History for ready reference, Volume 5, Tunnage to Zyp and Supplement (part 6 of 11)

History for ready reference, Volume 5, Tunnage to Zyp and Supplement (part 6 of 11)

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.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us