Captain Cook and Western Cultural Imperialism

IBDP Extended Essay: History


Captain James Cook was the first European to visit the Hawaiian Islands.  Upon stepping on the island of Oahu and upon being received by natives as their god Lono, he brought with him Western ideology and practices that would forever change the Hawaiian culture and way of living.  The world now knew about Hawaii and established trading ties; Christianity was soon manifested upon the native people and old traditions to be done away with.  Modernization in the form of enterprise and schooling was implemented.  And these changes would bring diseases to the vulnerable Hawaiian people, dilute old traditions, and destroy indigenous plants and animals.  After Hawaii's acceptance into the union as the 50th State of America in 1959, commercialization, together with tourism, made the Hawaiian Islands recognized as a vacation spot.  Today, Hawaii is culturally diverse and ideologically accepting, its culture a unique blend of East and West.  Today's people of Hawaii take pride in diversity and celebrate old Hawaiian tradition.  With growing awareness of the importance of retaining Hawaiian culture in past decades, many have come to view Western influence as negative, Cook as the injector of disease into the primitive, sheltered islands.

There is no doubt that European involvement has impacted the culture and shaped the Hawaii we know today.  Yet these changes were not solely the influence of Captain Cook.  Much has occurred in the span of over two hundred years from Cook's death to the present day.  Perhaps Cook's influence has continuously been viewed as negative because Hawaiians need a scapegoat to account for the deterioration of culture and practices that has been increasing over the years.  To what extent, then, is the James Cook figure used as a mythological tool to account for the imposition of Western ideas in Hawaii?  This question will be investigated with the aid of both online and written source material and personal interview.

a. Introduction to Hawaii

The Hawaiian Islands in the center of the Pacific Ocean remained relatively uncharted and secluded before the arrival of European explorers in the 18th century.  The eight main islands - Oahu, Lanai, Molokai, Kahoolawe, Maui, Kauai, Niihau, and Hawaii - were separately governed by the native Hawaiian people until King Kamehameha the Great, through conquest, became ruler of the islands in 1810.  The Hawaiian people led simple lives and passed down traditions through stories rather than scrolls.  Their system of government was a hierarchical one, called the Kapu (or Tapu) System: at the top of the pyramid was the King, followed by the ali'i (chiefs), kahuna (spiritual priests), makaainana (commoners), and finally the kauwa (pariahs).  Isolation made them a peaceful and simple people.

b. Cook's arrival

The Polynesians and the Marquesas were the first to migrate to Hawaii, but not much is known about them, for Hawaiian culture was without writing.  In 1778 Captain James Cook was the first European explorer to set foot on the Hawaiian Islands, naming them the "Sandwich Islands" after the Earl of Sandwich.  He was an explorer from Great Britain, and it was his third voyage.

Much of our information of Cook directly comes from journals he kept of the voyages, indispensable to our understanding of his travels.  When Cook arrived at Kealakekua Bay on the island of Hawaii (also called the "Big Island"), he saw a great number of islanders gathered together in celebration.  It was Hawaii's annual makahiki (harvest festival) as a mark of respect for their god Lono, one of the four main Hawaiian gods (the other three Ku, Kanaloa, and Kane).  The sails and masts on Cook's ship Resolution resembled white banners, a symbol of Lono, and the general interpretation of events is that Captain Cook was received as the god Lono.

He was greeted by over 10,000 islanders and treated with great respect and hospitality.  The British crewmen and the native Hawaiians seemed to have pleasant interaction, exchanging gifts and blessings.  After two weeks, Cook left the Hawaiian Islands, but was soon faced with inclement weather.  The buffeting winds first damaged Resolution's sails, but the biggest injury came when the head of the ship's foremast cracked.  It had happened twice previously.  After some discussion, Cook and his crewmen decided that finding a beach was imperative.  Maui and Kauai were either too exposed or problematic, and so Resolution headed back to Kealakekua Bay.

By then the makahiki festival had come to an end and Cook's ships landed to face an empty bay.  They proceeded with repairs.  But the attitude of the islanders was very different from the previous visit.  The king inquired about the injuries with gravity, unable to understand why Lono, who had been received with such welcome and generosity before, had returned.  Had he not been satisfied with the feasting and gifts?  And how could the god Lono's vessel be disabled?  The misunderstanding had led to increasing tension.  It erupted on February 14, 1779, where a skirmish led to the death of Captain Cook and four of his marines.

Cook's funeral was held on February 22, and both sailors and Hawaiians expressed sorrow at the loss.  Today, he is often viewed in a negative light:

In Hawaii, [Cook is] widely despised, because American missionaries spread disparaging tales about his behavior on the islands.  One Hawaiian activist has termed Cook a "syphilitic, tubercular racist" and declared it a point of pride that the captain didn't leave Hawaiian shores alive.

c. Cook's impact

Many hold Cook responsible for much of the changes in Hawaii today, for his journey marked the beginning of a flood of missionaries and migrants to the Hawaiian Islands.  His discovery of Hawaii was an accidental one, but this accident had marked the end of a thousand years of isolation for the Hawaiian people .

(a) Economic.

Cook was the first European to set foot on the Hawaiian Islands.  It was the "intelligence which the published reports of Cook's voyages" which told the world of an effective incentive toward the exploitation of the virgin resources of fur in that region , thus marking the start of a new awareness on Hawaii.

One of the most important results of the last voyage of Captain Cook was the accidental discovery that a great deal of money could be made out of the fur trade between China and the northwest coast of America.

It was precisely this discovery of the fur trade that made Hawaii known to the world, and what instigated economic transformation.

After becoming the 50th US state in 1959, emphasis was placed on the tourism industry and trade (exports such as sugar cane, pineapple, and coffee).  Today, tourism remains the dominant industry, a complete revolution from the previously uncharted and secluded Hawaiian islands of centuries ago.  The islands' convenient location also made it a useful stop for resting and provisions:

...vessels entering into fur trade began to stop at the Islands for 'refreshments.'...[provisions] could be obtained in abundance in Hawaii and at first at extraordinarily low prices, due to the high valuation the wondering Islanders put on simple iron objects and other commodities. For a second reason....Hawaiians were excellent seamen, and hence were valued hands on foreign ships.

(b) Social.

One source suggests the reason behind the contrasting attitudes of the islanders to Cook in separate visits:

The very marked change in the attitude of the Hawaiians to Cook on [the] second visit is not really difficult to explain....Their repudiation of his conditions was a repudiation of his presence, or rather of the western presence.

This seems to intimate that already, the native Hawaiians may have begun to recognize foreigners as an intrusion.  And not only did Captain Cook and his men had a significant, altering impact on Hawaiian beliefs:

Before Captain Cook and his people came to Hawaii, Hawaiians saw relationships differently.  Back then, when a woman was big, she was considered attractive because it meant that she was wealthy and had a lot to live off of.  Poor Hawaiians were never fat.  But when Captain Cook and his men came, their European perception of women influenced the Hawaiian men's.  The white men were attracted to what they believed was beauty and soon enough the Hawaiians followed.

This source from a personal interview may well represent the views of the people of Hawaii today, yet we can still easily question it.  The gentlemen interviewed comes from a family of native Hawaiians, and his views are secondary accounts of what happened; it is likely to be shaped by the beliefs of people around him and by material learned in school.  It considers past history and present consequences, and is valuable as a comprehensive account - but that is precisely its limitation.  There is no measurement of to what degree society or family has influenced his views.  In addition, it would be difficult to validate his views, such as that of the changing perception of relationships and women because of Cook that occurred over two centuries ago.

Gananath Obeyesekere in his The Apotheosis of Captain Cook asserts that the native Hawaiians did not really mistake Cook for a god - they were too practical to so easily interpret Cook's white sails, reminiscent of Lono, as the god himself.  It is implied that the reason the islanders were exceedingly hospitable was because they saw an advantage to be gained.  While this invites fresh interpretation, there is the question of how the natives, being so astute, could permit Cook to bring the insects and diseases that would plague populations of their native land.  This also relates to the bigger issue of

Marshall Sahlins in his How Natives Think about Captain Cook, For Example refutes Obeyesekere.

In addition to influencing the beliefs of the Hawaiian people, contact with Cook and his crew affected the population - it "introduced gonorrhea, syphilis and tuberculosis, and continued contact [from the outside] in the 1800s decimated the Hawaiian population with measles, small pox, cholera, mumps, influenza, pneumonia, leprosy and other diseases."   But even worse, these epidemics also affected Hawaiian heritage.  It "swept through the Hawaiian peoples in a swift and deadly manner" that wiped out great numbers of people - it "allowed no time" for the knowledge of generations before to be communicated or recorded for the future .  (See Table 1, appendix, below for one source's figures.)

It was after Cook that Hawaii became the subject of European interest, attention, and exploitation.  After Cook, the Hawaiian population and thus Hawaiian culture dwindled.

d. Subsequent Changes in Hawaii

a)<Tab/>The Kamehameha reign.

In 1810, King Kamehameha the Great became ruler of the Hawaiian Islands, the first to unite the islands.  In his reign, a sandalwood trade flourished (particularly demanded in China) and soon became monopolized by Kamehameha I.  He opened up and encouraged trade with Western nations, which increased European influence on Hawaii.  After the king died in 1819, his son Liholiho took over with the title of Kamehameha II.  Probably the most important change under his reign was the abolition of the Kapu hierarchy system.  It is thought that even prior to Kamehameha's death, many Hawaiians, "including some chiefs of high rank, had ceased to believe in the gods."   The change seemed long awaited and even welcome.  Men having meals at the same table as women were previously forbidden, but after Liholiho sat to eat with the women, "immediately orders were sent to all the islands to destroy the heiaus and burn the idols".

Perhaps certain old practices in peoples' modern perspective were thought of as illogical or harmful.  Yet religion and rules were something sacred to the Hawaiian people, and it was an enormous change to do away with it all under Kamehameha II.  It is probable that many wished to let go of these old beliefs, but there is no denying the sapping effect this had on Hawaiian culture.  It was a change that occurred internally, because the people were tired of an old system that they had been breaking the rules from anyway .

People today in Hawaii revere the Kamehameha leaders, in particular King Kamehameha the Great.  The honor and attitudes toward Kamehameha I is evident from many statues and the celebration of Kamehameha Day on June 11 each year, the only holiday in honor of a Hawaiian chief.  He is seen as a determined, brave, and great man; it seems that few acknowledge the negative effect on culture of his monarchy.

b) Missionaries.

Christianity was brought to Hawaii during this time, supplanting old Hawaiian tradition and beliefs.  Culturally, the people were to be forever changed:

When the first Europeans came into contact with Hawaii, the native people accepted nudity and lived very simple, happy lives. This came to an end twenty years after the first Congregationalist missionaries landed on the islands in 1818.  By 1838, nudity was prohibited and the native religious dance, the Hula, was outlawed.... The missionaries lost no time introducing these innocent minds to the rigors of Christian theology.

This transitional period thus saw the discarding of much of what had defined Hawaiian culture - its religion and hierarchy system into new Western perspectives.  And after 1824, congregations increased and many Hawaiians, having already abandoned obsolete beliefs, applied for baptism.  Not all Hawaiians, however, embraced the Christian religion; however, the missionaries are generally considered to have benefited the islands because of their greatest contribution: the educational system.   Education for children was encouraged and secondary and boarding schools were established.

c) Migrants.

Workers from Asian countries such as Japan, China, and the Philippines migrated to Hawaii in waves work on Hawaii's sugar plantations, and brought with them their traditions and beliefs.  The "pidgin" language is now firmly rooted in Hawaiian culture today - a mixture of Hawaiian and English slang that was used for communication in the lack of a common language.  Because of migration, Hawaii today is culturally diverse and celebrates the holidays of both Eastern and Western nations, such as Chinese New Year and President's Day.

d) Environmental.

Cook's visits directly affected native Hawaiian plants and animals - his ship brought rats, insects, and diseases.  The insects that he brought on his ship ate all the native plants that are now extinct.

e) Statehood.

In 1897, Hawaii was annexed into the United States.  Previously, beginning 1826, the United States had recognized the Kingdom of Hawaii and established trade and treaties with the Hawaiian Islands.  When Hawaii became the 50th state of the United States on August 21, 1959, it was a decision the majority of the people in Hawaii wanted, and was met with much enthusiasm and anticipation.  Yet today Hawaiians protest over the American influence - perhaps statehood in 1959 was a mistake.

The "Statehood Process" for Hawai'i was a double fraud.  It not only failed to provide the correct set of choices to be voted upon.  The process altered the "self" who could exercise "self determination."

By 1959, most of the population of Hawaii did not largely consist of native Hawaiians that dominated in Captain Cook's time.  Waves of migration brought people to Hawaii for employment, escape, or associations military matters.  Those that wanted US citizenship were allowed to vote, yet "those who dared to declare themselves Hawaiian citizens, refusing to accept the imposed American citizenship, could not".   And "Americanization" that happened because of the American takeover is viewed negatively.

The Americans controlled education, economics, media, the judiciary as well as the internal political processes, managing in these years to continually squeeze the Hawaiian identity from public life.

e. Consequences and Assigning "Blame"

All this change brought with it a number of problems.  The Hawaiian language, primitive and infrequently used, was in danger of disappearance.  Many native Hawaiian plants and animals were extinct or on the verge of extinction.  Yet it is highly debatable whether Captain Cook was the beginning of all of this.  It has been over two centuries since he set foot on Hawaiian soil, and much has happened to Hawaii in all these years.  Thus, it seems that the Hawaii today was shaped by a number of factors.  It is true that outside influence does appear most prominent, but it is highly unlikely that were Hawaii to remain isolated and devoid of outside contact, it would remain the same today as it did over two hundred years ago, its culture intact.

It is argued that "Americanization" has cheapened Hawaiian culture.  For example, today's tourists often purchase Hawaiian "hula girl" or tiki figurines or other souvenirs reminiscent of old Hawaii.  However, these mementos were likely manufactured to depict and promote Hawaii as an exotic, alluring tourist destination while giving no merit to its history and culture.

But perhaps these factors are not questioned precisely because they have affected Hawaii to such a great degree.  For the Chinese to question Mao Zedong's policies would be questioning their current system.  Likewise with Hawaii, questioning the Kamehameha rule and the "Americanization" would be creating reservations in the place that Hawaii is at today.  It would also ignore the benefits of trade and tourism on the Hawaiian Islands.

In addition, the outside influence on Hawaii has added to the diversity seen today.  Pidgin English, celebration of various cultural holidays, and the sense of community and culture the people of Hawaii take pride in are the result of foreign influence.

The influence of James Cook is enormous - he would change Hawaii forever - but how can it fully be negative when his journals are still read today?  In fact, it can be argued that they aid in preserving Hawaiian culture.  Cook himself pens the detailed journal entries of observations of his days on the islands.  They do not pertain to the Hawaiian way of life subsequent to his visits and his death and offer little to our understanding of the long-reaching effects of Cook's presence.  They do not offer insight on current consequences or ramifications, and nor do they establish that the view carried on through the years.  It only tells us what he saw two hundred years ago; however, this limitation is precisely the source's greatest strength, for it is a valuable, objective primary source of information.

It also must be acknowledged that many Hawaiian people would think it was good that Cook died because he brought all those terrible things, but he also brought good which most Hawaiians cannot see .  Cook's journals are valuable to culture today - Some turn to Cook's journals for details on construction of a proper Hawaiian canoe.  It gives a snapshot of what traditional Hawaiian life, festivities, and attitudes were like - would not reading about these aspects be important to a better understanding of Hawaiian traditions?  If Captain Cook had not visited Hawaii and did not record any events or observations, it is likely that the Hawaii today would be missing a part of its history or traditions.  Hawaiians today may maintain that Cook destroyed its culture.  Yet, ironically, us returning to Cook's journals could be the best way of learning more about - and thus preserving - the culture today.


Many people of Hawaii today assign blame to James Cook as the catalyst that began the stream of outside influence to the Hawaiian Islands.  This view is often negative and one-sided; Cook's role as an important navigator and his efforts in preventing scurvy are often ignored in light of the disease and weakening of Hawaiian traditions evident today.  Perhaps this focus on Cook, this use of him as a myth, is a way to divert the focus - whether intentionally or unconsciously - from other factors equally or more detrimental to Hawaiian culture.  King Kamehameha I opened up trade with the rest of the world and as a result, foreign goods and capital flowed into Hawaii.  Today he is revered as the first man to have united the islands under one kingdom.  American influence, in addition, has also had its negative impacts.  Commercialization and a cheapening of Hawaiian culture have resulted from the attempt of creating a market for tourism.  Yet to assign blame to factors whose effects have laid the basis for Hawaii today would be questioning government and economic decisions today.  The people of Hawaii have treated Captain Cook as a sort of scapegoat and may not acknowledge Cook's contribution to the preserving of Hawaiian culture.  The cause of deterioration of Hawaiian traditions in recent decades cannot solely be assigned to James Cook, though there is no doubt that he did contribute.  Yet Cook is valuable to Hawaiian people today if they want a glimpse back into life two centuries ago, to seek these old traditions of society long ago.


Table 1: Population Estimate of Hawaiians

Year<Tab/>Estimated Population

1779 (arrival of Captain Cook)<Tab/>250,000 to 1 million




1.<Tab/>Cook, James.  The Journals.  Selected and edited by Philip Edwards.  New York: Penguin Books Ltd, 1999, 2003.

2.<Tab/>Cook, James.  The Explorations of Captain James Cook in the Pacific As Told By Seletions of His Own Journals 1768 - 1779.  Edited by A. Grenfell Price.  New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1971.

3.<Tab/>Horwitz, Tony.  Blue Latitudes.  2002.

3.<Tab/>Hough, Richard.  Captain James Cook.  New York and London: W. W. Norton and Company, 1994.

4.<Tab/>Simonds, William A.  Kamaaina, A Century in Hawaii.  Honolulu: American Factors, 1949.

5.<Tab/>Kuykendall, Ralph S.  A History of Hawaii.  New York: The Macmillan Company, 1926.

6.<Tab/>Morgan, Theodore.  Hawaii: A Century of Economic Change 1778 - 1876.  Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1948.

7.<Tab/>Obeyesekere, Gananath.  The Apotheosis of Captain Cook: European Mythmaking in the Pacific.  Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992.

8.<Tab/>Sahlins, Marshall.  How "Natives" Think: About Captain Cook, For Example.    Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1995.

Personal Interview

Kupau, Kawika.




"The Story of the Usurpation of the Kingdom of Hawaii: How the United States Stole the Legacy of the Hawaiian Nation".


Laenui, Poka.  "Statehood - A Second Chance".


IN response to an appeal from the British Admiralty, Captain Cook left England to enter upon his third voyage in July, 1776, with the purpose of restoring some natives of the Society Islands to their home; examining islands of the Pacific for good harbours for future English use; and then to pass along the northwest coast of America to find, if possible, a sea passage from the Pacific Ocean to Hudson's or Baffin's Bay. During the year 1777 he felt his way from island group to island group. He recognised the close relationship in language and features, between inhabitants of many of these island worlds.
On January 18, 1778, he discovered Oahu and later Kauai, of the Hawaiian Islands. He named the group "The Sandwich Islands," in honour of Lord Sandwich, the patron of the expedition.
This name has never been accepted among the Hawaiians. The home name, the name used for centuries, could not be supplanted by an English discoverer. The Hawaiians have always called themselves "Ka poe Hawaii"--"the Hawaiian people."
There are four different sources of information concerning the coming to and death of Captain Cook in the Hawaiian Islands. Captain King wrote the account given in "Cook's Voyages."
Ledyard, an American petty officer on one of Captain Cook's ships, wrote a story published in America.
The surgeon on Captain Cook's boat kept a diary which has recently been published.
The historian must remember that there were thousands of native eye-witnesses whose records cannot be overlooked in securing a true history. The following account is almost entirely from the Hawaiians only:
Captain Cook came to Waimea, Kauai. He was called by the Hawaiians "O Lono," because they thought he was the god Lono, one of the chief gods of the ancient Hawaiians.
The ship was seen coming up from the west and going north. Kauai lay spread out in beauty before Lono, and the first anchor was dropped in the bay of Waimea, in the month of January, 1778. It was night when the ship anchored.
A man by the name of Mapua, and others, were out fishing, with their boats anchored. They saw a great thing coming up, rising high above the surf, fire burning on top of it. They thought it was something evil and hurried to the shore, trembling and frightened by this wonderful apparition. They had fled, leaving all they had used while fishing. When they went up from the beach they told the high chief Kaeo and the other chiefs about this strange sight.
In the morning they saw the ship standing outside Waimea. When they saw this marvellous monster, great wonder came to the people, and they were astonished and afraid. Soon a crowd of people came together, shouting with fear and con-fused thought until the harbour resounded with noise. Each one shouted as he saw the ship with masts and the many things, such as ropes and sails, on them. One said to another, "What is this thing which has branches?" Another said, "It is a forest of trees." A certain priest, who was also a chief, said, "This is not an ordinary thing; it is a heiau [temple] of the god Lono, having steps going up into the clear sky, to the altars on the outside" (i.e., to the yards of the upper masts).
The chiefs sent some men to go out in canoes and see this wonderful thing. They went close to the ship and saw iron on the outside of the ship. They were very glad when they saw the amount of iron. They had known iron before because of iron in sticks washed up on the land. Then there was little, but at this time they saw very much. They rejoiced and said, "There are many pieces of pahoa" (meaning iron). They called all iron pahoa--a tool for cutting, because there was once a sword among the old people of the Islands.
They went up on the ship and saw "a number of men with white foreheads, shining eyes, skin wrinkled, square-cornered heads, indistinct words, and fire in their mouths."
A chief and a priest tied the ends of their long malo-like sashes and held them up in their left hands. "They went before Kapena Kuke (Captain Cook), bent over, squatted down, and offered prayers, repeating words over and over; then took the hand of Kapena Kuke and knelt down; then rose up free from any tabu."
Captain Cook gave the priest a knife. For this reason he named his daughter Kua-pahoa, after this knife. This was the first present of Captain Cook to a Hawaiian.
When they saw the burning of tobacco in the mouth of a man they thought he belonged to the volcano family. When they saw peculiar and large "cocoanuts" (probably melons) lying on the deck, they said, "This is the fruit of a sorceress, or mischief-maker of the ocean, who has been killed." They saw the skin of a bullock hanging in the front part of the ship and said, "Another mischief-making sorceress has been killed. Perhaps these gods have come that all the evil kupuas [monsters] might be destroyed."
These messengers returned and told the king and chiefs about the kind of men they had seen, what they were doing, their manner of speech, and the death of some of the monsters of the ocean. "We saw the fruit and the skin hanging on the altar.
There is plenty of iron on that temple and a large amount is lying on the deck." When the chiefs heard this report they said, "Truly this is the god Lono with his temple."
The people thought that by the prayer of the priest all troubles of tabu had been lifted, so they asked the priest if there would be any trouble if they went on this place of the god. The priest assured them that his prayer had been without fault and there would be no death in all that belonged to the gods. There was no interruption of any kind during the prayer.
Hao was another name for "iron" and also hao meant "theft."
A certain war-chief said, "I will go and hao that hao treasure, for my profession is to hao" (steal). The chiefs assented. Then he paddled out to the ship and went on board and took iron and went down. Some one shot him and killed him. His name was Kapu-puu (The Tabu Hill), The canoes returned and reported that the chief had been killed by a wai-ki (a rush of smoke like water in a blow-hole).
Some of the chiefs cried out, "Kill this people because they killed Kapu-puu!" The priest heard the cry and replied, "That thought is not right. They have not sinned. We have done wrong because we were greedy after the iron and let Kapu-puu go to steal. I forbade you at first, and established my law that if any one should steal, he shall suffer the loss of his bones. It is only right that we should be pleasant to them. Where are you, O Chiefs and People! This is my word to you!"
That night guns were fired and sky-rockets sent up into the sky, for the sailors were glad to have found such a fine country. The natives called the flash from the guns "Ka huila" (lightning) and "Kane-hikili" (thunder of the god Kane). The natives thought this was war.
Then a high chiefess, Ka-maka-helei, the mother of Kaumu-alii, the last king of Kauai, said: "Not for war is our god, but we will seek the pleasure of the god." So she gave her own daughter as a wife for Lono--Captain Cook. After this there was promiscuous living among the men of the ship and the people of the land, with the result that the vile diseases of the white people were quickly scattered over all the islands.
A boat came to Oahu from Kauai with a chief. The Oahu people asked him, "What kind of a thing was the ship?" The chief said "it was like a heiau (temple) with steps going up to the altars, masts standing with branches spread out each side, and a long stick in front like the sharp nose of a swordfish, openings (portholes) in the side and openings behind. The men had white heads with corners, clothes like wrinkled skin, holes in the sides (pockets), sharp-pointed things on their feet, fire in their mouths, and smoke with the fire like a volcano coming from their mouths."
Kalaniopuu, king of Hawaii, was at Koolau, Maui, fighting with the people of Kahekili, king of Maui. Moho, a messenger, told Kalaniopuu and the chiefs the news about this strange ship. They said, "This is Lono from Kahiki."
They asked about the language. Moho, putting his hand in his malo, drew out a piece of a broken calabash and held it, out like the foreigners, saying: "A hikapalale, hikapalale, hioluio, oalaki, walawalaki, waiki, poha, aloha kahiki, aloha haehae, aloha ka wahine, aloha ke keiki, aloha ka hale." Of course, this was a jumbled mass of words or sounds with but very little meaning.
The natives relate how, with veneration, they received the white man. They robed Captain Cook with red native cloth and rich feather cloaks. They prostrated themselves before him. They placed him in the most sacred places in their temples. When he despoiled a temple of its woodwork and carried off idols for firewood to use upon his ships, the natives made no protest. They supposed that Lono had a right to his own. But afterward, when death proved that Captain Cook was "a man and no god," the feeling of resentment was exceedingly deep and bitter. This was the standpoint from which the Hawaiians welcomed their discoverers.
On the other hand, when Captain Cook saw the islands in 1778, he was impressed with the friendly spirit of the people, and with their hearty willingness to give aid in any direction. There was also an appearance of manliness and dignity about the high chiefs. There was such respect and ready service on the part of the people--there were such prostrations before the kings of the various islands that Captain Cook accepted the "worship" offered him as the proper respect due to the representative of Great Britain. He was glad to receive a welcome that freed him from much anxiety. He was thankful that the chiefs accepted his superiority. He could easily procure the supplies needed for his ships. He could prosecute his investigations concerning harbours and resources without danger to himself or to his men.
After securing such supplies as he needed, in February, 1778, he sailed for North America. Here he spent the summer and fall, exploring the coast from San Francisco to Alaska. He consulted the Russians who were fur-hunting in this region. He became satisfied that there was no northwest channel across North America, to either Hudson's or Baffin's Bay. He made a chart of the coast. The winter came on suddenly and severely. He fled to the "Sandwich Islands," and in November, 1778, sighted the island of Maui, or, as Captain Cook phonetically spelled it, "Mowee." Soon he discovered the large island Hawaii, or "Owhyhee." He was surprised to see the summits of the mountains covered with snow. As he drew near the channel between Maui and Hawaii, Ka-meha-meha with several of his friends went on board one of the ships and passed the night. He was at that time forty-three years of age.
Then for eleven days Captain Cook sailed in the channel between Maui and Hawaii. On the second day of December he anchored near Kohala, the northern point of the island Hawaii.
Captain Cook purchased pigs for a piece of iron or barrel hoop, to make axes or knives or fish-hooks. A pig one fathom long would get a piece of iron. A longer pig would get a knife for a chief. If a common man received anything, the chief would take it. If it was concealed and discovered the man was killed.
They brought offerings--pigs, taro, sweet potatoes, bananas, chickens, and all such things as pleased Captain Cook.
Lono went to the western bay Ke-ala-ke-kua and the priest took him into the temple, thinking he was their god. There they gave him a place upon the platform with the images of the gods--the place where sacrifices were laid. The priest stepped back after putting on Captain Cook the oloa (the small white tapa thrown over the god while prayer was being recited) and the red cloak laaena, as was the custom with the gods. Then he offered prayer thus:
"O Lono! your different bodies in the heavens, long cloud, short cloud, bending cloud, spread-out cloud in the sky, from Uliuli, from Melemele, from Kahiki, from Ulunui, from Haehae, from Anaokuululu, from Hakalanai, from the land opened up by Lono in the lower sky, in the upper sky, in the shaking bottom of the ocean, the lower land, the land without hills.
"O Ku! O Lono! O Kane! O Kanaloa! the gods from above and from beneath, gods from most distant places! Here are the sacrifices, the offerings, the living things from the chief, from the family, hanging on the shining cloud and the floating land! Arama (amen); ma noa" (the tabu is lifted).
Several weeks passed by. Trivial troubles arose. The natives learned to steal some things from the supposed "heavenly" visitors. The harmony between the sailors and the Hawaiians was disturbed.
In February, 1779, Lono went on his ship and sailed as far as Kawaihae. He saw that one of his masts was rotten, so he went back to make repairs, and anchored again at Ke-ala-ke-kua. When the natives saw the ships returning they went out again, but not as before. They had changed their view, saying: "These are not gods; they are only men." Some, however, persisted in believing that these were gods. Some of the men said, "They cry out if they are hurt, like any man." Some of them thought they would test Lono, so went up on the ship and took iron. The sailors saw them and shot at them. Then the natives began to fight. The sailors grabbed the canoe of the chief Polea, an aikane (close friend) of the king.
He opposed their taking his boat and pushed them off. One of them ran up with a club and struck Polea and knocked him down. The natives saw this and leaped upon the sailors. Polea rose up and stopped the fighting. Because he was afraid Lono would kill him he stopped the quarrel.
After this he no longer believed that Lono was a god. He was angry, and thought he would secretly take one of the ship's boats, break it all to pieces for the iron in it, and also because he wanted revenge for the blow which knocked him down. This theft of a boat was the cause of the quarrel with, and death of, Captain Cook.
Captain Cook and his people woke up in the morning and saw that his boat was gone. They were troubled, and Captain Cook went to ask the king about the boat. The king said, "I do not know anything about it. Perhaps some native has stolen it and taken it to some other place." Captain Cook returned to the ship and consulted with his officers. They decided they had better get the king, take him on the ship, and hold him until the boat should be returned, and then set him free. Officers and men took guns and swords and prepared to go ashore and capture the king.
Captain Cook tried to persuade the king to go to the ship with him. The king was held back by his chiefs. They were suspicious, but the king could not readily give up his confidence.
Meanwhile, a chief living across the bay saw Captain Cook going ashore. He and another chief launched a double canoe and sailed quickly across.
Sailors saw these men in red cloaks, fired upon them from the ships and killed one of them. The other hurried his boatmen and escaped to the king's house. Captain Cook had issued an order forbidding canoes to come near the ships. When the chief saw the king by the side of Captain Cook he cried out: "O Kalani! O the sea is not right--Kalimu has been killed! Return to the house!" He told how the sailors had fired upon his friend and himself.
Kalola, wife of Kalaniopuu, heard the death-word, and that the chief had been killed by the gun of the foreigners, so she ran out of the woman's house, put her hand on the king's shoulder and said, "O Kalani, let us go back."
The king turned, thinking he would go back, but Captain Cook seized his hands. A chief thrust his spear between them, and the king and some of his chiefs went back to the house.
Then the battle commenced. When Lono (Captain Cook) saw the spear pushed between the king and himself he caught his sword and struck that chief on the head, but the sword slipped and cut the cheek. Then that chief struck Lono with his spear and knocked him down on the lava beach.
Lono cried out because of the hurt. The chief thought, "This is a man, and not a god, and there is no wrong." So he killed Lono (Captain Cook). Four other foreigners also were killed. Many daggers and spears were used in killing Captain Cook.
When the officers and men saw that Captain Cook and some others had been killed, they ran down, got on the boat, fired guns and killed many of the natives. Some natives skilled in the use of sling-stones threw stones against the boat. When the sailors saw that Captain Cook was dead, they fired guns from the ship. The natives held up mats as shields, but found they were no protection against the bullets.
The king offered the body of Captain Cook as a sacrifice. This sacrifice meant that the body was placed on an altar with prayers as a gift to the gods because the chief and his kingdom had been saved by the gods. When the ceremonies of the sacrifice were over, they cleaned off the flesh from the bones of Lono and preserved them. A priest kindly returned a part of the body to the foreigners to be taken on their ship. Some of the bones were kept by the priests and worshipped.
Eight days after the death of Lono at Ka-awaloa the natives again met those who remained on the ship.
Monday, February 23, 1779, the ship went to Kauai. On the 29th of that month they secured water and purchased food. Because they wanted the yams of Niihau, they sailed over to that island and purchased yams, sweet potatoes, and pigs, and on March 15th sailed out into the mist of the ocean and were completely lost to sight.
This is the end of Captain Cook's voyage along the coasts of these islands.ENCYCLOPEDIA OF WORLD HISTORY Age of Revolution and Empire 1750 to 1900 VOLUME IV ENCYCLOPEDIA OF WORLD HISTORY Volume I The Ancient World Prehistoric Eras to 600 c.e. Volume II The Expanding World 600 c.e. to 1450 Volume III The First Global Age 1450 to 1750 Volume IV Age of Revolution and Empire 1750 to 1900 Volume V Crisis and Achievement 1900 to 1950 Volume VI The Contemporary World 1950 to the Present Volume VII Primary Documents Master Index ENCYCLOPEDIA OF WORLD HISTORY Age of Revolution and Empire 1750 to 1900 VOLUME IV edited by Marsha E. Ackermann Michael J. Schroeder Janice J. Terry Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur Mark F. Whitters Encyclopedia of World History Copyright © 2008 by Marsha E. Ackermann, Michael J. Schroeder, Janice J. Terry, Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur, and Mark F. Whitters Maps copyright © 2008 by Infobase Publishing All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage or retrieval systems, without permission in writing from the publisher. For information contact: Facts On File, Inc. An imprint of Infobase Publishing 132 West 31st Street New York NY 10001 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Encyclopedia of world history / edited by Marsha E. Ackermann . . . [et al.]. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-8160-6386-4 (hc : alk. paper) 1. World history—Encyclopedias. I. Ackermann, Marsha E. D21.E5775 2007 903—dc22 2007005158 Facts On File books are available at special discounts when purchased in bulk quantities for businesses, associations, institutions, or sales promotions. Please call our Special Sales Department in New York at (212) 967-8800 or (800) 322-8755. You can find Facts On File on the World Wide Web at Maps by Dale E. Williams and Jeremy Eagle Golson Books, Ltd. President and Editor Design Director Author Manager Layout Editor Indexer J. Geoffrey Golson Mary Jo Scibetta Sue Moskowitz Susan Honeywell J S Editorial Printed in the United States of America VB GB 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 This book is printed on acid-free paper. ENCYCLOPEDIA OF WORLD HISTORY Volume IV CONTENTS About the Editors vi Foreword vii Historical Atlas viii List of Articles ix List of Contributors xiii Chronology xv Major Themes xxv Articles A to Z 1–456 Resource Guide 457 Index 461 About the Editors Marsha E. Ackermann received a Ph.D. in American culture from the University of Michigan. She is the author of the award-winning book Cool Comfort: America’s Romance with Air-Conditioning and has taught U.S. history and related topics at the University of Michigan, Michigan State Uni- versity, and Eastern Michigan University. Michael J. Schroeder received a Ph.D. in history from the University of Michigan and currently teaches at Eastern Michigan University. Author of the textbook The New Immigrants: Mexican Americans, he has published numerous articles on Latin American history. Janice J. Terry received a Ph.D. from the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, and is professor emeritus of Middle East history at Eastern Michigan University. Her latest book is U.S. Foreign Policy in the Middle East: The Role of Lobbies and Special Interest Groups. She is also a coauthor of the world history textbooks The 20th Century: A Brief Global History and World History. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur received a Ph.D. from the University of Michigan and is professor emeritus of Chinese history at Eastern Michigan University. She is a coauthor of the world history textbooks The 20th Century: A Brief Global History and World History. Mark F. Whitters received a Ph.D. in religion and history from The Catholic University of America and currently teaches at Eastern Michigan University. His publications include The Epistle of Sec- ond Baruch: A Study in Form and Message. vi Foreword The seven-volume Encyclopedia of World History is a comprehensive reference to the most impor- tant events, themes, and personalities in world history. The encyclopedia covers the entire range of human history in chronological order—from the prehistoric eras and early civilizations to our contemporary age—using six time periods that will be familiar to students and teachers of world history. This reference work provides a resource for students—and the general public—with con- tent that is closely aligned to the National Standards for World History and the College Board’s Advanced Placement World History course, both of which have been widely adopted by states and school districts. This encyclopedia is one of the first to offer a balanced presentation of human history for a truly global perspective of the past. Each of the six chronological volumes begins with an in-depth essay that covers five themes common to all periods of world history. They discuss such important issues as technological progress, agriculture and food production, warfare, trade and cultural interactions, and social and class relationships. These major themes allow the reader to follow the development of the world’s major regions and civilizations and make comparisons across time and place. The encyclopedia was edited by a team of five accomplished historians chosen because they are specialists in different areas and eras of world history, as well as having taught world history in the classroom. They and many other experts are responsible for writing the approximately 2,000 signed entries based on the latest scholarship. Additionally each article is cross-referenced with relevant other ones in that volume. A chronology is included to provide students with a chronological ref- erence to major events in the given era. In each volume an array of full-color maps provides geo- graphic context, while numerous illustrations provide visual contexts to the material. Each article also concludes with a bibliography of several readily available pertinent reference works in English. Historical documents included in the seventh volume provide the reader with primary sources, a feature that is especially important for students. Each volume also includes its own index, while the seventh volume contains a master index for the set. Marsha E. Ackermann Michael J. Schroeder Janice J. Terry Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur Mark F. Whitters Eastern Michigan University vii viii Historical Atlas List of Maps Cities and Economic Life in Europe, c. 1750 M97 The Seven Years’ War in Europe, 1756–1763 M98 Major Battles of the Revolutionary War, 1775–1783 M99 European Colonies and Exports from the Americas M100 Revolutionary France, 1789–1794 M101 Explorations of the Pacific, 1768–1788 M102 Empires of Western Africa, c. 1800 M103 India, 1805 M104 The Napoleonic Wars, 1803–1815 M105 Europe after Congress of Vienna, 1815 M106 Growth of Russia, 1801–1855 M107 Latin America, 19th Century M108 Ottoman, Arab, and European Presence in Africa, 1830 M109 European Revolutions, 1815–1849 M110 The Balkans after the Serb and Greek Revolutions, 1830 M111 American Indian Territorial Losses, 1850–1890 M112 Western Expansion of the United States, 1787–1912 M113 Industrialization in Europe, 1850 M114 Industrial Revolution in Britain, 1770–1870 M115 British North America, 1849 M116 Urbanization of Europe, 1850 M117 Japan at the Time of Commodore Perry, 1853 M118 Crimean War, 1853–1855 M119 Conflicts in the Qing Empire, 1839–1899 M120 Unification of Italy, 1859–1870 M121 Major Battles of the American Civil War, 1861–1865 M122 Wars of German Unification, 1864–1871 M123 Balkan Peninsula after the Treaty of Berlin, 1878 M124 European Colonialism in the Pacific, 19th Century M125 European Possessions in Africa and Arabia, 1895 M126 Growth of Russia, 1855–1904 M127 World Trade, 19th Century M128 A abolition of slavery in the Americas Acadian deportation Adams, John, and family Afghani, Jamal al-Din al- Afghan Wars, First and Second Africa, exploration of Africa, imperialism and the partition of Africa, Portuguese colonies in Aigun and Beijing, Treaties of Alaska purchase Alexander I Algeria under French rule Alien and Sedition Acts, U.S. Aligarh College and movement American Revolution (1775–1783) American temperance movement Andean revolts Anglo-Chinese Opium Wars Anglo-French agreement on Siam (1897) Anglo-Russian rivalry Arabian Peninsula and British imperialism List of Articles Arab reformers and nationalists art and architecture (1750–1900) Asian migration to Latin America Australia: exploration and settlement Australia: self-government to federation Austro-Hungarian Empire B Balkan and East European insurrections Banerji, Surendranath Banks of the United States, First and Second baroque culture in Latin America Beecher family Berlin, Congress of (1878) Bismarck, Otto von Bolívar, Simón Bourbon restoration Brahmo and Arya Samaj Brazil, independence to republic in Brethren movements British East India Company British Empire in southern Africa British governors-general of India British occupation of Egypt Buganda, kingdom of Burlingame, Anson, and Burlin- game Treaty (1868) Burmese Wars, First, Second, and Third C Canadian Confederation Canton system Catherine the Great caudillos and caudillismo Cavour, Camillo Benso di Central America: National War Ceylon: Dutch to British colony Chakri dynasty and King Rama I Chicago Fire (1871) China, spheres of influence in Chinese Exclusion Act Civil War, American (1861–1865) Cixi (Tz’u-hsi) coffee revolution ix x ListofArticles Colombia, War of the Thousand Days in (1899–1902) comuneros’ revolt Congo Free State Constitution, U.S. Cook, James Crimean War Cuba, Ten Years’ War in Cuban War of Independence D Darwin, Charles Declaration of Independence, U.S. Díaz, Porfirio diplomatic revolution, European Disraeli, Benjamin Dost Mohammed Douglass, Frederick Dreyfus affair E Eastern Question Eddy, Mary Baker (1821–1910), and the Christian Science Church enlightened despotism in Europe Enlightenment, the Ethiopia/Abyssinia F Fashoda crisis Fenian raids Ferdinand VII financial panics in North America Finney, Charles Grandison Francia, José Gaspar Rodríguez Franco-Prussian War and the Treaty of Frankfurt Franklin, Benjamin Franz Josef Frederick the Great of Prussia Freemasonry in North and Spanish America French Equatorial Africa French Indochina French Revolution Fukuzawa Yukichi G Garibaldi, Giuseppi gauchos German unification, wars of German Zollverein Gilded Age Gladstone, William Gokhale, G. K. Gong (K’ung), Prince Gordon, Charles Government of India Act (1858) Grant, Ulysses S. Great Awakening, First and Second Great Plains of North America Greek War of Independence Guangxu (Kuang-hsu) H Haitian Revolution Hamid, Abdul (Abdulhamid II) II Hamilton, Alexander Harris, Townsend, and Japan Hart, Robert Hawaii Hidalgo y Costilla, Miguel Hohenzollern dynasty (late) Hong Xiuquan (Hung Hsui-ch’uan) Humboldt, Alexander von Hundred Days of Reform I immigration, North America and Indian Mutiny Industrial Revolution Iqbal, Muhammad Irish Famine (1846–1851) Ismail, Khedive Italian nationalism/unification Iturbide, Agustín de J Jackson, Andrew Jefferson, Thomas Jiaqing (Chia-ch’ing) Johnstown flood Joseph II Juárez, Benito K Kader ibn Moheiddin al-Hosseini, Abdul Kang Youwei (K’ang Yu-wei) Khayr al-Din Korea, late Yi dynasty L labor unions and labor movements in the United States La Pérouse, Jean-François de Galaup, comte de Latin America, Bourbon reforms in Latin America, economic and political liberalism in Latin America, export economies in Latin America, independence in Latin America, machismo and marianismo in Latin America, positivism in Latin America, urbanism in League of Three Emperors Leo XIII Leopold II Lewis and Clark Expedition Liberian colonization Li Hongzhang (Li Hung-chang) Lincoln, Abraham Lin Zexu (Lin Tse-Hsu) literature (1750–1900) Lobanov-Yamagata Agreement (1896) Louis XVI Louisiana Purchase M Macartney mission to China Macdonald, John Alexander Madison, James Malay states, Treaty of Federation and the (1895) Manifest Destiny Maori wars Maria Theresa market revolution in the United States Marshall, John Martí, José Marxism, Karl Marx (1818–1883), and Friedrich Engels (1820–1895) Mazzini, Giuseppe Meiji Restoration, Constitution, and the Meiji era Metternich, Prince Clemens von Mexican-American War (1846–1848) Mexico, early republic of (1823–1855) Mexico, from La Reforma to the Porfiriato (1855–1876) Mexico, independence of Mexico, New Spain revolts in Midhat Pasha Mississippi River and New Orleans Mitre, Bartolomé Monroe Doctrine Mormonism Mughal dynasty (decline and fall) Muhammed Ali Muhammad al-Mahdi music Muslim rebellions in China mutiny on the Bounty (1790) N Naoroji, Dadabhai Napoleon I Napoleon III Napoleonic conquest of Egypt Native American policies in the United States and Canada Netherlands East Indies Newman, John Henry newspapers, North American Nian Rebellion in China (1853–1868) Nightingale, Florence O O’Higgins, Bernardo Olmsted, Frederick Law Omani empire Omdurman, Battle of P Pacific exploration/annexation Paine, Thomas papal infallibility and Catholic Church doctrine Paraguayan War (War of the Triple Alliance) Paris Commune Pedro I Pedro II Perry, Matthew Pius IX Poland, partitions of Polish revolutions political parties in Canada political parties in the United States prazeros public education in North America Q Qajar dynasty Qianlong (Ch’ien-lung) Qing (Ch’ing) dynasty in decline R Raffles, Thomas railroads in North America Rama V Reconstruction in the United States revolutions of 1848 Rhodes, Cecil Riel, Louis Rivadavia, Bernardino Romanov dynasty Rosas, Juan Manuel Ortiz de Roy, Ram Mohan Russian conquest of Central Asia Russo-Ottoman Wars Russo-Turkish War and Near Eastern Crisis S Sino-Japanese War and the Treaty of Shimonoseki slave revolts in the Americas slave trade in Africa Smith, Adam Social Darwinism and Herbert Spencer (1820–1903) socialism South Africa, Boers and Bantu in Spain in Africa Spanish-American War Spanish Bourbons Statue of Liberty St. Petersburg, Treaty of (1881) Sucre, Antonio José de Sudan, condominium in Suez Canal T Taiping Rebellion Talleyrand, Charles-Maurice de Tanzimat, Ottoman Empire and Texas War of Independence and the Alamo Tilak, B. G. Tocqueville, Alexis de Tokugawa Shogunate, late Tongzhi (T’ung-chih) Restoration/ Self-Strengthening Movement Toussaint Louverture transcendentalism Triple Alliance and Triple Entente (1882) Tunisia under French rule U ultramontanism Urabi revolt in Egypt Uruguay, creation of Usman Dan Fodio V Vatican I Council (1869–1870) Victor Emmanuel II Victoria Vienna, Congress of Voltaire (François-Marie Arouet) voodoo (Vodun), Haitian Salafiyya movement (Africa) Salvation Army Santa Ana, José Antonio López de Santeria Sanusiya Sarmiento, Domingo Faustino Satsuma Rebellion (1877) savants/Rosetta Stone Second and Third Republics of France Seven Years’/French and Indian War (1754–1763) Shaka Zulu Siamese-Burmese War Sikh Wars Singh, Ranjit Sino-French War and the Treaty of Tianjin (Tientsin) List of Articles xi xii ListofArticles W Wahhabi movement Waitangi Treaty War of 1812 War of the Pacific (1877–1883) Washington, George Watch Tower Society Wesley, John (1703–1791) and Charles (1707–1788) White Lotus Rebellion women’s suffrage, rights, and roles Y Young Ottomans and constitutionalism Z Zeng Guofan (Tseng Kuo-fan) Zho Zongtang (Tso Tsung-t’ang) Zionism and Theodor Herzl Marsha E. Ackermann Eastern Michigan University Christopher Anzalone Indiana University Melanie A. Bailey Centenary College John H. Barnhill Independent Scholar Brett Bennett Indiana University Sarah Boslaugh Washington University School of Medicine Jiu-fong L. Chang Independent Scholar Justin Corfield Geelong Grammar School Christopher Cumo Independent Scholar Nicole J. DeCarlo Waterbury Public Schools Julie Eadeh U.S. Department of State Nancy Pippen Eckerman Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis Theodore W. Eversole Ivybridge Community College Amparo Pamela Fabe University of the Philippines Hal M. Friedman Henry Ford Community College Gene C. Gerard Tarrant County College Delia Gillis Central Missouri State University Louis B. Gimelli Eastern Michigan University Jyoti Grewal Zayed University John H. Haas Bethel College Muhammad Hassan Khalil University of Michigan Rotem Kowner University of Haifa Bill Kte’pi Independent Scholar Frode Lindgjerdet Royal Norwegian Air War College List of Contributors xiii xiv List of Contributors Sally Marks Independent Scholar Eric Martone Waterbury Public Schools K. Steve McCormick Independent Scholar Jason A. Mead University of Tennessee Patit Paban Mishra Sambalpur University Martin Moll University of Graz John F. Murphy, Jr. American Military University Richard F. Nation Eastern Michigan University Caryn E. Neumann Ohio State University Omon Merry Osiki Redeemer’s University Elizabeth Purdy Independent Scholar Charles V. Reed University of Maryland Rick M. Rogers Eastern Michigan University Norman C. Rothman University of Maryland Brian de Ruiter Brock University Kathleen Ruppert Catholic University of America James Russell Independent Scholar Steve Sagarra Independent Scholar Michael J. Schroeder Eastern Michigan University Brent D. Singleton California State University Christopher Tait University of Western Ontario Janice J. Terry Eastern Michigan University William J. Turner Independent Scholar Dallace W. Unger, Jr. Colorado State University Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur Eastern Michigan University Mark F. Whitters Eastern Michigan University Jake Yap Loyola School of Theology Ronald Young Canterbury School 1754 French and Indian War Begins For almost nine years, a war rages between British and French soldiers in North America. 1756 The Seven Years’ War The Seven Years’ War includes all the major Western powers. It begins when Prussia under Frederick the Great invades Saxony. 1757 British Establish Sovereignty The British establish their sovereignty in India when they defeat the Bengalese nabob at the Battle of Nabob. 1762 Treaty of St. Petersburg On May 5 the Treaty of St. Petersburg is signed between Prussia and Russia. The treaty brings about a switch in the alliances in the war. 1763 Treaty of Paris The Treaty of Paris is signed, bringing to an end the French and Indian War in North America and the Seven Years’ War in Europe, Asia, and Africa. 1765 Stamp Tax Passes In an effort to raise additional revenue, Britain impos- es a tax on all documents issued in the colonies. 1770 Cook Claims Australia James Cook, the English explorer on board the Endeavor, sights the east coast of Australia. He lands at Botany Bay and claims the land for Britain. 1770 Parliament Repeals Townshend Acts The British parliament repeals the Townshend duties on all but tea. 1770 Boston Massacre A group of British soldiers fires on a mob of colonial protesters killing five and wounding another six. 1772 First Partition of Poland Russia, Prussia, and Austria agree on the partition of Poland. 1772 Colonists Burn the Gaspee On the afternoon of June 9, the British revenue schoo- ner Gaspee runs aground. That night eight boatloads of men led by merchant John Brown storm the ship. After overwhelming the crew, they burn the ship. 1773 Boston Tea Party Boston colonists begin boycotting tea. The governor refuses to allow arriving merchants to leave the harbor Chronology xv xvi Chronology with their tea. On the night of December 16 Patriots dressed up as Native Americans board the merchant ships and throw the tea into Boston Harbor. 1774 Coercive Acts The British parliament gives its speedy assent to a series of acts known as the Coercive Acts or, in the colonies, the Intolerable Acts. These acts include the closing of the port of Boston. 1774 Treaty of Kuchuk Kainarji On July 21 the Treaty of Kuchuk Kainarji is signed between Russia and the Ottoman Empire, ending the conflict between them. 1774 First Continental Congress The First Continental Congress meets in Philadelphia, from September 5 to October 26. 1775 Lexington and Concord Forewarned by Paul Revere, American militiamen fight 700 British troops on April 19. This marks the beginning of the Revolutionary War. 1775 Battle of Bunker Hill The Americans occupy Bunker Hill overlooking Bos- ton, and the British respond by attacking. While the British are victorious, they suffer heavy losses. 1775 King George Declares the Colonies in Revolt On April 23, King George III of Great Britain declares, “The colonies are in open and avowed rebellion. The die is now cast. The colonies must either submit or triumph.” 1776 Watt Builds Steam Engine James Watt develops a steam engine, enabling the advent of the Industrial Revolution. 1776 Declaration of Independence Twelve American colonies vote in favor of the Decla- ration of Independence. New York abstains. 1777 Battle of Saratoga A British force commanded by General Burgoyne is defeated by American forces at Saratoga, New York. 1778 War of Bavarian Succession Begins The War of Bavarian Succession breaks out when Frederick the Great, king of Prussia, declares war on Austria and invades Bohemia. 1778 France Signs Treaty of Alliance On February 6 France signs a treaty of alliance with the United States of America. France recognizes the independence of the country and offers further aid. 1779 Cook Dies James Cook is killed by natives in Hawaii. Cook is considered the preeminent explorer of his time, and by introducing a regime of fresh fruit he eliminates scurvy from his ships. 1780 Tupac Amaru Revolt The natives of Peru revolt under the leadership of Tupuc Amaru. Tupuc Amaru declares himself the lib- erator of his people. The Spanish crush the revolt, and Tupuc Amaru is killed. 1781 Battle of Yorktown British forces are obliged to surrender to converging American and French forces. The surrender at Yorktown marks the last major campaign of the Revolutionary War. 1781 Articles of Confederation The Articles of Confederation are first approved by the Continental Congress in 1777. They are sent to each state for ratification. 1782 Rama I Rules Siam The Chakri dynasty is established in Siam. Its first ruler is Chao P’ya Chakri, who rules as Rama I. The dynasty rules to this day (2008). 1782 Russia Invades Crimea The Russian army invades Crimea in December. 1783 Treaty of Paris The Treaty of Paris is signed between the United States, Great Britain, France, and Spain. It brings an end to the American Revolutionary War. 1784 India Act Under the terms of the India Act, the reorganized East Indian Company cannot interfere in native Indi- an affairs or make a declaration of war unless in self- defense. 1786 Shays’s Rebellion Daniel Shays, a farmer and Revolutionary War vet- eran, leads other farmers to revolt. Shays and 1,200 followers demand relief from various taxes and debts. Chronology xvii 1787 States Approve Constitution On September 17, after weeks of debate, the Con- stitution of the United States is approved. It calls for a strong central government. Thirty-nine delegates, representing 12 of 13 states, sign the document. 1787 Amar Singh’s Reign Begins During the reign of Amar Singh in southern India, three Brahman musicians reform the art of Carnatic music and establish a new heritage for future genera- tions of southern Indian musicians. 1789 Washington Becomes President George Washington becomes the first president of the United States, after being unanimously elected by the members of the electoral college. 1789 French Revolution A revolt breaks out in France, overturning the monar- chy. When it ends, both Louis XVI and Mary Antoi- nette will have been executed. 1789 Judiciary Act Passes This act establishes the U.S. federal court system and sets the size of the Supreme Court. It also gives the Supreme Court the right to review state court decisions. 1791 Blacks Gain Full Rights in Saint-Domingue The French National Assembly grants free blacks in Saint-Domingue full French rights. The white colo- nists refuse to implement the decision, and the blacks revolt. 1791 National Assembly The French National Assembly passes a new constitu- tion. Under its terms France becomes a limited mon- archy. 1791 Bank of United States Alexander Hamilton urges the founding of the Bank of the United States. Thomas Jefferson opposes the idea. 1792 France Declares War on Austria On April 20 France declares war on Austria, begin- ning the War of the First Coalition. The French suffer initial defeats on the battlefield. 1792 French National Convention On September 21 the French National Convention meets for the first time. There are 749 members at the convention. 1792 Russia Invades Poland On May 19 Russia invades Poland. The Russians fear the strengthening of Poland under its new constitution. 1793 Whitney Invents Cotton Gin Eli Whitney, a young New Englander, invents a cot- ton gin that automatically cleans cotton. 1793 Second Partition of Poland The second partition of Poland divides Poland between Prussia and Russia. 1793 Reign of Terror Begins Maximilien Robespierre, the leader of the Jacobins, the most radical faction of the National Convention, begins the Reign of Terror in France. 1794 Whiskey Rebellion The Excise Tax of 1791 incites many U.S. western settlers, who begin a rebellion against the central gov- ernment. 1794 Haiti Independent After defeating a 5,000-man army sent by Napoleon, Haiti is declared a black republican government. All slaves are freed and almost all whites still on the island are killed. 1794 Uprising in Poland After Poland is partitioned for the second time, the Poles, led by Thaddeus Kos?ciuszko, rise up against the Russians. They are ultimately defeated. 1795 Siam Annexes Western Cambodia King Rama I of Siam extends his kingdom by annex- ing parts of Cambodia, including the ruined Khmer capital. 1795 Treaty of Basel The French and Austrians reach a peace agreement at Basel, Switzerland, on April 5. 1795 Jay’s Treaty Under Jay’s Treaty, the British agree to leave areas in the U.S. Northwest Territory, which they had been required to leave earlier under the Treaty of Paris. 1796 Battle of Arcole The French, led by General Napoleon Bonaparte, invade Italy. Napoleon successfully defeats the Aus- trians at the Battle of Arcole (Arcola). xviii Chronology 1797 Treaty of Campo Formio Austria and France sign the Treaty of Campo Formio, ending the War of the First Coalition. 1798 Battle of the Nile The Battle of the Nile between the French and British fleets occurs in Aboukir Bay near the mouth of the Nile River. All of the French ships are either captured, destroyed, or run aground. 1798 Battle of the Pyramids The Egyptian Mamluks are easily defeated by Napo- leon at the Battle of the Pyramids on July 21. Napo- leon occupies Cairo on the next day. 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts The Alien and Sedition Acts mark an attempt by U.S. Federalists to strengthen the federal government and suppress opposition from the Republicans. 1798 War of the Second Coalition Begins In December Great Britain and Russia sign a treaty of alliance against France, beginning the War of the Second Coalition. 1800 Act of Union Great Britain annexes Ireland in the Act of Union on May 5. The Irish parliament is dissolved and Ireland gains representation in the British parlia- ment. 1800 Peace Treaty with France The United States signs the Convention of Paris with France. Under this treaty, France accepts U.S. neutral- ity rights at sea. 1802 Treaty of Amiens The War of the Second Coalition comes to an end with the Treaty of Amiens. The British give up all claims to the French Crown and territory. 1803 War of the Third Coalition Begins The War of the Third Coalition begins when, on May 18, Great Britain declares war against France believ- ing that Napoleon is violating the Treaty of Amiens. 1803 Louisiana Purchase The United States purchases the vast Louisiana Terri- tory for $15 million from France. 1804 Lewis and Clark Expedition On May 14, the Lewis and Clark Expedition sets off from St. Louis to the Pacific. 1804 Serb Uprising In February Serbs, under the leadership of Kara George, rise up against the Ottomans. 1805 Battle of Trafalgar The Battle of Trafalgar establishes British naval supe- riority for over 100 years. 1807 Invasion of Portugal Portugal refuses to participate in Napoleon’s conti- nental system that was designed to deny food and other products produced on the continent to Great Britain. Napoleon sends an army to conquer Por- tugal. 1808 Beethoven Completes Fifth Ludwig van Beethoven composes his Fifth Sym- phony. 1809 Napoleon Occupies Vienna On May 13 Napoleon’s forces occupy Vienna. His initial victory is short-lived, and he is soon forced to withdraw across the Danube after his defeats at the Battles of Aspern and Essling. 1810 Argentina Independent A provisional junta is established in the provinces of the Río de la Plata (Argentina). The leaders declare their independence from Spain. 1811 Colombia Independent On August 7 Simón Bolívar wins a decisive victory over Spanish forces at the Battle of Boyacá in present- day Colombia. The Congress of Angostura is then convened to declare the Republic of Colombia. 1811 Paraguay Independent On August 14 Paraguay proclaims independence from Spain. 1811 Venezuela War of Independence Begins A congress of the criollos (Creoles) declares indepen- dence, starting a process that ends in 1823. 1812 War of 1812 The war between Great Britain and the United States lasts for more than two years. It ends in a stalemate, but confirms American independence. Chronology xix 1812 Battle of Borodino Napoleon defeats the Russian army at the Battle of Borodino. The Russians withdraw, opening the road to Moscow for Napoleon. On September 14, the French occupy the nearly deserted city. 1812 Napoleon Retreats from Moscow Napoleon maintains his army in the burned Russian capital for five weeks in the hope of bringing the Rus- sians to terms; finally on October 19, with winter setting in and his armies far from home, Napoleon retreats from Moscow. 1812 Treaty of Bucharest On May 28 the Ottomans sign the Treaty of Bucha- rest with Russia, ending their six-year war. 1812 Spanish Regain Control of Venezuela An earthquake in Venezuela is used by the clergy to claim that heaven opposes the revolution. With support weakened, the rebel forces capitulate to the Spanish under the terms of the Treaty of San Mateo. The treaty calls for the granting of clemency to the rebels; however, the Spanish renege. 1812 Mexico Independent After a victory at Cuautla, 45 miles south of Mexico City, José María Morelos y Pavón captures Orizaba and Oaxaca from the royalists. The next year Acapul- co is captured and independence is declared. 1812 Treaty of Ghent British and American negotiators meet in August at Ghent, Belgium, to negotiate a settlement in the War of 1812. They reach an agreement that restores all territory as it was before the war, without resolving the territorial issues. 1814 Hartford Convention Delegates from Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island convene in Hartford from December 15, 1814, to January 5, 1815. The majority vote for a platform demanding a change in the Constitution, requiring a two-thirds vote by Congress to impose an embargo, admit a western state into the Union, or begin a war, except in the case of an invasion. 1814 Congress of Vienna One of the greatest international assemblies in history takes place in Vienna between September 1814 and June 1815. It successfully works out the various claims of the nations of Europe and establishes a framework that avoids a major European war for 50 years. 1814 Napoleon Abdicates Napoleon is defeated in a series of battles, each bring- ing the allies closer to Paris. On March 31 a victori- ous allied army enters Paris. On April 11 Napoleon abdicates and is sent to the island of Elba. 1814 Steam Engine In 1814 George Stephenson develops his first locomo- tive, which was called the Blücher. 1815 Battle of Waterloo Napoleon once again seizes power. The other nations of Europe unite to fight him. On June 18 at the Battle of Waterloo Napoleon’s forces are defeated, and he flees back toward Paris. On June 22 he surrenders to allied forces. 1815 German Confederation One of the results of the Congress of Vienna is the establishment of the German Confederation. The Confederation consists of 39 member states. 1815 British Establish Colony in Sierra Leone The British establish a Crown Colony in Sierra Leone. 1819 Adams-Onís Treaty Under the terms of the Adams-Onís Treaty, the Unit- ed States acquires Florida from Spain. In return, the U.S. government assumes $5 million worth of Spanish debts. 1820 Revolts in Spain and Portugal A revolt breaks out in Spain when Colonel Rafael del Riego demands that the French constitution of 1812 be restored. On August 24 a revolt against British regency in Portugal occurs. A liberal constitutional monarchy is created and João VI, living in exile in Brazil, is invited to head it. 1820 Missouri Compromise Under the terms of the Missouri Compromise, Mis- souri is admitted as a slave state, while Maine is admit- ted as a free state. Slavery was prohibited in the former Louisiana Territory north of the 36°30' parallel. 1821 Greek War of Independence The Greek revolution breaks out when Greeks in Moldavia begin a revolt against the Ottomans. xx Chronology 1822 Ashanti War Begins The Ashanti War begins in West Africa between the Ashanti and the Fante. 1822 Brazil Independent On September 7 Dom Pedro, the Portuguese regent, declares Brazil independent from Portugal. 1822 Ecuador Free from Spain On May 24 Antonio José de Sucre, Simón Bolívar’s lieutenant, defeats the Spanish at the Battle of Mount Pichincha near Quito. 1823 French Forces Restore Ferdinand VII The French intervene in the Spanish revolution. They invade Spain and force the rebels to hand over King Ferdinand VII, whom they then restore to power. 1823 Monroe Doctrine The Monroe Doctrine issued by U.S. president James Monroe states: “The American continents are hence- forth not to be considered the subjects for future colo- nization by any European powers.” 1824 First Anglo-Burmese War On February 24 the first Anglo-Burmese War begins when the British declare war on Burma. 1825 Decembrist Uprising Young Russian aristocrats stage a brief uprising against Romanov rule. The revolt is short-lived but is a sign of things to come. 1828 Uruguay Independent Uruguay becomes independent under a peace treaty between Brazil and Argentina over Banda Oriental. 1829 Baltimore and Ohio Railroad On December 22, the first passenger railroad in the United States opens for business. 1829 Treaty of Adrianople The Russian-Turkish War that had begun in 1828 ends with the Treaty of Adrianople. 1830 The July Revolution The July Revolution breaks out in Paris when Charles X, king of France, attempts to suspend the constitu- tion to overturn the recent French election. The revo- lutionaries gain control of Paris and force Charles X to abdicate. 1830 Belgium Adopts a Constitution The July Revolution in France inspires Belgian revolu- tionaries to rise up against Dutch rule. They demand independence. In late September the Dutch are forced out of Brussels, and Belgium is declared independent. 1832 First Reform Act Passes in Britain The Reform Act of 1832 passes the House of Lords. It doubles the number of eligible voters to 1 million. This begins a series of reforms that will eventually lead to universal suffrage. 1833 The First Carlist War Begins A civil war foments in Spain when Ferdinand VII dies. 1835 Second Seminole War Under the leadership of Chief Osceola, the Seminoles refuse to move to the Oklahoma Territory. They retreat to the Florida Everglades. 1835 The Great Trek The Dutch settlers of South Africa, known as the Boers, begin a Great Trek northward. Now known as the Voortrekkers, they leave the Cape Colony to free themselves of British control. 1836 Texas Independent The settlers of Texas, a Mexican territory, declare their independence in 1836. 1837 Deere Invents Plow John Deere invents the steel plow, which greatly improves the ability of farmers to plow fields. 1838 First Anglo-Afghan War Begins The First Anglo-Afghan War begins when the British governor of India launches an attack on Afghanistan. He fears growing Russian influence in Afghanistan. 1838 Underground Railroad Begins in United States The Underground Railroad starts as a means for escaped slaves to be moved through the North until they reach sanctuary in Canada. 1839 Opium War The Opium War between China and Great Britain begins when the Chinese order the destruction of illegal opium stored by foreign merchants. The East India Company had promoted the use of opium by its Chinese workers. Chronology xxi 1842 British Are Massacred A revolt against the British in Kabul forces them to agree to withdraw from the city and return to India. The Afghans instead attack the British and massacre 4,500 soldiers and 12,000 civilians. 1844 Treaty of Wanghia Under the terms of this treaty negotiated by Caleb Cush- ing, the United States gains the right to trade in Chinese ports as well as additional legal rights inside China. 1844 Franco-Moroccan War The French begin a war with Morocco, which had refused to recognize the French conquest of Algeria and provided refuge to the Algerian rebel leader. 1844 Telegraph Becomes National The first intercity telegraph is demonstrated by Sam- uel Morse. A telegraph line was built for $30,000 between Washington and Baltimore. 1845 U.S. Annexes Texas After the landslide victory of James Polk, who ran on a ticket supporting annexation of Texas, the U.S. Congress approves the annexation of Texas by joint resolution. 1846 First Sikh War The First Anglo-Sikh War ends with a British victory at the Battle of Sobraon in the Punjab. 1846 Mexican War The U.S. Congress votes overwhelmingly to declare war on Mexico despite initial Whig opposition. Over the course of the two-year war, the United States defeats the Mexicans and captures the capital, Mexico City. 1846 Oregon Treaty The United States and Great Britain end disputes over the Oregon Territory with a compromise. 1847 Liberia Independent Liberia declares its independence on July 26. Former American slaves had founded Liberia. It is Africa’s first independent republic. 1848 Revolution in France King Louis-Philippe of France refuses to institute political reforms and extend suffrage. In response, riots led by workers and students break out. They force the king to abdicate in February. 1848 The Viennese Revolution Viennese students and workers inspired by events in France begin in March to protest the policies of the Austrian government. Conservative elements, how- ever, gain control and brutally put down the revolt. 1848 Guadalupe-Hidalgo Treaty The Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo ends the Mexican- American War. Under the terms of the treaty, the bor- der is set at the Rio Grande. The United States gains most of California, New Mexico, Nevada, Wyoming, Colorado, and Texas. 1849 Hungarians Announce Independence In response to a repressive constitution promulgated after the failed Viennese revolution, the Hungarian Diet (parliament) on April 14 formally declares its independence from Austria. 1849 Second Sikh War The British defeat the Sikhs at Chillianwalla and Gujart. This forces the Sikhs to surrender at Rawal- pindi. 1849 Gold Rush Begins In January President Polk announces that gold has been found in California. This sets off the gold rush, in which 80,000 people head for California to seek their fortunes. 1850 Taiping Rebellion The Taiping Rebellion in China begins, led by Hong Xiuquan. The revolt against the Manchus lasts for 10 years and ends in failure. The revolt takes the lives of 20 million Chinese peasants. 1850 Compromise of 1850 The Compromise of 1850 holds the Union together for another 10 difficult years. The dispute concerns the admittance of additional states into the Union, while maintaining the balance between free and slave states. 1852 Second Burma War The Second Burmese War begins when the Burmese oust their king, Pagan Min, after a six-year reign. The British capture Rangoon as the war begins. 1852 South African Republic The British government recognizes the independence of the Boer Republic of the Transvaal under the terms of the Sand River Convention of 1852. xxii Chronology 1854 Perry in Japan U.S. commodore Perry arrives in Japan to attempt to open trade relations, as well as provide a safe haven for shipwrecked sailors. Perry’s successful mission to Japan quickly ends the Japanese self-imposed isola- tion and heralds a rapid industrialization of the econ- omy of the island nation. 1855 Livingstone Discovers Victoria Falls David Livingstone, a Scottish explorer, departs from South Africa to explore the interior of Africa. In 1855 he discovers Victoria Falls. 1856 Arrow War The second Anglo-Chinese war, known as the Arrow War, begins when the Chinese force a British-registered ship (the Arrow) to lower the British flag. 1857 Sepoy Mutiny The Sepoys, native Indian troops employed by the British, revolt and kill their British officers. The Sepoys manage to capture Delhi. 1859 John Brown Leads Revolt John Brown leads a group of 18 to attack the arsenal in Harpers Ferry. His goal is to foment a slave rebel- lion. The revolt is subdued by the U.S. Army under the command of Robert E. Lee. Brown is hanged. 1859 Darwin Publishes On the Origin of Species Charles Darwin publishes On the Origin of Species, in which he posits the theory of evolution. That the- ory states that humans descended from apes and that only the fittest species survive and evolve. 1859 Italian War The Italian War starts when Austria tries to extend its already extensive control over the Italian Peninsula. On May 12 the French declare war on Austria. 1860 Second Maori War Begins The second Maori war is fought from 1860 to 1872 between British colonists and native New Zealanders on North Island. 1861 Fort Sumter Fort Sumter refuses to surrender to the Confederates. At 4:30 a.m. on April 12, General Pierre Gustave Tou- tant Beauregard gives the order to open fire. The next afternoon Major Anderson surrenders. The American Civil War begins in earnest. 1861 Battle of Bull Run In July Union troops are defeated in the first major battle of the Civil War. 1862 Battle of Antietam Confederate general Robert E. Lee leads his army into Maryland in a gamble to win the war. Both sides lose an equal number of men. The smaller Confederate force withdraws. In the aftermath of the battle, Presi- dent Abraham Lincoln announces the Emancipation Proclamation. 1863 Battle of Gettysburg The Battle of Gettysburg takes place in Pennsylvania, where Lee has led his army to invade the North fol- lowing his success at Chancellorsville. 1865 Civil War Over In April General Lee’s surrounded army is forced to surrender to the forces of Ulysses Grant, ending the Civil War. 1865 Booth Assassinates Lincoln Just six days after the South surrenders, President Lincoln is shot by John Wilkes Booth while attending a play at Ford’s Theatre. 1865 Thirteenth Amendment Passes On December 18 the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution is officially ratified. This amendment states that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude can exist in the United States. 1867 Alaska Purchase Secretary of State William Seward negotiates the U.S. purchase of Alaska from Russia for $7 million. 1868 Meiji Restoration The Meiji Restoration begins when the newly established emperor, Mutsuhito, ousts the shogu- nate (military regime) of the Tokugawa clan that had ruled Japan in fact since 1603. 1868 Revolution in Spain On September 18 the officers of the Spanish fleet foment a revolution. They march on Madrid and defeat government forces. 1869 Suez Canal Opens On November 17 the Suez Canal opens to traffic. The canal links the Mediterranean and the Red Sea. Chronology xxiii 1869 Transcontinental Railroad On May 10, at Promontory Point, Utah, a golden rail spike is struck, completing the first U.S. transconti- nental railroad line. 1870 Italy Is Unified Italy is unified when Italian troops enter Rome after the withdrawal of French troops. The Italians strip all temporal power from Pope Pius IX, whom they imprison in the Vatican. 1870 Franco-Prussian War The Franco-Prussian War begins at the instigation of Prussian minister Otto von Bismarck, who believes the war will help unify Germany. On January 28, 1871, Paris falls and the French surrender. 1871 Paris Commune When word spreads in Paris that the legislative assem- bly is considering restoring the monarchy, students and workers take to the streets. The Commune of Paris controls the city from March 18 until May 28. 1871 Second Reich With the German victory in France complete, the Ger- man Reichstag (parliament) proclaims the creation of the Second Reich. 1872 Second Carlist War The Second Carlist War begins in the spring of 1872 when Don Carlos III tries to reestablish the Bourbon reign in Spain. The war continues for two years until 1874 when a coalition declares Alfonso XII king. 1874 Japanese Invade Taiwan The Japanese invade Taiwan—their pretext is the kill- ing of an Okinawan seaman after a shipwreck. 1876 War in Ottoman Empire In May the Bulgarians begin an insurrection against the Ottomans. The insurrection is brutally quelled, and thousands of Bulgarians are slain. 1876 Korean Independence Japan recognizes Korean independence from China. Under a treaty with Korea, trade between Japan and Korea opens. China does not object to the treaty. 1879 Edison Invents Electric Light Thomas Edison overcomes the obstacle to finding a lightbulb that will burn long enough to become com- mercially viable by developing a bulb based on car- bonized cotton. 1879 Zulu War The Zulu nation that was founded in 1876 ends when the British defeat it in battle. On January 22 the British are defeated at the Battle of Isandhlwand. The British, however, decisively defeat the Zulu at the Battle of Ulundi. 1881 Alexander II Dies A bomb in St. Petersburg kills Alexander II, czar of Russia, on March 13. 1881 Assassin Shoots President Garfield U.S. president James Garfield is shot on July 2 as he walks through the waiting room of the Baltimore & Potomac Railroad in Washington, D.C. His assassin, Charles Guiteau, had been rejected for a position in Garfield’s administration. The president dies on Sep- tember 19. 1881 French Invasion of Tunisia Tunisian tribesmen raid Algeria, which provides the French with a pretext for attacking Tunisia. The French withdraw after signing the Treaty of Bardo. 1882 Britain Invades Egypt The British invade Egypt in response to antiforeign riots. The British defeat the army of Arabi Pasha at Al Tell. 1882 Triple Alliance The Triple Alliance is created when Italy, Germany, and Austria-Hungary promise mutual support. 1883 Anglo-French Punitive Expedition The French and the British launch a punitive expedition against Sudan that is decisively defeated by Muham- mad Ahmad at the Battle of El Ubbayid. 1883 Brooklyn Bridge Opens On May 25 the New York boroughs of Manhat- tan and Brooklyn are linked with the opening of the Brooklyn Bridge. 1883 Sino-French War The French and the Chinese fight in the Sino-French war. The French occupy most of Annam (Vietnam and Cambodia), but their trade is disrupted by Chinese in northern Vietnam. xxiv Chronology 1884 Congo Free State Belgium declares the Congo a free state, open to set- tlement and trade by all nations. 1885 Germany Claims Tanzania The German East Africa Company gains a charter to administer Tanzania. The same year Germany claims South-West Africa and Togoland. 1886 Anglo-Egyptian Agreement The British and the Germans agree to recognize Sayid Barghash as sultan of Zanzibar. 1887 Ethiopian-Italian War Begins The Italians are defeated in the first battle of the Ital- ian-Ethiopian War at the Battle of Dogali. 1889 Japan’s First Written Constitution Under the terms of the constitution, the emperor’s legislative power can be exercised only with the con- sent of the Imperial Diet. 1890 Bismarck Resigns Emperor William II of Germany forces Bismarck to resign. This ends the career of the man singlehandedly responsible for the unification of Germany. 1890 Britain Occupies Uganda The Germans and the British resolve their differences in Africa when the Germans give up claims to Uganda. 1893 Panic of 1893 in the United States A growing credit shortage creates panic, resulting in a depression. Over the course of this depression, 15,000 businesses, 600 banks, and 74 railroads fail. 1895 First Sino-Japanese War The Japanese defeat both the Chinese army and navy in the Sino-Japanese War. 1895 French West Africa The French organize their territorial holdings in West Africa into French West Africa. 1895 Sun Yat-sen Revolt Sun Yat-sen organizes a secret revolutionary society in Canton in 1894. In 1895 he attempts to overthrow the Manchu dynasty. His first attempt fails. 1896 Battle of Adwa (Adowa) Ethiopia defeats the Italians at the Battle of Adwa. 1896 Great Britain Captures Ghana The Ashanti capital of Kumasi is captured by a Brit- ish expeditionary force. The area, which is in pres- ent-day Ghana, becomes a British protectorate. 1898 Spanish-American War The Americans decisively defeat the Spanish, captur- ing the Philippines, Cuba, and Puerto Rico. 1898 Fashoda Incident British and French expeditions simultaneously reach Fashoda in present-day Sudan. The crisis ends when France recognizes British claims to the Nile basin, while Britain recognizes French claims to the Sahara as well as western Sudan. FOOD PRODUCTION Major Themes 1750 to 1900 Between the mid-18th century and the dawn of the 20th, the ancient and essential work of feeding the world was dramatically transformed to varying extents in different parts of the world. Despite astonish- ing changes in mechanization, transport, agricultural science, and food preservation techniques, farmers everywhere were still at the mercy of weather and pestilence. As agriculture became internationalized, farmers were also affected more than ever before by crop and price fluctuations. The world’s overall supply of food increased spectacularly, yet many still starved or were undernourished. Most countries were still predominantly rural in 1750. In the countryside, families and com- munities tried, even on the tiniest plots, to grow enough food to sustain themselves. In emerging cities, most residents used available open spaces for cows, pigs, goats, or chickens and perhaps a fruit tree or vegetable patch. The wealthiest and most important people in most societies did not usually farm themselves but controlled quantities of fertile land and could compel laborers—slaves, serfs, or peasants—to farm it. Agricultural change was already afoot. In the Americas, where settlers from Spain, France, and Britain had appropriated land formerly controlled by Native peoples, commodity agriculture built wealth for the colonizers and their homelands. By 1750, Chesapeake planters who had built a thriv- ing economy on tobacco were diversifying into grains and other crops. After the American Revolu- tion, cotton became king in the southern states. Slaves were used to raise the crop that fed the textile mills of the Western world’s Industrial Revolution. Even as farming became commercialized, the New World’s enormous land resources seemed to promise agricultural independence to generations of farmers. U.S. president Thomas Jefferson, himself the owner of dozens of slaves, advocated an agrarian nation that would feed the world while maintaining the sturdy self-reliance of virtuous small farmers. Mexico and Central and South America remained overwhelmingly rural until the later 19th century and continued to rely almost entirely on traditional Indian crops, such as corn and squash, and agricultural methods including burning the residual stalks and roots after harvesting. Wars of xxv xxvi 1750 to 1900 independence between 1808 and 1824, followed by frequent outbreaks of regional civil war, led to crop and livestock destruction and great instability for farmers. In the 1830s coffee beans became a wildly successful commodity. Coffee enabled many wealthy landowners, especially in Brazil, Ven- ezuela, and Guatemala, to enlarge their holdings at the expense of small farmers, although some small farmers in Costa Rica and Colombia were able to hold their own. In Argentina, commercial beef production grew explosively late in the century. Similarly, Australia and New Zealand, settled by British immigrants, became major exporters of grain and meat. North America became a magnet for agricultural immigrants as land became scarcer in Europe due to population pressures and other political and economic factors. Millions of Scandinavian and German farmers headed to the Great Plains, helping to make the United States and Canada the world’s most bountiful source of grains such as wheat and corn. Not all rural immigrants found agricultural opportunities: Irish peasants displaced from their lands by harsh British policies and the devastating potato famine of the late 1840s mostly resettled in Canadian and American cities. In the 1890s a worldwide decline in sugar prices caused famine in Spanish-controlled Cuba and helped bring about the Spanish-American War. In China, even though acreage devoted to agriculture increased after the 17th century, the popu- lation rose much faster, tripling to 430 million by 1851, thanks to a period of internal peace, increased crop yields, and medical advances such as widespread smallpox vaccination. Since little additional land was available for cultivation and there were few opportunities for emigration, liveli- hood became difficult, leading to widespread rebellions in the mid-19th century. Japan’s population also grew rapidly in the late 19th century, straining limited land resources. The adoption of chemical fertilizers somewhat improved agricultural yields. Imperialism played an important role in reshaping agricultural economies. Subsistence farming in much of Asia, Africa, and South America was disrupted by Western demands for profitable cash crops and a growing need for cheap, nonagricultural labor. Egypt under Muhammad Ali moved away from self-sufficient farming of foodstuffs to cash crops, especially tobacco and cotton. During the U.S. Civil War, when demand was high and production low, the Egyptian economy prospered, but once U.S. production resumed, Egypt was caught in a web of indebtedness for costly develop- ment projects begun during the short boom. In India, the British undertook many irrigation proj- ects, especially after the opening of the Suez Canal. These improvements facilitated the cultivation and exportation of various cash crops. Famines continued to occur, but agricultural and transporta- tion improvements lessened their severity. Over the course of the 19th century, prices of commodity crops such as wheat, corn, tobacco, sugar, and cotton fell significantly. This was a boon for consum- ers, but difficult for small independent farmers. Agricultural Mechanization and New Techniques. For millennia, agricultural labor had been provided by the muscle power of men, women, and children, assisted when possible by draft animals such as horses, donkeys, oxen, water buffalo, or yaks. The number of hands and hoofs available dic- tated the size of most farms, which were small. Most farmers produced food required by their own families, selling any extra production locally for cash to buy what they could not grow or make. Two American innovators, John Deere and Cyrus McCormick, introduced important advances in the 1830s that made plows stronger and reapers more reliable. At first this new equipment used horse or oxen power; eventually steam power would run these labor-saving machines. Although Deere and McCormick became international names in agriculture, farmers were slow to adopt the new machinery, due to expense and tradition. As more farmers after the U.S. Civil War acquired larger farmsteads on the Great Plains, they found that it was almost impossible to cultivate the prairies without the new technology, including the tougher chilled iron plow, introduced in 1869, and seed drills that promised uniform rows for crops such as wheat and corn. The “plow that broke the Plains” would have serious ecological consequences wherever it was used, leading to soil erosion and other long-term effects. By the 1880s most North American agriculture was specialized. In the arid West, barbed wire was the key invention that helped ranchers control their livestock, keeping cattle and sheep safe from both 1750 to 1900 xxvii animal and human predators. A swath of states from New York to Wisconsin and Minnesota provid- ed most of the nation’s dairy foods. The cotton gin, a device patented in 1794 by New Englander Eli Whitney, removed seeds from cotton fibers, making cotton a viable commodity. Cotton raised in Mis- sissippi, Alabama, and elsewhere in the South was the United States’s most important export before the Civil War, but was challenged afterward by cotton from Egypt and India. Between 1860 and 1900 the number of active farms in the United States almost tripled, and 32 million people lived on them. Scientific agriculture began to reshape, if not always improve, traditional farming practices. Advances in crop rotation, new seed varieties, fertilizers, and pesticides began to help farmers over- come some traditional dangers to their livelihood, despite potential loss of variety and environmental harm. Mechanical irrigation could overcome drought, but at a high economic and ecological cost. In the United States in 1862 Congress authorized college-level agricultural education and created a federal Department of Agriculture. National efforts to educate and encourage farmers emerged even as new techniques and machinery began to make labor-intensive small farming obsolete. Lack of capital and conservative political and social policies prevented the vast agricultural lands of Russia from adopting efficient farming methods. Agricultural Markets and Trade. As localized subsistence farming gave way in most of the world to international commercial agriculture, transportation and processing facilities took on the highest importance. For most countries, navigable waterways were the best option for moving crops to port cities. In the United States the Mississippi River played an especially important role, as barges car- ried farm goods to the port of New Orleans. Smaller streams could provide power to turn grain into flour; by the 1780s automated water mills were in use in North America. In the early 1800s locali- ties searched to create water access. The Erie Canal, a state-financed project that opened in 1825, connected New York City to the Great Lakes, dramatically enhancing agricultural trade options. Canals were also widely used in Europe. Ocean shipping by clipper ships, and later steam-powered vessels, helped greatly in the worldwide distribution of agricultural products. Roads good enough to accommodate heavily loaded farm wagons under a variety of weather conditions were slow to develop, but the advent of railroads in the 1830s was a major boon to farm- ers and their customers, because they were more reliable and cheaper than canals or rivers. Cattle and other livestock destined for urban slaughterhouses would be delivered to railroad depots by cowboys on horseback. By the 1870s refrigerated freight cars were hauling meat and other perish- able foodstuffs to distant cities. This gradual switch from food grown locally to products from the world over changed human dietary habits. Ancient preservation techniques, including smoking, salting, and pickling, were aug- mented by sanitary canning, developed in France and Britain in the early 1800s. French scien- tist Louis Pasteur’s heat treatment of milk overcame serious dangers of microbes in many foods, although mandatory pasteurization only caught on widely in the 20th century. Refrigeration and new methods for providing large quantities of ice for home use were, by the end of the 19th century, making it safe to eat foods out of season. Although these new methods promised food that was more plentiful, nutritious, and varied, standardization and new packaging had a downside. Practices that counterfeited freshness and healthfulness became endemic in the 19th century. Food-processing firms often cut corners in regard to hygiene and mislabeled their products. Cheap additives, artificial taste and coloring agents, and even known poisons made their way into packaged products. Crusades against food adulteration, led by mothers and public health professionals, gained momentum, culminating in 20th-century inspection and labeling laws in many nations. Land and Money: Agricultural Politics. Peasant unrest frequently afflicted societies across the globe; even in more developed nations, farmers were often unhappy. In the 19th century farmers facing higher machinery and transportation costs while crop prices plummeted made their griev- ances known. In the next century millions of them would give up farming entirely. In 1807 U.S. farmers, not for the first time, experienced the instability of farming as an export business. Facing attacks on shipping by both France and England in the run-up to the War of 1812, xxviii 1750 to 1900 President Jefferson, the champion of agrarianism, persuaded Congress to include farm products in his embargo of trade with the warring European powers. Since agricultural sales were a major com- ponent of U.S. trade, this proved to be a disaster. Tobacco became almost worthless, while wheat prices fell from two dollars to 10 cents a bushel, setting off a general recession. The distribution of western lands mostly seized by the U.S. government from Indian tribes was a major issue leading up to the Civil War. In 1862 a Homestead Act was signed by President Abra- ham Lincoln at a time when 75 percent of Americans were farmers or lived in rural communities. It was a way to reward Union supporters during the war, although former Confederates would later share its benefits. The act promised 160 acres of free land in specified areas to families who would spend at least five years improving their new homesteads. Some 2 million families claimed free federal lands, while millions more bought surplus land from railroad companies building transcontinental lines with government assistance. Persuaded that “rain follows the plow,” many of these homesteaders would eventually give up farming after enduring droughts, blizzards, and insect infestations later in the century. After the Civil War much of southern agriculture was based on sharecropping, a system that put landless farmers to work on the large landholdings of others. Poor whites and former slaves were most likely to farm under these circumstances. Despite promises that they might someday own the land they cultivated, sharecroppers were often exploited by high-priced “company stores” and were prey to the usual disappointments of farming. Like Russia’s serfs, emancipated by Czar Alexander II in 1861, sharecroppers often found greater opportunity in urban factories than by continuing to farm lands they might never actually own. Farmer disappointment and unrest soon took political form. In the United States, the Nation- al Grange was founded in 1867. This fraternal organization encouraged rural families to sup- port one another and create cooperative facilities such as grain silos. By the 1870s farmers were joining more overtly political farmers’ alliances. Millions of farmers in the Midwest, Great Plains, and South were politicized by uncontrolled rail freight charges, high seed costs, and agricultural price instability. In 1892 the new People’s Party ran former Iowa general James B. Weaver for president. This movement, whose members were called Populists, had some regional success and won electoral votes. But after their central issues, including currency reform, were embraced by 1896 Democratic Party nominee for president William Jennings Bryan from Nebraska, Populists gradually retreated into political oblivion, and their tentative efforts to build a biracial move- ment were swept away. In 1750 most of the farming population in Europe were either serfs or worked under conditions that had survived from serfdom. Political and social changes brought on by the French Revolution in 1789 would result in the emancipation of farmers in France and later across Europe. The last and largest group to achieve freedom was the rural population of the Russian Empire, in the 1860s. Peasant unrest and revolts characterized Russia throughout this period. SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS In the 18th century Europeans, later joined by North Americans, brought about a scientific, technological, and social movement that reshaped work, wealth, and environments around the globe. Over this 150-year period, the Industrial Revolution changed power generation, transpor- tation, and communication. It also generated important breakthroughs in pure science, as physi- cists, chemists, and biologists developed theoretical explanations for technologies often already in use. On the most basic level, what the Industrial Revolution did was replace ancient energy sources—human and animal labor, wind, fire, and water—with new systems of power, initially the use of coal to run steam engines that were massively more powerful than hundreds of human workers. In 1765 Scotsman James Watt, building on the earlier work of Thomas Newcomen and others, developed the first efficient steam engine. Among its earliest applications were steam-pow- ered machinery for turning wool, cotton, and flax into finished textiles, a process previously done 1750 to 1900 xxix almost entirely by hand. This transformation of work from a home-based system to centralized factories relying on complex machinery was the central element of the Industrial Revolution. Britain’s newly automated spinning and weaving machinery quickly propelled the island nation into the forefront of economic production and soon set off efforts by competing nations, including the new United States, to equal Britain’s industrial achievements. Bribes paid to British mechanics and industrial espionage were among the tactics used. In 1793, with the invaluable assistance of British immigrant and skilled textile machinist Samuel Slater, a limited but successful textile factory opened in Rhode Island. In the early 1800s growing conflict between Britain and the United States, resulting in the War of 1812, had the effect of making America’s home-grown industrialization even more crucial. After 1807 the number of U.S. textile mills sextupled. The most important of the new mills was Francis Cabot Lowell’s Boston Manufacturing Company of Waltham, Massachusetts, where both spinning and weaving processes were automated under a single factory roof and a workforce, consisting primarily of young women from struggling New England farm families, provided low- cost labor. In the earliest days of the Industrial Revolution, water wheels competed with the new steam engine. But as the reliability of steam power increased and its siting flexibility became obvious, energy-dense coal became Europe’s and, later, North America’s major industrial fuel source. At the U.S. centennial celebration in Philadelphia in 1876, George H. Corliss’s steam engine, the largest in the world, was both a major attraction and sole power source for the entire exhibition. Within 40 years, steam engines would be largely replaced by electrical devices, although the electrical power these new machines used would, in most cases, still be generated by burning coal. Some of the earliest experiments with static electricity were done by American Benjamin Frank- lin, whose 1751 article, “Experiments and Observations on Electricity,” made him a Fellow of Brit- ain’s Royal Society. By 1753 Franklin had developed the protective lightning rod. Between the 1780s and 1800 Italian scientists Luigi Galvani and Alessandro Volta would discover electrical current and how to produce electricity chemically through the medium of the battery. In 1831 Englishman Michael Faraday’s discovery of electromagnetism, scientifically refined by James Clerk Maxwell, paved the way for practical uses of electrical power. George Westinghouse, who first gained fame in 1873 as the inventor of air brakes for trains, soon thereafter became fellow U.S. inventor Thomas A. Edison’s chief rival for the implementation of commercial electric power. Westinghouse’s alter- nating current, developed for him by Nikola Tesla, became the standard. Edison, inventor of the incandescent lightbulb and many other devices powered by electricity, lost his bid for direct current but nevertheless profited mightily. Spread of Industry. As the Industrial Revolution spread, the need to provide fuel and raw mate- rials to new factories and ship their finished products helped set off a transportation revolution in many industrializing nations. Efforts were made in Britain and elsewhere to improve road surfaces to facilitate safer passage for wheeled vehicles, at first drawn by horses or other draft animals. In 1819 Scotsman John Macadam developed a crushed stone surface, significantly smoothing road- ways. The United States began building a National Road, starting in Baltimore after the War of 1812, but regional squabbles and high costs meant that, after 44 years, the road project ended 65 miles short of its projected St. Louis terminus. Similarly, imperial powers in Africa, Muhammad Ali in Egypt, and the Ottoman Empire in western Asia all financed projects to enlarge ports and build roads and railroads to facilitate the transport of cash crops and raw materials. In 1757 and 1764 two canals built in England made it easier to move coal to emerging factories. Other European nations and the United States soon joined in the canal-building boom. In 1825 New York State’s Erie Canal, a water route connecting New York City to the Great Lakes and beyond, became one of the most successful projects in what would prove to be the brief golden age of canal transport. The major transport successes of the early 19th century were steam-powered ships and rail- roads. In 1807 on the Hudson River Robert Fulton demonstrated a new kind of water-going vessel, xxx 1750 to 1900 powered by an English steam engine. Its success led to steamboats on most large U.S. rivers and the Great Lakes. In 1800 Englishman Richard Trevithick devised a much smaller, high-pressure steam engine ideal for railroad transportation. Locomotives were used for industrial freight hauling in Brit- ain for some years before the first public passenger line between Liverpool and Manchester opened in 1830. A worldwide frenzy of railroad construction ensued. With their dedicated trackage and modular assembly, railroads, powered by coal-fired steam engines, were well suited to hauling huge loads of both goods and people. Major increases in the fabrication and use of iron and steel provided the sinews of the Industrial Revolution, especially the building of rail tracks. Developed in Britain, the Bessemer steel process was widely adopted in the United States and helped steel magnate Andrew Carnegie, a Scottish-born immigrant, become one of the world’s wealthiest men. The late 19th century saw the first examples of transport based on internal combustion engines—the automobile, bus, and truck. Although the Swiss inventor Nicholas Cugnot is credited with making such a device as early as 1769, European experiments that led to workable internal combustion engines began in the 1860s. The Germans Gottlieb Daimler, Wilhelm Maybach, and Carl Benz produced workable prototypes in the 1880s, while France’s Peugeot firm began to per- fect auto design in 1890. In 1897 the German Rudolf Diesel produced a new type of engine that now bears his name. By the end of the century Americans, too, were making cars, notably the 1893 Duryea. Ransom Olds’s first Michigan auto factory opened in 1899, but the United States lagged behind European engineering by a decade. Instantaneous communications were essential to the business and technical needs of the Indus- trial Revolution. Weather events, wars, and other crises could easily disrupt, even derail, factory production. Charles Wheatstone’s early telegraph of 1837, systematized and improved in 1844 by Samuel F. B. Morse, made it possible to circulate information much faster than mail systems. By 1866 telegraph signals could be reliably sent and received across the Atlantic; by the end of the cen- tury, much of the world had access to telegraph communication. The Canadian Alexander Graham Bell displayed his telephone at the 1876 U.S. Centennial Exposition; within a few years it became an important business tool. In 1899 the Italian Guglielmo Marconi sent his first radio signal across the English Channel. Both telephone and radio later made the telegraph obsolete. Mechanical Geniuses. Western science developed dramatically during the heyday of the Indus- trial Revolution, sparked by “untutored” mechanical geniuses like Thomas Edison, as well as grow- ing cadres of university-trained scientists and engineers. Major breakthroughs in chemistry in the later 1700s included Frenchman Antoine Lavoisier’s and Englishman Joseph Priestley’s identification of oxygen and other atmospheric components, and Russian Dmitry Mendeleyev’s development in 1869 of a systematic table of chemical elements. In physics, discoveries in thermodynamics were spearheaded by such theorists as William Thomson, Lord Kelvin, who postulated a temperature of absolute zero at which all motion would cease. Thermodynamics provided theoretical underpinnings for methods of creating and preserving cold conditions. By the 1870s refrigerated train cars were in wide use, preserving and enhancing food products traveling from farms to distant urban areas. Some important innovations in biological science, especially as applied to health and medicine, included Swede Carolus Linnaeus’s (Carl von Linne’s) 1753 classification of biological organisms, a system still in use today. The discovery of anesthetic agents such as ether and chloroform in the 1830s and 1840s soon radically improved outcomes of painful and invasive surgeries. In 1896 X- rays were first used to diagnose human ailments. But the two most spectacular breakthroughs in this period would be evolutionary theory and the germ theory of disease. Made public in 1858, evolution was an explanation of the diversity and complexity of living organisms, reached almost simultaneously by two English naturalists, Charles Darwin and Alfred Russell Wallace. Both men had relied heavily on the early 19th-century geologic and fossil findings of Charles Lyell. In 1859 Darwin published On the Origin of Species in which he postulated natural selection as the mechanism that allowed some species to survive while others disappeared. His direct challenge to most religious explanations for the development of human life, 1750 to 1900 xxxi evolution, was labeled blasphemous and, outside scientific circles, remains embroiled in controversy to this day. In the 1870s biologists Louis Pasteur of France and Robert Koch of Germany proved that micro- organisms—germs—were responsible for most human, animal, and plant diseases. This rethinking of disease transmission revolutionized medical practice and gave new credibility to the emerging practice of sanitation. Although the Industrial Revolution took place mostly in the West and helped it dominate other sections of the globe in the years between 1750 and 1900, it would be a mistake to see this burst of technological and scientific growth as an unchallenged success. From its inception, the new factory system was strongly criticized for making humans interchangeable and also forcing them to adapt to ever-faster and more complex machines. Opposition by a group of early challengers, the Lud- dites, reached its peak in England in 1812 when highly skilled workers, concentrated in the woolen industry, smashed installations of new machinery destined to implement the new factory system of production. By 1867 in their work Das Kapital, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, both German- born, had developed a broad critique of the Industrial Revolution and the laissez-faire capitalism that underpinned it. Engels was particularly qualified to evaluate the factory system; his father was an owner of a textile factory in Manchester, England. A result of the Industrial Revolution less often mentioned during its 19th-century zenith was massive pollution created by industrial processes based on the unfettered burning of coal, soon to be supplemented with the combustion of petroleum products. It is no wonder that U.S. writer Edward Bellamy, in his 1887 utopian best seller and critique of industrialism, Looking Backward: 2000– 1887, recalled 1887 Boston as squalid and “malodorous,” and reeking of “fetid air” compared to the shiny, bright, and clean Boston of a postindustrial future. SOCIAL AND CLASS RELATIONS This period of world history, 1750–1900, was an age of revolutions, both military and social. Although social and class upheavals were most evident in the West, other major societies also experienced important changes that affected relationships between rulers and subjects, capitalists and workers, men, women, and children. A process of globalization, spearheaded by imperialism and huge migrations within and between nations, created new political and social interactions. The American Revolution helped bring an end to the phase of European colonialism that had begun with Spain’s 16th-century expansion into the New World. It inspired independence move- ments in Central and South America and eventually led to autonomy for Canada. In Europe, the republican ideas expounded in the United States’s revolution and 1789 Constitution helped spark political ferment that would produce liberalism, socialism, and communism in the 19th century. The French Revolution marked the beginning of the end of monarchical power in France, Britain, and many other Western countries, although the final demise of this ancient system of hereditary rule did not occur until World War I. As deference to royalty faded, some class barri- ers began to come down, especially in Europe between the 1830s and 1848, when failed revolu- tions in France and Germany ended in repression of dissident voices. The impact of European imperialism across Asia from the Middle East to Japan would also inspire not only nationalistic awakening but also political and social revolutions that continued into the 20th century. These political changes would have been unlikely without the almost simultaneous eruption, first in the West and later worldwide, of the Industrial Revolution. This dramatic economic trans- formation hardened existing class identities but also held out promises of greater freedom, wealth, and power for people on lower and middle rungs of the social order. This new way of financing and organizing the production of goods was theoretically justified by The Wealth of Nations, an anti- mercantilist, pro-capitalist economic philosophy articulated in 1776, the year of American indepen- dence, by Scottish thinker Adam Smith. Aristocratic French observer Alexis de Tocqueville, who toured the United States in 1831, was astonished by the relative equality of masters and (white) servants, but worried that even in this new xxxii 1750 to 1900 democracy, manufacturing might be dominated by a tiny group of capitalists who could “fix the rate of wages as they please,” thereby oppressing their “exceedingly numerous” workers. His observa- tion presaged the insights of German-born journalist and philosopher Karl Marx, who articulated a fundamental critique of social and class relationships. Marx and Friedrich Engels published their Manifesto of the Communist Party in 1848. The workers who poured into new factories (called “Satanic Mills” by English poet William Blake) were, said Marx, the real producers of the world’s wealth. This proletariat, he insisted, should con- trol their work and apportion its benefits. Instead, he said, an emerging cadre of capitalists, assisted by a new bourgeois managerial class, were enriching themselves at the proletariat’s expense. Indeed, as people moved from farms and workshops into new industrial cities, labor unions expanded and increased in militancy. Skilled, or craft, workers, almost always men, had for years found ways to extract pay and hours concessions. Men, women, and often children working in factories, however, did less skilled work and could be easily replaced. Although Britain banned unions shortly after the French Revolution, by the 1860s coal miners and textile workers had formed powerful unions. In 1871 unions in Britain were officially recognized; in 1893 union- ists and socialists combined to create Britain’s Labour Party. German printers and cigar makers unionized after the 1848 unrest. By 1900 strong industrial unions played important political roles in most European nations. In the United States, the path to worker organization was difficult. Craft workers had long been protective of their skills and membership but began to lose ground as factories proliferated. Cyclical economic downturns led to factory layoffs; assertive workers might not be rehired. Courts were hos- tile, seeing most union demands as restraint of trade. As immigration surged in the 1850s and after the U.S. Civil War, manufacturers had their pick of presumably docile workers. In 1869 the Knights of Labor began to organize both skilled and unskilled workers and, for their time, were unusually inclusive of workers who were female, immigrant, or nonwhite. The Knights were eclipsed in 1886 when Samuel Gompers established the craft-focused American Federation of Labor, with a 40-hour workweek as its main goal. Americans and Britons who opposed unions and other socialistic reforms often invoked the precepts of Social Darwinism to justify their defense of class inequality, including the growing gap between rich and poor. This misapplication by sociologists Herbert Spencer and William Graham Sumner of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution held that in the unceasing struggle for existence only the strongest humans and human groups would survive. Simplistically, most understood this to mean that society’s richest and most powerful men had been chosen to succeed by nature’s own laws. Social Darwinism bolstered the economic tenet of laissez-faire—the idea that government must not interfere in the marketplace—and also was used to justify Western imperialism. Latin America. In Latin American societies, deep class and race inequalities from the colonial period persisted after most nations had thrown off Spanish and Portuguese rule. Absent social revolution, stark divisions between rich and poor continued well into the 19th century. New social classes did emerge eventually. In Mexico, for example, the rule of Porfirio Díaz saw the rise of middle- class professionals, as well as consolidation of a working class, especially miners, without access to land. Massive immigration by Spaniards and Italians into Argentina created a large urban working class in Buenos Aires and other growing cities that would link Argentina to the global economy and inspire working and middle-class demands for greater political participation. Doctrines of racial and ethnic inequality blossomed during this period. Even though U.S. slavery and Russian serfdom came to an end in the 1860s, Western nations justified their domination of Asia and Africa on racial grounds and gloried in assuming “the white man’s burden” to better the lot of the dominated. In the United States, the end of the Civil War produced three constitutional amendments that outlawed slavery, extended equal rights to all former slaves, and granted the right to vote to African-American men. Although some African Americans restored their families, found work, and even won public office, hopes for true equality did not materialize. Instead, the federal government looked away as 1750 to 1900 xxxiii former slave states (and some states outside the Confederacy) instituted new codes of inequality, known as Jim Crow laws, enforcing them with terror tactics, including lynching. Czar Alexander II’s emancipation of the serfs, who represented one-third of Russia’s population, created problems of land distribution that would feed unrest leading to revolution in 1917. Worldwide pressure on agricultural land and commodity prices pushed many millions to emi- grate for economic survival. Those who continued to farm often found themselves in a spiral of debt and threatened with foreclosure. In the United States, farmer campaigns, including the Popu- list political movement of the 1890s, brought white and black, midwestern and southern, together to propose bold solutions to these problems—most of which required state or federal government activism. The movement ended after the elections of 1896 with recriminations over currency reform and an upsurge of racism that tore apart the fragile coalition. Anti-Jewish prejudices, long traditional in Christian Europe, intensified, especially as Jews left their ghettoes to pursue education and professions long closed to them. As anti-Semitism, in the form of terror attacks called pogroms, increased in Russia and eastern Europe, thousands of Jews fled, mostly to the United States, where some became active in socialist movements. In France, the 1894 court-martial and deportation of Captain Alfred Dreyfus, a French-Jewish army officer who proved later to be innocent of treason, revealed persecution of Jews amid rising nationalism. Despite these “worst of times,” as British Victorian novelist Charles Dickens described the French revolutionary era, there were also advances—for a growing middle class, for children, and for women— in Western nations. Although aggressive nationalism was an increasing problem, religious tolerance generally expanded despite such setbacks as the Dreyus affair. Victorian elites clung to a stratified class structure with rigid rules of etiquette and clear divisions between upstairs and the servants below, but class relationships were changing. The Industrial Revolution fueled a major expansion of the bour- geoisie. Emerging along with a substantial professional class were greater comfort, better education, lower birthrates and infant mortality, and new respect for childhood. Calls for women’s suffrage, by both women and men, increased. Immigration, often the choice of desperate people, did offer mobility and opportunity to many millions, even if their new streets were not paved with gold. Although women and children were still viewed as property in much of the world, there were strong indications that attitudes were beginning to change. In the Ottoman Empire there was con- siderable upward mobility and religious tolerance; minorities fared quite well, especially in contrast to much of the rest of the world. Women in the Islamic world had property rights and legal standing, but traditional mores often took precedence over religious laws regarding women’s status. In British-ruled India, Hindu reformers began reexamining the traditional caste system. Mod- ernizing educational practices produced Western-oriented Indian men and women, many of whom began to demand participation in their government. India’s Muslims were slower to adopt modern education. In China, failure of the Qing (Ch’ing) dynasty in the late 19th century led to the emer- gence of modern Chinese nationalism in opposition to the Manchu, the ethnic minority that had established its dynastic rule in 1644. Oriented toward modern Western political forms, nationalists began to demand the emancipation of women even as they struggled with incursions of Western and Japanese imperialism. In Japan, the Meiji Restoration ended the feudal system, abolished the tradi- tional hierarchy of classes, and created universal conscription. Some male taxpayers were allowed to vote after 1889. Girls’ schooling was made mandatory, and some professions were opened to women, although they did not win the vote. TRADE AND CULTURAL EXCHANGES By 1750 improved transportation and aggressive exploration by Western countries had dislodged the Ottoman Empire’s long-standing monopoly on East-West land trade routes. New sea routes, established by the Portuguese and others, focused on Africa and the New World and helped to shift the economic balance of power toward Europe and away from Asia. So did the extraction of large quantities of silver and gold from the Western Hemisphere that, for a time, made Spain Europe’s wealthiest and most powerful nation. xxxiv 1750 to 1900 Trade competition led not only to new kinds of exchanges and rivalries between equals but also created opportunities for exploitation of newly encountered populations. Europeans famously tried to fool America’s Indian tribes by trading trinkets for valuable land and other resources. Not all Natives were losers in these exchanges. Such manufactured items as knives and firearms helped tribal groups defend themselves against settler attacks and enhanced their advantages in inter-tribal warfare. A booming trade in alcoholic beverages, however, proved especially dangerous to Ameri- can Indians, causing disease and social disruption and often giving whites an advantage in trade negotiations and treaties. Slave trading between Africa and the Americas continued to decimate West African popula- tions while enriching some African kings and traders with guns, textiles, and other manufactured goods. At least 15 percent of approximately 8 million kidnapped African men, women, and children died during the so-called Middle Passage, reduced to cargo in crowded, filthy ships that carried them across the Atlantic Ocean into slavery. Most were destined for Brazilian and Caribbean sugar plantations where life was brutal and short. Portugal, the Netherlands, and Britain competed for slave-trading dominance; after 1713, Britain became the world’s top merchant of slavery. The Afri- can slave trade remained legal in the United States until 1809. In 1853 Brazil became the last New World nation to end slave importation. As European nations carved out New World spheres, colonists dispatched there from home coun- tries soon found themselves faced with both trade opportunities and restrictions. The so-called tri- angular trade—actually an overlapping series of trade routes connecting Europe, Africa, and the Americas—enriched both colonials and the native lands they had left. For example, the New England colonies became a center of shipbuilding and also sold fish, lumber, and grain to sugar plantations. Another trading triangle linked Britain, India, and China. Western demand for Chinese goods, nota- bly porcelain, silks, and tea, and the lack of European goods desired by Chinese consumers, eventu- ally led British entrepreneurs to grow poppy and refine it to opium in British-controlled India. The opium was traded to China, where it fed a growing population of addicts. The problem this trade cre- ated would lead to war between Britain and China and to growing British and European domination of the failing Qing Empire. Growing British port cities like Bristol and Liverpool, as well as colonial New York and Boston, were awash in formerly exotic and expensive goods, such as tea, silk, and china tableware, once available only to the very wealthiest people. But a series of British Navigation Acts, including the 1750 Iron Act, prohibited Americans from buying goods from other nations or making locally goods that British merchants could more profitably sell them. At the end of the Seven Years’/French and Indian War in 1763, British colonists in North Amer- ica became restless when Britain significantly tightened policies that limited internal trade with Indian tribes and with other colonies and nations. Rules that required Americans to buy most prod- ucts from British companies, while forbidding local manufacturing initiatives, were central issues leading up to the American Revolution. Even after independence was won, the right to trade freely continued to cause conflict between the new nation and Britain and France, eventually becoming a major cause of the War of 1812. More Resources. In the 19th century the rapidly industrializing nations of Europe and America aggressively sought new raw materials, markets, and trading opportunities around the world. Vene- tians, Portuguese, Dutch, and British had traditionally traded with the countries of the Pacific rim. Trade-driven imperial ventures intensified and also attracted the United States, which by 1848 had expanded to the Pacific Ocean’s eastern shore. U.S. whaling ships regularly plied the Pacific and required refueling stations in places like Hawaii. In 1853 and 1854 U.S. naval vessels under the command of Commodore Matthew Perry sailed into Edo (Tokyo) Bay using both diplomacy and a display of military might to persuade the Japanese to open their isolationist society to the trading nations. Japan’s embrace of industrial development and its participation in world trade were major results of this initiative. Despite the U.S. Monroe Doctrine’s dreams of dominating the Western Hemisphere, Latin American nations developed strong trade ties to many European powers. Throughout the 19th 1750 to 1900 xxxv century Britain was a major trading partner, providing textiles and clothing. Britain, France, and Germany were especially significant partners for the southern republics of Chile, Brazil, and Argentina. The United States was more dominant in Central America and northern South America, even before seizing Puerto Rico and Cuba from Spain in 1898’s Spanish-American War. Although Mexico lost territories in the Mexican War with the United States in 1848, it became linked to the U.S. economy by mining, agriculture, and railroads. Mexico maintained strong trade ties with European powers. Such Euro-American ideological imports as socialism, communism, anarchism, and syndicalism found fertile ground among Latin America’s growing working and urban classes. Imperialism had very different consequences in India and Egypt, where Britain held sway. Attempts at local industrialization were discouraged. Instead, these regions were obliged by their colonial masters to provide cheap agricultural products and other raw materials. These policies enriched quasi-private trade groups like the British East India Company and protected European and American manufacturing. During the U.S. Civil War, Egyptian cotton mostly replaced Con- federate cotton in French and British textile factories, with long-term consequences for one of the United States’s most successful agricultural commodities. The opening of the Suez Canal in 1869 further marginalized Ottoman trade power and enhanced European influence and trade in the Middle East and Asia. China, the world’s most populous country, was viewed by imperial powers as a vast potential market for all manner of manufactured products. By 1900 European powers and Japan had essen- tially carved China into spheres of influence within which each country hoped to control trade and exploit natural resources. Meanwhile, enterprising traders from China and the Indian subcontinent became important agents of commerce in such regions as South Africa, the Caribbean, Indochina, and the East Indies (later Indonesia). Mohandas K. Gandhi, a London-educated lawyer, spent 20 years in South Africa, fighting for rights of this Indian diaspora of traders and workers before shift- ing his freedom quest to his own colonized nation. Cultural Imperialism. Cultural exchange accompanied growing world trade. To a great extent, Western imperial agents attempted to impose their culture and educational values on people they believed to be backward or inferior. Christian missionaries, some Roman Catholic, but most from Protestant denominations, played an important role in spreading Western culture, even when, as in China and India, they were not successful in making many converts. Among Native tribes in the Americas, and in Hawaii, the Philippines, and some African regions, groups like the YMCA (Young Men’s Christian Association) spread the word of God, and, if that failed, the benefits of modern- ization and education. Although the missionaries themselves often returned home with a deeper knowledge of other cultures, it rarely translated into greater respect. “Our little brown brothers” was how Americans defined the Filipinos who rose up against Spanish colonialism only to find themselves wards of the United States after the Spanish-American War. Missionaries and government and corporate agents of imperialism did sometimes provide use- ful training and information. Many Indians (like Gandhi) and a number of Africans received mod- ern English educations in new schools and universities in India or in England. Missionaries made modern schooling available to girls in China and India for the first time. After 1895 thousands of Chinese men and women chose to study in Japan because of that country’s success. Japan’s universal educational system was based on the German model, as was its constitution. Westerners also intro- duced modern medicine, which contributed to lowering mortality rates. In the 19th century greater wealth and mobility encouraged tourism as well as artistic and intel- lectual exchanges. Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville was the most famous of the dozens of curious European observers who visited America to report back on the new nation’s progress. The trans- atlantic Grand Tour became a rite of passage for young Americans looking for Old World culture. More important, artists who gained fame through such media as newspapers, photography, the telegraph, and the telephone brought their talents to international audiences. Writers and musical and theatrical stars such as British novelist Charles Dickens, Hungarian pianist Franz Liszt, Swedish xxxvi 1750 to 1900 soprano Jenny Lind, French actress Sarah Bernhardt, and Australian soprano Nellie Melba per- formed before enraptured crowds across Europe and America. World’s fairs and expositions became popular in the mid-19th century, beginning with London’s Great Exhibition at the Crystal Palace on view in Hyde Park from April to October of 1851. Blend- ing technology and art, powerful machines and homey kitchen tools, 13,000 international displays attracted more than 6 million visitors and trumpeted the achievements of the British Empire and its colonial domains. The Crystal Palace exhibition set a new standard for the promotion of trade and agriculture and inspired similar extravaganzas in Paris, Vienna, Brussels, Barcelona, Melbourne, and cities in the United States. Held in Philadelphia in 1876, America’s Centennial Exposition highlighted the nation’s manufacturing power and, indirectly, its recovery from the recent Civil War. A 40-foot Corliss steam engine, the world’s largest, powered the entire exhibition; Alexander Graham Bell introduced his new telephone to fairgoers from around the world, including the French sculptor who was in the process of crafting the Statue of Liberty. At France’s 1889 exposition in Paris, com- memorating the French Revolution, the Eiffel Tower was unveiled. “Exotic” natives of colonized countries, like Samoa, or natives set apart within their own countries, like American Indians, were displayed at various fairs as examples of the progress Western civilization had made in manufactur- ing, trade, and culture and was now bringing to the world’s “backward” peoples. WARFARE Improvements in weapons technology, fueled by the Industrial Revolution, helped make warfare in the late 18th and 19th centuries more deadly and sophisticated. Civilians were drawn into wars more deeply than before, both as targets of enemy forces and as conscripts bound to military ser- vice. As traditional military powers, including the Ottoman Empire and China, lagged, Western nations expanded their global imperialistic aims. Although most of this period’s wars pitted nation against nation, warfare against internal foes, including America’s indigenous people and nomadic peoples and rebels in China, was also widespread. Weaponry Trends. Although the ballistics revolution did not fundamentally change the tools of Western warfare, it significantly improved their effectiveness. Guns, artillery, and warships contin- ued to be the basic components of combat, but all benefited from innovations linked to the develop- ing sciences of engineering, physics, and chemistry. Smoothbore muskets began to give way to rifled guns that permitted much greater accuracy and impact. Cannons with rifled interiors and shapes that took account of air resistance could propel their payloads farther more precisely. As steam power replaced sails, and steel hulls replaced wooden ones, warships became stronger, faster, and more dependable. The development of interchangeable components by American Eli Whitney and others made it easier for even inexperienced soldiers to set up, load, fire, and repair both cannons and guns. Gunpowder, invented much earlier in China, was also reengineered for greater force and reliability. Manpower Trends. Wars became bigger in the 18th and 19th centuries, partly because of new military and political systems for conscripting huge numbers of soldiers and supplying their battle- field needs. In the process, the use of cavalry—soldiers on horseback—began to wane, while the use of infantry—men on foot—expanded, as did women’s roles in supporting troops with laundry, food preparation, medical aid, and weapons repair and service. During the Crimean War, Englishwoman Florence Nightingale helped pioneer a new standard for nursing injured soldiers. Slowly, battlefield improvements in medical care (including anesthesia) and food safety would help reduce military casualties from causes not directly related to combat. By 1750 the feudal concept that vassals were obliged to fight for the interests of their over- lords was already in decline, even though the British Royal Navy for many years continued to use impressment to force citizens and colonials into naval service, when volunteers fell short. In the American colonies, especially Massachusetts Bay, men aged 16 to 60 were required to join local militias during times of threat, usually from Native tribes. In the American Revolution, these mili- 1750 to 1900 xxxvii tias played a vital role in repulsing attacks in their home territories, even as George Washington, leader of the new Continental army, struggled to find and keep volunteers. Meanwhile, Britain paid millions for the fighting services of 23,000 Hessians, mercenary soldiers essentially purchased from the landgrave (lord) of the German principality of Hesse-Kassel. The idea of mandatory service of limited duration grew in the 19th century. Conscription was represented as an opportunity for patriotic male citizens to respond to national threats, service that might be sweetened by sign-up and retention bonuses. If neither of these worked, threats of pun- ishment for draft dodging and desertion were invoked. Revolutionary France was among the first nations to impose a draft; later, Emperor Napoleon I used conscription as well as volunteers to field some of the largest armies in history. Prussian military success in the 19th century also depended heavily on the conscription of citizen-soldiers. During the U.S. Civil War, both the Confederacy and the Union adopted draft laws, which the United States had rejected in its past wars. These were extremely unpopular, in part because wealthy men could buy exemptions from service. An 1863 antidraft riot in New York City raged for days, destroying property and causing more than 100 deaths. The increased size and changing composition of armies required officers and professional sol- diers to create new methods of training, disciplining, supplying, and deploying their inexperienced forces. Once traditional military practices, such as marching in tight formations and retiring to quarters during the winter, gradually declined in this period, while more flexible tactics, some of them modeled on the methods of guerrillas and tribal peoples, began to inflect wars conducted by major national powers. 150 Years of Warfare. Four overlapping themes run through the warfare of this era. From 1754 to 1815 a series of wars to determine the future of North America altered the international balance of power. Revolutionary upheaval in France after 1789, followed by Emperor Napoleon’s military ambitions and his ultimate defeat in 1815, reshaped Europe. Civil wars throughout this period test- ed political and social order. Near the end of the 19th century, a European (and American) scramble for non-Western colonies touched off wars of imperialism. By 1900 the overall outcome seemed to assure the triumph of Western domination in Asia, Africa, and Oceania, as well as the pacification of minority and ethnic groups that had defied or ignored nationalist agendas. Some historians have dubbed as a “Sixty Years’ War” the period of conflict that began with 1754’s hostile encounter between Virginians seeking Ohio lands and French troops protecting France’s claims in North America. It ended with U.S. general Andrew Jackson’s victory over British troops at New Orleans weeks after the Treaty of Ghent ended the War of 1812. At stake was the future of North America, which for centuries had been a colonial possession of various European powers. When this 60-year period ended, U.S. independence was secured, and Canada’s continuing connection to the British Empire reaffirmed. The French, who lost Québec in the French and Indian War, Haiti in an uprising begun in 1791, and sold Louisiana to the Americans in 1803, were no longer significant in North America. Spain had lost all but a tiny remnant of its once-huge empire in both North and South America. North America’s Native peoples now found themselves and their lands major targets of expansionism. Napoleon’s voluntary exit from the Louisiana Territory was part of his plan to consolidate French power in Europe. In well-planned and executed battles against forces that included Britons, Austrians, Italians, Russians, and Prussians, Napoleon for a time seemed to be able to control much of Europe. But overextension and the severe Russian winter forced Napoleon’s troops to withdraw from Moscow in 1812; within two years, European forces, with crucial help from Britain’s domi- nant Royal Navy, had sent Napoleon into exile on an isolated Atlantic island. Between 1815 and the 1870s numerous civil conflicts created serious problems for some nations, and opportunities for others. After Napoleon’s defeat, uprisings broke out in Greece, the Italian states, Spain, and France, while militarily stronger European nations, including Austria and Russia, tried to take advantage. In China, the religiously inspired Taiping Rebellion against Manchu rule raged for 14 years, weakening China and helping Western imperialist powers to further weaken it in xxxviii 1750 to 1900 later decades. Elsewhere in the 1850s and 1860s Italian nationalism culminated in the unification of Italy. Semiautonomous German states unified to form a single German nation, spearheaded by Prus- sia. These unifications did not occur without conflict from both internal and external opponents. The U.S. Civil War of 1861–65 pitted 11 seceding southern slave states against the rest of the nation. It was a total war in which more than 1 million Americans died; it also offered some tantaliz- ing opportunities to U.S. rivals. Both Britain and France considered diplomatic recognition of the Con- federacy, hoping thereby to dilute the United States’s growing industrial and political power, but were dissuaded by clear evidence that the Union was likely to prevail. Nevertheless, France, under Louis- Napoleon Bonaparte, used America’s distraction to try to gain control of Mexico. That plan failed. Prior to about 1830 many non-Western powers successfully held their own against European incursions. Even the Indian subcontinent, where Britain had established trading rights as early as 1619, did not come fully under British control until the 1850s. Some Western states collaborated with some Asian and African states by selling them superior weaponry. For example, the French helped Egypt build a modern naval fleet. Persian leaders and the Ottoman sultans hired Western- ers to train their armies. The Japanese, watching with alarm as Western navies encroached on the Pacific, began in the 1860s, with some help from Germany, France, and Britain, to modernize their military forces and upgrade their weaponry. These steps would help Japan escape the fate soon to befall China and make Japan an Asian imperial power. By the 1880s European competition for colonial control was at its height. In the United States, a century-long effort to “pacify” Native Americans had almost reached its goal of restricting the remaining tribes’ landholdings and occupations. Britain, with its unrivaled naval power, gained dominance in Egypt and China. The British also asserted control over great swaths of Africa, defeat- ing the Zulus and the white Dutch-descended settlers in South Africa called the Boers, in the Boer War that began in 1899. French imperial activity focused on North Africa and the Southeast Asian region that came to be known as Indochina. Germany, Italy, and Belgium also competed for colonial opportunities in Africa. Russia was especially successful in Asia, conquering the Muslim khanates in Central Asia and acquiring lands formerly under the Qing Empire on the Pacific coast. With its four-month Spanish-American War in 1898, the United States acquired Spain’s remain- ing American colonies of Cuba and Puerto Rico and the Philippines in Asia, joining Europeans in the imperial land rush by claiming new territory beyond its own borders. Sixteen years later, the rivalries the new colonialism had provoked among the great imperial powers and the seething millions they claimed the right to control would trigger the greatest war in world history to that point. abolition of slavery in the Americas The history of chattel slavery in the Americas, from its beginnings in 1492 until its final demise in Brazil in 1888, has spawned a vast literature. So, too, has the process by which the institution of chattel slavery was formally and legally abolished. A highly contentious, nonlinear, and uneven process that unfolded in different ways and fol- lowed distinct time lines in various parts of the Ameri- cas, abolition must be distinguished from manumission, in which slave owners granted freedom to individual slaves, which is not examined here. Especially since the 1960s, historians have examined many different aspects of abolition in the Americas, including the intellectual and moral impulses impelling it; the history of diverse social movements devoted to compelling colonial, state, and national governments to implement it; and the role of various individuals and groups—including merchants, planters, bureaucrats, and colonial, national, and impe- rial governments, and slaves themselves—in retarding or accelerating the process. The first formal abolition of slavery in the West- ern Hemisphere came not from a national government but from state legislatures in New England and the Mid-Atlantic states of the not-yet-independent United States of America. In 1777 the Vermont state assem- bly became the first governmental entity in the Ameri- cas to abolish slavery within its jurisdiction. In 1780 the Pennsylvania state assembly passed a law requir- ing all blacks henceforth born in the state to become free upon reaching age 28. State laws mandating the end of chattel slavery, each stipulating different time lines and provisions, were passed in Massachusetts and New Hampshire (1783), Rhode Island and Con- necticut (1784), New York (1799), and New Jersey (1804). Significantly, actual abolition sometimes lagged for decades following passage of such laws—as in New Jersey, where legal slavery persisted until ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution in 1865. Because slavery did not comprise an important component of any of these states’ economies, organized opposition to abolition was limited, and abolition itself carried few economic costs to slaveholders. As individ- ual states were passing laws for gradual emancipation, the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 banned slavery in the Northwest Territories, setting the stage for the sectional conflict between North and South that ultimately led to the American Civil War. Far more consequential for the eventual abolition of slavery in the Western Hemisphere was the Act for the Abolition of the Slave Trade passed by the British par- liament in 1807, and put into effect in 1808, outlawing the transatlantic slave trade. The law also authorized the British navy to suppress the slave trade among all slave traffickers, making Britain, in effect, the police- man of the high seas. The U.S. government passed less sweeping legislation in 1808 banning further import of slaves. Three years later, the British parliament made participation in the slave trade a felony. Scholarly debates have swirled regarding the origins of and inspiration behind these laws. Some historians have A 1 2 abolition of slavery in the Americas Exeter Hall was filled with a large crowd for the Anti-Slavery Society meeting, London, England, in 1841. Abolitionist movements gained strength in the 19th century and successfully abolished slavery in most of the Western Hemisphere by the end of the century. emphasized the rise of a religion- and Enlightenment- inspired antislavery and humanitarian impulse among Quakers, evangelical Methodists, Unitarians, and others in providing the impetus behind the British abolition of the slave trade. An expansive literature pays special attention to leading abolitionists like Wil- liam Wilberforce and to the many antislavery socie- ties, writers, and publications that blossomed in the late 1700s and early 1800s. Other scholars have stressed the growing commitment to the ideology of free wage labor on the part of Britain’s leading capitalists. This interpretive school has located Britain’s intensifying opposition to slavery within the broader context of a rapidly developing global capitalist economy and a powerful domestic labor movement that used the symbol of slavery to portray the workers’ plight and denounce capitalism. Ironically, while the 1807 law made Britain the first nation to outlaw the transatlan- tic slave trade, from the mid-1600s leading British eco- nomic interests had also been one of the main motors behind, and beneficiaries of, the slave trade. While the 1807 law presaged the eventual demise of African slavery in the Americas, it did not abolish slavery, or call for the abolition of slavery, or free a sin- gle slave. Nor did the law prohibit individual nations or colonies from slave trafficking within their borders. In nations and colonies with large slave populations— including Brazil, the United States, and throughout the Caribbean Basin—chattel slavery could, in theory, continue indefinitely by “natural population increases” among slaves (population increases resulting from births over deaths and excluding external influxes). The outlawing of the Atlantic trade prompted slaveholders across the Americas to implement policies intended to increase slave populations, such as forced impregnation and rape of slave women. Local slave markets reflected these changes, as prices of female slaves of childbear- ing years rose substantially in many areas. The 1807 law provoked fierce resistance in British colonies such as Jamaica, Antigua, and Trinidad, whose colonial assemblies at first rejected, then grudgingly accepted, the imperial mandate. abolition of slavery in the Americas 3 Similar patterns unfolded elsewhere, as impe- rial laws intended to place limits on slavery and the slave trade met stiff resistance by slave owners in the colonies. Overall, such laws originated in national gov- ernments’ responses to mounting domestic and inter- national opposition to chattel slavery and the actions of slaves themselves and their many forms of resistance to the fact and terms of their enslavement. A survey of the British, French, and Spanish colonial empires high- lights these broad patterns. GREAT BRITAIN In Britain the 1807 and 1811 laws were followed by the amelioration laws of 1823, meant to improve the living conditions of slaves. Far more consequential was the Abolition of Slavery Act of 1833, which went into effect on August 1, 1834. The 1833 law abolished slav- ery throughout the empire, while stipulating a period of apprenticeship in which slaves over the age of six would continue working for four years for their former masters. A major slave rebellion in Jamaica in Decem- ber 1831 (the “Christmas revolt”) played a major role in prompting Parliament to pass the 1833 law—an illustration of the role played by slaves in advancing their own emancipation. In 1838, over the vocifer- ous objections of slaveholders, Parliament proclaimed complete emancipation. Upper and Lower Canada fol- lowed the same trajectory as British colonies elsewhere in the Americas, with final emancipation coming in 1838. For the next 27 years Canada would serve as a refuge for escaped slaves from the United States, espe- cially after the U.S. Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 made no state in the Union immune from slave-catchers and bounty hunters. In France, with the convening of the Estates General in 1789, the Société des Amis des Noirs (Society of the Friends of the Blacks) called for the abolition of the slave trade and emancipation of slaves within the colo- nies. The call was rejected after a powerful coalition of white colonists successfully prevented debate on the topic. With the eruption of the Haitian Revolution from 1791, the French assembly relinquished its juris- diction over the question. Three years later, in 1794, the Convention outlawed slavery throughout the empire and granted rights of citizenship to all adult males. In 1801, Haitian rebel leader Toussaint Louverture, whose forces had just gained control of all of Hispan- iola, promulgated a constitution that prohibited slav- ery in perpetuity throughout the island. The following year, in 1802, Toussaint was cap- tured and transported to France, and Napoleon I reinstituted slavery throughout the French colonies. After France’s defeat in the Napoleonic Wars, in 1817 the French constitutional monarchy passed a law abolishing the slave trade by 1826. A few months after the overthrow of the monarchy and establish- ment of the Second Republic, and under the leader- ship of prominent abolitionist Victor Schoelcher, on April 27, 1848, France abolished slavery throughout the empire. SPAIN In Spain the first effort to abolish slavery came soon after the overthrow of King ferdinand vii and dur- ing the tumult of the Napoleonic occupation, when in 1811 the Cortes (parliament) abolished slavery through- out the empire. The law was largely ignored. In 1820, following a major revolt against a restored constitution- al monarchy, the Cortes abolished the slave trade while leaving slavery itself intact—though after the indepen- dence of Latin America in the early 1820s, Spain’s American empire had been reduced to one major colo- ny: Cuba. Abolitionist sentiment within Cuba mounted through the first half of the century, despite the colonial government’s success in crushing organized antislavery agitation. In 1865, in the wake of the U.S. Civil War, the Spanish Abolitionist Society was founded, its con- siderable influence rooted in mounting opposition to the constitutional monarchy. In 1868 a liberal revolution triumphed in Spain, its leaders advancing as one of their principal aims the abolition of slavery in Cuba. In July 1870 the Cortes passed the Moret Law, which emancipated children born to slaves after 1868 and slaves age 60 and older. Envisioned as a form of gradual abolition, the law’s provisions were undermined by both planters and slaves. Planters sought to delay the law’s implementa- tion and subvert its provisions, while slaves pushed its boundaries in the effort to secure their freedom. The Ten Years’ War on the eastern half of the island com- plicated the situation even further. Finally, on October 7, 1886, the Spanish government eliminated various legal categories of quasi slavery and abolished slavery throughout the island. A brief summary of other European nations’ aboli- tion laws once again highlights the partial and uneven nature of the process of emancipation. Sweden abol- ished the slave trade in 1813 and slavery in its colonies in 1843. In 1814 the Netherlands outlawed the slave trade and, nearly half a century later in 1863, abolished slavery in its Caribbean colonies. In 1819 Portugal out- lawed the slave trade north of the equator and in 1858 4 abolition of slavery in the Americas abolished slavery in its colonies while providing for a 20-year period of apprenticeship similar to the British model. Denmark abolished slavery in its colonies in 1848, the same year as France. Turning to the independent nation-states of the Americas, most of the newly independent nation-states of Latin America abolished slavery in the first three decades after independence. In 1821 Gran Colombia (comprising most of present-day Colombia, Venezuela, and Ecuador, and parts of Bolivia and Peru) became the first Latin American nation to adopt a law calling for gradual emancipation, though final abolition did not come for more than three decades (Ecuador in 1851, Colombia in 1852, Venezuela in 1854), final abolitions followed by prolonged periods of apprenticeship that closely resembled slavery. Chile abolished slavery in 1823; Mexico in 1829; Uruguay in 1842; Argentina in 1843; and Peru in 1854. In 1850 Brazil outlawed the transatlantic slave trade, prompting a brisk internal trade in slaves that lasted until the final abolition of slavery in 1888. UNITED STATES In the United States, in the aftermath of state laws abol- ishing or limiting slavery from the 1770s to the early 1800s, abolitionist and antislavery agitation mount- ed. The U.S. Constitution took an ambiguous stance toward slavery, neither prohibiting it nor precluding the possibility of its abolition and making unconstitutional any law passed before 1808 banning the importation of slaves. After the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, con- troversies over the expansion of slavery into the terri- tories sharpened the sectional conflict between North and South that dominated U.S. politics through much of the 19th century, culminating in the Civil War. Such controversies brought the nation to the brink of civil war in 1820 (forestalled by the Missouri Com- promise) and again in 1850 (forestalled by the Com- promise of 1850). In the 1830s the rise to prominence of vocal abolitionists like William Lloyd Garrison and Wendell Phillips sharpened the sectional conflict even further. In 1861, following the election of Abra- ham Lincoln as president, southern slaveholding states formed the Confederate States of America and announced their secession from the Union, inaugurat- ing the Civil War. Less than two years later Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, which, despite its title and symbolic significance, freed no slaves. The final abolition of slavery came in December 1865 with the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution. BRAZIL Brazil, the last nation in the Western Hemisphere to abolish slavery, offers an instructive contrast to the U.S. experience. Earlier generations of historians emphasized two key differences: Brazil did not have a comparable sectional conflict and Brazil abolished slavery without recourse to civil war. More recent scholarship has blurred these distinctions, with greater attention to Brazil’s major regional differences and to the role played by the specter of violence and civil strife in accelerating the process of emancipation. The British prohibition of the transatlantic slave trade from 1808 did not diminish the number of slaves imported into Brazil, as the government and slave traders ignored the law. An 1831 treaty between Brazil and Great Britain banning the importation of slaves also had little prac- tical effect, as the Brazilian government did little to enforce its provisions. Over the next 20 years, an estimated half a million slaves poured into the country. In 1850, in response to tremendous British pressure, Brazil passed a law putting teeth into the prohibition, after which the transatlantic slave trade diminished markedly. The 1850 law prompted two major shifts. Planters began creating conditions under which natural population increases would permit perpetuation of slavery, includ- ing improved nutrition and living conditions, enhanced surveillance and control, and forced reproduction. Slave trafficking within the country also increased dra- matically, with major flows from the Northeast to the booming coffee-based states of the South. By the 1860s, however, the Atlantic world’s mount- ing moral opprobrium toward slavery, combined with the carnage of the U.S. Civil War, made clear to many Brazilians that abolition was inevitable and that a gradualist approach to the problem was preferable to civil war. What eventually emerged from these debates was the Rio Branco Law of September 28, 1871. Dubbed the Law of Free Womb, the law called for all children born of slaves to be free, following a period of semibondage until they reached age 21. Many, how- ever, including prominent abolitionists in the Chamber of Deputies such as Joaquim Nabuco, Jeronymo Sodré, and Rui Barbosa, saw the law as fatally flawed, permit- ting slavery’s survival well into the 20th century. In the late 1870s abolitionist pressures intensified, as did urban violence, plantation uprisings, and civil strife. Slaves especially pushed the boundaries of the law, insisting on their own emancipation. Finally, on May 13, 1888, the Brazilian parliament passed a law consisting of the following two provisions: “Article 1. Abyssinia See ethiopia/abyssinia. Acadian deportation In 1755, during the early days of the Seven Years’ War/French and Indian War between France and Britain, thousands of French farming families living in Nova Scotia were forcibly deported by British troops. The dislocation of the Acadians, as these French colo- nists were called, became almost a mythical example of the injustice and brutality of 18th-century warfare. Although several thousand Acadians would eventually return to their homeland, thousands more, often sepa- rated from their families, ended up as far away as the West Indies and Louisiana, where the refugees became known as Cajuns. Although the French were first to exploit the fur, fishing, and farming potential of the New World, France had trouble persuading its citizens to live in the wilderness at the mouth of Canada’s St. Lawrence River. Michael J. Schroeder Acadiandeportation 5 From the date of this law slavery is declared abol- ished in Brazil. Article 2. All contrary provisions are revoked.” After 396 years, legal slavery in the Ameri- cas had ended. The process by which chattel slavery was abolished in the Americas followed a number of distinct trajecto- ries, as various groups of actors in conflict and alliance propelled and forestalled the outcomes. Nowhere was abolition inevitable; everywhere its achievement result- ed from the determined actions of many different indi- viduals and groups. In all cases, the actions of slaves were integral to the process, a fact to which a large and growing body of scholarship amply attests. See also slave revolts in the Americas; slave trade in Africa; Wesley, John (1703–1791) and Charles (1707– 1788). Further reading: Hold, Thomas C. The Problem of Freedom: Race, Labor, and Politics in Jamaica and Britain, 1832–1938. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992; Scott, Rebecca J. Slave Emancipation in Cuba: The Transi- tion to Free Labor, 1860–1899. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1983; Toplin, Robert Brent. The Abolition of Slavery in Brazil. New York: Atheneum, 1975. Meanwhile, British colonies, especially those of New England, soon overtook French colonial hold- ings in both population and hunger for land and wealth. Along what became the Canadian border, French and British colonists frequently trespassed on each other’s claims, regularly enlisting the help of friendly Native tribes. In 1713 the Treaty of Utrecht ending the War of the Spanish Succession redrew the political map of Europe and dealt to Britain control of Hudson Bay and New- foundland. In addition, fertile lands occupied by the Acadians for several generations were no longer New France but now became British territory. At first, British authorities assured the Acadians that their farms would be safe and their beliefs respect- ed. But Britain also demanded that its new colonists swear loyalty oaths and give up any notion of fighting for France in future conflicts. Most Acadians declined to take the oath, considering themselves French neu- trals. As tensions in Europe between Britain and France escalated and played out in their respective colonies, neutrality—hard to achieve under the best of circum- stances—became untenable for both sides. By the spring of 1755 the British believed that 300 Acadians had taken up arms in support of France. In July Acadian leaders were summoned to Halifax and ordered to take loyalty oaths immediately. A month later the British rounded up their recalcitrant French subjects and put them on ships for deportation. Historians disagree on the magnitude and brutal- ity of this mass deportation. The number of Acadians affected has been estimated between 6,000 and 18,000 people. Many families were separated and many had trouble finding a place to relocate. Some believe family separations and dislocations were unintentional results of mistakes and confusion; others have likened British actions to modern-day ethnic cleansing. In 1847 American poet Henry Wadsworth Longfel- low made the Acadian expulsion the subject of one of his extremely popular epics. Evangeline, A Tale of Acadie told of young French-Canadian lovers torn apart by war and politics. A sensational success, the poem kept alive remembrance of British misdeeds, both among French Canadians, now subjects of British Canada, and the Cajuns of Louisiana who traced their heritage back to Acadia. Further reading: Faragher, John Mack. A Great and Noble Scheme: The Tragic Story of the Expulsion of the French Acadians from their American Homeland. New York: W.W. Norton, 2005; Plank, Geoffrey G. An Unsettled Conquest: 6 Adams, John, and family The British Campaign against the Peoples of Acadia. Phila- delphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2001. Marsha E. Ackermann Adams, John, and family (1750–1827) American diplomats and intellectuals Descendants of Puritans who settled near Boston in 1638, members of the Adams family distinguished themselves over two centuries as political leaders and thinkers. Second cousins Samuel Adams and John Adams played crucial roles in the founding of the United States. John’s wife, Abigail Smith Adams, was an early advocate for women’s expanded public roles. Their son, John Quincy, was the first president’s son also elected president and dedicated his later years to ending slav- ery. Into the early 20th century, the Adamses excelled in diplomacy and history. Harvard-educated brewer and Boston tax collec- tor, Samuel Adams was a leading Son of Liberty who John Adams, second president of the United States, was one of several Adamses who influenced the early United States. fought new taxes and restrictions imposed by Britain on its American colonies after the Seven Years’/French and Indian War ended in 1763. He organized the 1773 Boston Tea Party in which tea worth £100,000 was dumped into the harbor to protest British policies. His younger cousin, John, a Harvard-educated law- yer, successfully defended British soldiers who killed five Americans in a 1770 encounter dubbed the Bos- ton Massacre by people like Samuel, who deemed it a “bloody butchery.” Wary of mob enthusiasms, but convinced of the rightness of American liberty, John Adams soon surpassed his cousin’s importance in the looming American Revolution. Both were delegates to the First Continental Congress; John drafted plans for a new national government and soon was helping Thomas Jefferson revise and refine his draft of the Declaration of Independence. After Continental victory at Saratoga in 1777, John endured long intervals of painful separation from his family as he pursued financial and military support for the new nation in European capitals, working uneasily with senior diplomat Benjamin Franklin and helping negotiate the treaty ending the Revolution. In 1784 Abigail joined her husband in Europe; his diplomatic service culminated with his appointment as first Amer- ican ambassador to Britain. In 1789 Adams was selected as George Wash- ington’s vice president. As such, he had little to do, sidelined in part by the dramatic political and person- al clashes of Washington cabinet secretaries Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. Adams won the presidency by just three votes over Jefferson in 1796; his tenure in office would prove mostly disastrous. A combination of personality traits and crises would erode Adams’s reputation, ending his administration after a single term. Partisanship unleashed by earlier battles over the Constitution brought forth viciously competitive political parties. Soon Adams, a Federalist, would find himself at odds with his own vice president, Jefferson, once a dear friend, but now a rival. The two men had already split over the French Revolution, whose growing vio- lence was to Adams a horrifying breakdown of order and a direct threat to American independence. Although Adams avoided a costly war with France, his popularity plummeted amid partisan ran- cor. In 1798, a Federalist-dominated Congress passed and Adams signed the Alien and Sedition Acts. Targeting Republican publishers and other political critics, these acts clearly violated the First Amend- ment. Charles Francis Adams would later call these Afghani, Jamal al-Din al- 7 acts the fatal error that doomed his grandfather’s Federalist Party. Adams and Jefferson resumed their correspon- dence, but these old friends and enemies would truly reunite only in death. Both died on July 4, 1826, the 50th anniversary of the Declaration to which both contributed mightily. By the time his father died, John Quincy Adams, his parents’ eldest son, was in the second year of his own presidency. It was a tormented four years after years of public distinction. Trained in diplomacy at his father’s side as a teenager in Europe, John Quincy returned to attend Harvard and take up law, although attracted by literature and teaching. In 1803 John Quincy went to the U.S. Senate as a Federalist but often supported President Jefferson, losing his seat as a result. As James Madison’s ambassador to Russia and lead negotiator of the War of 1812’s Peace of Ghent, John Quincy found his own political fame. He authored the Monroe Doctrine while serving James Monroe as secretary of state. Becoming president seemed the obvious next step. But U.S. politics were changing as voting rights expanded. Being notable—a man of wealth or distin- guished family—no longer assured electoral success. In 1824’s five-way race, John Quincy became president only after a “corrupt bargain” steered votes from war hero Andrew Jackson to the former president’s son. John Quincy’s single term was almost devoid of accom- plishment and dogged by family difficulties. His postpresidential career would be as difficult but more fulfilling. In 1830 the former president was elected to the House of Representatives, a freshman member at age 64, serving his Plymouth, Massachusetts, district until suffering a stroke on the House floor in 1848. For nine years, he fought a gag rule that prevented slavery opponents from conveying their views to Congress. In 1841 his nine-hour speech to the Supreme Court won freedom for 33 Africans who had commandeered the Spanish slave ship Amistad. The Adamses were hard on their sons. Just as John Quincy was John’s only son of three to make his father proud, Charles Francis Adams was the only one of three of John Quincy’s sons to gain distinction. Charles Francis became his family’s financier and his- torian, publishing important family writings, includ- ing Abigail’s letters. Entering Massachusetts politics in 1840 he was the new Free-Soil Party’s vice presidential choice in 1848 as the U.S. victory in the Mexican-American War roiled sectional politics. Soon he joined the emerging Republican Party. Appointed minister to Britain by Abraham Lincoln, Charles Francis was instrumen- tal in keeping Britain from backing the Confederacy during the Civil War. It was left to a fourth generation, especially broth- ers Henry and Brooks, to try to understand America through the lens of the Adams’ legacy. Henry, Harvard lecturer and historian, was early drawn to medievalism. In The Education of Henry Adams, his third-person autobiography, he tried to make sense of how medieval Europe could have given birth to early 20th-century America. Brooks, a more “erratic genius,” predicted inevitable decay as capitalist civilizations faltered and more energetic nations emerged. Some believe he was describing his own family. The family Adams did not disappear with Brooks’s death. But with the transfer of the old family homestead in Braintree/Quincy, Massachusetts, to the National Park Service in 1946, the Adamses became the “prop- erty” of the nation so many of them had served. See also political parties in the United States. Further reading: Contosta, David R. Henry Adams and the American Experiment. Boston: Little, Brown, 1980; McCullough, David. John Adams. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2001; Nagel, Paul C. Descent from Glory: Four Generations of the John Adams Family. New York: Oxford University Press, 1983. Marsha E. Ackermann Afghani, Jamal al-Din al- (1838–1897) Pan-Islamic leader Jamal al-Din al-Afghani, often referred to as the founder of pan-Islam, was born in Iran. He attended madrasas (religious schools) in Iran and as a young man traveled to India, where he observed firsthand discrimination against Muslims by the ruling British government. After making the hajj (pilgrimage) to Mecca, al-Afghani moved on to Karbala and Najaf, the main centers of Shi’i pilgrimage in Iraq. During the 1860s al-Afghani lived in Afghanistan before moving to Istanbul, where the ruling Sunni Muslim Ottoman elite did not accord him the respect and honor he felt he deserved. In 1871 al-Afghani moved to Egypt, where he lectured on the need for unity and reform in Muslim society. His popular lectures attracted a following among young Egyptians, and he became the mentor to a 8 Afghan Wars, First and Second future generation of Muslim reformers that included Muhammad Abduh and others. Al-Afghani’s popularity, calls for political reform, and opposition to British influences in Egypt attracted the attention of the ruling authorities, and the khedive (viceroy) expelled him from Egypt. He then returned to India, where he resumed teaching and writing on what he referred to as the Virtuous City—a society based on Islamic tenets and governed by honest, devout Muslim rulers. Al-Afghani argued that only a unified Muslim world could confront the Western imperial powers, particularly the British, on an equal basis. He traveled to London and Paris, where he debated the role of science in Islam with Ernest Renan, the noted French philosopher. He spent two years in Russia before returning to Iran, where he vigorously opposed Nasir al-Din Shah (the Qajar ruler). In Iran as in Egypt, al-Afghani also spoke out against British influence, calling for a constitutional, parliamentary government. Al-Afghani’s opposition to the monarchy forced him to leave Iran for Turkey, where he continued to write and lecture about the need for basic constitutional reforms throughout the Muslim world. Al-Afghani carried on this work until his death in 1897. See also Arab reformers and nationalists; Ismail, Khedive. Further reading: Keddie, Nikki R. An Islamic Response to Imperialism: Political and Religious Writing of Sayyid Jamal al-Din “al-Afghani.” Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1968; ———. Sayyid Jamal al-Din “al-Afghani”: A Political Biography. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1972. Janice J. Terry Afghan Wars, First and Second The two Afghan wars were caused by the growing rivalry for control of Central Asia between the Russian Empire and the British Empire. Because Afghanistan was the largest organized state in the Central Asian region, it became the main focus for both countries in what the British poet Rudyard Kipling would call the “Great Game.” The Great Game actually began during the Napoleonic Wars. In 1810, while the British duke of Wellington was fighting the French in Spain, Captain Charles Christie and Lieutenant Henry Pottinger of the 5th Bombay Native Infantry Regiment left the village of Nushki in Baluchistan for their role in the game. On April 18 Christie reached Herat, while Pottinger pursued his own mission in Persia. Finally, on June 30, 1810, the two agents were reunited in Isfahan, Persia, with both missions accomplished. Over the next 25 years other British agents would follow Christie and Pottinger on great treks into Cen- tral Asia. Afghanistan was seen as the vital buffer state against the advance of the Russians and, while the British did not always desire to add Afghanistan to their empire, they always hoped that the ruler of the Afghans, the amir, would lend his support to them instead of the Russians. The British concerns were realized in December 1837 when a Cossack leader arrived carrying a let- ter from Czar Nicholas I of the Romanov dynasty for the Afghan amir, Dost Mohammed. At the same time, Kabul was visited by a British officer named Alexander Burnes, who had served with the Bombay army. By this time, Persia was allied to Russia. George Eden, Lord Auckland, and his chief secretary, Henry Macnaghten, suspected that Dost Mohammed had sided with the Russians. Having ascended the throne in June of 1837, Queen Victoria was now presented with the first serious crisis of her reign. Ultimately, nothing would suit Auckland and Mac- naghten other than a regime change in Kabul. In Feb- ruary 1839 the British Army of the Indus, under the command of Sir John Keane of the Bombay Army, began its march for Kabul. In the beginning, Auckland’s expectations that Dost Mohammed’s rule could not survive appeared to be justified. In July 1839 the for- tress of Ghazni fell before a furious British assault and Dost Mohammed’s forces melted away. Meanwhile, the Afghans faced a combined Sikh-British expedition com- ing up from Peshawar. In August 1839 Shah Shuja was crowned again the amir in Kabul, and Dost Moham- med sued for peace. Macnaghten lacked the temperament to deal with the tribesmen and, in 1841, slashed the subsidies that had earned their loyalty to Shah Shuja. As young offi- cers pursued inappropriate and culturally serious affronts to Afghan women, relations worsened further. The British commander, Major-General William Elphin- stone, lacked both the ability and the courage to face the mounting crisis. By the end of November all Macnaghten and Elphinstone could think of was retreat. On December 11 Macnaghten met with Dost Mohammed’s son Akbar Afghan Wars, First and Second 9 Khan to make final a British withdrawal. At a second meeting on December 23, Macnaghten was taken by surprise and killed. Elphinstone continued planning for the retreat from Kabul, which began on January 6, 1842. The British and Indian troops were harassed and sometimes attacked by the Afghans along every foot of their retreat. On January 13, the last European finally reached safety at the British post of Jalalabad. Shah Shuja himself had been assassinated. In February 1842 Edward Law, Lord Ellenbor- ough, replaced the unlucky Auckland as the area’s governor-general, and plans were made to avenge their fallen countrymen. A punitive force commanded by Major-General George Pollock of the Bengal army entered Afghanistan again. Despite fierce resistance from Akbar Khan’s forces, Pollock reentered Kabul in September 1842. Having made their point, the Brit- ish evacuated Kabul again in December 1842 and this time reached British territory safely. The British per- mitted Dost Mohammed to take back the throne, but the overall aim of the war had been achieved—Afghan- istan remained in the British camp and the Russian plans were thwarted. During the next 40 years the British and Russian Empires continued their seemingly inexorable advance toward one another through Central Asia. During the Sikh Wars, the British defeated the once independent realm of the Sikhs in the Punjab, firmly adding it to their growing Indian Empire. Although British rule was shaken during the Indian Mutiny of 1857–58, the attention of the British was still focused on the ambitions of the Russians to the north and west. With the assumption of direct British rule in the aftermath of the mutiny, real decision-making shifted decisively from the British governors-general in India to Lon- don. The Great Game was definitely on again, if it ever had stopped. In 1877 the Russians went to war with Turkey and although the Congress of Berlin in 1878 promised peace, the stage was set for another confron- tation over Afghanistan. Those who supported the aggressive Forward Poli- cy against Russia, including Robert Bulwer-Lytton, the viceroy, demanded action be taken against Afghanistan. On November 3, 1878, British diplomat Neville Cham- berlain appeared at the Khyber Pass to demand passage for his delegation to enter Kabul. Afghan border troops turned him back. On November 21 the British crossed the border into Afghanistan, 39 years after the first Brit- ish invasion. As before, the Afghans were in no position to withstand the determined advance. In Kabul, Sher Ali relinquished his throne to his son Yakub Khan. After a winter of guerrilla war, Yakub Khan realized that mak- ing peace with the British was the best policy. In May 1879 Yakub Khan accepted a permanent British resi- dent (who would actually serve as the real power in the country) in Kabul, Sir Louis Cavagnari. In July 1879 Cavagnari made his entrance into the Afghan capital. In September mutinous Afghan troops killed Cavagnari. Although he had requested aid from Yakub Khan, the request was ignored, leaving the impression that the troops attacked the British with at least the unspoken agreement of the amir. When news of the massacre reached India, Major- General Frederick Roberts was given command of the Kabul Field Force in order to lead a quick British response to attempt to stabilize the situation in Afghanistan before the Russians might be tempted to take advantage of the British defeat. Yakub Khan’s troops made a stand at the Shutargardan Pass, but a determined British push cleared them away. Yakub Khan, chagrined at Roberts’s determi- nation, decided to make peace. However, the danger was far from past, and on October 5, 1879, Roberts was forced to fight another engagement with the Afghans. The British now faced hostility from a different quarter. A Muslim holy man, Mushkh-i-Alam, preached a jihad, an Islamic holy war, against the British. This put the British force at Kandahar in peril. Once news reached them, Roberts began to gather a relief column to rescue them and his hard-pressed garrison at Kanda- har. Within two weeks Roberts set out with a force of 10,000 men. On August 31, 1880, after a march of 21 days, Roberts broke Ayub Khan’s siege of Kandahar. The next day Roberts decisively defeated him in open battle. With the relief of Kandahar the Second Afghan War came to a close. Ayub Khan and Yakub Khan were both tainted by their treachery in British eyes, and Abdul Rahman, their cousin, became the amir in Kabul. Twice in 40 years the British had asserted their primacy in Kabul and won another round in the Great Game against the Russians. See also Anglo-Russian rivalry. Further reading: Barthorp, Michael. Afghan Wars and the North-West, 1839–1947. London: Cassell, 2002; McCau- ley, Martin. Afghanistan and Central Asia: A Modern His- tory. London: Pearson, 2002; Meyer, Karl E., and Sharon Blair Brysac. Tournament of Shadows: The Great Game and the Race for Empire in Central Asia. Washington, DC: Counterpoint, 1999. John F. Murphy, Jr. 10 Africa, exploration of Africa, exploration of Systematic exploration of Africa by Europeans began with James Bruce, who was born at Kinnaird in Scotland in 1730. After a century of bloody internal war, Scottish energy turned to intellectual and scientific studies, includ- ing exploration. Bruce arrived in Algiers in 1762 as the British consul, and in 1768 he was in Cairo, where he conceived the great dream of his life: to find the source of the Nile River. Unlike others, Bruce believed the source of the Nile was in Ethiopia. Bruce had the misconception that the Blue Nile was the main point of origin of the great river, not the White, as later explorers would deter- mine. Indeed, the White and Blue Niles are two distinct rivers, as explorers would later learn. Bruce, with self-confidence and determination, was the prototype of the African explorer. In November 1770 he reached Ethiopia’s Lake Tana, the source of the Blue Nile. After months of adventure and war, he returned to Cairo in January 1773 before going on to London and then to his native Scotland. In 1790 he published the record of his journeys, Travels to Dis- cover the Sources of the Nile. Four years later, Bruce, who had survived disasters and dangers, died at home from a fall on a flight of steps. The next great explorer of Africa was another Scots- man, Mungo Park, born in Selkirkshire in 1771. In 1789 he went to Edinburgh to study to become a surgeon. Park’s extraordinary abilities caught the attention of Joseph Banks, perhaps the greatest botanist of his day. After Park completed his studies, Banks helped him secure the position of surgeon on the British East India Com- pany’s merchant ship Worcester. When he returned, he brought descriptions of eight new species of fish. Mean- while, French and British colonial rivalry was beginning to engulf Africa. Impressed by Park’s presentation of the new species, Banks recommended Park as a scientist for the Association for the Promotion and Discovery through the Interior of Africa—an expedition-sponsoring associa- tion. He got the position, and the expedition set sail on May 22, 1795. The party located the Niger River on July 22, 1796, and Park’s record of the journey was published in 1799 as Travels in the Interior Districts of Africa. In January 1805 Park set sail in the troopship HMS Crescent and landed at the port of Gorée on the Gam- bia two months later. Disregarding sickness and ban- dits, which took a steady toll of his party, Park reached the Niger on August 19. Park wrote his last letter to his wife, Allison, on November 20, 1805. It appears the Scotsman was killed in a skirmish with tribesmen at Bussa Falls in 1805 on the Niger. The Napoleonic conquest of Egypt guaranteed continued British interest in Africa because it brought the continent into the heart of the conflict. One of Napoleon’s generals, Louis-Charles-Antoine Desaix, unwittingly became one of the first European explor- ers of the Nile as he pursued the defeated Mamluks into Upper Egypt. The British used the Napoleonic Wars to stake their claim on South Africa as well. In 1806 at the southern extremity of the continent, the British seized the Dutch colony at what would become Cape Town, since the Netherlands were then allied with the French. The great anchorage of Table Bay made the site vital to communications with the crown jewel of the growing British Empire, India. It became the southern British gateway to the interior of Africa, then undergoing the imperial conquests of the Zulu king Shaka Zulu. From Cape Town came the British penetration of the southern half of Africa that contin- ued to the end of the 19th century. cape town In November 1810 the new British colony of Cape Town led to the first British journey into the unknown Bantu lands to the north. William Burchell was born in 1782, the son of a professional nurseryman. Like Joseph Banks and Mungo Park before him, an inter- est in botany led to his interest in exploration. It took Burchell several months to gather together an expedi- tion. His goal was the Kalahari Desert and Angola, which the Portuguese had first visited in the 15th cen- tury in their long trek down the west coast of Africa. Discovering the desert, the terrible heat and lack of water finally forced Burchell to abandon his quest for Angola, and in August he turned back. It would take him and his party two and a half years to return to Cape Town, having traversed some of the most forbidding terrain in Africa. In April 1815 he returned to Cape Town with an immense scientific treasure from his years of exploration. He returned to England, and from 1822 to 1824 Burchell devoted himself to writing his two-volume Travels in the Inte- rior of Southern Africa. Thus, by the end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815, much of the coastal area of Africa had been explored, and intrepid adventurers had begun to enter the uncharted heart of the continent. For the rest of the century, the lure of the African interior would be irre- sistible. While governments may have had their own agendas, for the great majority of explorers, they trav- eled neither for imperial glory or monetary gain, but for the sheer adventure of finding out what lay beyond Africa, exploration of 11 the next river or mountain range. Still, as in the era of Mungo Park, one of the greatest challenges to explo- ration was the ancient city of Timbuktu; this and the source of the Nile formed two of the Holy Grails for generations of explorers. In May 1825 Alexander Gordon Laing landed in Tripoli, determined to find his way to Timbuktu. Final- ly, after a year of incredible hardship in the desert, on August 13, 1826, he arrived at Timbuktu. Although the city disappointed him, Laing was impressed by the Mosque of Sankore, built by the great Muslim West African ruler Mansa Musa. Although Laing had achieved his goal, his exploration ended in tragedy. On September 21, 1826, Laing was told he was not safe and left the city to walk into a trap set by Sheikh Ahmadu El Abeyd, who had promised him protection. On Septem- ber 22 El Abeyd demanded Laing accept Islam, but the Scotsman refused. He was killed and his head cut off. ZANZIBAR The chapter in the history of African exploration con- cerning Richard Burton and John Hanning Speke is the most tragic of all. In 1856 Richard Burton, perhaps the greatest British adventurer of his generation, was commissioned by the Royal Geographic Society to find the source of the Nile. He decided to take with him a companion from an earlier expedition, John Hanning Speke. Burton was already an accomplished traveler, proficient in Arabic, and able to carry off pretending to be a Muslim. On December 19, 1856, Burton and Speke arrived at Zanzibar from Bombay, where Burton held a com- mission in the army of the East India Company. Both men took ample time in Zanzibar preparing for their expedition. They set off on their quest after years of travels and squabbles. Burton was convinced that Lake Tanganyika was the source of the White Nile, whereas Speke believed it was Lake Ukewere, which he renamed Lake Victoria. The rivalry that began in their prior expedition came to a head, and when Burton stopped to rest in Aden, Speke went on to England, promising to wait for his return to reveal the results of their journeys. He broke that promise, and by the time Burton arrived in England on May 21, 1858, Speke had convinced the Royal Geographic Society that Lake Victoria was the source. This accomplishment earned him anoth- er commission by the society, and he did not invite Burton to join him on his return to Africa to verify the claim. Instead, Speke chose an army compan- ion, James Augustus Grant. They arrived in Zanzi- bar from England in August 1860. They retraced the route that Speke had taken with Burton. After several months in Uganda, Speke and Grant continued their trip. Because Grant had a severely infected leg, Speke tended to forge ahead on his own. On July 21, 1862, Speke found himself on the Nile and on July 28 came to Rippon Falls, where the White Nile flows out of Lake Victoria. It was during Speke’s second trip that he and Grant met two of the period’s most colorful explorers, Samuel Baker and his redoubtable wife, Florence. They met Speke at Gondokoro on the White Nile, whose source the Bakers were pursuing. A question remained about another lake, known as the Luta N’zige. Speke believed that the White Nile flowed into it from Lake Victoria and then out of Luta N’zige. Speke suggested to Baker that he take up the investigation, and Baker was pleased to do so. On February 26, Speke and Grant resumed their journey down the Nile to Khartoum, and from there to Cairo and England. LAKE ALBERT The Bakers continued with their exploration and on January 31, 1864, they struck out on the final march toward Luta N’zige. On March 15, 1864, they found the lake, which they renamed Lake Albert. Samuel explored the surrounding area and saw that the Nile flowed through it. He and Florence returned to England in October, and Samuel was given a gold medal by the Royal Geographic Society. The following August he was knighted. Meanwhile Speke returned to England without any convincing evidence that his theory was correct. The British Association for the Advancement of Science set up a meeting between Burton and Speke to make their cases. At a preliminary meeting Burton triumphed over Speke. On September 15, one day before the final con- frontation, Speke was shot dead while hunting. Many claimed he had shot himself by accident, but others felt he had taken his own life. Throughout this entire period the name David Liv- ingstone seemed to dominate. Livingstone was a Scots- man born on May 1, 1813. He first visited Africa as a missionary, having gained a degree in medicine at the age of 25 at the University of Glasgow. Livingstone soon realized that the exploration of this virtually unknown continent was more to his heart than laboring at a mis- sionary station and devoted himself to exploration, often with his wife. On June 1, 1849, with two companions, Orwell and Murray, he traveled to find Lake Ngami, and on August 1 Livingstone and his party sailed down the 12 Africa, imperialism and the partition of entire lake. Then began Livingstone’s exploration of the Zambezi River. A national hero back home, Livingstone recounted his travels in his best-selling Missionary Travels and Researches in South Africa. From 1858 to 1864 he was in Africa on a second expedition to explore eastern and central Africa. He returned to Africa in 1864 to look for the sources of the Nile. Striking out from Mikindani on the east coast, the expedition was forced south, and some of his followers deserted him, concocting the story that he had been killed and making headline news. Liv- ingstone, however, pressed on, reaching Lakes Mweru, Bangweulu, and Tanganyika. Moving on to the Congo River, he went farther than any European before him. It was on this exploration that rumors reached Eng- land and North America that the great explorer was near death. In 1869 the New York Herald hired Henry Morton Stanley to find Dr. Livingstone. On Novem- ber 10, 1871, Stanley found Livingstone at his camp at Ujji on Lake Tanganyika. Upon Livingstone’s death in 1873, his body was returned to England for burial in Westminster Abbey. Stanley decided to pick up where Livingstone, Burton, and Speke had left off, and he set off on his own expedition. The most important result of the journey was the realization that Speke’s theory had been right—Lake Victoria was the source for the White Nile. He followed the Congo River and caught the attention of King Leopold II of Belgium, who wished to develop the Congo River basin. In 1879 Stanley set off for Africa in the service of Leopold. The exploration of Africa led to a rivalry among the countries that had sponsored the explorers. At the same time that Stanley had been exploring the Congo for Bel- gium, so had Pierre Savorgnan de Brazza for France. To prevent an African rivalry from endangering the peace of Europe, Chancellor Otto von Bismarck of Germany chaired a Conference of Berlin from Novem- ber 1884 to February 1885 to gain the Great Powers’ agreement to a peaceful partition of Africa. The map of Africa was filling in as the end of the century approached. The areas not yet mapped quick- ened the heartbeats of explorers from all over the world. Kenya was the next area of interest. On January 2, 1887, the Hungarian explorer Count Teleki von Szek arrived in Zanzibar with Ludwig von Hohnel. Their goal was to explore for their patron, Crown Prince Rudolph of Austria-Hungary, another of the lakes that still tantalized African explorers, known in the local language as Basso Narok, or Black Water. Teleki was the first to climb Mount Kenya before discovering two more lakes, today known as Turkana and Stefanie. On October 26, 1888, after close to two years, they returned to Mombasa and the voyage home. Sixteen years later, in 1914, World War I changed the map of Africa forever. Still, in honor of the explorer who had the purest heart, in spite of the era of decolonization after World War II and the years of unrest that followed, the statue of Dr. David Livingstone still stands overlook- ing Victoria Falls today. See also Cook, James; slave trade in Africa. Further reading: Dugard, Martin. Into Africa: The Epic Adventures of Stanley and Livingstone. New York: Broad- way Books, 2003; Kryza, Frank T. The Race for Timbuktu. New York: Harper, 2006; Livingstone, David. The Life and African Explorations of David Livingstone. New York: Coo- per Square, 2002; Novaresio, Paolo. The Explorers. Vercelli, Italy: White Star, 2004; Shipman, Pat. To the Heart of the Nile. New York: HarperPerennial, 2004. John F. Murphy, Jr. Africa, imperialism and the partition of Imperialism, or the extension of one nation-state’s domination or control over territory outside its own boundaries, peaked in the 19th century as European powers extended their holdings around the world. The huge African continent (three times the size of the con- tinental United States) was particularly vulnerable to European conquest. The partition of Africa was a fast- moving event. In 1875 less than one-tenth of Africa was under European control; by 1895 only one-tenth was independent. Between 1871 and 1900 Britain added 4.25 million square miles and 66 million people to its empire. British holdings were so far-flung that many boasted that the “sun never set on the British Empire.” During the same time frame, France added over 3.5 million square miles of territory and 26 million people to its empire. Controlling the sparsely populated Saha- ra, the French did not rule over as many people as the British. By 1912 only Liberia and Ethiopia in Africa remained independent states, and Liberia was really a protectorate of U.S.-owned rubber companies, particu- larly the Firestone Company. By the end of the 19th century, the map of Africa resembled a patchwork quilt of different colonial empires. France controlled much of North Africa, West Africa, and French Equatorial Africa (uni- fied in 1910). The British held large sections of West Africa, imperialism and the partition of 13 Africa, the Nile Valley, and much of East and southern Africa. The Spanish ruled small parts of Morocco and coastal areas along the Atlantic Ocean. The Portuguese held Angola and Mozambique, and Belgium ruled the vast territories of the Congo. The Italians had secured Libya and parts of Somalia in East Africa. Germany had taken South-West Africa (present-day Namibia), Tanganyika (present-day Tanzania), and Cameroon. Britain had the largest empire and the French the sec- ond largest, followed by Spain, Portugal, and Belgium. Germany and Italy, among the last European nations to unify, came late to the scramble for Africa and had to content themselves with less desirable and lucrative territories. There were many different motivations for 19th- century imperialism. Economics was a major moti- vating factor. Western industrial powers wanted new markets for their manufactured goods as well as cheap labor; they also needed raw materials. J. A. Hobson and Vladimir Lenin both attributed imperial expansion to new economic forces in industrial nations. Lenin went so far as to write that imperialism was an inevi- table result of capitalism. As the vast mineral resources of Africa were exploited by European imperial powers, many Africans became laborers in mines or workers on agricultural plantations owned by Europeans. The harsh treatment or punishment of workers in the rub- ber plantations of the Belgian Congo resulted in mil- lions of deaths. However, economics was not the only motivation for imperial takeovers. In some instances, for example the French takeover of landlocked Chad in northern Africa, imperial powers actually expended more to administer the territory than was gained from raw materials, labor, or markets. Nationalism fueled imperialism as nations compet- ed for bragging rights over having the largest empire. Nations also wanted control over strategic waterways such as the Suez Canal, ports, and naval bases. Chris- tian missionaries traveled to Africa in hopes of gaining converts. When they were opposed or even attacked by Africans who resented the cultural incursions and denial of traditional religions, Western missionaries often called on their governments to provide military and political protection. Hence it was said that “the flag followed the Bible.” The finding of the Scottish missionary David Livingstone by Henry Stanley, an American of English birth, was widely popularized in the Western press. Livingstone was not actually lost, but had merely lost contact with the Western world. Explorers, adventurers, and entrepreneurs such as Cecil Rhodes in Rhodesia and King Leopold II of Belgium, who owned all of the Congo as his personal estate, also supported imperial takeovers of territo- ries. Richard Burton, Samuel and Florence Baker, and John Speke all became famous for their exploration of the Nile Valley in attempts to find the source of that great river. Their books and public lectures about their exploits fueled Western imaginations and interest in Africa. CULTURAL IMPERIALISM Cultural imperialism was another important aspect of 19th-century imperialism. Most Westerners believed they lived in the best possible world and that they had a monopoly on technological advances. In their imperial holdings, European powers often built ports, transportation, communication systems, and schools, as well as improving health care, thereby bringing the benefits of modern science to less developed areas. Social Darwinists argued that Western civilization was the strongest and best and that it was the duty of the West to bring the benefits of its civilization to “lesser” peoples and cultures. Western ethnocentrism contributed to the idea of the “white man’s burden,” a term popularized by the poet Rudyard Kipling. Racism also played a role in Western justifications for imperial conquests. European nations devised a number of different approaches to avoid armed conflict with one another in the scramble for African territory. Sometimes nations declared a protectorate over a given African territory and exercised full political and military control over it. At other times they negotiated through diplomatic channels or held international conferences. At the Ber- lin Conference of 1884–85, 14 nations decided on the borders of the Congo that was under Belgian rule, and Portugal got Angola. The term spheres of influence, whereby a nation declared a monopoly over a territory to deter rival imperial powers from taking it, was first used at the Berlin Conference. However, disputes sometimes led European nations to the brink of war. Britain and France both had plans to build a north-south railway and east-west railway across Africa; although neither railway was ever com- pleted, the two nations almost went to war during the Fashoda crisis over control of the Sudan, where the railways would have intersected. Britain was also eager to control the headwaters of the Nile to protect its inter- ests in Egypt, which was dependent on the Nile waters for its existence. Following diplomatic negotiations the dispute was resolved in favor of the British, and the Sudan became part of the British Empire. 14 Africa, Portuguese colonies in War did break out between the British and Boers over control of South Africa in 1899. By 1902 the British had emerged victorious, and South Africa was added to their empire. In West Africa, European powers carved out long narrow states running north to south in order that each would have access to maritime trade routes and a port city. Since most Europeans knew little or nothing about the local geography or demographics of the region, these new states often separated similar ethnic groups or put traditional enemies together under one administration. The difficulties posed by these dif- ferences continue to plague present-day West African nations such as Nigeria. FRENCH AND BRITISH RULE The French and British adopted very different approach- es to governance in their empires. The French believed in their “civilizing mission” and sought to assimilate the peoples of their empire by implanting French culture and language. The British adopted a policy of “indirect rule.” They made no attempt to assimilate the peoples of their empire and educated only a small number of Africans to become civil servants. A relatively small number of British soldiers and bureaucrats ruled Ghana and Nigeria in West Africa. In East Africa, the British brought in Indians to take jobs as government clerks and in commerce. Otherwise, the British tried to avoid interfering with local rulers or ways of life. Although the British and French policies were radically different, both were based on the belief in the superiority of West- ern civilization. European colonists also settled in areas where the cli- mate was favorable and the land was suitable for agricul- ture. Substantial numbers of French colons settled in the coastal areas of North Africa, especially in Algeria and Tunisia, while Italians settled in Tunisia and Libya. Brit- ish settlers moved into what they named Rhodesia and Kenya. In Kenya, British farmers and ranchers moved into the highlands, supplanting Kenyan farmers and tak- ing much of the best land. The Boers, Dutch farmers, fought the Zulus for control of rich agricultural land in South Africa. The Boers took part in a mass migration, or Great Trek, into the interior of South Africa from 1835–41 and established two independent republics, the Orange Free State and the Transvaal. Dutch farmers clashed with the British for control of South Africa in the Boer War. In Mozambique and Angola, Portuguese set- tlers (prazeros) established large feudal estates (prazos). Throughout Africa, European colonists held privileged positions politically, culturally, and economically. They opposed extending rights to native African populations. A few groups, such as the Igbos in Nigeria and the Baganda in Uganda, allied with the British and received favored positions in the colonial administrations. How- ever, most Africans resisted European takeovers. Mus- lim leaders, such as Abdul Kader in Algeria and the Mahdi in Sudan, mounted long and effective armed opposition to French and British domination. But both were ultimately defeated by superior Western military strength. The Ashante in Ghana and the Hereros in South- West Africa fought against European domination but were crushed in bloody confrontations. The Zulus led by Shaka Zulu used guerrilla warfare tactics to halt the expansion of the Boers into their territories, but after initial defeats the Boers triumphed. The Boers then used the hit-and-run tactics they had learned from the Zulus in their war against the British. The British defeated the Matabele and Mashona tribes in northern and southern Rhodesia. In the 20th century, a new generation of nationalist African leaders adopt- ed a wide variety of political and economic means to oppose the occupation of their lands by European nations and settlers. See also Congo Free State; Social Darwinism and Herbert Spencer (1820–1903); South Africa, Boers and Bantu in. Further reading: Hobsbaum, Eric. The Age of Empire, 1875–1914. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1987, 1996; Nederveen, Jan. White on Black: Images of Africa and Blacks in Western Popular Culture. New Haven, CT: Yale Universi- ty Press, 1991; Pakenham, Thomas. The Scramble for Africa: White Man’s Conquest of the Dark Continent from 1876 to 1912. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1990; Robinson, Ronald, John Gallagher, and Alice Denny. Africa and the Vic- torians. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1961. Janice J. Terry Africa, Portuguese colonies in Before the 1880s most African societies were indepen- dent of European rule. With particular reference to Africa south of the Sahara, colonial rule was confined to coastal patches and the Cape region, the latter being home to Anglo-Boer political rivalry. As regards the Portuguese, their colonial interest was restricted to their colonies of Angola, Mozambique, and the tiny area of Portuguese Guinea. Interestingly, Portuguese rule in these areas was not strong. The reason was that trade, Africa, Portuguese colonies in 15 not political administration, dominated the purpose of their encounter with Africans during this period. It was because of this that no major political responsibility was taken by Portugal, unlike the other European powers, with regard to colonies in Africa, creating the unique nature of Portuguese enterprise or activities in Africa between 1750 and 1900. The establishment of colonies and colonial rule, as well as the strategies employed by the Portuguese to keep their holdings in Africa, have an interesting history, despite their dwindling fortunes dur- ing this period, occasioned by economic, political, and strategic factors. PORTUGUESE ENTERPRISE Between 1750 and 1900 the Portuguese did not achieve much as far as their attempt to establish colonial rule in Africa was concerned. But if colonialism is taken to mean the occupation and control of one nation by another, then some of the attempts made by Portugal to establish political control over some parts of Africa can be highlighted as examples. It is important to stress that the driving force behind Portuguese enterprise in Africa, and elsewhere in the world, was trade and economic exploitation of their colonies, and it is this more than anything that drove Portuguese desire for political control of these areas. Indeed, Portugal, like many of the other colonial powers, had always treated its colonies like private estates of the motherland, where resources had to be repatriated for the development of the latter. No real political administration and structure were put in place in the colonies. In the case of East Africa, the area was more or less a stopping place for the Portuguese on their way to Asia. The chief result of their rule in this region was that it contributed greatly to crippling the old Arab settlements that were once the pride of the East African coast. Portugal viewed its East African possessions with mixed feelings. While the area did not give them the wealth they had expected, they nevertheless wanted to contain Arab influence in the area and deal directly with the indigenous Africans. It was for this that the Portu- guese attacked communities in the area and established a presence in Mombasa, Sofala, Kilwa, Mozambique, and Pemba. There were many obstacles as far as its East African project was concerned. First, many of the Portuguese settlers in East Africa died from tropical diseases. Many others were killed in the continual fighting on the coast. Second, due in large part to disease and fighting, Portu- gal never had a population large enough to carry out its colonial plans in East Africa. Most of its personnel were kept busy in Brazil and their empire in the Indian Ocean. Third, competition from the British and the Dutch East India Company helped to weaken the Portuguese hold on the eastern shores of the Indian Ocean. Then there were numerous revolts from the Arab leaders of the region. For instance, in 1698 Sultan bin Seif, the sultan of Oman, and his son, Imam Seif bin Sultan, captured Fort Jesus, which had been the mili- tary and strategic base of Portuguese holdings in East Africa. Indeed, in 1699 the Portuguese were driven out of Kilwa and Pemba, thus marking the end of Portu- guese colonial interest in East Africa north of Mozam- bique. Earlier in 1622 a revolt against the Portuguese led by a former Portuguese mission pupil, Sultan Yusuf, helped to prepare the disintegration of Portuguese mili- tary strength in Mombasa. Consequent upon these issues, Portuguese hold- ings in East Africa were far from a successful colonial rule. By 1750 Portuguese interests in East Africa were replaced by a new socio-political order led by the lead- ers of Oman. AFRICAN INTERIOR In the interior of Africa, the Portuguese did not achieve anything substantial as far as colonial rule was con- cerned. The Mwenemutapa (known to the Portuguese as Monomotapa) did not provide fertile soil for the establishment of Portuguese colonization. The Portu- guese, for their part, were more interested in what they would get instead of what they would give. Besides, the area was already experiencing decline owing to the emergence of several dynasties in the region. This situa- tion was not helped by contact with the Portuguese. Elsewhere, in Guinea there was Portuguese influence, but it was not enough to be described as colonial rule. By 1750 Portuguese colonies in Africa were limited to Ango- la, Mozambique, and Guinea, but colonial rule was more pronounced in the first two colonies. The Portuguese also held important islands in the Atlantic off the coast of Africa. During this period Portuguese colonies, especially Angola, remained the supply base for the Brazilian slave trade. The Portuguese sought to create a highly polished elite conditioned by their culture. This aspira- tion did not materialize. Indeed, the Angolan colony, which was an example of Portuguese colonial interest in Africa, was a mere shambles, in which the criminal classes of Portugal were busy milking the people for their own benefit. To this end, Angola, like Mozam- bique, could be described as a trading preserve from which the interior could be reached. 16 Africa, Portuguese colonies in WEB OF MISERY Politically, Portuguese colonies lacked effective admin- istration. The historian Richard Hammond has paint- ed the picture in a sympathetic way when he argued that Portugal could not effectively control its colonies. He was merely echoing the voice of a Portuguese official, Oliveira Martins, who wrote that Portuguese colonies were a web of misery and disgrace and that the colonies, with the exception of Angola, be leased to those “who can do what we most decidedly cannot.” The reason why Portuguese colonies were so painted is not hard to understand. A. F. Nogueira, a Portuguese official, said, “Our colonies oblige us to incur expenses we cannot afford: For us to conserve, out of mere ostentation, mere display, mere prejudice . . . colonies that serve no useful purpose and will always bring us into discredit, is the height of absurdity and barbarity besides.” In 1895 the minister of marine and colonies, the naval officer Ferreira de Almeida, argued in favor of selling some of the colonies and using the proceeds to develop those colonies that would be retained. It is obvi- ous from the issues Portugal contended with in Africa that the intent was to have a large space on the map of the world, but that Portugal was never ready to admin- ister them practically. This notwithstanding, it is safe to say that the Portuguese implemented the policy of assimilation in governing their colonies. The aim was to make Afri- cans in the colonies citizens of Portugal. Those who passed through the process of assimilation were called assimilados. It is important to note that the number of assimilados ceased to grow after the unsuccessful effort of the liberal Bandeira government to make all Africans citizens of Portugal. It is not clear whether the Portuguese were sincere in their efforts to assimilate Africans in their colonies. It appears that the policy was a mere proclamation that did not have the neces- sary political backing. Indeed, the idea of equality was a farce. The government did not provide the necessary infrastructure such as schools, finances, or other social institutions upon which such equality, demanded by true assimilation, could be built. The process of education in Portuguese territories in Africa was far from satisfactory. The aim of Por- tuguese education was essentially to create an African elite that would reason in the way of the Portuguese. However, the Portuguese officials were not committed to the cause of educating Africans at the expense of Portugal. Consequently, most schools were controlled by the Catholic Church, as a reflection of the relation- ship between church and state. This meant that the state was dodging its responsibility to provide educa- tion for the people of its African colonies. Historian Walter Rodney has criticized the type of education in Portuguese colonies in Africa. He believed that the schools were nothing but agencies for the spread of the Portuguese language. He argued further that “at the end of 500 years of shouldering the white man’s burden of civilizing ‘African Natives,’ the Portuguese had not managed to train a single Afri- can doctor in Mozambique, and the life expectancy in eastern Angola was less than 30 years . . . As for Guinea-Bissau, some insight into the situation there is provided by the admission of the Portuguese them- selves that Guinea-Bissau was more neglected than Angola and Mozambique.” Later in the 20th century, the Portuguese encour- aged state financing of education in the colonies and ensured that a few handpicked Africans were allowed to study in Portugal. Sometimes, provisions were made for the employment of such assimilados in the colonial administration. This development notwith- standing, Portuguese colonies in Africa did a poor job in education. SLAVE TRADE Another important aspect of Portuguese colonial rule in Africa is its attitude toward labor and the recruit- ment of it. For a long time the slave trade provided an avenue for the recruitment of labor in Portuguese territories. However, in 1836, slave trafficking was abolished in Portugal’s colonies, although it contin- ued in practice under the name of contract labor. Under this new practice, every year the Portuguese shipped thousands of people from Angola to coffee and cocoa plantations on the island of São Tomé as forced laborers. Mozambique also offered an avenue for migration of labor to work in mines in British- controlled Rhodesia. Sometimes, the migrants were happier working in the mines than being forced to work at home. All the same, the Portuguese con- trolled the recruitment of this labor to Rhodesia, tak- ing revenue from each worker that they allowed to leave. This was another way to generate revenue. The historian Basil Davidson has commented that a distinguishing feature of Portuguese colonies was the presence of large systems of forced labor put in place to exploit and oppress the indigenous people. There were reasons for this development. First, in the case of Angola, the increasing prosperity of the cocoa industry and the attendant increase in the demand for labor made forced labor a desirable alternative. Africa, Portuguese colonies in 17 Second, toward the end of the 18th century, the sup- ply of labor was affected by the spread of sleeping sickness in the interior. Consequently, the Portuguese had to rely on forced labor for its supply. The colonies were subjected to a great deal of eco- nomic exploitation. From the start, Portuguese enter- prises in Africa were dictated by the desire to procure slaves. Indeed, slaves constituted almost the sole export of the colonies. This continued up to the end of the 19th century. In Angola, the Portuguese established their rule of ruthless exploitation for the purpose of procuring large numbers of slaves for the Brazilian market. The exploitation of Angola for slaves came to be known as the era of the pombeiros. The pombeiros, half-caste Portuguese, were notorious for their activi- ties, which consisted of stirring up local conflicts in order to capture slaves for sale at the coast. The pombeiros were the masters of the interior whom the slave dealers relied on for procurement. INTELLECTUAL REACTION In 1901 a decree was issued by the government in Lis- bon to put a stop to recruitment of labor by violent means. In Luanda, some pamphlets were published to denounce the practice of forced labor. This was an intel- lectual reaction to the phenomenon of forced labor. In practical terms, it did not have any substantial effect on the practice. There was a violent reaction to the phenomenon of forced labor, starting with the Bailundo Revolt of 1902. In 1903 fresh regulations were issued to tackle the issue of forced labor, but they achieved little or no success. Portugal’s objection to forced labor was not born out of their concern for Africans, but such a stance was taken whenever the authority felt that cer- tain individuals were gaining too much local power. Indeed, the official view, embodied in a law of 1899, was that forced labor was an essential part of the civilizing process, provided it was done decently and in order. The Portuguese attitude to race was one of superi- ority on their part and inferiority on the part of Afri- cans. No colonial power was entirely free from racial prejudice. Segregation, whether pronounced or not, was often used as a means of preserving the racial purity of European settlers in Africa. In the case of the Portuguese, the authority was interested in ensuring the racial purity of Portuguese agrarian settlers in Angola. However, the conditions in the colonies did not favor or encourage Europeans to settle in large numbers. Conse- quently, white populations could be maintained only by settling convicts and by miscegenation. Because of this, racial mixing in Portuguese colonies was accepted—it was necessary to maintain the population. Portugal’s colonial history provides a particularly illuminating case of Europe’s impact on the racial and ethnic char- acter of Africa as far as racial-demographic engineering was concerned. No substantial infrastructure development can be ascribed to Portuguese colonial enterprise in Africa. Even though the Portuguese treated their colonies as the “private estate of the motherland,” no major policies and programs were put in place to address infrastruc- tural development. For instance, even though Angola produced excellent cotton, none of it was actually processed in Angola. Additionally, communication was poor. The Portuguese settlements were isolated from one another. For instance, when Lourenzo Marques was engulfed in crises in 1842 and the governor was killed in a raid organized by the indigenous people, it took the authorities in Mozambique a year to hear of the happening by way of Rio de Janeiro. But Portu- gal was lucky to benefit from development initiated by other countries. In 1879 the Eastern Telegraph Compa- ny’s cable, en route to Cape Town, established “anchor points” in Mozambique and Lourenzo Marques. In 1886 the telegraph line reached Luanda en route to the Cape. This provided the first major link between Portu- gal and its overseas colonies. Furthermore, in 1880 Portugal and the Transvaal concluded a revised version of their existing territorial treaty of 1869, in which they agreed to build a railroad from Lourenzo Marques to Pretoria. British control of the Transvaal stalled the progress of the work. Portugal on its own did not make efforts to connect its colo- nies in Africa in a manner that would make sense with regard to Africa’s needs and development. Lastly, bureaucracy was not effective as far as Portu- guese colonial rule in Africa was concerned. There was no regular cadre of trained civilian recruits on which to draw. The effect of this was that there was an almost complete absence of the routine competence that a good administration needs. This affected the coordination of Portuguese colonial activities in Africa. CONCLUSION Between 1750 and 1900 the Portuguese presence in Africa was one of economic exploitation much more than actual colonial rule. In fact, the Portuguese had no major administrative systems in place in their African colonies. Instead, the primary motive for the creation 18 Aigun and Beijing, Treaties of of the colonies was economic, initially the slave trade and later other lucrative commodities. The Portuguese colonies lacked basic infrastructure and lagged behind European colonies in Africa. See also Brazil, independence to republic in; Brit- ish East India Company; Omani empire; prazeros. Further reading: Davidson, Basil. Modern Africa. A Social and Political History, 3rd ed. London: Longman, 1994; Hammond, Richard J. “Uneconomic Imperialism: Portugal in Africa before 1910.” In Gann, L. H., and Peter Duignan, eds., Colonialism in Africa, 1870–1960, Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969; Marsh, Z. A., and G. W. Kingsnorth. An Introduction to the History of East Africa, 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965. Omon Merry Osiki Aigun and Beijing, Treaties of The Russian Empire made important gains at the expense of China between 1858–60. The Qing (Ch’ing) dynas- ty’s easy defeat by Great Britain in the first Anglo- Chinese Opium War had made its glaring weakness apparent to the world. Russian leaders, including Czar Nicholas I, feared British dominance in East Asia and resolved to expand into Chinese territory first. In 1847 Nicholas appointed Nikolai Muraviev, an energetic proponent of Russian imperialism, governor of Eastern Siberia. Muraviev built up a large Russian force that included Cossack units, a naval squadron in the Far East, and set up forts and settlements along the Amur River valley in areas that the Treaty of Nerchinsk (1689) between Russia and China had recognized as Chinese territory. The small and ill-equipped Chinese frontier garrison in the region was no match for the Russians when Muraviev demanded in May 1858 that China recognize Russian sovereignty on the land north of the Amur riverbank. With more than 20,000 troops and naval support, he was able to force the Chinese representative to agree to the Treaty of Aigun, named after the frontier town where the meeting took place. Under its terms, China ceded to Russia 185,000 square miles of land from the left bank of the Amur River down to the Ussuri River and agreed that the terri- tory between the Ussuri and the Pacific Ocean would be held in common pending a future settlement. The Chinese government was furious with the terms and refused to ratify the treaty but was helpless because of the ongoing Taiping Rebellion and others and a war with Great Britain and France, known as the Second Anglo-Chinese Opium War. Events played into Russian hands in 1860, because resumed warfare between China and Britain and France had led to the capture of capital city Beijing (Peking) by British and French forces. The incompe- tent Qing emperor Xianfeng (Hsien-feng) and his court fled to Rehe (Jehol) Province to the north and left his younger brother Prince Gong (Kung) in charge. Rus- sia was represented in Beijing at this juncture by the wily ambassador Nikolai Ignatiev, who had recently arrived to secure Chinese ratification of the Treaty of Aigun. Ignatiev offered to mediate between the two opposing sides; by deception, maneuvering, and ingra- tiating himself to both parties he scored a great victory for Russia in the supplementary Treaty of Beijing in November 1860. It affirmed Russian gains under the Treaty of Aigun and secured exclusive Russian ownership of land east of the Ussuri River to the Pacific Ocean to Korea’s bor- der, an additional 133,000 square miles, including the port Vladivostok (meaning “ruler of the East” in Rus- sian). In addition Russia received the same extrater- ritorial rights and the right to trade in the ports that Britain and France had won by war. China also opened two additional cities for trade with Russia located in Mongolia and Xinjiang (Sinkiang) along land routes. Through astute diplomacy and by taking advantage of the weak and declining Qing dynasty Russia was able to score huge territorial gains from China without fir- ing a shot between 1858 and 1860. See also Romanov dynasty. Further reading: Quested, R. K. I. The Expansion of Russia in East Asia, 1857–1860. Kuala Lumpur and Singapore: University of Malaya Press, 1968; Schwartz, Harry. Tsars, Mandarins and Commissars, A History of Chinese-Russian Relations. Rev. ed. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press, 1973; Tien-fong Cheng. A History of Sino-Russian Relations. Washington, DC: Public Affairs Press, 1957. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur Alaska purchase Alaska was purchased by the United States from czarist Russia in 1867. It had been occupied by Russia since the 18th century and exploited by Russian fur and fishing interests. However, by the 1860s the region was viewed by the Russian government as a strategic liability and an economic burden. Suspicious of British intentions in the Pacific, and concerned with consolidating its position in eastern Siberia, the Russian government offered to sell Alaska to the United States. Baron Edouard de Stoeckl, Russia’s minister to the United States, entered into negotiations with President Andrew Johnson’s secre- tary of state, William H. Seward, in March 1867. Seward was a zealous expansionist. Throughout his tenure as secretary of state, which had begun during the administration of Abraham Lincoln, Seward was avid in his desire to advance American security and extend American power to the Caribbean and to the Pacific. The American Civil War and the lack of political and public support for expansion in the war’s after- math stymied his desires. He did succeed, however, in acquiring Midway Island in the Pacific and in gaining transit rights for American citizens across Nicaragua. Seward and Stoeckl drafted a treaty that agreed upon a price of $7,200,000 for Alaska. For approxi- mately two cents an acre, Seward had obtained an area of nearly 600,000 square miles. However, he encoun- tered difficulty in obtaining congressional approval for the transaction. Senator Charles Sumner overcame his initial opposition and sided with Seward. He gave a persuasive chauvinistic three-hour speech on the Sen- ate floor that utilized expansionist themes familiar to many 19th-century Americans. He spoke of Alaska’s value for future commercial expansion in the Pacific, cited its annexation as one more step in the occupa- tion of all of North America by the United States, and Alaska purchase 19 The Alaska Range in the south-central region of Alaska. The purchase of Alaska in 1867 yielded rich fishing grounds, the discovery of oil and natural gas fields, and the recognition of natural beauty as a source for tourism in the following century. 20 Alexander I associated its acquisition with the spread of Ameri- can republicanism. The Senate ratified the treaty in April 1867. Despite the formal transfer of Alaska in October of that year, the House, in the midst of impeachment proceedings against Johnson, refused to appropriate the money required by the treaty. It was not until July 1868 that the appropriation was finally approved. The purchase was repeatedly ridiculed. Alaska was referred to as a frozen wilderness, “Seward’s Ice Box,” and “Seward’s Folly.” The subsequent discov- ery of gold in 1898 brought about a new apprecia- tion for the area’s intrinsic value. Alaska’s rich fish- ing grounds, its vital location during World War II, the discovery of oil and natural gas fields, and the recognition of its natural beauty as a source for tour- ism have allayed further criticism of its purchase. Its increasing population qualified it to become the 49th state in 1959. See also Hawaii; Louisiana Purchase; Manifest Destiny. Further reading: Holbo, Paul S. Tarnished Expansion: The Alaska Scandal, the Press, and Congress, 1867–1871. Nash- ville, TN: University of Tennessee Press, 1983; Jensen, Ron- ald J. Alaska Purchase and Russian-American Relations. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press, 1975; Paolino, Ernest N. The Foundations of the American Empire: Wil- liam H. Seward and U.S. Foreign Policy. Ithaca, NY: Cor- nell University Press, 1973. ander called for reform and micromanaged its adop- tion, making it impossible for the reform to take place. Other reforms were simply poorly conceived, lacked a practical transition from the status quo, or were unim- plementable in light of the existing bureaucracy. His European contemporaries saw him as enigmatic and inconsistent. When Russia acquired Poland, Alexander approved their constitution, which provided many of the same things he wanted for his own country. Reform efforts dwindled in 1810 because of the Napoleonic wars that consumed Europe. Alexander was intimidated by Napoleon I, and perhaps by the scale of the wars themselves. He believed that at stake in the wars in Europe were the rights of humanity and the fate of nations and that only a confederation of European states devoted to the preservation of peace could prevent the dangers of dictators and world con- querors. Napoleon claimed Russia had nothing to fear from France and that the distance between the two nations made them allies. Any ambitions this may have stirred in Alexander were crushed by the summer of 1812, when Napoleon invaded Russia. The results startled everyone; in prepa- ration for the invasion of Moscow, Alexander ordered the city evacuated and burned. Anything that could help the invading French army was destroyed. More than three-quarters of the city was lost. Napoleon began his long retreat, and by the end of the campaign, the French forces of nearly 700,000 had been reduced to less than 25,000. It was a turning point for both men: Napoleon would ultimately lose, and Alexander would ultimately abandon his quests for reform. He initiated few new programs, failed to see older programs through, and by the end of his reign had reversed many of his early reforms rather than repair them. Alexander died of sud- den illness in 1825, on a voyage in the south. The cir- cumstances of his death inspired rumors claiming that he had been poisoned or he hadn’t died at all and had buried a soldier in his place. Further reading: Gribble, Francis. Emperor and Mystic: The Life of Alexander I of Russia. New York: Kessenger, 2007; Martin, Alexander M. Romantics, Reformers, Reactionaries: Russian Conservative Thought in the Reign of Alexander I. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1997; Troubetz- koy, Alexis S. Imperial Legend: The Disappearance of Czar Alexander I. New York: Arcade, 2002. Bill Kte’pi Alexander I (1777–1825) Russian czar Alexander I was the czar of Russia from 1801 to 1825, a rule during which he not only instituted widespread reforms but later reversed many of them. As a child, he was raised by his grandmother Catherine the Great in a liberal and intellectual environment. She died when he was a teenager in 1796, and his father died five years later, most likely with Alexander’s complicity as part of a conspiracy to put him on the throne. Alexander was deeply committed to reform and sought to bring Russia up to speed with the rest of Enlightenment-era Europe. Attempts at drawing up a constitution that could find support failed, and his early legal code was never adopted. In many cases, Alex- Louis B. Gimelli Algeria under French rule 21 Algeria under French rule France first occupied Algeria in 1830. During the Napo- leonic era, France had bought Algerian wheat on credit. After the fall of Napoleon I Bonaparte, the newly rees- tablished French monarchy refused to pay these debts. The dey of Algiers, Husain, sought payment, and during a quarrel with the French consul Duval he allegedly hit the consul in the face with his flyswatter. Duval reported the insult to Paris, and the French government sought revenge. King Charles X, who wanted to gain new markets and raw materials and deflect attention from an unstable domestic political situation, used the sup- posed insult as an excuse to attack Algeria. As a result, a French fleet with over 30,000 men landed in Algiers in the summer of 1830 and Dey Husain was forced to sign an act of capitulation by General de Bourmont. The French pledged to maintain Islam and the customs of the people but also confiscated booty worth over 50 mil- lion francs. The French government then debated what to do with the territory. France could keep the dey in power, destroy the forts, and leave or install an Arab prince to rule. The government also debated support- ing the return of Ottoman rule, putting the Knights of Malta in power, inviting other European pow- ers to establish some form of joint rule, or keep- ing the territory as part of the French empire. By 1834 the French had decided on a policy of conquest and annexation of the Algerian territory. A French governor-general was appointed, and all Ottoman Turks were out of Algeria by 1837. The French govern- ment held that there was no such thing as an Algerian nation and that Algeria was to become an integral part of France. Although assimilation of the predominantly Muslim and Arabic-speaking Algerian population into French society was ostensibly the policy of successive French regimes, the overwhelming majority of Algeri- ans were never accepted as equals. Algeria became a French department, and the French educational system, with French as the primary language, was instituted. In 1865 the French government under Napoleon III declared that Algerian Muslims and Jews could join the French military and civil service but could only become French citizens if they gave up their religious laws. The overwhelming majority of the Muslim population refused to do so, and Algerian Muslims gradually became third- class citizens in their own country, behind the mainland French and the colons, or French settlers. In 1870 Alge- rian Jews were granted French citizenship. Through most of the 19th century, the Algerians fought against the French occupation. Led by Emir Abdul Kader, the Algerians were initially successful in their hit-and-run attacks against the French. To gain the offensive, General Thomas-Robert Bugeaud created mobile columns to attack the Algerian fighters deep inside Algerian territory. With their superior armaments, the French put Abdul Kader’s forces on the defensive, and Abdul Kader was forced to surrender in 1847, after which he was sent into exile. In 1870 another revolt led by Mokrani broke out in the Kabyle, the mountainous district of northeastern Algeria. A woman named Lalla Fatima also championed the fighters in the Kabyle, but by 1872 the French had crushed the revolt. In retaliation, the French expropriated more than 6.25 million acres of land. Much of the expropriated land was given to French settlers coming from the prov- inces of Alsace-Lorraine that the French had lost to the Germans as a result of the Franco-Prussian War from 1870 to 1871. These punitive land expropriations made most Algerians tenant farmers and led to further impov- erishment of the indigenous population. By the end of the 19th century there were approximately 200,000 French colons living in Algeria. Indigenous Algerians were forced to pay special taxes, and limitations were placed on the numbers of Algerian children who could attend French schools. In addition, the French judicial system was implement- ed. In reaction to the growing social and political chasm between the colons and the indigenous popu- lation, a few Muslim leaders in the cities of Tlem- cen and Bone sent a note to the government in 1900 asking for the right to vote. Called the Young Alge- rians (Jeunes Algériens), these modernizers sought to narrow the gap between the two societies and had much in common with reformers in other parts of the Arab world. Although some liberals in mainland France supported reforms, the colons remained firm- ly opposed to any legislation that would lessen their favored positions. See also Kader ibn Moheiddin al-Hosseini, Abdul. Further reading: Danziger, Raphael. Abd Al Qadir and the Algerians: Resistance to the French and Internal Consolida- tion. New York: Holmes and Meier, 1977; Sullivan, Antony T. Thomas-Robert Bugeaud, France, and Algeria, 1784– 1849: Politics, Power, and the Good Society. Hamden, CT: Shoe String Press, 1983. Janice J. Terry 22 Alien and Sedition Acts, U.S. Alien and Sedition Acts, U.S. In 1798 four federal laws restricting U.S. citizenship and severely curtailing the freedoms of speech, press, and assembly were adopted by a Federalist Party–dominated Congress and signed by President John Adams. Sparked by mounting tensions between the United States and its former ally, France, these laws purported to be essential to the young nation’s security. In fact, they were mainly used to silence domestic critics as intense partisanship emerged. War certainly seemed a strong possibility as the French seized U.S. ships and sailors, schemed to regain control of Spanish Louisiana, and blatantly demanded bribes in return for diplomatic recognition. As Ameri- cans expressed patriotic outrage, those who still viewed France as a key ally and hailed the French Revolu- tion were painted as traitors. Chief among these was Democratic-Republican leader Thomas Jefferson, who was both Adams’s vice president and chief politi- cal rival. As these laws were implemented by his Feder- alist foes, Jefferson would call the years 1798 to 1801 “the reign of witches.” A new naturalization statute and two alien laws created major barriers to what had been an extremely liberal U.S. policy of welcoming and extending citizen- ship benefits to foreigners. Emerging nativist suspicions focused on French “Jacobins” and the supposedly “wild” Irish. The Alien Acts gave the president broad powers to have noncitizens arrested or deported in both peace- and wartime. Anticipating deportation, French visitors chartered 15 ships to return to Europe. Soon after, Adams would personally prevent French scientist Pierre Samuel du Pont de Nemours, whose son would later found a major American chemical company, from setting foot in the United States. The effects of the Sedition Act would prove even more significant, posing a clear challenge to the First Amendment of the Constitution, adopted just eight years earlier. Zealously enforced by Secretary of State Timothy Pickering, this act forbade utterances that might bring the president or Congress “into contempt or disrepute.” It produced 17 known indictments, focusing on Republican newspaper publishers. One of these was Benjamin Franklin Bache, editor of the Phila- delphia Aurora and grandson of Benjamin Franklin. Despite violent attacks on his home and person, Bache continued to publish until he died of yellow fever a month before his scheduled trial. Politicians, too, were targeted. Matthew Lyon, an Irish immigrant and Vermont congressman who was one of very few non-Federalist politicians in New England, was convicted for calling the Sedition Law unconstitutional. Conducting his reelection campaign from jail, Lyon won easily and was freed when sup- porters paid his $1,000 fine. Federalist Jedidiah Peck, a New York assemblyman, was dumped by his party and arrested for petitioning to repeal the Alien and Sedition Acts. He was also handily reelected, as a Republican. Opponents got no help from the Supreme Court, where ardently Federalist Associate Justice Samuel Chase personally prosecuted several sedition trials. The predominantly Republican states of Kentucky and Virginia passed resolutions condemning the laws. It took Jefferson’s narrow victory in the bitter presiden- tial campaign of 1800 to assure that the acts, already set to expire in March 1801, did not continue. Jeffer- son also pardoned those still jailed for sedition. Years later, Charles Francis Adams, diplomat grandson of John Adams, would call the Sedition Act the fatal error that ultimately doomed the Federalist Party to oblivion after the War of 1812. See also immigration, North America and; newspa- pers, North American; political parties in the united States. Further reading: Miller, John C. Crisis in Freedom: The Alien and Sedition Acts. Boston: Little, Brown, 1951; Smith, James Morton. Freedom’s Fetters: The Alien and Sedition Laws and American Civil Liberties. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1966. Marsha E. Ackermann Aligarh College and movement Aligarh College, now Aligarh Muslim University, was the first institution of higher learning for Muslims in British India. Many prominent Muslim leaders and scholars have studied at Aligarh, and it served to pro- vide an important focus for the development of Mus- lim unity and political awareness, particularly during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The college has its roots in the belief of Sayyid Ahmad Khan that there was no conflict between education in modern empiri- cal science and belief in the Qur’an. Khan desired to educate young Muslims in English, modern science, and the principles of Western government so they could take a leading role in the contemporary world. He was particularly interested in enabling them to American Revolution (1775–1783) 23 compete with Hindus and other religious and ethnic groups for positions of power in British-ruled India. In order to prepare Indian Muslims to accept West- ern education, Khan first created the Scientific Society of Aligarh in 1864, which translated Western scien- tific, historical, and philosophical works into Indian languages. Khan visited England in 1870, and his inspiration for Aligarh College was the universities at Oxford and Cambridge. He founded what was then known as the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College at Aligarh in 1875; it offered a Western curriculum similar to that of an English public (private) school, and the first prin- cipal, Theodore Beck, was British. Aligarh College became the leading center for the education of mod- ern Muslim leadership in India and helped to create an educated Muslim elite that held many political posi- tions and were catalysts for change within the British system. The college was particularly important in pro- viding practical experience in politics through campus debating societies and student elections and in encour- aging the formation of a collective and unified identity by the Indian Muslim community. Aligarh College became a full-fledged university in 1920 and was renamed Aligarh Muslim University. The university is located in the city of Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh, in northern India. It currently has about 30,000 students representing many religious and eth- nic backgrounds and offers instruction in 80 fields of study, including law, medicine, and engineering. Further reading: Khan, Abdul Rashid. The All India Mus- lim Educational Conference: Its Contribution to the Cultural Development of Indian Muslims, 1886–1947. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001; Moin, Mumtaz. The Aligarh Movement: Origin and Early History. Karachi, Pakistan: Salman Academy, 1976; Muhammed, Shan. Successors of Sir Syed Ahmad Khan: Their Role in the Growth of Muslim Political Consciousness in India. Delhi: Idarah-i Adabiyat-i Delli, 1981; Nasr, Seyyed Vali Reza. “Religious Modernism in the Arab World, India and Iran: The Perils and Prospects of a Discourse.” Muslim World 83, no. 1 (1993). Sarah Boslaugh American Revolution (1775–1783) The war that created and established the indepen- dence of the United States of America officially broke out between Britain and 13 of its North American colonies at Lexington and Concord, Massachusetts, and ended when the Treaty of Paris was signed. However, historians now maintain that the revolu- tion really began during, or at least in the wake of, the Seven Years’ War, also called the French and Indian War, long before the “shot heard round the world” of April 19, 1775. Serious political and social issues between Britain and its colonies emerged during this earlier conflict. Many colonial American men were not prepared to endure the harsh discipline of the British army or navy during the war and had an extraordinarily narrow and even legalistic perspective on their military obligations. For their part, aristocratic British military officers were unfamiliar with colonial America’s more boisterous political culture and expected colonial militiamen to obey orders without a second thought. These problems of deference and duty grew worse in the 1760s as the British attempted to deal with issues of imperial governance over the huge territory they had won from France. The British struggled to reconcile the goals of its colonial subjects, who hungered for Indian lands between the Mississippi River and the Appala- chian Mountains, with the need to foster peace, stabil- ity, and the continuation of the fur trade among the Indian tribes in the same region. As the French and Indian Wars were ending in 1763, an Indian coalition assembled by Ottawa chief Pontiac besieged British garrisons in and around the Great Lakes, killing or cap- turing 2,000 colonials and resulting in Britain’s Proc- lamation Line. This poorly conceived and expensive attempt to separate Indian and colonial claims proved hugely unpopular with American expansionists. The greatest problem that Britain faced, however, was the doubling of its national debt resulting from the Seven Years’ War, as this conflict was known in Europe. Parliament sought to levy taxes on the colonies in order to manage the debt without raising levies on already heavily taxed British subjects. The colonists, mistrustful of parliamentary motives and quite used to being sub- sidized by the Crown, reacted with alarm to new taxes on items such as sugar, paper, and, later, tea. Each new tax was followed by petitions, protests, and even riots, especially in Boston, where leaders like Samuel Adams rallied opposition against parliamentary power over the colonies, and in Virginia, where Burgess Patrick Henry shocked fellow legislators by seeming to foment rebel- lion against King George III. Each time resistance to a tax ensued, Parliament repealed it but introduced a new one, spawning more resistance that was often met by British shows of 24 American Revolution (1775–1783) force. When Parliament sent in redcoats after the 1774 Boston Tea Party, the deliberate destruction by colo- nials of 342 chests of tea subject to the hated tax, and imposed what colonists called the Intolerable Acts, it provoked even more violence between British troops and Americans. Colonial propagandists made the most of these inci- dents, creating such activist organizations as the com- mittees of correspondence and the Sons and Daugh- ters of Liberty. By 1774, colonists had established the First Continental Congress. Using this body, as well as traditional colonial assemblies and militias, the “Con- tinentals” or “Patriots” soon set up a virtual shadow government that ran the countryside in each colony. The Battles of Lexington and Concord ensued when the royal governor of Massachusetts, Lieutenant General Thomas Gage, sent grenadiers and Royal Marines into the countryside to try to confiscate arms and ammuni- tion being stored by the militias. The first year of the war entailed a land block- ade of Boston by multitudes of militias that eventu- ally coalesced into the beginnings of the Continental army under Lieutenant General George Washington. Bloodying the British at Breed’s Hill and other battles, the Continentals were strong enough to convince Brit- ish troops to evacuate the city. This triumph gave the Continentals time to organize the army and for the Second Continental Congress to begin debating inde- pendence in the wake of British measures. Once the decision for independence was reached and the Dec- laration of Independence published in July 1776, Washington began to organize for the defense of New York, the most likely British target. The fighting around New York in the late summer and fall of 1776 was the low point of the Revolution for the Americans. Washington committed several ama- teurish mistakes that cost the army most of its men by December. With his head count down tenfold to 2,000 men, Washington lost control of New York and New Jer- sey, although victories at Trenton and Princeton rallied the army and the Continental cause. The year 1777 began with additional defeats, espe- cially the loss of the capital city, Philadelphia, to the Brit- ish. Yet the Americans did not give up. Congress evacu- ated to York, Pennsylvania, while Washington continued to train his army and learned to use the complementary strengths of the Continental army and various state mili- tias. A key battle came that summer when the Americans prevented British general John Burgoyne’s attempt to conquer the Hudson River valley and sever New England from the rest of the country. Thanks to the “swarming” tactics of the Continental militias and the skilled leader- ship at Saratoga of Brigadier General Benedict Arnold (later famously a traitor who defected to the British), Burgoyne’s army was forced to surrender. This victory gave U.S. ambassador to France Benjamin Franklin the opportunity that he had been waiting for. Franklin had already succeeded in getting the French to covertly supply the Continentals with small amounts of arms, munitions, and money. Once France was convinced by the victory at Saratoga that the Americans could win, a decision was made to declare war on Great Britain and actively aid the Americans. While waiting for this promised aid to materialize, supporters of independence endured a difficult interlude. At Valley Forge in the winter of 1777–78, Continental soldiers were camped just miles from British forces who were comfortably housed in Philadelphia. The Continen- tal army faced hunger, freezing temperatures, and out- breaks of deadly smallpox. Some 3,000 died and another thousand deserted. Nevertheless, Washington continued to train the Continental army for line-of-battle confrontations with the British, with the help of such European military offi- cers as Friedrich von Steuben, a Prussian army veteran. Evidence that this training was making progress was the good showing of the Continental army in combat with British lieutenant general Henry Clinton’s regular forces at the Battle of Monmouth, New Jersey, in 1779 as the British evacuated Philadelphia and withdrew to New York. Yet when the army was led poorly, as it was in battles in the South at Savannah and Charles- ton by officers like Horatio Gates, the results could be disastrous. MOBILIZING LOYALISTS Faced with defeats or stalemates in the North and increased opposition to the war at home and in Parlia- ment, the British cabinet decided to strike at the South in 1779 and 1780 in the hope of mobilizing Loyalists. Loyalists—opponents of American independence, many of whom eventually fled to Britain or Canada—were present in all 13 colonies, though it was not always clear in what numbers. Loyalists tended to be wealthier, Anglican, and, in the South, slaveholders, but, fearing Patriot militias, they were reluctant to show themselves unless British military supremacy was demonstrated in their local areas. What followed was a brutal military struggle in the South from 1780 to 1782 that epito- mized the multiple dimensions of this war. The American Revolution was not just a colonial rebellion against an imperial power. It was the first modern war of national liberation in which a people mobilized themselves with revolutionary nationalism to establish a republican form of government. Yet esti- mates are that only about 40 percent of the American population was Continental or “Patriot,” with Loyal- ists comprising another 20 percent, and neutrals, many of them of non-British origin, the remaining 40 per- cent of the population. The war, therefore, at times deteriorated in all areas of the country into guerrilla fighting between Continentals and Loyalists. Encour- aged by British leaders, including former Virginia royal governor Lord Dunmore, tens of thousands of slaves escaped from bondage to British lines, although many others chose to or were forced to serve in the Continen- tal forces. At times, a wartime decline of law and order led to wide-scale banditry by armed groups who owed loyalty to no one except themselves. AGGRAVATED BRUTALITIES The war in the South especially aggravated these ten- sions and brutalities. When the Americans lost control of the southern coastline and cities, Major General Nathaniel Greene took command in the South and pro- ceeded to employ unconventional strategies and tac- tics to ruin Major General Charles Cornwallis’s army. Greene employed large guerrilla forces under leaders like Francis Marion, the Swamp Fox, as well as local militia and Continental army units to lure Cornwal- lis into the southern countryside, fighting when it was advantageous and retreating when it was not. With subordinate generals like Daniel Morgan at battles like Cowpens and Guilford Courthouse, Greene American Revolution (1775–1783) 25 American, British, and Hessian soldiers fight furiously at the Siege of War of Independence started in 1775, but its causes stemmed from Yorktown, the climactic battle of the Revolutionary War. The American long-term disagreements with British rule. 26 American temperance movement was able to damage Cornwallis’s army severely. Head- ing to Yorktown, Virginia, Cornwallis hoped to be evacuated by the British navy to New York. Instead, since the French navy had by now gained temporary control of Chesapeake Bay, he found himself trapped by a French and American force led by Washington and French lieutenant general Comte de Rochambeau. The victory at Yorktown in October 1781 convinced the British government to begin peace negotiations with the United States. While negotiations went on for 18 months, fighting by both guerrilla and regular units continued, especially in the South. When the war ended in April 1783, the Americans rejoiced at their victory but also had much reconstruction to perform. The fighting had taken placed entirely on U.S. soil. Both national and state governments were heavily in debt from the war, infla- tion was rampant, and America’s agricultural economy was so heavily damaged by the British naval blockade that it would not regain 1774 production levels until 1799. Yet the Revolution changed American society and the world permanently. The European system of social deference made way for a new sense of individualism. African-American slaves drank deeply of revolution- ary rhetoric and language, and the war began the slow process of abolishing slavery. So, too, did women and men commoners begin to advocate for revolutionary political rights that most Patriot leaders thought would be reserved for elites. By creating the first large-scale republic in the world, the American experience would become the model for revolutions and wars of nation- al liberation for the next 200 years, starting with the French and Haitian Revolutions in the late 1700s, Latin American and central European revolutions in the 1800s, and the Marxist-Leninist revolutions in the 20th century. See also abolition of slavery in the Americas; Bolívar, Simón; Greek War of Independence; Toussaint Louverture. Further reading: Kerber, Linda. Women of the Republic: Intel- lect & Ideology in Revolutionary America. New York: W. W. Norton, 1986; Shy, John. A People Numerous & Armed: Reflections on the Military Struggle for American Inde- pendence. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1990; Wood, Gordon. The Radicalism of the American Revolution. New York: Alfred Knopf, 1992. Hal Friedman American temperance movement When the first European settlers began arriving in North America in the 17th century, they brought their alcohol- ic beverages with them and soon found local ways to quench their thirst by using new raw materials like sug- arcane. Fermented drinks like cider and beer and distilled ones like rum and whiskey were viewed by virtually all settlers as a gift from God. These beverages protected drinkers from the dangers of tainted water and were per- ceived as both healthful and energizing. Men, women, and children drank, in varying quantities and strengths, from early morning to bedtime, at work and at play. Drunkenness, however, was frowned on and was punishable in many colonies. Puritan cleric Increase Mather called liquor “a good creature of God . . . but the Drunkard is from the Devil.” As rum became a sig- nificant moneymaker for the New World, Americans began distilling and drinking beverages with much high- er alcohol content than colonials’ traditional tipples. The introduction of homegrown corn and rye whiskeys also made it harder to keep drunkenness under control. In 1774 on the eve of the American Revolution, a Philadelphia Quaker called distilled liquor a “Mighty Destroyer” that was both unhealthy and immoral. In 1784 famed physician and patriot Benjamin Rush attacked the health and moral deficiencies of “ardent,” or distilled spirits. Drinking these, he wrote, would surely lead to disease and what in modern times is called addiction. Intemperance, Rush further argued, disrupted family and work life and was the enemy of those republican virtues on which the new nation had been founded and depended for its success. Rush’s idea of restricting or even banning what was becoming known as “demon rum” seemed impossible at first but eventually became part of a larger pursuit of moral perfection in 19th-century America. Although hard drinking increased between 1790 and the 1830s, new forces were at work. Temperance appealed especial- ly to clergymen, mothers, health advocates, owners of factories, and builders of railroads whose new machines were getting faster and more complicated. It would also strike a chord with native-born Americans fearful of the rising tide of Irish Roman Catholic immigrants and their presumed heavy drinking habits, and, to a lesser extent, Germans bringing their beer-making skills to America. Presbyterian and Methodist religious leaders began agitating against strong drink in 1811. By 1826 a new organization, the American Temperance Society, called for abstinence from whiskey, but found no fault with Andean revolts 27 moderate use of nondistilled beverages. That same year, Congregationalist minister Lyman Beecher called for total abstinence from alcohol of any kind. Many agreed; rejecting alcohol entirely became known as teetotaling. For the most part, early temperance efforts were spearheaded by religious and political elites, but there were exceptions. In 1840 six men, possibly while actu- ally drinking in a Baltimore bar, created the Washington Temperance Society, a group that would help drinkers give up their unhealthful and immoral habit. In religious revival-like mass meetings, thousands of men pledged to stop drinking and a fair number fulfilled their promise. In 1851 Maine became the first state to enact a law prohibiting the manufacture and sale of liquor. By 1855 a dozen states and two Canadian provinces had also adopted Maine laws. Between 1830 and the American Civil War, annual per capita consumption of alcohol by persons aged 15 and over fell from 7.1 gallons to 2.53 gallons. The temperance movement suffered a setback when the impending breakup of the Union and the ensuing Civil War dominated public concern. With the war’s end, the drinking issue revived. Founded in 1869 by Civil War veterans, the Prohibition Party fielded its own presidential candidates in eight post–Civil War elec- tions, never winning more than 2.2 percent of the vote, but helping to advance the cause. More successfully, the Anti-Saloon League, founded by a minister in 1893, worked with both major parties to achieve its dry agenda through local-option elections and other techniques, paving the way to 20th-century prohibition. Most important was the 1874 emergence of the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union. For the first time, large numbers of women, not yet able to vote, would play a leadership role in a major public con- troversy. Focusing on the evils of the neighborhood saloon, WCTU members began holding prayer meet- ings at places that purveyed alcohol. The exploits of WCTU member Carrie Nation, a Kansan who wielded a hatchet to destroy saloons and smash whiskey bottles, became famous but were not typical of the organiza- tion’s strategies or goals. Led by Frances E. Willard, a former women’s col- lege president, the WCTU highlighted home protection against the disastrous effect that predominantly male drinking had on the women and children who depend- ed on them. The 150,000-member organization also campaigned successfully for antialcohol education in the nation’s public schools and sought drinking bans at federal facil- ities and on Indian reservations. President Rutherford B. Hayes complied; lemonade was served at White House events. Anti-drinking propaganda, including songs, plays, and heartrending novels such as the famous Ten Nights in a Bar Room, helped spread a message of sobri- ety that could be assured only by public action. By the time Frances Willard died in 1898, her WCTU, as well as the Prohibition Party and Anti-Saloon League, were closer to their goal than any could have known. Persuaded by political considerations and progressivist arguments, all brought into sharp focus by America’s entry into World War I, the nation implemented a far- reaching prohibition on alcohol sale and use in 1920. See also Wesley, John (1703–1791) and Charles (1717–1788); women’s suffrage, rights, and roles. Further reading: Lender, Mark Edward, and James Kirby Martin. Drinking in America: A History. New York: The Free Press, 1987; Murdock, Catherine Gilbert. Domesticating Drink: Women, Men, and Alcohol in America, 1870–1940. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998. Marsha E. Ackermann Andean revolts In what has been called the age of Andean insurrec- tion, there erupted in the Andean highlands of Peru and Bolivia from 1742 to 1782 a spate of revolts, uprisings, and rebellions that rocked the Spanish Empire, threat- ening their rule across much of the Andes and prompt- ing a host of reforms intended to quell the disturbances and reassert the Crown’s hegemony. Unlike the situ- ation in the viceroyalty of New Spain, where revolts and uprisings were common but generally small-scale and localized, several of the Andean rebellions assumed the character of major regional conflicts, most notably the Great Rebellion led by the second Tupac Amaru from 1780 to 1782 (the first Tupac Amaru had been captured and executed two centuries earlier, in 1572). Taken together, these Andean rebellions reveal the deep fissures of race and class that marked 18th-century colonial Peruvian society; the enduring persistence of preconquest indigenous forms of religiosity, culture, social organization, and political and communal prac- tices; and the intensification of the structural violence and systemic injustices of Spanish colonialism under Bourbon rule. 28 Andean revolts The first major rebellion in 18th-century Peru was led by the Jesuit-educated mestizo Juan Santos Atahual- pa, who claimed direct descent from the Inca emperor Atahualpa, captured and executed by the Spaniards in 1533. For more than 10 years, from 1742 to 1752, Juan Santos Atahualpa led a small army of Indians and mes- tizos in a protracted guerrilla war against the Spanish authorities. Based in the eastern montaña, between the Central Highlands to the west and the vast Amazonian jungles to the east, the army of Juan Santos Atahualpa was never defeated in open battle and the leader himself never captured; in 1752 he and his troops launched an audacious foray into the heart of Spanish-dominated ter- ritory before retreating back into the eastern jungles. The movement itself, like others of this period, was inspired by a messianic ideology that foretold the end of Spanish domination and the return of Inca rule. A major point of contention among scholars has been the extent to which this movement represented a genuinely highland Indian revolt or whether it is better understood as a frontier movement with only tenuous links to the core highland zones of Spanish domination and control. The preponderance of evidence indicates the movement’s frontier character while also under- scoring substantial, if diffuse, highland Indian sympa- thy in the heartland of the Spanish domain. It is true that highland Indians did not rise up en masse in sup- port of the movement. Yet substantial evidence also shows the movement’s ranks populated by significant numbers of highland Indians and that Spanish authori- ties perceived the movement as a grave threat to their rule. A series of other, more localized revolts and upris- ings marked the decades between the 1750s and the early 1780s. By one count, the 1750s saw 13 such revolts; the 1760s, 16; and the 1770s, 31. The year 1780 saw 22, and 1781, 14, including the launching of the Great Rebellion by Tupac Amaru II in November 1781. The causes of this upsurge in insurrectionary activity have been attributed to a host of interrelated causes, all having to do with the structural oppression and exploitation of Spanish colonial rule—more specifically, the practice of forced mita labor in the Andes; onerous and rising tax rates; the forced sale of goods under the institution of repartimiento; and the quickening pace of reform under the Bourbons, whose economic policies from the mid- 1700s intensified the demands for Indian labor. TheGreatRebellion,whichrockedtheentiresouth- ern highlands in 1781–82, represented the most serious threat to Spanish domination in the Americas during the colonial period. The subject of an expansive scholarly literature, the insurrection launched by Tupac Amaru II sought to expel the reviled Spaniards and in their stead install a divinely inspired neo-Inca state. The depths of the millenarian impulse propelling the movement and the breadth of the popular support the movement gar- nered constitute powerful evidence for the profundity of the cultural crisis among indigenous and mestizo Andean highland peoples in the late colonial period. The Great Rebellion began on November 4, 1780, with a raid on the Indian town of Tinta in southern Cuzco Province, where rebels captured and executed a local official infamous for his abuses of the repar- timiento system. Moving south, the rebels quickly gained control of much of the southern highlands, from Lake Titicaca to Potosí and beyond, suggesting a high degree of advanced preparation and planning. In Janu- ary 1781 the rebels laid siege to the ancient Inca capital of Cuzco. The siege faltered with the speedy arrival of Spanish reinforcements, and soon after Tupac Amaru II and numerous lieutenants were captured and, in May 1781, executed. The executions failed to staunch highland rebel activ- ity, however, as remnants of Tupac Amaru’s army joined forces with a similar movement led by one Tupac Katari, laying siege to La Paz (Bolivia) from March to October 1781. Tupac Katari also was captured, and in January 1782 the Spaniards negotiated a peace agreement with surviving rebel leaders. Sporadic outbreaks continued through the early 1780s across the southern and central highlands. It is estimated that altogether some 100,000 people died in the Great Rebellion of 1780–82. In response to these crises, the colonial authorities exacted swift retri- bution while also attempting to address some of the root causes of the violence, reforming the judicial system and selectively easing tax burdens. Yet social memories in the Andes are long, and the deep social divisions exposed by these massive upsurges of violence endured. In sub- sequent decades, the Creole, mestizo, and Indian elites of Peru, Bolivia, and adjacent highland Andean regions emerged as among the most conservative in all of Latin America, the specter of violence from below representing an ever-present danger to their privileges and interests. The deep social and cultural divisions exposed in the age of Andean insurrections remain, for some observers, readily apparent to the present day. Further reading: Godoy, Scarlett O’Phelan. Rebellions and Revolts in Eighteenth Century Peru and Upper Peru. Cologne: Böhlau Verlag, 1985; Stern, Steve J., ed. Resistance, Rebellion, and Consciousness in the Andean Peasant World, Anglo-French agreement on Siam (1897) 29 18th to 20th Centuries. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1987. Michael J. Schroeder Anglo-Chinese Opium Wars The Anglo-Chinese Opium Wars were two conflicts in which the British and French (in the second war) fought against the Chinese in support of the sale of opium in China. The first of the wars, between Britain and China alone, lasted from 1839 to 1842, and the second from 1856 to 1860, also known as the Arrow War, or some- times the Anglo-French War in China. Because the cause of both were disputes over opium, the two wars are known colloquially as the Opium Wars. The sale of opium, produced in British India, to the Chinese had generated massive wealth for the British East India Company and many other British compa- nies and individuals. It reversed the flood of British gold and silver to China to purchase Chinese products and replaced it with a trade balance in Britain’s favor. The massive increase in opium addiction in China beginning in the late 18th century had resulted in major social and economic problems. As a result, the Chinese government appointed an imperial commissioner, Lin Zeku, in Guangzhou (Canton), who seized all the opium held in warehouses operated by British merchants, pro- ducing a crisis. As tensions escalated, some drunken Brit- ish sailors were involved in a fight with some Chinese, killing a Chinese villager. The British refused to hand the men over, exacerbating the crisis. When fighting broke out, the British enjoyed over- whelming superiority, taking Shanghai and then moving upriver capturing Jingjiang (Chingkiang) and threaten- ing Nanjing (Nanking). The Treaty of Nanking, dictated by Britain, was signed on August 29, 1842. It forced the Chinese to cede Hong Kong and to pay an indem- nity in compensation for Britain’s military effort and the destroyed opium. The ports of Guangzhu, Shanghai, Fuzhou, and Xiawen were opened as well. Additionally, British citizens were no longer subject to trial by Chinese courts. These concessions led to other foreign powers demanding similar treatment; these treaties were known as the Unequal Treaties. In 1856, using the pretense of Chinese officials low- ering the British flag on the ship Arrow, Britain went to war against China. The French joined the battle on the side of Britain, using the murder of a French mis- sionary as a rationale. The two powers moved swiftly against the Chinese, forcing the Treaty of Tientsin on June 26–29, 1858, which opened more ports to Western trade and residence; acknowledged the right of foreign- ers, including missionaries, to travel to any part of China they wanted; and provided for the British and French to establish permanent legations in Beijing. However, since the treaty also legalized the opium trade, China refused to sign, and the war started anew. On October 18, 1860, the Chinese were forced to sign the Peking Convention, another of the Unequal Treaties. It imposed terms on the Chinese forcing them to accept the Treaty of Tientsin. It was after this that Charles Gordon had the Summer Palace burned down in a reprisal for the torturing of the British del- egation under Sir Harry Smith Parkes. The British and the French sent missions to Beijing, where they pur- chased palaces in the Manchu City to turn into their legations. Gordon was to move to Shanghai, where he was to raise a force to fight against the Taiping rebels in the war that followed. Further reading: Fay, Peter Ward. The Opium War 1840– 1842. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1975; Gelber, Harry G. Opium, Soldiers and Evangelicals: Britain’s 1840–42 War with China and Its Aftermath. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004; Hurd, Douglas. The Arrow War: An Anglo-Chinese Confusion 1856–60. London: Col- lins, 1967; Inglis, Brian. The Opium War. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1976. Justin Corfield Anglo-French agreement on Siam (1897) The Anglo-French agreement concerning Siam (later Thailand) was the result of British and French imperial- ism in Southeast Asia in the 19th century. The British and French were expanding their influence into Burma and Indochina respectively and used Siam as a buffer state between the two expanding empires. Siam was able to use this agreement to ensure some degree of auton- omy, as European imperialism was increasing in Asia and Africa in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The conclusion of the Anglo-French agreement marked an important event in European relations with Siam that had extended as far back as the 16th century. In the 16th century Portugal began attempting to extend trading relations into Southeast Asia. British, Dutch, and French merchants were also interested in 30 Anglo-Russian rivalry the riches of Southeast Asia and sent in merchant fleets in the 17th century. The British East India Company was concerned with acquiring posts in Southeast Asia in order to expand trade with this region. In 1786 the East India Company negotiated an agreement with the Sultan of Kedah that allowed it to occupy Penang. In order to acquire control over Penang, the East India Compa- ny had to assure the sultan that it would defend him against hostility from Selangor. In 1826 Captain Henry Burney concluded with the Siam government another agreement that opened up Southeast Asia to greater British influence, as this agreement prevented the Sia- mese government from disrupting British trade in the Trengganu and Kelantan regions. The Siamese court negotiated an agreement with the British in 1855, which allowed British subjects to enjoy extraterritorial rights in Siam, allowed a British consul to take up residence in the country, and fixed tariff rates. At the same time, France was also seeking to expand its influence in Southeast Asia. In 1862 the French gov- ernment cited the maltreatment of French missionaries in Vietnam as an excuse to take control of the southern region of the country. This region was important to the French because it exported rice and could produce rub- ber. In 1867 France sent a naval squadron that forced Siam to relinquish its control over Cambodia, allow- ing the French to assert their influence over the region. In 1884 France went to war with China over Vietnam, although Vietnamese guerrillas continued to create instability in the region. Britain became concerned that a conflict between the Siamese and French governments would give the French an excuse to occupy the region. During the 1890s the British government also became concerned about Germany and France acquir- ing influence over the Malay Peninsula. Joseph Cham- berlain, British colonial secretary, stated in a letter in 1895 that it would be in the best interests of the British Empire to acquire a sphere of influence in the region between the Malay States and Tenasserim in return for recognition of a French sphere of influence in north- ern Siam. The result was the Anglo-French agreement, an attempt by the British and French governments to transform Siam into a buffer zone between their two empires to lessen tensions in Southeast Asia. Lord Rob- ert Cecil, the British prime minister, dispatched a mes- sage to the British ambassador to France assuring him that the agreement would not result in the end of an independent Siam. The government of Siam responded by appointing Westerners to government positions and reforming the Ministry of Finance. The Siamese govern- ment attempted to learn technology in an attempt to improve its international position. Following the signing of the Anglo-French agree- ment, the British and Siamese governments negotiated an accord in 1897. It required the Siamese government to gain permission of the British government before it could grant concessions to a third country. This new agreement strengthened the British position on the Malay Peninsula. The Anglo-French agreement, however, failed to end tensions in Southeast Asia caused by imperial rivalry between Britain and France. Further reading: Blanchard, Wendell. Thailand, Its People, Its Society, Its Culture. New Haven, CT: HRAF Press, 1966; Jeshurun, Chandran. “The British Foreign Office and the Siamese Malay States, 1890–97.” Modern Asian Studies (1971); Nicolson, Harold. “The Origins and Development of the Anglo-French Entente,” International Affairs (October 1954); Pendleton, Robert. Thailand: Aspects of Landscape and Life. New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 1962. Brian de Ruiter Anglo-Russian rivalry The Great Game was the name given by British poet Rudyard Kipling to the struggle between czarist Russia and the British Empire for influence in Central Asia. The contest could actually be said to have begun as early as the 18th century. That was when Catherine the Great of Russia conquered the last remnants of the Mogul Golden Horde that had first entered Russia in the time of Genghis Khan in the 13th century. In 1784 the last khan of the Crimea surrendered the Khanate of the Crimea to Catherine in exchange for a pension. During the same period, the British East India Company was conquering the entire Indian subcon- tinent. In 1799, at Seringapatam, Tipu Sultan was defeated and killed by troops of the East India Com- pany. Between 1814 and 1816 Nepal was subdued, and the famed Nepalese Gurkha warriors first entered Brit- ish service. In 1818 Governor-General Warren Hastings finally crushed the Maratha Confederacy, firmly estab- lishing British supremacy. The first documented mission of the British to learn Russian intentions dated from 1810, when Alexander I, czar of Russia, was temporarily allied to Napoleon I of France by the Treaty of Tilsit. Britaind had been at war with France since 1793, and the idea of huge Rus- Anglo-Russian rivalry 31 sian armies marching south to conquer India caused the British great alarm. Although Napoleon and Alexander I went to war in June 1812, making Britain and France allies again as they had been before the Treaty of Tilsit, it did not mean the end of the Great Game. In fact, it was only the beginning. CONSTANT COMBAT The collapse of the Golden Horde had left in its wake many independent khanates, such as those of Bokhara and Khiva. While strong enough to wage bloody wars among themselves, they were no match for the armies of Britain or Russia, which had been in almost constant com- bat for over two decades. With the defeat of Napoleon in 1815, the wartime alliance against him between Russia and Britain was soon forgotten. Instead, both great pow- ers began to focus their imperial goals on Central Asia. The Russians desired to conquer the khanates, and the British desired to keep them as buffer states between the Russian Empire and the British Empire in India. Beginning in 1839 Russia began a systematic con- quest of Central Asia that followed the methodical plan- ning of Czar Nicholas I. Concern over the Russian threat to India precipitated the First Afghan War in 1839. By this time, Persia had become an ally of Russia and was using Russian troops in an attack on the city of Herat in Afghanistan, a country Persia had had its own imperial designs on since at least the 18th century. George Eden, Lord Auckland, the governor-general of India since 1835, suspected that Dost Mohammed of Afghanistan’s Durrani dynasty sided with the Russians. Auckland invaded Afghanistan in 1839. In August, the British army entered Afghanistan’s capital, Kabul, with the former ruler, Shah Shuja, who Auckland felt to be more pro-British. Although the invasion went successful- ly, the occupation of Kabul ended in disaster. Auckland’s emissary, Sir William Macnaghten, was killed, and only one man arrived in safety back in British territory in Janu- ary 1842. A second British invasion as an expression of Britain’s power succeeded in reaching Kabul and evacuat- ed successfully in December 1842. Although the Afghans were suitably awed by the British ability to recoup their losses so quickly, this war was an unnecessary loss of lives and treasure, since the Russians abandoned their attempts to bring Afghanistan into their orbit before Auckland began the war. Meanwhile, the British were consolidating their con- trol of India. In 1843 the British under Sir Charles Napi- er conquered Sind. During the Sikh Wars the British defeated the once independent realm of the Sikhs in the Punjab, firmly adding it to their growing Indian empire. Although the Sikh Wars were the most difficult the Brit- ish ever fought in their conquest of India, the Sikhs ulti- mately became among the most redoubtable soldiers in England’s Indian army. It could be argued persuasively that this sudden imperial push on the part of the British was to deny control of the Punjab to the Russians. The British entry into the Crimean War was in part due to British alarm over the seemingly unstop- pable Russian march into Central Asia. Instead of being able to focus their energy on the khanates of Central Asia, the Russians had to face a British invasion of the Russian Crimea in 1854. The heavy Russian losses suf- fered in such battles as Inkerman, Balaklava, and the Alma River helped delay further Russian penetration of Central Asia by a decade. IMPERIOUS NECESSITY Then, in December 1864, Czar Alexander II’s foreign minister, Prince A. M. Gorchakov, wrote what would become the definitive expression of Russian imperialism in Central Asia. It contained an ominous note for the British. Like all other expanding powers, Russia faced one great obstacle—“all have been irresistibly forced, less by ambition than by imperious necessity, into this onward [movement] where the greatest difficulty is to know where to stop.” Soon the British understood what Gorchakov’s memorandum meant. Czar Alexander II began a mas- sive campaign of conquest in Central Asia. As with the Crimean War, tensions between England and Rus- sia contributed to a war scare in the Russo-Turkish War of 1877–78. Throughout the 19th century, Rus- sian foreign policy vacillated between seeking empire in Central Asia and desiring to expand into the Bal- kans. Thus in 1877 the Russians invaded the Ottoman territory in the Balkans, which would ultimately lead to the establishment of an independent, pro-Russian Slavic Bulgaria. However, when it seemed that the armies of Alex- ander II would continue on until they conquered the Turkish capital of Constantinople, British prime min- ister William Gladstone threatened to intervene on the side of Turkey. When events seemed to be leading to a general European war, the German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck called all the parties to the Congress of Berlin in 1878, which ultimately provided a peace- ful solution to the crisis. The Russo-Turkish War had immediate repercus- sions in Central Asia. A Russian mission arrived in Kabul under General Stolietov, supported by the czar and the czar’s governor-general for the Central Asian 32 Arabian Peninsula and British imperialism provinces, General K. von Kaufman. The same scenario repeated itself as in 1839. With the Congress of Berlin ending a major crisis, the czar had no purpose in cre- ating another crisis in Central Asia, so Stolietov was withdrawn from the Afghan capital. Nevertheless, the British ruler of India, Robert Bul- wer-Lytton, Lord Lytton, the viceroy, prepared for a mili- tary invasion of Afghanistan. Lytton was a member of what was known as the Forward Policy school, which, believing war with Russia was certain, was determined to fight it as far from India as possible. When the ruler of Afghanistan, Amir Sher Ali, refused to permit a British delegation to enter Afghanistan, Lytton’s army crossed the Afghan frontier on November 21, 1878. After Major-General Frederick Roberts defeated Sher Ali’s effort to stop the British, the Afghans pursued a policy of guerrilla warfare. Sher Ali left the office of amir to his son Yakub Khan, who in May 1879 accepted a British resident, Sir Louis Cavagnari. In a gesture of peace, Sir Louis Cavagnari entered Kabul in July 1879 with only an escort from the corps of guides, the elite of the British Frontier troops. In September, Afghan troops attacked the residency and killed Cavagnari, most likely acting on orders from Yakub Khan. Retribution soon followed. In October 1878 Gen- eral Roberts consolidated the British position in Kabul and defeated Yakub Khan’s men. A second skirmish led to his final victory over Yakub Khan on September 1, 1880. The British could now install Amir Abdur Rahman on the throne, a leader they felt would pursue at least a neutral foreign policy and prevent the Rus- sians from using Afghanistan as a base from which to attack India. Indeed, the British demonstration of force in Afghanistan may have come none too soon, for unlike in the aftermath of the First Afghan War, this time Russia’s expansion into Central Asia rolled on like a juggernaut. Even the great Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoyevsky wrote in 1881, “in Europe we were hang- ers-on, whereas to Asia we shall go as masters. . . . Our civilizing mission in Asia will bribe our spirit and drive us thither.” In 1885 under the new czar Alexander III, the clash Britain had long awaited took place. A Rus- sian army that had just conquered Merv in Turkestan continued on to occupy the Penjdeh Oasis in Herat— the Afghan buffer for British India had been breached. In Britain, the response was swift. Some £11,000,000 were voted by Parliament for war with Russia, a huge sum in those days. Given such firm British opposition, the Russian force withdrew from Penjdeh. Taking advantage of the Russian withdrawal, Sir Mortimer Durand drew the Durand Line in 1893, which established the eastern fron- tier of Afghanistan. Two years later, the British had the Wakhan region added to Afghanistan, no doubt pleas- ing Abdur Rahman, so that Russian territory would not border India. The Great Game in Central Asia would continue with both nations attempting to influence Tibet and China, whose province of Xinxiang (Sinkiang) was Chi- na’s closest to Central Asia. However, as the 19th cen- tury waned, the British and Russians were both faced by a greater threat in the growing power of the German Empire of Kaiser Wilhelm II. Already, the kaiser had made clear his interest in seeking German influence in the lands of the Ottoman Empire, even entering Jerusa- lem on horseback in 1898. In 1907, in the spirit of cooperation brought about in the face of a mutual danger, Britain and Russia peacefully settled a dispute over oil rights in Persia by effectively dividing it into Russian and British spheres of influence. The Great Game had officially come to an end. See also Russo-Turkish War and Near Eastern Crisis. Further reading: Barthorp, Michael. Afghan Wars and the North-West, 1839–1947. London: Cassell, 2002; McCauley, Martin. Afghanistan and Central Asia: A Modern History. London: Pearson, 2002; O’Ballance, Edgar. Afghan Wars: Battles in a Hostile Land, 1839 to the Present. London: Brassey’s, 2002; Tanner, Stephen. Afghanistan: A Military History from Alexander the Great to the Fall of the Taliban. New York: Da Capo, 2002; Wolpert, Stanley. A New History of India. London: Oxford University Press, 2004. John F. Murphy, Jr. Arabian Peninsula and British imperialism During the 19th century, the British extended their economic and political presence throughout the coast- al areas of the Arabian Peninsula. With the largest and most powerful navy in the world, the British needed ports to serve as refueling stations and to replenish supplies of fresh foods and water for their sailors. After the Suez Canal provided an easier and faster transportation route between Europe and Asia, the coastal areas of the Arabian Peninsula increased in importance. Arab reformers and nationalists 33 In 1839 Britain occupied Aden on the southern coast of Yemen, then on the further fringes of the Ottoman Empire, making it a British Crown Colony. After the Suez Canal became a major trade route, Aden became a bustling port city and trading center. Britain and the Ottomans clashed repeatedly over control of northern and southern Yemen. In the late 19th cen- tury, the British signed formal treaties with a number of tribes in the regions around the port of Aden; these became known as the Aden Protectorates. The largest of these sultanates, sheikhdoms, emirates, and confed- eration of tribes was the two sultanates of Hadhram- aut. In the early 20th century the British and Ottomans agreed to specific borders demarking their respective territorial claims. Britain also sought to protect its vast holdings in India and to prevent rival European imperial powers from expanding into Asia by extending its control over neighboring areas both east and west of the Indian subcontinent. Consequently, British foreign service officials in Delhi sought to extend British control along the Persian Gulf. The British secured a number of trea- ties with the ruling families along the Persian Gulf, which in Arab provinces was frequently referred to as the Arabian Gulf. The patron-client relationship between Arab rul- ers in the Gulf and the British lessened Ottoman con- trol and freed local rulers from Ottoman taxation while increasing their own political power. The local economies were dependant on income from pearls and sponges obtained by divers who were paid by a few trading families who often had ethnic and commercial ties with Persia. Because the area was largely poverty stricken, local sheikhs were also interested in possible economic gains from ties with the British. The first British treaty agreement in the region was with the sheikh of Muscat (part of present-day Oman) in 1798. Successive agreements were signed between the British and the ruling Al Khalifah clan in Bahrain in 1820 and with the Sabah family in Kuwait in 1899. Under the latter, Britain had the right to conduct all the foreign relations for Kuwait, and no foreign trea- ties could be signed nor could foreign agents operate in Kuwait without the approval of Britain. This enabled Britain to ensure that the proposed Berlin to Baghdad railway would not be extended to the Persian Gulf, and it also made Kuwait an unofficial Brit- ish protectorate. Similar agreements were reached with the Thani clan in Qatar and with a number of local rul- ers in the Trucial Coast (present-day United Arab Emir- ates). As a result, acting through its surrogates, Britain was able to control the coastal areas along almost all of the Arabian Peninsula. See also Eastern Question. Further reading: Bidwell, Robin. The Two Yemens. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1983; Boxberger, Linda. On the Edge of Empire: Hadhramawt, Emigration, and the Indian Ocean, 1880s–1930s. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2002; Cottrell, Alvin J., et al., eds. The Persian Gulf States: A General Survey. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1980; al-Naqeeb, Khaldoun Hasan. Society and State in the Gulf and Arab Peninsula. London: Routledge, 1990. Janice J. Terry Arab reformers and nationalists During the 19th century a number of Arab intellectu- als led the way for reforms and cultural changes in the Arab world. Rifa’a al-Tahtawi from Egypt was one of the first and foremost reformers. A graduate of esteemed Muslim university al-Azhar, Tahtawi was sent to France to study as part of Muhammad Ali’s modernizing pro- gram. He returned to Egypt, where he served as director of the Royal School of Administration and School of Lan- guages, was editor of the Official Gazette, and Director of Department of Translations. Tahtawi published dozens of his own works as well as translations of French works into Arabic. In A Paris Profile, Tahtawi described his interactions as a Muslim Egyptian with French culture and society. His account was an open-minded and balanced one, offering praise as well as criticism for many aspects of Western civilization. For example, Tahtawi respected French originality in the arts but was offended by public displays of drunkenness. Tahtawi urged the study of the modern world and stressed the need of education for both boys and girls; he believed citizens needed to take an active role in building a civilized society. Khayr al-Din, an Ottoman official from Tuni- sia, echoed Tahtawi’s emphasis on education while also addressing the problems of authoritarian rule. He advocated limiting the power of the sultan through law and consultation and wrote the first constitution in the Ottoman Empire. The Egyptian writer Muhammad Abduh dealt with the ongoing question of how to become part of the mod- ern world while remaining a Muslim. He was heavily influenced by the pan-Islamic thought of Jamal al-Din al-Afghani. Abduh taught in Lebanon, traveled to 34 Arab reformers and nationalists Paris, and held several government positions in Egypt. He became mufti of Egypt in 1899 and was responsible for religious law and issued fatwas (legal opinions on disputed points of religious law). Abduh became one of the most highly respected and revered figures in Egypt, although some conservatives opposed his reforms and open-mindedness while some more radical nationalists berated him for not being lib- eral enough. In his publications, including Face to Face with Science and Civilizations and Memoirs, he urged the spiritual revival of the Muslim and Arab world, arguing that Islam was not incompatible with modern science and technology. He also stressed the importance not only of law but of reason in Islamic society. Originally from Syria, Muhammad Rashid Rida was a follower of Abduh. He moved to Egypt and founded the highly respected journal al-Manar. His writings had a wide influence on Islamic thought, and he became one of the foremost spokespersons for what has become known as political Islam. Rida also discussed social- ism and Bolshevism and the role religion should play in contemporary political life. Egyptian Abdullah al-Nadim edited several satiri- cal journals and was a staunch supporter of the Urabi revolt of 1881–82. He also knew Jamal al-Afghani. Al-Nadim was exiled to Istanbul after his fiery national- ist stance earned him the enmity of the British. Al-Nadim spoke openly about the growth of the nation (watan) and was one of the first modern Egyp- tian nationalists. In 1899 Anis al-Jalis started an Egyp- tian magazine that carried articles dealing with the role of women in society. A new educated elite emerged as graduates of the many government and other schools that had been established as part of the reforming era of the Tanzimat entered public life. In the Sudan, the British founded Gor- don College to educate male youth for government ser- vice. Other schools founded by missionaries included the Syrian Protestant College (American University of Bei- rut, AUB), the Jesuit University St. Joseph in Beirut, and various Russian Orthodox schools scattered throughout Greater Syria. The Alliance Israelite sponsored schools for Jewish students throughout the Ottoman Empire. Separate mission schools were also established for girls. A spirit of outward-looking, pro-Western thought pre- vailed, and many of the elites had extensive experience with the Western world. Many were bilingual in French or English. Nineteenth-century Arab intellectuals, many of whom were Christians, fostered a literary renaissance with a revival of interest in the Arabic language. Some sought to modernize Arabic prose and poetic styles. Butrus Bustani was one of the era’s foremost experts in the Arabic language. He also wrote a multivolume encyclopedia with thoughtful entries on science and lit- erature as well as history. Numerous newspapers were published, especially in Cairo and Beirut. Al-Muqtataf produced in Cairo by Yacoub Sarruf and Faris Nimr was one of the most famous. In 1875 the Taqla family founded al-Ahram, which became the premier newspa- per in the Arab world. Many of these new journals were published in Egypt, where there was greater freedom of the press afforded by the British than in Ottoman- controlled provinces. Nationalism spread around the world in the 19th century, and the Arab provinces were no exception. A generation of Arab nationalists began to talk and write about the relationship of the Arabs within the Otto- man Empire and the role religion should and did play in modern nationalism. These early nationalists did not deny the importance of religion but used nationalism as their point of reference. The first group that dealt with the controversial issue of separation from the Ottoman Empire on the basis of national identity was formed at the Syrian Prot- estant College in Beirut in 1847. Its members, who met secretly to avoid prosecution from the Ottoman intelli- gence services, included Faris Nimr. They met under the guise of being a literary society; while the members did discuss literature they also delved into the important political questions facing the declining Ottoman Empire as well as the emergence of nascent Arab nationalism. Various groups continued to meet at the college from 1847 to 1868 when a Beirut society began. Its mem- bers discussed the key political issues of Arab identity. The so-called Darwin affair of 1882 caused a number of the leading figures of the movement to leave the col- lege. In a public address, Dr. Edwin Lewis, a professor at the college, discussed Darwin’s theory of evolution; his positive conclusions about Darwin’s controversial theory roused the enmity of conservative American Christians on campus. They attacked Lewis in print and forced his resignation. Several of the liberal Arab junior faculty, including Nimr and Sarruf, resigned in outrage and moved to Cairo, where they became leading figures among Christian Arab secularists. Abd al-Rahman al-Kawakibi was born in Syria, but after his writings about Arab identity roused the enmi- ty of Khedive Abbas Hilmi, he left Syria and became a frequent contributor to al-Manar, the journal edited by Rashid Rida. In his writings, Kawakibi discussed the key role of the Arabs in Islam; he also described the art and architecture (1750–1900) 35 decadence and weaknesses of the Ottoman Empire. He stressed the importance of Arab unity. Another Arab nationalist, Jurji Zaidan, wrote for the journal al-Hilal. Whereas pan-Islamists, such as al-Afghani, believed in the supremacy and integrity of the Islamic legacy, pan- Arabists like Zaidan emphasized its uniquely Arab char- acter and the importance of history, language, and culture over religion. The ideas of these early Arab nationalists would come to fruition with World War I and the col- lapse of the Ottoman Empire in the early 20th century. Further reading: Abdel-Malek, Anouar, ed. Contemporary Arab Political Thought. London: Zed Books, 1970; Houra- ni, Albert. Arabic Thought in the Liberal Age, 1798–1939. London: Oxford University Press, 1962; ———. A History of the Arab Peoples. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1991; Philipp, Thomas, ed. The Autobiography of Jurji Zaidan. Boulder, CO: Three Conti- nents Press, 1990. Janice J. Terry art and architecture (1750–1900) The style of architecture in Britain changed consider- ably between 1750 and 1900. The Georgian mews and squares that were popular in the 1750s gave way to large suburbs, the ease of railway travel allowing for significant city sprawl. The Georgian style in Britain was very much influenced by the style of Andrea Pal- ladio in 16th-century Italy. The architect Inigo Jones also built in the Palladian style, with some design fea- tures coming from classical Rome. Perhaps the best example in England of this neoclassical style is the city of Bath, with its crescents, terraces, and squares. Dub- lin is another example. Sir Robert Taylor (1714–88) and James Paine (1717–89) also worked in the Palladian tradition. In 1760 there emerged two great architects: Sir William Chambers (1723–96), who designed Somerset House, and Robert Adam (1728–92), who was the architect responsible for Syon House near London, Kenwood in Hampstead, Newby Hall and Harewood House in Yorkshire, and Kedleston Hall in Derbyshire. Cham- bers, although remaining Palladian at heart, was influ- enced by the discovery of Baalbek in Lebanon. Adam, by contrast, discarded classical proportions. His work was elaborated on by John Nash (1752–1835), who designed Regent Street, London, and by Sir John Soane, who worked on the Dulwich College Art Gallery. By the end of the 18th century, the influence of India and China led to the construction of buildings that either heavily incorporated Asian themes or were entirely Asian in style. Nash’s Royal Pavilion at Brighton, England, con- structed in 1815–22, represents British interest in Mughal Indian architecture. Chinese-style pavilions and towers became common in places such as Kew Gardens and the English Gardens in Munich. Later, the emergence of Vic- torian architecture saw the classical style being retained for the British Museum (1823) and Birmingham Town Hall (1846). However, the design by Sir Charles Barry (1795–1860) for the new Houses of Parliament signaled the Gothic revival, with architects such as Augustus Welby Pugin (1812–52) and others being involved in the work. The Crystal Palace in 1851 was designed by Sir Joseph Paxton (1801–65). Norman Shaw (1831–1912) devel- oped functional architecture for houses, the Bedford Park estate at Turnham Green, London, built in the 1880s, being a good example. Other architects included Charles Voysey (1857–1941), W. R. Lethaby (1857–1931), and Sir Edwin Lutyens (1869–1944). The Industrial Revolu- tion also led to the construction of some iconic structures such as Iron Bridge in Shropshire. Sculptors like John Flaxman (1755–1826), using a linear style, were responsible for many statues around London, with commissions for public monuments of national heroes such as Lord Nelson and, later, Queen Victoria. In terms of British art, painters like William Hogarth (1697–1764), Sir Joshua Reynolds (1723–92), John Constable (1776–1837), and Thomas Gainsbor- ough (1727–99) were important from the Georgian era; famous Victorian painters are Pre-Raphaelites such as D. G. Rossetti, Holman Hunt, and J. E. Millais. In France during the same period, neoclassical architecture appeared from 1740, remaining popular in Paris until the 19th century. This was, in part, a reac- tion against the rococo style of prerevolutionary France, with more of a search for order and the expression of republican values in Greco-Roman forms and more traditional ornamentation. Jacques-Germain Soufflot (1713–80), the architect of the Panthéon in Paris, drew parallels between the emerging power of Napoleonic France and that of the classical world. This can be seen in the Arc de Triomphe, La Madeleine, and the Nation- al Assembly building. In Paris, the Opera was built by Charles Garnier (1825–98) in 1862. Georges-Eugène, Baron Haussmann (1809–91) laid the plans for a new Paris, a features of which were open spaces, parks, and wide boulevards. The Eiffel Tower was built in 1889. Even before the French Revolution, paintings by Jacques-Louis David (1748–1825) had a clear republican 36 art and architecture (1750–1900) theme. David was made Napoleon’s official painter, his Coronation of Napoleon being perhaps his most famous work. Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres (1780–1867) continued the neoclassical tradition, and the Raft of the Medusa by Théodore Géricault (1791–1824) signaled the arrival of romanticism. Eugène Delacroix drew much on his travels around the Mediterranean, with his great work being Liberty Leading the People, commemorating the July Revolution of 1830. It was not long before the emergence of the Barbizon School, with Camille Corot (1796–1875) and Jean-François Millet (1814–75) taking peasant life as their inspiration and providing a basis for such later painters as Vincent Van Gogh (1853–90). Impressionism saw the emergence of painters such as Edouard Manet (1832–83), Claude Monet (1840–1926), Alfred Sisley (1839–99), Camille Pissarro (1830–1903), Berthe Morisot (1841–95), and Pierre-Auguste Renoir (1841–1919). Other important painters of this style included Edgar Degas (1834–1917) and Paul Cézanne (1839–1906), providing an influence for Paul Gauguin (1848–1903), the foremost of the postimpressionists. Vincent Van Gogh from the Netherlands created haunt- ing self-portraits and landscapes of bright color, making his work instantly recognizable. Mention should also be made of Henri Rousseau (1844–1910), who used a naïve style, and Gustave Moreau of the symbolist school. In Italy and Spain, baroque architecture gave way to neoclassicism, with tastes becoming more sober and restrained. In Italy this was exemplified by Giambattisa Tiepolo (1696–1770) and his son Giovanni Domenico Tiepolo (1727–1804) and their work on churches and palaces in Venice. In Spain the reaction against classi- cism was marked, especially in Catalonia, where Anto- ni Gaudi (1852–1926) worked on a free-form style, a geometrically based style using a variety of material and mosaics, with work on his Sagrada Familia Church in Barcelona starting in 1882. Francisco José de Goya (1746–1828) was the greatest of the Spanish painters in the last part of the 18th and first part of the 19th centuries. He was profoundly affected by the Penin- sula War and his painting El Tres de Mayo, showing the execution by French soldiers of rebels in Madrid, is among his most well known. Other Spanish painters of the 19th century include Ignacio Pinazo (1849–1916), Francisco Domingo (1842–1920), Emilio Sala (1850– 1910), Ignacio Zuloaga (1870–1945), and Joaquín Sorolla (1863–1923). In Central Europe, increased wealth led to the con- struction of many major government buildings. In Aus- tria, rococo design gave way to historicism, with the development of the Ringstrasse in Vienna. This changed with the advent of the Secession movement in 1897. King Ludwig of Bavaria financed the construction of large numbers of “dream” castles throughout his king- dom. In Russia, the emergence of St. Petersburg led to the construction of massive public and private build- ings. The Winter Palace, commissioned from Francesco Bertolomeo Rastrelli (1700–71) in 1754 by Catherine the Great, is certainly the most well known, with others including the Yelagin Palace built for Alexander I by the architect Carlo Rossi (1775–1849) also important. The Church of the Resurrection of Christ was built in the late 1880s on the site where Czar Alexander II was killed in 1881. The building of the Trans-Siberian Rail- road led to the construction of large numbers of rail- way stations along the length of the railroad. It was a period when Russians were collecting art from around the world. In China, with the capital Beijing divided between the Chinese City and the Tartar City, the major change came from the 1860s with the building of foreign lega- tions in former princely palaces in the Tartar City. This followed the Second Opium War, which saw the sack- ing of the “Old” Summer Palace, with work begin- ning on the massive enlargement of the “New” Sum- mer Palace in 1888. Building work continued on parts of the Forbidden City, and the Manchu Qing (Ch’ing) emperors also spent much energy in the late 18th cen- tury on enlarging the palaces at their summer residence at Chengde (Jehol). The late 19th century saw a mas- sive influx of foreign influence into Shanghai, Tianjin (Tientsin), Weihai (Weihaiwei), Qingdao (Tsingtao), Macau, Hong Kong, Hankou (Hankow), and Guang- zhou (Canton). As well as warehouses, bank chambers, office buildings, railway stations, and accommodations, there were also Christian churches for both Chinese and foreign parishioners. There were also churches built around India—espe- cially in Calcutta—with many buildings being erected throughout the Indian subcontinent for the military and traders. Herman Willem Daendels (1762–1818), gov- ernor of the Netherlands East Indies, helped redesign the city of Batavia (Jakarta). In Japan, many modern buildings were erected, including the famous Impe- rial Hotel in Tokyo. Holiday retreats such as Simla in India, Maymyo in Burma, and the Cameron Highlands in Malaya were also built toward the end of the 19th century. Many of these places, as well as earlier temples and landmarks, were the subject of drawings by Thom- as and William Daniell. In North America, vast change was reflected in the architecture. From the 1750s, there were small build- Asian migration to Latin America 37 ings such as Mount Vernon, the residence of George Washington. Thomas Jefferson’s home, Monticello, dates from 1768. After independence, there were a large number of government buildings erected throughout the country, with Pierre-Charles L’Enfant (1754–1825) drawing up the original plans for Washington. The White House was built beginning in 1792 in the Pal- ladian style. The Irish-American architect James Hoban (c. 1762–1831) worked on it after winning the com- petition with skilled stonemasons coming from Edin- burgh, Scotland, in 1793. At the same time, there was work on the Capitol, with the chamber of the House of Representatives completed in 1807. Both the White House and the Capitol were sacked by British soldiers in 1812, and it was not until 1857 that the South Wing was added to the Capitol. There were also large numbers of other civic buildings constructed throughout the country. South- ern plantation architecture was popular. In addition, around the United States, many towns and cities were being established. Unlike their counterparts in Europe, large numbers of the houses were built from wood, with log cabins constructed by pioneers. There was also the construction of the first skyscrapers with the Cast Iron Building, designed by James Bogardus (1800–74) in 1848, and the Haughwout Department Store in New York City in 1857. The first steel girder construction was the Home Insurance Company Building in Chicago, with work by William Le Baron Jenney (1832–1907) and also later his protégé, Louis Sullivan. Prominent artists living in the United States paint- ed pioneer scenes and portraits of political and society figures. There were a few new concepts, including the panoramic painting that illustrated some histori- cal event. Painted in a way to show the battle or event unfolding, people paid a small fee to see the picture. There was also great interest in landscape painters. In South America, Buenos Aires, Montevideo, Lima, Santiago, Rio de Janeiro, and other cities had large numbers of migrants arriving, with major public build- ings, banking and insurance chambers, office build- ings, hotels, and other buildings erected. In Australia, during the 1880s there was the period of “Marvelous Melbourne.” As well as the Melbourne Public Library, Melbourne Town Hall, the university, and other major civic projects, there were also many Italianate mansions built throughout the city. In Australia there were many station properties, and in the country towns large num- bers of wooden houses. In North Africa, Cairo saw the construction of large numbers of mock-Parisian buildings, with the wealth flowing into Egypt through tourism and the opening of the Suez Canal. The British and French built num- bers of colonial buildings throughout their empire in Africa, with the Portuguese, Germans, and Belgians also constructing buildings, but on a much smaller scale. In South Africa, Cape architecture became pop- ular not just in Cape Town and nearby areas but also elsewhere in Africa. See also baroque culture in Latin America. Further reading: Colligan, Mimi. Canvas Documentaries: Panoramic Entertainments in Nineteenth-Century Australia and New Zealand. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 2002; Fletcher, Bannister. A History of Architecture on the Comparative Method. London: The Athlone Press, 1961; Jac- quet, Pierre. History of Architecture. Lausanne: Leisure Arts, 1966; Richards, J. M. Who’s Who in Architecture from 1400 to the Present. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1977; Schickel, Richard. The World of Goya 1746–1828. New York: Time-Life International, 1971; Sunderland, John. Paint- ing in Britain 1525 to 1975. London: Phaidon Press, 1976. Justin Corfield Asian migration to Latin America There has been a long history of Asian migration to Latin America, with Chinese, Japanese, and Korean populations now in most countries in Central and South America. In addition there are also significant Indian communities in some countries, especially Guyana, and small numbers of Vietnamese. The first links between the two areas may have been during the Ming dynasty in China, when some of the fleet of Chinese Admiral Cheng Ho may have reached the Americas. On many of his voyages members of the crew did not return with the fleet, and if any of his ships did reach the Americas, it seems likely that they would repre- sent the first recent Asians to settle in the Americas. It is also worth mentioning that in 1492, when Christopher Columbus sailed the Atlantic, he expected to reach Asia, and in 1519 Ferdinand Magellan started his voyage that was, after Magellan’s death, to circum- navigate the world, sailing through what became the Straits of Magellan across the Pacific Ocean, proving that it was possible to make the voyage. However, there was little migration from Asia to the Americas until the early 19th century. Few Chinese ventured overseas during this period, except for those already in Southeast Asia—the Nanyang, as they called 38 Asian migration to Latin America it. In 1637 the Japanese government banned travel over- seas and requested their citizens to return home; Korea was so isolated that travel was extremely difficult until recently. It is probable, however, that some Filipinos did settle in Latin America, especially in Peru, the center of Spanish power, as there were close shipping ties between Lima and Manila. In the early 19th century the increased frequency of traveling overseas by ship and overpopulation in China saw many Chinese begin to migrate, initially to the favored destinations in Southeast Asia and around the Indian Ocean, and then to the Americas. The Cali- fornia gold rush certainly saw many Chinese move to California and others moved in search of employment to Mexico and then to the Caribbean and South Amer- ica. As a result, Chinese merchants started establishing businesses in cities and large towns along the Pacific coast. Some were farmers growing vegetables, others running shops, laundries, or restaurants. A few Chinese families settled on the eastern coast of Latin America. A sizeable community was estab- lished in British Guiana (now Guyana), many working on plantations. The Chinese in British Guiana form the subject of novelist Robert Standish’s Mr. On Loong. In addition, mention should be made of the family of Philip Hoalim from Guyana—Hoalim later became involved in politics in Singapore, forming the Malayan Democratic Union, the first political party ever estab- lished in Singapore. As well as the Chinese in British Guiana, there was also a much larger Indian community. Known as the East Indians, to differentiate them from the West Indi- ans, many spoke Hindi or Urdu, and there are numbers of Hindu temples and Muslim mosques in the capital of Georgetown. In neighboring Suriname, a former Dutch colony, there are also many East Indians and Chinese. There is even a statue of Mohandas Gandhi in Paramari- bo, Suriname’s capital. With its Dutch connections, there are also Indonesians (mainly from Java), many descend- ing from indentured servants who came before the 1940s. Smaller Indian communities in Brazil, Paraguay, and northern Argentina have been instrumental in the introduction and breeding of zebu and Brahman cattle. CHINESE COMMUNITIES During the latter half of the 19th century, economic opportunities encouraged many Chinese to migrate to Cuba and Peru, where they worked on sugar planta- tions, in mining, and on haciendas, as well as running shops in townships. However, Cuba started to restrict the number of Chinese migrants. At the same time, the Mexican government started encouraging migration from China. Porfirio Díaz, president 1876–80 and again 1884–1911, wanted Chinese coolies as a cheap labor force for building infrastructure in northern Mex- ico, where many settled. As with the Chinese in Peru, there were gradual changes in the economic status of the migrant communities. Whereas in the 1870s most were manual laborers, by the 1900s many were running businesses. By 1912 there were 35,000 Chinese in Mexico. Some used it as a route to the United States, but many others established businesses, often in poor suburbs. As a result, during periods of instability, especially during the Mexican Revolution, when rioting started, Asians were often the victims of mobs. The Mexican revolu- tionary hero Pancho Villa was definitely anti-Chinese, calling U.S. citizens Chino blanco (“white Chinese”). When he took the town of Torreón on May 25, 1911, his forces and several thousand locals massacred 303 Chinese and five Japanese. When he was eventually defeated by Emilio Obregón, he is reported to have said “I would rather have been beaten by a Chinese than by Obregón.” In February 1914 anti-Chinese riots took place in Cananea, and local Chinese took refuge in a U.S.-owned building, and in March 1915 many Chinese were attacked and robbed in rioting in Nogales. In spite of these attacks, many Chinese continued to migrate to Mexico, with 6,000 arriving in 1919–20. The Chinese community remains important in Mexico. In Central America, there were small Chinese com- munities in each country, and most were involved in running small businesses. By the 1930s they had begun to dominate trade in many towns in El Salvador, so much so that the 1939 constitution included protec- tions for indigenous small traders. A new law, passed in March 1969, limited the running of small businesses in the country to people born in Central America, specifically excluding naturalized citizens. However, many Chinese continued to operate with their busi- nesses owned by middlemen. In Honduras, many small businesses were also owned by Chinese until the 1969 war with El Salvador, which led to fervent national- ism breaking out in the country and moves to reduce the number of Chinese-owned shops. In Central Amer- ica today there are small numbers of Vietnamese, and there is also a sizable Vietnamese population in Cuba, largely as a result of political ties between the two com- munist countries. As well as in Peru, there are also significant Chinese communities in Brazil, Argentina, and Chile. Indeed bilateral ties and trade (with China) with all three Asian migration to Latin America 39 countries have increased in recent years, offering many Chinese in Latin America new opportunities for estab- lishing businesses. Chinese-language gravestones can be seen in cemeteries throughout Latin America, although most seem to be located in foreign cemeteries, such as the British Cemetery at Chacarita in Buenos Aires or its counterparts in Chile. Most Latin American countries now recognize the People’s Republic of China, but a few still extend diplomatic recognition to the Republic of China (Taiwan) as the legitimate government of the whole of China. For these, most ties are with Taiwan. In Paraguay, the Taiwanese government and community plays an important role in commercial life in Asunción and has been involved in major projects, such as the refurbishment of the Paraguayan foreign ministry. JAPANESE AND KOREAN SETTLERS In Brazil, the largest country in Latin America, there are many people of Chinese and East Indian ancestry and also some migrants from Malaysia involved in rubber cultivation. In the southern part of the country there are also increasing numbers of Japanese—there are said to be over 600,000 Brazilians with Japanese ancestry. A number of the Japanese can trace their origins in Brazil back to 1908 when an agreement with the municipal authorities in São Paulo allowed Japanese to settle in the hinterland. They established many vegetable farms, and there are Japanese grocery stores, bookshops, and even geisha in São Paulo today. There were also numbers of Japanese farmers who left Japan during this period, with many settling in Peru, Brazil, and Paraguay, where the government was encour- aging foreigners to move to the country and establish colonies. Many were poor Japanese in search of work, but quite a number were well educated. Some of the latter settled in Panama—a few involving themselves in busi- nesses so closely linked to the Panama Canal that spying by them has long been alleged. One of them, Yoshitaro Amano, a Japanese store owner who had lived in Pana- ma City, spied on U.S. ships using the Panama Canal. He later fled Panama and was arrested for spying in Nicara- gua, Costa Rica, and then Colombia. Perhaps the most prominent example of the role of the Japanese in Latin America concerns two of the Japanese who left Kumamoto, Japan, moving to Peru in 1934: Naoichi Fujimori and his wife, Mutsue. Four years later their son, Alberto, was born, and the parents applied to the local Japanese consulate to ensure the child retained Japanese citizenship. He worked as an agricultural engineer and became dean and then rector of his old university, also hosting a television show. In 1990 Fujimori, heading the Cambio 90 party (“Change 1990”), defeated the author Mario Vargas Llosa in the election for president in a surprise result. Although he was Japanese, Fujimori gained the political nickname “el chino” (“the Chinese man”), with many observers crediting his victory with his ethnicity, which set him apart from the political elite of Spanish descent. Fujimori had campaigned on a platform of “Work, technology, honesty” but in what became known as Fujishock, he instituted massive economic reforms and invested the office of the president with many new pow- ers. His wife, Susana Higuchi, also of Japanese descent, in a very public divorce, accused him of stealing from donations by Japanese foundations. Reelected in 1995, Fujimori won the 2000 election, but soon afterwards a massive corruption scandal emerged. Fujimori, over- seas at the time, then went to Japan, where he resigned. In November 2005 he flew from Japan to Chile and was arrested on his arrival. On September 22, 2007, he was extradited to Peru where he was jailed awaiting trial. On December 12, 2007, Fujimori was convicted of abuse of authority and sentenced to six years in prison. He faces three other trials on charges including murder, kidnapping, and corruption. Fujimori remains the best- known politician of Asian ancestry to hold high office in Latin America, but he has also become a byword for corruption and political sleaze. Of the Koreans who have settled in Latin Amer- ica, many run shops and small businesses. There are parts of Buenos Aires and also Rio de Janeiro with large Korean populations. In Uruguay there has been an influx of Koreans, many associated with Rev. Sun Myung Moon. Despite the high-profile involvement of Fujimori in Peruvian politics, most of the Asians in Latin Amer- ica shun media hype. Although many operate small businesses either importing Chinese merchandise or household consumer products into Latin America or run restaurants, a new generation of highly educated Asians fluent in Spanish is emerging, many of whom were born in Latin America. They are starting to enter the professions of law, accountancy, and banking, many having totally assimilated into the communities in which they live. When Hu Jintao, the general sec- retary of the Chinese Communist Party, visited Brazil, his first overseas visit after assuming the leadership of the People’s Republic of China, he was greeted by thousands of Brazilians of Chinese ancestry. Further reading: Craib, Raymond B. “Recovering the Chinese in Mexico.” The American Philatelist (May 1998); Deacon, 40 Australia: exploration and settlement Richard. A History of the Japanese Secret Service. London: Frederick Muller, 1982; Gruber, Alfred A. “Tracing the Chinese in Mexico through Their Covers.” The American Phi- latelist (June 1993); Hu-DeHart, Evelyn. “Coolies, shopkeep- ers, pioneers: the Chinese of Mexico and Peru (1849–1930).” Amerasia (1989); Stewart, Watt. Chinese Bondage in Peru. Westwood, CT: Greenwood Press, 1970. Justin Corfield Australia: exploration and settlement The island continent of Australia was the last to be dis- covered and explored by Europeans. It was called Terra Australis Incognita, the unknown southern land. The first European to sail into the Australian waters was a Dutchman, Abel Tasman, working for the Dutch East India Company, who discovered the western and south- ern coast of an island he named Van Dieman’s Land (now Tasmania) in 1618. Subsequent Dutch explorers of areas of coastal Australia called it New Holland. In the mid-18th-century France and Great Britain also became interested in exploring the unknown land. Between 1768 and 1776 Captain James Cook, an offi- cer of the British Royal Navy, made three great voyages of discovery. His first voyage sailed around New Zea- land and then the eastern coast of Australia. Sir Joseph Banks, a scientist and naturalist who accompanied Cook, recorded the flora and fauna of southeastern coastal Australia, which he named New South Wales, indicating its possibilities for settlement. Fifteen years after Cook’s discovery, British Home Secretary Lord Sydney decided to set up a penal colo- ny in Botany Bay (named by Banks), where Sydney is today. This was to accommodate the overflowing Brit- ish jails resulting from the American Revolution, when former British colonies would no longer accept British convicts. In January 1788 Captain Arthur Philip arrived at Sydney Harbor in charge of 11 ships, 717 convicts and an army detachment named the New South Wales Corps formed for the purpose of guarding them. Philip oversaw the settlement through 1792, its most critical years, due to lack of food and the unsuitability of con- victs as pioneers. Although free settlers began arriving in Sydney from 1793 the main purpose of the settle- ment remained a repository of convicts. Three lieutenant governors followed Philip; the third, William Bligh, earlier of the mutiny on the Bounty, was a man of such fiery temperament that his tenure ended with the Rum Rebellion. The cause was the illegal liquor traffic by officers of the New South Wales Corps, the prevalence of drunkenness, and con- sequent problems. Bligh’s attempt to rein in the officers resulted in his ouster. Although the leaders of the revolt were punished, the British government recalled Bligh and undertook reforms. The new governor was Colonel Lachlan MacQua- rie who came with his own Scottish regiment. The New South Wales Corps was disbanded and replaced by reg- ular British army units that were rotated for tours of duty. MacQuarie made extensive reforms, built up the infrastructure, and encouraged exploration into the interior as well as free immigration with land grants. The governors who followed him continued his poli- cies, resulting in accelerated development. Between 1802 and 1803, Matthew Flinders circumnavigated Australia, proving that it was an island continent and that there was no separate island called New Holland. Flinders recommended the name Australia for the con- tinent, which was accepted. In 1829 Great Britain laid claim to the whole continent. In 1813 the first overland expedition penetrated the low mountain range that separated the coastal plains of eastern Australia from the interior. Many explora- tions into the interior discovered river valleys and great grassy plains suitable for agriculture and pasturage. Waves of settlers followed, encouraged by liberal land grants to free settlers and emancipists (convicts who had served their terms). The natives, known as aborigi- nes, were hunter-gatherers and no match for the white settlers; they were killed, driven off, or survived on the fringes of white society. Great Britain established several other penal colo- nies in Australia in addition to the one in Sydney. One established in 1803 in Tasmania was used to house the most violent convicts and to preempt a possible French attempt to seize the island; another was on Norfolk Island, off the eastern coast. In 1824 Brisbane, north of Sydney on the eastern coast, became another penal settlement—it became the capital of a colony called Queensland. In 1850, convicts were sent to Western Australia at the request of free settlers there because of a severe shortage of labor. Two colonies, Victoria and South Australia, never had penal settlements. END OF THE PENAL SYSTEM As the number of free settlers grew, local opposition to continued transportation gained ground in the Australia: self-government to federation 41 Australian colonies. At the same time, the transporta- tion of convicts to remote colonies was questioned in Britain. In 1837 a parliamentary committee investi- gating the question reported against its continuation, beginning the movement to abolish it. The last convicts were landed in New South Wales in 1840. By then it had received almost 75,000 con- victs, with 25,000 still under sentence. No more con- victs were transported to Tasmania in 1853, it having received 67,000 since 1803. The first move toward representative government came to New South Wales in 1823 with an appointed legislative council. It was enlarged in 1842 to include some elected members, the electorate limited to men, including emancipists, paying certain taxes. In 1850 the British parliament passed the Australian Colonies Gov- ernment Act that gave each colony the right to set up its own legislature, determine franchise, tariffs, and make laws, subject to royal confirmation. The six Australian colonies became states: New South Wales (capital Syd- ney), Victoria (Melbourne), Queensland (Brisbane), South Australia (Adelaide), which also administered the Northern Territory, Tasmania (Hobart), and West- ern Australia (Perth). Each state adopted a constitution that with slight variations provided for a bicameral legislature of elect- ed members (initially on a restricted male franchise) and a cabinet government on the British model. By the mid-19th century, the interior of Australia had been crisscrossed; gold and other mineral deposits had been discovered and were being worked; steam- ships and telegraph connected it with other parts of the world; and railway lines were being built. The founda- tions of an Australian nation had been laid. See also Australia: self-government to federation. Further reading: Atkinson, Alan. The Europeans in Austra- lia: Vol. I, The Beginning. Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1997; Clark, C. M. H. A History of Australia, Vol. I. From the Earliest Times to the Age of MacQuarie. Carl- ton, Victoria: Melbourne University Press, 1962; Inglis, K. S. The Australian Colonists: An Exploration of Social History, 1788–1870. Carlton, Victoria: Melbourne University Press; Reynolds, Henry. Frontiers: Aborigines, Settlers and Land. North Sydney: Allen and Unwin, 1987; Shaw, A. G. L. Con- victs and the Colonies: A Study of Penal Transportation from Great Britain and Ireland to Australia and Other Parts of the British Empire. London: Faber, 1966. Jiu-Hwa Lo upshur Australia: self-government to federation Beginning with the establishment of the legislative council for New South Wales in 1823, the Australian colonies had gradually received increasing measures of self-government from the British Colonial Office. In 1850 the British parliament passed the Australian Colo- nies Government Act that allowed the colonies to set up their own legislatures, pass laws to determine the fran- chise, tariff rates, and alter their constitutions, all sub- ject to royal confirmation. In the following years, most of the colonies adopted their constitutions with slight variations. All provided for a bicameral legislature of elected members and a cabinet on the British model (except for the most recently settled and most sparsely populated Western Australia, which established respon- sible government in 1890). Evidence of their autonomy was indicated when Great Britain accepted a law passed by the legislature of New South Wales in 1851 that for- bade the landing of convicts in that state. The last state to stop receiving British convicts was Western Austra- lia, in 1867. There was rapid progress on many fronts during the second half of the 19th century, shown by the found- ing of public universities in each state and the introduc- tion of compulsory public education. Railway building began in 1850, followed by the arrival of regular steam- ships that shortened the time of voyages, and the open- ing of telegraphic communications with other parts of the world. Other signs of maturity are indicated by the withdrawal of British forces from the continent in 1870 as the colonies established their own militias and the col- onies agreeing to subsidize financially the British naval squadron stationed in Australian waters in 1890. However, the lack of a central government for the continent created problems and confusion. For exam- ple, each of the states built its railways using different gauges: the standard gauge of 4 feet 8 1⁄2 inches for New South Wales, the wide gauge of 5 feet 3 inches for Vic- toria, and a narrow gauge of 3 feet 6 inches for South Australia, Western Australia, and Queensland. Another question that needed a common approach was immigra- tion. Few non-British immigrants had settled in Australia up to 1850. However, in the aftermath of the discovery of gold in Victoria in 1851, peoples of many nation- alities flooded to the gold fields. Disputes over taxation resulted in an uprising by German and Irish gold min- ers in November–December 1854 who proclaimed the Republic of Victoria—it was quickly put down. 42 Austro-Hungarian Empire It was the presence of 33,000 Chinese in the gold rush that led the legislature of Victoria to pass laws in 1855 that levied a heavy poll tax and put other restrictions on the Chinese that shut down Chinese immigration. New South Wales and South Australia followed with their own laws to restrict Chinese immigration, and they pre- vailed despite British government pressure against them. Two other issues also affected all the Australian colonies. One involved the importation of laborers from the Solo- mon and other islands to work in Australia, mostly in the sugarcane fields in Queensland. The condition of these laborers (called Kanaka) approached slavery and needed regulation. Another involved national security over control of the eastern portion of New Guinea (the Netherlands had annexed the western half). Queensland was located nearest to New Guinea and was most anxious to control all west- ern New Guinea. However, due to British reluctance to act promptly, Germany had already claimed the north- ern half, leaving only the southern part, which became a British colony in 1884. These many issues contributed to the sentiment for forming a federation of all the Australian colonies. In 1885 the British parliament established a federal coun- cil to meet every two years to consult on problems that concerned all the colonies, but it was inadequate because it had no enforcement powers. The first Australian Fed- eral Convention to create a union with more power met in Sydney in 1891. It was composed of members of all colonial legislatures, including those from New Zea- land, another British possession, presided over by Sir Henry Parkes, and failed to win acceptance of all the states. A second convention met in Hobart (Tasmania) without New Zealand in 1897 and drafted a constitu- tion that won acceptance. The union was called the Commonwealth of Aus- tralia, a federation that resembled the United States. The federal government was to control foreign affairs, defense, trade, tariffs, currency, citizenship, post and telegraph, etc. It would be headed by a governor-general who represented the British monarch but would be gov- erned by a prime minister and cabinet that had a major- ity in the lower house of Parliament called the House of Representatives, whose members represented districts based on population. The upper house, or Senate, had six senators from each state. A supreme court guarded and interpreted the constitution. A new city whose location would be determined later would become the federal capital. (A site in New South Wales was later chosen and named Canberra, Australian Capital Territory.) After acceptance in a referendum held in all states, the British parliament passed a bill of ratifi- cation. The Commonwealth of Australia came into being on January 1, 1901. After Canada (in 1867), Australia became the second self-governing dominion of the Brit- ish Commonwealth. See also Australia: exploration and settlement. Further reading: Burgmann, Verity. ‘In Our Time’: Social- ism and the Rise of Labor, 1885–1905. North Sydney: Allen and Unwin, 1985; Irving, Helen. To Constitute a Nation: A Cultural History of Australia’s Constitution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997; Kingston, Beverly. The Oxford History of Australia. Vol. 3, 1860–1900: Glad, Confident Morning. Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1988; Macintyre, Stuart. Winners and Losers: The Pursuit of Social Justice in Australian History. North Sydney: Allen and Unwin, 1985; Trainer, Luke. British Imperialism and Austra- lian Nationalism: Manipulation, Conflict and Compromise in the Late Nineteenth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- versity Press, 1994. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur Austro-Hungarian Empire The Austro-Hungarian Empire came together in 1867 and lasted until 1918 when it was dissolved at the end of World War I. The political entity that was formed in 1867 was a method of trying to tie together the lands that were controlled by the Habsburg dynasty as a suc- cessor to the Austrian Empire that had been created in 1804. From the end of the Napoleonic Wars, the Austrian Empire had been one of the major military and political powers in Europe, with Count (later Prince) Metter- nich, the leading Austrian politician, helping influence European politics through the congress system. How- ever, in 1848, the uprisings and revolutions that took place throughout central Europe—many of which were unsuccessful but still shook the ruling classes—forced the Habsburg rulers of Austria to try to come up with another political entity that would help hold together the Habsburg dynasty. One of the places that caused the Habsburgs the most trouble in 1848 was in Hungary, where the liberal revolution was crushed with great dif- ficulty. Although the Austrian Empire stayed together, Metternich was forced out of office, and Austria had to accept a military decline in spite of its size as the largest country in Europe after the Russian Empire. This mili- tary decline was clearly demonstrated by the defeat of Austro-Hungarian Empire 43 Austria in the Austro-Sardinian War of 1859 and then the Austro-Prussian War of 1866. Count Belcredi, the Austrian prime minister, felt that the Austrian government should make considerable political concessions to Hungary to ensure the support of the Hungarian nobility and the rising middle class yet retain Vienna as the center of the new empire. The agree- ment that the Austrian government eventually decided upon was the Ausgleich (kiegyezés in Hungarian), other- wise known as the Compromise of 1867. This established the Austro-Hungarian Empire, by which there would be a union within a dual monarchy, whereby the king-emper- or would be the head of the Habsburg family who would be emperor of Austria and king of Hungary, running a unified administration but under which there would be an Austrian, or Cisleithanian, government and a sepa- rate Hungarian government. Both would have their own parliaments, each with its own prime minister. Many parts of local administration would be run separately, but there would be a common government working under the monarchy that would have the responsibility of controlling the army, the navy, foreign policy, and customs matters. The administration of education, postal systems, roads, and internal taxation would be split between the Austrian or the Hungarian governments, depending on geography. The Compromise also led to Emperor Franz Josef II being crowned as the king of Hungary, whereby he reaffirmed the historic privileges of Hungary and also confirmed the power of the newly created Hungar- ian parliament. There were also some regional concessions. This largely involved some parts of Austria, officially known as Cisleithania, such as Galicia (formerly part of Poland) and Croatia maintaining a special status. In Croatia, the Croatian language was raised to a level equal with the Italian language, and in Galicia, the Polish language replaced the German language as the normal language of government in 1869. This did gain support from the Poles but not from the Ukrainian minority. From 1882 Slovenia was to have autonomy, with Slovenian replac- ing German as the dominant official language and with the Diet of Carniola governing the region from Laibach (modern-day Ljubljana). In Bohemia and Moravia, Czech nationalists wanted the Czech language to be adopted, and there were subsequent concessions made in 1882. There was also another problem dealing with the ethnic Serbs in Vojvodina, where the Hungarians were eager not to allow any part of their kingdom to gain any special status. The Austro-Hungarian Empire was one controlled by the Austrian and Hungarian hereditary nobility, and this class system was to lead to many problems. The major one was the Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the nephew of Emperor Franz Josef and heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, marrying Sophie Chotek, from a wealthy Czech family. This led to consternation at court, and the marriage was declared to be morga- natic; their children could not inherit the throne. The Austrian prime minister, Count Taaffe, until 1893, man- aged to maintain the support of conservatives from the Czech, German, and Polish communities—known as the Iron Ring. However, some radical Czechs agitated for more power, with demonstrations in Czech-dominated Prague leading to the city being placed under martial law in 1893. Franz Josef had offered parliament the choice of choosing a prime minister, but the issue of nationali- ties so divided the legislative body that after two years of indecision, Franz Josef appointed Count Badeni, the Polish governor of Galicia, to the prime ministership. He remained in power for two years—being ejected in 1897 with the Czechs opposing his plans for language reforms and getting the reforms repealed in 1899. Many of these problems were to become far more evi- dent during World War I, which led to the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and its fragmentation. Further reading: Mason, John W. The Dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian Empire 1867–1918. London: Longman, 1997; May, Arthur J. The Hapsburg Monarchy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1951; Sked, Alan. The Decline and Fall of the Habsburg Empire 1815–1918. Lon- don: Longman, 2001. Justin Corfield Balkan and East European insurrections In the region between Germany, Russia, and the Bal- kan Peninsula, one nation after another lost its politi- cal independence, while others never even succeeded in gaining political independence to lose. In addition to the history of the empires that controlled East Central Europe and the Balkans, there is a history of nations striving for nationhood. The conquest of the Balkans by the Ottoman Empire was the dominant event of this region’s history in the later Middle Ages. But when that advance turned into a retreat, the question of Eastern authority appeared. During the 1800s large numbers of Balkan peoples passed from Ottoman to Austrian rule. In addition to these political changes, the stimuli of the Enlightenment spreading to eastern Europe promot- ed a revival of cultural and national traditions. Romanians of the provinces of Moldavia and Wal- lachia were among the first to expect liberation from Turkish rule, which Russia’s victories in 1770 against the Ottomans seemed to make possible. The Küçük Kaynarca Treaty of 1774 shaped the future of the region. Russia was later to claim that it had won a right to interfere on behalf of the sultan’s Orthodox subjects, giving those subjects the reassurance that they had an ally in Russia. In Poland, divided between Austria, Russia, and Prussia between 1772 and 1795, a resistance move- ment began. This insurrection had a promising start in 1794, but the Prussian failure to support the Poles was a devastating letdown. Consequently, the failed insurrection served as an excuse for the total dismem- berment of the country. SERBIAN NATIONALISM The Balkan nations’ wars for independence started in Serbia, where the struggle against Ottoman rule contin- ued throughout the Napoleonic period, in part because of the response that the ideology of the French Revo- lution evoked within the region. Ottoman authority in Serbia was the weakest and foreign influence strongest than anywhere else in the Ottoman provinces. The rev- olutionary leader George Petrovich founded the Kara- georgevich dynasty. The revolt began in 1804 with hope of success until another Russo-Turkish War broke out two years later. Serbian insurgents were encouraged by a series of victories against regular Ottoman troops in 1805 and 1806, but also by the capture of Belgrade in January 1807. The Russians, however, abandoned the Serbs to their fate when the Peace of Bucharest was concluded in 1812. The fight resumed in 1815, the year of the Congress of Vienna, under a new leader, Milosh Obrenovich. His descendants were to be for almost 100 years the rivals of the Karageorgevich. Obrenovich realized that inde- pendence would not be won immediately, so he tried to gain gradual concessions from the Ottomans. In 1817 Obrenovich became prince of a small Serbia with partial autonomy. Advantage was taken of the Russo-Turkish War of 1828–29. This time, the peace treaty included full autonomy for Serbia, and in 1830, Obrenovich was B 45 46 Balkan and East European insurrections recognized as hereditary ruler, and Serbia’s territory was enlarged. In 1839 the parliament (created in 1835) elect- ed the son of George Petrovich, Alexander, under whom great progress was made toward unity with the Croats. The center of the Yugoslav movement was in Montene- gro, where the throne was occupied by Petar Njegosh from 1830 to 1851. GREEK NATIONALISM In Greece the new-Hellenic movement wanted to cre- ate an independent Greek state. That movement had a strong appeal in western Europe, and the Greeks had a good chance to find outside support. Prince Alex- ander Ypsilanti raised a rebellion against the Turks in 1821, and a genuine Greek insurrection broke out simultaneously. Russia seized the opportunity to inter- vene along with Britain and France, thus accelerating the achievement of independence. Instead of merely an autonomous status, the independence of Greece had to be recognized by the Ottoman Empire in the Treaty of Adrianople in 1829. The treaty confirmed the autono- mous position of the Danubian principalities and rec- ognized the autonomy of Serbia. POLISH, UKRAINIAN, AND CZECH NATIONALISM In former Poland an insurrection against Russian rule broke out in November 1830. Under Czar Alexan- der I, the Poles were deeply disappointed. Alexander’s promises proved impossible to fulfill. The tension increased when Alexander died in 1825. His succes- sor, Nicholas I, considered the parliamentary regime of Poland incompatible with the Russian autocratic form of government. Hence the Poles rose in defense of their constitution, and the struggle ended in a Russian vic- tory. The uprising saw participation in the Lithuanian and Ruthenian regions contributing to the rise of Lithu- anian and Ukrainian nationalism. The Ukrainian movement was influenced by the ris- ing ideology of Pan-Slavism. In contrast to the Poles, the Ukrainians claimed cultural autonomy rather than independence. Such ideas belonged to the group that founded the Brotherhood of Saints Cyril and Methodius in 1846. The name indicates its ideas of Slavic solidar- ity on religious grounds and its cultural character. But it was also dedicated to the idea of national freedom. In Russia’s Baltic provinces, the local self-government favored the small German upper class. There was a separation between these German Balts and the Latvian and Estonian peasant population, but among both non- German groups, a cultural revival emerged during the first half of the 19th century. The movement began with the study of folklore and the appearance of newspapers in the native tongues. The same change from cultural to political nation- alism can be found in the Austrian Empire. Since 1830, the Matice ceska (Czech mother) encouraged the use of the Czech language, thereby reviving national tradi- tions in opposition to Austria. Czech writers of Slovak origin contributed to the revival of those Slavs who had never experienced independent states, like the Slo- venes and the Slovaks. Playing the various nationali- ties against one another, the government used Czech officials in Polish Galicia and welcomed the antago- nism between the Magyars and the other groups in Hungary. Hungarian nationalism, too, made rapid progress. The Hungarian Diet prescribed instruction in the Magyar language in the schools of Croatia. Croat nationalism was more alarmed by the pressure coming from Budapest than by the centralization being pro- moted in Vienna. The idea of Yugoslav unity became popular when the writer Ljudevit Gaj propagated the Illyrian movement. HABSBURG MONARCHY Another crisis began with a Polish insurrection direct- ed against all three partitioning powers. Fighting start- ed on May 9, 1848, and the insurrectionary forces had to capitulate. A violent anti-Polish reaction followed. In Austria, too, the Polish question was reopened, and concessions were made. When Polish activity was transferred to the eastern part of Galicia, the Austrian government favored the claim of the Ruthenians. The whole province was again subject to strict control by the central authorities. During the 1848 Revolution Bohemia was invited to send representatives to the Frankfurt parliament, but the invitation was declined by historian and new Czech leader Franti?ek Palacky. When a revolution broke out in Vienna in March 1848, there seemed to be hope of cooperation among peoples who antici- pated that their national rights would receive con- sideration under a liberal constitution. The Slavic Congress opened in Prague on June 2, 1848, and del- egates met to represent their constituents’ desire that a reorganization of the Habsburg dynasty would give them a chance for freedom. In the end, the congress was disbanded. A constituent assembly drafted a constitution that would satisfy the claims of the vari- ous nationalities. Self-government was provided for each of the historic lands of the monarchy. Although constructive, these ideas never materialized. Balkan and East European insurrections 47 The Slavs, though a majority in the Habsburg mon- archy, were not the only group that had to be taken into consideration. Any change in authority was met with opposition between the historic concept of Hungary and the aspirations of the non-Magyar nationalities. They were afraid of the Magyar leaders and were not prepared to recognize the equality of all nationalities. The Slavs and the Croats were the strongest opponents of the Hungarian Revolution. Fearing for Croatia’s tra- ditional autonomy, the Croat army crushed the Mag- yars. Even the occupation of Budapest in early 1849 did not put an end to the Magyar resistance. They decided to dethrone the Habsburgs, and in April 1849 declared Hungary’s independence. The Magyars had to fight both the Austrians and the Russians because the emperor had enlisted Russian aid. Attacked by supe- rior forces, the Hungarians had to surrender in August 1849. For their uprising and resistance, the Hungari- ans were ruthlessly punished. The non-Magyar nation- alities were equally disappointed; even Croatia lost its autonomy. Only the Poles made some progress toward independence. ROMANIAN INDEPENDENCE AND UNIFICATION In 1853 the Crimean War started as one more conflict between Turkey and Russia. The next year, France and Britain came to Turkey’s aid. The matter of Russia pro- tecting the Christians in Turkey was connected with the problem of the liberation of the Balkan peoples. In the wake of its defeat in the Crimean War, it turned out that Russia was less weakened than the Ottoman Empire was. At the 1856 peace conference in Paris, only the Romanians made their problems known. The sultan had to enlarge the autonomy of both Romanian principalities. The delayed unification of the two Danubian prin- cipalities seemed a prerequisite for a fully indepen- dent Romanian state. In 1858 Moldavia and Walla- chia received the right to choose their own princes. The choice of the same prince by both of them ended their separation in 1859. But even then, Romania was far from including all Romanian populations, which remained partly under Austrian and Russian rule, while the principality (and Serbia) remained under Ottoman suzerainty. Serbia was going through a cri- sis because of the feud of the two dynasties, and as a result of this, Obrenovich returned to power in 1858. He resumed the idea of cooperation with the other Balkan peoples. Despite his assassination in 1868, his policy was continued. POLISH UPRISING Another Polish insurrection broke out in January 1863. As early as 1860 patriotic demonstrations had cre- ated tension. The independence movement created a National Committee that decided to arm the peasants in preparation for the planned uprising. Russian coun- termeasures hastened the outbreak of the insurrection. It found support in Lithuania, while it proved impos- sible to win the Ukrainian peasants, and the uprising was quickly crushed. Poland was turned into another Russian province. Even more complete was the elimina- tion of everything Polish in historic Lithuania. The Rus- sians decided to stop the national movement among the Lithuanians by forcing them to use the Russian alpha- bet. Thus Lithuanian nationalism developed in Prussia, which did not consider its Lithuanian minority danger- ous. The Poles had no similar opportunities, but instead they found possibilities for cultural progress in Austria. The Habsburg dynasty officially promoted Catholi- cism, which was an advantage for the Poles. In spite of the Polish presence in Galicia, the Ruthenian popula- tion of that province also found conditions favorable to national development. DUAL MONARCHY The reorganization of Austria took place with an 1867 compromise with Hungary and the establishment of basic laws determining the constitution of the Aus- trian part of what was now a dual monarchy. Franz Josef, Emperor of Austria, admitted the difficulties of ruling a multinational state in which non-Germans constituted about three-quarters of the population. After the disastrous war of 1866 against Prussia and Italy, the emperor tried to federalize the Habsburg dynasty. But he was inclined to an intermediary solution, fully satisfactory only to the Magyars. In its historic boundaries, Hungary was recognized as an independent state with its own constitution, parlia- ment, and government, reducing the ties with Austria to the creation of joint ministries for foreign affairs, war, and common financial affairs. Much less satisfactory was the situation of the other nationalities of Hungary. Only the Croats in 1868 received autonomy in an additional compromise. There remained in Croatia an opposition to that settlement. Furthermore, the 1867 compromise did not end pres- sures from other nationalities for equality and inde- pendence. In Hungary, the Yugoslav movement was strengthened by the existence of independent Serbia. The South Slavs were in a situation similar to that of the Romanians in Transylvania and of the Slovaks and 48 Balkan and East European insurrections Ruthenians. Neither group had any autonomous rights or guarantees of free cultural development. A part of the Croats and all the Slovenes, together with the Czechs, the Poles, and the Ukrainians of Gali- cia, and some Romanians, remained under the Austrian part of the monarchy. They were disappointed by the fact that, unlike Hungary, the other areas of the king- dom only received provincial autonomy, with equal rights for all languages in local administration, the courts, and the schools. Even the Poles had to give up claims for a real national self-government. Particularly opposed to the 1867 settlement were the Czechs. Under these conditions, the leadership of the Czech national movement passed from the moderate Old Czechs to the radical Young Czechs. BULGARIAN NATIONALISM During the 1870s another Balkan crisis was approach- ing in connection with the Bulgarian independence movement. When the Turks repressed a revolt in 1876 in Bulgaria, Russia again intervened and made an agreement with Austria and Hungary. The Balkan Pen- insula was divided into autonomous states, and both Austria and Hungary were promised some rewards in Bosnia-Herzegovina. The conflict ended in a complete victory for Russia, allied with all Balkan nations. In the Peace Treaty of San Stefano, signed on March 3, 1878, Romania, Serbia, and Montenegro were declared fully independent, and a large Bulgarian state was created. The borders, however, conflicted with the aspirations of other Balkan peoples. Alarmed at this extension of Rus- sia’s influence, European leaders met to discuss bound- aries at an international congress held in Berlin, where the Peace of San Stefano was completely revised. The disappointment felt by the Bulgarians con- vinced them that Russia was their only protector. Ser- bia and Romania became independent principalities. In Bulgaria, Alexander of Battenberg, the nephew of the Russian czar, was chosen as prince. There was a strong movement for real independence, both in the princi- pality and in the Turkish province of Eastern Rumelia. These incompatible policies led to inevitable clashes in which Alexander proved unpredictable. The union of Eastern Rumelia with Bulgaria was finally achieved in 1885. Battenberg’s replacement by Ferdinand of Saxe- Coburg in 1887 strengthened German and Austro- Hungarian influence in Bulgaria. In the 1878 Berlin Congress, Austria was granted the provisional right to occupy Bosnia-Herzegovina. That acquisition introduced almost 2 million Orthodox and Muslims into the Habsburg realm. This was a blow to Serbia, which had hoped to gain these provinces with their predominantly Serbian population. Nevertheless, after 1878 Serbia pursued a pro-Austrian policy under Obrenovich, who proclaimed himself king of Serbia in 1882. When he declared war on Bulgaria in 1885 after Bulgaria’s occupation of Eastern Rumelia, Serbia was defeated. After securing Thessaly from Turkey in 1881, Greece fought another war against the Ottoman Empire in 1897 that only brought minor remedies regarding the Thessalian frontier. ONGOING NATIONALISTIC CONFLICT It was not until the 1905 revolution that Europe real- ized the importance of nationalism within the Russian Empire. Before that crisis, the dissatisfaction of the non- Russian minorities did not appear be serious. In the czarist empire, the Russian majority seemed immense because the Ukrainians and the White Russians were not official nationalities. However, the larger non-Rus- sian ethnic groups made steady progress in their national consciousness. The Byelorussians, the Ukrainians, and other nationalities formed a belt of foreign elements along Russia’s western frontier. Russia kept even the most developed nationalities under strict control. Even the Poles had to postpone their hopes for liberation, focusing instead on economic and social progress. In the Baltic, the Estonians and the Latvians emerged in opposition to Russification. Landmark events in the rise of Estonian nationalism included the compilation of the national epic (Kalevipoeg, published 1857–61) and a later collection of popular traditions. Similarly, the Latvians created their own epic (Lacple- sis) and started a collection of popular songs. The Lithuanian national renaissance was different because a medieval tradition of independence could be evoked. A new tendency arose that disregarded the tradition of the former Polish-Lithuanian Union and based Lithu- anian nationalism on ethnic and linguistic grounds. Writing in the Lithuanian language was making prog- ress despite restrictions imposed by the Russian gov- ernment. Lithuania’s nationalism, however, carried no clearly expressed political aim. Discouraged by Russia’s imperialism, many Slavs looked with hope to the Habsburg monarchy, where the problem of nationalities was continually discussed in an entirely different spirit from that in the czarist empire. The nationalities of Austria and Hungary were divid- ed into two groups—nations that were living entirely within the monarchy and those with smaller fragments in other nations. As for the latter, an additional distinc- tion should be made between minorities attracted by an Banerji, Surendranath (1848–1925) Indian statesman Banerji, Surendranath 49 independent nation on the other side of the border (as within the Serbs and the Romanians) and those who had no nation of their own at all (as in the case of the Poles and the Ukrainians). The Hungarians, fearful of Slavic influence, were invested in the future of the Dual Monarchy, in which they enjoyed a privileged position. After 1876 the trend toward Magyarization of all non-Magyar nationalities became even stronger. Even Croatia’s autonomy was hardly respected. The controversies between Magyars and Croats were a special danger because they opened the question of Yugoslav authority. Despite old rivalries that separated Catholic Croats and Orthodox Serbs, the movement toward Yugoslav unity made progress. There was unrest among these southern Slavs that was exacerbated by influences from the independent states of Serbia and Montenegro. Any concession to the Yugo- slavs meant a revival of the Czech claims for a restora- tion of their historic statehood. In the Balkans, but not in east-central Europe, the 19th century saw the formation of several independent states. A first period between 1800 and 1830 brought some national liberation during the first Balkan revolu- tions against Ottoman rule. Next came a long period (lasting from 1830–78) of political and social develop- ment, while a third phase saw the inclusion of the Bal- kan peoples into the European power play during the age of imperialism between 1878 and 1903. The development of a national consciousness of all these peoples varied according to the different politi- cal and social conditions prevailing in the respective regions. National consciousness, formerly limited to the upper strata of society, penetrated into the lower classes. Considerable political development occurred under Habsburg rule. As the Ottoman Empire weak- ened in the 19th century, the Balkan nations began to reemerge, though their independence was compro- mised as they became pawns for competing Europe- an powers. Revolutionary risings were frequent under the Ottomans and, as far as the Poles are concerned, in the czarist empire. All these processes had both nationalistic and agrar- ian elements. The former aimed primarily at the organi- zation of national states, while the latter was marked by endeavors to get rid of foreign landlords. The Balkan people, up to the eve of World War I, profited from the Ottoman Empire’s notorious weakness. The non- German Habsburg peoples in the Austrian part of that empire were awarded some degree of cultural autono- my, while in Hungary only the Magyars reached their goal of a practically autonomous state. The Russians faced a massive wave of Russification after the disas- trous failure of several Polish uprisings. The final elim- ination of all political freedom through and after the partitions of Poland between 1772 and 1795 struck a nation with such a long tradition of independence that the divided Polish territories remained throughout the 19th century a permanent center of unrest. Neverthe- less, non-Russian people made considerable progress in cultural, social, and economic matters, thereby prepar- ing the way for their independence after 1918. See also Greek War of Independence; Poland, parti- tions of; Polish revolutions. Further reading: Berend, Tibor Iván. History Derailed: Cen- tral and Eastern Europe in the Long Nineteenth Century. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2005; Glenny, Misha. The Balkans: Nationalism, War, and the Great Pow- ers, 1804–1999. New York: Viking, 2000; Pearson, Ray- mond. National Minorities in Eastern Europe, 1848–1944. New York: Macmillan, 1983; Thaden, Edward C. Russia’s Western Borderlands, 1710–1870. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1984; Weeks, Theodore R. Nation and State in Late Imperial Russia: Nationalism and Russification on the Western Frontier, 1863–1914. DeKalb, IL: Northern Illi- nois University Press, 1996. Surendranath Banerji (also Banerjea, Banerjee) was one of the creators of modern India and a staunch propo- nent of an autonomous Indian nation within the British Commonwealth. He was born in Calcutta to a Brahman family and, after earning his B.A. in English literature in Calcutta, traveled to London in 1869 to take the exami- nation to join the Indian Civil Service. (This examina- tion was not offered in India until 1921.) He achieved a high score but was disqualified over a misunderstand- ing about his age. When this was clarified, he received an appointment for three years, until he was dismissed for a minor rule infraction. Banerji later recalled that these early experiences demonstrated to him the essen- tial injustice of British rule and the powerlessness of the Indian people under it. Banerji returned to India to work as a journalist and educator, and in 1876 founded the Indian Associa- tion, the first nationalist political association in Bengal (an area now divided between northeastern India and Martin Moll 50 Banks of the United States, First and Second Bangladesh). The aim of this association was to encour- age Indians of different religious backgrounds to work together, although it was never entirely successful. The Indian Association did, however, serve as the vehicle for India’s nationalist movement and attracted ambitious members of the Indian middle and upper classes (like Banerji himself) who sought greater political and eco- nomic opportunities. In 1879 Banerji purchased a news- paper, The Bengalee, which he edited for 40 years. This paper served as a mouthpiece for the Indian Nationalist movement and had the highest circulation of any Indian weekly paper of its time. Banerji was an effective political speaker and was twice elected president of the Indian National Con- gress. He advocated moderation and the achievement of reforms through the political process, and he believed the goal of British policy should be for eventual self- government for India. He also argued that India should have a constitution similar to that of Canada and that basic civil rights such as habeas corpus should be ensured. Banerji was knighted in 1921 and accepted the post of minister of local self-government in Bengal. His moderate political views were not always popular with the local populace, and after defeat in 1924 by a more radical Swaraj (independence party) candidate, Banerji retired from public life to write his memoirs, published in 1925 as A Nation in the Making. See also Brahmo and Arya Samaj. Further reading: Argov, Daniel. Moderates and Extremists in the Indian National Movement, 1883–1920: With Special Reference to Surendranath Banerjea and Lajpat Rai. New York: Asia Publishing House, 1967; Bose, S. K. Surendra- nath Banerjea. New Delhi: Publications Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India, 1968; Broomfield, J. H. “The Vote and the Transfer of Power,” Journal of Asian Studies 21, no. 2 (1961–62); Krishna, B. Indian Freedom Struggle: The Pathfinders from Surendra- nath Banerjea to Gandhi. New Delhi: Manohar Publishers & Distributors, 2002. Sarah Boslaugh Banks of the United States, First and Second Between 1791 and 1836, two federally chartered banks, both headquartered in Philadelphia, helped the United States manage its national wealth and regulate eco- nomic activity. Always controversial, each bank in turn faced major political and managerial obstacles. When Andrew Jackson denied the Second Bank a new char- ter, America’s experiment with central banking ended, not to be restored until the 20th century. In 1790 Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamil- ton submitted to Congress what he believed would be a permanent solution to the young nation’s shaky finances. His proposed national bank unleashed deep- rooted anxieties about the use and abuse of money and newer concerns for legitimacy. The recently ratified Constitution gave little guidance on monetary issues. Thomas Jefferson, then secretary of state, was one of many Americans who believed that only specie—gold and silver coins—was honest. Paper notes and financial instruments could be (and were) used to cheat honest people while enriching corrupt businessmen and spec- ulators. Creation of a powerful national bank raised tensions between North and South, farmers and mer- chants, debtors and creditors. Some feared that Europe- an investors would use the bank to undermine national independence. After a secret meeting at which Hamilton agreed to a plan creating a capital district near Virginia, the First Bank of the United States won a 20-year charter from a regionally split Congress. Opening in 1791, it was both a private, profit-making corporation and a gov- ernment agency. Five of the bank’s 25 directors were presidential nominees requiring Senate confirmation. The bank’s public duties included issuing paper money, collecting federal taxes, and paying federal debts, all on behalf of the Treasury. Although President Jefferson never welcomed this powerful institution, he generally worked with it harmoniously. Meanwhile, privately held and state- chartered banks proliferated. Under pressure from local interests, especially after Jefferson’s 1803 Loui- siana Purchase, the bank authorized eight regional branches. In this era of slow travel and communica- tions, this posed a problem of central oversight and led to a scandal for the Second Bank. As the largest U.S. corporation, the bank was a lightning rod for political attacks. When the bank’s charter expired in 1811, it failed by one vote in each house to win renewal. President James Madison’s dis- trust of banking, added to denunciations by competing state banks and the enmity of important businessmen, helped kill the First Bank as the War of 1812 loomed. While British troops attacked Washington and other important sites, the Treasury struggled to finance the war and protect the economy. Many of the nation’s 200 state and regional banks issued paper currency of baroque culture in Latin America 51 dubious value; some banks failed. At war’s end, Madi- son called for a new bank, as did House Speaker Henry Clay, who had helped kill the first one. In 1816 the Sec- ond Bank of the United States won a 20-year charter and soon opened in a new Philadelphia location. Organized on the same public-private lines as the previous bank, the Second Bank had a rocky start. During the panic of 1819, it abruptly curtailed lend- ing, harming its reputation. In the Baltimore branch, a group of officials, including cashier James McCulloch, embezzled more than 1 million dollars. Ironically, McCulloch also figured in a major 1819 victory for the bank. Maryland, at the behest of its state banks, had imposed a tax on the federal bank’s local operations. In its unanimous McCulloch v. Maryland decision, the Supreme Court declared the bank to be a “necessary and proper” use of federal power and forbade state taxation. In 1823 Philadelphian Nicholas Biddle was pro- moted to the bank’s presidency and began reshaping its oversight mission and role in the economy. Gener- ally considered a banking success, although he lacked business training, Biddle would fail politically, as his arrogance and restrictive policies collided with the fiscal exuberance of an era of explosive growth. Andrew Jackson was steeped in Jeffersonian ideals of agrarian republicanism. He opposed public debt, paper money, and federally financed improvements. The president’s intentions toward the bank vacillated. He reappointed Biddle yet called the bank a “hydra of corruption” in his first message to Congress. Jackson’s inner circle, including New York political mastermind Martin Van Buren, had additional reasons for undercut- ting Biddle’s bank. A rivalry for banking predominance pitted New York City and Philadelphia. Elsewhere, Jacksonian entrepreneurs and speculators seethed over Biddle’s efforts to curb credit and restrain inflation. In 1832, a presidential election year, Biddle made a serious political error. He allowed anti-Jackson political leaders, including Henry Clay, to persuade him to force Jackson’s hand by pressing for charter renewal four years early. Congress passed the extension but could not override the president’s July veto, the first signifi- cant veto in U.S. history. In his fiery message, Jackson called the bank an enemy of “the humble members of society—the farmers, mechanics, and laborers.” Easily beating Clay to win a second term, Jack- son was not content to allow the bank to complete its remaining years. By the fall of 1833 Treasury Secre- tary Roger B. Taney (later Supreme Court Chief Jus- tice) had found ways to transfer government deposits from the bank to so-called “pet” banks that supported Jacksonian initiatives. By 1836, when the bank ceased to exist, deposits had been moved to 91 of the nation’s 600 banks. The death of the Second Bank of the United States was not the only cause of the orgy of lending, specula- tion, and bank failure that fed the panic of 1837, but it was an important factor. Financial and political battles over gold or silver, greenbacks or hard currency, roiled the 19th century, fueling populism after the Civil War. Centralized banking did not reemerge until a Federal Reserve banking system was established in 1913 under President Woodrow Wilson. See also financial panics in North America; politi- cal parties in the United States. Further reading: Hammond, Bray. Banks and Politics in America: From the Revolution to the Civil War. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1957; Kaplan, Edward S. The Bank of the United States and the American Economy. West- port, CT: Greenwood Press, 1999. Marsha E. Ackermann baroque culture in Latin America The term baroque—originally a pejorative label mean- ing “absurd” or “grotesque”—is used to designate the artistic style that flourished in Europe and abroad in the 17th and early 18th centuries. The baroque influ- ence reached Latin America in the mid-17th century and continued to make its presence felt long after 1750, the year conventionally given as the end of the baroque movement in Europe. The artistic movement, which originated in Rome in tandem with the Catholic Counter-Reformation, emphasized vigorous movement and emotional intensity. Baroque works were typically characterized by a highly ornamental style and extensive use of decorative detail. Given the movement’s roots in the Counter-Reformation, it comes as little surprise that most (though certainly not all) baroque art served a religious purpose. Life-sized images aimed to capture the emotional states of their subjects (typically biblical figures), so that viewers could connect with the subject on an emotional level. On major holy days, religious statues, often dressed in ornamental garments, were paraded through the streets of Latin American cities. While Latin American culture was clearly influ- enced by European styles and aesthetic ideals, Latin American baroque was by no means a mere duplicate of 52 Beecher family European artistic forms. Baroque music was general- ly more lively and less technically complex in a Latin American context than it was in Europe. European innovations in the visual arts were selectively appropri- ated and transformed to suit a very different context. The result was a hybridization of European, Indian, and African cultural influences. Many baroque churches in Latin America, for example, include detailed carvings and other ornamentation that incorporate elements of indigenous spiritual beliefs and practices. Similarly, paintings and sculptures from the baroque era often portray their subjects clad in the native garments or situated in surroundings suggestive of the local climate and geography. The biblical scenes found in the inte- rior of the San Francisco Church in Santa Fé de Bogotá, Colombia, for example, depict biblical figures in a rich tropical environment. Some of the finest examples of Latin American baroque art and architecture can be seen in the work of Antônio Francisco Lisboa, known more popularly as O Aleijadinho (the “Little Cripple”). This Brazilian sculptor and architect’s masterpieces include baroque churches in São João del Rei and Ouro Preto, as well as the statuary (most famously the Twelve Prophets carved out of soapstone) at the Sanctuary of Bom Jesus do Matozinho in Congonhas do Campo. Aleijadinho’s work, some of which he produced in the early years of the 19th century, serves as a reminder of the inapplica- bility of rigid periodization of artistic styles in the Latin American context. The decades following independence witnessed a backlash against baroque culture among educated elites in Latin America. The movement for political inde- pendence had been inspired in large part by European Enlightenment ideals, and it was to European—and particularly to French neoclassicist—ideals that the Cre- ole elites turned for a cultural model on which to base their newly independent societies. On a more popular level, however, devotional art and pageantry and other expressions of popular culture continued to demon- strate a taste for theatricality and ornamentation char- acteristic of baroque culture well into the 19th century and beyond. In fact, the enduring presence of baroque aesthetic norms can still be observed in Latin American cultural expression. Further reading: Baily, Gauvin Alexander. Art of Colonial Latin America. London: Phaedon Press, 2005; King, John, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Modern Latin American Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004; Tar- ragó, Rafael E. The Pageant of Ibero-American Civilization: An Introduction to Its Cultural History. Lanham, MD: Uni- versity Press of America, 1995; Tenenbaum, Barbara, ed. Encyclopedia of Latin American History and Culture. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1996. Beecher family U.S. ministers and reformers Bestriding the 19th century, members of the large and well-educated New England–based family headed by patriarch Lyman Beecher would play crucial roles in the development of American Protestant theology, women’s education, and the abolition of slavery. Daughter Harriet Beecher Stowe’s antislavery best seller, Uncle Tom’s Cabin, was credited with helping to spark the American Civil War; her elder sister, Catharine, reinvented women’s household work as home economics. Their brother Henry Ward Beech- er was one of America’s most successful preachers before the scandalous 1875 adultery trial that almost destroyed him. Born in 1775 to a long line of Connecticut black- smiths, Lyman Beecher studied at Yale College and was ordained a Congregationalist minister in 1798. At a time when the staunch Puritanism of early New England was giving way to Unitarianism and transcendentalism, Lyman Beecher clung to the harsher beliefs of the First Great Awakening. He would enjoy national fame and weather severe disapproval during ministerial postings in Hartford, Boston, and Cincinnati, where he was preacher, professor, and president of the fledgling Lane Theological Seminary. A stern but loving father, Lyman Beecher was deeply involved in the religious and profes- sional lives of his 11 children by two marriages. He saw all seven of his sons become clergymen before he died in 1863. His eldest child, Catharine, lost her fiancé, a prom- ising mathematician, in a shipwreck and devoted her life thereafter to female education. Beginning in 1823 when she established the Hartford Female Seminary (soon hiring sister Harriet as a teacher), Catharine advocated an expanded academic curriculum for girls and helped make teaching an honored career for women at a time when men still dominated education. Her 1841 Treatise on Domestic Economy was a huge suc- cess, endowing women’s work with scientific rigor. In 1850 she founded Milwaukee Female College, where young women were trained systematically to become Kathleen Ruppert Berlin, Congress of (1878) 53 Harriet Beecher Stowe, her father, Lyman, and her brother Henry Ward. The Beechers were prominent abolitionists and reformers. respected homemakers. Yet she continued, despite her own independent achievements, to proclaim male superiority at a time when other women were begin- ning to agitate for equality. Harriet recalled stories of cruelty she heard as a child and developed a keen understanding of slavery and racism as a wife and mother in Cincinnati, on the border between free Ohio and slave Kentucky. Mov- ing back east in 1850 with her theology professor husband, Calvin Stowe, she became keenly aware of the uproar over the just-enacted Fugitive Slave Law. Inspired by events and encouraged by family mem- bers, Harriet began writing. The first installment of Uncle Tom’s Cabin was published in a tiny periodical on June 5, 1851. When the entire novel appeared the next year, millions of copies were sold. The book was an international moral and literary triumph despite hate letters from Southerners, one possibly containing the severed ear of a slave. Harriet wrote more best sel- lers in a long writing career; none would approach the impact of Uncle Tom. Her younger brother, Henry Ward, first resisted a religious vocation, but having yielded to his father’s dearest wish, became a huge success. After eight years ministering in malarial Indianapolis, where his cau- tious antislavery sermons sometimes put him in harm’s way, Henry was invited to lead a new Congregational church in Brooklyn, New York. This “bully” pulpit was well paid, prestigious, and a place where the elo- quent Henry could gain national attention. Unlike Lyman, Henry was no Calvinist. God’s love, not God’s implacable wrath, infused his sermons. Soon, Henry was a celebrity, drawing huge Sunday crowds. He counseled temperance, denounced America’s Mexican War, and took up collections to free slaves, although he long resisted abolitionism and remained patronizing toward African Americans’ potential for full citizenship. After the Civil War, he supported women’s suffrage, despite opposition from his wife and his sister Catharine. Preacher, writer, novelist, and journalist, Henry almost lost it all when Theodore Tilton, one of his closest associates, accused the minister of an adulter- ous affair with his wife, Elizabeth. It was almost cer- tainly true and may not have been Henry’s only affair. He denied it steadfastly; Mrs. Tilton kept changing her story. The trial lasted almost six months, ending with the jury voting nine to three to acquit. Tarnished, Henry resumed his career on the national lecture cir- cuit, raking in high appearance fees. In later years, he condemned labor unions but stood up for Native Americans and Jewish immigrants. The offspring of Lyman Beecher, through both achievements and mistakes, played a major role in transforming their America. Leading the way to more socially conscious religious practices, they also helped destroy slavery and elevated women’s roles, foreshad- owing greater changes to come. Further reading: Rugoff, Milton. The Beechers: An Ameri- can Family in the Nineteenth Century. New York: Harper & Row, 1981; White, Barbara A. The Beecher Sisters. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003. Marsha E. Ackermann Berlin, Congress of (1878) The Congress of Berlin in July 1878 was held in response to nationalistic revolts against Ottoman Turks in the Balkans between 1875 and 1877. In 1875 the peasants of Bosnia had rebelled against their Turkish landlords, bringing fellow Slavic states such as Serbia and Mon- tenegro to their aid. Although the Turks defeated the Serbians and Montenegrins, the Balkan conflagration spread to Bulgaria, where the population rose in revolt against Turkish rule. The atrocities perpetuated against Bulgarian insurgents—real, imagined, and exaggerat- ed—had an impact on public opinion in Europe. 54 Bismarck, Otto von In the wake of these revolts, Pan-Slavic sentiment supported Russian intervention to come to the rescue of their Orthodox coreligionists and Slavic brothers. They went to war in the summer of 1877 and, early in 1878 after vigorous Turkish resistance, forces were approaching Constantinople, the Ottoman capital. The Turks then signed the Treaty of San Stefano. Under those terms Serbia and Romania became officially inde- pendent (they had long enjoyed de facto sovereignty), and Montenegro had its independence confirmed. It was the fear of other powerful nations, espe- cially Austria and Great Britain, that led to the assem- bly of the congress. The Treaty of San Stefano had, in fact, been made because these powers had threatened to intervene. Austria had moved troops to the border of Romania, where it could strike at the flank of Rus- sian troops if necessary, and the British fleet entered the straits adjacent to Constantinople so as to bom- bard Constantinople if Russia attempted to take it. This concern was related to the Eastern Question, which dealt with control of the Strait, including access to the Dardenelles (which controlled the route between the Black Sea), the Mediterranean, and the Bosphorus (the link between Asia and Europe). The decline of Turkey, the ruler of the Straits, had aroused fear and uncertainty regarding the future of these important passageways. When the British noted that Russia’s entrance into Constantinople would be cause for war, the Treaty of San Stefano was signed. Without regard for the anxiety of other European powers, Russia dictated the treaty to create a huge Bulgaria that not only included Bulgaria proper but most of Macedonia from the Aegean to the Serbian bor- der. Other Turkish areas were taken (with the excep- tion of Albania), and Russia annexed territories that it had conquered in the Caucasus. Austria and Italy were opposed to the treaty, and Britain feared that Rus- sian dominance of the Straits would endanger British dominance in the Mediterranean and the route to India. Other Balkan states such as Greece and Serbia opposed the creation of a large Bulgaria, and Romania resented the loss of all of Bessarabia to Russia and part of its southern province of Dobruja to Bulgaria. German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck realized his carefully constructed system of alliances would be torn asunder, so he invited Russia, Great Britain, and Austria to a German-hosted conference held in Berlin. The results of this Congress of Berlin (also attended by France and Italy) were much less favorable to Russia, which had to give back some of the territory it had won in the Caucasus. In effect, Bismarck supported Austria over fellow Russian member in the Three Emperors’ League of Austria, Germany, and Russia. The Bulgaria of San Stefano was split into three parts. Eastern Rume- lia, the southeastern section, received a Christian gov- ernor but remained under the military and police con- trol of the Turks (in 1885 it was annexed to Bulgaria). The north was made a virtually independent monar- chy under a king (and in 1908 its independence was declared), and the rest, including Macedonia, was given back to the Turks. Other changes took place. Greece received Thes- saly to the north; Great Britain received Cyprus as a protectorate; and Austria received the provinces of Bosnia and Herzegovina as protectorates. The result of the Congress of Berlin was ultimately negative. Although Benjamin Disraeli, British prime minister, informed the Turks that they had been given breathing space, he also cynically observed that he doubted that they would take it. He was correct in that assumption. Russia became estranged from Germany’s ally, Austria, and closer to France, Germany’s greater enemy. Aus- tria’s acquisition of Bosnia and Herzegovina infuriated the Serbs who began a campaign for the territory that ultimately led to World War I when the heir to the Aus- trian throne was assassinated in Sarajevo, the capital of Bosnia. See also Balkan and East European Insurrections; British East India Company. Further reading: Anderson, Matthew. The Eastern Question, 1774–1923. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1966; Jelavich, Barbara. History of the Balkans. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983; ———. Russia’s Balkan Entangle- ment, 1806–1914. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991; Meeker, Michael. A Nation of Empire: The Ottoman Legacy of Turkish Modernity. Berkeley: University of Cali- fornia Press, 2002; Sontag, R. J. European Diplomatic His- tory 1871–1932. New York: Century, 1933. Bismarck, Otto von (1815–1898) German statesman Otto von Bismarck was born on April 1, 1815, at his family’s estate of Schoenhausen in Prussia. The same year, Prussia became again the most important country in Ger- many when its army under Field Marshal von Blücher would help the British duke of Wellington defeat Napo- leon I at Waterloo, on June 18, 1815. Bismarck came Norman C. Rothman from the hereditary warrior caste of the Junkers, Prus- sian nobles who had centuries before formed the cutting edge of the campaigns of the Teutonic knights in their wars in eastern Europe. At first, Bismarck did not follow the traditional Prussian Junker calling into the military, but took up legal studies in Hanover, Göttingen, and Ber- lin. Bismarck showed a disinclination toward the practice of law; his interest centered on a career in diplomacy. When the wave of revolutions swept throughout Europe in 1848, Bismarck was a conservative and relieved to see the revolutions largely fail. In France, the revolution did succeed, and Napoleon III, the nephew of Prussia’s old nemesis Napoleon, was elected to power. Nevertheless, Bismarck was not a doctrinaire conservative but more of a political pragmatist ready to adopt ideas from political liberalism that would benefit Prussia. Throughout his career, Bismarck was charac- terized by this political adaptability, which helped to make him the master statesman of his day. Bismarck became a rising star in the Prussian diplomatic service, which had been the fast track to success in the kingdom since the time of Frederick the Great, who by his death in 1786 had made the comparatively small monarchy one of the great pow- ers in Europe. He was sent to represent Prussia in France in 1862 and in czarist Russia in 1859, two of the three countries that could either help—or inhibit— Prussian foreign interests. The Austrian Empire, as heir to the old Holy Roman Empire that Napoleon had destroyed in 1806, would prove to be the most important diplo- matic threat to Prussian ambitions. While the Holy Roman Empire might be no more, the German Con- federation existed in its place, and Prussia chafed at being subordinate to Austria. In 1851 King Frederick William (Friedrich Wilhelm) IV, in recognition of Bis- marck’s loyalty during the 1848 uprising, appointed him to the Diet, or assembly, of the Confederation as Prussia’s representative. In one way or the other, von Bismarck would remain at the center of German affairs for the next four decades. At this time, Britain, ruled by Queen Victoria, treated developments in Europe, so long as one power did not become too powerful, as a second-class interest against those of Britain’s developing empire overseas. Bismarck made clear from the start that he had lit- tle liking for letting Austria take the lead in German affairs and believed that Prussia should lead instead. After serving as Prussia’s minister to France and Russia and as Prussia’s representative to the German Federal Diet in Frankfurt, he was rewarded with the positions Germany’s most notable diplomat, Otto von Bismarck, oversaw the unification of Germany under Kaiser Wilhelm I. of Prussian foreign minister and prime minister in 1862. Well-schooled in diplomacy among the Great Powers, he would find politics within Prussia to be an entirely different game than the diplomatic game of nations. The kings and Bismarck came grudgingly to live with the political liberals and to realize that some accommo- dation with liberalism was needed if the country was to be governed at all. Bismarck saw the army as the key to Prussia’s future. On February 1, 1864, a combined Prussian-Austrian army swept over the German frontier to invade Schleswig-Hol- stein and the Danish garrison occupying it. In August 1865 the Convention of Gastein apportioned Holstein to Austria and Schleswig to Prussia. Although the situ- ation seemed resolved, Bismarck secretly hoped for a casus belli, a cause of war, with the Austrians. Mutual attacks in the parliament of the German Confederation between the Prussian and Austrian representatives were finally followed by a Prussian invasion of Austrian-held Holstein. Open hostilities soon broke out between Prus- sia and Austria. On July 3, 1866, Prussian command- er Helmuth von Moltke launched his attack on the Bismarck, Otto von 55 56 Bolívar, Simón ?Austrians?and?their?Hungarian?allies.?In?the?Six?Weeks’? War,?the?Prussians?and?their?German?allies?defeated?the? Austrians? and? Hungarians.? Peace? between? Prussia? and? Austria?came?in?the?Treaty?of?Prague?in?August?1866. To? Bismarck,? the? defeat? of? Austria? was? only? a? means?to?remove?Austria?from?the?German?equation— to?leave?Germany’s?destiny?in?Prussian?hands.?Accord- ingly,?out?of?the?war?came?the?North?German?Con- federation,? which? Bismarck? saw? as? a? stepping? stone? to? complete? Prussian? domination? of? the? Germanic? states.?Bavaria,?a?southern?contender?for?prominence,? had?also?been?humbled—but?not?crushed—during?the? Austrian?war.?With?Franz Josef?of?Austria-Hungary? removed?from?the?equation,?there?was?only?one?play- er? on? the? European? scene? with? plans? for? Germany:? Emperor?Napoleon?III?of?France.? Although? popularly? elected? in? the? wake? of? the? French Revolution? of? 1848,? in? 1852,? Louis-? Napoleon? Bonaparte? had? seized? power? in? a? military? coup,?much?as?his?uncle?had?done?in?November?1799.? Napoleon? began? to? see? himself? also? as? the? arbiter? of? German?affairs,?which?was?something?Bismarck?could? not? abide.? At? first,? Napoleon? desired? only? territorial? compensation?from?Bismarck?in?return?for?his?neutral- ity? in? the? Six? Weeks’? War.? However,? when? Napoleon? decided? he? wanted? Luxembourg,? Bismarck? was? able? to? marshall? German? opposition? to? French? desires? on? German?land.? The? flash? point,? however,? came? in? Spain.? There? was?a?succession?crisis?when?Queen?Isabella?II?of?Spain? was? deposed? in? 1868.? Spain? looked? for? a? candidate? for?the?throne?and?decided?on?a?member?of?the?House? of? Hohenzollern—the? reigning? house? of? King? Wil- helm?I?of?Prussia.?Napoleon?feared?encirclement,?and? tension? rose? in? both? France? and? Prussia.? The? Hohen- zollern? candidacy? was? withdrawn,? but? Napoleon? III? foolishly? kept? up? the? diplomatic? pressure? to? make? it? appear?as?a?clear-cut?French?triumph.?Rather?than?suf- fer? a? strategic? blow,? Bismarck? doctored? the? infamous? Ems? Telegram? to? King? Wilhelm? I? to? make? it? appear? that?the?French?had?deliberately?tried?to?humiliate?the? Prussian?monarch. The? end? result? was? predictable.? French? pride? rose? up,?and?Napoleon?answered?with?hostility.?On?July?19? France?declared?war?on?Prussia.?By?August?1870??France? and? Prussia,? backed? by? the? North? German? Confedera- tion,? began? hostilities.? From? the? beginning,? the? odds? were?in?the?favor?of?the?Prussians?and?their?allies:?In?the? face?of?their?400,000?troops,?Napoleon?III?only?was?able? to? muster? about? half? of? that? number.? On? September? 2,? 1870,?Napoleon?surrendered?to?the?Germans.?With?peace? of? a? sort? in? place? with? France,? Bismarck? had? achieved? his?goal.?Germany?was?united?under?the?new?emperor,? or?kaiser,?Wilhelm?I.?Bismarck?had?no?more?territorial? aspirations.? Instead,? he? devoted? his? career? so? that? the? new? imperial? Germany? could? progress? in? peace.? With? France? militarily? neutralized? (at? least? for? a? time),? Bis- marck? devoted? his? attention? to? the? Austrian? Empire,? the? Dual? Monarchy,? and? czarist? Russia.? Bismarck’s? goal? was? essentially? to? re-create? the? balance? of? power? that?had?been?put?in?place?by?the?Congress?of?Vienna,? which?had?brought?40?years?of?peace?until?Britain?and? France?had?confronted?Russia?in?the?Crimean War?of? 1854–56.? The? peace? he? sought? for? imperial? Germany? would? also? benefit? the? rest? of? Europe? and? became? his? lasting?contribution?to?history.? Bismarck,? the? minister-president? (prime? minister)? of? Prussia? and? the? Iron? Chancellor? of? the? German? Empire,?died?on?July?30,?1898.?He?did?not?live?to?see? the?adventurist?policies?of?Wilhelm?II?contribute?to?the? coming? of? World? War? I? in? August? 1914? and? the? ulti- mate? destruction? of? the? German? Empire? that? he? had? worked?so?passionately?to?create?and?to?preserve. See?also?Berlin, Congress of (1878). Further reading: Howard,? Michael.? Franco-Prussian War: The German Invasion of France 1870–1871.? London:? Routledge,? 2001;? Laffin,? John.? Jackboot: A History of the German Soldier, 1713–1945.?New?York:?Barnes?and?Noble,? 1995;?Pflanze,?Otto.?Bismarck and the Development of Ger- many.?Princeton,?NJ:?Princeton?University?Press,?1971;?Tay- lor,? J.? P.? The Struggle for Mastery in Europe: 1848–1918.? New?York:?Oxford?University?Press,?1980;?Williamson,?D.? G.?Bismarck and Germany 1862–1890.?London:?Longman,? 1998. John F. Murphy, Jr. Bolívar, Simón (1783–1830)?liberator of South America Revered? throughout? Spanish-speaking? Latin? America? as?the?“Liberator,”?whose?single-minded?determination? forced? Spain? to? grant? independence? to? South? Ameri- ca’s? nascent? nation-states? in? the? 1820s,? Simón? Bolívar? occupies? a? singular? position? as? perhaps? Latin? Ameri- ca’s? greatest? patriot? and? hero.? Statues? and? busts? of? Bolívar? grace? public? plazas? across? the? continent,? while? his? contemporary? relevance? remains? readily? appar- ent,? as? in? Venezuela’s? Bolivarian? revolution,? brain- child? of? President? Hugo? Chávez,? elected? in? 1998.? This? popular reverence contrasts sharply with the contem- poraneous opinion of Bolívar in the years before his death, when many Latin American elites reviled him as an autocrat and dictator. His political trajectory is the subject of an expansive literature, as his politi- cal philosophy evolved from a broad republicanism and democratic idealism in the early 1800s to an anti- democratic autocracy and repudiation of republican ideals by the late 1820s. Weeks before his death from tuberculosis, Bolívar himself expressed his disillusion- ment and lamented his failure to achieve his vision of a politically unified nation-state embracing all of South America, when he famously proclaimed: “America is ungovernable . . . he who serves a revolution ploughs the sea.” His lament proved prescient, foreshadowing the endemic civil wars that wracked much of the first century of Latin American independence. Born on July 24, 1783, in Caracas, capital of the Provinces of Venezuela of the Viceroyalty of Gran Colombia, Simón Bolívar was the son of Juan Vicente Bolívar and María de la Concepción Palacios y Blanco, one of the most distinguished Creole (American-born Spanish) families in the city of 20,000 inhabitants. His education was eclectic and unconventional, influenced by emergent Enlightenment ideals of republicanism, popular sovereignty, and democracy, and by romantic notions regarding nature and the arts. As a youth, he traveled widely in Europe and North America, con- tinuing his studies in Madrid, southern France, and elsewhere. He married in May 1802 in Madrid and eight months later his wife died, a catastrophic per- sonal event that he later claimed changed the trajec- toryofhislife.“IfIhadnotbeenleftawidower...I should not be General Bolívar, nor the Liberator,” he later observed. Returning to Europe, in December 1804 he attend- ed the coronation of Napoleon I in Paris, an event that left an enduring impression. He was particu- larly struck by the popular adoration for the French emperor, which he envisioned for himself for liberat- ing South America from Spanish rule. In August 1805 on the Monte Sacro on the outskirts of Rome, he sol- emnly vowed that he would “not rest in body or soul till I have broken the chains that bind us to the will of Spain.” He would spend the next two decades strug- gling to fulfill that vow. Bolívar’s military campaigns against the Spanish armies, culminating in Latin American independence, comprise the subject of a vast literature. The evolution of his political philosophy can be seen in three key doc- uments. The first, the Jamaica Letter of September 6, A statue of Simón Bolívar, considered the George Washington of South America, stands in Caracas, Venezuela. 1815, offered a critical appraisal of the status of the Latin American revolutionary movements and a series of predictions regarding Latin America’s future. The political views inspiring Bolívar’s Jamaica Letter can be characterized as broadly nationalist and republican. The second document, a major speech before the Congress of Angostura in 1819, evinced far greater emphasis on the need for political unity and a strong central execu- tive. The third document, the Bolivian Constitution of 1825, represents the acme of Bolívar’s political shift toward a belief in a unitary executive and strong central state and his fears of civil war and political anarchy. Many of his prognostications on Latin America’s future proved accurate, most notably the monumental difficulties of governing territories with no tradition of democracy and shot through with deep divisions of race and class. Indeed, throughout his career as the Liberator, Bolívar sought to achieve a political revolution, inde- pendence from Spain, without sparking a social revolu- tion from below. Remarkably, he largely succeeded. The process by which popular memories of Bolívar trans- formed so dramatically after his death, from a despised autocrat to a popular hero and Liberator, represents yet Bolívar, Simón 57 58 Bourbon restoration another puzzle in the history of this revered Latin Amer- ican patriot. Further reading: Johnson, John J. Simón Bolívar and Span- ish American Independence, 1783–1830. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand Co., 1968; Salcedo-Bastardo, J. L. Bolívar: A Con- tinent and Its Destiny. Translated by A. McDermott. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press, 1977. Michael J. Schroeder Bourbon restoration During the French Revolution, the French monarchy was officially abolished on September 21, 1792, by the revolutionary National Convention. With the radical Jacobin party of Maximilien Robespierre, Camille Des- moulins, and Georges Danton in control of the Conven- tion, King Louis XVI was condemned to death and sent to the guillotine on January 21, 1793. His son, whom French monarchists considered Louis XVII, died in June 1795 in prison, either the victim of neglect or beatings by his jailors. Although the monarchy in France was officially abolished, the Bourbon dynasty continued in exile with others who had fled the increasingly radical- ized revolutionaries. Due to the death of Louis XVII, the older brother of Louis XVI, the comte de Provence, assumed the title of King Louis XVIII. During the early years of the Revolution, the comte de Provence participated in the National Assembly, as did the other royal princes, the princes of the blood. Sensing the growing radicalization of the revolutionar- ies, however, he fled France in June 1791, at the time that Louis XVI and his wife, Marie Antoinette, attempt- ed to escape, only to be captured by the revolutionaries. Luckily, the comte de Provence had taken a different route and went to Coblenz. He was undoubtedly one of the émigrés with whom Louis XVI intrigued during the Revolution to help him regain his throne. It was the dis- covery of Louis XVI’s secret correspondence, deemed proof of treason by the radical Jacobins, that was a major reason for his execution. Throughout the years of the Revolution, the comte de Provence pursued his own interests, with little inter- est in Louis XVI’s safety. The Revolution and the period of the Napoleonic Wars were unkind to Louis XVIII, when he was compelled to rely on the hospitality of other rulers. At the same time, his brother, the comte d’Artois, pursued a conflicting plan from his refuge in London, thus making the Bourbon dynasty a two-headed beast. The comte de Provence remained in Great Britain until Napoleon I’s defeat and abdication on April 11, 1814. Due to the astute negotiations of a diplomat who had switched allegiances to the Bourbons, the victori- ous allies accepted Louis XVIII as king of France. On May 2, 1814, he entered Paris in triumph. Although he greeted the French people with great promises, Louis XVIII alienated the French army. When Napoleon escaped from exile on February 26, 1815, and landed in France, Louis XVIII knew that the army would never support him against Napoleon. So he fled to the Austrian Netherlands, and Napoleon trium- phantly entered Paris on March 20, 1815. However, the European crowns were determined to keep Napoleon from ruling France again. On June 18, 1815, near the town of Waterloo in the Austrian Netherlands, Napo- leon was decisively defeated by the British and Prussian armies. Forced to abdicate a second time, Napoleon was this time sent away to Saint Helena, far out in the Atlantic, where he died in May 1821. The nature of Louis XVIII’s rule indicates that he supported absolut- ism. In 1815 he signed the Holy Alliance with Prussia, Austria, and Russia, with the intention of quelling any resurgence of the political liberalism that was the stron- gest legacy of the French Revolution. The Holy Alliance was expanded to the Quintuple Alliance in 1822, with the addition of England. These European monarchies represented a conservative ideology backed by military might. On September 16, 1824, Louis XVIII died, and the crown passed to his brother, the comte d’Artois, who assumed the throne as King Charles X. Charles X was a very different king than his brother had been. He wanted to see a reactionary reconstruction of France. In March 1830 the liberal Chamber of Deputies, the lower house of the French Assembly, passed a vote of no confidence on the actions of Charles X’s chief minister, Polignac. In response, Charles X dissolved the Chamber and called for new elections. But when the new Chamber deputies were sworn in, they held the same opposition as the one Charles had dissolved. Abandoning any pretext of supporting the parliamentary system, on July 26, 1830, Charles X issued four drastic decrees. Known as the July Ordinances, they dissolved the new Chamber, imposed strict censorship of the press, limited voting rights to certain favorable groups and businessmen, and called for a new election. The effect of the July Ordinances was cataclysmic. The very next day, revolutionary disturbances broke out in Paris. From July 27 to July 29, the revolution- aries raised barricades in Paris and battled the police Brahmo and Arya Samaj 59 and the soldiers. Most soldiers refused to fire on the crowd. Charles X, having no desire to go to the guil- lotine, quickly abdicated and sought refuge, for the second time in his life, in England. The marquis de Lafayette, who had played impor- tant roles in both the American Revolution and the French Revolution, found a solution to the political cri- sis. Using his still immense popularity, he offered the French people to replace Charles X with Louis-Philippe, the duc d’Orléans, who had fought with the armies of the French Revolution. With the promise that the duc d’Orléans would respect the charter of 1814, the Chamber of Deputies offered him the crown on August 7, 1830. Louis-Philippe would now rule France as the “citizen king.” See also Latin America, Bourbon reforms in. Further reading: Brinton, Crane. The Anatomy of Revolu- tion. New York: Vintage, 1965; Cobban, Alfred. A Histo- ry of Modern France: Vol. 1, Old Regime and Revolution 1715–1799. New York: Penguin, 1991; Cronin, Vincent. Napoleon Bonaparte: An Intimate Biography. New York: William Morrow, 1972; Lefebvre, Georges. The French Rev- olution. New York: Columbia University Press, 1962; ——— , and Henry F. Stockhold. Napoleon. New York: Columbia University Press, 1990; Palmer, R. R. Twelve Who Ruled. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1970; ———, and Joel L. Colton. A History of the Modern World. New York: Knopf, 1971. John F. Murphy, Jr. Brahmo and Arya Samaj The Brahmo Samaj and Arya Samaj were two impor- tant institutions that developed in 19th-century India against existing social practices. The impact of the West resulted in a social and cultural renaissance in India. To regenerate society, it was felt that modern sciences and ideas of reason were essential. Ram Mohan Roy, occupying a pivotal position in the awakening, was the founder of Brahmo Sabha in 1828, which was known as Brahmo Samaj afterward. Roy was an enlightened thinker and well versed in Sanskrit, English, and Arabic. An accomplished Vedic scholar, he was also a great admirer of Jesus Christ. Roy wanted to bring reform to Hindu society, which had become stagnant. Evils like the sati (suttee) system of self-emolation of widows, child marriage, polyga- my, and other social ills had crept in. The goal of the Brahmo Samaj was to rid Hindu society of evils and to practice monotheism. Incorporating the best teach- ings of other religions, it aimed at a society based on reason and the Vedas. A golden age in Vedic society had begun. Rajnarain Bose, Debendranath Tagore, and Keshab Chandra Sen enriched the Samaj through inculcation of novel ideas that aimed at reforming Hindu religion and society. Bose used the Hindu scrip- tures like the Vedas, Upanishads, and the Bhagavad Gita as the holy books of the Hindus. Debendranath Tagore, the father of Rabindranath Tagore, revived the Brahmo Samaj, which had become dormant after Roy’s death in 1843. He established the branches of the Samaj and spoke out against idol wor- ship, pilgrimages, and rituals of Hindu society. Mem- bership of the Samaj continued to rise; from six in 1829 to 2,000 after 1835. Starting in Bengal, it spread to different parts of India. But a schism developed, as Debendranath and the older generation did not like the radical ideas of Sen, who formed the Brahmo Samaj of India in 1866. The older organization was called the Adi (original) Brahmo Samaj. EMANCIPATION OF HINDU WOMEN The crusade of the Brahmo Samaj resulted in the eman- cipation of Hindu women within the fold of the Samaj. The British government passed the Civil Marriage Act in 1872, prohibiting child marriage and polygamy, as well as the abolition of caste distinctions. When Sen violated this act at the time of his daughter’s marriage, there was another split in the Brahmo Samaj of India in 1878 with the formation of Sadharana (Common) Brahmo Samaj by Ananda Mohan Bose and others. The Brahmo Samaj had done laudable work in the field of education. The urban elite of West and South India came under its spell. It remained a sort of guid- ing spirit for reformed Hindu society. At the time of World War I, it had 232 branches in major cities of South and Southeast Asia. Apart from the Nobel Lau- reate Rabindranath Tagore, the Congress presidents and nationalist leaders like Surendranath Banerji and Bipin Chandra Pal were members in the 19th cen- tury. Swami Dayananda Saraswati founded the Arya Samaj in the colonial city of Bombay in 1875, but its growth came in the Punjab after the establishment of Lahore Arya Samaj three years later. It grew rapidly in different parts of India, with provincial braches in Uttar Pradesh (1886), Rajasthan (1888), Bengal (1889), and Madhya Pradesh (1889). It also spread to the British Empire outside of India, especially in South 60 Brazil, independence to republic in Africa, Fiji, and Mauritius, where people of Indian descent lived. REMOVAL OF UNTOUCHABILITY Dayananda Saraswati was against idolatry, polythe- ism, ritual, the caste system, the dominance of the Brahmans, and the dogmatic practices of Hinduism. He launched a crusade for social equality, removal of untouchability, and in favor of female education and adult, widow, and intercaste marriages. He toured India, spreading his message. He promoted Vedic learn- ing and its sacredness with his slogan, “Go back to the Vedas.” His platform, however, was not to be miscon- strued as encouraging going back to the Vedic times; he showed rationality in his approach toward reforms in Hinduism. The Vedas were to be interpreted by human reason. He also rejected all forms of superstition. He was influenced by the intellectual traditions of reason and science of the West. He translated the Vedas and wrote three impor- tant books, Satyartha Prakas, Veda-Bhashya Bhumi- ka, and Veda-Bhashya. Of the Ten Principles of the Arya Samaj, the following were paramount: infallibil- ity of the Vedas, the importance of truth, the welfare of others, the promotion of spiritual well-being, and contributing one-hundredth of one’s income to the Samaj. Unlike orthodox Hinduism, the Arya Samaj wel- comed the Hindu who had embraced other religions either of his or her own will or because of force. The suddhi (reconversion by ritual purification) generated a lot of controversy in the 20th century. Some historians believed that the religious program of the Samaj was one of the factors responsible for the growth of com- munalism. Beginning in the 1890s it was also involved in the cow protection movement, leading to widespread communal violence. After Saraswati’s death, the Arya Samaj became aggressive. It preached supremacy of Arya dharma (religion) and contributed to a pan-Hindu revivalist movement. One of the objectives of the Arya Samaj was the spread of education, and it did pioneering work by establishing schools and colleges throughout the coun- try. The Dayanand Anglo-Vedic School opened in Lahore in 1886 and was converted to a college three years later. The educational campaign of the Samaj cre- ated a schism in its rank. The orthodox faction held the teachings of Dayananda as the creed of the Samaj, whereas the liberal group saw him primarily as a reform- er. After a split in 1893, the orthodox group controlled the major branches of the Samaj, including the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha. This group emphasized reconverting the Hindus through the suddhi. Reviving the Vedic ide- als, they established Gurukul Kangri at Haradwar in 1902. The liberal wing concentrated on relief work and Dayanand Anglo-Vedic Schools promoted modern cur- ricula in addition to Indian values. The Arya Samaj remained in the forefront of politi- cal agitation against British colonial rule, and Lala Rajpat Rai of the Arya Samaj was an important leader of the extremist faction of the Indian National Con- gress. See also Aligarh college and movement. Further reading: Bandyopadhyay, Sekhar. From Plassey to Partition. New Delhi: Orient Longman, 2004; Carpenter, Mary. Last Days of Raja Rammohun Roy. Calcutta: Ram- mohun Library, 1997; Kopf, David. Brahmo Samaj and the Shaping of the Modern Indian Mind. Princeton, NJ: Prince- ton University Press, 1992; Jones, Kenneth W. Arya Dharma: Hindu Consciousness in Nineteenth Century Punjab. New Delhi: Manohar, 1976; Pruthi, R. K., ed., Arya Samaj and Indian Civilization. New Delhi: Discovery, 2004; Yadav, K. C. Arya Samaj and the Freedom Movement 1875–1947. New Delhi: Manohar, 1988. Patit Paban Mishra Brazil, independence to republic in Unlike many Spanish-American countries that fought for independence and founded republics thereafter, the Portuguese colony of Brazil gained its independence vir- tually without bloodshed and remained under the same royal family that had once ruled the territory from afar. Hence Brazilian independence entailed a large degree of continuity. The abolition of the monarchy later in the 19th century represented Brazil’s break with its Euro- pean past, though the economic and cultural evolutions of the first few decades of independence prepared the way for political change by profoundly altering Brazil- ian attitudes and society. Napoleon I’s armies disrupted both Iberian mon- archies; the Portuguese prince, unlike his Spanish counterpart, decided to take advantage of his country’s overseas holdings and moved the royal family to Bra- zil in 1807. At Rio de Janeiro, the new capital of the Portuguese empire from 1808, João became king in his own right in 1814, following the death of the men- tally unstable queen for whom he had served as regent. When he became king, João proclaimed Brazil a king- Brazil, independence to republic in 61 dom, equal in status to Portugal. This new standing permitted freer trade and led to the creation of various institutions in Rio de Janeiro, including a naval acade- my, a medical school, and Brazil’s first newspaper. Fur- ther, the new king established a full royal court in Rio, complete with 15,000 courtiers, bureaucrats, and aris- tocratic families who had also accepted exile from Por- tugal. The Portuguese elites came to Brazil with strong senses of entitlement and an appreciation for French culture, neither of which had been damaged by the Napoleonic conquest of their country. Brazil enjoyed a comparatively smooth transformation from exploited colony to sovereign country with its own monarch in residence. Not all Brazilians appreciated the Portuguese monarchy’s presence in Rio. Even though João him- self became quite popular, his courtiers did not. In the years prior to João’s 1821 return to Portugal, Brazilians began to manifest a growing nationalism that triggered revolts, including that of 1817 in Recife. French prac- tices and aesthetics permeated Brazilian elite culture, but otherwise growing numbers of Brazilians became convinced that they could do without the ongoing pres- ence of Europeans in their country. After returning to Europe to defend his throne from Portuguese republicans, João left his son Pedro in Bra- zil to act as prince regent. Pedro followed his father’s advice and soon came to identify more with Brazil than with Portugal. He refused the demand of the Portuguese Cortes that he return and acquiesce to Brazil’s demotion back to the status of colony. Pedro’s wife, Leopoldina, along with a group of Brazilian Creoles including José Bonifacio de Andrada e Silva, encouraged their prince to lead an independence movement. Pedro pronounced his famous Grito de Ipiranga on September 7, 1822, as he rode along the Ipiranga River. He removed the Portuguese colors from his uni- form and avowed, “The hour is now! Independence or death!” Despite some opposition from army garri- sons and a weak attack from a Portuguese fleet, Bra- zil achieved its independence by 1824 with almost no blood being shed. The first constitutional assembly of 1823 attempted to create a constitutional monarchy, with Pedro as mere- ly a figurehead. However, Pedro dissolved that assem- bly and summoned a smaller group that wrote a far more conservative constitution that satisfied his tastes. Republicans in Pernambuco expressed their opposition to the arrangement; resentment of Pedro’s Portuguese advisers and his arrogance displeased many Brazilians who otherwise accepted having an emperor. The monarchy survived the early years of uncertain- ty. Brazil experienced a period of relative stability, if not unity, following independence. The country established close commercial and financial relations with Britain, though the advantage was entirely on the side of the European power. Brazil accrued an enormous trade def- icit with Britain that translated into monetary problems at home. The polarization between conservatives and liberals typical of South America also became charac- teristic of Brazilian politics, though alignments differed somewhat: Conservatives represented the urban-based civil service and merchants, whereas liberals associated themselves with wealthy landowners of the north and south. The liberal landowners gained control of the general assembly but encountered resistance to their modernizing agenda from the rather autocratic Pedro. INFLATION AND COLLAPSE The emperor’s power declined after the failed war against Argentina for control over Banda Oriental, which had been annexed to Brazil in 1820 as Cisplatine Province but would soon become known as Uruguay. The Brazilian government responded to the financial crisis brought about by the external trade deficit and the war by printing paper currency unsupported by gold reserves. The ensuing inflation and collapse in the value of Brazilian money angered urban salary earn- ers and merchants, who joined forces with the liberals to oppose the policies of Pedro I’s government. The emperor mobilized military forces to suppress protes- tors, but he concluded that it was best to depart the scene. He abdicated in favor of his five-year-old son, the future Pedro II. During the regency, liberals passed an assortment of constitutional reforms that reigned in the executive and weakened the central government relative to the states. Federalism released energies previously kept in check by the central government, however, and revolts spread through the north/Amazonia region and the southern cattle ranching areas after 1835. In response, the assem- bly reversed decentralization; liberals cooperated with conservatives, at least temporarily, to defend Brazilian unity against such centripetal forces. Pedro II came to the throne early, at age 15, and provided a focus of loyalty for the Brazilian people. The monarchy continued to provide Brazil with politi- cal, social, and cultural stability in its independence. He would be the last emperor of Brazil and did not oppress his people or adhere to retrograde ideas. Instead, he encouraged Brazilians to pursue education and science. He also allowed for the formation of the organized and 62 Brazil, independence to republic in articulate opposition movement that sought to elimi- nate the monarchy entirely. By the later 1860s and especially by the 1870s, however, the combined pressures of economic modern- ization, the effects of the decision to abolish slavery, social change, and the Paraguayan War encouraged Brazilians to support liberal reformers and intensi- fied demands for sweeping change. Liberals began to demand the abolition of the monarchy and the creation of a republic, in addition to other constitutional chang- es. When a coup led to the abolition of the monarchy and the institution of a republic, most Brazilians cel- ebrated. Nevertheless, decades would pass before ordi- nary citizens gained the means to participate actively in the political system and before Brazilians began to acknowledge the various, non-European influences that made their culture unique. The long struggle of the Paraguayan War under- mined the military’s support for the monarchy while alienating liberals. Army officers, especially the rela- tively young, developed a sense of common identity and purpose during the war. Since these officers typically came from families not part of the ruling elite or from urban centers of political influence, they had no reason to support the government run by a small portion of Brazilian society. Further, they embraced the positivistic ideals of efficiency and professionalism in government and civil service; they did not believe that the Brazilian govern- ment of Pedro II possessed these attributes. Within a decade, general military backing for a republic became marked, especially after officers united to defend a col- league who had published a critique of the minister of war and ran the risk of imprisonment. LIBERAL CAMPAIGN Meanwhile, liberals intensified their campaign against the emperor’s policies. During the Paraguayan War, the emperor had given control of the government to the conservatives. The army commander, the duke of Cax- ias, had found the previous liberal cabinet unwilling to accept his demands; he convinced the king to replace it with men who would prove more cooperative. Now out of government, the liberals added a republic to their list of demands, along with increased federalism and a parliament. The last major base of support for the monarchy began to crumble in the 1870s as the Catholic battle against Freemasonry continued. Bishops pronounced Catholicism to be antithetical to Freemasonry after priests attended Masonic ceremonies in 1871. Since several imperial ministers were Freemasons, the gov- ernment castigated the bishops for overreaching and imprisoned those who would not apologize. The clergy banded together in support of the Brazilian prelates and represented themselves as resisting the forces of secular- ism. Pedro II and his government lost face when they felt compelled to acknowledge the power of the church and released the imprisoned bishops without further punishment in 1875. Banking collapses after the 1873 financial crisis in Europe, to which Brazil had become closely tied as it accrued external debt during the Paraguayan War, fur- ther eroded confidence in the emperor’s government. The final phase in the disintegration of the Brazilian monarchy occurred in the late 1880s. Economic change, which favored coffee over the traditional cash crops of cotton and sugar, meant that wealth increasingly moved into the region around Rio de Janeiro (central-southern Brazil) and dwindled in the northeast. Rubber planta- tions began to spread through the Amazon and turned towns such as Manaus into rich cities seemingly over- night. The rubber boom lasted from the 1870s until World War I, changing the distribution of Brazil’s popu- lation and wealth in the process. Newly wealthy groups began to demand political influence commensurate with their economic status. ABOLITION OF SLAVERY Meanwhile, the growing urban elite won ever great- er support for the abolition of slavery. The Brazilian emperor and his daughter, Isabel, had both supported the various incarnations of lawyer Joaquim Mabu- co’s abolition campaign ever since he established the Humanitarian Society for Abolition in 1869. The gov- ernment enacted a series of laws that limited the extent of slavery, before abolishing it completely. In 1871 the Law of the Free Womb emancipated children born to slaves; however, the Rio Branco Law required those freeborn children to work unpaid for their mothers’s masters until they turned 21. In 1879 Mabuco resumed his campaign to end slavery as a member of the Brazil- ian Chamber of Deputies. A Chamber dominated by representatives from cotton- and sugar-growing areas rejected both his 1879 and his 1880 bill, either of which would have abolished slavery within 10 years. In 1880 Mabuco formed the Brazilian Antislavery Society. Throughout the early 1880s Mabuco, along with black journalist José do Patrocinio and other allies, con- tinued to publicize the antislavery agenda. Meanwhile, Jose Duarte Ramalho Ortigão, leader of the Bahian Chamber of Commerce and Agriculture, led opposition Brethren movements 63 to abolition on behalf of large plantation owners. In 1885 legislation emancipated slaves with at least 65 years of age. Despite important steps toward abolition and the formation of strong organizations working for the cause, Princess Isabel might not have signed the Golden Law (Lei Aurea) if not for broader economic and social change. Immigrants from Iberia and south- ern Europe began to arrive in Brazil in large numbers; approximately 3.5 million such people added them- selves to the existing population between 1888 and 1928. The number of immigrants who arrived in Bra- zil over these decades surpassed the number of slaves brought to Brazil over the course of several centuries. The new availability of large amounts of inexpensive labor, paired with technological advances, made it economically feasible to operate plantations without slavery. Abolition encouraged further immigration and permanently altered both the economic and the social structure of Brazil. While her father was abroad in Europe, Isabel assented to the Golden Law on May 13, 1888. The law provided for the complete and unconditional abolition of slavery in Brazil. Slavery came to an end with virtu- ally no bloodshed, though its abolition alienated large landowners who had previously supported the mon- archy. They resented the absence of any provision for indemnities to slave owners. Thus by 1888 the imperial government had lost the support of the military, liberals, the church, and con- servative landowners. Manuel Deodoro da Fonseca led the military coup that brought an end to the Brazilian Empire in November 1889. He met almost no resis- tance, though relatively few ordinary Brazilians par- ticipated in the coup or in the subsequent creation of a republic. Meanwhile, Pedro and the royal family went into exile; Pedro died in Paris in 1891. Deodoro, who became the first president, resigned. A period of intense political contestation preceded the election of Prudente de Morais, the first of many presi- dents from the state of São Paulo. The first Brazilian republic enjoyed booms in coffee and rubber exports, effected boundary settlements with its neighbors, and started to recognize the particular racial and cultural mixture that characterized Brazilian society. See also abolition of slavery in the Americas; Latin America, independence in. Further reading: Baronov, David. The Abolition of Slavery in Brazil: The “Liberation” of Africans through the Emancipa- tion of Capital. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2000; Burns, E. Bradford. A History of Brazil. New York: Columbia Uni- versity Press, 1980; Fausto, Boris. A Concise History of Bra- zil. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999; Levine, Robert M. The History of Brazil. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1999; Skidmore, Thomas E. Brazil: Five Centuries of Change. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999; Toplin, Robert Brent. The Abolition of Slavery in Brazil. New York: Atheneum Press, 1972. Melanie A. Bailey Brethren movements Many religious denominations call themselves breth- ren. Pious German immigrants established most of these groups in America. The oldest and largest of them is the Church of the Brethren, founded in Germany by Alexander Mack in 1708. This denomination, with well over 200,000 American members, is one of the his- torical peace churches. Nevertheless, it is known for its foot-washing ritual as much as for its pacifist orienta- tion. The more socially conservative Brethren in Christ Church was founded in 1778 by Jacob Engle and is part of the Holiness Movement, with an American member- ship of more than 18,000. The much smaller separat- ist Old Order River Brethren broke from this group in the 1850s and observes plain dress, head coverings for women, and beards for men. The Church of the Unit- ed Brethren in Christ was founded by Martin Boehm in 1800. The majority of this community eventually joined with the United Methodists in 1968. The others who continued under the brethren name highlight their evangelicalism and have a current American member- ship of over 27,000. However, with a North American membership of 90,000, the Christian Brethren (Plymouth Breth- ren) have had the most significant impact on religious thought. This evangelical and nondenominational movement, which generally practices weekly commu- nion and functions without a traditional ecclesiasti- cal structure, was born in Britain in the 1830s. Today, there are two primary groups of Christian Brethren in America, those who exclude from communion all but their own and those who hold an open ritual. Nonethe- less, all groups within the movement of the Christian Brethren are devoted to the unique theology developed by John Nelson Darby. A priest in the Church of Ire- land, he became the movement’s primary theologian by the late 1840s. Darby was unhappy with the formal- ism of the state church, and after joining the Brethren movement in Plymouth, England, his pessimism led 64 British East India Company him to promote ecclesiastical separatism and to create a most provocative theory of biblical prophecy, which he called dispensationalism. Dispensationalism widely influenced the preaching of America’s late 19th-century evangelists, such as Dwight L. Moody, and the teaching of early 20th-century Bible scholars, such as C. I. Scofield. The famous Scofield Reference Bible was published in 1909 by Oxford Uni- versity Press to support Darby’s theory. Darby claimed that history was divided into seven divinely appointed periods. Each of these seven dispensations represents a different stage in God’s progressive revelation and sov- ereign plan for humanity’s development. Darby focused his attention on the seventh period and the rise of a mil- lennial kingdom, which was to be preceded by a series of events that included a rapture, or departure of the earthly church at Christ’s first coming. According to Darby, with the loss of Christian moral judgment, the people of Earth would be easily seduced by an Antichrist, which would lead to a time of Tribulation concluded by the so-called Battle of Armageddon. This battle between the forces of evil and Christ, who returns to Earth again, but this time with a heavenly army, would end with the establishment of a thousand-year kingdom of peace. Darby’s theology has been connected to Fundamentalism and absorbed by many evangelical Protestant denominations. More- over, it has become the dominant prophetic theory in a large number of American Bible colleges and seminar- ies, foremost among them being Moody Bible Institute in Chicago and Dallas Theological Seminary. Further reading: Bowman, C. F. Brethren Society. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995; Dumbaugh, D. F. The Brethren Encyclopedia. 4 Vol. Ambler, PA: Breth- ren Encyclopedia, Inc., 2003; Marsden, G. M. Fundamen- talism and American Culture. New York: Oxford University Press, 1980. Rick M. Rogers British East India Company The British East India Company was founded in 1600, during the last years of the reign of Queen Elizabeth I of England, for trade in the East Indies, which had been opened to European trade by the Portuguese navigator Vasco da Gama. Because of rivalries for the spice trade in the East Indies, the English East India Company armed its mer- chantmen to fight the galleons of Spain, Portugal, and, later, the Netherlands, all of which threatened British trade with the East. Because of its setback in the Spice Islands at the hands of the Dutch, the English East India Company decided to focus its energies on India, where the Dutch presence was far less powerful. The relative ease with which the British would be able to expand in India during the late 17th and 18th centuries was due to the decline of Mughal central power. In 1757 the British East India Company—or John Company, as it was often called—took a critical step. Taking advantage of the worsening situation in India, it went from being a trading company to taking control of Indian territory as circumstances dictated. By this time the French Compagnie des Indes had taken the place of the Portuguese and Dutch as the main rival of the Brit- ish in India. In 1756 the Seven Years’ War broke out in Europe and quickly spread to India, where Robert Clive decisively defeated the French client in Bengal. In 1758 Robert Clive became the first governor of Bengal, sig- nalling the transition of the British East India Company from a trading company to the ruler of a large province of India. A year before Clive’s death, Parliament passed the 1773 Regulating Act, which made the governor of Bengal the governor-general, a title the chief company officer in India would hold until the British Crown took over the government of India after the Indian Mutiny of 1857. Warren Hastings set in motion future British expan- sion in India. He instituted direct British rule, but where possible, he left native Indian rulers on their throne, but under British tutelage. Between 1784, when Hastings left India, and the beginning of the 19th century, the compa- ny’s British troops continued to enlarge its domains due to the anarchy caused by the collapsing Mughal Empire. As company territory expanded, so did its direct rule. Its magistrates dispensed justice, impervious to bribery, something that local Indians had never before witnessed. The peace the company brought to India helped undermine Indian society. The company permitted En- glish Protestant missionaries to come to India in 1813, establishing missions and schools among the Indian population. Gradually, British authority began reforms in India. For example, William Bentinck, who was gov- ernor general from 1833 to 1835, outlawed the practice of sati (suttee), by which a Hindu widow was burned on her dead husband’s funeral pyre. The flash point of conflict between the company administration and the Indian governor-general came under the marquess of Dalhousie, who served from 1848 to 1856. He aggressively sought to enlarge lands British East India Company 65 The British East India Company’s port on the Malabar Coast of India with company trading vessels in the foreground and quayside ware- houses and buildings behind. Copperplate engraving, London 1755 under the company’s control by the doctrine of lapse, which allowed the company to annex Indian principali- ties. Many points of friction culminated in a violent out- break. The Indian Mutiny broke out in Meerut in 1857 when some of the company’s Indian soldiers rose in revolt. A terrible massacre took place at Cawnpore when an Indian ruler, Nana Sahib, had British prison- ers brutally killed. Inflamed by the tales of mass murder, the British troops who retook territory that had fallen to the mutineers and their Indian princely allies showed no mercy. By the time the mutiny ended with Sir Hugh Rose’s victory at Gwalior in June 1858, thousands had been killed. The mutiny also ended the rule of the British East India Company. Although it would continue as a trading organization until 1873, in August 1858, the British par- liament passed the Government of India Act, which formally passed the administration of British India from the company to the British government. A secretary of state for India became responsible for the administration of British India under the prime minister. For its complic- ity in the mutiny, the last impotent Mughal emperor was dethroned. In 1877, under Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli, Queen Victoria became empress of India. See also Sikh Wars. Further reading: Dalrymple, William. White Mughals. New York: Penguin Books, 2002; James, Lawrence. Raj: The Making and Unmaking of British India. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1997; Keay, John. India: A History. New York: Grove Press, 2000; Milton, Giles. Nathaniel’s Nut- meg. New York: Penguin, 2000; Mollo, Boris. The Indian Army. London: Blandford, 1981; Nicolle, David. Mughal India, 1504–1761. London: Osprey, 1993; Parker, Geof- frey. The Grand Strategy of Philip II. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1998; Trevelyan, G. M. History of En- gland: The Tudors and the Stuart Era. New York: Anchor, 1953; Wolpert, Stanley. A New History of India. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. John F. Murphy, Jr. 66 British Empire in southern Africa British Empire in southern Africa The first British involvements in South Africa were a result of maritime traffic going around the Cape of Good Hope to India. In the 17th century, the British East India Company had established trading stations at Madras, Bombay, and Calcutta. By the 18th century, a thriving trade led the British East India Company to have its own navy to carry goods and personnel back and forth from England to India. In 1652 the Dutch East India Company founded a trading station near what is now Cape Town and was busy attempting to extend its settlement into the interior, in the face of opposition from the indigenous African tribes. The wars of the French Revolution began in 1792, and the Netherlands was conquered and occu- pied by the French. To the British, with their unparal- leled Royal Navy and need for a way station to India, the Dutch colony at Cape Town was a tempting target. In 1806 the British captured Cape Town and kept it even after Napoleon I’s final defeat in 1815. BRITISH EXPANSION As the years progressed, the British became intent on making the colony more British; English replaced Dutch as the official language of the colony and its govern- ment. Anglican missionaries came to convert the Boers, the descendants of the Dutch settlers, to Anglican- ism. (The Boers were staunch Calvinists of the Dutch Reformed Church.) The missionaries also advocated the abolition of slavery. Indeed, due to the influence of the London Missionary Society, slavery was virtu- ally abolished in South Africa even before it was in the empire as a whole in 1833. With wars against indigenous tribes an ongoing struggle for European settlements in the area, the Brit- ish did not wish to take on any new imperial responsi- bilities in South Africa. The Kaffir Wars waged between the Europeans and the native Xhosa people were partic- ularly lengthy and brutal. Consequently, between 1852 and 1854 the British government recognized two Boer republics, the Orange Free State, named for the Orange River, and the Transvaal Republic, on the opposite side of the Vaal River. In 1853 the Convention of Bloemfon- tein formalized, at least for the time being, the British relationship with the Boers. Indeed, the entire government of South Africa was reorganized when in 1853 an Order in Council for Queen Victoria established fully representative gov- ernment in the Cape Colony, with a parliament set up in Cape Town. In 1877 the imperialist prime minister Benjamin Disraeli expanded the Cape Colony with the annexa- tion of the Boer Transvaal Republic. He sent out a new governor of Cape Colony to oversee the process in the colony: Sir Henry Edward Bartle Frere, who arrived in Cape Town in April 1877. The ninth, and final, Kaf- fir War broke out in October 1877, and although it ended with the defeat of the Africans, Frere was still alarmed. In Frere’s view, the most immediate problem lay in the relations with the Zulu Kingdom, now under King Cetewayo. Frere felt that the presence of the Zulu King- dom, with its 50,000-man army, had to be dealt with by force. On January 11, 1879, British commander Chelmsford’s South African Field Force crossed the border into Zululand. Early on the morning of Janu- ary 22, Chelmsford set off after the Zulu regiments. He left a force to hold Isandhlwana, the main force of which was the 1st Battalion of the 24th Regiment. The Zulus, some 20,000 strong, pounced on the force left behind at Isandhlwana; not one British soldier was left alive. From there, the Zulu advanced to a garri- son that was mostly from the 2nd Battalion. After 12 hours of fighting, the Zulu retreated. On March 28, 1879, the British, fighting the Zulu at Hlobane, narrowly escaped another disaster like Isandhlwana. Almost immediately, plans were made to reenter Zululand; the image of a victorious Cete- wayo was more than the London government could tolerate. On May 31 Chelmsford again advanced into Zululand, determined on a final conquest to redeem himself for his fatal miscalculation at Isandhlwana. On July 4, Chelmsford attacked Cetewayo’s royal kraal at Ulundi and crushed the Zulu regiments. Cete- wayo was captured on August 28, 1879, but Queen Victoria intervened to free him in 1883. On Febru- ary 8, 1884, Cetewayo died amid rumors he had been poisoned. AGITATION FOR FREEDOM Ironically, the removal of the Zulu threat did not mean peace for British South Africa. After the war, the Transvaal Boers began to agitate again for their freedom, taken from them by Shepstone’s annexation in 1877. On December 12, 1880, they united to fight for their independence. The British forces were unprepared for the supe- rior marksmanship, modern weapons, and guerrilla tactics employed by the men of the Boer commandos. Prime Minister William Gladstone, opposed to the imperialist philosophy of his rival Benjamin Disraeli, British Empire in southern Africa 67 made peace with the Boers. By August 8, 1881, the Boers ruled again in the Transvaal capital of Pretoria. In 1871 diamonds were discovered in the Cape Colony. One of those caught up in the diamond rush was Cecil Rhodes. In 1881 he founded the De Beers Diamond Company. Pressing north into native Afri- can country (and away from stronger Boer resistance), Rhodes was instrumental in the annexation of Bechua- naland, today’s Botswana, in 1885. His primacy among those in the Cape Colony was recognized in 1890 when he became prime minister of the Cape Colony. Coveting the possible diamond hoard in the Trans- vaal, Rhodes sent Leander Starr Jameson, his assistant during prior wars, on a raid into the Transvaal Repub- lic on December 29, 1895. Jameson and his men were quickly arrested and handed over to the British for trial and sentencing. For Rhodes, the punishment was more embarrassing; in 1896 he was forced to resign as prime minister for the Cape Colony. The Jameson Raid seemed to the Boers another British attempt to conquer them and end their indepen- dence once and for all. In 1897 Joseph Chamberlain, the colonial secretary, or secretary of state for the colonies, appointed the ardent imperialist Alfred Milner as high commissioner for South Africa. His views on empire were very similar to Frere’s. Instead of the Zulus, Mil- ner saw the Boers as the main threat to British rule in South Africa. The British prime minister, Robert Cecil, Lord Salisbury, was an ardent empire-builder. While sporadic negotiations continued, both sides prepared for war, and Chamberlain sent reinforcements from England. Paul Kruger, a leader of the Boer resistance, determined to strike before the reinforcements could arrive. He issued an ultimatum, which would expire on October 11, 1899. This saved the British the trouble— and the blame—of declaring war themselves. Kruger followed his ultimatum with a lightning advance by his commandos into both the Cape Colo- ny and Natal Province. Kruger had 88,000 men and knew the British only had 20,000. However, Kruger underestimated the immense forces the British Empire had available. According to some estimates, by the end of the war, the British Empire committed a staggering 450,000 men to fight the Boers. The British forces in South Africa were commanded by General Sir Redvers Buller, who proved to be a disappointing commanding officer. Time and again, he and his troops were defeated. On January 10, 1900, General Frederick Sleigh Roberts arrived in South Africa to replace the befuddled Buller. Roberts immediately went on the offensive against the Boers. Roberts led the British to victory on February 27 and 28, and March 13, and on May 27, 1900, he entered the Transvaal, determined to bring the war to a conclu- sion. On June 2 Kruger retreated from the capital of Pretoria, which Roberts entered in triumph three days later. The defeat of the Boer armies was sealed when Buller arrived in the Transvaal from Natal on June 12. Between August 21 and 27 the last major battle of the war took place when Roberts and Buller defeated Boer general Louis Botha at Bergendal. In December 1900, with formal hostilities over, Roberts returned to Britain to become commander in chief of the army. Rob- erts’s second-in-command, Kitchener, was left to over- see what soon became a guerrilla conflict. He adopted a draconian policy to stop the commandos, ordering his men to burn down Boer homesteads, destroy their crops, and run off or kill their livestock. Kitchener introduced concentration camps in which to hold the dispossessed Boer families of the commandos. The conditions of the camps were appall- ing, and disease was endemic. According to some esti- mates, 28,000 Boers died in 46 camps, and between 14,000 and 20,000 Africans died in the camps. At the same time, the movement of the Boer commandos was hampered by a series of armored blockhouses. On January 28, 1901, Kitchener began a series of fierce offensives designed to wear down the commandos in a battle of attrition. On May 31, 1902, a peace settle- ment was made bringing the war to an end at Ver- eeniging. The Boers had been defeated on the battle- field, but had retained their independent spirit. Just two months earlier, on March 26, 1902, Rhodes had died, to be buried in his beloved Rhodesia. As a new century opened, a new and unknown future began for the British in South Africa. See also Shaka Zulu; South Africa, Boers and Bantu in. Further reading: Edgerton, Robert B. Like Lions They Fought: The Zulu War and the Last Black Empire in South Africa. New York: Ballantine, 1988; Farwell, Byron. The Great Boer War. London: Penguin, 1976; James, Lawrence. The Rise and Fall of the British Empire. New York: St. Martin’s Griffin, 1994; Morris, Donal. The Washing of the Spears: The Rise and Fall of the Zulu Nation. New York: Touchstone, 1965; Pakenham, Thomas. The Boer War. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1979; Reader, John. Africa: A Biography of a Continent. New York: Vintage, 1997; Thompson, Leonard. A History of South Africa. New York: Yale University Press, 2001. John F. Murphy, Jr. 68 British governors-general of India British governors-general of India The office of the governor-general of India was estab- lished in 1773 when Warren Hastings was made the first governor-general of the presidency of Fort Wil- liam, Calcutta, taking up the position in the following year. Initially the office only had control over Fort Wil- liam, but it quickly came to control the Bengal region of northeastern India. The position was created because of the wide- spread belief that there was massive corruption in the East India Company that necessitated some form of British government oversight, which led to the Reg- ulating Act. However, Warren Hastings, who held the position from October 20, 1774, to February 1, 1785, was himself subject to widespread allegations of corruption and was impeached in 1787, with the trial lasting from 1788 until his eventual acquittal in 1795. When Hastings left for England, Sir John MacPher- son was made provisional governor-general until Earl Cornwallis (later Marquess Cornwallis) arrived in India to serve as governor-general from September 1786 until October 1793. He is perhaps best remem- bered for his surrender of the port of Yorktown in the American War of Independence. In India in 1792 he defeated Tipu Sultan at Mysore and was succeeded by Sir John Shore who retired in March 1798. His suc- cessor was the earl of Mornington (later Marquess Wellesley), who was the brother of Arthur Wellesley, the first duke of Wellington. Arthur Wellesley became the military adviser to the governor-general and estab- lished Fort William into a training college for the Brit- ish administrators in India. Marquess Wellesley left office on July 30, 1805, and was replaced by Marquess Cornwallis, who died two months after starting his second term. After a long period of Sir George Barlow serving as provi- sional governor-general, Lord Minto was appointed. The earl of Moira (later marquess of Hastings), who had served in the American War of Independence, was the seventh governor-general from 1813–23. During this time he oversaw the purchase of Singapore and also worked on improving the Mughal canal system. However, he was forced out of office owing to a financial scandal, and his successor was Lord (Baron) Amherst (later Earl Amherst) who had led a British embassy to China and hoped to expand British posses- sions with his involvement in the First Anglo-Burmese War of 1823. Although the war was a British victory, large numbers of British soldiers were killed. In 1828 he was replaced by Lord William Bentinck, who had previously served in India as governor of Madras. His task in India was to massively reduce Brit- ish government expenditure. He also tried to introduce some social reforms such as ending suttee, a tradition where widows sacrificed themselves on their husband’s funeral pyres. His successor, Lord (Baron) Auckland (later first earl of Auckland), quickly found himself involved in a disastrous war in Afghanistan and was replaced by Lord Ellenborough. When Ellenborough arrived in India, he received news of the massacre of the British in Kabul under policies introduced by his prede- cessor. Although his time as governor-general included a war in Sind, he himself was largely concerned with trying to prevent increasing Russian involvement in Central Asia. Sir Henry Hardinge was briefly governor- general from July 1844 until January 1848, presiding over British India during the First Sikh War. In 1848 Lord Dalhousie (later first marquess of Dalhousie) was appointed as governor-general. He was determined to enlarge British India and oversaw the annexation of much of Burma during the Second Anglo-Burmese War. He was more controversial for introducing his “policy of lapse.” Under this policy in any Indian feudatory state under the direct influence of the British East India Company, if the ruler was either “manifestly incompetent or died without a direct heir,” the territory could be annexed by the British. This led to the annexation of Jhansi in 1854 and Oudh (modern-day Awadh) in 1856, two of the major causes of the Indian Mutiny of 1857. Viscount Canning was appointed as governor- general in February 1856, and it was during his term that the Indian Mutiny of 1857—now often called the Indian War of Independence—broke out. In 1858 there was a complete overhaul of the British administration in India, and one result was that Canning, who became Earl Canning, was appointed to the newly created position of governor-general and viceroy of India. He was succeeded by the earl of Elgin, who died in 1863, resulting in the subsequent appointment of Sir John Lawrence (later Lord Lawrence). Lawrence had helped prevent trouble in the Punjab in 1857 and was able to maintain the status quo in India in the 1860s. When Lawrence left India in 1869 it was relatively peaceful, and the remaining governors-general, all British nobles, presided over an increasingly prosperous colonial India until its independence in 1947. Further Reading: Bernstein, Jeremy. Dawning of the Raj: The Life and Trials of Warren Hastings. Chicago: Ivan R. Dee Buganda, kingdom of 69 Publisher, 2000; Ghosh, S. C. Dalhousie in India 1848–56. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers, 1975; James, Lawrence. Raj: The Making and Unmaking of British India. New York: St. Martin’s Griffin, 2000; Morris, Henry. The Governors-General of British India. 2 Vols. Delhi: Discovery Publishing House, 1984. Justin Corfield British occupation of Egypt Through diplomatic negotiations in 1881–82, the Brit- ish and French reached an agreement whereby the French occupied Tunisia in North Africa and Britain took Egypt. The British militarily defeated Egyptian nationalist forces led by Ahmed Urabi at the Battle of Tel-el-Kebir in 1882. The Dufferin Commission was then sent to Egypt to make recommendations as to what should be done. Initially, the British claimed that the occupation was a temporary one, but geopolitical considerations and ongoing conflict in the Sudan under the Mahdi led to the long-term occupation of Egypt by the Brit- ish. The British superimposed their own administration and became the de facto rulers of Egypt while main- taining the facade of Egypt as an autonomous province of the Ottoman Empire as arranged during the rule of Muhammad Ali. The khedive was retained, with British advisers in the key government offices. A nonelective legislative council of Egyptians served in an advisory capacity. This two-tiered, often-cumbersome administration led to British control over all aspects of government from the judicial to financial to education. Evelyn Baring, later Lord Cromer, was appointed consul general in 1883. Cromer was the virtual ruler of Egypt until 1907, when he was forced by the British government to retire following an increase of Egyptian nationalist discontent. A fiscal conservative, Cromer attempted to lessen the financial burdens on the fella- heen (peasants) but devoted few resources to education or other social programs. The British did improve the irrigation systems in Egypt and also abolished forced labor. The railway system that benefited British com- mercial interests was also extended to the detriment of road and water transportation systems. Mixed courts dealt with all cases involving foreigners, and civil courts with Egyptian judges and lawyers served the Egyptian population. A lively press that covered a wide range of political and social issues also developed, although the British carefully monitored it for subversive or anti- British opinions. Over the years the number of British advisers proliferated. The presence of foreign troops and often arrogant British bureaucrats increased nationalist oppo- sition to the occupation, particularly among the urban educated youth. Mustafa Kamil who led the Watan (Nation) Party from 1895 until his death in 1908 was one of the most vociferous and fiery of the new genera- tion of Egyptian nationalists. Much to the dismay of the British, Tewfik’s successor, Khedive Abbas Hilmi supported the nationalist cause. Mounting Egyptian nationalism led to the emergence of political parties that the British vainly attempted to control. British control was not formalized until Egypt was declared a British protectorate with the outbreak of World War I in 1914. See also Urabi revolt in Egypt. Further reading: Berque, Jacques. Egypt: Imperialism and Revolution. Translated by Jean Stewart. London: Faber & Faber, 1972; Earl of Cromer. Modern Egypt. 2 Vols. London: Macmillan and Co., 1908; Mansfield, Peter. The British in Egypt. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1971. Janice J. Terry Buganda, kingdom of The early history of Buganda begins with the dynas- ties starting in roughly 1300. Among them, the Chwezi were the most prominent. The balance of power was changed by the arrival of Luo-speaking people from the Upper Nile who were looking for good land, which they found in Uganda. Arriving in the 1500s, they represented a continuation of the migration of peoples from the Sahara region as desert encroached on the grazing area of their cattle. These pastoralists came as conquerors in many cases, imposing their ways on the more advanced people who became their unwilling subjects. In 1497 the Portuguese explorer Vasco da Gama stopped in East Africa to take on Arab sailors familiar with the Arabian Sea. In 1498 he would visit India. Yet the riches of East Africa were not lost on the Por- tuguese, and they would return to attempt to carve out their own commercial empire in East Africa, with again the slave trade as one of their most lucrative markets. In 1505 the Portuguese, with their firearms, would take both Kilwa and Mombasa as part of a virtual conquest 70 Burlingame, Anson, and Burlingame Treaty (1868) of the entire Indian Ocean, presenting the Bugandan kings with a new and rich source of trade. The tumultuous changes going on outside Bugan- da’s borders inevitably had an impact on the country and its people. Portuguese and Arabs clamored to have influence with the king, the kabaka, and contributed to instability within the royal house itself. The kabakas were still strong and took astute advantage of the tur- moil between the Portuguese and the Arabs to expand their kingdom. The 19th century saw even more powerful foreign powers enter the African scene. In 1806 Britain would conquer the Cape of Good Hope from the Dutch, begin- ning the modern history of South Africa. In 1830–31 the French would begin the conquest of Algeria, open- ing their history of empire in North Africa. It was inevi- table, as the European colonial powers expanded their control in Africa (Britain conquered Egypt in 1882), that the kingdom of Buganda could not stay immune from their influence. Buganda was visited by explor- ers, such as Henry Morton Stanley and John Hanning Speke, who were impressed by what they saw of the native kingdom. By this time, the internal pressures were causing Buganda to begin to fail as a viable state. Finally, in 1885 the kabaka Mwanga II took an irrevocable step that would inevitably cost Buganda its independence. Between 1885 and 1887 Mwanga II had some 45 Christian converts, some 22 Catholic and 23 Anglican, murdered. Although he did this to thwart the growth of Christianity in his kingdom, the brave exam- ple of the martyrs only caused others to join their faith. At the same time, Muslims conspired to have a Muslim placed on the throne instead. In 1867 a Bugandan king converted to Islam, if only in name. Mwanga II lost his throne, but managed to regain it. British intervention was guaranteed when, in the beginning of his persecution, Mwanga II had Angli- can bishop James Hannington killed; Hannington had just been appointed to oversee the growing Anglican flock in East Africa. At this time, Germany also entered the competition for Buganda. Carl Peters had established the colony of German East Africa, eventually known as Tanganyika. In November 1886 Great Britain and Germany signed an agreement dividing East Africa into the German zone and British East Africa, which bordered Buganda. Peters was determined to add all of Uganda to what the British called “German East.” By May 1890 Peters got Mwanga II to agree to a German protectorate over Uganda. This sent shock waves through London, where the headquarters of the British East Africa Company could see their plans for an East African empire wither. On May 13, the British prime minister Lord Salisbury succeeded in convincing Kaiser Wilhelm I to give up any claims to Uganda and nearby territories in return for the island of Heligoland, which he saw as vital to the defense of the Kiel Canal. However, the British were taking no chances the kaiser might change his mind. The Brit- ish government of Prime Minister Lord Roseberry dis- patched Frederick Lugard in 1894 to end the chaos that was now causing Buganda to implode. Estab- lishing a firm British protectorate over Buganda, as he later would do in Nigeria, in 1897, Lugard finally deposed Mwanga II. Further reading: Davidson, Basil. Africa in History. New York: Collier, 1968; Packenham, Thomas. The Scramble for Africa. New York: Random House, 1991. John F. Murphy, Jr. Burlingame, Anson, and Burlingame Treaty (1868) Anson Burlingame was a lawyer who served as a mem- ber of the U.S. House of Representatives from 1855 to 1861 and as minister to China from 1861 to 1867. In 1868 the Chinese government appointed him ambas- sador to negotiate treaties on China’s behalf with the United States and European nations. He died in St. Petersburg, Russia, in 1870. As a result of defeat by Great Britain and France in 1858 and again in 1860, China was forced to sign the Treaties of Tianjin (Tientsin) and Beijing (Peking), whereby Britain and France gained the right to estab- lish legations in China’s capital. Because of the most- favored-nation clause in the treaties, the United States also obtained that right. Burlingame was the first U.S. minister to China, arriving in Beijing in 1862. He and British minister Sir Frederick Bruce championed a cooperative policy toward China based on four principles: cooperation among Western powers, cooperation with Chinese officials, recognition of legitimate Chinese interests, and enforcement of treaty rights. A decade of peace and goodwill prevailed in Sino-Western relations as a result. China did not at first reciprocate in establishing diplomatic missions abroad despite urgings by Western nations. In 1862 a minor, Emperor Tongzhi (T’ung- Burmese Wars, First, Second, and Third 71 chih), ascended the Chinese throne; his uncle Prince Gong (K’ung) acted as regent and took charge of foreign affairs. Prince Gong needed to understand international law and Western diplomatic practices and obtained the help of an Englishman, Robert Hart, who commissioned W. A. P. Martin and his Chinese assistants to translate 24 essays on international diplomacy into Chinese from a book by Henry Wheaton titled Elements of International Law. Burlingame played a role in their publication and presented a copy to Prince Gong in 1864. The Treaty of Beijing was up for revision in 1868. That prospect aroused fear among Chinese officials due to the persistent demands of Western merchants for a more aggressive policy toward China to force further concessions. At this juncture Burlingame’s tour of duty in China ended. He volunteered to represent China in a roving diplomatic mission to the West. Prince Gong accepted and appointed him and two Chinese as coenvoys. They arrived in the United States in 1868, were received by President Andrew Johnson, and signed a treaty (called the Burlingame Treaty) with Secretary of State Seward. By its terms the United States agreed not to interfere in China’s development, allowed China to establish consulates in the United States, permitted Chinese laborers to enter the United States, and grant- ed reciprocal rights of residence, travel, and access to schools in either country. The embassy next traveled to Britain, Prussia, and Russia, where Burlingame died as a result of pneumonia. The other envoys then vis- ited several other European countries before returning to China in 1870. All European nations agreed not to force China into new agreements. This was China’s first diplomatic mission abroad since being opened by the West. It was a great success in achieving China’s immediate goals by securing West- ern powers’ commitment to a policy of restraint and noncoersion toward China. See also Tongzhi Restoration/Self-Strengthening Movement. Further reading: Hsu, Immanuel C. Y. China’s Entrance into the Family of Nations, The Diplomatic Phase, 1858–1880. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1960; Kim, Samuel Soonki. Anson Burlingame: A Study in Personal Diplomacy. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms, 1972; Williams, Frederick Wells. Anson Burlingame and the First Chinese Mission to Foreign Powers. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1912. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur Burmese Wars, First, Second, and Third The three Burmese Wars were the result of frictions between the British East India Company, which ruled a growing British dominion in India, and the kingdom of Burma, or Ava. The First Burmese War was fought from 1824 to 1826 over long-standing frontier disputes that the East India Company inherited from the Mughal dynasty of India. At the same time that the British East India Com- pany was expanding in India, Burma had regained unity as the kingdom of Ava in 1752. The first king of a reunified Burma is considered to be Alaungpaya, who reigned from 1752 to 1760. Even before Alaungpaya had reunited Burma, there had been friction between the British and the kingdom of Pegu. In the 1730s the Brit- ish established a diplomatic resident in Syriam in Pegu to help its trade and gain access to valuable timber. But in 1743 internal unrest caused Syriam to be sacked, and the British representative returned to India. The reign of King Bagyidaw began in 1819. He annexed Assam in 1819 and went on to claim Manipur in 1822. Faced by the Burmese invasion, the local rulers pre- ferred protection under the British East India Company and sought its help. The Burmese struck first on Sep- tember 23, 1823. In March 1824 the East India Com- pany declared war on Burma and the governor-general Amherst executed a three-pronged assault on the king- dom of Ava. During the British invasion, some Karens, a Burmese ethnic group, actively supported the British, serving as guides. By 1825 British forces had captured the ancient city of Pagan and the king decided to make peace with the British. The war ended with the Treaty of Yandabo in February 1826 that ended the First Bur- mese War, with Britain gaining valuable coast territory in southern Burma. Peace between the East India Company and the kingdom of Ava lasted until 1852 when Governor- General Dalhousie, wishing to gain complete control of the sea lanes between India and Singapore, sent an ultimatum to King Pagan Min of Ava, threaten- ing that hostilities would begin unless the company’s demands were met by the Burmese within one month. The demands made by the British stemmed from the Treaty of Yandabo. While the Burmese were quick to appease the British, England found enough reason to attack. Facing no real opposition, Dalhousie’s forces annexed the main towns of southern Burma. With the end of the Second Burmese War, the British were 72 Burmese Wars, First, Second, and Third masters of southern Burma. Pagan Min died in Feb- ruary 1853, succeeded by Mindon Min. The British, unsure of the determination of the new king to fight and reluctant to be drawn deeper into fighting in the jungles of Burma, were content with the gains they had already made. Mindon Min proved to be an astute diplomat in the competition for empire between France and Britain in Southeast Asia. In 1878, Mindon Min was succeeded on the throne by Thibaw Min, who continued to play off the French against the British. Thibaw Min, however, lacked the diplomatic skill of his predecessor and even- tually ended up in war against the British. In 1885 the Third Burmese War began when a British force numbering 9,000, with 2,800 local levies under the command of General H. N. D. Prendergast, attacked the Burmese capital at Mandalay. The offi- cial reason for the war dated back to 1878 when King Thibaw came to the throne and sought to erode British influence. In early 1885 he insisted that British repre- sentatives remove their shoes when entering his palace. With rising tensions, Thibaw began to support tribes- men in Lower Burma who were opposed to British rule. The true reason for the war was more likely that the British were worried about increasing French influence in the region—the French foreign minister Jules Ferry having begun meetings with a Burmese delegation. This coincided with a French consul taking up residence in Mandalay, although he was withdrawn for “health rea- sons” by the French in a diplomatic retreat soon after- ward. On October 22, 1885, the British issued an ultima- tum to Thibaw demanding that the Burmese accept a British resident in Mandalay and that the British con- trol all foreign relations of the kingdom, thereby mak- ing it a protectorate. There were also minor issues such as the matter of a fine imposed on the Bombay Burmah Trading Company because the company had underre- ported its logging of teak and had been underpaying its local staff. Another influence was undoubtedly British interest in the oil deposits there. On November 9 the Burmese refused to consider the British demands, and war became inevitable, with the British mustering their forces at Thayetmo. The British advanced up the Irrawaddy River from Thayetmo on November 14. They used flat-bottomed boats manned by the Royal Navy, taking with them 24 machine guns and many ships containing supplies and ammunition. The British land forces took control of the redoubt at Minhla, where the Burmese put up some resistance on November 17. On November 26, with the flotilla close to Mandalay, envoys from Thibaw met with General Sir Harry Prendergast and offered to sur- render. The British reached Ava on the following day and accepted the Burmese surrender. On November 28, the British started sacking Man- dalay, and then a number of them were sent to Bhamo, which they reached on December 28. The war ended with the British annexation of Burma on January 1, 1886. The war was conducted with little loss of life to the British and was a further example, after the Anglo- Zulu War, of what became known as the British For- ward policy. The governor-general had been replaced by a vice- roy, who ruled India directly in the name of Queen Vic- toria, who by now was the queen-empress. At the time of the Third Burmese War, Viceroy Frederick Hamilton- Temple-Blackwood (later, first marquis of Dufferin and Ava) was able to martial Crown forces that Thibaw could not match. As expected Thibaw refused the Brit- ish ultimatum. After an astonishing attack, Thibaw finally told his men to lay down their weapons and acknowledged British victory. Mandalay fell, and King Thibaw was imprisoned, although his rank as king would have been respected. After Mandalay was captured, the British went on to capture Bhamo on December 28, 1885. The Brit- ish wanted to overawe the Burmese and thwart any Chinese move into Burma. On January 1, 1886, the rump state of Thibaw’s Kingdom of Ava, or Upper Burma, was also annexed to British India. The final act took place when Upper and Lower Burma were united as Burma and placed firmly within the British Raj, or Indian empire. Sir Frederick Roberts, the hero of the Second Afghan War, completed the pacification of Burma, using Indian cavalry regiments and locally raised troops to subdue remaining pockets of Burmese resistance, although guerrilla warfare would last until at least 1890. See also Anglo-Chinese Opium Wars; Napoleon I. Further reading: Bruce, George. The Burma Wars. London: Hart-Davis, 1973; O’Balance, Edgar. The Story of the French Foreign Legion. London: White Lion, 1974; Wilson, H. H. Narrative of the Burmese War, in 1824–25. Ithaca, NY: Cor- nell University Library, 2007. John F. Murphy, Jr. Canadian Confederation Prior to 1867 North American Canada was better described as a collection of Canadas. The Atlantic Maritime provinces focused on fishing, lumbering, and shipping. Lower Canada was home to New France habi- tants pushed unwillingly into the British Empire when the Seven Years’ War/French and Indian War ended in 1763. Upper Canada (Ontario) was the hub of Brit- ish colonial power and wealth. North and west of the Great Lakes, a mixed population of Indians, fur trad- ers, Hudson’s Bay Company agents, and prospectors, many Canadian, others Americans, generally evaded supervision by either of their governments. As early as 1790 in the wake of an American Rev- olution that fractured British power in North Amer- ica, proposals emerged for a stronger union among Britain’s remaining colonies. Not until the 1850s, however, did political and opinion leaders become seri- ous about creating a real Canadian nationhood for the country’s 4 million inhabitants. Among the issues at stake were continued fear of U.S. encroachment and economic power and controversial plans to assert con- trol over western lands for the purpose of building a transcontinental railroad. This simmering crisis over Canada’s future came to a head when the United States erupted in Civil War in 1861. As Great Britain’s government considered rec- ognizing the seceding Southern Confederacy, Canada became a handy target for outraged Union supporters who often also harbored designs on Canadian lands. Irish-American nationalists, called Fenians, used Union resentment against Britain to send their own anti-Brit- ish message by attacking Canadian towns. More dev- astating to Canada was America’s cancellation, as the Civil War was ending, of a 12-year-old United States/ Canada trade reciprocity agreement vital to most Cana- dian provinces. Against this backdrop, Canadian politicians began in 1864 to rough out a new plan for union. Although Britain’s parliament would have the final say, the process of creating a new dominion of Canada was very much propelled by local leaders. Influential Toronto newspa- per editor George Brown proposed a federal Canada, combining the constitutional model of U.S. federalism with Britain’s parliamentary system, but with improve- ments to both. Powerful politician John A. Macdon- ald, later first prime minister of a federated Canada, insisted that all of Canada’s provinces would be includ- ed. Québec leader George-Étienne Cartier won support among French-Canadians by assuring them that new provincial powers were strong enough to protect French culture and language. As Fenian attacks across the U.S.- Canada border crested in 1866, dominion backers used this threat to attract crucial political support to their plan. On July 1, 1867, after Parliament ratified the British North America Act, the Dominion of Canada was born. The new Canada, although still closely tied to Britain, had moved from colonial dependency to a status much closer to sovereign nationhood. Dominion, of course, did not solve all of Canada’s problems and, indeed, created some new ones. The C 73 74 Canton system Maritimes, especially Nova Scotia, had little interest in sending their tax money to develop the west. Talk of secession was eased by financial and political conces- sions. New Brunswick and Nova Scotia joined Québec and Ontario in the Dominion in 1869. Prince Edward Island held out until 1873; Newfoundland did not for- mally join Canada until 1949. Unlike their southern neighbors, Canadians had never adopted Manifest Destiny, the idea that Cana- dians must dominate their continent from sea to sea. But the possibility of expanding Canada westward was crucial to the success of the dominion plan, and with dominion came the powers necessary to open new ter- ritories to immigration, trade, and development. One problem was the role of the Hudson’s Bay Company, a quasi-private fur and sundries trading com- pany founded in 1670 under a royal charter granted by England’s king Charles II. For practical purposes, com- pany officers were the overseers, if not the actual gov- ernors, of the prairie lands west of Canada proper. The people of this huge territory, many of them members of Indian tribes or of mixed Indian and English or French heritage, were justifiably alarmed by the new central government’s looming buy-out of “Bay” holdings. In 1869 Canadian surveyors appeared in the Red River region, north of the United States’s North Dako- ta/Minnesota border. They imposed new rectangular boundaries that ignored long-established farms and properties. Residents, many of them French, or French- Indian (also known as Métis) threatened violence. Resis- tance to faraway Canada became better organized under the leadership of Louis Riel, a well-educated Red River native of Métis descent. Seizing the settle- ment of Fort Garry (now Winnipeg), Riel and his fol- lowers demanded negotiations. The Red River Rising of 1869–70 began without bloodshed. But efforts to solve competing claims of territory and authority reawakened ancient hostilities between French, English, and Native Canadians. In March 1870 Riel and his men captured and executed a particularly insolent English opponent. Nonetheless, peace was uneasily maintained. In May 1870 the Red River region formally became part of the new Canadian province of Manitoba. The vast remaining unorganized territories between Manitoba and British Columbia, a Pacific coast province since 1858, became Canada’s Northwest Territories. Even when these lands gained provincial status, Ottawa maintained far more control over their affairs than it did in “Old Canada.” By 1885 a private consortium, aided by huge gov- ernment subsidies and land grants, completed the Cana- dian Pacific Railway, connecting Canada’s new west to the rest of the much-enlarged nation. The same year, the Northwest Rebellion in the new province of Sas- katchewan revealed that Canadian federation had not resolved all the racial and sectional grievances of Métis, Native tribes, and other western settlers. Led once again by Riel, by then declining into mental illness, this upris- ing ended in Riel’s execution, setting off outrage among French-Canadians. Canada in 1885 was a far larger and considerably more independent and developed nation than it had been on July 1, 1867. But it still faced the challenge of truly melding its disparate Canadas into a harmonious whole. See also political parties in Canada; Fenian raids; railroads in North America. Further reading: Creighton, Donald. The Road to Confed- eration: The Emergence of Canada, 1863–1867. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1976; Martin, Ged. Britain and the Origins of Canadian Confederation. Basingstoke, Hampshire, England: Macmillan, 1995. Marsha E. Ackermann Canton system In mid-18th century the Qing (Ch’ing) dynasty of China confined all foreign traders to the port of Canton (Guangzhou) in southern China and restricted trade. In Canton, all merchants were banned from direct con- tact with Chinese officials and were confined to an area of 13 factories, located outside the city walls. All for- eign traders lived in quarters that came to be known by locals as factories. Since no women were allowed to enter these factories, the nearest families were housed in Macao, a nearby town that the previous Ming dynasty had ceded to Portugal. The area became the center of foreign trade in China. While in Canton, all trade was controlled by the Chinese merchants, known as hongs, who imported goods from inland China to trade with the merchants who arrived in Canton each year. The responsibility for overseeing Canton trading activities and for collect- ing all taxes was delegated by the emperor to a hoppo. The hoppo and the guild of hong merchants were held accountable for all transactions, including the behavior of all foreign merchants. As the foreign ships arrived in Canton, they were inspected by Chinese officials and assessed tariffs, and the Chinese frequently demanded bribes. Since they were Catherine the Great (1729–1796) Russian czarina Catherine the Great 75 banned from learning Chinese, all traders were forced to hire local interpreters. The Canton system of trade created resentment that was particularly strong among British traders who expected more respect of the foreign trade in China. However, as long as the foreign traders were greedy for Chinese goods such as tea, silk, porcelain, and lac- querware, they were forced to accept China’s terms. In return for Chinese goods, the hong merchants imported tin, copper, lead, iron, wool, cotton, and linen. Up to the end of the 18th century, China enjoyed a trade balance with Great Britain. In June 1793 King George III of Great Britain dis- patched Lord George Macartney as ambassador to China to meet with Emperor Qianlong (Ch’ien-lung) and request that China open up other ports for trading and other concessions. The emperor responded that compli- ance with Macartney’s requests was inconsistent with “dynastic usage.” He also summarily refused the king’s request to open up additional ports. By 1800 foreign traders had discovered a prod- uct that an increasing number of Chinese demanded: opium. Approximately 40,000 chests, each containing 133 pounds of opium, were being imported into Canton each year by the 1830s. Although opium was banned, foreign traders continued to smuggle it into the country. In an effort to call a halt to such smuggling, Emperor Daoguang (Tao-kuang) charged Lin Zexu (Lin Tse-Hsu) with the task of ending the opium trade in China in 1839. Lin immediately set about reinforcing China’s laws. Raids upon local opium dens netted thousands of opium pipes, but large quantities of opium remained in foreign hands. Commissioner Lin next issued a two-pronged ulti- matum to all foreign opium traders. They could either leave China immediately, or they could surrender all opium to officials. Failure to comply would result in their being prohibited in carrying out legitimate trade. A number of traders chose to leave China, some signed a bond, but others took a wait-and-see attitude. British traders developed a plan whereby they would surrender only a few chests as tokens. Lin was not deceived and continued the standoff. Lin then removed all Chinese servants from the offending factories. The standoff lasted 47 days before the British traders surrendered some 20,000 chests of opium containing over 3 million pounds of raw opium. The opium of British merchants was first handed over to the British superintendent of trade in Canton, which made it British government property. Elliot then handed the chests over to the commissioner, Lin, who had them destroyed. Major problems, however, remained unresolved between China and Britain, culminating in war. The first Anglo-Chinese Opium War (1839–42) resulted in British victory. The Treaty of Nanjing (Nanking) ended the hong system and Canton’s special position as the only port of entry in China’s trade with the West. See also Macartney mission to China. Further reading: Bickers, Robert A., ed. Ritual and Diplo- macy: The Macartney Mission to China, 1792–1794. Lon- don: The British Association for Chinese Studies, 1993; Fair- banks, John King, ed. The Chinese World Order: Traditional China’s Foreign Relations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer- sity Press, 1968. When Czarina Elizabeth died in December 1761, her nephew Peter ascended the throne. He had already alienated his wife, Catherine (Sophia Augusta, the prin- cess of Anhalt-Zerbst in the Holy Roman Empire), by his evident lack of affection for her. Some historians believe that their son Paul was actually fathered by her lover Sergei Saltykov, a rumor believed at the time by Czarina Elizabeth prior to her death. Catherine lived in fear that without the czarina’s protection, Peter might do away with her. He already had had at least one mis- tress, Elizabeth Vorontzov. Catherine decided to strike first, for she knew that if Peter killed her, he might have Paul killed too. Besides his wife, Peter III had also alienated the most important political force in the capital of St. Petersburg, the regiments of the Russian Imperial Guard. Although Catherine was German by birth, she had successfully won over the Guards during the years since her first appearance at court. To them, she was a Russian czarina, and Peter III a German usurper. Assured of the Guards’ support by her current lover, Gregori Orlov, himself an officer in the Ismailovski Regiment, his brother Alexei Orlov, and other officers, Catherine seized power from Peter III in a coup on June 28, 1762. In her manifesto Catherine declared that Peter III had intended to “destroy us completely and to deprive us of life.” Peter was forced to abdicate and on July 6 was killed, apparently in a quarrel with one of those Elizabeth Purdy 76 Catherine the Great guarding him. Whether Catherine was a party to his death, historians will never really know. But with Peter removed from the scene, she most likely slept more soundly than she had in years. On September 22, 1762, Catherine was crowned empress and autocrat of all the Russias. Although the Imperial Guards regiments had sup- ported her, some of them still felt a sovereign from the Romanov dynasty should rule them, not a German- born princess. To tighten her control of the Guards, and the rest of society, Catherine reinstituted the secret police that Peter had abolished in one of his enlightened reforms. Catherine’s secret branch became the model for the Okhrana, the special police who would serve the czars until the very end. Foreign affairs first claimed her attention as Rus- sia struggled with the aftermath of the Seven Years’ War. In 1763 Augustus III of Poland died, and the Poles began the process of electing a new king in their Sejm, or parliament. As the elector of Saxony in the Holy Roman Empire, Augustus’s son Frederick Christian automati- cally became the elector, but there was dissension over who would succeed him as king of Poland. Catherine favored Stanislas Poniatowski to succeed Augustus as king, partly became Stanislas had once been her lover, and she wanted a friendly Poland. With the weight of the huge Russian army tilting the scales now in his favor, Stanislas was duly elected the next king by the Polish Sejm as Stanislas II Augustus in 1764. Ironically, Poland would become the means of finally making peace among the belligerent nations of the Seven Years’ War. Prussia, supported by England, had fought against the Austrian Empire, France, and Russia during the conflict. In an attempt to make peace among them, the three eastern powers, Prussia, Austria, and Russia, decided to partition Poland. The first parti- tion took place in 1772, to be followed by subsequent partitions in 1793 and 1795. By the Third Partition of Poland in 1795, Poland no longer existed as a state, and Stanislas II, without a kingdom to rule, abdicated his no-longer-existing throne. It would not be until the aftermath of World War I that Poland would rise again as an independent nation. With Russia’s western front secured, Catherine now moved against Russia’s traditional enemies to the south and east, the Ottoman Empire and its vassals, the khans of the Crimea, the Gerei dynasty. In 1768 Catherine began war against the Ottoman Empire, now in its decline under the sultan Mustafa III. On July 10, 1774, the Russians under Field Marshal Peter Rumiantsev and the Turks signed a peace at the village of Kuchuk-Kainardji in the Balkans. Russia gained full access to the Sea of Azov and the Caspian Sea and the independence of the Crimean khanate from Ottoman rule. In return, Russia returned much of the lands in the Balkans and along the Danube that it had con- quered from the Turks. But it was evident that the Russians reserved the right to intervene at any time in the region. This became the bedrock of the Pan-Slav movement of the 19th century, when the Russians felt themselves to be the particular protectors of the Slavs who still lived under Turkish rule in the Balkans. In 1778 the Turks launched a fleet on the Black Sea to send an expedition- ary force to help the foundering Crimean khanate, but the Turkish fleet sailed aimlessly in the Black Sea until foul weather forced it to seek refuge at the Ottoman naval base at Sinope. In 1783 Catherine II’s new favor- ite, Prince Grigori Potemkin, threatened the khanate with a Russian invasion. Bahadur II Gerei, the last of his dynasty, abdicated to be pensioned off by Catherine II, now becoming known as Catherine the Great. The great campaigns, however, had thrust an intol- erable burden onto the peasants, the vast majority of the Russian population. The policy of serfdom, reducing peasants to virtual slaves on the great landownings of the nobility, had by now reached most of Russia. The need for weapons for the wars had put inhuman demands on the workers in the Ural mines, and often soldiers had to be sent in to quell labor disputes. In 1773 a Yaik Cossack by the name of Emilian Pugachev proclaimed that he was Peter III, who had come back to save the Russians from the tyranny of “the German woman.” With her forces largely committed to the war with the Turks, Catherine’s military resources were limited. Pugachev seized the great city of Kazan, and Nizhni-Novgorod, the third city of her empire, was destroyed when the serfs there rose in support of Czar Peter. When she saw that Pugachev might reach Mos- cow, and perhaps St. Petersburg, Catherine brought her troops home. With the return of thousands of her vet- eran troops, the tide turned rapidly against Pugachev. On January 10, 1775, he was beheaded in Moscow. The experience with the Pugachev rebellion did not deter Catherine from her desire to modernize Russia. A self-educated woman, she corresponded regularly with the leaders of the Enlightenment, like Voltaire and Denis Diderot in France. Among Catherine’s initiatives to modernize Russia were the abolition of torture (even with Pugachev) and the encouragement of industrial and agricultural growth. She also extended equal rights to the empire’s Muslim population, which had grown caudillos and caudillismo 77 A monument to Empress Catherine the Great in Vilna. Her reign encompassed several wars, but she saw herself as a peacemaker. greatly with the annexation of the Crimea after 1783. They were given the right to build mosques, although, as with all religions, Islam was kept under scrutiny by the state, and the Russian Orthodox Church remained paramount in the empire. By the late 1770s Catherine had become to see herself as a peacemaker in Europe. On December 30, 1777, Maximilian Joseph, the elector of Bavaria, died. Frederick II of Prussia was pitted against the Empress Maria Theresa of Austria, who ruled jointly with her son, Emperor Joseph ii. Although Frederick began the War of the Bavarian Succession in April 1778, nei- ther side was anxious for another bloody war like the Seven Years’ War of 1756 to 1763. Although Catherine favored Frederick, both sides accepted her mediation, and the war came to an end at the Peace of Teschen in April 1779. Both Austria and Prussia received Bavarian territory in compensation, but the new elector ruled a free Bavaria as Charles Theodore. By this time, Catherine had to face a threat from an unexpected quarter. For nearly 60 years, the thoughts of the French Enlightenment, enlivened by her friends Voltaire and Diderot, had undermined popular sup- port for the Bourbon dynasty in France. In July 1789 revolution broke out in France, sending shock waves throughout the monarchies of Europe. Even worse was to come when, during the Turkish War, King Louis XVI of France was beheaded in Paris in January 1793 by the revolutionary Committee of Public Safety. The shock to Catherine was severe—the ideas of the very men she had supported and felt were her allies had led to the death of a king. In 1793, with the countries that had invaded France thrown back, the armies of revolution- ary France began to spread the ideas of liberty, equal- ity, and fraternity throughout Europe against the forces of the First Coaliton, of which Russia was a member. Nobody will ever be fully able to gauge the result of the revolutionary upheaval upon Catherine the Great, but her beliefs in progress and enlightened rule were totally shaken by the upheavals upsetting the Old Order in Europe. On November 6, 1796, following a massive stroke, Catherine died, having ruled Russia for 34 years. What- ever the results of the French Revolution, neither Europe nor Russia would ever be the same again after the reign of Czarina Ekaterina, Empress Catherine the Great. See also Poland, partitions of. Further reading: Bartlett, Roger. A History of Russia. New York: Palgrave, 2005; Bosworth, Clifford Edmund. The New Islamic Dynasties. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1996; Erickson, Carolly. Great Catherine: The Life of Catherine the Great, Empress of Russia. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1994; Hingley, Ronald. Russia: A Con- cise History. London: Thames and Hudson, 2003; Troyat, Henri. Catherine the Great. Pinkham, Joan, trans. New York: Meridian, 1994. John F. Murphy, Jr. caudillos and caudillismo Understanding the phenomenon of the caudillo is essential for understanding the political history of 19th-century Latin America. (The terms caudillismo and caudillaje refer to the more general phenomenon of rule by caudillos.) While there is no universal definition that fits every caudillo under all circumstances, scholars generally agree on a cluster of attributes that most caudillos 78 caudillos and caudillismo shared and that together provide a viable working defi- nition of the caudillo phenomenon. In general, a caudillo was a political-military strongman who wielded political authority and exer- cised political and military power by virtue of personal charisma, control of resources such as land and prop- erty, the personal loyalty of his followers and clients, reliance on extensive clientage networks, the capacity to dispense patronage and resources to clients, and per- sonal control of the means of organized violence. Some caudillos were also distinguished by their exceptional personal courage, physical prowess, or ability to lead men in battle. Many also displayed a kind of hyper- masculinity and macho swagger that emphasized their maleness in explicitly sexualized terms. In many ways, the keyword is personal: a caudi- llo was a type of leader, marked by his style of leader- ship, and most defined by the personal nature of his rule. Constitutions, state bureaucracies, representative assemblies, periodic elections—these and other insti- tutional constraints on individual and personal power, commonly associated with modern state forms, all were antithetical to the caudillo style of rule, while also often coexisting in tension with it. Ideology mattered little, as caudillos ran the gamut from populist revolutionaries to moderate liberals to staunch conservatives. There is broad agreement that the shorter-term origins of caudillismo can be traced to the tumult of the independence period, as local and regional military chieftains emerged in the fight against the Spanish. A paradigmatic example is José Antonio Páez of the Ven- ezuelan plains (llanos), “totally uneducated, illiterate, and unurbanized, reared in the sun, rain, and ranges of the llanos . . . built like an ox, bloodthirsty, suspi- cious, and cunning . . . an unrivalled guerrilla leader” who went on to become one of Simón Bolívar’s key allies, and, in 1830, first president of the Republic of Venezuela, where he dominated political life for the next third of a century. The process by which regional chieftains like Páez became national leaders is the sub- ject of an extensive literature. At the opposite end of the spectrum from Páez, in terms of both his personal background and rise to power, was the Argentine caudillo Juan Manuel de Rosas. Scion of an elite porteño (Buenos Aires) Cre- ole family, Rosas left the port city as a young man to become a cattle rancher and property owner in the pampas of the interior, living and working among the gauchos, from whom he demanded absolute obedi- ence and loyalty, and among whom he developed his base of social support. In this he represented the rising class of estancieros (estate owners) whose wealth and power were based not on inherited privilege or control of state offices but on control of land, men, and resourc- es. Rosas did not participate in the independence battles against Spain but became a key player in the subsequent struggles that defined the shape of post-independence Argentina. Rosas was opposed to the liberal, unitarian, mod- ernizing regime of Bernardino Rivadavia, whose policies were designed to make Buenos Aires equal with the other provinces of the Río de la Plata. His oppo- sition to Rivadavia was not rooted in ideology but in the belief that Buenos Aires should retain its superior power. With his base of support secure, Rosas allied with the federalists who overthrew Rivadavia. Soon after, he became the governor of Buenos Aires and then absolute dictator. His style of leadership was profoundly personal: All power and authority flowed directly from him. Dispensing favors and patronage to his loyal allies, he also terrorized his foes, in part through his feared mazorca (literally, “ears of corn”—effectively, “enforc- ers”), a kind of goon squad responsible for upward of 2,000 murders during his years in power. Rosas was overthrown and exiled in 1852. Other 19th-century caudillos demonstrated varia- tions on these general themes. The Mexican Creole and self-proclaimed founder of the republic and caudillo of independence José Antonio López de Santa Ana was first and foremost a political opportunist—begin- ning his career as a royalist army officer in the service of Spain, donning the mantle of pro-independence liberalism and federalism in the 1820s, and switching sides again to become a staunch conservative and cen- tralist from the mid-1830s. What remained consistent was his style of leadership: the cultivation of personal loyalty via the calculated dispensation of patronage and favors to clients and allies, the ruthless crushing of foes, and ostentatious displays and titles intended to glorify his person and inculcate unquestioned loyalty among his followers. One could continue in this vein, identifying indi- vidual caudillos who came to dominate the political lives of their nations—the populist folk caudillo Rafa- el Carrera in Guatemala, the dictator Porfirio Díaz in Mexico, and many others. Scholars have proposed various caudillo typologies, distinguishing between the cultured caudillo and the barbarous caudillo, for instance, or identifying the consular caudillo, the super caudillo, and the folk caudillo, among others. The multiplicity of types suggests the tremendous vari- ability of the phenomenon. Cavour, Camillo Benso di 79 Not all caudillos were national leaders, however. More often they remained lesser figures who dominated their own locales or regions—men like Juan Facundo Quiroga and Martín Güemes in the Argentine interior, Juan Nepomuceno Moreno of Colombia, and many others. Not uncommonly, at local and regional levels, and in areas with substantial Indian populations, the phenomenon of the caudillo melded with that of the cacique, a local or regional political-military strongman, who deployed the same basic repertoire of techniques and styles of personalized rule and patronage-clientage to dominate regions, provinces, towns, and villages. Indeed, the rule of national caudillos was predicat- ed on the support of local and regional strongmen who served as their loyal and subordinate clients, who in turn dominated their own locales. Thus there emerged in many areas a kind of hierarchical network of cau- dillo power, with the primary caudillo dominant over numerous lesser secondary caudillos, in turn dominant over numerous lesser tertiary caudillos, and so on down the chain of loyalty, alliance, and patronage-clientage. Modernizing elites desirous of creating more mod- ern state forms were among the most vociferous oppo- nents of caudillo rule. A classic critique is the work of Argentine statesman and scholar Domingo Faustino Sarmiento, whose influential and scathing biography, Facundo (or, Civilizacion y barbarie, vida de Juan Fac- undo), first published in 1845, decried the rule of “prim- itive” caudillos like Facundo and Rosas, while framing the caudillo phenomenon in the broader context of the epic struggle between civilization and barbarism. There is no scholarly consensus on when the cau- dillo phenomenon ended, or even if it has ended. Some point to the first half of the 19th century as the hey- day of caudillos and caudillismo; others argue that the phenomenon continued into the 20th century and after, transmuting into various forms of populism and dictatorship, and manifest in the likes of Juan Perón of Argentina, Fidel Castro of Cuba, and Hugo Chávez of Venezuela. Despite vigorous debates over definitions, ori- gins, periodization, and other aspects, however, few disagree that understanding the phenomenon of the caudillo and caudillismo is essential to understand- ing the political evolution of post-independence Latin America. See also Latin America, independence in; Latin America, machismo and marianismo in. Further reading. Hamill, Hugh M., ed. Caudillos: Dicta- tors in Spanish America. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1992; Lynch, John. The Spanish-American Revolu- tions, 1808–1826. New York: Norton, 1973; ———. Cau- dillos in Spanish America, 1800–1850. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992. Michael J. Schroeder Cavour, Camillo Benso di (1810–1861) Italian statesman Count Camillo Benso di Cavour was an Italian states- man who forged the unified Kingdom of Italy. Cavour was born in northwestern Italy in Turin, the capital of Piedmont-Sardinia, ruled by the House of Savoy. Cavour was earmarked for an army career, and he enrolled in the military academy of Turin. Because of his liberal views, however, he had to leave the army in 1831. He then administered the family’s estate. Cavour traveled widely in Europe, visiting France, Switzerland, and Great Britain, and his journeys reinforced his dis- like for absolutism and clericalism. Witnessing the constitutional monarchy of France under King Louis-Philippe, he became a strong supporter of constitutionalism. Originally, Cavour was interested in making Piedmont powerful rather than pursuing Ital- ian unification. Convinced that economic reconstruc- tion had to precede political change, he argued for free trade and railroad construction in the Italian Peninsula. His mind gradually changed, and he began to dream of a united Italy free of foreign influence. With the election of the liberal Pope Pius IX in 1846, Cavour felt that the chance to advocate reform had come. Generally, Cavour did not believe that the pope would play a leading role in the unification move- ment. Instead, Cavour looked to King Charles Albert of Piedmont to implement the national program. In 1847 Cavour founded Il Risorgimento (“The Resurgence,” later a term for the unification of Italy), a newspaper advocating liberalism and unification. As editor, Cavour became a powerful figure in Piedmontese politics. During 1848 a wave of revolutions swept Europe. Demonstrations in Genoa called for liberalization of the state, and Cavour supported the demands for a con- stitution in Il Risorgimento. Pressured by the influential paper and by the dissent in his kingdom, Charles Albert complied on February 8, 1848. Cavour then urged the king to declare war against Austria, which ruled much of Italy at the time. Word arrived that the people of Milan on March 18, 1848, had initiated a war against the Austrians. Bowing to 80 Central America: National War pressure from Cavour’s party, Charles Albert declared war on Austria. Piedmont was defeated, but liberalism and national- ism were still strong. Charles Albert abdicated in favor of his son, Victor Emmanuel II. Under the new monarch, Cavour’s career flourished. He became minister of agri- culture and commerce in 1850 and minister of finance in 1851, finally becoming prime minister at the end of 1852. Cavour capitalized on the antipapal sentiment in Italy following Pius IX’s refusal to wage war upon Aus- tria. The defeat of 1848 also convinced Cavour of the need for a powerful ally to separate Austria from Italy. Cavour worked hard to strengthen the state, reorganiz- ing its army, financial system, and bureaucracy. He also encouraged the development of industry, railroads, and factories, making Piedmont one of the most modernized European states of the time. In 1854 Piedmont entered the Crimean War as an ally of Great Britain and France in exchange for prom- ises that the future of Italy would be considered an urgent issue with international scope. In 1856 Cavour presented the Italian case before the peace Congress of Paris. He succeeded in isolating Austria, compromising France in the Italian question, and getting the condi- tion of Italy discussed by the great powers, who agreed that some remedy was in order. Cavour now saw that war with Austria was merely a question of time, and he began to establish connections with revolutionists of all parts of Italy. He sought to ingratiate himself with Napoleon III, emperor of the French, whose support he considered crucial to avenge the defeat of 1848–49. Napoleon sympathized with the plan for a north- ern Italian kingdom, and in July 1858, the two plotted against Austria. Piedmont would be united with Tus- cany, a truncated Papal State, and the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies. Napoleon promised that if Austria were to attack Piedmont-Sardinia, France would come to its aid. Cavour immediately set to provoking Austria into war, and in April 1859 Austria attacked. However, after victories at Magenta and Solferino, Napoleon signed an armistice, without informing his allies. The treaty allowed Austria to keep Venetia, but Piedmont received only Lombardy. Cavour, unwilling to accept the terms, resigned. The situation soon reversed itself when the citizens of Tuscany, Modena, Parma, Bologna, and Romagna voted in March 1860 to become part of Pied- mont-Sardinia. Cavour returned to power in January 1860. Soon afterward, the Italian patriot Giuseppe Garibaldi led his famous army of 1,000 adventurers into the King- dom of the Two Sicilies. The Neapolitan government fell, and Garibaldi entered Naples in triumph. Follow- ing the collapse of the Neapolitan kingdom, Cavour engineered its annexation. He also managed to occupy the greater part of the Papal States, avoiding the city of Rome because Napoleon was pledged to protect the pope. Cavour’s dream, save for Rome and Venetia, was now realized, and Italy was nearly united. On March 17, 1861, Cavour had the Piedmontese parliament proclaim Victor Emmanuel king of Italy. The parlia- ment also proclaimed Rome the future capital, hoping to resolve the question through an agreement with the church. Three months later, Cavour died. Cavour’s political ideas were greatly influenced by the Revolution of 1830 in France, which proved to him that a monarchy was not incompatible with liberal principles. A strong belief in liberalism, an extensive knowledge of technology, and the dream of a unified Italy allowed Cavour to unite Italy and to modernize his country both politically and technologically. When he died, his work had been carried far enough that others could complete it. Cavour is undoubtedly the greatest figure of the Risorgimento. It was Cavour who organized it and skillfully conducted the negotiations that overcame all obstacles. See also French Revolution. Further reading: Coppa, Frank J. Camillo di Cavour. Farm- ington Hills, MI: Twayne Publishers, 1973; Hearder, Harry. Cavour. New York: Longman, 1994; Murtaugh, Frank M. Cavour and the Economic Modernization of the Kingdom of Sardinia. New York: Garland Publishers, 1991; Salvado- ri, Massimo. Cavour and the Unification of Italy. Totowa, NJ: Van Nostrand, 1961; Smith, Denis Mack. Cavour. New York: Knopf, 1985. Martin Moll Central America: National War The term National War in Central America refers to the combined military efforts of Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador to defeat the forces of Tennessee-born U.S. filibuster William Walker in 1856–57. The Walker episode represented the pinnacle of 19th-century U.S. filibustering, or pri- vate mercenary efforts to invade, dominate, and gov- ern territories in Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean Basin. The war against Walker briefly united Central Amer- ica’s fractious nation-states, while its aftermath ushered Ceylon: Dutch to British colony 81 in a period of elite convergence and relative political stability in Nicaragua that endured into the early 20th century. Nicaraguans tend to remember the Walker epi- sode as the first instance of U.S. imperialist meddling in their country’s internal affairs, providing a touchstone for anti-imperialist and nationalist sentiments well into the 20th century. That popular memory also tends to suppress key features of a war that all observers agree left a deep imprint on isthmian history. In early 1855 Nicaraguan Liberals, based in the city of León, contracted with the soldier of fortune Walker, the self-proclaimed “Grey-Eyed Man of Destiny,” in their ongoing civil conflict against that country’s Conservatives, based in the city of Grana- da. The roots of the conflict between León’s Liberals and Granada’s Conservatives were complex, based on regional, political, and ideological divisions, and the efforts of elites in both regions to dominate the country’s post-independence state. The origins of Nicaraguan Liberals’s invitation to Walker can also be traced to their experience with U.S. travelers and businessmen in the transisthmian route across Nicara- gua that developed in the wake of the California gold rush after 1849, most notably U.S. magnate Corne- lius Vanderbilt’s Accessory Transit Company, which began operations in 1851. The 31-year-old Walker had gained fame princi- pally in his unsuccessful filibustering ventures in Baja California and Sonora, Mexico, in 1853–54. Offering Walker and his fellow mercenaries 250 acres of land each following the Conservatives’s defeat, León’s Lib- erals were shocked when, following his army’s victory in October 1855 and his usurpation of the presidency in July 1856, Walker launched a concerted effort to remake Nicaragua according to his own designs. Rein- stituting African slavery (abolished in 1824), he also sought to seize all state power, disfranchise the elites, confiscate elite properties, and transform the country into a Protestant slaveholding patrician society mod- eled on the U.S. South. His brazen power grab unified elites across Central America, who feared the loss of their own privileges and power. Costa Rican forces, entering the country from the south, fought Walker’s forces in April 1856, followed in July by the invasion from the north of a combined army of over 1,000 Guatemalans, Salvadorans, and Hondurans. A series of hard-fought battles followed, as Walker’s army, stung by the desertion of most native troops, retreated to its strongholds in Granada and Rivas. Hemmed in on all sides, Walker ordered the burning of Granada. For Nicaraguans, the com- plete destruction of the old colonial city by Walker’s drunken filibusters ranks among the most horrific and memorable episodes of the conflict. With the cru- cial intervention of Cornelius Vanderbilt, with whom Walker had made a powerful enemy, Walker’s forces surrendered on May 1, 1857. He made three further attempts to reestablish his regime; during the last, in 1860, the British navy captured him and Honduran authorities executed him. In Central America, the National War is chiefly remembered as the first instance of U.S. imperialist and military meddling on the isthmus—even though the U.S. government played only a marginal role in the conflict. The war discredited Nicaragua’s Liber- als, who joined Conservatives in a series of govern- ments that led to the most peaceful and stable period in post-independence Nicaraguan history to that time. What Nicaraguans and Central Americans tend not to emphasize is the role of León’s Liberals in invit- ing Walker in the first place and the warm embrace he received during his first year. The National War and its aftermath shaped isthmian politics in enduring ways, especially in fostering anti–United States nationalist sentiments and continue to occupy an important posi- tion in the collective memory of Central Americans, especially in Nicaragua. See also abolition of slavery in the Americas; Latin America, economic and political liberalism in; slave trade in Africa. Further reading. Berman, Karl. Under the Big Stick: Nica- ragua and the United States since 1848. Boston: South End Press, 1986; Burns, E. Bradford. Patriarch and Folk: The Emergence of Nicaragua, 1798–1858. Cambridge, MA: Har- vard University Press, 1991; Gobat, Michel. Confronting the American Dream: Nicaragua Under U.S. Imperial Rule. Dur- ham, NC: Duke University Press, 2005. Michael J. Schroeder Ceylon: Dutch to British colony The Portuguese arrived in Sri Lanka in 1505 and took over the kingdoms of Kotte and Jaffna, with the king- dom of Kandy, largely because of its geographical posi- tion in the center of the island, managing to remain free of their rule. Thus, when the Dutch admiral George Spilberg landed on the east coast in the early 17th century, he was welcomed by the king of Kandy, who invited the Dutch to settle on the east coast of the 82 Ceylon: Dutch to British colony island. He saw that this would provide an important counterbalance to the Portuguese. The first Dutch settlement was established in 1640 with William Jacobszoon Coster as the governor. In June 1640 Coster was murdered and replaced by Jan Thys- sen Payart, who had started establishing farms to grow cinnamon for export to Europe. It was the fifth gover- nor, Adriaan van der Meijden, who decided to move decisively against the Portuguese. In 1658 he managed to drive them off the island, and the Dutch then gradu- ally took over the south of the island, then the south- west and western coast. When they took over the entire east coast of the island in 1665, even though Kandy remained independent, they controlled all the ports. By 1765 the Dutch were in control of the entire coastline, and Kandy only held the isolated highlands in the center of the island that were too difficult to attack. Officially the island was a possession of the Dutch East India Company, and it appointed a governor based in Colombo who ruled Ceylon as a colony. Most gov- ernors were only in Ceylon for short periods, but some had a lasting effect on the place. Jan Maetsuyker, gover- nor from 1646 until 1650—before the Dutch took con- trol of the whole island—relaxed laws on mixed mar- riages to try to encourage Dutch merchants to marry, assimilate, and remain on the island. He felt that this might allow them to compete with local merchants on a much stronger basis. In contrast, Jacob van Kittensteijn, his succes- sor from 1650 until 1653, regarded the local wives of merchants as being “vicious and immoral.” The situa- tion changed again after the capture of Colombo and Jaffna in 1656–58 with some 200 Dutch soldiers and merchants marrying into the Indo-Portuguese commu- nity—many of these being the wives of Portuguese who were unceremoniously deported. Rijklof van Goens, one of the longest serving governors (who had cap- tured Jaffna), governed 1662–63 and again 1665–75. He encouraged mixed marriages—or indeed any mar- riages—to try to build up an indigenous Dutch settler population. However, he legislated that daughters of mixed marriages should marry Dutchmen. This had the result of ensuring that there were large numbers of people on the island with Dutch surnames. Rijklof van Goens was succeeded as governor by his son and then by Laurens Pijl from 1679 until 1692. These three governors provided much stability for the colo- nial infrastructure of the island, which was divided into three parts: Colombo, Galle, and Jaffna. The latter two parts had commanders who reported to the governor, whereas the governor ruled the area around Colombo himself, with the assistance of a small nominated coun- cil. Lower levels of the bureaucracy were staffed by Sin- halese or Tamils who originated from southern India. The Sinhalese nobility kept their privileges, and, with no worry of invasion or civil war, they actually consid- erably increased their wealth. The Dutch recognized Portuguese land titles (in contrast to their actions in Malacca and elsewhere), and they widened the private ownership of land, which for the Portuguese had only operated in urban areas. This resulted in the massive settlement of fertile land, with Dutch and largely Sinhalese businessmen and farmers being able to establish considerable land holdings. There were attempts to codify the local laws, but this proved much more complicated than expect- ed. The result was that Dutch laws gradually came to apply to the cities and much of the coastal regions, especially in areas dominated by the Sinhalese. Mus- lim laws applied to Muslims on the east coast, and the Thesawalamai laws used by the Tamils of Jaffna were codified in 1707 and used there, although Christians there were subject to Dutch laws. RELIGION In the area of religion, when the Dutch took Ceylon there were, nominally, about 250,000 Sinhalese and Tamil Roman Catholics, a quarter of these from the region around Jaffna. The Dutch banned Roman Catholicism, ejected all Catholic priests, and made it illegal for any to operate on the island. They also set about converting many of the local people to Calvinism. Roman Catho- lic churches were changed into Reformed churches, and many Catholics converted to Calvinism in name only, while others reverted to Hinduism or Buddhism. How- ever, a shortage of Dutch ministers held up these plans, and Roman Catholics operated underground, especially from the Portuguese-held port of Goa, in India. Although the Portuguese had made much revenue from Ceylon, the Dutch set about methodically expand- ing the revenue base of the country. The Portuguese had relied heavily on tariffs and obligatory labor for a cer- tain number of days each year by the poor (in lieu of taxes); the Dutch maintained these but started estab- lishing large plantations for cinnamon, which rapidly became the mainstay of the Dutch colonial economic structure in Ceylon. The Dutch East India Company maintained a mo- nopoly not only over the export of cinnamon but also over areca nuts, pearls, and elephants. They were par- ticularly anxious to control the Ceylon economy tightly, and imports from India were so heavily restricted that Ceylon: Dutch to British colony 83 occasionally there were shortages of rice and textiles in Colombo. Gradually, some private traders were allowed to bring in these and some other goods, but the Dutch East India Company jealously guarded its monopolies. With the Napoleonic Wars and the French inva- sion of the Netherlands and the deposing of the Dutch king, the British set about occupying Dutch colonies around the world to prevent them falling into French hands. As a result, in 1796 the British—strictly speak- ing the British East India Company—took control of Ceylon, defeating the small Dutch force, which made a symbolic but futile resistance. The British placed the island under military rule and governed it from their settlement at Madras, as they expected to return Ceylon to the Dutch at the end of the war. However, the British quickly discovered the importance of the island—strategically as well as financially. In 1802 Ceylon was declared to be a British Crown Colony, and the British hold over the island was confirmed by the Treaty of Amiens later the same year. The initial problem facing the British was the king- dom of Kandy in central Ceylon. Although the Dutch had managed to seize the entire coastline, they had never been able to subdue the independent kingdom. The British had recognized the sovereignty of the king of Kandy, but Robert Brownrigg, governor from 1812 until 1820, had other ideas. He found that the frontier between British territory and Kandy was a little uncer- tain in places and to guard it was extremely expensive. Furthermore it would obviously be far easier if the Brit- ish controlled the entire island, which would remove political insecurity and help with communications around the island. SOME PRIVILEGES An early British attempt to attack Kandy in 1803 failed. However, Brownrigg took advantage of a cri- sis in Kandy. Making an alliance with some Kandyan nobles, in 1815 he sent soldiers into the kingdom and captured it. Kandyans were guaranteed some privi- leges and were able to preserve customary laws and institutions, as well as having religious freedoms. However, many Sinhalese saw the erosion of the inde- pendence of Kandy as a part of a wider attack on Bud- dhism. This led to a large Sinhalese revolt that took place in 1818. It was suppressed, and Kandy was then integrated with the rest of Ceylon. The British also introduced a new flag for Ceylon. It had a blue field with the Union flag in the corner, as with other British colonies, and a design showing an elephant in front of a stupa to represent Ceylon. British moves in Ceylon, as with the Dutch, were to increase revenue, and more land was taken as the number of plantations increased, many owned by British compa- nies. As well as growing cinnamon, the British set about cultivating, on a large scale, pepper, sugarcane, and cof- fee. They even experimented with cotton. Coincident with this, the British also instituted many reforms. Slav- ery was abolished, and salaries were now paid in cash rather than in land and food. The British also relaxed the need for people to provide compulsory labor for the government each year. Many Sinhalese and Tamils, how- ever, especially in rural areas, did resent the increase in missionary activity by British and South Indian church groups. In 1833 Robert Wilmot-Horton, who had become governor two years earlier, enacted a widespread series of reforms that essentially adopted a unitary admin- istrative and judicial framework for the whole island. Special rights afforded to particular groups were abro- gated; this would massively affect all of Ceylon, whose people gradually came to see themselves as Ceylon- ese. English became the language of government and also the medium of instruction in schools, which had increased massively in number in the 1820s and early 1830s. As well as this, Wilmot-Horton reduced the powers of the governor, who could no longer rule by decree. He established executive and legislative councils that would govern. The latter were initially comprised of British officials, but gradually unofficial members were appointed representing business interests. On an economic front, the British abolished state monopolies and also finally ended the right of the colonial government to demand labor services in lieu of taxes. Crown land was sold to cultivators, and this caused the establishment of many more small planta- tions and the growth of the coffee industry. From the 1830s until the 1870s there was a massive expansion in the areas where coffee was under cultivation. The plant- ers survived the collapse in the coffee price in 1847 and gradually, as more coffee plantations were established, there was a need for a cheap labor force, and many Tamil laborers from South India started to migrate to Ceylon, leading to a substantial Tamil population by the end of the 19th century. Unfortunately, in 1869 a rust disease started attack- ing coffee crops. By 1871 it had devastated the coffee industry, and there was much discussion about what could productively be done with the land to maintain employment for both plantation managers and their staff. There had been a small tea industry in Ceylon since the 1860s—largely for local consumption. This 84 Chakri dynasty and King Rama I Bringing tea to market in Ceylon. Ceylon, now called Sri Lanka, was an important possession for the British. The island had strategic significance in its location near India and produced tea, cinnamon, pepper, and other valuable cash crops. was expanded from the late 1870s with tea bushes being grown on slopes of the hill country where the land was able to be drained easily. Rubber and coco- nut plantations were also developed but never rivaled the tea industry, with Ceylon tea becoming well-known throughout the British Empire. Later, the tea industry was so identified with the island that it was able to use the traditional lion, from the flag of Ceylon (Sri Lanka after independence), to symbolize Ceylon tea. Most of the infrastructure of colonial Ceylon was built by the British in the latter half of the 19th century: ports, public buildings, hospitals, roads and railways, schools, and a reliable postal and telegraph system. However, many of the problems that were to overshad- ow Ceylon in the late 20th century were already appar- ent. The cities and towns were fairly modern, with a well-educated population, many of whom spoke En- glish fluently and were politically aware. Employment was easy for the middle class and the well connected. However, on the plantations large numbers of Tamil laborers lived in very basic conditions, often in hostels for men—without their families—and with family ties back on the Indian mainland. Outside the urban areas and the plantations, the villages remained isolated from much of the economic life of the island, and people still survived by subsistence agriculture. Gradually roads, and in some cases railways, reduced this isolation. Further reading: Arasaratnam, S. Ceylon and the Dutch, 1600–1800: external influences and internal change in early modern Sri Lanka. Brookfield, VT: Variorum, 1996; ———. Dutch Power in Ceylon. New Delhi: South Asia Books, 1988; Forrest, D. M. A hundred years of Ceylon Tea 1867–1967. London: Chatto & Windus, 1967; Gooneratne, Brendon and Yasmine. This Inscrutable Englishman: Sir John D’Oyly 1774–1824. London: Cassell, 1999. Justin Corfield Chakri dynasty and King Rama I The Chakri dynasty was established on April 6, 1782, when Chao Phaya Chakri was crowned the king of Thailand (formerly Siam) as Rama I. The rulers belong- ing to the house of Chakri have been kings of Thailand Chakri dynasty and King Rama I 85 ever since. The illustrious rulers of this dynasty took the country out of troubled times during the colonial period. Their vision and leadership also modernized Thailand. Rama I was born on March 20, 1737, to a noble of the Ayudhya kingdom, Phra Aksorn Sundara Smiantra. After finishing his education in Buddhist temples, he served in the royal household of the Ayudya kings before joining the army. Phya Thaksin, Rama I’s predecessor, had liberated Thailand after the Burmese devastation of Ayudhya in 1767. Rama I was in his service, partici- pating in almost every battle fought by the king and was made governor of Ratchaburi Province. He was awarded the title Somdetch Chao Phraya Maha Kashatriya Suk (roughly equivalent to a duke) by Thaksin. The Burmese attack had been repelled, and Cambo- dia and Luang Prabang were under Thai authority. The task of subjugating Vientiane was entrusted to Rama I, then an army general. He successfully completed his mis- sion in 1778. The famous Emerald Buddha, in Vientiane’s possession since 1564, was brought to the capital, Thon- buri. The hostility of Buddhist monks against Thaksin’s demand of obeisance led to his downfall and imprison- ment. Once again, it seemed that the newly established peace and order of the kingdom would collapse in a civil war. Rama I rose to the occasion. He returned from Cam- bodia, where he was stationed for a military campaign, and assumed the royal title after restoring order. Rama I shifted the capital from Thonburi to a site opposite on the bank of the river Chao Phraya. He planned the layout for a new city of Bangkok. It has remained the capital of Thailand ever since. On the east- ern side of the river, he implemented a strong defense with double-lined fortification. Thonburi had been on both banks of the river to protect against Burmese attack. Rama I did not have any plan to make an escape and concentrated on checking any future attack on the capital. A large Chinese community lived on the eastern side, so they were transferred a short distance down- stream to Sampheng. It is now a famous Chinese shop- ping area. Within three years, the Grand Palace was constructed, and it still stands today. In keeping with earlier Thai monarchs, Rama I retained connections with Indic-style Sanskritized epithets that resulted in descriptions of the new city such as Impregnable City of God Indra, Grand Capital of the World, and City given by Indra and Built by Vishnukarma. The Emerald Buddha was installed in Wat Phra Kaew. The reign of Rama I witnessed consolidation and expansion of the kingdom by extensive warfare. The Burmese attacks of King Bodawpaya were successfully defeated in 1785 and 1787. The kingdom of Vien- tiane of Laos acknowledged the vassalage of Thai- land. Chieng Mai and Chieng Saen were once again under Thailand’s authority. Chao In of Luang Prabang remained as a vassal of Rama I. Thus Thai control extended into Laos. In 1795 Rama I installed Anh Eng as ruler of Cam- bodia after annexing the provinces of Battambng, Siem- reap, and portions of Korat. When the powerful Gia Long unified Vietnam, Cambodia had to acknowledge suzerainty of both Thailand and Vietnam. The sultans of Kedah, Kelantan, and Trenggannu acknowledged the suzerainty of the Thai monarch until the British took over the sultanates in 1909. Rama I revamped administration in the provinces as well as the capital, making his rule very centralized. The incessant Burmese invasions of the 18th century had made both the Thai bureaucracy and monkhood corrupt and lax. Between 1784 and 1801 Rama I restored the moral standard of the Buddhist monks by a series of royal decrees. The Buddhist scripture, the Tripitaka (three bas- kets), and Thai civil law had been destroyed at the time of the Burmese sack of the earlier capital Ayudhya. Rama I called a Buddhist council in 1788, in which 250 monks and Buddhist scholars participated, to recon- struct the Tripitaka. The Thai king was the defender of Theravada Buddhism and the pillar of Thai gover- nance and society, and Rama I performed his obliga- tion to the fullest extent. Rama I also appointed a supreme patriarch of Thai Buddhism. Further, he appointed a commission in 1795 consisting of 11 jurists and scholars to look into the laws promulgated by Rama Tibodi I (founder of Ayudhya dynasty), who reigned in the 14th century. The code of laws comprising indigenous practices and Indian legal concepts was somewhat altered. The new code of 1804, known as Laws of the Three Seals, categorized the 48 provinces of the kingdom, each with a governor, most of whom were members of the royalty and served three- year terms. The code also enumerated provisions for civil and military administration. According to Thai sources, Rama I was a benevolent ruler who looked after the needs of his subjects, these codes being a primary exam- ple of his benevolence. There was a flourishing of Thai literature and trans- lations under Rama I. He had initiated the royal writings known as Phra Rajanibondh, and he wrote the Thai ver- sion of the Indian epic, the Ramayana, which depicted the feats of a hero named Rama. 86 Chicago Fire (1871) A Currier & Ives print of the Great Chicago Fire on Sunday, October 8, 1871. The fire panicked citizens and caused widespread damage but produced a reinvented, modern city in its wake. Rama I died on September 7, 1809, in Bangkok and was succeeded by his son, Prince Isarasundorn, as King Rama II. He left a legacy in Thai history as a patron of literature, a lawmaker, and a builder of empire. See also Burmese Wars, First, Second, and Third; Rama v. Further reading: Cady, John F. Thailand, Burma, Laos, & Cambodia. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1966; Hall, D. G. E. A History of South-East Asia. New York: St. Martins Press, 1968; Tarling, Nicholas, ed., The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer- sity Press, 1992; Wenk, Klaus. The Restoration of Thailand under Rama I. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1968; Wyatt, David K. Thailand: A Short History. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1986. Patit Paban Mishra Chicago Fire (1871) The fast-moving blaze that consumed more than three square miles of Chicago, Illinois, causing the Chicago River to boil, killing at least 300, and leaving 90,000 homeless, would, within two decades, produce a rein- vented city more prosperous and beautiful than had seemed possible when the fire burned itself out after 36 hours. In the process of renewal, the Great Fire tested the ability of politicians, magnates, and ordinary city dwellers to deal effectively with the human causes and outcomes of natural disaster. Chicago, 37 years old in the tinder-dry summer of 1871, was a fast-growing, 35-square-mile city of 300,000. Located at the confluence of Lake Michi- gan, major canals, and a growing railroad network, the city was a place of fevered speculation and rapid growth that produced showy mansions abutting the China, spheres of influence in 87 mostly wooden shacks of an expanding poor and immigrant population. It was in one such southwest neighborhood that the fire of Sunday, October 8, was ignited, possibly, although not conclusively, by a lamp overturned in a De Koven Street barn by a cow owned by Mrs. O’Leary, an Irish immigrant. Just a day earlier, a fire in an industrial dis- trict had been contained, but only after $1 million in damage. Already exhausted, fire fighters were unable to quell the new blaze, despite some success by men under the direction of Civil War veteran general Philip Sheridan who used gunpowder to curb the fire’s south- erly spread. Major enterprises, including a flour mill, the city’s water supply system, rail yards, the McCormick Reaper Works, and even the “fire-proof” headquarters of the Chicago Tribune, were destroyed. Overall losses would be estimated at $196 million. Amid acres of twisted rubble, rebuilding began almost before the coals had cooled. Fire debris was used as landfill to expand the city along the lake and river. Shorn of buildings, some parts of Chicago, including its famous loop, became targets of invest- ment and speculation. The importance of the city as an agricultural depot and manufacturing and transporta- tion center assured that financiers from Wall Street and elsewhere would lend ample money for rebuilding. The initial recovery proceeded with great speed, making Chicagoans feel better about their ruined city, but it produced mostly shoddy structures that ignored lessons about the need for planning and fire resistance administered by the Great Fire. A nationwide financial panic of 1873 brought much of Chicago’s building frenzy to a halt. In 1874 the so-called “Little Chicago Fire” inflicted millions in new damage to the city. By the time business condi- tions improved, a new generation of architects, includ- ing Daniel Burnham, John Wellborn Root, and Louis Sullivan, had emerged, along with such newly avail- able technologies as structural steel and elevators. The result would be an innovative new architecture that made Chicago a national and international leader in the field. By 1893 the Columbian Exposition, a hugely suc- cessful world’s fair, would showcase a reborn Chicago and highlight the city’s triumph over both natural and human disaster. See also newspapers, North American. Further reading: Miller, Ross. “Out of the Blue: The Great Chicago Fire of 1871.” In Out of Ground Zero: Case Studies in Urban Reinvention, edited by Joan Ockman. New York: Prestel, 2002; Pierce, Bessie L. A History of Chicago. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1940. Marsha E. Ackermann China, spheres of influence in China’s military and economic weakness and height- ened Western imperialism worldwide during the 1890s resulted in the division of China into Western spheres of influence that threatened its eventual partition. The downward spiral began with the Sino-Japanese War, caused by Japan’s quest to control Korea, a Chinese vassal state. China’s resounding defeat was reflected in the Treaty of Shimonoseki (1895), whereby it gave up protectorship over Korea, ceded Taiwan and the Liaodong (Liaotung) Peninsula to Japan, and paid a huge indemnity. Fearing that Japanese control of the Liaodong Peninsula would give it undue influence over the Chinese capital at nearby Beijing (Peking), Germany, France, and Russia sent identical notes to Japan in April 1898 that forced Japan to return Liao- dong to China in exchange for a larger indemnity. This action was called the Far Eastern Triplice, and, for helping China, the three powers obtained several economic concessions. Germany began the move to divide China into spheres of influence in 1898 with a number of demands: that the Chinese government lease Jiaozhou (Kiao- chow) on the Shandong (Shantung) coast to Germany as a naval base for 99 years; grant Germany the right to build railways, including one to link Jiaozhou with Jinan (Chinan), capital of Shandong province; grant German banks and companies exclusive rights to loan money for development projects in Shandong; and other concessions. China bowed to Germany’s demands and other imperialist nations followed Germany’s lead. Russia added to its existing privileges in northeastern China. They included building the Chinese Eastern and South Manchurian Railways, branch lines of the Trans- Siberian Railway across Manchuria to Port Arthur and Dairen (which it leased from China for 25 years) on the Gulf of Peichili, and extensive economic rights in Manchuria. Great Britain followed by leasing Weihaiwei (near Jiaochou) as a naval base for 25 years and the Kow- loon New Territory for 99 years. It also secured Chi- na’s promise to protect the Yangzi (Yangtze) River Valley, which became a British sphere of influence. France leased Guangzhouwan (Kwangchow-wan) for 88 Chinese Exclusion Act 99 years and acquired a sphere of influence in Guang- dong (Kwangtung), Guangxi (Kwangsi), and Yunnan, three provinces that adjoined French Indochina. Japan exacted a promise that China would not adjoin Fujian (Fukien) province to any other power. Only Italy was rebuffed when it asked China for a sphere of influence in Zhejiang (Chekiang) Province. In the phrase current in 1898, China was being cut up like a melon. It seemed on the verge of partition among the imperialist powers. Domestically, the peril- ous state precipitated a reform movement. Among the great powers, only the United States did not acquire a sphere of influence and attempted to reverse the course of events by the declaration of an Open Door policy. See also Hundred Days of Reform. Further reading: Schrecker, John E. Imperialism and Nation- alism: Germany in Shantung. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1964; Twitchett, Denis, and John K. Fair- bank, eds. The Cambridge History of China. Vol. 11, Part 2, Late Ch’ing, 1800–1911. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980; Young, L. K. British Policy in China,1895–1902. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur Chinese Exclusion Act In 1882, in response to the vociferous insistence of Cal- ifornia’s anti-“coolie” clubs and Irish immigrant Denis Kearney’s Workingmen’s Party of California, Congress passed the first law in U.S. history to ban explicitly the further immigration of a particular racial or ethnic group. Known as the Chinese Exclusion Act, the law reflected the growing ethnic and racial diversity of the century-old republic; the importance of racial identities in shaping local, state, and national politics; and the enduring legacy of racism in the wake of nearly 250 years of African slavery. Chinese immigration to California turned from a trickle to a flood following the discovery of gold at Sut- ter’s Mill in 1848. The ensuing gold rush, which drew prospectors from across the country, caused Califor- nia’s population to skyrocket, from 14,000 in 1848 to more than 220,000 four years later. The vast majority of California’s new immigrants were men and included not only a diversity of Euro-Americans, many recent U.S. arrivals, but also Mexicans, African Americans, and Chinese. At first California’s Caucasian popula- tion tended to look favorably on Chinese immigrants The cover of Harper’s Weekly on February 3, 1877, depicts Chinese immigrants at the San Francisco Customs House. as diligent, thrifty, and hardworking. Overwhelm- ingly male, most Chinese immigrants were brought by labor contractors to work in the burgeoning rail- road, construction, prospecting, and related industries. By the 1870s, however, Euro-American anti-Chinese sentiment hardened, as Chinese women and children began arriving in large numbers and as competition for scarce resources combined with political opportunism and other factors to spark the formation of anti-coo- lie clubs in the state’s largest cities and towns. Vio- lence against Chinese immigrants intensified, including lynchings, burnings, and rapes, while boycotts of Chi- nese-made goods became widespread. Civil War, American 89 In 1875, at the prompting of California congress- man Horace Page, Congress passed a law barring the further immigration of Chinese women, ostensibly to protect the health of white men threatened by Chinese prostitutes. The clamor among whites for the exclu- sion of all Chinese immigrants mounted, spearheaded by Kearney’s Workingmen’s Party. By the early 1880s some 100,000 persons of Chinese ancestry lived in the United States, the vast majority on the West Coast. Many prominent white citizens supported Kearney’s call for Chinese exclusion, including leading labor rights activist Henry George, who deemed the Chinese to be “unassimilable.” Congress finally responded with the Chinese Exclu- sion Act of 1882, which banned all Chinese immigra- tion for 10 years while prohibiting persons of Chinese origin already in the country from becoming naturalized citizens. Ten years later, in 1892, Congress renewed the ban, and in 1902 made the exclusion permanent. To America’s Chinese-descended population, the Exclu- sion Acts encapsulated the bitter realities of racial discrimination in their adopted homeland. Officially stigmatized as second-class citizens, Chinese Ameri- cans would remain toward the bottom of the coun- try’s economic, social, and racial hierarchy well into the 20th century, especially in the Pacific Coast region where most resided. Congress repealed the Chinese Exclusion Acts in 1943 at the height of World War II, in part as a gesture of solidarity with Chinese Nation- alist forces under assault by Japan. The 1943 law also permitted Chinese-descended permanent residents to apply for citizenship, though the civil rights of many Chinese Americans did not receive full federal affirma- tion until the civil rights laws of the mid-1960s. See also abolition of slavery in the Americas; immigration, North America and; railroads in North America. Further reading: Saxton, Alexander. The Indispensable Enemy: Labor and the Anti-Chinese Movement in Califor- nia. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1971; Takaki, Ronald. Strangers from a Different Shore: A History of Asian Americans. Boston: Little, Brown, 1998. Michael J. Schroeder Civil War, American (1861–1865) This most deadly and destructive of any U.S. war was the “irrepressible” outcome of sectional conflicts over land, labor, and political power that emerged in the ear- liest days of colonial rule and festered for decades in the young republic. When it was over, some 620,000 Ameri- cans—Union and Confederate—were dead, as was Pres- ident Abraham Lincoln, assassinated in a Washington theater five days after the war’s end. The Civil War began in April 1861 when agents of the newly formed Confederate States of America (CSA) fired on Fort Sumter, a federal facility in South Caro- lina. By its end at Appomattox Court House in Virginia, almost exactly four years later, this war tested the limits of state and federal power and had become primarily a war about slavery. When the Union prevailed, 4 million people of African descent were declared free. From the early 17th century, the British were enthu- siastic traders in and users of kidnapped West and Central African men, women, and children. Most Americans, including non–slave owners, saw this sys- tem as a highly desirable way to overcome chronic labor shortages in their colonies. Unlike indentured servants, Africans were easily identified and just as easily denied rights extended to white Englishmen. By the time of the American Revolution, every British colony used slave workers; most were concentrated in the southern agri- cultural colonies. Even slave owners like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson perceived an obvious conflict between America’s intensifying rhetoric of freedom and the new nation’s heavy dependence on involuntary labor. During and after the war, many northern states acted to end or phase out slavery. But the 1789 U.S. Constitu- tion, although it never used the word slavery, included major concessions to slave ownership. Most significant was language allowing each state to add to its census count a number representing three-fifths of all slaves held in that state. As slavery waned in the North, and waxed in the South, this had the effect of significantly increasing southern political power based on congres- sional representation. As the new nation doubled in size with the 1803 addition of the Louisiana Purchase, cotton, a labor- intensive, hot-climate cash crop in high demand for clothing, was already transforming U.S. agriculture and reinvigorating the slave labor system. Cotton farmers pushed into Alabama and Mississippi, Louisiana, and the Mexican province of Texas, bringing with them thousands of slaves uprooted from eastern states, and buying additional Africans ahead of the Constitution’s 1808 deadline. More Americans began to question the utility and morality of slavery, and a few, like Boston abolitionist 90 Civil War, American publisher William Lloyd Garrison, even demanded equal rights for African Americans. But the central issue even- tually leading to war was how to deal politically with the expansion of slavery in an expanding nation. After two years of wrangling, Congress in 1820 crafted the Missouri Compromise. Meant to preserve the political balance between slave and free states, the compromise revealed a tense struggle. “Like a fire bell in the night,” wrote the elderly Jefferson, the compromise portended the death “knell of the union.” For a time, the compromise seemed to work, but by the 1840s new land pressures sparked by a grow- ing population and the Manifest Destiny ideology renewed controversy over slavery’s expansion. President James K. Polk, a slave-owning Tennessee Democrat, recognized Texas statehood, negotiated with Britain for the Oregon Territory, and instigated a Mexican War, bringing into the nation vast new areas, many coveted by slave owners. CURBING SLAVERY’S SPREAD In 1846 Pennsylvania congressman David Wilmot, a Democrat disturbed by Polk’s southern bias, proposed that none of America’s potential Mexican acquisitions could be opened to slavery. Passed by the House, Wilm- ot’s Proviso died in the Senate. Democrats and Whigs abandoned party positions in favor of regional loyalties, A Currier & Ives lithograph of Confederate general Robert E. Lee, published between 1860 and 1870 portending the shredding of party politics in the decade to come. In 1848 a new Free-Soil Party ran a national campaign dedicated to curbing slavery’s spread while expanding land availability for white families. The Compromise of 1850, hammered out by vet- eran congressional leaders, only set the stage for greater conflict. This complex measure repealed the Missouri Compromise and allowed gold-rich California to enter the United States as a free state. Slave trading (but not slavery) was outlawed in the District of Columbia. Fed- eral marshals were empowered to seize fugitive slaves anywhere in the United States. In Boston and other abolitionist strongholds, armed conflicts erupted when marshals tried to arrest blacks accused of running away. Harriet Beecher Stowe’s best-selling Uncle Tom’s Cabin helped explain and dramatize these conflicts. In 1854 the idea of popular sovereignty, suppos- edly a fairer way to decide between slave and free soil, exploded as settlers and thugs from both sides staked claims and grabbed political power in the Kansas- Nebraska territories. While Missouri “border ruffi- ans” rampaged on behalf of slavery, abolitionist John Brown randomly massacred five pro-slavery settlers. The rising tide of sectional violence spilled onto the floor of the U.S. Senate in 1856 when a South Carolina House member caned Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner so severely that he was incapacitated for sev- eral years. The Whig Party was an early casualty of sectional conflict, fielding its last national candidates in 1852. Although the Democratic Party maintained much of its traditional southern base, there was really no place for those trying to maintain national political cohe- sion. As nationalism failed, many disaffected northern and midwestern voters— “conscience” Whigs, free- soilers, temperance crusaders, anti-immigrant “Know- Nothings”—became constituents of a new sectional party: the Republicans. Republicans did well in the 1856 election and gained traction in 1857 when a southern-dominated U.S. Supreme Court decided the case of Dred Scott v. Sandford. The Court ruled that Scott, a slave until the last year of his life, was entitled neither to citizenship nor freedom. Additionally, chief justice Roger B. Taney cast doubt on Congress’s power to regulate slavery any- where at all. With reasoned political dialogue vanishing, John Brown’s 1859 effort to spark a slave uprising by seiz- ing weapons from a federal armory at Harpers Ferry, Virginia, brought tension to an even higher pitch. Brown and his followers were swiftly executed but Civil War, American 91 The bloodiest and deadliest war in U.S. history, the Civil War started for various reasons, many based around issues of states’ rights. By the end of the war, the conflict centered around the debate of slavery. Above, officers of the third U.S. Infantry in Washington, D.C. some transcendentalists, including Henry David Thoreau, hailed Brown as a martyred hero, prompting southern Fire Eaters to argue that further intersectional discussion was useless. ELEVEN STATES Abraham Lincoln of Illinois, a former Whig who had supported the Wilmot Proviso, gained national atten- tion for a series of debates with his state’s sitting senator, Stephen Douglas, in 1858. Two years later, he was the Republican Party’s presidential choice. In a four-way race, Lincoln was elected with 40 percent of the popu- lar vote. Anticipating this first Republican president, seven Southern states, led by South Carolina, voted to leave the United States and form an independent nation on the North American continent. They chose Jefferson Davis of Mississippi, former senator and U.S. war secretary, as president. After Fort Sumter, the CSA was joined by four more states, most significantly Vir- ginia, the South’s most industrialized state and home of esteemed general Robert E. Lee. The Civil War has been called the first modern war due largely to its bloody ferocity that did not spare civil- ians. It was a war made possible by new technologies, including ironclad ships and more powerful and reliable guns and mortars. It was among the first wars exten- sively documented by photographers, most famously Mathew Brady. Although neither side was really prepared for con- flict, the Union held an enormous edge in manpower, rail trackage, and industrial capacity. Yet, in early bat- tles, the Confederacy shocked Union troops in the East, thwarting attempts to take Richmond, the CSA’s capi- tal, in the battles of Bull Run/Manassas, the Seven Days’ Campaign, and Second Battle of Bull Run. Not until September 1862’s Battle of Antietam in Maryland was Union general George B. McClellan, a brilliant but vain and indecisive leader, able to claim vic- tory over troops led by General Lee. Antietam was the bloodiest battle in American history. In one day (Septem- ber 17) 4,300 men died outright while 2,000 died later of their wounds. In the West, the Union also had successes 92 Civil War, American as Ulysses S. Grant, soon to become head of the Union armies, captured forts in Tennessee, while Admiral David G. Farragut seized the vital port of New Orleans. Success at Antietam helped solve major issues fac- ing President Lincoln. Confederate envoys in Europe had been working hard to gain diplomatic recognition. They emphasized to British and French leaders the impor- tance of cotton to the European textile industry. A tem- porary textiles glut, European distaste for slavery, and the Union’s own diplomacy and recent military success helped derail the possibility of CSA nationhood aided by foreign powers. In Antietam’s wake, Lincoln also finally felt empow- ered to add an end to slavery to his original war aim of preserving the Union. Since the war’s outset, slaves had flocked to Union lines, while black leaders like Freder- ick Douglass urged Lincoln to allow blacks to join in a battle for their freedom. Yet Lincoln still maintained that he would not interfere with slavery where it already exist- ed, if only the Confederacy gave up its reckless secession. Strengthened by Antietam, Lincoln gave the CSA until January 1, 1863, to surrender or face slavery’s abolition in rebellious states. The Emancipation Proclamation did little to free any slaves and provoked the political back- lash Lincoln had feared. But it did signal the beginning of the end of slavery and inspired more than 200,000 black men to fight for the Union. Still, the war raged. It began with great enthusiasm as young men on both sides flocked to state militias. As bloodshed escalated, both sides had trouble mustering fresh recruits. In April 1862 the CSA instituted the first military draft in U.S. history; a Union conscription law was implemented the following March. Both had loop- holes mainly allowing wealthy men to avoid service; both were highly unpopular. The most extreme example of draft resistance occurred in New York City in the summer of 1863. Led by Irish immigrants, hundreds of protesters expressed their fury by vandalizing the homes and businesses of rich Republicans and assaulting free black citizens of New York. More than 100 died. Troops from the just- concluded Battle of Gettysburg were called in to quell the violence. Gettysburg was one of several key battles in 1863 that favored the Union. The Confederacy suf- fered a grievous loss at Chancellorsville, Virginia, when General Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson was killed by friendly fire. In July General Grant’s troops seized Vicks- burg, gaining control of the Mississippi Valley. Almost simultaneously, General George Meade’s Union troops repelled Lee’s deepest incursion into Union territory at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. Despite these indications of eventual Union suc- cess, there was no quick end. In 1862 Clement L. Val- landigham, a former Ohio Congressman, spearheaded a “peace without victory” movement that called for a negotiated reconciliation with the Confederacy and denounced abolition. These Peace Democrats, called Copperheads by Republican opponents, posed seri- ous political problems for Lincoln, as he faced a strong reelection challenge in 1864 from his fired general, George McClellan. Union victories in the battles of The Wilderness and Spotsylvania caused huge death tolls on both sides, but were crushing blows to the smaller, poor- ly equipped Confederate army. Meanwhile, General William T. Sherman in September captured Atlanta and commenced his March to the Sea that destroyed farms, homes, railroads, and lives across a 60-mile-wide swath of Georgia and South Carolina. These timely successes helped assure Lincoln’s reelection. On January 31, 1865, Congress approved the Thir- teenth Amendment to the Constitution, a first step in the permanent abolition of slavery. By April 3 Grant’s soldiers occupied Richmond; the next day President Lin- coln, accompanied only by a few Union sailors, visited the conquered Confederate capital. In the wake of Lee’s surrender and Lincoln’s assas- sination at the hands of nationally famous actor John Wilkes Booth, a new United States emerged. The North had used the war years to consolidate its economy and create national programs, including western home- steads, agricultural colleges, and a transcontinental rail- road. The decimated South began to rebuild, although it would lag socially and economically for decades. No serious secession movement ever again challenged fed- eral authority. The end of slavery was a joyous event, but it would take generations for either the former Con- federacy or former Union to seriously pursue justice for their African-American citizens. See also abolition of slavery in the Americas; Beecher family; political parties in the United States; railroads in North America; Reconstruction, united states and the; slave trade in Africa. Further reading: McPherson, James M. Battle Cry of Free- dom: The Civil War Era. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988; Oates, Stephen B. With Malice Towards None. New York: Harper & Row, 1977; Potter, David M. The Impend- ing Crisis 1848–1861. New York: Harper & Row, 1976; Thomas, Emory M. The Confederate Nation, 1861–1865. New York: Harper & Row, 1979. Marsha E. Ackermann Cixi (Tz’u-hsi) 93 Cixi (Tz’u-hsi) (1835–1908) Chinese ruler Yehe Nara (or Yehenala) was the daughter of a minor Manchu official. She entered the harem of Emperor Xianfeng (Hsien-feng) in 1851 and became a high- ranking consort upon the birth of a son, his only male heir, in 1856. An incompetent ruler, Xianfeng’s disastrous for- eign policy led to war against Great Britain and France that culminated in the Anglo-French occupation of China’s capital, Beijing (Peking). Xianfeng, Yehe Nara, their son, and some followers fled to their sum- mer palace in Rehe (Jehol), north of the Great Wall. Xianfeng died there in 1861 and was succeeded by his five-year old son who reigned as Emperor Tongzhi (T’ung-chih). Xianfeng’s will created a board of regents for his son. However, they were quickly overthrown by a coalition of his empress, Yehe Nara, and his brother Prince Gong (K’ung), who had been left in charge in Beijing and had negotiated treaties ending the war with Britain and France. Xianfeng’s empress became the dowager empress Ci’an (Tz’u-an) and Yehe Nara became the dowager empress Cixi (also called the Eastern and Western Empresses, respectively, after the location of their residences in the Imperial City). Contrary to dynastic law that forbade regencies under dowager empresses, they became coregents, assisted by Prince Gong, who was given the additional title of prince counselor. Although senior in status, Ci’an was retiring by nature and was dominated by Cixi, who was both ambitious and ruthless; she also exploited her position as the natural mother of the boy emperor. Initially, she cooperated with Prince Gong, using him to run China’s foreign affairs and going along with his programs in cooperation with other modernizing officials. They introduced policies and programs that strengthened China and raised armies that defeated the major rebellions (Taiping, Nian, and Muslim Rebellions) that had threatened the very survival of the Qing (Ch’ing) dynasty. Thus the era of the boy emperor’s reign was called the Tongzhi Restoration. As Cixi gained experience she shed anyone who could threaten her power. From 1865 she repeatedly “chastised” Prince Gong, until he was completely side- lined, replacing him with incompetent and totally com- pliant Manchu princes. For example, she put a minion, Prince Yihuan (I-huan), in charge of building a modern navy, then diverted funds intended for the navy to build a lavish new summer palace, with calamitous results for China when Japan attacked in 1894. She refused to give up actual power when her son reached major- ity in 1872 and encouraged him to indulge in excesses as distraction. She also disapproved of his choice of an empress and did her best to separate the two. He died in 1874 under mysterious circumstances, followed by the suicide of his pregnant empress so that her unborn child, if a male, would not succeed to the throne. In violation of dynastic law, Cixi then adopted a nephew (son of her husband’s brother and her sister), three- year-old Zaitian (Tsai-t’ien), as the new emperor. His youth ensured another long regency for Cixi. When the Eastern Dowager died mysteriously in 1881 after only a day’s illness, Cixi’s power was supreme. Cixi and her court were corrupt to the core. Offi- cials were required to pay her for audiences, promo- tions, and her birthdays and were cashiered if they objected. She allowed her favorite eunuchs and maids to sell offices. One favorite eunuch, Li Lianying (Li Lien- ying), her hairdresser, died a multimillionaire. She tried to terrorize Guangxu (Kuang-hsu) into becoming a cipher, but though terrified of her and forced to marry her niece to enmesh him further under her control, he grew up to be an intelligent and studious man, con- vinced that deep reforms were necessary to save China. The confrontation occurred in 1898 when Guangxu launched the Hundred Days of Reform. In a show- down, Cixi’s reactionary supporters, who feared loss of power, and an opportunistic general, Yuan Shikai (Yuan Shih-k’ai), who betrayed the emperor, allowed Cixi to launch a successful coup that imprisoned Guangxu. Six leading reformers were executed, others fled abroad; all reforms were rescinded. She installed a reactionary prince as heir, preliminary to dethroning Guangxu, but was foiled by opposition from provincial governors and Western powers. CLIMAX OF REACTION In 1899 a xenophobic secret society popularly called Boxers began a rampage in northern China, kill- ing Westerners and Chinese Christians. Cixi and her ignorant supporters believed in Boxer claims of magic. She ordered all Westerners in China killed, Chinese diplomats to return home, declared war on the entire Western world, and cut telegraph lines so that her deeds would not be reported abroad. Fortu- nately for China, its diplomats abroad and governors in the central and southern provinces refused to obey her orders and declared the Boxers rebels. The Boxer reign of terror in Beijing ended when soldiers from 94 coffee revolution eight Western powers captured the city. Cixi fled the capital with Guangxu in tow, refusing to let him stay behind to negotiate with the Western powers due to fear that he might assume power. She returned to Bei- jing in 1902, blaming Guangxu for the Boxer fiasco. Cixi attempted to salvage her fortunes and those of the dynasty after 1902 by belatedly professing interest in change, sent a delegation to Western countries to study reform, and promised gradual political changes. She appointed a three-year-old grandnephew heir to the childless Guangxu before she died on November 15, 1908, after it was announced that he had suddenly died on the previous day. The Qing dynasty would last three more years. See also Aigun and Beijing, Treaties of. Further reading: Hummel, Arthur, ed., Eminent Chinese of the Ch’ing Period, Vol. I. Washington: United States Print- ing Office, 1944; Laidler, Keith. The Last Empress, The She-Dragon of China. London: John Wiley and Sons, 2003; Warner, Marina. The Dragon Empress: The Life and Times of Tz’u-hsi, Empress Dowager of China, 1835–1908. New York: Atheneum, 1972. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur coffee revolution In the second half of the 19th century, what is often referred to as a “coffee revolution” swept large parts of Latin America, especially southern Brazil, northern South America (Colombia and Venezuela), and Cen- tral America (Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Nicaragua). The consequences of this revolution were profound, transforming land-use patterns and rela- tions of production and exchange within individual nation-states, especially through the privatization of collectively held lands (owned either by Indian com- munities, the church, or the state); providing a sound fiscal base for emergent states, and thus permitting the robust growth and modernization of state administra- tions and bureaucracies integral to Latin America’s liberal revolution during this same period; and inte- grating Latin American economies more tightly within the developing global capitalist system, particularly the nexuses connecting Latin America with Europe and North America. Coffee is among what historian Sidney Mintz called the “drug foods” of the Americas and other tropical zones; these foods also include tea, chocolate, tobacco, rum, and sugar. Three of these tropical export prod- ucts—coffee, tea, and chocolate—are bitter and were generally consumed as drinks, facilitating their con- sumption along with sweetening substances like sugar and molasses. In a widely accepted argument, Mintz maintains that the consumption of these drug foods by urban wage earners was part and parcel of the growth of urban working classes in Europe and North America during the Industrial Revolution in the second half of the 19th century. In France, for instance, coffee con- sumption increased fivefold from 1850 to 1900 (from 50 to 250 million pounds annually); Germany saw a fourfold increase during this same period (from 100 to 400 million pounds annually); the figures for other European nations were comparable. This was also an era in which African slavery was on the decline, wage labor and European migration to Latin America on the rise, and liberal reformers in Latin America’s newly independent nation-states were actively seeking greater foreign investment, free trade, and secure sources of tax revenue. All of these factors and more came together to generate Latin America’s coffee revolution. Of African origin, coffee was cultivated in the Americas from the early 1600s, usually on lands unsuitable for sugar and tobacco, the principal export crops. European consumption of coffee rose dramati- cally from the 1650s, especially in urban coffeehouses, which in turn prompted increased coffee production in the Americas, usually by slave labor. But it was not until the 1820s and 1830s, with the explosive growth of urban working classes in Europe and North Amer- ica, and the ending of Latin America’s colonial status, that the industrializing world’s explosive demand for coffee prompted renewed Latin American attention to this traditionally secondary (or tertiary) export com- modity. Large-scale coffee production required not only fertile, well-watered, well-drained soils, but substan- tial long-term capital investment and an ample supply of labor. Land first needed to be cleared and coffee seedlings planted. Coffee trees generally take three to six years from planting to first years of fruit pro- duction, requiring during this period careful tending and weeding. Coffee trees also tend to deplete soils of nutrients; thus, without application of fertilizers, production declines and new lands are needed. Also, unlike sugar, which generally requires large planta- tions to exploit economies of scale, coffee carries no such requirements and can be grown and marketed profitably on large plantations as well as on small farms utilizing primarily family labor. coffee revolution 95 The history of coffee in Brazil, Latin America’s larg- est coffee producer, illustrates these patterns. Before the 1830s, Brazil had undergone a series of export booms: brazilwood, sugar, tobacco, gold, and diamonds. In the 1830s coffee production surged, and by the 1840s coffee became the country’s leading export product—a position it held for the next 130 years. In the 1840s coffee made up more than 40 percent of total exports; by the 1890s nearly 65 percent; and by the 1920s near- ly 70 percent. The region around Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo in the south became the center of the coffee revolution, with the city of Rio de Janeiro emerging as the country’s lead- ing financial and commercial center and principal port city. The city’s financial and transport infrastructure of banks, brokerage houses, and port facilities modernized rapidly. The decline of sugar production in the northeast and growth of coffee production in the south combined with the decline of the transatlantic slave trade to gen- erate a brisk internal trade in slaves and a shift in the country’s demographic, economic, and political center of gravity southward to the coffee zones. By the late 1840s competition for lands suitable for coffee production intensified, prompting the national government to issue a new land law in 1850 that in effect favored large producers and made land acquisi- tion much more difficult for smallholders. During this same period, large coffee growers sought to promote European immigration, both to “whiten” the country’s population and to provide an adequate labor supply for their expanding plantations. The scheme faltered, how- ever, as European immigrants balked at the slavery-like labor conditions and the lack of economic opportuni- ties—a failure that in turn buttressed large planters’ commitment to slave labor. The final abolition of slavery in Brazil in 1888 prompted not only the fall of the empire by military coup and the formation of a republican government in 1889, but a surge in European immigration, much of it related to coffee production. By 1900 more than two- thirds of the world’s coffee was produced in Brazil. Coffee remained the mainstay of the export economy until after 1945, but even as late as 1970 coffee rev- enues made up more than one-third of Brazil’s export sector. The precise nature of Latin America’s coffee revo- lution unfolded differently in different countries and regions, varying widely according to local traditions, preexisting landholding patterns, and power relations between large landholders and smallholders, and many other factors. Overall, coffee production and commerce tended to favor large producers over small, but this gross generalization masks important national, region- al, and local variations. Costa Rica, for instance, the first Central American nation to undergo a coffee revo- lution, is often cited as an example of a Latin American nation whose coffee revolution favored smallholders, which in turn fostered the development of democrat- ic institutions. Scholars generally agree that this was indeed the case. Yet even in Costa Rica, different regions experienced the coffee revolution in distinctive ways. The province of Cartago, for instance, saw large coffee farms predominate (59 percent with more than 20,000 trees), while in the country as a whole, most farms were smaller scale (60 percent with fewer than 20,000 trees). Tremendous local and regional differen- tiation, in short, was the norm, and not just in Costa Rica but across Latin America. The coffee revolution’s timing also varied greatly. Venezuela, like Costa Rica and Brazil, saw surges in coffee production in the 1830s and 1840s; by 1900 Venezuela was Latin America’s second-largest coffee producer after Brazil. The approximate sequence in Central America was Costa Rica (1830s–40s), Gua- temala (1860s–70s), El Salvador (1870s–80s), and Nicaragua (1880s–90s). Honduran coffee production remained limited through the 19th and early 20th cen- turies, reaching Costa Rica’s 1860s production levels only in 1949. Colombia’s coffee production boomed in the late 1870s and 1880s (reaching around 14.3 million pounds in 1880), and again in the 1910s and 1920s (approxi- mately 309 million pounds in 1921). Colombia also developed a coffee economy more akin to Costa Rica’s than Brazil’s, in which small, family-owned and -oper- ated farms tended to predominate—again, with sig- nificant regional variations, with smaller farms pre- dominating on the coffee frontier region of the central cordillera and larger production units in zones with greater abundance of labor and capital, such as south- western Cundinamarca Department. Everywhere, the coffee revolution introduced a host of changes generally associated with Latin America’s liberal revolution: the privatization of lands former- ly unclaimed or owned collectively; the formation of more modern structures of state administration and bureaucracy; the increasing importance of wage labor; the modernization of transport and communications infrastructure to facilitate production for export; state and elite-led promotion of free trade, foreign invest- ment, and European immigration; greater vulnerability to the boom-and-bust cycles of the world market; and 96 Colombia, War of the Thousand Days in (1899–1902) tighter integration into the structures of global capital- ism. The specifics of these transformations in various national and subnational contexts comprise the subject of a voluminous literature. See also abolition of slavery in the Americas; Latin America, export economies in; slave trade in Africa. Further reading: Bergquist, Charles. Labor in Latin America: Comparative Essays on Chile, Argentina, Venezuela, and Colombia. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1986; Mintz, Sidney W. Sweetness and Power: The Place of Sugar in Modern History. New York: Viking, 1985; Stein, Stanley J. Vassouras: A Brazilian Coffee County, 1850–1900: The Roles of Planter and Slave in a Plantation Society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1985; Williams, Robert G. States and Social Evolution: Coffee and the Rise of National Governments in Central America. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1994. Michael J. Schroeder Colombia, War of the Thousand Days in (1899–1902) The War of the Thousand Days in Colombia lasted from October 1899, when the Liberals staged a revolt to unseat the Conservative government, to November 1902. It is estimated that 100,000 people died during the war, which left Colombia and Panama (then a part of Colombia) dev- astated. It also led to the secession of Panama. There had been much instability in 19th-century Colombia with the 1863 constitution suppressed in 1886 and a new constitution established. This failed to end the period of confrontation between the Liberals and the Conservatives, the latter managing to manip- ulate the electoral system to remain in power. With President Manuel Antonio Sanclemente being too ill to administer the country, there was a power vacuum which Liberal generals hoped to exploit. The Liberal generals planned a coup d’état for Octo- ber 20, 1899, but the date was brought forward to Octo- ber 17 at the last moment. Instead of being a relatively straightforward conflict, many Liberals were hesitant about becoming involved in the war, some for fear of the consequences of failure, others because they were unsure whether they wanted a civil war. The outbreak of the rebellion was in Socorro, Santander, with rebels who had trained in Venezuela ready to come over the border. The Conservative government immediately sent their loyal commanders to Bucaramanga, the capital of Santander, but the soldiers were unhappy about being paid in what they felt was worthless paper money. This stopped the Conservatives from ending the war with a quick victory. However, they did manage to defeat some of the Liberals at the Battle of the Magdalena River on October 24. They were unable to follow up their victo- ry. The Conservatives split into two factions, the “his- torical” and the “national.” Sanclemente was deposed and replaced with José Manuel Marroquín. At the same time, the Liberals, who also split into two factions, the “pacificists” and the “warmongers,” nominated one of their leaders, Gabriel Vargas Santos, as their president, and the scene was set for a civil war. At the Battle of Peralonso, the Liberals led by Rafa- el Uribe defeated their opponents, but at the Battle of Palonegro, the Conservatives were able to crush the Liberals. The Venezuelans intervened to support the Liberals, but the Conservative Commander Marroquín managed to block them from coming to the aid of their allies. With neither side able to deliver a decisive blow, the first peace agreement was signed at the Neerlandira plantation on October 24, 1902. Fighting continued into the following month in Panama, and finally, on November 21, the final peace agreement was signed on the U.S. battleship Wisconsin. This ended the war that had wrecked the economy of the country but had also confirmed the split in Colombian society that was to lead to Panama being created as an independent repub- lic on November 3, 1903. Further reading: Bushnell, David. The Making of Modern Colombia: A Nation in Spite of Itself. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993; Demarest, G. “War of the Thou- sand Days,” Small Wars & Insurgencies Vol 12, no. 1 (Spring 2001): 1–30. Justin Corfield comuneros’ revolt The comuneros’ revolt was a rebellion against Spanish colonial authority that took place between March and October 1781 in what is now considered Colombia. This rebellion in the Viceroyalty of New Granada was a response by colonists to changing economic conditions. While some of the conditions were long-standing, many of those that sparked the revolt were a result of the so-called Bourbon reforms. The Spanish government had imposed a series of reforms in their New World colonies in order to more effectively control and profit from them. Congo Free State 97 Although the rebellion is sometimes portrayed as a precursor to the independence movement that took place several decades later, its aims were actually rather limited and reformist rather than revolutionary. The rebels called not for an end to Spanish colonial rule but simply a return to the pre-Bourbon reforms situa- tion in which the Spanish government played a lesser role in colonial affairs. The aims of the rebels can be seen in their slogan— “Long live the King, down with the evil government.” The revolt was notable in that it organized a large number of common people. The revolt began on March 16, 1781, in the town of Socorro, an important agricultural and manufacturing center in northern New Granada. A crowd led by Man- uela Beltrán tore down the posted edict that announced a sales tax known as the alcabala. This tax was part of a package of fiscal measures imposed by the royal offi- cial Juan Francisco Gutíerrez de Piñeres. The measures also included an extension of government monopolies, especially the tobacco monopoly, that restricted the colonists’ production. These policies led to a rise in the cost of foodstuffs and consumer goods and increased the cost of industry for the colonists. Similar incidents took place in other towns. In Soc- coro, colonists elected a común, or central committee, to lead the movement. Furthermore a común repre- sented the idea of a common front of all colonial social groups that challenged the traditional hierarchical society. Members of the elite in Socorro endorsed the movement. Their leader was Juan Francisco Berbeo. The rebels had a number of demands, which included a reduction in tributes and sales taxes, a return of Native American lands, a recall of a new tobacco tax, and the appointment of more Creoles—Spaniards born in the colonies—to colonial government offices. Berbeo organized a force of between 10,000 and 20,000 people to march on the capital city of Bogotá. The comuneros defeated a contingent of soldiers sent from the capital. In late May the rebels arrived in the town of Zipaquira, just north of Bogotá. At the time, the viceroy was away in the coastal town of Cartagena. Gutíerrez fled. The capital was under the leadership if Archbishop Antonio Caballero y Góngora. On June 5 the two sides agreed to the Capitula- tions of Zipaquirá, which contained 34 articles deal- ing with the colonists’s complaints about the fiscal and administrative aspects of the Bourbon reforms. However, Spanish authorities secretly signed a docu- ment in which they declared the agreement void due to the fact that it had been obtained by force. Once the rebels retreated and dispersed, Spanish royal offi- cials voided the Capitulations. While Spanish officials granted a general amnesty to the rebels, they enforced obedience to royal authority by sending troops to the rebellious region and reinstated many of the unpopu- lar fiscal measures. Most of the rebels accepted these official actions and returned to their daily lives. How- ever, a small core of the comuneros headed by the mes- tizo peasant leader José Antonio Galán continued the fight. In October 1781 Galán was captured. Spanish authorities executed Galán and three of his lieutenants in February 1782. See also Bourbon restoration; Latin America, Bour- bon reforms in. Further reading: Keen, Benjamin. A History of Latin Ameri- ca. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2004; Lynch, John. The Span- ish American Revolutions, 1808–1826. New York: W. W. Norton, 1973; McFarlane, Anthony. Colombia before Inde- pendence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993; Phelan, John Leddy. The People and the King. Madison: Uni- versity of Wisconsin Press, 1978. Ronald Young Congo Free State In 1870 the Congo basin was unknown to Europeans. It contained 250 ethnic groups, 15 cultural regions mostly speaking Bantu languages, and a diverse cli- mate and terrain, chiefly savanna and dense rain for- est. States were highly organized, with some large kingdoms; agriculture was varied; technology was somewhat developed, particularly metalworking; cloth and artworks were elegant, especially wood carvings, later partly inspiring cubism. Economies flourished despite unhealthy lowlands and depredations of East African slaves. In 1877 Henry Morton Stanley completed tracing the 3,000-mile Congo River, emerging at its Atlantic mouth. British disinterest led Stanley to approach Leopold II of Belgium, whose machinations along with Stanley’s cre- ations of stations on the Congo resulted, after the 1884– 85 Congress of Berlin, in the establishment of the Congo Free State with Leopold as the sole owner. It had 22 miles of coastline, about 900,000 square miles of vaguely defined interior, and a blue flag with a gold star. Initially it exported palm products and ivory, until most of the ele- phants were killed. It was governed from Brussels; admin- istrators were European volunteers. Indigenes were used for porterage, railroad and road building, harvesting wild 98 Constitution, U.S. rubber, and lumbering. From 1891 on, coercion forced workers to turn all ivory and rubber over to the state. Forced labor requirements were high. They were stabi- lized at 40 hours per month in 1903, which in practice often meant more than 20 days. Much land was awarded to commercial concessions; the remainder mostly became the property of the Congo state and then to Leopold. As a result, indigenous economies were destroyed. In the late 1890s the Congo became profitable, as world demand for rubber grew. Greed, both Leopold’s (chiefly to embellish Belgium) and that of commercial concessions, along with demands for wild rubber, quota systems, and forced labor caused abuses and depopu- lation as well as dwindling amounts of rubber owing to lack of conservation and brutal slashing of vines. Pressure for profit led to serfdom, lashings, physical mutilations (cutting off of ears or hands), and murder, especially by commercial concessions. Resistance was widespread and often effective; villages fled at the sight of a white man. By 1900 criticism of the Congo’s maladministra- tion mounted in both Britain and the United States. Leopold was indifferent to it. Many aspects of the sit- uation in the Congo were not unique, but it and Leo- pold were easier targets than the Great Powers. The campaign of E. D. Morel in Britain, the investigation and the 1904 report of British consul Roger Case- ment (which chiefly condemned the system, not indi- viduals), Morel’s 1904 Congo Reform Association, missionaries, and Leopold’s own 1905 investigative commission confirmed the atrocities, despite some dubious evidence. Though Leopold resisted, Belgium wrested the Congo Free State from him and reluc- tantly annexed it in 1908 to end the abuses, which it largely did. Further reading: Ewan, Martin. European Atrocity, African Catastrophe: Leopold II, the Congo Free State, and Its After- math. London: Routledge Curzon, 2003; Hochschild, Adam. King Leopold’s Ghost: A Story of Greed, Terror, and Hero- ism in Colonial Africa. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1998. Sally Marks Constitution, U.S. External challenges had motivated previous unsuc- cessful attempts at creating a union between the 13 English North American colonies. But neither these, nor the First Continental Congress that convened in Philadelphia on September 5, 1774, aimed at founding an independent republic. Rather, they were concerned with restoring the rights of the colony in face of Brit- ish pressure. When the Second Continental Congress met in May 1775, matters had changed radically. A trade war had broken out with the mother country, and colonial militia had clashed with British regulars. The Declaration of Independence followed on July 4, 1776. John Dickinson of Philadelphia submit- ted the first draft of a constitution. The Continental Congress felt it gave too much power to the central government. Congress adopted the final document, known as the Articles of Confederation, on November 15, 1777. While each state held one vote, Congress was given the power to declare war, negotiate peace, make treaties with foreign nations, decide over interstate disputes, print and borrow money. Further it regulated relations with Native Americans and postal services. For all prac- tical reasons, sovereignty still rested with the states, so did power in all matters not explicitly delegated to the central government. Revision of the Articles required a unanimous vote in Congress; important laws needed approval from at least nine of the 13 states to become effective. In 1780, the confederacy faced bankruptcy, and George Washington’s troops were on the verge of disintegration. The Bank of the United States was chartered in 1781, but the plans of Congress to raise revenue through taxes and tariffs were thwarted by the states. Land sales west of the Appalachians and pub- lic loans provided temporary solutions, but the crisis exposed the major intertwined weaknesses of the Arti- cles of Confederation: lack of power to impose taxa- tion and the extensive sovereignty of the states at the expense of Congress. The national debt and war created a nationalist faction in American politics, with Washington, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and John Jay demand- ing a stronger central government. Shays’s Rebellion in Massachusetts added to the emergency. Merchants in New York, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania resisted to protect their own state tariffs and protective subsi- dies. While the planters of Virginia were eager to keep import taxes low, their concern over the war chest added to the ideological inclination toward a strength- ening of the federal authority. On the initiative of the Virginia legislature, the Annapolis Convention in 1786 was summoned to discuss federal finances, but the issues discussed soon widened in scope. The basic Constitution, U.S. 99 problem was in the provisions of the Articles, and the Congress approved the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention, convened on May 15, 1787. Part of the impetus for reform came from Shays’s Rebellion. As the war debt from the Revolution trickled down to individuals, small farmers were often forced to sell their land to pay taxes and were thus unable to continue making a living. The rebellion was put down by a militia raised and organized as a private army. The lack of federal response to the situation created more aggressive calls for reform to the federal government to prevent such situations in the future. The basis for the revision of the Constitution was to be James Madison’s Virginia Plan; Madison, together with Alexander Hamilton, had led the Annapolis Convention, recommending a wider revi- sion of the Constitution. Madison’s political thinking had a big influence on the convention. CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION Fifty-five delegates from 12 states attended the Consti- tutional Convention; Rhode Island opposed any revi- sion and provided no delegates. Among those present, apart from Madison and Hamilton, were Washington (who served as the president of the convention) and numerous other central figures of the Revolution: Ben- jamin Franklin, John Dickinson, James Wilson, and Robert Morris of Pennsylvania; Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut; and Charles Cotes- worth Pinckney of South Carolina. It fell to the aging Franklin, Madison, John Dickin- son, and Roger Sherman to keep the convention togeth- er during heated debates. The delegates were mostly merchants and planters, a feature that many historians have seen as favoring a federal government that secured property rights and debtors’ interests. In addition to the provisions given in the Articles of Confederation, the constitutional draft ensured sove- reignty of the federal over the state levels, the former were empowered to raise revenue and provided direct citizenship to the United States. The proposals for a central government provided a system of checks and balances between the legislative, executive, and judi- cial branches, inspired by French philosopher Charles de Montesquieu. An electorate picked the executive by popular vote, but there were significant disputes over the nature of the legislative branch. Madison’s Virginia plan offered a bicameral solution, where the House of Representatives was elected by popular vote, in which each state had a proportional number of seats. The House would then elect a Senate. Madison’s plan would safeguard the more populous states against irre- sponsible spending of the smaller ones. The smaller states rallied around the New Jersey Plan providing for a unicameral legislative with equal representation among the states, fearing abuse of power from the larger states. The Great Compromise, proposed by a subcom- mittee, offered the final solution, in which the House of Representatives was to be elected by popular vote where each state has a representation in proportion to its population, while there would be equal representa- tion in the Senate. To ease the concern of larger states, revenue bills could only be passed in the House. The judiciary was to ensure that neither federal nor state legislation nor the executive were in conflict with the Constitution. SUFFRAGE Contrary to the wishes of many delegates and the pro- visions of many early constitutions of other nations, suffrage was not contingent on income or property, nei- ther was eligibility to run for public office. The issue of slavery was largely avoided. A 20-year clause was added concerning the question of fugitive slaves. However, in the question of population in relation to representation, slaves and indentured servants were to count as three- fifths of a full citizen. The Constitution further prescribed that two-thirds majority was required in Congress for the repeal of a presidential veto, an amendment to the Constitution, and consent of the Senate to treaties was needed. Federal law would overrule state legislation. A system of courts would safeguard against breaches of the Constitution, and the states were obliged to enforce federal proscriptions. Pierce Butler, delegate of South Carolina, summed up the feelings of his col- leagues at the end of the convention when he cited the ancient founder of Solon, who claimed not to have given the Athenians the best government he could devise but the best they would receive. In this lay the idea that the new Constitution was the best the convention could agree upon and the best the states would accept. On September 17, 1787, the Convention adjourned, and the struggle for ratification commenced, which needed consent by nine of the 13 states. First, James Madison promised amendments—later known as the Bill of Rights—to the draft that would safeguard the rights of citizens and states against the abuse of federal power. It ensured freedom of speech and religion, the right to bear arms, safety of life and property, legal 100 Cook, James protection, and that powers not explicitly delegated to the federal government rested with the states. In order to convince the reluctant citizens of New York, Jay, Madison, and Hamilton wrote a series of essays called The Federalist Papers in 1787 and 1788. Not only did they produce an influential vehicle of opinion, they also provided subsequent generations with valuable insights into the political thought of the founding fathers of the United States. The ratify- ing conventions in the states met between December 1787 and June 1788 and were much more broadly composed than the convention itself, including farm- ers and artisans. The struggle proved particularly hard in Massa- chusetts and New Hampshire. Virginia and New York also were slow to ratify the Constitution. The last states, North Carolina and Rhode Island, finally and most reluctantly ratified in 1789 and 1790, respec- tively. Besides differences in opinion over what would provide the most efficient and just type of government, economic self-interest and reluctance to give up con- trol marked the debate. See also abolition of slavery in the Americas; Paine, Thomas. Further reading: Cefrey, Holly. The United States Consti- tution and Early State Constitutions: Law and Order in the New Nation and States. New York: Rosen Publishing Group, 2004; Devins, Neal, and Keith E. Whittington, eds. Congress and the Constitution. Durham, NC: Duke Univer- sity Press, 2005. Frode Lindgjerdet Cook, James (1728–1799) English explorer and cartographer James Cook was born in Marton-in-Cleveland, En- gland, on October 27, 1728. His family was Scottish in origin, having left Scotland for England after the upheaval of the 1715 Jacobite Rebellion. Cook’s father was a farmworker. When James was seven, his father’s employer arranged for him to attend school, and at the age of 12, he became an apprentice to a shopkeep- er in a nearby coastal town. This first exposure to the sea took hold of the boy, and he left his apprenticeship in 1746 for a new position with shipowners. In his new surroundings, he learned about math, navigation, compasses, and maps. In 1755 Cook became a mate on one of his employer’s ships. Later that year, Cook A noted cartographer and explorer, Captain James Cook was killed due to a misunderstanding with Hawaiian natives. left to join the Royal Navy. Because war with France was impending, Cook expected that his experience and skills would be put to good use and result in rapid promotions. Cook’s first assignment was aboard the Eagle, where he met Hugh Palliser. Palliser would figure largely in Cook’s life as a mentor and advocate. With- in a month, Cook had proven his seafaring skills and was put in charge of the ship’s navigation. In 1757 Cook was again promoted and assigned to the Pem- broke on Palliser’s recommendation. Now that Britain was at war with France, Cook’s assignments were related to wartime service. He spent almost a decade in North America, charting rivers and creating maps of Canada, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland. During these years, he returned to England once and married Elizabeth Batts in 1762. It was not long before he was back at sea, working on charts and maps of North America. In 1767 Cook resigned command of his ship and returned to England, but his reputation soon earned him an opportunity to travel to the Pacific Ocean to observe the transit of Venus. The Royal Society commissioned his service, and upon acceptance Cook was given command of the Endeavour. In addition Crimean War 101 to the scientific objectives of the mission, Cook was asked to verify or disprove the existence of a large continent in the Pacific Ocean. Cook and his crew sailed to the Madeira Islands, Canary Islands, Cape Verde Islands, Rio de Janeiro, and then went around Cape Horn into the Pacific Ocean. They reached Tahiti in April 1769, observed and documented the transit of Venus on June 3, and continued their voy- age in July. The Endeavour sailed on to New Zealand, where Cook spent six months working on maps and charts of the islands and the waters. Cook and his crew had their first encounters with the Maori. Although the Maori culture (particularly their ritual cannibalism) was frightening to the English sailors, Cook managed to make cultural and linguistic observations about the Maori people. In 1770 he took his ship around Australia, which he named New South Wales when he claimed it as the king’s. From there, he went to New Guinea, Java, the Cape of Good Hope, and home to England on June 12, 1771. As was common, he had lost many of his crewmen—about one-third—to scurvy during the voy- age. He had circumnavigated the globe, discovering new geography along the way, and was promoted to the rank of commander. Cook again set sail on July 13, 1772, aboard the Resolution, accompanied by the Adventure. After going to Africa, the Cape of Good Hope, and the Ant- arctic Circle, the ships headed for the South Pacific. They returned home in July 1775, having charted new and existing lands. As before, Cook brought back valuable new charts and maps of the globe. He had made another discovery during this voyage; good nutrition enabled his crew to stay healthy despite the long days at sea and difficult conditions living on a ship. Unlike on his voyage on the Endeavour, Cook lost only one man on the entire trip. For this medical advance, Cook received the Copley Gold Medal from the Royal Society. Cook’s final voyage came after his promotion to captain, and he and the crew of the Resolution headed for the northern Pacific to seek a passage across North America and to the Atlantic Ocean. Accompanying him was the Discovery, and together the ships set sail on July 12, 1776. After covering familiar ground (Africa, Cape of Good Hope, New Zealand, Tahiti, and elsewhere), Cook and his crew discovered Hawaii and arrived on the North American coast (where Oregon is today) in February 1778. His expedition explored the coast all the way up through the Bering Strait without finding the northern passage they hoped to discover. Although the expedition was to continue back into the Pacific after a return to Hawaii, Cook was killed in a con- flict with natives in Karakakoa Bay on February 14, 1779. When he and his men had arrived in Hawaii in January, relations with natives were friendly and safe, but cultural misunderstandings brought changes in the way the crew treated the natives. Eventually things escalated to the point of a violent skirmish, and Cook was stabbed. The man who stepped up to replace Cook as commander of the voyage negotiated for the return of Cook’s body; the crew gave him a burial at sea on February 21, 1779. See also Australia: exploration and settlement; Maori wars. Further reading: Hill, J. R., and Bryan Ranft. The Oxford Illustrated History of the Royal Navy. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002; Moorehead, Alan. The Fatal Impact. New York: HarperCollins, 1990. Jennifer Bussey Crimean War The Crimean War was a struggle between Russia and Britain, along with its allies, over Russian expansion into the Ottoman-controlled territories of the Black Sea. The war was part of the so-called Eastern Ques- tion, or what should be done about the weakened Ottoman Empire. Eager for territorial gains in the Bal- kans and control of warm water ports in the Black Sea, Russia wanted the Ottoman Empire to die as quickly as possible. Britain, wishing to thwart Russian ambi- tions, often stepped in to bolster the Ottomans in their conflict with Russia. France and Austria-Hungary wavered on these diplomatic issues, but generally supported the British. Although they supported the Ottoman sultan against Russia during the 19th century, Britain and France both took territories away from the Ottomans in North Africa, Egypt, and along the Arabian Peninsula. They also demanded that the Ottomans institute political and economic reforms regarding Christian minori- ties within the empire and permit increased European involvement in Ottoman territories. The tanzimat, a series of Ottoman reforms, was in many ways an attempt to address these demands. Along with the so-called Great Game over Russian and British expansion into Afghanistan, the Eastern 102 Crimean War The fifth Dragoon Guards of the British army make camp during the Crimean War. Britain and its allies landed forces in the Crimea and laid siege to Sevastopol, the headquarters of the Russian fleet in the Black Sea. Question was one of the major diplomatic issues of the mid- to late 19th century. The events that led to the Crimean War started in Palestine, where the Russians had placed themselves as the protectors of Eastern Orthodox Christians and the French served as the protectors of the Catholic Christians. In 1847 the golden star that rested in the church in Bethlehem built over the spot where Jesus had allegedly been born disappeared. The Orthodox and Catholics both blamed one another for the theft; seeking to bolster French prestige, Napoleon III had another star made that was transported amid great pomp and ceremony to the church. When the Eastern Orthodox refused entry to the church, the dispute was referred all the way to Sul- tan Abdul Majid I. Both the French and Russians pro- fessed to be insulted by the rather tepid responses of the Ottoman government, and the Russians demanded that the Ottomans formally accept their protection over all Orthodox subjects in the empire. During negotiations, the Russian czar, Nicholas I, remarked that the Ottoman Empire was a “sick man” and the empire subsequently became known as “The Sick Man of Europe.” When no resolution was forthcoming, the Rus- sians declared war against the Ottoman Empire and destroyed the Ottoman fleet at the Bay of Sinope in 1853. In defense of the Ottomans, Britain declared war against Russia in 1854 and was joined by France and Piedmont-Sardinia. Britain and its allies landed forces in the Crimea and lay siege to Sevastopol, the head- quarters of the Russian fleet in the Black Sea. Russia lost the city in 1855. In a secondary front, the British and French also established a blockade of the Baltic Sea to prevent goods entering or leaving Russia. Cuba, Ten Years’ War in 103 In 1854 the British suffered a major defeat at the Bat- tle of Balaclava made famous by the disastrous charge of the Light Brigade. Casualties in the war were high, and many died from poor health care in the field. The nursing practices and improvements in sanitary condi- tions made by Florence Nightingale during the war laid the foundation for improved medical care in field hospitals. After extensive negotiations, the war ended with the Peace of Paris in 1856. Under the treaty, the sultan and the Great Powers guaranteed the independence and ter- ritorial integrity of the Ottoman Empire; the sultan was to protect the minorities within the empire; the Black Sea was to be neutralized; and the waters of the Danube River were to be open to all. In addition, Russia got the Crime- an Peninsula and parts of Bessarabia. Under a separate treaty, Britain, Austria, and France agreed to guarantee the Ottoman Empire, thereby prolonging its life. See also Algeria under French rule; Anglo-Russian rivalry; British occupation of Egypt. Further reading: Schroeder, Paul W. Austria, Great Britain, and the Crimean War: The Destruction of the European Concert. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1972; Wetzel, David. The Crimean War: A Diplomatic History. New York: Columbia University Press, 1985. Janice J. Terry Cuba, Ten Years’ War in Fearing a slave insurrection like the one from the 1790s that wracked Haiti, the Cuban landowning and mer- chant elite opted to remain part of the Spanish Empire while the rest of Spanish America gained formal inde- pendence in the 1820s. Yet by the 1860s that same elite chafed under protectionist Spanish trade policies, high taxes, and political repression. Especially hard-hit and disgruntled were the cattle ranchers and sugar planters on the eastern part of the island. On October 10, 1868, with the Grito de Yara (Cry of Yara), a coalition of elite landowners and small farmers, traders, and free persons of color launched a rebellion and proclaimed Cuban independence. The rebellion quickly spread westward, as far as eastern Las Villas Province. By the early 1870s, the rebels were sup- ported by upward of 40,000 Cubans, from cattle bar- ons and merchants to peons and slaves. The goals of the rebels varied widely. Most elites advocated political and economic reforms, defended slavery, and sought to maintain the island’s rigid social structure—though many also freed their slaves as a wartime necessity and in response to the incessant clamor of the slaves for their freedom. Workers and freed slaves tended to advocate radical social and political change, including the abolition of slavery, the redistribution of land, and universal suffrage. Despite the efforts of these more radical rebels, the rebellion remained confined mainly to the eastern part of the island. The rebel elite generally opposed taking the war to western Cuba, fearing a slave insurrection or widespread popular unrest, while western elites, with their larger landholdings and slave populations, tended to oppose the rebellion, fearing that its success would threaten their properties and undermine their privileged social position. As the war dragged on, differences between rebel factions grew, especially along lines of race and class. The rebel armies, their ranks swelled with workers, peasants, freed slaves, and poor whites, became increas- ingly difficult for the landholding elite to control. The rebel elite leadership also waged war with one eye on the United States, which many hoped would seize the opportunity to annex the island. These internal divisions combined with Spanish intransigence to stall the rebellion and keep it limited to eastern Cuba. The war lasted nearly 10 years, until a peace treaty, the Pact of Zanjón, was signed in early 1878. The rebels agreed to lay down their arms, while Spain promised political and economic reforms, general amnesty for all rebels, and freedom for all slaves and indentured servants registered in the rebel armies at the time of the peace pact. The rebellion’s failure has been attributed to numer- ous causes, particularly the conflicting goals of rebel leaders, their goal of annexation to the United States, which kept the war limited to eastern Cuba and dra- matically circumscribed its social radicalism, and the opposition of much of Cuba’s planter class. At the same time, memories of the Ten Years’ War would endure throughout Cuba, especially in the east. Many of the most important rebel leaders of the later Cuban War of Independence gained valuable experience in the Ten Years’ War, most notably Máximo Gómez and Antonio Maceo. Overall, the war created a legacy of struggle that Cuban patriots would seize on again in their final push to independence. Further reading: Ferrer, Ada. Insurgent Cuba: Race, Nation, and Revolution, 1868–1898. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1999; Pérez, Jr., Louis A. Cuba: 104 Cuban War of Independence Between Reform and Revolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988. Michael J. Schroeder Cuban War of Independence In one of the Western Hemisphere’s most broad-based and violent struggles for independence, from 1895 to 1898, Cuba was embroiled in a massive, islandwide insurrection against Spanish colonial rule that ended with U.S. intervention and quasi-colonial status under U.S. domination. In the words of one of Cuba’s preeminent historians, the Caribbean island’s War of Independence resulted in “self-government without self-determination and independence without sovereignty.” The war’s out- come represented not only a thwarting of the desire of Cuban patriots for national sovereignty but also ushered in a period of U.S. suzerainty that lasted, some scholars argue, until the Cuban revoltion of 1959. The origins of the War of Independence can be traced as far back as the early 1800s, when Cuba’s Creole elites balked at the prospect of risking their lives and properties in the face of a potential slave insurrection, as had embroiled neighboring Saint-Domingue (Haiti) after 1791—a reluc- tance reinforced by the arrival of upwards of 30,000 French exiles from Saint-Domingue who made Cuba their new home. Through the 19th century, Cuban elites were divided into moderate reformists who advocated greater autonomy under Spanish dominion and annexationists who envisioned U.S. annexation. Few were autonomists promoting outright independence. This changed from the 1860s, particularly in consequence of the Ten Years’ War in eastern Cuba, a struggle that inspired a new generation of leaders whose vision of Cuba Libre (Free Cuba) was at the heart of the insurrection launched in 1895. The Ten Years’ War and its aftermath had also created a large exile community of Cubans in the United States, centered in Tampa, Florida, and New York City. From abroad, groups of Cuban patriots plotted and planned the final insurrection, at their helm the poet, scholar, and activist José Martí. In April 1892, after more than two decades of organizing, Martí and his compatriots in exile formed the Cuban Revolutionary Party (PRC), dedicated to the creation of a free and independent Cuba. By this time, the Cuban economy was dominated by the United States. In 1894, for instance, the United States received 84 percent of Cuba’s total exports and provided 40 percent of its total imports. In that same year, the U.S. Congress imposed stiff new tariffs on Cuban sugar imports, and Spain retaliated by imposing high tariffs on U.S. imports to Cuba. Meanwhile, the price of sugar dropped to less than two cents a pound, a historic low, while prices of imported foodstuffs rose dramatically. The combined effect sent the Cuban economy into a tailspin, negatively affecting all social sectors, including wealthy merchants and planters. Emboldened by the turn of events, on February 24, 1895, the PRC issued the Grito de Baire (Cry of Baire) calling for independence. During the same month, autonomists launched several uprisings in different parts of the island. Most were crushed, though the uprising in Oriente Province in eastern Cuba took root and spread. In April the PRC’s main leadership landed secretly in the island’s far southeast: José Martí, Máximo Gómez, and the brothers Antonio and José Maceo. On May 19, 1895, Martí was killed in a skirmish 10 miles east of Bayamo in Oriente Province. Thus martyred, memories of Martí became a rallying cry for the rebel forces. By early 1896 the insurgency had spread to every part of the island, including the western provinces of Matan- zas, Havana, and Pinar del Río, which had remained mostly quiescent in previous uprisings. Scholars consider that the principal difference between the 1895 war and earlier rebellions consist- ed primarily in the coherence and inclusiveness of the nationalist ideology of Cuba Libre crafted by Martí and his compatriots in the years of organizing preceding the outbreak of hostilities and which came to be embraced by most Cubans during the war itself. Propelled by a vision of racial equality, social justice, and equal rights for all Cubans, the 1895 War of Independence dif- fered in fundamental ways from previous independence struggles. In the words of rebel army chieftain Máximo Gómez, the Ten Years’ War originated “from the top down, that is why it failed; this one surges from the bot- tom up, that is why it will triumph.” GUERRILLA WAR In common with almost all guerrilla wars in the mod- ern era, by 1896 the rebel columns came to be sup- ported by a vast network of noncombatant supporters and sympathizers who provided vital resources, espe- cially food, shelter, and information on the strength and location of Spanish military units. The war soon combined an anticolonial insurgency with a civil war pitting pro-Spanish elite landowners and sugar growers against landless and land-poor peasants and workers. Insurgents systematically torched cane fields while pro- hibiting production and export of sugar, tobacco, and Cuban War of Independence 105 other commodities in a strategy designed to strangle the economy and thereby defeat the Spanish and their elite Cuban allies. As the line between soldiers and civilians blurred, the Spanish responded by waging war against the civil populace as a whole. The acme of this approach came under General Valeriano Weyler, who from early 1896 launched his infamous reconcentration campaign. As many as 300,000 rural dwellers from all walks of life were rounded up and compelled to move into specially fortified reconcentration centers. Emptying the country- side into these squalid resettlement camps, the Spanish destroyed crops, killed livestock, and destroyed thou- sands of homes and villages. From 1896 to 1898 tens of thousands of reconcentrados died of disease, malnutri- tion, and abuse. In urban areas, Weyler and the Spanish jailed, deported, and otherwise terrorized thousands of Cubans of all social classes, from street peddlers and domestic servants to lawyers, businessmen, and other professionals. From an estimated prewar population of 1.8 million, by war’s end the island’s population had dropped to around 1.5 million, a demographic decline of more than 17 percent in only three years. Weyler’s ruthless counterinsurgency approach failed to stem the insurgent tide. In fact, it had the opposite effect, driving thousands of Cubans into the insurgent ranks. By 1897 it was clear that the Spanish were los- ing the military battle. Many conservative Cubans, afraid of losing their privileged social position if the insurgents triumphed and increasingly dubious about Spain’s chances for victory, clamored for annexation to the United States. In early 1898 as Spanish troops grew increasingly demoralized, the insurgent leadership planned their final assault on Spanish strongholds in the major cities. Rebel victory seemed only a matter of time. Meanwhile, in the United States, the chain of newspapers owned by William Randolph Hearst spearheaded what came to be known as yellow jour- nalism, demonizing the Spanish as inhuman monsters slaughtering the childlike Cuban populace and clam- oring for U.S. intervention. The U.S. foreign policy establishment, which had long coveted Cuba, saw the rising tide of insurgent power as a direct threat to U.S. strategic and economic interests in Cuba and the wider Caribbean. U.S. INTERVENTION An ideal pretext for U.S. military intervention came on February 15, 1898, when the battleship the USS Maine blew up in Havana Harbor, killing over 200 U.S. sailors. Events moved swiftly thereafter. In April 1898 newly inaugurated President William McKinley asked Congress for authorization to send U.S. troops to Cuba, and on April 25, Congress declared war on Spain. McKinley’s war message neither mentioned Cuban independence nor recognized the Cuban insur- gents as a legitimate belligerent force. In this way, the Cuban War of Independence became the Spanish- American War, with the United States elbowing out of the way the insurgent forces that had all but defeat- ed the Spanish in more than three years of bloody con- flict. The United States quickly defeated the beleaguered Spanish forces in Cuba, as well as in Puerto Rico, the Philippines, and Guam. The formal cessation of hos- tilities came on December 10, 1898, with the Treaty of Paris. The negotiations leading to the treaty wholly exclud- ed the Cuban insurgent forces, who were given no role in the U.S. military occupation that followed. Instead, the United States imposed the infamous Platt Amend- ment to the new Cuban constitution in 1901, which by a series of provisions effectively surrendered Cuban sov- ereignty to the United States, which dominated much of the island’s economy and politics until the triumph of the Cuban Revolution on January 1, 1959, under Fidel Castro and the 26 of July Movement. See also newspapers, North American. Further reading: Ferrer, Ada. Insurgent Cuba: Race, Nation, and Revolution, 1868–1898. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1999; Pérez, Jr., Louis A. Cuba Between Empires, 1878–1902. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1983; ———. Cuba: Between Reform and Revolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988. Michael J. Schroeder Darwin, Charles (1809–1882) British naturalist The famous British naturalist Charles Darwin traveled around the world, wrote several books, and developed the theory of natural selection and evolution. Charles Robert Darwin was born on February 12, 1809, in Shrewsbury, Shropshire, in the west of England. His father, Robert Darwin, was a wealthy doctor and financier, and his mother Susannah (née Wedgwood) died when he was eight years old. He was a grandson of Erasmus Darwin, a prominent physician, on his father’s side and Josiah Wedgwood, from the pottery family, on his mother’s side. Charles Darwin went to Shrewsbury School and then to the University of Edinburgh to study medicine; he also learned how to stuff birds by a freed South American slave who worked at the Edinburgh Museum. His father was disappointed at his son’s lack of progress at Edinburgh and decided to move him to Cambridge. Darwin proceeded to Christ’s College, where he had the idea of becoming a clergyman and studied theology. It was during this time that he start- ed collecting beetles and developing a keen interest in entomology. With the H.M.S. Beagle sailing to South America to chart the coastline, Darwin decided that he might join the crew as an unpaid assistant to the ship’s cap- tain, Robert FitzRoy. Darwin realized that it would give him an unparalleled opportunity to study the geological features of many islands around the world, as well as to study wildlife. He had been inspired by accounts of the German explorer Alexander von Humboldt. His father was unhappy about the idea of a two-year voyage (it later turned out to last for five years), but Josiah Wedgwood, his grandfather, sup- ported the trip. Darwin set off on December 27, 1831, collecting and sending back large numbers of natural history specimens. The ship stopped at the Cape Verde Islands, and Darwin proceeded to study oyster shells and note the changes in the land. On arriving in South America, at Bahia (modern-day Salvador), Darwin went to study the rain forest. He was angered by the treatment of the slaves in Brazil. He spent some months in the rain forest and then in July 1832 went to Montevideo, Uruguay, which was going through one of its many conflicts after becoming independent. Darwin met the Argentine dictator General Juan Manuel de Rosas and found the way the Argentine government treated the people of Tierra del Fuego bordering on systematic extermination. The Beagle sailed to the Falkland Islands and then back to Argentina. In October 1833 Darwin caught a fever in Argentina and in July 1834 fell ill in Valparaíso. He spent a long time in Chile, climbing the Andes and studying the fossils in the Andean foothills. Darwin went to Peru and to the Galápagos Islands. Darwin proceeded on to Tahiti, New Zealand, and Australia, although he never went to the settlement in the north of the country that now bears his name. In D 107 108 Darwin, Charles New Zealand, he was saddened at the treatment of the Maoris and even more disappointed in the way he saw the aboriginal people of Australia being treated. The Beagle then headed off to the Indian Ocean, where the ship called in at the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. Already formulating his idea of animal species developing over very long periods of time, Darwin started to try to draw some conclusions on the final leg of his journey back to England, where he landed in October 1836, returning to Shrewsbury to rejoin his family. FIRST BOOK He received a £400 annual allowance from his father, and Darwin started a series of correspondences with other naturalists and geologists. On his return, Dar- win wrote up his diary of the voyage as Journal of Researches into the Geology and Natural History of the Various Countries Visited by H.M.S. Beagle, which was published by Henry Colburn in 1839. Darwin began cataloging all the different species, and in a talk at the Zoological Society, the famous ornithologist John Gould told the audience that the birds on the Galápagos Islands were not a mixture of species but all ground finches that had adapted differ- ently. This helped fuel Darwin’s ideas of evolution and natural selection. He became influenced by the ideas of Thomas Malthus and also by Harriet Martineau, a Whig political activist. Darwin developed the Malthu- sian ideas to form “natural selection,” by which, when an area was overpopulated, the strongest would sur- vive; he never used the term “survival of the fittest,” although many later writers attributed it to him. During the 1840s Darwin was refining his concept of evolution but initially had no intention of immedi- ately publishing his treatise on natural selection. By 1854 Darwin had finished working out the order in which many species had evolved and had written about 250,000 words when, on June 18, 1858, he received a letter from Alfred Russel Wallace, an English socialist and natural history enthusiast who was in the Malay Archipelago. Wallace raised a similar idea of evolu- tion to that of Darwin, with extracts of both scholars’ work read at the Linnean Society on July 1, 1858. This encouraged Darwin to finish his book, which he called On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Darwin retreated to the North York moors when the book was released on Novem- ber 22, 1859. There were 1,250 copies printed, and the entire stock had been oversubscribed by orders received by booksellers. As Darwin had suspected, the book caused a storm of protest, and he kept a book of press cuttings, review articles, satires, parodies, and caricature cartoons. Dissenters saw merit in his book, but the members of the Anglican community at Cambridge were upset at Darwin’s ideas, which they saw as directly challenging those in the Bible. Darwin, had deliberately not stated that he believed that humans had evolved from apes, but this was what many of his readers interpreted, with many reviewers talking about “men from monkeys.” This denied the special status of humans, but Darwin found support from Thomas Huxley, writing his own book Evidence as to Man’s Place in Nature, which was published in 1863. CONDEMNATION However, Richard Owen, the head of the British scien- tific establishment, condemned the book, as did Sedg- wick and Henslow, who had been tutors to Darwin at Cambridge. Darwin’s work was acknowledged in Prussia, where the zoologist Ernst Haeckel alerted the king of Prussia, who awarded Darwin a medal. Some German theorists were soon to go further, using the concept of evolution to develop ideas of Social Dar- winism by which one type of man was more advanced than another. Darwin became increasingly unwell and took to his bed for many months during the 1860s. Howev- er, he continued to write more books, with six new editions of On the Origin of Species, and also some new works such as Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication, published in 1868. He wrote The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, which was published in 1871, and his The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals was published in the following year. His next books were titled The Effects of Cross and Self Fertilization in the Vegetable Kingdom and The Different Forms of Flowers on Plants of the Same Species. From 1876 until 1881 Darwin wrote his autobi- ography for his grandchildren. He had married his cousin Emma Wedgwood, the marriage service being an Anglican ceremony that was arranged in order to suit the Unitarians. He and his wife had 10 children, three of whom died young. In 1881 Darwin finished his book The Formation of Vegetable Mould, Through the Action of Worms, which was to be his last pub- lished volume. He had an angina seizure in March 1882 and died on April 19. A funeral was held at Downe, where he had lived, and on April 26 he was Declaration of Independence, U.S. 109 interred at Westminster Abbey, close to the last resting places of John Herschel and Isaac Newton. Darwin has been remembered in many ways. An expanse of water near the Beagle Channel is named the Darwin Sound. In addition, there are many spe- cies named after him, including the finches he collected from the Galápagos Islands. In 1964 Darwin College, Cambridge, was named after the Darwin family, and in 2000 the Bank of England replaced Charles Dickens on the £10 note with Charles Darwin. Although some historians still debate whether it was Darwin or Wallace who first came up with the concept of evolution, Darwin is the person credited with the idea and the person who did the most to advance it to a stage where it is widely accepted around the world. Further reading: Barlow, Nora, ed. The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, 1809–1882, with Original Omissions Restored. London: Collins, 1958; Bowler, Peter J. Charles Darwin: The Man and His Influence. Oxford: Blackwells, 1990; Browne, Janet. Charles Darwin. London: Jonathan Cape, 1995; Desmond, Adrian, and James Moore. Darwin. London: Michael Joseph, 1991; Irvine, William. Apes, Angels and Victorians: A Joint Biography of Darwin and Huxley. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1956. Justin Corfield Declaration of Independence, U.S. The foundational document of the Western Hemi- sphere’s first republic, the first genuinely republican government of the modern era, the U.S. Declaration of Independence emerged amid an escalating war as one culmination of a long process of struggle between the American colonists and Great Britain and from a pro- tracted process of compromise and negotiation between factions of the propertied white males who drafted and ratified it. The document itself contained little that was original. Most of the sentiments it expressed and theories of republican government it propounded had deep roots in the French and English Enlight- enment, British-American history, and English com- mon law. It nonetheless captured the spirit of an era, articu- lating in a single statement of uncommon eloquence the reasons behind the American colonists’ political break from Great Britain and the promise of political From left, Benjamin Franklin and John Adams review Thomas Jefferson’s draft of the declaration. equality that, following the promulgation of the U.S. Constitution in 1787, formed a cornerstone of the new American republic. Most delegates to the Second Continental Con- gress, which began its deliberations in Philadelphia in May 1775 in the wake of the Battles of Lexing- ton and Concord, were hesitant to declare outright independence, despite the rapidly intensifying mili- tary conflict. A broad consensus about the necessity of proclaiming political independence emerged only after King George III’s rejection of the Olive Branch Petition in late 1775 and the publication of Thomas Paine’s hard-hitting pamphlet Common Sense the fol- lowing January. Three well-heeled Bostonians were among the most fervent advocates of independence: the merchant John Hancock, the lawyer John Adams, and his cousin, political agitator and onetime beer brewer, Samuel Adams. 110 Díaz, Porfirio The first formal call for a resolution of independence came on June 7 from Richard Henry Lee of Virginia. In response, the congress appointed a committee to draft the resolution, composed of John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Robert R. Livingston, and Roger Sherman. This committee, in turn, designated Jefferson to draft the actual document, which was sub- sequently revised by Franklin, John Adams, and others. On July 2 Congress approved a resolution of indepen- dence, and two days later adopted a revised draft of the declaration originally penned by Jefferson. Henceforth, July 4 would be known in the United States as Indepen- dence Day. Rooted in theories of natural rights articulated in previous decades by Enlightenment thinkers as diverse as John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the docu- ment itself is divided into four parts: an introduction providing the moral and intellectual rationales for independence; a long list of complaints and grievances against King George III; its final assertion of political independence from Great Britain; and 56 signatures, most affixed on August 2 (mainly for logistical reasons, not all delegates who helped draft or voted for the dec- laration signed it). Many consider its second sentence to be its most socially radical, encapsulating the essen- tial promise of political equality later codified for adult white males in the Constitution and, in the 19th and 20th centuries, extended to ex-slaves and women: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The Declaration of Independence was not a law. Nor did it form the basis for the Constitution, adopted 11 years later. Mainly, it was a statement of principle that provided the essential rationale for the political break from Great Britain; an assertion of political unity among 13 distinct political entities in the context of a rapidly escalating military conflict; and a moral touch- stone for the radical experiment in political republican- ism to follow. See also American Revolution (1775–1783); French Revolution. Further reading: Lancaster, Bruce. The American Heritage Book of the Revolution. New York: American Heritage Publishing Co., 1958; Maier, Pauline. American Scrip- ture: Making the Declaration of Independence. New York: Knopf, 1997. Michael J. Schroeder Díaz, Porfirio (1830–1915) Mexican dictator Remembered mainly as an iron-fisted dictator whose political cronyism and suppression of the rights of Mexico’s poor and Indian peoples led to the Mexi- can Revolution, Porfirio Díaz was a shrewd and canny ruler who used persuasion and cooperation as much as brute force to retain power. His regime made major strides in modernizing the Mexican economy and integrating it into the rapidly expanding structures of global capitalism. The period of his rule, known as the Porfiriato, was an era of major social and economic transformations. Under the banner of positivism, the Díaz regime systematically promoted capitalist devel- opment via free trade, foreign investment, the expan- sion of transport and communications infrastructure, and an expanding export economy (especially min- ing), while at the same time suppressing the rights of citizenship among the poor and disfranchised and the rapidly growing middle and professional classes. It was the mounting frustration of the latter classes at being shut out of the nation’s political life, com- bined with growing landlessness, poverty, unemploy- ment, and desperation among the majority, that ulti- mately led to the collapse of his regime. Master of the strategy of pan o palo (“bread or stick,” with “bread” signifying cooptation and “stick” signifying violent suppression of dissent), Díaz dominated Mexico’s political life for more than a third of a century, while the social dynamics set in motion by his rule laid the groundwork for the decade-long civil war and social revolution that followed his overthrow in 1911. Born in Oaxaca in 1830, the son of a mestizo blacksmith father and half-Mixtec mother, José de la Cruz Porfirio Díaz received a rudimentary education, dabbling in studies for the priesthood and law before finding his calling in the military. Allied with Benito Juárez and the Liberals, Díaz distinguished himself as a military commander in the War of the Reform and the resistance against French intervention, in which conflicts he gained wide fame and a large per- sonal following. Defeated in the presidential elections of 1871, Díaz charged fraud and launched an abor- tive rebellion against the Liberal Juárez government. In March 1876, five years after his first uprising, Díaz issued his Plan de Tuxtepec, once again calling for “no reelection.” In November 1876, in the so-called Revolution of Tuxtepec, his forces occupied Mexico City and overthrew the elected government of Sebas- tián Lerdo de Tejada. diplomatic revolution, European 111 Under the positivist credo of order and progress and following the counsel of his coterie of advisers dubbed los científicos (loosely, “the scientific ones”), the Díaz regime endeavored to modernize every aspect of govern- ment and the economy while retaining a tight grip on the reins of political power. Foreign investment and econom- ic growth surged, while a host of new inventions became integrated into Mexican life, including steam-powered electric generating plants, the telephone and telegraph, railroads, electric trams, manufacturing plants, and related modern technologies. The machinery of state was overhauled and streamlined, while the country’s public finances were put on a firm footing under Secretary of the Treasury José Limantour. To suppress rural banditry and organized dissent, Díaz expanded the Rurales, or rural police force, created by Juárez in 1872 and under Díaz comprised, in the main, of criminals and bandits put on the government payroll. The regime waged a series of wars against recalcitrant Indians, especially the Apache and Yaquí in the north. Díaz’s political cronies dominated the nation’s political life at all levels, while organized dissent of any kind was either gingerly coopted or ruthlessly crushed. By the early 1900s disenchantment with the regime mounted among both the rapidly expanding middle class and the masses of increasingly impoverished and desperate rural and urban dwellers. The regime’s demise came in 1911, following an uprising by wealthy Liberal landowner Francisco Madero, which in turn sparked the decade-long Mexican Revolution. Overthrown, the ail- ing 81-year-old Díaz was forced into exile. He died in Paris a few years later. See also Mexico, from La Reforma to the Porfiria- to (1855–1876). Further reading: Beals, Carleton. Porfirio Díaz: Dicta- tor of Mexico. Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1932; Creelman, James. Díaz: Master of Mexico. New York: Appleton, 1916; Vanderwood, Paul. Disorder and Progress: Bandits, Police and Mexican Development. Rev. ed. Wilmington, DE: Schol- arly Resources, 1992; Wells, Allen. Yucatán’s Gilded Age: Haciendas, Hennequen and International Harvester. Albu- querque: University of New Mexico Press, 1995. Michael J. Schroeder diplomatic revolution, European The Peace of Westphalia in 1648, ending the Thirty Years’ War, is considered the beginning of modern diplomacy in Europe. The treaty established the idea of nation-states by acknowledging the sovereign rights of individual countries. As such, conflicts came to revolve around issues related to “the state.” In 1713 the Treaty of Utrecht, ending the War of the Spanish Succession, formalized the fundamental principle of the new diplo- macy—balance of power. The idea behind the doctrine dictated the preservation of the status quo, so that no one nation-state held authority over any other. If the balance of power shifted in favor of any member state, all other states had a vested interest to intervene, even if by force, in correcting the shift. In 1789 the French Revolution unleashed myriad ideas that threatened the balance of power in Europe. Fears spread among Europe’s elite that the lower classes would overthrow the old order, or ancien régime, through violence. Accordingly, European leaders aimed their diplomatic efforts at minimizing the Revolution’s influ- ence. However, Napoleon I’s conquest of continental Europe in the wake of the Revolution shifted the balance in France’s favor nonetheless. Accordingly, a British-led coalition formed to counter the shift in power on the continent. In the aftermath of Napoleon’s defeat in 1815, the idea of equilibrium among the nation-states reemerged to preserve peace. As a result, Europe entered a period that would characterize the 19th century—the congress system, popularly known as the Concert of Europe, due to the spirit of cooperation it ushered in among the major European nations. The system’s intention was to enforce the peace settlement established by the Congress of Vienna following the defeat of Napoleon. Led by Austria’s Prince Clemens von Metternich, partici- pants of the Congress—Austria, Great Britain, Prussia, and Russia—set the course of European affairs, agree- ing to prevent future conflicts that would endanger each nation. Although differing ideologically, it was a formal pledge to keep events like the French Revolution and the American Revolution from unbalancing the sta- tus quo. Unfortunately, the revolutionary turmoil of 1848 signaled the end of the Concert of Europe. Triggered by events in Sicily and France, a wave of revolutions swept across the continent that marked the downfall of the ancien régime. Influenced by liberal reformers and dismal economic conditions, the poor working class and starving peasants reacted violently to the changes that had oppressed them. Doomed by broad reform goals and mediocre leadership, the uprisings were quickly suppressed with negligible affects on the European way of life. Despite a few exceptions—the 112 Disraeli, Benjamin end of feudalism in the Habsburg Empire, the free- ing of serfs in Russia—little changed other than the deepening of the socioeconomic conditions that had started the revolutions. In light of the chaos, the European nation-states isolated themselves from one another, concentrating efforts on their own national interests. By 1875 upheavals and nationalist sentiment undermined the congress system. Amid conflicts like the Crimean War and the Franco-Prussian War, the Concert of Europe came to an end. At midcentury, diplomacy had become synonymous with the display of military force and the demonstration of military might. Ushering in an era of new imperialism based on creating empire for empire’s sake, it became the means for establishing trade partnerships, colonial outposts, and expanding and securing national inter- ests, with considerable effect. The outbreak of the Spanish-American War in 1898 epitomized the nature of the new diplomacy: establish dominance or be dominated. With the Spanish defeat, the bal- ance shifted from the European continent toward the United States at the close of the 19th century. How- ever, it would take World War I to establish fully the new diplomatic paradigm. See also Napoleon iii; revolutions of 1848. Further reading: Bridge, F. Roy, and Roger Bullen. The Great Powers and the European States System, 1815–1914. Lon- don: Longman, 2004; Chapman, Tim. The Congress of Vien- na: Origins, Processes, and Results. New York: Routledge, 1998; Mowat, Robert B. A History of European Diplomacy, 1451–1789. Hamden, CT: Archon Books, 1971; Taylor, A. J. P. The Struggle for Mastery of Europe, 1848–1918. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980. baptized into Christianity, he himself remained com- mitted to Judaism. Isaac was a distinguished writer and passed the love of writing on to his son. After several failed attempts in politics, Benjamin was elected as the Tory (Conser- vative) Party representative in 1837 from Maidstone, in Kent, England. Coincidentally, this was also the year in which Victoria became queen, a woman whose life would be so closely connected to his. Although the Tory Party historically represented the nobility and the landowners, Disraeli was of the progressive wing of the party. Philosophically, he leaned more toward the Whigs, later known as the Liberal Party, and espoused the cause of the rising working class. The working class was increasingly exploited in the factories, mills, and mines of a rapidly industrializing Britain. Two years later, Disraeli married a wealthy widow, Mrs. Wyndham Lewis. In 1841 the general elections brought the Con- servatives to power in Britain, and Sir Robert Peel became the prime minister. When Peel turned Disraeli down for a seat in his cabinet, Disraeli helped form the Young England group. This group attempted to redirect politics in the aftermath of the passage of the Reform Bill of 1832, the first of several reform bills that would open the voting franchise to larger num- bers of Britain’s working classes. The Young Englanders sought an alliance between the aristocracy of Britain, the backbone of the Tory Party since its formation in the reign of King Charles II, and the rising working-class poor. Although noth- ing came directly from these ideas, it characterized British political life in the 1840s. The group disband- ed after the Maynooth Grant in 1845, the same event that led to William Gladstone’s resignation from the cabinet. CORN LAWS One of the cornerstones of Peel’s policy was the repeal of the Corn Laws, which kept the price of corn arti- ficially high. This benefited landowners, who formed part of Disraeli’s constituency. Disraeli’s opposition to Peel’s program did not succeed, and the Corn Laws were repealed in 1846. But the divisiveness at least partly caused by Disraeli brought down Peel’s admin- istration, leading to a Whig government led by Lord John Russell. When Russell resigned in 1852, Edward Stanley formed a Tory government in which Disraeli finally achieved his dream of a cabinet appointment, as chan- Disraeli, Benjamin (1804–1881) British prime minister Benjamin Disraeli, whose name would be inextrica- bly linked with the growth of the British Empire, was born in London on December 21, 1804, to Isaac and Maria D’Israeli. Although England did not have the ugly record of anti-Semitism of other European coun- tries, Isaac decided that assimilation into English soci- ety was the best path for his son. Although Isaac had his children, Benjamin, Sarah, Raphael, and Jacobus Steve Sagarra Disraeli, Benjamin 113 cellor of the exchequer. Stanley became prime minis- ter two more times in his career, summoning Disraeli back to his post each time. Concurrently, Disraeli was leader of the House of Commons, which brought him into contact with Gladstone, the leader of Whigs. Pressure was building to extend the voting fran- chise. In a rare act of political unanimity, Gladstone and Disraeli joined forces to press for a second Reform Bill. While Gladstone did it out of his lifelong com- mitment for liberal causes, Disraeli functioned from a more complicated political calculus. If the Conserva- tive Party did not embrace more progressive causes, it would become moribund. Due to their combined par- liamentary weight, the second Reform Bill was almost assured to pass, and it did so in 1867. In the general elections of 1868, Gladstone became prime minister, and Disraeli lost his cabinet position. The elections of 1874, however, brought Disraeli to power as prime minister, the first one totally dedicated to the expansion—and perpetuation—of the British Empire. Disraeli realized that support for the empire in a parliamentary democracy depended on the alle- giance of the growing industrial classes. To support this segment of the population, Disraeli passed legis- lation that protected workers and trade unions. In his quest to make England a great empire, Dis- raeli found an ardent ally in Queen Victoria. At this time, the Suez Canal had made possible a rapid tran- sit to the jewel of Britain’s imperial crown: India. By the early 1870s the khedive Ismail of Egypt had virtually bankrupted Egypt through his ambi- tious program of modernization. When the chancel- lor of the exchequer requested Parliament to approve funds to buy the khedive’s shares, Disraeli delivered an impassioned speech urging approval. Parliament was convinced that the purchase was a strong move. In August 1876 Victoria raised Disraeli to the peer- age as Lord Beaconsfield; he was compelled to leave the House of Commons. Still, he continued to serve as prime minister. In 1878 Disraeli faced the first major foreign crisis of his administration. In 1875 the Christian popula- tion of the Balkans rebelled against their overlords in the Turkish Ottoman Empire. Revulsion over the thousands killed again united Gladstone and Disraeli. In April 1877 Czar Alexander II declared war on the Turks. The Russians and their Romanian allies were delayed for months by the Turkish defense of Plevna (Pleven) in Bulgaria, from July to December of 1877. But after Plevna fell, the Russians and Romanians seemed determined to press on to finish off the Turk- ish empire and take its capital of Constantinople. Such a grab for power was unthinkable to Disraeli, when Russia already was in a position, through its rapid conquest of the khanates of Central Asia, to threaten British India. WAR FOOTING Consequently, Disraeli put Britain on a war foot- ing such as had not been seen since the war scare with France years earlier. The British Mediterranean fleet cast anchor from its base at Malta, which Great Britain had gained during the Napoleonic Wars, and moved up to support the Turks by June 30, 1877. Any further Russian advance would meet the fire- power of the Royal Navy. On March 3, 1878, the Russians forced the Turks to sign the Treaty of San Stefano, which created a Greater Bulgaria, covering much of the Balkans. Disraeli and his administration considered a Great- er Bulgaria, which would have a Russian force present, as merely another stop toward a future Russian move to take over what remained of the Ottoman Empire in Europe. With the Congress of Berlin ending the Balkan crisis in 1878 and the invasion of Afghanistan in the same year to prevent it from becoming a Rus- sian satellite, Disraeli showed not only his belief in the British Empire, but also his determination to use both the British navy and land forces to defend it. Although Disraeli and the Conservatives were beaten in the general election of 1880, he had made his mark as perhaps the greatest of Victorian impe- rialists. As for Disraeli himself, he returned to writ- ing at the end of his political career. But after the publication of Endymion in 1880, Disraeli fell ill and died on April 19, 1881. Queen Victoria personally attended his funeral and burial at Hugenden. See also Bismarck, Otto von; Industrial Revolution. Further reading: Gerolymatos, Andre. The Balkan Wars. New York: Basic/Perseus, 2002; Hil, J. R., and Bryan Ranft. The Oxford Illustrated History of the Royal Navy. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995; Kinross, Lord. The Ottoman Centuries. New York: Morrow Quill, 1977; Thornton, A. P. The Imperial Idea and Its Enemies. New York: Anchor, 1968; Watts, Anthony J. The Royal Navy: An Illustrated History. Annapolis, MD: US Naval Institute Press, 1994. John F. Murphy 114 Dost Mohammed Dost Mohammed (1793–1863) Afghani leader Dost Mohammed Khan is remembered as a power- ful and charismatic ruler who reigned over Afghanistan from 1826 until his death in 1863 and made significant attempts to unite the troubled country. The times in which he ruled were turbulent in Afghanistan because rival clans struggled for power against one another, even as various members of those clans fought among themselves as they attempted to gain ascendancy by unseating those who were already in power. Dost Mohammed’s reign also coincided with the period in which Great Britain and Russia were vying for control of Asian lands that they had identified as essential to their expansionist goals. From the beginning, Dost, which means “friend,” was faced with repeated attempts to unseat him that arose from the jealousy of his numerous brothers and nephews. His most serious rival was Shah Shujah al- Moolk, the Afghan king and cousin whom he had deposed. Their rivalry was part of the continuing bat- tle for power in Afghanistan that existed between two branches of the Durrani clan. Shah Shujah represented the Saddozai, while Dost was a member of the rival Barakzai clan. When Shujah left Afghanistan, he took his entire harem and royal jewels, including the famous Koh-i-noor diamond. Once in power, Dost Mohammed declared himself the Amir-al-momineen of Afghanistan, the “Commander of the Faithful,” which allowed him to exercise almost total- itarian power. In order to protect himself from his numer- ous enemies, the Dost set up his power base in Kabul and surrounded himself with a limited bureaucracy composed of his sons and matrimonial allies. This move also eradi- cated a good deal of the crime and corruption that had flourished under previous monarchs. He also banned the sale of alcohol and intoxicating drugs and curtailed gam- bling and prostitution. In 1834 his rival Shah Shujah began a revolt against Dost, who was victorious, but was unable to regain con- trol of Peshawar, which had been taken by the Sikhs. To gain support, Dost Mohammed encouraged his sub- jects to view his campaign against the Sikhs as a jihad (holy war). On April 30, 1837, an Afghan force of some 30,000 men and 50 cannons faced the Sikhs in the Bat- tle of Jamrud. When the battle was over, the Afghans had lost 1,000 men, but the cost to the Sikhs had been twice that. Despite the Afghan victory, Sikh leader Ran- jit Singh retained his hold on Peshawar. However, Dost Mohammed had succeeded in establishing a regu- lar Afghan army for the first time. This army was made more powerful by the use of the long-barreled muskets made by Kabul gunsmiths that were better than the guns used by the British army in India. With Dost in firm control of Afghanistan, both the British and Russians began to court his favor. Gener- ally, Dost favored British efforts to block Russian and Persian advances. However, he was also willing to turn to the Russians if the British failed to meet his demands. The British government then dispatched Sir Alexander Burnes to Afghanistan to meet with Dost and agreed to return Peshawar to Afghanistan to promote stability on the frontier. In 1857 Dost concluded a comprehensive alliance with the British by which he received an annual subsidy from Britain, although he remained neutral when the Indian Mutiny occurred in 1857. Britain became con- vinced that he presented a threat to British control of India. Subsequently, Britain attacked Afghanistan and convinced various chiefs to support them against Dost Mohammed. With diminishing forces, Dost was soon reduced to fighting with only a couple of hundred men. Eventually, he tired of living the life of a fugitive and surrendered in 1840. The British treated him with full respect and installed him and his family in a mansion. However, his ambitious son Akbar refused to join them, attacked Kabul, and slaughtered 16,000 British soldiers and the English there. Finally, Britain decided to restore Dost to power, but to implement a hands-off policy in Afghan affairs. In May 1863 Dost conquered the City of Herat, uni- fying the remaining areas of Afghanistan under one rule, but he never recovered Peshawar, which is now part of northwestern Pakistan. Dost was succeeded by his fifth son, Sher Ali Khan, but he was challenged by his broth- ers and Afghanistan continued to be wracked by civil wars. Further reading: Gankovsky, Yu V. A History of Afghanistan. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1985; Macintyre, Ben. The Man Who Would Be King: The First American in Afghani- stan. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 2004. Elizabeth Purdy Douglass, Frederick (c. 1817–1895) U.S. abolitionist and reformer Born into slavery in Maryland, Frederick Douglass became the most significant African-American leader of the 19th century. Son of field hand Harriet Bailey and an unnamed white man (perhaps his first master, Aaron Anthony), Douglass became a powerful anti- slavery orator, newspaper publisher, backer of wom- en’s suffrage, adviser to Abraham Lincoln, bank- er, and diplomat. When he was about seven, Douglass’s mother died, and her child, then called Frederick Bailey, was sent to Baltimore to serve Hugh and Sophia Auld, rela- tives of the family on whose plantation he was raised. Sophia, in violation of law and custom, began to teach the youngster to read; her husband instructed Freder- ick in shipyard skills that would eventually prove his passage to freedom. As Douglass wrote, “A city slave is almost a freeman compared with a slave on the plantation.” Family deaths, remarriages, and disputes over slave “property” threw Douglass’s almost tolerable life into chaos. Underfed and cruelly treated, sent to a remote area near Chesapeake Bay, he was hired out to be “broken” into an obedient field hand. After several unsuccessful escape attempts, in September 1838 he made his way to New York City and thence, with help from abolitionists and his future wife, free- woman Anna Murray, to the port of New Bedford, Massachusetts. Douglass would write three autobiographies that remain a key source of information about his life and thought. The first of these, his Narrative, published in 1845 when Douglass was still a fugitive, galvanized the American antislavery movement and forced Douglass into exile in Britain, where he lectured to huge crowds. He returned to the United States in 1847 after English supporters paid $700 to secure his freedom. Douglass soon started a freedom newspaper, North Star, and resumed his work as an abolition orator. He delivered his most famous speech in Rochester, New York, on July 5, 1852. “What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July?” he asked. “I answer: a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham....” In 1848 Douglass attended the meeting at Seneca Falls, New York, that launched the drive for equal rights for women. Douglass would later fall out with important members of the women’s suffrage movement over the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution that, in 1870, would grant voting rights to male former slaves while still excluding women of all races. During the Civil War, Douglass helped convince President Lincoln to allow blacks to fight for the Union and publicly urged free blacks and escaped slaves to Born a slave, Frederick Douglass became the most prominent African-American voice for abolition in the 19th century. enlist. More than 200,000 did so, paving the way for full citizenship at the war’s end. Douglass’s later years in Washington, D.C., mixed achievement and disap- pointment. He held a number of federal positions, including a posting to Haiti, but his participation in a Freedmen’s Savings Bank ended badly. His remarriage to a white woman was condemned by both whites and blacks. He lived to see the emergence of new racial restrictions, suffering some of their indignities himself. Dying of a heart attack on February 20, 1895, after attending a women’s rights meeting, Douglass lay in state in a Washington, D.C., church. He is buried in Rochester’s Mount Hope Cemetery. See also abolition of slavery in the Americas. Further reading: Douglass, Frederick. Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglas. Edited and introduced by Houston A. Baker, Jr. New York: Penguin Classics, 1986; McFeely, William S. Frederick Douglass. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1992. Marsha E. Ackermann Dreyfus affair In 1894 Alfred Dreyfus, a Jewish officer in the French army, was accused of giving military secrets to the Dreyfus affair 115 116 Dreyfus affair Germans. Although he steadfastly maintained his inno- cence, Dreyfus was tried and found guilty in a trial that was heavily influenced by widespread anti-Semitism within the upper echelons of French society and the mil- itary. The case became a cause célèbre that split French society between the pro-Dreyfusards (liberals) and the anti-Dreyfusards (conservatives). Dreyfus was sentenced to Devil’s Island prison off the South American coast, but his supporters contin- ued to investigate the case and found that he had been used as a scapegoat to cover up for the real culprits, who were highly placed in French society. The French writer Emile Zola took up the case and published his famous article, “J’Accuse,” detailing the abuses in the case. Dreyfus was bought back for another trial and, although new evidence was presented, he was again found guilty. Dreyfus was finally freed on a pardon granted by the French president in 1899; however, his military rank was not restored until 1906. Theodor Herzl, the father of modern Zionism (Jewish nation- alism), covered the Dreyfus case as a journalist. The prevalence of anti-Semitism in liberal France contrib- uted to Herzl’s conclusion that Jews needed to have a state of their own where they would control the politi- cal, economic, and military institutions. Further reading: Bredin, Jean-Denis. The Affair: The Case of Alfred Dreyfus. Paris: Braziller, 1986, and London: Sidgwick & Jackson, 1987; Cahm, Eric. The Dreyfus Affair in French Society and Politics. New York: Longman, 1996. Janice J. Terry Eastern Question The Eastern Question, or what was to become of the declining Ottoman Empire, was one of the major dip- lomatic issues of the 19th century. The major Euro- pean powers, Britain, France, the Austro-Hungar- ian Empire, and Russia, had differing and sometimes conflicting attitudes about what to do with the “Sick Man of Europe.” Each European power had territo- rial ambitions over parts of the Ottoman holdings and sought to further their ambitions through a variety of diplomatic and military means. The Eastern Ques- tion had similarities with the diplomatic maneuver- ings known as the Great Game by Britain to prevent Russian expansion into Afghanistan and other Asian territories and may be divided into several different phases. In phase one, 1702–1820, Russia and the Ottomans engaged in a number of wars over control of territories around the Black Sea. The long-term Russian strategy was to gain warm-water ports and entry into the Medi- terranean through the Dardanelles. Generally, the Brit- ish, and to a lesser extent the French, sought to thwart Russia expansion into the Mediterranean and support- ed the Ottomans diplomatically. The Austro-Hungar- ians who wanted to expand into Ottoman territory in the Balkans and feared growing Russian strength also sought to halt growing Russian power. But in general, during the first phase of the Eastern Question, Russia won its wars against the Ottoman Empire and steadily extended its control around the Black Sea. The Napoleonic conquest of Egypt and the brief French occupation in 1798 highlighted the impor- tance of the region and the growing weakness of the Ottomans. Phase two of the Eastern Question was a period when nationalist sentiments arose within the Ottoman Empire. This culminated in the Greek War of Independence, 1821–33, or phase three, when the Greeks, with the sympathy and support of France and Britain, rose up in armed rebellion against Ottoman domination. The Greek War culminated in the indepen- dence of Greece under the Treaty of Adrianople and the Protocols of London in 1830. The European powers guaranteed Greek independence in 1832. Although the British and French supported the Ottomans in their struggles against Russian encroach- ment in the Black Sea and the Balkans during the 19th century, both powers took territories away from the Ottomans in North Africa and along the Arabian Pen- insula and Persian Gulf. Phase four of the Eastern Ques- tion culminated in the Crimean War, when the British and French, with small support from Piedmont- Sardinia, joined forces with the Ottomans against Russia. Although Russia gained some territory, the support of the European powers gave the “Sick Man of Europe” a new lease on life and forced a series of domestic reforms within the empire. During the Congress of Berlin in phase five, the British agreed to defend the Ottoman Empire against Russian ambitions to partition it, but at the same time assented to the French takeover of Tunisia in North Africa. France had already taken the former Ottoman E 117 118 Eddy, Mary Baker (1821–1910), and the Christian Science Church territory of Algeria in 1830. Britain gained the impor- tant island of Cyprus in the eastern Mediterranean, while Austria-Hungary expanded into the Balkans. As Germany emerged as a major European power, it, too, entered into the diplomatic maneuverings involving the Ottoman Empire. Kaiser Wilhelm II visited Istanbul in 1889 and again in 1898 and announced his support for the aging empire. As a result, ties between the Ger- man and Ottoman military increased, and Germany began to invest in the Ottoman Empire. The Berlin to Baghdad railway was the cornerstone of German finan- cial interests. The growing German influence within Ottoman territories raised British opposition. The Brit- ish were particularly opposed to the possibility that the Berlin to Baghdad Railway might extend the German presence into the Persian Gulf and eastern Asia where it would compete with the British. The Germans man- aged to gain a concession for the railway in 1903 and hoped that it would link up with rail lines in the eastern Mediterranean. Parts of the railway were constructed through Anatolia, but the railway was never completed to Baghdad. The Ottoman government was not a passive par- ticipant in the Eastern Question but took an active role in playing off the conflicting diplomatic policies of the European powers to prevent the dissolution of its empire. The territorial and economic rivalries of the European nations enabled the Ottoman Empire to pro- long its existence while at the same time it continued to lose territories in the Balkans, North Africa, Egypt, the Sudan, and the Arabian Peninsula to the imperial Euro- pean powers. See also Algeria under French rule; Anglo-Russian rivalry; Tanzimat, Ottoman Empire and. Further reading: Anderson, Matthew S. The Eastern Ques- tion, 1774–1923. New York: St. Martin’s, 1966; Marriott, John A. R. The Eastern Question: An Historical Study in European Diplomacy. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1917, 1956. Moon, Parker Thomas. Imperialism and World Politics. New York: Macmillan, 1926, 1967. Janice J. Terry Eddy, Mary Baker (1821–1910), and the Christian Science Church The Church of Christ, Scientist (official name) was established in 1879. However, the notion of Christian Science was cultivated by Mary Baker Eddy after her instantaneous recovery in 1866 from severe injuries sustained in an accident, in her words, “which neither medicine nor surgery could reach.” What did reach her serious condition were the healing words of Jesus, which became the foundation of her method for achiev- ing authentic health. Born in a small New Hampshire village in 1821 to Congregational parents who were devoted to her education and her study of the Bible, Mary Baker had always been an unhealthy child and adolescent. Over the course of her life, she married three times: first to George Washington Glover in 1843, who died suddenly six months later; then to Daniel Patterson in 1853, whom she divorced 20 years later after tolerating his numerous infidelities; and, finally, in 1877, to Asa Gilbert Eddy, who died in 1882. Mary, having survived ill health, marital tragedy, and injuries, lived into her 90th year, dying in 1910. Mary Baker Eddy’s discovery of Christian Science is documented in her book Science and Health, a title that she later extended to include With Keys to the Scrip- tures. This book, first published in 1875, was quickly adopted as the textbook of a new religious movement. Besides a short autobiographical sketch of her recovery, it offers practical advice on family relationships and engages in analyzing literary issues such as the Genesis creation stories and scientific discussions on subjects such as Darwinism. But what sets her book apart as a new religious text is its exploration of a philosophy of radical idealism, in which only the divine mind exists, while matter is mere illusion. This illusion is what leads to intellectual error and ill health, and ultimately evil and death. Awareness of this illusion and the salvific need for a sense of “at-one-ment” with the divine mind of the biblical God is what leads to both spiritual and physical health. Eddy sustained considerable critique of her phi- losophy from both Joseph Pulitzer, who accused her of senility, and Mark Twain, who made her the target of his stinging wit, as well as numerous Christian theolo- gians, who believed she had abandoned essential ortho- doxy. Deeply influenced by her encounter in 1862 with Phineas P. Quimby, the famous mentalist and ridiculed progenitor of the mind-over-matter philosophy, Eddy’s resolve was more than enough to withstand a lifetime of criticism, which allowed her to publish several books and to found the Boston Mother Church, the Massa- chusetts Metaphysical College, the Christian Science Journal, and a world-class newspaper, the Christian Science Monitor. Each local branch church, without the benefit of ordained clergy and guided by Eddy’s Church Manual, conducts simple Sunday services that Thanks to her spontaneous recovery from illness, Mary Baker Eddy helped create the Church of Christ, Scientist. consist of hymn singing and the reading of biblical texts and complementary passages from Science and Health. While the membership of the church is difficult to assess, given its prohibition on publishing statistics (though it claims 2,000 worldwide Branch Churches and Societ- ies), and while the movement has faced legal challenges, given its practice of a strict form of faith healing that encourages the avoidance of hospitals, it is generally believed to have well over 300,000 American adherents and a growing European and Asian mission. See also Mormonism; transcendentalism. Further reading: Gill, G. Mary Baker Eddy. New York: Perseus Books Group, 1999; Gottschalk, S. Rolling Away the Stone: Mary Baker Eddy’s Challenge to Materialism. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2005; Schoepflin, R. B. Christian Science on Trial: Religious Healing in America. Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press, 2002; Wilson, B. Blue Windows: A Christian Science Childhood. New York: Picador, 1998. Rick M. Rogers enlightened despotism in Europe 119 enlightened despotism in Europe Enlightened despotism represented one of the most enduring experiments before the old order was forev- er turned upside down by the forces unleashed by the French Revolution in 1789. Ironically, enlightened despotism was fostered by the thoughts of French phi- losophers like Voltaire; Charles-Louis de Secondant, baron de Montesquieu; and Denis Diderot who would provide the ideological gunpowder that exploded with the revolution in 1789. Embraced by rulers in 18th- century Europe like Catherine the Great of Russia, Maria Theresa of the Austrian Empire, and Freder- ick the Great of Prussia, enlightened despotism pro- vided a philosophy of government that motivated rulers to pursue political changes, forever breaking any ties with the monarchies of the past. At its basis, enlightened despotism attempted to apply the rational spirit of the Enlightenment to guide governance, pushing them forward from the supersti- tions and sometimes barbarous practices of past cen- turies. It embraced not only what we would call now a progressive view of government but also the sciences and the arts. general welFare Above all, enlightened despots began to see themselves as the first servants of the state, whose duty was to provide for the general welfare of their subjects. When Frederick II became king of Prussia after his father’s death on May 31, 1740, he wrote “Our grand care will be to further the country’s well-being and to make every one of our subjects contented and happy.” A more mature Frederick later wrote in Essay on the Forms of Government, “The sovereign is the representative of his State. He and his people form a single body. Ruler and ruled can be happy only if they are firmly united. The sovereign stands to his people in the same relation in which the head stands to the body. He must use his eyes and his brain for the whole community, and act on its behalf to the com- mon advantage. If we wish to elevate monarchical above republican government, the duty of sovereigns is clear. They must be active, hard-working, upright and honest, and concentrate all their strength upon filling their office worthily. That is my idea of the duties of sovereigns.” Above all, it was Montesquieu in his The Spir- it of Laws (1748) who had the most practical influ- ence on the enlightened despots and the American Revolution of 1775. Montesquieu wrote, “In every 120 enlightened despotism in Europe government there are three sorts of power; the legis- lative; the executive, in respect to things dependent on the law of nations; and the executive, in regard to things that depend on the civil law. By virtue of the first, the prince or magistrate enacts temporary or perpetual laws, and amends or abrogates those that have been already enacted. By the second, he makes peace or war, sends or receives embassies; establishes the public security, and provides against invasions. By the third, he punishes criminals, or determines the disputes that arise between individuals. The latter we shall call the judiciary power, and the other simply the executive power of the state.” A SAY IN DESTINY While none of the enlightened despots like Frederick, Maria Theresa, or Catherine would willingly accept lim- itations on their sovereignty, they all accepted at least in principle the idea that those they governed should have some say in their own destiny. All used consultative assemblies, drawn from all the classes in society, at least several times during their reigns. In 1785, for example, Catherine issued two charters, one for the nobles, and one for the towns. The Charter for the Nobility inaugu- rated councils of nobles who could offer their opinions on laws that she proposed. The Charter for the Towns created municipal councils whose membership included all those who owned property or a business within the towns. At the same time, the legal status of Russia’s peasantry continued to slip under the control of the landowning nobility until they were hardly considered as human beings. The rationalization of government saw considerable progress in the Austrian Empire, where the Empress Maria Theresa reigned jointly with her son, as Joseph ii, after 1765. Reforms during their reign centralized government, making political and monetary bureau- cracy answerable to the Crown. Reform of the legal codes provided a keystone for enlightened rule. In June 1767 Catherine gathered a Legislative Commission to hear her proposals for a new legal code for Russia. Although the code was never adopted, the document shows the direction of the political thought that guided her long reign (1762– 96). She wrote, “What is the true End of Monarchy? Not to deprive People of their natural Liberty; but to correct their Actions, in order to attain the supreme Good.” For the sake of the subjects, perhaps the most important part of enlightened despotism was the gen- eral belief that the use of torture to extract information was a savage relic of the Middle Ages and had no place in the judicial system of any enlightened monarch. In Russia, Catherine’s refusal to use torture was put to the test in the 1773–74 rebellion of the Cossack Emilian Pugachev. Although Pugachev’s revolt proved a distinct threat to her reign, after he was captured, Catherine refused to let his interrogators resort to the use of tor- ture to find out if he acted alone or was the representa- tive of some conspiracy hatched to overthrow and kill her. All the enlightened monarchs were influenced by the thought of the Italian Cesare Beccaria, the author of the historic Of Crimes and Punishments in 1764. Enlightened despots attempted to improve their countries through advances in the sciences, industry, and agriculture as well. After Catherine II’s annexation of the khanate of the Crimea in 1783, she opened it to cultivation by German immigrants to improve agri- cultural production. When the Treaty of Jassy ended a war with the Turks in 1792, large new areas were opened in what is now southern Russia for improved agricultural production. Significantly, one of the coun- tries most resistant to the ideas of enlightened despo- tism was France, where the revolution that overturned the old order began. Religious tolerance also saw great advances in this age. Most of the prohibitions against Jews, existing from the Middle Ages, were lifted throughout much of Europe. In France, however, such a change would have to wait to take maximum effect in the reign of Napo- leon I, after he crowned himself emperor in 1804, 11 years after Louis XVI of France had been sent to the guillotine in January 1793. Muslims also benefited from the general enlightenment. After the conquest of the Crimea in 1783 and the Treaty of Jassy with the Ottoman Turks in 1792, large numbers of Muslims became Catherine the Great’s subjects. It was perhaps the greatest irony of this age of enlightened despotism that it was brought to an end by the French king Louis XVI summoning to Paris in 1789 the Estates General, the representative body of French aristocracy, clergy, and the emerging middle class. The Estates General, having not been convened for over 150 years, had much to discuss with the king. When Louis XVI refused to do so and threatened to dissolve it, the Third Estate refused to leave Paris. Instead, the Third Estate met in an old tennis court and swore to remain in session until its grievances were heard by the king and redressed by him. The French Revolution had begun. Enlightenment, the 121 Further reading: Alexander, John T. Catherine the Great: Life and Legend. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989; Erickson, Carolly. Great Catherine: The Life of Catherine the Great, Empress of Russia. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1994; Troyat, Henri. Catherine the Great. Pinkham, Joan, trans. New York: Meridian, 1994. John F. Murphy, Jr. Enlightenment, the The Enlightenment in Europe came on the heels of the age of science. It dates from the end of the 17th centu- ry to the end of the 18th century. Beginning with John Locke, thinkers applied scientific reasoning to society, politics, and religion. The Enlightenment was espe- cially strong in France, Scotland, and America. The Enlightenment may be said to culminate in the revo- lutions that occurred in America, France, and Latin America between 1775 and 1815. In attempting to justify England’s Glorious Revolution of 1688, Locke argued that man had inherent rights. Man, he posited, was a blank page who could be filled up with good progressive ideas. He laid the basis for people’s sov- ereignty. People voluntarily came together to form a government that would protect individual rights. Gov- ernment, therefore, had a contract with the people. When the government violated people’s natural rights, it violated the social contract. Therefore, people had the right to withdraw their allegiance. Ironically, the rationale used to justify the triumph of Parliament over the Crown in England was used against Parlia- ment and Britain nearly a century later in the Ameri- can Revolution. Influenced by Newtonian science that posited universal laws that governed the natural world, the Enlightenment emphasis was on human reason. According to major Enlightenment thinkers, both faith in nature and belief in progress were important to the human condition. The individual was subject to universal laws that governed the universe and formed nature. Using the gift of reason, people would seek to find happiness. Human virtue and happiness were best achieved by freedom from unnecessary restraints imposed by church and state. Not surpris- ingly, Enlightenment thinkers believed in education as an essential component in human improvement. They also tended to support freedom of conscience and checks in absolute government. EARLY ENLIGHTENMENT The early Enlightenment was centered in England and Holland. It was interpreted by conservative English figures to justify the limits on the Crown imposed by Parliament. The limited government supported by the Whigs who took over was spread abroad by the newly created Masonic movement. In Holland, which was the home of refugees from absolutist leaders such as refugees from England of the later Stuart monarchy and from France after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, and was nominally a republic, the earliest writings appeared. Its most famous philosopher, Spi- noza, argued that God existed everywhere in nature, even society, meaning that it could rule itself. This phi- losophy applied to arguments against state churches and absolute monarchs. BASIC ENLIGHTENMENT IDEAS The most famous figures of the 18th-century Enlight- enment were Frenchmen, including Charles-Louis de Secondat Montesquieu, Voltaire, Denis Diderot, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Montesquieu in his great- est work, The Spirit of Laws, argued that checks and balances among executive, legislative, and judi- cial branches were the guarantors of liberty. Voltaire, the leading literary figure of the age, wrote histories, plays, pamphlets, essays, and novels, as well as cor- respondence with monarchs such as Catherine the Great of Russia and Frederick the Great of Prus- sia. In all of these works, he supported rationalism and advocated reform. Diderot edited an encyclopedia that included over 70,000 articles covering the supe- riority of science, the evils of superstition, the virtues of human freedom, the evils of the slave trade in Africa, and unfair taxes. Rousseau, however, was not a fan of science and reason. Rather, in the Social Contract, he spoke of the general will of the people as the basis of government. His ideas were to be cited by future revolutions from the French to the Russian. Enlightenment thought spread throughout the globe and was especially forceful in Europe and the Americas. In Scotland, some ideas of the Enlighten- ment influenced the writings of David Hume, who became the best known of skeptics of religion, and Adam Smith, who argued that the invisible hand of the market should govern supply and demand and government economic controls should not exist. In America, deism (the belief that God is an impersonal force in the universe) and the moral embodiment of the Newtonian laws of the universe attracted Thomas 122 Enlightenment, the Jefferson and Thomas Paine. On the political side, thinkers such as Thomas Hooker and John Mayhew spoke of government as a trustee that must earn the trust of its constituency and as a financial institution with a fiduciary duty to its depositors. It was in the realms of politics, religion, philosophy, and humanitarian affairs that the Enlightenment had its greatest effect. The figures of the French Enlighten- ment opposed undue power as exemplified by absolute monarchy, aristocracy based on birth, state churches, and economic control by the state as exemplified by mercantilism. Enlightened thinkers saw the arbitrary policies of absolute monarchies as contradictory to the natural rights of man, according to the leaders of the American Revolution. The most fundamental part of their nature was human reason, the instrument by which people realized their potentials. The individual was a thinking and judging being who must have the highest of freedom in order to operate. The best govern- ment, like the best economy, was the government that governed least. THE ENLIGHTENMENT IN POLITICS The Enlightenment extended to the political realm and was especially critical of monarchs who were more interested in their divine right than in the good of their people. Man was innately good; however, society could corrupt him. Anything that corrupted people, be it an absolutist gov- ernment or brutal prison conditions, should be combated. Absolutist policies violated innate rights that were a nec- essary part of human nature. Ultimately, political freedom depended on the right social environment, which could be encouraged or hindered by government. Absolutism, for this reason, was the primary opponent of political freedom. The progenitors of the political Enlightenment, John Locke and his successors, maintained that gov- ernment should exist to protect property of subjects and citizens, defend against foreign enemies, secure order, and protect the natural rights of its people. These ideas found their way into the U.S. Decla- ration of Independence and Constitution. These documents asserted that every individual had “unalienable rights,” including rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Similarly, the preamble to the Constitution claimed that government existed to “promote the general welfare and provide of the common defense” in direct descent from Enlighten- ment thinkers. The ideas of social contract and social compact did not originate with either Locke or Rousseau, but with Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes viewed the social contract as a way for government to restrain base human nature. Ultimately, Locke maintained that people came together in a voluntary manner to form a government for protection of their basic rights. Therefore, government was based on their voluntary consent. If their basic natural rights were violated, they could withdraw their consent. This theory had echoes in the arguments of leaders of the American Revolution who argued that their revolt against vari- ous tariffs and taxes such as the tea tax was taxa- tion without representation. Social contract theory argued that individuals voluntarily cede their rights to government, including the responsibility to protect their own natural rights. Consequently, government’s authority derived from the governed. To keep the potential for governmental abuse of power in check, Enlightenment figures argued for a separation of powers. Before Montesquieu made his specific suggestion in The Spirit of Laws, Locke had proposed that kings, judges, and magistrates should share power and thereby check one another. Spinoza also proposed the need for local autonomy, including a local militia to guard against power concentrated in the center including a standing army. These ideas found their way first into the Articles of Confedera- tion, which gave almost excessive power to the vari- ous states. The U.S. Constitution specifically stated all powers not expressly given to the national government are reserved to the states and the people. The emphasis of the political writers of the Enlight- enment was on limited government rather than on direct democracy. Although their great enemy was arbitrary absolute central government, they were not enamored of the influence of the mob. Even though they saw the voting franchise as a check on overpowerful government, they limited the franchise to property owners. Male suf- frage in America did not come into existence until the age of Jackson. The founders of the Constitution were anx- ious to include the electoral college as the final selecter of presidents. Direct election of senators did not occur until 1912–13, and it was not until, 1962, with Baker v. Carr and the principle of “one man, one vote,” that there were direct elections to all legislative bodies in the United States. Technically, the United States remains a representative, not a direct, democracy. Even Rousseau, considered the advocate of direct democracy, felt that direct democracy was most suit- ed to small states like his home city of Geneva rather than a large state like France. Along with Diderot, he advocated rule based on “general will.” However, Enlightenment, the 123 both Rousseau and Diderot defined general will as representing the nature of the nation or community as opposed to the selfish needs of the individual. The law should secure each person’s freedom but only up to the point that it does not threaten others. In this way, they prefigured the utilitarian philosophy of Jeremy Ben- tham, which stressed the goal of human happiness as long as it did no harm to others. REACTIONS AGAINST ENLIGHTENMENT In the latter 18th century, there was a reaction against the overuse of reason and science in securing human potential. Religious, philosophical, and humanitarian movements put new emphasis on idealism and emo- tionalism when it came to religious, philosophical, and social reforms. Philosophically, the Newtonian vision of God as the great scientist in the sky and Locke’s equation of knowledge to the mind’s organization of sensory experiences along with the rise of atheism pro- voked a reaction. IMMANUEL KANT The foremost philosopher of the later Enlightenment was Immanuel Kant, whose Critique of Pure Reason argued that innate ideas exist before sensory experi- ences. Taking a page from Plato, Kant argued that cer- tain inner concepts such as depth, beauty, cause, and especially God existed independently of the senses. Some ideas were derived from reason, not the senses. Kant went beyond pure reason. Reason was based on intuition as well as inter- pretation of sensory experiences. The conscious mind was integral to a person’s thinking nature. Therefore, abstract reason could have moral and religious over- tones. This came to be called new idealism, as opposed to classical idealism. Another reaction to this scientific perspective on religion was a movement in favor of a feeling, emo- tional deity everpresent in daily life. Known as Pietism in Europe and in America variously as evangelism and charismatic Christianity, the movement known as the Great Awakening swept the Americas and Europe in the 1740s and 1780s. Preachers such as George White- field and the Wesley brothers gave stirring sermons with overtones of fire and brimstone in response to excessive rationality in church doctrine. Their style of preaching appealed to the masses, whereas the intellec- tualized religion of the Enlightenment too often seemed like a creation for the educated upper classes. By the end of the century, the movement coalesced into the Methodist movement. A new movement from Germany that stressed Bible study and hymn singing as well as preaching—the Mora- vians—earned a following in both Europe and Ameri- ca. Similar movements occurred among Lutherans and Catholics. The Great Awakening in the United States led to the formation of new individual-centered denomina- tions such as the Unitarians and Universalists. Both aspects of the religious side of the Enlighten- ment—rationalist and Pietist—were concerned with human worth. This desire for the improvement of human conditions led to humanitarian impulses. The antislavery movement gained momentum in the later 18th century. Other movements, such as the push for prison reform, universal elementary education, Sun- day school, and church schools, were all evident by 1800. Whether rationalist or Christian evangelical, reformers supported these movements. Even absolute sovereigns such as Frederick the Great and Catherine the Great promoted reforms. Frederick abolished tor- ture and established national compulsory education, while Catherine established orphanages for foundlings and founded hospitals. For reforms such as these, cer- tainly not for their beliefs in human rights, they and other monarchs were termed enlightened despots. Enlightenment thinkers sought human betterment and the movement took many forms. Political figures sought to deliver people from arbitrary use of power. Deists questioned the use of power by established churches. Economic thinkers argued for liberation from state control of the economy. All believed in an implic- it social contract and national human rights whether political, economic, religious, or moral. Separate cur- rents of rationalism, idealism, and Pietism all contrib- uted to the humanitarian and revolutionary movements that emerged at the end of the period. See also enlightened despotism in Europe; Freema- sonry in North and Spanish America; French Revolu- tion. Further reading: Anchor, Robert. The Enlightenment Tradi- tion. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1987; Brewer, Daniel. The Discourse of Enlightenment in Eigh- teenth Century France. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993; Dowley, Tim. Through Wesley’s England. Abingdon, PA: Abingdon Press, 1988; Gay, Peter. Voltaire’s Politics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1988; Yolton, John. Philosophies, Religion, and Sciences in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries. Rochester, NY: Uni- versity of Rochester Press, 1990. Norman C. Rothman 124 Ethiopia/Abyssinia Ethiopia/Abyssinia Ethiopia, formerly also known as Abyssinia, has a popu- lation of about 70 million in an area of approximately 435,000 square miles. It has a history going back more than two millennia. Topographically, it is a high plateau with a central mountain range dividing the northern part of the country into eastern and western highlands. The central mountain range is in turn divided by the Great Rift Valley, which actually runs from the Dead Sea to South Africa. The country, formerly thought to be predominant- ly Christian, is, in fact, multiethnic and multireligious. The largest group, the Oromo, predominantly Muslim and formerly called the Galla, make up 40 percent of the population. Other non-Christian groups are the Sidamo and the Somali, Afars, and Gurages. The Christian ele- ment is mostly made up by Amharic and Tigrean, speak- ers, who comprise about 32 percent of the population. Reasonably accurate and fair census reports estimate that 50 percent of the population is Muslim while 40 percent of the population is Christian, with the remainder being animist. The Christians have tended to live in the high- lands in the north and central parts of the country, while, historically, non-Christians live in the lowlands. The country’s history extends as far back as the 10th century b.c.e., and tradition has it that the kings of Ethiopia were descended from the union of King Sol- omon with the queen of Sheba (which is identified with the northern part of the country) in the 10th century b.c.e. and claim to be the Solomonic dynasty. Historically, the first Ethiopians appear to have been at least in part descended from immigrants from across the Red Sea in the southwestern part of Ara- bia known as Sabea (present-day Yemen) who arrived before the first century c.e. However, the preexisting population had been engaged in agriculture in the highlands before 2000 b.c.e., so the population was most likely sedentary. The end result was that by the first century, a king- dom called Axum had been established, which had a great port at Adulis on the Red Sea. Trading with Greeks and Romans as well as Arabs and Egyptians, and as far east as India and Ceylon, and having agricul- ture based on then-fertile volcanic highlands, the trade empire became a great power between 100 and 600 c.e. It was so powerful that in the fourth century, it was able to destroy its great rival Kush/Merowe in what is now the Sudan and conquer Yemen in the sixth century. An important element in the emerging Ethiopian identity was the conversion of Axum to Christianity in the fourth century by the missionary Frumentius to An Ethiopian chief, possibly Menelik, who stunned the world by defeating the Italians in 1896. the Monophysite nontrinitarian version of Orthodox Christianity also called Coptic Christianity. The ancient Geez language remains the language of the church and is still used in services, and the mod- ern languages spoken in Ethiopia (Amharic and Tigre- an) derive from it. The common language, religion, dynasty, and system of fortified monasteries were to be key elements in the formation and survival of Ethio- pian culture. These features were critical after the seventh cen- tury, when the expansion of Islam cut off Ethiopia from the coast, as Muslim invaders occupied the lowlands. From this time forward, Ethiopia, as the country had become known by the ninth century, endured long strug- gles between the Christian highlands and mostly Muslim lowlands. When the “king of kings,” or Negus, was in power, he united the Christian highlands and expand- Ethiopia/Abyssinia 125 ed into the lowlands. At other times, the mountains/ highlands were divided among rival chieftains, leaving Ethiopia vulnerable to attack from Muslim and non- Muslim lowlanders. However, the legend of a remote Christian kingdom (the kingdom of Prester John) fas- cinated Europeans. The arrival of European visitors, especially the Portuguese, who had established trade routes to India and identified Ethiopia with the legend- ary kingdom, proved most timely. At this time, 1540–45, the Christian highlands faced their greatest challenge—a Muslim chieftain, Mohammed al-Gran, threatened to overrun the high- lands. The intervention of the Portuguese military might at this critical juncture led to the defeat and the death of Mohammed al-Gran. Thereafter, the Portu- guese were prominent in Ethiopia, but their zeal in promoting Roman Catholic Christianity led to their expulsion in 1633. The country lapsed once more into feudalism until various chieftains fought for the throne, claiming Solomonic ancestry for two centuries, until Theodore reunited the kingdom in 1855. He was succeeded by John in 1868 and Menelik II in 1889. Under the latter, who was from the central Amharic province of Shoa, with its capital city Addis Adaba, the Ethiopian state as it exists today was formed. With Western military weapons, Menelik expanded into the lowlands and stunned the world by defeating the Italians in 1896 when they tried to make Ethiopia into a protectorate. After the death of Menelik in 1908, the chieftain Ras Tafari gradually gained power, especially after 1916, and was crowned emperor in 1930. As the most powerful black leader of his time, he inspired the Ras- tafarian cult in Jamaica (from his name Ras, or Chief, Tafari). On his assumption of the title of emperor, he took the name Haile Selassie. Acclaimed for his resistance against Fascist Italy in 1935, Haile Selassie enjoyed great prestige after Ethiopia was liberated in 1941. He was given the Ital- ian possession of Eritrea in 1952 (much against its will), and Addis Ababa was made the headquarters of the Organization of African Unity (now the African Union), formed in the early 1960s. See also Africa, exploration of. Further reading: Bahru, Zawde. A History of Modern Ethiopia, 1855–1974. Athens: Ohio University Press, 1991; Erlich, H. Ethiopia and the Challenge of Indepen- dence. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1986; Gebru, T. Ethi- opia: Power and Protest: Peasant Revolts in the Twen- tieth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991; Marcus, Harold G. Ethiopia, Great Britain, and the United States, 1941–1974; The Politics of Empire. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983; Marcus, Harold G. Haile Salessie I. Berkeley: University of Cali- fornia Press. Norman C. Rothman Fashoda crisis The Fashoda crisis of 1898 was a confrontation between the British and French over control of the Sudan. The British wanted control of the water sources of the vital Nile River upon which Egypt (which they already con- trolled) depended. Some British imperialists such as Cecil Rhodes also had ambitions to build a north- south railway to traverse the African continent from the Mediterranean to South Africa. The French also dreamed of building an east-west railway from their huge empire in West Africa to East Africa. They also wanted to thwart British imperial expansion. In the 1890s a French major, Jean-Baptiste Mar- chand, embarked on an ambitious expedition to walk from West Africa across to the Sudan to claim the ter- ritory for the French Empire. After two years and the loss of hundreds of men, Marchand arrived at the small settlement of Fashoda on the Upper Nile and hoisted the French flag. At the same time, the British, led by Horatio Herbert Kitchener, had completed their con- quest of northern Sudan, culminating at the Battle of Omdurman. When Kitchener heard that a European was at Fashoda, he immediately knew that Marchand had succeeded in his expedition; however, he was not about to let the French seize part of the Sudan. Kitchen- er took five gunboats loaded with soldiers to confront Marchand, who was vastly outmanned and outgunned. Recognizing his inferior position, Marchand reluctantly agreed to defer the question of territorial rights over the Sudan to the diplomats back in London and Paris. Although there were popular demonstrations in both capitals in favor of war, diplomacy prevailed. In an 1899 negotiated settlement it was agreed that the Sudan, the largest country in Africa, would become part of the British Empire and, in return, France would receive a small compensatory territory in West Africa. See also British Empire in southern Africa. Further reading: Churchill, Winston S. The River War. Lon- don: Prion, 1899, 1997; Holt, P. M. A Modern History of the Sudan. New York: Grove Press, 1961; Sanderson, G. N. England, Europe and the Upper Nile. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1965. Janice J. Terry Fenian raids Between 1866 and the 1870s a small number of Irish nationalist exiles invaded British Canada several times from the United States in hopes of forcing Britain to grant Ireland its independence. The Fenians failed; their attacks created new tensions between Canada and the United States but also sparked Canadian national- ism, helping secure support for the 1867 British North America Act that created modern Canada. In 1857 refugees from the recent Irish Famine and supporters of the Young Ireland movement met in New York City to enlist Irish immigrants to help throw off centuries of British rule. Named for an ancient Irish F 127 128 Ferdinand VII Fenian Brotherhood troops charge the retreating Queen’s Own Rifles of Canada, during the Fenian invasion of Canada. hero, the Fenian Brotherhood would, by 1864, boast 10,000 members, including a women’s auxiliary. From the beginning, the Fenians were plagued with internal leadership squabbles and were denounced by most of the Irish Roman Catholic priesthood. The American Civil War, however, presented an oppor- tunity. For years, Americans had greedily eyed British Canada. As Britain outraged the Union by deviously assisting the Confederacy, influential Americans called for troops to “destroy the last vestiges of British rule on the American continent, and annex Canada...” The United States also punished Canada by canceling a 12-year-old free-trade agreement. Canada, the Fenians decided, was the hated Brit- ish Empire’s most vulnerable point. As the Civil War neared its end, Fenians recruited Irish-American Union soldiers into their own ranks. After weeks of rumors, armed Fenians in May 1866 invaded the tiny village of Fort Erie, Ontario, from a bivouac north of Buffalo and soon raised their flags on Canadian soil. On June 2 a hastily assembled Canadian volunteer force clashed with the Fenians at Ridgeway, losing the battle and seven of their men. Almost simultaneously, Fenians invaded eastern Canada from northern New York and Vermont, briefly occupying several villages south of Montreal. In these and later instances, U.S. officials acted ambiv- alently to Fenian attacks staged from American soil. After Ridgeway, a U.S. warship was waiting to arrest hundreds of Fenian fighters as they reentered the U.S. side of Lake Erie. A week later President Andrew Johnson warned the Fenians against breaking U.S. neutrality laws. But to the extent that Irishmen had become a crucial voting bloc in the northeastern United States, politicians of both parties jostled for Fenian favor. Democrat Johnson, in a losing effort to prevent the Republican congressional sweep of 1866, canceled Fenian prosecutions and asked the Cana- dians to go easy on their Fenian captives, promising to return seized Fenian arms. Meanwhile, Canadian leaders, already negotiating the creation of the Dominion of Canada, made official in March 1867, were looking into military inadequa- cies revealed at Ridgeway. Renewed Fenian attacks, near Montreal in 1870 and in Manitoba in 1871, were fairly easily put down by the reorganized and energized Canadian armed forces. These were the Fenian Brother- hood’s last serious threats to Canadian sovereignty. The cause of Irish freedom continued despite the Fenian collapse, finding more successful venues and leaders. As the Fenian era ended, so, too, did efforts to claim Canadian territory for the United States. The 49th parallel between the two North American nations became a peaceful border. See also Canadian Confederation. Further reading: Neidhardt, W. S. Fenianism in North Amer- ica. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1975; Senior, Hereward. The Last Invasion of Canada: The Fenian Raids, 1866–1870. Toronto: Dundurn Press, 1991. Ferdinand VII (1784–1833) king of Spain Ferdinand VII was one of the monarchs of Europe about whom these words by Thomas Jefferson were par- ticularly fitting: “I was much an enemy of monarchies before I came to Europe. I am ten thousand times more so since I have seen what they are. There is scarcely an evil known in these countries which may not be traced to their king as its source, nor a good which is not derived from the small fibres of republicanism existing among them.” The future Ferdinand VII was excluded from any real role in the government of Spain by his father, King Charles (Carlos) IV; his mother, Queen Maria Luisa; and her lover, Manuel Godoy, who in many ways was the most powerful figure in the kingdom. Ferdinand’s animosity toward Godoy and his moth- er and father was serious. In 1807 Charles IV actually Marsha E. Ackermann financial panics in North America 129 had Ferdinand arrested for a plot to overthrow him and to assassinate his mother and Godoy. In 1808 a palace revolt broke out against Godoy and his friendly policy toward Napoleon I. Godoy was neutralized and Charles IV abdicated in favor of his son. Ferdinand VII at last became king and then proceeded to throw away (at least for a time) his throne. In 1807 Napoleon sent troops through Spain to Portugal. Persuaded to meet Napoleon across the frontier in Bayonne, France, Fer- dinand was immediately imprisoned. Napoleon gave Ferdinand’s crown to his brother Joseph Bonaparte, and for the next six years Ferdinand lived as a prisoner of Napoleon safely guarded in France. Napoleon apparently believed that the Spanish people would accept his brother as king with the right- ful heir sitting in a French prison. When a French army invaded Spain and occupied Madrid in May 1808, a revolt broke out against the French troops, who most likely felt they were actually bringing modern liberty to a people still governed by the Inquisition. The revolt gave the British the excuse to exploit their naval supremacy. While England’s first attempt ended in defeat, General Arthur Wellesley, the future duke of Wellington, landed on Spanish shores in August 1808. Wellington managed to win impressive victories against the French marshals sent to fight him. After Napoleon’s initial invasion of Spain from 1807 to 1808, he never returned. Yet while the Spanish people had fought the French mightily and sought the restoration of their king, they had also drunk deeply of the French ideas of liberty, equality, and fraternity. When Ferdinand returned to Spain victorious, his people expected a lib- eral monarchy under him, not a return to the authori- tarian rule of his father. However, when he returned to Spain, he abrogated the constitution of 1812 empow- ered by the Spanish parliament and attempted to rule as a despot. Under his rule, secret societies like the Freema- sons and the Carbonari began to unify public opinion against him. In January 1820 the Spanish army offi- cer Rafael del Riego y Núñez led a successful uprising against the king. The rebellion became widespread, and the Spanish troops could not—or would not—suppress it. Thus Ferdinand VII, in order to hold onto his throne, had to accept the constitution. However, Ferdinand’s conversion to a liberal government was only a tacti- cal move—he had no intention of governing with any limitations on his powers. Ferdinand appealed to the monarchical Holy Alliance, which had been formed to stamp out the egalitarian thought that had spread to wherever in Europe a French soldier had carried his knapsack. The Holy Alliance was the mystical cre- ation of Czar Alexander I of Russia, who was deter- mined after Napoleon’s ultimate defeat at Waterloo in June 1815 that no Napoleon should ever again disrupt the peace of the crowned heads of Europe. Finally, after the Congress of Verona in 1822, the restored French king Louis XVIII was given the job of crushing the forces of liberalism in Spain. This time, the French troops, royalist now, found a welcome in the reactionary sector of Spanish society. Although Ferdinand VII had promised liberal terms to his oppo- nents, many of these foes were executed. For the rest of his reign until his death in 1833, Ferdinand gov- erned by force of arms. See also American Revolution (1775–1783); French Revolution. Further reading: Blake, Nicholas, and Richard Lawrence. The Illustrated Companion to Nelson’s Navy. Harrisburg, PA: Stackpole Books, 2005; Gates, David. The Spanish Ulcer: A History of the Peninsular War. London: Pimlico, 2002; Glover, Michael. The Peninsular War, 1807–1814. New York: Penguin, 2001; Ridley, Jasper. The Freemasons. New York: Arcade, 2001; Robinson, Martin. The Battle of Trafalgar. London: Conway, 2005. John F. Murphy, Jr. financial panics in North America Several financial panics took place during the 19th cen- tury in America. The first major financial crisis happened in 1819, when widespread foreclosures, bank failures, unemployment, and a slump in agriculture and manufac- turing marked the end of the economic expansion that followed the War of 1812. The nationwide depression triggered by the panic of 1819 was the first widespread failure of the market economy, although the market had fluctuated locally since the 1790s. Businesses went bank- rupt when they could not pay their debts and thousands of workers lost their jobs. In Philadelphia, unemployment reached 75 percent, and 1,800 workers were imprisoned for debt. Unemployed people set up a tent city on the outskirts of Baltimore. Different schools of economic thought gave differ- ent explanations for the panic of 1819. The Austrian school theorized that the U.S. government borrowed too heavily to finance the War of 1812 and it caused great pressure on specie—gold and silver coin—reserves and this led to a suspension of specie payments in 1814. 130 financial panics in North America This suspension stimulated the founding of new banks and expanded the issue of new bank notes, giving the impression that the total supply of investment capital had increased. After the War of 1812, a boom, fueled by land speculation gripped the country and stimu- lated projects like turnpikes and farm-improvement vehicles. Most people recognized the precarious mon- etary situation, but the banks could not return to a nationwide specie system. There was a wave of bank- ruptcies, bank failures, and bank runs. Prices dropped and urban unemployment rose to lofty heights. In part, international events caused the panic of 1819. The Napoleonic Wars decimated agriculture and reduced the demand for American crops while war and revolution in the New World destroyed the precious metal supply line from Mexico and Peru to Europe. Without the international money supply base, Euro- pean governments hoarded all the available specie and this in turn caused American bankers and businessmen to start issuing false banknotes and expanding credit. American bankers, inexperienced with corporate char- ters, promissory notes, bills of exchange, or stocks and bonds, encouraged the speculation boom during the first years of the market revolution. By 1824 most of the panic had passed and the U.S. economy gradually recovered during the rest of the decade. The United States survived the panic of 1819, its first experience with the ups and downs of the busi- ness cycle. PANIC OF 1837 The next significant business crisis in the United States, the panic of 1837, was one of the most severe finan- cial downturns in U.S. history. Speculative fever had infected all corners of the United States, and the bub- ble burst on May 10, 1837, in New York City when every bank stopped payment in specie. A five-year depression followed as banks failed and unemploy- ment reached record levels. This depression, interrupt- ed by a brief recovery from 1838 to 1839, compared in severity and scope to the Great Depression of the 1930s and its monetary configurations also parallel the 1930s. In both depressions many banks closed or merged, over one-quarter of them in 1837 and over one-third the number in the 1930s depression. Erratic and unwise government monetary policies played an important part in both depressions. PANIC OF 1857 The United States gradually recovered from the panic of 1837 and entered a period of prosperity and specula- tion, following the Mexican-American War and the discovery of gold in California in the late 1840s. Gold pouring into the American economy helped inflate the currency and produce a sudden downturn in 1857. The August 24, 1857, collapse of the New York City branch of the Ohio Life Insurance and Trust Company follow- ing a massive embezzlement set off the panic. After this, a series of other setbacks shook American confi- dence, including the fall of grain prices, the decision of British investors to remove funds from U.S. banks, widespread railroad failures, and the collapse of land speculation programs that depended on new rail routes. Over 5,000 businesses failed within a year and unem- ployment became widespread. The South was less hard hit than other regions because of the stability of the cot- ton market. The Tariff Act of 1857 reduced the aver- age rate to about 20 percent and became another of the major issues that increased tensions between the North and the South. The United States did not recover from the panic of 1857 for a full year and a half and its full impact did not fade until the American Civil War. PANIC OF 1873 The end of the Civil War produced a boom in rail- road construction, with 35,000 miles of new tracks laid across the country between 1866 and 1873. The railroad industry, the nation’s largest employer at the time outside of agriculture, involved much money, risk, and speculation. Jay Cooke and Company, a Philadelphia banking firm, was just one of many that had invested and speculated in railroads. When it closed it doors and declared bankruptcy on September 18, 1873, it helped trigger the panic of 1873. Eighty- nine of America’s 364 railroads went bankrupt and a total of 18,000 businesses failed between 1873 and 1875. The New York Stock Exchange closed for 10 days. By 1876 unemployment had reached 14 percent and workers suffered until the depression lifted in the spring of 1879. The end of the panic coincided with the beginning of the waves of immigration that lasted until the early 1920s. PANIC OF 1884 Speculation caused a stock market crash in 1884 that in turn caused an acute financial crisis called the panic of 1884. New York national banks, with the silent back- ing of the U.S. Treasury Department, halted invest- ments in the remainder of the United States and called in outstanding loans. The New York Clearing House Association bailed out banks at risk of failure, averting a larger crisis, but the investment firm Grant & Ward, Finney, Charles Grandison 131 Marine Bank of New York, Penn Banks of Pittsburgh, and over 10,000 other businesses failed. PANIC OF 1893 Precipitated in part by a run on the gold supply, the panic of 1893 marked a serious decline in the U.S. economy. Economic historians believe that the panic of 1893 was the worst economic crisis in American history to that point and they draw attention to several possible causes for it. Too many people tried to redeem silver notes for gold, eventually exceeding the limit for the minimum amount of gold in federal reserves and making U.S. notes for gold unredeemable. The Phila- delphia and Reading Railroad went bankrupt, and the Northern Pacific Railway, the Union Pacific Railroad, and the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad failed. The National Cordage Company, the most actively traded stock of the time, went into receivership, a series of bank failures followed, and the price of sil- ver fell, as well as agriculture prices. A total of over 15,000 companies and 500 banks failed. At the panic’s peak, about 18 percent of the work- force was unemployed, with the largest number of jobless people concentrated in the industrial cities and mill towns. Coxey’s Army, a group of unemployed men from Ohio and Pennsylvania, marched to Wash- ington to demand relief. In 1894 a series of strikes swept over the country, including the Pullman Strike that shut down most of the transportation system. The panic of 1893 merged into the panic of 1896, but this proved to be less serious than other panics of the era. It was caused by a drop in silver reserves and market anxiety about the effects that it would have on the gold standard. Commodities deflation drove the stock market to new lows, a trend that did not reverse until after William McKinley became president. Stephen Williamson, associate professor of economics at Ottawa University, compared financial panics in Canada with those in the United States. He concluded in part that the Canadian banking system experienced fewer panics because it was better regu- lated and well diversified. See also Banks of the United States, First and Sec- ond; railroads in North America. Further reading: Faulker, Harold. Politics, Reform and Expansion, 1890–1900. New York: Harper & Bros., 1959; Huston, James L. The Panic of 1857 and the Coming of the Civil War. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1987; Schwantes, Carlos A. Coxey’s Army, an Ameri- can Odyssey. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1985; Stampp, Kenneth. America in 1857: A Nation on the Brink. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990; White, Gerald T. The United States and the Problem of Recovery after 1893. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 1982. Michael J. Schroeder Finney, Charles Grandison (1792–1875) American theologian Charles Grandison Finney was one of the most promi- nent evangelists of the Second Great Awakening in 19th-century America. He was born on August 29, 1792, in Warren, Connecticut. When he was two years old his family moved to Hanover, New York. After graduating from Oneida Academy, Finney taught from 1808 to 1812 in the school district of Henderson, New York. In 1816 he became a clerk in the law office of Judge Benjamin Wright in Adams, New York. In 1818 Finney opened his own law firm. In October 1821 Finney experienced religious con- version. He left his law practice and began an informal study of the Bible. In July 1824 he was ordained a Presbyterian minister. He identified himself as a Con- gregationalist for most of his life. From 1824 to 1833 Finney led religious revivals and preached throughout the northeastern United States. He was most active in northern New York, where he was a very popu- lar evangelist, and in particular Rochester, where he was invited to live by that city’s religious and business leaders. In 1832 Finney became the minister of the Second Free Presbyterian Church of New York City. He also helped to establish seven other Presbyterian churches in New York City. In 1835 the wealthy merchants Arthur and Lewis Tappan, who were the financial sponsors of Oberlin Theological Seminary, invited him to come to the seminary and establish its theology department. Finney accepted their offer but continued to preach at his church. At Oberlin Seminary he held a number of teaching positions, including professor of systematic theology and professor of pastoral theology, as well as teaching courses in moral philosophy. Finney served as the pastor of the First Congrega- tional Church of Oberlin and as a member of the sem- inary’s board of trustees from 1846 to 1851. He was elected president of Oberlin Theological Seminary in 1851, a position he held until 1865. While at the semi- nary, Finney founded what became known as “Oberlin Theology,” which embodied his belief that an individual 132 Francia, José Gaspar Rodríguez could only attain perfection by leading a strict Christian life. His religious ideas made Oberlin Theological Semi- nary one of the leading religious colleges in America for almost a century. He wrote a number of important and influential theological works. In 1836 Finney’s first book, titled Sermons on Important Subjects, was published. He followed it with Lectures to Professing Christians, which was published in 1837. In 1840 a collection of his lectures was published as Skeletons of a Course of Theological Lectures. Finney’s Lectures on Systematic Theology was published in 1846. Although he began work on his autobiography, Memoirs of Rev. Charles G. Finney, in 1867, it was not published until a year after his death. Although he resigned as president of the seminary in 1865, he continued to teach there until he was 83 years old. Finney died in August 1875 in Oberlin, Ohio. Further reading: Hambrick-Stowe, Charles E. Charles G. Finney and the Spirit of American Evangelicalism. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1997; Perciaccante, Marianne. Calling Down Fire: Charles Grandison Finney and Revivalism in Jefferson County, New York, 1800–1840. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2003; Rosell, Garth M., and Richard A. G. Dupuis. The Original Memoirs of Charles G. Finney. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2002. Gene C. Gerard Francia, José Gaspar Rodríguez (1766–1840) Paraguayan leader José Gaspar Rodríguez Francia is considered the found- ing father of Paraguay. During his childhood in the late colonial period, Paraguay was a backwater nation depen- dent upon Buenos Aires for its outlet to the sea. Because higher education did not exist, Francia attended the Col- lege of Córdoba in what is now Argentina. In 1790 Francia became a professor of theology in Asunción (the largest city in what became Paraguay). However, his increasingly radical views caused tension, so he left his position to study law. As a supporter of the Enlightenment, the French Revolution, Voltaire, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and others, he soon had the larg- est library in Asunción. Having acquired knowledge of subjects such as astronomy, philosophy, and French, Par- aguayans looked at him as a wizard. By 1800, as a law- yer, he had become known as a defender of the poor. In 1809 Francia became the mayor of Asunción and supported the coup d’etat in 1810 that brought inde- pendence to Paraguay. In the new political climate, he used his diplomatic skills to secure Argentina’s recogni- tion of Paraguay; this was an important achievement, given that many people in Buenos Aires wanted to annex Paraguay. In 1812, after resigning from the junta composed of military officers which ruled in Asunción, Francia was soon back as a chief of foreign policy. In this position, he once again thwarted Argentine designs on Paraguay. In return, he was placed in charge of half of the army and munitions available and became the single most impor- tant figure in the nascent country. To solidify his posi- tion, he called a congress of over 1,100 delegates—the first representative assembly chosen by universal male suffrage—which resulted in the formal declaration of a republic in October 1814. From this time onward, Francia held supreme power until his death in 1840. He was influenced by French utopian philosophers who opposed private property and idealized communes. As a result, Francia ruled a self-designated community of people. The state seized private property to assist the peasants. Fully 877 fami- lies received homesteads from the land of their masters. Other measures taken to benefit the poor included very low taxes as a result of fines and confiscations levied on the Spanish elite. The confiscation of foreign properties was used to establish animal breeding farms that were so successful that livestock was given to peasants. Other innovations followed, such as importing machines used in shipbuilding and textiles. Agriculture was centrally planned so that it became more productive and diversi- fied. Personally frugal and honest, Francia left the coun- try richer than he inherited it, including leaving behind seven years of unspent public money. Other policies were more controversial. Although Francia advocated power in the hands of the people, he suppressed free speech. People who dissented from Fran- cia within the country were often tortured and disap- peared without trial. Anyone suspected of anti-Francian sentiments would be sent to a detention camp where he or she would be shackled in dungeons and denied health care. Europeans were forbidden to marry other Euro- peans so that they would marry local people of mixed or Indian ancestry. Francia harbored resentment against Europeans, many of whom had snubbed him due to his “impure blood.” Anyone who attempted to leave Para- guay could be executed. People who entered Paraguay had to remain there for the rest of their lives. In his ven- detta against the elite, Paraguay’s borders were sealed, Franco-Prussian War and the Treaty of Frankfurt 133 and tobacco production was largely removed from elite control. In his hostility against the elite, Francia often took draconian measures. In 1824 all people born in Spain were arrested and placed in jail for 18 months. They were released only after they paid a large indemnity that eliminated their dominant role in Paraguay’s economy. Francia banned religious orders, closed his old seminary, forced monks and priests to swear fealty to the state, con- fiscated church property, subjected clerics to state courts, and placed church finances under civil control. Francia was a bit more relaxed with the under- privileged. Criminals whose crimes he blamed on the unjust behavior of the elite and the church were treated quite leniently, with murderers put to work on public projects. Asylum was given to political refugees from other countries. His foreign policy was wise and prudent. He managed to remain on good terms with both Argentina and Brazil and was not above pitting them against each other. He conducted a private trade so that Paraguay received just enough foreign goods, including armaments, to remain free from pressure. When he died in 1840 Francia left a mixed legacy. Sig- nificant economic development had taken place, Para- guay’s independence had been secured, and the power of the elite had been broken. On the other hand, polit- ical expression had been stifled, and Paraguay’s popu- lace was made extremely passive and thus vulnerable to rule by dictatorship. See also Paraguayan War (War of the Triple Alli- ance); socialism. Further reading: Bourne, Richard. Political Leaders of Latin America. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1969; Graham, R. B. Cunningham. Portrait of a Dictator. London: William Heineman, 1933; Pendle, George. Para- guay, a Riverside Nation, 3rd ed. London: Oxford Univer- sity Press, 1967; Warren, Harris G. Paraguay, an Informal History. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1946; White, Richard Alan. Paraguay’s Autonomous Revolution, 1810–1840. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1978. Norman C. Rothman Franco-Prussian War and the Treaty of Frankfurt The Franco-Prussian War lasted from 1870 until 1871 and started after the German chancellor Otto von Bismarck created the North German Federation and its became increasingly anti-French. When the Prus- sians tried to put a Hohenzollern on the throne of Spain, Napoleon III, worried about having to fight Germany on two fronts, decided to declare war on the Germans on July 15, 1870. Although the French started the war, they quickly lost the initiative, with the Germans rapidly mobilizing and gaining diplomatic support from the states of south Germany: Bavaria, Baden, and Württemberg. On July 31 three massive and well-equipped German armies totaling 380,000 troops massed on the French border. The First Army, led by General Karl F. von Steinmetz, had 60,000 men located between Saarbrücken and Trier. The Second Army was under the command of Prince Friedrich Karl with 175,000 men between Bin- gen and Mannheim, and the Third Army (145,000 men), under Crown Prince Friedrich Wilhelm, was located between Landau and Germersheim. All these were officially under the command of King Wilhelm I; the field commander was General Moltke. Most units were under Prussian command, although troops from allied parts of Germany fought alongside Prussians in most engagements. In addition, the Prussians also held back 95,000 soldiers in case the Austrians decided to intervene in the war. Facing them, the French had eight separate army corps, with a total troop strength of 224,000, but with many units below strength and some lacking adequate provisions. They were, how- ever, inspired by the French people who cheered them with the cry “On to Berlin.” The French, trying to force the pace of the war at the behest of Emperor Napoleon III, invaded Germany, with the first battle being fought at Saar- brücken on August 2. Battles quickly followed at Weissenburg (August 4), Fröschwiller (August 6), and Spichern (August 6), leaving the French forces in dis- array and the Prussians able to advance toward Paris. On August 12 Napoleon relinquished command of the French army, and the Prussians pushed back the French forces. The major battle was fought at Sedan on Septem- ber 1, 1870. General Auguste Ducrot had taken com- mand of the French forces from Patrice MacMahon but had been forced back to the Belgian border with 200,000 German soldiers facing him. The French had only 120,000 men. At the start of the battle, the French cavalry was destroyed by the German infantry, and 426 German guns bombarded the French forces throughout the day. However, French machine guns were able to hold off the German infantry attack. General Emmanuel 134 Franklin