## The Project Gutenberg eBook of History for ready reference, Volume 5, Tunnage to Zyp and Supplement

This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

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

Author: J. N. Larned

Contributor: Alan C. Reiley

Release date: March 26, 2023 [eBook #70343]

Language: English

Original publication: United States: C. A. Nichols Co, 1895

Credits: Don Kostuch

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK HISTORY FOR READY REFERENCE, VOLUME 5, TUNNAGE TO ZYP AND SUPPLEMENT ***

    [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}

LINEAGE OF THE WEST SAXON KINGS OF ENGLAND and
LINEAGE OF THE DUKES OF NORMANDY TO THE CONQUEST OF ENGLAND.
{3858}
{3859}

LINEAGE OF THE SOVEREIGNS OF ENGLAND FROM THE NORMAN CONQUEST.]
{3860}
THE GUELF LINE OF DESCENT OF THE HOUSE OF HANOVER.
{3861}
THE CAROLINGIANS.
{3862}
{3863}

LINEAGE OF THE KINGS OF GERMANY AND EMPERORS.
HOUSE OF HAPSBURG.
{3864}
[Blank]
{3865}
[Blank]
{3866} {3867}

LINEAGE OF THE SOVEREIGNS OF FRANCE.
{3868}
GENEALOGY OF THE BONAPARTE FAMILY.
{3869}
LINEAGE OF THE DUKES OF BURGUNDY.
{3870}
{3871}

THIRD HOUSE OF ANJOU.
{3872}
LATER HOUSE OF LORRAINE.
{3873}
[Blank]
{3874}
{3875}

LINAGE OF THE SOVEREIGNS OF CASTILE AND ARAGON TO THE UNION OF THE CROWNS.
{3876}
LINEAGE OF THE HAPSBURG AND BOURBON SOVEREIGNS OF SPAIN.
{3877}
THE HOUSE OF SAVOY.
{3878}
THE FAMILY OF THE MEDICI, IN FLORENCE.
{3879}
THE HOUSE OF ORANGE-NASSAU.
{3880}
LINEAGE OF THE SOVEREIGNS OF SWEDEN.
{3881}
LINEAGE OF THE SOVEREIGNS OF DENMARK.
{3882}
LINEAGE OF THE ROMANOFF SOVEREIGNS OF RUSSIA.
{3883}
THE SELJUK TURKISH SULTANS.
THE OTTOMAN TURKISH SULTANS.
{3884}
[Blank]
{3885}

    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.

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK HISTORY FOR READY REFERENCE, VOLUME 5, TUNNAGE TO ZYP AND SUPPLEMENT ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE

## THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:

> This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works provided that:

- • You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.”
- • You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.
- • You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work.
- • You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™, including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.