Outline of Universal History
by George Park Fisher
Previous Part     1 ... 6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22     Next Part
Home - Random Browse

THE PEACE OF PRAGUE: THE PEACE OF VIENNA.—The Peace of Prague was concluded between Prussia and Austria (Aug. 23, 1866). Austria was excluded from Germany, and gave up her rights in Schleswig-Holstein to Prussia. At the request of Prussia, Venice was ceded to Italy. Schleswig-Holstein, Hanover, Hesse-Cassel, Nassau, and Frankfort were incorporated in Prussia. The population of Prussia from about nineteen millions was increased to twenty-three millions five hundred thousand. In the Peace of Vienna (Oct. 3), Austria recognized the kingdom of Italy, to which Venice had been ceded.

NORTH GERMAN CONFEDERATION.—The South German states remained independent; but the North German Confederation was formed, under the leadership of Prussia, which was to have control of the military forces of its members. In the council of the Confederation, Prussia was to have seventeen votes, and the other states together twenty-six votes. An imperial Diet was established, the members of which were to be elected by general suffrage. Bismarck was made chancelor of the Confederation.

THE AUSTRO-HUNGARIAN EMPIRE.—The war with Prussia was followed by the political reorganization of the Austro-Hungarian empire on a more liberal basis. Von Beust, who had been a Saxon minister, became minister of foreign affairs (1866), and afterwards president of the ministry and chancellor of the empire. The Hungarian constitution of 1848 was restored, and a separate ministry was constituted for Hungary; while, as regards the army and foreign affairs of both divisions of the empire, an imperial ministry was established. The Cisleithan division, composed of the German and Slavonic provinces, was to have its own ministry and constitution. This conferred on the people and their representatives "rights and privileges of the greatest importance,—equality of all citizens before the law, freedom of the press, right of association and meeting, complete liberty of faith and conscience, the unrestricted right to impose taxes and levy recruits, etc." The reconciliation with Hungary having been effected, Francis Joseph was crowned as King of Hungary at Pesth. Transylvania and Croatia were united with Hungary. Great legal improvements in Austria ensued. The army was re-constituted after the example of the Prussian military system. There was an improvement in financial administration. Marriage by civil contract was authorized; and on subjects connected with marriage, the clergy were deprived of jurisdiction. The control of education, except religious education, was assumed by the state. In case of marriage between Catholics and Protestants, the male children were to be educated according to the faith of the father; the female children, according to that of the mother.

LOUIS NAPOLEON BAFFLED.—The Austro-Prussian war hastened the downfall of Louis Napoleon. The only consolation which the French had for the loss of freedom at home was power and reputation abroad. The astonishing rapidity of the Prussians, and the overwhelming success of their arms, had disconcerted the schemes of the French emperor. The defeat of Austria was so quick and so complete that he could not come in as mediator between the belligerents, and manage to secure the extension of France to its "natural frontiers" on the Rhine. He was baffled by Bismarck's diplomacy, as before he had been outwitted by Cavour; for Napoleon had wished, not a united Italy, but simply a Northern Kingdom. The French felt humiliated at the sight of military achievements parallel to those by which in other days they had disposed of the fate of Prussia herself. The opposing factions grew bolder in their attitude towards the Napoleonic government. The emperor made cautious attempts to secure cessions of territory from Prussia on the Rhine, but was met with a blunt refusal from Bismarck. He then sought to purchase from the king of Holland, Luxemburg, which had formerly belonged to the German Confederation. This attempt was resisted by Prussia, and war seemed imminent; but it was finally settled at the London Conference, that the duchy should be neutral territory, and that the fortress, which had been occupied by the Prussians, should be demolished. Germany was making progress towards a more complete union. A customs parliament, representing all the states, met at Berlin in May, 1868. Before that time, treaties of offensive and defensive alliance had been made between the North German Confederation and Wuertemberg, Baden, and Bavaria. They were published on March 17, 1867.

BEGINNING OF THE FRANCO-PRUSSIAN WAR.—As Louis Napoleon, or those who held sway in his counsels, were bent on war with Prussia, a pretext was easily found. The bad administration of Queen Isabella of Spain, and her personal misconduct, caused insurrections to break out in 1868; and she was obliged to fly to France. A provisional government was established under Gens. Serrano and Prim, and Senor Olozaga. Later (1869) Serrano was made regent. The Cortes in 1870 offered the Spanish crown to Prince Leopold of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, who belonged to a younger branch of King William's family. The proposal was regarded in France with indignation, as a new step in the upbuilding of Prussian power. King William was required to forbid his relative's candidacy, which he declined to do. The prince, however, of his own accord withdrew. Not satisfied with this issue of the affair, Napoleon insisted that the Prussian king should engage never to support the candidacy of a Hohenzollern prince for the Spanish crown. William, who was at Ems, told the French ambassador, Benedetti, that he could not give a promise of this sort. When the question was again raised he sent an aide-de-camp, declining to discuss the matter further. This act was represented at Paris as an insult to France, and orders were issued to mobilize the army. The king, on his way to Berlin, was met at the Brandenburg station by the crown prince, Von Moltke, Von Roon, the able war minister, and Bismarck. The Confederate Diet assembled July 19, and placed its resources at the disposal of the king. The French declaration of war was received on the same day. Bavaria, Wuertemberg, and the South German States, contrary to the unreasonable expectation of Napoleon, allied themselves with Prussia. In a moment all Germany was ablaze. The recollection of the days of the first Napoleon, and of the war of liberation, filled the whole land with patriotic enthusiasm. More than a million of men took the field in defense of the fatherland.

EVENTS TO SEDAN.—At the outset Napoleon tried to modify the plans Marshal Niel had drawn up in 1867 for such an emergency, and which called for three armies. He unwisely attempted to unite all the troops under his own command. Had he been able by a bold initiative to have gained a foothold in South Germany, Italy and Austria would probably have come to his support. But the French army was not in the state of full readiness which had been alleged to exist. The masterly dispositions of Von Moltke, and the swift movements of the Germans, broke up the French programme. The three great divisions of the German army were led by Steinmetz, Prince Frederick Charles, the king's nephew, and the crown prince, Frederick William. They advanced towards the boundary from Treves to Landau. Three victories of the Germans—at Weissenburg (Aug. 4), over Marshal MacMahon at Woerth (Aug. 6), and at Spicheren on the same day—compelled the French army to retreat towards the Moselle. The Baden division was left to besiege Strasburg. The next great battles, of which Gravelotte (Aug. 18) was the most hotly contested, were fought for the purpose of preventing Marshal Bazaine from joining with the main army the forces of MacMahon. Bazaine was defeated, and confined with his immense body of troops in and about the fortress of Metz; and his efforts to break through the German lines were baffled. The Prussian crown prince and the crown prince of Saxony, with their combined armies, proceeded against MacMahon. The defeats of the French had occasioned such wrath at Paris, that the ministry of M. Ollivier was compelled to retire (Aug. 10), and it was not safe for the emperor, who was with MacMahon, to return to the capital. The French general concentrated his forces at Sedan. On Sept. 1 the decisive battle was fought. The French were worsted and surrounded. The Emperor Napoleon yielded his sword to King William. The terms of capitulation were agreed upon by Von Moltke and Gen. Wimpffen (MacMahon being disabled by a wound), while other matters of a civil nature were arranged between Napoleon and Bismarck. The army that was surrendered numbered eighty-two thousand men, with fifty generals and five thousand other officers.

SIEGE OF PARIS: SURRENDER OF METZ.—As soon as the news of Sedan reached Paris, the imperial government fell to pieces. The Empress Eugenie escaped to England. A republic was proclaimed; and a new government was improvised, composed of enemies of the Empire, who belonged to different parties. Trochu was president, and governor of Paris; Jules Favre, a moderate republican, was minister of foreign affairs; and Gambetta, an extreme republican, was minister of the interior. The wish was for peace; but the inexorable demand of the Germans for the cession of Alsace and Lorraine, once parts of Germany, and now asserted to be necessary for its defense against future attack from France, called out a united and indignant spirit of resistance. The defense of Paris was undertaken with extraordinary energy: a large army was collected there, and a great supply of provisions was gathered. The siege of Paris was prosecuted by the Germans with an equally unflinching determination, from Sept. 19, 1870, to Jan. 28, 1871. Repeated sallies of the French troops, although made with much spirit, failed of success. The efforts to break the Prussian lines of connection with Paris, and to compel them by movements from without to raise the siege, were likewise baffled. Gambetta escaped from Paris in a balloon, and at Tours directed in the formation of two armies,—the army of the Loire, and the northern army, both of which were defeated. Strasburg capitulated (Sept. 27); and a month later (Oct. 27) Bazaine surrendered Metz, with three marshals, three thousand officers, and one hundred and seventy-three thousand soldiers. The main army of France was thus lost.

WILLIAM MADE EMPEROR: SURRENDER OF PARIS.—While the siege of Paris was in progress, all the princes of Germany, and the senates of the three free towns, united in the resolution to offer to the President of the Confederation the title of Emperor. Accordingly, on Jan. 18, 1871, King William, in the Hall of Mirrors at Versailles, was formally proclaimed Emperor of Germany. On the next day Trochu led the final sortie from Paris, of a hundred thousand men, which was repulsed after a severe contest. The provisions in the city were nearly exhausted, and on Jan. 23 an armistice for twenty-one days was signed. Paris surrendered on the 28th; and on the first day of March a national convention at Bordeaux accepted the preliminaries of peace, which included the cession of Alsace and the German part of Lorraine with Metz, and the payment of an indemnity of five thousand million francs. Thiers, who was elected chief of the executive department (Feb. 17), had managed the negotiations with Bismarck at Versailles, and urged the acceptance of them on the convention.

THE GERMAN IMPERIAL CONSTITUTION.—The first Diet of the new German Empire was opened at Berlin on March 21. The constitution of it left to each state the management of its domestic affairs. To the imperial government, with the Federal Council or Bundesrath, the Reichstag, and the emperor were relegated the affairs of common interest. The president of the Council was the imperial chancellor: Bismarck was appointed to that office. The Reichstag was composed of deputies chosen by general suffrage. The chancellor is not responsible to the Reichstag, but to the emperor. Power has not passed from the monarch to the representatives of the people.

CONTEST WITH THE COMMUNISTS: REPUBLICAN CONSTITUTION.—After the conditions of peace with the Germans were settled, Paris had to pass through a terrible period of disorder. The communists were bent on establishing municipal independence, or the self-government of the Commune, and a democratic republic. They demanded a federation of the townships, or communes, and distrusted the republicanism of the officials who were in the exercise of power. They are not to be confounded with communists in the socialistic sense: only a small fraction of the communal government, or central committee, were socialists. The party comprised a multitude of fanatical democrats of the lower classes, who were ready for the most violent measures. They had risen several times during the siege of Paris, and had tried to seize on power, but had been put down by the troops. After the surrender of Paris, they gained possession of the northern part of the city, and fortified it. The attempt to get back the cannon which they had seized caused a great communist uprising (March 18, 1871). A new reign of terror began. Darboy, the Archbishop of Paris, and many others, were murdered. MacMahon, acting for the Assembly, besieged Paris anew; the Germans being neutral in the forts that were still left, according to the treaty, in their hands. In the fierce struggle for the possession of the city, the principal buildings of Paris were set on fire by the savage communistic mob. The Tuileries, the Hotel de Ville, and a part of the Palais Royal, with other public edifices, were destroyed. The insurrection was at length suppressed, and severe punishments were inflicted. A large number of the ringleaders were either shot or transported.


COMPLETED UNION OF ITALY.—When the war between Prussia and France broke out, the republicans in Italy were disposed to take possession of Rome at once. Mazzini urged them to this step. The king, however, was bound by the agreement with France to prevent this action; which, moreover, might have divided, instead of uniting, Italy. Mazzini was arrested, and sent to Gaeta. But with the fall of Napoleon, on the declaration of Jules Favre that the "September Convention" (p. 574) was at an end, Victor Emmanuel, professing that he was bound to maintain order in the peninsula, sent his troops into Rome. The Pope lost his temporal dominions, and was limited to the title and prerogatives of the spiritual head of the Catholic Church. The seat of the Italian government was removed to the ancient capital (July 1, 1871). The present king, Umberto I., ascended the throne 1878.

PIUS IX.: THE COUNCIL OF THE VATICAN.—The long pontificate of Pius IX. was distinguished by important acts having relation to the doctrine and discipline of the Roman Catholic Church. In 1854 he promulgated the declaration of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary. He thus determined authoritatively a question which had long been debated in the schools of theology. Ten years later (1864) he issued an Encyclical, together with a Syllabus of Errors, in which, besides the condemnation of opinions in matters of faith which were adjudged heterodox, various alleged encroachments of the civil authority and heretical views respecting the control of the state in reference to marriage, education, etc., were denounced. The views thus condemned are such as the kingdom of Belgium had recognized, and France and some other Roman Catholic countries have shown themselves willing to accept. In 1869 the Oecumenical Council of the Vatican assembled, and after long debate sanctioned the doctrine of papal infallibility; that is, they promulgated the dogma that the Pope, when addressing the whole Church on a subject of morals or theology, is kept by the Spirit of God from enunciating error.

"OLD CATHOLICS."—Most of those who had strenuously endeavored to prevent this action, either because they considered it inexpedient, or disbelieved in the doctrine which it established, acquiesced in the decision of the council. There were some persevering dissentients, however, in Germany especially, of whom Dr. Doellinger was the most distinguished. They organized themselves as a distinct body, under the name of "Old Catholics." They were mostly educated persons; the party had no root among the common people. In France, the most distinguished of them was Pere Hyacinthe, a preacher of much popularity and eloquence.

REVOLUTIONS IN SPAIN.—After the revolution attended by the flight of Queen Isabella from Spain (1868), a majority of the Cortes decided for a monarchy, although many desired a republic. In 1870 Amadeus, the second son of the King of Italy, accepted the crown. But he found it impossible to restore order and peace, and Feb. 11, 1873, abdicated the throne. A bloody conflict of factions ensued. Don Carlos, the new Pretender of that name, raised his standard in the North. The Cortes were for a federal republic. Castelar, who as president was at the head of the government, and after him Marshal Serrano, by whom he was superseded, made no decisive progress against the Carlists. Alfonso, the youthful son of Isabella, was proclaimed king by General Martinez Campos; and the army pronounced in his favor (Dec. 29, 1874). Serrano laid down his office. The Carlist revolt was crushed, and Don Carlos driven out of the country. Alfonso died 1885, and was succeeded by a regency during the long minority of his posthumous son, Alfonso XIII. Both Canovas and Sagasta loyally supported the queen-mother, Maria Christina, acting as regent.

STATE OF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE.—In July, 1875, the Turkish provinces of Herzegovina and Bosnia rebelled against the intolerable oppression of the Sultan's government. The little mountainous kingdom of Montenegro—which for four centuries had preserved its independence through numerous struggles with Turkey, and had a quarrel of its own with that power—lent help to its Slavonian neighbor. Servia did the same. The Austro-Hungarian Empire, a composite of distinct provinces and nationalities, was strongly interested to avert war in that region. The revolt was not put down by the Turks. The three European emperors moved the Sultan to pledge himself to an extensive programme of reforms in Bosnia and Herzegovina,—a pledge which there was no intention on his part to fulfill. England gave no aid to the revolt, but strengthened herself in the East by obtaining, through a purchase of shares from the Khedive of Egypt, the control of the Suez Canal (Nov. 25, 1875). Russia, as kinsman of all the Slavonic peoples, and protector of Greek Christians, assumed alone the part of a champion of the maltreated provinces. But England refused to join with Russia, Germany, Austria, and France, in threatening "more effectual"—that is, coercive—measures, in case of the Porte's refusal to pacify the insurgents by carrying out his promises. Great Britain was bent on keeping the Sultan's empire, as being a barrier in the way of Russian ambition and essential to the security of India, from being dismembered, and professed to be swayed by respect for the rights of Turkey as an independent power. A revolt in Bulgaria was crushed by the Turks, who were guilty of such terrible atrocities that the "Bulgarian massacres" shocked all Christendom (1876). In the course of the difficulties just narrated, two revolutions, by which sultans had been dethroned, had taken place in the palace at Constantinople. The ambassadors of the Great Powers, in a conference at Constantinople, agreed in demanding of Turkey a constitution and guaranties for the benefit of the oppressed subjects in the provinces of the Ottoman Empire. This requirement the Porte refused to accept. A subsequent attempt of the same nature met with no better success (1877). Russia allowed its subjects to render effective help to the revolted districts. On the contrary, England was offended by the alleged ambitious schemes of the Muscovites, and advocated longer forbearance with the Sultan; but Lord Derby announced (April 19, 1877) that Turkey had been warned to expect no assistance from England. Nevertheless, the mission of Mr. Layard to Constantinople, and all the other circumstances, emboldened the Turks to refuse compliance with the Czar's demands.

THE RUSSO-TURKISH WAR.—The Turko-Russian war began in April, 1877. Russia, according to her previous declaration, took up arms alone. The Russian troops crossed the Danube and the Balkan Mountains, and seized on the important Shipka Pass. At first they seemed destined to a speedy triumph. But the Turks under Osman Pasha fought with unexpected valor and success. At length, however, their leader was obliged to surrender his army of forty-four thousand men at Plevna (Dec. 10). Adrianople was occupied by the Russians (Jan. 28). They were thus in the neighborhood of Constantinople. Meantime, after reverses in the East, the Russians had taken Kars, and pushed on to Erzeroum.

TREATY OF SAN STEFANO: THE BERLIN CONFERENCE.—Turkey now appealed to England to mediate; but Russia declined any such intervention, and insisted on treating separately with Turkey. England was now ready to interfere in behalf of the Sultan, and for the safety of Constantinople. Russia hastened to conclude with Turkey the Peace of San Stefano (March 3), the stipulations of which greatly reduced the Turkish power in Europe. Bulgaria was to be governed by a Christian prince, and fifty thousand Russian troops were to occupy it for two years. England concluded (June 4) a secret treaty engaging to protect Turkey in Asia: Cyprus was given up to be occupied by the British. Austria, as well as Great Britain, was anxious to deprive Russia of the advantages which she had naturally expected to reap by the war,—a war in which the other powers had declined to take part. Thus another great war was threatened, about the provisions of the San Stefano treaty. The conflict was averted by the Congress at Berlin (June 13-July 13, 1878), where D'lsraeli—who was then prime minister, and a friend of the anti-Russian policy—represented England. Austria and England were aided by Germany, and the diplomacy of Gortchakoff was thus overborne. Servia and Roumania, as well as Montenegro, were declared independent. Bulgaria was divided into two portions; the southern of which, called East Roumelia, was to be governed by the Sultan directly, but with a separate administration under a Christian governor. To Austria, the military occupation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which meant the possession of these provinces, was yielded. Thessaly had engaged in an insurrection, and Greece had hoped for an extension of her boundaries; but nothing effectual was done by England to forward this claim. Here Russia, always opposed to the building-up of a strong Greek kingdom, was at one with England. Russia obtained Kars, but her gains were far less than she deemed herself entitled to receive. The other powers, on the contrary, permitted Austria to advance far in the direction of Constantinople. During the war, the hostility of the Magyars (or Hungarians proper) to the Slaves had been ready to break out in the form of direct armed assistance to Turkey. On the other hand, the Slaves in Hungary, and in all the Austrian territories, were with difficulty restrained from enlisting actively in aid of the Russians. The arbitrary dealing of the Berlin Conference with Bosnia and Herzegovina occasioned an armed but ineffectual resistance, in these provinces, to the extension of the Austrian sway over them.

SITUATION OF RUSSIA.—Russia, embittered by Austria's refusal to aid in the Crimean War, had remained neutral in the struggle with Prussia, which ended in the exclusion of Austria from Germany. Russia was now offended with Germany for repaying her neutrality in the Franco-Prussian struggle by helping in the Berlin Conference the schemes of England and Austria. The attempt of Russia to form an alliance with France prompted Bismarck (Sept., 1879) to negotiate a defensive alliance with Austria. The activity of the Nihilists, and the refusal of France (March, 1880) to deliver up Hartmann, charged with an attempt on the life of the Czar, made the French alliance impossible. The sympathy of the Emperor William, after the endeavor made to assassinate Alexander (Feb. 17, 1880), tended to restore cordiality. Russia was embarrassed by these internal troubles. Alexander was murdered by Nihilists (March 13, 1881), and was succeeded by his son, Alexander III., who died after a lingering illness, Nov. 1, 1894. He was succeeded by his son Nicholas II. In 1891 and 1892 Russia was afflicted by famine and cholera.

NIHILISM.—The accession of Alexander II., following on the rigid autocracy of Nicholas, had introduced a more lenient rule. Alexander decreed (March 3, 1861) the emancipation of the serfs, who were also endowed with small possessions in land. The boon thus conferred, along with its advantages, brought with it hardship; for there were ways of oppression still open to the nobles, by which the emancipated class were made grievously to suffer. The great measure served to increase the national agitation which was connected with other causes. There had long been an enthusiastic party of "Slavophils," actuated by a strong race-feeling, and eager for "Panslavism," or a union of Slavonic peoples. It was the people in Russia which moved the court, against its will, to go to war, single-handed, with Turkey, in 1877. In the prosecution of the war, the abuses which were brought to light among officials, civil and military, heightened the indignation which the corrupt "bureaucracy"—the administration by departments, each under its chief—provoked. The failure to gather the harvest of the war, of which Russia was deprived by diplomacy, increased the popular unrest. A party of socialistic democracy, a revolutionary party, had developed itself as early as 1874. The way had been preparing for it for a decade of years. Out of this party came later (1878) the "Terrorists,"—the secret body which sought for a remedy for social and governmental evils by annihilating all existing authority in Church and State. They had begun with the demand of a constitution. The despotic, repressive measures of the government—in 1879 and 1880, sixty thousand persons were sent to Siberia without a trial—were followed by more desperate attempts of Nihilist conspirators upon the lives of the rulers of the land, and of their agents. These culminated in the murder of the Czar.

COMMUNISM AND SOCIALISM.—A brief sketch of the various movements thus designated may be here in place. Communism is the name given to the theory that it is desirable to have a community of goods, and a total or partial abolition of private property. Socialism is often used to designate the same system, but is more commonly applied to the doctrine that government should own the land and all the implements of industry. Not a few religious sects of communists, like the Shakers (established in 1780, in the United States), have long existed. The hope of social amelioration by societies of a communistic character has led to a variety of movements for the formation of them on both sides of the Atlantic. Equality, education, deliverance from poverty and from burdensome toil, have been the blessings sought. Prominent leaders in such movements were Saint-Simon (1760-1825), whose ideas produced a strong effect in France; Charles Fourier (1772-1837), by whose influence "phalanxes," as the communities adopting his views were named, were formed in Europe and America; and Robert Owen (1771-1858), whose societies were built up at New Lanark in Scotland, New Harmony in Indiana, and in other places. Since the French Revolution of 1848, these particular attempts of philanthropic socialism have passed out of notice. Shortly after the Reign of Terror, Babeuf attempted (1796) to overthrow the authorities in Paris, and to bring to pass an equal division of property. The course of political struggles in France, in connection with the revolutions in industry and trade, which have occurred since the fall of the first Napoleon, have given rise to a disaffected working-class, or proletariat. The complaint has arisen, that the benefits resulting from political freedom in Europe have come to the middle class,—to tradesmen and manufacturers possessed of capital,—and that the laboring class are deprived of their due share of the profits of industry. One noted expounder of communism in France was Proudhon (1809-1865), who sought to give emphasis to his doctrine by affirming that "property is theft." Louis Blanc, who was a member of the provisional government in France in 1848, both before and after that time was an active promoter of the scheme under which government is to furnish labor on a large scale, and to become the grand employer of the working-class. In Germany, socialism in its later distinctive form, as defined above, has been advocated by a number of well-known writers. Perhaps the ablest of these was Ferdinand Lasalle (1825-1864). Like the other principal socialists, he would clothe the State with a vastly augmented power and responsibility. In this particular, socialism is directly antagonistic to the ideas of democracy which had previously prevailed. Lasalle's doctrine was that the State should lend capital at interest to associations of laborers. This, he thought, would be the first step in their emancipation. Karl Marx would go much farther. He would transfer to the State all capital and all means of production. He would, as he professes, "overthrow all the existing arrangements of society." With property, inheritance is to be abolished; labor is to be made compulsory; all means of transport are to be in the hands of the State, and so forth. The International Working Men's Association—popularly called "the International"—was organized in London in 1864. It has held congresses in Geneva, and in other cities. It entered upon the most destructive schemes of social agitation and revolution. But the society was divided in 1872, on the expulsion of Bakunin, a Russian Nihilist. A faction of the most violent class continued its activity for a while, and stirred up risings in several towns in Spain in 1873, in imitation of the insurrections in Paris in 1871. Different shades of socialistic theory have been advocated; from the "Christian Socialism" which aims at such objects as the creation of cooperative associations in the working-class, to the fanatics who would sweep away existing institutions by violence, and who resort to the use of dynamite as a means of inspiring terror.

THE FRENCH REVOLUTION SINCE 1871.—Thiers had wonderful success in providing for the payment of the German indemnity. His term of office was prolonged (Aug. 31, 1871) for three years, with the title of President. Thiers had cooperated with MacMahon in crushing the commune, and in wholesome measures for the preservation of order. An adverse vote in the Assembly (May 24, 1873) caused his resignation. This was effected by a combination of the monarchical parties. MacMahon, his successor, took a very conservative position. The monarchists united to restore the Count of Chambord to the throne as Henry V., but the scheme failed. In February, 1875, a new constitution, of a conservative republican cast, was established, which provided for a president and a cabinet, a senate, and a chamber of deputies. The legitimists, Orleanists, and imperialists united with the president in his reactionary, anti-republican policy. The whole clerical party were on that side. The republicans were divided among themselves, the most radical group being under the leadership of Gambetta. The danger to the republic compelled a common policy. One of the great subjects of controversy related to public education, in the management of which the Church and the clergy desired to retain and extend their influence and control. To secularize education, was a main aim of the body of the republicans. The success of the republicans, against extraordinary efforts made to defeat them, in the elections of 1877, at last prevailed on the marshal-president to accept the verdict of the country; and late in the year a republican cabinet was formed. The measures of Jules Ferry and his supporters, for taking the business of instruction out of the hands of ecclesiastics and of the clerical orders, although most earnestly resisted by Bishop Dupanloup and the whole clerical party, and opposed by a section of the republicans led by Jules Simon, were, after heated contention, adopted, and were completely carried out (1880). The death of Thiers (Sept., 1877) did not weaken the party of which he was the most honored leader. The death of the young Prince Louis Napoleon (1879) in South Africa, where he was serving, under the British, against the Zulus, was an almost fatal blow to the hopes of the Bonapartist faction. The more recent death of Count Chambord (1883) was followed by the recognition, on the part of the legitimists, of the Count of Paris, of the Orleans house, as the next heir to the throne. A manifesto of Prince Jerome Napoleon (1883), after the death of the young Prince Napoleon, aroused an agitation against all pretenders to the throne,—in particular, against the Orleanists; which led, after protracted debates, to the forced retirement of all the princes of this family from active service in the French army. In November, 1881, Gambetta became the head of the cabinet; but the opposition to his policy within the republican ranks was stronger than had been anticipated. After a short time he laid down his office. He died Dec. 31, 1882. Jules Grevy (first elected Jan. 30, 1879) was re-elected president Dec. 28, 1885. He was forced to resign in 1887 because his son-in-law was implicated in corrupt transactions. His successor was Sadi Carnot.

FRENCH CONQUESTS ABROAD.—The failure of France, in the Oriental difficulties, to gain the power which she desired, impelled her to build up colonial interests and settlements. Partly to punish marauding tribes, in 1881, an expedition was sent against Tunis; and the Bey was forced to accept a protectorate of the French over his dominion. Thus the French enlarged their power in Africa. This proceeding gave great offense to England, Italy, and the Turkish Sultan. On the ground of a treaty of 1841, a French admiral demanded the submission of the north-west coast of Madagascar to a French protectorate; and when this demand was refused, he bombarded and captured the second city in the island, Tamatave (1883). The efforts of France to gain control over Tonquin and the adjacent territory in China attracted still more attention. Tonquin is the most populous province of the kingdom of Anam, of which it formed a part after 1802. Over this kingdom, China claimed the rights of a suzerain; which the French refused to acknowledge. In 1862, after a war lasting for almost four years, Napoleon III. obtained from Anam, by the treaty of Saigun, the provinces called Cochin-China. In 1874 the French Republic extorted from King Tuduc of Anam a treaty by which his foreign policy was placed under the direction of France. Against this treaty, China protested. In 1882 the French commander Riviere seized the city of Hanoi. The "Black Flags," a body of free-lances or pirates, whose leader had been one of the Chinese rebels, fought against the French; but it soon appeared that both the king of Anam and the government of China were in league with his hostile force. Two years later a treaty was signed bringing Tonkin almost directly under French rule and reestablishing the protectorate in Anam.

THE CONFLICT OF PRUSSIA AND THE VATICAN.—The Roman Catholic Church in Germany is recognized as a legal institution. Its revenues are received from the state, which, in turn, exercises a supervision over the education of its clergy. In Prussia, especially under Frederick William IV., large privileges were granted by law to the Catholic body. The proceedings of the Vatican Council awakened in Germany, as elsewhere in Europe, the apprehension that the decree of papal infallibility might give rise to conflict between the authorities of the Church and of the State. Bismarck considered that the "ultramontane" party in the Church involved danger to the newly created German Empire. The Prussian government resisted the attempt of the Church, in 1871, to remove from office Catholic teachers who refused to subscribe to the Vatican dogma of papal infallibility. In other words, the government recognized and undertook to protect the "Old Catholics." The contest with the clerical or ultramontane party went on; and before the end of the year, the Catholic branch of the Prussian Ministry of Worship and Instruction was abolished. In a debate in 1872, Bismarck said, "Of this be sure, that neither in Church nor in State are we on the way to Canossa." His policy met with a determined resistance from Pius IX. The Jesuits were expelled from the German Empire. This law was afterwards construed to include other orders.

THE FALK LAWS: CONTINUED CONFLICT.—The laws proposed by the Prussian minister of worship, Falk, required that candidates for the clerical office in the Catholic Church should have a training in the gymnasium and university, and that every ecclesiastical appointment should be sanctioned by the civil authorities. They provided for a royal court for the settlement of ecclesiastical questions. These laws were passed in 1873. In 1875 civil marriage was made obligatory in the empire. These measures were stoutly resisted by "the Center," or the clerical party, in the Prussian Parliament, and in the Reichstag. They were declared by the Pope to be invalid, and Roman Catholics were forbidden to obey them. Other enactments, one of which forbade all payments to the bishops and clergy unless they should sign a promise to obey the laws of the state, were adopted by Prussia. Refractory bishops and priests were punished in various ways. The result was that the Roman Catholic party, led by Windhorst, ex-minister of Hanover, in opposition to Bismarck's measures, was consolidated. The struggle extended beyond the bounds of Prussia: it was Bavaria, a Catholic state, which proposed the law requiring civil marriage. After the accession of Leo XIII., there was on both sides an increased disposition to find terms of peace by which the numerous vacancies in Catholic clerical offices could be filled. The need which Bismarck felt of the support of "the Center" for his financial measures favored this result. Falk resigned (July 13, 1879), he being personally odious to the Roman party. After long debates, a bill was passed (Jan. 1, 1882) giving to the king and his ministers discretionary powers, which opened the way for filling the vacant places. Still, in the great festival at the completion of the Cologne Cathedral (Oct. 15), the clerical party stood aloof. But the mutual friendly approaches of the chancelor and his ultramontane opponents continued. Diplomatic correspondence was opened with the Vatican. Some of the harsher features of the anti-papal legislation were revoked.

BISMARCK AND SOCIALISM.—One motive in this modification of the chancelor's policy was the rapid progress of socialism. At first, while Bismarck was engaged in a struggle with the liberals, who impeded his plans in the Prussian Parliament, he had willingly availed himself of the support of Lasalle and his socialistic followers. But after the war with France, the party of the "Social Democrats" became more and more numerous and formidable. It was not, however, until a second attempt was made on the emperor's life, that Bismarck was able to carry, against the combination of parties, his measures giving to the government extraordinary powers for the stifling of socialistic agitation (1879). The law for the suppression of socialistic meetings, newspapers, etc., was rigorously enforced.

THE "PARTICULARISTS."—Bismarck was, moreover, obliged to contend with the "Particularists," who were hostile to the Empire, and with a large number besides them, who were opposed to a greater degree of imperial centralization at the expense of the power of the separate states. Unable to obtain for the imperial government the control over the German railroad system, he devised a plan (1879) by which Prussia would eventually control three-quarters of the railroads of Germany. An imperial code of laws was adopted (1877); but, from jealousy of Prussia, the seat of the supreme court of appeal was fixed at Leipsic. In his economical and financial measures, the chancelor was often charged with the exercise of arbitrary power. Free, representative government, according to the English system, did not accord with his idea of the Prussian monarchy, and with the character of the new empire, the unity of which he was naturally anxious to fortify. By his alliance with Austria in 1879, he placed Germany in a situation to resist Russia and France, in case Russia, aggrieved by the action of Germany at the Berlin Conference (1878), should join hands with France in acts of hostility against the German empire. In 1888 William I. died and was succeeded by his son, Frederick III., who held the sovereignty but a few months, dying June 15, 1888. His son, William II., succeeded him.

THE BRITISH SWAY IN INDIA.—British sway by degrees extended itself over India. The fall of the Mogul empire left the country in a state of anarchy. Strife arose with one tribe after another, until the authority of England came to be acknowledged as far north as the Himalayas. The English advance was made with the help of native auxiliaries, and could not have been made without it. It was quite as much an internal revolution as a foreign conquest. As the British enlarged their dominion, and came into conflict with the French, the appetite for supremacy grew. Under the rule of the Marquis of Wellesley (1798-1805), partly through the victories of Sir Arthur Wellesley (afterwards the Duke of Wellington), "the policy of intervention and annexation" was pursued with brilliant success. The Burmese were conquered, and parts of their territory annexed, in 1826, 1852, and 1885. The effort always was to secure a quiet frontier. In 1843 a war with Scinde resulted in its absorption in British territory. In 1849 the annexation of Punjab followed, a British protectorate having been found insufficient. The misgovernment of the native princes in Oude led to the assumption of the government of that province by the English in 1856.

THE INDIAN MUTINY.—There was hostility to British rule among the Mohammedans in India, and distrust among the Hindoos. The latter acquired a fanatical belief that the English, who had abolished the burning of widows, and even legalized their marriage, meant to force the people to lose caste by driving them to sacrilegious practices. The report that cartridges had been served out which had been lubricated with the fat of the swine, abhorred by Moslems, and of the cow, venerated by the Hindoos, stirred up a revolt among the native Sepoy troops (1857). The insurrection spread, and was attended with savage cruelties. There was a frightful massacre of women and children at Cawnpore, before General Havelock could arrive for its relief. The English, who were besieged in Lucknow, after terrible suffering, were relieved by the opportune coming of this gallant soldier. All the English residents in Delhi, who could not escape into the jungle, were murdered. The weak old king placed himself at the head of the rebellion. Delhi was recaptured by the British, and the conquest completed by Sir Colin Campbell (March 22, 1858). Oude was subdued. Gradually the rebellion was crushed, and merciless severity was exercised by the conquerors upon those most actively concerned in it. One consequence of the revolt was the entire transference of the government of India from the East India Company to the Crown. The measure was introduced into Parliament by Lord Palmerston (1858). Under the ministry of Disraeli, and on his motion, the Queen added to her titles that of "Empress of India" (1877).

BRITISH WARS WITH THE AFGHANS.—In the last century Ahmed Khan, the ruler of Afghanistan, extended his dominion as far as Delhi. But he died in 1773, and his son Timour changed the seat of government from Candahar to Cabul. In 1838 the English declared war against Dost Mohammed, one of the three rulers of the country, whose seat of power was in this city. The British attack was successful; but insurrections broke out (1841), and they agreed to evacuate the country. The whole British army, which had to pass through the Kurd-Cabul Pass, was destroyed by cold and hunger, and by the harassing attacks of the mountaineers (1842). It numbered forty-five hundred fighting men and twelve thousand five hundred camp-followers. Another British army, under Gen. Pollock, forced the Khyber Pass, and took vengeance on Cabul. In 1855 Dost Mohammed, now an ally of the English, drove the Persians out of Herat, which, as "the key of India," the British were anxious to protect against ambitious schemes of Russia. In 1863 he took Herat from Ahmed, the sultan there, who was considered a tool of Persia and of Russia. Dost Mohammed died soon after, and was succeeded by his son Sher Ali Khan. After the acquisition of Quetta by the English, he began to side with the Russians. His intrigues with them, and his refusal to receive a British embassy, brought on the second Afghan war of the British (1878-81). The ameer died (Feb. 21, 1879); the Afghans were defeated by Gen. Roberts, who took Cabul, and installed as ameer Abdurrahman Khan (1880). The English then decided to evacuate the territory. On their march they were attacked by Ayub Khan of Herat. Later he was defeated by Roberts, and driven back to that place. The Gladstone ministry had succeeded the ministry of Disraeli, who had been anxious to establish a "scientific frontier" between Afghanistan and the Czar's territories,—such a frontier as would secure a "neutral zone" between them and India, to serve as a barrier against Russian invasion.

RUSSIA AND AFGHANISTAN.—The gradual approaches of Russia in the direction of Herat have been on two lines. The one is the line south-easterly from the Caspian. She gained a lodgment in 1869 at Krasnovodsk on the eastern shore of that sea. In 1880 Geopteke and Askabat were taken. The other line of aggressive approach is south-westerly from the neighborhood of the Oxus. On this line, partly from displeasure at the English occupation of Egypt, and in pursuance of the policy, adopted especially since the Berlin Conference (1878), to advance towards Herat, the Russians suddenly seized Merv, an oasis extremely important from a military point of view, over which Persia claimed a certain suzerainty. The Russians occupied it in force, under Gen. Komaroff (March 16, 1884). Subsequently England and Russia agreed to ascertain and fix the northern boundary of Afghanistan. The occupation of Penjdeh by the Afghans, followed by the advance of Komaroff,—of which the British complained as an aggression,—brought the two countries to the verge of war (1885).

THE WESTERN POWERS AND EGYPT.—"The Oriental question"—the question relating to Turkey and its dependencies—constantly took on new phases, and presented to the powers of Europe fresh difficulties and dangers of conflict. The Khedive of Egypt, Ismail Pasha, was a friend and admirer of Napoleon III. and of the French. He succeeded in obtaining from the Sultan repeated concessions, which reduced his dependence on Turkey to little more than an obligation to pay an annual tribute, together with certain marks of respect and honor. His conflicts with lands on the south, Dafour and Abyssinia, his extravagant outlays in public works of internal improvement, and the enormous interest paid to foreign capitalists for their loans, involved him in the utmost financial embarrassment. This furnished the occasion to the Western powers, in particular to England and France, to intermeddle still more in Egyptian affairs. The Khedive sold to the British Government his shares in the Suez Canal, and gave into the hands of the English and French (1878) the control of the financial administration of the country. This sort of dependence was repugnant to both the Khedive and the Egyptian people. The native officers were pushed into the background. The most lucrative stations were filled by foreigners, and the weight of taxation was almost intolerable. The attempt to throw off this yoke only resulted in the deposition of Ismail by the Sultan, on the demand of the two Western powers. His weak son, Tewfik Pasha, took his place. The control of the finances remained in foreign hands. The result of the discontent of the people, and of the disaffection of the Egyptian officers, was a revolt led by Arabi Pasha, a military officer (1881). The Khedive complied with the demands of the insurgents: their chief was made minister of war. The Western powers were bent on suppressing this movement, and, in addition to threats and diplomatic measures, sent their fleets to Egypt. A revolt broke out in Alexandria, in which the English consul was wounded and many Europeans were slain (June, 1882). The city was filled with terror, and all trade was suspended. The English fleet bombarded the city, and set it on fire. Arabi withdrew his troops to Cairo. He was now deposed by the Khedive, and declared a rebel. His troops showed little spirit. The fortifications of Tel-el-Kebir were taken by the English general, Sir Garnet Wolseley, almost without resistance. Aboukir, Damietta, and Cairo surrendered, and the Egyptian leader, Arabi, was captured and banished. From that time Egypt fell into a condition of helpless dependence on England. France found herself without the influence there which she had always coveted since the days of the first Napoleon. The system of administration in Egypt was now organized by the English, through Lord Dufferin. Great complaint was made against them by the other powers, for not taking sufficient precautions to prevent the introduction of the cholera from India. The principal troubles of the English grew out of the invasion of the false prophet called El Mahdi, who gathered to himself a host of followers in the Soudan, partly instigated by Moslem fanaticism, but largely impelled by their hatred of the Egyptian government established over that region. The people of the Soudan complained bitterly of the oppressive Egyptian officers. The slave-dealers there were exasperated at the prohibition of their traffic, on which England had insisted. In the course of the conflict with El Mahdi, Hicks Pasha, an English officer in the service of the Khedive, was defeated and slain, and his force cut to pieces, near El Obeid (Nov. 3, 4, and 5, 1883). There was great fear now for the province of Sennaar and especially for the city of Khartoum, where there were many Europeans. Mr. Gladstone, and the English ministry of which he was the head, were not disposed to hold the Soudan, but desired to give it up as soon as the garrisons could be rescued and brought away. To this policy the Khedive was opposed. The project of a military interference in the Soudan by the Sultan, the English took care to prevent by attaching to it impossible conditions. On the Red Sea, Osman Digna, a partisan of the Mahdi, made repeated attacks upon Suakim, the base of the operations of Baker Pasha, another former English officer, now become general of the Egyptian army. On account of the cowardice of the Egyptian troops, Baker was defeated with heavy loss (Feb. 4, 1884). The British troops from Cairo under Graham had better success; and Osman Digna was vanquished, and driven into the mountains. The English government adopted the extraordinary measure of sending General Gordon to Khartoum; his errand being to pacify the tribes of the Soudan, to provide for the deliverance of the garrisons, and to arrange terms of accommodation with El Mahdi. This last it was found impossible to accomplish. Berber was captured by the enemy, and garrison and male population were slaughtered. Gordon was shut up in Khartoum. The peculiar financial situation obliged the English ministry to hold a conference of the great powers (June 28, 1885) at London. Lord Granville insisted that only financial points, and not the general Egyptian question, should be considered, which did not accord with the views of the other powers, and the conference adjourned without effecting anything. The perilous situation of Gordon, and the feeling in England on this account, obliged the government to send out General Wolseley with a large force to Egypt; but before aid could be given Gordon, Khartoum, was betrayed, and he was slain. The course of England respecting Egypt had left her isolated as regards the other European powers, and had awakened much disaffection in England. It was the policy of the Gladstone ministry in relation to Egypt, even more than complaints growing out of their conduct in the troubles with Russia, that obliged them to resign, and to give place to the Tory cabinet of Lord Salisbury. Upon the death of Tewfik (Jan. 7, 1892) his son, Abbas Pasha, became khedive.

GREAT BRITAIN AND CANADA.—On the cession of Canada to Great Britain (1763), the French inhabitants of Lower Canada were secured in the free exercise of the Catholic religion, and in the possession of equal rights with English settlers. "The Quebec Act" of 1774 made Canada one royal government, and brought in the English criminal code with trial by jury. During the Revolution, many loyalists emigrated to Upper Canada. A strong desire arose for a repeal of the "Quebec Act." In 1791, under Pitt, the two parts of Canada were made separate provinces. A constitution was granted, which provided for an elective legislature for each. The governors, the executive councils, and the legislative councils were to be appointed by the Crown. The governments were still subject to the Colonial Office in London. A spirit of opposition between the two provinces increased. Upper Canada, under English law, grew in numbers and prosperity; but the growth of population in Lower Canada was much more rapid. Here there was an antagonism between the Assembly and the English governors. There was an open rebellion in 1837, which spread into Upper Canada. The two Canadas were united in 1841; the executive department became responsible, as in England, to the popular branch of the legislature; and under the liberal and enlightened administration of Lord Elgin (1847-54), a better feeling arose. He was obliged, however, to suppress a mob of the conservatives, or "loyalists" (1849), who were hostile to the extension of a general amnesty to former rebels. In 1856 the Upper House was made elective. In 1857 Ottawa was made the seat of government. In 1867 the Dominion of Canada was constituted. It was at first a federal union of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and the Canadas; Upper Canada receiving the name of Ontario, and Lower Canada being named Quebec. Manitoba, formed out of a part of Hudson Bay Territory, was admitted to the Dominion in 1870, and British Columbia in 1871. Prince Edward Island was admitted in 1873; and the same year the territories were received by transfer from the Hudson Bay Company. The Dominion has a Senate and a House of Commons. The authority of the Crown is represented by the governor-general and the council. Legislation is subject to a veto from the sovereign. Each province has its local government, but whatever powers are not expressly reserved to the several provinces are granted to the General Government,—a provision the reverse of that found in the Constitution of the United States, which the Canadian system in various features resembles.

In the Peace of Utrecht (1713), France gave up its claim to Nova Scotia: the Peace of Paris (1763) surrendered to Great Britain New Brunswick, and Cape Breton and Prince Edward islands. These are known at present as the maritime provinces. When the American War of Revolution began, thousands of loyalists emigrated to Nova Scotia, as well as to Upper Canada, from whom many of the present inhabitants are descended. The island of Vancouver, on the western coast of British Columbia, was surrendered to the navigator of this name by Quadra, a Spanish commander, in 1792. In 1843 a trading-post was established at Victoria by the Hudson Bay Company. The island forms politically a part of British Columbia. The Government of the Dominion, when British Columbia was received, engaged to construct a railway to the Pacific across British North America. England acquired a title to Newfoundland in 1713. It first received a constitution in 1832. The government was made responsible to the Assembly in 1852.

GREAT BRITAIN AND AUSTRALIA.—Australia, which covers an area of three million square miles, when it was first visited by Europeans was found to be inhabited by native tribes of the Papuan, Melanesian, or Australasian race, of whom about eighty thousand now remain. In the seventeenth century, various points along its coasts were touched by European voyagers, especially by the Dutch. The discoveries of Captain Cook (1769 to 1777) had an important influence in leading to settlements on this island-continent. New South Wales, a name given by Cook, is the oldest of the English provinces in Australia. Not Botany Bay, which he had selected for a settlement, but Port Jackson, was made a penal station (1788) for convicts from England. This place, however, continued to be erroneously called Botany Bay. The principal harbor was named Sydney Cove. In 1803 Van Dieman's Land, now called Tasmania, was first occupied. Thus the beginnings of colonization in Australia were made by the dregs of English society. The convicts labored for their own support, and, when their terms had expired, sometimes received as a gift small farms, and implements with which to till them. The character of the settlement, and the management of it, became much more humane after 1810, when Macquarie became governor. Free colonists, English and Scotch, came and joined it. The discovery of the upland pastures beyond the Blue Mountains, which were remarkably adapted to sheep, made an epoch in the history of the colony. Spanish merino sheep were introduced: wool became the chief staple; the production of it, especially after the invention of the combing-machine, became very profitable, and free emigrants poured in. The Australian Agricultural Company was formed in England. Western Australia began to be settled in 1829, but did not thrive. New colonies continued to be formed in Eastern Australia. South Australia was made prosperous by copper-mines. Victoria, which became a distinct province in 1851, owes its growth to gold mines. Melbourne, its chief town, was planted in 1837. The first British governors at Sydney were military officers, ruling with despotic authority. Representative institutions were gradually formed in the different provinces. The constitutions were framed on the model of the home government; but in Victoria and Tasmania the Upper House was made elective. After long conflicts with the home government, the Australian colonies escaped from the misfortune of being places to which convicts were transported. The discovery of gold in New South Wales and Victoria was made in 1851, and caused at once an immense influx of immigrants. Next to gold, the most important article of export has been wool. Wheat and copper have been exported in large quantities. The breeding of cattle has been a profitable employment in these communities.

NEW ZEALAND.—In 1838 the first regular and permanent settlement was made in New Zealand. Wellington was founded in the next year. New Zealand, with South Island and North Island, became a colony independent of Australia in 1841.

ENGLAND AND IRELAND.—The disaffection of the Irish, and their antipathy to English rule, broke out in different forms, as circumstances changed. For a long time the demand was for "Catholic emancipation." This was granted (p. 558); but most of the English concessions were made under such a pressure, and in appearance so grudgingly, that little was accomplished by them in placating Irish hostility. The outcry against tithes for the support of the Protestant Established Church was to a great extent quieted in 1838, when the odious features of this tax were removed. The Act disestablishing the Irish Protestant Church, carried by Mr. Gladstone in 1869, and put in execution in 1871, took away one of the great grievances of which the Irish nation had to complain. The repeal of the legislative union of England and Ireland was the watchword of O'Connell and his followers. In one form or another, the demand for local self-government or independence, which has been more lately urged under the name of "home rule," has been kept up with little intermission. It is about the special question of land reform that the most bitter conflicts have centered. The ownership of a great part of the land in Ireland by a few persons: the fact that great obstacles and great expenses—difficulties of late somewhat lightened—have existed in the way of the transference of land if any one had the means to purchase it: the circumstances that the owners have generally been, not residents, but absent landlords; that, in cases of dispute with tenants, the laws were for a long period framed in their interest; that the management of estates was left to agents or middle-men; that multitudes of tenants, whose holdings were small, could glean a bare subsistence from the soil, were doomed to famine if the potato-crop failed, and, when unable to pay the rent, were liable to "eviction," that is, to be turned out of doors, with their families, to perish,—these have been causes sufficient to give rise to endless disputes and conflicts. Add to these facts the inbred hostility arising from differences of race and religion; the memory, on the part of the Irish, of centuries of misgovernment, and the feeling that the lands held by sufferance were wrested from their ancestors by force,—and the animosity manifested in revolts and outrages is easily explained. The English government, in a series of measures,—in connection with which, acts of coercion for preventing and punishing violence have been passed,—undertook to lessen the evils that exist, and to produce a better state of feeling. The Encumbered Estates Court was established to render more easy the transfer of lands. This Act, and the Land Act passed the same year (1860), although well meant, failed to improve the situation of the tenants. Mr. Gladstone's great measure of disestablishment has been referred to. His second great reform measure was the Land Law of 1870, the effect of which was to make the landlord pay damages to the evicted tenant, to compensate him for improvements which he had made, etc. One object of this Act was to create a body of peasant proprietors in Ireland. Additional Acts, in 1880, were designed to assist tenants to purchase their holdings. The hopes as to the practical benefit to follow the Act of 1870 were disappointed. In 1877, 1878, and 1879, there was a partial failure of the crops. The Fenian movement, designed to secure Irish independence by force, was organized in the United States, 1857. By uniting with similar Irish brotherhoods, it extended itself in Great Britain as well as America, collected large funds, and, 1866, made ineffectual attempts to invade Canada. An armed rising in Ireland shortly after, under Fenian leadership, was suppressed. The national agitation consequent on these proceedings in Ireland, issued in the organization, 1870, of the Home Rule party, with Mr. Isaac Butt a leading promoter. The object was to secure an Irish Parliament for Irish affairs, and for the control of Irish resources; the Imperial Parliament being left to deal with imperial affairs. In this period (about 1874) Mr. Parnell grew to be conspicuous in politics. He became the leader of the Home Rule members of the House of Commons, who sought, by obstructing the progress of business, to compel the English government to withdraw its measures of coercion, and to legislate in accordance with the views of himself and his associates. The "obstructionists," by joining the Tories, effected the retirement of the Gladstone Cabinet (1885). In Ireland a system of "boycotting" was adopted for the punishment of landlords guilty of evicting tenants. This led to deeds of violence and blood. Parnell died in 1891. and Justin McCarthy became the leader of the Irish cause in Parliament. A Gladstone Cabinet again came into power in 1892, with an avowed object of securing Home Rule for Ireland.


END OF THE FEDERAL PARTY.—The end of the war with Great Britain (1812-15) was marked by the extinction of the Federal party. But the Republicans, the opposing party, were now equally zealous for the perpetuity of the Union, and were quite ready to act on a liberal construction of the Constitution with respect to the powers conferred on the General Government. This had been shown in the purchase of Louisiana: it was further exemplified in 1816 in the establishment of a national bank, and in the enactment of a protective tariff. Then, and until 1832, presidential candidates were nominated by Congressional "caucuses." James Monroe (1817-25) received the votes of all of the States but three. The absence of party division has caused his time to be designated as "the era of good feeling."

PURCHASE OF FLORIDA.—Slaves in Georgia and Alabama frequently escaped from their masters, and fled for shelter to the swamps of Florida. The Creek and the Seminole Indians were always disposed to aid them. In 1817 General Andrew Jackson was appointed to conduct an expedition against the Seminoles. He came into conflict with the Spanish authorities in Florida, where he seized Spanish forts, and built a fort of his own. Finally, in 1819, the Floridas were purchased of Spain for five million dollars, and the United States gave up its claim to the extensive territory west of the Sabine River, which was known afterwards as Texas. This became a part of Mexico two years later.

SLAVERY: THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE.—In 1820 a sectional struggle arose in Congress, on the question of the admission of Missouri as a State with a constitution permitting slavery. The slave-trade had been carried on by the States separately, before the National Constitution was formed. It was abolished by Congress in 1808, the earliest date allowed by the Constitution for the power to abolish it to be exercised. The principal founders of the government, both in the North and South, considered slavery an evil, and looked forward to its gradual extinction. In the North, where the slaves were less numerous, laws for gradual emancipation were early passed. But the rapid increase of slaves in the South, the growing demand for cotton, and the stimulus given to the production of it by the cotton-gin, made the prospect of emancipation by legislative action less probable as time advanced. The American Colonization Society was formed in 1811; and the fallacious hope was entertained by many, that the negroes might be carried back to the Liberian settlement on the African coast. The extension of slavery in the territory north-west of the Ohio had been prevented by the Congressional ordinance of 1787. When the question of the admission of Missouri to the Union came up, the members of Congress from the North and the members from the South were in hostile array on the point, and a dangerous excitement was kindled. By the exertions of Henry Clay, the "Missouri Compromise" was adopted, by which the new State was admitted with slavery in it; but, as a kind of equivalent, slavery was prohibited forever in all the remaining territory of the United States north of 36 deg. 30' north latitude, the southern boundary of Missouri.

THE "MONROE DOCTRINE."—When the "Holy Alliance" was engaged in its crusade against liberty in Europe, it was thought that they might attempt to conquer for Spain the revolted South American republics. Canning suggested to the American minister in England, that it would be well for the United States to take action against such a scheme. President Monroe, in his annual message in 1823, said that we should consider an attempt of the allied powers to extend their system in this country, or any interference on their part for the purpose of controlling the destiny of the American States, as unfriendly action towards the United States. This is the "Monroe Doctrine." An additional statement in disapproval of future colonization on the American continents by European powers was made in the same message. This second statement was never sanctioned by the House of Representatives. It is vague, and was probably meant to exclude indirect attempts to overthrow the liberty of the new American republics. The only thing which the "Monroe Doctrine" really contains is the intimation on the part of the United States of a right to resist attempts of European powers to alter the constitutions of American communities.

The true origin and intent of the "Monroe Doctrine" are often misunderstood. They are set forth in Woolsey's International Law, and in his article in Johnson's Encyclopedia, "Monroe Doctrine;" also in Webster's writings, Vol. III. p. l78, and in Calhoun's "Speech on the Panama Question." See also Foster, A Century of American Diplomacy, Chap. XII.

PARTIES AFTER MONROE.—At the expiration of Monroe's second term, there being no choice for president by the people, John Quincy Adams, who had long been in public life in various important stations, was chosen by the House of Representatives. His supporters combined with the adherents of Henry Clay, who became secretary of state. This alliance was loudly denounced by their opponents as a "bargain." From the close of the last war with Great Britain, a party called by their adversaries "loose constructionists" of the Constitution, of which Clay was a leader,—a party who were in favor of measures like a protective tariff, a national bank, and internal improvements,—as the making of canals,—to be undertaken by Congress,—had been growing up. It now took the name of National Republicans, which was afterwards exchanged for that of Whigs. On the other side were the "strict constructionists," who, however, differed among themselves respecting certain measures,—for example, the tariff. In their ranks Andrew Jackson belonged. Of this political tendency, John C. Calhoun of South Carolina became a leading promoter. Andrew Jackson was a favorite candidate for the presidency, and the name of Democrats was applied to his followers.

PRESIDENCY OF JACKSON.—Jackson was elevated to the presidency in 1829. He was a fearless man, an ardent patriot, with a choleric temper and an imperious will. He carried to an unexampled extent a custom, which had begun with Jefferson, of supplanting office-holders of the opposite political party by supporters of the administration. This came to be called the "spoils system," from the maxim once quoted in defense of it, that "to the victors belong the spoils."

NULLIFICATION.—During Jackson's administration, there occurred the "nullification" crisis. In 1828 a new protective tariff had been passed, which was regarded in the South, especially in South Carolina, as extremely unjust and injurious. The New England States had been averse to protection; and in 1816 Daniel Webster opposed the tariff measure as specially hurtful to the Eastern States, whose capital was so largely invested in commerce. After the protective policy had been adopted, and when, under its shield, manufacturing had been extensively established in the North, the former adversaries of protection, with Webster, as well as Clay, who had been a protectionist before, thought it unfair and destructive to do away with the tariff. Its adversaries denounced it as unconstitutional. Calhoun and his followers, moreover, contended that nullification is legal and admissible; in other words, that a law of Congress may be set aside by a State within its own limits, provided it is considered by that State a gross infraction of the Constitution. There was a memorable debate on this subject in 1830, in the United States Senate, when the State-rights theory was advocated by Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina, and the opposite doctrine defended by Webster. In 1832 South Carolina passed an ordinance declaring that the tariff laws of 1828 and 1832 were null and void, and not binding in that State. President Jackson issued a spirited proclamation in which the nullification doctrine was repudiated, and the opposite, or national, theory was affirmed, and the President's resolute intention to execute the laws of the United States was announced. The difficulty was ended by the compromise tariff introduced by Henry Clay, providing for the gradual reduction of duties (1833).

REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS.—The President was hostile to the National Bank, which he considered dangerous, as liable to be converted into a tool for partisan ends. Not being able to carry Congress with him, he assumed the responsibility, after his second election, of removing the deposits, or public funds, from its custody, or, rather, of an order for the cessation of these deposits. For this he was censured by the Senate, a majority of which regarded his act as arbitrary and unconstitutional.

ANTI-SLAVERY AGITATION.—From about this time, the agitation respecting slavery constantly increased. In the North a party arose, which, through lectures and in newspapers and pamphlets, denounced slavery as iniquitous, and called for immediate emancipation. The most prominent leader of this party was William Lloyd Garrison, and its most captivating orator was Wendell Phillips. This party advocated disunion, on account of the obligations imposed upon the North in reference to slavery by the Constitution. They were sometimes assailed by mobs in Northern cities. The major part of the people in the North desired some method of extinguishing slavery which should leave the Union intact. Meantime they were for obeying the Constitution, although the obligation to restore fugitive slaves was felt to be obnoxious, and there grew up a disposition to avoid compliance with it. The "colonizationists" diminished in number. There were various types and degrees of anti-slavery sentiment. The resolution to confine slavery, by political action, within the limits of the States where it was under the shield of local law, became more and more prevalent. In the South, on the contrary, the enmity to "abolitionism" was intense, and served to increase the popularity of the doctrine of State-rights. Slavery came to be defended as necessary under the circumstances, and as capable of justification on moral and Scriptural grounds. Occasions of reciprocal complaint between North and South, for illegal doings relating in one way or another to slavery, tended to multiply.

ANNEXATION OF TEXAS.—In 1836 Texas declared its independence of Mexico. General Sam Houston, an emigrant from Tennessee, was the leader in the revolt. He defeated the Mexicans under Santa Ana, at the San Jacinto (1836). In 1845, largely by the agency of Mr. Calhoun, Texas, by an Act of Congress, was annexed to the United States. The motive which he avowed was the fear that it might fall into the hands of England, and become dangerous to the institution of slavery in the South. The measure was strenuously opposed in the North as a scheme by which it was intended to strengthen the influence of the slaveholding States in Congress. It was favored, for the same reason, by those who were inimical to abolitionism in whatever form.

WAR WITH MEXICO.—A consequence of the acquisition of Texas was a war with Mexico. The successes of Gen. Zachary Taylor at Palo Alto and Monterey (1846), and at Buena Vista (1847), and the campaign of Gen. Winfield Scott, who captured Vera Cruz, fought his way through the pass of Cerro Gordo, and at length entered the city of Mexico (Sept. 14, 1847), compelled the Mexicans to agree to the Treaty of Guadaloupe Hidalgo (1848). By this treaty all claim on Texas to the Rio Grande was relinquished, together with the provinces of Upper California and New Mexico.

THE "WILMOT PROVISO."—The Wilmot Proviso was proposed in Congress, excluding slavery from all territory to be acquired from Mexico. This demand for the prevention of the further extension of slavery in the territories subject to national jurisdiction, became a rallying-cry. On the nomination of General Taylor to the presidency by the Whigs (1848), a "Free-Soil" party was organized on this basis,—the precursor of the Republican party. The convention which nominated Taylor laid on the table a motion approving of the Wilmot Proviso. The Whigs succeeded in the election, but their party lost a portion of its adherents.

CLAY'S COMPROMISE.—The application of California for admission to the Union, which, on account of the rapid growth of that community through the discovery of gold, was soon made, brought the sectional difficulty to another crisis. President Taylor died (July 9, 1850), and was succeeded by Millard Fillmore, the vice-president. The contest in Congress was soon after adjusted by Clay's compromise, by which California was admitted as a free State, Utah and New Mexico were organized into Territories without any mention of slavery, the slave-trade was prohibited in the District of Columbia, and a new fugitive-slave law was enacted, that was framed in such a way as to give great offense at the North. Webster, in a celebrated speech in favor of the compromise (March 7), gave as a reason for not insisting on the Wilmot Proviso, that the physical character of the new Territories of itself excluded slavery from them.

THE KANSAS TROUBLES.—In 1854, during the administration of Franklin Pierce, the standing sectional controversy reached a new phase. Two Territories, Kansas and Nebraska, were knocking at the doors of Congress for admission as States. Kansas lay west of Missouri, and, like Nebraska on the north, was protected from slavery by the Missouri Compromise (p. 601). But the Democrats carried through Congress a bill introduced by Mr. Douglas of Illinois, practically repealing that compromise, and leaving the matter of the toleration of slavery to be determined by the actual settlers as they might see fit. This measure was extensively regarded in the North as a breach of faith. Companies of emigrants were organized in the Northern States, to form permanent settlements in Kansas; and in order to prevent that country from becoming a free State, marauders from Missouri crossed the line, to attack them, and to harass the newly planted colonies.

THE DRED-SCOTT CASE.—James Buchanan became president in 1857. At this time the Supreme Court decided that neither negro slaves nor their descendants, slave or free, could become citizens of the United States; and added incidentally the dictum that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional, and that Congress had no right to prohibit the carrying of slaves into any State or Territory. The effect of this opinion, if embodied in a legal decision, would have been to prevent the exclusion of slavery, even by a Territorial legislature, prior to the existence of the State government. This judicial act, following upon the attitude taken by the government at Washington with reference to the Kansas troubles, greatly strengthened the numbers and stimulated the determination of the Republican party in the Northern States.

THE JOHN BROWN RAID.—An occurrence not without a considerable effect in exciting the resentment, as well as the apprehensions, of the South, was the attempt of John Brown, a brave old man of the Puritan type, whose enmity to slavery had been deepened by conflict and suffering in the Kansas troubles, to stir up an insurrection of slaves in Virginia. With a handful of armed men, he seized the United States arsenal at Harper's Ferry in Virginia. Half of his followers were killed: he himself was captured, and, after being tried and convicted by the State authorities, was hanged (Dec. 2, 1859).

SECESSION OF STATES.—In the election of 1860, Abraham Lincoln received the electoral vote of every Northern State except New Jersey. The conviction of the Southern political leaders that the anti-slavery feeling of the North, with its great and growing preponderance in wealth and population, would dictate the policy of the general government, determined them to attempt to break up the Union. The result, it was expected, would be the permanent establishment of a slave-holding confederacy, or the obtaining of new constitutional guaranties and safeguards of the institution of slavery; which, it was felt, would be undermined even if nothing more were done than to prevent the spread of it beyond the States where it existed. South Carolina passed an ordinance of secession (Dec. 20, 1860), and was followed in this act by Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas. The delegates of the seceding States met at Montgomery, Ala., and formed a new government under the name of the Confederate States of America (Feb. 8, 1861). Jefferson Davis was elected president, and Alexander H. Stephens vice-president. Except at Pensacola in Florida, and in Charleston, all the national property within the borders of the seceding States was seized. Efforts looking to compromise and conciliation were of no effect. After the accession of Mr. Lincoln, the purpose of the government to send supplies to the garrison of Fort Sumter in the harbor of Charleston, caused the Confederates to attack that fortress, which the commander, Major Anderson, after a gallant defense, was obliged to surrender. President Lincoln immediately issued a proclamation calling for seventy-five thousand volunteers to serve for three months, and called Congress together (April 15). There was a great uprising in the Northern States. The President's call for troops at once met with an enthusiastic response. Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina now joined the Southern Confederacy, the capital of which was established at Richmond. Great Britain recognized the Confederate States as having the rights of belligerents (May 13). France did the same.

EVENTS OF THE WAR IN 1861-62.—Only a brief account can be given of the events of the war. General Winfield Scott was at first in command of the Union forces, and General J. E. Johnston of the forces of the Confederates. It was imagined at the North, that there could be an easy and quick advance of the Federal forces to Richmond; but the troops were not drilled, and the preparations for a campaign were wholly inadequate. The Union troops were defeated at Bull Run, or Manassas, and Washington was thrown into a panic (July 21, 1861). Congress at once adopted energetic measures for raising a large army and for building a navy. General George B. McClellan was placed in command of the forces. It was foreseen on both sides, that the result of the conflict might depend on the course taken by foreign powers, especially by England. The South counted upon the demand for cotton as certain to secure English help, direct or indirect, for the Southern cause. Mr. Charles Francis Adams was selected by Mr. Seward, the secretary of state, to represent the Union at the Court of St. James. The Confederates sent abroad Mr. Mason and Mr. Slidell to procure the full recognition of the new Confederacy by England and France. The Trent, on which they sailed, was stopped by Captain Wilkes of the United States Navy, and the commissioners taken from it. This breach of international law threatened war, which was averted by the surrender of the two captives to England. England, however, refused to assent to Louis Napoleon's proposal to recognize the independence of the seceding States; but the laxness of the British Government in not preventing the fitting out of vessels of war in her ports, to prey on American commerce, excited indignation in the United States. Palmerston was at the head of the cabinet, and Lord John Russell was secretary for foreign affairs. For the depredations of the Alabama, the tribunal chosen to arbitrate at the end of the war, and meeting at Geneva, condemned England to pay to the United States an indemnity of fifteen and a half millions of dollars. Early in 1862 Fort Henry on the Tennessee, and Fort Donelson on the Cumberland, were taken by General Ulysses S. Grant, who led the land forces, and Commodore A. H. Foote, who commanded the gunboats. At Fort Donelson nearly fifteen thousand prisoners were captured. Grant fought the battle of Pittsburg Landing, or Shiloh, which continued two days (April 6, 7), and ended in the retreat of the Confederates. Their general, A. S. Johnston, was killed, and the command of his troops devolved on Beauregard. Grant, who had been reinforced by Buell, drove the Confederates back to Corinth, Miss., nineteen miles distant. The capture of Island Number Ten, by Pope, followed; and soon Memphis was in the hands of the Union forces. Farragut ran the gauntlet of the forts at New Orleans (April 24), and captured that city. In the East the Union forces had not been so successful. The iron-sheathed frigate Merrimac destroyed the Union fleet at Hampton Roads (March 9), but was driven back to Gosport by the timely appearance of the iron-clad Union vessel, the Monitor. McClellan undertook to approach Richmond by the peninsula. The campaign lasted from March to July, and included, besides various other engagements, the important battles of Fair Oaks, and of Malvern Hill (July 1). At the end of June the Union army was driven back to Harrison's Landing on the James River. Meantime the Confederate general, Jackson, in the valley of the Shenandoah, repulsed Fremont, Banks, and McDowell, and joined General Robert E. Lee, the commander of the Confederate forces, who now pressed forward towards Washington. Pope was defeated at Manassas (Aug. 29, 30), and Lee crossed the Potomac into Maryland. He was met by McClellan, and defeated at Antietam (Sept. 17), but was able to withdraw in safety across the river. McClellan was superseded by Burnside, who was defeated by Lee at Fredericksburg (Dec. 13).

Previous Part     1 ... 6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22     Next Part
Home - Random Browse