in December,
   1865, Mr. Stevens, of Pennsylvania, asked leave to introduce a
   joint resolution which provided that a committee of fifteen
   members should be appointed—nine of whom were to be members of
   the House and six to be members of the Senate—for the purpose
   of inquiring into the condition of the states which had formed
   the so-called Confederate States of America. This committee
   was to report whether these states or any of them were
   entitled to be represented in either house of Congress. Leave
   was given to report at any time, by bill or otherwise, and
   until such should be made and finally acted upon by Congress,
   no member was to be received into either house from any of
   those states. All papers relating to this representation in
   Congress were to be referred to this committee without debate.
   This resolution was adopted in the House by a vote of—yeas
   133, nays 36." In the Senate it received amendments which made
   it a concurrent, instead of a joint resolution, and which
   struck out the clause relating to the non-admittance of
   members from the States in question pending the committee's
   report, and also that which required a reference of papers to
   the committee without debate.

      S. S. Cox,
      Three Decades of Federal Legislation,
      chapter 18.

   The Joint Committee on Reconstruction was constituted by the
   appointment (December 14), on the part of the House, of
   Thaddeus Stevens, Elihu B. Washburn, Justin S. Morrill, Henry
   Grider, John A. Bingham, Roscoe Conkling, George S. Boutwell,
   Henry T. Blow, and Andrew J. Rogers; and by the appointment
   (December 21), on the part of the Senate, of William Pitt
   Fessenden, James W. Grimes, Ira Harris, Jacob M. Howard,.
   Reverdy Johnson, and George H. Williams. The most serious
   question connected with the problem of reconstruction was that
   arising from the great increase of representation in Congress,
   and consequent augmentation of political weight and power,
   that must necessarily accrue to the lately rebellious States
   from the emancipation of their slaves. To this question the
   Committee gave their attention first. By an original provision
   of the Constitution, representation is based on the whole
   number of free persons in each State and three-fifths of all
   other persons. "When all become free, representation for all
   necessarily follows. As a consequence the inevitable effect of
   the rebellion would be to increase the political power of the
   insurrectionary States, whenever they should be allowed to
   resume their positions as States of the Union. As
   representation is by the Constitution based upon population,
   your committee [said their report, when made, on the 8th of
   June, 1866] did not think it advisable to recommend a change
   of that basis. … It appeared to your committee that the rights
   of these persons by whom the basis of representation had been
   thus increased should be recognized by the general government.
   … It did not seem just or proper that all the political
   advantages derived from their becoming free should be confined
   to their former masters, who had fought against the Union, and
   withheld from themselves, who had always been loyal. … Doubts
   were entertained whether Congress had power, even under the
   amended Constitution, to prescribe the qualifications of
   voters in a State, or could act directly on the subject. It
   was doubtful, in the opinion of your committee, whether the
   States would consent to surrender a power they had always
   exercised, and to which they were attached. As the best if not
   the only method of surmounting the difficulty, and as
   eminently just and proper in itself, your committee came to
   the conclusion that political power should be possessed in all
   the States exactly in proportion as the right of suffrage
   should be granted, without distinction of color or race. This
   it was thought would leave the whole question with the people
   of each State, holding out to all the advantage of increased
   political power as an inducement to allow all to participate
   in its exercise." To this conclusion the committee arrived as
   early as the 22d of January, when they made a preliminary
   report, recommending an amendment to the constitution to the
   effect that "Representatives and direct taxes shall be
   apportioned among the several States which may be included
   within this Union according to their respective numbers,
   counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding
   Indians not taxed: Provided, That whenever the elective
   franchise shall be denied or abridged in any State on account
   of race or color, all persons of such race or color shall be
   excluded from the basis of representation." Grave objections
   were found to the proposed exclusion of the colored race as a
   whole from the basis of representation, in case the suffrage
   should be denied to any part of it. It was shown, moreover,
   that disfranchisement might be practically accomplished on
   other grounds than that of race or color and the intended
   effect of the constitutional provision evaded.
{3665}
   Hence the proposition of the Committee failed in the Senate
   (March 9, 1866), though adopted by the House (January 31). On
   the 20th of February, the Committee on Reconstruction reported
   a concurrent resolution, "That in order to close agitation
   upon a question which seems likely to disturb the action of
   the Government, as well as to quiet the uncertainty which is
   agitating the minds of the people of the eleven States which
   have been declared to be in insurrection, no Senator or
   Representative shall be admitted into either branch of
   Congress from any of said States until Congress shall have
   declared such State entitled to such representation." The
   House adopted this important concurrent resolution the same
   evening. In the Senate it was debated until the 2d of March,
   when it was passed by a vote of 29 to 18. On the 30th of April
   the Reconstruction Committee reported a joint resolution
   embodying a comprehensive amendment to the Constitution,
   designed to protect the rights of the freedmen of the South,
   as citizens of the United States, and to fix the basis of
   representation in Congress, as well as to settle other
   questions arising out of the Rebellion. As adopted by Congress
   in June, and subsequently ratified by the legislatures of the
   necessary number of States this became what appears as the
   Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866 (JUNE).

   "This proposed amendment to the Constitution was accompanied
   by two bills, one of which provided that when any State lately
   in insurrection should have ratified the amendment, its
   Senators and Representatives, if found duly elected and
   qualified, should be admitted as members of Congress. The
   other bill declared the high ex-officials of the late
   Confederacy ineligible to any office under the Government of
   the United States."

      W. H. Barnes,
      History of the 39th Congress,
      chapters 3, and 13-19.

      ALSO IN:
      Report of Joint Committee on Reconstruction,
      39th Congress, 1st session.
      H. R. Report, number. 30.

      A. R. Conkling,
      Life and Letters of Roscoe Conkling,
      chapter 14.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866.
   The Fenian movement and invasion of Canada.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1858-1867;
      and CANADA: A. D. 1866-1871.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866 (February).
   The French warned out of Mexico.

      See MEXICO: A. D.1861-1867.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866 (April).
   The passage of the first Civil Rights Bill
   over the President's veto.

   "Immediately on the reassembling of Congress after the
   holidays, January 5, 1866, Mr. Trumbull [in the Senate], in
   pursuance of previous notice, introduced a bill 'to protect
   all persons in the United States in their civil rights, and
   furnish the means of their vindication.' This bill, having
   been read twice, was referred to the Committee on the
   Judiciary." A few days later the bill was reported back from
   the Committee, and it came up for discussion on the 29th of
   January. On the 1st of February it passed the Senate and went
   to the House. In that body it was reported from the Judiciary
   Committee on the 1st of March, and debate upon the measure
   began. It passed the House, with some amendments, March 13th,
   by a vote of 111 to 38. The amendments of the House were
   agreed to by the Senate, and it went to the President, who
   returned it with an elaborate veto message on the 27th of
   March. In the Senate, on the 6th of April, by 33 ayes to 15
   nays, and in the House three days later, by 122 affirmative
   votes to 41 in the negative, the bill was passed
   notwithstanding the veto, and became law. As enacted, the
   Civil Rights Bill declared "that all persons born in the
   United States and not subject to any foreign Power, excluding
   Indians not taxed, are … citizens of the United States; and
   such citizens of every race and color, without regard to any
   previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except
   as a punishment for crime, … shall have the same right in
   every State and Territory of the United States to make and
   enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to
   inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and
   personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws
   and proceedings for the security of person and property as is
   enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like
   punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law,
   statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to the contrary
   notwithstanding." Section 2 of the act provided penalties for
   its violation. The remaining sections gave to the district and
   circuit courts of the United States cognizance of all crimes
   and offenses committed against the provisions of the act;
   extended the jurisdiction of those courts and enlarged and
   defined the powers and duties of the district attorneys,
   marshals, deputy marshals and commissioners of the United
   States, to that end; made it lawful for the President "to
   employ such part of the land or naval forces of the United
   States, or of the militia, as shall be necessary to prevent
   the violation and enforce the due execution of this act;" and,
   finally, provided that "upon all questions of law arising in
   any cause under the provisions of this act a final appeal may
   be taken to the Supreme Court of the United States."

      W. H. Barnes,
      History of the 39th Congress,
      chapters 9-11.

      ALSO IN:
      H. Wilson,
      History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power,
      volume 3, chapter 48.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866 (June).
   Congressional adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment.

   The joint resolution, embodying the important amendment to the
   Federal Constitution which became, when ratified, the
   Fourteenth Amendment, reported to Congress on the 30th of
   April, 1866, by the Joint Committee on Reconstruction was
   passed by the House of Representatives on the 10th of May, and
   by the Senate on the 8th of June, with amendments which the
   House concurred in on the 13th of June.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865-1866 (DECEMBER-APRIL).

   Having no constitutional power to veto the resolution,
   President Johnson sent a message to Congress on the 22d
   expressing his disapproval of it. The proposed constitutional
   amendment as it passed both Houses of Congress, and as it
   became part of the constitution of the United States by
   subsequent ratification of the States, is as follows:

   "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United
   States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens
   of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No
   State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
   privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor
   shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or
   property without due process of law; nor deny to any person
   within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

{3566}

   Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the
   several States according to their respective numbers, counting
   the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians
   not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the
   choice of electors for President and Vice President of the
   United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and
   judicial officers of a State, or the members of the
   Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants
   of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of
   the United States, or in any way abridged, except for
   participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of
   representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion
   which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole
   number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

   Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in
   Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold
   any office, civil or military, under the United States, or
   under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a
   member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or
   as a member of any State Legislature, or as an executive or
   judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of
   the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or
   rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the
   enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of
   each House, remove such disability.

   Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United
   States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for
   payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing
   insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But
   neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay
   any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or
   rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss
   or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations
   and claims shall be held illegal and void.

   Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by
   appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

      W. H. Barnes,
      History of the 39th Congress,
      chapters 17-18.

      ALSO IN:
      J. G. Blaine,
      Twenty Years of Congress,
      volume 2, chapter 9.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866 (July).
   Restoration of Tennessee to her
   "former, proper, practical relation to the Union."

      See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1865-1866.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866 (July).
   The New Orleans Riot.

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1865-1867.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866-1867 (October-March).
   The Reconstruction issue before the people.
   Congress sustained by the North.
   President Johnson and the South.
   Rejection of the Fourteenth Amendment by the Southern States.

   In the elections of 1866 the canvass turned upon the issue
   between Congress and the President concerning Reconstruction,
   and the popular verdict was overwhelmingly adverse to the
   Presidential policy, while a new Congress was elected far more
   Radical in disposition than its predecessor. Every Northern
   State was swept by the Republicans, with heavily increased
   majorities. Even those "which had been tenaciously Democratic
   gave way under the popular pressure. … The aggregate majority
   for the Republicans and against the Administration in the
   Northern States was about 390,000 votes. In the South the
   elections were as significant as in the North, but in the
   opposite direction. Wherever Republican or Union tickets were
   put forward for State or local offices in the Confederate
   States, they were defeated by prodigious majorities. Arkansas
   gave a Democratic majority of over 9,000, Texas over 40,000,
   and North Carolina 25,000. The border slave States were
   divided. Delaware, Maryland and Kentucky gave strong
   majorities for the Democrats, while West Virginia and Missouri
   were carried by the Republicans. The unhappy indication of the
   whole result was that President Johnson's policy had inspired
   the South with a determination not to submit to the legitimate
   results of the war, but to make a new fight and, if possible,
   regain at the ballot-box the power they had lost by war. The
   result of the whole election was to give to the Republicans
   143 representatives in Congress and to the Democrats but 49."
   But when Congress assembled, in December, the President was
   found to be inflexibly determined to pursue the line of policy
   which he had marked out. In his message he reiterated his
   views "with entire disregard of the popular result which had
   so significantly condemned him. … The President's position …
   excited derision and contempt in the North, but it led to
   mischievous results in the South. The ten Confederate States
   which stood knocking at the door of Congress for the right of
   representation, were fully aware, as was well stated by a
   leading Republican, that the key to unlock the door had been
   placed in their own hands. They knew that the political
   canvass in the North had proceeded upon the basis, and upon
   the practical assurance (given through the press, and more
   authoritatively in political platforms), that whenever any
   other Confederate State should follow the example of
   Tennessee, it should at once be treated as Tennessee had been
   treated. Yet, when this position had been confirmed by the
   elections in all the loyal States, and was, by the special
   warrant of popular power, made the basis of future admission,
   these ten States, voting upon the Fourteenth Amendment at
   different dates through the winter of 1866-67, contemptuously
   rejected it. In the Virginia Legislature only one vote could
   be found for the Amendment. In the North-Carolina Legislature
   only 11 votes out of 148 were in favor of the Amendment. In
   the South-Carolina Legislature there was only one vote for the
   Amendment. In Georgia only two votes out of 169 in the
   Legislature were in the affirmative. Florida unanimously
   rejected the Amendment. Out of 106 votes in the Alabama
   Legislature only ten could be found in favor of it.
   Mississippi and Louisiana both rejected it unanimously. Texas,
   out of her entire Legislature, gave only five votes for it,
   and the Arkansas Legislature, which had really taken its
   action in the preceding October, gave only three votes for the
   Amendment. … It was naturally inferred and was subsequently
   proved, that the Southern States would not have dared to take
   this hostile attitude except with the encouragement and the
   unqualified support of the President."

      J. G. Blaine,
      Twenty Years of Congress,
      volume 2, chapter 10-11.

{3567}

   "No factor in those elections [of 1866] proved more potential
   than the rejection by Southern Legislatures of the pending
   Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
   The clauses on which its acceptance or rejection turned in  these assemblies were: Section II., which apportioned
   Representatives in Congress upon the basis of the voting
   population; and Section II!., which provided that no person
   should hold office under the United States who, having taken
   an oath as a Federal or state officer to support the
   Constitution, had subsequently engaged in the war against the
   Union. It was claimed by the friends of the Amendment to be
   especially unfair that the South should have representation
   for its freedmen and not give them the ballot. The right,
   however, of a state to have representation for all its free
   inhabitants, whether voters or not, was secured by the
   Constitution, and that instrument even allowed three-fifths
   representation for slaves. New York, Ohio, and other states
   denied the ballot to free negroes; some states excluded by
   property qualification and others by educational tests, yet
   all enjoyed representation for all their peoples. The reply to
   this was that the Constitution ought to be amended because the
   South would now have, if negroes were denied the ballot, a
   larger proportion of non-voters than the North. Southern
   people were slow to see that this was good reason for change
   in the Constitution, especially as they believed they were
   already entitled to representation, and conceived that they
   ought to have a voice in proposing as well as in the
   ratification of amendments. Five of the restored states had
   already ratified the Thirteenth Amendment, and such
   ratification had been counted valid. If they were states, they
   were certainly entitled to representation. So they claimed. It
   was perhaps imprudent for Southern people at that time to
   undertake to chop logic with their conquerors, or indeed to
   claim any rights at all. … The insuperable objection, however,
   to the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment was to be
   found in the clause which required the people of the late
   Confederate States to disfranchise their own leaders, to brand
   with dishonor those who had led them in peace and in war."

      H. A. Herbert,
      Why the Solid South?
      (Noted Men on the Solid South)
      pages 15-16.

   In a letter addressed, November 25, 1866, to General Richard
   Taylor, lately of the Confederate army, and brother-in-law of
   Jefferson Davis, General Grant wrote: "I have talked with
   several members of Congress who are classed with the Radicals;
   Schenck and Bidwell for instance. They express the most
   generous views as to what would be done if the Constitutional
   amendments proposed by Congress were adopted by the Southern
   States. What was done in the case of Tennessee was an earnest
   of what would be done in all cases. Even the disqualification
   to hold office imposed on certain classes by one article of
   the amendment would, no doubt, be removed at once, except it
   might be in the cases of the very highest offenders, such, for
   instance, as those who went abroad to aid in the Rebellion,
   those who left seats in Congress, etc. All or very nearly all
   would soon be restored, and so far as security to property and
   liberty is concerned, all would be restored at once. I would
   like exceedingly to see one Southern State, excluded State,
   ratify the amendments to enable us to see the exact course
   that would be pursued. I believe it would much modify the
   demands that may be made if there is delay." "But the
   President's endeavors did not cease. … He used all the
   authority of his office to dissuade the Southerners from
   accepting the amendment which the entire North had ratified. …
   He converted good feeling and good will on both sides into
   discord, and precipitated disasters almost equal to those from
   which the State had barely escaped. … This view of Johnson's
   conduct was thenceforth steadily maintained by Grant."

      A. Badeau,
      Grant in Peace,
      chapter 5.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866-1867 (December-March).
   The Tenure-of-Office Bill.

   "Against the early decision of the founders of the Government,
   … against the repeatedly expressed judgment of ex-President
   Madison, against the equally emphatic judgment of Chief
   Justice Marshall, and above all, against the unbroken practice
   of the Government for 78 years, the Republican leaders now
   determined to deprive the President of the power of removing
   Federal officers. Many were induced to join in the movement
   under the belief that it was important to test the true
   meaning of the Constitution in the premises, and that this
   could be most effectively done by directly restraining by law
   the power which had been so long conceded to the Executive
   Department. To that end Mr. Williams of Oregon, on the first
   Monday of December, 1866, introduced a bill 'to regulate the
   tenure of civil offices.'"

      J. G. Blaine,
      Twenty Years of Congress,
      volume 2, page 270.

   "After grave consideration and protracted discussion in both
   houses of Congress, the [Tenure-of-Office bill] was passed
   near the close of the session. On the 2d of March [1867] the
   bill encountered the veto of the President, who saw in the
   measure serious interference with the ability of the Executive
   to keep his oath to preserve, protect, and defend the
   Constitution of the United States. The bill was immediately
   passed over the veto without debate. The act thus passed
   provides that officers appointed by and with the advice and
   consent of the Senate shall hold their offices until their
   successors are in like manner appointed and qualified. Members
   of the Cabinet hold their offices during the term of the
   President by whom they are appointed, and for one month
   thereafter, subject to removal by consent of the Senate."

      W. H. Barnes,
      History of the 39th Congress,
      page 560.

   Soon after the inauguration of President Grant, in 1868, the
   Tenure-of-Office act was so far modified as to practically
   release the President from the restraint which it put upon his
   power of removal.

      J. G. Blaine,
      Twenty Years of Congress,
      volume 2, chapter 18, and Appendix B.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866-1869.
   Organization of the Bureau of Education.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1866-1869.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866-1871.
    The Ku-Klux Klan of the Southern States and its outrages.

    "It would have been contrary to the experience of mankind,
    and an exception to all the teachings of history, if the
    social and political revolution which the results of the war
    had imposed on the states then recently insurgent had gone
    into operation peacefully, harmoniously, and successfully. It
    was impossible for such to be the case. The transition was
    from a state in which the superiority and domination of the
    white race over the colored race existed unquestioned for
    centuries. It was to a condition of things in which the most
    prominent whites were disfranchised and deprived of the right
    to hold public offices. Their late slaves were enfranchised,
    and the judicial and other offices were largely filled by
    dishonest and unfriendly strangers from the North. What was
    worse still, many of these places were filled by ignorant and
    brutal negroes. The transition was too sudden and violent. It
    was hard to submit to it quietly.
{3568}
    No people, least of all such a proud and intolerant people as
    that of the South, could see their local governments
    transferred from their own hands into the hands of their
    former slaves without being goaded into violent resistance.
    This resistance took the form, in most of the Southern
    States, not of armed opposition to the Federal or the state
    governments, but of organized intimidation and terrorism. It
    was directed against the colored people and against their
    white allies and leaders. It made an objective point of the
    agents of the Freedmen's Bureau, ministers of the gospel, and
    school teachers,—all adventurers from the North, or men who
    had, in quest of fortune, immigrated into these states. All
    of these classes were regarded as public or private enemies.
    They were designated by the opprobrious title of
    'carpet-baggers.' The history of these outrages fills many
    volumes of reports made by joint and separate committees of
    the two houses of Congress. It is from these volumes, from
    reports of military commanders in the South, and from other
    official documents, that the following epitome, exhibiting
    the lawlessness that prevailed in the Southern States during
    the … decade between 1865 and 1875, is made. These documents
    are so full of the details of crime and violence, and are so
    voluminous, that it is exceedingly difficult to select from
    them, or to convey a correct idea of their relations. Very
    soon after the close of the Civil War, almost as soon as the
    Reconstruction acts were begun to be put in operation, secret
    societies were organized in various states of the South.
    Their object, either secret or avowed, was to prevent the
    exercise of political rights by the negroes. These societies
    took various names, such as 'The Brotherhood,' 'The Pale
    Faces,' 'The Invisible Empire,' 'The Knights of the White
    Camellia'; but all these were finally merged into, or
    compounded with, the formidable and dreaded society
    denominated the 'Ku-Klux Klan.' Their acts of lawlessness and
    cruelty have passed into local and congressional history as
    'Ku-Klux outrages.' The State of Virginia was a remarkable
    exception to the other states in its exemption from crimes of
    this character; while the two neighboring States of North
    Carolina and Tennessee furnished, perhaps, more material for
    investigation into Ku-Klux outrages than any other portion of
    the South. This barbarous and bloodthirsty organization is
    said to have originated in 1866. There is no doubt that the
    Ku-Klux Klan was organized at first only to scare the
    superstitious blacks. It is true that it arose out of the
    frivolities of some young Tennesseans. Horrid tales were told
    to frighten the negroes from roaming about and pilfering. The
    testimony before the committee on that subject, of which the
    writer was a member, showed that they daily visited houses
    and talked their foolish talk; that they were 'mummicking
    about,'—whatever that means. … There is no doubt that
    political reasons had their influence after the Ku-Klux were
    under way. … Certain it is, that they soon came to be made
    use of, in the most arbitrary, cruel, and shocking manner,
    for the furtherance of political ends, and for the crushing
    out of Republicanism in the Southern States; to which party
    the colored people were almost unanimously attached. The
    crimes and outrages narrated in these pages had their origin,
    almost exclusively, in political causes,—in the effort on the
    part of the whites to set at naught the rights of suffrage
    guaranteed to the negroes, and to exclude from Federal,
    state, county, and local offices all persons whose reliance
    for election to such offices was mainly if not altogether, on
    negro votes. General Forrest estimated the strength of the
    Ku-Klux organization in Tennessee at 40,000. He expressed the
    belief that it was still stronger in other states. The
    members were sworn to secrecy, under the penalty of death for
    breach of fidelity. Their ordinary mode of operation—as
    gathered from the mass of evidence—was to patrol the country
    at night. They went well armed and mounted. They wore long
    white gowns. They masked their faces. Their appearance
    terrified the timid and superstitious negroes who happened to
    see them as they rode past, and who then regarded them as
    ghostly riders. But most frequently they surrounded and broke
    into the cabins of the negroes; frightened and maltreated the
    inmates; warned them of future vengeance; and probably
    carried off some obnoxious negro, or 'carpet-bagger,' whose
    fate it was to be riddled with murderous bullets, hung to the
    limb of a tree, or mercilessly whipped and tortured, for some
    offense, real or imaginary, but generally because he was
    active in politics or in negro schools or churches. …
    According to the majority report of the Senate select
    committee of March 10, 1871, the Ku-Klux associations, by
    whatever name known, were instituted in North Carolina in
    1867 or 1868. … The report of the Senate committee of the
    10th of March, 1871, before referred to, recites a startling
    number of Ku-Klux outrages. They embrace whipping,
    mutilation, and murder. These cruelties took place in North
    Carolina, between December, 1868, and December, 1870. The
    report gives some of the horrifying details."

      S. S. Cox,
      Three Decades of Federal Legislation,
      chapters 25-26.

   "Senator Scott, in a speech in the Senate, gave as the result
   of the investigation that came to his own knowledge, as
   follows: In North Carolina, in 14 counties, there were 18
   murders and 315 whippings. In South Carolina, 9 counties, 35
   murders and 276 other flagrant outrages. In Georgia, 20
   counties, 72 murders and 126 whippings. In Alabama, 26
   counties, 215 murders and 116 other outrages. In Florida, in
   one county alone there were 153 cases of homicide. In
   Mississippi, 20 counties, 23 homicides and 76 other cases of
   outrage. In 99 counties in different States he found 526
   homicides and 2,009 cases of whipping. But the committee state
   that in Louisiana alone in the year 1868 there were more than
   1,000 murders, and most of them were the result of the
   operations of the Ku Klux."

      H. Wilson,
      History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power,
      volume 3, chapter 45.

      ALSO IN:
      Report of Joint Select Committee
      (42d Congress, 2d session, Senate Report, number 41).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1867 (January).
   Negro Suffrage in the District of Columbia.

   As early as the 18th of January, 1866, the House of
   Representatives passed a bill extending the suffrage in the
   District of Columbia, by striking out the word "white" from
   all laws and parts of laws prescribing the qualification of
   electors for any office in the District, and declaring that no
   person should be disqualified from voting at any election in
   the District on account of color.
{3569}
   As it was known that the President would veto the bill if sent
   to him, the Senate held it until the next session. In
   December, 1866, it was called up in that body by Senator
   Sumner, and after considerable debate was passed, December
   13th. On the 7th of January following it was returned by the
   President with his veto, but was passed over the veto by the
   Senate (29 to 10) the same day, and by the House (113 to 38)
   the day following, thus becoming a law.

      W. H. Barnes,
      History of the 39th Congress,
      chapters 4 and 21.

      ALSO IN:
      G. W. Julian,
      Political Recollections,
      chapter 12.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1867 (March).
   The Purchase of Alaska.

      See ALASKA: A. D. 1867.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1867 (March).
   The Military Reconstruction Acts of Congress.

   "Congress had declared amply enough how the rebel States
   should not be reinstated. Two years after the close of the
   war, however, the Union was still unrestored, and while
   claiming, under the Constitution, absolute jurisdiction of the
   question, Congress had failed to prescribe the terms on which
   the Union should be restored. … Both the country and Congress
   were at last convinced by the course of events that
   affirmative Congressional action was indispensable, involving
   the sweeping away of Mr. Johnson's ex-rebel State governments
   and the enfranchisement of the emancipated slaves. Mr. Stevens
   had been of that opinion ever since the emasculation by the
   Senate of the Fourteenth Amendment, as adopted by the House
   [which had proposed to exclude from the right to vote for
   Representatives in Congress and for Presidential electors,
   'until the 4th day of July, in the year 1870, all persons who
   voluntarily adhered to the late insurrection, giving it aid
   and comfort'], and immediately thereupon proposed a measure
   containing the germ of the Military Reconstruction Act. Called
   up from time to time, and pressed upon the attention of the
   House by Mr. Stevens, it was passed on the 13th day of
   February, 1867, after a four weeks' debate upon it in
   Committee of the Whole. By the 20th both Houses had agreed
   upon it, and passed it. On the 2d day of March the President
   returned it to the House with his veto, over which it was at
   once passed by both Houses; and with only two days of the
   Thirty-ninth Congress to spare, it become law."

      O. J. Hollister,
      Life of Schuyler Colfax,
      chapter 9.

   The Military Reconstruction Act set forth in its preamble that
   "Whereas, no legal State governments or adequate protection
   for life or property now exists in the rebel States
   [enumerating all the late Confederate States except
   Tennessee]; … and whereas it is necessary that peace and good
   order should be enforced in said States until loyal and
   republican State governments can be legally established:
   therefore, Be it enacted, … That said rebel States shall be
   divided into military districts and made subject to the
   military authority of the United States, as hereinafter
   prescribed; and for that purpose Virginia shall constitute the
   first district, North Carolina and South Carolina the second
   district, Georgia, Alabama and Florida the third district,
   Mississippi and Arkansas the fourth district, and Louisiana
   and Texas the fifth district." Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the act
   made it the duty of the President to assign to the command of
   each of the said districts an officer of the army not below
   the rank of brigadier-general, and defined the duties and
   powers of such commander, providing for the assignment to him
   of an adequate military force. Section 5 provided "That when
   the people of any one of said rebel States shall have formed a
   constitution of government in conformity with the Constitution
   of the United States in all respects, framed by a convention
   of delegates elected by the male citizens of said State 21
   years old and upward, of whatever race, color, or previous
   condition, who have been resident in said State for one year
   previous to the day of such election, except such as may be
   disfranchised for participation in the rebellion or for felony
   at common law, and when such constitution shall provide that
   the elective franchise shall be enjoyed by all such persons as
   have the qualifications herein stated for electors of
   delegates, and when such constitution shall be ratified by a
   majority of the persons voting on the question of ratification
   who are qualified as electors for delegates, and when such
   constitution shall have heen submitted to Congress for
   examination and approval, and Congress shall have approved the
   same, and when said State, by a vote of its Legislature
   elected under said constitution, shall have adopted the
   amendment to the Constitution of the United States, proposed
   by the Thirty-ninth Congress, and known as article fourteen,
   and when said article shall have become a part of the
   Constitution of the United States, said State shall be
   declared entitled to representation in Congress, and Senators
   and Representatives shall be admitted therefrom on their
   taking the oath prescribed by law, and then and thereafter the
   preceding sections of this act shall be inoperative in said
   State." It was further provided that no person excluded from
   office by the Fourteenth Amendment should be a member of the
   convention to frame a constitution for any of said rebel
   States, and that any civil government which might exist in any
   of the said States prior to the admission of its
   representatives to Congress should be deemed provisional only,
   and subject to the paramount authority of the United States.
   "The friends of this measure were dissatisfied with it on the
   ground of its incompleteness in not containing provisions for
   carrying it into effect in accordance with the purpose of its
   framers. … The Fortieth Congress, meeting on the 4th of March,
   immediately upon the close of its predecessor, proceeded
   without delay to perfect and pass over the President's veto
   [March 23, 1867] a bill supplementary to the act to provide
   for the more efficient government of the rebel States." By
   this supplementary act specific instructions were given as to
   the course of procedure to be followed in making a
   registration of the voters qualified under the act and in
   conducting the elections provided for.

      W. H. Barnes,
      History of the 39th Congress,
      chapter 22.

      ALSO IN:
      Why the Solid South?
      (Noted Men on the Solid South.)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1868 (March-May).
   Impeachment and Trial of President Johnson.

   "Until the spring of 1866, a year after Mr. Johnson became
   President, there was entire harmony between him and his
   Cabinet. … No objection was raised even to that part of the
   President's first message which treated of the suffrage
   question, by any member of the Cabinet. It was in fact
   approved by all, and by none more heartily than by Mr.
   Stanton. A change took place soon after the Civil Rights bill
   became a law over the President's veto, and bitter controversy
   arose between the President and Congress.
{3570}
   In this controversy, and at its commencement, Mr. Dennison
   [Postmaster-general] and Mr. Harlan [Secretary of the
   Interior] sided with Congress and tendered their resignations,
   which were very reluctantly accepted. They resigned because
   they could not heartily sustain the President, but there was
   no breach of the social relations which had existed between
   them. Mr. Speed [Attorney-general] soon after followed the
   example of Dennison and Harlan. Mr. Stanton [Secretary of War]
   also sided with Congress, but he did not resign. He was
   advised by prominent political and personal friends to
   'stick,' and he did so, contrary to all precedent and in
   opposition to the judgment of conservative men of his party. …
   He attended the Cabinet meetings, not as an adviser of the
   President, but as an opponent of the policy to which he had
   himself been committed, and the President lacked the nerve to
   dismiss him. … In this crisis of his political life, Mr.
   Johnson exhibited a want of spirit and decision which
   astonished those who were familiar with his antecedents. He
   knew when the Tenure-of-Office Bill was before Congress that
   the object of its leading supporters was to tie his hands, and
   yet he refrained from using them when they were free. … When
   he did act he acted unwisely. He retained Mr. Stanton in his
   Cabinet when his right to remove him was unquestionable. He
   suspended him [August 12, 1867] after the Tenure-of-Office
   Bill had become a law, and in accordance with its provisions,
   [directing General Grant to act as Secretary of War ad
   interim]; and when the Senate refused to approve of the
   suspension [January 13, 1868], he issued orders for his
   removal and the appointment of Lorenzo Thomas to be Secretary
   of War ad interim. If he had tried to give his enemies an
   advantage over him, to furnish them with weapons for his own
   discomfiture, he could not have done it more effectually. … If
   he had removed Mr. Stanton instead of suspending him, and
   justified his action on the ground that his control of the
   members of his Cabinet was a constitutional right of which he
   could not be deprived by Congress, he probably would not have
   been impeached. The gist of the charges against him was that
   he had violated a law of Congress in removing Mr. Stanton, or
   issuing an order for his removal, after the Senate had refused
   to sanction his suspension. In the articles of impeachment
   there were other charges against the President, the most
   serious of which were that he had delivered intemperate,
   inflammatory speeches, which were intended to bring into
   contempt the Congress of the United States and duly enacted
   laws. The speeches made by the President in Cleveland, St.
   Louis, and other places in August and September, 1866—in fact,
   all his public addresses during his contest with Congress—were
   in the worst possible taste, derogatory to himself and to his
   high position; but they … did not constitute good ground for
   his impeachment; and this was the opinion of the House, which
   in January, 1867, after they were made, refused to impeach him
   by the decisive vote of 108 to 57. Other causes for his
   impeachment were subsequently sought for. His bank account was
   examined. His private conduct in Washington was carefully
   scrutinized. Men were employed to investigate his public and
   private character in Tennessee, but nothing was found to his
   discredit. … Nothing was found to justify his impeachment but
   the order which he issued for the removal of Mr. Stanton and
   his appointment of General Thomas to be Secretary of the War
   Department ad interim after the Senate had refused to sanction
   Mr. Stanton's suspension." The formal presentment by the House
   of Representatives of its Impeachment against the President,
   at the bar of the Senate, sitting as a Court of Impeachment,
   was made on the 5th day of March, 1868. The answer of the
   President was presented on the 23d; the trial opened on
   Monday, the 30th of March, and closed on the 26th of May
   following. "The trial was a very interesting one, not only to
   the people of the United States, but to the people of other
   countries. … It was the first instance in the history of
   nations of the trial of the head of a government before one of
   the branches of the law-making power, sitting as a judicial
   tribunal, on charges presented by another. The presiding
   officer was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court—the
   senators of the respective States were the jury—the House of
   Representatives the prosecutor. The managers to conduct the
   impeachment for the House were John A. Bingham, George S.
   Boutwell, James F. Wilson, Benjamin F. Butler, Thomas
   Williams, Thaddeus Stevens and John A. Logan, all members of
   the House, all lawyers, and some of them distinguished in the
   profession. The President entered his appearance by Henry
   Stanbery, Benjamin K. Curtis, Jeremiah S. Black, William H.
   Evarts, and Thomas A. K. Nelson. William S. Groesbeck, in the
   course of the trial, appeared and took part as counsel for the
   President in place of Mr. Black." The result of the trial was
   a failure of the Impeachment. The senators who voted "guilty"
   were 35 in number—being less than two-thirds of the
   whole—against 19. Of those who voted in the negative, seven
   were Republicans who had steadily opposed the President's
   policy; four were Republicans who had adhered to him
   throughout; eight were Democrats.

      H. McCulloch,
      Men and Measures of Half a Century,
      chapter 26.

   In the opinion of Mr. Blaine, "the sober reflection of later
   years has persuaded many who favored Impeachment that it was
   not justifiable on the charges made," and that "the President
   was impeached for one series of misdemeanors, and tried for
   another series."

      J. G. Blaine,
      Twenty Years of Congress,
      volume 2, chapter 14.

      ALSO IN:
      Trial of Andrew Johnson,
      (Published by Order of the Senate), 3 volumes.

      Trial of Andrew Johnson,
      Congressional Globe, Supplement, 40th Congress, 2d session.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1868.
   The Burlingame Treaty with China.

      See CHINA: A. D. 1857-1868.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1868 (November).
   The Twenty-first Presidential Election.

   General Ulysses S. Grant, nominated by the Republican party,
   was elected President in November 1868, by 3,012,833 votes of
   the people against 2,703,249 votes cast for Horatio Seymour,
   ex-Governor of New York, the candidate of the Democratic
   party. The electoral vote returned and counted was 214 for
   Grant and 80 for Seymour, who carried the States of New York,
   New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Georgia, Louisiana, Kentucky,
   and Oregon. Schuyler Colfax, of Indiana, was elected Vice
   President, over General Frank P. Blair.

      E. Stanwood,
      History of Presidential Elections,
      chapter 22.

{3571}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1868-1870.
   Reconstruction complete.
   Restoration of all the Southern States
   to representation in Congress.

   "On the 22d of June, 1868, an act was passed, with the
   following preamble and resolution, for the admission of
   Arkansas:—'Whereas the people of Arkansas, in pursuance of an
   act entitled, An act for the more efficient government of the
   Rebel States, passed March 2, 1867, and the acts supplementary
   thereto, have framed and adopted a constitution of State
   government, which is republican, and the legislature of said
   State has duly ratified the amendment of the Constitution of
   the United States proposed by the XXXIXth Congress, and known
   as Article XIV.; Therefore, Be it enacted, etc., that the
   State of Arkansas is entitled and admitted to representation
   in Congress, as one of the States of the Union, upon the
   following fundamental condition.' The 'fundamental condition,'
   as finally agreed upon, was, 'That there shall never be in
   said State any denial or abridgment of the elective franchise,
   or of any other right, to any person by reason or on account
   of race or color, except Indians not taxed.' The bill was
   vetoed by the President on the 20th, but passed over the veto
   on the 22d in the House by the vote of 111 to 31, and in the
   Senate by a vote of 30 to 7. On the 25th of June a similar act
   was passed admitting the States of North Carolina, South
   Carolina, Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama, and Florida, in
   pursuance of a similar preamble, with the conditions that they
   should ratify the Fourteenth Amendment, that they should not
   deprive 'any citizen, or class of citizens of the State of the
   right to vote by the constitution thereof'; and that no person
   prohibited from holding office by said Amendment should be
   'deemed eligible to any office in either of said States unless
   relieved from disability as provided in said amendment'; the
   State of Georgia being also required to declare 'null and
   void' certain provisions of its constitution, and 'in addition
   give the assent of said State to the fundamental condition
   herein before imposed on the same.' The bill passed the House,
   May 14,—yeas 110, nays 35; in the Senate, June 9,—yeas 31,
   nays 5. It was vetoed by the President on the 25th, and
   passed, the same day, by both houses, over the Presidential
   veto. On the 27th of January, 1870, Virginia was admitted into
   the Union by a vote, in the House, of 136 to 58; and in the
   Senate by a vote of 47 to 10. The following were the preamble,
   oaths, and conditions precedent: 'Whereas the people of
   Virginia have framed and adopted a constitution of State
   government which is republican; and whereas the legislature of
   Virginia, elected under said constitution, has ratified the
   Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the
   United States; and whereas the performance of these several
   acts in good faith is a condition precedent to a
   representation of the State in Congress,' said State should be
   admitted to a representation in Congress; with the additional
   conditions precedent, however, that the constitution should
   never be so amended as to deprive any class of citizens of the
   right 'to vote,' 'to hold office,' on account of race, color,
   or previous condition of servitude; neither should there be
   'other qualifications' required for such reason; nor should
   any be deprived of 'school rights or privileges' on such
   account. On the 3d of February Mississippi was admitted by a
   bill resembling the former in every particular, by
   substantially the same vote. On the 30th of March Texas was
   readmitted to the Union on a bill very similar, though not
   identical with the above. … By this act of Congress the last
   of the 'wayward sisters' was brought back and restored to the
   family of States, and the fractured Union was, outwardly at
   least, repaired. It was ten years, eight months, and twenty
   days after South Carolina raised the banner of revolt and led
   off in 'the dance of death.'"

      H. Wilson,
      History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power,
      volume 3, chapter 44.

      ALSO IN:
      S. S. Cox,
      Three Decades of Federal Legislation,
      chapters 27-31.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1868-1876.
   The reconstructed government of South Carolina.

      See SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1865-1876.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1869.
   Negotiation of the Johnson-Clarendon Treaty and
   its rejection by the Senate.

      See ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1862-1869.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1869.
   Gold Speculation.
   Black Friday.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1869.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1869.
   Founding of the Order of Knights of Labor.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1869-1883.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1869-1870.
   The Fifteenth Constitutional Amendment.

   "The great defect of the Fourteenth Amendment, as freely
   charged during its discussion, was its at least tacit
   recognition of the right of States to disfranchise the
   ex-slaves, should they so elect. True, they could not do it
   without sacrificing so much in the basis of their
   representation in Congress; but if they were willing to make
   that sacrifice, there was nothing in the amendment to prevent
   such discrimination. To remedy that defect … it was resolved
   to incorporate into the organic law a new provision for their
   protection, and to supplement the amendments of the
   Constitution already adopted by another. There were
   accordingly introduced into both houses, almost
   simultaneously, measures for that purpose. … In the House, on
   the 11th of January, 1869, Mr. Boutwell reported from the
   Committee on the Judiciary a joint resolution proposing an
   amendment which provided that the right to vote of no citizen
   should be abridged by the United States or any State by reason
   of race, color, or previous condition of slavery." The joint
   resolution was adopted in the House, 150 affirmative to 42
   negative votes, on the 30th of January. Adopted in the Senate
   with amendments, by 39 to 16 votes, it went to a Committee of
   Conference, on whose report the joint resolution was finally
   adopted by both Houses on the 25th of February, and submitted
   for ratification to the legislatures of the States, in the
   following form:

   "Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote
   shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any
   State on account of race, color, or previous condition of
   servitude.

   Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this
   article by appropriate legislation."

   "The amendment received the votes of 29 States, constituting
   the requisite three fourths, and thus became a part of the
   organic law. On the 30th of March, 1870, President Grant
   communicated the fact to Congress in a special message."

      H. Wilson,
      History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power,
      volume 3, chapter 47.

      ALSO IN:
      J. G. Blaine,
      Twenty Years of Congress,
      volume 2, chapters 16 and 19.

{3572}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1869-1890.
   Recovery of the domination of Whites at the South.
   Suppression of the Colored vote.
   Prosperity of the Southern States.

   "Between 1869 and 1876, the whites had in every Southern State
   except South Carolina, Florida, and Louisiana, regained
   control of the government, and in 1876 those three States were
   also recovered. The circumstances were different, according to
   the character of the population in each State. In some a union
   of the moderate white Republicans with the Democrats, brought
   about by the disgust of all property holders at the scandals
   they saw and at the increase to their burdens as tax-payers,
   had secured legitimately chosen majorities, and ejected the
   corrupt officials. In some the same result was attained by
   paying or otherwise inducing the negroes not to go to the
   polls, or by driving them away by threats or actual violence.
   Once possessed again of a voting majority, the whites, all of
   whom had by 1872 been relieved of their disabilities, took
   good care, by a variety of devices, legal and extra-legal, to
   keep that majority safe; and in no State has their control of
   the government been since shaken. President Hayes withdrew, in
   1877, such Federal troops as were still left at the South, and
   none have ever since been despatched thither. … With the
   disappearance of the carpet-bag and negro governments, the
   third era in the political history of the South since the war
   began. The first had been that of exclusively white suffrage;
   the second, that of predominantly negro suffrage. In the
   third, universal suffrage and complete legal equality were
   soon perceived to mean in practice the full supremacy of the
   whites. To dislodge the coloured man from his rights was
   impossible, for they were secured by the Federal Constitution
   which prevails against all State action. The idea of
   disturbing them was scarcely entertained. Even at the election
   of 1872 the Southern Democrats no more expected to repeal the
   Fifteenth Amendment than the English Tories expected at the
   election of 1874 to repeal the Irish Church Disestablishment
   Act of 1869. But the more they despaired of getting rid of the
   amendment, the more resolved were the Southern people to
   prevent it from taking any effect which could endanger their
   supremacy. They did not hate the negro, certainly not half so
   much as they hated his white leaders by whom they had been
   robbed. 'We have got,' they said, 'to save civilization,' and
   if civilization could be saved only by suppressing the
   coloured vote, they were ready to suppress it. … The modes of
   suppression have not been the same in all districts and at all
   times. At first there was a good deal of what is called
   'bulldozing,' i. e. rough treatment and terrorism, applied to
   frighten the coloured men from coming to or voting at the
   polls. Afterwards, the methods were less harsh. Registrations
   were so managed as to exclude negro voters, arrangements for
   polling were contrived in such wise as to lead the voter to
   the wrong place so that his vote might be refused; and, if the
   necessity arose, the Republican candidates were counted out,
   or the election returns tampered with. 'I would stuff a
   ballot-box,' said a prominent man, 'in order to have a good,
   honest government;' and he said it in good faith, and with no
   sense of incongruity. Sometimes the local negro preachers were
   warned or paid to keep their flocks away. … Notwithstanding
   these impediments, the negro long maintained the struggle,
   valuing the vote as the symbol of his freedom, and fearing to
   be re-enslaved if the Republican party should be defeated.
   Leaders and organizers were found in the Federal
   office-holders, of course all Republicans. … After 1884,
   however, when the presidency of the United States passed to a
   Democrat, some of these office-holders were replaced by
   Democrats and the rest became less zealous. … Their friends at
   the North were exasperated, not without reason, for the gift
   of suffrage to the negroes had resulted in securing to the
   South a larger representation in Congress and in presidential
   elections than it enjoyed before the war, or would have
   enjoyed had the negroes been left unenfranchised. They argued,
   and truly, that where the law gives a right, the law ought to
   secure the exercise thereof; and when the Southern men replied
   that the negroes were ignorant, they rejoined that all over
   the country there were myriads of ignorant voters, mostly
   recent immigrants, whom no one thought of excluding.
   Accordingly in 1890, having a majority in both Houses of
   Congress and a President of their own party, the Republican
   leaders introduced a bill subjecting the control of Federal
   elections to officers to be appointed by the President, in the
   hope of thus calling out a full negro vote, five sixths of
   which would doubtless have gone to their party. The measure
   appeared to dispassionate observers quite constitutional, and
   the mischief it was designed to remedy was palpable. … It
   passed the House, but was dropped in the Senate under the
   threat of an obstructive resistance by the (then Democratic)
   minority. Secure, however, as the dominance of the whites
   seems now to be against either Northern legislation or negro
   revolt, the Southern people are still uneasy and sensitive on
   the subject. … This horror of negro supremacy is the only
   point in which the South cherishes its old feelings. Hostility
   to the Northern people has almost disappeared. … Just because
   they felt that they had fought well, they submitted with
   little resentment, and it has become a proverb among them that
   the two classes which still cherish bitterness are the two
   classes that did not fight,—the women and the clergy. … Not,
   however, till the whites regained control between 1870 and
   1876, did the industrial regeneration of the country fairly
   begin. Two discoveries coincided with that epoch which have
   had an immense effect in advancing material prosperity, and
   changing the current of men's thoughts. The first was the
   exploration of the mineral wealth of the highland core of the
   country. … The second discovery was that of the possibility of
   extracting oil from the seeds of the cotton plant, which had
   formerly been thrown away, or given to hogs to feed on. The
   production of this oil has swelled to great proportions,
   making the cultivation of cotton far more profitable. … Most
   of the crop now raised, which averages eight millions of
   bales, and in 1894 was expected to exceed ten millions (being
   more than double that which was raised, almost wholly by slave
   labour, before the war), is now raised by white farmers; while
   the mills which spin and weave it into marketable goods are
   daily increasing and building up fresh industrial
   communities."

      J. Bryce,
      The American Commonwealth
      (3d edition). chapter 92 (volume 2).

{3573}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1870.
   The Ninth Census.

   Total population, 38,558,371 (exceeding that of 1860
   by 7,115,049), classed and distributed as follows:

North Atlantic division.
                          White.   Black.
Maine.                   624,809    1,606
New Hampshire.           317,697      580
Vermont.                 329,613      924
Massachusetts.         1,443,156    13,947
Rhode Island.            212,219    4,980
Connecticut.             527,549    9,668
New York.              4,330,210   52,081
New Jersey.              875,407   30,658
Pennsylvania.          3,456,609   65,294

Total                 12,117,269  179,738

South Atlantic division.

Delaware.                102,221   22,794
Maryland.                605,497  175,391
District of Columbia.     88,278   43,404
Virginia.                712,089  512,841
West Virginia.           424,033   17,980
North Carolina.          678,470  391,650
South Carolina.          289,667  415,814
Georgia.                 638,926  545,142
Florida.                  96,057   91,689

Total                3,635,238  2,216,705

North central division.

Ohio.                2,601,946     63,213
Indiana.             1,655,837     24,560
Illinois.            2,511,096     28,762
Michigan.            1,167,282     11,849
Wisconsin.           1,051,351      2,113
Minnesota.             438,257        759
Iowa.                1,188,207      5,762
Missouri.            1,603,146    118,071
Dakota.                 12,887         94
Nebraska.              122,117        789
Kansas.                346,377     17,108

Total               12,698,503    273,080

South central division.

Kentucky.            1,098,692    222,210
Tennessee.             936,119    322,331
Alabama.               521,384    475,510
Mississippi.           382,896    444,201
Louisiana.             362,065    364,210
Texas.                 564,700    253,475
Arkansas.              362,115    122,169

Total                4,227,971  2,204,106

Western division.
Montana.                18,306        183
Wyoming.                 8,726        183
Colorado.               39,221        456
New Mexico.             90,393        172
Arizona.                 9,581         26
Utah.                   86,044        118
Nevada.                 38,959        357
Idaho.                  10,618         60
Washington.             22,195        207
Oregon.                 86,929        346
California.            499,424      4,272

Total                  910,396      6,380

Grand total.        33,589,377  4,880,009

   In addition the census shows 63,199 Chinese, 65 Japanese, and
   25,731 civilized Indians, making a total of 38,558,371, as
   stated above. In the decade preceding this census the
   immigrant arrivals numbered 2,466,752, of which 1,106,970 were
   from the British Islands, and 1,073,429 from other parts of
   Europe.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1871.
   Renewed Negotiations with Great Britain.
   The Joint High Commission, the Treaty of Washington
   and the Geneva Award.

      See ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1869-1871; 1871; and 1871-1872.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1871.
   The first Civil-Service Reform Act.

      See CIVIL-SERVICE REFORM IN THE UNITED STATES.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1871 (April).
   The Force Bill.

   At the extra session of Congress, which met March 4, 1871 a
   sweeping Act was passed to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment.
   "This Act allowed suit in Federal courts by the party injured
   against any person who should in any way deprive another of
   the rights of a citizen; it made it a penal offence to
   conspire to take away from any person the rights of a citizen;
   it provided that inability, neglect, or refusal by any State
   to suppress such conspiracy, to protect the rights of its
   citizens, or to call upon the President for aid, should be
   'deemed a denial by such State of the equal protection of the
   laws' under the XIVth Amendment; it declared such
   conspiracies, if not suppressed by the authorities, 'a
   rebellion against the Government of the United States'; it
   authorized the President, 'when in his judgment the public
   safety shall require it,' to suspend the privilege of the writ
   of habeas corpus in any district, and suppress the
   insurrection by means of the army and navy; and it excluded
   from the jury-box any person 'who shall, in the judgment of
   the court, be in complicity with any such combination or
   conspiracy.' The authority to suspend the privilege of the
   writ of habeas corpus was to cease after the end of the next
   regular Session of Congress."

      A. Johnston,
      History of American Politics,
      2d edition, page 214.

      ALSO IN:
      Annual Cyclopœdia, 1871, page 228.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1872.
   Decision of the San Juan Water Boundary Question
   by the Emperor of Germany.

      See SAN JUAN OR NORTHWESTERN WATER-BOUNDARY QUESTION.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1872.
   The Twenty-second Presidential Election.

   The leading candidates for President in 1872 were General
   Grant, nominated for re-election by the main body of the
   Republican Party, and Horace Greeley, of New York, put forward
   by a revolted section of that party and accepted and supported
   by the Democratic Party. "In 1870 the Republican party in
   Missouri had split into two parts. The 'Radical' wing wished
   to maintain for the present the disqualifications imposed on
   the late rebels by the State Constitution during the war; the
   'Liberal' wing, headed by B. Gratz Brown and Carl Schurz,
   wished to abolish these disqualifications and substitute
   'universal amnesty and universal enfranchisement.' Supported
   by the Democrats, the Liberal Republicans carried the State,
   though opposed by the Federal office-holders and the influence
   of the Administration. This success stimulated a reaction in
   the National Republican party, many of whose members believed
   that the powers of the Federal Government over the local
   concerns of the States had already been enforced up to or
   beyond constitutional limits, that the various enforcement
   Acts were designed rather for the political advancement of
   President Grant's personal adherents than for the benefit of
   the country, the freedmen, or even of the Republican party;
   and that the efforts to police the Southern States by the
   force of the Federal Government ought to cease.
{3574}
   In the spring of 1871 the Liberal Republicans and Democrats of
   Ohio began to show symptoms of common feeling on these
   subjects, and during the summer the 'Liberal' movement
   continued to develop within the Republican party. January
   24th, 1872, the Missouri Liberals issued a call for a National
   Convention at Cincinnati in the following May." At the meeting
   in Cincinnati the Liberal Republican Convention nominated
   Horace Greeley for President, and B. Gratz Brown for Vice
   President. The Democratic National Convention which met at
   Baltimore, June 9th, adopted these candidates, with the
   "platform" on which they were nominated. "A few recalcitrant
   Democrats met at Louisville, Kentucky, September 3d, and
   nominated Charles O'Conor, of New York, and John Quincy Adams,
   of Massachusetts."

      A. Johnston,
      History of American Politics,
      2d edition., chapter 22.

   The Prohibitionists put in nomination James Black, of
   Pennsylvania, for President, and John Russell, of Michigan,
   for Vice President. The Republican nominee for Vice President,
   on the ticket with General Grant, was Henry Wilson, of
   Massachusetts. The popular vote cast was 3,585,444, or
   3,597,132, for Grant, and 2,843,563, or 2,834,125 for Greeley
   (according to the return that may be counted from Louisiana,
   where two rival returning boards disputed authority with one
   another); 29,489 for O'Conor and 5,608 for Black. Mr. Greeley
   died on the 29th of November, 1872, before the electoral
   colleges cast their vote, the consequence being that the
   Democratic votes in the colleges were scattered. The following
   is the electoral vote for President as counted by Congress:
   Grant, 286; Thomas A. Hendricks, 42; B. Gratz Brown 18;
   Charles J. Jenkins 2; David Davis, 1. The votes of Louisiana
   and Arkansas were rejected, as were three votes cast in
   Georgia for Horace Greeley, deceased.

      E. Stanwood,
      History of Presidential Elections,
      chapter 23.

      ALSO IN:
      G. W. Julian,
      Political Recollections,
      chapter 15.

      E. McPherson,
      Handbook of Politics for 1872 and 1874.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1872-1873.
   The Credit Mobilier Scandal.

      See CREDIT MOBILIER SCANDAL.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1873.
   The so-called "demonetization of silver."

   "We have heard a great deal in later years about the
   surreptitious demonetization of silver in 1873. There was,
   however, vastly too much criticism wasted on the act of 1873;
   for the real demonetization of silver in the United States was
   accomplished in 1853. It was not the result of accident; it
   was a carefully considered plan, deliberately carried into
   legislation in 1853, twenty years before its nominal
   demonetization by the act of 1873. … In 1853 the single
   standard was gold. This was a situation which no one rebelled
   against. Indeed, no one seemed to regard it as anything else
   than good fortune (except so far as the subsidiary coins had
   disappeared). … In the debates it was proposed that, as the
   cause of the change in the relative values of gold and silver
   was the increased product of gold, the proper remedy should be
   to increase the quantity of gold in the gold coins. … There
   was no discussion as to how a readjustment of the ratio
   between the two metals might be reached, for it was already
   decided that only one metal was to be retained. This decision,
   consequently, carried us to a point where the ratio between
   the two metals was not of the slightest concern. And so it
   remained. The United States had no thought about the ratios
   between gold and silver thereafter until the extraordinary
   fall in the value of silver in 1876. … In the provisions of
   the act of 1853 nothing whatever was said as to the silver
   dollar-piece. It had entirely disappeared from circulation
   years before, and acquiescence in its absence was everywhere
   found. No attempt whatever was thereafter made to change the
   legal ratio, in order that both metals might again be brought
   into concurrent circulation. Having enough gold, the country
   did not care for silver. … In 1873 we find a simple legal
   recognition of that which had been the immediate result of the
   act of 1853, and which had been an admitted fact in the
   history of our coinage during the preceding twenty years. In
   1853 it had been agreed to accept the situation by which we
   had come to have gold for large payments, and to relegate
   silver to a limited service in the subsidiary coins. The act
   of 1873, however, dropped the dollar piece out of the list of
   silver coins. In discontinuing the coinage of the silver
   dollar, the act of 1873 thereby simply recognized a fact which
   had been obvious to everybody since 1849. It did not introduce
   anything new, or begin a new policy. Whatever is to be said
   about the demonetization of silver as a fact must center in
   the act of 1853. Silver was not driven out of circulation by
   the act of 1873, which omitted the dollar of 412½ grains,
   since it had not been in circulation for more than twenty-five
   years. … The act of February 12, 1873, is known as the act
   which demonetized the silver dollar. Important consequences
   have been attached to it, and it has even been absurdly
   charged that the law was the cause of the commercial crisis of
   September, 1873. As if a law which made no changes in the
   actual metallic standard in use, and which had been in use
   thus for more than twenty' years, had produced a financial
   disaster in seven months! To any one who knows of the
   influence of credit and speculation, or who has followed the
   course of our foreign trade since the Civil War, such a theory
   is too absurd to receive more than passing mention. To the
   year 1873 there had been coined of 412½-grain dollars for
   purposes of circulation, only $1,439,457, and these were
   coined before 1806."

      J. L. Laughlin,
      History of Bimetallism in the United States,
      part 1, chapters 5 and 7.

      See, also, MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1848-1893.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1873.
   The Panic.

   "The panic of 1873 differed very materially from the other
   great panics by which this country has been afflicted. Lack of
   capital was the main difficulty in 1837 and 1857. Population
   had increased so rapidly that millions of human beings were
   out of work, and apprehension spread lest there might not be
   food enough to go around. In 1873, however, men were well
   employed. Business of all kinds was in excellent condition,
   and no one doubted for a moment that there would be plenty for
   every man to eat. The excellent condition of trade, in fact,
   was the chief factor in the panic of 1873. Everyone was busy,
   and wanted money with which to carry on his trade. For two
   years before the crash, money had been in great demand.
{3575}
   Railroads had recently been built to an extent such as this
   country had never known before. Whereas, in 1861, railroad
   construction amounted to only 651 miles, in 1871 it reached
   the then unprecedented figure of 7,779 miles. This new
   mileage, moreover, was mainly in the West, where the immediate
   remuneration was but slight. Railroads were being pushed
   forward into regions which could not be expected to return an
   income for twenty years. The cost of railroad construction in
   this country during the five years preceding September, 1873,
   was estimated by the Comptroller of the Currency at no less
   than $1,700,000,000. The money to pay for this extravagant
   building was obtained, not from the earnings of the old
   portions of the road, but from enormous issues of railroad
   bonds, placed to a large extent among the banks of this
   country, but still more among the capitalists of Europe. In
   the Northern Pacific Company occurred the most flagrant abuse
   of railroad credit the world has ever known. … One after
   another of the Western roads defaulted in paying the interest
   on its bonds. The result was, that, by the summer of 1873, the
   market for new issues of railroad bonds had practically
   disappeared. Meantime the banks and bankers of New York were
   loaded down with railroad paper. The railroads had borrowed
   money for short periods in the expectation that before their
   notes fell due they would have raised the money to make
   payment by the sale of bonds. A temporary relief was felt, in
   June, 1873, through the customary midsummer ease in money. But
   this temporary respite only made the difficulty worse. Deluded
   by the momentary calm, the New York banks added still further
   to their loans. … The year before, money had grown tight early
   in September, and the more cautious banks began gradually to
   call their loans, fearing that the experience of 1872 might be
   renewed. But the rates for money did not noticeably increase,
   and the only cause for excitement early in the month was the
   failure, on September 8, of the Mercantile Warehouse and
   Security Company, owing to advances on bonds of the Missouri,
   Kansas & Texas Railroad. This was followed, on the 13th, by
   the failure of Kenyon Cox & Co., of which firm Daniel Drew was
   a member, caused by loans to the Canada Southern Railroad. By
   this time the sky was heavily overcast. Money was now
   advancing rapidly, the New York banks were calling loans on
   every hand, and new loans on railroad paper were scarcely to
   be had at all. Suddenly, on the 18th of September, the tempest
   burst. On the morning of that dark day, Jay Cooke, the agent
   of the U. S. Government, with some four millions of deposits
   from all parts of the country, and his fifteen millions of
   Northern Pacific paper, declared his inability to meet his
   debts. The report flew down 'the street' with the ferocity of
   a cyclone. Railroad shares were thrown upon the market by the
   bushel, in utter disregard of their intrinsic value. … Stock
   brokers continued to announce their failures all day long.
   Nothing seemed able to withstand the shock, and when, on
   September 19, the great banking house of Fisk & Hatch went
   under, terror became universal. A run was started on the Union
   Trust Co., which was believed to have close intimacy with
   Vanderbilt's railroads, and on the Fourth National Bank, whose
   dealings were largely with Wall street brokers. The panic, was
   by this time so general that the banks began to refuse one
   another's certified checks, and on the 20th a considerable
   number of the New York banks suspended payment. On that day
   the Union Trust Co., the National Trust Co., and the National
   Bank of the Commonwealth all closed their doors. At 11 o'clock
   on the 20th, the New York Stock Exchange, for the first time
   in its history, closed its doors, and the Governing Committee
   announced that the board would not be opened till further
   notice. This high-handed measure caused an outcry for the
   moment, but on calmer judgment it was generally conceded that
   the measure was a good one. On the evening of that Saturday,
   September 20, the Clearing House Association met and adopted a
   plan similar to that adopted in the panic of 1857, and in
   substance this: Any bank in the Clearing House Association
   might deposit with a committee of five persons, to be
   appointed for that purpose, an amount of its bills receivable,
   or other securities to be approved by the committee, and the
   committee were then to issue to that bank certificates of
   deposit, bearing interest at 5 per cent. per annum, to an
   amount not exceeding 75 per cent. of the securities or bills
   receivable so deposited. These certificates could be used in
   settlement of balances at the Clearing House for a period not
   to extend beyond the 1st of the following November, and they
   were to be received by creditor banks during that period
   daily, in the proportion which they bore to the aggregate
   amount of the debtor balances paid at the Clearing House. The
   amount of certificates should not exceed $10,000,000. The
   legal tenders belonging to the associated banks were to be
   considered and treated as a common fund held for mutual aid
   and protection, and the committee were given power to equalize
   the same by assessment or otherwise in their discretion. This
   scheme, simple as it was, proved of the utmost efficacy in
   mitigating the evils that must always follow a distrust among
   banks. The lull occasioned by the intervening Sunday was
   employed by President Grant and Secretary of the Treasury
   Richardson in a visit to New York. All day long they gave
   audience to business men at the Fifth Avenue Hotel.
   Suggestions of every description were offered as a remedy for
   the disease. The most feasible proposition, and that which was
   finally adopted, was the purchase of Government bonds. …
   Shortly after his return from the Fifth Avenue Hotel,
   Secretary Richardson announced his intention to buy Government
   bonds, and, in a few days, $13,000,000 of the U. S. greenbacks
   were thus absorbed. … On Tuesday, September 30, the Stock
   Exchange was once more opened. It was expected on all hands
   that this would be the signal for another onslaught. But so
   general was this expectation that most persons refrained for
   the moment from offering their stocks. As a result, the market
   opened a trifle higher than it had closed ten days before. It
   continued to advance, moreover, till October 7. On that day a
   new decline set in, and on October 14 came a fearful drop,
   which carried prices lower than on September 20. From this
   reaction there was a gradual improvement till October 31, when
   the failure of Hoyt, Sprague & Co., the great mill owners of
   Providence and New York, once more shook the market and
   brought stocks, on October 31 and November 1, to the lowest
   prices of the year.
{3576}
   With those prices it became manifest that the panic had
   reached its end. Money had already begun to flow to New York
   both from Europe and from the West, and the public, tempted by
   the excessive decline in stocks, began to purchase freely. The
   result was a steady though gradual improvement through the
   remainder of the year."

      The Panic of 1873
      (Banker's Magazine, November, 1891).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1875.
   The Whisky Ring.

      See WHISKY RING.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1875.
   The second Civil Rights Bill and
   its declared unconstitutionality.

   "Congress, to give full effect to the fourteenth amendment to
   the federal Constitution, passed an act in 1875, which
   provided that all persons within the jurisdiction of the
   United States shall be entitled to the full and equal
   enjoyment of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, and
   privileges of inns, public conveyances on land and water,
   theatres and other places of public amusement, subject only to
   the conditions and limitations established by law, and
   applicable alike to citizens of every race and color,
   regardless of any previous condition of servitude. … In 1883
   the act was held unconstitutional. The Fourteenth Amendment,
   says Bradley, J., does not 'invest Congress with power to
   legislate upon subjects which are within the domain of State
   legislation, but to provide modes of relief against State
   legislation or State action of the kinds referred to. It does
   not authorize Congress to create a code of municipal law for
   the regulation of private rights; but to provide modes of
   redress against the operation of State laws and the action of
   State officers, executive and judicial, when these are
   subversive of the fundamental rights specified in the
   amendment.' Civil Rights Cases, 109 United States 3."

      T. M. Cooley,
      Constitutional Limitations which rest upon the
      Legislative Power of the States, 6th edition,
      pages 733-734 and foot-note.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1876.
   Admission of Colorado into the Union.

      See COLORADO: A. D. 1806-1876.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1876.
   The Sioux War.
   Battle of Little Big Horn.
   Death of General Custer.

   Hostilities with a powerful confederation of Sioux or Dakota
   tribes of Indians, in the northwest, were brought about, in
   the spring of 1876, by gold discoveries in the Black Hills and
   the consequent rush of miners into the Indian reservation. To
   subdue the hostile Indians, three military expeditions were
   set in motion,—from Fort Fetterman, under General Crook, from
   Fort Ellis, in Montana, under General Gibbon, and from
   Bismarck, in Dakota, under General Terry. These were to
   converge on the upper waters of the Yellowstone, where Sitting
   Bull, the able chief of the Sioux, and his camp, in the valley
   of the small stream commonly known as the Little Big Horn. The
   Sioux warrior used the advantages of his central position like
   a Napoleon, striking his assailants in turn, as they came
   near, with far stronger forces than they knew him to possess.
   Crook was forced back; Gibbon was brought to a halt. Terry
   came last on the ground. His command included the famous
   Seventh Cavalry,—the regiment of General Custer. In ignorance
   of the surprising number of braves which Sitting Bull had
   collected, Custer was sent to make a detour and attack the
   Indian camp from the rear. Doing so, on the 25th of June, he
   rode into a death trap. Five companies of the regiment, with
   its heroic commander at their head, were surrounded so
   overwhelmingly that not one man escaped. The remaining seven
   companies were too far from the others to cooperate in the
   attack. They fortified a bluff and held their ground until the
   27th, when Terry and Gibbon came to their relief. The Indians
   retreated toward the mountains. The campaign was soon resumed,
   and prosecuted through the fall and winter, until Sitting Bull
   and some of his followers fled into British America and the
   remaining hostiles surrendered.

      F. Whittaker,
      Complete Life of General George A. Custer,
      book 8, chapter 4-5.

      ALSO IN:
      J. F. Finerty,
      War Path and Bivouac,
      part 1.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1876.
   The Centennial Exhibition at Philadelphia.

   In 1871, the Congress of the United States passed an act to
   provide for the commemoration, in 1876, of the centennial
   anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, by holding an
   exhibition, at Philadelphia, "of American and foreign arts,
   products, and manufactures." The act created a commission,
   composed of one delegate from each state and territory of the
   United States, to which commission was committed the
   "exclusive control" of the contemplated exhibition; though the
   State of Pennsylvania was required to make provision for the
   erection of suitable buildings. "To the surprise of those
   writers who had contended that there would be no exhibits from
   abroad,' there was shown a universal desire on the part of all
   nations to co-operate liberally in the World's Fair of 1876.
   These different governments appropriated large sums of money,
   selected as commissioners men of the highest standing, loaned
   to the exhibition their most valuable works of art, and in
   every sense indicated a desire on the part of the Old World to
   forget the past and to unite itself closely with the future of
   the New. Singular as it may seem, there was no disposition on
   the part of Congress to facilitate and aid in carrying out
   this grand enterprise. The money had to be raised by private
   subscription, from all sections of the United States, and it
   was only by a determined and persistent effort with Congress
   that at last a government loan was secured of $1,500,000,
   which loan has been called up by the government and repaid
   since that time. The City of Philadelphia appropriated
   $1,000,000 and the State of Pennsylvania $1,500,000, and all
   other states, notably New Jersey, Delaware, Connecticut, New
   Hampshire, etc., subscribed to the stock issued by the
   Centennial Board of Finance. In 1873, the location so well
   known as Fairmount Park was selected for the exposition, and
   immediate possession given by the City of Philadelphia, free
   from all expense or charge, and who also liberally contributed
   to the success of the World's Fair 1876 by the erection of two
   magnificent bridges over the Schuylkill at a cost of over
   $2,500,000, in addition to the various improvements made in
   Fairmount Park. … The total number of exhibitors at the
   World's Fair 1876 was estimated at 30,864, the United States
   heading the list with 8,175; Spain and her colonies, 3,822;
   Great Britain and colonies, 3,584; and Portugal, 2,462. …

{3577}

   The exhibition opened on the 10th of May, 1876, and from that
   time until November 10, 1876, there were admitted a grand
   total of 9,910,966 persons, of whom 8,004,274 paid admission
   fees amounting to $3,813,724.49."

      C. B. Norton,
      World's Fairs, chapter 6.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1876-1877.
   The Twenty-third Presidential Election and its disputed result.
   The Electoral Commission.

   Four candidates for the Presidency were named and voted for by
   as many different parties in 1876, although the contest of the
   election was practically between the Republicans and
   Democrats, as in previous years. The former, after a prolonged
   struggle of rival factions, put in nomination ex-Governor
   Rutherford B. Hayes, of Ohio, with William A. Wheeler, of New
   York, for Vice President. The candidates of the Democratic
   party were ex-Governor Samuel J. Tilden, of New York, for
   President, and Thomas A. Hendricks, of Indiana, for Vice
   President. Before these nominations were made, the Prohibition
   Reform party and the party calling itself the Independent, but
   popularly known as the "Greenback party," had already brought
   candidates into the field. The first named put Green Clay
   Smith, of Kentucky and G. T. Stewart, of Ohio, in nomination;
   the nominees of the last named were Peter Cooper, of New York,
   and Samuel F. Cary, of Ohio. "Thirty-eight States participated
   in the election. Colorado had been admitted to the Union in
   August, 1876, and, in order to save an additional election,
   the choice of electors for that occasion was conferred upon
   the legislature. All the other States appointed them by
   popular vote. The polls had hardly closed on the day of
   election, the 7th of November, when the Democrats began to
   claim the presidency. The returns came in so unfavorably for
   the Republicans that there was hardly a newspaper organ of the
   party which did not, on the following morning, concede the
   election of Mr. Tilden. He was believed to have carried every
   Southern State, as well as New York, Indiana, New Jersey, and
   Connecticut. The whole number of electoral votes was 369. If
   the above estimate were correct, the Democratic candidates
   would have 203 votes, and the Republican candidates 166 votes.
   But word was sent out on the same day from Republican
   headquarters at Washington that Hayes and Wheeler were elected
   by one majority; that the States of South Carolina, Florida,
   and Louisiana had chosen Republican electors. Then began the
   most extraordinary contest that ever took place in the
   country. The only hope of the Republicans was in the perfect
   defence of their position. The loss of a single vote would be
   fatal. An adequate history of the four months between the
   popular election and the inauguration of Mr. Hayes, would fill
   volumes. Space can be given here for only a bare reference to
   some of the most important events. Neither party was
   over-scrupulous, and no doubt the acts of some members of each
   party were grossly illegal and corrupt. … In four States,
   South Carolina, Florida, Louisiana, and Oregon, there were
   double returns. In South Carolina there were loud complaints
   that detachments of the army, stationed near the polls, had
   prevented a fair and free election. Although the board of
   State canvassers certified to the choice of the Hayes
   electors, who were chosen on the face of the returns, the
   Democratic candidates for electors met on the day fixed for
   the meeting of electors and cast ballots for Tilden and
   Hendricks. In Florida there were allegations of fraud on both
   sides. The canvassing board and the governor certified to the
   election of the Hayes electors, but, fortified by a court
   decision in their favor, the Democratic electors also met and
   voted. In Louisiana there was anarchy. There were two
   governors, two returning boards, two sets of returns showing
   different results, and two electoral colleges. In Oregon the
   Democratic governor adjudged one of the Republican electors
   ineligible, and gave a certificate to the highest candidate on
   the Democratic list. The Republican electors, having no
   certificate from the governor, met and voted for Hayes and
   Wheeler. The Democratic elector, whose appointment was
   certified to by the governor, appointed two others to fill the
   vacancies, when the two Republican electors would not meet
   with him, and the three voted for Tilden and Hendricks. All of
   these cases were very complicated in their incidents, and a
   brief account which should convey an intelligible idea of what
   occurred is impossible. … Thus, for the first and only time in
   the history of the country, the election ended in such a way
   as to leave the result in actual doubt, and in two States the
   number of legal votes given for the electors was in dispute. …
   As soon as the electoral votes were cast it became a question
   of the very first importance how they were to be counted. It
   was evident that the Senate would refuse to be governed by the
   22nd joint rule [under which no electoral vote to which any
   member of either House objected could be counted unless both
   Houses agreed to the counting of it]—in fact the Senate voted
   to rescind the rule,—and it was further evident that if the
   count were to take place in accordance with that rule it would
   result in throwing out electoral votes on both sides on the
   most frivolous pretexts. It was asserted by the Republicans
   that, under the Constitution, the President of the Senate
   alone had the right to count, in spite of the fact that the
   joint rule, the work of their party, had assumed the power for
   the two Houses of Congress. On the other hand, the Democrats,
   who had always denounced that rule as unconstitutional, now
   maintained that the right to count was conferred upon
   Congress. A compromise became necessary, and the moderate men
   on both sides determined to effect the establishment of a
   tribunal, as evenly divided politically as might be, which
   should decide all disputed questions so far as the
   Constitution gave authority to Congress to decide them. The
   outcome of their efforts was the Electoral Commission law of
   1877," by which a Commission was created, consisting of
   fifteen members—the Senate appointing five from its own body,
   the House five, and four Associate-Justices of the Supreme
   Court, designated in the bill, appointing a fifth from the
   same court. The Senators selected were Edmunds, Morton,
   Frelinghuysen (Republicans), and Thurman and Bayard
   (Democrats). The Representatives were Payne, Hunton, Abbott
   (Democrats), and Garfield and Hoar (Republicans). The four
   Supreme Court Justices designated by the Act were Clifford,
   Field (Democrats), Strong and Miller (Republicans). They
   selected for the fifth member of the Commission Justice
   Bradley, who was a Republican.
{3578}
   "The natural choice of the justices would have been their
   associate, David Davis; but he had been ejected only five days
   before as senator from Illinois, and it was regarded by him
   and by others as improper that he should serve. Thus the
   commission consisted of eight Republicans and seven Democrats.
   If Judge Davis had been selected, there would have been only
   seven Republicans, and the result of the operation of the law
   might have been different. … The count had begun on the first
   day of February, and the final vote upon Wisconsin was not
   reached until the early morning of March 2. As question after
   question was decided uniformly in favor of the Republicans, it
   became evident to the Democrats that their case was lost. They
   charged gross partisanship upon the Republican members of the
   Electoral Commission, in determining every point involved in
   the dual returns for their own party, though as a matter of
   fact there does not seem to have been much room for choice
   between the two parties on the score of partisanship. Each
   member of the commission favored by his vote that view which
   would result in adding to the electoral vote of his own party.
   But as the result of the count became more and more certainly
   a Republican triumph, the anger of the Democrats arose. Some
   of them were for discontinuing the count; and the symptoms of
   a disposition to filibuster so that there should be no
   declaration of the result gave reason for public disquietude.
   But the conservative members of the party were too patriotic
   to allow the failure of a law which they had been instrumental
   in passing to lead to anarchy or revolution, and they sternly
   discountenanced all attempts to defeat the conclusion of the
   count. The summing up of the votes [Hayes, 185; Tilden, 184],
   was read by Mr. Allison of Iowa, one of the tellers on the
   part of the Senate, at a little after four o'clock, on the
   morning of the 2d of March, amid great excitement. … Mr. Ferry
   thereupon declared Rutherford B. Hayes elected President, and
   William A. Wheeler Vice-President, of the United States. The
   decision was acquiesced in peaceably by the whole country, and
   by men of every party. But the Democrats have never ceased to
   denounce the whole affair as a fraud. … It is to be hoped that
   the patriotism of the American people and their love of peace
   may never again be put to such a severe test as was that of
   1876 and 1877." According to the Democratic count, the popular
   vote stood:

   Tilden,   4,300,590;
   Hayes,    4,036,298;
   Cooper,      81,737;
   Smith,        9,522.
   The Republican count gave:
   Tilden,   4,285,992;
   Hayes,    4,033,768.

      E. Stanwood,
      History of Presidential Elections,
      chapter 24.

      ALSO IN:
      C. A. O'Neil,
      The American Electoral System,
      chapters 20-21.

      A. M. Gibson,
      A Political Crime.

      Congressional Record,
      volume 5 (1877), parts 1-2.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1877.
   Halifax Fishery Award.

      See FISHERIES, NORTH AMERICAN: A. D. 1877-1888.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1877-1891.
   The Farmers' Alliance.

   The Farmers' Alliance "is the outcome of a movement which
   first culminated, shortly after the Civil War had ended, in
   the formation of the Patrons of Husbandry, or, as they were
   more commonly called, 'The Grange,' the object of which
   organization was the mutual protection of farmers against the
   encroachments of capital. The collapse of the Grange was due
   to a mistake it had made in not limiting its membership
   originally to those whose interests were agricultural. The
   first 'Alliance' was formed in Texas, to oppose the wholesale
   buying up of the public lands by private individuals. … For
   about ten years the Alliance remained a Southern organization.
   In 1887, about ten years after the first local Alliance in
   Texas was formed, and five after the State Alliance, the
   'Farmers' Union' of Louisiana united with it, under the name
   of the 'Farmers' Alliance and Co-operative Union of America.'
   Branches were quickly established," in other Southern States.
   "Later in the same year, the 'Agricultural Wheel,' a similar
   society operating in the States of Arkansas, Missouri,
   Kentucky, and Tennessee, was amalgamated with the Alliance,
   the new organization being called 'The Farmers' and Laborers'
   Union of America.' The spirit of the movement had
   simultaneously been embodied in the 'National Farmers'
   Alliance' of Illinois, which was started in 1877, and quickly
   extended into Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Kansas,
   and Dakota. A minor organization, the 'Farmers' Mutual Benefit
   Association,' was started in 1887, in the southern part of
   Illinois. Finally, in 1889, at a meeting held in St. Louis,
   these different bodies were all practically formed into a
   union for political purposes, aiming at legislation in the
   interests of farmers and laborers; and the present name of the
   'Farmers' Alliance and Industrial Union' was chosen. … Its
   main professed object is the destruction of the money power in
   public affairs, and the opposition of all forms of monopoly.
   It demands the substitution of legal tender treasury notes for
   National bank notes; also an extension of the public currency
   sufficient for the transaction of all legitimate business; the
   money to be given to the people on security of their land, at
   the lowest rates consistent with the cost of making and
   handling it. It demands government control, not only of money,
   but of the means of transportation and every other public
   function."

      Quarterly Register of Current History,
      volume 1, page 132.

      ALSO IN:
      F. M. Drew,
      The Present Farmers' Movement
      (Political Science Quarterly, June, 1891).

      See, also,
      SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1866-1875.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1878.
   The Bland Silver Bill.

   The act familiarly known as the Bland Bill was passed by
   Congress in 1878. "Although the silver dollar of which the
   coinage was resumed in 1878 dates back as a coin to the
   earlier days of the Republic, its reissue in that year marks a
   policy so radically new that the experience of previous years
   throws practically no light on its working. The act of 1878
   provided for the purchase by the government, each month, of
   not less than two million dollars' worth, and not more than
   four million dollars' worth, of silver bullion, for coinage
   into silver dollars at the rate of 412½ grains of standard
   silver (or 371¼ grains of fine silver) for each dollar. The
   amount of the purchases, within the specified limits, was left
   to the discretion of the Secretary of the Treasury. As every
   Secretary of the Treasury, throughout the period in which the
   act was in force, kept to the minimum amount, the practical
   result was a monthly purchase of two million dollars' worth of
   silver bullion. The act is sometimes described as having
   called for a monthly issue of two million silver dollars; but
   this was not the exact situation.
{3579}
   The amount of silver obtainable with two million dollars
   obviously varies according to the price of the metal in terms
   of the dollars with which the purchases are made. In February,
   1878, when the first purchases were made, those dollars were
   the inconvertible United States notes, or greenbacks, worth
   something less than their face in gold. … When specie payments
   were resumed, on the first of January, 1879, and the
   greenbacks became redeemable in gold, the measure of value in
   the United States became gold, and the extent of the coinage
   of silver dollars under the act of 1878 became simply a
   question of how much silver bullion could be bought with two
   million dollars of gold. The price of silver in 1878 was, in
   terms of gold, not far from a dollar for an ounce of standard
   silver. After 1878 it went down almost steadily. … The silver
   dollar of 412½ grains contains less than an ounce (480 grains)
   of standard silver. The monthly purchase of two million
   dollars' worth of silver therefore yielded more than two
   million silver dollars, the amount being obviously greater as
   the price of silver went lower. On the average, the monthly
   yield was not far from two and a half millions of silver
   dollars. So much each month, therefore, or thirty millions of
   silver dollars a year, was roughly the addition to the
   currency of the community from the act of 1878. An important
   provision of the act of 1878 was that authorizing the issue of
   silver certificates against the deposit of silver dollars. …
   The dollars and certificates between them constitute what we
   may call the silver currency of the act of 1878. The passage
   of that act was due to causes easily described. It was part of
   the opposition to the contraction of the currency and the
   resumption of specie payments, which forms the most important
   episode of our financial history between 1867 and 1879. … No
   doubt some additional force was given to the movement in favor
   of the use of silver from the desire of the silver-mining
   States and their representatives, that the price of the metal
   should be kept up through a larger use of it for coinage. But
   this element, while sometimes prominent in the agitation, was
   not then, as it has not been in more recent years, of any
   great importance by itself. The real strength of the agitation
   for the wider use of silver as money comes from the conviction
   of large masses of the people that the community has not
   enough money."

      F. W. Taussig,
      The Silver Situation in the United States,
      part 1.

      See, also, MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1848-1893.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1880.
   The Twenty-fourth Presidential Election.

   For the twenty-fourth Presidential election, in 1880, the
   Republicans, meeting at Chicago, June 2, named General James
   A. Garfield, of Ohio, as its candidate for President and
   Chester A. Arthur, of New York, for Vice President. The
   so-called Greenback party (which had appeared four years
   before, in the election of 1876), meeting at Chicago on the
   9th of June, put in nomination, for President, James B. Weaver
   of Iowa, and, for Vice President, B. J. Chambers, of Texas.
   The main object and principle of the Greenback party was set
   forth in the following declarations of its platform: "That the
   right to make and issue money is a sovereign power to be
   maintained by the people for the common benefit. The
   delegation of this right to corporations is a surrender of the
   central attribute of sovereignty. … All money, whether
   metallic or paper, should be issued and its volume controlled
   by the government, and not by or through banking corporations,
   and, when so issued, should be a full legal tender for all
   debts, public and private. … Legal tender currency [the
   greenback notes of the civil-war period] should be substituted
   for the notes of the national banks, the national banking
   system abolished, and the unlimited coinage of silver, as well
   as gold, established by law." The Prohibitionists
   (Temperance), in convention at Cleveland, June 17, nominated
   Neal Dow, of Maine, for President, and A. M. Thompson, of
   Ohio, for Vice President. On the 22d of June, at Cincinnati,
   the Democratic party held its convention and nominated General
   Winfield S. Hancock, of Pennsylvania, for President, and
   William H. English, of Indiana, for Vice President. At the
   election, in November, the popular vote cast was 4,454,416 for
   Garfield, 4,444,952 for Hancock, 308,578 for Weaver, and
   10,305 for Dow. The electoral votes were divided between
   Garfield and Hancock, being 214 for the former and 155 for the
   latter. Every former slave-state was carried by the Democratic
   party, together with New Jersey, California and Nevada.

      E. McPherson,
      Handbook of Politics for 1880 and 1882.

      ALSO IN:
      J. C. Ridpath,
      Life and Work of James A. Garfield,
      chapters 10-11.

      J. G. Blaine,
      Twenty Years of Congress,
      chapter 29.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1880.
   The Tenth Census.

   Total population, 50,155,783 (exceeding that of 1870 by
   11,5117,412), classed and distributed as follows:

North Atlantic division.

                        White.       Black.
Maine.                  646,852      1,451
New Hampshire.          346,229        685
Vermont.                331,218      1,057
Massachusetts.        1,763,782     18,697
Rhode Island.           269,939      6,488
Connecticut.            610,769     11,547
New York.             5,016,022     65,104
New Jersey.           1,092,017     38,853
Pennsylvania.         4,197,016     85,535

Total                14,273,844    229,417

South Atlantic division.
Delaware.               120,160     26,442
Maryland.               724,693    210,230
District of Columbia.   118,006     59,596
Virginia.               880,858    631,616
West Virginia.          592,537     25,886
North Carolina.         867,242    531,277
South Carolina.         391,105    604,332
Georgia.                816,906    725,133
Florida.                142,605    126,690

Total                 4,654,112  2,941,202

North Central division.
Ohio.                 3,117,920     79,900
Indiana.              1,938,798     39,228
Illinois.             3,031,151     46,368
Michigan.             1,614,560     15,100
Wisconsin.            1,309,618      2,702
Minnesota.              776,884      1,564
Iowa.                 1,614,600      9,516
Missouri.             2,022,826    145,350
Dakota.                 133,147        401
Nebraska.               449,764      2,385
Kansas.                 952,155     43,107

Total                16,961,423    385,621

{3580}

South Central division.
                        White.       Black.
Kentucky.             1,377,179    271,451
Tennessee.            1,138,831    403,151
Alabama.                662,185    600,103
Mississippi.           479,398    650,291
Louisiana.              454,954    483,655
Texas.                1,197,237    393,384
Arkansas.               591,531    210,666

Total                 5,901,315  3,012,701

Western division.

Montana.                 35,385        346
Wyoming.                 19,437        298
Colorado.               191,126      2,435
New Mexico.             108,721      1,015
Arizona.                 35,160        155
Utah.                   142,423        232
Nevada.                  53,556        488
Idaho.                   29,013         53
Washington.              67,199        325
Oregon.                 163,075        487
California.             767,181      6,018

Total                 1,612,276     11,852

Grand total.         43,402,970  6,580,793

   In addition the census shows 105,465 Chinese, 148 Japanese,
   and 66,407 civilized Indians, making a total of 50,155,783, as
   stated above. The immigrants arriving in the country during
   the preceding ten years numbered 2,944,695, of whom 989,163
   were from the British Islands and 1,357,801 from other parts
   of Europe.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1881.
   The brief administration of President Garfield.
   His assassination.

   "President Hayes had left the new administration a heritage of
   hatred from the Stalwart element of the Republican party. It
   was President Garfield's chief wish, politically, to heal up
   the chasm which the past had opened, and not to recognize one
   faction more than another. … The defeat of the Stalwarts at
   Chicago, by Garfield, naturally tended to transfer their
   hostility from the outgoing to the incoming President."

      See STALWARTS AND HALF-BREEDS.

   "For months before the inauguration, the embarrassment which
   threatened Garfield was foreseen by the country." The
   inevitable outbreak of hostilities occurred the moment that
   the President made a nomination in New York which was
   distasteful to the arrogant Senator from that State, Roscoe
   Conkling, who imperiously led the Stalwart forces. This
   happened upon the presentation of the name of William H.
   Robertson for Collector of the Port of New York. In order to
   force a division in the Republican party upon the quarrel
   between himself and President Garfield, Senator Conkling
   resigned his seat in the Senate of the United States and
   presented himself to the Legislature of New York as a
   candidate for re-election. He counted, without doubt, upon an
   easy triumph, expecting to be returned to Washington, bearing
   the mandate of his party, so to speak, and humbling the
   President into submissive obedience to his behests. He was
   disappointed; his re-election was defeated; but the furious
   contest which went on during some weeks, engendered bitter
   passions, which had their effect, no doubt, in producing the
   awful tragedy that soon ensued. By the end of June the clamor
   of the strife had greatly subsided; the Senate had adjourned,
   and the weary President made ready to join Mrs. Garfield at
   Long Branch, where she was just recovering from a serious
   illness. "On the morning of the 2d of July … the President
   made ready to put his purpose into execution. Several members
   of the Cabinet, headed by Secretary Blaine, were to accompany
   him to Long Branch. A few ladies, personal friends of the
   President's family, and one of his sons, were of the company;
   and as the hour for departure drew near they gathered at the
   depot of the Baltimore and Potomac Railway to await the train.
   The President and Secretary Blaine were somewhat later than
   the rest. … When the carriage arrived at the station at
   half-past nine o'clock, the President and Mr. Blaine left it
   and entered the ladies' waiting-room, which they passed
   through arm in arm. A moment afterwards, as they were passing
   through the door into the main room, two pistol shots suddenly
   rang out upon the air. Mr. Blaine saw a man running, and
   started toward him, but turned almost immediately and saw that
   the President had fallen. It was instantly realized that the
   shots had been directed with fatal accuracy at the beloved
   President. Mr. Blaine sprang toward him, as did several
   others, and raised his head from the floor. … A moment after
   the assassin was discovered … and, in the middle of B Street,
   just outside of the depot, was seized by the policemen and
   disarmed. A pistol of very heavy caliber was wrenched out of
   his hand, and it became clear that a large ball had entered
   the President's body. The assassin gave his name as Charles
   Jules Guiteau. … [He] was found to be a mixture of fool and
   fanatic, who, in his previous career, had managed to build up,
   on a basis of total depravity, a considerable degree of
   scholarship. He was a lawyer by profession, and had made a
   pretense of practicing in several places—more particularly in
   Chicago. … In the previous spring, about the time of the
   inauguration, he had gone to Washington to advance a claim to
   be Consul-General at Paris. … Hanging about the Executive
   Mansion and the Department of State for several weeks, he
   seemed to have conceived an intense hatred of the President,
   and to have determined on the commission of the crime." The
   wounded President lingered for eighty days, during which long
   period of suffering there were many alternations of hope and
   fear in his case. He died on the 19th of September. His
   assassin was tried and executed for the crime, though much
   doubt of his sanity exists. The Vice-President, Chester A.
   Arthur, became President for the remainder of the term.

      J. C. Ridpath,
      Life and Work of James A. Garfield,
      chapters 12-13.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1882.
   Passage of the Edmunds Bill, to suppress Polygamy in Utah.

      See UTAH: A. D. 1882-1893.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1883.
   Passage of the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Bill.

      See CIVIL-SERVICE REFORM IN THE UNITED STATES.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1884.
   Financial Disasters.

   "The month of May, 1884, concludes the prosperous period which
   followed the crisis of 1873. During this period the most
   gigantic speculations in railroads occurred; the zenith of the
   movement was in 1880, and as early as 1881 a retrograde
   movement began, only to end in the disasters in question. The
   decline in prices had been steady for three years; they had
   sunk little by little under the influence of a ruinous
   competition, caused by the number of new lines and the
   lowering of rates, but above all through the manipulations by
   the managers on a scale unexampled until now.
{3581}
   In connection with the disasters of May, 1884, the names of
   certain speculators who misused other people's money, such as
   Ward, of Grant & Ward; Fish, President of the Marine Bank; and
   John C. Eno, of the Second National Bank, will long be
   remembered. General Grant, who was a silent partner in Ward's
   concern, was an innocent sufferer, both in fortune and
   reputation."

      C. Juglar,
      Brief History of Panics,
      pages 102-103.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1884.
   The Twenty-fifth Presidential Election.
   Appearance of the Independents or "Mugwumps."

   James G. Blaine, of Maine, and General John A. Logan, of
   Illinois, nominated at Chicago, June 3, were the Republican
   candidates for President and Vice President, in the election
   of 1884. The Democratic National Convention, held, likewise,
   at Chicago, July 8, put forward Governor Grover Cleveland, of
   New York, as its candidate for President, with Thomas A.
   Hendricks, of Indiana, for Vice President. General Benjamin F.
   Butler, of Massachusetts, and General A. M. West, of
   Mississippi, received double nominations, from the National or
   Greenback party and an Anti-Monopoly party (so-called) for
   President and Vice President, respectively; while the
   Prohibitionists put in nomination John P. St. John, of Kansas,
   and William Daniel, of Maryland. The election was an
   exceedingly close one, its result turning upon a plurality of
   only 1,149 in New York, by which that state was given to
   Cleveland, with its 36 electoral votes, securing his election.
   The total popular vote counted as follows: Cleveland,
   4,874,986; Blaine, 4,851,981; Butler, 175,370; St. John,
   150,369. The electoral vote was divided between Cleveland and
   Blaine, 219 for the former and 182 for the latter.

      E. McPherson,
      Hand-book of Politics, 1884 and 1886.

      Annual Cyclopœdia, 1884.

   "At the presidential election of 1884 a section of the
   Republican party, more important by the intelligence and
   social position of the men who composed it than by its voting
   power, 'bolted' (to use the technical term) from their party,
   and refused to support Mr. Blaine. Some simply abstained,
   some, obeying the impulse to vote which is strong in good
   citizens in America, voted for Mr. St. John, the
   Prohibitionist candidate, though well aware that this was
   practically the same thing as abstention. The majority,
   however, voted against their party for Mr. Cleveland, the
   Democratic candidate; and it seems to have been the
   transference of their vote which turned the balance in New
   York State, and thereby determined the issue of the whole
   election in Mr. Cleveland's favour." This group "goes by the
   name of Mugwumps. … The name is said to be formed from an
   Indian word denoting a chief or aged wise man, and was applied
   by the 'straight-out' Republicans to their bolting brethren as
   a term of ridicule. It was then taken up by the latter as a
   term of compliment; though the description they used formally
   in 1884 was that of 'Independent Republicans.' … The chief
   doctrine they advocate is … the necessity of reforming the
   civil service by making appointments without reference to
   party, and a general reform in the methods of politics by
   selecting men for Federal, State, and municipal offices, with
   reference rather to personal fitness than to political
   affiliations."

      J. Bryce,
      The American Commonwealth (3d edition, revised),
      chapter 56, with foot-note (volume 2).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1885-1888.
   Termination of the Fishery Articles of the Treaty of Washington.
   Renewed controversies.
   The rejected Treaty.

      See FISHERIES, NORTH AMERICAN: A. D. 1877-1888.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1886-1893.
   The Bering Sea controversy and arbitration.

   "Four serious international controversies have arisen out of
   the rival claims of Russia, Great Britain, Spain, and the
   United States to the shores and waters of the northwest coast
   of the continent of North America. The first of these was in
   consequence of an attempt of the Spanish Government, in 1790,
   to prevent the British from trading with the natives of that
   coast. It was settled by the Nootka Sound Convention of
   October 28, 1790, by which the subjects of both powers enjoyed
   equal privileges of trade to all points not already occupied.
   The second controversy was the result of an attempt of Russia
   in 1821 to prohibit England and the United States from trading
   anywhere north of the 51st parallel, or to approach within 100
   Italian miles of the coast. Both governments energetically
   protested and secured treaties in 1824 and 1825, by which they
   retained the right of fishing and of landing on unoccupied
   points of that coast. The third controversy was as to the
   division of the coast between Great Britain and the United
   States, Spain having by the treaties of 1824 and 1825 accepted
   the parallel of 54° 40' as her southern boundary. The rival
   claims of the two remaining powers, after long diplomatic
   discussion, were settled by the treaty of July 17, 1846,
   according to which the parallel of 49° was made the dividing
   line. By the treaty of March 30, 1867, with Russia, all the
   dominions and claims of that country on the continent of North
   America and the outlying islands thereof were transferred to
   the United States. A further, and still pending, controversy
   arose in 1886 through the seizure by United States vessels of
   Canadian vessels engaged in the taking of seals in waters not
   far distant from the Aleutian Islands. The claim of the United
   States was that it had acquired from Russia exclusive rights
   in Behring Sea, at least with regard to seal fishing. The
   British Government representing the Canadians denied that
   there could be any exclusive rights outside three miles off
   shore. By an agreement of February 29, 1892, the question has
   been submitted to arbitration," the arbitrators to give "a
   distinct decision" upon each of the following five points:

   "1. What exclusive jurisdiction in the sea now known as the
   Behring's Sea, and what exclusive rights in the seal fisheries
   therein, did Russia assert and exercise prior and up to the
   time of the cession of Alaska to the United States?

   2. How far were these claims of jurisdiction as to the seal
   fisheries recognized and conceded by Great Britain?

   3. Was the body of water now known as the Behring's Sea
   included in the phrase 'Pacific Ocean,' as used in the treaty
   of 1825 between Great Britain and Russia, and what rights, if
   any, in the Behring's Sea, were held and exclusively exercised
   by Russia after said treaty?

{3562}

   4. Did not all the rights of Russia as to the jurisdiction and
   as to the seal fisheries in Behring's Sea east of the water
   boundary, in the treaty between the United States and Russia
   of the 30th of March, 1867, pass unimpaired to the United
   States under that treaty?

   5. Has the United States any right, and if so, what right, of
   protection or property in the fur-seals frequenting the
   islands of the United States in Behring's Sea, when such seals
   are found outside the ordinary three-mile limit?"

      American History Leaflets, no. 6.

   The arbitrators to whom these points of the question were
   submitted under the treaty were seven in number, as follows:
   Justice John M. Harlan, of the Supreme Court of the United
   States, and Senator John T. Morgan, of Alabama, appointed by
   the United States; Rt. Hon. Lord Hannan, and Sir John S. D.
   Thompson, Prime Minister of Canada, appointed by Great
   Britain; Senator Baron Alphonse de Courcelles, formerly French
   Ambassador at Berlin, appointed by the French government;
   Senator Marquis E. Visconti Venosta, appointed by the Italian
   government; and Judge Mons. Gregers Gram, Minister of State,
   appointed by the government of Sweden. The Court of
   Arbitration met at Paris, beginning its sessions on March 23,
   1893. The award of the Tribunal, signed on the 15th of August,
   1893, decided the five points submitted to it, as follows:

   (1) That Russia did not, after 1825, assert or exercise any
   exclusive jurisdiction in Bering Sea, or any exclusive rights
   in the seal fisheries;

   (2) that no such claims on the part of Russia were recognized
   or conceded by England;

   (3) that the body of water now known as Bering Sea was
   included in the phrase "Pacific Ocean," as used in the treaty
   of 1825 between Great Britain and Russia, and that no
   exclusive rights of jurisdiction in Bering Sea or as to the
   seal fisheries there were held or exercised by Russia after
   the treaty of 1825;

   (4) that all the rights of Russia as to jurisdiction and the
   seal fisheries in Bering Sea east of the water boundary did
   pass unimpaired to the United States under the treaty of March
   30, 1867;

   (5) that the United States has not any right of protection or
   property in the fur seals frequenting the islands of the
   United States in Bering Sea, when such seals are found outside
   the ordinary three-mile limit.

   Mr. Morgan alone dissented from the decision rendered on the
   first and second points, and on the second division of the
   third point. Justice Harlan and Mr. Morgan both dissented on
   the fifth point. On the fourth point, and on the first
   division of the third, the decision was unanimous. These
   points of controversy disposed of, the Arbitrators proceeded
   to prescribe the regulations which the Governments of the
   United States and Great Britain shall enforce for the
   preservation of the fur seal. The regulations prescribed
   prohibit the killing, capture or pursuit of fur seals, at any
   time or in any manner, within a zone of sixty miles around the
   Pribilov Islands; prohibit the same from May 1 to July 31 in
   all the part of the Pacific Ocean, inclusive of Bering Sea,
   which is north of 35° north latitude and eastward of the 180th
   degree of longitude from Greenwich till it strikes the water
   boundary described in Article I. of the Treaty of 1867 between
   the United States and Russia; and following that line up to
   Bering Straits; allow only sailing vessels, with licenses, to
   take part in fur seal fishing operations, and forbid the use
   of nets, firearms and explosives, except as to shot guns
   outside of Bering Sea. As promulgated, the Award bore the
   signatures of all the Arbitrators.

   The Behring Sea Arbitration:
   Letters to The Times.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1887-1888.
   Tariff Message of President Cleveland.
   Attempted revision of the Tariff.
   Defeat of the Mills Bill.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES): A. D. 1884-1888.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1888.
   The Twenty-sixth Presidential election.

   President Cleveland was nominated for re-election by the
   Democratic National Convention, held at St. Louis, June 5,
   with Allen G. Thurman, of Ohio, for Vice President. The
   Republican Convention, at Chicago, June 19, named Benjamin
   Harrison, of Indiana, for President, and Levi P. Morton, of
   New York, for Vice President. At Indianapolis, May 30, the
   Prohibition party had already put in nomination General
   Clinton B. Fisk, of New Jersey, and John A. Brooks, of
   Missouri, for President and Vice President, respectively. The
   Union Labor Party, convening at Cincinnati, May 15, had
   nominated Alson J. Streeter, of Illinois, and Charles E.
   Cunningham, of Arkansas; the United Labor Party, a rival
   organization, had put forward Robert H. Cowdrey, of Illinois,
   and William H. T. Wakefield, of Kansas; and still another
   labor ticket had been brought forward in February, at
   Washington, where an organization calling itself the
   Industrial Reform party, put Albert E. Redstone, of
   California, and John Colvin, of Kansas, in nomination. At Des
   Moines, Iowa, May 15, the National Equal Rights party had
   named a woman for the Presidency, in the person of Mrs. Belva
   Lockwood, of Washington, with Alfred H. Love, of Philadelphia,
   named for Vice President. Finally, in August, an organization
   attempting to revive the American Party of former days,
   convening at Washington, presented James L. Curtis, of New
   York, for President, and James R. Greer of Tennessee (who
   declined the honor) for Vice President. In the ensuing
   election, the popular vote was distributed as follows:

   Cleveland,  5,540,329;
   Harrison,   5,439,853;
   Fisk,         249,506;
   Streeter,     146,935;
   Cowdrey,        2,818;
   Curtis,         1,591.

   Notwithstanding the greater number of votes cast for Cleveland
   (his plurality being 100,476), Harrison was chosen President
   by the electoral votes, receiving 233. while 168 were given
   for Cleveland.

      Appletons Annual Cyclopœdia, 1888,
      pages 773-782, and 799-828.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1889-1890.
   The opening of Oklahoma.
   The Johnstown Flood.
   The Pan-American Congress.
   Admission of seven new States.

   "In the centre of Indian Territory there is a large district
   called, in the Indian language, Oklahoma, or the 'Beautiful
   Land.' This tract was finally purchased from the Indians by
   the United States, early in 1889. On the 22d of April, of that
   year, some 50,000 persons were waiting impatiently on the
   borders of Oklahoma for President Harrison's signal, giving
   them permission to enter and take up lands in the coveted
   region. At precisely twelve o'clock noon, of that day, the
   blast of a bugle announced that Oklahoma was open to
   settlement. Instantly an avalanche of human beings rushed
   wildly across the line, each one eager to get the first
   chance. Towns made of rough board-shanties and of tents sprang
   up in all directions. The chief of these were Oklahoma City
   and Guthrie. At the end of four months, the latter had a
   population of about 5,000, with four daily papers and six
   banks; and arrangements, doubtless since completed, were being
   made to start a line of street cars, and light the city with
   electricity.
{3583}
   A week after the opening of Oklahoma, the centennial
   anniversary of the inauguration of Washington, and of the
   beginning of our government under the Constitution, was
   celebrated in New York City [April 29-May 1]. … In a little
   less than a month from that occasion, the most terrible
   disaster of the kind ever known in our history occurred (May
   31, 1889) in Western Pennsylvania. By the breaking of a dam, a
   body of water forty feet high and nearly half a mile in width
   swept down through a deep and narrow valley. In less than
   fifteen minutes, the flood had traversed a distance of
   eighteen miles. In that brief time, it dashed seven towns out
   of existence, and ended by carrying away the greater part of
   Johnstown. The whole valley at that place was choked with
   ruins; at least 5,000 persons lost their lives, and property
   worth ten million dollars was utterly destroyed. In the autumn
   (October 2, 1889), representatives of the leading governments
   of Central and of South America, together with the Republic of
   Mexico, met representatives chosen by the United States in a
   conference or congress held at Washington. The object of the
   congress was to bring about a closer union of the Americas,
   for purposes of trade, and of mutual advantage. The delegates
   spent six weeks in visiting the principal commercial and
   manufacturing cities of the United States. They then returned
   to Washington, and devoted the greater part of the remainder
   of the year and part of 1890 to the discussion of business."

      D. H. Montgomery,
      Leading Facts of American History,
      sections 390-392.

   "An act to provide for the division of Dakota into two States,
   and to enable the people of North Dakota, South Dakota,
   Montana, and Washington, to form constitutions and State
   governments … was approved by President Cleveland, February
   22, 1889. This act provided that the Territory of Dakota
   should be divided on the line of the seventh standard
   parallel. … On the 4th of July, 1889, the four conventions
   assembled-for North Dakota at Bismarck, for South Dakota at
   Sioux Falls, for Montana at Helena, and for Washington at
   Olympia."

      F. N. Thorpe,
      Recent Constitution-making in the United States
      (Annals of the American Academy of
      Political and Social Science, September, 1891).

   Acceptable constitutions having been framed and adopted in the
   several proposed new states, North Dakota and South Dakota
   were admitted to the Union by proclamation of President
   Harrison, November 3, 1889, Montana, November 8, and
   Washington, November 11, in the same year. "Early in the
   session of the fifty-first Congress, Wyoming presented her
   claims for Statehood, asking for admission to the Union under
   the Constitution of September, 1889, which was adopted by the
   people on November 5 following. The bill for admission passed
   the House of Representatives on March 27, 1890, passed the
   Senate on June 27, and received the President's signature on
   July 10. By its terms Wyoming became a state from and after
   the date of the President's approval." Idaho had previously
   been admitted, by a bill which received the President's
   signature on the 3d of July, 1890.

      Appletons' Annual Cyclopœdia, 1890 and 1889.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1890.
   McKinley Tariff Act.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES); A. D. 1890.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1890.
   The Eleventh Census.

   Total population 62,622,250 (exceeding that of 1880 by
   12,466,467, classed and distributed as follows;


North Atlantic division.

                        White.     Black.
Maine.                  659,263     1,190
New Hampshire.          375,840       614
Vermont.                331,418       937
Massachusetts.        2,215,373    22,144
Rhode Island.           337,859     7,393
Connecticut.            733,438    12,302
New York.             5,923,952    70,092
New Jersey.           1,396,581    47,638
Pennsylvania.         5,148,257   107,596

Total                17,121,981   269,906

South Atlantic division.
Delaware.               140,066    28,386
Maryland .              826,493   215,657
District of Columbia.   154,695    75,572
Virginia.             1,020,122   635,438
West Virginia.          730,077    32,690
North Carolina.       1,055,382   561,018
South Carolina.         462,008   688,934
Georgia.                978,357   858,815
Florida.                224,949   166,180

Total                 5,592,149 3,262,690

North Central division.
Ohio.                 3,584,805    87,113
Indiana.              2,146,736    45,215
Illinois.             3,768,472    57,028
Michigan.             2,072,884    15,223
Wisconsin.            1,680,473     2,444
Minnesota.            1,296,159     3,683
Iowa.                 1,901,086    10,685
Missouri.             2,528,458   150,184
North Dakota.           182,123       373
South Dakota.           327,290       541
Nebraska.             1,046,888     8,913
Kansas.               1,376,553    49,710

Total                21,911,927   431,112

South Central division.
Kentucky.             1,590,462   268,071
Tennessee.            1,336,637   430,678
Alabama.                833,718   678,489
Mississippi.            544,851   742,559
Louisiana.              558,395   559,193
Texas.                1,745,935   488,171
Oklahoma.                58,826     2,973
Arkansas.               818,752   309,117

Total                 7,487,576 3,479,251

Western division.
Montana.                127,271     1,490
Wyoming.                 59,275       922
Colorado.               404,468     6,215
New Mexico.             142,719     1,956
Arizona.                 55,580     1,357
Utah.                   205,899       588
Nevada.                  39,084       242
Idaho.                   82,018       201
Washington.             340,513     1,602
Oregon.                 301,758     1,186
California.           1,111,672    11,322

Total                 2,870,257    27,081

Grand Total.         54,983,890 7,470,040

{3584}

   In addition the census shows 107,475 Chinese, 2,039 Japanese,
   and 58,806 civilized Indians, making a total of 62,622,250, as
   stated above.

   Immigration in the preceding decade rose to 5,246,613 in the
   total arrivals, 1,462,839 being from the British Islands and
   3,258,743 from other European countries. In the single year
   ending June 30, 1890, the immigrants arriving from Europe
   numbered 443,225 (273,104 males, 170,121 females), of whom
   57,020 were from England; 53,024 from Ireland; 12,041 from
   Scotland: 92,427 from Germany; 22,062 from Hungary: 11,073
   from Poland; 33,147 from Russia: 51,799 from Italy; 29,632
   from Sweden; 11,370 from Norway; 9,366 from Denmark; 6,585
   from France.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1890-1893.
   The Silver Bill and its effect.
   Financial Panic.
   Extra Session of Congress.
   Repeal of the Sherman Act.

   "The act of July 14, 1890 [known as the Sherman Act], repealed
   the silver act of 1878, and so brought to a close the precise
   experiment tried under that measure. … But the new act … is
   even more remarkable than that of 1878. It is unique in
   monetary history. It provides that the Secretary of the
   Treasury shall purchase each month at the market price four
   and a half million ounces of silver bullion. In payment he
   shall issue Treasury notes of the United States, in
   denominations of between one dollar and one thousand dollars.
   These Treasury notes, unlike the old silver certificates, are
   a direct legal tender for all debts, public or private, unless
   a different medium is expressly stipulated in the contract.
   They differ from the silver certificates in another respect;
   they are redeemable either in gold or silver coin, at the
   discretion of the Secretary of the Treasury. The indirect
   process of redemption which, as we have seen, was applied to
   the silver certificates, is replaced for the new notes by
   direct redemption. The avowed object is to keep the silver
   money equal to gold, for it is declared to be 'the established
   policy of the United States to maintain the two metals at a
   parity with each other on the present legal ratio, or such
   ratio as may be provided by law.' The act of 1878 is repealed;
   but the coinage of two million ounces of silver into dollars
   is to be continued for a year (until July 1, 1891). Thereafter
   it is directed that only so many silver dollars shall be
   coined as may be needed for redeeming any Treasury notes
   presented for redemption. Practically, this means that the
   coinage shall cease; redemption in silver dollars will not be
   called for. The coinage of silver dollars accordingly was
   suspended by the Treasury on July 1, 1891; a change which was
   the occasion of some vociferous abuse and equally vociferous
   praise, but which in reality was of no consequence whatever.
   The monthly issues of the new Treasury notes vary, like those
   of the old silver certificates, with the price of silver. But
   the new issues vary directly with the price of silver, while,
   as we have seen, the old issues varied inversely with the
   price. The volume of Treasury notes issued is equal to the
   market price of four and one half million ounces of silver. If
   silver sells at $1. 20 an ounce, the monthly issue of notes
   will be $5,400,000; if at $1.00 an ounce, $4,500,000. For a
   month or two after the passage of the act, the price of silver
   advanced rapidly, and at its highest, in August, 1890, touched
   $1.21. But the rise proved to be but temporary. After
   September a steady decline set in, and continued almost
   without interruption through the rest of 1890, through 1891,
   and through 1892. The year 1891 opened with silver at a price
   of about $1.00 an ounce; by the close of the year the price
   had fallen to about 95 cents. In 1892 a still further and more
   marked decline set in, and by the close of the year the price
   had gone as low as 85 cents."

      F. W. Taussig,
      The Silver Situation in the United States,
      chapter 6.

   "On June 5 [1893] President Cleveland publicly declared his
   purpose to call an extra session of Congress to meet in the
   first half of September for the consideration of the country's
   financial conditions, which seemed critical. On the 26th of
   June the authorities of India closed the mints in that empire
   to the free coinage of silver. The signs of a panic
   immediately multiplied and four days later appeared the
   president's proclamation summoning Congress to meet in extra
   session August 7. The call was based on the 'perilous
   condition in business circles,' which was declared to be
   largely the result of a 'financial policy … embodied in unwise
   laws, which must be executed until repealed by Congress.' The
   issue of this proclamation was the signal for much excitement
   among the Populists and in silver-producing circles. Silver
   conventions were held in Denver, July 11, and in Chicago,
   August 2, in which addresses were made and resolutions adopted
   denouncing with much energy any proposition to repeal the
   Sherman Act without some provision for the free coinage of
   silver, and claiming that the existing financial crisis was a
   deliberately devised scheme of British and American bankers,
   with President Cleveland as their ally, to bring about the
   exclusion of silver from use as money. The president's
   message, presented to the houses August 8, brought the
   question before Congress. The message embodied an exposition
   of what Mr. Cleveland considered the evils of the Sherman Act,
   concluding with an earnest recommendation that its purchase
   clause be immediately repealed. While still holding that
   tariff reform was imperatively demanded, the president
   considered that it should be postponed to action on the silver
   law. In Congress the silver men, without reference to party
   lines, took an attitude of energetic resistance to any project
   for unconditional repeal of the purchase clause."

      Political Science Quarterly, December, 1893.

   In the House, the resistance was soon overcome by strong
   pressure of unmistakable public opinion, and the repeal was
   carried on the 28th of August. In the Senate the Silver
   faction proved so much stronger that it blocked the bill until
   the end of October, indifferent to the ruinous effect which
   this action was having on the business and the industries of
   the country. In September, while the fate of the bill remained
   in doubt, the "Banker's Magazine" reported that the doubt had
   "aggravated the money stringency, until it absolutely became
   impossible for the great majority of business men to obtain
   the necessary funds, or credit to transact their affairs. In
   this respect, probably, no panic within the memory of the
   present generation has been so severe; and yet, it has been
   the least violent for one so universal and protracted. But it
   is the collapse that follows an acute attack of disease, which
   leaves its victim prostrated, after the crisis has been passed,
   and which must precede ultimate recovery, by giving time to
   restore exhausted strength. …
{3585}
   This was different from most panics this country has
   experienced, inasmuch as it was strictly an artificial one,
   caused by bad legislation, rather than general financial kite
   flying, while commercial affairs were seldom, if ever, on a
   sounder or safer basis, from the fact that they had, for a
   long time, been more free from speculation, with but few
   exceptions, than for years. Hence it has been the financial
   machinery by which commerce is transacted, rather than
   commerce itself, that has been deranged; and, for this reason,
   trade will revive much more rapidly when this artificial
   pressure is removed, than it has revived after former panics,
   which were either purely financial, or commercial, or both, as
   the result of wild speculation and general inflation of
   prices."

      H. A. Pierce,
      A Review of Finance and Business
      (Banker's Magazine, September, 1893).

   The repeal measure was finally carried in the Senate, becoming
   law by the President's signature November 1, when a slow
   recovery of business confidence began, much retarded and
   disturbed, however, by the uncertainty attending expected
   action of Congress on tariff and currency questions.

      See, also, MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1848-1893.

      ALSO IN:
      L. R. Ehrich,
      The Question of Silver,
      page 23.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1892.
   Chinese Exclusion Act.

   A bill "to absolutely prohibit the coming of Chinese persons
   into the United States," reported by Mr. Geary, of California,
   was passed by the House, April 4, 1892, yeas 179, nays 43, 107
   not voting. In the Senate, a substitute, going little further
   than to continue the then existing laws for the regulation of
   Chinese immigration, was reported from the Committee on
   Foreign Relations and adopted. The two bills were referred to
   a Conference Committee, with the result that a compromise
   measure, slightly modified from the House bill, was passed by
   both branches of Congress, on the 3d and 4th of May, and
   signed by the President on the 5th. It continues former laws
   for ten years. It directs "that any Chinese person or person
   of Chinese descent when convicted and adjudged under any of
   said laws to be not lawfully entitled to be or remain in the
   United States," shall be removed to China, or to such other
   country as he may prove to be a subject or citizen of. It
   declares that any such person under arrest "shall be adjudged
   to be unlawfully within the United States, unless such person
   shall establish, by affirmative proof, … his lawful right to
   remain in the United States"; and that any such person
   "convicted and adjudged to be not lawfully entitled to be or
   remain in the United States shall be imprisoned at hard labor
   for a period of not exceeding one year, and thereafter removed
   from the United States, as hereinbefore provided." The act
   denies bail, on an application for a writ of habeas corpus, by
   a Chinese person seeking to land in the United States. It
   requires all Chinese laborers who were within the limits of
   the United States at the time of the passage of the act, and
   who were entitled to remain, to obtain certificates of
   residence, from district collectors of internal revenue, and
   orders the deportation of those who had failed to do so at the
   expiration of one year. This extraordinary measure of
   exclusion has been commonly known as the "Geary Act."

      E. McPherson,
      Hand-book of Politics, 1892.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1892.
   Settlement of the Alaskan Boundary.

   A convention between the governments of the United States and
   Great Britain was entered into and ratifications exchanged in
   August, 1892, providing for a coincident or joint survey, "as
   may in practice be found most convenient," to determine the
   boundary line between Alaska and the Canadian provinces.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1892.
   Controversy with Chile.
   Warlike Presidential Message.

      See (in Supplement) CHILE.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1892.
   First commissioning of a Papal Delegate.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1892.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1892.
   The Twenty-seventh Presidential Election.

   Five parties presented candidates in the presidential election
   held November 8, 1892—namely: the Democratic, the Republican,
   the People's, or Populist, the Prohibitionist, and the
   Socialistic Labor. The nominees of the Democratic Party were
   Grover Cleveland, for President, and Adlai E. Stevenson, for
   Vice President; of the Republican Party, Benjamin Harrison and
   Whitelaw Reid, for President and Vice President, respectively;
   of the Populist Party, James B. Weaver and James G. Field; of
   the Prohibition Party, John Bidwell and James B. Cranfill; of
   the Socialistic Labor Party, Simon Wing and Charles H.
   Matchett. The dominant Issues in the canvass were the tariff
   question and the silver question. "The Democrats named no
   electoral tickets in Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, North Dakota,
   and Wyoming, but voted for the people's party electors with
   the object of taking those States away from the Republicans.
   They put out an electoral ticket in Nevada, but still voted
   mostly for the Populist electors. In North Dakota also there
   was a partial fusion between the Democrats and the People's
   party, and in Minnesota a part of the Weaver electoral ticket
   was accepted by the Democrats. In Louisiana there was a fusion
   of the Republicans and the People's party, each nominating
   half of the 8 electors. In Alabama there was a fusion of some
   of the Republicans with the People's party. In Texas a
   Republican ticket called the Lily White was set up, which
   differed from the regular ticket. In Michigan a new electoral
   law, which was declared constitutional by the United States
   Supreme Court on October 17, 1892, provided for the separate
   election of a Presidential elector in each Congressional
   district, and in consequence the electoral vote of the State
   was divided. In Oregon the name of one of the four electors on
   the People's ticket was also placed on the Democratic ticket.
   … The total popular vote cast was reported as 12,154,542," of
   which Cleveland received 5,556,553; Harrison, 5,175,577;
   Weaver, 1,122,045; Bidwell 279,191; Wing, 21,191. The
   electoral votes of the States were cast as follows: Cleveland,
   277; Harrison, 145; Weaver, 22; giving Cleveland a clear
   majority of 110.

      Appletons' Annual Cyclopœdia, 1892.

   "The most striking feature of the elections was the great
   losses of the Republicans in the West. Illinois and Wisconsin
   went Democratic by large majorities, California and Ohio were
   very close, and Colorado, Idaho, Kansas and Nevada chose
   Populist electors. The Democrats carried all the Northern
   states generally regarded as doubtful, viz., Connecticut, New
   York and Indiana, but they nearly lost Delaware.
{3586}
   An unusual incident of the result was the division of the
   electoral votes in several states, owing to the closeness of
   the popular vote. Thus in Ohio one Cleveland elector and in
   Oregon one Weaver elector was chosen, the others being
   Republican; and in California and North Dakota Mr. Harrison
   secured single votes in the same way. From the conditions of
   fusion between the Democrats and Populists in the last-named
   state, it resulted that one of her three electoral votes was
   given to each of the three candidates. In Michigan, under the
   district method of choosing electors recently established,
   Harrison got nine votes and Cleveland five."

      Political Science Quarterly, June, 1893.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1893.
   Abandonment of Polygamy by the Mormons.

      See UTAH: A. D. 1882-1893.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1893.
   Revolution in the Hawaiian Islands and proposed annexation.

      See HAWAIIAN ISLANDS.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1894.
   The Wilson Tariff Act.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES): A. D. 1894.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1894.
   The Strike at Pullman.
   The Coxey Movement.

         See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1894.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1894-1895.
   Provision for the admission of Utah as a State.

   On the 17th of July, 1894, the President, by his signature,
   gave effect to a bill which provides for the admission of Utah
   to the Union as a State. The admission, however, cannot become
   a completed fact before the later part of the year 1895, since
   the bill provides for the holding of a convention in March,
   1895, to frame a constitution for the proposed new State, and
   for submitting such constitution to the people at the election
   in November, 1895.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1895.
   The Status of Civil-service Reform.
   Commissioner Roosevelt's Review.

   "In 1883 the civil service law was established at Washington,
   and in the larger post-offices and custom-houses throughout
   the country, taking in a total of some 14,000 employees. The
   great extensions since have all taken place during the last
   six years, a period which happens to include my own term of
   service with the Commission, so that I write of them at first
   hand. In 1889 the railway mail service was added, in 1893 all
   the free delivery post-offices, and in 1894 all the smaller
   custom-houses and the internal revenue service. Other
   important but smaller extensions have been made, and the
   larger offices have grown, so that now about 50,000 employees
   are under the protection of the law. There are, of course, and
   there always must be in a body so large, individual cases
   where the law is evaded, or even violated; and as yet we do
   not touch the question of promotions and reductions. But,
   speaking broadly, and with due allowance for such
   comparatively slight exceptions, these 50,000 places are now
   taken out of the political arena. They can no longer be
   scrambled for in a struggle as ignoble and brutal as the
   strife of pirates over plunder; they no longer serve as a vast
   bribery chest with which to debauch the voters of the country.
   Those holding them no longer keep their political life by the
   frail tenure of service to the party boss and the party
   machine; they stand as American citizens, and are allowed the
   privilege of earning their own bread without molestation so
   long as they faithfully serve the public. The classified
   service, the service in which the merit system is applied, has
   grown fast. It is true that the outside service where the
   spoils theories are still applied in all their original
   nakedness, has grown only less fast. The number of offices
   under the government has increased very rapidly during the
   last twenty years; but the growth of the classified service
   has been even more rapid, so that a constantly increasing
   percentage of the whole is withdrawn from the degrading grasp
   of the spoils system. Now, something like a quarter of all the
   offices under the federal government in point of numbers,
   representing nearly a half in point of salaries, has been put
   upon the basis of decency and merit. This has been done by the
   action of successive Presidents under the law of 1883, without
   the necessity of action by Congress. There still remain some
   things that can be done without further legislation. For
   instance, the labor force in the navy yards was put on a merit
   basis, and removed from the domain of politics, under
   Secretary Tracy. This was done merely by order of the
   Secretary of the Navy, which order could have been reversed by
   his successor, Secretary Herbert. Instead of reversing it,
   however, Secretary Herbert has zealously lived up to its
   requirements, and has withstood all pressure for the weakening
   of the system in the interests of the local party machines and
   bosses. It is unsafe to trust to always having Secretaries of
   the Navy like Messrs. Tracy and Herbert. The Civil Service
   Commission should be given supervision over the laborers who
   come under the direction of Cabinet officers. Indeed, all the
   laboring force and all the employees of the District of
   Columbia employed by the federal government should be put
   under the Commission. When this has been done, and when a few
   other comparatively slight extensions have been made, all that
   can be accomplished by the unaided action of the executive
   will have been accomplished. Congress must then itself act by
   passing some such bill as that of Senator Lodge in reference
   to fourth-class postmasters; by passing some bill in reference
   to the consular service on the outlines of that suggested by
   Senator Morgan (but giving power to the Civil Service
   Commission itself in the matter); and then by providing that
   all postmasters and similar officers shall hold office during
   good behavior, including as well those nominated by the
   President and confirmed by the Senate as those appointed by
   the President alone. Of all the offices under the federal
   government, not one in a hundred can properly be called
   political."

      T. Roosevelt,
      The Present Status of Civil Service Reform
      (Atlantic, February, 1895).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1895.
   President Cleveland's Special Message on
   the condition of the National Finances.

   In a special message to Congress, on the 28th of January,
   1895, President Cleveland renewed an earnest appeal which be
   had made at the opening of the session, for legislation to
   correct the mischievous working of the existing currency
   system of the country. The condition of the national finances,
   produced by unwise laws, was set forth clearly in this
   message, as follows: "With natural resources unlimited in
   variety and productive strength, and with a people whose
   activity and enterprise seek only a fair opportunity to
   achieve national success and greatness, our progress should
   not be checked by a false financial policy and a heedless
   disregard of sound monetary laws, nor should the timidity and
   fear which they engender stand in the way of our prosperity.
{3587}
   It is hardly disputed that this predicament confronts us
   to-day. Therefore, no one in any degree responsible for the
   making and execution of our laws should fail to see a
   patriotic duty in honestly and sincerely attempting to relieve
   the situation. … The real trouble which confronts us consists
   in a lack of confidence, widespread and constantly increasing,
   in the continuing ability or disposition of the Government to
   pay its obligations in gold. This lack of confidence grows to
   some extent out of the palpable and apparent embarrassment
   attending the efforts of the Government under existing laws to
   procure gold, and to a greater extent out of the impossibility
   of either keeping it in the Treasury or canceling obligations
   by its expenditure after it is obtained. The only way left
   open to the Government for procuring gold is by the issue and
   sale of its bonds. The only bonds that can be so issued were
   authorized nearly twenty-five years ago, and are not well
   calculated to meet our present needs. Among other
   disadvantages, they are made payable in coin, instead of
   specifically in gold, which, in existing conditions, detracts
   largely and in an increasing ratio from their desirability as
   investments. It is by no means certain that bonds of this
   description can much longer be disposed of at a price
   creditable to the financial character of our Government. The
   most dangerous and irritating feature of the situation,
   however, remains to be mentioned. It is found in the means by
   which the Treasury is despoiled of the gold thus obtained
   without canceling a single Government obligation and solely
   for the benefit of those who find profit in shipping it abroad
   or whose fears induce them to hoard it at home. We have
   outstanding about five hundred millions of currency notes of
   the Government for which gold may be demanded, and, curiously
   enough, the law requires that when presented and, in fact,
   redeemed and paid in gold, they shall be reissued. Thus the
   same notes may do duty many times in drawing gold from the
   Treasury; nor can the process be arrested as long as private
   parties, for profit or otherwise, see an advantage in
   repeating the operation. More than $300,000,000 in these notes
   have already been redeemed in gold, and notwithstanding such
   redemption they are all still outstanding. Since the 17th day
   of January, 1894, our bonded interest-bearing debt has been
   increased $100,000,000 for the purpose of obtaining gold to
   replenish our coin reserve. Two issues were made amounting to
   fifty millions each—one in January and the other in November.
   As a result of the first issue there was realized something
   more than $58,000,000 in gold. Between that issue and the
   succeeding one in November, comprising a period of about ten
   months, nearly $103,000,000 in gold were drawn from the
   Treasury. This made the second issue necessary, and upon that
   more than fifty-eight millions in gold was again realized.
   Between the date of this second issue and the present time,
   covering a period of only about two months, more than
   $69,000,000 in gold have been drawn from the Treasury. These
   large sums of gold were expended without any cancellation of
   Government obligations or in any permanent way benefiting our
   people or improving our pecuniary situation. The financial
   events of the past year suggest facts and conditions which
   should certainly arrest attention. More than $172,000,000 in
   gold have been drawn out of the Treasury during the year for
   the purpose of shipment abroad or hoarding at home. While
   nearly one hundred and three millions of this amount was drawn
   out during the first ten months of the year, a sum aggregating
   more than two-thirds of that amount, being about sixty-nine
   millions, was drawn out during the following two months, thus
   indicating a marked acceleration of the depleting process with
   the lapse of time. The obligations upon which this gold has
   been drawn from the Treasury are still outstanding and are
   available for use in repeating the exhausting operation with
   shorter intervals as our perplexities accumulate. Conditions
   are certainly supervening tending to make the bonds which may
   be issued to replenish our gold less useful for that purpose.
   … It will hardly do to say that a simple increase of revenue
   will cure our troubles. The apprehension now existing and
   constantly increasing as to our financial ability does not
   rest upon a calculation of our revenue. The time has passed
   when the eyes of investors abroad and our people at home were
   fixed upon the revenues of the Government. Changed conditions
   have attracted their attention to the gold of the Government.
   There need be no fear that we can not pay our current expenses
   with such money as we have. There is now in the Treasury a
   comfortable surplus of more than $63,000,000, but it is not in
   gold, and therefore does not meet our difficulty. I can not
   see that differences of opinion concerning the extent to which
   silver ought to be coined or used in our currency should
   interfere with the counsels of those whose duty it is to
   rectify evils now apparent in our financial situation. They
   have to consider the question of national credit, and the
   consequences that will follow from its collapse. Whatever
   ideas may be insisted upon as to silver or bimetallism, a
   proper solution of the question now pressing upon us only
   requires a recognition of gold as well as silver, and a
   concession of its importance, rightfully or wrongfully
   acquired, as a basis of national credit, a necessity in the
   honorable discharge of our obligations payable in gold, and a
   badge of solvency. … While I am not unfriendly to silver, and
   while I desire to see it recognized to such an extent as is
   consistent with financial safety and the preservation of
   national honor and credit, I am not willing to see gold
   entirely banished from our currency and finances. To avert
   such a consequence I believe thorough and radical remedial
   legislation should be promptly passed. I therefore beg the
   Congress to give the subject immediate attention. In my
   opinion the Secretary of the Treasury should be authorized to
   issue bonds of the Government for the purpose of procuring and
   maintaining a sufficient gold reserve and the redemption and
   cancellation of the United States legal-tender notes and the
   Treasury notes issued for the purchase of silver under the law
   of July 14, 1890. We should be relieved from the humiliating
   process of issuing bonds to procure gold to be immediately and
   repeatedly drawn out on these obligations for purposes not
   related to the benefit of our Government or our people.
{3588}
   The principal and interest of these bonds should be payable on
   their face in gold, because they should be sold only for gold or
   its representative, and because there would now probably be
   difficulty in favorably disposing of bonds not containing this
   stipulation. … The Secretary of the Treasury might well be
   permitted, at his discretion, to receive on the sale of bonds
   the legal-tender and Treasury notes to be retired, and, of
   course, when they are thus retired or redeemed in gold they
   should be canceled. These bonds under existing laws could be
   deposited by national banks as security for circulation; and
   such banks should be allowed to issue circulation up to the
   face value of these or any other bonds so deposited, except
   bonds outstanding bearing only 2 per cent interest, and which
   sell in the market at less than par. National banks should not
   be allowed to take out circulating notes of a less
   denomination than $10, and when such as are now outstanding
   reach the Treasury, except for redemption and retirement, they
   should be canceled and notes of the denomination of $10 and
   upward issued in their stead. Silver certificates of the
   denomination of $10 and upward should be replaced by
   certificates of denominations under $10. As a constant means
   for the maintenance of a reasonable supply of gold in the
   Treasury our duties on imports should be paid in gold,
   allowing all other dues to the Government to be paid in any
   other form of money. I believe all the provisions I have
   suggested should be embodied in our laws if we are to enjoy a
   complete reinstatement of a sound financial condition." The
   President's recommendations were not acted upon. The silver
   interest in Congress defeated all measures introduced for the
   purpose and left the situation unchanged. The Government was
   forced to a new issue of bonds under the old act, for the
   replenishing of its gold reserve.

   ----------UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: End--------

UNITED STATES BANK.

      See MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1791-1816, 1817-1833;
      and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1833-1836.

UNITED STATES CHRISTIAN COMMISSION.

      See SANITARY COMMISSION.

UNITED STATES CONGRESS.

      See CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES.

UNITED STATES OF BRAZIL.

      See BRAZIL: A. D. 1889-1891.

UNITED STATES OF COLOMBIA.

      See COLOMBIAN STATES.

UNITED STATES PRESIDENT.

      See PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

UNITED STATES SANITARY COMMISSION.

      See SANITARY COMMISSION.

UNITED STATES SENATE.

      See SENATE, THE AMERICAN.

UNIVERSITIES.

      See EDUCATION;
      also VERMONT, VIRGINIA and WISCONSIN UNIVERSITIES,
      and (in SUPPLEMENT) BROWN, MINNESOTA, and TULANE.

UNIVERSITY EXTENSION.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: REFORMS &c.;
      A. D. 1873-1889, and 1887-1892.

UNKIAR-SKELESSI, Treaty of (1833).

      See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840.

UNSTRUTT, Battle of the (1075).

      See SAXONY: A. D. 1073-1075.

UPCHURCH POTTERY.

   The Upchurch marshes, on the Medway, above Sheerness, were the
   site of extensive potteries in the time of the Roman
   occupation of Britain, and remains of the ware manufactured
   are abundant in the neighborhood.

      Thomas Wright,
      The Celt, the Roman, and the Saxon,
      chapter 8.

UPPER HOUSE.

      See LORDS, BRITISH HOUSE OF.

UPSALA, Battle of (1520).

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1397-1527.

UPSAROKAS, OR CROWS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

UR OF THE CHALDEES.

   "The Ur Kasdim, i. e. 'Ur of the Chaldæans' in the Hebrew
   Scriptures, is the modern Mug-heir, southeast of Babylon; on
   clay-tablets discovered in the ruins of this place we find
   cuneiform symbols, which are to be read as Uru."

      M. Duncker,
      History of Antiquity,
      book 2, chapter 1.

URARDA
ARARAT.

      See ALARODIANS.

URBAN II., Pope, A. D. 1088-1099.

   Urban III., Pope, 1185-1187.

   Urban IV., Pope, 1261-1264.

   Urban V., Pope, 1362-1370.

   Urban VI., Pope, 1378-1389.

   Urban VII., Pope, 1590, September 15 to September 27.

   Urban VIII., Pope, 1623-1644.

URBARIUM, of Maria Theresa, The.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1849-1859.

URBINO: Annexation to the States of the Church (1631).

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1605-1700.

URGENDJ, Destruction by the Mongols.

      See KHUAREZM: A. D. 1220.

URICONIUM,
VIROCONIUM.

   An important Roman town in Britain, extensive remains of which
   have been unearthed at modern Wroxeter. It was the station of
   the 14th legion.

      J. C. Anderson,
      The Roman city of Uriconium.

   Uriconium was totally destroyed by the West Saxons in 583. "A
   British poet in verses still left to us sings piteously the
   death-song of Uriconium, 'the white town in the valley,' the
   town of white stones gleaming among the green woodlands."

      J. R. Green,
      The Making of England,
      chapter 5.

URRACA,
   Queen of Castile and Leon, A. D. 1109-1126.

URSINI, The.

      See ROME: 13-14TH CENTURIES.

URSULINES, The.

   The origin of the order of the Ursulines "is ascribed to
   Angela di Brescia, about the year 1537, though the Saint from
   whom it received its name, Ursula Benincasa, a native of
   Naples, was born ten years afterwards. … The duties of those
   holy sisters were the purest within the circle of human
   benevolence—to minister to the sick, to relieve the poor, to
   console the miserable, to pray with the penitent. These
   charitable offices they undertook to execute without the bond
   of any community, without the obligation of any monastic vow,
   without any separation from society, any renouncement of their
   domestic duties and virtues."

      G. Waddington,
      History of the Church,
      chapter 19, section 6.

   ----------URUGUAY: Start--------

URUGUAY:
   The name.

   "The Uruguay is called so after a bird, the Uru, which is
   found in the woods on its banks, and the term Uruguay
   signifies the country of the Uru."

      T. J. Hutchinson,
      The Parana,
      page 44.

URUGUAY: A. D. 1714-1777.
   The settlement.
   The contest for, between Spain and Portugal.
   Relinquishment by the latter.
   Inclusion in the viceroyalty of Buenos Ayres.

      See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777.

{3589}

URUGUAY: A. D. 1826-1828.
   The subject of war between Brazil and the Argentine Republic.
   Independence established and recognized.

      See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1819-1874.

   ----------URUGUAY: End--------

USCOCKS, The.

   "During the reign of Ferdinand [Emperor, 1558-1564], several
   bodies of Christians, quitting the provinces which had been
   recently conquered by the Turks, obtained from the Austrian
   sovereigns a refuge at Clissa, in Dalmatia, under the
   condition of forming themselves into a frontier militia
   continually in arms against the infidels, and, from their
   emigration, received the name of Uscocks, which, in the
   language of the country, signifies wanderers. They fulfilled
   the purpose of their establishment; and, being at length
   expelled by the Turks, received a new asylum at Senga, a
   ruined fortress in Croatia, on the coast of the Adriatic
   gulph. Here, their numbers increasing by the accession of
   Italian banditti and other marauders, they were rendered more
   formidable than before; for they no longer confined their
   predatory incursions to the land, but became pirates by sea. …
   Their audacity increasing with success and plunder, they
   pillaged, without distinction, the vessels of all the nations
   who traded in the Adriatic." They were attacked by the Turks
   and the Venetians, and the latter, at length, in the early
   part of the 17th century, forced the Duke of Styria, who had
   protected the freebooters, to allow their stronghold at Segna
   to be demolished. "The Uscocks, being transplanted to
   Carlstadt, soon lost their name and distinction."

      W. Coxe,
      History of the House of Austria,
      chapter 42 (volume 2).

USDIÆ, The.

      See IRELAND: TRIBES OF EARLY CELTIC INHABITANTS.

USES, The Statute of.

      See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1535, and 1557.

USHANT, Naval battle off (1794).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (MARCH-JULY).

USIPETES AND TENCTHERI, Cæsar's overthrow of the.

   The Usipetes and Tenctheri, two German tribes, whose home was
   on the lower course of the Rhine, north and south of the
   Lippe, being hard pressed by the Suevi, crossed the Rhine, B.
   C. 55, and began to spread themselves along the Valley of the
   Meuse. Cæsar marched against them with great promptitude,
   refused to parley with them, accused them of treacherous
   attempts to gain time, and was himself charged with wicked
   treachery, in seizing their chiefs who met him with pacific
   propositions. It is certain, at all events, that he was able
   to attack them when they were deprived of leaders, and to
   slaughter them with so little resistance that not one Roman
   soldier was killed. Those who escaped the sword were driven
   into the Rhine (probably at its point of junction with the
   Moselle) and almost the entire mass of 180,000 are said to
   have perished. The remnant took refuge with the Sicambri or
   Sigambri, on the farther shore of the Rhine. Cæsar demanded
   the surrender of them, and, when refused, he caused his
   engineers to bridge the river in ten days, led his army across
   it and laid waste the country of the Sigambri. This was the
   first crossing of the Rhine by the Romans. The Suevi offered
   battle to the Roman invaders, but Cæsar prudently returned,
   and destroyed the bridge.

      Cæsar,
      Gallic Wars,
      book 4, chapters 1-19.

      ALSO IN:
      C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 10 (volume 1).

   ----------UTAH: Start--------

UTAH: A. D. 1847.
   Migration of Mormons from Nauvoo and their settlement on the
   Great Salt Lake.

      See MORMONISM: A. D. 1846-1848.

UTAH: A. D. 1848.
   Acquisition from Mexico.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1848.

UTAH: A. D. 1849-1850.
   The proposed State of Deseret.
   Organization of the Territory of Utah.
   Its name.

   "Until the year 1849 the Mormons were entirely under the
   control of their ecclesiastical leaders, regarding the
   presidency not only as their spiritual head, but as the source
   of law in temporal matters. … There was already in their midst
   a small percentage of gentile citizens, gathered … from nearly
   all the civilized nations of the earth. … Not infrequently
   litigation arose among the gentiles, or between Mormon and
   gentile; and though strict justice may have been done by the
   bishops, it was difficult for the latter to believe that such
   was the case. … Thus it became advisable to establish for the
   benefit of all some judicial authority that could not be
   questioned by any, whether members of the church or not, and
   this authority must be one that, being recognized by the
   government of the United States, would have the support of its
   laws and the shield of its protection. Further than this, if
   the Mormons neglected to establish such government, the
   incoming gentiles would do so ere long. Early in 1849,
   therefore, a convention was summoned of 'the inhabitants of
   that portion of Upper California lying east of the Sierra
   Nevada Mountains,' and on the 4th of March assembled at Salt
   Lake City. A committee was appointed to draught a
   constitution, under which the people might govern themselves
   until congress should otherwise provide by law. A few days
   later the constitution was adopted, and a provisional
   government organized, under the name of the State of Deseret.
   An immense tract of country was claimed, extending from
   latitude 33° to the border of Oregon, and from the Rocky
   Mountains to the Sierra Nevada, together with a section of the
   territory now included in southern California, and the strip
   of coast lying between Lower California and 118° 30' of west
   longitude. The seat of government was to be at Salt Lake
   City." In July Almon W. Babbitt was elected delegate to
   Congress, and that body was petitioned to admit the
   provisionally organized State into the Union. The delegate and
   his petition met with a cool reception at Washington; but in
   September, 1850, Congress passed an act organizing the
   Territory of Utah, and Brigham Young was appointed Governor.
   "The act to establish a territorial government for Utah placed
   the southern boundary at the 37th parallel, the section
   between that limit and the 33d parallel being included in the
   Territory of New Mexico [organized at the same time], with the
   exception of the part transferred to California, by which
   State Utah was to be bounded on the west. On the north, Oregon
   was to remain as the boundary, and on the east the Rocky
   Mountains." "The word Utah originated with the people
   inhabiting that region. Early in the 17th century, when New
   Mexico was first much talked of by the Spaniards, the
   principal nations of frequent mention as inhabiting the
   several sides of the locality about that time occupied were
   the Navajos, the Yutas, the Apaches, and the Comanches. Of the
   Utah nation, which belongs to the Shoshone family, there were
   many tribes. … The early orthography of the word Utah is
   varied." "Yuta" "was a common spelling by the early
   Spaniards, and might be called the proper one. Later we have
   'Youta,' 'Eutaw,' 'Utaw,' and 'Utah.'"

      H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States,
      volume 21 (Utah), chapter 17, and foot-note, page 34.

      See, also, AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.

{3590}

UTAH: A. D. 1857-1859.
   The Mormon Rebellion.

   "To this would-be 'State of Deseret' President Fillmore had
   assigned Brigham Young, the spiritual head of the church, as
   territorial governor; and by 1857, when a Democratic President
   showed the disposition to apply the usual temporal rule of
   rotation to the office, Young was rebellious, and the whole
   Mormon population, refusing allegiance to anyone but their
   consecrated head, began to drill and gird on their armor for
   resistance. Judges of the territorial courts had to flee for
   their lives; justice, which had long been tampered with to
   absolve church members from punishment, was deprived of
   process. It was charged that the Mormon hierarchy had leagued
   with Indian tribes to impel them to atrocities against the
   Gentile inhabitants, while their own Danites, or destroying
   angels, were secretly set apart and bound by horrid oath to
   pillage and murder such as made themselves obnoxious to the
   theocracy. … President Buchanan appointed as the new governor
   of Utah Alfred Cumming, a man combining courage with
   discretion, and filled the judicial and other vacancies which
   existed. To protect those new officers and aid them in
   discharging their functions, he ordered a detachment of
   regulars to accompany them to the Salt Lake region. The need
   of this was soon apparent. Early in September, 1857, a part of
   the troops left Fort Laramie, and on the 15th of the same
   month Brigham Young, parading audaciously the commission he
   still held from the United States, forbade all armed forces
   from entering the territory, and called upon his people to
   defend themselves against the 'armed mercenary mob' of
   invaders. His legislature, meeting later, sustained him in his
   bitter diatribe against the 'profane, drunken, and corrupt
   officials,' which a Washington administration was trying to
   force upon Utah territory at the point of the bayonet. A
   Mormon force had meanwhile advanced to impede the approach of
   our regulars, capturing and burning three supply trains of
   wagons laden with tents and provisions, stampeding the horses,
   and so crippling Fort Bridger, which was distant some twelve
   days' march from Salt Lake city, as to deprive our army, on
   its arrival, of a proper winter's shelter after its long and
   fatiguing march, and compel General Johnston, who commanded
   this important post, to despatch part of his forces upon a
   dreary and hazardous expedition to New Mexico for further
   supplies. Johnston's despatches in October showed the
   President that unless a large force was quickly sent out, a
   long conflict would be inevitable. Buchanan and his Secretary
   of War asked from the present Congress ten new regiments, of
   which five might be used to bring the Mormons to subjection.
   But the Lecompton controversy was raging; and the use of
   Federal troops to put down the free-State movement in Kansas
   had caused such mistrust and irritation that none but the
   President's unshaken supporters felt inclined to place more
   troops at his disposal. The bill for an army increase was
   lost, though both Houses passed a measure authorizing the
   President to accept for the Utah disturbances two regiments of
   volunteers. The volunteers were not called out; but Buchanan
   mustered a military force out of the regulars strong enough to
   overawe and overpower Utah's rebellious inhabitants. Two peace
   commissioners also bore to Utah a proclamation from the
   President, dated April 6th, which offered free pardon, except
   to those who persisted still in disloyal resistance. Governor
   Cumming, upon his arrival, made a like announcement. These
   conciliatory efforts, backed by an irresistible show of
   military strength, brought the Mormons to a speedy
   acknowledgment of allegiance. They fought not a battle, but
   manifested a purpose to burn their houses and make a new and
   peaceable retreat into the wilderness. From this purpose,
   after some conferences, they were at length dissuaded; and it
   was agreed in June between the Mormon leaders and our
   commissioners that the United States soldiery should be kept
   out of sight as much as possible while Utah remained tranquil.
   On the last day of the same month the new governor,
   accompanied by Brigham Young, came back to Salt Lake city to
   assume functions which were fully recognized. A few days
   earlier, and before the Mormons had begun to return to their
   homes, General Johnston and his troops, leaving Fort Bridger,
   reached the desolate city, marched through its streets, and,
   crossing its river Jordan, encamped on the opposite bank.
   While abandoning all further effort at violent resistance, the
   Mormons still clung to the hope of being left to govern
   themselves and preserve their institutions against the world's
   contaminating touch, by gaining the indispensable condition of
   practical isolation and independence. To this Congress in its
   next winter's session they renewed the former petitions they
   had presented for immediate admission to the Union as the
   'State of Deseret.' And should this request be denied, they
   prayed that the organic act of the territory might be so
   amended as to give the inhabitants the right to choose their
   own governor, judges, and other officers. All this Congress
   quietly ignored; and in military circles it was still
   generally believed that, for all this outward show of loyal
   acquiescence, the Mormons felt at heart no more affection for
   the United States than for any foreign nation; that the only
   rule they really recognized was that of their religion and the
   will of their hierarchy; and that force must still be used to
   compel them. Such views were entertained by General Albert
   Sidney Johnston, the military commander at Utah, destined to
   later distinction in the art of war. But Cumming, the
   governor, who had the temporizing instincts of a civilian,
   thought differently. The two came into collision when Mormons
   were brought to trial in the courts for a slaughter of
   emigrants in 1857, known as the Mountain Meadow massacre.
   [This was the massacre, by Indians and Mormons, of a party of
   136 emigrants, from Arkansas and Missouri, who were passing
   through Utah to California; it occurred in September, 1857, in
   a valley called the Mountain Meadows, about 300 miles south of
   Salt Lake city; only 17 young children were saved from the
   slaughter.] At the request of the Federal judge, Johnston
   furnished a military detachment to guard the prisoners; and
   when Cumming, the governor, interposed because of the angry
   remonstrance of the people, Johnston would not remove them.
   Buchanan, being appealed to, sustained the governor's
   authority."

      J. Schouler,
      History of the United States,
      chapter 22 (volume 5).

      ALSO IN:
      H. H. Bancroft,
      History of the Pacific States,
      volume 21, chapters 18-21.

      W. P. Johnston,
      Life of General Albert Sidney Johnston,
      chapter 13.

      Mrs. T. B. H. Stenhouse,
      Tell it All,
      chapter 23.

      Report of United States Secretary of the Interior,
      36th Congress, 1st session,
      Senate Ex. Doc., number 42 (volume 11).

{3591}

UTAH: A. D. 1882-1893.
   The Edmunds Act and its enforcement.
   Abandonment of Polygamy by the Mormons.
   Proclamation of Amnesty for past offenses against the law.

   In March, 1882, an Act of Congress (known as the Edmunds Act)
   was passed for the purpose of making efficient the law against
   polygamy in the territories, which had stood among the
   statutes of the United States for twenty years, without power
   on the part of the federal courts or officials in Utah to
   enforce it, as against Mormon juries. Besides repeating the
   penalties prescribed In the Act of 1862, the Act of 1882
   provides, in its eighth section, that "no polygamist,
   bigamist, or any person cohabiting with more than one woman,
   and no woman cohabiting with any of the persons described as
   aforesaid in this section, in any Territory or other place
   over which the United States have exclusive jurisdiction,
   shall be entitled to vote at any election held in any such
   Territory or other place, or be eligible for election or
   appointment to or be entitled to hold any office or place of
   public trust, honor, or emolument in, under, or for any such
   Territory or place, or under the United States." The ninth and
   last section is as follows: "Section 9. That all the
   registration and election offices of every description in the
   Territory of Utah are hereby declared vacant, and each and
   every duty relating to the registration of voters, the conduct
   of elections, the receiving or rejection of votes, and the
   canvassing and returning of the same, and the issuing of
   certificates or other evidence of election, in said Territory,
   shall, until other provisions be made by the legislative
   assembly of said Territory, as is hereinafter by this section
   provided, be performed, under the existing laws of the United
   States and said Territory, by proper persons, who shall be
   appointed to execute such offices and perform such duties by a
   Board of five persons, to be appointed by the President, by
   and with the advice and consent of the Senate, not more than
   three of whom shall be members of one political party, and a
   majority of whom shall be a quorum. The members of said Board
   so appointed by the President shall each receive a salary at
   the rate of three thousand dollars per annum, and shall
   continue in office until the legislative assembly of said
   Territory shall make provision for filling said offices as
   herein authorized. The Secretary of the Territory shall be the
   secretary of said Board and keep a journal of its proceedings,
   and attest the action of said Board under this section. The
   canvass and return of all the votes at elections in said
   Territory for members of the legislative assembly thereof
   shall also be returned to said Board, which shall canvass all
   such returns and issue certificates of election for those
   persons who, being eligible for such election, shall appear to
   have been lawfully elected, which certificates shall be the
   only evidence of the right of such persons to sit in such
   assembly: Provided, That said Board of five persons shall not
   exclude any person otherwise eligible to vote from the polls
   on account of any opinion such person may entertain on the
   subject of bigamy or polygamy, nor shall they refuse to count
   any such vote on account of the opinion of the person casting
   it on the subject of bigamy or polygamy, but each house of
   such assembly, after its organization, shall have power to
   decide upon the elections and qualifications of its members.
   And at or after the first meeting of said legislative assembly
   whose members shall have been elected and returned according
   to the provisions of this act, said legislative assembly may
   make such laws, conformable to the organic act of said
   Territory, and not inconsistent with other laws of the United
   States, as it shall deem proper concerning the filling of the
   offices in said Territory declared vacant by this act."—The
   following Proclamation, issued by the President of the United
   States on the 4th day of January, 1893, may be looked upon as
   the sequel and consequence of the legislation recorded above:
   "Whereas Congress, by a statute approved March 22, 1882, and
   by statutes in furtherance and amendment thereof, defined the
   crimes of bigamy, polygamy, and unlawful cohabitation in the
   Territories and other places within the exclusive jurisdiction
   of the United States and prescribed a penalty for such crimes;
   and Whereas, on or about the 6th day of October, 1890, the
   Church of the Latter-Day Saints, commonly known as the Mormon
   Church, through its president, issued a manifesto proclaiming
   the purpose of said church no longer to sanction the practice
   of polygamous marriages and calling upon all members and
   adherents of said church to obey the laws of the United States
   in reference to said subject-matter; and Whereas it is
   represented that since the date of said declaration the
   members and adherents of said church have generally obeyed
   said laws and have abstained from plural marriages and
   polygamous cohabitation; and Whereas, by a petition dated
   December 19, 1891, the officials of said church, pledging the
   membership thereof to a faithful obedience to the laws against
   plural marriage and unlawful cohabitation, have applied to me
   to grant amnesty for past offenses against said laws, which
   request a very large number of influential non-Mormons,
   residing in the Territories, have also strongly urged; and
   Whereas, the Utah Commission, in their report bearing date
   September 15, 1892, recommended that said petition be granted
   and said amnesty proclaimed, under proper conditions as to the
   future observance of the law, with a view to the encouragement
   of those now disposed to become law abiding citizens; and
   Whereas, during the past two years such amnesty has been
   granted to individual applicants in a very large number of
   cases, conditioned upon the faithful observance of the laws of
   the United States against unlawful cohabitation; and there are
   now pending many more such applications: Now therefore, I,
   Benjamin Harrison, President of the United States, by virtue
   of the power in me vested, do hereby declare and grant a full
   amnesty and pardon to all persons liable to the penalties of
   said act by reason of unlawful cohabitation under the color of
   polygamous or plural marriage, who have since November 1, 1890,
   abstained from such unlawful cohabitation; but upon the
   express condition that they shall in the future faithfully
   obey the laws of the United States hereinbefore named, and not
   otherwise. Those who shall fail to avail themselves of the
   clemency hereby offered will be vigorously prosecuted. In
   witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the
   seal of the United States to be affixed. Done at the city of
   Washington this 4th day of January, in the year of our Lord
   1893, and of the Independence of the United States the 117th.
   Benjamin Harrison."

{3592}

UTAH: A. D. 1894-1895.
   Provision for admission to the Union as a State.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1894-1895.

   ----------UTAH: End--------

UTAHS, UTES, PIUTES, etc.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.

   ----------UTICA: Start--------

UTICA:
   Origin.

   "The most ancient Phœnician colonies were Utica, nearly on the
   northern-most point of the coast of Africa, and in the same
   gulf (now known as the gulf of Tunis) as Carthage, over
   against Cape Lilybæum in Sicily,—and Gades, or Gadeira, on
   the south-western coast of Spain; a town which, founded
   perhaps near one thousand years before the Christian era, has
   maintained a continuous prosperity, and a name (Cadiz)
   substantially unaltered, longer than any town in Europe. How
   well the site of Utica was suited to the circumstances of
   Phœnician colonists may be inferred from the fact that
   Carthage was afterwards established in the same gulf and near
   to the same spot, and that both the two cities reached a high
   pitch of prosperity."

      G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 18.

      [Transcriber's note: The meaning of the phrase
      '…name (Cadiz)…' appears to be ambiguous.
      "The site of … Utica is … about 30 km from Tunis and 30 km
      from Bizerte and near … Zhana, … Ghar El Melh, … El Alia,
      … Metline."
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utica%2C_Tunisia]

UTICA:
   Relations to Carthage.

      See CARTHAGE, THE DOMINION OF.

UTICA:
   Curio's defeat.

   Curio, the legate or lieutenant sent first by Cæsar to Africa
   (B. C. 49), to attack the Pompeian forces in that quarter,
   undertook with two legions to reduce the city of Utica, which
   had became the capital of the Roman Province. Juba, king of
   Numidia, who was personally hostile to both Curio and Cæsar,
   came to the assistance of the Pompeians and forced Curio to
   withdraw from its besieging lines into the neighboring
   Cornelian camp, which was a famous military entrenchment left
   by Scipio Africanus. There he might have waited in safety for
   re-enforcements; but the wily Numidian tempted him out by a
   feigned retreat and then overwhelmed him. Curio and most of
   his men were slain.

      C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 16.

      ALSO IN:
      G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 5, chapter 7.

UTICA:
   Last stand of the opponents of Cæsar.

      See ROME: B. C. 47-46.

   ----------UTICA: End--------

UTRAQUISTS, The.

      See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1419-1434.

   ----------UTRECHT: Start--------

UTRECHT:
   The Episcopal Principality.

   "At the last ford of the Rhine a hamlet had in Roman times
   been built, possibly a fort also. Nothing is preserved
   regarding it but the name, which, in the mutations of
   language, passed from Ultrajectum into Utrecht. Towards the
   conclusion of the 7th century, Clement Willebrod, an English
   priest, who had been educated at the monastery of Ripon,
   coming as a missionary into those parts, succeeded, with the
   aid of eleven of his fellow-countrymen, in winning over the
   Frisian people to the Christian faith. He fixed his abode at
   Utrecht, of which he was afterwards appointed bishop; and
   gifts of land, at the time of little worth, were made to his
   successors by Pepin and Charlemagne. Such was the commencement
   of the temporal grandeur of the prince-bishops, whose dynasty
   attained to a power little less than sovereign during the
   middle ages. … With ready access to the sea, and not without
   an early disposition towards these pursuits which their
   kinsmen of the Rhineland towns were beginning to follow, the
   inhabitants of Utrecht soon became good sailors and good
   weavers, and their city throve apace. Enriched by successive
   grants of privileges and lands, the bishops of Utrecht
   gradually became powerful feudal lords."

      W. T. McCullagh,
      Industrial History of Free Nations,
      chapter 8 (volume 2).

UTRECHT: A. D. 1456.
   The bishopric grasped by the House of Burgundy.

   "Utrecht was still a separate state, governed by its sovereign
   bishop, who was elected by the votes of the chapter, subject
   to the approval of the Pope. On the vacancy which occurred
   towards the end of the year 1455, the choice of the canons
   fell upon Gisbert van Brederode, who had previously been
   archdeacon of the cathedral, and was held in general esteem
   amongst the people as well as the clergy. The Duke of Burgundy
   coveted so rich a prize, rather for its political importance,
   however, … than for any direct or immediate gain." The Duke
   appealed to Rome; Gisbert was put back into his archdeaconry,
   with an annuity for life, and David, a natural son of Duke
   Philip, was made bishop. "Thus the foundation was laid for the
   permanent union of Utrecht to the other provinces, although
   its final accomplishment was destined to be deferred yet many
   years."

      W. T. McCullagh,
      Industrial History of Free Nations,
      chapter 10 (volume 2).

UTRECHT: A. D. 1576.
   The Spanish Fury.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1575-1577.

UTRECHT: A. D. 1579.
   The Union of the Seven Provinces.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1577-1581.

UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.
   The Treaties which ended the War of the Spanish Succession,
   forming the Peace of Utrecht and the Treaty of Rastadt.

   The long War of the Spanish Succession was brought to a close
   (except as between Germany and France) by negotiations at
   Utrecht, which resulted in the concluding of a number of
   treaties between the several powers concerned, constituting
   collectively what is known as the Peace of Utrecht.
   Negotiations to this end were begun by England and France
   early in 1711, and preliminaries were settled between them and
   signed in October of that year. This action of the English
   compelled the other allies to consent to a general conference,
   which opened at Utrecht January 20, 1712. The discussion of
   terms lasted more than a year, while the war went on. Between
   Germany and France the war still continued and it was at
   Rastadt (March, 1714), not Utrecht, that the last named powers
   came to their agreement of peace. The several treaties
   concluded at Utrecht were most of them signed on the 31st day
   of March. O. S., or April 11, N. S., in the year 1713, "by the
   plenipotentiaries of France, England, Portugal, Prussia,
   Savoy, and the United Provinces; the emperor resolving to
   continue the war, and the king of Spain refusing to sign the
   stipulations until a principality should be provided in the
   Low Countries for the princess Ursini, the favourite of his
   queen [a demand which he subsequently withdrew].
{3593}
   The chief articles of this memorable pacification were to the
   following purport: It was stipulated that, … Philip, now
   established on the Spanish throne; should renounce all right
   to the crown of France; that the dukes of Berry and Orleans,
   the next heirs to the French monarchy after the infant
   dauphin, should in like manner renounce all right to the crown
   of Spain, in the event of their accession to the French
   throne; that, on the death of Philip, and in default of his
   male issue, the succession of Spain and the Indies should be
   secured to the duke of Savoy; that the island of Sicily should
   be instantly ceded by his Catholic majesty to the same prince,
   with the title of king; that France should also cede to him
   the valleys of Pragelas, Oulx, Sezanne, Bardonache, and
   Château-Dauphin, with the forts of Exilles and Fenestrelles,
   and restore to him the duchy of Savoy and the county of Nice;
   and that the full property and sovereignty of both banks and
   the navigation of the Marañan, or river of Amazons, in South
   America, should belong to the king of Portugal. It was
   declared that the king of Prussia should receive Spanish
   Guelderland, with the sovereignty of Neufchâtel and Valengin,
   in exchange for the principality of Orange and the lordship of
   Châlons, and that his regal title should be acknowledged; that
   the Rhine should form the boundary of the German empire on the
   side of France; and that all fortifications, beyond that
   river, claimed by France, or in the possession of his most
   Christian majesty, should either be relinquished to the
   emperor or destroyed; that the kingdom of Naples, the duchy of
   Milan, and the Spanish territories on the Tuscan shore, should
   be ceded to the house of Austria; that the sovereignty of the
   Spanish Netherlands should likewise be secured to that family;
   but that the elector of Bavaria (to whom they had been granted
   by Philip) should retain such places as were still in his
   possession, until he should be reinstated in all his German
   dominions, except the Upper Palatinate, and also be put in
   possession of the island of Sardinia, with the title of king:
   that Luxemburg, Namur, and Charleroy should be given to the
   states-general as a barrier, together with Mons, Menin,
   Tournay, and other places; and that Lisle, Aire, Bethune, and
   St. Venant, should be restored to France. It was agreed that
   the French monarch should acknowledge the title of queen Anne,
   and the eventual succession of the family of Hanover to the
   British throne; that the fortifications of Dunkirk (the cause
   of much jealousy to England, and raised at vast expense to
   France) should be demolished, and the harbour filled up; that
   the island of St. Christopher (which had long been possessed
   jointly by the French and English, but from which the French
   had been expelled in 1702) should be subject to this country
   [England]; that Hudson's Bay and Straits (where the French had
   founded a settlement, but without dispossessing the English,
   and carried on a rival trade during the war), the town of
   Placentia, and other districts of the island of Newfoundland
   (where the French had been suffered to establish themselves,
   through the negligence of government), and the long-disputed
   province of Nova Scotia (into which the French had early
   intruded, out of which they had been frequently driven, and
   which had been finally conquered by an army from New England
   in 1710), should be considered as the dependencies of the
   British crown: that Minorca and the fortress of Gibraltar
   (conquered from Spain) should remain in the possession of
   Great Britain; and that the Assiento, or contract for
   furnishing the Spanish colonies in South America with negroes,
   should belong to the subjects of Great Britain for the term of
   thirty years. That these conditions, especially on the part of
   Great Britain, were very inadequate to the success and expense
   of the war, will be allowed by every intelligent man, whose
   understanding is not warped by political prejudices. … The
   other confederates had greater cause to be satisfied, and the
   emperor [Charles VI.] as much as any of them; yet was he
   obstinate in refusing to sign the general pacification, though
   two months were allowed him to deliberate on the terms. But he
   had soon reason to repent his rashness in resolving to
   continue the war alone. … The imperial army on the Rhine,
   commanded by prince Eugene, was not in a condition to face the
   French under Villars, who successively took Worms, Spire,
   Keiserlautern, and the important fortress of Landau. He forced
   the passage of the Rhine … and reduced Freyburg, the capital
   of the Breisgau. Unwilling to prosecute a disastrous war, the
   emperor began seriously to think of peace; and conferences,
   which afterward terminated in a pacific treaty, were opened
   between prince Eugene and Villars, at Ranstadt. The terms of
   this treaty, concluded on the 6th of March (N. S.) 1714 [but
   ratified at Baden the next September, and sometimes called the
   Treaty of Baden], were less favourable to the emperor than
   those which had been offered at Utrecht. The king of France
   retained Landau, which he had before proposed to cede, with
   several fortresses behind the Rhine, which he had agreed to
   demolish [but restored Freiburg]. He procured the full
   re-establishment of the electors of Bavaria and Cologne in
   their dominions and dignities; the former prince consenting to
   relinquish Sardinia to the emperor, in return for the Upper
   Palatinate. … The principal articles in regard to Italy and
   the Low Countries were the same with those settled at Utrecht.
   Relaxing in his obstinacy, the king of Spain also acceded to
   the general pacification."

      W. Russell,
      History of Modern Europe,
      part 2, letter 23 (volume 3).

      ALSO IN:
      J. W. Gerard,
      The Peace of Utrecht,
      chapters 24-29.

      T. Macknight,
      Life of Bolingbroke,
      chapters 8-9.

      G. W. Cooke,
      Memoirs of Bolingbroke,
      volume 1, chapter 13.

      W. Coxe,
      Memoirs of Marlborough,
      chapters 108-110.

      J. C. Collins,
      Bolingbroke,
      section 1.

      A. Hassall,
      Life of Bolingbroke,
      chapter 3.

      See, also,
      ITALY: A. D. 1701-1713;
      SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1698-1776;
      CANADA: A. D.1711-1713;
      and NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1713.

   ----------UTRECHT: End--------

UTRECHT SCHOOL OF ST. MARTIN.

      See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL: NETHERLANDS.

UXBRIDGE, Attempted Treaty of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1645 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY).

UXELLODUNUM, Siege of.

      See GAUL: B. C. 58-51.

UXMAL, Ruins of.

      See MEXICO: ANCIENT, THE MAYA AND NAHUA PEOPLES.

UZES, The.

      See PATCHINAKS.

{3594}

V.

VACALUS, The.

   The ancient name of the river Waal.

VACCÆI, The.

   One of the tribes of the Celtiberians in ancient Spain.

      T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 4, chapter 1.

VACCINATION, The discovery of.

      See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 18TH CENTURY.

VACOMAGI, The.

   A tribe in ancient Caledonia, whose territory extended along
   the border of the Highlands, from the Moray Firth to the Tay.

      See BRITAIN: CELTIC TRIBES.

VACSLAV.

      See WENCESLAUS.

VADIMONIAN LAKE, Battle of the.

      See ROME: B. C. 295-191.

VAISYAS.

      See CASTE SYSTEM OF INDIA.

VALDEMAR I. (called The Great), King of Denmark, A. D. 1157-1182.

   Valdemar I., King of Sweden, 1266-1275.

   Valdemar II., King of Denmark, 1202-1241.

   Valdemar III., King of Denmark, 1340-1375.

VALDEVEZ, The Tourney of.

      See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1095-1325.

VALEA ALBA, Battle of (1476).

      See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES:
      14-18TH CENTURIES (ROUMANIA, ETC.)

VALENCIA: A. D. 1031-1092.
   The seat of a Moorish kingdom.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1031-1086.

   ----------VALENCIENNES: Start--------

VALENCIENNES: A. D. 1566.
   Crushing of the first revolt against Spanish tyranny in the
   Netherlands.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1566-1568.

VALENCIENNES: A. D. 1576.
   The Spanish Fury.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1575-1577.

VALENCIENNES: A. D. 1583.
   Submission to Spain.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585.

VALENCIENNES: A. D. 1656.
   Siege and failure of Turenne.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1653-1656.

VALENCIENNES: A. D. 1677.
   Taken by Louis XIV.

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674-1678.

VALENCIENNES: A. D. 1679.
   Cession to France.

      See NIMEGUEN, THE PEACE OF.

VALENCIENNES: A. D. 1793.
   Siege and capture by the Austrians.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER) PROGRESS OF THE WAR.

VALENCIENNES: A. D. 1794.
   Recovery by the French.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (JANUARY-JULY).

   ----------VALENCIENNES: End--------

VALENS, Roman Emperor (Eastern), A. D. 364-378.

VALENTIA.

   One of the Roman provinces formed in Britain, extending from
   the wall of Hadrian to the wall of Antoninus, covering
   southern Scotland. It was named in honor of the Emperor
   Valentinian.

      See BRITAIN: A. D. 323-337; and 367-370.

VALENTINE, Pope, A. D. 827, September to October.

VALENTINIAN I., Roman Emperor (Western), A. D. 364-375.

   Valentinian II., Roman Emperor (Western), 375-392.

   Valentinian III., Roman Emperor (Western), 425-455.

VALERIAN, Roman Emperor, A. D. 253-260.

VALERIAN LAWS.

      See ROME: B. C. 509.

VALERIO-HORATIAN LAWS, The.

      See ROME: B. C. 449.

VAL-ES-DUNES, Battle of (1047).

      See NORMANDY: A. D. 1035-1063.

VALLACHIA.

      See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES.

VALLACHS, The.

      See WALLACHS.

VALLADOLID, Battle of (1813).

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1810-1819.

VALLANDIGHAM, Clement L., The arrest of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (MAY-JUNE).

VALLEY FORGE:
   Washington's army in winter quarters.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777 (JANUARY-DECEMBER).

VALLI.
VALLUM.

      See CASTRA.

VALMY, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).

VALOIS, The House of.

   The direct line of the Capetian kings of France, descendants
   of Hugh Capet, ended in 1328, with the death of Charles IV.
   The crown then passed to the late king's cousin, Philip of
   Valois, son of Charles Count of Valois, who was the second son
   of Philip III. He became Philip VI. in the series of French
   kings, and with him began the royal dynasty or House of
   Valois, which came to an end in 1589, on the assassination of
   Henry III., yielding the throne to the Bourbon family.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1314-1328.

   For source of the name.

      See BOURBON, THE HOUSE OF.

VALOUTINA, Battle of.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).

VALTELINE, Annexation to the Cisalpine Republic.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (MAY-OCTOBER).

VALTELINE WAR.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.

VAN BUREN, Martin.
   Presidential election and administration.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1836, to 1841.

   Defeat in Presidential Election.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1840.

   The Free Soil Movement.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1848.

VANCOUVER'S ISLAND.

      See BRITISH COLUMBIA.

VANDALIA, The proposed western colony of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768.

   ----------VANDALS: Start--------

VANDALS:
   Origin and early movements.

   "Gibbon declares that a striking resemblance, in manners,
   complexion, religion, and language, indicates that the Goths
   and Vandals were originally one great people; and he cites the
   testimony of Pliny and Procopius in support of this belief.
   According to this theory, therefore, the Vandals are of the
   Teutonic stock. Other learned men have endeavoured to identify
   them with the Wendes; and the Wendes, as we have seen,
   according to the authority of Jornandes and others, were
   members of the Slavic race. The question has been examined,
   with great learning and ingenuity, by M. L. Marcus, Professor
   at the College of Dijon, in a work upon Vandal history. His
   conclusion, drawn from a comparison of what Tacitus, Pliny,
   Procopius, and Jornandes have left us upon the subject, is
   favourable to the hypothesis of Gibbon. Between the Wendes and
   the Vindili of Pliny, who were undoubtedly Vandals, he
   considers that no nearer point of union can be found than that
   of the Asiatic origin common to all nations of Slavic and
   Teutonic blood.
{3595}
   He accounts for the fact that some confusion upon the subject
   subsists in ancient writers, by the supposition that the
   Slaves, after the great migration of Goths and Vandals to the
   South, occupied the locality they had abandoned on the coasts
   of the Baltic, and became inheritors of the name, as well as
   of the land, of their predecessors. Hence they were commonly,
   though incorrectly, called Vindili, or Vandals. … The earliest
   locality of the tribe, so far as authentic history can trace
   them, seems to have been the district between the Vistula and
   the Elbe. Here they were found by the Langobardi, in their
   migration towards the South. … In the time of Pliny, we have
   that writer's testimony to the fact that the Vandals were
   still to be found between the two rivers. But during the next
   two centuries their unwarlike habits must have tended to
   diminish their importance among their fierce and active
   neighbours, of whom the Goths were the most formidable, and
   probably the most aggressive. Tacitus, at any rate, in his
   tractate upon the Germans [A. D. 100], merely notices them by
   name. … Another half-century finds them in a strong position
   among the mountains which form the northern frontier of
   Bohemia. It is certain that they took part in the great
   Marcomannic war [A. D. 168-180]. … In the treaty made by
   Commodus, the son of Marcus Aurelius, with the Marcomanni [A.
   D. 180], the Vandals are one of the tribes secured from the
   hostility of those persevering enemies of the Roman empire. At
   this time, Ptolemy informs us that the Vandals occupied the
   districts lying around the sources of the Elbe; and all other
   investigation confirms the statement." A hundred years later,
   the Vandals appear to have been planted in a district on the
   Danube, east of the Theiss; from which they were soon
   afterwards driven by the Goths. They were then permitted by
   the emperor Constantine to pass the frontiers of the empire
   and settle in Pannonia, where they accepted Christianity and
   exhibited "the greatest aptitude for commerce and the arts of
   peace." Despite their Christianity, however, and despite their
   aptitude for the "arts of peace," the Vandals, after seventy
   years of friendly neighboring with the Romans, joined the
   savage pack of Alans, Sueves and Burgundians which, on the
   last day of the year 406, broke into Gaul and shattered the
   empire and the civilization of Rome beyond the Alps.

      J. G. Sheppard,
      The Fall of Rome,
      lecture 7.

      ALSO IN:
      T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and her Invaders,
      book 3, chapter 2 (volume 2).

VANDALS: A. D. 406-409.
   Final Invasion of Gaul.

      See GAUL: A. D. 406-409.

A. D. 409-414.
   Settlement in Spain.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 409-414.

VANDALS: A. D. 428.
   Conquests in Spain.

   "After the retreat of the Goths [A. D. 418] the authority of
   Honorius had obtained a precarious establishment in Spain,
   except only in the province of Gallicia, where the Suevi and
   the Vandals had fortified their camps in mutual discord and
   hostile independence. The Vandals prevailed, and their
   adversaries were besieged in the Nervasian hills, between Leon
   and Oviedo, till the approach of Count Asterius compelled, or
   rather provoked, the victorious barbarians to remove the scene
   of war to the plains of Bætica. The rapid progress of the
   Vandals soon required a more effectual opposition, and the
   master-general Castinus marched against them with a numerous
   army of Romans and Goths. Vanquished in battle by an inferior
   enemy, Castinus fled with dishonour to Tarragona. … Seville
   and Carthagena became the reward, or rather the prey, of the
   ferocious conquerors."

      E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 33.

   Southern Spain, the ancient Bætica, acquired from the Vandals
   the name Vandalusia, which became Andalusia.

      R. G. Latham,
      Ethnology of Europe,
      chapter 2.

VANDALS: A. D. 429-439.
   Conquests in Africa.

   In May, A. D. 429, the Vandals passed from Spain into Africa,
   invited by Count Boniface, the Roman governor of the African
   province. The latter had been deceived by an intriguing rival,
   Count Aetius, who persuaded him that the imperial Court at
   Ravenna were planning his disgrace and death. Thus incited to
   rebellion, as an act of self defense, he called the Vandals to
   his help. The latter had just fallen under the leadership of a
   new and terrible king—the bold and ruthless Genseric, who was
   destined to make the name of his people a proverb through all
   time for ferocity and barbarism. To the Vandals were united
   the Alans, and Genseric invaded Africa with some 80,000 men.
   He was joined, moreover, by great numbers of disaffected
   native Mauritanians, or Moors, and was welcomed by swarms of
   the fanatical Donatists, whose "vandalism" could quite equal
   his own. Count Boniface shrank aghast from the terrible
   invasion he had summoned, and learning, too late, how foully
   he had been played upon, returned to his allegiance with
   penitent energy and zeal. He turned his arms against Genseric;
   but it was in vain. "The victorious barbarians insulted the
   open country; and Carthage, Cirta, and Hippo Regius were the
   only cities that appeared to rise above the general
   inundation. … The seven fruitful provinces, from Tangier to
   Tripoli, were overwhelmed. … The Vandals, where they found
   resistance, seldom gave quarter; and the deaths of their
   valiant countrymen were expiated by the ruin of the cities
   under whose walls they had fallen. Careless of the
   distinctions of age or sex or rank, they employed every
   species of indignity and torture to force from the captives a
   discovery of their hidden wealth." Defeated in a battle which
   he ventured, Boniface retired into Hippo Regius and stood a
   siege of fourteen months. A second battle, won by the Vandals,
   decided the fate of the city, but its inhabitants escaped, for
   the most part, by sea, before the barbarians broke in. The
   great Bishop of Hippo, the venerable St. Augustine, was in the
   city when the siege began, but died before it ended, in his
   seventy-sixth year. "When the city, some months after his
   death, was burned by the Vandals, the library was fortunately
   saved which contained his voluminous writings." Hippo fell in
   the summer of A. D. 431. It was not until eight years later
   that Carthage succumbed,—taken treacherously, by surprise, on
   the 9th of October, 439; being 585 years after the destruction
   of the ancient city by the younger Scipio. The provinces of
   Africa were now fully in the possession of the Vandals, and
   the loss of their cor

      E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 33.

      ALSO IN:
      J. C. L. de Sismondi,
      Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 7.

      T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      book 3, chapter 2.

VANDALS: A. D. 429-477.
   In Sicily.

      See SICILY: A. D. 429-525.

{3596}

VANDALS: A. D. 431-533.
   Ruin of Africa under their dominion.

   "The Vandals were bigoted Arians and their government was
   peculiarly tyrannical; they always treated the Roman
   inhabitants of Africa as political enemies, and persecuted
   them as religious opponents. The Visigoths in Spain had
   occupied two thirds of the subjugated lands, the Ostrogoths in
   Italy had been satisfied with one third; and both these people
   had acknowledged the civil rights of the Romans as citizens
   and Christians. The Vandals adopted a different policy.
   Genseric reserved immense domains to himself and to his sons.
   He divided the densely peopled and rich districts of Africa
   proper among the Vandal warriors, exempting them from taxation
   and binding them to military service. … They seized all the
   richest lands, and the most valuable estates, and exterminated
   the higher class of the Romans. Only the poorer proprietors
   were permitted to preserve the arid and distant parts of the
   country. Still, the number of the Romans excited the fears of
   the Vandals, who destroyed the walls of the provincial towns
   in order to prevent the people from receiving succours from
   the Eastern Empire. … When Genseric conquered Carthage, his
   whole army amounted only to 50,000 warriors; yet this small
   horde devoured all the wealth of Africa in the course of a
   single century, and, from an army of hardy soldiers, it was
   converted Into a caste of luxurious nobles living in splendid
   villas round Carthage. In order fully to understand the
   influence of the Vandals on the state of the country which
   they occupied, it must be observed that their oppressive
   government had already so far lowered the condition and
   reduced the numbers of the Roman provincials, that the native
   Moors began to reoccupy the country from which Roman industry
   and Roman capital had excluded them. … As the property of the
   province was destroyed, Its Roman inhabitants perished."

      G. Finlay,
      Greece Under the Romans,
      chapter 3, section 5.

VANDALS: A. D. 455.
   The sack of Rome by Genseric.

      See ROME: A. D. 455

VANDALS: A. D. 533-534.
   End of the kingdom and nation.

   The weakened and disordered state of the Vandal kingdom,
   concurring with the revival of a military spirit in the
   eastern Roman empire, which the great soldier Belisarius had
   brought about, encouraged the Emperor Justinian to attempt, A.
   D. 533, a reconquest of the lost Roman provinces in Africa.
   With a fleet of six hundred ships, bearing 37,000 men,
   Belisarius set sail from Constantinople in the month of June
   and landed early in September on the African coast, about five
   days journey from Carthage,—having halted at a port in Sicily
   on the voyage. A few days later, he defeated the Vandal king,
   Gelimer, in a battle (Ad Decimus) fought at ten miles distance
   from his capital, and entered Carthage in triumph (September
   15, A. D. 533), received with joy by its Roman and Catholic
   inhabitants, long persecuted and humiliated by the Arian
   Vandals. A second and decisive battle was fought some weeks
   afterwards at Tricamaron, twenty miles away from Carthage, and
   there and then the Vandal kingdom came to its end. Gelimer
   fled into the wilds of Numidia, was pursued, and, having
   surrendered himself in the March following, was sent to
   Constantinople, and passed the remainder of his days in peace
   and modest luxury on a comfortable estate in Galatia. "The
   fall of the Vandal monarchy was an event full of meaning for
   the future history of Africa. There can be little doubt that
   in destroying it Justinian was unconsciously removing the most
   powerful barrier which might in the next century have arrested
   the progress of Mohammedanism."

      T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      book 4, chapter 15 (v 3).

   "The bravest of the Vandal youth were distributed into five
   squadrons of cavalry, which adopted the name of their
   benefactor. … But these rare exceptions, the reward of birth
   or valour, are insufficient to explain the fate of a nation
   whose numbers, before a short and bloodless war, amounted to
   more than 600,000 persons. After the exile of their king and
   nobles, the servile crowd might purchase their safety by
   abjuring their character, religion, and language; and their
   degenerate posterity would be insensibly mingled with the
   common herd of African subjects. Yet even in the present age,
   and in the heart of the Moorish tribes, a curious traveller
   has discovered the white complexion and long flaxen hair of a
   northern race; and it was formerly believed that the boldest
   of the Vandals fled beyond the power, or even the knowledge,
   of the Romans, to enjoy their solitary freedom on the shores
   of the Atlantic ocean."

      E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 41.

   ----------VANDALS: End--------

VAN DIEMEN'S LAND,
TASMANIA:
   Discovery and naming.

      See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1601-1800.

VANGIONES.
TRIBOCI.
NEMETES.

   "The Rhine bank itself is occupied by tribes unquestionably
   German—the Vangiones, the Triboci, and the Nemetes."—"These
   tribes dwelt on the west bank of the Rhine, in what is now
   Rhenish Bavaria."

      Tacitus,
      Germany;
      translated by Church and Brodribb,
      with geographical notes.

VANNES, Origin of.

      See VENETI OF WESTERN GAUL.

VAN RENSSELAER, Patroon Killian,
   The land purchases of.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1621-1646.

VAN RENSSELAER, General Stephen,
   and the Battle of Queenston Heights.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1812 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

VAN RENSSELAER MANOR.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1621-1646;
      and LIVINGSTON MANOR.

VAN TWILLER, Wouter, The governorship of.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1638-1647.

VARANGIAN SEA.

   One of the ancient names of the Baltic.

      R. G. Latham,
      Native-Races of Russian Empire,
      chapter 16.

VARANGIANS, OR WARINGS.
THE WARING GUARD.

   Varangians "was the name of the Byzantine equivalent to the
   'soldiers of a free-company' In the 11th and 12th centuries.
   The soldiers were almost wholly Scandinavians—to a great
   extent the Swedes of Russia. The reasons against believing
   Varangian to be the same word as Frank, are: 1. The mention of
   Franci along with them, as a separate people. 2. The extent to
   which the Varangians were Scandinavians, rather than Germans
   of the Rhine. In favour of it is: The form of the present
   Oriental name for Europeans—Feringi. This, in my mind,
   preponderates. Connected by name only with the Franks, the
   truer ethnological affinities of the Varangians were with the
   Scandinavians of Russia."

      R. G. Latham,
      The Germania of Tacitus, Epilegomena,
      section. 17.

{3597}

   "Many of the Warings and probably of the English also had
   taken military service at an early period under the Byzantine
   emperors. They formed a body-guard for the Emperor, and soon
   gained for themselves a renown greater than that possessed by
   the earlier imperial guard of the Immortals. The Byzantine
   writers usually speak of them as the barbarian guard or as the
   axe-bearers. Their weapon was the Danish battle-axe, or rather
   bill, and seems not to have had two blades turning different
   ways like those of a halberd, but to have had one with a sharp
   steel spike projecting, so that the weapon could be used
   either to strike or to thrust. Anna, the daughter of Alexis
   the First, calls them Warings or Varangians. Nicetas speaks of
   them as Germans. The Western writers call them usually Danes,
   or 'English and Danes.' The conquest of England by William the
   Norman caused many of the English to emigrate to Russia and so
   to Constantinople, where they joined the Waring guard. …
   Warings and English, while occupants of the Greek palace,
   still spoke their own language, had their own laws, and chose,
   with certain exceptions, their own officers. The one in
   command was called the acolyth, or follower, because his place
   was immediately behind the Emperor."

      E. Pears,
      The Fall of Constantinople,
      chapter 6. section 3.

      ALSO IN:
      V. Thomsen,
      The Relations between Ancient Russia and Scandinavia,
      lecture 3.

      See, also, RUSSIA: A. D. 862.

VARAVILLE, Battle of.

   A decisive victory over the French, invading Normandy, by Duke
   William—afterwards the Conqueror of England—A. D. 1058.

      E. A. Freeman,
      Norman Conquest,
      chapter 12, section 2 (volume 3).

VARCHONITES, The.

      See AVARS.

VARIAN LAW.

      See MAJESTAS.

VARIAN MASSACRE, The.

      See GERMANY: B. C. 8-A. D. 11.

VARINI, The.

      See AVIONES.

VARKANA.

      See HYRCANIA.

VARNA, The battle of (1444).

      See TURKS: A. D. 1402-1451.

VARNA, Siege and capture (1828).

      See TURKS: A. D. 1826-1829.

VARUS, and his Legions, The destruction of.

      See GERMANY: B. C. 8-A. D. 11.

VASCONES, The.

      See BASQUES.

VASSAL.

      See FEUDALISM.

VASSAR COLLEGE.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: REFORMS, &c.: A. D. 1804-1891.

VASSILI.

      See BASIL.

VASSY, The Massacre of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1560-1563.

VATICAN, THE.
THE LEONINE CITY.

   "The name Vatican was applied by the writers of the Augustan
   age to the whole range of hills extending along the western
   bank of the Tiber, including the Janiculum and the Monte
   Mario. … But the name Vaticanus has now been restricted to the
   small hill standing behind the Basilica of St. Peter's, upon
   which the Vatican Museum and the Papal Gardens are situated.
   This hill is a small projecting portion of the range which
   includes the Janiculum and Monte Mario, and it is separated
   from the Janiculum by a depression, along which the street of
   the Borgo S. Spirito runs. The derivation of the name Vatican
   is lost. Gellius has preserved a quotation from Varro, in
   which the word is said to be derived from a deity Vaticanus,
   the presiding god of the first rudiments of speech ('vagire,'
   'vagitanus'). Paulus Diaconus gives a different explanation,
   founded on the supposed expulsion of the Etruscans in
   fulfilment of an oracle ('vatum responso expulsis Etruscis');
   and from this Niebuhr and Bunsen, following him, have supposed
   that an Etruscan city existed here in ancient times. There
   appears to be no sufficient evidence of such a settlement."

      R. Burn,
      Rome and the Campagna,
      chapter 11.

   In the ninth century, at the time of the pontificate of Leo
   IV., "the nations of the West and North who visited the
   threshold of the apostles had gradually formed the large and
   populous suburb of the Vatican, and their various habitations
   were distinguished, in the language of the times, as the
   'schools' of the Greeks and Goths, of the Lombards and Saxons.
   But this venerable spot was still open to sacrilegious insult:
   the design of enclosing it with walls and towers exhausted all
   that authority could command or charity would supply: and the
   pious labour of four years was animated in every season and at
   every hour by the presence of the indefatigable pontiff. The
   love of fame, a generous but worldly passion, may be detected
   in the name of the Leonine City, which he bestowed on the
   Vatican; yet the pride of the dedication was tempered with
   Christian penance and humility."

      E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 52.

VATICAN COUNCIL, The.

      See PAPACY: A. D, 1869-1870.

VATICAN LIBRARY, The.

      See LIBRARIES, MODERN: EUROPE, and ITALY.

VAUCHAMP. Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).

VAUDOIS.

      See WALDENSES.

VAUGHT'S HILL, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (FEBRUARY-APRIL: TENNESSEE).

VAVASSOR,
VAVASOUR.

      See FEUDAL TENURES;
      also CATTANI.

VECTIGAL, THE.
VECTIGALIA.

   "Pascua—Vectigalia-Publicum-are the terms employed to denote
   generally the Revenues of Rome, from whatever source derived.
   Pascua, i. e. Pasture lands, signified Revenue; because, in
   the earliest ages, the public income was derived solely from
   the rent of pastures belonging to the state. … Vectigal is the
   word used more frequently than any other to denote the Revenue
   of the state generally. … Publicum, in its widest acceptation,
   comprehended every thing which belonged to the community at
   large."

      W. Ramsay,
      Manual of Roman Antiquity,
      chapter 8.

   "Cicero states that there was a difference between Sicily and
   all the other Roman provinces in the management of the
   Vectigal, which is the name for the contribution which the
   provinces made to the Roman State. All the provinces except
   Sicily paid either a fixed land-tax (vectigal stipendiarium)
   or tenths [decumæ] or other quotæ of their produce, and these
   tenths were let at Rome by the censors to the Publicani, who
   paid the State a certain sum for the privilege of collecting
   the tenths and made out of them what profit they could. … The
   tenths of wheat and barley were let in Sicily to the
   Publicani, but sometimes a community would bid for its tenths
   and pay them itself."

      G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 3, chapter 4.

{3598}

VECTIS.
   The ancient name of the Isle of Wight.

      E. H. Bunbury,
      History of Ancient Geography,
      chapter 24, section 2 (volume 2).

VEDAS.
VEDIC HYMNS.
VEDISM.

      See INDIA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS,
      and IMMIGRATION AND CONQUESTS OF THE ARYAS.

VEHMGERICHTS.
VEHMIC COURTS.

   "In times when political, social, and legal life are in
   process of fermentation, and struggling towards a new order of
   things, the ordinary tribunals lose their authority, and from
   the body of the people men spring up to protect the right in a
   primitive fashion, and to punish the criminal who has escaped
   the ordinary penalties of the law. Thus, at the close of the
   Middle Ages, or, more precisely, the first half of the 15th
   century, the Vehmgerichts (or Vehmic Courts, also called Free
   Courts, Franchise Courts, Secret Courts) rose to an authority
   which extended all over Germany, which knew no respect of
   persons, and before which many evil-doers in high places, who
   had bade defiance to the ordinary tribunals, were made to
   tremble. The name 'Vehme' is derived from the old German
   'vervehmen,' which means to ban, or to curse. The Vehmic
   courts were peculiar to Westphalia, and even there could only
   be held on the 'Red Land'—that is, the district between the
   Rhine and the Weser. They were dependent on the German Emperor
   alone, and their presidents, the Free-counts, received from
   the Emperor in person, or from his representative, the Elector
   of Cologne, the power of life and death. They traced their
   origin to Charlemagne, who, respecting the legal customs of
   the old heathen Saxons, introduced county courts among them
   after they had been converted to Christianity. For, even in
   the most ancient times, the Saxon freemen used to assemble at
   an appointed season, after they had held their great
   sacrifice, and hold a 'Thing' under the presidency of one of
   their oldest members, called the Grave, or Count, where they
   inflicted punishment and administered justice. The Vehmic
   court consisted of a Free-count and a number of assessors, who
   were called 'The Initiated,' because they knew the secrets of
   the holy Vehme. There must be at least fourteen of these
   assessors, but there were generally twice that number. As it
   was no secret when a man was all assessor, and as it
   contributed greatly to the safety of his person, since people
   took good care not to molest a member of the holy Vehme, it
   gradually came about that men from every German province
   obtained admission into the number of assessors. When the
   Emperor Sigismund was elected into the number of 'The
   Initiated' at the Franchise Court of Dortmund, the number of
   assessors is said to have amounted to 100,000, among whom were
   many princes and nobles. And about a thousand assessors are
   said to have been present when the ban was issued against Duke
   Henry of Bavaria in 1429. … There was a 'secret court' to
   which only the initiated had access, and a 'public court'
   which was held in the morning in the light of day at a known
   court-house. The presidents' chairs were always set in the
   open air under a lime, oak, pear, or hawthorn tree, an often
   near a town, castle, or village. At Dortmund the president's
   chair was placed close to the town wall under a lime-tree,
   which, though sadly shattered, is still standing between the
   rails inside the railway station. Round the stone table were
   ranged three stone benches for the assessors; on the table
   there was carved in relief the German imperial eagle, and on
   it was placed the sword of justice, … The Vehmic court which
   was originally, and was bound to be, a public one, gradually
   altered its character, enveloped itself in mysterious
   darkness, and under the cloak of secrecy lent itself to all
   sorts of unrighteous objects. In 1461, accordingly, princes
   and cities leagued together to suppress the irregularities of
   these courts, and as soon as the orderly administration of
   justice came into existence with the rise of the new princely
   authority, they perished from their own impotence."

      A. W. Grube,
      Heroes of History and Legend,
      chapter 13.

      ALSO IN:
      Sir W. Scott,
      Introduction to "Anne of Geierstein."

      A. P. Marras,
      Secret Fraternities of the Middle Ages,
      chapter 5.

VEII.
VEIENTINE WARS.

      See ROME: B. C. 406-396.

VELABRUM, The.

      See FORUM BOARIUM.

VELETRI, Battle of.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1744.

VELETRI, Battle of (1849).

      See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

VELIBORI, The.

      See IRELAND. TRIBES OF EARLY CELTIC INHABITANTS.

VELITES.

   The light infantry of the Roman army, as distinguished from
   the heavy-armed legionaries. "The velites did not wear any
   corslet or cuirass, but their tunic appears to have been
   formed of leather. … It is possible also that the velites
   sometimes wore, instead of leather, a tunic of quilted linen."

      C. Boutell,
      Arms and Armour,
      chapter 4.

VELLICA, Battle of.

      See CANTABRIANS.

VELLINGHAUSEN, or
KIRCH-DEN-KERN, Battle of (1761).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1761-1762.

VELLORE, Sepoy mutiny and massacre at (1806).

      See INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816.

VELOCASSES, The.

      See BELGÆ.

VENATIONES.

   Contests of wild beasts with each other or with men, in the
   Roman amphitheatres, were called Venationes.

      W. Ramsay,
      Manual of Roman Antiquities,
      chapter 10.

VENDEE, The War in La.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793
      (MARCH-APRIL), (JUNE), (JULY-DECEMBER);
      1793-1794 (OCTOBER-APRIL); and 1794-1796.

VENDEMIARE, The month.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (OCTOBER)
      THE NEW REPUBLICAN CALENDAR.

VENDEMIARE: The 13th.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

VENEDI, The.

   "The Venedi extended beyond the Peucini and Bastarnæ [around
   the mouths of the Danube] as far as the Baltic Sea; where is
   the Sinus Venedicus, now the Gulf of Dantzig. Their name is
   also preserved in Wenden, a part of Livonia. When the German
   nations made their irruption into Italy, France, and Spain,
   the Venedi, also called Winedi, occupied their vacant
   settlements between the Vistula and Elbe. Afterward they
   crossed the Danube, and seized Dalmatia, Illyricum, Istria,
   Carniola, and the Noric Alps. A part of Carniola still retains
   the name of Windismarck derived from them. This people were
   also called Slavi."

      Tacitus,
      The Germans,
      note to Oxford Translation,
      chapter 46.

   "The Venedi [of Tacitus] … are obviously the Wends—the name by
   which the Germans always designate the neighbouring Slavonian
   populations; but which is no more a national name than that of
   Wälsch, which they apply in like manner to the Latin races on
   their southern frontiers."

      E. H. Bunbury,
      History of Ancient Geography,
      chapter 26, section. 2, foot-note (volume 2).

      See, also, SLAVONIC PEOPLES, and VANDALS.

{3599}

VENEDI OF BOHEMIA, The.

      See AVARS: 7TH CENTURY.

VENEDOTIA.

      See BRITAIN: 6TH CENTURY.

VENETA.

      See (in Supplement) COMMERCE, MEDIÆVAL.

VENETI OF CISALPINE GAUL, The.

   One of the tribes or nations of Cisalpine Gaul bore the name
   of the Veneti. The Veneti occupied the country between the
   rivers Adige and Plavis and seem to have been considerably
   civilized when they first appear in history. They became
   allies of the Romans at an early day and were favorably dealt
   with when Gallia Cisalpina was added to the dominions of
   Rome. "No ancient writer distinctly states to what race the
   Veneti belonged. They are said to have resembled the Illyrians
   in dress and manners; but the very way in which this statement
   is made shows that its author did not regard them as
   Illyrians. … I have no doubt that the Veneti belonged to the
   race of the Liburnians, and that accordingly they were a
   branch of the wide-spread Tyrrheno-Pelasgians, in consequence
   of which they also became so easily Latinized." The capital
   city of the Veneti was Patavium (modern Padua). "Patavium was
   a very ancient and large town, and it is strange that it
   appears as such in Roman history all at once. It is mentioned
   as early as the fifth century [B. C.], during the expedition
   of the Spartan Cleonymus; it is also spoken of at the time of
   Caesar and of the triumvirs. But Strabo is the first who
   describes Patavium as a large town, and in such a manner as to
   make it evident that it was an ancient place. He says that,
   next to Rome, it was the wealthiest city of Italy. … In the
   time of Augustus it was a large commercial and manufacturing
   place."

      B. G. Niebuhr,
      Lectures on Ancient Ethnography and Geography,
      volume 2, page 246.


VENETI OF WESTERN GAUL, The.

   "The Veneti were one of the Armoric states of the Celtae.
   Their neighbours on the south were the Namnetes or Nannetes
   (Nantes), on the east the Redones, and on the north the
   Curiosolitae, and the Osismi in the north-west part of
   Bretagne, in the department of Finistère. The chief town of
   the Veneti was Dariorigum, now Vannes, on the bay of Morbihan
   in the French department of Morbihan, which may correspond
   nearly to the country of the Veneti. The Veneti were the most
   powerful of all the maritime peoples who occupied the
   peninsula of Bretagne. They had many vessels in which they
   sailed to the island Britannia, to Cornwall and the parts
   along the south coast of England, as we may assume. They
   surpassed all their neighbours in skill and experience in
   naval affairs."

      G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 4, chapter 6.

   The Veneti, "together with the Aulerci, Rhedones [or Redones],
   Carnutes, Andi and Turones, occupied the whole space between
   the lower Seine and the lower Loire, and were apparently
   closely united among themselves."

      C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 7.

   "The Andes [Andi] are the people whom Tacitus names the
   Andecavi, and the copyists of Ptolemy have named Ondicavae.
   They were west of the Turones, and their position is defined
   by the town Juliomagus or Civitas Andecavorum, now Angers on
   the Mayenne."

      G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 4, chapter 6.

   "In my opinion these Veneti were the founders of the Veneti in
   the Adriatic, for almost all the other Keltic nations in Italy
   have passed over from the country beyond the Alps, as for
   instance the Boii and Senones. … However, I do not maintain my
   opinion positively; for in these matters probability is quite
   sufficient."

      Strabo,
      Geography;
      translated by Hamilton and Falconer,
      book 4, chapter 4, section 1.

VENETI OF WESTERN GAUL, The.
   Cæsar's campaign.

   Cæsar's third campaign in Gaul, B. C. 56, was directed against
   the Veneti and their Armorican neighbors. These tribes had
   submitted themselves in the previous year to Cæsar's
   lieutenant, the younger Crassus; but the heavy exactions of
   the Romans provoked a general rising, and Cæsar was called to
   the scene in person. The Veneti were so amphibious a race, and
   their towns were generally placed so much out of the reach of
   a land army, that he found it necessary to build a fleet at
   the mouth of the Loire and bring it up against them. But the
   Veneti were better sailors than the Romans and their ships
   were more strongly built, so that the advantage would have
   still remained to them if Roman inventiveness had not turned
   the scale. Cæsar armed his men with hooked knives at the end
   of long poles, with which they cut the rigging of the Venetian
   ships and brought down their clumsy sails, which were of
   leather. By this means he overcame and destroyed them, in a
   great naval fight. When the survivors submitted, he ruthlessly
   slew the senatorial elders and sold the remnant of the people
   into slavery.

      Cæsar,
      Gallic Wars,
      book 3, chapters 7-16.

      ALSO IN:
      G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 4, chapter 6.

      C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 7.

      Napoleon III.,
      History of Cæsar,
      book 3, chapter 6.

VENETIA.

      See VENICE.

   ----------VENEZUELA: Start--------

VENEZUELA:
   Aboriginal inhabitants.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED,
      and COAJIRO.

VENEZUELA: A. D. 1499-1550.
   Discovery and naming of the province.
   Its first occupation by German adventurers.

   "The province contiguous to Santa Martha on the east was first
   visited by Alonso de Ojeda, in the year 1499.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1499-1500.

   The Spaniards, on their landing there, having observed some
   huts in an Indian village, built upon piles, in order to raise
   them above the stagnated water which covered the plain, were
   led to bestow upon it the name of Venezuela, or little Venice.
   … They made some attempts to settle there, but with little
   success. The final reduction of the province was accomplished
   by means very different from those to which Spain was indebted
   for its other acquisitions in the new world. The ambition of
   Charles V. often engaged him in operations of such variety and
   extent that his revenues were not sufficient to defray the
   expense of carrying them into execution. Among other
   expedients for supplying the deficiency of his funds, be had
   borrowed large sums from the Velsers of Augsburg, the most
   opulent merchants at that time In Europe. By way of
   retribution for these, or in hopes, perhaps, of obtaining a
   new loan, he bestowed upon them the province of Venezuela, to
   be held as an hereditary fief from the crown of Castile, on
   condition that within a limited time they should render
   themselves masters of the country, and establish a colony
   there. …
{3600}
   Unfortunately they committed the execution of their plan to
   some of those soldiers of fortune with which Germany abounded
   in the 16th century. These adventurers, impatient to amass
   riches, that they might speedily abandon a station which they
   soon discovered to be very uncomfortable, instead of planting
   a colony in order to cultivate and improve the country,
   wandered from district to district in search of mines,
   plundering the natives with unfeeling rapacity, or oppressing
   them by the imposition of intolerable tasks. In the course of
   a few years, their avarice and exactions, in comparison with
   which those of the Spaniards were moderate, desolated the
   province so completely that it could hardly afford them
   subsistence, and the Velsers relinquished a property from
   which the inconsiderate conduct of their agents left them no
   hope of ever deriving any advantage. When the wretched
   remainder of the Germans deserted Venezuela, the Spaniards
   again took possession of it."

      W. Robertson,
      History of America,
      book 7.

      ALSO IN:
      F. Depous,
      Travels in South America,
      chapter 1.

      See, also, EL DORADO.

VENEZUELA: A. D. 1718-1731.
   Embraced in the viceroyalty of New Granada.
   Raised to a distinct captain-generalship.

      See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1536-1731.

VENEZUELA: A. D. 1810-1819.
   The War of Independence.
   Miranda and Bolivar.
   The great Earthquake.

      See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1810-1819.

VENEZUELA: A. D. 1821.
   Beginning of the Emancipation of Slaves.

      See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1821-1854.

VENEZUELA: A. D. 1821-1826.
   Confederation with New Granada and Ecuador in the
   Republic of Colombia, and the breaking of the Confederacy.

      See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1819-1830.

VENEZUELA: A. D. 1829-1886.
   Summary record of revolutions and civil wars.
   The strife of the Yellows and the Blues.

   "In all countries, under whatever name they may be known,
   there are two great political parties; the conservatives and
   the reformers. … Venezuela is no exception to the general
   rule; there is the 'Oligarquia,' which desires to let things
   alone, and the 'Liberal' party, which wishes to remould them
   in accordance with the spirit of the age. The Spanish
   misgovernment left a legacy of bitterness and anarchy that has
   been the cause of much misery. Political passion runs very
   high in the country, and its history for a generation between
   these two parties has been a continual struggle, always more
   or less warlike. The existence of Venezuela in an independent
   capacity is due, in a large measure, to the personal ambition
   of Paez, by whose influence the great Liberator was exiled
   from his fatherland, and the republic separated from Colombia.
   Whatever may have been the real wishes of the people, the
   death of Bolivar put an end to all thoughts of re-union; and
   Paez became its first constitutional president. The second
   president was the learned Dr. José Maria Vargas, whose
   election in March 1835 was said to have been irregular, and
   led to the ' Revolucion de las Reformas.' He was deposed and
   expelled in July, but in August recalled to power! General
   Paez now took the field against the ' reformistas,' and a
   civil war ensued, continuing until March 1836, when they were
   completely subjugated, and treated with great rigour by order
   of the Congress, but against the desire of Paez, who entreated
   to be allowed to deal with them clemently. In 1836, Dr. Vargas
   resigned the presidency, and after the remainder of his term
   had been occupied by three vice-presidents, General Paez, in
   1839, became again the legitimate head of the nation. Now that
   the grave had closed over Simon Bolivar, the passions which
   had prevented the recognition of his greatness died also, and
   on the 17th of December 1842, the ashes of the immortal
   Liberator were transferred from Santa Maria with every mark of
   public respect and honour and received a magnificent national
   funeral, in the Temple of San Francisco, in Caracas. The fifth
   president was General Soublette, and the sixth General Jose
   Tadeo Monagas, who was elected in 1847. A great part of the
   Venezuelan people believe that all the evils that have fallen
   upon the republic since 1846 have had their origin in the
   falsification of votes, said to have taken place during the
   election of Monagas for president. The liberal candidate was
   Antonio Leocadio Guzman; and it is asserted that he had a
   majority of votes. … Monagas did not have an easy tenure of
   office, for the opposition of Paez led to two years of civil
   war. Here it may be noted to the credit of the liberal party
   that, at a time when many of its opponents were prisoners, it
   abolished the penalty of death for political offences. To his
   brother, General Jose Gregorio Monagas, afterwards president
   of the republic, was due the emancipation of the slaves. The
   famous law of March 24th, 1854, conceded liberty and equal
   rights to all; but by a strange irony of fortune, he who had
   given the precious boon of freedom to thousands died himself
   incarcerated in a political prison. … At the beginning of 1859
   the discontent of the liberals had reached a pitch which led
   to the outbreak of the War of the Federation. It was in this
   struggle that the present leader of the liberal party first
   displayed his military skill." Antonio Guzman Blanco, born in
   1830 and educated for the law, lived some years in the United
   States, part of the time as Secretary of Legation at
   Washington. Driven from Venezuela in 1858, "his expatriation
   soon after brought him in contact, first in St. Thomas and
   afterwards in Curazao, with General Falcon, then the head of
   'los liberales.' Falcon landed in Venezuela in July 1859, and
   proclaimed the Federal Republic. Many rose to support him, and
   in Caracas, on the 1st of August, the president, Monagas, was
   arrested; the next day the same troops declared against the
   Federation, and fired upon the people! So commenced the five
   years' War of the Federation, which has left, even to the
   present day, its black and ruined tracks across the face of
   the country. On the 30th of September was fought the battle of
   Sabana de la Cruz, resulting in the fall of Barquisimeto. In
   this action, so fortunate for the liberals, Guzman Blanco made
   his acquaintance with war, and showed so much military talent
   and energy that he was induced to leave his civil duties and
   take a 'comandante's' commission. The victory of Santa Ines,
   in December of the same year, followed. … The attack on San
   Carlos followed soon after, and was a disaster for the
   federals, who lost their general, Zamora, and were forced to
   retreat.
{3601}
   Falcon sought aid in Nueva Granada." The next year Guzman
   Blanco won the victory of Quebrada-seca, October 21, 1862.
   "Other victories followed, and were crowned by the grand and
   decisive combat of the 16th, 17th, and 18th of April, which
   gave the province of Caracas to the Federals, and led to a
   treaty between the two parties. The peace of Coche was
   arranged by Señor Pedro José Rojas, secretary to the Dictator,
   as Paez was sometimes called, and Guzman Blanco, as
   representative of Falcon, the chief of the revolution. Paez,
   by this treaty, undertook to abdicate 30 days later, when an
   assembly of 80, nominated in equal parts by the chiefs of each
   party, was to decide on a programme for the future. The
   assembly met in Victoria, and nominated Falcon President and
   Guzman Blanco provisional vice-president of the Federation.
   Falcon entered Caracas in triumph on July 24, 1863, and Guzman
   Blanco became Minister of Finance and of Foreign Relations."
   Guzman Blanco visited Europe in 1864 and 1867 to negotiate
   loans. "Meanwhile, in Caracas, the 'oligarquia,' which now
   assumed the name of the Blue party (El Partido Azul), was not
   idle, and its activity was increased by dissensions in the
   opposition. A section of the liberal party [or 'los
   amarillos'-'Yellows'] had become greatly disaffected to
   Marshal Falcon, who abdicated in favour of two revolutionary
   chiefs, Bruzual and Urrutia. This led to the treaty of
   Antimano, by which the 'partido azul' recognized the new
   government, but directly afterwards proclaimed the presidency
   of General José Tadeo Monagas. Three days' sanguinary combat,
   at the end of July 1868, gave it possession of Caracas."
   Guzman Blanco, returning at this juncture from Europe, was
   driven to take refuge in the island of Curazao; but in
   February, 1870, he reappeared in Venezuela; was supported by a
   general rising; took Caracas by assault, and defeated the
   Blues in several battles. "The congress of plenipotentiaries
   of the states met at Valencia, and nominated Guzman Blanco
   provisional president, and by the end of the year the enemy
   was nearly everywhere defeated."

      J. M. Spence,
      The Land of Bolivar,
      volume 1, chapter 8.

   From the liberation of Venezuela to the present time, "every
   successive President seems to have been employed, during his
   short lease of power, in trying to enrich himself and his
   adherents, without the least consideration for his unfortunate
   country. On paper all the laws are perfect, and the
   constitution all that could be desired, but experience has
   shown that the influence of the executive power is able to
   subdue and absorb every other power, legislative or judicial.
   One law which the Congress passed, viz:—that of division of
   the National property among the defenders of the country, as
   the only way of rewarding their heroic services, has become a
   precedent of very bad import. At first, those who had risen
   and driven out the Spaniards divided the land among
   themselves, but as successive Generals strove for and gained
   the Presidency they again forfeited the property of the
   opposing party, and divided their possessions among their own
   followers. … Paez, Vargas, Paez, Zea, Soublette, Paez, Gil,
   Monagas, Falcon, Monagas, Polidor, Pulgar, Blanco, Linares,
   Blanco, Crespo, and again Blanco, have succeeded each other
   with marvellous rapidity, the principal occupation of the
   deposed President being to conspire against his successor.
   Some of them succeeded to power more than once, but Don Gusman
   Blanco alone, since Bolivar, seems to have got a firm hold of
   the Government, and although, by the letter of the
   Constitution, he can only hold power for two years at a time,
   and cannot possibly hold two terms consecutively, yet the
   intervening Presidents were little more than dummies to keep
   his seat warm. … At present [1886] Don Gusman Blanco is
   supreme. He is reported to be immensely wealthy, and is a man
   of great capacity and intelligence."

      W. Barry,
      Venezuela,
      chapter 5.

VENEZUELA: A. D. 1869-1892.
   The constitution.
   The rule of General Blanco.
   The Revolution of 1889.

   "The Venezuelan Constitution is modelled after the American
   Constitution, with modifications grounded upon the Calhoun
   doctrine of State rights.

      See CONSTITUTION OF VENEZUELA.

   The confederation consists of eight States, which are supreme
   and coordinate in their sovereign rights. The National
   Government represents, not the people, but the States. … In
   1869 opened an era of peace and progress under the political
   domination of General Guzman Blanco. For 20 years, whether he
   was the head of a Provisional Government established by force
   of arms, or the constitutional Executive, or Minister to
   France, his will was the supreme force in the State. … He
   suppressed Clericalism and established genuine religious
   liberty. He built rail-ways, improved the public roads, and
   adorned the cities. … He developed the industries and commerce
   of the country, and promoted its prosperity by a policy at
   once strong and pacific. It was a system of political
   absolutism. … A reaction against it was inevitable. … The
   signal for a political revolution was raised by university
   students in October, 1889. They began operations by flinging
   stones at a statue of Guzman Blanco in Caracas. … It was a
   singularly effective revolution, wrought without bloodshed or
   excitement. This political movement was successful because
   Guzman Blanco was in Paris, and his personal representative in
   the executive office was not disposed to resent public
   affronts to his patron. The President, Dr. Rojas Paul, was a
   wise and discreet man. … He reörganized his Cabinet so as to
   exclude several of the devoted partisans of Guzman Blanco, and
   brought Dr. Anduesa Palacio into the field as a candidate for
   the Presidency. … Anduesa's administration, instead of being
   an era of reform, reproduced all the vices and corruption of
   the old order, and none of its progressive virtues. After two
   years it ended in civil war, usurpation, and the enforced
   resignation of Anduesa."

      I. N. Ford,
      Tropical America,
      chapter 12.

VENEZUELA: A. D. 1892-1893.
   Constitutional Government restored.

   Anduesa Palacio resigned in favor of Vice President Villegas,
   and the legality of the succession was disputed by the
   opposition, under ex-President Joaquin Crespo. The civil war
   continued, and three short-lived dictatorships were set up in
   succession; but in October, 1892, Crespo entered Caracas and
   established a constitutional government. In June, 1893, a new
   constitution was adopted. In October, Crespo was elected
   President for a term of four years.

   ----------VENEZUELA: End--------

VENI, VIDI, VICI.

      See ROME: B. C. 47-46.

{3602}

   ----------VENICE: Start--------

VENICE: A. D. 452.
   The origin of the republic.

   When Attila the Hun, in the year 452, crossed the Alps and
   invaded Italy, "the savage destroyer undesignedly laid the
   foundations of a republic which revived, in the feudal state
   of Europe, the art and spirit of commercial industry. The
   celebrated name of Venice, or Venetia, was formerly diffused
   over a large and fertile province of Italy, from the confines
   of Pannonia to the river Addua, and from the Po to the Rhætian
   and Julian Alps. Before the irruption of the barbarians, fifty
   Venetian cities flourished in peace and prosperity. … Many
   families of Aquileia, Padua, and the adjacent towns, who fled
   from the sword of the Huns, found a safe though obscure refuge
   in the neighbouring islands. At the extremity of the Gulf,
   where the Adriatic feebly imitates the tides of the ocean,
   near a hundred small islands are separated by shallow water
   from the continent, and protected from the waves by several
   long slips of land, which admit the entrance of vessels
   through some secret and narrow channels. Till the middle of
   the 5th century these remote and sequestered spots remained
   without cultivation, with few inhabitants, and almost without
   a name. But the manners of the Venetian fugitives, their arts
   and their government, were gradually formed by their new
   situation; and one of the epistles of Cassiodorus, which
   describes their condition about seventy years afterwards, may
   be considered as the primitive monument of the republic. …
   Fish was the common, and almost the universal, food of every
   rank: their only treasure consisted in the plenty of salt
   which they extracted from the sea."

      E. Gibbon,
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 35.

   "The inhabitants of Aquileia, or at least the feeble remnant
   that escaped the sword of Attila, took refuge at Grado.
   Concordia migrated to Caprularia (now Caorle). The inhabitants
   of Altinum, abandoning their ruined villas, founded their new
   habitations upon seven islands at the mouth of the Piave,
   which, according to tradition, they named from the seven gates
   of their old city. … From Padua came the largest stream of
   emigrants. They left the tomb of their mythical ancestor,
   Antenor, and built their humble dwellings upon the islands of
   Rivus Altus and Methamaucus, better known to us as Rialto and
   Malamocco. This Paduan settlement was one day to be known to
   the world by the name of Venice. But let us not suppose that
   the future Queen of the Adriatic sprang into existence at a
   single bound like Constantinople or Alexandria. For 250 years,
   that is to say for eight generations, the refugees on the
   islands of the Adriatic prolonged an obscure and squalid
   existence,—fishing, salt-manufacturing, damming out the waves
   with wattled vine-branches, driving piles into the sand-banks;
   and thus gradually extending the area of their villages. Still
   these were but fishing-villages, loosely confederated
   together, loosely governed, poor and insignificant. … This
   seems to have been their condition, though perhaps gradually
   growing in commercial importance, until at the beginning of
   the 8th century the concentration of political authority in
   the hands of the first doge, and the recognition of the Rialto
   cluster of islands as the capital of the confederacy, started
   the Republic on a career of success and victory."

      T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      book 2, chapter 4 (volume 2).

VENICE: A. D. 554-800.
   A dukedom under the Exarchs of Ravenna.

      See ROME: A. D. 554-800.

VENICE: A. D. 568.
   A refuge from the invading Lombards.

      See LOMBARDS: A. D. 568-573.

VENICE: A. D. 697-810.
   The early constitution of government.
   Origin of the Doges.
   Resistance to Pippin, king of the Lombards.
   Removal to the Rialto and founding of the new capital city.

   "Each island had at first its own magistrate: the magistrates
   of the most considerable being called Tribunes Major, the
   others, Tribunes Minor, and the whole being equally subject to
   the council-general of the community; which thus constituted a
   kind of federal republic. This lasted nearly three hundred
   years, when it was found that the rising nation had fairly
   outgrown its institutions. Dangerous rivalries arose among the
   tribunes. … At a meeting of the Council-General in A. D. 697,
   the Patriarch of Grado proposed the concentration of power in
   the hands of a single chief, under the title of Doge or Duke.
   The proposition was eagerly accepted, and they proceeded at
   once to the election of this chief. 'It will be seen (remarks
   Daru) that the Dogeship saved independence and compromised
   liberty. It was a veritable revolution, but we are ignorant by
   what circumstances it was brought about. Many historians
   assert that the change was not effected till the permission of
   the Pope and the Emperor was obtained.' The first choice fell
   on Paolo Luca Anabesto. It was made by twelve electors, the
   founders of what were thenceforth termed the electoral
   families. The Doge was appointed for life: he named his own
   counsellors: took charge of all public business; had the rank
   of prince, and decided all questions of peace and war. The
   peculiar title was meant to imply a limited sovereignty, and
   the Venetians uniformly repudiated, as a disgrace, the bare
   notion of their having ever submitted to a monarch. But many
   centuries passed away before any regular or well-defined
   limits were practically imposed; and the prolonged struggle
   between the people and the Doges, depending mainly on the
   personal character of the Doge for the time being, constitutes
   the most startling and exciting portion of their history." The
   third Doge, one Urso, alarmed the people by his pretensions to
   such a degree that they slew him, and suppressed his office
   for five years, substituting a chief magistrate called
   "maestro dell a milizia." "The Dogeship was then [742]
   restored in the person of Theodal Urso (son of the last Doge),
   who quitted Heraclea [then the Venetian capital] for
   Malamocco, which thus became the capital." In his turn,
   Theodal Urso lost the favor of the people and was deposed and
   blinded. "It thenceforth became the received custom in Venice
   to put out the eyes of deposed Doges." Later in the 8th
   century the Dogeship was secured by a family which went far
   towards making it hereditary, and rendering it boldly
   tyrannical; but the yoke of the would-be despots—Giovanni and
   Maurice, father and son—was broken in 804, and they were
   driven to flight. The head of the conspiracy which expelled
   them, Obelerio, was then proclaimed Doge.
{3603}
   "The events of the next five years are involved in obscurity.
   One thing is clear. Pepin, King of the Lombards [son of
   Charlemagne], either under the pretence of a request for aid
   from the new Doge, or to enforce some real or assumed rights
   of his own, declared war against the Republic, and waged it
   with such impetuosity that his fleet and army, after carrying
   all before them, were only separated from Malamocco, the
   capital, by a canal. In this emergency, Angelo Participazio,
   one of those men who are produced by great occasions to mark
   an era, proposed that the entire population should remove to
   Rialto, which was separated by a broader arm of the sea from
   the enemy, and there hold out to the last. No sooner proposed
   than done. They hastily embarked their all; and when Pepin
   entered Malamocco, he found it deserted. After losing a large
   part of his fleet in an ill-advised attack on Rialto, he gave
   up the enterprise, and Angelo Participazio was elected Doge in
   recognition of his services, with two tribunes for
   counsellors. One of his first acts was to make Rialto the
   capital, instead of Malamocco or Heraclea, which had each been
   the seat of Government at intervals. 'There were round Rialto
   some sixty islets, which the Doge connected by bridges. They
   were soon covered with houses. They were girt with a
   fortification; and it was then that this population of
   fugitives gave to this rising city, which they had just
   founded in the middle of a morass, the name of Venetia, in
   memory of the fair countries from which their fathers had been
   forcibly expatriated. The province has lost its name, and
   become subject to the new Venice.'"

      The Republic of Venice
      (Quarterly Review, October, 1874, volume 137), pages 417-420.

   In 803 Charlemagne concluded a treaty, at Aix-la-Chapelle,
   with Nicephorus I. the Byzantine or Eastern Emperor,
   establishing boundaries between the two empires which disputed
   the Roman name. "In this treaty, the supremacy of the Eastern
   Empire over Venice, Istria, the maritime parts of Dalmatia,
   and the south of Italy, was acknowledged; while the authority
   of the Western Empire in Rome, the exarchate of Ravenna, and
   the Pentapolis, was recognised by Nicephorus. The commerce of
   Venice with the East was already so important, and the
   Byzantine administration afforded so many guarantees for the
   security of property, that the Venetians, in spite of the
   menaces of Charlemagne, remained firm in their allegiance to
   Nicephorus. … Venice, it is true, found itself in the end
   compelled to purchase peace with the Frank empire, by the
   payment of an annual tribute of thirty-six pounds of gold, in
   order to secure its commercial relations from interruption;
   and it was not released from this tribute until the time of
   Otho the Great. It was during the reign of Nicephorus that the
   site of the present city of Venice became the seat of the
   Venetian government, Rivalto (Rialto) becoming the residence
   of the duke and the principal inhabitants, who retired from
   the continent to escape the attacks of Pepin [king of Italy,
   under his father, Charlemagne]. Heraclea had previously been
   the capital of the Venetian municipality. In 810 peace was
   again concluded between Nicephorus and Charlemagne, without
   making any change in the frontier of the two empires."

      G. Finlay,
      Byzantine Empire, 716-1057,
      book 1, chapter 2, section 1.

      ALSO IN:
      H. F. Brown,
      Venice,
      chapters 1-2.

VENICE: 8th Century:
   Still subject to the Eastern Empire.

      See ROME: A. D. 717-800.

VENICE: A. D. 810-961.
   Spread of commerce and naval prowess.
   Destruction of Istrian pirates.
   Conquests in Dalmatia.

   "During the ninth, and the first sixty years of the tenth
   centuries,—from the government of Angelo Participazio, to the
   coming into Italy of Otho the Great,—the Venetian affairs,
   with brief intervals of repose, were wholly occupied with
   civil commotions and naval wars. The doges of the republic
   were often murdered; its fleets were sometimes defeated; but,
   under every adverse circumstance, the commercial activity, the
   wealth, and the power of the state were still rapidly
   increasing. In the ninth century the Venetians, in concert
   with the Greeks, encountered, though with indifferent success,
   the navies of the Saracens; but the Narentines, and other
   pirates of Dalmatia, were their constant enemies, and were
   frequently chastised by the arms of the republic The Venetian
   wealth invited attacks from all the freebooters of the seas,
   and an enterprise undertaken by some of them who had
   established themselves on the coast of Istria deserves, from
   its singularity and the vengeance of the republic, to be
   recorded in this place. According to an ancient custom, the
   nuptials of the nobles and principal citizens of Venice were
   always celebrated on the same day of the year and in the same
   church. … The Istrian pirates, acquainted with the existence
   of this annual festival, had the boldness [A. D. 944] to
   prepare an ambush for the nuptial train in the city itself.
   They secretly arrived over night at an uninhabited islet near
   the church of Olivolo, and lay hidden behind it with their
   barks until the procession had entered the church, when
   darting from their concealment they rushed into the sacred
   edifice through all its doors, tore the shrieking brides from
   the arms of their defenceless lovers, possessed themselves of
   the jewels which had been displayed in the festal pomp, and
   immediately put to sea with their fair captives and their
   booty. But a deadly revenge overtook them. The doge, Pietro
   Candiano III., had been present at the ceremony: he shared in
   the fury and indignation of the affianced youths: they flew to
   arms, and throwing themselves under his conduct into their
   vessels, came up with the spoilers in the lagunes of Caorlo. A
   frightful massacre ensued: not a life among the pirates was
   spared, and the victors returned in triumph with their brides
   to the church of Olivolo. A procession of the maidens of
   Venice revived for many centuries the recollection of this
   deliverance on the eve of the purification. But the doge was
   not satisfied with the punishment which he had inflicted on
   the Istriots. He entered vigorously upon the resolution of
   clearing the Adriatic of all the pirates who infested it: he
   conquered part of Dalmatia, and he transmitted to his
   successors, with the ducal crown, the duty of consummating his
   design."

      G. Procter,
      History of Italy,
      chapter 1, part 2.

{3604}

VENICE: A. D. 829.
   The translation of the body of St. Mark.
   The Winged Lion of St. Mark.

   "In the second year of the reign of Doge Giustiniano
   Particiacio there was brought to Venice from Alexandria the
   body of the holy evangelist St. Mark. For, as Petrus Damianus
   says, Mark was brought from Alexandria into Venice, that he
   who had shone in the East like the morning star might shed his
   rays in the regions of the West. For Egypt is held to be the
   East and Venice the West. There he had held the rule of the
   Church of Alexandria, and here, being, as it were, born again,
   he obtained the sovereignty of Aquileia. Now this is how the
   thing was done. The king of the Saracens wishing to build
   himself a palace in Babylon, gave command that stones should
   be taken from the Christian churches and other public places,
   that they might build him a splendid house. And at that time
   there came by chance to the Church of St. Mark, Bon, tribune
   of Malamocco, and Rustico da Torcello, who had been forced by
   the wind, contrary to the edicts of Venice, to put in to the
   harbour of Alexandria with ten ships laden with merchandise,
   and they observing the sadness of the guardians of the church
   (two Greeks, by name Stauratio, a monk, and Theodoro, a
   priest), inquired the cause. And they answered that by reason
   of the impious edict of the king they feared the ruin of the
   church. Thereupon they prayed them to give them the holy body
   that they might carry it to Venice, promising them that the
   Doge of Venice would receive it with great honour. But the
   keepers of the church were filled with fear at their petition,
   and answered reproaching them and saying: 'Know ye not how the
   blessed St. Mark, who wrote the Gospel, St. Peter dictating at
   his request, preached in these parts and baptised into the
   faith the men of these regions? If the faithful should become
   aware, we could not escape the peril of death.' But to that
   they answered: 'As for his preaching, we are his firstborn
   sons, for he first preached in the parts of Venetia and
   Aquileia. And in peril of death it is commanded, "If they
   persecute you in one city, flee ye to another," which the
   evangelist himself obeyed when in the persecution at
   Alexandria he fled to Pentapolis.' But the keepers said:
   'There is no such persecution now that we should fear for our
   persons.' But while they spake, came one and broke down the
   precious stones of the church, and when they would not suffer
   it they were sorely beaten. Then the keepers seeing the
   devastation of the church, and their own great danger,
   listened to the prayer of the Venetians and appointed them a
   day when they should receive the holy body. Now the body was
   wrapped in a robe of silk sealed with many seals from the head
   to the feet. And they brought the body of St. Claudia, and
   having cut the robe at the back and taken away the body of St.
   Mark, they placed in its stead the blessed Claudia, leaving
   the seals unbroken. But a sweet odour quickly spread into the
   city, and all were filled with astonishment, and not doubting
   that the body of the evangelist had been moved, they ran
   together to the church. But when the shrine was opened and
   they saw the garment with the seals unbroken, they returned
   quickly to their homes. And when the body should be borne to
   the boats, they covered it with herbs and spread over it
   pork-flesh for the passers-by to see, and went crying,
   'Khanzir, khanzir!' which is the Saracen's abomination. And
   when they reached the ships they covered it with a sail while
   they passed through the Saracen ships. And as they sailed to
   Venice the ship which bore it with many others was saved from
   peril of shipwreck. For when the ships had been driven in the
   night by a tempestuous wind and were not far from Monte, the
   blessed St. Mark appeared to the Monk Dominic and bade him
   lower the sails of the ships. Which, when they had done, the
   dawn appearing, they found themselves close to the island
   which is called Artalia. And ten of them, having asked and
   obtained pardon for breaking the edicts of the Doge, they came
   to the port of Olivola. And the Doge, and the clergy, and the
   people came to meet them, and brought the body, with songs of
   thanksgiving, to the Doge's chapel."

      Old Chronicle;
      translated in "The City in the Sea,"
      by the Author of "Belt and Spur,"
      chapter 3.

   "Our fathers did not welcome the arrival of the captured
   eagles of France, after the field of Waterloo, with greater
   exultation than the people of Venice the relics of the blessed
   Evangelist. They abandoned themselves to processions, and
   prayers, and banquets, and public holidays. … The winged 'Lion
   of St. Mark' was blazoned on the standards, and impressed on
   the coinage of the Republic. … The Lion became the theme of
   many political symbols. Thus it was represented with wings to
   show that Venetians could strike with promptitude; sitting, as
   a sign of their gravity in counsel—far such is the usual
   attitude of sages; with a book in its paws, to intimate their
   devotion to commerce; in war time the book was closed, and a
   naked sword substituted."

      W. H. D. Adams,
      The Queen of the Adriatic,
      pages 42-43.

      See, also, LION OF ST. MARK.

VENICE: A. D. 1032-1319.
   Development of the constitution of the aristocratic Republic.
   The Grand Council.
   The Council of Ten.
   The Golden Book.

   "It was by slow and artfully disguised encroachments that the
   nobility of Venice succeeded in substituting itself for the
   civic power, and investing itself with the sovereignty of the
   republic. During the earlier period, the doge was an elective
   prince, the limit of whose power was vested in assemblies of
   the people. It was not till 1032 that he was obliged to
   consult only a council, formed from amongst the most
   illustrious citizens, whom he designated. Thence came the name
   given them of 'pregadi' (invited). The grand council was not
   formed till 1172, 140 years later, and was, from that time,
   the real sovereign of the republic. It was composed of 480
   members, named annually on the last day of September, by 12
   tribunes, or grand electors, of whom two were chosen by each
   of the six sections of the republic. No more than four members
   from one family could be named. The same counsellors might be
   re-elected each year. As it is in the spirit of a corporation
   to tend always towards an aristocracy, the same persons were
   habitually re-elected; and when they died their children took
   their places. The grand council, neither assuming to itself
   nor granting to the doge the judicial power, gave the first
   example of the creation of a body of judges, numerous,
   independent, and irremovable; such, nearly, as was afterwards
   the parliament of Paris. In 1179, it created the criminal
   'quarantia'; called, also, the 'vecchia quarantia,' to
   distinguish it from two other bodies of forty judges, created
   in 1229. The grand council gave a more complete organization
   to the government formed from among its members. It was
   com·posed of a doge; of six counsellors of the red robe, who
   remained only eight months in office, and who, with the doge,
   formed the 'signoria'; and of the council of pregadi, composed
   of 60 members, renewed each year. …
{3605}
   In 1249, the sovereign council renounced the election of the
   doge, and intrusted it to a commission drawn by lot from among
   the whole council; this commission named another: which,
   reduced by lot to one fourth, named a third; and by these
   alternate operations of lot and election, at length formed the
   last commission of 41 members, who could elect the doge only
   by a majority of 25 suffrages. It was not till towards the end
   of the 13th century that the people began to discover that
   they were no more than a cipher in the republic, and the doge
   no more than a servant of the grand council,—surrounded,
   indeed, with pomp, but without any real power. In 1289, the
   people attempted themselves to elect the doge; but the grand
   council obliged him whom the popular suffrages had designated
   to leave Venice, and substituted in his place Pietro
   Gradenigo, the chief of the aristocratic party. Gradenigo
   undertook to exclude the people from any part in the election
   of the grand council, as they were already debarred from any
   participation in the election of a doge. … The decree which he
   proposed and carried on the 28th of February, 1297, is famous
   in the history of Venice, under the name of 'serrata del
   maggior consiglio' (shutting of the grand council). He legally
   founded that hereditary aristocracy,—so prudent, so jealous,
   so ambitious,—which Europe regarded with astonishment;
   immovable in principle, unshaken in power; uniting some of the
   most odious practices of despotism with the name of liberty;
   suspicious and perfidious in politics; sanguinary in revenge;
   indulgent to the subject; sumptuous in the public service,
   economical in the administration of the finances; equitable
   and impartial in the administration of justice; knowing well
   how to give prosperity to the arts, agriculture, and commerce;
   beloved by the people who obeyed it, whilst it made the nobles
   who partook its power tremble. The Venetian aristocracy
   completed its constitution, in 1311, by the creation of the
   Council of Ten, which, notwithstanding its name, was composed
   of 16 members and the doge. Ten counsellors of the black robe
   were annually elected by the great council, in the months of
   August and September; and of the six counsellors of the red
   robe, composing a part of the signoria, three entered office
   every four months. The Council of Ten, charged to guard the
   security of the state with a power higher than the law, had an
   especial commission to watch over the nobles, and to punish
   their crimes against the republic. In this they were
   restrained by no rule: they were, with respect to the
   nobility, the depositaries of the power of the great council,
   or rather of a power unlimited, which no people should intrust
   to any government. Some other decrees completed the system of
   the 'serrata del maggior consiglio.' It was forbidden to the
   quarantia to introduce any 'new man' into power. In 1315, a
   register was opened, called the Golden Book, in which were
   inscribed the names of all those who had sat in the great
   council. In 1319, all limitation of number was suppressed;
   and, from that period, it sufficed to prove that a person was
   the descendant of a counsellor, and 25 years of age, to be by
   right a member of the grand council of Venice."

      J. C. L. de Sismondi,
      History of the Italian Republics,
      chapter 5.

   "When the Republic was hard pressed for money, inscriptions in
   the Golden Book were sold at the current price of 100,000
   ducats. … Illustrious foreigners were admitted, as they are
   made free of a corporation amongst us. … The honour was not
   disdained even by crowned heads. … The original 'Libro d' oro'
   was publicly burned in 1797, but extracts, registers, and
   other documents are extant from which its contents might be
   ascertained."

      The Republic of Venice
      (Quarterly Review, volume 137, page 433).

      ALSO IN:
      E. Flagg,
      Venice, the City of the Sea,
      introduction.

      Mrs. Oliphant,
      The Makers of Venice,
      chapter 4.

      H. F. Brown,
      Venice,
      chapters 5 and 9.

VENICE: A. D. 1085.
   Acquires the sovereignty of Dalmatia and Croatia.

      See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1081-1085.

VENICE: A. D. 1099-1101.
   The first Crusade.

   "The movement of the crusades brings Venice to the very
   forefront of European history. Her previous development had
   been slowly preparing the way for her emergence. The Council,
   held at Clermont in 1095, resolved that the armament should
   leave Europe early in the following year. The Pope and the
   leaders of the Crusades were obliged to turn their attention
   to the question of transport for the vast and amorphous mob,
   which, without discipline, with no distinction of ranks, with
   no discrimination between soldier and monk, between merchant
   and peasant, between master and man, was now bent on reaching
   the Holy Land, almost as eager to die there as to achieve the
   object of their mission, the recovery of the Sepulchre. The
   three maritime states of Italy—Genoa, Pisa, and Venice—were
   each ready to offer their services. Each was jealous of the
   other, and each determined to prevent the other from reaping
   any signal commercial advantage from the religious enthusiasm
   of Europe. Venice was not only the most powerful, but also the
   most eastern, of the three competitors. It was natural that
   the choice should fall on her. When the Pope's invitation to
   assist in the Crusade reached the city, however, it seems that
   the Government did not at once embrace the cause officially in
   the name of the whole Republic. There was, at first, a
   tendency to leave the business of transport to private
   enterprise. But on receipt of the news that Jerusalem had
   fallen, the Venetian Government began to take active steps in
   the matter. … The Crusade was accepted with enthusiasm. The
   whole city engaged in preparing a fleet which should be worthy
   of the Republic. Then, after a solemn mass in S. Mark's, at
   which the standard of the Cross and the standard of the
   Republic were presented to the leaders, the soldiers of the
   Cross embarked on the fleet which numbered 200 ships, and set
   sail down the Adriatic, making for Rhodes, where they were to
   winter. At Rhodes two incidents of great significance in
   Venetian history took place. The Eastern Emperors had never
   viewed with favour the incursion of the Crusaders. The
   creation of the kingdom of Jerusalem was really a usurpation
   of Imperial territory. Alexius I. now endeavoured to persuade
   the Venetians to withdraw from the enterprise. In this he
   failed; Venice remained true to the Cross, and to her
   commercial interests. It is at this point that we find the
   beginnings of that divergence between Constantinople and the
   Republic, which eventually declared itself in open hostility,
   and led up to the sack of Constantinople in the fourth
   Crusade.

{3606}

   Alexius, finding that the Venetians were not inclined to obey
   him, resolved to punish them. An instrument was ready to his
   hand. The Pisans saw with disfavour the advent of their
   commercial rivals in Eastern waters. They were willing to
   hoist the Imperial standard as opposed to the crusading cross,
   and to sail down upon the Venetians at Rhodes. They were
   defeated. The Venetians released all the prisoners except
   thirty of the more prominent among them who were detained as
   hostages. The first fruits of the Crusade, as far as Venice
   was concerned, were the creation of two powerful enemies, the
   Emperor and the Pisans."

      H. F. Brown,
      Venice,
      chapter 6.

VENICE: A. D. 1102.
   Hungarian conquest of Dalmatia.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 972-1114.

VENICE: A. D: 1114-1141.
   Wars for Dalmatia with the Hungarians.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1114-1301.

VENICE: A. D. 1127-1128.
   Beginning of quarrels with the Byzantine Empire.

   "Previous to this time [about 1127], the Venetian republic had
   generally been a firm ally of the Byzantine empire, and, to a
   certain degree, it was considered as owing homage to the
   Emperor of Constantinople. That connection was now dissolved,
   and those disputes commenced which soon occupied a prominent
   place in the history of Eastern Europe. The establishment of
   the Crusaders in Palestine had opened a new field for the
   commercial enterprise of the Venetians, and in a great measure
   changed the direction of their maritime trade; while the
   frequent quarrels of the Greeks and Franks compelled the
   trading republics of Italy to attach themselves to one of the
   belligerent parties, in order to secure a preference in its
   ports. For a short time, habit kept the Venetians attached to
   the empire; but they soon found that their interests were more
   closely connected with the Syrian trade than with that of
   Constantinople. They joined the kings of Jerusalem in
   extending their conquests, and obtained considerable
   establishments in all the maritime cities of the kingdom. From
   having been the customers and allies of the Greeks, they
   became their rivals and enemies. The commercial fleets of the
   age acted too often like pirates; and it is not improbable
   that the Emperor John had good reason to complain of the
   aggressions of the Venetians. Hostilities commenced; the Doge
   Dominico Michieli, one of the heroes of the republic,
   conducted a numerous fleet into the Archipelago, and plundered
   the islands of Rhodes and Chios, where he wintered. Next year
   he continued his depredations in Samos, Mitylene, Paros, and
   Andros. … Peace was re-established by the emperor reinstating
   the Venetians in the enjoyment of all the commercial
   privileges they had enjoyed before the war broke out."

      G. Finlay,
      History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires,
      book 3, chapter 2, section 2.

VENICE: A. D. 1177.
   Pretended Papal Grant of the sovereignty of the Adriatic.
   Doubtful story of the humiliation of Frederick Barbarossa.

   A "notable epoch in early Venetian history is the grant on
   which she based her claim to the sovereignty of the Adriatic.
   In the course of the fierce struggle between Alexander III.
   and Frederick Barbarossa [see ITALY: A. D. 1174-1183], the
   Pope, when his fortunes were at the lowest, took refuge with
   the Venetians, who, after a vain effort at reconciliation,
   made common cause with him, and in a naval encounter obtained
   so signal a victory that the Emperor was compelled to sue for
   peace and submit to the most humiliating terms. The crowning
   scene of his degradation has been rendered familiar by the
   pencil, the chisel, and the pen. … The Emperor, as soon as he
   came into the sacred presence, stripped off his mantle and
   knelt down before the Pope to kiss his feet. Alexander,
   intoxicated with his triumph and losing all sense of
   moderation or generosity, placed his foot on the head or neck
   of his prostrate enemy, exclaiming, in the words of the
   Psalmist, 'Super aspidem et basiliscum ambulabis' &c. ('Thou
   shalt tread upon the asp and the basilisk' …). 'Non tibi, sed
   Petro' ('Not to thee, but Peter'), cried the outraged and
   indignant Emperor. 'Et mihi et Petro' ('To both me and
   Peter'), rejoined the Pope, with a fresh pressure of his heel.
   … Sismondi (following a contemporary chronicler} narrates the
   interview without any circumstance of insult, and describes it
   as concluding with the kiss of peace. There are writers who
   contend that Alexander was never at Venice, and that the
   Venetians obtained no victory on his behalf. But the weight of
   evidence adduced by Daru strikes us to be quite conclusive in
   favour of his version. … In return for the good offices of
   Venice on this occasion … Alexander presented the reigning
   Doge, Ziani, with a ring, saying, 'Receive this ring, and with
   it, as my donation, the dominion of the sea, which you, and
   your successors, shall annually assert on an appointed day, so
   that all posterity may understand that the possession of the
   sea was yours by right of victory, and that it is subject to
   the rule of the Venetian Republic, as wife to husband.' … The
   well-known ceremony of wedding the Adriatic, religiously
   observed with all its original pomp and splendour during six
   centuries, was in itself a proclamation and a challenge to the
   world. It was regularly attended by the papal nuncio and the
   whole of the diplomatic corps, who, year after year, witnessed
   the dropping of a sanctified ring into the sea, and heard
   without a protest the prescriptive accompaniment: 'Desponsamus
   te, mare, in signum veri perpetuique domini' (we espouse thee,
   sea, in sign of true and perpetual dominion)."

      The Republic of Venice
      (Quarterly Review, October, 1874, volume 137),
      pages 421-423.

      ALSO IN:
      G. B. Testa,
      History of the War of Frederick I.
      against the Communes of Lombardy,
      book 11.

      Mrs. W. Busk,
      Mediæval Popes, Emperors, Kings, and Crusaders,
      book 2, chapter 8 (volume 2).

VENICE: A. D. 1201.
   Cause of Hostility to Constantinople.

   "Of late years the Venetians had had difficulties with the New
   Rome. … These difficulties arose, in great measure, from the
   fact that the influence of Venice in Constantinople was no
   longer sufficient to exclude that of the other Italian
   republics. … But the hostility to Constantinople reached its
   height when the Venetians learned that Alexis had, in May
   1201, received an embassy from Genoa, and was negotiating with
   Ottobono della Croce, its leader, for the concession of
   privileges for trade in Romania which Venice had hitherto
   regarded as exclusively her own. From this time the Doge
   appears to have determined to avenge the wrongs of his state
   on the ruler who had ventured to favour his rivals."

      E. Pears,
      The Fall of Constantinople,
      chapter 8.

{3607}

VENICE: A. D. 1201-1203.
   Perfidious part in the conquest of Constantinople.

      See CRUSADES: A. D. 1201-1203.

VENICE: A. D. 1204.
   Share of the Republic in the partition of the Byzantine Empire.

      See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1204-1205.

VENICE: A. D. 1216.
   Acquisition of the Ionian Islands.

      See CORFU: A. D. 1216-1880;
      and IONIAN ISLANDS: To 1814.

VENICE: A. D. 1256-1258.
   Battles with the Genoese at Acre.

   "At the period of the Crusades, it was usual in those cities
   or towns where the Christians held sway, to assign to each of
   the mercantile communities which had borne a part in the
   conquest or recovery of the particular district, a separate
   quarter where they might have their own mill, their own oven,
   their own bath, their own weights and measures, their own
   church, and where they might be governed by their own laws,
   and protected by their own magistrates. … At Saint Jean
   d'Acre, however, the Church of Saint Sabbas was frequented by
   the Venetians and the Genoese in common; and it happened that,
   in course of time, both nations sought to found a right to the
   exclusive property of the building." Collisions ensued, in one
   of which (1256), the Genoese drove the Venetians from their
   factory at Acre and burned the church of Saint Sabbas. The
   Venetians retaliated by sending a squadron to Acre which
   destroyed all the Genoese shipping in the port, burned their
   factory, and reduced a castle near the town which was held by
   a Genoese garrison. Early in 1257 the fleets of the two
   republics met and fought a battle, between Acre and Tyre, in
   which the Venetians were the victors. On the 24th of June,
   1258, a second battle was fought very nearly on the same spot,
   and again Venice triumphed, taking 2,600 prisoners and 25
   galleys. Through the efforts of the Pope, a suspension of
   hostilities was then brought about; but other causes of war
   were working in the east, which soon led to fresh encounters
   in arms between the two jealous commercial rivals.

      W. C. Hazlitt,
      History of the Venetian Republic,
      chapter 11 (volume 1).

VENICE: A. D. 1261-1263.
   The supplanting of the Venetians by the Genoese at
   Constantinople and in the Black Sea.
   War between the Republics.
   The victory at Malvasia.

      See GENOA: A. D. 1261-1299.

VENICE: A. D. 1294-1299.
   War with Genoa.
   Disastrous defeat at Curzola.

      See GENOA: A. D. 1261-1299.

VENICE: 14th Century.
   Fleets.
   Commerce.
   Industries.

   "In the 14th century Venice had 3,000 merchantmen manned by
   25,000 sailors. A tenth part of these were ships exceeding 700
   tons burden. There were besides 45 war-galleys manned by
   11,000 hands; and 10,000 workmen, as well as 36,000 seamen,
   were employed in the arsenals. The largest of the war-galleys
   was called the Bucentaur; it was a state vessel of the most
   gorgeous description. Every year the Doge of Venice, seated
   upon a magnificent throne surmounted by a regal canopy,
   dropped from this vessel a ring into the Adriatic, to
   symbolise the fact that land and sea were united under the
   Venetian flag. This ceremony commemorated the victory gained
   over the fleet of the Emperor Frederick Barbarossa In 1177,
   when the Venetians obliged him to sue for peace.

      See VENICE: A. D. 1177.

   Ascension Day was selected for its celebration, and the
   Bucentaur, glorious with new scarlet and gold, its deck and
   seats inlaid with costly woods, and rowed with long banks of
   burnished oars, for many years bore the Doge to plight his
   troth with the words, 'We espouse thee, O Sea! in token of
   true and eternal sovereignty.' The merchant fleet of Venice
   was divided into companies sailing together according to their
   trade. Their routes, and the days for departure and return,
   their size, armament, crew, and amount of cargo, were all
   defined. In those times the seas were as much infested with
   pirates as the deserts with robbers; each squadron therefore
   hired a convoy of war-galleys for its protection on the
   voyage. There were six or seven such squadrons in regular
   employment. The argosies of Cyprus and Egypt, and the vessels
   engaged in the Barbary and Syrian commerce, concentrated their
   traffic chiefly at Alexandria and Cairo. The so-called
   Armenian fleet proceeded to Constantinople and the Euxine,
   visiting Kaffa and the Gulf of Alexandretta. A Catalonian
   fleet traded with Spain and Portugal, and another with France;
   while the most famous of all, the Flanders galleys, connected
   the seaports of France, England, and Holland with the great
   commercial city of Bruges. The internal traffic with Germany
   and Italy was encouraged with equal care, oriental produce
   arriving from Constantinople and Egypt, and many other
   commodities being distributed, at first by way of Carinthia,
   and afterwards of the Tyrol. Germans, Hungarians, and
   Bohemians conducted this distribution. In Venice a bonded
   warehouse (fondaco dei tedeschi), or custom-house, was
   accorded to the Germans, where they were allowed to offer
   their wares for sale, though only to Venetian dealers. Similar
   privileges were granted to the Armenians, Moors, and Turks,
   but not to the Greeks, against whom a strong animosity
   prevailed. … The ancient industries of preparing salt and
   curing fish were never disregarded. The Adriatic sands
   supplied material adapted for a glass of rare beauty and
   value, of which mirrors and other articles of Venetian
   manufacture were made. Venetian goldsmiths' work was
   universally famed. Brass and iron foundries prepared the raw
   material for the armourers, whose weapons, helmets, and
   bucklers were unsurpassed for strength and beauty.
   Ship-building, with a people whose principle it was always to
   have more ships than any other state, was necessarily a very
   important branch of industry. Not satisfied with penetrating
   to every part already opened to enterprise, the Venetians
   travelled into regions before unknown, and gave to the world
   the record of their daring adventures. Maffeo and Nicolo Polo
   spent fifteen years visiting Egypt, Persia, India, the Khan of
   Tartary, and the Grand Khan or Emperor of China. Marco Polo,
   son of Nicolo, as well as Barthema and Joseph Barbaro,
   extended the knowledge obtained by their precursors in
   northern Europe and Asia."

      J. Yeats,
      Growth and Vicissitudes of Commerce,
      page 98-101.

      See (In Supplement) COMMERCE, MEDIÆVAL.

      ALSO IN:
      A. Anderson,
      Origin of Commerce,
      volume 1.

      Venetian Commerce
      (Hunt's Merchants' Magazine, volume 5, pages 393-411).

VENICE: A. D. 1336-1338.
   Alliance with Florence against Mastino della Scala.
   Conquest of Treviso and other territory on the mainland.

      See VERONA: A. D. 1260-1338.

{3608}

VENICE: A. D. 1351-1355.
   Alliance with the Greeks and Aragonese in war with Genoa.

      See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1348-1355.

VENICE: A. D. 1358.
   Loss of Dalmatia.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1301-1442.

VENICE: A. D. 1378-1379.
   Renewed war with Genoa.
   The defeat at Pola.

   The treaty of June, 1355, between Venice and Genoa (see
   CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1348-1355), established a peace which
   lasted only until April, 1378, when, "a dispute having arisen
   between the rival States in relation to the island of Tenedos,
   which the Venetians had taken possession of, the Signory
   formally declared war against Genoa, which it denounced as
   false to all its oaths and obligations. On the 26th of this
   month, Vettore Pisani was invested with the supreme command of
   the naval forces of the republic. … The new commander-in-chief
   was the son of Nicolo Pisani, and had held a commission in the
   Navy for 25 years. … Of the seamen he was the idol. … Pisani
   sailed from Venice early in May, with 14 galleys; and, on the
   30th of the month, while cruising off Antium, came across a
   Genoese squadron of 10 galleys, commanded by Admiral Fieschi.
   It was blowing a gale at the time, and five of Pisani's
   vessels, which had parted company with him, and fallen to
   leeward, were unable to rejoin him, while one of Fieschi's
   drifted ashore, and was wrecked. Thus the battle which
   immediately ensued was between equal forces; but the Genoese
   admiral was no match for Vettore Pisani," and sustained a
   disastrous defeat, losing four vessels, with all their
   officers and crew. "During the summer, Pisani captured great
   numbers of the enemy's merchantmen; but was unable to find
   their fleet, which, under Luciano Doria, was actively engaged
   in cutting up Venetian commerce in the East. In November he
   asked permission to return to Venice to refit his vessels,
   which were in a very bad condition, but this was denied him;
   and, being kept constantly cruising through the winter, at its
   expiration only six of his vessels were found to be seaworthy.
   Twelve others, however, were fitted out at their own expense
   and sent to him by his friends, who perceived that his
   political enemies were making an effort to ruin him. At the
   end of February, 1379, Michele Steno and Donato Zeno were
   appointed by the Government' proveditori' of the fleet. These
   officers, like the field deputies of the Dutch republic in
   later times, were set as spies over the commander-in-chief,
   whose operations they entirely controlled. On the 1st of May,
   Pisani left Brindisi, bound to Venice, having a large number
   of merchantmen in charge, laden with wheat; and, on the 6th
   instant, as the weather looked squally, put into Pola, with
   his convoy, for the night. On the following morning, at
   day-break, it was reported to him that Doria was off the port
   with 25 vessels; whereupon he determined not to leave his
   anchorage until Carlo Zeno, whom he was expecting with a
   reenforcement of 10 galleys, should be seen approaching. But
   the Proveditori, loudly denouncing such a determination as a
   reflection upon the valor of his officers and men, ordered
   him, peremptorily, in the name of the Senate, to engage the
   enemy without delay." The result was an overwhelming defeat,
   out of which Pisani brought six galleys, only—" which were all
   that were saved from this most terrible engagement, wherein
   800 Venetians perished and 2,000 were taken prisoners. …
   Pisani was now violently assailed by his enemies; although
   they well knew that he had fought the battle of Pola against
   his own judgment, and agreeably to the wishes of the
   government, as made known to him by its accredited agents,
   Michele Steno and Donato Zeno. The Great Council decreed his
   immediate removal from the supreme command, and he was brought
   to Venice loaded with chains." Condemned, upon trial before
   the Senate, he was sentenced to imprisonment for six months.

      F. A. Parker,
      The Fleets of the World,
      pages 100-105.

VENICE: A. D. 1379-1381.
   The war of Chioggia.
   The dire extremity of the Republic and her deliverance.

   After the great victory of Pola, which cost the Genoese the
   life of Luciano D'Oria, they lost no time in pressing their
   beaten enemy, to make the most of the advantage they had won.
   "Fresh galleys were forthwith placed under the command of
   Pietro, another of the noble D'Oria family; and before the
   eyes of all Genoa, and after the benediction of the
   archbishop, the fleet sailed from the harbour, and a great cry
   was raised from roof to roof, and from window to window, and
   each alley and each street re-echoed it with enthusiasm, 'to
   Venice! to Venice!' On arriving in the Adriatic, Pietro D'Oria
   joined the fleet already there, and prepared for his attack on
   Venice. These were pitiful days for the Queen of the Adriatic,
   the days of her greatest peril and humiliation. The Lord of
   Padua joined the Genoese; the King of Hungary sent troops, as
   did also the Marquis of Friuli, and all seemed lost to her
   both by sea and land. Everywhere within the city was misery
   and dismay. … To possess himself of Chioggia, which was 25
   miles distant from Venice, was D'Oria's first plan. It was the
   key of the capital, commanded the entrance to the harbour, and
   cut off any assistance which might come from Lombardy.
   Chioggia was very strong in itself, defended by bastions on
   all sides; its weak point lay in being built on two sides of a
   river, which was spanned by a large wooden bridge. It was the
   first care of the defenders to block up the mouth of this
   river. After a few days of gallant defence, and a few days of
   gallant attack by sea and land, the defenders of Chioggia were
   reduced to the last extremity. The entrance to the river was
   broken open, and the bridge, which for some time was a
   stumbling-block to the besiegers, was destroyed with all the
   soldiers upon it by the bravery of a Genoese sailor, who took
   a boat laden with tar and wool and other combustible
   materials, and set fire to it, escaping by means of swimming.
   The defenders having thus perished in the flames, and Chioggia
   being taken [August, 1379], the triumph of the Genoese was at
   its height. It now seemed as if Pietro D'Oria had but the word
   of command to give, and Venice would have met with the same
   fate as Pisa had but a century before. But with this the
   fortune of the Ligurians began to wane. One small cannon of
   leather, with a wooden car, brought from Chioggia as a trophy
   to Genoa, is all that exists to-day to testify to their
   victory." The Venetians, in consternation at the fall of
   Chioggia, sent a deputation to D'Oria humbly offering to
   submit to any terms of peace he might dictate; but the
   insolent victor ordered them home with the message that there
   could be no peace until he had entered their city to bridle
   the bronze horses which stand on the Piazza of St. Mark.
{3609}
   This roused the indignation and courage of Venice anew, and
   every nerve was strained in the defense of the port. "Vettor
   Pisani, who since the defeat at Pola had languished in prison,
   was brought out by unanimous consent, and before an assembled
   multitude he quietly and modestly accepted the position of
   saviour of his country. … The one saving point for Venice lay
   in the arrival of a few ships from Constantinople, which …
   Carlo Zeno had under his command, endeavouring to make a
   diversion in the favour of the Venetians at the Eastern
   capital. Pending the return of this fleet, the Venetians made
   an attack on Chioggia. And an additional gleam of hope raised
   the spirits of Pisani's men in the disaffection of the King of
   Hungary from the Genoese cause; and gradually, as if by the
   magic hand of a fickle fortune, Pietro D'Oria found himself
   and his troops besieged in Chioggia, instead of going on his
   way to Venice as he had himself prophesied. But the Genoese
   position was still too strong, and Pisani found it hopeless to
   attempt to dislodge them; his troops became restless: they
   wished to return to Venice, though they had sworn never to go
   back thither except as conquerors. It was in this moment of
   dire distress that the ultimate resort was vaguely whispered
   from the Venetian Council Hall to the Piazza. A solemn decree
   was passed, 'that if within four days the succour from Carlo
   Zeno did not arrive, the fleet should be recalled from
   Chioggia, and then a general council should be held as to
   whether their country could be saved, or if another more
   secure might not be found elsewhere.' Then did the law-givers
   of Venice determine that on the fifth day the lagunes should
   be abandoned, and that they should proceed en masse to Crete
   or Negropont to form for themselves a fresh nucleus of power
   on a foreign soil. It is indeed hard to realize that the fate
   of Venice, associated with all that is Italian, the offspring
   of the hardy few who raised the city from the very waves, once
   hung in such a balance. But so it was, when towards the
   evening of the fourth day [January 1, 1380] sails were
   descried on the horizon, and Carlo Zeno arrived to save his
   country from so great a sacrifice. Meanwhile, at Chioggia the
   Genoese were day by day becoming more careless; they felt
   their position so strong, they talked merrily of fixing the
   day when they should bivouac on the Piazza of St. Mark. Little
   did they dream of the net of misfortune into which they were
   being drawn so fast. Besides reinforcements by sea, assistance
   by land flocked in towards Venice. Barnabo Visconti, and his
   company of the Star, a roving company of Germans, and the
   celebrated Breton band under Sir John Hawkwood, the
   Englishman, all hurried to assist the fallen banner of St.
   Mark. Pietro D'Oria did all he could to maintain discipline
   amongst his troops; but when he fell one day in an engagement,
   through being struck by a Venetian arrow, a general
   demoralization set in, and their only thought was how to save
   themselves and abandon Chioggia. … On the 18th of February,
   1380, the Venetians made another gallant attack. Both sides
   fought with desperation, the Genoese for life, their rivals
   for their country and their country's fame. Fearful slaughter
   occurred amongst the Genoese, and they were obliged to retire
   within the walls. … Driven to extremities, on the 22nd of June
   In that year, 4,000 Genoese were taken to the public prisons
   in Venice. … Since both parties were tired of war, and
   weakened with these extreme efforts, it was no difficult
   matter to establish a peace [August 8, 1381]."

      J. T. Bent,
      Genoa,
      chapter 8.

      ALSO IN:
      W. O. Hazlitt,
      History of the Venetian Republic,
      chapter 20 (volume 3).

      H. F. Brown,
      Venice,
      chapter 12.

VENICE: A. D. 1386.
   Acquisition of Corfu.

      See Corfu: A. D. 1216-1880.

VENICE: A. D. 1406-1447.
   Acquisition of neighboring territory in northeastern Italy.

   On the death of Gian Galeazzo Visconti, the first Duke of
   Milan (see MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447), the eastern parts of his
   duchy, "Padua, Verona, Brescia, Bergamo, were gradually added
   to the dominion of Venice. By the middle of the 15th century,
   that republic had become the greatest power In northern
   Italy."

      E. A. Freeman,
      Historical Geography of Europe,
      page 241.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1402-1406.

VENICE: A. D. 1426-1447.
   League with Florence, Naples, Savoy, and other States
   against the Duke of Milan.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.

VENICE: A. D. 1450-1454.
   War with Milan and Florence.
   Alliance with Naples and Savoy.

      See MILAN: A. D. 1447-1454.

VENICE: A. D. 1454-1479.
   Treaty with the Turks, followed by war.
   Loss of ground in Greece and the islands.

      See GREECE: A. D. 1454-1479.

VENICE: A. D. 1460-1479.
   Losing struggle with the Turks in Greece and the Archipelago.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1451-1481;
      and ITALY: A. D. 1447-1480.

VENICE: A. D. 1469-1515.
   The early Printers.
   The Aldine Press.

      See PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1469-1515.

VENICE: A. D. 1489.
   Acquisition of Cyprus.

      See Cyprus: A. D.1489-1570.

VENICE: A. D. 1492-1496.
   The invasion of Italy by Charles VIII. of France.
   Alliance with Naples, Milan, Spain, the Emperor and the Pope.
   Expulsion of the French.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1492-1494; and 1494-1496.

VENICE: A. D. 1494-1503.
   The rising power and spreading dominion of the republic.
   The fears and jealousies excited.

   "The disturbances which had taken place In Italy since Charles
   VIII.'s advent there, came very opportunely for their [the
   Venetians'] plans and policy.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1494-1496; 1499-1500; 1501-1504.

   On every available occasion the Venetians spread their power
   all round about them. In the struggle between Charles and
   Ferrantino [or Ferdinand, of Naples] they acquired five fine
   cities in Apulia, excellently situated for their requirements,
   which they peopled by the reception of fugitive Jews from
   Spain. Moreover, in the kingdom of Naples, one party had
   declared for them. … Tarento raised their standard. During the
   Florentine disorders they were within an ace of becoming
   masters of Pisa. In the Milanese feuds they acquired Cremona
   and Ghiara d'Adda. Their power was all the more terrible, as
   they had never been known to lose again anything which they
   had once gotten. No one doubted that their aim was the
   complete sovereignty over the whole of Italy.
{3610}
   Their historians always talked as if Venice was the ancient
   Rome once more. … The Turkish war, which had kept them a while
   employed, now at an end, they next tried their fortune in
   Romagna, and endeavoured, availing themselves of the quarrels
   between the returning nobles and Cesar [Borgia, son of Pope
   Alexander VI.], to become, if not the sole, at all events the
   most powerful, vassals of the papal chair. … The Venetians
   prepared to espouse the cause of those whom Cesar had
   suppressed. The cities reflected how genuine and substantial
   that peace was that the lion of Venice spread over all its
   dependencies. Having appeared in this country at the end of
   October, 1503, and having first promised the Malatesti other
   possessions in their own country, they took Rimini, with the
   concurrence of the prince and citizens. Without ado they
   attacked Faenza. … They continued their conquests, and, in the
   territories of Imola, Cesena, and Forli, took stronghold after
   stronghold. … Then it was that the first minister of France
   stated his belief that, 'had they only Romagna, they would
   forthwith attack Florence, on account of a debt of 180,000
   guilders owing them.' If they were to make an inroad into
   Tuscany, Pisa would fall immediately on their arrival. Their
   object in calling the French into the Milanese territory was,
   that they considered them more fitted to make a conquest than
   to keep it; and, in the year 1504, they were negotiating how
   it were possible to wrest Milan again from them. Could they
   only succeed in this, nothing in Italy would be able longer to
   withstand them. 'They wanted,' as Macchiavelli said, 'to make
   the Pope their chaplain.' But they met with the staunchest
   resistance in Julius [the Pope, Julius II.], as in him they
   could discover no weak point to attack. As pointedly as he
   could express himself, he declared to them, on the 9th
   November, 1503, that, 'though hitherto their friend, he would
   now do his utmost against them, and would besides incite all
   the princes of Christendom against them.'"

      L. von Ranke,
      History of the Latin and Teutonic Nations,
      book 2, chapter 3.

VENICE: A. D. 1498-1502.
   War with the Turks.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1498-1502.

VENICE: A. D. 1499-1500.
   Alliance with France against the Duke of Milan.
   French conquest of the duchy.
   Acquisition of Cremona.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1499-1500.

VENICE: 15-17th Centuries.
   The decline of Venetian commerce and its causes.

   "Commerce was for a long time free at Venice; and the republic
   only began to decline when its government had caused the
   source of its prosperity to be exhausted by monopoly. At first
   all the young patricians were subjected to the most severe
   ordeals of a commercial training. They were often sent as
   novices on board state-vessels to try fortune with a light
   venture, so much did it enter into the views of the
   administration to direct all citizens toward industrial
   occupations! The only reproach that can be brought against the
   Venetians, is the effort to exclude foreigners from all
   competition with them. Although commercial jealousy had not
   yet erected prohibitions into a system, and the ports of the
   republic were open to all the merchandise of the world, yet
   the Venetians only permitted its transportation in their own
   ships; and they reigned as absolute masters over all the
   Mediterranean. War had given them security from the Pisans,
   the Sicilians and the Genoese. Spain, long occupied by the
   Moors, gave them little occasion of offence. France disdained
   commerce; England had not yet begun to think of it; the
   republic of Holland was not in existence. Under cover of the
   right of sovereignty on the gulf, which she had arrogated to
   herself, Venice reserved the almost exclusive right to
   navigate. Armed flotillas guarded the mouths of all her
   rivers, and allowed no barque to enter or depart without being
   vigorously examined. But what profited that jealous solicitude
   for the interests of her navigation? A day came when the
   Portuguese discovered the Cape of Good Hope, and all that
   structure of precautions and mistrust suddenly fell to pieces.
   Here begin the first wars of customs-duties, and political
   economy receives from history valuable instruction. The
   Venetians had levelled all obstacles, but for themselves
   alone, and to the exclusion of other nations. Their
   legislation was very strict in respect to foreigners, in the
   matter of commerce. The laws forbade a merchant who was not a
   subject of the republic to be even received on board a vessel
   of the state. Foreigners paid customs-duties twice as high as
   natives. They could neither build nor buy vessels in Venetian
   ports. The ships, the captains, the owners, must all be
   Venetian. Every alliance between natives and strangers was
   interdicted; there was no protection, no privileges and no
   benefits save for Venetians: the latter, however, all had the
   same rights. In Venice itself, and there alone, was it
   permitted to negotiate with the Germans, Bohemians and
   Hungarians. As national manufactures acquired importance, the
   government departed from the liberal policy it had hitherto
   pursued, and the manufacturers obtained an absolute
   prohibition of such foreign merchandise as they produced. In
   vain, in the 17th century, did declining commerce urge the
   reestablishment of former liberties and the freedom of the
   port: the attempt was made for a brief moment, but the spirit
   of restriction won the day, and the prohibitory regime early
   prepared the way for the death of the republic. The people of
   Ita]y, however, pardoned the Venetians for their commercial
   intolerance, because of the moderate price at which they
   delivered all commodities. The Jews, Armenians, Greeks and
   Germans flocked to Venice and engaged with safety in
   speculations, which were always advantageous, because of the
   security which the credit institutions gave and the recognized
   probity of the merchants. But soon Venice saw numerous
   manufactures spring up in Europe rivaling her own, and her
   commerce encountered most formidable competition in that of
   the Portuguese, Dutch, Spanish and English. The discovery of
   the Cape of Good Hope took away from her the monopoly of the
   spices of the Indies.

      See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1463-1498.

   The taking of Constantinople, by Mahomet II, had already
   deprived her of the magnificent privileges which her subjects
   enjoyed in that rich capital of the Orient. But the discovery
   of America and the vigorous reprisals of Charles V, who, at
   the commencement of his reign, in 1517, doubled the
   customs-duties which the Venetians paid in his states,
   completed the ruin of that fortunate monopoly which had made
   all Europe tributary. Charles V raised the import and export
   duties on all Venetian merchandise to twenty per cent; and
   this tariff, which would to-day appear moderate, sufficed then
   to prevent the Venetians from entering Spanish ports.
{3611}
   Such was the origin of the exclusive system, the fatal
   invention which the republic of Venice was so cruelly to
   expiate. So long as she sought fortune only in the free
   competition of the talent and capital of her own citizens, she
   increased from age to age and became for a moment the arbiter
   of Europe; but as soon as she wished to rule the markets by
   the tyranny of monopoly, she saw a league formed against her
   commerce, formidable for a very different reason from that of
   Cambray."

      J. A. Blanqui,
      History of Political Economy in Europe,
      chapter 20.

      See, also (in Supplement) COMMERCE, MODERN.

VENICE: A. D. 1501.
   Hostile schemes of the Emperor and the King of France.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1501-1504.

VENICE: A. D. 1508-1509.
   The League of Cambrai.
   The republic despoiled of her continental provinces.

   "The craving appetite of Louis XII., … sharpened by the loss
   of Naples, sought to indemnify itself by more ample
   acquisitions in the north. As far back as 1504, he had
   arranged a plan with the emperor for the partition of the
   continental possessions of Venice. …

      See ITALY: A. D. 1504-1506.

   The scheme is said to have been communicated to Ferdinand [of
   Aragon] in the royal interview at Savona [1507]. No immediate
   action followed, and it seems probable that the latter
   monarch, with his usual circumspection, reserved his decision
   until he should be more clearly satisfied of the advantages to
   himself. At length the projected partition was definitely
   settled by the celebrated treaty of Cambray, December 10th,
   1508, between Louis XII. and the emperor Maximilian, in which
   the Pope, King Ferdinand, and all princes who had any claims
   for spoliations by the Venetians, were invited to take part.
   The share of the spoil assigned to the Catholic monarch
   [Ferdinand] was the five Neapolitan cities, Trani, Brindisi,
   Gallipoli, Pulignano, and Otranto, pledged to Venice for
   considerable sums advanced by her during the late war. The
   Spanish court, and, not long after, Julius II., ratified the
   treaty, although it was in direct contravention of the avowed
   purpose of the pontiff, to chase the 'barbarians' from Italy.
   It was his bold policy, however, to make use of them first for
   the aggrandisement of the church, and then to trust to his
   augmented strength and more favorable opportunities for
   eradicating them altogether. Never was there a project more
   destitute of principle or sound policy. There was not one of
   the contracting parties who was not at that very time in close
   alliance with the state, the dismemberment of which he was
   plotting. As a matter of policy, it went to break down the
   principal barrier on which each of these powers could rely for
   keeping in check the overweening ambition of its neighbors,
   and maintaining the balance of Italy. The alarm of Venice was
   quieted for a time by assurances from the courts of France and
   Spain that the league was directed solely against the Turks,
   accompanied by the most hypocritical professions of good will,
   and amicable offers to the republic. The preamble of the
   treaty declares that, it being the intention of the allies to
   support the pope in a crusade against the infidel, they first
   proposed to recover from Venice the territories of which she
   had despoiled the church and other powers, to the manifest
   hindrance of these pious designs. … The true reasons for the
   confederacy are to be found in a speech delivered at the
   German diet, some time after, by the French minister Hélian.
   'We,' he remarks, after enumerating various enormities of the
   republic, 'wear no fine purple; feast from no sumptuous
   services of plate; have no coffers overflowing with gold. We
   are barbarians. Surely,' he continues in another place, 'if it
   is derogatory to princes to act the part of merchants, it is
   unbecoming in merchants to assume the state of princes.' This,
   then, was the true key to the conspiracy against Venice; envy
   of her superior wealth and magnificence, hatred engendered by
   her too arrogant bearing, and lastly the evil eye with which
   kings naturally regard the movements of an active, aspiring
   republic. To secure the co-operation of Florence, the kings of
   France and Spain agreed to withdraw their protection from
   Pisa, for a stipulated sum of money.

      See PISA: A. D. 1494-1509.

   There is nothing in the whole history of the merchant princes
   of Venice so mercenary and base as this bartering away for
   gold the independence for which this little republic had been
   so nobly contending for more than 14 years. Early in April,
   1509, Louis XII. crossed the Alps at the head of a force which
   bore down all opposition. City and castle fell before him, and
   his demeanor to the vanquished, over whom he had no rights
   beyond the ordinary ones of war, was that of an incensed
   master taking vengeance on his rebellious vassals. In revenge
   for his detention before Peschiera, he hung the Venetian
   governor and his son from the battlements. This was an outrage
   on the laws of chivalry, which, however hard they bore on the
   peasant, respected those of high degree. … On the 14th of May,
   1509, was fought the bloody battle of Agnadel, which broke the
   power of Venice and at once decided the fate of the war.
   Ferdinand had contributed nothing to these operations, except
   by his diversion on the side of Naples, where he possessed
   himself without difficulty of the cities allotted to his
   share. They were the cheapest, and, if not the most valuable,
   were the most permanent acquisitions of the war, being
   reincorporated in the monarchy of Naples. Then followed the
   memorable decree by which Venice released her continental
   provinces from their allegiance, authorizing them to provide
   in any way they could for their safety; a measure which,
   whether originating in panic or policy, was perfectly
   consonant with the latter. The confederates, who had remained
   united during the chase, soon quarrelled over the division of
   the spoil. Ancient jealousies revived. The republic, with cool
   and consummate policy, availed herself of this state of
   feeling. Pope Julius, who had gained all that he had proposed,
   and was satisfied with the humiliation of Venice, now felt all
   his former antipathies and distrust of the French return in
   full force. The rising flame was diligently fanned by the
   artful emissaries of the republic, who at length effected a
   reconciliation on her behalf with the haughty pontiff. The
   latter … planned a new coalition for the expulsion of the
   French, calling on the other allies to take part in it."

      W. H. Prescott,
      History of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella,
      part 2, chapter 22 (volume 3).

      ALSO IN:
      T. A. Trollope,
      History of the Commonwealth of Florence,
      book 9, chapter 10 (volume 4).

      The City in the Sea,
      chapter 21.

      M. Creighton,
      History of the Papacy during the Period of the Reformation,
      book 5, chapter 14.

      L. von Ranke,
      History of the Latin and Teutonic Nations from 1494 to 1514,
      book 2, chapter 3.

      H. F. Brown,
      Venice,
      chapters 17-18.

{3612}

VENICE: A. D. 1510-1513.
   The breaking of the League of Cambrai.
   The" Holy League" of Pope Julius with Venice,
   Ferdinand, Maximilian, and Henry VIII. against France.
   The French expelled from Italy.
   The Republic recovers its domain.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513.

VENICE: A. D. 1517.
   Peace with the Emperor Maximilian.
   Recovery of Verona.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1516-1517.

VENICE: A. D. 1526.
   The Holy League against the Emperor, Charles V.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1523-1527.

VENICE: A. D. 1527.
   Fresh alliance with France and England against the Emperor.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1527-1529.

VENICE: A. D. 1570-1571.
   Holy League with Spain and the Pope against the Turks.
   Great battle and victory of Lepanto.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1566-1571.

VENICE: A. D. 1572.
   Withdrawal from the Holy League.
   Separate peace with the Turks.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1572-1573.

VENICE: 16th Century.
   The Art of the Renaissance.

   "It was a fact of the greatest importance for the development
   of the fine arts in Italy that painting in Venice reached
   maturity later than in Florence. Owing to this circumstance
   one chief aspect of the Renaissance, its material magnificence
   and freedom, received consummate treatment at the hands of
   Titian, Tintoretto, and Veronese. To idealise the sensualities
   of the external universe, to achieve for colour what the
   Florentines had done for form, to invest the worldly grandeur
   of human life at one of its most gorgeous epochs with the
   dignity of the highest art, was what these great artists were
   called on to accomplish. Their task could not have been so
   worthily performed in the fifteenth century as in the
   sixteenth, if the development of the æsthetic sense had been
   more premature among the Venetians. Venice was precisely
   fitted for the part her painters had to play. Free, isolated,
   wealthy, powerful; famous throughout Europe for the pomp of
   her state equipage, and for the immorality of her private
   manners; ruled by a prudent aristocracy, who spent vast wealth
   on public shows and on the maintenance of a more than imperial
   civic majesty: Venice with her pavement of liquid chrysoprase,
   with her palaces of porphyry and marble, her frescoed façades,
   her quays and squares aglow with the costumes of the Levant,
   her lagoons afloat with the galleys of all nations, her
   churches floored with mosaics, her silvery domes and ceilings
   glittering with sculpture bathed in molten gold: Venice
   luxurious in the light and colour of a vaporous atmosphere,
   where sea-mists rose into the mounded summer clouds; arched
   over by the broad expanse of sky, bounded only by the horizon
   of waves and plain and distant mountain ranges, and reflected
   in all its many hues of sunrise and sunset upon the glassy
   surface of smooth waters: Venice asleep like a miracle of opal
   or of pearl upon the bosom of an undulating lake:—here and
   here only on the face of the whole globe was the unique city
   wherein the pride of life might combine with the lustre of the
   physical universe to create and stimulate in the artist a
   sense of all that was most sumptuous in the pageant of the
   world of sense. … The Venetians had no green fields and trees,
   no garden borders, no blossoming orchards, to teach them the
   tender suggestiveness, the quaint poetry of isolated or
   contrasted tints. Their meadows were the fruitless furrows of
   the Adriatic, hued like a peacock's neck; they called the
   pearl-shells of their Lido flowers, fior di mare. Nothing
   distracted their attention from the glories of morning and of
   evening presented to them by their sea and sky. It was in
   consequence of this that the Venetians conceived colour
   heroically, not as a matter of missal-margins or of
   subordinate decoration, but as a motive worthy in itself of
   sublime treatment. In like manner, hedged in by no limitary
   hills, contracted by no city walls, stifled by no narrow
   streets, but open to the liberal airs of heaven and ocean, the
   Venetians understood space and imagined pictures almost
   boundless in their immensity. Light, colour, air, space: those
   are the elemental conditions of Venetian art; of those the
   painters weaved their ideal world for beautiful and proud
   humanity. … In order to understand the destiny of Venice in
   art, it is not enough to concentrate attention on the
   peculiarities of her physical environment. Potent as these
   were in the creation of her style, the political and social
   conditions of the Republic require also to be taken into
   account. Among Italian cities Venice was unique. She alone was
   tranquil in her empire, unimpeded in her constitutional
   development, independent of Church interference, undisturbed
   by the cross purposes and intrigues of the despots, inhabited
   by merchants who were princes, and by a free-born people who
   had never seen war at their gates. The serenity of undisturbed
   security, the luxury of wealth amassed abroad and liberally
   spent at home, gave a physiognomy of ease and proud
   self-confidence to all her edifices. The grim and anxious
   struggles of the Middle Ages left no mark on Venice. How
   different was this town from Florence, every inch of whose
   domain could tell of civic warfare. … It is not an
   insignificant, though a slight, detail, that the predominant
   colour of Florence is brown, while the predominant colour of
   Venice is that of mother-of-pearl, concealing within its
   general whiteness every tint that can be placed upon the
   palette of a painter. The conditions of Florence stimulated
   mental energy and turned the forces of the soul inwards. Those
   of Venice inclined the individual to accept life as he found
   it. Instead of exciting him to think, they disposed him to
   enjoy, or to acquire by industry the means of manifold
   enjoyment. To represent in art the intellectual strivings of
   the Renaissance was the task of Florence and her sons; to
   create a monument of Renaissance magnificence was the task of
   Venice."

      J. A. Symonds,
      Renaissance in Italy: The Fine Arts,
      chapter 7.

{3613}

VENICE: A. D. 1606-1607.
   The Republic under the guidance of Fra Paolo Sarpi.
   Conflict with the Pope.
   The Interdict which had no terrors.

   "In the Constitution of the Republic at this time [1606] there
   were three permanent officials called Counsellors of Law, or
   State Counsellors, whose duties were to instruct the Doge and
   Senate on the legal bearings of any question in dispute in
   which the Republic was involved. But at the beginning of this
   year, because of the ecclesiastical element that frequently
   appeared in these quarrels (for they were mostly between the
   State and the Pope), the Senate resolved to create a new
   office, namely, that of 'Teologo-Consultore,' or Theological
   Counsellor. In looking about for one to fill this office the
   choice of Doge and Senate unanimously fell upon Fra Paolo
   Sarpi. … I have called Fra Paolo Sarpi the greatest of the
   Venetians. … Venice has produced many great men—Doges,
   soldiers, sailors, statesmen, writers, poets, painters,
   travellers—but I agree with Mrs. Oliphant that Fra Paolo is 'a
   personage more grave and great, a figure unique in the midst
   of this ever animated, strong, stormy, and restless race'; and
   with Lord Macaulay, who has said of him that 'what he did, he
   did better than anybody.' … He was supreme as a thinker, as a
   man of action, and as a transcript and pattern of every
   Christian principle. … Foreigners who came to Venice sought
   above all things to see him as 'the greatest genius of his
   age.' … On the 28th of January, 1606, he entered upon his
   public duties." From that time until his death, seventeen
   years later, he not only held the office of Theological
   Counsellor, but the duties of the three Counsellors of Law
   were gradually transferred to him, as those offices were
   vacated, in succession, by death. "During this time question
   after question arose for settlement, many of which were of
   momentous import, the resolution of which bore, not upon the
   interests of Venice merely, but of Europe; and affected, not
   the then living generation only, but a remote posterity. In
   every case Fra Paolo's advice was sought, in every case it was
   followed, and in every case it was right. The consequence was
   that the history of the Republic during these seventeen years
   was one unbroken record of great intellectual and moral
   victories. … Never was there in any land, by any Government, a
   servant more honoured and more beloved. The solicitude of the
   Doge, of the dreaded Council of Ten, of the Senate, of the
   whole people, for the safety and well-being of their
   Consultore, was like that of a mother for her only child.
   'Fate largo a Fra Paolo'—'Make room for Fra Paolo,' was often
   heard as he passed along the crowded Merceria. Fra Paolo loved
   Venice with an undying devotion, and Venice loved him with a
   romantic and tender affection. The Pope, whose quarrels with
   the Republic were the chief cause of the creation of the
   office of Theological Counsellor, and of Fra Paolo's election
   to it, was Paul V. … Strained relations … [had] existed
   between Venice and the Vatican during the last years of
   Clement VIII.'s Pontificate. His seizure of the Duchy of
   Ferrara, his conduct in the matter of the Patriarch Zane's
   appointment, his attempt to cripple the book-trade of Venice
   by means of the Index Expurgatorius, all led to serious
   disputes, in everyone of which he got the worst of it. Pope
   Paul V., who was then Cardinal Borghese, chafed at what he
   considered Clement's pusillanimity. Talking of these matters
   to the Venetian ambassador at Rome, Leonardo Donato, he once
   said, 'If I were Pope, I would place Venice under an interdict
   and excommunication;' 'And if I were Doge,' was the reply, 'I
   would trample your interdict and excommunication under foot.'
   Curiously enough, both were called upon to fill these offices,
   and both proved as good as their words. … Paul V. … found
   several excuses for quarrel. The Patriarch, Matteo Zane—he
   whose appointment had been a matter of dispute with Clement
   VIII.—died, and the Senate appointed Francesco Vendramin as
   his successor. Pope Paul claimed the right of presentation,
   and demanded that he should be sent to Rome for examination
   and approval. The Senate replied by ordering his investiture,
   and forbidding him to leave Venice. Again, money had to be
   raised in Brescia for the restoration of the ramparts, and the
   Senate imposed a tax on all the citizens—laymen and
   ecclesiastics alike. Pope Paul V. claimed exemption for the
   latter, as being his subjects. The Senate refused to listen to
   him. … These differences were causing both the Pope and the
   Republic to look to their armoury and to try the temper of
   their weapons, when two more serious matters occurred which
   brought them into open warfare. The prologue was passed, the
   drama was about to open. First, two priests in high position
   were leading flagrantly wicked and criminal lives. … The
   Senate sent its officers, and had the offenders seized and
   brought to Venice, and locked up from further mischief in the
   dungeons of the Ducal Palace. Pope Paul V. angrily
   remonstrated, and peremptorily demanded their instant
   liberation, on the ground that being priests they were not
   amenable to the secular arm. … Secondly, two ecclesiastical
   property laws were in force throughout the Republic; by one
   the Church was prohibited from building any new monasteries,
   convents, or churches without the consent of the Government
   under penalty of forfeiture; and by the other it was
   disqualified from retaining property which it might become
   possessed of by donation or by inheritance, but was bound to
   turn it into money. … Pope Paul V. … demanded the repeal of
   these property laws. These two demands, regarding the
   imprisoned ecclesiastics and the property laws, were first put
   forward in October, 1605. … Early in December, the Pope,
   impatient to bring the quarrel to a head, threatened to place
   Venice under interdict and excommunication if it did not yield
   to his demands. … It was at this acute stage of the quarrel
   that the Republic laid hold of Fra Paolo Sarpi, and, as we
   have already noted, made him its Theological Counsellor, and
   the struggle henceforth became, to a large extent, a duel
   between 'Paul the Pope, and Paul the Friar.' On the very day
   that Fra Paolo accepted this office he informed the Senate
   that two courses of action were open to them. They could argue
   the case either de jure or de facto. First, de jure, that is,
   they could appeal against the judgment of the Pope to a Church
   Council. … Secondly, the Republic could adopt the de facto
   course; that is, it could rely on its own authority and
   strength. It could set these over against the Pope's, and
   whilst willing to argue out the matter in a spirit of reason
   with him, yet meet his force with opposing force. If he turned
   a deaf ear to right, there was no help for it but to make it a
   question of might. The de facto course was therefore the one
   Fra Paolo recommended; adding very significantly, 'He who
   appeals to a Council admits that the righteousness of his
   cause may be questioned, whereas that of Venice is
   indisputable.'
{3614}
   The Senate hailed the advice thus given, and instructed him to
   draw out a reply to the Pope's brief in accordance with it. …
   From the moment this reply was received a bitter controversy
   was set on foot. Renewed demands came from Rome, and renewed
   refusals were sent from Venice. … Meanwhile the eyes of all
   the Courts of Europe were directed to the great struggle, and
   Venice made them more than spectators by laying its case as
   prepared by their Consultore fairly and fully before them. The
   time had not arrived for any nation to enter as a party into
   the contest, but all frankly expressed their opinions, which
   were, with the exception of that of Spain, unequivocally on
   the side of Venice. … At last the Pope determined to put into
   execution the threats contained in the briefs, and to place
   the Republic under interdict and excommunication. On the 17th
   of April, 1606, the bull of interdict and excommunication was
   launched; twenty-four days being allowed Venice for
   repentance, with three more added of the Pope's gracious
   clemency. The die was thus cast by Pope Paul V., by which he
   was either to humble the Republic, or discredit himself and
   his 'spiritual arms' in the sight of Europe. The bull was a
   sweeping one. … No more masses were to be said. Baptism,
   marriage, and burial services were to cease. The churches were
   to be locked up, and the priests could withdraw from the
   devoted land. All social relationships were dissolved.
   Marriages were declared invalid, and all children born were
   illegitimate. Husbands could desert their wives, and children
   disobey their parents. Contracts of all kinds were declared
   null and void. Allegiance to the Government was at an end."

      A. Robertson,
      Fra Paolo Sarpi,
      chapter 5, and preface.

   "It was proposed in the college of Venice to enter a solemn
   protest, as had been done in earlier times; but this proposal
   was rejected, on the ground that the sentence of the pope was
   in itself null and void, and had not even a show of justice.
   In a short proclamation, occupying only a quarto page,
   Leonardo Donato made known to the clergy the resolution of the
   republic to maintain the sovereign authority, 'which
   acknowledges no other superior in worldly things save God
   alone.' Her faithful clergy would of themselves perceive the
   nullity of the 'censures' issued against them, and would
   continue the discharge of their functions, the cure of souls
   and the worship of God, without interruption. No alarm was
   expressed, no menaces were uttered, the proclamation was a
   mere expression of confidence and security. It is, however,
   probable that something more may have been done by verbal
   communication. By these proceedings, the question of claim and
   right became at once a question of strength and of possession.
   Commanded by their two superiors—the pope and the republic—to
   give contradictory proofs of obedience, the Venetian clergy
   were now called on to decide to which of the two they would
   render that obedience. They did not hesitate; they obeyed the
   republic: not a copy of the brief was fixed up. The delay
   appointed by the pope expired; public worship was everywhere
   conducted as usual. As the secular clergy had decided, so did
   also the monastic orders. The only exception to this was
   presented by the orders newly instituted, and in which the
   principle of ecclesiastical restoration was more particularly
   represented; these were the Jesuits, Theatines, and Capuchins.
   The Jesuits, in so far as they were themselves concerned, were
   not altogether decided; they first took counsel of their
   Provincial at Ferrara, and afterwards of their General in
   Rome, who referred the question to the pope himself. Paul V.
   replied that they must either observe the interdict, or shake
   the dust from their feet and leave Venice. A hard decision
   assuredly, since they were distinctly informed that they would
   never be permitted to return; but the principle of their
   institution allowed them no choice. Embarking in their boats,
   they departed from the city, and took shelter in the papal
   dominions. Their example influenced the other two orders. A
   middle course was proposed by the Theatines, but the Venetians
   did not think it advisable; they would suffer no division in
   their land, and demanded either obedience or departure. The
   deserted churches were easily provided with other priests, and
   care was taken that none should perceive a deficiency. … It is
   manifest that the result was a complete schism. The pope was
   amazed; his exaggerated pretensions were confronted by the
   realities of things with the most unshrinking boldness. Did
   any means exist by which these might be overcome? Paul V.
   thought at times of having recourse to arms. … Legates were
   despatched, and troops fitted out; but in effect they dared
   not venture to attempt force. There would have been cause to
   apprehend that Venice would call the Protestants to her aid,
   and thus throw all Italy, nay the Catholic world at large,
   into the most perilous commotions. They must again betake
   themselves, as on former occasions, to political measures, for
   the adjustment of these questions touching the rights of the
   Church. … I have neither inclination nor means for a detailed
   account of these negotiations through the whole course of the
   proceedings. … The first difficulty was presented by the pope,
   who insisted, before all things, that the Venetian laws, which
   had given him so much offence, should be repealed; and he made
   the suspension of his ecclesiastical censures to depend on
   their repeal. But the Venetians, also, on their part, with a
   certain republican self-complacency, were accustomed to
   declare their laws sacred and inviolable. When the papal
   demand was brought under discussion in January, 1607, although
   the college wavered, yet at last it was decidedly rejected in
   the senate. The French, who had given their word to the pope,
   succeeded in bringing the question forward once more in March,
   when of the four opponents in the college, one at least
   withdrew his objections. After the arguments on both sides had
   again been fully stated in the senate, there was still, it is
   true, no formal or express repeal of the laws, but a decision
   was adopted to the effect that 'the republic would conduct
   itself with its accustomed piety.' However obscure these words
   appear, the ambassador and the pope thought they discovered in
   them the fulfilment of their wishes. The pope then suspended
   his censures."

      L. Ranke,
      History of the Popes,
      book 6, section 12 (volume 2).

   "The moral victory remained with Venice. She did not recall
   her laws as to taxation of the clergy and the foundation of
   new churches and monasteries [nor permit the Jesuits to
   return, until many years later]. … The hero of the whole
   episode, Fra Paolo Sarpi, continued to live quietly in his
   convent of the Servites at S. Fosca.

{3615}

   The Government received warning from Rome that danger was
   threatening. In its turn it cautioned Fra Paolo. But he paid
   little or no heed." On the 25th of October, 1607, towards five
   o'clock in the evening, as he was returning to his convent, he
   was attacked by three assassins, who inflicted serious wounds
   upon him and left him for dead. By great care, however, Fra
   Paolo's life was saved, and prolonged until 1623. The would-be
   assassins escaped into the Papal States, where "they found not
   only shelter but a welcome."

      H. F. Brown,
      Venice,
      chapter 20.

      ALSO IN:
      J. A. Symonds,
      Renaissance in Italy: The Catholic Reaction,
      chapter 10 (volume 2).

      T. A. Trollope,
      Paul the Pope and Paul the Friar.

      See, also, PAPACY: A. D. 1605-1700.

VENICE: A. D. 1620-1626.
   The Valteline War.
   Alliance with France and Savoy against the Austro-Spanish power.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.

VENICE: A. D. 1629-1631.
   League with France against Spain and the Emperor.
   The Mantuan War.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1627-1631.

VENICE: A. D. 1645-1669.
   The war of Candia with the Turks.
   Loss of Crete.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1645-1669.

VENICE: A. D. 1684-1696.
   War of the Holy League against the Turks.
   Siege and capture of Athens.
   Conquest of the Morea and parts of Dalmatia and Albania.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1684-1696.

VENICE: A. D. 1699.
   Peace of Carlowitz with the Sultan.
   Turkish Cession of part of the Morea and most of Dalmatia.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1699.

VENICE: A. D. 1714-1718.
   War with the Turks.
   The Morea lost.
   Defense of Corfu.
   Peace of Passarowitz.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1714-1718.

VENICE: A. D. 1767.
   Expulsion of the Jesuits.

      See JESUITS: A. D. 1761-1769.

VENICE: A. D. 1796.
   Bonaparte's schemes for the destruction of the Republic.
   The picking of the quarrel.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER).

VENICE: A. D. 1797.
   The ignominious overthrow of the Republic by Napoleon.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL);
      and 1797 (APRIL-MAY).

VENICE: A. D. 1797 (October).
   City and territories given over to Austria
   by the Treaty of Campo-Formio.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (MAY-OCTOBER).

VENICE: A. D. 1805.
   Territories ceded by Austria to the kingdom of Italy.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1806.

VENICE: A. D. 1814.
   Transfer of Venetian states to Austria.
   Formation of the Lombardo-Venetian kingdom.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE);
      VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF; AUSTRIA: A. D. 1815-1846;
      and ITALY: A. D. 1814-1815.

VENICE: A. D. 1815.
   Restoration of the Bronze Horses taken away by Napoleon.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JULY-NOVEMBER).

VENICE: A. D. 1848-1849.
   Insurrection.
   Expulsion of the Austrians.
   Provisional government under Daniel Manin.
   Renewed subjugation.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

VENICE: A. D. 1859.
   Grievous disappointment in the Austro-Italian war.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859; and 1859-1861.

VENICE: A. D. 1866.
   Relinquishment by Austria.
   Annexation to the kingdom of Italy.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1862-1866.

   ----------VENICE: End--------

VENICONII, The.

      See IRELAND, TRIBES OF EARLY CELTIC INHABITANTS.

VENLOO, Surrender of.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1585-1586.

VENNER'S INSURRECTION.

      See FIFTH MONARCHY MEN.

VENNONES, The.

      See RHÆTIA.

VENTA.

   Three important cities in Roman Britain bore the name of
   Venta; one occupying the site of modern Winchester, a second
   standing near Norwich, the third at Caerwent in Wales. They
   were distinguished, respectively, as Venta Belgarum, Venta
   Icenorum and Venta Silurum.

      T. Wright,
      Celt, Roman and Saxon.

VENTÔSE, The month.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (OCTOBER) NEW REPUBLICAN CALENDAR.


VERA CRUZ, Mexico: A. D. 1519.
   Founded by Cortes.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1519 (JUNE-OCTOBER).

VERA CRUZ, Mexico: A. D. 1839.
   Attacked by the French.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1828-1844.

VERA CRUZ, Mexico: A. D. 1847.
   Bombardment and capture by the Americans.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1847 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

VERAGUA: A. D. 1502.
   Attempted settlement by Columbus.

      See AMERICA: A D. 1498-1505.

VERAGUA: A. D. 1509.
   Attempted settlement by Nicuesa.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1500-1511.

VERCELLI: A. D. 1638-1659.
   Siege and capture by the Spaniards.
   Restoration to Savoy.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1635-1659.

VERDUN: A. D. 1552-1559.
   Possession taken by France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.

VERDUN: A. D. 1648.
   Ceded to France in the Peace of Westphalia.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

VERDUN, The Treaty of: A. D. 843.

   The contest and civil war which arose between the three
   grandsons of Charlemagne resulted in a treaty of partition,
   brought about in 843, which forever dissolved the great Frank
   Empire of Clovis, and of the Pippins and Karls who finished
   what he began. "A commission of 300 members was appointed to
   distribute itself over the surface of the empire, and by an
   exact examination of the wealth of each region, and the wishes
   of its people, acquire a knowledge of the best means of making
   an equitable division. The next year the commissioners
   reported the result of their researches to the three kings,
   assembled at Verdun, and a treaty of separation was drawn up
   and executed, which gave Gaul, from the Meuse and Saone as far
   as the Pyrenees, to Karl; which gave Germany, beyond the
   Rhine, to Ludwig the Germanic; and which secured to Lother
   Italy, with a broad strip on the Rhine, between the dominions
   of Karl and Ludwig, under the names of Lotheringia or
   Lorraine. This was the first great treaty of modern Europe; it
   began a political division which lasted for many centuries;
   the great empire of Karl was formally dismembered by it, and
   the pieces of it scattered among his degenerate descendants."

      P. Godwin,
      History of France: Ancient Gaul,
      chapter 18.

{3616}

   "The treaty of Verdun, in 843, abrogated the sovereignty that
   had been attached to the eldest brother and to the imperial
   name in former partitions; each held his respective kingdom as
   an independent right. This is the epoch of a final separation
   between the French and German members of the empire. Its
   millenary was celebrated by some of the latter nation in
   1843."

      H. Hallam,
      The Middle Ages,
      chapter 1, part 1 (volume l).

      See, also, FRANKS: A. D. 814-962.

VERGARA, Treaty of (1839).

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1833-1846.

VERGENNES, Count de,
   and the French alliance with the revolted American Colonies.

      See UNITED STATES OF AM.: A. D. 1776-1778;
      1778 (FEBRUARY): 1778-1779,
      and 1782 (SEPTEMBER) and (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

VERGNIAUD AND THE GIRONDISTS.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1791 (OCTOBER),
      to 1793 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).

VERGOBRET, The.

   The chief magistrate of the tribe of Gauls known as the Ædui
   was called the vergobret. "Cæsar terms this magistrate
   vergobretus, which Celtic scholars derive from the words
   'ver-go-breith,' ('homme de jugement,' O'Brien, Thierry). He
   was elected by a council of priests and nobles, and had the
   power of life and death. But his office was only annual."
   Divitiacus, the Æduian friend of Cæsar and the Romans, had
   been the vergobret of his tribe.

      C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 6, foot-note.

VERMANDOIS, House of.

   The noble House of Vermandois which played an important part
   in French history during the Middle Ages, boasted a descent
   from Charlemagne, through his best loved son, Pippin, king of
   Italy. "Peronne and the Abbey of Saint-Quintin composed the
   nucleus of their Principality; but, quietly and without
   contradiction, they had extended their sway over the heart of
   the kingdom of Soissons; and that antient Soissons, and the
   rock of Lâon, and Rheims, the prerogative city of the Gauls,
   were all within the geographical ambit of their territory. In
   such enclavures as we have named, Vermandois did not possess
   direct authority. Lâon, for example, had a Count and a bishop,
   and was a royal domain."

      Sir F. Palgrave,
      History of Normandy and England,
      book 1, chapter 5, section 6 (volume 1).

   ----------VERMONT: Start--------

VERMONT: A. D. 1749-1774.
   Beginning of settlement.
   The New Hampshire Grants and the conflict with New York.
   Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain Boys.

   "Among the causes of the controversies which existed between
   the colonies in early times, and continued down to the
   revolution, was the uncertainty of boundary lines as described
   in the old charters. … A difficulty of this kind arose between
   the colony of New York and those of Connecticut,
   Massachusetts, and New Hampshire. By the grant of King Charles
   II. to his brother, the Duke of York, the tract of country
   called New York was bounded on the east by Connecticut River,
   thus conflicting with the express letter of the Massachusetts
   and Connecticut charters, which extended those colonies
   westward to the South Sea, or Pacific Ocean. After a long
   controversy, kept up at times with a good deal of heat on both
   sides, the line of division between these colonies was fixed
   by mutual agreement at 20 miles east of Hudson's River,
   running nearly in a north and south direction. … The
   Massachusetts boundary was decided much later to be a
   continuation of the Connecticut line to the north, making the
   western limit of Massachusetts also 20 miles from the same
   river. … Meantime New Hampshire had never been brought into
   the controversy, because the lands to the westward of that
   province beyond Connecticut River had been neither settled nor
   surveyed. There was indeed a small settlement at Fort Dummer
   on the western margin of the River, which was under the
   protection of Massachusetts. … Such was the state of things
   when Benning Wentworth became governor of New Hampshire, with
   authority from the King to issue patents for unimproved lands
   within the limits of his province. Application was made for
   grants to the west of Connecticut River, and even beyond the
   Green Mountains, and in 1749 he gave a patent for a township 6
   miles square, near the north west angle of Massachusetts, to
   be so laid out, that its western limit should be 20 miles from
   the Hudson, and coincide with the boundary line of Connecticut
   and Massachusetts continued northward. This township was
   called Bennington. Although the governor and council of New
   York remonstrated against this grant, and claimed for that
   colony the whole territory north of Massachusetts as far
   eastward as Connecticut River, yet Governor Wentworth was not
   deterred by this remonstrance from issuing other patents,
   urging in his justification, that New Hampshire had a right to
   the same extension westward as Massachusetts and Connecticut."
   After the British conquest of Canada, 1760, "applications for
   new patents thronged daily upon Governor Wentworth, and within
   four years' time the whole number of townships granted by him,
   to the westward of Connecticut River, was 138. The territory
   including these townships was known by the name of the New
   Hampshire Grants, which it retained till the opening of the
   revolution, when its present name of Vermont began to be
   adopted."

      J. Sparks,
      Life of Ethan Allen
      (Library of American Biographies, volume 1).

   "Lieutenant Governor Colden, acting chief magistrate of New
   York in the absence of General Monckton, perceiving the
   necessity of asserting the claims of that province to the
   country westward of the Connecticut river, wrote an energetic
   letter to Governor Wentworth, protesting against his grants.
   He also sent a proclamation among the people, declaring the
   Connecticut river to be the boundary between New York and New
   Hampshire. But protests and proclamations were alike unheeded
   by the governor and the people until the year 1764, when the
   matter was laid before the King and council for adjudication.
   The decision was in favor of New York. Wentworth immediately
   bowed to supreme authority, and ceased issuing patents for
   lands westward of the Connecticut. The settlers, considering
   all questions in dispute to be thus finally disposed of, were
   contented, and went on hopefully in the improvement of their
   lands. Among these settlers in the Bennington township were
   members of the Allen family, in Connecticut, two of whom,
   Ethan and Ira, were conspicuous in public affairs for many
   years, as we shall hereafter have occasion to observe. The
   authorities of New York, not content with the award of
   territorial jurisdiction over the domain, proceeded, on the
   decision of able legal authority, to assert the right of
   property in the soil of that territory, and declared
   Wentworth's patents all void.
{3617}
   They went further. Orders were issued for the survey and sale
   of farms in the possession of actual settlers, who had bought
   and paid for them, and, in many instances, had made great
   progress in improvements. In this, New York acted not only
   unjustly, but very unwisely. This oppression, for oppression
   it was, was a fatal mistake. It was like sowing dragons' teeth
   to see them produce a crop of full-armed men. The settlers
   were disposed to be quiet, loyal subjects of New York. They
   cared not who was their political master, so long as their
   private rights were respected. But this act of injustice
   converted them into rebellious foes, determined and defiant. …
   Meanwhile speculators had been purchasing from New York large
   tracts of these estates in the disputed territory, and were
   making preparations to take possession. The people of the
   Grants sent one of their number to England, and laid their
   cause before the King and council. He came back in August,
   1767, armed with an order for the Governor of New York to
   abstain from issuing any more patents for lands eastward of
   Lake Champlain. But as the order was not 'ex post facto' in
   its operations, the New York patentees proceeded to take
   possession of their purchased lands. This speedily brought on
   a crisis, and for seven years the New Hampshire Grants formed
   a theater where all the elements of civil war, except actual
   carnage, were in active exercise. … The hardy yeomanry who
   first appeared in arms for the defense of their territorial
   rights, and afterwards as patriots in the common cause when
   the Revolution broke out, were called Green Mountain Boys."

      B. J. Lossing,
      Life and Times of Philip Schuyler,
      volume 1, chapter 12.

      ALSO IN:
      S. Williams,
      History of Vermont,
      chapter 9.

      W. Slade, editor,
      Vermont State Papers,
      pages 1-49.

      Vermont Historical Society Collection,
      volumes 1 and 3.

VERMONT: A. D. 1775.
   Ticonderoga surprised by the Green Mountain Boys.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (MAY).

VERMONT: A. D. 1777.
   Stark's victory at Bennington.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).

VERMONT: A. D. 1777-1778.
   State independence declared and constitution framed.
   Admission to the Union denied.

   "The settlers in the land which this year [1777] took the name
   of Vermont refused by a great majority to come under the
   jurisdiction of New York; on the 15th of January 1777, their
   convention declared the independence of their state. At
   Windsor, on the 2d of June, they appointed a committee to
   prepare a constitution; and they hoped to be received into the
   American union. But, as New York opposed, congress, by an
   uncertain majority against a determined minority, disclaimed
   the intention of recognising Vermont as a separate state. … On
   the 2d of July the convention of Vermont reassembled at
   Windsor. The organic law which they adopted, blending the
   culture of their age with the traditions of Protestantism,
   assumed that all men are born free and with inalienable
   rights; that they may emigrate from one state to another, or
   form a new state in vacant countries; that 'every sect should
   observe the Lord's day, and keep up some sort of religious
   worship'; that every man may choose that form of religious
   worship 'which shall seem to him most agreeable to the
   revealed will of God. 'They provided for a school in each
   town, a grammar-school in each county, and a university in the
   state. All officers, alike executive and legislative, were to
   be chosen annually and by ballot; the freemen of every town
   and all one year's residents were electors. Every member of
   the house of representatives must declare his 'belief in one
   God …; in the divine inspiration of the scriptures; and in the
   Protestant religion.' The legislative power was vested in one
   general assembly, subject to no veto. … Slavery was forbidden
   and forever; and there could be no imprisonment for debt. …
   After the loss of Ticonderoga, the introduction of the
   constitution was postponed [until March, 1778], lest the
   process of change should interfere with the public defence."

      G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States (Author's last revision),
      volume 5, pages 157, and 161-162.

      ALSO IN;
      Ira Allen,
      History of Vermont
      (Vermont Historical Society Collection,
      volume 1, pages 375-393).

      Vermont Historical Society Collection,
      volume 3.

      R. E. Robinson,
      Vermont: a Study of Independence,
      chapters 10-14.

VERMONT: A. D. 1781.
   Negotiations with the British authorities
   as an independent State.

   Vermont had repeatedly applied for admission into the Union;
   but the opposition of her neighbors, who claimed her
   territory, and the jealousy of the southern states, who
   objected to the admission of another northern state, prevented
   favorable action in Congress. In 1780 a fresh appeal was made
   with a declaration that if it failed the people of the Green
   Mountains would propose to the other New England states and to
   New York, "an alliance and confederation for mutual defense,
   independent of Congress and of the other states." If neither
   Congress nor the northern states would listen to them, then,
   said the memorial, "they are, if necessitated to it, at
   liberty to offer or accept terms of cessation of hostilities
   with Great Britain without the approbation of any other man or
   body of men." "The British generals in America had for some
   time entertained hopes of turning the disputes in relation to
   Vermont to their own account, by detaching that district from
   the American cause and making it a British province. But the
   first intimation of their views and wishes was communicated in
   a letter from Colonel Beverly Robinson to Ethan Allen; dated
   New York, March 30th, 1780. In July, this letter was delivered
   to Allen in the street in Arlington, by a British soldier in
   the habit of an American farmer. Allen perused the letter, and
   then told the bearer that he should consider it, and that he
   might return. … Allen immediately communicated the contents of
   this letter to Governor Chittenden and some other confidential
   friends, who agreed in opinion, that no answer should be
   returned. Robinson, not receiving a reply to his letter and
   supposing it to have been miscarried, wrote again to Allen on
   the 2d of February, 1781, enclosing his former letter. In his
   second letter, after saying he had received new assurances of
   the inclination of Vermont to join the king's cause, he said
   that he could then write with more authority; and assured
   Allen that he and the people of Vermont could obtain the most
   favorable terms, provided they would take a decisive and
   active part in favor of Great Britain. He requested an answer;
   and that the way might be pointed out for continuing the
   correspondence; and desired to be informed in what manner the
   people of Vermont could be most serviceable to the British
   cause.
{3618}
   Allen returned no answer to either of these letters; but, on
   the 9th of March, 1781, inclosed them in a letter to Congress,
   informing them of all the circumstances which had thus far
   attended the business. He then proceeded to justify the
   conduct of Vermont in asserting her right to independence, and
   expressed his determinate resolution to do every thing in his
   power to establish it. … 'I am confident,' said he, 'that
   Congress will not dispute my sincere attachment to the cause
   of my country, though I do not hesitate to say, I am fully
   grounded in opinion, that Vermont has an indubitable right to
   agree on terms of a cessation of hostilities with Great
   Britain, provided the United States persist in rejecting her
   application for an union with them.' … During the spring of
   1780, some of the scouting parties belonging to Vermont had
   been taken by the British and carried prisoners to Canada. On
   the application of their friends to Governor Chittenden, he,
   in the month of July, sent a flag with a letter to the
   commanding officer in Canada, requesting their release or
   exchange. In the fall, the British came up lake Champlain in
   great force, and a very favorable answer was returned by
   General Haldimand to Governor Chittenden's letter. A flag was
   at the same time sent to Ethan Allen, then a brigadier general
   and commanding officer in Vermont, proposing a cessation of
   hostilities with Vermont, during negotiations for the exchange
   of prisoners."

      Z. Thompson,
      History of the State of Vermont,
      chapter 4, section 6.

   "The immediate results were a truce, which covered not only
   Vermont but the frontiers of New York to Hudson river; the
   disbanding of the militia of Vermont; and the retiring of the
   British troops to winter quarters in Canada. Until the truce
   became generally known, the results of it occasioned much
   surprise in New York. It was further agreed, that the
   commissioners of both parties should meet on the subject of
   the cartel, and go together to Canada. This was attempted, but
   failed on account of the difficulty of getting through the ice
   on Lake Champlain. After contending several days with the
   elements, the commissioners separated; but 'while their men
   [wrote Ira Allen] were breaking through the ice, much
   political conversation and exhibits of papers took place.'
   Williams ['History of Vermont'] is more definite: 'the British
   agents availed themselves of this opportunity to explain their
   views, to make their proposals, and offer as complete an
   establishment for Vermont, from the royal authority, as should
   be desired. The commissioners from Vermont treated the
   proposals with affability and good humor, and though they
   avoided bringing anything to a decision, the British concluded
   they were in a fair way to effect their purposes.' The
   subsequent negotiations at Isle aux Noix, between Ira Allen
   and the British commissioners, as to matters beyond settling a
   cartel, were secret, and even the commander of the post had no
   knowledge of them, although he was associated with the British
   commissioners on the question of an exchange of prisoners.
   These facts show that the public had no knowledge except of a
   truce for a humane and proper attempt to relieve citizens of
   Vermont, and its officers and soldiers, who were then
   prisoners in Canada; and the conclusion is that all the
   suspicion that then existed of the patriotism and fidelity of
   the great body of the people of the state, and all the obloquy
   since drawn from the negotiation with Haldimand and cast upon
   the state, were entirely unjust. If any body was really at
   fault, the number implicated was very small. Williams asserted
   that 'eight persons only in Vermont, were in the secret of
   this correspondence;' and Ira Allen that, in May, 1781, 'only
   eight persons were in the secret, but more were added as the
   circumstances required.'"

      Vermont Historical Society Collection,
      volume 2, introduction.

   "By the definitive treaty between Great Britain and the United
   States, September 3, 1783, Vermont was included within the
   boundaries separating the independent American from British
   territory, and thus the independence of Vermont was
   acknowledged first by the mother country. The State had been
   de facto independent from its organization; and therefore the
   following record, with the other papers contained in this and
   the first volume of the Historical Society Collections covers
   the existence of Vermont as an independent and sovereign
   state."

      Vermont Historical Society Collection,
      volume 2, page 397.

      ALSO IN:
      Vermont Historical Society Collection,
      volume 2,
      Haldimand Papers.

      D. Brymner,
      Report on Canadian Archives, 1889,
      pages 53-58.

      R. E. Robinson,
      Vermont: a Study of Independence,
      chapter 15.

VERMONT: A. D. 1790-1791.
   Renunciation of the claims of New York
   and admission of the State to the Union.

   "The rapid increase of the population of Vermont having
   destroyed all hope on the part of New York, of re-establishing
   her jurisdiction over that rebellious district, the holders of
   the New York grants, seeing no better prospect before them,
   were ready to accept such an indemnity as might be obtained by
   negotiation. Political considerations had also operated. The
   vote of Vermont might aid to establish the seat of the federal
   government at New York. At all events, that state would serve
   as a counterbalance to Kentucky, the speedy admission of which
   was foreseen. The Assembly of New York [July, 1789] had
   appointed commissioners with full powers to acknowledge the
   independence of Vermont, and to arrange a settlement of all
   matters in controversy. To this appointment Vermont had
   responded, and terms had been soon arranged. In consideration
   of the sum of $30,000, as an indemnity to the New York
   grantees, New York renounced all claim of jurisdiction
   [October 7, 1790], consented to the admission of Vermont into
   the Union, and agreed to the boundary heretofore claimed—the
   western line of the westernmost townships granted by New
   Hampshire and the middle channel of Lake Champlain. This
   arrangement was immediately ratified by the Legislature of
   Vermont. A Convention, which met at the beginning of the year
   [1791], had voted unanimously to ratify the Federal
   Constitution, and to ask admission into the Union.
   Commissioners were soon after appointed by the Assembly to
   wait upon Congress and to negotiate the admission. No
   opposition was made to it, and [February 18, 1791] within
   fourteen days after the passage of the bill for the
   prospective admission of Kentucky, Vermont was received into
   the Union, from and after the termination of the present
   session of Congress. The Constitution under which Vermont came
   into the Union, originally adopted in 1777, had been slightly
   altered in 1785. Most of its provisions seem to have been
   copied from the first Constitution of Pennsylvania. … The
   revision of 1785 struck out the requirement of Protestantism;
   another revision in 1793, still following the example of
   Pennsylvania, released the members of Assembly from the
   necessity of any religious subscription."

      R. Hildreth,
      History of the United States,
      volume 4, chapter 3.

      ALSO IN:
      H. Beckley,
      History of Vermont,
      chapters 5-6.

      J. L. Heaton,
      Story of Vermont,
      chapter 4.

{3619}

VERMONT: A. D. 1812.
   Vigorous support of the war with England.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1812 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

VERMONT: A. D. 1814.
   The Hartford Convention.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (DECEMBER).

VERMONT: A. D. 1864.
   The St. Albans Raid.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (OCTOBER)
      THE ST. ALBANS RAID.

   ----------VERMONT: End--------

VERMONT UNIVERSITY.

   "At the time of the organization of the State government, in
   1798, the University of Vermont was endowed with lands which
   proved subsequently to amount to 29,000 acres. In 1791 the
   university was organized. … The early years of the university,
   planted as it was in the wilderness, were full of struggles
   and misfortunes. The State was generous in the extreme at the
   beginning, but failed to support the university it had
   created. The land was poor and brought little income, the
   whole tract bringing but 2,500 dollars at that time. In 1813
   the buildings of the university were seized by the Government
   and used for the storage of United States arms, by which much
   damage was suffered, and the houseless students all left, most
   of them to shoulder muskets against the British invaders. The
   buildings were rented in 1814 for the United States Army.
   Worse misfortunes occurred in 1824, the buildings being
   consumed by fire, but were restored by the citizens of
   Burlington in the following year. For the first ninety-five
   years of the corporate existence of the university the State
   never gave anything toward the support of it more than has
   been set forth in the above statements."

      F. W. Blackmar,
      History of Federal and State Aid to Higher Education
      in the United States
      (Bureau of Education, Circ. of Information, 1890, number 1),
      pages 125-126.

VERNEUIL, Battle of (1424).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1429-1431.

VERNICOMES.

   A tribe in ancient Caledonia, whose territory was the eastern
   half of Fife.

      See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

VEROMANDUI, The.

      See BELGÆ.

   ----------VERONA: Start--------

VERONA: A. D. 312.
   Siege, battle, and victory of Constantine.

      See ROME: A. D. 805-323.

VERONA: A. D. 403.
   Defeat of Alaric by Stilicho.

      See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 400-403.

VERONA: A. D. 489.
   Defeat of Odoacer by Theodoric.

      See ROME: A. D. 488-526.

VERONA: A. D. 493-525.
   Residence of Theodoric the Ostrogoth.

   "Pavia and Verona [as well as his ordinary capital city,
   Ravenna] were also places honoured with the occasional
   residence of Theodoric. At both he built a palace and public
   baths. … At Verona, the palace, of which there were still some
   noble remains incorporated into the castle of the Viscontis,
   was blown up by the French in 1801, and an absolutely modern
   building stands upon its site. … It seems probable that
   Theodoric's residence at both these places depended on the
   state of Transalpine politics. When the tribes of the middle
   Danube were moving suspiciously to and fro, and the vulnerable
   point by the Brenner Pass needed to be especially guarded, he
   fixed his quarters at Verona. When Gaul menaced greater
   danger, then he removed to Ticinum [Pavia]. It was apparently
   the fact that Verona was his coign of vantage, from whence be
   watched the German barbarians, which obtained for him from
   their minstrels the title of Dietrich of Bern. Thus strangely
   travestied, he was swept within the wide current of the
   legends relating to Attila, and hence it is that the really
   grandest figure in the history of the migration of the peoples
   appears in the Nibelungen Lied, not as a great king and
   conqueror on his own account, but only as a faithful squire of
   the terrible Hunnish king whose empire had in fact crumbled
   into dust before the birth of Theodoric."

      T. Hodgkin,
      Italy and Her Invaders,
      book 4, chapter 8 (volume 3).

VERONA: 11-12th Centuries.
   Acquisition of Republican Independence.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1056-1152.

VERONA: A. D. 1236-1259.
   The tyranny of Eccelino di Romano and the crusade against him.

   "In the north-eastern corner of Italy the influence of the old
   Lombard lords, which had been extinguished there as in most
   other parts of the peninsula, was succeeded by that of a
   family that had accompanied one of the emperors from Germany.
   … The eye of a traveller passing from Verona to Padua may
   still be struck by one or two isolated hills, which seem as it
   were designed by nature to be meet residences for the tyrants
   of the surrounding plains. One of these gave birth to a person
   destined to become the scourge of the neighbouring country. …
   Eccelino di Romano … was descended from a German noble brought
   into Italy by Otho III. The office of Podesta of Verona had
   become hereditary in his family. In the wars of the second
   Frederic [1236-1250], he put himself at the head of the
   Ghibellines in the surrounding principalities, and became a
   strenuous supporter of the emperor. Under the protection of so
   powerful an ally, be soon made himself master of Padua, where
   he established his headquarters, and built the dungeons, where
   the most revolting cruelties were inflicted on his victims."

      W. P. Urquhart,
      Life and Times of Francesco Sforza,
      book 1, chapter 3 (volume 1).

   In 1237, the emperor, Frederick II., "obliged to return to
   Germany, left under the command of Eccelino a body of German
   soldiers, and another of Saracens, with which this able
   captain made himself, the same year, master of Vicenza, which
   he barbarously pillaged, and the following year of Padua. …
   Eccelino judged it necessary to secure obedience, by taking
   hostages from the richest and most powerful families; he
   employed his spies to discover the malcontents, whom he
   punished with torture, and redoubled his cruelty in proportion
   to the hatred which he excited." Subsequently, the emperor
   confided "the exclusive government of the Veronese marches
   [also called the Trevisan marches] to Eccelino. The hatred
   which this ferocious man excited by his crimes fell on the
   emperor. Eccelino imprisoned in the most loathsome dungeons
   those whom he considered his enemies, and frequently put them
   to death by torture, or suffered them to perish by hunger. …
{3620}
   In the single town of Padua there were eight prisons always
   full, notwithstanding the incessant toil of the executioner to
   empty them; two of these contained each 300 prisoners. A
   brother of Eccelino, named Alberic, governed Treviso with less
   ferocity, but with a power not less absolute." Eccelino
   maintained the power which he had gathered into his hands for
   several years after Frederick's death. At length, the pope,
   "Alexander IV., to destroy the monster that held in terror the
   Trevisan march, caused a crusade to be preached in that
   country. He promised those who combated the ferocious Eccelino
   all the indulgences usually reserved for the deliverers of the
   Holy Land. The marquis d'Este, the count di San Bonifazio,
   with the cities of Ferrara, Mantua, and Bologna, assembled
   their troops under the standard of the church; they were
   joined by a horde of ignorant fanatics from the lowest class."
   Headed by the legate Philip, archbishop of Ravenna, the
   crusaders took Padua, June 18, 1256, and "for seven days the
   city was inhumanly pillaged by those whom it had received as
   deliverers. As soon as Eccelino was informed of the loss he
   had sustained, he hastened to separate and disarm the 11,000
   Paduans belonging to his army; he confined them in prisons,
   where all, with the exception of 200, met a violent or
   lingering death. During the two following years, the Guelphs
   experienced nothing but disasters: the legate, whom the pope
   had placed at their head, proved incompetent to command them;
   and the crowd of crusaders whom he called to his ranks served
   only to compromise them, by want of courage and discipline. …
   The following year, this tyrant, unequalled in Ita]y for
   bravery and military talent, always an enemy to luxury, and
   proof against the seductions of women, making the boldest
   tremble with a look, and preserving in his diminutive person,
   at the age of 65, all the vigor of a soldier, advanced into
   the centre of Lombardy, in the hope that the nobles of Milan,
   with whom he had already opened a correspondence, would
   surrender this great city." But, by this time, even his old
   Ghibelline associates had formed alliances with the Guelphs
   against him, and he was beset on all sides. "On the 16th of
   September, 1259, whilst he was preparing to retire, he found
   himself stopped at the bridge of Cassano. … Repulsed, pursued
   as far as Vimercato, and at last wounded in the foot, he was
   made prisoner and taken to Soncino: there, he refused to
   speak; rejected all the aid of medicine; tore off all the
   bandages from his wounds, and finally expired, on the eleventh
   day of his captivity. His brother with all his family were
   massacred in the following year."

      J. C. L. de Sismondi,
      History of the Italian Republics,
      chapters 3-4.

      ALSO IN:
      J. Miley,
      History of the Papal States,
      book 7, chapter 1 (volume 3).

VERONA: A. D. 1260-1338.
   Rise of the House of the Scaligeri.
   Successes of Can' Grande della Scala.
   Wars and Reverses of Mastino.

   After the death of Eccelino, Verona, by its own choice came
   under the government of the first Mastino della Scala, who
   established the power of a house which became famous in
   Italian history. Mastino's grandson, Cane, or Can' Grande
   della Scala, "reigned in that city from 1312 to 1329, with a
   splendor which no other prince in Ita]y equalled. … Among the
   Lombard princes he was the first protector of literature and
   the arts. The best poets, painters, and sculptors of Italy,
   Dante, to whom he offered an asylum, as well as Uguccione da
   Faggiuola, and many other exiles illustrious in war or
   politics, were assembled at his court. He aspired to subdue
   the Veronese and Trevisan marches, or what has since been
   called the Terra Firma of Venice. He took possession of
   Vicenza; and afterwards maintained a long war against the
   republic of Padua, the most powerful in the district, and that
   which had shown the most attachment to the Guelph party and to
   liberty." In 1328, Padua submitted to him; and "the year
   following he attacked and took Treviso, which surrendered on
   the 6th of July, 1329. He possessed himself of Feltre and
   Cividale soon after. The whole province seemed subjugated to
   his power; but the conqueror also was subdued." He died on the
   22d of the same month in which Treviso was taken.

      J. C. L. de Sismondi,
      History of the Italian Republics,
      chapter 6.

   Can' Grande was succeeded by his nephew, the second Mastino
   della Scala, who, in the next six years, "extended his states
   from the northeastern frontiers of Italy to the confines of
   Tuscany; and the possession of the strong city of Lucca now
   gave him a secure footing in this province. He shortly made it
   appear to what purpose he meant to apply this new advantage.
   Under the plea of re-establishing the Ghibelin interests, but
   in reality to forward his own schemes of dominion, he began to
   fill all Tuscany with his machinations. Florence was neither
   slow to discover her danger, nor to resent the treachery of
   her faithless ally,"—which Mastino had recently been.
   Florence, according]y, formed an alliance with Venice, which
   Mastino had rashly offended by restricting the manufacture of
   salt on the Trevisan coast, and by laying heavy duties on the
   navigation of the Po. Florence agreed "to resign to Venice the
   sole possession of such conquests as might be made in that
   quarter; only reserving for herself the acquisition of Lucca,
   which she was to obtain by attacking Mastino in Tuscany,
   entirely with her own resources. Upon these terms an alliance
   was signed between the two republics, and the lord of Verona
   had soon abundant reason to repent of the pride and treachery
   by which he had provoked their formidable union (A. D. 1336).
   … During three campaigns he was unable to oppose the league in
   the field, and was compelled to witness the successive loss of
   many of his principal cities (A. D. 1337). His brother Albert
   was surprised and made prisoner in Padua, by the treachery of
   the family of Carrara, who acquired the sovereignty of that
   city; Feltro was captured by the Duke of Carinthia, Brescia
   revolted, and fell with other places to Azzo Visconti. … In
   this hopeless condition Mastino artfully addressed himself to
   the Venetians, and, by satisfying all their demands, detached
   them from the general interests of the coalition (A. D. 1338).
   By a separate treaty which their republic concluded with him,
   and which was then only communicated to the Florentines for
   their acceptance, Mastino ceded to Venice Treviso, with other
   fortresses and possessions, and the right of free navigation
   on the Po; he agreed at the same time to yield Bassano and an
   extension of territory to the new lord of Padua, and to
   confirm the sovereignty of Brescia to Azzo Visconti; but for
   the Florentine republic no farther advantage was stipulated
   than the enjoyment of a few castles which they had already
   conquered in Tuscany."

      G. Procter,
      History of Italy,
      chapter 4, part 3.

      ALSO IN:
      H. E. Napier,
      Florentine History,
      chapter 19 (volume 2).

{3621}

VERONA: A. D. 1351-1387.
   Degeneracy and fall of the Scaligeri.
   Subjugation by the Visconti of Milan.

      See MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447.

VERONA: A. D. 1405.
   Added to the dominion of Venice.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1402-1406.

VERONA: A. D. 1797.
   Massacre of French Soldiers.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (APRIL-MAY).

VERONA: A. D. 1814.
   Surrender to the Austrians.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1814.

   ----------VERONA: End--------

VERONA, The Congress of (after Troppau and Laybach).

   "The rapid spread of revolution in Europe inspired serious
   misgivings among the great powers, and impelled the Holy
   Alliance [see HOLY ALLIANCE] to show its true colours. Austria
   was especially alarmed by the movement in Naples [see ITALY:
   A. D. 1820-1821], which threatened to overthrow its power in
   Italy, and Metternich convoked a congress at Troppau, in Upper
   Silesia (October, 1820), at which Austria, Russia, Prussia,
   France and England were represented. Neapolitan affairs were
   the chief subject of discussion, and it was soon evident that
   Austria, Russia and Prussia were agreed as to the necessity of
   armed intervention. England made a formal protest against such
   high-handed treatment of a peaceful country; but as the
   protest was not supported by France, and England was not
   prepared to go to war for Naples, it was disregarded. The
   three allied powers decided to transfer the congress to
   Laybach and to invite Ferdinand I. to attend in person." The
   result of the conference at Laybach was a movement of 60,000
   Austrian troops into Naples and Sicily, in March, 1821, and a
   restoration of Ferdinand, who made a merciless use of his
   opportunity for revenge.

      R. Lodge,
      History of Modern Europe,
      chapter 25, section 8.

   From Laybach, the allied sovereigns issued a circular to their
   representatives at the various foreign courts, in which
   portentous document they declared that "useful and necessary
   changes in legislation and in the administration of states
   could only emanate from the free will, and from the
   intelligent and well-weighed convictions, of those whom God
   has made responsible for power. Penetrated with this eternal
   truth, the sovereigns have not hesitated to proclaim it with
   frankness and vigour. They have declared that, in respecting
   the rights and independence of legitimate power, they regarded
   as legally null, and disavowed by the principles which
   constituted the public right of Europe, all pretended reforms
   operated by revolt and open hostilities." "These principles,
   stated nakedly and without shame, were too much even for Lord
   Castlereagh. In a despatch, written early in the year 1821,
   while admitting the right of a state to interfere in the
   internal affairs of another state when its own interests were
   endangered, he protested against the pretension to put down
   revolutionary movements apart from their immediate bearing on
   the security of the state so intervening, and denied that
   merely possible revolutionary movements can properly be made
   the basis of a hostile alliance. The principles of the Holy
   Alliance were not intended to remain a dead letter; they were
   promptly acted upon. Popular movements were suppressed in
   Naples and Piedmont; and intervention in Spain, where the
   Cortes had been summoned and the despotic rule of Ferdinand
   VII. had been overthrown, was in contemplation. Greece
   imitated the example set in the western peninsulas of Europe.
   The Congress of Verona was summoned, and Lord Castlereagh (now
   the Marquis of Londonderry) was preparing to join it, when in
   an access of despondency, the origin of which is variously
   explained, he took his own life." He was succeeded in the
   British Ministry by Mr. Canning.

      F. H. Hill,
      George Canning,
      chapter 20.

   "The first business which presented itself to Mr. Cunning was
   to devise a system by which the Holy Alliance could be
   gradually dissolved, and England rescued from the consequences
   of her undefined relations with its members. The adjourned
   Congress was on the point of assembling at Verona, and as it
   was necessary to send a representative in place of Lord
   Castlereagh, who seems to have been terrified at the prospect
   that lay before him, the Duke of Wellington was selected, and
   dispatched without loss of time. … The very first blow he
   [Canning] struck in the Congress of Verona announced to the
   world the attitude which England was about to take, and her
   total denial of the rights of the Alliance to interfere with
   the internal affairs of any independent nation. It appeared
   that France had collected a large army in the south, and not
   having legitimate occupation for it, proposed to employ it in
   the invasion of Spain [see Spain: A. D. 1814-1827]. This
   monstrous project was submitted to Congress, and ardently
   approved of by Russia. It was now that England spoke out for
   the first time in this cabal of despots. … After some
   interchanges of notes and discussions agreed to by the allies,
   the British plenipotentiary, as he was instructed, refused all
   participation in these proceedings, and withdrew from the
   Congress. This was the first step that was taken to show the
   Alliance that England would not become a party to any act of
   unjust aggression or unjustifiable interference. A long
   correspondence ensued between Mr. Canning and M. de
   Chateaubriand. … The French king's speech, on opening the
   Chambers, revealed the real intentions of the government,
   which Mr. Canning had penetrated from the beginning. The
   speech was, in fact, a declaration of war against Spain,
   qualified by the slightest imaginable hypothesis. But, happily
   for all interests, there was no possibility of disguising the
   purpose of this war, which was plainly and avowedly to force
   upon the people of Spain such a constitution as the king (a
   Bourbon), in the exercise of his absolute authority, should
   think fit to give them. … Against this principle Mr. Canning
   entered a dignified protest. … Although he could not avert
   from Spain the calamity of a French invasion, he made it clear
   to all the world that England objected to that proceeding, and
   that she was no longer even to be suspected of favoring the
   designs of the Holy Alliance. The French army made the passage
   of the Bidassoa. From that moment Mr. Canning interfered no
   farther. He at once disclosed the system which he had already
   matured and resolved upon. Having first protested against the
   principle of the invasion, he determined to maintain the
   neutrality of England in the war that followed.
{3622}
   By this course he achieved the end he had in view, of severing
   England from the Holy Alliance without embroiling her in any
   consequent responsibilities. … Mr. Canning's 'system' of
   foreign policy, as described in his own language, resolved
   itself into this principle of action, that 'England should
   hold the balance, not only between contending nations, but
   between conflicting principles; that, in order to prevent
   things from going to extremities, she should keep a distinct
   middle ground, staying the plague both ways.' … The
   development of this principle, as it applied to nations, was
   illustrated in the strict but watchful neutrality observed
   between France and Spain; and, as it applied to principles, in
   the recognition of the independence of the Spanish-American
   colonies. The latter act may be regarded as the most important
   for which Mr. Canning was officially responsible, as that
   which exerted the widest and most distinct influence over the
   policy of other countries, and which most clearly and
   emphatically revealed the tendency of his own. It showed that
   England would recognize institutions raised up by the people,
   as well as those which were created by kings. It gave the
   death-blow to the Holy Alliance." The logic and meaning of Mr.
   Canning's recognition of the Spanish American republics found
   expression in one famous passage of a brilliant speech which
   he made in the House of Commons, December 12, 1826,
   vindicating his foreign policy. "If France," he said,
   "occupied Spain, was it necessary, in order to avoid the
   consequences of that occupation, that we should blockade
   Cadiz? No, I looked another way—I sought materials of
   compensation in another hemisphere. Contemplating Spain such
   as our ancestors had known her, I resolved that if France had
   Spain, it should not be Spain with the Indies. I called the
   New World into existence to redress the balance of the Old."

      R. Bell,
      Life of the Right Honourable George Canning,
      chapter 13.

      ALSO IN:
      F. H. Hill,
      George Canning,
      chapter 20.

      F. A. Châteaubriand,
      The Congress of Verona.

      Sir A. Alison,
      History of Europe, 1815-1852,
      chapters 8 and 12 (volume l,—American edition).

      S. Walpole,
      History of England,
      chapter 9 (volume 2).

VERRAZANO, Voyages of.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1523-1524.

   ----------VERSAILLES: Start--------

VERSAILLES.

   Louis XIV. "preferred Versailles to his other chateaux,
   because Fontainebleau, Chambord, Saint-Germain, were
   existences ready created, which Francois I. and Henri IV. had
   stamped with the ineffaceable imprint of their glory: at
   Versailles, everything was to be made, save the modest
   beginning left by Louis XIII. … At Versailles, everything was
   to be created, we say,—not only the monuments of art, but
   nature itself. This solitary elevation of ground, although
   pleasing enough through the woods and hills that surrounded
   it, was without great views, without sites, without waters,
   without inhabitants. … The sites would be created by creating
   an immense landscape by the hand of man; the waters would be
   brought from the whole country by works which appalled the
   imagination; the inhabitants would be caused, if we may say
   so, to spring from the earth, by erecting a whole city for the
   service of the chateau. Louis would thus make a city of his
   own, a form of his own, of which he alone would be the life.
   Versailles and the court would be the body and soul of one and
   the same being, both created for the same end, the
   glorification of the terrestrial God to whom they owed
   existence. … The same idea filled the interior of the palace.
   Painting deified Louis there under every form, in war and in
   peace, in the arts and in the administration of the empire; it
   celebrated his amours as his victories, his passions as his
   labors. All the heroes of antiquity, all the divinities of
   classic Olympus, rendered him homage or lent him their
   attributes in turn. He was Augustus, he was Titus, he was
   Alexander; he was thundering Jupiter, he was Hercules, the
   conqueror of monsters; oftener, Apollo, the inspirer of the
   Muses and the king of enlightenment. Mythology was no longer
   but a great enigma, to which the name of Louis was the only
   key; he was all the gods in himself alone. … Louis, always
   served in his desires by the fertility of his age, had found a
   third artist, Lenostre, to complete Lebrun and Mansart. Thanks
   to Lenostre, Louis, from the windows of his incomparable
   gallery of mirrors, saw nought that was not of his own
   creation. The whole horizon was his work, for his garden was
   the whole horizon. … Whole thickets were brought full-grown
   from the depths of the finest forests of France, and the arts
   of animating marble and of moving waters filled them with
   every prodigy of which the imagination could dream. An
   innumerable nation of statues peopled the thickets and lawns,
   was mirrored in the waters, or rose from the bosom of the
   wave. … Louis had done what he wished; he had created about
   him a little universe, in which he was the only necessary and
   almost the only real being. But terrestrial gods do not create
   with a word like the true God. These buildings which stretch
   across a frontage of twelve hundred yards, the unheard-of
   luxury of these endless apartments, this incredible multitude
   of objects of art, these forests transplanted, these waters of
   heaven gathered from all the slopes of the heights into the
   windings of immense conduits from Trappes and Palaiseau to
   Versailles, these waters of the Seine brought from Marly by
   gigantic machinery through that aqueduct which commands from
   afar the valley of the river like a superb Roman ruin, and
   later, an enterprise far more colossal! that river which was
   turned aside from its bed and which it was undertaken to bring
   thirty leagues to Versailles over hills and valleys, cost
   France grievous efforts and inexhaustible sweats, and
   swallowed up rivers of gold increasing from year to year. …
   Versailles has cost France dearly, very dearly; nevertheless
   it is important to historic truth to set aside in this respect
   too long accredited exaggerations. … The accounts, or at least
   the abstracts of the accounts, of the expenditures of Louis
   XIV. for building, during the greater part of his reign, have
   been discovered. The costs of the construction, decoration,
   and furnishing of Versailles, from 1664 to 1690, including the
   hydraulic works and the gardens, in addition to the
   appendages,—that is, Clagny, Trianon, Saint-Cyr, and the two
   churches of the new city of Versailles,—amount to about one
   hundred and seven millions, to which must be added a million,
   or a million and a half perhaps, for the expenses of the years
   1661-1663, the accounts of which are not known, and three
   million two hundred and sixty thousand francs for the
   sumptuous chapel, which was not built until 1699-1710.
{3623}
   The proportion of the mark to the franc having varied under
   Louis XIV., it is difficult to arrive at an exact reduction to
   the present currency. … The expenses of Versailles would
   represent to-day more than four hundred millions. This amount
   is enormous; but it is not monstrous like the twelve hundred
   millions of which Mirabeau speaks, nor, above all, madly
   fantastic like the four thousand six hundred millions imagined
   by Volney."

      H. Martin,
      History of France: Age of Louis XIV.,
      volume 1, chapter 3.

      ALSO IN:
      L. Ritchie,
      Versailles.

VERSAILLES: A. D. 1789.
   Opening scenes of the French Revolution.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (MAY), and after.

VERSAILLES: A. D. 1870.
   Headquarters of the German court and the army besieging Paris.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).

VERSAILLES: A. D. 1871.
   Assumption of the dignity of Emperor of Germany
   by King William of Prussia.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1871.

   ----------VERSAILLES: End--------

VERTERÆ.

   A Roman city in Britain, which probably occupied the site of
   the modern town of Brough, in Westmoreland, where many remains
   of the Romans have been found.

      T. Wright,
      Celt, Roman, and Saxon,
      chapter 5.

VERTURIONES, The.

   A name by which one of the Caledonian tribes was known to the
   Romans.

VERULAMIUM.
VERULAM.

   "The 'oppidum' of Cassivelaunus [the stronghold which Cæsar
   reduced on his second invasion of Britain] is generally
   believed to have been situated where the modern town of St.
   Alban's now stands [but the point is still in dispute]. An
   ancient ditch can still be traced surrounding a considerable
   area on the banks of the River Ver, from which the Roman town
   of Verulam [Verulamium] took its name. This town, which
   probably originated in the camp of Cæsar, grew into an
   important city in Roman times. It stands on the opposite side
   of the River Ver, and is still known for its Roman remains."

      H. M. Scarth,
      Roman Britain,
      chapter 2.

      See BRITAIN: B. C. 55-54.

VERVINS, Treaty of (1598).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1593-1598.

VESONTIO.

   Modern Besançon, in France; originally the largest of the
   towns of the Sequani.

      G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 4, chapter 2.

VESPASIAN, Roman Emperor, A. D. 69-79.

VESPUCIUS, Americus (or Amerigo Vespucci), The voyages of.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1497-1498; 1499-1500;
      1500-1514; 1503-1504.

      Also (in Supplement)
      AMERICA: THE ALLEGED FIRST VOYAGE OF VESPUCIUS.

VESTAL VIRGINS.

   "The Vestals ('virgines Vestales,' 'virgines Vestæ') were
   closely connected with the college of pontifices. They are
   said to have come from Alba soon after the foundation of Rome:
   at first there were two Vestals for each of the two tribes,
   Ramnes and Tities; afterwards two others were added for the
   Luceres, and the number of six was exceeded at no period. The
   vestal, on being chosen, was not allowed to be younger than
   six or older than ten years. … She was clad in white garments
   and devoted to the service of Vesta for thirty years. … After
   this period she was at liberty either to remain in the service
   of the goddess (which was generally done) or to return to her
   family and get married. Her dress was always white; round her
   forehead she wore a broad band like a diadem ('infula'), with
   ribbons ('vittæ') attached to it. During the sacrifice, or at
   processions, she was covered with a white veil. … She was
   carefully guarded against insult or temptation; an offence
   offered to her was punished with death; … in public everyone,
   even the consul, made way to the lictor preceding the maiden.
   At public games and pontifical banquets she had the seat of
   honour; and a convicted criminal accidentally meeting her was
   released. Amongst her priestly functions was the keeping of
   the eternal fire in the temple of Vesta, each Vestal taking
   her turn at watching. … Breach of chastity on the part of the
   Vestal was punished with death."

      E. Guhl and W. Koner,
      Life of the Greeks and Romans,
      section 103.

VESTINIANS, The.

      See SABINES.

VESUVIUS:
   Great eruption.
   Destruction of Pompeii and Herculaneum.

      See POMPEII.

VESUVIUS, Battle of (B. C. 338).

      See ROME: B. C. 339-338.

VETERA: A. D. 69.
   Siege and Massacre.

   The most important success achieved by the Batavian patriot,
   Civilis, in the revolt against the Romans which he led, A. D.
   69, was the siege and capture of Vetera,—a victory sullied by
   the faithless massacre of the garrison after they had
   capitulated.

      C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 58.

VETO, The Aragon.

      See CORTES, THE EARLY SPANISH.

VETO:
   The Polish Liberum Veto.

      See POLAND: A. D. 1578-1652.

VETO:
   Of the President of the United States.

      See CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES,
      Article I., Section 7.

VETTONES, The.

   A people who occupied the part of ancient Spain between the
   Tagus and the Upper Douro at the time of the Roman conquest
   of that country.

      T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 4, chapter 1.

VIA SACRA AT ROME, The.

   "The Via Sacra began at the Sacellum Streniæ, which was on the
   part of the Esquiline nearest to the Colosseum; on reaching
   the Summa Via Sacra … it turned a little to the right,
   descending the Clivus Sacer; at the foot of the slope it
   passed under the arch of Fabius, by the side of the Regia;
   thence it ran in a straight line, passing by the Basilica
   Æmilia, the arch of Janus, the Curia Hostilia, till it reached
   the foot of the Capitoline Hill, where, turning to the left,
   it ascended the Clivus Capitolinus, and reached its
   termination at the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus. The Via
   Sacra, as Ovid tells us, took its name from the sacred rites
   which were performed on it. Along this road passed the
   processions of priests with the sacred animals to be
   sacrificed at the altar of Jupiter Capitolinus. … Along this
   road also passed the triumphal processions of the victorious
   Roman generals. The procession entered Rome by the Porta
   Triumphalis, passed through the Circus Maximus, then, turning
   to the left, proceeded along the road at the foot of the
   southeast slope of the Palatine, when it joined the Via Sacra,
   and again turned to the left and ascended the Velia; on reaching
   the Summa Via Sacra it descended the Clivus Sacer, and then
   passed along the rest of the Via Sacra till it reached its
   destination at the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus, where the
   victorious general lay before the god the spoils of his
   conquests."

      H. M. Westropp,
      Early and Imperial Rome,
      page 121.

      ALSO IN:
      J. H. Parker,
      Archaeology of Rome,
      part 6.

{3624}

VICARS, or Vice-Præfects, of the Roman Empire.

      See DIOCESES OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE.

VICENZA: A. D. 1237.
   Pillage by Eccelino di Romano.

      See VERONA: A. D. 1236-1259.

VICKSBURG: A. D. 1862-1863.
   The defense, the siege and the capture.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (MAY-JULY: ON THE MISSISSIPPI),
      and (DECEMBER: ON THE MISSISSIPPI);
      1863 (JANUARY-APRIL: ON THE MISSISSIPPI):
      and 1863 (APRIL-JULY: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

VICTOR II., Pope, A. D. 1055-1057.

   Victor III., Pope, 1086-1087.

   Victor Amadeus, Duke of Savoy, 1630-1637.

   Victor Amadeus II.,
      Duke of Savoy, 1675-1730:
      King of Sicily, 1713-1720;
      King of Sardinia, 1720-1730.

   Victor Amadeus III.,
      Duke of Savoy and King of Sardinia, 1773-1796.

   Victor Emanuel I.,
      Duke of Savoy and King of Sardinia, 1802-1821.

   Victor Emanuel II.,
      King of Sardinia, 1849-1861;
      King of Italy, 1861-1878.

VICTORIA, Queen of England, A. D. 1837.

VICTORIA: A. D. 1837.
   The founding of the colony.

      See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1800-1840.

VICTORIA: A. D. 1850-1855.
   Separation from New South Wales.
   Discovery of gold.
   Adoption of a Constitution.

      See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1839-1855.

VICTORIA: A. D. 1862-1892.
   Comparative view.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION (AUSTRALIA): A. D. 1862-1892;
      and AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1890.

VICTORIA CROSS, The.

   An English naval and military decoration, instituted after the
   Crimean War, on the 29th of January, 1856, by the command of
   Queen Victoria.

VICUS.

   According to Niebuhr, the term "Vicus" in Roman
   topography—about which there has been much controversy—"means
   nothing else but a quarter or district [of the city] under the
   superintendence of its own police officer."

      B. G. Niebuhr,
      Lectures on Ancient Ethnography and Geography,
      volume 2, page 86.

      See, also, GENS.

VIDOMME.

      See GENEVA: A. D. 1504-1535.

   ----------VIENNA, Austria: Start--------

VIENNA, Austria: Origin of.

      See VINDOBONA.

VIENNA, Austria: 12th Century.
   Fortification and commercial advancement by the Austrian Dukes.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 805-1246.

VIENNA, Austria: A. D. 1485.
   Siege, capture, and occupation by Matthias of Hungary.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1471-1487.

VIENNA, Austria: A. D. 1529.
   Siege by the Turks.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1526-1567.

VIENNA, Austria: A. D. 1619.
   Threatened by the Bohemian army.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1618-1620.

VIENNA, Austria: A. D. 1645.
   Threatened by the Swedes.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.

VIENNA, Austria: A. D. 1683.
   Siege by the Turks.
   Deliverance by John Sobieski.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1668-1683.

VIENNA, Austria: A. D. 1805.
   Surrendered to Napoleon.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1805 (MARCH-DECEMBER).

VIENNA, Austria: A. D. 1809.
   Capitulation to Napoleon.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JANUARY-JUNE).

VIENNA, Austria: A. D. 1848.
   Revolutionary riots.
   Bombardment of the city.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

VIENNA, The Congress of.

   "At the end of September [1814] the centre of European
   interest passed to Vienna. The great council of the Powers, so
   long delayed, was at length assembled. The Czar of Russia, the
   Kings of Prussia, Denmark, Bavaria, and Würtemberg, and nearly
   all the statesmen of eminence in Europe, gathered round the
   Emperor Francis and his Minister, Metternich, to whom by
   common consent the presidency of the Congress was offered.
   Lord Castlereagh represented England, and Talleyrand France.
   Rasumoffsky and other Russian diplomatists acted under the
   immediate directions of their master, who on some occasions
   even entered into personal correspondence with the Ministers
   of the other Powers. Hardenberg stood in a somewhat freer
   relation to King Frederick William: Stein was present, but
   without official place. The subordinate envoys and attaches of
   the greater Courts, added to a host of petty princes and the
   representatives who came from the minor Powers, or from
   communities which had ceased to possess any political
   existence at all, crowded Vienna. In order to relieve the
   antagonisms which had already come too clearly into view,
   Metternich determined to entertain his visitors in the most
   magnificent fashion; and although the Austrian State was
   bankrupt, and in some districts the people were severely
   suffering, a sum of about £10,000 a day was for some time
   devoted to this purpose. The splendour and the gaieties of
   Metternich were emulated by his guests. … The Congress had
   need of its distractions, for the difficulties which faced it
   were so great that, even after the arrival of the Sovereigns,
   it was found necessary to postpone the opening of the regular
   sittings until November. By the secret articles of the Peace
   of Paris, the Allies had reserved to themselves the disposal
   of all vacant territory, although their conclusions required
   to be formally sanctioned by the Congress at large. The
   Ministers of Austria, England, Prussia, and Russia accordingly
   determined at the outset to decide upon all territorial
   questions among themselves, and only after their decisions
   were completely formed to submit them to France and the other
   Powers. Talleyrand, on hearing of this arrangement, protested
   that France itself was now one of the Allies, and demanded
   that the whole body of European States should at once meet in
   open Congress. The four Courts held to their determination,
   and began their preliminary sittings without Talleyrand. But
   the French statesman had, under the form of a paradox, really
   stated the true political situation. The greater Powers were
   so deeply divided in their aims that their old bond of common
   interest, the interest of union against France, was now less
   powerful than the impulse that made them seek the support of
   France against one another.
{3625}
   Two men had come to the Congress with a definite aim:
   Alexander had resolved to gain the Duchy of Warsaw, and to
   form it, with or without some part of Russian Poland, into a
   Polish kingdom, attached to his own crown: Talleyrand had
   determined, either on the question of Poland, or on the
   question of Saxony, which arose out of it, to break allied
   Europe into halves, and to range France by the side of two of
   the great Powers against the two others. The course of events
   favoured for a while the design of the Minister: Talleyrand
   himself prosecuted his plan with an ability which, but for the
   untimely return of Napoleon from Elba, would have left France,
   without a war, the arbiter and the leading Power of Europe.
   Since the Russian victories of 1812, the Emperor Alexander had
   made no secret of his intention to restore a Polish Kingdom
   and a Polish nationality. Like many other designs of this
   prince, the project combined a keen desire for personal
   glorification with a real generosity of feeling. Alexander was
   thoroughly sincere in his wish not only to make the Poles
   again a people, but to give them a Parliament and a free
   Constitution. The King of Poland, however, was to be no
   independent prince, but Alexander himself: although the Duchy
   of Warsaw, the chief if not the sole component of the proposed
   new kingdom, had belonged to Austria and Prussia after the
   last partition of Poland, and extended into the heart of the
   Prussian monarchy. Alexander insisted on his anxiety to atone
   for the crime of Catherine in dismembering Poland: the
   atonement, however, was to be made at the sole cost of those
   whom Catherine had allowed to share the booty. Among the other
   Governments, the Ministry of Great Britain would gladly have
   seen a Polish State established in a really independent form;
   failing this, it desired that the Duchy of Warsaw should be
   divided, as formerly, between Austria and Prussia. Metternich
   was anxious that the fortress of Cracow at any rate should not
   fall into the hands of the Czar. Stein and Hardenberg, and
   even Alexander's own Russian counsellors, earnestly opposed
   the Czar's project, not only on account of the claims of
   Prussia on Warsaw, but from dread of the agitation likely to
   be produced by a Polish Parliament among all Poles outside the
   new State. King Frederick William, however, was unaccustomed
   to dispute the wishes of his ally; and the Czar's offer of
   Saxony in substitution for Warsaw gave to the Prussian
   Ministers, who were more in earnest than their master, at
   least the prospect of receiving a valuable equivalent for what
   they might surrender. By the treaty of Kalisch, made when
   Prussia united its arms with those of Russia against Napoleon
   (February 27th, 1813), the Czar had undertaken to restore the
   Prussian monarchy to an extent equal to that which it had
   possessed in 1805. It was known before the opening of the
   Congress that the Czar proposed to do this by handing over to
   King Frederick William the whole of Saxony, whose Sovereign,
   unlike his colleagues in the Rhenish Confederacy, had
   supported Napoleon up to his final overthrow at Leipzig. Since
   that time the King of Saxony had been held a prisoner, and his
   dominions had been occupied by the Allies. The Saxon question
   had thus already gained the attention of all the European
   Governments. … Talleyrand alone made the defence of the King
   of Saxony the very centre of his policy, and subordinated all
   other aims to this. His instructions, like those of
   Castlereagh, gave priority to the Polish question; but
   Talleyrand saw that Saxony, not Poland, was the lever by which
   he could throw half of Europe on to the side of France; and
   before the four Allied Courts had come to any single
   conclusion, the French statesman had succeeded, on what at
   first passed for a subordinate point, in breaking up their
   concert. For a while the Ministers of Austria, Prussia, and
   England appeared to be acting in harmony; and throughout the
   month of October all three endeavoured to shake the purpose of
   Alexander regarding Warsaw. Talleyrand, however, foresaw that
   the efforts of Prussia in this direction would not last very
   long, and he wrote to Louis XVIII. asking for his permission
   to make a definite offer of armed assistance to Austria in
   case of need. Events took the turn which Talleyrand expected.
   … He had isolated Russia and Prussia, and had drawn to his own
   side not only England and Austria but the whole body of the
   minor German States. … On the 3rd of January, 1815, after a
   rash threat of war uttered by Hardenberg, a secret treaty was
   signed by the representatives of France, England, and Austria,
   pledging these Powers to take the field, if necessary, against
   Russia and Prussia in defence of the principles of the Peace
   of Paris. The plan of the campaign was drawn up, the number of
   the forces fixed. Bavaria had already armed; Piedmont,
   Hanover, and even the Ottoman Porte, were named as future
   members of the alliance. It would perhaps be unfair to the
   French Minister to believe that he actually desired to kindle
   a war on this gigantic scale. Talleyrand had not, like
   Napoleon, a love for war for its own sake. His object was
   rather to raise France from its position as a conquered and
   isolated Power; to surround it with allies. … The conclusion
   of the secret treaty of January 3rd marked the definite
   success of his plans. France was forthwith admitted into the
   council hitherto known as that of the Four Courts, and from
   this time its influence visibly affected the action of Russia
   and Prussia, reports of the secret treaty having reached the
   Czar immediately after its signature. The spirit of compromise
   now began to animate the Congress. Alexander had already won a
   virtual decision in his favour on the Polish question, but he
   abated something of his claims, and while gaining the lion's
   share of the Duchy of Warsaw, he ultimately consented that
   Cracow, which threatened the Austrian frontier, should be
   formed into an independent Republic, and that Prussia should
   receive the fortresses of Dantzic and Thorn on the Vistula,
   with the district lying between Thorn and the border of
   Silesia. This was little for Alexander to abandon; on the
   Saxon question the allies of Talleyrand gained most that they
   demanded. The King of Saxony was restored to his throne, and
   permitted to retain Dresden and about half of his dominions.
   Prussia received the remainder. In lieu of a further expansion
   in Saxony, Prussia was awarded territory on the left bank of
   the Rhine, which, with its recovered Westphalian provinces,
   restored the monarchy to an area and population equal to that
   which it had possessed in 1805. But the dominion given to
   Prussia beyond the Rhine, though considered at the time to be
   a poor equivalent for the second half of Saxony, was in
   reality a gift of far greater value.
{3626}
   It made Prussia, in defence of its own soil, the guardian and
   bulwark of Germany against France. … It gave to Prussia
   something more in common with Bavaria and the South, and
   qualified it, as it had not been qualified before, for its
   future task of uniting Germany under its own leadership. The
   Polish and Saxon difficulties, which had threatened the peace
   of Europe, were virtually settled before the end of the month
   of January."

      C. A. Fyffe,
      History of Modern Europe,
      volume 2, chapter 1.

   "Prussia obtained Posen with the town of Thorn in the east,
   and in the west all that had been lost by the treaty of
   Tilsit, the duchies of Jülich and Berg, the old electoral
   territories of Cologne and Trier with the city of Aachen, and
   parts of Luxemburg and Limburg. Russia received the whole of
   the grand-duchy of Warsaw except Posen and Thorn, and
   Alexander fulfilled his promises to the Poles by granting them
   a liberal constitution. … Swedish Pomerania had been ceded by
   the treaty of Kiel to Denmark, but had long been coveted by
   Prussia. The Danish claims were bought off with two million
   thalers and the duchy of Lauenburg, but Hanover had to be
   compensated for the latter by the cession of the devotedly
   loyal province of East Friesland, one of the acquisitions of
   Frederick the Great. Hanover, which now assumed the rank of a
   kingdom without opposition, was also aggrandised by the
   acquisition of Hildesheim, Goslar, and other small districts.
   Austria was naturally one of the great gainers by the
   Congress. Eastern Galicia was restored by Russia, and the
   Tyrol, Salzburg, and the Inn district by Bavaria. As
   compensation for the Netherlands, Venetia and Lombardy became
   Austrian provinces. Bavaria, in return for its losses in the
   east, received Würzburg, Aschaffenburg, and its former
   possessions in the Palatinate. Long discussions took place
   about the constitution to be given to Germany, and here the
   hopes of the national party were doomed to bitter
   disappointment. … Finally a Confederation was formed which
   secured the semblance of unity, but gave almost complete
   independence to the separate states.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1814-1820.

   The members numbered thirty-eight, and included the four
   remaining free cities, Frankfort, Hamburg, Lübeck, and Bremen,
   and the kings of Denmark and the Netherlands. … In Italy the
   same process of restoration and subdivision was carried out.
   Victor Emmanuel I. recovered his kingdom of Sardinia, with the
   addition of Genoa as compensation for the portion of Savoy
   which France retained. Modena was given to a Hapsburg prince,
   Francis IV., son of the archduke Ferdinand, and Beatrice the
   heiress of the house of Este. Tuscany was restored to
   Ferdinand III., a brother of the Austrian Emperor. Charles
   Louis, son of the Bourbon king of Etruria, was compensated
   with Lucca and a promise of the succession in the duchy of
   Parma, which was for the time given to Napoleon's wife, Maria
   Louisa. Pius VII. had already returned to Rome, and the Papal
   states now recovered their old extent. But Pius refused at
   first to accept these terms because he was deprived of Avignon
   and the Venaissin, and because Austrian garrisons were in
   occupation of Ferrara and Comacchio. Naples was left for a
   time in the hands of Joachim Murat, as a reward for his
   desertion of Napoleon after the battle of Leipzig. Switzerland
   was declared independent and neutral, but its feudal unity was
   loosened by a new constitution (August, 1815). The number of
   cantons were raised to twenty-two by the addition of Geneva,
   Wallis (Vallais), and Neufchâtel the last under Prussian
   suzerainty. The position of capital was to be enjoyed in
   rotation by Berne, Zurich, and Lucerne. The kingdom of the
   Netherlands was formed for the house of Orange by the union of
   Holland and Belgium and the addition of Luxemburg, which made
   the king a member of the German Confederation. The professed
   object of this artificial union of Catholics and Protestants
   was the erection of a strong bulwark against French
   aggressions."

      R. Lodge,
      History of Modern Europe,
      chapter 24, section 52.

      ALSO IN:
      E. Hertslet,
      The Map of Europe by Treaty,
      volume 1, number 27.

      Prince Talleyrand,
      Memoirs,
      part 8 (volume 2).

      Prince Talleyrand,
      Correspondence with Louis XVIII.
      during the Congress of Vienna.

      Prince Metternich,
      Memoirs,
      volume 2, pages 553-599.

      J. R. Seeley,
      Life and Times of Stein,
      part 8 (volume 3).

      Sir A. Alison,
      History of Europe, 1789-1815,
      chapter 92 (volume 19).

VIENNA, Imperial Library of.

      See LIBRARIES, MODERN: EUROPE.

VIENNA,
   Treaty of (1725).

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725.

   Treaty of (1735).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735.

   Treaty of (1864).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1861-1866.

VIENNE, OR VIENNA, on the Rhone.

   Vienne, on the Rhone, was the chief town of the Allobroges in
   ancient times,—subsequently made a Roman colony. It was from
   Vienne that Lugdunum (Lyons) was originally colonized.

VIENNE on the Rhone: A. D. 500.
   Under the Burgundians.

      See BURGUNDIANS: A. D. 500.

VIENNE on the Rhone: 11th Century.
   Founding of the Dauphiny.

      See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1032.

VIENNE on the Rhone: A. D. 1349.
   The appanage of the Dauphins of France.

      See DAUPHINS;
      also, BURGUNDY: A. D. 1127-1378.

VIGILANCE COMMITTEE OF SAN FRANCISCO, The.

      See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1856.

VIGO BAY, The Destruction of Spanish treasure ships in.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1702.

VIKINGS.

      See NORMANS.—NORTHMEN: 8-9TH CENTURIES.

VILAGOS, Hungarian surrender at (1849).

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

VILLA VICIOSA,
VILLA VIÇOSA, Battle of (1665).

      See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1637-1668.

VILLA VICIOSA: Battle of (1710).

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1707-1710.

VILLAFRANCA. Peace of.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859; and 1859-1861.

VILLALAR, Battle of (1521).

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1518-1522.

VILLEIN TAX, OR TAILLE.

      See TAILLE AND GABELLE.

VILLEINAGE. Tenure in.

      See FEUDAL TENURES; and MANORS.

VILLEINS.
VILLANI.

      See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL AND MODERN (ESPECIALLY UNDER ENGLAND);
      also, DEDITITIUS.

VILLERSEXEL, Battle of (1871).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1870-1871.

VILLMERGEN, Battles of(1656, 1712, and 1841).

      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1652-1789: and 1803-1848.

{3627}

VIMIERO, Battle of (1808).

      See SPAIN: A. D.: 1808-1809 (AUGUST-JANUARY).

VIMINAL, The.

      See SEVEN HILLS OF ROME.

VIMORY, Battle of (1587).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1584-1589.

VINCENNES, Indiana: A. D. 1735.
   Founded by the French.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1700-1735.

VINCENNES, Indiana: A. D. 1778-1779.
   Taken and retaken from the British by
   the Virginian General Clark.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778-1779
      CLARK'S CONQUEST.

VINCENTIAN CONGREGATION, The.

      See LAZARISTS.

VINCI, Battle of (A. D. 717).

      See FRANKS: A. D. 511-752.

VINDALIUM, Battle at (B. C. 121).

      See ALLOBROGES, CONQUEST OF THE.

VINDELICIANS, The.

      See RHÆTIA.

VINDOBONA.

   Vindobona, modern Vienna, on the Danube, originally a town of
   the Celts, in Pannonia, became a Roman military and naval
   station and a frontier city of importance. Marcus Aurelius
   died at Vindobona, A. D. 180.

VINEÆ.

   The vineæ of Roman siege operations were "covered galleries,
   constructed of wicker work (vimina) generally, and sometimes
   of wood, for the purpose of covering the approach of the
   besiegers."

      G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 4, chapter 3, foot-note.

VINLAND.

      See AMERICA: 10-11TH CENTURIES.

VIONVILLE, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (JULY-AUGUST).

VIRCHOW, and Cellular Pathology.

      See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 19TH CENTURY.

VIRGATE.

      See HIDE OF LAND;
      also, MANORS.

   ----------VIRGINIA: Start--------

VIRGINIA.
   The aboriginal inhabitants.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES, POWHATAN CONFEDERACY,
      ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, IROQUOIS TRIBES OF THE SOUTH,
      and CHEROKEES.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1584.

   The name given first to Raleigh's Roanoke settlement,
   on the Carolina coast.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1584-1586.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1606-1607.
   The Virginia Company of London and its charter.
   The colony planted at Jamestown.

   "The colonization of the North American coast had now become
   part of the avowed policy of the British government. In 1606 a
   great joint-stock company was formed for the establishment of
   two colonies in America. The branch which was to take charge
   of the proposed southern colony had its headquarters in
   London; the management of the northern branch was at Plymouth
   in Devonshire. Hence the two branches are commonly spoken of
   as the London and Plymouth Companies. The former was also
   called the Virginia Company, and the latter the North Virginia
   Company, as the name of Virginia was then loosely applied to
   the entire Atlantic coast north of Florida. The London Company
   had jurisdiction from 34° to 38° north latitude; the Plymouth
   Company had jurisdiction from 45° down to 41°; the intervening
   territory, between 38° and 41° was to go to whichever company
   should first plant a self-supporting colony."

      J. Fiske,
      The Beginnings of New England,
      chapter 2.

   "The charter for colonizing the great central territory of the
   North American continent, which was to be the chosen abode of
   liberty, gave to the mercantile corporation nothing but a
   wilderness, with the right of peopling and defending it. By an
   extension of the prerogative, which was in itself illegal, the
   monarch assumed absolute legislative as well as executive
   powers. … The general superintendence was confided to a
   council in England; the local administration of each colony to
   a resident council. The members of the superior council in
   England were appointed exclusively by the king, and were to
   hold office at his good pleasure. Their authority extended to
   both colonies, which jointly took the name of Virginia. Each
   of the two was to have its own resident council, of which the
   members were from time to time to be ordained and removed
   according to the instructions of the king. To the king,
   moreover, was reserved supreme legislative authority over the
   several colonies, extending to their general condition and the
   most minute regulation of their affairs. … The summer was
   spent in preparations for planting the first colony, for which
   the king found a grateful occupation in framing a code of
   laws. The superior council in England was permitted to name
   the colonial council, which was independent of the emigrants,
   and had power to elect or remove its president, to remove any
   of its members, and to supply its own vacancies. Not an
   element of popular liberty or control was introduced. Religion
   was established according to the doctrine and rites of the
   church within the realm. … Then, on the 19th day of December,
   in the year of our Lord 1606, one hundred and nine years after
   the discovery of the American continent by Cabot, forty-one
   years from the settlement of Florida, the squadron of three
   vessels, the largest not exceeding 100 tons' burden, with the
   favor of all England, stretched their sails for 'the dear
   strand of Virginia, earth's only paradise.' … The enterprise
   was ill concerted. Of the 105 on the list of emigrants, there
   were but 12 laborers and few mechanics. They were going to a
   wilderness, in which, as yet, not a house was standing; and
   there were 48 gentlemen to 4 carpenters. Neither were there
   any men with families. Newport, who commanded the ships, was
   acquainted with the old passage, and sailed by way of the
   Canaries and the West India Islands. As he turned to the
   north, a severe storm, in April, 1607, carried his fleet
   beyond the settlement of Raleigh, into the magnificent bay of
   the Chesapeake. The headlands received and retain the names of
   Cape Henry and Cape Charles, from the sons of King James; the
   deep water for anchorage, 'putting the emigrants in good
   Comfort,' gave a name to the northern point; and within the
   capes a country opened which appeared to 'claim the
   prerogative over the most pleasant places in the world.' … A
   noble river was soon entered, which was named from the
   monarch; and, after a search of seventeen days, … on the 13th
   of May they reached a peninsula about 50 miles above the mouth
   of the stream, where the water near the shore was so very deep
   that the ships were moored to trees.
{3628}
   Here the council, except Smith, who for no reason unless it
   were jealousy of his superior energy was for nearly a month
   kept out of his seat, took the oath of office, and the
   majority elected Edward Maria Wingfield president for the
   coming year. Contrary to the earnest and persistent advice of
   Bartholomew Gosnold, the peninsula was selected for the site
   of the colony, and took the name of Jamestown."

      G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States,
      part 1, chapter 6 (volume 1).

      ALSO IN:
      E. D. Neill,
      History of the Virginia Company of London,
      chapter 1,
      and Virginia Vetusta,
      chapters 1-2.

      J. Burk,
      History of Virginia,
      volume 1, chapter 3.

      E. M. Wingfield,
      Discourse of Virginia,
      edited by C. Deane (Archœologia Americana, volume 4).

      H. W. Preston,
      Documents Illustrative of American History,
      page 1.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1607-1610.
   The settlement at Jamestown and the services
   of Captain John Smith.

   "Among the leaders of the expedition were Gosnold, the voyager
   and discoverer, and a prime mover in the affair; Wingfield,
   one of the first-named patentees, John Smith, Ratcliffe,
   Martin, Kendall, and Percy. Of these men John Smith has become
   famous. He has taken place among the founders of states, and a
   romantic interest has attached itself to his name. For
   centuries his character and deeds have been applauded, while
   in late years they have become a theme for censure and
   detraction. Modern investigation has relentlessly swept a way
   the romance, and torn in pieces many of the long accepted
   narratives in which Smith recorded his own achievements. Yet
   it was not wholly by a false and fluent pen that Smith
   obtained and held his reputation. He was something more than a
   plausible writer of fiction. He was the strongest and most
   representative man among the Virginian colonists. … With this
   hopeful company Newport left the Downs on the 1st of January,
   1607. The worthy Richard Hakluyt sent them a paper containing
   much good advice and some ingenious geographical speculations,
   and Drayton celebrated their departure in clumsy verses filled
   with high-flown compliments. The advice of the priest and the
   praise of the poet were alike wasted. By an arrangement
   ingeniously contrived to promote discord, devised probably by
   royal sagacity, the box containing the names of the council
   was not to be opened until the voyagers reached their
   destination. Dissension broke out almost immediately. Whatever
   the merits of the differences, this much is certain, that
   Smith was the object of the concentrated jealousy and hatred
   of his companions. … On the 13th of May, 1607, the settlers
   landed at Jamestown, sent out exploring parties, and began
   fortifications. A fortnight later, under the command of
   Wingfield, they repulsed an attack by the Indians; and on the
   22d of June Newport sailed for England, and left them to their
   own resources. The prospect must have been a dreary one:
   nothing answered to their expectations. Instead of valuable
   mines, the adventurers found only a most fertile soil; instead
   of timid, trusting South American Indians, they encountered
   wild tribes of hardy, crafty, and hostile savages; instead of
   rich, defenceless, and barbarian cities, an easy and splendid
   spoil, they found a wilderness, and the necessity of hard
   work. From the miserable character of the settlers, dangerous
   factions prevailed from the first, until Smith obtained
   control, and maintained some sort of order—despotically,
   perhaps, but still effectually. No one would work, and famine
   and the Indians preyed upon them mercilessly. A small fort and
   a few wretched huts, built after much quarrelling, represented
   for many months all that was accomplished. The only relief
   from this dark picture of incompetent men perishing, without
   achievement, and by their own folly, on the threshold of a
   great undertaking, is to be found in the conduct of Smith.
   Despite almost insurmountable obstacles, Smith kept the colony
   together for two years. He drilled the soldiers, compelled
   labor, repaired the fort, traded with the Indians, outwitted
   them and kept their friendship, and made long and daring
   voyages of discovery. He failed to send home a lump of gold,
   but he did send an excellent map of the Company's territory.
   He did not discover the passage to the South Sea, but he
   explored the great bays and rivers of Virginia. He did not
   find Raleigh's lost colonists, but he managed to keep his own
   from total destruction. The great result of all Smith's
   efforts was the character of permanency he gave to the
   settlement. Because he succeeded in maintaining an English
   colony for two consecutive years in America, the London
   Company had courage to proceed; and this is what constitutes
   Smith's strongest claim to the admiration and gratitude of
   posterity. To suppose that he had the qualities of a founder
   of a state is a mistake, although in some measure he did the
   work of one. … His veracity as a historian in the later years
   of his life has been well-nigh destroyed. But little faith can
   be placed in the 'Generall Historie,' and modern investigation
   has conclusively relegated to the region of legend and of
   fiction the dramatic story of Smith's rescue by Pocahontas.
   The shadow of doubt rests upon all his unsupported statements;
   but nothing can obscure his great services, to which the world
   owes the foundation of the first English colony in America.
   Yet, after all his struggles, Smith was severely blamed by the
   Company, apparently because Virginia was not Peru. In a manly
   letter he sets forth the defects of the colony, the need of
   good men with families, industrious tradesmen and farmers, not
   'poor gentlemen and libertines.' Before, however, the actual
   orders came to supersede him, Smith resigned, or was forced
   out of the government, and returned to England. The feeble
   life of the colony wasted fast after his departure and during
   the sickness of Percy, who succeeded to the command."

      H. C. Lodge,
      Short History of the English Colonies in America,
      chapter 1.

      ALSO IN:
      Captain John Smith,
      General Historie of Virginia,
      books 2-3.

      J. Ashton,
      Adventures and Discoveries of Captain John Smith,
      newly ordered,
      chapters 6-21.

      W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,
      Popular History of the United States,
      volume 1, chapter 11.

      E. Eggleston and L. E. Seelye,
      Pocahontas.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1609-1616.
   The new Charter.
   The colony taking root.
   Introduction of Tobacco culture.

   "The prospects of the colony were so discouraging at the
   beginning of the year 1609, that, in the hope of improving
   them, the Company applied for a new charter with enlarged
   privileges. This was granted to them, on the 23d of May, under
   the corporate name of 'The Treasurer and Company of Adventurers
   and Planters of the City of London for the first Colony in
   Virginia.'
{3629}
   The new Association, which embraced representatives of every
   rank, trade, and profession, included twenty-one peers, and
   its list of names presents an imposing array of wealth and
   influence. By this charter Virginia was greatly enlarged, and
   made to comprise the coast-line and all islands within 100
   miles of it,—200 miles north and 200 south of Point
   Comfort,—with all the territory within parallel lines thus
   distant and extending to the Pacific boundary; the Company was
   empowered to choose the Supreme Council in England, and, under
   the instructions and regulations of the last, the Governor was
   invested with absolute civil and military authority. … Thomas
   West (Lord Delaware), the descendant of a long line of noble
   ancestry, received the appointment of Governor and
   Captain-General of Virginia. The first expedition under the
   second charter, which was on a grander scale than any
   preceding it, and which consisted of nine vessels, sailed from
   Plymouth on the 1st of June, 1609. Newport, the commander of
   the fleet, Sir Thomas Gates, Lieutenant-General, and Sir
   George Somers, Admiral of Virginia, were severally authorized,
   whichever of them might first arrive at Jamestown, to
   supersede the existing administration there until the arrival
   of Lord Delaware, who was to embark some months later; but not
   being able to settle the point of precedency among themselves,
   they embarked together in the same vessel, which carried also
   the wife and daughters of Gates. … On the 23d of July the
   fleet was caught in a hurricane; a small vessel was lost,
   others damaged, and the 'Sea Venture,' which carried Gates,
   Somers, and Newport, with about 150 settlers, was cast ashore
   on the Bermudas. … Early in August the 'Blessing,' Captain
   Archer, and three other vessels of the delayed fleet sailed up
   James River, and soon after the 'Diamond,' Captain Ratcliffe,
   appeared, without her mainmast, and she was followed in a few
   days by the 'Swallow,' in like condition. The Council being
   all dead save Smith, he, obtaining the sympathy of the
   sailors, refused to surrender the government of the colony;
   and the newly arrived settlers elected Francis West, the
   brother of Lord Delaware, as temporary president. The term of
   Smith expiring soon after, George Percy—one of the original
   settlers, a brother of the Earl of Northumberland, and a brave
   and honorable man—was elected president. … Smith, about
   Michaelmas (September 29), departed for England, or, as all
   contemporary accounts other than his own state, was sent
   thither 'to answer some misdemeanors.' These were doubtless of
   a venial character; but the important services of Smith in the
   sustenance of the colony appear not to have been as highly
   esteemed by the Company as by Smith himself. He complains that
   his several petitions for reward were disregarded, and he
   never returned to Virginia. … At the time of his departure for
   England he left at Jamestown three ships, seven boats, a good
   stock of provisions, nearly 500 settlers, 20 pieces of cannon,
   300 guns, with fishing-nets, working-tools, horses, cattle,
   swine, etc. Jamestown was strongly fortified with palisades,
   and contained between fifty and sixty houses. … No effort by
   tillage being made to replenish their provisions, the stock
   was soon consumed, and the horrors of famine were added to
   other calamities. The intense sufferings of the colonists were
   long remembered, and this period is referred to as 'the
   starving time.' In six months their number was reduced to 60,
   and such was the extremity of these that they must soon have
   perished but for speedy succor. The passengers of the wrecked
   'Sea Venture,' though mourned for as lost, had effected a safe
   landing at the Bermudas, where, favored by the tropical
   productions of the islands, they, under the direction of Gates
   and Somers, constructed for their deliverance two vessels from
   the materials of the wreck and cedar-wood, the largest of the
   vessels being of 80 tons burden. … Six of the company,
   including the wife of Sir Thomas Gates, died on the island.
   The company of 140 men and women embarked on the completed
   vessels—which were appropriately named the 'Patience' and the
   'Deliverance'—on the 10th of May, 1610, and on the 23d they
   landed at Jamestown. … So forlorn was the condition of the
   settlement that Gates reluctantly resolved to abandon it." The
   whole colony was accordingly embarked and was under sail down
   the river, when it met a fleet of three vessels, bringing
   supplies and new settlers from England, with Lord Delaware,
   who had resolved to come out in person, as Governor and
   Captain-General of Virginia. Gates and his disheartened
   companions turned back with these new comers, and all were set
   vigorously at work to restore the settlement. "The
   administration of Delaware, though ludicrously ostentatious
   for so insignificant a dominion, was yet highly wholesome, and
   under his judicious discipline the settlement was restored to
   order and contentment." His health failing, Lord Delaware
   returned to England the following spring, whither Sir Thomas
   Gates had gone. Sir Thomas Dale had already been sent out with
   the appointment of high marshal, bearing a code of
   extraordinary laws which practically placed the colony under
   martial rule. Gates returned in June, 1611, with 300
   additional settlers and a considerable stock of cows and other
   cattle. During that year and the next several new settlements
   were founded, at Dutch Gap, Henrico, and Bermuda Hundred,
   individual grants of property began to be made, and many signs
   of prosperity appeared. The year 1612 "was a marked one, in
   the inauguration by John Rolfe [who married Pocahontas two
   years later, having lost his first wife] of the systematic
   culture of tobacco,—a staple destined to exert a controlling
   influence in the future welfare and progress of the colony,
   and soon, by the paramount profit yielded by its culture, to
   subordinate all other interests, agricultural as well as
   manufacturing." In the spring of 1613, Sir Thomas Gates left
   the colony, finally, returning to England, and the government
   fell to the hands of Dale, who remained at the head until
   1616.

      R. A. Brock,
      Virginia, 1606-1689
      (Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 3, chapter 5).

      ALSO IN:
      W. Stith,
      History of Virginia,
      book. 3.

      J. H. Lefroy,
      Memorials of the Discovery and Early Settlement
      of the Bermudas,
      volume 1, chapter 1.

      J. E. Cooke,
      Virginia,
      chapters 13-16.

      H. W. Preston,
      Documents Illustrative of American History,
      page 14.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1613.
   The French settlements in Acadia destroyed by Argall
   and the Dutch at New York forced to promise tribute.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1610-1613;
      and NEW YORK: A. D. 1610-1614.

{3630}

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1617-1619.
   The evil days of Argall, and the better
   administration that followed.
   Meeting of the first provincial Assembly.

   "A party of greedy and unprincipled adventurers headed by Lord
   Rich, soon after the Earl of Warwick, acquired sufficient
   influence in the Company to nominate a creature of their own
   as Deputy-Governor. Their choice of Argall [Samuel Argall]
   would in itself have tainted their policy with suspicion.
   Whether dealing with the Indians, the French, or the Dutch, he
   had shown himself able, resolute, and unscrupulous.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1610-1613;
      and NEW YORK: A. D. 1610-1614.

   To do him justice, he seems at least to have understood the
   principle of Tiberius, that a shepherd should shear his sheep,
   not flay them. His first measure was to provide a sufficient
   supply of corn for the maintenance of the colony. With that he
   appeared to think that his duty to the settlers was at end. …
   An event soon occurred which released Argall from the fear of
   a superior, and probably emboldened him in his evil courses.
   Lord Delaware, who had sailed in a large vessel with 200
   emigrants," died on the voyage. "Argall now began to show that
   his care for the well-being of the colony was no better than
   the charity of the cannibal who feeds up his prisoner before
   making a meal on him. Trade with the Indians was withheld from
   individuals, but, instead of being turned to the benefit of
   the Company, it was appropriated by Argall. The planters were
   treated as a slave-gang working for the Deputy's own private
   profit. The Company's cattle were sold, and the proceeds never
   accounted for. During this time a great change had come over
   the Company at home. An energetic and public-spirited party
   had been formed, opposed alike to Sir Thomas Smith and to Lord
   Rich. Their leader was Sir Edwin Sandys, a member of that
   country party which was just beginning to take its stand
   against the corruptions of the court policy. Side by side with
   him stood one whose name has gained a wider though not a more
   honourable repute, the follower of Essex, the idol of
   Shakespeare, the brilliant, versatile Southampton. … The …
   year 1619 was remarkable in the annals of the colony. It is
   hardly an exaggeration to say that it witnessed the creation
   of Virginia as an independent community. From the beginning of
   that year we may date the definite ascendancy of Sandys and
   his party, an ascendancy which was maintained till the
   dissolution of the Company, and during which the affairs of
   Virginia were administered with a degree of energy,
   unselfishness, and statesmanlike wisdom, perhaps unparalleled
   in the history of corporations. One of the first measures was
   to send out Yeardley to supersede Argall. … When Yeardley
   arrived he found that Argall had escaped. No further attempt
   seems to have been made to bring him to justice. In the next
   year he was commanding a ship against the Algerines." Soon
   afterwards, Sir Edwin Sandys was placed officially at the head
   of the Company, by his election to be Treasurer, in the place
   of Sir Thomas Smith. "About the same time that these things
   were doing in England, a step of the greatest importance was
   being taken in Virginia. Yeardley, in obedience to
   instructions from the Company, summoned an Assembly of
   Burgesses from the various hundreds and plantations. At one
   step Virginia, from being little better than a penal
   settlement, ruled by martial law, became invested with
   important, though not full, rights of self-government. Though
   we have no direct evidence of the fact, there is every
   probability that during the administrations of Yeardley and
   Argall the number of independent planters possessing estates
   of their own, with labourers employed in the service of their
   masters, not of the Company, had increased. Unless such an
   influence had been at work, it is scarcely possible that the
   experiment of constitutional government should have succeeded,
   or even have been tried. On the 30th of July, 1619, the first
   Assembly met in the little church at Jamestown. … In England
   the Company under its new government set to work with an
   energy before unknown to it, to improve the condition of the
   colony. … To check the over-production of tobacco a clause was
   inserted in all fresh patents of land binding the holder to
   cultivate a certain quantity of other commodities. Everything
   was done to encourage permanent settlers rather than mere
   traders. Apprentices, unmarried women, and neat cattle were
   sent out. New forms of industry, too, were set on foot, such
   as timber yards, silk manufactures, iron foundries, and
   vineyards. … In the year 1619 alone over 1,200 persons were
   sent out, half as private settlers or servants, half at the
   expense of the Company."

      J. A. Doyle,
      The English in America: Virginia, &c.,
      chapter 6.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1619.
   Introduction of Negro Slavery.

   "In the month of August, 1619, five years after the commons of
   France had petitioned for the emancipation of every serf in
   every fief, a Dutch man-of-war entered James River and landed
   20 negroes for sale. This is the sad epoch of the introduction
   of negro slavery; but the traffic would have been checked in
   its infancy had it remained with the Dutch. Thirty years after
   this first importation of Africans, Virginia to one black
   contained fifty whites; and, after seventy years of its
   colonial existence, the number of its negro slaves was
   proportionably much less than in several of the northern
   states at the time of the war of independence."

      G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States (Author's last revision),
      part 1, chapter 8 (volume 1).

      ALSO IN:
      G. W. Williams,
      History of the Negro Race in America,
      part 2, chapter 12 (volume 1).

      G. P. Fisher,
      The Colonial Era,
      chapter 4.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1622-1624.
   Plot and Massacre by the Indians.
   Arbitrary dissolution of the Virginia Company by King James.

   "On the 22nd of March, 1622, a memorable massacre occurred in
   the Colony. … On the evening before, and on that morning, the
   savages as usual came unarmed into the houses of the planters,
   with fruits, fish, turkies and venison to sell. In some places
   they actually sate down to breakfast with the English. At
   about the hour of noon, the savages rising suddenly and
   everywhere at the same time, butchered the colonists with
   their own implements, sparing neither age, sex, nor condition.
   Three hundred and forty-seven men, women and children fell in
   a few hours. … The destruction might have been universal but
   for the disclosure of a converted Indian, named Chanco, who,
   during the night before the massacre, revealed the plot to one
   Richard Pace, with whom he lived.
{3631}
   Pace … repaired before day to Jamestown and gave the alarm to
   Sir Francis Wyatt, the Governor. His vigilance saved a large
   part of the Colony. … The court of James I., jealous of the
   growing power of the Virginia Company and of its too
   republican spirit, seized upon the occasion of the massacre to
   attribute all the calamities of the Colony to its
   mismanagement and neglect, and thus to frame a pretext for
   dissolving the charter." The Company, supported by the
   colonists, resisted the high-handed proceedings of the King
   and his officers, but vainly. In November, 1624, "James I.
   dissolved the Virginia Company by a writ of Quo Warranto,
   which was determined only upon a technicality in the
   pleadings. The company had been obnoxious to the ill will of
   the King on several grounds. The corporation had become a
   theatre for rearing leaders of the opposition, many of its
   members being also members of parliament. … Charles I.
   succeeding [1625] to the crown and principles of his father,
   took the government of Virginia into his own hands. The
   company thus extinguished had expended £150,000 in
   establishing the Colony, and transported 9,000 settlers
   without the aid of government. The number of stockholders, or
   adventurers, as they were styled, was about 1,000, and the
   annual value of exports from Virginia was, at the period of
   the dissolution of the charter, only £20,000. The company
   embraced much of the rank, wealth, and talent of the kingdom.
   … As the act provided no compensation for the enormous
   expenditure incurred, it can be looked upon as little better
   than confiscation effected by chicane and tyranny.
   Nevertheless the result was undoubtedly favorable to the
   Colony."

      C. Campbell,
      Introduction to the History of the Colony
      and Ancient Dominion of Virginia,
      chapters 15-16.

      ALSO IN:
      W. Stith,
      History of Virginia,
      books 4-5.

      E. D. Neill,
      History of the Virginia Company of London,
      chapters 14-17.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1628.
   Attempted settlement by Lord Baltimore.

      See MARYLAND: A. D. 1632.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1635-1638.
   The Clayborne quarrel with Lord Baltimore
   and the Maryland colony.

      See MARYLAND: A. D. 1635-1638.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1639-1652.
   Loyalty to King Charles.
   The Refuge of the Cavaliers.

   "Under Charles I. little worthy of notice occurred in the
   political history of Virginia. … Attempts were made to raise a
   revenue on tobacco, and subsequently to establish a royal
   monopoly of the tobacco trade. The attempts were averted, and
   the king contented himself with the preemption of the
   Virginian tobacco, and with enacting that no foreign vessel
   should be allowed to trade with Virginia, or to carry
   Virginian goods. In 1639 an attempt was made to re-establish
   the authority of the company, but was strenuously and
   successfully opposed by the assembly. That the royal
   government sat lightly on Virginia may be inferred from the
   loyal tone which had thus early become a characteristic of the
   colony. After the establishment of the commonwealth, 'Virginia
   was whole for monarchy and the last country belonging to
   England that submitted to obedience to the commonwealth of
   England,' and under Berkeley's government the plantation was a
   safe refuge for the defeated cavaliers. … But as soon as two
   or three parliamentary ships appeared [1652] all thoughts of
   resistance were laid aside. Yet, whether from lenity or
   caution, the parliament was satisfied with moderate terms. The
   submission of the colonists was accepted as free and
   voluntary."

      J. A. Doyle,
      The American Colonies,
      chapter 2.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1644.
   Fresh Indian outbreak and massacre of whites.

   "After a peace of five or six years, the Indians, provoked by
   continued encroachments on their lands, and instigated, it is
   said, by the aged chief Opechancanough, formed a new scheme
   for the extermination of the colonists. They were encouraged
   by signs of discord among the English, having seen a fight in
   James River between a London ship for the Parliament and a
   Bristol ship for the king. Five hundred persons perished in
   the first surprise, which took place, according to Winthrop,
   the day before Good Friday, appointed by the governor, 'a
   courtier, and very malignant toward the way of our churches,'
   to be observed as a fast for the good success of the king. For
   defense, the planters were concentrated in a few settlements;
   … forts were built at the points most exposed; and a ship was
   sent to Boston for powder, which, however, the General Court
   declined to furnish. This occasion was taken by 'divers
   godly-disposed persons' of Virginia to remove to New England.
   … The Indians were presently driven from their fastnesses.
   Opechancanough, decrepit and incapable of moving without
   assistance, … was taken prisoner and carried to Jamestown,
   where he was shot in the back by a vindictive soldier
   appointed to guard him. The Indian towns were broken up, and
   their 'clear lands possessed by the English to sow wheat in.'
   Opechancanough's successor submitted; and a peace was made by
   act of Assembly, the Indians ceding all the lands between
   James and York Rivers. No Indian was to come south of York
   River under pain of death. The Powhatan confederacy was
   dissolved. The Indians of lower Virginia sunk into servile
   dependence, and dwindled away, or, migrating to the south and
   west, were mingled and confounded with other tribes."

      R. Hildreth,
      History of the United States,
      chapter 11 (volume 1).

      ALSO IN:
      J. E. Cooke,
      Virginia,
      part 2, chapter 5.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1650-1660.
   Under the Commonwealth and Cromwell, and the Stuart Restoration.
   Two sides of the story.
   Origin of the name of "The Old Dominion."

   "After this, Sir William Berkeley [governor] made a new peace
   with the Indians, which continued for a long time unviolated.
   … But he himself did not long enjoy the benefit of this
   profound peace; for the unhappy troubles of king Charles the
   first increasing in England, proved a great disturbance to him
   and to all the people. They, to prevent the infection from
   reaching that country, made severe laws against the Puritans,
   though there were as yet none among them. But all
   correspondence with England was interrupted, supplies
   lessened, and trade obstructed. … At last the king was
   traitorously beheaded in England, and Oliver installed
   Protector. However, his authority was not acknowledged in
   Virginia for several years after, till they were forced to it
   by the last necessity. For in the year 1651, by Cromwell's
   command, Captain Dennis, with a squadron of men of war,
   arrived there from the Carribbee islands, where they had been
   subduing Bardoes. The country at first held out vigorously
   against him, and Sir William Berkeley, by the assistance of
   such Dutch vessels as were then there, made a brave
   resistance.
{3632}
   But at last Dennis contrived a stratagem which betrayed the
   country. He had got a considerable parcel of goods aboard,
   which belonged to two of the Council, and found a method of
   informing them of it. By this means they were reduced to the
   dilemma, either of submitting or losing their goods. This
   occasioned factions among them; so that at last, after the
   surrender of all the other English plantations, Sir William
   was forced to submit to the usurper on the terms of a general
   pardon. However, it ought to be remembered, to his praise, and
   to the immortal honor of that colony, that it was the last of
   all the king's dominions that submitted to the usurpation; and
   afterwards the first that cast it off, and he never took any
   post or office under the usurper. Oliver had no sooner subdued
   the plantations, but he began to contrive how to keep them
   under, that so they might never be able for the time to come
   to give him farther trouble. To this end, he thought it
   necessary to break off their correspondence with all other
   nations, thereby to prevent their being furnished with arms,
   ammunition, and other warlike provisions. According to this
   design, he contrived a severe act of Parliament [1651],
   whereby he prohibited the plantations from receiving or
   exporting any European commodities but what should be carried
   to them by Englishmen, and in English built ships. …

      See NAVIGATION ACT, ENGLISH.

   Notwithstanding this act of navigation, the Protector never
   thought the plantations enough secured, but frequently changed
   their governors, to prevent their intriguing with the people.
   So that, during the time of the usurpation, they had no less
   than three governors there, namely, Diggs, Bennet and Mathews.
   The strange arbitrary curbs he put upon the plantations
   exceedingly afflicted the people … and inspired them with a
   desire to use the last remedy, to relieve themselves from this
   lawless usurpation. In a short time afterwards a fair
   opportunity happened; for Governor Mathews died, and no person
   was substituted to succeed him in the government. Whereupon
   the people applied themselves to Sir William Berkeley (who had
   continued all this time upon his own plantation in a private
   capacity) and unanimously chose him their governor again
   [March, 1660]. Sir William … told the people … that if he
   accepted the government it should be upon their solemn
   promise, after his example, to venture their lives and
   fortunes for the king, who was then in France. This was no
   great obstacle to them, and therefore with an unanimous voice
   they told him they were ready to hazard all for the king. …
   Sir William Berkeley embraced their choice, and forthwith
   proclaimed Charles II. king of England, Scotland, France,
   Ireland and Virginia, and caused all process to be issued in
   his name. Thus his majesty was actually king in Virginia
   before he was so in England. But it pleased God to restore him
   soon after to the throne of his ancestors."

      R. Beverley,
      History of Virginia,
      book 1, chapter 4.

   "The government of Virginia, under the Commonwealth of
   England, was mild and just. While Cromwell's sceptre commanded
   the respect of the world, he exhibited generous and politic
   leniency towards the infant and loyal colony. She enjoyed
   during this interval free trade, legislative independence and
   internal peace. The governors were men who by their virtues
   and moderation won the confidence and affections of the
   people. No extravagance, rapacity, or extortion, could be
   alleged against the administration. Intolerance and
   persecution were unknown, with the single exception of a
   rigorous act banishing the Quakers. But rapine, extravagance,
   extortion, intolerance and persecution were all soon to be
   revived under the auspices of the Stuarts. … Richard Cromwell
   resigned the protectorate in March, 1660. Matthews,
   governor-elect, had died in the January previous. England was
   without a monarch; Virginia without a governor. Here was a two
   fold interregnum. The assembly, convening on the 13th of
   March, 1660, declared by their first act that, as there was
   then in England 'noe resident absolute and generall confessed
   power,' therefore the supreme government of the colony should
   rest in the assembly. By the second act, Sir William Berkeley
   was appointed governor, and it was ordered that all writs
   should issue in the name of the assembly. … No fact in our
   history has been more misunderstood and misrepresented than
   this reappointment of Sir William Berkeley, before the
   restoration of Charles II. … Sir William was elected, not by a
   tumultuary assemblage of the people, but by the assembly; the
   royal standard was not raised upon the occasion, nor was the
   king proclaimed. Sir William, however, made no secret of his
   loyalty. … Sir William was elected on the 21st of the same
   month, about two months before the restoration of Charles II.
   Yet the word king, or majesty, occurs no where in the
   legislative records, from the commencement of the Commonwealth
   in England until the 11th of October, 1660—more than four
   months after the restoration. Virginia was indeed loyal, but
   she was too feeble to express her loyalty."

      C. Campbell,
      Introduction to the History of the Colony
      and Ancient Dominion of Virginia,
      chapters 21-22.

   "There is no doubt whatever that if the Virginians could have
   restored the King earlier they would have done so; and
   Berkeley, who is known to have been in close communication and
   consultation with the leading Cavaliers, had sent word to
   Charles II. in Holland, toward the end of the Commonwealth,
   that he would raise his flag in Virginia if there was a
   prospect of success. This incident has been called in
   question. It is testified to by William Lee, Sheriff of
   London, and a cousin of Richard Lee, Berkeley's emissary, as a
   fact within his knowledge. Charles declined the offer, but was
   always grateful to the Virginians. The country is said to have
   derived from the incident the name of the 'Old Dominion,'
   where the King was King, or might have been, before he was
   King in England."

      J. E. Cooke,
      Virginia,
      part 2, chapter 10.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1651-1672.
   The English Navigation Acts and trade restrictions.

      See NAVIGATION LAWS;
      also UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1651-1672.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1660-1677.
   The Restoration and its rewards to Virginia loyalty.
   Oppression, discontent, and Bacon's Rebellion.

   At the time of the restoration of the English monarchy, in the
   person of Charles II., the colony of Virginia "numbered not
   far from 50,000 souls, a large proportion of whom, especially,
   we may suppose, those of middle life and most active habits,
   were natives of the soil, bound to it by the strongest ties of
   interest and affection, and by their hopes of what it was
   destined to become in the opening future.
{3633}
   Here was a state of things, comprising, in the apprehensions
   of the people, many of the elements of the highest happiness
   and prosperity. … But all this was totally and suddenly
   changed, and universal distress brought upon the land, by the
   new restrictive clauses added to the original Navigation Act,
   by the first Parliament of Charles. By the act of the Long
   Parliament it had been simply provided that foreign vessels
   should import into England no other products than such as were
   grown or manufactured in their own country; a shaft aimed
   principally at the Dutch. … By Charles's Commons this first
   hint was … expanded into a voluminous code of monopolizing
   enactments, by which the trade of the world was regulated on
   the principle of grasping for England every possible
   commercial advantage, and inflicting upon all other nations
   the greatest possible commercial injury. … Upon the colonies,
   one and all, this cruel policy bore with a weight which almost
   crushed them. … From 1660, when this monopolizing policy took
   its beginning, the discontent of the people increased day by
   day, as each new prohibition was proclaimed. Commerce lay
   dead. Tobacco would no longer pay for its cultivation, much
   less enrich the laborious planter; manufactures, as that of
   silk, after being attempted, failed to bring the hoped-for
   relief, and there seemed no prospect but starvation and ruin.
   What wonder that mischief lay brewing in the hearts of a
   people who, for their almost slavish loyalty, met only these
   thankless returns of injury and injustice; for the Virginians
   of that day were monarchists in the full meaning of the term.
   … Other causes conspired with these purely political ones to
   bring the public mind of Virginia into such a state of deep
   exasperation as to find its relief only in insurrection. Of
   these, one was particularly a source of irritation; namely,
   the grants of vast tracts of territory, made by the wasteful
   and profligate King to his needy and profligate favorites,
   made wholly irrespective of present owners and occupiers, who
   were transferred, like serfs of the soil, to any great
   patentee to whom the caprice of Charles chose to consign
   them." The discontent culminated in 1676, under the influence
   of an excitement growing out of trouble with the Indians.
   After more than thirty years of quiet, the natives became
   hostile and threatening. "Various outrages were first
   committed by the Indians, on whom the whites, as usual,
   retaliated; murder answered to murder, burning to burning,
   till, throughout the whole border country, were kindled the
   flames of an exterminating Indian war, accompanied by all its
   peculiar horrors. In the excited state of the public mind,
   these new calamities were laid at the door of the government."
   Governor Berkeley was accused of having an interest in the
   profits of trade with the Indians which restrained him from
   making war on them. Whether the charge was true or false, he
   gave color to it by his conduct. He took no steps to protect
   the colony. Nor would he authorize any self-defensive measures
   on the part of the people themselves. They "went so far as to
   engage that, if the Governor would only commission a general,
   whomsoever he would, they would 'follow him at their own
   charge.' Still they were not heard. Under such circumstances
   of neglect and excessive irritation, they took the case into
   their own hands." They chose for their leader Nathaniel Bacon,
   a young Englishman of education, energy and talent, who had
   been in the colony about three years, and who had already
   attained a seat in the Governor's Council. Bacon accepted the
   responsibility, "commission or no commission," and, in the
   spring of 1676, put himself at the head of 500 men, with whom
   he marched against the Indians. The governor, after formally
   proclaiming him a rebel, raised another army and marched, not
   against the Indians, but against Bacon. He was hardly out of
   Jamestown, however, before the people of that neighborhood
   rose and took possession of the capital. On learning of this
   fresh revolt, he turned back, and found himself helpless to do
   anything but submit. The result was the summoning of a new
   Assembly, to which Bacon was elected from his county, and the
   making of some progress, apparently, towards a curing of
   abuses and the removing of causes of discontent. But something
   occurred—exactly what has never been made clear—which led to
   a sudden flight on Bacon's part from Jamestown, and the
   gathering of his forces once more around him. Re-entering the
   capital at their head, he extorted from Governor Berkeley a
   commission which legalized his military office, and armed with
   this authority he proceeded once more against the Indians.
   "But as soon as he was sufficiently distant to relieve the
   Governor and his friends from their fears, all that had been
   granted was revoked; a proclamation was issued, again
   denouncing Bacon as a rebel, setting a price upon his head,
   and commanding his followers to disperse." Again, Bacon and
   his army retraced their steps and took possession of
   Jamestown, the governor flying to Accomac. A convention of the
   inhabitants of the colony was then called together, which
   adopted a Declaration, or Oath, in which they fully Identified
   themselves with Bacon in his course, and swore to uphold him.
   The latter then moved once more against the Indians; Berkeley
   once more got possession of the seat of government, and, once
   more, Bacon (who had fought the Indians meantime at Bloody Run
   and beaten them) came back and drove him out. "The whole
   country … was with Bacon, and merely a crowd of cowardly
   adventurers about the Governor. Nothing would seem, at this
   moment, to have stood between Bacon and the undisputed,
   absolute control of the colony, had no unforeseen event
   interposed, as it did, to change the whole aspect of affairs."
   This unforeseen event was the sudden death of Bacon, which
   occurred in January, 1677, at the house of a friend. "Some
   mystery attaches to the manner of it," and there were, of
   course, sinister whispers of foul play. "But, however and
   wherever Bacon died, it could never be discovered where he was
   buried, nor what disposition had been made of his body. … The
   death of Bacon was, in effect, the restoration of Sir William
   Berkeley to his lost authority, and the termination of the
   war; there being not an individual, among either his
   counsellors or officers, of capacity sufficient to make good
   his place. … Berkeley, gradually subduing all opposition, and
   making prisoners of many of the prime movers of the revolt, in
   a short time saw the authority of his government completely
   reestablished. … The historians of the period inform us that
   no less than 25 persons were executed during the closing
   period of the rebellion and the few next succeeding months."

      W. Ware,
      Memoir of Nathaniel Baron
      (Library of American Biographies, series 2, volume 3).

      ALSO IN:
      J. A. Doyle,
      The English in America: Virginia, &c.,
      chapter 9.

      J. Burk,
      History of Virginia,
      volume 2, chapter 4.

      G. Bancroft,
      History of the United States (Author's last revision),
      part 2, chapters 10-11.

      E. Eggleston,
      Nathaniel Baron
      (Century Magazine, July, 1890).

{3634}

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1689-1690.
   King William's War.
   The first Colonial Congress.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1690;
      and CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1691.
   The founding of William and Mary College.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1619-1819.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1696-1749.
   Suppression of colonial manufactures.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1696-1749.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1710.
   Colonization of Palatines.

      See PALATINES.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1710-1716.
   Crossing the Blue Ridge.
   The Knights of the Golden Horseshoe.
   Possession taken of the Shenandoah Valley.

   "Lord Orkney is made Governor, but as usual sends his deputy,
   and in the year 1710 appears the stalwart soldier and ruler,
   Sir Alexander Spotswood. Alexander Spotswood, or Spottiswoode,
   as his family were called in Scotland, rises like a landmark
   above the first years of the century. When he came to Virginia
   he was only 34 and in the bloom of his manhood. But he had
   already fought hard, and his faculties as a soldier and ruler
   were fully developed. … The Virginians received Spotswood with
   open arms. He was a man after their own heart, and brought
   with him when he came (June 1710) the great writ of Habeas
   corpus. The Virginia people had long claimed that this right
   was guaranteed to them by Magna Charta, since they were
   equally free Englishmen with the people of England. Now it was
   conceded, and the great writ came,—Spotswood's letter of
   introduction. It was plain that he was not a new Berkeley
   looking to the King's good pleasure as his law, or a new
   Nicholson ready to imprison people or put halters around their
   necks; but a respecter of human freedom and defender of the
   right. … In … 1716, Governor Alexander Spotswood set out on an
   expedition which much delighted the Virginians. There was a
   very great longing to visit the country beyond the Blue Ridge.
   That beautiful unknown land held out arms of welcome, and the
   Governor, who had in his character much of the spirit of the
   hunter and adventurer, resolved to go and explore it. Having
   assembled a party of good companions, he set out in the month
   of August, and the gay company began their march toward the
   Blue Ridge Mountains. The chronicler of the expedition
   describes the picturesque cavalcade followed by the
   pack-horses and servants,—'rangers, pioneers, and Indians';
   how they stopped to hunt game; bivouacked 'under the canopy';
   laughed, jested, and regaled themselves with 'Virginia wine,
   white and red, Irish usquebaugh, brandy, shrub, two kinds of
   rum, champagne, canary, cherry-punch, and cider.' In due time
   they reached the Blue Ridge, probably near the present Swift
   Run Gap, and saw, beyond, the wild valley of the Shenandoah.
   On the summit of the mountain they drank the health of the
   King, and named two neighboring peaks 'Mt. George' and 'Mt.
   Alexander,' after his Majesty and the Governor; after which
   they descended into the valley and gave the Shenandoah the
   name of the 'Euphrates.' Here a bottle was buried—there were,
   no doubt, a number of empty ones—containing a paper to testify
   that the valley of the Euphrates was taken possession of in
   the name of his Majesty, George I. Then the adventurers
   reascended the mountain, crossed to the lowland, and returned
   to Williamsburg. This picturesque incident of the time gave
   rise to the order of the 'Knights of the Golden Horseshoe.'
   The horses had been shod with iron, which was unusual, as a
   protection against the mountain roads; and Spotswood sent to
   London and had made for his companions small golden horseshoes
   set with garnets and other jewels, and inscribed 'Sic juvat
   transcendere montes.'"

      J. E. Cooke,
      Virginia,
      part 2, chapters 21-22.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1744.
   Treaty with the Six Nations and
   purchase of the Shenandoah Valley.

   "The Six Nations still retained the right to traverse the
   great valley west of the Blue Ridge. Just at this inopportune
   moment [1743], some of their parties came into bloody
   collision with the backwoodsmen of Virginia, who had
   penetrated into that valley. Hostilities with the Six Nations,
   now that war was threatened with France, might prove very
   dangerous, and Clinton [governor of New York] hastened to
   secure the friendship of these ancient allies by liberal
   presents; for which purpose, in conjunction with commissioners
   from New England, he held a treaty at Albany. … The
   difficulties between Virginia and the Six Nations were soon
   after [1744] settled in a treaty held at Lancaster, to which
   Pennsylvania and Maryland were also parties, and in which, in
   consideration of £400, the Six Nations relinquished all their
   title to the valley between the Blue Ridge and the central
   chain of the Allegany Mountains."

      R. Hildreth,
      History of the United States,
      chapter 25 (volume 2).

      ALSO IN:
      B. A. Hinsdale,
      The Old Northwest,
      page 59.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1748-1754.
   First movements beyond the mountains to
   dispute possession with the French.

      See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1754.
   Opposing the French occupation of the Ohio Valley.
   Washington's first service.

      See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1754.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1755-1760.
   The French and Indian War.
   Braddock's defeat and after.

      See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754, 1754, 1755;
      CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753, to 1760;
      NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755, 1755;
      and CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1756.
   Number of Slaves.

      See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1756.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1759-1761.
   The Cherokee War.

      See SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1759-1761.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1763.
   The Parsons' Cause and Patrick Henry.

   "In Virginia as well as in Pennsylvania, a vigorous opposition
   to vested rights foreshadowed what was to come. A short crop
   of tobacco having suddenly enhanced the price of that staple,
   or, what is quite as like]y, the issue of paper money in
   Virginia, first made that same year [1755], having depreciated
   the currency, the Assembly had passed a temporary act,
   authorizing the payment of all tobacco debts in money at
   twopence per pound—the old rate, long established by usage.
   Three years after, under pretence of an expected failure of
   the crop, this tender act was renewed.
{3635}
   Francis Fauquier, who had just succeeded Dinwiddie as
   lieutenant governor, a man of more complying temper than his
   predecessor, readily consented to it. The salaries of the
   parish ministers, some sixty-five in number, were payable in
   tobacco. They were likely to be considerable losers by this
   tender law; and, not content with attacking it in pamphlets,
   they sent an agent to England, and by the aid of Sherlock,
   bishop of London, procured an order in council pronouncing the
   law void. Suits were presently brought to recover the
   difference between twopence per pound in the depreciated
   currency and the tobacco to which by law the ministers were
   entitled. In defending one of these suits [1763], the
   remarkable popular eloquence of Patrick Henry displayed itself
   for the first time. Henry was a young lawyer, unconnected with
   the ruling aristocracy of the province, and as yet without
   reputation or practice. The law was plainly against him, and
   his case seemed to be hopeless. He had, however, a strong
   support in the prevailing prejudice in favor of the tender
   law, and in the dissatisfaction generally felt at the king's
   veto upon it. Addressing the jury in a torrent of eloquence as
   brilliant as it was unexpected, he prevailed upon them to give
   him a verdict. The Assembly voted money to defend all suits
   which the parsons might bring; and, notwithstanding their
   clear legal right in the matter, they thought it best to
   submit without further struggle."

      R. Hildreth,
      History of the United States,
      chapter 27 (volume 2).

      ALSO IN:
      W. Wirt,
      Life of Patrick Henry,
      chapter 1.

      M. C. Tyler,
      Patrick Henry,
      chapter 4.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1763-1766.
   The question of taxation by Parliament.
   The Stamp Act and Patrick Henry's resolutions.
   The First Continental Congress.
   The repeal of the Stamp Act and the Declaratory Act.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1760-1775; 1763-1764; 1765; and 1766.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1766-1773.
   Opening events of the Revolution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766-1767, to 1772-1773;
      and BOSTON: A. D. 1770, to 1773.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1768.
   The boundary treaty with the Six Nations at Fort Stanwix.
   Pretended cession of lands south of the Ohio.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1769.
   Attempted prohibition of Slave Trade nullified by George III.

      See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1713-1776.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1769-1772.
   The first settlement of Tennessee.
   The Watauga Association.

      See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1769-1772.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1774.
   Western territorial claims of the Old Dominion.
   Lord Dunmore's War with the Indians.

      See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1774;
      and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1774.
   The Boston Port Bill, the Massachusetts Bill,
   and the Quebec Act.
   The First Continental Congress.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1775.
   The beginning of the War of the American Revolution.
   Lexington.
   Concord.
   The country in arms.
   Ticonderoga.
   The Siege of Boston.
   Bunker Hill.
   The Second Continental Congress.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1775.
   The end of Royal Government.
   Lord Dunmore's flight.

   Not long after the excited demonstrations which followed
   Governor Dunmore's removal of powder from the public magazine
   at Williamsburg, the governor received Lord North's
   "conciliatory proposition," and "he convened the House of
   Burgesses, on the 1st of June, to take it into consideration.
   This withdrew Peyton Randolph from Congress, as had been
   anticipated, and Mr. Jefferson succeeded to the vacancy. But
   the latter was not permitted to leave the Burgesses before an
   answer to the ministerial proposition was framed. … How much
   the answer was 'enfeebled' by the doubts and scruples of the
   moderate members, we cannot say, but it rings true
   revolutionary metal, and it was a noble lead off for the
   Assemblies of the other Colonies. … The House, after the
   customary expression of a desire for reconciliation, declare
   that they have examined it (the Ministerial proposition)
   minutely, viewed it in every light in which they are able, and
   that, 'with pain and disappointment, they must ultimately
   declare that it only changed the form of oppression without
   lightening its burden.' … In the meantime events had
   transpired which soon afterwards terminated the official
   career of the Earl of Dunmore, and with it the royal
   government in Virginia. On the 5th of June, three men who
   entered the public magazine were wounded by a spring gun
   placed there by the orders of the Governor, and on the 7th, a
   committee of the House, appointed to inspect the magazine,
   found the locks removed from the serviceable muskets, and they
   also discovered the powder which had been placed in mine.
   These things highly exasperated the multitude, and on a rumor
   getting abroad that the same officer who had before carried
   off the powder was again advancing towards the city with an
   armed force, they rose in arms. The Governor's assurance that
   the rumor was unfounded restored tranquillity. He, however,
   left the city in the night with his family and went on board
   the Fowey, lying at York, twelve miles distant. He left a
   message declaring that he had taken this step for his safety,
   and that thenceforth he should reside and transact business on
   board of the man of war! An interchange of messages, acrid and
   criminatory on his part, firm and spirited on the part of the
   House, was kept up until the 24th of June; when, on his final
   refusal to receive bills for signature except under the guns
   of an armed vessel, the House declared it a high breach of
   privilege, and adjourned to the 12th of October. But a quorum
   never afterwards attended. … We soon find the Earl of Dunmore
   carrying on a petty but barbarous predatory warfare against
   the people he had so lately governed."

      H. S. Randall,
      Life of Jefferson,
      volume 1, chapter 3.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1775-1776.
   Lord Dunmore's warfare.
   Norfolk destroyed.

   "Having drawn together a considerable force, Dunmore ascended
   Elizabeth River to the Great Bridge, the only pass by which
   Norfolk can be approached from the land side; dispersed some
   North Carolina militia collected there; made several
   prisoners; and then, descending the river [November 1775],
   took possession of Norfolk. The rise of that town had been
   very rapid. Within a short time past it had become the
   principal shipping port of Virginia.
{3636}
   Its population amounted to several thousands, among whom were
   many Scotch traders not well disposed to the American cause.
   Fugitive slaves and others began now to flock to Dunmore's
   standard. A movement was made in his favor on the east shore
   of Maryland, which it required a thousand militia to suppress.
   The Convention of Virginia, not a little alarmed, voted four
   additional regiments, afterward increased to seven, all of
   which were presently taken into continental pay. … Woodford,
   with the second Virginia regiment, took possession of the
   causeway leading to the Great Bridge, which was still held by
   Dunmore's troops. An attempt to dislodge the Virginians having
   failed, with loss, Dunmore abandoned the bridge and the town,
   and again embarked. Norfolk was immediately occupied by
   Woodford, who was promptly joined by Howe's regiment from
   North Carolina. After a descent on the eastern shore of
   Virginia [January, 1776], to whose aid marched two companies
   of Maryland minute men, being re-enforced by the arrival of a
   British frigate, Dunmore bombarded Norfolk. A party landed and
   set it on fire. … The part which escaped was presently burned
   by the provincials, to prevent it from becoming a shelter to
   the enemy. Thus perished, a prey to civil war, the largest and
   richest of the rising towns of Virginia. Dunmore continued,
   during the whole summer, a predatory warfare along the rivers,
   of which his naval superiority gave him the command, burning
   houses and plundering plantations, from which he carried off
   upward of 1,000 slaves. He was constantly changing his place
   to elude attack; but watched, pursued, and harassed, he
   finally found it necessary to retire to St. Augustine with his
   adherents and his plunder."

      R. Hildreth,
      History of the United States,
      chapter 32 (volume 3).

      ALSO IN:
      C. Campbell,
      Introduction to History of Virginia.,
      chapter 33.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1775-1784.
   The exercise of sovereignty over Kentucky.

      See KENTUCKY: A. D. 1775-1784.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1776.
   Independence declared and a Constitution adopted.
   Declaration of Rights.

   "There was a sudden change in public sentiment; and the idea
   of independence, said to be alarming to Virginians in March
   [1776] was welcome to them in April. One writes on the 2d:
   'Independence is now the talk here. … It will be very soon, if
   not already, a favorite child.' Another, on the 12th, writes:
   'I think almost every man, except the treasurer, is willing to
   declare for independence.'" On the 23d, the Charlotte County
   Committee charged its delegates in convention to use their
   best endeavors "that the delegates which are sent to the
   General Congress be instructed immediately to cast off the
   British yoke." On the next day, a majority of the freeholders
   of James City took similar action. "In May, the avowals for
   independence were numerous. In this spirit and with such aims,
   a new convention was chosen, and on the 6th of May met in
   Williamsburg. It contained illustrious men,—among them, James
   Madison, in the twenty-fifth year of his age; George Mason, in
   the maturity of his great powers; Richard Bland, Edmund
   Pendleton, and Patrick Henry, rich in Revolutionary fame. … On
   the 14th of May the convention went into a committee of the
   whole on the state of the colony, with Archibald Carey in the
   chair; when Colonel Nelson submitted a preamble and
   resolutions on independence, prepared by Pendleton. These were
   discussed in two sittings of the committee, and then reported
   to the House. They were opposed chiefly by delegates from the
   Eastern District, but were advocated by Patrick Henry, and
   passed unanimously when 112 members were present,—about 20
   absenting themselves. This paper enumerated the wrongs done to
   the colonies … and instructed the delegates appointed to
   represent the colony in the General Congress 'to propose to
   that respectable body to declare the United Colonies free and
   independent States,' and to 'give the assent of the colony to
   measures to form foreign alliances and a
   confederation,—provided the power of forming government for
   the internal regulations of each colony be left to the
   colonial legislatures.' The same paper also provided for a
   committee to form a plan of government for Virginia. This
   action was transmitted by the President to the other
   assemblies, accompanied by a brief circular. … It was hailed
   by the patriots in other colonies with enthusiasm. … The
   convention agreed (June 12) upon the famous Declaration of
   Rights declaring all men equally free and independent, all
   power vested in and derived from the people, and that
   government ought to be for the common benefit; also that all
   men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion
   according to the dictates of conscience. It also complied with
   the recommendation of Congress, by forming a constitution and
   electing a governor and other officers."

      R. Frothingham,
      The Rise of the Republic,
      chapter 11.

      ALSO IN:
      H. B. Grigsby,
      The Virginia Convention of 1776.

      W. C. Rives,
      Life and Times of Madison,
      volume 1, chapter 5.

      K. M. Rowland,
      Life of George Mason,
      volume 1, chapter 7.

      See, also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1779.

   The following is the text of the Declaration of Rights:

   "A Declaration of Rights, made by the Representatives of the
   good People of Virginia, assembled in full and free
   Convention, which rights do pertain to them and their
   posterity as the basis and foundation of government.

   I. That all men are by nature equally free and independent,
   and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter
   into a state of society, they cannot by any compact, deprive
   or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and
   liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property,
   and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

   II. That all power is vested in, and consequently derived
   from, the people; that magistrates are their trustees and
   servants, and at all times amenable to them.

   III. That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the
   common benefit, protection and security of the people, nation
   or community; of all the various modes and forms of
   government, that is best which is capable of producing the
   greatest degree of happiness and safety, and is most
   effectually secured against the danger of maladministration;
   and that, when a government shall be found inadequate or
   contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath
   an indubitable, unalienable and indefeasible right to reform,
   alter or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most
   conducive to the public weal.

{3637}

   IV. That no man, or set of men, are entitled to exclusive or
   separate emoluments or privileges from the community but in
   consideration of public services, which not being descendible,
   neither ought the offices of magistrate, legislator or judge
   to be hereditary.
   V. That the legislative, executive and judicial powers should
   be separate and distinct; and that the members thereof may be
   restrained from oppression, by feeling and participating the
   burthens of the people, they should, at fixed periods, be
   reduced to a private station, return into that body from which
   they were originally taken, and the vacancies be supplied by
   frequent, certain and regular elections, in which all, or any
   part of the former members to be again eligible or ineligible,
   as the laws shall direct.

   VI. That all elections ought to be free, and that all men
   having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with,
   and attachment to the community, have the right of suffrage,
   and cannot be taxed, or deprived of their property for public
   uses, without their own consent, or that of their
   representatives so elected, nor bound by any law to which they
   have not in like manner assented, for the public good.

   VII. That all power of suspending laws, or the execution of
   laws, by any authority, without consent of the representatives
   of the people, is injurious to their rights, and ought not to
   be exercised.

   VIII. That in all capital or criminal prosecutions, a man hath
   a right to demand the cause and nature of his accusation, to
   be confronted with the accusers and witnesses, to call for
   evidence in his favor, and to a speedy trial by an impartial
   jury of twelve men of his vicinage, without whose unanimous
   consent he cannot be found guilty; nor can he be compelled to
   give evidence against himself; that no man be deprived of his
   liberty, except by the law of the land or the judgment of his
   peers.

   IX. That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor
   excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments
   inflicted.

   X. That general warrants, whereby an officer or messenger may
   be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of a
   fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named,
   or whose offence is not particularly described and supported
   by evidence, are grievous and oppressive, and ought not to be
   granted.

   XI. That in controversies respecting property, and in suits
   between man and man, the ancient trial by jury of twelve men
   is preferable to any other, and ought to be held sacred.

   XII. That the freedom of the press is one of the great
   bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained but by
   despotic governments.

   XIII. That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of
   the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe
   defence of a free State; that standing armies in time of
   peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in
   all cases the military should be under strict subordination
   to, and governed by, the civil power.

   XIV. That the people have a right to uniform government; and
   therefore, that no government separate from or independent of
   the government of Virginia, ought to be erected or established
   within the limits thereof.

   XV. That no free government, or the blessing of liberty, can
   be preserved to any people, but by a firm adherence to
   justice, moderation, temperance, frugality and virtue, and by
   a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.

   XVI. That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator,
   and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by
   reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore
   all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion,
   according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the
   duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love and
   charity towards each other.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1776-1779.
   The war in the north.
   The Articles of Confederation.
   Alliance with France.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776, to 1779.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1776-1808.
   Antislavery opinion and the causes of its disappearance.

      See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1776-1808.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1778.
   Suppression of the Transylvania Company in Kentucky.

      See KENTUCKY: A. D. 1765-1778.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1778-1779.
   Clark's conquest of the Northwest and its organization
   under the jurisdiction of Virginia.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1778-1779 CLARK'S CONQUEST.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1779.
   British coast raids, at Norfolk and elsewhere.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1778-1779 WASHINGTON GUARDING THE HUDSON.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1779-1786.
   Settlement of boundaries with Pennsylvania.
   The Pan-handle.

   "In 1779 commissioners appointed by the two States met at
   Baltimore to agree upon the common boundaries of Pennsylvania
   and Virginia. … On both sides there was an evident desire to
   end the dispute. Various lines were proposed and rejected. On
   August 31 the commissioners signed this agreement: 'To extend
   Mason and Dixon's line due west five degrees of longitude, to
   be computed from the River Delaware, for the southern boundary
   of Pennsylvania, and that a meridian line drawn from the
   western extremity thereof to the northern limit of the said
   State be the western boundary of Pennsylvania forever.' This
   contract was duly ratified by the legislatures of the two
   States. In 1785 Mason and Dixon's line was extended, and the
   southwestern corner of Pennsylvania established. The
   'Pan-handle' is what was left of Virginia east of the Ohio
   River and north of Mason and Dixon's line, after the boundary
   was run from this point to Lake Erie in 1786. … It received
   its name in legislative debate from Honorable John McMillan,
   delegate from Brooke County, to match the Accomac projection,
   which he dubbed the Spoonhandle."

      B. A. Hinsdale,
      The Old Northwest,
      page 109 and foot-note.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1780-1783.
   The war in the South.
   Arnold's ravages.
   Lafayette's campaign.
   Surrender of Cornwallis.
   Peace with Great Britain.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780, to 1783.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1784.
   Cession of Western territorial claims to the United States.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1787-1788.
   The formation and adoption of the Federal Constitution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787; and 1787-1789.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1791-1792.
   Separation of Kentucky and its admission
   to the Union as a State.

      See KENTUCKY: A. D. 1789-1792.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1798.
   The Nullifying Resolutions of Madison.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1798.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1808.
   The Embargo and its effects.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1809; and 1808.

{3638}

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1813.
   The coasts raided by British naval parties.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1812-1813 INDIFFERENCE TO THE NAVY.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1831.
   The Nat Turner insurrection of Slaves.

      See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1828-1832.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1859.
   John Brown's invasion at Harper's Ferry.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1859.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1861 (January-June).
   Attempted peace-making.
   The State carried into rebellion.
   Separation of West Virginia, which adheres to the Union.

   "Early in January, 1861, the Virginia Assembly met at Richmond
   to determine the action of the Commonwealth in the approaching
   struggle. It was plain that war was coming unless the
   authorities of the United States and of the seceding States
   would listen to reason; and the first proceedings of the
   Assembly looked to peace and the restoration of fraternal
   union. Virginia recommended to all the States to appoint
   deputies to a Peace Convention. …

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (FEBRUARY) THE PEACE CONVENTION].

   Thus ended in failure the first attempt of Virginia to
   preserve the national peace; and the crisis demanded that she
   should promptly decide upon her course. On February 13 (1861)
   a Convention assembled at Richmond, and a Committee was
   appointed on Federal Relations. On March 10 (1861), this
   Committee reported fourteen resolutions protesting against all
   interference with slavery; declaring secession to be a right;
   and defining the grounds on which the Commonwealth would feel
   herself to be justified in exercising that right, namely: the
   failure to obtain guarantees; the adoption of a warlike policy
   by the Government of the United States; or the attempt to
   exact the payment of duties from the seceded States, or to
   reënforce or recapture the Southern forts. These resolves
   clearly define the attitude of Virginia at this critical
   moment. After prolonged discussion, all but the last had
   passed the Convention when intelligence came that war had
   begun. The thunder of cannon from Charleston harbor broke up
   the political discussion. … Mr. Lincoln had expressed himself
   in his inaugural with perfect plainness. Secession was
   unlawful, and the Union remained unbroken; it was his duty to
   execute the laws, and he should perform it. To execute the
   laws it was necessary to have an army; and (April 15, 1861)
   President Lincoln issued his proclamation calling for 75,000
   troops from the States remaining in the Union. The direct
   issue was thus presented, and Virginia was called upon to
   decide the momentous question whether she would fight against
   the South or against the North. … As late as the first week in
   April the Convention had refused to secede by a vote of 89 to
   45. Virginia was conscientiously following her old traditions
   and would not move. Now the time had come at last. … On the
   17th of April, two days after the Federal proclamation, the
   Convention passed an ordinance of secession and adhesion to
   the Southern Confederacy, by a vote of 88 to 55, which was
   ratified by the people by a majority of 96,750 votes, out of a
   total of 161,018. West Virginia refused to be bound by the
   action of the Convention, and became a separate State, but the
   Virginia of the Tidewater and Valley went with the South."

      J. E. Cooke,
      Virginia,
      part 3, chapter 22.

   "Of the 46 delegates from the territory now comprising West
   Virginia, 29 voted against [the ordinance of secession], 9 for
   it, 7 were absent and one excused. Those who voted against it
   hastened to leave the city," and, on reaching their homes,
   became generally the leaders of a movement to separate their
   section of the State from the Old Dominion. On the 13th of May
   a convention of delegates from the counties of Northwestern
   Virginia was held at Wheeling, by the action of which a more
   general convention was called and held at the same place on
   the 11th day of June. The latter convention assumed the power
   to reorganize the government of the State of Virginia.

      V. A. Lewis,
      History of West Virginia,
      chapter 21-23.

      ALSO IN: J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 3, chapter 25,
      and volume 4, chapter 19.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1861 (April).
   Governor Letcher's reply to President Lincoln's call for troops.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (APRIL).

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1861 (April).
   Seizure of Harper's Ferry and Norfolk Navy Yard.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (APRIL). ACTIVITY OF REBELLION.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1861 (June-November).
   The loyal State government organized in West Virginia.
   Steps taken toward separation from the old State.

   A Convention held on the 11th of June in West Virginia
   declared the State offices of Virginia vacant by reason of the
   treason of those who had been elected to hold them, and
   proceeded to form a regular State organization, with Francis
   H. Pierpont for the executive head. Maintaining that the loyal
   people were entitled to speak for the whole State they
   declared that their government was the government of Virginia.
   They subsequently admitted delegates from Alexandria and
   Fairfax Counties in Middle Virginia and from Accomac and
   Northampton Counties on the eastern shore. Thus organized, the
   government was acknowledged by Congress as the government of
   Virginia and senators and representatives were admitted to
   seats. The Pierpont Government, as it was called, then adopted
   an ordinance on the 20th of August, 1861, providing "for the
   formation of a new State out of a portion of the territory of
   this State." The ordinance was approved by a vote of the
   people, and on the 26th of November the Convention assembled
   in Wheeling to frame a constitution for the new government.

      J. G. Blaine,
      Twenty Years of Congress,
      volume 1, chapter 21.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1861 (July).
   Richmond made the capital of the Southern Confederacy.

   "The Conspiracy had no intention originally of establishing
   its seat of government at Richmond. That was a part of the
   price exacted by Virginia for her secession, and it was not
   paid without reluctance. It is to be remembered that at that
   time every thing seemed to turn on what the Border States
   would do. … By establishing the seat of government at
   Richmond, it became certain that the most powerful of the
   Southern armies would always be present in Virginia. If
   Virginia had been abandoned, all the Border States would have
   gone with the North. … The Confederates having determined on
   the transfer of their seat of government to Richmond, the
   necessary preparations were completed, and their Congress
   opened its first session in that city on the 20th of July,
   1861."

      J. W. Draper,
      History of the American Civil War,
      chapter 39 (volume 2).

{3639}

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1861-1865.
   The Battleground of the Civil War.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (MAY: VIRGINIA), and after.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1862 (April-November).
   The separation of West Virginia consummated.

      See WEST VIRGINIA: A. D. 1862 (APRIL-DECEMBER).

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1865.
   The last meeting of the Secession Legislature.
   President Lincoln's Permit.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (APRIL: VIRGINIA).

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1865.
   Recognition of the Pierpont State Government
   by President Johnson.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY).

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1865-1870.
   Reconstruction.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY), to 1868-1870.

   ----------VIRGINIA: End--------

VIRGINIA, University of.

   "In 1816 the Legislature of Virginia authorized the president
   and directors of the Literary Fund to report a plan for a
   university at the next session of the Assembly. The committee
   made a full report as requested, but nothing was accomplished
   beyond bringing the subject of education prominently before
   the people. At the legislative session of 1817-18 that part of
   the bill relating to a university and the education of the
   poor was passed. … In the bill authorizing the establishment
   of the university, it was provided that the sum of $45,000 per
   annum should be given for the education of the poor, and
   $15,000 to the university. The commissioners having reported
   in favor of Central College as the most convenient place in
   Albemarle County, the Legislature decided, after much
   discussion, to locate the university at Charlottesville, and
   to assume the property and site of Central College. The
   commissioners embodied in their report an exhaustive plan for
   a university, chiefly from the pen of Thomas Jefferson."

      F. W. Blackmar,
      History of Federal and State Aid to Higher Education
      in the United States,
      (Bureau of Education, Circular of Information,
      1890, number 1), pages 174-175.

      ALSO IN:
      H. B. Adams,
      Thomas Jefferson and the University of Virginia
      (Bureau of Education, Circular of Information,
      1888, number 1).

VIRGINIA, West.

      See WEST VIRGINIA.

VIROCONIUM.

      See URICONIUM.

VISCONTI, The House of the.

      See MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447.

VISIGOTHS.

      See GOTHS.

VITALIAN, Pope, A. D. 657-672.

VITELLIAN CIVIL WAR.

      See ROME: A. D. 69.

VITELLIUS, Roman Emperor, A. D. 69.

VITEPSK, Battle of.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).

VITTORIA, Battle of (1813).

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1812-1814.

VIZIR,
VIZIER.

   "Like the Sassanian emperors, the Caliph was not only the
   divinely appointed ruler, but the embodiment of the government
   itself. His word was literally law, and his caprice might at
   any moment overturn the most careful calculations of the
   ministers, or deprive them of life, power, or liberty, during
   the performance of their most active duties, or at a most
   critical juncture. It was very seldom, however, that this
   awful personage condescended to trouble himself about the
   actual details of the executive government. The Vizier, as the
   word implies [Vizier, in Arabic Wazir, means 'One who bears a
   burden,'—Foot-note], was the one who bore the real burden of
   the State, and it was both his interest and that of the people
   at large to keep the Caliph himself as inactive as possible,
   and to reduce him, in fact, to the position of a mere puppet."

      E. H. Palmer,
      Haroun Alraschid, Caliph of Bagdad,
      chapter. 1.

      See, also, SUBLIME PORTE.

VLADIMIR I. (called The Great)
   Duke of Kiev, A. D. 981-1015.

   VLADIMIR II., Duke of Kiev, 1113-1126.

VOCATES, The.

      See AQUITAINE: THE ANCIENT TRIBES.

VOCLAD, OR VOUGLÉ, Battle of.

      See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 507-509.

VOCONIAN LAW.

   The object of the Voconian Law, passed at Rome about 169 B. C.
   under the auspices of Cato the censor, "was to limit the
   social influence of women, by forbidding rich citizens to make
   them heiresses of more than one half of their whole estate."

      W. Ihne,
      History of Rome,
      book 6, chapter 12 (volume 4).

VODIÆ, The.

      See IRELAND: TRIBES OF EARLY CELTIC INHABITANTS.

VOIVODES,
WOIWODES.

      See POLAND: A. D. 1578-1652;
      also BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: A. D. 1341-1350 (SERVIA).

VOLATERRÆ, Siege of.

   Some remnants of the armies defeated by Sulla, in the civil
   war which ended in his mastery of Rome and the Roman state (B.
   C. 82), took refuge in the strong Etruscan town of Volaterræ,
   and only capitulated after a siege of two years.

       W. Ihne,
       History of Rome,
       book 7, chapter 19 (volume 5).

VOLCÆ, The.

   "When the Romans entered the south of France, two tribes
   occupied the country west of the Rhone as far at least as
   Tolosa (Toulouse) on the Garonne. The eastern people, named
   the Volcae Arecomici, possessed the part between the Cebenna
   or Cevenna range (Cevennes), the Rhone, and the Mediterranean,
   and according to Strabo extended to Narbonne. The chief town
   of these Volcae was Nemausus (Nismes). The Volcae Tectosages
   had the upper basin of the Garonne: their chief town was
   Tolosa."

      G. Long,
      Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 1, chapter 21.

VOLSCIAN WARS OF ROME.

      See ROME: B. C. 489-450.

VOLSCIANS, The.

      See OSCANS; also ITALY, ANCIENT; and LATIUM.

VOLTA, Battle of (1848).

      See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

VOLTURNO, Battle of the (1860).
      See ITALY: A. D. 1859-1861.

VOLUNTII, The.

      See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES;
      also, IRELAND: TRIBES OF EARLY CELTIC INHABITANTS.

VRACHOPHAGOS, Battle of (1352).

      See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1348-1355.

VROEDSCHAP, The.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585
      LIMITS OF THE UNITED PROVINCES.

VULCANAL AT ROME, The.

   "The Vulcanal, or, as it is called by Livy, the Area Vulcani,
   must have been close to the Senaculum [early meeting place of
   the Senate], on the slope of the Capitol. It seems to have
   been originally an open space of some extent, used for public
   meetings, especially those of the Comitia Tributa, and
   dedicated to Vulcan. Sacrifices of small fish were offered to
   Vulcan here, and a temple dedicated to that god stood also
   here in the earliest times, but it was afterwards, on the
   enlargement of the pomœrium beyond the Palatine, removed for
   religious reasons to the Circus Flaminius, and the Vulcanal
   became simply a consecrated area."

      R. Burn,
      Rome and the Campagna,
      chapter 6, part 1.

      C. I. Hemans,
      Historic and Monumental Rome,
      page 209.

{3640}

VULGAR ERA.

      See ERA, CHRISTIAN.

W.

WAARTGELDERS.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1603-1619.

WABASH RIVER:
   Called the River St. Jerome by the French (1712).

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1698-1712.

WABENAKIES, OR ABNAKIS.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ABNAKIS.

WACOS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

WAGER OF BATTLE.
TRIAL BY COMBAT.
JUDICIAL COMBAT.

   "Trial by combat does not seem to have established itself
   completely in France till ordeals went into disuse, which
   Charlemagne rather encouraged, and which, in his age, the
   clergy for the most part approved. The former species of
   decision may, however, be met with under the first Merovingian
   kings (Greg. Turon, l. vii. c. 19, l. x. c. 10), and seems to
   have prevailed in Burgundy. It is established by the laws of
   the Alemanni or Suabians. Baluz. t. i. p. 80. It was always
   popular in Lombardy. … Otho II. established it in al disputes
   concerning real property. … God, as they deemed, was the
   judge. The nobleman fought on horseback, with all his arms of
   attack and defence; the plebeian on foot, with his club and
   target. The same were the weapons of the champions to whom
   women and ecclesiastics were permitted to intrust their
   rights. If the combat was intended to ascertain a civil right,
   the vanquished party, of course, forfeited his claim and paid
   a fine. If he fought by proxy, the champion was liable to have
   his hand struck off: a regulation necessary, perhaps, to
   obviate the corruption of these hired defenders. In criminal
   cases the appellant suffered, in the event of defeat, the same
   punishment which the law awarded to the offence of which he
   accused his adversary. Even where the cause was more peaceably
   tried, and brought to a regular adjudication by the court, an
   appeal for false judgment might indeed be made to the
   suzerain, but it could only be tried by battle. And in this,
   the appellant, if he would impeach the concurrent judgment of
   the court below, was compelled to meet in combat everyone of
   its members; unless he should vanquish them all within the
   day, his life, if he escaped from so many hazards, was
   forfeited to the law. If fortune or miracle should make him
   conqueror in every contest, the judges were equally subject to
   death, and their court forfeited their jurisdiction for ever.
   … Such was the judicial system of France when St. Louis [A. D.
   1226-1270] enacted that great code which bears the name of his
   Establishments. The rules of civil and criminal procedure, as
   well as the principles of legal decisions, are there laid down
   with much detail. But that incomparable prince, unable to
   overthrow the judicial combat, confined himself to discourage
   it by the example of a wiser jurisprudence. It was abolished
   throughout the royal domains." Trial by combat "was never
   abolished by any positive law, either in France [at large] or
   England. But instances of its occurrence are not frequent even
   in the fourteenth century."

      H. Hallam,
      The Middle Ages,
      chapter 2, part 2 (volume 1).

   "Nor was the wager of battle confined to races of Celtic or
   Teutonic origin. The Slavonic tribes, as they successively
   emerge into the light of history, show the same tendency to
   refer doubtful points of civil and criminal law to the
   arbitrament of the sword. The earliest records of Hungary,
   Bohemia, Poland, Servia, Silesia, Moravia, Pomerania,
   Lithuania, and Russia, present evidences of the prevalence of
   the system." The last recorded instance of the wager of battle
   in France was in 1549. "In England, the resolute conservatism,
   which resists innovation to the last, prolonged the existence
   of the wager of battle until a period unknown in other
   civilized nations. … It was not until the time of Elizabeth
   that it was even abolished in civil cases. … Even in the 17th
   century, instances of the battle ordeal between persons of
   high station are on record." As late as 1818 the right was
   claimed and conceded by the judges, in a criminal case which
   caused much excitement. "The next year the act 59 Geo. III.
   chap. 46, at length put an end for ever to this last remnant
   of the age of chivalry."

      H. C. Lea,
      Superstition and Force,
      chapter 2.

      See, also, LAW, CRIMINAL: A. D. 1818.

WAGER OF LAW.

   "This was the remarkable custom which was subsequently known
   as canonical compurgation, and which long remained a part of
   English jurisprudence, under the name of the Wager of Law. The
   defendant, when denying the allegation under oath, appeared
   surrounded by a number of companions—'juratores,'
   'conjuratores,' 'sacramentales,' 'collaudantes,'
   'compurgatores,' as they were variously termed—who swore, not
   to their knowledge of the facts, but as sharers and partakers
   in the oath of denial. This curious form of procedure derives
   importance from the fact that it is an expression of the
   character, not of an isolated sept, but of nearly all the
   races that have moulded the destinies of Europe. The
   Ostrogoths in Italy, and the Wisigoths of the South of France
   and Spain were the only nations in whose codes it occupies no
   place, and they, … at an early period, yielded themselves
   completely to the influence of the Roman civilization. … The
   church, with the tact which distinguished her dealings with
   her new converts, was not long in adopting a system which was
   admirably suited for her defence in an age of brute force."

      H. C. Lea,
      Superstition and Force,
      chapter 1.

   On the abolition of the Wager of Law.

      See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1833.

WAGNER, Fort,
   The assault on, the siege, and the final reduction of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (JULY: SOUTH CAROLINA),
      and (AUGUST-DECEMBER: SOUTH CAROLINA).

WAGRAM, Battle of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

{3641}

WAHABEES, The.

   "The Wahabees derive their name from Abdul Wahab, the father
   of Sheikh Muhammad, their founder, who arose about the
   beginning of the last century, in the province of Najd, in
   Arabia. The object of the Wahabee movement was to sweep away
   all later innovations, and to return to the original purity of
   Islam, as based upon the exact teaching of the Koran and the
   example of Mahomet. The principles of the sect rapidly spread
   among the Arab tribes, and were adopted by the sovereign
   princes of Darayeh, in Najd. Impelled by religious zeal and
   political ambition, and allured by the prospect of plunder,
   the Wahabees soon acquired nearly the whole of Arabia, and
   menaced the neighbouring Pashaliks of Turkey and Egypt. Mecca
   and Medina soon fell into their hands, the shrine was
   despoiled of its rich ornaments, and the pilgrim route to the
   Kaaba closed for some years. Early in this century (1811),
   Muhammad Ali, the Pasha of Egypt, at the bidding of the
   Sultan, set himself to check the progress of this aggressive
   sect; and his son Ibrahim Pasha completed the work (1818). …
   The following particulars of the Wahabee reform need only be
   added. They reject the decisions of the 'four orthodox
   doctors,' and the intercessions of saints; they condemn the
   excessive reverence paid to Mahomet, and deny his mediation,
   until the last day. They also disapprove of the ornamenting of
   tombs, &c."

      J. W. H. Stobart,
      Islam and its Founder,
      chapter 10, with foot-note.

      ALSO IN:
      W. C. Taylor,
      History of Mohammedanism and its Sects,
      chapter 11.

      T. Nöldeke,
      Sketches from Eastern History,
      page 103.

WAHLSTADT, Battle of (1241).

      See MONGOLS: A. D. 1229-1294;
      and LIEGNITZ, THE BATTLE OF.

WAHPETONS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

WAIILATPUAN FAMILY, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: WAIILATPUAN FAMILY.

WAIKAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.

WAITANGI, Treaty of.

      See NEW ZEALAND: A. D. 1642-1856.

WAITZEN, Battles of(1849).

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

WAIWODES,
WOIWODES,
VOIVODES.

      See POLAND: A. D. 1578-1652;
      and BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: A. D. 1341-1356 (SERVIA).

WAKASHAN FAMILY, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: WAKASHAN FAMILY.

WAKEFIELD, Battle of (1460).

   Queen Margaret, rallying the loyal Lancastrians of the north
   of England, met her enemy, the Duke of York, and the enemies
   of her party, on Wakefield Green, December 30, 1460, and
   defeated them with great slaughter, the Duke of York being
   found among the slain. But her fruitless victory was soon
   reversed by young Edward, Earl of March, eldest son of the
   deceased Duke of York, who deposed King Henry VI. and planted
   himself on the throne, before the same winter had passed.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1455-1471.

WAKEFIELD SYSTEM, The.

      See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1800-1840.

WALCHEREN EXPEDITION, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1809 (JULY-DECEMBER).

WALDEMAR.

      See VALDEMAR.

WALDENSES,
VAUDOIS, The.

   "Let me at the outset express my conviction that the whole
   attempt to ascribe to the Waldenses an earlier date than the
   latter half of the 12th century, to throw back their origin
   some two hundred years, or sometimes much more than this, even
   to the times of Claudius of Turin (d. 839), is one which will
   not stand the test of historical criticism; while the
   endeavour to vindicate for them this remote antiquity has
   introduced infinite confusion into their whole history. The
   date of Waldo, who, as I cannot doubt, is rightly recognized
   as their founder, we certainly know. When it is sought to get
   rid of their relation to him as embodied in the very name
   which they bear, and to change this name into Vallenses, the
   Men of the Valleys or the Dalesmen, it is a transformation
   which has no likelihood, philological or historic, to
   recommend it. … Peter Waldo,—for we will not withhold from him
   this Christian name, although there is no authority for it
   anterior to the beginning of the 15th century,—was a rich
   citizen and merchant of Lyons [in the later half of the 12th
   century]. Not satisfied with those scanty portions of
   Scripture doled out to the laity in divine services, and
   yearning above all for a larger knowledge of the Gospels, he
   obtained from two friends among the priesthood a copy of these
   last and of some other portions of Scripture translated into
   the Romance language; a collection also of sayings from the
   Fathers. The whole movement remained to the end true to this
   its first motive—the desire namely for a fuller acquaintance
   with the Word of God. That Word he now resolved to make the
   rule of his life. … He …, as a first step, sells all that he
   has, and bestows it upon the poor. In the name which he adopts
   for himself and for the companions whom he presently
   associates with him, the same fact of a voluntary poverty, as
   that which above all they should embody in their lives, speaks
   out. On this side of the Alps they are Poor Men of Lyons; on
   the Italian, Poor Men of Lombardy. … And now he and his began
   to preach in the streets of Lyons, to find their way into
   houses, to itinerate the country round. Waldo had no intention
   herein of putting himself in opposition to the Church, of
   being a Reformer in any other sense than St. Francis or St.
   Bernard was a Reformer, a quickener, that is, and reviver of
   the Church's spiritual life. His protest was against practical
   mischiefs, against negligences and omissions on the part of
   those who should have taught the people, and did not.
   Doctrinal protest at this time there was none. But for Rome
   all forms of religious earnestness were suspicious which did
   not spring directly from herself. … In 1178 the Archbishop of
   Lyons forbade their preaching or expounding any more. Such as
   did not submit had no choice but to quit Lyons, and betake
   themselves elsewhere. And thus it came to pass that not the
   city, already so illustrious in ecclesiastical story, where
   Irenæus taught and Blandina suffered, … but the Alpine
   mountains must shelter these outcasts, and in turn be made
   famous by their presence." In 1209, Pope Innocent III. made an
   attempt to absorb Waldo's society in an "Order of Poor
   Catholics," which he instituted. "Failing this, he repeated, a
   few years later, at the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), the
   Church's sentence against the Waldenses, including them under
   a common ban with the Cathari and the whole rabble rout of
   Manichæans and others with whom they have so often since been
   confounded. …
{3642}
   Enemies have sought to confound, that so there might be
   imputed to the Waldenses any evil which had been brought home
   to the Albigenses. … Friends have sought to identify them out
   of the wish to recruit the scanty number of witnesses for
   Scriptural and Apostolical truth in the dark ages of the
   Church; as certainly it would prove no small numerical
   addition if the Albigenses might be counted among these." It
   seems to be certain that the Waldenses were not spared by the
   crusaders who exterminated the Albigenses of southern France
   between 1209 and 1229. They fled before that storm into the
   recesses of the Alps. "But they were numerous in North Italy
   as well; and far more widely scattered over the whole of
   central Europe than their present dwelling place and numbers
   would at all suggest. They had congregations in Florence, in
   Genoa, in Venice, above all in Milan; there were Waldensian
   communities as far south as Calabria; they were not unknown in
   Arragon; still less in Switzerland; at a later day they found
   their way to Bohemia, and joined hands with the Hussites
   there."

      R. C. Trench,
      Lectures on Mediæval Church History,
      lecture 17.

   "The valleys which the Vaudois have raised into celebrity lie
   to the west of Piemont, between the province of Pignerol and
   Briançon, and adjoining on the other side to the ancient
   Marquisate of Susa, and that of the Saluces. The capital, La
   Tour, being about 36 miles from Turin, and 14 from Pignerol.
   The extent of the valleys is about 12 Italian miles, making a
   square of about 24 French leagues. The valleys are three in
   number, Luzern, Perouse, and St. Martin. The former (in which
   the chief town is now Catholic) is the most beautiful and
   extensive."

      J. Bresse,
      History of the Vaudois,
      part 1, chapter i.

   The Waldenses are sometimes confused, mistakenly, with the
   Albigenses, who belonged to an earlier time.

      See ALBIGENSES.

      ALSO IN:
      A. Muston,
      The Israel of the Alps.

      E. Comba,
      History of the Waldenses of Italy..

WALDENSES: A. D. 1526-1561.
   Identification with the Calvinists.
   Persecuting war of the Duke of Savoy.
   The tolerant treaty of Cavour.

      See SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1559-1580.

WALDENSES: A. D. 1546.
   Massacre of the remnant in Provence and Venaissin.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.

WALDENSES: A. D. 1655.
   The second Persecution and Massacre.
   Cromwell's intervention.

   "They [the Vaudois, or Waldenses] had experienced persecutions
   through their whole history, and especially after the
   Reformation; but, on the whole, the two last Dukes of Savoy,
   and also Christine, daughter of Henry IV. of France, and
   Duchess-Regent through the minority of her son, the present
   Duke, had protected them in their privileges, even while
   extirpating Protestantism in the rest of the Piedmontese
   dominions. Latterly, however, there had been a passion at
   Turin and at Rome for their conversion to the Catholic faith,
   and priests had been traversing their valleys for the purpose.
   The murder of one such priest, and some open insults to the
   Catholic worship, about Christmas 1654, are said to have
   occasioned what followed. On the 25th of January, 1654-5, an
   edict was issued, under the authority of the Duke of Savoy,
   'commanding and enjoining every head of a family, with its
   members, of the pretended Reformed Religion, of what rank,
   degree, or condition soever, none excepted, inhabiting and
   possessing estates in the places of Luserna … &c., within
   three days, to withdraw and depart, and be, with their
   families, withdrawn out of the said places, and transported
   into the places and limits marked out for toleration by his
   Royal Highness during his good pleasure,' … unless they gave
   evidence within 20 days of having become Catholics.
   Furthermore it was commanded that in every one even of the
   tolerated places there should be regular celebration of the
   Holy Mass, and that there should be no interference therewith,
   nor any dissuasion of anyone from turning a Catholic, also on
   pain of death. All the places named are in the Valley of
   Luserna, and the object was a wholesale shifting of the
   Protestants of that valley out of nine of its communes and
   their concentration into five higher up. In vain were there
   remonstrances at Turin from those immediately concerned. On
   the 17th of April, 1655, the Marquis di Pianezza, entered the
   doomed region with a body of troops mainly Piedmontese, but
   with French and Irish among them. There was resistance,
   fighting, burning, pillaging, flight to the mountains, and
   chasing and murdering for eight days, Saturday, April 24,
   being the climax. The names of about 300 of those murdered
   individually are on record, with the ways of the deaths of
   many of them. Women were ripped open, or carried about impaled
   on spikes; men, women, and children, were flung from
   precipices, hacked, tortured, roasted alive; the heads of some
   of the dead were boiled and the brains eaten; there are forty
   printed pages, and twenty-six ghastly engravings, by way of
   Protestant tradition of the ascertained variety of the
   devilry. The massacre was chiefly in the Valley of Luserna,
   but extended also into the other two valleys. The fugitives
   were huddled in crowds high among the mountains, moaning and
   starving; and not a few, women and infants especially,
   perished amid the snows. … There was a shudder of abhorrence
   through Protestant Europe, but no one was so much roused as
   Cromwell. … On Thursday the 17th of May, and for many days
   more, the business of the Savoy Protestants was the chief
   occupation of the Council. Letters, all in Milton's Latin, but
   signed by the Lord Protector in his own name, were despatched
   (May 25) to the Duke of Savoy himself, to the French King, to
   the States General of the United Provinces, to the Protestant
   Swiss Cantons, to the King of Sweden, to the King of Denmark,
   and to Ragotski, Prince of Transylvania. A day of humiliation
   was appointed for the Cities of London and Westminster, and
   another for all England." A collection of money for the
   sufferers was made, which amounted, in England and Wales, to
   £38,000—equal to about £137,000 now. Cromwell's personal
   contribution was £2,000—equivalent to £7,500 in money of the
   present day. The Protector despatched a special envoy to the
   court of Turin, who addressed very plain and bold words to the
   Duke. Meanwhile Blake with his fleet was in the Mediterranean,
   and there were inquiries made as to the best place for landing
   troops to invade the Duke's dominions. "All which being known
   to Mazarin, that wily statesman saw that no time was to be
   lost.
{3643}
   While Mr. Downing [second commissioner sent by Cromwell] was
   still only on his way to Geneva through France, Mazarin had
   instructed M. Servien, the French minister at Turin, to
   insist, in the French King's name, on an immediate settlement
   of the Vaudois business. The result was a 'Patente di Gratia e
   Perdono,' or 'Patent of Grace and Pardon,' granted by Charles
   Emanuel to the Vaudois Protestants, August 19, in terms of a
   Treaty at Pignerol, in which the French Minister appeared as
   the real mediating party and certain Envoys from the Swiss
   Cantons as more or less assenting. As the Patent substantially
   retracted the Persecuting Edict and restored the Vaudois to
   all their former privileges, nothing more was to be done."
   These events in Piedmont drew from Milton his immortal sonnet,
   beginning: "Avenge, O Lord, thy slaughtered saints."

      D. Masson,
      Life of John Milton,
      volume 5, book 1, chapter 1, section 2.

      ALSO IN:
      J. B. Perkins,
      France under Mazarin,
      chapter 16 (volume 2).

      A. Muston,
      The Israel of the Alps,
      volume 1, part 2, chapters 6-9.

WALDENSES: A. D. 1691.
   Toleration obtained by William of Orange.

   "In the spring of 1691, the Waldensian shepherds, long and
   cruelly persecuted, and weary of their lives, were surprised
   by glad tidings. Those who had been in prison for heresy
   returned to their homes. Children, who had been taken from
   their parents to be educated by priests, were sent back.
   Congregations, which had hitherto met only by stealth and with
   extreme peril, now worshipped God without molestation in the
   face of day. Those simple mountaineers probably never knew
   that their fate had been a subject of discussion at the Hague,
   and that they owed the happiness of their firesides and the
   security of their humble temples to the ascendency which
   William [of Orange] exercised over the Duke of Savoy," who had
   lately joined the Grand Alliance against Louis XIV. of France.

      Lord Macaulay,
      History of England,
      chapter 17.

   ----------WALDENSES: End--------

WALDSHUT: Capture by Duke Bernhard (1637).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

   ----------WALES: Start--------

WALES:
    Origin of the name.

       See WELSH.

WALES:
   Ancient tribes.

      See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

WALES: 6th Century.
   The British states embraced in it.

      See BRITAIN: 6TH CENTURY.

WALES: A. D. 1066-1135.
   The Norman Conquest.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1087-1135.

WALES: A. D. 1282-1284.
   The final conquest.

   "All the other races had combined on the soil of Britain, the
   Welsh would not. The demands of feudal homage made by the
   kings of England were evaded or repudiated; the intermarriages
   by which Henry II. and John had tried to help on a national
   agreement had in every case failed. In every internal
   difficulty of English politics the Welsh princes had done
   their best to embarrass the action of the kings; they had
   intrigued with every aspirant for power, had been in league
   with every rebel. … The necessity of guarding the Welsh border
   had caused the English kings to found on the March a number of
   feudal lordships, which were privileged to exercise almost
   sovereign jurisdictions, and exempted from the common
   operation of the English law. The Mortimers at Chirk and
   Wigmore, the Bohuns at Hereford and Brecon, the Marshalls at
   Pembroke, and the Clares in Glamorgan, were out of the reach
   of the King, and often turned against one another the arms
   which had been given them to overawe the Welsh. … So long as
   the Welsh were left free to rebel the Marchers must be left
   free to fight. … Llewelyn, the prince of North Wales, had, by
   the assistance given to Simon de Montfort, earned as his
   reward a recognition of his independence, subject only to the
   ancient feudal obligations. All the advantages won during the
   early years of Henry III. had been thus surrendered. When the
   tide turned Llewelyn had done homage to Henry; but when he was
   invited, in 1273, to perform the usual service to the new
   king, he refused; and again, in 1274 and 1275, he evaded the
   royal summons. In 1276, under the joint pressure of
   excommunication and a great army which Edward brought against
   him, he made a formal submission; performed the homage, and
   received, as a pledge of amity, the hand of Eleanor de
   Montfort in marriage. But Eleanor, although she was Edward's
   cousin, was Earl Simon's daughter, and scarcely qualified to
   be a peacemaker. Another adviser of rebellion was found in
   Llewelyn's brother David, who had hitherto taken part with the
   English, and had received special favours and promotion from
   Edward himself. … The peace made in 1277 lasted about four
   years. In 1282 the brothers rose, seized the border castles of
   Hawarden, Flint, and Rhuddlan, and captured the Justiciar of
   Wales, Roger Clifford. Edward saw then that his time was come.
   He marched into North Wales, carrying with him the courts of
   law and the exchequer, and transferring the seat of government
   for the time to Shrewsbury. He left nothing undone that might
   give the expedition the character of a national effort. He
   collected forces on all sides; he assembled the estates of the
   realm, clergy, lords, and commons, and prevailed on them to
   furnish liberal supplies; he obtained sentence of
   excommunication from the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Welsh
   made a brave defence, and, had it not been for the almost
   accidental capture and murder of Llewelyn in December, England
   might have found the task too hard for her. The death of
   Llewelyn, however, and the capture of David in the following
   June, deprived the Welsh of their leaders, and they submitted.
   Edward began forthwith his work of consolidation. … In 1284 he
   published at Rhuddlan a statute, called the Statute of Wales,
   which was intended to introduce the laws and customs of
   England, and to reform the administration of that country
   altogether on the English system. The process was a slow one;
   the Welsh retained their ancient common law and their national
   spirit; the administrative powers were weak and not
   far-reaching; the sway of the lords Marchers was suffered to
   continue; and, although assimilated, Wales was not
   incorporated with England. It was not until the reign of Henry
   VIII. that the principality was represented in the English
   Parliament, and the sovereignty, which from 1300 onwards was
   generally although not invariably bestowed on the king's
   eldest son, conferred under the most favourable circumstances
   little more than a high-sounding title and some slight and
   ideal claim to the affection of a portion of the Welsh people.
   The task, however, which the energies of his predecessors had
   failed to accomplish was achieved by Edward. All Britain south
   of the Tweed recognised his direct and supreme authority, and
   the power of the Welsh nationality was so far broken that it
   could never more thwart the determined and united action of
   England."

      W. Stubbs,
      The Early Plantagenets,
      chapter 10.

      ALSO IN:
      D. Hume,
      History of England,
      chapter 13.

      J. Lingard,
      History of England,
      volume 3, chapter 3.

      C. Knight,
      Popular History of England,
      chapter 25.

      C. H. Pearson,
      History of England during the Early and Middle Ages.

{3644}

WALES: A. D. 1402-1413.
   Owen Glendower's Rebellion.

   "Since the day when it was conquered by Edward I. Wales had
   given the kings of England very little trouble. The Welsh
   remained loyal to the son and grandson of their conqueror, and
   were the most devoted friends of Richard II., even when he had
   lost the hearts of his English subjects. But on the usurpation
   of Henry [IV.] their allegiance seems to have been shaken: and
   Owen Glendower, who was descended from Llewelyn, the last
   native prince of Wales, laid claim to the sovereignty of the
   country [A. D. 1402]. He ravaged the territory of Lord Grey of
   Ruthin, and took him prisoner near Snowdon; then, turning
   southwards, overran Herefordshire and defeated and took
   prisoner Sir Edmund Mortimer, uncle to that young Earl of
   March, who should have been heir to the crown after Richard
   according to the true order of descent. In this battle upwards
   of a thousand Englishmen were slain, and such was the fierce
   barbarity of the victors that even the women of Wales
   mutilated the dead bodies in a manner too gross to be
   described, and left them unburied upon the field till heavy
   sums were paid for their interment. It was necessary to put
   down this revolt of Glendower, and the King collected an army
   and went against him in person. It was the beginning of
   September; but owing, as the people thought, to magical arts
   and enchantments practised by the Welshman, the army suffered
   dreadfully from tempests of wind, rain, snow, and hail before
   it could reach the enemy. In one night the King's tent was
   blown down, and he himself would have been killed if he had
   not retired to rest with his armour on. Finally the enterprise
   had to be abandoned. … Glendower continued as troublesome as
   ever, and the King was unable from various causes to make much
   progress against him. At one time money could not easily be
   raised for the expedition. At another time, when he actually
   marched into the borders of Wales [A. D. 1405], his advance
   was again impeded by the elements. The rivers swelled to an
   unusual extent, and the army lost a great part of its baggage
   by the suddenness of the inundation. The French, too, sent
   assistance to Glendower, and took Carmarthen Castle. Some time
   afterwards [A. D. 1407] the King's son, Henry Prince of Wales,
   succeeded in taking the castle of Aberystwith; but very soon
   after Owen Glendower recovered it by stealth. In short, the
   Welsh succeeded in maintaining their independence of England
   during this whole reign, and Owen Glendower ultimately got
   leave to die in peace." On the accession of Henry V. (A. D.
   1413), "the Welsh, who had been so troublesome to his father,
   admired his valour and claimed him as a true prince of Wales,
   remembering that he had been born at Monmouth, which place was
   at that time within the principality. They discovered that
   there was an ancient prophecy that a prince would be born
   among themselves who should rule the whole realm of England;
   and they saw its fulfilment in King Henry V."

      J. Gairdner,
      The Houses of Lancaster and York,
      chapter. 4, section 3;
      and chapter 5, section 1.

      ALSO IN:
      J. H. Wylie,
      History of England under Henry IV.,
      volume 1, chapter 14.

   ----------WALES: End--------

WALES, Prince of.

   "When Edward I. subdued Wales, he is said to have promised the
   people of that country a native prince who could not speak
   English, and taking advantage of the fact that his queen,
   Eleanor, was delivered of a child at Carnarvon Castle, in
   North Wales, he conferred the principality upon his infant son
   Edward, who was yet unable to speak. By the death of his
   eldest brother Alphonso, Edward became heir to the throne, to
   which he afterwards succeeded as Edward II.; but from this
   time forward, the principality has been appropriated solely to
   the eldest sons of the kings of England, who previous to this
   period had only borne the title of 'Lord Prince.' In 1841, for
   the first time, the dukedom of Saxony was introduced among the
   reputed titles of the Prince of Wales. This dignity his Royal
   Highness derives merely in right of his own paternal descent.
   … Without any new creation, and previous to his acquiring the
   title of Prince of Wales, the heir-apparent of the sovereign
   is Duke of Cornwall, the most ancient title of its degree in
   England. Edward the Black Prince … was created the first Duke
   of Cornwall in 1337. … The dukedom merges in the Crown when
   there is no heir apparent, and is immediately inherited by the
   prince on his birth, or by the accession of his father to the
   throne, as the case may be. … The earldom of Chester is one of
   the titles conferred by patent, but it was formerly a
   principality, into which it had been erected by the 21st of
   Richard II. In the reign of Henry IV., however, the act of
   parliament by which it had been constituted was repealed, and
   it has ever since been granted in the same patent which
   confers the title of Prince of Wales. As the eldest sons of
   the kings of Scotland have enjoyed the titles of Duke of
   Rothsay, Earl of Carrick, Baron Renfrew, and Hereditary Great
   Steward of Scotland, those dignities are also invariably
   attributed to the Prince of Wales."

      C. R. Dodd,
      Manual of Dignities,
      part 2.

WALI.

   An Arabian title, given to certain governors of extensive
   provinces under the caliphate. It seems to have had a
   viceroyal significance, marking the bearer of it as an
   immediate representative of the caliph.

      T. P. Hughes,
      Dictionary of Islam.

WALID I., Caliph, A. D. 705-715.

   Walid II., Caliph, 743-744.

WALKER, William:
   Filibustering in Nicaragua.

      See NICARAGUA: A. D. 1855-1860.

WALL IN BRITAIN, Roman.

      See ROMAN WALLS IN BRITAIN.

WALL OF CHINA, The Great.

      See CHINA: THE ORIGIN OF THE PEOPLE.

WALL OF PROBUS.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 277.

WALLACE, William, and the Scottish struggle for independence.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1290-1305.

{3645}

WALLACHS,
WALLACHIANS.
WALLACHIA: The name.

   This is one of the forms of a name which the ancient Germanic
   peoples seem to have given to non-Germanic nations whom they
   associated in any wise with the Roman empire.

      See WELSH.

   For an account of the Wallachians of southeastern Europe, and
   their country.

      See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES.

WALLENSTEIN, Campaigns of.

      See GERMANY:
      A. D. 1624-1626; 1627-1629; 1630; 1631-1632; and 1632-1634.

WALLHOF, Battle of (1626).

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1611-1629.

WALLINGFORD, Treaty of.

   A treaty concluded, A. D. 1153, between King Stephen and
   Matilda, who claimed the English crown as the heir of her
   father, Henry I. By the treaty Stephen was recognized as king
   and Matilda's son Henry (who became Henry II.) was made his
   heir.

WALLOONS, The.

   "In Namur, Liege, and Luxembourg, the speech is what is called
   Walloon, the same word as Welsh, and derived from the German
   root 'wealh,' a foreigner. By this designation the Germans of
   the Flemish tongue denoted the Romano-Belgic population whose
   language was akin to the French, and whom a hilly and
   impracticable country (the forest districts of the Ardennes)
   had more or less protected from their own arms. Now the
   Walloon is a form of the Romano-Keltic so peculiar and
   independent that it must be of great antiquity, i. e., as old
   as the oldest dialect of the French, and no extension of the
   dialects of Lorraine, or Champagne, from which it differs
   materially. It is also a language which must have been formed
   on a Keltic basis. … The Walloons, then, are Romano-Keltic;
   whereas the Flemings are Germans, in speech and in blood."

      R. G. Latham,
      Ethnology of Europe,
      chapter 3.

      See, also, NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1494-1519.

WALPOLE, The administration of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1714-1721, and 1727-1741.

WALPOLE COMPANY, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768.

WÄLSCH, The.

      See VENEDI.

WALTER, the Penniless, Crusade of.

      See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099.

WAMPANOAGS,
POKANOKETS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY;
      also, NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1674-1675, 1675, 1676-1678.

WAMPUM.

   "Wampum, or wompam, according to Trumbull was the name of the
   white beads made from stems or inner whorls of the Pyrula
   Carica or Canaliculata periwinkle shells so common on all the
   south Coast of New England. When strung they were called
   wampon or wampom—peage or peake or peg, equivalent to 'strings
   of white beads,' for peage means 'strung beads.' Color was the
   basis of the nomenclature, as well as of the difference in
   value. 'Wompi' was white; 'Sacki' was black; 'Suckauhock' was
   the black beads made from the dark part of the poquauhock, the
   common quahog, Venus' mercenaria or round clam shell. The
   value of the black was generally twice that of the white. …
   The word generally used among the Dutch who led in introducing
   the bead currency of the Indians, Sewan or Zeewand, was more
   general in its application than wampum. But whatever the
   difficult Indian linguistic process may have been, the New
   England men soon settled on wampum and peage as the working
   names for this currency. The shell cylinders, black or white,
   were about one-eighth of an inch in diameter and one-quarter
   long. There were shorter beads used for ornaments, but there
   is hardly any trace of them in the currency. … The Indians
   strung the beads on fibres of hemp or tendons taken from the
   flesh of their forest meat. … The strings of peage were
   embroidered on strips of deer-skin, making the 'Máchequoce,' a
   girdle or belt 'of five inches thicknesse,' or more, and to
   the value of ten pounds sterling or more, which was worn about
   the waist or thrown over the shoulders like a scarf. More than
   10,000 beads were wrought into a single belt four inches wide.
   These belts were in common use like the gold and jewelry of
   our day. They also played the same symbolic part which
   survives in the crown jewels and other regalia of civilized
   nations. … Whenever the Indians made an important statement in
   their frequent negotiations, they presented a belt to prove
   it, to give force to their words. … It gave to the words the
   weight of hard physical facts and made the expression an
   emblem of great force and significance. The philologists call
   this literary office, this symbolic function of wampum, an
   elementary mnemonic record. The same was fulfilled by the
   quippus, knotted strings or quipu of the ancient Peruvians. …
   'This belt preserves my words' was a common remark of the
   Iroquois Chief in council. … The Iroquois were a mighty
   nation, almost an incipient state. Their only records were in
   these mnemonic beads. … Tradition gives to the Narragansetts
   the honor of inventing these valued articles, valuable both
   for use and exchange. … The Long Island Indians manufactured
   the beads in large quantities and then were forced to pay them
   away in tribute to the Mohawks and the fiercer tribes of the
   interior. Furs were readily exchanged for these trinkets,
   which carried a permanent value, through the constancy of the
   Indian desire for them. … After the use of wampum was
   established in colonial life, contracts were made payable at
   will in wampum, beaver, or silver. … The use began in New
   England in 1627. It was a legal tender until 1661, and for
   more than three quarters of a century the wampum was current
   in small transactions."

      W. B. Weeden,
      Indian Money as a Factor in New England Civilization.

      See, also, MONEY AND BANKING: 17th CENTURY;
      QUIPU; and MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1623-1629.

WANBOROUGH, Battle of.

      See HWICCAS.

WANDIWASH, Battle of (1760).

      See INDIA: A. D. 1758-1761.

WAPANACHKIK, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

WAPENING, The.

   The mediæval armed assembly of Ghent and other Flemish towns.

      J. Michelet,
      History of France,
      book 12, chapter 1.

WAPENTAKE, The.

      See HUNDRED, THE.

WAPISIANAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.

WAPPINGERS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

WAR OF 1812, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1809; 1808;
      and 1810-1812, to 1815 (JANUARY).

WAR OF JENKINS' EAR, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1739-1741.

WAR OF LIBERATION.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813, to 1813 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

{3646}

WAR OF THE AUSTRIAN SUCCESSION.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1740, to 1744-1745;
      NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1745, and 1746-1747;
      ITALY: A. D. 1741-1743, to 1746-1747;
      AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: THE CONGRESS.

WAR OF THE FEDERATION.

      See VENEZUELA: A. D. 1829-1886.

WAR OF THE LOVERS, The.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1578-1580.

WAR OF THE QUEEN'S RIGHTS.

      See NETHERLANDS (THE SPANISH PROVINCES): A. D. 1667.

WAR OF THE REBELLION (of the American Slave States),
or War of Secession.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1860 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER), and after.

   Statistics.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (MAY) STATISTICS.

WAR OF THE SPANISH SUCCESSION.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1702, and after;
      NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1702-1704, and after;
      GERMANY: A. D. 1702, and after;
      ITALY: A. D. 1701-1713;
      NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1710;
      and UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

WAR OF THE THREE HENRYS.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1584-1589.

WARAUS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.

WARBECK, PERKIN, Rebellion of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1487-1497.

WARBURG, Battle of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1760.

WARD, General Artemas, and the American Revolution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1775 (APRIL-MAY), (MAY-AUGUST), and (JUNE).

WARINGS, The.

      See VARANGIANS.

WARNA,
VARNA, Battle of (1444).

      See TURKS: A. D. 1402-1451.

WARREN, Dr. Joseph, and the American Revolution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (MAY), and (JUNE).

WARS OF RELIGION IN FRANCE, The.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1560-1563, to 1593-1598.

WARS OF THE ROSES.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1455-1471.

WARSAW: A. D. 1656.
   Three days battle with Swedes and Brandenburgers.
   Defeat of the Poles.

      See BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1640-1688;
      and SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1644-1697.

WARSAW: A. D. 1792-1794.
   Occupied by the Russians.
   Their forces expelled.
   Capture of the city by Souvorof.
   Its acquisition by Prussia.

      See POLAND: A. D. 1791-1792; and 1793-1796.

WARSAW: A. D. 1807.
   Created a Grand Duchy, and ceded to the King of Saxony.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1807 (JUNE-JULY).

WARSAW: A. D. 1815.
   The Grand Duchy given to Russia.

      See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

WARSAW: A. D. 1830-1831.
   Revolt.
   Attack and capture by the Russians.

      See POLAND: A. D. 1830-1832.

WARTBURG,
   Luther at.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1521-1522.

   German students' demonstration (1817).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1817-1820.

WARTENBURG, Battle of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).

WARWICK, the King-maker.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1455-1471.

WARWICK PLANTATION.

      See RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1641-1647.

WASHAKIS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES, SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.

WASHINGTON, George:
   First campaigns.

      See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1754, and 1755.

   In the War of the American Revolution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1775 (MAY-AUGUST), to 1783 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).

   The framing of the Federal Constitution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787.

   Presidential election and administration.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789, to 1796.

   Farewell Address.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1796.

   ----------WASHINGTON (City): Start--------

WASHINGTON (City): A. D. 1791.
   The founding of the Federal Capital.

   "One important duty which engaged the President's
   [Washington's] attention during part of the recess [of
   Congress] related to the purchase and survey of the new
   Federal city. The site chosen on the Potomac by himself and
   the commissioners, in conformity with law [see UNITED STATES
   OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789-1792], lay a few miles to the north of
   Mount Vernon on the Maryland side of the river, at the
   confluence of the Eastern Branch, and just below Georgetown.
   The tradition goes that, while a young surveyor scouring the
   neighboring country, Washington had marked the advantages of
   this spot for a great city. … The entire soil belonged in
   large parcels to a few plain, easy, Maryland farmers, who rode
   over to Georgetown for their flour and bacon. One of these
   only, David Burns, was obstinate about making terms; and the
   subsequent rise of land in the western quarter of the city,
   which his farmhouse now occupied, rendered his little daughter
   in time the heiress of Washington, and confirmed his claims to
   historical consideration as the most conspicuous grantor of
   the National Capital. For procuring this choice spot on behalf
   of his countrymen, the President conducted the negotiations in
   person, and the purchase of the Federal city was concluded
   upon just and even generous terms. Each owner surrendered his
   real estate to the United States with no restriction except
   that of retaining every alternate lot for himself. The
   government was permitted to reserve all tracts specially
   desired at £25 an acre, while the land for avenues, streets,
   and alleys should cost nothing. Thus the Federal Capital came
   to the United States as substantially a free conveyance of
   half the fee of the soil in consideration of the enhanced
   value expected for the other half. … Major l'Enfant, a French
   architect, was selected to plan and lay out the new city. The
   highways were mapped and bounded substantially as they exist
   at this day, being so spacious and so numerous in comparison
   with building lots as to have admitted of no later change, in
   the course of a century, except in the prudent direction of
   parking, enlarging sidewalks, and leaving little plats in
   front of houses to be privately cared for. Streets running due
   north and south from the northern boundary to the Potomac were
   intersected at right angles by others which extended east and
   west.
{3647}
   To mar the simplicity of this plan, however, which so far
   resembled that of Philadelphia, great avenues, 160 feet wide,
   were run diagonally, radiating like spokes, from such main
   centres as Capitol Hill and the President's house. … This new
   Capital, by the President modestly styled 'the Federal City,'
   but to which the commissioners, by general acclamation,
   proceeded in September to affix his illustrious name, was
   America's first grand essay at a metropolis in advance of
   inhabitants. … The founder himself entered with unwonted ardor
   into the plans projected for developing this the new Capital.
   Not only did he picture the city which bore his name as an
   instructor of the coming youth in lessons of lofty patriotism,
   but he prophesied for it national greatness apart from its
   growth as the repository of the nation. He believed it would
   become a prosperous commercial city, its wharves studded with
   sails, enjoying all the advantages of Western traffic by means
   of a canal linking the Potomac and Ohio rivers, so as to bring
   Western produce to the seaboard. The ten-mile square which
   comprised the territorial District of Columbia, inclusive of
   the Capital, stretched across the Potomac, taking Georgetown
   from the Maryland jurisdiction, and Alexandria from Virginia.
   … The first corner-stone of this new Federal district was
   publicly laid with Masonic ceremonies, and though the auction
   sale of city lots in autumn proved disappointing, the idea
   prevailed that the government would gain from individual
   purchasers in Washington city a fund ample enough for erecting
   there all the public buildings at present needed."

      J. Schouler,
      History of the United States,
      chapter 2, section 2 (volume 1).

      ALSO IN:
      M. Clemmer,
      Ten Years in Washington,
      chapters 1-3.

      C. B. Todd,
      The Story of Washington,
      chapters 1-2.

      J. A. Porter,
      The City of Washington
      (Johns Hopkins University Studies, series 3, numbers 11-12).

WASHINGTON (City): A. D. 1814.
   In the hands of the British.
   Destruction of public buildings.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1814 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

WASHINGTON (City): A. D. 1861 (April).
   The threatening activity of rebellion.
   Peril of the national capital.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (APRIL)
      ACTIVITY OF REBELLION.

WASHINGTON (City): A. D. 1861 (April-May).
   The coming of the first defenders of the national capital.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (APRIL),
      and (APRIL-MAY: MARYLAND).

WASHINGTON (City): A. D. 1862 (April).
   Abolition of Slavery in the District of Columbia.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (APRIL-JUNE).

WASHINGTON (City): A. D. 1864.
   Approached and threatened by Early.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (JULY: VIRGINIA-MARYLAND).

WASHINGTON (City): A. D. 1867.
   Extension of suffrage to the Negroes.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1867 (JANUARY).

   ----------WASHINGTON (City): End--------

WASHINGTON, Fort: A. D. 1776.
   Capture by the British.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1776 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

WASHINGTON,
   The proposed state, to be formed west of Pennsylvania.

      See NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1784.

WASHINGTON (State): A. D. 1803.
   Was it embraced in the Louisiana Purchase?
   Grounds of American possession.

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.

WASHINGTON (State): A. D. 1846.
   Possession for the United States secured by the settlement
   of the Oregon boundary question with England.

      See OREGON: A. D. 1844-1846.

WASHINGTON (State): A. D. 1889.
   Admission to the Union.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1889-1890.

WASHINGTON, Treaty of (1842).

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1842 THE ASHBURTON TREATY.

   Treaty of (1871).

      See ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1871.

WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY, St. Louis.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: REFORMS &c.: A. D. 1865-1886.

WASHOAN FAMILY, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: WASHOAN FAMILY.

WAT TYLER'S REBELLION.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1381.

WATAUGA ASSOCIATION, The.

      See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1769-1772.

WATERFORD: A. D. 1170.
   Stormed and taken by Strongbow.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1169-1175.

WATER-LILY SECT, The.

      See TRIAD SOCIETY.

WATERLOO CAMPAIGN, Napoleon's.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JUNE).

WATERLOO FIELD, in Marlborough's Campaigns:

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1705.

WATERWAYS.

      See (in Supplement) COMMERCE, MODERN.

WATHEK, Al, Caliph, A. D. 841-847.

WATLING STREET.

   The Milky Way was known to our early English ancestors as
   Watling Street, signifying the road "by which the hero-sons of
   Waetla marched across" the heavens. When they settled in
   England they transferred the name Watling Street to the great
   Roman road which they found traversing the island, from London
   to Chester. Portions of the road, in London and elsewhere,
   still bear the name. Even in Chaucer's time the Milky Way
   appears to have been sometimes called Watling Street.

      J. R. Green,
      The Making of England,
      page 166.

      ALSO IN:
      T. Wright,
      The Celt, the Roman and the Saxon.

      See ROMAN ROADS IN BRITAIN.

WATT, James, and the Steam Engine.

      See STEAM ENGINE: A. D. 1765-1785.

WATTIGNIES, Battle of (1793).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER) PROGRESS OF THE WAR.

WAUHATCHIE, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).

WAYNE, General Anthony, and the storming of Stony Point.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1778-1779 WASHINGTON GUARDING THE HUDSON.

   Chastisement of the Northwestern Indians.

      See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1790-1795.

WAYNESBOROUGH, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1865 (FEBRUARY-MARCH: VIRGINIA).

WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE.

      See CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES.

WEALH.

      See THEOW.

WEAVING BROTHERS, The.

      See BEGUINES.

{3648}

WEBSTER, Daniel, and the Dartmouth College case.

      See (in Supplement) DARTMOUTH COLLEGE.

   The Tariff Question.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES):
      A. D. 1816-1824; and 1828.

   Debate with Hayne.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1828-1833.

   In the Cabinet of President Tyler.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1841; and 1842
      THE ASHBURTON TREATY.

   Seventh of March Speech.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850.

   In the Cabinet of President Fillmore.
   The Hülsemann Letter.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850-1851.

WECKQUAESGEEKS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

WEDMORE, Peace of.

   A treaty of peace concluded between King Alfred and the Danes,
   by which the latter were bound to remain peacefully on that
   side of England which lay north and east of "Watling Street"
   (the Roman road from London to Chester) and to submit to
   baptism.

      E. A. Freeman,
      Norman Conquest,
      chapter 2, section 4 (volume l).

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 855-880.

WEHLAU. Treaty of (1657).

      See BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1640-1688.

WEIMAR.

   For an account of the origin of the Duchy of Saxe Weimar;

      See SAXONY: A. D. 1180-1553.

   "Small indeed is the space occupied on the map by the Duchy of
   Saxe-Weimar; yet the historian of the German Courts declares,
   and truly, that after Berlin there is no Court of which the
   nation is so proud. … Small among German princes is mine, poor
   and narrow his kingdom, limited his power of doing good.' Thus
   sings Goethe in that poem, so honourable to both, wherein he
   acknowledges his debt to Karl August. … Weimar is an ancient
   city on the Ilm, a small stream rising in the Thuringian
   forests, and losing itself in the Saal, at Jena; this stream
   on which the sole navigation seems to be that of ducks,
   meanders peacefully through pleasant valleys, except during
   the rainy season, when mountain-torrents swell its current and
   overflow its banks. The Trent, between Trentham and
   Stafford—'the smug and silver Trent' as Shakespeare calls
   it—will give an idea of this stream. The town is charmingly
   placed in the Ilm valley, and stands some eight hundred feet
   above the level of the sea. 'Weimar,' says the old
   topographer, Mathew Merian, 'is Weinmar, because it was the
   wine market for Jena and its environs. Others say it was
   because some one here in ancient days began to plant the vine,
   who was hence called Weinmayer. But of this each reader may
   believe just what he pleases.' On a first acquaintance, Weimar
   seems more like a village bordering a park, than a capital
   with a Court, having all courtly environments. … Saxe-Weimar
   has no trade, no manufactures, no animation of commercial,
   political, or even theological activity. This part of Saxony,
   be it remembered, was the home and shelter of Protestantism in
   its birth. Only a few miles from Weimar stands the Wartburg,
   where Luther, in the disguise of Squire George, lived in
   safety, translating the Bible, and hurling his inkstand at the
   head of Satan, like a rough-handed disputant as he was. In the
   marketplace of Weimar stand, to this day, two houses from the
   windows of which Tetzel advertised his indulgences, and Luther
   afterwards in fiery indignation fulminated against them. These
   records of religious struggle still remain, but are no longer
   suggestions for the continuance of the strife. … The theologic
   fire has long burnt itself out in Thuringia. In Weimar, where
   Luther preached, another preacher came, whom we know as
   Goethe. In the old church there is one portrait of Luther,
   painted by his friend Lucas Kranach, greatly prized, as well
   it may be; but for this one portrait of Luther, there are a
   hundred of Goethe. It is not Luther, but Goethe, they think of
   here; poetry, not theology, is the glory of Weimar. And,
   corresponding with this, we find the dominant characteristic
   of the place to be no magnificent church, no picturesque
   ancient buildings, no visible image of the earlier ages, but
   the sweet serenity of a lovely park. The park fills the
   foreground of the picture, and always rises first in the
   memory. … Within its limits Saxe Weimar displayed all that an
   imperial court displays in larger proportions: it had its
   ministers, its army, its chamberlains, pages, and sycophants.
   Court favour, and disgrace, elevated and depressed, as if they
   had been imperial smiles, or autocratic frowns. A standing
   army of six hundred men, with cavalry of fifty hussars, had
   its War Department, with war minister, secretary, and clerk.
   As the nobles formed the predominating element of Weimar, we
   see at once how, in spite of the influence of Karl August, and
   the remarkable men he assembled round him, no real public for
   Art could be found there. Some of the courtiers played more or
   less with Art, some had real feeling for it; but the majority
   set decided faces against all the beaux esprits. … Not without
   profound significance is this fact that in Weimar the poet
   found a Circle, but no Public. To welcome his productions
   there were friends and admirers; there was no Nation. Germany
   had no public."

      G. H. Lewes,
      The Life and Works of Goethe.
      book 1, chapter 1.

WEISSENBURG, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (JULY-AUGUST).

WELATABIANS, The.

      See WILZEN.

WELDON RAILROAD,
   Battles on the.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (AUGUST: VIRGINIA).

WELFS.

      See GUELFS.

WELLESLEY, MARQUIS OF.
   The Indian Administration of.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1798-1805.

WELLESLEY COLLEGE.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: REFORMS &c.: A. D. 1804-1891.

WELLINGHAUSEN,
KIRCHDENKERN, Battle of(1761).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1761-1762.

WELLINGTON.
   Campaigns of.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1798-1805;
      SPAIN: A. D. 1808-1809, to 1812-1814;
      and FRANCE: A. D. 1815.

   Ministry.

      See ENGLAND: A. D.1827-1828; 1830.

WELSH, The Name of the.

   "The Germans, like our own ancestors, called foreign, i. e.
   non-Teutonic nations, Welsh. Yet apparently not all such
   nations, but only those which they in some way associated with
   the Roman Empire: the Cymry of Roman Britain, the Romanized
   Kelts of Gaul, the Italians, the Roumans or Wallachs of
   Transylvania and the Principalities. It does not appear that
   either the Magyars or any Slavonic people were called by any
   form of the name Welsh."

      J. Bryce,
      The Holy Roman Empire,
      chapter 17, foot-note.

   "Wealhas, or Welshmen; … it was by this name, which means
   'strangers,' or 'unintelligible people,' that the English knew
   the Britons, and it is the name by which the Britons, oddly
   enough, now know themselves."

      J. R. Green,
      The Making of England,
      page 122.

{3649}

WENCESLAUS,
WENZEL,
VACSLAV I.,
   King of Bohemia, A. D. 1230-1253.

   Wenceslaus I., King of Hungary, 1301-1305;

   Wenceslaus III. of Bohemia, 1305-1306.

   Wenceslaus II., King of Bohemia, 1278-1305.

   Wenceslaus IV., King of Bohemia, 1378-1419;
   King of Germany, 1378-1400.

WENDS, The.

   "The Germans call all Slavonians Wends.
   No Slavonian calls himself so."

      R. G. Latham,
      The Germany of Tacitus; Prolegomena,
      section 15.

      See, also, SLAVONIC PEOPLES;
      VENEDI; VANDALS; and AVARS: 7TH CENTURY.

WENTWORTH, Thomas (Earl of Strafford).

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1634-1637, 1640, 1640-1641;
      and IRELAND: A. D. 1633-1639.

WENZEL.

      See WENCESLAUS.

WERBACH, Battle of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.

WERBEN, The camp of Gustavus Adolphus at.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1631.

WERGILD.

   "The principle that every injury to either person or property
   might be compensated by a money payment was common to all the
   northern nations. It was introduced into Gaul by the
   conquering Franks, and into Britain by the English invaders.
   Every man's life had a fixed money value, called the
   'wergild.' In the case of a freeman, this compensation for
   murder was payable to his kindred; in that of a slave, to his
   master. The amount of the wergild varied, according to a
   graduated scale, with the rank of the person slain."

      T. P. Taswell-Langmead,
      English Constitutional History,
      page 41.

WEROWANCE.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: POWHATAN CONFEDERACY.

WESLEYS, The, and early Methodism.

      See METHODISTS.

WESSAGUSSET, Weston's settlement at.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1622-1628.

WESSEX, The Kingdom of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 477-527.

WEST INDIA COMPANY, The Dutch.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1621-1646.

WEST INDIA COMPANY, The French.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1663-1674.

WEST INDIES, The.

   "The name West Indies recalls the fact that the discovery of
   the new world originated in an attempt to find a western route
   to the eastern seas, and that, when Columbus crossed the
   Atlantic and sighted land on the other side, he fancied he had
   reached the further coasts of the Indies.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1484-1492, and 1492.

   'In consequence of this mistake of Columbus,' says Adam Smith,
   'the name of the Indies has stuck to those unfortunate
   countries ever since.' The islands, or some of them, have long
   borne the name of Antilles. Antillia or Antigua was a mythical
   island [see ANTILLES] which found a place on mediæval maps,
   and the name was applied by geographers to Hispaniola and Cuba
   upon their first discovery. In modern times Cuba, Hispaniola
   or Hayti, Jamaica, and Porto Rico have usually been known as
   the Greater Antilles; and the ring of smaller islands,
   including the Windward and the Leeward Islands, as the Lesser
   Antilles. The terms Windward and Leeward themselves demand
   some notice. The prevailing wind in the West Indies being the
   north-east trade wind, the islands which were most exposed to
   it were known as the Windward islands, and those which were
   less exposed were known as the Leeward. According]y, the
   Spaniards regarded the whole ring of Caribbean islands as
   Windward islands, and identified the Leeward islands with the
   four large islands which constitute the Greater Antilles as
   given above. The English sailors contracted the area of
   Windward and Leeward, subdividing the Caribbean islands into a
   northern section of Leeward islands and a southern section of
   Windward islands, which project further into the Atlantic. In
   1671 this division was made a political one, and the English
   Caribbean islands, which had before constituted one
   government, were separated into two groups, under two
   Governors-in-chief; the islands to the north of the French
   colony of Guadeloupe forming the government of the Leeward
   islands, the islands to the south of Guadeloupe forming the
   government of the Windward islands. Latterly the signification
   has been again slightly modified; and, for administrative
   purposes under the Colonial Office, the Leeward islands group
   now includes the more northerly section of the Caribbean
   islands belonging to Great Britain, from the Virgin islands to
   Dominica [embracing Antigua, St. Christopher or St. Kitts,
   Nevis, Montserrat, the Virgin Islands, Dominica, Barbuda,
   Redonda, and Anguilla]; while the Windward islands are
   artificially restricted to St. Lucia, St. Vincent, the
   Grenadines, and Grenada, the two most windward of all,
   Barbados and Tobago, being separated from the group." Barbados
   is a distinct crown colony, and Tobago is joined with Trinidad
   to form another.

      C. P. Lucas,
      Historical Geography of the British Colonies,
      volume 2, section 2. chapters 1, and 4-7.

      ALSO IN:
      C. H. Eden,
      The West Indies.

      T. Southey,
      Chronological History of the West Indies.

      See, also, CUBA; HAYTI; and JAMAICA.

WEST POINT.

   "The importance of fortifying the Hudson River at its narrow
   passes among the Highlands was suggested to the Continental
   Congress by the Provincial Assembly of New York at an early
   period of the war [of Independence]. On the 6th of October,
   1775, the former directed the latter to proceed to make such
   fortifications as they should deem best. On the 18th of
   November, Congress resolved to appoint a commander for the
   fortress, with the rank of colonel, and recommended the New
   York Assembly, or Convention, to empower him to raise a body
   of 200 militia from the counties of Dutchess, Orange, and
   Ulster, and a company of artillery from New York city, to
   garrison them." As the result of these proceedings a fort
   named "Constitution" was constructed on Martelaer's Rock (now
   Constitution Island) opposite West Point, under the direction
   of an English engineer, Bernard Romans. "After the capture of
   Forts Clinton and Montgomery, near the lower entrance to the
   Highlands, in 1777, and the abandonment of Fort Constitution
   by the Americans a few days afterward, public attention was
   directed to the importance of other and stronger
   fortifications in that vicinity. … Washington requested
   General Putnam to bestow his most serious attention upon that
   important subject. He also wrote to Governor Clinton, at the
   same time, desiring him to take the immediate supervision of
   the work; but his legislative duties, then many and pressing,
   made it difficult for him to comply. Clinton … made many
   valuable suggestions respecting the proposed fortifications.
   He mentioned West Point as the most eligible site for a strong
   fort."

{3650}

   In the spring of 1778, "a committee of the New York
   Legislature, after surveying several sites, unanimously
   recommended West Point as the most eligible. Works were
   accordingly commenced there under the direction of Kosciuszko.
   … Kosciuszko arrived on the 20th of March, and the works were
   pushed toward completion with much spirit. The principal
   redoubt, constructed chiefly of logs and earth, was completed
   before May, and named Fort Clinton. … At the close of 1779,
   West Point was the strongest military post in America. In
   addition to the batteries that stood menacingly upon the
   hilltops, the river was obstructed by an enormous iron chain.
   … West Point was considered the keystone of the country during
   the Revolution, and there a large quantity of powder, and
   other munitions of war and military stores, were collected.
   These considerations combined made its possession a matter of
   great importance to the enemy, and hence it was selected by
   Arnold as the prize which his treason would give as a bribe.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1780 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER)].

   When peace returned, it was regarded as one of the most
   important military posts in the country, and the plateau upon
   the point was purchased by the United States Government. … The
   Military Academy at West Point was established by an act of
   Congress which became a law on the 16th of March, 1802. Such
   an institution, at that place, was proposed by Washington to
   Congress in 1793; and earlier than this, even before the war
   of the Revolution had closed, he suggested the establishment
   of a military school there. But little progress was made in
   the matter until 1812."

      B. J. Lossing,
      Field-book of the Revolution,
      volume 1, pages 702-706.

      ALSO IN:
      E. C. Boynton,
      History of West Point.

   ----------WEST VIRGINIA: Start--------

WEST VIRGINIA: A. D. 1632.
   Partly embraced in the Maryland grant to Lord Baltimore.

      See MARYLAND: A. D. 1632.

WEST VIRGINIA: A. D. 1861 (April-June).
   Opposition to Secession.
   Loyal State Government organized.

      See VIRGINIA; A. D. 1861 (JANUARY-JUNE).

WEST VIRGINIA: A. D. 1861 (JUNE-JULY).
   General McClellan's successful campaign.
   The Rebels driven out.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (JUNE-JULY: WEST VIRGINIA).

WEST VIRGINIA: A. D. 1861 (JUNE-NOVEMBER).
   Steps taken toward separation from Virginia.
   Constitutional Convention at Wheeling.

      See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1861 (JUNE-NOVEMBER).

WEST VIRGINIA: A. D. 1861 (AUGUST-DECEMBER).
   The campaign of Rosecrans against Lee.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (AUGUST-DECEMBER: WEST VIRGINIA).

WEST VIRGINIA: A. D. 1862 (APRIL-DECEMBER).
   The completed separation from Old Virginia.
   Admission to the Union.

   The work of the convention at Wheeling which framed a
   constitution for the new State of West Virginia was
   satisfactorily performed, and "on the first Thursday of April,
   1862, the people approved the constitution by a vote of 18,862
   in favor of it with only 614 against it. The work of the
   representatives of the projected new State being thus
   ratified, the Governor called the Legislature of Virginia
   together on the 6th day of May, and on the 13th of the same
   month that body gave its consent, with due regularity, to 'the
   formation of a new State within the jurisdiction of the said
   State of Virginia.' A fortnight later, on the 28th of May,
   Senator Willey introduced the subject in Congress by
   presenting a memorial from the Legislature of Virginia,
   together with a certified copy of the proceedings of the
   Constitutional Convention and the vote of the people. The
   constitution was referred to the Committee on Territories and
   a bill favorable to admission was promptly reported by Senator
   Wade of Ohio. The measure was discussed at different periods,
   largely with reference to the effect it would have upon the
   institution of slavery, and Congress insisted upon inserting a
   provision that 'the children of slaves, born in the State
   after the 4th day of July, 1863, shall be free; all slaves
   within the said State who shall at that time be under the age
   of ten years shall be free when they arrive at the age of
   twenty-one years all slaves over ten and under twenty-one
   shall be free at the age of twenty-five years; and no slave
   shall be permitted to come into the State for permanent
   residence therein.' This condition was to be ratified by the
   convention which framed the constitution, and by the people at
   an election held for the purpose, and, upon due certification
   of the approval of the condition to the President of the
   United States, he was authorized to issue his proclamation
   declaring West Virginia to be a State of the Union. … On the
   14th of July, three days before Congress adjourned, the bill
   passed the Senate by a vote of 23 to 17. Mr. Rice of Minnesota
   was the only Democrat who favored the admission of the new
   State. … Mr. Chandler and Mr. Howard of Michigan voted in the
   negative because the State had voluntarily done nothing
   towards providing for the emancipation of slaves; Mr. Sumner
   and Mr. Wilson, because the Senate had rejected the
   anti-slavery amendment [proposed by Mr. Sumner, declaring
   immediate emancipation in the new State]; Mr. Trumbull and Mr.
   Cowan, because of the irregularity of the whole proceeding.
   The bill was not considered in the House until the next
   session. It was taken up on the 9th of December," and was
   warmly debated. "On the passage of the bill the ayes were 96
   and the noes were 55. The ayes were wholly from the Republican
   party, though several prominent Republicans opposed the
   measure. Almost the entire Massachusetts delegation voted in
   the negative, as did also Mr. Roscoe Conkling, Mr. Conway of
   Kansas and Mr. Francis Thomas of Maryland. The wide difference
   of opinion concerning this act was not unnatural. But the
   cause of the Union was aided by the addition of another loyal
   commonwealth, and substantial justice was done to the brave
   people of the new State. … To the old State of Virginia the
   blow was a heavy one. In the years following the war it added
   seriously to her financial embarrassment, and it has in many
   ways obstructed her prosperity."

      J. G. Blaine,
      Twenty Years of Congress,
      volume 1, chapter 21.

   In the legislative Ordinance of 1861 the proposed new State
   was called Kanawha; but in the Constitutional Convention this
   name was changed to West Virginia.

      ALSO IN:
      V. A. Lewis,
      History of West Virginia,
      chapters 25-26.

      E. McPherson,
      Political History of the United States during
      the Great Rebellion,
      pages 377-378.

      J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
      Abraham Lincoln,
      volume 6, chapter 14.

WEST VIRGINIA: A. D. 1862 (MAY-JUNE).
   Fremont's Mountain Department.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA).

{3651}

WESTERN AUSTRALIA.

      See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1800-1840.

WESTERN EMPIRE, The.

      See ROME: A. D. 394-395, and 423-450;
      and GERMANY: A. D. 800.

WESTERN LANDS, Cession of, to the United States by the States.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.

WESTERN RESERVE OF CONNECTICUT.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786;
      PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1753-1799;
      and OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1786-1796.

WESTFALIA.

      See WESTPHALIA.

WESTMINSTER, Provisions of.

      See OXFORD, PROVISIONS OF.

WESTMINSTER, Statutes of.

      See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1275, and 1285.

WESTMINSTER, Treaty of.

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674.

WESTMINSTER ASSEMBLY OF DIVINES.

      See ENGLAND: A. D.1643 (JULY); and 1646 (MARCH).

WESTMINSTER PALACE.

   "Westminster was from the days of Edward the Confessor the
   recognised home of the great council of the nation as well as
   of the king. How this came about, history does not record; it
   is possible that the mere accident of the existence of the
   royal palace on the bank of the Thames led to the foundation
   of the abbey, or that the propinquity of the abbey led to the
   choice of the place for a palace; equal obscurity covers the
   origin of both. … At Westminster Henry I held his councils,
   and Stephen is said to have founded the chapel of his patron
   saint within the palace. … From the very first introduction of
   representative members the national council had its regular
   home at Westminster. There, with a few casual exceptions, …
   all the properly constituted parliaments of England have been
   held. The ancient Palace of Westminster, of which the most
   important parts, having survived until the fire of 1834 and
   the construction of the New Houses of Parliament, were
   destroyed in 1852, must have presented a very apt illustration
   of the history of the Constitution which had grown up from its
   early simplicity to its full strength within those venerable
   walls. It was a curious congeries of towers, halls, churches,
   and chambers. As the administrative system of the country had
   been developed largely from the household economy of the king,
   the national palace had for its kernel the king's court, hall,
   chapel, and chamber. … As time went on, every apartment
   changed its destination: the chamber became a council room,
   the banquet hall a court of justice, the chapel a hall of
   deliberation. … The King's Chamber, or Parliament Chamber, was
   the House of Lords from very early times until the union with
   Ireland, when the peers removed into the lesser or White Hall,
   where they continued until the fire. The house of commons met
   occasionally in the Painted Chamber, but generally sat in the
   Chapter House or in the Refectory of the abbey, until the
   reign of Edward VI, when it was fixed in S. Stephen's chapel.
   … After the fire of 1834, during the building of the new
   houses, the house of lords sat in the Painted Chamber, and the
   house of commons in the White Hall or Court of Requests. It
   was a curious coincidence, certainly, that the destruction of
   the ancient fabric should follow so immediately upon the great
   constitutional change wrought by the reform act, and scarcely
   less curious that the fire should have originated in the
   burning of the ancient Exchequer tallies, one of the most
   permanent relics of the primitive simplicity of
   administration."

      W. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 20, sections 735-736 (volume 3).

WESTMINSTER SCHOOL.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.—ENGLAND.

WESTPHALIA:
   The country so named.

      See SAXONY: THE OLD DUCHY.

WESTPHALIA, The Circle of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1493-1519.

WESTPHALIA, The Kingdom of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1807 (JUNE-JULY);
      1813(SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER), and (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

WESTPHALIA, The Peace of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

WESTPORT, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (MARCH-OCTOBER: ARKANSAS-MISSOURI).

WETTIN, House of.

      See SAXONY: A. D. 1180-1553.

WEXFORD: Stormed by Cromwell (1649).

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1649-1650.

WHIG PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1834.

WHIGS (WHIGGAMORS):
   Origin of the name and the English Party.

   "The southwest counties of Scotland have seldom corn enough to
   serve them round the year: and the northern parts producing
   more than they need, those in the west come in summer to buy
   at Leith the stores that come from the north: and from a word
   'whiggam,' used in driving their horses, all that drove were
   called the 'whiggamors,' and shorter the 'whiggs.' Now in that
   year [1648], after the news came down of Duke Hamilton's
   defeat [at the battle of Preston—see ENGLAND: A. D. 1648
   (APRIL-AUGUST)], the ministers animated their people to rise
   and march to Edenburgh; and they came up marching on [at] the
   head of their parishes, with an unheard-of fury, praying and
   preaching all the way as they came. The marquis of Argile and
   his party came and headed them, they being about 6,000. This
   was called the 'whiggamors' inroad; and ever after that all
   that opposed the court came in contempt to be called 'whiggs':
   and from Scotland the word was brought into England, where it
   is now one of our unhappy terms of distinction."

      G. Burnet,
      History of My Own Time,
      book 1 (Summary), section 43 (volume 1).

   "We find John Nicoll, the diarist, in 1666, speaking of the
   west-country Presbyterians as 'commonly called the Whigs,
   implying that the term was new. The sliding of the appellation
   from these obscure people to the party of the opposition in
   London a few years later, is indicated by Daniel Defoe as
   occurring immediately after the affair of Bothwell Bridge in
   1679. The Duke of Monmouth then returning from his command in
   Scotland, instead of thanks for his good service, found
   himself under blame for using the insurgents too mercifully.
   'And Lauderdale told Charles, with an oath, that the Duke had
   been so civil to the Whigs because he was himself a Whig in
   his heart. This made it a court-word; and in a little while
   all the friends and followers of the Duke began to be called
   Whigs.'"

      R. Chambers,
      Domestic Annals of Scotland,
      volume 2, page 172.

      ALSO IN:
      J. H. Burton,
      History of Scotland,
      chapter 74 (volume 7).

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1680.

{3652}

WHIPS, Party.

   The "party whips," in English politics, are "an extremely
   useful and hard-working body of officials. Being charged with
   the duty of keeping the respective sides in readiness for all
   emergencies, they are generally to be found in the lobby,
   where they make themselves acquainted with the incomings and
   outgoings of members, and learn a good deal as to their
   prospective movements. The whips are the gentlemen who issue
   those strongly underlined circulars by which legislators are
   summoned on important nights; and who, by their watchfulness
   and attention, can generally convey reliable intelligence to
   the party chiefs. If the Ministers, for example, are engaged
   in any controversy, and their whips are not absolutely certain
   of a majority, they would make arrangements for a succession
   of men to keep on talking till the laggards could be brought
   to their places." The whips also arrange "pairs," by which
   members of opposite parties, or on opposite sides of a given
   question, agree in couples, not to vote for a certain fixed
   period of time, thereby securing freedom to be absent without
   causing any loss of relative strength to their respective
   parties. This arrangement is common in most legislative
   bodies. "In addition to these duties, the whips of the
   opposing forces have to move for the issue of new writs in the
   place of deceased members—task never undertaken till they
   have a candidate ready for the fray."

      Popular Account of Parliamentary Procedure,
      page 18.

      ALSO IN:
      E. Porritt,
      The Englishman at Home,
      page 198, and appendix K.

WHISKY INSURRECTION, The.

      See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1794.

WHISKY RING, The.

   The Whisky Ring, so called, brought to light in the United
   States in 1875, "was an association, or series of
   associations, of distillers and Federal officials for the
   purpose of defrauding the Government of a large amount of the
   tax imposed on distilled spirits, and, further, of employing a
   part of the proceeds in political corruption. On the trial of
   the indictments a number of Federal officers were convicted."

      A. Johnston,
      History of American Politics,
      chapter 23.

      ALSO IN:
      The Whisky Frauds: Testimony Taken
      (44th Congress, 1st Session,
      H. R. Mis. Doc's, Number 186, volume 9).

WHITE BOYS.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1760-1798.

WHITE CAMELLIA, Knights of the.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866-1871.

WHITE CASTLE OF MEMPHIS, The.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 460-449.

WHITE CITY, The.

      See BELGRADE.

WHITE COCKADE, The.

   "This is the badge at the same time of the House of Stuart and
   of the House of Bourbon."

      E. E. Morris,
      The Early Hanoverians,
      page 138.

WHITE COMPANY, The.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1343-1393.

WHITE CROSS, Order of the.

   An order founded by the Grand Duke of Tuscany, 1814.

WHITE EAGLE, Order of the.

   A Polish order of knighthood, instituted in 1325 by
   Ladislaus IV., and revived by Augustus in 1705.

WHITE FRIARS.

      See CARMELITE FRIARS.

WHITE GUELFS (Bianchi).

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1295-1300, and 1301-1313.

WHITE HOODS OF FRANCE.

   "The Caputiati, or Capuchons, or White Hoods, [was] a sect
   originating with a wood-cutter of Auvergne, by name Durand,
   about the year 1182. Their primary object was the maintenance
   of peace, and the extermination of the disbanded soldiery,
   whom the English kings had spread over the south of France,
   and [who] were now ravaging the country under the name of
   Routiers or Cotereaux. The members of this religious
   association were bound by no vow, and made no profession of
   any particular faith; they were only distinguished by the
   white head-gear that gave them their name, and wore a little
   leaden image of the Virgin on their breast. They found favour
   at first with the bishops, especially in Burgundy and the
   Berri, and were even, from the best political causes,
   countenanced by Philip Augustus. They thus rose to such a
   degree of power that on the 20th of July, 1183, they
   surrounded a body of 7,000 of the marauding party, and
   suffered not one man to escape. They were, however, soon
   intoxicated with success, and threw out some hints about
   restoring the primæval liberty of mortals and universal
   equality; thereby incurring the displeasure of Hugo Bishop of
   Auxerre, who took arms against them, and put an end to the
   sect by the might of the sword in 1186."

      L. Mariotti,
      Frà Dolcino and his times,
      chapter 1.

WHITE HOODS OF GHENT, The.

      See FLANDERS: A. D. 1379-1381.

WHITE HOUSE, The.

   The plain white freestone mansion at Washington in which the
   President of the United States resides during his term of
   office is officially styled the "Executive Mansion," but is
   popularly known as the White House. "It was designed by James
   Hoban in 1792. The corner-stone was laid on October 13, 1792,
   and its construction went on side by side with that of the
   Capitol. … President John Adams and his wife, on arriving … in
   November, 1800, found it habitable, although but six of its
   rooms were furnished. … In his design Hoban copied closely the
   plan of a notable Dublin palace, the seat of the Dukes of
   Leinster."

      C. B. Todd,
      The Story of Washington,
      page 264.

      ALSO IN:
      M. Clemmer,
      Ten Years in Washington,
      chapter 19.

WHITE HUNS, The.

      See HUNS, WHITE.

WHITE MONKS.

      See CISTERCIAN ORDER.

WHITE MOUNTAIN, Battle of the (1620).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1620.

WHITE OAK ROAD, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1865 (MARCH-APRIL: VIRGINIA).

WHITE OAK SWAMP, Retreat through.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JUNE-JULY: VIRGINIA).

WHITE PENITENTS,
WHITE COMPANIES.

   "The end of the 14th century witnessed a profound outburst of
   popular devotion. The miserable condition of the Church,
   distracted by schism, and the disturbed state of every country
   in Europe, awoke a spirit of penitence and contrition at the
   prospect of another great Jubilee, and the opening of a new
   century.
{3653}
   Bands of penitents wandered from place to place, clad in white
   garments; their faces, except the eyes, were covered with
   hoods, and on their backs they wore a red cross. They walked
   two and two, in solemn procession, old and young, men and
   women together, singing hymns of penitence, amongst which the
   sad strains of the 'Stabat Mater' held the chief place. At
   times they paused and flung themselves on the ground,
   exclaiming 'Mercy,' or 'Peace,' and continued in silent
   prayer. All was done with order and decorum; the processions
   generally lasted for nine days, and the penitents during this
   time fasted rigorously. The movement seems to have originated
   in Provence, but rapidly spread through Italy. Enemies were
   reconciled, restitution was made for wrongs, the churches were
   crowded wherever the penitents, or 'Bianchi' ['White
   Penitents,' 'White Companies,' 'Whitemen' are various English
   forms of the name] as they were called from their dress, made
   their appearance. The inhabitants of one city made a
   pilgrimage to another and stirred up their devotion. The
   people of Modena went to Bologna; the Bolognese suspended all
   business for nine days, and walked to Imola, whence the
   contagion rapidly spread southwards. For the last three months
   of 1399 this enthusiasm lasted, and wrought marked results
   upon morals and religion for a time. Yet enthusiasm tended to
   create imposture."

      M. Creighton,
      History of the Papacy during the Period of the Reformation,
      volume 1, pages 145-146.

      ALSO IN:
      T. A. Trollope,
      History of the Commonwealth of Florence,
      volume 2, page 297.

      See, also, FLAGELLANTS.

WHITE PLAINS, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1776 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

WHITE RUSSIA.

      See RUSSIA, GREAT, &c.

WHITE SEA, The.

      See ÆGEAN.

WHITE SHIP, The sinking of the.

   William, the only legitimate son of Henry I. of England,
   accompanied his father on a visit to Normandy (A. D. 1120).
   "When they were about to return by the port of Barfleur, a
   Norman captain, Thomas Fitz-Stephen, appeared and claimed the
   right of taking them in his ship, on the ground that his
   father had been captain of the 'Mora,' in which the Conqueror
   crossed to invade England. The king did not care to alter his
   own arrangements, but agreed that his son should sail in the
   'Blanche Nef' [the White Ship] with Fitz-Stephen. William
   Ætheling, as the English called him, was accompanied by a
   large train of unruly courtiers, who amused themselves by
   making the sailors drink hard before they started, and
   dismissed the priests who came to bless the voyage with a
   chorus of scoffing laughter. It was evening before they left
   the shore, and there was no moon; a few of the more prudent
   quitted the ship, but there remained nearly 300—a dangerous
   freight for a small vessel. However, fifty rowers flushed with
   wine made good way in the waters; but the helmsman was less
   fit for his work, and the vessel struck suddenly on a sunk
   rock, the Raz de Catteville. The water rushed in, but there
   was time to lower a boat, which put off with the prince. When
   in safety, he heard the cries of his sister, the countess of
   Perche, and returned to save her. A crowd of desperate men
   leaped into the boat; it was swamped, and all perished."

      C. H. Pearson,
      History of England during the Early and Middle Ages,
      volume 1, page 445.

WHITE TERROR, The.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (JULY-APRIL).

WHITE TOWER, The.

      See TOWER OF LONDON.

WHITE TOWN, The.

      See ROCHELLE.

WHITE VALLEY, Battle of the (1476).

      See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: 14-18TH CENTURIES.

WHITNEY, Eli, and the invention of the cotton-gin.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1793 WHITNEY'S COTTON-GIN; and 1818-1821.

WICHITAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

WIDE AWAKES.

   In the American presidential canvass of 1860, there were
   organized among the supporters of Abraham Lincoln numerous
   companies of young Republicans who undertook the parades and
   torchlight processions of the campaign in a systematic and
   disciplined way that was then quite new. They were simply
   uniformed in glazed-cloth caps and capes and took the name of
   Wide Awakes.

WIGHT, Isle of: Conquest by the Jutes.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 449-473.

WIGHT, Isle of: A. D. 1545.
   Occupation by the French.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.

WILDCAT BANKS.

   "During Jackson's struggle with the Bank of the United States
   [see UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1833-1836, and 1835-1837]
   many new banks had been formed in various States, generally
   with little or no capital to pay the notes which they issued.
   They bought large quantities of cheaply printed bills. As
   these bills had cost them very little, they could afford to
   offer a higher price in paper money for lands in distant
   States and Territories than others could afford to offer in
   gold and silver. Having bought the lands for this worthless
   money, the wildcat bankers sold them for good money, hoping
   that their own bills would not soon find their way back for
   payment. If they were disappointed in this hope, the bank
   'failed,' and the managers started a new one."

      A. Johnston,
      History of the United States for Schools,
      section 496.

      See, also: MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1837-1841.

WILDERNESS, Hooker's Campaign in the.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1863 (APRIL-MAY: VIRGINIA).

WILDERNESS, Battle of the.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (MAY: VIRGINIA) GRANT'S MOVEMENT.

WILHELMINA, Queen of the Netherlands, A. D. 1890-.

WILKES, John, The case of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1762-1764; and 1768-1774.

WILKINSON, General James, and Aaron Burr.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1806-1807.

   Command on the Northern frontier.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1813 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER).

WILLIAM (of Holland),
   King of Germany: A. D. 1254-1256.

   William (called The Silent), Prince of Orange, Count of Nassau,
   Stadtholder of the United Provinces, 1558-1584.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1555-1559, to 1581-1584.

   William I.,
   German Emperor, 1870-1888;
   King of Prussia, 1861-1888.

   William I. (called The Conqueror),
   King of England (and Duke of Normandy), 1066-1087.

   William I., King of Naples and Sicily, 1154-1166.

   William I., King of the Netherlands, 1815-1840.

   William II., German Emperor and King of Prussia, 1888-.

   William II. (called Rufus or The Red), King of

{3654}

   England, 1087-1100.

   William II., King of Naples and Sicily, 1166-1189.

   William II., King of the Netherlands, 1840-1849.

   William II., Prince of Orange,
   Stadtholder of the United Provinces, 1647-1650.

   William III., King of Naples and Sicily, 1194.

   William III., King of the Netherlands, 1849-1890.

   William III., Prince of Orange and
   Stadtholder of the United Provinces, A. D. 1672-1702;
   King of England (with Queen Mary, his Wife), 1689-1702.

   William IV., King of England, 1830-1837.

   William IV. (called The Lion), King of Scotland, 1165-1214.

WILLIAM HENRY, Fort: A. D. 1757.
   The French capture and the massacre of prisoners.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1756-1757.

WILLIAMS, Roger,
   Founder of Rhode Island and Apostle of Religious Liberty.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1636;
      and RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1631-1636, to 1683.

WILLIAMS COLLEGE.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1793.

WILLIAMSBURG, Canada, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1813 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER).

WILLIAMSBURG, Virginia, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (MAY: VIRGINIA).

WILLOWS, Battle of the.

      See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 378.

WILMINGTON, Delaware: A. D. 1638.
   The founding of the city.

      See DELAWARE: A. D. 1638-1640.

WILMINGTON, Delaware: A. D. 1865.
   Occupied by the National forces.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1865 (FEBRUARY-MARCH: NORTH CAROLINA).

WILMOT PROVISO, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1845-1846.

WILSON, James, and the framing of the Federal Constitution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787.

WILSON TARIFF ACT, The.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES): A. D. 1894.

WILSON'S CREEK, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1861 (JULY-SEPTEMBER: MISSOURI).

WILSON'S RAID.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (APRIL-MAY).

WILZEN,
WELATABIANS, The.

   "The Wilzen, as the Franks called them, or the Welatabians, as
   they called themselves, were perhaps the most powerful of the
   Sclavonian tribes, and at [the time of Charlemagne] occupied
   the southern coast of the Baltic; their immediate neighbors
   were the Abodrites, old allies of the Franks, whom they
   harassed by continual raids." Charlemagne led an expedition
   into the country of the Wilzen in 789 and subdued them.

      J. I. Mombert,
      History of Charles the Great,
      book 2, chapter 4.

WIMPFEN, Battle of (1622).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1621-1623.

WINCEBY FIGHT (1643).

   The sharp encounter known as Winceby Fight, in the English
   civil war, was one of Cromwell's successes, which drove the
   royalist forces out of the Lincolnshire country, and compelled
   the Marquis of Newcastle, who was besieging Hull, to abandon
   the siege. "Cromwell himself was nearer death in this action
   than ever in any other; the victory, too, made its due figure,
   and 'appeared in the world.' Winceby, a small upland hamlet,
   in the Wolds, not among the Fens, of Lincolnshire, is some
   five miles west of Horncastle. The confused memory of this
   Fight is still fresh there." The Fight occurred October 10,
   1643.

      T. Carlyle,
      Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches,
      letter 18 (volume 1).

      See HULL.

WINCHESTER, General:
   Defeat at the Raisin.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1812-1813 HARRISON'S NORTHWESTERN CAMPAIGN.

WINCHESTER, England:
   Origin of.

   "There can be little doubt that a town, of greater or less
   importance, has existed since the earliest dawn of English
   history on the same place where stands the Winchester of
   to-day. … If the first founders of the ancient city were
   Celtic Britons, covering with their rude dwellings the summit
   and sides of S. Catherine's Hill they were certainly conquered
   by the Belgæ, also probably of Celtic origin, who, crossing
   over from Gaul, established themselves in a large district of
   southern England. But whether in their time Winchester was
   called Caer Gwent is doubtful; very probably it was simply
   Gwin or Gwent, the white place. … But as there is no question
   of the Roman occupation of Britain, first by Julius Cæsar,
   later on by Claudius and Vespasian, so we know that the
   settlement on the Itchen was turned into Venta Belgarum, and
   S. Catherine's Hill converted into a Roman camp. … Venta, as
   well as many other towns, was completely Romanised. … But the
   time arrived when Rome could no longer defend herself at home,
   and was thus forced to leave Britain to contend with the wild
   Northmen who had already begun their inroads. The Britons
   implored their former masters to come back and help them, but
   in vain. … We know how Vortigern, chief among the southern
   British kings, invited the Saxon adventurers to help him
   against the Picts and Scots, who encroached more and more in
   Britain. … In 495 (as we learn from the Brito-Welsh
   Chronicle), there · came two ealdormen to Britain, Cerdic and
   Cymric,' who landed at Hamble Creek, and eventually, after
   many battles much extolled in the Saxon Chronicle, became
   kings of the West Saxons. Cerdic is said to have been crowned
   in Venta, to have slaughtered most of the inhabitants and all
   the priests, and to have converted the cathedral into a
   heathen temple. … The name Venta now becomes Wintana, with the
   affix of 'ceaster,' Saxon for fortified place."

      A. R. R. Bramston and A. C. Leroy,
      Historic Winchester,
      chapter I.

      See, also, VENTA.

WINCHESTER, Virginia: A. D. 1862.
   Defeat of General Banks.
   UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA).

WINCHESTER, Virginia: A. D. 1864.
   Sheridan's victory.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (AUGUST-OCTOBER: VIRGINIA).

WINCHESTER SCHOOL.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.—ENGLAND.

WINDSOR CASTLE:
   Rebuilt by Edward III.

      See GARTER, KNIGHTS OF THE.

WINDWARD ISLANDS, The.

      See WEST INDIES.

WINEDI.

      See VENEDI.

{3655}

WINGFIELD, Battle of.

   Fought, A. D. 655, between King Oswin of Northumberland and
   King Penda of Mercia, the latter being defeated and slain.

WINKELRIED, Arnold von, at the battle of Sempach.

      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1386-1388.

WINNEBAGOES, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

WINSLOW, Edward, and the Plymouth colony.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D.1623-1629 (PLYMOUTH), and after.

WINTHROP, John, and the colony of Massachusetts Bay.

   See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1629-1630, and after.

WINTHROP, John, Jr., and the founding of Connecticut.

   See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1634-1637.

WINTHROP, Theodore:
   Death at Big Bethel.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (JUNE: VIRGINIA).

WIPPED'S-FLEET, Battle of.

   The decisive battle fought, A. D. 465, between the Jutes under
   Hengest and the Britons, which settled the conquest of Kent by
   the former.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 449-473.

WISBY, Its Code of Maritime Laws.

      See HANSA TOWNS.

WISBY: A. D. 1361.
   Taken and plundered by the Danes.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1018-1397.

   ----------WISCONSIN: Start--------

WISCONSIN:
   The aboriginal inhabitants.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:: SIOUAN FAMILY.

WISCONSIN: A. D. 1634-1673.
   Visited by Nicolet, and traversed by Marquette and Joliet.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1634-1673.

WISCONSIN: A. D. 1763.
   Cession to Great Britain.

      See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.

WISCONSIN: A. D. 1763.
   The King's proclamation excluding settlers.

      See NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF THE
      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1763.

WISCONSIN: A. D. 1774.
   Embraced in the Province of Quebec.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1763-1774.

WISCONSIN: A. D. 1784.
   Included in the proposed states of Sylvania, Michigania
   and Assenisipia.

      See NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF THE
      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1784.

WISCONSIN: A. D. 1785.
   Partially covered by the western land claims of
   Massachusetts, ceded to the United States.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.

WISCONSIN: A. D. 1787.
   The Ordinance for the Government of the Northwest Territory.
   Perpetual exclusion of Slavery.

      See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1787.

WISCONSIN: A. D. 1805-1848.
   Territorial vicissitudes.
   Admission into the Union as a State.

   From 1805 to 1809, Wisconsin formed a part of Indiana
   Territory. From 1809 to 1818 her territory was embraced In the
   Territory of Illinois, excepting a small projection at the
   northeast which was left out of the described boundaries and
   belonged nowhere. When Illinois became a State, in 1818, and
   her present boundaries were established, an the country north
   of them was joined to Michigan Territory. In 1834 that huge
   Territory was still further enlarged by the temporary addition
   to it of a great area west of the Mississippi, embracing the
   present states of Iowa, Minnesota and part of Dakota. It was
   an unwieldy and impracticable territorial organization, and
   movements to divide it, which had been on foot long before
   this last enlargement, soon attained success. In 1836, the
   year before Michigan became a State, with her present limits,
   the remaining Territory was organized under the name of
   Wisconsin. Two years later, "by act of June 12, 1838, congress
   still further contracted the limits of Wisconsin by creating
   from its trans-Mississippi tract the Territory of Iowa. This,
   however, was in accordance with the original design when the
   country beyond the Mississippi was attached to Michigan
   Territory for purposes of temporary government, so no
   objection was entertained to this arrangement on the part of
   Wisconsin. The establishment of Iowa had reduced Wisconsin to
   her present limits, except that she still held, as her western
   boundary, the Mississippi river to its source, and a line
   drawn due north therefrom to the international boundary. In
   this condition Wisconsin remained until the act of congress
   approved August 6, 1846, enabling her people to form a state
   constitution. … Wisconsin was admitted into the Union, by act
   approved May 29, 1848, with her present limits."

      R. G. Thwaites,
      The Boundaries of Wisconsin
      (Wisconsin State Historical Society Collections,
      volume 11, pages 455-468).

      ALSO IN:
      B. A. Hinsdale,
      The Old Northwest,
      chapter 17.

WISCONSIN: A. D. 1832.
   The Black Hawk War.

      See ILLINOIS: A. D. 1832.

WISCONSIN: A. D. 1854.
   Early formation of the Republican Party.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1854-1855.

   ----------WISCONSIN: End--------

WISCONSIN, University of.

   "In 1838, two years after organization as a Territory,
   Wisconsin petitioned Congress for aid to establish a
   university. The request was granted, the usual seventy-two
   sections of land were set aside for this object, and the
   Territorial Legislature at once passed a law establishing the
   University of the Territory of Wisconsin. The organization of
   a board of trustees was, however, the only other action which
   took place previous to the adoption of the State Constitution
   In 1848; this provided for the establishment of a State
   university 'at or near the seat of government,' and stated,
   emphatically, that the lands granted for a university should
   constitute a perpetual fund, the income of which should be
   devoted to the support of this institution. This declaration
   was apparently to little purpose, as the State has treated
   these domains as granted absolutely, and not as held in trust.
   There is probably no worse example of mismanaged public
   educational funds on record than is to be found in connection
   with this institution. … The entire sum realized from the
   46,080 acres was only 'about $150,000.' The University of
   Wisconsin was established in 1850 on the basis of the funds
   thus secured, but even while passing laws for the sale of the
   university lands the Legislature realized that the income
   would be insufficient to support the institution, and they
   therefore petitioned Congress for seventy-two additional
   sections in lieu of the saline lands granted to the State in
   1848 but never located. Congress granted this petition in
   1854. … An opportunity to atone for past errors was now
   afforded the Legislature. It began to be realized, after it
   was too late to enact suitable laws to remedy the evil, that
   the best lands had been sold at a disadvantage.
{3656}
   It was felt that, whereas the policy pursued had benefited the
   State at large, it was not faithful to the increase of the
   seminary fund. … After fully examining the claims of the
   regents and the condition of the university in 1872 for four
   years, this body granted $10,000 annually, to atone for the
   injustice done by the State in selecting for an endowment
   unproductive lands."

      F. W. Blackmar,
      History of Federal and State Aid to Higher Education
      in the United States (Bureau of Education,
      Circular of Information, 1890, number 1), pages 250-251.

WISHOSKAN FAMILY, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: WISHOSKAN FAMILY.

WISIGOTHS.

      See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS).

WISMAR.

      See HANSA TOWNS.

WITCHCRAFT, Salem.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1692; and 1692-1693.

WITE-THEOW.

      See THEOW.

WITENAGEMOT, The.

   "The Witenagemot or assembly of the wise. This [in old English
   history] is the supreme council of the nation, whether the
   nation be Kent or Mercia as in the earlier, or the whole gens
   Anglorum et Saxonum, as in the later history. The character of
   the national council testifies to its history as a later
   development than the lower courts, and as a consequence of the
   institution of royalty. The folkmoot or popular assembly of
   the shire is a representative body to a certain extent: it is
   attended by the representatives of the hundreds and townships,
   and has a representative body of witnesses to give validity to
   the acts that are executed in it. … The council of the
   aggregated state is not a folkmoot but a witenagemot. … On
   great occasions … we must understand the witenagemot to have
   been attended by a concourse of people whose voices could be
   raised in applause or in resistance to the proposals of the
   chiefs. But that such gatherings shared in any way the
   constitutional powers of the witan, that they were organised
   in any way corresponding to the machinery of the folkmoot,
   that they had any representative character in the modern
   sense, as having full powers to act on behalf of constituents,
   that they shared the judicial work, or except by applause and
   hooting influenced in any way the decision of the chiefs,
   there is no evidence whatever. … The members of the assembly
   were the wise men, the sapientes, witan; the king, sometimes
   accompanied by his wife and sons; the bishops of the kingdom,
   the ealdormen of the shires or provinces, and a number of the
   king's friends and dependents. … The number of the witan was
   thus never very large."

      W. Stubbs,
      Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 6, sections 51-52 (volume 1).

   The constitution and powers of the witenagemot are very fully
   discussed by Mr. Kemble, who gives also a list of the recorded
   witenagemots, with comments on the business transacted in
   them.

      J. M. Kemble,
      The Saxons in England,
      book 2, chapter 6 (volume 2).

      ALSO IN:
      R. Gneist,
      The English Parliament.

      See, also, PARLIAMENT, THE ENGLISH:
      EARLY STAGES OF ITS EVOLUTION; and ENGLAND: A. D. 958.

WITIGIS, King of the Ostrogoths.

      See ROME: A. D. 535-553.

WITT, John De, The administration and the murder of.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1647-1650; 1651-1660, to 1672-1674.

WITTELSBACH, The House of.

      See BAVARIA: A. D. 1180-1356.

WITTENBERG, Luther at.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1017, and after.

WITTENBERG UNIVERSITY.

      See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL: GERMANY.

WITTENWEIHER, Battle of (1638).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

WITTSTOCK, Battle of (1636).

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

WITUMKAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

WIZA.

      See THRACIANS.

WOCCONS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

WOIPPY, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).

WOIWODES,
VOIVODES,
WAIWODES.

      See POLAND: A. D. 1078-1652;
      and BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: A. D. 1341-1356 (SERVIA).

WOLFE, General, Victory and death of.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1759.

WOLFENBÜTTEL, Duchy of.

      See SAXONY: A. D. 1178-1183.

WOLSEY, The ministry and fall of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1513-1529; and 1527-1534.

WOMAN ORDER, General Butler's.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (MAY-DECEMBER: LOUISIANA).

   ----------WOMAN'S RIGHTS: Start--------

WOMAN'S RIGHTS.
WOMAN SUFFRAGE: A. D. 1790-1849.
   The pioneer advocates.

   "In 1790, Mary Wollstonecraft's 'Vindication of the Rights of
   Women,' published in London, attracted much attention from
   liberal minds. She examined the position of woman in the light
   of existing civilizations, and demanded for her the widest
   opportunities of education, industry, political knowledge, and
   the right of representation. … Following her, came Jane
   Marcet, Eliza Lynn, and Harriet Martineau—each of whom in the
   early part of the 19th century exerted a decided influence
   upon the political thought of England. … Frances Wright, a
   person of extraordinary powers of mind, born in Dundee,
   Scotland, in 1797, was the first woman who gave lectures on
   political subjects in America. When sixteen years of age she
   heard of the existence of a country in which freedom for the
   people had been proclaimed; she was filled with joy and a
   determination to visit the American Republic where the
   foundations of justice, liberty, and equality had been so
   securely laid. In 1820 she came here, traveling extensively
   North and South. She was at that time but twenty-two years of
   age. … Upon her second visit she made this country her home
   for several years. Her radical ideas on theology, slavery, and
   the social degradation of woman, now generally accepted by the
   best minds of the age, were then denounced by both press and
   pulpit, and maintained by her at the risk of her life. … In
   1832, Lydia Maria Child published her 'History of Woman,'
   which was the first American storehouse of information upon
   the whole question, and undoubtedly increased the agitation.
   In 1836, Ernestine L. Rose, a Polish lady—banished from her
   native country by the Austrian tyrant, Francis Joseph, for her
   love of liberty—came to America, lecturing in the large cities
   North and South upon the 'Science of Government.' She
   advocated the enfranchisement of woman. Her beauty, wit, and
   eloquence drew crowded houses.
{3657}
   About this period Judge Hurlbut, of New York, a leading member
   of the Bar, wrote a vigorous work on 'Human Rights,' in which
   he advocated political equality for women. This work attracted
   the attention of many legal minds throughout that State. In
   the winter of 1836, a bill was introduced into the New York
   Legislature by Judge Hertell, to secure to married women their
   rights of property. This bill was drawn up under the direction
   of Honorable John Savage, Chief-Justice of the Supreme Court,
   and Honorable John C. Spencer, one of the revisers of the
   statutes of New York. It was in furtherance of this bill that
   Ernestine L. Rose and Paulina Wright at that early day
   circulated petitions. The very few names they secured show the
   hopeless apathy and ignorance of the women as to their own
   rights. As similar bills were pending in New York until
   finally passed in 1848, a great educational work was
   accomplished in the constant discussion of the topics
   involved. During the winters of 1844-5-6, Elizabeth Cady
   Stanton, living in Albany, made the acquaintance of Judge
   Hurlbut and a large circle of lawyers and legislators, and,
   while exerting herself to strengthen their convictions in
   favor of the pending bill, she resolved at no distant day to
   call a convention for a full and free discussion of woman's
   rights and wrongs. … In 1840, Margaret Fuller published an
   essay in the Dial, entitled 'The Great Lawsuit, or Man vs.
   Woman: Woman vs. Man.' In this essay she demanded perfect
   equality for woman, in education, industry, and politics. It
   attracted great attention and was afterward expanded into a
   work entitled 'Woman in the Nineteenth Century.' … In the
   State of New York, in 1845, Reverend Samuel J. May preached a
   sermon at Syracuse, upon 'The Rights and Conditions of Women,'
   in which he sustained their right to take part in political
   life, saying women need not expect 'to have their wrongs fully
   redressed, until they themselves have a voice and a hand in
   the enactment and administration of the laws.' … In 1849,
   Lucretia Mott published a discourse on woman, delivered in the
   Assembly Building, Philadelphia, in answer to a Lyceum lecture
   which Richard H. Dana, of Boston, was giving in many of the
   chief cities, ridiculing the idea of political equality for
   woman. … It was her early labors in the temperance cause that
   first roused Susan B. Anthony to a realizing sense of woman's
   social, civil, and political degradation, and thus secured her
   life-long labors for the enfranchisement of woman. In 1847 she
   made her first speech at a public meeting of the Daughters of
   Temperance in Canajoharie, New York. The same year Antoinette
   L. Brown, then a student at Oberlin College, Ohio, the first
   institution that made the experiment of co-education,
   delivered her first speech on temperance in several places in
   Ohio, and on Woman's Rights, in the Baptist church at
   Henrietta, New York. Lucy Stone, a graduate of Oberlin, made
   her first speech on Woman's Rights the same year in her
   brother's church at Brookfield, Massachusetts. Nor were the
   women of Europe inactive."

      E. C. Stanton, S. B. Anthony, and M. J. Gage, editors,
      History of Woman Suffrage,
      chapter 1.

WOMAN'S RIGHTS: A. D. 1804-1891.
   The higher Education of women in America.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: REFORMS &C.: A. D. 1804-1891.

WOMAN'S RIGHTS: A. D. 1839-1848.
   Legal emancipation of women in the United States.

      See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1839-1848.

WOMAN'S RIGHTS: A. D. 1840-1890.
   The organized agitation.

   "In 1840 a 'World's Antislavery Convention' was held in
   London, and all Antislavery organizations throughout the world
   were invited to join in it, through their delegates. Several
   American societies accepted the invitation, and elected
   delegates, six or eight of whom were women, Lucretia Mott and
   Mrs. Wendell Phillips among them. The excitement caused by
   their presence in London was intense, for the English
   Abolitionists were very conservative, and never dreamed of
   inviting women to sit in their Convention. And these women who
   had come among them had rent the American Anti-slavery
   Societies in twain, had been denounced from the pulpit,
   anathematized by the press, and mobbed by the riffraff of the
   streets. … A long and acrimonious debate followed on the
   admission of the women. … When the vote was taken, the women
   delegates were excluded by a large majority. William Lloyd
   Garrison did not arrive in London until after the rejection of
   the women. When he was informed of the decision of the
   Convention he refused to take his seat with the delegates. And
   throughout the ten days' sessions he maintained absolute
   silence, remaining in the gallery as a spectator. … The London
   Convention marked the beginning of a new era in the woman's
   cause. Hitherto, the agitation of the question of woman's
   equal rights had been incidental to the prosecution of other
   work. Now the time had come when a movement was needed to
   present the claims of woman in a direct and forcible manner,
   and to take issue with the legal and social order which denied
   her the rights of human beings, and held her in everlasting
   subjection. At the close of the exasperating and insulting
   debates of the 'World's Antislavery Convention,' Lucretia Mott
   and Mrs. Elizabeth Cady Stanton agreed to hold a Woman's
   Rights Convention on their return to America, and to begin in
   earnest the education of the people on the question of woman's
   enfranchisement. Mrs. Stanton had attended the Convention as a
   bride, her husband having been chosen a delegate. Accordingly
   the first Woman's Rights Convention of the world was called at
   Seneca Falls, New York, on the 19th and 20th of July, 1848. It
   was attended by crowds of men and women, and the deepest
   interest was manifested in the proceedings. 'Demand the
   uttermost,' said Daniel O'Connell, 'and you will get
   something.' The leaders in the new movement, Lucretia Mott and
   Mrs. Stanton, with their husbands, and Frederick Douglass,
   acted on this advice. They demanded in unambiguous terms all
   that the most radical friends of women have ever claimed. …
   The Convention adjourned to meet in Rochester, New York,
   August 2, 1848. … A third Convention was held at Salem, Ohio,
   in 1850; a fourth in Akron, Ohio, in 1851; a fifth in
   Massillon, Ohio, in 1852; another at Ravenna, Ohio, in 1853,
   and others rapidly followed. The advocates of woman suffrage
   increased in number and ability. Superior women, whose names
   have become historic, espoused the cause—Frances D. Gage,
   Hannah Tracy Cutler, Jane G. Swisshelm, Caroline M. Severance,
   Celia C. Burr, who later be·came Mrs. C. C. Burleigh,
   Josephine S. Griffing, Antoinette L. Brown, Lucy Stone, Susan
   B. Anthony, Paulina W. Davis, Caroline H. Dall, Elizabeth
   Oakes Smith, Ernestine L. Rose, Mrs. C. H. Nichols, Dr.
   Harriot K. Hunt; the roll-call was a brilliant one,
   representing an unusual versatility of culture and ability.
{3658}
   The First National Woman Suffrage Convention was held in
   Worcester, Massachusetts, October 23 and 24, 1850. It was more
   carefully planned than any that had yet been held. Nine States
   were represented. The arrangements were perfect—the addresses
   and papers were of the highest character—the audiences were at
   a white heat of enthusiasm. The number of cultivated people
   who espoused the new gospel for women was increased by the
   names of Ralph Waldo Emerson, Theodore Parker, Bronson and
   Abby May Alcott, Thomas W. Higginson, William I. Bowditch,
   Samuel E. and Harriet W. Sewall, Henry Ward Beecher, Henry B.
   Blackwell, Ednah D. Cheney, Honorable John Neal, Reverend
   William H. Channing, and Wendell Phillips. … A dozen years
   were spent in severe pioneer work and then came the four years
   Civil War. All reformatory work was temporarily suspended, for
   the nation then passed through a crucial experience, and the
   issue of the fratricidal conflict was national life or
   national death. The transition of the country from peace to
   the tumult and waste of war was appalling and swift, but the
   regeneration of its women kept pace with it. … The development
   of those years, and the impetus they gave to women, which has
   not yet spent itself, has been wonderfully manifested since
   that time. … It has been since the war, and as the result of
   the great quickening of women which it occasioned, that women
   have organized missionary, philanthropic, temperance,
   educational, and political organizations, on a scale of great
   magnitude. … In 1869, two great National organizations were
   formed. One styled itself 'The National Woman Suffrage
   Association,' and the other was christened 'The American Woman
   Suffrage Association.' The first established its headquarters
   in New York, and published a weekly paper, 'The Revolution,'
   which was ably edited by Mrs. Stanton and Miss Anthony. 'The
   American' made its home in Boston, and founded 'The Woman's
   Journal,' which was edited by Mrs. Mary A. Livermore, Mrs.
   Julia Ward Howe, Mrs. Lucy Stone, William Lloyd Garrison and
   Thomas W. Higginson. … After twenty years of separate
   activities, a union of the two national organizations was
   effected in 1890, under the composite title of 'The National
   American Woman Suffrage Association.'"

      M. A. Livermore,
      Woman in the State
      (Woman's Work in America, chapter 10).

WOMAN'S RIGHTS: A. D. 1842-1892.
   Women in the Medical profession.

   "The first advocate for women medical students, Miss Elizabeth
   Blackwell, after many years of struggle obtained entrance into
   the medical faculty of Geneva in 1842; in 1847 she received
   her doctor's degree, and went to England, Germany, and finally
   to Paris, to complete her studies. Her example fired others.
   In that same year a medical college for women was founded in
   Boston, in 1850 a similar one in Philadelphia, one in New York
   in 1868, and in Chicago in 1870. Soon after, the greater
   number of universities in America were thrown open to women,
   and by this their studies were largely extended. The
   difficulties proved far greater in Europe. The universities of
   Zurich in 1864, and of Berne in 1872, were the first to
   receive lady students for the study of medicine. In 1868 the
   Medical Faculty of Paris, chiefly through the intervention of
   the Empress Eugenie, first admitted lady students to follow
   the medical course. In Italy, in 1876, they obtained equal
   success; in Russia, an ukase of the Czar Alexander II., of
   November 2nd, 1872, conferred upon ladies the right to attend
   the medical courses in the Medico-Chirurgical Academy of St.
   Petersburg, but this permission was subsequently withdrawn on
   political grounds, on the accession of a new government. In
   1874 the first school of medicine for women was started in
   London; in 1876 they were admitted to the study of medicine in
   Dublin. In Germany and Austro-Hungary women are not allowed to
   enter the universities, although ladies' associations have
   obtained thousands of signatures to petition both parliaments
   on the subject. From statistical sources, we learn that there
   are seventy lady doctors in practice in London, five in
   Edinburgh, and two in Dublin. Seven hundred lady doctors
   practise in Russia, of whom fifty-four are the heads of
   clinical schools and laboratories. In Italy, at the same time,
   there were only six. Spain has but two qualified lady doctors.
   Roumania, also, has two. Sweden, Norway, and Belgium have
   likewise comparatively few. In Berlin there are Dr. Franziska
   Tiburtius and Dr. Lehmus (who founded a poly-clinical school
   which is increasing year by year), Dr. Margaret
   Mengarin-Traube and Fraulein Kuhnow. In Austria, Dr. Rosa
   Kerschbaumer is the sole possessor of Government authority to
   practise her profession. In India, where native religion
   forbids their women calling in men doctors, there has been a
   strong movement in favour of ladies, and they have now one
   hundred lady doctors, three of whom are at the head of the
   three most important hospitals. The largest number of women
   practising medicine is in America."

      A. Crepaz,
      The Emancipation of Women,
      pages 99-103.

   "The medical faculty of the University of Paris opened its
   doors to women in 1868, but at first only a very few availed
   themselves of the privileges thus offered. In 1878 the number
   in attendance was 32; during the next ten years (1878-1888) it
   increased to 114, and is at present 183, of whom the great
   majority (167) are Russians. The remainder are Poles,
   Rumanians, Servians, Greeks, and Scotch, and only one German."

      The Nation,
      February 14, 1895.

WOMAN'S RIGHTS: A. D. 1865-1883.
   The higher Education of Women in England.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: REFORMS &c.: A. D. 1865-1883.

WOMAN'S RIGHTS: A. D. 1869-1894.
   Progress in Europe and America.

   A certain number of the English cities "occupy a privileged
   position, under the title of 'municipal boroughs.' These alone
   are municipal corporations, enjoying a considerable degree of
   autonomy by virtue of charters of incorporation granted in the
   pleasure of the crown. … The other cities have as such no
   legal existence: they are simply geographical units. In past
   times the privilege of incorporation was often granted to
   wretched little hamlets. But whether they were once of
   consequence or not, the municipal corporations degenerated
   everywhere into corrupt oligarchies. The municipal reform of
   1835 destroyed these hereditary cliques and extended the
   municipal franchise to all the inhabitants who paid the poor
   tax as occupants of realty.
{3659}
   But in doing this … it was expressly provided in the Municipal
   Corporations Act of 1835 that the electoral franchise in the
   municipal boroughs should belong to male persons only. Before
   long the unorganized condition of the larger towns that were
   not municipal boroughs received the attention of Parliament.
   It did not grant them communal autonomy,—there could be no
   question of that,—but conceded special powers to establish
   sanitary systems and to undertake works of public utility such
   as lighting, paving, sewerage, etc. The special acts passed
   for these purposes from time to time, as the necessity for
   them arose, were consolidated and made general in two
   statutes: the Public Health Act of 1848, for a class of towns
   designated as 'local government districts,' and the
   Commissioners' Clauses Act of 1847, for the cities described
   as 'improvement commissions districts.' These acts gave to
   these urban agglomerations an incipient municipal
   organization, by establishing boards of health in some, and in
   others commissions to direct the public works. In both these
   classes of 'nascent, half-developed municipalities,' which had
   scarcely emerged from the parochial phase of local
   self-government, the authorities—i. e. the members of the
   boards of health and the commissioners—were elected, as in
   the parishes, by the rate-payers without distinction of sex.
   As these cities enlarged and developed, they were admitted to
   the honor of municipal incorporation. But since the Municipal
   Corporations Act limited the franchise to men, it resulted
   that while the city which was promoted to the rank of
   municipal borough saw its rights increased, a part of its
   inhabitants—the women—saw theirs suppressed. This anomaly gave
   the advocates of woman suffrage a chance to demand that the
   ballot be granted to women in the municipal boroughs. In 1869
   Mr. Jacob Bright introduced such a measure in the House of
   Commons, and it was adopted almost without discussion. … But
   when the English legislator placed the administration of the
   'nascent, half-developed municipalities'—which were only
   temporarily such and which might become cities of the first
   rank—on the same plane, as far as the suffrage of women was
   concerned, with the government of the parishes, he substituted
   a fluctuating for a permanent test, and as a result wiped out
   his own line of demarcation. When this fact was brought out,
   Parliament could not but recognize and bow to it. This
   recognition was decisive: it resulted in the overthrow of the
   electoral barriers against women in the entire domain of local
   self-government. The clause which, upon the proposal of Mr.
   Jacob Bright, was inserted in section 9 of the municipal act
   of 1869, found its way into the revised municipal act of 1882.
   Section 63 of this latter act reads: 'For all purposes
   connected with and having reference to the right to vote at
   municipal elections, words importing in this act the masculine
   gender include women.' This clause gave women the ballot in
   the municipal boroughs, but did not make them eligible to
   office. And as the general qualification for municipal
   suffrage is the occupancy by the elector in his own name of a
   house subject to the poor tax, the law includes independent
   women only, not married women. … When in 1881 the municipal
   suffrage was extended to women in Scotland, the question
   whether the separated woman could vote was decided in her
   favor. But of course this does not change the position of
   married women in England. A year after the introduction of the
   municipal suffrage of women they obtained (in 1870) the school
   vote also, in connection with the establishment of the
   existing system of primary instruction. … It still remained
   for women to make their way into the local government of the
   county; but county government, although representative, was
   not elective. In 1888 county councils were established, chosen
   by the ratepayers. The analogy of the municipal councils
   demanded that women should be included among the electors of
   the new local assemblies. Accordingly the Local Government Act
   of 1888 admits women to the electorate in England, and the act
   of 1889 gives them the same right in Scotland. … In Sweden
   local self-government is exercised in first instance, in the
   city and country communes, by the tax-payers in general
   assembly, or town meeting, where their votes are reckoned in
   proportion to the taxes paid, according to a graded scale,
   just as in the English vestries. In the cities with a
   population above 3,000 the taxpayers elect a communal council.
   … In the full assemblies of the communes that have no
   councils, and in the elections at which councillors are
   chosen, unmarried women have the same right of participation
   as men. … The next higher instance of local self-government
   consists of provincial councils (landstings). All the
   municipal electors, women not excepted, vote for the members
   of these councils. … In Norway women have no share in local
   government, except in the school administration. … In Denmark
   women are entirely excluded from local government; but they
   have been admitted to it in one Danish dependency—Iceland. …
   Finland, which was attached to Sweden for centuries before it
   fell under the sway of Russia, is still influenced by the
   movement of legislation in the former mother-country. … The
   law of February 6, 1865, concerning the rural communes,
   admitted women to communal rights under almost the same
   conditions as in Sweden. … The law of April 14, 1856,
   concerning the organization of the rural communes in the six
   eastern provinces of the kingdom of Prussia (section 6), as
   well as the analogous law of March 19, 1856, for the province
   of Westphalia (section 15), provide that persons of female sex
   who possess real property carrying with it the right to vote
   shall be represented—the married women by their husbands, the
   single women by electors of the male sex. A similar provision
   was adopted for the province of Schleswig-Holstein, after its
   annexation by Prussia (law of September 22, 1867, section 11).
   But in the Rhine province, where the administrative and the
   private law still show deep traces of the French influence,
   women are expressly excluded from the communal franchise. … In
   Saxony women are admitted to the communal vote in the country
   districts on the same terms as men. … Eligibility to communal
   office is denied to women in all the countries enumerated
   above. In Austria, as one consequence of the revolutionary
   movement of 1848, the legislator endeavored to infuse fresh
   life into the localities by giving a liberal organization to
   the rural communes. The law of 1849 granted communal rights to
   all persons paying taxes on realty and industrial enterprises,
   and also to various classes of 'capacities'—ministers of
   religion, university graduates, school principals and teachers
   of the higher grades, etc.
{3660}
   Among the electors of the first and most important group,
   based wholly upon property, were included women, minors,
   soldiers in active service and some other classes of persons
   who, as a rule, were excluded from suffrage, on condition that
   their votes be cast through representatives. … The Russian
   village community, the mir, which has come down across the
   centuries into our own time with very few changes in its
   primitive organization, is a typical example of rudimentary
   local self-government, where all who have an interest, not
   excepting the women, have a right to be heard in the common
   assemblies. … In the Dominion of Canada local suffrage has
   only recently been granted to women. The first law regulating
   this matter was passed in the province of Ontario (Upper
   Canada) in 1884. This law has served as an example, and in
   part also as a model, for the other provinces. The electoral
   rights granted to women by the legislation of the province of
   Ontario may be grouped under four heads:
   (a) participation in municipal elections,
   (b) participation in municipal referenda,
   (c) participation in school-board elections, and
   (d) eligibility to office.
   All unmarried women and widows twenty-one years of age,
   subjects of her Majesty and paying municipal taxes on real
   property or income, may vote in municipal elections. …
   Finally, all taxpayers resident in the school district are
   recognized by the laws of 1885 and 1887 as eligible to the
   office of school trustee. … Female suffrage does not exist in
   the great French-speaking province of Quebec (Lower Canada),
   in New Brunswick or in Prince Edward Island. … In almost all
   the continental [Australasian] colonies the municipal suffrage
   rests upon the same basis as does the parish franchise of the
   mother-country, i. e. the possession or occupation of real
   property. … [In the United States] several States have granted
   to women simply the right of being elected to school offices,
   provided always that they possess the qualifications
   prescribed for men. The question is thus decided in
   California, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine,
   Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. … At the present time the
   system of granting to women both rights—eligibility and
   suffrage—in school matters has been adopted in the following
   states besides Massachusetts: Colorado, North and South
   Dakota, Idaho, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire,
   New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Vermont, Washington and
   Wisconsin and the territory of Arizona. Of course to this list
   must be added Wyoming, where women vote at all elections, and
   Kansas, where they possess complete local suffrage. Finally,
   Kentucky and Nebraska admit women only to the school
   franchise, and that only under special conditions."

      M. Ostrogorski,
      Local Woman Suffrage
      (Political Science Quarterly, December, 1891).

   "In three Territories … the right of voting at legislative
   elections was given by the legislature of the Territory, and
   in one of these, Wyoming, it was retained when the Territory
   received Statehood in 1890. In Utah it was abolished by a
   Federal statute, because thought to be exercised by the Mormon
   wives at the bidding of their polygamous husbands, and thus to
   strengthen the polygamic party. In Washington Territory the
   law which conferred it in 1883 was declared invalid by the
   courts in 1887, because its nature had not been properly
   described in the title, was re-enacted immediately afterwards,
   and was in 1888 again declared invalid by the United States
   Territorial Court, on the ground that the Act of Congress
   organizing the Territorial legislature did not empower it to
   extend the suffrage to women. In enacting their State
   Constitution (1889) the people of Washington pronounced
   against female suffrage by a majority of two to one; and a
   good authority declared to me that most of the women were well
   pleased to lose the privilege. In 1893 the legislature of
   Colorado submitted to the voters (in virtue of a provision in
   the Constitution) a law extending full franchise for all
   purposes to women, and it was carried by a majority of 6,347.
   … In Michigan in 1893, women received the suffrage in all
   municipal elections. In Michigan, however, the law has since
   been declared unconstitutional. … In Connecticut, the latest
   State which has extended school suffrage to women (1893), it
   would appear that the women have not, so far, shown much
   eagerness to be registered. However, while the advanced women
   leaders and Prohibitionists started a campaign among the women
   voters, the husbands and brothers of conservative proclivities
   urged their wives and sisters to register, and not without
   success. In Wyoming (while it was still a Territory) women
   served as jurors for some months till the judges discovered
   that they were not entitled by law to do so, and in Washington
   (while a Territory) they served from 1884 to 1887, when the
   legislature, in regranting the right of voting, omitted to
   grant the duty or privilege of jury service. … As respects the
   suffrage in Wyoming, the evidence I have collected privately
   is conflicting. … No opposition was offered in the Convention
   of 1889, which drafted the present Constitution, to the
   enactment of woman suffrage for all purposes. The opinion of
   the people at large was not duly ascertained, because the
   question was not separately submitted to them at the polls,
   but there can be little doubt that it would have been
   favourable. … The whole proceedings of the Convention of 1889
   leave the impression that the equal suffrage in force since
   1869 had worked fairly, and the summing up of the case by a
   thoughtful and dispassionate British observer (Mr. H.
   Plunkett) is to the same effect."

      J. Bryce,
      The American Commonwealth (3d edition),
      chapter 96 (volume 2).

   "No complete and reliable statistics have ever been obtained
   of the number of women who register and vote on school
   questions. This varies greatly in different localities, and in
   the same localities in different years. With women, as with
   men, the questions connected with the schools do not suffice
   to bring out many voters as a rule. Those few who have voted
   hitherto have been of more than average character and ability,
   and influenced wholly by public spirit. But comparatively few,
   even of suffragists, have as yet availed themselves of the
   privilege. To secure any general participation of women in
   elections, a wider range of subjects must be thrown open to
   them. Wherever, as in Kansas, party issues and moral questions
   are involved, the women show a greater interest. In several
   States, as in Kansas, Iowa, and Rhode Island, prohibition
   amendments are said to have been carried by the efforts of
   women-workers at the polls, although not themselves voters."

      The Nation,
      April 28, 1887,
      page 362.

{3661}

WOOL, General John E.: In the war of 1812.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1812 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

WOOD'S HALFPENCE.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1722-1724.

WOOLLY-HEADS, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850.

WOOLSACK, The.

   "Perhaps you have noticed, when paying a visit to the House of
   Lords in holiday time, a comfortable kind of ottoman in front
   of the throne. This is the Woolsack, the seat of the Lord
   Chancellor [who presides in the House of Lords]. In the reign
   of Elizabeth an Act of Parliament was passed to prevent the
   exportation of wool, and to keep in mind this source of our
   national wealth, woolsacks were placed in the House of Lords,
   whereon the judges sat."

      A. C. Ewald,
      The Crown and its Advisers,
      lecture 3.

WORCESTER, Marquis of, The inventions of.

      See STEAM ENGINE.

WORCESTER, Battle of.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1651 (AUGUST).

WORDE, Wynkyn de, The Press of.

      See PRINTING &c.: A. D. 1476-1491.

WORLD'S COLUMBIAN EXPOSITION, The.

      See CHICAGO: A. D. 1892-1893.

      [Transcriber's note]
      See
      C. D. Arnold and H. D. Higinbotham,
      Official Views Of The World's Columbian Exposition
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/22847

WORLD'S FAIR, The First.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1851.

WORMS.

   "Worms (Wormatia) (Borbetomagus), situated on the left bank of
   the Rhine, existed long before the Roman conquest, and is
   supposed to have been founded by the Celts, under the name of
   Borbetomagus. … In the 4th and 5th centuries it was a
   flourishing town in the possession of the Burgundians. Under
   their King Gundahar, the vicinity of Worms was the scene of
   the popular legend handed down in the romantic poem known as
   the Nibelungen-lied. In 496, by the victory of Tolbiacum, it
   formed a part of the empire of Clovis."

      W. J. Wyatt,
      History of Prussia,
      volume 2, page 447.

WORMS: A. D.406.
   Destruction by the Germans.

      See GAUL: A. D. 406-409.

WORMS: A. D. 1521.
   The Imperial Diet.
   Luther's summons and appearance.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1521-1522.

WORMS: A. D. 1713.
   Taken by the French.

      See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

WORMS: A. D. 1743.
   Treaty between Austria, Sardinia and England.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1743;
      and AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743-1744.

WORMS: A. D. 1792.
   Occupied by the French Revolutionary Army.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).

WORMS, Concordat of(1122).

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1056-1122.

WÖRTH, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (JULY-AUGUST).

WRANGLERS, Senior.

   At Oxford and Cambridge Universities, "by a strange relic of
   the logical and disputatory studies of the Middle Ages, the
   candidates for University honors maintained in public some
   mathematical thesis, about which they disputed in Latin,
   never, as it may be supposed, of the best. To keep up the
   illusion of the monkish time, and the seven liberal arts, a
   little metaphysics and a good deal of theology were thrown in
   at the time of the examination; but the real business of the
   'schools' at Cambridge was mathematics. The disputing,
   however, was so important a part of the performances that the
   first division of those to whom were awarded honors were
   called by distinction,'the wranglers'; and the head man—the
   proud recipient of all the glory which at the end of a four
   years' course the ancient University showered on the son she
   possessed most distinguished in her favorite studies—was
   called the senior wrangler. In process of time, the
   disputations and Latin were all done away with. An examination
   from printed papers was made the test. Yet, still, every year,
   at the end of the arduous eight days' trial, the undergraduate
   who takes his bachelor's degree in virtue of passing the best
   examination in mathematics, is called the senior wrangler; and
   attains the proudest position that Cambridge has to bestow."

      W. Everett,
      On the Cam,
      lecture 2.

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.
WRIT OF MAINPRISE.
WRIT DE HOMINE REPLEGIANDO.

   See ENGLAND: A. D. 1679.

WRITS OF ASSISTANCE.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1761;
      and MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1761.

WROXETER, Origin of.

   See URICONIUM.

   ----------WÜRTEMBERG: Start--------

WÜRTEMBERG:
   Early Suevic population.

      See SUEVI.

WÜRTEMBERG: Founding of the Dukedom.

   "Conrad of Beutelsbach, the first of this family that appears
   upon record, got the County of Würtemberg from the Emperor
   Henry IV. in 1103, and was succeeded by his son Ulrick I. as
   Count of Würtemberg, in 1120. Henry, the fourteenth in lineal
   descent from Ulrick, was made Duke of Würtemberg in 1519.
   Frederick II., and eighth Duke of Würtemberg, succeeded his
   father in 1797, and was proclaimed King of Würtemberg in
   1805."

      Sir A. Halliday,
      Annals of the House of Hanover,
      volume 1, page 430.

WÜRTEMBERG: A. D. 1801-1803.
   Acquisition of territory under the Treaty of Luneville.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.

WÜRTEMBERG: A. D. 1805-1806.
   Aggrandized by Napoleon.
   Created a Kingdom.
   Joined to the Confederation of the Rhine.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1806; and 1806 (JANUARY-AUGUST).

WÜRTEMBERG: A. D. 1809.
   Incorporation of the rights and revenues of the Teutonic
   Order with the Kingdom.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

WÜRTEMBERG: A. D. 1813.
   Abandonment of the Rhenish Confederacy and the French Alliance.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).

WÜRTEMBERG: A. D. 1816.
   Accession to the Holy Alliance.

      See HOLY ALLIANCE.

WÜRTEMBERG: A. D. 1866.
   The Seven Weeks War.
   Indemnity to Prussia.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.

WÜRTEMBERG: A. D. 1870-1871.
   Treaty of union with the Germanic Confederation,
   soon transformed into the German Empire.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1870 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER); and 1871.

   ----------WÜRTEMBERG: End--------

WÜRTZBURG, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER).

WUZEER,
VIZIR.

      See OUDE; and VIZIR.

WYANDOT CONSTITUTION, The.

      See KANSAS: A. D. 1854-1859.

WYANDOTS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: HURONS OR WYANDOTS.

{3662}

WYAT'S INSURRECTION.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1554.

WYCLIF'S REFORMATION.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1360-1414;
      BOHEMIA: A. D. 1405-1415,
      and BEGUINES.

WYOMING:
   The Name.

   "Wyoming is a corruption of the name given to the locality by
   the Indians. They called it 'Maughwauwame.' The word is
   compounded of 'maughwau,' large, and 'wame,' plains. The name,
   then, signifies 'The Large Plains.' The Delawares pronounced
   the first syllable short, and the German missionaries, in
   order to come as near as possible to the Indian pronunciation
   wrote the name M'chweuwami. The early settlers, finding it
   difficult to pronounce the word correctly, spoke it Wauwaumie,
   then Wiawumie, then Wiomic, and, finally, Wyoming,"

      G. Peck,
      Wyoming: Its History &c.,
      chapter 1.

WYOMING (State): A. D. 1803.
   Eastern portion embraced in the Louisiana Purchase.

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.

WYOMING (State): A. D. 1890.
   Admission to the Union as a State.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: 1889-1890.

WYOMING (Valley): A. D. 1753-1799.
   Connecticut claims and settlements.
   The Pennamite and Yankee War.

      See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1753-1799.

WYOMING (Valley): A. D. 1755.
   The Grasshopper War of the Delaware and Shawanese tribes
   of American Indians.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SHAWANESE.

WYOMING (Valley): A. D. 1778.
   The Tory and Indian invasion and massacre.
   Its misrepresentation by historians and poets.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778 (JULY).

X.

X, Y, Z, CORRESPONDENCE, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1797-1799.

XENOPHON'S RETREAT.

      See PERSIA: B. C. 401-400.

XERES DE LA FRONTERA, Battle of (A. D. 711).

      See SPAIN: A. D. 711-713.

XERXES.

      See PERSIA: B. C, 486-405,
      and GREECE: B. C. 480-479.

Y.

YAKOOB BEG, The Dominion of.

   The Chinese obtained possession of Kashgar or Chinese
   Turkestan (see TURKESTAN) about 1760, and held it for a
   century, overcoming much revolt during the last forty years of
   that period. In 1862, the revolt assumed a more formidable
   character than it had borne before. Its beginning was among a
   neighboring people called, variously, the Tungani, Dungani, or
   Dungans. These were "a Mahomedan people settled in the
   north-west province of Kansuh and in a portion of Shensi. Many
   of them had migrated westward at the time of the wars of Keen
   Lung, and had colonized various parts of the Chinese
   conquests. During a century this movement westward had
   continued, and in 1862 the Tungani represented the majority of
   the population, not only in parts of Kansuh, but also in the
   country to the west, as far as Ili and the city of Turfan.
   Although Mahomedans, they had acted as the soldiers of the
   Chinese. They had won their battles, laid down their roads,
   and held the Tartar population in check. From the Tungani the
   Chinese never for an instant expected danger. They were
   certainly heretics; but then they were part and parcel of
   themselves in every other respect. They hated the Khokandians
   and the people of Kashgar with a hatred that was more bitter
   than that they bore to the Khitay or Buddhist Chinese. In all
   essentials the Tungani were treated exactly like the most
   favoured children of the empire. … The only cause that it is
   possible to assign for their rebellion is that vague one of
   the religious revival which was then manifesting itself among
   the Mahomedans all over the world. But whatever the cause, the
   consequences were clear enough. In 1862 a riot occurred at a
   village in Kansuh. Order was restored with some small loss of
   life; and the momentary alarm which had been caused by it
   passed away. The alarm was, however, only too well founded. A
   few weeks afterwards a more serious riot took place at the
   town of Houchow or Salara. This was the signal for the rising
   of the Tungani in all directions. The unanimity shown by the
   various Tungani settlements proved that there had been a
   preconcerted arrangement amongst them; but the Chinese had
   known nothing of it. … The few Imperial troops remaining in
   the province of Kansuh were unable to withstand the desperate
   and unanimous assault of the Mahomedans. They were swept out
   of existence, and with them the larger portion of the Khitay
   population as well. The Mahomedan priests took the lead in
   this revolt, and the atrocities which they and their followers
   enacted were of the most horrible and blood-thirsty character.
   The butchery of tens of thousands of their Buddhist subjects
   in Kansuh appealed loudly to the Chinese Government for
   revenge; and it was not long before their troops restored
   Kansuh to its allegiance. Those of the Tungani who were
   captured were given over to the executioner. But a large
   number escaped, fleeing westward to those cities beyond the
   desert, where other Mussulmans had imitated, with like
   success, the deeds of their kinsmen in Kansuh. … No sooner
   then did the tidings of the events in Kansuh reach Hamil and
   Barkul, Turfan and Manas, than risings at once took place
   against the Khitay. In all cases the movement was successful.
   The Manchus were deposed: the 'mollahs' were set up in their
   stead. After a short interval the other cities of Karashar,
   Kucha, and Aksu, followed the example, with an identical
   result. The Tungan revolt proper had then reached its limit. …
   The communications between Pekin and Jungaria were cut, and a
   hostile territory of nearly 2,000 miles intervened. To restore
   those communications, to reduce that hostile country, would
   demand a war of several campaigns; and China was not in a
   condition to make the slightest effort. All that her statesmen
   could hope for was, that she would not go irretrievably to
   pieces.
{3663}
   The Tungani flourished on the misfortunes of the empire. …
   During some months after the first successes of the Tungani,
   the people of Kuldja and Kashgaria remained quiet, for the
   prestige of China's power was still great. But when it became
   evident to all, that communication was hopelessly cut off
   between the Chinese garrisons and the base of their strength
   in China, both the Tungan element and the native population
   began to see that their masters were ill able to hold their
   own against a popular rising. This opinion gained ground
   daily, and at last the whole population rose against the
   Chinese and massacred them. … But no sooner had the Chinese
   been overthrown, than the victors, the Tungani and the
   Tarantchis, began to quarrel with each other. Up to the month
   of January, 1865, the rising had been carried out in a very
   irregular and indefinite manner. … It was essentially a blind
   and reckless rising, urged on by religious antipathy; and,
   successful as it was, it owed all its triumphs to the
   embarrassments of China. The misfortunes of the Chinese
   attracted the attention of all those who felt an interest in
   the progress of events in Kashgaria. Prominent among these was
   a brother of Wali Khan, Buzurg Khan [heir of the former
   rulers, the exiled Khojas], who resolved to avail himself of
   the opportunity afforded by the civil war for making a bold
   attempt to regain the place of his ancestors. Among his
   followers was Mahomed Yakoob, a Khokandian soldier of fortune,
   already known to fame in the desultory wars and feuds of which
   Central Asia had been the arena. His previous career had
   marked him out pre-eminently as a leader of men, and he now
   sought in Eastern Turkestan that sphere of which Russian
   conquests had deprived him in its Western region. There is
   little to surprise us in the fact that, having won his
   battles, Yakoob deposed and imprisoned his master Buzurg. In
   several campaigns between 1867 and 1873 he bent back the
   Tungani from his confines, and established an independent
   government in the vast region from the Pamir to beyond Turfan,
   and from Khoten and the Karakoram to the Tian Shan. He treated
   on terms of dignity with the Czar, and also with the
   Government of India. He received English envoys and Russian
   ambassadors, and his palace was filled with presents from
   London and St. Petersburg. … Urged on by some vague ambition,
   he made war upon the Tungani, when every dictate of prudence
   pointed to an alliance with them. He destroyed his only
   possible allies, and in destroying them he weakened himself
   both directly and indirectly. In the autumn of 1876 Yakoob Beg
   had indeed pushed forward so far to the east that he fancied
   he held Barkul and Hamil in his grasp; and the next spring
   would probably have witnessed a further advance upon these
   cities had not fate willed it otherwise. With the capture of
   the small village of Chightam, in 92° E. longitude, Yakoob's
   triumphs closed. Thus far his career had been successful; it
   may then be said to have reached its limit. In the autumn of
   1876, the arrival of a Chinese army on his eastern frontier
   changed the current of his thoughts. … From November, 1876,
   until March, 1877, the Chinese generals were engaged in
   massing their troops on the northern side of the Tian Shan
   range. … Yakoob's principal object was to defend the Devan
   pass against the Chinese; but, while they attacked it in
   front, another army under General Chang Yao was approaching
   from Hamil. Thus outflanked, Yakoob's army retreated
   precipitately upon Turfan, where he was defeated, and again a
   second time at Toksoun, west of that town. The Chinese then
   halted. They had, practically speaking, destroyed Yakoob's
   powers of defence. That prince retreated to the town of Korla,
   where he was either assassinated or poisoned early in the
   month of May. … Korla was occupied on the 9th of October
   without resistance; and towards the end of the same month,
   Kucha, once an important city, surrendered. The later stages
   of the war were marked by the capture of the towns of Aksu,
   Ush Turfan, and Kashgar. With the fall of the capital, on the
   17th of December, 1877, the fighting ceased. The Chinese
   authority was promptly established in the country as far south
   as Yarkand, and after a brief interval in Khoten."

      D. C. Boulger,
      Central Asian Questions,
      chapter 12.

YALE COLLEGE.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1701-1717.

YAMASIS AND YAMACRAWS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

YAMCO, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

YANACONAS.
MAMACONAS.

   "The Yanaconas were a class existing [in Peru] in the time of
   the Incas, who were in an exceptional position. They were
   domiciled in the houses of their masters, who found them in
   food and clothing, paid their tribute, and gave them a piece
   of land to cultivate in exchange for their services. But to
   prevent this from degenerating into slavery, a decree of 1601
   ordered that they should be free to leave their masters and
   take service elsewhere on the same conditions." The Mamaconas
   of Peru were a class of domestic servants.

      C. R. Markham,
      Colonial History of South America,
      (Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 8, page 296).

YANAN FAMILY, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: YANAN FAMILY.

YANKEE:
   Origin of the term.

   "The first name given by the Indians to the Europeans who
   landed in Virginia was 'Wapsid Lenape' (white people); when,
   however, afterwards, they began to commit murders on the red
   men, whom they pierced with swords, they gave to the
   Virginians the name 'Mechanschican' (long knives), to
   distinguish them from others of the same colour. In New
   England they at first endeavoured to imitate the sound of the
   national name of the English, which they pronounced
   'Yengees.'" After about the middle of the Revolutionary War
   the Indians applied the name "Yengees" exclusively to the
   people of New England, "who, indeed, appeared to have adopted
   it, and were, as they still are, generally through the country
   called 'Yankees,' which is evidently the same name with a
   trifling alteration. They say they know the 'Yengees,' and can
   distinguish them by their dress and personal appearance, and
   that they were considered as less cruel than the Virginians or
   'long knives.' The proper English they [for 'they' read 'the
   Chippeways and some other nations.'—Editor's foot-note] call
   'Saggenash.'"

      J. Heckewelder,
      History, Manners, and Customs of the Indian Nations
      (Pennsylvania Historical Society Memoirs, volume 12)
      pages 142-143.

{3664}

   "The origin of this term [Yankees]. so frequently employed by
   way of reproach to the New England people, is said to be as
   follows. A farmer, by name Jonathan Hastings, of Cambridge,
   about the year 1713, used it as a cant, favorite word, to
   express excellency when applied to any thing; as a Yankee good
   horse, Yankee cider, &c., meaning an excellent horse and
   excellent cider. The students at college, having frequent
   intercourse with Mr. Hastings, and hearing him employ the term
   on all occasions, adopted it themselves, and gave him the name
   of Yankee Jonathan; this soon became a cant word among the
   collegians to express a weak, simple, awkward person, and from
   college it was carried and circulated through the country,
   till, from its currency in New England, it was at length taken
   up and unjustly applied to the New Englanders in common, as a
   term of reproach: It was in consequence of this that a
   particular song, called 'Yankee doodle,' was composed in
   derision of those scornfully called Yankees."

      J. Thatcher,
      Military Journal during the Revolutionary War,
      page 19.

   "Dr. William Gordon, in his History of the American War,
   edition 1789, volume i., pages 324,325, says it was a
   favourite cant word in Cambridge, Massachusets, as early as
   1713, and that it meant 'excellent.' … Cf. Lowland Sc.
   'yankie,' a sharp, clever, forward woman; 'yanker,' an agile
   girl, an incessant speaker; 'yanker,' a smart stroke, a great
   falsehood; 'yank,' a sudden and severe blow, a sharp stroke;
   'yanking,' active, pushing (Jamieson). … If Dr. Gordon's view
   be right, the word 'yankee' may be identified with the Sc.
   'yankie,' as above; and all the Scotch words appear to be of
   Scandinavian origin, due, ultimately Icel. 'jaga,' to move about. …
   The fundamental idea is that of 'quick motion'; see 'yacht.'
   But the word cannot be said to be solved."

      W. W. Skeat,
      Etymological Dictionary.

   "The best authorities on the subject now agree upon the
   derivation of this term from the imperfect effort made by the
   Northern Indians to pronounce the word 'English.'"

      M. Schele de Vere,
      Americanisms,
      page 22.

      ALSO IN:
      Notes and Queries,
      series 1, volume 6, page 57.

YANKTONS. The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

YARD-LAND.

   An ancient holding of land in England equivalent to the
   virgate.

      See HIDE OF LAND;
      and MANORS.

YATASSEES. The.

      See TEXAS: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

YEAR BOOKS, English.

      See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1307-1509.

YEAR OF ANARCHY, The.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 404-403.

YEAR OF METON, The.

      See METON, THE YEAR OF.

YELLOW FEVER, Appearance of.

      See PLAGUE: 18TH CENTURY.

YELLOW FORD, Battle of the (1598).

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1559-1603.

YELLOW TAVERN, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (MAY: VIRGINIA) SHERIDAN'S RAID.

YELLOWS (of Venezuela) The.

      See VENEZUELA: A. D. 1829-1886.

YEMAMA, Battle of.

      See ACRABA.

YENIKALE, Attack on (1855).

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854-1856.

YEOMEN.

   "A 'yeoman' is defined by Sir Thomas Smith (Rep. Anglor. lib.
   1. c. 24) as he whom our law calls 'legalem hominem,' a
   free-born man that may dispend of his own free land in yearly
   revenues to the sum of forty shillings. But it had also a more
   general application, denoting like 'valet' a higher kind of
   service, which still survives in the current phrase to do
   'yeoman's service.' In the household of the mediæval knight or
   baron the younger sons of yeomen would form a large proportion
   of the servitors, and share with the younger sons of knight or
   squire the common name of 'valetti.' The yeomen too who lived
   on their own land, but wore the 'livery of company' of some
   baron or lesser territorial magnate, would also be his
   'valets.' The mediæval 'yeoman' was the tenant of land in free
   socage. The extent of his holding might be large or small."

      T. P. Taswell-Langmead,
      English Constitutional History,
      page 343, foot-note.

   "At the period when the higher gentry began to absorb what
   remained of the feudal nobility, and established themselves
   definitely as an upper class, the small landowners—freeholders
   holding estates of inheritance or for life—long leaseholders
   and the larger copyholders made corresponding progress, and
   the yeomen (the common term applied to all of them) began in
   their turn to fill the position and take the rank of an
   agricultural middle class. The reign of Henry VI. had marked
   the zenith of their influence; they had by that time fully
   realized the fact of their existence as a body. The inferior
   limit of their class was approximately determined by the
   electoral qualification of the forty-shilling freeholder
   (under the Act of 1430), or by the £4 qualification for the
   office of juror. The superior limit was marked from a legal
   point of view by the property qualification of a magistrate,
   but socially there was not on this side any definite boundary
   line. In 1446 it was considered necessary to forbid the county
   electors to return 'valetti,' that is yeomen, to the House of
   Commons, a proof that custom and opinion left to themselves
   did not look upon the higher section of their class as
   unworthy of a seat in Parliament, an honour originally
   confined to the knights. Fortescue testifies almost with
   triumph to the fact that in no country of Europe were yeomen
   so numerous as in England."

      E. Boutmy,
      The English Constitution,
      part 2, chapter 4.

   In later English use the word "yeoman" has signified "a man of
   small estate in land, not ranking among the gentry."

YEOMEN OF THE GUARD.

   "This corps was instituted by Henry VII. in 1485. It now
   consists of 100 men, six of whom are called Yeomen Hangers,
   and two Yeomen Bed-goers; the first attending to the hangings
   and tapestries of the royal apartments, and the second taking
   charge of all beds during any royal removals. The yeomen of
   the guard carry up the royal dinner, and are popularly
   designated as 'beef-eaters, 'respecting the origin of which
   name some differences of opinion exist, for many maintain that
   they never had any duties connected with the royal beaufet. A
   yeoman usher and a party of yeomen attend in the great chamber
   of the palace on drawing-room and levee days, to keep the
   passage clear."

      C. R. Dodd,
      Manual of Dignities,
      part 2, section 1.

YERMOUK, Battle of (A. D. 636).

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-639.

YEZID I., Caliph, A. D. 679-683.

   Yezid II., Caliph, 720-724.

   Yezid III., Caliph, 744.

YNCAS,
INCAS.

      See PERU.

{3665}

YNGAVI, Battle of (1841).

      See PERU: A. D. 1826-1876.

YORK: The Roman capital of Britain.

      See EBORACUM.

YORK:
   The capital of Deira and Northumbria.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 547-633.

YORK: A. D. 1189.
   Massacre of Jews.

      See JEWS: A. D. 1189.

YORK: A. D. 1644.

   Parliamentary siege raised by Prince Rupert.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1644 (JANUARY-JULY).

YORK, Pennsylvania: A. D. 1777.
   The American Congress in session.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1777 (JANUARY-DECEMBER).

YORKINOS, The.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1822-1828.

YORKISTS.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1455-1471.

YORKTOWN: A. D. 1781.
   Surrender of Cornwallis and his army to Washington.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781 (MAY-OCTOBER).

YORKTOWN: A. D. 1862.
   McClellan's siege.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (MARCH-MAY: VIRGINIA).

YOUNG, Brigham, and the Mormons.

      See MORMONISM: A. D. 1830-1846, 1846-1847;
      and UTAH: A. D. 1849-1850, and 1857-1859.

YOUNG IRELAND MOVEMENT, The.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1841-1848.

YOUNG ITALY.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1831-1848.

YPRES: A. D. 1383.
   Unsuccessful but destructive siege by the English.

      See FLANDERS: A. D. 1383.

YPRES: A. D. 1648.
   Taken by the French.

      See NETHERLANDS (SPANISH PROVINCES): A. D. 1647-1648.

YPRES: A. D.1659.
   Restored to Spain.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.

YPRES: A. D. 1679.
   Ceded to France.

      See NIMEGUEN, THE PEACE OF.

YPRES: A. D. 1713.
   Ceded to Holland.

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1713-1715.

YPRES: A. D. 1744-1748.
   Taken by the French and restored to Austria.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743-1744;
      and AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: THE CONGRESS.

YPRES: A. D. 1794.
   Siege and capture by the French.

      See FRANCE; A. D. 1794 (MARCH-JULY).

YUCATAN:
   The aboriginal inhabitants, their civilization
   and its monuments.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MAYAS, and QUICHES;
      also MEXICO, ANCIENT.

YUCATAN:
   Discovery.
   Disputed origin of the name.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1517-1518.

YUCHI.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: UCHEAN FAMILY.

YUGUARZONGO, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

YUKIAN FAMILY, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: YUKIAN FAMILY.

YUMAN FAMILY, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: YUMAN FAMILY.

YUMAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: APACHE GROUP.

YUNCAS, The.

      See PERU: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

YUNGAY, Battle of (1839).

      See PERU: A. D. 1826-1876.

YUROKS,
EUROCS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MODOCS.

Z.

ZAB, Battle of the (A. D. 750).

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 715-750.

ZACHARIAS, Pope, A. D. 741-752.

ZAGONARA, Battle of (1424).

      See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.

ZAHARA: A. D. 1476.
   Surprise, capture and massacre by the Moors.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1476-1492.

ZALACCA, Battle of (1086).

      See ALMORAVIDES;
      and PORTUGAL: EARLY HISTORY.

ZAMA, Battle of (B. C. 202).

      See PUNIC WARS: THE SECOND.

ZAMBESIA.

      See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1885-1893.

ZAMINDARS, OR ZEMINDARS.

      See TALUKDARS;
      also INDIA: A. D. 1785-1793.

ZAMZUMMITES, The.

      See JEWS: EARLY HEBREW HISTORY.

ZANCLE.

   See MESSENE IN SICILY, FOUNDING OF.

ZANZIBAR: A. D. 1885-1886.
   Seizure of territory by Germany.

      See AFRICA: A. D. 1884-1891.

ZAPORO, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

ZAPOTECS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ZAPOTECS, etc.

ZARA: A. D. 1203.
   Capture and Destruction.

      See CRUSADES: A. D. 1201-1203.

ZARAGOSSA.

      See SARAGOSSA.

ZARAKA, The.

      See SARANGIANS.

ZARANGIANS, The.

      See SARANGIANS.

ZARATHUSTRA,
ZOROASTER.

      See ZOROASTRIANS.

ZEA.

      See PIRÆUS.

ZEALOTS, The.

   A party among the Jews which forced on the great struggle of
   that people with the Roman power,—the struggle which ended in
   the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus. A party of ardent
   patriots in its origin, and embracing the flower of the
   nation, it degenerated, by enlistment of the passions of the
   populace, into a fierce, violent, desperate faction, which
   Ewald (History of Israel, book 7) compares to that of the
   Jacobins of the French Revolution.

      Josephus,
      The Jewish War.

ZEEWAND.

      See WAMPUM.

ZEGRIS, The.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1238-1273; and 1476-1492.

ZELA, Battle of (B. C. 47).

      See ROME: B. C. 47-46.

ZEMINDARS,
ZAMINDARS.

      See TALUKDARS;
      also INDIA: A. D. 1785-1793.

{3666}

ZEMSTVO, The.

   "The Zemstvo (in Russia] is a kind of local administration
   which supplements the action of the rural communes [see MIR],
   and takes cognizance of those higher public wants which
   individual communes cannot possibly satisfy. Its principal
   duties are to keep the roads and bridges in proper repair, to
   provide means of conveyance for the rural police and other
   officials, to elect the justices of peace, to look after
   primary education and sanitary affairs, to watch the state of
   the crops and take measures against approaching famine, and in
   short to undertake, within certain clearly-defined limits,
   whatever seems likely to increase the material and moral
   well-being of the population. In form the institution is
   parliamentary—that is to say, it consists of an assembly of
   deputies which meets at least once a year, and of a permanent
   executive bureau elected by the assembly from among its
   members. … Once every three years the deputies are elected in
   certain fixed proportions by the landed proprietors, the rural
   communes, and the municipal corporations. Every province
   (guberniya) and each of the districts (uyezdi) into which the
   province is subdivided has such an assembly and such a
   bureau."

      D. M. Wallace,
      Russia,
      chapter 14.

ZENDAVESTA, The.

      See ZOROASTRIANS.

ZENDECAN, Battle of (1038).

      See TURKS: A. D. 999-1183.

ZENGER'S TRIAL.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1720-1734.

ZENO, Roman Emperor (Eastern). A. D. 474-491.

ZENOBIA, The Empire of.

      See PALMYRA.

ZENTA, Battle of (1697).

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1699.

ZEPHATHAH, Battle of.

   Fought by Asa, king of Judah, with Zerah the Ethiopian, whom
   he defeated.

      2 Chronicles, xiv. 9-15.

ZEUGITÆ, The.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 594.

ZEUGMA.

      See APAMEA.

ZIELA, Battle of.

   A battle fought in the Mithridatic War, B. C. 67, in which the
   Romans were badly defeated by the Pontic king.

      T. Mommsen,
      History of Rome,
      book 5, chapter 2.

ZIGANI.
ZIGEUNER.
ZINCALI.
ZINGARRI.

      See GYPSIES.

ZINGIS KHAN, The conquests of.

      See MONGOLS: A. D. 1153-1227;
      and INDIA: A. D. 977-1290.

ZINGLINS.

      See HAYTI: A. D. 1804-1880.

ZINZENDORF, Count, and the Moravian Brethren.

      See MORAVIAN OR BOHEMIAN BRETHREN.

ZION.

      See JERUSALEM: CONQUEST AND OCCUPATION BY DAVID.

ZNAIM, Armistice of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

ZOAN.
TANIS.
SAN.

   These are the names which, at different periods, have been
   given to an ancient city near the northeastern borders of
   Egypt, the ruins of which have been identified and are being
   explored, on the east bank of the canal that was formerly the
   Tanitic branch of the Nile. Both in Egyptian history and
   Biblical history Zoan was an important place. "The whole
   period of the Hebrew sojourn is closely interwoven with the
   history of Zoan. Here ruled the king in whose name Egypt was
   governed by the Hebrew, who was no less than regent; here
   ruled those who still favoured the people of Israel. Under the
   great Oppression, Zoan was a royal residence."

      R. S. Poole,
      Cities of Egypt,
      chapter 5.

      ALSO IN:
      W. M. F. Petrie,
      Tanis (2d Mem., Egypt Expl. Fund).

      See, also, JEWS: THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL IN EGYPT.

ZOBAH, Kingdom of.

   A kingdom of brief importance, extending from the Orontes to
   the Euphrates, which appears among the allies of the
   Ammonites, in their war with David King of Israel.

      H. Ewald,
      Lectures on the History of Israel,
      volume 3, pages 150-152.

ZOE AND THEODORA, Empresses in the East
(Byzantine, or Greek). A. D. 1042.

ZOHAR, The.

      See CABALA.

ZOHARITES, The.

   A singular Jewish sect which sprang up in Poland during the
   seventeenth century, taking its name from the Zohar, one of
   the books of the Cabala, on which it founded its faith.

      H. H. Milman,
      History of the Jews.
      book 28.

ZOLLPARLAMENT, The.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1866-1870.

ZOLLVEREIN, The German.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION AND CONVENTIONS (GERMANY): A. D. 1833.
      Also (in Supplement) GERMANY: A. D. 1815-1848.

ZOQUES, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ZAPOTECS. etc.

ZORNDORF, Battle or.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1758.

ZOROASTRIANS.
MAGIANS.
PARSEES.

   "The Iranians were in ancient times the dominant race
   throughout the entire tract lying between the Suliman
   mountains and the Pamir steppe on the one hand, and the great
   Mesopotamian valley on the other. … At a time which it is
   difficult to date, but which those best skilled in Iranian
   antiquities are inclined to place before the birth of Moses,
   there grew up, in the region whereof we are speaking, a form
   of religion marked by very special and unusual features. …
   Ancient tradition associates this religion with the name of
   Zoroaster. Zoroaster, or Zarathrustra, according to the native
   spelling, was, by one account, a Median king who conquered
   Babylon about B. C. 2458. By another, which is more probable,
   and which rests, moreover, on better authority, he was a
   Bactrian, who, at a date not quite so remote, came forward in
   the broad plain of the middle Oxus to instil into the minds of
   his countrymen the doctrines and precepts of a new religion. …
   His religion gradually spread from 'happy Bactra,' 'Bactra of
   the lofty banner,' first to the neighbouring countries, and
   then to all the numerous tribes of the Iranians, until at last
   it became the established religion of the mighty empire of
   Persia, which, in the middle of the 6th century before our
   era, established itself on the ruins of the Assyrian and
   Babylonian kingdoms, and shortly afterwards overran and
   subdued the ancient monarchy of the Pharaohs. In Persia it
   maintained its ground, despite the shocks of Grecian and
   Parthian conquest, until Mohammedan intolerance drove it out
   at the point of the sword, and forced it to seek a refuge
   further east, in the peninsula of Hindustan. Here it still
   continues, in Guzerat and in Bombay, the creed of that
   ingenious and intelligent people known to Anglo-Indians—and
   may we not say to Englishmen generally?—as Parsees [see
   PARSEES]. The religion of the Parsees is contained in a volume
   of some size, which has received the name of 'the Zendavesta.'
   … 'Anquetil Duperron introduced the sacred book of the Parsees
   to the knowledge of Europeans under this name; and the word
   thus introduced can scarcely be now displaced.
{3667}
   Otherwise, 'Avesta-Zend' might be recommended as the more
   proper title. 'Avesta' means 'text,' and Zend means 'comment.'
   'Avesta u Zend,' or 'Text and Comment,' is the proper title,
   which is then contracted into 'Avesta-Zend.' … Subjected for
   the last fifty years to the searching analysis of first-rate
   orientalists—Burnouf, Westergaard, Brockhaus, Spiegel, Haug,
   Windischmann, Hübschmann,—this work has been found to belong
   in its various parts to very different dates, and to admit of
   being so dissected as to reveal to us, not only what are the
   tenets of the modern Parsees, but what was the earliest form
   of that religion whereof theirs is the remote and degenerate
   descendant. Signs of a great antiquity are found to attach to
   the language of certain rhythmical compositions called Gâthâs
   or hymns; and the religious ideas contained in these are found
   to be at once harmonious, and also of a simpler and more
   primitive character than those contained in the rest of the
   volume. From the Gâthâs chiefly, but also to some extent from
   other, apparently very ancient, portions of the Zendavesta,
   the characteristics of the early Iranian religion have been
   drawn out by various scholars, particularly by Dr. Martin
   Haug. … The most striking feature of the religion, and that
   which is generally allowed to be its leading characteristic,
   is the assertion of Dualism. By Dualism we mean the belief in
   two original uncreated principles, a principle of good and a
   principle of evil. … Both principles were real persons,
   possessed of will, intelligence, power, consciousness, and
   other personal qualities. To the one they gave the name of
   Ahura-Mazda, to the other that of Angro-Mainyus. … The names
   themselves sufficiently indicated to those who first used them
   the nature of the two beings. Ahura-Mazda was the
   'all-bountiful, all-wise, living being' or 'spirit,' who stood
   at the head of all that was good and lovely, beautiful and
   delightful. Angro-Mainyus was the 'dark and gloomy
   intelligence' that had from the first been Ahura-Mazda's
   enemy, and was bent on thwarting and vexing him. And with
   these fundamental notions agreed all that the sacred books
   taught concerning either being. … The two great beings who
   thus divided between them the empire of the universe were
   neither of them content to be solitary. Each had called into
   existence a number of inferior spirits, who acknowledged their
   sovereignty, fought on their side, and sought to execute their
   behests. At the head of the good spirits subject to
   Ahura-Mazda stood a band of six dignified with the title of
   Amesha-Spentas, or 'Immortal Holy Ones.' … In direct
   antithesis to these stood the band, likewise one of six, which
   formed the council and chief support of Angro-Mainyus. …
   Besides these leading spirits there was marshalled on either
   side an innumerable host of lesser and subordinate ones,
   called respectively 'ahuras' and 'devas,' who constituted the
   armies or attendants of the two great powers, and were
   employed by them to work out their purposes. The leader of the
   angelic hosts, or 'ahuras' was a glorious being, called
   Sraosha or Serosh—'the good, tall, fair Serosh,' who stood in
   the Zoroastrian system where Michael the Archangel stands in
   the Christian. … Neither Ahura-Mazda nor the Amesha-Spentas
   were represented by the early Iranians under any material
   forms. The Zoroastrian system was markedly anti-idolatrous:
   and the utmost that was allowed the worshipper was an
   emblematic representation of the Supreme Being by means of a
   winged circle, with which was occasionally combined an
   incomplete human figure, robed and wearing a tiara. … The
   position of man in the cosmic scheme was determined by the
   fact that he was among the creations of Ahura-Mazda. Formed
   and placed on earth by the Good Being, he was bound to render
   him implicit obedience, and to oppose to the utmost
   Angro-Mainyus and his creatures. His duties might be summed up
   under the four heads of piety, purity, industry, and veracity.
   Piety was to be shown by an acknowledgment of Ahura-Mazda as
   the One True God, by a reverential regard for the
   Amesha-Spentas and the Izeds, or lower angels, by the frequent
   offering of prayers, praises, and thanksgivings, the
   recitation of hymns, the occasional sacrifice of animals, and
   the performance from time to time of a curious ceremony known
   as that of the Haoma or Homa [see SOMA.—HAOMA). … The purity
   required of the Iranians was inward as well as outward. … The
   duty of veracity was inculcated perhaps more strenuously than
   any other. … If it be asked what opinions were entertained by
   the Zoroastrians concerning man's ultimate destiny, the answer
   would seem to be, that they were devout and earnest believers
   in the immortality of the soul, and a conscious future
   existence. … The religion of the early Iranians became
   corrupted after a time by an admixture of foreign
   superstitions. The followers of Zoroaster, as they spread
   themselves from their original seat upon the Oxus over the
   regions lying south and south-west of the Caspian Sea, were
   brought into contact with a form of faith considerably
   different from that to which they had previously been
   attached, yet well adapted for blending with it. This was
   Magism, or the worship of the elements [see MAGIANS). The
   early inhabitants of Armenia, Cappadocia, and the Zagros
   mountain-range, had, under circumstances that are unknown to
   us, developed this form of religion, and had associated with
   its tenets a priest-caste. … The four elements, fire, air,
   earth, and water, were recognised as the only proper objects
   of human reverence. … When the Zoroastrians came into contact
   with Magism, it impressed them favourably. … The result was
   that, without giving up any part of their previous creed, the
   Iranians adopted and added on to it an the principal points of
   the Magian belief, and all the more remarkable of the Magian
   religious usages. This religious fusion seems first to have
   taken place in Media. The Magi became a Median tribe, and were
   adopted as the priest-caste of the "Median nation." This
   "produced an amalgam that has shown a surprising vitality,
   having lasted above 2,000 years—from the time of Xerxes, the
   son of Darius Hystaspis (B. C. 485-465) to the present day."

      G. Rawlinson,
      Religions of the Ancient World,
      chapter 3.

   "As the doctrines of Zoroaster bear in several points such a
   striking resemblance to those of Christianity, it is a
   question of grave importance to ascertain the age in which he
   lived. … Since there can be no doubt that … we must assign to
   Zarathustra Spitama a date prior to the Median conquest of
   Babylon by a Zoroastrian priest king, the only question
   remaining to be solved is, whether he lived only a short time,
   or long, before that event.
{3668}
   I am inclined to believe that he lived only about 100 or 200
   years before that time, and that the conquest of Babylon was
   one of the last consequences of the great religious enthusiasm
   kindled by him. He preached, like Moses, war and destruction
   to all idolaters and wicked men. … According to this
   investigation we cannot assign to Zarathustra Spitama a later
   date than about 2300 B. C. Thus he lived not only before
   Moses, but even, perhaps, before Abraham. … He was the first
   prophet of truth who appeared in the world, and kindled a fire
   which thousands of years could not entirely extinguish."

      M. Haug,
      Lectures on an Original Speech of Zoroaster
      (Yasna 45),
      pages 17, 26.

      M. Haug,
      Essays on the Sacred Language, Writings
      and Religion of the Parsees.

   "Prof. Darmesteter has published a new translation [of the
   Zend Avesta] with a most ably written introduction, in which
   he maintains the thesis that not a line of our Avesta text is
   older than the time of Alexander's conquest, while the greater
   part belongs to a much later date. We may briefly remind our
   readers that, according to the traditional view, the old
   Zoroastrian books, which belong to the times of the
   Achæmenidæ, were destroyed at the Macedonian conquest, but
   that portions were preserved by the people, who retained the
   old faith, during the long period of the Arsacidan rule,
   though the Court favoured Greek civilization. … According to
   this view, we still possess the genuine remains of the old
   pre-Alexandrine literature, mutilated and corrupted during the
   period of Arsacidan indifference, but yet, so far as they go,
   a faithful representative of the sacred text of the Achæmenian
   time. … Professor Darmesteter, on the contrary, maintains that
   all our texts are post-Alexandrine in form and in substance.
   Some may belong to the 1st century B. C. or A. D., and some,
   as the legislative parts of the Vendidad, may be founded on
   older texts now lost; but a large portion was composed by the
   priests of Ardashir's Court in the 3d century. The Gâthâs,
   which till now have been generally considered as the ancient
   nucleus of the whole system and ascribed to Zoroaster himself,
   are, in the Professor's opinion, certainly modern, and are
   relegated to the 1st century of our era."

      The Athenæum,
      June 30, 1894

      ALSO IN:
      W. Geiger,
      Civilization of the Eastern Iranians.

      W. Geiger, and F. von Spiegel,
      The Age of the Avesta.

      D. F. Karaka,
      History of the Parsis.

      S. Johnson,
      Oriental Religions: Persia.

ZOTTS.

      See GYPSIES.

ZOUAVES, The.

   During the wars of the French in Algeria, there arose a body
   of soldiers "who, both in the campaign in Algeria and in the
   contest in the Crimea, have acquired the very highest renown.
   The name of the Zouaves will never be forgotten as long as the
   story of the siege of Sebastopol endures. … They were
   originally intended to be regiments composed of Frenchmen who
   had settled in Algeria, or their descendants; but the
   intermixture of foreigners in their ranks ere long became so
   considerable, that when they were transported to the shores of
   the Crimea, though the majority were French, they were rather
   an aggregate of the 'Dare-devils' of all nations. In their
   ranks at Sebastopol were some that held Oxford degrees, many
   those of Göttingen and Paris, crowds who had been ruined at
   the gaming-table, not a few who had fled from justice, or
   sought escape from the consequences of an amorous adventure.
   Yet had this motley crowd, composed of the most daring and
   reckless of all nations, become, in the rude school of the
   wars in Algeria, an incomparable body of soldiers, second to
   none in the world in every military duty, perhaps superior to
   any in the vehemence and rush of an assault."

      Sir A. Alison,
      History of Europe, 1815-1852,
      chapter 45.

ZÜLPICH, Battle of (A. D. 496).

      See ALEMANNI: A. D. 496-504;
      also FRANKS: A. D. 481-511.

ZULUS,
AMAZULU.
   The Zulu War.

      See SOUTH AFRICA: ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS:
      and SOUTH AFRICA, A. D. 1877-1879.

ZUÑI.

      See AMERICA, PREHISTORIC;
      also AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ZUÑIAN FAMILY, and PUEBLOS.

ZURICH: A. D. 1519-1524.
   Beginning of the Swiss Reformation, under Zwingli.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1519-1524;
      and SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1528-1531.

ZURICH: A. D. 1799.
   Battle of French and Russians.
   Carnage in the city.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (AUGUST-DECEMBER).

ZURICH, Treaty of (1859).

   See ITALY: A. D. 1859-1861.

ZUTPHEN: A. D. 1572.
   Massacre by the Spaniards.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1572-1573.

ZUTPHEN: A. D. 1586.
   Battle of English and Spaniards.
   Death of Sir Philip Sidney.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1585-1586.

ZUTPHEN: A. D. 1591.
   Capture by Prince Maurice.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1588-1593.

ZUYDERZEE, Naval battle on the (1573).

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1573-1574.

ZWINGLI, and the Swiss Reformation.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1519-1524;
      and SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1528-1531.

ZYP, Battle of the.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER).

{3669}

SUPPLEMENT.


   This Supplement contains:

   1. Some passages translated from German and French writings,
   touching matters less competently treated in the body of the
   work, where the compilation is restricted to "the literature
   of history in the English language," either originally or in
   published translations.

   2. Some postscripts on recent events, and some excerpts from
   recent books.

   3. Treatment of some topics that were omitted from their
   places in the body of the work, either intentionally or by
   accident, and which it seems best to include.

   4. Some cross-references needed to complete the
   subject-indexing of the work throughout.

   5. A complete series of chronological tables, by centuries.

   6. A series of dynastic genealogies, in a form different from
   the usual plan of their construction, and which, it is hoped,
   may be found more easily intelligible.

   7. Select bibliographies, partly annotated, of several of the
   more important fields of history.

   8. A full list of the works quoted from in this compilation of
   "History for Ready Reference and Topical Reading," with the
   names of the publishers.

   The selections and translations from the German, excepting
   Bismarck's speeches, have been made by Ernest F. Henderson,
   A. M., Ph. D., author of "A History of Germany in the Middle
   Ages." Mr. Henderson has also prepared and annotated the
   bibliography of German and French writings.

   ---------- A --------

ABELARD AND THE RISE OF THE UNIVERSITIES.

      See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL (page 692).

ABHORRERS.

   Charles II. and his court, in England, were troubled about
   1680 with numerous petitions for the calling of parliament.
   "As the king found no law by which he could punish those
   importunate, and, as he deemed them, undutiful solicitations,
   he was obliged to encounter them by popular applications of a
   contrary tendency. Wherever the church and court party
   prevailed, addresses were framed, containing expressions of
   the highest regard to his majesty, the most entire
   acquiescence in his wisdom, the most dutiful submission to his
   prerogative, and the deepest abhorrence of those who
   endeavoured to encroach upon it, by prescribing to him any
   time for assembling the parliament. Thus the nation came to be
   distinguished into 'petitioners' and 'abhorrers.'"

      D. Hume,
      History of England,
      chapter 68.

ACCAD.
ACCADIANS.

      See SEMITES: PRIMITIVE BABYLONIA (page 2888).

ADAIS.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ADAIS (page 77).

ADAMS, John Quincy.
   His defense of the right of petition.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1842 (page 3378).

ADELBERT COLLEGE.

      See EDUCATION (page 743).

ADMIRALTY LAW, History of.

      See LAW (page 1955).

ADVENTURERS, Merchant.

      See MERCHANT ADVENTURERS (page 2153).

   ----------AFRICA: Start--------

AFRICA.
   A chronological record of European Exploration,
   Missionary Settlement, Colonization and Occupation.

AFRICA: 1415.
   Conquest of Ceuta by the Portuguese.

AFRICA: 1434-1461.
   Portuguese explorations down the western coast, from Cape
   Bojador to Cape Mesurado, in Liberia, under the direction of
   Prince Henry, called the Navigator.

AFRICA: 1442.
   First African slaves brought into Europe by one
   of the ships of the Portuguese-Prince Henry.

AFRICA: 1471-1482.
   Portuguese explorations carried beyond the Guinea Coast,
   and to the Gold Coast, where the first settlement was
   established, at El Mina.

AFRICA: 1482.
   Discovery of the mouth of the Zaire or Congo by the
   Portuguese explorer, Diogo Cao, or Diego Cam.

AFRICA: 1485-1596.
   Establishment of Roman Catholic missions on the western coast,
   and creation, by Pope Clement VIII., of the diocese of Mbazi
   (San Salvador), embracing Congo, Angola and Benguela.

AFRICA: 1486.
   Unconscious rounding of the Cape of Good Hope by
   Bartholomew Diaz.

AFRICA: 1490-1527.
   Visit to Abyssinia of Pedro da Covilhão, or Covilham,
   the Portuguese explorer.

AFRICA: 1497.
   Voyage of Vasco da Gama round the Cape of Good Hope to India.

{3670}

AFRICA: 1505-1508.
   Portuguese settlements and fortified stations' established on
   the eastern coast, from Sofala to Zanzibar.

AFRICA: 1506.
   Discovery of Madagascar by the Portuguese.

AFRICA: 1520-1527.
   Portuguese embassy to Abyssinia, narrated by Father Alvarez.

AFRICA: 1552-1553.
   Beginning of English voyages to the Guinea and Gold Coasts.

AFRICA: 1560.
   French trading to the Senegal and Gambia begun.

AFRICA: 1562.
   First slave-trading voyage of Sir John Hawkins to the Guinea
   Coast.

AFRICA: 1569.
   Expedition of Barreto up the Zambesi from its mouth to Sena
   and beyond.

AFRICA: 1578.
   Founding of St. Paul de Loando, the capital of the Portuguese
   possessions on the west coast.

AFRICA: 1582 (about).
   Founding of the French post, St. Louis, at the mouth of the
   Senegal.

AFRICA: 1588.
   First (English) African Company chartered by Queen Elizabeth.

AFRICA: 1595.
   Opening of trade on the western coast by the Dutch.

AFRICA: 1618-1621.
   Exploration of the River Gambia by George Thompson and Captain
   Richard Jobson, for the Royal Niger Company of England.

AFRICA: 1625.
   Jesuit mission of Father Lobo and his companions to Abyssinia.

AFRICA: 1637.
   Visit of Claude Jannequin, Sieur de Rochfort, to the River
   Senegal.

AFRICA: 1644.
   Fort Dauphin founded by the French in the island of Madagascar.

AFRICA: 1652.
   Dutch settlement at the Cape of Good Hope.

AFRICA: 1662.
   British African Company chartered by Charles II.
   and fort built on the Gambia.

AFRICA: 1664-1684.
   Wars of France with the Algerines.

AFRICA: 1681-1683.
   Brandenburg African Company formed by "the Great Elector";
   settlements established and trade opened on the western coast.

AFRICA: 1694-1724.
   Explorations of the River Senegal and interior by André Brue,
   the French governor, for the Royal Senegal Company.

AFRICA: 1698.
   Arab conquests from the Portuguese on the eastern coast,
   breaking their ascendancy.

AFRICA: 1702-1717.
   Captivity of Robert Drury in Madagascar.

AFRICA: 1723.
   Exploration of the Gambia by Captain Bartholomew Stibbs, for
   the English Royal African Company.

AFRICA: 1736.
   Moravian Mission planted on the Gold Coast.

AFRICA: 1737.
   Moravian Mission planted by George Schmidt among the
   Hottentots; suppressed by the Dutch government in 1744, and
   revived in 1792.

AFRICA: 1754.
   Substantial beginning of the domination in Madagascar of the
   Hovas, a people of Malay origin.

AFRICA: 1758.
   British conquest of the French establishments on the Senegal.

AFRICA: 1761-1762.
   Dutch expedition from Cape Colony beyond the Orange River into
   Namaqualand.

AFRICA: 1768-1763.
   Journey of James Bruce to the fountains of the Blue Nile in
   Abyssinia.

AFRICA: 1774.
   Founding of a French colony in Madagascar by Count Benyowsky.

AFRICA: 1775-1776.
   Explorations of Andrew Sparrman from Cape Town to Great Fish
   River.

AFRICA: 1778.
   Cession by Portugal to Spain of the island of Fernando Po.

AFRICA: 1779.
   Recovery of Senegal from the English by the French.

AFRICA: 1781-1785.
   Travels of M. Le Vaillant from the Cape of Good Hope into the
   interior of South Africa, among the Hottentots and Kafirs.

AFRICA: 1787.
   Founding of the English settlement for freed slaves at Sierra
   Leone.

AFRICA: 1788.
   Formation of the African Association in England, under the
   presidency of Sir Joseph Banks, for systematic exploration in
   the interest of geographical science.

AFRICA: 1789-1794.
   Fruitless attempts by agents of the African Association to
   reach the Niger and Timbuctoo from the west coast and from the
   Nile.

AFRICA: 1795.
   The Cape Colony taken from the Dutch by the English.

AFRICA: 1795-1797.
   The first exploring journey of Mungo Park, in the service of
   the African Association, from the Gambia, penetrating to the
   Niger, at Sego.

AFRICA: 1798.
   Mission of Dr. John Vanderkemp to the Kafirs, with the support
   of the London Missionary Society.

AFRICA: 1798.
   Journey of the Portuguese Dr. Lacerda from the Lower Zambesi
   to the kingdom of Cazembe, on Lake Moero.

AFRICA: 1800.
   Unsuccessful attempts of the Dutch Missionary Society in Cape
   Town among the Bechuanas.

AFRICA: 1801-1805.
   War of the United States with the pirates of Tripoli.

AFRICA: 1802-1806.
   Restoration of Cape Colony to the Dutch and its reconquest by
   the English.

AFRICA: 1802-1811.
   Journey of the Pombeiros, Baptista and Jose (negroes) across
   the continent from Angola to Tete, on the Zambesi River.

AFRICA: 1804.
   Founding of the Church of England Mission in Sierra Leone.

AFRICA: 1805.
   Second expedition of Mungo Park from the Gambia to the Niger,
   from which he never returned.

AFRICA: 1805.
   Travels of Dr. Lichtenstein in Bechuanaland.

AFRICA: 1806.
   Missionary journey of Christian and William Albrecht beyond
   the Orange River.

AFRICA: 1809.
   Second conquest of Senegal by the English.

AFRICA: 1810.
   Missions in Great Namaqualand and Damaraland begun by the
   London Missionary Society.

AFRICA: 1812.
   Exploration of the Orange River and the headwaters of the
   Limpopo by Campbell, the missionary.

AFRICA: 1812-1815.
   Journey of Burckhardt under the auspices of the African
   Association, up the Nile, through Nubia, to Berbera, Shendy,
   and Suakin; thence through Jidda to Mecca, in the character of
   a Mussulman.

AFRICA: 1815.
   Senegal restored to France by the Treaty of Paris.

AFRICA: 1815.
   War of the United States with the piratical Algerines.

AFRICA: 1815.
   Shipwreck and enslavement of Captain James Riley in Morocco.

AFRICA: 1816.
   Bombardment of Algiers by a British fleet under Lord Exmouth.

AFRICA: 1816-1818.
   Fatal and fruitless attempts of Tuckey, Peddie, Campbell, Gray
   and Dochard to explore the lower course and determine the
   outlet of the Niger.

{3671}

AFRICA: 1818.
   Mission in Madagascar undertaken by the London Missionary
   Society.

AFRICA: 1818.
   Beginning, on the Orange River, of the missionary labors of
   Robert Moffat in South Africa.

AFRICA: 1818.
   Exploration of the sources of the Gambia by Gaspard Mollien,
   from Fort St. Louis, at the mouth of the Senegal.

AFRICA: 1818-1820.
   Exploration of Fezzan to Its southern limit, from Tripoli, by
   Captain Lyon.

AFRICA: 1820.
   First Wesleyan Mission founded in Kafirland.

AFRICA: 1820.
   Treaty abolishing the slave-trade in Madagascar.

AFRICA: 1821.
   Mission-work in Kaffraria undertaken by the Glasgow Missionary
   Society.

AFRICA: 1822.
   Founding of the republic of Liberia by the American
   Colonization Society.

AFRICA: 1822.
   Official journey of Lieutenant Laing from Sierra Leone in the
   "Timannee, Kooranko and Soolima" countries.

AFRICA: 1822-1825.
   Expedition of Captain Clapperton, Dr. Oudney, and Colonel
   Denham, from Tripoli to Lake Tchad and beyond.

AFRICA: 1825-1826.
   Expedition of Major Laing, in the service of the British
   Government, from Tripoli, through the desert, to Timbuctoo,
   which he reached, and where he remained for a month. Two days
   after leaving the city he was murdered.

AFRICA: 1825-1827.
   Expedition of Captain Clapperton from the Bight of Benin to
   Sokoto.

AFRICA: 1827.
   Moravian Mission settled in the Tambookie territory, South
   Africa.

AFRICA: 1827.
   Journey of Linant de Bellefonds, for the African Association,
   up the White Nile to 18° 6' north latitude.

AFRICA: 1827-1828.
   Journey of Caillé from a point on the west coast, between
   Sierra Leone and the Gambia, to Jenna and Timbuctoo; thence to
   Fez and Tangier.

AFRICA: 1828.
   Undertakings of the Basle Missionary Society on the Gold
   Coast.

AFRICA: 1830-1831.
   Exploration of the Niger to the sea by Richard and John
   Lender, solving the question as to its mouth.

AFRICA: 1830-1846.
   French conquest and subjugation of Algiers.

AFRICA: 1831.
   Portuguese mission of Major Monteiro and Captain Gamitto to
   the court of Muata Cazembe.

AFRICA: 1831.
   Absorption of the African Association by the Royal
   Geographical Society of London.

AFRICA: 1832-1834.
   First commercial exploration of the lower Niger, from its
   mouth, by Macgregor Laird, with two steamers.

AFRICA: 1833.
   Mission in Basutoland established by the Evangelical
   Missionary Society of Paris.

AFRICA: 1834.
   Beginning of missionary labors under the American Board of
   Missions in South Africa.

AFRICA: 1834.
   Mission founded at Cape Palmas on the western coast, by the
   American Board for Foreign Missions.

AFRICA: 1834.
   The Great Trek of the Dutch Boers from Cape Colony and their
   founding of the republic of Natal.

AFRICA: 1835.
   Mission among the Zulus established by the American Board of
   Foreign Missions.

AFRICA: 1835-1849.
   Persecution of Christians in Madagascar.

AFRICA: 1836-1837.
   Explorations of Captain Sir James E. Alexander in the
   countries of the Great Namaquas, the Bushmen and the Hill
   Damaras.

AFRICA: 1839-1811.
   Egyptian expeditions sent by Mehemet Ali up the White Nile to
   latitude 6° 35' North; accompanied and narrated in part by
   Ferdinand Werne.

AFRICA: 1839-1843.
   Missionary residence of Dr. Krapf in the kingdom of Shoa, in
   the Ethiopian highlands.

AFRICA: 1840.
   Arrival of Dr. Livingstone in South Africa as a missionary.

AFRICA: 1841.
   Expedition of Captains Trotter and Allen, sent by the British
   Government to treat with tribes on the Niger for the opening
   of commerce and the suppression of the slave trade.

AFRICA: 1842.
   Travels of Dr. Charles Johnston in Southern Abyssinia.

AFRICA: 1842.
   Gaboon Mission, on the western coast near the equator, founded
   by the American Board of Foreign Missions.

AFRICA: 1842.
   The Rhenish Mission established by German missionaries at
   Bethanien in Namaqualand.

AFRICA: 1842.
   Wesleyan and Norwegian Missions opened in Natal.

AFRICA: 1842-1862.
   French occupation of territory on the Gaboon and the Ogowé.

AFRICA: 1843.
   British annexation of Natal, and migration of the Boers to
   found the Orange Free State.

AFRICA: 1843.
   Exploration of the Senegal and the Falémé by Huard-Bessinières
   and Raffenel.

AFRICA: 1843-1845.
   Travels and residence of Mr. Parkyns in Abyssinia.

AFRICA: 1843-1848.
   Hunting journeys of Gordon Cumming in South Africa.

AFRICA: 1844.
   Mission founded by Dr. Krapf at Mombassa, on the Zanzibar
   coast.

AFRICA: 1845.
   Duncan's journey for the Royal Geographical Society from
   Whydah, via Abome, to Adofudia.

AFRICA: 1845.
   Mission to the Cameroons established by the Baptist Missionary
   Society of England.

AFRICA: 1846.
   Unsuccessful attempt of Raffenel to cross Africa from Senegal
   to the Nile, through the Sudan.

AFRICA: 1846.
   Mission of Samuel Crowther (afterwards Bishop of the Niger), a
   native and a liberated slave, to the Yoruba country.

AFRICA: 1846.
   Mission on Old Calabar River founded by the United
   Presbyterian Church in Jamaica.

AFRICA: 1847-1849.
   Interior explorations of the German missionaries Dr. Krapf and
   Mr. Rebmann, from Mombassa on the Zanzibar coast.

AFRICA: 1848.
   Founding of the Transvaal Republic by the Boers.

AFRICA: 1849.
   Missionary journey of David Livingstone northward from the
   country of the Bechuanas, and his discovery of Lake Ngami.

AFRICA: 1849-1851.
   Journey of Ladislaus Magyar from Benguela to the kingdoms of
   Bihe and Moluwa on the interior table-land, and across the
   upper end of the Zambesi valley.

AFRICA: 1850.
   Sale of Danish forts at Quetta, Adds, and Fingo, on the
   western coast, to Great Britain.

AFRICA: 1850-1851.
   Travels of Andersson and Galton from Walfish Bay to
   Ovampo-land and Lake Ngami.

AFRICA: 1850-1855.
   Travels of Dr. Barth from Tripoli to Lake Tchad, Sokoto and
   the Upper Niger to Timbuctoo, where he was detained for nine
   months.

AFRICA: 1851.
   Discovery of the Zambesi by Dr. Livingstone.

{3672}

AFRICA: 1852-1863.
   Hunting and trading journeys of Mr. Chapman in South Africa,
   between Natal and Walfish Bay and to Lake Ngami and the
   Zambesi.

AFRICA: 1853.
   Founding of the Diocese of Natal by the English Church and
   appointment of Dr. Colenso to be its bishop.

AFRICA: 1853-1856.
   Journey of Dr. Livingstone from Linyanti, the Makololo
   capital, up the Zambesi and across to the western coast, at
   St. Paul de Loando, thence returning entirely across the
   continent, down the Zambesi to Quilimane at its mouth,
   discovering the Victoria Falls on his way.

AFRICA: 1853-1858.
   Ivory-seeking expeditions of John Petherick, up the
   Bahr-el-Ghazel.

AFRICA: 1853-1859.
   Roman Catholic mission established at Gondokoro, on the Upper
   Nile.

AFRICA: 1854.
   Exploration of the Somali country—the "eastern horn of
   Africa"—by Captains Burton and Speke.

AFRICA: 1855.
   Beginning of attempts by the French governor of Senegal,
   General Faidherbe, to carry the flag of France into the
   Western Sudan.

AFRICA: 1856-1859.
   Journeys of Du Chaillu in the western equatorial regions, on
   the Gaboon and the Ogobai.

AFRICA: 1857-1858.
   Expedition of Captains Burton and Speke, from Zanzibar,
   through Uzaramo, Usagara, Ugogo, and Unyamwezi, to Ujiji, on
   Lake Tanganyika—making the first European discovery of the
   lake; returning to Kazé, and thence continued by Speke alone,
   during Burton's illness, to the discovery of Lake Victoria
   Nyanza.

AFRICA: 1858.
   Journey of Andersson from Walfish Bay to the Okavango River.

AFRICA: 1858.
   English mission station founded at Victoria on the Cameroons
   coast.

AFRICA: 1858-1863.
   Expedition of Dr. Livingstone, in the service of the British
   Government, exploring the Shiré and the Rovuma, and
   discovering and exploring Lake Nyassa—said, however, to have
   been known previously to the Portuguese.

AFRICA: 1860-1861.
   Journey of Baron von Decken from Mombassa on the Zanzibar
   coast, to Kilimanjaro mountain.

AFRICA: 1860-1862.
   Return of Speke, with Captain Grant, from Zanzibar to Lake
   Victoria Nyanza, visiting Karagwe, and Uganda, and reaching
   the outlet of the Nile; thence through Unyoro to Gondokoro,
   and homeward by the Nile.

AFRICA: 1861.
   Establishment of the Universities Mission by Bishop Mackenzie
   on the Upper Shiré.

AFRICA: 1861-1862.
   English acquisition of the town and kingdom of Lagos on the
   Bight of Benin by cession from the native ruler.

AFRICA: 1861-1862.
   Sir Samuel Baker's exploration of the Abyssinian tributaries
   of the Nile.

AFRICA: 1861-1862.
   Journey of Captain Burton from Lagos, on the western coast, to
   Abeokuta, the capital of the Akus, in Yoruba, and to the
   Camaroons Mountains.

AFRICA: 1861-1862.
   Journey of Mr. Baines from Walfish Bay to Lake Ngami and
   Victoria Falls.

AFRICA: 1862.
   Resumption of the Christian Mission in Madagascar, long
   suppressed.

AFRICA: 1862-1867.
   Travels of Dr. Rohlfs in Morocco, Algeria and Tunis, and
   exploring journey from the Gulf of the Syrtes to the Gulf of
   Guinea.

AFRICA: 1863.
   Travels of Winwood Reade on the western coast.

AFRICA: 1863.
   Incorporation of a large part of Kaffraria with Cape Colony.

AFRICA: 1863.
   Second visit of Du Chaillu to the western equatorial region
   and journey to Ashangoland.

AFRICA: 1863-1864.
   Official mission of Captain Burton to the King of Dahomey.

AFRICA: 1863-1864.
   Exploration of the Bahr-el-Ghazel from Khartoum by the wealthy
   Dutch heiress, Miss Tinné, and her party.

AFRICA: 1863-1865.
   Expedition by Sir Samuel Baker and his wife up the White Nile
   from Khartoum, resulting in the discovery of Lake Albert
   Nyanza, as one of its sources.

AFRICA: 1864.
   Mission of Lieutenant mage and Dr. Quintin, sent by General
   Faidherbe from Senegal to the king of Segou, in the Sudan.

AFRICA: 1866.
   Founding of a Norwegian mission in Madagascar.

AFRICA: 1866-1873.
   Last journey of Dr. Livingstone, from the Rovuma River, on the
   eastern coast, to Lake Nyassa; thence to Lake Tanganyika, Lake
   Moero, Lake Bangweolo, and the Lualaba River, which he
   suspected of flowing into the Albert Nyanza, and being the
   ultimate fountain head of the Nile. In November, 1871,
   Livingstone was found at Ujiji, on Lake Tanganyika, by Henry
   M. Stanley, lender of an expedition sent in search of him.
   Declining to quit the country with Stanley, and pursuing his
   exploration of the Lualaba, Livingstone died May 1, 1873, on
   Lake Bangweolo.

AFRICA: 1867.
   Mission founded in Madagascar by the Society of Friends.

AFRICA: 1867-1868.
   British expedition to Abyssinia for the rescue of captives;
   overthrow and death of King Theodore.

AFRICA: 1868.
   British annexation of Basutoland in South Africa.

AFRICA: 1869.
   Christianity established as the state religion in Madagascar.

AFRICA: 1869.
   Fatal expedition of Miss Tinné from Tripoli into the desert,
   where she was murdered by her own escort.

AFRICA: 1869-1871.
   Explorations of Dr. Schweinfurth between the Bahr-el-Ghazel
   and the Upper Congo, discovering the Wellé River.

AFRICA: 1869-1873.
   Expedition of Dr. Nachtigal from Tripoli through Kuka,
   Tibesti, Borku, Wadai, Darfur, and Kordofan, to the Nile.

AFRICA: 1870-1873.
   Official expedition of Sir Samuel Baker, in the service of the
   Khedive of Egypt, Ismail Pasha, to annex Gondokoro, then named
   Ismalia, and to suppress the slave-trade in the Egyptian
   Sudan, or Equatoria.

AFRICA: 1871.
   Transfer of the rights of Holland on the Gold Coast to Great
   Britain.

AFRICA: 1871.
   Annexation of Griqualand West to Cape Colony.

AFRICA: 1871.
   Scientific tour of Sir Joseph D. Hooker and Mr. Ball in
   Morocco and the Great Atlas.

AFRICA: 1871.
   Missionary journey of Mr. Charles New in the Masai country and
   ascent of Mount Kilimanjaro.

AFRICA: 1871-1880.
   Hunting journeys of Mr. Selous in South Africa, beyond the
   Zambesi.

AFRICA: 1872-1875.
   Travels of the naturalist, Reinhold Buchholz, on the Guinea
   coast.

AFRICA: 1872-1879.
   Trave]s of Dr. Holub between the South African diamond fields
   and the Zambesi.

AFRICA: 1873-1875.
   Expedition of Captain V. L. Cameron, from Zanzibar to Lake
   Tanganyika, and exploration of the Lake; thence to Nyangwe on
   the Lnalaba, and thence across the continent, through Ulunda,
   to the Portuguese settlement at Benguela, on the Atlantic
   coast.

{3673}

AFRICA: 1873-1875.
   Travels of the naturalist, Frank Oates, from Cape Colony to
   the Victoria Falls.

AFRICA: 1873-1876.
   Explorations of Güsfeldt, Falkenstein and Pechuel-Loesche,
   under the auspices of the German African Association, from the
   Loango coast, north of the Congo.

AFRICA: 1874.
   British expedition against the Ashantees, destroying their
   principal town Coomassie.

AFRICA: 1874.
   Mission of Colonel Chaillé-Long from General Gordon, at
   Gondokoro, on the Nile, to M'tesé, king of Uganda, discovering
   Lake Ibrahim on his return, and completing the work of Speke
   and Baker, in the continuous tracing of the course of the Nile
   from the Victoria Nyanza.

AFRICA: 1874-1875.
   Expedition of Colonel C. Chaillé-Long to Lake Victoria Nyanza
   and the Makraka Niam-Niam country, in the Egyptian service.

AFRICA: 1874-1876.
   First administration of General Gordon, commissioned by the
   Khedive as Governor of Equatoria.

AFRICA: 1874-1876.
   Occupation and exploration of Darfur and Kordofan by the
   Egyptians, under Colonels Purdy, Mason, Prout and Colston.

AFRICA: 1874-1877.
   Expedition of Henry M. Stanley, fitted out by the proprietors
   of the New York Herald and the London Daily Telegraph, which
   crossed the continent from Zanzibar to the mouth of the Congo
   River; making a prolonged stay in the empire of Uganda and
   acquiring much knowledge of it; circumnavigating Lakes
   Victoria and Tanganyika, and exploring the then mysterious
   great Congo River throughout its length.

AFRICA: 1874-1877.
   Explorations of Dr. Junker in Upper Nubia and in the basin of
   the Bahr-el-Ghazel.

AFRICA: 1875.
   Expedition of Dr. Pogge, for the German African Association,
   from the west coast, south of the Congo, in the Congo basin,
   penetrating to Kawende, beyond the Ruru or Lulua River,
   capital of the Muata Yanvo, who rules a kingdom as large as
   Germany.

AFRICA: 1875.
   Expedition of Colonel Chaillé-Long into the country of the
   Makraka Niam-Niams.

AFRICA: 1875.
   Founding by Scottish subscribers of the mission station called
   Livingstonia, at Cape Maclear, on the southern shores of Lake
   Nyassa; headquarters of the mission removed in 1881 to
   Bandawé, on the same lake.

AFRICA: 1875.
   Mission founded at Blantyre, in the highlands above the Shiré,
   by the Established Church of Scotland.

AFRICA: 1875-1876.
   Seizure of Berbera and the region of the Juba River, on the
   Somali Coast, by Colonel Chaillé-Long, for the Khedive of
   Egypt, and their speedy evacuation, on the remonstrance of
   England.

AFRICA: 1876.
   Conference at Brussels and formation of the International
   African Association, under the presidency of the king of the
   Belgians, for the exploration and civilization of Africa.

AFRICA: 1876.
   Voyage of Romolo Gessi around Lake Albert Nyanza.

AFRICA: 1876.
   Mission in Uganda established by the Church Missionary Society
   of England.

AFRICA: 1876-1878.
   Scientific explorations of Dr. Schweinfurth in the Arabian
   Desert between the Nile and the Red Sea.

AFRICA: 1876-1880.
   Explorations and French annexations by Svorgnan de Brazza
   between the Ogowé and the Congo.

AFRICA: 1877.
   The Livingstone Inland Mission, for Christian work in the
   Congo valley, established by the East London Institute for
   Home and Foreign Missions.

AFRICA: 1877-1879.
   Second administration of General Gordon, as Governor-General
   of the Sudan, Darfur and the Equatorial Provinces.

AFRICA: 1877-1879.
   War of the British in South Africa with the Zulus, and
   practical subjugation of that nation.

AFRICA: 1877-1879.
   Journey of Serpa Pinto across the continent from Benguela via
   the Zambesi.

AFRICA: 1877-1880.
   Explorations of the Portuguese officers, Capello and Ivens, in
   western and central Africa, from Benguela to the territory of
   Yacca, for the survey of the river Cuango in its relations to
   the hydrographic basins of the Congo and the Zambesi.

AFRICA: 1878.
   Founding in Glasgow of the African Lakes Company, or "The
   Livingstone Central Africa Company," for trade on Lakes Nyassa
   and Tanganyika; by which company the "Stevenson Road" was
   subsequently built between the two lakes above named.

AFRICA: 1878.
   Walfish Bay and fifteen miles around it (on the western coast,
   in Namaqualand) declared British territory.

AFRICA: 1878.
   Journey of Paul Soleillet from Saint-Louis to Segou.

AFRICA: 1878-1880.
   Royal Geographical Society's East Central African expedition,
   under Joseph Thomson, to the Central African lakes,
   Tanganyika, Nyassa and Leopold, from Zanzibar.

AFRICA: 1879.
   Establishment, by the Belgian International Society, of a
   station at Karema, on the eastern shore of Lake Tanganyika.

AFRICA: 1879.
   Formation of the International Congo Association and the
   engagement of Mr. Stanley in its service.

AFRICA: 1879.
   Missionary expeditions to the Upper Congo region by the
   Livingstone Inland Mission and the Baptist Missionary Society.

AFRICA: 1879.
   Journey of Mr. Stewart, of the Livingstonia Mission, on Lake
   Nyassa, from that lake to Lake Tanganyika.

AFRICA: 1879.
   Discovery of the sources of the Niger, in the hills about 200
   miles east of Freetown, the capital of Sierra Leone, by the
   French explorers, Zweifel and Moustier.

AFRICA: 1879-1880.
   Journey of Dr. Oskar Lenz, under the auspices of the German
   African Society, from Morocco to Timbuctoo, and thence to the
   Atlantic coast in Senegambia. The fact that the Sahara is
   generally above the sea-level, and cannot therefore be
   flooded, was determined by Dr. Lenz.

AFRICA: 1879-1881.
   Expedition of Dr. Buchner from Loanda to Kawende and the
   kingdom of the Muata Yanvo, where six months were spent in
   vain efforts to procure permission to proceed further into the
   interior.

AFRICA: 1880.
   Mission established by the American Board of Foreign Missions
   in "the region of Bihé and the Coanza," or Quanza, south of
   the Congo.

AFRICA: 1880-1881.
   War of the British with the Boers of the Transvaal.

AFRICA: 1880-1881.
   Official mission of the German explorer, Gerhard Rohlfs,
   accompanied by Dr. Stecker, to Abyssinia.

{3674}

AFRICA: 1880-1884.
   Campaigns of Colonel Borgnis-Desbordes in Upper Senegal,
   capturing Bamakou and extending French supremacy to the Niger.

AFRICA: 1880-1884.
   German East African Expedition, under Kaiser, Böhm, and
   Reichard, to explore, in the Congo Basin, the region between
   the Lualaba and the Luapula.

AFRICA: 1880-1886.
   Explorations of Dr. Junker in the country of the Niam-Niam,
   seeking to determine the course and the outlet of the great
   river Wellé, and his journey from the Equatorial Province held
   by Emin Pasha against the Mahdl, through Unyoro and Uganda, to
   Zanzibar.

AFRICA: 1880-1889.
   Journey of Captain Casati, as correspondent of the Italian
   geographical review, "L' Exploratore," from Suakin, on the Red
   Sea, into the district of the Mombuttu, west of Lake Albert,
   and the country of the Niam-Niam; in which travels he was
   arrested by the revolt of the Mahdi and forced to remain with
   Emin Pasha until rescued with the latter by Stanley, in 1889.

AFRICA: 1881.
   French Protectorate extended over Tunis.

AFRICA: 1881.
   Portuguese expedition of Captain Andrada from Senna on the
   Zambesi River to the old gold mines of Manica.

AFRICA: 1881.
   Journey of F. L. and W. D. James from Suakin, on the Red Sea,
   through the Base country, in the Egyptian Sudan.

AFRICA: 1881.
   Founding of a mission on the Congo, at Stanley Pool, by the
   Baptist Missionary Society of England.

AFRICA: 1881-1884.
   Expedition of Dr. Pogge and Lieutenant Wissmann to Nyangwe on
   the Lualaba, from which point Lieutenant Wissmann pursued the
   journey to Zanzibar, crossing the continent, while Dr. Pogge,
   returning, died soon after his arrival at St. Paul de Loanda.

AFRICA: 1881-1885.
   Revolt of the Mahdl in the Sudan; the mission of General
   Gordon to Khartoum to effect the evacuation of the country;
   his beleaguerment there by the Mahdists; the unsuccessful
   expedition from England to rescue him; the fall of the city
   and his death.

AFRICA: 1881-1887.
   French protectorate established over territory on the Upper
   Niger and Upper Senegal.

AFRICA: 1882.
   Italian occupation of Abyssinian territory on the Bay of
   Assab.

AFRICA: 1882.
   Formation in England of the National African Company for the
   development of trade in the region of the Niger.

AFRICA: 1882.
   Missionary visit to the Masal people by Mr. J. T. Last.

AFRICA: 1882-1883.
   German scientific expedition, under Dr. Böhm and Herr
   Reichard, to Lakes Tanganyika and Moero.

AFRICA: 1882-1883.
   Journey of Mr. H. H. Johnston on the Congo.

AFRICA: 1882-1885.
   Mr. Stutfield's travels through Morocco.

AFRICA: 1883.
   German acquisition of territory on Angra Pequeña Bay, in Great
   Namaqualand.

AFRICA: 1883.
   Exploration of Masailand by Dr. Fischer, under the auspices of
   the Hamburg Geographical Society.

AFRICA: 1883.
   Explorations of Lieutenant Giraud in East Central Africa,
   descending for some distance the Luapula, which flows out of
   Lake Bangweolo, but driven back by hostile natives.

AFRICA: 1883.
   Geological and botanical investigation of the basins of Lakes
   Nyassa and Tanganyika, by Mr. Henry Drummond, for the African
   Lakes Company.

AFRICA: 1883.
   Journey of Mr. O'Neill to Lake Shirwa and the sources of the
   Lujenda.

AFRICA: 1883.
   Journey of Mr. Révoil in the South Somali country to the Upper
   Jub.

AFRICA: 1883-1884.
   Explorations of Mr. Joseph Thomson from Mombassa, through
   Masailand, to the northeast corner of the Victoria Nyanza,
   under the auspices of the Royal Geographical Society.

AFRICA: 1883-1885.
   War of the French with the Hovas of Madagascar, resulting in
   the establishment of a French Protectorate over the island.

AFRICA: 1883-1885.
   Exploration of Lieutenant Giraud in the lake region—Lake
   Nyassa to Lake Bangweolo, Lake Moero and Lake Tanganyika.

AFRICA: 1883-1886.
   Austrian expedition, under Dr. Holub, from Cape Colony,
   through the Boer states, Bechuanaland and Matabeleland to the
   Zambesi, and beyond, to the borders of the Mashukulumbe
   territory, where the party was attacked, plundered, and driven
   back.

AFRICA: 1884.
   Annexation by Germany of the whole western coast (except
   Walfish Bay) between the Portuguese Possessions and those of
   the British in South Africa.

AFRICA: 1884.
   German occupation of territory on the Cameroons River, under
   treaties with the native chiefs. English treaties securing
   contiguous territory to and including the delta of the Niger.

AFRICA: 1884.
   German Protectorate over Togoland on the Gold Coast declared.

AFRICA: 1884.
   Expedition of Dr. Peters, representing the Society of German
   Colonization, to the coast region of Zanzibar, and his
   negotiation of treaties with ten native chiefs, ceding the
   sovereignty of their dominions.

AFRICA: 1884.
   Crown colony of British Bechuanaland acquired by convention
   with the South African Republic.

AFRICA: 1884.
   Portuguese Government expedition, under Major Carvalho, from
   Loanda to the Central African potentate called the Muata
   Yanvo.

AFRICA: 1884.
   Exploration of the Benué and the whole region of the Adamawa,
   by Herr Flegel, for the German African Society.

AFRICA: 1884.
   Scientific expedition of Mr. H. H. Johnston to Kilimanjaro
   mountain, sent by the British Association for the Advancement
   of Science and the Royal Society.

AFRICA: 1884.
   Discovery of the M'bangi or Ubangi River (afterwards
   identified with the Wellé—see below, 1887), by Captain Hansens
   and Lieutenant Van Gèle.

AFRICA: 1884.
   Exploration of Reichard in the southeastern part of the Congo
   State.

AFRICA: 1884-1885.
   The Berlin Conference of Powers, held to determine the limits
   of territory conceded to the International Congo Association;
   to establish freedom of trade within that territory, and to
   formulate rules for regulating in future the acquisition of
   African territory.

AFRICA: 1884-1885.
   Journey of Mr. Walter M. Kerr from Cape Colony, across the
   Zambesi, to Lake Nyassa, and down the Shiré River to the
   coast.

AFRICA: 1884-1885.
   Travels of Mr. F. L. James and party in the Somali country.

AFRICA: 1884-1887.
   Exploration by Dr. Schinz of the newly acquired German
   territories in southwest Africa.

AFRICA: 1885.
   Transfer of the rights of the Society of German Colonization
   to the German East Africa Company, and extension of imperial
   protection to the territories claimed by the Company. German
   acquisition of Witu, north of Zanzibar.

{3675}

AFRICA: 1885.
   Agreement between Germany and France, defining their
   respective spheres of influence on the Bight or Biafra, on the
   slave coast and in Senegambia.

AFRICA: 1885.
   Transformation of the Congo Association into the Independent
   State of the Congo, with King Leopold of Belgium as its
   sovereign.

AFRICA: 1885.
   British Protectorate extended to the Zambesi, over the country
   west of the Portuguese province of Sofala, to the 20th degree
   of east longitude.

AFRICA: 1885.
   British Protectorate extended over the remainder of
   Bechuanaland.

AFRICA: 1885.
   Italian occupation of Massowa, on the Red Sea.

AFRICA: 1885.
   Mission of Mr. Joseph Thomson, for the National African
   Company, up the Niger, to Sokoto and Gando, securing treaties
   with the sultans under which the company acquired paramount
   rights.

AFRICA: 1885-1888.
   Mission of M. Borelli to the kingdom of Shoa (Southern
   Ethiopia) and south of it.

AFRICA: 1885-1889.
   When, after the fall of Khartoum and the death of General
   Gordon, in 1885, the Sudan was abandoned to the Mahdi and the
   fanatical Mohammedans of the interior, Dr. Edward Schnitzer,
   better known as Emin Pasha, who had been in command, under
   Gordon, of the province of the Equator, extending up to Lake
   Albert, was cut off for six years from communication with the
   civilized world. In 1887 an expedition to rescue him and his
   command was sent out under Henry M. Stanley. It entered the
   continent from the west, made its way up the Congo and the
   Aruwimi to Yambuya; thence through the unexplored region to
   Lake Albert Nyanza and into communication with Emin Pasha;
   then returning to Yambuya for the rearguard which had been
   left there; again traversing the savage land to Lake Albert,
   and passing from there, with Emin and his companions, by way
   of Lake Albert Edward Nyanza (then ascertained to be the
   ultimate reservoir of the Nile system) around the southern
   extremity of the Victoria Nyanza, to Zanzibar, which was
   reached at the end of 1889.

AFRICA: 1886.
   Settlement between Great Britain and Germany of the coast
   territory to be left under the sovereignty of the Sultan of
   Zanzibar, and of the "spheres of influence" to be appropriated
   respectively by themselves, between the lakes and the eastern
   coast, north of the Portuguese possessions.

AFRICA: 1886.
   Agreement between France and Portugal defining limits of
   territory in Senegambia and at the mouth of the Congo.

AFRICA: 1886.
   Transformation of the National African Company into the
   British Royal Niger Company, with a charter giving powers of
   administration over a large domain on the River Niger.

AFRICA: 1886.
   Mission station founded by Mr. Arnot at Bunkeya, in the
   southeastern part of the Congo State.

AFRICA: 1886-1887.
   Journey of Lieutenant Wissmann across the continent, from
   Luluaburg, a station of the Congo Association, in the dominion
   of Muata Yanvo, to Nyangwe, on the Lualaba, and thence to
   Zanzibar.

AFRICA: 1886-1889.
   Expeditions of Dr. Zintgraff in the Cameroons interior and to
   the Benue, for the bringing of the country under German
   influence.

AFRICA: 1887.
   Annexation of Zululand, partly to the Transvaal, or South
   African Republic, and the remainder to the British
   possessions.

AFRICA: 1887.
   French gunboats launched on the Upper Niger, making a
   reconnoissance nearly to Timbuctoo.

AFRICA: 1887.
   Identity of the Wellé River with the M'bangi or Ubangi
   established by Captain Van Gèle and Lieutenant Liénart.

AFRICA: 1887.
   First ascent of Kilimanjaro by Dr. Hans Meyer.

AFRICA: 1887-1889.
   Exploration by Captain Ringer of the region between the great
   bend of the Niger and the countries of the Gold Coast.

AFRICA: 1887-1890.
   Expedition of Count Teleki through Masailand, having for its
   most important result the discovery of the Basso-Narok, or
   Black Lake, to which the discoverer gave the name of Lake
   Rudolf, and Lake Stefanie.

AFRICA: 1888.
   Chartering of the Imperial British East Africa Company, under
   concessions granted by the sultan of Zanzibar and by native
   chiefs, with powers of administration over a region defined
   ultimately as extending from the river Umba northward to the
   river Jub, and inland to and across Lake Victoria near its
   middle to the eastern boundary of the Congo Free State.

AFRICA: 1888.
   British supremacy over Matabeleland secured by treaty with its
   King Lobengula.

AFRICA: 1888.
   British Protectorate extended over Amatongaland.

AFRICA: 1888.
   Ascent of Mt. Kilimanjaro by Mr. Ehlers and Dr. Abbott; also
   by Dr. Hans Meyer.

AFRICA: 1888.
   Travels of Joseph Thomson in the Atlas and southern Morocco.

AFRICA: 1889.
   Royal charter granted to the British South Africa Company,
   with rights and powers in the region called Zambesia north of
   British Bechuanaland and the South African Republic, and
   between the Portuguese territory on the east and the German
   territory on the west.

AFRICA: 1889.
   Will of King Leopold, making Belgium heir to the sovereign
   rights of the Congo Free State.

AFRICA: 1889.
   Protectorate of Italy over Abyssinia acknowledged by the
   Negus.

AFRICA: 1889.
   Portuguese Roman Catholic Mission established on the south
   shore of Lake Nyassa. Portuguese exploration under Serpa Pinto
   in the Lake Nyassa region, with designs of occupancy
   frustrated by the British.

AFRICA: 1889.
   Journey of M. Crampel from the Ogowé to the Likuala tributary
   of the Congo, and return directly westward to the coast.

AFRICA: 1889.
   Dr. Wolf's exploration of the southeast Niger basin, where be
   met his death.

AFRICA: 1889.
   Major Macdonald's exploration of the Benue, sometimes called
   the Tchadda (a branch of the Niger), and of its tributary the
   Kebbi.

AFRICA: 1889.
   Journey of Mr. H. H. Johnston north of Lake Nyassa and to Lake
   Leopold.

AFRICA: 1889.
   Journey of Mr. Sharpe through the country lying between the
   Shiré and Loangwa Rivers.

AFRICA: 1889.
   Mr. Pigott's journey to the Upper Tana, in the service of the
   Imperial British East Africa Company.

AFRICA: 1889-1890.
   British Protectorate declared over Nyassaland and the Shiré
   Highlands.

{3676}

AFRICA: 1889-1890.
   Italian Protectorate established over territory on the eastern
   (oceanic) Somali coast, from the Gulf of Aden to the Jub
   River.

AFRICA: 1889-1890.
   Imperial British East Africa Company's expedition, under
   Jackson and Gedge, for the exploring of a new road to the
   Victoria Nyanza and Uganda.

AFRICA: 1889-1890.
   Captain Lugard's exploration of the river Sabakhi for the
   Imperial British East Africa Company.

AFRICA: 1889-1890.
   Journey of Lieutenant Morgen from the Cameroons, on the
   western coast to the Benue.

AFRICA: 1889-1890.
   French explorations in Madagascar by Dr. Catat and MM. Maistre
   and Foucart.

AFRICA: 1890.
   Anglo-German Convention, defining boundaries of the
   territories and "spheres of influence" respectively claimed by
   the two powers; Germany withdrawing from Vitu, and from all
   the eastern mainland coast north of the river Tana, and
   conceding a British Protectorate over Zanzibar, in exchange
   for the island of Heligoland in the North Sea.

AFRICA: 1890.
   French "sphere of influence" extending over the Sahara and the
   Sudan, from Algeria to Lake Tchad and to Say on the Niger,
   recognized by Great Britain.

AFRICA: 1890.
   Exploration of the river Sangha, an important northern
   tributary of the Congo, by M. Cholet.

AFRICA: 1890.
   Exploring journey of M. Hodister, agent of the Upper Congo
   Company, up the Lomami river and across country to the
   Lualaba, at Nyangwe.

AFRICA: 1890.
   Journey of Mr. Garrett in the interior of Sierra Leone to the
   upper waters of the Niger.

AFRICA: 1890.
   Journey of Dr. Fleck from the western coast across the
   Kalihari to Lake Ngami.

AFRICA: 1890-1891.
   Italian possessions in the Red Sea united in the colony of
   Eritrea.

AFRICA: 1890-1891.
   Mission of Captain Lugard to Uganda and signature of a treaty
   by its king acknowledging the supremacy of the British East
   Africa Company.

AFRICA: 1890-1891.
   Exploration by M. Paul Crampel of the central region between
   the French territories on the Congo and Lake Tchad, ending in
   the murder of M. Crampel and several of his companions.

AFRICA: 1890-1891.
   Journey of Mr. Sharpe from Mandala, in the Shiré Highlands, to
   Garenganze, the empire founded by an African adventurer,
   Mshidi, in the Katanga copper country, between Lake Moero and
   the Luapula river on the east, and the Lualaba on the west.

AFRICA: 1890-1891.
   Journey of Lieutenant Mizon from the Niger to the Congo.

AFRICA: 1890-1891.
   Journey of Captain Becker from Yambuya, on the Aruwimi,
   north-northwest to the Wellé.

AFRICA: 1890-1892.
   Italian explorations in the Somali countries by Signor
   Robecchi, Lieutenant Baudi di Vesme, Prince Ruspoli, and
   Captains Bottego and Grixoni.

AFRICA: 1890-1893.
   Expedition of Dr. Stuhlmann, with Emin Pasha, from Bagamoyo,
   via the Victoria Nyanza and the Albert Edward, to the plateau
   west of the Albert Nyanza. From this point Dr. Stuhlmann
   returned, while Emin pursued his way, intending it is said, to
   reach Kibonge, on the right bank of the Congo, south of
   Stanley Falls. He was murdered at Kinena, 150 miles northeast
   of Kibonge, by the order of an Arab chief.

AFRICA: 1891.
   Extension of the British Protectorate of Lagos over the
   neighboring districts of Addo, Igbessa, and Ilaro, which form
   the western boundary of Yoruba.

AFRICA: 1891.
   Treaty between Great Britain and Portugal defining their
   possessions; conceding to the former an interior extension of
   her South African dominion up to the southern boundary of the
   Congo Free State, and securing to the latter defined
   territories on the Lower Zambesi, the Lower Shiré, and the
   Nyassa, as well as the large block of her possessions on the
   western coast.

AFRICA: 1891.
   Convention between Portugal and the Congo Free State for the
   division of the disputed district of Lunda.

AFRICA: 1891.
   Convention of the Congo Free State with the Katanga Company,
   an international syndicate, giving the Company preferential
   rights over reputed mines in Katanga and Urua, with a third of
   the public domain, provided it established an effective
   occupation within three years.

AFRICA: 1891.
   French annexation of the Gold Coast between Liberia and the
   Grand Bassam.

AFRICA: 1891.
   Opening of the Royal Trans-African Railway, in West Africa,
   from Loanda to Ambaca, 140 miles.

AFRICA: 1891.
   Survey of a railway route from the eastern coast to Victoria
   Lake by the Imperial British East Africa Company.

AFRICA: 1891.
   Exploration of the Jub River, in the Somali country, by
   Commander Dundas.

AFRICA: 1891.
   Exploration by Captain Dundas, from the eastern coast, up the
   river Tana to Mount Kenia.

AFRICA: 1891.
   Mr. Bent's exploration of the ruined cities of Mashonaland.

AFRICA: 1891.
   Journey of M. Maistre from the Congo to the Shari.

AFRICA: 1891.
   Journeys of Captain Gallwey in the Benin country, West Africa.

AFRICA: 1891.
   Mission established by the Berlin Missionary Society in the
   Konde country, at the northern end of Lake Nyassa.

AFRICA: 1891-1892.
   Incorporation of the African Lakes Company with the British
   South Africa Company. Organization of the administration of
   Northern Zambesia and Nyassaland.

AFRICA: 1891-1892.
   Expedition of the Katanga Company, under Captain Stairs, from
   Bagamoyo to Lake Tanganyika, thence through the country at the
   head of the most southern affluents of the Congo, the Lualaba
   and the Luapula.

AFRICA: 1891-1892.
   Belgian expeditions under Captain Bia and others to explore
   the southeastern portion of the Congo Basin, on behalf of the
   Katanga Company, resulting in the determination of the fact
   that the Lukuga River is an outlet of Lake Tanganyika.

AFRICA: 1891-1892.
   Journey of Dr. James Johnston across the continent, from
   Benguela to the mouth of the Zambesi, through Bihe, Ganguela,
   Barotse, the Kalihari Desert, Mashonaland, Manica, Gorongoza,
   Nyassa, and the Shiré Highlands.

AFRICA: 1891-1892.
   Expedition of Mr. Joseph Thomson, for the British South Africa
   Company, from Kilimane or Quillimane on the eastern coast to
   Lake Bangweolo.

{3677}

AFRICA: 1891-1892.
   Journey of Captain Monteil from the Niger to Lake Tchad and
   across the Sahara to Tripoli.

AFRICA: 1891-1892.
   Exploration by Lieutenant Chaltin of the river Lulu, and the
   country between the Aruwimi and the Welle Makua rivers, in the
   Congo State.

AFRICA: 1891-1893.
   Journey of Dr. Oscar Baumann from Tanga, a port on the eastern
   coast, in the northern part of the German Protectorate;
   passing to the south of Kilimanjaro, discovering two lakes
   between that mountain and the Victoria Nyanza; exploring the
   southeastern shores of the Victoria, traversing the Shashi
   countries lying east of the lake, and the Urundi country
   between the Victoria and Tanganyika.

AFRICA: 1891-1894.
   Expedition under the command of Captain Van Kerckhoven and M.
   de la Kéthulle de Ryhove, fitted out by the Congo Free State,
   for the subjugation of the Arabs, the suppression of the slave
   trade and the exploration of the country, throughout the
   region of the Wellé or Ubangi Uellé and to the Nile.

AFRICA: 1892.
   Decision of the Imperial British East Africa Company to
   withdraw from Uganda.

AFRICA: 1892.
   Practical conquest of Dahomey by the French, General Dodds
   taking possession of the capital November 16.

AFRICA: 1892.
   Journey of M. Méry in the Sahara to the south of Wargla,
   resulting in a report favorable to the construction of a
   railway to tap the Central Sudan.

AFRICA: 1892.
   French expedition under Captain Binger to explore the southern
   Sudan and to act conjointly with British officials in
   determining the boundary between French and English
   possessions.

AFRICA: 1892.
   Journey of Mr. Sharpe from the Shiré River to Lake Moero or
   Mweru and the Upper Luapula.

AFRICA: 1892-1893.
   Construction of a line of telegraph by the British South
   African Company, from Cape Colony, through Mashonaland, to
   Fort Salisbury, with projected extension across the Zambesi
   and by the side of Lakes Nyassa and Tanganyika to Uganda,—and
   ultimately down the valley of the Nile.

AFRICA: 1892-1893.
   French scientific mission, under M. Dècle, from Cape Town to
   the sources of the Nile.

AFRICA: 1892-1893.
   Italian explorations, under Captain Bòttego and Prince
   Ruspoli, in the upper basin of the River Jub.

AFRICA: 1893.
   Brussels Antislavery Conference, ratified in its action by the
   Powers.

AFRICA: 1893.
   Official mission of Sir Gerald Porter to Uganda, sent by the
   British Government to report as to the expediency of the
   withdrawal of British authority from that country.

AFRICA: 1893.
   Scientific expedition of Mr. Scott-Elliot to Uganda.

AFRICA: 1893.
   Scientific expedition of Dr. Gregory, of the British Museum,
   from Mombassa, on the eastern coast, through Masailand to
   Mount Kenia.

AFRICA: 1893.
   Journey of Mr. Bent to Aksum, in Abyssinia, the ancient
   capital and sacred city of the Ethiopians.

AFRICA: 1893.
   Journey of M. Foureau in the Sahara, crossing the plateau of
   Tademait from north to south.

AFRICA: 1893-1894.
   German scientific survey of Mount Kilimanjaro, under Drs. Lent
   and Volkens.

AFRICA: 1893-1894.
   Expedition of Mr. Astor Chanler and Lieutenant von Höhnel from
   Witu, on the eastern coast, to the Jombini Range and among the
   Rendile.

AFRICA: 1893-1894.
   Explorations of Baron von Uechtritz and Dr. Passarge on the
   Benue.

AFRICA: 1893-1894.
   Journey of Baron von Schele from the eastern coast to Lake
   Nyassa, and thence by a direct route to Kihsa.

AFRICA: 1893-1894.
   Journey of Count von Götzen across the continent, from
   Dar-es-Salaam, on the eastern coast, to the Lower Congo.

AFRICA: 1894.
   Treaty between Great Britain and the Congo Free State,
   securing to the former a strip of land on the west side of the
   Nile between the Albert Nyanza and 10° north latitude, and to
   the latter the large Bahr-el-Ghazel region, westward. This
   convention gave offense to France, and that country
   immediately exacted from the Congo Free State a treaty
   stipulating that the latter shall not occupy or exercise
   political influence in a region which covers most of the
   territory assigned to it by the treaty with Great Britain.

AFRICA: 1894.
   Franco-German Treaty, determining the boundary line of the
   Cameroons, or Kamerun.

AFRICA: 1894.
   Treaty concluded by Captain Lugard, November 10, at Nikki, in
   Borgu, confirming the rights claimed by the Royal Niger
   Company over Borgu, and placing that country under British
   protection.

AFRICA: 1894.
   Agreement between the British South Africa Company and the
   Government of Great Britain, signed November 24, 1894,
   transferring to the direct administration of the Company the
   Protectorate of Nyassaland, thereby extending its domain to
   the south end of Lake Tanganyika.

AFRICA: 1894.
   Renewed war of France with the Hovas of Madagascar.

AFRICA: 1894.
   Expedition of Dr. Donaldson Smith from the Somali coast,
   aiming to reach Lakes Rudolf and Stefanie, but stopped and
   turned back by the Abyssinians, in December.

AFRICA: 1894.
   Visit of Mr. Cecil Rhodes to England to arrange financially
   for the extension of the Cape railway system northwards from
   Mafeking into Matabeleland.

AFRICA: 1894.
   Completed conquest of Dahomey by the French; capture of the
   deposed king, January 25, and his deportation to exile in
   Martinique. Decree of the French Government, June 22,
   directing the administrative organization of the "colony of
   Dahomey and Dependencies"; with a ministerial order of the
   same date which divides the new conquest into "Territoirés
   annexés; Territoirés protégés; Territoirés d'action
   politique."

AFRICA: 1894.
   Occupation of Timbuctoo by a French force.

AFRICA: 1894.
   Journey of Count von Götzen across the continent, from the
   eastern coast, through Ruanda and the Great Forest to and
   along the Lowa, an eastern tributary of the Congo, reaching
   the Lower Congo in December.

AFRICA: 1894.
   Exploration of the Upper Congo and the Lukuga by Mr. R. Dorsey
   Mohun, American Agent on the Congo, and Dr. Hinde.

AFRICA: 1894.
   Scientific    to the Zambesi and Lake Tanganyika.

AFRICA: 1894-1895.
   War of the Italians in their colony of Eritrea with both the
   Abyssinians and the Mahdists. Italian occupation of Kassala as
   a base of operations against the Mahdists.

{3678}

AFRICA: 1895.
   Franco-British agreement, signed January 21, 1895, respecting
   the "Hinterland" of Sierra Leone, which secures to France the
   Upper Niger basin.

AFRICA: 1895.
   Convention between Belgium and France signed February 5,
   recognizing a right of pre-emption on the part of the latter,
   with regard to the Congo State, in case Belgium should at any
   time renounce the sovereignty which King Leopold desires to
   transfer to it.

AFRICA: 1895.
   Russian scientific expedition to Abyssinia, under Lieutenant
   Leontieff.

   ----------AFRICA: End--------

AKKADIANS,
ACCADIANS.

      See SEMITES: PRIMITIVE BABYLONIA (page 2888).

ALEXANDRIA:
   Early Christian Church.

      See CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 33-100,
      and 100-312 (pages 43 and 445).

ALEXANDRIA:
   Library.

      See LIBRARIES, ANCIENT (page 2003).

AMANA COMMUNITY, The.

   See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1843-1874 (page 2945).

   ----------AMERICA: Start--------

AMERICA:
   The discoverers of the Northern Continent.
   Mr. Harrisse's conclusions.

   "The main points attained in this elaborate survey of all the
   facts and documents known can be recapitulated as
   follows,—perhaps with less assurance than a desire to be
   succinct may undesignedly impart to our expressions:

   1. The discovery of the continent of North America, and the
   first landing on its east coast were accomplished not by
   Sebastian Cabot, but by his father John, in 1497, under the
   auspices of King Henry VII.

   2. The first landfall was not Cape Breton Island, as is stated
   in the planisphere made by Sebastian Cabot in 1544, but eight
   or ten degrees further north, on the coast of Labrador; which
   was then ranged by John Cabot, probably as far as Cape
   Chudley.

   3. This fact was tacitly acknowledged by all pilots and
   cosmographers throughout the first half of the 16th century;
   and the knowledge of it originated with Sebastian Cabot
   himself, whatever may have been afterwards his contrary
   statements in that respect.

   4. The voyage of 1498, also accomplished under the British
   flag, was likewise carried out by John Cabot personally. The
   landfall on that occasion must be placed south of the first;
   and the exploration embraced the northeast coast of the
   present United States, as far as Florida.

   5. In the vicinity of the Floridian east coast, John Cabot, or
   one of his lieutenants, was detected by some Spanish vessel,
   in 1498 or 1499.

   6. The English continued in 1501, 1502, 1504, and afterwards,
   to send ships to Newfound·land, chiefly for the purpose of
   fisheries. …

   7. The Portuguese mariners who lived in the Azores were the
   first who probed the Atlantic in search of oceanic islands and
   continents. Their objective, after the discovery achieved by
   Christopher Columbus, was the north-east coast of the New
   World.

   8. The earliest authentic records of Lusitanian transatlantic
   expeditions begin only with Gaspar Corte-Real, who made three,
   and not two voyages only; all to the same regions, as follows:
   The first voyage of that navigator was undertaken previous to
   May, 1500, in the direction of Greenland and Newfoundland, and
   proved an absolute failure. The second voyage lasted from the
   early part of the summer of 1500 until the autumn of that
   year, and embraced the east coast of Newfoundland, from its
   northernmost point down to Cape Race. The third expedition set
   out from Lisbon early In the spring of 1501. It was composed
   of three vessels. One of these returned to port On the 8th or
   9th of October, the second on the 11th following. As to the
   third, which was under the Immediate command of Gaspar
   Corte-Real, it was ice-bound or shipwrecked, we do not know
   when nor where, but probably in Hudson Bay, during the winter
   of 1501-1502. The country visited during the first part of the
   expedition seems to have been the northern extremity of
   Newfoundland and the coast of Labrador.

   9. The expedition of Miguel Corte-Real in search of his
   brother, sailed May 10, 1502, and was also lost. …

   10. Portugal continued to send ships to the fishing banks; and
   the region south of Newfoundland was explored, particularly by
   João Alvares Fagundes before 1521. …

   11. The assertion that already in the time of Christopher
   Columbus navigators and geographers believed in the existence
   of a continent interposed between the West Indies and Asia,
   and which was not Cathay, stands uncontroverted either by
   contemporary authorities, or by the early Spanish charts. Nay,
   it is corroborated by that class of proofs.

   12. The absolute insularity of Cuba was an acknowledged fact
   years before the periplus made by Sebastian de Ocampo, in
   1508.

   13. The mainland of the New World was believed to be a
   continent distinct from Cathay and from India the moment
   navigators commenced to search after a strait leading from the
   Atlantic Ocean to the Asiatic seas.

   14. The idea that America was a mere prolongation of Asia
   ceased therefore to be entertained almost immediately after
   the discovery of its east coast; by John Cabot in 1497; by
   Americus Vespuccius, before 1501; by Gaspar Corte-Real, before
   1502.

   15. Christopher Columbus himself soon ceased to think that he
   had discovered Cathay, or the Asiatic coast.

   16. So early as October, 1501, the notion prevailed in Europe
   that from Circulus articus to Pollus Antarticus, the newly
   discovered land formed a single coast line belonging to a
   separate continent."

      H. Harrisse,
      Discovery of North America,
      part 1, book 8, chapter 5.

AMERICA:
   The alleged first voyage of Vespucius.

   In the first volume of this work (page 52) the argument in
   support of the disputed claim for Amerigo Vespucci, or
   Vespucius, that he made a voyage in 1497-8 during which he
   coasted the American continent from Honduras to Cape Hatteras,
   is given in an excerpt from Dr. Fiske's "Discovery of
   America." The following, from a paper by Mr. Clements R.
   Markham, read before the Royal Geographical Society in June,
   1892, presents, in part, the counter argument: "Vespucci's
   account of his alleged first voyage is briefly as follows. He
   says that he went to Spain to engage in mercantile pursuits,
   but that after some years he resolved to see the world and its
   marvels. King Ferdinand having ordered four ships to go forth
   and make discoveries to the westward, Vespucci was chosen by
   His Highness to go in the fleet, to assist in the work of
   discovery. They sailed from Cadiz on May 10th, 1497, and
   reached Grand Canary, which, he says, is in 27° 30' North, and
   280 leagues from Lisbon.
{3679}
   There they remained eight days, and then sailed for
   thirty-seven (twenty-seven, Latin version) days on a W. S. W.
   course ('Ponente pigliando una quarta di libeccio'), reaching
   land when they were nearly 1,000 leagues from Grand Canary.
   For they found, by their instruments, that they were in 16°
   North latitude and 75° West longitude. Vespucci then gives a
   long account of the natives. After some days they came to a
   village built over the water, like Venice, about forty-four
   houses resting on very thick poles. Sailing along the land for
   80 leagues, they came to another people, speaking a different
   language, where Vespucci saw an iguana being roasted, which he
   describes. He made an excursion inland for 18 leagues, and
   found the country very populous. This place was on the Tropic
   of Cancer, where the latitude is 23° North. The province is
   called 'Parias' (Latin version), 'Lariab' (Italian version).
   Thence they sailed, always in sight of the land, on a
   Northwest course ('verso el maestrale') for 870 leagues,
   having intercourse with many tribes, and finding some gold.
   When they had been absent thirteen months the ships begun to
   leak, and required caulking, so they entered the best harbour
   in the world, where there were many friendly people. Here they
   refitted, and remained for thirty-seven days. They then sailed
   eastward for seven days, and carne to some islands 100 leagues
   off the mainland, inhabited by fierce people called 'Iti.'
   They had encounters with the natives, when one of their men
   was killed and twenty-two were wounded. They then sailed for
   Spain with 222 slaves, arriving at Cadiz on October 15th,
   1498, where they sold their slaves, and were well received.
   This is the story of Vespucci. It has been considered to be a
   fabrication from that time to this, for the following reasons.
   Vespucci was at Seville or San Lucar, as a provision merchant,
   from the middle of April, 1497, to the end of May, 1498, as is
   shown by the official records, examined by Muñoz, of expenses
   incurred in fitting out the ships for western expeditions.
   Moreover, no expedition for discovery was despatched by order
   of King Ferdinand in 1497; and there is no allusion to any
   such expedition in any contemporary record. The internal
   evidence against the truth of the story is even stronger.
   Vespucci says that he sailed West South West for nearly 1,000
   leagues from Grand Canary. This would have taken him to the
   Gulf of Paria, which is rather more than 900 leagues West
   South West from Grand Canary. It would never have taken him
   near the land at 16° North. Even with a course direct for that
   point, instead of a West North West course, and disregarding
   intervening land, the distance he gives would leave him 930
   miles short of the alleged position. No actual navigator would
   have made such a blunder. He evidently quoted the dead
   reckoning from Ojeda's voyage, and invented the latitude at
   random. It is useless for the defenders of Vespucci to refer
   to the faulty reckonings of those days, and to pilots thinking
   they were near the Canaries when they were off the Azores.
   This is a different matter. It is the case of a man alleging
   that he has fixed his position by observations, and giving a
   dead reckoning nearly a thousand miles out, in the belief that
   it would bring him to the same point. It is fudging, but the
   fudging of a man ignorant of a pilot's business. His statement
   that he went Northwest for 870 leagues (2,610 miles) from a
   position in latitude 23° North, is still more preposterous.
   Such a course and distance would have taken him right across
   the continent to somewhere in British Columbia. The chief
   incidents in the voyage are those of the Ojeda voyage in 1499.
   There is the village built on piles called Little Venice.
   There is the best harbour in the world, which was the Gulf of
   Cariaco, where Ojeda refitted. There was the encounter with
   natives, in which one Spaniard was killed and 22 were wounded.
   These numbers are convincing evidence. … Vespucci does not
   mention the commanders of the expedition, nor any Spanish name
   whatever, and only gives two names of places, namely, 'Parias'
   or 'Lariab,' and 'Iti,' both imaginary. Humboldt was aware of
   the proofs that Vespucci could not have been absent from Spain
   in 1497-98, and that the incidents of his alleged first voyage
   belonged to that of Ojeda; but he was reluctant to believe in
   actual fraud. He therefore suggested that there were misprints
   with regard to the dates; that the first voyage of Vespucci
   was that of Ojeda; and that the Florentine merchant returned
   home from Española in time to join the voyage of Pinzon in
   1500, which was the second voyage. But no one was allowed to
   land from Ojeda's ships at Española, and the dates are too
   detailed, and occur too clearly in both versions, to admit of
   the wholesale alterations demanded by this theory. The Baron
   Varnhagen, in his defences of Vespucci, published in 1865 at
   Lima, and in 1869 at Vienna, takes a bolder course. He adopts
   the whole of the statements of Vespucci as perfectly true,
   including the dates; but his defence does not amount to much.
   He was evidently unaware of the extent of the error in
   Vespucci's reckoning, and did not realise the inevitable
   inference. He got over the Little Venice difficulty by
   suggesting that there were many other villages built on piles,
   and that there might have been one on the coast of Tabasco.
   That is true. There was also the old Quebec hotel in
   Portsmouth Harbour; but this is not the point, and he failed
   to see where the difficulty lies. The Little Venice was a
   discovery in Ojeda's voyage when Vespucci was present. Its
   recurrence here, and its omission in the version of Ojeda's
   voyage by Vespucci, are the suspicious points which Varnhagen
   fails to explain away. Of the words 'Parias' and 'Lariab' in
   the two versions, Varnhagen prefers the latter. It is quite
   impossible to tell which form, or whether either, was in the
   original manuscript. Although there is no such place as
   'Lariab,' yet a Mexican author, named Orozco, said that some
   of the names of places near Tampico, where the Huasteca
   language is spoken, ended in 'ab.' This is a point, so far as
   it goes—which is not very far. Even the voyage of 870 leagues
   Northwest from latitude 23°, does not daunt the Baron. He
   ignores Vespucci's course, and takes him a marvellous voyage
   round the shores of the Gulf of Mexico and the peninsula of
   Florida, to Cape Hatteras, where he certainly does not find
   the best harbour in the world. Thence Vespucci is taken to
   Bermuda, identified as 'Iti,' and so home. It is well known
   that Bermuda was uninhabited before its settlement by
   Europeans, and that there were no signs of previous
   inhabitants; while the 'Iti' of Vespucci was densely peopled
   with fierce savages. But this is ignored by Varnhagen.
{3680}
   It would certainly have been a most extraordinary voyage, and
   it is still more extraordinary, that though the secret must
   have been known to many people at the time, it should have
   been inviolably kept without any object in such secrecy, and
   that the discoveries should have appeared on no map and in no
   narrative. Yet Vespucci's story, though a bold flight, bears
   no comparison with the grandeur of Varnhagen's conception of
   it."

      C. R. Markham,
      Fourth Centenary of his Discovery,
      note 2 (Royal Geographical Society,
      Proceedings, 1892, September).

AMERICA:
   Monetary effects of the discovery of America.

      See MONEY AND BANKING: 16-17TH CENTURIES (page 2208).

   ----------AMERICA: End--------

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Iroquois Confederacy.
   Hiawatha the founder.

      See IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY (page 1802).

AMERICAN COLONIAL TRADE.

      See (in this Supplement) COMMERCE, MODERN.

AMERICAN LIBRARIES.

      See LIBRARIES, MODERN (page 2017, and after).

AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION.

      See LIBRARIES, MODERN (page 2021).

AMHERST COLLEGE, The founding of.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN (page 733).

AMPERE'S ELECTRO-MAGNETIC DISCOVERIES.

      See ELECTRICAL DISCOVERY AND INVENTION:
      A. D. 1820-1825 (page 772).

   [Transcriber's note: For a detailed look at electrical
   theory of 1892.]

      T. O'Conor Sloane,
      The Standard Electrical Dictionary,
      www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/26535.

AMSTERDAM, The founding of the Bank of.

      See MONEY AND BANKING (page 2208).

ANÆSTHETICS, The discovery of.

      See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 19TH CENTURY (page 2143).

ANARCHISM AND NIHILISM.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1839-1894;
      and 1860-1870 (pages 2941 and 2948).

ANDORRA.

   "The pastoral and picturesque valley of Andorra, a jumble of
   hills, enclosed on all sides by the Pyrenean spurs, extends
   about 7 L. long by 6 broad, and is bounded by the French and
   Spanish ridges, by Puigcerdá to the South and East, by the
   Comté de Foix (départ. de l'Ariège) to the North, and by the
   Corregimiento of Talaru to the West. Watered by the Balira [or
   Valira], Ordino, and Os, it is one of the wildest districts of
   the Spanish Pyrenees, abounding in timber, which is floated
   down the Balira and Segre to Tortosa. The name Andorra is
   derived from the Arabic Aldarra, 'a place thick with trees,'
   among which is found the Cabra Montaraz, with bears, boars,
   and wolves."

      R. Ford,
      Handbook for Travellers in Spain,
      part 1, section 6.

   "The republic of Andorra is said to owe its existence to a
   defeat of the Saracens by Charlemagne or Louis le Débonnaire,
   but in reality up to the French Revolution the valley enjoyed
   no sovereign rights whatever. It was a barony of the Counts of
   Urgel and of Aragon. In 1278 it was decided that Andorra
   should be held jointly by the Bishops of Urgel and the Counts
   of Foix. In 1793 the French republic declined to receive the
   customary tribute, and in 1810 the Spanish Cortes abolished
   the feudal regime. Andorra thus became an independent state.
   The inhabitants, however, continue to govern themselves in
   accordance with old feudal customs, which are not at all
   reconcilable with the principles of modern republics. The land
   belongs to a few families. There is a law of entail, and
   younger brothers become the servants of the head of the
   family, whose hospitality they enjoy only on condition of
   their working for him. The tithes were only abolished in 1842.
   The 'liberty' of these mountaineers consists merely in
   exemption from the Spanish conscription and impunity in
   smuggling; and, to increase their revenues, they have recently
   established a gambling-table. Their legitimate business
   consists in cattle-breeding, and there are a few forges and a
   woollen factory. The republic of Andorra recognises two
   suzerains, viz. the Bishop of Urgel, who receives an annual
   tribute of £25, and the French Government, to whom double that
   sum is paid. Spain and France are represented by two provosts,
   the commandant of Séo de Urgel exercising the functions of
   viceroy. The provosts command the militia and appoint the
   bailiffs, or judges. They, together with a judge of appeal,
   alternately appointed by France and Spain, and two
   'rahonadores,' or defenders of Andorran privileges, form the
   Cortes. Each parish is governed by a consul, a vice-consul,
   and twelve councillors elected by the heads of families. A
   General Council, of which the consuls and delegates of the
   parishes are members, meets at the village of Andorra. But in
   spite of these fictions Andorra is an integral part of Spain,
   and the carabineers never hesitate to cross the frontiers of
   this sham republic. By language, manners, and customs the
   Andorrans are Catalans. Exemption from war has enabled them to
   grow comparatively rich."

      E. Reclus,
      The Earth and its Inhabitants: Europe, Spain,
      section 6.

ANN ARBOR, University at.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN (page 732).

ANNAM.

      See TONKIN (page 3114).

ANSELM: Dispute with William Rufus.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1087-1135 (page 796).

ANTIOCH, The early Christian Church in.

      See CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 33-100 (page 435).

ANTIOCH COLLEGE.

      See EDUCATION (page 744).

ANTI-SEMITE MOVEMENT, The.

      See JEWS: 19TH CENTURY (page 1931).

APOSTLES, Missionary labors of the.

      See CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 33-100 (page 433).

ARABS:
   Ancient and Mediæval Commerce.

      See (in this Supplement) COMMERCE.

ARABS:
   Medical Science.

      See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 7-11TH CENTURIES (page 2129).

   ----------ARCTIC EXPLORATION: Start--------

ARCTIC EXPLORATION:
   A Chronological Record.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1500-1502.
   Discovery and exploration of the coast of Labrador and the
   entrance of Hudson Strait by the Cortereals.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1553.
   Voyage of Willoughby and Chancellor from London, in search of
   a northeast passage to India. Chancellor reached Archangel on
   the White Sea, and opened trade with Russia, while Willoughby
   perished with all his crew.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1556.
   Exploring voyage of Stephen Burroughs to the northeast,
   approaching Nova Zembla.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1576-1578.
   Voyages of Frobisher to the coast of Labrador and the entrance
   to Davis Strait, discovering the bay which bears his name, and
   which he supposed to be a strait leading to Cathay; afterwards
   entering Hudson Strait.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1580.
   Northeastern voyage of Pet and Jackman, passing Nova Zembla.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1585-1587.
   Three voyages of John Davis from Dartmouth, in search of a
   northwestern passage to India, entering the strait between
   Greenland and Baffinland which bears his name and exploring it
   to the 72nd degree north latitude.

{3681}

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1594-1595.
   Dutch expeditions (the first and second under Barentz) to the
   northeast, passing to the north of Nova Zembla, or Novaya
   Zem]ya, but making no progress beyond it.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1596-1597.
   Third voyage of Barentz, when he discovered and coasted
   Spitzbergen, wintered in Nova Zembla with his crew, lost his
   ship in the ice, and perished, with one third of his men, in
   undertaking to reach the coast of Lapland in open boats.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1602.
   Exploration for a northwest passage by Captain George
   Weymouth, for the Muscovy Company and the Levant Company,
   resulting in nothing but a visitation of the entrance to
   Hudson Strait.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1607.
   Polar voyage of Henry Hudson, for the Muscovy Company of
   London, attaining the northern coast of Spitzbergen.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1608.
   Voyage of Henry Hudson to Nova Zembla for the Muscovy Company.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1610.
   Voyage of Henry Hudson, in English employ, to seek the
   northwest passage, being the voyage in which he passed through
   the Strait and entered the great Bay to which his name has
   been given, and in which he perished at the hands of a
   mutinous crew.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1612-1614.
   Exploration of Hudson Bay by Captains Button, Bylot, and
   Baffin, practically discovering its true character and shaking
   the previous theory of its connection with the Pacific Ocean.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1614.
   Exploring expedition of the Muscovy Company to the Greenland
   coast, under Robert Fotherby, with William Baffin for pilot,
   making its way to latitude 80°.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1616.
   Voyage into the northwest made by Captain Baffin with Captain
   Bylot, which resulted in the discovery of Baffin Bay, Smith
   Sound, Jones Sound, and Lancaster Sound.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1619-1620.
   Voyage of Jens Munk, sent by the King of Denmark to seck the
   northwest passage; wintering in Hudson Bay, and losing there
   all but two of his crew, with whom he succeeded in making the
   voyage home.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1632.
   Voyages of Captains Fox and James into Hudson Bay.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1670.
   Grant and charter to the Hudson Bay Company, by King Charles
   II. of England, conferring on the Company possession and
   government of the whole watershed of the Bay, and naming the
   country Prince Rupert Land.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1616.
   Voyage of Captain John Wood to Nova Zembla, seeking the
   northeastern passage.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1728.
   Exploration of the northern coasts of Kamtschatka by the
   Russian Captain Vitus Behring, and discovery of the Strait
   which bears his name.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1741.
   Exploration of northern channels of Hudson Bay by Captain
   Middleton.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1743.
   Offer of £20,000 by the British Parliament for the discovery
   of a northwest passage to the Pacific.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1746.
   Further exploration of northern channels of Hudson Bay by
   Captains Moor and Smith.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1753-1754.
   Attempted exploration of Hudson Bay by the colonial Captain
   Swaine, sent out from Philadelphia, chiefly through the
   exertions of Dr. Franklin.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1765.
   Russian expedition of Captain Tchitschakoff, attempting to
   reach the Pacific from Archangel.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1768-1769.
   Exploration of Nova Zembla by a Russian officer, Lieutenant
   Rosmyssloff.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1769-1770.
   Exploring journey of Samuel Hearne, for the Hudson Bay
   Company, from Churchill, its most northern post, to Coppermine
   River and down the river to the Polar Sea.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1773.
   Voyage of Captain Phipps, afterwards Lord Mulgrave, toward the
   North Pole, reaching the northeastern extremity of
   Spitzbergen.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1779.
   Exploration of the Arctic coast, east and west of Behring
   Strait, by Captain Cook, in his last voyage.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1789.
   Exploring journey of Alexander Mackenzie, for the Northwest
   Company, and discovery of the great river flowing into the
   Polar Sea, which bears his name.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1806.
   Whaling voyage of Captain Scoresby to latitude 81° 30' and
   longitude 19° east.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1818.
   Unsatisfactory voyage of Commander John Ross to Baffin Bay and
   into Lancaster Sound.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1818.
   Voyage of Captain Buchan towards the North Pole, reaching the
   northern part of Spitzbergen.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1819-1820.
   First voyage of Lieutenant Parry, exploring for a northwest
   passage, through Davis Strait, Baffin Bay, Lancaster Sound,
   and Barrow Strait, to Melville Island.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1819-1822.
   Journey of Captain (afterwards Sir John) Franklin, Dr.
   Richardson, and Captain (afterwards Sir George) Back, from
   Fort York, on the western coast of Hudson Bay, by the way of
   Lake Athabasca, Great Slave Lake, and Coppermine River, to
   Coronation Gulf, opening into the Arctic Ocean.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1819-1824.
   Russian expeditions for the survey of Nova Zembla.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1820-1824.
   Russian surveys of the Siberian Polar region by Wrangel and
   Anjou.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1821-1823.
   Second voyage of Captain Parry, exploring for a northwest
   passage to the Pacific Ocean, through Hudson Strait and Fox
   Channel, discovering the Fury-and-Hecla Strait, the northern
   outlet of the Bay.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1821-1824.
   Russian surveying expedition to Nova Zembla, under Lieutenant
   Lutke.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1822.
   Whaling voyage of Captain Scoresby to the eastern coast of
   Greenland, which was considerably traced and mapped by him.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1822-1823.
   Scientific expedition of Captain Sabine, with Commander
   Clavering, to Spitzbergen and the eastern coast of Greenland.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1824-1825.
   Third voyage of Captain Parry, exploring for a northwest
   passage, by way of Davis Strait, Baffin Bay, and Lancaster
   Sound, to Prince Regent Inlet, where one of his ships was
   wrecked.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1825-1827.
   Second journey of Franklin, Richardson, and Back, from Canada
   to the Arctic Ocean; Franklin and Back by the Mackenzie River
   and westward along the coast to longitude 149° 37'; Richardson
   by the Mackenzie River and the Arctic coast eastward to
   Coppermine River.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1826.
   Voyage of Captain Beechey through Behring Strait and eastward
   along the Arctic coast as far as Point Barrow.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1827.
   Fourth voyage of Captain Parry, attempting to reach the North
   Pole, by ship to Spitzbergen and by boats to 82° 45' north
   latitude.

{3682}

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1829-1833.
   Expedition under Captain Ross, fitted out by Mr. Felix Booth,
   to seek a northwest passage, resulting in the discovery of the
   position of the north magnetic pole, southwest of Boothia, not
   far from which Ross' ship was ice-bound for three years.
   Abandoning the vessel at last, the explorers made their way to
   Baffin Bay and were rescued by a whale-ship.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1833-1835.
   Journey of Captain Back from Canada, via Great Slave Lake, to
   the river which he discovered and which bears his name,
   flowing to the Polar Sea.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1836-1837.
   Voyage of Captain Back for surveying the straits and channels
   in the northern extremity of Hudson Bay.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1837-1839.
   Expeditions of Dease and Simpson, in the service of the Hudson
   Bay Company, determining the Arctic coast line as far east as
   Boothia.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1845.
   Departure from England of the government expedition under Sir
   John Franklin, in two bomb-vessels, the Erebus and the Terror,
   which entered Baffin Bay in July and were never seen
   afterward.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1848.
   Expedition of Sir John Richardson and Mr. John Rae down the
   Mackenzie River, searching for traces of Sir John Franklin and
   his crews.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1848-1849.
   Expedition under Sir James Clarke Ross to Baffin Bay and
   westward as far as Leopold Island, searching for Sir John
   Franklin.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1848-1851.
   Searching expedition of the Herald and the Plover, under
   Captain Kellett and Commander Moore, through Behring Strait
   and westward to Coppermine River, learning nothing of the fate
   of the Franklin party.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1850.
   Searching expedition sent out by Lady Franklin, under Captain
   Forsyth, for the examination of Prince Regent Inlet.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1850-1851.
   United States Grinnell Expedition, sent to assist the search
   for Sir John Franklin and his crew, consisting of two ships,
   the Advance and the Rescue, furnished by Mr. Henry Grinnell
   and officered and manned by the U. S. Government, Lieutenant
   De Haven commanding and Dr. Kane surgeon. Frozen into the ice
   in Wellington Channel, in September, 1850, the vessels drifted
   helplessly northward until Grinnell Land was seen and named,
   then southward and westward until the next June, when they
   escaped in Baffin Bay.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1850-1851.
   Franklin search expedition, sent out by the British
   Government, under Captain Penny, who explored Wellington
   Channel and Cornwallis Island by sledge journeys.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1850-1851.
   Discovery of traces of Franklin and his men at Cape Riley and
   Beechey Island, by Captain Ommaney and Captain Austin.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1850-1852.
   Franklin search expedition under Captain Collinson, through
   Behring Strait and eastward into Prince of Wales Strait,
   sending sledge parties to Melville Island.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1850-1854.
   Franklin search expedition under Captain McClure, through
   Behring Strait and westward, between Banks Land and Prince
   Albert Land, attaining a point within 25 miles of Melville
   Sound, already reached from the East; thus demonstrating the
   existence of a northwest passage, though not accomplishing the
   navigation of it. McClure received knighthood, and a reward of
   £10,000 was distributed to the officers and crew of the
   expedition.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1851.
   Expedition of Dr. Rae, sent by the British Government to
   descend the Coppermine River and search the southern coast of
   Wollaston Land, which he did, exploring farther along the
   coast of the continent eastward to a point opposite King
   William's Land.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1851-1852.
   Franklin search expedition sent out by Lady Franklin under
   Captain Kennedy, for a further examination of Prince Regent
   Inlet and the surrounding region.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1852-1854.
   Franklin search expedition of five ships sent out by the
   British Government under Sir Edward Belcher, with Captains
   McClintock, Kellett, and Sherard Osborn under his command.
   Belcher and Osborn, going up Wellington Channel to
   Northumberland Sound, were frozen fast; McClintock and Kellett
   experienced the same misfortune near Melville Island, where
   they had received Captain McClure and his crew, escaping from
   their abandoned ship. Finally all the ships of Belcher's fleet
   except one were abandoned. One, the Resolute, drifted out into
   Davis Strait in 1855, was rescued, bought by the United States
   Government and presented to Queen Victoria.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1853-1854.
   Hudson Bay Company expedition by Dr. Rae, to Repulse Bay and
   Pelly Bay, on the Gulf of Boothia, where Dr. Rae found Eskimos
   in possession of articles which had belonged to Sir John
   Franklin, and his men, and was told that in the winter of 1850
   they saw white men near King William's Land, traveling
   southward, dragging sledges and a boat, and, afterwards saw
   dead bodies and graves on the mainland.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1853-1855.
   Grinnell expedition, under Dr. Kane, proceeding straight
   northward through Baffin Bay, Smith Sound and Kennedy Channel,
   nearly to the 79th degree of latitude, where the vessel was
   locked in ice and remained fast until abandoned in the spring
   of 1855, the party escaping to Greenland and being rescued by
   an expedition under Lieutenant Hartstein which the American
   Government had sent to their relief.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1855.
   Cruise of the U. S. ship Vincennes, Lieutenant John Rodgers
   commanding, in the Arctic Sea, via Behring Strait to Wrangel
   Land.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1855.
   Expedition of Mr. Anderson, of the Hudson Bay Company, down
   the Great Fish River to Point Ogle at its mouth, seeking
   traces of the party of Sir John Franklin.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1857-1859.
   Search expedition sent out by Lady Franklin, under Captain
   McClintock, which became ice-bound in Melville Bay, August,
   1857, and drifted helplessly for eight months, over 1,200
   miles; escaped from the ice in April, 1858; refitted in
   Greenland and returned into Prince Regent Inlet, whence
   Captain McClintock searched the neighboring regions by sledge
   journeys, discovering, at last, In King William's Land, not
   only remains but records of the lost explorers, learning that
   they were caught in the ice somewhere in or about Peel Sound,
   September, 1846; that Sir John Franklin died on the 11th of
   the following June; that the ships were deserted on the 22d of
   April, 1848, on the northwest coast of King William's Land,
   and that the survivors, 105 in number, set out for Back or
   Great Fish River. They perished probably one by one on the
   way.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1860-1861.
   Expedition of Dr. Hayes to Smith Sound; wintering on the
   Greenland side at latitude 78° 17'; crossing the Sound with
   sledges and tracing Grinnell Land to about 82° 45'.

{3683}

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1860-1862.
   Expedition of Captain Hall on the whaling ship George Henry,
   and discovery of relics of Frobisher.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1864-1869.
   Residence of Captain Hall among the Eskimos on the north side
   of Hudson Strait and search for further relics of the Franklin
   expedition.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1867.
   Tracing of the southern coast of Wrangel Land by Captains Long
   and Raynor, of the whaling ships Nile and Reindeer.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1867.
   Transfer of the territory, privileges and rights of the Hudson
   Bay Company to the Dominion of Canada.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1868.
   Swedish Polar expedition, directed by Professor Nordenskiöld,
   attaining latitude 81° 42', on the 18th meridian of east
   longitude.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1869.
   Yacht voyage of Dr. Hayes to the Greenland coasts.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1869-1870.
   German Polar expedition, under Captain Koldewey, one vessel of
   which was crushed, the crew escaping to an ice floe and
   drifting 1,100 miles, reaching finally a Danish settlement on
   the Greenland coast, while the other explored the east coast
   of Greenland to latitude 77°.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1871-1872.
   Voyage of the steamer Polaris, fitted out by the U. S.
   Government, under Captain Hall; passing from Baffin Bay,
   through Smith Sound and Kennedy Channel, into what Kane and
   Hayes had supposed to be open sea, but which proved to be the
   widening of a strait, called Robeson Strait by Captain Hall,
   thus going beyond the most northerly point that had previously
   been reached in Arctic exploration. Wintering in latitude 81°
   38' (where Captain Hall died), the Polaris was turned homeward
   the following August. During a storm, when the ship was
   threatened with destruction by the ice, seventeen of her crew
   and party were left helplessly on a floe, which drifted with
   them for 1,500 miles, until they were rescued by a passing
   vessel. Those on the Polaris fared little better. Forced to
   run their sinking ship ashore, they wintered in huts and made
   their way south in the spring, until they met whale-ships
   which took them on board.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1872-1874.
   Austro-Hungarian expedition, under Captain Weyprecht and
   Lieutenant Payer, seeking the northeast passage, with the
   result of discovering and naming Franz Josef Land, Crown
   Prince Rudolf Land and Petermann Land, the latter (seen, not
   visited) estimated to be beyond latitude 83°. The explorers
   were obliged to abandon their ice-locked steamer, and make
   their way by sledges and boats to Nova Zembla, where they were
   picked up.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1875.
   Voyage of Captain Young, attempting to navigate the northwest
   passage through Lancaster Sound, Barrow Strait and Peel
   Strait, but being turned back by ice in the latter.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1875-1876.
   English expedition under Captain Nares, in the Alert, and the
   Discovery, attaining by ship the high latitude of 82° 27', in
   Smith Sound, and advancing by sledges to 83° 20' 26", while
   exploring the northern shore of Grinnell Land and the
   northwest coast of Greenland.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1876-1878.
   Norwegian North-Atlantic expedition, for a scientific
   exploration of the sea between Norway, the Faroe Islands,
   Iceland, Jan Mayen, and Spitzbergen.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1878.
   Discovery of the island named "Einsamkeit," in latitude 77°
   40' North and longitude 860 East, by Captain Johannesen, of
   the Norwegian schooner Nordland.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1878-1879.
   Final achievement of the long-sought, often attempted
   northeast passage, from the Atlantic to the Pacific ocean, by
   the Swedish geographer and explorer, Baron Nordenskiöld, on
   the steamer Vega, which made the voyage from Gothenburg to
   Yokohama, Japan, through the Arctic Sea, coasting the Russian
   and Siberian shores.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1878-1883.
   Six annual expeditions to the Arctic Seas of the ship Willem
   Barentz, sent out by the Dutch Arctic Committee.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1879.
   Cruise of Sir Henry Gore-Booth and Captain Markham, R. N., in
   the cutter Isbjorn to Nova Zembla and in Barentz Sea and the
   Kara Sea.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1879-1880.
   Journey of Lieutenant Schwatka from Hudson Bay to King William
   Island, and exploration of the western and southern shores of
   the latter, searching for the journals and logs of the
   Franklin expedition.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1879-1882.
   Polar voyage of the Jeannette, fitted out by the proprietor of
   the New York Herald and commanded by Commander De Long, United
   States Navy. The course taken by the Jeannette was through
   Behring Strait towards Wrangel Land, and then northerly, until
   she became ice-bound when she drifted helplessly for nearly
   two years, only to be crushed at last. The officers and crew
   escaped in three boats, one of which was lost in a storm; the
   occupants of the other two boats reached different mouths of
   the river Lena. One of these two boats, commanded by Engineer
   Melville, was fortunate enough to find a settlement and obtain
   speedy relief. The other, which contained commander De Long,
   landed in a region of desolation, and all but two of its
   occupants perished of starvation and cold.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1880-1882.
   First and second cruises of the United States Revenue Steamer
   Corwin in the Arctic Ocean, via Behring Strait, to Wrangel
   Land seeking information concerning the Jeannette and
   searching for two missing whaling ships.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1880-1882.
   Two voyages of Mr. Leigh Smith to Franz Josef Land, in his
   yacht Eira, in the first of which a considerable exploration
   of the southern coast was made, while the second resulted in
   the loss of the ship and a perilous escape of the party in
   boats to Nova Zembla, where they were rescued.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1881.
   Expedition of the steamer Rodgers to search for the missing
   explorers of the Jeannette; entering the Arctic Sea through
   Behring Strait, but abruptly stopped by the burning of the
   Rodgers, on the 30th of November, in St. Lawrence Bay.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1881.
   Cruise of the United States Alliance, Commander Wadleigh, via
   Spitzbergen, to 79° 3' 36" north latitude, searching for the
   Jeannette.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1881-1884.
   International undertaking of expeditions to establish Arctic
   stations for simultaneous meteorological and magnetic
   observations: by the United States at Smith Sound and Point
   Barrow; by Great Britain at Fort Rae; by Russia at the mouth
   of the Lena and in Nova Zembla; by Denmark at Godhaab, in
   Greenland; by Holland at Dickson's Haven, near the mouth of
   the Yenisei; by Germany in Cumberland Sound, Davis Strait; by
   Austro-Hungary on Jan Mayen Island; by Sweden at Mussel Bay in
   Spitzbergen. The United States expedition to Smith Sound,
   under Lieutenant Greeley, established its station on Discovery
   Bay. Exploring parties sent out attained the highest latitude
   ever reached, namely 83° 24'. After remaining two winters and
   failing to receive expected supplies, which had been
   intercepted by the ice, Greeley and his men, twenty-five in
   number, started southward, and all but seven perished on the
   way. The survivors were rescued, in the last stages of
   starvation, by a vessel sent to their relief under Captain
   Schley, United States Navy.

{3684}

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1882-1883.
   Danish Arctic expedition of the Dijmphna, under Lieutenant
   Hovgaard; finding the Varna of the Dutch Meteorological
   Expedition beset in the ice at 69° 42' North latitude and 64°
   45' East longitude; both vessels becoming frozen in together
   and drifting for nearly twelve months, being carried to 71°
   North; the Dijmphna taking the crew of the Varna, which
   succumbed to the ice pressure and went down; the Danish ship
   finally being liberated, August 1, 1893, and regaining Vardo,
   Norway, in October of that year.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1883.
   Expedition of Lieutenant Ray, United States Navy, from Point
   Barrow, on the Arctic Ocean, to Meade River.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1883.
   Expedition of Baron Nordenskiöld to Greenland, making
   important explorations in the interior, but failing to find
   the temperate central valleys which the Baron's theoretical
   studies had led him to expect.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1883-1885.
   East Greenland expedition of Captain Holm and Lieutenant
   Garde, surveying and mapping the coast from 59° 49' to 68° 45'
   North latitude, and studying its geology, meteorology and
   natural history.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1884.
   Second cruise of the U. S. Revenue Marine Steamer Corwin in
   the Arctic Ocean.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1886.
   Reconnoissance of the Greenland inland ice by Civil Engineer
   R. E. Peary, United States Navy, "to gain a practical
   knowledge of the obstacles and ice conditions of the
   interior," and "to put to the test of actual use certain
   methods and details of equipment."

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1888.
   Journey of Dr. Nansen across South Greenland, from the
   icebound eastern coasts to the Danish settlements on the
   western.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1890.
   Swedish expedition to Spitzbergen, under G. Nordenskiöld and
   Baron Klinkowström.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1890.
   Danish scientific explorations in North and South Greenland.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1890.
   Russian exploration of the Malo-Zemelskaya, or Timanskaya
   tundra, in the far north of European Russia, on the Arctic
   Ocean.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1891-1892.
   Expedition of Lieutenant Peary, United States Navy, with a
   party of seven persons, including Mrs. Peary, establishing
   headquarters on McCormick Bay, on the north side of Murchison
   Sound, north west Greenland; thence making sledge journeys to
   the northeastern coast of Greenland, at Independence Bay and
   northward from it to latitude 82°, and following the coast
   southward to Cape Bismarck. The surveys of Lieutenant Peary
   have gone far toward proving Greenland to be an island.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1891-1892.
   Danish East Greenland expedition of Lieutenant Ryder,
   wintering on Denmark Island in Scoresby's Sound, from which
   boat journeys were made and the interior ramifications of the
   Sound surveyed and mapped.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1891-1893.
   Expeditions of Dr. Drygalski to Greenland for the study of the
   movement of the great glaciers.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1892.
   Swedish expedition of Bjorling and Kallstenius, the last
   records of which were found on one of the Cary Islands, in
   Baffin Bay, in the autumn of 1892.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1892.
   French expedition under M. Ribot to explore the islands of
   Spitzbergen and Jan Mayen.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1893.
   Expedition of Dr. Nansen, who sailed June 24, in the Fram from
   Christiania, for the New Siberian Islands, thence aiming to
   enter a current which flows, in Dr. Nansen's belief, across
   the Arctic region to Greenland, touching the North Pole, or
   nearly, in its course.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1893.
   Russian expedition, under Baron Toll, to the New Siberian
   Islands and the Siberian Arctic coasts.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1893.
   Danish expedition to Greenland, under Lieutenant Garde, for a
   geographical survey of the coast and study of the inland ice.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1893-1894.
   Expedition of Lieutenant Peary and party (Mrs. Peary again of
   the number), landing in Bowdoin Bay, Inglefield Gulf, north of
   McCormick Harbor, in August, 1893; attempting in the following
   March a sledge journey with dogs to Independence Bay, but
   compelled to turn back when no more than a quarter of the
   distance had been traversed. An auxiliary expedition brought
   back most of the party to Philadelphia in September, 1894; but
   Lieutenant Peary with two men remained in Greenland to
   continue explorations.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1893-1894.
   Scientific journey of Mr. Frank Russell, under the auspices of
   the State University of Iowa, from Lake Winnipeg to the mouth
   of Mackenzie River and to Herschel Island.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1894.
   Expedition of Mr. Walter Wellman, an American journalist,
   purposing to reach Spitzbergen via Norway, and to advance
   thence towards the Pole, with aluminum boats, weighing only
   400 pounds each, and provided with runners for use on the ice.
   The party left Tromsoë May 1, but were arrested before the end
   of the month by the crushing of their vessel in the ice at
   Walden. They were picked up and brought back to Norway.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1894.
   Departure of what is known as the Jackson-Harmsworth North
   Polar Expedition, which sailed from Greenhithe, in England,
   July 11, under the command of Mr. F. G. Jackson, Mr.
   Harmsworth equipping the expedition at his personal cost. Its
   plan is to make Franz Josef Land a base of operations from
   which to advance carefully and persistently towards the Pole.

ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1895.
   Preparations of Herr Julius von Payer, the explorer of Franz
   Josef Land, for an artistic and scientific expedition to the
   east coast of Greenland, in which he will be accompanied by
   landscape and animal painters, photographers, and savants.

   ----------ARCTIC EXPLORATION: End--------

ARGENTINE REPUBLIC, The Constitution of.

      See CONSTITUTION OF THE ARGENTINE REPUBLIC (page 511).

ARMENIA, Atrocities in.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1895 (page 3157).

ARYAN NATIONS OF EUROPE.

      See EUROPE (page 990, and after).

ASCHAM, Roger, and "The Scholemaster."

      See EDUCATION, RENAISSANCE (page 708).

{3685}

ASCLEPIADÆ, The.

      See MEDICAL SCIENCE, GREEK (page 2124).

ASIA MINOR, Missionary journeys of St. Paul in.

      See CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 33-100 (page 436).

ASOKA, and the rise of Buddhism.

      See INDIA: B. C. 312 (page 1704).

ASSIGNATS OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION.

      See MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1789-1796 (page 2212).

ASSYRIAN EDUCATION, Ancient.

      See EDUCATION, ANCIENT (page 674).

ASSYRIAN LIBRARIES.

      See LIBRARIES, ANCIENT (page 2000).

ASSYRIAN MONEY AND BANKING.

      See MONEY AND BANKING (page 2199).

ATHENS: Outline sketch of ancient history.

      See EUROPE (pages 992-996).

ATLANTIC CABLE, The laying of the.

      See ELECTRICAL DISCOVERY AND INVENTION:
      A. D. 1854-1866 (page 776).

ATTAINDER.
BILL OF ATTAINDER.

   "An attainder ('attinctura') is a degradation or public
   dishonouring, which draws after it corruption of blood. It is
   the consequence of any condemnation to death, and induces the
   disherison of the heirs of the condemned person, which can
   only be removed by means of parliament. A bill of attainder,
   or of pains and penalties, inflicts the consequences of a
   penal sentence on any state criminal. … By the instrumentality
   of such bill the penalties of high treason are generally
   imposed. Penalties may, however, be imposed at pleasure,
   either in accordance with, or in contravention of, the common
   law. No other court of law can protect a person condemned in
   such manner. The first bill of the kind occurred under Edward
   IV., when the commons had to confirm the statute condemning
   Clarence to death. This convenient method of getting rid of
   disagreeable opponents was in high favour during the reign of
   Henry VIII. The bills of pains and penalties were hurried
   through the parliament, and the parties accused were not even
   put upon their trial. Thus were the illustrious Sir Thomas
   More and Bishop Fisher, for misprision of treason, without
   regular trial, without examination of witnesses, or hearing
   the accused in their self-defence, legally consigned to the
   scaffold. Anne Boleyn was formally tried for high treason by
   the house of peers; but the head of Catharine Howard was
   disposed of by a simple bill of attainder. This was the first
   case in which the offence charged was created by the very bill
   against which the pretended criminal was held to have
   offended. Under Philip and Mary the benefit of clergy was, by
   means of a bill, withheld from a certain Rufford. What had
   been an instrument of kingly despotism, under Tudor sway, was
   converted, under the Stuarts, into a parliamentary engine
   against the crown. The points of indictment against Strafford
   were so weak that the lords were for acquitting him.
   Thereupon, Sir Arthur Haselrig introduced a bill of attainder
   in the commons. The staunch friends of freedom, such as Pym
   and Hampden, did not support this measure; but yet it passed
   through the commons with only 59 dissentient voices. After the
   35 peers opposed to the trial of Strafford had withdrawn, the
   terror-stricken lords accepted the bill by 26 against 19
   votes. … This parliamentary administration of justice has by
   no means been relinquished. A bill of attainder may refer
   simply to a concrete case, and contrive penalties for acts
   which are not specially punishable by statute, whereas an
   impeachment applies to some violation of recognized legal
   principles, and is a solemn indictment preferred by the
   commons to the house of lords."

      E. Fischel,
      The English Constitution,
      book 7, chapter 9.

   "By the 33 & 34 Vict. c. 23, forfeiture and attainder for
   treason or felony have been abolished."

      T. P. Taswell-Langmead,
      English Constitutional History,
      chapter 10 (2d edition, page 393), foot-note.

   ----------AUSTRIA: Start--------

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1273-1349.
   The House of Hapsburgh in the earlier period of its fortunes.

   "It was just now [1273] that the German monarchy received once
   more a real king [in the person of Rudolph of Hapsburgh]. It
   is evident that Ottocar's remarkable rise into power was due
   essentially to the previous excessive weakness of German
   kingship. He had acquired Austria and Styria by doubtful right
   according to German notions, Carinthia and Carniola without
   any acquiescence at all on the part of the empire. … In the
   election of Rudolph he was not willing to take part and
   afterwards he refused him recognition. No wonder that from the
   very beginning the German princes felt the necessity of
   driving him from his usurped position. … For the German cause
   it was the greatest gain that through Ottocar's fall (1278)
   room was won on the Middle Danube for a national rule: the
   House of Austria was enabled there to found that power which
   played so great a part in the world's history. The victory on
   the marchfeld was a victory of the renewed imperial might over
   a recalcitrant vassal whose power had extended the due measure
   of that of a prince of the realm. Looked at in this light the
   fall of Ottocar reminds one of the fall of Henry the Lion a
   hundred years before; the gain for Rudolph, however, was still
   greater and more essential than it had been at that former
   time for Frederick I. His position was for the first time now
   actually assured; for if the battle had resulted unfavorably
   it is doubtful if he could have continued to command
   obedience. Besides this the possibility presented itself now
   of using the position of ruler, conferred on him personally,
   to the lasting advantage of his house; at the same time he
   could only go to work in the matter very slowly and
   cautiously. … At his departure from these parts in 1281 he
   conferred the regency in Austria proper and in the other lands
   to his own son Albrecht. The latter appears already as a
   matured man with a certain talent for ruling. He overthrew all
   those who opposed them but, having done this, he bore no
   malice and cherished no hostility. No one could be in doubt
   but that for Albrecht, and for his house altogether, the king
   thought to found there a separate territorial principality. To
   begin with, the fiefs which the dukes of Austria had held of
   the neighboring bishoprics, especially the Bavarian ones, were
   conferred by Rudolph on his sons, other privileges in
   compensation being granted to the bishoprics. The consent of
   the electors, according to the new order of things, was
   necessary in such a case, and the king next sought to gain
   them over. … On December 27, 1282, he invested his sons
   Albrecht and Rudolph in common with Austria, Styria, Carniola
   and the Windischmark. …
{3686}
   At the request of the Estates of those lands, who wished
   neither a joint rule nor a separation from each other, Rudolph
   in 1283 invested his son Albrecht alone with those four
   provinces. To the younger Rudolph the promise of another
   appanage or at least of a compensation was held out—a fatal
   matter! For the son of this Rudolph was John the Parricide. It
   was an event of the greatest import that in these
   south-eastern marks of the empire the Babenbergers were
   replaced by the Hapsburghs. The latter now, in consequence of
   their all-decisive victory, turned their attention at the same
   time to Bohemia and Hungary. Although neither in the one land
   nor the other did they now actually attain their goal, yet
   their efforts in this direction deserve our close attention as
   being the first tokens of a policy that was most strongly to
   affect the world's history. … One sees, even in these
   unsuccessful attempts, the bold dynastic ambition of King
   Rudolph; the kingdom of Arles, also, he had had in view for
   one of his sons. The acquisition of Austria alone, indeed,
   marks an epoch in itself; all the more so as only through this
   did he gain the prestige which he needed to enable him to do
   justice to his task as king of Germany. If this task be
   regarded as having consisted chiefly in restoring and
   maintaining the public peace after thirty years of utter
   confusion, then, indeed, he showed himself completely equal to
   it. … In short, through valor and steadfastness he strongly,
   in internal matters, upheld the power of the empire.
   Rebellions, indeed, were not wanting; now the archbishop of
   Cologne, now the duke of Savoy revolted; now Bern or Colmar,
   now the counts in Suabia and Burgundy. He overcame and humbled
   them all. … He was a very tall, thin man, pale of countenance
   and with very little hair on his small head; in all things
   moderate and of a genial nature as was shown by his offering
   to become the guest of artisans and by his darning his own
   doublet. … When giving Austria to his son Albrecht who was to
   try and establish here a dynastic power (Hausmacht), Rudolph
   had really intended to give the German crown to his younger
   son, Rudolph, and he might have put this through had not this
   son died before himself. In May 1291 the king then held a diet
   at Frankfort for the purpose of inducing the electors now to
   give their vote to his son Albrecht. This he was unable to
   bring about and with his hopes unrealized he died on the 15th
   of July 1291. … After long preliminary negotiations between
   the separate electors … the election took place on May 5th,
   1292. Albrecht had not yet abandoned hope and had appeared in
   the vicinity. … The electors laid down the principle that it
   was not right for the son to directly follow the father on the
   throne of the empire. … They chose again a simple count,
   Adolphus of Nassau. … The less Adolphus fulfilled the
   expectations of his electors … the more did he lose his
   authority. … In short it appears that Adolphus's whole
   attitude, his league with England, his conception of the
   rights of the empire, the way he insulted ecclesiastical and
   secular princes, his policy with regard to the majority of the
   cities, caused a general ferment. … It was at a great assembly
   of princes in Prague, where Mainz, Bohemia, Brandenburg and
   Saxony met together that Albrecht's influence began to gain
   the upper hand. Albrecht promised, in case he should become
   king, to give to King Wenzel the conquests made by Adolphus in
   Meissen. Albrecht and all his friends then girded themselves
   up to conquer the empire. In April 1298 we find him in Alsace
   opposing Adolphus who, however, still had the upper hand. The
   archbishop of Mainz then summoned the electors to Mainz for
   June 15 to consult about the disturbances in the empire. …
   They determined now to depose the king whom they had elected.
   This was done in the Thiergarten near Mainz on June 23, 1298.
   … The battle for the possession of the empire took place on
   July 2nd at Göllheim, where a stone cross still marks the
   spot. … The kings wore the same coat-of-arms—yellow with a
   black eagle—and bore the same banner. According to one
   account, for which Albert of Strassburg is voucher, they came
   into hand to hand conflict with each other. Adolphus cried
   out: 'Here you will relinquish the Empire!' Albrecht answered
   'The decision lies in the hand of God.' The one-eyed Albrecht
   struck the surer blow, hitting his antagonist directly over
   the eye. The blood ran down Adolphus s face; he fell and died.
   Albrecht would never acknowledge that he had been the slayer
   of the Lord's anointed. Be that as it may he won the crown for
   himself on the battle-field. … Albrecht is altogether a
   striking figure in German history. Everywhere, in the lowest
   plains of Switzerland or in the highest mountains of
   Switzerland he is busy in founding his dynastic power. Under
   him the House of Austria made a vigorous beginning in the
   matter of establishing a great and extensive authority in all
   parts of the empire. … It was fatal for him that the harsh
   want of consideration which forms the chief feature of his
   sway as a statesman should have raised up a murderer against
   him in his own immediate vicinity—in the person of his own
   nephew."

      L. Ranke,
      Weltgeschichte
      (translated from the German),
      volume 8, pages 566-601.

      See, also, AUSTRIA (pages 199-201).

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1648-1715.
   Relations with Germany and France.
   See (in this Supplement) GERMANY: A. D. 1648-1715.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1780-1790.
   Joseph II., the enthroned Philosopher.

   "The prince who best sums up the spirit of the century, is not
   Frederic [the Great, of Prussia), it is Joseph II. [the
   emperor]. Frederic was born a master, Joseph II. a disciple,
   and it is by disciples that we judge schools. The king of
   Prussia dammed up the waters, directed their flow, made use of
   the current: the emperor cast himself upon them and permitted
   himself to be carried. With Frederic the statesman always
   dominates, it is he who proposes and finally decides; the
   philosopher is subordinate: he furnishes to the results
   brought about by policy their abstract cause for existence and
   their theoretical justification. With Joseph II. rational
   conception precedes political calculation and governs it. He
   had breadth of mind, but his mind was superficial; ideas
   slipped from it. He had a taste for generosity, a passion for
   grandeur; but there was nothing profound in him but ambition,
   and it was all counter-stroke and reflection. He wished to
   surpass Frederic; his entire conduct was but an awkward,
   imprudent and ill-advised imitation of this prince whom he had
   made his hero, whom history made his rival and whom he copied
   while detesting him.
{3687}
   The political genius of Frederic was born of good sense and
   moderation: there was nothing in Joseph II. but the
   immoderate. He was a man of systems: he had only great
   velleities. His education was mediocre, and, as to methods,
   entirely jesuitical. Into this contracted mould he cast
   confusedly notions hastily borrowed from the philosophers of
   France, from the economists especially. He thus formed a very
   vague ideal of political aspirations and an exaggerated sense
   of the power at his disposition to realize them. 'Since I
   ascended the throne and have worn the first crown of the
   world,' wrote he in 1781, 'I have made Philosophy the lawmaker
   of my empire. Her logical applications are going to transform
   Austria.' He undertakes reforms in every direction at once.
   History is null for him, traditions do not count, nor do facts
   acquired. There is no race, nor period, nor surrounding
   circumstances: there is the State which is everything and can
   do everything. He writes in 1782, to the bishop of Strasbourg:
   'In a kingdom governed conformably to my principles,
   prejudice, fanaticism, bondage of mind must disappear, and
   each of my subjects must be reinstated in the possession of
   his natural rights.' He must have unity, and, as a first
   condition, the rejection of all previous ideas. Chance makes
   him operate on a soil the most heterogeneous, the most
   incoherent, the most cut up, parceled out and traversed by
   barriers, that there is in Europe. Nothing in common among his
   subjects, neither language, nor traditions, nor interests. It
   is from this, according to him, that the defect of monarchy
   arises. 'The German language is the universal language of my
   empire. I am the emperor of Germany, the states which I
   possess are provinces which form but one body with the State
   of which I am the head. If the kingdom of Hungary were the
   most important of my possessions, I should not hesitate to
   impose its tongue on the other countries.' So he imposes the
   German language on the Hungarians, the Croats, the Tchèques,
   the Poles, on all the Slavs. He suppresses the ancient
   territorial divisions; they recall the successive
   agglomerations, the irregular alluvions which had formed the
   monarchy; he establishes thirteen governments and divides them
   into circles. The diets disappear; the government passes into
   the hands of intendants according to the French formula. In
   the cities the burgomaster appointed by the government becomes
   a functionary. The nobles lose the part, already much
   curtailed, that they still had, here and there, in the
   government. He taxes them, he taxes the ecclesiastics; he
   meditates establishing a tax proportional to incomes and
   reaching all classes. He protects the peasants, alleviates
   serfdom, diminishes the corvées, builds hospitals, schools
   above all, in which the state will form pupils to obey her.
   His ideal would be the equality of his subjects under the
   uniform sway of his government. He unifies the laws; he
   institutes courts of appeal with a supreme court for the
   entire empire. He makes regulations for manufactures, binds
   commerce to the most rigorous protective system. Finally he
   puts a high hand on the church and decrees tolerance. … This
   immense revolution was accomplished by means of decrees, in
   less than five years. If we compare the state of cohesion
   which the Bourbon government had brought about in France in
   1789, with the incoherence of the Austrian monarchy on the
   death of Maria Theresa in 1780, it will be seen that the
   revolution which caused the Constituent Assembly was a small
   matter compared with that which Joseph II. intended to
   effect."

      A. Sorel,
      L'Europe et la Rêvolution française
      (translated from the French),
      part 1, pages 119-122.

   ----------AUSTRIA: End--------

AUSTRIA-HUNGARY, Libraries of.

      See LIBRARIES, MODERN (page 2013).

AUSTRIAN SCHOOLS.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN (page 709).

AVICENNA AND ARABIAN MEDICAL SCIENCE.

      See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 7-11TH CENTURIES (page 2130).

B.

BÂB, The.

   The word Bâb, "meaning, in Arabic, 'a gate,' is the title of a
   hero of our own days, the founder, if not of a new religion,
   at least of a new phase of religious belief. His history, with
   that of his first followers, as told by M. le Comte de
   Gobineau in his 'Religions et Philosophies dans l'Asie
   Centrale,' presents a picture of steadfast adherence to truth
   (as they held it), of self-denial, of joyful constancy in the
   face of bitterest suffering, torture and death, as vivid and
   touching as any that are found in the records of the heroic
   days of old. … Among the crowd of pilgrims who flocked to
   Mecca in the summer of 1843 was a youth who had then hardly
   completed his nineteenth year. He had come from the far
   distant city of Shiraz, where his family held an honourable
   position, claiming, indeed, to trace their descent from the
   great Prophet himself. Thoughtful and devout from his
   childhood, Mirza Ali Mohammed had zealously and regularly
   practised all religious duties considered binding on an
   orthodox Mussulman. He had received a liberal education, and
   while still a mere boy had eagerly examined and weighed every
   new set of ideas with which he came in contact. Christians,
   Jews, Fire-worshippers—he conversed with them all, and studied
   their books. … Up to the time of his visiting the shrine of
   the Prophet there had been no indication of any departure from
   the faith of his fathers. But this pilgrimage, instead of
   confirming his faith in Islam, had a quite contrary effect.
   While still in the holy city, and still more on the return
   journey, he had begun to confide to a select few views which
   attracted and delighted them, not more, perhaps, by their
   breadth and freedom than by the vague mystery in which they
   were still wrapped. His decisive breach with the old faith was
   not far distant. … Arrived at Shiraz, his first overt act was
   to present to his friends his earliest written works. These
   were two: a journal of his pilgrimage and a commentary on a
   part of the Korân. In the latter the readers were amazed and
   charmed to find meanings and teachings of which they had never
   dreamed before. From this time he began to teach more
   publicly; and day by day larger crowds flocked around him.
{3688}
   In public he still spoke with reverence of the Prophet and his
   laws; while in more private conferences he imparted to his
   disciples those new ideas which were, perhaps, not yet very
   clearly defined in his own mind. Very soon he had gathered
   round him a little band of devoted followers, ardently
   attached to himself, and ready to sacrifice wealth, life, all,
   in the cause of truth. And throughout the great empire men
   began everywhere to hear of the fame of Mirza Ali Mohammed.
   There was much in the young teacher himself, apart from the
   subject of his teaching, to account for this rapid success. Of
   blameless life; simple in his habits; strict and regular in
   all pious observances, he had already a weight of character to
   which his extreme youth added a tenfold interest. But in
   addition to these things, he was gifted with striking beauty
   of person, and with that subtle, winning sweetness of manner
   so often possessed by leaders of men, and to which, more than
   to the most weighty arguments, they have often owed their
   power. … Ere long, Mirza assumed the title by which he has
   since been known throughout Persia—the Bâb—that is, the Door,
   the only one through which men can reach the knowledge of God.
   It may be well to give here an outline of what the Bâb did
   teach. He believed in one God, eternal, unchangeable, Creator
   of all things, and into whom all shall finally be reabsorbed.
   He taught that God reveals His will to men by a series of
   messengers, who, while truly men, are not mere men, but also
   divine; that each of these messengers—Moses, Jesus,
   Mohammed—is the medium of some new truth, higher than that
   brought by the one who preceded him; that he himself, the Bâb,
   though claiming divine honours while he lived, was but the
   forerunner of one greater than he, the great Revealer—'He whom
   God shall manifest, who should complete the revelation of all
   truth, and preside at the final judgment, at which all the
   good shall be made one with God, and all evil annihilated. One
   of the most marked and singular characteristics of his system
   is the prominence given in it to that mysterious and fanciful
   theory of numbers which had always had so great a charm for
   him. Taking various forms of the name of God—'ahyy,' meaning
   'the giver of life'; 'wahed,' 'the only One'; or that which is
   a most sacred formula, 'Bismillah elemna elegdous,' 'in the
   name of God, highest and holiest'—he shows that the letters
   composing each of those names, taken by their numerical value,
   make up the number 19. This he therefore concludes is the
   number which lies at the foundation of all things in heaven
   and earth, the harmony of the universe, the number which must
   rule in all earthly arrangements. The year should have 19
   months, the month 19 days, the day 19 hours. … There are three
   points in particular in which the reforms proposed by the Bâb
   cannot fail, so far as they gain ground, to have a mighty
   effect on society. In the first place, he abolished polygamy;
   that is, he so strongly discountenanced it that his followers
   universally regard it as a prohibition. In close
   connection—almost as a necessary accompaniment of this—he
   forbade divorce; that festering sore which corrupts the mass
   of Persian society to its very heart, and makes pure family
   life almost impossible. His third revolutionary step was in
   the same direction. He abolished the veiling of the women. …
   While the fame and popularity of the young preacher were daily
   increasing, his bold exposure of the vices of the clergy
   aroused against him their bitterest enmity." This hostility
   soon became influential enough to prevail on the king and his
   ministers to silence the Bâb. Mirza was placed under
   confinement in his own house; but a chosen band of apostles
   went forth to do missionary work throughout the empire, and
   their success was great. Ere long, they began to combine
   political with religious aims, and one of them, Moulla
   Houssein, organized a movement which assumed a revolutionary
   character and spread to formidable proportions. The government
   became greatly alarmed, and an energetic minister took
   measures to suppress the Bâbys, which was done with merciless
   vigor. The Bâb, himself, though he had taken no part in the
   political doings of his disciples, and had remained a quiet
   prisoner on parole at Shiraz, was put to death, after being
   brutally exposed for several hours to the insults of a mob.
   This was in 1851. The following year witnessed the martyrdom
   of a large number of the surviving Bâbys of prominence, all of
   whom died for their faith without shrinking—as exalted in
   spirit, it would seem, as the early Christian martyrs. But
   Bâbism was not extinguished. It is said to have spread
   secretly and continually throughout Persia, and to be of
   unknown extent at the present day."

      M. F. Wilson,
      The Story of the Bâb
      (Contemporary Review, December, 1885).

BABŒUF, Conspiracy of.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1753-1797 (page 2934).

BABYLONIA: Captivity of the Jews.

      See JEWS: B. C. 604-536;
      and 537 (page 1907).

BABYLONIA:
   Commerce.

      See (in this Supplement) COMMERCE, ANCIENT.

BABYLONIA:
   Education, ancient.

      See EDUCATION, ANCIENT (page 674).

BABYLONIA:
   Libraries.

      See LIBRARIES, ANCIENT (page 2000).

BABYLONIA:
   Medical Science.

      See MEDICAL SCIENCE, BABYLONIAN (page 2122).

BABYLONIA:
   Money and banking.

      See MONEY AND BANKING (page 2199).

BACK, Captain, Northern explorations of.

      See (in this Supplement)
      ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1833-1835; and 1836-1837.

BACTERIOLOGY, Development of the science of.

      See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 19TH CENTURY (page 2146).

BALOCHISTAN,
BALUCHISTAN.

   "Balochistan, in the modern acceptation of the term, may be
   said, in a general sense, to include all that tract of country
   which has for its northern and north-eastern boundary the
   large kingdom of Afghanistan, its eastern frontier being
   limited by the British province of Sindh, and its western by
   the Persian State, while the Arabian Sea washes its southern
   base for a distance of nearly six hundred miles. … In area
   Balochistan had long been supposed to cover in its entirety
   quite 160,000 square miles, but the latest estimates do not
   raise it higher than 140,000 square miles, of which 60,000 are
   said to belong to what is termed Persian Balochistan, and the
   remaining 80,000 to Kalāti Balochistan, or that portion which
   is more or less directly under the rule of the Brāhui Khān of
   Kalāt. …
{3689}
   Balochistan may be said to be inhabited chiefly by the Baloch
   tribe, the most numerous in the country, and this name was
   given to the tract they occupy by the great Persian monarch,
   Nadir Shah, who, as St. John remarks, after driving the Afghan
   invaders from Persia, made himself master in his turn of the
   whole country west of the Indus, and placed a native chief
   over the new province, formed out of the districts bounded on
   the north and south by the Halmand valley and the sea, and
   stretching from Karmān on the west to Sindh on the east. This
   newly formed province he called Balochistan, or, the country
   of the Baloch, from the name of the most widely spread and
   numerous, though not the dominant, tribe. According to Masson,
   who, it must be admitted, had more ample opportunities of
   obtaining correct information on this subject than any other
   European, the Balochis are divided into three great classes,
   viz.,
   (1) the Brahuis;
   (2) the Rinds; and
   (3) the Lumris (or Numris);
   but this must be taken more in the sense of inhabitants of
   Balochistan than as divisions of a tribe, since the Brahuis
   are of a different race and language and call the true
   Balochis 'Nhāruis,' in contradistinction to themselves as
   'Brahuis.' … The origin of the word 'Baloch' is evidently
   involved in some obscurity, and has given rise to many
   different interpretations. Professor Rawlinson supposes it to
   be derived from Belūs, king of Babylon, the Nimrod of Holy
   Writ, and that from 'Kush,' the father of Nimrod, comes the
   name of the Kalāti eastern district, 'Kachh.' Pottinger
   believes the Balochis to be of Turkoman lineage, and this from
   a similarity in their institutions, habits, religion—in
   short, in everything but their language, for which latter
   anomaly, however, he has an explanation to offer. But be this
   as it may, the very tribe themselves ascribe their origin to
   the earliest Muhammadan invaders of Persia, and are extremely
   desirous of being supposed to be of Arab extraction. They
   reject with scorn all idea of being of the same stock as the
   Afghan. They may possibly be of Iranian descent, and the
   affinity of their language, the Balochki, to the Persian,
   bears out this supposition; but the proper derivation of the
   word 'Baloch' still remains an open question. … The Brahuis,
   who, as a race, are very numerous in Balochistan, Pottinger
   considers to be a nation of Tartar mountaineers, who settled
   at a very early period in the southern parts of Asia, where
   they led an ambulatory life in Khels, or societies, headed and
   governed by their own chiefs and laws for many centuries, till
   at length they became incorporated and attained their present
   footing at Kalāt and throughout Balochistan generally. Masson
   supposes that the word 'Brahui' is a corruption of Ba-roh-i,
   meaning, literally, of the waste; and that that race entered
   Balochistan originally from the west. … The country may be
   considered as divided into two portions—the one, Kalāti
   Balochistan, or that either really or nominally under the rule
   of the Khān of Kalāt; and the other as Persian Balochistan, or
   that part which is more or less directly under the domination
   of the Shah of Persia. Of the government of this latter
   territory, it will suffice to say that it is at present
   administered by the Governor of Bam-Narmashir, a deputy of the
   Kermān Governor; but the only district that is directly under
   Persian rule is that of Banpur—the rest of the country, says
   St. John, is left in charge of the native chiefs, who, in
   their turn, interfere but little with the heads of villages
   and tribes. … It would … appear that the supremacy of the Shah
   over a very large portion of the immense area (60,000 square
   miles) known as Persian Balochistan is more nominal than real,
   and that the greater number of the chiefs only pay revenue to
   their suzerain when compelled to do so. As regards Kalāti
   Balochistan, the government is, so to speak, vested
   hereditarily in the Brahui Khān of Kalāt, but his sovereignty
   in the remote portions of his extensive territory (80,000
   square miles), though even in former times more nominal than
   real, is at the present moment still more so, owing to the
   almost constant altercations and quarrels which take place
   between the reigning Khān and his Sardārs, or chiefs. … In …
   the modern history of Kalāti Balochistan under the present
   dynasty, extending from about the commencement of the 18th
   century, when Abdula Khān was ruler, down to the present time,
   a period of, say, nearly 180 years, there is not much to call
   for remark. Undoubtedly the Augustan age of Balochistan was
   the reign of the first Nasir Khān [1755-1795], the Great
   Nasir, as he is to this day called by the Balochis. Of his
   predecessors little seems to be known; they were indeed simply
   successful robbers on a large scale, with but few traces of
   any enlightened policy to gild over a long succession of deeds
   of lawlessness, rapine, and bloodshed. … Had his successors
   been of the same stamp and metal as himself, the Kalāti
   kingdom of to-day would not perhaps show that anarchy and
   confusion which are now its most striking characteristics."

      A. W. Hughes,
      The Country of Balochistan,
      pages 2-48, and 285.

BANKING, History of.

      See MONEY AND BANKING (page 2198).

BANKS, Nathaniel P.
   His election to the Speakership.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1855-1856 (page 3396).

BAPTIST CHURCH, The first in Rhode Island.

      See RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1639 (page 2641).

BAPTISTS.

    The name 'Baptist' was not a self-chosen one. In the early
    Reformation time those who withdrew from the dominant
    churches because of the failure of these churches to
    discriminate between the church and the world, between the
    regenerate and the unregenerate, and who sought to organize
    churches of believers only, laid much stress on the lack of
    Scriptural warrant for the baptism of infants and on the
    incompatibility of infant baptism with regenerate membership.
    Following what they believed to be apostolic precept and
    example, they made baptism on a profession of faith a
    condition of church-fellowship. This rejection of infant
    baptism and this insistence on believers' baptism were so
    distinctive of these Christians that they were stigmatized as
    'Anabaptists,' 'Catabaptists,' and sometimes as simply
    'Baptists'; that is to say, they were declared to be
    'rebaptizers,' 'perverters of baptism,' or, as unduly
    magnifying baptism and making it the occasion of schism,
    simply 'baptizers.' These party names they earnestly
    repudiated, preferring to call themselves Brethren,
    Christians, Disciples of Christ, Believers, etc. …
{3690}
    Baptists have, for the most part, been at one with the Roman
    Catholic, the Greek Catholic, and most Protestant communions
    in accepting for substance the so-called Apostles', Nicene,
    and Athanasian creeds, not, however, because they are
    venerable or because of the decisions of ecclesiastical
    councils, but because, and only in so far as, they have
    appeared to them to be in accord with Scripture. … As regards
    the set of doctrines on which Augustin differed from his
    theological predecessors, and modern Calvinists from
    Arminians, Baptists have always been divided. … The great
    majority of the Baptists of today hold to what may be called
    moderate Calvinism, or Calvinism tempered with the
    evangelical anti-Augustinianism which came through the
    Moravian Brethren to Wesley and by him was brought powerfully
    to bear on all bodies of evangelical Christians. Baptists are
    at one with the great Congregational body and with most of
    the minor denominations as regards church government."

      A. H. Newman,
      A. History of the Baptist Churches in the United States,
      introduction.

   "Baptist principles are discoverable in New England from the
   very earliest colonial settlements. The Puritans of Plymouth
   had mingled with the Dutch Baptists during the ten years of
   their sojourn in Holland, and some of them seem to have
   brought over Baptist tendencies even in the Mayflower. Dutch
   Baptists had emigrated to England and extended their
   principles there; and from time to time a persecuted Baptist
   in England sought refuge in America, and, planted here,
   brought forth fruit after his kind. But as every offshoot of
   these principles here was so speedily and vigorously beaten
   down by persecution, and especially as, after the banishment
   of Roger Williams, there was an asylum a few miles distant,
   just over Narraganset Bay, where every persecuted man could
   find liberty of conscience, Baptist principles made little
   progress in the New England colonies, except Rhode Island, for
   the first hundred and twenty years. A little church of Welsh
   Baptists was founded in Rehoboth, near the Rhode Island line,
   in 1663, and shortly afterwards was compelled by civil force
   to remove to Swanzea, where, as it was distant from the
   centres of settlement, it was suffered to live without very
   much molestation. It still exists, the oldest Baptist church
   in the State. In 1665, the First Baptist Church in Boston was
   organized, and, alone, for almost a century, withstood the
   fire of persecution,—ever in the flames, yet never quite
   consumed. In 1693, a second church was constituted in Swanzea,
   not as a Regular, but as a Six-Principle, Baptist Church. In
   1705, a Baptist church was formed in Groton, Connecticut.
   These four churches, three Regular and one Six-Principle,
   having in the aggregate probably less than two hundred
   members, were all the Baptist churches in New England outside
   of Rhode Island previous to the Great Awakening."

      D. Weston.
      Early Baptists in Massachusetts
      (The Baptists and the National Centenary),
      pages 12-18.

   "The representative Baptists of London and vicinity, who in
   1689 put forth the Confession of Faith which was afterward
   adopted by the Philadelphia Association, and is therefore
   known in this country as the Philadelphia Confession, copied
   the Westminister Confession word for word, wherever their
   convictions would permit, and declared that they would thus
   show wherein they were at one with their brethren, and what
   convictions of truth made impossible a complete union. And
   wherever Baptists appeared however or by whomsoever they were
   opposed, the ground of complaint against them was their
   principles. Some of these principles were sharply antagonistic
   to those of existing churches, and also to those on which the
   civil governments were administered. They were widely
   disseminated, especially in Holland, England, and Wales, and
   there were separate churches formed. From purely doctrinal
   causes also came divisions among 'the Baptized churches'
   themselves. The most notable one was that in England between
   the General or Arminian Baptists, and the Particular or
   Calvinistic Baptists. With the latter division do the Regular
   Baptists of America hold lineal connection. … The churches of
   Philadelphia and vicinity kept the closest connection with the
   mother country, and were most affected by it. In New England,
   in 'the Great Reformation' under the lead of Jonathan Edwards,
   there was made from within the Congregational churches a most
   vigorous assault against their own 'half-way Covenant' in the
   interest of a pure church. Along his lines of thought he
   started multitudes who could not stop where he himself
   remained and would fain have detained them. They separated
   from the Congregational churches, and were hence called
   Separates. A large proportion of them became Baptists, and
   formed themselves into Baptist churches. Through the labors of
   earnest men who went from them to Carolina and Virginia, their
   principles were widely disseminated in those and the
   neighboring colonies, and, in consequence, many churches came
   into existence."

      G. D. B. Pepper,
      Doctrinal History and Position (The same),
      pages 51-52.

BARDI, The.

      See MONEY AND BANKING (page 2206).

BARENTZ, Voyages of.

      See (in this Supplement) ARCTIC EXPLORATION:
      1594-1595; and 1596-1597.

BARNARD COLLEGE.

      See EDUCATION (page 743).

BARRE, Colonel Isaac.
   Speech against the Stamp Act.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765 (page 3186).

BATTLE, Trial by.

      See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1077,
      and CRIMINAL: A. D. 1818 (pages 1957 and 1985).

BELCHER, Sir Edward,
   Franklin search expedition of.

      See (in this Supplement) ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1852--1854.

BELGIUM:
   Constitutional revision of 1893.

      See (in this Supplement) CONSTITUTION OF BELGIUM.

BELGIUM:
   King Leopold's legacy of the Congo State.

      See (in this Supplement) AFRICA: 1889.

BELGIUM:
   Libraries.

      See LIBRARIES, MODERN (page 2013).

BELGIUM:
   Schools.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN (page 709).

BELL TELEPHONE, The invention of the.

      See ELECTRICAL DISCOVERY AND INVENTION:
      A. D. 1876-1892 (page 776).

      [Transcriber's Note.]
      T. O'Conor Sloane
      The Standard Electrical Dictionary,
      www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/26535.

BELLAMY, Edward, and the Nationalist Movement.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1888-1893 (page 2956).

BENTHAM, Jeremy, and reforms in the Law of Evidence.

      See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1851 (page 1979).

{3691}

BERNADOTTE:
   Election to the throne of Sweden.

      See (in this Supplement) SWEDEN: A. D. 1810.

BIBLIOTHÈQUE NATIONALE.

      See LIBRARIES, MODERN: FRANCE (page 2010).

BICHAT, and the progress of physiological science.

      See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 18TH CENTURY (page 2142).
      
BILL OF ATTAINDER.

      See (in this Supplement) ATTAINDER

BILLS OF EXCHANGE.

      See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1603 (page 1968).

BIORKO.

      See (in this Supplement), COMMERCE, MEDIÆVAL.

BISMARCK'S POLICY AND SPEECHES.

      See (in this Supplement) GERMANY: A. D. 1862-1890.

BLACK FRIDAY.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1869 (page 2347).

BLAKE, Admiral Robert, Victories of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1652-1654 (page 885).

BLANC, Louis, and his scheme of stateaided co-operation.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1840-1848 (page 2942).

BLUE LAWS OF CONNECTICUT, The.

   "Just when or by whom the acts and proceedings of New Haven
   colony were first stigmatized as Blue Laws, cannot now be
   ascertained. The presumption, however, is strong that the name
   had its origin in New York, and that it gained currency in
   Connecticut, among episcopalian and other dissenters from the
   established church, between 1720 and 1750. … In the colony of
   New Haven, before the union with Connecticut, the privileges
   of voting and of holding civil office were, by the
   'fundamental agreement,' restricted to church-members. This
   peculiarity of her constitution was enough to give color to
   the assertion that her legislation was, pre-eminently, blue.
   That her old record-book contained a code of 'blue laws' which
   were discreditable to puritanism and which testified to the
   danger of schism—became, among certain classes, an assured
   belief. To this imaginary code wit and malice made large
   additions, sometimes by pure invention, sometimes by borrowing
   absurd or arbitrary laws from the records of other colonies.
   And so the myth grew—till the last vestige of truth was lost
   in fable. The earliest mention of the 'New Haven Blue Laws'
   that I remember to have seen in print, is in a satirical
   pamphlet published in 1762, entitled; 'The Real Advantages
   which Ministers and People may enjoy, especially in the
   Colonies, by conforming to the Church of England,' etc. … From
   the manner in which this allusion is introduced it is evident
   that reproach of New Haven for her 'blue laws' was already a
   familiar weapon of religious controversy. A few years later—in
   1767—William Smith, Chief-Justice of New York, had the
   curiosity to inspect 'the first records of the colony of New
   Haven, vulgarly called the Blue Laws.' In the continuation of
   his history of New York, he gives (p. 93) the result of his
   examination: 'A note ought not to be suppressed concerning
   these records, to correct a voice of misplaced ridicule. Few
   there are, who speak of the Blue Laws, … who do not imagine
   they form a code of rules for future conduct, drawn up by an
   enthusiastic, precise set of religionists; and if the
   inventions of wits, humorists, and buffoons were to be
   credited, they must consist of many volumes. The author had
   the curiosity to resort to them, when the Commissaries met at
   New Haven, for adjusting a partition line between New York and
   the Massachusetts in 1767; and a parchment-covered book of
   demi-royal paper was handed to him for the laws asked for, as
   the only volume in the office passing under this odd title. …
   It contains the memorials of the first establishment of the
   colony, which consisted of persons who had wandered beyond the
   limits of the old charter of the Massachusetts Bay, and who,
   as yet unauthorized by the crown to set up any civil
   government in due form of law, resolved to conduct themselves
   by the Bible. As a necessary consequence, the judges they
   chose took up an authority similar to that which every
   religious man exercises over his own children and domestics.
   Hence their attention to the morals of the people, in
   instances with which the civil magistrate can never
   intermeddle under a regular well-policied institution;
   because, to preserve liberty, they are cognizable only by
   parental authority. … So far is the common idea of the blue
   laws being a collection of rules from being true, that they
   are only records of convictions, consonant, in the judgment of
   the magistrates, to the word of God, and dictates of reason.'
   … Occasional allusions to the 'Blue Laws' are found in
   newspapers and pamphlets printed before the Revolution, but no
   specimens of the laws so stigmatised seem to have been
   published before 1781, when 'a sketch of some of them' was
   given to the world by the Rev. Samuel Peters, in 'A General
   History of Connecticut, from its First Settlement under George
   Fenwick, Esq.,' etc.: 'By a Gentleman of the Province:'
   printed in London, 'for the Author.' … As the sole authority
   for the only 'New Haven Blue Laws' that are now popularly
   known by the name, he and his book are entitled here to a
   larger notice. The late Professor J. L. Kingsley, in the notes
   to his Historical Discourse at New Haven (1838), was at the
   pains of pointing out 'a few errors'—as he charitably named
   them—of 'the work which, more than any other, has given
   currency to various misrepresentations respecting the New
   Haven colony:' and in this connection he quoted a remark made
   by the Rev. Dr. Trumbull, the historian, who was a townsman of
   Peters and had known him from childhood,—that, 'of all men
   with whom he had ever been acquainted, Dr. Peters, he had
   thought, from his first knowledge of him, the least to be
   depended upon as to any matter of fact, especially in
   story-telling.' The best excuse that can be made for him is,
   that he was a victim of pseudomania; that his abhorrence of
   truth was in fact a disease, and that he was not morally
   responsible for its outbreaks. He could not keep even his name
   clear of falsification. It passes into history with doubtful
   initials and fictitious titles. … In 1774, his obstinate and
   aggressive toryism rendered him very obnoxious to his
   neighbors and finally provoked the resentment of the Sons of
   Liberty. A party of two or three hundred men paid him a visit,
   threatened him (so he averred) with tar and feathers, handled
   him somewhat roughly when they detected him in falsehood, and
   drew from him a promise that he would not again meddle in
   public affairs. … He found his only comfort in the
   anticipation that, if his plans of vengeance should succeed,
   Connecticut might be blotted out: 'the bounds of New York may
   directly extend to Connecticut river, Boston meet them, New
   Hampshire take the Province of Maine, and Rhode Island be
   swallowed up as Dathan.'
{3692}
   In October, 1774, he sailed for England, where he remained
   until 1805. He obtained a small pension from the crown, and
   some compensation for the property he professed to have lost
   in Connecticut: and it was perhaps in the hope of eking out a
   livelihood, as well as of gratifying his resentment, that he
   employed his pen in abuse of the colony which gave him birth,
   and the religion of his fathers. He did not, says Mr.
   Duykinck, 'carry his point of dismembering Connecticut, but he
   punished the natives almost as effectually by writing a
   book—his History of the State.'"

      J. H. Trumbull,
      Introduction to "The True-Blue Laws of
      Connecticut and New Haven."

   "In this 'History' were collected all the extravagant stories
   that had been set afloat during the previous fifty years to
   gratify the stupidity of those among the lower classes in New
   York who were descended from the Dutch, or the hatred of the
   most bitter of the British royalists. This 'History' is the
   first and the only 'authority' for the 'Blue Laws' which were
   attributed to the early New Haven colonists. … No person in
   America who knew anything about the history of his country
   ever seriously quoted Dr. Peters's 'History' as an authority
   on any subject whatever. The 'Comic History of England,' or
   the 'Travels of Baron Munchausen,' would be as little likely
   to be quoted in England for any serious purpose. And yet this
   falsehood about the 'Blue Laws,' which was thus first
   concocted for a purpose, has a vitality which, in some of its
   aspects, is amusing."

      W. L. Kingsley,
      Blackwood's Magazine on the "Blue Laws"
      (New Englander, April, 1871), pages 296-299.

BODLEIAN LIBRARY, The.

      See LIBRARIES, MODERN (page 2016).

BOERHAAVE, and humoral pathology.

      See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17TH CENTURY (page 2136).

BOLOGNA, University of.

      See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL (page 696).

"BOMBA," King.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849 (page 1862).

BOOTH, Reverend General William, and the Salvation Army.

      See (in this Supplement) SALVATION ARMY.

BOROUGH FRANCHISE, English.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1884-1885 (pages 973-978).

BOSTON LATIN SCHOOL.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN (page 727).

BOTHWELL, James Hepburn, Earl of, and Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots.
      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1561-1568 (page 2857).

BOWDOIN COLLEGE.

   An act of the Legislature of the province of Maine, approved
   in 1794, incorporated the above-named institution. The
   management of the college was placed under a board of
   trustees, with full powers of control. … That the institution
   might not want for proper support, it was further enacted,
   'That the clear rents, issues, and profits of all the estate,
   real and personal, of which the said corporation shall be
   seized or possessed, shall be appropriated to the endowment of
   the said college, in such manner as will most effectually
   promote virtue, piety, and the knowledge of such of the
   languages and the useful and liberal arts and sciences as
   shall hereafter be directed from time to time by said
   corporation.' Five townships of land, each six miles square,
   were granted to the college for Its endowment and vested in
   the trustees, provided that fifteen families be settled in
   each of the said townships within a period of twelve years,
   and provided further that three lots containing 320 acres each
   be reserved, one for the first settled minister, one for the
   use of the ministry, and one for the support of schools within
   the township where it is located. These townships were to be
   laid out and assigned from any of the unappropriated lands
   belonging to the commonwealth of the district of Maine. The
   first money endowment was instituted by a general law of
   Massachusetts, approved February 24, 1814, which reads as
   follows: 'Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
   Representatives in General Court now assembled, That the tax
   which the president, directors and company of the
   Massachusetts Bank are and shall be liable to pay to the
   commonwealth, shall be and hereby is granted to and
   appropriated as follows, viz: ten-sixteenths parts thereof to
   the president and fellows of Harvard College; and
   three-sixteenths parts thereof to the president and trustees
   of Williams College; and three-sixteenths thereof
   to the president and trustees of Bowdoin College.'"

      F. W. Blackmar,
      History of Federal and State Aid to Higher Education in
      the United States (Bureau of Education, 
      Circular of Information, 1890, number 1), 
      pages 123-124.

   The college was named in honor of Governor James Bowdoin, of
   Massachusetts, whose son made valuable gifts to it.

BRACTON, Henry de, and early English Law.

      See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1216-1272 (page 1961).

BRADFORD PRESS, The.

      See PRINTING AND PRESS: A. D. 16815-1693:
      and 1704-1729 (page 2597).

BRAZIL: A. D. 1891.
   Adoption of the Constitution.

      For text see CONSTITUTION OF BRAZIL (page 518).

BRAZIL: A. D. 1893-1894.
   Triumph of the Peixoto government.

   "The civil war In Brazil resulted in the complete triumph of
   the Peixoto government in the spring. During November [1893]
   the insurgents held their own in the harbor of Rio Janeiro,
   and in the following month occupied a number of islands in the
   bay. On December 1 Admiral Mello, their leader, with two of
   his ships, ran past the government batteries and out to sea,
   leaving in command in the harbor Admiral da Gama, who up to
   that time had remained neutral. The latter shortly after
   issued a manifesto pointing to a restoration of the monarchy
   as the ultimate purpose of the rebels. This seems to have
   tended rather to weaken the insurgent cause, and a month later
   da Gama tried in another proclamation to explain away the
   interpretation that had been put upon the first. The
   government, meanwhile, confined itself to strengthening its
   positions in the city and along the shore so as to make any
   attempt to land unsuccessful. Desultory hostilities continued
   throughout December and January, incidentally to which the
   American commander on one occasion enforced respect for
   merchant vessels bearing his flag by firing on an insurgent
   vessel. On February 12 da Gama made his most elaborate attempt
   to gain a foothold on the main land at Armacao, but was repulsed
   with severe losses.
{3693}
   By this time the insurgent cause was clearly on the decline.
   On the first of March a presidential election was held, which
   resulted in the choice of Prudente Moraes, a civilian. This
   removed the leading grievance of the rebels, that Piexoto was
   perpetuating a regime of pure militarism. On the 11th of March
   the fleet which the government had been fitting out in the United
   States and Europe appeared at the entrance to the harbor of
   Rio, and Peixoto gave notice of an active movement against the
   rebels. Da Gama promptly offered to surrender on certain
   conditions, which being refused, he and his officers sought
   asylum on first a French and later a Portuguese war vessel.
   Thus deserted, the crews of the insurgent vessels surrendered
   without resistance when the government batteries opened fire
   on the 13th. Admiral Mello, meanwhile, had been operating with
   some success in connection with the insurgents on land in the
   southern states of Brazil. In the first part of April,
   however, the government forces totally defeated the rebels in
   Rio Grande do Sul, and Mello, about the middle of the month,
   surrendered himself and his command to the Uruguayan
   authorities, by whom they were disarmed."

      Political Science Quarterly,
      June, 1894.

BREAKSPEAR, Nicholas.
   Pope Hadrian IV., 1154-1159.

BRETHREN OF THE COMMON LIFE, Schools of the.

      See EDUCATION, RENAISSANCE (page 705).

BRISBANE, Albert, and Fourierism in America.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1832-1847,
      and 1841-1847 (pages 2940 and 2944).

BRITANNIC FEDERATION, Proposed.

      See FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (page 1112).

BRITISH MUSEUM LIBRARY, The.

      See LIBRARIES, MODERN: ENGLAND (page 2014).

BROCTON COMMUNITY, The.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1867-1875 (page 2951).

BROOK FARM.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS; A. D. 1841-1847 (page 2943).

BROTHERHOOD OF THE NEW LIFE, The.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1867-1875 (page 2951).

BROWN UNIVERSITY.

   "Brown University, the oldest and best endowed institution of
   learning connected with the Baptist denomination, dates back
   for its origin to a period anterior to the American
   Revolution, when in all the thirteen colonies there were less
   than 70 Baptist churches, with perhaps 4,000 communicants. It
   is not surprising that, at the memorable meeting of the
   Philadelphia Association, held on the 12th of October, 1762,
   when the members were finally led to regard it, in the words
   of Backus, as 'practicable and expedient to erect a College in
   the Colony of Rhode Island, under the chief direction of the
   Baptists, in which education might be promoted and superior
   learning obtained, free from any sectarian tests,' the mover
   in the matter should at first have been laughed at, the thing
   being looked upon as, under the circumstances, an utter
   impossibility. But lenders at that time, like Morgan Edwards
   and Isaac Eaton, Samuel Jones, Abel Morgan, Benjamin Griffith,
   John Sutton and John Gano, were men of faith. … At the time of
   which I speak, there was graduated from Princeton, with the
   second honors of his class, a man of wonderful mental and
   physical endowments, an early pupil of Isaac Eaton at
   Hopewell, James Manning, of Elizabethtown, New Jersey. To him
   the enterprise of the college was by common consent intrusted.
   … The first commencement of the college, which was held in the
   then new Baptist meeting-house of the town of Warren, on the
   7th of September, 1769, has already been regarded as a Red
   Letter Day in its history. Five years previous, the General
   Assembly, begun and holden by adjournment at East Greenwich,
   on the last Monday in February, 1764; after various
   difficulties and delays, in consequence of the determined
   opposition of those who were unfriendly to the movement, had
   granted a charter for a 'College or University in the English
   Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, in New
   England in America.' Such is the language of the act of
   incorporation. But though Rhode Island had been selected for
   its home by the original projectors of the institution, and a
   liberal and ample charter had thus been secured, the college
   itself was still in embryo. Without funds, without students,
   and with no present prospect of support, a beginning must be
   made where the president could be the pastor of a church, and
   thus obtain an adequate compensation for his services. Warren,
   then as now, a delightful and flourishing inland town,
   situated 10 miles from Providence, seemed to meet the
   requisite requirements and thither, accordingly, Manning
   removed with his family in the spring of 1764. He at once
   commenced a Latin School, as the first step preparatory to the
   work of college instruction. Before the close of the year a
   church was organized, over which he was duly installed as
   pastor. The following year, at the second annual meeting of
   the corporation, held in Newport, Wednesday, September 3d, he
   was formally elected, in the language of the records,
   'President of the College, Professor of Languages and other
   branches of learning, with full power to act in these
   capacities at Warren or elsewhere.' On that same day, as
   appears from a paper now on file in the archives of the
   Library, the president matriculated his first student, William
   Rogers, a lad of fourteen, the son of Captain William Rogers,
   of Newport. Not only was this lad the first student of the
   college, but he was also the first freshman class. Indeed, for
   a period of nine months and seventeen days, as appears from
   the paper already referred to, he constituted the entire body
   of students. From such feeble beginnings has the university
   sprung."

      R. A. Guild,
      The First Commencement of Rhode Island College
      (Rhode Island Historical Society Collections, v. 7),
      pages 269-271.

   Six years after the founding of the University it was removed
   from Warren to Providence, and its name changed from Rhode
   Island College to Brown University, in honor of John Brown, of
   Providence, who was its most liberal benefactor.

      G. W. Greene,
      Short History of Rhode Island,
      page 196.

   Although founded by the Baptist Church, the charter of the
   University "expressly forbids the use of religious tests. The
   corporation is divided into two Boards—the Trustees, 36 in
   number, of whom 22 must be Baptists, 5 Quakers, 5
   Episcopalians, and 4 Congregationalists, and the Fellows, 12
   in number, of whom 8, including the President, must be
   Baptists, and the remainder of other denominations. Twelve
   Trustees and 5 Fellows form a quorum. The college estate, the
   students, and the members of the faculty, with their families,
   are exempt from taxation and from serving as jurors."

      S. G. Arnold,
      History of the State of Rhode Island,
      chapter 18 (volume 2).

{3694}

BRUCHION, Library of the.

      See LIBRARIES, ANCIENT (page 2003).

BRUNONIAN SYSTEM, The.

      See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 18TH CENTURY (page 2141).

BRYN MAWR COLLEGE.

      See EDUCATION (page 743).

BUBBLE ACT, The.

      See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1710 (page 1971).

BULGARIANS, The conversion of the.

      See CHRISTIANITY: 9TH CENTURY (page 464).

BUREAU OF EDUCATION, The United States.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN (page 735).

BURKE, Edmund.
   Speech on Conciliation of the American Colonies.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1775 (pages 3218-3221).

BYNG, Admiral John, Execution of.

      See MINORCA: A. D. 1756 (page 2187).

BYZANTINE TRADE.

      See (in this Supplement) COMMERCE, MEDIÆVAL.

CABOTS, Voyages of the.

      See (in this Supplement) AMERICA.

C.

CALHOUN, John C., The aggressive proslavery policy of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1837-1838, and 1847 (pages 3375 and 3380).

CAMBOJA.

      See TONKIN (page 3114).

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY.

      See EDUCATION (pages 701, 706 and 710).

CAMPBELLITES, The.

      See (in this Supplement) DISCIPLES OF CHRIST.

CANADA:
   Constitution of the Dominion.

      See CONSTITUTION OF CANADA (page 526).

CANADA:
   Libraries.

      See LIBRARIES, MODERN: CANADA (page 2023).

CANADA:
   The Ontario school system.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN (page 733).

CANALS.

      See (in this Supplement) COMMERCE, MODERN.

CANULEIAN LAW, The.

      See ROME: B. C. 445-400 (page 2667).

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.

      See LAW, CRIMINAL: A. D. 1600,
      and 1660-1820 (pages 1983 and 1984).

CARNATIC, The.

      See (in this Supplement) KARNATIC.

CARNOT, President Sadi, The assassination of.

      See (in this Supplement) FRANCE: A. D. 1894-1895.

CARTHAGINIAN COMMERCE.

      See (In this Supplement) COMMERCE, ANCIENT.

CASHGAR.

      See TURKESTAN (page 3130);
      and YAKOOB BEG (page 3662).

CASIMIR-PERIER,
   Election to the Presidency of the French Republic,
   and resignation.

      See (in this Supplement) FRANCE: A. D. 1894-1895.

CATHOLIC REACTION IN GERMANY, The.

      See (in this Supplement) GERMANY: 16TH CENTURY;
      also, page 2457.

CAUCASUS, The Races of the.

   "One of the most remarkable characteristics of the Caucasus is
   that, while it has acted as a barrier between the north and
   the south, stopping and turning aside the movements of
   population, it has also preserved within its sheltered
   recesses fragments of the different peoples who from time to
   time have passed by it, or who have been driven by conquest
   into it from the lower country. Thus it is a kind of
   ethnological museum, where specimens may be found of countless
   races and languages, some of which probably belong to the
   early ages of the world; races that seem to have little
   affinity with their present neighbours, and of whose history
   we know nothing except what comparative philology can reveal.
   Even before the Christian era it was famous for the variety of
   its peoples. … No more inappropriate ethnological name was
   ever propounded than that of Caucasian for a fancied division
   of the human family, the cream of mankind, from which the
   civilized peoples of Europe are supposed to have sprung. For
   the Caucasus is to-day as it was in Strabo's time, full of
   races differing in religion, language, aspect, manners,
   character."

      J. Bryce,
      Trans-caucasia and Ararat,
      chapter 2.

CELESTINES,
CELESTINIANS.

   A religious order founded by the hermit, Peter of Morone, who
   afterwards, in 1294, became Pope, and took the name Celestine
   V. The rules of the order were austere. It became widespread
   throughout Europe, but was suppressed in France in 1766.

CENSORSHIP OF THE PRESS, in England and Germany.

      See PRINTING AND PRESS: A. D. 1695 (pages 2597 and 1602).

CENSUS, United States.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1790 (page 3305); 1800 (page 3324), and after.

CHANCELLOR.
CHANCERY.

      See LAW, EQUITY (page 1988).

CHARLEMAGNE'S EMPIRE.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 687-800, 800, and
      814-843 (pages 1436-1438); and (in this Supplement) ROME.

CHARLEMAGNE'S PALATINE SCHOOL.

      See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL (page 689).

CHARTERHOUSE SCHOOL.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN (page 712).

CHASE, Judge, Impeachment and trial of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1805 (page 3329).

CHATHAM, John Pitt, Earl of, and the Walcheren expedition.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1809 (page 947).

CHATHAM, William Pitt, Earl of,
   Speech on the repeal of the Stamp Act.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766 (page 3201).

CHICAGO UNIVERSITY, The founding of the.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN (page 738).

CHILE.

   The account of Chilean affairs given in volume 1 (pages
   411-415) ends with the overthrow and suicide of the
   dictatorial usurper, Balmaceda (September 20, 1891), the
   triumph of the Congress party, and the election to the
   Presidency of Admiral Jorge Montt. During the civil war which
   had this termination, the representative of the United States,
   Minister Egan, showed marked favor to Balmaceda and his party,
   which irritated the Chileans and produced among them a hostile
   feeling towards Americans and the American government. This
   was increased by the action of Mr. Egan, after the defeat of
   the Balmacedists, in sheltering a large number of refugees of
   that party within the walls of the American legation.
{3695}
   The same was done by other foreign representatives, but to no
   such extent, except in the case of the Spanish legation. A
   telegram sent by Mr. Egan on the 8th of October to the State
   Department at Washington stated: "80 persons sought refuge in
   his legation after the overthrow of the Balmaceda government;
   about the same number in the Spanish legation, 8 in the
   Brazilian, 5 in the French, several in the Uruguayan, 2 in the
   German and 1 in the English. Balmaceda sought refuge in the
   Argentine. All these have gone out except 15 in his own
   legation, 1 in the German and 5 in the Spanish." Not venturing
   to violate the privileges of the American Minister's
   residence, the Chilean authorities placed it under police
   surveillance, and arrested a number of persons entering the
   premises. The Minister complained, and was supported in his
   complaints at Washington, causing further irritation in Chile.
   This was again greatly increased by his claiming the right,
   not only to shelter the refugees in his residence, but to
   protect them in their departure from the country. In that,
   too, he was sustained by his government, and the refugees were
   safely sent away. Meantime a more serious cause of quarrel
   between the two countries had risen. A party of sailors on
   shore at Valparaiso, from the United States ship Baltimore,
   had been assailed by a mob, October 16, and two were killed,
   while eighteen were wounded. The United States demanded
   satisfaction, and much angry correspondence ensued, made
   particularly offensive on the Chilean side by an insulting
   circular which Señor Matta, the Chilean Foreign Minister,
   issued December 13, and which he caused to be published in the
   Chilean newspapers. But Señor Matta disappeared from the
   Foreign Department soon after and his successor made
   apologies. "On January 16th the Chilean authorities notified
   Mr. Egan that they would withdraw any offensive passages in
   the Matta circular, and had instructed their Minister in
   Washington to express regret. The apology, thus expressed both
   in Washington and Santiago, was stiff and ungraceful, perhaps
   inadequate; but it was made in good faith. On January 20th,
   evidently feeling that all was now serene, the Chileans
   ventured, acting on a hint of Mr. Blaine's, to ask for Egan's
   withdrawal as a 'persona non grata.' What, therefore, must
   have been the dismay of the Chileans on January 23d, to
   receive an official notice, which the newspapers dubbed an
   'ultimatum,' containing the statement that the United States
   Government was not satisfied with the result of the judicial
   investigation at Valparaiso and still asked 'for a suitable
   apology;' that for the Matta note there must be still another
   'suitable apology,' without which the United States would
   terminate diplomatic relations; and that the request for Mr.
   Egan's withdrawal could not at that time be considered. It was
   a bitter draught for any government; but threats of war were
   resounding through the United States; American naval vessels
   were hurriedly being made ready; coal and supplies were going
   into the Pacific. There was power behind the note, and Chile
   prepared to bend to the storm. The 'ultimatum' appears to have
   reached the Chileans on Saturday, January 23d. On Monday,
   January 25th, they sent an answer which could not possibly be
   read as anything but a complete and abject apology on all the
   three points." But on the same day on which this answer was
   being forwarded, the President of the United States sent a
   warlike message to Congress. "It rehearsed the whole
   controversy at great length, submitted copious correspondence,
   and ended with the significant phrase: 'In my opinion I ought
   not to delay longer to bring these matters to the attention of
   Congress for such action as may be deemed appropriate.' … It
   is an unprofitable controversy as to whether the authorities
   in Washington knew that an answer was on its way: if they had
   read the correspondence they knew that an answer must come,
   and that the Chilean Ministry must sent a peaceful answer. It
   is therefore difficult to understand the purpose of the
   President's message. … The effect … was to inflict an
   unnecessary humiliation on Chile. Spanish-Americans have good
   memories. Mexico still cherishes resentment for the war begun
   against her forty-five years ago; and forty-five years hence
   the Chileans are likely to remember the Balmaceda affair as
   Americans remembered the impressment of American seamen by
   Great Britain. We have the apology, but with it we have the
   ill-will."

      A. B. Hart,
      Practical Essays on American Government,
      essay 5.

CHINA,
   Education in.

      See EDUCATION (pages 675 and 724).

CHINA,
   Imperial Library of.

      See LIBRARIES, MODERN: CHINA (page 2024).

CHINA,
   Mediæval trade with India and the West.

      See (in this Supplement) COMMERCE, MEDIÆVAL.

CHINA,
   Paper Money, ancient.

      See MONEY AND BANKING: CHINA (page 2200}.

CHINA,
   War with Japan.

      See (in this Supplement) COREA.

CHOLERA, Asiatic, The visitations of.

      See PLAGUE: 19TH CENTURY (page 2543).

CHRISTIAN BROTHERS, The.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN (page 739).

CHRISTIAN SOCIALISM.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1816-1886 (page 2939).

CID, The.

      See (in this Supplement)
      SPAIN: A. D. 1034-1090.

CIVIL SERVICE REFORM:
   Progress in the United States.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1895 (page 3586).

CLARK UNIVERSITY, The founding of.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN (page 738).

CLEVELAND, Grover.
   Message on the Tariff question.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION: A. D. 1884-1888 (page 3083).

   Special Message on the National Finances.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1895 (page 3586).

COCHIN-CHINA.

      See TONKIN(page 3141).

CODES, New York.

      See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1848-1883, and 1848 (page 1979).

COINAGE.

      See MONEY, &c. (page 2198).

COLET, John, and St. Paul's School.

      See EDUCATION, RENAISSANCE (page 707).

COLLECTIVISM.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: DEFINITION OF TERMS (page 2933).

COLLEGES.

      See EDUCATION (page 673) and the same in this Supplement.

COLUMBIA COLLEGE, The founding of.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN (page 730).

COMENIUS, and Educational Reform.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN (page 739).

{3696}

   ----------COMMERCE: Start--------

COMMERCE:
   Ancient.
   The Earliest Records of Trade.

   Probably the oldest commercial record that exists was found
   sculptured on the rocks in the valley of Hammamat, east from
   Koptos on the Nile. It relates to an expedition which was sent
   out by the Pharaoh Sankh-ka-ra, to trade in the "land of
   Punt." Dr. Brugsch fixes the reign of Sankh-ka-ra at about
   2500 B. C., which is five or six centuries before the time
   when Abraham is supposed to have lived. The "land of Punt" he
   considers to have been the Somali coast of Africa, south of
   the extremity of the Red Sea, on the Gulf of Aden. Other
   writers maintain that it was southern Arabia. It was the "Holy
   Land" of the Egyptians, from which their gods were supposed to
   have anciently come. The trading expedition of Sankh-ka-ra was
   commanded by one Hannu (a name which has a Phœnician sound)
   and it is he who tells the story of it in the inscription at
   Hammamat. "I was sent," he says, "to conduct ships to the
   country of Punt, to bring back odoriferous gums." He then
   describes the army of 3,000 men which accompanied him, and
   narrates their march from Koptos to the Red Sea, through the
   desert, at several stations in which they dug reservoirs for
   water. "I arrived," he continues, "at the port Seba [believed
   to be the harbor now called Koseir or Quosseir] and I made
   transport vessels to bring back all kinds of products. I made
   a great offering of oxen, cows and goats. When I returned from
   Seba I executed the order of his Majesty; I brought him back
   all kinds of products which I met with in the ports of the
   Holy Land. I came back by Uak and Rohan. I brought back
   precious stones for the statues of the temples. Never was a
   like thing done since there were kings." It would seem from
   this that Hannu's expedition opened the first direct trade of
   the Egyptians with the land of Punt. But it is evident that
   they already had knowledge of the country and of its products,
   and it is probable they had formerly been receiving its gums
   and precious stones through the traders of some other country.
   Some seven or eight centuries after Hannu's voyage to Punt was
   made, we obtain in the Bible a most interesting glimpse of the
   trade then going on between Egypt and surrounding countries.
   It is found in the story of Joseph. When Joseph's brethren
   threw him into a pit, intending that he should be left there
   to die, their plans were changed by seeing a "Company of
   Ishmaelites from Gilead with their camels bearing spicery and
   balm and myrrh, going to carry it down to Egypt." Then Judah
   said, "let us sell him to the Ishmaelites," and when these
   "Midianites, merchantmen," as they are called in the next
   verse, came near, the heartless brothers of Joseph drew him
   out of the pit and sold him, to be taken as a slave into
   Egypt. Now this story is found to agree well with other facts
   that have been learned, and which go to show that some, at
   least, among the ancient tribes in northern Arabia—the
   Ishmaelites of the Bible—were great traders between the richer
   countries that surrounded them. The Midianites and Edomites,
   who occupied the region near the head of the Red Sea, were
   especially the masters of that trade. Their poor land, which
   gave them little to subsist upon, had one gift for its people
   that went far toward making up for its barren poverty. It gave
   them the camel—that strange and homely beast, which is better
   fitted than any other for bearing burdens and for making long
   journeys without food or drink. At a later day they acquired
   the horse, from Media or from Mesopotamia, and bred that noble
   animal to such perfection that Arabia was long supposed to be
   its native home. But in Joseph's time the horse can hardly
   have been in use among the Arabs, since it seems to have been
   unknown in Egypt, which they constantly visited, until a
   considerably later day. However that may be, the camel was
   always the Arab's most useful servant—his carrier, his patient
   burden-bearer, his "ship of the desert," as Eastern poets have
   fitly named it. By the poverty of their country, by their
   wandering disposition, by their possession of the camel, and
   by their geographical situation, intermediate between several
   of the richest regions of antiquity, these Arabs of the olden
   time must have naturally been made a trading people, as early
   as it became possible for trade to exist. To the west of them
   was Egypt, with its fertile basin of the Nile and its
   remarkable people, probably first among all races that we know
   to rise out of barbarism and acquire order and industrial
   arts. To the east, in the valley of the Euphrates and Tigris,
   were the fertile plains of Mesopotamia, where the second
   oldest civilization that Is known was growing up. To the north
   were Canaan and Gilead, the Scripture "land of promise," full
   of vineyards, of pastures and of harvest fields, with wide
   Syria beyond, and with Phœnician merchant cities just rising
   along the coast of the sea. To the south, in their own
   peninsula, was Arabia Felix, or Arabia the Blest, a famous
   land of pleasantness and plenty in ancient days. With their
   caravans of camels they traveled back and forth, very busily,
   no doubt, through the desert, which needed no building of
   bridges or making of roads. In one direction they carried the
   barley, wheat, millet, flax and woven goods of Egypt; in
   another, the honey, wine, wax, wool, skins, gums, resins and
   asphalt of Canaan and Syria; in still another the more costly
   freight of gold ornaments, precious stones, pearls, ivory,
   ebony, spices and fragrant gums from the south. In all
   directions, it is probable, they dragged poor unfortunates
   like Joseph, whom they bought or kidnapped from home and
   friends, to sell as slaves.

COMMERCE:
   Babylonia.

   "The industry of the Babylonians quickly attained great skill
   and wide development. They were famous for their weaving in
   wool and linen. The nations of the West agree in acknowledging
   the excellence of the cloths and coloured stuffs of Babylonia.
   Their pottery was excellent and the manufacture active; the
   preparation of glass was not unknown; the ointments prepared
   in Babylon were famous and much sought after, and the stones
   cut there were highly valued. The products of Babylonian skill
   and industry were first brought to their kinsmen in Syria, who
   could offer oil and wine in exchange. In the Hebrew scriptures
   we find Babylonian cloaks in use in Syria before the
   immigration of the Hebrews into Canaan. … The rough material
   required by Babylonian industry was supplied in the first
   place by the Arabs, who exchanged their animals, skins, and
   wool for corn and weapons.
{3697}
   Wine, and more especially wood, of which there was none in
   Babylonia, were brought by the Armenians from their valleys in
   the north down the Euphrates to Babylon. Before 1500 B. C. the
   commerce of the Arabs brought the products of South Arabia,
   the spices of Yemen, and even the products and manufactures of
   India, especially their silks, which reached the coasts of
   Southern Arabia, to Babylon. The Babylonians required the
   perfumes of Arabia and India to prepare their ointments. …
   When the cities of Phenicia became great centres of trade
   which carried the wares of Babylonia by sea to the West in
   order to obtain copper in exchange, the trade between
   Babylonia and Syria must have become more lively still. It was
   the ships of the Phenicians which brought the cubic measure,
   and the weights, and the cubit of Babylonia to the shores of
   Greece, and caused them to be adopted there."

      M. Duncker,
      History of Antiquity,
      book 2, chapter 3 (volume 1).

      See, also, MONEY AND BANKING (page 2199).

COMMERCE:
   Egypt.

   "In ancient Egypt agricultural counted for more than
   manufactures, and manufactures were of more importance than
   commerce. The trade which existed was brisk enough as far as
   it went, but it aimed at little more than the satisfaction of
   local wants by the more or less direct exchange of commodities
   between producers. The limited development of internal traffic
   was due to two principal causes: the natural products of
   different parts of the country were too much alike for much
   intercourse to be necessary for purposes of exchange, and the
   conformation of the country, in itself scarcely larger than
   Belgium, was such as to give the longest possible distance
   from north to south. … The Nile was the only known highway, so
   much so that the language scarcely possessed a general word
   for travelling; going southward was called 'going up stream,'
   and a journey to the north, even by land into the desert, was
   described by a term meaning to sail with the current. … While
   internal traffic was thus brought to a minimum by natural
   causes, foreign commerce can scarcely be said to have existed,
   before the establishment of peaceable intercourse with Syria
   under the new empire. The importation of merchandize from
   foreign countries was a political rather than a commercial
   affair. Such foreign wares as entered the country came as
   tribute, as the spoil of war, or as memorials of peaceful
   embassies. … The list of the spoil taken by Thothmes III.
   gives a tolerably exhaustive account of the treasures of the
   time. It includes, of course, bulls, cows, kids, white goats,
   mares, foals, oxen, geese, and corn; then follow strange
   birds, negroes, men and maid-servants, noble prisoners and the
   children of defeated kings, chariots of copper, plated with
   gold and silver, iron armour, bows, swords and other
   accoutrements, leather collars ornamented with brass, gold and
   silver rings, cups, dishes and other utensils, vessels of iron
   and copper, statues with heads of gold, ell-measures with
   heads of ivory, ebony, and cedar inlaid with gold, chairs,
   tables and footstools of cedar wood and ivory, a plough inlaid
   with gold, blocks of bluestone, greenstone and lead, 'a golden
   storm-cap inlaid with bluestone,' jars of balsam, oil, wine
   and honey, various kinds of precious woods, incense,
   alabaster, precious stones and colours, iron columns for a
   tent with precious stones in them, bricks of pure brass,
   elephants' tusks, natron, and, finally, by way of curiosity,
   from the land of the kings of Ruthen, three battle-axes of
   flint."

      E. J. Simcox,
      Primitive Civilizations,
      book 1, chapter 3, section. 1 (volume 1).

      See, also, MONEY AND BANKING (page 2199).

COMMERCE:
   India.

   "It is said in the Rig-Veda that 'merchants desirous of gain
   crowd the great waters with their ships.' And the activity in
   trade, thus early noted, has continued ever since to be
   characteristic of the country. Professor Lassen considers it
   remarkable that Hindus themselves discovered the rich,
   luxurious character of India's products. Many of the same
   beasts, birds, and fragrant oils are produced in other
   countries, but remain unnoticed until sought for by
   foreigners; whereas the most ancient of the Hindus had a keen
   enjoyment in articles of taste or luxury. Rajas and other rich
   people delighted in sagacious elephants, swift horses,
   splendid peacocks, golden decorations, exquisite perfumes,
   pungent peppers, ivory, pearls, gems, &c.; and, consequently,
   caravans were in constant requisition to carry these, and
   innumerable other matters, between the north and the south,
   and the east and the west, of their vast and varied country.
   These caravans, it is conjectured, were met at border
   stations, and at out-ports, by western caravans or ships bound
   to or from Tyre and Egypt, or to or from the Persian Gulf and
   the Red Sea. To the appearance of India goods in Greece,
   Professor Lassen attributes the Greek invasion of India. … The
   indirect evidence afforded by the presence of India's products
   in other ancient countries, coincides with the direct
   testimony of Sanskrit literature, to establish the fact that
   ancient Hindus were a commercial people. The code of Manu
   requires the king to determine the prices of commodities, and
   also the trustworthiness of the weights and measures used. And
   that the transactions contemplated were not restricted to
   local products is evident from reference to the charges for
   freight for articles in river boats, and the undetermined and
   larger charges to which sea-borne goods were liable. The
   account of King Yudhishthira's coronation in the Mahâbhârata
   affords an instance of precious articles from distant lands
   brought into India. So also in the Ramayana, we read that when
   Rama and his brothers were married, the brides were clad in
   silk from China. … Merchants are constantly being introduced
   into Sanskrit fiction, and equally often into Buddhist legend.
   They seem to have been always at hand to give variety and
   movement to the monotony of daily life."

      Mrs. Manning,
      Ancient and Mediæval India,
      chapter 40 (volume 2).

COMMERCE:
   Phœnicians and Carthaginians.

   "The Phœnicians for some centuries confined their navigation
   within the limits of the Mediterranean, the Propontis, and the
   Euxine, land-locked seas, which are tideless and far less
   rough than the open ocean. But before the time of Solomon they
   had passed the pillars of Hercules, and affronted the dangers
   of the Atlantic. Their frail and small vessels, scarcely
   bigger than modern fishing-smacks, proceeded southwards along
   the West African coast, as far as the tract watered by the
   Gambia and Senegal, while northwards they coasted along Spain,
   braved the heavy seas of the Bay of Biscay, and passing Cape
   Finisterre, ventured across the mouth of the English Channel
   to the Cassiterides.
{3698}
   Similarly, from the West African shore, they boldly steered
   for the Fortunate Islands (the Canaries), visible from certain
   elevated points of the coast, though at 170 miles distance.
   Whether they proceeded further, in the south to the Azores,
   Madeira, and the Cape de Verde Islands, in the north to the
   coast of Holland, and across the German Ocean to the Baltic,
   we regard as uncertain. It is possible that from time to time
   some of the more adventurous of their traders may have reached
   thus far; but their regular, settled and established
   navigation did not, we believe, extend beyond the Scilly
   Islands and coast of Cornwall to the north-west, and to the
   south-west Cape Non and the Canaries. The commerce of the
   Phœnicians was carried on, to a large extent, by land, though
   principally by sea. It appears from the famous chapter [xxvii]
   of Ezekiel which describes the 'riches and greatness of Tyre
   in the 6th century B. C., that almost the whole of Western
   Asia was penetrated by the Phœnician caravans, and laid under
   contribution to increase the wealth of the Phœnician traders.
   … Translating this glorious burst of poetry into prose, we
   find the following countries mentioned as carrying on an
   active trade with the Phœnician metropolis:—Northern Syria,
   Syria of Damascus, Judah and the laud of Israel, Egypt,
   Arabia, Babylonia, Assyria, Upper Mesopotamia, Armenia,
   Central Asia Minor, Ionia, Cyprus, Hellas or Greece, and
   Spain."

      G. Rawlinson,
      History of Phœnicia,
      chapter 9.

   "Though the invincible industry and enterprise of the
   Phenicians maintained them as a people of importance down to
   the period of the Roman empire, yet the period of their widest
   range and greatest efficiency is to be sought much
   earlier—anterior to 700 B. C. In these remote times they and
   their colonists [the Carthaginians especially] were the
   exclusive navigators of the Mediterranean: the rise of the
   Greek maritime settlements banished their commerce to a great
   degree from the Ægean Sea, and embarrassed it even in the more
   westerly waters. Their colonial establishments were formed in
   Africa, Sicily, Sardinia, the Balearic Isles, and Spain. The
   greatness as well as the antiquity of Carthage, Utica, and
   Gades, attest the long-sighted plans of Phenician traders,
   even in days anterior to the first Olympiad. We trace the
   wealth and industry of Tyre, and the distant navigation of her
   vessels through the Red Sea and along the coast of Arabia,
   back to the days of David and Solomon. And as neither
   Egyptians, Assyrians, Persians, or Indians, addressed
   themselves to a sea-faring life, so it seems that both the
   importation and the distribution of the products of India and
   Arabia into Western Asia and Europe were performed by the
   Idumæan Arabs between Petra and the Red Sea—by the Arabs of
   Gerrha on the Persian Gulf, joined as they were in later times
   by a body of Chaldæan exiles from Babylonia—and by the more
   enterprising Phenicians of Tyre and Sidon in these two seas as
   well as in the Mediterranean."

      G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 18.

   "The Commerce of Carthage may be conveniently considered under
   its two great branches—the trade with Africa, and the trade
   with Europe. The trade with Africa … was carried on with the
   barbarous tribes of the inland country that could be reached
   by caravans, and of the sea-coast. Of both we hear something
   from Herodotus, the writer who furnishes us with most of our
   knowledge about these parts of the ancient world. … The goods
   with which the Carthaginian merchants traded with the African
   tribes were doubtless such as those which civilized nations
   have always used in their dealings with savages. Cheap finery,
   gaudily coloured cloths, and arms of inferior quality, would
   probably be their staple. Salt, too, would be an important
   article. … The articles which they would receive in exchange
   for their goods are easily enumerated. In the first place
   comes … gold. Carthage seems to have had always at hand an
   abundant supply of the precious metal for use, whether as
   money or as plate. Next to gold would come slaves. … Ivory
   must have been another article of Carthaginian trade, though
   we hear little about it. The Greeks used it extensively in
   art. … Precious stones seem to have been another article which
   the savages gave in exchange for the goods they coveted. …
   Perhaps we may add dates to the list of articles obtained from
   the interior. The European trade dealt, of course, partly with
   the things already mentioned, and partly with other articles
   for which the Carthaginian merchants acted as carriers, so to
   speak, from one part of the Mediterranean to another. Lipara,
   and the other volcanic islands near the southern extremity of
   Italy, produced resin; Agrigentum, and possibly other cities
   of Sicily, traded in sulphur brought down from the region of
   Etna; wine was produced in many of the Mediterranean
   countries. Wax and honey were the staple goods of Corsica.
   Corsican slaves, too, were highly valued. The Iron of Elba,
   the fruit and the cattle of the Balearic islands, and, to go
   further, the tin and copper of Britain, and even amber from
   the Baltic, were articles of Carthaginian commerce. Trade was
   carried on not only with the dwellers on the coast, but with
   inland tribes. Thus goods were transported across Spain to the
   interior of Gaul, the jealousy of Massilia (Marseilles) not
   permitting the Carthaginians to have any trading stations on
   the southern coast of that country."

      A. J. Church and A. Gilman,
      The Story of Carthage,
      part 3, chapter 3.

   A high authority on questions of intercourse in ancient times
   throws doubt on the supposed African caravan trade of the
   Carthaginians—as follows: "There seems no doubt that the
   existing system of caravan trade dates only from the
   introduction of Islamism into Africa. It was the Arabs who
   first introduced the camel into Northern Africa, and without
   camels any extensive intercourse with the interior was
   impossible. The Negro races have never shown any disposition
   to avail themselves of this mode of transport, and at the
   present day the commerce of the interior is carried on almost
   entirely by Moorish, that is, by Mohammedan, traders. The
   spread of Islamism has doubtless led to increased
   communication from another cause, the necessity for the
   Mohammedan inhabitants of the outlying and detached regions of
   the continent to make the pilgrimage to Mecca. Even in the
   most flourishing times of the Carthaginians they do not appear
   to have made any use of camels; and as late as the days of
   Strabo the communications with the tribes of Western Africa
   who dwelt beyond the Sahara were scanty and irregular. In the
   time of Herodotus there is certainly no indication that either
   the Carthaginians or the Greeks of the Cyrenaica had any
   commercial intercourse with the regions beyond the Great
   Desert."

      E. H. Bunbury,
      History of Ancient Geography,
      chapter 8, note I (volume 1).

      See, also, PHŒNICIANS (pages 2530-2534);
      and CARTHAGE (pages 392-395).

{3699}

COMMERCE:
   Jews.

   Beginning early in his reign, Solomon made great and
   enlightened efforts to promote the commerce and industries of
   the people of Israel. "To increase the land traffic, he had
   small cities built in advantageous localities, in which goods
   of all sorts in large quantities were kept in suitable
   storehouses; a practice similar to that which had from ancient
   times prevailed in Egypt. … They were established chiefly in
   the most northern districts of Israel, towards the Phœnician
   boundaries, as well as in the territories of the kingdom of
   Hamath, which was first conquered by Solomon himself.—The main
   road for the land traffic between Egypt and the interior of
   Asia must have been the great highway leading past Gaza and
   further west of Jerusalem to the Northern Jordan and Damascus.
   Here it was joined by the road from the Phœnician cities, and
   continued as far as Thapsacus, on the Euphrates. This was
   entirely in the dominions of the king; and here, under the
   peaceful banner of a great and powerful monarchy, commerce
   could flourish as it had never flourished before. It was
   clearly for the improvement of this route, which had to
   traverse the Syrian desert on the north, that Solomon built,
   in a happily chosen oasis of this wilderness, the city of
   Thammor, or Tadmor, of which the Greek version is Palmyra.
   There is not a single indication that this city was of
   importance before Solomon's time, but from that era it
   flourished for more than a thousand years. … For any distant
   navigation, however, Solomon was obliged to rely on the aid of
   the Phœnicians, inasmuch as they were in that age the only
   nation which possessed the necessary ability and inclination
   for it. It is true that the idea of competing with the
   Phœnicians upon the Mediterranean could hardly have occurred
   to him, since they had long before that time attracted all the
   commerce upon it to themselves, and would scarcely have
   desired or even tolerated such a rival. … But the Red Sea,
   which had been thrown open to the kings of Israel by the
   conquest of the Idumeans, offered the finest opportunity for
   the most distant and lucrative undertakings, the profit of
   which might perfectly satisfy a nation in the position of
   Israel in the dawn of maritime activity; and on their part,
   the Phœnicians could not fail to be most willing helpers in
   the promotion of undertakings which it lay in the hands of the
   powerful king of Israel entirely to cut off from them, or at
   any rate to encumber with great difficulties. In this way the
   mutual desires and needs of two nations coincided without any
   injury to the one or the other. … Phœnician sailors were at
   first, it is true, the teachers of the Israelite. It was they
   who aided them in constructing and manning the tall ships,
   which, destined to distant voyages upon uncertain seas, needed
   to be strongly built; but yet how many new ideas and what
   varied knowledge the nation would in this way acquire! The
   ships were built in Ezion-geber, the harbour of the town of
   Elath (or Eloth), probably on the very spot where Akaba now
   stands. The cargo brought back each time from the three years'
   voyage consisted of 420 talents of gold, besides silver,
   ivory, red sandal-wood, apes, and peacocks, probably also nard
   and aloe."

      H. Ewald,
      History of Israel,
      volume 3, page 261-264.

COMMERCE:
   Greeks.

   "When the Greeks had established themselves, not only on the
   peninsula, but also on the islands and on the east coast of
   the Ægean Sea, their navigation was greatly extended. That
   this, even in the first half of the 8th century, was
   profitable in its results, we see from the instance of Dius of
   Cyme, the father of Hesiod, who maintained himself in this
   manner. The works of art in which Lydia and Caria excelled,
   together with the products and manufactures of the east, which
   reached the western coasts of Asia, the products of these
   coasts, and wine and oil from Lesbos and Samos—all these could
   be shipped from the Greek maritime cities of Asia Minor, and
   carried to the peninsula. It was through this commerce … that
   Chalcis and Eretria laid the foundation of their greatness. To
   what proportions it had attained, even in the course of the
   8th century, we find from the mint marks of Phocæa and Cyme,
   the standards of Chalcis and Eretria, the coins and weights
   and measures of Phidon of Argos. … From the middle of the 8th
   century, the Greeks no longer merely practised navigation;
   they became, in an eminent sense, a maritime nation. At the
   time when Sinope and Trapezus were founded in the east, Naxos,
   Catana, and Syracuse in Sicily, and Cyme in Campania, a
   nautical discovery had already been made, by means of which
   the Greeks surpassed the Phœnicians, the ancient voyagers of
   Syria; this was the building of triremes. To what an extent
   and proficiency must seamanship have attained, what importance
   naval battles must have assumed, to give rise to the attempt
   to replace the ancient war vessels by others of a far more
   powerful kind! When the first triremes were built at Corinth
   and Samos, about the year 700 B. C., Greek cities already
   existed on the southern shore of the Black Sea, on the coasts
   of Thrace, in Corcyra and Sicily; the southern coast of Italy
   had also been colonised. The products of Greek industry,
   pottery, implements, and weapons, were advantageously bartered
   on the coasts of the Thracians, Scythians, Illyrians,
   Sicilians, and Oscans, for the fruits of the soil, and for the
   cattle of those regions. The need of the means of exchange
   must have given great encouragement and impetus to
   manufactures in the Greek cities of the peninsula, on the
   coasts of Asia, and in the newly-founded Asiatic settlements
   themselves. … Navigation and commerce must have become
   permanent occupations. And the great increase of manufactures
   must also have given employment to numbers of the country
   people. Thus there grew up under the very rule of the
   aristocracy a powerful rival to itself; a nautical, artisan,
   commercial class, side by side with the land population. If
   the protecting walls of the chief place of the canton had
   previously been sought only in time of need, in case of
   surprises or hostile landings, the new industrial classes were
   now settled together in the harbours and centres of trade.
   Handicrafts, navigation, and commerce, could not exist without
   one another. In the maritime cantons on the east of the
   peninsula, and in the cantons on the coasts of the
   Peloponnesus, there sprang up simultaneously with the burgher
   class a town population."

      M. Duncker,
      History of Greece,
      book 4, chapter 2 (volume 2).

{3700}

   "Between 700 B. C. and 530 B. C., we observe … an immense
   extension of Grecian maritime activity and commerce—but we at
   the same time notice the decline of Tyre and Sidon, both in
   power and traffic. The arms of Nebuchadnezzar reduced the
   Phenician cities to the same state of dependence as that which
   the Ionian cities underwent half a century later from Crœsus
   and Cyrus; while the ships of Miletus, Phokæa and Samos
   gradually spread over all those waters of the Levant which had
   once been exclusively Phenician. In the year 704 B. C., the
   Samians did not yet possess a single trireme: down to the year
   630 B. C. not a single Greek vessel had yet visited Libya. But
   when we reach 550 B. C. we find the Ionic ships predominant in
   the Ægean, and those of Corinth and Korkyra in force to the
   west of Peloponnesus—we see the flourishing cities of Kyrene
   and Barka already rooted in Libya, and the port of Naukratis a
   busy emporium of Grecian commerce with Egypt. The trade by
   land—which is all that Egypt had enjoyed prior to
   Psammetichus, and which was exclusively conducted by
   Phenicians—is exchanged for a trade by sea, of which the
   Phenicians have only a share, and seemingly a smaller share
   than the Greeks. Moreover the conquest by Amasis of the island
   of Cyprus, half-filled with Phenician settlements and once the
   tributary dependency of Tyre—affords an additional mark of the
   comparative decline of that great city. In her commerce with
   the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf she still remained without a
   competitor, the schemes of the Egyptian king Nekos having
   proved abortive. Even in the time of Herodotus, the spices and
   frankincense of Arabia were still brought and distributed only
   by the Phenician merchant. But on the whole, both political
   and industrial development of Tyre are now cramped by
   impediments, and kept down by rivals, not before in operation.
   … The 6th century B. C., though a period of decline for Tyre
   and Sidon, was a period of growth for their African colony
   Carthage, which appears during this century in considerable
   traffic with the Tyrrhenian towns on the southern coast of
   Italy, and as thrusting out the Phokæan settlers from Alalia
   in Corsica."

      G. Grote,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 21.

   "It is a remarkable fact in the history of Greek colonies that
   the exploration of the extreme west of the Mediterranean was
   not undertaken either by the adventurers who settled at Cyme,
   or by the powerful cities of Sicily. A century or more elapsed
   from the foundation of Syracuse before any Greek vessel was
   seen on the coast of Spain or Liguria, and when the new
   beginning was made, it was not made by any of the colonies,
   Chalcidian, Dorian, or Rhodian, which had taken part in the
   discovery of the West. It was the Phocaeans of Ionia,
   Herodotus tells us, who first made the Greeks acquainted with
   the Hadriatic, with Tyrrhenia, Iberia (Spain), and Tartessus
   (the region round Cadiz). The first impulse to these distant
   voyages arose from a mere accident. At the time of the
   foundation of Cyrene, about the year 630 B. C., a Greek of
   Samos, by name Colaeus, when on his way to Egypt, was carried
   by contrary winds beyond the pillars of Heracles to Tartessus.
   There he found a virgin market, from which he returned to
   realise a profit of 60 talents (£12,000), an amount only
   surpassed by the gains of Sostratus of Aegina, who was the
   premier of Greek merchants. But this was the beginning and the
   end of Samian trade to the West; why they left it to the
   Phocaeans to enter into the riches which they had discovered,
   we cannot say, but within thirty years of this date, the
   enterprising Ionian town sent out a colony to Massilia near
   the mouth of the Rhone, in the district known as Liguria. …
   The mouth of the Rhone was the point where all the routes met
   which traversed France from the English Channel to the Gulf of
   Genoa. Of these Strabo specifies three. Merchandise was
   carried by boats up the Rhone and Saône, from which it was
   transferred to the Seine, and so passed down the river; or it
   was taken by land from Marseilles (or Narbo) to the Loire; or
   again carried up the Aude and transported thence to the
   Garonne. By one or other of these routes, the wares collected
   by the Gaulish merchants—more especially the tin, which they
   imported from Britain—was brought into the Greek market, if
   indeed it was not carried on pack-horses straight across the
   narrowest part of the country. The importance of these lines
   of transit at a time when the western Mediterranean was held
   by the Carthaginians, and the northern Hadriatic by the
   Tyrrhenians, can hardly be over-estimated. The colonists
   extended their borders by degrees, though not without severe
   contests with the Ligurians and Tyrrhenians by sea and land.
   New cities were founded to serve as outposts against the
   enemy; Agatha in the direction of the barbarians of the Rhone;
   Olbia, Antipolis, and Nicaea in the direction of the Salyans
   and Ligurians of the Alps. They also spread themselves down
   the coast of Spain."

      E. Abbott,
      History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 13.

COMMERCE:
   Rome.

   "Rome, placed like a mightier Mexico in the centre of her
   mighty lake, was furnished with every luxury and with many of
   her chief necessaries from beyond the waters; and cities on
   every coast, nearly similar in latitude and climate, vied in
   intense rivalry with each other in ministering to her
   appetite. First in the ranks of commerce was the traffic in
   corn, which was conducted by large fleets of galleys, sailing
   from certain havens once a year at stated periods, and pouring
   their stores into her granaries in their appointed order. Gaul
   and Spain, Sardinia and Sicily, Africa and Egypt were all
   wheat-growing countries, and all contributed of their produce,
   partly as a tax, partly also as an article of commerce, to the
   sustentation of Rome and Italy. The convoy from Alexandria was
   looked for with the greatest anxiety, both as the heaviest
   laden, and as from the length of the voyage the most liable to
   disaster or detention. The vessels which bore the corn of
   Egypt were required to hoist their topsails on sighting the
   promontory of Surrentum, both to distinguish them from others,
   and to expedite their arrival. These vessels moreover,
   according to the institution of Augustus, were of more than
   ordinary size, and they were attended by an escort of war
   galleys. The importance attached to this convoy was marked by
   the phrases, 'auspicious' and 'sacred,' applied to it. … A
   deputation of senators from Rome was directed to await its
   arrival at the port where it was about to cast anchor, which,
   from the bad condition of the haven at Ostia, was generally at
   this period Puteoli in Campania.
{3701}
   As soon as the well-known topsails were seen above the horizon
   a general holiday was proclaimed, and the population of the
   country, far and near, streamed with joyous acclamations to
   the pier, and gazed upon the rich flotilla expanding gaily
   before them. The vessels engaged in this trade, however
   numerous, were after all of small burden. The corn-fleets did
   not indeed form the chief maritime venture of the
   Alexandrians. The products of India, which had formerly
   reached Egypt from Arabia, and were supposed indeed in Europe
   to have come only from the shores of the Erythræan Sea, were
   now conveyed direct to Cleopatris or Berenice from the mouths
   of the Indus and the coast of Malabar, and employed an
   increasing number of vessels, which took advantage of the
   periodical trade winds both in going and returning. The
   articles of which they went in quest were for the most part
   objects of luxury; such as ivory and tortoise shell, fabrics
   of cotton and silk, both then rare and costly, pearls and
   diamonds, and more especially gums and spices. The consumption
   of these latter substances in dress, in cookery, in the
   service of the temples, and above all at funerals, advanced
   with the progress of wealth and refinement. The consignments
   which reached Alexandria from the East were directed to every
   port on the Mediterranean; but there was no corresponding
   demand for the produce of the West in India, and these
   precious freights were for the most part exchanged for gold
   and silver, of which the drain from Europe to Asia was
   uninterrupted. The amount of the precious metals thus
   abstracted from the currency or bullion of the empire, was
   estimated at 100,000,000 sesterces, or about £800,000 yearly.
   The reed called papyrus, the growth of which seems to have
   been almost confined to the banks of the Nile, was in general
   use as the cheapest and most convenient writing material, and
   the consumption of it throughout the world, though it never
   entirely superseded the use of parchment and waxen tablets,
   must have been immense. It was converted into paper in Egypt,
   and thence exported in its manufactured state; but this
   practice was not universal, for we read of a house at Rome
   which improved on the native process, and produced what Pliny
   calls an imperial or noble out of a mere plebeian texture.
   With respect to other articles of general use, it may be
   remarked that the most important, such as corn, wine, oil, and
   wool, were the common produce of all the coasts of the
   Mediterranean, and there was accordingly much less interchange
   of these staple commodities among the nations of antiquity
   than with ourselves, whose relations extend through so many
   zones of temperature. Hence, probably, we hear of none of
   their great cities becoming the workshops or emporiums of the
   world for any special article of commerce. The woollens indeed
   of Miletus and Laodicea, together with other places of Asia
   Minor, were renowned for their excellence, and may have been
   transported as articles of luxury to distant parts; but Africa
   and Spain, Italy and parts of Greece, were also breeders of
   sheep, and none of these countries depended for this prime
   necessary on the industry or cupidity of foreigners. The
   finest qualities of Greek and Asiatic wines were bespoken at
   Rome, and at every other great seat of luxury. The Chian and
   Lesbian vintages were among the most celebrated. … Again,
   while the clothing of the mass of the population was made
   perhaps mainly from the skins of animals, leather of course
   could be obtained abundantly in almost every locality. When we
   remember that the ancients had neither tea, coffee, tobacco,
   sugar, nor for the most part spirits; that they made little
   use of glass, and at this period had hardly acquired a taste
   for fabrics of silk, cotton, or even flax, we shall perceive
   at a glance how large a portion of the chief articles of our
   commerce was entirely wanting to theirs. Against this
   deficiency, however, many objects of great importance are to
   be set. Though the ruder classes were content with wooden cups
   and platters fashioned at their own doors, the transport of
   earthenware of the finer and more precious kinds, and from
   certain localities, was very considerable. Though the Greeks
   and Romans generally were without some of our commonest
   implements of gold and silver, such for instance as watches
   and forks, it is probable that they indulged even more than we
   do in personal decoration with rings, seals, and trinkets of a
   thousand descriptions. … The conveyance of wild animals,
   chiefly from Africa, for the sports of the amphitheatres of
   some hundreds of cities throughout the empire, must alone have
   given occupation to a large fleet of ships and many thousand
   mariners. Nor were the convoys smaller which were employed to
   transport marble from the choicest quarries of Greece and Asia
   to many flourishing cities besides the metropolis. … After due
   deduction for the more contracted sphere of ancient commerce,
   and the lesser number of articles, for the extent also to
   which the necessaries and conveniences of life were
   manufactured at home in the establishments of wealthy slave
   owners, we shall still readily believe that the
   inter-communication of the cities of the Mediterranean, such
   as Corinth, Rhodes, Ephesus, Cyzicus, Antioch, Tyrus,
   Alexandria, Cyrene, Athens, Carthage, Tarraco, Narbo and
   Massilia, Neapolis and Tarentum, Syracuse and Agrigentum, and
   of all with Rome, must have been a potent instrument in fusing
   into one family the manifold nations of the empire. … In the
   eyes of the Orientals and the Greeks, the mistress of lands
   and continents, the leader of armies, and the builder of roads
   was regarded as the greatest of all maritime emporiums, and
   represented in their figurative style as a woman sitting
   enthroned upon the waves of the Mediterranean. The maritime
   aspect thus assumed by Rome in the eyes of her subjects beyond
   the sea, is the more remarkable when we consider how directly
   her ancient policy and habits were opposed to commercial
   development. … The landowners of Rome, in the highday of her
   insolent adolescence, had denounced both commerce and the arts
   as the business of slaves or freedmen. So late as the year 535
   a law had been passed which forbade a senator to possess a
   vessel of burden, and the traffic which was prohibited to the
   higher class was degraded in the eyes of the lower. … It was …
   by following the natural train of circumstances, and by no
   settled policy of her own, that Rome secured her march across
   the sea, and joined coast to coast with the indissoluble chain
   of her dominion. On land, on the contrary, she constructed her
   military causeways with a fixed and definite purpose. … The
   population of Gaul crept, we know, slowly up the channel of
   the rivers, and the native tracks which conveyed their traffic
   from station to station were guided by these main arteries of
   their vital system.
{3702}
   But the conquerors struck out at once a complete system of
   communication for their own purposes, by means of roads cut or
   built as occasion required, with a settled policy rigidly
   pursued. These high roads, as we may well call them, for they
   were raised above the level of the plains and the banks of the
   rivers, and climbed the loftiest hills, were driven in direct
   lines from point to point, and were stopped by neither forest
   nor marsh nor mountain."

      C. Merivale,
      History of the Romans,
      chapter 39.

COMMERCE:
   Gaul under the Romans and after the fall of the Empire.

   "In the second century of our era, in the time of Trajan and
   the Antonines, Gaul with its fertile fields, its beautiful
   meadows, its magnificent forests, was one of the best
   cultivated countries of the Roman world. It exported into
   Italy grain from Aquitaine, Celtique and from the country of
   the Allobroges (Dauphiné), flax from Cadurques (Quercy) and
   Bituriges (Berry), hemp from Auvergne and the valley of the
   Rhône, spikenard from Provence (valeriana celtica according to
   M. Littré) renowned in the Roman pharmacopœia, oak and pine
   from the immense forests which still covered the Pyrenees, the
   Cevennes, the Alps, the Jura, the Vosges and nearly all the
   north of Gaul (forest of Ardennes), horses from Belgium, wool
   from the Narbonnaise, cheese from the Alps and from Nîmes,
   hams and salt provisions from Séquanaise (Franche-Comté), and
   the Pyrenees. The wines of the Narbonnaise and the valley of
   the Rhône, often adulterated and little relished by the
   Italians, were notwithstanding one of the principal objects of
   commerce in the interior of Gaul, in Great Britain and
   Germany. The oysters of the Mediterranean and even those of
   the Atlantic and the Channel which the ancients had perhaps
   found means of keeping in fresh water, figured upon the tables
   of the gourmets of Rome. We know that long before the
   conquest, the Gauls took gold from the sands of their rivers
   and that in certain regions (Upper Pyrenees), territory of the
   Tarbelles, and Val d'Aoste, territory of the Salasses, they
   extracted gold from the auriferous rocks by processes quite
   analogous to those which are now employed by the great
   Californian companies. These mines which were yet in existence
   under Augustus were not long in being exhausted, but the iron
   of Berry, Sénonais, Perigord, Rouergue, the valley of the
   Rhône and of the Saône, the copper of the Pyrenees
   (Saint-Etienne-de-Baïgorry), of the Alps (country of the
   Centrons, now Upper Savoy), of the Cevennes (Cabrieres in
   Hérault and Chessy in Rhône), the tin of Limousin, the
   argentiferous lead of the territory of the Rutènes (Rouergue),
   of the Gabales (Gévaudan), of the Centrons, etc., were mined
   and wrought with a skill which placed the metallurgy of Gaul
   in the first rank of the industries of the empire. These
   mining operations, superintended by the State, although they
   belonged to the proprietors of the soil, were often directed
   by companies which combined the working of the metal with its
   extraction from the ore. One which had its seat at Lyons is
   known to us by many inscriptions. Textile industries were not
   less flourishing than metallurgy, the manufacture of
   sail-cloth was carried on all over Gaul; the bleached linens
   of Cahors, the carpets of the Narbonnaise, the sagums of
   mingled bright colors were renowned even in Italy. The
   progress of commerce had followed that of agriculture and
   manufacture. The network of Roman roads planned by Agrippa was
   completed and four roads accessible to carriages or beasts of
   burden, crossed the Alps by the passes of the Little (Graius
   Mons) and of the Great Saint-Bernard (Summus Penninus), of
   Mount Genèvre (Mons Matrona) and of the Argentière: the
   Corniche road stretched along the Mediterranean from Genoa to
   Marseilles: those of the pass of Pertus (Summa Pyrenoeco), of
   the valley of Aran, of the Somport, of Roncevaux, and from
   Lapurdum (Bayonne) to Pampeluna connected Gaul to Spain. …
   Notwithstanding the competition of new roads, river navigation
   had retained all its activity. … We know from inscriptions of
   a certain number of associations for water transportation
   which appear to have played a great rôle in the interior
   commerce of Gaul from the first century of our era. The
   boatmen of the Rhône, the Saône, the Durance, the Seine, the
   Loire, the Aar, an affluent of the Rhine, formed corporations
   recognized by the State, organized on the model of cities,
   having their regulations, property, elective chiefs, and
   patronized by great personages who charged themselves with
   defending their interests against the Roman authorities. The
   most celebrated, If not the most important of these
   associations, is that of the Nautæ Parisiaci, the memory of
   which has been preserved to us by the remains of an altar
   raised, under Tiberius, at the point of the Isle of the City
   (the ancient Lutetia) and found in 1711 under the choir of
   Notre-Dame. … The two great commercial ports of the
   Mediterranean were Narbonne and Arles, after Marseilles had
   lost her maritime preponderance and was only a city of
   science, luxury and pleasure. … Immense labor upon embankments
   and canalization which had thrown within Narbonne the mass of
   the river and deepened the maritime channel made of the
   metropolis of the Narbonnaise one of the safest ports upon the
   coast of Gaul. It communicated with the Rhône by the
   navigation of the lakes (étangs) which at that time extended
   without interruption to the western mouth of the river, with
   the ocean by the course of the Garonne, navigable from
   Toulouse (Tolosa). The port of the Garonne was then as now
   Bordeaux (Burdigala) which already had intercourse with Great
   Britain and Spain. Aries, connected with the sea by the canal
   of Marius and perhaps also by the small arm of the Rhône and
   the navigation of the lakes (étangs), was a maritime port and
   at the same time the outlet for the navigation of the Rhône
   which was prolonged by the Saône as far as Chalon
   (Cabillonum). Upon the banks of the river rose the wealthy
   cities of Tarascon, Avignon (Avenio), Orange (Arausio),
   Vienne. Lyons is the commercial and also the political
   metropolis of Gaul, the seat of the most powerful
   manufacturing and commercial companies; the boatmen of the
   Saône and the Rhône, the wine merchants, the mining and
   smelting company of the valley of the Rhône. Above Chalon,
   four great commercial routes start from the valley of the
   Saône. The first ascends the Doubs as far as Besançon
   (Vesuntio) and terminates at the Rhine near Augst (Augusta
   Rauracorum), where the river is already navigable.
{3703}
   The second follows the valley of the Saône and descends by the
   Moselle, navigable above Trèves (Augusta Trevirorum), and by
   the Meuse, toward the middle and lower valley of the Rhine. …
   The third route, that from the Saône to the Loire, set out
   from Chalon, crossed Autun (Augustodunum), and reached the
   Loire above Orleans (Genabum, later Aurelianum). Goods
   embarked upon the river arrived, after a voyage of 870
   kilometers (2,000 stades), at Nantes (Portus Namnetum) which
   appears to have been substituted, about the beginning of the
   first century, for the ancient port of Corbilo and which was
   also in intercourse with Great Britain. The fourth route, that
   from the Saône to the Seine, crossed Autun, was there divided
   into two branches which went by way of Avallon and Alise to
   meet at Sens (Agedincum) on the Yonne, and descended the Seine
   to its mouth by Melun (Melodunum), Paris (Lutetia) and Rouen
   (Rotomagus). This was the shortest route between the new
   province of Britani and the Mediterranean; but the ancients,
   notwithstanding the progress in navigation, always distrusted
   long passages by sea; so the principal emporium of commerce
   with Britani was not Caracotinum (Harfleur), the port of the
   Seine, but Gesoriacum, later Bononia (Boulogne), which is
   distant only 50 kilometers from the English coast. It was
   there that Caligula erected that gigantic pharos known to the
   middle-ages under the name of the tower of Odre and which
   existed until 1645. … When one thinks of Gaul in the second
   half of the 5th century, after those great streams of invasion
   which swept it for fifty years, one easily fancies that the
   flood has carried everything away, that the Roman institutions
   have disappeared, that private fortunes are swallowed up in a
   frightful catastrophe, that the barbarians have enslaved the
   Gallo-Romans, that social life is suspended, manufactures
   ruined, commerce interrupted. This picture which responds to
   the idea we form of a barbarian conquest, is necessarily
   exaggerated, because the Germanic invasion was not a conquest.
   The Germans who established themselves upon the Roman
   territory, those even who had employed force to make a place
   for themselves within it, did not consider themselves
   conquerors, but subjects and soldiers of the Empire: they
   dreamed so little of destroying it that they aspired to serve
   it whether it would or no. Notwithstanding the decadence of
   manufactures and the inevitable disorders which weakness of
   the central power brings in its train, commerce appears to
   have preserved a certain amount of activity. In the 6th
   century, post stages still existed. Upon the Roman roads,
   maintained and repaired by the Merovingians, heavy wagons
   which served for the transportation of goods and travelers
   circulated with their teams of oxen or horses. Royal decrees
   commanded the preservation of towing-paths along navigable
   rivers; the rivers had remained the high-ways of interior
   commerce, and the boatmen's companies of Roman Gaul had
   perhaps survived the fall of the imperial domination. The
   ports of the Atlantic, Bordeaux and Nantes, those of the
   Channel, Alet (between Saint-Malo and Saint-Servan), Rouen,
   Quantovic (Etaples or Saint-Josse-sur-Mer?) on the bay of the
   Canche, Boulogne, were in relations with the Visigoths and the
   Suevi of Spain, the Irish, the Frisians, and received in
   exchange for the wines, honey, madder, grains and linens of
   Gaul, oils and lead from Spain, metals and slaves from Great
   Britain, coarse cloths from Ireland and finer fabrics which
   they were beginning to make in Frisia. Marseilles, Arles,
   Narbonne, the great ports of the Mediterranean, were always
   the depots for the trade of the Orient, where their vessels
   went for spices, silks, papyrus from Alexandria, cloths and
   carpets from Antioch and Laodicea, which their merchants
   exchanged in part for money, in part for metals, honey,
   saffron, almonds and linens from southern Gaul, coral brought
   from Italy, and amber brought overland from the borders of the
   Baltic. The conquests of the Franks, masters of central and
   southern Germany, had opened to commerce two new roads: one,
   by the Danube, stretched away to the frontiers of the Eastern
   Empire and to Constantinople through the countries occupied by
   the fierce tribes of the Avars and the Bulgarians; the other
   arrived by Thuringia in the regions where the Slav tribes,
   Sorbs (Mecklenburg, Brandenburg, Pomerania) and Wends
   (Bohemia, Moravia, Austria, Carinthia) dominated. In these
   uncultivated countries, covered with forests and marshes, in
   the midst of these warlike peoples, the merchants could risk
   themselves only in large caravans, sword at the side and lance
   in hand. These distant and perilous expeditions were
   attractive to the adventurous spirit of the Frank race. …
   Faith, as well as ambition, found its account in these
   journeys to the countries of the pagan. On the way, they
   distributed religious images to the heathen, they tried to
   convert them while profiting by them. … This mingling of
   commerce and religion is one of the characteristic traits of
   the middle ages, as it is of antiquity. The most ancient fairs
   of Gaul, that of Troyes which was in existence as early as the
   5th century, that of Saint-Germain-des-Pres, that of
   Saint-Denis, which goes back to the time of Dagobert (629),
   were at the same time pilgrimages. This latter the most
   celebrated of all, under the Merovingians, was held outside
   the walls of Paris, between the churches of Saint-Martin and
   Saint-Laurent, upon the lands watered by the brook
   Ménilmontant; it was opened on the festival of Saint-Denis and
   continued four weeks, in order to permit, says its charter,
   merchants from Spain, Provence and Lombardy and even those
   from beyond the sea, to take part in it. … The fair of
   Saint-Denis was the rendezvous of merchants from all parts of
   Gaul and Europe. Beside the wines and oils of the South might
   be seen the honey and wax of Armorica, the linens and madder
   of Neustria, the metals of Spain and England, the furs of the
   North, the products of the royal manufactories; but the
   choicest goods were the spices, pepper, tissues of silk and of
   cotton, jewels, enamels, goldsmiths' work, which came from the
   Orient by the Mediterranean ports, more rarely by way of the
   Danube, and whose guardians were the Syrians or Jews destined
   to hold so great a place in the commerce of the middle ages.
   The Syrians,—and under this name the Franks comprehended,
   without doubt, all merchants native to Egypt or Roman
   Asia,—formed powerful communities at Marseilles, Narbonne,
   Bordeaux; at Paris they had sufficient influence to enable one
   of them, Eusebius, to succeed in purchasing the episcopate, in
   591. … As to the Jews, a great number were already established
   in Gaul before the fall of the Roman Empire, but their
   prosperity dates only from the epoch of disorganization which
   followed the barbarian invasion."

      H. Pigeonneau,
      Histoire du Commerce de la France
      (translated from the French), tome 1, livre 1.

{3704}

COMMERCE: Mediæval.
   Early trade with China.

   "During the Tang Dynasty the intercourse between China and
   other considerable powers was not only closer but conducted on
   more nearly equal terms than at any other time. … The
   neighbouring kingdom of Tibet is first mentioned in the annals
   for 634 A. D. as sending ambassadors with tribute and being
   able to raise a large and formidable army. … Appeals from
   Persia and India for help against the Saracens were addressed
   to China more than once in the 7th and 8th centuries; and the
   heir apparent to the Persian throne resided for a time as
   hostage at the court of China. … But for the physical
   structure of the continent, which isolates India and China,
   while freezing Tibet and nomadizing Tartary, the spread of
   Arab conquest round or across the desert would have reached a
   point near enough to bring about a collision with China. As it
   was, a general impetus was given to foreign travel and foreign
   commerce; and … colonies of traders established themselves in
   the southern ports, as well as along the continental trade
   routes. … About the year 700 A. D. a market for strangers was
   opened at Canton, and an imperial commission appointed to levy
   duties. In 714 A. D. we hear of a petition of foreign
   merchants, arriving by way of the southern sea, which is
   forwarded from the coast in quite modern fashion for the
   emperor's consideration. It set forth all the precious things
   which the merchants could bring from the countries of the
   West, and represented them as only desirous of collecting
   medicinal drugs and simples. Unfortunately for the traders,
   they arrived at the beginning of a new reign, when a vigorous
   attempt had been made to put down the luxury of the court. …
   It was concluded to take no further notice of the petition.
   Foreign trade continued to exist on sufferance, but so far as
   the Chinese were concerned, it was limited by the attitude of
   the Government to a moderate exportation of staple
   commodities, paid for in foreign coin or precious metals. What
   China had to sell was much more important to the Western
   nations than anything she or her rulers could be prevailed
   upon to buy; and so long as the trade dealt with surplus
   manufactures, like silk, or natural products, like musk or
   rhubarb, and did not endanger the local food supply, it was
   not interfered with. In 794 A. D. complaints were made that
   trade was leaving Canton for Cochin China, but the traders'
   schemes for recovering or pursuing it were discouraged by the
   Government, which opined that there must have been intolerable
   extortions used to drive it away, or a want of natural
   inducements to bring it, and quoted the Shoo: 'Do not prize
   strange commodities too much, and persons will come from
   remote parts.' Arab geographers and travellers of the 9th
   century show what a development had been reached by foreign
   commerce under this modified freedom. The Jewish merchants
   described by Ibn Khordadbeh as speaking Persian, Latin, Greek,
   Arab, Spanish, Slavonic, and Lingua franca, and trading by sea
   and land to the remotest regions, had their representatives at
   Canton; and the four trade routes, enumerated by Sir Henry
   Yule, enabled all the great commercial communities to try
   their hand at the China trade. The first of these routes led
   from the Mediterranean over the Isthmus of Suez, and onwards
   by sea; another reached the Indian sea viâ Antioch, Bagdad and
   Bussora and the Persian Gulf; a third followed the coast of
   Africa by land from Tangiers to Egypt and thence by Damascus
   to Bagdad, while the fourth led south of the Caspian Sea and
   north of the central Asian desert to the gates of the Great
   Wall. The Chinese traders either met the Western merchants at
   Ceylon, or themselves came as far as the mouth of the
   Euphrates."

      E. J. Simcox,
      Primitive Civilizations,
      book 4, chapter 12, section 2 (volume 2).

COMMERCE: Mediæval.
   The Arabs.

   The earliest date to which any positive statement of
   intercourse between the Arabs and the Chinese "appears to
   refer is the first half of the 5th century of our era. At this
   time, according to Hamza of Ispahan and Masudi, the Euphrates
   was navigable as high as Hira, a city lying south-west of
   ancient Babylon, near Kufa, (now at a long distance from the
   actual channel of the river), and the ships of India and China
   were constantly to be seen moored before the houses of the
   town. Hira was then abounding in wealth, and the country
   round, now a howling wilderness, was full of that life and
   prosperity which water bestows in such a climate. A gradual
   recession took place in the position of the headquarters of
   Indian and Chinese trade. From Hira it descended to Obolla,
   the ancient Apologos, from Obolla it was transferred to the
   neighbouring city of Basra, built by the Khalif Omar on the
   first conquest of Irak (636), from Basra to Siraf on the
   northern shore of the gulf, and from Siraf successively to
   Kish and Hormuz. Chinese Annals of the Thang dynasty of the
   7th and 8th centuries, describe the course followed by their
   junks in voyaging to the Euphrates from Kwangcheu (Canton). …
   The ships of China, according to some authorities, used to
   visit Aden as well as the mouths of Indus and Euphrates. I do
   not think that either Polo or any traveller of his age speaks
   of them as going further than Malabar, the ports of which
   appear to have become the entrepôts for commercial exchange
   between China and the west, nor does it appear what led to
   this change. Some time in the 15th century again they seem to
   have ceased to come to Malabar. … The Arabs at an early date
   of Islam, if not before, had established a factory at Canton,
   and their numbers at that port were so great by the middle of
   the 8th century that in 758 they were strong enough to attack
   and pillage the city, to which they set fire and then fled to
   their ships. Nor were they confined to this port. … In the 8th
   century also the Arabs began to know the Chinese not only as
   Sinæ, but as Seres, i. e. by the northern land route. …
   Besides … communication by land and sea with Arabia, and with
   the various states of India, … there existed from an old date
   other and obscurer streams of intercourse between China and
   Western Asia, of which we have but fragmentary notices, but
   which seem to indicate a somewhat fuller mutual knowledge and
   freer communication than most persons probably have been
   prepared to recognise. Thus, China appears to have been well
   known from an early period to the Armenians."

      H. Yule,
      Cathay and the Way thither, preliminary essay
      (volume 1), pages lxxvii-lxxxii.

{3705}

   After the Arabs began their career as a conquering people,
   under Mahomet and his successors, and took possession of the
   great ancient fields of Asiatic and African commerce, with its
   highways and its capital seats, from Ispahan to Palmyra,
   Damascus, Baalbec, Tyre, Alexandria, and the old Carthaginian
   ports, they quickly caught the large ideas of trade that were
   then opened up to them. They improved the early caravan routes
   and established new ones in many directions. They dug wells,
   made cisterns and built caravansaries, or public places of
   shelter for travelers and traders, along the important desert
   roads. The pilgrimages which their religion encouraged had a
   lively traffic connected with them, and by spreading one
   language and one set of customs and laws over the wide region
   which they ruled, they helped commerce as the Romans had done.
   From Bagdad, the new capital city which they built on the
   Tigris, nearly opposite the deserted ruins of Babylon, on the
   other side of the Chaldean plain, they carried on direct trade
   with India, through Afghanistan; with China by three routes
   through Bokhara, or Tartary; with Siberia and with Russia, to
   the very center of it, through the agency of the Turkish and
   Tartar races. This city of Bagdad became a marvel of
   magnificence under the early Arabian caliphs. Other cities of
   Asia that acquired importance in manufactures or trade, or
   both, during the period of Arabian power, were Ispahan, in
   Persia, the woolens and linens from which were equally noted
   for their fineness; Damascus, in Syria, which produces cutlery
   of steel, and especially sword blades, that have never been
   surpassed, and which gave the name of "damasks" to certain
   raised patterns in linen that are well known by that term to
   this day; Herat, in Afghanistan, which was famous for its
   carpet looms and for its cultivation of saffron and
   assafœtida; Balkh and Khotan, in Bokhara, the former of which,
   on the banks of the Oxus, was a populous seat of trade between
   China, India and the West. From its great antiquity, Balkh was
   called "the mother of cities." In their native country, the
   Arabs, during this brilliant period of their history,
   increased the ancient trade which they had carried on by sea,
   with India, on one hand, and with the eastern coasts of
   Africa, on the other. They extended the latter far south of
   the limits of ancient Ethiopia, and even to the island of
   Madagascar. There are few settlements now existing on the east
   African coast, below the straits of Babel-Mandeb, which were
   not of Arabian origin. The pilgrimages to Mecca, their holy
   city, where the remains of Mahomet were interred, made that a
   great market and both industry and commerce were enlivened
   throughout the Arabian peninsula. As masters of Egypt, the
   Arabians reorganized with fresh vigor the ancient caravan
   traffic with central Africa and with the countries on the
   Upper Nile. Alexandria, it is true, lost much of its former
   importance. This was owing, in part, to the bitter hostility
   that existed between the Mahometans and the European
   Christians, which broke up, for a long period, nearly all open
   commerce between the two. But Alexandria was also hurt by the
   rise of new Arabian cities, in Egypt and on the Barbary coast,
   which drew away some of the trade that had centered almost
   wholly at Alexandria before. Cairo, the modern capital of
   Egypt, stood first among these and became a wealthy seat of
   many manufactures and of much commercial exchange. The
   interior caravan traffic of Egypt centered principally at
   Syene, while Temnis and Damietta were busy productive towns.
   Within the old Carthaginian dominions, west of Egypt, on the
   Mediterranean, the Arab conquerors revived a traffic quite as
   extensive, perhaps, as the greatest that ancient Carthage had
   controlled. Not far from the site of that ancient emporium,
   and twelve miles from the modern city of Tunis, they built the
   now forgotten city of Kirwan, which was one of the largest and
   most magnificent of its time. It was a point from which
   numerous caravan routes led southward into the heart of the
   African continent, even beyond the great desert, as well as
   eastward to Egypt and westward to the Atlantic coasts and
   Spain. Many flourishing towns surrounded this African
   metropolis and were the centers of many different activities,
   such as the cultivation of grain, the making of salt, the
   rearing of silk-worms and the production of silk. In
   Mauritania, which embraced the modern empire of Morocco and
   part of Algiers, the Arabs introduced the same spirit of
   enterprise. In their hands, the barren country—which has
   since become almost a desert again—was made fertile, through
   wide regions, by extensive irrigation, and produced wheat,
   olives, grapes, dates and other fruits in great abundance,
   besides feeding flocks and herds of sheep, goats, horses,
   asses and camels in rich pastures. The people became skilful
   in several manufactures, including weaving and dyeing, the
   making of silk and gold thread, the mining and smelting of
   copper and iron, the preparation of soap and the tanning of
   leather. From the Atlantic coast of their Mauritanian
   dominion, the Arabs pushed their traffic far down the western
   shores of the continent, while they opened caravan routes to
   the interior quite as widely, perhaps, as they did from Kirwan
   and from Egypt. The chief city that they founded in Mauritania
   was Fez, which still bears witness to its former glory in a
   lingering university, or collection of Mahometan schools; in
   the remains of many mosques, and in a vast number of
   caravansaries. The native inhabitants whom the Arabs found in
   Mauritania derived from their country the name of Moors. They
   embraced the Mahometan religion and joined their Saracen
   conquerors in invading Spain, A. D. 712. This led, in Europe,
   to the applying of the name "Moors" to the whole of the mixed
   races which took possession of southern Spain, and finally
   gave that name to all the Mahometans on the western
   Mediterranean coasts. But the Moors and the Arabs were
   distinct races of people. The conquest of southern Spain gave
   the Arabs the finest field in which their energy and genius
   were shown. They made the most of its mineral treasures, its
   delightful climate and its fertile soil. On the remains of
   Roman civilization, which Vandals and Visigoths had not wholly
   destroyed, they built up, with wonderful quickness, a new
   culture—of industry, of manners and of taste, of art, of
   literature, of government and of social life—that was
   splendidly in contrast with the rude state of Europe at large.
   The trade of the Spanish Moors was considerably extended
   among the Christians of Europe, notwithstanding the religious
   enmities that opposed it.
{3706}
   The products of their skilful workmanship were so eagerly
   desired, and they controlled so many of the coveted luxuries
   found in Africa and the East that their Christian neighbors
   could not be restrained, by war nor by the commands of the
   church nor by the hatred which both stirred up, from dealings
   with them. With other parts of the Mahometan dominion, and
   with the countries in commercial connection with it, the trade
   of Moorish Spain was active and large. In exchange for the
   varied products which they received, they gave the fine
   fabrics of their looms; exquisite work of their goldsmiths and
   silversmiths; famous leather; iron, quicksilver and silver
   from the old Spanish mines, which they worked with new
   knowledge and skill; sugar, the production of which they had
   learned and introduced from India; olive oil, raw silk,
   dye-stuffs, sulphur and many commodities of less worth. The
   career of the Arabs, in the large region of the world which
   they conquered, was brilliant but not lasting. The energy
   which carried them for a time far ahead of their slower
   neighbors in Europe showed signs of decay before two centuries
   of their career had been run.

COMMERCE: MEDIÆVAL.
   Byzantine Trade.

   "The commerce of Europe centred at Constantinople in the 8th
   and 9th centuries more completely than it has ever since done
   in any one city. The principles of the government, which
   reprobated monopoly, and the moderation of its duties, which
   repudiated privileges, were favourable to the extension of
   trade. While Charlemagne ruined the internal trade of his
   dominions by fixing a maximum of prices, and destroyed foreign
   commerce under the persuasion that, by discouraging luxury, he
   could enable his subjects to accumulate treasures which he
   might afterwards extort or filch into his own treasury,
   Theophilus prohibited the persons about his court from
   engaging in mercantile speculations, lest by so doing they
   should injure the regular channels of commercial intercourse,
   by diminishing the profits of the individual dealer. … During
   this period the western nations of Europe drew their supplies
   of Indian commodities from Constantinople, and the Byzantine
   empire supplied them with all the gold coin in circulation for
   several centuries. The Greek navy, both mercantile and
   warlike, was the most numerous then in existence. Against the
   merchant-ships of the Greeks, the piratical enterprises of the
   Egyptian, African, and Spanish Arabs were principally
   directed. Unfortunately we possess no authentic details of the
   commercial state of the Byzantine empire, nor of the Greek
   population during the Iconoclast period, yet we may safely
   transfer to this time the records that exist proving the
   extent of Greek commerce under the Basilian dynasty. Indeed,
   we must remember that, as the ignorance and poverty of western
   Europe was much greater in the 11th and 12th centuries than in
   the 8th and 9th, we may conclude that Byzantine commerce was
   also greater during the earlier period. The influence of the
   trade of the Arabians with the East Indies on the supply of
   the markets of western Europe has been overrated, and that of
   the Greeks generally lost sight of. … The Byzantine markets
   drew their supplies of Indian and Chinese productions from
   Central Asia, the trade passing north of the caliph's
   dominions through the territory of the Khazars to the Black
   Sea. This route was long frequented by the Christians, to
   avoid the countries in the possession of the Mohammedans, and
   was the highway of European commerce for several centuries.
   Though it appears at present a far more difficult and
   expensive route than that by the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean,
   it was really safer, more rapid, and more economical, in the
   8th, 9th, and 10th centuries. This requires no proof to those
   who are acquainted with caravan life in the East, and who
   reflect on the imperfections of ancient navigation, and the
   dangers and delays to which sailing vessels of any burden are
   exposed in the Red Sea. When the Venetians and Genoese began
   to surpass the Greeks in commercial enterprise, they
   endeavoured to occupy this route; and we have some account of
   the line it followed, and the manner in which it was carried
   on, after the East had been thrown into confusion by the
   conquests of the Crusaders and Tartars, in the travels of
   Marco Polo. For several centuries the numerous cities of the
   Byzantine empire supplied the majority of the European
   consumers with Indian wares, and it was in them alone that the
   necessary security of property existed to preserve large
   stores of merchandise. Constantinople was as much superior to
   every city in the civilised world, in wealth and commerce, as
   London now is to the other European capitals. And it must also
   be borne in mind, that the countries of central Asia were not
   then in the rude and barbarous condition into which they have
   now sunk, since nomade nations have subdued them. On many
   parts of the road traversed by the caravans, the merchants
   found a numerous and wealthy population ready to traffic in
   many articles sought after both in the East and West; and the
   single commodity of furs supplied the traders with the means
   of adding greatly to their profits. Several circumstances
   contributed to turn the great highway of trade from the
   dominions of the caliphs to Constantinople. The Mohammedan
   law, which prohibited all loans at interest, and the arbitrary
   nature of the administration of justice, rendered all
   property, and particularly commercial property, insecure.
   Again, the commercial route of the Eastern trade, by the way
   of Egypt and the Red Sea, was suddenly rendered both difficult
   and expensive, about the year 767, by the Caliph Al Mansur,
   who closed the canal connecting the Nile with the Red Sea. The
   harvests of Egypt, which had previously filled the coast of
   Arabia with plenty, could no longer be transported in quantity
   to the ports of the Red Sea; living became expensive; the
   population of Arabia declined; and the carrying trade was
   ruined by the additional expenditure required. The caliph
   certainly by this measure impoverished and depopulated the
   rebellious cities of Medina and Mecca to such a degree as to
   render their military and political power less dangerous to
   the central authority at Bagdat, but at the same time he
   ruined the commerce of Egypt with India and the eastern coast
   of Southern Africa. Since that period, this most important
   line of communication has never been restored, and the coarser
   articles of food, of which Egypt can produce inexhaustible
   stores, are deprived of their natural market in the arid
   regions of Arabia.
{3707}
   The hostile relations between the caliphs of Bagdat and Spain
   likewise induced a considerable portion of the Mohammedan
   population on the shores of the Mediterranean to maintain
   close commercial relations with Constantinople. A remarkable
   proof of the great wealth of society at this period is to be
   found in the immense amount of specie in circulation. … The
   poverty of Europe at a later period, when the isolation caused
   by the feudal system had annihilated commerce and prevented
   the circulation of the precious metals, cannot be used as an
   argument against the probability of this wealth having existed
   at the earlier period of which we are treating."

      G. Finlay,
      History of the Byzantine Empire, 716-1057,
      book 1, chapter 4, section 1.

COMMERCE: MEDIÆVAL.
   Venice and Genoa.

   In the slow revival of commerce which took place in Christian
   Europe, during the later half of the middle ages, no one city
   or people can be said to have taken a lead from the beginning.
   At various points, north and south, on the Mediterranean and
   the Adriatic, on the Baltic, on the Rhine and other rivers
   which flow into the North Sea, and on the Danube, the Dnieper
   and the Don, centers of trade were growing up in a gradual
   way, out of which it would be hard to name one that ranked
   much above the rest for many generations. But the 11th century
   brought a great commercial leader to the front. This was
   Venice. The circumstances of the founding of Venice, in the
   5th century, and the history of the rise of the singular
   republic, are given elsewhere.

      See VENICE (page 8602).

   The condition of the unfortunate refugees, who sought shelter
   from invading savages on a few small mud banks, barely
   separated from the shore of their Adriatic coast, did not seem
   to be a promising one. Nor was it so. While the neighboring
   parts of Italy were being overrun by Huns, Goths and Lombards
   in succession, and while the settlement of the barbarous new
   races was going on over all Southern Europe, in the midst of
   great disorder and constant war, these islanders and their
   descendants, for generations, were protected as much by their
   poverty as by the shallow waters that surrounded them. They
   had nothing to tempt either plunder or conquest. They lived by
   salt-making, fishing and fish-salting. They began trade in a
   small way by exchanging their salt and salted fish for other
   articles. It grew in their hands from year to year, for they
   were enterprising, industrious and courageous. Procuring
   timber on the opposite Dalmatian coast of the Adriatic, they
   became expert ship builders and sailors. The safety of their
   situation caused increasing numbers of their Italian fellow
   countrymen to join them. The islands of the Venetian lagune
   were, in time, all occupied, and bridges between several of
   them were built. From the selling of salt and fish to their
   neighbors, the Venetians went on to more extensive commercial
   business. By slow degrees, they took the occupation of general
   merchants, buying goods here and there to sell again. They
   became friendly with the Greeks on the eastern side of the
   Adriatic, in Dalmatia and Albania, and this led them into
   important relations, both commercial and political, with the
   Byzantine Empire and its capital city, Constantinople. By the
   time they had gained wealth and consequence enough to attract
   the notice of their rough neighbors and invite attack, they
   had also gained strength enough to defend themselves. They
   took part then in the wars of the Byzantines, rendering
   valuable services in Italy and elsewhere, and they joined the
   Greeks in destroying the pirates who infested the Adriatic
   Sea. The early important trade of the Venetians was with
   Constantinople, where they enjoyed, for a long period, the
   peculiar favor of the Byzantine rulers. After the Saracens had
   mastered Syria and Persia, and taken possession of Alexandria
   (A. D. 640), Constantinople became the emporium of Eastern
   trade, adding it to a great traffic which the Byzantine
   capital had always carried on with the Tartar and Russian
   territories in Asia and Europe. When the Venetians gained a
   footing there, as political friends and favored merchants,
   their fortunes were made. While the Greeks were busy in
   desperate wars with their Mahometan neighbors, these
   enterprising Italians took into their own hands more and more
   of the profitable trade which the Greeks had opened to them.
   They soon had the handling of Byzantine commerce in western
   Europe almost wholly. From partners they became rivals, and
   especially in the Russian traffic, which they drew away from
   Constantinople, to a large extent, by opening direct dealings
   with the Russian traders, at a market place established on the
   Dnieper. From the beginning of the Crusades, in the 11th
   century, the rise of Venetian commerce and Venetian power was
   very rapid. The Venetians were prepared, as no other people
   were, at the time, to furnish fleets, both for transportation
   and for naval war. They enlisted in the crusading enterprises
   with a zeal which was not, perhaps, purely pious. Their
   carrying ships were busy conveying men and supplies; their war
   galleys were in the front of some sea fighting with the
   Moslems, and more with Christian rivals; their shrewd
   politicians were alert, at all points and among all parties,
   looking after the interests of the republic; their merchants
   were everywhere ready to improve the new opportunities of
   trade which these times of excitement opened up. In all
   directions, and throughout the whole of Europe, new activities
   were awakened, and especially such as led to a busier trade.
   The crusaders who lived to return, into France, Flanders,
   Italy, Germany, and England, brought home with them many ideas
   which they had picked up in the East, and much new knowledge
   of oriental products and arts, all of which became widely
   diffused and produced great effects. The result was to
   stimulate and improve the industries and to increase the
   commerce which the Europeans carried on among themselves, as
   well as to greatly enlarge their demand for the products of
   the Asiatic world. A new era in European commerce was opened,
   therefore, by the Crusades, and the Venetians, by their
   enterprise, their energy and their early experience, took the
   lead in its activities. They organized the traffic between the
   East and the West, the North and the South, upon a great
   scale, and centered the larger part of it in their island
   city. By sea and by land they managed it with equal vigor.
   Their merchant fleets were under the protection of the state
   and made voyages, at regular and appointed times, under the
   convoy of vessels of war. On the landward side, they arranged
   an extensive trade with the interior of Germany, Hungary and
   Bohemia, through the Tyrol and Carinthia.
{3708}
   As the first bitterness of hatred between Christians and
   Mahometans wore away, they grew willing to trade with one
   an·other, though the Popes still forbade it. The Venetians
   were among the first in such willingness. Having many quarrels
   with the Byzantine Greeks, they were eager to reopen the old
   eastern market at Alexandria, and did so at the earliest
   opportunity. From that beginning they spread their trade with
   Arabs, Moors and Turks, along the whole Mahometan line, in
   Asia and Africa. But, though Venice took the lead in the
   reviving commerce of the middle ages and held it substantially
   to the end of that period of history, she had powerful rivals
   to contend with, and the strongest were among her near
   neighbors in Italy. The same commercial spirit was alive in
   several other Italian cities, which had grown up in the midst
   of those disorderly times and had contrived to acquire more or
   less of independence and more or less of power to defend
   themselves. Amalfi, Genoa and Pisa were the earliest of these
   in growing to importance, and Florence at a somewhat later day
   rose to high rank. Florence, which did not become a free city
   until near the end of the 12th century, gained its subsequent
   wealth more by manufactures and by banking than by trade. Its
   chief products were woolens, silk and jewelry, and its
   money-lenders were everywhere in Europe.

      See FLORENCE (pages 1130-1143).

   The commercial career of Amalfi was cut short in the 12th
   century by events connected with the Norman conquest of
   Southern Italy. Pisa, an ancient city, whose history goes back
   to Etruscan times, was a considerable seat of trade while
   Venice was little known; but she fell behind both Venice and
   Genoa, soon after those vigorous republics were fairly entered
   in the race. The Pisans prospered highly for some time, by
   going into partnership or alliance with the Venetians, first,
   and afterwards with the Genoese; but they quarreled with the
   latter and were ruined in the wars that ensued. After the
   thirteenth century Pisa had no commercial importance.

      See PISA (pages 2537-2539).

   The great rival of Venice was Genoa, a city which claims to
   be, like Pisa, of more than Roman antiquity. In the trade of
   the Levant—that is, the eastern ports of the Mediterranean
   Sea—the Genoese pushed themselves into competition with the
   Venetians at an early day, and they seemed for some time to
   hold an equal chance of controlling the prize. During the
   later part of the 12th century, such unfriendly feelings had
   grown up between the Venetians and the Byzantine court that
   the latter transferred its commercial favors to the merchants
   of Genoa, Pisa and Amalfi, and gave them many privileges at
   Constantinople. The Venetians were thus placed at a
   disadvantage in the Bosphorus and the Black Sea; but they did
   not long submit. In 1204 they persuaded one of the crusading
   expeditions to join them in attacking Constantinople, which
   was taken, and the dominions of the ancient Empire of the East
   were divided among the captors, Venice receiving a goodly
   share.

      See CRUSADES (page 631).

   This was a golden era for Venice and she improved it to the
   utmost. For almost sixty years she triumphed over her rivals
   completely. But in 1261 her merchants were again expelled from
   Constantinople and the Black Sea. The Greeks had continued to
   hold a large part of the ancient domain of the Byzantine
   Empire in Asia Minor, and now, with the help of the Genoese,
   they succeeded in retaking their old capital city. The Frank
   Empire, or Latin Empire as it was differently called, which
   the Crusaders and the Venetians had set up, was extinguished
   and the Genoese again took the place of the Venetians as
   masters of the Byzantine trade, including that of the Black
   Sea and the Asiatic traffic which was carried on from its
   ports. But by this time the better disposition to deal
   commercially with one another had grown up between the
   Christians and the Mahometans. So the Venetians, when they
   lost their footing at Constantinople, very promptly went over
   to Alexandria and made excellent arrangements with the
   Saracens there, for supplying Europe once more with the
   commodities of the East, by those easier and shorter ancient
   routes which Christian commerce had not used for several
   hundred years. This opening of trade with the Mahometan races,
   at Alexandria, and elsewhere soon afterwards, may easily have
   repaid the Venetians for what they lost in the Byzantine
   direction; but they did not give up the latter. A long series
   of desperate wars between the competitors ensued, with such
   shiftings of victory that Venice seemed sometimes to be almost
   in a hopeless strait; but, in the end, she broke the power of
   her rival completely. The final peace, which was concluded in
   1381, left her quite undisputed]y, for a time, the mistress of
   the Mediterranean and its trade.

      See GENOA: A. D. 1261-1299 (page 1419);
      and VENICE: A. D. 1378-1379, and 1379-1381 (page 3608).

   Both the northward and the southward lines of traffic between
   Asia and Europe, through Alexandria and through
   Constantinople, were now chiefly in the hands of the
   Venetians. Between those great courses were important minor
   currents of commerce, along caravan routes through Asia Minor
   and Syria, which they mainly controlled. The trade of the rich
   islands of the Levant and of Moorish Africa was under their
   management for the most part, and they found on the northern
   shores of the Black Sea a commerce with the Russian region
   which the Genoese had increased while they ruled in those
   waters. For three quarters of a century the Venetians enjoyed
   this large extent of commerce with the East. Then the Turks
   came, besieged and captured Constantinople (A. D. 1453) and
   spread over the country which they now occupy. For the next
   two centuries the Venetians were at war with the Turks
   —defending Christendom in the Mediterranean with little help.
   At the same time they had to encounter an almost fatal attack
   from Christian princes who had become jealous of their
   formidable wealth and power and who united against the
   republic in the League of Cambrai.

      See VENICE: A. D. 1508-1509 (page 3611).

   They might have recovered from this attack, for they still
   held the Mediterranean trade; but a great event had occurred,
   just ten years before the League of Cambrai, which was more
   fatal than war, not to Venice alone, but to most of her rivals
   in trade as well. This was the discovery, by Vasco da Gama, of
   the ocean passage to the Eastern world around the Cape of Good
   Hope. The toiling traffic of desert caravans, to Alexandria,
   to Constantinople, to Tyre, Antioch, Ephesus and Erzeroum, was
   soon reduced to insignificance. The rich trade of the Indies
   and of all the farther East—the trade of the silk countries
   and the cotton countries, of the spice islands, of the pearl
   fisheries, of the lands of ivory, of ebony, of gold, of
   precious stones, of fragrant gums, of curious things and
   curious arts—was quickly swept into a different course—into
   broader seas than the Mediterranean and into new hands.

{3709}


COMMERCE: MEDIÆVAL.
   Northern Europe.
   The Baltic Cities.
   The Hansa.

   The earliest commercial seaports of northwestern Europe had
   their rise, not on the North Sea, but on the Baltic and the
   straits which enter it. The Northmen of that region were not
   alone in the traffic which grew up there, for the Wends (a
   Slavonic people), who occupied most of the southern shores of
   the Baltic, east of the Elbe, appear to have stoutly rivalled
   them from the first. Biorko, on an island in Lake Maelar,
   Sweden (the inlet upon which Stockholm is situated), was one
   of the first of the seats of commerce at the North. It is
   supposed to have been destroyed about 1008. But the most
   famous was the city of Winet, or Vineta, on the island of
   Usedom, at the mouth of the river Oder. It may not have been
   quite as rich and magnificent a town as some would infer from
   accounts given in early chronicles; but no doubt it was
   remarkable for the age, in that part of the world, and carried
   on a large trade. The Swedes and Danes were the destroyers of
   Vineta, before the middle of the 9th century, and the former
   people are said to have carried away from it great quantities
   of marble, brass and iron work, with which they gave splendor
   to their own newer city of Wisby, then just rising on the
   island of Gothland. The career of Wisby lasted several
   centuries and it was prominent in commerce throughout the
   Middle Ages. All that can be said of that most ancient
   commerce in northern Europe is gathered from sources which are
   uncertain and obscure. It is not until the 12th century that
   much of the real history of trade in the Baltic region opens.
   In 1140 the modern city of Lubeck was founded, on the site of
   a more ancient town, known as Old Lubeck, which is supposed to
   have been a thriving port of trade in its day but which had
   been utterly destroyed by its rivals or enemies. The new
   Lubeck established close relations with the Genoese and soon
   took the lead in the commerce of the north, among a large
   number of enterprising towns which, about that time, came into
   prominence on the northern coast and on the rivers which run
   to it. The city of Hamburg, on the Elbe, lying inland and not
   very distant from Lubeck, was one of the earliest of these.
   Like Lubeck, it had suffered destruction, in the constant
   warfare of the earlier time, and had made a new beginning of
   existence about 1013. Hamburg had access to the North Sea by
   the Elbe and Lubeck to the Baltic by the Trave. Trading in
   different directions, therefore, by sea, they carried on an
   active traffic with one another, across the narrow stretch of
   land which divides them,—as they still do to this day. But
   this inland commerce was greatly disturbed by robbers who
   infested the country, until the two cities, Lubeck and
   Hamburg, in 1241, agreed to establish and support in common a
   body of soldiers for the protection of their merchants. That
   agreement is believed to have been the beginning of a
   wide-spread union which afterwards took shape among the
   commercial cities of northern Europe, and which became
   powerful and famous in the later history of the Middle Ages,
   under the name of the Hanseatic League.

      See HANSA TOWNS: (pages 1624-1626),
      and (in this Supplement) GERMANY, 13-15th,
      and 15-17th CENTURIES.

COMMERCE: MEDIÆVAL.
   Frisians and Flemings.
   The early Netherlands.

   The two peoples who inhabit the region called the
   Netherlands—a purely Germanic stock in the north (modern
   Holland) and a mixed but largely Celtic population in the
   south (modern Belgium)—have had a history so much in common
   that it cannot well be divided, though they have differed in
   experiences as widely as in character. The struggle with
   nature for a foothold in the lowland itself was harder in the
   north than in the south, and no doubt that is why the Teutonic
   Frisians led the way in industrial training. It was among them
   that the arts of weaving and dyeing were cultivated first to a
   notable excellence. As early as the age of Charlemagne (8-9th
   centuries), Frisian robes, of white and purple woolen stuffs,
   are mentioned among the choice gifts which the Emperor
   sometimes sent to foreign princes, and even to the great
   caliph, Haroun al Raschid. In the 9th century, Frisian weavers
   are said to have been persuaded by an enterprising count of
   Flanders to settle in his dominions, at Ghent, and introduce
   there a better knowledge of their art. But if the Flemish
   people borrowed from the Frisians in this matter, they soon
   outran their teachers and made the loom their own peculiar
   property. The shuttle, ere long, was in the hands of a very
   large part of the whole south Netherland or Belgian
   population, and they became almost a nation of weavers. The
   same Count Baldwin of Flanders who brought the Frisian weavers
   into Ghent established annual markets, or fairs, in various
   towns, which drew merchants from abroad, promoted trade and
   stimulated manufacturing industries throughout the country.
   Woolen, linen, and finally silk looms multiplied to a
   prodigious extent, and the weavers in all these branches
   acquired remarkable skill. The working of metals was also
   learned with great aptness, and Flemish cutlery, weapons and
   armor became very nearly as renowned as those of Milan and
   Damascus. Tanning was another valuable art which the Flemings
   and their Netherland neighbors cultivated, and the tilling of
   the soil was so industriously pursued that flax, hemp, grain
   and other farm products were raised quite abundantly for sale
   abroad. In the north Netherlands—the Hollow-land of the sturdy
   "Free Frisians" and Batavians, who were afterwards called the
   Dutch—the hard working energy of the people had been pushed in
   some different directions. The old trade of weaving was still
   vigorously carried on, in nearly every important town, and
   Dutch woolens, damask linens, carpets, velvets, etc., were
   largely produced and widely sought after; but this industry
   was never so prominent as it became in the Belgian provinces.
   The fortunes of the Hollanders were founded to a large extent
   upon their fisheries, and especially the herring fishery,
   which assumed great importance in their hands after the middle
   of the 12th century. Before that time, they appear to have
   been obliged to seek the herring in other waters than their
   own—along the shores of England, Scotland and Norway. But some
   change in the movements of those curiously swarming fish, about
   the time above mentioned, brought great shoals of them to the
   Dutch coast, and the herring harvest thereafter was a rich
   source of gain to the Hollanders.
{3710}
   They discovered some secrets of salting or curing the fish
   which were very much valued, and the Dutch herring were
   eagerly bought for all parts of Europe. The making of pottery
   was another industry to which the Dutch applied themselves
   with success, and particularly at the town of Delft, which
   gave its name for many centuries to the common earthenware
   used in western Europe. In dairy farming and skilful
   horticulture, or gardening, the Hollanders were superior to
   all other people at an early time. Wherever sea-fisheries are
   extensive, sailors and ship builders are trained and ocean
   navigation and commerce are sure, in time, to be prosperously
   pursued. It was so with the Dutch. Their Frisian ancestors had
   suffered so much on their coasts from the harassing raids of
   the Norse pirates, or Vikings, that they did not figure very
   early in seafaring enterprise. But they fought the
   free-booters in their stubborn and stout-hearted way and were
   able at last to make the harbors of their coast tolerably
   safe. From that time the seaport towns of Holland grew
   rapidly, and Dutch merchants and merchant ships, trading with
   the cities of the Baltic, with England and with Flanders and
   France increased in number. The Hollanders had an advantage in
   this matter over their Flemish neighbors of the South
   Netherlands. They were provided with better harbors and they
   held the outlets of the great rivers in their hands. This
   latter was the cause of incessant quarrels between the two
   peoples. The 15th century found the whole Netherlands, both
   north and south, in a thriving state, so far as industry and
   trade were concerned, notwithstanding bad government and
   disorderly times. The people were counted among the richest in
   Europe. Many great and wealthy cities had grown up, containing
   large populations and very busy ones. In the north, there were
   Dordrecht or Dort, Hoorn, Zierikzee, Haarlem, Delft, Leyden,
   Deventer, Enkhuizen, Middelburg, Nimeguen, Utrecht, Rotterdam,
   and Amsterdam, which last named city eclipsed them all in the
   end, though it was one of the latest to rise. In the south
   there was Ghent, with forty thousand weavers inside its strong
   walls, who were always as ready to string the bow as to throw
   the shuttle, and whose hot-tempered revolts against tyranny
   and wrong are among the most exciting incidents of history.
   There was Bruges, which became for a time the great emporium
   of the commerce of northern and southern Europe, but which
   lost its importance before the 15th century closed. There was
   Antwerp, which succeeded to the trade of Bruges and rose to
   unrivalled rank; and there were Lille, Mechlin (or Malines),
   Courtrai, Ypres, Louvain, and other towns, all centers of
   flourishing manufactures, chiefly those of the loom.

COMMERCE: MEDIÆVAL.
   Trade Routes, west and north from the Mediterranean.

   "The connection between the two great divisions of European
   commerce, the northern including the Hansa and the Flemish
   towns, and the southern the Italian republics and
   Mediterranean ports, was effected by two chief routes. One was
   by sea from the Mediterranean through the Straits of
   Gibraltar, up the coasts of Spain and France to Flanders. This
   route was used more by the southern, and especially by
   Venetian, merchants than by the northern traders, for … Venice
   sent every year a large fleet to Flanders and the English
   Channel, which fleet would meet at Bruges, the great Hansa
   depot, the most important merchants of North Europe and the
   Hansa traders. Bruges was indeed for a long time the central
   mart in the north for the commercial world, till 1482, when
   the canal connecting it with the port of Sluys was blocked up.
   But at Bruges also the maritime trade just mentioned met the
   overland trade through central Europe, a trade that was very
   important, and which enriched many a city upon the Rhine and
   farther south, from Augsburg to Cologne. We must consider this
   overland route more carefully. The great centre from which it
   started, or to which it tended, was Venice, where as we know
   were collected most of the products of the East, coming both
   via Egypt and via the lands round the Black Sea. … Starting …
   from Venice, the merchants used to cross the Alps by the
   Brenner or Julier Passes, and then would make for the Upper
   Danube or one of its tributaries, and thence get on to the
   stream of the Rhine. Their object was generally to utilise a
   natural waterway wherever possible, rather in contrast to the
   old Roman traders, who preferred the roads. But the roads of
   the Middle Ages were far inferior to the old Roman highways.
   One of the first great cities which the mediæval trader passed
   on this route, coming from Venice, was Augsburg. … Thence he
   might go down the stream to Regensburg (Ratisbon) and Vienna;
   or he might go up to Ulm and then make a short land journey
   till he reached the Rhine, and so right away down that
   convenient stream. This was perhaps the main route from north
   to south. But many others converged from central Europe to
   Italy, and many important cities owed their wealth to the
   stream of trade. In Karl the Great's time the cities on the
   great waterway to the East along the Danube became very
   flourishing; Regensburg, Passau, and Vienna being the most
   important. From Regensburg there ran north and west two great
   commercial highways into the interior of Germany, one by way
   of Nürnberg and Erfurt and the other past Nürnberg to the
   Rhine. Another route from Regensburg, by river, to Trentschin
   on the river Waag took its merchants through Galicia into
   Russia, whither they went as far as Kief, the centre of
   Russian trade. Along this great waterway of the Danube and its
   tributaries came the products of the East from Constantinople
   and the Black Sea. … Another important route was that from the
   cities of the Rhine, such as Coblenz and Basle, up that river
   and on to Chur and then by the Julier Pass and the Engadine
   and the Etschthal to Venice; or again, after passing Chur,
   through the Septimer Pass and the Bergeller Thal to Genoa.
   These Rhine cities were very flourishing, from Basle to
   Cologne. … Like most trading towns in the Middle Ages, the
   Rhine cities were compelled to form themselves into a
   confederacy to resist the robbery and extortions of feudal
   nobles, whose only idea of trade seems to have been that it
   providentially existed as a source of plunder to themselves.
   But besides this Confederacy of the Rhine there was another
   great Confederacy of the Swabian cities, arising from the same
   causes. … That of the Rhine included ninety cities, and
   existed in a fully organised form in 1255.
{3711}
   The Swabian Confederacy was formed a little later, about 1300
   or 1350, under the leadership of Augsburg, Ulm, and Nürnberg,
   and was in close political and commercial relations both with
   Venice and Genoa. … If now we turn from trade routes in Europe
   itself to those which led to Europe from the East, we find
   that at the time of which we are now speaking there were three
   main streams of commerce. In the 12th century the caravan
   trade in Central Asia had passed along several different
   paths; but after the Crusades, and the decline of the Eastern
   empire by the capture of Constantinople (1204), the various
   tribes of Central Asia, rendered more fanatical and warlike
   than ever by these military and religious events, caused
   caravan trading to become very unsafe. The first of the three
   routes which now remained in the 13th century was from India
   and the western coasts of Asia, past Basra on the Persian Gulf
   to Bagdad by water. From Bagdad merchants went, still by
   water, along the Tigris to the point on that river nearest to
   Seleucia and Antioch, and so to Orontes, and then to the coast
   of the Levant. The second route followed the same course as
   the first till the point of leaving the Tigris, and then
   proceeded over the Highlands of Asia Minor and Armenia to the
   port of Trebizond on the Black Sea, where Venetian vessels
   used to meet Asiatic traders. For both these routes Bagdad
   formed a very important centre. … The third route from the far
   East was from India by sea to Aden, then by land across the
   desert to Chus on the Nile, which took nine days, and then
   again by water down the Nile to Cairo, a journey of thirteen
   days. From Cairo there was a canal, 200 miles long, to
   Alexandria, where again Venetian and Genoese merchants were
   ready to receive the rich spices, sugar, perfumes, precious
   stones, gum, oil, cotton, and silk brought from the East."

      H. de B. Gibbins,
      History of Commerce in Europe,
      book 2, chapter 5.

COMMERCE: MEDIÆVAL:
   The English.

   "Whilst the Italians were vigorously pursuing their trade in
   India and Europe, and Spain was renowned for her manufactures;
   whilst the Hanse merchants were extending their factories, and
   Portuguese navigators were bent upon maritime discoveries;
   whilst the Dutch were struggling for independence, and France
   was planting the seeds of her industries; England was only
   known as possessing a few articles of commerce of great value.
   Her wools and her metals were eagerly sought by foreign
   traders, but she had no ships of her own to carry them abroad.
   She had many raw materials, but she produced no manufactures
   for exportation. Nor was her policy respecting foreign trade
   the most wise. The chief concern of the legislature in those
   days seemed to be to prevent foreign nations doing with
   English produce what, after all, the English could not do
   themselves. Again and again the export of wool was prohibited,
   or was hindered by prohibitory duties. … The people regarded
   the introduction of foreigners with the utmost jealousy. They
   resented their competition, they grudged their profits and
   their advantages. The guilds would not admit them as members,
   and it was hard for the poor strangers to establish a footing
   in England, even although Magna Charta had long before
   declared that all merchants shall have safety in coming to or
   going out of England, and in remaining and travelling through
   it, by land or water, for buying or selling, free from any
   grievous imposition. Anyhow, whatever the opposition of cities
   and corporations, the nation was benefited by the foreign
   merchants. Thankful, indeed, might England have been for the
   Lombards, who brought hither money and merchandise, banking
   and insurance; for the Flemings, who, driven by intestine
   dissension, found refuge on British soil, and became the
   founders of the woollen manufacture; and for the Huguenots,
   who brought with them the silk manufacture. … But a new era
   advanced. The discovery of the American continent by Columbus,
   and of a maritime route to India by Vasco da Gama, altered the
   course and character of commerce. Till then trade was
   essentially inland, thenceforth its most conspicuous triumphs
   were to be on the ocean. Till then, the Mediterranean was the
   centre of international trading. From thenceforth the tendency
   of trade was towards the countries bordering on the Atlantic.
   … It was not long … before England followed the lead of Spain
   and Portugal. John Cabot and his sons went in quest of land to
   North America; Drake went to circumnavigate the globe;
   Chancellor sailed up the White Sea to Russia; Willoughby went
   on his ill-fated voyage in search of a north-eastern passage
   to India; Sir Walter Raleigh explored Virginia; the Merchant
   Adventurers pushed their adventures to Spain and Portugal; and
   English ships began to be seen in the Levant. Meanwhile,
   English trade enlarged its sphere, English bravery at sea
   became most conspicuous, and English industry advanced apace."

      L. Levi,
      History of British Commerce,
      2d edition, introduction.

   "In the 14th century the whole of the external, and much of
   the internal, trade of the country had been in the hands of
   foreigners; in the 15th our merchants began to push their way
   from point to point in the Mediterranean and the Baltic; in
   the 16th they followed slowly in the wake of other
   adventurers, or tried to establish themselves in unkindly
   regions which had attracted no one else. When Elizabeth
   ascended the throne England appears to have been behind other
   nations of Western Europe in the very industrial arts and
   commercial enterprise on which her present reputation is
   chiefly based."

      W. Cunningham,
      Growth of English Industry and Commerce,
      volume 2, page 2.

COMMERCE: MEDIÆVAL:
   Trade and Piracy.

   "It would be wrong to infer from the prevalence of piracy at
   this period [the 15th century] that commerce must have
   declined. On the contrary, it was probably the increase of
   commerce, unaccompanied by the growth of adequate means for
   its defence, which made the pirate's calling so profitable.
   Nor was the evil confined to the professional pirate class, if
   we may use the expression. Even recognised associations of
   merchants frequently indulged in practices which can only be
   characterised as piracy. Commerce, in fact, was deeply imbued
   with the spirit of lawlessness, and in these circumstances it
   is probable that the depredations of pirates did not excite
   the same alarm nor discourage trade in the same degree as
   would be the case in more law-abiding times. In the 15th
   century the profession of Christianity and extreme
   respectability were not incompatible with a life of violence
   and outrage, and it is to be feared that in some cases the
   Governments which should have repressed pirates by the
   severest measures, encouraged their depredations.
{3712}
   Certainly they have never enjoyed such immunity from the
   strong arm of the law as in the 15th century. Outrage and
   robbery went on unchecked along the coasts and in the track of
   merchant vessels. No trader was safe even in the rivers and
   ports of his own country. The pirates burnt and sacked towns
   as important as Sandwich and Southampton; they carried off not
   only the goods they could lay their hands on, but men and
   women, and even children, whom they held to ransom. Unable to
   look to the Government for protection of life and property
   while they were engaged in trade, the merchants were thrown
   upon their own resources to provide security. The best method
   of grappling with the pirates, and that which was most
   frequently adopted, was for merchant vessels to sail together
   in such numbers that they could repel attack; and these
   voluntary efforts were sometimes aided by the Government. In
   1406 Henry IV. granted the merchants 3s. on every cask of wine
   imported, and certain payments on Staple exports for purposes
   of defence. Two Admirals were appointed, one for the north and
   the other for the south, with full jurisdiction in maritime
   affairs and power to organise naval forces. But this scheme
   was unsuccessful. A similar expedient was tried in 1453, but
   abandoned two years afterwards. The only satisfactory remedy
   would have been a strong navy, but the conditions necessary
   for this had not yet been realised. The country could not have
   supported the charge of maintaining a strong naval force. …
   That merchants were beginning to realise the importance of the
   subject, and were becoming wealthy enough to build vessels of
   a considerable size, is evident from the operations of John
   Taverner, of Kingston-upon-Hull, and the famous William
   Cannynges of Bristol, the latter of whom is said to have
   possessed 2,470 tons of shipping and some vessels of 900 tons
   burthen."

      W. A. S. Hewins,
      Industry and Commerce
      (in "Social England," edited by H. D. Traill,
      chapter 7, volume 2).

COMMERCE: MEDIÆVAL:
   The Portuguese, and the finding of the Ocean Way to the Indies.

   It was not by accident that the Portuguese rose all at once,
   in the closing years of the 15th century and the early years
   of the 16th, to a position in which they controlled and
   directed the main current of trade between Europe and the
   Eastern world. The discovery by Vasco da Gama of an ocean
   route to the Indies, and all the results (hereafter
   described), which it yielded to his countrymen for the time,
   were a reward of enterprise which the Portuguese had fully
   earned. They had worked for it, patiently and resolutely,
   through almost a hundred years. The undertaking was begun, at
   about the commencement of the 15th century, by a Portuguese
   prince who ought to enjoy greater fame than if he had
   conquered an empire; because his ambition was nobler and the
   fruits were of higher worth to the world. He was known as
   "Prince Henry the Navigator," and he was the third son of the
   Portuguese King John I. who was called the Great, on account
   of his success in wars with the Castillians and the Moors. But
   this young son, Prince Henry, was much the greater man of the
   two. He could not endure the ignorance of his time with regard
   to the mysterious ocean that stretched westward and southward
   from the shores of the little country which his father ruled.
   He was bent on knowing more about it; and he was specially
   bent on having the Portuguese sailors make their way down the
   shores of the African continent, to learn where it ended and
   what track to the farther side might be found. Beyond Cape
   Nun, at the southern extremity of the modern empire of
   Morocco, nothing was known of the western coast of Africa when
   Prince Henry began his work. The Phœnicians and Carthaginians,
   two thousand years earlier, had probably known more about it;
   but their knowledge was lost. Prince Henry studied everything
   that could give him light and became well convinced that round
   the continent of Africa there was a way to the Indies for bold
   sailors to find. Then he applied himself, with a zeal which
   never flagged, to the working out of that achievement. He was
   a young man when he began, and during more than forty years of
   his life he devoted his time and his means almost wholly to
   the fitting out and directing of exploring ships and he fixed
   his residence upon the most southerly promontory of Portugal,
   to watch their going and coming. But the art of navigation was
   so little understood and the navigators were so timid, that
   slow progress was made. Each explorer only ventured a little
   farther than the one before him; and so they went feeling
   their way, league by league, down the African coast. The
   forty-three years of Prince Henry's endeavors were consumed in
   reaching what is now the settlement of Sierra Leone, near the
   head of the gulf of Guinea. But even this added more than a
   thousand miles of the western coast of Africa to the maps of
   the 15th century and was a greater advance in geographical
   knowledge than had been made since Carthage fell. Before he
   died (A. D. 1460), Prince Henry secured from the Pope (who was
   supposed to have the giving of all heathen countries) a grant
   to Portugal of all these discoveries, both island and
   mainland, and of all which the Portuguese explorers might make
   in the future, between Europe and India. So he died well
   content, let us hope, with the work which he had done for his
   country and for mankind. The enthusiasm for exploration which
   Prince Henry had awakened in Portugal did not die with him,
   though his efforts had met with unending opposition and
   excited very much discontent. Repeated expeditions were still
   sent down the African coast, and they crept farther and
   farther toward the goal of desire. At last, in 1486,
   Bartholomew Diaz, with three ships, actually rounded the Cape
   of Good Hope without knowing it, and only learned the fact
   when he turned backward from his voyage, discouraged by
   storms. Eleven years later, Vasco da Gama set out, fired with
   fresh determination, by the great discovery of a new world
   which Columbus had so lately made for Spain, and this time
   there was no failure. He passed the Cape, sailed up the
   eastern shores of the African continent to Melinda, in
   Zanguebar, and thence across the Indian Ocean to Calicut in
   Hindostan. The ocean route to India was now fully proved; the
   new era was opened and its grand prize plucked by the
   Portuguese—thanks to Prince Henry the Navigator.

      See, also, PORTUGAL: A. D. 1415-1460
      and 1463-1498 (pages 2571-2573).

{3713}

COMMERCE: MODERN:
   New Routes and New Marts.

   There is nothing at all imaginary in the line which is drawn
   in history across the later years of the 15th and the early
   years of the 16th century, to mark the beginning of a new era
   in human affairs. It is a line very real and very distinct,
   dividing one state of things, known as the mediæval, from
   another state of things, known as the modern. It was fixed by
   the occurrence of a series of extraordinary events, which came
   quickly, one after the other, and which brought about, either
   singly or together, the most tremendous changes, in many ways,
   that ever happened to the world in the same space of time. The
   first of these was the invention of printing, which dates as a
   practical art from about 1454. The second was the discovery of
   the new world by Columbus, A. D. 1492. The third was the
   passage around the Cape of Good Hope by the Portuguese
   navigator, Vasco da Gama, A. D. 1497. The fourth was the
   religious reformation set in motion by Martin Luther, at
   Wittenberg, A. D. 1517. The combined effect of these great
   events was to make really a new starting point in almost every
   particular of human history, and to do so very quickly. The
   commercial changes which resulted are among the most
   remarkable. No sooner had the route by sea to southern and
   eastern Asia and the islands of the Indian ocean been found,
   than almost the whole traffic of Europe with that rich eastern
   world abandoned its ancient channels and ran into the new one.
   There were several strong reasons for this. In the first
   place, it cost less to bring goods by ship from India, Ceylon
   or China direct to European ports, than to carry them over
   long distances by land to the eastern shores of the
   Mediterranean and there ship them to the West. In the second
   place, by taking its new route, this commerce escaped the
   Moorish pirates in the Mediterranean, who had long been very
   troublesome. And, lastly, but not least in importance, the
   European merchants gained a great advantage in becoming able
   to deal directly with the East Indians and the Chinese,
   instead of trading at second hand with them, through Arabs and
   Mahometan Turks, who controlled the Asiatic and African
   routes. So the commerce of the Indies, as it was generally
   called, fled suddenly away from the Mediterranean to the
   Atlantic; fled away from the Venetians, the Genoese, the
   Marseillaise, and the Barcelonians; from Constantinople,
   lately conquered by the Turks; from Antioch and Alexandria;
   and from many cities of the Hansa League in the north, which
   had learned the old ways of traffic and were slow to learn
   anything new. Soon many of the great marts which had been
   busiest, grew silent and deserted and fell into slow decay.
   The most enriching commerce of the world was passing to
   different hands and bringing younger races into the front of
   history.

COMMERCE: MODERN:
   The Portuguese in the lead.

   Having found the way to India by sea, the Portuguese were
   prompt in taking measures to make themselves strong in that
   part of the world and to control the trade with it. They were
   helped in this effort by the grant of imagined rights which
   Prince Henry had obtained from the Pope, long before. But they
   strengthened the rights which the Pope gave them, by the older
   fashioned methods of conquest and possession. They began at
   once to plant themselves firmly at important points in the
   eastern seas and on the Indian coast. They sent out one of
   their ablest military men, Francesco d'Almeida, with a strong
   force of ships and volunteers, and appointed him Viceroy of
   India. He took possession of several parts of the Malabar
   coast (the western coast of the southern extremity of
   Hindostan) and built forts in which garrisons were placed. He
   similarly established the Portuguese power in Ceylon, took
   possession of the Maldive Islands and founded trading
   settlements in Sumatra. The Venetians, who saw that their
   ancient trade with the East was doomed unless this new rivalry
   could be crushed, now joined their Mahometan allies of Egypt
   in a great effort to drive the Portuguese back. A formidable
   fleet was fitted out on the Red Sea and sent against Almeida.
   He was unfortunate in his first encounter with these allied
   enemies and lost the squadron that opposed them. But the
   resolute viceroy was undaunted. Recalled from his command, he
   refused to give it up until he had equipped and led another
   fleet against the navy of the Egyptians and completely
   destroyed it. The successor of Almeida, as viceroy of India,
   was a remarkable personage who is known in the annals of his
   time as "the great Afonso D'Albuquerque." The chronicle of his
   exploits in Africa and India, compiled by his son from his own
   letters and records, and entitled "The commentaries of the
   great Afonso D'Albuquerque," has been translated into English
   and published by the Hakluyt Society. He was a remarkably
   energetic commander, and very honest in his way, according to
   the notions of his time; but he did the work of subjugation
   and conquest which he was sent to do in a cruel and rapacious
   style. He was not rapacious on his own account; but he saw no
   wrong in anything done for the profit of his country. In the
   course of seven years he spread the Portuguese power so widely
   and fixed it so firmly on the East Indian coasts and in the
   neighboring seas that there was hardly an attempt for many
   years to disturb it. None but Portuguese ships dared enter the
   Indian ocean without special permits, and the few which
   received admission were forbidden to trade in spices—the most
   precious merchandise of the region. From the Indies the
   Portuguese made their way to the coasts of China and put
   themselves on friendly terms with its people. They were
   permitted to occupy the port of Macao and have possessed it
   ever since. Some years later they discovered the islands of
   Japan and opened the earliest European commerce with that
   singular country. So they held for a time the complete mastery
   of eastern trade and enlarged it to greater bounds than it had
   ever reached before. But they were satisfied with keeping the
   sources of the supply of eastern goods to Europe in their own
   hands. The first handling of the commodities was all that they
   tried to control. They brought to Lisbon the spices, silks,
   cotton, pearls, ivory, sugar, aromatic drugs and the like,
   which their ships and merchants gathered up, and there sold
   them to other traders, Dutch, English and German for the most
   part, who found the final markets for them and who enjoyed a
   good half of the profits of the trade. These latter derived
   great advantages from the arrangements—much more than they had
   gained in their trading with Genoa and Venice—and the commerce
   of Holland and England grew rapidly as the result.
{3714}
   But the glory and prosperity of the Portuguese, as masters of
   the rich traffic of the eastern world, were not of long
   duration. Before the 16th century closed, they had lost the
   footholds of their power and were slipping into the background
   very fast. By misfortunes and by folly combined, all the
   fruits of the patient wisdom of Prince Henry, the persevering
   courage of Vasco da Gama, the bold energy of Almeida, and the
   restless enterprise of Albuquerque, were torn out of their
   hands. Almost from the first, a greedy and jealous court had
   done all that could be done to destroy the grand opportunities
   in trade which the country had gained. Private enterprise was
   discouraged; the crown claimed exclusive rights over large
   parts of the commerce opened up, and these rights were sold,
   given to favorites and dealt with in many ways that are
   ruinous to successful trade. Royal jealousy sent three
   viceroys to divide among them the government of the Portuguese
   possessions in the East, when there should have been but one,
   and the same jealousy kept these vice-royalties ever changing.
   Of course, there was nowhere good government nor thrifty
   management of trade. In the midst of this bad state of things,
   the royal family of Portugal died out, in 1580, and Philip II.
   of Spain set up claims to the crown which he was strong enough
   to make good. Portugal thus became joined to Spain, for the
   next sixty years, and was dragged into Philip's wicked war
   with the Netherlands. Her Spanish masters did what they could
   to draw her trade away from Lisbon to Cadiz and Seville. The
   Dutch and English, her former customers and friends, made
   enemies now by Philip of Spain, pushed their way into the
   eastern seas, defying the mandates of the Pope, and broke down
   her supremacy there. When the Portuguese, in 1640, threw off
   the Spanish yoke and asserted their independence again,
   calling a prince of the house of Braganza to the throne, there
   was not much left of their former power or their former trade.
   They still held Goa, on the western coast of Hindostan, and
   the Chinese port of Macao—as they do to the present day; and
   they retained, as they still do, considerable possessions in
   Africa. But their brief importance in navigation, in
   colonization and trade, was quite gone and they dropped back
   to a humble position in the history of the world. Even the
   management of their home trade with other countries fell
   mostly, after a time, into the hands of the English, who
   became their special allies and friends.

COMMERCE: MODERN:
   The Spaniards.

   While the Portuguese were pursuing glory and gain in the track
   of Vasco da Gama, which led them south and east, the Spaniards
   were doing the same in the wake of the three little ships
   which Columbus, with a bolder hand, had steered westward, to
   strange shores which he never dreamed of finding. These newly
   opened regions of the globe, in the Atlantic and on both sides
   of it, were divided between the two nations by the Pope, and
   it was a bold matter in those days to dispute his right. He
   gave to the Spaniards all islands and countries found west of
   a meridian line drawn 27½° west of the island of Ferro, in the
   Canary group. This nearly corresponds with the meridian 45½°
   west of Greenwich. To the Portuguese he assigned all
   discoveries east of it. So they both went on their appointed
   ways, with pious hearts and untroubled consciences, busily
   hunting for heathen lands to seize and despoil. But the
   eastern field, in which the Portuguese did most of their work,
   was one where commerce was old and where something of Europe
   and its people was already known. They were forced to look
   upon trade as the chief object of their pursuit. With the
   Spaniards the case was different. They found their way to a
   quarter of the world which Europe had never heard of and came
   upon people who never saw the faces of white men until then.
   These strange races of the new world were some of them quite
   as civilized, in certain respects, as the Spaniards who
   invaded them, and even more so, it would seem, in their
   notions of truth and in the refinement of their manners and
   modes of life. But they were simple and unsuspecting; they
   were not warlike in disposition and they were rudely and
   poorly armed. So the mail-clad cavaliers of Spain crushed them
   into helpless slavery with perfect ease. From the islands of
   the West Indies, which they discovered and occupied first, the
   Spaniards had soon made their way to the shores of the two
   continents of America, North and South. They found cities and
   nations which astonished them by their splendor and wealth and
   set them wild with greedy desires. Europe looked poor in
   comparison with the shining wealth of Mexico and Peru. The
   Spaniards went mad with the lust of gold. They lost human
   feeling and common sense in their greediness to grasp the
   metal treasures of the new world. They were indifferent to the
   more precious and abounding products that it offered, and
   neglected to build up the great commerce which might have
   filled their hands with lasting riches. They made the old
   fable of the goose which laid golden eggs a piece of real
   history. They killed the goose; they destroyed their source of
   wealth in Peru and Mexico by their eager extortions. Of true
   commerce between the old world and the new there was little
   while the Spaniards controlled it. They did, in the course of
   time, ship considerable quantities of sugar, tobacco, hides,
   logwood, indigo, cochineal, cocoa, cinchona, or Peruvian bark
   (from which quinine is extracted) and other American products,
   from their various colonies; but to no such extent as a wise
   and enterprising people would have done, having the same
   opportunities. Once a year, or once in two years, a fleet of
   ships was sent from Seville, at first, and afterwards from
   Cadiz, to Vera Cruz, for freights from Mexico, and another to
   Porto Bello, on the Isthmus of Panama, for the South American
   freights. The ships which made the latter voyage were
   distinguished from the Mexican fleet by being called the
   galleons. For a long time, twelve galleons in the one squadron
   and fifteen ships in the other, making their voyage once a
   year, and sometimes only every other year, conveyed all the
   trade that passed between Spain and America; which shows how
   little the Spaniards drew from their great possessions, except
   the enormous treasure of silver and gold which a few ships
   could transport. This glittering treasure formed, in fact, the
   main cargo of the Peruvian galleons and the Mexican fleet.
   Before the close of the reign of Philip II. the number of
   galleons was increased to about forty and that of the fleet to
   fifty or sixty.
{3715}
   It is quite certain that no country had ever before received
   such a quantity of gold and silver as came into Spain during
   the 16th century. Instead of enriching, it ruined the nation.
   Neither rulers nor people had sense enough to see what a
   treacherous and delusive kind of wealth it formed, if trusted
   to alone. They vainly fancied that, with such a store of
   precious metals to draw upon, they could afford to despise the
   homely labors by which other people lived. With such mad
   notions as these, the honest industries of Spain were treated
   with neglect or worse. Her trade with neighboring countries
   was looked upon as a business too insignificant for Spaniards
   to care for or trouble themselves about. It was mostly given
   over to the Dutch and Flemings, while they remained under
   Spanish rule, and it was afterwards kept up in great part by
   smugglers, Dutch and English. Agriculture decayed, and its
   destruction was helped by the formation of a great
   aristocratic company of sheep-farmers, called the Mesta, to
   which such tyrannical rights and privileges were given by the
   crown that the most fertile parts of Spain were finally turned
   into sheep-pasture, under its control. The best artisans and
   the most enterprising merchants of the kingdom were driven
   out, because they were Moors and Jews, or they were burned for
   Christian beliefs which the Church did not approve. The
   Inquisition was so busy, with its racks and its fires, that no
   other business could thrive. Every kind of production
   dwindled, and for the supplying of all descriptions of wants
   the Spaniards were soon driven to look to other countries. The
   few who laid hands upon the riches coming in from the plunder
   of America spent it recklessly, in extravagant ways, while
   costly foreign wars which had no success, and plots in France
   and England which came to nothing, drained the coffers of the
   king. And thus the great stream of gold and silver which
   flowed into Spain from the new world ran out of it quite as
   fast, until nearly every other country in Europe held more of
   it than Spain herself. The strong hand with which the
   Spaniards were able at first, and for some time, to hold the
   vast domain of sea and land which the Pope had given them and
   which their own sailors and soldiers had explored and seized,
   grew weak before the end of a hundred years after the
   memorable voyage of Columbus was made. The hardy Dutch, driven
   to revolt and enmity by tyrannical government and by cruel
   religious persecutions, attacked them everywhere, in the
   eastern and western world. The English, just beginning to grow
   ambitious and bold on the ocean, and constantly threatened by
   the armadas of Spain, did the same. But these were not the
   only enemies who harassed the Spanish colonies and fleets. In
   a general way, the whole world went to war with the insolent
   nation which claimed the lordship of the earth. There came
   into existence, in the 17th century, a powerful organization
   of pirates or freebooters, made up of daring men of all
   nations, who carried on for many years a villainous warfare of
   their own against the Spaniards at sea and against their
   American settlements. These Buccaneers, as they were called,
   gained strongholds in several islands of the West Indies, from
   which the Spaniards were not able to dislodge them. Under the
   attacks of all these enemies, combined with her own
   misgovernment and her contempt and abuse of thrifty industries
   and fair trade—which no people can neglect without ruin—Spain
   steadily and rapidly sank.

COMMERCE: MODERN:
   The Flemings and the Dutch.

   In the first half of the 16th century, the people of the
   Netherlands were the tolerably contented subjects of that
   famous monarch, the Emperor Charles V., who ruled in Spain, in
   Naples, in Germany (the old Empire), and in Burgundy, as well
   as in the Lowland principalities, Flanders, Holland, and the
   rest. They were already very prosperous, working hard at many
   callings, trading shrewdly and busily with the rest of the
   world, and diligently picking up all kinds of knowledge
   everywhere. In the southern provinces (which we may call the
   Belgian, because they are mostly now embraced in the modern
   kingdom of Belgium) the chief industries were those of the
   loom, in all branches of weaving; and in skilful workmanship
   of every kind the people were tasteful and apt. These
   provinces were the seat of a much greater and more general
   activity in manufactures than appeared in the states to the
   north of them (which we will call the Dutch states, without
   distinction, because they are now included in the kingdom of
   Holland). The latter were more extensively employed in
   fisheries, in navigation and in ship building, although most
   kinds of industry, manufacturing and agricultural, were
   thriftily and successfully carried on. At the time when
   Charles V. ruled the Netherlands, the city of Antwerp, in the
   Belgian circle of provinces, was the great metropolis of
   Netherland trade. It was much more than that. It was the
   foremost commercial capital of the world. The traffic which
   slipped away from Venice and Genoa, had fixed its central seat
   in this younger town on the Scheldt. It was sure to plant its
   new emporium somewhere in the Netherlands, because there was
   nowhere else in Europe so much energy, so much enterprise, so
   much industry, so much commercial wisdom, so much activity of
   domestic trade. Spain and Portugal held the wealth of the
   Indies and the Americas in their hands, but we have seen how
   incapable they were of using the commercial advantage it gave
   them. Lisbon, Cadiz and Seville were only depots for the
   transfer of merchandise; it was impossible to make them real
   capitals of trade, because they could not and would not
   furnish either the spirit, or the genius, or the organized
   agencies that it demands. The Netherlands, with their long
   schooling in commerce upon a smaller scale, were ready to meet
   every requirement when the new era opened and gave them their
   greater chance. There was no other mercantile organization so
   well prepared. The league of the Hansa Towns was breaking and
   failing; the English were just beginning to show their
   aptitude for manufactures and trade. Some one of the
   Netherland cities was sure to win the sovereignty in
   commercial affairs which Venice gave up, and Antwerp proved
   the winner, for a time. During most of the 16th century, it
   was the business center of Europe. It was the gathering-place
   of the merchants and the seat of the money-changers and
   bankers. Two and three thousand ships were often crowded in
   its harbor, at one time. It distributed the merchandise of the
   East and West Indies, which it took from Portugal and Spain,
   and the manifold wares of the many manufacturing towns of
   Flanders, Brabant, southern Germany, to a great extent, and
   northern France.
{3716}
   At the same time, its own looms, anvils, tanneries,
   glass-works, dyeing-vats and mechanic shops of various kinds
   were numerous and busy. Its thriving population was rapidly
   increased, for it welcomed all who came with skill or
   knowledge or money or strong hands to take part in its work.
   Such was Antwerp during the reign of Charles V., and at the
   time (A. D. 1555-1556) when that weary monarch gave up his
   many crowns to his evil son, Philip II. of Spain, and went
   away to a Spanish monastery to seek for rest. The government
   of Charles in the Netherlands had been hard and heavy, but the
   people were left free enough to prosper and to grow
   intelligent and strong. Under Philip the prospect changed. The
   story of his malignant persecutions and oppressions, of the
   revolt to which they drove the Netherland provinces, of the
   long, merciless war in which he strove to ruin or subdue them,
   of the independence which the Dutch provinces achieved and the
   prosperous career on which they entered, is told in another
   place.

      See NETHERLANDS (page 2256, and after).

   Antwerp, the great capital of trade, stood foremost in the
   struggle, as became its greatness, and it suffered
   correspondingly. The death-blow to its fortunes was given in
   1585, when, after a siege that is almost unexampled, it was
   taken by the Spaniards under Alexander Farnese, Duke of Parma,
   and given up to pillage and slaughter. Its surviving
   inhabitants fled in large numbers, the greater part of them to
   Holland, some to England, and some to other countries.
   Commerce abandoned the port. The chief merchants who had made
   it the center of their undertakings chose Amsterdam for their
   future seat of business, and that city rose at once to the
   commercial rank of which Antwerp had been stripped by the
   stupid malice of its Spanish sovereign. While the Belgian
   Netherlands fell hopelessly under the fatal despotism of
   Spain, the Dutch Netherlands fought their way slowly to
   independence, which Spain was forced to acknowledge in 1648.
   But long before that time the Dutch Republic had become a
   power in Europe—much greater in every way than Spain. Its
   foundations had been laid by the union of the seven provinces
   of Holland, Zealand, Friesland, Utrecht, Groningen, Overyssel
   and Gelderland. It had grown firmer and stronger year by year,
   and the people, after a time, had not only found themselves
   able to thrive generally in the midst of their desperate war
   with Spain, but the war itself opened their way to wealth and
   power. They learned, early, as we have seen, that they could
   attack their enemy to the best advantage at sea. In pursuing
   this ocean warfare they were led on to the East and West
   Indies, and soon broke, in both regions, the exclusive power
   which the Spanish and Portuguese had held. When Portugal was
   dragged into a fatal union with Spain, under Philip II., it
   had to suffer the consequences of Philip's wars, and it bore
   more than its share of the suffering. The Dutch and the
   English forced their way pretty nearly together into the
   eastern seas, and, between them, the Portuguese were mostly
   driven out. They divided the rich commerce of that great
   Asiatic and Oceanic region, and, for a time, the most
   lucrative part of it was gained by the Dutch. While the
   English got their footing on the coasts of Hindostan and were
   laying the foundations of their future empire in India, the
   Dutch gained control of the spice-growing islands, which, in
   that day, were the richer commercial prize. The first Dutch
   fleet that rounded the Cape of Good Hope and made its way into
   East Indian waters, sailed under the command of one Cornelius
   Houtmann, who had been in the service of the Portuguese and
   learned the route. He started in 1595 with four ships and
   returned, after a voyage of eighteen months, with only two. He
   had lost more than half his men, and he brought back very
   little cargo to pay for the adventurous undertaking. But the
   Dutch were well satisfied with the experiment; they knew that
   more experience would lead to better success. Another fleet of
   eight ships was sent out in 1598 and when four of them
   returned the next year with a precious cargo of spices and
   other merchandise from Java, which they had procured very
   cheaply in exchange for the cloths, the metal wares and the
   trinkets that they took out, the delight of the nation can
   hardly be described. Part of the fleet had remained in the
   East to hold and strengthen the position they had gained, and
   other ships were sent speedily to join them. Very soon the
   armed merchantmen of the Dutch were thickly swarming in that
   part of the world, ready for fight or for trade, as the case
   might be. So many companies of merchants became engaged in the
   business that too lively competition between them occurred and
   they threatened to ruin one another. But that danger was
   overcome in 1602 by joining the rival interests together in
   one strong association, to which the government gave exclusive
   rights of trade in the East. Thus the Dutch East India Company
   was formed, in which the merchants of Amsterdam, Rotterdam,
   Delft and other cities of the republic put their capital
   together. By its charter, this great company held powers of
   war as well as of commerce and it used them both with
   prodigious energy. At first, the chief trading stations of the
   Dutch in the East were at Bantam, in Java, and Amboyna, one of
   the group of the Moluccas or Spice Islands; but the city of
   Batavia, which they founded in Java in 1619, became afterwards
   their principal seat of trade and the capital of their
   surrounding possessions. The chief aim of the Dutch was to
   gather into their hands the profitable commerce of the island
   world of the Eastern Archipelago, but they did not fail to
   pursue their Spanish and Portuguese enemies in other quarters,
   where the chances of traffic looked inviting. They seized
   positions on the Guinea coast of western Africa and took their
   full share of the trade with its savage natives, who gave gold
   dust, ivory, ebony, gums, wax, ginger, pepper, palm oil,
   various choice kinds of wood, and slaves (for the West Indies
   and America, when the plantations there began to want labor),
   in exchange for trinkets and cheap goods. They also occupied
   and colonized the Cape of Good Hope, which the Portuguese had
   neglected, and made it, in time, a very prosperous and
   valuable possession. That they should carry their war with
   Spain into the West Indies and to the American coasts, was a
   matter of course. In 1623 a Dutch West India Company was
   chartered, to organize these operations in the western world,
   as the East India Company had organized undertakings in
   the East.
{3717}
   But the West India Company was much less commercial and much
   more warlike in its aims than the corporation of the orient.
   Its first object was to take spoils from the enemy, and it
   found the prizes of war so rich that not much else was thought
   of. On the North American continent, a most important lodgment
   was made, as early as 1614, at the mouth of the Hudson River,
   where the colony of New Netherland was founded. In this
   quarter, as everywhere, the Dutch and English were rivals, and
   before many years they came to open war. In the series of wars
   which followed (1652, 1665, 1672), and in the long contest
   with Louis XIV. of France which they shared with England, the
   Dutch expended more of their energies than they could afford.
   The English, with their well protected island, rich in soil
   and in minerals, had heavy advantages on their side, when once
   they had acquired the knowledge of commerce and the ability in
   labor which enabled them to compete with the Dutch. To the
   latter nature had always been wholly unfriendly. They had
   fought against circumstances at every step in their history,
   and had won their wealth, their knowledge, their high
   importance and influence in the world, by sheer hard work,
   tireless patience and indomitable will. But the natural
   advantages against which they struggled were sure to overcome
   them in the end. It must be said, too, that they did not grow
   in character as their fortunes rose. It is not difficult,
   therefore, to account for the fact that the Dutch nation
   slowly slipped back, during the 18th century, from the high
   and leading position in civilization to which it had climbed,
   and lost by degrees its commercial supremacy, while the
   English nation came to the front.

COMMERCE: MODERN:
   The English:
   16-17th Centuries.
   Commercial progress.
   The East India Company.

   As English commerce slowly freed itself from foreign hands, it
   fell under the control of monopolies at home. The merchants of
   the Middle Ages, in England and elsewhere, had formed
   themselves into societies, or guilds, just as the artisans and
   mechanics in different trades had done. Such associations had
   originally grown out of the disorderly state of the times,
   when government and law were weak, and when men who had common
   interests were forced to unite to protect themselves, and to
   establish customs and rules for regulating their business
   affairs. But the guilds almost always became, in time,
   oppressive monopolies, each acquiring, in its own department
   of business, such exclusive rights and privileges as
   practically shut out from that business all persons not
   admitted to its membership. This occurred among the merchants,
   as it did elsewhere, and English commerce grew up under the
   control of various societies of "Merchant Adventurers," as
   they were called.

      See MERCHANT ADVENTURERS (page 2153).

   The disputes and contests of these companies, at home and
   abroad, and their suppression of individual enterprise, appear
   to have hindered the growth of English commerce for a long
   period. But it did grow steadily, notwithstanding, and through
   the reigns of Henry VIII. and Elizabeth, the number of English
   ships set afloat and of English merchants trading abroad, was
   rapidly multiplied. Meantime the English people gained skill
   in weaving, dyeing and other arts, and were fast extending the
   manufacture at home of their own famous Wool. This, in turn,
   made the sheep farming more profitable, and so much land was
   taken for that purpose that other products were diminished and
   most articles of food rose in price. That occurrence caused
   grave anxiety, and the meddling statesmen of the time, who
   thought that nothing could go well if their wisdom did not
   regulate it by law (as too many meddling statesmen think yet)
   began to frame acts of Parliament which directed how farming
   lands should be managed and how many sheep a single farmer
   should be permitted to own. The same kind of statesmanship
   took alarm at the spread of weaving, in a small way, among
   industrious villagers and country people, who set up looms and
   made and sold cloth, outside of the guilds of the town
   weavers. So the complaints of the latter were listened to, and
   Parliament forbade weaving to be done outside of certain
   towns, except for home use in the family of the weaver. There
   was much of that sort of legislation during Tudor times, and
   the industry and enterprise of the country had to struggle
   long and hard for freedom to fairly exercise themselves. But
   in spite of meddling statesmen and tyrannical monopolies, the
   people went all from year to year, learning more, doing more,
   producing more, wanting more, buying and selling more, and
   living in a better way. After about 1511, there appears to
   have been a considerable direct trade growing up between
   England and the countries of the eastern Mediterranean (the
   Levant), and consuls, to look after the rights and interests
   of English merchants, began to be appointed, at Candia, and
   elsewhere, as early as 1530. The voyage from London to the
   Levant and return then occupied from eleven months to a year.
   About 1535 the English made their appearance as traders on the
   Guinea coast of West Africa, disputing the exclusive rights
   which the Portuguese claimed there, and in 1537 they opened
   trade with the Moors of the Barbary coast, in northern Africa.
   In 1553 a chartered company of London merchants was formed
   with the object of exploring for a northeastern passage to
   China, around Europe, through the Arctic seas, as a means of
   dividing the trade of the East with the Portuguese, who
   controlled the southern route, around Africa. This is believed
   to have been the first joint stock corporation of shareholders
   that was organized in England. Sebastian Cabot, then "Grand
   Pilot of England," was at the head of it. The northwestern
   passage was not found, but the company opened a trade with
   Russia which proved to be exceedingly valuable. Accepting
   this, in lieu of the China trade which it could not reach, it
   became, as the Russia Company, a rich and powerful
   corporation. The success of the Russia Company stimulated the
   adventurous disposition of the English people and set other
   enterprises in motion. But still more energy was roused by the
   hostility of national feeling toward Spain. The destruction of
   the Armada broke the Spanish naval power and made the English
   bold. They began to navigate the sea from that time with
   intent to become its masters, though the Dutch were still
   superior to them in maritime strength and experience. During
   the reign of Elizabeth there rose a new race of Vikings, very
   much like the old Norse heroes of the sea, and pursuing a very
   similar career.
{3718}
   The most daring and most famous among them, such as Grenville,
   Drake and Hawkins, were more than half pirates, and their
   voyages were chiefly expeditions for plunder, directed against
   the Spaniards and Portuguese. The trade which they first gave
   attention to was the trade in negro slaves. But those
   piratical adventurers of the 16th century made England the
   "mistress of the seas." They trained for her a body of sailors
   who were able in time to more than cope with the Dutch, and
   they opened the newly known regions of the world for her
   merchants and colonists to spread over them. Before the end of
   the 17th century, the English had become the foremost power in
   the western world and were making the most of its
   opportunities for production and trade. Meantime they were
   pushing their way with equal energy in the East. On the last
   day of the year 1600 the "Company of Merchants of London
   trading into the East Indies," which became afterwards so
   great and famous as the "East India Company" of England, was
   chartered by the Queen. The Company sent out its first fleet
   of five vessels in 1601. The expedition returned, after an
   absence of two years and seven months, richly laden, in part
   with pepper from Sumatra and in part with the spoils of a
   Portuguese ship which it had captured in the straits of
   Malacca. It had settled a trading agency, or factory, at
   Bantam—and that was the beginning of the vast empire which
   England now rules in the East.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702 (page 1709).

COMMERCE: MODERN: The English:
   17-18th Centuries.
   The Colonial or Sole Market Commercial System.

   "The doctrine that the commercial prosperity of a country
   depends on the creation, maintenance, and extension of a sole
   market for its products and for its supplies, was prevalent
   from the discovery of the New World and the Cape Passage down
   to the war of American Independence. This was the principal
   object of Borgia's Bulls. This was what animated the Dutch, in
   their successful, in the end too successful, struggle, after a
   monopoly of the Spice islands. This was the motive which led
   to the charters of the Russian Company, the Levant Company,
   the East India Company, the Turkey Company, the Hudson's Bay
   Company, in England. The theory was organized in the colonial
   system, which Adam Smith examined, attacked, and as far as
   argument could go, demolished in his great work. But the dream
   of a sole market is still possessing the Germans and the
   French. … The early wars of Europe were wars of conquest. …
   After them came the wars of religion, from the outbreak of the
   Insurrection in the Low Countries, and the civil wars in
   France, down to the Peace of Westphalia in the middle of the
   17th century. From that day to our own, European wars have
   been waged on behalf of the balance of power, the principal
   mischief-maker in the contest being France. The English, the
   French, and the Dutch were the competitors in the wars for a
   sole market. But Holland was practically ruined at the peace
   of Aix-la-Chapelle, and France was stripped … of her colonies
   at the peace of Paris, and England became not only the
   principal maritime, but the principal manufacturing and
   mercantile country in the world. As regards English trade,
   however, though India was an outlet to some extent for English
   goods, its trade was in the hands of a chartered company, whom
   the Seven Years' War had left in serious straits. The most
   important sole market which Great Britain had acquired by her
   wars was the seaboard of North America. To support the
   finances of the chartered company, the British Parliament
   determined on taxing the inhabitants of her sole market, and
   the result as you know was the war of American Independence. …
   The colonial or sole-market system was based on a strict
   reciprocity. The English Government admitted colonial produce
   into the English markets at differential duties, or prohibited
   the produce of foreign nations and foreign colonies
   altogether. The Colonies were not only the customers of
   English manufacturers only, to the absolute exclusion of
   foreign manufactures, but were prohibited from undertaking
   those manufactures themselves. The English Government adopted
   with their colonies the policy which they adopted with Irish
   manufactures, which they also prohibited, but with this
   difference, that they disabled the Irish from having any trade
   whatever with England, with the Colonies, and with foreign
   countries. They wished to extinguish, with one exception,
   every Irish product, and to constitute themselves the sole
   manufacturers and shopkeepers for the Irish. They allowed only
   the linen manufacture of Ulster. The Irish were to be, with
   this exception, agriculturists only, but they were to be
   disabled from selling their agricultural produce in England,
   or elsewhere. They were practically denied the right of trade.
   … It was the doctrine of the sole market in its most
   exaggerated form. … The colonial system, under which
   advantages were secured to the colonial producer by giving him
   a preferred market in Great Britain, while the colonist was
   debarred from engaging in manufactures, was a selfish one on
   the part of the English merchants and manufacturers. It gave
   the colonist a sole market, it is true. But it does not follow
   that a sole market is a high market. On the contrary, it is
   probable that the offer of a sole market is intended to secure
   a low market. The Virginian planter sent the whole of his
   tobacco to England. The English trader re-exported it to other
   countries, say Holland or Germany. It may be presumed that he
   made a profit on the original consignment, and on the
   re-exportation, or he would not have undertaken the business.
   … The colonial system did not preclude the plantations from
   sending, under the strict conditions of the Navigation Act,
   certain kinds of produce to other countries than England.
   These were called non-enumerated commodities, the principal
   being corn, timber, salted provisions, fish, sugar, and rum.
   There was a reason for this, which was to be found in the
   fiscal system of England. We did not want colonial corn, for
   there were duties on corn, levied in the interest of the
   landlords, nor colonial timber, salted meat and salted fish,
   for the home produce of these articles were similarly
   assisted. Sugar and rum were allowed to be exported, for the
   owners of the plantations in the Leeward isles were chiefly
   absentee English proprietors, who had already a monopoly of
   English supply, and were powerful enough in Parliament to get
   an extended market elsewhere. But in 1769, just before the
   troubles broke out with the American plantations, an Act was
   passed, disabling the colonists from sending even the
   non-enumerated commodities to any country north of Cape
   Finisterre, in Northern Spain. … The enumerated goods, and
   there was a long list of them, could be exported to Great
   Britain only. They consisted, as Adam Smith says, of what
   could not be produced in this country, and what could be
   produced in great quantity in the Colonies."

      J. E. T. Rogers,
      The Economic Interpretation of History,
      lecture 15.

{3719}

COMMERCE: MODERN: The Americans:
   Colonial Trade.

   "We are a nation of land-traffickers, but our ancestors in the
   colonies traded and traveled almost entirely by water. There
   were but twelve miles of land-carriage in all the province of
   New York; beyond Albany the Indian trade was carried on by
   'three-' or 'four-handed batteaus,' sharp at both ends, like
   the Adirondack boat of to-day. Yachts, with bottoms of black
   oak and sides of red cedar, brought wheat in bulk and peltries
   down the Hudson; other craft carried on the domestic trade of
   New York town with the shores of Long Island, Staten Island,
   and the little ports beyond the Kill von Kull. … The first
   regular wagon-carriage from the Connecticut River to Boston
   did not begin until 1697; Massachusetts had then been settled
   seventy years. The flat-bottomed boat, which has since played
   so important a part in the trade of the Ohio and the
   Mississippi, and whose form was probably suggested by that of
   the 'west country barges' of England, appears to have been
   used for floating produce down the Delaware before 1685. In
   the Chesapeake colonies, until late in the provincial period,
   there were almost no roads but the numerous bays and
   water-courses, and almost no vehicles but canoes, row-boats,
   pinnaces and barks. Places of resort for worship or business
   were usually near the waterside. … But of all means of travel
   or trade the Indian canoe was the chief. … Roads in the
   colonies were hardly ever laid out, but were left where Indian
   trail or chance cart-track in the woods had marked them. …
   From England, along with bad roads, the colonists brought the
   pack-horse which, in Devon and Cornwall, at the close of the
   last century, still did the carrying, even of building-stones
   and cord-wood. Most of the inland traffic of the colonial
   period was done by packing. … The Germans, whose ancestors had
   four-wheeled vehicles in the days of Julius Cæsar, made good
   roads wherever they planted themselves. While their English
   neighbors were content to travel on horseback and to ford and
   swim streams, the Salzburgers in Georgia began by opening a
   wagon-road twelve miles long, with seven bridges, 'which
   surprised the English mightily.' Pennsylvania, the home of the
   Germans, alone of the colonies built good straight roads; and
   the facility which these afforded to ten thousand
   freight-wagons was the main advantage that gave Philadelphia
   the final preeminence among the colonial sea-ports, and made
   Lancaster the only considerable inland mart In North America.
   … Proximity to the wampum-making savages at one end of Hudson
   River navigation and to the beaver-catchers at the other made
   New York the chief seat of the fur trade. Wagon-roads, soil,
   climate, and an industrious people made Philadelphia the
   principal center of the traffic in bread and meat. The
   never-ending line of convenient shore that bordered the
   peninsulas of Maryland and Virginia, and gave a good
   landing-place at every man's door, with a tobacco currency,
   rendered it difficult to build towns or develop trade among
   the easy-going planters of the Chesapeake and Albemarle
   regions. A different coast-line, and rivers less convenient,
   made Charleston the rich and urbane commercial and social
   center of southern Carolina. Until about 1750 Boston was the
   leading sea-port, and its long wharf, 2,000 feet in length
   with warehouses on one side of it, was the New World wonder of
   travelers. Five or six hundred vessels annually cleared out of
   Boston in the middle of the 18th century for the foreign trade
   alone, and the city contained between twenty and thirty
   thousand people at the outbreak of the Revolution. But
   Newport, with its thirty distilleries to make rum of the
   molasses brought from the islands, and its seventeen sperm-oil
   and candle factories to work up the results of the whaling
   industry, had nearly half as many ships in foreign trade as
   Boston, and three or four hundred craft of all sorts in the
   coast-wise carrying trade. He was thought a bold prophet who
   said then that 'New York might one day equal Newport'; for
   about 1750 New York sent forth fewer ships than Newport, and
   not half so many as Boston. … But Philadelphia—planted late in
   the 17th century—outstripped all rivals, and for the last
   twenty years of the colonial period was the chief port of
   North America. … The imports and exports of the two tobacco
   colonies together were far larger than those of Philadelphia,
   but their profits were far less."

      E. Eggleston,
      Commerce in the Colonies
      (Century, June, 1884).

COMMERCE: MODERN: The English:
   18-19th Centuries.
   Rising prosperity and commercial supremacy.
   Successful War, Free Trade and Steam Power.

   "If we look at the state of the European powers after the
   conclusion of the Seven Years' War in 1763, we shall see how
   favourable our position then was. In the first place, England
   had seriously crippled her commercial rival, France, both in
   her Indian and American possessions, and thereby had gained
   extensive colonial territories which afforded a ready market
   for British goods. Spain, which had been allied with France,
   had lost at the same time her position as the commercial rival
   of England in trade with the New World. Germany had for some
   time ceased to be a formidable competitor, and was now being
   ravaged by internal conflicts between the reigning houses of
   Austria and Prussia. Holland, which had once been England's
   most serious rival—especially in foreign commerce—was at this
   time in a similar condition, and had greatly declined from the
   prosperity of the 16th and 17th centuries. Hence England alone
   had the chance of 'the universal empire of the sole market.'
   The supply of this market was in the hands of English
   manufacturers and English workmen, so that the great
   inventions which came into operation after 1763 were thus at
   once called into active employment, and our mills and mines
   were able to produce wealth as fast as they could work,
   without fear of foreign competition. It is not surprising,
   therefore, to find that in the ten years, from 1782 to 1792,
   our entire foreign trade was nearly doubled, the exact figures
   being:
   1782, imports £10,341,628, exports £13,009,458;
   1792, Imports £19,659,358, exports £24,905,200.
   And this remarkable progress was still kept up even during the
   great continental wars which were caused by the French
   Revolution, and which lasted for almost a quarter of a
   century. …
{3720}
   In spite of the almost entire loss of our trade in some
   directions, English commerce improved in others; and, in fact,
   any loss was more than counterbalanced by an increase in
   regard to the (now independent) United States, Russia, Venice,
   Germany, and Northern Europe, as well as with the West and
   East Indian colonies, both British and foreign. In fact, many
   of the countries whom France had compelled to become our
   enemies found themselves unable to do without British
   manufactures, especially as their own industries were
   suffering from the warfare that was going on on the Continent,
   and therefore had to find means to procure our goods. … The
   close of the 25 years of continental war (1815) is sometimes
   taken as being the date when the modern system of commerce may
   be said to have had its beginning. Up to that time, although
   great changes and advances had been made, the spirit of
   monopoly and the general restrictive policy which
   characterised previous centuries, were still, to some extent,
   in force. But not very long after the peace that was won by
   the battle of Waterloo, a remarkable change was made in the
   commercial policy of England. … We now come to the beginnings
   of freedom of trade."

      H. de B. Gibbins,
      British Commerce and Colonies,
      pages 91-102.

   "When the wars of the French Revolution began, the foundations
   of a great empire had already been broadly laid; and when it
   ended, England stood out as a power which had grown greater in
   the struggle. … Dutchman, Dane, and Spaniard, Frenchman and
   Venetian, all ancient competitors of England, fell before her;
   and, when the sword was sheathed in 1815, it was no
   exaggerated boast to call her mistress of the seas. These
   facts should never be lost sight of in any consideration of
   the causes which have led us to where we now are. Without
   these preparatory steps, both in domestic industries and in
   foreign wars and conquests, England would not, with all her
   material advantages, have been so entirely the gainer by the
   progress of the last fifty years as she has so far proved to
   be. … There is the more need to remember this because the time
   immediately following the war was one of severe domestic
   suffering, and of much retrograde legislation, conceived with
   a view to, if possible, lessen that suffering. … The worst of
   all the laws which then restricted trade were those relating
   to the exports and imports of corn, which the younger men of
   to-day have well-nigh forgotten. … It was not till after long
   years of agitation by John Bright, Richard Cobden, and other
   leaders of the Anti-Corn Law League, that the landed party
   gave way sullenly, and assented, amid the most gloomy
   predictions of impending ruin, to the repeal of the sliding
   scale altogether, and the virtual abolition of all corn laws
   by the substitution of a fixed duty of 1 s. per quarter. Thus
   recently was one of the most oppressive pieces of fiscal
   legislation that man could have conceived withdrawn; and not
   until 1849, when that law came into force, could the
   industries of the country be said to be anything like
   unfettered. Yet twenty years more passed before this shilling
   duty—the last rag of protection—was itself flung aside, and
   the import of corn became perfectly free. … But many other
   changes had in the meantime taken place, all tending more and
   more to throw off the shackles of trade. … As late as 1840 our
   customs tariff was described in the report of a committee of
   the House of Commons as 'presenting neither congruity nor
   unity of purpose;' as 'often aiming at incompatible ends,'
   seeking both to produce revenue and to protect interests in
   ways incompatible with each other. There were no fewer than
   1,150 different rates of duty chargeable on imported articles,
   … and the committee gave a list of 862 of such articles which
   were subject to duty, seventeen of which then produced 94 per
   cent. of a revenue amounting to £23,000,000. … The present
   customs tariff contains less than two dozen articles all told,
   and including those on which duty is imposed to countervail
   the excise charges on internal products. The ordinary import
   articles on which duty is charged number only seven. … But
   there is yet another hindrance the removal of which has to be
   noticed, and which, till removed, cramped England very
   seriously, viz. the navigation laws and the great trade
   monopoly of the East India Company. … It took longer time … to
   accomplish the complete deliverance of our mercantile marine
   from the baneful influence of 'protective' jealousy than to
   accomplish any other great free-trade reform. A tentative
   effort to lessen the consequences of confining the carrying
   trade of England to English ships was made in 1825 by Mr.
   Huskisson; but it was not till 1854 that complete free trade
   on the sea was granted by the abolition of any restriction as
   to the nationality of vessels engaged in the coasting trade of
   the kingdom. … Here, then, we have noted briefly the various
   steps and leading characteristics of the commercial reforms
   which, in this country, either paved the way for or secured
   the benefit of the great outburst of enterprise and influx of
   wealth which began in the second quarter of the present
   century. These various reforms constitute, so to say, the
   negative side of the modern commercial prosperity which this
   country built upon the foundations of her world-wide empire;
   and, in order to get a complete outline of the position which
   we at present occupy, we must now revert briefly to the
   positive side of the subject; we must find out where the great
   modern wealth has come from, and on what it has been based.
   Freedom of trade no doubt did much to call wealth and
   enterprise into being; but in what did this wealth consist?
   Happily the leading features are not difficult to trace.
   Although the foundations of the great manufacturing industries
   of this country lie far back in the past, their development,
   like the growth of free-trade principles, is quite modern, and
   dates in reality from the day when George Stephenson won the
   competition at Liverpool with his locomotive 'the Rocket,'
   settling thereby the question of railroad travelling by steam
   beyond dispute. The mere stimulus to all kinds of mining and
   manufacturing industries which this victory and the subsequent
   railway operations gave, was itself enough to cause the trade
   of this country to press forward by 'leaps and bounds.' Since
   November 1830, it may be said to have done so; and the mere
   fact that England was the originator of the railway systems of
   the world, and that she contained within herself almost
   boundless materials wherewith to supply those systems, would
   itself suffice to explain the pre-eminence which from that day
   to this has been unquestionably hers.
{3721}
   The great natural resources of the country were first employed
   in supplying the materials for home development, and then
   gradually the wealth thus acquired by digging in the bowels of
   the earth was utilised in tempting or leading other nations
   into a career of 'progress' similar to our own. In spite of
   the many losses which individuals suffered in the early days
   of this progress, the nation grew steadily richer and its
   stores of realised wealth increased with every new enterprise
   almost that it took up. … Each year the realised wealth of the
   one before told, as it were, in swelling the working power of
   the nation, and in enlarging the business capacities and scope
   of its credit. … Side by side with the increased produce of
   the country, the increased manufactures, and the increasing
   wealth, there were growing up facilities for
   intercommunication with all parts of the world, and with that
   an increasing tendency to emigration. The home hives were
   constantly throwing off young swarms, which, settling now in
   America, now in Australia, now in Africa, became so many new
   centres of demand, so many links in the trade chain that we
   had bound round the world."

      A. J. Wilson,
      British Trade
      (Fraser's Magazine, September, 1876),
      pages 271-277.

   "The almost unlimited expansion which becomes marked about
   1850 and culminates in 1873, has been pointed to by many
   different people as proof of the great effect of different
   measures or inventions; as a matter of fact, it was due to no
   one cause, but was rather the result of multitudinous
   discoveries and events, acting and reacting on each other.
   Perhaps the following list of dates shows this most clearly;—

   Opening of first English railway, 1830;
   Wheatstone's telegraph, 1837;
   first ocean steamer, 1838;
   settlement in New Zealand, 1840;
   reduction of duties on raw materials, 1842;
   repeal of Corn Laws, 1846;
   commercial treaty with France, 1860.

   Here are seven events of widely different natures, each of
   which must have had its effect in the period under
   consideration, and it would be useless, even if it were
   possible, to weigh the separate result of each. We cannot
   estimate, we can obtain no criterion of the vast effects of
   the adoption of Free Trade. Three things, however, are clear;—
   First, that till the suffocating restrictions were removed,
   trade could not expand; when exports were prohibited, imports
   could not be plentiful; when imports were taxed, the demand at
   enhanced prices could not be great. Secondly, if every
   restriction was removed from every branch of trade, there
   would be no increase without natural causes of manufacture and
   demand, no increased demand without a cheapening or
   improvement of supply; that, in fact, Free Trade is the
   method, not the source, of commerce, and that the claim of
   this increase as the direct result of freedom and a proof of
   its expediency is an inaccurate exaggeration. Thirdly, that
   the date of the marked commencement of the expansion coincides
   exactly with the reductions and abolitions of duties, pointing
   to the fact, borne out by all concurrent events, that the
   adoption of Free Trade was the opening of the valve which
   allowed the forces of commerce full play. … It was in the
   trades of comparatively recent establishment, in England
   especially, that there were immense outputs (of cotton goods
   and machinery, for instance), in great excess of the home
   demand; and this could only pay if the foreign demand grew in
   proportion to the growing efficiency; that is to say, our
   newer industries became the most important, and were marked as
   our division of international labour. The foreign demand,
   indeed, for our manufactures and our machines was
   extraordinary. Now, every country is trying to rival our
   goods, and each to produce for herself the manufactures she
   requires; then, rivalry was out of the question. … On every
   side new markets were opened; old trades were increased, new
   developed. The railways built with our materials opened up
   districts hitherto inaccessible; this acted as a fresh
   stimulus to our manufacturers—more capital was forthcoming,
   and more railways were built. Not only were countries, with
   which we had already established some trade, brought nearer
   and in closer relation, but new countries were discovered.
   Australia and New Zealand were ready to take our surplus
   population, and were not behindhand in the new system of
   development. Our older colonies also increased. With each
   emigration the number of our customers abroad was multiplied.
   In 1850 and 1852 this process was accelerated by the news of
   the gold discoveries in California and Australia. So great was
   the emigration and the consequent demand for ships that all
   freights were increased, and, with a short lull, this
   continued till 1856. … The last great impetus was given by the
   Suez Canal, by which the journey to India and the East was
   quickened by one-half, and, at the same time, rendered more
   secure."

      A. L. Bowley,
      England's Foreign Trade in the Nineteenth Century.
      chapter 4.

      See, also, TARIFF LEGISLATION (pages 3073-3077).

COMMERCE: MODERN:
   The Americans: A. D, 1856-1895.
   Decay of American shipping interests.

   "Down to the year 1856, the United States had rapidly advanced
   in commercial greatness, and had overcome all the obstacles
   which had clustered about their path. At that time we were
   close upon the heels of England, and everything pointed to our
   speedily passing her in the race for commercial supremacy.
   Since then our commerce has steadily declined,—a misfortune
   usually attributed to the civil war, and subsequently to the
   competition of more profitable forms of investment. These
   circumstances no doubt hastened the loss of our commerce; but,
   as Lieutenant Kelley points out, they are not the true causes
   of its decline, inasmuch as that began before the civil war.
   The origin of our difficulties lay in the abandonment of our
   old policy, which, from the beginning of the century,
   consisted in surpassing all the world in the quality and speed
   of our ships and in our naval architecture. With the
   substitution of iron for wood we began to drop behind, until,
   with a population of 55,000,000, we have a tonnage but little
   greater than we had when half as numerous. Moreover, our
   percentage of wrecks is larger than that of any other
   seafaring people, and our ships and steamers are
   shorter-lived.

      The Question of Ships
      (Atlantic Monthly, June, 1884, pages 859-861).

{3722}

   "The first symptoms of the decadence appeared in 1856, in the
   falling-off in the sales of American tonnage to foreigners;
   the reduction being from 65,000 in 1855 to 42,000 in 1856, to
   26,000 in 1858, and to 17,000 in 1860. During the war,
   however, the transfers of American tonnage to foreign flags
   again increased very largely, and, for the years 1862 to 1865
   inclusive, amounted to the large aggregate of 824,652 tons, or
   to more than one-fourth of all the registered tonnage (the
   tonnage engaged in foreign trade) of the United States in
   1860. But these transfers, it is well understood, were not in
   the nature of ordinary business, but for the sake of obtaining
   a more complete immunity from destruction upon the high seas
   than the United States at that time was able to afford. The
   year 1856 also marks the time when the growth of our foreign
   steam-shipping was arrested, and a retrograde movement
   inaugurated; so that … our aggregate tonnage in this
   department was 1,000 tons less in 1862 than it was in 1855.
   The total tonnage of every description built in the United
   States also declined from 583,450 tons in 1855 (the largest
   amount ever built in any one year) to 469,393 in 1856, 378,804
   in 1857, and 212,892 in 1860, a reduction of 68 per cent in
   five years. During the year 1855, American vessels carried
   75.6 per cent of the value of the exports and imports of the
   United States. After 1855 this proportion steadily declined to
   75.2 per cent in 1856, 70.5 in 1857, 66.9 in 1859, and 65.2 in
   1861, the year of the outbreak of the war. … Of the enormous
   increase in the foreign commerce of the United States since
   1860, as above noted, every maritime nation of any note, with
   the exception of the United States, has taken a share.
   American tonnage alone exhibits a decrease. Thus, comparing
   1880 with 1856, the foreign tonnage entering the seaports of
   the United States increased nearly 11,000,000 of tons; whereas
   the American tonnage entered during the same period exhibits a
   decrease of over 65,000 tons. British tonnage increased its
   proportion from 935,000 tons in 1856 to 7,903,000 in 1880;
   Germany, during the same time, from 166,000 to 1,089,000; and
   Sweden and Norway from 20,662 to 1,234,000. Austria, limited
   to almost a single seaport, jumped up from 1,477 tons in 1856
   to 206,000 tons in 1880, and had, in 1879, 179 large-class
   sailing-vessels engaged in the American trade. Sleepy Portugal
   increased during the same period from 4,727 tons to 24,449
   tons. … How is it, that the United States, formerly a maritime
   power of the first class, has now no ships or steamers that
   can profitably compete for the carrying of even its own
   exports; not merely with the ships of our great commercial
   rival, England, but also with those of Italy, Sweden, Norway,
   Germany, Holland, Austria, and Portugal? … The facts already
   presented fully demonstrate that the war was not the cause,
   and did not mark the commencement, of the decadence of
   American shipping; although the contrary is often and perhaps
   generally assumed by those who have undertaken to discuss this
   subject. The war simply hastened a decay which had already
   commenced. … The primary cause was what may be termed a
   natural one, the result of the progress of the age and a
   higher degree of civilization; namely, the substitution of
   steam in place of wind as an agent for ship-propulsion, and
   the substitution of iron in the place of wood as a material
   for ship-construction. … The means and appliances for the
   construction of iron vessels did not then [in 1855] exist in
   the United States; while Great Britain, commencing even as far
   back as 1837 (when John Laird constructed his first iron
   steamers of any magnitude for steam navigation), and with
   eighteen years of experience, had become thoroughly equipped
   in 1855 for the prosecution of this great industry. The
   facilities for the construction of steam machinery adapted to
   the most economical propulsion of ocean vessels, furthermore,
   were also inferior in the United States to those existing in
   Great Britain; and, by reason of statute provisions, citizens
   of the United States interested in ocean commerce were
   absolutely prevented and forbidden from availing themselves of
   the results of British skill and superiority in the
   construction of vessels when such a recourse was the only
   policy which could have enabled them at the time to hold their
   position in the ocean carrying trade in competition with their
   foreign rivals. … The inability of the ships of the United
   States to do the work which trade and commerce required that
   they should do as well and cheaply as the ships of other
   nations having been demonstrated by experience, the decadence
   of American shipping commenced and was inevitable from the
   very hour when this fact was first recognized, which was about
   the year 1856. Here, then, we have the primary cause of the
   decay of the business of ship-building in the United States
   and of our commercial marine. … The question which next
   naturally presents itself in the order of this inquiry and
   discussion is, Why is it that the people of the United States
   have not been permitted to enjoy the privileges accorded to
   other maritime nations, of adjusting their shipping interests
   to the spirit and wants of the age? Why have they alone been
   debarred from using the best tools in an important department
   of commerce, when the using meant business retained, labor
   employed, and capital rewarded, and the non-using equally
   meant decay, paralysis, and impoverishment? The answer is,
   Because of our so-called navigation laws."

      D. A. Wells,
      Our Merchant Marine,
      chapters 2-3.

   "Somewhat curtailed, the navigation laws may be summarized as
   follows: No American is allowed to import a foreign-built
   vessel in the sense of purchasing, acquiring a registry, or
   using her as his property; the only other imports, equally and
   forcibly prohibited, being counterfeit money and obscene
   goods. An American vessel ceases to be such if owned in the
   smallest degree by a naturalized citizen, who may, after
   acquiring the purchase, reside for more than one year in his
   native country, or for more than two years in any other
   foreign state. An American ship owned in part or in full by an
   American citizen who, without the expectation of relinquishing
   his citizenship, resides in any foreign country except as
   United States Consul, or as agent or partner in an exclusively
   American mercantile house, loses its register and its right to
   protection. A citizen obtaining a register for an American
   vessel must make oath that no foreigner is directly or
   indirectly interested in the profits thereof, whether as
   commander, officer, or owner. Foreign capital may build our
   railroads, work our mines, insure our property, and buy our
   bonds, but a single dollar invested in American ships so
   taints as to render it unworthy of the benefit of our laws. No
   foreign-built vessel can, under penalty of confiscation, enter
   our ports and then sail to another domestic port with any new
   cargo, or with any part of an original cargo, which has once
   been unladen previously, without touching at some port of some
   foreign country.
{3723}
   This law is construed to include all direct traffic between
   the Atlantic and Pacific ports of the United States via Cape
   Horn, the Cape of Good Hope, or the Isthmus of Panama; and
   being a coasting trade, foreigners cannot compete. An American
   vessel once sold or transferred to a foreigner, can never
   again become American property, even if the transaction has
   been the result of capture and condemnation by a foreign power
   in time of war. Vessels under 30 tons cannot be used to import
   anything at any seaboard town. Cargoes from the eastward of
   the Cape of Good Hope are subject to a duty of 10 per cent. in
   addition to the direct importation duties. American vessels
   repaired in foreign ports must pay a duty on the repairs equal
   to one-half the cost of the foreign work or material, or pay
   50 per cent. ad valorem, the master or owner making entry of
   such repairs as imports. This liberal provision, which dates
   from 1866, is made to include boats obtained at sea, from a
   passing foreign vessel, in order to assure the safety of our
   own seamen. … All other nations have the power of buying ships
   for foreign trade in the cheapest market, and the effort to
   protect our shipbuilders by the denial of this right forbids
   the return of commercial prosperity."

      J. D. J. Kelley,
      The Question of Ships,
      chapters 4-5.

COMMERCE: MODERN:
   The recent revolution in Commerce.

   "All economists who have specially studied this matter are
   substantially agreed that, within the period named
   [1860-1885], man in general has attained to such a greater
   control over the forces of Nature, and has so compassed their
   use, that he has been able to do far more work in a given
   time, produce far more product, measured by quantity in ratio
   to a given amount of labor, and reduce the effort necessary to
   insure a comfortable subsistence in a far greater measure than
   it was possible for him to accomplish 20 or 30 years anterior
   to the time of the present writing (1889). In the absence of
   sufficiently complete data, it is not easy, and perhaps not
   possible, to estimate accurately, and specifically state the
   average saving in time and labor in the world's work of
   production and distribution that has been thus achieved. In a
   few departments of industrial effort the saving in both of
   these factors has certainly amounted to 70 or 80 per cent; in
   not a few to more than 50 per cent. … Out of such results as
   are definitely known and accepted have come tremendous
   industrial and social disturbances, the extent and effect of
   which—and more especially of the disturbances which have
   culminated, as it were, in later years—it is not easy to
   appreciate without the presentation and consideration of
   certain typical and specific examples. … Let us go back, in
   the first instance, to the year 1869, when an event occurred
   which was probably productive of more immediate and serious
   economic changes—industrial, commercial, and financial—than
   any other event of this century, a period of extensive war
   excepted. That was the opening of the Suez Canal. … The old
   transportation had been performed by ships, mainly
   sailing-vessels, fitted to go round the Cape, and as such
   ships were not adapted to the Suez Canal, an amount of
   tonnage, estimated by some authorities as high as two million
   tons, and representing an immense amount of wealth, was
   virtually destroyed. The voyage, in place of occupying from
   six to eight months, has been so greatly reduced that steamers
   adapted to the canal now make the voyage from London to
   Calcutta, or vice versa, in less than 30 days. The notable
   destruction or great impairment in the value of ships
   consequent upon the construction of the canal did not,
   furthermore, terminate with its immediate opening and use; for
   improvements in marine engines, diminishing the consumption of
   coal, and so enabling vessels to be not only sailed at less
   cost, but to carry also more cargo, were, in consequence of
   demand for quick and cheap service so rapidly effected, that
   the numerous and expensive steamer constructions of 1870-1873,
   being unable to compete with the constructions of the next two
   years, were nearly all displaced in 1875-1876, and sold for
   half, or less than half, of their original cost. And within
   another decade these same improved steamers of 1875-1876 have,
   in turn, been discarded and sold at small prices. … Again,
   with telegraphic communication between India and China, and
   the markets of the Western world, permitting the dealers and
   consumers of the latter to adjust to a nicety their supplies
   of commodities to varying demands, and with the reduction of
   the time of the voyage to 30 days or less, there was no longer
   any necessity of laying up great stores of Eastern commodities
   in Europe; and with the termination of this necessity, the
   India warehouse and distribution system of England, with all
   the labor and all the capital and banking incident to it,
   substantially passed away. Europe, and to some extent the
   United States, ceased to go to England for its supplies. …
   Importations of East Indian produce are also no longer
   confined in England and other countries to a special class of
   merchants; and so generally has this former large and special
   department of trade been broken up and dispersed, that
   extensive retail grocers in the larger cities of Europe and
   the United States are now reported as drawing their supplies
   direct from native dealers in both China and India. … In
   short, the construction of the Suez Canal completely
   revolutionized one of the greatest departments of the world's
   commerce and business; absolutely destroying an immense amount
   of what had previously been wealth, and displacing or changing
   the employment of millions of capital and thousands of men. …
   The deductions from the most recent tonnage statistics of
   Great Britain come properly next in order for consideration.
   During the ten years from 1870 to 1880, inclusive, the British
   mercantile marine increased its movement, in the matter of
   foreign entries and clearances alone, to the extent of
   22,000,000 tons; or, to put it more simply, the British
   mercantile marine exclusively engaged in foreign trade did so
   much more work within the period named; and yet the number of
   men who were employed in effecting this great movement had
   decreased in 1880, as compared with 1870, to the extent of
   about 3,000 (2,990 exactly). What did it? The introduction of
   steam hoisting-machines and grain-elevators upon the wharves
   and docks, and the employment of steam-power upon the vessels
   for steering, raising the sails and anchors, pumping, and
   discharging the cargo; or, in other words, the ability,
   through the increased use of steam and improved machinery, to
   carry larger cargoes in a shorter time, with no increase—or,
   rather, an actual decrease—of the number of men employed in
   sailing or managing the vessels. …
{3724}
   Prior to about the year 1875 ocean-steamships had not been
   formidable as freight-carriers. The marine engine was too
   heavy, occupied too much space, consumed too much coal. … The
   result of the construction and use of compound engines in
   economizing coal has been illustrated by Sir Lyon Playfair, by
   the statement that 'a small cake of coal, which would pass
   through a ring the size of a shilling, when burned in the
   compound engine of a modern steamboat would drive a ton of
   food and its proportion of the ship two miles on its way from
   a foreign port.' … Is it, therefore, to be wondered at, that
   the sailing-vessel is fast disappearing from the ocean? …
   Great, however, as has been the revolution in respect to
   economy and efficiency in the carrying-trade upon the ocean,
   the revolution in the carrying-trade upon land during the same
   period has been even greater and more remarkable. Taking the
   American railroads in general as representative of the
   railroad system of the world, the average charge for moving
   one ton of freight per mile has been reduced from about 2.5
   cents in 1869 to 1.06 in 1887; or, taking the results on one
   of the standard roads of the United States the (New York
   Central), from 1.95 in 1869 to 0.68 in 1885. … One marked
   effect of the present railroad and steamship system of
   transportation has been to compel a uniformity of prices for
   all commodities that are essential to life. … For grain
   henceforth, therefore, the railroad and the steamship have
   decided that there shall be but one market—the world."

      D. A. Wells,
      Recent Economic Changes,
      pages. 27-47.

   A recent English writer says: "Formerly we [the English] were
   the great manufacturers of the world; the great distributors
   and the great warehousemen of the world. Our country was the
   point on which the great passenger traffic impinged from
   America and from our Colonies, and from which passengers
   distributed themselves over the continent of Europe. The
   products of the world as a general rule came to English ports,
   and from English ports were distributed to their various
   markets. All this has much changed. Probably the alteration is
   more marked in our distributing trade than in that of our
   manufacturing trade or in any other direction. About twenty
   years ago all the silk that was manufactured or consumed in
   Europe was brought to England from the East, mostly in a raw
   state, and was thence distributed to continental mills.
   Notwithstanding the increased consumption in Europe, silk now
   coming to England for distribution is only about one-eighth of
   the quantity that came here some twelve years ago. This is one
   single example of an Oriental product. The same diversion of
   our distributing trade can be traced in almost every other
   commodity. Many people believe that the opening of the Suez
   Canal has caused this diminution of our distributing trade,
   and it cannot be denied that the Suez Canal has done much to
   divert Oriental trade from this country, and to send goods
   direct through the Canal to the continental ports, where they
   are consumed, or where they can be placed on railways and be
   forwarded without break of bulk to their destinations. But
   whatever the Suez Canal may have done to divert trade in
   Oriental goods such as tea or silk, it cannot account for the
   diversion of the trade coming from America. Yet we find the
   same diversion of American products which formerly came to
   England for distribution. With cotton the same result is
   found, and with coffee from the Brazil. Nor does the diversion
   of these articles merely demonstrate that our distributing
   trade is being lost to us: it also shows that the
   manufacturers of England now permit the raw material of their
   industries to be sent straight to the factories of their
   competitors on the Continent. It shows that the great
   manufactures of the world are being transferred from England
   to Belgium, France, Germany, and even to Portugal and Spain.
   In the train of these manufactures are rapidly following all
   the complex and complicated businesses which are the
   hand-maidens of commerce. For instance, the financial business
   which used to centre in London is being transferred to Paris,
   Antwerp, and Germany, mainly because the goods to which this
   business relates are now consigned to continental countries
   instead of as formerly being brought to England to be
   distributed therefrom. … The loss of our distributing trade is
   to my mind in a great measure due to the fact that goods
   consigned to continental ports can be there put upon railways
   and sent straight to their destination; while goods sent to
   English ports must be put upon a railway, taken to our coast,
   there taken out of the railway, put on board a vessel, taken
   across to the Continent, there unloaded, then put on the
   railway and sent off to their ultimate destination. These
   transhipments from railway to vessel and from vessel to
   railway are always costly, always involve time, and in the
   case of some perishable articles render the transaction almost
   prohibitive. To get over this difficulty and to retain our
   distributing trade, there appears to me to be only one course
   open, and that is in some way to obtain direct
   railway-communication from Liverpool, from London, from
   Bristol, from Hull, from Glasgow, and from Dundee, to the
   continental markets where the goods landed at those ports are
   consumed."

      H. M. Hozier,
      England's Real Peril
      (Macmillan's Magazine, July, 1888).

COMMERCE: MODERN:
   Waterways and Railways in modern inland commerce.

   "There are three great epochs in the modern history of canal
   navigation, each marked by characteristics peculiar to itself,
   and sufficiently unlike those of either of the others to
   enable it to be readily differentiated. They may be thus
   described:

   1. The era of waterways, designed at once to facilitate the
   transport of heavy traffic from inland centres to the
   seaboard, and to supersede the then existing systems of
   locomotion—the wagon and the pack-horse. This era commenced
   with the construction of the Bridgewater Canal between 1766
   and 1770, and terminated with the installation of the railway
   system in 1830.

   2. The era of interoceanic canals, which was inaugurated by
   the completion of the Suez Canal in 1869, and is still in
   progress.

   3. The era of ship-canals intended to afford to cities and
   towns remote from the sea, all the advantages of a seaboard,
   and especially that of removing and dispatching merchandise
   without the necessity of breaking bulk.

{3725}

   The second great stage in the development of canal transport
   is of comparatively recent origin. It may, in fact, be said to
   date only from the time when the construction of a canal
   across the Isthmus of Suez was proved to be not only
   practicable as an engineering project, but likewise highly
   successful as a commercial enterprise. Not that this was by
   any means the first canal of its kind. On the contrary, … the
   ancients had many schemes of a similar kind in view across the
   same isthmus. The canal of Languedoc, constructed in the reign
   of Louis XIV., was for that day as considerable an
   undertaking. It was designed for the purpose of affording a
   safe and speedy means of communication between the
   Mediterranean and the Atlantic Ocean; it has a total length of
   148 miles, is in its highest part 600 ft. above the level of
   the sea, and has in all 114 locks and sluices. In Russia,
   canals had been constructed in the time of Peter the Great,
   for the purpose of affording a means of communication between
   the different inland seas that are characteristic of that
   country. The junction of the North and Caspian Seas, of the
   Baltic and the Caspian, and the union of the Black and the
   Caspian Seas, had all been assisted by the construction of a
   series of canals which were perhaps without parallel for their
   completeness a century ago. In Prussia a vast system of inland
   navigation had been completed during the last century, whereby
   Hamburg was connected with Dantzic, and the products of the
   country could be exported either by the Black Sea or by the
   Baltic. In Scotland the Forth and Clyde Canal, and the
   Caledonian Canal, were notable examples of artificial
   navigation designed to connect two seas, or two firths that
   had all the characteristics of independent oceans; and the
   Erie Canal, in the United States, completed a chain of
   communication between inland seas of much the same order. But,
   although a great deal had been done in the direction of
   facilitating navigation between different waters by getting
   rid of the 'hyphen' by which they were separated anterior to
   the date of the Suez Canal, this grand enterprise undoubtedly
   marked a notable advance in the progress of the world from
   this point of view. The work was at once more original and
   more gigantic than any that had preceded it. … The Suez Canal
   once completed and successful, other ship canal schemes came
   'thick as autumnal leaves in Vallombrosa.' Several of these
   were eminently practical, as well as practicable. The Hellenic
   Parliament determined on cutting through the tongue of land
   which is situated between the Gulfs of Athens and Lepantus,
   known as the Isthmus of Corinth. This isthmus divides the
   Adriatic and the Archipelago, and compels all vessels passing
   from the one sea to the other to round Cape Matapan, thus
   materially lengthening the voyages of vessels bound from the
   western parts of Europe to the Levant, Asia Minor and Smyrna.
   The canal is now an accomplished fact. Another proposal was
   that of cutting a canal from Bordeaux to Marseilles, across
   the South of France, a distance of some 120 miles, whereby
   these two great ports would be brought 1,678 miles nearer to
   each other, and a further reduction, estimated at 800 miles,
   effected in the distance between England and India. The Panama
   Canal (projected in 1871, and actually commenced in 1880) is,
   however, the greatest enterprise of all, and in many respects
   the most gigantic and difficult undertaking of which there is
   any record. The proposed national canal from sea to sea,
   proposed by Mr. Samuel Lloyd and others for Great Britain, the
   proposed Sheffield Ship Canal, the proposed Irish Sea and
   Birkenhead Ship Canal, and the proposed ship canal to connect
   the Forth and the Clyde, are but a few of many notable
   examples of the restlessness of our times in this direction. …
   There are not a few people who regard the canal system almost
   as they might regard the Dodo and the Megatherium. It is to
   them an effete relic of a time when civilisation was as yet
   but imperfectly developed. … Canals do, indeed, belong to the
   past. … That canals also belong to the present, Egypt, the
   American isthmus, Manchester, Corinth, and other places, fully
   prove, and, unless we greatly err, they are no less the
   heritage of the future."

      J. S. Jeans,
      Waterways and Water Transport,
      section 1, chapter 1.

   "'The sea girt British Isles have upwards of 2,500 miles of
   canals, in addition to the Manchester Ship Canal, which is
   thirty-five and one-half miles, and is said to be one of the
   most remarkable undertakings of modern times.' … In 1878,
   Germany had in operation 1,289 miles of canals, and had
   ordered the construction of 1,045 miles of new canals. Belgium
   has forty-five canals. Italy, Hungary, Sweden, Holland and
   Russia have their respective systems of canals. France has
   expended a larger amount of money than any other European
   nation, to provide for canal navigation, and in 1887 the total
   length of its canals was 2,998 miles. About forty-eight per
   cent of the tonnage of that Republic was transported on its
   waterways. The average capacity of boats used therefor was 300
   tons. The total length of the canals in operation in the
   United States in 1890 was upwards of 2,926 miles."

      H. W. Hill,
      Speech on Canals in New York
      Constitutional Convention of 1894.

   "In most of the leading countries of the world, a time arrived
   when the canal system and the railway system came into strong
   competition, and when it seemed doubtful on which side the
   victory would lie. This contest was necessarily more marked in
   England than in any other country. England had not, indeed,
   been the first in the field with canals, as she had been with
   railways. … But England having once started on a career of
   canal development, followed it up with greater energy and on a
   more comprehensive scale than any other country. For more than
   half a century canals had had it all their own way. … But the
   railway system, first put forward as a tentative experiment,
   and without the slightest knowledge on the part of its
   promoters of the results that were before long to be realised,
   was making encroachments, and proving its capabilities. This
   was a slow process, as the way had to be felt. The first
   railway Acts did not contemplate the use of locomotives, nor
   the transport of passenger traffic. The Stockton and
   Darlington Railway, constructed in 1825, was the first on
   which locomotives were employed.

      See Steam Locomotion (page 3029).

   Even at this date, there were many who doubted the expediency
   of having a railroad instead of a canal, and in the county of
   Durham … there was a fierce fight, carried on for more than
   twenty years. In the United States, the supremacy of waterways
   was maintained until a much later date. …
{3726}
   A keen and embittered struggle was kept up between the canal
   and the railroad companies until 1857; and even in the latter
   year the Legislature of the State of New York, finding that
   railway competition was making serious inroads upon their
   canal traffic, were considering whether they should not either
   entirely prohibit the railways from carrying freight, or
   impose such tolls upon railway tonnage as would cripple the
   companies in their competition with canals. … The agitation,
   however, came to nothing. It had no solid bottom. It was an
   agitation similar in kind to that which had disturbed Europe
   when Arkwright's spinning machine and Compton's mule were
   taking the place of hand labour. The clamour suddenly
   collapsed, and was never heard of afterwards. Meanwhile the
   railway system proceeded apace. The records of human progress
   contain no more remarkable chapter than that which tells of
   the growth of American railroads. … In the annals of
   transportation, there is no more interesting chapter than that
   which deals with the contest that has been carried on for
   nearly half a century between the railways and the lakes and
   canals for the grain traffic between Chicago and New York.
   This contest is interesting, not only to Americans, as the
   people who are engaged in it, and whom it more directly
   concerns; but also to the people of Europe, and of Great
   Britain in particular, the cost of whose food supplies is
   affected thereby. … The circumstances of the Erie Canal are,
   however, exceptional. Seldom, indeed, do railway freights run
   so low as they do on the 950 miles of rail way that separate
   Chicago from New York. Over this distance, the great trunk
   lines have recently been carrying freight at the rate of 15
   cents, or 7½ d. per 100 lbs. This is equivalent to about 14 s.
   per ton, or exactly 0.174 d. per ton per mile. There is
   probably no such low rates for railway transport in the world.
   But this low rate is due entirely to the competition of the
   lakes, rivers, and canals."

      J. S. Jeans,
      Waterways and Water Transport,
      chapters 26-27.

   "The early railroad engineers overestimated the speed which
   could be readily attained. Fifty years ago it was generally
   expected that passenger trains would soon run at rates of from
   seventy-five to one hundred miles an hour—a prediction which
   has as yet remained unfulfilled. On the other hand, they
   underestimated the railroad's capacity for doing work cheaply.
   It was not supposed that railroads would ever be able to
   compete with water-routes in the carriage of freight, except
   where speedy delivery was of the first importance. Nor was it
   at that time desired that they should do so. The first English
   railroad charter contained provisions expressly intended to
   prevent such competition. A generation later, in the State of
   New York itself, there was a loud popular cry that the New
   York Central must be prohibited from carrying freight in
   competition with the Erie Canal. The main field of usefulness
   of railroads, and the means by which that field was to be
   developed, were not merely ignored, they were positively
   shunned. This period of railroad infancy ended about the year
   1850. The crisis of 1847 marked its close in England. The
   Revolution of 1848-51 was the dividing line on the continent
   of Europe. The land grants of 1850, and the formation of three
   trunk lines from the seaboard to the interior may be taken as
   the beginning of the new era in the United States. It began to
   be seen and felt that a steam railroad was something more than
   an exaggerated turnpike or horse railroad, and that it had
   functions and laws of its own. The changes were: first, the
   consolidation of old roads; second, the construction of new
   ones in a great variety of conditions; third, and most
   important, the development of traffic by cheap rates and new
   methods. … Under all these influences the railroad mileage of
   the world increased from 20,000 in 1850 to 66,000 in 1860,
   137,000 in 1870, 225,000 in 1880, and [406,416 in
   1893.—'Archiv für Eisenbahnwesen']. … Rapid as has been the
   growth of the railroad mileage, traffic has kept pace with it.
   It is estimated that the total number of tons moved in 1875
   was about 800,000,000. At present [1885] it is about
   1,200,000,000 annually, while the passenger movement has
   increased from 1,400,000,000 to 2,400,000,000. If we could
   take distance as well as quantity into account, the change
   (for freight at any rate) would be still greater. To a certain
   extent this increased intensity of use of railroads is due to
   improvements in engineering; to a much greater extent it is
   the result of improved business methods. … Between 1850 and
   1880 rates were reduced on an average to about one half their
   former figures, in spite of the advance in price of labor and
   of many articles of consumption. A variety of means were made
   to contribute to this result. The inventions of Bessemer and
   others, by which it became possible to substitute steel rails
   for iron, made it profitable for the railroads to carry larger
   loads at a reduction in rates. Improvements in management
   increased the effective use of the rolling stock, while the
   consumption of fuel and the cost of handling were diminished.
   By other changes in railroad economy it became possible to
   compete for business of every kind, with the best canals or
   with natural water-courses. The railroad rates of to-day are
   but a small fraction of the canal charges of two generations
   ago; while in volume of business, speed, and variety of use
   there is an inestimable advance."

      A. T. Hadley,
      Railroad Transportation,
      chapter 1.

   "The railway mileage in the United States on June 30, 1893,
   was 176,461.07 miles. This shows an increase during the year
   of 4,897.55 miles, being an increase of 2.80 per cent. The
   previous report showed an increase during the year ending June
   30, 1892, of 3,160.78, being an increase of 1.88 per cent over
   the mileage of the year 1891. The rate of increase from 1886
   to 1887 was 9.08 per cent; from 1887 to 1888, 6.05 per cent;
   from 1888 to 1889, 3.22 per cent; from 18139 to 1890, 4.78 per
   cent; and from 1890 to 1891, 2.94 per cent. … The total number
   [of men] in the service of railways in the United States on
   June 30, 1893, was 873,602, being an increase of 52,187 over
   the number employed the previous year."

      Interstate Commerce Commission,
      Statistics of Railways, 1883
      pages 11 and 31.

   ----------COMMERCE: End--------

COMMON LAW, History of.

      See LAW (page 1956).

COMMUNISM.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS (page 2932).

COMPURGATION, Disappearance of.

      See LAW, CRIMINAL: A. D. 1166 (page 1981).

CONGO STATE, The.

      See (in this Supplement) AFRICA.

{3727}

CONNECTICUT, Early provision for education in.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN (page 729).

CONNECTICUT BLUE LAWS.

      See (in this Supplement) BLUE LAWS.

CONSTANTINOPLE: LIBRARIES.

      See LIBRARIES, ANCIENT (page 2006).

   Mediæval Commerce.

      See (in this Supplement) COMMERCE, MEDIÆVAL.

   ----------CONSTITUTION OF BELGIUM: Start--------

   On page 2304 of this work, under NETHERLANDS (BELGIUM): A. D.
   1892-1893, there is given some account of the revision of the
   constitution of the kingdom, in 1893, and the peculiar new
   features introduced in its provisions, relative to the
   elective franchise. The following is a translation of the text
   of the revised constitution:

Title I.
   Of the Territory and of its Divisions.

   Article 1.
   Belgium is divided into provinces, these provinces are:
   Antwerp, Brabant, Western Flanders, Eastern Flanders, Hainaut,
   Liège, Limburg, Luxemburg, Namur. It is the prerogative of
   law, if there is any reason, to divide the territory into a
   larger number of provinces. Colonies, possessions beyond the
   seas or protectorates which Belgium may acquire, are governed
   by particular laws. The Belgian forces appointed for their
   defense can only be recruited by voluntary enlistment.

   Article 2.
   The subdivisions of the provinces can be established only by
   law.

   Article 3.
   The boundaries of the State, of the provinces and of the
   communes can be changed or rectified only by a law.

   Title II.
   Of the Belgians and their Rights.

   Article 4.
   The title Belgian is acquired, preserved and lost according to
   the regulations determined by civil law. The present
   Constitution, and other laws relating to political rights,
   determine what are, in addition to such title, the conditions
   necessary for the exercise of these rights.

   Article 5.
   Naturalization is granted by the legislative power. The great
   naturalization, alone, assimilates the foreigner to the
   Belgian for the exercise of political rights.

   Article 6.
   There is no distinction of orders in the State. Belgians are
   equal before the law; they alone are admissible to civil and
   military offices, with such exceptions as may be established
   by law in particular cases.

   Article 7.
   Individual liberty is guaranteed. No person can be prosecuted
   except in the cases provided for by law and in the form which
   the law prescribes. Except in the case of flagrant
   misdemeanor, no person can be arrested without the order of a
   judge, which must be served at the time of the arrest, or, at
   the latest, within twenty-four hours.

   Article 8.
   No person can be deprived, against his will, of the judge
   assigned to him by law.

   Article 9.
   No punishment can be established or applied except by
   provision of law.

   Article 10.
   The domicile is inviolable; no domiciliary visit can be made
   otherwise than in the cases provided for by law and in the
   form which it prescribes.

   Article 11.
   No person can be deprived of his property except for public
   use, in the cases and in the manner established by law, and
   with prior indemnity.

   Article 12.
   The penalty of confiscation of goods cannot be imposed.

   Article 13.
   Civil death is abolished; it cannot be revived.

   Article 14.
   Religious liberty, public worship, and freedom of expressed
   opinion in all matters are guaranteed, with a reserve for the
   repression of offenses committed in the exercise of these
   liberties.

   Article 15.
   No person can be compelled to join, in any manner whatsoever,
   in the acts and ceremonies of any worship, nor to observe its
   days of rest.

   Article 16.
   The State has no right to interfere in the appointment nor in
   the installation of the ministers of any religion, nor to
   forbid them to correspond with their superiors and to publish
   their acts under the ordinary responsibility of publication.
   Civil marriage shall always precede the nuptial benediction,
   with the exceptions to be prescribed by law in case of need.

   Article 17.
   Teaching is free; all preventive measures are forbidden; the
   repression of offenses is regulated only by law. Public
   instruction given at the expense of the State is also
   regulated by law.

   Article 18.
   The press is free; censorship can never be re-established;
   caution-money from writers, editors or printers cannot be
   required. When the author is known and is a resident of
   Belgium, the editor, the printer or the distributor cannot be
   prosecuted.

   Article 19.
   Belgians have the right to meet peaceably and without arms, in
   conformity with such laws as may regulate the use of their
   right but without the requirement of a previous authorization.
   This stipulation does not apply to open air meetings, which
   remain entirely subject to police regulations.

   Article 20.
   Belgians have the right of association; this right cannot be
   subject to any preventive measure.

   Article 21.
   It is the right of every person to address to the public
   authorities petitions signed by one or several. The
   constituted authorities alone have the right to address
   petitions in a collective name.

   Article 22.
   The secrecy of correspondence is inviolable. The law
   determines who are the agents responsible for violation of the
   secrecy of letters confided to the post.

   Article 23.
   The use of the languages spoken in Belgium is optional; it can
   be prescribed only by law, and only for acts of public
   authority and for judicial transactions.

   Article 24.
   No previous authorization is necessary for the undertaking of
   proceedings against public officials, on account of acts in
   their administration, except that which is enacted concerning
   ministers.

   Title III. Of Powers.

   Article 25.
   All powers are derived from the nation. They are exercised in
   the manner prescribed by the Constitution.

{3728}

   Article 26.
   Legislative power is exercised collectively by the King, the
   Chamber of Representatives and the Senate.

   Article 27.
   The initiative belongs to each one of the three branches of
   the legislative power. Nevertheless, all laws relating to the
   revenue or to the expenditures of the State, or to the
   contingent of the army must be voted first by the Chamber of
   Representatives.

   Article 28.
   The interpretation of laws by authority belongs only to the
   legislative power.

   Article 29.
   The executive power, as regulated by the Constitution, belongs
   to the King.

   Article 30.
   The judicial power is exercised by the courts and tribunals.
   Decrees and judgments are executed in the name of the King.

   Article 31.
   Interests exclusively communal or provincial, are regulated by
   the communal or provincial councils, according to the
   principles established by the Constitution.

   Chapter First.—Of The Chambers.

   Article 32.
   Members of both Chambers represent the nation, and not merely
   the province or the subdivision of province which has elected
   them.

   Article 33.
   The sittings of the Chambers are public. Nevertheless, each
   Chamber forms itself into a secret committee on the demand of
   its president or of ten members. It then decides by absolute
   majority whether the sitting on the same subject shall be
   resumed publicly.

   Article 34.
   Each Chamber verifies the powers of its members and decides
   all contests on the subject that may arise.

   Article 35.
   No person can be at the same time a member of both Chambers.

   Article 36.
   A member of one of the two Chambers who is appointed by the
   government to any salaried office, except that of minister,
   and who accepts the same, ceases immediately to sit, and
   resumes his functions only by virtue of a new election.

   Article 37.
   At every session, each Chamber elects its president and its
   vice-presidents and forms its bureau.

   Article 38.
   Every resolution is adopted by the absolute majority of the
   votes, excepting as may be directed by the rules of the
   Chambers in regard to elections and presentations. In case of
   an equal division of votes, the proposition brought under
   deliberation is rejected. Neither of the two Chambers can
   adopt a resolution unless the majority of its members is
   present.

   Article 39.
   Votes are given by the voice or by sitting and rising; on
   "l'ensemble des lois" the vote is always taken by the call of
   the roll of names. Elections and presentations of candidates
   are made by ballot.

   Article 40.
   Each Chamber has the right of inquiry [or investigation].

   Article 41.
   A bill can be passed by one of the Chambers only after having
   been voted article by article.

   Article 42.
   The Chambers have the right to amend and to divide the
   articles and the amendments proposed.

   Article 43.
   The presenting of petitions in person to the Chambers is
   forbidden. Each Chamber has the right to refer to ministers
   the petitions that are addressed to it. Ministers are required
   to give explanations whenever the Chamber requires them.

   Article 44.
   No member of either Chamber can be prosecuted or called to
   account for opinions expressed or votes given by him in the
   performance of his duties.

   Article 45.
   No member of either Chamber can be prosecuted or arrested in
   affairs of repression, during the session, without the
   authorization of the Chamber of which he is a member, except
   the case be "de flagrant delit." No bodily constraint can be
   exercised against a member of either Chamber during the
   session, except with the same authorization. The detention or
   the prosecution of a member of either Chamber is suspended
   during the whole session if the Chamber so requires.

   Article 46.
   Each Chamber determines by its rules the mode in which it will
   exercise its powers.

   Section I.—Of the Chamber of Representatives.

   Article 47.
   Deputies to the Chamber of Representatives are elected
   directly under the following conditions: A vote is conferred
   on citizens who have completed their 25th year, who have
   resided for at least one year in the same commune, and who are
   not within one of the cases of exclusion provided for by law.
   A supplementary vote is conferred on each citizen who fulfills
   one of the following conditions:

   1. To have completed 35 years of age, to be married, or to be
   a widower having legitimate offspring, and to pay to the State
   a tax of not less than 5 francs on account of dwelling-houses
   or buildings occupied, unless exempted by reason of his
   profession.

   2. To have completed the age of 25 years and to be owner:
   Either of real property, valued at not less than 2,000 francs
   to be rated on the basis of the "revenu cadastral," or of a
   "revenu cadastral" proportioned to that value; Or of an
   inscription in the great book of the public debt, or of a
   "carnet de rente Belge" at the savings bank of at least 100
   francs of "rente." The inscriptions and bank books must have
   belonged to the incumbent for at least two years and a half.
   The property of the wife is assigned to the husband; that of
   children under age, to the father. Two supplementary votes are
   assigned to citizens fully 25 years of age who are included in
   one of the following cases: A. To be the holder of a diploma
   of higher instruction or of a similar certificate of
   attendance on a complete course of medium instruction of the
   higher degree, without distinction between public and private
   establishments. B. To fill or to have filled a public office,
   to occupy or to have occupied a position, to practise or to
   have practised a private profession, which implies the
   supposition that the titulary has at least an average
   education of the higher degree. The law determines these
   functions, positions and professions, as well as, in given
   cases, the time during which they shall have been occupied or
   practised. No person can accumulate more than three votes.

   Article 48.
   The constitution of the electoral colleges is regulated by law
   for each province. The vote is obligatory and takes place in
   the commune with exceptions to be determined by law.

   Article 49.
   The electoral law fixes the number of deputies according to
   the population; this number cannot exceed the proportion of a
   deputy for 40,000 inhabitants. It determines also the
   qualifications of an elector and the mode of the electoral
   operations.

{3729}

   Article 50.
   To be eligible, it is necessary:
   1. To be a Belgian by birth or to have received the "grand
   naturalization";
   2. To enjoy civil and political rights;
   3. To have completed 25 years of age;
   4. To reside in Belgium.

   No other condition of eligibility can be required.

   Article 51.
   The members of the Chamber of Representatives are elected for
   four years. Half of them are changed every two years,
   according to the order of the series determined by the
   electoral law. In case of dissolution, the Chamber is entirely
   renewed.

   Article 52.
   Each member of the Chamber of Representatives receives a
   yearly indemnity of 4,000 francs. He is, besides, entitled to
   free travel on the State railways and on the "conceded"
   railways, from his residence to the city where the session is
   held.

   Section II.—Of the Senate.

   Article 53.
   The Senate is composed:

   1. Of members elected in proportion to the population of each
   province, conformably to Article 47; though the law may
   require that the electors shall be 30 years of age, the
   provisions of Article 48 are applicable to the election of
   these senators.

   2. Of members elected by the provincial councils, to the
   number of two from each province having less than 500,000
   inhabitants, of three from each province having from 500,000
   to 1,000,000 of inhabitants, and of four from each province
   having more than one million of inhabitants.

   Article 54.
   The number of senators elected directly by the electoral body
   is equal to half the number of the members of the Chamber of
   Representatives.

   Article 55.
   Senators are elected for eight years; half of them are changed
   every four years, according to the order of the series
   determined by the electoral law. In case of dissolution, the
   Senate is entirely renewed.

   Article 56.
   To be eligible for election and to remain a senator, it is
   necessary:
   1. To be a Belgian by birth or to have received the "grande
   naturalization";
   2. To enjoy civil and political rights;
   3. To reside in Belgium;
   4. To be at least 40 years of age;
   5. To pay into the treasury of the State at least 1,200 francs
   of direct taxes, patents included; Or to be either proprietor
   or usufructuary of real property situated in Belgium, the
   cadastral revenue from which is at least 12,000 francs. In the
   provinces where the number of those eligible does not attain
   the proportion of one in 5,000 inhabitants, the list is
   completed by adding the heaviest tax-payers of the province to
   the extent of that proportion. Citizens whose names are
   inscribed on the complementary list are eligible only in the
   province where they reside.

   Article 56 bis.
   Senators elected by the provincial councils are exempted from
   all conditions of census; they cannot belong to the assembly
   which elects them, nor can they have been a member of it
   during the year of the election, nor during the two previous
   years.

   Article 57.
   Senators receive neither salary nor indemnity.

   Article 58.
   The King's sons, or in their absence the Belgian Princes of
   the branch of the Royal family called to reign, are by right
   senators at 18 years of age. They have a deliberative voice
   only at 25 years of age.

   Article 59.
   Any assembly of the Senate which may be held outside the time
   of the session of the Chamber of Representatives is null and
   void.

   Chapter II.—Of the King and his Ministers.

   Section II.—Of the King.

   Article 60.
   The constitutional powers of the King are hereditary in the
   direct, natural and legitimate descent from His Majesty
   Leopold-George-Christian-Frederick of Saxe-Coburg, from male
   to male, by order of primogeniture, and to the perpetual
   exclusion of the females of their line. The prince who marries
   without the consent of the King or of those who, in his
   absence, exercise his powers, in the cases provided for by the
   Constitution, shall forfeit his rights. Nevertheless he can be
   restored to his rights by the King or by those who, in his
   absence, exercise his authority in the cases provided for by
   the Constitution, with the consent of both Chambers.

   Article 61.
   In default of male descendants of his Majesty
   Leopold-George-Christian-Frederick of Saxe-Coburg, the King
   can name his successor, with the assent of the Chambers,
   expressed in the manner prescribed by the following article.
   If no nomination has been made according to the proceeding
   here stated, the throne will be vacant.

   Article 62.
   The King cannot be, at the same time, the chief of another
   State, without the consent of both Chambers. Neither of the
   two Chambers can deliberate on this subject if two-thirds at
   least of the members who compose it are not present, and the
   resolution is adopted only if it receives two-thirds at least
   of the votes cast.

   Article 63.
   The person of the King is inviolable; his ministers are
   responsible.

   Article 64.
   No act of the King can have effect if it is not countersigned
   by a minister, who, thereby, makes himself responsible.

   Article 65.
   The King appoints and dismisses his ministers.

   Article 66.
   He confers the grades in the army. He appoints to the offices
   of general administration and of foreign relations, with the
   exceptions determined by law. He appoints to other offices
   only by virtue of express provisions of a law.

   Article 67.
   He makes the regulations and decrees necessary to the
   execution of the laws, without power to suspend the laws
   themselves, nor to exempt from their execution.

   Article 68.
   The King commands the land and naval forces, declares war,
   makes treaties of peace, of alliance, and of commerce. He
   announces them to the Chambers as soon as the interest and the
   safety of the State admit of it, adding to them appropriate
   communications. Treaties of commerce and those which might
   burden the State or bind Belgians individually become
   effective only after having received the approval of the
   Chambers. No cession, nor exchange, nor addition of territory
   can take place without authority of a law. In no case can the
   secret articles of a treaty be destructive to the open
   articles.

   Article 69.
   The King sanctions and promulgates the laws.

   Article 70.
   The Chambers meet by right every year, on the 2d Tuesday in
   November, unless previously summoned by the King. The Chambers
   must remain in session at least 40 days in each year. The King
   declares the closing of the session. The King has the right to
   call extra sessions of the Chambers.

{3730}

   Article 71.
   The King has the right to dissolve the Chambers, either
   simultaneously or separately; the act of dissolution to
   contain a convocation of the electors within forty days and of
   the Chambers within two months.

   Article 72.
   The King may adjourn the Chambers. The adjournment, however,
   cannot exceed the term of one month, nor be renewed in the
   same session, without the consent of the Chambers.

   Article 73.
   He has the right to remit or to reduce penalties pronounced by
   the judges, except those which are enacted concerning the
   ministers.

   Article 74.
   He has the right to coin money, in execution of the law.

   Article 75.
   He has the right to confer titles of nobility, without power
   to attach any privilege to them.

   Article 76.
   He confers the military orders, observing in that regard what
   the law prescribes.

   Article 77.
   The law fixes the civil list for the duration of each reign.

   Article 78.
   The King has no other powers than those formally conferred on
   him by the Constitution, and by laws enacted pursuant to the
   Constitution.

   Article 79.
   On the death of the King, the Chambers meet without
   convocation, not later than the tenth day after that of his
   decease. If the Chambers had been previously dissolved, and if
   the convocation had been fixed in the act of dissolution for a
   later date than the tenth day, the old Chambers resume their
   functions until the meeting of those which are to take their
   place. If one Chamber only had been dissolved, the same rule
   is followed with regard to that Chamber. From the death of the
   King and until his successor on the throne or the regent has
   taken the oath, the constitutional powers of the King, are
   exercised, in the name of the Belgian nation, by the ministers
   assembled in council and under their responsibility.

   Article 80.
   The King is of age when he has completed his 18th year. He
   takes possession of the throne only after having solemnly
   taken, in the midst of the Chambers assembled together, the
   following oath: "I swear to observe the Constitution and the
   laws of the Belgian people, to maintain the national
   independence and to preserve the integrity of the territory."

   Article 81.
   If, on the death of the King, his successor is a minor, both
   Chambers meet in one body for the purpose of providing for the
   regency and the guardianship.

   Article 82.
   If it is impossible for the King to reign, the ministers,
   after having caused that inability to be established, convoke
   the Chambers immediately. Guardianship and regency are to be
   provided for by the Chambers convened.

   Article 83.
   The regency can be conferred on one person only. The regent
   enters upon his duties only after he has taken the oath
   prescribed by Article 80.

   Article 84.
   No change can be made in the Constitution during a regency.

   Article 85.
   In case of a vacancy on the throne, the Chambers deliberating
   together, arrange provisionally for the regency until the
   meeting of new Chambers, that meeting to take place within two
   months, at the latest. The new Chambers deliberating together
   provide definitely for the vacancy.

   Section II.—Of the Ministers.

   Article 86.
   No person can be a minister who is not a Belgian by birth, or
   who has not received the "grande naturalization."

   Article 87.
   No member of the royal family can be a minister.

   Article 88.
   Ministers have a deliberative voice in either Chamber only
   when they are members of it. They have free admission into
   each Chamber and must have a hearing when they ask for it. The
   Chambers may require the presence of ministers.

   Article 89.
   In no case, can the order of the King, verbal or written,
   relieve a minister of responsibility.

   Article 90.
   The Chamber of Representatives has the right to accuse
   ministers and to arraign them before the Court of Cassation
   [Appeal], which alone has the right to judge them, the united
   Chambers reserving what may be enacted by law concerning civil
   action by a party wronged, and as to crimes and misdemeanors
   which ministers may have committed outside of the performance
   of their duties. A law shall determine the cases of
   responsibility, the penalties to be inflicted on the
   ministers, and the manner of proceeding against them, either
   upon the accusation admitted by the Chamber of
   Representatives, or upon prosecution by parties wronged.

   Article 91.
   The King may pardon a minister sentenced by the Court of
   Cassation only upon the request of one of the two Chambers.

   Chapter III.—Of the Judiciary Power.

   Article 92.
   Contests concerning civil rights are exclusively within the
   jurisdiction of the tribunals.

   Article 93.
   Contests concerning political rights are within the
   jurisdiction of the tribunals, with exceptions determined by
   law.

   Article 94.
   No tribunal can be established otherwise than by law. Neither
   commissions nor extraordinary tribunals, under any
   denomination whatever, can be created.

   Article 95.
   There is for the whole of Belgium one Court of Cassation. This
   Court does not consider the ground of causes, except in the
   judgment of ministers.

   Article 96.
   Sittings of the tribunals are public, unless such publicity be
   dangerous to order or morals, and in that case the tribunal
   declares it by a judgment. In the matter of political or press
   offenses, the exclusion of the public must be voted
   unanimously.

   Article 97. The ground of every judgment is to be stated. It
   is pronounced in public sitting.

   Article 98.
   The jury is established in all criminal cases, and for
   political and press offenses.

   Article 99.
   The judges of the peace and judges of the tribunals are
   appointed directly by the King. Councillors of the Courts of
   appeal and presidents and vice-presidents of the courts of
   original jurisdiction are appointed by the King, from two
   double lists, presented, one by those courts and the other by
   the provincial Councils. Councillors of the Court of Cassation
   are appointed by the King from two double lists, one presented
   by the Senate and the other by the Court of Cassation. In
   these two cases the candidates whose names are on one list may
   also be inscribed on the other. All presentations are made
   public at least fifteen days before the appointment. The
   courts choose their presidents and vice-presidents from among
   their members.

{3731}

   Article 100.
   Judges are appointed for life. No judge can be deprived of his
   position or suspended, except by a judgment. The displacement
   of a judge can take place only through a new appointment and
   with his consent.

   Article 101.
   The King appoints and dismisses the public prosecutors to the
   courts and tribunals.

   Article 102.
   The salaries of the members of the judicial order are fixed by
   law.

   Article 103.
   No judge may accept salaried offices from the government
   unless he exercises them gratuitously, and excluding the cases
   of incompatibility defined by law.

   Article 104.
   There are three courts of appeal in Belgium. The law
   determines their jurisdiction and the places in which they
   shall be established.

   Article 105.
   Special enactments regulate the organization of military
   courts, their powers, the rights and obligations of the
   members of such courts, and the duration of their functions.
   There are tribunals of commerce in the places determined by
   law, which regulate their organization, their powers, the mode
   of appointment of their members and the term of the latters'
   duties.

   Article 106.
   Conflicts of jurisdiction are settled by the Court of
   Cassation, according to proceedings regulated by law.

   Article 107.
   Courts and tribunals shall apply general, provincial and local
   decisions and regulations only so far as they are conformable
   to the laws.

   Chapter IV.—Of Provincial and Communal Institutions.

   Article 108.
   Provincial and communal institutions are regulated by the
   laws. These laws sanction the application of the following
   principles:

   1. Direct election, with the exceptions which the law may
   establish in regard to the chiefs of communal administration
   and the government commissioners to the provincial councils;

   2. The assigning to provincial and communal councils of all
   which is of provincial and communal interest without prejudice
   to the approval of their acts in the cases and according to
   the proceedings which law determines;

   3. The publicity of the sittings of the provincial and
   communal councils within the limits established by law;

   4. The publicity of budgets and accounts;

   5. The intervention of the King' or of the legislative power
   to prevent the provincial and communal councils from going
   beyond their powers and injuring the general welfare.

   Article 109.
   The drawing up of certificates of birth, marriage and death,
   and the keeping of the registers, are the exclusive
   prerogatives of communal authorities.

   Title IV. Of the Finances.

   Article 110.
   No tax for the profit of the State can be imposed otherwise
   than by a law. No charge or provincial assessment can be
   imposed without the consent of the provincial council. No
   charge or communal assessment can be imposed, without the
   consent of the communal council. The law must determine those
   exceptions of which experience will show the necessity in the
   matter of provincial and communal impositions.

   Article 111.
   Taxes for the profit of the State are voted annually. The laws
   which impose them are valid for one year only, unless renewed.

   Article 112.
   There can be no creation of privilege in the matter of taxes.
   No exemption from nor diminution of taxes can be established
   otherwise than by a law.

   Article 113.
   Beyond the cases expressly excepted by law, no payment can be
   exacted from citizens, otherwise than in taxes levied for the
   profit of the State, of the province, or of the commune. No
   innovation is made on the actually existing system of the
   polders and the wateringen, which remain subject to the
   ordinary legislation.

   Article 114.
   No pension, nor gratuity at the expense of the public treasury
   can be granted without authority of law.

   Article 115.
   Each year, the Chambers determine the law of accounts and vote
   the budget. All the receipts and expenditures of the State
   must be entered in the budget and in the accounts.

   Article 116.
   The members of the court of accounts are appointed by the
   Chamber of Representatives and for the term fixed by law. That
   court is intrusted with the examination and the settlement of
   the accounts of the general administration and of all the
   accountants for the public treasury. It sees that no article
   of the expenses of the budget has been exceeded and that no
   transfer has taken place. It determines the accounts of the
   different administrations of the State and is required for
   that purpose to gather all information, and all documents that
   may be necessary. The general account of the State is
   submitted to the Chambers with the observations of the court
   of accounts. This court is organized by law.

   Article 117.
   The salaries and pensions of the ministers of religion are
   paid by the State; the sums required to meet these expenses
   are entered annually in the budget.

   Title V. Of the Army.

   Article 118.
   The mode of recruiting the army is determined by law. The law
   also regulates promotions, and the rights and obligations of
   the military.

   Article 119.
   The contingent of the army is voted annually. The law that
   fixes it is of force for one year only, unless renewed.

   Article 120.
   The organization and the powers of the gendarmerie are the
   subject of a law.

   Article 121.
   No foreign troops can be admitted to the service of the State,
   nor to occupy or pass through its territory, except by
   provision of law.

   Article 122.
   There is a civic guard; its organization is regulated by law.
   The officers of all ranks, up to that of captain at least, are
   appointed by the guards with exceptions judged necessary for
   the accountants.

   Article 123.
   The mobilization of the civic guard can occur only by
   direction of law.

{3732}

   Article 124.
   Military men can be deprived of their grades, honors, and
   pensions only in the manner determined by law.

   Title VI. General Provisions.

   Article 125.
   The Belgian nation adopts the colors red, yellow and black,
   and for the arms of the kingdom the Belgic lion with the
   motto: "L'Union fait la Force" ["Union is Strength"].

   Article 126.
   The city of Brussels is the capital of Belgium and the scat of
   its government.

   Article 127.
   No oath can be imposed except by law. The law also determines
   its formula.

   Article 128.
   Any foreigner who is within the territory of Belgium enjoys
   the protection accorded to persons and goods, with the
   exceptions defined by law.

   Article 129.
   No law, decree, or administrative regulation, general,
   provincial, or communal, is obligatory until it has been
   published in the form prescribed by law.

   Article 130.
   The Constitution cannot be suspended, either wholly or in
   part.

   Title VII. Of the Revision of the Constitution.

   Article 131.
   The legislative power has the right to declare that there is
   occasion for revising such constitutional provision as it
   designates. After such declaration, the two Chambers are
   dissolved. Two new Chambers shall then be convoked, in
   conformity with Article 71. These Chambers act, in concurrence
   with the King, on the points submitted for revision. In such
   case, the Chambers cannot deliberate unless two-thirds at
   least of the members composing each one of them are present,
   and no change which does not receive at least two-thirds of
   the votes in its favor shall be adopted.

   Title VIII.—Temporary Provisions.

   Article 132.
   For the first choice of the chief of the State, the first
   stipulation of Article 80 may be departed from.

   Article 133.
   Foreigners who settled in Belgium before the 1st of January
   1814, and who have continued to reside in the country, are
   considered as Belgians by birth, on condition that they
   declare their intention to enjoy the benefit of this
   provision. The declaration must be made within six months,
   dating from the day when the present Constitution becomes
   obligatory, if they are of age, and in the year following
   their majority if they are under age. The declaration must be
   made before the provincial authority within whose jurisdiction
   they reside. It must be made in person or through a
   representative bearing a special and authentic power of
   attorney.

   Article 134.
   Until otherwise provided for by a law, the Chamber of
   Representatives shall have a discretionary power to accuse a
   minister, and the Court of Cassation to judge him,
   characterizing the offense and determining the penalty.
   Nevertheless the penalty cannot exceed that of imprisonment,
   without prejudice to the cases expressly provided for by penal
   laws.

   Article 135.
   The staff of courts and tribunals is maintained as it actually
   exists, until it shall have been provided for by law. Such law
   shall be enacted during the first legislative session.

   Article 136.
   A law enacted in the same session shall determine the mode of
   the first appointment of members of the Court of Cassation.

   Article 137.
   The fundamental law of the 24th of August 1815, is hereby
   repealed, as well as the provincial and local statutes; but
   the provincial and local authorities will exercise their
   powers until the law shall have otherwise provided.

   Article 138.
   From the day on which this Constitution goes into effect, all
   laws, decrees, decisions, regulations, and other acts that are
   in conflict with it are abrogated.

   Supplementary Provisions.

   Article 139.
   The National Congress declares that it is necessary to provide
   by separate laws and with the least possible delay for the
   following objects:
   1. The Press;
   2. The organization of the jury;
   3. The finances;
   4. Provincial and communal organization;
   5. The responsibility of ministers and
   other agents of authority;
   6. The organization of the judiciary;
   7. The revision of the pension list;
   8. Proper measures for preventing the
   abuse of plurality of offices;
   9. Revision of the laws of bankruptcy and suspension;
   10. The organization of the army, the rights of
   promotion and retirement, and the military penal code;
   11. Revision of the codes.
   The executive power is charged with the execution of the
   present decree.

   ----------CONSTITUTION OF BELGIUM: End--------

   ----------CONSTITUTION OF ITALY: Start--------

   The kingdom of Italy is still governed under the constitution
   which was granted in 1848, by Charles Albert, to his Sardinian
   subjects. It remains unchanged in form, but in practice has
   been modified by legislation. The following translation of the
   instrument, made by S. M. Lindsay, Ph. D., and L. S. Howe, Ph.
   D., University of Pennsylvania, is borrowed, under permission,
   from the:

      "Annals of the American Academy
      of Political and Social Science,"
      November, 1894, Supplement.

   In their historical introduction to the instrument, the
   translators say: "The extension of this constitution to the
   various parts of the present Kingdom of Italy was effected by
   a series of Plebiscites:

   Lombardy, December 7, 1859;
   Emilia by decree of March 18, 1860, and law of April 15, 1860;
   Neapolitan Provinces, December 17, 1860;
   Tuscany, decree March 22, and law April 15, 1860;
   Sicily, Marches and Umbria, December 17, 1860;
   Province of Venice, decree July 28, 1866;
   Roman Provinces, decree October 9 and law December 31, 1870.
   … Although no provision is to be found in this constitution
   for amendment, most Italian constitutional jurists have held
   that Parliament, with the approval of the King, has the power
   to make laws amending the constitution, for an immutable
   constitution is sure in time to hamper the development of a
   progressive people. It is hardly necessary to add that such an
   instrument is contrary to the true conception of an organic
   law.
{3733}
   As a matter of fact several provisions have been either
   abrogated or rendered null and void through change of
   conditions. Thus the second clause of Article 28, requiring
   the previous consent of the bishop for the printing of Bibles,
   prayer books and catechisms, has been rendered of no effect
   through subsequent laws regulating the relations of Church and
   State. Article 76, which provides for the establishment of a
   communal militia, has been abrogated by the military law of
   June 14, 1874. The fact that no French-speaking provinces now
   form part of the kingdom has made Article 62 a dead-letter. So
   also Articles 53 and 55 are no longer strictly adhered to. At
   all events their observance has been suspended for the time
   being."

   The translated text of the Constitution is as follows:

   (Charles Albert, by the Grace of God, King of Sardinia, Cyprus
   and Jerusalem, Duke of Savoy, Genoa, Monferrato, Aosta, of the
   Chiablese, Genovese and of Piacenza; Prince of Piedmont and
   Oneglia; Marquis of Italy, Saluzzo, Ivrea, Susa, Ceva, of the
   Maro, of Oristano, of Cesana and Savona; Count of Moriana,
   Geneva, Nice, Trenda, Romonte, Asti, Alexandria, Goceano,
   Novara, Tortona, Vigevano and of Bobbio; Baron of Vaud and
   Faucigny; Lord of Vercelli, Pinerolo, Tarantasia, of the
   Lomellina and of the Valley of Sesia, etc., etc., etc.) With
   the fidelity of a king and the affection of a father, we are
   about to-day to fulfill all that we promised our most beloved
   subjects in our proclamation of the eighth of last February,
   whereby we desired to show, in the midst of the extraordinary
   events then transpiring throughout the country, how much our
   confidence in our subjects increased with the gravity of the
   situation, and how, consulting only the impulse of our heart,
   we had fully determined to make their condition conform to the
   spirit of the times and to the interests and dignity of the
   nation. We, believing that the broad and permanent
   representative institutions established by this fundamental
   statute are the surest means of cementing the bonds of
   indissoluble affection that bind to our crown a people that
   has so often given us ample proof of their faithfulness,
   obedience and love, have determined to sanction and promulgate
   this statute. We believe, further, that God will bless our
   good intentions, and that this free, strong and happy nation
   will ever show itself more deserving of its ancient fame and
   thus merit a glorious future. Therefore, we, with our full
   knowledge and royal authority and with the advice of our
   Council, have ordained and do hereby ordain and declare in
   force the fundamental perpetual and irrevocable statute and
   law of the monarchy as follows:

   Article 1.
   The Catholic, Apostolic and Roman religion is the only
   religion of the State.

      See Law of the Papal Guarantees,
      under PAPACY: A. D. 1870 (page 2478)].

   Other cults now existing are tolerated conformably to the law.

   Article 2.
   The State is governed by a representative monarchical
   government, and the throne is hereditary according to the
   Salic law.

   Article 3.
   The legislative power shall be exercised collectively by the
   King and the two Chambers, the Senate and the Chamber of
   Deputies.

   Article 4.
   The person of the King is sacred and inviolable.

   Article 5.
   To the King alone belongs the executive power. He is the
   supreme head of the State; commands all land and naval forces;
   declares war; makes treaties of peace, alliance, commerce and
   other treaties, communicating them to the Chambers as soon as
   the interest and security of the State permits, accompanying
   such notice with opportune explanations; provided that
   treaties involving financial obligations or change of State
   territory shall not take effect until they have received the
   consent of the Chambers.

   Article 6.
   The King appoints to all the offices of the State and makes
   the necessary decrees and regulations for the execution of the
   laws, provided that such decrees do not suspend or modify
   their observance.

   Article 7.
   The King alone sanctions and promulgates the laws.

   Article 8.
   The King may grant pardons and commute sentences.

   Article 9.
   The King convokes the two Chambers each year. He may prorogue
   their sessions and dissolve the Chamber of Deputies, in which
   case he shall convoke a new Chamber within a period of four
   months.

   Article 10.
   The initiative in legislation belongs both to the King and the
   two Houses. All bills, however, imposing taxes or relating to
   the budget shall first be presented to the Chamber of
   Deputies.

   Article 11.
   The King shall attain his majority upon completion of his
   eighteenth year.

   Article 12.
   During the King's minority, the Prince who is his nearest
   relative in the order of succession to the throne, shall be
   regent of the realm, provided he be twenty-one years of age.

   Article 13.
   Should the Prince upon whom the regency devolves be still in
   his minority and this duty pass to a more distant relative,
   the regent who actually takes office shall continue in the
   same until the King becomes of age.

   Article 14.
   In the absence of male relatives, the regency devolves upon
   the Queen-Mother.

   Article 15.
   In the event of the prior decease of the Queen-Mother, the
   regent shall be elected by the legislative Chambers, convoked
   within ten days by the Ministers of the Crown.

   Article 16.
   The preceding provisions in reference to the regency are also
   applicable in case the King has attained his majority, but is
   physically incapable of reigning. Under such circumstances, if
   the heir presumptive to the throne be eighteen years of age,
   be shall be regent of full right.

   Article 17.
   The Queen-Mother has charge of the education of the King until
   he has completed his seventh year; from this time on his
   guardianship passes into the hands of the regent.

   Article 18.
   All rights pertaining to the civil power in matters of
   ecclesiastical benefices and in the execution of all
   regulations whatsoever coming from foreign countries shall be
   exercised by the King.

   Article 19.
   The civil list of the Crown shall remain, during the present
   reign, at an amount equal to the average of the same for the
   past ten years. The King shall continue to have the use of the
   royal palaces, villas, gardens and their appurtenances, and
   also of all chattels intended for the use of the Crown, of
   which a speedy inventory shall be made by a responsible
   ministerial department. In the future the prescribed dotation
   of the Crown shall be fixed for the duration of each reign by
   the first Legislature subsequent to the King s accession to
   the throne.

{3734}

   Article 20.
   The property that the King possesses in his own right, shall
   form his private patrimony, together with that to which he may
   acquire title either for a consideration or gratuitously in
   the course of his reign. The King may dispose of his private
   patrimony either by deed or will exempt from the provisions of
   the civil law as to the amount thus disposable. In all other
   cases, the King's patrimony is subject to the laws that govern
   other property.

   Article 21.
   The law shall provide an annual civil list for the heir
   apparent to the throne when he has attained his majority, and
   also earlier on occasion of his marriage; for the allowances
   of the Princes of the royal family and royal blood within the
   specified conditions; for the dowries of the Princesses and
   for the dowries of the Queens.

   Article 22.
   Upon ascending the throne, the King shall take an oath in the
   presence of the two Chambers to observe faithfully the present
   constitution.

   Article 23.
   The regent, before entering on the duties of that office,
   shall swear fidelity to the King and faithful observance of
   this constitution and of the laws of the State.

   Article 24.
   All the inhabitants of the Kingdom, whatever their rank or
   title, shall enjoy equality before the law. All shall equally
   enjoy civil and political rights and be eligible to civil and
   military office, except as otherwise provided by law.

   Article 25.
   All shall contribute without discrimination to the burdens of
   the State, in proportion to their possessions.

   Article 26.
   Individual liberty is guaranteed. No one shall be arrested or
   brought to trial except in cases provided for and according to
   the forms prescribed by law.

   Article 27.
   The domicile shall be inviolable. No house search shall take
   place except in the enforcement of law and in the manner
   prescribed by law.

   Article 28.
   The press shall be free, but the law may suppress abuses of
   this freedom. Nevertheless, Bibles, catechisms, liturgical and
   prayer books shall not be printed without the previous consent
   of the bishop.

   Article 29.
   Property of all kinds whatsoever shall be inviolable. In all
   cases, however, where the public welfare, legally ascertained,
   demands it, property may be condemned and transferred in whole
   or in part after a just indemnity has been paid according to
   law.

   Article 30.
   No tax shall be levied or collected without the consent of the
   Chambers and the sanction of the King.

   Article 31.
   The public debt is guaranteed. All obligations between the
   State and its creditors shall be inviolable.

   Article 32.
   The right to peaceful assembly, without arms, is recognized,
   subject, however, to the laws that may regulate the exercise
   of this privilege in the interest of the public welfare. This
   privilege is not applicable, however, to meetings in public
   places or places open to the public, which shall remain
   entirely subject to police law and regulation.

   Article 33.
   The Senate shall be composed of members, having attained the
   age of forty years, appointed for life by the King, without
   limit of numbers. They shall be selected from the following
   categories of citizens:
   1. Archbishops and Bishops of the State.
   2. The President of the Chamber of Deputies.
   3. Deputies after having served in three Legislatures, or
   after six years of membership in the Chamber of Deputies.
   4. Ministers of State.
   5. Secretaries to Ministers of State.
   6. Ambassadors.
   7. Envoys Extraordinary after three years of such service.
   8. The First Presidents of the Courts
   of Cassation and of the Chamber of Accounts.
   9. The First Presidents of the Courts of Appeal.
   10. The Attorney-General of the Courts of Cassation
   and the Prosecutor-General, after five years of service.
   11. The Presidents of the Chambers of the Courts of Appeal
   after three years of service.
   12. The Councillors of the Courts of Cassation and of the
   Chamber of Accounts after five years of service.
   13. The Advocates-General and Fiscals-General of the Courts
   of Appeal after five years of service.
   14. All military officers of the land and naval forces with
   title of general. Major-generals and rear-admirals after five
   years of active service in this capacity.
   15. The Councillors of State after live years of service.
   16. The members of the Councils of Division after three
   elections to their presidency.
   17. The Provincial Governors (Intendenti generali)
   after seven years of service.
   18. Members of the Royal Academy of Science
   of seven years standing.
   19. Ordinary members of the Superior Council of Public
   Instruction after seven years of service.
   20. Those who by their services or eminent merit have done
   honor to their country.
   21. Persons who, for at least three years, have paid direct
   property or occupation taxes to the amount of 3,000 lire.

   Article 34.
   The Princes of the Royal Family shall be members of the
   Senate. They shall take rank immediately after the President.
   They shall enter the Senate at the age of twenty-one and have
   a vote at twenty-five.

   Article 35.
   The President and Vice-Presidents of the Senate shall be
   appointed by the King, but the Senate chooses from among its
   own members its secretaries.

   Article 36.
   The Senate may be constituted a High Court of Justice by
   decree of the King for judging crimes of high treason and
   attempts upon the safety of the State, also for trying
   Ministers placed in accusation by the Chamber of Deputies.
   When acting in this capacity, the Senate is not a political
   body. It shall not then occupy itself with any other judicial
   matters than those for which it was convened; any other action
   is null and void.

   Article 37.
   No Senator shall be arrested except by virtue of an order of
   the Senate, unless in cases of flagrant commission of crime.
   The Senate shall be the sole judge of the imputed misdemeanors
   of its members.

   Article 38.
   Legal documents as to births, marriages and deaths in the
   Royal Family shall be presented to the Senate and deposited by
   that body among its archives.

   Article 39.
   The elective Chamber is composed of deputies chosen by the
   electoral colleges as provided by law.

{3735}

      ["The election law long in force was that of December 17,
      1860, which was subsequently modified in July, 1875, and in
      May, 1877. In January, 1882, a comprehensive electoral
      reform was inaugurated by which the electoral age
      qualification was reduced from twenty-five to twenty-one
      years, and the tax qualification to an annual payment of
      nineteen lire eighty centesimi as a minimum of direct
      taxes. This law introduced a new provision requiring of
      electors a knowledge of reading and writing. It is an
      elaborate law of 107 articles. The provisions relating to
      the elections by general ticket were further revised by law
      of May and decree of June, 1882, and the text of the whole
      law was co-ordinated with the preceding laws by Royal
      Decree of September 24, 1882. It was again modified May
      5th, 1891, by the abolition of elections on general tickets
      and the creation of a Commission for the territorial
      division of the country into electoral colleges. The number
      of electoral colleges is at present fixed at 508, each
      electing one Deputy. Twelve articles of this law of 1882,
      as thus amended, have been again amended by a law dated
      June 28, 1892, prescribing further reforms in the control
      and supervision of elections, and by law of July 11, 1894,
      on the revision of electoral and registration
      lists."—Foot-note.]

   Article 40.
   No person shall be a member of the Chamber who is not a
   subject of the King, thirty years of age, possessing all civil
   and political rights and the other qualifications required by
   law.

   Article 41.
   Deputies shall represent the nation at large and not the
   several Provinces from which they are chosen. No binding
   instructions may therefore be given by the electors.

   Article 42.
   Deputies shall be elected for a term of five years; their
   power ceases ipso jure at the expiration of this period.

   Article 43.
   The President, Vice-presidents and Secretaries of the Chamber
   of Deputies shall be chosen from among its own members at the
   beginning of each session for the entire session.

   Article 44.
   If a Deputy ceases for any reason whatsoever to perform his
   duties, the electoral college that chose him shall be convened
   at once to proceed with a new election.

   Article 45.
   Deputies shall be privileged from arrest during the sessions,
   except in cases of flagrant commission of crime; but no Deputy
   may be brought to trial in criminal matters without the
   previous consent of the Chamber.

   Article 46.
   No warrant of arrest for debts may be executed against a
   Deputy during the sessions of the Chamber, nor within a period
   of three weeks preceding or following the same.

      ["This article has been practically abolished by
      the Mancini law of December 6, 1877, doing
      away with personal arrest for debts."—Footnote.]

   Article 47.
   The Chamber of Deputies shall have power to impeach Ministers
   of the Crown and to bring them to trial before the High Court
   of Justice.

   Article 48:
   The sessions of the Senate and Chamber of Deputies shall begin
   and end at the same time, and every meeting of one Chamber, at
   a time when the other, is not in session, is illegal and its
   acts wholly null and void.

   Article 49.
   Senators and Deputies before entering upon the duties of their
   office shall take an oath of fidelity to the King and swear to
   observe faithfully the Constitution and laws of the State and
   to perform their duties with the joint welfare of King and
   country as the sole end in view.

   Article 50.
   The office of Senator or Deputy does not entitle to any
   compensation or remuneration.

   Article 51.
   Senators and Deputies shall not be held responsible in any
   other place for opinions expressed or votes given in the
   Chambers.

   Article 52.
   The sessions of the Chambers shall be public. Upon the written
   request of ten members secret sessions may be held.

   Article 53.
   No session or vote of either Chamber shall be legal or valid
   unless an absolute majority of its members is present.

      [This article is not observed in actual parliamentary
      practice.—Foot-note.]

   Article 54.
   The action of either Chamber on any question shall be
   determined by a majority of the votes cast.

   Article 55.
   All bills shall be submitted to committees elected by each
   House for preliminary examination. Any proposition discussed
   and approved by one Chamber shall be transmitted to the other
   for its consideration and approval; after passing both
   Chambers it shall be presented to the King for his sanction.
   Bills shall be discussed article by article.

   Article 56.
   Any bill rejected by one of the three legislative powers
   cannot again be introduced during the same session.

   Article 57.
   Every person who shall have attained his majority has the
   right to send petitions to the Chambers, which in turn must
   order them to be examined by a committee; on report of the
   committee each House shall decide whether they are to be taken
   into consideration, and if voted in the affirmative, they
   shall be referred to the competent Minister or shall be
   deposited with a Government Department for proper action.

   Article 58.
   No petition may be presented in person to either Chamber. No
   persons except the constituted authorities shall have the
   right to submit petitions in their collective capacity.

   Article 59.
   The Chambers shall not receive any deputation, nor give
   hearing to other than their own members and the Ministers and
   Commissioners of the Government.

   Article 60.
   Each Chamber shall be sole judge of the qualifications and
   elections of its own members.

   Article 61.
   The Senate as well as the Chamber of Deputies shall make its
   own rules and regulations respecting its methods of procedure
   in the performance of its respective duties.

   Article 62.
   Italian shall be the official language of the Chambers. The
   use of French shall, however, be permitted to those members
   coming from French-speaking districts and to other members in
   replying to the same.

   Article 63.
   Votes shall be taken by rising, by division, and by secret
   ballot. The latter method, however, shall always be employed
   for the final vote on a law and in all cases of a personal
   nature.

   Article 64.
   No one shall hold the office of Senator and Deputy at the same
   time.

   Article 65.
   The King appoints and dismisses his ministers.

   Article 66.
   The Ministers shall have no vote in either Chamber unless they
   are members thereof. They shall have entrance to both Chambers
   and must be heard upon request.

   Article 67.
   The Ministers shall be responsible. Laws and decrees of the
   government shall not take effect until they shall have
   received the signature of a Minister.

{3736}

   Article 68.
   Justice emanates from the King and shall be administered in
   his name by the judges he appoints.

   Article 69.
   Judges appointed by the King, except Cantonal or District
   judges (di mandamento), shall not be removed after three years
   of service.

   Article 70.
   Courts, tribunals and judges are retained as at present
   existing. No modification shall be introduced except by law.

   Article 71.
   No one shall be taken from his ordinary legal jurisdiction. It
   is therefore not lawful to create extraordinary tribunals or
   commissions.

   Article 72.
   The proceedings of tribunals in civil cases and the hearings
   in criminal cases shall be public as provided by law.

   Article 73.
   The interpretation of the laws, in the form obligatory upon
   all citizens, belongs exclusively to the legislative power.

   Article 74.
   Communal and provincial institutions and the boundaries of the
   communes and provinces shall be regulated by law.

   Article 75.
   The military conscriptions shall be regulated by law.

   Article 76.
   A communal militia shall be established on a basis fixed by
   law.

   Article 77.
   The State retains its flag, and the blue cockade is the only
   national one.

   Article 78.
   The knightly orders now in existence shall be maintained with
   their endowments, which shall not be used for other purposes
   than those specified in the acts by which they were
   established. The King may create other orders and prescribe
   their constitutions.

   Article 79.
   Titles of the nobility are guaranteed to those who have a
   right to them. The King may confer new titles.

   Article 80.
   No one may receive orders, titles or pensions from a foreign
   power without the King's consent.

   Article 81.
   All laws contrary to the provisions of the present
   constitution are hereby abrogated.

   Given at Turin on the fourth day of March, in the year of Our
   Lord, one thousand eight hundred and forty-eight, and of Our
   Reign the eighteenth.

Transitory Provisions.

   Article 82.
   This statue shall go into effect on the day of the first
   meeting of the Chambers, which shall take place immediately
   after the elections. Until that time urgent public service
   shall be provided for by royal ordinances according to the
   mode and form now in vogue, excepting, however, the
   ratifications and registrations in the courts which are from
   now on abolished.

   Article 83.
   In the execution of this statute the King reserves to himself
   the right to make the laws for the press, elections, communal
   militia and organization of the Council of State. Until the
   publication of the laws for the press, the regulations now in
   force on this subject remain valid.

   Article 84.
   The Ministers are entrusted with, and are responsible for the
   execution and full observance of these transitory provisions.

   ----------CONSTITUTION OF ITALY: End--------

CONSTITUTION OF NEW YORK STATE, and its Revisions.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1777, 1821, 1846, 1867-1882,
      and 1894 (page 2339, and after).

CONSTITUTION OF RHODE ISLAND.

      See RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1888 (page 2646).

CONTRACT TABLETS, BABYLONIAN.

      See MONEY AND BANKING (page 2199).

COOKE AND WHEATSTONE, Telegraphic Inventions of.

      See ELECTRICAL DISCOVERY AND INVENTION:
      A. D. 1825-1874 (page 773).

CO-OPERATION.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D). 1816-1886, 1840-1848,
      1848-1883 (pages 2938, 2942, 2946).

COPYRIGHT.

      See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1499;
      and EQUITY: A. D. 1875 (pages 1965 and 1994).

COREA.
   The war between Japan and China.

   "The peninsula which projects between the Japanese and Yellow
   Seas southwards in the direction of the southern islands of
   Nippon is completely limited landwards. Like Italy, with which
   it may be compared in extent, and even to some degree in its
   orographic configuration, it is separated from the mainland by
   the Alpine Taipeishan or 'Great White Mountains,' of
   Manchuria. It has also its Apennines stretching north and
   south, and forming the backbone of the peninsula. … Like most
   regions of the extreme East, Korea is known to foreigners by a
   name which has little currency in the country itself. This
   term, belonging formerly to the petty state of Korié, has been
   extended by the Chinese and Japanese to the whole peninsula,
   under the forms of Kaokiuli, Korai, Kaoli. When all the
   principalities were fused in one monarchy, towards the close
   of the 14th century, the country, at that time subject to
   China, took the official title of Chaosien (Tsiosen)—that is,
   'Serenity of the Morning'—in allusion to its geographical
   position east of the empire. Thus it is now designated by a
   poetical expression which exactly indicates its position
   between China and Japan. While for the people of the continent
   Japan is the land of the Rising Sun, Korea is the 'Serene'
   land, illumined by the morning rays. Although washed by two
   much-frequented seas, and yearly sighted by thousands of
   seafarers, Korea is one of the least known Asiatic regions. …
   From its very position between China and Japan, Korea could
   not fail to have been a subject of contention for its powerful
   neighbours. Before its fusion in one state it comprised
   several distinct principalities, whose limits were subject to
   frequent changes. These were, in the north, Kaokiuli (Kaoli),
   or Korea proper; in the centre, Chaosien and the 78 so-called
   'kingdoms' of Chinese foundation, usually known as the San Kan
   (San Han), or 'Three Han'; in the south, Petsi, or Hiaksaï
   (Kudara), the Sinlo of the Chinese, or Siragi of the Japanese;
   beside the petty state of Kara, Zinna, or Mimana, in the
   south-east, round about the Bay of Tsiosan. The northern
   regions naturally gravitated towards China, whose rulers
   repeatedly interfered in the internal affairs of the country.
   But the inhabitants of the south, known in history by the
   Japanese name of Kmaso, or 'Herd of Bears,' were long subject
   to Japan, while at other times they made frequent incursions
   into Kiu-siu and Hondo, and even formed settlements on those
   islands. The first conquest of the country was made by the
   forces of the Queen Regent Zingu in the 3d century.
{3737}
   Towards the end of the 16th the celebrated Japanese dictator
   and usurper Taïkosama, having conceived the project of
   conquering China, began with that of Korea, under the pretext
   of old Japanese rights over the country of the Kmaso. After
   wasting the land he compelled the King to become his
   tributary, and left a permanent garrison in the peninsula. A
   fresh expedition, although interrupted by the death of
   Taïkosama, was equally successful. Tsu-sima remained in the
   hands of the Japanese, and from that time till the middle of
   the present century Korea continued in a state of vassalage,
   sending every year presents and tribute to Nippon. … Thanks to
   the aid sent by the Ming dynasty to Korea, in its victorious
   struggle with the other petty states of the peninsula, and in
   its resistance to Japan, its relations with China continued to
   be of the most friendly character. Admirers of Chinese
   culture, the native rulers felt honoured by the investiture
   granted them by the 'Son of Heaven.' But after the Manchu
   conquest of the Middle Kingdom, Korea remaining faithful to
   the cause of the Mings, the new masters of the empire invaded
   the peninsula, and in 1637 dictated a treaty, imposing on the
   Koreans a yearly tribute. … But although since that time the
   native ruler takes the title of 'Subject,' China exercises no
   real sovereign rights in Korea."

      E. Reclus,
      The Earth and its Inhabitants: Asia,
      volume 2, chapter 6.

   "Since the conclusion of that treaty [of 1637], Corea has been
   at peace with both her neighbours and able, till within the
   last twenty years, to maintain the seclusion she so much
   desired. Until the beginning of the present century—when the
   doctrine preached by Roman missionaries in China began to
   filter across the frontier, and to provoke a fitful and
   uncertain intercourse between them and the few Coreans who had
   been attracted by the new religion—the only fresh glimpse we
   obtain of the interior of the country and its inhabitants is
   afforded by the well-known story of Henry Hamel, who was
   wrecked off the Corean coast in 1653, and detained there
   twelve years as a prisoner at large. … We come now to events
   nearer our own time, in which the propaganda of Rome and the
   proceedings of its emissaries begin to play a prominent and
   interesting part. In the year 1784, a young Corean named Le,
   who had come to Peking in the suite of the tribute-bearing
   embassy, applied to the Roman Catholic Mission for books and
   instruction in the science of mathematics, of which he was
   naturally fond. The missionaries profited by the occasion to
   lend him books on religion, which awakened his interest and
   led to his eventual conversion. As usual in such cases, the
   neophyte set himself, directly on his return, to propagate the
   new creed he had learned, among his relations and friends; and
   with so much success that, in less than five years, he had,
   according to Mgr. Govéa, gained 4,000 adherents. As may be
   imagined, however, the doctrine acquired from a convert who
   had had only a few months' instruction, and disseminated again
   at second-hand by men who had caught the crude idea from his
   conversation, was of a somewhat obscure description. … Neither
   letter nor news was received from the Corean Christians for
   more than two years; but two converts made their way to
   Peking, at the close of 1793, with news of a severe
   persecution which had occurred in the interval. … No sooner
   had the persecution … subsided, than a priest was successfully
   introduced across the frontier, to instruct and impart new
   life to the converts. Nor, it is affirmed, has the flock ever
   since been left unguarded. Persecution has followed
   persecution; but from Jacques Velloz, the first missionary to
   cross the frontier, who suffered martyrdom in 1800, to Mgr.
   Ridel, who has returned to Europe with health shattered by the
   anxieties and hardships undergone during the latest outbreak,
   there have always been some priests alternately tolerated or
   hiding in the country, and the spark lighted by the young
   Corean attache has never been quite extinguished. … On July
   7th, 1866, a Roman Catholic missionary arrived in a Corean
   boat at Chefoo, with a tale of dire persecution. Two bishops,
   nine priests, and a number of Christians of both sexes had
   been massacred, many of them after judicial tortures of
   atrocious cruelty. Three members of the mission only survived,
   and M. Ridel had been chosen to carry the news to China, and
   endeavour to procure assistance. It was to the French
   authorities, naturally, that he addressed himself; and both
   Admiral Roze, the Commandant of the French fleet in Chinese
   waters, and M. de Bellonet, then charge-d'affaires at Peking,
   lent a sympathetic ear to his protest. … An expedition was
   accordingly resolved on. … Admiral Roze started from Chefoo
   with the expeditionary force on October 11th, arrived off
   Kang-hwa on the 14th, and occupied it, after a merely nominal
   resistance, two days later. The Coreans were apparently taken
   by surprise, having perhaps thought that the danger had
   passed. … The forts along the banks of the river were found
   ungarrisoned, and Kang-hwa itself, a considerable fortress
   containing large stores of munitions of war, was practically
   undefended. A letter was received, a few days later, inviting
   Admiral Roze to come or send delegates to Söul, to talk over
   matters in a friendly spirit; but he replied that, if the
   Corean authorities wished to treat, they had better come to
   Kang-hwa. This attitude was meant, no doubt, to be impressive,
   but the event proved it to be slightly premature. So far all
   had gone well; but the expedition was about to collapse with a
   suddenness contrasting remarkably with the expectations raised
   by M. de Bellonet's denunciations and Admiral Roze's hauteur.
   … The disastrous termination of … two movements appears to
   have persuaded Admiral Roze that the force at his disposal was
   insufficient to prosecute the enterprise to a successful
   issue, in face of Corean hostility. It was no longer a
   question whether he should go to Söul or the Coreans come to
   him: the expedition was at a deadlock. He had rejected the
   first overtures, and was not strong enough to impose terms. A
   retreat was accordingly decided on. The city of Kang-hwa was
   burned, with its public offices and royal palace."

      R. S. Gundry,
      China and her Neighbours,
      chapter 9.

   In 1866, when the French threatened Corea, the latter sought
   help from Japan and received none. Two years later, after the
   Japanese revolution which restored the Mikado to his full
   sovereignty, the Coreans declined to acknowledge his
   suzerainty, and bitterly hostile feelings grew up between the
   two peoples. The Japanese were restrained from war with
   difficulty by their more conservative statesmen.
{3738}
   Without war, they obtained from Corea, in 1876, an important
   treaty, which contained in the first article "the remarkable
   statement that 'Chosen, being an independent State, enjoys the
   same sovereign rights as does Japan'—an admission which was
   foolishly winked at by China from the mistaken notion that, by
   disavowing her connection with Korea, she should escape the
   unpleasantness of being called to account for the
   delinquencies of her vassal. This preliminary advantage was
   more than doubled in value to Japan when, after the revolution
   in Söul in 1884, by which her diplomatic representative was
   compelled to flee for the second time from the Korean capital,
   she sent troops to avenge the insult and declined to remove
   them until China had made a similar concession with regard to
   the Chinese garrison, which had been maintained since the
   previous outbreak in 1882 in that city. By the Convention of
   Tientsin, which was negotiated in 1885 by Count Ito with the
   Viceroy Li Hung Chang, both parties agreed to withdraw their
   troops and not to send an armed force to Korea at any future
   date to suppress rebellion or disturbance without giving
   previous intimation to the other. This document was a second
   diplomatic triumph for Japan. … It is, in my judgment, greatly
   to be regretted that in the present summer [1894] her
   Government, anxious to escape from domestic tangles by a
   spirited foreign policy, has abandoned this statesmanlike
   attitude, and has embarked upon a headlong course of
   aggression in Korea, for which there appears to have been no
   sufficient provocation, and the ulterior consequences of which
   it is impossible to forecast. … Taking advantage of recent
   disturbances in the peninsula, which demonstrated with renewed
   clearness the impotence of the native Government to provide
   either a decent administration for its own subjects, or
   adequate protection to the interests of foreigners, and
   ingeniously profiting by the loophole left for future
   interference in the Tientsin Agreement of 1885, Japan … (in
   July 1894) landed a large military force, estimated at 10,000
   men, in Korea, and is in armed occupation of the capital. Li
   Hung Chang … responded by the despatch of the Chinese fleet
   and of an expeditionary force, marching overland into the
   northern provinces."

      G. N. Curzon,
      Problems of the Far East,
      chapter 7.

   "The ostensible starting-point of the trouble that resulted in
   hostilities was a local insurrection which broke out in May in
   one of the southern provinces of Corea. The cause of the
   insurrection was primarily the misrule of the authorities,
   with possibly some influence by the quarreling court factions
   at the capital. The Corean king applied at once to China as
   his suzerain for assistance in subduing the insurgents, and a
   Chinese force was sent. Japan, thereupon, claiming that Corea
   was an independent state and that China had no exclusive right
   to interfere, promptly began to pour large forces into Corea,
   to protect Japanese interests. By the middle of June a whole
   Japanese army corps was at Seoul, the Corean capital, and the
   Japanese minister soon formulated a radical scheme of
   administrative reforms which he demanded as indispensable to
   the permanent maintenance of order in the country. This scheme
   was rejected by the conservative faction which was in power at
   court, whereupon, on July 23, the Japanese forces attacked the
   palace, captured the king and held him as hostage for the
   carrying out of the reforms. The Chinese were meanwhile
   putting forth great efforts to make up for the advantage that
   their rivals had gained in the race for control of Corea, and
   to strengthen their forces in that kingdom. On the 25th a
   Chinese fleet carrying troops to Corea became engaged in
   hostilities with some Japanese war vessels, and one of the
   transports was sunk. On August 1 the Emperor of Japan made a
   formal declaration of war on China, basing his action on the
   false claim of the latter to suzerainty over Corea, and on the
   course of China in opposing and thwarting the plan of reforms
   which were necessary to the progress of Corea and to the
   security of Japanese interests there. The counter-proclamation
   of the Chinese Emperor denounced the Japanese as wanton
   invaders of China's tributary state, and as aiming at the
   enslaving of Corea. On August 26 a treaty of offensive and
   defensive alliance against China was made between Japan and
   Corea. … A severe engagement at Ping-Yang, September 16,
   resulted in the rout of the Chinese and the loss of their last
   stronghold in Corea. A few days later the hostile fleets had a
   pitched battle off the mouth of the Yalu River, with the
   result that the Japanese were left in full control of the
   adjacent waters. On the 26th of October the Japanese land
   forces brushed aside with slight resistance the Chinese on the
   Yalu, which is the boundary between Corea and China, and began
   their advance through the Chinese province of Manchuria,
   apparently aiming at Pekin."

      Political Science Quarterly,
      December, 1894.

   On the 3d of November, Port Arthur being then invested by the
   Japanese land and naval forces, while Marshal Yamagata, the
   Japanese commander, continued his victorious advance through
   Manchuria, Prince Kung made a formal appeal to the
   representatives of all the Powers for their intervention,
   acknowledging the inability of China to cope with the
   Japanese. On the 21st of November, Port Arthur, called the
   strongest fortress in China, was taken, after hard fighting
   from noon of the previous day. In retaliation for the murder
   and mutilation of some prisoners by the Chinese, the Japanese
   gave no quarter, and are accused of great atrocities. To the
   advance of the Japanese armies in the field, the Chinese
   opposed comparatively slight resistance, in several
   engagements of a minor character, until the 19th of December,
   when a battle of decided obstinacy was fought at Kungwasai,
   near Hai-tcheng. The Japanese were again the victors.
   Overtures for peace made by the Chinese government proved
   unavailing; the Japanese authorities declined to receive the
   envoys sent, for the reason that they were not commissioned
   with adequate powers. Nothing came of an earlier proffer of
   the good offices of the Government of the United States.
   Obstinate fighting occurred at Kai-phing, which was captured
   by the Japanese on the 10th of January, 1895. On the 26th of
   January the Japanese began, both by land and sea, an attack on
   the stronghold of Wei-hai-wei, which was surrendered, with the
   Chinese fleet in its harbor on the 12th of February. Shortly
   afterwards, China made another effort to obtain peace,
   commissioning her able Statesman, Li-Hung-Chang, as a special
   envoy to Japan, with full power to negotiate terms. At the
   time of this writing, the result has not appeared.

{3739}

CORNELL UNIVERSITY, The founding of.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN (page 735).

CORONER AND CORONER'S JURY.

      See LAW, CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1215, and 1276 (page 1982).

CORRUPT AND ILLEGAL PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS,
   The English Act to prevent.

      See England: A. D. 1883 (page 972).

CORTEREALS, Voyages of the.

      See (in this Supplement) AMERICA.

COTTON-GIN, Whitney's, and its effect.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1793 (page 3306).

COURTS, Origin of the English Criminal.

      See LAW, CRIMINAL: A. D. 1066-1272 (page 1981).

COURTS OF OYER AND TERMINER.

      See LAW, CRIMINAL: A. D. 1285 (page 1982).

COXEY MOVEMENT, The.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1894 (page 2956).

CRIMINAL LAW.

      See LAW, CRIMINAL (page 1981).

CRUSADES:
   The initial movements.

   "The pious legend according to which Peter the Hermit is
   supposed to have been miraculously chosen by God Himself to
   call Christendom to arms for the purpose of freeing the Holy
   Sepulchre has long since been proved unhistorical by
   scientific investigators. That account of the matter may have
   given suitable expression to the religious enthusiasm which
   the crusades called forth in those circles that were
   especially strongly influenced by the church; but it is
   entirely without any actual foundation in fact, nay, more; the
   religious element altogether did not play nearly so important
   a part in the origin of the crusades as it would seem to have
   done to judge by the later character of the great movement.
   For if in those days church influences and the religious
   impulses on which they were based made a mighty impression and
   in many ways produced an almost overwhelming effect;
   nevertheless the reason for all this lay essentially herein
   that the whole age, more than any other, was in a condition,
   through crying agricultural, social and political needs, to
   give itself up without reserve to the influence of similar
   impelling forces, and that just for this reason it took up
   with such enthusiasm the impulse furnished by the church. In
   its most general form the thought which lies at the base of
   the crusades springs from the idea of the calling of
   Christendom to have and to hold the rule of the world. The
   desire to practically carry out this idea was especially
   active whenever the Christian ideal of world-rule,
   incorporated as it was in a double form in the empire and in
   the papacy, seemed near to realization; then it was that its
   inherent magic unfolded most irresistibly its animating and at
   the same time ensnaring power. Thus did Otto II, already, plan
   a great undertaking for the protection of Christendom against
   the Arabs. Thus did the fantastic mind of his immature son
   busy itself with plans for a great crusade. Neither one nor
   the other carried out his intention. But, little more than two
   generations later, the commanding position which the empire
   had at that time held, passed into the holding of the
   hierarchical papacy. The creator of this hierarchical papacy,
   who was beyond a doubt a reformer of genius, but revolutionary
   in his means and hostile to the state as regarded his final
   ends, was far from contenting himself with the spiritual power
   which belongs uncontestedly to the church, but strove for an
   actual, secular rule of the world. He thought to bring into
   his own hands the complete political guidance of Christendom
   as well as the command over its war-forces. … Plans for
   widening his political and ecclesiastical sphere of power
   formed the pith of Gregory VIIth's crusading plans. … Already
   the victorious course had come to a stand-still in which the
   Arabs up to the beginning of the eleventh century had
   threatened to flood southwestern Europe. It was to rid
   themselves of their troublesome enemies and their deeds of
   violence, but not, however for the sake of the Faith, that
   those who were threatened had determined to help themselves.
   This led to the rapid rise of the naval power of Pisa and
   Genoa, which soon won brilliant victories on the north coast
   of Africa, and at the same time the brave Normans struggled
   with growing success against the Arabs for the possession of
   fair Sicily. There and not in Rome was the thought of a holy
   war against the power of the Crescent first taken hold of; it
   sprang from the knightly zeal for action and the political
   genius of Robert Guiscard. … About the same time, moreover,
   the Christians of the Pyrenean peninsula had energetically
   roused themselves to a new attack against the Mohammedans.
   Along the whole line therefore, in southwestern Europe, the
   Christian arms were already victoriously pressing forward
   against the followers of the prophet when the call from Rome
   to the crusades first sounded out. Regarded as a whole,
   therefore, the crusades cannot simply be looked upon as the
   exclusive work of the church. The movement was already in full
   progress and had, independently of the church, most successful
   results to show, when that church's head undertook through a
   skillful act to concentrate the separate movements and to
   unite and organize them under his own guidance. This policy
   was cleverly carried out by Urban. The church succeeded
   effectually in bringing under her own undivided direction the
   undertakings which different peoples of the Occident had
   separately begun against their Mohammedan adversaries. For on
   the one hand the empire, to which even then the opinion of the
   world ascribed the first right of leadership in such a
   struggle, lay prostrate in abject weakness and degradation; it
   was incapable of fulfilling its calling. The whole age on the
   other hand was so thoroughly roused to its depths and so
   exhausted through the mighty spiritual struggles by which
   church-life especially was shaken to its very foundation that
   it submitted without opposition and even willingly to a
   churchly right of guidance emphatically asserted; the more so
   as this new guide promised to show the individual the way to
   inward rest and peace of soul. The deeply sunken church had
   been reformed by Cluny ideas; in place of the worldly doings
   and sensual pleasures which had formerly engrossed her
   servants and dignitaries, stern asceticism and saintly
   enthusiasm ruled the day. Although it was among the clergy of
   the eleventh century that the effect of this was primarily to
   be seen, yet it was not without influence on the great body of
   laymen.
{3740}
   Not seldom do princes and nobles emulate each other in strict
   ecclesiasticism, in monkish practices and pilgrimages. An age
   without a parallel began of founding monasteries and churches.
   Was it to be wondered at that the people also, otherwise bound
   fast by the barren monotony of toilsome existence, turned
   their thoughts often in the same direction? The more frequent
   coming forward of popular saints and popular preachers, the
   overwhelmingly rapid increase in the worship of relics, which
   assumed a hitherto unheard-of significance for the catholic
   system of religious observance, and the astonishing renewal of
   life which came about in the matter of pilgrimages and sacred
   undertakings customary though they had been of old: all these
   show clearly how the enthusiastic frame of mind which had been
   aroused by Cluny won for itself wider and wider circles even
   beyond the pale of the clergy. And in an age like this, so
   deeply excited about church matters, fell now the
   world-rousing struggle between the papacy and the empire. It
   appeared to annihilate the foundations on which church and
   state had hitherto been reared. With bitterness men saw those
   powers in conflict with each other on whose concord they had
   believed the peace and happiness of the world to depend. …
   Most impressively of all, as far as the uneducated masses were
   concerned, was the wretchedness of the age betokened by the
   outward evils and ravagings which the termination of the reign
   of Henry IV brought about: by the vanishing of discipline and
   order, the utter prostration of law, the loosing even of the
   holy ties of family. The vassal broke faith with the feudal
   lord, the subject warred with the authorities, the son rose up
   against the father. Heavily did the chastening hand of God
   rest upon land and people. Everywhere did men suffer from
   feuds, robbery and violence; everywhere did the common man
   find himself in a position which he felt that he could no
   longer endure. In France the rural population was utterly
   prostrated under the galling oppressions of the nobles who
   were their landlords. In Germany, to add to similar evils,
   came the loosing of all bonds of order through the civil war
   which had sprung from the conflict concerning the investiture.
   … In short, wherever in the Occident one turns his gaze,
   everywhere did dissatisfaction and an impulse towards
   improvement, or at least towards change, rule the day;
   everywhere an eager desire with one stroke to break free from
   the uncomfortable, indeed in many cases unbearable, present!
   The dissatisfied and revolutionary mood which possessed high
   and low in almost all parts of occidental Christendom is one
   of the essential reasons why the call to the crusade at once
   set hundreds of thousands in motion and called forth a very
   wandering of the nations. … Hierarchical ideas and asceticism
   ruled the spirit of the age; in mind and in mood they had
   prepared Europe for the crusades. Most emphatically was this
   made evident by the fact that the crusaders marched out under
   the banner of the hierarchical papacy—that same red cross
   which Erlembald Cotta, the 'knight of the church' had borne on
   his white standard during the religious civil war in Lombardy,
   and which in 1066 had been bestowed by the pope on the
   conqueror of England. But on the other hand the political,
   social and agricultural needs, which were not to be put off
   and which kept calling for speedy change, were no less
   effective agents in the same direction. Not religious
   enthusiasm alone was it that ever anew, at the end of the
   eleventh century, impelled hundreds of thousands towards the
   Orient; how many would have staid at home quietly if they had
   had enough to eat and had otherwise rejoiced in an existence
   fit for a human being. But for years one bad harvest had
   succeeded another; almost everywhere there was want almost
   bordering on famine; to eke out their scanty existence
   countless of those of the lower classes had had to squander
   their possessions. They stood there now utterly without means;
   they were forced to emigrate if they would not starve at home.
   From all such oppressions, however, he was released who obeyed
   the call to the crusade. Brilliant gains seemed assured to him
   so soon as he allowed the red cross to be affixed to his
   garment. The serf became free, the debtor shook off his
   creditor or at any rate needed to pay him no interest. The
   monk escaped from the strict discipline of the monastery, he
   who had been under the ban was received again into the
   communion of the church. What wonder then if countless numbers
   hastened to join the adventurous expedition to the East which
   promised them such blessings; and to the outward advantages
   that allured the crusaders, to the expectation of the toilless
   acquisition of land and subjects, of money and possessions,
   must be added still the rich spiritual blessings and
   ecclesiastical rewards which were solemnly assured to the
   warriors of Christ. … Human nature at that time would have had
   to be actually raised out of itself, to have become to a
   certain extent untrue to itself if, in contrast to the misery
   at home, the alluring prospects which began to show themselves
   in the unknown distance had not worked an irresistible charm
   on the great masses of the people. Nor did the church have any
   scruples in putting in motion exactly these incentives to
   action; she declared that the prevailing misery arose from the
   thickness of the population in an impoverished land; she
   unchained the popular greed by representing what riches would
   be captured from the infidels, and even roused the sensual
   passions by the seductive praise of Greek female beauty. That
   such language should fairly carry away the great masses may
   easily be imagined. For we may surely not regard the people as
   of better moral fibre, and therefore more susceptible to ideal
   motives, than the princes and commanders who led the crusading
   armies. Of these, however, only the hot-blooded nobles of
   southern France can primarily pass for representatives of that
   churchly enthusiasm with which, according to the tradition
   well-tinged with legend, the crusaders as a whole are said to
   have been seized. And it is well known that their churchly
   narrow-mindedness brought the people of southern France, under
   Raymond of Toulouse, soon enough into direct opposition to the
   other participants in the first crusade. For the majority of
   the princes who had taken the cross were by no means willing
   to work for the sole advantage of the church, but wished to
   further their own worldly interests at least as much as they
   did those of the pope. Indeed the Norman princes whose race
   had been the first to take up the idea of a holy war against
   the infidels had joined the crusade without religious
   enthusiasm, after sober consideration and entirely following
   out their own selfish, world]y plans. And it was exactly into
   their hands that the leadership of the great undertaking
   primarily came: the more completely therefore did the worldly,
   political and dynastic points of view weigh down the churchly
   intentions of the pious fanatics who, under the influence of
   asceticism, wished only to serve the hierarchy."

      Hans Prutz,
      Kulturgeschichte der Kreuzzüge,
      (translated from the German)
      pages 12-17.

      See, also, CRUSADES, page 626.

{3741}

CUMBERLAND ROAD, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1806-1812 (page 3335).

CURIA REGIS.

      See LAW (page 1957).

CY PRES DOCTRINE.

      See LAW, EQUITY: A. D. 1601 (page 1991).

CYRUS, King, and the Jews.

      See JEWS: B. C. 604-536, and 537 (pages 1908-1910).

D.

D'ALBUQUERQUE, Afonso,
   and the domination of the Portuguese in the East.

      See (in this Supplement) COMMERCE, MODERN.

DARNLEY, Lord, The murder of.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1561-1568 (page 2857).

DARTMOUTH COLLEGE CASE, The.

   "Dartmouth College … was originally a charity school for the
   instruction of Indians in the Christian religion, founded by
   the Rev. Eleazer Wheelock, D. D., about the year 1754, at
   Lebanon, in Connecticut. Its success led Dr. Wheelock to
   solicit private subscriptions in England, for the purpose of
   enlarging it, and of extending its benefits to English
   colonists. Funds having been obtained for this purpose from
   various contributors, among whom the Earl of Dartmouth,
   Secretary for the Colonies, was a large donor, Dr. Wheelock
   constituted that nobleman and other persons trustees, with
   authority to fix the site of the college. The place selected
   was on the Connecticut River, at what is now the town of
   Hanover, in New Hampshire, where large donations of land were
   made by the neighboring proprietors. A charter for the college
   was obtained from the crown, in 1769, creating it a perpetual
   corporation. The charter recognized Dr. Wheelock as founder,
   appointed him to be the president, and empowered him to name
   his successor, subject to the approval of the trustees; to
   whom was also imparted the power of filling vacancies in their
   own body, and of making laws and ordinances for the government
   of the college, not repugnant to the laws of Great Britain or
   of the province, and not excluding any person on account of
   his religious belief. Under this charter, Dartmouth College
   had always existed, unquestioned and undisturbed in its rights
   as a corporation, down to the Revolution, and subsequently
   until the year 1815. Whether from political or personal
   motives springing up outside of the board of trustees of that
   period, or from some collisions arising within the body
   itself, it appears that … legislative interference with the
   chartered rights of this college was threatened. … In the
   following year (1816), the difficulties, which had become
   mixed with political interests, culminated in a direct
   interference by the Legislature. In that year an act was
   passed, changing the corporate name from 'The Trustees of
   Dartmouth College' to 'The Trustees of Dartmouth University;'
   enlarging the number of trustees, vesting the appointment of
   some of them in the political bodies of the State, and
   otherwise modifying the ancient rights of the corporation as
   they existed under its charter derived from the crown of
   England. A majority of the existing trustees refused to accept
   or to be bound by this act, and brought an action of trover in
   the Supreme Court of the State, in the name of the old
   corporation, against a gentleman, Mr. W. H. Woodward, who was
   in possession of the college seal and other effects, and who
   claimed to hold them as one of the officers of the
   newly-created 'university.' The argument in this case was made
   in the State court, for the college, by Mr. Mason and Mr.
   Jeremiah Smith, assisted by Mr. Webster. The decision was
   against the claim of the college. It was then determined to
   remove the cause, by writ of error, to the Supreme Court of
   the United States, under the provisions of the Federal
   Constitution and laws creating in that tribunal an appellate
   jurisdiction in cases which, although originating in a State
   court, involved the construction and operation of the Federal
   Constitution. This was supposed to be such a case, because it
   was claimed by the college that the act of the Legislature,
   modifying its charter, impaired the obligation of a contract;
   an exercise of power which the Constitution of the United
   States prohibits to the Legislature of a State. As soon as it
   was known in New Hampshire that this very interesting cause
   was to come before the Supreme Court of the United States, the
   friends of the college, including their other counsel in the
   State court, unanimously desired to have it committed to the
   hands of Mr. Webster. He consented to take charge of it in the
   autumn of 1817; but the cause was not argued at Washington
   until February, 1818. … Before the case of Dartmouth College
   vs. Woodward occurred, there had been no judicial decisions
   respecting the meaning and scope of the restraint in regard to
   contracts, excepting that it had more than once been
   determined by the Supreme Court of the United States that a
   grant of lands made by a State is a contract within the
   protection of this provision, and is, therefore, irrevocable.
   These decisions, however, could go but little way toward the
   solution of the questions involved in the case of the college.
   … Was the State of New Hampshire—a sovereign in all respects
   after the Revolution, and remaining one after the Federal
   Constitution, excepting in those respects in which it had
   subjected its sovereignty to the restraints of that
   instrument—bound by the contracts of the English crown? Is the
   grant of a charter of incorporation a contract between the
   sovereign power and those on whom the charter is bestowed? If
   an act of incorporation is a contract, is it so in any case
   but that of a private corporation? Was this college, which was
   an institution of learning, established for the promotion of
   education, a private corporation, or was it one of those
   instruments of government which are at all times under the
   control and subject to the direction of the legislative power?
   All these questions were involved in the inquiry whether the
   legislative power of the State had been so restrained by the
   Constitution of the United States that it could not alter the
   charter of this institution, against the will of the trustees,
   without impairing the obligation of a contract. …
{3742}
   On the conclusion of the argument, the Chief Justice intimated
   that a decision was not to be expected until the next term. It
   was made in February, 1819, fully confirming the grounds on
   which Mr. Webster had placed the cause. From this decision,
   the principle in our constitutional jurisprudence, which
   regards a charter of a private corporation as a contract, and
   places it under the protection of the Constitution of the
   United States, takes its date."

      G. T. Curtis,
      Life of Daniel Webster,
      volume 1, chapter 8.

      See, also, LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1819 (page 1976).

DAVY, Sir Humphrey, and the discovery of the electric arc light.

      See ELECTRICAL DISCOVERY: A. D. 1810-1890 (page 772).

DENMARK: Libraries.

      See LIBRARIES, MODERN (page 2013).

DENMARK: Schools.

      See EDUCATION (page 710).

DESCARTES, and modern physiological Science.

      See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17TH CENTURY (page 2134).

DIPHTHERIA, Appearance of.

      See PLAGUE: 18TH CENTURY (page 2543).

DISCIPLES OF CHRIST.

   "This body, often called also Christians, was one of the
   results of the great revival movement which began in Tennessee
   and Kentucky in the early part of the present century. Rev.
   Barton W. Stone, a Presbyterian minister who was prominent in
   the revival movement, withdrew from the Presbyterian Church,
   and in 1804 organized a church with no other creed than the
   Bible and with no name but that of Christian. One of his
   objects was to find a basis for the union of all Christian
   believers. A little later Thomas and Alexander Campbell,
   father and son, who came from Ireland, where the former had
   been a Presbyterian minister, organized union societies in
   Pennsylvania. Changing their views as to baptism, they joined
   the Redstone Association of Baptists. Shortly after, when
   Alexander Campbell was charged with not being in harmony with
   the creed, he followed the Burch Run Church, of which he was
   pastor, into the Mahoning Baptist Association, which, leavened
   with his teachings, soon ceased to be known as a Baptist
   association. In 1827, after some correspondence with Rev. B.
   W. Stone and his followers of the Christian Connection, there
   was a union with a large number of congregations in Ohio,
   Kentucky, and Tennessee, and the organization variously known
   as 'Disciples of Christ' and 'Christians' [also, popularly
   designated 'Campbellites'] is the result."

      H. K. Carroll,
      Religious Forces of the United States,
      chapter 18.

DUNKARDS, The.

   "The Dunkards, or German Baptists, or Brethren, are of German
   origin, and trace their beginning back to Alexander Mack, of
   Schwartzenau, Germany. Early in the 18th century Mack and
   several others formed a habit of meeting together for the
   study of the New Testament. They were convinced that its
   doctrines and principles of church order were not being
   faithfully followed, either by the Lutheran or the Reformed
   Church. They therefore resolved to form a society of their
   own. Alexander Mack was chosen as their pastor. Persecution
   soon arose, and they were scattered. In 1719 most of them got
   together and came to the United States, settling in
   Pennsylvania, where their first church was organized about
   1723."

      H. K. Carroll,
      Religious Forces of the United States,
      chapter 19.

DUTCH, Commerce of the.

      See (In this Supplement) COMMERCE, MEDIÆVAL, and MODERN.

DYNAMO-ELECTRIC MACHINES, The invention of.

      See ELECTRICAL DISCOVERY AND INVENTION:
      A. D. 1831-1872 (page 774).

E.

EBENEZER AND AMANA COMMUNITIES.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: 1843-1874 (page 2945).

ECCLESIASTICAL LAW.

      See LAW, ECCLESIASTICAL (page 1986).

EDISON, Electrical Inventions of.

      See ELECTRICAL DISCOVERY AND INVENTION:
      A. D. 1841-1880, and 1876-1892 (pages 775-776).

EDMUNDS ACT, The.

      See UTAH: A. D. 1882-1893 (page 3591).

EDUCATION.

      See (in addition to pages 673-748),
      VERMONT UNIVERSITY (page 3619),
      VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY (page 3639),
      WISCONSIN UNIVERSITY (page 3655);
      and, (in this Supplement)
      BOWDOIN COLLEGE, BROWN UNIVERSITY,
      DARTMOUTH COLLEGE, HAMILTON COLLEGE,
      MINNESOTA UNIVERSITY, OBERLIN COLLEGE,
      OHIO UNIVERSITY, PRINCETON COLLEGE,
      RUTGERS COLLEGE, TULANE UNIVERSITY, UNION COLLEGE.

EGIBI AND COMPANY, The House of.

      See MONEY AND BANKING:
      ANCIENT EGYPT AND BABYLONIA (page 2199).

EGYPT, ANCIENT: Chronology.

   Modern reckoning of Egyptian Chronology is by two modes: "(1)
   that by 'dead reckoning,' or adding the dynasties up one on
   another: (2) by certain fixed astronomical data, into the
   interpretation and calculation of which various uncertainties
   may enter. The more apart these modes can be kept the better,
   as then they serve to check each other. The fundamental fact
   on which all of our astronomically fixed points depend is the
   imperfection of the Egyptian calendar. Using a year of 365
   days, it followed that the nominal beginning of each year was
   a quarter of a day too soon: just as if we were to neglect the
   29th of February in leap years, and go on always from 28th
   February direct to 1st March. Thus every four years a day was
   slipped, and the nominal months of the year were begun a day
   too soon. In 4 x 7 = 28 they began, then, a week too soon. In
   4 x 30 = 120 years they began & month too soon; and after
   twelve months and five days thus slipped, or in 1,460 years,
   they began a year too soon, and so had rotated the nominal
   months through all the seasons. … This loss of the day in four
   years was … soon known to the Egyptians, and used by them as a
   mode of constructing a great cycle, which in Ptolemaic times
   became very prominent, and entered into all their fanciful
   adjustments of history and myths.
{3743}
   Some mode of noting the absolute months, as related to the
   seasonal periods, became a necessity; and, of course, the
   place of the sun among the stars most truly shows the exact
   length of the year. But how to observe both sun and stars,
   when without any mode of time-dividing,—such as clepsydra or
   clock,—was an essential difficulty. This was got over by
   noting on what day a particular star could be first seen, at
   its emerging from the glow of the sunlight. In actual practice
   they observed Sirius (or Sothis), the dog-star; and as the
   stars all rise and set earlier and earlier every night, they
   observed what was the first night in the year on which Sirius
   could just be seen emerging from the glow of sunlight at dawn,
   and this was entitled the heliacal rising. Hence, from using
   Sothis for this observation, the whole period during which the
   months rotated in the seasons was called the Sothic period of
   1,460 years. We have some definite statements as to this in
   Roman times. Censorinus, writing in 239 A. D., states that the
   Egyptian New Year's day, 1st of Thoth, fell on the 25th of
   June; and a hundred years before, in 139 A. D., it fell on the
   21st July, 'on which day Sirius regularly rises in Egypt.'
   Hence the beginning of a Sothic period of 1,460 years, or the
   New Year's day falling on the 21st of July at the heliacal
   rising of Sirius, took place in 139 A. D.; likewise in 1322 B.
   C., in 2784 B. C., and in 4242 B. C., or thereabouts. From
   this it is plain, that, as the nominal months rotated round
   all the seasons once In each of these cycles, therefore, if we
   only know the day of the nominal month in which any seasonal
   event happened,—such as the rising of Sirius, or the
   inundation,—we can find on what part of the cycle of 1,460
   years such a coincidence can have fallen. It is from data such
   as this that Mahler has lately calculated, by the rising of
   Sirius, and also the new moons, that Tahutmes III. reigned
   from 20th March 1503 B. C., to 14th February 1449. … Merenptah
   celebrated in the second year of his reign a festival of the
   rising of Sirius on the 29th of the month Thoth. Mahler has
   fixed the rising of Sirius, recorded on 28th Epiphi under
   Tahutmes III., as in 1470 B. C. From 28th Epiphi to 29th Thoth
   is 66 days, which the heliacal rising would change to in the
   course of 4 x 66 years, or 264 years. This, from 1470, gives
   1206 B. C. for the second year of Merenptah, or 1208 B. C. for
   his accession, which is just the date we have reached by the
   approximate summing of the reigns. Another datum on the other
   side is the calendar of the Ebers papyrus, which records the
   rising of Sirius on the 9th of Epiphi in the ninth year of
   Amenhotep I. The reading of the king's name has been much
   debated; but this is the last, and probable, conclusion. Now,
   from the 28th to the 9th of Epiphi is 19 days, which Sirius
   would change through in 76 years; so that the rising on the
   9th of Epiphi took place in 1470+76 = 1546 B. C.; and the
   first year of Amenhotep I. would be thus fixed in 1555 B. C.
   The date before reached is 1562 B. C., equal to a difference
   of less than 2 days in the time of Sirius' rising. This, at
   least, shows that there is no great discrepancy. Thus there
   are three data for the rising of Sirius, which agree within a
   few years, though at considerably different epochs. … We …
   have as a starting-point for our backward reckoning the
   accession of the XVIIIth dynasty about 1587 B. C. From this we
   can reckon in the dynastic data given by Manetho; following
   this account rather than the totals of reigns, as he appears
   to have omitted periods when dynasties were contemporary, as
   in the 43 years for the XIth after the close of the Xth. Thus,
   from the above starting-point of 1587 B. C., we reach the
   following results, solely by using material which has been
   discussed and settled in this history on its own merits alone,
   and without any ulterior reckoning in total periods.

Dynasty   Years.        B. C.
   I.      263          4777
   II.     302          4514
   III.    214          4212
   IV.     277          3998
   V.      218          3721
   VI.     181 (T. P.)  3503
   VII.     70          3322
   VIII.   146          3252
   IX.     100          3106
   X.      185          3006
   XI.      43          2821
   XII.    213 (T. P.)  2778
   XIII.   453          2565
   XIV.    184          2112
   XVI.    190          1928
   XVII.   151          1738
   XVIII.  260          1587
   XIX.                 1327

   … In the present rough state of the astronomical data, and the
   doubts as to the MS. authorities, we have reached quite as
   close an equivalence as we may hope for; and at least there is
   enough to show us that we may trust to the nearest century
   with fair grounds of belief. These dates then, are what I have
   provisionally adopted in this history; and though they are
   stated to the nearest year, for the sake of intercomparison,
   it must always be remembered that they only profess to go
   within a century in the earlier parts of the scale."

      W. M. Flinders Petrie,
      A History of Egypt from the Earliest Times
      to the XVIth Dynasty,
      chapter 11.

EGYPT.
   Commerce.

      See (in this Supplement) COMMERCE: THE EARLIEST RECORDS,
      and EGYPT.

EGYPT.
   Medical Science, Ancient.

      See MEDICAL SCIENCE (page 2120).

EGYPT.
   Money and banking.

      See MONEY AND BANKING (page 2199).

EJECTMENT, Action of.

      See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1499 (page 1966).

ELDON, Lord, and the rules of Equity.

      See LAW, EQUITY: A. D. 1801-1827 (page 1993).

ELECTOR, The Great.

      See (in this Supplement) GERMANY: A. D. 1618-1700;
      also page 309.

ELECTORS, Rise of the German College of.

      See (in this Supplement) GERMANY: A. D. 1175-1272.

EMIGRES OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (JULY-AUGUST), (AUGUST-OCTOBER),
      and 1781-1791 (pages 1264, 1265, and 1268).

EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY.

      See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1837 (page 1977).

ENGLAND: Outline sketch of general history.

      See EUROPE (page 1014, and after).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1622.
   First printed newspaper publication.

      See PRINTING AND PRESS: A. D. 1622-1702 (page 2593).

{3744}

ENGLAND: A. D. 1702.
   First daily newspaper publication.

      See PRINTING AND PRESS: A. D. 1622-1702 (page 2594).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1844.
   The Bank Charter Act.

      See MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1844 (page 2216).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1881-1882.
   The Irish Coercion Bill and Land Act.
   Arrest of Irish leaders.
   Alleged Kilmainham Treaty and release of Mr. Parnell and others.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1881-1882 (page 1797).

ENGLAND:
   Commerce.

      See (in this Supplement) COMMERCE, MEDIÆVAL, and MODERN.

ENGLAND:
   Libraries.

      See LIBRARIES, MODERN (page 2014).

ENGLAND:
   Possessions in Africa.

      See (in this Supplement) AFRICA.

ENGLAND, Bank of.

      See MONEY AND BANKING (page 2209).

EQUITY.

      See LAW, EQUITY (page 1988).

ERITREA, The Italian colony of.

      See (in this Supplement) AFRICA: 1890-1801.

ESSENES, The.

   "Apart from the great high road of Jewish life, there lived in
   Palestine in the time of Christ a religious community which,
   though it grew up on Jewish soil, differed essentially in many
   points from traditional Judaism, and which, though it
   exercised no powerful influence upon the development of the
   people, deserves our attention as a peculiar problem in the
   history of religion. This community, the Essenes or Essaeans,
   is generally, after the precedent of Josephus, placed beside
   the Pharisees and Sadducees as the third Jewish sect. But it
   scarcely needs the remark, that we have here to deal with a
   phenomenon of an entirely different kind. While the Pharisees
   and Sadducees were large political and religious parties, the
   Essenes might far rather be compared to a monastic order.
   There is indeed much that is enigmatical in them as to
   particulars. Even their name is obscure. … The origin of the
   Essenes is as obscure as their name. Josephus first mentions
   them in the time of Jonathan the Maccabee, about 150 B. C.,
   and speaks expressly of one Judas an Essene in the time of
   Aristobulus I. (105-104 B. C.). According to this, the origin
   of the order would have to be placed in the second century
   before Christ. But it is questionable whether they proceeded
   simply from Judaism, or whether foreign and especially
   Hellenistic elements had not also an influence in their
   organization. … Philo and Josephus agree in estimating the
   number of the Essenes in their time at above 4,000. As far as
   is known, they lived only in Palestine, at least there are no
   certain traces of their occurrence out of Palestine. … For the
   sake of living as a community, they had special houses of the
   order in which they dwelt together. Their whole community was
   most strictly organized as a single body. … The strongest tie
   by which the members were united was absolute community of
   goods. 'The community among them is wonderful [says Josephus],
   one does not find that one possesses more than another. For it
   is the law, that those who enter deliver up their property to
   the order, so that there is nowhere to be seen, either the
   humiliation of poverty or the superfluity of wealth, but on
   the contrary one property for all as brethren, formed by the
   collection of the possessions of individuals.' 'They neither
   buy nor sell among each other; but while one gives to another
   what he wants, he receives in return what is useful to
   himself, and without anything in return they receive freely
   whatever they want.' … 'There is but one purse for all, and
   common expenses, common clothes and common food in common
   meals. For community of dwelling, of life and of meals is
   nowhere so firmly established and so developed as with them.
   And this is intelligible. For what they receive daily as wages
   for their labour, they do not keep for themselves, but put it
   together, and thus make the profits of their work common for
   those who desire to make use of it. And the sick are without
   anxiety on account of their inability to earn, because the
   common purse is in readiness for the care of them, and they
   may with all certainty meet their expenses from abundant
   stores.' … The daily labour of the Essenes was under strict
   regulation. It began with prayer, after which the members were
   dismissed to their work by the presidents. They reassembled
   for purifying ablutions, which were followed by the common
   meal. After this they again went to work, to assemble again
   for their evening meal. The chief employment of members of the
   order was agriculture. They likewise carried on, however,
   crafts of every kind. On the other hand, trading was forbidden
   as leading to covetousness, and also the making of weapons or
   of any kind of utensils that might injure men. … The Essenes
   are described by both Philo and Josephus as very connoisseurs
   in morality. … Their life was abstemious, simple and
   unpretending. 'They condemn sensual desires as sinful, and
   esteem moderation and freedom from passion as of the nature of
   virtue.' They only take food and drink till they have had
   enough; abstaining from passionate excitement, they are 'just
   dispensers of wrath.' At their meals they are 'contented with
   the same dish day by day, loving sufficiency and rejecting
   great expense as harmful to mind and body.' … There is not a
   slave among them, but all are free, mutually working for each
   other. All that they say is more certain than an oath. They
   forbid swearing, because it is worse than perjury. … Before
   every meal they bathe in cold water. They do the same after
   performing the functions of nature. … They esteem it seemly to
   wear white raiment at all times. … They entirely condemned
   marriage. Josephus indeed knew of a branch of the Essenes who
   permitted marriage. But these must at all events have formed a
   small minority. … A chief peculiarity of the Essenes was their
   common meals, which bore the character of sacrificial feasts.
   The food was prepared by priests, with the observance probably
   of certain rites of purification; for an Essene was not
   permitted to partake of any other food than this. … In their
   worship, as well as in that of other Jews, the Holy Scriptures
   were read and explained; and Philo remarks, that they
   specially delighted in allegorical interpretation. They were
   extraordinarily strict in the celebration of the Sabbath. They
   did not venture on that day to move a vessel from its place,
   nor even to perform the functions of nature. In other respects
   too they showed themselves to be Jews. Though they were
   excluded from the temple they sent gifts of incense there. …
   Concerning their doctrine of the soul and of its immortality,
   Josephus expresses himself most fully.
{3745}
   If we may trust his account, they taught that bodies are
   perishable, but souls immortal, and that the latter dwelt
   originally in the subtlest aether, but being debased by
   sensual pleasures united themselves with bodies as with
   prisons; but when they are freed from the fetters of sense
   they will joyfully soar on high, as if delivered from long
   bondage. To the good (souls) is appointed a life beyond the
   ocean. … But to the bad (souls) is appointed a dark cold
   region full of unceasing torment."

      E. Schürer,
      A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ,
      volume 2, pages 190-205.

EXEMPTION LAWS.

      See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1836 (page 1977).

EXPLORATION, African and Arctic.

   For a complete chronological record.

      See (in this Supplement) AFRICA; and ARCTIC EXPLORATION.

F.

FAMILISTÈRE OF M. GODIN, The.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1859-1887 (page 2947).

FAURE, François Felix.
   Election to the Presidency of the French Republic.

      See (in this Supplement) FRANCE: A. D. 1894-1895.

FEDERALIST SECESSION MOVEMENT.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1803-1804 (page 3329).

FEUDAL AIDS.

   "In theory the duty of the noble vassal towards his lord was a
   purely personal one and to commute it for a money payment was
   a degradation of the whole feudal relation. The payment of
   money, especially if it were a fixed and regular payment,
   carried with it a certain ignoble idea against which, in the
   form of state taxation, the feudal spirit rebelled to the
   last. When the vassal agreed to pay something to his lord, he
   called it, not a tax, but an 'aid' (auxilium), and made it
   generally payable, not regularly, like the tax-bill of the
   citizen, but only upon certain occasions—a present, as it
   were, coming out of his good-will and not from compulsion; e.
   g., whenever a fief was newly granted, when it changed its
   lord, and sometimes when it changed its vassal, it was from
   the beginning customary to acknowledge the investiture by a
   small gift to the lord, primarily as a symbol of the grant;
   then, as the institution grew and manners became more
   luxurious, the gift increased in value and was thought of as
   an actual price for the investiture, until finally, at the
   close of our period, it suffered the fate of all similar
   contributions and was changed into a definite money payment,
   still retaining, however, its early name of 'relief.' … The
   occasions for levying the aids were various but always, in
   theory, of an exceptional sort. The journey of a lord to the
   court of his suzerain, or to Rome, or to join a crusade, the
   knighting of his eldest son, the marriage of his eldest
   daughter and his ransom from imprisonment are among the most
   frequent of the feudal 'aids.' The right of the lord to be
   entertained and provisioned, together with all his following,
   was one of the most burdensome and, at the same time, most
   difficult to regulate. Its conversion into a money-tax was,
   perhaps for this reason, earlier than that of many other of
   the feudal contributions."

      E. Emerton,
      Mediaeval Europe,
      chapter 14.

FEUDAL SYSTEM: Origin.

   "The 'benefice,' … emerges from the struggles of the eighth
   century as a form of grant originated by the ruling house and
   remaining at its disposal. It was a form of grant which was at
   all times revocable and which would thus necessarily prompt
   the grantee to avoid any act which could displease the
   sovereign. It entailed the reversion of the benefice at the
   death of the grantee as well as of the person granting. The
   benefice … was now chiefly made use of by the Carolingians of
   the 8th century to win the military aid of the nobles against
   internal and external enemies and especially against the
   Saracens. Army commanders and counts or other important
   officials would receive wide stretches of ecclesiastical or
   royal land. They would organize these into 'manors,' would
   collect a large 'following,' and would call in free tenants to
   do service in their armies in return for their protection.
   Thus they themselves became the stays and props of the new
   form of government. As the reorganization of the military
   forces went on this process was repeated more and more often,
   and as a matter of course the same vital principles which
   these holders had carried through with regard to those under
   them came to be applied to their own position as regarded
   their military duties to the king: namely that they should
   become vassals. This accordingly happened. The vassal system
   and the benefice system blended together into a new form of
   actual and personal union of the nobles with the crown. In
   receiving a benefice they swore to the king the special oath
   of fidelity of the 'following'; this fidelity on the other
   hand seemed assured through the power of the king to revoke
   the benefice. Quickly enough did this connection of the vassal
   system and the benefice system, which is commonly called
   vassalism, become so common that it began to extend downwards
   also. It had already become usual for rich landholders no
   longer, in the old Germanic manner, to provide for all their
   vassals at their own court, but to provide sustenance for them
   in various other ways—notably by granting them estates. Now,
   after the royal model, it came to be the custom to grant
   benefices and thus to found personal responsibilities. The
   results of this development were extraordinary. If on the one
   hand, in spite of all Charles the Great's measures to the
   contrary, the old army organization based on the service of
   all freemen fell into decay and the contingents from the land
   holders began to constitute the great mass of the army: on the
   other hand the bond of vassalism with its different variations
   became of prime importance for the administration of the land.
   No longer did the king by virtue of his royal ban or
   jurisdiction issue his commands to all freemen in common. He
   issued his commands to the nobles and they by virtue of their
   feudal prerogatives commanded the vassals who were subject to
   them. The evenly distributed mass of freemen subject to
   military duty had vanished; a high-towering structure of those
   bound in vassalage had taken its place. The military
   organization had assumed its position under the banner of the
   feudal state. The administration, too, was soon to be
   undermined by the system of vassalage and to change its
   structure from the very foundation."

      Lamprecht,
      Deutsche Geschichte,
      volume 2, pages 104-105.

{3746}

   "The latest investigations of Brunner … have established the 
   proof that feudalism originated in consequence of the 
   introduction of cavalry service into the military system of 
   the Frankish kingdom and that it retained its original 
   character until well on towards the close of the Middle Ages. 
   The Franks like the Lombards learned the use of cavalry from 
   the Moors or Saracens. Charles Martel was led by his 
   experiences after the battle of Poictiers to the conclusion 
   that only with the help of mounted armies could these enemies 
   be opposed with lasting success. It was between 732 and 758 
   that the introduction of cavalry service into the Frankish 
   army took place; it had hitherto consisted mainly of infantry. 
   The attempt was first made, and with marked success, in 
   Aquitaine and Septimania; almost contemporaneously also among 
   the Lombards. In order to place the secular nobles in 
   condition to fit out larger masses of cavalry a forced loan 
   from the church was carried through by Charles Martel and his 
   sons, it being under the latter that the matter was first 
   placed upon a legal footing. The nobles received 
   ecclesiastical benefices from the crown and regranted them in 
   the way of sub-loans. The custom of having a 'following' and 
   the old existing relationships of a vassal to his lord 
   furnished a model for the responsibilities of those receiving 
   benefices at first and at second hand. The secular nobles 
   became thus at once vassals of the crown and lords (seigneurs) 
   of those to whom they themselves in turn made grants. The duty 
   of the vassals to do cavalry service was based on the 
   'commendation': their fief was not the condition of their 
   doing service but their reward for it. Hence the custom of 
   denominating the fief (Lehn) as a 'fee' (feudum)—a designation 
   which was first applied in southern France, and which in 
   Germany, occasionally in the eleventh and ever more frequently 
   in the twelfth century, is used side by side with the older 
   term 'benefice,' until in the course of the first half of the 
   13th century it completely displaces it. With the further 
   development of cavalry service that of the feudal system kept 
   regular pace. Already in the later Carolingian period Lorraine 
   and Burgundy followed southern France and Italy in becoming 
   feudalized states. To the east of the Rhine on the contrary 
   the most flourishing time of cavalry service and of the feudal 
   system falls in the time of the Hohenstaufens, having 
   undoubtedly been furthered by the crusades. Here even as late 
   as the middle of the twelfth century the horsemen preferred 
   dismounting and fighting with the sword because they could not 
   yet manage their steeds and the regular cavalry weapons, the 
   shield and the spear, like their western neighbors. But never 
   in Germany did feudalism make its way into daily life as far 
   as it did in France where the maxim held true: 'nulle terre 
   sans seigneur.' There never was here a lack of considerable 
   allodial possessions, although occasionally, out of respect 
   for the feudal theory, these were put down as 'fiefs of the 
   sun.' The principle, too, was firmly maintained that a fief 
   granted from one's own property was no true fief; for so 
   thoroughly was feudal law the law governing the realm that a 
   true fief could only be founded on the fief above it, in such 
   manner that the king was always the highest feudal lord. That 
   was the reason why a fief without homage, that is, without the 
   relationship of vassalage and the need of doing military 
   service for the state, could not be looked upon as a true 
   fief. The knight's fee only (feudum militare) was such, and 
   only a man of knightly character, who united a knightly manner 
   of living with knightly pedigree, was 'perfect in feudal 
   law,'—in possession, namely, of full feudal rights or of the 
   'Heerschild.' Whether or not he had been personally dubbed 
   knight made no difference; the fief of a man who was still a 
   squire was also a true fief. … The object of the feudal grant 
   could be anything which assured a regular 
   emolument,—especially land, tithes, rents and other sources of 
   income, tolls and jurisdictions, churches and monasteries;_ 
   above all, offices of state. In course of time the earlier 
   distinction between the office and the fief which was meant to 
   go with the office ceased to be made. … The formal course of 
   procedure when granting was a combination, exactly on the old 
   plan, of the act of commendation, now called Hulde, which was 
   the basis of vassalage, and the act of conferring 
   (investiture) which established the real right of the man to 
   the fief. … The Hulde consisted in giving the hand (=the 
   performing of mannschaft, homagium, hominium, Hulde) often 
   combined with the giving of a kiss and the taking of an oath 
   (the swearing of fidelitas or Hulde) by which the man swore to 
   be 'true, loyal and willing' as regarded his lord. The custom 
   earlier connected with commendation of presenting a weapon had 
   lost its former significance and had become merged in the 
   ceremony of investiture: the weapon had become a symbol of 
   investiture. … These symbols of investiture were in part the 
   same as in territorial law: the glove, the hat, the cape, the 
   staff, the twig; occasionally probably also a ring, but quite 
   especially the sword or spear. As regarded the principalities 
   it had quite early become the custom to fasten a banner on the 
   end of the spear in token of the royal rights of supremacy 
   that were to be conferred. Thus the banner became the sole 
   symbol of investiture in the granting of secular 
   principalities and the latter themselves came to be called 
   'banner fiefs.' The installation of the ecclesiastical princes 
   by the king took place originally without any distinction 
   being made between the office and the appanage of the office. 
   It was done by conferring the pastoral staff (ferula, virga 
   pastoralis) of the former bishop or abbot; in the case of 
   bishops since the time of Henry III by handing the ring and 
   crosier. In the course of the struggle concerning the 
   ecclesiastical investitures both sides came to the conviction 
   that a distinction could be made between the appanaging of the 
   church with secular estates and jurisdictions on the one hand, 
   and the office itself and the immediate appurtenances of the 
   church—the so-called 'sacred objects' on the other. A union 
   was arrived at in the Concordat of Worms which provided that 
   for the granting of the former (the so-called Regalia) the 
   secular symbol of the sceptre might replace the purely 
   ecclesiastical symbols. As this custom was retained even after 
   the incorporation of the ecclesiastical principalities in the 
   feudalized state-system the ecclesiastical principalities, as 
   opposed to the secular banner-fiefs, were distinguished as 
   'sceptre-fiefs.'"

      Schröder,
      Lehrbuch der deutschen Rechtsgeschichte (1889),
      pages 381-388.

{3747}

   "By the time at which we have arrived (the Hohenstaufen
   Period) the knights themselves, 'ordo equestris major:' had
   come to form a class so distinct and so exclusive that no
   outsiders could enter it except in the course of three
   generations or by special decree of the king. Only to those
   whose fathers and grandfathers were of knightly origin could
   fiefs now be granted; only such could engage in judicial
   combat, in knightly sports and, above all, in the tournament
   or joust. … Feudalism did much to awaken a moral sentiment:
   fidelity, truth and sincerity were the suppositions upon which
   the whole system rested, and a great solidarity of interests
   came to exist between the lord and his vassals. The latter
   might bring no public charges against their master in matters
   affecting his life, limb or honor; on three grand occasions,
   in case of captivity, the knighting of his son, the marriage
   of his daughter, they were obliged to furnish him with
   pecuniary aid. Knightly honor and knightly graces come in the
   twelfth century to be a matter of fashion and custom; a new
   and important element, too, the adoration of woman, is
   introduced. A whole literature arises that has to do almost
   exclusively with knightly prowess and with knightly love.
   Altogether we see the dawn of a new social life."

      E. F. Henderson,
      A History of Germany in the Middle Ages,
      page 424-425.

      See, also, FEUDALISM (page 1117);
      and EUROPE (pages 1019-1020).

FIELD, Cyrus, and the ocean telegraph.

      See ELECTRICAL DISCOVERY AND INVENTION:
      A. D. 1854-1866 (page 776).

FINNISH POPULAR POETRY.

      See KALEVALA (page 1935).

      John Martin Crawford,
      Kalevala,
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/5186
      One of several versions.

FLEMINGS, Commerce of the.

      See (in this Supplement) COMMERCE, MEDIÆVAL.

FLORENTINE BANKERS AND MONEY CHANGERS.

      See MONEY AND BANKING (pages 2205 and 2206).

FORMOSA.

   "Formosa, or Taiwan, as it is called by the Chinese, is about
   400 miles south of the mouth of the Yang-tse, and 100 from the
   mainland of China. It lies between 25° 20' and 21° 50' north
   latitude, is nearly 240 miles long, by an average of 75 miles
   wide, and has an area of about 12,000 square miles. It is
   remarkable for its beauty and fertility, and also for the
   variety of its products. It was formerly attached to the
   province of Fohkien, and governed by a resident commissioner;
   but since the Franco-Chinese War, during which the French,
   under Admiral Courbet, were foiled in their efforts to take
   possession of it, it has been erected into an independent
   province by imperial decree, and is now [1887] governed by Liu
   Ming-Ch'uan, an able and progressive man, with the title and
   almost unlimited authority of governor-general. The island was
   once in the possession of the Spaniards, who called it Formosa
   (beautiful), but did not colonize it. It then passed into the
   hands of the Dutch, who built Fort Zealandia, and established
   a trading-post on the southwest coast, near the present city
   of Taiwan-fu, and another known as the Red Fort, at Tamsui, on
   the northwest coast. But the Dutch in turn abandoned the
   island about the year 1660, immediately after which it was
   occupied and colonized by the Chinese from Amoy and other
   points on the coast of Fohkien. The population is now
   estimated by the governor-general at 4,000,000 Chinese and
   60,000 savages, but the first figures are doubtless much too
   large. The savages are a fine race of men of the Malay or
   Polynesian type, who hold nearly all the east coast and the
   mountain region, covering over one half the island. They live
   mostly by hunting and fishing, or upon the natural products of
   the forest, and cultivate but little land. They wear scarcely
   any clothing, use bows, arrows, and knives, together with a
   few old-fashioned matchlocks, and yet withal they have up to
   the present time successfully resisted all efforts to
   subjugate them or to take possession of their fastnesses. They
   are brave, fierce, and active, but have made scarcely any
   progress in the arts of civilization. They are naturally kind
   and hospitable to Europeans, but look upon the Chinese as
   their deadly enemies."

      J. H. Wilson,
      China,
      chapter 18.

   In 1874, in order to obtain redress for a murder of Japanese
   sailors by savages on the eastern coast of Formosa, the
   Japanese Government undertook to take possession of the
   southern part of Formosa, "asserting that it did not belong to
   China because she either would not or could not govern its
   savage inhabitants. … The expedition was called a High
   Commission, accompanied by a force sufficient for its
   protection, sent to aboriginal Formosa to inquire into the
   murder of fifty-four Japanese subjects, and take steps to
   prevent the recurrence of such atrocities. A proclamation was
   issued April 17, 1874, and another May 19th, stating that
   General Saigo was directed to call to an account the persons
   guilty of outrages on Japanese subjects. As he knew that China
   was not prepared to resist his landing at Liang-kiao, his
   chief business was to provide means to house and feed the
   soldiers under his command. The Japanese authorities do not
   appear very creditably in this affair. No sooner did they
   discover the wild and barren nature of this unknown region
   than they seemed fain to beat an incontinent and hasty
   retreat, nor did the troops landed there stand upon the order
   of their going. … The aborigines having fled south after the
   first rencontre, the Japanese leader employed his men as best
   he could in opening roads through the jungle and erecting
   houses. Meanwhile the Peking authorities were making
   preparations for the coming struggle, and though they moved
   slowly they were much in earnest to protect their territory.
   General Shin Pao-chin having been invested with full powers to
   direct operations against the Japanese forces, began at once
   to draw together men and vessels in Fuhchau and Amoy. The
   Japanese consuls at Amoy and Shanghai were allowed to remain
   at their posts; and during the year two envoys arrived at
   Pelting to treat with the Court. … The probabilities were
   strong against any settlement, when the parties were induced
   to arrange their quarrel by the intervention and wise counsel
   of Sir T. F. Wade, the British minister. The Japanese accepted
   500,000 taels for their outlays in Formosa for roads, houses,
   and defences; agreeing thereupon to retire and leave the
   further punishment of the aborigines to the Chinese
   authorities. The two envoys left Peking, and this attempt at
   war was happily frustrated. … The civilization of all parts of
   Formosa has since rapidly advanced by the extension of tea and
   sugar culture, the establishment of Christian missions, and
   the better treatment of the native tribes."

      S. W. Williams,
      The Middle Kingdom,
      chapter 26 (volume 2).

FOURIER AND FOURIERISM.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1832-1847,
      and 1841-1847 (pages 2939 and 2943).

{3748}

   ----------FRANCE: Start--------

FRANCE:
   Outline Sketch of general history.

      See EUROPE (page 1015. and after).

FRANCE: 1ST-5TH CENTURIES.
   The early routes and marts of trade.

      See (in this Supplement) COMMERCE, ANCIENT.

FRANCE: 12TH-13TH CENTURIES.
   Rise of the Privileged Bourgeoisies and the Communes.
   The double movement of Urban Emancipation.

   "The 12th and 13th centuries saw the production of that
   marvelous movement of emancipation which gave liberty to
   serfs, created privileged bourgeoisies and independent
   communes, caused new cities and fortresses to issue from the
   earth, freed the corporations of merchants and artisans, in a
   word placed at the first stroke, beside royalty, feudality and
   the church, a fourth social force destined to absorb one day
   the three others. While the cultivator of the soil passed by
   enfranchisement from the category of things sold or given away
   into that of the free people (the only ambition permitted to
   the defenseless unfortunates who inhabited isolated farms or
   unwalled villages), the population grouped in the urban
   centers tried to limit or at least to regulate the intolerable
   exploitation of which it was the object. The bourgeois, that
   is to say the inhabitants of walled cities, born under the
   shelter of a donjon or au abbey, and the citoyens of the
   ancient episcopal cities, rivaled each other in efforts to
   obtain from the seigneurial power a condition more endurable
   in point of taxation, and the suppression of the most
   embarrassing hindrances to their commerce and manufactures.
   These inhabitants of towns and cities constituted, if only by
   being grouped together, a force with which feudality was very
   soon obliged to reckon. Divided, besides, into merchants'
   societies and companies of workmen they found within
   themselves the germ of organization which permitted collective
   resistance. The seigneur, intimidated, won by an offer of
   money, or decided by the thought that his domination would be
   more lucrative if the city became more prosperous, made the
   concessions which were asked of him. Thanks to a favorable
   concurrence of circumstances, charters of franchises were
   multiplied in all parts of France. At the end of the 12th
   century, the national territory, in the north as well as the
   south, was covered with these privileged cities or
   bourgeoisies, which, while remaining administered, judicially
   and politically, by seigneurial officers, had acquired, in
   matters financial, commercial and industrial, the liberties
   necessary to their free development. Feudality very soon found
   such an advantage in regulating thus the exploitation of the
   bourgeois, that it took the initiative itself in creating, in
   the uninhabited parts of its domains, privileged cities,
   complete in all their parts, designed to become so many
   centers of attraction for foreigners. It is the innumerable
   bourgeoisies and 'villes neuves' which represent the normal
   form of urban emancipation. Certain centers of population
   obtained at the first stroke the most extensive civil and
   financial liberties; but, in the majority of cases, the
   bourgeois could win their franchises only bit by bit, at the
   price of heavy pecuniary sacrifices, or as the result of an
   admirable perseverance in watching for opportunities and
   seizing them. The history of the privileged cities, whose
   principal virtue was a long patience, offers nothing moving or
   dramatic. … But the spectacle of these laborious masses
   persisting, in obscurity and silence, in the demand for their
   right to security and well-being, does not the less merit all
   our attention. What forces itself upon the meditations of the
   historian, in the domain of municipal institutions, is just
   the progress slow and obscure, but certain, of the dependent
   bourgeoisie. … The development of the seigneurial cities
   offers such a variety of aspects, their progressive and
   regular conquests were so important in the constitution of our
   rights public and private, that too much care and effort
   cannot be devoted to retracing minutely their course. This
   history is more than any other that of the origin of our third
   estate. It was in the privileged cities, to which the great
   majority of the urban population belonged, that it began its
   political education. The city charters constituted the durable
   lower stratum of its first liberties. In other words the third
   estate did not issue suddenly from the more or less
   revolutionary movement which gave birth to the independent
   communes: it owes its formation and its progress above all to
   this double pacific evolution: the possessors of fiefs
   enfranchising their bourgeoisie and the latter passing little
   by little entirely from the seigneurial government under that
   of royalty. This was not the opinion which prevailed at the
   time when the founder of the science of municipal
   institutions, Augustin Thierry, published in the 'Courrier
   Français' his admirable 'Lettres ' on the revolutions of the
   communes. The commune, a city dowered with judicial and
   political privileges, which conferred upon it a certain
   independence, administered by its elected magistrates, proud
   of its fortified inclosure, of its belfry, of its militia,—the
   commune passed at that time as the pre-eminent type of the
   free city of the middle ages. That great movement of urban and
   rural emancipation which stirred the France of the 12th
   century to its very depths was personified in it. So the
   commune concentrated historical interest upon itself, leaving
   in the shade all other forms of popular evolution. Guizot, who
   had the sense of truth rather than that of the picturesque,
   tried to combat this exclusive tendency. In the brilliant
   lessons that he gave at the Sorbonne on the history of the
   origins of the third estate, he showed, with his customary
   clearness, that the development of the bourgeois class was not
   accomplished by any single method; that the progress realized
   in the cities where the communal regime had never succeeded in
   establishing itself must also be taken into account. The
   impression left by the highly colored and dramatic recitals of
   Augustin Thierry remained for a long time the stronger. …
   Contemporary science has not only assigned to itself the
   mission of completing the work of the historians of the
   Restoration: it has desired also to improve it by rectifying,
   upon many points, the exaggerated opinions and false judgments
   of which the history of our urban institutions was at first
   the victim. It has been perceived that the communal movement
   properly so called did not have, upon the destinies of the
   popular class, the decisive, preponderant influence which was
   attributed to it 'a priori.' The commune, a brilliant but
   ephemeral form of the emancipation of the bourgeoisie, has
   been set back little by little into its true place.
{3749}
   It is now no longer regarded as an essential manifestation of
   our first democratic aspirations. One might be tempted to see
   on the contrary, in that collective seigneury, often hostile
   to the other social elements, impregnated with the spirit of
   'particularisme,' made for war and agitated without cessation
   by warlike passions, an original but tardy product of the
   feudal principle. … We must be resigned to a fact in regard to
   which nothing can be done: the absence of documents relative
   to the municipal constitution of cities and towns during four
   hundred years, from the 7th century to the 11th. From all
   appearances, this enormous hiatus will never be overcome. …
   Facts being lacking, scholars have had recourse to conjecture.
   Some among them have supposed that the principal
   characteristics of the Gallo-Roman municipalities were
   perpetuated during this period. At bottom, their hypothesis
   rests principally upon analogies of names. … From the point of
   view of positive science, the Germanic origin of the communes
   is not more easy of demonstration. … It is even doubtful
   whether the essential element of the communal institution, the
   confederation formed by the inhabitants, under the guaranty of
   the mutual oath, belongs exclusively to the customs of the
   Germans. The theory of Augustin Thierry, which made of the
   commune a special application of the Scandinavian gilde, has
   been judged too narrow by contemporary scholars. They have
   reproached him with reason for having localized an institution
   which belongs entirely to the Germanic race. But the principle
   of association, applied in the cities, is not a fact purely
   German. … Association is a fact which is neither Germanic nor
   Roman; it is universal, and is produced spontaneously among
   all peoples, in all social classes, when circumstances exact
   and favor its appearance. The communal revolution then is a
   national event. The commune was born, like other forms of
   popular emancipation, from the need which the inhabitants of
   the cities had of substituting a limited and regulated
   exploitation for the arbitrary exploitation of which they were
   the victims. Such is the point of departure of the
   institution. We must always return to the definition of it
   given by Guibert de Nogent. It is true as a basis, although it
   does not embrace all the characteristics of the object
   defined: 'Commune! new name, detestable name! By it the
   censitaires are freed from all service in consideration of a
   simple annual tax; by it they are condemned, for the
   infraction of the law, only to a penalty legally determined;
   by it, they cease to be subjected to the other pecuniary
   charges by which the serfs are overwhelmed.' At certain
   points, this limitation of the seigneurial power was made
   amicably, by pacific transaction between the seigneur and his
   bourgeois. Elsewhere, an insurrection, more or less prolonged,
   was necessary in order to establish it. When this popular
   movement had as a result, not only the assuring to the people
   the most necessary liberties which were demanded, but besides
   that of abating to their advantage the political position of
   the master, by taking from him a part of his seigneurial
   prerogatives, there arose not only a free city, but a commune,
   a bourgeois seigneury, invested with a certain political and
   judicial power. This definition of the commune implies that
   originally it was not possible to establish it otherwise than
   by a pressure exerted, more or less violently, upon the
   seigneurial authority. We have the direct proof of it for some
   of our free municipalities, but it is presumable that many
   other communes whose primitive history we do not know have
   owed equally to force the winning of their first liberties. …
   We do not mean that, in the first period of the history of
   urban emancipation, all the communes, without exception, were
   obliged to pass through the phase of insurrection or of open
   resistance. There were some which profited (as the cities of
   the Flemish region in 1127) by a combination of exceptional
   circumstances to attain political liberty without striking a
   blow. Among these circumstances must be mentioned in the first
   rank the prolonged vacancy of an episcopal see and the
   disappearance of a laic lord, dead without direct heir,
   leaving a succession disputed by numerous competitors. But,
   ordinarily, the accession of the bourgeoisie to the rank of
   political power did not take place pacifically. Either the
   seigneur struggled against his rebellious subjects, or he
   feared the struggle and bent before the accomplished fact. In
   all cases it was necessary that the people were conscious of
   their power and imposed their will. This is proven by the
   dramatic episodes which the narrations of Augustin Thierry
   have forever rendered celebrated. … Later, in the decline of
   the 12th century, it must be recognized that the opinion of
   the dominant class ceased to be as hostile to the communes.
   When the conviction had been acquired that the popular
   movement was irresistible, it was tolerated; the best means
   even were sought to derive advantage from it. The Church
   always remained upon the defensive; but the king and the great
   feudal lords perceived that in certain respects the commune
   might be a useful instrument. They accepted then the communal
   organization, and they even came to create it where it was not
   spontaneously established. But it is easy to convince one's
   self that the communes of this category, those which owe their
   creation to the connivance or even to the initiative of the
   seigneur, did not possess the same degree of independence as
   the communes of the primitive epoch, founded by insurrection.
   On the whole, the communal revolution was only one of the
   aspects of the vast movement of political and social reaction
   which the excesses of the feudal regime engendered everywhere
   from the 11th to the 14th century. … One would like to possess
   the text of one of those oaths by which the bourgeois of the
   northern communes bound themselves together, for the first
   time, with or without the consent of their seigneur, in the
   most ancient period of the communal evolution. It would be of
   the highest interest for the historian to know how they set
   about it, what words were pronounced to form what the
   contemporary writers called a 'conjuration,' a 'conspiration,'
   a 'confederation.' No document of this nature and of that
   primitive epoch has come down to us. … The sum total of the
   sworn bourgeois constituted the commune. The commune was most
   often called 'communia,' but also, with varying termination,
   'communa,' 'communio,' 'communitas.'
{3750}
   Properly speaking and especially with reference to the origin,
   the name commune was given not to the city, but to the
   association of the inhabitants who had taken oath. For this
   reason also the expression 'commune jurée' was used. Later the
   acceptation of the word was enlarged; it designated the city
   itself, considered as a geographical unit. … The members of
   the commune, those who formed part of the sworn association,
   were properly called 'the sworn of the commune,' 'jurati
   communie,' or, by abridgment, 'the sworn,' 'jurati.' They were
   designated also by the expression: 'the men of the commune,'
   or, 'those who belong to the commune,' 'qui sunt de communia.'
   They were also entitled 'bourgeois,' 'burgenses,' more rarely
   'bourgeois jurés'; sometimes also 'voisins,' 'vicini,' or even
   'friends,' 'amici.' … We are far from having complete light on
   the question as to what conditions were exacted from those who
   entered the communal association, and to what classes of
   persons the access to the bourgeoisie was open or interdicted.
   The variety of local usages, and above all the impossibility
   of finding texts which apply to the most ancient period of
   urban emancipation, will always embarrass the historian. To
   find upon these matters clear documents, developed and
   precise, we must come down, generally, to the end of the 18th
   century or even to the century following, that is to say to
   the epoch of the decadence of the communal regime. … The
   bourgeois could not be diseased, that is to say, undoubtedly,
   tainted with an incurable malady and especially a contagious
   malady, as leprosy. … The communal law excluded also bastards.
   On this point it was in accord with the customary law of a
   very great number of French regions. … They refused also to
   receive into their number inhabitants encumbered with debts.
   The condition of debtor constituted in effect a kind of
   servitude. He no longer belonged to himself; his goods might
   become the property of the creditor, and he could be
   imprisoned. … With still more reason does it appear
   inadmissible that the serf should be called to benefit by the
   commune. The question of urban serfdom, in its relations with
   the communal institution, is extremely obscure, delicate and
   complex. There are however two facts in regard to which
   affirmation is allowable. It cannot be doubted that at the
   epoch of the formation of the communes, at the opening of the
   12th century, there were no longer any serfs in many of the
   urban centers. It may be held also as certain that the desire
   to bring about the disappearance of this serfdom was one of
   the principal motives which urged the inhabitants to claim
   their independence. … The inhabitant who united all the
   conditions legally required for admission to the bourgeoisie
   was besides obliged to pay a town-due, ('droit d'entrée'). …
   If it was not always easy to enter a communal body, neither
   could one leave it as easily as might have been desired. The
   'issue de commune' exacted the performance of a certain number
   of troublesome formalities. … So, it was necessary to pay to
   become a communist, and to pay yet more in order to cease to
   be one. The bourgeois was riveted to his bourgeoisie. … Up to
   this point we have examined only half the problem of the
   formation of the commune, approaching it on its general side.
   There remains the question whether all the popular element
   which existed in the city formed part of the body of
   bourgeoisie, and whether the privileged class, that of the
   nobles and clergy, was not excluded from it. … We shall have
   to admit as a general rule, that the nobles and the clergy
   while taking oath to the commune, did not in reality enter it.
   What must be rejected, is the sort of absolute, inviolable
   rule which has been formed on this opinion. In the middle ages
   especially there was no rule without exception. … The commune
   was an institution rather ephemeral. As a really independent
   seigneury, it scarcely endured more than two centuries. The
   excesses of the communists, their bad financial
   administration, their intestine divisions, the hostility of
   the Church, the onerous patronage of the 'haut suzerain,' and
   especially of the king: such were the immediate causes of this
   rapid decadence. The communes perished victims of their own
   faults, but also of the hate of the numerous enemies
   interested in their downfall. … The principal cause of the
   premature downfall of the communal regime is without any doubt
   the considerable development of the monarchical power in
   France at the end of the 18th century. The same force which
   annihilated feudality, to the profit of the national unit, was
   also that which caused the prompt disappearance of the
   independence of the bourgeois seigneuries. With its privileges
   and its autonomy, the commune impeded the action of the
   Capetains. Those quarrelsome and restless republics had no
   reason for existence, In the midst of the peaceful and
   obedient bourgeoisie upon which royalty had laid its hand. The
   commune then was sacrificed to the monarchical interest. In
   Italy and in Germany, the free cities enjoyed their
   independence much longer, by reason of the absence of the
   central power or of its weakness."

      Achille Luchaire,
      Les Communes Francaises a l'époque des Capétiens directs
      (translated from the French),
      pages 1-16, 45-56, 65, and 288-290.

FRANCE: A. D. 1226-1270.
   The reign of Saint Louis.
   The monarchy in his time and its kingdom.

   "The fundamental institution upon which all the social edifice
   rested, in the time of Saint Louis, was royalty. But this
   royalty, from the double point of view of theory and practice,
   was very different from what it had been originally. In
   principle it was the divine right, that is, it was an
   emanation from the Most High, and the king held of no other
   seigneur. This is what the feudal maxim expressed after its
   fashion; 'The king holds only of God and his sword.' … Royalty
   was transmitted by heredity, from father to son, and by
   primogeniture. However, this heredity, which had formerly
   needed a sort of election to confirm It, or at least popular
   acclamation, needed now to be hallowed by the unction of the
   church. Consecration, joined to the privilege of being the
   eldest of the royal race, made the king. … It must not be
   thought however that the ideas of the time attributed to the
   hereditary principle a force absolute and superior to all
   interests. Theologians could say to kings that the son should
   succeed the father if he imitated his probity; that power was
   transferred into other hands in punishment of injustice. …
   Christian tradition was, in fact, greatly opposed to what was
   then called tyranny. … Not only must royalty not be tyranny,
   but it must admit the representatives of the nation, in a
   certain measure, to a participation in the government. …

{3751}

   In practice, without doubt, these salutary principles were
   often disregarded; but it is still much that they were
   professed, and this fact alone constitutes an enormous
   difference between the middle ages and the later centuries.
   The royal power, besides, had not yet a material force
   sufficiently great to dominate everywhere as absolute master.
   Under the two first lines, it was exercised in the same degree
   over all points of the territory; from the accession of the
   third, on the contrary, it was only a power of two degrees,
   having a very unequal action according to the territory and
   the locality. A part of France composed the royal domain; it
   was the patrimony of the Capetian house, increased by conquest
   or successive acquisitions. There, the king exercised an
   authority almost without limit; he was on his own ground. All
   the rest formed duchies, counties, or seigneuries of different
   sorts, possessed hereditarily by great vassals, more or less
   independent originally. Here the king was only the suzerain;
   he had scarcely any rights excepting to homage, to military
   service, to pecuniary assistance in certain stated cases, and
   to some privileges called royal, as that of coining money. The
   entire royal policy, from Philip Augustus to Louis XI.,
   consisted in skilfully increasing the first of these parts by
   absorbing little by little the second. … The kingdom of
   France, in the time of Saint Louis, was still very nearly as
   the treaty of Verdun had established it. On the north and
   east, it was bounded by the Empire of Germany. The frontier
   line passed a little beyond the cities of Ghent, Audenarde,
   Tournai, Douai, Guise, Mézières, Grandpré, Vitry, Joinville,
   Fay, Mirabeau; then it followed the course of the Saône and
   the Rhône, from which it diverged only in two places in order
   to attribute to the Empire the, at least, nominal possession
   of part of Lyonnais and Vivarais. On the south, the Pyrenees
   formed, as originally, the natural limit; but from the treaty
   of Corbeil (1258) Roussillon remained with the king of Aragon,
   in exchange for his right over the county of Foix, the
   territory of Sault, Fenouilhedès and Narbonnais. On the other
   hand, the vast duchy of Guienne, comprising Bearn and the
   county of Bigorre, came … under the suzerainty of the king of
   France only by virtue of the treaty of Paris (1259). On the
   west the kingdom was bounded only by the ocean, Brittany also
   having rendered homage to the crown from the time of Philip
   Augustus. Thus Saint Louis and his son left it, on the whole,
   more extensive than it was before them, and if it was more
   limited than the France of the present, on the east, it
   reached, on the contrary, farther to the north. The royal
   domain embraced in 1226 only the half of this immense
   perimeter. It was composed of the primitive nucleus of the
   Capetian possessions: that is, of the Isle of France and of
   Orleannais; then of French Vexin. Gâtinais and the viscounty
   of Bourges, brought by Philip I.; of the county of Corbeil and
   the seigneury of Monthléry, acquired by Louis VI.; of Artois,
   Vermandois (with the county of Amiens), Valois, Norman Vexin,
   of the counties of Evreux, Meulan, Alençon, Perché, Beaumont
   sur Oise, acquired by Philip Augustus and Louis VIII.; finally
   the territory obtained by the former from John Lackland by war
   or by confiscation, that is, all Normandy, Touraine, Perigord,
   Limousin, and the viscounty of Turenne. Anjou, Maine, Poitou,
   Auvergne, Angoumois, included in the same conquest, had since
   been detached from the crown to form princely appanages. The
   profitable domain of Perigord of Limousin and of the viscounty
   of Turenne, was reconveyed, in 1259, to the king of England, …
   in order to bring all the region of the southwest within the
   pale of the royal suzerainty. But Saint Louis compensated for
   this diminution by acquiring successively the two great
   seneschalates of Nîmes and of Carcassonne, the counties of
   Clermont, of Mortain, of Macon, and Philip the Bold did more
   than redeem it, by realizing the annexation, so skilfully
   prepared by Blanche of Castile, of the last domains of the
   count of Toulouse, which had become those of Alphonse of
   Poitiers, that is, of nearly all Languedoc. The possessions of
   the crown thus formed two or three separate groups, cut up in
   the most fantastic fashion, and connected only as the result
   of long effort. All the rest of the kingdom was composed of
   great fiefs escaping the direct action of royalty, and
   themselves subdivided into lesser fiefs, which complicated
   infinitely the hierarchy of persons and lands. The principal
   were the counties of Flanders, Boulogne, Saint Pol, Ponthieu,
   Aumale, Eu, Soissons, Dreux, Montford-l'Amaury; the bishoprics
   of Tournai, Beauvais, Noyon, Laon, Lisieux, Reims, Langres,
   Chalons, the titularies of which were at the same time counts
   or seigneurs; the vast county of Champagne, uniting those of
   Réthel, Grandpré, Roucy, Brienne, Joigny and the county
   Porcien; the duchy of Burgundy, so powerful and so extensive;
   the counties of Nevers, Tonnerre, Auxerre, Beaujeu, Forez,
   Auvergne; the seigneury of Bourbon; the counties of Blois and
   of Chartres; the county or duchy of Brittany; Guienne, and,
   before 1271, the county of Toulouse; the bishoprics of Albi,
   Cahors, Mende, Lodève, Agde, Maguelonne, belonging temporally
   as well as spiritually to their respective bishops; finally
   the seigneury of Montpellier, holding of the last of these
   bishoprics. To which must yet be added the appanages given by
   Louis VIII. to his younger sons, that is, the counties of
   Artois, Anjou, Poitiers, with their dependencies. … So when
   the government of the kingdom at this epoch is spoken of, it
   must be understood to mean that of only the least considerable
   part of the territory,—that is, of the part which was directly
   submitted to the authority of the king. In this part the
   sovereign himself exercised the power, assisted, as ordained
   by the theories examined above, by auxiliaries taken from the
   nation. There were neither ministers nor a deliberative corps,
   properly speaking; however there was very nearly the
   equivalent. On one side, the great officers of the crown and
   the royal council, on the other the parliament and the chamber
   of accounts (exchequer), or at least their primitive nucleus,
   constituted the principal machinery of the central government,
   and had, each, its special powers. The great officers, of whom
   there had at first been five, were only four from the reign of
   Philip Augustus, who had suppressed the seneschal owing to the
   possibility of his becoming dangerous by reason of the
   progressive extension of his jurisdiction; they were the
   bouteiller, who had become the administrator of the royal
   expenditure; the chambrier, elevated to the care of the
   treasury; the connétable, a kind of military superintendent;
   and the chancelier, who had the disposition of the royal seal.
{3752}
   These four personages represented in a certain degree,
   secretaries of state. The two latter had a preponderant
   influence, one in time of peace, the other in time of war. To
   the chancellor belonged the drawing up and the proper
   execution (legalization) of the royal diplomas; this power
   alone made him the arbiter of the interests of all private
   individuals. As to the constable he had the chief direction of
   the army, and all those who composed it, barons, knights, paid
   troops, owed him obedience. The king, in person, had the
   supreme command; but he frequently allowed the constable to
   exercise it, and, in order not to impose too heavy a burden
   upon him, or rather to prevent his taking a too exclusive
   authority, he had appointed as coadjutors two 'maréchaux de
   France' who were second in command. … The king's council had
   not yet a very fixed form. Saint Louis submitted important
   questions to the persons about him, clerics, knights or men of
   the people; but he chose these advisers according to the
   nature of the questions, having temporary counsellors rather
   than a permanent council. Among these counsellors some were
   more especially occupied with justice, others with finance,
   others with political affairs. These three categories are the
   germ of the parliament, of the exchequer, and of the council
   of state; but they then formed an indistinct ensemble, called
   simply the king's court. They were not completely separated so
   as to form independent institutions until the time of Philippe
   le Bel. The first, that which later constituted the
   parliament, belongs especially to the judicial department. …
   The second, while not yet elevated into a distinct and
   permanent body, is already delegated to special duties, being
   charged with examining the accounts of the baillis and
   seneschals. The 'gentlemen of the accounts' ('gentes quae ad
   nostros computos deputantur') began under Saint Louis to meet
   periodically in the Temple, at Paris, and to exercise a
   regular control over the public finances; so that this new
   creation, which was, later, to render services so important,
   was an outcome of the scrupulous probity with which the royal
   conscience was filled. … The superior jurisdiction is
   represented by the parliament. The organization of this famous
   body was begun in the lifetime of Philip Augustus. Under the
   reign of this prince [Saint Louis] and notably as a result of
   his absence, the 'cour du roi' had begun to render more and
   more frequent decisions. The section which was occupied with
   judicial affairs, appears to have taken on, in the time of
   Saint Louis, an individual and independent existence. Instead
   of following the sovereign and meeting when he thought it
   expedient, it became sedentary. … The date at which the series
   of the famous registers of the parliament, known under the
   name of Olim begins may be considered that of the definitive
   creation of this great institution. It will be remarked that
   it coincides with the general reform of the administration of
   the kingdom undertaken by the good king on his return from
   Syria. … From its birth the parliament tended to become, in
   the hands of royalty, a means of domination over the great
   vassals. Not only were the seigneurs insensibly eliminated
   from it, to the advantage of the clergy, the lawyers, and the
   officers of the crown, but by a series of skilful victories,
   its action was extended little by little over all the fiefs
   situated outside the royal domain, that is over all France. It
   is again Saint Louis who caused this great and decisive
   advance toward the authority of the suzerain. He brought it
   about especially by the abolition of the judicial duel and by
   the multiplication of appeals to the parliament. … As for the
   appeals the interdiction of 'fausser jugement' (refusal to
   submit to the sentence pronounced) was not the only cause of
   their multiplication. Many of the great vassals were led to
   bring their affairs before the king's court, either on account
   of the confidence inspired by the well known equity of Saint
   Louis, or by the skill of the royal agents, who neglected no
   opportunity to cause the acceptance of the arbitration of the
   crown; and those who did not resign themselves to it were
   sometimes compelled to do so. The appeals of their subjects
   naturally took the same route; however they continued to
   employ the medium of the seneschal's court or that of the
   bailli, while those of the barons and the princes of the blood
   went directly to Paris. No general law was promulgated in
   regard to the matter. Royalty was content to recover little by
   little, by partial measures, the superior jurisdiction
   formerly usurped by the feudality. … Above and outside of the
   parliament justice was rendered by the king in person. … Saint
   Louis, always thoughtful of the interests of the lowly, had a
   liking for this expeditious manner of terminating suits.
   Nearly every morning, he sent two or three members of his
   council to inquire, at the palace gate, if there were not some
   private individuals there wishing to discuss their affairs
   before him; from this came the name 'plaids de la porte' given
   to this kind of audience. If his counsellors could not bring
   the parties to an agreement, he called the latter into his own
   room, examined their case with his scrupulous impartiality,
   and rendered the final sentence himself on the spot.
   Joinville, who took part more than once in these summary
   judgments, thus describes to us their very simple mechanism.
   'The king had his work regulated in such a way, that
   monseigneur de Nesle and the good count de Soissons, and the
   rest of us who were about him, who had heard our masses, went
   to hear the 'plaids de la porte,' which are now called
   'requêtes' (petitions). And when he returned from the
   monastery, he sent for us, seated himself at the foot of his
   bed, made us all sit around him, and asked us if there were
   any cases to despatch which could not be disposed of without
   him; and we named them to him, and he sent for the parties and
   asked them: Why do you not take what our people offer you? And
   they said: Sire, because they offer us little. Then he said to
   them: You should take what they are willing to give you. And
   the saintly man labored in this way, with all his might to set
   them in a just and reasonable path.' Here the great
   peace-maker is clearly seen; private individuals as well as
   princes, he desired to reconcile all, make all agree. These
   patriarchal audiences often had for theater the garden of the
   palace or the wood of Vincennes. The legendary oak which
   sheltered the modern Solomon remains in all memoirs as the
   symbol of his kindly justice and of his popularity, well
   acquired."

      A. Lecoy de la Marche,
      La France sous Saint Louis et sous Philippe le Hardi,
      liv. 1, chapter 2, and liv. 2, chapters 1 and 3.

      François Guizot,
      Great Christians of France: Saint Louis and Calvin,
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/62518.

{3753}

FRANCE: A. D. 1423-1429.
   The family and circumstances of Jeanne d' Arc.

   "What were the worldly circumstances, what was the social
   position, of the parents of Jeanne d'Arc? Questioned on these
   points, the people of the country, called to testify at the
   public inquiry, in the course of the rehabilitation
   proceedings, all made the same reply; they said that the
   father and mother of the maid were unassuming husbandmen and
   possessed with their cottage only a moderate patrimony.
   According to a memorandum, made out with the assistance of
   papers and family traditions, a memorandum transmitted by the
   abbé Mandre, curé of Damvillers (Meuse), who died about 1820,
   to his nephew Mr. Villiaumé, father of the historian of Jeanne
   d' Arc and of the Revolution, the real estate belonging to
   Jacques d'Arc and Isabelle Romée represented about twenty
   hectares, of which twelve were cultivated, four were meadow
   and four woodland, and in the latter the 'bois Chesnu'; they
   had beside their house, their furniture and a reserve of two
   or three hundred francs which they kept carefully in view of
   the possibility of a flight before some invasion, such as they
   had been obliged to take to Neufchâteau. By cultivating,
   themselves, what they possessed, they could obtain from it an
   annual revenue equivalent to four or five thousand francs of
   our money, which permitted them to distribute alms to the
   poor, notwithstanding their moderate patrimony, and to give
   hospitality to the mendicant friars as well as to the
   travelers who often passed through that country. If these
   valuations are not rigorously exact, they appear to us at
   least quite reasonable, though we are ignorant of the data
   upon which they rest. In a parochial register of Domremy,
   transcribed in 1490, we read that Jacob d'Arc and Ysabellot,
   his wife, had established an annual income of two gros [gros
   of Lorraine, coin worth 1/8 oz. of silver] in favor of the
   curé of Domremy from a 'fauchée' and a half [day and a half's
   mowing] of field situated in the 'ban' of Domremy, above the
   bridge, between the heirs Janvrel and the heirs Girardin, on
   condition of the celebration of two masses each year during
   the week of the Fontaines for anniversary services for the
   dead. The property of these honest people constituted, if we
   may judge by the different replies of the Maid compared with
   one another, what was called then in the Barrois a 'gagnage'
   or little farm; now, what distinguished the gagnage from the
   simple 'conduit,' was that the first always employed for the
   needs of cultivation a certain number of horses. The usage was
   at that time, in that region, to attach three or four mares to
   the plough, and they even had, at least in the great gagnages,
   a special horse to drag the harrow. Besides this property
   situated at Domremy, it may be supposed that Jacques d'Arc
   possessed in right of his wife some pieces of land at Vouthon,
   for we see by a register of the writs of court of the
   provostship of Gondrecourt that the eldest of his sons named
   Jacquemin made his residence from 1425 in this village of the
   Barrois holding where he cultivated undoubtedly the little
   patrimony of Isabelle Romée. Jacques d'Arc and Isabelle de
   Vouthon had three sons, Jacquemin, Jean and Pierre, and two
   daughters, the elder named Catherine, the younger Jeanne or
   rather Jeannette, she who was by her heroism to immortalize
   her line. Two documents … prove with evidence that Jacques
   d'Arc figured in the first rank of the notables of Domremy. In
   the first of these, dated Maxey-sur-Meuse, October 7, 1423, he
   is styled 'doyen' of that village and by this title comes
   immediately after the mayor and alderman. 'In general,' says
   M. Edward Bonvalot, speaking of the villages in the region of
   the Meuse governed by the famous charter of Beaumont in
   Argonne, 'there is but one doyen or sergeant in each village,
   who convokes the bourgeois to the electoral assemblies and to
   the sittings of the court; it is he also who convokes the
   mayor, aldermen and the men of the commune to their reunions
   either periodical or special; it is he who cries the municipal
   resolutions and ordinances; it is he who commands the day and
   night watch; it is he who has charge of prisoners. Among the
   privileges which he enjoys must be cited the exemption from
   the taxes (deniers) of the bourgeoisie. At Linger, he has the
   same territorial advantages as the clerk of the commune.' It
   is seen by various documents that the doyens were also charged
   with the collection of the 'tailles,' 'rentes' and
   'redevances,' and that they were appointed to supervise bread,
   wine and other commodities as well as to test weights and
   measures. In the second document, drawn up at Vaucouleurs
   March 31, 1427, Jacques d'Arc appears as the agent of the
   inhabitants of Domremy in a suit of great importance which
   they then had to sustain before Robert de Baudricourt, captain
   of Vaucouleurs. … The situation of Domremy was privileged,
   and, thanks to this situation, humble peasants who had few
   needs found even in the soil which they cultivated nearly
   everything which was necessary for their subsistence. The
   heights crowned with beeches and venerable oaks, which shut in
   on the west the valley where the village lies, furnished
   fire-wood in abundance; the acorns permitted the fattening of
   droves of hogs; the beautiful vineyard of Greux, exposed to
   the east and climbing the slopes of these heights since the
   14th century, produced that light wine, excessively acid,
   which is not the less agreeable to the somewhat harsh palate
   of the children of the Meuse; the fields lying at the foot of
   these slopes and contiguous to the houses were reserved for
   the cultivation of the cereals, of wheat, of rye and of oats;
   finally, between these cultivated fields and the course of the
   Meuse, over a breadth of more than a kilometer stretched those
   verdant meadows whose fertility equals their beauty and from
   which is still taken the best and most renowned hay of all
   France. The principal wealth of the inhabitants of Domremy was
   the cattle which they pastured in these meadows, where each,
   after the hay-harvest, had the right to pasture a number of
   heads of cattle proportioned to that of the 'fauchées de pré'
   [days mowings of field] that he possessed. This is what was
   called the 'ban de Domremy' the care of which was confided, by
   turns, to a person taken from each 'conduit' or household. It
   may be seen by certain replies of Jeanne to her judges at
   Rouen that she had been more than once appointed to this
   charge, when the turn of her parents came, and her enemies had
   not failed to seize upon this circumstance to pretend to see
   in her only a shepherdess by profession. …
{3754}
   Most of the historians of Jeanne d'Arc have made a great
   mistake when they have imagined Domremy an out-of-the-way
   corner and isolated, so to speak, from the rest of the world;
   on the contrary, a road much frequented toward the end of the
   middle ages crossed this village. This was the old Roman road
   from Langres to Verdun which passed through Neufchâteau,
   Domremy, Vaucouleurs, Void, Commercy and Saint-Mihiel; it had
   acquired yet more importance since the marriage of Philip the
   Bold and Margaret, daughter of Louis de Male, had brought into
   the same hand Flanders, Artois and Burgundy. This marriage had
   had the effect of giving increased activity to the exchanges
   between the extreme possessions of the Burgundian princes. …
   It may be seen by what precedes that, like the legendary beech
   of her native village, the childhood of the virgin of Domremy
   sprang out of a soil full of vigor and was in the main haunted
   by beneficent fairies. Born in a fertile and smiling corner of
   the earth, the issue of an honest family, whose laborious
   mediocrity was elevated enough to touch nobility when
   ennobling itself by alms-giving, and humble enough to remain
   in contact with all the poor; endowed by nature with a robust
   body, a sound intelligence and an energetic spirit, the little
   Jeannette d'Arc became under these gentle influences all
   goodness and all love. Certain facts which are related of her
   early years show her religiously enamored of country life. She
   gave some wool from her sheep to the bell-ringer of Domremy to
   render him more zealous in fulfilling his office, so much did
   the silvery chiming of his church bell, sounding suddenly in
   the quiet of the valley, enchant her ear. And the inspiring
   virtue of the cool shadows, of the 'frigus opacum' of Virgil,
   who had better felt it than she who replied to her judges at
   Rouen: 'If I were in the midst of the woods, I should hear my
   voices better.' … One of the consequences of the treaty of
   Troyes was the occupation of Champagne by the [English]
   invaders.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1417-1422 (page 1175).

   It is certain, notwithstanding the assertions to the contrary
   of many historians of Jeanne, that from this date the English
   were rendered absolutely masters of the bailiwick of Chaumont.
   The principal fortresses of Bassigny, notably Nogent-le-Roi
   and Montigny-le-Roi, received garrisons of the enemy. The
   'registres du Trésor des Chartes,' preserved in our National
   Archives, where the acts emanating from the English government
   [chancellorship] during this period are registered, are full
   of letters of pardon or of remission granted in the name of
   Henry V. and Henry VI. to different inhabitants of this
   bailiwick, and nothing proves better to what degree the
   authority of the king of England was at that time received and
   accepted in this region. Some of these letters were given on
   account of offenses committed in the provostship of Andelot,
   of which the châtellenie of Vaucouleurs held, as is known.
   This châtellenie was, in truth, the last fragment of French
   soil that Charles VII. had kept at the eastern extremity of
   his kingdom, as he had succeeded in keeping Mont-Saint-Michel
   at the western extremity. Pressed upon by the
   Anglo-Burgundians on the south, by the restless and violent
   Robert of Saarbruck, seigneur of Commercy, on the north,
   hemmed in, on the east and west, between the possessions of
   the dukes of Bar and of Lorraine, who were unceasingly at war
   with their neighbors, this little corner of the earth was a
   sort of arena where all parties came into collision; and
   during the four or five years which immediately preceded the
   first apparition of the archangel Michael to the Maid, toward
   the middle of 1425, ten or twelve leaders of bands may be
   counted who emulated each other, as it were, in ravaging it in
   all directions. During the first half of the 15th century, the
   men at arms of the marches of Lorraine had the reputation of
   being, with the Bretons, the greatest pillagers in the world.
   … We know now in all its details a curious episode which
   particularly concerns the native village of Jeanne. This
   episode had remained completely unknown up to the present day,
   and it was a fortunate accident which, in the beginning of our
   researches, commenced in 1878, caused us to discover in the
   National Archives, in the 'registres du Trésor des Chartes,'
   the document in which the relation of it is found. There is
   question in this document of a remission of penalty granted by
   King Charles VII. to a certain Burthélemy de Clefmont for the
   murder of an Anglo-Burgundian band-leader who had carried away
   the cattle from two villages of the châtellenie of
   Vaucouleurs; now, these two villages are precisely Greux and
   Domremy. … Different circumstances of the narrative, compared
   with several documents relative to the leader killed by
   Barthélemy de Clefmont, do not permit us to place the incident
   at any other date than 1425. … The principal, not to say the
   only wealth of the inhabitants of Domremy, was the cattle
   which they pastured in the meadows of the Meuse. The
   configuration of the soil permits the cultivation only of some
   fields situated along the border of these meadows, at the foot
   of the wooded hill against which the village is set; so, the
   little grain that was harvested there would not have sufficed
   to feed the population. … We understand then the important
   injury done to these unfortunate peasants by taking from them
   at one stroke all the communal flock; they were completely
   ruined; they were stripped between one day and another of the
   most precious of their possessions; they were almost condemned
   to die of poverty with very brief delay. Such a disaster would
   have cast down a spirit of ordinary temper; it had no other
   effect than to exalt the profound faith and to awaken the
   already extraordinary energies of the little Jeannette d'Arc.
   Endowed, notwithstanding her tender years, with that almost
   superhuman moral force of which we read that it transports
   mountains, she called Heaven confidently to the assistance of
   her people, and our readers already know that Heaven heard her
   voice. Jeanne de Joinville, lady of Ogéviller, the good
   châtelaine of Domremy, must have been keenly touched by the
   unfortunate situation caused to her people, and she had
   besides the greatest interest in making the brigands in the
   pay of Henri d'Orly disgorge, in order to assure the payment
   of her taxes. This is why she complained to her cousin Antoine
   de Lorraine, count of Vaudemont, who had in his immediate
   tenure the château of Doulevant, occupied by the chief of
   these brigands. The count hastened to give satisfaction to the
   demands of his relative; he sent Barthélemy de Clefmont, one
   of his men at arms, in pursuit of the marauders.
{3755}
   The expedition was a complete success. Though the cattle had
   already been taken as far as Dommartin-le-Franc, twenty
   leagues distant from the shores of the Meuse, they were
   recovered. Antoine de Lorraine then caused them to be restored
   to the lady of Ogéviller whose people, those of Greux as well
   as of Domremy, thus came again into possession of the precious
   booty which had been stolen from them and which they believed
   irreparably lost. What a signal favor of Providence, a
   miracle, these poor people in general and Jeannette d'Arc in
   particular must have seen in a restitution so unhoped for! In
   the meantime,—we may reasonably suppose this, if not affirm it
   with certainty,—the news of a great defeat inflicted on the
   English before Mont-Saint-Michel, toward the end of June 1425,
   by sea as well as by land, must have arrived at Domremy.
   Almost at the same time, that is in the last days of the
   following August, they learned that these same English had
   just invaded Barrois and that they had burned dwellings at
   Revigny as well as in the ban of Chaumont, near Bar-le-Duc.
   Never had Jeanne felt more sorrowfully 'the pity it was for
   the kingdom of France,' and never also had she had a more
   entire faith in God to assure the salvation of her country.
   The theft, then the restitution of the cattle of Greux and
   Domremy, the victory won by the defenders of
   Mont-Saint-Michel, the invasion of Barrois by the English,
   here are the three principal occurrences which immediately
   preceded and which explain, at least in a certain degree, the
   first apparition of the archangel Michael to the little
   Jeannette d'Arc."

      S. Luce,
      Jeanne d'Arc a Domremy
      (translated from the French),
      chapters 2-3.

FRANCE: A. D. 1582.
   Footing secured at the mouth of the Senegal.

      See (in this Supplement) AFRICA: 1582.

FRANCE: A. D. 1631.
   First printed newspaper publication.

      See PRINTING AND PRESS: A. D. 1631 (page 2594).

FRANCE: A. D. 1648-1715.
   Relations with Germany and Austria.

      See (in this Supplement) GERMANY: A. D. 1648-1715.

FRANCE: A. D. 1682-1693.
   Contest of the King and the Gallican Church with the Papacy.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1682-1693 (page 2462).

FRANCE: A. D. 1715-1770.
   The fatal policy in Europe which lost to the French their
   opportunity for colonial aggrandizement.

   "Louis XIV. had made France odious to her neighbors and
   suspected by all Europe. Those who succeeded him required much
   prudence and wisdom to diminish the feelings of fear and
   jealousy which this long reign of wars and conquests had
   inspired. They were fortunate in that the moderation demanded
   of them was for France the most skilful and advantageous
   policy. France kept Alsace, Franche-Comte, Flanders,
   Roussillon, and beyond this enlarged frontier she was no
   longer menaced by the same enemies. The treaty of Utrecht had
   modified the entire balance of power. There is henceforward no
   house of Austria excepting in Germany. It is too often
   forgotten, in speaking of this house and its rivalry with that
   of France, that the most ardent center of hatred was in Spain.
   It was Spain which cherished that violent rancor which, for
   lack of words as much as of ideas, is placed to the account of
   Austria alone. Spain is no longer to be feared; she is
   weakened, she is becoming dependent. A cadet of France, a
   Bourbon, reigns at Madrid, and the roles, in that direction,
   are exchanged. As to Austria even, she has increased
   undoubtedly: she has taken the Low Countries, Milan, Naples,
   very soon she adds Sicily to them; but she is scattered. In
   multiplying her outposts, she presents so many points of
   aggression to her adversaries. France has the Low Countries
   under her hand: Savoy threatens Milan: and, in Germany,
   Prussia, which is growing, groups the opponents of the Empire.
   France completes her work by the annexation of Lorraine. The
   house of Lorraine is transported to Tuscany, and by the effect
   of the same treaty, that of Vienna in 1738, Naples and Sicily
   pass to the Spaniards. It seems that henceforward France has
   only to conserve on the continent. She presents to it the most
   compact power. Her principal enemy in it is greatly reduced.
   She is surrounded by states, weaker than she, who defer to her
   and fear her; she can resume that fine role of moderator and
   guardian of the peace of Europe which Richelieu had prepared
   for her, and bear elsewhere, into the other hemisphere, the
   superabundance of her forces and that excess of vigor which in
   great nations is precisely the condition of health. The future
   of her grandeur is henceforward in the colonies. There she
   will encounter England. Upon this new stage their rivalry will
   be revived, more ardent than in the days of the hundred years
   war. To maintain this struggle which extends over the entire
   world, France will not be too strong with all her resources.
   When she is engaged in Canada and the Indies at the same time,
   she will not need to carry her armies across the Rhine. Peace
   on the continent is the condition necessary to the magnificent
   fortune which awaits her in America and Asia. If she wishes to
   obtain it she must renounce continental ambitions. She can do
   it; her defense is formidable. No one about her would dare to
   fire a gun without her permission. But, alas! she is far
   removed from this wisdom, and, in attempting to establish
   colonies, and make changes in the kingdoms of Europe at the
   same time, she will compromise her power in both worlds at
   once. The French desire colonial conquests, but they can not
   abstain from European conquests, and England profits by it.
   Austria becomes her natural ally against France. These
   powerful diversions keep the French on the ground. However,
   they can yet curb Austria; they have Prussia, Savoy, Poland
   and Turkey if necessary. Diplomacy is sufficient for this
   game; but this game is not sufficient for the French
   politicians. The hatred of the house of Austria survives the
   causes of rivalry. This house seems always 'the monster' of
   which Balzac speaks. One is not satisfied to have chained it;
   one can cease only after having annihilated it. 'There is
   always,' writes Argenson, 'for politicians a fundamental rule
   of reducing this power to the point where the Emperor will not
   be a greater landholder than the richest elector.' Charles VI.
   dies in 1740; he leaves only a daughter; the opportunity seems
   favorable, and noisily sounding the death-cry (l'hallali) they
   take the field at the head of all the hunters by inheritance.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D.1740, and after (pages 212-220).


{3756}

   They go 'to make an emperor, to conquer kingdoms!' The
   Bavarian whom they crown is a stage emperor, and, as for
   conquests, they are considered only too fortunate that Maurice
   of Saxe preserves to France those of Louis XIV. The coalition
   has no other result than to enlarge Prussia. Meanwhile France
   is beaten on the sea and abandons solely to the resources of
   his genius Dupleix, who with a handful of men was founding an
   empire. There was besides another small matter; after having
   exposed Canada in order to conquer Silesia for the king of
   Prussia, it was lost in order to have the pleasure of giving
   back that province to the queen of Hungary. France had played
   the game of England in the war of the succession of Austria,
   she played that of Austria in the seven years war.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1755-1756, and after (pages 1495-1502).

   Frederic was the most equivocal of allies. In 1755, he
   deserted cynically and passed over to the English, who had
   just recommenced war against France. England having Prussia,
   it was important in order to maintain the equilibrium, that
   France have Austria. Maria Theresa offered her alliance and
   France accepted it. Thus was concluded the famous treaty of
   May 1, 1756. The object of this alliance was entirely
   defensive. This is what France did not understand, and she did
   not cease to be a dupe for having changed partners. Louis XV.
   made himself the defender of Austria with the same blindness
   as he had made himself her adversary. The continental war
   which was only the accessory became the principal. From a
   ruling power, France fell to the rank of a subordinate. She
   did not even attain the indirect result to which she
   sacrificed her most precious interests. Frederic kept Silesia,
   France lost Canada and abandoned Louisiana; the empire of the
   Indies passed to the English. Louis XV. had thus directed a
   policy the sole reason for which was the defeat of England, in
   such a way as to assure the triumph of that country. 'Above
   all,' wrote Bernis to Choiseul, then ambassador at Vienna,
   'arrange matters in such a way that the king will not remain
   in servile dependence on his allies. That state would be the
   worst of all.' It was the state of France during the last
   years of the reign of Louis XV. The alliance of 1756 which had
   been at its beginning and under its first form, a skilful
   expedient, became a political system, and the most disastrous
   of all. Without gaining anything in territory, France lost her
   consideration in Europe. She had formerly grouped around her
   all those who were disturbed by the power of Austria; forced
   to choose between them and Austria, she allowed the Austrians
   to do as they chose. To crown the humiliation, immediately
   after a war in which she had lost everything to serve the
   hatred of Maria Theresa for Frederic, she saw those
   unreconcilable Germans draw together without her knowledge,
   come to an understanding at her expense and, in concert with
   Russia, divide the spoil of one of the oldest clients of the
   French monarchy, Poland. There remained to France but one
   ally, Spain. They were united in 1761 by the Family Pact, the
   only beneficial work which had been accomplished in these
   years of disaster. … To the anger of having felt herself made
   use of during the war, to the rancor of having seen herself
   duped during the peace, was joined the fear of being despoiled
   one day by an ally so greedy and so little scrupulous. 'I
   foresee,' wrote Mably some years later, 'that the Emperor will
   demand of us again Lorraine, Alsace and everything which may
   please him.'—'Who can guaranty France, if she should
   experience a complicated and unfortunate war,' said one of the
   ministers of Louis XVI., 'that the Emperor would not reclaim
   Alsace and even other provinces?' It was in this way that the
   abuse made by Austria of the alliance revived all the
   traditions of rivalry. Add that Maria Theresa was devout, that
   she was known to be a friend of the Jesuits, an enemy of the
   philosophers, and that at the King's court, the favorites were
   accounted as acquired from Austria: everything thus
   contributed to render odious to public opinion the alliance
   which, in itself, already seemed detestable. At the time when
   they were beginning to style the partisans of new ideas
   'patriots,' they were in the habit of confounding all the
   adversaries of these ideas with the 'Austrian party.' … The
   marriage of Marie Antoinette with the Dauphin was destined to
   seal forever the alliance of 1756. The unfortunate princess
   accumulated on her head the hatreds and prejudices heaped up
   by three centuries of rivalry and excessively stimulated by
   the still smarting impression of recent wrongs. Even the cause
   of her coming to France rendered her suspected by the French;
   they imputed to her as a crime her attachment to the alliance,
   which was, notwithstanding, the very reason of her marriage.
   To understand the prodigious unpopularity which pursued her in
   France, it is necessary to measure the violence of the
   passions raised up against her mother and her country; it was
   summed up, long before the Revolution, in that word which
   became for Marie Antoinette a decree of forfeiture and of
   death: the Austrian."

      A. Sorel,
      L'Europe et la Révolution française
      (translated from the French),
      part 1, pages 288-297.

FRANCE: A. D. 1776-1778.
   Disposition to aid the revolt of the
   English colonies in America.
   The American embassy.
   Dealings of Beaumarchais and Silas Deane.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1776-1778 (pages 3241, 3244).

FRANCE: A. D. 1777.
   The first daily newspaper.

      See PRINTING AND PRESS: A. D. 1777 (page 2600).

FRANCE: A. D. 1788-1789.
   Paris in the Revolution.
   The part of the Nobodies.

   "The history of the revolution can no more be understood
   without understanding the part played in it by Paris, than one
   can conceive of the tragedy of Hamlet with the part of Hamlet
   left out; and to understand the part played by Paris in the
   revolution is equally impossible. … Let us commence at the
   bottom with the nobodies. They are no specialty of Paris.
   There are many of them in every city, but the larger the city
   the greater the percentage. Paris, therefore, has the highest.
   They are isolated particles. In the ushering in of the new era
   they have no part. The regulations concerning the elections to
   the States-General contain no provision in regard to them. …
   It was simply a matter of course, that these nobodies went for
   nothing in the question at hand. Whether they were likely to
   continue to be nothing in it, nobody seems to have asked. …
   The existence of this class was partly due to natural causes,
   the working of which the wit of man can to a degree mitigate,
   but never prevent.

{3757}

   In the 'ancien régime,' however, the wit of man had altogether
   been bent upon stimulating it. The privilege-bane had also
   been extended over the domain of labor. When, in 1776, Turgot
   broke down the guilds, the Parliament of Paris strenuously
   opposed the government, declaring: all Frenchmen are divided
   into established corporations, forming one continuous chain
   from the throne down to the lowest handicraft, indispensable
   to the existence of the state, and not to be abolished, lest
   the whole social order break asunder. That was but too true.
   Since the days of Henry III. (1574-1589) the forcing of all
   industrial pursuits into the strait-jacket of guildships had
   been carried to the extreme of utter absurdity. Here, too, the
   chronic financial distress had been the principal cause. At
   first the handicrafts, which everybody had been at liberty to
   practice, were withdrawn from free competition and sold as a
   privilege, and then, when nothing was left to be sold, the old
   guilds were split up into a number of guildlets, merely to
   have again something to put on the counter. And it was not
   only left pretty much to the masters whom they would admit to
   the freedom of the guild, but besides the charges for it were
   so high that it was often absolutely out of the reach even of
   the most skillful journeyman. Even a blood-aristocracy was not
   lacking. In a number of guilds only the sons of masters and
   the second husbands of masters' widows could become masters.
   Thus an immense proletariat was gradually formed, which to a
   great extent was a proletariat only because the law
   irresistibly forced it into this position. And the city
   proletariat proper received constant and ever-increasing
   additions from the country. There such distress prevailed,
   that the paupers flocked in crowds to the cities. … In 1791,
   long before the inauguration of the Reign of Terror, there
   were in a population of 650,000, 118,000 paupers (indigents).
   Under the 'ancien régime' the immigrant proletariat from the
   country was by the law barred out from all ways of earning a
   livelihood except as common day-laborers, and the wages of
   these were in 1788, on an average, 26 cents for men and 15 for
   women, while the price of bread was higher than in our times.
   What a gigantic heap of ferment!"

      H. von Holst,
      The French Revolution,
      lecture 2.

FRANCE: A. D. 1789-1792.
   Effects of the Revolution in Germany.

      See (in this Supplement) GERMANY: A. D. 1789-1792.

FRANCE: A. D. 1789-1794.
   Myths of the Revolution.

   "The rapid growth and the considerable number of these myths
   are one of the most curious features of the Revolution, while
   their persistent vitality is a standing warning for historical
   students. I claim to show that Cazotte's vision was invented
   by Laharpe, that Sombreuil's daughter did not purchase his
   liberty by quaffing blood, that the locksmith Gamain was not
   poisoned, that Labussière did not save hundreds of prisoners
   by destroying the documents incriminating them, that the
   Girondins had no last supper, that some famous ejaculations
   have been fabricated or distorted, that no attempt was made to
   save the last batch of victims, that the boys Barra and Viala
   were not heroes, that no leather was made of human skins, that
   no Englishmen plied the September assassins with drink, that
   the 'Vengeur' crew did not perish rather than surrender, that
   the ice-bound Dutch fleet was not captured, that Robespierre's
   wound was not the work of Merda, but was self-inflicted, and
   that Thomas Paine had no miraculous escape."

      J. G. Alger,
      Glimpses of the French Revolution,
      preface.

FRANCE: A. D. 1789-1796.
   The Assignats of the Revolution.

      See MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1789-1796 (page 2212).

FRANCE: A. D. 1796-1807.
   Napoleon and Germany.

      See (in this Supplement) GERMANY: A. D. 1796-1807.

FRANCE: A. D. 1855-1895.
   Acquisitions in Africa.

      (See in this Supplement)
      AFRICA: 1855, 1864, 1876-1880, and after.

FRANCE: A. D. 1858-1886.
   Conquest of Tonkin and Cochin China.

      See TONKIN (page 3114).

FRANCE: A. D. 1871-1892.
   Advance in the policy of Protection.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION: A. D. 1871-1892 (page 3082).

FRANCE: A. D. 1894-1895.
   Assassination of President Carnot.
   Election and resignation of M. Casimir-Périer.
   Election of M. Faure to the Presidency.

   "The most startling of all the deeds in the recent revival of
   anarchistic activity was the assassination of M. Carnot,
   President of the French Republic, on the 24th of June. While
   driving through the streets of Lyons, where he was taking part
   in the opening ceremonies of an exposition, he was mortally
   stabbed by an Italian Anarchist named Santo Caserio. The
   assassin was immediately captured, and was executed August 16.
   His trial did not reveal any accomplices, though there was
   evidence tending to show that the deed was resolved upon by a
   band of Anarchists. Caserio boasted of his identification with
   the sect. … According to the constitutional prescription, a
   joint convention of the two chambers of the legislature was
   immediately summoned for a presidential election. The
   convention met at Versailles, June 27, M. Challemel-Lacour,
   president of the Senate, in the chair, and on the first ballot
   chose M. Casimir-Périer by 451 out of a total of 851 votes, M.
   Brisson, the Radical candidate, stood second, with 195, and M.
   Dupuy third, with 97."

      Political Science Quarterly,
      December, 1894.

   On the 15th of January, 1895, M. Casimir-Périer astonished the
   world and threw France into consternation, almost, by suddenly
   and peremptorily resigning the Presidency. The reason given
   was the intolerable powerlessness and practical inutility of
   the President under the existing constitution. The exciting
   crisis which this resignation produced was passed through
   without disorder, and on the 17th the National Assembly
   elected M. François Felix Faure to the office of President.

FRANCE: Libraries.

      See LIBRARIES (page 2010).

FRANCE, Bank of.

      See MONEY (page 2212).

FRANKLIN, Benjamin,
   and the first subscription library.

      See LIBRARIES, MODERN (page 2017).

FRANKLIN, Benjamin:
   Electrical discovery.

      See ELECTRICAL DISCOVERY AND INVENTION:
      A. D. 1745-1747 (page 770).

FRANKLIN, Benjamin:
   Examination before Parliament.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766 (pages 3192-3201).

FRANKLIN, Sir john.
   Northern explorations and voyages of.
   Loss and search for.

      See (in this Supplement)
      ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1819-1822, and after.

{3758}

FREDERICK BARBAROSSA, in Italy.

      See (in this Supplement)
      GERMANY: A. D. 1154-1190, and 1162-1177;
      also, pages 1811-1813.

FREE CITIES OF GERMANY, The.

      See (in this Supplement)
      GERMANY: 13-15th CENTURIES; also, page 473.

FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE.

      See below: TOLERATION, RELIGIOUS.

FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW,
   The first.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1793 (page 3305).

   The Second.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850 (pages 3388-3391).

GALEN, and the development of anatomy and physiology.

      See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 2d CENTURY (page 2128).

GALVANI'S ELECTRICAL DISCOVERIES.

      See ELECTRICAL DISCOVERY AND INVENTION:
      A. D. 1786-1800 (page 771).

GAUL: Ancient commerce.

      See (In this Supplement) COMMERCE, ANCIENT.

GENOA: The Bank of St. George.

      See MONEY AND BANKING (page 2207).

GENOA: Mediæval Commerce.

      See (in this Supplement) COMMERCE, MEDIÆVAL.

GEORGE III.:
   Conversation with Governor Hutchinson
   on affairs in the colonies.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774 (pages 3210-3213).

   His absolute notions of Kingship.

      See England: A. D. 1760-1763 (page 927).

GEORGE, Henry, and the Single Tax movement.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1880 (page 2955).

GERM THEORY OF DISEASE, Origin and development of the.

      See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17-18TH CENTURIES,
      and 19TH CENTURY (pages 2138, 2144, and after).

   ----------GERMANY:Start--------

GERMANY:
   Outline sketch of general history.

      See EUROPE (page 1015, and after).

GERMANY: A. D. 962.
   Otto I. and the Restoration of the Empire.

   "And now it came about that out of the midst of the Germanic
   nations a new monarchy arose which wrested itself free from
   the immediate influence of the papacy and its antiquated
   pretensions and broke a new path for the idea of the empire,
   an idea that seemed to have been fully crushed. This was the
   empire of Otto the Great. It was not to be compared with the
   old Roman empire, it did not at all come up to what the
   Carolingian had been. But it did give strong and irrevocable
   expression to the idea of a highest authority in Germany, an
   authority bound up with religion, yet independent in itself. …
   The foundation of the Germanic empire, that is of an
   organization which, resting on the internal development of the
   German nations had won a universal position through the
   extension of the power of the Ottos over Italy, forms the
   event of world-wide importance of the tenth century. … This
   Germanic empire had no genealogical origin that was entirely
   indisputable, but it did in so far have an advantage over the
   Carolingian empire that the right of heredity in the German
   monarchy decided of itself the question of succession to the
   empire. Besides this it had a sort of overlordship over its
   neighbors to maintain which was different from that earlier
   one: the attempts at Christianizing and at the same time
   reducing to submission took in other regions extending far
   beyond the limits of the former ones. It was a resuscitation
   of the idea of the old Roman empire but by no means of its
   form. On the contrary, through constant struggles new
   constitutional forms had developed themselves of which the old
   world had as yet no conception. Not that it is the proper
   place here to enter more deeply into the question of the
   feudal system which gave to public life an altogether changed
   aspect. But, in a word or two at least, we must characterize
   this transformation. Its essence is that an attempt was made
   to adjust the conception of obedience and military service to
   the needs of the life of the individual. All the arrangements
   of life changed their character so soon as it became the
   custom to grant land to local overlords who, in turn, provided
   with possessions according to their own several grades, could
   only be sure of being able to hold these possessions in so far
   as they kept faith and troth with the lord-in-chief of the
   land. It was through and through a living organization, which
   took in the entire monarchy and bound it together into a
   many-membered whole; for the counts and dukes for their own
   part entered into a similar relationship with their own
   sub-tenants. Therewith the possession of land entered into an
   indissoluble connection with the theory of the empire, a
   connection which extended also to those border nations which
   were in contact with and subordinate to the monarchy. That an
   empire so constituted could not reckon on such unconditional
   obedience as had been paid to the old Roman empire is clear as
   day. Nevertheless the whole order of things in the world
   depended on the system of adjusted relationships, the keystone
   or rather commanding central point of which was formed by this
   same empire. It could scarcely claim any longer to be
   universal but it did nevertheless hold the chief place in the
   general state-system of Europe, and it proved a powerful
   upholder of the independence of the secular power. It was just
   this idea of universal power, and altogether of ascendancy
   over the Christian world, that was indelibly implanted in the
   German empire. But could this idea be actually realized, was
   Germany strong enough to carry it through? Otto the Great
   originated it, but by no means carried it to its completion.
   He passed his life amid constant internal and external
   struggles; no lasting form of constitution was he able to
   leave behind. That is, one might almost say, what is most
   characteristic of great natures: they can originate, indeed,
   but they cannot complete."

      L. von Ranke,
      Weltgeschichte,
      (translated from the German),
      volume 7, pages. 5-7.

{3759}

   "For what else did he (Otto I) wish to found but a
   world-monarchy like that of the Caesars? Emperor of the Romans
   and Augustus did he call himself and at Rome he had received
   his imperial crown. And was not for him the most sacred spot
   in the universe the grave of St. Peter at Rome? Was not this
   Saxon in armor an equally eager apostle of the Roman church
   with that Anglo-Saxon monk who as servant of the pope had
   planted Christianity in North German lands? While Otto was
   determined to extend the power of his empire as far as to the
   most distant peoples of the still unexplored north and east,
   he at the same time purposed to bear to the end of the world
   Christianity in the form in which Rome had given it him. The
   bones of the Roman martyrs he carried over the Alps and
   through faith in them he worked wonders; woods were cleared,
   marshes dried, cities built, victories won over the most
   dangerous enemies. Not only did the language of Rome sound
   forth from the altars of Saxony: it became at the same time
   the language of affairs in the emperor's chancery, and in it
   the commands of the all-powerful Augustus were issued to the
   whole world. Thus did Otto, although through and through a
   Saxon warrior of the old stamp, live wholly at the same time
   in those Roman ideas against which, in times gone by, his
   forefathers had struggled. The mightiest contradictions which
   have affected the course of the world's history met together
   in his personality in full force, and reconciled themselves
   there just as they did in the great onward course of events. …
   In all the movements of the time Otto took part with force and
   with success; the imperial title was now no empty name as it
   had been in the last years of the Carolingian period. But not
   through laws, not through an artificial state system, not
   through a great army of officials did Otto rule Western
   Europe, but more than all through the wealth of military
   resources which his victories had placed in his hands. Through
   the great army of his German vassals who were well versed in
   war he overthrew the Slavonians, kept the Danes in check,
   compelled the Hungarians to relinquish their nomadic life of
   plunder and to seek settled dwelling places in the plains of
   the Danube; so that now the gates of the East through which up
   till then masses of peoples threatening everything with
   destruction had always anew broken in upon the West were
   closed forever. The fame of his victories and his feudal
   supremacy, extending itself further and further, made him also
   protector of the Burgundian and French kingdoms, and finally
   lord of Lombardy and of the City of Rome. With the military
   resources of Germany he holds in subjection the surrounding
   peoples; but through the power thus won, on the other hand, he
   himself gains a proud ascendancy over the multitude of his own
   vassals. Only for the reason that he wins for himself a truly
   royal position in Germany is he enabled to gain the imperial
   crown; but this again it is which first really secures and
   confirms his own and his family's rule in the German lands. On
   this rests chiefly his preeminent position, that he is the
   first and mightiest lord of Western Christendom, that as such
   he is able at any moment to bring together a numerous military
   force with which no people, no prince can any longer cope. But
   not on this alone. For the Catholic clergy also, spreading far
   and wide over the whole west, serves him as it were like a new
   crowd of vassals in stole and cassock. He nominates the
   archbishops and bishops in his German and Italian kingdoms as
   well as in the newly converted lands of the North and East; he
   rules the successor of St. Peter and through him exercises a
   decisive influence on church progress even in the western
   lands where he does not himself install the dignitaries of the
   church. Different as this German empire was from the Frankish,
   faulty as was its organization, its resources seemed
   nevertheless sufficient in the hand of a competent ruler to
   maintain a far-reaching and effectual rule in the West; the
   more so as it was upheld by public opinion and supported by
   the authority of the church. But one must not be led into
   error; these resources were only sufficient in the hands of a
   so powerful and active prince as Otto. From the Elbe marshes
   he hastened to the Abruzzian Mountains; from the banks of the
   Rhine now to the shores of the Adriatic, now to the sand-dunes
   of the Baltic. Ceaselessly is he in motion, continually under
   arms—first against the Wends and Hungarians, then against the
   Greeks and Lombards. No county in his wide realm, no bishopric
   in Catholic Christendom but what he fixed his eye upon and
   vigilantly watched. And wherever he may tarry and whatever he
   may undertake his every act is full of fire, force and vigor
   and always hits the mark. With such a representative the
   empire is not only the highest power in the Western world but
   one which on all its affairs has a deep and active influence—a
   power as much venerated as it was dreaded."

      W. von Giesebrecht,
      Deutsche Kaiserzeit
      (translated from the German).
      volume 1, pages 476-484.

   "He (Otto) now permanently united the Roman empire to the
   German nation and this powerful and intelligent people
   undertook the illustrious but thankless task of being the
   Atlas of universal history. And soon enough did the connection
   of Germany with Italy result in the reform of the church and
   the revival of the various sciences, while in Italy itself it
   was essentially the Germanic element which brought into being
   the glorious civic republics. Through a historical necessity,
   doubtless, Germany and Italy, the purest representatives of
   the antique and the Teutonic types and the fairest provinces
   in the kingdom of human thought, were brought into this
   long-lasting connection. From this point of view posterity has
   no right to complain that the Roman empire was laid like a
   visitation of Fate on our Fatherland and compelled it for
   centuries to pour out its life-blood in Italy in order to
   construct those foundations of general European culture for
   which modern humanity has essentially Germany to thank."

      Gregorovius,
      Geschichte der Stadt Rom
      (translated from the German),
      volume 3, page 334.

      See, also, GERMANY: A. D. 936-973 (pages 1439-1441).

GERMANY: 11-12th Centuries.
   The question of the Investitures.

      See (in this Supplement) PAPACY: A. D. 11-12TH CENTURIES.

{3760}

GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1272(?).
   The Rise of the College of Electors.

   "At the election of Rudolph [1272 or 1273?] we meet for the
   first time the fully developed college of electors as a single
   electoral body; the secondary matter of a doubt regarding what
   individuals composed it was definitely settled before
   Rudolph's reign had come to an end. How did the college of
   electors develop itself? … The problem is made more difficult
   at the outset from the fact that, in the older form of
   government in Germany there can be no question at all of a
   simple electoral right in a modern sense. The electoral right
   was amalgamated with a hereditary right of that family which
   had happened to come to the throne: it was only a right of
   selection from among the heirs available within this family.
   Inasmuch now as such selection could,—as well from the whole
   character of German kingship as in consequence of its
   amalgamation with the empire—take place already during the
   lifetime of the ruling member of the family, it is easy to
   understand that in ages in which the ruling race did not die
   out during many generations, the right came to be at last
   almost a mere form. Usually the king, with the consent of
   those who had the right of election, would, already during his
   lifetime, designate as his successor one of his heirs,—if
   possible his oldest son. Such was the rule in the time of the
   Ottos and of the Salian emperors. It was a rule which could
   not be adhered to in the first half of the 12th century after
   the extinction of the Salian line, when free elections, not
   determined beforehand by designation, took place in the years
   1125, 1138 and 1152. Necessarily the clement of election now
   predominated. But had any fixed order of procedure at
   elections been handed down from the past? The very principle
   of election having been disregarded in the natural course of
   events for centuries, was it any wonder that the order of
   procedure should also come to be half forgotten? And had not
   in the meantime social readjustments in the electoral body so
   disturbed this order of procedure, or such part of it as had
   been important enough to be preserved, as necessarily to make
   it seem entirely antiquated? With these questions the
   electoral assemblies of the year 1125 as well as of the year
   1138 were brought face to face and they found that practically
   only those precedents could be taken from what seemed to have
   been the former customary mode of elections which provided
   that the archbishop of Mainz as chancellor of the empire
   should first solemnly announce the name of the person elected
   and the electors present should do homage to the new king.
   This was at the end of the whole election, after the choice
   had to all intents and purposes been already made. For the
   material part of the election, on the other hand, the part
   that preceded this announcement, they found an apparently new
   expedient. A committee was to draw up an agreement as to the
   person to be chosen; in the two cases in question the manner
   of constituting this committee differed. Something essential
   had now been done towards establishing a mode of procedure at
   elections which should accord with the changed circumstances.
   One case however had not been provided for in these still so
   informal and uncertain regulations; the case, namely, that
   those taking part in the election could come to no agreement
   at all with regard to the person whose choice was to be
   solemnly announced by the archbishop of Mainz. And how could
   men have foreseen such a case in the first half of the 12th
   century? Up till then double elections had absolutely never
   taken place. Anti-kings there had been, indeed, but never two
   opposing kings elected at the same time. In the year 1198,
   however, this contingency arose; Philip of Suabia and Otto IV
   were contemporaneously elected and the final unanimity of
   choice that in 1152 had still been counted on as a matter of
   course did not come about. As a consequence questions with
   regard to the order of procedure now came up which had hardly
   ever been touched upon before. First and foremost this one:
   can a better right of one of the elected kings be founded on a
   majority of the votes obtained? And in connection with it this
   other: who on the whole has a right to cast an electoral vote?
   Even though men were inclined now to answer the first question
   in the affirmative, the second, the presupposition for the
   practical application of the principle that had been laid down
   in the first, offered all the greater difficulties. Should
   one, after the elections of the years 1125 and 1152 and after
   the development since 1180 of a more circumscribed class of
   princes of the realm, accept the existence of a narrower
   electoral committee? Did this have a right to elect
   exclusively, or did it only have a simple right of priority in
   the matter of casting votes, or perhaps only a certain
   precedence when the election was being discussed? And how were
   the limits to be fixed for the larger circle of electors below
   this electoral committee? These are questions which the German
   electors put to themselves less soon and less clearly than did
   the pope, Innocent III, whom they had called upon to
   investigate the double election of the year 1198. … He speaks
   repeatedly of a narrower electoral body with which rests
   chiefly the election of the king, and he knows only princes as
   the members of this body. And beyond a doubt the repeated
   expressions of opinion of the pope, as well as this whole
   matter of having two kings, at the beginning of the 13th
   century, gave men in Germany cause for reflection with regard
   to these weighty questions concerning the constitutional forms
   of the empire. One of the most important results of this
   reflection on the subject is to be found in the solution given
   by the Sachsenspiegel which was compiled about 1230. Eike von
   Repgow knows in his law-book only of a precedence at elections
   of a smaller committee of princes, but mentions as belonging
   to this committee certain particular princes: the three
   Rhenish archbishops, the count Palatine of the Rhine, the duke
   of Saxony, the margrave of Brandenburg and,—his right being
   questionable indeed—the king of Bohemia. … So far, at all
   events, did the question with regard to the limitation of the
   electors seem to have advanced towards its solution by the
   year 1230 that an especial electoral college of particular
   persons was looked upon as the nucleus of those electing. But
   side by side with this view the old theory still held its own,
   that certainly all princes at least had an equal right in the
   election. Under Emperor Frederick II, for instance, it was
   still energetically upheld. A decision one way or the other
   could only be reached according to the way in which the next
   elections should actually be carried out. Henry Raspe was
   elected in the year 1246 almost exclusively by ecclesiastical
   princes, among them the three Rhenish archbishops. He was the
   first 'priest-king' (Pfaffenkönig). The second 'priest-king'
   was William of Holland. He was chosen by eleven princes, among
   whom was only one layman, the duke of Brabant. The others were
   bishops; among them, in full force, the archbishops of the
   Rhine.
{3761}
   Present were also many counts. But William caused himself
   still to be subsequently elected by the duke of Saxony and the
   margrave of Brandenburg, while the king of Bohemia was also
   not behindhand in acknowledging him—that, too, with special
   emphasis. What transpired at the double election of Alphonse
   and Richard in the year 1257 has not been handed down with
   perfect trustworthiness. Richard claimed later to have been
   elected by Mainz, Cologne, the Palatinate and Bohemia;
   Alphonse by Treves, Saxony, Brandenburg and Bohemia. But in
   addition to the princes of these lands, other German princes
   also took part,—according to the popular view by assenting,
   according to their own view, in part at least, by actually
   electing. All the same the lesson taught by all these
   elections is clear enough. The general right of election of
   the princes disappears almost altogether; a definite electoral
   college, which was looked upon as possessing almost
   exclusively the sole right of electing, comes into prominence,
   and the component parts which made it up correspond in
   substance to the theory of the Sachsenspiegel. And whatever in
   the year 1257 is not established firmly and completely and in
   all directions, stands there as incontrovertible at the
   election of Rudolph. The electors, and they only, now elect;
   all share of others in the election is done away with.
   Although in place of Ottocar of Bohemia who was at war with
   Rudolph Bavaria seems to have been given the electoral vote,
   yet before Rudolph's reign is out, in the year 1290, Bohemia
   at last attains to the dignity which the Sachsenspiegel, even
   if with some hesitation, had assigned to it. One of the most
   important revolutions in the German form of government was
   herewith accomplished. From among the aristocratic class of
   the princes an oligarchy had raised itself up, a
   representation of the princely provincial powers as opposed to
   the king. Unconsciously, as it were, had it come into being,
   not exactly desired by anyone as a whole, nor yet the result
   of a fixed purpose even as regarded its separate parts. It
   must clearly have corresponded to a deep and elementary and
   gradually developing need of the time. Undoubtedly from a
   national point of view it denotes progress; henceforward at
   elections the danger of 'many heads many minds' was avoided;
   the era of double elections was practically at an end."

      K. Lamprecht,
      Deutsche Geschichte
      (translated from the German),
      volume 4, pages 23-28.

      See, also, GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152 (page 1444).

GERMANY:A. D. 1154-1190.
   Frederick Barbarossa in Italy.

      See (in this Supplement) ITALY: A. D. 1154-1190.

GERMANY:A. D. 1162-1177.
   The Emperor and the Pope.

      See (in this Supplement) PAPACY: A. D. 1162-1177.

GERMANY:12th-17th Centuries.
   Causes of the Disintegration of the Empire.

   "The whole difference between French and German constitutional
   history can be summed up in a word: to the ducal power, after
   its fall, the crown fell heir in France; the lesser powers,
   which had been its own allies, in Germany. The event was the
   same, the results were different: in France centralization, in
   Germany disintegration. The fall of the power of the
   stem-duchies is usually traced to the subjugation of the
   mightiest of the dukes, Henry the Lion, who refused military
   service to the Emperor Frederick Barbarossa just when the
   latter most needed him in the struggle against the Lombards.

      See SAXONY: A. D. 1178-1183 (page 2813).

   … The emperor not only banned the duke, he not only took away
   his duchy to bestow it elsewhere, but he entirely did away
   with this whole form of rule. The western part, Westphalia,
   went to the archbishops of Cologne; in the East the different
   margraves were completely freed from the last remnants of
   dependence that might have continued to exist. In the
   intervening space the little ecclesiastical and secular lords
   came to be directly under the emperor without a trace of an
   intermediate power and with the title of bishop or abbot,
   imperial count, or prince. If one of these lords, Bernard of
   Ascanium, received the title of Saxon duke, that title no
   longer betokened the head of a stem or nation but simply an
   honorary distinction above other counts and lords. What
   happened here had already begun to take place in the other
   duchy of the Guelphs, in Bavaria, through the detachment from
   it of Austria; sooner or later the same process came about in
   all parts of the empire. With the fall of the old stem-duchies
   those lesser powers which had been under their shadow or
   subject to them gained every where an increase of power:
   partly by this acquiring the ducal title as an honorary
   distinction by the ruler of a smaller district, partly by
   joining rights of the intermediate powers that had just been
   removed to their own jurisdictions and thus coming into direct
   dependence on the empire. … Such was the origin of the idea of
   territorial supremacy. The 'dominus terrae' comes to feel
   himself no longer as a person commissioned by the emperor but
   as lord in his own land. … As to the cities, behind their
   walls remnants of old Germanic liberty had been preserved.
   Especially in the residences of the bishops had artisans and
   merchants thriven and these classes had gradually thrown off
   their bondage, forming, both together, the new civic
   community. … The burghers could find no better way to show
   their independence of the princes than that the community
   itself should exercise the rights of a territorial lord over
   its members. Thus did the cities as well as the principalities
   come to form separate territories, only that the latter had a
   monarchical, the former a republican form of government. … It
   is a natural question to ask, on the whole, when this new
   formation of territories was completed. … The question ought
   really only to be put in a general way: at what period in
   German history is it an established fact that there are in the
   empire and under the empire separate territorial powers
   (principalities and cities)? As such a period we can designate
   approximately the end of the 12th and beginning of the 13th
   centuries. From that time on the double nature of imperial
   power and of territorial power is an established fact and the
   mutual relations of these two make up the whole internal
   history of later times. … The last ruler who had spread abroad
   the glory of the imperial name had been Frederick II. For a
   long time after him no one had worn the imperial crown at all,
   and of those kings who reigned during a whole quarter of a
   century not one succeeded in making himself generally
   recognized. There came a time when the duties of the state, if
   they were fulfilled at all, were fulfilled by the territorial
   powers.
{3762}
   Those are the years which pass by the name of the interregnum.
   … Rudolph of Hapsburgh and his successors, chosen from the
   most different houses and pursuing the most different
   policies, have quite the same position in two regards: on the
   one hand the crown, in the weak state in which it had emerged
   from the interregnum, saw itself compelled to make permanent
   concessions to the territorial powers in order to maintain
   itself from one moment to another; on the other hand it finds
   no refuge for itself but in the constant striving to found its
   own power on just such privileged territories. When the kings
   strive to make the princes and cities more powerful by giving
   them numerous privileges, and at the same time by bringing
   together a dynastic appanage to gain for themselves an
   influential position: this is no policy that wavers between
   conceding and maintaining. … The crown can only keep its place
   above the territories by first recognizing the territorial
   powers and then, through just such a recognized territorial
   power by creating for itself the means of upholding its
   rights. … The next great step in the onward progress of the
   territorial power was the codification of the privileges which
   the chief princes had obtained. Of the law called the 'Golden
   Bull' only the one provision is generally known, that the
   seven electors shall choose the emperor; yet so completely
   does the document in question draw the affairs of the whole
   empire into the range of its provisions that for centuries it
   could pass for that empire's fundamental law. It is true that,
   for the most part it did not create a new system of
   legislation but only sanctioned what already existed. But for
   the position of all the princes it was significant enough that
   the seven most considerable among them were granted an
   independence which comprised sovereign rights, and this not by
   way of a privilege but as a part of the law of the land. A
   sharply defined goal, and herein lies the deepest
   significance, was thus set up at which the lesser territories
   could aim and which, after three centuries, they were to
   attain. … This movement was greatly furthered when on the
   threshold of modern times the burning question of church
   reform, after waiting in vain to be taken up by the emperor,
   was taken up by the lower classes, but with revolutionary
   excesses. … The mightiest intellectual movement of German
   history found at last its only political mainstay in the
   territories. … This whole development, finally, found its
   political and legal completion through the Thirty Years War
   and the treaty of peace which concluded it. The new law which
   the Peace of Westphalia now gave to the empire proclaimed
   expressly that all territories should retain their rights,
   especially the right of making alliances among themselves and
   with foreigners so long as it could be done without violating
   the oath of allegiance to the emperor and the empire. Herewith
   the territories were proclaimed to be what they had really
   been for a long time—states under the empire."

      I. Jastrow,
      Geschichte der deutschen Einheitstraum und seiner Erfüllung
      (translated from the German).
      pages 30-37.

GERMANY: 13th-15th Centuries.
   The rise of the Free Cities and their Leagues.

   "Under cities we are to understand fortified places in the
   enjoyment of market-jurisdiction (marktrecht), immunity and
   corporate self-government. The German as well as the French
   cities are a creation of the Middle Ages. They were unknown to
   the Frankish as well as to the old Germanic public law; there
   was no organic connection with the Roman town-system. … All
   cities were in the first place markets; only in
   market-jurisdiction are we to seek the starting point for
   civic jurisdiction. The market-cross, the same emblem which
   already in the Frankish period signified the market-peace
   imposed under penalty of the king's ban, became in the Middle
   Ages the emblem of the cities. … After the 12th century we
   find it to be the custom in most German and many French cities
   to erect a monumental town-cross in the market-place or at
   different points on the city boundary. Since the 14th century
   the place of this was often taken in North-German cities by
   the so-called Roland-images. … All those market-places
   gradually became cities in which, in addition to yearly
   markets, weekly markets and finally daily markets were held.
   Here there was need of coins and of scales, of permanent
   fortifications for the protection of the market-peace and the
   objects of value which were collected together; here merchants
   settled permanently in growing numbers, the Jews among them
   especially forming an important element. Corporative
   associations of the merchants resulted, and especially were
   civic and market tribunals established. … From the beginning
   such a thing as free cities, which were entirely their own
   masters, had not existed. Each city had its lord; who he was
   depended on to whom the land belonged on which they stood. If
   it belonged to the empire or was under the administration
   (vogtei) of the empire the city was a royal or imperial one.
   The oldest of these were the Pfalz-cities (Pfalzstädte) which
   had developed from the king's places of residence
   (Königspfälze). … Beginning with the 12th century and in
   course of the 13th century all cities came to have such an
   organ [i. e. a body of representatives] called the Stadtrath
   (consilium, consules) with one or more burgomasters (magistri
   civium) at their head. Herewith did the city first become a
   public corporation, a city in the legal sense. … Of the royal
   cities many since the time of Frederick II had lost their
   direct dependence on the empire (Reichsunmittelbarkeit) and
   had become territorial or provincial cities, through having
   been sold or pledged by the imperial government. As soon as
   the view had gained ground that the king had no right to make
   such dispositions and thus to disregard the privileges that
   had been granted to the cities, people spoke no longer of
   royal cities but of cities of the empire. These had, all of
   them, in course of time, even where the chief jurisdiction
   remained in the hand of an imperial official, attained a
   degree of independence approximating to the territorial
   supremacy of the princes. They had their special courts as
   corporations before the king. Since the second half of the
   13th century they rejoiced in an autonomy modified only by the
   laws of the realm; they had the disposal of their own armed
   contingents and the sole right of placing garrisons in their
   fortresses. They had accordingly also the right of making
   leagues and carrying on feuds, the right to lordless lands
   (Heimfallsrecht) … and other prerogatives. The cities of the
   empire often ruled at the same time over extensive
   territories. …
{3763}
   Among the cities of the empire were comprised after the 14th
   century also various cities of bishoprics which had been able
   to protect themselves from subjection to the territorial power
   of the bishop, and which only stood to it in a more or less
   loose degree of subordination. … For the majority of the
   cities of bishoprics which later became cities of the empire
   the denomination 'Free Cities' came up in the 14th century
   (not till later 'Free Cities of the Empire'). … Among the
   leagues of cities, which especially contributed to raise their
   prestige and paved the way to their becoming Estates of the
   Empire or of the principalities, the great Rhenish civic
   confederation (1254-1256) lasted too short a time to have an
   enduring effect. The Swabian civic league was for purely
   political purposes—the maintenance of the direct dependence on
   the empire (Reichsunmittelbarkeit) against the claims of
   territorial sovereignty of the princes, and its unfortunate
   ending served rather to deteriorate than to improve the
   condition of the cities. It was different with the Hansa. This
   name, which signified nothing else than gild or brotherhood,
   was first applied to the gild of the German merchants in the
   'stahlhof' in London. This gild, having originated from the
   amalgamation of various national Houses of German merchants in
   England, had finally, under the name of 'Hansa of Germany' or
   'Gildhall of the Germans in England,' come to comprise all
   Germans who carried on trade with England. Similar
   associations of the German merchants were the 'German House'
   in Venice, the 'German Counting-house' in Bruges and the
   German Hansas in Wisby on Gotland, in Schonen, Bergen, Riga
   and Novgorod. The chief purpose of these Hansas was the
   procuring of a 'House' as a shelter for persons and for wares,
   the maintaining of peace among, the Hansa brothers, legal
   protection, the acquisition of commercial privileges, etc. The
   Hansas were gilds with several elected aldermen at their heads
   who represented them in external matters and who administered
   the property. … Quarrels among the brothers might not, under
   penalty, be brought before external tribunals; they were to be
   brought before the Hansa committee as a gild-tribunal. This
   committee had also an extended penal jurisdiction over the
   members; under certain circumstances they had even the power
   of life and death in their hands. An especially effective
   punishment was the Hansa Bann, which occasioned, besides
   expulsion from the Hansa, a complete boycott on the part of
   the Hansa brothers. … The community of interests thus founded
   among these cities led repeatedly, already as early as the
   second half of the 13th century, to common steps on their
   part; so that in Hansa affairs a tacit league existed, even
   although it had not been expressly sanctioned. After this had
   become more clearly apparent in the troubles with Flanders
   (1356-1358) the name Hansa was also applied to this
   league-relationship, so that henceforward besides the Hansa of
   the German merchants there existed a Hansa of the German
   cities. The Hanseatic League received a firm organization
   through the Greifswald and Cologne confederations of 1361 and
   1367, both of which were at first only entered into for a
   single warlike undertaking (against Waldemar of Denmark), but
   which were then repeatedly renewed and finally looked upon as
   a permanent league. The Hanseatic League … came forward in
   external matters, even in international relationships, as an
   independent legal entity. It carried on war and entered into
   treaties with foreign nations; it had a league army at its
   disposal and a league fleet; it acquired whole territorial
   districts and saw to the building of fortresses. In itself it
   was not a defensive and offensive league; it did not concern
   itself with the feuds of single cities with outsiders. The
   sphere of activity of the league was essentially confined to
   the province of commerce: protection of commerce, … the
   closing of commercial treaties, etc. … The head of the League
   was and continued to be Lubeck. Its kernel, as it were, was
   formed by the Wendish (i. e. Mecklenburg and Pomeranian)
   cities which were united under Lubeck. Originally any city of
   Lower Germany which asked to be taken in was received into the
   League. … Hansa cities which did not fulfil their federal
   obligations came under the penalty of the Hansa bann and the
   general commercial ostracism consequent upon it. … The federal
   power was exercised by civic diets, which were assemblies of
   delegates from the members of the council [Rath] of the
   individual cities. The summons was sent by Lubeck. The decrees
   were passed in the form of 'recesses.' … Within the League
   again were narrower leagues with their own common affairs and
   their own civic diets. After numerous changes the four
   'quarters' were recognized as such: the Wendish under Lubeck
   as its head, the Saxon under Brunswick, the Cologne under
   Cologne, the Prussian-Livonian under Danzig.

      R. Schröder,
      Lehrbuch der deutschen Rechtsgeschichte
      (translated from the German),
      pages 588-609.

      See, also, HANSA TOWNS (page 1624),
      and CITIES, IMPERIAL AND FREE (page 473).

GERMANY: 15th-17th Centuries.
   The decay of the Hansa.

   "The complete ruin of the empire in the course of the 15th
   century necessarily entailed at last the ruin also of its
   members. Nowhere did this elementary truth make itself felt in
   a more terrible manner than in northeastern Germany, in those
   colonial districts which in consequence of the extraordinary
   development of the Hansa had risen in importance to the extent
   of having an influence on the whole east and northeast of
   Europe. Here the year 1370 had denoted for the Hansa a climax
   without a parallel. After a glorious war it had closed with
   the Danish king, Waldemar Atterdag, a peace which seemed about
   to keep the northern kingdoms, for a long time to come, under
   the power of its will. But, soon after, the Lubeck-Hanseatic
   policy began to degenerate. … The Hansa had looked on without
   interfering at the struggle which began between the Teutonic
   Order and Poland. This freed it from the threatening maritime
   supremacy of the Order; besides this it had just become
   involved, itself, in conflicts in the North. … A long and
   tedious war ensued … which ended to the disadvantage of the
   Hansa. … Within the Hansa, during the struggle, the divergency
   of interests between the Wendish, Prussian and Livonian cities
   had for the first time become so pronounced as to amount to
   complete disunion, and already in 1431 in Hanseatic circles
   the fear could be expressed … 'that the noble confederation of
   our Hansa will be dissolved and destroyed.' Such being the
   case it soon became evident that the struggle with King Erich
   had actually cost the Hansa the 'Dominium maris Baltici.'
{3764}
   For one thing the English and the Dutch, more and more
   unopposed, began to carry on in the East a commerce which was
   hostile to the Hansa. … While the Western enemies of the Hansa
   thus appeared in districts on the Baltic, which had hitherto
   been reserved for the Hanseatic merchant, the influence on the
   North Sea of the Baltic Hansa cities diminished also more and
   more. It was possible indeed, for some time to come, still to
   hold on to Norway. But further to the southwest the Hansa
   ships, in the war which England in union with Burgundy had
   been waging with France since the year 1415, saw themselves
   attacked on all sides in spite of the neutral flag. It was
   well-known that the empire would not protect the German flag.
   It was worse still that in England a more and more violent
   opposition arose against the Hanseatic privileges, for the
   progress of this movement laid bare once and for all the
   fundamental contrast between the commercial interests in
   England of the Rhenish Hansa cities and those of the
   'Osterlings' [Eastern cities]. If the English were prepared
   perhaps to further extend the rights of the Hansa in their
   land in return for the simultaneous free entry of their flag
   in the Baltic, that was a condition which pleased the German
   western cities as much as it seemed unacceptable to the
   Osterlings, Lubeck at their head. The English had succeeded in
   carrying discord into the enemy's camp. Affairs in Flanders
   were on a footing equally dangerous to the continued existence
   of the Hansa as a whole. … Lubeck, in a diet of the year 1466,
   recommended the members of the Hansa to consider the merchants
   of Cologne as not belonging to the Hansa when in the lands of
   the Duke of Burgundy. A complete breach could not now fail to
   come. It occurred, very unfortunately for Cologne and the
   western cities, on English territory. In 1468 English ships
   were plundered in the 'Sund,' at the bidding, as was claimed,
   of the Hansa. The result was that King Edward IV took prisoner
   all German merchants who happened to be in England and forbade
   commercial intercourse with Germany. From this restriction,
   however, the Cologners were able to free themselves through
   separate negotiations with the king. It was an inconsiderate
   step thus to separate themselves from the rest of the Hansa,
   and that, too, in such a question as this. Cologne stood there
   fully isolated now even from the western cities. Lubeck at
   once profited by the occasion to have Cologne placed under the
   Hansa bann and soon after the Hansa, almost entirely united
   now except for Cologne, began the war against England. In the
   year 1472 a great fleet sailed out against the island-kingdom;
   it had complete success. The peace of Utrecht of February 18th
   1474 restored once more the old Hanseatic privileges in
   England and opened up the prospect of damages amounting to
   £10,000. Cologne had to submit; in 1478 it returned to the
   Hansa. But all the same there was no complete restoration of
   the old unity. The mercantile differences between the west and
   the east cities not only continued but increased, and a
   dominion over the Baltic, not to mention the North Sea, was,
   in spite of the momentary success in England, no longer to be
   thought of. … After about 1490 the interests also of the
   Wendish cities including, say, Bremen, Hamburg and Lüneburg,
   became divided. … Thus towards the end of the 15th century the
   Hansa bore the stamp of decline in all directions, … the
   political-mercantile preponderance on land, as well as the
   'Dominium maris Baltici,' was broken and the league itself was
   torn by internal dissensions. In the years from 1476 to 1494
   only one common Hansa diet was held; complete ruin was now
   only a question of time. The 16th century and a part still of
   the 17th century comprise the period of the slow wasting away
   of the Hansa. While at the beginning of this period the South
   German merchant-princes developed a German world-commerce, the
   satiated mercantile houses of the North showed themselves
   incapable of progressing even on purely commercial paths. They
   remained in the ruts of old-fashioned commerce." In England
   "less and less regard was paid to the warnings and plaints of
   this antiquated piece of retrogression, until Queen Elisabeth
   made use of the incautious promulgation of an imperial edict
   forbidding English merchants to settle in the Hansa cities to
   simply abrogate the Hanseatic privileges in England. It was
   the key-stone on the tomb of the Hanseatic relations with
   England, once so close and full of import."

      K. Lamprecht,
      Deutsche Geschichte
      (translated from the German),
      volume 4, pages 468-484.

   "The unmerciful fate which had overtaken the German nation
   [the 30 years war], like a storm wind descending upon the
   land, gave also the death-blow to that proud communal system
   which when in its prime showed better than any other
   institution the greatness of the German power in the Middle
   Ages. He who does not know the history of the Hansa does not
   know how to estimate the true significance of our people. He
   does not know that no goal was too distant for it, no task too
   great; that at the same time it could belong to the first
   commercial nations of the world and intellectually absorb and
   work over the idea of humanism, could offer defiance to the
   kings of the Danes and challenge the pope for usurping the
   rule of the world. How did things still look on the Thames
   when in Dantzig, day after day, four or five hundred ships
   were running in and out, when the merchants of Soest, Dortmund
   and Osnabrück were opening their counting-houses in the
   Warangian city of Novgorod? It is in truth nothing new if the
   German nation today again begins to reckon itself among the
   naval powers. … In those days it was also the baneful
   religious schism which hindered the great commercial centres
   on the German northern coast from making use of the favoring
   constellations which presented themselves. The evangelical
   burghers of Lubeck and Rostock could not make up their minds
   for the sake of advantageous trade connections with Spain to
   become bailiffs of their brothers of the faith in Holland;
   they could put no trust in the brilliant promises with which
   the emperor's Jesuits tried to turn them away from the cause
   of Denmark and Sweden, and herewith probably the last
   opportunity was missed of breathing new life in the already
   aging commercial league. The attempt made in 1641 to renew the
   league by ten cities remained ineffectual. Lubeck which
   already in 1629 had lost 96 ships could no longer keep itself
   from ruin; its great commercial houses became bankrupt and
   drew down the smaller ones with them in their fall; Dantzig,
   which still in 1619 had been able to show an export of grain
   to the amount of 102,981 tons, exported in 1655 only 11,361,
   and in 1659 not more than 542 tons."

      Zwideneck-Sü-denhorst,
      Deutsche Geschichte, 1648-1740
      (translated from the German),
      volume 1, page 50.

{3765}

GERMANY: 16th Century.
   At the beginning of the Reformation Movement.

   "An increase in pilgrimages first begins to mark a new phase
   of religious life which was encouraged by the admonitions of
   preachers of repentance like Capistrano. Like an avalanche did
   the numbers grow of the pilgrims who streamed together from
   all parts of Upper and Central Germany, from the foot of the
   Alps to the Harz Mountains. Thirty, even seventy thousand
   might have been counted of those who assembled at Niklashausen
   to hear the words of the prophet (Boeheim) who was already
   reverenced as a saint. … This 'saint' was burned with an Ave
   Maria upon his lips. … It might have been supposed that the
   sad outcome of these movements would have frightened men away,
   but no; one can boldly maintain on the contrary that never,
   save during the crusades, were so many pilgrimages made as in
   the last 60 or 70 years before the reformation. … If that way
   of striving after righteousness before God, vain and mistaken
   as it seems to us, may be looked upon as religion, then the
   last fifty or sixty years before the reformation show an
   exceptionally high degree of religious feeling, or at least of
   religions need; a feeling ever increasing through lack of
   means to satisfy it. With regard to the clergy, indeed, things
   looked dark enough, especially in North and Central Germany.
   One does not know which was greater, their lack of knowledge
   or their lack of morality. … The most incredible facts were
   brought to light by the later visitations. … The result might
   have been a complete return to heathenism had such a clergy,
   which could show, especially in the larger South German
   cities, but few redeeming exceptions, had the whole spiritual
   guidance of the people in its hands. But it did not; and the
   doings of the secular clergy by no means affected the
   religious life of the community as they would have done
   to-day. The exponents and fosterers of this religious life at
   that time in Germany were the mendicant friars: Franciscans,
   Dominicans, Augustinian friars. … Many things in the outer
   world, especially at the end of the century, came to aid the
   church's efforts: the needs of an age in which so much was
   unstable; the anger of Heaven which, as the monks so
   drastically preached and the multitude piously believed, so
   evidently threatened to vent itself. That period of history,
   indeed, might be called a prosperous one by anyone regarding
   merely superficially the condition of social and political
   affairs. It is well known how German commerce prospered at
   that time, extending to all parts of the world and ever having
   new paths opened up for it by the new discoveries. Frenchmen
   and Italians, astounded at the riches and princely splendor
   which the commercial magnates in the South German
   trade-centres were able to display, sang the praises of the
   prosperity and culture of the land. Industry and commerce were
   on the increase and art, realizing its highest aims, found an
   abiding-place and self-sacrificing patrons in the houses of
   the citizens. With every year the number of high and low-grade
   schools on the Rhine and in South Germany increased in number,
   and were still scarcely able to do justice to the pressing
   educational needs. An undercurrent of fresh and joyous
   creative impulse, full of promise for the future, can be
   traced among the burghers. But if one regards the age as a
   whole one sees everywhere not only a threatening, but actually
   a present decline. The abundant popular literature, more even
   than the writings of scholars, gives a clear insight into
   these matters. … Since the days of antiquity, on the eve of
   the French Revolution alone do we find the opposing principles
   so sharply contrasted with each other as they were at the end
   of the Middle Ages. In the rich commercial cities themselves
   there was already an immense proletariat as opposed to the
   excessive wealth; and there is reason to believe that never,
   even counting the present day, have there been so many beggars
   as in those decades. It must be borne in mind that, both
   practically and theoretically, beggary was furthered by the
   church. Much from her rich table fell into the lap of the poor
   man, and actually not only was it no shame to beg but beggary
   was a vocation like any other. The man who ate the bread of
   beggary stood morally higher than he who toiled to gain a
   living. … Men did, on the other hand, have the consciousness
   that the great accumulation of capital in the hands of
   individuals furthered poverty as it always does. The
   complaints are general against 'selfishness'; the pauper, the
   town artisan, the noble and the scholar are remarkably in
   accord on this one point, that deception, usury and cheating
   are the only explanation of the prosperity of the merchant.
   When the knight attacked the goods-waggons of the traders he
   believed that he was only taking what rightfully belonged to
   himself. The merchants and the rich prelates were responsible
   to his mind for the deterioration of his own class or estate
   which can no longer hold its own against the rich civilians.
   All the more does he oppress his own serfs. Only seldom among
   the higher classes do we hear a word of pity for the poor man,
   a word of blame against the fleecing and harrassing of the
   peasants; much oftener bitter scorn and mockery, which
   nevertheless is founded on fear; for men know well enough in
   their inmost souls that the peasant is only waiting for a
   suitable moment in which to strike out and take bloody
   vengeance, and anxiously do they await the future. Even among
   the citizens themselves those who were without possessions
   were filled with hatred against the rich and against those of
   high degree. The introduction of Roman law, unintelligible to
   the burgher and peasant, made the feeling of being without law
   a common one. The more firmly did men pin their faith on that
   future in which the Last Judgment of God was to come and
   annihilate priests and lords. Such impressions, which were
   kept vivid by an ever spreading popular literature, by word of
   mouth and by pictorial representations, could only be
   heightened by the state of political affairs in the last
   decades of the 15th century and the first years of the 16th.
   Well known are the many struggles for the firmer organization
   of the empire, for the carrying through of the reform-plans of
   a Berthold of Mainz. The publicists of the time, and to no
   small degree the Emperor Maximilian himself, who, if he wanted
   to carry through any measure addressed himself directly to the
   people, cast broadside among the populace numerous pamphlets
   containing the most unintelligible ideas and promises.
{3766}
   And what a host of plans and ideas did this much loved,
   knightly emperor not have! How beautifully could he talk of
   old German might and glory and draw pictures of a rosy future.
   With intense interest did men follow the transactions of the
   diets which promised to better affairs. One plan of taxation
   followed on the heels of another. What project was left
   undiscussed for the better carrying out of the Peace of the
   Land! In the end everything remained as it had been save the
   want and general discomfort which increased from year to year.
   Bad harvests and consequent rise in prices, famine, severe
   sicknesses and plagues are once more the stock chapters in the
   chronicles. Frightful indeed were the ravages caused by the
   first, almost epidemic, appearance of the Syphilis; with
   regard to which, during the whole period of the reformation,
   the moral judgment wavered. … It is a wondrous, gloomy time,
   torn by contradictions, a time in which all is in a ferment,
   everything seems to totter. Everything but one institution,
   the firmly welded edifice of the Roman church. To Germany also
   came the news of the horrible vices with which the popes just
   at this time disgraced the Holy See: people knew that no deed
   was too black for them when it was a question of satisfying
   their greed of power and their lust. But nevertheless they
   remained the successors of Peter and the representatives of
   Christ, and so little can one speak of a process of
   dissolution in the church, that the latter appears on the
   contrary the only stable power and the
   religious-ecclesiastical idea is rather the one that rules all
   things. Although men to a great extent scorn and mock her
   servants and long often with burning hatred for their
   annihilation, yet it continues always to be the church that
   holds the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and that can avert the
   wrath of God; the church, to which the anxious soul turns as
   the last anchor of hope and tries to outdo itself in her
   service. It is not indeed pious reverence for a God who is
   holy and yet gracious that draws the sinners to their knees,
   but the dread of the tortures of purgatory and of the wrath of
   Him who sits above the world to judge it. This causes the
   soul, restless, dissatisfied, to be ceaseless in its endeavors
   to conciliate the Angry One through sacrificial service—the
   whole religious activity being one half-despairing 'Miserere'
   called forth by fear. Such was the spirit of the age in which
   Martin Luther was born and in which he passed his youth."

      Kolde,
      Martin Luther
      (translated from the German),
      volume 1, pages 5-27.

      See, also, PAPACY: A. D. 1471-1513, to 1517-1521
      (pages 2441-2450).

GERMANY: 16th Century.
   The Catholic Reaction.

   "Altogether about the year 1570 the spread of protestantism in
   Germany and the lands under its influence had reached its
   zenith. It had been accepted by the great majority of the
   nation—already in 1558 about seven tenths; the gaining over of
   the rest also seemed only a question of the near future. Yet
   beyond a doubt its lasting success was only legally assured in
   places where it had won over the governing power and could
   stand on the generally recognized basis of the religious
   peace. This was the case in the secular principalities of the
   protestant dynasties, but not in the Wittelsbach and Hapsburgh
   lands, where its lawful existence depended only on the
   personal concessions of the existing ruler, and still less in
   the ecclesiastical territories. … To give it here the secure
   legal basis which it lacked was the most important problem, as
   regarded internal German affairs, of the protestant policy. …
   The only way to attain this was to secure the recognition on
   the part of the empire of the free right of choosing a
   confession in the bishoprics; in other words the renunciation
   of the 'Ecclesiastical reservation.' … This goal could only be
   attained if the protestants advanced in a solid phalanx. This
   is, however, just what they could not do. For they themselves
   were torn by bitter contentions with regard to the faith. …
   From this point of view it was no boon that Calvinism, the
   specifically French form of protestantism, found entrance also
   into Germany. … Under its influence, to begin with, the
   Saxon-Thuringian church became divided in its interpretation
   of the teachings concerning justification and the Lord's
   Supper. … The complications were still further increased when
   Frederick III of the Palatinate, elector since 1559, disgusted
   at the quarrelsomeness of the Lutheran theologians, dismissed
   the zealot Tilemann in August 1560, and in 1563 gave over the
   recognized church of the Palatinate to Calvinism. Herewith he
   completely estranged the Lutherans who did not regard the
   Calvinists as holding the same faith. … Germany could no
   longer count itself among the great powers and at home the
   discord was ever increasing. The motion of the Palatinate in
   the electoral diet of October 1575 to incorporate in the
   religious peace the so-called 'Declaration of King Ferdinand'
   with regard to it, and thus to secure the local option with
   regard to a creed in the bishoprics, was opposed not only by
   the ecclesiastical members of the electoral college but also
   by the electorate of Saxony. In consequence of the same party
   strife a similar motion of the Palatinate, made in the diet of
   Regensburg, was lost. … On the one hand hostilities grew more
   bitter among the German protestants, on the other the Roman
   church, supported by the power of the Spanish world-monarchy,
   advanced everywhere, within and without the German empire, to
   a well-planned attack. … She had won her first victory in the
   empire with the refusal in 1576 to grant the local option of
   creed, for this was almost equivalent to a recognition on the
   protestant side of the 'Ecclesiastical Reservation.' The more
   eagerly did Rome, by demanding the oath drawn up in the
   council of Trent, strive to chain fast her bishops to her, to
   remove those who made opposition even if it had to happen by
   disregarding the law of the land and the religious treaties,
   to bring zealous catholic men into the episcopal
   sees—everywhere to set the reaction in motion. The manner of
   proceeding was always the same: the protestant pastors and
   teachers were banished; the catholic liturgy, in which the
   utmost splendor was unfolded, was reintroduced into the
   churches, and competent catholic clergy were put in office.
   The members of the community, left without a leader, had now
   only the choice allowed to them of joining the catholic church
   or of emigrating; the protestant officials were replaced by
   catholic ones; new institutions of learning, conducted by
   Jesuits, were founded for the purpose of winning the rising
   generation, inwardly also, for Catholicism.
{3767}
   Beyond a doubt this whole work of restoration put an end in
   many cases to a confused and untenable state of affairs, but
   at least as often it crushed down by force a healthy, natural
   development and wrought havoc in the moral life of the people.
   Thus did the reaction gain the ascendancy in most of the
   ecclesiastical principalities of the South; in the North the
   scale still hung in the balance. … And in this condition of
   affairs the discord among the protestants grew worse year by
   year! 'Their war is our peace' was the exultant cry of the
   Catholics when they looked upon this schism. In order to
   preserve pure Lutheranism from any deviation, the electoral
   court of Saxony caused the 'Formula of Concord' to be drawn up
   by three prominent theologians in the monastery of Bergen near
   Madgeburg (20 May 1577), and compelled all pastors and
   teachers of the land to accept them under pain of dismissal
   from office. As this necessarily accentuated the differences
   with the Calvinists, John Casimir of the Palatinate
   endeavored, in the Convention of Frankfort on the Main in
   1577, to unite the protestants of all denominations and all
   lands … in a common effort at defence; but his appeal and the
   embassy which he sent to the evangelical princes met with no
   very favorable reception. On the contrary in course of time 86
   estates of the empire accepted the Formula of Concord which
   was now published in Dresden, together with the names of those
   who had signed it, on the 25th of June 1580, the 50th
   anniversary of handing in the Augsburg Confession. What a pass
   had matters come to since that great epoch! … At any rate the
   unity of the German protestants was completely at an end, and
   especially any joint action between Saxony and the Palatinate
   had been rendered impossible. … In 1582 the Roman party opened
   a well-planned campaign for the purpose of putting itself in
   full possession of the power in the empire. The emperor
   belonged as it was to their confession, so all depended on the
   manner in which the diet should be made up; and this again
   depended on who should be members of the college of princes:
   for in the college of electors the votes of the protestants
   and catholics were equal inasmuch as the Bohemian vote was
   'dormant,' and of the imperial cities only a few were still
   catholic. In the electoral college, then, the protestants
   possessed the majority so long as the 'administrators' [of the
   bishoprics] maintained as hitherto their seat and their vote.
   In the first place the catholics succeeded in the diet of 1582
   in persuading Magdeburg for the nonce to renounce in favor of
   Salzburg its presidency in the assembly of the princes;
   herewith, however, a precedent was given, not only for this
   ecclesiastical foundation but for all the evangelical
   administrators, that permitted of the most fateful conclusions
   being drawn to the disadvantage of the protestants. Scarcely
   had this happened when the Roman party gave a decisive turn to
   affairs on the Lower Rhine. Archbishop Gebhard of Cologne
   prepared to follow the example of his predecessor Hermann of
   Wied, chiefly induced, it must be said, by the wish to gain
   the hand of the fair countess Agnes of Mansfeld. Relying on
   the Cologne protestants and the Counts of the Wetterau and
   reckoning on help from the Netherlands he formally went over
   to the protestant church on the 19th of December 1582,
   proclaimed the local option of a creed for his diocese on the
   16th of January 1583, and married the Countess Agnes a few
   weeks later in Bonn. While on the one hand, now, the diet of
   the duchy of Westphalia declared for him and the local option
   was here put through, the Cologne diet, on the other, called
   together by the cathedral chapter, declared against him, under
   pressure as it was from both Spain and Rome. Pope Gregory XIII
   deposed him … and on the 23rd of May the pupil of the Jesuits,
   Ernest of Bavaria, who already since 1566 had been bishop of
   Freisingen, since 1573 of Hildesheim, since 1581 also of
   Liege, was placed in the see of Cologne. The war began. On the
   one side Spanish and Bavarian troops marched into the land, on
   the other forces from the Netherlands and the Palatinate, led
   by John Casimir in person under the approval of Louis VI. …
   The fortunes of war soon turned completely against him
   [Gebhard], … he himself was beaten and compelled to flee to
   the Netherlands, and Westphalia was then conquered. This
   victory was decisive not only for Northern Germany, but for
   the fate of the bishoprics altogether—indeed for the whole
   form which the administration of the empire was to take. Had
   Gebhard held his own, the majority in the electoral college
   would have become protestant; the bishoprics in the northwest
   which had not yet taken a decisive stand, and probably others
   also, would have followed the example of Cologne and would
   never have allowed their seats in the assembly of princes to
   be taken from them; the Lower Rhenish-Westphalian provinces
   would then have been gained for protestantism. The opposite of
   all this now happened. In the first place Archbishop Ernest
   restored the Roman church by the most oppressive means in
   Westphalia; he called the Jesuits to Bonn, Neuss, Emmerich and
   Hildesheim. His election as bishop of Munster (May 1585)
   decided the victory in that bishopric also. … The Roman party
   succeeded now, actually, in driving the administrators from
   the diet. In order not to cause the violent dissolution of the
   diet which met in April 1594 for the purpose of granting a tax
   which was pressingly needed for the Turkish war, Magdeburg
   renounced once more Its presidency in the college of princes;
   and when, in December 1597, the diet was again called for the
   same purpose, the catholic estates, in spite of all protests
   to the contrary, regarded the matter as having been settled by
   the precedents of the last two diets. Herewith the
   administrators lost their seats in the diet, and in the
   college of princes the majority was in the hands of the
   catholics. Inasmuch also as the evangelical members of the
   college of electors did not hold together, the total majority
   of the diet was at the disposal of the catholics. … On the
   27th of April 1608 the Palatinate, together with Brandenburg
   and nine lesser protestant estates, but without the electorate
   of Saxony [Luther's state!], declared to Duke Ferdinand of
   Styria, the emperor's representative, that they would leave
   the diet but would maintain the possession of the
   ecclesiastical estates by force if necessary. The schism with
   the church had already paralyzed the judicial system of the
   empire; it now paralyzed also its highest political
   corporation."

      Käemmel,
      Deutsche Geschichte
      (translated from the German),
      pages 701-715.

      See, also, PAPACY: A. D. 1537-1563 (page 2458).

{3768}

GERMANY: A. D. 1615.
   First newspaper publications.

      See PRINTING AND PRESS: A. D. 1612-1650 (page 2592).

GERMANY: A. D. 1618-1700.
   The rise of Prussia.

   "King Frederick [the Great] has good reason for it when he
   says in his memoirs: 'Just as a river first becomes valuable
   when it gets to be navigable, so the history of Brandenburg
   first gains more serious importance towards the beginning of
   the 17th century.' It was under the elector John Sigismund
   that three decisive occurrences took place which opened up a
   great future for the Marks—a totally different development
   from the growth of the other lands of the empire. These were
   the joining to Brandenburg of the secularized provinces of the
   Teutonic Order, the going over of the ruling house itself to
   the reformed church, finally the acquisition of the Lower
   Rhenish border lands. Other princes of the empire also,
   catholics as well as protestants, had enlarged their power by
   means of the lands of the old church. But in the matter of the
   territory of the Order the policy of the German protestants
   ventured its boldest move; by Luther's advice the Hohenzollern
   Albrecht snatched away from the Roman church the largest of
   all its clerical belongings. The whole territory of the new
   duchy of Prussia was alienated ecclesiastical land; the pope's
   anathema and the emperor's ban fell on the head of the
   renegade prince. Never was the Roman See willing to recognize
   such robbery. In uniting the ducal crown of their Prussian
   cousins with their own electoral hat the Hohenzollerns of the
   Mark broke forever with the Roman church. Their state stood
   and fell henceforward with the fortunes of Protestantism. At
   the same time John Sigismund adopted the reformed creed. … At
   the same time of thus gaining a firm footing on the Baltic
   John Sigismund acquired the duchy of Cleve together with the
   counties of Mark and Ravensberg,—a territory narrow in
   circumference but highly important for the internal
   development as well as for the European policy of the state.
   They were lands which were strongholds of old and proven
   peasant and civic freedom, richer and of higher capacities for
   culture than the needy colonies of the East, outposts of
   incalculable value on Germany's weakest frontier. In Vienna
   and Madrid it was felt as a severe defeat that a new
   evangelical power should establish itself there on the Lower
   Rhine where Spaniards and Netherlanders were struggling for
   the existence or non-existence of protestantism—right before
   the gates of Cologne which was the citadel of Romanism in the
   empire. … A power so situated could no longer have its horizon
   bounded by the narrow circle of purely territorial policy; it
   was a necessity for it to seek to round off its widely
   scattered provinces into a consistent whole; it was compelled
   to act for the empire and to strike for it, for every attack
   of strangers on German ground cut into its own flesh. … For
   the House of Brandenburg, too, tempting calls often sounded
   from afar, … but a blessed providence, which earnest thinkers
   should not regard as a mere chance, compelled the
   Hohenzollerns to remain in Germany. They did not need the
   foreign crowns, for they owed their independent position among
   other states to the possession of Prussia, a land that was
   German to the core, a land the very being of which was rooted
   in the mother-country, and yet at the same time one that did
   not belong to the political organization of the empire. Thus
   with one foot in the empire, the other planted outside of it,
   the Prussian state won for itself the right to carry on a
   European policy which could strive for none but German ends.
   It was able to care for Germany without troubling itself about
   the empire and its superannuated forms. … The state of the
   Hohenzollerns plunged once again headlong from the position of
   power which it had so recently attained; it was on the sure
   road to ruin so long as John Sigismund's successor looked
   sleepily into the world out of his languid eyes. This new
   attempt, too, at forming a German state seemed again about to
   end in the misery of petty-stateism as had been the case
   formerly with the political constellations of the Guelphs, the
   Wettiners, the Counts Palatine, which had arisen under
   immeasurably more favorable auspices. It was at this juncture
   that the elector Frederick William, the greatest German man of
   his day, entered the chaos of German life as a prince without
   land, armed only with club and sling, and put a new soul into
   the slumbering forces of his state by the power of his will.
   From that time on the impulse of the royal will, conscious of
   its goal, was never lost to the growing chief state of the
   Germans. One can imagine English history without William III,
   the history of France without Richelieu; the Prussian state is
   the work of its princes. … Already in the first years of the
   rule of the Great Elector the peculiar character of the new
   political creation shows out sharply and clearly. The nephew
   of Gustavus Adolphus who leads his army to battle with the old
   protestant cry of 'with God' resumes the church policy of his
   uncle. He it is who first among the strife of churches cries
   out the saving word and demands general and unconditional
   amnesty for all three creeds. This was the program of the
   Westphalian peace. And far beyond the provisions of this
   treaty of peace went the tolerance which the Hohenzollerns
   allowed to be exercised within their lands. … While Austria
   drives out its best Germans by force, the confines of
   Brandenburg are thrown open with unequalled hospitality to
   sufferers of every creed. How many thousand times has the song
   of praise of the Bohemian exiles sounded forth in the Marks! …
   When Louis XIV revokes the Edict of Nantes the little
   Brandenburg lord steps forth boldly against him as the
   spokesman of the protestant world, and offers through his
   Potsdam Edict shelter and protection to the sons of the
   martyred church. … Thus year after year an abundance of young
   life streamed over into the depopulated East Marks; the German
   blood that the Hapsburghs thrust from them fructified the land
   of their rivals, and at the death of Frederick II about a
   third of the inhabitants of the state consisted of the
   descendants of immigrants who had come there since the days of
   the Great Elector. … The particularism of all estates and of
   all territorial districts heard with horror how the Great
   Elector forced his subjects to live as 'members under one
   head,' how he subjected the multiplicity of rule in the diets
   to the commands of his own territorial jurisdiction and
   supported his throne on the two columns of monarchical
   absolutism: the miles perpetuus and permanent taxation.
{3769}
   In the minds of the people troops and taxes still passed for
   an extraordinary state burden to be borne in days of need. But
   Frederick William raised the army into a permanent institution
   and weakened the power of the territorial estates by
   introducing two general taxes in all his provinces. On the
   country at large he imposed the general hide-tax
   (general-hufenschoss), on the cities the accise, which was a
   multiform system of low direct and indirect imposts calculated
   with full regard for the impoverished condition of agriculture
   and yet attacking the taxable resources at as many points as
   possible. In the empire there was but one voice of execration
   against these first beginnings of the modern army and finance
   system. Prussia remained from the beginning of its history the
   most hated of the German states; those imperial lands that
   fell to this princely dynasty entered, almost all of them,
   with loud complaints and violent opposition into this new
   political combination. All of them soon afterwards blessed
   their fate. … Frederick William's successor by acquiring the
   royal crown gained for his house a worthy place in the society
   of the European powers and for his people the common name of
   Prussians. Only dire need, only the hope of Prussia's military
   aid, induced the imperial court to grant its rival the new
   dignity. A spasm of terror went through the theocratic world:
   the electorate of Mainz entered a protest; the Teutonic Order
   demanded back again its old possession, which now gave the
   name to the heretical monarchy while the papal calendar of
   states, for nearly a hundred years to come, was to know only a
   'margrave of Brandenburg.'"

      H. von Treitschke,
      Deutsche Geschichte im 19ten Jahrhundert
      (translated from the German),
      volume 1, pages 26-36.

      See, also, GERMANY: A. D. 1608-1618 (page 1466),
      and PRUSSIA: A. D. 1700 (page 2613).

GERMANY: A. D. 1648.
   The effects of the Thirty Years War.

   "The national recollection holds fast to the great German war
   as a thirty years continuance of universal warlike ravagings.
   As a matter of fact, however, the separate parts of the empire
   were directly affected by it in very different degrees; some
   parts only seldom and to a small extent, many at frequent
   intervals or through long-enduring periods: no part however to
   such an extent that during the whole three decades it stood
   always under the immediate pressure of military events and of
   military burdens. Devastation and exhaustion worked their
   immediate results in all directions, but we must not leave out
   of consideration that the local differences were naturally
   very great. An incalculable number of details concerning the
   horrors of the war and concerning its destructive effects lies
   before us. … So undoubtedly well-founded as on the whole the
   majority of these details may be said to be, impressively as
   they are apt to be brought forward, they are none the less not
   such as to suffice to enable us to gain from them an
   exhaustive representation of the condition of things. We have
   hundreds who give testimony to all the ravagings and the
   misery of the time, and the voices of such witnesses are
   almost the only ones that are heard. It is natural that there
   are no equally eloquent reports concerning those periods of
   time and those places in which people found themselves in
   medium and comparatively bearable circumstances. For the most
   part only what was exceptional—although, indeed, that happened
   only too often—is depicted in the complaining reports. … It
   cannot be denied too that amid the fearful needs of that time
   the German language succumbed to a certain propensity for what
   is monstrous. In all the writings which speak of war and the
   ravages of war one sees an exuberance, which comes to be a
   fixed mannerism, of almost whiny tones of complaint. … The
   superlative of horror predominates almost exclusively; and
   with an exceedingly fertile faculty of invention men surpass
   themselves in ever new, ever more blood-curdling variations of
   the one theme of blood and arson, of wretchedness and famine.
   … The most severe of all evils, indeed, as a matter of fact,
   were those to which the peasant element was subjected. … The
   profits of all agricultural labor were most perceptibly
   diminished on account of the extraordinary highness of wages,
   which, a natural result of the lack of workmen, formed the
   subject for the chief complaints after the war, especially of
   those classes which possessed land. Everywhere we meet with
   the fact that those entirely without property, such as serving
   men and maids are really better off than the peasant who has
   land. They draw the highest wages in money and in natural
   products, they must be treated with the greatest consideration
   by their employers to prevent them from quitting their
   service, for everywhere they are sought after and easily do
   they find work. … If the evils hitherto touched upon concerned
   chiefly the peasant holdings, there was another and no less
   important one which concerned all property holders and
   especially the nobles, whether feudatory or directly under the
   empire. This was the general burden of debt on landed
   property. … The noble as well as the peasant had, from of old,
   mortgages resting upon his property; those who made the loans
   were chiefly the large and the small capitalists in the
   cities. … As a matter of fact, already during the war itself
   in large parts of the empire the landed property had been in a
   condition of insolvency."

      B. Erdmannsdörffer,
      Deutsche Geschichte, 1648-1740
      (translated from the German),
      volume 1, pages 100-109.

   "How bitterly the decrease of population was felt in many
   regions is proved by a decree of the local diet [kreistag] in
   Franconia, transmitted to us by Hormayr, according to which
   any man might take two wives, priests (catholic) might marry
   and no man under 60 years of age might enter a monastery.
   Quite incalculable was the loss of domestic animals; we have
   but very incomplete statistics on the subject, but according
   to these few the assertion is not unjustifiable that at most
   one fifth of the number existing before the war remained. The
   lack of working people being so great it was therefore
   inevitable that famine should break out in very many regions.
   The memoranda in chronicles and diaries contain truly
   horrible, heart-breaking representations on the subject. J. J.
   Rayser's 'Historischer Schauplatz der Stadt Heidelberg'
   reports from the Palatinate: … 'Many rejoiced if they could
   only get oxhides, cowhides, the skins of horses, sheep and
   other animals, and eat them. Indeed cruel hunger drove them to
   other things too, towards which human nature is apt to feel
   horror and disgust. They ate dogs, cats, rats, mice, frogs and
   other animals in order to appease their bitter hunger.
{3770}
   Nor did they refrain from such animals as had already lain for
   several weeks on the roads, or in pools and streams and which
   gave forth a horrible odor. … The starving people even killed
   each other and ate up the corpses; they ransacked the
   cemeteries, broke open graves, climbed up on the gallows and
   on the wheel and took the dead away to eat them.' … The
   reports of single cases of cannibalism from neighborhoods
   where otherwise the most friendly and contented people lived,
   are too disgusting to allow us to quote any further examples.
   … There is no other example of a destruction of civilization
   such as the Thirty Years War in Germany produced. There is no
   other case where a whole people in all parts of the land was
   uniformly exposed to such severe losses, so that in numbers it
   was reduced to one half; where, from riches, luxury and
   abundance such as had undoubtedly prevailed at the beginning
   of the century men had come to poverty and to the want of even
   the necessaries of life. … The dissolution of the numerous
   military organizations and the dismissal of the regiments had
   created an enormous number of tramps of the most dangerous
   sort and still continued to do much towards increasing
   vagabondage. The grade of intelligence among the people of the
   lowlands had decreased most alarmingly; while superstition was
   continually on the increase. Witch-trials flourished both in
   the city and in the country. Beggary had long ceased to be a
   cause for shame; the war, which had brought down to it in a
   short time even those who had been formerly the richest,
   caused even the most dishonorable trade to be held in honor.
   Whoever by daily labor could earn his daily bread might think
   himself fortunate. In the place of the horses which war had
   carried away, human beings took to dragging carts in the
   street. … With the ruin of the trade and of the art industry
   of Germany, which in the 16th century would for so many
   objects have probably needed to fear no rivalry and which was
   only surpassed by that of Italy, went hand in hand the rise
   and increase of French industry. This was due in no small part
   to the fact that an extensive market was opened up for it in
   Germany. From the great and small courts of the secular and
   ecclesiastical princes, from the estates of the nobles, where
   the plunder of the generals and colonels of all nations and
   confessions had at last indeed been unloaded, the money
   contributed by the subjects flowed into the strong-boxes of
   the Paris manufactories, which dictated the fashions for the
   whole continent. Thus did the industrial triumph of France
   supplement its political supremacy; thus did Germany's
   misfortune become the cause of enriching her western neighbor,
   France having known how to secure its existence as a state by
   itself three centuries earlier than the Germans had done."

      H. von Zwiedineck-Südenhorst,
      Deutsche Geschichte, 1648-1740
      (translated from the German),
      volume 1, pages 45-49.

   "Through the complete destruction of its old civilization,
   through an unexampled devastation of its prosperity and ruin
   of its moral life the fatherland of the Reformation had saved
   for that part of the world the freedom of faith. Strangers
   played with the strongest people of Europe. That language
   which in Luther's and Hutten's time had gloried at once in the
   purity of its origin and in the terse power of its national
   plainness had become Gallicized and full of flourishes, a
   disgusting mixture of flatness and bombast, of artificiality
   and coarseness, so servile, so incapable of expressing in
   simple grandeur what was high and noble that in answer to the
   question what German writings of those times can we read
   to-day the honest reply must be, with the exception of some
   poems by Simon Dach, Logau and Paul Gerhard, solely the droll
   adventures of Simplicissimus and the merry sermons of Father
   Abraham a Santa Clara. The terror and need of the time, the
   rule of brute force and the intrusion of foreign customs, had
   jarred and disturbed the inner life of the nation to its very
   depths. Truth and fidelity had vanished, as well as the proud
   frankness and bright enjoyment of life of the older
   generation. A hideous greed of gold had taken hold of high and
   low; the boastful pride of luxurious extravagance continued in
   the midst of the general poverty."

      Essay by Heinrich von Treitschke,
      quoted by Zwiedineck,
      page 52.

      See, also, GERMANY: A. D. 1648, to 1648-1780
      (pages 1484-1489).

GERMANY: A. D. 1648-1715.
   Relations of Austria, Germany and France
   after the Thirty Years War.

   "After 1648 it was the natural policy of the Hapsburgh
   emperors to maintain the status quo of the Westphalian
   treaties. … After the emperor had once lost the prospect of
   gaining for himself the undivided rule over Germany, all his
   endeavors were needed at least to hinder it from passing to
   another. The efforts of the separate territorial sovereigns to
   enlarge and round off their lands, their attempts to extend
   their power externally and at the same time to tighten their
   hold on their own subjects found henceforward a counterpoise
   in Austria."

      L. Häusser,
      Deutsche Geschichte
      (translated from the German),
      volume 1, page 21.

   "The whole shamefulness of this disintegration of Germany,
   showed itself in the defenceless state of the empire. … Right
   under the greedy hands of France lay the weakest, the most
   unguarded members of the empire. All along that priest-avenue
   the Rhine, from Munster and Osnabrück up to Constance,
   stretched a confused mass of tiny states, incapable of in any
   way seriously arming themselves, compelled to betray their
   country through the feeling of their own utter weakness.
   Almost all the Rhenish courts held pensions from Versailles. …
   Fully one-third of Germany served in the wars of the empire as
   a dead burden. … The weakness of Germany was to blame for the
   new growth of power in Austria and France; … the foreigners
   laughed at the 'querelles allemandes' and the 'misère
   allemande'; the Frenchman Bonhours mockingly asked the
   question if it was possible that a German could have
   intellect. … As the born antagonist of the old order of things
   in Europe the basis of which was Germany's weakness, Prussia
   stood in a world of enemies whose mutual jealousies formed her
   only safeguard. She was without any natural ally, for the
   German nation had not yet come to understand this budding
   power. … Just as the House of Savoy was able to tread its way
   through the superiority of the Hapsburghs on the one hand and
   of the Bourbons on the other, so did Prussia, although
   immeasurably harder pressed, have to find a path for herself
   between Austria and France, between Sweden and Poland, between
   the maritime powers and the inert mass of the German empire.
{3771}
   She had to use every means of remorseless egoism, always ready
   to change front, always with two strings to her bow. The
   electorate of Brandenburg felt to the very marrow of its being
   how deeply foreign ideas had eaten into Germany. All the
   disorganized forces … which opposed the strong lead of the new
   monarchy placed their faith in foreign help. Dutch garrisons
   were stationed on the Lower Rhine and favored the struggle of
   the Cleve estates against their German lords. The diets of
   Magdeburg and of the electoral Mark counted on Austria. …
   Frederick William breaks down the barriers of the
   Netherlanders in the German Northwest; he drives their troops
   from Cleve and from East Friesland. … Then he calls out to the
   deaf nation his warning words, 'Remember that you are
   Germans,' and seeks to drive the Swedes from the soil of the
   empire. Twice did the ill-will of France and Austria succeed
   in robbing the Brandenburg prince of the reward of his
   victories, of the rule in Pomerania: the fame of the day at
   Fehrbellin they could not take from him.

      See BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1640-1688 (page 310).

   … When the republic of the Netherlands threatened to fall
   before the attack of Louis XIV Brandenburg caught the raised
   arm of the conqueror.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1674-1678 (page 2289).

   Frederick William carried on the only serious war that the
   empire ventured on for the recovery of Alsace.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1672-1714 (page 209)].

   … With the rise of Prussia began the long bloody work of
   freeing Germany from foreign rule. … In this one state there
   awoke again, still half unconscious as if drunken with long
   sleep, the old hearty pride in the fatherland. … The House of
   Hapsburgh recognized earlier than the Hohenzollerns did
   themselves how hostile this modern North German state was to
   the old constitution of the Holy Empire. In Silesia, in
   Pomerania, in the Jülich-Cleve war of succession—everywhere
   Austria stood and looked with distrust on its dangerous rival.
   … Equally dangerous to Hapsburgh and to the German empire were
   the French and the Turks; how natural was it for Hapsburgh to
   seek support from Germany, to involve the empire in its wars,
   to use it as a bulwark towards the west or for diversions
   against France in case the Turks threatened the walls of
   Vienna. … Only it cannot be denied that in this common action
   the Austrian policy, under a more centralized guidance and
   backed by a firmer tradition, looked out for its own advantage
   better than did the German empire—loose, heavy, and without
   consistent leadership. When the might of Louis XIV began to
   oppress Germany the policy of the Hapsburghs was to remain for
   a long time luke-warm and inactive. This policy led Austria
   indeed even to make a league with France and, when she did at
   last decide to help the great elector of Brandenburg against
   the enemy of the empire, this happened so charily and
   equivocally as to give rise to the doubt whether the Austrian
   army was not placed there to keep watch over the Brandenburg
   forces or even to positively hinder their advance. An Austrian
   writer himself assures us that Montecuculi was in secret
   commanded only to make a show of using his weapons against the
   French. For a long time Austria stood by inactive while the
   Reannexations were going on.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1679-1691 (page 1236).

   … The whole war as conducted by Austria on the Rhine and in
   the West was languid and sleepy;

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1672-1714 (page 209);

   the empire and individual warlike princes were left to protect
   themselves. What an entirely different display of power did
   Austria make when it was a question of fighting for its own
   dynastic interests!"

      H. von Treitschke,
      Deutsche Geschichte im 19ten Jahrhundert
      (translated from the German),
      volume 1, pages 21-33.

   "As in the wars so in the diplomatic negotiations the
   separation of the Austrian dynastic interests from the
   advantage and needs of the German empire often enough came to
   light. It is only necessary to revert to the attitude which
   the emperor's diplomacy took at Nimeguen and Ryswick.

      See NIMEGUEN (page 2362);
      and FRANCE: A. D. 1697 (page 1243)].

   … When in the conferences at Gertruidenburg (1710) Louis XIV
   was reduced to being willing not only to give up the
   'Reannexations' and Strassburg but even to restore Alsace and
   the fortress of Valenciennes, it was also not the interests of
   the empire but solely those of the House of Hapsburgh which
   led to the rejection of these offers and to the continuance of
   a war by which, as it turned out eventually, not one of these
   demands was gained. No wonder that in Germany, restricted
   though the imperial authority already was, men still did not
   feel secure so long as the emperor continued to have even the
   power of making peace independently of the empire."

      L. Häusser,
      Deutsche Geschichte
      (translated from the German).
      volume 1, page 23.

   "Louis XIV regarded himself not exactly as enemy of the German
   empire and of the imperial power of the House of Hapsburgh,
   but rather as a pretendant to the throne. As he explains it in
   the political directions meant for his son the empire of the
   West, the heritage of Charles the Great, belongs not of right
   to the Germans but to the kings who are crowned at Rheims. …
   The Germans have ruined the empire, only a ruler with the
   power of the French king can bring it again to honor. … If
   Louis XIV by means of the Rhine Confederation of 1658 saw
   himself bound in a close communion with German princes and
   electors, if his troops rushed in at the decisive moment
   before Erfurt and at Saint Gothard, if his omnipresent
   diplomacy sought to find starting-points everywhere, even in
   the Hofburg at Vienna: all this seemed to him activity in a
   field which he really felt belonged to himself. The rendering
   of the German princes dependent on the French court, the
   loosening of the bonds which held the empire together, the
   isolation of the Hapsburghs from the rest of the empire: these
   were tasks which presented themselves as a matter of course if
   taken in connection with those views of the right of the
   French to the empire. … Already in Richelieu's time the king's
   councillor, Jacques de Cassan, had brought forward the proof,
   in a writing dedicated to the cardinal, that the greater part
   of the existing European states, including Germany, were lands
   which had unjustly been estranged from the French crown. …
   This idea d'Auberry now carried further: as a matter of fact
   Germans and French were to be considered one people as they
   had been under the Merovingians and Carolingians; … the true
   ruler, in the sense of the original world-organization was not
   the emperor but the French king."

      B. Erdmannsdörffer,
      Deutsche Geschichte (1648-1740)
      (translated from the German),
      volume 1, page 509.

{3772}

GERMANY: A. D. 1789-1792.
   Germany and the French Revolution.

   "What enthusiasm prevailed when France proclaimed the equality
   of everything that bears human form, when the prophecies of
   Rousseau, who spoke as no other Frenchman could, to the
   hearts, to the courage, to the ideals of the German youth,
   seemed about to be realized! All the cravings of the time, the
   noble eagerness to recognize the dignity of man and the
   heaven-storming defiance of the sovereign ego, found
   themselves satisfied by the bold sophism of the Genevan
   philosopher who declared that, in a condition of absolute
   equality, everyone should obey himself only. The sins of the
   Revolution appeared to the harmless German spectators as
   hardly less seductive than its great deeds. The taste which
   had been educated on Plutarch's lives of heroes grew loyally
   excited over the broad Catonism of the new apostles of
   freedom: the unhistorical abstractions of their political
   creed were in keeping with the philosophical self-satisfaction
   of the age. The over-zealous youths in whose ears still
   sounded the stirring words of the robber Moor felt themselves
   drawn along by the rhetorical pathos of the French and
   unsuspectingly admired the republican virtue of the Girondists
   at the very time when this party with unhallowed frivolity was
   instigating a war against Germany. … In Hamburg and several
   other cities the festival of confraternity was celebrated and
   the liberty pole erected on the anniversary of the storming of
   the Bastille. … Even in Berlin women of rank were seen adorned
   with the tricolored ribbon and the rector of the Joachimsthal
   gymnasium, in a solemn official address held on the occasion
   of the king's birthday, praised the glorious Revolution to the
   lively applause of Minister Hertzberg. … But this enthusiasm
   of the German cultivated world for revolutionary France was
   and remained purely theoretical; … the German admirers of the
   Revolution never once laid before themselves the question how
   their feelings on the subject should take on flesh and blood.
   The wise man of Konigsberg [Kant] unconditionally and harshly
   rejected all right of resistance. Even Fichte, the most
   radical of his disciples, who even in the days of Robespierre
   still dared to defend French liberty, warned emphatically
   against the carrying out of his own ideas. He saw no bridge
   between the 'level high road of natural law' and the 'dark
   defile of a half-barbaric policy,' and he closed with the
   renunciatory declaration: 'Worthiness to attain liberty can
   only come upwards from below; freedom itself, if there is to
   be no disturbance, can only descend from above.' … When the
   struggle of parties continued to rage ever more fiercely and
   with more cruelty, when the fanatic zeal for equality took
   upon itself to annihilate even the last aristocracy of all,
   that of life itself, then the faithful and unchanging mind of
   the German found it impossible any longer to follow the
   unaccountable contortions of French passion. The German
   enthusiast turned weeping away from the barbarian who had
   defiled his sanctuary. … Only in the minor states, which
   lacked the sense of justice of a monarchy, did the sins of the
   old French regime find an echo. There in the Germany of the
   religious foundations (the Rhine bishoprics) there still
   flourished the catholic unity of faith and the pride of
   cathedral chapters which were recruited from nobles. In the
   cities of the empire the haughtiness and corruption of old
   civilian confraternity held sway, in the territories of the
   princes, counts and imperial knights, the arrogance of little
   corner tyrants. The whole existence of these ruined and
   ossified forms of government cried shame on the ideas of the
   century. Almost solely in these tiniest provinces did a slight
   popular ferment show itself when the glad news of the great
   peasant emancipation came from France. It chanced that the
   abbess of Frauenalbe was hunted from her lands by her
   subjects, that the oath of allegiance was refused to her
   sister-abbess in Elten. Small peasant revolts broke out here
   and there. … All this betokened little; in reality nowhere was
   the political slumber of the empire deeper than in these
   regions. … The weak and weaponless small states were entirely
   without power of resistance against foreign violence. …
   Neither was the emperor nor were the Prussian statesmen blind
   to the immeasurable dangers of a war in the condition in which
   things were. Leopold's cold-blooded, calculating nature
   remained long unmoved by the appeals for help written by his
   unhappy sister Marie Antoinette, who allowed herself to be
   carried to the very verge of betraying her country by her
   woman's passion and her princely pride. The Prussian cabinet
   was at first very well pleased with the steps taken by the
   constitutional parties; its envoy, von der Goltz, made no
   secret of acknowledging the righteousness of the cause of the
   revolution and showed that he had kept his eyes open to the
   accumulated acts of folly of the blinded court. The mad doings
   of the emigres were condemned with equal severity in Vienna
   and in Berlin. Not until the spring of 1791, not until King
   Louis had had to atone for his unsuccessful flight by unheard
   of personal humiliations, did the two courts begin to think
   seriously of protecting themselves against acts of
   revolutionary violence. … Frederick William's chivalrous soul
   was aglow with the thought of avenging with his sword the
   offended majesty of France. Single clever heads among the
   émigrés succeeded after all in gaining secret influence at
   court. … In his circular from Padua Leopold invited the
   European powers to enter the lists for his ill-used
   brother-in-law, to avenge by forcible means every insult to
   the dignity of the king, to recognize no constitution of
   France of which the crown should not voluntarily approve.
   Bischoffswerder, of his own accord and contrary to his
   instructions, then signed the Vienna treaty of the 25th of
   July by which both parties (Prussia and Austria) mutually
   guaranteed each other's possessions and promised each other
   help in case of internal disturbances. … Public opinion in
   Prussia greeted the Austrian alliance with deep mistrust, …
   but King Frederick William approved the arbitrary steps of his
   friend (Bischoffswerder). He met Leopold soon after in
   Pillnitz … and rejoiced in the thought that the league of the
   two chief powers in Germany would last eternally, to the weal
   of coming generations. In all of these mistaken acts there was
   no immediate threat against France. In Pillnitz those émigrés
   who urged war were sternly thrust aside and all that was
   obtained was the empty declaration of August 27; the two
   powers announced that they considered King Louis's cause a
   matter common to all sovereigns; in case all European powers
   should agree, there should be interference in France's
   internal affairs.
{3773}
   This meant nothing whatever, for everyone knew that England
   would have nothing to do with armed intervention. And even
   these obscure conditions were abandoned in Vienna when King
   Louis, in the autumn, was reinstated in his dignities and
   voluntarily accepted the new constitution. The Revolution
   seemed to have come to a standstill, the emperor was
   completely pacified. … It was France and France alone that, in
   the face of this peaceable attitude of the German powers,
   forced the war upon them. … The antipathy of a great majority
   of the nation [France] to the republic was to be overcome by
   the glamor of military successes, by the old darling
   dream-project of natural boundaries. The financial needs of
   the state were to be remedied by a mighty plundering
   expedition. … While the war-like mood in the legislative
   assembly increased from day to day, in the negotiations with
   the emperor paltry disdain was shown; not even was a definite
   indemnity offered to the estates of the empire in Alsace. It
   was then that the House, carried away by the stirring speeches
   of the Gironde, demanded a solemn declaration from the emperor
   that he would give up the plan of a European league and would
   show his readiness to support France according to the old
   treaties of alliance with the Bourbons. The penalty of refusal
   was to be immediate war. Upon Leopold giving a dignified and
   temperate reply war was declared against Austria on April 20th
   1792. … A doctrinary speech of Condorcet's announced to the
   world that the principles of republican liberty had risen up
   against despotism. The glove was thus thrown down to the whole
   of ancient Europe: for Prussia, moreover, the Vienna Treaty
   now became binding, having meanwhile been supplemented by a
   formal defensive league."

      H. von Treitschke,
      Deutsche Geschichte im 19ten Jahrhundert
      (translated from the German),
      volume 1, page 114-124.

      See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 1791 (pages 1271-1275).

GERMANY: A. D. 1796-1807.
   Germany and Napoleon.

   "With the Italian campaign of 1796 began the second epoch of
   the revolutionary era, the more fruitful one for the world at
   large. The propaganda of the revolution now first began to
   take actual effect and in Central Europe a new order of things
   superseded the old division of lands, the traditional forma of
   state and society. It was through Bonaparte's victories that
   the weapons of France first acquired an indisputable
   ascendancy. … As was the case with her manner of making war,
   so did France's European policy take on a new character in the
   hands of the victor of Montenotte and Rivoli. … In the head of
   the great man without a home, to whom the soul-life of
   nations, the ideal world, ever remained an unknown quantity,
   the horrible conception of a new world-monarchy had already
   found a place. The images of the Cæsars and the Carolingians
   stood in dazzling splendor before his mind. The rich history
   of a thousand years was to be annihilated by a single grand
   adventure; the multiform culture of the West was to yield to
   the sway of one gigantic man. This new and altogether
   un-French policy of conquest rushed to its goals with a
   wonderful assurance and want of conscience. Bonaparte's
   perspicuity recognized at once by what means Austria,
   victorious in Germany but worsted in Italy, could be forced
   into a temporary peace: … he offered the imperial court the
   possession of Venice in return for Milan, Belgium and the left
   bank of the Rhine. … Under such conditions the Peace of Campo
   Formio was entered into on October 17th 1797. Once more the
   Holy Empire was to pay the penalty for Austria's defeats, and
   once more, with greater hypocrisy than ever before, there rang
   out in the diet those unctuous, imperially-paternal phrases
   with which the un-German imperial power was wont to bemantle
   its dynastic policy. Whereas among the conditions of the
   secret articles of Campo Formio were the mutilation of the
   German western boundary, the secularization of ecclesiastical
   territory, the compensation of foreign princes at the cost of
   the empire: the published version of the treaty spoke only of
   the unviolated integrity of the empire. … At last, however,
   the unhallowed secret had to come out. At Christmas-tide 1797
   Mainz was vacated by the imperial troops. There came to light
   the whole hopelessly confused relationships of the two
   similarly-fortuned nations of central Europe when, at the same
   time, the French occupied the unconquered bulwark of the Rhine
   provinces and the conquered Austrians marched into the city of
   St. Mark. Soon afterwards the envoys of France at Rastadt
   openly came forward with the demand for the left bank of the
   Rhine. It was the first official forewarning of the
   annihilation of the Holy Empire. … So deep was the empire
   sunken when the dreaded 'Italicus,' on the occasion of a
   flying visit to Rastadt first cast a glance into German life.
   On the shallow intrigues of this fruitless congress did
   Bonaparte base his judgment of our fatherland. He saw through
   the absolute nullity of the imperial constitution and
   complacently came to the opinion that if such a constitution
   had not existed it would have been necessary to invent it in
   the interests of France. … It seemed to him high time to win
   the petty dynasts entirely for France by gratifying their
   greed of land, and thus to rob sundered Germany of its
   nationality (dépayser l'Allemagne). … On February 9th, 1801,
   the Peace of Luneville proclaimed openly and unequivocally
   that which the treaty of Campo Formio had only secretly and
   obscurely provided: that the Rhine was henceforward to be
   Germany's boundary. A district of nearly 1,150 square miles
   and containing nearly four million inhabitants was thus lost
   to Germany. … With uncanny cold-bloodedness the German nation
   accepted the fearful blow. Scarcely a sound of patriotic wrath
   was heard when Mainz and Cologne, Aachen and Treves, the
   broad, beautiful lands that had been the scene of our earliest
   history, passed into the hands of the stranger. How many
   bitter tears had the decrepit generation of the Thirty Years
   War once poured forth for the sake of Strassburg alone! … The
   first consul resumed the plan which Sièyes as ambassador in
   Berlin had sketched already ill 1798. He prepared a threefold
   division of Germany and, in order to bring the defenceless
   minor states wholly in his power, sought first to thrust back
   the two chief German powers as far as possible towards the
   east. … The great man-scorner now invented an infallible means
   of gaining sway over these south and west German provinces.
{3774}
   Not in vain had he probed the German higher nobility at
   Rastadt into the inmost recesses of their hearts. He created
   our new intermediate states for the purpose, through them, of
   securing forever Germany's disintegration. The host of petty
   princes, counts and imperial knights, were burdensome to him
   because they belonged mostly to the Austrian party and were of
   no use in war. Among the electors and dukes, on the contrary,
   there was useful material enough for the formation of a crowd
   of French vassals; … they had almost all, during the recent
   wars, made separate treaties with the enemies of the empire.
   As rebels against that empire and its emperor they had
   abandoned the ground of legality and broken their bridges
   behind them. If the man who was omnipotent now took under his
   protection these political hermaphrodites who were fit neither
   to live nor die; if he satisfied their greed by throwing them
   some crumbs from the belongings of their lesser co-estates and
   tickled their vanity by means of pretentious titles and a show
   of independence; if he rolled together the hundreds of tiny
   territories into some dozens of new accidental states with a
   history of yesterday and entirely without a legal title,
   living solely from the favor of France; if he then led his
   satraps to audacious wars against their fatherland and hurried
   them on from one felony to another, rewarding new
   lackey-services by new booty—where was the wonder? They had
   sold their souls to him and he was able to reckon on it that
   they would rather kiss the boots of the stranger than ever
   submit to subordinate themselves to a German commonwealth. …
   Bonaparte, meanwhile, had long made up his mind to resume the
   war with his unassailable enemy [England]. Already in March
   1803, long before the breach occurred between the two western
   powers, he sent his confidant Duroc to Berlin with the notice
   that he saw himself compelled to seize Hanover. … Therewith
   the last and sole pride of the Prussian policy, the neutrality
   of North Germany, was threatened with its death-blow. … And
   meanwhile the Holy Empire was made to drink the cup of shame
   to the very dregs. When Bonaparte caused the Duke of Enghien,
   seized within the limits of Baden, to be led to execution,
   only foreign powers like Russia, Sweden and England dared in
   Regensburg to demand satisfaction for the scandalous breach of
   the peace of the empire. Baden on the contrary, by Napoleon's
   command, begged most earnestly that the painful matter might
   not be followed up any further; while the rest of the
   plenipotentiaries took their holiday before the time and thus
   by their flight cut off all further negotiations. In May 1804
   the Napoleonic empire was founded. … A hard, distrustful
   foreign rule weighed upon Germany even before its princes had
   formally made their submission to the emperor. … Thus
   prepared, Napoleon proceeded to realize in his own way the
   idea of a German triad with which Hardenberg had just been
   amusing himself. Not in bond with Austria and Prussia but
   independently and in opposition to them was France's old
   protegée, 'la troisième Allemagne,' to take political form and
   shape. … In the spring of 1806 the rumor spread at the German
   courts that a new and extensive mediatization was to take
   place. Once more, as had happened four years previously, the
   envoys of our high nobility hastened to Paris on behalf of
   their lords, to secure by flattery and bribery their share of
   the booty. … The Rhine confederation of Louis XIV was
   resuscitated in an incomparably more pronounced form. Sixteen
   German princes renounced the empire, declared that they
   themselves were sovereigns and that every law of the venerable
   old national commonwealth was null and void. They recognized
   Napoleon as their protector and placed at his disposal an army
   of 63,000 men to be used in any continental war in which
   France should engage. … German particularism entered into the
   bloom-time of its sins. … The anarchy of a new interregnum
   broke in upon Germany. Faustrecht held sway, exercised no
   longer by bandit nobles but by princely courts. Napoleon
   regarded with mistrust any and every expression of national
   feeling in the enslaved land. The interest of France, he wrote
   to his Talleyrand, demands that opinion in Germany remain
   divided. A certain Yelin of Ansbach published an anonymous
   pamphlet, 'Germany at its lowest Depth,' a well-meant writing,
   full of feeling, and one which, in an age of iron, had only
   the peaceful advice to give: 'Weep aloud, oh noble, honest
   German!' But even this pious ejaculation of a harmless petty
   citizen seemed to the emperor a matter for alarm and he caused
   the book-seller Palm, who is said to have aided in spreading
   the book, to be court-marshalled and shot. It was the first
   judicial murder of Napoleonism on German ground, and the
   clever people in Bavaria began to doubt whether the Rhine
   Confederation had, after all, really brought about the victory
   of freedom and enlightenment. … A new act of treason on the
   part of Napoleon led at last to the out-break of the
   inevitable war. Often and solemnly had Napoleon assured to his
   Prussian ally the possession of Hanover. It was now suddenly
   reported in Berlin that the emperor, who all through the
   summer had been carrying on peace-negotiations with England
   and Russia, had not scrupled to offer to deliver back to the
   Guelphs their hereditary lands. When this news reached him
   Frederick William at once (August 9) wrote to the Czar: 'If
   Napoleon treats with England concerning Hanover he will ruin
   me.' The king foresaw that in a short time the miserable
   condition in which things had been in February would recur
   again and that Prussia had only the choice left of once more
   in silence suffering herself to be shamefully plundered or of
   opposing by arms the ingress of the grand army. That was why
   the Prussian army was placed on a war-footing and made to
   assemble in Magdeburg's territory. With this step of
   justifiable self-defence the war was decided. … Nothing could
   have been more honest than the unsparingly upright defiance of
   the king to Napoleon; nothing more righteous than the three
   demands of the Prussian ultimatum of October: withdrawal of
   the French from Germany, recognition of the North German
   Confederation, a peaceful agreement as to the remaining
   questions at issue between the two powers. Even from the
   verbose, clumsy war-manifesto there breaks forth occasionally
   a tone of dignified national pride: the king takes up arms 'to
   free unhappy Germany from the yoke under which it is being
   crushed. Nations have certain rights independent of an
   treaties!' … Already on the 15th of October (1806) Napoleon
   laid a contribution on all the Prussian provinces this side
   the Weichsel of 159 million francs, declaring that the result
   of the battle of the former day (Jena) had been the conquest
   of all these lands.
{3775}
   Never had the man of fortune boasted so outrageously, and yet,
   through a strange turn of fortune, the most unhallowed of his
   lies was to become literally true. Immediately after the
   defeat the court of Saxony carried out its long-planned
   desertion and went over to Napoleon. A week after the battle
   the Prussian territory to the left of the Elbe, and the
   possessions of the House of Orange and of the electors of
   Hesse, were provisionally incorporated in the French empire. …
   On July 7-9, 1807, the Peace of Tilsit was signed, the most
   cruel of all French treaties of peace, unprecedented in form
   as well as in contents. It ran, not that the lawful king of
   Prussia ceded certain lands to the victor, but that the
   conqueror, out of regard for the emperor of all the Russias,
   granted back to its sovereign the smaller half of the Prussian
   state. And this scandalous phrase, which contemporaries only
   looked upon as a freak of Napoleonic arrogance, expressed
   simply the naked truth. … Alexander did not wish the last
   narrow dam which separated the Russian empire from the lands
   of the vassals of France, to be torn away. … Prussia retained,
   outside of the 5,700 square miles which the state, exclusive
   of Hanover, had owned before the war, only about 2,800, … of
   9¾ million inhabitants only 4½ million. The work of Frederick
   the Great seemed undone."

      H. von Treitschke,
      Deutsche Geschichte im 19 Jahrhundert
      (translated from the German),
      volume 1, pages 164-265.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER),
      and after (pages 1314-1349.)

GERMANY: A. D. 1815-1848.
   After the struggle.
   The Zollverein.

   "In Austria, in the decades succeeding the wars of liberation,
   their reigned the most immovable quiet. The much-praised
   system of government consisted in unthinking inactivity. The
   Emperor Francis, a man with the nature of a subaltern
   official, hated anything that approached to a constitution and
   a saying of his was often quoted: 'Totus mundus stultizat et
   vult habere constitutiones novas.' Metternich's power rested
   on the 'dead motionlessness' of affairs. As far as his German
   policy was concerned his aim was to hold fast to the
   preponderating influence of Austria over the German states,
   but not to undertake any responsibilities towards them. … As
   for Prussia, in spite of the great sacrifices which she had
   made, she emerged from the diplomatic negotiations and
   intrigues of the Vienna Congress with the most unfavorable
   disposition of territory imaginable. To the five million
   inhabitants that had remained to her five and a half millions
   were added in districts that had belonged to more than a
   hundred different territories and had stood under the most
   varied laws. There began now for this state a time well filled
   with quiet work, the aim and object being to create a whole
   out of the various parts. … The founding of the Burschenschaft
   [student league] in Jena, the antagonistic attitude of the
   Weimar press, the Wartburg festival with its extemporized
   conflagration scene, excited scruples and fears in the ruling
   circles. The murder of Kotzebue and the attempt on Ibell's
   life showed the growing fanaticism and called forth stronger
   measures from the governments. … Metternich recognizes their
   usefulness for the carrying through of his reactionary
   measures. … At a meeting in Teplitz he succeeds in winning
   Frederick William III for his plans. In Carlsbad, over the
   heads of the members of the federal diet, the most decisive
   regulations were adopted which culminated in the appointment
   of the Mainz Central-Investigation-Committee … and confirmed
   Metternich's unhallowed rule in Germany as well as the reign
   of that most miserable reaction which called forth a burst of
   indignation even from the most moderate-minded patriots, and
   which laid the land open to the scorn of the foreigner."

      Bruno-Gebhardt,
      Lehrbuch der deutschen Geschichte
      (translated from the German),
      volume 2, pages 501-504.

   "The Congress of Vienna created in 1815 a form of government
   for Germany which was very unsatisfactory in character. It
   was, however, so constituted that a national development at
   some future time was not rendered an utter impossibility. The
   German confederation was rather, on the whole, provisional in
   its character; this fact comes out more and more plainly with
   each thorough analysis and illustration of its constitution
   and of its institutions. The main thing was that the German
   confederation preserved unimpaired the dualism in Germany.
   Technically the emperor of Austria had the honorary direction
   of the confederation; practically he possessed as emperor of
   Germany little r no power. In point of fact the German
   imperial title was only a decoration for the ruler over a
   variegated mixture of peoples, in the midst of which German
   nationality was hard pressed by the national strivings of the
   other races. In reality the strongest member of the German
   confederation was the kingdom of Prussia, although according
   to the federal laws it stood on a like footing with Bavaria,
   Saxony, Hanover and Würtemberg. … This German confederation
   was only capable of eking out its existence in a long period
   of freedom from European disasters. … Only gradually, in the
   various heads, did the opinion begin to form of the historical
   vocation of Prussia to take her place at the head of the
   German confederation or, possibly, of a new German empire.
   Gradually this opinion ripened into a firmer and firmer
   conviction and gained more and more supporters. The more
   evidently impossible an actual guidance of Germany by Austria
   became, the more conscious did men grow of the danger of the
   whole situation should the dualism be allowed to continue. In
   consequence of this the idea of the Prussian hegemony began to
   be viewed with constantly increasing favor. A great step
   forward in this direction was taken by the Prussian government
   when it called into being the Zollverein [or customs-union].
   The Zollverein laid iron bands around the separate parts of
   the German nation. It was utterly impossible to think of
   forming a customs-union with Austria, for all economic
   interests were as widely different as possible; on purely
   material grounds the division between Austria and Prussia
   showed itself to be a necessity. On the other hand the
   economic bonds between Prussia and the rest of the German
   lands grew stronger from day to day. This material union was
   the prelude to the political one: the Zollverein was the best
   and most effectual preparation for the German federal state or
   for the German empire of later days."

      W. Maurenbrecher,
      Gründung des Deutschen Reichs,
      pages 4-5.

{3776}

   "Paul Pfizer wrote in 1831 his 'Correspondence of Two
   Germans,' the first writing in the German language in which
   liberation from Austria and union with Prussia was put down as
   the solution of the German question and in which faith in
   Prussia was made a part of such love to the German fatherland
   as should be no longer a mere dream. … 'So little as the dead
   shall rise again this side the grave, so little will Austria,
   which once held the heritage of German fame and German glory,
   ever again become for Germany what she has once been.'"

      W. Oncken,
      Das Zeitalter des Kaisers Wilhelm
      (translated from the German),
      volume 1, pages 69-70.

   The formation of the Zollverein "was the most important
   occurrence since the wars of liberation: a deed of peace of
   more far-reaching consequences and productive of more lasting
   results than many a battle won. The economic blessings of the
   Zollverein soon began to show themselves in the increasing sum
   total of the amount of commerce and in the regularly growing
   customs revenues of the individual states. These revenues for
   example increased between 1834 and 1842 from 12 to 21 million
   thalers. Foreign countries began to look with respect and in
   part also with envy on this commercial unity of Germany and on
   the results which could not fail to come. … A second event
   happened in Germany in 1834, less marked in its beginnings and
   yet scarcely less important in its results than the
   Zollverein. Between Leipzig and Dresden the first large
   railroad in Germany was started, the first mesh in that
   network of roads that was soon to branch out in all directions
   and spread itself over all Germany. … A direct political
   occurrence, independent of the Zollverein and the railroads,
   was, in the course of the thirties, to assist in awakening and
   strengthening the idea of unity in the German people by making
   evident and plain the lack of such unity and its disastrous
   consequences. This was the Hanoverian 'coup d'etat' of the
   year 1837. … In that year William IV of England died without
   direct successors. … Hanover came into the hands of the Duke
   of Cumberland, Ernest Augustus. … The new king, soon after his
   inauguration, refused to recognize the constitution that had
   been given to Hanover in 1833, on the ground that his
   ratification as next heir to the throne had not been asked at
   that time. … By persistent efforts Ernest Augustus … in 1840
   brought about a constitution that suited him. Still more than
   this constitutional struggle itself did a single incident
   connected with it occupy and excite public opinion far and
   wide. Seven professors of the Gottingen university protested
   against the abrogation of the constitution of 1833. … Without
   more ado they were dismissed from their positions. … The brave
   deed of the Gottingen professors and the new act of violence
   committed against them caused intense excitement throughout
   all Germany. … A committee composed both of conservatives and
   liberals was formed in Leipzig and raised collections, in
   order by honorable gift to replace at least the material
   losses of the banished professors. … In the course of the
   forties the idea of nationality penetrated more and more all
   the pores of German opinion and gave to it more and more, by
   pressure from all sides, the direction of a great and common
   goal. At first there were only isolated attempts at reform …
   but soon the national needs outgrew such single expressions of
   good will. … A tendency began to show itself in the public
   opinion of Germany to accept the plan of a Prussian leadership
   of all un-Austrian Germany."

      K. Biedermann,
      Dreissig Jahre Deutscher Geschichte.
      volume 1, pages 9-91.

      See, also, GERMANY: A. D. 1814-1820,
      to 1819-1847 (pages 1531-1533).

GERMANY: A. D. 1862-1890.
   The Bismarck policy.
   "Blood and iron" speech of the Prussian Premier.

   On the question of the reorganization of the army, which was
   brought forward early by Prince William (afterwards King and
   Emperor) after he assumed the Regency in 1858, the Prussian
   Diet placed itself in determined opposition to the government.
   At a session of the Budget Commission of the House of
   Representatives, September 30, 1862, Deputy Forckenbeck
   offered the following resolution: "Whereas it is also feared
   that after the declaration of the royal state government made
   the 29th inst. the same would continue the expenditures for
   the organization of the army on its own responsibility which
   have already been rejected by the House for the year 1862 and
   the rejection of which is likewise to be expected for 1863,
   according to the acknowledgment of the government itself, and
   Whereas a direct insistence of the prerogatives of the
   people's representatives is urgently required, the House of
   Representatives declares as follows:

   1. The royal government is requested to lay the estimates for
   1863 before the House as speedily as possible for their
   constitutional consideration, so that the amount of the same
   may be constitutionally fixed before January 1st 1863.

   2. It is unconstitutional for the royal government to direct
   expenditures which were by resolution of the House of
   Representatives definitely and expressly rejected."

   The Minister of State, Herr von Bismarck, spoke on these
   resolutions as follows: "I would willingly accept the
   estimates for 1862, if I could do so without entering upon
   explanations which might prove prejudicial. Either side might
   abuse its constitutional rights and be met by a reaction in
   kind from the opposite side. The crown, for instance, might
   decree dissolution twelve times in succession without
   violating the letter of the constitution, yet would it be an
   abuse of power. It may refuse to accept a striking out of
   estimates without measure. Where will you draw the line? At 6
   millions? at 16? or at 60? There are members of the National
   Verein [National Union]—an organization highly respected for
   the well known fairness of its demands,—very estimable
   members—who declare all standing armies as superfluous. Well
   then, if the House of Representatives should hold such view
   must not the government repudiate it? The 'cool headedness' of
   the Prussian people has been referred to. Well, it is a fact,
   the great self-assertion of individuality among us makes
   constitutional government very hard in Prussia; in France,
   where this individual self-assertion is wanting, it is
   otherwise. There a constitutional conflict was no disgrace,
   but all honor. We are perhaps too 'cultured' to tolerate a
   constitution; we are too critical; the ability to pass
   judgment on measures of the government or acts of the
   legislature is too universal; there is a large number of
   'Catilinarian Characters' [existences in the original] in the
   land whose chief interest is in revolutions. All this may
   sound paradoxical; yet it proves how hard constitutional life
   is in Prussia.
{3777}
   The people are too sensitive about the faults of the
   government; as if the whole did not suffer when this or that
   individual minister blunders. Public opinion is changeable,
   the press is not public opinion; everyone knows how the press
   originates; the representatives have the higher task of
   directing opinion, of being above it. To return once more to
   our people: our blood is too hot, we are fond of bearing an
   armor too large for our small body; now let us utilize it.
   Germany does not look at Prussia's liberalism but at its
   power. Let Bavaria, Würtemberg, Baden indulge in liberalism,
   yet no one will assign to them the rule of Prussia; Prussia
   must consolidate its might and hold it together for the
   favorable moment, which has been allowed to pass unheeded
   several times. Prussia's boundaries, as determined by the
   Congress of Vienna, are not conducive to its wholesome
   existence as a sovereign state. Not by speeches and
   resolutions of majorities the mighty problems of the age are
   solved—that was the mistake of 1848 and 1849—but by Blood and
   Iron. Last year's grants have been made, no matter on what
   grounds; I am seeking sincerely for a road to harmony: the
   finding of it does not depend on me alone. It were better, the
   House of Representatives had not made an accomplished fact.
   When the appropriations are not passed, then the way is clear.
   The constitution affords no relief, for interpretation is
   opposed to interpretation, 'summum ius, summa iniuria' [the
   highest law, greatest injustice], 'the letter killeth.' I am
   glad that the chairman by certain turns of speech admits the
   possibility of an understanding, of a different vote of the
   house on a new proposition of the government; I am searching
   for the same bridge; when it will be found is uncertain. The
   establishment of a budget for this year is barely possible;
   the time is too short; our conditions are exceptional. The
   government concedes the principle of the earliest possible
   handing down of the estimates. But you say, this has been
   promised so often and has not been done. Well 'You must trust
   us for honest people.' I do not share in the interpretation
   that it was unconstitutional to make expenditures that have
   been denied, all three factors [i. e. Commons, Upper House and
   Crown] must agree upon an interpretation, before it stands."

      Die Politischen Reden des Fürsten Bismarck
      (translated from the German),
      volume 2, pages 20, 28-30.

   "Otto von Bismarck-Schoenhausen, born April 1, 1815, was a
   Junker [squire, aristocrat] from top to toe, but from the very
   first, as was the case with all the Junkers of Prussia,
   Pomerania and the Mark, his life had been thoroughly merged in
   that of the Prussian state. He had first called attention to
   himself in 1847 at the general diet (Vereinigter Landtag]. In
   1849 he came forward in the chamber of deputies, in 1850 in
   the Union Parliament at Frankfort—always as the goad of the
   extreme right, and each time his appearance gave the signal
   for a violent conflict. Perfectly unsparing of all his
   opponents, very anti-liberal but very Prussian, very
   national-minded, in spite of being such a Junker, Bismarck
   flared up with especial violence against the democratic
   attacks on the army and the monarchy. … To Frankfort Bismarck
   came as the sworn defender of the policy of reaction. The
   Austrian party, thinking him to be a man of no consequence,
   greeted his coming with joy. He soon made himself unpleasant
   enough, especially to the Austrian presidents of the federal
   diet. … He refused to accept the servile role which Austria
   had apportioned to him; his objections in matters of form and
   on unimportant occasions prepared the great fundamental
   anti-Austrian uprising. A feeling of pain came over him at the
   sight of the Prussian submission to Austria, but at the same
   time he was seized with a thirst for vengeance. … In
   Frankfort, too, he learned thoroughly to know German affairs:
   the utter weakness of the Confederation and the misery of
   having so many petty states. … To his mind the goal of
   Prussian policy was to drive Austria out of Germany and then
   to bring about a subordination of the other German states to
   Prussia. … Nor did he make the least secret of his warlike
   attitude towards Austria. When an Austrian arch-duke, who was
   passing through, once asked him maliciously whether all the
   many decorations which he wore on his breast had been won by
   bravery in battle: 'All gained before the enemy, all gained
   here in Frankfort,' was the ready answer. In the year 1859
   came the complications between Austria and Italy, the latter
   being joined by France. This Italian war between Austria and
   France thoroughly roused the German nation. … Many wanted to
   protect Austria, others showed a disinclination to enter the
   lists for Austria's rule over Italy. … Bismarck's advice at
   this time was that Prussia should side against Austria and
   should join Italy. In the spring of 1859, however, he was
   transferred from Frankfort on the Main to St. Petersburg: 'put
   on ice on the Neva,' as he said himself, 'like champagne for
   future use.' … In June 1859, in view of the Italian war, it
   had been decreed in Prussia that the army should be mobilized
   and kept in readiness to fight. … When, later, in the summer
   of this year, the probability of war had gone by, the Landwehr
   was not dismissed but, on the contrary, a beginning was made
   with a new formation of regiments which had already been
   planned and talked over. … On February 10, 1860, the question
   of the military reorganization was laid before the diet, where
   doubts and objections were raised against it. … On the 4th of
   May, at the same time when the law about civil marriages was
   rejected, the land-tax, by which the cost of the
   army-reorganization was to have been covered, was refused by
   the Upper House. The liberals were disappointed and angered.
   The ministry was soon in a bad dilemma: should it give way to
   the liberal opposition and dissolve the newly formed
   regiments? The expedient that was thought of seemed clever
   enough but it led in reality to a blind alley and was
   productive of the most baneful consequences. The ministry
   moved a single grant of 9,000,000 thalers for the purpose of
   completing the army and maintaining its efficiency on the
   former footing. The motion was carried on May 15, 1860, by a
   vote of 315 against two. … The new elections for the house of
   deputies in December 1861 produced a diet of an entirely
   different stamp from that of 1858. … The moderate majority was
   now to atone for the sin of not having come to any real
   arrangement with the ministry on the army question; for the
   new majority came to Berlin with the full intention of
   crushing the army-reform. … The chief task of the newly formed
   ministry of 1862 was to solve the military question, for the
   longer it had remained in abeyance the more complicated had
   the matter become.
{3778}
   The newly-elected diet had been in session since the 19th of
   May. The majority was determined to draw the conclusion from
   the provisional nature of the army-reorganization grants that
   no such grants were any longer to be made. The battle cry of
   the majority of the diet was that all further demands of the
   government for the military reform were to be refused. … But
   how would this result? … The new officers had an actionable,
   legal claim to their salaries; who was to pay them? The budget
   for 1862 was already in great part expended. … Were the
   ministers themselves to pay the damages? Such seems to have
   been the idea of the fanatics in the parliament. … By
   September 1862 the belligerent and uncompromising attitude of
   the liberal majority had induced King William to lay aside his
   earlier distrust of Bismarck. He allowed him to be summoned
   and placed him at the head of the ministry. Most stirring was
   the first audience which Bismarck had with his king in the
   Park of Babelsberg on September 23. The king first of all laid
   before Bismarck the declaration of his abdication. Very much
   startled, Bismarck said: 'To that it should never be allowed
   to come!' The king replied that he had tried everything and
   knew no other alternative. His convictions, contrary to which
   he could not act, contrary to which he could not reign,
   forbade him to relinquish the army-reorganization. Thereupon
   Bismarck explained to the king his own different view of the
   matter and closed with the request that his Majesty might
   abandon all thoughts of abdication. The king then asked the
   minister if he would undertake to carry on the government
   without a majority and without a budget. Bismarck answered
   both questions in the affirmative and with the utmost
   decision. … The alliance between the king and his minister was
   closed and cemented on that 23rd of September in Babelsberg to
   endure for all time. … To this bond of allegiance which joined
   king and minister, Prussia and Germany owe all the glory that
   has fallen to their share. … In the summer of 1863 was
   originated the famous Austrian project of reform. … The
   proposals of Prussia that there should be one central head of
   Germany with popular representation from the whole nation was
   entirely thrust aside and, on the contrary, a federal
   directory was recommended with a parliament of delegates from
   the separate diets. … In spite of Prussia's absence the
   assembly of princes took place at Frankfort. King John of
   Saxony again travelled to Baden to urge King William to attend
   but the latter again declined. Not but that this refusal cost
   him a great struggle. … Bismarck had to threaten with his
   resignation before he could make the king remain firm; … he
   did not breathe freely again until the Saxon king had taken
   his leave. Then with his powerful hand he demolished a plate
   of glasses that stood before him; that cooled his anger and
   his excitement and he was once more the polished courtier. …
   Bismarck's policy now met with a great piece of good fortune.
   Through the death of the king of Denmark, namely, the
   Schleswig-Holstein question was forced to a final solution and
   this offered Bismarck an opportunity of trying his diplomatic
   skill, while at the same time it gave the Prussian army a
   brilliant occasion for showing what it could accomplish. In a
   series of bold moves Bismarck steered through the
   complications of the Schleswig-Holstein question; it is the
   first stage in his great career of victory. … But in spite of
   all the successes of the Danish war the diet continued in its
   opposition. A loan for the war was refused; any loan made
   without the consent of the diet was declared unconstitutional
   and not binding. … The subsequent grant for the costs of the
   war was refused. … Naturally the Prussian war-budget could not
   be made up, and the land continued to be governed without a
   budget. The details of the debates on these subjects are today
   only of minor interest. Much time was lost in mutual insults
   between Bismarck on the one hand and Virchow and Gneist on the
   other. Bismarck challenged Virchow to a duel, Virchow refused
   the challenge. … By April 1866 Bismarck had cleared the
   political field for his war against Austria; the necessity for
   that war had long been apparent to him. … That the German
   question could only be settled by the separation of Austria
   from Germany and that this separation could only be brought
   about by a war between Prussia and Austria had, in the course
   of years, become clear to all patriots who knew anything of
   history. With incomparable perspicuity the statesman who had
   led Prussia's policy since the autumn of 1862 had grasped the
   idea and had seen to carrying it out with the whole force of
   his iron will. Already in the autumn of 1863 he had drawn up
   the program of what he intended that the German Confederation
   should be. … The history of the world had not for centuries
   seen such a war as 1866. … It was then that King William and
   his minister, crowned with victories, asked the Prussian diet
   for indemnity: i. e. for an acknowledgment of their good
   purposes in spite of their illegal acts. … In point of fact
   the diet had been wrong and the king and his minister had
   acted wisely and well; in point of form they had broken the
   letter of the law. … In the years 1862-1866 Bismarck had held
   off Napoleon with incomparable political skill. He had always
   refused the French demands, but so that Napoleon in each case
   could cherish some hope and could venture again and again to
   approach Prussia with some new lure. Not until August 1866 did
   Napoleon receive a thorough and open repulse. Bismarck then
   answered every threat of the French with the counter-threat of
   a German war. The refusal of Bismarck and his king brought
   Napoleon into a very bad position as regarded the French
   people. In the minds of the latter a war against Germany was a
   foregone conclusion since 1866. … On the 8th of July (1870)
   the French envoy came to King William in Ems and demanded that
   he should forbid Prince Leopold to accept the crown of Spain.
   … It is a popular fiction that the king turned his back on
   Benedetti, or that he answered that he 'had nothing more to
   say to him,' or that he out and out refused him an audience.
   An extra of the German papers of July 14th did indeed read to
   that effect: Bismarck himself had drawn up the notice for the
   papers. He had made no false additions, but here and there he
   had erased and omitted some of the words spoken at Ems, thus
   rendering possible at least the whole false conception of the
   matter. Bismarck ventured on such a step, having clearly
   counted the costs; the result showed how closely he had made
   his calculations. …
{3779}
   It was the war of 1870 that fundamentally changed the
   relations of the chancellor to the mass of the people. After
   1871 he was immensely popular. … People believed that he could
   do anything, that he could make possible what was impossible
   for other men. … Bismarck was very soon surrounded with an
   almost mythical halo."

      W. Maurenbrecher,
      Gründung des Deutschen Reichs
      (translated from the German),
      pages 13-258.

      See, also, GERMANY:
      A. D. 1861-1866, and after (pages 1537-1548).

GERMANY: A. D. 1863.
   Formation of the first Socialist party by Lassalle.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1862-1864 (page 2949).

GERMANY: A. D. 1870-1874.
   The "Kulturkampf" in its first stages.
   Speeches of Bismarck.

   "For reasons relating to its own internal affairs the state,
   even though it took no special attitude to the dogma of
   infallibility in itself, could not avoid being drawn into the
   conflicts which that dogma was bound to call forth between its
   upholders and its opponents. It was the duty of the state to
   prevent the evil results to its citizens of the anathema which
   the bishops hurled at those who denied the infallibility; it
   was necessary for it to interfere and, by introducing civil
   marriages, to render marriage possible to those apostates who
   were not allowed to receive the sacraments; it was necessary
   for it to protect in the exercise of their office those of its
   public teachers who rejected the new dogma, even if their
   spiritual superiors should declare them unfit to hold such
   office. In cases, finally, where whole congregations, or
   majorities of them, remained true to the old teachings it was
   necessary for the state to protect them in the possession of
   their churches of which the bishops tried to deprive them.
   Already in November and December 1870 the first cases had
   occurred with regard to which the Prussian minister of
   education had been obliged to draw these conclusions.
   Professors of the Bonn and Breslau universities who, because
   they denied the infallibility, had been forbidden to lecture
   by Archbishop Melchers of Cologne and Prince-bishop Forster of
   Breslau, appealed to the protection of the minister. Certain
   pastors and teachers of gymnasiums, who had joined in a
   declaration drawn up at Nuremberg (August 25, 1870) against
   the new dogma, and who had in consequence been threatened with
   ecclesiastical punishments, did the same. Mühler had no other
   course than to declare that, so far as officials appointed by
   the state were concerned, the state must maintain its
   exclusive disciplinary power, and that he would continue in
   future to regard as catholics those whom he had so regarded
   before the decree of infallibility was passed, even if they
   saw fit to reject that dogma. Similar conflicts broke out in
   Bavaria where the minister, Lutz, upheld the pastor Renftle,
   of Mering near Augsburg, in the enjoyment of his benefices in
   the face of the bishop, and where the Munich professors,
   Döllinger, Friedrich, Huber and others courageously refused
   such assent to the dogma as the Archbishop Scherr, on October
   20, 1870, demanded from them. Döllinger's written
   justification of himself, published on March 20, 1871, seemed
   to give a firm basis and a distinguished leader to the whole
   movement. … Twelve thousand signatures were collected in a few
   weeks for an address to the king of Bavaria and an appeal was
   made to the catholics of Germany, Austria and Switzerland in
   favor of common action. … Meanwhile the other party had been
   busy enough. Hundreds and hundreds of ecclesiastics protested
   against Döllinger's assertion that thousands of the clergy
   thought as he did. A lay assembly in Munich, held on April 23,
   which expressed itself in favor of infallibility, was the
   forerunner of countless similar ones. … Already some weeks
   earlier the archbishop of Munich had ventured to excommunicate
   Döllinger. … On August 27 Lutz sent a writing to Archbishop
   Scherr claiming the right to regulate afresh the relations
   with the church as the dogma of infallibility was something
   essentially new: at the same time he announced that the
   government would do its utmost to protect the upholders of the
   old teachings and to secure the independence of civil affairs
   from ecclesiastical right of compulsion. In Munich such
   decisive measures would probably not have been adopted had not
   matters in Prussia taken a similar turn. The conflict had been
   brought to a climax here by the demand of Bishops Krementz and
   Ermeland that two teachers in Braunsberg, Wollmann and
   Treibel, should be dismissed for denying the infallibility.
   This demand the minister had refused on March 18, 1871, and on
   June 29 had even given his approval to the regulation that
   scholars who should obey the orders of the bishop to absent
   themselves from the class in religious instruction of these
   teachers should be expelled from the gymnasium. The bishop had
   retaliated by excommunicating the two teachers in question, as
   well as Professor Michelis, one of the chief opponents of
   infallibility. In the dioceses of Cologne, Paderborn and
   Breslau also, the conflicts had become more fierce on account
   of excommunications imposed by the bishops. Still more
   important was it that the chancellor of the empire had now
   personally entered the lists. As his cool attitude already
   before the council had given reason to expect, the Vatican
   dogma did not much trouble him. All the more alarming seemed
   to him the agitation which the clergy were stirring up among
   the Polish nobles, and the league of Guelphism and Catholicism
   as illustrated by Windhorst's position in the Centre. … He
   [Bismarck] caused the announcement to be made in an article of
   the Kreuzzeitung that the government would not only continue
   on the defensive against the Centre, but in turn would proceed
   to attack it. The ultramontanes had better consider whether
   such a struggle could turn out to the advantage of the Roman
   Church. If, he concluded, three hundred years ago Teutonism in
   Germany was stronger than Romanism, how much stronger would it
   be now when Rome is no longer the capital of the world, but on
   the point of becoming the capital of Italy, and when the
   German imperial crown no longer rests on the head of a
   Spaniard but of a German prince. … In the Federal Council Lutz
   moved an amendment to the criminal code which should threaten
   any clergyman with imprisonment up to two years if he should
   misuse his office and discuss state affairs so as to disturb
   the peace. … This 'pulpit-paragraph' was accepted with 179 to
   108 votes and became law December 14th 1871. … The Prussian
   diet was opened on November 27, 1871, with the announcement of
   four new laws which should regulate marriages, the
   registration of civil personal matters, the withdrawal from
   existing churches, and the supervision of schools. …
{3780}
   The conservative party was in wild excitement over these
   measures and the Kreuzzeitung became the organ of decided
   opposition, especially against the school-supervision law
   which was chosen as the first object of attack. The
   conservatives collected petitions from all parts of the land
   to kill this law which they prophesied would make the schools
   a tool of atheism, a hot-bed of revolution, unnationality and
   immorality. They succeeded in getting together more than
   300,000 signatures. … At the first reading in the House of
   Deputies the school-supervision law was passed, although by a
   majority of only 25 votes. … At the second reading the
   majority increased to 52. … The chief struggle was expected in
   the House of Lords. … The vote here was favorable beyond all
   hopes, resulting on March 8th in a majority in favor of the
   law almost as great as that in the House of Deputies. … By no
   means calm was the attitude of the pope towards the increasing
   complications, and when, a few weeks later, on June 24th,
   1872, he received the German 'Leseverein' in Rome he
   complained bitterly of the prime minister of a powerful
   government who, after marvellous successes in war, should have
   placed himself at the head of a long-planned persecution of
   the church; a step which would undoubtedly tarnish the glory
   of his former triumphs. 'Who knows if the little stone shall
   not soon be loosened from above that shall destroy the foot of
   the Colossus!' The chief cause of this embitterment lay in the
   expulsion of the Jesuits which had meanwhile been decreed by
   the diet. … The more the national opposition to the Roman
   claims increased, the more passionate did the frame of mind of
   the ultramontanes become; and also, in no small degree, of the
   pope. An allocution addressed to the cardinals on December 22,
   1872, surpassed in violence anything that had yet been heard.
   … Even Reichensperger found it advisable in excusing a
   vehemence that thus went beyond all bounds to call to mind
   that the Latinized style of the papal chancery was not to be
   taken too literally. The German government, after such a
   demonstration, had no other alternative than to recall the
   last representative of its embassy to the papal court. …
   Already in November Minister Falk had laid before the House a
   draft of a law concerning the limits of ecclesiastical
   punishments and disciplinary measures; on January 9, 1873,
   followed the drafts of three new laws. … Still more
   passionately than in the debate concerning the change in the
   Constitution did Bismarck come forward in the discussion of
   April 24-28. … Windhorst and Schorlemer-Alst answered him back
   in kind. … With violent attacks on Bismarck they prophesied
   that these Draconic laws would rebound against the passive
   opposition of the people; that dawn was glimmering in men's
   minds and that the victory of the Church was near. To the
   great majority of the German people, who had followed the
   political-ecclesiastical debates with the liveliest interest,
   such assurances seemed almost laughable. They felt sure of
   victory now that Bismarck himself had seized the standard with
   such decision. The 'May Laws' which the king signed on May 11,
   1873, were considered a weapon sure to be effectual, and even
   the advanced-liberals, who had followed many of the steps of
   the Government with hesitation and doubt, declared in an
   appeal to their electors on March 23 that the conflict had
   assumed the proportions of a great struggle for enlightenment
   (Kulturkampf) in which all mankind were concerned, and that
   they themselves, in junction with the other liberal parties,
   would accordingly support the Government. … On August 7 (1873)
   Pius IX sent a letter to the emperor under pretext of having
   heard that the latter did not sympathize with the latest
   measures of his government. He declared that such measures
   seemed to aim at the annihilation of Catholicism and warned
   him that their final result would be to undermine the throne.
   He deduced his right to issue this warning from the fact that
   he was bound to tell the truth to all, even to non-catholics:
   for in one way or another—exactly how this was not the place
   to make clear—everyone who had received baptism belonged to
   the pope. The emperor answered on September 3rd in a most
   dignified tone. … 'We can not pass over in silence the remark
   that everyone who has been baptized belongs to the pope. The
   evangelical faith which I, as your Holiness must know, like my
   forefathers and together with the majority of my subjects,
   confess, does not allow us to accept any other Mediator in our
   relations with God save our Lord Jesus Christ.' … Among
   protestants this royal answer was greeted with jubilant
   acclamations and even in foreign lands it found a loud echo.
   The aged Earl Russell organized a great meeting in London on
   January 27, 1874. … Soon after the opening of the Prussian
   diet Falk could bring forward the draft of a law which handed
   over to state-officials [Standesbeamte] all matters referring
   to the celebration of marriages and the registration of civil
   personal matters. This draft was sure from the first of a good
   majority. … On March 9th 1874 the law could be proclaimed. In
   the same month still the deputies Hinschius and Völk made a
   motion in the diet to introduce civil marriages throughout the
   whole empire. … It furthermore seemed necessary to take
   stronger measures against bishops and priests unlawfully
   appointed and whom the state had either deposed or refused to
   recognize. The mildest measure was to remove them from their
   dioceses or parishes, to banish them to certain fixed places
   and, in the worst cases, to expel them altogether from the
   lands of the empire. … The draft of the law (to this effect)
   was warmly supported and at last, April 25, 1874, was accepted
   by a vote of 214 to 208. … On July 13th, 1874, as Prince
   Bismarck, who had gone to take the cure in Kissingen, was
   driving to the Saline the twenty-one year old
   cooper's-apprentice Kullmann, of Magdeburg, fired a pistol at
   him, and wounded him in his right hand which he had just
   raised for the purpose of saluting. At once arrested, Kullmann
   declared to the chancellor, who visited him an hour later in
   his prison, that he had wished to murder him on account of the
   laws against the church. … The reading of ultramontane papers
   and the violent discourses of the catholic clergy had driven
   him to the deed. He atoned for it with fourteen years in the
   House of Correction. Not alone did public opinion make
   ultramontanism accountable for the deed, but Bismarck himself
   laid very strong emphasis on the fact that the criminal had
   spoken of the Centre as 'his party.' 'You may try as hard as
   you please to rid yourselves of this murderer,' he cried out
   in the diet of December 4th, 'he none the less holds fast to
   your coat-tails!'"

      C. Bulle,
      Geschichte der neuesten Zeit
      (translated from the German),
      volume 4, pages 20-41.

{3781}

   At the Session of the Lower House of the Prussian Diet January
   30, 1872, Deputy Windthorst spoke in opposition to the royal
   order for the abolition of the separate Roman Catholic section
   of the department of worship and public instruction and Prince
   Bismarck, in reply, said: "The party to which the gentleman
   belongs has contributed its share to the difficulty of
   obliterating the denominational standpoint in matters
   political. I have always considered it one of the most
   monstrous manifestations in politics, that a religious faction
   should convert itself into a political party. If all the other
   creeds were to adopt the same principle, it would bring
   theology into the parliamentary sessions and would make it a
   matter of public debate. … It has always been one of my
   fundamental principles that every creed ought to have full
   liberty of development, perfect liberty of conscience. But for
   all that I did not think it was a necessary corollary that a
   census of each denomination be taken merely for the purpose of
   giving each its proportional share in the Civil Service. …
   Where will you stop? You begin with a Cabinet; then you count
   the Chiefs of Division. I do not know what your ratio is—I
   think you claim four to seven—nor do I care to know. The
   subordinates in the Civil Service follow next. It is a fact,
   moreover, that the Evangelicals are by no means united in one
   denomination. The contrast is not merely between Protestants
   and Catholics. The United Prussian Established Church, the
   Lutheran Church, the Reformed Church, all have claims
   analogous to those of the Catholics. As soon as we cut up the
   state into denominational sections, giving each creed its
   proportional share, then the large Jewish population will come
   in for its part, a majority of which, distinguished by its
   special capacity, skill and intelligence, is peculiarly fitted
   for the business of the State. … We cannot admit the claim of
   the ecclesiastical authorities to a further share in the
   administration and in the interest of peace we are obliged to
   restrict the share they already have; so that we may have room
   beside each other and be obliged, as little as possible, to
   trouble ourselves about theology in this place."

      Die politischen Reden des Fürsten Bismarck
      (translated from the German),
      volume 5, pages 231-240.

   In the German Parliament, May 14, 1872, on the question of a
   grant of 19,350 thalers for the German embassy at the See of
   Rome, Prince Bismarck spoke as follows: "I can easily
   understand how in considering this item of the estimates, the
   opinion may be held that the expenditure for this embassy was
   superfluous, as it does no longer consider the protection of
   German citizens in foreign parts. Still I am glad that no
   motion for the striking out of this post was made, which would
   be unpleasant to the Government. The duties of an embassy
   consist not merely in affording protection to their
   countrymen, but also in keeping up the political relations of
   the Government which it represents with that to which it is
   accredited. Now there is no foreign sovereign, who, in the
   present state of our laws, might be called upon to exercise,
   in accordance with those laws, prerogatives in the German
   empire like those of His Holiness, approaching almost to
   sovereignty, limited by no constitutional responsibility.
   There is therefore great importance for the German empire in
   the character that is given to our diplomatic relations with
   the head of the Roman Church, wielding, as he does, an
   influence in this country unusually extensive for a foreign
   potentate. I scarcely believe, considering the spirit dominant
   at present in the leading circles of the Catholic Church, that
   any ambassador of the German empire could succeed, by the most
   skilful diplomacy, or by persuasion (comminatory attitudes
   conceivable between secular powers are out of the question
   here)—I say no one could succeed by persuasion in exerting an
   influence to bring about a modification of the position
   assumed by His Holiness the Pope towards things secular. The
   dogmas of the Catholic Church recently announced and publicly
   promulgated make it impossible for any secular power to come
   to an understanding with the church without its own
   effacement, which the German empire, at least, cannot accept.
   Have no fear; we shall not go to Canossa, either in body or in
   spirit. Nevertheless it cannot be concealed that the state of
   the German empire (it is not my task here to investigate the
   motives and determine how much blame attaches to one party or
   the other; I am only defending an item in the Budget)—that
   the feeling within the German empire in regard to religious
   peace, is one of disquietude. The governments of the German
   empire are seeking, with all the solicitude they owe to their
   Catholic as well as Lutheran subjects for the best way, the
   most acceptable means, of changing the present unpleasant
   state of affairs in matters of religion to a more agreeable
   one, without disturbing to any degree the creedal relations of
   the empire. This can only be done by way of legislation—of
   general imperial legislation—for which the governments have to
   rely upon the assistance of the Reichstag. That this
   legislation must not in the least infringe upon the liberty of
   conscience,—must proceed in the gentlest, most conciliatory
   manner; that the government must bend all its energies in
   order to prevent unnecessary retardation of its work, from
   incorrect recording or errors in form, you all will admit.
   That the governments must spare no efforts for the
   establishment of our internal peace, in a manner least
   offensive even to the religious sensitiveness of those whose
   creed we do not share, you will also admit. To this end,
   however, it is before all things needful that the Roman See be
   at all times well informed of the intentions of the German
   governments, much better than it has been hitherto. The
   reports made in the past to His Holiness, the Pope, on the
   state of affairs in Germany, and on the intentions of the
   German governments, I consider as one of the chief causes of
   the present disturbances of denominational relations; for
   those presentations were both incorrect and perverted, either
   by personal bias, or by baser motives. I had hoped that the
   choice of an ambassador, who had the full confidence of both
   parties, both on account of his love of truth and reliability,
   and on account of the nature of his views and his
   attitude—that the choice of such an ambassador as His Majesty
   had made in the person of a distinguished prince of the church
   [Cardinal Prince Hohenlohe] would be welcomed at Rome; that it
   would be taken as an earnest of our peaceable and conciliatory
   intentions; that it would be utilized as a means to our mutual
   understanding.
{3782}
   I had hoped that it would afford the assurance that we would
   never ask anything of His Holiness, but what a prince of the
   church, sustaining the most intimate relations to the Pope,
   could present before him; that the forms with which one
   sacerdotal dignitary confers with another would continue to
   prevail and that all unnecessary friction in a matter so
   difficult in itself would be avoided. … All this we had hoped
   to attain. But alas! for reasons which have not yet been
   submitted to us, a curt refusal on the part of the Papal See
   frustrated the intentions of His Majesty. I dare say such an
   incident does not often occur. It is customary, when a
   sovereign has made choice of an ambassador, out of courtesy to
   make inquiry at the court to which the chosen ambassador is to
   be accredited, whether he be persona grata or not. The case of
   a negative reply, however, is extremely rare, bringing about,
   as it must, a revocation of the appointment made not
   provisionally, but definitely, before the inquiry. Such a
   negative reply is equal to a demand to annul what has been
   done, to a declaration: 'You have chosen unwisely.' I have now
   been Foreign Minister for ten years; have been busy in matters
   of higher diplomacy for twenty-one years; and I can positively
   assert that this is the first and only case in my experience
   of such an inquiry receiving a negative reply." Deputy
   Windthorst, in reply, criticised the procedure of the German
   Government in this affair, and justified the position taken by
   the papal court, saying: "I believe, gentlemen, for my part,
   that it was the duty of the Cardinal to ask the permission of
   his master, the Pope, before accepting the post. The Cardinal
   was the servant of the Pope, and as such, could not accept an
   office from another government without previous inquiry. … The
   case would be the same if His Holiness had appointed an
   adjutant general of His Majesty as papal nuncio, only more
   flagrant, for you will admit that a Cardinal is quite a
   different person from an adjutant general." Prince Bismarck
   replied: "I do not wish to discuss here the personal criticism
   which the gentleman made on His Eminence, the Cardinal, but I
   would say a word about the expression 'master' which was used.
   The gentleman is certainly well versed in history, especially
   ecclesiastical history, and I wish to ask him, who was the
   master of Cardinal Richelieu or Cardinal Mazarin. Both of
   these dignitaries were engaged in controversies and had to
   settle important differences with the See of Rome, in the
   service of their sovereign, the king of France; and yet they
   were Cardinals. … If it should please His Holiness to appoint
   an adjutant general of His Majesty as papal nuncio, I should
   unconditionally advise His Majesty to accept him. … I am an
   enemy to all conjectural politics and all prophesies. That
   will take care of itself. But I can assure the gentleman that
   we will maintain the full integral sovereignty of the law with
   all means at our disposal, against assumptions of individual
   subjects of His Majesty, the king of Prussia, be they priests
   or laymen, that there could be laws of the land not binding
   upon them; and we are sure of the entire support of a great
   majority of the members of all religious confessions. The
   sovereignty can and must be one and integral,—the sovereignty
   of the law; and he who declares the laws of his country as not
   binding upon himself, places himself outside the pale of the
   law."

      Die politischen Reden des Fürsten Bismarck
      (translated from the German),
      volume 5, pages 337-344.

   The following is from a speech of Prince Bismarck in the Upper
   House, March 10, 1873, during the discussion of the May Laws:
   "The gentleman who spoke before me has entered on the same
   path which the opponents of these bills followed in the other
   house by ascribing to them a confessional, I might say, an
   ecclesiastical character. The question we are considering is,
   according to my view, misconstrued, and the light in which we
   consider it, a false light if we look upon it as a
   confessional, a church question. It is essentially a political
   one; it is not, as our catholic fellow citizens are made to
   believe, a contest of an evangelical dynasty against the
   Catholic Church; it is not a struggle between faith and
   unbelief; it is the perennial contest, as old as the human
   race, between royalty and priestcraft, older than the
   appearance of our Savior on earth. This contest was carried on
   by Agamemnon at Aulis, which cost him his daughter and
   hindered the Grecian fleet from going to sea. This contest has
   filled the German history of the Middle Ages even to the
   disintegration of the German Empire. It is known as the
   struggles of the popes with the emperors, closing for the
   Middle Ages when the last representative of the noble Suabian
   imperial dynasty died on the block beneath the axe of the
   French conqueror, that French conqueror being in league with
   the then ruling pope. We were very near an analogous solution
   of this question, translated into the manners of our own time.
   Had the French war of conquest been successful, the outbreak
   of which coincided with the publication of the Vatican
   Decrees, I know not what would have been narrated in Church
   circles of Germany of 'gestis Dei per Francos' ['Gesta Dei per
   Francos,' 'Deeds of God by the French' is the title of a
   collection by Bongars, containing the sources of the history
   of the crusades.—Footnote]. … It is in my opinion a
   falsification of history and politics, this attitude of
   considering His Holiness, the Pope, exclusively as the high
   priest of a religious denomination, or the Catholic Church as
   the representative of Churchdom merely. The papacy has at all
   times been a political power, interfering in the most resolute
   manner and with the greatest success in the secular affairs of
   this world, which interference it contended for and made its
   program. These programs are well known. The aim which was
   constantly present in its mind's eye, the program which in the
   Middle Ages was near its realization, was the subjection of
   the secular powers to the Church, an eminently political aim,
   a striving as old as mankind itself. For there have always
   been either some wise men, or some real priests who set up the
   claim, that the will of God was better known to them than to
   their fellow beings and in consequence of this claim they had
   the right to rule over their fellowmen. And it cannot be
   denied that this proposition contains the basis of the papal
   claims for the exercise of sovereign rights. …
{3783}
   The contention of priesthood against royalty, in our case, of
   the Pope against the German Emperor, … is to be judged like
   every other struggle; it has its alliances, its peace
   conventions, its pauses, its armistices. There have been
   peaceful popes, there have been popes militant, popes
   conquerors. There have been even peace-loving kings of France,
   though Louis XVI. was forced to carry on wars; so that even
   our French neighbors have had monarchs who preferred peace to
   war. Moreover in the struggles of the papal power it has not
   always been the call that Catholic powers have been
   exclusively the allies of the pope; nor have the priests
   always sided with the pope. We have had cardinals as ministers
   of great powers at a time when those great powers followed an
   antipapal policy even to acts of violence. We have found
   bishops in the military retinue of the German emperors, when
   moving against the popes. This contest for power therefore is
   subject to the same condition as every other political
   contest, and it is a misrepresentation of the issue,
   calculated to impress people without judgment of their own,
   when it is characterized as aiming at the oppression of the
   church. Its object is the defense of the State, to determine
   the limits of priestly rule, of royal power, and this limit
   must secure the existence of the State. For in the kingdom of
   this world the rule and the precedence is the State's. We in
   Prussia have not always been the pre-eminent object of this
   struggle. The papal court for a long time did not consider us
   as its principal opponent. Frederic the Great was at perfect
   peace with the Roman See while the contemporary emperor of
   Catholic Austria [Joseph II.] was engaged in the most violent
   contention with the Catholic Church. I wish to prove thereby
   that the question is entirely independent of creed. I will
   further add that at the Vienna Congress it was King Frederic
   William III., thoroughly and most strictly evangelical, nay,
   it might be said, anticatholic in his belief, that it was he
   who insisted upon and carried through the restoration of the
   secular rule of the pope; nevertheless he departed this world
   while engaged in a struggle with the Catholic Church. In the
   paragraphs of the constitution we have under consideration we
   found a 'modus vivendi,' an armistice, concluded at a time
   when the State was in need of help and thought to obtain this
   help or at least some support in the Catholic Church. This
   hope was based upon the fact that at the election for the
   national assembly of 1848 the districts in which the Catholic
   population preponderated elected, if not royalists, yet
   friends of order,—which was not the case in evangelical
   districts. Under this impression the compromise between the
   ecclesiastical and secular arms was concluded, though, as
   subsequent events proved, in miscalculation as to its
   practical effects. For it was not the support of the electors
   who had thus voted but the Brandenburg ministry and the royal
   army that restored order. In the end the State was obliged to
   help itself; the aid that might have been given by the
   different churches did not pull it through. But at that time
   originated the 'modus vivendi' under which we lived in peace
   for a number of years. To be sure, this peace was bought only
   by an uninterrupted yielding of the State, by placing its
   rights in regard to the Catholic Church, without reservation,
   in the hands of a magistracy which was originally intended to
   be the guardian of the royal Prussian prerogatives against the
   Catholic Church, but which in fact ultimately became a
   magistracy in the service of the pope, in order to guard the
   rights of the church against the encroachments of the Prussian
   State. Of course, I refer to the Catholic section in the
   Supreme Church Council [the Church Council is a Protestant
   body.—Foot-note]. I mean of the Ministry of worship. … When we
   were yet in Versailles I was somewhat surprised to learn, that
   Catholic members of parliamentary bodies were asked to declare
   whether they were ready to join a religious party, such as we
   have now in the Party of the Center, and whether they would
   agree to vote and agitate for the insertion of the paragraphs
   we are at present considering into the constitution of the
   Empire. I was not much alarmed then at that program; I was a
   lover of peace to such a degree. I knew from whom it emanated;
   partly from an eminent prince of the church [Bishop Ketteler
   of Mayence] whose chief task it was to do for the papal policy
   what he could. … I was completely deceived. … When I returned
   here I saw how strong was the organization of this party of
   the church militant, against the state. … What, was this
   program? Read it. There are pamphlets in everybody's hand,
   written with spirit, pleasant to read. Its object was the
   introduction of a state dualism in Prussia, the erection of a
   state within the state to bring it about that all Catholics
   should follow the guidance of this Party of the Center in
   their private as well as their political conduct, a dualism of
   the worst kind. Under different conditions a dualistic
   constitution might work well in an empire. Witness the
   Austro-Hungarian monarchy. But yonder it is no religious
   dualism. With us the construction of two denominational states
   is aimed at, to be engaged in a dualistic struggle, one of
   which was to have for its supreme ruler a foreign church
   potentate, whose seat is in Home, a potentate who by the
   latest changes in the constitution of the Catholic Church has
   become more powerful than ever before. If this program were
   carried out, we were to have instead of the one formerly
   integral state of Prussia, instead of the German Empire then
   at the point of realization—we were to have two state
   organizations, running side by side in parallel lines; one
   with the Party of the Center as its general staff, the other
   with its general staff in the guiding secular principle, in
   the government and the person of his Majesty the Emperor. This
   situation was absolutely unacceptable for the government whose
   very duty it was to defend the state against such a danger. It
   would have misunderstood and neglected this duty if it had
   looked on calmly at the astounding progress which a closer
   examination of the affair brought to light. … The Government
   was obliged to terminate the armistice, based upon the
   constitution of 1848, and create a new 'modus vivendi' between
   the secular and sacerdotal power. The State cannot allow this
   situation to continue without being driven into internal
   struggles that may endanger its very existence. The question
   is simply this: Are those paragraphs of the constitution [of
   1848] dangerous to the State, as is contended for by the
   government of His Majesty, or are they not?
{3784}
   If they are, then it is your duty as conservatives to vote
   against the retention of those paragraphs. If you think them
   entirely harmless then you hold a conviction which the
   government of His Majesty does not share, and as it is not
   able to assume the responsibility for the administration of
   the affairs of the State with these articles of the
   constitution in force, it must surrender it to those who
   consider them harmless. The Government, in its struggle for
   the defense of the State, applies to the Upper House for aid
   and assistance for the strengthening of the State and its
   defense against attacks and machinations that undermine its
   peace and endanger its future. We trust and believe that this
   assistance will not fail us with the majority of the Upper
   House."

      Die politischen Reden des Fürsten Bismarck
      (translated from the German),
      volume 5, pages 384-391.

GERMANY: A. D. 1871-1873.
   Adoption of the gold standard.

      See MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1871-1873 (page 2220).

GERMANY: A. D. 1871-1895.
   The organization of the modern German Empire.

   "The idea of the unity of the empire in its purest and most
   unadulterated form is most clearly typified by the German
   diet. This assembly, resulting from general elections of the
   whole people, shows all the clefts and schisms which
   partisanship and the spirit of faction have simultaneously
   brought about among the different classes of the people and
   among their representatives. But there is not one among all
   the prominent factions of the German diet which owes its
   formation to territorial differences. The changing majorities
   and minorities have assumed their form more curiously in our
   parliament than in any other in the world, but there never has
   been a single case where in taking a vote North Germans have
   come forward in a body against South Germans or vice versa, or
   where small and medium states have been pitted against the one
   large state. If the constitution of the empire reminds each
   deputy that he is a representative of the whole people, the
   best part of the provision is that it comes to be looked upon
   as a matter of course; it belongs to the very essence of a
   parliamentary assembly that it should see in a particular
   constellation of opposing factions only something exceptional.
   How indispensable a parliamentary organ which actually
   represents the unity of the people is to every state in a
   confederation is best shown by the energy with which the
   Prussian government again and again demanded a German
   parliament at the very time when it fairly despaired about
   coming to an understanding with its own body of
   representatives. In the middle between the head of the empire
   and such a diet as we have described is the place occupied by
   the Federal Council (Bundesrath): not until we have made this
   clear to ourselves can we fully understand the nature of this
   latter institution. Each of its members is the plenipotentiary
   of his sovereign just as were the old Regensburg and Frankfort
   envoys. It is a duty, for instance, for Bavaria's
   representative to investigate each measure proposed and to see
   whether it is advantageous or not for the land of Bavaria. The
   Federal Council is and is meant to be the speaking-tube by
   which the voice of the separate interests shall reach the ear
   of the legislator. But all the same, held together as it is by
   the firm stability of the seventeen votes which it holds
   itself and by the balancing power of the emperor and of the
   diet, it is the place where daily habit educates the
   representatives of the individual states to see that by
   furthering the welfare of the common fatherland they take the
   best means of furthering their own local interests. Taken each
   by himself the plenipotentiaries represent their own
   individual states; taken as a whole the assembly represents a
   conglomeration of all the German states. It is the upholder of
   the sovereignty of the empire. If, then, the federal council
   already represents the whole empire, still more is this true
   of the general body of officials, constituted through
   appointment by the emperor although with a considerable amount
   of co-operation on the part of the federal council. The
   imperial chancellor is the responsible minister of the emperor
   for the whole of the empire. At his side is the imperial
   chancery, a body of officials who, in turn, have to do in each
   department with the affairs of the whole empire. The imperial
   court, too, in spite of all its limitations, is none the less
   a court for the whole empire. Not less clearly is the
   territorial unity expressed in the unity of legislation. In
   the circumstances in which we left the old empire there could
   scarcely be any question any longer of real imperial
   legislation. Under the confederation beginnings were made, nor
   were they unsuccessful; but once again it was primarily the
   struggle against the strivings for unity that chiefly impelled
   the princes to united action. The 'Carlsbad decrees' placed
   limits to separate territorial legislation to an extent that
   even the imperial legislation of to-day would not venture upon
   in many ways. The empire of the year 1848 at once took up the
   idea of imperial legislation; a 'Reichsgesetzblatt' [imperial
   legislative gazette] was issued. In this the imperial
   ministry, after first passing them in the form of a decree,
   published among other things a set of rules regulating
   exchange. The plan was broached of drawing up a code of
   commercial law for all Germany for the benefit of that class
   of the population to which a uniform regulation of its legal
   relationships was an actual question of life and death. So
   firmly rooted was such legislation in the national needs that
   even the reaction of the fifties did not venture to undo what
   had been done. Indeed the idea of a universal code of
   commercial law was carried on by most of the governments with
   the best will in the world. A number of conferences were
   called and by the end of the decade a plan had been drawn up,
   thoroughly worked out and adopted. It has remained up to this
   very day the legal basis for commercial intercourse. It is
   true it was not the general decrees of these conferences that
   gave legal authority to this code, but rather its subsequent
   acceptance by the governments of the individual states. But
   the practical result nevertheless was that, in one important
   branch of law, the same code was in use in all German states.
   Never before, so long as Germany had had a history, had a
   codification of private law been introduced by means of
   legislation into the German states in common; for the first
   time princes and subjects learned by its fruits the blessing
   of united legislation. But a few years later they were ready
   enough to give over to the newly established empire all actual
   power of legislation: only, indeed, for such matters as were
   adapted for common regulation, but, so far as these were
   concerned, so fully and freely that no local territorial law
   can in any way interfere.
{3785}
   What the lawgiver of the German empire announces as his will
   must be accepted from the foot of the Alps to the waves of the
   German Ocean. Thus after long national striving the view had
   made a way for itself that, without threatening the existence
   of the individual states, the soil of the empire nevertheless
   formed a united territorial whole. But not only the soil, its
   inhabitants also had to be welded together into one
   organization. The old empire had lost all touch with its
   subjects—a very much graver evil than the disintegration of
   its territory. So formidable an array of intermediate powers
   had thrust itself in between the emperor and his subjects that
   at last the citizen and the peasant never by any chance any
   more heard the voice of their imperial master. … In three ways
   the German emperor now found the way to his subjects. Already
   as king of Prussia the emperor of the future had been obeyed
   by 19 millions of the whole German population as his immediate
   subjects. By the entrance of a further 8 millions into the
   same relationship on the resignation of their own territorial
   lords by far the majority of all Germans became immediate
   subjects of the emperor. The German empire, secondly, in those
   branches of the administration which it created anew or at
   least reorganized, made it a rule to preserve from the very
   beginning the most immediate contact with its subjects: so in
   the army, so in the department of foreign affairs. The empire,
   finally, even where it left the administration to the
   individual states, exercised the wholesome pressure of a
   supreme national authoritative organization by setting up
   certain general rules to be observed. The empire, for
   instance, will not allow any distinctions to be made among its
   subjects which would interfere with national unity. If the
   Swabian comes to Hesse, the Hessian to Bavaria, the Bavarian
   to Oldenburg, his inborn right of citizenship gives him a
   claim to all the privileges of one born within those limits.
   For all Germany there is a common right of citizenship; and
   this common bond receives its true significance through
   numerous actual migrations from one state to another, the
   right of choosing a domicile being guaranteed. … It belongs in
   the nature of a federative state that it should not claim for
   itself all state-duties but should content itself with
   exercising only such functions as demand a centralized
   organization. In consequence we see the individual states
   unfolding great activity in the field of internal
   administration, in the furtherance of education, art and
   science, in the care of the poor: matters with which the
   empire as a whole has practically nothing to do. All those
   affairs of the states, on the other hand, which by their
   nature demand a centralized administration have been taken in
   hand by the empire, and the unity of public interests to which
   the activity of the empire gives utterance is shown in the
   most different ways. There are certain affairs administered by
   the empire which it has brought as much under a central
   organization as ever the Prussian state did the affairs of the
   amalgamated territories within its limits. With regard to
   others the empire has preserved for itself nothing more than
   the chief superintendence; with regard to others still it is
   content to set up principles which are to be generally
   followed and to exercise a right of supervision. It would be
   wrong, however, to imagine that the two last-mentioned
   prerogatives are only of secondary importance. The
   superintendence which the German emperor exercises over the
   affairs of the army, the chief part of which, indeed, is under
   his direction as king of Prussia, is sufficient in its
   workings to make the land-army, in time of war, as much of a
   unit as is the consolidated navy. … Customs' matters form a
   third category, with regard to which the empire possesses only
   the beginnings of an administrative apparatus: all the same we
   have seen in the last years how the right of general
   supervision was sufficient in this field to bring about a
   change in the direction of centralization, the importance of
   which is recognizable from the loud expressions of approval of
   its supporters and also in equal measure from the loud
   opposition of its antagonists. … In the field of finance the
   empire has advanced with caution and consideration and at the
   same time with vigor. In general the separate states have
   retained their systems of direct and indirect taxation. Only
   that amount of consolidation without which the unity of the
   empire as a whole would have been illusory was firmly decreed:
   'Germany forms one customs and commercial unit bounded by
   common customs limits.' The internal inter-state customs were
   abolished. The finances that remained continued to belong to
   the individual states—the direct taxes in their entirety, the
   indirect to a great extent. The administration of the customs
   on the borders even remained in the hands of the local
   customs-officials, only that when collected they were placed
   to the general account. But the unconditional right of the
   empire to lay down the principles of customs legislation gave
   it more and more of an opportunity to create finances of its
   own and to become more and more independent of the scheduled
   contributions from the separate states. … Judicial matters are
   the affair of the individual state. With his complaints and
   with his accusations the citizen whose rights have been
   infringed turns to the court established by his territorial
   lord. But already it has been found possible to organize a
   common mode of procedure for this court throughout the whole
   empire; the rules of court, the forms for criminal as well as
   civil suits are everywhere the same. … The general German
   commercial code and the exchange regulations, which almost all
   the states had proclaimed law on the ground of the conferences
   under the confederation, were proclaimed again in the name of
   the empire and were supplemented in certain particulars. As to
   criminal law a general German criminal code has unified the
   more important matters and, with regard to those of less
   importance, has legally fixed the limits to be observed by the
   individual states. Work is constantly going on at a civil code
   which is to be drawn up much on the same lines. The German
   nation is busily engaged in creating a German legal system
   according to which the Prussian as well as the Bavarian, Saxon
   or Swabian judge is to render his decisions. Furthermore, a
   century-long development in our civilized states has brought
   it about that a supervision, itself in the form of legal
   decisions, should be exercised over the legality of judicial
   sentences. Here again it was in commercial matters that the
   jurisdiction of a supreme court first showed itself to be an
   unavoidable necessity.
{3786}
   Then it was, however, that after a slumber of seventy years
   the old imperial court rose again from the dead, not entirely
   without limitations, but absolutely without the power to make
   exceptions. The imperial court at Leipzig is a court for the
   whole empire and for one and all of its subjects. If we turn
   to the internal administration it is chiefly matters
   concerning traffic and intercommunication which call by their
   very nature for regulation under one system. Although the
   management of local and to some extent also of provincial
   postal affairs is left as far as possible to the individual
   states themselves, the German post is nevertheless imperial,
   all the higher officials are appointed by the emperor, the
   imperial post office passes its rules and regulations and sees
   that they are carried out with reference to the whole empire.
   Just this branch of the administration indeed has had to halt
   at the Würtemberg and Bavarian frontiers, but in these two
   states also the legal foundations of the postal system have
   been adopted in all essential points. And if in the actual
   administration the differences likewise begin to vanish, the
   reason for this is more gratifying than is the fact itself:
   the extraordinary triumphs, namely, of our imperial post,
   which of themselves invite imitation and a breaking down of
   barriers. The introduction of the penny tariff has increased
   the amount of mail matter to four or five times what it was
   before. Postcards, invented by the director of our postal
   system, are already [1885], issued annually by the 150
   million. The parcels-post, made cheaper and more convenient,
   has attained such importance that it has actually come to
   serve as a regulator of prices for the retail business of
   mercantile houses. Great differences of price in different
   parts of the empire become more and more an impossibility so
   soon as one only has to pay ten pfennigs per kilo (2 pounds)
   to procure the same goods in two or three days from the
   cheapest place, be it ever so far off. What is true of the
   post is true also of the telegraph which has come again to be
   one with it. Here, too, we can observe how the centralization
   in the empire has been of especial advantage to just those
   places which lie most out of the way. Chiefly in connection
   with existing or newly created post offices, the imperial post
   office, in the first five years after the direction of the
   telegraph came into its hands, opened more than four thousand
   telegraph counters—on an average two new counters a day!
   Through an extended system of treaties the German imperial
   post has regulated its relations to foreign lands and paved
   the way for the World-postal-association, the first such
   association in the history of the world to take in states from
   all four quarters of the globe. … Compared with the postal
   system the other branches of inter-communication and of
   internal administration seem to be only in the first stages of
   centralization; but here, too, much has been accomplished. The
   railroads stand under the direction or supervisory
   administration of the individual states, but unity with regard
   to time-tables, connections, fares and forwarding has been in
   so far preserved that differences which might interrupt
   traffic are avoided as far as possible. The governments of the
   confederated states are under obligations 'to allow the German
   railroads, in the interests of general communication, to be
   administered as one unbroken network.' A separate Imperial
   Railroad Bureau watches over the fulfillment of this
   agreement. Nothing, however, has given clearer expression to a
   unified system of intercommunication in Germany than the
   equalization of the coinage. In old times, when all or at
   least the chief territorial lords possessed the unrestricted
   right of coinage, each state did not, indeed, have its own
   standard, for how would it have been possible to invent
   several hundred standards of coinage? But when the territorial
   lord did make up his mind to adopt some existing system he
   usually chose one that was not in vogue in the state next to
   him, so that the boundaries of his own state might be the more
   clearly defined. That was how it came about that a map of the
   coinage standards of Germany looked almost as variegated as
   the map of its states. … Still worse than with regard to
   coined money—which, after all, always had a natural regulator
   in the actual market value of the silver or gold—did the want
   of unity show itself in the matter of paper money. Not only
   did the various states have different principles on which they
   issued it, and a different system of securities in funding it,
   but one and the same state would continue to use its old paper
   money even when issuing new on another principle. Hundreds of
   different bank-notes were in use, many which had long been
   called in continued still to circulate until some unfortunate
   last holder had to pay the costs. He who had thus learned a
   lesson at his own expense became very cautious and would
   refuse even the best paper money. The black Schwarzburg notes
   looked so grimy that the petty folk in their own land
   considered them out of date and preferred Prussian money. … In
   the matter of coins the empire found no general European model
   to go by. The mark, which was finally chosen as the unit of
   coinage, had the double advantage of facilitating a transition
   from the old thaler days and of inaugurating a firm
   relationship to the franc of the Romanic coinage system, the
   pound of the English world, the gulden of the Austrian empire
   (so soon as the latter power resumed metal coinage). The
   introduction of a gold basis gave the young coinage system a
   solid basis on the most precious metal. The mints remained in
   the hands of the separate states, but the coin was issued 'on
   account with the empire.' The coins accordingly bear on one
   side the image of the territorial lord who issues them, on the
   other, to give them general validity, the coat of arms of the
   empire. … Founded thus on a system of firm finances, on the
   uniform administration of justice in all lands, on an internal
   administration which, however varied, nevertheless fulfills
   the necessary demands of unity, the German empire shows a
   measure of consolidation the best outward expression to which
   is given by its army. Among the two million men on land and on
   sea who are ready to protect the Fatherland's boundaries there
   is not one who has not sworn fidelity to his imperial master:
   among the generals, not one who has not been appointed by the
   emperor. The most cherished of all duties binds the German to
   his German Fatherland. If, as regards the land-army, the
   princes still have a certain right of administration over
   their own contingents: on the man-of-war, where the sons of
   all the states that border on the sea come together, every
   possible distinction vanishes. The German navy knows no other
   flag, no other cockade, than the black-white-and-red."

      I. Jastrow,
      Geschichte des deutschen Einheitstraumes und 
      seiner Erfüllung (translated from the German),
      pages 285-303.

{3787}

GERMANY: A. D. 1883-1889.
   Bismarck's Sickness, Accident and Old-Age Insurance Laws.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1883-1889 (page 2955).

GERMANY: A. D. 1883-1894.
   Acquisitions in Africa.

      See (in this Supplement) AFRICA: 1883, and after.

GERMANY: Libraries.

      See LIBRARIES, MODERN (page 2010).

   ----------GERMANY: End--------

GHENT, Treaty of (the text).

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (pages 3355-3358).

GIRTON COLLEGE.

      See EDUCATION (page 745).

GODIN, and his Social Palace at Guise.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1859-1887 (page 2947).

GODOY, The Ministry of.

      See (in this Supplement) SPAIN: A. D. 1788-1808.

GOLD AND SILVER, Production of.

      See MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1848-1893 (page 2217).

GORTON, Samuel, in Rhode Island.

      See RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1641-1647 (page 2641).

GRANGERS, The.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1866-1875 (page 2951).

GRANT, General U. S.: Report on affairs in the South.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (page 3562).

GREAT SEAL, Lord Keeper of the.

      See LAW, EQUITY: A. D. 1538 (page 1990).

GREECE: Outline Sketch of ancient history.

      See EUROPE (pages 991-996).

GREECE: Commerce, ancient.

      See (in this Supplement) COMMERCE, ANCIENT.

GREECE: Libraries.

      See LIBRARIES, ANCIENT (page 2002.)

GREECE: Medical Science.

      See MEDICAL SCIENCE, GREEK (page 2124).

GREECE: Money and Banking.

      See MONEY AND BANKING (pages 2201 and 2202).

GREELEY, Lieutenant, Polar expedition of.

      See (in this Supplement) ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1881-1884.

GREGORY I., Pope (called the Great).

      See PAPACY: A. D. 461-604 (page 2422).

GREGORY VII., Pope, and the Empire.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1056-1122 (page 2427);
      GERMANY: A. D. 973-1122 (page 1441);
      and CANOSSA (page 386).

GRINNELL EXPEDITIONS.

      See (in this Supplement)
      ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1850-1851, 1853-1855.

GRIPPE, La, Early appearances of.

      See PLAGUE, ETC.; A. D. 1485-1593,
      and 18TH CENTURY (page 2542).

GUILDS, OR GILDS.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1720-1800 (page 2933).

GUNBOATS, Jefferson's.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1805 (page 3332).

H.

HABEAS CORPUS, President Lincoln's suspension of the writ of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861-1863 (page 3447).

HAHNEMANN, and the system of Homœopathy.

      See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17-18TH CENTURIES (page 2139).

HALL, Captain Charles F., Arctic explorations of.

      See (in this Supplement)
      ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1860-1862; 1864-1869; and 1871-1872.

HALLER, Albrecht von, The medical system of.

      See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 18TH CENTURY (page 2141).

HANSA, The.

      See (in this Supplement)
      COMMERCE, MEDIÆVAL;
      and GERMANY: 13-15TH, and 15-17TH CENTURIES.
      Also, HANSA TOWNS (page 1624).

HAPSBURG, Early fortunes of the family of.

      See (in this Supplement) AUSTRIA: A. D. 1273-1349.

HARMONY SOCIETY, The.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1805-1827 (page 2937).

HARVEY, and the discovery of the Circulation of the Blood.

      See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17TH CENTURY (page 2133).

HAYES, Dr. Isaac I., Arctic explorations of.

      See (in this Supplement)
      ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1860-1861, and 1869.

HELMONT, John Baptist, The medical system of.

      See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 16TH CENTURY (page 2133).

HENRY, Professor Joseph,
   Invention of the electric telegraph.

      See ELECTRICAL DISCOVERY AND INVENTION:
      A. D. 1825-1874 (page 772).

   For other work of Henry;

      T. O'Conor Sloane
      The Standard Electrical Dictionary
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/26535

HERCULANEUM, Libraries of.

      See LIBRARIES, ANCIENT (page 2005).

HIGHER-LAW SPEECH, Seward's.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850 (page 3387).

HINDU MEDICAL SCIENCE.

      See MEDICAL SCIENCE, HINDU (page 2123).

HIPPOCRATES.
   The Hippocratic Oath.

      See MEDICAL SCIENCE, GREEK (page 2125).

HOFFMANN, Frederic, and Humoral Pathology.

      See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17TH CENTURY (page 2136).

HOLLAND: Commerce.

      See (in this Supplement) COMMERCE, MEDIÆVAL, and MODERN.

HOLLAND: Libraries.

      See LIBRARIES, MODERN (page 2013).


HOLT, Lord, and the Law of Bailments.

      See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1698-1710 (page 1971).

HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE, The.

      See (in this Supplement) GERMANY: A. D. 9)62;
      also, page 2652.

HOMŒOPATHY, Origin of the system of.

      See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17-18TH CENTURIES (page 2139).

HUDSON, Henry, Northern voyages of.

      See (in this Supplement)
      ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1607, and after.

HUNTER, Dr. John, The work of.

      See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 18TH CENTURY (page 2139).

HUTCHINSON, Governor Thomas.
   Conversation with King George.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774 (pages 3210-3213).

{3788}

I.

ICARIA.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1840-1883 (page 2943).

ICILIAN LAW, The.

      See ROME: B. C.456 (page 2665).

INDIA, Ancient Commerce.

      See (In this Supplement) COMMERCE, ANCIENT.

INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS, The question of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1807. and 1816-1817 (pages 3335 and 3360).

INTERNATIONAL, The.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1862-1872,
      and 1872-1886 (pages 2950 and 2953).

INVESTITURES, The question of.

      See (in this Supplement) PAPACY: 11-12TH CENTURIES;
      also page 2427.

   ----------ITALY: Start--------

ITALY: 11-15th Centuries.
   Commerce of the city republics.

      See (in this Supplement) COMMERCE, MEDIÆVAL.

ITALY: A. D. 1154-1190.
   Invasions of Frederick Barbarossa.

   "In November Frederick appeared in Lombardy and hung up his
   shield on a high post as a token that he was to hold a review
   of the army and a general court. The most of the complaints of
   the cities were directed against Milan, but on complaint of
   Pavia the emperor first attacked Tortona. … A horrible
   chastisement was inflicted on the city; … the inhabitants were
   driven away. … Now at length Frederick turned his attention to
   Rome. On June 18, 1155, he marched into the Leonine City and
   was at once crowned in St. Peter's. … The results of this
   first Italian expedition were nevertheless small. The emperor
   had not conquered Rome; William I of Naples was more
   independent than ever; in northern Italy after Frederick's
   departure Milan was pre-eminent. By her authority Tortona was
   built up again. The Milanese sent the city a brass trumpet
   with which to call her inhabitants together once more. … The
   emperor was determined to put an end forever to all this
   opposition. In July 1158 an immeasurably greater expedition
   started with the express purpose of restoring the authority of
   the empire in Italy. … The Milanese in addition (having after
   a short siege recognized the emperor's claims) paid a fine,
   gave 300 hostages, … and afterwards made their submission in
   the humblest manner: the nobles with drawn swords across their
   shoulders, the people with cords around their necks, fell down
   before the emperor and did him homage. … It was in pursuance
   of Frederick's intention, and of his desire to settle the
   matter once and for all, that to his purposed diet in the
   Roncaglian plains he also summoned some teachers of law from
   Bologna. … Enough, in the assembly at Roncaglia through a well
   authorized judicial sentence, those regalia [royal rights]
   which had gone over to the civic communes were adjudged to the
   emperor, save in cases where by special privilege they had
   been relinquished to special cities. The emperor was
   recognized as the highest legislative power. … Frederick had
   set himself the great problem of uniting together authority
   and freedom. In the best possible monarchical spirit he
   expressed it that he wished an empire resting on a legal
   foundation in order to maintain every man in his freedom. But
   it is none the less evident that he wished the centre of
   gravity to lie in his own authority. It was not the demand of
   the regalia alone that caused the trouble, but just this
   principle, and it comes to the fore in the clearest manner in
   his relations with Milan. The agreement on the occasion of the
   peace with Milan had been that the civic authorities should be
   freely elected but should be invested by the emperor. In
   Roncaglia on the other hand it was decreed that the emperor
   should nominate the authorities subject to the assent of the
   people. A slight change, but one which in reality betokened an
   immense difference. Thus at the diet of Roncaglia did the
   empire unfold once more its full glory. But in the carrying
   out of these decrees, and especially in the matter of
   nominating the authorities; immeasurable difficulties now
   showed themselves. … On this matter, then, it had to come to
   blows. At the very first attempt in Milan a popular tumult
   arose. Frederick instituted proceedings which ended with a new
   banning of the city. … Large as the city was a way was found
   of cutting off from it all supplies. Through extreme want it
   was at last compelled to surrender and to beg for mercy. … The
   city was actually made to cease to exist. It was to be divided
   into four different places. If every trace of it was not
   completely obliterated this was solely due to regard for
   certain churches. The Milanese were treated like a tributary
   people on conquered territory. … In November 1166 the emperor
   started out to drive Pope Alexander from Rome. But already
   under his eyes the Lombard cities were bestirring themselves
   against him. They were discontented on account of oppressions
   which they were obliged to suffer more through the violence of
   the imperial officials than from any fault of the laws. … The
   Lombards considered that if the pope were again to be beaten
   they should find no more help against the power which was
   holding them down. What especially goaded them on was the
   firmness of the imperial rule, its methodical and stern manner
   of proceeding against every one who opposed it. … It was after
   the imperial governors in consequence of the growing
   disaffection had claimed and received new hostages that the
   representatives of Cremona, Brescia, Ferrara and Mantua came
   together in Pontida (April 1167). … The decision of the
   Lombards was, not to consider due to the emperor any more than
   had been considered due to him at the death of Henry V and to
   oppose him by force should he demand more. They restored
   Milan, which joined them, compelled Lodi to go over to their
   side and captured, as they had once done before, the treasure
   of the emperor which was in Trezzo. … Frederick thought to
   crush all opposition in Upper Italy if he could only withdraw
   from it the help of the Greeks and of the pope. He therefore
   turned first against Ancona which the emperor Manuel had
   captured and compelled the city to give him hostages. … He
   then attacked Rome. … They (the Germans) conquered the Leonine
   City after a bloody fight. The emperor himself appeared,
   installed his own pope and caused his queen to be crowned
   (August 1, 1167). Alexander fled, the city of Rome consented
   to make peace. … Thus had the main point been gained and the
   emperor prepared to renew the struggle against the Lombards.
{3789}
   It was then that his brilliant army, beyond a doubt the most
   efficient of its age, was struck down by the hand of fate. A
   plague broke out which ravaged the city as well as the army,
   but which almost annihilated the latter. … He could no longer
   strike an effective blow at the Lombards. But he did not on
   that account lose his head. In Pavia he pronounced the bann
   against the cities; they answered by now first strengthening
   their bonds of union on a large scale. The cities which had
   previously been allied with Venice, and all the others,
   entered into a league which all were to swear to uphold; at
   the head of it was Venice. They were to make common cause in
   war and peace and to perform no services other than the
   customary ones. … The emperor felt that he could not cope with
   this new development and left Pavia. Only after great perils
   did he escape. They strove quite openly to take his life. With
   only a few companions he rescued himself. … In March 1172 the
   emperor represented to the princes that the contagion of
   faithlessness with which Italy had contaminated herself was
   seeking to spread itself out over Greece and Sicily. The term
   for the imperial campaign nevertheless was only set for two
   years later. … In July 1174 the emperor with his army crossed
   the Alps over the Mt Cenis. At this very time the Italians had
   opposed to him a new bulwark—a new city which they called
   Allessandria in honor of the pope. The emperor first attacked
   this but met with an opposition similar to that which
   Archbishop Christian experienced before Ancona. … Many
   conferences took place between the imperial plenipotentiaries,
   the delegates of the cities and the papal legates. But these
   latter, standing as they did at the same time in league with
   the Greek emperor and the king of Sicily, felt themselves to
   be the stronger. … Everything depended on his [Frederick's]
   procuring new help. … The great all-deciding question was
   whether Frederick would have Henry the Lion on his side; not
   indeed exclusively on account of the actual help that he would
   render but because his name in itself would increase the
   prestige of the emperor. … The power of an emperor in its full
   development seemed unbearable to Henry the Lion, even as in
   earlier times it had been unbearable to the German princes. …
   Henry's defection gave courage to the Italian cities. … On May
   29, 1176, a battle took place near Legnano. … Brave as the
   emperor was he nevertheless suffered a complete defeat. … The
   letter is extant which the Milanese wrote to the Bolognese
   concerning the battle. Countless, so they exclaim, are the
   slain, the drowned, the prisoners. We have the shield, the
   standard, the lance and the cross of the emperor. Incalculable
   is the booty. … It is the battle through which the freedom and
   the progress of Italian nationality were founded. … Here [in
   Venice] now, with the pope and the king of Sicily a peace,
   with the Lombards a truce of six years was brought about. Then
   took place that famous meeting of the pope and the emperor in
   Venice, on the 24th of July 1177. … With the cities the
   emperor closed the peace of Constance in the year 1183. He
   acknowledged therein the extension of their jurisdiction over
   the surrounding territory and sanctioned their league but
   retained for himself three things:

   1. his regalia, of which however an estimate was to be made
   according to their value and which were to be compensated for
   by payment of a fixed sum from each city;

   2. the investiture of the consuls; …

   3. the right that appeals should be made within Italy to
   imperial representatives.

   It does not appear that these reservations greatly interfered
   with the liberty of the cities. … In a word, the two opponents
   of the empire in Italy had achieved great victories. The
   emperor had abandoned the idea of maintaining the old
   supremacy of the empire over the church and of subjecting the
   cities to his administration; he did not however on that
   account break off his connection with them. In 1184 he again
   came to Italy; for a yearly sum of 300 lire he abandoned all
   the rights that he had hitherto claimed from the cities and
   allied himself with them. … Meanwhile the emperor succeeded in
   making the greatest possible acquisition in Lower Italy. For
   that Norman kingdom which the Germans had so often attacked in
   vain there was only an heiress left, Constance, aunt of the
   ruling king. Bitterly as the pope opposed it the emperor was
   nevertheless able to bring about a marriage between her and
   his son Henry VI. and thus to secure for him the sure prospect
   of succeeding to Naples and Sicily. … Without knowing it
   Frederick thus tied a new knot which was to be decisive for
   the fate of his house and, we might even say, of Germany
   itself."

      L. von Ranke,
      Weltgeschichte
      (translated from the German).
      volume 8. pages 171-209.

      ALSO IN:
      K. Lamprecht,
      Deutsche Geschichte.

      See, also, ITALY: A. D. 1154-1162, to 1174-1183
      (pages 1811-1813).

ITALY: A. D. 1644.
   First publication of gazettes, or newspapers.

      See PRINTING AND PRESS: A. D. 1612-1650 (page 2592).

ITALY: A. D. 1870.
   Law of the Papal Guarantees.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1870 (page 2477).

ITALY: A. D. 1882-1895.
   Acquisitions in Abyssinia.

      See (in this Supplement) AFRICA:
      1882, 1885, 1889, 1889-1890, 1890-1891, 1894-1895.

ITALY: Constitution.

      For a translation of the text,
      see (in this Supplement) CONSTITUTION OF ITALY.

ITALY: Libraries.

      See LIBRARIES, RENAISSANCE, and MODERN (page 2012).

   ----------ITALY: End--------

J.

JAPAN: A. D. 1894-1895.
   War with China.

      See (in this Supplement) COREA.

JAPAN: Libraries.

      See LIBRARIES, MODERN: JAPAN (page 2024).

JEANNE D'ARC, The family, the home and the circumstances of.

      See (in this Supplement) FRANCE: A. D. 1423-1429;
      also, page 1175.

JEANNETTE, Polar voyage of the.

      See (in this Supplement) ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1879-1882.

JEFFERSON'S GUNBOATS.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1805 (page 3332).

JENNER, Dr. Edward, and the discovery of Vaccination.

      See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 18TH CENTURY (page 2140).

{3790}

JEWS:
   Ancient commerce.
   Connection with the Phœnicians.

      See (in this Supplement) COMMERCE, ANCIENT.

JEWS:
   Ancient money.

         See MONEY AND BANKING: JEWS (page 2203).

JEWS:
   Medical Science.

      See MEDICAL SCIENCE, JEWISH (page 2124).

JOAN OF ARC, The family, the home and the circumstances of.

      See (in this Supplement) FRANCE: A. D. 1423-1429;
      also, page 1175.

JOSEPH II., Emperor: His character and his reforms.

      See (in this Supplement) AUSTRIA: A. D. 1780-1790.

JUDICATURE ACTS, The.

      See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1873 (page 1981).

JURY, Trial by.

      See LAW, COMMON (page 1956, and after).

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE.

      See LAW, CRIMINAL: A. D. 1344 (page 1983).

JUSTICIARY, Chief: Disappearance of the office.

      See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1265 (page 1962).

K.

KANE, Dr. Elisha Kent,
   Polar expeditions and adventures of.

      See (in this Supplement) ARCTIC EXPLORATION:
      1850-1851, and 1853-1855.

KARNATIC, The.

   "Bishop Caldwell says: 'When the Muhammadans arrived in
   Southern India, they found that part of it with which they
   first became acquainted-the country above the Gháts, including
   Mysore and part of Telingána—called the Karnataka country. In
   course of time, by a misapplication of terms, they applied the
   same name Karnatak, or Carnatic, to designate the country
   below the Gháts, as well as that which was above. The English
   have carried the misapplication a step further, and restricted
   the name to the country below the Gháts, which never had any
   right to it whatever. Hence the Mysore country, which is
   properly the true Karnatic, is no longer called by that name;
   and what is now geographically termed "the Karnatic" is
   exclusively the country below the Gháts, on the Coromandel
   coast, including the whole of the Tamil country and the
   Telugu-speaking District of Nellore.'"

      W. W. Hunter,
      Imperial Gazetteer of India: Karnatic
      (volume 5).

KASHGAR.

      See TURKESTAN (page 3130),
      and YAKOOB BEG (page 3662).

KASSHITE, OR KASSITE, DYNASTY, The.

      See SEMITES: THE FIRST BABYLONIAN EMPIRE (page 2890).

KENT, Chancellor, and American jurisprudence.

      See LAW, EQUITY: A. D. 1814-1823 (page 19(3).

KILMAINHAM TREATY, The.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1881-1882 (page 1797).

KING'S LIBRARY, The.

      See LIBRARIES, MODERN (page 2014).

KING'S PEACE, The.

      See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 871-1066, 1100, 1135, and 1300
      (pages 1956, 1958 and 1963).

KNIGHTS OF LABOR, The.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1869-1883 (page 2952).

KOCH, Dr. Robert, Bacteriological studies of.

      See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 19TH CENTURY (page 2146).

KOLDEWY, Captain, Polar expedition of.

      See (in this Supplement) ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1869-1870.

KOREA.

      See (in this Supplement) COREA.

KULTURKAMPF, The.

      See (in this Supplement) GERMANY: A. D. 1870-1874.

L.

LAFAYETTE, General: Visit to the United States.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1824-1825 (page 3365).

LAND, Ultimate property in.

      See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1776 (page 1974).

LAND, Indian right of occupancy.

      See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1823 (page 1976).

LAND ACT OF 1881, The Irish.

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1881-1882 (page 1797).

LAND REGISTRATION.

      See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1630-1641 (page 1969).

LAND-TRANSFER REFORM.

      See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1854-1882, and 1889
      (pages 1980-1981).

LASSALLE, Ferdinand, and German Socialism.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1862-1864 (page 2949).

LATIN UNION, The.

      See MONEY and BANKING: A. D. 1853-1874 (page 2218).

LAW, Roman.

      See ROMAN LAW (page 2652).

LEE, Arthur, in France.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1778
      (pages 3242-3244).

LEGAL TENDER NOTES.

      See MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1861-1878 (page 2219).

LEO THE GREAT, Pope.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 42-461 (page 2421);
      and HUNS: A. D. 452 (page 1689).

L'ESTRANGE, Roger, and the early newspaper press in England.

      See PRINTING AND PRESS: A. D. 1654-1694 (page 2596).

LEVANT, The.

   A term applied to the eastern coasts of the Mediterranean,
   from the western part of Greece round to the western border of
   Egypt—more specifically to the coasts and islands of Asia
   Minor and Syria. The name—which signifies "rising" hence "the
   East"—was given to this region by the Italians.

LIBEL, The Criminal Law of.

      See LAW, CRIMINAL: A. D. 1770, and 1843
      (pages 1984 and 1986).

LIBERTY, Religious.

      See in this Supplement:
      TOLERATION, RELIGIOUS. (page 3807)

LINCOLN, Abraham:
   Debate with Douglas.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1858 (page 3401).

   First Inaugural Address.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: (page 3417).

   First Message.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: (pages 3421 and 3448).

   First call for troops.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: (page 3423).

   Proclamation of Blockade.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: (page 3427).

   Suspensions of Habeas Corpus.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: (page 3447).

   Message proposing compensated Emancipation.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: (page 3453).

{3791}

   Letter to Horace Greeley.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: (page 3476).

   Preliminary Proclamation of Emancipation.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: (page 3480).

   Final Proclamation of Emancipation.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: (page 3487).

   Letter to General Hooker.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: (page 3489).

   Letters to New York and Ohio Democrats.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: (page 3407).

   Address at Gettysburg.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: (page 3514).

   Proclamation of Amnesty and Message.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: (page 3515).

   Plan of Reconstruction.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: (page 3518).

   Re-election.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: (page 3533).

   Hampton Roads Peace Conference.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: (page 3546).

   Second Inaugural Address.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: (page 3549).

   Last Speech.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: (page 3551).

   At Richmond.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: (page 3554).

   Assassination.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: (page 3(55).

LINE-OF-BATTLE SHIP.

      See SHIP OF THE LINE (page 2901).

LISTER, and Antiseptic Surgery.

      See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 10TH CENTURY (page 2145).

LIVINGSTONE, David, Explorations of.

      See (in this Supplement) AFRICA: 1840, 1840, and after.

LOBENGULA, War of the English with.

      See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1885-1893 (page 2965).

LOMBARD BANKERS AND MONEY-CHANGERS.

      See MONEY AND BANKING (pages 2205 and 2206).

LORD KEEPER OF THE GREAT SEAL, The.

      See LAW, EQUITY: A. D. 1538 (page 1000).

LOUIS IX., King of France (called St. Louis).

      See (in this Supplement) FRANCE: A. D. 1226-1270.

      François Guizot,
      Great Christians of France: Saint Louis and Calvin.
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/62518

LOUIS XV., King of France, Fatal foreign policy of the reign of.

      See (in this Supplement) FRANCE: A. p. 1715-1770.

McCLINTOCK, Captain, Franklin search expeditions of.

      See (in this Supplement) ARCTIC EXPLORATION:
      1852-1854, and 1857-1859.

McCLURE, Captain, Franklin search expedition of.

      See (in this Supplement) ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1850-1854.

McKINLEY TARIFF ACT, The.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION: A. D. 1890 (page 3085).

MADAGASCAR.

      See (in this Supplement) AFRICA.

MANCHUS.
MANCHURIA.

   "The Manchus, from the earliest period of Chinese history,
   have occupied the country bounded on the east by the Japanese
   Sea, which is drained in its southern portion by the Tumun, by
   the right affluents of the Ya-lu-kiang, and by the upper
   portions of the left affluents of the Liau; and in its
   northern portion by the right affluents of the Upper Soongari,
   and the Lower Soongari, and Lower Amoor, with their affluents
   on both sides. This extent of country may be fitly called
   Manchuria Proper, to distinguish it from the present political
   Manchuria. This latter embraces not only the real Manchuria,
   but also a tract on the east side of the Liau, composed of the
   lower valleys of its left affluents, and of the Liau
   peninsula, and another on the west of the Liau, lying between
   its right bank and the Great Wall. Now these two tracts, known
   severally as Liau-tung or Liau East and Liau-se or Liau West,
   have, from the earliest historical periods, been occupied by a
   Chinese population, with the settled habits of their nation:
   agriculturists, artisans, and traders, dwellers in villages
   and cities. Hence, though situated beyond the Great Wall, it
   has always been a part, though a very exposed and often
   politically separated part, of China Proper. Manchuria Proper,
   as above defined, is a mountainous, well-watered tract,
   formerly altogether covered with forests, of which large
   portions still remain. The principal mountain range is the
   Chang-pih-shan, or Shan-a-lin, or Long White Mountains. … As
   the great arid plateau, the Shamo, has given to the Mongols
   their national characteristics, so the Long White Mountains,
   with their northerly spurs, separating the Upper Soongari, the
   Hurka, and the Usuri, have constituted the character-giving
   home and stronghold of the Manchus. These, unlike the Mongols,
   who have 'moved about after grass and water,' have always been
   a settled people, who in ancient times dwelt during the cold
   season in holes excavated in the sides of dry banks, or in
   pits in the earth, and during summer in huts formed of young
   trees and covered with bark or with long wild grass. They
   have, unlike the Mongols, from the earliest periods been
   somewhat of agriculturists; like them they have always reared
   domestic animals. … It has hitherto been the custom among
   Occidentals to speak of the Manchus as 'Tartars;' but if, as I
   believe, this name generally conveys the idea of a people of
   nomadic herdsmen, and usually large owners of camels, it will
   be seen from the foregoing sketch that it is altogether a
   misnomer as applied to the Manchus. … In the 11th century
   before Christ this nation appeared at the court of the Chow
   dynasty as Suh-chin, and presented tribute, a portion of which
   consisted of stone-headed arrows. In the 3d century after
   Christ they reappeared as Yih-low. … In the 5th, 6th, and 7th
   centuries after Christ we find them under the names of
   Wuh-keihs, and Mo-hos, still described as rude barbarians, but
   politically organized as a confederation of seven large tribes
   or seven groups of tribes. At length, in the beginning of the
   8th century, a family named Ta, belonging to the Suhmo-Mo-hos,
   that member of the confederation whose territory lay
   immediately on the north of Corea and north-east of Liau East,
   established themselves as rulers over the whole of Manchuria
   Proper, over Liau East, and over a large portion of Corea. In
   A. D. 712, the then Whang-ti, or Emperor of China, conferred
   the title of Prince of Po-hae on the head of the family; but
   the immediate successors of this prince shook off even the
   form of vassalage, and by their conquest of Northern Corea and
   Liau East, assumed a position of hostility to the Whang-ti.
   Po-hac, the name adopted by the new rulers, became the name of
   the Manchu Nation; which under it for the first time takes a
   place in history, as constituting a civilized State with a
   centralized administration. … It was overthrown by the Ketans.
   About these the Chinese accounts conflict as to whether they
   were a Manchu or a Mongol tribe: I consider them more of the
   former than of the latter. They took their rise in the valleys
   of the Hu-lan, a small northern branch of the Soongari, which
   falls into the latter about 100 miles below its junction with
   the Nonni.
{3792}
   The Ketans had possessed themselves of Eastern Mongolia, and
   been engaged in successful war on China before they, in A. D.
   926, attacked the Po-hae state, which they speedily overthrew,
   incorporating into their own dominions all Manchuria Proper
   and the East of the Liau. Before the middle of the 10th
   century, they had conquered nearly all Mongolia and Northern
   China. … They assumed for their dynasty the name of Liau, that
   of the river which flows past this port. Under the eighth of
   the line, their power had sunk so much that it fell easily
   before the attacks of A-kuh-ta, the chief of a purely Manchu
   tribe or commune, the Neu-chins, whose original seat was the
   country between the Upper Soongari and the Hurka. The
   Neu-chins rebelled against the Ketans or Liaus in A. D. 1113.
   Within 15 years, they had possessed themselves of the whole of
   Manchuria, Mongolia, and Northern China, driving the Chinese
   Whang-ti to the south of the Great River, and themselves
   establishing a rival line under the name of Kin, or Golden;
   adopted because their own country Manchuria 'was a
   gold-producing one.' The Neu-chins or Kins were in their turn
   overthrown by the Mongols, under Ghenghis Khan and his
   immediate successors. Manchuria came under their power about
   A. D. 1217, Northern China, about A. D. 1233, and Southern
   China, about A. D. 1280, when they established—it was the
   first time the thing had happened—a line of non-Chinese
   Whang-tis in undisputed possession of that dignity. … The
   Mongol dynasty maintained itself in China for about 90 years,
   when (in A. D. 1368) the last Whang-ti of the line was driven
   to the north of the Great Wall by the forces of a Chinese
   rebel, who established himself at Nanking as the first
   Whang-ti of the Ming dynasty."

      T. T. Meadows
      (Quoted in A. Williamson's "Journeys in North China,"
      volume 2, chapter 4).

   In 1644 the Ming dynasty was overthrown by a domestic
   rebellion in China, and a Manchu prince, called in by one of
   the generals of the fallen government, established himself on
   the throne, where his descendants have reigned to this day.

      See CHINA:A. D. 1294-1882 (page 420) and after.

MANSFIELD, Lord, and Commercial Law.

      See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1756-1788, and 1783 (page 1973).

MARSHALL, John, as Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court of the United States.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1801 (page 3326).

MARX, Karl, and the socialistic movements of his time.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1839-1894, 1843-1883, 1862-1872 
      (pages 2941, 2945, 2951).

MASAILAND, Exploration of.

      See (in this Supplement) AFRICA: 1860-1861, 1871 and after.

MASHONALAND, English occupation of.

      See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1885-1893 (page 2965);
      also (in this Supplement) AFRICA.

MASSACHUSETTS, Free Libraries in.

      See LIBRARIES, MODERN (page 2021).

MASTER OF THE ROLLS.

      See LAW, EQUITY: A. D. 1066 (page 1988).

MATABELELAND, English occupation of.

      See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1885-1893 (page 2965);
      also (in this Supplement) AFRICA: 1888.

MEDICAL PROFESSION, Women in the.

      See WOMAN'S RIGHTS: A. D. 1842-1892 (page 3658).

MENNONITES, The.

   "The Mennonites take their name from Menno Simons, born in
   Witmarsum, Holland, in 1492. He entered the priesthood of the
   Roman Catholic Church, and in 1524 was appointed chaplain in
   Pingium. Two years later he began to read the Scriptures,
   which he had hitherto ignored. Becoming a close student of
   them, his views on various doctrines soon changed, and he was
   known as an evangelical preacher. … He renounced Catholicism
   early in 1536, and was baptized at Leeuwarden. In the course
   of the following year he was ordained a minister in what was
   then known as the Old Evangelical or Waldensian Church. From
   this time on to his death, in 1559, he was active in the cause
   of evangelical truth, traveling through northern Germany, and
   preaching everywhere. The churches which he organized as a
   result of his labors rejected infant baptism and held to the
   principle of non-resistance. A severe persecution began to
   make itself felt against his followers, the Mennonites; and,
   having heard accounts of the colony established in the New
   World by William Penn, they began to emigrate to Pennsylvania
   near the close of the 17th century. … Successive immigrations
   from Holland, Switzerland, Germany, and, in the last
   twenty-five years, from southern Russia, have resulted in
   placing the great majority of Mennonites in the world on
   American soil, in the United States and Canada."

      H. K. Carroll,
      The Religious Forces of the United States,
      chapter 28.

MICHIGAN WILD CAT BANKS.

      See MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1837-1841 (page 2215).

MIDDLE AGES, Commerce of the.

      See (in this Supplement) COMMERCE, MEDIÆVAL.

MILLS TARIFF BILL, The.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION: A. D. 1884-1888 (page 3085).

MINNESOTA, University of.

   "Two years after the organization of the territory, the
   Legislature petitioned Congress for a grant of 100,000 acres
   of land to endow a university, and on the very day of this
   petition two townships were set aside for that purpose. The
   Legislature went on to enact that the University of Minnesota
   should be established at or near the Falls of St. Anthony and
   should have the income from all land thereafter granted by the
   United States for University purposes. Under this grant the
   regents selected a large portion of the lands and erected a
   costly edifice, but they were soon obliged to mortgage both
   building and lands in order to meet the obligations incurred.
   Affairs were in this condition when Congress passed the act
   admitting Minnesota to the Union, by which two townships of
   land were granted for the use and support of a State
   university. … Efforts were at once made to open the
   university, but the financial crisis of 1857 and the Civil War
   checked further action and encumbered the university with
   debt. … The present organization of the university dates from
   1868, when an act was passed 'to reorganize the University of
   Minnesota and to establish an agricultural college therein.'
   In the following year college classes were first organized.
   The act of 1868 provided that the university should have the
   income from the agricultural college grant. … From the
   university lands that have been sold something over $800,000
   has been received, from which there is an annual income of
   about $37,000."

      F. W. Blackmar,
      History of Federal and State Aid to Higher Education
      in the United States
      (Bureau of Education, Circular of Information, 1890, no. 1),
      pages 295-297.

{3793}

MISSIONS, Christian, in Africa.

      See (in this Supplement) AFRICA.

MISSISSIPPI RIVER: The question of navigation in dispute with Spain.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1784-1788 (page 3293).

MORMONS: Abandonment of Polygamy.

      See UTAH: A. D. 1882-1893 (page 3591).

MORRISON TARIFF BILL, The.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION: A. D. 1884-1888 (page 3083).

MORSE, SAMUEL F. B., Telegraphic inventions of.

      See ELECTRICAL DISCOVERY AND INVENTION:
      A. D. 1825-1874 (page 773).

      T. O'Conor Sloane
      The Standard Electrical Dictionary
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/26535

MORTON, Dr., and the discovery of Anæsthetics.

      See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 19th CENTURY (page 2144).

MOSQUITO COUNTRY.

      See (in this Supplement) NICARAGUA.

N.

NANSEN, Dr., Arctic expeditions of.

      See (in this Supplement) ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1888, and 1893.

NAPOLEON I., and Germany.

      See (in this Supplement) GERMANY: A. D. 1796-1807.

NARES, Captain, Polar voyage of.

      See (in this Supplement) ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1875-1876.

NATIONALIST MOVEMENT, The.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1888-1893 (page 2956).

NETHERLANDS, Commerce of the.

      See (in this Supplement) COMMERCE, MEDIÆVAL, AND MODERN.

NEUTRALITY, The Queen of England's Proclamation of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (page 3428).

NEW CHURCH, The.

      See (in this Supplement) SWEDENBORG.

NEW HARMONY COMMUNITY. The.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1800-1824,
      and 1805-1827 (pages 2936-2937).

NEW JERSEY, College of.

      See (in this Supplement) PRINCETON COLLEGE.

NEW LANARK, Robert Owen's experiment at.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1800-1824 (page 2935).

NEWNHAM HALL.

      See EDUCATION (page 746).

NICARAGUA, AND THE MOSQUITO INDIANS.

   The question of the sovereignty of Nicaragua over the Mosquito
   country was settled affirmatively by a convention concluded in
   November, 1894. Great Britain at the same time gave assurances
   to the United States that she asserts no rights of sovereignty
   or protection over the country in question.

NIHILISM.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1860-1870 (page 2948).

NILE, Exploration of the sources of the.

      See (in this Supplement) AFRICA.

NON-INTERCOURSE, The Jefferson policy of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1809.
      and 1808-1810 (pages 3332 and 3338).

NORDENSKIÖLD, Professor (Baron),
   Achievement of the Northeast Passage by.

      See (in this Supplement) ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1878-1879.

NORTH AMERICA, The Bank of.

      See MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1780-1784 (page 2212).

NORTHEAST AND NORTHWEST PASSAGE, Search for.

      See (in this Supplement) ARCTIC EXPLORATION.

NORWAY, Libraries of.

      See LIBRARIES, MODERN (page 2013).

O.

OBERLIN COLLEGE.

   "Oberlin is a development from the missionary and reform
   movements of the early quarter of our century. Its direct
   impulse was the new spirit of active benevolence which tested
   old doctrines by experience and by their fitness for organized
   philanthropy. Its foundations were laid 23 years after the
   organization of the American Foreign Missionary Association, 7
   years after the first American temperance society, 15 years
   before the first public move to extend the rights of women,
   and in the same year with the American Anti-Slavery Society.
   All of these reform movements were more or less united in the
   Oberlin movement. The founders were themselves home
   missionaries in the West and among the Indians, and Oberlin
   has ever since been vital with the missionary spirit. From the
   first, alcoholic beverages have been excluded. Although not
   adopting the extreme doctrine of woman's rights, yet Oberlin
   was the first college in the world to admit young women to all
   its privileges on equal terms with young men; and as for its
   anti-slavery leanings, it had received colored students into
   its classes 28 years before emancipation. Such bold disregard
   of the old landmarks was not attractive to the power and
   wealth of the country, and so for 50 years Oberlin owed its
   life to the sacrifice and devotion of its founders and
   instructors. … In 1831 John J. Shipherd, under commission from
   the American Home Missionary Society, entered upon his work as
   pastor of the church at Elyria, Ohio. … In the summer of 1832
   he was visited by Philo P. Stewart, an old school friend in
   the days when they both attended the academy at Pawlet,
   Vermont. Stewart, on account of the failing health of his
   wife, had returned from mission work among the Choctaws in
   Mississippi, but his heart was still burning with zeal for
   extending Christian work in the West. The two men, after long
   consultations and prayer, finally concluded that the needs of
   the new country could best be met by establishing a community
   of Christian families with a Christian school, … the school to
   be conducted on the manual labor system, and to be open to
   both young men and young women.
{3794}
   It was not proposed to establish a college, but simply an
   academy for instruction in English and useful languages, and,
   if Providence should favor it, in 'practical theology.' In
   accordance with this plan the corporate name 'Oberlin
   Collegiate Institute' was chosen. Not until 1851 was a new and
   broader charter obtained, this time under the name of 'Oberlin
   College.' The name 'Oberlin' was chosen to signify the hope
   that the members of the new enterprise might be moved by the
   spirit of the self-sacrificing Swiss colporteur and pastor,
   John Friederich Oberlin."

      J. R Commons,
      Oberlin College
      (in Bureau of Education,
      Circular of Information, 1801, no. 5),
      pages 55-56.

OERSTED, and his discovery of the Electro-Magnet.

      See ELECTRICAL DISCOVERY AND INVENTION:
      A. D. 1820-1825 (page 772).

      T. O'Conor Sloane
      The Standard Electrical Dictionary
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/26535

OHIO UNIVERSITY.

   "Ohio University bears the double distinction of being the
   first college in the United States founded upon a land
   endowment from the national Government, and also of being the
   oldest college in the Northwest Territory. … The university
   owes its origin and endowment to the Ohio Company of
   Associates, who in 1787 purchased a large tract of land from
   the old board of treasury for the purpose of colonizing it
   with pioneers from New England. … The honor of obtaining this
   endowment belongs to Dr. [Manasseh] Cutler. … In 1795 the
   lands to be devoted to the support of the university were
   located. The townships selected were those now called Athens
   and Alexander, in Athens County. General Rufus Putnam, who was
   deeply interested in the proposed institution, used his
   influence to secure settlers for the college lands. … December
   18, 1799, the Territorial legislature appointed Rufus Putnam,
   Benjamin Ives Gilman, and Jonathan Stone 'to lay off, in the
   most suitable place within the townships, a town plat, which
   should contain a square for the colleges; also lots suitable
   for house lots and gardens for a president, professors,
   tutors, etc., bordering on or encircled by spacious commons,
   and such a number of town lots adjoining the said commons and
   outlots as they shall think will be for the advantage of the
   university.' … In 1802 the legislature of the Northwest
   Territory passed an act establishing a university and giving
   to it in trust the land grant."

      G. W. Knight and J. R. Commons,
      History of Higher Education in Ohio
      (Bureau of Education,
      Circular of Information, 1891, number 5).

ONEIDA COMMUNITY, The.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1848 (page 2946).

ONTARIO SCHOOL SYSTEM.

      See EDUCATION, MODERN (page 733).

OTHO THE GREAT, and the restoration of the Empire.

      See (in this Supplement) GERMANY: A. D. 962.

OWEN, Robert, and his social experiments.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1800-1824, 1805-1827,
      and 1816-1886 (pages 2935, 2937, and 2938).

OYER AND TERMINER, Courts of.

      See LAW, CRIMINAL: A. D. 1285 (page 1982).

P.

PAMIR, The.

   The Pamir and Tibet, which converge north of India and east of
   the Oxus, form jointly the culminating land of the continent.
   Disposed at right angles, and parallel, the one to the
   equator, the other to the meridian, they constitute the
   so-called 'Roof,' or 'Crown of the World,' though this
   expression is more usually restricted to the Pamir alone. With
   its escarpments, rising above the Oxus and Tarim plains west
   and east, the Pamir occupies, in the heart of the continent,
   an estimated area of 30,000 square miles. With its
   counterforts projecting some 300 miles, it forms the western
   headland of all the plateaux and mountain systems skirting the
   Chinese Empire; it completely separates the two halves of
   Asia, and forms an almost impassable barrier to migration and
   war-like incursions. Yet notwithstanding its mean elevation of
   13,000 feet above arable land, it has been frequently crossed
   by small caravans of traders or travellers, and by light
   columns of troops. The attempt could not fail to be frequently
   made to take the shortest route across the region separating
   the Oxus from Kashgaria, and Europe from China. Hence the
   Pamir has often been traversed by Greeks, Romans, Arabs,
   Italians, Chinese, some as traders, some as explorers, some
   inspired by religious zeal. But of these travellers very few
   have left any record of their journey, and all took the lowest
   routes across the plateau."

      E. Reclus,
      The Earth and its Inhabitants: Asia,
      volume 1, chapter 3, section 2.

PANIC OF 1873, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1873 (page 3574).

   ----------PAPACY: Start--------

PAPACY: 11th Century.
   The Church and the first Crusading movement.

      See (in this Supplement) CRUSADES.

PAPACY: 11-12th Centuries.
   The Question of the Investitures.

   "By investiture in mediaeval church law is meant the act of
   bestowing a church office, with the use of symbols, on the
   clergyman who has been appointed to fill it. It is especially
   to signify the act by which secular princes conferred on the
   chosen candidates the offices of bishop and abbot that the
   word is used since the eleventh century. The struggle which
   the papacy and the church carried on in the last half of the
   11th and on into the 12th century for the purpose of doing
   away with this same right of the princes to confer such
   offices is called in consequence the war of the investitures.
   That the nomination of the bishops was a right pertaining to
   the sovereign was a view of the matter which had gained ground
   already in the time of the Frankish monarchy. The German kings
   up to the eleventh century insisted all the more on this right
   from the fact that the bishoprics and imperial abbacies had in
   course of time lost their original character of church
   organizations. They had been appanaged with imperial and other
   lands, with political and public rights, with immunities,
   rights of coinage etc. … They had, in consequence, become
   transformed into political districts, on a par with those of
   the secular princes and obliged, like the latter, to bear the
   public burdens, especially that of providing war-contingents
   and supplies. It Is true that in the period in question,
   although for the most part the king openly and freely filled
   the bishoprics and abbacies of his own accord, some elections
   had been carried through by the cathedral chapter, the other
   secular canons, the nobles, vassals and ministeriales of the
   bishopric. This was usually on the ground of royal privileges,
   of special royal permission, or of a designation of the
   candidate by the king.
{3795}
   However the person might have been elected he could only enter
   into possession of the bishopric or abbacy after the king had
   formally conferred the office upon him. The death of a bishop
   would be announced to the king by envoys from the episcopal
   residence who at the same time, handing over the episcopal
   crosier and ring, would beg that the king would see to the
   refilling of the vacant office. It need hardly be said that
   any new candidate who might in the meantime have been elected
   presented himself likewise at court. The king discussed the
   matter of the bestowal of the vacant bishopric or abbacy with
   his secular and ecclesiastical nobles and councillors. His
   next step was to confer the office on the candidate he had
   chosen by means of investiture, that is by handing him the
   episcopal crosier and ring. The candidate in return had to
   take the oath of fealty and to perform the act of homage, the
   so-called hominium. This is how an episcopal office, at that
   time regarded as a conglomeration of ecclesiastical and
   secular rights, was regularly filled. … After the middle of
   the 11th century there began to show itself within the
   reform-party, which at that time gave the tone at Rome, a
   tendency, ever growing stronger, in favor of achieving the
   complete liberation of the church from the secular influence.
   The German kingdom and empire were to be subordinated to the
   papacy as to the proper controlling power. Those who held
   these views declared that the investiture of the bishops and
   abbots by the king was simony because, as was the custom on
   the part of those receiving other feudal grants, certain
   presents were made in return. It was demanded that the
   episcopal symbols, the ring and the crosier, should no longer
   be disposed of at the hand of a layman. As a matter of fact
   there had frequently been carried on an unworthy traffic with
   the bishoprics in consequence of the manner of conferring
   them. The ecclesiastical legislators, besides passing general
   laws against simony, came forward at first cautiously enough
   with the regulation that the clergy should accept no churches
   from the hands of a layman. The direct clash with the German
   court came later, in 1068, where the king had conferred the
   bishopric of Milan as usual through investiture, while the
   people, under the influence of the papal reform-party,
   demanded a bishop elected canonically and with Rome's consent.
   The king did not give way and Gregory VII, in the Roman synod
   of 1074, increased the severity of the earlier laws against
   simony, opening the struggle in a synod of the following year
   by ordaining that the people should not be present at
   ecclesiastical functions performed by those clergy who had
   gained office through simony, the reference being to those
   bishops who adhered to the king. Furthermore the royal right
   of conferring bishoprics by investiture was now directly
   denied. With this attack on an old and customary prerogative
   of the German king, one to which in earlier times had even
   been expressly acknowledged by the pope, an attempt was made
   to thoroughly undermine the foundations of the German empire
   and to rob the royal power of one of its chief supports. The
   bishops and abbots were princes of the realm, possessing,
   besides a number of privileges, the large feudal and allodial
   holdings which went with their churches. They had, on behalf
   of their bishoprics, to sustain the largest share of the
   empire's burdens. The crown found in them the chief props and
   supports of its power, for the ecclesiastical principalities
   could be freely granted to devoted adherents without regard to
   the hereditary dynastic claims of families. The only legal
   bond by which these princes were bound to the crown was the
   investiture with its oath of fealty and homage. The
   prohibition of this, then, denoted the cessation of the
   relationship which assured the dependence of the
   ecclesiastical princes on the king and on the empire and the
   performance of their duties to that empire. It delivered over
   the considerable material wealth and power of the imperial
   bishoprics and abbacies to a clergy that was loosed from all
   connection with the crown. With regard to the manner in which
   in future, according to the opinion of Gregory VII or the
   church-reform party, the bishoprics were to be filled, the
   above-mentioned synod does not express itself. The decrees of
   the Roman synod of 1080, as well as Gregory's own further
   attitude, however, make it appear unquestionable that, with
   the formal restoration of the old so-called canonical election
   by clergy and people in common with the metropolitan and his
   suffragans, he purposed the actual subjection to the pope of
   the episcopacy and of the resources which in consequence of
   its political position stood at its command. From the election
   of a secular clergy which should be freed from national and
   state interests by the carrying out of the celibacy laws—an
   election in which metropolitans who were to be kept in
   dependence on the papal throne were to play their part—there
   could result as a rule only bishops submissive to the papal
   court. All the more so as the Roman synod of 1080, in a form
   probably intentionally vague, gave the pope a right,
   concurrent with that of the archbishop, of testing the
   elections and of hindering any such as might be objectionable
   to the court of Rome. That the bishops and abbots elected in
   this way were to retain their former possessions and
   privileges in the empire was taken by Gregory VII as a matter
   of course. But were this the case their considerable resources
   stood wholly at the disposition of the papal chair; on the
   pope it depended what amount of services he would still allow
   for the benefit of the empire. Nay, more, as regards the
   ecclesiastical princes the pope would actually have taken the
   place of the emperor and king and could command the movements
   of the most insignificant vassal of a bishopric. … The dispute
   was finally ended by the concordat agreed to at Lobweisen
   (near Lorsch) and announced at Worms: … In the concordat the
   emperor renounced wholly the former investing with the
   bishop's and abbot's office by means of crosier and ring, and
   granted that in all churches these offices should be filled by
   canonical election and by the free consecration of the person
   elected. On the other hand the pope granted that the election
   of bishops and abbots belonging to the German kingdom might
   take place in presence of the emperor but without simony or
   violence, and that the emperor should have a right, employing
   the sceptre as a symbol and causing homage to be rendered, to
   perform the investiture—before the consecration, namely—with
   regard to the regalia, i. e. the totality of the landed
   possessions and rights which belonged to the individual
   bishopric or abbacy. …
{3796}
   With the Concordat of Worms the church and the papacy, after a
   long struggle, had gained the victory over the empire. Even
   though the papal party had not been able to put through all
   its demands with regard to the question of investitures, yet
   the empire was compelled to renounce rights which had been
   exercised unassailed for centuries, and thereby to confirm the
   emancipation of the papacy from the former imperial
   overlordship, thus stamping its position as an independent
   political power. This success was the more considerable for
   the reason that the agreement of Worms had established the
   ecclesiastical and imperial rights only in the most general
   terms and in an equivocal form, but had left the further
   development of the new manner of conferring the offices to be
   decided by practice. … If already the Hohenstaufens of the
   12th century had succeeded only with great efforts in
   protecting themselves against such interpretation of the
   Concordat as infringed on the imperial rights, there was,
   naturally, in the 13th century,—in view of the condition of
   the empire, the political situation of Germany, and the
   predominating supremacy of the papacy,—no further question of
   such an attitude. … In this form of interpretation, given to
   it by usage and derogatory to the imperial rights, the
   Concordat of Worms remained the basis of the German imperial
   law regarding the collation of bishoprics and imperial
   abbacies until the dissolution of the German empire in 1806."

      Hinschius,
      Investiturstreit
      (Herzog's Realencyklopaedie für protestantische
      Theologie und Kirche, volume 6).

      See, also, PAPACY: A. D. 1056-1122 (pages 2427-2431).

PAPACY: A. D. 1162-1177.
   The Pope and the Emperor.

   "In this fullness of his power [after the destruction of
   Milan, 1162] the emperor came anew into conflict with the
   papacy. Reason enough for it was that the emperor intended to
   treat Rome also as a city of the empire like the rest. …
   Between the claims of the two powers there was an ineradicable
   fundamental difference which showed itself at every moment.
   What the papacy did, to continually bring forward and maintain
   new rights, the empire could, after all, do also. Among other
   ways the remarkable contradiction finds utterance thus, that
   the emperor claims to be above the law, the pope above
   tribunals; the one is the chief, unrestricted lawgiver, the
   other the chief judge over all. The emperor rose up in injured
   self-esteem when the pope used the word 'benefice' in speaking
   of his relations with the empire. The pope was forced to
   explain the word, which had two meanings, in its more harmless
   sense. The Lombard cities always maintained that they had been
   strengthened in their opposition by Adrian IV. It is probable
   that already between the emperor and this pope a struggle
   would have taken place; but Adrian died (at Anagni, September
   1, 1159), and after his death there was a disputed papal
   election. There was a powerful imperial faction among the
   cardinals but a still more powerful anti-German one. At the
   election it came to a hand to hand fight, as it were, between
   the two candidates. The purple mantle was just about to be
   laid on the shoulders of the anti-imperial cardinal Roland
   when the imperial candidate Octavian rushed in and tore it
   away from him. The latter was first proclaimed in Rome as
   Victor IV, the former was consecrated in Ninfa as Alexander
   III. The emperor saw here an opportunity of extending his
   power, indirectly at least, over the papacy also. He ordered
   both popes to appear at a council which he called. He took
   occasion to recall to remembrance an old right of the empire,
   the right of holding councils and passing judgment on the
   papacy. He accordingly appointed a church assembly to be held
   in Pavia and invited to it, as he says in his summons, all the
   bishops of England, France, Hungary, Denmark and his own
   kingdom. What a conception he had of his own dignity is shown
   by the words: 'It is enough to have one God, one pope, one
   emperor, and it is proper that there should be only one
   church.' In venturing once more to pass judgment on
   Frederick's actions and to inquire, solely from a historical
   point of view, how far his ideas deviated from previous ones I
   find that in this case he went to work exactly as he did
   against the cities. From the oldest times church conflicts had
   been settled by the emperor with the assistance of a council;
   since the days of Otto I immense achievements had been made in
   this way; but never yet had a German emperor called together
   at the same time the bishops of all other kingdoms.
   Frederick's deviation lay herein, that he appropriated to
   himself this right. He did not stop at what was customary and
   a matter of precedent but, on the basis of his own ideal
   conception of the imperial rights, extended his claim until it
   became altogether universal. It might have been possible to
   maintain this claim; but, so much is certain, it could only
   have happened after previous arrangement with the other
   monarchs. The council was attended from all parts of the
   empire on the one side or the other of the Alps. The emperor
   left the deliberations in the hands of the clergy. They
   declared in a body for Victor; the emperor spoke last and
   accepted him. Thus did he understand the imperial power, thus
   did he wish to exercise it. But it is evident that herewith
   the whole conflict with the papacy came into an entirely new
   stage. The emperor with his council wished to decide which
   pope all Europe should obey. Naturally he met with opposition.
   John of Salisbury expresses the point at issue very well;
   'who,' he says, 'has made the Germans judges over the
   nations?' One might almost say this had been their claim. In
   so far as they appointed the emperor they wished also to have
   the precedence over other nations. … Of the popes only one,
   the favored one, Victor, submitted; the other, Alexander III,
   declared the pope should summon and not be summoned, should
   judge and not be judged. He was not willing to plunge the
   church into a new slavery. For the time being Victor
   maintained the supremacy in Italy. … The Romans dated their
   legal documents according to the years of his pontificate.
   Meanwhile Alexander III fled to France. He found support here
   mainly from the fact that the western nations would not accord
   to the emperor the supremacy over Europe which was implied in
   his decision regarding the papacy. … For a moment the kingdom
   of England seemed about to join in the church policy of the
   German empire; they formed as it were a Germanic party. The
   strict papistical idea was more the Romanic; but at the same
   time it was that of the expanding freedom of the people.
{3797}
   That is why Alexander III had also on his side the Lombard
   cities which were opposing the emperor. Here too it was not a
   mere faction but a grand idea. The cities, with their striving
   for a constitution to a certain degree autonomic and resting
   on a basis of free elections, sided with the idea of the
   independence of the European kingdoms. From the depths of
   European life arose mighty strivings which opposed the idea of
   the emperor to renew the Roman empire and its prerogatives. …
   In the year 1165 Alexander, coming from Salerno, was escorted
   by William I [of Sicily] into Rome. This great opposition
   against the German empire was joined also by the Greek
   emperor, Manuel. He wished himself to attain the rule of the
   Roman empire and in return the Greek and the Roman churches
   were to be united. All at once Emperor Frederick found himself
   involved in a most dangerous struggle, but he was determined
   to fight it out. And he had the empire of the Germans on his
   side in the matter. At a great diet in Wurzburg, at the
   especial prompting of the imperial chancellor Raynald,
   archbishop elect of Cologne, the emperor and the princes swore
   never to acknowledge either Alexander III or any pope elected
   by his party. Indeed no future emperor was to be elected who
   would not promise to act accordingly. Stern obligations were
   further attached to this oath. … In November 1166 the emperor
   began his expedition for the purpose of driving out Pope
   Alexander. But already under his very eyes the Lombard cities
   were bestirring themselves against him."

      L. von Ranke,
      Weltgeschichte
      (translated from the German)
      volume 8, pages 179-185.

   "The battle of Legnano, fought on May 29th, 1176, ended in
   disaster and defeat. Frederick himself, who was wounded and
   thrown from his horse, finally reached Pavia after days of
   adventurous flight, having meanwhile been mourned as dead by
   the remnant of his army. All was not yet lost, indeed, … but
   Frederick, although he at first made a pretense of continuing
   the war, was soon forced by the representations of his nobles
   to abandon the policy of twenty-four years, and to make peace
   on the best terms obtainable with Alexander III, and through
   him with the Lombard cities. The oath of Wurzburg was broken
   and the two treaties of Anagni and Venice put an end to the
   long war. … The terms of the treaty were finally assented to
   by the emperor at Chioggia, July 21st, 1177. Alexander now
   prepared to carry out his cherished project of holding a
   mighty peace congress at Venice; and there, at the news of the
   approaching reconciliation, nobles and bishops and their
   retinues came together from all parts of Europe. Now that the
   peace was to become an accomplished fact Venice outdid herself
   in preparing to honor the emperor. The latter, too, was
   determined to spare no expense that could add to the splendor
   of the occasion. He had negotiated for a loan with the rich
   Venetians, and he now imposed a tax of 1,000 marks of silver
   on his nobles. Frederick's coming was announced for Sunday,
   July 24th, and by that time the city had donned its most
   festive attire. … A platform had been constructed at the door
   of the church, and upon it was placed a raised throne for the
   pope. … Having reached the shore Frederick, in the presence of
   an immense crowd, approached the papal throne, and, throwing
   off his purple mantle, prostrated himself before the pope and
   kissed the latter's feet. Three red slabs of marble mark the
   spot where he knelt. It was a moment of world-wide importance;
   the empire and the papacy had measured themselves in mortal
   combat, and the empire, in form at least, was now surrendering
   at discretion. No wonder that later ages have fabled much
   about this meeting. The pope is said, with his foot on the
   neck of the prostrate king, to have exclaimed aloud, 'The lion
   and the young dragon shalt thou trample under thy feet!'"

      E. F. Henderson,
      History of Germany in the Middle Ages,
      pages 277-279.

PAPACY: A. D. 1870-1874.
   The "Kulturkampf" in its first stages.

      See (in this Supplement) GERMANY: A. D. 1870-1874.

   ----------PAPACY: End--------

PARIS: A. D. 1788-1789.
   The city during the Revolution.

      See (in this Supplement) FRANCE: A. D. 1788-1789.

PARIS: Municipal Libraries.

      See LIBRARIES, MODERN: (page 2011).

PARRY, Captain, Northern voyages of.

      See (in this Supplement)
      ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1819-1820, and after.

PATENT-RIGHT.

      See LAW, EQUITY: A. D. 1875 (page 1994).

PATRONS OF HUSBANDRY, The.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1866-1875 (page 2951).

PEARY ARCTIC EXPEDITIONS.

      See (in this Supplement) ARCTIC EXPLORATION:
      1886, 1891-1892, and 1893-1894.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1785.
   The first Protective Tariff.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION: A. D. 1785 (page 3065).

PENNSYLVANIA BANK, The.

      See MONEY AND BANKING: A, D. 1780-1784 (page 2212).

PENNSYLVANIA GERMANS.

   "At the close of the Thirty Years' war there ran through
   Protestant Germany a broad line; upon the one side of that
   line stood the followers of Luther and Zwingli, of Melanchthon
   and Calvin—these were the Church people; upon the other side
   stood Menno Simon and 'The Separatists'—these were the Sect
   people. It was a line which divided persecution by new
   boundaries, and left the faggot and the stake in new hands,
   for the Peace of Westphalia had thrown the guarantees of its
   powerful protection only over the one side of this Protestant
   division. … When 'the news spread through the Old World that
   William Penn, the Quaker, had opened an asylum to the good and
   the oppressed of every nation, and Humanity went through
   Europe gathering up the children of misfortune,' our
   forefathers came out from their hiding places in the forest
   depths and the mountain valleys which the sun never
   penetrated, clad in homespun, their feet shod with wood, their
   dialects ofttimes unintelligible to each other. There was
   scarcely a family among them which could not be traced to some
   ancestor burned at the stake for conscience sake. Judge
   Pennypacker says: 'Their whole literature smacks of fire.
   Beside a record like theirs the sufferings of Pilgrim and
   Quaker seem trivial.' … The thousands of Germans, Swiss and
   Dutch who migrated here on the invitation of Penn, came
   without ability to speak the English language, and without any
   knowledge, except that derived from general report, of the
   customs and habits of thought of the English people.
{3798}
   They went vigorously to work to clear the wilderness and
   establish homes. They were sober, religious, orderly,
   industrious and thrifty. The reports the earlier settlers made
   to their friends at home of the prosperity and liberty they
   enjoyed in their new homes, induced from year to year many
   others to come. Their numbers increased so much as to alarm
   the proprietary officials. Logan wanted their immigration
   prevented by Act of Parliament, 'for fear the colony would in
   time be lost to the crown.' He wrote a letter in which he
   says: 'The numbers from Germany at this rate will soon produce
   a German colony here, and perhaps such a one as Britain
   received from Saxony in the 5th Century.' As early as 1747,
   one of the proprietary Governors attributed the prosperity of
   the Pennsylvania colony to the thrift, sobriety and good
   characters of the Germans. Numerous as they were, because this
   was in its government a purely English colony, the part they
   took in its public affairs was necessarily limited. The
   Government officials and the vast majority of the members of
   the Assembly were all English. During the long struggle in the
   Colonies to adjust the strained relations with Great Britain,
   the Germans were seemingly indifferent. They saw no practical
   gain in surrendering the Penn Charter, and Proprietary
   Government, under which they had obtained their homes, for the
   direct rule of the British King. They could not understand the
   distinction between King and Parliament. … When, therefore, in
   1776, the issue was suddenly enlarged into a broad demand for
   final separation from Great Britain, and the creation of a
   Republic, all their traditional love of freedom was fully
   aroused. Under the Proprietary rule, although constituting
   nearly one-half the population of the colony, they were
   practically without representation in the General Assembly,
   and without voice in the Government. The right of 'electing or
   being elected' to the Assembly was confined to natural born
   subjects of England, or persons naturalized in England or in
   the province, who were 21 years old, and freeholders of the
   province owning fifty acres of seated land, and at least
   twelve acres improved, or worth clear fifty pounds and a
   resident for two years. Naturalization was not the simple
   thing it now is. The conditions were exceptionally severe, and
   comparatively few Germans qualified themselves to vote. The
   delegates to the Colonial Congress were selected by the
   General Assembly. In November, 1775, the Assembly instructed
   the Pennsylvania delegates not to vote for separation from
   Great Britain. The majority of the delegates were against
   separation. … At the election for new members in May, 1776, in
   Philadelphia, three out of four of those elected were opposed
   to separation. The situation was most critical. Independence
   and union were not possible without Pennsylvania.
   Geographically, she was midway between the Colonies. She was
   one of the wealthiest and strongest. Her government was in the
   hands of those opposed to separation. One course only
   remained. Peaceful efforts in the Assembly to enfranchise the
   Germans, by repealing the naturalization laws and oath of
   allegiance, had failed, and now this must be accomplished by
   revolution, because their enfranchisement would give the
   friends of liberty and union an overwhelming and aggressive
   majority. This was the course resolved on. The Philadelphia
   Committee called a conference of committees of the Counties.
   On the 18th of June, 1776, this provincial conference,
   numbering 104, met in Philadelphia. The German counties were
   represented no longer by English tories. There were leading
   Germans in the delegations from Philadelphia, Lancaster,
   Northampton, York, Bucks and Berks. In Berks, the royalist
   Biddle gives place to eight prominent Germans, headed by
   Governor Heister, Colonels Hunter, Eckert and Lutz. The
   proprietary government of Pennsylvania, with its Tory
   Assembly, was overthrown—foundation, pillar and dome. This
   conference called a Provincial Convention to frame a new
   Government. On the petition of the Germans, the members of
   that Convention were to be elected by persons qualified to
   vote for Assembly, and by the military associators
   (volunteers), being freemen 21 years of age, resident in the
   province one year. This gave the Germans the right to vote.
   Thus says Bancroft: 'The Germans were incorporated into the
   people and made one with them.' The 19th of June, 1776,
   enfranchised the Germans, and made the Declaration of
   Independence possible. … It is absolutely true, that, as the
   English people of the province were divided in 1776, the
   Germans were the potential factors in securing the essential
   vote of Pennsylvania for the Declaration of Independence. …
   Throughout the Revolution, these Germans … were the steadfast
   defenders of the new Republic. Dr. Stille, in his recent
   admirable 'Life of Dickinson,' concedes that 'no portion of
   the population was more ready to defend its homes, or took up
   arms more willingly in support of the American cause.'
   Washington, when in Philadelphia after the war, testified his
   high appreciation of the hearty support the Germans gave him,
   and the cause he represented, by worshiping with his family in
   the old German church on Race street. The descendants of the
   Pennsylvania-Germans have settled all over the West,
   contributing to Ohio, Illinois and other Western States, the
   same sturdy, honest population that characterizes
   Pennsylvania. From Revolutionary times until now, they have
   borne an honorable part In the Nation's history and progress."

      E. K. Martin and G. F. Baer,
      Addresses
      (Proceedings,
      Pennsylvania-German Convention, April 15, 1891),
      pages 14-24.

PENNY NEWSPAPERS, The beginning of.

      See PRINTING AND PRESS: A. D. 1830-1888,
      and 1853-1870 (page 2601).

PETER, ST., and the Church at Rome.

      See PAPACY (page 2417).

PETER THE HERMIT, and the first Crusade.

      See (in this Supplement) CRUSADES.

PHŒNICIAN COMMERCE.

      See (In this Supplement) COMMERCE, ANCIENT;
      also PHŒNICIANS (page 2530).

PINEL, and the treatment of the Insane.

      See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 18-19TH CENTURIES (page 2142).

PITT, William.

      See CHATHAM.

{3799}

PLYMOUTH BRETHREN, The.

   "The rise of Plymouth Brotherism was almost contemporaneous
   with that of Tractarianism, and, far apart as the two systems
   appear to be, they were partly due to the action of similar
   causes. In both cases there was a dissatisfaction with the
   state of spiritual life, and a longing for something more
   real, more elevated in tone, more practical in results. … The
   society or 'assembly,' as the Brethren love to call it, was a
   development. There was no purpose on the part of its founders
   of establishing any new sect or party. A few men with
   spiritual affinities, desiring a religious fellowship which
   they could not find in the ordinary services of their Church,
   grouped themselves in small companies and held periodical
   meetings for the study of the Scriptures, for Christian
   conference, and for prayer. From the very beginning the
   movement had attractions for devout men of high social
   position and some culture. Mr. Darby, who was one of the
   leading spirits in Dublin, and who is said by those who have
   had personal acquaintance with the inner life of the Brethren
   to wield a power over his followers to which there is no
   parallel among ecclesiastics, except in the case of the Pope
   himself, was originally a curate of the Church of Ireland. Mr.
   Benjamin W. Newton, who was one of the principal members of
   the similar society in Plymouth, which has given its name to
   the movement, was a fellow of Exeter College, Oxford. Dr.
   Tregelles, another of the Plymouth company, was a
   distinguished Biblical scholar. Mr. A. Groves, who, perhaps,
   rather than Mr. Darby or Mr. Newton, may be regarded as the
   promoter of these meetings, but who early withdrew from the
   party when, on a return from a visit to the East, he found
   that their social religious gatherings were rapidly developing
   into a distinct sectarian organization, was a student for the
   Anglican ministry at Trinity College, Dublin. The Brethren
   despise culture, and yet apart from men of culture it is hard
   to see how the movement could have had such success."

      J. G. Rogers,
      The Church Systems of England in the 19th Century,
      lecture 10.

POLAR EXPLORATION.

      See (in this Supplement) ARCTIC EXPLORATION.

POLARIS, Voyage of the.

      See (in this Supplement) ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1871-1872.

PORTUGAL: Commerce.

      See (in this Supplement) COMMERCE, MEDIÆVAL, AND MODERN.

PORTUGAL: Exploration, and colonization in Africa.

      See (in this Supplement) AFRICA.

PRINCETON COLLEGE.

   The College of New Jersey, more commonly called Princeton
   College, "originated in the plan of Jonathan Dickinson, John
   Pierson, Ebenezer Pemberton, Aaron Burr, with others, to found
   an institution 'in which ample provision should be made for
   the intellectual and religious culture of youth desirous to
   obtain a liberal education, and more especially for the
   thorough training of such as were candidates for the holy
   ministry.' Its first charter was granted in 1746 by the
   Honorable John Hamilton, President of His Majesty's Council,
   and is noteworthy as the first college charter ever given in
   this country by a Governor or acting Governor with simply the
   consent of his Council. A second and more ample charter was
   granted September 14th, 1748, by the 'trusty and well-beloved'
   Jonathan Belcher, Esquire, Governor and Commander-in-chief of
   the province of New Jersey. After the war of the Revolution,
   the charter was confirmed and renewed by the Legislature of
   New Jersey. The Corporation is styled in that instrument 'the
   Trustees of the College of New Jersey.' … On April 27th, 1747,
   the Trustees made a public announcement that they had
   'appointed the Rev. Jonathan Dickinson, President,' and that
   the college would be opened in the fourth week of May next at
   Elizabethtown. President Dickinson having died on the 7th of
   October following, the Rev. Aaron Burr assumed the duties of
   the Presidency and the college was removed from Elizabethtown
   to Newark. Soon after, it was removed from Newark to
   Princeton, where in 1754-1755 the first college building was
   erected. … The College of New Jersey, as now constituted,
   includes the John C. Green School of Science. This
   institution, which has its own professors and instructors, was
   founded in 1873 upon an endowment of Mr. John C. Green. The
   first college building, erected in 1754-5, was named Nassau
   Hall, at the request of Governor Belcher."

      College of New Jersey,
      Catalogue, 1893-4,
      pages 8-9.

      ALSO IN:
      J. F. Hageman,
      History of Princeton and its Institutions.

PROFIT-SHARING EXPERIMENTS.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1842-1889,
      and 1859-1887 (pages 2944 and 2947).

PROUDHON, and the doctrines of Anarchism.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1839-1894 (page 2941).

PROVISIONS OF OXFORD.

      See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1258 (page 1962).

PRUSSIA, The rise of.

      See (in this Supplement) GERMANY: A. D. 1618-1700;
      also, page 309.

PULLMAN STRIKE, The.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1894 (page 2957).

R.

RAE, Dr., Franklin search expeditions of.

      See (in this Supplement) ARCTIC EXPLORATION:
      1851, and 1853-1854.

RAILWAYS, in modern inland commerce.

      See (in this Supplement) COMMERCE, MODERN.

RAPP, George, and the Rappites.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1805-1827 (page 2937).

REDWOOD LIBRARY.

      See LIBRARIES, MODERN:
      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: (page 2019).

REFORMATION, The Protestant: Outline sketch.

      See EUROPE (pages 1053-1065).

REFORMATION, The Protestant:
   The beginning in Germany.

      See (in this Supplement) GERMANY: 16TH CENTURY;
      also, page 1456.

RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.

      See below: TOLERATION, RELIGIOUS.

RENAISSANCE, Libraries of the.

      See LIBRARIES, RENAISSANCE (page 2008).

ROCHDALE SOCIETY, The Co-operative.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1816-1886 (page 2938).

ROME:
   Outline sketch of the history of the Republic and the Empire.

      See EUROPE (pages 996-1013).

{3800}

ROME:
   Charlemagne's restoration of the Empire in the West.
   His imperial coronation and its significance.

   "The Germans, who had destroyed the Western Empire, now, after
   having been received into Roman civilisation and the bosom of
   the Church, effected its restoration. And the Church, whose
   laws controlled the West, created anew from within herself the
   Roman Empire, as the political form of her cosmopolitan
   principle, and that spiritual unity within which the Popes had
   embraced so many nations. Her supremacy over all churches of
   the West could, moreover, only attain complete recognition
   through the Emperor and the Empire. The restoration of the
   Empire was rendered necessary by the formidable power of
   Islam, which not only harassed Byzantium, but, from the side
   of Sicily and Spain, also threatened Rome. The Greek Emperors
   could rule the West together with the East so long as the
   Roman Church was weak, so long as Italy lay sunk in lethargy,
   and the German West swarmed with lawless barbarians. It was no
   longer possible to do so when the Church attained
   independence, Italy consciousness of her nationality, and
   Europe had become united in the powerful Frankish Empire, at
   the head of which stood a great monarch. Thus the idea of
   proclaiming Charles Emperor arose, and thus was carried out
   the scheme with which the irate Italians had threatened Leo
   the Isaurian at the beginning of the Iconoclastic controversy.
   The West now demanded the occupation of the Imperial throne.
   True, the Byzantine Empire had, in the course of time,
   acquired a legal sanction. Byzantium, however, was but the
   daughter of Rome. From Rome the Imperium had proceeded; here
   the Cæsars had their seat. The illustrious mother of the
   Empire now resumed her rights, when, as in ancient times, she
   offered the Imperial crown to the most powerful ruler of the
   West. … A transaction so momentous, and rendered necessary by
   the ideas of the time and the demands of the West, but which,
   nevertheless, bore the semblance of a revolt against the
   rights of Byzantium, could scarcely have been the work of the
   moment, but more probably was the result of a sequence of
   historic causes and resolutions consequent upon them. Can we
   doubt that the Imperial crown had been the goal of Charles's
   ambition and the ideal of such of his friends as cherished
   Roman aspirations? He himself came to Rome evidently to take
   the crown, or, at least, to form some decisive resolution with
   regard to it, and during his sojourn in France the Pope had
   declared himself ready to help in the accomplishment of this
   great revolution. … We may suppose that Charles's clerical
   friends were the most zealous supporters of the scheme, which
   perhaps was not received by the Pope with a like degree of
   enthusiasm. Alcuin's letter proves that he, at least, had
   already been initiated into the idea; and the Frankish envoys,
   after a year spent in Rome, had doubtless come to an
   understanding with the Romans, on whose vote the election
   mainly depended. The Romans it was who, exercising the ancient
   suffrages of the Senate and people, had elected Charles their
   Patricius, and who now, in virtue of the same rights, elected
   him Emperor. And only as Emperor of the Romans and of Rome did
   he become Emperor of the entire State. A decree of the Roman
   nobility and people had undoubtedly preceded the coronation;
   and Charles's nomination as Roman Emperor (in strict
   accordance with the plan of a papal election) was effected by
   the three traditional elective bodies. The great revolution
   which extinguished the ancient rights of the Byzantines was
   not to appear the arbitrary deed of either King or Pope, but
   the act of God Himself, and therefore the legal transaction of
   Christendom, as expressed by the voice of the Roman people, of
   the parliament of the united clergy, optimates, and citizens
   assembled in Rome, Germans as well as Latins. The Frankish
   chroniclers themselves say that Charles was made Emperor by
   the election of the Roman people, quote the united parliament
   of the two nations, and enumerate the list of the members who
   took part in the parliament: the Pope, the entire assembly of
   bishops, clergy, and abbots, the Frankish senate, the Roman
   optimates, and the rest of the Christian people. The
   resolution of the Romans and Franks was announced to Charles
   in the form of a request. Are we to believe that, like
   Augustus in former days, he made a feint of reluctance to
   accept the supreme dignity, until it was forced upon him as an
   accomplished fact? Are we to receive as hypocritical the
   assurance of a man so pious and heroic, when he asserts that
   the Imperial crown came upon him wholly as a surprise, and
   adds that he would not have entered S. Peter's had he known of
   Leo's intention? Had not Charles's son, Pipin, been purposely
   recalled from the war against Benevento, in order to witness
   the Imperial coronation? An explanation of these conflicting
   statements has been sought in the statement of Eginhard, who
   maintains that Charles's hesitation was dictated by respect
   for Byzantium; that he had not yet assented to the scheme, and
   had sought by negotiations to gain the recognition of the
   Greeks to the election; that, therefore, the coronation really
   did take him by surprise, and, with regard to the time chosen,
   seemed inopportune. This view is supported by reasons of
   probability, which, however, solely concern the occasion
   chosen for the coronation, since to his elevation to the
   Imperial throne Charles had already long given his consent. …
   When, in later times, the German Empire came into conflict
   with the Papacy, doctors of canon law advanced the theory that
   the Emperor received the crown solely by favour of the Pope,
   and traced the investiture to Charles's coronation at the
   hands of Leo the Third. The Emperors, on the other hand,
   appealed to the shout of the people: 'Life and victory to the
   Emperor of the Romans, crowned by God,' and asserted that they
   derived the crown, the inalienable heritage of the Cæsars,
   from God alone. The Romans, on their side, maintained that
   Charles owed the crown entirely to the majesty of the Roman
   Senate and people. The dispute as to the actual source of
   Empire continued throughout the entire Middle Ages, and, while
   exercising no actual change in the world's history, revealed
   an indwelling need of mankind; the necessity, namely, of
   referring the world of facts back to a rudimentary right by
   which power becomes legalised. Pope Leo the Third as little
   possessed the right to bestow the crown of Empire, which was
   not his, as Charles did to claim it.
{3801}
   The Pope, however, regarded himself as the representative of
   the Empire and of Romanism; and undoubtedly, as the head of
   Latin nationality, and still more as the recognised spiritual
   overseer of the Christian republic, he possessed the power of
   accomplishing that revolution which, without the aid of the
   Church, would have been impossible. Mankind at large regarded
   him as the sacred intercessor between the world and the
   Divinity; and it was only through his coronation and unction
   at the papal hands that the Empire of Charles received divine
   sanction in the eyes of men. The elective right of the Romans,
   on the other hand, in whatever form it may appear, was
   uncontested, and in no later Imperial election could it have
   been of so decisive legal significance."

      F. Gregorovius,
      History of the City of Rome in the Middle Ages,
      book 4, chapter 7, section 3 (volume 2).

ROME: Ancient commerce.

      See (in this Supplement) COMMERCE, ANCIENT.

ROME: Money and banking.

      See MONEY AND BANKING: ROME (page 2203).

RONALDS, Sir Francis, The telegraphic experiments of.

      See ELECTRICAL DISCOVERY AND INVENTION: A. D. 1753-1820
      (page 771).

ROSS, Captain, Polar Expeditions of.

      See (in this Supplement)
      ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1829-1833 and 1848-1849.

RUSSIA, Libraries of.

      See LIBRARIES, MODERN (page 2013).

RUTGERS COLLEGE.

   "Rutgers College, located at New Brunswick, was chartered by
   George III. in 1770, and was called Queen's College, in honour
   of his consort. The present name was substituted by the
   legislature of the State, in 1825, at request of the trustees,
   in honour of Colonel Henry Rutgers, of New York, to whom the
   institution is indebted for liberal pecuniary benefactions.
   The charter was originally granted to such Protestants as had
   adopted the constitution of the reformed churches in the
   Netherlands, as revised by the national synod of Dordrecht, in
   the years 1618 and 1619. … The Theological College of the
   Reformed Dutch Church is established here and intimately
   blended with the literary institution."

      T. F. Gordon,
      Gazetteer of the State of New Jersey.
      (bound with "History of New Jersey"),
      page 86.

S.

SAINT SIMON, and Saint-Simonism.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1817-1825 (page 2939).

SALVATION ARMY, The.

   "Some people of to-day seem to have the idea that the Rev.
   William Booth was Jove, and that the Salvation Army sprang
   from his brain full-grown and fully armed. Far from it; a boy
   trained in the Church of England is converted among Wesleyan
   Methodists, and, believing thoroughly in what he professes, is
   constrained to feel interested in the salvation of others. He
   is much moved by some revival services that he hears conducted
   by the Rev. James Caughey, an American evangelist, and the
   effect of the straightforward, conversational style of
   preaching, makes an impression upon him that is never
   forgotten. Through all the years that follow, among all the
   scenes of his labors as a Methodist minister, he never forgets
   that simple, open-air preaching, that pushing home of the
   truth, with its wonderful results, and year after year only
   increases the conviction that the masses can only be reached
   by going to them, and never, never saved by waiting until they
   come to us. Years passed away before William Booth and his
   wife came to the point where they could step out, shake off
   traditional methods and means, and begin to carry out
   evangelistic work on lines forbidden by the churches. …
   'Nothing succeeds like success,' and when the first results
   were between three and four thousand souls in four little
   towns of Cornwall, there was a decided leaning toward them,
   overpowered, though, at a meeting of the Wesleyan Conference,
   which promulgated the strange formula that 'evangelistic
   movements are unfavorable to Church order.' However, the work
   was carried on steadily, until that memorable Sunday [July
   5th, 1865] on Mile End Waste, East London, from which William
   Booth consecrated himself to the salvation of the ignorant,
   and from which he dates all statistics referring to his work
   as an independent movement in the religious world. From this
   time forward, without interrupting in the least the open-air
   work, one shelter after another was secured and appropriated
   for mission work, here a tent or an old stable, there a
   carpenter's shop, until the movement was strong enough to
   warrant the lease of 'The Eastern Star,' a notorious
   beer-house, which was used as book-store, hall, and classroom.
   From this place, with its name of good hope, hundreds of souls
   went forth to make the wilderness blossom like the rose, so
   far as their humble homes were concerned. Sheds, lofts,
   alleys, tumble-down theatres, well-known places of resort or
   of refuge were preferred as being familiar to the class of men
   who were to be reached. Such was the Salvation Army in its
   early years, merely a 'mission.' with no more idea of
   development into an 'army,' with military rule and
   nomenclature, than we at the present time have of what may
   come to us in the next twenty years."

      M. B. Booth,
      Beneath Two Flags,
      chapter 2.

   "In 1873 Mrs. Booth, overcoming her own intense reluctance,
   began to preach. In 1874 and the two following years the work
   spread to Portsmouth, Chatham, Wellingborough, Hammersmith,
   Hackney, Leeds, Leicester, Stockton, Middlesborough, Cardiff,
   Hartlepool, and other towns, where recent converts of the
   humblest rank—tinkers, railway guards, navvies—took charge of
   new stations. In 1876, shaking itself more and more free from
   the trammels of custom and routine, the Army deliberately
   utilized the services of women. In 1877 it spread still
   further. In 1878 it 'attacked' no less than fifty towns,
   and—more by what we should call 'accident' than by
   design—assumed the title of the Salvation Army. It also
   adopted, for good or for evil, the whole vocabulary of
   military organization, which has caused it to be covered with
   ridicule, but which may undoubtedly have aided its discipline
   and helped its progress. In 1879 advance was marked by the
   imprisonment of three Salvationists—who refused, as always, to
   pay the alternative fine—for the offence of praying in a
   country road near a public-house, which was regarded as
   'obstructing the thoroughfare.'
{3802}
   In this year began also the establishment of training homes
   for the instruction and equipment of the young officers; the
   printing of the 'War Cry'; the use of uniforms and badges; and
   the extension of the work to Philadelphia and the United
   States. In 1880 the United Kingdom was mapped into divisions.
   In 1881 the work was extended to Australia and the colonies,
   and so stupendous had become the religious energy of the
   soldiers that they began to dream of the religious rescue of
   Europe as well as of Great Britain and its empire-colonies.
   Since that year its spread, in spite of all opposition, has
   been steady and continuous, until, in 1890, it excited the
   attention of the civilized world by that immense scheme of
   social amelioration into which we shall not here enter
   particularly. At the present moment [1891] the Army has no
   less than 9,349 regular officers, 13,000 voluntary officers,
   30 training homes; with 400 cadets, and 2,864 corps scattered
   over 32 different countries. In England alone it has 1,377
   corps, and has held some 160,000 open-air meetings. This
   represents a part of its religious work. Besides this it has
   in social work 30 rescue homes, 5 shelters, 3 food depots, and
   many other agencies for good."

      F. W. Farrar,
      The Salvation Army
      (Harper's Magazine, May, 1891).

   In one of his addresses, delivered during his visit to the
   United States, in February, 1895, General Booth said: "We
   have, with God's help, been able to carry our banner and hoist
   our flag in 45 different countries and colonies, and we are
   reaching out day by day. We have been able to create and bring
   into harmonious action, with self-supporting and self-guiding
   officers, something like 4,000 separate societies. We have
   been able to gather together something like 11,000 men and
   women, separated from their earthly affiliations, who have
   gone forth as leaders of this host." In the same address,
   General Booth gave the number of the Army newspapers as 27,
   with a circulation of 50,000,000,—presumably meaning the total
   issues of a year.

SARACENS, Medical Science of the.

      See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 7-11TH CENTURIES (page 2129).

SARDANAPALUS.

      See SEMITES: THE ASSYRIAN EMPIRE (page 2892).

SCHULZE-DELITZSCH, and the Cooperative movement in Germany.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1848-1883 (page 2946).

SCHURZ, Carl.
   Report on affairs in the South.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (page 3562).

SCHWATKA, Lieutenant, Polar explorations of.

      See (in this Supplement) ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1879-1880.

SECESSION, The Federalist Movement of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1803-1804 (page 3329).

SERVIA, A. D. 1893. Royal Coup d'Etat.

   "A great sensation was created by the announcement, January
   19, that Milan and Natalie, the divorced parents of King
   Alexander, had become reconciled at Biarritz. Whether this had
   political significance was unknown, but rumor connected it
   with various incidents bearing on the pending elections. The
   Skupshtina was dissolved in November, and the Liberal
   government, by energetic measures, put the electoral machinery
   in such shape that at the voting in March a small Liberal
   majority was secured in the place of the enormous Radical
   majority that had controlled the former legislature. When the
   Skupshtina assembled, April 6, the Radicals, in resentment at
   certain proceedings of the government designed to increase its
   majority, left the hall and refused to take part in the
   session. The troublesome situation thus produced was wholly
   abolished by a coup d'etat of King Alexander, April 13. At a
   banquet in the palace, at which the regents and cabinet were
   present, the king suddenly accused them of misrule and
   demanded their resignations, saying that he would assume the
   government himself. On the refusal of the regents to resign he
   ordered them under guard, and on the following day a new
   ministry was appointed, with M. Dokitch, a Radical, at its
   head. Careful arrangement of the troops had insured that no
   resistance could be made to the king's acts, and no blood was
   shed. The constitution makes eighteen the age at which the
   king attains his majority, but Alexander is not yet seventeen.
   His action was greeted with general favor throughout the
   country. An explanation of the affair is found in the
   ill-disguised relations of the Radicals with the pretender
   Karageorgiewitch, and the dread of Milan and Natalie that the
   hostile policy of the regents toward the Radicals, who are in
   a majority in the land, would precipitate an overthrow of the
   reigning dynasty." The elections which followed the coup d'
   état gave the Radicals an overwhelming majority in the
   Skupshtina—122 members out of 134.

      Political Science Quarterly,
      June and December, 1893.

SEWARD, William H.,
   The "higher law" speech of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850 (page 3387).

SIEMENS, Dr. W., and his dynamo-electric inventions.

      See ELECTRICAL DISCOVERY AND INVENTION:
      A. D. 1831-1872 (page 774).

      T. O'Conor Sloane,
      The Standard Electrical Dictionary
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/26535


SINGLE TAX MOVEMENT, The.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1880 (page 2955).

SLAVE TRADE: Abolition in the United States.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1807 (page 3335).

SLAVERY, Petitions against, in the American Congress.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1835, 1836, 1837-1838, and 1842,
      (page 3373, and after).

SOCIAL PALACE AT GUISE, The.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1859-1887 (page 2947).

SOCIALIST PARTIES IN GERMANY.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1862-1864,
      and 1875-1893 (pages 2949 and 2953).

SOLOMON.
SOLOMON'S TEMPLE.

      See JEWS: (page 1902);
      and TEMPLE OF SOLOMON (page 3093).

SOMMERING'S TELEGRAPH.

      See ELECTRICAL DISCOVERY AND INVENTION:
      A. D. 1753-1820 (page 771).

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1861.
      Monarchical cravings.

         See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (page 3426).

SPAIN: Outline Sketch of general history.

      See EUROPE
      (pages 1016, 1034-1035, 1050-1051, 1055-1065, and after).

{3803}

SPAIN: A. D. 1034-1090.
   The exploits of the Cid.

   "Rodrigo Diez de Bivar, who came of an old Castilian stock,
   was born in 1026—others say 1040—and was thus a contemporary
   of William the Conqueror, of England. Diez was his patronymic,
   meaning the son of Diego (in English James), and Bivar, the
   village of his birth, near Burgos, where the site of his house
   is still shown. His name of 'El Cid,' the Lord, or 'Mio Cid,'
   which is exactly 'Monseigneur,' was given him first by the
   Moors, his own soldiers and subjects, and universally adopted
   by all Spaniards from that day to this. Such a title is
   significant, not only of the relations between the two
   peoples, but of Rodrigo's position as at once a Moorish and a
   Spanish chief. 'El Campeador,' the name by which Rodrigo is
   also distinguished, means in Spanish something more special
   than 'champion.' A 'campeador' was a man who had fought and
   beaten the select fighting-man of the opposite side, in the
   presence of the two armies; which points to a custom derived,
   as much else of early Spanish, from the East. Rodrigo earned
   the name, not at the expense of any Moor but of a Christian,
   having when quite a youth slain a Navarrese champion in a war
   between Castile and Navarre. The first mention of his name
   occurs in a deed of Fernando I., of the year 1064."

      H. E. Watts,
      Christian Recovery of Spain,
      chapter 3.

   "Sancho III. of Navarre, who died in 1034, had united almost
   all the Christian states of the Peninsula under one dominion,
   having married the heiress of the county of Castile, and
   obtained the hand of the sister of Bermudez III., the last
   king of Leon, for his second son, Ferdinand. The Asturias,
   Navarre, and Aragon, were all subject to him, and he was the
   first who assumed the title of King of Castile. To him the
   sovereign houses of Spain have looked up as their common
   ancestor, for the male line of the Gothic Kings became extinct
   in Bermudez III. … D. Sancho divided his states amongst his
   children: D. Garcia became King of Navarre, D. Ferdinand, King
   of Castile, and D. Ramirez, King of Aragon. The Cid, who was a
   subject of D. Ferdinand, entered upon his military career
   under that monarch's banners, where he displayed that
   marvellous strength and prodigious valour, that constancy and
   coolness, which raised him above all the other warriors of
   Europe. Many of the victories of Ferdinand and the Cid were
   obtained over the Moors, who being at that time deprived of
   their leader and without a central government, were much
   exposed to the attacks of the Christians. … The arms of
   Ferdinand and the Cid were not, however, always directed
   against the infidels. The ambitious Monarch soon afterwards
   attacked his brother-in-law, Bermudez III. of Leon, the last
   of the descendants of D. Pelagius, whom he despoiled of his
   states, and put to death in 1037. He subsequently attacked and
   dethroned his eldest brother, D. Garcia, and afterwards his
   younger brother, D. Ramirez, the former of whom he likewise
   sacrificed. The Cid, who had received his earliest
   instructions under D. Ferdinand, made no scrupulous enquiries
   into the justice of that prince's cause, but combating blindly
   for him, rendered him glorious in the eyes of the vulgar by
   these iniquitous conquests. It is also in the reign of
   Ferdinand that the first romantic adventures of the Cid are
   said to have occurred; his attachment to Ximena, the only
   daughter of Count Gormaz; his duel with the Count, who had
   mortally injured his father; and lastly his marriage with the
   daughter of the man who had perished by his sword. The
   authenticity of these poetical achievements rests entirely on
   the romances [of the Chronicle of the Cid]; but though this
   brilliant story is not to be found in any historical document,
   yet the universal tradition of a nation seems to stamp it with
   sufficient credit. The Cid was in habits of the strictest
   friendship with the eldest son of Ferdinand, D. Sancho,
   surnamed the Strong, and the two warriors always combated side
   by side. During the lifetime of the father, the Cid, in 1049,
   had rendered tributary the Musulman Emir of Saragossa. He
   defended that Moorish prince against the Aragonese, in 1063;
   and when Sancho succeeded to the throne in 1065, he was
   placed, by the young King, at the head of all his armies,
   whence, without doubt, he acquired the name of 'Campeador.' D.
   Sancho, who merited the friendship of a hero, and who always
   remained faithful to him, was, notwithstanding, no less
   ambitious and unjust than his father, whose example he
   followed in endeavouring to deprive his brothers of their
   share of the paternal inheritance. To the valour of the Cid he
   owed his victories over D. Garcia, King of Galicia, and D.
   Alfonso, King of Leon, whose states he invaded. The latter
   prince took refuge amongst the Moors, with the King of Toledo,
   who afforded him a generous asylum. D. Sancho, after having
   also stripped his sisters of their inheritance, was slain in
   1072, before Zamora, where the last of his sisters, D. Urraca,
   had fortified herself. Alfonso VI., recalled from the Moors to
   ascend the vacant throne, after having taken an oath,
   administered by the hands of the Cid, that he had been in no
   degree accessary to his brother's death, endeavoured to attach
   that celebrated leader to his interests by promising him in
   marriage his own niece Ximena, whose mother was sister-in-law
   to Ferdinand the Great and Bermudez III. the last King of
   Leon. This marriage, of which historical evidence remains, was
   celebrated on the 19th of July, 1074. The Cid was at that time
   nearly fifty years of age, and had survived his first wife
   Ximena, the daughter of Count Gormaz, so celebrated in the
   Spanish and French tragedies. Being soon afterwards despatched
   on an embassy to the Moorish princes of Seville and Cordova,
   the Cid assisted them in gaining a great victory over the King
   of Grenada; but scarcely had the heat of the battle passed
   away when he restored all the prisoners whom he had taken,
   with arms in their hands, to liberty. By these constant acts
   of generosity he won the hearts of his enemies as well as of
   his friends. He was admired and respected both by Moors and
   Christians. He had soon afterwards occasion to claim the
   protection of the former; for Alfonso VI., instigated by those
   who were envious of the hero's success, banished him from
   Castile. The Cid upon this occasion took refuge with his
   friend Ahmed el Muktadir, King of Saragossa, by whom he was
   treated with boundless confidence and respect. He was
   appointed by him to the post of governor of his son, and was
   in fact intrusted with the whole administration of the kingdom
   of Saragossa, during the reign of Joseph El Muktamam, from
   1081 to 1085, within which period he gained many brilliant
   victories over the Christians of Aragon, Navarre, and
   Barcelona. Always generous to the vanquished, he again gave
   liberty to the prisoners. Alfonso VI. now began to regret that
   he had deprived himself of the services of the most valiant of
   his warriors; and being attacked by the redoubtable Joseph,
   the son of Teschfin, the Morabite, who had invaded Spain with
   a new army of Moors from Africa, and having sustained a defeat
   at Zalaka, on the 23d of October, 1087, he recalled the Cid to
   his assistance.
{3804}
   That hero immediately repaired to his standard with 7,000
   soldiers, levied at his own charge; and for two years
   continued to combat for his ungrateful sovereign; but at
   length, either his generosity in dismissing his captives, or
   his disobedience to the orders of a prince far inferior to
   himself in the knowledge of the art of war, drew upon him a
   second disgrace about the year 1090. He was again banished;
   his wife and son were imprisoned, and his goods were
   confiscated. It is at this period that the poem … commences.
   It is in fact the fragment of a complete history of the Cid,
   the beginning of which has been lost."

      J. C. L. S. de Sismondi,
      Literature of the South of Europe,
      chapter 23 (volume 2).

      ALSO IN:
      R. Southey,
      Chronicle of the Cid, from the Spanish.

      R. Markham,
      Chronicle of the Cid, edited with introduction.

      G. Ticknor,
      History of Spanish Literature,
      period 1, chapter 2 (volume 1).

SPAIN: 15-17th Centuries.
   The waste of the commercial opportunities of the Spaniards.

      See (in this Supplement) COMMERCE, MODERN.

SPAIN: A. D. 1788-1808.
   Charles IV., Marie Louise, and Godoy.

   "Charles III. had just died when the French Revolution
   commenced. He was the best sovereign that Spain had had in a
   long time; he left good ministers: Aranda, Campomanès, Florida
   Blanca; but it was not given to them to continue his work.
   This reparative reign was followed by one the most
   disintegrating. Spain, elevated anew for an instant by an
   intelligent prince, was, in a few years, under the government
   of an imbecile one, to founder in an ignoble intrigue. The web
   of this latter was begun immediately upon the accession of the
   new king. Charles IV. was forty years old; corpulent and
   weak-minded, simple and choleric, incapable of believing evil
   because he was incapable of conceiving it: amorous, chaste,
   devout, and consequently the slave of his wife even more than
   of his temperament, the first years of his marriage blinded
   him for his entire life. Scrupulous to the point of separating
   himself from the queen when he no longer hoped to have
   children by her, he took refuge in the chase, manual labor,
   violent exercise, caring only for the table, music and
   bull-fights, exhausted when he had followed his trade of king
   for half an hour. Small and without beauty, dark of
   complexion, but with some grace, with elegance and above all
   carriage, Marie Louise of Parma was at once superstitious and
   passionate, ignorant, uneasy, with a very frivolous soul as a
   foundation, with obstinacy without firmness, with artifice
   without intelligence, with intrigue leading to no result, more
   covetousness than ambition, much emptiness of mind, still more
   of heart. Her husband seemed to her coarse and brutish; she
   despised him. She detested her eldest son and cared moderately
   for her other children. She was thirty-four years old, of
   perturbed imagination, of uneasy senses, without any curb of
   religion or virtue, when she ascended the throne and the
   fortune of Godoy threw him in her way. He was a small
   provincial gentleman; for lack of something better, he had
   entered the life-guards at seventeen. He was then twenty-one.
   He was very handsome, with a grave beauty frequent in the men
   of the south, which gives to youth that air of restrained and
   imperious passion, to mature age that impenetrable and
   imposing exterior so well calculated to conceal mediocrity of
   mind, barrenness of heart, despotic selfishness, and all the
   artifices of a corruption the more insinuating because it
   seems to be unaware of itself. The queen fell in love with
   him, and abandoned herself wildly; he took advantage of it
   without shame. She was not satisfied to make of Godoy her
   lover, she desired to make a great man of him, a minister, to
   make him a partner in her power. She introduced him to the
   court and into the intimacy of the royal household, where
   Charles IV. tractably became infatuated with him. Marie Louise
   had at first some circumspection in the gradation of the
   honors which she lavished upon him, and which marked, by so
   many scandals, the progress of her passion; but she was very
   soon entirely possessed by it. Godoy obtained over her an
   ascendancy equal to that which she arrogated to herself over
   Charles IV. Thus on the eve of the French Revolution, these
   three persons, so strangely associated, began, in court
   costume, and under the austere decorum of the palace of Philip
   II., that comedy, as old as vice and stupidity, of the
   compliant husband duped by his wife and of the old mistress
   exploited by her lover. At the beginning of the reign, Charles
   IV. from scruple, the queen from hypocrisy, Godoy from policy,
   became devout. The queen wished power for Godoy, and Godoy
   wished it for lucre. It was necessary to set aside the old
   counsellors of Charles III. They were philosophers, the nation
   had remained catholic. Marie Louise and Godoy relied on the
   old Spanish fanaticism. The ministers very soon lost
   influence, and after having secluded them for some time, the
   queen disgraced them. A complete reaction took place in Spain.
   The church regained its empire; the Inquisition was
   re-established. It would appear then that the Revolution must
   necessarily have found Spain hostile; a Bourbon king and a
   devout government could but detest it. But before being a
   Bourbon the king was a husband, and Marie Louise was devout
   only to mask her intrigues. The same passions led her to
   desire by turns, war to make her lover illustrious and peace
   to render him popular. This debilitated and corrupt court
   found itself given over in advance to all the suggestions of
   fear, to all the temptations of avidity. Those who had to
   treat with it did not fail to profit by its feebleness to
   dominate it. We see it successively linked to England, then to
   France; treat the Revolution with consideration, condemn it
   with violence, combat it without vigor; seek an alliance with
   the Directory, and abandon itself to Napoleon who annihilated
   it. France found at Madrid only too much docility to her
   designs; the illusions that she conceived from it became more
   fatal for her than were for Spain the incapacity and turpitude
   of its rulers. The French were led by the habits and
   traditions of the 'ancien regime' to treat the Spaniards as a
   subordinate nation consigned to the role of auxiliary. Holding
   the court of Spain as cowardly and venal, the politicians of
   Paris neglected to take account of the Spanish people. They
   judged them to be divisible and governable at mercy.
{3805}
   It was not that they despised them nor that they intended to
   reduce them to servitude as a conquered people; but they
   thought that the last Austrian kings had enervated and
   enfeebled them, that they had been uplifted from this
   decadence only by the Bourbons, that that dynasty was
   degenerating in its turn; that another foreign government,
   more intelligent, more enlightened, more resolute, alone could
   take up again the work of reparation and bring it to a
   successful result by means of rigorous treatment and
   appropriate applications. What Louis XIV. had undertaken
   solely in the interest of despotism, France, herself
   regenerated by the Revolution, had the right and the power to
   accomplish, for the highest good of Spain and of humanity.
   These calculations in which the essential element, that is to
   say the Spanish character, was suppressed, deceived the
   Convention, led the Directory astray, and ended by drawing
   Napoleon into the most fatal of his enterprises."

      A. Sorel,
      L'Europe et la Revolution française
      (translated from the French),
      part 1, pages 373-377.

SPAIN: Libraries.

      See LIBRARIES, MODERN (page 2013).

   ----------SPAIN: End--------

STAMP TAX ON NEWSPAPERS, English.

      See PRINTING AND PRESS: A. D. 1712,
      and 1853-1870 (pages 2599 and 2602).

STANLEY, Henry M., Explorations of.

      See (in this Supplement) AFRICA: 1866-1873, and after.

SUEZ CANAL, Effects of the opening of the.

      See (in this Supplement)
      COMMERCE, MODERN: THE RECENT REVOLUTION IN COMMERCE.

SUMERIAN.

      See SEMITES: PRIMITIVE BABYLONIA (page 2888).

SUMNER, Senator Charles, The assault of Preston Brooks on.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1856 (page 3398).

SUMTER, Thomas, in the War of the American Revolution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780 (page 3273).

   ----------SWEDEN: Start--------

SWEDEN: A. D. 1810.
   The election of Bernadotte.

   "It was necessary to look out for a new successor to the
   throne. Adlersparre desired the brother of the deceased crown
   prince, Frederic Christian, duke of Augustenborg, thinking by
   this means to secure the fruits of the revolution and to keep
   in view the union between Sweden and Norway. He succeeded in
   persuading Charles XII. to give his voice for this prince, and
   the council of State even sustained this idea, with the
   exception of Adlercreutz who proposed the emperor Alexander's
   brother-in-law, the Duke of Oldenburg. A third candidate was
   King Frederic VI. of Denmark, and even Napoleon himself worked
   in secret for him as he had by this time realized the
   advantage of the formation of a strong Northern power as a
   balance against Russia. But the king of Denmark as a candidate
   was far from popular among the Swedes, and still less prospect
   was there of the election of prince Gustaf. The Swedish
   government which had made its determination sent a writing to
   Napoleon in order to gain his influence in favor of the
   prince. The message was sent in duplicate by different roads.
   The choice of the Swedish government did not meet his
   approval; still he declared that he would not oppose it. One
   of the couriers who brought the above writing to Paris, was
   lieutenant in Upland's regiment, baron Carl Otto Mörner. This
   young officer was no friend of the candidacy of the Duke of
   Augustenborg; like many other Swedes, especially in the army,
   he desired as a successor to the throne a warrior, above all a
   French marshal, persuaded that in that way Sweden would most
   readily gain the alliance with France, and revenge upon
   Russia. Among the French marshals Bernadotte, prince of Ponte
   Corvo, was particularly known in Sweden through his contact
   with them during the last wars and to him their thoughts had
   turned in the first place. Young, bold, and forward, at the
   same time full of the wish to be useful to his country, Mörner
   had contrived to obtain the office of courier in order to find
   a successor to the crown at his own risk. He calls on a
   certain Captain La Pie whose acquaintance he had made on a
   former visit to Paris, and explains his plans, and La Pie
   strengthens him in his ideas, that Bernadotte would be
   preferable before Macdonald, Eugene Beauharnais, and others
   whom Mörner had in his mind. Through La Pie and the Swedish
   general consul Signeul, Mörner obtains the necessary
   information which enables him to meet the Marshal. He calls on
   Bernadotte and finds him, however careful in his utterance
   regarding the matter, not opposed to the project; nay
   Bernadotte hastens immediately after the conference with
   Mörner to the emperor to impart it to him. Napoleon, who had
   officially been informed of the thoughts of the Swedish
   government, looked on the whole matter as a ghost of the
   brain, but declared that he would not meddle with it. At
   Mörner's last visit (27 June 1810) Bernadotte gave him leave
   to communicate that the emperor had nothing against
   Bernadotte's election and that he himself was ready to accept
   if the choice fell on him. It is easy to imagine the
   astonishment of Engström, the minister of state, when he heard
   Mörner's description of his bold attempt in Paris. 'What do
   you bring from Paris?' Engström asked, when Mörner came into
   the foreign Minister's cabinet in Stockholm. 'That I have
   induced the prince of Ponte Corvo to accept the Swedish
   crown.' 'How could you speak to him about it without being
   commissioned?' 'Our only safety lies in the prince of Ponte
   Corvo.' 'Are you sure that he will receive it so that we are
   not doubly committed?' 'Certainly. I have a letter here.'
   'From him to you?' 'No, from me to him.' 'Boy.' exclaimed
   Mörner's relation, his excellency Von Essen, at the end of the
   conference, 'You ought to sit where neither sun nor moon will
   shine on you.' But Mörner's project won more and more favor in
   the country though he himself was arrested in Orebro, whereby
   the government desired to prevent his presence as a member of
   the house of knights at the special diet called at Örebro for
   election. Through messengers and a pamphlet on the succession
   in Sweden he though absent worked for his plan even among the
   estates which met the 23d July 1810."

      Sveriges Historia, 1805-1875
      (translated from the Swedish by L. G. Sellstedt),
      pages 29-31.

      See, also,
      SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1810 (page 2831).

SWEDEN: Libraries.

   See LIBRARIES, MODERN (page 2013).

   ----------SWEDEN: End--------

{3806}

SWEDENBORG, and the New Church.

   "Swedenborg was born in 1688, and died in 1772. The son of a
   Lutheran Bishop of Sweden, a student at several universities,
   and an extensive traveler throughout all the principal
   countries of Europe, he had exceptional opportunities for
   testing the essential quality of contemporaneous Christianity.
   … Until he was more than fifty years of age, Swedenborg had
   written nothing on religious subjects, and apparently given
   them no special attention. He was principally known, in his
   own country, as Assessor Extraordinary of the Board of Mines,
   and an influential member of the Swedish Diet; and not only
   there, but throughout Europe, as a writer on many branches of
   science and philosophy. In this field he acquired great
   distinction; and the number and variety of topics which he
   treated was remarkable. Geometry and algebra, metallurgy and
   magnetism, anatomy, physiology, and the relation of the soul
   to the body were among the subjects which received his
   attention. There is to be noticed in the general order of his
   publications a certain gradual, but steady, progression from
   lower to higher themes,—from a contemplation of the mere
   external phenomena of nature to a study of their deep and
   hidden causes. He was always full of devout spiritual
   aspirations. In all his scientific researches he steadfastly
   looked through nature up to nature's God. … Maintaining this
   inflexible belief in God and revelation, and in the essential
   unity of truth, Swedenborg, in his upward course, at last
   reached the boundary line between matter and spirit. Then it
   was that he entered on those remarkable experiences by which,
   as he affirms, the secrets of the other world were revealed to
   him. He declares that the eyes of his spirit were opened, and
   that he had, from that time forward, conscious daily
   intercourse with spirits and angels. His general teaching on
   this subject is that the spiritual world is an inner sphere of
   being,—not material, and in no wise discernible to natural
   senses, yet none the less real and substantial,—and that it is
   the ever-present medium of life to man and nature."

      J. Reed,
      Why am I a New Churchman?
      (North American Review, January, 1887).

   "The doctrine of Correspondence is the central idea of
   Swedenborg's system. Everything visible has belonging to it an
   appropriate spiritual reality. The history of man is an acted
   parable; the universe, a temple covered with hieroglyphics.
   Behmen, from the light which flashes on certain exalted
   moments, imagines that he receives the key to these hidden
   significances,—that he can interpret the 'Signatura Rerum.'
   But he does not see spirits, or talk with angels. According to
   him, such communications would be less reliable than the
   intuition he enjoyed. Swedenborg takes opposite ground. 'What
   I relate,' he would say, 'comes from no such mere inward
   persuasion. I recount the things I have seen. I do not labour
   to recall and to express the manifestation made me in some
   moment of ecstatic exaltation. I write you down a plain
   statement of journeys and conversations in the spiritual
   world, which have made the greater part of my daily history
   for many years together. I take my stand upon experience. I
   have proceeded by observation and induction as strict as that
   of any man of science among you. Only it has been given me to
   enjoy an experience reaching into two worlds—that of spirit,
   as well as that of matter.' … According to Swedenborg, all the
   mythology and the symbolisms of ancient times were so many
   refracted or fragmentary correspondences—relics of that better
   day when every outward object suggested to man's mind its
   appropriate divine truth. Such desultory and uncertain links
   between the seen and the unseen are so many imperfect attempts
   toward that harmony of the two worlds which he believed
   himself commissioned to reveal. The happy thoughts of the
   artist, the imaginative analogies of the poet, are exchanged
   with Swedenborg for an elaborate system. All the terms and
   objects in the natural and spiritual worlds are catalogued in
   pairs."

      R. A. Vaughan,
      Hours with the Mystics,
      book 12, chapter 1, (volume 2).

   "It is more than a century since the foundation of this church
   [the New-Church] was laid, by the publication of the
   theological writings of Emanuel Swedenborg. For more than half
   of that time, individuals and societies have been active in
   translating them, and in publishing them widely. There have
   been many preachers of these doctrines, and not a few writers
   of books and periodicals. The sale of Swedenborg's writings,
   and of books intended to present the doctrines of the church,
   has been constant and large. How happens it, under these
   circumstances, that the growth of this church has been and is
   so slow, if its doctrines are all that we who hold them
   suppose them to be? There are many answers to this question.
   One among them is, that its growth has been greater than is
   apparent. It is not a sect. Its faith does not consist of a
   few specific tenets, easily stated and easily received. It is
   a new way of thinking about God and man, this life and
   another, and every topic, connected with these. And this new
   way of thinking has made and is making what may well be called
   great progress. It may be discerned everywhere, in the
   science, literature, philosophy, and theology of the times;
   not prevalent in any of them, but existing, and cognizable by
   all who are able to appreciate these new truths with their
   bearings and results. … Let it not be supposed that by the
   New-Church is meant the organized societies calling themselves
   by that name. In one sense, that is their name. Swedenborg
   says there are three essentials of this Church: a belief in
   the Divinity of the Lord, and in the sanctity of the
   Scriptures, and a life of charity, which is a life governed by
   a love of the neighbor. Where these are, there is the Church.
   Whoever holds these essentials in faith and life is a member
   of the New-Church, whatever may be his theological name or
   place. Only in the degree in which he so holds these
   essentials is anyone a member of that church. Those who,
   holding or desiring to hold these essentials in faith and
   life, unite and organize that they may be assisted and may
   assist each other in so holding them, constitute the visible
   or professed New-Church. But very false would they be to its
   doctrines, if they supposed themselves to be exclusively
   members of that Church, or if they founded their membership
   upon their profession or external organization. For there is
   no other true foundation for this membership than every man's
   own internal reception of the essentials of the Church, and
   his leading the life which its truths require."

      T. Parsons,
      Outlines of the Religion and Philosophy of Swedenborg,
      chapter 14, section 5.

      ALSO IN:
      E. Swedenborg,
      The four leading Doctrines of the New Church.

      G. F. E. Le Boys Des Guays,
      Letters to a Man of the World.

      B. F. Barrett,
      Lectures on the New Dispensation.

SWITZERLAND, Libraries of.

      See LIBRARIES, MODERN (page 2013).

{3807}

T.

TAORMINA.
TAUROMENION.

   About 392 B. C. Dionysios, the tyrant of Syracuse, expelled
   the Sikels, or natives of Sicily, from one of their towns,
   Tauromenion (modern Taormina) on the height of Tauros,
   overlooking the site of the old Greek city of Naxos, which
   Dionysios had destroyed ten years before. He peopled the town
   anew with some of his mercenaries; but after his death the
   scattered Naxians were brought together in it, and made it
   their home. "The city thus strengthened by new colonists grew
   and prospered, and became specially remarkable for the wealth
   of its citizens. Greek Tauromenion ran through the usual
   course of a Sikeliot city in later times. Settled again by a
   Roman colony, it lived on till the days of its greatest glory,
   as the last of Sikeliot cities to hold out for Christ and
   Cæsar against the assaults of the besieging Saracens. But even
   that greater memory does not shut out the thoughts of the
   stirring early days of the city. … The rocks and the heights
   are there still, and not the rocks and the heights only. There
   is the wall with the work of the Sikel and the Greek side by
   side. There is the temple of the Greek changed into the church
   of the Christian apostle of Sicily. There is the theatre, the
   work of the Greek enlarged and modified by the Roman; the
   theatre which, unlike those of Syracuse and Argos, still keeps
   so large a part of its scena, 'and where we hardly mourn the
   loss of the rest as we look out on the hills and the sea
   between its fragments. … The matchless site would be something
   even without a story, but at Taormina the story is for ever
   written on the site. On the long ridge of the town, on its
   walls and gates, on the rocks on which it stands, on the
   prouder rocks which rise above it, we may truly say that, of
   all who have assailed or defended the mountain-city, alongside
   of the names of Ibrahim and of Roger, the first names in the
   long story of Tauromenion dwell there also."

      E. A. Freeman,
      History of Sicily,
      chapter 11, section 2 (volume 4).

      ALSO IN:
      The Century,
      September 1893.

TELEGRAPH, Invention of the Electrical.

      See ELECTRICAL DISCOVERY AND INVENTION (pages 771-772).

      T. O'Conor Sloane,
      The Standard Electrical Dictionary
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/26535

THIRTY YEARS WAR, The effects of.

      See (in this Supplement)
      GERMANY: A. D. 1648; also page 1484.

"TIPPECANOE AND TYLER TOO."

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1840 (page 3377).

   ----------TOLERATION, Religious: Start--------

TOLERATION, Religious: A. D. 1631-1661.
   Denied in Massachusetts.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1631-1636, to 1656-1661
      (pages 2103 to 2109).

TOLERATION, Religious: A. D. 1636.
   Established by Roger Williams in Rhode Island.

      See RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1638-1647 (page 2639).

TOLERATION, Religious: A. D. 1649.
   Enacted in Maryland.

      See MARYLAND: A. D. 1649 (page 2094).

TOLERATION, Religious: A. D. 1689.
   Partial enactment in England.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1689 (page 909).

TOLERATION, Religious: A. D. 1778.
   Repeal of Catholic penal laws in England.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1778-1780 (page 936).

TOLERATION, Religious: A. D. 1827-1829.
   Removal of disabilities from Dissenters and Emancipation
   of Catholics in England and Ireland.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1827-1828 (page 952);
      and IRELAND: A. D. 1811-1829 (page 1784).

TOLERATION, Religious: A. D. 1869.
   Disestablishment of the Irish Church.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1868-1870 (page 969).

TOLERATION, Religious: A. D. 1871.
   Abolition of religious tests in English Universities.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1871 (page 970).

   ----------TOLERATION, Religious: End--------

TORQUEMADA.

      See INQUISITION (page 1751).

TRADE.

      See (in this Supplement) COMMERCE.

TRADE-MARKS, Protection of.

      See LAW, EQUITY: A. D. 1875 (page 1994).

TRADES UNIONS.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS:
      A. D: 1720-1800 (page 2933), and after.

TSIAM NATION, The.

      See TONKIN (page 3115).

TULANE UNIVERSITY, or University of Louisiana.

   "This institution had its origin in certain land grants made
   by the United States 'for the use of a seminary of learning.'
   By an act of the General Government passed in 1806 one
   township of land was granted for the above named purpose, and
   in 1811 another township was added to this and both were
   confirmed by an act (of 1824) which also authorized their
   location. The first movement toward the utilization of these
   grants was made in 1845, when the following clause was adopted
   in the amended Constitution: 'A university shall be
   established in the city of New Orleans. It shall be composed
   of four faculties, to wit: one of law, one of medicine, one of
   natural sciences, and one of letters.' … The university was
   chartered in 1847. … For many years the university received
   but meagre support from the State. … By the Constitution of
   1879 the institution was endowed permanently by authorizing
   the sum of not more than $10,000 payable annually [for five
   years] to the university. At the expiration of this period the
   university was united with the Tulane University (in 1884).
   Since that time no appropriations have been made by the
   Legislature."

      F. W. Blackmar,
      History of Federal and State Aid to Higher Education
      in the United States
      (Bureau of Education, Circular of Information,
      1890. number 1), pages 272-273.

TYPHOID FEVER, Appearance of.

      See PLAGUE; 18TH CENTURY (page 2543).

U.

"UNCLE TOM'S CABIN," The effect of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1852 (page 3392).

   -----------UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Start--------

{3808}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Historical Geography.

   The historical geography of the United States possesses, in a
   unique degree, a two-fold character. These divisions of the
   subject are best described by the words exterior and interior.
   While such a classification is, of course, inevitable in the
   history of every nation, the fact remains that, with the
   United States, these divisions stand in a different relation
   to each other from any that appear usually in the historical
   geography of other countries. The difference is chiefly one of
   relative importance. The internal historical geography of the
   Old World nations, barring the feudal period, involves so
   largely questions concerning mere provincial administration
   that it has no claim, from a geographical standpoint, to an
   importance equal to the shifting of the great national
   frontiers. Examples of this are found in the Roman and
   Byzantine empires, and in the majority of the modern states.
   In our own case however the order of interest is reversed. Our
   internal geography has attracted the chief attention of the
   student, not so much from the greater difficulty of the
   subject as from its vast importance in the early history of
   our government. It is not, indeed, too much to say that the
   organization of the present government under the constitution
   is an event of scarcely greater importance than the
   determination of the final policy of the states and the nation
   concerning the unoccupied western lands. It is this fact alone
   which gives the higher degree of relative importance to our
   internal historical geography. The general facts concerning
   our external geography are quickly told. The outlines of the
   entire subject are contained in the enumeration of the eight
   cessions, as follows:

   the original territory ceded by Great Britain at the
   peace of Paris in 1783 (see page 3287);

   the Louisiana purchase from France in 1803
   (pages 2049, and 3327);

   the acquisition of Florida from Spain by the treaty of 1819
   (page 1154);

   the admission of Texas in 1845 (page 3102);

   the undisputed acquisition of the Oregon country by treaty
   with Great Britain in 1846 (page 2402);

   the first Mexican cession by the peace of Guadalupe
   Hidalgo in 1848 (page 2175);

   the second Mexican cession, known as the Gadsden purchase, in
   1853 (page 133);

   and the purchase of Alaska from Russia in 1867 (page 30).

   The enumeration of these eight acquisitions, all of which,
   save the final one are shown on the first United States map,
   affords a complete picture of the successive stages of our
   territorial growth. The occasion of these different
   annexations, as well as their exact territorial extent, would
   involve us in a series of details which are beyond the purpose
   of the present article. It should be observed, however, that
   in several cases the map shows the territories in question as
   finally determined by treaty or survey, rather than their
   actual extent as understood at the time the annexations were
   made. This is one of the inevitable disadvantages in the
   purely cartographic treatment of such a subject. The
   historical map is compelled from its nature to give a tangible
   appearance to matters which are often very intangible in fact.
   In the case, for example, of what we may call the first United
   States, the country as recognized by the treaty of Paris, the
   western line of the Mississippi was the only boundary which
   was not the subject of future discussion. The southern
   frontier as arranged at Paris was affirmed by treaty with
   Spain in 1795. On the other side, however, Great Britain
   retained a number of posts in the Old Northwest up to the Jay
   treaty of 1794; the boundary between the upper Mississippi and
   the Lake of the Woods, imperfectly described in the Paris
   treaty, was not settled until 1818; the line from the
   intersection of the St. Lawrence to the Sault Ste. Marie was
   established in 1822 by joint commission under the treaty of
   Ghent; while the Maine frontier question, the most difficult
   and obstinate of all our boundary disputes, was not finally
   settled until the year 1842. The Louisiana purchase of 1803
   brought in fresh questions concerning our territorial limits.
   On three sides, the North, West and Southwest the frontiers of
   this vast area were undefined. On the northern side the
   boundary was settled with Great Britain by the treaty of 1818
   which carried the line along the forty-ninth parallel to the
   Rocky Mountains, while the treaty of 1819 with Spain, which
   ceded Florida to the United States, also defined the limits of
   Louisiana on the South-West. This line of 1819 has an
   additional importance, in that it drew the frontier between
   Spain and the United States along the forty-second parallel to
   the Pacific coast. The importance of this lay in the fact that
   it gave us a clear title on the Spanish side to the so-called
   Oregon country. The exact connection, real or supposed,
   between this territory and the Louisiana country was for many
   years one of the disputed points in American historical
   geography. The belief in this connection, at one time general,
   undoubtedly had its origin in the undefined character of
   Louisiana at the time of the purchase, and the fact that our
   government turned this indefiniteness to its own purpose in
   advancing its Oregon claims. It is now clear, however, from
   the evidence of the old maps, the official statement of the
   limits of the region, of which there is but one in existence
   (the Crozat grant of 1712) and lastly the understanding of
   France herself at the time of the cession, that Louisiana did
   not include in its limits any part of the Pacific watershed. A
   map published in a subsequent work of the French
   plenipotentiary placed the western boundary of Louisiana at
   the one hundred and tenth meridian. A line drawn in this
   arbitrary fashion and unsanctioned by the terms of the treaty
   itself may be regarded merely as one of convenience. If this
   view is correct it is certainly more convenient and, at the
   same time, more logical, to consider the western boundary as
   extending to the Rocky Mountain watershed,—a line which would
   not deviate to any radical extent from the meridian in
   question. The historical connection however between the
   Louisiana purchase and our subsequent acquisition of the
   Oregon country is perfectly clear. The exploration of the
   latter followed almost immediately but its final annexation
   was delayed by the opposing claim of Great Britain. In this
   controversy the claim of the United States was merely relative
   as opposed to that of England. The just claimant was
   undoubtedly the king of Spain, whose rights, based on
   discovery, antedated those of either of the contesting powers.
   The Spanish title, however, having, as we have seen, been
   relinquished by the treaty of 1819, the issue between Great
   Britain and the United States became clearly defined. A joint
   occupation of the disputed territory by the two powers ensued
   from 1818 to 1846. In the latter year was negotiated the
   compromise treaty, which continued our northern line of 1818
   on the forty-ninth parallel from the Rocky Mountains to the
   Pacific coast. From the treaty of 1846 we may date the
   completion of our northern frontier, although the ownership of
   certain islands between Vancouver and the mainland was not
   settled until 1872.
{3809}
   A few more years witnessed the completion of our southern
   frontier, as well. In 1845 Texas was admitted to the Union.
   The western boundary of the Rio Grande, claimed by the new
   state under her constitution of 1836, led directly to the war
   with Mexico, and by that war to the great additional cession
   at Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848. The southern boundary was
   finally completed by the Gadsden purchase of 1853. Coming now
   to the study of our internal geography, we find ourselves in
   contact with what is practically a distinct subject. Here we
   encounter a whole series of those weighty questions, the
   solution of which figures so prominently in the early history
   of the American government. We have already noted that the
   first western boundary of the United States was placed by the
   treaty of 1783 at the Mississippi river. But during the Paris
   negotiations our ally France and quasi ally Spain both opposed
   this westward extension of our territory and it was long an
   open question, even after our independence itself was assured,
   whether we should not be compelled to accept a western
   boundary on the Appalachian range. Years before the final
   settlement of the question at Paris, the expectancy of the
   Mississippi boundary had given rise to questions which caused
   an undercurrent of dissension between the states during the
   entire period of the Revolutionary War. In their relation to
   the western land question, the thirteen original states divide
   themselves into two classes, the claimant and non-claimant
   states. In the first class were Massachusetts, Connecticut,
   New York, Virginia, the two Carolinas and Georgia; in the
   second, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
   Delaware and Maryland. The claims of the seven first named
   states covered every inch of our prospective western domain
   and in the country north of the Ohio, known as the Old
   Northwest there were opposing claims of two and in some
   districts of even three states to the same territory. The
   extent of these claims is indicated on the map of the
   Federated states in 1783. They rested for the most part upon
   the royal grants and charters to the colonies, and, in the
   case of New York, upon the treaties with the Iroquois. Their
   relative merits where conflicting, or their collective merit
   as a whole, are questions which we will not attempt to
   discuss. It is sufficient to observe that if insisted upon in
   their entirety they would have presented an insuperable
   obstacle to the formation of an American federate government.
   In the proceedings of the Continental Congress, as well as in
   the state legislative bodies, touching this western domain, we
   may find the germs of nearly all the political and
   constitutional questions which have made the greater part of
   our subsequent history. The relative rank and power of the
   states, the obligation of one state towards another, the
   individual rights of states as opposed to the collective
   rights of the Union; all of these questions entered into the
   great problem which the nation was now called upon to solve.
   The objections to the western claims by the non-claimant
   states, though urged with varying degrees of vehemence and
   accompanied with many widely differing alternatives, may be
   fairly resolved into the two following contentions: that it
   was unjust that so vast a domain, whose acquisition at the
   peace could only be insured through the joint labor of all the
   states, should thereafter become the property of a certain
   favored few, and also that the claims if allowed would in the
   end give the claimant states a preponderating power which
   would be extremely prejudicial if not dangerous to the others.
   Of all the non-claimant states, Maryland was the most
   determined in her opposition, and it is to her that Professor
   Herbert B. Adams in his monograph on "Maryland's Influence
   upon Land Cessions to the United States," assigns the chief
   credit for the final creation of the first national domain
   (see page 3280). The claim though a just one cannot be
   asserted without an important qualification. The proposition
   advanced by Maryland, that a national title to the western
   lands be asserted by a clause in the Articles of
   Confederation, was manifestly one to which the claimant states
   would never give their consent. It was due, however, to the
   action of Maryland,—which refused for more than three years,
   from November 1777 to March 1781, to ratify the articles,—
   that the question was kept open until the claimant states, in
   order to complete the circle of the Union, found it necessary
   to adopt the policy of voluntary cessions, suggested by
   Congress. The history in detail of the several state cessions
   involves many questions concerning the distribution and sale
   of public lands which need not concern us. Some of the offers
   of cession, at first conditional and partial, were made
   absolute and final, as, one by one, the besetting difficulties
   were cleared away. The dates of the final cessions by the
   seven claimant states in order were as follows:
   New York 1781,
   Virginia 1783,
   Massachusetts 1785,
   Connecticut 1786,
   South Carolina 1787,
   North Carolina 1790,
   Georgia 1802.

   Certain land reservations north of the Ohio, as shown on the
   map of the United States in 1790, were made by both Virginia
   and Connecticut; but Virginia renounced jurisdiction over
   these lands in the cession, and Connecticut did likewise in
   1800, the two states reserving merely the property rights. The
   territory south of the Ohio was not included in the Virginia
   cession of 1783 but the district of Kentucky was made the
   subject of a second cession in 1789. The completion of this
   list closed the interesting chapter in our history covered by
   the state cessions and gave to the United States the
   sovereignty over its first great western public domain. Before
   pursuing this subject further, let us see in what relation the
   cessions stand to the present form of the thirteen original
   states. Some boundary contentions still remained, but these
   are not of historic importance. The claim of Massachusetts in
   what is now "Western New York was settled by joint commission
   in 1786, while Pennsylvania purchased a tract of land on lake
   Erie from the general government in 1792. At the present day
   sixteen states stand upon the territory which remained to the
   original thirteen, the three additional ones each springing
   from the partition of one of the older states. In 1790 New
   York assented to the independence of Vermont, which was
   admitted to the Union in the following year; in 1820 Maine was
   separated from Massachusetts and admitted; and finally, in
   1862, West Virginia was set off from Virginia and became a
   state in 1863. We will now resume the subject of the
   disposition of the western lands.
{3810}
   We have already noted the termination of that stage of their
   history which involves the territorial claims of individual
   states. The second stage concerns itself with the evolution of
   what may be called the American system of territorial
   government. The first, indeed, had not reached its completion
   before the second began to receive the greater measure of
   public attention. The western land cessions to the government
   were made with the general understanding, tacit in most cases,
   but in that of Virginia explicitly stated, that the ceded
   territory should eventually be formed into additional states.
   The first national domain may therefore be regarded as a
   district held in trust by the government for a special
   purpose. This view, which was not only required by the terms
   of the Virginia cession, but also represented the general
   sentiment of the time, has formed the basis of our entire
   subsequent policy in dealing with the national domain,—a
   policy which has remained unaltered even in the case of the
   immense territories that afterwards came into the direct
   possession of the government by treaty with foreign powers.
   The one question remaining was the erection of the legislative
   machinery which should provide for the government of the
   territories during their preparation for statehood. The
   problem was finally solved by the Ordinance of 1787 for the
   government of the Northwest territory. This famous ordinance,
   the first of the long series of acts concerning territorial
   government, was the last noteworthy piece of legislation under
   the old Articles of Confederation, and the year which
   witnessed both the successful inauguration of our territorial
   policy and the adoption of the new constitution is the most
   memorable in the entire history of American institutions. The
   history of the enactment of the Ordinance, for many years
   veiled in obscurity, has been fully elucidated by the late W.
   F. Poole (monograph on "The Ordinance of 1787"); the full text
   is printed in its proper place in this work (page 2380). Many
   of its provisions, suited only for the special occasion of
   their use, are now antiquated and obsolete, and neither their
   letter nor spirit find a place in subsequent territorial
   legislation. But the fact remains that this act was in a
   certain sense the great proto-type; it was the first to
   organize and set in motion the machinery of our territorial
   policy. A policy that has provided without friction for the
   tremendous national expansion which has ensued during the
   present century may justly be regarded as one of the greatest
   achievements in the political history of the American
   government. In our own day, when the admission of a new state
   or the erection of a new territory is regarded as hardly more
   than a routine event in the working of our political system,
   it is easy for us to underestimate the vital importance of the
   first steps which were taken concerning the regulation of the
   national domain. It was because those steps were to determine
   in a measure our entire future policy, that the history of the
   old Continental Congress should form an absorbing theme for
   every student of our internal geography. It is unnecessary to
   follow this subject in detail through its later history, which
   is simply a monotonous record of legislative enactments for
   the organization of new territories or the admission of new
   states. The principle had been fully established; the history
   of the next century, followed step by step, can show very
   little beyond its consistent application. Political
   considerations have, it is true, often delayed or prematurely
   hastened the admission of new states, but there has been one
   case only where we have been called upon again to face a
   question similar to that which was solved by the old congress.
   The circumstances of the admission of the republic of Texas
   bear no analogy to that of any other state received into the
   Union since the formation of the government. Here was, not a
   state created by mere legislative enactment, but an
   independent foreign sovereignty, admitted to the Union at its
   own solicitation, bringing with it as a dower a territory
   immeasurably greater than the national policy had ever before
   assigned to a single state. Once more therefore we have the
   old question of a troublesome state sovereignty in immense
   unoccupied lands. The comparative absence of friction in the
   solution of this new problem proves again the efficiency of
   the old policy in dealing with all such questions. No cession
   of territory was wrung from Texas or in this case even
   solicited. The state was admitted to the Union in 1845
   claiming a continuous western boundary on the Rio Grande. In
   1850, after the peace of Guadalupe Hidalgo had determined our
   boundary on the Mexican side, Texas sold to the General
   Government, for the sum of $10,000,000, all of her territorial
   claims north and west of her present boundaries. With some
   modifications the history of the original cessions repeats
   itself in this transaction, which was the last occasion of a
   great transfer of territory to the Union by one of its
   members. There are many other features in our internal
   geography, among the most notable the institution of slavery,
   which would be worthy of attention were the space to permit.
   In view of this limitation, however, we cannot pursue the
   subject beyond this general review of its main outlines. There
   is a dearth of works on American historical geography
   subsequent to the Declaration of Independence. It is a
   subject, indeed, which cannot be very satisfactorily studied
   simply through the literature dealing exclusively with the
   topic. Of the atlases Professor Albert Bushnell Hart's. "Epoch
   Maps Illustrating American History" is the best; the most
   serviceable of the text works is Henry Gannett's pamphlet on
   "Boundaries of the United States and of the several States and
   Territories, with a Historical Sketch of the Territorial
   Changes," published as bulletin Number 13 of the United States
   Geological Survey. Townsend MacCoun's "Historical Geography of
   the United States" and the later chapters of Walter B.
   Scaife's "America, its Geographical History" are also useful.
   An excellent account of our geographical history during the
   early years of the Government, covering the period of the
   state cessions, may be found in B. A. Hinsdale's Old
   Northwest, with a View of the Thirteen Colonies as constituted
   by the, Royal Charters." For a more careful study there is of
   course no substitute for the texts of the grants, charters,
   treaties and legislative acts of Congress, and the more
   important of these are freely quoted from in Mr. Gannett's
   work.

      Alan C. Reiley.

UNITED STATES: A. D. 1863.
   Adoption and Organization of the National Bank System
   of the United States.

   See MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1861-1878 (page 2219).

{3811}

UTOPIAS.

      See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS (page 2932).

UZBEGS.

   A Turkish branch of the Tatars of Turkestan.

V.

VOLAPUK.

   A proposed universal language, invented in 1879 by a
   Swabian pastor, named Schleyer.

VOLTA, The electrical discoveries of.

      See ELECTRICAL DISCOVERY AND INVENTION:
      A. D. 1786-1800 (page 771).

W.

WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY.

      See EDUCATION (page 743).

WHEATSTONE, Prof., Inventions of.

      See ELECTRICAL DISCOVERY (page 773).

      T. O'Conor Sloane,
      The Standard Electrical Dictionary
      https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/26535

{3812}

CHRONOLOGY OF IMPORTANT AND INDICATIVE EVENTS.

TO THE CHRISTIAN ERA. [BEFORE]

B. C. 4777.
      Beginning of the Egyptian dynasties as given by Manetho,
      according to the latest computations. [Uncertain date]

2250.
      Beginning of the reign of Hammurabi, or Chammurabi, the
      first important king of Babylonia. [Uncertain date]

1500.
      Independence of Assyria as a kingdom separate from
      Babylonia, and rise of Nineveh. [Uncertain date]

1330.
      Beginning of the reign in Egypt of Ramses II.,
      the Sesostris of the Greeks. [Uncertain date]

1260.
      Death of Ramses II., king of Egypt, and accession of
      Merneptah or Merenptah, supposed by many writers to be
      the Pharaoh of the Oppression. [Uncertain date]

1200.
      Exodus of the Children of Israel from Egypt.
      [Uncertain date]

1120.
      Beginning of the reign of Tiglathpileser I.,
      king of Assyria. [Uncertain date]

1000.
      Beginning of the reign of King David. [Uncertain date]

960.
      Death of David and beginning of the reign of Solomon.
      [Uncertain date]

776.
      Beginning of the Olympiads.

753.
      The founding of Rome. [Uncertain date]

745.
      First war between Sparta and Messenia.

734.
      Founding of Syracuse by Greeks from Corinth.

725.
      End of first Messenian War.
722.
      Overthrow of the kingdom of Israel by the Assyrians.
      Captivity of the Ten Tribes.

685.
      The second war between Messenia and Sparta.

668.
      End of the second Messenian war.

640.
      Birth of Thales. [Uncertain date]

624.
      Supposed date of the legislation of Draco, at Athens.
      [Uncertain date]
612.
      Conspiracy of Cylon at Athens.

608.
      Accession of Nebuchadnezzar in Babylonia.

606.
      Destruction of Nineveh and overthrow of the Assyrian
      empire by the Medes. [Uncertain date]

601.
      First invasion of Palestine by Nebuchadnezzar.

598.
      Invasion of Palestine by Nebuchadnezzar.

594.
      The Constitution of Solon adopted at Athens.

586.
      Capture of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar.
      End of the kingdom of Judah and exile of the remnant
      of the people to Babylon.

560.
      Tyranny of Pisistratus established at Athens.

551.
      Birth of Confucius [Uncertain date] (d. 478).

549.
      Overthrow of the Median monarchy by Cyrus,
      and founding of the Persian.

546.
      Overthrow of Crœsus and the kingdom of Lydia by Cyrus,
      king of Persia.

538.
      Conquest of Babylon by Cyrus.

529.
      Death of Cyrus and accession of Cambyses
      to the throne of Persia.

525.
      Conquest of Egypt by Cambyses, king of Persia.
      Birth of Æschylus (d. 456).

521.
      Accession of Darius I., king of Persia.

520.
      Birth of Pindar. [Uncertain date]
516.
      Invasion of Scythia by Darius, king of Persia.
      [Uncertain date]

514.
      Birth of Themistocles [Uncertain date]
      (d. 449 [Uncertain date]).

510.
      Expulsion of the Pisistratids from Athens.

509.
      Expulsion of the Tarquins from Rome. [Uncertain date]
      Founding of the Republic (Roman chronology).

508.
      Political reorganization of Athens by Cleisthenes.

506.
      Subjection of Macedonia to Persia.

500.
      Rising of the Greek colonies in Ionia, against the Persians.

495.
      Birth of Sophocles (d. 405 [Uncertain date]).

493.
      League of the Romans and Latins.

492.
      First secession of the Roman Plebs.
      Creation of the Tribunes of the People.

490.
      First Persian expedition against Greece.
      Destruction of Naxos by the Persians.
      Their overwhelming defeat at Marathon.

489.
      Condemnation and death of Miltiades at Athens.
      [Uncertain date]

486.
      Accession of Xerxes to the throne of Persia.

484.
      Birth of Herodotus. [Uncertain date]

480.
      Second Persian invasion of Greece.
      Thermopylæ.
      Artemisium.
      Salamis.
      Retreat of Xerxes.
      Carthaginian invasion of Sicily.
      Battle of Himera.
      Birth of Euripides. [Uncertain date]

479.
      Battles of Platæa and Mycale and end of
      the Persian invasion of Greece.

478.
      Beginning of the tyranny of Hieron at Syracuse.

477.
      Formation of the Confederacy of Delos, under Athens.

471.
      Exile of Themistocles from Athens.
      Birth of Thucydides (d. 401 [Uncertain date]).

{3813}

469.
      Birth of Socrates [Uncertain date]
      (d. 399 [Uncertain date]).

466.
      Naval victory of the Greeks over the Persians at Eurymedon.
      Outbreak of the Plague at Rome.
      Revolt of Naxos from the Delian Confederacy.
      Fall of the tyrants at Syracuse.

465.
      Murder of Xerxes I., and accession of Artaxerxes I.
      to the throne of Persia.

464.
      Great earthquake at Sparta.
      Rising of the Helots,
      or beginning of the third Messenian War.

460.
      Birth of Hippocrates.

458.
      Commencement of the Long Walls of Athens.

457.
      Beginning of war of Corinth, Sparta, and Ægina with Athens.
      Battle of Tanagra.

456.
      Athenian victory at Œnophyta.

455.
      End of the third Messenian War.

450.
      End of war against Athens.
      Framing of the Twelve Tables of the Roman Law.
      The Decemvirs at Rome.
      Birth of Alcibiades [Uncertain date] (d. 404).

447.
      Defeat of the Athenians by the Bœotians at Coronea.

445.
      Conclusion of the Thirty Years Peace between Athens
      and Sparta and their allies.
      Ascendancy of Pericles at Athens.
      Peace of Callias between Greece and Persia.
      Birth of Xenophon. [Uncertain date]

444.
      Creation of Consular Tribunes at Rome.
      Exile of Thucydides from Athens.

435.
      War between Corinth and Corcyra.

432.
      Complaints against Athens.
      Peloponnesian Congress at Sparta.
      Revolt of Potidæa.

431.
      Beginning of the Peloponnesian War.
      Invasion of Attica.

430.
      Second invasion of Attica.
      The Plague at Athens.

429.
      Death of Pericles at Athens.
      Capture of Potidæa.
      Birth of Plato (d. 347).

427.
      Destruction of Platæa by the Peloponnesians.
      Massacre at Corcyra.

425.
      Surrender of Spartans to the Athenians at Sphacteria.
      Accession of Xerxes II., king of Persia.

421.
      Peace of Nicias between Athens and Sparta.
      End of the first period of the Peloponnesian War.

415.
      Expedition of the Athenians against Syracuse.
      Mutilation of the Hermæ at Athens.
      Accusation and flight of Alcibiades.

413.
      Disaster to the Athenians before Syracuse.
      Renewal of the Peloponnesian War.

411.
      Oligarchical revolution at Athens.
      The Four Hundred and their fall.
      Recall of Alcibiades.

409.
      Carthaginian invasion of Sicily.

406.
      Victory of the Athenians over the Peloponnesians in
      the battle of Arginusæ.
      Execution of the generals at Athens.

405.
      Defeat of the Athenians at Aigospotamoi.
      Successful revolt of the Egyptians against the Persians,
      and independence established.

404.
      Fall of Athens.
      End of the Peloponnesian War.

401.
      Expedition of Cyrus the Younger.

400.
      Retreat of the Ten Thousand under Xenophon.
      Birth of Timoleon [Uncertain date] (d. 337).

391).
      Condemnation and death of Socrates at Athens.
      War of Sparta with Persia.

395.
      League of Greek cities against Sparta.
      The Corinthian War.

390.
      Rome destroyed by the Gauls.

389.
      Birth of Æschines [Uncertain date] (d. 314).

387.
      Peace of Antalcidas between the Greeks and Persians.

385.
      Birth of Demosthenes [Uncertain date] (d. 322).

384.
      Birth of Aristotle (d. 322).

383.
      Betrayal of Thebes to Sparta.
      War of Syracuse with Carthage.

379.
      Overthrow of the Olynthian League by Sparta.
      Deliverance of Thebes.

371.
      Defeat of Sparta at Leuctra.
      Ascendancy of Thebes.
      Arcadian Union.

370.
      Peloponnesian expedition of Epaminondas.

361.
      Adoption of the Licinian Laws at Rome.

362.
      Victory and death of Epaminondas at Mantinea.

359.
      Accession of Philip to the throne of Macedonia.

357.
      Outbreak of the Ten Years Sacred War in Greece.

356.
      Burning of the Temple of Diana at Ephesus.
      Birth of Alexander the Great (d. 323).

353.
      Final conquest of Egypt by the Persians.

352.
      Interference of Philip of Macedonia in the Greek Sacred War.
      First Philippic of Demosthenes.

343.
      Deliverance of Syracuse by Timoleon.
      First Samnite War in Italy.

341.
      End of first Samnite War.

340.
      Adoption of the Publilian Laws at Rome.

338.
      League of Greek cities against Philip of Macedonia.
      His victory at Chæronea.
      His domination established.
      Subjugation of the Latins by Rome.

336.
      Assassination of Philip of Macedonia,
      and accession of Alexander the Great.

335.
      Revolt of Thebes.
      Alexander's destruction of the city.

334.
      Alexander's expedition against Persia.
      His victory at the Granicus.

333.
      Alexander's victory over the Persians at Issus.

332.
      Alexander's sieges of Tyre and Gaza.
      His conquest of Egypt and founding of Alexandria.

331.
      Alexander's victory at Arbela.
      Overthrow of the Persian empire.

{3814}

330.
      Alexander's destruction of Persepolis.

326.
      Alexander in India.
      Defeat of Porus.
      Beginning of second Samnite War in Italy.

323.
      Death of Alexander the Great at Babylon.
      Partition of his dominion among the generals.
      Revolt in Greece.
      The Lamian War.

322.
      Subjugation of Athens by the Macedonians.
      Death of Demosthenes.

321.
      Beginning of the Wars of the Successors of Alexander.
      Founding of the kingdom of the Ptolemies In Egypt.
      Defeat of the Romans by the Samnites at the Caudine Forks.

317.
      Execution of Phocion at Athens.

307.
      Athens under the rule of Demetrius Poliorcetes.

306.
      Royal titles assumed by Antigonus (as king of Asia),
      Ptolemy, in Egypt, Seleucus Nicator, in Syria, Lysimachus,
      in Thrace, and Cassander, in Macedonia.

305.
      Siege of Rhodes by Demetrius Poliorcetes.

304.
      End of the second Samnite War in Italy.

301.
      Battle of Ipsus.
      Overthrow and death of Antigonus.

298.
      Beginning of third Samnite War.

295.
      Roman defeat of the Gauls at Sentinum.

290.
      End of the third Samnite War.

287.
      Birth of Archimedes [Uncertain date] (d. 212).

286.
      Adoption of the Hortensian Laws at Rome.

280.
      Invasion of Italy by Pyrrhus, king of Epirus.
      Invasion of Greece by the Gauls.
      Rise of the Achaian League.

278.
      Pyrrhus in Sicily, in war against Carthage.

275.
      Defeat of Pyrrhus at Beneventum.

264.
      Beginning of the first Punic War between Rome and Carthage.

263.
      Athens captured by Antigonus Gonatus.

255.
      Defeat and capture of Regulus in Africa.

250.
      Founding of the kingdom of Parthia by Arsaces.
      [Uncertain date]

247.
      Birth of Hannibal [Uncertain date] (d. 183).
241.
      End of the first Punic War.
      Roman conquest of Sicily.
      Revolt of the Carthaginian mercenaries.

234.
      Birth of Cato the Elder (d. 149).
      Birth of Scipio Africanus the Elder [Uncertain date](d. 183).

227.
      War of Sparta with the Achaian League.

222.
      Roman conquest of Cisalpine Gaul completed.

221.
      Battle of Sellasia.
      Sparta crushed by the king of Macedonia.

218.
      Beginning of the second Punic War between Rome and Carthage.
      Hannibal in Italy.

217.
      Hannibal's defeat of the Romans at the Trasimene Lake.
      Cœle-Syria and Palestine ceded to Egypt by
      Antiochus the Great.

216.
      Great defeat of the Romans by Hannibal at Cannæ.

214.
      Beginning of war between Rome and Macedonia.

212.
      Siege and reduction of Syracuse by the Romans.

211.
      Hannibal at the Roman gates.

210.
      Ægina taken by the Romans and the inhabitants
      reduced to slavery.

207.
      Defeat of Hasdrubal on the Metaurus.

206.
      Birth of Polybius. [Uncertain date]

205.
      End of first Macedonian War.

202.
      Scipio's decisive victory at Zama, in Africa,
      ending the second Punic War.

201.
      Subjection of the Jews to the Seleucid monarchy.

200.
      Roman declaration of war against the king of Macedonia.

197.
      Decisive Roman victory over the Macedonians at Cynoscephalæ.

196.
      Freedom of the Greeks proclaimed by the
      Roman general Flamininus.

195.
      Birth of Terence [Uncertain date] (d. 158 [Uncertain date]).

191.
      Romans defeat Antiochus of Syria at Thermopylæ in Greece.
      Final subjugation of Cisalpine Gaul by the Romans.

190.
      Decisive defeat of Antiochus at Magnesia, by the Romans.
      Beginning of Roman conquest in Asia.

189.
      Fall of the Ætolian League.

185.
      Birth of Scipio Africanus the Younger (d. 129).

171.
      The third war between Rome and Macedonia.

168.
      Roman victory at Pydna;
      extinction of the Macedonian kingdom.
      Birth of Tiberius Gracchus [Uncertain date] (d. 133).

167.
      Revolt of the Jews under Judas Maccabæus,
      against Antiochus, king of Syria.

165.
      Judas Maccabæus in Jerusalem; the Temple purified.
161.
      Defeat and death of Judas Maccabæus.

157.
      Birth of Marius (d. 86).

149.
      Opening of the third Punic War between Rome and Carthage.

146.
      Roman destruction of Carthage and Corinth.
      Greece absorbed in the dominion of Rome.

138.
      Birth of Sulla (d. 78).

135.
      Assassination of Simon Maccabæus;
      accession of John Hyrcanus to the High Priesthood.

133.
      Outbreak of the Servile War in Sicily.
      Attempted reforms and death of Tiberius Gracchus at Rome.
      Reduction of Numantia.

121.
      Death of Caius Gracchus at Rome.

111.
      Beginning of the Jugurthine War between Rome and Numidia.

{3815}

106.
      Birth of Cicero (d. 43).
      Birth of Pompey the Great (d. 48).

105.
      Great defeat of the Romans by the Cimbri at Arausio.
      Royal title taken by Aristobulus in Judea.

104.
      Ending of the Jugurthine War by Marius.

102.
      Destruction of the Teutones at Aquæ Sextiæ by the
      Romans under Marius.

101.
      Destruction of the Cimbri by Marius.

100.
      Adoption of the Apuleian Law at Rome.
      Birth of Julius Cæsar (d. 44).

95.
      Birth of Lucretius (d. 55).

90.
      Outbreak of the Social War, or struggle of the Italians.

88.
      Beginning of the first civil war (Marius and Sulla) at Rome,
      and of war with Mithridates, king of Pontus.
      Unsuccessful siege of Rhodes by Mithridates.

87.
      Campaigns of the Romans under Sulla against Mithridates in Greece.
      Marian proscriptions at Rome.
      Birth of Catullus [Uncertain date] (d. 47 [Uncertain date]).

86.
      Sulla's capture of Athens and victory at Chæronea.
      Death of Marius.
      Birth of Sallust (d. 34 [Uncertain date]).

84.
      End of the first Mithridatic War.

83.
      Return of Sulla to Italy;
      burning of the Temple of Jupiter;
      civil war at Rome.

82.
      Sulla master of Rome;
      the Sullan reign of terror.

80.
      War with Sertorius in Spain.

79.
      Sulla's resignation of the dictatorship.

78.
      Death of Sulla.

74.
      Opening of third Mithridatic War between Rome and
      the king of Pontus.

73.
      Rising of the Roman gladiators under Spartacus.

72.
      Assassination of Sertorius in Spain;
      Pompey in command.

71.
      Defeat of the gladiators and death of Spartacus.

70.
      Consulship of Pompey and Crassus at Rome.
      Cicero's impeachment of Verres.

61.
      Pompey's campaign against the pirates of Cilicia.

66.
      Command of Pompey in the East.
      Overthrow of Mithridates.

65.
      Birth of Horace (d. 8).

64.
      Extinction of the Seleucid kingdom by Pompey.

63.
      Consulship of Cicero at Rome;
      Conspiracy of Catiline.
      Pompey's siege and conquest of Jerusalem;
      the Asmonean kingdom made tributary to Rome.

60.
      The first Triumvirate at Rome.

59.
      Consulship of Cæsar at Rome.

58.
      Beginning of Cæsar's campaigns in Gaul.
      Exile of Cicero from Rome.

57.
      Recall of Cicero.

56.
      Roman conquest of Aquitaine.

55.
      Cæsar's first invasion of Britain.

53.
      Roman war with Parthia;
      defeat and death of Crassus at Carrhæ.

51.
      Cæsar's conquest of Gaul completed.

50.
      Beginning of the second Civil War at Rome;
      Cæsar's passage of the Rubicon.

49.
      Cæsar's campaign against the Pompeians in Spain;
      his conquest of Massilia.

48.
      Cæsar's victory at Pharsalia;
      death of Pompey in Egypt;
      Cæsar in Alexandria.

46.
      Cæsar's victory at Thapsus;
      death of Cato.

45.
      Cæsar's victory in Spain.

44.
      Assassination of Cæsar at Rome.

43.
      The second Triumvirate at Rome;
      murder of Cicero.
      Birth of Ovid (d. A. D. 18).

42.
      Battles of Philippi;
      destruction of the Liberators.

40.
      Herod proclaimed King of Judea.

37.
      Conquest of Jerusalem by Herod.

31.
      War of Antony and Octavius;
      victory of Octavius at Actium, establishing his supremacy.

30.
      Death of Antony and Cleopatra;
      annexation of Egypt to the Roman dominion.

29.
      Triumph of Octavius celebrated at Rome;
      title of Imperator given to him;
      closing of the Temple of Janus.

27.
      Title of Augustus assumed by Octavius at Rome.

12.
      Expedition of the Romans under Drusus into Germany.

9.
      Last German campaign and death of Drusus.

8.
      First campaign of Tiberius
      (afterward Roman emperor) in Germany.

4.
      Probable date of the birth of Jesus.
      Death of Herod, king of Judea.

CHRISTIAN ERA.

First Century.

1.
      Beginning of the Christian Era.

4.
      Campaign of the Emperor Tiberius in Germany.

6.
      Deposition of the Herodian ethnarch Archelaus;
      Judea made a district of the Roman prefecture of Syria.

9.
      Destruction of Varus and his Roman legions
      by the Germans under Arminius.

14.
      Death of Augustus;
      Tiberius made Emperor of Rome.
      Expedition of Germanicus into Germany.

23.
      Birth of Pliny the Elder (d. 79).

26.
      Pontius Pilate, Roman procurator in Judea.

{3816}

27.
      Completion of the Pantheon at Rome.

29.
      Crucifixion of Jesus. [Uncertain date]
      Martyrdom of Saint Stephen.

35.
      Conversion of Saint Paul. [Uncertain date]

37.
      Death of the Emperor Tiberius.
      Accession of Caius, called Caligula.
      Birth of Agricola (d. 93).
      Birth of Josephus (d. 95 [Uncertain date]).

40.
      Birth of Martial. [Uncertain date]

41.
      Murder of the Emperor Caligula;
      elevation of Claudius to the throne.
      Restoration of the Herodian kingdom of Judea
      under Herod Agrippa.

43.
      Roman invasion of Britain by Aulius Plautius
      and the Emperor Claudius.

44.
      Death of Herod Agrippa;
      extinction of the kingdom of Judea.

50.
      First missionary journey of Saint Paul. [Uncertain date]

51.
      Capture of Caractacus, king of the Trinobantes, in Britain.
      Adoption of Nero by Claudius.

52.
      Second missionary journey of Saint Paul. [Uncertain date]
      Birth of Trajan [Uncertain date] (d. 117).

53.
      Felix, procurator of Judea.

54.
      Murder of the Emperor Claudius and accession of Nero.
      Saint Paul at Athens. [Uncertain date]

55.
      Third missionary journey of Saint Paul. [Uncertain date]
      Birth of Tacitus. [Uncertain date]

59.
      Festus made governor of Judea.
      Arrest of Saint Paul.
      Murder of Agrippina.

61.
      Destruction of the Druids of Britain;
      revolt under Boadicea.
      Saint Paul in Rome. [Uncertain date]

62.
      Birth of Pliny the Younger. [Uncertain date]

64.
      The burning of Rome;
      first persecution of Christians.

65.
      Conspiracy of Piso.
      Execution of Lucan and Seneca by the command of Nero.

66.
      Revolt of the Jews.

67.
      Campaign of Vespasian against the insurgent Jews.

68.
      Suicide of the Emperor Nero;
      Galba proclaimed Emperor.

69.
      Murder of Galba;
      brief reigns of Otho and Vitellius;
      Vespasian raised to the throne.
      Revolt of the Batavians under Civilis.

70.
      Siege and destruction of Jerusalem by Titus.

78.
      Beginning of Agricola's campaign in Britain.

79.
      Death of the Emperor Vespasian and accession of Titus.
      Destruction of Pompeii and Herculaneum.
      Pestilence in the Roman Empire.

81.
      Death of the Emperor Titus and accession of Domitian.

96.
      Murder of the Emperor Domitian;
      Nerva raised to the throne.

97.
      Adoption of Trajan by Nerva.

98.
      Death of the Emperor Nerva and accession of Trajan.


Second Century.

106.
      Completed Roman conquest of Dacia by Trajan.

115.
      War of Rome with Parthia.
      Trajan's conquests in Asia.
      Martyrdom of St. Ignatius.
      Great earthquake at Antioch.

116.
      Rising of the Jews in Cyrene, Cyprus and Egypt.

117.
      Death of the Emperor Trajan and accession of Hadrian.
      Relinquishment of Asiatic conquests.

118.
      Campaign of Hadrian in Mœsia.

119.
      Hadrian's visit to Britain.

121.
      Birth of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (d. 180).

131.
      Birth of Galen.

132.
      Savage revolt of the Jews, savagely repressed;
      name of Jerusalem changed to Ælia Capitolina;
      complete dispersion of the Jews.

138.
      Death of the Emperor Hadrian and
      succession of Antoninus Pius.

161.
      Marcus Aurelius Antoninus made Emperor on
      the death of Antoninus Pius.
      Roman war with Parthia begun.

165.
      End of war between Rome and Parthia.
      Sack of Seleucia and Ctesiphon.
      Acquisition of Mesopotamia by Rome.

166.
      Great plague in the Roman Empire.

167.
      Beginning of the wars of Rome with the Marcomanni and Quadi.

174.
      Great victory of Marcus Aurelius over the Quadi.

180.
      Death of the Emperor Marcus Aurelius;
      and accession of his Bon Commodus.

186.
      Birth of Origen [Uncertain date] (d. 253).

192.
      Murder of the Emperor Commodus (December 31).

193.
      Pertinax made Emperor, and murdered;
      sale of the throne of the Roman Empire to Didius Julianus;
      contest of rivals;
      accession of Septimius Severus.

198.
      Siege and capture of the Parthian city Ctesiphon
      by the Romans.


Third Century.

208.
      Campaign of Severus against the Caledonians of Britain.

211.
      Death of the Emperor Severus;
      accession of his sons, Caracalla and Geta.

212.
      Murder of Geta by Caracalla.

213.
      First collision of the Romans with the Alemanni.

215.
      Massacre at Alexandria commanded by Caracalla.

217.
      Murder of the Emperor Caracalla;
      elevation of Macrinus.

218.
      Overthrow of Macrinus by Elagabalus.

{3817}

222.
      Murder of Elagabalus;
      Alexander Severus made Emperor.

226.
      The new monarchy of Persia;
      fall of the Parthian power;
      rise of the Sassanidæ.

235.
      Murder of the Emperor Alexander Severus;
      accession of Maximin.

237.
      Fate of the two Gordians at Rome.

238.
      Overthrow and death of the Emperor Maximin;
      elevation of the third Gordian.

244.
      Death of the Emperor Gordian;
      accession of Philip.

249.
      Death of the Emperor Philip;
      accession of Decius.

250.
      Decian persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire.
      Gothic invasion of Mœsia.

251.
      Victory of the Goths over the Romans;
      death of Decius in battle;
      accession of Gallus to the imperial throne.

253.
      Murder of the Emperor Gallus;
      accession of Æmilianus.
      First appearance of the Franks in the Empire.
      Murder of Æmilianus and accession of Valerian.

259.
      Invasion of Gaul and Italy by the Alemanni.

260.
      Roman war with Persia.
      Defeat and capture of the Emperor Valerian;
      accession of Gallienus.

267.
      Accession of Zenobia, queen of Palmyra.

268.
      Murder of the Emperor Gallienus;
      accession of Claudius II.
      Invasion of Thrace and Macedonia by the Goths
      checked by Claudius.

270.
      Death of the Emperor Claudius II.;
      accession of Aurelian.
      Dacia yielded to the Goths.
      Italy invaded by the Alemanni.

273.
      Defeat and capture of Zenobia, queen of Palmyra,
      by the Emperor Aurelian.

275.
      Murder of the Emperor Aurelian;
      accession of Tacitus.

276.
      Death of the Emperor Tacitus;
      accession of Probus.

277.
      Roman repulse of the Franks.
      Invasion of Germany by Probus.

282.
      Murder of the Emperor Probus;
      accession of Carus.

283.
      War of Rome with Persia.
      Death of Carus;
      accession of Numerian.

284.
      Murder of the Emperor Numerian;
      accession of Diocletian.

286.
      Maximian made imperial colleague of Diocletian.

287.
      Insurrection of the Bagauds in Gaul.

288.
      Revolt of Carausius in Britain.

292.
      Galerius and Constantius Chlorus created "Cæsars."

296.
      Revolt of the African provinces of Rome;
      siege of Alexandria.
      Birth of Athanasius [Uncertain date] (d. 373).

297.
      Roman war with Persia;
      defeat of Galerius.

298.
      Victorious peace of Rome with Persia;
      extension of the Empire.


Fourth Century.

303.
      Persecution of Christians by the Emperor Diocletian.

305.
      Abdication of the Emperors Diocletian and Maximian;
      Galerius and Constantius Chlorus become "Augusti";
      Maximin and Severus made "Cæsars."

306.
      Constantius Chlorus succeeded as "Cæsar"
      by his son Constantine;
      beginning of civil war between Constantine and his rivals;
      defeat of the Salian Franks by Constantine.

312.
      Conversion of the Emperor Constantine to Christianity.

313.
      Constantine and Licinius share the Empire.
      Toleration Edict of Milan.

316.
      Birth of Saint Martin of Tours (d. 397).

318.
      Opening of the Arian controversy.

325.
      First general Council of the Church at Nicæa.

330.
      Removal of the capital of the Empire from Rome to
      Byzantium (Constantinople).

337.
      Death of the Emperor Constantine;
      partition of the Empire.

340.
      Beginning of Civil War between the
      three sons of Constantine.

348.
      Defeat of the Romans by the Persians at Singara.

353.
      Constantius sole Emperor.
      Synod of Aries.

354.
      Birth of Saint Augustine, bishop of Hippo (d. 430).

355.
      Julian made Cæsar;
      his defense of Gaul.

361.
      Death of the Emperor Constantius and accession of Julian;
      revival of Paganism.

363.
      Expedition of Julian into Persia;
      his retreat and death;
      accession of Jovian;
      Christianity again ascendant.

364.
      Death of the Emperor Jovian;
      accession of Valentinian I. in the West
      and of Valens in the East.

365.
      Great earthquake in the Roman world.

367.
      First campaigns of Theodosius against the Picts and Scots.

368.
      Repulse of the Alemanni, from Gaul.

375.
      Death of Valentinian;
      accession of Gratian and Valentinian II. in the West.

376.
      The Visigoths, driven by the Huns, admitted to the Empire.

377.
      Rising of the Goths in Mœsia and
      indecisive battle of Ad Salices.

378.
      Death of the Emperor Valens in battle with the Goths at
      Adrianople.
      Invasion of Gaul by the Alemanni and
      their repulse by Gratian.

379.
      Theodosius named Emperor in the East by Gratian.

380.
      Trinitarian edict of Theodosius.

381.
      Second general council of the Church, at Constantinople.

382.
      Conclusion of peace with the Goths by the Emperor Theodosius;
      final settlement of the Goths in Mœsia and Thrace.

{3818}

388.
      Overthrow of the usurper, Maximus.
      Formal vote of the Senate establishing Christianity in the
      Roman Empire.

389.
      Destruction of the Serapeum at Alexandria.

390.
      Sedition at Thessalonica and massacre ordered by Theodosius.

392.
      Final suppression of Paganism in the Empire, by law.
      Murder of Valentinian II., Emperor in the West;
      usurpation of Eugenius.

394.
      Overthrow of the usurper Eugenius.

395.
      Death of the Emperor Theodosius;
      accession of his sons, Arcadius and Honorius;
      final division of the Empire.
      Invasion of Greece by Alaric;
      capture of Athens.

398.
      Suppression by Stilicho of Gildo's revolt in Africa.

400.
      Alaric's invasion of Italy.


Fifth Century.

402.
      Defeat of Alaric by Stilicho.
      Birth of Phocion [Uncertain date] (d. 317).

404.
      Removal of the capital of the Western Empire
      from Rome to Ravenna. [Uncertain date]
      Banishment of the Patriarch, John Chrysostom,
      from Constantinople;
      burning of the Church of St. Sophia.

406.
      Barbarian inroad of Radagaisus into Italy.
      Breaking of the Rhine barrier by German tribes;
      overwhelming invasion of Gaul by Vandals, Alans,
      Suevi, and Burgundians.

407.
      Usurpation of Constantine in Britain and Gaul.

408.
      Death of the Eastern Emperor, Arcadius,
      and accession of Theodosius II.
      Execution of Stilicho at Ravenna;
      massacre of barbarian hostages in Italy;
      blockade of Rome by Alaric.

409.
      Invasion of Spain by the Vandals, Suevi, and Alans.

410.
      Siege, capture and pillage of Rome by Alaric;
      his death.
      Abandonment of Britain by the Empire.
      The barbarian attack upon Gaul joined by the Franks.

412.
      Gaul entered by the Visigoths.
      Cyril made Patriarch of Alexandria.

414.
      Title of Augusta taken by Pulcheria at Constantinople.

415.
      Visigothic conquest of Spain begun.
      Persecution of Jews at Alexandria;
      death of Hypatia.

418.
      Founding of the Gothic kingdom of Toulouse in Aquitaine.

420.
      Death of Saint Jerome, in Palestine.

422.
      War between Persia and the Eastern Empire;
      partition of Armenia.

423.
      Death of Honorius, Emperor in the West;
      usurpation of John the Notary.

425.
      Accession of the Western Emperor, Valentinian III.,
      under the regency of Placidia;
      formal and legal separation of the
      Eastern and Western Empires.

428.
      Conquests of the Vandals in Spain.
      Nestorius made Patriarch of Constantinople.

429.
      Vandal conquests in Africa begun.

430.
      Siege of Hippo Regius In Africa;
      death of Saint Augustine, bishop of Hippo.

431.
      Third general Council of the Church, held at Ephesus.

433.
      Beginning of the reign of Attila, king of the Huns.
      [Uncertain date]

435.
      Nestorius exiled to the Libyan desert.

439.
      Carthage taken by the Vandals.

440.
      Leo the Great elected Pope.

441.
      Invasion of the Eastern Empire by Attila and the Huns.

443.
      Conquest and settlement of Savoy by the Burgundians.

446.
      Thermopylæ passed by the Huns;
      humiliating purchase of peace with them
      by the Eastern Emperor.

449.
      Landing in Britain of the Jutes under Hengist and Horsa.
      [Uncertain date]
      Meeting of the so-called Robber Synod at Ephesus.

450.
      Death of the Eastern Emperor, Theodosius II.,
      and accession of Pulcheria.

451.
      Great defeat of the Huns at Chalons;
      retreat of Attila from Gaul.
      Fourth General Council of the Church, held at Chalcedon.

452.
      Invasion of Italy by Attila;
      origin of Venice.

453.
      Death of Attila;
      dissolution of his empire.
      Death of Pulcheria, Empress in the East.

455.
      Murder of Valentinian III., Emperor in the West;
      usurpation of Maximus.
      Rome pillaged by the Vandals.
      Birth of Theodoric the Great (d. 526).

456.
      Supremacy of Ricimer, commander of the barbarian
      mercenaries, in the Western Empire;
      Avitus deposed.

457.
      Marjorian, first of the imperial puppets of Ricimer,
      raised to the throne of the Western Empire.
      Accession of Leo I., Emperor in the East.

461.
      Marjorian deposed;
      Severus made Emperor in the West.
      Death of Pope Leo the Great and election of Pope Hilarius.

467.
      Anthemius made Emperor in the West.

472.
      Siege and storming of Rome by Ricimer;
      death of Anthemius, and of Ricimer;
      Olybrius and Glycerius successive emperors.

473.
      Ostrogothic invasion of Italy diverted to Gaul.

474.
      Julius Nepos Emperor in the West;
      accession of Zeno in the Eastern Empire.

475.
      Romulus Augustulus made Emperor in the West.

476.
      Romulus Augustulus dethroned by Odoacer;
      extinction for more than three centuries of
      the Western line of emperors.

477.
      Beginning of Saxon conquests in Britain.

480.
      Birth of Saint Benedict (d. 543).

481.
      Founding of the Frank kingdom by Clovis.

{3819}

483.
      Election of Pope Felix II.

486.
      Overthrow of the kingdom of Syagrius,
      the last Roman sovereignty in Gaul.

488.
      Theodoric, king of the Ostrogoths, commissioned by the
      Eastern Emperor to invade Italy.

489.
      Defeat of Odoacer by Theodoric at Verona.

491.
      Accession of Anastasius, Emperor in the East.
      Capture of Anderida by the South Saxons.

492.
      Election of Pope Gelasius I.

493.
      Surrender of Odoacer at Ravenna; his murder:
      Theodoric king of Italy.

494.
      Landing of Cerdic and his band of Saxons in Britain.
      [Uncertain date]

496.
      Defeat of the Alemanni at Tolbiac by Clovis,
      king of the Franks;
      baptism of Clovis.
      Election of Pope Anastasius II.


Sixth Century.

504.
      Expulsion of the Alemanni from the Middle Rhine by the Franks.

505.
      Peace between Persia and the Eastern Empire.

501.
      Overthrow of the Gothic kingdom of Toulouse by Clovis.

511.
      Death of Clovis;
      partition of the Frank kingdom among his sons.
      Monophysite riot at Constantinople.

512.
      Second Monophysite riot at Constantinople.

515.
      Publication of the monastic rule of Saint Benedict.

518.
      Death of the Eastern Emperor, Anastasius,
      accession of Justin I.

519.
      Cerdic and Cynric become kings of the West Saxons.

525.
      Execution of Boethius and Symmachus by Theodoric,
      king of Italy.

526.
      Death of Theodoric and accession of Athalaric.
      Great earthquake at Antioch.
      War between Persia and the Eastern Empire.

527.
      Accession of Justinian in the Eastern Empire.

528.
      Conquest of Thuringia by the Franks.

529.
      Defeat of the Persians, at Dara,
      by the Roman general Belisarius.
      Closing of the schools at Athens.
      Publication of the Code of Justinian.

531.
      Accession of Chosroes, or Nushirvan,
      to the throne of Persia.

532.
      End of war between Persia and the Eastern Empire.
      Nika sedition at Constantinople.

533.
      Overthrow of the Vandal kingdom in Africa by Belisarius.
      Publication of the Pandects of Justinian.

534.
      Conquest of the Burgundians by the Franks.

535.
      Recovery of Sicily from the Goths by Belisarius.

536.
      Rome taken from the Goths by Belisarius for Justinian.

537.
      Unsuccessful siege of Rome by the Goths.

539.
      Destruction of Milan by the Goths.
      Invasion of Italy by the Franks.

540.
      Surrender of Ravenna to Belisarius;
      his removal from command.
      Invasion of Syria by Chosroes, king of Persia;
      storming and sacking of Antioch.
      Formal relinquishment of Gaul to the Franks by Justinian.
      Vigilius made Pope.

541.
      Gothic successes under Totila, in Italy.
      End of the succession of Roman Consuls.
      Defense of the East by Belisarius.

542.
      Great Plague in the Roman Empire.

543.
      Surrender of Naples to Totila.
      Death of Saint Benedict.
      Invasion of Spain by the Franks.

544.
      Belisarius again in command In Italy.

546.
      Totila's siege, capture and pillage of Rome.

547.
      The city of Rome totally deserted for six weeks.
      Founding of the kingdom of Bernicia
      (afterward included in Northumberland) in England.
      Subjection of the Bavarians to the Franks.

548.
      Death of the Eastern Empress, Theodora.

549.
      Second siege and capture of Rome by Totila.
      Beginning of the Lazic War.

552.
      Totila defeated and killed by the
      imperial army under Narses.

553.
      End of the Ostrogothic kingdom in Italy;
      restoration of the imperial sovereignty.
      Fifth General Council of the Church, at Constantinople.
      Establishment of the Exarch at Ravenna,
      representing the Emperor at Constantinople.

555.
      Pelagius I. made Pope.

558.
       Reunion of the Frank empire under Clothaire I.

560.
      John III. made Pope.

563.
      Founding of the monastery of Iona, in Scotland,
      by Saint Columba.

565.
      Death of Belisarius and of the Eastern Emperor Justinian;
      accession of Justin II.

566.
      Conquest of the Gepidæ in Dacia by the Lombards and Avars.

567.
      Division of the Frank dominion into the three kingdoms
      of Austrasia, Neustria and Burgundy.

568.
      Invasion of Italy by the Lombards;
      siege of Pavia.

570.
      Birth of Mahomet. [Uncertain date]

572.
      Renewed war of the Eastern Empire with Persia.

573.
      Murder of Alboin, king of the Lombards.
      Subjugation of the Suevi by the Visigoths in Spain.

574.
      Benedict I. made Pope.

578.
      Accession of the Eastern Emperor Tiberius Constantinus.
      Pelagius II. made Pope.

582.
      Accession of Maurice, Emperor in the East.

{3820}

588.
      Kingdom of Northumberland, in England,
      founded by the union of Bernicia and Deira under Æthelric.

589.
      Abandonment of Arianism by the Goths in Spain.

590.
      Gregory the Great elected Pope.

591.
      Peace between Persia and the Eastern Empire.

597.
      Mission of Saint Augustine to England.
      Death of Saint Columba.


Seventh Century.

602.
      Revolt in Constantinople;
      fall and death of Maurice;
      accession of Phocas.

604.
      Death of Pope Gregory the Great.
      Death of St. Augustine of Canterbury. [Uncertain date]

608.
      Invasion of Asia Minor by Chosroes II., king of Persia.

610.
      Death of the Eastern Emperor Phocas;
      accession of Heraclius.
      Venetia ravaged by the A vars.

614.
      Invasion of Syria by Chosroes II.;
      capture of Damascus.

615.
      Capture of Jerusalem by Chosroes;
      removal of the supposed True Cross.

616.
      First expulsion of the Jews from Spain.
      Advance of the Persians to the Bosphorus.

622.
      The flight of Mahomet from Mecca (the Hegira).
      Romans under Heraclius victorious over the Persians.

626.
      Siege of Constantinople by Persians and Avars.

627.
      Victory of Heraclius over Chosroes of Persia, at Nineveh.
      Conversion of Northumbria to Christianity.

628.
      Recovery of Jerusalem and of the supposed True Cross,
      from the Persians, by Heraclius.

630.
      Submission of Mecca to the Prophet.

632.
      Death of Mahomet;
      Abu Bekr chosen caliph.

634.
      Death of Abu Bekr;
      Omar chosen caliph.
      Battle of Hieromax or Yermuk;
      Battle of the Bridge. [Uncertain date]
      Defeat of Heraclius.
      Compilation and arrangement of the Koran. [Uncertain date]

635.
      Siege and capture of Damascus by the Mahometans;
      invasion of Persia;
      victory at Kadisiyeh. [Uncertain date]
      Defeat of the Welsh by the English in the
      battle of the Heavenfield.

636.
      Mahometan subjugation of Syria;
      retreat of the Romans.

637.
      Siege and conquest of Jerusalem by the Moslems;
      their victories In Persia.

639.
      Publication of the Ecthesis of Heraclius.

640.
      Capture of Cæsarea by the Moslems:
      invasion of Egypt by Amru.

641.
      Death of the Eastern Emperor Heraclius;
      three rival emperors;
      accession of Constans II.
      Victory at Nehavend and final conquest of Persia
      by the Mahometans;
      end of the Sassanian kingdom;
      capture of Alexandria [Uncertain date];
      founding of Cairo.

643.
      Publication of the Lombard Code of Laws.

644.
      Assassination of Omar:
      Othman chosen caliph.

646.
      Alexandria recovered by the Greeks and lost again.

648.
      Publication by Constans II. of the edict called "The Type."

649.
      Mahometan invasion of Cyprus.

650.
      Conquest of Merv, Balkh, and Herat by the Moslems.
      [Uncertain date]

652.
      Conversion of the East Saxons in England.

653.
      Seizure and banishment of Pope Martin I.
      by the Emperor Constans II.

656.
      Murder of Caliph Othman;
      Ali chosen caliph;
      rebellion of Moawiyah;
      civil war;
      Battle of the Camel.

657.
      Ali's transfer of the seat of government to Kufa.

658.
      Syria abandoned to Moawiyah;
      Egypt in revolt.

661.
      Assassination of Ali;
      Moawiyah, first of the Omeyyads, made caliph;
      Damascus his capital.

663.
      Visit of the Emperor Constans to Rome.

668.
      Assassination of Constans at Syracuse [Uncertain date];
      accession of Constantine IV. to the throne
      of the Eastern Empire.
      Beginning of the siege of Constantinople by the Saracens.

670.
      The founding of Kairwan, or Kayrawan. [Uncertain date]

673.
      First Council of the Anglo-Saxon Church, at Hereford.
      Birth of the Venerable Bede (d. 735).

677.
      The raising of the siege of Constantinople;
      treaty of peace. [Uncertain date]

680.
      Sixth General Council of the Church, at Constantinople;
      condemnation of the Monothelite heresy.
      Massacre at Kerbela of Hoseyn, son of Ali, and his followers.

685.
      Death of the Eastern Emperor, Constantine IV.,
      and accession of Justinian II.
      The Angles of Northumbria, under King Ecgfrith,
      defeated by the Picts at Nectansmere.

687.
      Battle of Testri;
      victory of Pippin of Heristal over the Neustrians.

695.
      Fall and banishment of Justinian II.

696.
      Founding of the bishopric of Salzburg.

697.
      Election of the first Doge of Venice.

698.
       Conquest and destruction of Carthage by the Moslems.
       [Uncertain date]


Eighth Century.

704.
      Recovery of the throne by the Eastern Emperor Justinian II.

705.
      Accession of the Caliph Welid.

709.
      Accession of Roderick to the Gothic throne in Spain.

711.
      Invasion of Spain by the Arab-Moors.
      Moslem conquest of Transoxiana and Sardinia.
      Final fall and death of the Eastern Emperor Justinian II.

{3821}

712.
      Surrender of Toledo to the Moslem invaders of Spain.

717.
      Elevation of Leo the Isaurian to the throne
      of the Eastern Empire.
      Second siege of Constantinople by the Moslems.
      Great defeat of the Moslems at
      the Cave of Covadonga in Spain.

718.
      Victory of Charles Martel at Soissons;
      his authority acknowledged in both Frankish kingdoms.

719.
      Mahometan conquest and occupation of Narbonne.

721.
      Siege of Toulouse;
      defeat of the Moslems.

725.
      Mahometan conquests in Septimania.

726.
      Iconoclastic edicts of Leo the Isaurian;
      tumult and insurrection in Constantinople.

731.
      Death of Pope Gregory II.;
      election of Gregory III.;
      last confirmation of a Papal election by the Eastern Emperor.

732.
      Great defeat of the Moslems by the Franks
      under Charles Martel at Poitiers, or Tours.
      Council held at Rome by Pope Gregory III.;
      edict against the Iconoclasts.

733.
      Practical termination of Byzantine imperial authority.

735.
      Birth of Alcuin (d. 804).

740.
      Death of Leo the Isaurian, Emperor in the East;
      accession of Constantine V.

741.
      Death of Charles Martel.
      Death of Pope Gregory III.;
      election of Zacharias.

742.
      Birth of Charlemagne (d. 814).

744.
      Defeat of the Saxons by Carloman;
      their forced baptism.
      Death of Liutprand, king of the Lombards.

747.
      The Plague in Constantinople.
      Pippin the Short made Mayor in both kingdoms of the Franks.

750.
      Fall of the Omeyyad dynasty of caliphs and
      rise of the Abbassides.

751.
      Extinction of the Exarchate of Ravenna by the Lombards.

752.
      End of the Merovingian dynasty of Frankish kings;
      assumption of the crown by Pippin the Short.
      Death of Pope Zacharias;
      election of Stephen II.

754.
      First invasion of Italy by Pippin the Short.
      Rome assailed by the Lombards.

755.
      Subjugation of the Lombards by Pippin;
      his donation of temporalities to the Pope.
      Martyrdom of Saint Boniface in Germany.

756.
      Founding of the caliphate of Cordova by Abderrahman.

757.
      Death of Pope Stephen II.;
      election of Paul I.

758.
      Accession of Offa, king of Mercia.

759.
      Loss of Narbonne, the last foothold of the
      Mahometans north of the Pyrenees.

763.
      Founding of the capital of the Eastern Caliphs at Bagdad.
      [Uncertain date]

767.
      Death of Pope Paul I.;
      usurpation of the anti-pope, Constantine.

768.
      Conquest of Aquitaine by Pippin the Short.
      Death of Pippin;
      accession of Charlemagne and Carloman.
      Deposition of the anti-pope Constantine;
      election of Pope Stephen III.

771.
      Death of Carloman, leaving Charlemagne
      sole king of the Franks.

772.
      Charlemagne's first wars with the Saxons.
      Death of Pope Stephen III.;
      election of Hadrian I.

774.
      Charlemagne's acquisition of the Lombard kingdom;
      his enlargement of the donation of
      temporalities to the Pope.
      Forgery of the "Donation of Constantine." [Uncertain date]

775.
      Death of the Eastern Emperor Constantine V.;
      accession of Leo IV.

778.
      Charlemagne's invasion of Spain;
      the "dolorous rout" of Roncesvalles.

780.
      Death of the Eastern Emperor Leo IV.;
      accession of Constantine VI.;
      regency of Irene.

781.
      Italy and Aquitaine formed into separate
      kingdoms by Charlemagne.

785.
      Great struggle of the Saxons against Charlemagne;
      submission of Wittikind.

786.
      Accession of Haroun al Raschid in the eastern caliphate.

787.
      Seventh General Council of the Church
      (Second Council of Nicæa).
      First incursions of the Danes in England.

788.
      Subjugation of the Bavarians by Charlemagne.
      Death of Abderrahman.

790.
      Composition of the Caroline books. [Uncertain date]

791.
      Charlemagne's first campaign against the Avars.

794.
      Accession of Cenwulf, king of Mercia.

795.
      Death of Pope Hadrian I.;
      election of Leo III.

797.
      Deposition and blinding of the Eastern
      Emperor Constantine VI., by his mother Irene.

800.
      Imperial coronation of Charlemagne;
      revival of the Empire.
      Accession of Ecgberht, king of Wessex,
      the first king of all the English.


Ninth Century.

801.
      Conquest of Barcelona from the Moors by the Franks.

805.
      Charlemagne's subjugation of the Avars.
      Creation of the Austrian march.

806.
      Division of the Empire by Charlemagne between
      his sons formally planned.

809.
      Death of the Caliph Haroun al Raschid.

812.
      Civil war between the sons of the Caliph Haroun al Raschid;
      siege of Bagdad.

814.
      Death of Charlemagne, and accession of Louis the Pious,
      his only surviving son.

816.
      Death of Pope Leo III.;
      election of Stephen IV.

817.
      Partition of the Empire of the Franks by Louis the Pious.

826.
      Grant of a county between the Rhine and Moselle to Harold,
      king of Jutland, by the Emperor.

827.
      Beginning of Moslem conquest of Sicily.

830.
      First rebellion of the sons of the Emperor Louis the Pious.

{3822}

833.
      Second rebellion of the Emperor's sons;
      the "Field of Lies";
      deposition of the Emperor Louis the Pious.
      Death of the Caliph Mamun, son of Haroun al Raschid.

834.
      Restoration of Louis the Pious.

835.
      Invasion of the Netherlands and sacking
      of Utrecht by the Northmen.

836.
      Burning of Antwerp and ravaging of Flanders by the Northmen.
      Death of Egbert, the first king of all the English.

837.
      First expedition of the Northmen up the Rhine.

838.
      Asia Minor invaded by the Caliph Motassem;
      the Amorian War.

840.
      Third rebellion of the sons of the Frankish
      Emperor Louis the Pious;
      his death;
      civil war.

841.
      Expedition of the Northmen up the Seine;
      their capture of Rouen.

842.
      The Oath of Strasburg.

843.
      Conquest by the Mahometans of Messina in Sicily.
      Partition Treaty of Verdun between the sons of the
      Emperor Louis the Pious;
      formation of the realms of Louis the German and
      Charles the Bald, which grew into the kingdoms of
      Germany and France.

845.
      First attack of the Northmen on Paris;
      their destruction of Hamburg.

846.
      Rome attacked by the Moslems.

847.
      Siege and capture of Bordeaux by the Northmen.

849.
      Birth of Alfred the Great.

852.
      Revolt against the Moslems in Armenia.

854.
      Ravages of the Northmen on the Loire checked at Orleans.

855.
      Death of Lothaire, Emperor of the Franks,
      and civil war between his sons.
      First footing of the Danes established in England.

857.
      Deposition of Ignatius, Patriarch of Constantinople,
      and elevation of Photius.

860.
      Discovery of Iceland by the Northmen. [Uncertain date]

861.
      Formation of the Duchy of France;
      origin of the House of Capet.
      Paris surprised by the Northmen.

863.
      Papal decree against the Eastern Patriarch, Photius.
      Creation of the County of Flanders by Charles the Bald.

864.
      Mission of Cyril and Methodius to the Slavonians.

865.
      First Varangian or Russian attack on Constantinople.

866.
      Beginning of the permanent conquests of the Danes in England.

871.
      Moslem fortress of Bari, in southern Italy,
      surrendered to the Franks and Greeks.
      Accession of Alfred the Great to the throne of Wessex.

875.
      Death of Louis II., Emperor of the Franks and king of Italy;
      imperial coronation of Charles the Bald.

876.
      The Seine entered by the Northmen under Rollo.

877.
      Death of the Emperor, Charles the Bald,
      and accession of Louis the Stammerer.
      Founding of the kingdom of Provence by Count Boso.

878.
      Capture by the Moslems of Syracuse in Sicily.

880.
      Ravages of the Northmen in Germany;
      battles of the Ardennes and Ebbsdorf.
      Defeat of the Danes by the English King Alfred at Ethandun;
      Peace of Wedmore. [Uncertain date]

881.
      Accession of Charles the Fat, king of Germany and Italy.

884.
      Temporary reunion of the Empire of the Franks
      under Charles the Fat.

885.
      Siege of Paris by the Northmen under Rollo.

887.
      Deposition of the Emperor, Charles the Fat.

888.
      Death of Charles the Fat and
      final disruption of the Empire of the Franks;
      founding of the kingdom of Transjurane Burgundy.
      The crown of France in dispute between Eudes, Count
      of Paris, and the Caroling heir, Charles the Simple.

889.
      Second siege of Paris by Rollo.

890.
      Third siege of Paris and siege of Bayeux by Rollo.

891.
      Defeat of the Danes at Louvain by King Arnulf.

894.
      Arnulf of Germany made Emperor.

895.
      Rome taken by the Emperor Arnulf.

898.
      Death of Eudes, leaving Charles the Simple
      sole king of France.

899.
      Death of the Emperor Arnulf;
      accession of Louis the Child to the German throne.

900.
      Italy ravaged in the north by the Hungarians.


Tenth Century.

901.
      Death of the English king, Alfred the Great, and
      accession of his son, Edward the Elder.
      Founding of the Samanide dynasty in Khorassan.

904.
      Sergius III. made Pope;
      beginning of the rule of the courtesans at Rome.

909.
      Founding of the Fatimite caliphate in Africa.

910.
      Founding of the monastery of Clugny in France.

911.
      Death of the Emperor Louis the Child, extinguishing the
      Carolingian dynasty in Germany, and election of
      Conrad the Franconian.
      Defeat of the Northmen at Chartres in France;
      cession of Normandy to Rollo.

912.
      Baptism of the Norman Duke Rollo.

914.
      Elevation of John X. to the papal throne by
      the courtesan, Theodora. [Uncertain date]

916.
      Imperial coronation in Italy of Berengar.

919.
      Election of the Saxon Duke, Henry the Fowler,
      to the kingship of Germany.
      Establishment of the Danish kingdom of Dublin.

{3823}

923.
      The crown of France disputed with Charles the Simple
      by Rudolph, of Burgundy.

924.
      Devastation of Germany by the Hungarians;
      truce agreed upon for nine years.
      Lapse of the imperial title on the death of Berengar.
      Commendation of Scotland to the West Saxon king.

925.
      Death of the English king, Edward the Elder,
      and accession of his son Ethelstan.

928.
      Overthrow and imprisonment of Pope John X. by
      the courtesan Marozia. [Uncertain date]

929.
      Death of Charles the Simple in France.

931.
      John XI., son of the courtesan Marozia, made Pope.
      [Uncertain date]

932.
      Domination of Rome by the Pope's brother, Alberic.

936.
      Election of Otho, called the Great,
      to the throne of Germany.
      Death of Rudolph of Burgundy and restoration of the
      Carolingians to the French throne.

937.
      Ethelstan's defeat of Danes, Britons and Scots
      at the battle of Brunnaburgh.
      Invasion of France by the Hungarians.

940.
      Death of the English king, Ethelstan, and
      accession of his brother Edmund.

946.
      Death of the English king, Edmund, and
      accession of his brother Edred.

951.
      First expedition of Otho the Great into Italy;
      founding of the Holy Roman Empire (afterwards so called).

954.
      Death of Alberic, tyrant of Rome, his son, Octavian,
      succeeding him.
      Death of the Carolingian king of France, Louis IV.,
      called" d'Outremer";
      accession of Lothaire.

955.
      Germany invaded by the Hungarians;
      their decisive defeat on the Lech.
      Death of the English king, Edred, and
      accession of his nephew, Edwig.

956.
      Assumption of the Papal throne by Octavian, as John XII.

957.
      Revolt against the English king Edwig;
      division of the kingdom with his brother Edgar.
      [Uncertain date]

959.
      Death of Edwig and accession of Edgar;
      Abbot Dunstan made Archbishop of Canterbury.

961.
      The crown of Italy taken by Otho the Great, of Germany.

962.
      Imperial coronation of Otho the Great at Rome;
      revival of the Western Empire.

963.
      Expulsion and deposition of Pope John XII.;
      election of Leo VIII.

964.
      Expulsion of Pope Leo VIII.;
      return and death of John XII.;
      siege and capture of Rome by the Emperor.

965.
      Death of Pope Leo VIII.;
      election, expulsion, and forcible restoration of John XIII.

967.
      Conquest of Egypt by the Fatimite caliph. [Uncertain date]

969.
      Murder of the Eastern Emperor Nicephorus Phocas
      by John Zimisces, his successor.

972.
      Marriage of Otho, the Western Emperor's son,
      to the Byzantine princess, Theophano.
      Death of Pope John XIII., and election of Pope Benedict VI.

973.
      Death of the Emperor Otho the Great;
      accession of Otho II.

974.
      Murder of Pope Benedict VI.

975.
      Election of Pope Benedict VII.
      Death of the English king Edgar;
      accession of his son Edward the Martyr.

979.
      Death of Edward the Martyr;
      accession of Ethelred the Unready. [Uncertain date]

983.
      Death of the Emperor Otho II.;
      accession of Otho III. to the German throne,
      under the regency of his mother, Theophano.
      Death of Pope Benedict VII.
      First visit of Erik the Red to Greenland.

984.
      Election of Pope John XIV.

985.
      Murder of Pope John XIV.;
      election of Pope John XV.

986.
      Death of Lothaire, king of France;
      accession of his son Louis V.

987.
      Death of Louis V., the last of the Carolingian kings;
      election of Hugh Capet.

988.
      Death of Dunstan, Archbishop of Canterbury.
      Cherson acquired by the Romans.

991.
      Invasion of England by Vikings from Norway;
      battle of Maldon.

996.
      Death of Hugh Capet, king of France;
      accession of his son, Robert II.
      Death of Pope John XV.;
      election of Gregory V.
      Imperial coronation of Otho III.

997.
      Insurrection of peasants in Normandy.
      Rebellion of Crescentius in Rome;
      expulsion of the Pope.

998.
      Overthrow of Crescentius at Rome.
      Excommunication of King Robert of France.

999.
      Gerbert raised by the Emperor to the Papal chair,
      as Sylvester II.

1000.
      Expectations of the end of the world.
      Pilgrimages of the Emperor Otho.
      Royal title conferred on Duke Stephen of Hungary,
      by the Pope.
      Christianity formally adopted in Iceland.


Eleventh Century.

1002.
      Massacre of Danes in England on St. Brice's Day.
      Death of the Emperor Otto III., and election of Henry II.

1003.
      Invasion of England by Sweyn of Denmark.

1005.
      Birth of Lanfranc [Uncertain date] (d. 1089).

1013.
      Flight to Normandy of the English king, Ethelred.
      The West and North of England submissive to Sweyn.
      Imperial coronation of Henry II.

1014.
      Death of Sweyn.
      Return of Ethelred to England;
      his war with Sweyn's son Canute.
      Defeat of the Danes at the battle of Clontarf in Ireland;
      death of King Brian.

1016.
      Death of the English kings, Ethelred and his son,
      Edmund Ironside.
      Submission of the kingdom to Canute, king of Denmark.

1017.
      The Saracens driven from Sardinia by the Pisans and Genoese.

1024.
      Death of the Emperor Henry II., and election of Conrad II.

1027.
      Imperial coronation of Conrad II.

1031.
      End of the Ommeyyad caliphate of Cordova, in Spain.
      Death of Robert II., king of France;
      accession of Henry I.

{3824}

1033.
      Birth of Saint Anselm. [Uncertain date] (d. 1109).

1035.
      Death of Canute, king of England and Denmark,
      and accession of his son Harold.
      Creation of the kingdom of Aragon in Spain.

1039.
      Death of Conrad II., and election of Henry III.,
      king of Germany.
      Murder of Duncan, king of Scotland,
      by his successor, Macbeth.

1040.
      Death of Harold, king of England,
      and accession of Hardicanute.

1042.
      Death of Hardicanute, and end of Danish rule in England.
      Accession of Edward the Confessor.

1044.
      Sale of the papal see by Benedict IX. to Gregory VI.

1046.
      Three rival popes suppressed by the Emperor Henry III.
      Election of Pope Clement II.
      Imperial coronation of Henry III.

1049.
      Election of Pope Leo IX.
      The monk Hildebrand made Administrator of
      the Patrimony of St. Peter.

1051.
      Exile of Earl Godwine of Wessex.
      Visit of William of Normandy to England.

1052.
      Return of Earl Godwine to England.

1053.
      Defeat of Pope Leo IX. by the Guiscards.
      The Norman conquests in southern Italy conferred
      on them as a fief of the Church.
      Death of Earl Godwine.

1054.
      Death of Pope Leo IX.
      Final separation of the Eastern and Western Churches.

1055.
      Election of Pope Victor II.

1056.
      Death of the Emperor Henry III.
      Election of Henry IV., king of Germany,
      under the regency of his mother.

1060.
      Death of Henry I., king of France;
      accession of Philip I.

1066.
      Invasion of England by the Norwegian king, Harold Hardrada,
      and Tostig, the English king Harold's brother;
      their defeat at Stamford Bridge.
      Invasion of England by William, duke of Normandy;
      defeat of the English at Senlac or Hastings;
      death of Harold, last of the Saxon kings.

1071.
      Final overthrow of the English at Ely.
      The Norman conquest of England completed.

1073.
      Election of Hildebrand (Gregory VII.) to the papal throne.

1075.
      Synod of Pope Gregory and its decrees against clerical
      incontinence, and decrees against simony.
      Beginning of strife between the Pope and Henry IV.
      Great defeat of the Saxons, by Henry IV., at Langensalza.

1076.
      Council at Worms, called by Henry IV. of Germany,
      which pronounces the deposition of the Pope.
      Excommunication of Henry by Pope Gregory VII.
      Jerusalem captured by the Seljuk Turks.

1077.
      Humiliation of Henry IV. before Pope Gregory at Canossa;
      election of the anti-king Rudolph.
      Donation of the Countess Matilda to the Holy See.
      Accession of Ladislaus (called Saint), king of Hungary.

1078.
      Building of the Great or White Tower at London.
      [Uncertain date]

1079.
      Birth of Abelard (d. 1142).

1080.
      Renewal of the Pope's ban against Henry IV.
      Defeat and death of his rival Rudolph.
      Election of the anti-pope, Clement III.

1081.
      Unsuccessful attacks on the city of Rome by Henry IV.
      Invasion of Greece by the Norman duke, Robert Guiscard.
      Constantinople sacked by the army of Alexius Comnenus;
      coronation of Alexius.

1084.
      Henry IV. in Rome.
      Seating of the anti-pope, Clement III.
      Imperial coronation of Henry IV.
      Sack and burning of Rome by the Normans under Robert Guiscard.
      Founding of the Carthusian Order by Saint Bruno.

1085.
      Death of Pope Gregory VII. in exile at Salerno.
      Death of Robert Guiscard.

1086.
      Completion in England of King William's Domesday Survey
      and Domesday Book.

1087.
      Death of William the Conqueror;
      accession of William Rufus to the English throne.

1091.
      Rebellion of Conrad, eldest son of the German emperor,
      Henry IV.
      Birth of Saint Bernard (d. 1153).

1094.
      The Council of Clermont.
      Address of Pope Urban II.

1095.
      Death of (Saint) Ladislaus of Hungary.

1096.
      Movement of the first armies of the Crusades;
      massacre of Jews in Europe.

1099.
      Coronation of Henry v., second son of the emperor,
      as King of the Romans.
      Recovery of the Holy City by the Crusaders;
      founding of the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem.

1100.
      Death of William Rufus, king of England,
      and accession of Henry I.


Twelfth Century.

1101.
      Disastrous crusading expeditions from
      Italy, France and Germany.
      Agreement between King Henry I. of England and
      his brother Robert.

1104.
      Rebellion against the Emperor, Henry IV., headed by his son.

1135.
      Imprisonment and abdication of the Emperor, Henry IV.

1106.
      English conquest of Normandy;
      defeat and capture of Duke Robert.
      Death of the Emperor, Henry IV.

1108.
      Death of Philip I., king of France,
      and accession of Louis VI. (the Fat).

1109.
      Death of Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury.

1110.
      Expedition of Henry V. to Italy.

1111.
      Insurrection at Rome;
      attack on the Germans;
      imperial coronation of Henry V.
      Concession of the right of investiture by the Pope.

1112.
      Repudiation of the Pope's concession and
      renewal of the War of Investitures.

{3825}

1115.
      Death of the Countess Matilda of Tuscany:
      her vast possessions bequeathed to the Church.

1118.
      Death of Pope Pascal II.
      Election of Pope Gelasius II.
      and the anti-pope Gregory VIII.
      Founding of the Order of the Templars.

1119.
      Battle of Noyon, in Normandy.
      Death of Pope Gelasius II. and election of Callistus II.

1120.
      The sinking of "the White Ship";
      drowning of the English King Henry's son.

1121.
      Condemnation of Abelard in France.

1122.
      Settlement of the question of investitures;
      Concordat of Worms.

1123.
      First Lateran Council of the Church.

1124.
      Death of Pope Callistus II. and election of Honorius II.

1125.
      Death of the Emperor Henry V. and election of Lothaire,
      of Saxony, to the German throne.
      Opening of the strife between Guelfs and
      Hohenstaufens or Ghibellines.

1130.
      Death of Pope Honorius II.;
      election of Innocent II., and the anti-pope, Anacletus II.

1131.
      Birth of Maimonides [Uncertain date]
      (d. 1201 [Uncertain date]).

1133.
      Coronation of the Emperor Lothaire at Rome.

1135.
      Death of Henry I., king of England;
      civil war between Stephen and Matilda.

1136.
      Progress of the Emperor Lothaire through the
      peninsula of Italy;
      submission of the cities.

1137.
      Death of the Emperor Lothaire.
      Death of Louis VI. of France and accession of Louis VII.;
      his marriage to Eleanor of Aquitaine.
      Birth of Saladin (d. 1193).

1138.
      Election in Germany of Conrad of Hohenstaufen.
      Second invasion of England by David of Scotland.
      Battle of the Standard.

1139.
      Banishment from Italy of Arnold of Brescia.
      Defeat of the Moors in Portugal by Affonso Henriques,
      at the battle of Orik or Ourique.
      Second Lateran Council of the Church.

1140.
      Siege of Weimsberg.
      First use of the party names, Welf or Guelf and
      Waiblingen or Ghibelline.
      Portugal separated from Castile,
      and made a separate kingdom.

1142.
      Death of Abelard at Clugny.

1143.
      Death of Pope Innocent III.
      Election of Celestine II.

1144.
      Turkish capture of Edessa.
      Jerusalem threatened.
      Appeal to Europe.
      Death of Pope Celestine II.
      Election of Lucius II.

1145.
      Death in battle of Pope Lucius II. and
      election of Eugenius II.
      Establishment of the republic of Arnold of Brescia at Rome.

1146.
      Massacre of Jews by Crusaders and mobs in Germany.
      Sack of Thebes and Corinth by the Norman
      King Roger of Sicily.

1147.
      The Second Crusade, from France and Germany.
      Lisbon taken from the Moors and
      made the capital of Portugal.
      Founding of Moscow.

1148.
      Unsuccessful siege of Damascus by the Crusaders.

1152.
      Death of the Emperor Conrad of Hohenstaufen and
      election of Frederick I. (Barbarossa).
      Marriage of Prince Henry, afterward Henry II. of England,
      to Eleanor of Aquitaine.

1153.
      Death of Pope Eugenius III. and election of Anastasius IV.

1154.
      Death of Stephen, king of England,
      and accession of Henry II.
      First expedition of Frederick Barbarossa into Italy.
      Death of Pope Anastasius IV. and election of Hadrian IV.
      Ireland granted to the English crown by Pope Hadrian IV.

1155.
      Overthrow of the republic of Arnold of Brescia at Rome;
      his death.
      Tumult at the imperial coronation of Frederick Barbarossa.

1158.
      Second expedition of Frederick Barbarossa into Italy.
      Siege of Milan.

1159.
      Death of Pope Hadrian IV.;
      election of Alexander III. and the anti-pope Victor IV.

1162.
      Thomas Becket made Archbishop of Canterbury.
      Destruction of Milan by Frederick Barbarossa.
      Birth of Genghis Khan [Uncertain date] (d. 1227).

1163.
      Third visitation of Frederick Barbarossa to Italy.

1164.
      Enactment of the Constitutions of Clarendon in England.
      Death of the anti-pope Victor IV. and election of
      the anti-pope Pascal III.

1166.
      The Assize of Clarendon in England.
      Fourth Italian expedition of Frederick Barbarossa.

1167.
      Formation of the League of Lombardy;
      rebuilding of Milan.
      Storming of Rome by Frederick Barbarossa;
      seating of the anti-pope Pascal.

1168.
      Death of the anti-pope Pascal III. and
      election of the anti-pope Callistus III.

1169.
      Beginning of Strongbow's conquest of Ireland.

1170.
      Murder of Archbishop Thomas Becket in England.
      Birth of Saint Dominic (d. 1221).

1174.
      Invasion of England by King William of Scotland.
      His defeat and capture.
      Last visitation of Italy by Frederick Barbarossa.
      The leaning tower of Pisa commenced.

1175.
      Anglo-Norman conquest of Ireland completed;
      limits of the English pale defined.

1176.
      Defeat of Frederick Barbarossa by the
      Lombard League at Legnano.

1177.
      The peace of Venice;
      submission of the Emperor to the Pope, Alexander III.

1179.
      Submission of the anti-pope, Callistus III.,
      to Pope Alexander III.
      Third Lateran Council of the Church.

1180.
      Death of Louis VII., king of France,
      and accession of Philip Augustus.
      Sentence against Henry the Lion in Germany.

1181.
      Death of Pope Alexander III. and election of Lucius III.

1182.
      Birth of Saint Francis of Assisi (d. 1226).

1183.
      Peace of Constance between Germany and Italy.
      Independence of the Lombard Republics.

{3826}

1184.
      Birth of Saadi [Uncertain date] (d. 1291).

1185.
      Death of Pope Lucius III. and election of Urban III.

1187. Saladin's victory at Tiberias;
      recovery of Jerusalem by the Moslems.
      Death of Pope Urban III.;
      election and death of Gregory VIII.;
      election of Clement III.
      End of the Ghaznavide dynasty in Afghanistan.

1188.
      Imposition of the Tithe of Saladin in England.

1189.
      Death of King Henry II. of England and
      accession of Richard I. (Cœur de Lion).
      Crusade of King Richard of England, Philip Augustus
      of France, and Frederick Barbarossa of Germany.
      Massacre of Jews in England.

1190.
      Death, by drowning, of the Emperor Frederick Barbarossa,
      in Asia Minor;
      accession of Henry VI., king of Germany.

1191.
      Death of Pope Clement III. and election of Celestine III.
      Imperial coronation of the Emperor Henry VI.

1192.
      Captivity of King Richard of England.

1195.
      Birth of Matthew Paris [Uncertain date] (d. 1259).

1196.
      Crusade of German barons to the Holy Land.

1199.
      Death of King Richard I. of England;
      accession of John.


Thirteenth Century.

1201.
      Crusade to the Holy Land urged by Pope Innocent III.
      Institution of the Order of the Sword for crusading
      against the heathen of the Baltic region.
      Cession to the Papacy by the Emperor, Otho IV., of all
      the territory claimed by Innocent III. as constituting
      the States of the Church.
      Chartering of the University of Paris by Philip Augustus.

1202.
      The Crusaders at Venice;
      their bargain with the Venetians and attack on Zara.

1203.
      Attack on Constantinople by the Crusaders and Venetians.

1204.
      Capture and pillage of Constantinople by
      the Crusaders and Venetians;
      creation of the Latin Empire of Romania and election of
      Baldwin of Flanders to the throne.
      Loss of Normandy by King John of England.
      Founding of the Monastery of Port Royal.

1205.
      Genghis Khan proclaimed by a great assembly Khakan
      or Emperor of Tartary.

1206.
      Founding of the Greek empire of Nicæa by Theodore Lascaris.

1209.
      First crusade against the Albigenses,
      instigated by Pope Innocent III.
      Imperial coronation of Otho IV. at Rome.

1210.
      Second crusade against the Albigenses.
      Founding of the Franciscan Order of Friars.

1212.
      Children's Crusade from France and Germany.
      Great defeat of the Moors by the Christians on
      Las Navas de Tolosa, in Spain.

1213.
      Subjugation of the Albigenses by Simon de Montfort,
      who receives the principality of Toulouse.
      Submission of John of England to the Pope as a vassal.

1214.
      Battle of Bouvines, in Flanders;
      defeat of the English king, John, and the German
      king and emperor Otho IV., by Philip Augustus of France.
      Birth of Roger Bacon (d. 1292).

1215.
      The Great Charter extorted from King John by
      the barons of England.
      Founding of the Dominican Order of Friars.
      Beginning, in Florence, of the fierce quarrel
      of Guelfs and Ghibellines.

1216.
      Election of Pope Honorius III.
      Crusade to the Holy Land led by King Andrew of Hungary.
      Death of King John of England and accession of Henry III.

1217.
      Revolt of the Toulousans;
      death of Simon de Montfort.

1218.
      Death of the Emperor Otho IV.
      Attack of the Crusaders on Egypt;
      siege of Damietta.

1220.
      Imperial coronation of Frederick II., the Hohenstaufen.
      Evacuation of Egypt by the Crusaders.
      Destruction of Bokhara by Genghis Khan.

1222.
      The charter called the Golden Bull conferred on Hungary
      by King Andrew.

1223.
      Death of Philip Augustus, king of France, and
      accession of Louis VIII.

1224.
      Birth of Sire de Joinville (d. 1317).

1226.
      Renewed crusade against the Albigenses;
      invasion of Languedoc by the French king, Louis VIII.,
      after buying the rights of Simon de Montfort's son.
      Death of Louis VIII. and accession in France of Louis IX.
      (Saint Louis) under the regency of Blanche of Castile.

1227.
      Election of Pope Gregory IX.
      Death of Genghis Khan.
      Birth of Thomas Aquinas [Uncertain date] (d. 1274).

1228.
      Crusade led by the Emperor Frederick II.
      His treaty with the Sultan recovering Jerusalem.

1229.

      Cession, by treaty, of two thirds of the dominions of the
      expelled Count of Toulouse to the king of France.
      Frederick II. in Jerusalem.

1230.
      Castile and Leon united under Ferdinand III.

1235.
      Recovery of Cordova from the Moors by Ferdinand III.
      of Leon and Castile.

1236.
      Defeat of the Lombard League by Frederick II. at Cortenuova.

1238.
      Founding of the Moorish kingdom of Granada, in Spain.

1240.
      Birth of Cimabue (d. 1302 [Uncertain date]).

1241.
      Election and death of Celestine IV.
      Invasion and desolation of Russia, Hungary and Poland
      by the Mongols, or Tatars.

1242.
      Sack of Jerusalem by the Carismians.

1243.
      Election of Pope Innocent IV.

1244.
      Earliest use of the name Parliament in England.

1245.
      Decree of the Council at Lyons, held by Pope Innocent IV.,
      deposing Frederick II.

{3827}

1248.
      Expulsion of the Guelfs from Florence.
      Crusade of Saint Louis.
      Recovery of Seville from the Moors by
      King Ferdinand III. of Leon and Castile.

1249.
      Commencement of the building of Cologne cathedral.

1250.
      Death of the Emperor Frederick II.
      Rising of the people and establishing of a popular
      constitution in Florence.
      Defeat and captivity of Saint Louis and
      his crusaders in Egypt.

1252.
      Crusading movement of "the Pastors" in France.

1254.
      Election In Germany of William of Holland to be
      King of the Romans.
      Election of Pope Alexander IV.
      Return of the Guelfs to Florence,
      driving out the Ghibellines.

1257.
      Double election in Germany of Richard, Earl of Cornwall,
      and King Alfonso X. of Castile, rival Kings of the Romans.

1258.
      Formulation in England of the Provisions of Oxford.
      Founding of the Mongol empire of the Ilkhans,
      embracing Persia and Mesopotamia.

1259.
      Beginning of the reign of the great Mongol sovereign,
      Kublai Khan, whose empire covered most of Asia.

1260.
      Defeat of the Florentine Guelfs at Montaperte by the
      exiled Ghibellines;
      expulsion of Guelfs from Florence and Lucca.

1261.
      Fall of the Latin Empire of Romania;
      recovery of Constantinople by the Greeks of Nicæa.
      Election of Pope Urban IV.

1263.
      Norwegian invasion of Scotland and defeat at Largs.

1264.
      Battle of Lewes, in England;
      victory of the Barons.
      Summoning of Simon de Montfort's Parliament.

1263.
      Election of Pope Clement IV.
      Battle of Evesham in England;
      defeat and death of Simon de Montfort.
      Birth of Dante (d. 1321).
      Birth of Duns Scotus (d. 1308).

1266.
      Conquest of Sicily by Charles of Anjou.
      Exclusion of the Florentine Grandi, or nobles,
      from all part in the government of the commonwealth.

1268.
      Execution of Conradin, the last Hohenstaufen, in Sicily.

1269.
      Restoration of the Guelfs in Florence,
      with help from Charles of Anjou.

1270.
      Second Crusade of Saint Louis;
      his attack on Tunis;
      his death;
      accession in France of Philip III.

1271.
      Election of Pope Gregory X.
      Crusade of Prince Edward, of England.

1272.
      End of the Great Interregnum in the Empire;
      election of Rudolf of Hapsburg, King of the Romans.
      Death of Henry III. king of England, during the absence
      in the Holy Land of his son and successor, Edward I.

1276.
      Election and death of Popes Innocent V. and Hadrian V.;
      election of Pope John XXI.
      Birth of Giotto (d. 1337 [Uncertain date]).

1277.
      Election of Pope Nicholas III.

1278.
      Defeat, at Marschfeld, of Ottocar, king of Bohemia,
      by Rudolf of Hapsburg.
      Ghibellines permitted to return to Florence.

1281.
      Election of Pope Martin IV.

1282.
      Settlement of Austria, Styria and Carniola on the
      Hapsburg family, thus founding the House of Austria.
      Massacre of French in Sicily, called "the Sicilian Vespers";
      acquisition of the crown of Sicily by Pedro of Aragon.

1284.
      Completed conquest of Wales by Edward I. of England.

1285.
      Election of Pope Honorius IV.
      Death of Philip III., in France, and accession cf Philip IV.

1288.
      Election of Pope Nicholas IV.

1289.
      Victory of the Florentines at Campaldino over the
      Ghibellines of Arezzo and their allies.

1290.
      Expulsion of Jews from England by Edward I.
      Death of Margaret, queen of Scotland,
      called "The Maid of Norway";
      disputed succession to the Scottish throne.
      Birth of John Tauler (d. 1361).

1291.
      Death of Rudolf of Hapsburg;
      election of Adolf of Nassau, King of the Romans.
      Siege and conquest of Acre by the Sultan of Egypt and Syria;
      end of the Christian kingdom of Jerusalem;
      rally of the Knights Hospitallers in Cyprus.
      Confederation of the three Forest Cantons of Switzerland.

1294.
      Election and abdication of Pope Celestine V.;
      election of Boniface VIII.

1295.
      The "first perfect and model Parliament" of England
      summoned by King Edward I.

1296.
      Fulmination of the bull "Clericis laicos" by Pope
      Boniface VIII. against the taxation of the clergy by
      Philip the Fair of France.
      Invasion and conquest of Scotland by Edward I. of England.

1297.
      Defeat of the English at Stirling by
      the Scottish hero Wallace.

1298.
      Deposition of Adolf of Nassau by the German Electors,
      and election of Albert of Austria.

1299.
      Alliance of the Templars with the Mongols,
      and defeat of the Turks at Hems;
      momentary recovery of Jerusalem.
      Invasion of the Greek Empire by the Ottoman Turks.

1300.
      Institution of the Jubilee by Pope Boniface VIII.
      Rise of the factions of the Neri and Bianchi at Florence.
      Birth of William Occam (d. 1347).


Fourteenth Century.

1301.
      The papal bulls, "Salvator mundi" and "Ausculta fill,"
      launched by Pope Boniface VIII. against Philip IV.,
      king of France.
      First meeting of the States-General of France,
      convened by the king.
      Death of Andrew III., king of Hungary, ending the Arpad
      line of sovereigns, and leaving the crown contested for
      several years.

{3828}

1302.
      Banishment of Dante and his party from Florence.

1303.
      Seizure of Pope Boniface VIII. at Agnani; his death;
      election of Benedict XI.
      Submission of Scotland to Edward I. of England.

1304.
      Birth of Petrarch (d. 1374).

1305.
      Election of Pope Clement V.
      Establishment of the papal court at Lyons, France;
      beginning of the so-called "Babylonish Captivity."

1306.
      Rising in Scotland under Robert Bruce against the rule
      of the English king.

1307. 
      Arrest of the Knights Templars in France by King Philip V.
      Death of Edward 1., king of England,
      and accession of Edward II.
      Ravages of the Catalan Grand Company in Greece.

1308.
      Election in Germany of Henry of Luxemburg (Henry VII.).

1309.
      Removal of the papal court to Avignon.

1310.
      The burning of 59 Templars at Paris.
      Expedition of Henry VII. into Italy.
      Acquisition of the crown of Hungary by the Neapolitan House
      of Anjou, in the person of Charles Robert, or Charobert.
      Conquest of Rhodes from the Turks by the
      Knights Hospitallers of St. John.

1311.
      Sovereignty of Milan secured by Matteo Visconti.

1312.
      Abolition of the Order of the Templars.
      Imperial coronation of Henry VII. at Rome.

1313.
      Death of the Emperor Henry VII. at Pisa.
      Birth of Boccaccio (d. 1375).

1314.
      Death in France of Philip IV., called "the Fair,"
      and accession of Louis X., called "Hutin."
      Election in Germany of rival Kings of the Romans,
      Frederick of Austria and Louis of Bavaria (Louis V.).
      Great defeat of the English by the Scots at Bannockburn.
      Invasion of Ireland by Edward Bruce.

1315.
      Edict of the French king, Louis Hutin, emancipating all
      serfs within the royal domains, on payment of a just composition.
      Defeat of Frederick of Austria by the Swiss at Morgarten.

1316.
      Election of Pope John XXII.
      Death, in France, of Louis Hutin, and
      accession of his brother Philip V.

1318.
      Defeat and death of Edward Bruce,
      in the battle of Dundalk, Ireland.

1320.
      Establishment of the tyranny of Castruccio at Lucca.
      Composition of the Old English poem, "Cursor Mundi."
      [Uncertain date]

1322.
      Death of the French king, Philip V.,
      and accession of his brother, Charles IV.
      Triumph of Louis V. over Frederick at the battle of
      Muhldorf in Germany;
      excommunication of Louis.
      Departure of Sir John Maundeville on his travels in the East.

1324.
      Birth of Wyclif [Uncertain date] (d. 1384).
      Birth of William of Wykeham (d. 1404).

1325.
      Birth of John Gower [Uncertain date] (d. 1408).

1326.
      First admission of burgesses into the Scottish parliament.

1327.
      Death of Edward II., king of England,
      and accession of Edward III.
      Expedition of Louis V., of Germany, into Italy;
      his Imperial coronation at Rome.

1328.
      Death of Charles IV., king of France, and accession of
      Philip VI., the first of the House of Valois.
      Peace of Northampton between the English and the Scotch.
      Death of Castruccio, of Lucca.
      Birth of Chaucer [Uncertain date] (d. 1400).

1329.
      Death of Robert Bruce, king of Scotland and
      accession of his infant son, David.

1330.
      Surrender of Nicæa to the Ottoman Turks.

1332.
      Acquisition of the throne of Scotland by Edward Balliol,
      with English aid.

1333.
      Defeat of the Scots by Edward III. of England,
      at Halidon Hill.
      Accession in Poland of Casimir the Great,
      last king of the Piast line.

1334.
      Election of Pope Benedict XII.

1336.
      Birth of Timour, or Tamerlane (d. 1405).

1337.
      Revolt of the Flemings under Jacques Van Arteveld.
      Birth of Froissart, the chronicler
      (d. 1410 [Uncertain date]).

1338.
      Declaration by the German Diet of the independence of
      the Empire in temporal matters.

1339.
      Beginning of the Hundred Years War between the English
      and French kings.

1340.
      Successful war of the Hanseatic League with Denmark.

1341.
      Return of King David II. to Scotland,
      Edward Balliol retiring.

1342.
      Walter de Brienne, Duke of Athens,
      proclaimed sovereign lord of Florence.
      Death of Charles Robert, king of Hungary,
      and accession of Louis, called the Great.
      Election of Pope Clement VI.

1343.
      Expulsion of the duke of Athens from Florence.
      Death of Robert, king of Naples.
      Accession of Queen Joanna I.

1345.
      Downfall and death of Jacques Van Arteveld at Ghent.

1346.
      Great English victory over the French at Crecy.
      Defeat of the Scots by the English at Neville's Cross,
      and captivity of King David II.

1347.
      Outbreak in Europe of the plague called "the Black Death."
      Death, in Germany, of Louis V. and election of Charles IV.
      Revolution of Rienzi, in Rome.

1348.
      Purchase of the sovereignty of Avignon by Pope Clement VI.
      from Joanna, queen of Naples and countess of Provence.
      Founding of the University of Prague.

1350.
      Death of Philip VI. of France and accession of King John.

1352.
      Election of Pope Innocent VI.

1353.
      Downfall and death of Rienzi, at Rome.

1356.
      Defeat of the French by the English Black Prince at Poitiers.
      Promulgation in Germany of the Golden Bull of Charles IV.

1357.
      Meeting of the States-General of France and popular
      movement in Paris under Stephen Marcel.

{3829}

1358.
      Insurrection of the Jacquerie in France.

1360.
      The Peace of Bretigny between England and France,
      suspending for a time the Hundred Years War.
      Outbreak of the Children's Plague in England.
      First distinct appearance of Wycliffe in English history,
      as an Oxford lecturer.

1361.
      Adrianople taken by the Turks and made the capital of Solyman.

1362. Election of Pope Urban V.
      Conjectured composition or beginning of Langland's
      "Piers Plowman," in its first form. [Uncertain date]

1364.
      Death of King John of France;
      accession of Charles V.

1366.
      Birth of the painter Hubert van Eyck (d. 1426).

1367.
      Victory of the Black Prince at Navarette, in Spain,
      restoring Peter the Cruel to the throne of Castile.
      Passage of the Kilkenny Act, in Ireland.

1369.
      Reopening of the Hundred Years War in France.
      Death, in Poland, of Casimir the Great, passing the
      crown to Louis of Anjou, king of Hungary.

1370.
      Beginning of the Stuart dynasty on the Scottish throne.

1371.
      Election of Pope Gregory XI.

1373.
      Birth of John Huss [Uncertain date] (d. 1415).

1374.
      Appearance in Europe of the Dancing Mania.

1375.
      Appointment at Florence of the Eight Saints of War.

1376.
      Death, in England, of the Black Prince.

1377.
      Return of the papal court to Rome from Avignon.
      Death, in England, of Edward III.,
      and accession of Richard II.
      Birth of Brunelleschi (d. 1444).

1378.
      Election of rival popes, Urban VI. and Clement VII.;
      beginning of the Great Schism.
      Death of the Emperor Charles IV., in Germany, and succession
      of Wenceslaus (elected King of the Romans in 1376).
      Tumult of the Ciompi in Florence.

1379.
      War of the factions of the rival popes In Rome.
      Revolt of the White Hoods in Flanders.

1380.
      Death, in France, of Charles V.,
      and accession of Charles VI.
      Post messengers established in Germany by
      the Teutonic Knights.
      Birth of Thomas a Kempis [Uncertain date] (d. 1471).

1381.
      Capture of Naples by Charles of Durazzo, who became
      king as Charles III.
      Insurrection of the Maillotins in Paris.
      Rise to power in Flanders of Philip Van Arteveld.
      Wat Tyler's rebellion in England.

1382.
      Death of Louis the Great, king of Hungary and Poland;
      accession of his daughter Mary in Hungary,
      and of Hedvige, daughter of Casimir the Great, in Poland.
      Death, in prison, of Queen Joanna, of Naples.
      Defeat and death of Philip Van Arteveld at Rosebecque.

1383.
      Incorporation of Flanders in the dominions of
      the Duke of Burgundy.
      Birth of Donatello (d. 1466).

1385.
      Acquisition of the crown of Portugal by John I.,
      founder of the House of Avis.

1386.
      Marriage of the Emperor Sigismund to Mary, Queen of Hungary.
      Assassination, in Hungary, of Charles III. of Naples;
      accession in Naples of Ladislas, contested by Louis of Anjou.
      Marriage of Hedvige, queen of Poland, to Jagellon,
      duke of Lithuania, uniting the states and founding the
      Jagellon dynasty.
      Victory of the Swiss over the Austrians at Sempach.

1387.
      Birth of Fra Angelico (d. 1455 [Uncertain date]).

1388.
      Battle of Otterburn between the Scots and the English.
      Defeat of the Austrians by the Swiss at Naefels.
      Death of the Persian poet Hafiz. [Uncertain date]

1389.
      Turkish conquest of Bulgaria and Servia by Amurath I.;
      decisive battle of Kossova.
      Election, at Rome, of Pope Boniface IX.

1390.
      War of Florence with the duke of Milan.
      Birth of Jan van Eyck [Uncertain date]
      (d. 1440 [Uncertain date]).

1392.
      Appearance of insanity in the young French king,
      Charles VI.

1394.
      Birth of the Portuguese Prince Henry, "the Navigator"
      (d. 1460).

1395.
      The Milanese dominion of the Visconti created a duchy
      of the Empire by the Emperor Wenceslaus.

1396.
      Great defeat at Nicopolis of the Christian defenders of
      Hungary by the Turkish Sultan Bajazet.

1397.
      Union of the three crowns of Sweden, Denmark and Norway,
      called the Union of Calmar.

1398.
      Invasion of India by Timour, or Tamerlane.

1399.
      Deposition of Richard II. from the English throne by
      Henry of Bolingbroke, duke of Lancaster, who became
      king as Henry IV.

1400.
      Deposition of Wenceslaus by the electoral college of Germany.
      Invasion of Scotland by Henry IV. of England.


Fifteenth Century.

1402.
      Birth of Masaccio (d. 1428).

1403.
      Hotspur's rebellion in England.

1405.
      Sale of Pisa to Florence by the Visconti.
      Capture by the English of the heir to the Scottish crown,
      afterwards James I.

1406.
      Surrender of the Pisans to Florence after a year of war.

1407.
      Founding of the Bank of St. George at Genoa.

1409.
      Chartering of the University of Leipsic.
      Meeting of the Council of Pisa.

1411.
      Defeat of the Scottish Lord of the Isles and
      the Highland clans at the battle of Harlaw.
      Founding of the University of St. Andrew's.

1412.
      Meeting of the Council called at Rome by Pope John XXIII.
      Birth of Joan of Arc, the Maid of Orleans (d. 1431).
      Birth of Filippo Lippi (d. 1469).

{3830}

1414.
      Meeting of the Council of Constance;
      summons to John Huss to appear before the Council.

1415.
      Condemnation and martyrdom of Huss.
      Renewal of the Hundred Years War with France
      by Henry V. of England;
      his great victory at Agincourt.
      Capture of Ceuta from the Moors by the Portuguese.

1417.
      Massacre of Armagnacs at Paris.
      Creation of the Electorate of Brandenburg by
      the Emperor Sigismund and its bestowal on Frederick,
      Count of Zollern, or Hohenzollern.
      Deposition of the rival popes by the Council of Constance,
      and ending of the Great Schism;
      election of Pope Martin V.

1419.
      Rising of the Hussites in Bohemia.
      Assassination of the duke of Burgundy, at the Bridge of
      Montereau, and alliance of the Burgundians with the
      English invaders of France.

1420.
      First crusade against the Bohemian Hussites
      summoned by the Pope.
      Treaty of Troyes between the English king, Henry V.,
      in France, and the Burgundians;
      marriage of Henry V. to Princess Catherine, of France.

1421.
      Second crusade against the Bohemians.

1422.
      Date of the first in the collection of Paston Letters.
      Death of Henry V., king of England, and claiming
      to be king of France;
      accession of his infant son Henry VI.
      Death of Charles VI., king of France;
      the succession of his son, Charles VII.,
      disputed in favor of the Infant Henry VI. of England.

1424.
      Release of James I. of Scotland from his
      long captivity in England.

1429.
      Siege of Orleans by the English, repelled,
      under the influence of Jeanne d'Arc;
      coronation of Charles VII., king of France.

1430.
      Capture of Jeanne d'Arc by the English.
      Acquisition of the greater part of the Netherlands
      by Philip of Burgundy.

1431.
      Condemnation and burning of Jeanne d'Arc for witchcraft
      by the English.
      Election of Pope Eugenius IV.
      Meeting of the Council of Basle.
      Birth of Mantegna (d. 1506).

1433.
      Treaty of the Council of Basle with the insurgent Bohemians.

1434.
      Organization of the Utraquist national church in Bohemia.
      Attainment of power in Florence by Cosmo de' Medici.
      First expedition sent out by the Portuguese Prince Henry
      to explore the western coast of Africa.
      Birth of Boiardo [Uncertain date] (d. 1494).

1437.
      Recovery of Paris from the English by the French king,
      Charles VII.
      Death of Sigismund, emperor, and king of Hungary;
      election of Albert of Austria to the Hungarian throne.

1438.
      Election of Albert II. of Austria by the German
      electoral princes.

1439.
      Death of Albert II., of Germany and Hungary;
      election of Ladislaus III., king of Poland,
      to the Hungarian throne.

1440.
      Election of Frederick III., of Austria,
      by the electoral princes of Germany.

1442.
      Ladislaus, posthumous son of Albert of Austria,
      acknowledged king of Bohemia, and prospective king of
      Hungary, on the attainment of his majority.
      First modern Importation of negro slaves into Europe,
      by the Portuguese.

1444.
      Defeat of the Hungarians by the Turks at Varna and
      death of Ladislaus III., king of Poland and Hungary;
      government in Hungary entrusted to John Huniades,
      during the minority of Ladislaus Posthumus.

1445.
      Destruction of Corinth by the Turks.
      Birth of Comines, the chronicler (d. 1509).

1446.
      Birth of Perugino (d. 1524).

1447.
      Election of Pope Nicholas V., founder of the Vatican Library.
      Death of the last of the ducal family of Visconti,
      leaving the duchy in dispute.

1450.
      Rebellion of Jack Cade in England.
      Possession of Milan and the duchy won by Francesco Sforza.

1451.
      Rebellion of Ghent against Philip of Burgundy.
      Founding of the University of Glasgow.

1452.
      Birth of Savonarola (d. 1498).
      Birth of Leonardo da Vinci (d. 1519).

1453.
      Conquest of Constantinople by the Turks.
      Defeat of the men of Ghent at Gaveren and their
      submission to the duke of Burgundy.
      Austria raised to the rank of an archduchy by the
      Emperor Frederick III.
      Unsuccessful rising in Rome, against the Papacy,
      under Stefano-Porcaro.

1454.
      Production of the first known Printing with movable type
      by Gutenberg and Fust, at Mentz.
      Treaty of Venice with the Turks, securing trade privileges
      and certain possessions in Greece.

1455.
      Beginning of the Wars of the Roses in England.

1456.
      The Turks in possession of Athens.
      Siege of Belgrade by the Turks and their defeat by Huniades;
      death of Huniades.
      Publication at Mentz of the first printed Bible,
      now called the Mazarin Bible. [Uncertain date]

1457.
      Organization of the church of the Unitas Fratrum in Bohemia.
      Death of Ladislaus Posthumus, king of Bohemia and of
      Hungary and archduke of Austria.

1458.
      Submission of Genoa to the king of France.
      Election of Matthias, son of Huniades, king of Hungary,
      and George Podiebrad, leader of the church-reform party,
      king of Bohemia.
      Division of the crowns of Naples and Sicily (the Two Sicilies)
      on the death of Alfonso of Aragon.

1460.
      Death of Prince Henry the Navigator.

1461.
      Death of Charles VII., king of France,
      and accession of Louis XI.
      Emancipation of Genoa from the yoke of France.
      Surrender of Trebizond, the last Greek capital,
      to the Ottoman Turks.
      Deposition of Henry VI. declared by a council of lords in
      England and Edward Duke of York crowned king (Ed ward IV.);
      defeat of Lancastrians at Towton.

{3831}

1463.
      War between Turks and Venetians in Greece.
      Birth of Pico della Mirandola (d. 1494).

1464.
      Submission of Genoa to the duke of Milan.

1465.
      League of the Public Weal, in France, against Louis XI.;
      battle of Montlehery.
      Siege, capture and pillage of Athens by the Venetians.

1467.
      Accession of Charles the Bold to the dukedom of Burgundy;
      beginning of his war with the Liégois.
      Crusade against George Podiebrad, king of Bohemia,
      proclaimed by the Pope.
      Birth of Erasmus [Uncertain date] (d. 1536).

1468.
      Visit of Louis XI. to Charles the Bold, at Peronne;
      capture and destruction of Liege by Charles.
      War of the king of Bohemia with Austria and Hungary.

1469.
      Beginning of the rule of Lorenzo de' Medici
      (the Magnificent) in Florence.
      Marriage of Isabella of Castile to Ferdinand of Aragon.
      Birth of Machiavelli (d. 1527).

1470.
      Restoration of Henry VI. to the English throne
      by Earl Warwick;
      flight of Edward IV.
      Siege and capture of Negropont by the Turks, and massacre
      of the inhabitants.

1471.
      Acquisition of Cyprus by the Venetians.
      Return of Edward IV. to England;
      his victories at Barnet and Tewksbury and
      recovery of the throne;
      death of Henry VI. in the Tower.
      Death of George Podiebrad, king of Bohemia, and election
      of Ladislaus, son of the king of Poland, to succeed him.
      Translation by Caxton of "Recueil des Histoires de Troyes,"
      by Raoul le Fèvre.
      Birth of Albert Durer (d. 1528).
      Birth of Cardinal Wolsey (d. 1530).

1473.
      Birth of Copernicus (d. 1543).

1474.
      Birth of Las Casas (d. 1566).
      Birth of Ariosto (d. 1533).

1475.
      Birth of the Michael Angelo (d. 1564).
      Birth of the Chevalier Bayard (d. 1524).

1477.
      Marriage of Maximilian, son of the Emperor Frederick III.,
      to Mary of Burgundy.
      Invasion of Italy by the Turks, approaching to within
      sight of Venice.
      Production from Caxton's press of the "Dictes or Sayengis
      of the Philosophers," the first book printed in England.
      War with the Swiss, defeat and death of Charles the Bold.
      Grant of the Great Privilege of Holland and Zealand by
      Duchess Mary of Burgundy, daughter of Charles the Bold.
      Birth of Giorgione (d. 1511).
      Birth of Titian (d. 1576).

1478.
      Conspiracy of the Pazzi in Florence.
      Overthrow of the city-republic of Novgorod by
      Ivan III. of Russia.

1480.
      Birth of Sir Thomas More (d. 1535).

1481.
      Founding of the Holy Office of the Inquisition at Seville.
      Printing in England of Caxton's translation of
      "Reynard the Fox." [Uncertain date]

1482.
      Death of Mary of Burgundy and succession of her infant son,
      Duke Philip, to the sovereignty of the Netherlands.

1483.
      Death of Edward IV. king of England;
      murder of the princes, his sons, and usurpation of the
      throne by his brother Richard.
      Death of Louis XI., of France, and accession of Charles VIII.
      Appointment of Torquemada Inquisitor General for Castile
      and Aragon.
      Birth of Luther (d. 1546).
      Birth of Raphael (d. 1520).

1484.
      Birth of the Swiss reformer, Zwingli (d. 1531).

1485.
      Arrival of Columbus in Spain, seeking help for a westward
      voyage to find the Indies.
      Overthrow and death of Richard III. in England,
      on Bosworth Field;
      accession of Henry VII., the first of the Tudor line.
      Appearance in England of the Sweating Sickness.
      Capture of Vienna by Matthias of Hungary and expulsion of
      the Emperor Frederick III. from his hereditary dominions.
      Printing of Malory's "Morte d' Arthur." [Uncertain date]

1486.
      Election of Maximilian, son of the Emperor, Frederick III.,
      King of the Romans.
      Unconscious doubling of the Cape of Good Hope by
      Bartholomew Diaz.

1487.
      Rebellion of Lambert Simnel in England.
      Birth of Andrea del Sarto (d. 1531).

1488.
      Capture and confinement for four months of Maximilian,
      then King of the Romans, by the citizens of Bruges.
      Rebellion in Scotland and defeat and death of James III.
      at Sauchie Burn.

1490.
      Beginning of the preaching of Savonarola at Florence.
      Death of Matthias, king of Hungary, and election to the
      Hungarian throne of the Bohemian king, Ladislaus II.
      Birth of Thomas Cromwell [Uncertain date] (d. 1540).
      Birth of Vittoria Colonna (d. 1547).

1491.
      Union of Brittany with France, by marriage of the
      Duchess Anne to Charles VIII.
      Conquest of Granada by Ferdinand and Isabella;
      end of Moorish dominion in Spain.
      Birth of Loyola (d. 1556).

1492.
      First voyage of Columbus westward, resulting in the
      discovery of the Bahamas, Cuba and Hayti.
      Death of Lorenzo de' Medici at Florence.
      Outbreak of the Bundschuh insurrection in Germany.
      Expulsion of Jews from Spain.
      Election of Pope Alexander VI. (Roderigo Borgia).

1493.
      Papal bull granting to Spain the New World found by
      Columbus and defining the rights of Spain and Portugal.
      Second voyage of Columbus.
      Death of the Emperor Frederick III.;
      assumption of the title (without coronation at Rome),
      of "emperor elect" by his son Maximilian, already elected
      King of the Romans.
      Birth of Paracelsus (d. 1541).

1494.
      Treaty of Tordesillas between Spain and Portugal,
      partitioning the ocean.
      Expedition of Charles VIII. into Italy.
      Expulsion of Pietro de' Medici, son of Lorenzo,
      from Florence;
      formation of the Christian Commonwealth at Florence
      under Savonarola.
      Passage of the Poynings Laws in Ireland.
      Birth of Hans Sachs (d. 1578 [Uncertain date]).
      Birth of Correggio Granada (d. 1534).

1495.
      Abolition of the right of private warfare (diffidation)
      in Germany.
      Easy conquest of Naples by Charles VIII. of France,
      and his quick retreat.
      Birth of Rabelais [Uncertain date] (d. 1553).
      Birth of Clement Marot [Uncertain date] (d. 1544).

1496.
      Marriage of Philip, son of Maximilian of Austria and
      Mary of Burgundy, to Joanna, daughter of Ferdinand and
      Isabella of Spain.
      Rebellion of Perkin Warbeck in England.
      Establishing of the Estienne or Stephanus press in Paris.

{3832}

1497.
      Discovery of the continent of North America by John Cabot.
      Disputed first voyage of Americus Vespucius to the New World.
      Discovery of the passage to India round the Cape of
      Good Hope by Vasco da Gama.
      Excommunication of Savonarola by the Pope.
      Birth of Melancthon (d. 1560).

1498.
      Third voyage of Columbus, to the northern coast
      of South America;
      his arrest and return to Spain in irons.
      Arrest and execution of Savonarola at Florence.
      Death of Charles VIII., king of France,
      and accession of Louis XIII.
      Birth of Hans Holbein (d. 1559).

1499.
      Voyage of Americus Vespucius, with Ojeda,
      to the Venezuela coast.
      Conquest of Milan and the duchy by Louis XII. of France.
      Founding of the Sefavean dynasty in Persia and
      establishment of the Shiah sect in ascendancy.

1500.
      Voyage of the Cortereals to Newfoundland.
      Discovery of Brazil by the Portuguese navigator, Cabral.
      Birth of Charles, eldest son of Philip of Burgundy and
      Joanna of Spain, who became, the Emperor Charles V.
      and who united the sovereignties of Austria, Burgundy and Spain.
      Birth of Benvenuto Cellini (d. 1570).


Sixteenth Century.

1501.
      Voyage of Americus Vespucius, in the Portuguese service,
      to the Brazilian coast.
      Creation of the Aulic Council by the Emperor Maximilian.
      Joint conquest and partition of the kingdom of Naples by
      Louis XII. of France and Ferdinand of Aragon.

1502.
      Fourth and last voyage of Columbus coasting Central America.
      Election of Montezuma to the military chieftainship
      of the Aztecs.
      Marriage of King James IV. of Scotland to Margaret,
      daughter of Henry VII. of England, which brought the
      Stuarts to the English throne.
      Quarrel and war between the French and Spaniards in Naples.

1503.
      Election of Pope Julius II.
      Birth of Garcilaso de la Vega (d. 1536).

1504.
      Expulsion of the French from Naples by the Spaniards,
      under the Great Captain.
      Suppression of the independence of the Scottish
      Lord of the Isles.

1505.
      Birth of John Knox (d. 1572).

1506.
      Death of Columbus.
      Death of Philip, consort of Queen Joanna of Castile,
      and acting sovereign.
      Beginning of the building of St. Peter's at Rome
      by Pope Julius II.
      Birth of Saint Francis Xavier (d. 1552).

1507.
      Unsuccessful revolt of Genoa against the French.

1508.
      Formation of the League of Cambrai against Venice
      by the kings of France and Aragon, the Emperor, the Pope
      and the republic of Florence.
      Birth of the duke of Alva, or Alba (d. 1582).

1509.
      First Spanish settlement on the American mainland.
      Death of Henry VII., king of England, and
      accession of Henry VIII.
      Publication of Barclay's "Ship of Fools."
      Birth of Calvin (d. 1564).

1510.
      Portuguese occupation of Goa on the coast of India.
      Dissolution of the League of Cambrai, and alliance of
      Pope Julius II. with Venice and the Swiss against France.
      Birth of Palissy the potter (d. 1590).

1511.
      Spanish conquest of Cuba.
      Formation of the Holy League of Pope Julius II. with
      Venice, Aragon and England against France.

1512.
      Discovery of Florida by Ponce de Leon.
      Restoration of the Medici to power in Florence.
      Birth of Tintoretto (d. 1594).

1513.
      Discovery of the Pacific Ocean by Vasco Nunez de Balboa.
      Beginning of the ministry of Wolsey in England.
      Invasion of France by Henry VIII. of England, and his
      victory in the Battle of the Spurs.
      War of the Scots and English and defeat of
      the Scots at Flodden.
      Peasant insurrection of the Kurucs in Hungary.
      Complete expulsion of the French from Italy.
      Death of Pope Julius II. and election of the Medicean, Leo X.

1515.
      Death of Louis XII., king of France, and accession of
      Francis I.; his invasion of Italy, victory over the Swiss
      at Marignano, and occupation of Milan.
      Death of Ladislaus II., king of Hungary and of Bohemia,
      and succession of his son. Louis II., on both thrones.
      Birth of Saint Philip Neri (d. 1595).

1516.
      Founding of the piratical power of the Barbarossas at Algiers.
      Treaty and Concordat of Francis I. of France with the Pope,
      guaranteeing to the former the duchy of Milan and securing
      to him the duchies of Parma and Piacenza, and taking away
      the liberties of the Gallican Church.
      Appointment of Las Casas Protector of the Indians by
      Cardinal Ximenes.
      Publication of the "Utopia" of Sir Thomas More.

1517.
      Appearance of Tetzel in Germany, selling papal indulgences;
      Luther's denunciation of the traffic;
      posting of the Ninety-five Theses on the
      church-door at Wittenberg.
      Preaching of reformed doctrines at Zurich by Zwingli.
      Execution of Balboa by Pedrarias Davila, in the colony
      of Darien.
      Discovery of Yucatan by Cordova.
      Birth of Camoëns [Uncertain date] (d. 1579).

1519.
      Landing of Cortes in Mexico and advance to the capital.
      Sailing of Magellan on his voyage of circumnavigation.
      Luther's disputation with Eck.
      Death of the Emperor Maximilian and election of his
      grandson, Charles V., already sovereign of Spain, the Two
      Sicilies, the Netherlands, and the Austrian possessions.
      Cession of the Austrian sovereignty by Charles V. to his
      brother Ferdinand.
      Discovery of the mouth of the Mississippi by Garay.

1520.
      Long battle of Cortés with the Aztecs in the city of Mexico;
      death of Montezuma;
      retreat of the Spaniards.
      Rebellion of the Holy Junta in Spain.
      Birth of William Cecil, Lord Burleigh (d. 1598).

1521.
      Siege and conquest of the Mexican capital by Cortés
      and the Spaniards.
      Conquest of Belgrade by the Turks.
      Promulgation of the first of the edicts of
      Charles V. against heresy in the

{3833}

      Netherlands, called Placards.
      Excommunication of Luther by the Pope;
      his appearance before the Diet at Worms;
      his abduction by friends and concealment at Wartburg.

1522.
      Appointment of Cortés to be Governor, Captain-General,
      and Chief Justice of New Spain (Mexico).
      Conquest of Rhodes by the Turks from the
      Knights of St. John.
      Election of Pope Adrian VI.

1523.
      Treason of the Constable of Bourbon, escaping from France
      to take command of the Imperial army.
      Abrogation of the mass and image worship at Zurich.
      Organization of the reformed Church in northern Germany.
      Election of Pope Clement VII.
      Publication of Lord Berner's translation of Froissart.
      Publication of Luther's translation of the New Testament.

1524.
      Voyage of Verrazano, in the service of France,
      to the North American coast.
      Death of the Chevalier Bayard in battle with the
      imperialists under Bourbon.
      Invasion of Italy by Francis I. of France;
      Outbreak of the Peasants' War, in Thuringia.

1525.
      Bloody suppression of the Peasants' revolt, in Germany,
      and execution of Münzer.
      Battle of Pavia;
      defeat and captivity of Francis I. of France.
      Marriage of Luther to Catherine Bora.
      Protestant League of Torgau.

1526.
      Great defeat of the Hungarians by the Turks at Mohacs and
      death of King Louis II.
      Election of John Zapolya to the vacant throne of Hungary,
      and rival election of Ferdinand of Austria.
      Treaty of Madrid, for the release of Francis I.
      from his captivity, and its perfidious repudiation by the
      king of France when free.
      Victory of Babar the Mongol at Panipat in India.
      Printing (at Worms) of Tyndale's English version of the
      New Testament.

1527.
      Expulsion of Zapolya from Hungary by Ferdinand,
      archduke of Austria, who wins the Hungarian crown.
      Capture and sack of Rome by the Spanish and German
      imperialists, commanded by the Constable Bourbon.
      The republic restored in Florence by a popular rising.

1528.
      Alliance of John Zapolya, king of Hungary, with the Turkish
      sultan Solyman, against his rival, Ferdinand of Austria.
      Deliverance of Genoa from the French by Andrea Doria.
      Marriage of Marguerite d'Angoulême, sister of Francis I.
      of France, to the king of Navarre.
      Birth of Paul Veronese (d. 1588).

1529.
      Fall of Wolsey from power in England.
      Unsuccessful siege of Vienna by the Turkish sultan, Solyman.
      Siege of Florence by the imperialists;
      surrender of the city and restoration of the Medici.
      Peace of Cambrai, or the Ladies' Peace, between Francis I.
      of France and the Emperor Charles V.
      Protest of the German reformers (against action of the
      Diet of Spires) which caused them to be called Protestants.

1530.
      German Diet at Augsburg;
      formulation of the Protestant Confession of Faith;
      the condemnatory Augsburg Decree;
      formation of the Protestant League of Smalkalde.
      Cession of Malta by the Emperor to the
      Knights Hospitallers of St. John.
      Siege of Buda by the Austrians.

1531.
      Breach of Henry VIII. with the Pope on the question of
      the annulling of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon.

1532.
      Religious peace, with freedom of worship, restored in
      Germany by the Pacification of Nuremberg.
      Conquest of Peru by Pizarro.

1533.
      Annulment of the marriage of Henry VIII. to Catherine of
      Aragon by Cranmer;
      marriage of the English king to Anne Boleyn.
      Murder of the Ynca, Atahualpa, by Pizarro.
      Birth of Montaigne (d. 1592).

1534.
      First voyage of Jacques Cartier, to the St. Lawrence.
      The Anabaptist seizure of the city of Munster.
      Passage by the English Parliament of the Act of Supremacy,
      establishing independence of Rome in the English Church.
      Beginning of fierce persecution of the reformers in France.
      Election of Pope Paul III.

1535.
      Expedition of Charles V. against Tunis.
      Execution of Sir Thomas More in England.
      Suppression of the English monasteries.
      Establishing of Protestantism in Geneva.
      Printing of Coverdale's English version of the Bible.
      Second voyage of Jacques Cartier and exploration of the
      St. Lawrence to Montreal.

1536. Trial and execution of Anne Boleyn,
      and marriage of Henry VIII. to Jane Seymour.
      Martyrdom of Tyndale.
      Renewed war between Charles V. and Francis I.
      Publication of the "Institutions" of Calvin.

1537.
      Death in childbed of Jane Seymour, the English queen.
      Brief of Pope Paul III. forbidding further enslavement
      of Indians in America.

1538.
      Treaty of Peace between Charles V. and Francis I.
      Formation of the Holy League of the Catholic
      Princes of Germany.
      Birth of Cardinal Borromeo (d. 1584).

1539.
      Enactment of the Bill of the Six Articles in England.
      Landing of Hernando de Soto in Florida and beginning
      of his explorations.
      Revolt of Ghent against the exactions of
      the Emperor Charles V.

1540.
      Marriage and divorce of Anne of Cleves by Henry VIII.
      and his marriage to Catherine Howard.
      Submission of Ghent to the Emperor, annulling of its
      charter and removal of the great bell Roland.
      Death of John Zapolya, king of Hungary, and support given
      by the Turkish sultan to the claims of his son, against
      Ferdinand (now emperor).
      Expedition of Coronado from Mexico into New Mexico,
      seeking the "Seven Cities of Cibola."
      Papal sanction of the Society of Jesus,
      founded by Ignatius Loyola.
      First known Printing done in America (in Mexico).

1541.
      Disastrous expedition of Charles V. against Algiers.
      Buda occupied by the Turks, becoming the seat of a pasha
      who ruled the greater part of Hungary.
      Assassination of Pizarro.
      Third and last voyage of Cartier to the St. Lawrence.

{3834}

1542.
      Execution of Catherine Howard, fifth queen of Henry VIII.
      Death of Hernando de Soto on the shores of the Mississippi.
      Renewed war between Charles V. and Francis I.
      Alliance of the latter with the Turks, who ravaged the
      coasts of Italy.
      Organization of Calvin's religious state in Geneva.
      Mission of Saint Francis Xavier to Goa.
      War of the Scots and English;
      Scottish panic at Solway Firth;
      death of James V.;
      birth of Mary Stuart.
      Promulgation of the "New Laws" of Charles V., prohibiting
      the enslavement of Indians in America.

1543.
      Marriage of Henry VIII. to Catherine Parr.

1544.
      Victory of the French at Cerisoles over the Imperialists;
      treaty of Crespy, terminating the war.
      Birth of Torquato Tasso (d. 1595).

1545.
      Assembling of the Council of Trent (called in 1542).

1546.
      Massacre of Waldenses in southeastern France.
      Death of Luther.
      Treaty of the Emperor Charles V. with the Pope,
      binding the former to make war on the Protestants of Germany.
      Murder of Cardinal Beatoun in Scotland.
      Birth of Tycho Brahe (d. 1601).

1547.
      Death of Henry VIII. and accession of Edward VI., in England;
      repeal of the Six Articles and completion of the
      English Reformation.
      Death of Francis I. king of France,
      and accession of Henry II.
      Defeat of the Elector of Saxony by the Emperor,
      at the battle of Muhlberg;
      his imprisonment and deposition;
      bestowal of the Electorate of Saxony on Duke Maurice of Saxony.
      The Interim of Augsburg.
      Marriage of Jeanne d'Albret, heiress to the crown of
      Navarre, to Antoine de Bourbon.
      Assumption of the title of Czar, or Tzar, by the Grand
      Prince of Moscow, Ivan IV., called the Terrible.
      Siege of the Castle of St. Andrew's in Scotland;
      captivity and condemnation of John Knox to the French galleys.
      Birth of Cervantes (d. 1616).

1549.
      Mission of Xavier to Japan.
      Election of Pope Julius III.
      Publication of the English Book of Common Prayer
      (First Book of Edward VI).

1550.
      Promulgation of the most infamous of the edicts of
      Charles V. against heresy in the Netherlands.
      Election of Pope Julius III.
      Birth of Coke (d. 1634).

1551.
      Alliance of the French king, Henry II.,
      with the Protestants of Germany.
      Narrow escape of the Emperor Charles V. from capture by
      Maurice of Saxony.

1552.
      French seizure of Les Trois Évéchés, Metz, Toul and Verdun.
      Treaty of Passau between the Emperor and
      the German Protestants.
      Unsuccessful efforts of the Emperor to recover
      Metz from the French.
      Ravages of the Turks on the coast of Italy and blockade of
      Naples by their galleys.
      Birth of Sir Walter Raleigh (d. 1618).
      Birth of Paolo Sarpi (d. 1623).
      Birth of Spenser [Uncertain date] (d. 1599 [Uncertain date]).

1553.
      Death of Edward VI. and accession of Queen Mary, in England;
      unsuccessful attempt to place Lady Jane Grey on the throne.
      Battle of Sievershausen in Germany and death of Maurice
      of Saxony;
      religious Peace of Augsburg, giving religious supremacy to
      each German prince in his own dominions.

1554.
      Wyat's insurrection in England;
      execution of Lady Jane Grey;
      marriage of Queen Mary to Philip of Spain.
      Birth of Sir Philip Sidney (d. 1586).

1555.
      Beginning of Queen Mary's persecution of
      Protestants in England;
      burning of Rogers, Latimer and Ridley.
      Return of John Knox to Scotland.
      First act of the abdication of the Emperor, Charles V.,
      performed in Brussels;
      accession of his son Philip in the Netherlands.
      Election of Pope Paul IV. (Cardinal Caraffa).

1556.
      Burning of Cranmer in England.
      Unsuccessful expedition of the duke of Guise against Naples.
      Completed abdication of all his crowns by Charles V.;
      succession of his son Philip II. in Spain, Naples and Milan;
      succession of his brother, Ferdinand I.,
      to the imperial throne.
      Second Mongol victory at Panipat, by Akbar, founder of the
      Mongol or Mogul empire in India.

1557.
      Battle and siege of St. Quentin, with success for the
      Spaniards, invading France.
      Signing of the first Scottish Covenant by the Lords
      of the Congregation.

1558.
      Recovery of Calais by the French from the English.
      Death of Queen Mary and accession of Queen Elizabeth,
      in England.
      Marriage of Mary Stuart, queen of Scots, to the French
      dauphin, afterwards Francis II.

1559. Passage of the Acts of Supremacy and Uniformity in England.
      Treaties of Cateau Cambresis, restoring peace between
      France, Spain and England.
      Death of Henry II., king of France,
      and accession of Francis II.;
      dominating influence of the Guises in France.
      Institution of the Papal Index of prohibited books.
      Election of Pope Pius IV.

1560.
      Huguenot Conspiracy of Amboise, in France;
      death of Francis II. and accession of Charles IX., under
      the controlling influence of Catherine de' Medici.
      Death of Melancthon.
      Election of Pope Pius V.
      Successful rebellion of the Scottish Lords
      of the Congregation;
      adoption in Scotland of the Geneva Confession of Faith.
      Printing of the Geneva Bible.
      Birth of the Duke of Sully (d. 1641).

1561.
      Return of Queen Mary Stuart from France to Scotland.
      Birth of Francis Bacon, Baron Verulam (d. 1626).

1562.
      First slave-trading voyage of John Hawkins.
      First attempt of Coligny to found a Huguenot colony in Florida.
      Massacre of Huguenots at Vassy, beginning the
      War of Religion in France;
      capture of Orleans by Condé for the Huguenots;
      battle of Dreux.
      Birth of Lope de Vega (d. 1635).

1563.
      Assassination of the Duke of Guise while besieging Orleans;
      treaty and Edict of Amboise, restoring peace between
      Catholics and Huguenots in France.
      Closing of the Council of Trent.
      Publication of Foxe's "Book of Martyrs."

1564.
      Huguenot colony settled on the St. John's river in Florida.
      Death of the Emperor, Ferdinand I., and accession of his
      son Maximilian II., the tolerant emperor.
      Birth of Shakespeare (d. 1616).
      Birth of Marlowe (d. 1593).
      Birth of Galileo (d. 1642).

1565.
      Destruction of the Huguenot colony in Florida
      by the Spaniards;
      Spanish settlement of St. Augustine.
      Great defense of Malta against the Turks by the
      Knights of St. John.
      Marriage of Mary Queen of Scots to Lord Darnley.

{3835}

1566.
      Beginning of organized resistance to Philip II. in the
      Netherlands by the signing of "The Compromise" and
      formation of the league of the Gueux, or Beggars;
      rioting of image-breakers in Flemish cities.
      Sack of Moscow by the Crim Tatars.
      Murder of Rizzio, secretary to the queen of Scots.
      Publication of Udall's "Ralph Royster Doyster," the first
      printed English comedy.

1567.
      Renewal of the religious civil war in France;
      battle of St. Denis, before Paris, in which the Constable
      Montmorency was slain.
      Peace in Hungary with the Turks, and between the Emperor
      and Zapolya, rival claimants of the crown.
      Arrival of the duke of Alva, with his army,
      in the Netherlands;
      arrest of Egmont and Horn, and retirement of the Prince
      of Orange into Germany.
      Creation of Alva's Council of Blood.
      Murder of Lord Darnley, husband of the queen of Scots;
      marriage of the queen to Earl Bothwell;
      rising of the Scottish barons, imprisonment and deposition
      of the queen, and accession of her son, James VI.
      Birth of Saint Francis de Sales (d. 1622).

1568.
      Treacherous Peace of Longjumeau and gathering of Huguenots
      at Rochelle, joined there by Jeanne d'Albret, queen of Navarre.
      Decree of the Inquisition condemning the whole population
      of the Netherlands to death;
      opening of war against the Spaniards by the Prince of Orange.
      Escape of Mary, queen of Scots, to England.
      Printing of the Bishop's Bible in England.

1569.
      Creation of the Grand Duchy of Tuscany, under the
      sovereignty of the Medici.
      Defeat of the French Huguenots at Jarnac and murder of Condé;
      choice of young Henry of Navarre for the Huguenot command;
      second Huguenot defeat at Moncontour.

1570.
      Peace of St. Germain-en-Laye between the warring
      religions in France.
      Assassination of the regent, Murray, in Scotland, and
      outbreak of civil war.
      Publication of Ascham's "Scholemaster."

1571.
      Holy League of Venice, Spain and the Pope against the Turks;
      Turkish conquest of Cyprus;
      sea-fight of Lepanto and defeat of the Turks by
      Don John of Austria.
      Death of Zapolya in Hungary.
      The Thirty-nine Articles of the English Church made
      binding on the clergy.
      Birth of Kepler (d. 1630).

1572.
      Marriage of Henry of Navarre to Margaret of Valois;
      massacre of St. Bartholomew's Day in France;
      death of Jeanne d'Albret;
      submission of Henry of Navarre and the young Prince of
      Condé to the Catholic Church.
      Election to the Hungarian throne of Rudolph, eldest
      son of the Emperor Maximilian.
      Capture of Brill by the "Beggars of the Sea," and rapid
      expulsion of the Spaniards from Holland and Zealand.
      Election of Pope Gregory XIII.
      Restoration of episcopacy in Scotland.

1573.
      Siege of the Huguenots gathered in Rochelle,
      followed by the Peace of Rochelle.
      Election of Henry of Valois, duke of Anjou,
      to the throne of Poland.
      Spanish siege and capture of Haarlem.
      Retirement of Alva from the Spanish command in the
      Netherlands and appointment of Requesens.
      Publication of Tusser's
      "Five Hundred Points of Good Husbandry."

1574.
      Death of Charles IX. of France and accession of his
      brother, Henry III. (the lately crowned king of Poland).
      Siege and relief of Leyden, commemorated by the founding
      of the University.
      Birth of Ben Jonson (d. 1637).

1575.
      Election of Rudolph, the Emperor's son,
      to the throne of Bohemia, and, as King of the Romans,
      to the imperial succession.
      Election of Stephen Batory to the throne of Poland.
      Offer of the sovereignty of the Netherlands to Queen
      Elizabeth of England.

1576.
      Escape of Henry of Navarre from the French court and
      return to the Huguenots and their faith;
      negotiation of the Peace of Monsieur;
      rise of the Catholic League in France.
      Death of the Emperor, Maximilian II., and accession of
      his son Rudolph.
      Death of Requesens;
      the "Spanish Fury" at Antwerp and elsewhere;
      union of the Protestant and Catholic provinces of the
      Netherlands by the treaties called the Pacification of
      Ghent and the Union of Brussels;
      appointment of Don John of Austria to the Spanish
      government of the Netherlands.
      Birth of St. Vincent de Paul (d. 1660).

1577.
      The sailing of Sir Francis Drake on his voyage which
      encompassed the world.
      Renewed war and renewed peace between the religious
      factions in France.
      Publication, in England, of Holinshed's "Chronicle."
      Birth of Rubens (d. 1640).

1578.
      Death of Don John of Austria and appointment of Alexander
      Farnese, of Parma, Spanish governor of the Netherlands.

1579.
      Treaty of Nerac arranged by Catherine de' Medici with
      Henry of Navarre.
      Constitution of the United Provinces or Dutch Republic
      by the Union of Utrecht;
      submission of the Walloon provinces of the Netherlands
      to the Spanish king.

1580.
      Final founding of the city of Buenos Ayres.
      Jesuit mission dispatched to England from the continent.
      Protestant persecution of Jesuits and Seminary priests
      in England.
      War of the Lovers, reopening the civil conflict in France;
      suspended by the Treaty of Fleix.
      Outlawry of the Prince of Orange by Philip II. of Spain,
      inviting his assassination.
      Seizure of the crown of Portugal by Philip II. of Spain.
      Publication of the first two books of Montaigne's Essays.

1581.
      Formal declaration of independence by the Dutch provinces
      of the Netherlands.
      The Second Covenant, or first National Covenant, in Scotland.
      Publication of Tasso's "Gerusalemme Liberata."

1582.
      Sovereignty of Brabant and other Netherland provinces
      conferred on the French duke of Anjou.
      Raid of Ruthven and confinement of King James, in Scotland.
      Founding of the University of Edinburgh.

1583.
      Colonizing expedition of Sir Humphrey Gilbert to
      Newfoundland, returning from which he perished.
      Treacherous attempt of Anjou to seize Antwerp.
      Introduction of the Gregorian Calendar in most Catholic
      countries of Europe.
      Birth of Grotius (d. 1645).
      Birth of Oxenstiern (d. 1654).
      Birth of Wallenstein (d. 1634).

{3836}

1584.
      Assassination of the Prince of Orange by instigation of
      Philip II. of Spain.

1585.
      First colonizing attempt of Sir Walter Raleigh in America,
      at Roanoke.
      Alliance of the Catholic League of France with Philip II.
      of Spain, and renewal of war with the Huguenots;
      the War of the Three Henrys.
      Siege and capture of Antwerp by Parma.
      Practical recovery of Flanders and Brabant by the Spaniards.
      Arrival of the Earl of Leicester in the Netherlands with
      delusive aid from England.
      Election of Pope Sixtus V.
      Birth of Cardinal Richelieu (d. 1642).

1586.
      Battle of Zutphen in the Netherlands and death of
      Sir Philip Sidney.
      Beginning of the reign in Persia of Shah Abbass,
      called the Great.
      Election of Sigismund of Sweden to the Polish throne.
      Publication of Camden's "Britannia."

1587.
      Second colony planted by Raleigh on Roanoke island.
      Execution of Mary Stuart, queen of Scots, in England.
      Defeat of the Catholic League by Henry of Navarre at Coutras.

1588.
      Destruction of the Spanish Armada.
      Insurrection in Paris in favor of the duke of Guise;
      escape of the king (Henry III.) from Paris;
      assassination of the duke of Guise at Blois by
      order of the king;
      alliance of Henry III. with Henry of Navarre
      against the League.
      Birth of Hobbes (d. 1679).

1589.
      Death of Catherine de' Medici;
      siege of Paris by Henry III. and Henry of Navarre;
      assassination of Henry III., the last of the Valois,
      leaving Henry of Navarre (first of the Bourbons)
      the nearest heir to the French crown.
      Publication of the first volume of Hakluyt's
      "Voyages and Discoveries. "

1590.
      Continued war of the League, in France,
      against Henry of Navarre;
      his victory at Ivry and siege of Paris;
      summons of the duke of Parma from the Netherlands to
      save Paris from Henry.
      Publication of the first three books of Spenser's
      "Faerie Queene," Sidney's "Arcadia," and part of
      Marlowe's "Tamburlane."

1591.
      Siege of Rouen by Henry of Navarre and second interference
      by the Spaniards in aid of the League.
      Death of the duke of Parma.

1592.
      Election of Pope Clement VIII.
      Birth of Sir John Eliot [Uncertain date] (d. 1632).

1593.
      Abjuration of the Protestant religion by Henry of Navarre.
      Publication of Shakespeare's "Venus and Adonis."

1594.
      Coronation of Henry of Navarre as Henry IV.,
      king of France, and his reception in Paris.
      Publication of four books of Hooker's" Ecclesiastical
      Polity" and Shakespeare's "Lucrece."

1595.
      Expulsion of Jesuits from Paris.
      War of the French king with Spain.
      First expedition of Sir Walter Raleigh in
      search of El Dorado.

1596.
      Frightful defeat of the Austrians and Transylvanians
      by the Turks, on the plain of Cerestes, in Hungary.
      Capture of Cadiz by the Dutch and English.
      Birth of Descartes (d. 1650).

1597.
      Abolition of the privileges of the Hansa
      merchants in England.
      Irish rebellion under Hugh O'Neill, Earl of Tyrone.
      Annexation of Ferrara to the States of the Church.
      Publication of Bacon's Essays, also of a pirated copy of
      Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet," and of the first editions
      of "King Richard II." and "King Richard III."

1598.
      The Edict of Nantes, issued by Henry IV., of France,
      securing religious freedom to the Huguenots;
      peace with Spain by the Treaty of Vervins.
      Publication of Shakespeare's" Love's Labor Lost,"
      of Stowe's" Survey of London," and of Drayton's "England's
      Heroical Epistles."

1599.
      Birth of Oliver Cromwell (d. 1658).
      Birth of Van Dyck (d. 1641).
      Birth of Velasquez (d. 1660).

1600.
      First charter granted to the English East India companies.
      Gowrie Plot in Scotland.
      Publication of Shakespeare's "King Henry V."
      (pirated and imperfect), "King Henry IV.," part 2,
      "Much Ado about Nothing," "Midsummer Night's Dream," and
      "Merchant of Venice."
      Death of Giordano Bruno at the stake.
      Birth of Calderon de la Barca (d. 1683 [Uncertain date]).
      Birth of Claude Lorraine (d. 1682).


Seventeenth Century.

1601.
      Suppression of the rebellion in Ireland.
      Enactment of the first English Poor Law.

1602.
      Chartering of the Dutch East India Company.
      Beginning of the long imprisonment of Sir Walter Raleigh
      in the Tower on charge of treason.
      First acting of Shakespeare's "Hamlet."
      Founding of the Bodleian Library.
      Birth of Cardinal Mazarin (d. 1661).

1603.
      Death of Queen Elizabeth of England and accession of
      the Scottish king, James I. of England and VI. of Scotland.
      First publication of "Hamlet."

1604.
      Founding of a French colony at Port Royal in Acadia
      (Nova Scotia).
      The Hampton Court Conference of King James with the
      English Puritans.

1605.
      Gunpowder plot of English Catholics against
      King and Parliament.
      Election of Pope Paul V.
      Death of Akbar, founder of the Mogul empire in India,
      and accession of Jahangir.
      Publication of Bacon's "Advancement of Learning,"
      and part 1 of Cervantes' "Don Quixote."

1606.
      Charter granted by King James I. of England to the London
      and Plymouth companies, for American colonization.
      Venice placed under interdict by the Pope;
      beginning of the public service of Fra Paolo Sarpi.
      Peace of Sitvatorok, ending the war with the Turks in Hungary.
      Deposition of the Emperor Rudolph from the headship of the
      House of Austria, by a family conclave, in favor of his
      brother Matthias.
      Surrender of Austria and Hungary to Matthias by Rudolph.
      Organization of the Independent church of Brownists at
      Scrooby, England.
      Birth of Corneille (d. 1684).
      Birth of Rembrandt (d. 1669).

1607.
      Settlement of Jamestown, Virginia.
      Migration of the Independents of Scrooby to Holland.
      Birth of Roger Williams [Uncertain date] (d. 1683).

{3837}

1608.
      Formation of the Evangelical Union among the
      Protestant princes of Germany.
      First French settlement, by Champlain, at Quebec.
      Publication of Shakespeare's "King Lear."
      Birth of Milton (d. 1674).
      Birth of Thomas Fuller (d. 1661).
      Birth of Edward Hyde, earl of Clarendon (d. 1674).

1609.
      Discovery of the Hudson River by Henry Hudson.
      Arrangement of a twelve years truce between Spain and
      the United Provinces.
      Final expulsion of the Moriscoes from Spain.
      Opening of the Julich-Cleve contest in Germany.
      Settlement of the exiled Pilgrims of Scrooby at Leyden.
      Publication of the Douay translation of the Bible.
      The royal charter called the Letter of Majesty granted to
      Bohemia by Rudolph.
      Founding of the Bank of Amsterdam.
      Discovery by Champlain of the lake which bears his name.
      Construction of the telescope by Galileo and discovery
      of Jupiter's moons. [Uncertain date]

1610.
      Assassination of Henry IV. of France and accession of
      Louis XIII., under the regency of Marie de Medici.
      Formation of the Catholic League in Germany.
      Beginning of trade with the Indians on the Hudson
      by the Dutch.
      First acting of Shakespeare's "Macbeth";
      publication of twelve books of Chapman's translation
      of the Iliad.

1611.
      Founding of Montreal by Champlain.
      Death of Charles IX., king of Sweden, and accession
      of Gustavus Adolphus.
      Publication in England of the King James or
      Authorized version of the Bible.
      Plantation of Ulster by English courtiers and London
      livery companies.
      Birth of Turenne (d. 1675).

1612.
      Death of the Emperor Rudolph and coronation of Matthias.
      Birth of Samuel Butler (d. 1680).

1613.
      Destruction of the French colony at Port Royal, Acadia,
      by Argall of Virginia.
      Election to the throne of Russia of Michael Romanoff,
      founder of the reigning dynasty.
      Birth of Jeremy Taylor (d. 1667).
      Birth of Gerard Dow (d. 1680 [Uncertain date]).

1614.
      Last meeting of the States General of France
      before the Revolution.
      Beginning of the extermination of Christianity in Japan.
      Publication of Raleigh's "History of the World."
      Birth of Cardinal de Retz (d. 1679).

1615.
      Visit of the first English ambassador to the court of
      the Great Mogul.
      Appearance at Frankfort-on-the-Main of the first known
      weekly newspaper, regularly printed and published.
      Birth of Salvator Rosa (d. 1673).

1616.
      Opening of war between Sweden and Poland.
      Death of Shakespeare and Cervantes.

1617.
      Election of Ferdinand, duke of Styria, to the thrones
      of Bohemia and Hungary.
      Cession of territory on the Baltic to Sweden by Russia.
      Second expedition of Sir Walter Raleigh
      in search of El Dorado.
      Opening of the famous reunions at the Hotel de Rambouillet.

1618.
      Rising of Protestants in Bohemia,
      beginning the Thirty Years War.
      Union of Prussia with the electorate of Brandenburg.
      Execution of Sir Walter Raleigh.
      Adoption of the Five Articles of Perth by the Assembly
      of the Scottish Church.
      Birth of Murillo (d. 1682).

1619.
      Death of the Emperor Matthias, and succession in the
      Empire of his cousin, Ferdinand II., already for several
      years his imperial colleague, and also king of
      Bohemia and Hungary.
      Deposition of Ferdinand in Bohemia and election of
      Frederick, elector palatine, to the Bohemian throne.
      Meeting of the Synod of Dort and condemnation of
      Arminianism in the United Provinces.
      Trial and execution of John of Barneveldt.
      Introduction of slavery in Virginia.
      Birth of Colbert (d. 1683).

1620.
      Decisive defeat of the Protestants of Bohemia in the battle
      of the White Mountain, and flight of Frederick,
      the newly elected king.
      Annexation of Navarre and Bearn to France.
      Rising of the French Huguenots at Rochelle.
      Final migration of the Pilgrims from Leyden to America,
      landing at Plymouth in New England.
      Incorporation by King James I. of England of the Council
      for New England, successor to the Plymouth Company of 1606.
      Publication of Bacon's "Novum Organum."

1621.
      The Elector Palatine under the ban of the Empire.
      Invasion and subjugation of the Palatinate.
      Dissolution of the Evangelical Union.
      Peace of Montauban between the French king and the Huguenots.
      Renewed war of the United Provinces with Spain.
      Grant of Nova Scotia to Sir William Alexander.
      Formation of the Dutch West India Company.
      The first Thanksgiving Day in New England.

1622.
      Founding of the College of the Propaganda at Rome.
      Grant to Sir Ferdinando Gorges and Captain John Mason
      of a province embracing parts of New Hampshire and Maine.
      Appearance of the first known printed newspaper in
      England—"The Weekly Newes."
      Birth of Molière (d. 1673).

1623.
      Conquest and transfer of the Palatine electorate to
      Maximilian, duke of Bavaria.
      Erection of a fort on Manhattan Island by the Dutch West
      India Company.
      Publication of "The First Folio" edition of
      Shakespeare's plays.
      Birth of Pascal (d. 1662).

1624.
      Alliance of England, Holland and Denmark, to support
      the Protestants of Germany.
      Beginning of Richelieu's ministry, in France.
      Birth of George Fox (d. 1690).

1625.
      First Jesuit mission to Canada.
      Death of James I. of England, and accession of Charles I.
      Beginning of the English struggle between
      King and Parliament.
      Opening of the Valtelline War by Richelieu, to expel the
      Austrians and Spaniards from the Valtelline passes.
      Fresh insurrection of the French Huguenots.
      Engagement of Wallenstein and his army in the service of
      the Emperor against the Protestants.

1626.
      Peace of Monzon between France and Spain.
      End of the Valtelline War.
      Purchase of Manhattan Island from the Indians by the Dutch
      West India Company.

1627.
      Seizure of a part of Brazil by the Dutch.
      Death of the Mogul Emperor Jahangir and accession of
      Shah Jahan, builder of the Taj Mahal, at Agra.
      Alliance of England with the French Huguenots.
      Siege of Rochelle by Richelieu.
      Birth of Bossuet (d. 1704).

{3838}

1628.
      Unsuccessful siege of Stralsund by Wallenstein.
      Passage by the English Parliament of the act
      called the Petition of Right.
      Assassination of the duke of Buckingham.
      Surrender of Rochelle to Richelieu.
      Outbreak of the war of the Mantuan succession between
      France, Spain, Savoy and the Emperor.
      Publication of Harvey's discovery of the
      circulation of the blood.
      Birth of Bunyan (d. 1688).

1629.
      The Emperor's Edict of Restitution, requiring the
      Protestant princes of Germany to surrender sequestrated
      church property.
      Tumult in the English Parliament and forcible detention
      of the Speaker;
      dissolution by the king and arrest of Eliot and others.
      Division of the grant made in New England to Gorges and
      Mason, giving New Hampshire to the latter.
      Introduction of the Patroon system in New Netherland
      by the Dutch West India Company.
      First conquest of Canada by the English.

1630.
      Dismissal of Wallenstein by the Emperor.
      Appearance in Germany of Gustavus Adolphus, king of Sweden,
      as the champion of Protestantism.
      Settlement of the colony of Massachusetts Bay,
      in New England, and founding of Boston.
      The Day of the Dupes in France and triumph of Richelieu.

1631.
      Siege, capture and sack of Magdeburg by the imperial
      general, Tilly.
      Treaty of Bärwalde between Gustavus Adolphus and
      the king of France.
      Defeat of Tilly on the Breitenfeld, at Leipzig,
      by Gustavus Adolphus.
      End of the war concerning Mantua.
      Appearance of the first printed newspaper in France.
      Birth of Dryden (d. 1700).

1632.
      Defeat and death of Tilly, in battle with the
      Swedish king on the Lech.
      Victory and death of Gustavus Adolphus in battle with
      Wallenstein at Lützen;
      accession in Sweden of Queen Christina;
      Chancellor Oxenstiern invested with the supreme direction
      of Swedish affairs in Germany.
      Patent to Lord Baltimore by James I., king of England,
      granting him as a palatine principality the territory in
      America called Maryland.
      Restoration of Canada and Nova Scotia by England to France.
      First Jesuit mission to Canada.
      Birth of John Locke (d. 1704).
      Birth of Spinoza (d. 1677).
      Birth of Bourdaloue (d. 1704).
      Birth of Christopher Wren (d. 1723).

1633.
      Union of Heilbronn formed by Oxenstiern, consolidating
      Protestant interests.
      Appointment of Wentworth to be Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland.

1634.
      Conspiracy against Wallenstein,
      resulting in his assassination.
      Defeat of the Swedish army in Germany, by imperialists and
      Spaniards, at Nördlingen.
      Terms of peace with the Emperor made by Saxony
      and Brandenburg.
      Levy of Ship-money in England.
      Naming the town on Manhattan island New Amsterdam.
      Acting of Milton's "Comus."

1635.
      Active interference of Richelieu in the Thirty Years War.
      Unsuccessful French expedition into Italy for
      the expulsion of the Spaniards from Milan.
      First settlements in the Connecticut valley.
      Dissolution of the Council for New England and
      partitioning of its territory.

1636.
      Banishment of Roger Williams from Massachusetts, and his
      founding of Providence.
      Migration of the Newtown congregation from Massachusetts
      to the Connecticut valley, founding Hartford.
      Founding of Harvard College in Massachusetts.
      Campaign of Duke Bernhard of Weimar in Alsace and Lorraine,
      in the pay of France.
      Success of the Swedish general, Baner, at Wittstock,
      over Saxons and imperialists.
      Birth of Boileau (d. 1711).

1687.
      Death of the Emperor Ferdinand II. and accession of his
      son Ferdinand III.
      The Pequot War in New England.
      Introduction of Land's Service-book in Scotland;
      tumult in St. Giles' church.
      Publication of Descartes' "Discours de la Méthode."

1638.
      Planting of the Swedish colony on the Delaware
      river in America.
      Banishment of Anne Hutchinson from Massachusetts.
      Settlement and naming of Rhode Island.
      Opening of New Netherland to free colonization and trade.
      Rising in Scotland against the Service-book;
      organization of the Tables;
      signing of the National Covenant.
      Planting of New Haven colony in New England.
      Turkish siege and capture of Bagdad and horrible massacre
      of its people.

1639.
      Adoption of the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut and the
      Fundamental Agreement of New Haven.
      Grant of Maine as a palatine principality to
      Sir Ferdinando Gorges.
      The First Bishops' War of the Scotch with King Charles I.
      Birth of Racine (d. 1699).

1640.
      Meeting of the Long Parliament in England.
      English settlement of Madras in India.
      Recovery of national independence by Portugal,
      with the House of Braganza on the throne.
      Extraordinary double siege of Turin.
      Introduction in Europe of Peruvian bark (cinchona).

1641.
      Impeachment and execution of Strafford and adoption
      of the Grand Remonstrance by the English Parliament.
      Catholic rising in Ireland and alleged massacres
      of Protestants.

1642.
      King Charles' attempt, in England, to arrest the
      Five Members, and opening of the Civil War at Edgehill.
      Conspiracy of Cinq Mars in France.
      Death of Cardinal Richelieu.
      Second battle of Breitenfeld in Germany,
      won by the Swedes under Torstenson.
      Birth of Sir Isaac Newton (d. 1727).

1643.
      Confederation of the United Colonies of New England.
      Meeting of the Westminster Assembly of Divines.
      Subscription of the Solemn League and Covenant
      between the Scotch and English nations.
      Siege of Gloucester and first battle of Newbury.
      Death of Louis XIII. of France and accession of Louis XIV.
      under the regency of his mother, Anne of Austria, and the
      ministry of Cardinal Mazarin.
      Victory of the Duke d' Enghien (afterwards called
      the Great Condé) over the Spaniards at Rocroi.
      Alliance of Denmark with the Emperor and
      disastrous war with Sweden.

1644.
      Battles of Marston Moor and the second Newbury, and siege
      of Lathom House, in the English civil war.
      Charter granted to the colony of Providence Plantations.
      Invention of the barometer by Torricelli.
      Birth of William Penn (d. 1718).

1645.
      Oliver Cromwell placed second in command of the English
      Parliamentary army.
      His victory at Naseby.
      The storming of Bridgewater and Bristol.
      Exploits of Montrose in Scotland.
      Victory of Torstenson and the Swedes over the imperialists
      at Jankowitz in Bohemia.
      Defeat of the imperialists by the French near Allerheim.
      Peace of Bromsebro between Sweden and Denmark.
      Beginning of the War of Candia (Crete).

{3839}

1646.
      Adoption of Presbyterianism by the English Parliament.
      Surrender of King Charles to the Scottish army.
      Capture of Dunkirk from the Spaniards by
      the French and Dutch.
      Birth of Leibnitz (d. 1716).

1647.
      Surrender of King Charles by the Scots to the English, his
      imprisonment at Holdenby House and his seizure by the Army.
      Insurrection of Masaniello at Naples.
      Truce of the Elector of Bavaria with the Swedes and French.
      Election of Ferdinand, son of the Emperor,
      to the throne of Hungary.
      Beginning of the administration of Peter Stuyvesant
      in New Netherland.

1648.
      The second Civil War in England.
      Cromwell's victory at Preston.
      Treaty of Newport with the king, Grand Army Remonstrance,
      and Pride's Purge of Parliament, reducing it to "the Rump."
      Conflict of the French crown with the Parliament of Paris,
      and defeat of the crown.
      Last campaigns of the Thirty Years War.
      Peace of Westphalia;
      cession of Alsace to France;
      separation of Switzerland from the Empire;
      division of the Palatinate;
      acknowledgment of the independence of the United Provinces
      by Spain.
      Election of John Casimir king of Poland.

1649.
      Trial and execution of King Charles I., of England,
      and establishment of the Commonwealth.
      Mutiny of the Levellers in the Parliamentary Army.
      Campaign of Cromwell in Ireland.
      First civil war of the Fronde in France,
      ended by the treaty of Reuil.
      Passage of the Act of Toleration in Maryland.

1650.
      Charles II. in Scotland.
      War between the English and the Scotch.
      Victory of Cromwell at Dunbar.
      The new Fronde in France, in alliance with Spain.
      Its defeat by Mazarin at Rethel.
      Suspension of the Stadtholdership in the United Provinces.
      Publication of Baxter's "Saint's' Everlasting Rest," and
      Jeremy Taylor's "Holy Living."
      Birth of Marlborough (d. 1722).

1651.
      Invasion of England by Charles II. and the Scots;
      Cromwell's victory at Worcester;
      complete conquest of Scotland.
      Passage of the Navigation Act by the English Parliament.
      Banishment of Mazarin from France and restoration of peace. 
      Renewal of civil war by Condé.
      Adoption of the Cambridge Platform in Massachusetts.
      Beginning of the rule, in the United Provinces,
      of John De Witt, Grand Pensionary of Holland.
      Publication of Hobbes' "Leviathan," and Jeremy Taylor's
      "Holy Dying."
      Birth of Fenelon (d. 1715).

1652.
      Victorious naval war of the English with the Dutch.
      Battle of Porte St. Antoine, Paris,
      between the armies of Condé and Turenne.
      End of the Fronde, and departure of Conde to enter the
      service of Spain.
      Recovery of Dunkirk by the Spaniards.
      Institution of the Liberum Veto in Poland.
      Transfer of the allegiance of the Cossacks of the Ukraine
      from Poland to Russia.
      Legislation to restrict and diminish slavery in Rhode Island.
      Settlement of a Dutch colony at the Cape of Good Hope.

1653.
      Expulsion of "the Rump" by Cromwell, and establishment
      of the Protectorate in England.
      Adoption of the Instrument of Government.
      Return of Mazarin to power in France.
      The Cromwellian settlement of Ireland.
      Concession of municipal government to
      New Amsterdam (New York).
      Establishment of a penny post in Paris by M. de Velayer.
      Publication of Walton's "Complete Angler."

1654.
      Incorporation of Scotland with the English Commonwealth,
      under Cromwell.
      Peace between the English and Dutch.
      Conquest of Nova Scotia by the New England colonists.
      Death of Ferdinand, king of Hungary,
      and election of his brother Leopold.
      Abdication of Queen Christina of Sweden;
      accession of Charles X.

1655.
      Conquest of the Swedish colony on the Delaware by
      the Dutch of New Netherland.
      Alliance of England and France against Spain.
      English conquest of Jamaica from Spain.
      Occurrence in the Russian Church of the great schism
      called the Raskol.
      Publication of the first of Pascal's" Provincial Letters."

1656.
      Beginning of the Persecution of the Quakers in Massachusetts.

1657.
      Death of the Emperor Ferdinand III.
      Intrigues of Louis XIV. of France
      to secure the imperial crown.

1658.
      Siege and capture of Dunkirk from the Spaniards and
      possession given by the French to the English.
      Death of Cromwell and succession of his son
      Richard as Protector.
      Election of Leopold I., son of the late emperor,
      to the imperial throne.
      Seizure of the Mogul throne in India by Aurungzebe.

1659.
      Meeting of a new Parliament in England;
      its dissolution;
      resuscitation and re-expulsion of the Rump, and formation
      of a provisional government by the Army.
      Treaty of the Pyrenees between France and Spain,
      and marriage of Louis XIV. to the Spanish infanta.
      Production of Molière's "Les Précieuses Ridicules."

1660.
      March of the English army under Monk from
      Scotland to London.
      Call of a new Parliament by Monk, and restoration of
      the monarchy, in the person of Charles II.
      Abrogation of the incorporated union with Scotland.
      Renewed war of Austria with the Turks.
      Closing of the schools of Port Royal through Jesuit influence.
      Death of Charles X. of Sweden and accession of Charles XI.
      Publication of Dryden's "Astræa Redux."

1661.
      Restoration of the Church of England and passage of a new
      Act of Uniformity, ejecting 2,000 nonconformist ministers.
      Personal assumption of government by Louis XIV. in France.
      Beginning of the ministry of Colbert.
      Cession of Bombay by the Portuguese to the English.
      Birth of Defoe (d. 1731).

1662.
      Royal charter to Connecticut colony, annexing New Haven.
      Sale of Dunkirk to France by Charles II.
      Beginning of the attacks of the Mahrattas on the Mogul empire.
      Restoration of episcopacy in Scotland and persecution of
      the Covenanters.
      Publication of Fuller's "Worthies of England."

1663.
      Grant of the Carolinas by Charles II. of England to
      Clarendon and others.
      Erection of New France (Canada) into a royal province.
      Publication of the first part of Butler's "Hudibras."
      Birth of Prince Eugene of Savoy (d. 1736).

{3840}

1664.
      Passage of the Conventicle Act in England, for suppression
      of the nonconformists.
      Seizure of New Netherland (henceforth New York) by the
      English from the Dutch and grant of the province to the
      duke of York.
      Grant of New Jersey to Berkeley and Carteret,
      by the duke of York.
      War by France upon the piratical Barbary states.
      Great defeat of the Turks by the Austrians and French,
      in the battle of St. Gothard.
      Publication of the first Tariff of Colbert, in France.

1665.
      Passage of the Five Mile Act, in continued persecution of
      the English nonconformists.
      Outbreak of the great Plague in London.
      Formal declarations of war between the English and the Dutch.

1666.
      The great fire in London.
      Tremendous naval battles between Dutch and English and
      defeat of the former.
      Production of Molière's "Le Misanthrope."

1667.
      Ravages by a Dutch fleet in the Thames.
      Peace treaties of Breda, between England, Holland,
      France and Denmark.
      War of Louis XIV., called the War of the Queen's Rights,
      in the Spanish Netherlands.
      Restoration of Nova Scotia to France.
      Augmentation of Colbert's Protective Tariff in France.
      Publication of Milton's "Paradise Lost,"
      and Dryden's "Annus Mirabilis."
      Production of Racine's "Andromaque."
      Birth of Swift. (d. 1745).

1668.
      Triple alliance of England, Holland and Sweden against France.
      Abdication of John Casimir, king of Poland.
      Birth of Vico (d. 1744).
      Birth of Boerhaave (d. 1738).

1669.
      First exploring journey of La Salle from
      the St. Lawrence to the West.
      Adoption of the fundamental constitutions framed by
      John Locke for the Carolinas.
      Surrender of Candia to the Turks.

1670.
      Treaty of the king of England with Louis XIV. of France,
      betraying his allies, the Dutch, and engaging to profess
      himself a Catholic.
      Publication of Spinoza's "Tractatus Theologico-politicus."

1671.
      Publication of Milton's "Paradise Regained."
      Birth of Steele (d. 1729).

1672.
      Declaration of Indulgence by Charles II. of England.
      Alliance of England and France against the Dutch.
      Restoration of the Stadtholdership in Holland to the
      Prince of Orange, and murder of the DeWitts.
      Birth of Joseph Addison (d. 1719}.
      Birth of Peter the Great (d. 1725).

1673.
      Discovery of the Upper Mississippi by Joliet and Marquette.
      Recovery of New Netherland by the Dutch from the English.
      Sale of West Jersey by Lord Berkeley to Quakers.

1674.
      Treaty of Westminster, restoring peace between the Dutch
      and English and ceding New Netherland to the latter.
      Purchase of Pondicherry, on the Carnatic coast of India,
      by the French.
      Election of John Sobieski to the throne of Poland.
      Birth of Isaac Watts (d. 1748).

1675.
      War with the Indians in New England,
      known as King Philip's War.
      Defeat of the Swedes by the Elector of Brandenburg at
      the battle of Fehrbellin.

1676.
      Bacon's rebellion in Virginia.
      Birth of Sir Robert Walpole (d. 1745).

1677.
      Tekeli's rising in Hungary against oppression and
      religions persecution.
      Production of Racine's" Phèdre."

1678.
      The pretended Popish Plot in England.
      Treaties of Nimeguen between France, Rolland and Spain.
      Publication of the first part of Bunyan's
      "Pilgrim's Progress."
      Birth of Bolingbroke (d. 1751).

1679.
      Passage of the Habeas Corpus Act in England.
      Oppression of Scotland and persecution of the Covenanters.
      Murder of Archbishop Sharp.
      Defeat of Claverhouse by the Covenanters at Drumclog.
      Defeat of Covenanters by Monmouth at Bothwell Bridge.
      Treaty of Nimeguen between France and the Emperor.
      Building of the Griffon on Niagara river by La Salle.

1680.
      First naming of the Whig and Tory parties in England.
      Complete incorporation of Alsace and Les Trois Évéchés,
      and seizure of Strasburg, by France.
      Imprisonment of the Man with the Iron Mask.
      Founding of Charleston, S. C.

1681. Merciless despotism of the duke of York in Scotland.
      Beginning of "dragonnade" persecution of Protestants in France.
      Alliance of Tekeli and the Hungarian insurgents with the
      Turks and the French.
      Proprietary grant of Pennsylvania by Charles II. to
      William Penn.
      Publication of Dryden's "Absalom and Achitophel."

1682.
      Exploration of the Mississippi to its mouth by La Salle.
      Purchase of East Jersey by Penn and other Quakers.
      Penn's treaty with the Indians.
      Accession of Peter the Great in association with
      his brother Ivan.

1683.
      The Rye-house Plot, and execution of Lord Russell and
      Algernon Sidney, in England.
      Great invasion of Hungary and Austria by the Turks;
      their siege of Vienna, and the deliverance of the city by
      John Sobieski, king of Poland.
      Establishment of a penny post in London by Robert Murray.
      Founding of Philadelphia by William Penn.

1684.
      Forfeiture of the Massachusetts charter.
      Holy League of Venice, Poland, the Emperor and the Pope
      against the Turks.
      Birth of Bishop Berkeley (d. 1753}.
      Birth of Händel (d. 1759).

1685.
      Death of Charles II., king of England, and accession
      of his brother James II., an avowed Catholic.
      Rebellion of the duke of Monmouth, crushed at Sedgemoor
      and in the Bloody Assizes of Judge Jeffreys.
      Revocation of the Edict of Nantes by Louis XIV. of France.
      First lighting of the streets of London.
      Demand upon Connecticut for the surrender of its charter;
      concealment of the instrument in the Charter Oak.
      Birth of Johann Sebastian Bach (d. 1750).

1686.
      Revival of the Court of High Commission in England.
      Consolidation of New England under a royal governor-general.
      League of Augsburg against Louis XIV. of France, formed by
      the Prince of Orange and including Holland, Spain, Sweden,
      the Emperor, and several German princes.
      Recovery of Buda by the Austrians from the Turks and
      end of the Hungarian insurrection.
      Introduction of Bradford's Printing Press in Pennsylvania.

1687.
      Action of the Hungarian diet making the crown of Hungary 
      hereditary in the Hapsburg family.
      Second battle of Mohacs, disastrous to the Turks.
      Siege of Athens by the Venetians;
      bombardment of the Acropolis and
      partial destruction of the Parthenon.
      Rule in Ireland of Richard Talbot, earl of Tyrconnel.
      Publication of Newton's "Principia."

{3841}

1688.
      Declaration of Indulgence by James II. of England,
      and imprisonment and trial of the seven bishops for
      refusing to publish it.
      Invitation to William and Mary of Orange to accept the
      English crown.
      Arrival in England of the Prince of Orange and
      flight of James.
      Battle of Enniskillen in Ireland.
      Recovery of Belgrade from the Turks by the Austrians.
      Union of New York and New Jersey with New England under
      Governor-general Sir Edmund Andros.
      Birth of Swedenborg (d. 1772).
      Birth of Pope (d. 1744).

1689.
      Completion of the English Revolution.
      Settlement of the crown on William and Mary.
      Passage of the Toleration Act and the Bill of Rights.
      Landing of James II. in Ireland and war in that island;
      siege and successful defense of Londonderry;
      battle of Newton Butler.
      Battle of Killiecrankie, in Scotland,
      and death of Claverhouse.
      Revolution in New York led by Jacob Leisler.
      Birth of Montesquieu (d. 1755).

1690.
      Destruction of Schenectady, New York, by French and Indians.
      The first congress of the American colonies.
      The League of Augsburg against Louis XIV. of France
      developed into the Grand Alliance of England, Holland,
      Spain, Savoy and the Emperor.
      Second devastation of the Palatinate by the French.
      Reconquest of Belgrade by the Turks.
      English conquest of Acadia and unsuccessful
      attempt against Quebec.
      French naval victory off Beachy Head, over the English
      and Dutch fleets.
      Battle of the Boyne in Ireland;
      defeat and flight of James II.
      Publication of Locke's
      "Essay concerning Human Understanding."

1691.
      Battle of Aughrim and surrender of Limerick, completing
      the Orange conquest of Ireland.
      The violated Treaty of Limerick.
      Execution of Jacob Leisler in New York.

1692.
      Ernst Augustus, duke of Hanover and of Brunswick, raised
      to the rank of Elector.
      New Hampshire settlements, in New England, separated from
      Massachusetts.
      Defeat of King William by the French at Steinkirk.
      Beginning of the Salem Witchcraft madness in Massachusetts.
      Massacre of Glencoe in Scotland.
      Attempted invasion of England from France defeated by the
      English and Dutch fleets at the battle of La Hogue.
      Destructive earthquake in Jamaica.

1693.
      Founding of the College of William and Mary in Virginia.
      Removal of Bradford's Press from Philadelphia to New York.
      French victories at Neerwinden and Marsaglia.
      Absolutism established in Sweden by Charles XI.
      Discovery of the fixed temperature of boiling water.

1694.
      The founding of the Bank of England.
      Birth of Voltaire (d. 1778).

1695.
      Passage of the first of the Penal Laws,
      oppressing Catholics in Ireland.
      Expiration of the Press-censorship law in England.

1696.
      Death of John Sobieski and purchase of the Polish crown 
      by Frederick Augustus, elector of Saxony.

1697.
      Peace of Ryswick, ending the war of the Grand Alliance.
      Cession of Strasburg and restoration of Acadia to France.
      Campaign of Prince Eugene against the Turks and his
      decisive victory at Zenta.
      Death of Charles XI. of Sweden and accession of Charles XII.
      Sojourn of Peter the Great in Holland.
      Publication of Bayle's Dictionary.
      Birth of Hogarth (d. 1764).

1698.
      Grant to the English by the Mogul of the site on which
      Calcutta grew up.
      Undertaking, in Scotland, of the Darien scheme of
      colonization and commerce.
      Visit of Peter the Great to England.
      Publication of Algernon Sidney's "Discourse on Government."
      Birth of Metastasio (d. 1782).

1699.
      Peace of Carlowitz, between Turkey, Russia, Poland,
      Venice, and the Emperor, which reduced the European
      dominions of the Sultan nearly half.
      Settlement of Iberville's French colony in Louisiana.
      Publication of Fénélon's "Télémaque."

1700.
      Prussia raised in rank to a kingdom.
      First campaigns of Charles XII. of Sweden, against the
      Danes and the Russians.
      Death of Charles II. of Spain, bequeathing his crown to
      Philip, duke of Anjou, second son of the Dauphin of France.


Eighteenth Century.

1701.
      English Act of Settlement, fixing the succession to the
      throne in the Electress Sophia of Hanover and her heirs.
      Death of James II., of England, at St. Germains.
      Possession of the crown of Spain taken by Philip of Anjou,
      as Philip V.
      Founding of Yale College at New Haven, Connecticut.

1702.
      Death of William III., king of England and stadtholder of Holland.
      Accession in England of Queen Anne.
      The Camisard rising in France.
      Beginning of the War of the Spanish Succession
      (called in America Queen Anne's War).
      Battle of Friedlingen in Germany.
      Dutch and English expedition against Cadiz.
      Attack on the treasure fleet in Vigo Bay.
      Victories of Prince Eugene in Italy, followed by reverses
      and retreat into the Tyrol.
      Savoy overrun by the French.
      Union of rival English East India Companies.
      Publication of the first daily newspaper in England,
      the "Courant."
      Legislative separation of Delaware from Pennsylvania.
      Union of East and West Jersey in one royal province.

1703.
      The Methuen Treaty between England and Portugal.
      The Aylesbury Election case in England.
      Birth of Jonathan Edwards (d. 1758).
      Birth of John Wesley (d. 1791).

1704.
      Campaign of Marlborough and Prince Eugene on the Danube.
      Victory of Blenheim.
      Capture of Gibraltar by the English from Spain.
      Insurrection in Hungary under Rakoczy.
      Publication (at Boston) of the first newspaper in
      the English American colonies.
      Completed subjugation of Poland by Charles XII. of Sweden.
      Publication of Swift's "Tale of a Tub," and of the first
      part of Clarendon's "History of the Great Rebellion" (England).

1705.
      Capture of Barcelona by the Earl of Peterborough.

1706.
      Marlborough's victory at Ramillies over the French
      under Villeroy.
      Expulsion of the French from Antwerp, Ghent, and other
      strong places of Flanders.
      Madrid lost and regained by the Bourbon king of Spain.
      French siege of Turin.
      Deliverance of the city by Prince Eugene.
      Birth of Benjamin Franklin (d. 1790).

{3842}

1707.
      Union of the kingdoms of England and Scotland.
      Victories of Marlborough and Prince Eugene at Oudenarde
      and Malplaquet, over Vendôme and Villars.
      Victory of Berwick, for the French and Spaniards, at Almanza.
      Disastrous expedition of Prince Eugene against Toulon.
      Death of Aurungzebe, the last important Mogul emperor.
      Subjugation of Saxony by Charles XII.
      Birth of Buffon (d. 1788).
      Birth of Fielding (d. 1754).

1708.
      English conquest of Majorca and Minorca, by General Stanhope.
      Renewed persecution of the Jansenists.
      Dispersion of the nuns of Port Royal of the Fields.
      Invasion of Russia by Charles XII.
      Birth of Charles Wesley (d. 1788).
      Birth of William Pitt, Lord Chatham (d. 1778).

1709.
      The first Barrier Treaty between Holland and Great Britain.
      Dispersion of the nuns of Port Royal.
      Defeat of Charles XII. at Pultowa by the Russians and his
      escape into Turkish territory.
      Publication of the first numbers of Steele and Addison's
      "Tatler," and of Berkeley's "New Theory of Vision."
      Birth of Dr. Samuel Johnson (d. 1784).

1710.
      Trial of Dr. Sacheverell in England.
      Peace conferences at Gertruydenberg between France,
      Great Britain, Holland, Spain and Austria.
      Madrid again lost and recovered by Philip V.
      Franco-Spanish victories of Villa Viciosa and Brihuega.
      Capture of Port Royal, Acadia, by the New Englanders;
      final English conquest of Acadia and change of name to
      Nova Scotia.

1711.
      Fall of the Whigs from power, in England.
      Passage of the Occasional Conformity Act.
      Death, in Austria, of the Emperor Joseph I.
      Election and coronation of Charles VI.
      Opening of negotiations for peace between England and France.
      Peace of Szathmar, ending the revolt in Hungary.
      Publication of the first numbers of "The Spectator," by
      Addison, Steele, and others; also of Pope's
      "Essay on Criticism."
      Birth of David Hume (d. 1776).

1712.
      Dismissal of Marlborough from his command,
      by the British Government.
      Peace Conference at Utrecht.
      Imposition of the Stamp Tax on newspapers in England.
      Birth of Frederick the Great (d. 1786).
      Birth of Jean Jacques Rousseau (d. 1778).

1713.
      The Peace of Utrecht, ending the War of the Spanish
      Succession except as between France and the Emperor;
      cession of Sicily by Spain to the duke of Savoy, with the
      title of king;
      restoration of Savoy and Nice to the same prince,
      by France, with cessions of certain valleys and forts;
      exchange by the king of Prussia of the principality of
      Orange and the lordship of Châlons for Spanish Guelderland
      and the sovereignty of Neufchatel and Valengin;
      cession by Spain to the House of Austria of the kingdom
      of Naples, the duchy of Milan, the Spanish Tuscan territories,
      and the sovereignty of the Spanish Netherlands, reserving
      certain rights of the elector of Bavaria;
      agreement for the destruction of the fortifications and
      harbor of Dunkirk;
      relinquishment to Great Britain of Newfoundland, Nova
      Scotia, Gibraltar, Minorca, Hudson Bay, and the island of
      St. Christopher;
      concession of the Assiento or Spanish slave-trading
      contract to Great Britain for thirty years.
      Second Barrier Treaty between Great Britain and Holland.
      The papal Bull Unigenitus against the doctrines
      of the Jansenists.
      Production of Addison's "Cato."
      Birth of Sterne (d. 1768).
      Birth of Diderot (d. 1784).

1714.
      Death of Queen Anne of England;
      accession of George I.
      Treaty of Rastadt or Baden, establishing peace between
      France and the Emperor;
      relinquishment of Sardinia by the Elector of Bavaria to
      the Emperor, in return for the Upper Palatinate.
      Opening of war with the Turks by the Emperor, Charles VI.
      Return of Charles XII. to Sweden.
      Invention of Fahrenheit's Thermometer.
      Birth of Condillac (d. 1780).
      Birth of Helvetius (d. 1771).
      Birth of Vauvenargues (d. 1747).

1715.
      Jacobite rising in Great Britain.
      Death of Louis XIV. in France;
      accession of Louis XV., under the regency of the
      duke of Orleans.
      Barrier treaty of Holland with the Emperor.
      Publication of the first books of Pope's translation of
      the "Iliad," and the first books of Le Sage's "Gil Blas."

1716.
      Passage of the Septennial Act, extending the term of the
      British Parliament to seven years.
      Victory of Prince Eugene over the Turks, at Petervardein.

1717.
      Launching of the Mississippi scheme of John Law, in France.
      Triple Alliance of France, Great Britain and Holland to
      oppose the projects of Alberoni and Queen Elizabeth Farnese,
      in Spain.
      Spanish capture of Sardinia.
      Final recovery of Belgrade from the Turks by the Austrians.
      Birth of D' Alembert (d. 1783).

1718.
      Promulgation of the Pragmatic Sanction of Charles VI.,
      defining the Austrian succession in favor of his daughter,
      Maria Theresa.
      Spanish conquest of Sicily from the duke of Savoy.
      Quadruple Alliance of France, Great Britain, Holland and
      the Emperor against Spain.
      Peace of Passarowitz between the Emperor and the Porte.
      Removal of the capital of Russia to St. Petersburg.
      Death of Charles XII. of Sweden.
      Founding of the city of New Orleans by Bienville.

1719.
      French and English attacks on Spain.
      Submission of Philip V. to the Quadruple Alliance.
      Banishment of Alberoni.
      Spanish evacuation of Sicily and Sardinia.
      Restoration of the oligarchical constitution of Sweden.
      Publication of the first part of De Foe's
      "Robinson Crusoe," and of Watts' "Psalms and Hymns."

1720.
      The South Sea Bubble in England.
      Forced exchange by the duke of Savoy, with the Emperor,
      of Sicily for Sardinia, the latter being raised to the rank
      of a kingdom.
      Reversion of the duchies of Parma and Placentia and of the
      Grand Duchy of Tuscany to Don Carlos, son of the king
      of Spain.
      Publication of Vico's "Jus Universale."

1721.
      Rise of Walpole to ascendancy in the British Government.
      Introduction of preventive inoculation against smallpox
      in England by Lady Montague.
      Election of Pope Innocent XIII.

1722.
      Grant of Wood's patent for supplying Ireland with
      a copper coinage.
      Conquest of Persia by the Afghans.
      Birth of Samuel Adams (d. 1803).

1723.
      Majority of Louis XV., king of France.
      Termination of the Regency.
      Publication of Ramsay's "Gentle Shepherd."
      Birth of Adam Smith (d. 1790).

{3843}

1724.
      Election of Pope Benedict XIII.
      Publication of Swift's "Drapier's Letters" against
      Wood's halfpence, in Ireland.
      Birth of Kant (d. 1804).

1725.
      Treaty of Spain with Austria guaranteeing the
      Pragmatic Sanction of Charles VI.
      Alliance of Hanover between France,
      Great Britain and Holland.
      Death of Peter the Great, of Russia, and accession of his
      empress, Catherine I.
      Birth of Clive (d. 1774).

1726.
      Treaty of Russia with Austria guaranteeing the Pragmatic
      Sanction of Charles VI.
      Publication of Swift's "Gulliver's Travels."

1727.
      Death of George I. of England.
      Accession of George II.
      Hostilities without formal war between
      Great Britain and Spain.
      Siege of Gibraltar by the Spaniards.
      Deliverance of Persia from the Afghans by Nadir Kuli.
      Birth of Turgot (d. 1781).

1728. Treaty of Prussia with Austria guaranteeing the Pragmatic
      Sanction of Charles VI.
      Birth of Goldsmith (d. 1774).

1729.
      End of proprietary government in the Carolinas.
      Birth of Edmund Burke (d. 1797).
      Birth of Lessing (d. 1781).
      Birth of Moses Mendelssohn. (d. 1786).

1730.
      Election of Pope Clement XII.
      Founding of Baltimore in Maryland.
      Opening of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway;
      accidental death of Mr. Huskisson, prime minister of England.
      Birth of Edmund Burke [Uncertain date] (d. 1797).

1731.
      Treaty of Seville between Great Britain, France, and Spain.
      Don Carlos established in the duchies of Parma and Placentia.
      Treaties of England and Holland with Austria, guaranteeing
      the Pragmatic Sanction of Charles VI.
      Founding of the "Gentleman's Magazine."
      Birth of William Cowper (d. 1800).

1732.
      Usurpation of the Persian throne by Nadir Kuli,
      thenceforward entitled Nadir Kuli Khan, or Nadir Shall.
      Grant of Georgia in America to General Oglethorpe by
      George II., of England.
      Founding, at Philadelphia, of the first Subscription
      Library in the United States, by Franklin.
      Publication of the first part of Pope's" Essay on Man."
      Birth of Washington (d. 1799).
      Birth of Haydn (d. 1809).

1733.
      The first Bourbon Family Compact between the French
      and Spanish sovereigns.
      Death of Augustus II. of Poland.
      War of the Polish Succession between France and Austria.
      John Kay's invention of the fly-shuttle for weaving.
      Founding of Savannah, Georgia, by General Oglethorpe.
      Birth of Wieland (d. 1813).
      Birth of Joseph Priestley (d. 1804).

1734.
      Conquest of Naples and Sicily by Don Carlos, son of the
      king of Spain, and assumption by him of the kingship of
      the Two Sicilies, under the name and style of Charles III.
      Zenger's trial in New York and vindication of the freedom
      of the English colonial press.

1735.
      Treaty of Vienna between France, Austria and Spain,
      confirming Charles III. in possession of the kingdom
      of the Two Sicilies; ceding Lorraine to France and
      Tuscany in reversion to the former duke of Lorraine.
      First Moravian (Unitas Fratrum) settlement in America
      planted in Georgia.
      Birth of John Adams (d. 1826).

1736.
      Founding of the short-lived realm of King Theodore in Corsica.
      Publication of Butler's "Analogy of Religion."
      Porteous riots in Edinburgh.
      Birth of Lagrange (d. 1813).

1737.
      Birth of Edward Gibbon (d. 1794).

1738.
      Treaty of France with Austria guaranteeing the Pragmatic
      Sanction of Charles VI.

1739.
      War of Jenkins' Ear, between Great Britain and Spain.
      Capture of Delhi, in India, with sack and massacre,
      by Nadir Shah, the Persian conqueror.

1740.
      Accession of Frederick the Great in Prussia.
      Death of the Emperor Charles VI.
      Treachery of the Powers which had guaranteed the Austrian
      succession to Maria Theresa.
      Opening of the War of the Succession.
      Invasion of Silesia by Frederick of Prussia.
      Election of Pope Benedict XIV.
      Settlement of the Moravians (Unitas Fratrum) in
      Pennsylvania, at Bethlehem.
      First performance of Händel's "Messiah."

1741.
      Battle of Mollwitz.
      Alliance of Prussia, France and Bavaria.
      Appeal of Maria Theresa to the Hungarians.
      Franco-Bavarian invasion of Bohemia and Austrian
      invasion of Bavaria.
      Secret bargain of Frederick with Maria Theresa, and
      abandonment of his allies.
      Pretended Negro Plot in New York.
      Publication of the first volume of Hume's
      "Essays Moral and Political."

1742.
      Resignation of Walpole from the British Ministry.
      Imperial election and coronation of the elector of Bavaria
      as Charles VII.
      Reversing of the treachery of Frederick and renewal of
      his war with Austria.
      Battle of Chotusitz.
      Treaty of Breslau between Austria and Prussia.
      Cession of Silesia and Glatz to Frederick.
      Continuation of the war of Austria and France.
      Expulsion of the French from Bohemia.
      Birth of Scheele (d. 1786).

1743.
      The second Bourbon Family Compact between the sovereigns
      of France and Spain.
      Great Britain involved in the War of the Austrian
      Succession, supporting the cause of Maria Theresa.
      Victory of the "Pragmatic Army" (English and Hanoverian)
      at Dettingen.
      Birth of Thomas Jefferson (d. 1826).
      Birth of Toussaint L' Ouverture (d. 1803).
      Birth of Lavoisier (d. 1794).

1744.
      Renewal of war with Austria by Frederick of Prussia.
      His invasion of Bohemia, his capture of Prague and
      his forced retreat.
      Birth of Herder (d. 1803).

1745.
      The last Jacobite rebellion in Great Britain.
      Death of Sir Robert Walpole.
      Capture of Louisburg and the island of Cape Breton from
      France by the New England colonists.
      Death of the Emperor Charles VII.
      Defeat of the British and Dutch by the French at Fontenoy.
      Peace made by Austria with Bavaria, and alliance with
      Saxony against the king of Prussia.
      Prussian victories at Hohenfriedberg, Sohr, Hennersdorf,
      and Kesselsdorf.
      Election of the husband of Maria Theresa to the Imperial
      throne, as Francis I.
      Peace between Austria and Prussia.
      Success of the French, Spaniards, and Genoese in Lombardy,
      expelling the Austrians from every part except the
      citadel of Milan and the fortress of Mantua.
      Invention of the Leyden jar.

{3844}

1746.
      French conquest of the Austrian Netherlands.
      Retreat of Spaniards and French from North Italy.
      Surrender of Genoa to the Austrians, and their expulsion
      by a popular rising.
      Capture of Madras by the French.
      Birth of Pestalozzi (d. 1827).
      Birth of Henry Grattan (d. 1820).

1747.
      French invasion of the United Provinces (Holland);
      risings of the Orange party;
      restoration of the Stadtholdership,
      in the person of William IV.
      Unsuccessful siege of Genoa by the Austrians and Sardinians.
      Franklin's identification of lightning with electricity.
      Murder of Nadir Shah, the Persian conqueror.

1748.
      Treaty of Aix-Ia-Chapelle, ending the War of the
      Austrian Succession;
      general restoration of conquests made during the war;
      confirmation of Silesia and Glatz to Frederick of Prussia;
      general guarantee of the Pragmatic Sanction of Charles VI.
      Beginning of excavations at Pompeii.
      Birth of Jeremy Bentham (d. 1832).

1749.
      Formation of the Ohio Company, with a royal grant of lands
      in the Ohio Valley.
      Founding of Halifax, Nova Scotia.
      Publication of Montesquieu's "Esprit des Lois";
      of Fielding's "Tom Jones," and of John Wesley's
      "Plain account of the people called Methodists."
      Birth of Charles James Fox (d. 1806).
      Birth of Goethe (d. 1832).
      Birth of Mirabeau (d. 171)1).
      Birth of Vittorio Alfieri (d. 1803).
      Birth of Laplace (d. 1827).
      Birth of Jenner (d. 1823).

1751.
      Beginning of the military career of Clive in India by the
      taking of Arcot from the French.
      Introduction of the Gregorian Calendar, or change from
      Old Style to New, in England.
      Publication of Gray's "Elegy in a Country Churchyard,"
      and of the first volume of "L' Encyclopedie."
      Birth of R. B. Sheridan (d. 1816).
      Birth of James Madison (d. 1836).

1754.
      Founding of King's College (now Columbia) at New York.
      Congress of the American Colonies at Albany and
      plans of Union.
      Building of Fort Duquesne by the French and Washington's
      expedition against them.
      Publication of the first volume of
      Hume's "History of England."
      Birth of Talleyrand (d. 1838).

1755.
      Beginning of the Seven Years War, called in America
      the French and Indian War;
      Braddock's defeat by the French and Indians in America;
      battle of Lake George and defeat of the French;
      dispersion in exile of the French Acadians from Nova Scotia.
      Birth of Hahnemann, the originator of Homœopathy.
      Great earthquake at Lisbon.
      Birth of John Marshall (d. 1835).

1756.
      Formal declarations of war by Great Britain and France;
      conquest of Minorca by the French from the English.
      Invasion and occupation of Saxony by Frederick of Prussia.
      Frederick under the Ban of the Empire.
      Capture of Delhi by the Afghan Durances;
      capture of Calcutta by Shrajah Dowlah,
      and tragedy of the Black Hole.
      Birth of Mozart (d. 1791 [Uncertain date]).

1757.
      Execution in England of Admiral Byng.
      Beginning of the administration of the elder Pitt.
      Invasion of Bohemia by Frederick;
      his victory at Prague, his defeat at Kolin, convention of
      Closter-Seven, battles of Rossbach and Leuthen.
      Capture of Fort William Henry in America, by the French.
      Franklin's mission to England for the Pennsylvanians.
      Clive's overthrow of Surajah Dowlah at the battle of
      Plassey, in India.
      Birth of Canova (d. 1822).
      Birth of Alexander Hamilton (d. 1804).
      Birth of Lafayette (d. 1834).
      Birth of Baron von Stein (d. 1831).

1758.
      Siege of Olmutz by Frederick;
      his victory over the Russians at Zorndorf;
      his defeat by the Austrians at Hochkirch.
      Election of Pope Clement XIII.
      Repulse of the British at Ticonderoga, in America;
      capture of Louisburg and Fort Du Quesne (afterwards
      Pittsburg) by the English from the French.
      Beginning of the publication of Dr. Johnson's "Idler."
      Birth of Lord Nelson (d. 1805).
      Birth of Robespierre (d. 1794).

1759.
      Naval battles of the English and French off Lagos and in
      Quiberon Bay.
      Battles of Bergen and Minden in Germany;
      defeat of Frederick at Kunersdorf;
      loss of Dresden;
      capitulation of Maxen.
      Expulsion of the Jesuits from the Portuguese dominions.
      Capture of Quebec, in Canada, from the French,
      by General Wolfe;
      British capture of Fort Niagara, Ticonderoga and Crown Point.
      Opening of the British Museum.
      Publication of Dr. Johnson's "Rasselas," Adam Smith's
      "Moral Sentiments," the first volumes of Sterne's
      "Tristram Shandy," and the first volume
      of the "Annual Register," edited by Burke.
      Birth of Schiller (d. 1805).
      Birth of Robert Burns (d. 1796).
      Birth of William Wilberforce (d. 1833).
      Birth of William Pitt (d. 1806).

1760.
      Death of George II., king of England;
      accession of George III.
      Frederick's bombardment of Dresden.
      Battles of Liegnitz, Torgau and Warburg.
      Completion of the English conquest of Canada.
      Defeat of the French by the English,
      in India, at Wandiwash.
      Publication of Rousseau's "Nouvelle Heloise," and
      Goldsmith's "Citizen of the World."

1761.
      Resignation of Pitt from the British Ministry.
      The third Bourbon Family Compact of
      the French and Spanish kings.
      Campaigns in Saxony and Silesia.
      Battle of Panniput in India and defeat of the Mahrattas
      by the Afghans.
      Speech of Otis, at Boston, against the Writs of Assistance.
      Surrender of Pondicherry to the English by the French.

1762.
      Ascendancy of Lord Bute in the British Ministry;
      publication of Wilkes' "North Briton;"
      declaration of war against Spain;
      siege and conquest of Havana.
      Death of the Empress Elizabeth of Russia;
      accession, deposition and murder of Peter III.;
      elevation of Catherine II. to the throne.
      Decree of the Parliament of Paris for the suppression of
      the Society of Jesus.
      Publication of Macpherson's "Poems of Ossian,"
      and of Rousseau's "Contrat Social."
      Birth of Fichte (d. 1814).

1763.
      Peace of Paris and Peace of Hubertsburg,
      ending the Seven Years War:
      cession to Great Britain of Canada, Nova Scotia and
      Cape Breton by France, and of Florida by Spain;
      transfer of Louisiana to Spain by France.
      First English measure (the Sugar Act) for taxing the
      American colonies.
      Proclamation of King George excluding settlers from the
      Northwest territory in America.
      Outbreak in America of the Indian war called Pontiac's War.
      Resignation of Lord Bute from the British Ministry and
      formation of the Grenville Ministry.
      Death of Augustus III. of Poland.
      Birth of Jean Paul Frederick Richter (d. 1825).

{3845}

1764.
      Expulsion of Wilkes from the British House of Commons.
      Election of Joseph II., King of the Romans.
      Election of Stanislaus Poniatowsky to the Polish throne,
      under the protection of Russia.
      Ordonnance of Louis XV. forbidding the existence of the
      Society of Jesus in France.
      Beginning of the survey of Mason and Dixon's line,
      determining the boundary between Pennsylvania and Maryland.
      Publication of Goldsmith's "The Traveller," and
      of Rousseau's "Emile."

1765.
      First derangement of the English king, George III.
      Dismissal of Grenville.
      Formation of the Rockingham Ministry.
      Death, in Austria, of the Emperor Francis I.;
      imperial coronation of Joseph II.
      Passage of the English Stamp Act for the taxation of
      the American colonies;
      formation in the colonies of the Sons of Liberty, and
      convening of the Stamp Act Congress.
      Publication of the first volume of
      Blackstone's "Commentaries."

1766.
      The Grafton-Chatham Ministry in power in Great Britain.
      Repeal of the colonial Stamp Act.
      Discovery of hydrogen, by Cavendish.
      Publication of Lessing's "Laokoön," and of
      Goldsmith's "Vicar of Wakefield."
      Birth of John Dalton (d. 1844).

1761.
      Suppression of the Jesuits in Spain.
      Beginning of the first war of the English in
      India with Hyder Ali.
      The Townshend measures of the British Parliament for
      taxation of the colonies.
      Birth of August Wilhelm von Schlegel (d. 1845).
      Birth of Wilhelm von Humboldt (d. 1835).
      Birth of Andrew Jackson (d. 1845).
      Birth of John Quincy Adams (d. 1848).

1768.
      The Middlesex elections in England;
      repeated expulsion and re-election of Wilkes;
      withdrawal of Chatham from the Ministry.
      Religious disturbances in Poland.
      Confederation of Bar.
      Turkish interference against Russia.
      Circular letter of Massachusetts to the
      other American colonies.
      Cession of Corsica (in revolt) by Genoa to France.

1769.
      Demand of Spain, France and Naples at Rome for the
      abolition of the Society of Jesus.
      Election of Pope Clement XIV.
      Patents issued in Great Britain to James Watt for his first
      improvements in the steam engine, and to Richard Arkwright
      for his roller-spinning "water-frame";
      publication of the first "Letters of Junius."
      Migration of Daniel Boone from North Carolina into Kentucky.
      Birth of Wellington (d. 1852).
      Birth of Napoleon Bonaparte in Corsica (d. 1821).
      Birth of Alexander von Humboldt (d. 1850).
      Birth of Cuvier (d. 1832).

1770.
      Patenting in Great Britain of Hargreave's spinning-jenny.
      Beginning of the administration of Lord North in Great Britain.
      Publication of Burke's "Thoughts on the Present Discontents,"
      of Goldsmith's "Deserted Village," and of the first edition
      of the "Encyclopædia Britannica."
      Birth of Thorwaldsen (d. 1844).
      Birth of Wordsworth (d. 1850).
      Birth of Hegel (d. 1831).
      Birth of George Canning (d. 1827).
      Birth of Beethoven (d. 1827).

1771.
      Freedom of the reporting of proceedings conceded by
      the British Parliament.
      Insurrection of the Regulators in North Carolina and
      battle of the Alamance.
      Constitutional revolution in Sweden carried out
      by Gustavus III.
      Birth of Bichat (d. 1802).
      Birth of Sir Walter Scott (d. 1832).

1772.
      Treaty for the first Partitioning of Poland arranged
      between Prussia, Austria and Russia.
      The institution in the American colonies of Committees
      of Correspondence.
      Forming of the Watauga Association, from which grew the
      State of Tennessee.
      Decision by Lord Mansfield, in the case of the negro
      Somersett, that a slave cannot be held in England.
      Birth of Coleridge (d. 1834).
      Birth of Ricardo (d. 1823).

1773.
      Papal decree of Pope Clement XIV. abolishing
      the Society of Jesus.
      Appointment of Warren Hastings, the first English
      Governor-General in India.
      Resistance in the English American colonies to
      the duty on tea;
      the Boston tea-party.
      Publication of Goethe's "Götz von Berlichingen."
      Birth of Metternich (d. 1859).

1774.
      Death of Louis XV., king of France;
      accession of Louis XVI.
      Passage of the Boston Port Bill, the Massachusetts Act,
      and the Quebec Act by the British Parliament.
      Meeting of the first Continental Congress of the
      American colonies;
      organization of the revolutionary Provincial Congress in
      Massachusetts, and of the Committee of Safety.
      Lord Dunmore's War with the Indians;
      murder of the family of Logan, the chief.
      Publication of Goethe's "Werther."
      Discovery of oxygen by Priestley.
      Birth of Southey (d. 1843).

1775.
      Speech of Burke on "Conciliation with America."
      Beginning of the War of the American Revolution:
      battles of Lexington and Concord;
      siege of Boston;
      surprising of Ticonderoga and Crown Point;
      battle of Bunker Hill;
      creation of the Continental Army;
      appointment of Washington Commander-in-Chief;
      expedition to Canada.
      Execution of Nuncomar in British India.
      Election of Pope Pius VI.
      Production of Sheridan's "The Rivals" and
      of Beaumarchais' "Barbière de Seville."
      Birth of Daniel O'Connell (d. 1847).
      Birth of Charles Lamb (d. 1834).
      Birth of Walter Savage Landor (d. 1864).
      Birth of Turner (d. 1851).

1776.
      Dismissal of Turgot in France by Louis XVI., yielding to
      the intrigues of the French court.
      Evacuation of Boston, Massachusetts, by the British army;
      repulse of the British from Charleston;
      retreat of Arnold from Canada;
      Declaration of Independence by the Continental Congress;
      battle of Long Island and defeat of the Americans;
      retreat of Washington into New Jersey and
      his success at Trenton.
      Publication of Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations,"
      of Paine's "Common Sense,"
      of Bentham's "Fragment on Government,"
      and of the first volume of Gibbon's"
      Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire."
      Birth of Niebuhr (d. 1831).
      Birth of Herbart (d. 1841).

1777.
      Washington's victory over Cornwallis at Princeton;
      British occupation of Philadelphia, and victories over
      the Americans at Brandywine and Germantown;
      arrival in America of Lafayette and Steuben;
      Burgoyne's expedition from Canada and surrender at Saratoga;
      the winter of Washington's army at Valley Forge;
      the Conway Cabal.
      Production of Sheridan's "School for Scandal."
      Birth of Henry Clay (d. 1852).

1778.
      War of the Bavarian Succession between Austria and Prussia.
      Alliance of France with the American colonies.
      British evacuation of Philadelphia and defeat at Monmouth;
      Tory and Indian savagery at Cherry Valley and Wyoming;
      arrival of a French fleet and army in America;
      capture of Savannah by the British.
      Publication of Fanny Burney's "Evelina."
      Birth of Humphry Davy (d. 1829).
      Birth of Guy-Lussac (d. 1850).

{3846}

1779.
      Clark's conquest of the Northwest for Virginia;
      storming of Stony Point on the Hudson by General Wayne;
      expedition of General Sullivan against the Seneca Indians
      in western New York;
      sea-fight of the Bon Homme Richard (Paul Jones) and
      the Serapis;
      repulse of French and Americans from Savannah.
      Publication of Lessing's "Nathan der Weise."
      Birth of Joseph Story (d. 1845).
      Birth of Thomas Moore (d. 1852).
      Birth of Berzelius (d. 1848).

1780.
      The Gordon No-Popery Riots in England.
      Death of Maria Theresa of Austria.
      Second war of the British in India with Hyder Ali.
      British siege and capture of Charleston, S. C., and defeat
      of the Americans at Camden;
      treason of Benedict Arnold;
      American victory at King's Mountain.
      Insurrection of Tupac Amaru in Peru.
      Gradual emancipation act passed in Pennsylvania.
      Birth of Béranger (d. 1857).

1781.
      Dismissal of Neckar by the French king.
      Edict of Toleration in the Austrian dominions and
      abolition of serfdom, by Joseph II.
      Reconquest of West Florida from the English by Spain.
      Defeat of British troops by the Americans at the Cowpens
      and Guilford Court House;
      British victory at Hobkirk's Hill;
      drawn battle of Eutaw Springs;
      surrender of Cornwallis and the British army at Yorktown;
      final ratification of the Articles of Confederation of the
      United States of America.
      Extinction of slavery in Massachusetts.
      English and Dutch naval battle off the Dogger Banks.
      Publication of Kant's "Critique of the Pure Reason."
      Production of Schiller's "Die Räuber."
      Birth of George Stephenson (d. 1848).
      Birth of Sir David Brewster (d. 1868).

1782.
      English naval victory by Rodney, in the West Indies,
      over the French fleet.
      Fall of Lord North;
      the Rockingham Ministry.
      Destruction of the Barrier Fortresses in the Netherlands,
      by the Emperor.
      The first Sunday School opened by Robert Raikes,
      in Massachusetts.
      Concession of legislative independence to Ireland by England.
      Peace overtures from the British Government to the
      United States, and opening of negotiations.
      Publication of Priestley's "Corruptions of Christianity."
      Birth of Froebel (d. 1852).
      Birth of Lamennais (d. 1854).
      Birth of John C. Calhoun (d. 1850).
      Birth of Daniel Webster (d. 1852).

1783.
      Treaty of peace signed at Paris, between Great Britain
      and the United States of America;
      evacuation of New York by the British army.
      Fall of the Coalition Ministry in Great Britain;
      beginning of the administration of the younger Pitt.
      Seizure of the Crimea by Catherine II. of Russia.
      Birth of Bolivar (d. 1830).
      Birth of Washington Irving (d. 1859).

1784.
      The affair of the Diamond Necklace, in France.
      Founding, at Philadelphia, of the first Daily Newspaper
      in America.
      Appearance of the Peep-o'-Day Boys in Ireland.
      Birth of Manzoni (d. 1873).

1785.
      Negotiation of the United States with Spain for the free
      navigation of the Mississippi river.
      Publication of Cowper's "The Task,"
      Paley's "Moral and Political Philosophy,"
      and Reid's "Essays on the Intellectual Powers."
      Birth of De Quincey (d. 1859).

1786.
      Electrical discoveries of Galvani.
      Publication of Burns' "Poems chiefly
      in the Scottish Dialect."

1787.
      Meeting of the Assembly of Notables in France.
      Conflict of the French Crown with the Parliament of Paris.
      Impeachment of Warren Hastings by the British
      House of Commons.
      Suppression of Shay's rebellion in Massachusetts.
      Passage by the American Congress of the Ordinance for the
      Government of the Northwest Territory.
      Meeting of the Convention which framed the Federal
      Constitution of the United States of America.
      Birth of Archbishop Whately (d. 1863).
      Birth of Guizot (d. 1874).

1788.
      Second derangement of George III. of England.
      Revolt in the Austrian provinces in the Netherlands.
      State ratification and complete adoption of the Federal
      Constitution of the United States of America.
      Opening of the trial of Warren Hastings.
      Establishment of an English settlement of convicts
      at Botany Bay.
      Publication of St. Pierre's "Paul and Virginia."
      Birth of Sir Robert Peel (d. 1850).
      Birth of Schopenhauer (d. 1860).
      Birth of Lord Byron (d. 1824).
      Birth of Sir William Hamilton (d. 1856).

1789.
      Meeting of the States-General of France;
      seizure of power by the Third Estate;
      insurrection of Paris;
      taking of the Bastille;
      formation of the National Guard;
      emigration of the nobles;
      rising of the women;
      escorting of the king to Paris;
      appropriation of Church property.
      War of the English in India with Tippoo Saib.
      Organization of the Government of the United States of
      America under its new Constitution,
      with George Washington chosen President.
      Erection, at Baltimore, of the first Roman Catholic
      episcopal see in the United States.
      Founding of the Tammany Society in New York.
      Publication of White's "Natural History of Selborne."
      Birth of James Fenimore Cooper (d. 1851).

1790.
      Issue of French Assignats.
      Feast of the Federation;
      rise of the revolutionary clubs.
      Death, in Austria, of the Emperor Joseph II., and
      accession of Leopold II.

1791.
      Flight and arrest of the French king at Varennes;
      completion of the French Constitution and its acceptance
      by the king;
      tumult in the Champs de Mars;
      dissolution of the Constituent National Assembly;
      meeting of the Legislative Assembly;
      appearance of the Girondins;
      repeal in France of all enactments against the Jews.
      Reformed Constitution for Poland suppressed by Russia.
      Organization in Ireland of the Society of United Irishmen.
      Passage of the Canadian Constitutional Act, dividing the
      province into Upper and Lower Canada.
      Incorporation of the first Bank of the United States;
      report of Hamilton on manufactures;
      adoption of the first ten Amendments to the Constitution
      of the United States of America.
      Insurrection of slaves in Hayti.
      Separation of Kentucky from Virginia and admission to the
      American Union as a State.
      Publication of Boswell's "Life of Dr. Johnson,"
      of Paine's "Rights of Man,"
      of Burke's "Thoughts on French Affairs,"
      and of Schiller's "Thirty Years War."
      Birth of Faraday (d. 1867).
      Birth of S. F. B. Morse (d. 1872).

{3847}

1792.
      Declaration of war by France with Austria and Prussia;
      dismissal of Girondin ministers;
      mob attack on the Tuilleries and massacre of the Swiss;
      deposition and imprisonment of the king;
      seizure of power by the insurgent Commune of Paris;
      strife of Jacobins and Girondins;
      withdrawal of Lafayette from the country;
      the September Massacres;
      meeting of the National Convention;
      proclamation of the Republic;
      battle of Valmy;
      annexation of Savoy and Nice;
      trial of the king.
      Death, in Austria, of the Emperor Leopold II.
      Accession of Francis II.
      Beginning of Pinel's reform in the treatment of the insane.
      Re-election of George Washington,
      President of the United States.
      Birth of Shelley (d. 1822).
      Birth of Cousin (d. 1867).

1793.
      Execution of Louis XVI.;
      declaration of war with England;
      invasion of Holland;
      formation of the Revolutionary Tribunal and the Committee
      of Public Safety;
      fall of the Girondins;
      formation of the European Coalition;
      revolt in La Vendée, and in Lyons, Toulon,
      and other cities;
      assassination of Marat;
      beginning of the Reign of Terror;
      execution of the queen, and the Girondins;
      institution of the "worship of Reason";
      the "Noyades" at Nantes.
      Partial concession of rights to Catholics in Ire]and.
      Second Partition of Poland.
      Passage of the first Fugitive Slave Law by the
      United States Congress.
      Invention of the cotton-gin by Eli Whitney.
      Emancipation of slaves proclaimed by the French in Hayti,
      and alliance formed with the blacks, under Toussaint
      L'Ouverture, against Spaniards and English.
      Publication of Wordsworth's "An Evening Walk" and
      "Descriptive Sketches."

1794.
      Destruction of the Hébertists in France;
      fall and death of Danton;
      Feast of the Supreme Being;
      conquest of the Austrian Netherlands;
      climax of the Terror;
      downfall and end of Robespierre and of the Jacobin Club;
      reaction;
      the White Terror;
      subjugation of Holland;
      Chouannerie in Brittany.
      Whisky Insurrection in Pennsylvania.
      Negotiation of the Jay Treaty between Great Britain
      and the United States.
      Decisive victory of General Wayne over the
      Indians on the Maumee.
      Publication of Fichte's "Wissenschaftslehre"
      and of Goethe's "Reinecke Fuchs."
      Birth of William Cullen Bryant (d. 1878).
      Birth of Meyerbeer (d. 1864).

1795.
      Suppression of insurrection by the Paris bourgeois;
      adoption of the Constitution of the Year III.;
      peace with Spain;
      acquisition of Spanish San Domingo;
      Austrian victory at Loana;
      insurrection of the 13th Vendemiare put down by
      Napoleon Bonaparte;
      dissolution of the National Convention;
      government of the Directory.
      Formation of the Orange Society, in Ireland.
      Third Partition of Poland.
      Sale of the Western Reserve of Connecticut (in Ohio).
      Publication of the first part of Goethe's
      "Wilhelm Meister's Lehrjahre" and of Richter's "Hesperus."
      Birth of Keats (d. 1821).
      Birth of Carlyle (d. 1881).
      Birth of Dr. Arnold (d. 1842).

1796.
      Bonaparte sent to command in Italy;
      submission of Sardinia;
      expulsion of the Austrians from Lombardy;
      formation of the Cispadane Republic.
      Unsuccessful French expedition under Hoche to Ireland.
      Death of Catherine II. of Russia and accession of Paul.
      Publication of Washington's Farewell Address;
      election of John Adams to the Presidency
      of the United States.
      Publication of Southey's "Joan of Arc" and
      of Coleridge's first volume of "Poems."

1797.
      Bonaparte's Treaty of Tolentino with the Pope;
      his invasion of Austria;
      peace preliminaries of Leoben;
      overthrow and enslavement of Venice, delivered to Austria;
      creation of the Ligurian and Cisalpine Republics.
      Peace of Campo Formio;
      revolutionary Coup d'Etat at Paris.
      Difficulties between the American and the French republics.
      Suspension of specie payments in England.
      Mutiny of the British fleet.
      British naval victories, of Cape Vincent, over the fleet of
      Spain, and of Camperdown over that of Holland.
      Birth of Schubert (d. 1828).
      Birth of Joseph Henry [Uncertain date] (d. 1878).

1798.
      French intrigues at Rome;
      imprisonment of the Pope and formation of the Roman Republic.
      Subjugation of Switzerland by the French, and formation of
      the Helvetian Republic.
      Expedition of Bonaparte to Egypt;
      his seizure of Malta and expulsion of the Knights of St. John.
      Destruction of the French fleet by Lord Nelson in the
      battle of the Nile;
      siege and conquest of Malta by Nelson.
      Declaration of war against France by Turkey.
      Expulsion of the king from Naples and creation of the
      Parthenopeian Republic.
      Suppressed rebellion in Ireland and imprisonment and
      suicide of Wolfe Tone.
      Publication in England of Jenner's work on Vaccination.
      Passage of the Alien and Sedition Laws in the United States,
      and adoption of the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions.
      Publication of the "Lyrical Ballads" of Wordsworth and
      Coleridge, of Landor's "Gebir,"
      of Schiller's "Wallenstein's Lager,"
      and of Malthus' "Principles of Population."
      Discovery that Heat is a mode of Motion, by Count Rumford.
      Birth of Thomas Hood (d. 1845).
      Birth of Comte (d. 1857).

1799.
      Bonaparte's advance into Syria and repulse from Acre;
      his victory at Aboukir.
      The armies of Austria and Russia in Italy and Switzerland.
      Expedition from England against Holland;
      capture of the Dutch fleet.
      Fall of the new republics in Italy.
      Return of Bonaparte from Egypt;
      overthrow of the Directory;
      creation of the Consulate;
      Bonaparte First Consul.
      Gradual emancipation enacted in New York.
      Invention of Volta's Pile.
      Birth of Balzac (d. 1850).
      Birth of Pushkin (d. 1837).

1800.
      Legislative Union of Great Britain and Ireland.
      Creation of the United Kingdom.
      Bonaparte's Marengo campaign in Italy.
      Moreau's victory at Hohenlinden.
      Assassination of Kleber in Egypt.
      Retrocession of Louisiana to France by Spain.
      Convention of the United States with France from which
      arose the French Spoliation Claims.
      Election of Thomas Jefferson President of the United States.
      Beginning of Robert Owen's social experiments at New Lanark.
      Decomposition of water with the Voltaic pile,
      by Nicholson and Carlisle.
      Publication of Richter's "Titan,"
      Birth of Moltke (d. 1891).
      Birth of Macaulay (d. 1859).
      Birth of Heine (d. 1856).

{3848}

Nineteenth Century.

1801.
      Defection of the Russian czar, Paul, from the European
      coalition, and his alliance with Napoleon.
      Treaty of Luneville between Napoleon and the Emperor
      Francis, and of Foligno between France and Naples.
      Formation of the northern league of neutrals.
      English bombardment of Copenhagen.
      Murder of the czar, Paul, and accession, in Russia,
      of Alexander I.
      Surrender of the French army in Egypt to the English.
      Concordat between Napoleon and the Pope.
      Imposition by Napoleon of new constitutions on the Dutch
      and Cisalpine republics.
      Cession of Louisiana to France by Spain.
      Resignation of Pitt from the British premiership;
      formation of the Addington Ministry.
      Passage of the first English Factory Act.
      Appointment of John Marshall to be Chief Justice of the
      Supreme Court of the United States.
      Inauguration of Jefferson as President of the United States.
      Opening of war by the United States with the pirates of Tripoli.
      Independence of Hayti proclaimed by Toussaint L' Ouverture.
      Birth of Farragut (d. 1870).

1802.
      Peace of Amiens between England and France.
      Voting of the First Consulate for life to Napoleon
      by the French people;
      his election to the presidency of the Cisalpine republic.
      Subjection of Switzerland, and annexation of Piedmont,
      Parma and Elba to France.
      Complaints of Napoleon against the English press;
      the Peltier trial.
      Founding of the United States Military Academy at West Point.
      Subjection of Hayti by the French and treacherous capture
      of Toussaint L'Ouverture.
      Founding of the Edinburgh Review.
      Birth of Victor Hugo (d. 1885).
      Birth of Kossuth (d. 1894).
      Birth of Harriet Martineau (d. 1876).
      Birth of Father Lacordaire (d. 1861).

1803.
      Renewal of war between Great Britain and France;
      detention of English in France.
      Secularization of the spiritual principalities in Germany
      and absorption of free cities.
      Purchase of Louisiana by the United States from France.
      Report to the Congress of the United States on the British
      impressment of seamen from American ships.
      Introduction of sheep-farming in Australia.
      Defeat of the Mahrattas at Assaye and Argaum by Wellesley
      (afterward Wellington).
      The Emmet insurrection in Ireland.
      Birth of Emerson (d. 1882).
      Birth of Francis Deak (d. 1876).
      Birth of Ericsson (d. 1889).

1804.
      Napoleon's abduction and execution of the Due d'Enghien.
      His elevation to the throne as emperor;
      his coronation by the Pope.
      Completion of the civil Code for France.
      Return of Pitt to the head of government in England.
      Federalist secession movement in the United States;
      re-election of President Jefferson;
      undertaking of the exploring journey of Lewis and Clark
      across the American continent.
      Death of Hamilton in duel with Burr.
      Birth of Hawthorne (d. 1864).
      Birth of Richard Cobden (d. 1865).
      Birth of Benjamin Disraeli, Earl of Beaconsfield (d. 1881).
      Birth of George Sand (d. 1876).
      Birth of Sainte-Beuve (d. 1869).

1805.
      Bestowal of the crown of Italy on Napoleon;
      formation of the third European Coalition against him;
      his abortive plans for the invasion of England;
      his extraordinary march to the Danube;
      his capture of the army of Mack;
      his occupation of Vienna;
      his victory at Austerlitz.
      Nelson's victory and death at Trafalgar.
      Treaty of Presburg between France and Austria.
      Creation of the kingdoms of Bavaria and Würtemberg and
      the grand duchy of Baden.
      Impeachment trial of Judge Chase in the United States.
      Treaty of the United States with Tripoli,
      ending the payment of tribute.
      Publication of Scott's "Lay of the Last Minstrel."
      Birth of Hans Christian Andersen (d. 1875).

1806.
      Death of Pitt;
      formation of the British Ministry of All the Talents;
      death of Fox.
      British Order in Council declaring a blockade of the
      continental coast from Brest to the Elbe;
      Napoleon's Berlin Decree declaring the British islands
      under blockade and interdicting all intercourse with them.
      Formation of the Confederation of the Rhine.
      Dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire;
      resignation of its sovereignty by Francis II., and his
      assumption thenceforth of the title of "Emperor of Austria."
      Humiliation and oppression of Prussia by the French emperor;
      the nation driven to war and subjugated at Jena.
      Advance of the French into Poland;
      war with Russia.
      Dethronement of the Bourbon dynasty in Naples and bestowal
      of the crown on Joseph Bonaparte.
      Creation of the kingdom of Holland, with Louis Bonaparte
      on the throne.
      Acquisition of the Cape of Good Hope by England from the Dutch.
      Filibustering scheme of Aaron Burr in the United States.
      Publication of Coleridge's "Christabel."
      Birth of John Stuart Mill (d. 1873).

1807.
      British Order in Council, retaliating the Berlin Decree,
      followed by the Milan Decree of Napoleon.
      Battles of Eylau and Friedland between the French and
      the Russians.
      Meeting of Napoleon and Alexander I. of Russia on
      the raft at Tilsit;
      their public treaty and their secret agreements.
      British bombardment of Copenhagen and seizure of
      the Danish fleet.
      Creation of the kingdom of Westphalia for Jerome Bonaparte.
      Baron von Stein placed at the head of affairs in Prussia.
      Delusive arrangement of Napoleon with the king of Spain
      for the partition of Portugal;
      occupation of Lisbon by the French;
      flight of the royal family of Portugal to Brazil.
      Passage of an Act of the British Parliament for the
      suppression of the Slave-trade;
      fall of the Ministry of All the Talents;
      formation of the Portland Ministry.
      Arrest and trial of Burr in the United States.
      British outrage on the United States frigate Chesapeake;
      passage of Embargo Act by the American Congress.
      Abolition of the Slave-trade in the United States.
      Deposition of the reforming sultan, Selim III.,
      by the Turkish Janissaries;
      elevation of his nephew Mustapha to the throne.
      First publication of Dalton's Atomic theory of Chemistry.
      First trips of Fulton's steamboat "Clermont."
      Birth of Longfellow (d. 1882).
      Birth of Garibaldi (d. 1882).

1808.
      Erfurt conference and treaty of Napoleon and the Czar.
      Formation of the Tugendbund in Germany;
      Fichte's addresses on the state of that country.
      Napoleon's crime against Spain;
      knavish acquisition of the throne for his brother Joseph;
      the Spanish national revolt;
      English troops in the peninsula;
      Napoleon's crushing campaign.
      Opening of the French siege of Saragossa.
      Transfer of the crown of Naples from
      Joseph Bonaparte to Murat;
      appearance of the Carbonari.
      Conquest of Finland by Russia from Sweden.
      Murder of the deposed Turkish sultan, Selim III., and
      repeated revolutions at Constantinople.
      Election of James Madison President of the United States.
      Founding of the Quarterly Review.
      Birth of Mazzini (d. 1872).
      Birth of General Robert E. Lee (d. 1870).

{3849}

1809.
      Renewal of war between Austria and France;
      revolt in the Tyrol;
      Napoleon again in Vienna;
      his defeat at Aspern and victory at Wagram;
      arrangement of peace by the Treaty of Schonbrunn, taking
      an enormous territory from the Austrian empire.
      Sir John Moore's advance in Spain;
      his retreat and death;
      fall of Saragossa.
      Wellington (then Sir Arthur Wellesley) in command
      of the British forces in the Peninsula;
      his passage of the Douro and battle of Talavera;
      his retreat into Portugal and construction of the Lines
      of Torres Vedras.
      The British Walcheren expedition.
      Inauguration of President Madison, in the United States;
      substitution of Non-intercourse for the Embargo.
      Publication of Byron's "English Bards and Scotch Reviewers."
      Birth of Abraham Lincoln (d. 1865).
      Birth of Gladstone.
      Birth of Charles Darwin (d. 1882).
      Birth of Tennyson (d. 1892).
      Birth of Elizabeth Barrett (Mrs. Browning) (d. 1861).
      Birth of Dr. Oliver Wendell Holmes, (d. 1894).
      Birth of Mendelssohn (d. 1847).

1810.
      Abdication of the throne of Holland by Louis Bonaparte.
      Annexation of Holland, the Hansa towns and the Swiss Valais
      to France
      Suppression of the Tyrolese revolt and
      execution of Andrew Hofer.
      Napoleon's divorce from Josephine and marriage to the
      arch-duchess Maria Louisa of Austria.
      Massena's defeat at Busaco;
      his recoil from the Lines of Torres Vedras.
      Unceasing guerilla war in Spain.
      Final insanity of George III. of England.
      Revolution in Buenos Ayres and Chile, establishing
      complete separation from Spain.
      Election of Bernadotte to be Crown Prince of Sweden
      and successor to the throne.
      Founding of the University of Berlin.
      Birth of Cavour (d. 1861).
      Birth of Freiligrath (d. 1876).
      Birth of William Henry Channing (d. 1883).

1811.
      Defeat of Massena at Fuentes de Onoro.
      Regency of the Prince of Wales instituted in Great Britain.
      War in the United States against the Indian chief
      Tecumseh and his league.
      Declaration of the independence of Venezuela.
      Treacherous destruction of the Mamelukes in Egypt
      by Mehemet Ali.
      Birth of Thackeray (d. 1863).
      Birth of John Bright (d. 1889).
      Birth of Lord Lawrence (d. 1879).
      Birth of Edgar A. Poe (d. 1849).

1812.
      Rupture of Napoleon with the czar;
      his invasion of Russia;
      battles of Smolensk and Borodino;
      advance to Moscow and occupation of the city;
      burning of Moscow and disastrous retreat of the French.
      Wellington's victory at Salamanca and entry into Madrid;
      his retreat into Portugal.
      Establishment of a Constitution in Spain.
      Assassination of Mr. Perceval, prime minister of England;
      formation of the Ministry of Lord Liverpool.
      Declaration of war by the United States
      against Great Britain;
      opposition of Federalists;
      surrender of Hull at Detroit;
      battle of Queenstown Heights;
      naval victories by the U. S. frigates Constitution and
      United States.
      Re-election of President Madison.
      Admission of the state of Louisiana to the American Union.
      Appalling earthquake at Caraccas.
      Publication of the first and second cantos of
      Byron's "Childe Harold."
      Publication of "Kinder und Haus-Märchen" by
      the brothers Grimm.
      Birth of Dickens (d. 1870).
      Birth of Robert Browning (d. 1889).

1813.
      The War of Liberation In Germany;
      Austria and Great Britain in a renewed Coalition;
      battles of Lützen, Bautzen, Kulm, Gross-Beeren, the
      Katzbach, Dennewitz, Leipsic (Battle of the Nations), Hanau;
      retreat of Napoleon beyond the Rhine.
      Fall of the kingdom of Westphalia.
      Wellington's victory at Vittoria;
      expulsion of the French from Spain;
      restoration of Ferdinand VII. to the throne.
      Recovery of independence by Holland.
      Luddite riots in England.
      Naval battle of Lake Erie In the war between England and
      the United States;
      defeat and death of Tecumseh;
      burning of Toronto;
      American expedition against Montreal;
      British surprise of Fort Niagara and burning of Buffalo;
      outbreak of the Creek Indians.
      Publication of Shelley's "Queen Mab."
      Birth of Henry Ward Beecher (d. 1887).
      Birth of Richard Wagner (d. 1883).

1814.
      Desertion of Napoleon by Murat.
      Invasion of France by the Allies;
      Napoleon's unsuccessful campaign of defense;
      surrender of Paris;
      abdication of the fallen emperor;
      treaty of Fontainebleau;
      retirement of Napoleon to Elba;
      return of the Bourbons to the throne of France,
      in the person of Louis XVIII.
      Treaty of Paris.
      Battle of Toulouse, ending the Peninsular War.
      Meeting of the Congress of Vienna.
      Return of Pope Pius VII. to Rome;
      restoration of the Jesuits.
      Union of Belgium and Holland in the
      Kingdom of the Netherlands.
      Union of Norway and Sweden.
      Abrogation in Spain of the Constitution of 1812
      by Ferdinand;
      abolition of the Cortès;
      re-establishment of the Inquisition.
      Restoration of Austrian despotism in Northern Italy.
      Battles of Chippewa and Lundy's Lane, siege of Fort Erie,
      British capture of Washington, and naval fight on Lake
      Champlain, in the war between England and the United States;
      Hartford Convention of Federalists opposed to the war;
      treaty of peace negotiated at Ghent.
      Temporary recovery of Chile by the Spaniards.
      Dictatorship of Dr. Francia established in Paraguay.
      Building of the first locomotive of George Stephenson.
      Publication of Scott's "Waverley."
      Birth of Motley (d. 1877).
      Birth of Edwin M. Stanton (d. 1869).

1815.
      Return of Napoleon from Elba;
      flight of Louis XVIII;
      the Hundred Days of restored Empire;
      the Waterloo campaign and end of the Corsican's career;
      his final abdication, surrender to the English,
      and captivity at St. Helena.
      Second Bourbon restoration and second Treaty of Paris.
      Execution of Marshal Ney.
      Formation of the Holy Alliance.
      Reconstruction of Germany;
      formation of the Germanic Confederation.
      Fall and death of Murat.
      Establishment of the protectorate of Great Britain over
      the Ionian Islands.
      Enactment of the British Corn Law, to maintain high prices
      for bread-stuffs.
      Repulse of the British at New Orleans by General Jackson.
      War of the United States with the Dey of Algiers.
      Birth of Bismarck.

1816.
      Agitation for Parliamentary Reform;
      multiplication of Hampden Clubs.
      Admission of Indiana into the American Union.
      Charter granted to the second Bank of the United States.
      Election of James Monroe President of the United States.
      Bombardment of Algiers by Lord Exmouth.
      First Seminole War.
      Publication of Bryant's "Thanatopsis."

{3850}

1817.
      Rioting in England;
      march of the Blanketeers from Manchester.
      Inauguration of James Monroe,
      President of the United states.
      Admission of Mississippi to the American Union.
      Formation of the Burschenschaft in Germany.
      Birth of Theodor Mommsen.

1818.
      Complete establishment of Chilean independence.
      General Jackson's invasion of Florida.
      Publication of Irving's "Sketch Book."

1819.
      "Peterloo Massacre" at Manchester, England.
      Assassination of Kotzebue by the student, Sand.
      Admission of Alabama to the American Union as a state.
      First voyage across the Atlantic by a vessel
      (the "Savannah ") using steam.
      Discovery of Electro-magnetism, by Oersted.
      Complete attainment of independence in Venezuela and
      New Granada, under the lead of Bolivar.
      Publication of Schopenhauer's
      "Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung."
      Birth of Marian Evans (George Eliot) (d. 1880).
      Birth of Charles Kingsley (d. 1875).
      Birth of James Russell Lowell (d. 1891).

1820.
      Death of George III. of England;
      accession of George IV.;
      trial of Queen Caroline.
      Adoption in the United States of the Missouri Compromise,
      excluding slavery from the territories
      north of latitude 36° 30';
      admission of Maine to the Union.
      Re-election of Monroe to the American presidency.
      Assassination of the duke of Berry in France.
      Revolution in Spain, restoring the constitution of 1812.
      Revolution in Portugal,
      instituting a constitutional government.
      Revolution in Naples and Sicily, extorting a constitution
      from the king.
      Congress of sovereigns of the Holy Alliance at Laybach.
      Publication of Keats' "Lamia," "Isabella,"
      "Eve of St. Agnes," "Hyperion."
      Birth of General Sherman (d. 1891).
      Birth of Professor Tyndall (d. 1893).

1821.
      Revolution in Mexico, establishing independence.
      Liberation of Peru by San Martin and the Chileans.
      Return of King John VI. from Brazil to Portugal.
      Union of Venezuela, New Granada and Ecuador in the
      Republic of Colombia.
      Cession of Florida to the United States by Spain.
      Admission of Missouri to the American Union.
      Revolt in Greece against the rule of the Turks.
      Suppression of the constitutional movement in the Two
      Sicilies by Austrian arms acting for the Holy Alliance.
      Constitutional rising in Piedmont;
      abdication of Victor Emmanuel I. in favor of his
      brother Charles Felix;
      interference of Austria;
      suppression of the revolution.
      Publication of De Quincey's "Confessions of an Opium Eater,"
      and Cooper's "The Spy."
      Birth of Jenny Lind (d. 1887).

1822.
      Meeting of the Congress of Verona.
      Canning made foreign Secretary in the British Government.
      Proclamation of the independence of Brazil;
      Dom Pedro crowned emperor.
      Pronunciamento in Mexico, making Iturbide emperor.
      Turkish massacre of the Greeks of Chios.
      Publication of Lamb's "Essays of Elia," Heine's "Gedichte,"
      and Wilson's "Noctes Ambrosianæ."
      Birth of General Grant (d. 1885).
      Birth of Matthew Arnold (d. 1888).
      Birth of Pasteur.
      Birth of Rosa Bonheur.

1823.
      Enunciation of the "Monroe Doctrine," in the annual message
      of the President of the United States.
      Death of Marco Bozzaris, hero of the Greek insurrection.
      Fall of Iturbide In Mexico;
      establishment of a republic.
      Intervention of France in Spain and overthrow
      of the Constitution.
      Birth of Renan (d. 1892).

1824-.
      Presidential election in the United States,
      resulting in no choice by the popular vote;
      election of John Quincy Adams by the House of Representatives.
      Visit of Lafayette to the United States.
      Death of Louis XVIII., the restored king of France,
      and accession of Charles X.
      Death of Lord Byron in Greece.
      The first Anglo-Burmese war.
      Formation of the Catholic Association in Ireland.
      Decisive battle of Ayacucho,
      securing the independence of Brazil.
      Founding of the Westminster Review.
      Birth of Stonewall Jackson (d. 1863).
      Birth of George W. Curtis (d. 1892).

1825.
      Opening of the Stockton and Darlington Railway in
      England—the first undertaking for the conveyance of
      passengers and goods by steam locomotion.
      Opening of the Erie Canal, from Lake Erie to
      the Hudson River.
      Publication of De Vigny's "Cinq Mars," Cooper's "Last
      of the Mohicans," and Heine's "Reisebilder."
      Birth of Huxley.

1826.
      Abduction of William Morgan and Anti-Masonic
      excitement in New York.
      Meeting of the Congress of Panama.
      Creation of the republic of Bolivia in Upper Peru.
      Insurrection and destruction of the Turkish Janissaries.

1827.
      Canning's brief premiership in England and sudden death.
      Intervention of Russia, England and France
      in favor of the Greeks;
      battle of Navarino and destruction of the Turkish fleet;
      national independence of Greece established.
      Extinction of slavery in the state of New r York.
      Publication of Hallam's "Constitutional History of England,"
      Keble's "Christian Year," and Alfred and Charles Tennyson's
      "Poems by Two Brothers."

1828.
      Formation of the Ministry of the duke of Wellington
      in Great Britain.
      Removal of political disabilities from Dissenters in England.
      Election of General Andrew Jackson President of
      the United States.
      Beginning of the construction of the
      Baltimore and Ohio Railroad.
      Russo-Turkish war;
      siege and capture of Varna by the Russians.
      Birth of Taine (d. 1893).

1829.
      Inauguration of President Jackson;
      introduction of the "Spoils System"
      in American national politics.
      Acknowledgment of Greek independence by the Porte.
      Passage by the British Parliament of the
      Catholic Emancipation Act for Ireland.
      Abolition of slavery in Mexico.
      Ending of the Russo-Turkish war by the Treaty of Hadrianople.

1830.
      Death, in England, of George IV.;
      accession of William IV.;
      opening of the final agitation for Parliamentary Reform;
      resignation of the Wellington Ministry, succeeded by that
      of Earl Grey.
      Debate between Webster and Hayne in the United States Senate.
      French conquest of Algiers.
      Revolution in Paris;
      flight of Charles X.;
      elevation of Louis Philippe, duke of Orleans, to the throne.
      Revolt in Poland.
      Recognition of the autonomy of Servia by the Ottoman Porte.
      Constitution of the Kingdom of Greece, with Prince Otho
      of Bavaria on the throne.
      Belgian revolt and separation from Holland.
      Publication of the "Book of Mormon" at Palmyra, N. Y.
      Publication of the first part of Comte's
      "Cours de Philosophie."

{3851}

1831.
      Introduction in the British Parliament and defeat of the
      first ministerial bill for Parliamentary Reform;
      dissolution of Parliament and appeal to the people.
      Assumption of the name Conservatives by the English Tories.
      Nat Turner's slave-rising in Virginia.
      First publication of William Lloyd Garrison's anti-slavery
      paper, "The Liberator."
      Forced abdication of Dom Pedro I. in Brazil;
      accession of Dom Pedro II.
      Founding of the system of National Schools in Ireland.
      Revolt in the Papal States and in Modena and Parma
      suppressed by Austrian troops;
      exile of Mazzini from Italy.
      Creation of the Kingdom of Belgium, Prince Leopold of
      Saxe Coburg king.
      Rebellion of Mehemet Ali, Pasha of Egypt, against the Porte.
      Discovery of Magneto-electricity, by Faraday.
      Publication of Poe's "The Raven."
      Birth of General Sheridan (d. 1888).

1832.
      Passage by the British Parliament of the bill to
      Reform the Representation.
      Passage of the Nullification Ordinance of South Carolina;
      proclamation of President Jackson against the nullification
      movement;
      re-election of President Jackson.
      The Indian war in America, called the Black Hawk War.
      Resistance of Holland to the separation of Belgium;
      bombardment of Antwerp by the French and English.
      Merciless suppression of the Polish rebellion.
      Civil war in Portugal.
      Birth of Castelar.

1833.
      Compensated emancipation of slaves in the
      British West Indies.
      Passage of the Compromise Tariff Bill in the United States;
      removal of government deposits from the United States
      Bank by President Jackson.
      Beginning of the revolt of Abd-el-Kader against the French
      in Algiers.
      Election of Santa Anna to the Presidency of Mexico.
      Death of Ferdinand VII. of Spain;
      regency of Maria Christina;
      insurgent proclamation of Don Carlos;
      beginning of the civil war between Carlists and Christinos.
      First Prussian treaty which formed the German Zollverein.
      Treaty of Unkiar Skelessi between Russia and Turkey.
      Publication of Carlyle's "Sartus Resartus," and
      Faraday's "Experimental Researches in Electricity."
      Birth of General Gordon (d. 1885).

1834.
      Resignation of Earl Grey from the premiership in the
      English Ministry, succeeded first by Lord Melbourne and
      after a brief interval by Sir Robert Peel.
      Abolition of slavery in the British colonies.
      Organization of the Whig party in the United States.
      End of civil war in Portugal.
      Publication of Dickens' "Sketches by Boz," and
      Balzac's "Père Goriot."

1835.
      Recall of Lord Melbourne to the English Ministry, and
      retirement of Peel.
      Exclusion of anti-slavery literature from the
      United States mails;
      passage of the act against anti-slavery petitions called
      the "Atherton Gag."
      Beginning of the second Seminole War.
      Death of the Emperor Francis of Austria and accession
      of Ferdinand I.
      Publication of Browning's" Paracelsus," Thirlwall's
      "History of Greece," Strauss's" Das Leben Jesu," and
      De Tocqueville's "La Democratie en Amerique."

1836.
      Election of Martin Van Buren President of the United States.
      Admission of Arkansas to the American Union.
      Texan independence of Mexico declared and won at San Jacinto.
      First futile attempt of Louis Napoleon Bonaparte to effect
      a revolution in France.
      Publication of Dickens' "Pickwick."

1837.
      Death of William IV. of England, and
      accession of Queen Victoria.
      Great commercial collapse In the United States;
      Introduction of the sub-treasury system.
      Founding of Melbourne in Australia.
      Outbreak of the rebellion in Canada called
      "the Patriot War."
      Publication of Carlyle's" French Revolution,"
      and Thackeray's "Yellowplush Papers."
      Birth of Grover Cleveland.
      Birth of Swinburne.

1838.
      Beginning of the Chartist agitation in England.
      Interference of England in affairs of Afghanistan.
      The burning of the "Caroline" in Niagara river;
      suppression of the Canadian rebellion.
      Beginning of practically successful steam navigation
      on the ocean.
      Beginning of Cobden's agitation for the repeal of the
      English Corn Laws.

1839.
      Resignation of Lord Melbourne from the Government in England;
      wreck of Peel's Ministry on the "Bedchamber Question";
      return of Melbourne to office.
      Invasion of Afghanistan by British forces and
      dethronement of Dost Mahomed.
      Daguerre's discoveries in photography.

1840.
      Marriage of Queen Victoria of England to
      Prince Albert of Saxe Coburg.
      Adoption of Penny Postage in England.
      Election of General William Henry Harrison
      President of the United States;
      the "Log-cabin and Hard-cider campaign."
      Settlement of the Mormons at Nauvoo.
      Second revolutionary attempt of
      Louis Napoleon Bonaparte in France;
      his imprisonment at Ham.
      Reunion of Upper and Lower Canada.
      Opium War of England with China.
      Quadruple alliance for the settlement
      of the Egyptian question;
      British bombardment of Alexandria;
      hereditary possession of the pashalik of Egypt secured
      to Mehemet Ali.

1841.
      Fall of the Melbourne Ministry in England;
      Peel made Prime Minister.
      Death of President Harrison;
      advancement of Vice President John Tyler to the
      Presidency of the United States;
      his breach with the Whig party.
      Revolt in Afghanistan;
      frightful retreat and destruction of the British.
      Founding of the Brook Farm Association in Massachusetts.
      Birth of the Prince of Wales.

1842.
      Negotiation of the Ashburton Treaty between Great Britain and
      the United States, settling the northeastern boundary question.
      Return of British forces to Cabul, Afghanistan.
      End of the Opium War;
      treaty of peace between England and China.
      The Dorr Rebellion in Rhode Island.

1843.
      Disruption of the Church of Scotland.
      Publication of Ruskin's "Modern Painters."

1844.
      Election of James K. Polk President of the United States.
      Completion, between Washington and Baltimore, of the first
      line of electric telegraph, under the direction of Prof.
      Morse.
      Passage of the English Bank Charter Act.
      Murder of Joe Smith, the founder of Mormonism, by a mob.
      Publication of Dumas' "Trois Mousquetaires."

{3852}

1845.
      Annexation of Texas to the American Union;
      splitting of the Democratic party of the United States into
      Hunkers and Barnburners, or Hard-Shells and Soft-Shells.
      Beginning of the war of the English with the Sikhs.
      Arctic expedition of Sir John Franklin from which he never
      returned.
      Publication of Carlyle's "Cromwell's Letters and Speeches,"
      and Hawthorne's "Mosses from an Old Manse."

1846.
      Repeal of the British Corn Laws.
      The Potato Famine in Ireland.
      War of the United States with Mexico;
      defeat in the United States Senate of the "Wilmot Proviso,"
      to exclude slavery from territory about to be acquired
      from Mexico;
      American conquest of California;
      migration of the Mormons from Nauvoo to Great Salt Lake.
      Settlement of the Oregon boundary dispute.
      Adams' and Le Verrier's discovery of the planet Neptune
      by mathematical calculation.
      Patenting of the Sewing-machine by Elias Howe.
      End of resistance to the French in Algiers;
      surrender and imprisonment of Abd-el-Kader.
      Publication of the first volume of Grote's
      "History of Greece."

1847.
      Successful campaign of General Scott in Mexico.
      Civil war in Switzerland;
      suppression of the Sonderbund.
      Death of Daniel O'Connell.
      Publication of Charlotte Bronte's "Jane Eyre," the first
      part of Thackeray's "Vanity Fair,"
      and Longfellow's "Evangeline."
      Birth of Edison.

1848.
      Revolution in France:
      abdication and flight of the king;
      creation of the National Workshops;
      insurrection of the workmen, suppressed by General Cavaignac;
      organization of the Second Republic,
      Louis Napoleon Bonaparte President.
      Revolutionary movement in Germany:
      rioting in Berlin;
      meeting of National Assembly at Frankfort;
      election of Archduke John of Austria to be
      Administrator of Germany;
      forcible dispersion of the Prussian National Assembly.
      Revolutionary risings in Austria and Hungary:
      bombardment of Prague and Vienna;
      abdication of the Emperor Ferdinand and accession of
      Francis Joseph.
      Revolutionary movements in Italy:
      Neapolitan insurrection crushed by King Ferdinand II.;
      expulsion of Austrians from Milan and Venice;
      undertaking of Charles Albert, king of Sardinia, to support
      and head the revolution, and his defeat by the Austrian
      general Radetzky;
      ineffectual concessions of Pope Pius IX. to the Romans;
      his flight to Gaeta;
      expulsion of the dukes of Modena and Parma and extortion
      of a constitution from the grand-duke of Tuscany.
      Suppression of the "Young Ireland" rebellion.
      Schleswig-Holstein war in Denmark.
      Revision of the constitution of the Swiss Confederation.
      Last demonstration of the Chartists in England.
      Organization of the Free Soil party of the United States
      in convention at Buffalo;
      election, by the Whigs, of General Zachary Taylor President
      of the United States.
      Treaty of Guadaloupe Hidalgo between the United States and
      Mexico;
      purchase and cession of New Mexico and California to the
      United States;
      discovery of gold in California;
      admission of Wisconsin to the American Union.
      Publication of the first two volumes of Macaulay's
      "History of England."
      Birth of Arthur J. Balfour.

1849.
      Framing of a constitution for a new Empire of Germany by
      the National Assembly at Frankfort;
      offer of the imperial crown to the king of Prussia and
      its refusal;
      failure of the work of the Assembly and end of the
      revolutionary movement in Germany.
      Declaration of Hungarian independence and formation of the
      Hungarian Republic, with Louis Kossuth for its President;
      interference of Russia to aid the Austrians in suppressing
      the Magyar revolt;
      surrender of Görgei;
      escape of Kossuth and other leaders into Turkey.
      Renewed attempt of Charles Albert of Sardinia against the
      Austrians in Lombardy and his crushing defeat at Mortara
      and Novara;
      his resignation of the crown in favor of his son,
      Victor Emmanuel II.;
      siege and subjugation of Venice by Haynau.
      End of the Schleswig-Holstein war.
      Annexation of the Punjab to British India.
      Repeal of the English Navigation Laws.
      First explorations of Dr. Livingstone in Africa.
      Determination of the mechanical equivalent of heat, by Joule.
      Publication of the first part of Dickens'
      "David Copperfield," Kingsley's "Alton Locke," and
      Emerson's "Representative Men."
      Sainte-Beuve's "Causerie du Lundi" begun
      in the "Constitutionel."

1850.
      Death of General Taylor, President of the United States,
      and succession of the Vice President, Millard Fillmore;
      slavery agitation on the question of the admission of
      California;
      Clay's Compromise measures;
      Webster's Seventh of March Speech;
      Seward's Higher Law Speech;
      the Omnibus Bill;
      passage of the Fugitive Slave Law.
      Negotiation of the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty between the
      United States and Great Britain.
      Restoration of the Roman episcopate in England.
      Publication of Mrs. Browning's "Sonnets from the Portuguese,"
      and Tennyson's "In Memoriam."

1851.
      The Coup d' Etat of Louis Napoleon, destroying the French
      Republic and making himself dictator.
      Dismissal of Lord Palmerston from the British cabinet.
      Discovery of gold in Australia;
      separation of the colony of Victoria from New South Wales.
      Outbreak of the Taiping Rebellion in China.
      The Lopez filibustering expedition to Cuba.
      Passage of the Massachusetts Free Public Library Act.
      The first World's Fair, in London.
      Visit of Kossuth to America.
      Publication of Spencer's "Social Statics."

1852.
      Defeat and resignation of the Russell Ministry;
      the first Derby-Disraeli Ministry:
      the Aberdeen Ministry.
      Rise of the Know Nothing or American party in the
      United States;
      election by the Democratic party of Franklin Pierce
      President of the United States.
      Publication of "Uncle Tom's Cabin."
      Promulgation of a new Constitution for France by the dictator,
      Louis Napoleon, soon followed by the revival of the Empire.
      Second Anglo-Burmese War;
      annexation of Pegu to British India.

1853.
      Expedition of Commodore Perry to Japan.
      Dispute between Russia and Turkey, leading to the Crimean War.

1854.
      Repeal of the Missouri Compromise, in the United States,
      by the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Bill;
      rise of the Republican Party.
      Negotiation of the Reciprocity Treaty between the United
      States and Canada.
      Treaties of Japan with the United States and Great Britain,
      opening the former country to trade.
      Promulgation by Pope Pius IX. of the dogma of the Immaculate
      Conception of the Virgin Mary.
      Alliance of England, France and Sardinia with Turkey
      against Russia in the Crimean War;
      siege of Sebastopol;
      battles of the Alma, Balaclava, and Inkerman;
      siege of Kars.

{3853}

1855.
      Fall of the Aberdeen Ministry in England;
      rise of Palmerston to the head of government.
      Continued siege of Sebastopol.
      Beginning of the struggle for Kansas between the supporters
      and the opponents of Slavery in the United States.
      Rise to power in Abyssinia of an adventurer afterwards
      known as King Theodore.
      Introduction of Civil Service Reform in Great Britain.
      Walker's first filibustering invasion of Nicaragua.
      Abolition of the Stamp tax on newspapers in England.

1856.
      Assault on Mr. Sumner in the United States Senate by
      Preston Brooks of South Carolina;
      continued struggle in Kansas;
      election of James Buchanan President of the United States.
      Operations of the San Francisco Vigilance Committee.
      Quarrel of England with China over the affair of the "Arrow."
      Congress of Paris and treaty ending the Crimean War.
      Publication of first part of Lotze's "Mikrokosmos."

1857.
      Dred Scott decision by the Supreme Court of the United States.
      Triumphant appeal of Palmerston to English voters on the
      question of war with China;
      alliance with France in the war;
      capture of Canton.
      The Sepoy Mutiny in India:
      siege and capture of Delhi;
      massacre of English at Cawnpore;
      siege and relief of Lucknow.
      Mountain Meadows Massacre and Mormon rebellion in Utah.
      Publication of the first volume of Buckle's
      "History of Civilization."

1858.
      Fall of Palmerston, consequent on his Conspiracy Bill;
      second Derby-Disraeli Ministry in England.
      Debate between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas, as
      candidates for the United States Senate, from Illinois.
      Regency of Prussia assumed by Prince William in consequence
      of the mental incapacity of the king.
      Treaty of peace between England, France and China.
      Discovery of gold in Colorado.
      Laying of the first Atlantic Cable, which quickly failed.
      Assumption of the government of India by the British crown.
      Beginning of the Fenian movement in Ireland.
      Discovery of Lake Victoria Nyanza by Captain Speke.
      Publication of George Eliot's "Scenes of Clerical Life,"
      Tennyson's "Idylls of the King," and Holmes' "Autocrat of
      the Breakfast Table."

1859.
      War of Sardinia and France with Austria;
      battles of Montebello, Magenta and Solferino;
      defeat of Austria;
      treaties of Villafranca and Zurich;
      cession of Lombardy to Sardinia.
      John Brown's invasion of Virginia and
      seizure of Harper's Ferry;
      his capture, trial and execution.
      Admission of Oregon to the American Union.
      Publication of Darwin's "Origin of Species,"
      and George Eliot's "Adam Bede."
      Return of Palmerston to the English premiership.
      Separation of the colony of Queensland from New South Wales.
      Renewed war of England and France with China.
      Nationalization of Church property in Mexico;
      suspension of payments on foreign debts.

1860.
      Election of Abraham Lincoln President of the United States;
      secession of South Carolina;
      disunion message of President Buchanan;
      the Crittenden Compromise and its failure;
      treachery of Floyd, Secretary of War; occupation of
      Fort Sumter by Major Anderson.
      Franco-English capture of Pekin and destruction of
      the summer palace.
      Annexation of the Central Italian states to Sardinia
      by popular vote;
      cession of Savoy and Nice to France.
      Negotiation of the Cobden-Chevalier commercial treaty
      between England and France.

1861.
      Secession of Georgia, Mississippi, Florida, Louisiana,
      Alabama and Texas from the American Union;
      seizure of United States arsenals, arms and forts in
      the seceded States;
      abortive Peace Convention at Washington;
      admission of Kansas to the Union;
      adoption of a Constitution for the "Confederate States
      of America," and organization of a Confederate government;
      inauguration of Abraham Lincoln President of the United States;
      outbreak of civil war by the attack of Confederate forces
      on Fort Sumter;
      rising of the North on President Lincoln's call to arms;
      attack on Massachusetts Volunteers in Baltimore;
      Secession of Virginia and North Carolina;
      blockade of Southern ports;
      proclamation of British neutrality by Queen Victoria;
      declaration of General Butler that slaves are
      Contraband of War;
      fight at Big Bethel;
      Secession of West Tennessee;
      campaign of General McClellan in West Virginia;
      Union advance from Washington and defeat at Bull Run;
      depredations by the Confederate cruiser Sumter;
      struggle with secession in Missouri, battles of Boonville
      and Wilson's Creek;
      appointment of General McClellan to the chief command
      of the Union forces;
      creation of the Army of the Potomac;
      expedition against Fort Hatteras;
      Fremont's emancipation proclamation modified by the President;
      campaign of Rosecrans against Lee in West Virginia;
      General Grant's first battle at Belmont;
      Union disaster at Ball's Bluff;
      Port Royal expedition;
      the Trent affair (arrest of Mason and Slidell on a
      British steamer) and its settlement.
      Death of King Frederick William IV. of Prussia and
      accession of his brother, William I.
      Liberation of Sicily and Naples by Garibaldi;
      Sardinian occupation of Umbria and the Marches;
      proclamation of the Kingdom of Italy;
      death of Cavour.
      Polish insurrection at Warsaw.

1862.
      Stonewall Jackson in the Shenandoah Valley,
      battle of Kernstown;
      capture of Forts Henry and Donelson by General Grant;
      expulsion of the Confederates from Missouri,
      battle of Pea Ridge;
      expedition of Burnside to Roanoke and capture of Newbern;
      siege and capture of Fort Pulaski;
      Union advance up the Tennessee and battle of Shiloh;
      proposal of compensated emancipation by President Lincoln,
      approved by Congress;
      battle of the Monitor and the Merrimac in Hampton Roads;
      capture of New Madrid on the Mississippi and Island No. 10;
      movement of McClellan against Richmond by way of the
      peninsula, battles of Williamsburg, Fair Oaks, or Seven
      Pines, Mechanicsville, Gaines' Mill, Savage Station,
      Glendale and Malvern Hill;
      forcing of the lower Mississippi and capture of New Orleans;
      separation of West Virginia from the Old Dominion;
      abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia;
      passage of the Homestead Act and the Legal Tender Act;
      arming of freed negroes, evacuation of Norfolk by the
      Confederates and destruction of the Merrimac;
      second campaign of Stonewall Jackson in the Shenandoah Valley;
      first undertakings against Vicksburg;
      capture of Memphis;
      Confederate invasion of Kentucky by Bragg, battle of Perryville:
      confiscation of the slave property of rebels;
      beginning of the destructive career of the
      Confederate cruiser Alabama;
      end of the peninsular campaign and withdrawal of the
      Army of the Potomac;
      campaign under General Pope, battles of Cedar Mountain,
      Second Bull Run and Chantilly;
      Lee's invasion of Maryland and check by McClellan at
      South Mountain and Antietam;
      preliminary Proclamation of Emancipation by President Lincoln;
      successes by Grant at Iuka and Corinth;
      battle of Prairie Grove in Arkansas;
      removal of McClellan from command of the Army of
      the Potomac and appointment of Burnside;
      disastrous attack on Fredericksburg;
      second Union attempt against Vicksburg;
      victory of Rosecrans at Stone River.
      Land-grant of the United States for industrial colleges.
      Intervention of Louis Napoleon in Mexico;
      creation of the empire under Maximilian of Austria.
      Bismarck made chief minister of the king of Prussia.
      Revolution in Greece;
      deposition of King Otho;
      election of Prince George of Denmark to the Greek throne;
      annexation of the Ionian Islands.
      Attempt of Garibaldi against Rome checked by the
      Italian government;
      his defeat and capture at Aspromonte.
      Publication of Spencer's "First Principles."

{3854}

1863.
      President Lincoln's final Proclamation of Emancipation;
      passage of the National Bank Act, and the Conscription Act;
      Hooker's disaster at Chancellorsville;
      death of Stonewall Jackson;
      naval attack on Charleston;
      Grierson's raid;
      Grant's siege and capture of Vicksburg;
      Banks' siege and capture of Port Hudson;
      Lee's second invasion of the North;
      battle of Gettysburg;
      Draft riots in the city of New York;
      Morgan's raid into Ohio and Indiana;
      assault on Fort Wagner;
      battles of Bristol Station and Rappahannock Station;
      Burnside's advance into East Tennessee;
      defeat of Rosecrans at Chickamauga;
      siege and reduction of Fort Wagner;
      Grant's victory at Chattanooga;
      siege of Knoxville;
      President Lincoln's Address at Gettysburg, and
      Proclamation of Amnesty.
      Death of Frederick VII. of Denmark and
      accession of Christian IX.;
      reopening of the Schleswig-Holstein question;
      coalition of Prussia and Austria against Denmark.
      Appointment of General Gordon to command in China.
      Confederation of the United States of Colombia.
      Rebellion in Poland.
      Political organization of Socialism in Germany by Lassalle.
      Publication of Huxley's "Man's Place in Nature,"
      and Renan's "Vie de Jesus."

1864.
      Reconstruction in Louisiana and Arkansas, the President's
      plan and the Congressional plan;
      Sherman's Meridian expedition;
      Kilpatrick and Dahlgren's raid to Richmond;
      appointment of General Grant to
      the chief command of the army;
      Banks' Red River expedition;
      Price's invasion of Missouri;
      Forrests' capture of Fort Pillow and massacre
      of colored soldiers;
      Grant's movement on Richmond, battles of the Wilderness,
      Spottsylvania Court House, and Cold Harbor;
      Sherman's movement on Atlanta, battles of New Hope Church,
      Kenesaw and Peach Tree Creek;
      Sheridan's raids to Richmond and Trevelyan Station;
      Grant's siege of Petersburg, battle of Reams' station;
      destruction of the Alabama by the Kearsarge;
      Greeley and Jaques-Gilmore peace missions;
      Early's invasion of Maryland;
      Farragut's great battle in Mobile Bay;
      Sheridan's campaign against Early in the Shenandoah Valley,
      battles of Winchester, Fisher's Hill and Cedar Creek;
      Sherman's clearing of Atlanta;
      Hood's movement into Tennessee and defeat by Thomas at
      Franklin and Nashville;
      re-election of President Lincoln;
      St. Albans raid from Canada;
      Cushing's destruction of the ram Albemarle;
      Sherman's March to the Sea and occupation of Savannah.
      Schleswig-Holstein war: Austro-Prussian
      conquest of the duchies.
      Detention and imprisonment of foreigners in Abyssinia
      by King Theodore.
      End of the Taiping Rebellion in China.
      Publication of the Encyclical "Quanta cura" and the
      Syllabus of Pope Pius IX.
      Organization at London of the International.

1865.
      Adoption by the Congress of the United States of the
      Thirteenth Constitutional Amendment, prohibiting
      slavery forever;
      creation of the Freedman's Bureau;
      Hampton Roads Peace Conference;
      evacuation of Charleston by the Confederates;
      Sherman's northward march from Savannah;
      battle of Bentonsville;
      occupation of Wilmington by Schofield;
      battle of Kinston;
      second inauguration of President Lincoln;
      battle of Five Forks;
      evacuation of Petersburg and Richmond by the Confederates;
      battle of Sailor's Creek;
      surrender of Lee at Appomattox Court House;
      assassination of President Lincoln;
      succession of Andrew Johnson, Vice President,
      to the Presidency;
      surrender of General Johnston;
      fall of Mobile;
      capture of Jefferson Davis;
      end of the Rebellion;
      opening of the conflict between Congress and
      President Johnson on questions of Reconstruction.
      Death of Lord Palmerston in England;
      premiership of Lord John Russell.
      Transfer of the capital of Italy to Florence.
      Ferocious suppression of an insurrection in Jamaica
      by Governor Eyre.
      Beginning of war between Paraguay and Brazil.

1866.
      Quarrel of Austria and Prussia over the administration
      of Schleswig and Holstein;
      alliance of Prussia with Italy;
      outbreak of the Seven Weeks War;
      decisive Prussian victory at Sadowa, or Königgrätz;
      treaty of Prague;
      exclusion of Austria from the Germanic political system;
      formation of the North German Confederation;
      incorporation of the kingdom of Hanover, the electorate of
      Hesse, the duchies of Nassau, Schleswig and Holstein, and
      the free city of Frankfort, by Prussia.
      Success of Austria in the war with Italy, at Custozza on
      the land and at Lissa on the sea;
      success of Italy in the settlement of peace, receiving
      Venetia, on the demand of Prussia.
      Wreck of the Ministry of Lord John Russell on a reform bill;
      third Derby-Disraeli administration.
      Fenian invasion of Canada from the United States.
      Laying of the first successful Atlantic Cable.
      Beginning of the struggle of the Cretans for deliverance
      from the Turkish yoke.
      Reconstruction riot in New Orleans.
      Organization of the Patrons of Husbandry in the United States.
      Passage of the first Civil Rights Bill by the Congress of
      the United States over the President's veto;
      Congressional adoption of the Fourteenth Constitutional
      Amendment.
      Formation of the Ku-Klux Klan in the Southern States.

1867.
      Passage of the Disraeli Reform Bill by the British Parliament.
      Purchase of Alaska by the United States from Russia.
      Federation of Austria and Hungary in the Austro-Hungarian
      Empire.
      Federation of the provinces of British America, forming
      the Dominion of Canada.
      Purchase of the title of Khedive from the Sultan by Ismail
      Pasha of Egypt.
      Fenian risings in Ireland.
      Renewed attempt by Garibaldi to liberate Rome from the
      Papal government;
      his defeat by the French at Mentana.
      Withdrawal of the French from Mexico;
      fall of the empire;
      execution of Maximilian.
      Passage of the Military Reconstruction Acts by the
      Congress of the United States;
      extension of suffrage to blacks in the District of Columbia.

{3855}

1868.
      Withdrawal of Lord Derby from the British Ministry;
      advancement of Disraeli to the premiership;
      passage of reform bills for Scotland and Ireland;
      defeat of the ministry on the Irish Church question;
      resignation of Disraeli;
      first administration of Mr. Gladstone.
      Revolution in Spain and flight of Queen Isabella to France.
      British expedition for the rescue of captives in Abyssinia;
      storming of Magdala;
      suicide of King Theodore.
      Negotiation of the Burlingame Treaty between China and
      the United States.
      Revolution in Japan;
      abolition of the Shogunate;
      restoration of the authority of the Mikado.
      Occupation of Samarcand by the Russians
      Impeachment, and trial of President Johnson in
      the United States;
      election of General Grant to the American Presidency.
      Ratification by the States of the Fourteenth Amendment
      to the Constitution of the United States.

1869.
      Disestablishment of the Irish Church.
      Negotiation of the Johnson-Clarendon Treaty between the
      United States and Great Britain, rejected by the
      United States Senate.
      Expiration of the charter of the Hudson Bay Company and
      incorporation of its territory in the Dominion of Canada.
      Creation of the United States Bureau of Education.
      Opening of the Suez Canal.
      "Black Friday" in New York.
      Organization of the Knights of Labor.
      Congressional adoption of the Fifteenth Amendment to the
      Constitution of the United States.
      Adoption of a monarchical constitution in Spain;
      regency of Marshal Serrano.
      Adoption of Woman Suffrage at municipal elections in
      England, and at all elections in Wyoming Territory.
      Publication of Hartmann's "Philosophie des Unbewusstens."

1870.
      Sudden occurrence of the Franco-German War:
      invasion of France by the Germans;
      victories at Wörth, Spichern, Gravelotte, and Sedan;
      captivity of the French emperor;
      revolution at Paris;
      fall of the Empire;
      investment and siege of Paris by the Germans;
      surrender of Bazaine at Metz;
      unsuccessful resistance in the provinces.
      Completion of the new Germanic Confederation, embracing the
      states of South Germany, with the North German Confederation,
      and having the king of Prussia for its president.
      Passage of Mr. Gladstone's first Irish Land Bill by
      the British Parliament.
      Passage of the Education Bill in England.
      Occupation of Rome by the troops of the king of Italy;
      plebiscite for annexation to the Italian kingdom;
      end of the temporal sovereignty of the Pope.
      Election of Amadeo, of Italy, to the Spanish throne.
      Completed reconstruction of the American Union;
      ratification of the Fifteenth Constitutional Amendment.

1871.
      Capitulation of Paris;
      peace preliminaries of Versailles and treaty of Frankfort;
      French cession of Alsace and part of Lorraine, with five
      milliards of francs indemnity;
      election and meeting of a National Assembly at Bordeaux;
      organization of the Third Republic with Thiers
      as its President;
      evacuation of Paris by the Germans, followed by the
      insurrection of the Communists and their seizure of the city;
      siege and reduction of Paris by the national government.
      Assumption by King William of Prussia of the title
      "German Emperor";
      proclamation of the constitution of the new Empire.
      Negotiation and ratification of the Treaty of Washington,
      between the United States and Great Britain;
      meeting of the Tribunal of Arbitration at Geneva, for the
      settlement of the Alabama claims.
      Gradual emancipation of slaves enacted in Brazil.
      First attempts at Civil Service Reform in the United States,
      made by President Grant.
      Exposure of the Tweed Ring in New York.
      The Great Fire in Chicago.
      Transfer of the capital of Italy from Florence to Rome.
      Abolition of feudalism in Japan.
      Passage of the Force Bill by the Congress of the United States.
      The finding of Dr. Livingstone in Africa by Henry M. Stanley.
      Publication of Darwin's "Descent of Man," and
      Swinburne's "Songs before Sunrise."

1872.
      Award of the Geneva Tribunal of Arbitration in settlement
      of the Alabama Claims.
      Re-election of General Grant, President of the United States.
      The Credit Mobilier Scandal in the United States Congress.

1873.
      Resignation of President Thiers in France and
      election of Marshall MacMahon.
      Passage of the May Laws in the Prussian Diet, opening the
      contest with the Catholic Church known as the Kulturkampf.
      Appearance of the Home Rule movement in Irish politics.
      Abdication of the throne of Spain by Amadeo;
      unsuccessful attempt at republican government.
      Financial panic in the United States.

1874.
      Fall of the Gladstone Government in England;
      return of Disraeli to power.
      General Gordon's first appointment in the Sudan.
      Restoration of monarchy in Spain, under Alphonso XII.,
      son of Queen Isabella.
      Publication of the first volume of Stubb's
      "Constitutional History."

1875.
      Adoption of a constitution in France.
      Revolt against Turkish rule in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
      Passage of the second Civil Rights Bill by the
      Congress of the United States.

1876.
      Founding of the International African Association by
      King Leopold of Belgium.
      Insurrection in Bulgaria, suppressed with atrocious
      cruelty by the Turks.
      Holding of the United States Centennial Exhibition
      at Philadelphia.
      First exhibition of the Telephone, by Professor Graham Bell.
      Disputed Presidential Election in the United States.

1877.
      War of Servia with the Turks;
      defeat of the Servians.
      Russo-Turkish War;
      sieges of Plevna and Kars.
      Assumption by Queen Victoria of the
      title "Empress of India."
      First election of Porfirio Diaz to the Presidency of
      the Mexican republic.
      Creation of the Electoral Commission in the United States;
      award of the Presidential election to Rutherford B. Hayes.
      Return of Stanley from his expedition across Africa,
      exploring the Congo.

1878.
      Second war of the English in Afghanistan.
      End of the Russo-Turkish war;
      Treaty of San Stefano, superseded by the Congress and
      Treaty of Berlin;
      independence secured to Servia and Roumania;
      transfer of Bosnia to Austria;
      division of Bulgaria into two states.
      Election of Pope Leo XIII.
      Passage of the Bland Silver Bill in the United States.

1879.
      Resignation of the Presidency of the French Republic
      by Marshal MacMahon and election of M. Jules Grevy.
      Massacre of English in Cabul;
      occupation of the Afghan capital by British forces;
      deposition of the Ameer.
      Beginning of war between Chile and Peru.
      Organization of the Land League in Ireland.
      Zulu War in South Africa.
      Formation of the International Congo Association.

{3856}

1880.
      Resignation of Disraeli from the British Ministry and
      return of Gladstone to power;
      passage of Gladstone's Second Irish Land Act.
      Renewed war against the English in Afghanistan.
      Election of James A. Garfield
      President of the United States.

1881.
      Occupation of Tunis by the French.
      Evacuation of Afghanistan by the British forces.
      Submission of Peru to Chile.
      Advent of the Mahdi in the Sudan.
      Arabi's revolt in Egypt.
      Suppression of the Irish Land League and arrest of
      Mr. Parnell and others.
      Institution of local assemblies in Japan.
      Assassination of the Czar Alexander II.
      Capture of Geok Tepe by Skobeleff, the Russian general.
      War of Great Britain with the Boers.
      Assassination of President Garfield;.
      succession of Vice President Arthur to the
      Presidency of the United States.

1882.
      Death M. Gambetta, in France.
      Elevation of Servia to the rank of a kingdom.
      British bombardment of Alexandria.
      Phœnix Park murders, of Lord Frederick Cavendish and
      Mr. Burke, at Dublin.
      Beginning of work on De Lesseps' Panama Canal.

1883.
      Death of the Comte de Chambord (called Henry V. by his
      supporters), claimant of the crown of France and last of
      the elder line of the Bourbons.
      Passage in England of the Act for Prevention of
      Corrupt and Illegal Practices at Elections.
      Destruction of Hicks Pasha and his army by the
      Mahdists of the Sudan.
      Passage of the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Bill in
      the United States.
      Suppression of Arabi's rebellion;
      British occupation of Egypt.

1884.
      War of the French in Tonquin and with China.
      Passage in England of the Third Reform Bill.
      Meeting of the Berlin Conference to settle questions of
      acquisition in Africa.
      Beleaguerment of General Gordon at Khartoum by the Mahdists;
      British rescue expedition.
      Occupation of Merv by the Russians and completed conquest
      of the Turcomans.
      Election of Grover Cleveland President of the United States.

1885.
      Overthrow of the Gladstone Government in Great Britain and
      brief reign of Lord Salisbury.
      Revolutionary reunion of the two Bulgarias.
      Fall of Khartoum and death of Gordon.
      Transformation of the Congo Association into the
      Independent State of Congo.

1886.
      Banishment of the Bourbon princes from France.
      Recall of Gladstone to the head of
      the Government in England;
      his Home Rule Bill for Ireland and its defeat;
      resignation of Gladstone and return of Salisbury;
      division of the Liberal Party.
      Anarchist crime in Chicago.
      Undertaking of the "Plan of Campaign" in Ireland.

1887. Forced resignation of President Grevy, in France,
      and election of M. Sadi Carnot.
      Revision of the constitution of the
      kingdom of the Netherlands.
      Tariff Message of President Cleveland.
      African expedition of Stanley to rescue Emin Pasha.

1888.
      Threatening intrigues of General Boulanger in France;
      his prosecution and flight.
      Bankruptcy of the Panama Canal Company.
      Death of the German Emperor William I.;
      accession and death of Frederick III.,
      and accession of William II.
      Incorporation in the German Zollverein of Hamburg and
      Bremen, the last of the Free Cities.
      Final abolition of slavery in Brazil.
      Inquiry into Irish matters by the Parnell Commission.
      Defeat of the Mills Tariff Bill in the United States Senate.
      Election of General Benjamin Harrison
      President of the United States.

1889.
      Abdication of King Milan of Servia in favor of his young son.
      Revolution in Brazil;
      expulsion of the Emperor and royal family from the country.
      Promulgation of the Constitution of Japan.
      Opening of Oklahoma to settlement.
      Destruction of Johnstown, Pennsylvania, by flood.
      Admission of North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and
      Washington, to the American Union.
      Chartering of the British South Africa Company.
      Publication of Bryce's "American Commonwealth."

1890.
      Dismissal of Bismarck from office by the
      German Emperor William II.
      Commercial collapse and political revolution in the
      Argentine Republic.
      Organization of the Republic of the United States of Brazil.
      Expulsion of Jews from Russia.
      Passage of the McKinley Tariff Act in the United States.
      Admission of Idaho and Wyoming to the American Union.
      Passage of the Sherman Silver Act.
      Anglo-German Convention defining boundaries in Africa.

1891.
      Dictatorship proclaimed by President Fonseca of Brazil,
      producing revolt;
      resignation of the President;
      installation of Floriano Peixoto.
      Civil war in Chile;
      defeat and suicide of President Balmaceda.
      Establishment of free schools in England.
      Death of Mr. Parnell.

1892.
      The Panama Canal Scandal in France.
      Election in Great Britain of a Parliament favorable to
      Home Rule for Ireland;
      resignation of the Salisbury Ministry;
      reascendency of Gladstone;
      passage of the Irish Home Rule Bill by the House of Commons
      and its defeat by the Lords.
      Evacuation of Uganda by the British East Africa Company.
      Passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act by the Congress
      of the United States.
      Election of Grover Cleveland President of the United States.
      Revolution in Venezuela.
      Difficulty between the United States and Chile.

1893.
      The World's Columbian Exposition at Chicago.
      Revolution in the Hawaian Islands.
      Suspension of free coinage of silver in India.
      Repeal of the Sherman Silver Act by the
      Congress of the United States.
      Revision of the Belgian Constitution.
      War of the British South Africa Company with the Matabele.
      Popular vote in Colorado for the extension of equal
      suffrage to women.

1894.
      Assassination of President Carnot, in France;
      election of M. Casimir-Périer.
      War between Japan and China.
      The strike at Pullman, Illinois, and the "sympathy strike"
      of the American Railway Union.
      The "Coxey movement" in the United States.
      Passage of the Wilson Tariff Act.
      Turkish atrocities in Armenia.
      Passage of enabling act for the admission of Utah
      to the American Union.
      Triumph of the Peixoto government over the insurgents in Brazil.
      Opening of the Liverpool and Manchester Ship Canal.
      Death of Alexander III., Czar of Russia;
      accession of Nicholas II.

1895.
      Resignation of M. Casimir-Périer,
      President of the French Republic;
      election of M. François Felix Faure to succeed him.
      Armistice pending negotiations between China and Japan.

{3857}

A SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
WITH OCCASIONAL NOTES.

ANCIENT HISTORY: ORIENTAL.

BLISS, FREDERICK J.
   A mound of many cities, or Tell el Hesy excavated.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co. 1894.

BRUGSCH, HENRY.
   History of Egypt under the Pharaohs,
   derived entirely from the monuments.
   London: J. Murray. 1879. 2 volumes.

   History of Egypt under the Pharaohs,
   derived entirely from the monuments.
   A new edition, condensed and revised by Mr. Brodrick.
   London: J. Murray. 1891.

      Corrected in some particulars by later discoveries, the
      work of Dr. Brugach is still the most comprehensive
      summary of Egyptian history derived from the study of
      the monuments.

BUDGE, E. A. WALLIS.
   Babylonian life and history.
   London: R. T. S. 1884.

      Number IV. In the series entitled
      "By-paths of Bible Knowledge."

   The Mummy: chapters on Egyptian funeral archaeology.
   Cambridge: University Press. 1893.

CHEYNE, T. K.
   Jeremiah: his life and times.
   London: J. Nisbet & Co. [1888.]

CHURCH, ALFRED J.
   The story of the last days of Jerusalem.
   London: Seeley & Co. 1881.

      The narrative of Josephus translated in the
      happy style for which Mr. Church Is famous.

CONDER, CLAUDE R.
   Heth and Moab, explorations in Syria In 1881-82.
   London: R. Bentley & Son. 1883.

   Syrian stone-lore; or the monumental history of Palestine.
   London: Bentley & Son. 1886.

      Published for the Committee of the
      Palestine Exploration Fund.

DARMESTETER, JAMES.
   Les Prophètes d'Israel.
   Paris: C. Lévy. 1892.

DUNCKER, MAX.
   History of Antiquity;
   translated by Evelyn Abbott.
   London. 1877-82. 6 volumes.

EDWARDS, AMELIA B.
   Pharaohs, fellahs and explorers.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1891.

   A thousand miles up the Nile.
   London: Longmans. 1877.

EGYPT EXPLORATION FUND.
   Memoirs.
   London: Trübner & Co. 1885.

      The Store-city of Pithom and the route of the Exodus;
      by E. Naville.

      Tanis;
      by W. M. Flinders Petrie, parts 1 and 2.

      Naukratis;
      by W. M. F. Petrie, parts 1 and 2.

      The Shrine of Saft el Henneh and the Land of Goshen;
      by E. Naville;

      The Mound of the Jew and the City of Onias;
      by E. Naville;

      Bubastis;
      by E. Naville.

      The festival Hall of Osorkon II.
      in the great temple of Bubastis;
      by E. Naville.

      Ahnas el Medineh (Heracleopolis Magna);
      by E. Naville.

ERMAN, ADOLF,
   Life in ancient Egypt.
   London and New York: Macmillan &Co.

EVETTS, BASIL T. A.
   New light on the Bible and the Holy Land, being an
   account of some recent discoveries in the East.
   New York: Cassell Co. [1894.]

EWALD, HEINRICH.
   History of Israel.
   London: Longmans. 1869-86. 8 volumes.

GEIGER, W.
   Civilization of the Eastern Iranians in ancient times;
   with an introduction on the Avesta religion.
   London: H. Frowde. 1885. 2 volumes.

GRAETZ, H.
   History of the Jews, from the earliest times
   to the present day.
   London: D. Nutt. 1891. 5 volumes.

      Sketches the ancient history of the Jews very slightly
      but is full from the Roman Period down to 1870.

GRANT Sir ALEXANDER. Xenophon.
   (Ancient Classics for English Readers.)
   Edinburgh: W. Blackwood & Sons.
   Philadelphia: Lippincott & Co. 1811.

HARPER, HENRY A.
   The Bible and modern discoveries,
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1890.

HERODOTUS.
   Stories of the East from Herodotus;
   by A. J. Church.
   London: Seeley & Co. 1881.

   The story of the Persian War from Herodotus;
   by A. J. Church.
   London: Seeley & Co. 1882.

HERODOTUS.
   History; a new English version;
   edited with notes, etc.,
   by George Rawlinson and G. Wilkinson.
   London: J. Murray. 1858. 4 volumes.

      A work of great value, in which Canon Rawlinson and Mr.
      Wilkinson were assisted by Sir Henry Rawlinson, the
      Assyriologist. It in not every reader who has leisure two
      master such a book as Rawlinson's English 'Herodotus.' But;
      something of this fountain of history all may know; Even
      such pleasant boy's as Mr. Church's 'Stories from the East'
      and 'Stories from Herodotus' we get some flavour of the
      fine old Greek traveller. There are three great sections of
      Herodotus which are of special interest:
      1. the history of the foundation of Cyrus' kingdom;
      2. the books on the history, antiquities and customs of Egypt;
      3. the immortal story of Marathon, Thermopylæ and Salamis."
      Frederic Harrison, The Meaning of History, page 90.

JOSEPHUS, FLAVIUS.
   Works; Whiston's translation,
   revised by A. R. Shilleto.
   London: Bell & Sons. 1889.

LACOUPERIE, TERRIEN DE.
   Western origin of the early Chinese civilization.
   London: Asher & Co. 1894.

      A definite presentation of the view long urged by Dr.
      Lacouperie, that the Akkadian or primitive Babylonian
      culture was communicated at an early day to the Chinese.

LEWIN, THOMAS.
   The siege of Jerusalem by Titus.
   London: Longmans. 1863.

LOCKYER, J. N.
   The dawn of Astronomy; a study of the temple-worship
   and mythology of the ancient Egyptians.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co.

McCURDY, JAMES FREDERICK.
   History, Prophecy and the Monuments.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co. 1894.

      A work in which the latest researches and studies
      in the East are made fruitful.

MARIETTE, AUGUSTE.
   Outlines of ancient Egyptian history.
   London: Gilbert & Rivington. 1890.

MASPERO, G.
   The dawn of Civilization: Egypt and Chaldæa;
   edited by A. H. Sayee.
   London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1894.

   Egyptian archæology;
   translated from the French by Amelia B. Edwards.
   London: H. Grevel & Co.

   Hlstoire ancienne des peuples de l'Orient.
   Paris: Hachette. 1886.

MILMAN, HENRY HART.
   History of the Jews.
   London: J. Murray. 3 volumes.

      Bringing the modern account of the Jews throughout
      the world down to about 1860.

MORRISON, W. D.
   The Jews under Roman rule.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.
   London: T. F. Unwin. 1890.

      In the series of "The Story of the Nations."

MYERS, P. V. N.
   Eastern nations and Greece.
   (Ancient history for colleges and high schools.)
   Boston: Ginn & Co. 1890.

NEWMAN, FRANCIS W.
   History of the Hebrew Monarchy, from the administration of
   Samuel to the Babylonish captivity.
   2d edition London: J. Chapman. 1853.

PERROT, GEORGES, and CHARLES CHIPIEZ.
   History of Art in ancient Egypt;
   translated from the French.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1883. 2 volumes.

   History of Art In Chaldea and Assyria.
   London. 1884. 2 volumes.

   History of Art In Phœnicia and its dependencies.
   London. 1885. 2 volumes.

   History of Art in primitive Greece.
   London. 1894.

PETRIE, W. M. FLINDERS.
   History of Egypt from the earliest times to the XVIth dynasty.
   London: Methuen & Co. 1894.

      "This volume is but the first of a series which is intended
      to embrace the whole history of Egypt down to modern times.
      It is expected that three volumes will treat of the period
      of the Pharaohs, one volume of the Ptolemies, one volume of
      the Roman age, and one volume of Arabic Egypt. So far as
      practicable, the same system will be maintained throughout,
      though by different writers; and the aim of all will be to
      provide a general history, with such fulness and precision
      as shall suffice for the use of students."
         From the Author's Preface.

{3886}

PETRIE, W. M. FLINDERS.
   Tell el Amarna;
   with chapters by A. H. Sayce and others.
   London: Methuen & Co. 1894.

   Ten years' digging in Egypt, 1881-1891.
   London: R. T. S. 1892.

POOLE, REGINALD STUART.
   The cities of Egypt.
   London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1882.

RAGOZIN, ZENAÏDE A.
   The story of Chaldea, to the rise of Assyria.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.
   London: T. F. Unwin. 1886.

   Story of Assyria: to the fall of Nineveh.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.
   London: T. F. Unwin. 1887.

   The story of Media, Babylonia and Persia, to the Persian War.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.
   London: T. F. Unwin.

      Three good popular histories in the series entitled
      "The Story of the Nations."

RAMSAY, W. M.
   Historical geography of Asia Minor.
   London: J. Murray. 1890.

RAWLINSON, GEORGE.
   The Five Great Monarchies of the ancient eastern world
   [Chaldea, Assyria, Babylon, Media and Persia].
   London: Murray. 1862.

   The Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy [Parthia].
   London: Longmans. 1873.

   The Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy
   [Sassanian or New Persian].
   London: Longmans. 1876.

      In the light of later discoveries, Rawlinson's history of
      the five earlier oriental monarchies is very defective;
      but the history of Parthia and of the revived Persian
      monarchy retains its value.

RECORDS OF THE PAST;
   being English translations of the
   Assyrian and Egyptian monuments.
   London: S. Bagster & Sons. 1873-81, 12 volumes.,
   and 1889-1893. 6 volumes.

RENAN, ERNEST.
   History of the People of Israel till
   the time of King David.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1888. 3 volumes.

SAYCE, A. H.
   The Ancient Empires of the East. Herodotus I-III.
   With notes, introductions, and appendices.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1883.

   Assyria, its princes, priests and people.
   London: R. T. S. 1885.

   Fresh light from the ancient monuments.
   London: R. T. S. [1883.]

      Numbers VII. and III. in the series entitled
      "By-path of Bible Knowledge."

   The Hittites: the story of a forgotten empire.
   London: R. T. S. 1888.

   Introduction to the books of Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther.
   London: R. T. S. 1885.

   Life and times of Isaiah,
   as illustrated by contemporary monuments.
   London: R. T. S. 1889.

      Number XIII. in the series of small monographs entitled
      "By-paths of Bible Knowledge."

   A primer of Assyriology.
   New York: F. H. Revell Co. [1894.]

SCHÜRER, EMIL.
   History of the Jewish people in the time of Christ.
   Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. 1885.
   5 volumes and index.

SHARPE, SAMUEL.
   History of Egypt from the earliest times
   till the conquest of the Arabs.
   London: Moxon & Co. 1859. 2 volumes.

      Important as covering the Ptolemaic and Roman
      periods in Egyptian history more fully than any other
      work in English.

SIMCOX, EDITH J.
   Primitive civilizations; or outlines of
   the history of ownership in archaic communities.
   London: S. Sonnenschein & Co. 1894. 2 volumes.

SMITH, GEORGE ADAMS.
   Historical geography of the Holy Land.
   London: Hodder & Stoughton. 1894.

SMITH, R. BOSWORTH.
   Carthage and the Carthaginians.
   London: Longmans. 1878.

SMITH, W. ROBERTSON.
   The Prophets of Israel and their place in history,
   to the close of the 8th century B. C.
   Edinburgh: A. & C. Black. 1882.

SOCIETY OF BIBLICAL ARCHÆOLOGY.
   Transactions, 1872-1894. 10 volumes.
   Proceedings, 1878-1894. 16 volumes.

TIELE, C. P.
   Babylonische-Assyrische Geschichte.
   Gotha: F. A. Perthes. 1886. 2 volumes.

   Western Asia, according to the most recent discoveries.
   Rectorial address, Leyden University, 1893.
   London: Luzac & Co.

TOMKINS. H. G.
   Life and times of Joseph, in the light of Egyptian lore.
   London: R. T. S. 1891.

      In the series entitled "By-paths of Bible Knowledge."

   Studies on the times of Abraham.
   London: Bagster & Sons. [1879.]

TWENTY-ONE YEARS' WORK IN THE HOLY LAND
   (a record and a summary); 1865-1886.
   London: R. Bentley & Son. 1886.

      Published for the Committee of the
      Palestine Exploration Fund.

WELLHAUSEN, J.
   Sketch of the history of Israel and Judah.
   3d edition. London: A. & C. Black. 1891.

      A republication of the article "Israel" contributed to
      the Encyclopædia. Britannica.

WENDEL, F. C. H.
   History of Egypt.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1890.

      An extremely condensed and not very readable sketch of the
      history of ancient Egypt, but one which specialist have
      commended for correctness of knowledge.

WILKINSON, Sir J. GARDNER.
    Manners and customs of the ancient Egyptians.
    New edition, revised and corrected by Samuel Birch.
    London: J. Murray. 1878. 2 volumes.

WRIGHT, W. B.
   Ancient cities; from the dawn to the daylight.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1886.


ANCIENT HISTORY: GREECE AND ROME.

ABBOTT, EVELYN.
   History of Greece.
   London: Rivingtons. 1888. volumes 1-2.

      The first volume carries the narrative to the Ionian
      revolt, the second to the Thirty Years Peace. "When
      completed, it will supply a want long felt, that of a good
      history of Greece of a size intermediate between Thirlwall,
      Grote, and Curtius, on the one hand, and the smaller text
      books and manuals on the other."
         English Historical Review,
         January, 1889.

   Pericles and the Golden Age of Athens.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1891.

      In the series entitled "Heroes of the Nations."

ARCHÆOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF AMERICA. Papers:
   Classical Series. Boston. 1882.

      Including "Papers of the American School of Classical
      Studies at Athens."

ARISTOTLE.
   On the Constitution of Athens;
   translated by E. Poste.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1891.

      A translation of the lately-found treaties believed to be
      by Aristotle. "While putting us in possession of more facts
      concerning the constitutional history of Athens than have
      been known hitherto, this treatise presents very great
      difficulties, both critical and historical. … We must
      receive the new information with caution, and far from
      looking on it as superseding our older authorities, we must
      remember that much of it may not be the work of Aristotle
      or of Aristotle's time."
         E. Abbott, History of Greece, part 2, appendix 2.

   Politics;
   translated by B. Jowett: with essays, notes, etc.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1885. 2 volumes.

ARNOLD, THOMAS.
   History of Rome; new edition.
   London: T. Fellowes. 1871. 3 volumes.

      Dr. Arnold's History is founded on Niebuhr's. The fact is
      frankly stated in his preface: " When Niebuhr died, and
      there was now no hope of seeing his great work completed in
      a manner worthy of its beginning, I was more desirous than
      ever of executing my original plan, of presenting in a more
      popular form what he had lived to finish, and of continuing
      it afterwards with such advantages as I have derived from a
      long study and an intense admiration of his example and
      model." It was Dr. Arnold's hope to cover the whole stretch
      of Roman history, to Charlemagne; but he had only reached
      the narrative of the second Punic War when death arrested
      his work.

BARTHÉLEMY, Abbé.
   Travels of Anacharsis the younger in Greece, 4th century, B. C.

BLÜMNER, H.
   The home life of the ancient Greeks;
   translated from the German.
   London: Cassell Co. 1890.

BURY, J. B.
   History of the later Roman Empire, from Arcadius to Irene.
   (395 to 800 A. D.),
   London: Macmillan & Co., 1889. 2 volumes.

      A work written with more knowledge and carefulness
      than literary art.

BUTCHER, S. H.
   Some aspects of Greek genius.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1891.

CÆSAR, CAIUS JULIUS.
   Commentaries on the Gallic and Civil Wars,
   with the supplementary books attributed to Hirtius;
   literally translated, with notes [Bohn edition].

CICERO.
   Life and letters;
   the life by Dr. Conyers Middleton;
   letters translated by W. Melmoth and Dr. Heberden.
   Edinburgh: W. P. Nimmo. 1892.

CURTIUS, ERNST.
   History of Greece;
   translated from the German by A. W. Ward.
   London: R. Bentley & Son. 1871-74. 5 volumes.

      Professor Curtius ends his History at the attainment of
      supremacy in Hellas by Philip of Macedonia. See note to
      Thirlwall's "History of Greece," below.

DAVIDSON, THOMAS.
   The education of the Greek people and
   its influence on civilization.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1894.

{3887}

DODGE, THEODORE A.
   Alexander: a history of the origin and growth of the art
   of war, to the battle of Ipsus, B. C. 301.
   Boston: Houghton; Mifflin & Co. 1890.

   Cæsar: a history of the art of war among the
   Romans down to the end of the Roman Empire.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1892.

   Hannibal: a history of the art of war among the Carthaginians
   and Romans, down to the battle of Pydna, 168 B. C.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1891.

DUNCKER, MAX.
   History of Greece;
   translated, from the German.
   London: R. Bentley & Son. 1883-86. volumes 1-2.

      An unfinished work.

DURUY, VICTOR.
   History of Greece and of the Greek people,
   to the Roman conquest;
   translated from the French.
   Boston: Estes & Lauriat. 1892. 4 volumes.

   History of Rome and the Roman people, to the
   establishment of the Christian Empire;
   translated from the French;
   edited by J. P. Mahaffy.
   Boston: Estes & Lauriat. 1883.

      Works both scholarly and popular, and made exceedingly
      attractive by admirable illustrations.

DYER, THOMAS H.
    Ancient Athens: its history, topography and remains.
    London: Bell & Daldy. 1873.

EPOCHS OF ANCIENT HISTORY;
   edited by Rev. Sir G. W. Cox, Bart., and C. Sankey.
   London: Longmans.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons.

      The Greeks and the Persians;
      by Rev. Sir G. W. Cox.

      The Athenian Empire, to the fall of Athens;
      by Rev. Sir G. W. Cox.

      The Spartan and Theban Supremacies;
      by Charles Sankey;

      The rise of the Macedonian Empire;
      by Arthur M. Curteis:

      Rome to its capture by the Gauls;
      by Wilhelm Ihne.

      Rome and Carthage;
      by R. Bosworth Smith.

      The Gracchi, Marius and Sulla;
      by A. H. Beesly.

      The Roman Triumvirates;
      by Charles Merivale.

      The Early Roman Empire, from the assassination
      of Cæsar to that of Domitian;
      by W. W. Capes.

      The Roman Empire of the second century,
      or the age of the Antonines;
      by W. W. Capes.

FALKE, JACOB VON.
   Greece and Rome; their life and art;
   translated from the German.
   New York: H. Holt & Co. 1882.

FELTON, C. C.
   Greece, ancient and modern.
   Boston: Ticknor & Fields. 1867. 2 volumes.

FINLAY, GEORGE.
   Greece under the Romans.
   Edinburg: W. Blackwood & Sons.

FOWLER, W. WARDE.
   The city-state of the Greeks and Romans.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1893.

   Julius Cæsar and the foundation
   of the Roman imperial system.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1892.

      In the series entitled "Heroes of the Nations."

FREEMAN, EDWARD A.
   History of Federal Government. volume 1.
   General Introduction.
   History of the Greek Federations.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1863.

      "This noble work, in some respects the grandest of the
      author's conceptions, was never completed. … The war of
      1866 between Prussia and Austria marked the beginning of
      organic changes in Germany which Mr. Freeman was anxious to
      watch for awhile before finishing his book. He therefore
      turned aside and took up the third of his three great
      works[the History od Sicily being the second]—the only one
      that he lived to complete—the History of the Norman
      Conquest of England."
         J. Fiske. Edward Augustus Freeman
         (Atlantic Monthly; January, 1893).

   History of Sicily.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1891. volumes 1-4.

      Left unfinished at Professor Freeman's death. The fourth
      volume, prepared by other hands, from the materials that he
      had made ready, carries the history to the death of
      Agathokles.

FROUDE, JAMES ANTHONY.
   Cæsar: a sketch.
   London: Longmans. 1879.

      A brilliant and fascinating piece of historical writing,
      but tainted with Carlylean hero worship.

FUSTEL DE COULANGES, N. D.
   The ancient city: a study of the religion, laws and
   institutions of ancient Greece and Rome;
   translated from the French.
   Boston: Lee & Shepard. 1874.

GARDNER, PERCY.
   New chapters in Greek history: historical results of
   recent excavations in Greece and Asia Minor.
   London: J. Murray. 1892.

GIBBON, EDWARD.
   History of the decline and fall of the Roman Empire;
   with notes by Milman, Guizot, and Dr. William Smith.

      "We may correct and improve in detail from the stores which
      have been opened since Gibbon's time; we may write again
      large parts of his story from other, and often truer and
      more wholesome, points of view. But the work of Gibbon, as
      a whole, as the encyclopædic history of thirteen hundred
      years, as the grandest of historical designs carried out
      alike with wonderful power and with wonderful accuracy,
      must ever keep its place. Whatever else is read, Gibbon
      must be read too."
         E. A. Freeman, Historical Essays, pages 307-308.

      "It is no personal paradox but the judgment of all
      competent men, that the 'Decline and Fall' of Gibbon is the
      most perfect historical composition that exists in any
      language: at once scrupulously faithful in its facts;
      consummate in its literary art; and comprehensive in
      analysis of the forces affecting society over a very long
      and crowded epoch."
         Frederic Harrison,
         The Meaning of History, page 101.

GLADSTONE, WILLIAM E.
   Juventus Mundi; the gods and men of the heroic age.
   London: Macmillan. 1869.

GROTE, GEORGE.
   History of Greece, to the close of the generation
   contemporary with Alexander the Great.
   London: J. Murray. 12 volumes.

      "A business man, foreign to university life and its
      traditions, a skeptic in religion, a positivist in
      philosophy and, above all, an advanced Radical in
      politics," Grote. "was persuaded that the great social and
      political results of Greek history were because of, and not
      in spite of, the prevalence of democracy among its states.
      He would not accept the verdict of all the old Greek
      theorist who voted for the rule of the one or enlightened
      few; and he wrote what may be called a great political
      pamphlet in twelve volumes in vindication of democratic
      principles. It was this idea which not only marshalled his
      facts, but lent its fire to his argument; and when combined
      with his Radicalism in religion and philosophy, produced a
      book so remarkable, that, however much it may be corrected
      and criticised, it will never be superseded. It is probably
      the greatest history among the many great histories
      produced in this century; and though very inferior in style
      to Gibbon's 'Decline and Fall,' will rank next to it as a
      monument of English historical genius."
         J. P. Mahaffy,
         Problems in Greek History, chapter 1.

GUHL, E. and W. KONER.
   The life of the Greeks and Romans;
   translated from the German. New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1875.

HODGKIN, THOMAS.
   The dynasty of Theodosius;
   or eighty years' struggle with the barbarians;
   a series of lectures.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1889.

HORTON, R. F.
   History of the Romans.
   London: Rivingtons. 1885.

      A short history of republican Rome, containing more of the
      tracing of influences, constitutional and institutional,
      and more of the interpreted meaning of events, than are
      found in any other work of its modest class.

IHNE, WILHELM.
   History of Rome.
   English edition.
   London: Longmans. 1871-77. 5 volumes.

      Closes with the death of Sulla., where Dean Merivale begins
      his "History of the Romans under the Empire." "As the book
      maintains in all its parts a strictly judicial attitude, it
      is far less entertaining than the brilliant advocacy of
      Mommsen; but for this very reason it is to be held as a
      safer authority."
         C. K. Adams,
         Manual of Historical Literature,
         page 124,

LANCIANI, RODOLFO.
   Ancient Rome in the light of recent discoveries.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1888.

LEWIS, GEORGE CORNEWALL.
   An inquiry into the credibility of early Roman history.
   London: J. W. Parker & Sons. 1855. 2 volumes.

LIDDELL, HENRY G.
   History of Rome, to the establishment of the Empire.
   London: J. Murray. 1855. 2 volumes.

LIVIUS, TITUS.
   History of Rome,
   literally translated by Dr. Spillan, C. Edmonds,
   and others [Bohn edition].
   London: G. Bell & Son.

   Stories from Livy;
   by A. J. Church.
   London: Seeley & Co. 1883.

LONG, GEORGE.
   Decline of the Roman Republic.
   London: Bell & Daldy. 1864. 5 volumes.

MAHAFFY, J. P.
   Greek life and thought from the age of Alexander
   to the Roman conquest.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1887.

   The Greek world under Roman sway, from Polybius to Plutarch.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1890.

   History of classical Greek literature.
   London: Longmans. 1880. 2 volumes.

   Old Greek life. (History Primer.)
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1878.

   Problems in Greek history.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1892.

   Social life in Greece, from Homer to Menander.
   3d edition revised and enlarged.
   London: Macmillan & Co.

   The story of Alexander's Empire.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.
   London:. T. F. Unwin. 1887.

      One of the very good books in the series of
      "The Story of the Nations."

MERIVALE, CHARLES.
   The fall of the Roman Republic;
   a short history of the last century of the Commonwealth.
   London: Longmans.

   History of the Romans under the Empire.
   London: Longmans. 8 volumes.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 7 volumes.

      "His [Merivale's] history is a great work in itself, and it
      must be a very great work indeed which can outdo it within
      its own range. In days of licensed blundering like ours, it
      is delightful indeed to come across the sound and finished
      scholarship; the unwearied and unfailing accuracy, of Mr.
      Merivale. … On some points we hold that Mr. Merivale's
      views are open to dispute; but it is, always his views,
      never his statements."
         E. A. Freeman,
         Historical Essays; page. 309.

{3888}

MOMMSEN, THEODOR.
   History of Rome;
   translated by W. P. Dickson;
   new edition revised throughout and embodying recent additions.
   London: R. Bentley & Son. 1894-95. 4 volumes.

   The Provinces, from Cæsar to Diocletian.
   London: R. Bentley & Son. 1886.

      "The Roman History of Mommsen is, beyond all doubt, to be
      ranked among those really great historical works which do
      so much honour to our own day. We can have little doubt as
      to calling it the best complete Roman History that we have.
      … We have now, for the first time, the whole history of the
      Roman Republic really written in a way worth of the
      greatness of the subject."
         E. A. Freeman,
         Historical Essays,
         pages. 239-240.

MÜLLER, C. O.
   History and Antiquities of the Doric race;
   translated from the German by H. Tufuell and G. C. Lewis.
   2d edition revised.
   London: J. Murray. 1839., 2 volumes.

NIEBUHR, B. G.
   History of Rome;
   translated by J. C. Hare and C. Thirlwall.
   London: Walton. 1859. 3 volumes.

   Lectures on the history of Rome,
   to the fall of the Western Empire.
   London: Walton. 3 volumes.

OMAN, C. W. C.
   History of Greece, to the Macedonian conquest.
   London: Rivingtons. 1890.

      "This is the best school history of Greece which has
      appeared for many a day. While the style is never heavy,
      nothing of importance has been omitted."
         English Historical Review, October 1890.

PELHAM, H. F.
   Outlines of Roman history.
   London: Percival.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1893.

PLUTARCH.
   Lives,
   the translation called Dryden's corrected from the Greek
   and revised by A. H. Clough.
   London: S. Low, Marston & Co. 1859. 5 volumes.

POLYBIOS.
   Histories;
   translated from the text of Hultsch by E. S. Shuckburgh.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1889. 2 volumes.

      Polybios, "the historian of the Decline and Fall of Ancient
      Greece," "is like a writer of our own times; with far less
      of inborn genius, he possessed a mass of acquired knowledge
      of which Thucydides could never have dreamed. He had, like
      a modern historian, read many books and seen many lands. …
      He had, himself personally a wider political experience than
      fell to the lot of any historian before or after him. … He
      could remember Achaia a powerful federation, Macedonia a
      powerful monarchy, Carthage still free, Syria still
      threatening; he lived to see them all subject provinces or
      trembling allies of the great municipality Rome."
         E. A. Freeman,
         History of Federal Government,
         page 226.

RAMSAY, WILLIAM.
   Manual of Roman antiquities;
   revised and partly rewritten by R. Lanciani.
   London: C. Griffin.

SCHLIEMANN, Dr. H.
   Ilios: the city and country of the Trojans.
   London: J. Murray. 1880.

   Troja: results of the latest researches and discoveries
   on the site of Homer's Troy.
   London: J. Murray. 1884.

   Mycenæ: a narrative of researches and discoveries.
   London.

   Tiryns, the prehistoric palace of the King of Tiryns.
   London: John Murray. 1885.

SCHÖMANN, G. F.
   A dissertation on the assemblies of the Athenians;
   translated from the Latin.
   Cambridge: W. P. Grant. 1838.

   The antiquities of Greece;
   translated from the German.
   London: Rivingtons, 1880.

      Only the first volume, treating of "The State,"
      has been published.

SCHUCHHARDT, C.
   Schliemann's excavations;
   an archæological and historical study;
   translated from the German.
   London: Macmillan & Co.

SUETONIUS, C. TRANQUILLUS.
   Lives of the Twelve Cæsars [Bohn edition].
   London: Bell & Sons.

TACITUS, C. CORNELIUS.
   The Annals, The History, The Germany, The Agricola,
   The Dialogue on Oratory;
   translated by A. J. Church and W. J. Brodribb;
   revised edition, with notes.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1877-82. 3 volumes.

      The annals of Tacitus extend over most of the period from
      the death of Augustus to Nero, with important parts lost.
      The fragments preserved of the history gives us only four
      and a half out of fourteen books which made up the original
      work. These books contain the history of the years 69 and
      70, not quite complete, and tell the story of the Vitellian
      conflict.

THIRLWALL, CONNOP.
   History of Greece.
   London: Longmans. 1835. 8 volumes.

      Bishop Thirlwall's History covers the whole national life
      of the Greeks, down to the Roman conquest. "The strength of
      Thirlwall as clearly lies in the history of Alexander and
      his successors as the strength of Grote lies in the
      political history of Athenian and Syracusan democracy, as
      the strength of Curtius lies in the geography, in the
      artistic side of things, in the general picture of that age
      which was the glory of Athens, but which, as the disciples
      of Finlay know, was an age of decline for Hellas in the
      wider sense."
         E. A. Freeman,
         The Methods of Historical Study,
         page 287.

      "The student of to-day who is really intimate with
      Thirlwall's history may boast that he has a sound and
      accurate view of all the main questions in the political
      and social development of the Hellenic nation. But he will
      never have been carried away with enthusiasm."
         J. P. Mahaffy,
         Problems in Greek History,
         chapter 1.

THUCYDIDES.
   History;
   translated into English, with introduction and notes,
   by B. Jowett.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1881. 2 volumes.

      "Thucydides is much more than a great historian; or,
      rather, he was what every great historian ought to be—he
      was a profound philosopher. His history of the
      Peloponnesian War is like a portrait by Titian; the whole
      mind and character, the inner spirit and ideals, the very
      tricks and foibles, of the man or the age come before us in
      living reality. No more memorable, truthful and profound
      portrait exists than that wherein Thucydides has painted
      the Athens of the age of Pericles."
         Frederic Harrison,
         The Meaning of History,
         page 92.

TORR, CECIL.
      Rhodes in ancient times.
      Cambridge: University Press. 1885.

TROLLOPE, ANTHONY.
   Life of Cicero.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1880. 2 volumes.

      Written in vindication of Cicero against the injustice done
      to the great patriotic orator in Froude's Cæsar. Both books
      are writings of advocacy rather than history.

WHIBLEY, L.
   Political parties in Athens during the Peloponnesian War.
   Cambridge, Warehouse. 1889.

XENOPHON.
   Works;
   translated by H. G. Dakyns.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co. 1890. volumes 1-2.

      Volume I. contains books 1 and 2 of the Hellenica, and the
      Anabasis; volume 2 contains books 3 to 7, with Agesilaus,
      The Politics, and Revenues. Two more volumes are yet to be
      published.


MEDIÆVAL AND MODERN EUROPE.

ADAMS, CHARLES.
   Great campaigns: a succinct account of the principal
   military operations which have taken place in Europe
   from 1796 to 1870.
   Edinburg: W. Blackwood & Sons. 1877.

      Edited from lectures delivered by Major C. Adams at
      the Royal Military and Staff Colleges, England.

ADAMS, GEORGE BURTON.
   Civilization during the Middle Ages,
   especially in relation to modern civilization.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1894.

ADDISON, C. G.
   The Knights Templars. 3d edition.
   London: Longman. 1854.

ALISON, Sir ARCHIBALD.
   History of Europe, 1789 to 1815, and 1815 to 1852.
   Edinburg: W. Blackwood & Sons. 1853. 28 volumes.

      "We are not unaware … of the surpassing greatness of the
      external events of which his history is composed, nor do we
      complain of the minute and laborious zeal with which he has
      gathered every particular concerning them, ransacking
      archives and measuring fields of slaughter; but we do
      complain that he has allowed the tumult and dust of these
      vast contests to stop his ears and blind his eyes to every
      object but themselves."
         Parke Godwin,
         Out of the Past;
         page 207.

BALZANI, UGO.
   The Popes and the Hohenstaufen.
   London: Longmans.

      In the series entitled "Epochs of Church History."

BEARD, CHARLES.
   The Reformation of the 16th Century
   in its relation to modern thought.
   London: Williams and Norgate. 1883.

      Hibbert Lectures for 1883.

BRADLEY, HENRY.
   The story of the Goths, to the end of the
   Gothic dominion in Spain.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.
   London: T. F. Unwin. 1888.

      One of the better books in the series of
      "The Story of the Nations."

BRYCE, JAMES.
   The Holy Roman Empire.
   London: Macmillan & Co.

CAYLEY, EDWARD S.
   The European revolutions of 1848.
   London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1856. 2 volumes.

CHEETHAM, S.
   History of the Christian Church
   during the first six centuries.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co. 1894.

CHURCH, R. W.
   The beginning of the Middle Ages.
   London: Longmans.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1877.

      An admirable brief survey of early mediæval history, in
      the series entitled "Epochs of Modern History."

COMYN, Sir ROBERT.
   History of the western empire,
   from Charlemagne to Charles V. [800-1520].
   London: W. H. Allen & Co. 1841. 2 volumes.

COX, GEORGE W.
   The Crusades.
   London: Longmans.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1874.

      In the series entitled "Epochs of History."

CREIGHTON, MANDELL.
   History of the Papacy during the period of the Reformation.
   London and New York: Longmans. 1882-94. volumes 1-5.

{3889}

CUTTS, EDWARD L.
   Scenes and characters of the Middle Ages.
   London: Virtue & Co. 1872.

DEMOMBYNES, G.
   Constitutions Européennes.
   Paris: L. Larose et Forcel. 1881. 2 volumes.

DILKE, Sir CHARLES W.
   Position of European politics, 1887.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1887.

DÖLLINGER, JOHN IGNATIUS VON.
   Addresses on historical and literary subjects;
   translated by Margaret Warre.
   London: J. Murray. 1894.

      Containing as follows:
      Universities past and present;
      Founders of Religions;
      the Empire of Charles the Great and his Successors;
      Anagni;
      the Suppression of the Knights Templars;
      the History of Religious Freedom;
      various estimates of the French Revolution;
      the part taken by North America in Literature.

   Studies in European history;
   translated by Margaret Warre.
   London: John Murray. 1890.

      Academical addresses on the following subjects:
      The significance of Dynasties in the history of the world;
      the House of Wittelsbach and its place in German history;
      the relation of the City of Rome to Germany in
      the Middle Ages;
      Dante as a Prophet;
      the struggle of Germany with the Papacy under the
      Emperor Ludwig of Bavaria;
      Aventin an his Times;
      on the Influence of Greek Literature and Culture upon
      the Western World in the Middle Ages;
      the origin of the Eastern Question;
      the Jews in Europe;
      upon the Political and Intellectual development of Spain;
      the Policy of Louis XIV.;
      the most influential Woman of French history
      (Madame de Maintenon).

DUFF, MOUNTSTUART E. GRANT.
   Studies in European politics.
   Edinburg: Edmonston & Douglas. 1866.

      These well-named "Studies" in the political history of the
      Continent, by an English statesman, are mostly devoted to
      the important but little understood period between 1815 and
      1848, in Spain, Russia Austria, Prussia, Holland, and
      Belgium. They are deficient in attention to the social
      conditions of the time.

DURUY, VICTOR.
   History of modern times, from the
   fall of Constantinople to the French Revolution;
   translated and revised, with notes, by E. A. Grosvenor.
   New York: H. Holt & Co. 1894.

   History of the middle ages;
   translated by E. H. and M. D. Whitney,
   with notes and revisions by G. B. Adams.
   New York: Henry Holt & Co. 1891.

DYER, THOMAS HENRY.
   History of modern Europe, 1453-1857.
   London: John Murray. 4 volumes.
   Geo. Bell & Sons. 4 volumes.

      Dyer's History of Modern Europe "represented the labour of
      years, and chronicled the period from the fall of
      Constantinople to the end of the Crimean "War. It was a
      clear and painstaking compilation, whose main object was to
      expound the origin and nature of the European concert."
         G. Barnett Smith.
         Biographical Sketch
         (in the Dictionary of National-Biography).

EGINHARD.
   Life of Charlemagne;
   translated by S. E. Turner.
   New York: Harper & Bros.

EMERTON, EPHRAIM.
   Introduction to the study of the Middle Ages (A. D. 375-814).
   Boston: Ginn & Co. 1888.

   Mediæval Europe, 814-1300.
   Boston: Ginn & Co. 1894.

FISHER, GEORGE PARK.
   History of the Christian Church.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1887.

   The Reformation.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1883.

FLINT, ROBERT.
   Philosophy of history in Europe.
   volume 1, France and Germany.
   Edinburg: Blackwood & Sons. 1874.

FREEMAN, EDWARD A.
   The Chief Periods of European History;
   six lectures, Oxford, 1885.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1886.

      The "chief periods" treated of are "those which concern the
      growth and the dying out" of the Roman power: "Europe
      before the growth of Rome—Europe with Rome, in one shape or
      another, as her centre—Europe since Rome has practically
      ceased to be."
         Author's Preface.

   Fifty years of European history: four Oxford lectures.
   [Also] The Teutonic conquest of Gaul and Britain.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1888.

      The fifty years of European history reviewed in the first
      four of these lectures are those that had been spanned by
      the reign of Queen Victoria when its jubilee was
      celebrated, in 1887.

   General sketch of European history.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1872.

   Historical Essays.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1871-92. 4 volumes.

      Volume 1.
      The Mythical and Romantic Elements in early English History;
      the continuity of English History;
      Relations between the Crowns of England and Scotland;
      Saint Thomas of Canterbury and his Biographers;
      the Reign of Edward III.;
      the Holy Roman Empire;
      the Franks and the Gauls;
      the early Sieges of Paris;
      Frederick I., King of Italy;
      the Emperor Frederick II.;
      Charles the Bold;
      Presidential Government.

      Volume 2.
      Ancient Greece and Mediæval Italy;
      Mr. Gladstone's "Homer and the Homeric Age";
      the Historians of Athens;
      the Athenian Democracy;
      Alexander the Great;
      Greece during the Macedonian Period;
      Mommsen's History of Rome;
      Sulla;
      the Flavian Cæsars.

      Volume 3.
      First Impressions of Rome;
      the Illyrian Emperors and their Land;
      Augusta Treverorum;
      the Goths at Ravenna;
      Race and Language;
      the Byzantine Empire;
      First impressions or Athens;
      Mediæval and Modern Greece;
      the Southern Slaves;
      Sicilian Cycles;
      the Normans at Palermo.

      Volume 4.
      Carthage;
      French and English Towns;
      Aquæ Sextiæ;
      Orange;
      Augustodunum;
      Perigueux and Cahors;
      the Lords of Ardres;
      Points in the History of Portugal and Brazil:
      Alter Orbis;
      Historical Cycles;
      Augustan Ages;
      English Civil Wars.

   The historical geography of Europe.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1881.
   1 volume text; 1 volume maps.

      The object of this remarkably valuable work is to "trace
      out the extent of territory which the different states and
      nations of Europe and the neighbouring lands have held at
      different times in the world's history, to mark the
      different boundaries which the same country has had, and
      the different meanings in which the same name has been
      used.
         Author's Introduction.

FROISSART, SIR JOHN.
   Chronicles [1326-1400];
   translated by T. Johnes.
   London: Wm. Smith. 2 volumes.

   Same;
   edited for boys, with an introduction, by Sidney Lanier.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1879.

FYFFE, C. A.
   History of modern Europe.
   London: Cassell. 1880-1889.
   New York: Henry Holt & Co. 1881-90. 3 volumes.

      Covers the period from the beginning of the war with
      revolutionary France, in 1792, to the Berlin Congress and
      Treaty, 1878; a well-constructed and well-written piece of
      history.

GERARD, JAMES W.
   The peace of Utrecht, 1713-14.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1885.

GRUBE, A. W.
   Heroes of history and legend.
   London: Griffith & Farran. 1880.

      A translation of the second part of Grube's
      "Charakterbilder aus der Geschichte und Sage."

GUIZOT, F. P.
   History of civilization, to the French revolution;
   translated from the French.
   London: Geo. Bell & Sons. 3 volumes.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 2 volumes.

      "The originality of M. Guizot's work consists in the truly
      scientific spirit and character of his method. He was the
      first to dissect a society, in the same comprehensive,
      impartial, and thorough way in which an anatomist dissects
      the body of an animal, and the first to study the functions
      of the social organism in the same systematic and careful
      manner in which the physiologist studies the functions of
      the animal organism."
         R. Flint,
         The Philosophy of History in France and Germany,
         Page 240.

HALLAM, HENRY.
   View of the state of Europe during the Middle Ages.
   London: J. Murray. 3 volumes.
   New York: W. J, Widdleton. 3 volumes.

      "He [Hallam] never thoroughly took in either the Imperial
      or the ecclesiastical element in history; if I say that he
      did not thoroughly take in the Teutonic element either, it
      might seem that I leave him no standing-ground at all. And
      whither shall he seem to vanish, if I add that he never
      shows that same kind of thorough knowledge of original
      authorities, that mastery of them that delight in them,
      which stands out in every line of Kemble and Palgrave?
      Hallam had nothing of the spirit of the antiquary; he had
      not, I should say very much of the spirit of the historian
      proper. Yet Hallam was a memorable writer, whose name ought
      to be deeply honoured, and a large part of whose writings
      are as valuable now as when they were first written."
         E. A. Freeman.
         Methods of Historical Study,
         page 282.

HÄUSSER, LUDWIG.
   The period of the Reformation, 1517-1648,
   edited by W. Oncken;
   translated by Mrs. Sturge.
   London: Strahan. 1873.
   New York: Robert Carter & Bros.

      Unquestionably the best comprehensive survey of the
      Reformation and the Reformation period that has yet
      been placed before English readers.

HEEREN. A. H. L.
   A manual of the history of the political system of Europe
   and its colonies; from the close of the 15th century to
   the fall of Napoleon;
   translated from the German.
   London: H. G. Bohn. 1846.

HENDERSON, ERNEST F.,
   Select historical documents of the middle ages;
   translated and edited.
   London: Geo. Bell & Sons. 1892.
   New York: Macmillan & Co.

HODGKIN, THOMAS.
   Italy and her Invaders.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1880-85. 4 volumes.

      A very satisfactory work, narrating that part of the
      barbaric avalanche of the fifth and sixth centuries which
      crushed the Empire in its western seat. The first volume
      deals with the Visigothic invasion, the second with the
      Hunnish, Vandal and Herulian, the third with the
      Ostrogothic, the fourth with Justinian's recovery of Italy.

   Theodoric the Goth; the barbarian champion of civilization.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1891.

      In the series entitled "Heroes of the Nations."

JOHNSON, A. H.
   The Normans in Europe.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1877.
   New York: Chas. Scribner's Sons.

JOHNSTONE, C. F.
   Historical abstracts.
   London: C. Kegan Paul & Co. 1880.

      Excellent outline sketches of the history of Denmark,
      Norway, Sweden, the kingdom of the Netherlands, Belgium,
      the Ottoman Empire, Greece, Portugal, Prussia, Russia, and
      the Swiss Confederation.

{3890}

KEARY, C. F.
   The Vikings in western Christendom, 789-888.
   London: T. F. Unwin. 1891.

KINGTON, T. L.
   History of Frederick II., Emperor of the Romans.
   London: Macmillan & Co; 1862. 2 volumes.

LACROIX, PAUL.
   The eighteenth century [1700-1789]: its institutions, &c.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1876.

LATHAM, ROBERT. G.
   Ethnology of Europe.
   London: J. Van Voorst. 1852.

   The nationalities of Europe. volume 2.
   London: W. H. Allen & Co. 1863. 2 volumes.

LAVISSE, ERNEST.
   General view of the political history of Europe;
   translated by Charles Gross.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1891.

      "While giving the essential facts of universal history, he
      [Lavisse] aims above all, to describe the formation and
      political development of the states of Europe, and to
      indicate the historical causes of their present condition
      and mutual relations. In other words, he shows how the
      existing political divisions of Europe, with their peculiar
      tendencies, were created. … The ability of Professor
      Lavisse to compress the essence of a great event or
      sequence of events into a few comprehensive and expressive
      sentences, has enabled him to accomplish his difficult task
      with signal success."
         Translator's Preface.

LEA, HENRY CHARLES.
   History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1888. 3 volumes.

LODGE, RICHARD.
   History of Modern Europe, 1453-1878.
   London: J. Murray. 1885.
   New York:, Harper Bros.

MACKENZIE, ROBERT.
   The Nineteenth Century; a history.
   London: Nelson & Sons. 1880.

McLAUGLIN, EDWARD TOMPKINS.
   Studies in mediæval life and literature.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1894.

MACLEAR, G. F.
   The conversion of the West.
   London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge.

MAXWELL, Sir WILLIAM STIRLING.
   Don John of Austria;
   or, passages from the history of the 16th Century, 1547-1578.
   London: Longmans. 1883. 2 volumes.

MAY, Sir THOMAS E.
   Democracy in Europe.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1877. 2 volumes.
   New York: A. C. Armstrong & Son. 2 volumes.

MERIVALE, CHARLES.
   The conversion of the northern nations:
   Boyle lectures. 1865.
   London: Longmans.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co.

MERLE D'AUBIGNE, J. H.
   History of the great Reformation of the 16th century.
   New York: Carter & Bros. 1863-77. 8 volumes.

MICHAUD, J. F.
   History of the Crusades;
   translated from the French.
   London: G. Routledge & Co. 1852. 2 volumes.

MICHELET, JULES.
   Summary of Modern History;
   translated from the French and continued by M. C. M. Simpson.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1875.

MILMAN, HENRY HART.
   History of Latin Christianity,
   including that of the Popes to Nicholas V.
   London: J. Murray. 1854. 6 volumes.

      "I know few books more delightful and more instructive to
      read than Milman's 'History of Latin Christianity.' And
      none better discharges the work of a guide, both to the
      original authorities, and what we cannot neglect, to modern
      German writers."
         E. A. Freeman,
         Methods was of historical study,
         page 283.

MOELLER, WILHELM.
   History of the Christian Church, A.D. 1-600;
   translated from the German.
   London: S. Sonnenschein. 1892.

   History of the Christian Church, in the Middle Ages.
   London: S. Sonnenschein. 1893.

MONSTRELET, ENGUERRAND DE.
   Chronicles;
   translated by T. Johnes.
   London: Geo. Routledge & Sons. 1867. 2 volumes.

      A chronicle which continues that of Froissart, from
      1400 to 1467, and is continued by others to 1516,
      especially narrating events in the Hundred Years War.

MONTALEMBERT, CHARLES F., Count de.
   The Monks of the West, from St. Benedict to St. Bernard;
   authorized translation.
   London: W. Blackwood & Sons. 1861-79. 7 volumes.

      "His pages bring before us tales handed down by oral
      tradition alone for perhaps two or three generations,
      together with documents and letters as genuine as the
      despatches of the Duke of Wellington. But there is little
      or no effort to show that one is more valuable than the
      other, or to determine where the poetry which is lavish of
      marvellous incidents ends, and where the region of fact
      begins."
         Edinburgh Review, v. 127, page. 404.

MÜLLER, W.
   Political history of recent times. 1816-1875;
   translated [and continued to 1881] by J.,P. Peters.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1882.

      "For many years—as Professor of Modern History, first at
      the State University of Michigan, afterward at Cornell
      University—I had been seeking a work which should give to
      thoughtful students a view, large but concise, of the
      political history of Continental Europe in the nineteenth
      century. … At last I came upon the 'Politische Geschichte
      der Neuesten Zeit,' by Professor Wilhelm Miller, of
      Tübingen. … Three readings of it satisfied me that it is
      what is needed in America. … It is not an abridgment; it is
      a living history."
         Andrew D. White,
         Prefatory Note.

MURDOCK, HAROLD.
   The reconstruction of Europe [1852-1870].
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1889.

NATIONAL LIFE AND THOUGHT.
   London: T. F. Unwin. 1891.

      A volume of lectures delivered at South Place Institute,
      London, in 1889-90, designed "to give information, in a
      popular form, with regard to the national development and
      modes of political action among the different nations
      throughout the world." The lecturers were generally men
      specially well informed on their several subjects, such as
      Professor J. E. Therold Rogers, Professor Pulszky. J. T.
      Bent, J. C. Cotton Minchin, Eirikr Magnusson, and others.

NEANDER, AUGUSTUS.
   General history of the Christian religion and Church;
   translated from the German by Joseph Torrey.

      "He … made church history a book of instruction,
      edification and comfort, on the firm foundation of profound
      and accurate learning, critical mastery of the sources,
      spiritual discernment, psychological insight, and sound,
      sober judgment."
         P. Schaff,
         Saint Augustin Melanchthon,
         Neander, page 136.

PALGRAVE, Sir FRANCIS.
   History of Normandy and England.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 4 volumes.

PASTOR, LUDWIG.
   History of the Popes from, the close of the Middle Ages;
   translated from the German.
   London: J. Hodges.

      A history written from the Roman Catholic standpoint.

PERIODS OF EUROPEAN HISTORY;
   edited by Arthur Hassal.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co.

      Period 1, A. D. 476-918; by Charles W. C. Oman.
      Period 5, A. D. 1598-1715; by Henry O. Wakeman.
      Period 7, A.D. 1789-1815; by H. Morse Stephens.
      Other periods not yet published.

RANKE, LEOPOLD VON.
   History of the Latin and Teutonic nations from 1494 to 1514;
   translated from the German.
   London: G. Bell & Sons. 1887.

   History of the Popes in the 16th and 17th centuries;
   translated from the German by Mrs. Austin.
   London: J. Murray. 2 volumes.

ROBERTSON, JAMES C.
   History of the Christian Church;
   from the Apostolic Age to the Reformation.
   London: J. Murray. 1875. 8 volumes.

ROBERTSON, WM.
   History of the reign of the emperor Charles V.;
   with life of the emperor after his abdication,
   by W. H. Prescott.
   London: George Routledge & Sons. 2 volumes.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Co. 3 volumes.

ROBINSON, A. MARY F. (Madame Darmesteter).
   The end of the middle ages.
   London: T. F. Unwin. 1889.

      "Essays and questions in History," as follows:
      the Beguines and the Weaving Brothers;
      the Convent of Helfta;
      the attraction of the Abyss (Mysticism);
      the Schism;
      Valentine Visconti;
      the French claim to Milan;
      the Malatestas of Rimini;
      the Ladies of Milan;
      the Flight of Piero de' Medici;
      the French at Pisa.

ROSE, J. H.
   A century of continental history, 1780-1880.
   London: Edward Stanford. 1889.

      Aims only at "giving an outline of the main events
      which have brought the Continent of Europe to its
      present political condition," and does so acceptably.

SCHLOSSER, F. C.
   History of the eighteenth century, etc.;
   translated by D. Davison.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1843-52; 8 volumes.

SHEPPARD, JOHN G.
   The fall of Rome and the rise of the new nationalities.
   London and New York: Routledge. 1861.

      "One of the best manuals for the use of a student or the
      Middle Ages. Perhaps its most striking characteristic is in
      its large dependence on original authorities, and in the
      stress winch it lays on the use of such authorities in the
      study of the period under examination."
         C. K. Adams,
         Manual of Historical Literature.
         3d edition, page 168.

SMITH, I. GREGORY:
   Christian Monasticism, from the 4th to the 9th centuries.
   London: A. D. Innes & Co. 1892.

SMYTH, WM.
   Lectures on modern history.
   London: H. G. Bohn. 2 volumes.

SOREL, ALBERT.
   L'Europe et la Revolution française.
   Paris: Plon. 1885.

STEPHENS, W. R. W.
   Hildebrand and his Times.
   London: Longmans. 1888.

      In the series entitled "Epochs of Church History."

STILLÉ, CHARLES J.
   Studies in mediæval history.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co. 1882.

      On the following topics:
      General characteristics of the mediæval era;
      the Barbarians and their invasions;
      the Frankish conquests and Charlemagne;
      Mohammed and his System;
      mediæval France;
      Germany, feudal and imperial;
      Saxon and Danish England;
      England after the Norman conquest;
      the Papacy to the reign of Charlemagne;
      the Papacy and the Empire;
      the struggle for Italian nationality;
      Monasticism, Chivalry and the Crusades:
      Scholastic philosophy—the Schoolmen—Universities;
      the laboring classes in the Middle Ages;
      mediæval Commerce;
      the era of Secularization.

{3891}

STUBBS, WILLIAM.
   Seventeen lectures on the study of mediæval and
   modern history and kindred subjects.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press: 1886.
   New York: Macmillan & Co. 1887.

      Inaugural Lecture;
      on the Present State and Prospects of Historical Study;
      the Purposes and Methods of Historical Study;
      Learning and Literature at the court of Henry II.;
      the Mediæval Kingdoms of Cyprus and Armenia;
      on the Characteristic Differences between Mediæval
      and Modern History;
      the Reign of Henry VIII.;
      Parliament under Henry VIII.;
      history of the Canon Law in England;
      the Reign of Henry VII.;
      last statutory public lecture.

SYBEL, HEINRICH VON.
   History and literature of the Crusades;
   translated from the German.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1861.

SYMONDS, JOHN ADDINGTON.
   The Catholic reaction.
   London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1886. 2 volumes.

      These are the concluding volumes of Symonds'
      "Renaissance in Italy."

TRENCH, RICHARD C.
   Lectures on mediæval Church history.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1878.

VAN PRAET, JULES.
   Essays on the political history of the 15th, 16th,
   and 17th centuries
   [translated from the French].
   London: Richard Bentley. 1868.

VILLEMAIN, A. F.
   Life of Gregory VII. [Hildebrand];
   preceded by a sketch of the Papacy to the 11th century;
   translated from the French.
   London: R. Bentley & Son. 1874. 2 volumes.

VOLTAIRE, F. M. AROUET DE.
   Annals of the empire, from the time of Charlemagne.
   (Works, translated by Smollett and others,
   1761, volumes 20-22).

WARD, A., W.
   The Counter-Reformation.
   London: Longmans. 1889.

      In the series entitled "Epochs of Church History."

WOODHOUSE, F. C.
   The military religious orders of the Middle Ages.
   London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1879.


GREAT BRITAIN: GENERAL.

BRIGHT, J. F.
   History of England.
   London: Rivingtons. 1880-1888. 4 volumes.

      A very carefully written history, brought down to 1880;
      quite full in detail, and necessarily, therefore,
      condensed in the narrative.

BUCKLE, HENRY THOMAS.
   History of civilization in England.
   London: Longmans.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 2 volumes.

      A work which has lost the great influence that it exerted
      when it first appeared, but which is full of suggestion,
      nevertheless, to one who reads it thoughtfully.

BUCKLEY, ARABELLA B.
   History of England for beginners.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1887.

BURROWS, MONTAGU.
   Commentaries on the history of England
   from the earliest times to 1865.
   Edinburg: W. Blackwood & Sons. 1893.

      A successful "attempt to interpret the History of England
      in accordance wit the latest researches"; "a digest and a
      commentary rather than an abstract or an epitome.

BURTON, JOHN HILL.
   History of Scotland from Agricola's invasion to the
   last Jacobite insurrection;
   new and enlarged edition.
   Edinburg: W. Blackwood & Sons. 8 volumes.

CALLCOTT, Lady M.
   Little Arthur's history of England.
   London: J. Murray.

      Very high in the esteem of those who judge books for
      children most carefully.

DICEY, ALBERT V.
   The Privy Council: the Arnold prize essay.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1887.

DUFFY, Sir CHARLES GAVAN.
   Bird's-eye view of Irish history.
   Dublin: J. Duffy & Son. 1882.

ENGLISH WORTHIES;
   edited by Andrew Lang.
   London: Longmans. 1885.

      Raleigh; by Edmund Gosse.
      Blake; by David Hannay.
      Claverhouse; by Mowbray Morris
      Marlborough; by George Saintsbury.
      Shaftesbury; by H. D. Traill.
      Canning; by F. H. Hill.
      Darwin; by Grant Allen.

FORSYTH, WILLIAM;
   History of Trial by Jury.
   London: J. W. Parker. 1852.

FREEMAN, EDWARD A.
   The growth of the English constitution.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1872.

GAIRDNER, JAMES, and JAMES SPEDDING.
   Studies in English history.
   Edinburgh. 1881.

      A volume of collected essays, on the Lollards, the
      Historical element in Shakespeare's Falstaff, Katharine of
      Aragon's first and second marriages, history of the
      doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings, Sundays, ancient and
      modern, and other topics.

GARDINER, SAMUEL RAWSON.
   Historical biographies.
   London: Longmans. 1884.

      Contains brief but excellent biographies of Simon de
      Montfort, Edward the Black Prince, Sir Thomas More, Sir
      Francis Drake, Cromwell, and William III.

   A student's history of England, from the earliest
   times to 1885.
   London: Longmans. 1890—1. 3 volumes.

      Professor Gardiner, being a specialist distinctly, in the
      one period of English history to which he has devoted
      himself—the period of the Stuarts—would not claim
      authority, of course, as an original investigator of other
      times; and some parts of this general text-book have been
      found open to criticism. But, on the whole, it can claim
      the first rank among text-books of its class.

GNEIST, RUDOLPH.
   History of the English Constitution;
   translated from the German.
   London: W. Clowes & Son. 1886. 2 volumes.

   The English Parliament in its transformations through
   a thousand years.
   London: Grevel & Co. 1886.

      "The work of Gneist on the English Constitution is scarcely
      less indispensable to the English student than the works of
      Stubbs and Hallam, while, as a distinguished jurist and
      politician in Germany, he surveys his subject from a
      different standpoint."
         S. R. Gardiner and J. B. Mullinger,
         Introduction to the study of English' History,
         page 410.

GREEN, JOHN RICHARD.
   Short history of the English people.
   Illustrated edition, edited by Mrs. J. R. Green and
   Miss Kate Norgate.
   London: Macmillan & Co.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 4 volumes.

      "The success of the 'Short History' was rapid and
      overwhelming. Everybody read it. It was philosophical
      enough for scholars, and popular enough for school boys. No
      historical book since Macaulay's has made its way so fast.
      … The characteristic note of his [Green's] genius was also
      that of Gibbon's, the combination of a perfect mastery of
      multitudinous details with a large and luminous view of
      those far-reaching forces and relations which govern the
      fortunes of peoples and guide the course of empire."
         J. Bryce,
         John Richard Green
         (Macmillan's Magazine, May, 1883).

   History of the English people.
   London: Macmillan & Co.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1878. 4 volumes.

      An enlargement of the "Short History."

JOYCE, P. W.
   Short history of Ireland, from the earliest times to 1608.
   London: Longmans. 1893.

KNIGHT, CHARLES.
   Popular history of England;
   London: Bradbury & Evans. 8 volumes.

      A work of great merit as a popular history, making no
      pretensions to original research; liberal in spirit and
      admirable in tone. It was one of the first works of the
      kind to be pictorially illustrated in a really historical
      way.

LANGMEAD, THOMAS P. TASWELL.
   English constitutional history, from the Teutonic conquest to
   the present time. 2d edition revised, with additions.
   London: Stevens & H. 1880.

LINGARD, JOHN.
   History of England from the first invasion by the Romans.
   London: Burns & Oates; 10 volumes.

      English history written with general fairness from the
      Roman Catholic standpoint.

LOFTIE, W. J.
   History of London.
   London: E. Stanford. 1883-1884.
   2 volumes with supplement.

MACAULAY, THOMAS BABINGTON, Baron.
   History of England from the accession of James II.
   London: Longmans.

      A brief survey of previous events introduces the history
      proper which begins with the accession of James II., in
      1685. As the death of the author brought his work to an
      abrupt end before he had finished his account of the reign
      of William III. (1689-1702), the history covers a period of
      less than eighteen years. Its extraordinary brilliancy, on
      the one and, and its defects of partisan prejudice and
      misjudgment on the other, are well known. "I can see
      Macaulay's great and obvious faults as well as any man; I
      know as well as any man the cautions with which his
      brilliant pictures must be studied; but I cannot feel that
      I have any right to speak lightly of one to whom I owe so
      much in the matter of actual knowledge, and to whom I owe
      more than to any man as the master of historical
      narrative."
         E. A. Freeman,
         Methods of Historical Study,
         page 105.

POWELL, F. YORK.
   History of England, to the death of Henry VII.
   London: F. Rivingtons.

      An excellent school text-book of the early centuries of
      English history, presenting really one of the best succinct
      studies that can be found of the four centuries from the
      first Norman to the first Tudor. It belongs to a series of
      three volumes, only one other of which (the third, by
      Professor Tout) has appeared.

RANNIE, DAVID W.
   Historical outline of the English Constitution, for beginners.
   London: Longmans. 1882.

SKOTTOWE, B. C.
   A short history of Parliament.
   London: Sonnenschein & Co. 1892.

SMITH, G. BARNETT.
   History of the English Parliament;
   with an account of the Parliaments of Scotland and Ireland.
   London: Ward, Lock, B., & Co. 1892. 2 volumes.

{3893}

SOUTHEY, ROBERT.
   Lives of the British admirals;
   completed by Robert Bell:
   London: Longmans. 1833. 5 volumes.

TRAILL, HENRY D., editor
   Social England; a record of the progress of the people in
   religion, laws, learning, arts, industry, commerce, science,
   literature, and manners, from the earliest times to the
   present day, by, various writers.,
   London: Cassell & Co.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1894-5.

      A work somewhat unequally executed by the different writers
      engaged; but generally admirable, and exceedingly
      interesting. Three volumes have thus far been issued.

TWELVE ENGLISH STATESMEN.
   London: Macmillan & Co; 1888-.

      William the Conqueror; by Edward, A. Freeman.
      Henry the Second; by Mrs. J. R. Green.
      Edward the First; by Prof. T. F. Tout.
      Henry the Seventh; by James Gairdner.
      Cardinal Wolsey; by Bishop Creighton.
      Elizabeth; by E. S. Beesly.
      Oliver Cromwell; by Frederic Harrison.
      William the Third; by H. D. Traill.
      Walpole; by John Morley.
      Chatham [in preparation]; by John Morley.
      Pitt; by Lord Rosebery.
      Peel; by J. R. Thursfield.

YONGE, CHARLOTTE M.
   Cameos from English history.
   London: Macmillan. 1871-1890.
   Philadelphia.: Lippincott & Co.

      Seven series of clear-cut historical narratives, each quite
      distinct in subject, but following one another in close
      relations of time. Many of the subjects are from
      Continental events which have some close connection with
      English history. The periods covered by the several series
      are defined and entitled as follows:
      1. Rollo to Edward II.
      2. The wars in France.
      3. The wars of the Roses.
      4. Reformation times.
      5. England and Spain.
      6. Forty years of Stewart rule.
      7. Rebellion and Restoration.


GREAT BRITAIN: EARLY AND MEDIÆVAL.

BROWNE: MATTHEW.
   Chaucer's England.
   London: Hurst & Blackett. 1869. 2 volumes.

CHURCH, R. W. Saint Anselm.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1870.

CREIGHTON, MANDELL.
   Life of Simon de Montfort, Earl of Leicester.
   London: Rivingtons. 1876.

ELTON, CHARLES.
   Origins of English history.
   London: B. Quaritch. 1882.

      "An attempt to rearrange in a convenient form what is known
      of the history of this country from those obscure ages
      which preceded the Roman invasions to the time when the
      English accepted the Christian religion."—
         Author's opening chapter.

ENGLISH HISTORY FROM CONTEMPORARY WRITERS:
   The misrule of Henry III.
   Edward III. and his wars.
   Strongbow's conquest of Ireland.
   Simon de Montfort and his cause.
   The Wars of York and Lancaster.
   London: D. Nutt. 5 volumes.

FREEMAN, EDWARD A.
   History of the Norman Conquest of England; its causes
   and its results.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1870. 5 volumes and index.

   Old English history for children.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1869.

      An attempt by the late Professor Freeman to make
      "Old English history" interesting to children, and one
      in which he did not fail.

   The reign of William Rufus and the accession of Henry I.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1882. 2 volumes.

      "Taken as a whole, the seven volumes ['Norman Conquest' and
      'William Rufus'] give us such a masterly philosophic
      analysis and such a picturesque and vivid narrative of the
      history of England in the eleventh century that it must be
      pronounced the monumental work upon which Mr. Freeman's
      reputation will chiefly rest."
         John Fiske,
         Edward Augustus Freeman
         (Atlantic Monthly, January 1893).

GAIRDNER, JAMES.
   History of the life and reign of Richard III.
   London: Longmans. 1878.

      "I have, in working out this subject, always adhered to the
      plan of placing my chief reliance on contemporary
      information; and so far as I am aware, I have neglected
      nothing important that is either directly stated by
      original authorities and contemporary records, or that can
      be reasonably inferred from what they say."
         Author's preface.

   The Houses of Lancaster and York, with the conquest
   and loss of France.
   London: Longmans.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons.

      Belonging in the excellent series of the
      "Epochs of Modern History"—small, but satisfactory.

GREEN, J. R.
   The making of England.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1881.

   The conquest of England.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1883.

      In the first of these books, Mr. Green has told the story
      of the Saxons and Angles in England down to the union of
      the land under, Ecgberht; the period of their settlement,
      "in which their political and social life took the form
      which it still retains." In the second work he continues
      the narrative to the Norman conquest.

GREEN, Mrs. J. R.
   Town life in the fifteenth century.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co. 1894. 2 volumes.

      "Every page gives proof of careful research, skilful
      arrangement of facts, and felicitous treatment."
         C. J. Robinson,
         Review (Academy, June 16, 1894).

GROSS, CHARLES.
   The Gild Merchant; a contribution to British municipal history. 
   Oxford. 1890.

      Concededly the best work on the subject.

KEMBLE, JOHN M.
   The Saxons in England.
   New edition, edited and revised by W. De Gray Birch.
   London: B. Quaritch. 1876. 2 volumes.

      "An account of the principles upon which the public and
      political, life of our Anglosaxon forefathers was based;
      and of the institutions in which those principles were most
      clearly manifested."
         Author's Preface.

      "Kemble has no narrative work to compare with that of
      Palgrave; but the 'Saxons in England' may fairly be
      compared with the 'History of the English Commonwealth.'
      They are two great works, works of two great scholars,
      who assuredly are not yet superseded. They will give you
      two sides of the same general story."
         E. A. Freeman,
         Methods of Historical Study,
         page 281.

LECHLER, G.
   John Wiclif and his English precursors;
   translated from the German.
   London: C. K. Paul & Co. 1878. 2 volumes.

LONGMAN, WILLIAM.
   History of the life and times of Edward III.
   London: Longmans. 1869.

MAURICE, C. EDMUND.
   Lives of English popular leaders in the Middle Ages.
   London: H. S. King, 1872-5. 2 volumes.

      Stephen Langton, Wat Tyler, John Ball and Sir John
      Oldcastle are the subjects.

NORGATE, KATE.
   England under the Angevin kings.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1887. 2 volumes.

      "In point of historical scholarship it is rarely indeed
      that Miss Norgate gives anything to complain of. What
      strikes us before all things is her firm grasp of facts and
      authorities. … It is a sterling book, one which places its
      writer very high indeed in the ranks of real scholars."
         E. A. Freeman,
         Review (English History Review, October., 1887).

OMAN, CHARLES W.
   Warwick, the Kingmaker.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1891.

      An excellent small book on the Wars of the Roses, written
      for a series entitled, "English Men of Action."

PALGRAVE, Sir FRANCIS.
   History of Normandy and England.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1851 and 1878. 4 volumes.

      A work which can almost be described as the history of
      Western Europe from the eighth to the end of the eleventh
      century, viewed especially in its connection with the
      movements and settlements of the Northmen.

   History of the Anglo Saxons.
   London: W. Tegg.

      Written from studies made more than sixty years ago, and
      subject now to considerable modification; but it is still
      valuable, and no later work has quite replaced it.

   The rise and progress of the English Commonwealth:
   Anglo-Saxon period.
   London: Murray. 1831. 2 volumes.

      See note to Kemble's "Saxons in England," above.

PASTON LETTERS, THE; 1422-1509;
   a new edition, edited by James Gairdner.
   London: [E. Arber.] 1872. 3 volumes.

      "A collection of family letters written during the Wars of
      the Roses, which are now commonly known as the 'Paston
      Letters,' because most of them were written by or to
      particular persons of the family of Paston in Norfolk. …
      Mr. Gardner's Introduction of 130 closely printed pages to
      the first volume, 50 to the second, and 60 to the third, is
      a book in itself, giving a clear record of the public and
      private life of England from 1422 to 1509, so far as they
      are illustrated by, or illustrate, the 'Paston letters.'"
         H. Morley,
         English Writers,
         volume 6, pages 253 and 261.

PAULI, R.
   Life of Alfred the Great;
   translated from the German by B. Thorpe.
   London: Bohn. 1853.

PEARSON, CHARLES H.
   History of England during the Early and Middle Ages.
   London: Bell & Daldy. 1867. 2 volumes.

      A work of ability which presents views of early English
      history considerably antagonistic to those of Stubbs,
      Freeman and Green, especially concerning the
      destructiveness of the Saxon conquest and the completeness
      of the break in institutional history which that event
      produced; also touching the results of the Norman conquest.

PROTHERO, GEORGE W.
   Life of Simon De Montfort.
   London: Longmans. 1877.

RAMSAY, Sir JAMES H.
   Lancaster and York:
   a century of English history (A. D.1399-1485).
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1892. 2 volumes.

      "'Lancaster and York' is essentially a book of reference,
      to be at the elbow of every careful student who would know
      the honest fact, or would be saved indefinite quest through
      a score of records. … We must admit that it is not a
      readable book."
         G. Gregory Smith.
         Review (Academy, October 29, 1892).

{3893}

RHYS, J.
   Celtic Britain.
   London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1882.

      A small book, but probably the best that can be found
      on the subject.

ROUND, J. H.
   Geoffrey de Mandeville; a study of the Anarchy.
   London: Longmans. 1892.

      Geoffrey de Mandeville, Earl of Essex, played a
      dishonorable but important part in the strife for the
      English crown between the Empress Matilda and Stephen of
      Blois. He is used by Mr. Round as merely a central figure
      in the most thorough study that has been made of that
      distressing time of anarchy.

ROWLEY, JAMES.
   The rise of the People and the growth of Parliament, 1215-1485.
   London: Longmans.

      An interesting outline of the period in which the popular
      institutions of England were rooted. It is one of the
      little volumes in the series of the "Epochs of English
      History."

SCARTH, H. M.
   Roman Britain.
   London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge.

SKENE, W. F.
   Celtic Scotland.
   Edinburgh: Edmonston & Douglas. 1876. 3 volumes.

STUBBS, WILLIAM.
   Constitutional history of England
   in its origin and development.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1874-7. 3 volumes.

      "In along and careful study of the Bishop of Chester's
      writings I will not say that I have always agreed with
      every inference that he has drawn from his evidence; but I
      can say that I have never found a flaw in the statement of
      his evidence. … After five-and-thirty years' knowledge of
      him and his works, I can say without fear that he is the
      one man among living scholars to whom one may most freely
      go as to an oracle, that we may feel more sure with him
      than with any other that in his answer we carry away words
      of truth which he must be rash indeed who calls in
      question."
         E. A. Freeman,
         Methods of historical study, page 10.

   The Early Plantagenets.
   London: Longmans. 1877.

      A little volume in the series of "Epochs of Modern History,"
      contributed by one of the master-historians.

WARBURTON, W.
   Edward the Third.
   London: Longmans.

      In the series of the "Epochs of Modern History."

WRIGHT, THOMAS.
   The Celt, the Roman and the Saxon:
   a history of the early inhabitants of Britain.
   London: Trübner & Co. 1875.

      Particularly a good summary of what is known of the
      Celtic and Roman periods.

   History of domestic manners and sentiments in England
   during the Middle Ages.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1862.

WYLIE, JAMES HAMILTON.
   History of England under Henry IV.
   London: Longmans. 1881-94.
   2 volumes. (a third volume to come).

      An elaborate and painstaking investigation of the period,
      producing a useful but not an interesting work.


GREAT BRITAIN: MODERN.

AIRY, OSMUND.
   The English restoration and Louis XIV.;
   from the Peace of Westphalia to the Peace of Nimwegen.
   London: Longmans. New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1889.

ANSON, Sir W. R.
   Law and custom of the Constitution.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1886.

BACON, FRANCIS, Lord.
   History of the reign of Henry VII.
   [Works, edited by Spedding, et al., volume 6.]
   London: Longmans, 1857-62.

BAGEHOT, WALTER.
   The English Constitution.
   London: Chapman & Hall.

      Not a history of the English constitution, but an essay
      in exposition and elucidation of its principles and its
      practical working. The book is one of the classics of
      political literature.

BAYNE, PETER.
   The chief actors in the Puritan Revolution; 2d edition.
   London: J. Clarke & Co. 1879.

BOURNE, H, R. FOX.
   English seamen under the Tudors.
   London: R. Bentley. 1868. 2 volumes.

   Sir Philip Sidney.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1891.
   London: T. F. Unwin.

      In the series entitled "Heroes of the Nations."

BOUTMY, ÉMILE.
   The English Constitution;
   translated from the French,
   with an introduction by Sir Fredrick Pollock.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1891.

BREWER, J. S.
   The reign of Henry VIII. from his accession to
   the death of Wolsey.
   London: J. Murray. 1884. 2 volumes.

      This work "consists of four different treatises, which were
      originally published as prefaces to the four volumes of
      'Letters an Papers of the Reign of Henry VIII.,' edited by
      Professor Brewer for the Master of the Rolls. … They do not
      … contain a detailed systematic narrative of all that was
      done in the times of which they treat; but they certainly
      do contain a review of the reign of Henry VIII. down to the
      death of Wolsey, as clear sighted as it is comprehensive,
      drawn from the latest sources of information, carefully
      collected and arranged by the author himself."
         Preface, by James Gairdner.

BRIDGET, T. E.
   Life and writings of Sir Thomas More.
   London: Burns & Oates; 1891.

BURKE, S. HUBERT.
   Historical portraits of the Tudor dynasty and
   the Reformation period.
   London: J. Hodges. 1879-83. 4 volumes.

      An interesting, view of Tudor times and people by a well
      instructed and fairly candid Roman Catholic student.

BURNET, Bishop.
   History of his own time.
   London: W. Smith. 1839. 2 volumes.

BURTON, THOMAS [member in the Parliaments
of Oliver and Richard Cromwell from 1656 to 1659].
   Diary;
   edited by J. T. Rutt.
   London: H. Colburn. 1828. 4 volumes.

CARLYLE, THOMAS.
   Oliver Cromwell's letters and speeches, with elucidations.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 5 volumes.
CHAMBERS, ROBERT.
   History of the rebellion of 1745-6.
   Edinburgh 1847.

CHARLES I.
   Letters to Queen Henrietta Maria;
   edited by 'J. Bruce.
   London: Camden Society 1856.

CLARENDON, EDWARD HYDE, Earl of.
   History of the Rebellion and Civil Wars in England.
   Oxford. 1849. 7 volumes.

      "What is unique in his case is the value of his facts, as
      contrasted with, nay as demonstrating, the inconsequence of
      his reasonings. Other historians, when they go wrong, can
      be refuted only by reference to other authorities;
      Clarendon can be answered out of his own lips."
         P. Bayne,
         Chief Actors in the Puritan Revolution,
         page 475.

COOKE, GEORGE W.
   History of Party, from the rise of the Whig and Tory factions,
   in the reign of Charles II., to the passing of the Reform Bill.
   London: J. Macrone. 1836. 2 volumes.

CORDERY, B. MERITON, and J. S. PHILLPOTTS.
   King and Commonwealth; a history of Charles I.
   and the great rebellion.
   London: Seeley & Co.
   Philadelphia: J. H. Coates & Co.

      The principal author of this bit of compact, careful
      historical writing is now better known as Mrs. Bertha M.
      Gardiner, wife of the historian, Samuel Rawson Gardiner.

CREIGHTON, LOUISE.
   Life of John Churchill, Duke of Marlborough.
   London: Rivingtons. 1879.

   Life of Sir Walter Raleigh.
   London: Rivingtons. 1877.

DICEY, A. V.
   Lectures introductory to the study
   of the law of the Constitution.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1885.

EPOCHS OF ENGLISH HISTORY.
   London: Longmans.
   New York: C. Scribner & Co. 8 volumes or 1 volume.

      Early England to the Norman Conquest; by F. York Powell.

      England a Continental Power from the Conquest
      to the Great Charter, 1055-1215; by Mrs. M. Creighton.

      The rise of the People and the growth of Parliament,
      from the Great Charter to the accession of Henry VII.,
      1215-1485; by James Rowley.

      The Tudors and the Reformation, 1485—1603,
      by Rt. Rev. M. Creighton

      The struggle against absolute Monarchy 1603-1088;
      by Mrs. S. R. Gardiner.

      The settlement of the Constitution, 1689-1781:
      by James Rowley.

      England during the American and European wars, 1763—1820;
      by O. W. Tancock.

      Modern England, 1820-1885; by Oscar Browning.

FORSTER, JOHN.
   Statesmen of the Commonwealth of England.
   London: Longmans. 1840. 7 volumes.

      Biographies of Eliot, Strafford, Pym, Hampden, Vane,
      Marten, Cromwell. It is now known that the biography of
      Strafford was written for Forster by Robert Browning, and
      it has been separately published as Browning's work. "Mr.
      Forster … was not only an historical writer, but his time
      and energies were also largely absorbed in the journalism
      of the Whig party of his day, and his treatment of
      important questions too often betrays the influence of a
      strong feeling of partisanship."
         S. R. Gardiner and J. B. Mullinger,
         Introduction to the study of English History, page 354.

FROUDE, J. A.
   History of England, from the fall of Wolsey
   to the death of Elizabeth.
   London: Longmans. New York: C. Scribner & Co. 12 volumes.

      "The well-known work of Mr. Fronde abounds with graphic
      descriptions accompanied by much admirable and just
      criticism. In its composition he was largely aided by his
      researches among the archives at Simancas, collections
      which at that time had been very imperfectly investigated.
      Unfortunately, the conception he has formed of the
      character and conduct of Henry VIII. is of so strange and
      unreal a kind as to deprive this portion of his History of
      much of its value. The reign of Edward VI. is described
      with more impartiality, but the policy of Somerset is
      somewhat harshly judged. … The volumes that relate to the
      reign of Elizabeth are the most valuable part of the work."
         S. R. Gardiner and J. B. Mullinger,
         Introduction to the study of English History, page 325.

   Life and times of Thomas Becket.
   New York: C. Scribner.

GARDINER, S. R.
   The first two Stuarts and the Puritan revolution, 1603-1660.
   London: Longmans.

      In the series entitled "Epochs of Modern History."

   History of England from the accession of James I. to
   the outbreak of the civil war, 1603-1642.
   London: Longmans. 1883-4. 10 volumes.

   History of the Great Civil War, 1642-1649.
   London: Longmans. 1886-94. 3 volumes.

{3894}

GARDINER, S. R.
   History of the Commonwealth and Protectorate, 1649-1660.
   London and New York: Longmans. 1894. volume 1.

   editor, The constitutional documents of the Puritan revolution.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1889.

GASQUET, FRANCIS AIDAN.
   Henry VIII. and the English monasteries.
   London: J. Hodges. 1888. 2 volumes.

      An investigation of facts connected with the suppression
      of the monasteries, by a learned Roman Catholic.

GEIKIE, C.
   The English Reformation.
   London: Strahan & Co. 1879.

GEORGE III. Correspondence with Lord North, from 1768 to 1783.
   London: J. Murray. 1867. 2 volumes.

GREVILLE, CHARLES C. F.
   Memoirs: a journal of the reigns of George IV., William IV.,
   and Victoria.
   London: Longmans. 1874-88.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 8 volumes.

      The journal is brought to a close in the year 1860.

GUIZOT, F. P.
   History of Richard Cromwell and the restoration of Charles II.;
   translated by A. R. Scoble.
   London: R. Bentley's Sons. 1856. 2 volumes.

   History of the English revolution of 1640, commonly
   called the great rebellion;
   translated by William Hazlitt.
   London: H. Bohn.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1846. 2 volumes.

   Monk: or the fall of the Republic and the restoration
   of the Monarchy in England in 1660;
   translated by A. R. Scoble.
   London: Bell & Daldy. 1866.

HALE, E.
   The fall of the Stuarts and Western Europe from 1678 to 1697.
   London: Longmans. 1876.

      A small book in the series entitled
      "Epochs of Modern History."

HALL, HUBERT.
   Society in the Elizabethan Age.
   London: Sonnenschein & Co. 1887.

HALLAM, HENRY.
   Constitutional history of England, from the accession
   of Henry VII. to the death of George II.
   London: J. Murray. 3 volumes.

HAMILTON, J. A.
   Life of Daniel O'Connell.
   London: W. H. Allen & Co., 1888.

HEATON, WILLIAM.
   The three reforms of Parliament: a history, 1830-1885.
   London: T. F. Unwin. 1885.

HERBERT OF CHERBURY, EDWARD, Lord.
   History of England under Henry VIII.
   London: A. Herbert. 1870.

HOSMER, JAMES K.
   Life of Young Sir Henry Vane, Governor of Massachusetts Bay
   and leader of the Long Parliament.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1888.

      A careful study from original sources of the political
      career of Sir Henry Vane on both sides of the sea.

HUGHES, THOMAS.
   Alfred the Great.
   London: Macmillan & Co.

HUTCHINSON, LUCY.
   Memoirs of Colonel Hutchinson:
   revised, with additional notes, by C. H. Firth.
   London: Nimmo. 1885.

      "Hutchinson represented Nottinghamshire in the Long
      Parliament, taking the parliamentary side; and the
      narrative throws much light on the conduct of the
      committees through which Parliament worked, and the
      machinery whereby it maintained its authority over the
      whole kingdom."
         S. R. Gardiner and J. B. Mullinger,
         Introduction to the study of English History, page 318.

JEPHSON, HENRY.
   The Platform: its rise and progress.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co. 1892. 2 volumes.

      "In 1820 we find the word 'platform' used as describing the
      place from which the speakers addressed the meeting, and
      gradually, as we advanced into the present century, the
      word 'platform' by a perfectly simple and natural
      transition, came into general use and acceptation, not
      merely in the technical sense, as the place from which the
      Speech was made, but as descriptive of the spoken
      expression of public opinion outside Parliament."
         H. Jephson, The Platform,
         its rise and progress, introduction.

LECKY, W. E. H.
   History of England in the 18th century.
   London: Longmans. 1878-87.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1878-90. 8 volumes.

      "Mr. Lecky's book ought to have been entitled 'Essays on
      the Growth of the British Empire during the Eighteenth
      Century.' … He has seized more clearly than most writers
      the fruitful idea that the importance of the eighteenth
      century in English history lies in the transformation of
      England into the British Empire, and further, that no part
      of British history can be understood unless the development
      of the Empire be regarded as a whole."
         A. V. Dicey,
         Lecky's History
         (Nation, April 18, 1878, page 261).

LETTERS AND PAPERS, foreign and domestic, of the
reign of Henry VIII., preserved in the Public Records
Office, the British Museum and elsewhere in
England;
   arranged and catalogued by J. S. Brewer
   [after his death by James Gairdner],
   under the direction of the Master of the Rolls.
   London: Longmans. 1862-93. 12 volumes in 18.

LYALL, Sir ALFRED.
   Warren Hastings.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1889.

McCARTHY, JUSTIN.
   The epoch of Reform, 1830-1850.,
   London: Longmans. 1882.

      In the series entitled "Epochs of Modern History."

   History of our own times, from the accession of
   Queen Victoria to the Berlin Congress.
   London: Chatto & Windus. 1879. 4 volumes.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1880. 2 volumes.

      A most readable narrative of recent history: colored
      by the national and partisan prejudices of the writer,
      as every contemporary writing of history is sure to be;
      but manifestly honest in intention, and a praiseworthy
      piece of work.

MACKINTOSH, Sir JAMES.
   History of the Revolution in England in 1688:
   comprising a view of the reign of James II.;
   completed, to the settlement of the crown, by the editor.

      "Almost all the distinguished writers who have treated of
      English history are advocates. Mr. Hallam and Sir James
      Mackintosh alone are entitled to be called judges. But the
      extreme austerity of Mr. Hallam takes away something from
      the pleasure of reading his learned, eloquent and judicious
      writings. He is a judge, but a hanging judge, the Page or
      Buller of the High Court of Literary Justice. His black cap
      is in constant requisition. … Sir James, perhaps, erred a
      little on the other side. He liked a maiden assize and came
      away with white gloves, after sitting in judgment on
      batches of the most notorious offenders."
         Lord Macaulay, Sir James Mackintosh (Essays).

MAHON, Lord (afterwards Earl Stanhope).
   History of England, comprising the reign of Queen Anne
   until the Peace of Utrecht, 1701-1713.
   London: J. Murray. 1870.

   History of England from the Peace of Utrecht [1713]
   to the Peace of Versailles [1783].
   London: J. Murray. 7 volumes.

      "Though the volumes of Lord Mahon are distinguished by
      research and varied learning, by a spirit at once candid,
      patient, and investigating—though his lordship possesses
      considerable ability as a narrator, and is a master of a
      style at once easy, flowing, and thoroughly English, yet
      with all his calm discrimination, and all his spirit of
      truth and justice, there 18 something of the leaven of old
      Toryism about his tone of thought."
         Fraser's Magazine, volume 51, page 128.

   Life of William Pitt. 2d edition.
   London: J. Murray. 1862. 4 volumes.

MALLESON, Colonel G. B.
   Lord Clive.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1893.

MARTINEAU, HARRIET.
   History of England, A. D. 1800-1815; being an introduction
   to the history of the peace.
   London: G. Bell & Sons. 1878.

   History of the Thirty Years' Peace, A. D. 1816-1846.
   London: G. Bell & Sons. 1877. 4 volumes.

      A work which is exceedingly heavy reading, and which does
      not at all sustain the literary reputation of Miss
      Martineau. It gives, however, the most complete account we
      have of the thirty years following the Napoleonic wars.

MASSEY, WILLIAM.
   History of England during the reign of George III.
   2d edition, revised and corrected.
   London: Longmans. 1865. 4 volumes.

      "Mr. Massey is clear, succinct and nervous. He is a careful
      and conscientious inquirer, who searches into original and
      contemporary documents, and who does not take facts or
      adopt opinions at second hand. Mr. Massey is not a decided
      party man, though a Liberal in the best sense of the word."
         Fraser's Magazine,
         volume 51, page 144.

      "The work is dispassionate and impartial in its tone."
         J. B. Mullinger,
         Introduction to the Study of English History,
         part 2, page 394.

MASSON, DAVID.
   Life of John Milton, narrated in connection with the
   political, ecclesiastical and literary history of his time.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1858-80. 6 volumes and index.

      "Professor Masson's 'Life of Milton' is an elaborate and
      often highly interesting study of all the contemporary
      movements—religious, political, and social—which may be
      supposed to have influenced the poet's genius or to have
      moulded the national history."
         S. R. Gardiner and J. B. Mullinger,
         Introduction to the study of English History,
         page 336.

MAY, THOMAS ERSKINE.
   Constitutional history of England since the accession
   of George III., 1760-1860.
   London: Longmans. 1861-2.
   Boston: Crosby & Nichols. 2 volumes.

      A continuation of Hallam's "Constitutional History."

MIGNET, F. A.
   History of Mary, Queen of Scots.
   London: R. Bentley & Son. 1887.

MOBERLY, C. E.
   The early Tudors: Henry VII.; Henry VIII.
   London: Longmans. New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1887.

      A small book in the series entitled
      "Epochs of Modern History."

MOLESWORTH, WILLIAM NASSAU.
   History of England from 1830 to 1874.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1874. 3 volumes.

MORLEY, JOHN.
   Edmund Burke: a historical study.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1867.

{3895}

MORLEY, JOHN.
   Life of Richard Cobden.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1881.

      A fine piece of biographical writing and the best account
      existing, of the Anti-Corn-Law League and the struggle for
      free trade in England.

MORRIS, EDWARD E.
   The age of Anne.
   London: Longmans.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1877.

   The early Hanoverians.
   London: Longmans. New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1886.

      In the series entitled "Epochs of Modern History."

NAPIER, MARK.
   Montrose and the Covenanters.
   London: J. Duncan. 1838. 2 volumes.

PAUL, ALEXANDER.
   History of reform; a record of the struggle for the
   representation of the people in Parliament. 2d edition.
   London: Routledge & Sons. 1884.

PEPYS, SAMUEL.
   Diary, completely transcribed by the late Rev. Mynors Bright,
   with Lord Braybrooke's notes;
   edited with additions by H.B. Wheatley.
   London: George Bell & Sons. 1893. 3 volumes.

PERRY, GEORGE G.
   History of the Reformation in England.
   London: Longmans. 1886.

PORRITT, EDWARD.
   The Englishman at home; his responsibilities and privileges.
   New York: T. Y. Crowell & Co. 1893.

PRIME MINISTERS OF QUEEN VICTORIA;
   edited by Stuart J. Reid.
   London: S. Low, Marston & Co. 1890.
   New York: Harper & Bros.

      Lord Beaconsfield; by J. A. Froude.
      Lord Melbourne; by Henry Dunckley.
      Sir Robert Peel; by Justin McCarthy.
      Gladstone; by G. W. E. Russell.
      Marquis of Salisbury; by H. D. Traill.
      Viscount Palmerston; by the Marquis of Lorne.
      The Earl of Derby; by George Saintsbury.
      The Earl of Aberdeen; by Sir A. Gordon.

RANKE, LEOPOLD VON.
   History of England, principally in the 17th century;
   translated from the German.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1875. 6 volumes.

      The broadest and most philosophical study that has been
      made of English history in the important period from the
      Reformation to the Revolution.

SEELEY, J. R.
   The expansion of England.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1883.

      A comprehensive and highly suggestive survey of the
      colonial system of England and of her historical relations
      to the vast dependent empire that has been organized around
      her.

SMITH, GOLDWIN.
   Three English statesmen; a course of lectures on the
   political history of England.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1867.
   New York: Harper & Bros.

      The three English statesmen discussed are Pym,
      Cromwell and Pitt.

SMITH, R. BOSWORTH.
   Life of Lord Lawrence.
   London: Smith, Elder & Co; 1883. 2 volumes.

SOUTHEY, ROBERT.
   Life of Nelson.
   London: J. Murray.

SOUTHEY, ROBERT.
   Life of Wesley: the rise and progress of Methodism.
   London: Bell & Daldy. 1864.

STEBBING, W.
   Sir Walter Raleigh: a biography.
   Oxford. 1891.

SYDNEY, WILLIAM CONNOR.
   England and the English in the 18th century.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co. 1891. 2 volumes.

THACKERAY, W. M.
   The four Georges: sketches of manners, morals,
   court and town life.
   London: Smith & Elder. 1861.
   New York: Harper & Bros.

THORNBURY, G. W.
   Shakespeare's England;
   or sketches of our social history in the reign of Elizabeth.
   London: Longmans. 1856. 2 volumes.

TODD, ALPHEUS.
   Parliamentary government in England;
   its origin, development and practical operation;
   new edition, abridged and revised by Spencer Walpole.
   London: Low, Marston & Co. 1892. 2 volumes.

      A work which has grown steadily in reputation
      since it first appeared.

TREVELYAN, GEORGE OTTO.
   Early history of Charles James Fox.
   London: Longmans. 1880.

TULLOCH, JOHN.
   English Puritanism and its Leaders.
   Edinburgh: W. Blackwood & Sons.

      Biographical essays on Cromwell, Milton, Baxter and Bunyan.

TWO CENTURIES OF IRISH HISTORY; with introduction by James Bryce.
   London: K. Paul & Co. 1888.

WAITE, ROSAMUND.
   Life of the Duke of Wellington.
   London: Rivingtons. 1878.

WAKELING, G. H.
   King and Parliament (A. D. 1603-1714).
   London: Blackie & Son. 1894.

      One of a promising series of small books lately undertaken,
      entitled "Oxford Manuals of English History."

WALPOLE, SPENCER.
   History of England from the conclusion of the great war in 1815.
   London: Longmans. 1878-86. 5 volumes.

      "His treatment does not exhibit any of the higher powers of
      philosophic generalisation; but his research is extensive;
      and the commercial, economic, and financial questions which
      now begin to enter more largely than ever into the
      political history of the nation, are treated with sound
      judgment and conspicuous moderation."
         S. R. Gardiner and J. B. Mullinger,
         Introduction to the study of English History, page 403.

WOLSELEY, G. J., Viscount.
   Life of John Churchill, Duke of Marlborough,
   to the accession of Queen Anne.
   London: R. Bentley & Son. 1894. 2 volumes.

WRIGHT, THOMAS, editor.
   Queen Elizabeth and her times: a series of original letters.
   London: H. Colburn. 1838. 2 volumes.

      Letters selected from the unpublished private
      correspondence of the Lord Treasurer Burghley, the Earl of
      Leicester, and other distinguished persons of the time.


GERMANY AND AUSTRIA-HUNGARY.

ARNDT, E. M.
   Werke. Leipzig. 1892-.
   Geist der Zeit. Erinnerungen, etc.

      All-important for age of Napoleon.

ARNETH, A. V.
   Geschichte Maria Theresias.
   Wien. 1863-79. 10 volumes.

BAUMGARTEN, H.
   Geschichte Karls V. volumes 1-8.
   Stuttgart. 1885-92.

      Extends only to 1639.

BENEDETTI, V., Comte.
   Ma Mission en Prusse.
   Paris. 1871.

BEUST, FRIEDRICH F., Count von.
   Memoirs [1830-/ 1885].
   London: Remington & Co. 1887. 2 volumes.

      The memoirs of a statesman who bore the leading part in the
      reconstruction and reconstitution of the Austrian empire
      after the Seven Weeks War of 1866 are necessarily important
      and interesting.

BEZOLD, F. VON.
   Geschichte der Deutschen Reformation.
   Berlin. 1887-90.

      Theil von Oncken, Allgem. gesch. in Einzeldarstellungen.
      Highly praised.

BIEDERMANN, K.
   Dreissig jahre Deutscher geschichte;
   von der Thronbesteigung Friedrich Wilhelms IV
   bis zur aufrichtung des neuen Deutschen Kaiserthums.
   Breslau. 1881-2. 2 volumes.

   Mein Leben und ein Stück Zeitgeschichte.
   Breslau. 1886-7. 2 volumes.

BISMARCK, Furst.
   Gesammelte werke: briefe, reden und aktenstücke;
   herausg. von B. Walden. 5 volumes.
   Berlin. 1892.
   Briefe. Eb. 1892.

   Politische reden. Historisch-kritische gesammtausgabe
   besorgt von H. Kohl.
   Stuttgart. 1892-4. 9 volumes.

BLUM, Dr. Hans.
   Das Deutsche Reich zur zeit Bismarcks;
   politische geschichte von 1871 bis 1890.
   Leipzig und Wien. 1893. volumes 1-2.

BOYEN, HERMANN V.
   Erinnerungen aus dem Leben.
   Herausgegeben von F. Nippold.
   Leipzig. 1889-90.

      Important for the war of Liberation.

BRACE, CHARLES LORING.
   Hungary in 1851.
   New York: C. Scribner. 1852.

BRACKENBURY, Colonel C. B.
   Frederick the Great.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1884.

      A succinct, clear, well studied military history.

BROGLIE, JACQUES V. A., Duc de.
   Frederick the Great and Maria Theresa;
   translated by Mrs. Hoey and J. Lillie.
   London: Low, Marston & Co. 1883. 2 volumes.

      "Piquant, readable, and full of interesting revelations."
         Herbert Tuttle, Preface to
         "History of Prussia under Frederick the Great."

BROSIEN, H.
   Preussische geschichte: Abth. 1.
   Geschichte der Mark Brandenburg im Mittelalter.
   Leipzig. 1887.

      Das wissen der gegen wart.

BUCHWALD, G. V.
   Deutsches gesellschaftsleben im endenden Mittelalter.
   Kiel. 1885-7. 2 volumes.

BULLE, C.
   Geschichte der neuesten zeit, 1815-1871.
   Leipzig. 1886'-7. 4 volumes.

BUNSEN, CH. K. J., Freiherr v.
   Aus seinen Briefen und nach eigener Erinnerung geschildert,
   von seiner Witwe. 3 auf., vermehrt von F. Nippold.
   Leipzig. 1868-71. 3 volumes.

CARLYLE, THOMAS.
   History of Friedrich II. of Prussia.
   London: Chapman & Hall.
   New York: Harper & Bros.

      See note to Tuttle's "History of Prussia." below.

COXE, WILLIAM.
   History of the house of Austria, 1218-1792.
   London: H. G. Bohn. 3 volumes.

      "Besides being a work of real intrinsic merit, it has the
      greater distinction of being the only complete history of
      the House of Austria accessible to the reader of English."
         C. K. Adams. Manual of Historical Literature,
         3d edition; page 283.

{3896}

DAHLMANN-WAITZ.
   Quellenkunde der Deutschen geschichte.
   Gottingen. 1894.

      6,550 titles.

DEBIDOUR, A.
   Histoire diplomatique de l'Europe
   depuis l'ouverture du congrès de Vienne jusqu' à
   la clôture du congrès de Berlin (1814-1878).
   Paris. 1891. volumes 1-2.

DELBRÜCK, H.
   Das Leben des Feldmarshalls Grafen Neithardt von Gneisenau.
   Berlin. 1882. 2 volumes.

DICEY, EDWARD.
   The battlefields of 1866.
   London: Tinsley Bros. 1866.

   The campaign [of 1866] in Germany.
   (Macmillan's Magazine, 14:386. 1866.)

DÖLLINGER, J. V.
   Das Papstthum.
   München: 1892.

   Briefe und Erklärungen über die Vatikanischen Dekrete, 1869-87.
   Herausg. von F. H. Reusch.
   Münch. 1890.

DROYSEN, G.
   Gustav Adolf.
   Leipzig. 1869-70. 2 volumes.

      Well written and by a great authority.

DROYSEN, J. G.
   Das Leben des Feldmarshalls Grafen Yorck von Wartenburg.
   9 auf. Berlin. 1884. 2 volumes.

DUNHAM, S. A.
   History of the Germanic empire.
   London: Longmans. 1834. 3 volumes.

EGELHAAF, G.
   Deutsche Geschichte im zeitalter der Reformation.
   Berlin. 1885.

      A prize work.

EHERRIER, C. DE.
   Histoire de la lutte des papes et des
   empereurs de la maison de Souabe;
   Paris. 1858-9. 3 volumes.

ERDMANNSDÖRFFER, B.
   Deutsche Geschichte vom Westphälischen Frieden bis zum
   Regierungsantritt Friedrichs des grossen, 1648-1740.
   Berlin. 1892-4. 2 volumes.

      Theil von Oncken, Allgem. gesch.

FORBES, ARCHIBALD.
   William of Germany.
   London: Cassell & Co. 1888.

FORSTER, FLORENCE. A.
   Francis Deak, Hungarian statesman: a memoir;
   with a preface by M. E. Grant Duff.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1880.

FREDERIC, HAROLD.
   The young emperor, William II. of Germany.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.
   London: T. F. Unwin. 1891.

FREDERICK II. (called the Great.)
   History of my own times [1740-1745].
   (Posthumous works; translated by Thomas Holcroft. volume 1.
   London. 1789. 13 volumes.).

FREYTAG,
   G. Bilder aus der Deutschen Vergangenheit.
   Leipzig. 18th edition. 1892. 5 volumes.

      Excellent as history and as literature.

GARDINER, SAMUEL R.
   The Thirty Years' War, 1618-1648.
   (Epochs of history.)
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1874.
   New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. 1876.

GERMANY, FEDERAL. CONSTITUTION OF;
   with an historical introduction;
   translated from the German.
   Philadelphia 1890.

      Published in the Political Economy and Public Law Series of
      the University of Pennsylvania.

GERVINUS, G. G.
   Geschichte des XIX Jahrhunderts
   seit den Wiener Verträgen.
   Leipzig. 1855-66. 8 volumes.

GIESEBRECHT, W. v.
   Geschichte der Deutschen Kaizerzeit;
   Braunschweig u. Leipzig.

      Five editions, last one in 1888.
      Extends from 911 to c. 1180.

GINDELY, ANTON.
   History of the Thirty Years' War;
   translated by A. Ten Brook.
   London: R. Bentley & Sons. 1884.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1884. 2 volumes.

GODKIN, EDWIN L.
   History of Hungary and the Magyars.
   London: Cassell & Co. 1853.

GÖRGEI, ARTHUR.
   My life and acts in Hungary, 1848-9;
   translated.
   London: D. Bogue.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1852.

GÖTZ VON BERLICHINGEN.
   Eigne Lebensbeschreibung.
   In Götz Graf von Berlichingen-Rossach:
   geschichte des Ritters G. v. B. und seiner Familie.
   Leipzig. 1861.

      (Also in Reclam library.)

GOULD, S. BARING.
   The story of Germany.
   London: T. F. Unwin.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1886.

      In the series entitled "Story of the Nations."

HALLWICH, H.
   Wallenstein's Ende: ungedruckte Briefe und Akten.
   Leipzig. 1879. 2 volumes.

HAÜSSER, L.
   Deutsche geschichte vom Tode Friedrichs des grossen bis zur
   gründung des Deutschen Bundes.
      Berlin. 1869. 4 volumes.

HENDERSON, ERNEST F.
   A history of Germany in the Middle Ages.
   London: George Bell & Sons. 1894.

      This is the only book which brings to English readers the
      latest fruits of the thorough-going German investigation of
      German mediæval history.

HOFER, ANDREW.
   Memoirs of the life of; containing an account of the
   transactions in the Tyrol, 1809;
   from the German, by C. H. Hall.
   London: J. Murray. 1820.

HOZIER, H. M.
   The Seven Weeks' War.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1867. 2 volumes.

HUDSON, E. H.
   The life and times of Louisa, Queen of Prussia.
   London: Hatchards. 2 volumes.

JASTROW, I.
   Geschichte des Deutschen Einheitstraums und seiner Erfüllung.
   Berlin. 1891.

      A prize essay.

KLAPKA., General GEORGE.
   Memoirs of the war of independence in Hungary;
   translated by O. Wenckstern.
   London: C. Gilpin. 1850. 2 volumes.

KOSER, R.
   Friedrich der grosse als Kronprinz.
   Stuttgart. 1886.

   König Friedrich der grosse. volumes 1. 1893. Bibl. D. G.

      Greatest modern authority on Frederick.

KÖSTLIN, J.
   Luthers Leben.
   Leipzig. 1882.

LENZ, M.
   Martin Luther.
   Berlin. 1883.

      Short, scholarly and well written.

KRAUSE, GUSTAV.
   The growth of German unity,
   London: David Nutt. 1892.

KUGLER, B.
   Wallenstein.
   Leipzig. 1884.

      Der Neue Plutarch.

LAMPRECHT, K.
   Deutsche geschichte.
   Berlin. 1891. volumes 1-5.

      Extends as yet to the Reformation.

LEGER, LOUIS.
   History of Austro-Hungary;
   translated by Mrs. Birkbeck Hill.
   London: Rivingtons.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1889.

LEHMANN, M.
   Scharnhorst.
   Leipzig. 1886-7.

LEWIS, CHARLTON T.
   History of Germany.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1874.

      Based on Muller's History of the German People.

LIPPERT J.
   Deutsche Sittengeschichte.
   Leipzig. 1889. 3 volumes.

      Das Wissen der gegenwart.

LÖHER, F. V.
   Kulturgeschichte der Deutschen im Mittelalter.
   Münich. 1891-4. 3 volumes.

LONGMAN, F. W.
   Frederick the Great and the Seven Years' War.
   London:. Longmans, Green & Co.
   New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. 1881.

LOWE, CHARLES.
   Prince Bismarck; an historical biography.
   London: Cassell & Co. 1885. 2 volumes.

MACAULAY, Lord.
   Frederick the Great. [Essays.]
   London: Longmans, Green & Co.
   Boston: Estes & Lauriat. 3 volumes.

      This fascinating essay does not in all matters represent
      the facts and the personages of the story as less brilliant
      but more careful historians of the present day depict them.
      [sic.]

MALET, Sir ALEXANDER.
   The overthrow of the Germanic confederation, 1866.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1870.

MALLESON, Colonel G. B.
   Battle-fields of Germany.
   London: V. H. Allen & Co. 1884.

   Life of Prince Metternich.
   London: W. H. Allen & Co.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott &; Co. 1888.

   Loudon [Austrian field-marshal, 1743-1790].
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1884.

   The refounding of the German empire, 1848-1871.
   London, Seeley & Co. 1893.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons.

MAURENBRECHER, W.
    Gründung des Deutschen Reichs, 1859-1871,
    Leipzig. 1892.

MAURICE, C. EDMUND.
   Revolutionary movement of 1848-9 in Italy,
   Austria-Hungary, and Germany.
   London: George Bell and Sons. 1887.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.

MAXIMILIEN I. et MARGUERITE D' AUTRICHE.
   Correspondence, 1507-19.
   Paris: A. G. LeGlay. 1839. 2 volumes.

MAZADE, CH. DE.
   Un chancelier d' ancien régime.
   Le règne diplomatique de Metternich.
   Paris. 1889.

MENZEL, WOLFGANZ.
   History of Germany;
   translated from 4th German edition by Mrs. G. Horrocks.
   London: H. G. Bohn. 1848. 3 volumes.

METTERNICH, Prince.
   Memoirs [1773-1835];
   translated by Mrs. Napier.
   London: Bentley & Son. 1880.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons.

{3897}

MITCHELL, Lieutenant-Colonel J.
   Life of Wallenstein.
   London: Jas. Fraser. 1837.

MOLTKE, HELMUTH, Graf von.
   Gesammelte Schriften und Denkwürdigkeiten.
   Berlin. 1891-2. 7 volumes.

   Essays, speeches and memoirs;
   translated from the German.
   New York; Harper & Bros. 1893.

MORRIS, WILLIAM O'CONNOR.
   Moltke: a biographical and critical study.
   London; Ward & Downey. 1894.

MÜLLER, W.
   Field Marshal Count Moltke, 1800-1878;
   translated from the German.
   London: Sonnenschein & Co. 1870.

NIEBUHR, B. G.
   Lebensnachrichten über N. Herausg. von D. Hensler.
   Hamburg. 1838-9. 3 volumes.

ONCKEN, W.
   Das Zeitalter der Revolution, des Kaiserreiches
   und der Befreiungskriege.
   Berlin. 1881-87. 2 volumes.

   Das Zeitalter des Kaisers Wilhelm.
   Berlin. 1890-02. 2 volumes.

      Both in Oncken, Allg-geschichte in Einzeldarstellungen.

RANKE, LEOPOLD VON.
   Ferdinand I. and Maximilian II. of Austria;
   translated by Lady Duff Gordon.
   London: Longmans. 1862.

      An essay on the State of Germany immediately after
      the Reformation.

   Geschichte Wallensteins. 4 auf.
   Leipzig. 1880.

   History of the Latin and Teutonic nations, 1494-1514;
   translated by Philip A. Ashworth.
   London: George Bell & Sons. 1887.

   History of the reformation in Germany;
   translated by Sarah Austin.
   London: Longman. 1845-7. 3 volumes.

   Memoirs of the House of Brandenburg and history of
   Prussia during the 17th and 18th centuries;
   translated by Sir A. and Lady Duff Gordon.
   London: J. Murray. 1849. 3 volumes.

   Weltgeschichte, herausg. von A. Dove u. G. Winter.
   Leipzig. 1886-8. 9 volumes.

      Extends to 15th century.

SCHACK, A. F. Graf von.
   Ein halbes Jahrhundert Lebenserinnerungen.
   Stuttgart. 1880.

SCHERER, W.
   Geschichte der Deutschen Literatur.
   Berlin. 1891.

SCHILLER, FREDERICK.
   History of the Thirty Years' War;
   [also] History of the revolt of the Netherlands
   to the confederacy of the Gueux;
   translated from the German.
   London: H. G. Bohn.

SEELEY, J. R.
   Life and times of Stein,
   or Germany and Prussia in the Napoleonic age.
   Cambridge: University Press. 1878. 3 volumes.

      The only full, clear, broadly studied account that we have
      in the English language of the remarkable work of national
      development, by education and organization, that was begun
      in Prussia after her prostration by Napoleon, and which
      made her the nucleus of the Germanic consolidation that has
      taken place in our own time.

SÉGUR, L. P.
   History of the reign of Frederic William II., King of Prussia;
   translated from the French.
   London: Longmans. 1801. 3 volumes.

SIME, JAMES.
   History of Germany.
   London: Macmillan & Co.
   New York: H. Holt & Co. 1874.

      An excellent brief sketch of German history by one who had
      been gathering material, during many years, for a larger
      work, but who died recently without fulfilling his purpose.

SIMON, E.
   Histoire du Prince de Bismarck (1847-1887).
   Paris. 1887.

   L'empereur Guillaume et son règne.
   Paris. 1886.

   L'empereur Frederic.
   Paris. 1888.

   L'empereur Guillaume II et la première année de son règne.
   Paris. 1880.

   Emperor William and his reign;
   translated from the French.
   London: Remington & Co. 1886. 2 volumes.

SMITH, THOMAS.
   Arminius: a history of the German people and of their customs
   from the days of Julius Cæsar to the time of Charlemagne.
   London: J. Blackwood & Co. 1861.

STILES, WILLIAM. H.
   Austria in 1848-49.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1852-3. 2 volumes.

STOCKMAR, FRH. v.
   Denkwürdigkeiten.
   Braunschweig. 1872.

STOFFEL, Colonel Baron.
   Military reports addressed to the French war minister, 1800-70:
   translated at the [English] war office, by Captain Home.
   London: 1873.

      These are the reports on the organization and efficiency of
      the Prussian army which might have deterred France from her
      insane declaration of war in 1870, and saved her from her
      great humiliation, it Napoleon III. and his reckless
      ministers had given attention to them.

STRAUSS, G. L. M.
   Men who have made the new German empire.
   London: Tinsley Bros. 1875. 2 volumes.

SYBEL, HEINRICH VON.
   The founding of the German empire, by William I.;
   translated by M. L. Perrin.
   New York: T. Y. Crowell & Co. 1890—4. 5 volumes.

SZABAD, EMERIC.
   Hungary, past and present.
   Edinburg: A. & C. Black. 1854.

TAYLOR, BAYARD.
   School history of Germany.
   New York: Appleton & Co. 1874.

      A compilation from David Müller's "History of the German
      People" more condensed than that of Charlton T. Lewis.

TESTA, GIOVANNI B.
   History of the war of Frederick I. against the communes
   of Lombardy.
   London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1877.

TREITSCHKE, H. v.
   Deutsche Geschichte im 19 Jahrhundert.
   Leipzig. 1870-95. 5 volumes.

      Extends as yet to 1847.

TRENCH, RICHARD C.
   Gustavus Adolphus in Germany. 2d edition.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1872.

      Lectures, two only of which were published in 1865.

TURNER, SAMUEL EPES.
   Sketch of the Germanic constitution from early times to the
   dissolution of the empire.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1898.

TUTTLE, HERBERT.
   Brief biographies: German political leaders.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons 1876.

      Prince Bismarck;
      Dr. Falk;
      President Delbrück;
      Herr Camphausen;
      Prince Hohenlohe;
      Count von Arnim;
      Herr von Bennigsen;
      Dr. Simson;
      Herr Lasker;
      Herr Windthorst;
      Dr. Lewe;
      Herr Schulze-Delitzsche;
      Herr Jacoby;
      Herr Hasselmann;
      Herr Sonnemann;
      Professors Gneist, Virchow, Treitschke, and Von Sybel.

   History of Prussia to the accession
   of Frederick the Great, 1134-1740.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1864.

   History of Prussia Under Frederick the Great, 1740-1756.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1888. 2 volumes.

      In the preface to these last two volumes of his work, which
      he did not live to complete, Professor Tuttle remarked:
      "The great name of Carlyle is associated so commandingly
      with the reign of Frederic the Great that any other writer,
      who ventures to treat the same subject, is bound to make
      good in advance his claim to a hearing. … But my own faith
      was shaken when during a residence of several years in
      Berlin I discovered how inadequate was Carlyle's account,
      and probably also his knowledge, of the working system of
      the Prussian government in the last century,—a system which
      it is absolutely necessary to understand if one desires to
      know as well why Frederic was able to accomplish what he
      did, as why his successors failed to accomplish what they
      undertook.

VÁMBÉRY, ARMINIUS, and LOUIS HEILPRIN.
   The story of Hungary.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1886.
   London: T. F. Unwin.

      In the series entitled "Story of the Nations."

VARNHAGEN v. ENSE, K. A.
   Denkwürdigkeiten und vermischten Schriften.
   Leipzig. 1871. 3 volumes.

VICKERS, ROBERT H.
   History of Bohemia.
   Chicago: C. H. Sergel & Co. 1894.

VOIGT, J.
   Geschichte des Deutschen Ritterordens.
   Berlin. 1857-59. 2 volumes.

VOSS, Gräfin von.
   Neunundsechzig Jahre am preussischen Hofe. 5 auf.
   Leipzig. 1887.

WEINHOLD, K.
   Die Deutschen Frauen in dem mittelalter.
   Wien. 1882. 2 volumes.

WHITMAN, SIDNEY.
   The realm of the Habsburgs.
   London: William Heinemann. 1893.

WILLIAMS. W. K.
   The Communes of Lombardy from the 6th to the 10th century.
   Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University. 1891.

WINTER, G.
   Geschichte des dreissigjährigen Krieges.
   Berlin. 1893.

      Theil von Oncken, Allgem. gesch.

ZIMMERMANN, Dr. William.
   A popular history of Germany;
   translated by H. Craig.
   New York: H. J. Johnson. 1877. 4 volumes.

      A much better history than its form of publication
      might lead one to suppose.

ZIMMERN, HELEN.
   The Hansa towns.
   London: T. F. Unwin.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1889.

      In the series entitled "Story of the Nations."


FRANCE: GENERAL.

BINGHAM, D.
   The Bastille.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1888. 2 volumes.

CHAVANNE, DARESTE DE LA.
   Histoire de France.
   Paris. 1868-73. 8 volumes.

CREIGHTON, LOUISE.
   First history of France.
   London and New York: Longmans. 1893.

DURUY, VICTOR.
   History of France:
   abridged and translated by Mrs. Carey [to 1889].
   New York: T. Y. Crowell & Co.

{3898}

JERVIS, W. H.
   The Gallican Church.
   London: John Murray. 1872. 2 volumes.

KITCHIN, G. W.
   History of France [to 1793].
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 3 volumes.

      The best general history of France that one can now
      find in English.

LACOMBE, PAUL.
   The growth of a people;
   translated from the French.
   New York: Henry Holt & Co. 1883.

MARTIN, HENRI.
   Histoire de France.
   Paris: Furne, Jouvet et Cie. 26 volumes.

MICHELET, JULES.
   Histoire de France.
   Paris: C. Marpon et E. Flammarion. 1879. 19 volumes.

      Extends to 1789.

   History of France [to 1483],
   translated from the French.
   London: Whittaker. 2 volumes.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 2 volumes.

MONOD, G.
   Bibliographie de l'histoire de France.
   Paris: Hachette. 1888.

      Contains 4542 titles.

   Les maîtres de l'histoire: Renan, Taine, Michelet.
   Paris: Calmann-Lévy. 1894.

RAMBAUD.
   Histoire de la civilization française.
   Paris: Colin. 1885-87. 2 volumes.

      Full of new facts and views.

SOREL, A.
   Lectures historiques.
   Paris: Plon. 1894.

      Covers 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries; is highly praised.

STEPHEN, Sir JAMES.
   Lectures on the history of France.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1851.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 2 volumes.

      "The lectures giving most important presentations are
      those in which the parliaments and States-general are
      described."
         C. K. Adams,
         Manual of Historical literature, 3d edition,
         page 383.


FRANCE: TO THE REVOLUTION.

ARMSTRONG, E.
   The French wars of religion; their political aspects.
   London: Percival & Co. 1892.

AUMALE, Due d'.
   History of the princes de Condé, 16th and 17th centuries;
   translated by R. B. Borthwick.
   London: Richard Bentley & Sons. 2 volumes.

BAIRD, HENRY M.
   History of the rise of the Huguenots of France.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1879. 2 volumes.
   London: Hodder & Stoughton. 2 volumes.

   The Huguenots and Henry of Navarre.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1886. 2 volumes.
   London: Kegan Paul, Trench & Co. 2 volumes.

BEAUCOURT, G. DU FRESNE DE.
   Histoire de Charles VII.
   Paris: Alphonse Picard. 1891. 6 volumes.

      Work crowned by the Academy.

BÉMONT, C., et G. MONOD.
   Histoire de l'Europe et en particulier de France de 395 à 1270.
   Paris: F. Alcan. 1891.

      The best summary of the period.

BESANT, WALTER.
   Gaspard de Coligny.
   London: Marcus Ward & Co. 1879.

BROC, Vicomte de.
   La France sous l'ancien regîme.
   Paris: Plon. 1887-89. 2 volumes.

BROGLIE, Duc de.
   Frederic II et. Louis XV.
   Paris. 1885. 2 volumes.

      Collected articles from the "Revue des deux mondes."

CANET.
   Jeanne d'Arc.
   Lille: Desclee. 1887.

CARRÉ, H.
   La France sous Louis XV.

      An interesting study.

CHANTELAUZE, R.
   Portraits historiques [De Commynes, Condé, Mazarin, etc.].
   Paris. 1886.

CHARLOTTE ELIZABETH, Princess Palatine.
   Life and letters, 1652-1672.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1889.

CLERMONT, LOUIS DE.
   Un mignon de la cour de Henri III.
   Paris. 1885.

      The life of a rascally but attractive governor of Anjou:
      "le brave Bussy."

COIGNET, Madame C.
   François I.
   Paris: Plon. 1885.

COMBES, F.
   Madame de Sevigne, historien.
   Paris. 1885.

COMINES, PHILIP DE.
   Memoirs [Louis XI. and Charles VIII.]
   London: George Bell & Sons (Bohn). 2 volumes.

COSNAC, JULES, Comte de.
   Mazarin et Colbert.
   Paris: Plon. 1892. 2 volumes.

   Souvenirs du règne de Louis XIV.
   Paris. 1874-81. 8 volumes.

COSTELLO, LOUISA S.
   Jacques Cœur: the French Argonaut and his times.
   London: R. Bentley & Co. 1847.

DECRUE, FRANCIS.
   Anne de Montmorency, grand maître et
   grand connetable de France.
   Paris: Plon. 1885.

FERRIÈRE, HECTOR DE LA.
   La Saint-Barthélmy.
   Paris: Calmann-Lévy. 1892.

GEFFROY, A.
   Madame de Maintenon d'aprés sa correspondance authentique.
   Paris: Hachette. 1887.

GODWIN, PARKE.
   History of France: Ancient Gaul.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1860.

HANOTAUX, GABRIEL.
   Études historiques sur Ie XVI et XVII siècle en France.
   Paris: Hachette. 1886.

      Essays on Francis I;, Catherine de Medicis, etc.

   Histoire du cardinal de Richelieu:
   La jeunesse de Richelieu, 1585-1614.
   Paris. 1893.

HOZIER, Captain H. M.
   Turenne.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1885.

JAMISON, D. F.
   Life and times of Bertrand du Guesclin;
   a history of the 14th century.
   London: Trübner & Co. 1864. 2 volumes.

JOINVILLE, Sire de.
   Saint Louis, king of France [1254-1317];
   translated by J. Hutton.
   London: Low, Marston & Co.

LARCHEY, LOREDAN.
   History of Bayard;
   compiled by The Loyal Serviteur;
   translated from the French.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1883.

LECESTRES, L.
   Memoires de gourville.
   Paris. 1894.

      Published by La société de l'histoire de France.
      Covers period from 1646-1697, and is most curious.

LEMONNIER.
   L'art français au temps de Richelieu et de Mazarin.
   Paris: Hachette. 1893.

      A study of art in connection with history.

LUCE, SIMÉON.
   La France pendant la guerre de cent ans.
   Paris. 1890.

      Public and private life in 14th and 15th centuries.

   Jeanne D'Arc à Domremy; recherches critiques sur les
   origines de la mission de la Pucelle.
   Paris: H. Champion. 1886.

LUCHAIRE, ACHILLE.
   Les communes françaises à l'époque des Capétiens directs.
   Paris: Hachette et Cie. 1890.

MARTIN, HENRY.
   History of France: age of Louis XIV.;
   translated by Mrs. Booth.
   Boston: Walker, Wise & Co. 2 volumes.

MERLE D'AUBIGNE, J. H.
   History of the reformation in the time of Calvin:
   translated from the French.
   London: Longmans.
   New York: Robert Carter & Bros. 8 volumes.

MONTPENSIER, M'lle de.
   Memoirs [1627-1683];
   translated from the French.
   London: Henry Colburn. 3 volumes.

MORRISON, J. COTTER.
   Madame de Maintenon: an étude.
   London: Field & Tuer.

PARIS, PAULIN.
   Études sur François I.
   Paris: Leon Téchener. 1885. 2 volumes.

PERKINS, JAMES BRECK.
   France under Mazarin.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1886. 2 volumes.

      "About a third of the work is given to Richelieu; about a
      third (six chapters out of twenty) to the Fronds; and three
      chapters at the end are of a general nature, upon the
      administration, society, and religion. The reader lays
      aside the book with a higher estimate of Mazarin's ability
      and character. The style is for the most part excellent—
      serious and perspicuous in discussion and in the
      delineation of character, animated in narration."
         The Nation, September 9, 1886.

   France under the regency.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1892.
   London: Macmillan & Co.

PERRY, WALTER C.
   The Franks.
   London:. Longmans, Green & Co. 1857.

RANKE, LEOPOLD VON.
   Civil wars and monarchy in France, 16th-17th centuries:
   translated by M. A. Garvey.
   London: Richard Bentley & Son. 1852.
   New York: Harper & Bros.

RETZ, Cardinal de.
   Memoirs [1614-1655];
   translated from the French. 3 volumes.

ROBINSON, A. MARY F. (Madame Darmesteter).
   Margaret of Angoulême, Queen of Navarre.
   London: W. H. Allen & Co. 1886.

SAINT-SIMON, Duc de.
   Mémoires, p. p. de Boislisle.
   Paris: Hachette. 10 volumes.

      The edition published in the collection entitled
      "Grands Ecrivains de France."

   Memoirs on the reign of Louis XIV. and the regency [1692-1723].
   Abridged from the French by Bayle St. John.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1857. 4 volumes.

SEPET, MARIUS.
   Jeanne d'Arc.
   Tours: Alfred Marne. 1891.

SMILES, SAMUEL.
   The Huguenots.
   London: John Murray: 1867.
   New York: Harper & Bros.

TAINE, H. A.
   The ancient regime;
   translated from the French.
   New York: H. Holt & Co. 1876.

{3899}

THIERRY, AUGUSTIN.
   Formation and progress of the tiers état in France;
   translated.
   London: T. Bosworth. 1855. 2 volumes.

THIERS, ADOLPHE.
   The Mississippi Bubble; a memoir of John Law.
   New York: W. A. Townsend & Co. 1859.

WEILL, G.
   Saint-Simon et ses oeuvres.
   Paris: Perrin. 1894.

WILLERT, P. F.
   Henry of Navarre and the Huguenots in France.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons; 1893.

      In the series entitled "Heroes of the Nations."


FRANCE: THE REVOLUTION AND AFTER.

ABRANTES, Duchess d' (Madame Junot).
   Memoirs of Napoleon, court and family;
   translated from the French.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 2 volumes.

ADAMS, CHARLES K.
   Democracy and monarchy in France.
   New York: H. Holt & Co. 1874.

ALGER, JOHN G.
   Glimpses of the French Revolution;
   myths, ideals and realities.
   London: S. Low, Marston & Co. 1894.

BARANTE, CLAUDE DE.
   Souvenirs du Baron de Barante.
   Paris: Calmann-Lévy. 1893-4. 4 volumes.

      Correspondence with Chateaubriand, Guizat,
      M. de Rémusat, etc.

BERTIN, ERNEST.
   La société du Consulat et de l'Empire.
   Paris. 1890.

      A work brilliant and distinguished in its style.

BERTRAND, P.
   Lettres inédites de Talleyrand à Napoleon.
   Paris: Perrin. 1889.

BLANC, LOUIS.
   History of ten years, 1830-1840;
   translated by W. K. Kelly.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1845. 2 volumes.
   Philadelphia: Lea & Blanchard. 2 volumes.

BLENNERHASSET, Lady.
   Talleyrand;
   translated from the German.
   London: J. Murray. 1894. 2 volumes.

BOURRIENNE, FAUVELET DE.
   Private memoirs of Napoleon Bonaparte;
   [translated from the French].
   London: Henry Colburn & R. Bentley. 4 volumes.
   New York: T. Y. Crowell & Co. 4 volumes.

BRETTE, ARMAND.
   Serment du Jeu de Paume.
   Paris. 1894.

BROC, Vicomte de.
   La France pendant la revolution.
   Paris: Plon. 2 volumes.

      A work crowned by the Academy.

BROWNING, OSCAR.
   Modern France, 1814-1879.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1880.
   New York: Harper & Bros.

BURKE, EDMUND.
   Reflections on the Revolution in France;
   edited, with notes, by F. G. Selby.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1890.

CARLYLE, THOMAS.
   The French revolution.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 3 volumes.

      "The great name of Carlyle has made men wary of seeming to
      tread in his path, and the mass of English readers are
      therefore left in ignorance of the many points in which he
      erred, not wilfully, but from the scantiness of the
      information at his disposal."
         H. Morse Stephens,
         Preface to "History of the French Revolution." 

CAVAIGNAC, Madame.
   Memoires d'une inconnue.
   Paris: Plon. 1894.

      Manners and customs at beginning of century.

CLARETIE, JULES.
   Camille Desmoulins and his wife.
   London: Smith, Elder & Co.

CLÉRY, J. B. C. H.
   Journal at the Temple during confinement of Louis XVI.
   London. 1798.

CROKER, JOHN W.
   Essays on the early period of the French revolution.
   London: John Murray. 1857.

DICKINSON, G. LOWES.
   Revolution and reaction in modern France.
   London: George Allen. 1892.

DUMONT, ETIENNE.
   Recollections of Mirabeau;
   [translated from the French].
   Philadelphia: Carey & Lea.

FAURIEL, CLAUDE.
   The last days of the consulate;
   edited by Lalanne.
   London: Low, Marston & Co. 1885.

FLERS, DE:
   Le comte de Paris.
   Paris: Perrin. 1887.

FOURNIER, Dr. A.
   Napoleon I.
   Leipzig: Freytag. 1888-9.

FRANCO-GERMAN WAR, 1870-1871;
   translated from the German official account.
   London. 1874-84. 5 volumes.

GARDINER, BERTHA M.
   The French revolution.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1882.

      A sketch condensed to the last degree, and yet not
      lifeless, nor without suggestions of meaning and relation
      in the events narrated.

GAUTIER. HIPPOLYTE.
   L'an 1789.
   Paris: Delagrave. 1889.

GORCE, PIERRE DE LA.
   Histoire de la séconde république française.
   Paris: Plon. 1887. 2 volumes.

HAUSSONVILLE, Vicomte d'.
   The Salon of Madame Necker;
   translated by H. M. Trollope.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1882.

HAZLITT, WILLIAM.
   Life of Napoleon.
   London: 4 volumes.

HOLST, HERMANN VON.
   The French Revolution tested by Mirabeau's career;
   lectures at the Lowell Institute.
   Chicago: Callaghan & Co. 1894.

HOOPER, GEORGE.
   Campaign of Sedan.
   London: George Bell & Sons. 1887.

HOZIER, Captain H. M., editor.
   The Franco-Prussian War.
   London: W. Mackenzie. 2 volumes.

HUGO, VICTOR.
   The history of a crime;
   [translated from the French].
   London: Low, Marston & Co. 1877-1879. 4 volumes.

JERVIS, W. H.
   The Gallican church and the revolution.
   London: Kegan Paul, Trench & Co. 1882.

JOMINI, Baron H. DE.
   Life of Napoleon;
   translated by H. W. Halleck.
   New York: D. Van Nostrand. 4 volumes.

      Of value, no doubt, to military students, but absurdly
      written as though narrated by Napoleon in the other world
      to a ghostly audience of the great warriors of the past.

LAMARTINE, ALPHONSE DE.
   History of the Girondists.
   London: George Bell & Sons (Bohn).
   New York: Harper & Bros. 3 volumes.

LANFREY, P.
   History of Napoleon I.
   [translated from the French].
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1871-9. 4 volumes.

      A review of the career of Napoleon by a stern judge, but
      one who is generally just. The author died before his work
      was finished.

LA ROCHEJAQUELEIN, Marchioness de.
   Memoirs [1792-1802];
   translated from the French.
   Edinburgh: Constable & Co. (1827).

LA ROCHETERIE, MAXIME DE.
   Life of Marie Antoinette;
   translated from the French.
   New York: Dodd, Mead & Co. 1893.

LATIMER, ELIZABETH W.
   France in the nineteenth century, 1830-1890.
   Chicago: A. C. McClurg & Co. 1892.

      A useful compilation of recent French history.

LEVY, ARTHUR.
   The private life of Napoleon, from the French.
   London: R. Bentley & Son.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons.

LEWES, GEORGE H.
   Life of Robespierre.
   London: Chapman & Hall.
   Philadelphia: Carey & Hart. 1849.

LISSAGARAY, P. O.
   History of the commune of 1871;
   translated by E. M. Aveling.
   London: Reeves & Turner. 1886.

LOCKWOOD, HENRY C.
   Constitutional history of France, 1789-1889.
   Chicago: Rand, McNally & Co. 1890.

LOMÉNIE, LOUIS DE.
   Beaumarchais and his times;
   translated by H. S. Edwards.
   London: Addey & Co. 1856. 4 volumes.
   New York: Harper & Bros.

LOWELL, EDWARD J.
   The eve of the French-revolution.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1892.

      In Mr. Lowell's view, the year 1789 is a date which "marks
      the outbreak in legislation and politics of ideas which had
      already been working for a century, and which have changed
      the face of the civilized world." His book is a thoughtful
      study of those ideas in their rise and development.

MACDONALD, Marshal.
   Recollections;
   translated from the French.
   London: R. Bentley & Son. 1892. 2 volumes.

MACDONELL, JAMES.
   France since the first empire.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1879.

MAHAN, Captain ALFRED T.
   The influence of sea power upon the French
   revolution and Empire.
   Boston: Little, Brown & Co. 1892. 2 volumes.

      A book which has produced a new conception of the
      importance of naval power in history.

MARBOT, Baron de.
   Memoirs [1793-1814];
   translated by A. J. Butler.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1892. 2 volumes.

      "It is as the vivacious exponent of the spirit of the
      Grande Armée that he possesses the most serious interest
      for the historical student. Others have chronicled the
      deeds of that army, others have contributed to its
      anecdotic history, others have surpassed him in the skilful
      narration of its military achievements; but no one except
      Marbot has so unwittingly but so truly revealed its spirit
      in all its heroism and its weakness."
         H. M. Stephens, Review (Academy, May 21, 1892).

MARCEAU, SERGENT.
   Reminiscences of a regicide [1751-1847];
   edited by M. C. M. Simpson.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1889.

MARIE LOUISE [wife of Napoleon].
   Correspondance.
   Paris: Klinckzieck. 1887.

{3900}

MARZIALS, FRANK T.
   Life of Leon Gambetta.
   London: Allen & Co. 1890.

MAULDE-LA-CLAVIÈRE, R; DE.
   Les origines de la revolution française.
   Paris: Leroux. 1889.

MÉNEVAL, Baron de.
   Memoirs illustrating the history of Napoleon I.,
   from 1802 to 1815;
   translated from the French.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1894.

MÉZIÈRES, A.
   Vie de Mirabeau.
   Paris: Hachette. 1892.

MIGNET, FRANÇOIS A. M.
   History of the French revolution, 1789-1814;
   translated from the French.
   London: George Bell & Sons.

MITCHELL, Lieutenant-Colonel J.
   The fall Of Napoleon.
   London: G. W. Nickisson. 1845. 3 volumes.

MOLTKE, Count von.
   Franco-German war of 1870-1871.
   London: Osgood, McIlvaine & Co. 1891. 2 volumes.
   New York: Harper & Bros.

MORRIS, GOUVERNEUR.
   Diary and letters [1788-1794];
   edited by A. C. Morris.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1888.
   London: Kegan Paul, Trench & Co. 2 volumes.

      Gouverneur Morris succeeded Jefferson as American Minister
      to Franca in 1792; but he had been in France most of the
      time since 1789, and he remained until 1794. His diary of
      the events of those terrible years is the most valuable
      record that has come down from them.

NAPIER, Lieutenant-General. Sir William. F. P.
   History of the war in the Peninsula. 1807-1814.
   London: G. Routledge & Sons. 6 volumes.

NAPOLEON I.
   Oeuvres litteraires.
   Tancrède Martel.
   Paris: 1888. 4 volumes.

      Contains letters, memoirs, etc.

NOLHAC, DE.
   Marie Antoinette.
   Paris: Alph. Lemerre. 1892.

PALLAIN, G.
   Correspondance diplomatique de Talleyrand.
   Paris: Plon. 1891.

PASQUIER, ETIENNE DENIS, Duc.
   History of my time: memoirs;
   translated from the French,
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons, 1893-4. volumes 1-2.

      The Chancellor Pasquier was an observer and a prominent
      actor in events during the whole period of, the Revolution,
      the Consulate and the Empire.

PONCHALON, HENRI DE.
   Souvenirs de guerre.
   Paris. 1893.

      Written by a colonel who fought at Sedan.

PRESSENSÉ, EDMOND DE.
   Religion and the reign of terror;
   translated by J. P. Lacroix.
   New York: Carlton & Lanahan.

RÉMUSAT, Madame de.
   Memoirs, 1802-1808;
   translated by Mrs. Hoey and J. Lillie.
   London: Low, Marston & Co. 2 volumes.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co; 3 volumes.

RÉMUSAT, PAUL DE.
   Thiers;
   translated from the French.
   Chicago: A. C. McClurg & Co. 1889.

ROCHECHOUART, DE.
   Souvenirs sur la revolution, l'empire et la restauration.
   p. p. son fils.
   Paris. 1889.

ROCQUAIN, FELIX.
   The revolutionary spirit preceding the French revolution;
   translated by J. D. Hunting;
   with introduction by Professor Huxley.
   London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co. 1891.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons.

      A work warmly commended by Mr. Lecky, as well as by
      Professor Huxley.

ROLAND, Madame M. J. P.
   An appeal to impartial posterity;
   translated from the French.
   London: J. Johnson. 2 volumes.

ROPES, JOHN CODMAN.
   The campaign of Waterloo; a military history. 2d edition.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1893.

ROSE, J. H.
   The Revolutionary and Napoleonic era, 1789-1815.
   Cambridge: University Press.
   New York: Macmillan & Co. 1894.

      In the "Cambridge Historical Series."

SAY, LÉON.
   Turgot;
   translated by M. B. Anderson.
   Chicago: A. C. McClurg & Co.

SEELEY, JOHN R.
   Short history of Napoleon the First.
   Boston: Roberts Bros. 1886.

      An excellent sketch of the career of Napoleon, written
      with severity but righteousness of judgment.

SEPET, MARIUS.
   Napoléon.
   Paris. Perrin. 1894.

SIMON, JULES.
   The government of M. Thiers, 1871-1873;
   translated from the French.
   London: Low, Marston & Co. 1879. 2 volumes.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 2 volumes.

SOREL, ALBERT.
   L'Europe et la révolution française.
   Paris: Plon. 1892. 4 volumes.

STAEL-HOLSTEIN, Madame de.
   Considerations on the French revolution;
   translated from the French. 2 volumes.

STEPHENS, H. MORSE.
   History of the French revolution.
   London: Rivingtons.
   New York: C. Scribner' Sons. 1886. volumes 1-2.

   editor.
   Principal speeches of the statesmen and orators
   of the French revolution. 1789-1795.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press.
   New York: Macmillan & Co. 1892. 2 volumes.

      In the two volumes which have appeared, Mr. Stephens has
      fully justified his undertaking to write a history of the
      French Revolution based on the abundant new material that
      has come to light since Thiers, Carlyle Sybel, Michelet and
      Mignet wrote.

SYBEL, HEINRICH VON.
   History of the French revolution:
   translated from the German by W. C. Perry,
   London: John Murray. 4 volumes.

      A philosophical study of the Revolution especially in its
      relations to European politics.

TAINE, HIPPOLYTE A.
   The French revolution;
   translated by J. Durand.
   London: Low, Marston & Co. 2 volumes.
   New York: H. Holt & Co. 3 volumes.

   The modern regime;
   translated by J. Durand; volume 1.
   New York: H. Holt & Co. 1890.
   London: Low, Marston & Co. 2 volumes.

TALLEYRAND; Prince de.
   Memoirs;
   translated by R. L. de Beaufort.
   London: Griffith, Farran & Co.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1891. 5 volumes.

      These memoirs, long waited for, were a disappointment when
      they appeared, containing little that was not well
      understood before.

TÉNOT, EUGENE.
   Paris in December, 1851: the coup d' état;
   translated from the 13th French edition.
   New York: Hurd & Houghton.

THIERS, LOUIS ADOLPHE.
   History of the French revolution;
   translated by F. Shoberl.
   London: R. Bentley & Son. 5 volumes.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 4 volumes.

   History of the consulate and the empire of France
   under Napoleon;
   translated from the French.
   London: G. Bell & Sons (Bohn).
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co. 5 volumes.

      The histories of M. Thiers have been losing their early
      reputation under criticisms which challenge their accuracy
      and question their spirit. He wrote as a champion of the
      Revolution and an admirer of the "glory" of the Napoleonic
      period,—not always in the temper of a scrupulous historian.

THOUVENEL.
   Episode d' histoire contemporaine.
   Paris: Calmann-Lévy. 1893.

THUREAU-DANGIN.
   Historie de la monarchie de Juillet.
   Paris: Plon. 7 volumes.

      Twice crowned by the Academy.

TOCQUEVILLE, ALEXIS DE.
   On the state of society in France before 1789;
   translated by H. Reeve.
   London: John Murray. 1856.

   Souvenirs.
   Paris: Calmann-Lévy. 1893.

TUCKERMAN, BAYARD.
   Life of Lafayette.
   New York: Dodd, Mead & Co. 1889. 2 volumes.
   London: Low, Marston & Co.

VÉSINIER, P.
   History of the commune of Paris;
   translated by J. V. Weber.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1872.

VYRÉ, F. DE.
   Marie Antoinette, sa vie, sa mort.
   Paris: Plon. 1889.

WASHBURNE, ELIHU B.
   Recollections of a minister to France, 1869-1877.
   London: Low, Marston & Co.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1887. 2 volumes.

YOUNG, ARTHUR.
   Travels in France 1787-1789;
   edited by M. B. Edwards.
   London; G. Bell & Sons. 1889. 2 volumes.


ITALY.

      Works in the Italian language were selected for this list
      by Mr. William Roscoe Thayer, author of "The Dawn of
      Italian Independence."

ARRIVABENE, Count CHARLES.
   Italy under Victor Emmanuel.
   London: Hurst & Blackett. 1862. 2 volumes.

BALBO, C.
   Storia d'Italia [476-1848].

BENT, J. T.
   Genoa.
   London: C. K. Paul & Co. 1881.

BERSEZIO, V.
   Regno di Vittorio Emanuele II.
   1878. 4 volumes.

BONGHI, R.
   Vita di Valentino Pasini.

BOSSI.
   Istoria d'Italia. 1819.

BOTTA, C.
   Storia dei popoli italiani [300-1789].

BROWN, HORATIO F.
   Venice; an historical sketch of the republic.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1893.

BROWNING, OSCAR.
   Guelphs and Ghibellines;
   a short history of mediæval Italy, 1250-1409.
   London: Methuen & Co. 1893.

BURCKHARDT, JACOB.
   The civilization of the period of the Renaissance in Italy;
   translated from the German.
   London: C. K. Paul & Co. 1878. 2 volumes.

CANTU, C.
   Cronistoria dell' Indipendenza Italiana.
   Gli eretici d'Italia.

{3901}

CAVOUR, C.
   Lettere edite ed inedite. 1887. 6 volumes.

CESARESCO, Countess EVELYN M.
   The liberation of Italy, 1815-1870.
   London: Seeley & Co. 1894.

DENINA, C.
   Rivoluzioni d'Italia. 3 volumes.

FARINI, L. C.
   La stato Romano.

GALLENGA, ANTONIO.
   History of Piedmont.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1855. 3 volumes.

GARIBALDI, GIUSEPPE.
   Autobiography;
   translated by A. Werner.
   London: W. Smith & Innes. 1889. 3 volumes.

GIANNONE, P.
   Istoria civile del regno di Napoli. 1873.

GIESEBRECHT, F. G. B. VON.
   Geschichte der Deutschen Kaiserzeit.

GODKIN, G. S.
   Life of Victor Emmanuel II., first King of Italy.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1879. 2 volumes.

GUALTEIRO, F. A.
   Gli ultimi Revolgimenti italiani.

GUICCIARDINI, F.
   Storia florentina.

HUNT, WILLIAM.
   History of Italy.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1873.
   New York: H. Holt & Co.

      A sketch of Italian history in "Freeman's Historical
      Course for Schools."

LA FARINA, G.
   Storia d' Italia dal 1789.

LANGE.
   Geschichte der Römischen Kirche.

MACHIAVELLI, NICCOLO.
   Historical, political and diplomatic writings;
   translated by C. E. Detmold.
   Boston: Osgood & Co. 1882. 3 volumes.

      Life of Machiavelli.
      History of Florence.
      The Prince.
      Discourses on Livius.
      Thoughts of a statesman.
      Missions.
      Miscellaneous.

MARRIOTT, J. A. R.
   The makers of modern Italy: Mazzini, Cavour, Garibaldi.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1889.

MARTIN, H.
   Vie de D. Manin.

MAZADE, CHARLES DE.
   Life of Count Cavour;
   translated from the Italian.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1877.

MURATORI, L. A.
   Annali d' Italia dal principio dell' êra volgare sino al 1750.
   Milano: 1818. 18 volumes.

NAPIER, HENRY E.
   Florentine history.
   London: E. Moxon. 1846. 6 volumes.

OLIPHANT, Mrs. M. O. W.
   The Makers of Florence.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1877.

PERRENS, F. T.
   History of Florence, from the domination of the Medici
   to the fall of the republic;
   translated from the French.
   London: Methuen & Co. 1892.

PROBYN, J. W.
   Italy from the fall of Napoleon I., in 1815, to 1890.
   London: Cassell & Co. 1891.

QUINET, E.
   Révolutions d' Italie (1852).

RAUMER, FRIEDRICH L. G. YON.
   Geschichte der Hohenstaufen.

REUCHLIN.
      Geschichte Italiens.

REUMONT, ALFRED VON.
   Historie de Florence.
   Lorenzo de' Medici, the Magnificent;
   translated from the German.
   London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1876. 2 volumes.

ROBERTSON, ALEXANDER.
   Fra Paoli Sarpi, the greatest of the Venetians;
   London: S. Low, Marston & Co. 1894.

ROCQUAIN.
   La Papauté an moyen âge.

ROMANIN, S.
   Storia documentata di Venezia. 1853.

ROSCOE, WILLIAM.
   Life and pontificate of Leo X.
   London: H. G. Bohn. 2 volumes.

   Life of Lorenzo de' Medici, called the Magnificent.
   London: H. G. Bohn.

SCHIRRMACHER.
   Kaiser Friedrich II.

SISMONDI, J. C. L. DE.
   Les republiques italiennes. 1826.

   History of the Italian Republics.
   London: Longmans. New York: Harper & Bros.

      A greatly abridged translation at Sismondi's work.

SYMONDS, JOHN A.
   Renaissance in Italy.
   London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1875-86. 7 volumes.

      The Age of the Despots.
      The Revival of Learning.
      The Fine Arts.
      Italian Literature.
      The Catholic Reaction.

THAYER, WILLIAM ROSCOE.
   The dawn of Italian independence.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1893. 2 volumes.

      A history of Italy from the Congress of Vienna, 1814, to
      the fall of Venice, 1849, which leaves nothing more to be
      desired for that important period.

TIRABOSCHI, G.
   Storia della letteratura italiana. 3d edition.
   Venezia: 1823-5. 27 volumes.

TROLLOPE, T. A.
   History of the Commonwealth of Florence.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1865. 4 volumes.

TROYA, C.
   Italia nel medio-evo.

URQUHART, W. P.
   Life and times of Francesco Sforza, Duke of Milan.
   Edinburgh: W. Blackwood & Sons. 1852. 2 volumes.

VILLANI, G. M. e F.
   Cronaca.

VILLANI, P.
   Niccolò Machiavelli.

   La storia di Girolamo Savonarola.

VILLARI, PASQUALE.
   History of Girolamo Savonarola and of his times;
   translated from the Italian.
   London: Longmans. 1863. 2 volumes.

   Niccolo Machiavelli and his times;
   translated from the Italian.
   London: C. K. Paul & Co. 1878-83. 4 volumes.

   The two first centuries of Florentine history.
   London: T. F. Unwin. 1894.

   Ed. Storia politica, 476-1878. 8 volumes.

ZELLER, J. S. Abérge de l'historie d'Italie (476-1864).


OTHER EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.

BURKE, U. R.
   History of Spain.
   London and New York: Longmans. 1805.

CARLYLE, THOMAS.
   The early kings of Norway.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1875.

COPPÉE, HENRY.
   History of the conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors.
   Boston: Little, Brown & Co. 1881. 2 volumes.

CREASY, Sir EDWARD S.
   History of the Ottoman Turks;
   revised edition.
   London: R. Bentley & Son. 1877.
   New York: H. Holt & Co.

DAVIES, C. M.
   History of Holland to the end of the 18th century.
   London: J. W. Parker. 1841. 3 volumes.

DU CHAILLU, PAUL B.
   The Viking age.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1889. 2 volumes.

FINLAY, GEORGE.
   History of Greece;
   new edition, revised by H. F. Tozer.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1877. 7 volumes.

      "George Finlay, more perhaps than any other modern writer,
      belongs to the same class as these earlier historians who
      began a story of remote ages and carried it on into times
      and scenes in which they were themselves spectators and
      actors. … While Grote put forth volume after volume amid
      the general applause of scholars, Finlay toiled on at his
      thankless task, amid every form of neglect and
      discouragement, till he made a few here and there
      understand that there was a Roman Empire of the East. Full
      of faults his book is, in form, in matter, in temper; but
      it is a great work all the same."
         E. A. Freeman,
         Methods of Historical Study,
         pages 285-286.

FLETCHER, C. R. L.
   Gustavus Adolphus and the struggle of Protestantism
   for existence.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1890.

      In the series entitled "Heroes of the Nations."

FREEMAN, EDWARD A.
   The Ottoman power in Europe.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1877.

GEIJER, ERIC GUSTAVE.
   History of the Swedes, first part;
   translated from the Swedish.
   London: Whittaker & Co.

GRIFFIS, W. E.
   Brave little Holland, and what she has taught us.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1894.

HAMLEY, General Sir EDWARD.
   The war in the Crimea.
   London: Seeley & Co. 1891.

      In the series entitled "Events of Our Own Time."

HUG, Mrs. LINA and R. STEAD.
   Switzerland.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.
   London: T. F. Unwin. 1890.

      In the series entitled "The Story of the Nations."

KEARY, C. F.
   Norway and the Norwegians.
   London: Percival. 1892.

KINGLAKE, A. W.
   The invasion of the Crimea.
   Edinburgh: W. Blackwood & Sons. 1863-80.
   N. Y.: Harper & Bros. 6 volumes.

MOLTKE, Count HELMUTH VON.
   Poland: an historical sketch:
   translated from the German.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1885.

MORFILL, W. R.
   The story of Poland.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.
   London: T. F. Unwin. 1893.

   The story of Russia.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.
   London: T. F. Unwin. 1890.

      In the series entitled "The Story of the Nations."

MOTLEY, JOHN LOTHROP.
   The rise of the Dutch Republic.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1856. 3 volumes.

      History of the United Netherlands, from the death of
      William the Silent to the Synod of Dort.
      New York: Harper & Bros. 1861-8. 4 volumes.

      Life and death of John of Barneveld.
      New York: Harper & Bros. 2 volumes.

         "He paints the confused scenes of the period he has
         chosen to describe—its great and little passions, its
         atrocious and its noble men, its terrible sieges and
         picturesque festivals, bridals in the midst of
         massacres, its fights upon the sea and under the sea,
         its torture-fires and blood-baths—in vivid colors, with
         a bold free hand, and with a masterly knowledge of
         effect. Whatever was dramatic in those fierce conflicts
         he has seized; whatever is peculiar or striking in
         character, he has penetrated; whatever is significant of
         time or place, he appropriates: while he has never
         forgotten the great purpose of history, which is the
         illustration of moral power."
            P. Godwin, Out of the Past, page 439.

{3902}

PONTALIS, A. L.
   John DeWitt, Grand Pensionary of Holland.
   London: Longmans. 1885. 2 volumes.

POOLE, STANLEY LANE.
   The story of Turkey.
   New York: G. P. Putnam s Sons.
   London: T. F. Unwin. 1888.

      In the series entitled "The Story of the Nations."

PRESCOTT, W. H.
   History of the reign of Ferdinand and Isabella the Catholic;
   revised edition.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co. 1882. 3 volumes.

PRESCOTT, W. H.
   History of the reign of Philip II., king of Spain.
   Boston: 1855-8. volumes 1-3 [left unfinished].

RAMBAUD, ALFRED.
   History of Russia, to 1877;
   translated from the French.
   London: S. Low, Marston & Co. 1879. 2 volumes.

RANKE, LEOPOLD VON.
   History of Servia;
   translated from the German.
   London: H. G. Bohn. 1853.

SCHUYLER, EUGENE.
   Peter the Great, emperor of Russia.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1884. 2 volumes.

STEPHENS, H. MORSE.
   The story of Portugal.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1891.

      One of the best books in the series entitled
      "The Story of the Nations."

VOLTAIRE, M. DE.
   History of Charles XII.;
   edited by O. W. Wight.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1881.

WATSON, PAUL B.
   The Swedish revolution under Gustavus Vasa.
   Boston: Little, Brown & Co. 1889.


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: GENERAL.

      A considerably extensive bibliography of Aboriginal America
      and of the European discovery and exploration, will be
      found in Appendix F. to volume 1.


AMERICAN COMMONWEALTHS;
   edited by Horace E. Scudder.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 14 volumes.

      Virginia; by John Esten Cooke.
      Oregon; by William Barrows.
      Maryland; by William Hand Browne.
      Kentucky; by N. S. Shaler.
      Michigan; by T. M. Cooley.
      Kansas; by L. W. Spring.
      California; by Josiah Royce.
      New York; by Ellis H. Roberts (2 volumes.).
      Connecticut; by Alexander Johnston.
      Missouri; by Lucien Carr.
      Indiana; by J. P. Dunn. Jr.
      Ohio; by Rufus King.
      Vermont; by Rowland E. Robinson.

AMERICAN HISTORY SERIES.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1892.

      The Colonial Era; by George Park Fisher.

      The French War and the Revolution;
      by William Milligan Sloane.
      (Other volumes in preparation.)

AMERICAN STATESMEN;
   edited by John T. Morse, Jr.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1882-93. 25 volumes.

      George Washington; by Henry Cabot Lodge.
      Benjamin Franklin; by John T. Morse. Jr.
      Samuel Adams; by James K. Hosmer.
      Patrick Henry; by Moses Colt Tyler.
      John Adams; by John T. Morse, Jr.
      Alexander Hamilton; by Henry Cabot Lodge.
      Thomas Jefferson; by John T. Morse. Jr.
      John Jay; by George Pellew.
      Gouverneur Morris; by Theodore Roosevelt.
      James Madison; by Sidney Howard Gay.
      John Marshall; by Allan B. Magruder.
      Albert Gallatin; by John Austin Stevens.
      James Monroe; by Daniel C. Gilman.
      John Quincy Adams; by John T. Morse, Jr.
      John Randolph; by Henry Adams.
      Andrew Jackson; William G. Sumner.
      Martin Van Buren; by Edward M. Shepard.
      Thomas H. Benton; by Theodore Roosevelt.
      Daniel Webster; by Henry Cabot Lodge.
      Henry Clay: by Carl Schurz (2 volumes).
      John C. Calhoun; by Dr. H. von Holst.
      Lewis Cass; by Andrew C. McLaughlin.
      Abraham Lincoln; by John T. Morse, Jr.(2 volumes).

ANDREWS, ELISHA BENJAMIN.
   History of the United States.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1894. 2 volumes.

      Not such a history, either in style of writing or skill of
      handling, as should have been expected from the President
      of Brown University, but yet to be welcomed until something
      better comes to supply the need of an intermediate work,
      between the school textbooks and the histories of special
      periods.

BANCROFT, GEORGE.
   History of the United States of America from the discovery
   of the Continent: author's last revision.
   New York: Appleton & Co. 1883-5. 5 volumes.
   [See, also, next page.]

      Ends at the closing of the War of Independence. "The last
      volumes are limited in scope, giving a history of little
      but military and diplomatic movements during the
      Revolution. Perhaps it is as well. Bancroft's talents for
      the narration of military and diplomatic history were of a
      very high order. He had great skill in marshalling large
      arrays of facts, good judgment, and a lucid and picturesque
      style. On the other hand, a history of popular movements,
      of public opinion and of tie internal development of the
      United States, would exhibit at the greatest disadvantage
      the author's faults."
         J. F. Jameson,
         History of Historical Writing in America,
         page 108.

BANCROFT, HUBERT H.
   History of the Pacific States of North America.
   San Francisco: A. L. Bancroft & Co. 1882-90. 34 volumes.

      "From twelve to twenty accomplished linguists, we are told,
      have been constantly employed in Mr. Bancroft's service
      since 1869. Secretaries have all this time been reading,
      translating, summarizing, cataloguing, and indexing the
      whole collection. The result, attained at the cost of half
      a million dollars, is a mass of systematized information,
      such as must make the users and the desirers of historical
      materials elsewhere deeply envious. … Mr. Bancroft has
      prepared from these materials, and published, a gigantic
      'History of the Pacific States of America,' in thirty-four
      unusually large volumes."
         J. F. Jameson,
         History of Historical Writing in America,
         page 153.

BOLLES, ALBERT S.
   Financial history of the United States.
   N. Y.: D. Appleton & Co. 1879-85. 3 volumes.

BROOKS, ELBRIDGE S.
   The Century book for young Americans.
   New York: Century Co. 1894.

      Descriptive of the machinery of government at Washington,
      in its practical working, as seen by an imaginary party of
      young visitors.

BROOKS. NOAH.
   Short studies in party politics.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1895.

      Some first things in American politics.
      The passing of the Whigs.
      When Slavery went out of Politics.
      The Party Platforms of Sixty Years.

BRYANT, WILLIAM CULLEN, and SYDNEY H. GAY.
   Popular history of the United States, to the end
   of the first century of the Union.
   New York: Scribner, A. & Co. 1876. 4 volumes.

      Understood to have been substantially the work of Mr. Gay.
      Mr. Bryant's contribution to it having been very slight.
      Although it brings nowhere, perhaps, new light from
      original studies to bear on American history, it is a work
      of much merit.

BRYCE, JAMES.
   The American Commonwealth; 3d edition, completely revised,
   with additional chapters.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co. 1895. 2 volumes.

      "One may doubt if such a living picture of Democracy in all
      its ways, in its strength and its weakness, its dangers and
      its future, in all its strange nakedness of appearance, and
      its amazing vitality and force, in its golden hopes, and
      its simplicity and limitations as of a raw, lucky,
      inexperienced youth entering on a matchless inheritance for
      good or for evil, has ever yet been drawn by a competent
      hand."
         Frederic Harrison,
         Mr.Bruce's "American Commonwealth"
         (Nineteenth Century, January 1889).

CAMPBELL, DOUGLAS.
   The Puritan in Holland, England and America.

      A work which has commanded attention to the influence
      exerted by the Dutch on the development of ideas and
      institutions in the United States, and which has done so
      with good effect, though with some exaggeration.

COFFIN, CHARLES CARLETON.
   Building the nation: from the Revolution to the beginning
   of the war between the states.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1883.

      For young readers, especially.

DAWES, ANNA L.
   How we are governed; an explanation of the constitution
   and government of the United States, for young people.
   Boston: Lothrop & Co. 1885.

DRAKE, SAMUEL ADAMS.
   The making of the Great West, 1512-1888.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1887.

   The making of the Ohio Valley States, 1660-1837.
   New York: C. Scribner & Sons. 1894.

EPOCHS OF AMERICAN HISTORY;
   edited by Albert Bushnell Hart.
   New York and London: Longmans. 1891-3. 3 volumes.

      The colonies, 1492-1750; by Reuben Gold Thwaites.
      Formation of the Union, 1750-1829: by Albert Bushnell Hart.
      Division and reunion, 1829—1889; by Woodrow Wilson.

FISKE, JOHN.
   Civil government in the United States considered with some
   reference to its origins.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1890.

   History of the United States for schools.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1894.

FOSTER, W. E.
   References to the history of
   Presidential administrations, 1789-1885.
   New York: Society for Political Education. 1885.

HART, ALBERT BUSHNELL.
   Topical outline of the courses in constitutional and political
   history of the United States given at Harvard College, 1887-88.
   Part 1 (1783-1829). Cambridge. 1886.

HIGGINSON, THOMAS WENTWORTH.
   Larger history of the United States,
   to the close of Jackson's administration.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1886.

{3903}

HIGGINSON, THOMAS WENTWORTH.
   Young folks' history of the United States.
   Boston: Lee & Shepard. 1875-83.

      Always attractive to young readers.

HILDRETH RICHARD.
   History of the United States
   [to the end of the 16th Congress].
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1849-51. 6 volumes.

      "A man of very decided convictions, and ardently interested
      in politics, the Whig editor wrote the 'History of the
      United States' with a strong partisan bias."
         J. F. Jameson,
         The History of Historical Writing in America,
         page 112.

HINSDALE, B. A.
   How to study and teach history, with particular reference
   to the history of the United States.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1894.

   The Old Northwest.
   New York: T. MacCoun. 1888.

HOLST, Dr. H. VON.
   Constitutional and political history of the United States;
   translated from the German.
   Chicago: Callaghan & Co. 1876-85. 7 volumes.

      Volume 1. 1750-1833.
         State sovereignty and slavery.

      Volume 2. 1828-1846.
         Jackson's administration;
         annexation of Texas.

      Volume 3. 1816-1850.
         Annexation of Texas;
         Compromise of 1850.

      Volume 4. 1850-1851:
         Compromise of 1850;
         Kansas-Nebraska Bill.

      Volume 5. 1851-1856.
         Kansas-Nebraska Bill;
         Buchanan's election.

      Volume 6. 1856-1859.
         Buchanan's election;
         end of the 35th Congress

      Volume 7. 1859—1861.
         Harper's Ferry;
         Lincoln's inauguration.

JOHNSTON, ALEXANDER.
   History of American politics. 2d edition.
   New York: H. Holt & Co. 1881.

      Parties and party politics in the United States sketched
      with a brevity which spoils neither the instructiveness nor
      the interest.

   History of the United States for schools.
   New York: H. Holt & Co. 1885.

   The United States; its history and constitution.
   New York: C. Scribner s Sons. 1889.

      Originally written for the latest edition of the
      Encyclopædia Britannica, the remarkable excellence of this
      compact account of the history and constitution of the
      United States caused its republication separately.

LALOR. J. J., editor.
   Cyclopædia of political science, political economy,
   and of the political history of the United States.
   Chicago: Rand, McNally & Co. 1881. 3 volumes.

MACLAY, EDGAR STANTON.
   History of the United States navy from 1775 to 1893.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1894. 2 volumes.

McMASTER, JOHN BACH.
   History of the people of the United States from the
   Revolution to the Civil War.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1883-95. volumes 1-4.

      "Mr. McMaster's book is a valuable contribution to our
      history, and will be the cause of work better than its own.
      His industrious collection of materials, and his effective
      arrangement and courageous presentation of them, cannot
      fail to stimulate other workers in the same field. But he
      does not always discriminate as to the value of
      authorities, and his history suffers somewhat in
      consequence."
         Mellen Chamberlain,
         McMaster's History
         (Andover Review, June. 1886).

POPULAR HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
   New York: A. S. Barnes & Co. 1875-8.

      A book which has been successful in interesting young
      readers in American history.

PRATT, MARA L.
   American history stories.
   Boston: Educational Publishing Company. 1890. volumes 1-4.

      For readers of the youngest class, and happily adapted
      to their taste.

PRESTON, HOWARD W.
   Documents illustrative of American history (1606—1863).
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1886.

ROOSEVELT, THEODORE.
   The Winning of the West.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1889-94. 3 volumes.

      "Before Mr. Roosevelt began his work, there was no
      satisfactory account of our westward expansion as a whole.
      … Mr. Roosevelt had the historical insight and the good
      fortune to make use of a vast mass of original material. …
      These abundant materials [he] has used with the skill of a
      practised historian."
         The Nation, March 28, 1895.

SCHOULER, JAMES.
   History of the United States of America under the Constitution.
   New York: Dodd, Mead & Co. volumes 1-5.

      A sound, painstaking piece of historical work,
      but without much literary attractiveness.

SMITH, GOLDWIN.
   The United States; an outline of political history, 1492-1871.
   New York: Macmillan & Co. 1893.

      There is probably no other living man who could put so much
      into a bird's-eye view of American history, and put it into
      English of such classical fineness, as Professor Goldwin
      Smith has done in this little book.

STANWOOD, EDWARD.
   History of Presidential elections.
   2d edition, revised.
   Boston: Ticknor & Co. 1888.

TUCKER, GEORGE.
   History of the United States.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co. 1856. 4 volumes.

      By a southern writer and representing the better-minded
      southern view of events and movements in the first halt
      century of American national history.

WASHINGTON, GEORGE.
   Writings;
   collected and edited by Worthington C. Ford.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1889-91. 14 volumes.

WILSON, WOODROW.
   Congressional government: a study in American politics.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1885.

WINSOR, JUSTIN, editor.
   Narrative and critical history of America.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1886-9. 8 volumes.

      "With its chapters of historical narrative by our most
      learned and able historical scholars, each writing upon his
      own special field, and with its critical essays upon the
      sources of information, it seems without doubt to be the
      most important and useful contribution over yet made to
      American historical science. It splendidly sums up the
      historical labors of a century."
         J. F. Jameson,
         History of Historical Writing in America, p. 156.


UNITED STATES: TO THE CIVIL WAR.

ADAMS HENRY.
   History of the United States of America
   [during the administrations of Jefferson and Madison].
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1889-90. 9 volumes.

ADAMS, JOHN QUINCY.
   Lives of James Madison and James Monroe,
   with historical notices of their administrations.
   Buffalo: G. H. Derby & Co. 1850.

   Memoirs, comprising portions of his diary from 1795 to 1848;
   edited by Charles Francis Adams.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co. 1874-5. 12 volumes.


ADAMS, JOHN QUINCY and CHARLES FRANCIS.
   Life of John Adams;
   revised and corrected.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co. 1871. 2 volumes.

ARNOLD, SAMUEL G.
   History of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1859. 2 volumes.

BANCROFT, GEORGE.
   History of the formation of the Constitution
   of the United States.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1882. 2 volumes.

BEER, GEORGE LOUIS.
   The commercial policy of England toward the American colonies.
   New York 1893.

      One of the "Studies in History, Economics and Law," edited
      by the Faculty of Political Science of Columbia College.

BENTON, THOMAS H.
   Thirty Years' View; or a history of the working of the
   American government from 1820 to 1850, chiefly taken from the
   Congress debates, private papers of General Jackson and
   speeches of Senator Benton.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1856. 2 volumes.

BEVERLEY, ROBERT.
   History of Virginia [to 1706];
   reprinted from the 2d revision edited. (London, 1722).
   Richmond: J. W. Randolph. 1855.

BRODHEAD, JOHN R.
   History of the State of New York.
   New York: Harper & Bros: 1853-71. 2 volumes.

BROWN, ALEXANDER, editor.
   The Genesis of the United States;
   a narrative of the movement in England, 1605-1616.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1890.

      A collection of historical manuscripts now first printed,
      with a reissue of rare contemporaneous tracts, accompanied
      by brief biographies, portraits, etc.

BUTLER, NICHOLAS MURRAY.
   Effect of the War of 1812 upon the consolidation of the Union.
   Baltimore: 1887.

      Published among the Johns Hopkins University Studies
      in History and Political Science.

CARRINGTON. HENRY B.
   Battles of the American Revolution, 1775-1781:
   historical and military criticism.
   New York: A. S. Barnes & Co. 1876.

      A volume of battle-maps and charts, with notes, to
      supplement the above, was issued by the same publishers in
      1881.

COFFIN, CHARLES CARLETON.
   The boys of '76: a history of the battles of the Revolution.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1877.

   Old times in the colonies.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1880.

CURTIS, GEORGE T.
   History of the origin, formation and adoption of the
   constitution of the United States.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1854. 2 volumes.

DOYLE, J. A.
   The English in America: Virginia, Maryland and the Carolinas.
   London: Longmans. 1882.

   The English in America: The Puritan Colonies.
   London: Longmans. 1887. 2 volumes.

DWIGHT, THEODORE.
   History of the Hartford Convention.
   New York: N. & J. White. 1833.

ELLIS, GEORGE E.
   The Puritan age and rule in the colony of
   Massachusetts Bay, 1629-1685.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1888.

{3904}

FISKE, JOHN.
   The American Revolution.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1891. 2 volumes.

   The War of Independence.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1889.

      The last named of these two is a small book which preceded
      Dr. Fiske's larger history of the American Revolution,
      treating the same subject in a simpler way, especially for
      young readers. There is the same delightful clearness of
      narrative, and the same large intelligence of view, in both
      works, and they easily take the first place among histories
      of the Revolution.

   The beginnings of New England: or the Puritan theocracy in
   its relations to civil and religious liberty.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1889.

   The critical period of American history, 1783-89.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1888.

      "It is not too much to say that the period of five years
      following the peace of 1783 was the most critical moment in
      all the history of the American people. The dangers from
      which we were saved in 1788 were even greater than the
      dangers from which we were saved in 1865.' This proposition
      Mr. Fiske makes abundantly good and he has turned it into a
      text for one of the most interesting chapters of history
      that has been written for many a day."
         John Morley,
         Review (Nineteenth Century, August, 1889).

FORCE, PETER.
   American Archives; a collection of authentic state papers
   [etc.], forming a documentary history of the
   North American colonies.
   Washington 1837-48. 9 volumes.

      Only part of the collection, forming the 4th series
      (1774-1776) and 3 volumes of the 5th series, was published.

FRANKLIN, BENJAMIN.
   Life, written by himself; now first edited, from original mss.
   and from his printed correspondence, by John Bigelow;
   2d edition revised and corrected.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott. 1884. 3 volumes.

FROTHINGHAM, RICHARD.
   The rise of the Republic of the United States.
   Boston: Little, Brown &; Co. 1886.

GOODWIN, JOHN A.
   The Pilgrim republic; an historical review of the
   colony of New Plymouth.
   Boston: Ticknor & Co. 1888.

GRAHAME, JAMES.
   History of the United States of North America from the
   plantation of the British colonies to their assumption
   of national independence.
   2d edition revised and enlarged.
   Philadelphia: Lea & Blanchard. 1846. 2 volumes.

GREENE, GEORGE W.
   The German element In the War of American Independence.
   New York: Hurd & Houghton. 1876.

      Contains biographical sketches or Baron von Steuben
      and General John Kalb, and an account of the German
      mercenaries.

   Life of Nathanael Greene, major-general in the army
   of the Revolution.
   New York: Hurd & Houghton. 1871. 3 volumes.

HAMILTON, ALEXANDER, JAMES MADISON and JOHN JAY.
   The Federalist: a commentary on the
   Constitution of the United States;
   edited by Henry Cabot Lodge.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1892.

HAMILTON, JOHN C.
   Life of Alexander Hamilton, by his son.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1840. 2 volumes.

HENRY, WILLIAM WIRT.
   Patrick Henry: life, correspondence and speeches.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1891. 3 volumes.

HUTCHINSON, THOMAS.
   History of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay, 1628-1691.
   Boston. 1764.

   History of the Province of Massachusetts Bay, 1691-1750.
   Boston. 1767.

   History of the Province of Massachusetts Bay, 1749-1774.
   London: J. Murray. 1828.

IRVING, WASHINGTON.
   Life of George Washington.
   New York: G. P. Putnam. 5 volumes.

   Life of Washington; abridged for schools, with a brief
   outline of United States history, by John Fiske.
   Boston: Ginn & Co. 1887.

JOHNSON, ROSSITER.
   History of the French war, ending in the conquest of Canada.
   New York: Dodd, Mead & Co. [1882.]

   History of the war of 1812-1815.
   New York: Dodd, Mead & Co. [1882.]

JOHNSTON, HENRY P.
   The campaign of 1776 around New York and Brooklyn.
   Brooklyn: Long Island Historical Society. 1878.

   The Yorktown campaign and the surrender of Cornwallis, 1781.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1881.

JONES, THOMAS.
   History of New York during the Revolutionary War, and of the
   leading events in the other colonies at that period;
   edited by E. F. De Lancey.
   New York: New York Historical Society. 1879. 2 volumes.

      A loyalist history of the Revolution, by one of the Judges
      of the Supreme Court of the Province of New York, who wrote
      his account soon after the close of the war, being then in
      exile.

KAPP, FRIEDRICH.
   Life of Frederick William von Steuben.
   New York: Mason Bros. 1859.

LADD, HORATIO O.
   History of the War with Mexico.
   New York: Dodd, Mead & Co. 1883.

LODGE, HENRY CABOT.
   Life and letters of George Cabot.
   Boston: Little, Brown & Co. 1877.

   Short history of the English colonies in America.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1881.

LOSSING, BENSON J.
   Life and times of Philip Schuyler.
   New York: Sheldon & Co. 2 volumes.

   Pictorial field book of the War of 1812.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1868.

      Chiefly valuable for its descriptions and illustrations of
      the scenes of the war, personally visited by the writer.

LOWELL, EDWARD J.
   The Hessians, and the other German auxiliaries of Great
   Britain in the Revolutionary War.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1884.

MANSFIELD, E. D.
   The Mexican War. 10th edition.
   New York: Barnes & Co. 1819.

MOORE, FRANK, editor.
   Diary of the American Revolution,
   from newspapers and original documents.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1860. 2 volumes.

MORRIS, GOUVERNEUR.
   Diary and letters;
   edited by Anne C. Morris.
   London: K. Paul, Trench & Co. 1889. 2 volumes.

MORSE, JOHN T., JR.
   Life of Alexander Hamilton.
   Boston: Little, Brown & Co. 1876. 2 volumes.

O'CALLAGHAN, E. B.
   History of New Netherland; or New York under the Dutch.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1846-8. 2 volumes.

PALFREY, JOHN G.
   History of New England during the Stuart dynasty.
   Boston: Little, Brown & Co. 1858-64. 3 volumes.

   History of New England, from the revolution of the
   17th century to the revolution of the 18th.
   Boston: Little. Brown & Co. 1875-90. 2 volumes.

PARKMAN, FRANCIS.
   Works [historical].
   Boston: Little, Brown & Co. 11 volumes.

      Pioneers of France in the New World.
      The Jesuits in North America.
      La Salle and the Discovery of the Great West.
      The Old Regime in Canada.
      Count Frontenac and New France under Louis XIV.
      A half century of conflict (2 volumes).
      Montcalm and Wolfe (2 volumes.).
      The conspiracy of on Pontiac.

QUINCY, EDMUND.
   Life of Josiah Quincy, by his son.
   Boston: Ticknor & Field. 1868.

RANDALL, HENRY S.
   Life of Thomas Jefferson.
   New York: Derby & Jackson. 1858. 3 volumes.

RHODES, JAMES FORD.
   History of the United States from the Compromise of 1850.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1893. 2 volumes.

RIEDESEL, Major General.
   Memoirs, letters and journals;
   translated from the German by W. L. Stone.
   Albany: J. Munsell. 1868. 2 volumes.

RIEDESEL, Mrs. General.
   Letters and journals relating to the
   War of the American Revolution;
   translated from the German by W. L. Stone.
   Albany: J. Munsell. 1867.

ROOSEVELT, THEODORE.
   The naval war of 1812.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1882.

SABINE, LORENZO.
   The American Loyalists.
   Boston: Little, Brown & Co. 1864. 2 volumes.

SCHUYLER, GEORGE W.
   Colonial New York: Philip Schuyler and his family.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1885. 2 volumes.

SCOTT, EBEN G.
   Development of constitutional liberty in the
   English colonies of America.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1882.

SEWARD, F. W.
   Story of the life of William H. Seward.
   New York: Derby & Miller. 1891. 3 volumes.

SHEA, JOHN G.
   Discovery and exploration of the Mississippi Valley.
   New York: Redfield. 1852.

SOLEY, JAMES RUSSELL.
   The boys of 1812 and other naval heroes.
   Boston: Estes & Lauriat. 1887.

      For young readers.

STEDMAN, C.
   History of the origin, progress and termination
   of the American War.
   London. 1794. 2 volumes.

      A contemporary history of the war of the Revolution written
      from the British standpoint, by one who served under Howe,
      Clinton and Cornwallis.

STEVENS, B. F.
   Facsimiles of manuscripts in European archives relating
   to America, 1773-1783; with descriptions, editorial notes,
   collations, references and translations.
   London. 1889-05. 25 volumes.

STEVENS, CHARLES ELLIS.
   Sources of the Constitution of the United States considered
   in relation to colonial and English history.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co. 1894.

{3905}

STILLÉ, CHARLES J.
   Major-General Anthony Wayne and the Pennsylvania Line in
   the Continental Army.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co. 1893.

   Life and times of John Dickinson, 1732-1808.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co. 1891.

STONE, WILLIAM L.
   Life and times of Sir William Johnson.
   Albany: J. Munsell. 1865. 2 volumes.

STORY, JOSEPH.
   Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.
   Boston: Hilliard, G. & Co. 1833. 3 volumes.

SUMNER, WILLIAM G.
   The financier [Robert Morris] and the finances
   of the American Revolution.
   New York: Dodd, Mead & Co. 1891.

TARBOX, INCREASE N.
   Life of Isreal Putnam.
   Boston: Lockwood, B. & Co. 1876.

TOCQUEVILLE, ALEXIS DE.
   Democracy in America;
   translated by Henry Reeves.
   London: Saunders & Co. 1886. 4 volumes.
   https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/815 (volume 1)
   https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/816 (volume 2)

   Same [under the title of "American Institutions"];
   revised and edited by F. Bowen. 7th edition.
   Boston: J. Allyn., 1874.

UNITED STATES, DEPARTMENT OF STATE.
   Documentary history of the Constitution of the
   United States of America, 1787-1870; derived from the
   records, manuscripts and rolls deposited in the
   Bureau of Rolls and library of the Department of State.
   Washington. 1894. volume 1.

WELLS, WILLIAM V.
   Life and public services of Samuel Adams.
   Boston: Little, Brown & Co. 1865. 3 volumes.

WHARTON, FRANCIS. editor.
   The Revolutionary diplomatic correspondence
   of the United States.
   Washington. 6 volumes.

WINSOR, JUSTIN.
   Reader's handbook of the American Revolution, 1761-1783.
   Boston: Houghton, Osgood & Co. 1880.

      It seems safe to say that no period in the history of any
      other country has so perfect a guide to the literature
      relating to it as this which Mr. Winsor has prepared for
      the period of the American Revolution.

WINTHROP ROBERT C.
   Life and letters of John Winthrop,
   Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Company.
   2d edition.
   Boston: Little, Brown & Co. 1869. 2 volumes.


UNITED STATES: THE CIVIL WAR AND AFTER.

BADEAU, ADAM.
   Military history of Ulysses S. Grant, 1861-65.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1868-81. 3 volumes.

BATTLES AND LEADERS OF THE CIVIL WAR;
   contributions by Union and Confederate officers;
   edited by R. U. Johnson and Clarence C. Buell.
   New York: Century Co. 1887-9. 4 volumes.

BLAINE, JAMES G.
   Twenty years of Congress: from Lincoln to Garfield;
   with a review of the events which led to the political
   revolution of 1860.
   Norwich, Connecticut: The Henry Bill Publishing Co. 1884-6.
   2 volumes.

      Mr. Blaine's contribution to the history or his own time is
      unquestionably to be counted among the works of permanent
      value.

BOWMAN, Colonel S. M., and Lieutenant Colonel R. B. IRWIN.
   Sherman and his campaigns: a military biography.
   New York: C. B. Richardson. 1865.

BOYNTON, CHARLES B.
   History of the navy during the Rebellion.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1868. 2 volumes.

CAMPAIGNS OF THE CIVIL WAR.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1881-8. 13 volumes.

      1.  The outbreak of rebellion; by J. G. Nicolay.
      2.  From Fort Henry to Corinth; by M. F. Force.
      3.  The Peninsula: McClellan's campaign of 1862;
          by Alexander S. Webb.
      4.  The Army under Pope; by J. C. Ropes.
      5.  The Antietam and Fredericksburg; by F. W. Palfrey.
      6.  Chancellorsville and Gettysburg; by Abner Doubleday.
      7.  The Army of the Cumberland; by Henry M. Cist.
      8.  The Mississippi; by F. V. Greene
      9.  Atlanta; by Jacob D. Cox
      10. The March to the Sea; by Jacob D. Cox.
      11. The Shenandoah Valley in 1864; by George E. Pond.
      12. The Virginia campaign of '61 and '65;
          by A. A. Humphreys.
      (Supplementary volume) Statistical record of the armies
      of the United States.

CHAMPLIN, JOHN D., JR.
   Young folks' history of the War for the Union.
   New York: H. Holt & Co.

COFFIN, CHARLES CARLETON.
   The drum-beat of the nation.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1888.

   Marching to victory.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1889.

   Redeeming the Republic.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1890.

   Freedom triumphant.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1891.

      The first of the four books last named narrates the history
      of the Civil War to the close of 1862; the second relates
      the events of 1863, the third those of 1864, and the fourth
      to the end of the war. They are great favorites among young
      readers.

   The boys of '61, or four years of fighting; personal
   observation with the army and navy.
   Boston: Estes & Lauriat. 1831.

COOKE, JOHN ESTEN.
   Stonewall Jackson; a military biography.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1876.

DAVIS, JEFFERSON.
   The rise and fall of the Confederate Government.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1881. 2 volumes.

DODGE, THEODORE A.
   A bird's-eye view of our Civil War.
   Boston: Osgood & Co. 1888.

DOUBLEDAY, A.
   Gettysburg made plain.
   New York: Century Co. 1888.

DRAPER, JOHN W.
   History of the American Civil War.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1867. 3 volumes.

FAMOUS ADVENTURES AND PRISON ESCAPES OF THE CIVIL WAR.
   New York: Century Co. 1893.

FARRAGUT, LOYALL.
   Life of David Glasgow Farragut.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1879.

GIDDINGS, JOSHUA R.
   History of the Rebellion, its authors and causes.
   New York: Follett, Foster & Co. 1864.

      Really a Congressional history of the years preceding
      the Rebellion.

GORDON, GEORGE H.
   History of the campaigns of the Army of Virginia
   under John Pope, 1862.
   Boston: Houghton, Osgood & Co. 1880.

GRANT, ULYSSES S.
   Personal memoirs.
   New York: C. L. Webster & Co. 1885-6. 2 volumes.

      "Nine-tenths of the value of autobiography is in the
      revelation of the writer himself to the world. This book is
      no exception to the rule. The history of his campaigns may
      be got elsewhere. Badeau's book is more full and has
      scarcely less of Grant's authority, for he revised its
      statements and certified that it contained his views. … It
      is, then, for the new light which they throw upon Grant
      himself that these memoirs will be prized. His personality
      was too strong to be hidden. When he took his pen to tell
      the story of his career, the things which flowed most
      easily from his mind were the judgments and opinions of men
      and of events in the gross and not the detailed incidents
      which the experienced writer would use to fill and color
      his narrative. … As to his style, it has the principal
      element of thoroughly good writing, since we are made to
      feel that the writer's only thought, in this regard, is how
      to express most directly and simply the thing he has to
      say."
         J. D. Cox,
         Review (Nation, February 25. 1886).

GREELEY, HORACE.
   The American conflict: a history of the Great Rebellion in the
   United States of America, its causes, incidents and results.
   Hartford: O. D. Case & Co. 1867. 2 volumes.

      A hurried and careless piece of work: poor in style and
      quite unworthy of the eminent journalist who produced it,
      but valuable as a document representing the views and
      feelings of the time.

HALE, EDWARD E., editor.
   Stories of war, told by soldiers.
   Boston: Roberts Bros. 1879.

HARRIS, T. M.
   The assassination of Lincoln: a history
   of the great conspiracy, trial of the conspirators
   by a military commission, and a review of the
   trial of John H. Surratt; by a member of the
   commission.
   Boston: American Citizen Co. 1892.

HIGGINSON, THOMAS W.
   Army life in a black regiment.
   Boston: Fields, Osgood & Co. 1870.

HUGHES, ROBERT M.
   General [Joseph E.] Johnston.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1893.

HUMPHREYS, ANDREW A.
   From Gettysburg to the Rapidan: the Army of the Potomac,
   July, 1863, to April, 1864.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1888.

IRWIN, RICHARD B.
   History of the Nineteenth Army Corps.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1892.

JOHNSON, ROSSITER.
   Short history of the War of Secession.
   Boston: Ticknor & Co. 1888.

KIEFFER, HARRY M.
   Recollections of a drummer-boy.
   7th edition revised and enlarged.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1890.

LINCOLN, ABRAHAM.
   Complete works; comprising his speeches, letters,
   state papers, and miscellaneous writings;
   edited by John G. Nicolay and John Hay.
   New York: Century Co. 1894.

LIVERMORE, MARY A.
   My story of the War: a woman's narrative of experience as
   nurse in the Union Army.
   Hartford: A. D. Worthington & Co. 1868.

LONG, A. L.
    Memoirs of Robert E. Lee.
    New York: Stoddard & Co. 1886.

McCLELLAN, GEORGE B.
   McClellan's own story: the war for the Union, the soldiers who
   fought it, the civilians who directed it, and his relations to
   it and to them.
   New York: C. L. Webster & Co. 1887.

{3906}

MAHAN, Captain A. T.
   Admiral Farragut.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1892.

McPHERSON, EDWARD.
   Political history of the United States
   during the great Rebellion.
   Washington: Philip & Solomon. 1865.

      A valuable collection of state papers, Congressional
      enactments and other documents of the Rebellion history.

MILITARY HISTORICAL SOCIETY OF MASSACHUSETTS.
   Papers read, 1876-&1.
   Boston: 1881-86. 2 volumes.

      Volume 1. Peninsular campaign of General McClellan in 1862.
      Volume 2. Virginia campaign of General Pope.

NAVY IN THE CIVIL WAR, The.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1883. 3 volumes.

      1. The blockade and the cruisers; by J. R. Soley.
      2.The Atlantic Coast}; by Daniel Ammen.
      3. The Gulf and inland waters; by A. T. Mahan._

NICHOLS, GEORGE WARD.
   The story of the great march.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1865.

      Descriptive of Sherman's march from Atlanta to the Sea.

NICOLAY, JOHN G., and JOHN HAY.
   Abraham Lincoln: a history.
   New York: Century Co. 1890. 10 volumes.

PARIS, Comte de.
   History of the Civil War in America;
   translated from the French.
   Philadelphia: J. H. Coates & Co. 1875-83. volumes 1-4.

      The most competent and thorough military history of the
      war, and its incompleteness must forever be regretted.

PARTON, JAMES.
   General Butler in New Orleans.
   New York: Mason Bros. 1864.

PITTENGER, WILLIAM.
   Capturing a locomotive; a history of secret service.
   Washington: National Tribune. 1885.

      An extraordinarily thrilling true story of war adventure;
      but the writer has exploited it in too many forms and under
      too many different titles.

PORTER, DAVID D.
   Naval history of the Civil War.
   New York: Sherman Publishing Co. 1886.

ROPES, JOHN CODMAN.
   The story of the Civil War.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1894. part 1.

SCHARF J. T.
   History of the Confederate States navy.
   Albany: J. McDonough. 1894.

SCHURZ, CARL.
   Abraham Lincoln: an essay.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1892.

SHERIDAN, PHILIP H.
   Personal memoirs.
   New York: C. L. Webster & Co. 1883. 2 volumes.

SHERMAN, GENERAL WILLIAM T.
   Memoirs, by himself; with an appendix, bringing his life
   down to its closing scenes.
   4th edition.
   New York: C. L. Webster & Co. 1891.

      A memoir of very great value in the literature of the
      history of the Civil War, owing to its straightforward,
      frank dealing with the events in which the Writer took
      part.

SOLEY, J. R.
   The sailor boys of '61.
   Boston: Estes & Lauriat. 1888.

SWINTON, WILLIAM.
   Campaigns of the Army of the Potomac: a critical history.
   New York: University Publishing Co. 1871.

   The twelve decisive battles of the War.
   New York: Dick & Fitzgerald. 1871.

TENNEY, W. J.
   Military and naval history of the Rebellion in
   the United States.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1886.

UNITED STATES, WAR DEPARTMENT.
   War of the Rebellion: a compilation of the Official Records of
   the Union and Confederate Armies.
   Washington. Series 1. volumes 1—46.

VAN HORNE, THOMAS B.
   History of the Army of the Cumberland.
   Cincinnati: R. Clarke & Co. 1875. 2 volumes and atlas of maps.

      A history largely based on the private military journal
      of General George H. Thomas, and written at his request.

   Life of Major General George H. Thomas.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1882.

WALKER, FRANCIS A.
   History of the Second Army Corps in the Army of the Potomac.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1886.

WILLIAMS, GEORGE W.
   History of the negro troops in the War of the Rebellion.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1888.

WILSON, HENRY.
   History of the rise and fall of the slave power in America.
   Boston: Osgood & Co. 1872-7. 3 volumes.

WOODBURY, AUGUSTUS.
   Major General Ambrose E. Burnside and the Ninth Army Corps.
   Providence: S. S. Rider & Bro. 1867.


HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY.

   This, bibliography has been prepared by Mr. Alan C. Reiley,
   who writes the following explanatory note: "The original
   purpose of this bibliography was simply to bring together in a
   group by themselves the atlas works on historical geography;
   but the fact that all of the contributions to the literature
   of the subject do not exist in map form requires a slight
   expansion of the original plan. The list contains, therefore,
   in addition to the atlases, a number of carefully chosen text
   works, some of them not devoted exclusively to historical
   geography, but that subject forming in all them a predominant
   feature. The term 'historical geography' as here used refers
   distinctly to the geography of history, preferably the
   political geography of history and all of the much more
   numerous class of works on what may be called the history of
   geography, save as they may in some feature fall within the
   strict interpretation of this definition, have been carefully
   excluded."

   Mr. Reiley is not responsible for the typographical style in
   which German titles are printed.


ADAMS, SEBASTIAN C.
   Chronological chart of ancient, modern and biblical history;
   with thirteen historical maps by J. A. Paine.
   New York: Colby & Co. No date.

ANDRÄ, J. C.
   Kleiner historischer schul-atlas.
   Twelve maps, covering 19 pages, with text.
   Leipzig: Voigtländer. 1890.

ANDRIVEAU-GOUJON, G. G.
   Atlas classique et universel de géographie,
   ancienne et moderne.
   Paris: Andriveau-Goujon. 1865.

ANSART, FELIX.
   Atlas historique et géographique
   dressé pour l'usage des lycées, des colléges, etc.,
   nouvelle édition par Edmond Ansart fils. 121 maps.
   Paris: Fourant.

   Cours d'histoire et de géographie, à l'usage de tous
   les établissements d'instruction secondaire.
   Paris: Fourant. 5 volumes.

   Atlas historique universel dressé d'apres l'atlas
   historique des états Européens de Kruse. 19 maps.
   Paris: Andriveau-Goujon. 1861.

ANTHON, CHARLES.
   A system of ancient and mediaeval Geography.
   New York: Harper. 1850.

ANVILLE, J. B. B. d'.
   Compendium of ancient geography. 9 maps.
   London and New York. 1814. 2 volumes.

ARNOLD, WILHELM.
   Ansiedelungen und wanderungen deutscher stämme.
   Marburg. 1875. 8 volumes.

BARBARET, C., and C. PÉRIGOT.
   Atlas général de géographie physique et politique, ancienne,
   du moyen âge, et moderne.
   Paris: Tandou et Cie. 1864.

BAZIN, FRANÇOIS.
   Atlas spécial de géographie physique, politique et
   historique de la France.
   Paris: Delalain. 1856.

BECK, J.
   Historisch-geographischer atlas für schule und haus. 26 maps.
   Freiburg: Herder. 1877. 3 parts.

BEDEUS VON SCHARBERG, JOSEPH.
   Historisch-genealogisch-geographischer atlas zur uebersicht
   der geschichte des ungrischen Reichs, seiner nebenländer und
   der angrenzenden staaten und provinzen.
   Hermannstadt. 1853.

BIANCO, ANDREA.
   Der atlas vom jahre 1436 in 10 tafeln. 9 plates and text.
   Venice: Münster. 1869.

BOECKH. R., und H. KIEPERT.
   Historische karte von Elsass und Lothringen zur uebersicht
   der territorialen veränderung im 17 und 18 jahrhundert;
   Berlin: D. Reimer. 1871.

BOUFFARD, L.
   Atlas politique de l'Europe, 1814-1864, exposant le
   développement des principes de '89, etc.,
   accompagné d'un texte par Alexandre Bonneau.
   Paris: Dentu. 1864.

BOUILLET, NICOLAS.
   Atlas universel d'histoire et de géographie.
   88 cartes gravées et coloriées.
   Paris: Hachette et Cie. 1872.

   Dictionnaire universel d'histoire et de géographie.
   Paris: Hachette et Cie. 1878.

BRASELMANN, J. E.
   Bibel-atlas zum schul und privat gebrauche.
   Düsseldorf: H. Michels. 1892.

BRECHER, ADOLF.
   Darstellung der gebietsveränderungen in den ländern Sachsens
   und Thüringens von dem zwölften jahrhundert bis heute.
   Berlin: D. Reimer. 1883.

   Darstellung der geschichtlichen entwickelung des bayerischen
   staatsgebietes.
   Berlin: D. Reimer. 1890.

   Darstellung der territorialen entwickelung des
   brandenburgisch-preussischen staates von 1415 bis jetzt.
   Berlin: D. Reimer. 1893.

   Historische wandkarte von Preussen. 9 blätter.
   Berlin: D. Reimer. 1888.

BRETSCHNEIDER.
   See Spruner-Bretschneider.

BRUÉ, ADRIEN.
   Atlas universel de géographie physique, politique, ancienne,
   du moyen âge et moderne, etc.;
   nouvelle édition par C. Piquet, complétée par E. Grangez.
   Paris: Barthélemier 1858.

{3907}

BUNBURY, E. H.
   A history of ancient geography among the Greeks and Romans
   from the earliest ages to the fall of the Roman empire.
   20 maps.
   London: John Murray. 1883. 2 volumes.

BUTLER, GEORGE.
   The public schools atlas of ancient geography.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1889.

BUTLER, SAMUEL.
   Atlas of ancient geography.
   21 maps.
   Philadelphia: Carey & Lea. 1831.

CHEVALLIER, HENRI.
   Atlas de géographie historique, politique et physique;
   composé de 14 cartes.
   Paris: Delalain. 1865.

COLBECK, C.
   The public schools historical atlas.
   101 maps, covering 69 pages.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1885.

COLEMAN, LYMAN.
   Historical text book and atlas of biblical geography.
   7 maps and text.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co. 1867.

COLLEGIATE ATLAS.
   See International atlas.

COLLIER, W. F.
   See Library atlas, also International atlas.

CORTAMBERT, E.
   Atlas (petit) de géographie ancienne, du moyen age et moderne;
   composé de 66 cartes.
   Paris: Hachette et Cie. 1861.

   Atlas (nouvel) de géographie ancienne, du moyen âge, et
   moderne: compose de 100 cartes in 4to.
   Paris: Hachette et Cie.

   Cours de géographie, comprenant la description
   physique et politique et la géographie historique
   des diverses contrées du globe.
   Paris: Hachette et Cie. 1873.

COUREN, A.
   Atlas classique d'histoire universelle ancienne et moderne.
   Paris: Putois-Cretté. 1880.

CURTIUS, ERNEST.
   Peloponnesos: eine historisch-geographische beschreibung.
   Gotha: J. Perthes. 1851. 2 volumes.

DAHN, FELIX.
   Urgeschichte der germanischen und romanischen völker.
   With maps.
   Berlin: 1881-1889. 4 volumes.

DELAMARCHE, A.
   Atlas de géographie physique, politique
   et historique; revue et augmenté par Grosselin.
   Paris: Grosselin 1865.

DENAIX, A.
   Atlas historique de la France,—depuis la
   conquête des Francs jusqu' à nos jours.
   Paris: A. Delahays. 1860.

DESJARDIN, E.
   Atlas géographique de l' Italie ancienne.
   Composé de 7 cartes et d'un dictionaire, etc.
   Paris: Hachette et Cie. 1852.

   Geographie historique et administrative de la Gaule Romaine.
   With map and tables.
   Paris: Hachette et Cie. 1876-1893. 4 volumes.

DITTMAR, G.
   Sieben geschichts-karten zum leitfaden
   der weltgeschichte von H. Dittmar.
   Heidelberg: C. Winter. 1888.

DITTMAR-VÖLTER'S historischer atlas. 19 maps.
   Heidelberg: C. Winter. 1884.

DROYSEN, G.
   Allgemeiner historischer hand atlas.
   96 maps and text.
   Leipzig: Velhagen & Klasing; 1886.

DUFOUR, A. H.
   Le globe: atlas classique universel de géographie
   ancienne et moderne. 44 maps.
   Paris: J. Renouard. 1861.

DUFOUR, A. H. et T. DUVOTENAY.
   La terre: atlas de géographie ancienne,
   du moyen age, et moderne. 44 maps and text.
   Paris: A. Logerot. 1864.

DUSSIEUX, L.
   Atlas de géographie ancienne, du moyen âge, et moderne.
   68 maps.
   Paris: Lecoffre. 1848.

   Atlas general de géographie, physique, politique et historique.
   163 maps.
   Paris: Lecoffre. 1848.

   Les grands faits de l'histoire de la géographie.
   Paris: Lecoffre. 1882-1884. 6 volumes.

FIX, W.
   Territorialgeschichte des brandenburgisch-preussischen staates.
   Berlin. 1884.

   Übersichts-karte zur geschichte des preussischen
   staates und der übrigen staaten des deutschen reiches.
   Berlin: Schropp. 1890.

FORBIGER, ALBERT.
   Handbuch der alten geographie, aus den quellen bearbeitet.
   Hamburg: Haendcke & Lehmkuhl. 1877. 3 volumes.

FREEMAN, E. A.
   Historical geography of Europe.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1881. 2 volumes;
   volume 1: text;
   volume 2: 65 maps.

FREUDENFELDT, H.
   Erwerbungen Preussens und Deutschlands:
   eine karte in farbendruck.
   Berlin: Seehagen. 1892.

FREUDENFELDT, H. und C. L. OHMANN.
   Karte des preussischen staates in seiner territorialen
   entwickelung unter den Hohenzollern. In farb.
   Berlin: Friedberg & Mode. 1892.

FREYHOLD, A. VON.
   Historisch-geographische karts von Preussen.
   Berlin: D. Reimer. 1850.

   Vollständiger atlas zur universalgeschichte. 3 maps.
   Berlin: D. Reimer. 1850.

GAEBLER, E.
   Historische karte von Preussen.
   Leipzig: Lang. 1890.

GAGE, W. L.
   A modern historical atlas. 14 maps.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1869.

GANNETT, HENRY.
   Boundaries of the United States and of the several states and
   territories, with a historical sketch of the territorial changes.
   Washington: Government Printing Office. 1885.

GARDINER, SAMUEL R.
   School atlas of English history.
   66 colored maps, 22 battle plans.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1892.

GAZEAU, A.
   Histoire de la formation de nos frontières.
   Paris: H. E. Martin. 1881.

GESTER, J. S.
   Karten zur schweizer-geschichte. 8 maps and text.
   Zürich: Hofer & Burger. 1886.

GOVER, EDWARD.
   The historic geographical atlas of the middle and modern ages.
   17 maps (based on Spruner).
   London: Varty & Owen. 1853.

GRABOWSKY, WILHELM VON.
   Territorialgeschichte des preussischen staates.
   Berlin. 1845.

HANNAK, EMAN und F. UMLAUFT.
   Historischer schul-atlas in 30 karten.
   Vienna: Hölder. 1891.

HART, ALBERT BUSHNELL.
   Epoch maps illustrating American history.
   14 maps.
   New York: Longmans, Green & Co. 1891.

HERMANS, H. und J. WOLTJER.
   Atlas der algemeene en vaderlandsche geschiedenis.
   68 large and small maps, and text.
   Groningen.: J. B. Wolters. 1891.

HERTSLET, EDWARD.
   The map of Europe by treaty showing the various political and
   territorial changes which have taken place since the general
   peace of 1814; nearly 700 state papers, numerous maps.
   London. 1875-1891. 4 volumes.

HIMLY, AUGUSTE.
   Histoire de la formation territoriale des états
   de l'Europe centrale.
   Paris: Hachette et Cie. 1876.

HINSDALE, B. A.
   The old northwest, with a view of the thirteen colonies as
   constituted by the royal charters.
   10 maps.
   New York: Townsend MacCoun. 1888.

HOPF, CARL.
   Historiseh-genealogischer atlas, seit Christi geburt bis
   auf unsere zeit.
   Abtheilung: Deutschland.
   Gotha: F. A. Perthes. 1858-1866.

HUBAULT, G.
   Atlas pour servir à l'histoire des guerres de lá République
   et de l'Empire.
   Paris: Berlin. 1860.

HUGHES, WILLIAM.
   Atlas of classical geography;
   edited by George Long.
   26 plates containing 62 maps.
   Philadelphia: Blanchard & Lea. 1858.

HURLBUT, J. L.
   Manual of biblical geography;
   27 full page maps, text, etc.
   Chicago: Rand, McNally & Co.

IMBERT DES MOTTELETTES, CHARLES.
   Atlas pour servir à l'étude de l'histoire moderne de
   l'Europe (1615-1815).
   Paris: Chez l'autenr. 1834-1849.

INTERNATIONAL ATLAS.
   Contains 62 maps. The classical and historical maps of
   Schmitz and Collier respectively in this atlas, are, with
   some color variations, identical with those in the "Library
   Atlas." The "Collegiate Atlas" is the International
   with a few omissions.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.

ISSLEIB, WILHELM.
   Historiseh-geographischer schul-atlas. 36 maps.
   Gera: Issleib & Rietschel. 1874.

ISSLEIB, WILHELM und T. KONIG.
   Atlas zur biblischen geschichte.
   8 maps.
   Gera: Issleib & Rietschel. 1878.

JACOBI, C.
   Bibel-atlas. 9 maps and text.
   Gera: Hofmann. 1891.

JAUSZ, G.
   Historisch-geographischer schul-atlas.
   3 parts: Die alte welt, das mittel-alter, die neue
   und neueste zeit. 32 maps and text.
   Vienna: Hölzel. 1876.

JOHNSON, T. B.
   Historical geography of the clans of Scotland,
   1 large and 5 small maps.
   Edinburgh: W. & A. K. Johnston. 1873.

JOHNSTON, A. K.
   Atlas to Alison's history of Europe, 108 maps,
   mostly battle maps.
   Edinburgh: Blackwood. 1875.

JOHNSTON, KEITH.
   Half-crown atlas of British history, 30 maps.
   Edinburgh: W. & A. K. Johnston.

   Physical, historical, political and descriptive geography.
   21 maps, the first 12 historical.
   London: E. Stanford. 1890.

JONES'S classical atlas. 18 maps.
   London: Jones & Co. 1830.

{3908}

KAEMMEL, OTTO und G. LEIPOLD.
   Handkarte zur geschichte der wettinischen lande.
   Also "Schulwandkarte" of the same.
   Dresden: Huhle. 1891.

KAMPEN, ALBERT VON.
   Atlas antiquus.
   Taschen atlas der alten welt. 24 maps.
   Gotha: J:Perthes. 1893.

   Descriptiones nobilissimorum apud classicos locorum.
   First series: Caesar's Gallic war. 15 maps with tables.
   Gotha: J. Perthes. 1879.

   Orbis terrarum antiquus in scholarum usum descriptus.
   16 maps with text.
   Gotha: J. Perthes. 1888.

   Tabulae maximae quibus illustrantur terrae veterum
   in usum scholarum descriptae. Tabula I-IV.
   Gotha: J. Perthes. 1888.

KARTENSKIZZE der alten welt zur allgemeinsten übersicht der
alten und mittleren geschichte, mit besond. rücksicht auf F. v.
W.'s schlachten und gefechts-tafeln entworfen und zeittafel der
wichtigsten kämpfe und einiger besonders interessanten momente
von 1.500 v. Chr. bis 1492 n. Chr. 5 tab.
   Vienna: Artaria, 1888.

KEPPEL, CARL.
   Atlas zur geschichte des deutschen volkes für mittelschulen.
   13 maps.
   Hof: Büching. 1876.

   Geschichts-atlas In 27 karten.
   Nuremberg: Büching. 1889-1892.

KIENITZ, O.
   Historische karte des grossherzog.
   Baden. 6 nebenkarten.
   Karlsruhe: Bielefleld. 1886.

KIEPERT, HEINRICH.
   Atlas antiquus. 12 maps.
   Berlin: D. Reimer. 1892.

   Formae orbis antiqui. Part 1, 6 maps.
   To be completed in six parts.
   Berlin: D. Reimer. 1894.

   Historisch-geographischer atlas der alten welt. 16 maps.
   Weimer: Geograph. Institut. 1878.

   Historische karte des brandenburgisch-preussischen
   staates nach seiner territorial-entwickelung unter
   den Hohenzollern.
   Berlin: Paetel. 1889.

   Lehrbuch der alten geographie.
   Berlin: D. Reimer. 1878.

   Leitfaden der alten geographie.
   Berlin: D. Reimer. 1879.

   Neuer atlas von Hellas und den hellenischen colonien. 15 maps.
   Berlin: Nicolai. 1872.

   Numerous historical maps (including wall maps);
   each published separately.
   Berlin: D. Reimer.

KIEPERT, HEINRICH und C. WOLFF.
   Historischer schul-atlas zur alten, mittleren
   und neueren geschichte. 36 maps.
   Berlin: D. Reimer. 1893.

KIEPERT, HEINRICH und R. BOECKH.
   See BOECKH, R.

KIRCHNER, M.
   Spezialkarten.
   I: Elsass im jahre 1648 (mit Abhandlung).
   II: Elsass im jahre 1789.
   III: Das reichsland Lothringen im jahre 1766. Wandkarte.
   Das reichsland Elsass Lothringen 1648-1789.
   Strassburg: Trübner. 1878.

KÖNIG, TH.
   See Issleib.

KŒPPEN, A. L.
   The world in the middle ages: an historical geography.
   Text and six maps.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1854.

KRUSE, CHRISTIAN.
   Atlas und tabellen zur übersicht der geschichte aller
   europäischen länder und staaten.
   Friedrich Kruse, editor. Halle. 1834.

LABBERTON, ROBERT H.
   New historical atlas and general history.
   71 maps and text.
   New York: Townsend MacCoun. 1888.

LANCIZOLLE, C. W. VON.
   Geschichte der bildung des preussischen staates.
   Berlin. 1828.

LANESSAU, J. L. DE.
   L'expansion coloniale de la France.
   Paris. 1886.

LANGHANS, PAUL.
   Deutscher kolonial-atlas.
   Gotha: J. Perthes. 1893-1895.

LAPIE.
   Atlas universel de géographie ancienne et moderne. 50 maps.
   Paris: Lehuby. 1851.

LEEDER, E.
   Atlas zur geschichte des preussischen staates. 10 plates.
   Geographisches Institut. zu Weimar. 1875.

   Schul-atlas zur biblischen geschichte.
   6 maps and text.
   Essen: Baedeker. 1892.

LEIPOLD, G.
   See Kaemmel.

LEJOSNE, L. A.
   Géographie physique, politique, historique et économique de la
   France et de ses colonies: revue et corrigée par A. Dufresne.
   Paris: Bertaux. 1877.

LELEWEL, JOACHIM.
   Geographie du moyen age.
   Brussels. 1852-57. 5 volumes and atlas.

LEVESQUE, P. C.
   Atlas de l'histoire de Russie et des principales nations
   de l'empire Russe. 60 maps.
   Paris. 1812.

LIBRARY ATLAS.
   Contains 90 maps, including 16 of historical geography
   by W. F. Collier and 14 of classical geography by
   Leonhard Schmitz.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1876.
   (See International Atlas).

LONG, GEORGE.
   See Hughes.

LONGNON, A.
   Atlas historique de la France depui César jusqu' à nos jours.
   Paris: Hachette et Cie. 1884-1889.
   To be completed in 7 parts containing 5 plates each;
   3 parts Issued.

   Geographie de la Gaule au VI siècle.
   With atlas containing 11 maps.
   Paris: Hachette et Cie. 1878.

LUCAS, C. P.
   Historical geography of the British colonies. 31 maps.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1890. 3 volumes.

MacCOUN, TOWNSEND.
   Historical geography charts of Europe.
   37 charts, 18 ancient and 19 mediaeval and modern.
   New York: Townsend MacCoun. 1894.

   Historical geography charts of the United States. 18 charts.
   New York: Silver, Burdett & Co. 1889.

   An historical geography of the United States.
   New York: Silver, Burdett & Co. 1892.

MANDROT, A VON.
   Historischer atlas der Schweiz vom jahre 1300 bis 1798.
   Geneva: Kessman. 1855.

MEES, A.
   Historische atlas van Noord Nederland.
   Rotterdam. 1852-1865.

MEISSAS, A., et MICHELET.
   Atlas universel de geographie ancienne, du moyen age
   et moderne, et de geographie sacrée, composé de 54 cartes
   écrites avec 8 cartes muettes.
   Paris: Hachette et Cie.

MENKE, THEODOR.
   Bibel-atlas. 8 plates.
   Gotha: J. Perthes. 1868.

   Orbis antiqui descriptio. 18 maps.
   Gotha: J. Perthes. 1865.

   Historico-geographical hand-atlas
   [continuation of the above]. 27 maps.
   Gotha: J. Perthes. 1872.

   See also Spruner-Menke.

MEYER, C. F. und A. KOCH.
   Atlas zu Caesar's bellum Gallicum.
   Essen: Baedeker. 1889.

MEYER VON KNONAU, GEROLD.
   See Vögelin.

MOMMSEN, THEODOR.
   The provinces of the Roman empire from Caesar to Diocletian:
   translated by Wm. P. Dickson, with 10 maps by Kiepert.
   New York: Charles Scribner's' Sons. 1887. 2 volumes.

OHMANN, C. L.
   Palaestina zur zeit Jesu und der Apostel.
   II. Das königreich Jerusalem zur zeit der kreuzzüger.
   Berlin: Wruck. 1868.

OHMANN, C. L.
   See. Freudenfeldt.

PAQUIER, J. B.
   Histoire de l'unité politique et territoriale de la France.
   Paris: Hachette et Cie. 1879-1880. 3 volumes.

PAWLOWSKI, J .N.
   Historisch-geographische karte vom alten Preussen und
   Pommerellen während der herrschaft des deutschen Ritterordens.
   Graudenz: Gaebel. 1890.

PEARSON, CHARLES H.
   Historical maps of England during the first thirteen centuries.
   5 maps and text.
   London: Bell & Daldy. 1870.

PERIGOT, C.
   See BARBARET.

PLÄNE DER SCHLACHTEN UND TREFFEN.
   Feldzügen der jahre 1813, 1814, und 1815.
   (Herausgegeben vom Königl. Preuss. Generalstab.) 15 plans.
   Berlin: Reimer. 1821-82.

PORPHYROGENITUS, CONSTANTINUS.
   De thematibus et de administrando imperio.
   (In "Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae," 3rd volume.)
   Bonn. 1840.

PORSCHKE, E.
   Schulwandkarte der brandenburgisch-preussichen geschichte.
   Elberfeld: Loewenstein. 1891.

PÜTZ, WILHELM.
   Historisch-geographischer schul-atlas. 20 maps and text.
   Regensburg: Manz. 1882.

   Manual of ancient geography and history;
   translated by T. K. Arnold.
   New York: Appleton. 1851.

   Manual of mediaeval geography and history:
   translated by R. B. Paul.
   New York: Appleton. 1863.

   Manual of modern geography and history:
   translated by R. B. Paul.
   New York: Appleton. 1851.

PUTZGER, F. W.
   Historischer schul-atlas der alten, mittleren
   und neuren geschichte.
   32 large and 51 small maps.
   Leipzig: Velhagen & Klasing. 1887.

   Kleiner geschichtsatlas. 17 large and 23 small maps.
   Leipzig: Velhagen & Klasing. 1889.

QUIN, EDWARD.
   Atlas of universal history. 21 maps on uniform scale.
   London and Glasgow: R. Griffin & Co.

RAFFY, CASIMIR.
   Atlas classique des repetitions et des lectures d'histoire
   et de geographie. 40 maps.
   Toulouse: Durand. 1863.

RAMSAY, WILLIAM M.
   Historical geography of Asia Minor.
   (Royal Geographical Society. Supplementary papers, volume 4.)
   London: John Murray. 1890.

RASCHE, R., und R. ZIMMERMANN.
   Historischer atlas. 12 maps.
   Annaberg: Rudolph & Dieterici. 1874.

{3909}

RHEINHARD, H.
   Atlas orbis antiqui. 12 maps.
   Struttgart. 1886.

RHODE, C. E.
   Historischer schul-atlas der alten, mittleren
   und neueren geschichte. 30 plates containing 89 maps.
   Glogau: Flemming. 1875.

RIESS, RICH. VON.
   Atlas historique et géographique de la Bible. 10 maps.
   Freiburg: Herder. 1892.

ROLLAND DE DEN US, ANDRÉ.
   Les anciennes provinces de la France.
   Paris: Le Chevalier. 1885.

ROPES, JOHN CODMAN.
   Atlas to the campaign of Waterloo. 14 maps.
   New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. 1893.

RUSTOW, WILHELM.
   Atlas zu Caesar's gallischem krieg. 15 maps.
   Struttgart: Hoffman. 1868.

SALÉ, RENÉ.
   Geographie physique, politique, historique, etc.,
   de la France et de ses colonies.
   Paris: Nouvelle librarie scientifique et littéraire. 1884.

SCAIFE, WALTER B.
   America: its geographical history. 1492-1892.
   Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press. 1892.

SCHADE, T.
   Atlas zur geschichte des preussischen staates.
   12 maps and text.
   Glogau: Flemming. 1881.

SCHLACHTEN
   ATLAS des 19ten jahrhundert.
   Zeitraum, 1820 bis zur gegenwart. 63 maps.
   Iglau: Bäuerle. 1889-92.

SCHMITZ, LEONHARD.
   See LIBRARY ATLAS, also INTERNATIONAL ATLAS.

SCHRADER, F.
   Atlas de geographie historique.
   18 parts of 3 map each.
   Paris: Hachette et Cie. en cours de publication.

SCHROEDEL'S
   Atlas zum religions-und kirchen-geschichtlichen unterricht.
   9 maps.
   Halle: H. Schroedel. 1891.

SCHUBERT, F. W.
   Atlas antiquus. Historisch-geographischer schul-atlas
   der alten welt.
   Vienna: Hölzel. 1887.

SCHUBERT, F. W. und W. SCHMIDT.
   Historisch-geographischer schul-atlas des mittel alters.
   19 maps.
   Vienna: Hölzel. 1889.

SCHURIG, G.
   Karten-atlas, historischer, zunächst zur ergänzung von
   G. Schurig's lehrbüchern der geschichte.
   14 large and 15 small maps.
   Breslau: F. Hirt. 1886.

SEIBERT, A. E.
   Geschichts-karten für volks-und bürgerschulen. 4 maps.
   Vienna: Hölzel. 1879.

SELOSSE, RENÉ.
   Traité de l'annexion au territoire français et de son
   démembrement, etc.
   Paris: Larose. ]879.

SEYFFERTH, J. A.
   Atlas der biblischen länder für volks und mittelschulen.
   Hof: Büching. 1876.

SHEAHAN, JAMES W.
   The universal historical atlas; genealogical, chronological
   and geographical. 25 maps, statistical charts, tables, etc.
   New York and Chicago: Warren, Cockcroft & Co. 1873.

SIEGLIN, W.
   Karte der entwickelung des römischen reiches; with text.
   Leipzig: Schmidt & Günther. 1885.

   See also SPRUNER-SIEGLIN.

SMITH, GEORGE ADAM.
   The historical geography of the Holy Land, especially in
   relation to the history of Israel and of the early church.
   6 maps.
   New York: A. C. Armstrong & Son. 1894.

SMITH, WILLIAM.
   Atlas of ancient geography.
   43 maps by Dr. Charles Müller, and descriptive text.
   London: John Murray. 1874.

   Dictionary of Greek and Roman geography.
   London: 1854.

   Student's manual of ancient geography.
   London: 1861.

SPRUNER, K. VON.
   Atlas zur geschichte von Bayern.
   Gotha: J. Perthes. 1838.

   Historisch-geographischer atlas. 23 maps.
   Gotha: J. Perthes.

   Historisch-geographischer schul-atlas des gesammt-staates
   Oesterreich von der ältesten bis auf die neuesten zeiten.
   13 maps.
   Gotha: J. Perthes. 1860.

   Historisch-geographischer schul-atlas von Deutschland.
   12 maps.
   Gotha: J. Perthes. 1866.

SPRUNER-BRETSCHNEIDER.
   Historischer wand-atlas. 10 maps.
   Gotha: J. Perthes. 1877.

SPRUNER-MENKE.
   (part 1) Atlas antiquus. 31 colorirte karten.
   Gotha: J. Perthes. 1865.

   (Part 2). Hand-atlas für die geschichte des mittelalters
   und der neueren zeit. 90 colorirte karten in kupferstich
   mit 376 nebenkarten.
   Gotha: J. Perthes. 1879.

   (part 3). Atlas zur geschichte Asiens, Afrikas,
   Amerikas und Australiens. 18 colorirte karten mit 9 nebenkarten.
   Gotha: J. Perthes. 1855.

SPRUNER-SIEGLIN.
   Atlas antiquus. (Atlas zur geschichte des alterthums.)
   34 colorirte karten in kupferstich, 94 historische karten und
   73 nebenkarten. To be completed in 8 parts, 3 parts issued.
   Gotha: J. Perthes. 1893-94.

SÜSSMILCH-HÖRNIG, M. VON.
   Historisch-geographischer atlas von Sachsen und Thüringen.
   Dresden: Von Bötticher. 1863.

TARDIEU, AMÉDÉE.
   Atlas universel de geographie ancienne et moderne;
   revue et corrigé par A. Vuillemin.
   Paris: Furne. 1863.

UKERT, FRIEDRICH.
   Geographie der Griechen und Roemer von d. frühesten zeiten
   bis auf Ptolemäus.
   Weimar: Geograph-Institut. 1816-1846. 3 volumes.

UMLAUFT, F.
   Wandkarte zum studien der geschichte
   der österr.-ungar. monarchie.
   Vienna: Hölzel. 1890.

UMLAUFT, F. und E. HANNAK.
   See Hannak, E.

VAT, L.
   Nouvel atlas classique, politique, historique et commercial.
   Paris: Alexandre. 1863. 3 volumes.

VIVIEN DE SAINT MARTIN, L.
   Description historique et géographique de l'Asie Mineure,
   comprenant les temps anciens, le moyen age et les temps
   modernes, précédée d'un tableau de l'histoire géographique
   de l'Asie depuis les plus anciens temps jusqu' à nos jours.
   Paris: Bertrand. 1852. 2 volumes.

VIVIEN DE SAINT MARTIN, L. und F. SCHRADER.
   Atlas universel de geographie moderne, ancienne et
   du moyen age. 110 maps and text.
   Paris: Hachette et Cie. 1891.

VÖGELIN, J. K., und G. MEYER VON KNONAU.
   Historisch-geographischer atlas der Schweiz.
   Zürich: Schulthess. 1868.

VOIGHT, F.
   Historischer atlas der Mark Brandenburg. 7 maps.
   Berlin: D. Reimer. 1845.

   Historisch-geographischer schul-atlas der mittleren und
   neueren zeit. 17 maps.
   Berlin: Nicolai. 1877.

   Schul-atlas der alten geographie. 16 maps.
   Berlin: Nicolai. 1877.

WELLER. EDWARD.
   The student's atlas of classical geography.
   15 maps, with text by L. Schmitz.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.

WENDT, G.
   Schul-atlas zur brandenburgisch-preussischen geschichte.
   12 maps and text.
   Glogau: Flemming. 1889.

WILTSCH, J. E. T.
   Atlas Sacer. 5 maps.
   Göttingen. 1843.

   Kirchliche geographie und statistik.
   Gottingen. 1846. 2 volumes.
   English translation by John Leitch.
   London. 1859.

WITZLEBEN, A. F. VON.
   Geschichtlich-geographische entwickelung des zuwachses und der
   abnahme des polnischen reiches vom jahre 992 bis zum jahre
   1831.
   5 maps and text.
   Berlin: D. Reimer. 1831.

WOLFF, C.
   Historischer atlas zur mittleren und neueren geschichte.
   19 maps.
   Berlin: D. Reimer. 1877.

   Karte des ehemaligen königreich Polen, nach den grenzen von
   1772. Mit angabe der theilungslinien von 1772, 1793, und 1795.
   Hamburg: Friederichsen. 1872.

   Die mitteleuropaeischen staaten nach ihren geschichtllchen
   bestandtheilen des ehemaligen römisch-deutschen kaiser-reiches.
   Berlin: Habel. 1872.

WOLFF, C. und H. KIEPERT.
   See KIEPERT, H.

ZIMMERMANN, R.
   See RASCHE.

{3910}

A LIST OF THE WORKS FROM WHICH PASSAGES HAVE BEEN QUOTED IN
"HISTORY FOR READY REFERENCE AND TOPICAL READING."


ABBOT, J. WILLIS.
   Battle-fields and victory.
   New York: Dodd, Mead & Co. (c. 1891).

ABBOTT, EVELYN.
   History of Greece.
   London: Rivingtons. 1888-92. volumes 1-2.

   Pericles and the Golden Age of Athens.
   New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons. 1891.

ACADEMY, The.
   London.

ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
   Revised version.

ADAMS, BROOKS.
   The emancipation of Massachusetts.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1887.

ADAMS Major CHARLES.
   Great campaigns In Europe from 1796 to 1870.
   Edinburgh: William Blackwood & Sons. 1877.

ADAMS, CHARLES FRANCIS.
   Massachusetts: its historians and its history.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1893.

   Railroads: their origin and problems.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1878.

   Richard Henry Dana.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1890. 2 volumes.

ADAMS, CHARLES KENDALL.
   Democracy and monarchy in France.
   New York: Henry Holt & Co. 1874.

   Manual of historical literature.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1882.

ADAMS, FRANCIS.
   Preliminary discourse
   [Genuine works of Hippocrates.
   London: Sydenham Society. 1849. 2 volumes.].

ADAMS, Sir FRANCIS O., and C. D. CUNNINGHAM.
   The Swiss Confederation.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co. 1889.

ADAMS, GEORGE BURTON.
   Civilization during the Middle Ages.
   New York: C. Scribner s Sons. 1894.

ADAMS, HENRY.
   History of the United States [1801-1817].
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1889-91. 9 volumes.

   John Randolph.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1882.

   Life of Albert Gallatin.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co. 1879.

ADAMS, HERBERT B.
   Maryland's influence upon land cessions to the United States.
   (Johns Hopkins University Studies, 3d series number 1.)
   Baltimore. 1885.

   Methods of historical study.
   (Johns Hopkins University Studies, 2d series 1-2.).
   Baltimore. 1884.

ADAMS, JOHN QUINCY.
   Life of John Adams, completed by Charles Francis Adams.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co. 1871. 2 volumes.

   Memoirs; edited by Charles Francis Adams.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co. 1874-5.

ADAMS, W. H. DAVENPORT.
   The Queen of the Adriatic.
   Boston: D. Lothrop & Co. 1869.

ADDISON, C. G.
   The Knights Templars. 3d edition.
   London: Longman. 1854.

ADLER, G. J.
   Introduction to Fauriel's "History of Provençal poetry"
   New York: Derby & Jackson, 1860.

ADOLPHUS, JOHN.
   History of England, reign of George III.
   London: John Lee. 1840. 7 volumes.

ADVOCATE, The.

AIRY, OSMUND.
   The English restoration and Louis XIV.
   London: Longman, Green & Co. 1888.
   New York: C. Scribner s Sons. 1889.

AITCHISON, Sir CHARLES.
   Lord Lawrence.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1892.

ALBANY LAW JOURNAL, The.

ALEXANDER, W. D.
   Brief history of the Hawaiian people.
   New York: American Book Co. (c. 1891).

ALGER, JOHN G.
   Glimpses of the French Revolution.
   London: S. Low, Marston & Co. 1894.

ALISON, Sir ARCHIBALD.
   History of Europe, 1789-1815. 10 volumes.
   1815-1852. 6 volumes.
   Edinburgh: William Blackwood & Sons.
   New York: Harper & Bros.

   Epitome of History of Europe.
   Edinburgh: William Blackwood & Sons. 1880.

ALISON. Sir ARCHIBALD.
   Military life of John, Duke of Marlborough.
   Edinburgh: William Blackwood & Sons. 1847.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1848.

ALLAN, WILLIAM.
   The Army of Northern Virginia in 1862.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1892.

ALLEN, JOSEPH HENRY.
   Christian history in its three great periods.
   Boston: Roberts Bros. 1883.

   Hebrew men and times.
   London: Chapman & Hall.
   Boston: Walker, Wise & Co. 1861.

ALLEN, WALTER.
   Governor Chamberlain's administration in South Carolina.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1888.

ALLEN, WILLIAM B.
   History of Kentucky.
   Louisville, Kentucky: Brady & Gilbert. 1872.

ALLIES, THOMAS W.
   The Holy See and the Wandering of the Nations.
   London: Burns & Oates.
   New York: Catholic Publication Society. 1888.

ALZOG, JOHN.
   Manual of universal Church History.
   Dublin: M. H. Gill & Son. 1879-82. 4 volumes.

AMERICAN ACADEMY OF POLITICAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCE.
   Annals. Philadelphia.

AMERICAN ANNALS OF EDUCATION.
   Boston: Otis, Broaders & Co.

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION.
   Reports.

AMERICAN ECONOMIC ASSOCIATION.
   Publications.
   Baltimore.

AMERICAN EDUCATIONAL CYCLOPÆDIA.
   New York: J. W. Schermerhorn & Co. 1875.

AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
   Annual reports.
   Washington: Government Printing Office.

   Papers.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.

AMERICAN LAW REVIEW, The.
   Boston and St. Louis.

AMERICAN NATURALIST, The.
   Philadelphia.

AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CHURCH HISTORY.
   Papers.
   New York and London: G. P. Putnam's Sons.

ANDERSON, RASMUS B.
   America not discovered by Columbus.
   Chicago: S. C. Griggs & Co. 1874.

   Norse mythology.
   Chicago: S. C. Griggs & Co. 1875.

ANDOVER REVIEW.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co.

ANDREWS, CHARLES McLEAN.
   The old English manor.
   (Johns Hopkins Studies, extra volume 12.)
   Baltimore. 1892.

ANDREWS, E. BENJAMIN.
   History of the United States.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1894. 2 volumes.

ANNUAL REGISTER, 1870, 1887, 1889, 1891.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co.

ANSON, Sir WILLIAM R.
   Law and custom of the Constitution.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1896-92. 2 volumes.

APPLETONS' ANNUAL CYCLOPÆDIA.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co.

APPLETONS' JOURNAL.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL JOURNAL, The.
   London.

ARGYLL, Duke of.
   Scotland as it was and as it is.
   Edinburgh: David Douglas. 1887. 2 volumes.

ARISTOTLE.
   On the Constitution of Athens;
   translated by E. Poste.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1891.

   Politics;
   translated by Jowett.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1885. 2 volumes.

ARNOLD, EDWIN.
   Marquis of Dalhousie's administration of British India.
   London: Saunders, Otley & Co. 1862-5. 2 volumes.

ARNOLD, ISAAC N.
   Life of Abraham Lincoln.
   Chicago: Jansen, McClurg & Co. 1885.

ARNOLD, MATTHEW.
   Higher schools and universities in Germany.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1874.

   Isaiah of Jerusalem.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1883.

   Schools and universities on the continent.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1868.

ARNOLD, SAMUEL GREENE.
   History of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1859-60. 2 volumes.

{3911}

ARNOLD, THOMAS.
   History of Rome.
   London. 1871. 3 volumes.

   History of the later Roman commonwealth.
   London: Bickers & Son. 1882. 2 volumes.

ARNOLD. W. T.
   The Roman system of provincia] administration.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1879.

ASHLEY, W. J.
   Introduction to English economic history and theory.
   London: Rivingtons. 1888.

ASHWORTH, HENRY.
   Recollections of Richard Cobden.
   London and New York: Cassell. [1877.]

ATHENÆUM, The.
   London.

ATKINSON, PHILIP.
   Elements of electric lighting.
   New York: D. Van Nostrand Co. 1890.

ATLANTIC MONTHLY, The.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co.

AUMALE, Due d'.
   History of the Princes de Condé.
   London: Richard Bentley & Son. 1872. 2 volumes.

AUSTIN, GEORGE LOWELL.
   History of Massachusetts.
   Boston: Estes & Lauriat. 1876.

AUSTIN, JOHN.
   Lectures on jurisprudence.
   London: John Murray. 2 volumes.

BAAS, JOH. HERMANN.
   Outlines of the history of medicine.
   New York: J. H. Vail & Co. 1889.

BADEAU, ADAM.
   Grant In peace.
   Hartford: S. S. Scranton & Co. 1887.

   Military history of Ulysses S. Grant.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1868-81. 3 volumes.

BAGEHOT, WALTER.
   Biographical studies.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1881.

   Lombard street.
   London: Kegan Paul, Trench & Co.
   New York: Scribner, Armstrong & Co. 1873.

   Physics and politics.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1873.

BAIRD, CHARLES W.
   History of the Huguenot emigration to America.
   New York: Dodd, Mead & Co. (c. 1885.) 2 volumes.

BAIRD, HENRY M.
   History of the rise of the Huguenots of France.
   New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. 1879. 2 volumes.

   The Huguenots and Henry of Navarre.
   New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. 1886. 2 volumes.

BALBO, CESARE.
   Life and times of Dante.
   London: Richard Bentley. 1852. 2 volumes.

BALCH, THOMAS.
   The French in America during the War of Independence.
   Philadelphia: Porter & Coates. 1891.

BALZANI, UGO.
   The Popes and the Hohenstaufen.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1888.
   New York: A. D. F. Randolph & Co.

BANCROFT, GEORGE.
   History of the United States: author's last revision.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1883-5. 6 volumes.

   Martin Van Buren.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1889.

BANCROFT, HUBERT HOWE.
   History of the Pacific states of North America.
   San Francisco: A. L. Bancroft & Co. 1882-90. 34 volumes.

   Native races of the Pacific states.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1874-1876. 5 volumes.

BANDELIER, ADOLF F.
   A historical introduction to studies among the sedentary
   Indians of New Mexico.
   (Papers of the Archæological Institute of America:
   American series, volume 1.)
   Boston: A. Williams & Co. 1881.

BANKER'S MAGAZINE, The.
   New York: Homans Publishing Co.

BAPTISTS AND THE NATIONAL CENTENARY, The.
   Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society. 1876.

BARCLAY, THOMAS.
   Selections from the correspondence of Thomas Barclay.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1894.

BARMBY, J.
   Gregory the Great.
   London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1879.

BARNARD, HENRY.
   National education in Europe. 2d edition.
   New York: Charles B. Norton. 1854.

   editor. American Journal of Education.
   Hartford.

   editor. Letters, essays and thoughts on studies and conduct.
   2d edition.
   Hartford: American Journal of Education. 1873.

   editor. Papers on Froebel's kindergarten.
   Hartford: American Journal of Education. 1881.

BARNARD, J. G.
   The Peninsular campaign.
   New York: D. Van Nostrand. 1864.

BARNES, THURLOW WEED.
   Memoir of Thurlow Weed.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1884.

BARNES, WILLIAM H.
   History of the 39th Congress of the United States.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1868.

BARROWS, WILLIAM.
   Oregon.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1884.

BARRY, JOHN STETSON.
   History of Massachusetts.
   Boston. 3 volumes.

BARRY, WILLIAM.
   Venezuela.
   London: Marshall Bros. 1886.

BARSTOW, G.
   History of New Hampshire.
   Boston: Little & Brown. 1853.

BARY. A. DE.
   Lectures on bacteria.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1887.

BASTABLE, C. F.
   Commerce of nations.
   London: Methuen & Co. 1892.

BATTLES AND LEADERS OF THE CIVIL WAR:
   edited by Robert U. Johnson and Clarence C. Buel.
   New York: The Century Co. (c.1884-1888.) 4 volumes.

BAUR, FERDINAND C.
   Church history of the first three centuries.
   London: Williams & Norgate. 1878-1879. 2 volumes.

BAYNE, PETER.
   Martin Luther.
   London: Cassell & Co. 1887. 2 volumes.

BAZAN, E. P.
   Russia.
   Chicago: A. C. McClurg & Co. 1890.

BEARD, CHARLES.
   Martin Luther and the Reformation in Germany.
   London: Kegan Paul, French & Co. 1889.

   The Reformation.
   (Hibbert lectures, 1883.)
   London: Williams & Norgate. 1883.

BEDE, The Venerable.
   Ecclesiastica] history of England:
   edited by A. Giles.
   London: George Bell & Sons. 1849.

BEER, GEORGE L.
   Commercial policy of Eng]and toward the American colonies.
   (Columbia College Studies, volume 3, number 2.) 1893.

BEESLY, EDWARD SPENCER.
   Queen Elizabeth.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co. 1892.

BELL, ROBERT.
   History of Russia.
   London: Longman. 1836. 3 volumes.

   Life of Rt. Hon. George Canning.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1846.

BENJAMIN, PARK.
   The age of electricity.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1886.

BENJAMIN, S. G. W.
   Story of Persia.
   New York and London: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1887.

BENT, J. THEODORE.
   Genoa.
   London: C. Kegan Paul & Co. 1881.

BENTLEY'S MISCELLANY.
   London.

BENTON, T. H.
   Thirty Years' View.
   New York: D. Appleton and Co. 1856. 2 volumes.

BERDOE, EDWARD.
   Origin and growth of the healing art.
   London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co. 1893.

BESANT, WALTER.
   Gaspard de Coligny.
   London: Marcus Ward & Co.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1879.

   Readings in Rabelais.
   Edinburgh: William Blackwood and Sons. 1883.

BESANT, WALTER. and E. H. PALMER.
   Jerusalem.
   London: Richard Bentley & Son. 1871.

BEVERLEY, ROBERT.
   History of Virginia.
   Richmond: J. W. Randolph. 1855.

BEZOLD, C.
   Oriental diplomacy: being the transliterated text of the
   cuneiform despatches.
   London: Luzac & Co. 1893.

BIEDERMANN, KARL.
   Dreissig jahre Deutscher geschichte.
   Breslau. 1881-2. 2 volumes.

BIGELOW, L. J.
   Bench and bar.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1867.

BIGELOW, MELVILLE M.
   History of procedure.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1880.
   Boston: Little, Brown & Co.

BIGG, CHARLES.
   The Christian Platonists of Alexandria.
   (Bampton Lectures, 1886.)
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1886.

BIGLAND, JOHN.
   History of Spain.
   London: Longman. 1810. 2 volumes.

BIKELAS, DEMETRIOS.
   Seven essays on Christian Greece.
   Paisley and London: Alexander Gardner. 1890.

BINGHAM, ANSON.
   Law of real property.
   Albany: W. C. Little & Co. 1868.

BINGHAM, JOSEPH.
   Antiquities of the Christian Church.
   London: Henry G. Bohn. 1865. 2 volumes.

BISHOP, J. LEANDER.
   History of American Manufactures.
   Philadelphia: Edward Young & Co.
   London: S. Low, Son & Co. 1864. 2 volumes.

BISMARCK-SCHÖNHAUSEN. KARL OTTO, Prince.
   Politischen reden.
   Stuttgart. 1892-4. volumes 1-12.

BLACK, ALEXANDER.
   Story of Ohio.
   Boston: D. Lothrop Co. (c. 1888).

BLACK, CHARLES INGHAM.
   The proselytes of Ishmael.
   London: W. H. Allen & Co. 1881.

BLACKIE JOHN STUART.
   Four phases of morals.
   London: Hamilton & Co.

   What does history teach?
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1886.

{3912}

BLACKSTONE, Sir WILLIAM.
   Commentaries on the laws of England.
   London: John Murray. 4 volumes.

BLACKWOODS' EDINBURGH MAGAZINE.
   Edinburgh: Wm. Blackwood & Sons.

BLADES, WILLIAM.
   Books in chains.
   London: Elliot Stock. 1892.

BLAINE, JAMES G.
   Twenty years of Congress.
   Norwich, Connecticut: The Henry Bill Publishing Co. 1886.
   2 volumes.

BLANQUI, JÉRÔME-ADOLPHE.
   History of political economy in Europe.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1880.

BLÜMNER, H.
   Home life of the ancient Greeks.
   London: Cassell & Co. 1893.

BLUNT, JOHN HENRY.
   Reformation of the Church of England, 1514-1547.
   London: Rivingtons. 1869.

BOCCACCIO, GIOVANNI.
   The Decameron.
   London: George Routledge & Son.

BOECKH, AUGUSTUS.
   Public economy of the Athenians.
   London: S. Low, Son & Co.
   Boston: Little, Brown & Co. 1857.

BOLLES, ALBERT S.
   Financial history of the United States.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1879-86. 3 volumes.

BONNECHOSE, EMILE DE.
   History of France.
   London: Ward, Lock & Co.

BOONE, RICHARD G.
   Education In the United States.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1889.

BOOTH, MARY L.
   History of the city of New York.
   New York: W. R. C. Clark. 1866.

BOOTH, MAUD B.
   Beneath two flags.
   New York and London: Funk & Wagnalls. 1889.

BORROW, G.
   The Zincali.
   London: John Murray. 1841. 2 volumes.

BOSANQUET, BERNARD.
   The civilization of Christendom, etc.
   London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co.
   New York: Macmillan & Co. 1893.

BOTTA, CARLO.
   Italy during the Consulate and Empire of Napoleon.
   Philadelphia. 1829.

BOUCHOT, HENRI.
   The printed book.
   London: H. Grevel & Co. 1887.

BOULGER, DEMETRIUS C.
   Central Asian questions.
   London: T. Fisher Unwin. 1685.

   History of China.
   London: W. H. Allen & Co. 1881-84. 3 volumes.

BOURINOT, JOHN G.
   Federal Government In Canada.
   (Johns Hopkins University Studies, 7th series, nos. 10-12.)
   Baltimore. 1889.

   Manual of the constitutional history of Canada.
   Montreal: Dawson Bros. 1888.

BOURNE, H. R. FOX.
   The romance of trade.
   London: Cassell.

BOURRIENNE, F. DE.
   Private memoirs of Napoleon.
   London: H. Colburn & R. Bentley. 1880. 4 volumes.

BOUTELL, CHARLES.
   Arms and armour; from the French of Lacombe.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1870.

BOUTMY, ÉMILE.
   The English constitution.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1891.

BOWEN, CLARENCE W.
   Boundary disputes of Connecticut.
   Boston: James R. Osgood & Co. 1882.

BOWEN, J. E.
   The conflict of East and West in Egypt.
   New York and London: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1887.

BOWLEY, ARTHUR L.
   Short account of England's foreign trade In the 19th century.
   London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1893.

BOWMAN, S. M., and R. B. IRWIN.
   Sherman and his campaigns.
   New York: Charles B. Richardson. 1865.

BOWRING, Sir JOHN.
   Kingdom and people of Siam.
   London: John W. Parker & Son. 1857. 2 volumes.

BOYCE, WILLIAM B.
   Introduction to the study of history.
   London. 1884.

BOYNTON, CHARLES B.
   History of the navy during the Rebellion.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1868. 2 volumes.

BOZMAN. JOHN L.
   History of Maryland, 1683-1660.
   Baltimore: Lucas & Deaver. 1837.

BRACKENBURY, Colonel C. B.
   Frederick the Great.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1884.

BRACKENRIDGE, H. M.
   Voyage to South America.
   Baltimore. 1819. 2 volumes.

BRACKETT, ANNA C., editor.
   Woman and the higher education.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1893.

BRADFORD, ALDEN.
   History of the federal government.
   Boston: Samuel G. Simpkins. 1840.

BRADLEY, HENRY.
   Story of the Goths.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.
   London: T. Fisher Unwin. 1888.

BRAMSTON, A. R. and A. C. LEROY.
   Historic Winchester.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1882.

BRANDES, GEORG.
   Impressions of Russia.
   New York: Thomas Y. Crowell & Co. (c. 1889).

BRESSE, J.
   History of the Vaudois.
   [Abridged translation, in Arnaud's "Authentic details of the
   Valdenses." London. 1827].

BRETT, REGINALD BALIOL.
   Footprints of statesmen during the 18th century.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1892.

BRETT. Rev. W. H.
   Indian tribes of Guiana.
   London: Bell & Daldy. 1868.

BREVAL., JOHN.
   History of the House of Nassau.
   Dublin. 1784.

BREWER, J. S.
   English studies.
   London: John Murray. 1881.

   Reign of Henry VIII.
   London: John Murray. 1884. 2 volumes.

BREWER, W.
   Alabama.
   Montgomery, Alabama: Barrett & Brown. 1872.

BRIGHT, J. FRANCK.
   History of England.
   London: Rivingstons. 1880-88.
   New York: E. P. Dutton & Co. 4 volumes.

BRINTON, DANIEL G.
   American hero-myths.
   Philadelphia: H. C. Watts & Co. 1882.

   The American race.
   New York: N. D. C. Hodges. 1891.

   Essays of an Americanist.
   Philadelphia: Porter & Coates. 1890.

   The Lenâpé and their legends.
   Philadelphia: D. G. Brinton. 1885.

   Myths of the new world.
   New York: Leypoldt & Holt. 1868.

   Notes on the Floridian peninsula.
   Philadelphia: Jos. Sabin. 1859.

   Races and peoples.
   New York: N. D. C. Hodges. 1890.

   The Maya chronicles. editor.
   Philadelphia: D. G. Brinton. 1882.

BRITANNIC CONFEDERATION:
   a series of papers; edited by Arthur Silva White.
   London: George Philip & Son. 1892.

BRITISH MUSEUM.
   List of books of reference in the reading room.
   3d edition. 1889.

BRODHEAD, JOHN R.
   History of the state of New York.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1858. 2 volumes.

BROUGHAM, HENRY, Lord.
   History of England and France under the House of Lancaster.
   London: Griffin, Bohn & Co. 1861.

BROWN, HORATIO F.
   Venice, New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.
   London: Percival & Co. 1893.

BROWN, JOHN.
   Locke and Sydenham.
   Edinburgh: D. Douglas. 1882.

BROWN, JOHN, editor.
   The Stundists.
   London: James Clarke & Co. 1893.

BROWN, RICHARD.
   History of the Island of Cape Breton.
   London: Sampson Low, Son & Marston. 1869.

BROWN, ROBERT.
   Countries of the world.
   London and New York: Cassell. 4 volumes.

BROWN, ROBERT.
   The great Dionysiak myth.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1877. 2 volumes.

BROWNE, IRVING.
   Short studies of great lawyers.
   Albany: Albany Law Journal. 1878.

BROWNE, R. W.
   History of Rome from A. D. 96.
   London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge.

BROWNE, WILLIAM HAND.
   Maryland.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1884.

BROWNELL, HENRY.
   North and South America Illustrated.
   Hartford: Hurlbut, Kellogg & Co. 1860. 2 volumes.

BROWNING, OSCAR.
   Guelphs and Ghlbellines.
   London: Methuen & Co. 1893.

   Introduction to the history of educational theories.
   London: Kegan Paul, Trench & Co. 1881.

BROWNING, ROBERT.
   Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Strafford
   [Eminent British statesmen, by John Forster, volume 2.
   London: Longman. 1886].

BROWNLOW, W. G.
   Sketches of the rise, progress and decline of Secession.
   Philadelphia: George W. Childs. 1862.

BROWNLOW, W. R.
   Lectures on slavery and serfdom in Europe.
   London: Burns & Oates. 1892.

BRUGSCH-BEY, HENRY.
   History of Egypt under the Pharaohs.
   London: John Murray. 1879. 2 volumes.

   History of Egypt under the Pharaohs. edited by Brodrick.
   London: John Murray. 1891.

BRUNO-GEBHARDT.
   Lehrbuch der Deutschen geschichte.
   Stuttgart: Union Deutsche Verlagsgesellschaft. 1892.

BRYANT, SOPHIE.
   Celtic Ireland.
   London: Kegan Paul, Trench & Co. 1889.

BRYANT, WILLIAM C.
   Interesting archæological studies in and about Buffalo.
   [Buffalo. 1890.]

BRYCE, GEORGE.
   Short history of the Canadian people.
   London: Low, Marston & Co. 1887.

BRYCE, JAMES.
   The American commonwealth.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1889. 2 volumes.

   The American commonwealth. 3d edition.,
   revised 1895. 2 volumes.

{3913}

BRYCE, JAMES.
   Holy Roman Empire.
   London: Macmillan & Co.

   Transcaucasia and Ararat.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1877.

BUCK, A. H., editor.
   Treatise on hygiene and public health.
   New York: William Wood & Co. 1879. 2 volumes.

BUCKLE, HENRY THOMAS.
   History of civilization in England.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 3 volumes.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 2 volumes.

BUCKLEY, ARABELLA B. (Mrs. Fisher).
   History of England.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co. 1892.

   History of England for beginners.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co. 1887.

BUDGE, E. A. WALLIS.
   Babylonian life and history.
   London: Religious Tract Society. 1884.

   Dwellers on the Nile.
   London: Religious Tract Society. 1885.

   The Mummy.
   Cambridge: University Press. 1893.

BUFFALO HISTORICAL SOCIETY.
   Publications.

BULLE, CONSTANTINE.
   Geschichte der neuesten zeit, 1815-1871.
   Leipzig: 1886-7. 4 volumes.

BULWER, Sir EDWARD LYTTON.
   Athens.
   London: Saunders & O. 2 volumes.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 2 volumes.

BULWER, Sir HENRY LYTTON.
   Historical characters.
   London: Richard Bentley. 1868. 2 volumes.

BUNBURY, E. H.
   History of ancient geography.
   London: John Murray. 1879. 2 volumes.

BURCKHARDT, JACOB.
   Civilisation of the period of the Renaissance in Italy.
   London: C. Kegan Paul and Co. 1878. 2 volumes.

BURKE, Sir BERNARD.
   Book of orders of knighthood.
   London: Hurst and Blackett. 1868.

BURKE, EDMUND.
   Works, volume 2.
   Boston: Little, Brown & Co. 12 volumes.

BURKE, S. HUBERT.
   Historical portraits of the Tudor dynasty
   and Reformation period.
   London: John Hodges. 1879-83. 4 volumes.

BURN, ROBERT.
   Rome and the Campagna.
   London: George Bell & Co. 1876.

BURNE, General Sir OWEN TUDOR.
   Clyde and Strathnairn.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1891.

BURNET, GILBERT.
   History of his own time.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1833. 6 volumes.

BURNS, WILLIAM.
   The Scottish war of independence.
   Glasgow: James Maclehose. 1874. 2 volumes.

BURROWS, MONTAGU.
   The Cinque Ports.
   London and New York: Longmans Green & Co. 1888.

   Commentaries on the history of England.
   Edinburgh: William Blackwood & Sons. 1893.

BURTON, J. H.
   History of Scotland.
   Edinburgh: William Blackwood & Sons. 1867-70. 7 volumes.

BURTON, R. F.
   Ultima Thule.
   London: William P. Nimmo. 1875. 2 volumes.

BURY, J. B.
   History of the later Roman empire.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co. 1889. 2 volumes.

BURY, WILLIAM COUTTS KEPPEL, Viscount.
   Exodus of the western nations.
   London: Richard Bentley. 1865. 2 volumes.

BUSH, GEORGE GARY.
   Harvard.
   Boston: Cupples, Upham & Co. 1886.

BUSH, R. W.
   St. Athanasius.
   London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1888.

BUSK, M. M.
   History of Spain and Portugal.
   London: Baldwin & Cradock. 1833.

BUSSEY, GEORGE MOIR, and THOMAS GASPEY.
   Pictorial history of France.
   London: W. S. Orr & Co. 1843. 2 volumes.

BUTCHER, S. H.
   Some aspects of the Greek genius.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co. 1891.

BUTLER, CHARLES.
   Historical memoirs respecting the English, Irish,
   and Scottish Catholics.
   London: John Murray. 1819. 2 volumes.

BUTLER, WILLIAM.
   Mexico in transition.
   New York: Hunt & Eaton. 1893.

BUTT, ISAAC.
   History of Italy.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1860. 2 volumes.

BUTTS, FRANK B.
   The Monitor and the Merrimac.
   (Soldiers' and Sailors' Historical Society of Rhode Island,
   4th series, number 6.)
   Providence. 1890.

CABLE, GEORGE W.
   The Creoles of Louisiana.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1884.

CÆSAR, JULIUS.
   Commentary on the Gallic War.

CAIRNES, J. E.
   Essays In political economy.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1873.

CALAMY, EDMUND.
   The nonconformist's memorial. 2d edition.
   London. 1802. 3 volumes.

CALDECOTT, ALFRED.
   English colonization and empire.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1891.

CALLCOTT, MARIA.
   Short history of Spain.
   London: John Murray. 2 volumes.

CAMDEN, WILLIAM.
   History of Queen Elizabeth;
   newly done into English
   [Kennet's Complete history of England, volume 2. 1706.]

CAMPBELL, CHARLES.
   Introduction to the history of the colony and ancient
   dominion of Virginia.
   Richmond: B. B. Minor. 1847.

CAMPBELL, DOUGLAS.
   The Puritan in Holland, England and America.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1892. 2 volumes.

CAMPBELL, JOHN, Lord.
   Lives of the Lord Chancellors.
   London: John Murray. 10 volumes.

CAPES, W. W.
   Roman history: The early empire.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. N. Y.: Scribner, A. & Co. 1876.

   University life in ancient Athens.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1877.
   New York: Harper & Bros. [1877.]

CAPPER, JOHN.
   The three presidencies of India.
   London: Ingram, Cooke & Co. 1853.

CARLYLE, THOMAS.
   Works
   [Critical and miscellaneous essays. 6 volumes.
   Early kings of Norway.
   French Revolution. 3 volumes.
   Heroes and hero-worship.
   History of Friedrich II. 10 volumes.
   Oliver Cromwell's letters and speeches. 5 volumes.].
   London: Chapman and Hall.

CARPENTER, W. H.
   History of Tennessee.
   Philadelphia: Lippincott. 1854.

CARR, ARTHUR.
   The Church and the Roman empire.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co.
   New York: A. D. F. Randolph & Co. 1887.

CARR, LUCIEN.
   Missouri.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1888.

CARREL, A.
   History of the Counter-Revolution in England.
   London: David Bogue. 1846.

CARRINGTON, HENRY B.
   Battles of the American Revolution.
   New York: A. S. Barnes & Co. 1876.

CARROLL. H. K.
   Religious forces of the United States.
   New York: Christian Literature Co. 1893.

CARWITHEN, J. B. S., and A. LYALL.
   History of the Christian Church.
   London: Richard Griffin & Co. 1856.

CASSELL'S ILLUSTRATED HISTORY OF ENGLAND.
   London and New York: Cassell & Co. 10 volumes.

CAYLEY, EDWARD S.
   The European revolutions of 1848.
   London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1856. 2 volumes.

CENTURY MAGAZINE, The.
   New York: The Century Co.

CHALMERS, M. D.
   Bills of exchange.

CHAMBERLAIN, BASIL HALL.
   Things Japanese.
   London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co. 1890.

CHAMBERLAIN, MELLEN.
   John Adams: address before the Webster Historical Society,
   Boston, January 18, 1884.

CHAMBERS, ROBERT.
   Domestic annals of Scotland.
   2d edition. Edinburgh:
   W. & R. Chambers. 1859. 3 volumes.

CHAMBERS, W.
   France, its history and revolutions.
   Edinburgh: W. & R. Chambers. 1871.

   Stories of old families.
   Edinburgh: W. & R. Chambers. 1878.

CHAMBERS'S JOURNAL.
   Edinburgh: W. & R. Chambers.

CHAMBERS'S MISCELLANY.
   Edinburgh: W. & R. Chambers.

CHAMPLIN, JOHN D., JR.
   Young folks' history of the war for the Union.
   New York: Henry Holt & Co. 1881.

CHAPMAN, B.
   History of Gustavus Adolphus.
   London: Longmans. 1856.

CHAPMAN, T. J.
   The French in the Allegheny valley.
   Cleveland: W. W. Williams. (c. 1887).

CHARLEVOIX, Father.
   History of New France;
   translated by Shea.
   New York: J. G. Shea. 1866-72. 2 volumes.

   History of Paraguay.
   London: L. Davis. 1769. 2 volumes.

CHARLOTTE ELIZABETH, Princess Palatine.
   Life and letters.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1889.

CHAUTAUQUAN, The.
   Meadville, Pennsylvania: T. L. Flood Publishing House.

CHEAP-MONEY EXPERIMENTS.
   Reprinted from The Century Magazine.
   New York: The Century Co. 1892.

CHEETHAM, S.
   History of the Christian Church during
   the first six centuries.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co. 1891.

CHESNEY, CHARLES C.
   Essays in military biography.
   London: Longmans.
   New York: Henry Holt & Co. 1874.

CHESTER, HENRIETTA M.
   Russia.
   London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1881.

CHEVALIER, MICHEL.
   Mexico, ancient and modern.
   London: J. Maxwell & Co. 1864. 2 volumes.

   On the probable fall In the value of gold.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1859.

{3914}

CHICAGO, UNIVERSITY OF.
   Official bulletin, number. 1.
   Chicago. 1891.

CHICAGO LAW TIMES, The.

CHISHOLM, H. W.
   On the science of weighing and measuring.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1877.

CHURCH, ALFRED J.
   Henry the Fifth.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co. 1889.

CHURCH, ALFRED J. and ARTHUR GILMAN.
   Story of Carthage.
   New York and London: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1886.

CHURCH, F. J.
   Introduction to "Trial and Death of Socrates"
   (London: Macmillan. 1886).

CHURCH, R. W.
   Beginning of the Middle Ages.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co.
   New York: Scribner, Armstrong & Co. [1877.]

   Dante and other essays.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co. 1888.

   The gifts of civilisation.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1891.

CITIES OF THE WORLD.
   London, and New York: Cassell & Co. 4 volumes.

CITY IN THE SEA, The.
   London: Seeley, Jackson & Halliday. 1884.

CLAIBORNE, J. F. H.
   Life and correspondence of John A. Quitman.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1860. 2 volumes.

   Mississippi: volume 1.
   Jackson, Mississippi: Power & Barksdale. 1880.

CLARENDON, EDWARD, Earl.
   History of the Rebellion.
   Oxford: University Press. 1849. 7 volumes.

CLARKE, JAMES FREEMAN.
   Anti-slavery days.
   New York: R. Worthington. 1884.

CLARKSON, THOMAS.
   History of the abolition of the African slave-trade.
   London: Longman. 1808. 2 volumes.

   Memoirs of the life of William Penn.
   Philadelphia: 1814. 2 volumes.

CLAY, HENRY.
   Life, correspondence, and speeches;
   by Calvin Colton.
   New York: A. S. Barnes & Co. 1857. 6 volumes.

CLAYDEN, P. W.
   England under the Coalition.
   London: T. F. Unwin. 1892.

CLERKE, AGNES M.
   Familiar studies in Homer.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1892.

CLEVELAND, HENRY.
   Alexander H. Stephens in public and private.
   Philadelphia: National Publishing Co. (c. 1866).

CLINTON, H. R.
   From Crécy to Assye.
   London: Frederick Warne & Co. [1881].

   The war in the Peninsula and Wellington's campaign
   in France and Belgium.
   London: Frederick Warne & Co. [1890.]

COBBETT'S
   Parliamentary history of England
   [continued as "Parliamentary debates"].
   London. 1806-16. 32 volumes.

COCKAYNE, T. OSWALD.
   Life of Marshal Turenne.
   London: Longman. 1864.

COFFIN, CHARLES CARLTON.
   Drum-beat of the nation.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1888.

COGGESHALL, GEORGE.
   History of the American privateers.
   New York 1856.

COIGNET, C.
   Francis the First and his times.
   London: R. Bentley & Son. 1888.

COLERIDGE, HARTLEY.
   Biographia Borealis.
   London: Whitaker, Treacher & Co. 1833.

COLLIER, WILLIAM F.
   History of England.
   London: T. Nelson & Sons. 1868.

   History of Ireland.
   London: Marcus Ward & Co. [1885.]

COMINES, PHILIP DE.
   Memoirs.
   London: H. G. Bohn. 1855. 2 volumes.

COMPAYRÉ, GABRIEL.
   Abelard and the origin and early history of universities.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1893.

   History of pedagogy;
   translated by W. H. Payne.
   Boston: D. C. Heath & Co. 1886.

COMYN, Sir ROBERT.
   History of the Western Empire.
   London: W. H. Allen & Co. 1841. 2 volumes.

CONDER, CLAUDE R.
   Syrian stone-lore.
   London: Richard Bentley & Son. 1886.

CONNECTICUT.
   Public records of the colony.
   Hartford: Brown & Parsons. 1850-1852. 2 volumes.

CONTEMPORARY REVIEW, The.
   London: Isbister & Co.

COOKE, GEORGE W.
   History of party.
   London: J. Macrone. 1886-7. 3 volumes.

   Memoirs of Lord Bolingbroke.
   London: R. Bentley. 1835. 2 volumes.

COOKE, JOHN ESTEN.
   Life of Robert E. Lee.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1871.

   Stonewall Jackson.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1866.

   Virginia.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1883.

COOLEY, THOMAS McINTYRE.
   Acquisition of Louisiana.
   (Indiana Historical Society Pamphlets, no. 3).

   Constitutional limitations which rest upon the legislative
   power of the states. 6th edition.
   Boston: Little, Brown & Co. 1890.

   Michigan.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1885.

COOLIDGE, SUSAN, pseudo (S. C. WOOLSEY).
   Short history of the city of Philadelphia.
   Boston: Roberts Bros. 1887.

COOPER, JAMES FENNIMORE.
   Naval history of the United States.
   New York: G. P. Putnam & Co. 1853.

COOPER, THOMAS V.
   American politics.
   Chicago: C. R. Brodix. 1884.

COPPÉE, H.
   History of the conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors.
   Boston: Little, Brown & Co. 1881.

CORDERY, B. M. and J. S. PHILLPOTTS.
   See GARDINER, BERTHA M.

CORNHILL, MAGAZINE.
   London: Smith, Elder & Co.

CORTÉS, HERNANDO.
   Despatches to the Emperor Charles V.
   New York: Wiley & Putnam. 1843.

COTTON, J. S. and E. J. PAYNE.
   Colonies and dependencies.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1883.

COX, Sir GEORGE W.
   The Athenian empire.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1876.
   New York: Scribner, Armstrong & Co.

   The Crusades.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1874.
   New York: Scribner, Armstrong & Co.

   The Greeks and the Persians.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1876.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons.

   History of Greece.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1874. 2 volumes.

COX, SAMUEL S.
   Three decades of federal legislation.
   Providence: J. A. & R. A. Reid. 1885.

COXE, WILLIAM.
   Account of the Russian discoveries between Asia and America.
   London. 1803.

   History of the House of Austria.
   London: H. G. Bohn. 3 volumes.

   Memoirs of the kings of Spain of the House of Bourbon.
   London: Longman. 5 volumes.

CRAIK, GEORGE L.
   Compendious history of English literature.
   New York: C. Scribner. 1863. 2 volumes.

   History of British commerce.
   London: C. Knight & Co. 1844.

CRAIK, HENRY.
   The state in its relation to education.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1884.

CRANE, THOMAS FREDERICK.
   Introduction to "La société française au dix-septième siècle"
   (New York and London: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1889).

CREASY, Sir EDWARD.
   Fifteen decisive battles of the world.
   London: Richard Bentley & Son.

   History of England.
   London: J. Walton. 1869-1870. 2 volumes.

   History of the Ottoman Turks.
   London: R. Bentley & Sons.
   New York: H. Holt & Co.

   Memoirs of eminent Etonians.
   London: Chatto & Windus. 1870.

   Rise and progress of the English constitution.
   London: R. Bentley & Sons.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1869.

CREIGHTON, Rev. MANDELL.
   The age of Elizabeth.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co.
   New York: Scribner, Armstrong & Co. 1876.

   Cardinal Wolsey.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co. 1888.

   History of Rome.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1875.

   History of the Papacy during the Reformation.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co 1882-1894. volumes 1-5.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. volumes 1-4.

   The Tudors and the Reformation. 3d edition.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1878.
   New York: Harper & Bros.

CREPAZ, ADELE.
   The emancipation Of women.
   London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1893.

CREVIER, JOHN B. L.
   History of the Roman emperors.
   London: 1814. 10 volumes.

CRICHTON, ANDREW, and HENRY WHEATON.
   Scandinavia.
   Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd. 1838. 2 volumes.

CROWE, EYRE EVANS.
   History of France.
   London: Longman. 1830. 3 volumes.

CROZIER. JOHN BEATTIE.
   Civilization and progress.
   London: Longmans & Co. 1888.

CRUIKSHANK, ERNEST.
   Story of Butler's Rangers.
   Welland, Ontario. 1893.

CRUTTWELL, CHARLES THOMAS.
   Literary history of early Christianity.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1893. 2 volumes.

CUMMING, C. F. GORDON.
   Wanderings In China.
   Edinburgh.: William Blackwood & Sons. 1886. 2 volumes.

CUNNINGHAM, Sir H. S.
   Earl Canning.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1891.

CUNNINGHAM, Rev. JOHN.
   Church history of Scotland.
   Edinburgh: Adam & Charles Black. 1859. 2 volumes.

{3915}

CUNNINGHAM, W.
   Growth of English industry and commerce in modern times.
   Cambridge: University Press. 1892.

CURRY, J. L. M.
   Constitutional government in Spain.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1889.

   The southern states of the American Union.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1894.

CURTIS, GEORGE TICKNOR.
   History of the constitution of the United States.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1854-1858. 2 volumes.

   Life of Daniel Webster.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1872. 2 volumes.

CURTIS, GEORGE WILLIAM.
   Address at Annual Meeting of the
   National Civil-Service Reform League, 1891.

CURTIUS, ERNST.
   History of Greece.
   New York: C. Scribner & Co. 1871. 5 volumes.

CURZON, G. N.
   Problems of the far East.
   London and New York: Longmans, Green & Co. 1894.

CUSHING, CALEB.
   The Treaty of Washington.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1873.

CUST, Sir EDWARD.
   Annals of the wars of the 18th century.
   London: John Murray. 1862. 5 volumes.

   Lives of the warriors of the Thirty Years' War,
   London: John Murray. 1865. 2 volumes.

CUTTS, EDWARD L.
   Charlemagne.
   London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1882.

   Constantine the Great.
   London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1881.

CYCLOPEDIC REVIEW OF CURRENT HISTORY
   [formerly Quarterly register of current history].
   Buffalo: Garretson, Cox & Co.

CZARTORYSKI, Prince ADAM.
   Memoirs.
   London: Remington & Co. 1888. 2 volumes.

DAHLGREN, Admiral J. A.
   Memoir of Ulric Dahlgren.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co. 1872.

DALL, W. H.
   Tribes of the extreme northwest
   [Contributions to North American Ethnology,
   volumes 1. Washington. 1877].

DALRYMPLE, Sir JOHN.
   Memoirs of Great Britain and Ireland.
   London. 1700. 3 volumes.

DALTON, HENRY G.
   History of British Guiana.
   London: Longmans. 1855. 2 volumes.

DARMESTETER, JAMES.
   The Mahdi.
   London: T. Fisher Unwin. 1885.

DARRAS, J. E.
   General history of the Catholic Church.
   New York: P. O'Shea. 1866-9. 4 volumes.

DASENT, GEORGE WEBBE
   Story of Burnt Njal.
   Edinburgh: Edmonston & Douglas. 1861. 2 volumes.

DAVIDS, T. W. RHYS.
   Buddhism.
   London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge.

DAVIDSON, THOMAS.
   Aristotle.
  New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1892.

DAVIES, C. M.
   History of Holland.
   London: J. W. Parker. 1841-4. 3 volumes.

DAVIS, G. L. L.
   Day-star of American freedom.
   N. Y.: C. Scribner. 1855.

DAVIS, WILLIAM T.
   Ancient landmarks of Plymouth.
   Boston: A. Williams & Co. 1883.

DAWKINS, W. BOYD.
   Cave hunting.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1874.

   Early man in Britain.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1880.

DAWSON, WILLIAM HARBUTT.
   Bismarck and state socialism.
   London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co. 1800.

   German socialism and Ferdinand Lassalle.
   London: S. Sonnenschein & Co. 1891.

   Germany and the Germans.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1894. 2 volumes.

DEAK, FRANCIS,
   Hungarian statesman: a memoir.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1880.

DE COSTA, Rev BENJ. FRANKLIN, editor.
   The pre-Columbian discovery of America by the Northmen.
   Albany: Joel Munsell. 1868.

DELEPIERRE, OCTAVE.
   Historical difficulties and contested events.
   London: John Murray. 1868.

DEL MAR, ALEXANDER.
   History of money.
   London: G. Bell &. Sons. 1885.

DENT, HASTINGS C.
   A year in Brazil.
   London: Kegan Paul, Trench & Co. 1886.

DENT, JOHN CHARLES.
   Story of the Upper Canadian rebellion.
   Toronto: C. Blackett Robinson. 1885. 2 volumes.

DENTON, W.
   England in the 15th century.
   London: G. Bell & Sons. 1888.

DE QUINCEY, THOMAS.
   The Cæsars
   [collected writings, volumes 6.
   Edinburgh: A. & C. Black. 1889-90. 14 volumes.].

   Joan of Arc
   [Collected writings, volumes 5].

DIAZ DEL CASTILLO, BERNAL.
   Memoirs.
   London: J. Hatchard & Son. 1844. 2 volumes.

DICEY, A. V.
   The Privy Council.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co. 1887.

DICEY, EDWARD.
   Victor Emmanuel.
   London: Marcus Ward & Co. 1882.

DICKENS, CHARLES.
   Child's history of England.
   London: Chapman & Hall.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co.

DICKINSON, G. LOWES.
   Revolution and reaction in modern France.
   London: G. Allen. 1892.

DICTIONARY OF NATIONAL BIOGRAPHY;
   edited by Leslie Stephen, and Sidney Lee.
   London: Smith, Elder & Co.
   N. Y.: Macmillan & Co. 1885-. volume 1-.

DIGBY, KENELM E.
   Introduction to history of the law of real property.
   Oxford Warehouse.

DILKE, Sir CHARLES WENTWORTH.
   Problems of Greater Britain.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co. 1890.

DILLON, JOHN FOREST.
   Laws, and jurisprudence of England and America.
   Boston: Little, Brown & Co. 1894.

DIMAN, J. L.
   Orations and essays.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1882.

DIODORUS.
   Historical library;
   translated by G. Booth.
   London. 1814. 2 volumes.

DIPLOMACY OF THE UNITED STATES, The.
   Boston: Wells & Lilly. 1826.

DIPPOLD, GEORGE THEODORE.
   Great epics of mediæval Germany.
   Boston: Roberts Bros. 1882.

DIXON, WILLIAM HEPWORTH.
   Free Russia.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1870.

   Her majesty's tower.
   London: Hurst & Blackett.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co. 1869.

   History of William Penn.
   London: Hurst & Blackett. 1872.

DOBRIZHOFFER, MARTIN.
   Account of the Abipones.
   London: John Murray. 1822. 3 volumes.

DOBSON, AUSTIN, editor.
   Eighteenth century essays.
   London: Kegan Paul, Trench & Co. 1882.

DODD, CHARLES R.
   Manual of dignities.
   London: Whittaker & Co. 1844.

DODGE, THEODORE AYRAULT.
   Bird's-eye view of our Civil War.
   Boston: J. R. Osgood & Co. 1883.

   The campaign of Chancellorsville.
   Boston: J. R. Osgood & Co. 1881.

DÖLLINGER, JOHN J. I. VON.
   The Gentile and the Jew in the courts of the Temple of Christ.
   London: Longman. 1862. 2 volumes.

   History of the Church.
   London: C. Dolman. 1840-2. volume 4.

   Studies in European history.
   London: John Murray. 1890.

DOMETT, HENRY W.
   History of the Bank of New York.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1884.

DOMINGUEZ, LUIS L.
   Introduction to "The Conquest of the River Plate."
   (London: Hakluyt Society. 1891).

DONALDSON, THOMAS.
   The public domain.
   Washington: 1884.

DOUBLEDAY, ABNER.
   Gettysburg made plain.
   New York: The Century Co. (c. 1888).

DOUGLAS, ROBERT K.
   China.
   London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1882.

DOUGLAS, STEPHEN A.
   Brief treatise upon constitutional and party questions and
   the history of political parties;
   [reported] by J. Madison Cutts.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1866.

DOVE, P. E., editor.
   Domesday studies: being papers read at the Domesday
   commemoration, 1886.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1888.

DOVER, Lord.
   Life of Frederick II., King of Prussia.
   London: Longman. 1831.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 2 volumes.

DOYLE, JOHN A.
   The English in America.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 3 volumes.
   New York: H. Holt & Co. 3 volumes.

DRAKE, FRANCIS S.
   Memorials of the Society of the Cincinnati of Massachusetts.
   Boston. 1873.

DRAKE, SAMUEL ADAMS.
   Around the hub.
   Boston: Roberts Bros. 1881.

   The making of the great west.
   NEW YORK: C. Scribner's Sons. 1887.

   Old landmarks and historic personages of Boston.
   Boston: J. R. Osgood & Co. 1873.

DRANE, AUGUSTA THEODOSIA.
   Christian schools and scholars. 2d edition.
   London: Burns & Oates. 1881.

DRAPER, JOHN WILLIAM.
   History of the American Civil War.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1867-70. 3 volumes.

   History of the intellectual development of Europe.
   Revised edition.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1876. 2 volumes.

DRIVER, S. R.
   Isaiah.
   London: James Nisbet & Co. [1888.]

{3916}

DROYSEN, JOHANN GUSTAV.
   Outline of the principles of history.
   Boston: Ginn and Co. 1893.

DUBLIN UNIVERSITY MAGAZINE.
   Dublin: James McGlashan.

DUFF, MOUNTSTUART E. GRANT.
   Studies in European politics.
   Edinburgh: Edmonston & Douglas. 1866.

DUFFY, BELLA.
   The Tuscan republics.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.
   London: T. F. Unwin. 1893.

DUFFY, Sir CHARLES GAVAN.
   A bird's-eye view of Irish history
   [chapter 4 in "Young Ireland "].
   Enlarged and revised.
   Dublin: J. Duffy & Son. 1882.

   Four years of Irish history.
   London and New York: Cassell. 1883.

DUNBAR, EDWARD E.
   The romance of the age.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1867.

DUNCKER, MAX.
   History of antiquity;
   translated by Evelyn Abbott.
   London: Richard Bentley & Son. 1877-82. 6 volumes.

   History of Greece.
   London: Richard Bentley & Son. 1883-6. 2 volumes.

DUNHAM, S. A.
   History of Denmark, Sweden and Norway.
   London: Longman. 1839. 3 volumes.

   History of Poland.
   London: Longman. 1831.

   History of Spain and Portugal.
   London: Longmans. 5 volumes.

   History of the Germanic empire.
   London: Longman. 1834. 3 volumes.

DUNLAP, WILLIAM.
   History of the New Netherlands and New York.
   New York: Carter & Thorp. 1839. 2 volumes.

DUNLOP, JOHN.
   Memoirs of Spain, 1621-1700.
   Edinburgh: T. Clark. 1834. 4 volumes.

DURFEE, T.
   Historical discourse
   [250th anniversary of the settlement of Providence. 1887].

DURHAM, Earl of.
   Report and despatches
   [on the affairs of British North America].
   London: Ridgways. 1839.

DURUY, VICTOR.
   History of France:
   abridged and translated by Carey.
   New York: T. Y. Crowell & Co. 1889.

   History of Greece.
   Boston: Estes & Lauriat. 1892. 4 volumes.

   History of Rome.
   Boston: Estes & Lauriat. 8 volumes.

   The history of the Middle Ages.
   New York: H. Holt & Co. 1891.

DWIGHT, THEODORE W.
   Introduction to H. S. Maine's "Ancient Law."
   (New York: H. Holt & Co. 1875.)

DYER, THOMAS HENRY.
   History of modern Europe.
   London: John Murray. 4 volumes.
   G. Bell & Sons. 4 volumes.

   History of the city of Rome.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1865.
   New York: R. Worthington.

EATON, DORMAN B.
   Civil service in Great Britain.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1880.

EBERS, GEORG.
   Egypt.
   London and New York: Cassell. [1881-1882.] 2 volumes.

EDEN, CHARLES H.
   The fifth continent.
   London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, [1877.]

   The West Indies.
   London: S. Low, Marston & Co. 1880.

EDERSHEIM, ALFRED.
   Life and times of Jesus the Messiah.
   London: Longmans, Green and Co. 1883. 2 volumes.
   New York: A. D. F. Randolph & Co. 2 volumes.

EDINBURGH REVIEW.
   Edinburgh: Adam & Charles Black.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co.

EDUCATION.
   Boston: Frank H. Kasson.

EDUCATIONAL REVIEW.
   New York: H. Holt & Co.

EDWARDS, AMELIA B.
   Pharaohs, fellahs and explorers.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1891.

EDWARDS, BRYAN.
   History of the British colonies in the West Indies.
   London: J. Stockdale. 1793-1801. 3 volumes.

EDWARDS, EDWARD.
   Libraries and the founders of libraries.
   London: Trübner & Co. 1805.

   Lives of the founders of the British Museum.
   London: Trübner & Co.
   New York: J. W. Bouton & Co. 1870.

   Memoirs of libraries.
   London: Trübner & Co. 1859. 2 volumes.

EDWARDS, H. SUTHERLAND.
   The Romanoffs.
   London: W. H. Allen & Co. 1890.

EGAR, JOHN H.
   Christendom, from Constantine to the Reformation.
   New York: J. Pott & Co. 1887.

EGGLESTON, EDWARD, and LILLIE E. SEELYE.
   Pocahontas.
   New York: Dodd, Mead & Co. [1879.]

EGINHARD.
   Life of Charlemagne.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1880.

EGLE, WILLIAM H.
   Illustrated history of Pennsylvania.
   Philadelphia: E. M. Gardner. 1880.

EHRICH, LOUIS R.
   The question of silver.
   New York and London: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1892.

ELIOT, SAMUEL.
   History of the early Christians.
   London: R. Bentley. 1853. 2 volumes.

   History of the United States.
   Boston: William Ware & Co. 1880.

ELIOT, SAMUEL.
   The Liberty of Rome.
   New York: G. P. Putnam.
   London: R. Bentley. 1849. 2 volumes.
   (volumes 1 and 2 of "History of Liberty."
   New York: James Miller. 4 volumes.)

ELLIOTT, CHARLES B.
   The United States and the northeastern fisheries.
   Minneapolis: University of Minnesota. 1887.

ELLIOTT, CHARLES W.
   The New England history.
   New York: C. Scribner. 1857. 2 volumes.

ELLIOTT, O. L.
   The tariff controversy in the U. S., 1789-1833.
   (Leland Stanford Junior University Monographs, number 1).

ELLIS, GEORGE E.
   History of the battle of Bunker's [Breed's] Hill.
   Boston: Lockwood, Brooks & Co. 1875.

   The Puritan age and rule in the colony of the Massachusetts Bay.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1888.

ELLIS, HAVELOCK.
   The nationalisation of health.
   London: T. Fisher Unwin. 1892.

ELTON, CHARLES.
   Origins of English history.
   London: Bernard Quaritch. 1882.

ELY, RICHARD T.
   French and German socialism in modern times.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1883.

   The labor movement In America.
   New York: T. Y. Crowell & Co. (c. 1886.)

   Socialism.
   New York: T. Y. Crowell & Co. 1894.

ELZE, KARL.
   William Shakespeare.
   London: G. Bell & Sons. 1888.

EMERTON, EPHRAIM.
   Introduction to the study of the Middle Ages.
   Boston: Ginn & Co. 1888.

   Mediaeval Europe.
   Boston: Ginn & Co. 1894.

ENGELS, FREDERICK.
   Socialism, Utopian and scientific.
   London: S. Sonnenschein & Co.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1892.

ENGLISH HISTORICAL REVIEW, The.
   London and New York: Longmans, Green & Co.

ERDMANNSDÖRFFER, B.
   Deutsche geschichte, 1648-1740.
   Berlin. 1892-4. 2 volumes.

EUSEBIUS PAMPHILUS.
   Ecclesiastical history.
   London: Macmillan.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co. 1865.

EVELYN, JOHN.
   Memoirs.
   London: H. Colburn. 1827. 5 volumes.

EVERETT. EDWARD.
   Life of George Washington.
   New York: Sheldon & Co. 1860.

EVERETT, WILLIAM.
   On the Cam.
   Cambridge: Sever & Francis. 1865.

EVETTS. BASIL T. A.
   New light on the Bible and the Holy Land.
   New York and London: Cassell Publishing Co. [1894].

EWALD, ALEXANDER C.
   The crown and its advisers.
   Edinburgh: William Blackwood & Sons. 1870.

EWALD, HEINRICH.
   History of Israel.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1869-86. 8 volumes.

FARRAGUT, LOYALL.
   Life of David Glasgow Farragut.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1879.

FARRAR, F. W.
   The early days of Christianity.
   New York and London: Cassell. [1882.] 2 volumes.

   The First Book of Kings.
   (Expositor's Bible.)
   New York: A. C. Armstrong & Son. 1893.

   Seekers after God.
   London: Macmillan & Co.

FAY, THEODORE S.
   The three Germanys.
   New York: The author. (c. 1889.) 2 volumes.

FEDERALIST, The,
   reprinted from the original text of
   Hamilton, Jay, and Madison;
   edited by H. C. Lodge.
   New York and London: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1888.

FELBERMANN, LOUIS.
   Hungary and its people.
   London: Griffith, Farran & Co. (1892).

FELTON, C. C.
   Greece, ancient and modern.
   Boston: Ticknor & Fields. 1867. 2 volumes.

FERRIS, BENJAMIN.
   History of the original settlements on the Delaware.
   Wilmington: Wilson & Heald. 1846.

FINLAY, GEORGE.
   Greece under the Romans.
   Edinburgh: William Blackwood & Sons. 1857.

   History of Greece from its conquest by the Crusaders
   to its conquest by the Turks, and of the empire
   of Trebizond.
   Edinburgh: William Blackwood & Sons. 1851.

   History of Greece under Othoman and Venetian domination.
   Edinburgh: William Blackwood & Sons. 1856.

   History of the Byzantine Empire from 716 to 1057.
   Edinburgh: William Blackwood & Sons. 2 volumes.

FISCHEL, EDWARD.
   The English constitution.
   London: Bosworth & Harrison. 1863.

FISHER, GEORGE PARK.
   History of the Christian Church.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1887.

   The Reformation.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1883.

FISKE, JOHN.
   American political ideas.
   New York: Harper & Bros. (c. 1885).

{3917}

FISKE, JOHN.
   The American Revolution.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1891. 2 volumes.

   The beginnings of New England.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1889.

   Civil government In the United States.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1890.

   The critical period of American history.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1892.

   The discovery of America.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1892. 2 volumes.

   The War of Independence.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1889.

FITZMAURICE. Lord EDMOND.
   Life of William, earl of Shelburne.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1876-6. 8 volumes.

FLETCHER, C. R. L.
   Gustavus Adolphus and the struggle of Protestantism
   for existence.
   New York and London: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1890.

FLETCHER, J. C. and D. P. KIDDER.
   Brazil and the Brazilians.
   9th edition.
   Boston: Little, Brown & Co. 1879.

FLINT, R.
   History of the philosophy of history: France, etc.
   Edinburgh: William Blackwood & Sons.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1894.

FLINTOFF, OWEN.
   Rise and progress of the laws of England and Wales.
   London. 1839.

FOOTE, H. S.
   War of the Rebellion.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1866.

FORBES, ARCHIBALD.
   The Afghan wars.
   London: Seeley & Co. 1892.

   Chinese Gordon.
   London: G. Routledge & Sons. 1884.

   William of Germany.
   New York: Cassell & Co. (c. 1888.)

FORCE, M. F.
   Some early notices of the Indians of the Ohio.
   Cincinnati: R. Clarke & Co. 1879.

FORD, ISAAC M.
   Tropical America.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons.

FORD, RICHARD.
   Handbook for travellers in Spain.
   London: John Murray. 1855. 2 volumes.

FORD. THOMAS.
   History of Illinois.
   Chicago: S. C. Griggs & Co. 1854.

FORD, WORTHINGTON C., editor.
   The American citizen's manual.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1882-83. 2 volumes.

FORDE, GERTRUDE.
   A lady's tour In Corsica.
   London: R. Bentley & Son. 1880. 2 volumes.

FOREIGN QUARTERLY REVIEW. The.
   London.

FORSTER, JOHN.
   Historical and biographical essays.
   London: J. Murray. 1858. 2 volumes.

   Statesmen of the Commonwealth.
   London: Longmans. 1840. 7 volumes.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1846. 2 volumes.

FORSYTH, WILLIAM.
   Trial by jury.
   London: John W. Parker & Son.

FORT, GEORGE F.
   Medical economy during the Middle Ages.
   New York: J. W. Bouton. 1883.

FORTNIGHTLY REVIEW, The.
   London: Chapman & Hall.

FORUM, The.
   New York.

FOSTER. WILLIAM E.
   Stephen Hopkins.
   Providence: Sidney S. Rider. 1884. 2 volumes.

FOWLE, T. W.
   The poor law.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1881.

FOWLER, W. WARDE.
   The city-state of the Greeks and Romans.
   London' Macmillan & Co. 1898.

   Julius Cæsar.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1892.

FOX, CHARLES JAMES.
   History of the early part of the reign of James II.
   [in Carrel's "Counter-Revolution."
   London: David Bogue. 1846].

FRANCO-GERMAN WAR, The;
    translated from German official account.
    London. 1874-84. 10 volumes.
    (5 volumes, text, 5 volumes, maps).

FRANKLIN, BENJAMIN.
   Life of, written by himself;
   edited by John Bigelow.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co. 1884. 3 volumes.

FRASER, ALEXANDER CAMPBELL.
   Life and letters of George Berkeley
   [volume 4 of Berkeley's "Works."
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1871. 4 volumes.].

FRASER, Rev. R. W.
   Turkey, ancient and modern.
   Edinburgh: A. and C. Black. 1854.

FRASER'S MAGAZINE.
   London: James Fraser; Longmans, Green & Co.

FRAZER, J. G.
   The golden bough.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co. 1890. 2 volumes.

   Totemism.
   Edinburgh: Adam & Charles Black. 1887.

FREDERIC, HAROLD.
   The new exodus.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.
   London: W. Heinemann. 1892.

FREDERICK II. (The Great.)
   History of my own times
   [posthumous works. volumes 1.
   London. 1789. 13 volumes.]
   History of the Seven Years War
   [posthumous works, volume 2-3.
   London. 1789. 13 volumes.]

FREEMAN. EDWARD A.
   The chief periods of European history.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co. 1886.

   Comparative politics.
   New York: Macmillan & Co. 1874.
   Exeter. London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1887.

   General sketch of European history
   [also published as "Outlines of history"].
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1873.

   Growth of the English constitution. 2d edition.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1873.

   Historical essays:
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co. 1871-92. Series 1-4.

   Historical geography of Europe.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1881. 2 volumes.

   History and conquest of the Saracens.
   Oxford: J. H. & James Parker. 1856.

   History of federal government. volume 1.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1868.

   History of Sicily. volumes 1-4.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1891-4.

   History of the Norman conquest of England. 2d edition.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1870-79. 5 volumes and index.

   Lectures to American audiences.
   London: Trübner & Co. 1882.
   Philadelphia: Porter & Coates.

   Methods of historical study.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1886.

   Old English history for children.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1869.

   The Ottoman power in Europe.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1877.

   Short history of the Norman conquest of England.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1880.

   Sketches from the subject and neighbour lands of Venice.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1881.

   Story of Sicily.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.
   London: T. F. Unwin. 1892.

   William the Conqueror.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co. 1888.

FREMONT, JOHN CHARLES.
   Memoirs of my life.
   Chicago and New York: Belford, Clarke & Co. 1887.

FREYTAG, GUSTAV.
   The crown prince.
   London: George Bell & Sons. 1890.

FROISSART, Sir JOHN.
   Chronicles;
   translated by Johnes.
   London: William Smith. 1848. 2 volumes.

FROTHINGHAM, OCTAVIUS BROOKS.
   George Ripley.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1882.

FROTHINGHAM, RICHARD.
   History of the siege of Boston.
   Boston: C. C. Little & J. Brown. 1851.

   Rise of the republic of the United States.
   Boston: Little, Brown & Co. 1886.

FROUDE, JAMES ANTHONY.
   Cæsar.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1879.

   The English in Ireland.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 3 volumes.
   New York: Scribner. Armstrong & Co. 1873-4. 3 volumes.

   History of England.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 12 volumes.
   New York: C. Scribner & Co. 1865-70. 12 volumes.

   Life and times of Thomas Becket.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1885.

   Lord Beaconsfield.
   London: S. Low, Marston & Co.
   New York: Harper & Bro. 1800.

   Luther.
   London: Longmans. Green & Co. 1883.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons.

   Short studies on great subjects.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 4 volumes.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1868-1883. 4 volumes.

FULLER. THOMAS.
   Church history of Britain.
   London. 3 v.

FUSTEL DE COULANGES, NUMA DENIS.
   The ancient city.
   Boston: Lee & Shepard. 1874.

FYFFE, C. A.
   History of Greece.
   New York: D. Appleton. & Co. 1886.

   History of modern Europe.
   London: Cassell. 1880-1889. 3 volumes.
   New York: H. Holt & Co. 1881-90. 3 volumes.

GAIRDNER, JAMES.
   Henry the Seventh.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co. 1889.

   History of the life and reign of Richard the Third.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1878.

   Houses of Lancaster and York.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1874.
   New York: Scribner, Armstrong & Co.

GAIRDNER, JAMES and JAMES SPEDDING.
   Studies in English history.
   Edinburgh: David Douglas. 1881.

GALAXY. The.
   New York.

GALLATIN, ALBERT.
   A synopsis of the Indian tribes of North America.
   (Archæologia Americana. volume 2.
   Cambridge: American Antiquarian Society. 1836).

GALLENGA, ANTONIO C. N. (L. MARIOTTI, pseud.)
   Historical memoir of Frà Dolcino and his times.
   London: Longman. 1853.

   History of Piedmont.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1855. 3 volumes.

{3918}

GALLENGA, ANTONIO C. N.
   Italy.
   London: Saunders & Otley. 1841. 2 volumes.

   South America.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1880.

GAMMELL, WILLIAM.
   Life of Roger Williams
   [Library of American Biographies, 2d series, volumes 4.
   Boston: 1845].

GANOT, ADOLPHE.
   Elementary treatise on physics;
   translated and edited by E. Atkinson.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1872.

GARDINER, BERTHA M.
   The French Revolution.
   London: Longmans. Green & Co. 1883.

GARDINER, BERTHA M. and J. SURTEES PHILLPOTTS.
   King and Commonwealth. 2d edition.
   London: Seeley & Co. 1874.
   Philadelphia: Jos. H. Coates & Co. 1876.

GARDINER, SAMUEL RAWSON.
   Constitutional documents of the Puritan revolution.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1889.

   History of the great civil war. 1642-1649.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1891. 3 volumes.

   The Thirty Years' War.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1874.

GARDINER, SAMUEL RAWSON and J. B. MULLINGER.
   Introduction to the study of English history. 3d edition.
   London: K Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co. 1894.
   New York: H. Holt & Co.

GARDNER, PERCY.
   New chapters in Greek history.
   London: John Murray. 1892.

GARFIELD, JAMES ABRAM.
   Works.
   Boston: J. R. Osgood & Co. 1882. 2 volumes.

GARNEAU, F. X.
   History of Canada;
   translated by A. Bell.
   Montreal: Richard Worthington. 1866. 2 volumes.

GASPEY, THOMAS.
   History of England, George III. [to] Victoria.
   London Printing and Publishing Co. 4 volumes.

GATSCHET, ALBERT S.
   The Klamath Indians.
   (Contributions to North American ethnology, volume 2.)
   Washington. 1890. 2 volumes.

   A migration legend of the Creek Indians. volume 1.
   Philadelphia: D. G. Brinton. 1884.

GAY, SYDNEY HOWARD.
   James Madison.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1884.

GAYARRÉ, CHARLES.
   Louisiana: its colonial history and romance.
   New York: Harper &: Bros. 1851.

   Philip II. of Spain.
   New York: W. J. Widdleton. 1866.

GEDDES, JAMES.
   History of the administration of John de Witt.
   London: C. Kegan Paul & Co. 1879. volume 1.

GEIJER, ERIC GUSTAVE.
   History of the Swedes.
   London: Whittaker & Co.

GEIKIE, JAMES.
   Prehistoric Europe.
   London: Edward Stanford. 1881.

GELL, Sir WILLIAM.
   Topography of Rome.
   London: Saunders & Otley. 1834. 3 volumes.

GELLIUS, AULUS.
   The Attic nights;
   translated by W. Beloe.
   London. 1795. 3 volumes.

GENTLEMAN'S MAGAZINE, The.
   London.

GEORGE, HENRY.
   Progress and poverty.
   New York: Henry George & Co. 1887.

GERARD, JAMES WATSON.
   The peace of Utrecht.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1885.

   Titles to real estate.
   New York: Baker, Voorhis & Co.

GIBBINS, H. DE B.
   History of commerce in Europe.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co. 1891.

GIBBON, EDWARD.
   Decline and fall of the Roman empire;
   with notes by Dr. W. Smith.

GIBBONS, JAMES, Cardinal.
   The faith of our fathers.
   Baltimore: J. Murphy & Co. 1879.

GIBBS, GEORGE.
   Tribes of western Washington and northwestern Oregon.
   (Contributions to North American Ethnology, volume 1.)
   Washington: 1877.

GIDDINGS, JOSHUA R.
   History of the Rebellion.
   New York: Follett, Foster & Co. 1864.

GIESEBRECHT, W. VON.
   Geschichte der deutschen kaiserzeit.
   Braunschweig. 1878-1881. 5 volumes.

GIESELER, JOHN C. L.
   Compendium of ecclesiastical history. 2d edition.
   Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. 1846-55. 5 volumes.

GILES, H. A.
   Historic China.
   London: T. DeLa Rue & Co. 1882.

GILES, J. A.
   Life and times of Alfred the Great.
   London: G. Bell. 1848.

GILMAN, ARTHUR.
   Story of Boston.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1889.

   Story of the Saracens.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.
   London: T. F. Unwin. 1887.

GILMAN, DANIEL C.
   James Monroe.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1883.

GILMAN, NICHOLAS PAINE.
   Profit sharing.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1889.

GINDELY, ANTON.
   History of the Thirty Years' War.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1884. 2 volumes.

GLADSTONE, Rt. Hon. W. E.
   Homer.
   London: Macmillan.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1878.

GLEIG, G. R.
   Campaigns of the British army at
   Washington and New Orleans, 1814-1815.
   London: John Murray. 1836.

   The Leipsic campaign.
   London: Longman. 1862.

GNEIST, RUDOLF.
   The English parliament in its transformations.
   London: H. Grevel & Co. 1886.

   History of the English constitution.
   London: William Clowes & Sons. 1886. 2 volumes.

GODKIN, EDWIN L.
   History of Hungary and the Magyars.
   London: Cassell. 1853.

GODKIN, G. S.
   Life of Victor Emmanuel II.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1879. 2 volumes.

GODWIN, PARKE.
   History of France: Ancient Gaul.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1860.

GODWIN, WILLIAM.
   History of the commonwealth.
   London: H. Colburn. 1824-1828.

GOMME, GEORGE LAURENCE.
   Primitive folk-moots.
   London: S. Low, Marston & Co. 1880.

   editor. Gentleman's Magazine Library:
   Bibliographical notes.
   London: E. Stock. 1889.

GOODWIN, JOHN A.
   The Pilgrim republic.
   Boston: Ticknor & Co. 1888.

GORDON, GEORGE H.
   History of the campaign of the Army of Virginia
   under John Pope.
   Boston: Houghton, Osgood & Co. 1880.

GORE, CHARLES.
   Leo the Great.
   London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge.

GOSSE, EDMUND.
   History of eighteenth century literature.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1889.

GOULD, S. BARING.
   The Church in Germany.
   London: Wells Gardner, Darton & Co. 1891.

   Germany, present and past.
   London: C. Kegan Paul & Co. 1879. 2 volumes.

   Story of Germany.
   London: T. F. Unwin.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1886.

GRAETZ, H.
   History of the Jews.
   London: David Nutt. 1891-92. 5 volumes.

GRAHAM, WILLIAM.
   Socialism, new and old.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1891.

GRAHAME, JAMES.
   History of the rise and progress of the
   United States of North America till 1688.
   London: Longman. 1827. 2 volumes.

   History of the United States of North America. 2d edition.
   Philadelphia: Lea & Blanchard. 1846. 2 volumes.

GRANT, A. J.
   Greece in the age of Pericles.
   London: J. Murray. 1893.

GRANT, JAMES.
   The newspaper press.
   London: Tinsley Bros. 1871. 8 volumes.

GRANT, ULYSSES S.
   Personal memoirs.
   New York: C. L. Webster & Co. 1885. 2 volumes.

GRASBY, W. CATTON.
   Teaching in three continents.
   London: Cassell & Co. 1891.

GRATTAN, THOMAS C.
   History of the Netherlands.
   Philadelphia: Carey & Lea. 1831.

GREAT BRITAIN.
   Colonial and Indian exhibition, 1886.
   Her Majesty's Colonies.
   London: William Clowes & Sons. 1886.

GREELEY, HORACE.
   The American conflict.
   Hartford: O. D. Case & Co. 1866-1867. 2 volumes.

GREEN, J. R.
   The conquest of England.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1883.
   New York: Harper & Bros.

   History of the English people.
   London: Macmillan & Co.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1878-1880. 4 volumes.

   The making of England.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1881.
   New York: Harper & Bros.

   Short history of the English people.
   London: Macmillan & Co. Illustrated edition.,
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1894. 4 volumes.

GREEN, Mrs. J. R.
   Henry the Second.
   London and New York: Macmillan. 1888.

GREEN BAG, The.
   Boston.

GREENE, GEORGE WASHINGTON.
   Historical studies.
   New York: G. P. Putnam. 1850.

   Life of Nathanael Greene.
   New York: Hurd & Houghton. 1871. 3 volumes.

   Short history of Rhode Island.
   Providence: J. A. & R. A. Reid. 1877.

GREENWELL, W.
   British barrows.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1877.

GREGG, WILLIAM S.
   Irish history for English readers. 2d edition.
   London: Vizetelly & Co. 1886.

GREGOROVIUS, FERDINAND ADOLF.
   Geschichte der stadt Rom.
   Stuttg. 1875-1881. 8 volumes.

   History of the city of Rome in the Middle Ages.
   London: G. Bell & Sons. 1894. 2 volumes.

GRESWELL, WILLIAM PARR.
   History of the Dominion of Canada.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1890.

GRIFFIS, WILLIAM E.
   Influence of the Netherlands.
   Boston: DeWolfe, Fiske & Co. 1891.

GRIFFITHS, ARTHUR.
   French revolutionary generals.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1891.

GRIMM, HERMAN.
   Life of Michael Angelo.
   London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1865. 2 volumes.

GRONLUND, LAURENCE.
   Ça Ira!
   Boston: Lee & Shepard. 1888.

{3919}

GROSS, CHARLES.
   The gild merchant.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1890. 2 volumes.

GROTE, GEORGE.
   History of Greece.
   London: John Murray. 1884. 12 volumes.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 12 volumes.

GRUBE, A. W.
   Heroes of history and legend.
   London: Griffith & Farran. 1880.

GUEST, EDWIN.
   Origines Celticae.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1883. 2 volumes.

GUEST, M. J.
   Lectures on the history of England.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1879.

GUETTÉE, R. F.
   The Papacy.
   New York: Carleton. 1867.

GUHL, E., and W. KONER.
   The life of the Greeks and Romans.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1875.

GUILLEMIN, AMÉDÉE.
   Electricity and magnetism;
   translated from the French,
   revised and edited by S. P. Thompson.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1891.

GUIZOT, F. P. G.
   France under Louis Philippe.
   London: R. Bentley. 1865.

   History of Civilization.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1861.

   History of Oliver Cromwell.
   London: R. Bentley. 2 volumes.
   Philadelphia: Blanchard & Lea. 1854. 2 volumes.

   History of Richard Cromwell and the restoration.
   London: R. Bentley. 1856. 2 volumes.

   History of the English Revolution of 1640.
   London: H. Bohn. 2 volumes.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1846. 2 volumes.

   Memoirs to illustrate the history of my own time.
   London: R. Bentley. 1851-61. 4 volumes.
   https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/28169 (Volume 1)

   Popular history of France.
   Boston: Estes & Lauriat. 6 volumes.
   https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/11951
   https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/11952
   https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/11953
   https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/11954
   https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/11955
   https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/11956

GUNDRY, R. S.
   China and her neighbours.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1893.

HADLEY, ARTHUR T.
   Railroad transportation.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1885.

HADLEY, JAMES.
   Introduction to Roman law.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1873.

HAKE, A. E.
   Story of Chinese Gordon.
   London: Remington & Co. 1884-1885. 2 volumes.

HAKLUYT SOCIETY.
   Publications. London.

HALE, E.
   The fall of the Stuarts and western Europe.
   Boston: Estes & Lauriat. 1876.

HALE, EDWARD EVERETT, editor.
   Stories of war told by soldiers.
   Boston: Roberts Bros. 1879.

ALE, EDWARD EVERETT, and SUSAN.
   Story of Spain.
   New York and London: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1886.

HALE, HORATIO, editor.
   Iroquois book of rites.
   Philadelphia: D. G. Brinton. 1883.

HALE, SUSAN.
   Story of Mexico.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.
   London: T. F. Unwin. 1889.

HALES, W.
   New analysis of chronology.
   London: C. J. G. & F. Rivington. 1830. 4 volumes.

HALIBURTON, T. C.
   Historical and statistical account of Nova Scotia.
   Halifax: Joseph Howe. 1829. 2 volumes.

   Rule and misrule of the English in America.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1851.

HALL, Captain BASIL.
   Extracts from a journal. 4th edition.
   Edinburgh: A. Constable & Co. 1825. 2 volumes.

HALL, WILLIAM EDWARD.
   Treatise on international law. 3d edition.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1890.

HALLAM, HENRY.
   Constitutional history of England.
   London: John Murray. 1857. 3 volumes.

   View of the state of Europe during the Middle Ages.
   London: John Murray. 3 volumes.

HALLIDAY, Sir ANDREW.
   Annals of the House of Hanover.
   London: William Sams. 1826. 2 volumes.

HAMERTON, PHILIP GILBERT.
   Paris in old and present times.
   London: Seeley & Co. 1885.

HAMILTON, ALEXANDER.
   Report on manufactures
   [Works, volumes 3.
   New York: Charles S. Francis & Co. 1851. 7 volumes.].

HAMILTON, J. A.
   Life of Daniel O'Connell.
   London: W. H. Allen & Co. 1888.

HAMILTON, JOHN C.
   History of the United States as traced in the
   writings of Alexander Hamilton, etc.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1857. 2 volumes.

HAMILTON, THOMAS.
   Annals of the Peninsular campaigns.
   Edinburgh: Blackwood. 1849.

HAMILTON, WALTER.
   Poets Laureate of England.
   London: Eliot Stock. 1879.

HAMILTON, Sir WILLIAM.
   Discussions on philosophy and literature, etc.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1861.

HAMMOND, JABEZ D.
   History of political parties in the State of New York.
   Albany. 1842. 2 volumes.

HAMPSON, R. T.
   Origines patriciæ.
   London: H. K. Causton. 1846.

HANNA, WILLIAM.
   Wars of the Huguenots.
   Edinburgh: Edmonston & Douglas. 1871.

HANNAY, JAMES.
   History of Acadia.
   London: S. Low, Marston & Co. 1880.

HANSON, CHARLES HENRY.
   The land of Greece.
   London: T. Nelson & Sons. 1886.

HARCOURT, L. F. VERNON.
   Achievements in engineering.
   London: Seeley & Co.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1891.

HARE, AUGUSTUS J. C.
   Cities of northern and central Italy.
   London: Daldy, Isbister & Co. 1876. 3 volumes.

   Walks In Rome.
   London: George Allen.
   New York: G. Routledge & Sons.

HARNACK, ADOLF.
   Outlines of the history of dogma.
   New York: Funk & Wagnalls Co. 1893.

HARPER'S NEW MONTHLY MAGAZINE.
   New York: Harper & Bros.

HARRISSE, HENRY.
   The discovery of North America.
   London: Henry Stevens & Son. 1892.

HARRISON, FREDERIC.
   Oliver Cromwell.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co. 1888.

HARRISON, JAMES A.
   Spain.
   Boston: D. Lothrop & Co. (c. 1881.)

HART, ALBERT BUSHNELL.
   Formation of the Union, 1750-1829.
   (Epochs of American history.)
   New York and London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1892.

   Introduction to the study of federal government.
   Boston: Ginn & Co. 1891.

   Practical essays on American government.
   New York: Longmans, Green & Co. 1894.

HART, ALBERT BUSHNELL and E. CHANNING, editors.
   American history leaflets.
   New York: A. Lovell & Co.

HART, GERALD E.
   The fall of New France.
   Montreal: W. Drysdale & Co.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1888.

HARTLEY, CECIL B.
   Heroes and patriots of the south.
   Philadelphia: G. G. Evans. 1860.

HARVARD LAW REVIEW.

HASSAUREK, F.
   Four years among-Spanish-Americans.
   New York: Hurd & Houghton. 1868.

HASSENCAMP, R.
   History of Ireland.
   London: S. Sonnenschein & Co. 1888.

HASTINGS, SYDNEY.
   Treatise on the law of torts.
   London. 1885.

HATCH, EDWIN.
   Influence of Greek ideas and usages upon the Christian Church.
   (Hibbert Lectures, 1888.)
   London: Williams & Norgate. 1890.

   Organization of the early Christian Churches.
   (Bampton Lectures, 1880.)
   London: Rivingtons. 1881.

HATTON, JOSEPH, and M. HARVEY.
   Newfoundland.
   Boston: Doyle & Whittle. 1883.

HAUG, M.
   Essays on the sacred language, writings, and
   religion of the Parsis.
   London: Trübner & Co.
   Boston: Houghton, Osgood & Co. 1878.

   Lecture on an original speech of Zoroaster (Yasna 45).
   London: Trübner & Co. 1865.

HÄUSSER, L.
   Deutsche geschichte vom tode Friedrichs des Grossen bis zur
   Gründung des Deutschen bundes.
   Berlin. 1869. 4 volumes.

   Period of the Reformation.
   London: Strahan & Co. 1873.
   New York: Robert Carter & Bros.

HAVERTY, MARTIN.
   History of Ireland.
   Dublin: James Duffy. 1860.

HAWKS, FRANCIS L.
   History of North Carolina.
   Fayetteville, North Carolina: E. J. Hale & Son. 1858-9.
   2 volumes.

HAWTHORNE, NATHANIEL.
   The marble faun.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co.

HAYTER, HENRY H.
   Notes on the colony of Victoria.
   London: Trübner & Co. 1875.

HAZARD, SAMUEL.
   Cuba with pen and pencil.
   Hartford: Hartford Publishing Co. 1871.

HAZEN, General W. B.
   Narrative of military service.
   Boston: Ticknor & Co. 1885.

HAZLITT, WILLIAM.
   Lectures on the literature of the age of Elizabeth.
   London: G. Bell & Sons. 1877.

   Life of Napoleon Buonaparte.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Co. 3 volumes.

HAZLITT, WILLIAM CAREW.
   History of the Venetian republic.
   London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1860. 4 volumes.

HEADLEY, J. T.
   The second war with England.
   New York: C. Scribner. 1853. 2 volumes.

HEARD, ALBERT F.
   The Russian Church and Russian dissent.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1887.

HEARD, J. B.
   Alexandrian and Carthaginian theology contrasted.
   Edinburgh: T. T. Clark. 1893.

HEATH, RICHARD.
   The Reformation in France.
   London: Religious Tract Society. 1886-1888. 2 volumes.

HEATON, WILLIAM.
   The three reforms of parliament.
   London: T. Fisher Unwin. 1885.

HEBBERD, S. S.
   History of Wisconsin under the dominion of France.
   Madison: Midland Publishing Co. 1890.

{3920}

HECKER, J. F. C.
   Epidemics of the Middle Ages. 3d edition.
   London: Trübner & Co. 1859.

HECKEWELDER, JOHN.
   History, manners, and customs of the Indian nations.
   (Pennsylvania Historical Society Memoirs, volume 12.)
   Philadelphia. 1876.

HEEREN, A. H. L.
   Manual of ancient history. 3d edition.
   Oxford: D. A. Talboys. 1840.

   Manual of the history of the political system of
   Europe and its colonies.
   London: H. G. Bohn. 1846.

   Reflections on the politics of ancient Greece.
   Boston: Cummings, Hilliard & Co. 1824.

HELMHOLTZ, H.
   Popular lectures on scientific subjects.
   2d series.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1881.

HELPS, Sir ARTHUR.
   Friends in council.
   London: Smith & Elder. 1879. 2 volumes.
   New York: James Miller. 1869. 2 volumes.

   Spanish conquest in America.
   London: Parker & Son. (1855-61.)
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1867. 4 volumes.

HEMANS, C. I.
   Historic and monumental Rome.
   London: Williams & Norgate. 1874.

HENDERSON, ERNEST F.
   History of Germany in the Middle Ages.
   London: G. Bell & Sons. 1894.
   New York: Macmillan & Co.

HENDERSON, T. F.
   The Casket Letters and Mary Queen of Scots.
   Edinburgh: A. & C. Black. 1889.

HENRY, WILLIAM WIRT.
   Patrick Henry: life, correspondence and speeches.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1891. 3 volumes.

HERFORD, BROOKE.
   Story of religion in England. 2d. edition.
   Chicago: Jansen, McClurg & Co.
   London: Sunday School Association. 1880.

HERMANN, CHARLES FREDERIC.
   Manual of the political antiquities of Greece.
   Oxford: D. A. Talboys. 1886.

HERNDON, WILLIAM H. and J. W. WEIK.
   Herndon's Lincoln.
   Chicago: Belford, Clarke & Co. (c. 1889.) 3 volumes.

HERODOTUS.
   History;
   a new version, edited by George Rawlinson, assisted by
   Sir Henry Rawlinson and J. G. Wilkinson.
   London: John Murray. 4 volumes.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 4 volumes.

   Story of the Persian War;
   [version of] A. J. Church.
   London: Seeley, Jackson & Halliday. 1882.

HERSHON, P. I., comp.
   Talmudic miscellany.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1880.

HERTSLET, EDWARD.
   Map of Europe by treaty.
   London. 1875-91. 4 volumes.

HERTSLET, LEWIS, comp.
   Collection of treaties and conventions.
   London. 1840-1850. 7 volumes.

HESSELS, J. H.
   Haarlem the birth-place of printing, not Mentz.
   London: E. Stock & Co. 1887.

HEYLYN, PETER.
   Ecclesia restaurata.
   Cambridge: University Press. 1849. 2 volumes.

HICKSON, MARY.
   Ireland in the 17th century.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1884. 2 volumes.

HIGGINSON, THOMAS WENTWORTH.
   Larger history of the United States.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1886.

HILDRETH, RICHARD.
   History of the United States.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1849-52. 6 volumes.

HILL, FRANK H.
   George Canning.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1887.

HILL, NATHANIEL P.
   Speeches and papers.
   Colorado Springs. 1890.

HILL, O'DELL T.
   Introduction to Savonarola's "Triumph of the Cross"
   (London: Hodder & Stoughton. 1868).

HILL, WILLIAM.
   First stages of the tariff policy of the United States.
   (American Economic Association publications,
   volume 8, number 6.) 1893.

HILLARD, G. S.
   Life of Captain John Smith
   [Library of American Biography. volume 2. Boston: 1834.]

HINSCHIUS.
   Investitustreit
   (Herzog's Realencyklopaedie für protestantische theologie
   und kirche, volume 6).

HINSDALE, B. A.
   The American government.
   Ann Arbor: The Register Publishing Co. 1891.

   The old northwest.
   New York: Townsend MacCoun. 1888.

HISTORICAL MAGAZINE, The.
    Morrisania, New York: Henry B. Dawson.

HISTORY OF PARIS, The.
   London: G. B. Whittaker. 1827. 3 volumes.

HITCHCOCK, ROSWELL D.
   Socialism.
   New York: A. D. F. Randolph & Co. 1879.

HOBHOUSE, HENRY, editor.
   The Parliamentary Elections
   (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act, 1888.
   London: W. Maxwell & Son. 1883.

HODGKIN, THOMAS.
   The dynasty of Theodosius.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1889.

HODGKIN, THOMAS.
   Italy and her Invaders.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1880-1885. 4 volumes.

HOLDSWORTH, W. A., editor.
   The new Reform Act.
   London: Ward, Lock & Co.

HOLLAND FREDERIC M.
   Rise of intellectual liberty.
   New York: H. Holt & CO. 1885.

HOLLAND, JOSIAH GILBERT.
   Life of Abraham Lincoln.
   New York: Dodd, Mead & Co.

HOLLAND, THOMAS ERSKINE.
   Elements of jurisprudence.
   London: Macmillan & Co, 1880.

HOLLISTER, G. H.
   History of Connecticut.
   New Haven: Durrie & Peck. 1855. 2 volumes.

HOLLISTER, O. J.
   Life of Schuyler Colfax.
   New York: Funk & Wagnalls. 1886.

HOLMES, T. R. E.
   History of the Indian Mutiny.
   London: W. H. Allen & Co. 1883.

HOLST, H. VON.
   Constitutional and political history of the United States.
   Chicago: Callaghan & Co. 1876-1889. 7 volumes.

   French Revolution.
   Chicago: Callaghan & Co. 1894. 2 volumes.

   John Brown.
   Boston: Cupples & Hurd. 1889.

HOMŒOPATHIC MEDICAL SOCIETY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
   Transactions. 1869.

HOOKHAM, MARY A.
   Life and times of Margaret of Anjou.
   London: Tinsley Bros. 1872. 2 volumes.

HOOPER, GEORGE.
   The campaign of Sedan.
   London: G. Bell & Sons. 1887.

   Waterloo.
   London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1862.

   Wellington.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co. 1889.

HOPE, THOMAS.
   Costume of the ancients.
   London: Chatto & Windus. 1875. 2 volumes.

HOPKINS, MANLEY.
   Hawaii. 2d edition.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1869.

HOPKINS, STEPHEN.
   Historical account of the planting and growth of Providence
   [Massachusetts Historical Society Collections, 2d series,
   volume 9. Boston. 1832].

   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.)

HORN, F. W.
   History of the literature of the Scandinavian north.
   Chicago: S. C. Griggs & Co. 1884.

HORNE, R. H.
   History of Napoleon Bonaparte.
   London and N. Y.: Routledge & Sons. 1879.

HORNE, T. H.
   Introduction to the study of bibliography.
   London. 1814. 2 volumes.

HORTON, R. F.
   History of the Romans.
   London: Rivingtons. 1885.

HOSMER, JAMES K.
   Life of Young Sir Henry Vane.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1888.

   Samuel Adams.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1885.

   Short history of German literature.
   St. Louis: G. I. Jones & Co. 1879.

HOUGHTON, WALTER R.
   History of American politics.
   Chicago: Caxton Publishing Co. 1884.

HOWELL, GEORGE.
   Conflicts of capital and labour.
   London, Chatto & Windus. 1878.

   Trade unionism.
   London: Methuen & Co. 1891.

HOWORTH, HENRY H.
   History of the Mongols.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1876-1888.
   Parts 1-3 (4 volumes).

HOZIER, HENRY M.
   The British expedition to Abyssinia.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1869.

   Turenne.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1885.

   The Franco-Prussian War.
   London: William Mackenzie. 2 volumes.

HUBER. V. A.
   The English universities.
   London: William Pickering. 1843. 2 volumes in 3.

HUC, EVARISTE R., Abbé.
   Christianity In China, Tartary, and Thibet.
   London: Longman. 1857-8. 3 volumes.

HUDSON, FREDERIC.
   Journalism in the United States.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1813.

HUG, Mrs. LINA, and RICHARD STEAD.
   Switzerland.
   London: T. F. Unwin.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1890.

HUGHES, A. W.
   The country of Balochistan.
   London: G. Bell & Sons. 1877.

HUGHES, ROBERT M.
   General Johnston.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1893.

HUGHES, THOMAS.
   Alfred the Great.
   London: Macmillan & Co.

HUGO, VICTOR.
   History of a crime. London:
   S. Low. Marston & Co.
   New York: Harper & Bros.

HUME, DAVID.
   History of England.

HUMPHREYS, H. NOEL.
   History of the art of printing.
   London: Bernard Quaritch, 1868.

HUNT, WILLIAM.
   History of Italy.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1873.
   New York: H. Holt & Co. 1874.

{3921}

HUNT, WILLIAM.
   Norman Britain.
   London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1884.

HUNTER, J.
   Founders of New Plymouth.
   (Collections concerning the church at Scrooby.)
   London: John Russell Smith. 1854.

HUNTER, P. HAY.
   After the exile.
   Edinburgh: Oliphant, Anderson & Ferrier. 1890.

HUNTER, Sir WILLIAM W.
   Brief history of the Indian people.
   London: Trübner & Co. 1882.

   Imperial gazetteer of India.
   London: Trübner & Co. 1881, 9 volumes.

   The Marquess of Dalhousie.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1890.

HURST, JOHN F.
   Indika.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1891.

HUTCHINSON, THOMAS.
   Diary and letters.
   London: S. Low, Marston & Co. 1883-1886. 2 volumes.

   History of the province of Massachusetts Bay.
   London: John Murray. 1828.

HUTCHINSON, THOMAS J.
   The Parana.
   London: Edward Stanford. 1868.

HUTTON, JAMES.
   Central Asia.
   London: Tinsley Bros. 1875.

   James and Philip van Arteveld.
   London: John Murray. 1882.

HUXLEY, THOMAS HENRY.
   Science and culture.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1881.

IHNE, WILHELM.
   History of Rome.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1871-1882. 5 volumes.

   Researches into the history of the Roman constitution.
   London: William Pickering. 1853.

IMBERT DE SAINT-AMAND, A. L.
   Memoirs of the Empress Marie-Louise.
   London: Remington & Co. 1886.

INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF PREHISTORIC ARCHÆOLOGY, 1868.
   Transactions. London:
   Longmans, Green & Co. 1869.

INTERNATIONAL HEALTH EXHIBITION, LONDON.
   Conference on education, 1884. London. 4 volumes.

INTERNATIONAL SANITARY CONFERENCE, 1881.
   Proceedings.
   Washington. 1881.

IRISH PEASANT, The;
   a sociological study.
   London: S. Sonnenschein & Co.
   New York: C. Scribner s Sons. 1892.

IRVING, WASHINGTON.
   Life and voyages of Christopher Columbus.
   New York: G. P. Putnam. 3 volumes.

   Life of Washington.
   New York: G. P. Putnam. 5 volumes.

   Mahomet and his successors.
   New York: G. P. Putnam. 2 volumes.

IYENAGA, TOYOKICHI.
   Constitutional development of Japan.
   (Johns Hopkins University Studies, 9th series, number. 9.)
   Baltimore. 1891.

JACKSON, MARY A.
   Life and letters of General Thomas J. Jackson.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1892.

JACOBS, JOSEPH, editor.
   The Jews of Angevin England.
   (English history by contemporary writers.)
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1893.

JAMES, G. P. R.
   Dark scenes of history.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1862.

   Eminent foreign statesmen.
   volumes 2-5.
   London: Longman. 1836-1838.

   History of Charlemagne.
   2d edition.
   London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1847.

   Life and times of Louis XIV.
   London: Henry G. Bohn. 1851. 2 volumes.

JAMESON, J. FRANKLIN.
   History of historical writing in America.
   Boston and New York: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1891.

JASTROW, IGNACE.
   Geschichte der deutschen einheitstraum und seiner erfüllung.
   Berlin. 1891.

JAY, JOHN.
   The great conspiracy.
   New York: James G. Gregory. 1861.

JEANS, J. STEPHEN.
   Waterways and water transport.
   London: E. & F. N. Spon. 1890.

JEBB, RICHARD C.
   Growth and Influence of classical Greek poetry.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1893.

JEFFERSON, THOMAS.
   Writings: edited by H. A. Washington.
   Washington: Taylor & Maury. 1853. 9 volumes.

   Notes on the state of Virginia.

JERVIS, W. HENLEY.
   The Gallican Church: A history of the Church of France.
   London: John Murray. 1872. 2 volumes.

   The Gallican Church and the Revolution.
   London: Kegan Paul, Trench & Co. 1882.

   [Student's] History of France.
   London: John Murray. 1884.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1872.

JESSOPP, AUGUSTUS.
   The coming of the friars.
   London: T. F. Unwin. 1889.

JEVONS, FRANK BYRON.
   History of Greek literature.
   London: C. Griffin & Co.

JEWITT, LLEWELLYNN.
   Grave-mounds.
   London: Groombridge & Sons. 1870.

JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY.
   Studies in historical and political science.
   Baltimore.

JOHNSON, A. H.
   The Normans In Europe.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1877.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons.

JOHNSON, CRISFIELD.
   Centennial history of Erie County.
   Buffalo: Matthews & Warren. 1876.

JOHNSON, ROSSITER.
   History of the French War.
   New York: Dodd, Mead & Co. (c. 1882).

   History of the War of 1812-1815.
   New York: Dodd, Mead & Co. (c. 1882).

   Short history of the War of Secession.
   Boston: Ticknor &: Co. 1888.

JOHNSTON, ALEXANDER.
   Connecticut.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1887.

   Genesis of a New England state.
   (Johns Hopkins University Studies, number 11.)
   Baltimore. 1883.

   History of American politics.
   2d edition.
   New York: Henry Holt & Co. 1884.

   History of the United States for schools.
   New York: H. Holt & Co. 1885.

JOHNSTON, HENRY P.
   The campaign of 1776 around New York and Brooklyn.
   (Memoirs of the Long Island Historical Society. volume 3.)
   Brooklyn. 1878.
   Part 1: Narrative.
   Part 2: Documents.

   The Yorktown campaign.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1881.

JOHNSTON, JOSEPH E.
   Narrative of military operations.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1874.

JOHNSTON, R.
   Short history of the Queen's reign.
   London: Simpkin, Marshall & Co. [1892.]

JOHNSTONE, C. F.
   Historical abstracts.
   London: C. Kegan Paul & Co. 1880.

JOMINI, Baron de.
   Political and military history of the campaign of Waterloo.
   New York: Redfield. 1853.

JONES, J. W.
   British Museum: a guide. 1873.

JOYNEVILLE, C.
   Life and times of Alexander I.
   London: Tinsley Bros. 1875. 3 volumes.

   Life of Alexander II.
   London: W. H. Allen & Co. 1883.

JUGLAR, CLEMENT.
   Brief history of panics.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1893.

JULIAN, GEORGE W.
   Political recollections.
   Chicago: Jansen, McClurg & Co. 1884.

JUSTIN.
   History:
   translated by J. S. Watson.
   London: Henry G. Bohn. 1853.

KÄMMEL, OTTO.
   Deutsche geschichte.
   Dresden: Höckner. 1889.

KAPP, FRIEDRICH.
   Life of Frederick William Von Steuben.
   New York: Mason Bros. 1859.

KAUFMANN, M.
   Utopias.
   London: C. Kegan, Paul & Co. 1879.

KAYE, JOHN WILLIAM.
   Administration of the East India Company.
   London: Richard Bentley. 1853.

   History of the Sepoy War in India, 5th edition.
   London: W. H. Allen & Co. 1870. 2 volumes.

KEANE, A. H.
   Eastern geography.
   London: Edward Stanford. 1887.

KEARY, C. F.
   Dawn of history.
   London: Walter Smith & Innes. 1888.

Norway and the Norwegians.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1892.

KEBBEL, T. E.
   Life of the Earl of Derby.
   London: W. H. Allen & Co. 1890.

KEENE. H. G.
   Mádhava Ráo Sindhia.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1891.

   Sketch of the history of Hindustan.
   London: W. H. Allen & Co. 1885.

KEIGHTLEY, THOMAS.
   The Crusaders. 5th edition.
   London: John W. Parker & Son. 1859.

   History of Greece.
   London: Whittaker.
   New York: Leavitt, Trow & Co. 1848.

   History of the Roman Empire.
   London: Whittaker & Co. 1850.
   New York: Leavitt, Trow & Co. 1848.

   Outlines of history
   London: Longman. 1830.

KEIL, CARL FRIEDRICH.
   Manual of Biblical archæology.
   Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. 1887-8. 2 volumes.

KEIM, THEODOR.
   History of Jesus of Nazara.
   London: Williams & Norgate. 1876. 4 volumes.

KELLER, FRANZ.
   The Amazon and Madeira rivers.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co. 1875.

KELLEY, J. D. JERROLD.
   The question of ships.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1884.

KELLY, WALTER K.
   History of Russia.
   London: H. G. Bohn. 1854-1855. 2 volumes.

   History of the House of Austria
   [1792-1848; continuation of Coxe's History].
   London: H. G. Bohn. 1853.

KELTIE, J. SCOTT.
   The partition of Africa.
   London: Edward Stanford. 1893.

KEMBLE, JOHN M.
   The Saxons In England.
   London: Bernard Quaritch. 1876. 2 volumes.

{3922}

KENNEDY, JOHN P.
   Memoirs of the life of William Wirt.
   Philadelphia: Lea & Blanchard. 1850. 2 volumes.

KENRICK, JOHN.
   Phœnicia.
   London: B. Fellowes. 1855.

KENT, JAMES.
   Commentaries on American law.
   Boston: Little Brown & Co.

   International law;
   edited by J. T. Abdy.
   London: Stevens & Sons.

KERLY, D. M.
   History of equity.
   History of the Court of Chancery.

KING, DAVID BENNETT.
   The Irish question.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1882.

KING, RUFUS.
   Ohio.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1888.

KINGLAKE, ALEXANDER WILLIAM.
   The invasion of the Crimea.
   Edinburgh: William Blackwood & Sons. 6 volumes.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 5 volumes.

KINGSFORD, WILLIAM.
   History of Canada.
   London: K. Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co. 1888-1894. volumes 1-7.

KINGSLEY, CHARLES.
   Hereward the Wake.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co.

   The hermits.

KINGSLEY, J. S., editor.
   Standard natural history.
   Boston: S. E. Cassino & Co. 1885. 6 volumes.

   Now "Riverside natural history."
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1888. 6 New York.

KINGTON, T. L.
   History of Frederick the Second.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1862. 2 volumes.

KINLEY, D.
   The Independent Treasury of the United States.
   New York: T. Y. Crowell & Co. [1893.]

KINLOCH, M. G. J.
   History of Scotland. 2d edition.
   Edinburgh: R. Grant & Son.
   New York: T. Whittaker. 1888. 2 volumes.

KINSEY, W. M.
   Portugal Illustrated.
   London. 1829.

KIRK, JOHN FOSTER.
   History of Charles the Bold.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co. 1864-1868. 3 volumes.

KIRKUP, THOMAS.
   History of socialism.
   Edinburgh: Adam & Charles Black. 1892.

KITCHIN, G. W.
   History of France. 2d edition.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1881-1882. 3 volumes.

KNIGHT, CHARLES.
   Crown history of England.
   London: Bradbury, Evans & Co. 1870.

   Popular history of England.
   London: Bradbury & Evans. 1856-1862. 8 volumes.

KNOWLEDGE.
   London: Witherby & Co.

KNOWLES, JAMES D.
   Memoir of Roger Williams.
   Boston: Lincoln, Edmands & Co. 1834.

KNOX, JOHN J.
   United States notes.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1884.

KNOX, THOMAS W.
   Decisive battles since Waterloo.
   New York and London: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1887.

KOCH, CHRISTOPHER WILLIAM.
   The revolutions of Europe.
   London: Whittaker & Co. 1839.

KOHL, J. G.
   History of the discovery of Maine.
   (Maine Historical Society Collections, 2d series, volume. 1.)
   Portland. 1869.

KOHLRAUSCH, FRIEDRICH.
   History of Germany.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1844.
   New York: Appleton. 1845.

KOLDE, THEODOR.
   Martin Luther.
   Gotha: Perthes. 1884.

KRASINSKI, HENRY.
   Cossacks of the Ukraine.
   London: Partridge & Oakey. 1848.

KRASINSKI, VALERIAN.
   Lectures on the religious history of the Slavonic nations.
   Edinburgh. 1869.

KRAUSE, GUSTAV.
   Growth of German unity.
   London: David Nutt. 1892.

KUENEN, A.
   The religion of Israel.
   London: Williams & Norgate. 1874-1875. 3 volumes.

LABAUME, EUGENE.
   Circumstantial narrative of the campaign in Russia.
   Hartford: S. Andrus & Son. 1852.

LABILLIERE, FRANCIS PETER.
   Early history of the colony of Victoria.
   London: S. Low, Marston & Co. 1878. 2 volumes.

LACOMBE, P.
   Arms and armour.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1870.

   Short history of the French people.
   Boston: Henry A. Young & Co. 1878.

LACOUPERIE, TERRIEN DE.
   Early history of the Chinese civilization.
   London: E. Vaton. 1880.

LADD, HORATIO O.
   History of the war with Mexico.
   New York: Dodd, Mead & Co. (c. 1883).

LAING, MALCOLM.
   History of Scotland.
   London. 1804. 4 volumes.

LAING, SAMUEL.
   The Heimskringla.
   London: Longman. 1844. 3 volumes.

LALOR, JOHN. J., editor.
   Cyclopædia of political science.
   Chicago: volume 1, Rand, McNally & Co.,
   volumes 2-3, Melbert B. Gary & Co. 1881-1884. 3 volumes.

LAMARTINE, ALPHONSE DE.
   History of the Girondists.
   London: H. Bohn. 3 volumes.
   N. Y: Harper & Bros. 1850. 3 volumes.

LAMARTINE, ALPHONSE DE.
   History of Turkey.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1855-1857. 3 volumes.

   Memoirs of celebrated characters.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1854. 2 volumes.

LAMB, Mrs. MARTHA J.
   History of the city of New York.
   New York: A. S. Barnes & Co. (c. 1877-80.) 2 volumes.

LAMBERT, HENRY.
   Progress of civil service reform in the United States.
   Newton Civil Service Reform Association. 1885.

LAMPRECHT, KARL.
   Deutsche geschichte.
   Berlin: Gaertner. 1891-1894. 5 volumes.

LANCIANI, RODOLFO.
   Pagan and Christian Rome.
   London: Macmillan & Co.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1893.

LANDON, JUDSON S.
   Constitutional history and government of the United States.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1889.

LANFREY, P.
   History of Napoleon I.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1871-1879. 4 volumes.

LANG, ANDREW.
   Books and bookmen.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co.
   New York: G. J. Coombes. 1886.

   Homer and the epic.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1893.

   The library.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1881.

   Oxford.
   London: Seeley & Co. 1890.

LANGDELL, C. C.
   Summary of equity pleading.
   Cambridge, Massachusetts: C. W. Sever.

LANGMEAD, T. P. TASWELL.
   English constitutional history. 2d edition.
   London: Stevens & Haynes. 1880.

LANKESTER, E. RAY.
   Advancement of science.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co. 1890.

LAPPENBERG, J. M.
   History of England under the Anglo-Saxon kings.
   London: John Murray. 1845. 2 volumes.

LA ROCHETERIE, MAXIME DE.
   Life of Marie Antoinette.
   New York: Dodd, Mead & Co. 1893. 2 volumes.

LATHAM, ROBERT G.
   Ethnology of Europe.
   London: J. Van Voorst. 1852.

   The Germania of Tacitus.
   London: Taylor, Walton & Maberly. 1851.

   Introduction to Kemble's "Horæ Ferales"
   (London: Lovell Reeve & Co. 1863).

   The nationalities of Europe.
   London: W. H. Allen & Co. 1863. 2 volumes.

LATIMER, ELIZABETH W.
   France in the nineteenth century.
   Chicago: A. C. McClurg & Co. 1892.

LAUGHLIN, J. L.
   History of bimetallism In the United States.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1886.

LAURIE, S. S.
   John Amos Comenius.
   London: Kegan Paul, Trench & Co. 1881.

   The rise and early constitution of universities.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1887.

LAVELEYE, ÉMILE DE.
   The Balkan peninsula.
   London. T. Fisher Unwin. 1887.

   The socialism of to-day.
   London: Field & Tuer.

LAVISSE, ERNEST.
   General view of the political history of Europe.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1891.

LAW MAGAZINE AND REVIEW.
   London.

LAW QUARTERLY REVIEW.

LAWLESS, Hon. EMILY.
   Story of Ireland.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.
   London: T. F. Unwin. 1888.

LEA, HENRY C.
   Studies in Church history.
   Philadelphia: Henry C. Lea.
   London: S. Low, Son & Marston. 1869.

   Superstition and force.
   Philadelphia: Henry C. Lea. 1866.

LEAF, WALTER.
   A companion to the Iliad.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1892.

LEAKE, WILLIAM MARTIN.
   Topography of Athens.
   2d edition.
   London. 1841. 2 volumes.

LEBON, ANDRÉ, and PAUL PELET.
   France as it is.
   London: Cassell & Co. 1888.

LECHLER, GOTTHARD VICTOR.
   The apostolic and post-apostolic times.
   Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. 1886.

LECKY, WILLIAM. E. H.
   History of England in the 18th century.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 8 volumes.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1878-1890. 8 volumes.

   Leaders of public opinion In Ireland; revised edition.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1871.

   The political value of history.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1893.

LECOY DE LA MARCHE, A.
   La France sous Saint Louis, at sous Philippe le Hardi.
   Paris: Quantin.

LEE, FITZHUGH.
   General Lee.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1894.

LEE, VERNON.
   Euphorion: being studies of the antique and the
   mediæval in the Renaissance.
   London: T. F. Unwin. 1884. 2 volumes.

{3923}

LEFÉVRE, ANDRÉ.
   Race and language.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1894.

LEGER, LOUIS.
   History of Austro-Hungary;
   translated by Mrs. Birkbeck Hill.
   London: Rivingtons.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1889.

LENORMANT, FRANÇOIS.
   Chaldean magic.
   London: Samuel Bagster & Sons. [1877.]

LENORMANT, FRANÇOIS and E. CHEVALLIER.
   Manual of the ancient history of the east.
   London: Asher & Co. 1869-1870. 2 volumes.

LEROY-BEAULIEU, ANATOLE.
   The empire of the tsars and the Russians.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1893.

LETCHWORTH, WILLIAM P.
   The insane in foreign countries.
   New York and London: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1889.

LEVERMORE, CHARLES H.
   The republic of New Haven.
   (Johns Hopkins University Studies, extra volume 1.)
   Baltimore. 1886.

LEVI, LEONE.
   History of British commerce. 2d edition.
   London: John Murray. 1880.

LEWES, GEORGE HENRY.
   Biographical history of philosophy.
   London: Parker & Son.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1857.

   Life and works of Goethe. 2d edition.
   London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1864.

   Life of Maximilien Robespierre.
   Philadelphia: Carey & Hart. 1849.

LEWIN, THOMAS.
   Jerusalem.
   London: Longman. 1861.

LEWIS, CHARLTON T.
   History of Germany.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1874.

LEWIS, Sir GEORGE CORNEWALL.
   Inquiry Into the credibility of early Roman history.
   London: John W. Parker & Son. 1855. 2 volumes.

LIBRARY CHRONICLE, The.
   London.

LIBRARY JOURNAL, The.
   New York.

LIDDELL, HENRY G.
   History of Rome.
   London: John Murray. 1855. 2 volumes.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1878.

LIGHTFOOT, J. B.
   Dissertations on the apostolic age.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1892.

   Essays on the work entitled Supernatural Religion.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1889.

LINCOLN, ABRAHAM.
   Complete works; edited by J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay.
   New York: Century Co. 1894. 2 volumes.

LINGARD, JOHN.
   History of England.
   London: Baldwin & Cradock. 1837-1839. 13 volumes.

LIPPINCOTT'S MONTHLY MAGAZINE.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co.

LITERARY WORLD, The.
   Boston: E. Hames & Co.

LIVIUS, TITUS.
   Stories from; by A. J. Church.
   London: Seeley, Jackson & Halliday. 1883.

LLOYD, WILLIAM W.
   The age of Pericles.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1875. 2 volumes.

LOCKHART, J. G.
   Life of Napoleon Buonaparte.
   London: Bickers & Son. 1883.

LODGE, HENRY CABOT.
   Alexander Hamilton.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1882.

   Daniel Webster.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1883.

   George Washington.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1889. 2 volumes.

   Life and letters of George Cabot.
   Boston: Little, Brown & Co. 1877.

   Short history of the English colonies in America.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1881.

LODGE, RICHARD.
   History of Modern Europe.
   London: J. Murray. 1885.
   New York: Harper & Bros.

LOFTIE, W. J.
   History of London.
   London: Edward Stanford. 1883. 2 volumes.

LONG, A. L.
   Memoirs of Robert E. Lee.
   New York: J. M. Stoddart & Co. 1886.

LONG, GEORGE.
   Decline of the Roman Republic.
   London: Bell & Daldy. 1864-1874. 5 volumes.

LONGMAN, F. W.
   Frederick the Great and the Seven Years' War.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1881.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons.

LORNE, Marquis of.
   Imperial federation.
   London: S. Sonnenschein & Co. 1885.

   Viscount Palmerston.
   London: S. Low, Marston & Co. 1892.

LOSSING, BENSON J.
   The Empire State.
   Hartford: American Publishing Co. 1888.

   Family history of the United States.
   Hartford: T. Belknap. (c. 1875, 1881.)

   Life and times of Philip Schuyler.
   VOLUMES: Sheldon & Co. (c. 1861, 1872.) 2 volumes.

   Pictorial field-book of the Civil War.
   Hartford: T. Belknap 1876. 3 volumes.

   Pictorial field-book of the Revolution.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1860. 2 volumes.

LOWE, C.
   Prince Bismarck.
   London: Cassell & Co. 1885. 2 volumes.

LOWELL, EDWARD J.
   The eve of the French Revolution.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1892.

   The Hessians in the Revolutionary War.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1884.

LOWELL, JAMES RUSSELL.
   Witchcraft
   ["Among my books," series 1.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co.].

LOWELL INSTITUTE LECTURES:
   Early history of Massachusetts.
   Boston: Massachusetts Historical Society. 1869.

LOYAL LEGION OF THE UNITED STATES, New York Commandery.
   Personal recollections of the War of the Rebellion;
   edited by J. G. Wilson and T. M. Coan.
   New York 1891.

LOYAL LEGION OF THE UNITED STATES, Ohio Commandery.
   Sketches of war history.
   Cincinnati: Robert Clarke & Co. 1888-1890. volumes 1-3.

LUBBOCK, Sir John.
   Pre-historic times.
   London: Williams & Norgate. 1869.

LUCAS, C. P.
   Historical geography of the British colonies.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1888-94. volumes 1-3.

LUCE, SIMÉON.
   Jeanne d'Arc a Domremy.
   Paris: H. Champion. 1886.

LUCHAIRE, ACHILLE.
   Les communes françaises a l'epoque des Capétîens directs.
   Paris: Hachette. 1890.

LUDLOW, JOHN MALCOLM.
   British India.
   Cambridge: Macmillan & Co. 1858. 2 volumes.

LUGARD, Capt. F. D.
   Rise of our East African empire.
   Edinburgh: William Blackwood & Sons. 1893. 2 volumes.

LYALL, Sir ALFRED.
   Asiatic studies.
   London: John Murray. 1882.

   Rise of the British dominion in India. 2d edition.
   London: John Murray. 1893.

   Warren Hastings.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1889.

LYTE, H. MAXWELL.
   History of the University of Oxford, to 1530.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1886.

MACARTHUR, MARGARET.
   History of Scotland.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1880.

MACASKIE, STUART C.
   Treatise on the law of executors and administrators.
   London: Stevens. 1881.

MACAULAY, THOMAS BABINGTON, Baron.
   Essays.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co.
   Boston: Estes & Lauriat. 3 volumes.

   History of England.
   London: Longmans.

McCALMAN, ARCHIBALD H., comp.
   Abridged history of England.
   New York: Trow's Printing & Bookbinding Co. 1880.

McCARTHY, JUSTIN.
   The epoch of reform.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1882.

   History of our own times.
   London: Chatto & Windus. 1879-1830. 4 volumes.

   History of the four Georges.
   London: Chatto & Windus. 1884-1890. volumes 1-2.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1885-1890. volumes 1-2.

   Short history of our own times.
   London: Chatto & Windus. 1883.

   Sir Robert Peel.
   London: S. Low, Marston & Co. 1891.

McCARTHY, JUSTIN HUNTLY.
   England under Gladstone, 1880-1884.
   London: Chatto & Windus. 1884.

   Ireland since the union.
   London: Chatto & Windus. 1887.

   Outline of Irish history.
   London: Chatto & Windus. 1884.

McCLELLAN, GEORGE B.
   McClellan's own story.
   New York: C. L. Webster & Co. 1887.

McCRIE, Rev. THOMAS.
   Sketches of Scottish church history.
   Edinburgh and London: John Johnstone. [1841.] 2 volumes.

McCULLAGH, W. TORRENS.
   Industrial history of free nations.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1846. 2 volumes.

McCULLOCH, HUGH.
   Men and measures of half a century.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1888.

McCURDY, JAMES F.
   History, prophecy and the monuments.
   New York and London: Macmillan & Co. 1894. volume 1.

MACDONELL, JAMES.
   France since the First Empire.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1879.

McDOUGALL, MARION G.
   Fugitive slaves, 1619-1865.
   Boston: Ginn & Co. 1891.

MAcFARLANE, CHARLES.
   The French Revolution.
   London, C. Knight & Co. 1844-1845. 4 volumes.

McGEE, THOMAS D'ARCY.
   Popular history of Ireland.
   New York: D. J. Sadler & Co. 1869. 2 volumes.

MACHIAVELLI, NICCOLO.
   History of Florence.
   London: Henry G. Bohn. 1847.

{3924}

MACKAY, C.
   Memoirs of extraordinary popular delusions.
   London: G. Routledge & Sons. 1869.

MACKENZIE, HARRIET D. S.
   Switzerland.
   Boston: D. Lothrop & Co. (c. 1881).

MACKENZIE, ROBERT.
   America.
   London: Nelson & Sons. 1882.

   The nineteenth century.
   London: Nelson & Sons. 1880.

MACKINTOSH, Sir JAMES.
   Cabinet history of England, Scotland and Ireland.
   London: Longman.
   Philadelphia: Carey & Lea. 1830-1833. 3 volumes.

   History of the revolution in England in 1688.
   London: Longman.
   Philadelphia: Carey, Lea & Blanchard. 1835.

   Sir Thomas More
   [Eminent British statesmen. volume 1.
   London: Longman. 1831].

MACKINTOSH, JOHN.
   Scotland.
   London: T. F. Unwin.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1890.

MACLEAR, G. F.
   Apostles of mediæval Europe.
   London: Macmillan & Co. [1869.]

   Conversion of the West:
   The Celts; The English; The Northmen; The Slavs.
   London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 4 volumes.

McMASTER, JOHN BACH.
   History of the people of the United States.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1883-1895.
   (6 volumes) volumes 1-4.

MACMILLAN, HUGH.
   Roman mosaics.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co. 1888.

MACMILLAN'S MAGAZINE.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co.

MacMULLEN, JOHN.
   History of Canada.
   London: S. Low & Co.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co. 1869.

McMURDO, EDWARD.
   History of Portugal.
   London: S. Low, Marston & Co. 1888-1889. volumes 1-3.

MACPHERSON, DAVID.
   Annals of commerce.
   London. 1805. 4 volumes.

McPHERSON, EDWARD.
   Hand-book of politics.
   Washington.

   Political history of the United States during
   the great Rebellion.
   Washington: Philip & Solomons. 1865.

McPHERSON, J. H. T.
   History of Liberia.
   (Johns Hopkins University studies, 9th series, number 10.)
   Baltimore. 1891.

MacRITCHIE, DAVID, collector and editor.
   Accounts of the gypsies of India.
   London: Kegan Paul, Trench & Co. 1886.

McSHERRY, JAMES.
   History of Maryland.
   Baltimore: John Murphy. 1849.

MADAN, FALCONER.
   Books in manuscript.
   London: K. Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co. 1893.

MADISON, JAMES.
   Letters and other writings.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co. 1865. 4 volumes.

MAGAZINE OF AMERICAN HISTORY.
   New York.

MAGRUDER, ALLAN B.
   John Marshall.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1885.

MAHAFFY, J. P.
   Greek life and thought.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1887.

   Greek world under Roman sway.
   London; Macmillan & Co. 1890.

   Old Greek education.
   London: K. Paul, Trench & Co. 1881.

   Problems in Greek history.
   London; Macmillan & Co. 1892.

   Social life in Greece, from Homer to Menander.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1877.

   Story of Alexander's empire.
   New York and London: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1887.

MAHAN, Captain A. T.
   Influence of sea power upon the French Revolution and Empire.
   Boston: Little, Brown & Co. 1892. 2 volumes.

MAHON, Lord (Earl Stanhope).
   Historical essays.
   London: John Murray. 1889.

   History of England, 1701-1713.
   London; John Murray. 1870.

   History of England, 1713-1783. 5th edition.
   London: John Murray. 1858. 7 volumes.

   Life of Louis, Prince of Condé.
   London: John Murray. 1861.
   New York: Wiley & Putnam. 1845.

MAINE, Sir HENRY SUMNER.
   Ancient law.
   London: John Murray. 1861.
   New York: H. Holt & Co. 1875.

   Popular government.
   London: John Murray. 1885.

MAINE HISTORICAL SOCIETY.
   Collections. volume 6.
   Portland. 1859.

MAITLAND, S. R.
   The dark ages. 3d edition
   London: F. & J. Rivington. 1853.

MAJOR, RICHARD H.
   Life of Prince Henry of Portugal, surnamed the Navigator.
   London: A. Asher & Co. 1868.

MALCOLM, Sir JOHN.
   History of Persia.
   London: John Murray. 1829. 2 volumes.

MALDEN, HENRY E.
   Vienna 1683.
   London: Kegan Paul, Trench & Co. 1883.

MALLESON, Colonel. G. B.
   Akbar.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1890.

   Battle-fields of Germany.
   London: W. H. Allen & Co. 1884.

   Decisive battles of India.
   London: W. H. Allen & Co. 1883.

   Lord Clive.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1893.

   Military life of Loudon.
   London; Chapman & Hall. 1884.

   Prince Eugene of Savoy.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1888.

   Studies from Genoese history.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1875.

MALLET, CHARLES EDWARD.
   The French Revolution.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1893.

MALTE-BRUN, C.
   System of universal geography.
   Boston: Samuel Walker. 1834. 3 volumes.

MANN, HORACE.
   Lectures and annual reports on education.
   Cambridge. 1867.

MANNING, Mrs.
   Ancient and mediæval India.
   London: William H. Allen & Co. 1869. 2 volumes.

MARCEAU, SERGENT.
   Reminiscences of a regicide.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1889.

MARIETTE-BEY, AUGUSTE.
   Monuments of Upper Egypt. London:
   Trübner & Co. 1877.

MARIO, JESSIE W. V.
   Introduction to "Autobiography of Garibaldi"
   (London: Walter Smith & Innes. 1889. 3 volumes.).

MARIOTTI, L., pseudo
   See GALLENGA, A.

MARKHAM, CLEMENTS R.
   Cuzco, and Lima.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1856.

   General sketch of the history of Persia.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1874.

   Introduction to Pedro Simon's
   "Expedition of Ursua and Aguirre"
   (London: Hakluyt Society, 1861).

   Life of the Great Lord Fairfax.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1870.

   Peru.
   London: S. Low, Marston & Co. 1880.

   Peruvian bark.
   London: John Murray. 1880.

   The sea fathers.
   London and New York: Cassell & Co. 1884.

   editor. Reports on the discovery of Peru.
   London: Hakluyt Society. 1872.

MARQUIS, A. N.
   Hand-hook of Chicago.
   Chicago: A. N. Marquis & Co. 1885.

MARRAS, AMERICO PALFREY.
   Secret fraternities of the Middle Ages.
   London: Rivingtons. 1865.

MARRIOTT, J. A. R.
   Makers of modern Italy.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co. 1889.

MARSDEN, J. B.
   History of the early Puritans.
   London: Hamilton, Adams & Co. 1850.

MARSH, GEORGE P.
   Origin and history of the English language. 3d edition.
   New York: C. Scribner & Co. 1871.

MARSHALL JOHN.
   Life of George Washington.
   Philadelphia: C. P. Wayne. 1805-1807. 5 volumes.

MARSHALL, ORSAMUS H.
   Historical writings.
   Albany: J. Munsell's Sons. 1887.

   The Niagara frontier.
   [Buffalo: the author.]

MARTIN, FRANCOIS-XAVIER.
   History of North Carolina.
   New Orleans: A.T. Penniman & Co. 1829. 2 volumes.

MARTIN, HENRY.
   History of France: Age of Louis XIV.;
   translated by Mrs. Booth.
   Boston: Walker, Wise & Co. 2 volumes.

   Popular history of France from the first revolution.
   Boston: Estes & Lauriat. 3 volumes.

MARTIN, R. MONTGOMERY.
   History of Upper and Lower Canada.
   London: John Mortimer. 1836.

MARTIN, W. A. P.
   The Chinese.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1881.

MARTINEAU, HARRIET.
   History of British rule in India.
   London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1859.

   History of England. 1800-1815.
   London: G. Bell & Sons. 1878.

   History of the Thirty Years' Peace.
   London: G. Bell & Sons. 1877-78. 4 volumes.

MASPÉRO. G.
   Life in ancient Egypt and Assyria.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1892.

MASSACHUSETTS.
   Free Public Library Commission.
   First report.
   Boston. 1891.

MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL SOCIETY.
    Collections.
    Boston.

MASSEY, WILLIAM.
   History of England during the reign of George III.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1865. 4 volumes.

MASSON, DAVID.
   Life of John Milton.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co. 1859-1880.
   6 volumes. Index. 1895.

MASSON, GUSTAVE.
   The Huguenots.
   London and New York: Cassell.

   Saint Louis and the 13th century;
   edited from Guizot's "History of France."
   London: S. Low, Marston & Co. 1880.

MATTHEWS, WASHINGTON.
   Ethnography and philology of the Hidatsa Indians.
   (U. S. Geological and Geographical Survey, Mis. Pub., no. 7).
   Washington. 1877.

{3925}

MAURENBRECHER, W.
   Gründung des deutschen reichs. 1859-71.
   Leipzig. 1892.

MAY, THOMAS ERSKINE.
   Constitutional history of England. London:
   Longman. 1861-1862. 2 volumes.
   Boston: Crosby & Nichols. 1862-1863. 2 volumes.

   Democracy In Europe.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 2 volumes.
   N.Y.: W. J. Widdleton. 1878. 2 volumes.

MAYER, BRANTZ.
   Mexico, Aztec, Spanish and republican.
   Hartford:S. Drake & Co. 1851. 2 volumes.

MELLICK, ANDREW D., JR.
   Story of an old farm.
   Somerville, New Jersey: The Unionist-Gazette. 1889.

MENDENHALL, T. C.
   A century of electricity.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1887.

MENZEL, WOLFGANG.
   History of Germany.
   London: H. G. Bohn. 1848. 3 volumes.

MENZIES, SUTHERLAND.
   History of Europe from the decadence of the Western Empire
   to the Reformation.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.

   Turkey, old and new.
   London: William H. Allen & Co. 1880. 2 volumes.

MERIVALE, CHARLES.
   Four lectures on some epochs of early church history.
   London: Longmans. 1879.
   New York: A. D. F. Randolph & Co.

   General history of Rome.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1875.

   History of the Romans.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 8 volumes.
   New York: D. Appleton 8:. Co. 1864-1866. 7 volumes.

   The Roman triumvirates.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1876.
   New York: Scribner & Co.

MERLE D'AUBIGNY, J. H.
   History of the Reformation of the 16th century.
   New York: American Tract Society. 5 volumes.

   The Protector.
   London: Simpkin, Marshall & Co.
   New York: Robert Carter. 1847.

MERRILL, GEORGE E.
   Story of the manuscripts.
   Boston: D. Lothrop & Co. [1881.]

MICHAUD, J. F.
   History of the Crusades.
   London: George Routledge & Co. 1852. 3 volumes.

MICHELET, J.
   Historical view of the French Revolution.
   London: H. G. Bohn. 1864.

   History of France.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1844-1846.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1867. 2 volumes.

   History of the Roman Republic.
   London: David Bogue. 1847.

   Summary of modern history;
   translated and continued by M. C. M. Simpson.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1875.

   editor. Life of Luther, written by himself:
   translated by W. Hazlitt. 2d edition.
   London: G. Bell & Sons. 1882.

MIDDLETON, J. HENRY.
   Ancient Rome in 1885.
   Edinburgh: A. & C. Black. 1885.

MIGNET, FRANCOIS A. M.
   History of the French Revolution.
   London: G. Bell & Sons.

MILITARY HISTORICAL SOCIETY OF MASSACHUSETTS.
   Papers, volume 1.
   Boston: Osgood & Co. 1881.

MILL, JAMES.
   History of British India. 3d edition.
   London. 1826. 6 volumes.

MILLAR, JOHN.
   Educational system of the Province of Ontario, Canada.
   Toronto: Warwick & Sons. 1893.

MILLS, CHARLES.
   History of chivalry.
   London: Longman. 1826. 2 volumes.

   History of the Crusades,
   London: Longman. 1820. 2 volumes.

MILMAN, H. H.
   History of Christianity.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1855.

   History of Latin Christianity.
   London: John Murray. 1854-1855. 6 volumes.

   History of the Jews.
   London: John Murray, 3 volumes.
   New York: W. J. Widdleton. 3 volumes.

MINCHIN, J. G. COTTON.
   Growth of freedom in the Balkan peninsula.
   London: John Murray. 1886.

MINER, LEWIS H.
   The valley of Wyoming.
   New York: R. H. Johnson & Co. 1866.

MINERVA, 1893-1894.
   Strassburg: K. J. Trübner.

MIOT, A. F., Count de Melito.
   Memoirs. London: Low, Marston & Co.
   2 volumes.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1881.

MITCHELL, J.
   Fall of Napoleon.
   2d edition.
   London: G. W. Nickisson. 1846. 3 volumes.

   Life of Wallenstein.
   London: J. Fraser. 1837.

MITFORD, WILLIAM.
   History of Greece.
   London: H. G. Bohn. 10 volumes.
   Boston: Timothy Bedlington & Charles Ewer. 5 volumes.

MOBERLY, C. E.
   The early Tudors.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1887.

MOELLER, WILHELM.
   History of the Christian Church A. D. 1-600.
   London: S. Sonnenschein & Co.
   New York: Macmillan & Co. 1892.

   History of the Christian Church: in the Middle Ages.
   London: S. Sonnenschein & Co. 1893.

MOLESWORTH, W. N.
   History of England, 1830-1874.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1874. 3 volumes.

MOLTKE, HELMUTH VON, Count.
   Poland.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1885.

MOMBERT, J. I.
   History of Charles the Great.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1888.

MOMMSEN, THEODOR.
   History of Rome.
   London: R. Bentley. 4 volumes.
   New York: C. Scribner. 4 volumes.

   History of Rome: The provinces.
   London: R. Bentley & Son. 1886. 2 volumes.

   History of the Roman republic;
   abridged from the History by Bryans and Hendy.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1889.

MONETTE, J. W.
   Discovery and settlement of the valley of the Mississippi.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1848. 2 volumes.

MONGREDIEN, AUGUSTUS.
   History of the free-trade movement In England.
   London and New York: Cassell. [1881.]

MONSTRELET, ENGUERRAND DE.
   Chronicles;
   translated by Johnes.
   London: G. Routledge & Sons. 1867. 2 volumes.

MONTAGUE, F. C.
   Life of Sir Robert Peel.
   London: W. H. Allen & Co. 1888.

MONTALEMBERT, CHARLES F., Count de.
   The monks of the west.
   Edinburgh: W. Blackwood & Sons. 1861-1879. 7 volumes.

MONTEFIORE, C. G.
   Religion of the ancient Hebrews.
   (Hibbert lectures, 1892.)
   London: Williams & Norgate. 1892.

MONTGOMERY, D. H.
   Leading facts of American history.
   Boston: Ginn & Co. 1890.

MONTOR, A. DE.
   Lives and times of the Roman Pontiffs.
   New York: D. & J. Sadlier & Co. 1866. 2 volumes.

MOORE, FRANK: ed:
   Rebellion Record.
   New York: G. P. Putnam. 1862-1871. 12 volumes.

MOORE, JACOB BAILEY.
   Lives of the governors of New Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay.
   New York: Gates & Stedman. 1848.

MORELL, JOHN REYNELL.
   Algeria.
   London: Nathaniel Cooke. 1854.

MORFILL, W. R.
   Story of Poland.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.
   London: T. F. Unwin. 1893.

   Story of Russia.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.
   London: T. F. Unwin. 1890.

MORGAN, LEWIS H.
   Houses and house-life of the American aborigines.
   (Contributions to North American ethnology, volume 4.)
   Washington. 1881.

   The League of the Ho-de'-no-sau-nee, or Iroquois.
   Rochester: Sage & Bro. 1851.

MORLEY, JOHN.
   Critical miscellanies. 2d series.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1877.

   Edmund Burke: a historical study.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1867.

   Life of Richard Cobden.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1881. 2 volumes.

   Walpole.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co. 1889.

MORRIS, EDWARD E.
   The early Hanoverians.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co.
   New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. 1886.

MORRIS, WILLIAM, and E. B. BAX.
   Socialism.
   London: S. Sonnenschein & Co.
   New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. 1893.

MORRIS, WILLIAM O'CONNOR.
   The French Revolution and First Empire.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1874.

   Napoleon, warrior and ruler.
   New York: G, P. Putnam's Sons. 1893.

MORRISON, W. D.
   The Jews under Roman rule.
   New York: G P. Putnam's Sons.
   London: T. F. Unwin. 1890.

MORSE, JOHN T., JR.
   Abraham Lincoln.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1893. 2 volumes.

   Benjamin Franklin.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1889.

   John Quincy Adams.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1882.

   Life of Alexander Hamilton.
   Boston: Little, Brown & Co. 1876. 2 volumes.

   Thomas Jefferson.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1883.

MOSES, B.
   Federal government of Switzerland.
   Oakland, California: Pacific Press Publishing Co. 1889.

MOSHEIM, JOHN L. VON.
   Historical commentaries on the state of Christianity.

   Institutes of ecclesiastical history.

MOTLEY, JOHN LOTHROP.
   History of the United Netherlands.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 4 volumes.

   Rise of the Dutch republic.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 3 volumes.

MUIR, Sir WILLIAM.
   Annals of the early caliphate.
   London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1883.

{3926}

MÜLLER, C. O.
   History and antiquities of the Doric race.
   London: John Murray. 1839. 2 volumes.

MÜLLER, F. MAX.
   Biography of words, and the home of the Aryas.
   London and New York: Longmans, Green & Co. 1888.

   Lectures on the science of language.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co.
   New York: C. Scribner. 1862-1865. 2 volumes.

MÜLLER, K. O.
   History of the literature of ancient Greece.
   London: R. Baldwin. 1847.

MÜLLER, WILHELM.
   Political history of recent times.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1882.

MULLINGER, J. BASS.
   History of the University of Cambridge.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1888.

MUNRO, J. E. C.
   The constitution of Canada.
   Cambridge: University Press. 1889.

MÜNSTER, GEORGE HERBERT, Count.
   Political sketches of the state of Europe, 1814-1867.
   Edinburgh: Edmonston & Douglas. 1868.

MURDOCK, HAROLD.
   Reconstruction of Europe.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1889.

MURPHY, JOHN N.
   The chair of Peter.
   London: Burns & Oates.

MURRAY, DAVID.
   Story of Japan.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1894.

MURRAY, EUSTACE C. GRENVILLE.
   Embassies and foreign courts.
   London: G. Routledge & Co. 1856.

MURRAY'S MAGAZINE.
   London: John Murray.

NAPIER, HENRY EDWARD.
   Florentine history.
   London: E. Moxon. 1846-1847. 6 volumes.

NAPP, R. and others.
   The Argentine Republic.
   Buenos Ayres: Sociedad Anonima. 1876.

NATION, The.
   New York: Evening Post Publishing Co.

NATIONAL LIFE AND THOUGHT:
   addresses by E. Magnusson and others.
   London: T. Fisher Unwin. 1891.

NATIONAL QUARTERLY REVIEW, The.
   New York.

NAVILLE, EDOUARD.
   Shrine of Saft el Henneh and the Land of Goshen.
   (Egypt Exploration Fund.)
   London: Trübner & Co. 1887.

   The store-city of Pithom and the route of the Exodus.
   (Egypt Exploration Fund.)
   London: Trübner & Co. 1885.

NEAL, DANIEL.
   History of the Puritans.
   Portsmouth, New Hampshire. 1816. 5 volumes.

NEALE, EDWARD V.
   Associated homes.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1880.

NEANDER, AUGUSTUS.
   General history of the Christian religion and church.

NEW ENGLAND MAGAZINE.
   Boston: Warren F. Kellogg .

NEW ENGLANDER AND YALE REVIEW.
   New Haven.

NEW JERSEY, COLLEGE OF, Princeton.
   Catalogue.

NEW PRINCETON REVIEW, The.
   New York: A. C. Armstrong & Son.

NEW REVIEW, The.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co.

NEW WORLD, The.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co.

NEW YORK SOCIETY LIBRARY.
   Catalogue.

NEW YORK STATE.
   Superintendent of Public Instruction.
   Annual report.
   Albany. 1869.

NEW YORK TRIBUNE EXTRA.
   volume 1, number 12. 1889.

NEWHALL, FREDERICK C.
   With General Sheridan in Lee's last campaign;
   by a staff officer.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co. 1866.

NEWMAN, A. H.
   History of the Baptist churches in the United States.
   New York: Christian Literature Co. 1894.

NEWMAN, FRANCIS W.
   History of the Hebrew monarchy.
   London: J. Chapman. 1853.

NEWMAN JOHN HENRY.
   Essays critical and historical.
   London: Basil Montagu Pickering. 1871. 2 volumes.

   Historical sketches.
   London: Basil Montagu Pickering. 1872.

NICHOLLS, J. H. KERRY-.
   The King country. 2d edition.
   London: S. Low, Marston & Co. 1884.

NICOLAS, Sir HARRIS.
   Chronology of history.
   London: Longman. 1833.

NICOLAY, JOHN G., and JOHN HAY.
   Abraham Lincoln: a history.
   New York: Century Co. 1890. 10 volumes.

NICOLINI, G. B.
   History of the Jesuits.
   Edinburgh: J. Nichol. 1853.

NICOLL, HENRY J.
   Great movements.
   London: John Hogg. 1881.

NIEBUHR, B. G.
   History of Rome.
   Philadelphia. 1835. 2 volumes.

   Lectures on ancient ethnography and geography.
   Boston: Little, Brown & Co. 1854. 2 volumes.

   Lectures on ancient history.
   London: Taylor, Walton & Maberly. 1852. 3 volumes.

NIEBUHR, B. G.
   Lectures on the history of Rome.
   2d edition.
   London: Taylor, Walton & Maberly. 1850. 3 volumes.

NINETEENTH CENTURY, The.
   London: Kegan Paul, Trench & Co.

NITOBE, INAZO (OTA).
   Intercourse between the United States and Japan.
   (Johns Hopkins University studies, extra volume 8.)
   Baltimore. 1891.

NÖLDEKE, THEODOR.
   Sketches from eastern history.
   Edinburgh: A. & C. Black. 1892.

NOLL, ARTHUR H.
   Short history of Mexico.
   Chicago: A. C. McClurg & Co. 1890.

NORDHOFF, CHARLES.
   Communistic societies of the United States.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1875.

NORGATE, KATE.
   England under the Angevin kings.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co. 1887. 2 volumes.

NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW. The.
   New York.

NORTH BRITISH REVIEW.
   Edinburgh.

NORTHCOTE, J. S. and W. R. BROWNLOW.
   Roma sotterranea.
   London: Longmans, Green' & Co. 1869-79. 2 volumes.

NORTON, A. TIFFANY.
   History of Sullivan's campaign against the Iroquois.
   Lima, New York 1879.

NORTON, C. B.
   World's fairs.
   Chicago: World's Columbian Exposition. 1890.

   [See also: Official Views Of The World's Columbian Exposition
   by Arnold and Higinbotham.
   Press Chicago Photo-Gravure Co.: 1893.
   https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/22847]

NÖSSELT, F.
   Mythology, Greek and Roman.
   London: Kerby & Endean. 1885.

NOYES, JOHN H.
   History of American socialisms.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co. 1870.

OBER, FREDERICK A.
   Young folks' history of Mexico.
   Boston: Estes & Lauriat. 1883.

O'CALLAGHAN, E. B.
   History of New Netherland.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1846-1848. 2 volumes.

OCEAN STEAMSHIPS;
   by F. E. Chadwick, and others.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1891.

O'CLERY, The Chevalier.
   History of the Italian Revolution.
   London: R. Washbourne. 1875.

   The making of Italy.
   London: K. Paul, Trench & Co. 1892.

O'CONOR, W. A.
   History of the Irish people.
   Manchester: Abel Heywood & Son. 2 volumes.

O'HAGAN, JOHN.
   Joan of Arc.
   London: K. Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co. 1893.

OLDEST SCHOOL IN AMERICA
   [the Boston Latin School].
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1885.

OLIPHANT, Mrs. M. O. W.
   Makers of Florence.
   London: Macmillan & Co.

   Makers of Venice.
   London: Macmillan & Co.

OLLIER, EDMUND.
   Cassell's illustrated history of the Russo-Turkish War.
   London and New York: Cassell & Co. 2 volumes.

OMAN, C. W. C.
   History of Greece.
   London: Rivingtons. 1890.

   Story of the Byzantine empire.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.
   London: T. F. Unwin. 1892.

   Warwick the kingmaker.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co. 1891.

ONCKEN, WILHELM.
   Das zeitalter des Kaisers Wilhelm.
   Berlin. 1890-1892. 2 volumes.

OSBORN, ROBERT D.
   Islam under the khalifs of Baghdad.
   London: Seeley, Jackson & Halliday. 1878.

OTTÉ, E. C.
   Scandinavian history.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1874.

PAINTER, F. V. N.
   History of education.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1886.

PALESTINE EXPLORATION FUND.
   The city and the land:
   a course of 7 lectures on the work of the society
   [by Wilson, Conder, Petrie, and others].
   London. 1892.

   Publications.
   London.

PALFREY, JOHN G.
   Compendious history of New England.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 4 volumes.

   History of New England.
   Boston: Little, Brown & Co. 1858-1890. 5 volumes.

PALGRAVE, Sir FRANCIS.
   History of Normandy and of England.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1857-78. 4 volumes.

   History of the Anglo-Saxons.
   London: William Tegg. 1869.

PALMBERG, ALBERT.
   Treatise on public health.
   London: S. Sonnenschein & Co. 1893.

PALMER, E. H.
   Haroun Alraschid.
   London: Marcus Ward & Co. 1881.

   History of the Jewish nation.
   London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1880.

PALMER, H. S.
   Sinai.
   London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge.

PARIS, Comte de.
   History of the Civil War in America.
   Philadelphia: Porter & Coates. 1875-88. 4 volumes.

PARK, ROSWELL.
   Lectures on the history of medicine (in ms.).

{3927}

PARKE, J.
   History of English Chancery.

PARKER, CORTLANDT.
   Address [Bi-centennial celebration of the Board of
   American Proprietors of East New Jersey.
   Newark. 1885].

PARKER, FOXHALL A.
   The fleets of the world.
   New York: D. Van Nostrand. 1876.

PARKER, WILLIAM H.
   Recollections of a naval officer.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1883.

PARKMAN, FRANCIS.
   France and England in North America (parts 1, 4, 7).
   Boston: Little, Brown & Co. 9 volumes.

   History of the conspiracy of Pontiac.
   Boston: Little, Brown & Co.

PARNELL, ARTHUR.
   The War of the Succession in Spain.
   London: G. Bell & Sons. 1888.

PARSONS, JAMES RUSSELL, Jr.
   Prussian schools through American eyes.
   Syracuse: C. W. Bardeen. 1891.

PARSONS, THEOPHILUS.
   Outlines of the religion and philosophy of Swedenborg.
   Boston: Roberts Bros. 1876.

PARTON, JAMES.
   General Butler in New Orleans.
   New York: Mason Bros. 1864.

   Life and Times of Benjamin Franklin.
   New York: Mason Bros. 1864. 2 volumes.

   Life of Andrew Jackson.
   New York: Mason Bros. 1861. 3 volumes.

PASQUIER, E. D., Chancellor.
   Memoirs.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1893. volume 1.

PASTOR, LUDWIG.
   History of the Popes from the close of the Middle Ages.
   London: John Hodges. 1891. 2 volumes.

PATON, A. A.
   History of the Egyptian Revolution.
   London: Trübner & Co. 1870. 2 volumes.

   Researches on the Danube and the Adriatic.
   London: Trübner & Co. 1862. 2 volumes.

PATTISON, Mrs. MARK.
   The renaissance of art in France.
   London: Kegan Paul & Co. 1879. 2 volumes.

PATTON, JACOB HARRIS.
   Concise history of the American people.
   New York: Fords, Howard & Hulbert. 1883. 2 volumes.

PAULI, REINHOLD.
   Pictures of old England.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1861.

PAYNE, EDWARD JAMES.
   History of European colonies.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1878.

   Voyages of the Elizabethan seamen to America.
   London: Thomas De La Rue & Co. 1886.

PAYNE, EDWARD JOHN.
   History of the new world called America.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press.
   New York: Macmillan & Co. 1892. volume 1.

PAYNE, JOSEPH.
   Lectures on the history of education.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1892.

PEABODY, W. B. O.
      Life of James Oglethorpe
      [Library of American Biographies,
      2d series, volume 2. Boston: 1844].

PEARS, EDWIN.
   The fall of Constantinople.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1885.
   New York: Harper & Bros.

PEARSON, CHARLES H.
   English history in the 14th century.
   London: Rivingtons. 1876.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.

   History of England during the early and middle ages.
   London: Bell & Daldy. 1867. 2 volumes.

   National life and character.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1893.

PEBODY, CHARLES.
   English journalism.
   London and New York: Cassell. 1882.

PEDLEY, CHARLES.
   History of Newfoundland.
   London: Longman. 1863.

PELHAM, H. F.
   Outlines of Roman history.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1893.

PELLEW, GEORGE.
   John Jay.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1890.

PENNINGTON, ARTHUR R.
   Epochs of the Papacy.
   London: G. Bell & Sons. 1881.

PENNSYLVANIA-GERMAN SOCIETY.
   Proceedings. volume 1. 1891.

PENNSYLVANIA HISTORICAL SOCIETY.
   Memoirs.

PERKINS, JAMES BRECK.
   France under Mazarin.
   New York and London: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1886. 2 volumes.

   France under the regency.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1892.

PERKINS, JAMES H.
   Annals of the West.
   St. Louis: James R. Albach. 2d edition. 1850.

PERKINS, SAMUEL.
   History of the late war.
   New Haven. S. Converse. 1825.

PERRAUD, A.
   Ireland under English rule.
   Dublin: J. Duffy. 1864.

PERRENS, F. T.
   History of Florence.
   London: Methuen & Co. volume 1. 1892.

PERROT, G., and C. CHIPIEZ.
   History of art in Phœnicia and its dependencies.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1885.

PERRY, ARTHUR LATHAM.
   Elements of political economy. 5th edition.
   New York: C. Scribner & Co. 1870.

PERRY, GEORGE G.
   History of the Reformation in England.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1886.
   New York: A. D. F. Randolph & Co.

PERRY, WALTER C.
   The Franks.
   London: Longman. 1857.

PETRIE, W. M. FLINDERS.
   History of Egypt.
   London: Methuen & Co. 1894. volumes 1.

PETTIGREW, T. J.
   On superstitions connected with medicine and surgery.
   London: J. Churchill. 1844.

PHELAN, JAMES.
   History of Tennessee.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1888.

PICTON, J. ALLANSON.
   Oliver Cromwell.
   London and New York: Cassell. 1882.

PIGEONNEAU, H.
   Histoire du commerce de la France.
   Paris: Léopold Cerf. 1885-1889. volumes 1-2.

PIGNOTTI, LORENZO.
   History of Tuscany.
   London. 1823. 4 volumes.

PIMBLETT, W. M.
   English political history.
   London: E. Stock. 1885.

PITKIN, TIMOTHY.
   Political and civil history of the United States, 1763-1797.
   New Haven. 1828. 2 volumes.

PLATO.
   Dialogues;
   translated by B. Jowett.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1871. 4 volumes.

PLINY.
   Natural history.
   London: H. G. Bohn. 1855. 6 volumes.

PLUMMER, ALFRED.
   The Church of the early fathers.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1887.

PLUTARCH.
   Lives;
   translated by Dryden;
   edited by Clough.
   London: S. Low, Marston & Co. 3 volumes.
   Boston: Little, Brown & Co. 5 volumes.

POLITICAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY.
   New York: Ginn & Co.

"POLITIKOS."
   Sovereigns and courts of Europe.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1891.

POLLARD, EDWARD A.
   The first year of the war.
   (Southern history of the war.)
   Richmond: West & Johnston. 1862.

   The lost cause.
   New York: E. B. Trent & Co. 1866.

POLLOCK, FREDERICK.
   Essays in jurisprudence and ethics.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1882.

   Oxford lectures.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co. 1890.

PONTALIS, ANTONIN L.
   John de Witt.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 2 volumes.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1885. 2 volumes.

POOL, JOHN J.
   Studies in Mohammedanism.
   London: A. Constable & Co. 1892.

POOLE, REGINALD LANE.
   History of the Huguenots of the dispersion.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1880.

   Wycliffe and movements for reform.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1889.
   New York: A. D. F. Randolph & Co.

POOLE, REGINALD STUART.
   Cities of Egypt.
   London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1882.

POOLE, STANLEY LANE, editor.
   Coins and medals.
   London: E. Stock. 1892.

   Egypt. London: S. Low, Marston & Co. 1881.

   The Muhammadan dynasties.
   London: A. Constable & Co. 1894.

   Story of the Barbary corsairs.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.
   London: T. F. Unwin. 1890.

   Story of Turkey.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.
   London: T. F. Unwin. 1888.

   Studies in a mosque.
   London: W. H. Allen & Co. 1888.

POOLE, WILLIAM FREDERICK.
   Anti-slavery opinions before the year 1800.
   Cincinnati: Robert Clarke & Co. 1873.

POPULAR ACCOUNT OF PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE.
   London: Walter Scott.

POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY, The.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co.

PORRITT, EDWARD.
   The Englishman at home.
   New York: T. Y. Crowell & Co. (c. 1893).

PORTER, DAVID D.
   Naval history of the Civil War.
   New York: Sherman Publishing Co. 1886.

PORTER, Sir JAMES.
   Turkey.
   London: Hurst & Blackett. 1854. 2 volumes.

POWERS, STEPHEN.
   Tribes of California.
   (Contributions to North American ethnology, volume 3.)
   Washington. 1877.

PREECE, WILLIAM H., and JULIUS MAIER.
   The telephone.
   London: Whittaker & Co. 1889.

PRENDERGAST, JOHN P.
   The Cromwellian settlement of Ireland.
   New York: P.M. Haverty. 1868.

{3928}

PRESCOTT, GEORGE B.
   Electricity and the electric telegraph.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1877.

PRESCOTT, WILLIAM H.
   History of the conquest of Mexico.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co. 3 volumes.

   History of the conquest of Peru.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott& Co. 2 volumes.

   History of the reign of Ferdinand and Isabella.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co. 3 volumes.

   History of the reign of Philip II.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co. 3 volumes.

PRESSENSÉ:, E. DE.
   The early years of Christianity.
   New York: C. Scribner & Co. 1870.

   Jesus Christ. 3d edition.
   London: Hodder & Stoughton. 1869.

PRESTON, HOWARD W., editor.
   Documents illustrative of American history.
   New York and London: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1886.

PRICHARD, JAMES C.
   Researches into the physical history of mankind.
   2d edition.
   London: J. & A. Arch. 1826. 2 volumes.

PRINCE SOCIETY.
   Publications.
   Boston.

PROBYN, JOHN W.
   Italy from 1815 to 1890.
   London: Cassell & Co. 1891.

PROCTER, GEORGE.
   History of Italy. 2d edition.
   London: Whittaker & Co. 1844.

   History of the Crusades.
   New York: Allen Bros. 1869.

PROVIDENCE, R. I.
   Two hundred and fiftieth anniversary, 1886.
   Providence. 1887.

PRUTZ. Kulturgeschichte der Kreuzzüge.
   Berlin: Mittler. 1883.

PUNCHARD, GEORGE.
   History of Congregationalism.
   2d edition.
   New York: Hurd & Houghton. 1865-1867. 3 volumes.

PUTNAM'S MONTHLY MAGAZINE.
   New York: G. P. Putnam & Sons.

QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS, The.
   Boston: George H. Ellis.

QUARTERLY REGISTER OF CURRENT HISTORY, The.
   Detroit.

QUARTERLY REVIEW, The.
   London: John Murray.

QUICK, ROBERT H.
   Essays on educational reformers.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. Syracuse,
   New York: C. W. Bardeen. 1886.

QUINCY, EDMUND.
   Life of Josiah Quincy.
   Boston: Ticknor & Fields. 1868.

QUINCY, JOSIAH.
   Memoir of the life of John Quincy Adams.
   Boston: Phillips, Sampson & Co. 1858.

RAE, J.
   Contemporary socialism.
   2d edition.
   London: S. Sonnenschein & Co. 1891.

RAGOZIN, Z. A.
   Story of Chaldea.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.
   London: T. F. Unwin. 1886.

RAMBAUD, ALFRED.
   History of Russia.
   London: S. Low, Marston & Co. 1879. 2 volumes.

RAMSAY, W. M.
   The Church in the Roman Empire.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1893.

   Historical geography of Asia Minor.
   London: John Murray. 1890.

RAMSAY, WILLIAM.
   Manual of Roman antiquities.
   London and Glasgow: R. Griffin & Co. 1855.

   Manual of Roman antiquities.
   Revised by Lanciani.
   London: C. Griffin & Co. 1894.

RANDALL, HENRY S.
   Life of Thomas Jefferson.
   New York: Derby & Jackson. 1858. 3 volumes.

RANDALL, S. S.
   History of the state of New York.
   New York: J. B. Ford & Co. 1870.

RANKE, LEOPOLD VON.
   Civil wars and monarchy in France.
   London: Richard Bentley. 1852. 2 volumes.

   History of England, 17th century.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1875. 6 volumes.

   History of Servia.
   London: H. G. Bohn. 1853.

   History of the Latin and Teutonic nations, 1494-1514.
   London: G. Bell & Sons. 1887.

   History of the Popes.
   London: Bell & Daldy. 1871. 3 volumes.

   History of the Reformation in Germany.
   London: Longman. 1845-1847. 3 volumes.

   Memoirs of the House of Brandenburg.
   London: John Murray. 1849. 3 volumes.

   Universal history.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1885.
   Weltgeschichte. Leipzig. 1886-1888. 9 volumes.

RANKINE, WILLIAM J. M.
   Manual of the steam engine.
   5th edition.
   London: C. Griffin & Co. 1870.

RANNIE, DAVID W.
   Historical outline of the English constitution.
   2d edition.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1882.

RAWLINSON, GEORGE.
   Five great monarchies.
   London: John Murray. 3 volumes.

   History of ancient Egypt.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1881. 2 volumes.

   History of Phœnicia.
   London and New York: Longmans, Green & Co. 1889.

   Manual of ancient history.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1869.

RAWLINSON, GEORGE.
   Religions of the ancient world.
   London: Religious Tract Society. 1882.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1883.

   Seventh great oriental monarchy.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1876.

   Sixth great oriental monarchy.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1873.

   Story of Phœnicia.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.
   London: T. F. Unwin. 1889.

RAYMOND, HENRY J.
   Life and public services of Abraham Lincoln.
   New York: Derby & Miller. 1865.

READ, JOHN M., JR.
   Historical inquiry concerning Henry Hudson.
   Albany: J. Munsell. 1866.

RÉCLUS, ÉLISÉE.
   The earth and its inhabitants.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1882-1895. 19 volumes.

RED CROSS, History of the.
   Washington. 1883.

REED, Sir EDWARD J.
   Japan.
   London: John Murray. 1880. 2 volumes.

REEVES, J.
   History of the English law;
   edited by W. F. Finlason.
   London: Reeves & Turner. 3 volumes.

REICH, EMIL.
   Graeco-Roman institutions.
   Oxford: Parker & Co. 1890.

REID, ANDREW, editor.
   Ireland.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1886.

RÉMUSAT, PAUL DE.
   Thiers.
   Chicago: A. C. McClurg & Co. 1889.

REMY, J., and J. BRENCHLEY.
   Journey to Great-Salt-Lake City.
   London: W. Jeffs. 1861.

RENAN, ERNEST.
   English conferences.
   Boston: J. R. Osgood & Co. 1880.

   History of the people of Israel.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1888-1891. volumes 1-3.

   Studies of religious history and criticism.
   New York: Carleton. 1864.

RENOUARD, P. V.
   History of medicine.
   Cincinnati: Moore, Wilstach, Keys & Co. 1856.

REPRESENTATIVE BRITISH ORATIONS;
   edited by Charles Kendall Adams.
   New York and London: G. P. Putnam's sons. 1884. 3 volumes.

REUMONT, ALFRED VON.
   The Carafas of Maddaloni: Naples under Spanish dominion.
   London: H. G. Bohn. 1854.

   Lorenzo de' Medici.
   London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1876. 2 volumes.

REVIEW OF REVIEWS, The.
   New York.

RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY.
   Collections.

RHODES, JAMES F.
   History of the United States from the Compromise of 1850.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1893. 2 volumes.

RHYS, JOHN.
   Celtic Britain.
   London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1882.

   Lectures on Celtic heathendom.
   (Hibbert Lectures, 1886.)
   London: Williams & Norgate. 1888.

   Studies in the Arthurian legend.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1891.

RICE, ALLEN THORNDIKE, editor.
   Reminiscences of Abraham Lincoln by
   distinguished men of his time.
   New York: North American Publishing Co. 1886.

RICE, VICTOR M.
   Special report On education.
   Albany. 1867.

RICHARDSON. H. W.
   The national banks.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1880.

RICHEY, A. G.
   Short history of the Irish people.
   Dublin: Hodges, Figgis & Co. 1887.

RIDDLE, Rev. J. E.
   History of the Papacy.
   London: R. Bentley. 1854.

RIDER, S. S., editor.
   Book notes.
   Providence.

RIDPATH JOHN CLARK.
   Life and work of James A. Garfield.
   Cleveland: George M. Rewell & Co. 1881.

RIGG, JAMES H.
   National education.
   London: Strahan & Co. 1873.

RINK, H.
   Tales and traditions of the Eskimo.
   Edinburgh: William Blackwood & Sons. 1875.

RITCHIE, LEITCH.
   History of the oriental nation.
   [also issued as "History of the Indian Empire"].
   London: W. H. Allen & Co. 1]848. 2 volumes.

RIVES, WILLIAM C.
   History of the life and times of James Madison.
   Boston: Little, Brown & Co. 1866. 3 volumes.

ROBERTS, ELLIS H.
   New York.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1887. 2 volumes.

ROBERTS, GEORGE.
   Life of James, Duke of Monmouth.
   London: Longman. 1844. 2 volumes.

ROBERTS, R. D.
   Eighteen years of university extension.
   Cambridge: University Press. 1891.

   The university extension scheme.
   Aberystwyth. 1887.

ROBERTSON, ALEXANDER.
   Fra Paolo Sarpi.
   London; S. Low, Marston & Co.
   New York: T. Whittaker. 1894.

{3929}

ROBERTSON, C. F.
   The Louisiana purchase.
   (Papers of American Historical Society Association,
   volume 1, number 4.)
   New York and London: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1885.

ROBERTSON, E. W.
   Scotland under her early kings.
   Edinburgh: Edmonston & Douglas. 1862. 2 volumes.

ROBERTSON, JAMES C.
   History of the Christian Church.
   London: John Murray. 1875. 8 volumes.

ROBERTSON, WILLIAM.
   Works
   [America, 3 volumes;
   Charles V., 3 volumes;
   Scotland, 2 volumes].
   Oxford: Talboys & Wheeler.

ROBINSON, A. MARY F.
   End of the Middle Ages.
   London: T. F. Unwin. 1889.

ROCHE, JAMES J.
   The story of the Filibusters.
   London: T. F. Unwin.
   N. Y.: Macmillan & Co. 1891.

ROCQUAIN, FELIX.
   Revolutionary spirit preceding the French Revolution.
   London: S. Sonnenschein & Co. 1891.

RODD, RENNELL.
   Customs and lore of modern Greece.
   London: David Stott. 1892.

   Frederick, crown prince and emperor.
   New York: Macmillan & Co. 1888.

ROGERS, HORATIO.
   Rhode Island's adoption of the federal constitution.
   Providence. 1890.

ROGERS, J. GUINNESS.
   Church systems of England in the 19th century.
   London: Hodder & Stoughton. 1881.

ROGERS, JAMES E. THOROLD.
   Economic Interpretation of history.
   London: T. F. Unwin.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1888.

   Historical gleanings.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1869.

   History of agriculture and prices in England.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1866-1887. volumes 1-6.

   Six centuries of work and wages.
   London: S. Sonnenschein & Co. 1884. 2 volumes.

   Story of Holland.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.
   London. T. F. Unwin. 1889.

ROGERS, ROBERT.
   Concise account of North America.
   London. 1765.

RONAN, PETER.
   Historical sketch of the Flathead Indian nation.
   Helena: Journal Publishing Co. 1890.

ROOSEVELT, THEODORE.
   Life of Thomas Hart Benton.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1887.

   Naval War of 1812.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1882.

   New York.
   London and New York: Longmans, Green & Co. 1891.

   The Winning of the West.
   New York and London:
   G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1889-1894. volumes 1-8.

ROPES, JOHN CODMAN.
   Story of the Civil War.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1894. Part 1.

ROSCHER, W.
   Principles of political economy.
   New York: H. Holt & Co. 1878. 2 volumes.

ROSE, J. H.
   A century of continental history.
   London: Edward Stanford. 1889.

ROSEBERY, Lord.
   Pitt.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1891.

ROSS, DAVID.
   The land of the five rivers and Sindh.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1888.

ROSS, JOHN M.
   Scottish history and literature.
   Glasgow: James Maclehose & Sons. 1884.

ROSSETTI, MARIA FRANCESCA.
   A shadow of Dante.
   London: Rivingtons. 1871.

ROUND, J. H.
   Geoffrey de Mandeville.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1892.

ROWLAND, KATE MASON.
   Life of George Mason.
   New York and London: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1892. 2 volumes.

ROWLEY, JAMES.
   Settlement of the constitution.
   2d edition.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1878.

ROYAL GEOGRAPHICAL SOCIETY.
   Proceedings.
   London.

ROYAL HISTORICAL SOCIETY.
   Transactions.
   London.

ROYAL STATISTICAL SOCIETY.
   Journal.
   London.

ROYCE, JOSIAH.
   California.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1886.

ROYLE, C.
   The Egyptian campaigns, 1882 to 1885.
   London: Hurst & Blackett. 1886. 2 volumes.

RUSSELL, G. W. E.
   The Right Honourable William Ewart Gladstone.
   London: S. Low, Marston & Co.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1891.

RUSSELL, J. R.
   History and heroes of medicine.
   London: J. Murray. 1861.

RUSSELL, MICHAEL.
   History of the Barbary States.
   Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd. 1835.

   Nubia and Abyssinia.
   Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd. 1833.

RUSSELL, WILLIAM.
   History of modern Europe.
   London: G. Routledge & Sons 4 volumes.
   London: Whittaker & Co. 4 volume.
   New York: Harper Bros. 3 volumes.

RYE, WILLIAM B.
   Introduction to "Discovery and conquest of Terra Florida;
   by a gentleman of Elvas"
   (London: Hakluyt Society. 1851).

SABATIER, A.
   The Apostle Paul.
   New York: James Pott & Co.
   London: Hodder & Stoughton. 1891.

SABINE, LORENZO.
   Biographical sketches of loyalists of the American Revolution.
   Boston: Little, Brown & Co. 1864. 2 volumes.

ST. GILES' LECTURES.
   3d and 4th series.
   Edinburgh: Macniven & Wallace. 1883-1884. 2 volumes.

ST. JOHN, J. A.
   The Hellenes.
   London: R. Bentley. 1844. 3 volumes.

SAINT SIMON, Duke of.
   Memoirs;
   abridged translation by St. John.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1857. 2 volumes.

SAINTSBURY, GEORGE.
   Marlborough.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1885.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1886.

SALMON, GEORGE.
   The infallibility of the Church.
   2d edition.
   London: John Murray. 1890.

SAMUELSON, JAMES.
   India, past and present.
   London: Trübner & Co. 1890.

   Roumania, past and present.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1882.

SANDERS, LLOYD C.
   Life of Viscount Palmerston.
   London: W. H. Allen & Co. 1888.

SANFORD ELIAS B.
   History of Connecticut.
   Hartford: S. S. Scranton & CO. 1888.

SANKEY, CHARLES.
   Spartan and Theban supremacy.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1877.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1886.

SARGENT, NATHAN.
   Public men and events, 1817-1853.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co. 1875. 2 volumes.

SARGENT, WINTHROP.
   Life and career of Major John André.
   Boston: Ticknor & Fields. 1861.

SAYCE, A. H.
   Ancient empires of the East. Herodotus I-III.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1883.

   Assyria, its princes, priests and people.
   London: Religious Tract Society. 1885.

   Babylonian literature.
   London: Samuel Bagster & Sons.

   Fresh light from the ancient monuments.
   London: Religious Tract Society.

   The "higher criticism," and the verdict of the monuments.
   London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1894.

   The Hittites.
   London: Religious Tract Society. 1888.

   Introduction to the Books of Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther.
   London: Religious Tract Society. 1885.

   Life and times of Isaiah.
   London: Religious Tract Society. 1889.

   Primer of Assyriology.
   New York: Fleming H. Revell Co.
   London: Religious Tract Society. [1894.]

   Races of the Old Testament.
   London: Religious Tract Society. 1891.

   Social life among the Assyrians and Babylonians.
   London: Religious Tract Soc. 1893.

SCAIFE, WALTER B.
   Florentine life during the Renaissance.
   (Johns Hopkins University Studies in
   History and Political Science, extra volumes 14.)
   Baltimore. 1893.

SCARTH, H. M.
   Roman Britain.
   London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, [1883.]

SCHAFF, PHILIP.
   History of the Christian Church.
   Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1859-92. volumes 1-7.

   History of the Vatican Council
   ["Vatican Decrees," by W. E. Gladstone.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1875].

SCHÄFFLE, A.
   Quintessence of socialism.
   London: S. Sonnenschein & Co. 1889.

SCHARF, J. THOMAS.
   History of the Confederate States navy.
   2d edition.
   Albany: Jos. McDonough. 1894.

SCHARF, J. THOMAS and T. WESTCOTT.
   History of Philadelphia.
   Philadelphia: L. H. Everts & Co. 1884. 3 volumes.

SCHERER, W.
   History of German literature.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1886. 2 volumes.

SCHILLER, FREDERIC.
   History of the revolt of the Netherlands.

   History of the Thirty Years' War.
   London: H. G. Bohn. 1846.

SCHIMMELPENNINCK, MARY ANNE.
   A tour to Alet and La Grande Chartreuse.
   London. 1816. 2 volumes.

SCHLOSSER, F. C.
   History of the eighteenth century.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1843-1852. 8 volumes.

SCHÖMANN, G. F
   Antiquities of Greece: The state.
   London: Rivingtons. 1880.

SCHOOLCRAFT, HENRY R.
   Historical and statistical information
   respecting the Indian Tribes.
   Philadelphia: Lippincott. 1851-1855. 5 volumes.

   Notes on the Iroquois.
   Albany: E. H. Pease & Co. 1847.

SCHOULER, J.
   History of the United States.
   Washington: W. H. Morrison.
   New York: Dodd, Mead & Co. volumes 1-5.

{3930}

SCHRÖDER, RICHARD.
   Lehrbuch der deutschen rechtsgeschichte.
   Leipzig: Veit. 1889.

SCHULZE-GAEVERNITZ, G. VON.
   Social peace.
   London: S. Sonnenschein & Co.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1893.

SCHÜRER, EMIL.
   History of the Jewish people in the time of Jesus Christ.
   Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. 1885-91. 5 volumes and index.

SCHURMAN, JACOB GOULD.
   Address at inauguration as President of Cornell University,
   November 11, 1892.
   Ithaca.

SCHURZ, CARL.
   Abraham Lincoln.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1892.

   Life of Henry Clay.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1887. 2 volumes.

SCHUYLER, EUGENE.
   American diplomacy.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1886.

   Peter the Great.
   London: S. Low, Marston & Co. 2 volumes.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1884. 2 volumes.

SCHUYLER, GEORGE W.
   Colonial New York.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1885. 2 volumes.

SCHWEINITZ, EDMUND DE.
   History of the church known as The Unitas Fratrum.
   Bethlehem, Pennsylvania: Moravian Publication Office. 1885.

SCOTCH-IRISH SOCIETY OF AMERICA.
   Proceedings.
   Cincinnati: Robert Clarke & Co. 1889.

SCOTT, CHARLES A. A.
   Ulfilas, apostle of the Goths.
   Cambridge: Macmillan & Bowes. 1885.

SCOTT, EBEN GREENOUGH.
   Development of constitutional liberty in the English
   colonies of America.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1882.

SCOTT, Sir WALTER.
   Essay on chivalry.
   History of Scotland.
   Life of Napoleon Buonaparte.
   Tales of a Grandfather (Scotland);
   abridged by E. Ginn.
   Boston: Ginn & Co. 1885.

SCOTTISH REVIEW, The.
   London: Alexander Gardner.

SCRIBNER'S MONTHLY.
   New York: Scribner & Co.

SCRUTTON, THOMAS E.
   Commons and common fields.
   Cambridge: University Press. 1887.

SEDGWICK, A. G., and F. S. WAIT.
   Treatise on the principles and practice governing
   trial of title to land.
   New York: Baker, Voorhis & Co. 1882.

SEEBOHM, FREDERIC.
   The English village community.
   2d edition.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1883.

   The era of the Protestant Revolution.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co.
   New York: Scribner, Armstrong & Co. 1874.

   The Oxford reformers.
   2d edition, revised and enlarged.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1869.

SEELEY, J. R.
   The expansion of England.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1883.

   Life and times of Stein.
   Cambridge: University Press. 1878. 8 volumes.

   Roman imperialism.
   Boston: Roberts Bros. 1871.

   Short history of Napoleon the First.
   Boston: Roberts Bros. 1888.

SÉGUR, L. P. (the elder),
   History of the principal events of the reign of
   Frederic William II., king of Prussia.
   London: Longman. 1801. 3 volumes.

SELIGMAN, EDWIN R. A.
   Two chapters on the mediæval guilds of England.
   (American Economic Association Publications,
   volume 2, number 5.) 1887.

SENIOR, NASSAU W.
   Journals kept in France and Italy, 1848-1852.
   London: H. S. King & Co. 1871. 2 volumes.

SERGEANT, LEWIS.
   Greece.
   London: S. Low, Marston & Co. 1880.

SEWARD, FREDERICK W.
   Seward at Washington as Senator and Secretary of State.
   New York: Derby & Miller. 1891.

SEWARD, WILLIAM H.
   Works.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 5 volumes.

SHALER, N. S.
   Kentucky.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1885.

   The United States of America.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1894. 2 volumes.

SHARPE, REGINALD R.
   Introduction to "Calendar of Wills in the
   Court of Husting, London"
   (London. 1889-90. 2 volumes.).

SHARPE, SAMUEL.
   History of Egypt.
   4th edition.
   London: E. Moxon & Co. 1859. 2 volumes.

   History of the Hebrew nation.
   London: John R. Smith. 1869.

SHAW, ALBERT.
   Icaria.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1884.

SHEA, JOHN GILMARY.
   The Catholic Church in colonial days.
   New York. 1886.

   Note 46 to George Alsop's "Character of the Province
   of Maryland"
   (Gowan's Bibliotheca Americana, 5. New York. 1869).

SHEPARD, EDWARD M.
   Martin Van Buren.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1888.

SHEPPARD, JOHN G.
   The fall of Rome.
   London: Routledge, Warne & Routledge. 1861.

SHERIDAN, PHILIP H.
   Personal memoirs.
   New York: C. L. Webster & Co. 1888. 2 volumes.

SHERMAN, General WILLIAM TECUMSEH.
   Memoirs, written by himself.
   4th edition.
   New York: C. L. Webster & Co. 1891.

SHERRING, M. A.
   The sacred city of the Hindus.
   London: Trübner & Co. 1868.

SHIPPEN, EDWARD.
   Naval battles.
   Philadelphia: A. Gorton & Co. 1883.

SHUCKBURGH, EVELYN SHIRLEY.
   History of Rome, to the battle of Actium.
   New York and London: Macmillan & Co. 1894.

SIMCOX, E. J.
   Primitive civilizations.
   London: S. Sonnenschein & Co.
   New York: Macmillan & Co. 1894. 2 volumes.

SIMCOX, GEORGE AUGUSTUS.
   History of Latin literature.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1883. 2 volumes.

SIME, JAMES.
   History of Germany.
   London: Macmillan & Co.
   New York: H. Holt & Co. 1874.

SIMMS, WILLIAM GILLMORE.
   History of South Carolina.
   New York: Redfield. 1860.

SIMON, EDOUARD:
   The Emperor William and his reign.
   London: Remington & Co. 1886. 2 volumes.

SISMONDI, J. C. L. SIMONDE DE.
   France under the feudal system.
   London: W. & T. Piper. 1851.

   The French under the Carlovingians.
   London: W. & T. Piper. 1850.

   The French under the Merovingians.
   London: W. & T. Piper. 1850.

   History of the fall of the Roman Empire.
   London: Longman. 1884. 2 volumes.

   History of the Italian republics.
   London: Longman. 1851.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1870.

   Historical view of the literature of the south of Europe.
   London: H. G. Bohn. 1846. 2 volumes.

SKELTON, JOHN.
   Essays in history and biography.
   Edinburgh: W. Blackwood & Sons. 1883.

SKENE, WILLIAM F.
   Celtic Scotland.
   Edinburgh: Edmonston & Douglas. 1876-1880. 8 volumes.

SKETCHES OF POPULAR TUMULTS.
   London: C. Cox. 1847.

SKINNER. ORRIN.
   Issues of American politics.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co. 1878.

SKOTTOWE, B. C.
   Our Hanoverian kings.
   London: S. Low, Marston & Co. 1884.

   Short history of Parliament.
   London: S. Sonnenschein & Co. 1892.

SLAFTER, E. F.
   Memoir of Champlain
   ["Champlain's Voyages."
   Boston: Prince Society 1878-82. 3 volumes].

SLATER, J. H.
   Book collecting.
   London: S. Sonnenschein & Co. 1892.

SLOANE, WILLIAM MILLIGAN.
   The French War and the Revolution.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1893.

SMALL, ALBION W.
   Beginnings of American nationality.
   (Johns Hopkins University Studies, 8th series, numbers. 1-2.)
   Baltimore. 1890.

SMEDLEY, E.
   History of France.
   Part 1. London: Baldwin & Cradock. 1886.

SMILES, SAMUEL.
   The Huguenots.
   London: John Murray.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1868.

   Life of George Stephenson.
   London: John Murray.
   New York: Harper & Bros.

   Lives of Boulton and Watt.
   London: John Murray.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co. 1865.

   Self-help.
   Revised and enlarged edition.
   Boston: J. R. Osgood & Co. 1872.

SMITH, ADAM.
   Wealth of nations.

SMITH, CHARLES ROACH.
   Illustrations of Roman London.
   London. 1859.

SMITH, EDMOND R.
   The Araucanians.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1855.

SMITH, GEORGE.
   Ancient history from the monuments: Assyria.
   New York: Scribner, Armstrong & Co. 1876.

   Assyrian discoveries, 1873-1874.
   New York: Scribner, Armstrong & Co. 1875.

SMITH, GEORGE ADAM.
   Historical geography of the Holy Land.
   London: Hodder &. Stoughton. 1894.

SMITH, GEORGE BARNETT.
   The prime ministers of Queen Victoria.
   London and New York: G. Routledge & Sons. 1886.

SMITH, GOLDWIN.
   Canada and the Canadian question.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co.
   Toronto: Hunter, Rose & Co. 1891.

{3931}

SMITH, GOLDWIN.
   Irish history and Irish character.
   Oxford and London: J. H. & J. Parker. 1861.

   Lectures on the study of history.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1866.

   The moral crusader, William Lloyd Garrison.
   New York: Funk & Wagnalls Co. 1892.

   Three English statesmen.
   London: Macmillan.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1867.

   A trip to England.
   2d edition.
   Toronto: Williamson & Co. 1891.

   The United States.
   New York and London: Macmillan & Co. 1893.

SMITH, HERBERT H.
   Brazil, the Amazons, and the coast.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1879.

SMITH, I. GREGORY.
   Christian monasticism.
   London: A. D. Innes & Co. 1892.

SMITH, PHILIP.
   Ancient history of the East.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1878.

   History of the world: Ancient history.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1865-1870. 3 volumes.

SMITH, R. A. H. BICKFORD.
   Greece under King George.
   London: R. Bentley & Son. 1893.

SMITH, R. BOSWORTH.
   Life of Lord Lawrence.
   London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1883. 2 volumes.

   Rome and Carthage.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1881.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons.

SMITH, THOMAS.
   Arminius: a history of the German people, etc.,
   from Cæsar to Charlemagne.
   London: J. Blackwood. 1861.

SMITH, Rev. THOMAS.
   Mediæval missions.
   Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. 1880.

SMITH, W. ROBERTSON.
   The prophets of Israel.
   Edinburgh: A. & C. Black. 1882.

SMITH, WILLIAM, editor.
   Smaller history of Greece.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1870.

   [Student's] History of Greece.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1870.

SMYTH, WILLIAM.
   Lectures on modern history.
   London: H. G. Bohn. 1854.

   Lectures on the history of the French Revolution.
   London: H. G. Bohn. 1855. 2 volumes.

SNOWDEN, JAMES ROSS.
   Description of ancient and modern coins.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott &Co. 1860.

SOLEY, JAMES RUSSELL.
   Boys of 1812.
   Boston: Estes & Lauriat. (c. 1887).

   Sailor boys of '61.
   Boston: Estes & Lauriat. 1888.

SOREL, ALBERT.
   L'Europe et la révolution française.
   Paris: E. Plon, Nourrit et Cie. 1885-1892. volumes 1-4.

SOUTHEY, ROBERT.
   Book of the Church.
   London: Frederick Warne & Co. 1869.

   History of Brazil.
   London: Longman. 1810-1819. 3 volumes.

   History of the Peninsular War.
   London: John Murray. 6 volumes.

   Lives of the British admirals.
   London: Longman. 1833-1840. 5 volumes.

SPARKS, JARED.
   Life of Ethan Allen
   [Library of American Biographies, volume 1. Boston. 1834].

SPAULDING, E. G.
   One hundred years of progress in banking.
   Buffalo. 1876.

SPECTATOR, The.
   London.

SPEER. WILLIAM.
   The oldest and the newest empire.
   Hartford: S. S. Scranton & Co. 1870.

SPENCE, G.
   Equitable jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery.
   London: Stevens. 1849. 2 volumes.

SPENCE, JAMES M.
   The land of Bolivar.
   London: S. Low, Marston & Co. 1878. 2 volumes.

SPENCER, AMBROSE.
   Narrative of Andersonville.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1866.

SQUIER, E. GEORGE.
   Peru.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1877.

STANFORD'S Compendium of geography and travel.
   London: Edward Stanford. 6 volumes.

STANHOPE, Earl.
   See MAHON.

STANLEY, ARTHUR PENRHYN.
   Historical memorials of Canterbury.
   5th edition.
   London: John Murray. 1868.

   Lectures on the history of the Church of Scotland.
   London: John Murray.
   New York: Scribner, Armstrong & Co. 1872.

   Lectures on the history of the Eastern Church.
   London: John Murray.
   New York: C. Scribner. 1862.

   Lectures on the history of the Jewish church.
   London: John Murray. 3 volumes.
   New York: C. Scribner. 2 volumes.

STANLEY, HENRY M.
   Slavery and the slave trade In Africa.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1893.

STANTON, ELIZABETH CADY, and others, editors.
   History of woman suffrage.
   New York: Fowler & Wells. 1881-1887. 3 volumes.

STANWOOD, EDWARD.
   History of presidential elections.
   2d edition, revised.
   Boston: Ticknor & Co. 1888.

STAPLES, WILLIAM R.
   Annals of the town of Providence.
   (Rhode Island Historical Society Collections, volume 5.)
   Providence: 1843.

STATESMAN'S YEAR-BOOK, The.
   London: Macmillan & Co.

STATISTICAL SOCIETY, The.
   Journal.
   London.

STEBBING, HENRY.
   History of Christ's universal Church.
   London: Arthur Hall & Co. 2 volumes.

STEEG, JULES.
   Introduction to Rousseau's "Émile"
   Boston: Ginn, Heath & Co. 1885.

STEPHEN, Sir JAMES.
   Lectures on the history of France.
   London: Longman.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1852.

STEPHEN, Sir JAMES FITZJAMES.
   Commentaries.
   History of the criminal law of England.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1883. 3 volumes.

   Story of Nuncomar.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1885. 2 volumes.

STEPHEN, LESLIE.
   History of English thought in the 18th century.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1876. 2 volumes.

   Swift.
   London: Macmillan & Co.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1882.

STEPHENS, H. MORSE.
   History of the French Revolution.
   London: Rivingtons. 1886. (3 volumes.) volumes. 1-2.
   New York: Chas. Scribner's Sons. 1886-1891. volumes 1-2.

   Story of Portugal.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.
   London: T. F. Unwin. 1891.

STEPHENS, W. R. W.
   Hildebrand and his times.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1888;
   New York: A. D. F. Randolph & Co.

STEPHENSON, ANDREW.
   Public lands and agrarian laws of the Roman Republic.
   (Johns Hopkins University Studies, 9th series, numbers. 7-8.)
   Baltimore. 1891.

STEPNIAK.
   The Russian peasantry.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1888.

   Underground Russia.
   London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1883.

STERNBERG, GEORGE M.
   Manual of bacteriology.
   New York: William Wood & Co. 1893.

STERNE, SIMON.
   Constitutional history and political development
   of the United States.
   New York and London: Cassell. (c. 1882).

STEVENS, HENRY.
   Historical and geographical notes on
   the earliest discoveries in America.
   London: Henry Stevens.
   New Haven: American Journal of Science. 1869.

STEVENS, J. A.
   Albert Gallatin.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1884.

STEVENS, JOHN L.
   History of Gustavus Adolphus.
   New York and London: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1884.

STEVENS WILLIAM BACON.
   History of Georgia.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1847. 2 volumes.

STILES, HENRY R.
   History of the city of Brooklyn.
   Brooklyn. 1867-1870. 3 volumes.

STILLÉ, CHARLES J.
   Life and times of John Dickinson.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Co. 1891.

   Studies in mediæval history.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co. 1882.

STIMSON, FREDERIC J.
   American statute law.
   Boston: Charles C. Soule. 1886.

STINE, J. H.
   History of the army of the Potomac.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Rodgers Printing Co. 1892.

STOBART, J. W. H.
   Islam and Its founder.
   London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, [1877.]

STOKES, GEORGE T.
   Ireland and the Celtic Church.
   2d edition.
   London: Hodder & Stoughton. 1888.

STONE, WILLIAM L.
   Life and times of Sir William Johnson.
   Albany: J. Munsell. 1865. 2 volumes.

   Life of Joseph Brant-Thayendanegea.
   Albany: J. Munsell. 1865. 2 volumes.

STORY, JOSEPH.
   Commentaries on the constitution of the United States.

STORY, WILLIAM W.
   Castle St. Angelo.
   London: Chapman & Hall.
   Phil.: J. B. Lippincott & Co. 1877.

STOUGHTON, JOHN.
   History of religion in England.
   London: Hodder & Stoughton; revised edition. 1881. 6 volumes.

STRACHEY, Sir JOHN.
   India.
   London: Kegan Paul, Trench & Co. 1888.

STRAUS, OSCAR S.
   Roger Williams.
   New York: Century Co. 1894.

STRICKLAND. F. DE BEAUCHAMP, editor.
   The Engadine.
   London: S. Low, Marston & Co. 1890.

STUBBS, WILLIAM.
   Constitutional history of England.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1874-1878. 3 volumes.

   The early Plantagenets.
   2d edition.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1877.
   New York: Scribner, Armstrong & Co.

   Seventeen lectures on the study of medieval and modern history.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1886.
   New York: Macmillan & Co. 1887.

{3932}

STUBBS, WILLIAM. editor.
   Select charters, etc.
   2d edition.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1876.

STUTFIELD, HUGH E. M.
   El Maghreb.
   London: S. Low, Marston & Co. 1886.

SUETONIUS TRANQUILLUS, C.
   Lives of the twelve Cæsars.
   London: H. G. Bohn. 1855.

SULLIVAN, A. M.
   New Ireland.
   6th edition.
   London: S. Low, Marston & Co. 1878.

SUMNER, WILLIAM GRAHAM.
   Andrew Jackson.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1883.

   The financier and the finances of the American Revolution.
   New York: Dodd, Mead & Co. 1891. 2 volumes.

   History of American currency.
   New York: H. Holt & Co. 1874.

SUTHERLAND, ALEXANDER and GEORGE.
   History of Australia.
   14th edition.
   Melbourne: George Robertson & Co. 1890.

SVERIGES HISTORIA, 1805-1875.
   Stockholm: T. Säve. 1881.

SWINBURNE, ALGERNON C.
   Miscellanies.
   London: Chatto & Windus. 1886.

SWINTON, WILLIAM.
   Campaigns of the Army of the Potomac.
   New York: University Publishing Co. 1871.

   The twelve decisive battles of the war.
   New York: Dick & Fitzgerald. 1871.

SYBEL, HEINRICH VON.
   The founding of the German Empire by William I.
   New York: T. Y. Crowell & Co. 1890-1891. 5 volumes.

   History and literature of the crusades.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1861.

   History of the French Revolution.
   London: John Murray. 1867-1869. 4 volumes.

SYDNEY, WILLIAM CONNOR.
   England and the English in the 18th century.
   London: Ward & Downey. 2 volumes.
   New York: Macmillan & Co. 1891. 2 volumes.

SYMES. J. E.
   The French Revolution.
   London: Methuen & Co. 1892.

SYMONDS, JOHN ADDINGTON.
   Renaissance In Italy.
   London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1875-86. 5 volumes.

   Shakespeare's predecessors in the English drama.
   London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1884.

   Sketches and studies in Italy.
   London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1879.

   Sketches in Italy and Greece.
   2d edition.
   London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1879.

SYPHER, J. R., and E. A. APGAR.
   History of New Jersey.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co. 1870.

SZABAD, EMERIC.
   Hungary, past and present.
   Edinburgh: A. & C. Black. 1854.

TACITUS.
   Germany:
   translated by Church and Brodribb
   [Minor works].
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1877.

TAINE, HIPPOLYTE ADOLPHE.
   The ancient régime.
   New York: H. Holt & Co. 1876.

   The French Revolution.
   New York: H. Holt & Co. 1878-1885. 3 volumes.

   History of English literature.
   London: Chatto & Windus. 2 volumes.
   New York: Holt & Williams. 1872. 2 volumes.

   Italy, Florence and Venice.
   New York: Holt & Williams. 1872.

TALLACK, WILLIAM.
   Malta, under the Phenicians, Knights, and English.
   London: A. W. Bennett. 1861.

TALLEYRAND, Prince de.
   Memoirs.
   New York and London: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1891-1892. 5 volumes.

TARBOX, INCREASE N.
   Sir Walter Raleigh.
   Boston: Prince Society. 1884.

TAUSSIG, F. W.
   The sliver situation In the United States.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1893.

   Tariff history of the United States.
   New York and London: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1892.

TAYLOR, BAYARD.
   School history of Germany.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1874.

TAYLOR, HANNIS.
   Origin and growth of the English constitution.

TAYLOR, ISAAC.
   Etruscan researches.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1874.

TAYLOR, JAMES.
   The Scottish Covenanters.
   London and N. Y.: Cassell.

TAYLOR, WILLIAM COOKE.
   Life and times of Sir Robert Peel.
   London: Peter Jackson. 3 volumes.

   Student's manual of ancient history.
   London: J. W. Parker. 1886.

TEGG, WILLIAM.
   Posts and telegraphs.
   London: William Tegg & Co. 1878.

TEMPLE, Sir RICHARD.
   James Thomason.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1893.

TEMPLE BAR.
   London.

TEN BRINK, B.
   History of English literature: Wyclif, etc.
   New York: H. Holt & Co. 1893.

TENNENT, Sir JAMES E.
   History of modern Greece.
   London: H. Colburn. 1845. 2 volumes.

TENNEY, W. J.
   Military and naval history of the Rebellion.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1866.

TESTA, GIOVANNI B.
   History of the war of Frederick I. against
   the communes of Lombardy.
   London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1877.

THACKERAY, W. M.
   The four Georges.
   London: Smith, Elder & Co.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Co.

THATCHER, JAMES.
   Military journal during the American Revolutionary War.
   Boston. 1823-1827. 2 volumes.

THAYER, J. B.
   Select cases on evidence.

THAYER, WILLIAM ROSCOE.
   Dawn of Italian independence.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1893. 2 volumes.

THIERRY, AUGUSTIN.
   Formation and progress of the Tiers Etat.
   London: T. Bosworth. 1855. 2 volumes.

   History of the conquest of England by the Normans.
   London: volume 1, David Bogue. 1840;
   volume 2, H. G. Bohn. 1846.

   Narratives of the Merovingian era, Historical essays, etc.
   London: Whittaker & Co.

THIERS, LOUIS ADOLPHE.
   History of the Consulate and the Empire.
   London: G. Bell & Sons.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co. 5 volumes.

   History of the French Revolution.
   London: R. Bentley & Son. 5 volume.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 4 volume.

THIRLWALL, CONNOP.
   History of Greece.
   London: Longman. 8 volumes.

THOMAS, CYRUS.
   The problem of the Ohio mounds.
   Washington. 1889.

THOMAS, ISAIAH.
   History of printing in America.
   2d edition.
   (Archæologia Americana, volumes 5-6.)
   Albany: Joel Munsell. 1874. 2 volumes.

THOMPSON, MAURICE.
   Story of Louisiana.
   Boston: D. Lothrop Co. (c. 1888).

THOMPSON, SILVANUS P.
   The electromagnet and electromagnetic mechanism.
   2d edition.
   London: E. & F. N. Spon.
   New York: Spon & Chamberlain. 1892.

THOMPSON, ZADOCK.
   History of the state of Vermont.
   Burlington: Smith & Co. 1858.

THOMSEN, VILHELM.
   Relations between ancient Russia and Scandinavia.
   Oxford: James Parker & Co. 1877.

THOMSON, Sir JOHN.
   Account of the life, lectures and writings of William Cullen.
   London. 1832.

THORNTON, PERCY M.
   The Brunswick accession.
   London: W. Ridgway. 1887.

THUCYDIDES.
   History;
   translated by B. Jowett.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1881. 2 volumes.

THURSFIELD, EMILY.
   England and Ireland.
   London: Rivingtons. 1884.

THURSTON, ROBERT H.
   History of the growth of the steam-engine.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1878.

THWAITES, REUBEN GOLD.
   The boundaries of Wisconsin
   [Wisconsin Historical Society Collections, volume 11].

   The colonies, 1492-1750.
   (Epochs of American history.)
   New York and London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1891.

TIFFANY, JOHN K.
   History of the postage stamps of the United States.
   St. Louis: C. H. Mekael. 1887.

TIGHE, AMBROSE.
   Development of the Roman constitution.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1886.

TIKHOMIROV, L.
   Russia, political and social.
   London: S. Sonnenschein, Lowry & Co. 1888. 2 volumes.

TILLEY, ARTHUR.
   Literature of the French Renaissance.
   Cambridge: University Press. 1885.

TIMAYENIS, T. T.
   History of Greece.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1881. 2 volumes.

TIMBS, JOHN.
   Clubs and club life in London.
   London: Chatto & Windus. 1886.

TIMES, The.
   London.
   Annual summaries reprinted from The Times.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co.
   London: The Times Office.

   Eminent persons: biographies reprinted from The Times.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co.
   London: The Times.

   Memoir of the Duke of Wellington.
   London: Longman. 1852.

TIMPERLEY, C. H.
   Encyclopædia of literary and typographical anecdote.
   London: H. G. Bohn. 1852.

TOCQUEVILLE, A. DE.
   State of society in France before the Revolution.
   London: John Murray. 1856.

TOLSTOI, LEO, Count.
   Physiology of war.
   Napoleon and the Russian campaign.
   New York: T. Y. Crowell & Co. (c. 1888).

TOMKINS, HENRY G.
   Studies on the times of Abraham.
   London: Samuel Bagster & Sons. [1878].

{3933}

TORRENS, W. M.
   Empire in Asia: how we came by it.
   London: Trübner & Co. 1872.

TORRIANO, W. H.
   William the Third.
   London: W. H. Allen & Co. 1887.

TOUT, T. F.
   Edward the First.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co. 1893.

TOWLE, GEORGE M.
   Modern France.
   New York: Harper &: Bros. 1879.

TOZER, HENRY F.
   The Church and the Eastern Empire.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1888.
   New York: A. D. F. Randolph & Co.

TRAILL, H. D.
   Lord Strafford.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1889.

   William the Third.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co. 1888.

   editor.
   Social England;
   by various writers.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.
   London: Cassell & Co. 1894. volumes 1-2.

TREITSCHKE, H. VON.
   Deutsche geschichte im 19 jahrhundert.
   Leipzig. 1879-1895. volumes 1-5.

TRENCH, RICHARD C.
   Gustavus Adolphus in Germany.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 2d edition. 1872.

   Lectures on mediæval church history.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1879.

TREVERT, EDWARD.
   Electric railway engineering.
   Lynn, Massachusetts: Bubier Publishing Co. 1892.

TREVOR, GEORGE.
   Rome: from the fall of the Western Empire.
   London: Religious Tract Society. [1869.]

TRINITY OF ITALY, The;
   by an English civilian.
   London: E. Moxon & Co. 1867.

TROBRIAND, REGIS DE.
   Four years with the Army of the Potomac.
   Boston: Ticknor & Co. 1889.

TROLLOPE, ANTHONY.
   The Commentaries of Cæsar.
   Edinburgh: W. Blackwood & Sons. 1870.

   South Africa.
   4th edition.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1878. 2 volumes.

TROLLOPE, T. ADOLPHUS.
   History of the commonwealth of Florence.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1865. 4 volumes.

TROTTER, L. J.
   History of India.
   London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, [1874.]

   Warren Hastings.
   London: W. H. Allen & Co. 1878.

TROUESSART, E. L.
   Microbes, ferments and moulds.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1886.

TRUMBULL, BENJAMIN.
   Complete history of Connecticut.
   New Haven. 1818. 2 volumes.

TRUMBULL, H. CLAY.
   Kadesh-Barnea.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1884.

TRUMBULL, J. HAMMOND.
   Introduction to "The True-Blue Laws of Connecticut
   and New Haven"
   (Hartford: American Publishing Co. 1876).

TSCHUDI, J. J. VON.
   Travels in Peru.
   London: David Bogue.
   New York: Wiley & Putnam. 1847.

TUCKER, GEORGE.
   History of the United States.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co. 1856-1858. 4 volumes.

   Life of Thomas Jefferson.
   London: C. Knight & Co. 1837. 2 volumes.

TUCKER, POMEROY.
   Origin, rise and progress of Mormonism.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1867.

TUCKERMAN, BAYARD.
   Life of General Lafayette.
   New York: Dodd, Mead & Co. 1889. 2 volumes.

   Peter Stuyvesant.
   New York: Dodd, Mead & Co. 1893.

   William Jay and the constitutional movement for
   the abolition of slavery.
   New York: Dodd, Mead & Co. 1893.

TUDOR, WILLIAM.
   Life of James Otis.
   Boston: Wells & Lilly. 1823.

TULLOCH, JOHN.
   Leaders of the Reformation.
   2d edition.
   Edinburgh: William Blackwood & Sons. 1860.

   Pascal.
   Edinburgh: William Blackwood & Sons.
   Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co.

   Rational theology and Christian philosophy in England.
   2 volumes.
   Edinburgh: William Blackwood & Sons. 1872.

TUNZELMANN, G. W. DE.
   Electricity in modern life.
   London: Walter Scott. [1889.]

TURNER, O.
   History of the pioneer settlement of Phelps and
   Gorham's Purchase.
   Rochester: William Alling. 1852.

   Pioneer history of the Holland Purchase.
   Buffalo: Derby & Co. 1849.

TURNER, SAMUEL EPES.
   Sketch of the Germanic constitution.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1888.

TURNER, SHARON.
   History of England during the Middle Ages.
   London: Longman. 1825. 5 volumes.

TUTTLE, CHARLES WESLEY.
   Captain John Mason.
   Boston: Prince Society. 1887.

TUTTLE, HERBERT.
   History of Prussia, 1134-1756.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1884-1888. 3 volumes.

TWO CENTURIES OF IRISH HISTORY 1691-1870;
   with introduction by Jas. Bryce.
   London: Kegan Paul, Trench & Co. 1888.

TYLER, MOSES COIT.
   History of American literature.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1878. 2 volumes.

TYNDALL, JOHN.
   Fragments of science.
   6th edition.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1879. volume 1.

   New fragments.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1892.

TYTLER, PATRICK FRASER.
   History of Scotland.
   Edinburgh: William P. Nimmo. 1864. 4 volumes.

TYTLER, SARAH.
   Marie Antoinette.
   London: Marcus Ward.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1883.

UEBERWEG, FRIEDRICH.
   History of philosophy.
   New York: C. Scribner & Co. 1872. 2 volumes.

UHLHORN, GERHARD.
   Conflict of Christianity with heathenism.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. (c. 1879).

ULLMANN, C.
   Reformers before the Reformation.
   Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. 1855. 2 volumes.

UNITARIANISM: its origin and history.
   Boston: American Unitarian Association. 1890.

UNITED STATES.
   The argument at Geneva.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1873.

   Bureau of education.
   Circulars of information.
   Washington.

   Bureau of Ethnology.
   5th and 7th annual reports, 1883-4, 1885-6.
   Washington.

   Bureau of the American Republics.
   Bulletins.
   Washington.

   Case of the United States before the Tribunal of
   Arbitration at Geneva.
   Washington. 1872.

   Commissioner of Education.
   Annual reports.
   Washington.

   Congress, Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War.
   Report.

   Geographical and geological survey.
   Contributions to North American ethnology.
   Washington.

   Interstate Commerce Commission.
   Statistics of Railways.
   Washington.

   Sanitary Commission, Commission of inquiry.
   Narrative of privations and sufferings of prisoners
   of war in the hands of the rebel authorities.
   Philadelphia. 1864.

   Statutes, 49th Congress, 1st session.
   Washington.

   Statutes at large.
   Boston: Little & Brown. 1850.

   Supreme Court.
   Report of the decision in the case of Dred Scott, 1856
   [from Howard's Reports, volume 19].
   Washington: C. Wendell. 1857.

   Treaties and conventions between the United States
   and other powers.
   Washington. 1889.

   War Records Office.
   War of the Rebellion: Official records.

UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW.

UPHAM, CHARLES W.
   Salem witchcraft.
   Boston: Wiggin & Lunt. 1867. 2 volumes.

UPTON, FRANCIS H.
   The law of nations affecting commerce during war.
   3d edition.
   New York: J. S. Voorhees. 1863.

URBANITZKY, ALFRED RITTER VON.
   Electricity in the service of man.
   London: Cassell & Co. 1886.

URQUHART, WILLIAM P.
   Life and times of Francesco Sforza.
   Edinburgh and London: William Blackwood & Sons. 1852.

VAMBÉRY, ARMINIUS.
   The coming struggle for India.
   London and New York: Cassell & Co. 1885.

   History of Bokhara.
   London: H. S. King & Co. 1873.

VANE, General (Marquess of Londonderry).
   Story of the Peninsular War.
   London: J. Blackwood & Co.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1854.

VAN HORNE, THOMAS B.
   Life of Major-General George H. Thomas.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1882.

VAN LAUN, HENRI.
   The French Revolutionary epoch.
   London: Cassell & Co. 2 volumes.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1879. 2 volumes.

VAN PRAET, JULES.
   Essays on the political history of the
   15th, 16th, and 17th centuries.
   London: R. Bentley. 1868.

VAUGHAN, ROBERT.
   History of England under the House of Stuart.
   London: H. Bohn. 1840.

   Revolutions in English history.
   2d edition.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1867. 3 volumes.

VAUGHAN, ROBERT ALFRED.
   Hours with the mystics.
   2d edition, revised and augmented.
   London: J. W. Parker & Son. 1860. 2 volumes.

VERITY, JOHN B.
   Electricity up to date.
   London: F. Warne & Co. 1893.

VERMONT HISTORICAL SOCIETY.
   Collections.

VICARY, J. FULFORD.
   Saga time.
   London: Kegan Paul, Trench & Co. 1887.

VICTOR O. J.
   History of the Southern Rebellion.
   New York: J. D. Torrey. 4 volumes.

{3934}

VIGFUSSON, G., and F. YORK POWELL. editors.
   Corpus poeticum boreale.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1883. 2 volumes.

VILLARI, PASQUALE.
   History of Girolamo Savonarola.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1863. 2 volumes.

   Niccolò Machiavelli and his times.
   London: C. Kegan Paul & Co. 1878-1883. 4 volumes.

VILLEMAIN, A. F.
   Life of Gregory the Seventh.
   London: R. Bentley & Co. 1874. 2 volumes.

VINCENT, JOHN M.
   State and federal government in Switzerland.
   (Johns Hopkins University Studies, extra volume 9.)
   Baltimore. 1891.

VINOGRADOFF, PAUL.
   Villainage in England.
   Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1892.

VIOLLET-LE-DUC, E. E.
   Discourses on architecture.
   Boston: Osgood & Co. 1875.

   Habitations of man in all ages.
   Boston: J. R. Osgood & Co. 1876.

VIZETELLY, HENRY, editor.
   Paris In Peril.
   London: Tinsley Bros. 1882. 2 volumes.

VOGT, H.
   The Egyptian war of 1882.
   London: K. Paul, Trench & Co. 1883.

VOLTAIRE.
   Ancient and modern history
   (Works, translated by Smollett and others, volumes 1-9.
   London. 1761-1770. 36 volumes.).

   History of Charles XII.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co.

WACE, HENRY, and C. A. BUCHHEIM, editors.
   First principles of the Reformation.
   London: J. Murray. 1883.

WACHSMUTH, WILLIAM.
   Historical antiquities of the Greeks.
   Oxford: D. A. Talboys. 1887. 2 volumes.

WADDINGTON, GEORGE.
   History of the Church.
   London: H. Bohn. 1835.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1834.

   History of the Reformation.
   London: Duncan & Malcolm. 1841. 3 volumes.

WAKEMAN, HENRY OFFLEY.
   The Church and the Puritans.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co.
   New York: A. D. F. Randolph & Co. 1887.

   History of religion in England.
   London: Rivingtons. 1885.

   Life of Charles James Fox.
   London: W. H. Allen & Co. 1890.

WALFORD, N. L.
   Parliamentary generals of the great civil war.
   London: Chapman & Hall. 1886.

WALISZEWSKI, R.
   Romance of an empress, Catherine II. of Russia.
   London: William. Heinemann. 1894. 2 volumes.

WALKER, FRANCIS A.
   History of the Second Army Corps.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1886.

   Money.
   New York: H. Holt & Co. 1878.

WALKER, PHILIP F.
   Afghanistan.
   2d edition.
   London: Griffith, Farran, Okeden & Welsh. 1885.

WALLACE, D. MACKENZIE.
   Russia.
   New York: Henry Holt & Co. 1877.

WALLACE, JOSEPH.
   History of Illinois and Louisiana under the French rule.
   Cincinnati: Robert Clarke & Co. 1893.

WALPOLE, SPENCER.
   Foreign relations.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1882.

   History of England from 1815.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1878. 2 volumes.

   Life of Lord John Russell.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1889. 2 volumes.

WARBURTON, E.
   The conquest of Canada.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1850. 2 volumes.

WARBURTON, W.
   Edward III.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1875.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons.

WARD, ADOLPHUS W.
   The Counter-Reformation.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1889.
   New York: A. D. F. Randolph & Co.

WARD, THOMAS H., editor.
   The reign of Queen Victoria.
   London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1887. 2 volumes.

WARD, W. H., editor.
   Records of members of the Grand Army of the Republic.
   San Francisco: H. S. Crocker & Co. 1886.

WARE, WILLIAM.
   Memoir of Nathaniel Bacon
   [Library of American Biographies,
   2d series, volume 3. Boston. 1844].

WARFIELD, ETHELBERT DUDLEY.
   The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798.
   New York and London: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1887.

WARING, GEORGE E., and GEORGE W. CABLE.
   History and present condition of New Orleans
   [10th Census of the United States, volume 19].
   Washington 1881.

WASHBURN, EMORY.
   Treatise on the law of real property.
   Boston: Little, Brown & Co. 3 volumes.

WASHBURNE, E. B.
   Recollections of a minister to France.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1887. 2 volumes.

WASHINGTON, GEORGE.
   Writings;
   edited by W. C. Ford.
   New York and London: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1889-93. 14 volumes.

WATSON, ROBERT.
   History of the reign of Philip II.
   7th edition.
   London: T. Tegg. 1839.

WATSON, ROBERT G.
   Spanish and Portuguese South America.
   London: Trübner & Co. 1884. 2 volumes.

WATTS, HENRY EDWARD.
   The Christian recovery of Spain.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.
   London: T. F. Unwin. 1894.

WATTS, JOHN.
   The facts of the Cotton Famine.
   London: Simpkin, Marshall & Co. 1866.

WAUTERS; A. J.
   Stanley's Emin Pasha expedition.
   London: John O. Nimmo. 1890.

WEBB, SIDNEY and BEATRICE.
   History of trade unionism.
   London and New York: Longmans, Green & Co. 1894.

WEBER, ALBRECHT.
   History of Indian Literature.
   Boston: Houghton, Osgood & Co. 1878.

WEBSTER, DANIEL.
   Works.
   Boston: C. C. Little & J. Brown. 1851. 6 volumes.

WEED, THURLOW.
   Autobiography.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1883.

WEEDEN, WILLIAM B.
   Economic and social history of New England, 1620-1789.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1890. 2 volume.

   Indian money as a factor In New En(gland civilization.
   (Johns Hopkins University Studies, 2d series, numbers. 8-9.)
   Baltimore. 1884.

WEIR, ARCHIBALD.
   Historical basis of modern Europe.
   London: S. Sonnenschein & Co. 1886.

WELLES, GIDEON.
   Lincoln and Seward.
   New York: Sheldon & Co. 1874.

WELLHAUSEN, J.
   Sketch of the history of Israel and Judah.
   Edinburgh: A. & C. Black. 1891.

WELLS, DAVID A.
   Our merchant marine.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1882.

   Recent economic changes.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1889.

WERNER, EDGAR A.
   Civil list and constitutional history of New York.
   Albany: Weed, Parsons & Co. 1888.

WESTMINSTER REVIEW.
   London: Henry & Co.

WESTROPP, HODDER M.
   Early and Imperial Rome.
   London: E. Stock. 1884.

WHARTON, FRANCIS, editor.
   Digest of the International law of the United States.
   Washington. 1886. 8 volumes.

   editor.
   The Revolutionary diplomatic correspondence of
   the United States.
   Washington. 1889. 6 volumes.

WHEELER, J. TALBOYS.
   History of India.
   London: N. Trübner & Co. 1867-1881. 4 volumes.

   Indian history, Asiatic and European.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co. 1890.

   Short history of India.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1880.

WHEELER. JOHN H.
   Historical sketches of North Carolina.
   Philadelphia: Lippincott. 1851. 2 volumes.

WHEELER, L. N.
   The foreigner in China.
   Chicago: S. C. Griggs & Co. 1881.

WHEWELL. W.
   History of the inductive sciences.
   London: Parker & Son. 1857. 8 volumes.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1858. 2 volumes.

WHITE, ARTHUR SILVA.
   The development of Africa.
   London: George Philip & Son. 1890.

WHITE, JAMES.
   History of France.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1886.

WHITEHEAD, W. A.
   East Jersey under the proprietary governments.
   (New Jersey Historical Society Collections, volume 1.) 1846.

WHITELOCK, WILLIAM.
   Life and times of John Jay.
   New York: Dodd, Mead & Co. 1887.

WHY THE SOLID SOUTH?
   (Noted men on the Solid South.)
   Baltimore: R. H. Woodward & Co. 1890.

WILKENSON, Sir J. GARDNER.
   Manners and customs of the ancient Egyptians:
   edited by S. Birch. 3 volumes.
   London: John Murray. 1878.

WILLERT, P. F.
   Henry of Navarre and the Huguenots of France.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1893.

   Reign of Lewis XI.
   London: Rivingtons. 1876.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.

WILLIAMS, GEORGE W.
    History of the negro race in America.
    New York: G. P. Putnam s Sons. 1883. 2 volumes.

WILLIAMS, Sir MONIER-MONIER.
   Buddhism.
   London: John Murray. 1889.

   Hinduism.
   London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1877.

   Indian wisdom.
   3d edition.
   London: William H. Allen & Co. 1876.

   Religious thought and life in India.
   Part 1.
   London: John Murray. 1883.

WILLIAMS, ROGER.
   Letters;
   edited by J. R. Bartlett.
   Providence: Tibbitts & Shaw. 1882.

WILLIAMS, S. W.
   The middle kingdom.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1883. 2 volumes.

{3935}

WILLIAMSON, ALEXANDER.
   Journeys In North China.
   London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1870. 2 volumes.

WILLIAMSON, WILLIAM D.
   History of the state of Maine.
   Hallowell: Glazier, Masters &; Co. 1832. 2 volumes.

WILLOUGHBY, W. W. and W. F.
   Government and administration of the United States.
   (Johns Hopkins University studies, series 9, numbers. 1-2.)
   Baltimore. 1891.

WILLSON, MARCIUS.
   American history.
   New York: M. H. Newman & Co. 1847.

WILMOT, S. EARDLEY.
   The development of navies.
   London: Seeley & Co. 1892.

WILSON, DANIEL.
   Memorials of Edinburgh.
   Edinburgh: Thomas C. Jack. 2 volumes.

WILSON, ERASMUS.
   The Egypt of the past.
   London: K. Paul, Trench & Co. 1881.

WILSON, HENRY.
   History of the rise and fall of the slave power in America.
   Boston: James R. Osgood & Co. 1872-1877. 3 volumes.

WILSON, HORACE H.
   Essays on Sanskrit literature.
   (Works, volumes 3-5.)
   London: Trübner & Co. 1864. 3 volumes.

WILSON, J. LEIGHTON.
   Western Africa.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1856.

WILSON, JAMES GRANT, editor.
   Memorial history of the city of New York.
   New York: History Co. 1892. 4 volumes.

WILSON, JAMES HARRISON.
   China.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1887.

WILSON, ROBERT.
   Life and times of Queen Victoria.
   London and New York: Cassell & Co. 1887. 2 volumes.

WILSON, ROBERT A.
   Mexico: Its peasants and its priests.
   New York: Harper & Bros. 1856.

WILSON, General Sir ROBERT T.
   Narrative of events during the Invasion of Russia.
   London: John Murray. 1860.

WILSON, WOODROW.
   Division and reunion, 1829-1889.
   (Epochs of American History.)
   New York and London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1893.

WILTSCH, J. E. T.
   Handbook of the geography and statistics of the Church.
   London: Bosworth & Harrison. 1859.

WINSOR, JUSTIN, editor.
   Narrative and critical history of America.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1886. 8 volumes.

WINTHROP, ROBERT C.
   Addresses and speeches.
   Boston: Little, Brown & Co. 1852-1886. 4 volumes.

WIRT, WILLIAM.
   Sketches of the life and character of Patrick Henry.
   15th edition.
   Hartford: S. Andrus & Son. 1854.

WISE, B. R.
   Industrial freedom.
   London: Cassell & Co. 1892.

WISE, ISAAC M.
   History of the Hebrews' second commonwealth.
   Cincinnati: Bloch & Co. 1880.

WISEMAN, N.
   Lectures on the principal doctrines and practices
   of the Catholic Church.
   3d edition.
   London: C. Dolman. 1851. 2 volumes.

WOLSKI, KALIXT.
   Poland.
   London: Derby & Endean. 1883.

WOMAN'S WORK IN AMERICA;
   edited by Annie Nathan Meyer.
   New York: H. Holt & Co. 1891.

WOOD, J. T.
   Discoveries at Ephesus.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co.
   Boston: James R. Osgood. 1877.

WOODHEAD, GERMAN SIMS.
   Bacteria and their products.
   London: W. Scott. 1891.

WOODHOUSE, F. C.
   Military religious orders of the Middle Ages.
   London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1879.
   New York: Pott, Young & Co.

WOODWARD, C. M.
   The manual training school.
   Boston: D. C. Heath & Co. 1887.

WOOLSEY, THEODORE D.
   Communism and socialism.
   New York: C. Scribner's Sons. 1880.

   Introduction to the study of international law.
   New York: C. Scribner.

WORTABET, JOHN.
   Researches into the religions of Syria.
   London: J. Nisbet & Co. 1860.

WRAXALL, Sir N. WILLIAM.
   History of France.
   2d edition.
   London: Cadell & Davies. 1814. 6 volumes.

WRIGHT, CARROLL D.
   Factory legislation
   [10th Census of the United States, volume 2].

WRIGHT, THOMAS.
   The Celt, the Roman and the Saxon.
   3d edition.
   London: Trübner & Co. 1875.

   History of France.
   London Printing & Publishing Co. 3 volumes.

   History of Ireland.
   London Printing & Publishing Co. 3 volume.

WRIGHT, WILLIAM BURNET.
   Ancient cities.
   Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1886.

WRIGHTSON, RICHARD H.
   The Sancta Respublica Romana.
   London: Henry Frowde. 1890.

WRONG, GEORGE M.
   The crusade of MCCCLXXXIII.
   London: J. Parker & Co. 1892.

WYATT, W. J.
   History of Prussia.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1876. 2 volumes.

XENOPHON.
   The Cyropedia and the Hellenics;
   translated by Watson and Dale.
   London: Bell & Daldy. 1870.

   Hellenica
   (Works; translated by Dakyns, volume 2.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co. 1892).

   Minor works;
   translated by Watson.
   London: H. G. Bohn. 1857.

YALE REVIEW, The.
   Hartford.

YATES, JOHN V. N., and J. W. MOULTON.
   History of the state of New York.
   New York: A. T. Goodrich. 1824-1826. 2 volumes.

YEATS, JOHN.
   Growth and vicissitudes of commerce.
   London: Virtue & Co. 1872.

YONGE, CHARLES DUKE.
   History of France under the Bourbons.
   London: Tinsley Bros. 1866-1867. 4 volumes.

   Three centuries of modern history.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1872.

YONGE, CHARLOTTE M.
   Cameos from English history.
   London and New York: Macmillan & Co. 1868-90. 7 volumes.

   History of France.
   New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1882.

   Landmarks of recent history, 1770-1883.
   London: Walter Smith. 1883.

   Story of the Christians and Moors of Spain.
   London: Macmillan & Co. 1878.

YOUNG, ALEXANDER.
   History of the Netherlands.
   Boston: Estes & Lauriat. 1884.

YULE, Colonel HENRY,
   translated and edited.
   Cathay and the way thither.
   London: Hakluyt Society 1866. 2 volumes.

ZELLER. E.
   Socrates and the Socratic schools.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1868.

   The Stoics, Epicureans, and Sceptics.
   London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1870.

ZIMMER, H.
   The Irish element in mediæval culture.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1891.

ZIMMERMAN, WILLIAM.
   Popular history of Germany.
   New York: H. J. Johnson. (c. 1877.) 4 volumes.

ZIMMERN, HELEN.
   The Hansa towns.
   New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.
   London: T. F. Unwin. 1889.

ZSCHOKKE, HEINRICH.
   History of Switzerland.
   New York: Albert Mason. 1875.
   London: S. Low, Son & Co. 1860.

ZWIEDINECK-SÜDENHORST.
   Deutsche geschicte (1648-1740).
   Stuttgart: Cotta.