seeFROM THE LIBRARY OF CLARENCE W. WAGENER CLASS OF 1912 UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA OT ee ee ee aaaDEE EE EEE ieee! rea nnn EE ea OE oe eee oe a see cece ee —> Se ene heen hers ti a 2 Neen, as | 1 ai i; i} |MHMOLN OTOH TATA TATTOO TATA ATO TO CTE RE Wy Bl | | | | “ t a] tae ! it W aa | tei Ve a ; 1 } } t Hilt t a! an ane ‘ a an aa itt an Hl Hi a a Pa Sere NE Ao ease UCI bE RS ie am —s su uOUengees NUH NEU TOUT FENUUUETLEBUUEET TUG UUEGA TAU ELOAUTESRUCUUTEGGHUENUOGAG SOUS UEOTEGUTNOUNOAVIOUUTESSANOULUOAUAOVATAATOVTOOAIUOAVEOQILOO GOT POAEOTOAD HOR TATALATPEELE) = ——— a MODERN WORLD HISTOR Y ee ete ee ee a eae ns | |Sa ee a a ae me ER eS Pw Se ee ET aera Sr aren ae ae Fis AA. Borzoz Historical Series Edited by HARRY ELMER BARNES, Smith College THE HISTORY OF HISTORICAL WRITING, By Harry Eimer Barnes, Smith College *EARLY CIVILIZATION, By AtexanpEer GOLDENWEISER A HISTORY OF THE MIDDLE AGES, By James Westratt THompson, University of Chicago THE RENAISSANCE, By Ferpinanp Scuevity, University of Chicago THE REFORMATION, By Watrsr L. Dorn, University of Chicago A HISTORY OF THE LEVANT FROM CONSTANTINE TO NAPOLEON, By Atsgrr H. Lyspyger, University of Illinots *A HISTORY OF EUROPE, 1500-1815, By James E. Griurespiz, Pennsylvania State College THE OLD REGIME, THE FRENCH REVOLUTION, AND THE ERA OF NAPOLEON, By Leo GersHoy *MODERN WORLD HISTORY, 1776-1926, By ALexaNnper C. Frick, State Historian of New York READINGS IN THE HISTORY OF EUROPE SINCE 1814, By Jonatruan F. Scorr and ALEXANDER Battzty, New York University EUROPEAN CIVILIZATION IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY, By Joszpx Warp Swain, University of Illinots THE WORLD WAR, By Count Max MontGeEtas EUROPE SINCE THE WORLD WAR, By Eucengs HorvAtn, University of Budapest EUROPEAN ALLIANCES AND ALIGNMENTS, 1870-1914, By Wuri1am L. Lancer, Harvard University THE RISE AND FALL OF THE SECOND GERMAN EMPIRE, By Ernest Fracc HenpERsON *A HISTORY OF RUSSIA, By Sir Bernarp Pargs, University of London A HISTORY OF THE BALKANS AND THE NEAR EAST IN MODERN TIMES, By Frep S. Ropxrey, Miami University THE INTELLECTUAL DEVELOPMENT OF WESTERN SOCIETY, By Harry Etmer Barnes, Smith College THE UNITED STATES AND THE PACIFIC, By Paut H. Crypr, The Ohio State University. AN ECONOMIC HISTORY OF EUROPE, By Frepericx L. Nusspaum, University of Wyoming READINGS IN THE SOCIAL HISTORY OF EUROPE, Edited by Harry Extmzr Barngs, Smith College A HISTORY OF ENGLAND, By Wittram T. Morcan, Indiana University A HISTORY OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE, By Leranp H. Jenks, Rollins College THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE UNITED STATES, By Harotp U. Fautxner, Smith College TE ee OF CONTEMPORARY AMERICAN SOCIETY, By Epwin P. Tanner, Syracuse Iniverstty THE HISTORY OF WESTWARD EXPANSION IN THE UNITED STATES, By Joun C. ParisH, University of California AN ECONOMIC HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES, By Epwarp C. Kirxianp, Brown University *A HISTORY OF CANADA, By Cart Wirrxe, The Ohio State University A HISTORY OF LATIN AMERICA, By J. Frep Rippy, Duke University *A HISTORY OF THE FAR EAST IN MODERN TIMES, By Harotp M. Vinacxeg, University of Cincinnati A HISTORY OF AFRICA IN MODERN TIMES, By Metvin M. Knicur * Volumes marked with an asterisk have been published AAA ALPEDREERIEORRAORRSUROUEODOGGUORR i 5 SBRSE BSE BES BIE FEE CIE PIE PEE IAA ny 4 $ ‘ r Tee) By OER ZO I Hy ly SL OpRo hCG) Agia sy ERIE S t Under the editorship of Harry Elmer Barnes, Ph.D., Professor of Historical \ K Sociology, Smith College : : : ‘ : y HISTORY 1776-1926 MODERN WORLD ; A Survey of the Origins and Development of Contemporary Civilization By ALEXANDER CLARENCE FLICK, Px.D., Litr.D. State Historian of New York. Formerly Professor of European History, and Head of the Department of Htstory, Syracuse University NEW YORK ALFRED-A-KNOPF MCMXXVIII ‘BPANMDIONTUTTOVUTHOUAHIUHOEUUOOOUOQOUOTOOOOQIUOTQOUOOOUOQOOOOOUOOEQOQEOUETUUTOEAEUTTOLNTIUOCPOUTTOOTIEU SUIT TELT ELE TATE GOPYRIGHT, 192:6, BY ALFRED A; KNOPE. ING. SET UP, ELECITROIYPED, PRINTED AND BOUND BY THE PLIMPION PRESS, NORWOOD, MASS. PAPER FURNISHED BY W. F. ETHERINGION & CO;, NEW YORK. era ee = a eee Se =< s MANUFACTURED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - a eS DT Daa a a rages hay re) 3 Fac) ese ara FYGLLLU ATV PRAAALMA UAH UTATVAH UNH EAT OOUU VOUT OGSTOONITGUUVSTINOVICQUIOGHEOUTORAVTONIOOVANOVIOQITOONTOAIVONTIOVYOGNEGUL OGD RVAVVEQVENOT TON VON TOAD OOGHT OORT VOU UUU TATA Tiv vit) amTEPPEERER ERA EEARRROREREAPOE ODD ADEL TO SOME THOUSANDS OF STUDENTS WHOSE DISCUSSIONS HELPED CREATE THIS BOOKAVUAR Pa PUCULALASOALAAOSOQEANAUOLAACQUONNUNGUSHOGESUOVOGEAEOVOQEDOAOOOLALOVETEALGLOVETEAUONOGEAVOROUOGNOTOLOGEALNTUVETEAOVEAEAPOATATOTIV Ov t I | | | 4 : 1 a eee: oe 4 PE PS A Ee ree bl a ee ee 4 en PE ee eT ee ate ea eeEDITORIAL INTRODUCTION TO THE BORZOI HISTORICAL SERIES In few fields of human learning has there been more progress than in the development of historical writing in the last half cen- tury. Fifty years ago, while the subject-matter of history had ‘nacreased in accuracy to a notable degree, as compared with the works of the early chroniclers and pamphleteers, it was still extremely narrow inits scope and interests. The more scholarly historians were so absorbed in the problem of the methods of documentary research that they neglected the larger consideration of the desirable type of subject-matter. The content of historical works was chiefly politi- cal material, treating of wars, dynastic changes, political campaigns, diplomatic entanglements, and governmental corruption. Much space was devoted to anecdotes and episodes, interesting and amusing in themselves, but of no vital importance in understanding the past. Events were organized about great personalities instead of being put in the dynamic setting of cultural life and institutional development. This historical literature of a half century ago was nationalistic in its outlook, chauvinistic in tone, and bigoted in its attitude towards other peoples and races. It was for the most part written from that decisively patriotic point of view which held that the culture and institutions of other peoples were markedly inferior to those of the countrymen of the writer, and regarded national culture and institutions as a unique local achievement. The time perspective was fatally restricted by the conception of the “dawn of history’ some six thousand years ago. There was little or no com- prehension of human history as a process extending back through an almost immeasurable period of time and combining contributions from all parts of our planet. The truly genetic point of view and the world outlook were notable by their absence. In the last two generations, due to the originality and enthu- siam of such historians as Green, Maitland and their disciples in England, Karl Lamprecht and his school in Germany, Rambaud and Bert in France, Altamira in Spain, Ferrero in Italy, and John B. McMaster, James Harvey Robinson, Edward P. Cheyney, Frederick Jackson Turner, James T. Shotwell, James H. Breasted, Carl Becker, Preserved Smith and others of their type in the United States, we have witnessed the repudiation of this old narrow and inadequate type of historical writing and the development of what has been called ‘‘the new history.’ This form of history is concerned with an account of the develop- | While fully conscious of ment of human culture and institutions. the necessity of accurate methods of research, it pushes on to the vil teas LHL EEE EEE —— ~ — re een eR ne ali ee ee il ee ———— + CLIT heHULU UAUAUAUHAAOEAAEOEOUGEVOVOUOVOVOGOLGUODOEAETOVELOVOVOGLALAAIGTALAELEGETEVEVOTOTATORATATATATATTOEVEVOTERITITOTTOaTTaT Vill EDITORIAL INTRODUCTION TO next and more vital task of providing a broader content and an interest in the interpretation of the materials gathered by research. The new history is as wide in its interests as the entire range of human activities and achievements in the past. It deals not only with politics, dynasties and treaties, but with art, materia] culture, philosophy, education, medicine, literature, and manners and cus- toms. Cultural achievements have replaced racy anecdotes, and institutional evolution has supplanted striking episodes. The content of the new history has been widened as much with respect to the geographical range of its outlook as it has with regard to the scope of the interests embodied. The new history is as uni- versal in its orientation and appreciation as it is comprehensive in subject-matter. It adopts a world point of view, searching out the contributions to the growth of human culture which have been made on all parts of the planet. It also makes it clear that human history has become more and more an international process with the progress of modern discovery and the new methods of transportation and communication. Further, as a result of the new time perspective forced upon us by cosmic development, historical geology, biological evolution and cultural anthropology, the new history rests upon a recognition of the slight fraction of human existence comprised within a period of written history. The age of man since the ‘‘dawn of history” is in reality modern history, and the old chronology and periodization of history are proved to be hopelessly inadequate and misleading. The genetic viewpoint and the new time perspec- tive reveal the history of man as a long process of growth and expand- ing achievement, reaching from Pithecanthropus Erectus to the radio and aeroplane. The new history, then, includes the achievements of all the historic peoples of the past and present. It departs entirely from the chauvinism and bigotry of the earlier vatiety of nation- alistic historical narrative. While it freely recognizes that some nations have been more important than others in their contributions to human culture, this discrimination in emphasis is based solely upon the relative influence and the level of the cultures produced, and not upon their racial basis, geographical location or political affiliations. Thus far, the new history has been limited, for the most part, to the monographic, methodological, and polemic works of the leaders of the various groups interested in this movement. There has been no organized effort to rewrite the totality of human history from the standpoint of the newer interests and assumptions. Hitherto, world histories have tended to be either ephemeral literary projects executed by authors possessed of stylistic capacity but with little historical knowledge, or they have been equally unreliable anthol- ogies of the works of the contemporary historians of past ages, few of whom have had any comprehension of the standards of historical accuracy which have been worked out in the last hundred years. aHTHE BORZOI HISTORICAL SERIES ix A new standard for textbook writing was set a quarter of a cen- tury ago by James Harvey Robinson in his Hestory of Western Europe, which revolutionized the spirit and subject-matter of historical manuals. Since that time a number of his former students, such as J. S. Schapiro, C. J. H. Hayes, Lynn Thorndike and Preserved Smith have followed his example in writing excellent treatises which have embodied the same breadth of interests as exemplified by Professor Robinson. Others, such as Professors Breasted and Webster, have independently arrived at dynamic and synthetic attitudes towards history and the preparation of historical textbooks. It 1s believed by the editor, however, that the Borzoz Historical Series represents the first organized and systematic effort to plan a group of college textbooks which are to cover the greater part of human history and the leading cultural areas strictly from the standpoint of the tenets of the new history. The Series is designed to provide text- books which will enable teachers sympathetic with the newer point of view in the writing and teaching of history to present the history of mankind in such a fashion as to emphasize the evolution of civil- ization and the growth of institutions, instead of chronicling battles, describing the alternations of dynasties, analyzing treaties, and relating anecdotes concerning diplomats and political bosses. The comprehensive History of Civilization Series, which is being published by Mr. Knopf parallel with this textbook series, will provide a vast body of supplementary reading similar in the scope of its subject- matter and identical in its historical objectives. In regard to time perspective, the editor of the Series holds that history must begin with the very origins of the human race, and the background for the succeeding volumes is supplied by the excellent manual by Dr. Goldenweiser on the civilization of primitive man. At the same time, it is evident that the history of mankind since the Scientific and Industrial Revolutions has become much more complex and varied, and much more pertinent for the guidance of contem- porary social opinion. As a consequence, there are more volumes planned for the recent age than for the earlier periods. No at- tempt is made to control and distribute the assignments on a sharp chronological basis. Here the governing conceptions are the prin- ciple of the continuity of history, and the recognition of the need for special treatment and analysis of the cultures of particular areas. As to subject-matter, the main emphasis is laid upon the history of culture and institutions. Yet there is no ignoring of the really vital aspects of political evolution. International relations and political and diplomatic history are presented in a broad fashion, indicating their relation to the deeper social, economic and cultural forces which condition them. Instead of the usual procedure of making political history the backbone of the narrative, and then offering a sop to the more progressive historians by sandwiching in an occasional chapter on manners and customs, this series assumes TEEaasl PUUURUERARORRIAODORROREE er ee oe ee a ee | SoaSSS SS eee Renee ee ee ee ad a a Ne tad a a ey een Nec Se Some see | | ay ” es POUHOTET TOTO DVUOQEOQOAOOOOOTO ESTE OOOLTIOOCOTOUOOOOTUOQOCPOUOAOOTOOTOOIETO TI OTOOTER CULE x EDITORIAL INTRODUCTION TO that institutional and cultural development constitute the only intel- ligent basis for the organization of historical material, and political and diplomatic history is viewed as of secondary, though by no means negligible, significance. In regard to geographical and cultural outlook, this Series en- deavors as far as possible to get away from the occidental psychosis so prevalent in the western world. The world point of view is adopted as basic, particularly in modern times, and adequate atten- tion will be given to a survey of the rise and development of civil- ization in all the important cultural areas of both the western and eastern hemispheres. [he main emphasis is, of course, put upon the growth of western civilization, but nothing will be neglected which has in any important way contributed to the building up of occi- dental culture. The Series is founded upon the assumption that in the contemporary age, in particular, it will not be possible to ignore the fact that civilization has progressively become a world process, and that the interaction of East and West must be kept continually in mind. It is further maintained as a fundamental conception that his- torical facts are vitally important only when intelligently organized and accurately interpreted. Hence, in this Series the interpretation of historical data will be emphasized distinctly more than casual narrative and the mere chronicling of many concrete facts. In this way only can history be made a real introduction to the social sciences from the genetic point of view, and a valuable impulse to the growth of social intelligence. While these are the dominating principles guiding the editor of this Series, no attempt will be made to impose his particular theories of history in detail upon any of the collaborators in the enterprise. Fach author will be left free, as he should be, for a wholly inde- pendent organization and exposition of the material in the field which he covers. General adherence to the program above outlined has been assured in advance by selecting as authors for the volumes which will be included men who are in general sympathy with the historical philosophy underlying the new history. It is believed that such individual differences as exist with respect to their views on the organization and interpretation of historical material will only lead to greater originality, vividness and variety in the succes- sive volumes which will make up the Series as a whole. If this collection of textbooks is able to achieve rather more than any previous enterprise in the way of bringing about that indispens- able rapprochement between the abstract formulation of the principles of the new history and the actual teaching of history in the institu- tions of higher learning, the aspirations of both the editor and the collaborators will have been amply realized. Mr. Knopf has spared no expense to make the maps which will appear in the successive volumes of the Borzoi Historical Series as Ee eee ee eee TaTHE BORZOI HISTORICAL SERIES xi distinctive a feature of these books as the subject-matter itself. An atrangement has been made with the famous German cartographers, F. A. Brockhaus of Leipzig, to furnish a new and unique set of maps for the Borzoi Historical Series which will be distinguished alike for workmanship, accuracy and originality of conception. As adviser in all matters of cartography related to the Series, we have selected Dr. Donald E. Smith of the George Washington High School, New York City. It is hoped that, upon the completion of the Series, the maps utilized will be combined with others in a comprehensive his- torical atlas which will be issued under the editorship of Dr. Smith as a concluding volume in the Series. Harry Ermer Barnes Northampton, Mass., June 1, 1926 POUEVOEERUREREUSEATEEERITEEES fl iH eed a oe serpmmatnarenrertnanatcin — — i Fane hesete Mae ee Res eae ae edi penpessssHUUVQOV RUT AUTATOUUROQOQUUUUURCUOGUOORTOQOOUOUUAOOOQOOQQOOOOQUOOEOUOQUAOOOOQQOOQUOUUCUOCAQOOQOQOOOOCHIOUTHHEROEE a j | : j | ] | ' j } ‘ a } {| a] ae nae ea i | if f ae ie t | || e eee Se a a ee os warren a A OE Oe a ,s = an ST eee ree ee ret Tit LeeEDITORIAL INTRODUCTION Tur volume by Dr. Flick on Modern World History is the first to be published since the scheme for the Borzoi Historical Series was launched. The volume by Dr. Goldenweiser on Early Civilization has been taken over for the Series because of its unusual adaptability to furnishing the background for the succeeding volumes. The scope of this volume is somewhat different from that of the majority of works on modern history, which have generally devoted a single volume to the period since 1815. Dr. Flick’s work has been planned on the basis of a conviction that teachers are becoming yeatly more thoroughly convinced that the general history of Europe from 1500-1925 is too long and complex a period to be satisfactorily handled in a course running through only one year. This volume is designed to supply the basis for a year of class-room discussion on the period since the Scientific and Industrial Revolutions. For teachers, however, who prefer to follow the popular procedure of covering the entire period since 1500 im ome year, a volume is in preparation by Professor James E. Gillespie which will deal with the history of modern Europe from 1500-1815. This may be combined with the work of Dr. Flick by omitting the material in the latter book dealing with the developments between 1760 and 1815. The material in Dr. Flick’s book on the period since the Congress of Vienna is thoroughly adequate to constitute the basis for a semester course on the history of Europe in the nineteenth century. Dr. Flick’s work conforms in admirable fashion to the funda- mental tenets of the Series as a whole. The emphasis is chiefly upon social, economic and cultural history. The political and diplomatic history has been properly limited to that essential minimum neces- sary to indicate the outstanding phases of political evolution in the nineteenth century as well as the leading problems of contemporary political life. Nothing of importance has been omitted from the record of political development and diplomatic negotiations, and the significant material in that field will stand out all the clearer in the mind of the student because of the fact that it is not obscured by a mass of irrelevant anecdotal and episodical detail. In treating the wars which have fallen within this period, it has been assumed that their causes and results are of infinitely greater importance than the battles and strategy involved. Hence, much more space has been given to the background and aftermath of the chief armed conflicts of this age than to the details of the military campaigns. _ More than any other textbook writer on modern European his- tory, Dr. Flick has emphasized the fact that the history of the world xill i RRURRRRRRRRRERODORRAGREae Rae 7 eee ee ed - ras Searo Pant 5 nent) trae ee a a rT Nit a a Sa eee 8 Sos elas nee PHUTESUTEVTUEU HTUTUER GATT EEUUHEOR A UOeU OOT HOURS ESOT if] LETT TTT EDITORIAL INTRODUCTION X1V since the middle of the eighteenth century can only be intelligently described and accurately interpreted as a process of the interchange of material culture and ideas between all parts of the planet. The content of the book is thoroughly consistent with the title, and the story is distinctly an account of modern world history. This view- point should not only contribute to a more intelligent attitude towards the evolution of civilization, but should also serve to curb bigotry, intolerance and chauvinism in the study of history. There is no greater defect in our historical textbooks today than the presen- tation of material from a provincial and exaggerated patriotic point of view, and nothing can do more to dispel and remove this defect than the dominating conceptions of Dr. Flick’s manual. Dr. Flick is peculiarly well fitted to prepare a book based upon these fundamental assumptions, as he is not only thoroughly ac- quainted with the factual material through a quarter of a century of study of the sources and monographs in this field, but he has travelled more extensively in Europe and the Orient than any other author who has thus far attempted to produce a manual in the field of modern history. Much of the urbanity, tolerance and insight which is evident in the volume is to be traced to this extended travel, the most truly civilizing influence operating upon man. In addition to these general qualities of the volume with respect to the larger phases of the organization of the enterprise, the book possesses certain special features which are believed by the editor to be superior to the treatment of these topics or problems in any other existing manual. The diplomatic history of Europe from 1870- I912 is presented more thoroughly and more profoundly than in any comparable textbook, and for the first time such material has been based upon the new documentary evidence recently published in such great sets as the Grosse Politik. Again, the section dealing with the immediate causes of the World War represents the first thorough statement of the revisionist point of view in any college manual. For the first time, the intelligent and open-minded teacher may lead his students away from the illusions and hatreds generated by the war-time mythology which has permeated all too many manuals right down to the present time. Further, this volume offers the first adequate survey of the history of the Balkan States and Turkey which has been written by a scholar who is a specialist in the history of this area. Likewise, special attention is given to the rise of the new states created in central and western Europe as a result of the World War. Finally, the concluding sections on the characteristics of contemporary culture and social institutions consti- tute a considerably more thorough presentation of this extremely important type of material than is found in any other college manual in the field of European history. Teachers who do not share the historical views of the editor and of the author of this volume, already have available a number ofEDITORIAL INTRODUCTION XV manuals which are congenial to their tastes and desires. If the present treatise proves helpful to the ever-growing body of teachers who are desirous of introducing into class-room practice a more dynamic type of historical material, this Modern World History will have achieved the purpose for which it was prepared. Harry Extmer BARNES Northampton, Mass., June 1, 1926 EEE er np eee < ee ee eae if if 4 BS Ne i iFaaa! HGH Opppeapecetl et UAH HQQOOQUOUAOGHOREOQOQQUUUOQOHQOOQOOU UO EUAOOOOOOUOTADEHOQQQCQUGOQPOOQQOUOLOQGADQQQOQQQUFAQOQQQVOQUOUOUNOYOQ0OUUQSHOAIOH | ' a } i | ta. | ‘te | ean i 1} an a ' ; a) eae i , iP wit >| ie Tl ] i | ae a a ih] aa ‘a / a t} Ic re Sat ame ma eee Raa tr Rie Se er See aS, r 7 oe rFSSAESINTPPAMAAAAATUUUTTUUGTIOQUUEATTGSHHOONUTUOAHTONIVONINIVHURCSVIVEQUTOUOUIPESTITONTIUGRRNPGNYTONTIOGTINOQAIOGATNOQNVTOGTIVOSY TONIVOOHITOOOTOOAT OVA EIOATPOOTOEUHy NNT amNOTE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT Tue editor and author here desire to express their appreciation of the courteous and efficient help of experts who have read, criticized and revised those sections of the work in which they are specially interested. The sections on the history of the United States were read and criticized by Professor Cardinal L. Goodwin of Mills Col- lege. The material on the French Revolution and the Napoleonic period has profited by the suggestions of Professor Joseph Ward Swain of the University of Illinois. The chapters dealing with Germany and Austria have been read and thoroughly revised by Professor William L. Langer of Clark University. The chapters on France, Italy, the lesser countries and the World War have been improved through a critical reading by Professor Clarence Perkins of the University of North Dakota. The chapter on the third French Republic was read and criticized by Professor Mack Eastman of the University of British Columbia. Professor Howard Robinson of Miami University read the chapters on England and made many helpful suggestions as to revision. The chapters on Russian history have been examined by Professor Selig Perlman of the University of Wisconsin. The material on the Balkan States and Turkey since 1815 was entirely rewritten by Professor F. S. Rodkey of Miami University. The section on the diplomatic history of Europe from 1870-1912 is very largely the work of Professor Langer, while the editor is responsible for the material on the immediate causes of the World War. Mr. John H. Wuorinen of Columbia University has rendered assistance in preparing the material on the new states of central and eastern Europe. The chapters on the expansion of Europe overseas, and the development of modern imperialism were critically read by Professor Harry J. Carman of Columbia University. The sections on Latin-American development were criticized by Pro- fessor J. Fred Rippy of the University of Chicago. The chapters on social and economic history were read by the editor. Finally, the proof of the entire volume has been subjected to a critical reading by Professor Theodore Collier of Brown University, whose detailed and precise mastery of the facts of modern European history has enabled him to detect many minor slips, errors and omissions, as well as to suggest the revision of certain interpretations throughout the volume. In the selection of bibliographies valuable assistance has been given by Miss Helen Boatfield, graduate fellow in history at Cornell University. TUSDRUERUAURADREREATAU UOT UU EAESee es a eT eal os Ere eS aE St ee ee See al a i earn re baa Same mas pe yeas Pag Pre ab ery Po pees > —s say VPUBBEASNTHTVFTULVHUH TENTH TEAULNTANUFOAUUEUDUTEAUIEUSUTENRUSOOTEQONUTENOTECOGROSOTIVESTOOUISNOOVIVONVQGHROOLITEGHIOTOAUENOTIVOGTAUOAI NONI TOOT COOGRUOGATIVOITCQVTHA tH ia heCONTENTS PARED, I SURVEY OF WORLD CIVILIZATION IN THE LATIER PART OF THE EIGHTEENTH CEN LEURY CHAPTER I THE NATURE OF RECENT WORLD HISTORY cits 1. INTRODUCTION 3 2. PoxiticAL DEVELOPMENTS 4 3. SocraL AND Economic CHANGES 7 4. EpucATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS 9 5. Rexicious TRANSFORMATIONS 10 CHAPTER] Dt THE EXPANSION OF EUROPE AND THE COMMERCIAL REVOLUTION 1. ProcresstvE Forces 1n European History 13 2. Tue Expansion or Europg 15 CHAPTER TII THE NEW REGIME IN NORTH AMERICA 1. EuROPEAN ORIGINS 21 2. British IMPERIAL PoLicy 21 3. Tue MoveMENt FOR INDEPENDENCE 27 4. New ExperIMENTS IN GOVERNMENT 29 5. THe MoveMentT For A Fepgrav RepuBLic 32 6. Tae New Récime 1n NortH AMERICA 37 7. Errect or New Récime in NortH AMERICA ON THE Rest oF THE WORLD. 42 8. Latin America, Arrica, AstA AND OCEANIA 43, PARE LT EFFORTS TO ESTABLISH A NEW REGIME IN EUROPE CHAPTER. 1V THE OLD REGIME IN EUROPE 1. Poxrt1caL ConDITIONS IN THE VARIOUS STATES 49 . EuROPEAN SOCIETY ee ee Ret Sk ee ee ee ia eeDUNT TTA TTT HTT TOUCH DATO CU DC tC CONTENTS PAGE 3. RetiGcious CONDITIONS 66 4. CuLtTuRAL CoNnDITIONS 69 5. Tse INpDustRIAL SysTEM 72. CHAPTER V THE FRENCH REVOLUTION: ITS INFLUENCE ON OTHER PEOPLES 1. Tne Otp R&GIME IN FRANCE 75 2. THe GeNEsIs OF THE RevoLuTIONARY Spirit Prior To 1789 87 3. THe SUMMONING OF THE STATES GENERAL 92. 4. THe Nationat CoNsTITUENT AssEMBLY 94 5. [se Lecistative AssEMBLY 99 6. THe Nationat CONVENTION Iol 7. Ise Drrecrory 106 CHAPTER VI THE NAPOLEONIC ERA AND ITS INFLUENCE ON OTHER PEOPLES, 1799-1815 1. [THe CoNsuLATE, 1799-1804 IIO 2. Ise Napoveonic Empire, 1804-1815 112 3. PERMANENT CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION AND NAPOLEONIC Era TO WorLpD CIVILIZATION I1I Paw ttt SYSTEM OF REACTION AFTER 1815 GHAP TERS Vit RESTORATION AND REACTION UNDER INTERNATIONAL CONSERVATISM 1. Europe In 1814 I29 | | 2. MetrerRNIcH AND His PRINCIPLES 130 | | 3. THe ConGress oF VIENNA 131 it 4. TREATIES, ALLIANCE AND CONGRESSES TO PRESERVE PRACE 135 ' | 5. RESTORATIONS IN FRANCE, SPAIN, PorTUGAL AND ITALY 137 | 6. Reacrion in GREAT BritaAIn UNDER THE OLD Torigs, 1815-1832 139 | Ml CHAPTER VIII i ABANDONMENT OF LIBERALISM IN RUSSIA AND THE : MIAINTENANCE OF AUTOCRACY IN CENTRAL EUROPE i 1. RusstA UNDER ALEXANDER I AND Nicuo;as [ 145 2. Tue Austria or Francis | 146 3. PrusstA UNDER Freperick Wiu1aM III, 1797-1840 148 4. THE GERMANIC CONFEDERATION RCE EE ETL a ea sy revngeasa TU TUEVHHHUULUUUUEQLHUAUT UC VUULUOHUDLASUENOOUIQUDTOLEUUOOOUUANUEOESOOUUTCUEOUURIOTUNDUOGESGADILUOOVOOOOOIUOSNOUOGSAUOTEOVTOOGODORAUTVOSMERUUT HUTT At my:CONTENTS PVAGREE SIN, THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION AND THE GROWTH OF CONSTITUTIONAL SELF-GOVERNMENT CHAPTER IX THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION PAGE 1. Tur MEANING AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION 155 >. Tur BACKGROUND AND ANTECEDENTS OF THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION 156 3. Tae TEcHNOLOGICAL REVOLUTION: THE CoMING OF THE Empire oF MACHINES 160 4. Economic REsuLTs OF THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION 166 5. Socrat Resutts or THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION 168 6. Tue INpustRIAL REVOLUTION IN FRANCE 170 7. Tue BrGINNINGs OF THE New INDUusTRIAL OrpDER IN GERMANY 173 8. SPREAD OF THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION 176 CHAPTER X THE POLITICAL REVOLUTIONS, 1820-1848 1. THe SwING AWAY FROM REACTION 179 2. REVOLUTION IN SPAIN AND THE SPANISH-AMERICAN COLONIES 179 3. REVOLUTION IN PoRTUGAL 182 4. RevoLuTions IN IraLy 183 5. THE Greek REVOLUTION 183 6. Tue RevoLuTion oF 1830 IN FRANCE 185 7. Tue Reicn or Louis Puirippg, 1830-1848 187 8. SPREAD OF THE REVOLUTION OF 1830 OvER Europz 190 GHAP TERS! THE REVOLUTIONS OF 1848 AND THEIR EFFECTS ON THE WORLD 1. ScopE OF THE REVOLUTIONS OF 1848 196 2. THe REVOLUTION IN FRANCE 196 3. Tue RevoLution In GERMANY 2.00 4. REVOLUTION IN THE HapssurG DoMINIONS 202. 5. Tne Cuartist MoveMENT IN GREAT BRITAIN 20§ 6. Errects oF THE REVOLUTION OF 1848 IN OTHER COUNTRIES 207 CHAPTER Xll POLITICAL AND SOCIAL TRENDS AND ACHIEVEMENTS TO 1850 1. THe Leapinc Forces AND AsPIRATIONS 2II 2. An Era or ConsTITUTION-MaAKING 22! 3. Tue Germs or SOCIALISM 216 4. Tue ‘‘ Uropran Socta ists ”’ 216 5. Louis BLANc AND FRENCH SOCIALISM 218 6. Lassatte, Marx, AND GERMAN SOCIALISM 220 7. ANARCHISM ne pe et eel oe SENAUppenpeeUtt OVER HOQOTOQUULAOGEHEOQOQUOUUOGHRREOOOOUUOTOHRAOQQOSU 1 OGQQEQGQOUAUOGQOQOQOQQOU0 (GQ QQQOOOQQQ QO CGQQQUEQUOLUOLAAOSOOQOUE AHAVOQUOCH IdOODO LOR | XxXil CONTENTS PAGE 8. Sociat, Economic, Reticious AND EpucaTIoNaL REFORMS 223 9. ACHIEVEMENTS TO 1850 226 Pak V THE DEVELOPMENT OF NATIONALISM AFTER 1850 CHAPTER XIII NATIONALISTIC STRIVINGS BEFORE 1850 1. Oricins or NATIONALISM 231 2. NATIONALISM AFTER 1815 232 zr SECRET SOCIETIES 235 4. Orner Forces Promotinc NATIONALISM 236 CHAPTER XIV FRANCE UNDER LOUIS NAPOLEON BONAPARTE, 1848-1871 1. [He Risz or Louis NapoLeON BONAPARTE 238 2. Ine Seconp Naporeonic Empire at its HeIGuT 239 3. Tne Deciine or THE SecoND EMPIRE 241 4. THe Causzs of THE COLLAPSE OF THE SECOND EMPIRE 243 5- Atsacg-LorRRAINE AND THE WorLD War 244 GHA PabH Re 2xev' THE UNIFICATION OF ITALY 1. PREPARATION 246 2. Tue ITALIAN War FOR INDEPENDENCE 248 3. COMPLETION OF ITALIAN UNIFICATION 249 CHAPTER XVI THE CREATION OF THE NEW GERMAN EMPIRE 1. GrowtTH or NATIONALISM 252 | 2. BisMARcK’s PLANS FOR THE UNIFICATION OF GERMANY 253 ' | 3. Tse First Strep — War with DENMARK 255 a 4. THe Seconp Step — Tue Austro-Prusstan WAR 255 Hil 5. [se Txirp Step — Toe Norta GerMaNn FEDERATION 257 iM 6. [Tse Fourts Step — Tue Franco-Prussian WAR 258 . | 7. [He FouNDATION OF THE GERMAN EMPIRE 260 Hi it CHAPTER XVII ii FORMATION OF THE DUAL MONARCHY OF AUSTRIA- : HUNGARY | 1. OssTACLEs TO A CENTRALIZED EMPIRE 262 il 2. Tur CoMPROMISE oF 1867 263 . ProGress oF AUSTRIA-HUNGARY AFTER 1867 Fo Ga I EE ee ee ee ae S " p pc eesusayaYYUMBHGALTCUEFHLUTUUEGHUUTIUEQUUTITTEOUUUUSUSUOAAUOUESOSUINUUUORDSSUUUERADRLEQOSSUIITCOUOOUIEONOONVOVQESGHRIUOOANILUOOUNEUOOUATIEVOVROITEOOQOTUESOUUHET PUEUTV TATUIITTOVOTOOQQOOVOQOQOQOOQ0000 00000 0Loobeguy oa | CONTENTS CHAPTER XVIII THE CONSOLIDATION OF RUSSIA PAGE 1. Tue DespotisM or Tsar Nicuotas I 2.67 2. Tsar ALEXANDER II, 1855-1881 268 CHAPTER XIX THE UNIFICATION OF THE UNITED STATES 1. Tue Lack or Nationat Unity 274 2. Tue Civit War 275 3. Sociat, Economic, AND EpucATIONAL PROGRESS 278 4. Tue ACHIEVEMENTS OF NATIONALISM TO 1880 279 PAR Le Vil NATIONAL CONSOLIDATION, INDUSTRIAL AND WORLD POWERS CHAPTER XX GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND 1. NeuTRALITy AND ForeIGN RELATIONS 285 2. PoriticaL REFORMS 285 3. Tue GoveRNMENT oF GREAT BRITAIN 287 4. PoxriticaL ParTIEs 2.90 5. SocraL REFORMS 291 6. EpucaTIoNaAL CHANGES AND Rexicious REFORMS 294 7. Tue Irish QUESTION 296 GHA PLERS XG. FRANCE UNDER THE THIRD REPUBLIC 1. THE ProvisionaL REPUBLIC 301 2. RepuBLtic oR Monarcuy? 302 3. Tue Repusiic UNDER REPUBLICANS 304 4. SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE 307 5- THE New IMPERIALISM 308 6. SOCIALISM 309 7. FOREIGN AFFAIRS 310 8, Tur French GOVERNMENT AND Po iticaL INsTITUTIONS 313 9. Material PRosPERITY 315 CHAPTER XXII THE GERMAN EMPIRE AFTER 1871 1. THE GovERNMENT 318 2. Tur CHANCELLORSHIP OF BisMARCK, 1871-1890 321 3. Tue Rercn or Emperor Wituiam II, 1888-1918SOTA HTT AT ITNT TT INTIME AN AICO PATTI Tn CONTENTS CHAPTER XXIII THE DUAL MONARCHY OF AUSTRIA-HUNGARY PAGE 1. Tne Duar GovERNMENT 334 2. THe AustriAN EMPIRE 335 3. Tse Kincpom or Huncary 336 4. ForEiGN RELATIONS 337 CHAPTER XXIV THE EXPANSION OF THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE 1. ExPANSION IN AsIA 339 2. MAINTENANCE OF AUTOCRACY UNDER ALEXANDER II] 340 3. Nuicnoxras II — Tue Last Tsar 342 4. Ine Russo-JapANEsE WAR AND THE REVOLUTION OF 1905 344 5. Russta UNDER THE Nationat Dumas 345 CHAPTER AAV GROWTH OF THE KINGDOM OF ITALY AND THE MINOR POWERS OF WESTERN EUROPE 1. Poriticat Institutions or ITaLy 349 2. PropiteMs CONFRONTING ITALY AFTER UNIFICATION 350 3. ForeiGNn Ponicy or ITtary 354 4. THe Spanish KINGDOM 355 5- [xe PortuGugse RepusBLic 358 6. HoLLanp 359 7. BELGIUM 360 | 8. SwiITZERLAND 361 | 9. DENMARK 362 | 10. SWEDEN AND Norway 363 Wl CHAPTER XXVI A TURKEY AND THE BALKAN STATES, 1815-1914 Ai ! 1. TuRKEY AT THE OPENING OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY 366 il 2. THe AWAKENING OF NATIONALISM IN THE BALKANS 375 | 3. Tue DeveLopMent oF INTERNATIONAL RivaLry IN THE Near East, 1832- A 1856 380 rane Hl 4. FaiLure OF THE INTERNATIONAL ATTEMPT TO REJUVENATE TuRKEY, 1856- eae > i 1878 385 5. Nationat Propiems IN TuRKEY AND THE BaLxkan Sratezs, 1878-1908 392 6. INTERNATIONAL RIVALRY IN THE NEAR East At THE CLOsE oF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY 400 _ Tor Younc Turk REvoLUTION AND THE BALKAN Wars A PR eee Os 1 ee - J ‘ * 2. ed LPSRASUUA TVOUSREUALTUTIVEUITOUH UAUTTOHDONTUITOTIVENLETATINUDICSNHTCGUIVOVIECAAUIORVTOSTOROGNOOTENOINUGINPOQTIUOTIGGUIEENIGGTIVOTITONTINOTIVONIOODITOGN OOS POEUOOATUEU UAW VHT msPVTTTOEQQOQOQOOVTTOTINUUOVOV KOLB ; CONTENTS PAR DV bt NATIONAL IMPERIALISM AND THE SPREAD OF EUROPEAN CIVILIZATION OVER THE WORLD CHAPTER XXVII THE OLD AND THE NEW IMPERIALISM PAGE 1. THe DEcLINE OF THE OLD IMPERIALISM 413 ,2. Risk oF MopERN NATIONAL AND Economic IMPERIALISM 414 3. Missions AND EuropgaNn ExpaNsION 418 4. NationauisM, PoriticaL ExpANsION AND THE New COLONIALISM 422 5. THe New Imperia.istic Spirit 424 CHAPTER XXVIII THE OLD WORLD IN THE NEW 1. Europe IN AMERICA 429 2. AFRICA AND AstIA IN AMERICA 433 GHA PTER Xexerx THE UNITED STATES BECOMES A WORLD POWER I. TERRITORIAL AND INDusTRIAL ExPANSION 438 2. PaNn-AMERICAN RELATIONS 440 3. Tue Era or “‘ Bic Business "’ 441 4. ForgiGN RELaTIONs 442 5. PoxiticaL, SociaL, AND EpucaTIONAL CHANGES 445 CHAPTER XXX THE LATIN-AMERICAN REPUBLICS 1. CIVILIZATION 448 2. PoxiticaL, SociaL, AND Economic DEVELOPMENT 448 3. Economic PENETRATION AND ForEIGN RELATIONS 452 CHAPTER XXXI THE BRITISH EMPIRE rt. Great Extent or THE BritisH Empire 455 2. THe DoMINION or CANADA 456 3. THe COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA 457 4. Tue Dominion or New ZEALAND 458 5. Unton or Soutn ArFrica 459 6. IMPERIAL FEDERATION 462. 7. Oruer Britisn CoLonies 464 8. Tue Empire or INDIAe | f i Beas ean | thiidtil PIIVATTIEIEUTUITENEEU NTU UTPT CURT ATT UC CTU TUT OPE STOO i CONTENTS CHAPTER, XXAII EUROPE AND AMERICA IN ASIA, AFRICA AND OCEANIA PAGE 1. Tae INTRUSION OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION IN THE ORIENT 469 2. WeEsTERN INTERVENTION IN ASIA 470 3. THe AWAKENING OF CHINA 472 4. THREATENED PARTITION OF CHINA 475 5. RgFORMS AND PoLiTICAL CHANGES IN CHINA 476 6. Tue First Western Visitors TO JAPAN 480 7. Tue PoxiticaL AND INDUsTRIAL REVOLUTIONS 481 8. JAPANESE IMPERIALISM 483 g. Europe AND AMERICA IN AFRICA 485 10, THe EuROpEANIZATION OF AUSTRALASIA AND OCEANIA 491 11, GENERAL CONCLUSIONS 493 12. THe Worxp or 1800 AND Topay CoMPARED 495 13. Resutts or THE New AGz oF IMPERIALISM 496 PAR Ls Vaikt INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND THE WORLD WAR CHAPTER XXXIII INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 1. INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND D1pLoMACY TO THE RETIREMENT OF BISMARCK 503 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AFTER BisMARCK’s DISMISSAL 510 t~ CHAPTER XXXIV THE CAUSES OF THE WORLD WAR, 1914-1918 1. CoNTRIBUTARY Factors 529 UNDERLYING Causes: NATIONALISM, MILITARISM, CAPITALISM, IMPERIALISM, ed SecrET DipLoMACcY 530 3. Tue IMMEDIATE CAUSES OF THE WoRLD WAR 535 CHAPTER XXXV HOW THE EUROPEAN WAR BECAME A WORLD WAR ne i | 1. GERMAN VIOLATION OF BELGIAN NEUTRALITY 556 Hi 2. Raprp SPREAD OF THE WaR AREA 557 Hl 3. Tue Unirep States Enters THE War AGAINST THE CENTRAL Powers 558 | 4. Revative STRENGTH, Resources, AND IDEALs OF THE BELLIGERENTS 561 | CHAPTER XXXVI I THE LEADING MILITARY EVENTS OF THE WORLD WAR al 1914-1918 | 1. Tue First YEAR 565 566 ._ Tue Seconp YEAR OF THE WAR SL a Le ER EE ae ie — Ir esuasgr TOMAR UV TAUHHTUHUASUCOQUCOUUUIUUUUUUUUULLUOUOUOOUCUCUUOLECDAUTSHOGOOOEUUUUOOOOUCUUCLUUTUUAMOGROGOCOUOOOOSUECUO A UUROARGOOEU OST ST TVETPEUEUATUEASE ETAT E YET a ———— a ss CONTENTS XXVIII es PAGE , 3. Tae Tarrp YEAR OF THE WaR 567 4. Tue FourtH YEAR oF THE WAR 568 5. THe War In Asia AND AFRICA 569 : 6. Tue War ON THE SEAS 570 | 7. THe WAR IN THE AIR 571 f i CHAPTER XXXVII | MAKING PEACE 1. First Peace Drive or THE CENTRAL PowERs 573 2. Peace Proposats or Popr Benepicr XV 573 3. Russta’s Peace Errorts 574 4. Peace TERMS IN THE ARMISTICE 575 5. THe Paris Peacz CONFERENCE 576 6. THe Leacur or NatTIons 580 7. TREATIES OF Peace witH AustriA-HuNGarRY, BULGARIA AND TURKEY 583 CHAPTER XXXVIII RESULTS OF THE WORLD WAR 1. Losszs iN LirE AND PROPERTY 583 2. Tue Poriticat Rgsutts 585 3. THe Economic anp Socrau REsuLts 589 4. Tue Rericious aND EpucaTionaL RgsuLts OF THE WAR 594 CHAPTER XXXIX EUROPEAN REVOLUTIONS SINCE 1914 AND THE CREATION OF NEW STATES 1. THe RusstAaN REVOLUTION 597 2. CHANGES IN GERMANY 607 3. Tuer DissoLution or Austri1A-HUNGARY 613 4. Tae War AND THE New Nartionat States oF NoRTHERN AND CENTRAL EuRopE 615 5. TURKEY AND THE BALKAN STATES SINCE 1918 628 PeASRe Tax A SURVEY OF CONTEMPORARY, CIVILIZATION AND INSTITUTIONS CHAPTER XL POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS 1. Nature or Potiticau INstrtTUTIONS 643 2. EXTENSION oF THE FRANCHISE 644 3. New Conceprion OF THE FUNCTION OF GOVERNMENT 646 4. INTERNATIONAL PoLiticaL ORGANIZATIONee pss as Se - Sarena ane — —_ ee ee ——————————————————— Se | PO FNPF LL Ei he SELL SM EIT Oe PEE a — —. XXVIII CONTENTS Pr br 4 —- Ww Pr A - WwW ~~ INDEX CHAPTER XLI THE GROWTH OF INTERNATIONALISM _ Drptomatic MACHINERY Orric1AL INTERNATIONAL AGENCIES Projects FOR WORLD Pgack AND THE FEDERATION OF THE WorLD CHAPTER XLII SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC INSTITUTIONS Tur INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION AND Mopern Soctat CONDITIONS GROWTH OF COMMERCE Toe War ON Poverty SocIALISM Tur Woman's MovEMENT CHAPTER XLIII EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS Tur GrowTH OF INFORMATION AND LITERACY EDUCATION THE CORNER STONE OF CIVILIZATION HicHER EpuCATION AND OTHER CULTURAL INFLUENCES CHAPTER XLIV THE NEW SCIENCE Tue THeory OF EVOLUTION Tue Stupy or MatTTreR AND POWER MeEpDICcINE AND SURGERY Tue New Soctat ScieENCES ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE New ScIENCE CHAPTER XLV RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS . RELIGIONS OF THE WORLD _ CHRISTIANITY AND MopERN LIFE ON CO CO co OW 698 699Io. If. TZ. 13. MAPS Woritp Mar Enp orf 18TH CENTURY Europe IN 1789 AT OUTBREAK OF FRENCH REVOLUTION Woritp Powers IN I815 PEoPpLES AND LANGUAGES OF EUROPE IN THE I9TH CEN- TURY Economic Map or Europe IN THE 20TH CENTURY Tue Emprres OF THE UNITED STATES AND JAPAN SouTH AMERICA, 1925 PENETRATION OF AsIA BY EUROPEAN AND AMERICAN POWERS, 1920 PARTITION OF AFRICA BY EUROPEAN POWERs, 1920 Woritp Map SHowinc Economic Resources, 1914 EuROPE IN 1920 SHOWING TERRITORIAL CHANGES IN THE WoritD War Map or Worxip SHOWING FoopsTuFFs, 1914 CoLoNIAL Empires OF THE WORLD IN 1924 INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE AND COMMUNICATIONS PAGE 14 74 134 178 228 438 454 468 490 582 596 640 PUVUVNYQOQQDOQTIUNOOQOQUOV Lo —- F } { | J } | | a pre pe pes een a ek eel a a eeAgpempesell EU AARHV AU LUOHNOOUQUHHHOQUOCUAHAEOOOULAHOQESOC HAGEOQUCOOAGTEQOOOQOQOQOQOOVOROGAOQQEQUDOQROOIOOUTAOQQQOOOQ Cg GQQOO0QU LHQQNOUIUGaUAG4/CQH(GdMOUOIU dbotte i iH Sa Ree ihe Make Gee soon re to Ee ee date weet ee Ree eae: yo oes Se wer at eer es oa — x" _ ee ErHeRALAIy TPOBEAEAIITATIVELITOUT AAU FFATENUHTUOTIVENLNATINGNUCSNVICGTITONILUADIOSDHOSVOTENTICONIVONUONHONVTIONLEGATIUONVENHOTVGAUEGGTTOAIOONOGNTOGOTIPON UGA EOUOT TOUR CDN ii 1H} PamOUTOUADONTOAT ONT TUV UATE } LaRC IE. SURVEY OF WORED GIVIEIZATION IN THE PATTER: PART OF THE, EIGHTEEN TE CENTURYPOpgmeesc HUTT VOUT UTRUAAOUAQOUAOEAROOGAOUEROOOOVOOAVOAQQOQLVOOEQOO OU QVOOQOOLOQOOAGOOLOCOTQOOLGEOLCADOOOAO GTO RGTOR AL i ' ] ' 2] ' i j ea | | | ‘ee ea a pe fi i meet Se te teatime ane eatin ee a Cor Sc ey ee ee nee eS eS ha Na Ny oy oe a en a cee bare 5 ae — — a MT TTMNMTTTTTTUTTOTTTMTTATNUTTOTOTUTTIUUTITTHTTCTTONTVNTTOUTVOTUTUTTTUTIONO CUOVOVUVTUTUOQIOVTTTULUTQUTTTUCUTETVTORVILTCHAPTER I RHE NATURE OF REGENT WORLD, HISTORY t. INTRODUCTION Tue lifetimes of two of our ancestors who successively reached the age of seventy-five would extend back to the beginnings of the American Revolution. Within that brief period of time more im- portant changes have taken place in the life and institutions of man than had occurred in the entire previous history of the world. The expansion of Europe, the Commercial Revolution, the Industrial Revolution, the advance in transportation and communication, the spread of intelligence, and the resulting political, economic, and social changes have produced what is in reality a new civilization. The continents have been explored from pole to pole, and a more accurate knowledge of the human race has been obtained. The natural re- sources of the earth have been used for man’s comfort and happiness. The oceans have become great highways for intercourse between the most distant peoples; and railroads, canals, rivers, automobiles, and airplanes have connected inland centers of population with one another. Science has made man the master of nature, and in a hun- dred ways the unity of mankind has been increased and emphasized. It must be remembered that the modern world did not come into existence suddenly. By comparison with previous periods, the changes came rapidly, but the causes for these transformations run fat back into the past. The institutions of today have been pro- duced under the laws of continuity and differentiation. It is easy to see that the world of Gregory VII and St. Dominic differed greatly from that of Erasmus and Luther; that the world of Calvin differed from that of Richelieu and Louis XIV; and that the world of Jef- ferson, Mirabeau, Burke, and Stein differed from that of today. Re- semblances persisted, but differences were continually creeping in — into politics and religion; into commerce, transportation, manufac- turing, and agriculture. The sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries were remarkably fertile in science and the growth of ideas, which in turn produced many alterations in practice. The transition, however, was not even and uniform. Progress was more marked in the United States, England, and France. It was less so in central Europe, and still less in eastern and southern Europe. Asia, Africa, and, in large part, South America remained relatively unaffected until well into the nineteenth century. All stages of civilization, indeed, are still found on the earth. Before studying in detail the development of the world during the past one hundred and fifty years, it will be helpful to consider 3 TRURTEDRUGRUUGUOUAUUU OE) Lone Changes in last 150 years Laws of conti- nuity and differentiation } — S — — pee ee eel ee ee a cee ee eee nant ese Sorat aa a Be ———————————————————eEr 1 canes Re rt a a Na are bee a rags sg Pe Fe ha TP . a = E PINION TAUTUUTU EVA UUUAUTCC OPT UOE E PTT TET Rise of self- £at ernment Creation of Constitutions Pe! 4 MODERN WORLD HISTORY (Chap. I the great problems of human progress which man has either solved or attempted to solve. 2. PoxiTricAL DEVELOPMENTS Government throughout the world at the end of the eighteenth century was predominantly monarchical. The wild tribes of America, Australia, Africa, and Asia were ruled by their chiefs. Turkey, China, and Japan were oriental despotisms. Continental Europe was governed by kings, emperors, and tsars, who arrogated to them- selves the authority to rule their subjects by ‘‘divine right.”’ In but few of these countries did the people have the right to make their own laws or to shape their own political destinies. The govern- ments were autocratic, and whether they were good or bad, wise or unwise, depended largely upon rulers, who were restrained only by custom, ancient privilege, and physical inability from wielding all the power they claimed. Within the British Empire, however, were to be found the beginnings of self-government. Great Britain and Ireland had their parliaments, and the English-speaking colonists in the New World their local assemblies, but scarcely anywhere else did the people participate in the government. Ihe most conspicuous example of self-government came with the American Revolution in 1776 and the creation in 1789 of the American Republic. Since that time one of the great political problems of the world has been either to democratize monarchies or to replace them by republics. So successful has been this twofold effort that today autocratic govern- ment has well-nigh disappeared from the earth. A constitution outlining the governmental organization of a political group is a comparatively recent development. Prior to 1789 the constitutions found among the English-speaking peoples were the best models. Great Britain, through a long development of local and central institutions, was operating under a constitution partly written and partly unwritten, and thus supplied the greatest stimulus in modern times to the creation of constitutional govern- ments in other nations. The American colonies, after declaring their independence, formed their own written state constitutions, which had far-reaching effects. The first conspicuous example of a modern written national constitution was that adopted by the United States in 1789, based in part upon the state constitutions and in part upon the British model. France, during the Revolution and the era of Napoleon, formed a whole series of written constitutions, beginning with that of 1791. With the British, American, and French patterns to point the way, constitutional government has spread rapidly during the past century, and today every civilized state has a constitution. During the first part of the last century the American model was widely copied in Latin America and else- where; but in recent years, particularly in the new constitutions following the World War, the British and French examples have had EEOOELUSETYVOADREALST UTI OTLFGHUNUUUONIEHUCAVITOWIOQNOAUITOVINNTEGIHNQRENUONANEGUOGRHEGTONVOTOTIERI POG EOD PONVOVTOAVONTOGTENATUOTUO HAVENT OAV EOE TOT Pet sera anChap. I] THE NATURE OF RECENT WORLD HISTORY 5 more influence. A comparison of the world in 1789 with the world today will show to what extent the creation of political constitutions has been one of the leading achievements of the modern age. The growth of a special form called parliamentary government was restricted before 1789 to the British Empire. Its leading features were a legislature of two houses and a cabinet responsible to the will of the majority of the lower house. The English type, in one form or another, has been very widely adopted all over the world. The bicameral feature has been generally accepted; the cabinet system less so. The right to vote was restricted to the privileged few in the British Empire a century and a half ago. On the European conti- nent it was confined to the freemen of a few small self-governing communities. Elsewhere it was unknown. The first pronounced extension of the franchise came with the formation of the American Republic and the French Revolution. Since that time there has been a continual widening of this privilege in all civilized states until today it is universal for males, and has also been extended to women in the more progressive states. But this victory was won only after a long and bitter struggle. The establishment of civil and political liberty was a burning issue of the period. Under the arbitrary governments of the eighteenth century, the common man was not secure in his person or his property. He had to pay such taxes as the monarch was pleased to levy. He might be thrown into prison, tortured, and even con- demned to death with what seems to us only a pretense of public trial or the benefit of witnesses in his behalf. For a hundred and fifty years intelligent and fearless men and women combined repeat- edly to obtain the enactment of laws to guarantee personal rights and liberties, such as freedom of speech, assembly, petition, and the press; religious liberty; equality before the law; proper treatment and a fair trial in case of arrest; property rights; the protection of the home, labor, women, children, and health; and the right to vote and to hold office. For the most part these rights have been incor- porated in the various constitutions, or have been provided for in special laws. The struggle for civil and political liberty has been a long one and is still in progress. The enactment of wise and humane laws was necessary to counter- act the edicts of the eighteenth century, which were chiefly intended to protect the interests of the privileged classes. Equality before the law was practically unknown. Trials were notoriously unfair to the accused of the lower classes. Under the criminal laws of the times punishments were invariably harsh, even ferocious. During the past century great changes have been made in the modes of pun- HLL Growth of the parliamentary system Civil and political liberty ishment for crimes, prisons have been reformed, and the new science Changes in of criminology has sought to protect society by stressing the impor- "#4! law tance of child-rescue, the humane treatment of adult criminals, and efforts to reclaim the violators of law for decent citizenship. The 7 Hl ee ane ee pete optOpgpemeeceeHEYANAHUTAAORVUAOAPAQOQUOEUEAOQOQUEUOUOQOQQ 0 0OQQQOUOGQQEOOOQOOAOOQO0U0GOQOOOCEUO AQHOOQOQUTSOOOOLL OTHE 6 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. I modern problem has been to prevent crime, not by severe vengeance upon the criminal, but by the certainty of punishment and by the reformation of the offender. In their modern form political parties can hardly be said to go back to the eighteenth century. Their rise coincided with the devel- opment of popular government. Political writers of the earlier period viewed parties as dangerous bands of selfish intriguers. Indeed, the framers of the constitution of the United States held that view and never dreamed that political parties would become one of the essen- tial features of the American political system. But parties grew up Origin of outside of constitutions and law, and today they constitute integral political parties tarts of the governmental machinery of most modern nations, though they function to a considerable extent as extra-legal institutions. In no two countries, however, have political parties assumed the same form or operated in the same manner. Their history is, never- theless, essential to a clear understanding of how the world has been ruled in recent times. The growth of nationalism characterized this era. The English, Scots, and French were the first three peoples in the world to be in- spired by the modern spirit of nationality as contrasted with the vague aspirations and persistent hostilities of the Germans and Italians under the mediaeval Empire. They were followed by the appearance of modern nationalism in Spain, Portugal, Denmark, and Sweden. It is worthy of notice, likewise, that all these states were examples of the national monarchy. In central, eastern, and southeastern Europe the peoples were almost untouched by a com- Spread of parable nationalistic movement prior to 1800. The American Revo- nationalism —_ |ution with its Declaration of Independence justifying the right of political revolution, the French Revolution with its slogan ‘Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity,’’ and the wars of Napoleon gave a new impetus to the doctrine of nationalism. Napoleon was at first successful on the continent in his appeals to the national senti- ment aroused by the Revolution. To win support he encouraged nationalistic hopes in both Poland and Italy, but his imperialism provoked national revolts against him in Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, and Prussia which helped to cause his downfall. By obliterating old landmarks, boundaries, and dynasties, the French Revolution and Napoleon paved the way for the rebuilding of Europe along national lines. In ignoring this principle, the Congress of Vienna committed its chief blunders which directly and indirectly changed the map of the world. The Latin-American states secured their independence. The Greeks obtained their political freedom from the Turks. Belgium separated from Holland. Italy was united and the German Empire created. The Balkan states became self- governing nationalities after 1878. Norway separated from Sweden. The World War gave birth to at least eight new nationalistic states. Intense nationalism during the latter part of the nineteenth FF ET Pe he eee NE SC . ne ae = by Cg OS re os Tn Sai PR ae) oe en ran Ree ay eee nas Fee er ence - a 7 , 1 : F MALUTTTOVSAAAUUTTHHVHUUHUAN VALU UCUUCAUEQUONUONNUAOUULGCUUUUUVCREOSOROSSOOAUIAIELOOPEOUOOUCQUOGATOROUOLVTOULESUCGUEUONGGRAROAEETDELOECUASOERAOO A eee TTT aeChap. 1] THE NATURE OF RECENT WORLD HISTORY 7 century produced four significant results: (1) the various “pan” movetnents — Pan-Germanism, Pan-Slavism, Pan-Hellenism, and ‘unredeemed Italy’’; (2) national imperialism, which led to a general scramble for colonial empires in the backward parts of the earth; (3) a rivalry in armaments among the Great Powers; and (4) alliances of groups of nations to realize and advance their nation- alistic ambitions. With the rise of the nation-states there appeared among them a new set of relationships dealing with war and peace, trade and travel, and citizenship which is called internationalism. By slow de- grees the Law of Nations developed to regulate these new inter-state problems. With the growth of self-government, the spread of intel- ligence, the increase in world business, new methods of transpor- tation and communication, and the multiplication of international societies, congresses, and institutions, there resulted a better under- standing among the different groups of people in the world. The various efforts to bring about a new political organization of the nations of the earth for the purpose of guaranteeing to them national security and the right of peaceable progress, and to provide means for settling international disputes legally instead of by war, culminated in 1919 in the creation of the League of Nations. 3. SocIAL AND EcoNomMIcC CHANGES The Industrial Revolution produced more changes in the life and institutions of the world during the past century than the epoch- making political revolutions. It began in England about the time of the American Revolution, then extended to the more progressive portions of Europe and to the United States, and has now spread in differing degrees to all civilized nations on the earth. The every-day life of the people at the close of the eighteenth century did not differ very much from that of the world in the time of Julius Caesar, Charles the Great, or King Alfred. To understand present civilization with its comforts and conveniences; its marvelous transformations in the transport of persons, goods and ideas; its multitudinous industries, large cities, improved mechanical methods, increase in wealth, and social and economic problems, one must study care- fully the origins, progress, and effects of the Industrial Revolution. New divisions of society were produced by the Industrial Revolu- tion. In the old régime there were nobles and serfs; guildmasters, and journeymen, and apprentices; and merchants and clerks. The factory system gave rise to two new classes — the capitalists and the wage- earners. The former are more frequently called the bourgeoisie and consist of the owners of industries, bankers, merchants, landlords, and professional men; the latter are the proletariat and include day- laborers in factories, trades, mines, and on the farms. The appear- ance of these new classes soon forced to the front a whole series of new problems involving wages, hours of labor, health and sanitation, Results of nationalism Appearance of international- 1577 Effects of the Industrial Revolution Bourgeoisie and proleta- rlat PUUTEETLA UTTERPOsvHU UT ETUHTAAO AAU AUAEQQOQOUUAOAAAQOOSVQCUAHHOOOSOQUEOAGOQQOOQOOLUOOOQQQQUOOUOOGOQHQOOOOQUOAOQAOOOQOU UAUOGHOQOCIEOSDOOONIEE Ld 8 MODERN WORLD HISTORY (Chap. I living conditions, and the employment of women and children; the right of the workers to organize unions for the protection of their interests; strikes and lockouts; insurance against accident, old age, and unemployment; free competition and monopoly; state inter- ference in industry; and the causes of poverty. Social and economic reforms in all the more advanced nations have satisfactorily solved some of these burning questions, but others still await adjustment. These issues have been so characteristic of recent world history that they should be given careful attention by students of world affairs. An increase in the wealth of the world, unprecedented in earlier times, has occurred during the past century. The number of Increase in millionaires has multiplied rapidly in all the countries of the globe, world wealth 4nd even billionaires are not unknown. Their wealth has been in- vested in countless enterprises at home and abroad. The trade and commerce of the world have left no product unsought and no market unexploited. Financial institutions have been organized in every corner of the earth on both a national and an international basis. It was estimated that in 1921 the wealth of the United States alone reached the colossal sum of $350,000,000,0c00 — an amount that exceeded the combined wealth of Great Britain, France, Ger- many, Italy, and Belgium. A study of the distribution of wealth today shows that its owners form a significant pyramid. At the top are a few persons who possess most of it and enjoy enormous in- comes; in the middle are large numbers with moderate fortunes; and at the bottom are the masses of the people with relatively little wealth and small incomes. Under this system the idle leisure class is being constantly augmented. Economists quite generally agree that these pronounced inequalities in the distribution of wealth, which give the few more and the many less than is necessary for their comfort and happiness, are undesirable and dangerous in a democratic world, because they reverse the dictum “‘the greatest good for the greatest number. | Numerous have been the schemes to solve the problem of in- dustrial waste and social injustice. Historically, the most signifi- Cant movement in this direction was the rise of socialism in its various forms. Its germs are found in the revolutions at the end of the eighteenth century. It had doughty champions in England and Appearance of France during the first part of the nineteenth century, and broke sockatism forth as a mighty force in the Revolution of 1848. In that year Marx and Engels formulated socialism into a statement of principles, which sought to substitute for the capitalistic system of private, income-producing property, collective state ownership and opera- tion of lands, factories, stores, railroads, and other means of pro- duction. Marxian socialism sought, in addition, to unite the work- ingmen of all countries in a class war on capitalism to realize the Socialistic Commonwealth. This revolutionary movement expressed itself under many divergent organizations and enlisted the devotion I Teh SR A. EE Se TST Ee ee ENS Se eae aa Lio aww Breau TATE ITH TLE USSUChap. I| THE NATURE OF RECENT WORLD HISTORY 9 of millions of men and women throughout the world. It entered politics and captured seats in legislatures and even premierships. Finally in 1917 one branch of radical socialism gained complete control of Russia, and has been putting its theories into practice. Socialism has been bitterly attacked by its opponents. Whatever his personal feelings may be, the student of recent world history must recognize socialism as a force in modern life and must seek to understand its causes, growth, variations, and results. The abolition of serfdom and human slavery was not accomplished in the civilized portions of the earth until the nineteenth century. At the close of the eighteenth century serfdom had long been abolished in England, but it was widely prevalent on the continent of Europe. The French Revolution overthrew the remnant of the system in France and the adjoining states, yet it lingered in central Europe until the Revolution of 1848, and was not discarded in Russia until 1861-6 nor in Japan until 1871. ‘Traffic in the slavery of human beings, particularly the African Negroes, to supply labor for the English, Dutch, French, Spanish, and Portuguese colonies, culminated in the latter part of the eighteenth century. The British slave trade reached its utmost extension about the time of the revolt of the American colonies, when 192 ships with a capacity for 47,000 slaves wete engaged in the traffic. Both the American Declaration of Indepen- dence and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man proclaimed the doctrine of human freedom and equality. Some religious sects like the Quakers advocated the abolition of slavery. Denmark had the honor of first doing away with slavery in her colonial possessions in 1792. England passed a law in 1807 which put an end to the British slave trade and in 1833 abolished slavery in the colonies, compensating the owners. This example was followed gradually by other European states and by some of the American common- wealths. The United States by the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863, followed by a constitutional amendment, ended slavery in North America, and Brazil by the act of 1888 eliminated it in South America. The Ottoman Porte in 1889 ordered the suppression of slavery. The twentieth century witnessed efforts to get rid of slavery in Africa both by individual nations and by international congresses, but the barbarous traflic is not wholly extinct today, for it still exists in a few portions of the Dark Continent. 4. EpucATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS The intellectual revolution, which occurred in the latter part of the eighteenth century and did so much to bring on the political revolts, was a distinct attack on conditions and ideals that were largely mediaeval. Beginning in England and America, it made the greatest headway in France, and found champions all over Europe, even in Russia. Its leaders were philosophers, scientists, econo- mists, poets, and historians. It advocated religious toleration; TUUUUGEDOUU DOU OUOUOOoE 4 Abolition of serfdom and slavery The Intellectual revolt. t HH wae ’ tee. 2 HHT anne Hi Hind iB! i | a! i i IO MODERN WORLD HISTORY (Chap. 1 attacked rule by divine right; set forth a new political economy which denounced the unjust system of taxation and opposed restric- tions on trade; and ushered in a new era of scientific inquiry. This movement, projected into the nineteenth century, gave the world a new conception of nature, man, and God. It opened the way for the conquest of the forces and materials of the earth; it displaced igno- rance and superstition by knowledge; and, by modifying man’s inst1- tutions and enlarging his horizon, it helped to produce the civiliza- tion of today. The organized agencies of intelligence and culture at the close of the eighteenth century were comparativelyfew. Nowhere were there free public schools and universities supported by general taxation for all the people. On the contrary, it was commonly be- lieved that education was intended only for the privileged few. Indeed, not until well into the nineteenth century did the conviction begin to prevail that it was the duty of the democratic state to edu- cate all its members in order to make them enlightened and useful citizens. This spread of education has been one of the most impor- tant problems of recent world history. The growth of scientific thought during the past hundred years or so has had no parallel in the advance of man. From the begin- Growth of nings in earlier days, the whole earth has been explored and studied; mere the various peoples have been visited and described; the varieties of ION GI) . . ° e : human, animal, and plant life on earth have been investigated; the structure of the globe and its mineral resources have been revealed; the universe of stars and planets has been penetrated and charted; the laws of the human mind have been fathomed; almost unbe- lievable mechanical inventions have been created; and human knowl- edge has been extended in a thousand different directions by the experimental, philosophical, social, and applied sciences. Though the printing-press, books, newspapers, and libraries had served for several centuries as a means for the dissemination and preservation of ideas and information, so widely have they been employed in recent times that the age might well be called that of the printed page. Today a poor student may own a collection of books such as would have been possible only to the wealthy in the days of his grandfather. He who can not buy books has at his disposal the resources of a free library. The number of homes without a newspaper of magazine discussing the current happenings of the world is rapidly diminishing. As a result of these educational agencies, the decline in illiteracy has been marked during the past century, but much still remains to be done even in the most highly civilized nations. At the same time attention has also been devoted to literature in its various forms, and to music, art, and the theater as means of culture. mE RE 5 SE, PO Oe AE A PS SEE IE ee Si aicee Se aaa at St TT Tia Be ae) een eee thee 5. Reticious TRANSFORMATIONS Recent world history has been characterized by the continuance of the old religions, both Christian and pagan, which existed in the ~ = _ Pc suChap. I] THE NATURE OF RECENT WORLD HISTORY eighteenth century. Old states have disappeared and new ones have been created, and social and educational institutions have been transformed, but religious institutions everywhere have shown a remarkable persistence. The great faiths of the world still play a leading role in controlling the conduct of individuals and in molding civilization. Christianity as the faith of the most highly civilized nations on eatth has endeavored through missionary efforts and po- litical aid to make a conquest of the world. The Mohammedans have also been unusually active in religious propaganda. The other great religions have not been so aggressive in winning converts. One of the religious problems which the modern world has had to face is that of toleration. It was not so long ago that the adherents of one religious doctrine felt it to be a holy duty to repress or kill those of another faith. The religious wars of the hostile sects of Christians in Europe were cruel and bloody. Catholics hated Prot- estants, and the various Protestant denominations were intolerant of one another. Monarchs insisted upon conformity to the state faith or persecution followed. Imprisonment and death for non- conformity, or heresy, were not unknown down to the French Revo- lution. But since that time there has been a remarkable growth of the spirit of tolerance among the various Christian sects as well as among the communicants of the different religions of the world. Considerable advance will have to be made, however, before the right spirit of mutual understanding is realized among the devotees of the different religious groups. Prior to the Reformation the Roman Catholic Church was ac- cepted as the state church by all the states of western Europe, as the Greek Orthodox Church was acknowledged in eastern Europe. After the Reformation some of the states of northwestern Europe made one or another of the Protestant creeds the “‘established church.”’ Within this period there began an effort to separate the church and state, and before the close of the eighteenth century it was notably successful in the United States and France. So far has the movement gone that today eighteen Christian states have adopted the principle, and efforts are being made to bring about the same result in other states. Out of this tendency has come the separation of the schools from the church, which has now become quite general. The federation of all branches of Christendom has been advo- cated and some steps have been taken to realize this objective. Protestant churches have learned to codperate in missionary work and thus avoid duplication and waste, and some of them have actually brought about an organic unification. But the complete realization of Christian unity remains for the future. The rise of the modern state has taken from the church some of its social and political functions of earlier days and thus freed it to devote more attention to problems of human welfare. EL TERTURUUEEEAA LATELY ETT Loa Continuance of the old religions Religious toleration Persistence of state churches Christian federation en ee a ee ——s n= {peeAURAL Mm IUTEEVUAHTHH LETHAL AUUHATHUAETHA TTR TVAHREVTTAA RUA AREA dad T I MODERN WORLD HISTORY REFERENCES FOR FURTHER STUDY GENERAL HIsToRIEs W. Oncxen (editor), Allgemeine Geschichte in Einzeldarstellungen, 50 vols. (1879-1893); E. Lavissg and A. Ramspaup (editors), Histoire Générale du IV® siecle 2 nos jours, 12 vols. (1894-1901); T. Fratue, Allgemeine Weltgeschichte, (translated as History of All Nations), 24 vols. (1902); A. W. Warp, G. W. Protuerzo, and S. Leatues editors), Modern History, 14 vols. (1902-1912); H. G. Wetts, Outline of History, 2 vols. (1920). Cambrid ge GENERAL Histories COVERING Most OF THE PERIOD W. Miter, Political History of Recent Times, 1816-1848, with Special Reference to Germany, English translation by J. P. Peters (1882); C. Buxte, Geschichte der neuesten Zeit, 1815-1885 i ; > J d» 4 vols. (1867-1887); Si 2 E. Hertstet, The Map of Europe by Treaty since 1814, 4 vols. (1875-1891); A. Daisoc. Histoire diplomatique de l Europe, 1814-1914, 4 vols. (1891- 1917); C. A. ae A Hisi tory d Modern Europe, 1792-1878, (1896); Continued in G. P. Goocs, Hi stOrY 0) Mode ure} ¢, 1878-1920 (1923); C. M. Anprews, The Historical Development of ae ern Taeabe: 1815 1897, 2 vols. (1896-1898); C. SziGNoBos, A Political History of init since 1814, English translation by S. M. Macvane, (1900); F. A. Kirx- PATRICK editor), Lectures on the History of the Nineteenth Century (1902); W. A. Puituips, Modern Europe, 1815-1899, (edition 1902); A. STERN, Geschichte Europas seit den Vertragen on 1871, (1894-1924). Vols. I-X, which have so far von 1815 bis zum Frankfurter Frieden 1 appeared, carry the narrative to ae ; J. H. Rosinson and C. A. Besais The Development of Modern Europe, 2 vols. (1907-1908); Readings in Modern European History, 2 vols. (1909); C. D. Hazen, E urope since 1815, 2 vols. (rev. ed. 1923); Modern European History (1917); E. Driautr and G. Monon, Evolution du monde moderne: histoire politique et soctale, 1815-1909 (1910); L. C. Jane, From Metternich to Bismarck, 1815-1878 O10): eA. ks Marriott, The Remaking of Modern Europe, 1789-1915 (1920); R. W. Jerrery, The New Europe, 1789-1889 (1911); O. Brownine, History of the Modern World, 181s—r1910, 2 vols (1912); C. E. M. Hawxeswortn, The Last Century in Europe, 1814-1910, (1913); P. Feyen, Histoire politique du XIX°* sitcle, a vols. SNC OV ENS EYEE C. J. H. Hayss, A Polstical and Social History of Modern Europe, 2 vols. (2d vol. rev. 1924); J. S. Scuaprro, Modern and Contemporary European History pa ). revised edition (1921); E. R. Turner, Europe, 1789-1920 (1920); E. Fuster World History, 1815-1920, English translation by S. B. Fay (1922). een ga ER SY | at 1|| Ht | it j | | 1 | | AUSHTVPOARLUSSUTVAUEQUVAUIAUUGTIGAOUTEVIOVCOUDLATIQUOVETAVIGTCOVTONUGAUONUORTORUEARENT COVEN OQUOGUNOOTOVOVROSTONUEAUERT AAT EN TEST EO TEST OATES]CHAPTER II THE EXPANSION OF EUROPE AND THE COMMERCIAL REVOLUTION 1. PrRoGREsstvE Forces IN EUROPEAN History Tue people now living on the earth would make about twenty groups as large as that in the United States. Their civilization follows an ascending scale from savage tribes to the most progressive nations. Five thousand years ago certain groups were further ad- vanced in intelligence and modes of living than others existing today. In fact the most enlightened peoples of the world at the present time constitute only about one-fourth of the total inhabitants. Racially they are restricted largely to the yellow race and to the white race, and geographically they are confined to eastern Asia, to Europe, and to the nations planted by the expansion of Europe to North and South America, to Australia, and to Africa. Elsewhere there is but a sprinkling of highly intelligent people. A survey of the history of this comparatively small portion of the human race, which can be called superior in civilization, reveals the fact that they have undergone a continuous change from the earliest to the most recent times. It seems clear, also, that the Europeans, and the group of newer nations resulting from their expansion to other continents have shown the greatest capacity for progress. Indeed even those Asiatics who rank highest in civilization have borrowed much from the Europeans and their offspring. This Euro- peanized world of today, it is quite apparent, differs in many impor- tant ways from the world of Washington, George III, Voltaire, and Frederick the Great; still more from the world of Shakespeare, Calvin, Columbus, John Hus, and Loyola; and vastly more from the world of Cicero, Alexander the Great, and Socrates. It will be helpful, therefore, in understanding the history of the world during the past century and a half, to review briefly those forces that have helped to produce the ideas and institutions of the present time: 1. The older peoples, more particularly the Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans in the Mediterranean basin, and the Arabs, Hindus, and Chinese in Asia, developed high types of civilization, which have persisted either directly or indirectly. The institutions of a large portion of the earth still reflect their influence. The Latin, Teutonic, Slavic, and Japanese peoples are deeply indebted to these ancient influences. 13 UPUVELUULIADEDROOPAOEAO OEE De Small part of the human race enlightened Capacstty of Europeans for progress Persistence of old stocks f “wal = . meet — ee ai ieienn ss hae SEnG teenth ie ek esa aes geLUTTE TTTTHH TET G ETT AGHA TET Pea TAHA AA RUA PAA UGUTAU THT 14 MODERN WORLD HISTORY (Chap. II 2. The older religions, such as Judaism, Confucianism, Buddhism, Christianity, and Mohammedanism set the standards of faith and conduct for millions of adherents, and are still vital forces on the Continuance of earth. The missionary impulse of Christianity is one of the oldest old religions and most permanent forces in the general movement of European expansion over the globe. The Crusades brought the peoples of western Europe into contact with the richer civilizations of the East. As a result, exploration and trade were stimulated, eastern ideas and products were introduced into the west, mediaeval customs and institutions were weakened, the Italian trading cities grew up, and Europe received a powerful impetus towards expansion. 3. Ihe Renaissance rediscovered for European peoples the literary and artistic contributions of Greece and Rome, aroused a new interest in the universe, and gave man a new sense of his own dignity and a new interest in things of this world. The Protestant Revolt, Effects of the | which followed it, led to a secession of northern Europe from the ena mediaeval church. It proclaimed salvation by faith yet shifted Reformation Salvation from faith to works, aided the rise of national states, gave : a higher conception of the ethical value of this life, made man’s conscience the final arbiter in both spiritual and worldly affairs, and stimulated interest in manual labor and pecuniary profits. The earlier mechanical inventions such as the printing-press, the mariner’s compass, fire-arms, and the telescope and microscope, greatly ex- tended the range of man’s intelligence and power. Supplied with these aids, Europeans set out more boldly to conquer the world,and the modern era had begun. The social and economic revolution of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries changed the system of produc- tion from the guild and barter to that of wages and money, laid the foundations for a wealthy middle class, accelerated the decline of feudalism, and strengthened nationalism. These changes, coupled with the new inventions, released in Europe motives and processes of world-wide significance. 4. The Reformation took the control of the social order of a large part of Europe out of the jurisdiction of the Papacy and put it in the hands of the secular states. In the countries where this hap- pened, ecclesiastical affairs became national instead of international. The individual’s political relations were emphasized and his alle- Rise of the giance to the state stressed. Next to the revolt against the dogma secular state ~~ of the old church, the new interest in politics was of the greatest significance for the future. No sooner had the bitter religious wars, which followed the Reformation, subsided than ecclesiasticism was supplanted by politics as the “pivotal interest of civilized man.”’ The state and not the church, as an institution, thereafter claimed the first attention, and also the primary loyalty. New theories of the state were evolved to fit the new social structure of the world. The politico-theistic system put God behind the state, and thus opened the way for the rise of the theory of political absolutism by divine = oe Eo = = em —— SP a PE a a eee ae i an s0h | : tit n a SrSuU TPMT TTTTHUU HULLSTURERUERERTEO TENE TEER ge ee i eeie ee a AR eee aE IE er POP ee OF pee a co aaa eT ae ena a a renee, he So one we wae Ores °°" A TTT Sarvinich (Hawa } Max {LO 1 =" : — 7 +f-—-—s ~t 5 oA jo) 1 20 idenagors, Pt Qeniippins Poo a ( Wadras ' i i. 1s : Ts { Pal 7 ee iS Mai, LQ, | . fs . yes ; . oO « ¢ AS ‘ ( evyion / he a ce / bs a ‘ -—. ay ae | a | \ Se es LS i or / vane \ | < \ \ / \ \ \ a 2 7 * \ r---~, i se gk a \ \ | mm py he ee eet oe 7 = | a lee iGO} VF cn ne nnn nn ee eR GINS Ga LS * =a N \ \ Scot \ | QB PN \ \ ~~ | | \ | | , meee, | ‘ | = sO Te % — = re | as as Ks =e Po me ee ee } es — — + I a ae i ae i | | | | | | a = eres — — ee De ee a m| : | —— WORLD MAP Ea a ae i rT . : [ whe 4 L Portuguese \5283) Spansh me Dutch 4 | -—— —) +. GE Brit's The conditions are shown as tl Darnash eee) French pees D7TULLS/h Scale of Mi | ; E oO 1000 a 2 eee wsees Southern Limits of Siberia —S Sa ee SS eee | 80 100 120 140 160 East 180 West 160 from 140 Greenw. 120 Repent ae oo See > niin a aa ne Kartographische Anstalt von F. A. Brockhaus, Leipzig, Germany. HSUEH MAME HSTAHUUUNUUULLGUUTHOQUUUOUUUUUUGESUUAEOUASESUAEUELEEEUACERUAEU UAE TUUU MEENA0 | | _ Arctic Circle dia (NScot. Pa Se Se Te oe a Vv Ni ? MOmbasa.”s SH on N. d Sc baw | Herqueler , =< S17! ~ ® x t XX 20 = | SS . \ . << A Ite, | | | ete bo — — ~— —_-- — — — — —+ | _] OF 8™ CENTURY lapis Coots aga isted before the change in 1763 covceee , Endeavour LG BM mah dk | PRE GUALOD: = ibe i gt ee eee ~hesolumon 1772 5 FATS | 0 40 50¢ eae 2 ee Resolution” 1776 - 1780 | 1. 1 aan 5 Ee l _ 2 fie eel } l {= J 80 60 LO 20 Meridian O of Greenw. 20 LO 60 30 | 140 | | |Sr TE ot Ses es = | | } } ] | / | j | j | } } eae | a fe ' ] } | a a i ie! 1 i ! ] j a I ti i 1 awe Ct ier HRSA OABESLAAUUVUUUUUUUUOOUQOQQOQOQOOQOVHONSANURUUUIDUOUUATAVIUUOOUESUEOUUEOOOSEOREOOGSORROOOORDAOVOOATUATEOLECOLCTRGRCSTELURSTEUUAUEOOOAUATOSOOOOEAGT ESE LETTChap. II| THE EXPANSION OF EUROPE By right. Machiavelli elaborated the idea that the ruler of a state was omnipotent, and above all law, civil and ecclesiastical. He not only substituted the supreme power of the state for that of the church, but also the authority of the absolute ruler for that of God. Bodin of France formulated the doctrine of secular absolutism which was so widely accepted in the two centuries following the Reformation. A Dutchman named Althusius first set forth the idea that the sovereign state is composed of both the people and the ruler, and that it is subject to moral law. This conception of the state was elabo- rated by Grotius, the ‘‘father of International Law,” and by Pufendorf. A distinct advance was made by Locke, an Englishman, and Montesquieu, a Frenchman, who contended that the state was not the product of some arbitrary power but a historical and social development to meet human needs. This idea replaced the God- made state by the man-made state. The concept of the equality of man before God was transferred to the idea of equality before the law, and in the eighteenth century gave new force to the procla- mation of the sovereignty of the people which had been asserted during the papal controversies of the fourteenth century and demon- strated in England by the final triumph of Parliament in 1688. 2. THe Expansion oF EUROPE The overseas expansion of Europe followed the Renaissance and Reformation and produced a remarkable series of discoveries, ex- plorations, and colonizing movements. The impetus for this expan- sion came in part from the forces already enumerated and in part from new economic, political, and religious motives. Economic jealousy Motives for of the commercial monopoly which the Italian cities enjoyed over the Levant trade, was an important cause of overseas activity. No doubt mere curiosity and the spirit of adventure also played a role. The desire of the leaders of the Christian church to convert the heathen induced them to support these exploring enterprises. So the mad race for colonial empires began. Under the patronage of Prince Henry (1394-1460), Portuguese navigators explored islands in the Atlantic and the coast of Africa: Vasco da Gama found the sea route to India (1498) and the East Indies; and Cabral discovered Brazil (1500). Under Spanish direction, Columbus discovered the New World (1492); and Magellan circumnavigated the earth (1519- 1522). Meanwhile the French, English, and Dutch joined in the scramble for North America and other parts of the globe, while Russia was soon expanding eastward into Asia. Out of these beginnings strong ‘“‘rival commercial empires’’ quickly sprang up in Portugal, Spain, the Netherlands, France, and England, with their interests clashing and their possessions sprawl- ing over the earth. Out of the series of wars that were waged by land and sea for world power during the two centuries prior to 1763, overseas expansion “* Rival commercial empires” : aaae i TERTRUEA TET ETT TEE a ge ee ee ab a aa eePOAPUATEATEOATAATOUAIAATUATAUAT GAA ATI GGREGVONALOGTOAIOOAIGAVAAGTADEUAI FGI OATAVTOATUTA UAV AOTREATEATIGATEA 16 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. II England emerged as mistress of the sea and in possession of the largest colonial empire. In order to understand recent world history, one should know in some detail the major results of the overseas expansion of Europe. This movement was accompanied, in the first place, by a commercial The Commercial revolution. ‘There was an increase in both the size and number of Revolution ships, as well as in the technique of navigation. The center of com- mercial activity shifted from the Mediterranean basin to the waters of the west and north, and commerce became oceanic. Both the volume of trade and the geographical scope of trading operations became greater. The increase in the quantity of the precious metals brought about a new system of finance. Prices had to be readjusted. Capital took on a new meaning and found new uses. Credit institu- tions, banks, stock exchanges, and insurance companies came into existence. Speculation and “‘get-rich-quick’’ schemes for making money appeared. Necessity and the spirit of adventure led to the organization of joint-stock companies and commercial corporations, ofttimes as regular trading monopolies under the sanction of the state, to exploit the backward parts of the earth. In time, naturally, new commercial theories and policies arose. The mercantilist theory, which predominated from about 1500 to 1750, regarded money as ‘‘the most desirable form’’ of wealth. Hence each nation sought to attract to itself the largest share of gold and silver by selling as many manufactured articles as possible to other countries and by buying from them as few things as possible. This meant that the country which had an excess value of exports over imports was “’ prosperous." The difference in trade, or ‘‘ balance of trade,’’ as it was called, would be paid for in coin to the advantage of the nation receiving it. It was all a matter of ‘‘ political arithmetic’’ to increase not so much the wealth of the state, as its power. Furthermore, it was believed that governments might employ any measures, such as bounties on home manufactures, high duties on imports, special rules for making cloth, candles, barrels and pins, and rigid restrictions on colonial business, such as the English Acts of Trade and Navigation, for the purpose of securing this favorable “‘ balance of trade.’ In France a decree of 1700 limited the right to make stockings to eighteen towns. Frederick the Great of Prussia encouraged 30,000 immigrants to settle in Silesia, and, to encourage the spinning of Mercantilism cotton, granted the spinners special privileges. The whole theory of replace by business was based upon a close supervision of industry and trade Soa by the paternalistic state. It was quite logical that most of the mercantilists were champions of the absolute rule of the day as set forth, for instance, in Hobbes’ Leviathan (1651). These ideas prevailed quite generally until towards the end of the eighteenth century, when they gradually gave way to the Jaissez-faire doctrine, which based commercial prosperity on natural law, elevated agriculture as the chief productive industry, and advocated the abolition of the Nig en a PL a 2a Sao TUTTE TTT ER UTChap. IT] THE EXPANSION OF EUROPE oi guilds and the policy of ‘‘hands-off’’ for the state in economic matters. Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations (1776), one of the most important of modern books, is shot through with these new economic theories. The overseas expansion of Europe, in the next place, made way for the Industrial Revolution which occurred during the latter part of the eighteenth and the first part of the nineteenth centuries. The increased demand for goods made in Europe led to a pronounced development of European industries, such as textiles, trinkets for trade with the natives, and the manufacture of new commodities like pottery, hardware, glass, furniture, and leather goods. At the same time an agricultural revolution was taking place, particularly in England. Better farming tools were made. New crops of grain, vegetables, fruits, and nuts were introduced from foreign lands. The European peoples became accustomed to strange articles of food such as maize, sugar cane, potatoes, tomatoes, peanuts, and artichokes. The breeding of horses, cattle, sheep, and swine was improved. These advances in farming, in turn, stimulated the industrial trans- formation. The expansion of Europe and the attendant commercial revolu- tion also produced marked social changes among the European peoples. The introduction of foreign products, such as new articles of food, drink, dress, and ornament raised the standards of comfort, set new fashions in clothing, and encouraged a display of luxury and personal adornment. The larger supplies of food made it possible to support a more numerous population. Tea, coffee, cocoa, and tobacco led to the creation of coffee-houses, smoking-taverns, and other social institutions. The planting of colonies sent a stream of immigrants to the newer parts of the world and thus weakened the home population. Travel to foreign parts was stimulated, and resulted in the increase of knowledge. In Europe serfdom began to disappear, while the lot of the peasant was slowly improved. The middle class increased in number, wealth, and influence until the day was not far off when they would strike for greater political rights. Finally the political results of the expansion of Europe must be noted. Dynastic national states, such as England, Spain, France, Russia and Prussia, began to emerge as the monarchs’ royal resources increased. It was money derived largely from colonies and commerce that enabled the kings to hire officials and soldiers of their own and thus make themselves independent of the feudal lords. But these early dynastic national states were built up on the theory of the divine right to rule, which, in turn, soon resulted in the triumph of secular absolutism. When arbitrary royal autocracy began to threaten the interests of the rising middle class, which had aided the rulers in a mutual war on the hated feudal lords, that class, in self-protection, attacked autocratic monarchy and sought to subject kings to con- stitutional limitations. The merchants and bankers, particularly, TURERERAREERGAANGD RROD DOERR Coming of the Industrial Revolution Social results Political resultspate eet Tar eS Se eee a mee Fe tai a ae EE ae Se es ee ree Sa Eo Political revolutions in the Old World and the New Economic areas of the world BUPNP ATO TEUUOOAOOUAQULUTHUDOUICTPUTOUOUAUOCUTOEUHUHOTOOTR OEIC 18 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. II supported by the lawyers and literary men, sought freedom from arbitrary taxation, and immunity from royal restrictions on the freedom of trade. Out of this agitation developed the “‘contract’’ theory of the origin of society and the state, the Jaissez-faire doctrine of industry and commerce, and the philosophical justification of revolution. An early example of an apparent clash between the middle class and common people, on the one hand, and an absolute monarchy upheld by the aristocracy, on the other, was found in the English Revolutions of the seventeenth century. Although Charles I submitted to the Peti- tion of Right in 1628, which curtailed his rights as king, still his later arbitrary acts provoked Parliament to revolt. The middle-class Puri- tans and townsmen, and many of the yeomanry supported Parliament, while most of the nobility and landlords favored the king. The revolu- tion resulted in the death of Charles Iasa ‘“‘tyrant’’ and ‘‘traitor,’’ and in the creation of the Puritan Commonwealth under Cromwell. The Instrument of Government”’ establishing the Protectorate was the first written constitution ever used by a great state. The new gov- ernment favored the freedom of the press, tried to establish religious toleration, and brought prosperity to the agricultural and commercial classes. But deep-rooted customs and traditions, sentimental loyalty to monarchy, and a reaction against overstrict Puritanism in moral conduct and popular customs brought about the restoration of the Stuart monarchy. It was not long, however, until the absolutism of James II produced the Revolution of 1688. Parliament adopted the Bill of Rights, which ended royal absolutism in England, made an aristocratic Parliament the real governing power, and granted to the people many civil rights. But it must be clearly borne in mind that for a century and a half government in England was in the hands of a small number of the rich and privileged, while on the continent of Europe royal absolutism continued for another century before it began to disappear. The American Revolution of 1776, and the French Revolution of 1789 mark the next advances in the politi- cal organization of the world. These movements will be explained and interpreted in the following chapters. The end of the eighteenth century saw the world divided, ac- cording to economic geography, into three areas: (1) Europe and those regions in the New World colonized by Europeans; (2) eastern Asia, which included China and Japan, unprogressive and isolated; and (3) the rest of the world, some parts of which were under Euro- pean colonial influence, such as India, Australia and South Africa, and other parts of which were unexplored and even unknown, such as the interior of South America, central Africa, and central Asia. This overseas expansion brought Europe into contact with two distinctly different areas: (1) one inhabited by uncivilized peoples like the Indians of America and the Negroes of Africa and (2) the other peopled by civilized groups such as the Hindus, Chinese and | THUSUCAURTUTUEROEEEOROCTRSRAYSEDURSNOUURTUVOVEUNETEVUOUREVTRIGENANNV NTRS eee ee ee ee a eer TTT PeChap. IT] THE EXPANSION OF EUROPE 19 Japanese. In consequence the east and the west were united to a larger extent than is commonly believed. Indeed, historians have not yet stressed sufficiently the reactions of this overseas expansion. The west was affected in thought and life to a far greater degree than appears on the surface. Not only were European and American geographical names sprinkled over the rest of the world, but the world was largely Europeanized in spirit, outlook, and accomplish- ment. Today Europe is merely a portion of this ‘Greater Europe © and the process of ‘‘Europeanization’’ appears to have just begun. But the reactions of the process in the way of extra-European influ- ences on European civilization were nearly as great. It is significant to note contemporary French opinion at the end of the eighteenth century concerning the value to mankind of the expansion of the Old World to the New. In 1782 the Academy of Sciences, Belles-Lettres and Arts of Lyons, France, offered a prize for the best lecture upon the following questions: ‘‘ Has the discovery of America benefited or injured the human race? If it has been a bene- fit, how may these benefits be preserved and increased? If it has been an evil, how are these evils to be remedied?’’ A decade later, for the purpose of discussion, the French Academy asked: ‘‘What has been the influence of America upon the politics, commerce, and manners of Europe?’’ The replies to these questions indicated that it was believed that the discovery of America was an evil because (1) it caused the natives to be slaughtered and enslaved; (2) it carried to Europe unknown pests and diseases; and (@) American gold and silver raised prices more rapidly than wages and hence caused distress and discontent among the workers. The monograph crowned by the French Academy concluded thus: ‘‘America has corrupted our morals, and therefore has been a baneful influence. America has en- couraged vanity, idleness, and love of luxury. That is her crime. he has contributed to the comforts and conveniences of life, and to that extent is entitled to our gratitude. She has supplied our indus- tries with new substances and raw materials; that is her triumph.” In 1923 the Latin American Review sent out a questionnaire asking the same question: ‘‘Has the discovery of America contributed to human happiness?’”’ The replies received indicated a belief that (1) it had harmed the natives; (2) it had introduced Negro slavery; (3) it had increased the danger of war; (4) it had injured France, Italy, and Spain by diverting trade from the Mediterranean to the west; and (5) it had benefited England and Germany by enabling them to gain an ascendency over Latin civilization. REFERENCES FOR FURTHER STUDY Tur ExpaNsION oF EuRoOPE AND THE COMMERCIAL REVOLUTION GENERAL WorkKS *W.C. Assorr, The Expansion of Europe, 2 vols. (1918); R. Murr, The Expansion of Europe (1918); C. Day, History of Commerce (1907); W. CunnincHaM, An Essay on TEPLEPUUURDAREGREODAU ERO TEC DEE Reaction of overseas expansion on the West Contemporary opinion of effect of the expansion of Europe to America Recent Latin- American opinion _—— oem es a ee —— ne CSIOvesUHUTAV VOU AERAUAOAOUULLLAAUTEOOOOO GG 0 UOHHHOOQOQI OO TOORAO OOOH 20 MODERN WORLD HISTORY (Chap. II Western Civilization in its Economic Aspects, 2 vols. (agto); A. T. Manan, The Influence of Sea-Power upon History, 1660-1783 (1898); H. C. Morris, The History of Colonization, 2 vols. (1900); A. ZIMMERMAN, Die Europdischen Kolonten, 5 vols. (1898-1903); * E. P. Curyney, The European Background of American History (American Nation Series, Vol. I) (1904); H. E. Botton and T. M. MarsHaty, The Colonization of North America, 1492-1783 (1920). Works DEALING WITH THE ENTERPRISES OF PARTICULAR COUNTRIES E. G. Bourne, Spain in America (American Nation Series, Vol. IIL) (1904); E. Levasseur, Histoire du commerce de la France, Vol. 1 (1911); F. Parkman, Pioneers of France in the New World (1865); R. G. Tuwatrtes, France in America (American Nation Series, Vol. VIL) (1905); G. B. Matrzson, Héstory of the French in India, 1674-1761 (2d edition 1909); Sir J. R. Segrey, The Expansion of England (1895); G. L. Bggr, Origins of the British Colonial System, 1578-1660 (1908); A. D. Inngs, A Short History of the British in India (1915); H. Rosinson, The Development of the British Empire (1922); *J. E. Giuuespiz, The Influence of Oversea Expansion on England to 1700 (1921); * J. B. Botsrorp, English Society in the Eighteenth Century (1924). = — = Se ee ee a ay we ay oI ta ae ol os tT sam pe ea pee, ha Tet TAT : HUQUNUAT UCD AANTEAYAEAHTEVENATUEATTOUREGVEOPSOENTOAT PEA OOGROEAT UCR PGY TERT PEA TOOT TORRAATT CGT ERR OT TTT TenCHAPTER III THE NEW REGIME IN NORTH AMERICA 1. EurROPEAN ORIGINS In the English colonies of North America there was developed during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries a new social and political order. The European origins of this change centered in (1) the Reformation, which stood for religious freedom; (2) the economic revolution of the sixteenth century, which substituted private competition for common effort; (3) the English Revolution of the seventeenth century, which stressed the political rights of the individual; and (4) the expansion of Europe and the attendant Commercial Revolution, which opened the non-European world to conquest and gave rise to the middle class. Under the influence of these forces, colonists fled from Europe to the New World to escape political tyranny and religious persecution, or went to better their economic lot, or for the sheer joy of adventure. Separated by three thousand miles of water from the homeland, they were left, for generation after generation, to develop their institutions largely in their own way without serious interference from the English government. A freer life in a new land, the rapid increase of wealth, and the victories won in colonial wars, increased their self-confidence, encouraged a spirit of independence, and led them to oppose interference in their affairs by the home government. As a result the colonies gradually came into a conscious realization of their own social, religious, and political separateness from the land of their origin and the government of their allegiance. It was but natural, therefore, that their interpretation of the British constitution began to differ from that of English statesmen. At the same time that Great Britain began to realize that there was a British Empire, these colonials became acutely aware of the inherent conflict be- tween their own economic interests and the commercial purposes of this new imperial policy. 2. British ImperiAL Pouicy Prior to 1763, the attitude of the British government towards the American colonies was one of general neglect rather than rigid supervision. Such control as did exist followed no uniform rule, but differed with each colony. A board of trade created in 1696 and a secretary of foreign affairs had general oversight over colonial matters, while royal governors and their appointees represented the 21 TOPEPUEREOUUUEERV NOUN ERRRIM European origins of the new social and political order in America Contributory factors in the New World British colonial policy before 1763 n> oe eae ee a — ane eer aSee CE a CN — SS eT es a arena, SFA TT Rs ELD INT OEE a Se os ea - a Prosperity of colonial trade Grievances of the southern planters Grievances of the frontiersmen THOTT OTT 22 MODERN WORLD HISTORY (Chap. III crown’s interest in individual colonies. The numerous conflicts between the colonial assemblies and the royal governors resulted, as arule, in a victory for the former. The right of the board of trade to veto colonial laws was seldom used. Although nationalistic historians have painted in glowing color the “‘oppressive acts’’ of the British government in restricting trade and manufacturing in the colonies, still, as a matter of fact, these measures were either laxly enforced or else evaded by smuggling and bribery. Indeed so beneficial to the colonials was the British commercial system before 1763 that a recent writer has called that period “‘the Golden Age of commerce’ for American merchants. It seems clear, therefore, that the long absence of rigid control of colonial commerce by England explains in large measure the hostility of the mercantile classes after 1763, when the British government resolved to introduce new trade regulations. While these new trade regulations were engaging the attention of the northern colonies, where commerce formed one of the chief occupations, another problem confronted the planters of the south, whose capital was invested in the raising of tobacco and rice. To plant and harvest their crops, these planters began to borrow money from British capitalists, who accepted mortgages on the produce for security. At the same time British merchants gave credit to the planters for the purchase of such articles as were needed for the plan- tation life. Thus it soon came to pass that the planters were operat- ing on borrowed money. Asa result the planting class in the colonies found itself in a state of “‘economic vassalage’’ to British merchants. When the British creditors found it difficult to collect their loans, they sought relief from Parliament. The colonial assemblies re- taliated in protests, lax bankruptcy laws, and the issuance of cheap paper money. Consequently the disgruntled, debt-ridden planters of the south gladly joined their protesting mercantile brethren of the north, when after 1763 the British government adopted a new colonial policy. Behind the colonies fronting on the Atlantic, into the interior region stretching from Canada to Florida, had gone bands of the more adventuresome Americans. Among them were English, Germans, and Scotch-Irish. These back-country settlers, imbued with a spirit of self-reliance gained from conflict with the Indians and the wilder- ness, living a simple life on their small farms, were developing a Civilization more distinct and perhaps more democratic than the two groups of colonists already mentioned. Some of these frontiers- men had quarrelled with the colonial governments over representa- tion, justice and taxation, and hence were quite familiar with the burning political questions of the day. Now the new land policy of the British government aroused their resentment. The board of trade of 1761 ordered the governors to grant no more lands, and to dis- courage settlements which might “‘interfere with the Indians”’ , | aE Ua Pea) 7 wae j wae ee | aaaeane nae HE win h HATVAVUITULUTUUUEUUCUUUUUGUUEUEUUSNENOUGEQOSUOSOROGORADERAUUUAUREAATERDVGVTEUCUUESLECUUOUORRESU ORE OST DEG eTChap. III} THE NEW REGIME IN NORTH AMERICA 23 bordering on the colonies. To tiake matters worse, George III in 1763 by royal act closed to settlers all lands west of the Alleghanties to the Mississippi from Florida northward to the fiftieth degree of latitude. All persons who had “‘either willfully or inadvertently seated themselves’’ on reserved lands were ordered to leave. At the same time the purchase of land from the Indians was forbidden. To make matters still worse for these pioneers, all trade with the Indians, including the rich fur trade, was restricted to persons licensed by royal officials. These restrictions on the freedom of trade and settle- ment touched the frontiersmen to the quick. They were not slow, therefore, to give voice to their particular grievances by joining the merchants of the north and the planters of the south in a protest against the new colonial policy of Great Britain. In those days, when transportation and communication were slow and difficult, time and distance were important factors in imperial politics. Isolation and the influences of a frontier environ- ment produced a new type of an American — one who was brave, self-reliant, resourceful, and rather scornful of Old World pretensions. Consequently it was a feeling of economic independence rather than a hatred of economic control that led the colonists to express their defiance. The actual economic grievances were at that time unduly magnified, and were greatly overstressed after the Revolution had been brought to a successful conclusion. A recent writer has said that the British and Spanish colonies were more leniently governed than any others in an age when Europe was dominated by the mer- cantile theory that colonies existed for the benefit of the mother country. The year 1763 marked the end of a victorious war against France by which the British flag was extended to Canada and to the terri- tory within the present boundaries of the United States as far west as the Mississippi. But the war had left the British government staggering under the largest national debt in the history of the country. The first task confronting George III and his ministers, therefore, was the readjustment of public finances. Hence there was devised a new imperial policy which marked a pronounced change in the relations of Great Britain to her North American colonies. The recent war had opened the eyes of the home country, apparently for the first time, to the wealth of the colonies. The new policy was regarded as quite justifiable under the mercantilist theory of that day. It was well known, also, that the old laws regulating industry and commerce had been laxly enforced. It was now proposed to enforce rigidly the old laws, and, in addition, to raise about $750,000 through a series of carefully devised acts of the British Parliament. With little question in Parliament of either their legality or their wisdom, the following measures were passed: 1. An act of 1763 declared void all colonial laws authorizing paper money, or extending the life of outstanding paper bills, by TUVNOTUOHONEOAUOLUNENI ETL Trade with the Indians Time and distance as factors The inaugura- tion of a new tmperial policy Colonial paper money forbiddena RA A eee = FO TTA SEE I BE Pe co Ne Le Sale of western lands limited The Su gar D ur1eS The Stamp Act The Ouebec Act ow E ffects of these acts on colonial public opinion 24 MODERN WORLD HISTORY (Chap. III means of which debts owed to English creditors had been largely annulled. 2. The same year a royal proclamation limited the sale of western lands, forbade settlements on them, and sought to regulate trade with the Indians. 3. The Sugar Act of 1764 was a revenue measure which levied duties on sugar, indigo, calico, silks and other commodities imported into the colonies. Special precautions were taken to enforce the law; and naval, army and civil officials were instructed to see that the duties were collected. The purpose of this measure was stated to be the improvement of the trade between the colonies and the mother country, and the defense of the colonies. 4. The Stamp Act of 1765 required the colonists to use special stamped paper, on which the tax had been paid, for all legal trans- actions, such as deeds, wills, mortgages and notes, and licenses to sell liquor or to practice law. The tax was collected on newspapers, pamphlets and almanacs. Playing cards carried a tax of one, and dice ten shillings. The tax on a college diploma was two pounds. The same administrative machinery devised for the enforcement of the Sugar Act was employed for the collection of a revenue from the Stamp Act. The money raised was to be paid directly to the British treasury. 5. The Quebec Act, in 1774, granted religious toleration to the Catholics in Canada, shoved the southern boundary of Quebec south- ward to the Ohio River, and proposed to set up a government by a viceroy in this western section of the Empire. These acts were the first fairly inclusive taxation measures that Parliament had enacted for the American colonies. It should be pointed out that at the same time Parliament assured to the colonies and some of their products a preferred, even a monopolistic, position in English markets. This new policy of strict imperial control of the colonies, follow- ing a long period of “‘salutary neglect,’’ quickly transformed into action revolutionary ideas that had been growing for a long time. The regulations of trade injured honest traders and smugglers alike, and threatened to ruin the great business houses of the large cities. Hence the merchants of the north took the lead in the protest against the irritating measures. The prohibition of paper money aroused the debt-ridden planters of the south. The farmers and traders of the interior were angered at the attempts to deprive them of their hold- ings and to curtail their traffic with the natives. The Stamp Act not only united the merchant and the farmer but also aroused the ire of newspaper men, lawyers, ministers and bankers. The Quartering Act likewise was interpreted as an attempt to force the colonists into submission. It was not long, therefore, until the merchants were boycotting English goods through ‘‘non-importation agreements ’’; the planters and frontiersmen were clamoring for home rule; the news- LLL HiChap. UI] THE NEW REGIME IN NORTH AMERICA 25 papers were demanding the repeal of the obnoxious laws; the law- yers were denouncing the acts as unconstitutional; the colonial legislatures were insisting upon the ** immemorial rights of English- men’’: and a Stamp Act Congress representing all the colonies was drawing up a declaration of rights including self-taxation and trial by jury. The public mind became feverish, and mobs burned stamp- collectors in effigy and destroyed property. In Boston and elsewhere serious riots broke out against the British officials who tried to sell the stamped paper. These manifestations of resistance to the new imperial policy show that the judgment of John Adams was correct when he wrote: ‘‘The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people’’ and “‘Revolution and union were gradually forming from 1760 to 1776.’ The British Parliament soon revealed a disposition to compro- mise with the stubborn colonists. The Stamp Act and the Sugar Act were repealed, amidst great rejoicing in America. But the other obnoxious measures were left unchanged, and a Declaratory Act announced that the colonies were bound in all cases by the crown and Parliament of Great Britain. Hence in 1767 a second attempt was made to enforce the new imperial policy. The Townshend Acts sought to raise a revenue in the colonies for the support of colonial governors, judges, and other royal officials, as well as for the defense of the colo- nies, by import duties on glass, lead, paints, and tea. The collection of this tax was placed in the hands of British commissioners named by the king and paid out of the British treasury. These customs officers were to be supplied by the colonial courts with search war- rants, which empowered them “‘to search for and seize’ prohibited goods. Violators of the law were to be tried in courts without juries. As soon as news of these acts reached America, the com- mercial classes, whose interests were chiefly imperiled, once more took the initiative in renewing the ‘‘non-importation agreements.” Within a year the imports of Great Britain dropped $3,500,000 and during the next three years not over $80,000 in duties was collected by the royal customs officers. The planters and farmers, with griev- ances of their own, again joined the merchants. Under such leader- ship the proletariat was not slow to supply materials for mob violence. This time Parliament seemed to be determined to force the colo- nies to submission. When the assembly of New York protested against the expense involved in supplies asked for British troops, Parliament suspended the assembly until, after a third election, tt reluctantly obeyed. The royal governor of Massachusetts also dis- solved the assembly of that colony when it refused to rescind a letter addressed to the other colonies condemning the new imperialism, declaring that Parliament had no right to tax the colonies without their consent, asking for a greater degree of home rule, and suggesting some common action to secure their rights. The assemblies of HAH Explanation of John Adams Efforts of the British government to compromise Coercton arouses the colonists Ey ent ee i he oe er eT DED op Bie Ss Bt Yo Oene te eee Tita ais, _ iC Same WE SE SS Nand SS, PAE eR eR =e Pt an a Te ee hae yeiet) a a ony wee SP SEE ys i Naa ae Pe ET ee a a) = PoSSHATHTUHHA OU AOHAUGNADAUUQAOOUGOOAVOQOAAOOGQOUOOOQOQOUOSOOOHNOQ0T 000000000000 0000001000 Radicals take the lead in resistance Retaliatory measures of the British government SERSORERS 26 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. III Maryland, Georgia, South Carolina and Virginia were likewise dis- solved for endorsing similar views. British troops sent to overawe Boston in 1768 were hooted and hissed as *‘lobsterbacks,’’ on account of their red coats. The “‘ Boston Massacre’’ followed in 1770 and the next year a similar distressing event occurred in North Carolina. Then followed the burning of the armed British ship Gaspée in Narraganset Bay. By this time the conflict, guided in the colonies by political agitators aided by the turbulent elements, began to take on the appearance of a righteous crusade for constitutional freedom and natural rights. Finding the Townshend revenue acts a failure, Parliament, in 1770, repealed all the duties except a trifling tax on tea; but there was no thought of relaxing the other commercial regulations. The mercantile classes now ceased their agitation and once more turned their attention to business. Such was not the case with the radicals however. In the commercial colonies Sam Adams started a move- ment to organize committees of correspondence in the towns to unite the laborers of the ports with the farmers of the rural districts for political agitation to secure their rights. In the plantation colonies the burgesses of Virginia created a provincial committee of corre- spondence to voice the grievances of the planters. In 1773 a new tea act passed by Parliament, which gave the powerful East India Com- pany a monopoly over the sale of tea in the colonies, once more led the merchants to countenance the popular agitation. Captains of tea ships were roughly handled in the American ports. At Boston a band of citizens dressed as Indians boarded the tea ships and dumped overboard tea chests valued at $75,000. The Boston tea riot proved to be a crisis in both the mother country and the colonies. New York, under the leadership of the “Sons of Liberty,’’ quickly imitated Boston with a tea party of its own. ‘The die is cast,’’ said King George III. “‘The colonies must either triumph or submit.’’ Lord North held the same view, and even Pitt was ready to support the government in asserting its authority. British merchants saw in this destruction of private property a de- fiance of law which the government could not ignore. The issue was generally viewed as one involving law and order, and not merely trading rights. Parliament proceeded to pass five punitive measures: (1) the port of Boston was closed to outside commerce; (2) the old charter of 1691 in Massachusetts was revoked and the colony made a royal province; (3) persons accused of murder in connection with the enforcement of the law were to be transferred for trial to England or to other colonies; (4) the quartering of troops in Massachusetts towns was legalized; and (5) the boundaries of Quebec were extended to the Ohio River. As great a jurist as Lord Mansfield praised the acts penalizing Massachusetts for its ‘“‘overt act of high treason proceeding from our own lenity and want of foresight.”’ ih CHEE vay TTT We PTT pee i Lee ee eee Te TT ieChap. III] THE NEW REGIME IN NORTH AMERICA 27 3. THe Movement For INDEPENDENCE In the colonies, outside of New England, the Boston ‘‘‘Tea Party’’ met with disapproval by the more respectable people. The moderates even proposed to pay for the tea destroyed and expressed a desire to come to an amicable understanding with the home government. But the ‘“‘Five Intolerable Acts’’ gave the radicals the advantage of leadership, and made compromise difficult. Burke’s doctrine of con- ciliation found few supporters on either side of the ocean. The extremists among the Americans ceased to speak of their “‘rights as Englishmen’’ and began to demand their “‘natural rights as men,’’ which John Locke had used with such telling effect in defending the English Revolution of the seventeenth century, and which the French philosophers were now popularizing. American patriots began to assert that their rights did not depend upon the English constitution, or the royal charters, but upon the “natural, inherent, and inseparable rights of the colonists as men.’’ Even the young Alexander Hamilton, carried away by this idea exclaimed: “‘The sacred rights of mankind . are written ... by the hand of divinity itself, and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.’ The line of cleavage in every colony now became more clearly marked between the moderates, who came to be called Tories by their ene- mies and Loyalists by themselves, on the one side, and the radicals, or Whigs, or revolutionists, on the other. Both parties accepted the call for a test of leadership in an inter- colonial congress. Heated contests occurred in most of the colonies in the election of delegates to the First Continental Congress at Phila- delphia in the fall of 1774, “‘to determine upon wise and proper meas- ures . for the recovery and establishment of their just rights and liberties, civil and religious, and the restoration of union and harmony between Great Britain and the colonies.’’ A petition setting forth their grievances was sent to the king, and the colonists were urged to stand firmly and unitedly for their sacred rights. The revolutionary step was taken of stopping the importation of British goods into America and of putting the enforcement of the measure in the hands of ‘‘committees of safety’’ elected by the people. The Continental Congress did not meet as a revolutionary body. There was no intention to declare for armed resistance and but few extremists dreamed of actual separation from the Empire. The primary object was to uphold the American interpretation of the polit- ical relation of the various local governments to the imperial govern- ment. When this body, through the adroit manipulations of an aggressive minority, was changed into an instrument for the pro- motion of revolution and independence, the moderate men of all classes began to withdraw. With extremists in control, both in England and America, an armed clash was inevitable. Men like Pitt and Burke in England were powerless in their efforts to persuade the PTTL Programs of the Tories and Whigs The First Continental Congress in 1774 ee ee eee eeer See Te SE Bia a he LUE poe on 2 Rae se a a) Nn Ne, ee wees ane -=s The Second Continental Congress The funda- mental issue The Declaration of Independence 1776 Paine's Common Sense ; ‘SSESESEES 28 MODERN WORLD HISTORY (Chap. III government to adopt conciliatory measures, and indeed only en- couraged American opposition. In America the aggressive minority, through effective organization and bold, shrewd maneuvering, forced every man to take a stand either for or against armed rebellion in 1775 and independence in 1776. The appeal to force to settle the controversy, which up to this time had been based on argument, began with Lexington and Concord in April, 1775 — ‘‘the little thing’’ that ended in ‘the great event.”’ The following month the Second Continental Congress met. It assumed the power of government, declared war, appointed Wash- ington commander-in-chief of the army, sent agents abroad for foreign aid, and addressed a final petition to the king. In August George III declared the colonists, ‘‘ misled by dangerous and ill-designing men,’ to be rebels, and hence called upon the civil and military authorities ‘ ee en ee eee aoe a Sea ee es ee a SSP ee TE ES Eee dT 70 PEPERAeeaataae ahha Hel Hil ; o i 1 HULTERT ATTRA] How settled Aristocracy and culture Institutions and industry Africa in 1789 2 A HT iW TPAPLATEAATUEAAA TAR RTAALATTAREALTTETL PATA TALE vee iT reat es ia? aaa TT HH HEE EEE HUAARURERTAO SESS RRA RARORT ESA DAES EeaES AEARea eed etaeaes. MODERN WORLD HISTORY (Chap. III 44 and women seeking new homes, as in the French and English colo- nies, and by missionaries looking for converts to the Catholic reli- gion, by adventurers eager for wealth, and by soldiers of fortune secking glory. The natives were induced in large numbers to accept the Roman Catholic faith, and adopted the manners and customs of the Spaniards and Portuguese with whom they freely intermarried. Settlements were made chiefly along the sea coasts and up the navi- gable rivers, where Latin-American civilization sprang up. In sharp contrast to some of the British colonies, Latin America was saddled with a powerful landed aristocracy, which employed the Indians and Negroes to do the hard labor on the plantations. In culture the Spaniards who went to the New World were not inferior to the French and English settlers, since they had printing-presses and universities at an earlier date. But Latin-American society consisted of half-civilized Indians and Negroes forming a lower class side by side with a highly civilized upper class made up of pure Europeans with a mixed class between them. A solid and prosperous middle class was unknown. The idea prevailed in Spain and Portugal as in other European countries that colonies existed to enrich the mother country and thus increase her power, hence the governmental imperial policy was neither intelligent nor efficient. Greedy and impoverished nobles too frequently were sent out as governors to rule the colonies and they attempted in every way to transplant the corruptions and weaknesses of the old régime at home to the New World. There were no re- ligious freedom, no institutions of self-government, no parliamentary systems, no constitutions, and few opportunities for the poor people to make any material headway. Regions that might have been made as prosperous as the United States, and were to become so later, were exploited and neglected. Abundant excuses were accumulating to justify the Latin-American colonies in throwing off their dependence on the mother lands a generation or two later. Africa, home of the ancient Egyptians and Carthaginians, had little interest for Europeans beyond being a source of profit in Negro slaves, gold, ivory, gums, and spices. The Dutch alone among the European nations had made a settlement on the southern cape. The powers of Europe, engaged in fighting over the supremacy of America and India, had no interest in acquiring Africa. Hence the year 1789 marked a period when, Geographers, in Afric maps, With savage pictures filled their gaps, And o’er unhabitable downs Placed elephants for want of towns. (Swift) The interior of Africa was unknown to the world and indeed aroused no interest. The Encyclopedia Britannica in the third edition stated that ‘‘the Gambia and Senegal rivers are only branches of the Niger.’’ maesTRMLUTTOCUMLALTTUTUUTTHUULIGUOLUUULIDONLAUALUAUUUEUULUUUUUELIAEU DETECTChap. III] THE NEW REGIME IN NORTH AMERICA 45 But the public conscience of Europe and America was awakening to the evils of the horrible African slave trade, and in 1788 the African Association was formed in London to explore the interior of the con- tinent. The Niger was first reached in 1795 by Mungo Park. Except in connection with slavery Africa did not enter into the world prob- lems of the end of the eighteenth century. The partition and ex- ploitation of the Dark Continent was left to the imperialism of the next century. In 1789 Asia, the mighty Yellow Continent, the largest and in civilization the oldest, was still largely unknown. Turkey, ruling the regions of the Near East, or Levant, as a semi-European power, had been brought into close trade relations with the mercantile nations of the west. The Russians were forcing their way by con- quests into northern Asia; and the French and English had taken possession of India. The Portuguese, Dutch, French and English had already made occasional trading trips to China and Japan. Spain and Holland owned islands off the coast of Asia. But to open up China, Japan, Burma, Siam, and other Asiatic regions to the in- fluences of western civilization, to develop lucrative trade relations, to start Christian missionary and educational enterprises, were tasks awaiting the next century. Australia, a vast island continent, was almost unknown until Captain Cook in 1770 made his famous voyage to Botany Bay. Great Britain thought so little of the possibilities of the place that she used it as a region to which to send her undesirable criminals. The first settlement was made by these exiled British convicts at Port Jackson in 1788. Australia retained the status of a penal station for about fifty years before it became an attractive home for colonists. Many of the islands of the seas were still undiscovered in 1789 and others unclaimed and unsettled by any Europeans. Those near Europe were peopled by fisherfolk and small farmers belonging to the different nationalities. In the New World Spain and England controlled most of the islands of any consequences. The Dutch, Spanish, and English took possession of groups of islands like the Philippines and East Indies off the coast of Asia, but little attention was paid to the islands in the south Pacific and the south Atlantic. REFERENCES FOR FURTHER STUDY Tue New Recime in NortH AMERICA E. Caanninc, A History of the United States, Vols. I-III (1902-1905); * C. L. Becker, The Beginnings of the American People (1915); C. L. Becker, The United States an Experiment in Democracy (1922); *C. L. Becxer, The Declaration of Independence (1922); C. M. Anprews, Colonial Self-Government (American Nation Series, Vol. V, 1904); *C. M. Anprews, The Colonial Background of the American Revolution (1925); E. B. Greens, Provincial America (American Nation Series, Vol. VI, 1905); G. L. Begr, British Colonial Policy, 1754-1765 (1907); * C. H. Van Tyne, The Causes of the War of Independence (1922); C. H. Van Tyne, The American Revolution (American Nation Series, Vol. LX, 1905); MULLET Asia in 1789 Australia Occeantaa ee eT a oe 46 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. III C. L. Becxer, The Eve of the Revolution (1918); W. E. H. Lecxy, The American Revolution (reprinted, 1912 from his History of England in the Eighteenth Century, 8 vols. 1878-1890); J. Fiske, The American Revolution, 2 vols. (4891); Sir G. O. Trevetyan, The American Revolution, 6 vols. (1899-1914); *S. G. Fisner, The Struggle for American Independence, E. B. Greene, The Foundations of American Nationality (1922); H. L. Oscoop, The English Colonies in the Eighteenth Century, 4 vols. (1925); A.M. ScHLESINGER, 2 vols. (1908); The Colonial Merchants and the American Revolution (1918); J. B. Perxins, France in the American Revolution (1911); A. Nevins, The American States, 1776-1789 (1923); J. Fiske, The Critical Period of American History (1888); A.C. McLauGuuin, The Confederation and the Constitution (American Nation Series, Vol. X, 1905); * M. Farranp, The Framing of the Constitution (1913); * C. A. Bearp, An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States (1913). Soutn America, Arrica, Asta, and OcEANIA H. C. Morris, The History of Colonization 2 vols. (1900); W. R. SHepHern, Latin ; : w J ? America (1914); B. Mosrs, The Spanish Dependencies in America (1917); W. S. Rosertson, History of the Latin American Nations (1922); Sir H. H. Jonnston, The History of the Colonization of Africa (1913); V.A. Smita, The Oxford History of India (1920); Sir R. K. Douctas, Europe and the Far East, 1506-1912 (1912). ; ; ) J “ J af HUVUAUUUUUUANITOGESAUAUUGTALATESUNEITEUGSRAOUGORLEOOOHATESTOGUTCESAOT ONT AGAT AATTTaTPexckene 1 EFFORTS TO ESTABLISH A NEW REGIME IN EUROPE PEVONVUQUNTOQNIUONIONT UL f j Pee ant a Ne eee cake ee aAVEAULEERRRERTTUEAU AES SHA EEUAU TESA RA Aa a er ae NE eh eT —* | I) a | a = a a 4 ORT LE ee ESE EM EIT Se eS Ee Td DIAVAAAOEEQEQUEVEUUULEALUIRDASESERGAUEUOSREUUCUUCCTUAUOGOGSNOCUETEESUEUULATOSERUGGATENUOUUCEULLARUGESUOOES RST TCT aTCHAPTER DV: THE OLD REGIME IN EUROPE 1. PotiTicAL CONDITIONS IN THE VARIOUS STATES Europe in 1789 was made up of a medley of states, large and small, strong and weak, dependent and independent. In the west, Great Britain, France, Spain, Portugal and Holland had about the same boundaries as at present, but Belgium belonged to Austria. In the north, Denmark and Norway were united, and Sweden included Finland. In central Europe, Prussia was the rival of Austria within the Holy Roman Empire, a loose confederation of several hundred small German principalities and free cities. To the south of it lay Italy also broken up into about a dozen kingdoms, duchies and city states, with the Papal States in the center. Between Germany and Italy the Swiss cantons maintained an independent existence. East- ward from Prussia and north of Austria was Poland, a country larger than either of them; and east of Poland was mighty Russia compris- ing the greater part of the continent. The small Balkan states, as we know them, were in 1789 all under Turkey whose European territory extended northward to the borders of Austria and Russia. There was no uniformity in political institutions in Europe, for every kind of government was represented. On the continent the most powerful states were all autocratic monarchies. Various types of republics existed in the smaller and weaker states — federal re- publics in Holland and Switzerland; aristocratic city republics in Venice and Genoa; a republic with an elective king in Poland; and the free cities of the Holy Roman Empire. A truly democratic state in the modern sense did not exist in the Old World on the eve of the French Revolution. All ‘‘agencies of popular government”’ such as the States General in France and the Cortes in Spain had long been inactive in 1789. The vast majority of the people lived under absolute monarchs and had no voice whatever in governmental matters. Great Britain, a constitutional monarchy with a representative Parliament and a limited franchise, had the reputation of being the freest country in the Old World. But in 1789 George III, an obstinate, tactless, autocratic monarch who had been king for thirty years and was destined to rule as many years more, was opposing Parliament and seeking to rule personally like his brother sovereigns on the conti- nent. In this ambition he found ready tools in the Tory party, who had replaced the more progressive Whigs, and controlled the govern- ment well into the nineteenth century. The lack of statesmanlike 49 " athe The states of Europe Wide variety in governments PUVA | | SS Deg eeSee Sree ee na ae ames x ~ SS eee Ba ee = te ag ae st 8 oe eres ee owe: ts The Holy Roman Empire 50 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. IV vision of George III and Lord North provoked the American colo- nies to revolt and threatened the principle of self-government at home. Whig leaders like Pitt, Fox, and Burke gloried in the re- bellious spirit of the colonists, and felt that their success saved parlia- mentary rule athome. Although French thinkers regarded the British government as a model, the French government was its inveterate foe. France aided the victorious American colonists and scored a profitless revanche tor her losses in the French and Indian War (1754-1763). Revolutionary France, whether republican or Napoleonic, found in Great Britain its most determined enemy. The spirit of reform seemed in 1789 as promising in Great Britain as in France, but it was frightened away by the tumult across the channel and did not return for several generations. A. Holy Roman Empire The Holy Roman Empire in central Europe, commonly called Germany, consisted of about 360 states, large and small, loosely held together by the Hapsburg emperor chosen by nine electors. Most of the little states, owned by nobles and church officials, held their titles directly from the emperor. The more than fifty free cities managed their own affairs directly under imperial authority. Certain states, like Bavaria, Wirttemberg, Saxony, and Hanover, were of some conse- quence, but Bavaria was a traditional ally of France; the electors of Saxony often had the doubtful honor of being kings of Poland; and Hanover was ruled by a regency under George III of England. Only two states in the whole Empire, Prussia and Austria, were of first- class importance in the affairs of Europe. The result was, that, in spite of its grand titles of ‘‘Holy’’ and ‘‘Roman’’ and its large size and population, the Empire was one of the weakest political organiza- tions in the Old World. Its emperor was a gorgeous figurehead re- flecting past splendors, but with no power to secure obedience at home or to play a forceful part abroad. The imperial Diet, represent- ing the princes and free cities, met regularly, but its voice was as weak as that of the emperor, while the imperial tribunal was little more than a name. Except in the free cities, the people had no share in either local or imperial government. The princes alone knew how to profit by the national prostration of Germany. Having robbed the imperial government of power, they set up petty tyrannies with their own little armies, filled their palaces with scraping attendants, and crushed their subjects with burdensome taxes. These German princelings were jealous of their own rights and eager to annex their neighbor’s territory by marriage alliances or war. There was little national consciousness or patriotism, and less desire for the realiza- tion of German nationality under any one state. Indeed Germany had to wait nearly a century before the transformation came. To make matters worse, each of the two larger states in the Empire LUTTE ae LUULEUESUETUUAAAEALET ECU UVEEUUGATOALA A TTLESEEER EAA ETChap. IV] THE OLD REGIME IN EUROPE 51 sought to rule and to take advantage of the chaotic state of affairs in Germany for its own selfish ends. B. Kingdom of Prussia The Kingdom of Prussia in 1789 ranked eighth in size and sixth in population among the European states. It had been cemented together around Brandenburg under the Hohenzollerns whose policy, transmitted from one ruler to another, was to increase their dynastic power by breaking down all opposition at home and by uniting and enlarging their domain at the expense of their neighbors. In this way Prussia became larger and larger, and the government grew more and more autocratic, while the army was increased and the economic resources of the country expanded to the utmost limits. Frederick II, called the Great, ended his long reign in 1786. Through a series of wars he doubled Prussia in size and population, industries were en- couraged, marshes were drained, forests cleared for farms, and over 200,000 immigrants were induced to settle in 800 villages on the re- claimed lands. The code of laws was recast and religious freedom was granted to all persons, even to the Jesuits who were driven out of Catholic countries. This monarch took a keen interest in literature and learning, invited thinkers like Voltaire to visit his court, and founded elementary schools for his subjects; but his greatest pride was in the army, disproportionately large for a state of such limited resources. It enabled him to seize Silesia from the young queen, Maria Theresa, and to add by conquest a part of Poland. “My soldiers were ready; my purse was full,’’ he boasted and summed up his political morality in these words: “Take what you can; you are never wrong unless you are obliged to give back.’’ “‘If there is any- thing gained by it, we will be honest; if deception is necessary, let us be cheats.’’ ‘‘Form alliances in order to sow animosities’’ and break them when it ‘“‘suits your interest.’’ It should be said, however, in justice to Frederick II, that this moral standard was typical of the rulers of Europe at that time. His government was an absolute, though “‘enlightened,’’ despotism. ‘“‘There is only one person in the kingdom, that is myself,’’ he wrote, ‘‘ whose duty it is to see, to think, and to act for the whole community.’’ His statement ‘I am the first servant of the state,’’ shows a conception of government widely different from that embodied in Louis XIV’s supposed declaration that he was the state. This autocracy was supported by a powerful privileged nobility, while the masses were rigidly excluded from all share in government — except the payment of taxes and a place in the ranks of the army. Frederick William Il who succeeded to the throne in 1786 was well educated, deeply religious, and at the outset of his rule popular with the people because he lightened taxes, favored internal improvements, and encouraged German as the literary lan- guage instead of French. But his ministers were incompetent, reli- gious freedom was curtailed, the army was neglected, and the foreign POVEQTOWCQTOAUONUN LAV OV OY Lox The Kingdom of Prussia ‘ i i pee a oe! ee ws oe SeHity THAR WH THT a BRESERUGAUROESE 52. MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. IV policy was weak. He had neither the ability nor the character of Frederick the Great, and his private life, like that of many rulers of the day, was grossly immoral. C. Austrian Kingdom Austria under the Hapsburgs had played a conspicuous role in European history for centuries. There was no Austrian nation, no national patriotism, and no territorial unity. The Hapsburg domin- ions were widely scattered over Europe and included 24,000,000 Germans, Hungarians, Bohemians, Italians, Poles and Netherlanders. The Austrian No other country in Europe, except Turkey, contained such a mixture a As of different racial groups with their own self-conscious interests and : institutions. To add to the political complications, part of the Austrian monarchy was within and part without the Holy Roman Empire, of which the Austrian archduke and king of Bohemia was also the head. Despite these drawbacks, the Hapsburg house in 1789 was a powerful factor in European affairs. Under an absolute rule, it hid its weaknesses and paraded before the world as one of the great powers. For forty years prior to 1780 Austria was ruled by Maria Theresa, a wise, politic sovereign, an ardent Christian, and a pure woman in an age when loose morals were fashionable. She sought to preserve her domain against the greed of Frederick the Great, and was tempted to participate in the shameful partition of Poland in 1772 to offset Reign of Maria her loss of Silesia to Prussia. She welded together an efficient army. Theresa The papal bull suppressing the Jesuits was enforced and the privileges of the religious orders were reduced in the interest of strong govern- ment. An elaborate system of elementary and secondary schools was projected and the universities were reorganized. The work of in- ternal reform was begun but its completion was left to her son, Joseph II, who succeeded her in 1780. He had been emperor of the Holy Roman Empire since 1765 but was now free to become a genuine ruler. He was perhaps the best type of a “benevolent despot”’ in all Europe. Widely read, acquainted with Europe through extensive travel, and experienced in governmental matters, he ascended the Austrian throne with convictions that set him apart as the most modern monarch of his day. Frederick the Great described him as ambitious and capable of setting the world on fire but one who always Reforms of took the second step before he ‘took the first. Although a champion Joseph Il of absolutism, yet he was a friend of religious toleration, and wished to reduce the power of the church, to relieve the oppressed peasants of their feudal burdens, to continue the educational reforms of his mother, and to bring happiness and prosperity to his people. He meant to be a wise despot acting for the good of all. The tremen- dous reform program which he sought to carry out during his reign of ten years was a revolution by royal edicts. It included the fol- lowing: ee A ork te — A TE vee oS ET ee ee 7 — TTT TTTChap. IV] THE OLD REGIME IN EUROPE 53 1. Politically, he meant to get rid of local assemblies and to unite all portions of his Empire under the imperial government. Hence he divided his dominions into thirteen provinces, each under a military commander, with counties and townships as administrative subdivi- sions but managed from Vienna. German was proclaimed as the official language of the realm. The Hungarian crown of St. Stephen was Catried to Vienna. These changes encountered local hostility at once, which showed itself in revolts in the Austrian Netherlands and the Tyrol, and angry protests from Bohemia and Hungary. 2. Socially, he endeavored to curtail the powers of the nobles and to uplift the lower classes, so that all should be equal under his benevolent guidance. He decreed that all serfs should become free men with the right to marry without the lord’s consent, to sell their lands, and to pay fixed rents instead of feudal dues and forced labor. The burden of taxation was placed on nobles and peasants alike. Every child was to be given a free elementary education. Industry and trade were encouraged. All were to live contentedly under his fatherly care. The nobles complained that they were being robbed of their property and privileges, and the peasants failed to appreciate what was being done for them. 3. Territorially, he desired to extend his dominions eastward to the Black Sea and southward to the Adriatic, while he planned to exchange the distant Austrian Netherlands for near-by Bavaria. The first project led.to a series of disastrous wars and the second was checkmated by Frederick the Great. 4. He sought to subject the church to the state by confiscating ecclesiastical lands, by nominating bishops, by altering the forms of worship, and by training the clergy in secular schools. At the same time Jews and Protestants were given the same civil rights as Catho- lics. These acts aroused the defiant opposition of the clergy at home and of the pope at Rome together with many of the faithful laity. The result was that the excellent reform measures of Joseph I, interfering with old customs and practices, produced discontent in all parts of the Empire, while his foreign policy of aggrandizement awakened the suspicion of neighboring states. When he died in 1790 it was said that he was loved by none and hated by many of his sub- jects. Abroad he met military disaster; at home his people were in a state of rebellion. On his deathbed the defeated imperial reformer, deserted by officials and relatives alike, lamented: “‘After all my troubles, { have made but few happy and many ungrateful.’’ He ordered the recall of most of his reforms and dictated as a suitable epi- taph for himself this sad statement: “‘ Here lies the man who, with the best intentions, never suoceeded in anything.’’ But he accomplished more than he thought for some of the edicts on serfdom were positive gains and the people were led to think of a better civilization for Austria, although they had to wait nearly a hundred years for its realization. it Hiaetihyy} Political reforms Social reforms Imperialism Religious reforms Results of reform efforts TOTOQUNT OAT OT UHL - i i Bmw es eR ES hae ae ai. PEGSED. PAPEETE TEED Hit eEaeih 54 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. IV D. Italy in the Eighteenth Century Italy, even more than Germany, was only a ‘‘ geographical name’’ —a collection of small states without any unity and almost uncon- scious of a sense of nationality. These little states were the constant prey of powerful neighbors like Spain, France, and Austria. The Conditions in Peer were brow-beaten, timid, and hopeless, and consequently tary had little love for their own governments except possibly in Pied- mont, Tuscany, Genoa, and Venice. In 178g several states were under dynasties cae upon them from abroad, which of course irritated and alienated the people. For a period of thirty-five years prior to 1789 Italy enjoyed a period of peace under her petty paternal despots. During that time industry was encouraged, and some experiments were made in economic reforms. In Lombardy, for instance, under Austrian rule, sean was improved, taxation reformed, and education foreased vhile a degree of local self-government was granted to the nob ie and the clergy. Joseph II hoped to include this region in his scheme for modernization, and did abolish feudal privileges, diminish clerical power, render criminal law more humane and eliminate torture. In Tuscany under the Hapsburg prince, Leopold, farming was patronized and swamps reclaimed. Parma and the two Sicilies were ruled by Charles III, a Spanish Bourbon. Genoa and Modena were under the protection of the French. The Papal States under a feeble ecclesiastical rule occupied the center of Italy. The only feeling of unity in Italy was in her glorious past. The ferment of ideas which preceded t he French Revolution was felt by a few patriots. ‘The day will come,”’ said Alfieri, the hater of tyrants, ‘hen the Italians will be born again, audacious on the field of battle.’’ Beccaria urged the reform of the barbarous criminal code. Volta gave the worl ld his experiments in electricity. Political econ- Hope for omists in Tuscany were pointing the way tow ards the Industrial dic et Revolution. Historians were extolling the heroic epochs of former days. A French writer observed: “The Italians are far more re- markable because of what they have been and because of what they might be than because of what they now are." E. Russian Empire Russia, the last nation of Europe to emerge as a great power, was in 1789 ine largest and most populous, but also the least adv anced, of all the countries. The Russian Slavs, partly orientalized by the Asiatic Mongols, threw off the yoke of their masters and in turn became the conquerors of northern Asia. Under Peter the Great (4672-172 5) they were brought into touch with western civilization. By 1789 Russia was one of the states that had to be taken into account in all The Russian European affairs. Catherine II, a German princess, who had married Empire the half-insane Tsar Peter III, connived in his deposition and murder, and assumed the crown herself. She was a strong-willed, witty Se Ry Ears Ps OM TT ae ee iy HAVA VOUETOAUTAAUTESSHARIATEQSESORITTEUESBHOTINOESUOGATIATOOTOCOVILERAUUUOSHIAVTOTETOGINTAVETUONOOATITHOUOQESHTOESRTAGAHVITTT EQ 11 iChap. IV) THE OLD REGIME IN EUROPE 55 woman of loose morals, who learned the Russian language, became a member of the Orthodox Church, and slighted her German relatives to ingratiate herself with the Russian people. For thirty-five years she ruled with a firm hand and continued the work begun by Peter the Great. She patronized learning and literature, invited literary men such as Diderot to her court, and had a passion to westernize Russia. She ruled autocratically but in a modern spirit, made excel- lent administrative reforms, subjected the church to the state, and followed an aggressive foreign policy. The outlet on the Baltic Sea was safeguarded. Poland was utterly destroyed by dismemberment, the largest share going to Russia. Constantinople, the “open win- dow ’”’ on the south, was not secured, but Catherine obtained the Crimea, and the northern shores of the Black Sea from the Dniester to the Caucasus. The submerged Balkan nationalities looked to Russia for deliverance, and a treaty in 1774 gave her the right to pro- tect Christians throughout the Ottoman Empire, a pretext found convenient in future years for interference in Turkish affairs. With this treaty begins the problem of the Near East. F. Spain Spain in 1789 had just come under the rule of Charles IV (1788- 1808), whose father, Charles III (1759-1788), was one of the most sincere and most successful of the *‘ enlightened despots.’’ Throughout the latter’s long reign he devoted himself to advancing the material prosperity of his people. Roads and bridges were built, swamps were drained, immigration from other lands was encouraged, industry and shipping were developed, and the oppression of the peasants by the nobility was checked. The dense cloud of sloth and ignorance that had settled down on the land was lifted and Spain was moving for- ward rapidly to a prominent place in world affairs. The Jesuits were expelled, restrictions were placed on the other religious orders, and the Inquisition was subjected to the secular courts. Charles Ill was an autocrat and the people were excluded entirely from all share in government. His foreign policy was less wise than his domestic policy. Disliking England and desiring to recover Gibraltar, he entered the ‘‘Family Compact’’ with the king of France and in 1761 and again in 1778 he joined France in war against Great Britain. In the latter conflict he recovered Minorca and Florida, but the creation of the Republic of the United States incited a desire for independence in the Spanish colonies. In sharp contrast to his great father, Charles IV was stupid, and despotic without being intelligent. The reform program was abandoned and all liberal tendencies were suppressed. The French Revolution dissolved the “‘Family Compact’’ and left Spain weak and helpless in foreign relations. The next century saw little improvement. CHEE Spain under Charles III and Charles IVFR a RE SP Ae ES Ee ae Eo Tae ee he > eT re HTT a! ERERGEERRRCEREEE ATED { Sad conditi on of Po la Né ] Partition of Poland Sweden POTEET ey Ta TL 56 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. IV (>. Poland Poland in 1789 appeared on the map to be a large and populous state. Nomunally it wasa Republic with a representative parliament and an elective king, but its political institutions were weak and unstable rendering it an easy victim to the three grasping gs monarchies surrounding it. Its boundaries were unprotected; its population was a mixture of Pol es, Jews, Lithuanians, Cossacks, and Ruthenians; and four religions divided its people into bitter factions. But worst of all the land was owned | by the great nobles, called magnates, who lived in luxury, selfishly euarding their own interests, while the people were degraded into a state of wretched serfdom that scarcely had a parallel in all Europe. To add to these difficulties, the political institutions were illiberal and pernicious. The aristocracy monop- olized all power and had no thought for the welfare of the nation. The reign of every newly elected monarch was disfigured by foreign intrigues and domestic squabbles. The nobles secured bribes for themselves and wrung from the king-elect such concessions as reduced the kingship to an impotent figurehead. The absurd ‘‘liberum veto’’ of the constitution permitted any single magnate to veto any act of the parliament which he believ ed prejudicial to his interests. This virtually permitted any one of 40,000 nobles to refuse to obey a law he did not like and amounted to political anarchy. When patriotic Poles sought to reform the constitution, Russia, Prussia, and Austria intrigued to prevent it. Under these conditions it was an easy matter for these three powers to agree deliberately upon the first division of their helpless victim in 1772, when about one fourth of Poland was divided among them. Fora while this penalty for their weakness stung the Poles to attempt political reforms, but their greedy despoilers blocked every effort. In 1793 occurred the second and most criminal of all the partitions by Russia and Prussia, and with a third partition in 1795 Poland disappeared from the map of Europe. ee and desperately did the Poles resist, but ““freedom shrieked when Ko- sciusko fell.’’ These ty es acts of eighteenth-century diplomacy, were plain theft and po litical villainy of the most offensive kind. Poland continued to be the “‘sorest spot’’ in Europe and all men everywhere, who loved justice, wished tosee the crime of 1793 avenged by the restoration of a Poland strong and free. H. Scandinavian Countries Sweden at the beginning of the eighteenth century was one of the great powers of Europe whose territories almost made the Baltic a Swedish lake. By the close of the century, however, she had lost all her lands east and south of the Balticto Russia and Prusssia and had become a second-rate power. In 1789 Sweden was a limited monarchy like Great Britain with a constitution that vested supreme power in IVI RELUCLUEEOTAATREOOTAATLCESLEGNEAAHAAT LETTE TeChap. IV] THE OLD REGIME IN EUROPE 57 the Riksdag representing the four estates of nobles, clergy, burgesses, and peasants. To protect the lower orders, laws had to have the consent of three of the four estates. A secret committee of the estates exercised supreme executive, judicial, and legislative functions. The king was little more than a crowned puppet. Two powerful factions, the “‘Caps’’ representing the people and the ‘‘Hats’’ the aristocracy, contended for mastery in the country. In 1789 the king was Gustavus III (1771-1792), an able monarch, who before his death held the balance of power in his own hands. He reserved the right to summon the estates and to dismiss them, and to indicate measures for their discussion; but the Riksdag levied taxes and granted money, which guaranteed it a certain amount of independence. The Act of Union and Security in 1789 gave the king a free hand in foreign affairs, and command of the army. Accused of seeking to ape the absoute monarchs of the day, he was removed by assassination. Denmark and Norway in 1789 were joined under one hereditary, absolute monarch, but the latter with its 700,000 free peasants was regarded as a dependency. Christian VII (4766-1808), a semi-idiot, left the government in the hands of a council of state composed of the progressive Crown Prince Frederick, and a group of able, enlightened men like Bernstorff and Reventlow, who introduced a whole series of excellent reforms. In 1788 serfdom was abolished and the peasants became independent farmers. The Negro slave trade was forbidden. Jews were granted civil rights. The whole system of justice was changed so as to give the poor people an opportunity to defend their rights. The Danish press was the freest on the continent. Commerce was stimulated by free trade. 1. Holland Holland in 1789 was in name a federal Republic ruled by an hered- itary stadtholder, William V (1766-1795), and a representative body called the States General. But the machinery of the constitution was creaking with age and the republic was on the verge of being replaced by a monarchy, when the French Revolution swept it away. For some years prior to 1789 Prussian arms, with the consent of the British government, protected William V against the discontented Dutchmen. The towns and states enjoyed a large measure of self- government, and sent their representatives to the States General. The pcople were comparatively prosperous. Serfdom was practically unknown and the peasants were free to choose their own ways of living. The press was free, and education was widely distributed among the people. J. Switzerland Switzerland in 1789 had the honor of being the oldest Republic inthe world. It was aconfederacy of thirteen cantons and its popula- tion consisted of Germans, French and Italians, divided into two THETHTPT UHRA EA ARR AR AER E Lae Denmark and Norway HollandNee ee ee er are Sere ae Pimee By ap Ay ww ter At 2 Sr Oe at nam SS re ET a a a Switzerland Government autocratic finance International morality low | 58 MODERN WORLD HISTORY (Chap. IV religious camps, Protestant and Catholic. Since the separate cantons were sovereign, the national Diet was so weak that it was impossible to make much progress. Aristocratic tendencies were strong, and the right to vote and to hold office was in the hands of a small class. For instance, 69 out of 360 burgher families in Berne formed the ruling oligarchy in 1789. The cities despised the rural districts, de- prived them of political rights, and levied taxes on them. Neverthe- less, compared with other countries, the Swiss were freer, happier, and enjoyed religious liberty and freedom of speech to a greater de- gree than any other people on the continent. Moreover Switzerland was a place of refuge for the political exiles of other lands and the resort of scholars like Gibbon and Voltaire. K. Summary of Political Institutions A survey of the political conditions of Europe in 1789 shows: 1. LIhat all the states were governed either by autocrats or by aristocracies. Nowhere had a true popular government been estab- lished. Everywhere the few ruled for the good of the few and not for the welfare of the many. The modern idea that government is instituted for the advantage of all the people might have been found in the writings of some of the scholars, but it was not put into actual practice. On the contrary the belief prevailed that it was the primary concern of the state to enlarge its territories, to increase its power, and to secure the welfare of the princes and the privileged classes. 2. That national finances were grossly mismanaged. There was of course no scientific budget such as all modern states have, and no accounting to the people of the receipts and expenditures. England alone had a budget. On the continent most taxes provided certain forms of exemption for the nobles and even the middle class. The crushing burden fell upon the common people, who could least afford to pay. The funds were too often spent for extravagant courts, pal- aces, setvants, pensions, diplomacy, armies and navies, and foreign wars as well as for the legitimate governmental expenses. Under this system deficits were common, and were met by loans at high interest rates, which helped to eat up the income. The whole financial system was vicious, unjust, and demoralizing; and the peoples were groaning in despair under the burden. 3. That international relations were conducted on the lowest moral plane. Diplomacy was an unprincipled and unscrupulous game. The state stood for power, not justice and right. The greatness of a State was judged by its extent, its colonies and wealth, and the size of its army and navy, and not by its character, its general prosper- ity, its free institutions, and the intelligence of its people. To take advantage of the helplessness of a neighbor by seizing its land was justified as shrewd politics. To combine with other rulers to rob a state was wise statesmanship. “‘He who gains nothing, loses,’ wrote Catherine the Great; and Frederick the Great thought that it UUChap. IV} THE OLD REGIME IN EUROPE do was a ‘mistake to break your word without reason’’ simply because it gained you ‘‘the reputation of being light and fickle.’’ Interest, not honor, dictated the making and breaking of international agree- ments. Land-grabbing was developed into a fine art. No state was secure so long as it was not strong enough to defend itself against any foe, for no state had any rights which other states were duty bound to respect. The European monarchs claimed to rule by the authority of Almighty God — “‘divine right “* it was called — but their state- craft, their secret alliances, their aggressive wars, their jealoustes and suspicions of one another, their broken promises, and their robberies lead one to conclude that their rule was by “‘satanic right.”’ 4. That under the old régime in Europe everything rested funda- mentally on force and the whim of the sovereign, not on law, justice, and right. Hence the smaller and weaker powers were always at the mercy of the larger and stronger. In principle the upholders of the old régime professed to respect the established order, and indeed it was in the preservation of these very institutions and traditions that their own safety lay, yet they were the very ones who violated them. Silesia was stolen by Prussia, with the aid of France, not only in open violation of the legal rights of Austria, but in direct violation of promises to preserve them for no other reason than that Frederick the Great wanted it. In the crime of Poland, Prussia, Russia, and Austria shamelessly dismembered one of the largest states in Europe, merely because it was too weak to defend itself against their greed. Napoleon had many illustrious precedents to warrant his continu- ance of these practices. 2. EuROPEAN SOCIETY A. The Nobility Society in Europe in 1789 was so different from what it is today that the conditions then are difficult to describe. The people on the continent were feudally stratified into nobility, clergy, burghers, peasants, partly free and partly serfs, and day laborers in the cities and villages. In importance the nobility ranked next to the ruling princes. All Europe was subdivided into estates of varying sizes which belonged to members of the ruling families and to the nobles. The mediaeval manor and the feudal lord still characterized the civilization, and formed a showy and vital part of it. Although these noble land- owners in France and Spain had been subjected to royal authority and largely shorn of their political power, nevertheless they clung more tenaciously to their hereditary social and personal rights and privileges, which distinguished them from the common people, and too often became tyrants over the serfs or tenants on their estates. The noble class numbered 100,000 in France, 180,000 in Poland, and possibly 750,000 in all Europe. A traveller going from Paris to Rome HEEL Status of the weaker states Society feudalized Importance of nobiltty= eS oe ee a = — Sp oreae eeteoneae isan eerett og renee Maid a i at a ne ty 7 POUUUATOAHTUOUT LAAT HUGH TVVHTTOG LSTA TTTGAT English nobility Nobility in France Nobility in central Europe TTT] UR 60 MODERN WORLD HISTORY (Chap. IV or from Madrid to Moscow would seldom be out of sight of the castles of the nobles, and would see them at all important gatherings dressed in their velvet coats, silk stockings, feathered caps and high- heeled boots, carrying swords and presenting a lordly bearing. In England the feudal castles had been converted into country dwellings of the aristocracy. The law did not give to any nobleman, however blue his blood or long his pedigree, special privileges not enjoyed by every freeman. The lords as a distinct noble class formed but a small part of the 14,000,000 people in 1789. The peers included all those whose title permitted them to sit in the House of Lords and to transmit this right to their eldest sons. But these peers paid taxes and were subject to the laws like any other subject. Only the eldest son of such a noble inherited his rank and property, while on the continent as a rule all the children of a lord belonged to the noble class and shared in the family property. Thus in England the number of nobles was restricted, and their social rank aroused but little hatred, although their enormous holdings in land caused much com- plaint. The petty nobles, or landed gentry, except for an occasional ‘Sir,’’ without any titles like “‘“von’’ and “‘de’’ on the continent or special privileges, were more numerous and still constituted an im- portant social and economic factor, because they gradually drove out the small farmers or yeomen. The nobility and gentry monopolized the important offices in the county and borough governments as well as those in the army, navy, church and state. The French nobility constituted a privileged class, exempt from some of the heaviest taxes on the ground that they paid their taxes with their swords. They enjoyed a preference in royal appointments to honorable and lucrative positions. They still retained many of the feudal dues of their mediaeval ancestors. Since traditional class distinctions excluded them from ordinary business, although they might enter the learned professions, they claimed a certain social superiority and showed it in their dress, manners, and speech. Un- like the English, the French lords cared little for life in the country, so all who could afford it turned their estates over to overseers and lived at the royal court, where they gave themselves up to pleasures and to scheming for pensions and profitable sinecures. Few of the noble families could actually trace an unbroken line back to the Middle Ages, but had secured their titles from the king for some service or had bought an office that carried with it a noble rank. In central Europe, however, the German nobles more nearly resembled those of mediaeval times than anywhere else. The emperor was too weak to deprive them of political power as had been done by the stronger monarchs of France and Spain. Hence throughout the Holy Roman Empire, except on the Prussian and Austrian royal domains, the local lords were the real rulers. Thousands of them — powerful counts, barons, margraves, and the lesser nobles known as knights, some with an estate no larger than a good-sized farm, lived FAOIHAUILUCUUUASSHATALEANTAEUASUOTO EET ELOSRAEOUTEETOOUTRSOOAU TTT ESEERH LESTEChap. IV] THE OLD REGIME IN EUROPE 61 in their strong castles, levied taxes, collected their feudal tributes, held courts, coined money, kept their little armies, and ruled with a strong hand. Most of their time was consumed in fighting with their neighbors. In Prussia and Austria the nobles had lost much of their political power, but were exempt from many of the taxes, and still played an important role. Elsewhere in Europe — in Russia, Poland, Italy, Scandinavia, and Spain — the status of the aoble class was somewhat similar to that already described and constituted an important part of the old régime. In all these countries the king was the chief noble to whose favor almost all lords owed their titles, rank and privileges, conse- quently they were as a rule loyal to him and to his policies. No doubt there were many good nobles scattered over Europe, who were deeply interested in their people and sought in various ways to help them, but usually the attitude of the common people towards them was one of hatred for the advantages that blood or office gave them and for the heavy burdens that had to be borne to support the social drones. In Hungary and Poland the feudal lords were harsh and exacting. In Russia the noble families numbered 140,000, and the lords secured all the good offices in the army, church, and state, enjoyed certain monopolies, and enforced their despotic will over the serfs with the knout and threats of banishment to Siberia. B. The Middle Class The middle class in Europe in 1789 was coming into more promi- nence every year. In England it was composed of (1) the younger sons of the peers, who entered business or secured an office or took up a profession, and their sons; (2) the country gentry whose property gave them a place between the nobility and the working classes and enabled them to become the ruling power in politics and business if not in society; and (3) the merchant classes who by thrift and frugality, or a stroke of good fortune, were able to accumulate enough wealth to be fairly independent and to give their sons a still better start in the world. Nowhere on the continent did a middle class exactly like that in England exist. In Holland, Norway, Sweden, the free cities of the Holy Roman Empire, Switzerland, Genoa and Venice, the burghers, consisting of the tradespeople and the profes- sional men, formed the dominant class. In France the middle class included the bankers, manufacturers, shop keepers, traders, lawyers, doctors, literary men, and many governmental officials. They were not large numerically although much more numerous than the nobles, but many of them were wealthy and through their wealth powerful. Again and again they were called upon to lend money to the im- poverished king and nobles, and thus were able to obtain special favor for themselves. Nota few of them, by purchase or appointment to office, secured noble rank and with it privileges. At times the daughter of a rich banker or lawyer might even marry into the family PETE Nobility elsewhere in Europe The middle class in England Middle class on the continent ed " a _ oath steam han Siaaneeerseeet el ee ne Oe eel - Ts RL eee ee beemer eet ES eK mer Se . * ee ee me a aE ee are tae a a ae ss Pa ee Aa a TUTTRHHTATTRAEEAR EAGT OT EGE Towns and czh ies Working classes a} ‘? { ue fe nee Thi ; ne HUTT HII TUE 62 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. IV of a nobleman to save it from bankruptcy. It was this class rather than the poor peasants in France that brought on the French Revolu- tion and guided it through its earlier and later stages. In Russia, Hungary, Prussia, Austria, and Spain an influential middle class scarcely existed. The middle class lived in the cities a the towns, many of which were much the same as in the Middle Ages, except larger in popu- lation. The streets were narrow, et unpaved or paved with rough cobblestones, darkened by day with overhanging buildings huddled together, and scarcely lighted by night. Arthur Y oung reported that in 1787 the mud in the streets of Paris was six inches deep, there were no foot-pavements, and it was impossible for women to get about. Berlin in 1800] i no sidewalks, pavements or sewers. England and Wales had only 106 cities with more than 5000 people and but 15 with 20,000 or more, whereas a century later there were 622 of ne former class and 106 of the latter. Only 17 per cent of the people lived in the cities above 20,000 in 1801; today 80 per cent live in Cities over 10,000. London now is ten times larger than it was then with 500,000 inhabitants, and Berlin in 1819 h 1ad only 201 ,000. Birmingham and Manchester had only about 20,000 each. Horses, cows, pigs and geese roamed the streets of the cities and tow ns, and bad odors were common in even the best quarters. Many of the old walls built for PS. against the attacks of feudal lords were still standing. Sedan chairs and hackney coaches took the place of motor busses, automobiles, and tramways. There was no water system, and the policing of the cities was so inadequate that gentlemen abroad at night carried arms. Although Paris with its 660,000 people had outgrown its old walls and had some beautiful boulevards and parks, still the city was so poorly drained that after a rain the water flowed through the middle of the streets. Lyons was the only city outside of Paris with 100,000 residents. Vienna was somewhat larger than Berlin, and boasted of a hundred street cleaners and street lamps lighted every night, even when the moon was shining. The Italian cities, full of beautiful buildings, were still crowded within their old walls. C. [he Working Classes in the Towns The working classes in the cities and towns made up the bulk of the population. Those not born there had drifted in from the country. With the exception of most of the large class of servants, who were brought in from their estates by the nobles, the laborers were free to sell their services for wages, to come and go as they pleased, and to regulate their own lives. They did the hard work necessary in every community, and were the carpenters, stonemasons, blacksmiths, clerks, gardeners, and skilled and unskilled workmen of all sorts. Long hours, small pay, and a wretched existence was for the most part their lot. Unless by chance they had quarters with some noble or ETAT TTT LOTTA TUATHA TETChap. IV] THE OLD REGIME IN EUROPE 63 rich burgher, they lived in cramped homes in the poorer parts of the city. The more able and thrifty among them were gradually climbing upward into the middle class, but the great mass of them continued to live from hand to mouth the victims of a vicious social system. Little machinery had as yet been invented to save labor and to increase the industrial output. Things were done and built much as they had been for centuries. All sorts of articles were fashioned in little shops and when completed offered for sale, or were made to order. The owners of these shops confined themselves to a particular trade, such as tailoring, shoemaking, tanning, baking, bookbinding, candle-making, and hair-dressing; or making wigs, artificial flowers, swords, knives, hats, and carriages. Those in the same line of busi- ness were organized into guilds to prevent others from making or selling their articles. The guild often limited the number of master workmen who might open shops of their own as well as the number of apprentices they might employ. Competition was likewise cur- tailed by making the period of apprenticeship seven or even nine years before the apprentice became a journeyman, who might never become a master with his own establishment unless he had money and in- fluential friends. This guild system, which was inherited from the Middle Ages, regulated the life and opportunities of the working classes all over the industrial sections of Europe. In England in the regular trades the apprentices served seven years, as a rule, while in Sheffield a master cutler could have but one apprentice, and in Norfolk and Norwich master weavers were limited to two. No master hatter could have more than two. Encouraged by the government, in France the guilds were better organized and more influential than in England. In central Europe the system was still more widely extended and more rigidly regulated as to apprentices, workshops, and the sale of goods. Once in a guild, the workman had to stick to his trade. Ifa sword- maker should make a knife, or a hatmaker a wig, or a shoemaker a saddle, he might be fined or even expelled from his guild. A hatter in Paris had his whole stock destroyed, because he ventured to make hats from wool mixed with silk, on the ground that the rules men- tioned wool only as material suitable for hats. Each guild kept a close watch on other guilds to prevent encroachments on its monop- oly. The goldsmiths watched the clockmakers, the money changers and those who set precious stones. Cobblers and tailors who mended shoes and clothes could not make new articles. The makers of arti- ficial flowers could not sell them. These strict rules may have brought the master workmen prosperity, but they increased prices, hampered business, and prevented the brighter and younger workmen from rising. These guilds differed in several ways from modern trade-unions. In the first place, the guild was an organization of owners and em- ployers rather than of laborers, for only those who were master Pera dd dy Character of industry The guilds TUNTNNTONOQUONONI UAL f if a ES ae a el a nan is Bi A ee aec En a ER a — bb Fa Nea CRA ee ee HE a DEPLETED EEO EEE Guilds differed } vor tradt-unions y Peasants made bulk of po pula tion The serf Peasant life 64 MODERN WORLD HISTORY (Chap. IV workmen and journeymen were members. Secondly, the rules of the guild were enforced by the government. Finally, the guilds were confined to those industries that were conducted in a comparatively small way in the master’s house or shop. The newer industries such as the making of silk, cotton goods, fine glassware, porcelain, and pottery were under the control of companies independent of the guilds and protected by the state. Much hostility arose against the guilds on the ground that they hindered freedom of trade and of the right to work. The whole system was to be swept away by the Industrial Revolution. D. The Peasants The peasants or farmers, who usually lived in the little huddled villages on the estates of kings, nobles, bishops and monasteries, and not in isolated houses on the land like American farmers, made up the vast m perenne ee the people of EuRO pe In 1789 Europe was a continent of farmers, for nowhere did industry claim the chief atten- tion of any cathe In France over nine tenths of the population lived in the country, and in England eight tenths tilled the soil. Ifa peasant of the time of Columbus had returned to Spain, or Italy, or Germany, few strange sights would have greeted his eyes, since the life of the common people had undergone little change in four cen- turies. The monarch lived in splendor and the noble in idleness at the expense of the peasants, who grubbed and sweated to support them and to eke out a miserable existence for themselves. In Spain, Austria, Prussia, and Russia remnants of mediaeval serfdom still existed in 1789 and it persisted in some sections well into the nine- teenth century. The serf was in a sense the property of the lord on whose estate he was born, lived and died, and for whom he worked much as his ancestors had done for many generations. The land was tilled with tools not unlike those used by the Romans: grain was cut with the clumsy sickle, ae with an awkward scythe, threshing was done by hand, and the carts were heavy, rickety vehicles. The peasants’ houses were small , poorly lighted, badly ventilated, with dirt floors and thatched roofs, and often connected with the barn for the horses, cows, chickens and pigs. Women and children worked in the fields with the men from daylight to dark during the summer and spent most of the winter in the woods getting out timber and fire- wood. Peasant life in the eighteenth century was one of simplicity, hard work, and small gain, it is true, yet the peasant was not so unhappy as one might think. His range of interests was narrow, for no daily newspaper told him of the world outside the manor, and his desire for recreation was easily satisfied by the dances, parties, weddings, baptisms, festival days for games and picnics, ana church service, at which functions he met his neighbors to talk over matters of common concern and to gossip about the affairs of the community. Neighbor- PTT TESTChap. IV] THE OLD REGIME IN EUROPE 65 hood visiting was quite common; and invitations to the lord’s manor house were occasions for feasting and drinking. Besides there was the village inn, where the peasants could exchange ideas over a glass of wine or a mug of beer. Then, too, it was a great event, when the crops were harvested, to take the surplus produce to the markets in the near-by towns for sale. In England the peasant farmer was probably better off than in France and other continental countries. Serfdom had completely disappeared and left no traces of feudal dues and forced labor. If he was a tenant, the peasant paid a definite sum of money in rent for the use of the land; and if an owner, he paid to the state fixed taxes, which were not so heavy as on the continent because the nobles bore their share of the burden of taxation. Many of the English farmers supplemented their earnings from the land by weaving and spinning, and other work. But the peasant still doffed his cap to the neighbor- ing lord, was restricted in his hunting and fishing rights, and might be punished by the country squire if caught poaching on the lord’s game preserves. Though legally free, yet his “ poverty and economic dependence’’ subjected him to demands that were galling. He lived in a poor hut and his standard of life was low. In one respect the English farmer suffered more than his neighbor across the Channel. The lords and landed gentry gradually increased their holdings until by the end of the eighteenth century the independent farmer peasant had almost ceased to exist. In France the old type of serfdom had largely disappeared. About 20,000,000 peasants owned their own farms, or were renters, or agfi- cultural laborers, while only 1,000,000 were serfs — chiefly in eastern and northern France. Indeed nowhere else on the continent did so many peasants have their own land, which they could sell at will without consulting their lords, and remove to the cities or buy new farms in better localities. Nearly one half of the farm land in France belonged to these independent farmers, chiefly in the south. Others cultivated the land of the lords on shares or rented farms. Although the peasants were free to regulate their own lives and to dispose of their holdings as they pleased, their farms were not clear of all obliga- tions except such taxes as the state might levy, but were still subject to a large number of dues and services inherited from the feudal system. These feudal dues and services were perfectly legal charges against the farms and were clung to tenaciously by the nobles, who depended upon them largely for their incomes, although the peasants complained bitterly against their injustice. These feudal charges, while exorbitant in some instances, were vexatious rather than heavy, though during the eighteenth century, the nobility, being sadly impoverished, were inclined to insist upon their rights, and were constantly digging up old dues which had been allowed to lapse. They varied so greatly and were so numerous that the lawyers of the day confessed that they were not acquainted with all of them. TUTUNUA PI OTOVOVUV NOVO UOLAINI NE ELE English peasant French peasants Sa ee rn it te et i ail ee grAE SEE SE De Sk See re Oe Pr eR Fe he le em a ic ee) a reine he anaes aah Heyyy ! HUH HH Feudal THT dues German peasants Lot of peasants compared CTPA HHA HE 66 MODERN WORLD HISTORY (Chap. IV The chief ones were: (2) a fixed annual rent payable either in money or produce; (2) a sales tax collected when the land was sold; @) an annual tax on the produce of the farm; (4) a small fee for the use of the lord’s mill, bake-oven, wine-press, bull, or stallion; (5) ’ tolls on the ferries and highways; and (6) the use of the peasant’s land as a hunting preserve for the lord. Then the church stepped in and col- lected the tithes. Finally the state demanded (1) the income tax and (2) a surtax on all incomes; the poll tax from all citizens. At the same time the peasant, in common with all other classes, paid indirect taxes. When all of these obligations were met, the peasant ofttimes found insufficient means left on which to support his family adequately. In Germany the greater part of the peasants carried a heavier load and had a harder lot than in France, although conditions varied in different provinces and states. In the Rhine valley, in Austria, and on the slopes of the Alps not much serfdom existed, still as in France feudal dues and services had to be met by the owners of the lands. In the provinces of Cleves and Mark in Prussia most of the peasants were free. But in the rest of Germany and in Prussia, particularly east of the Elbe, the peasants were in a state of abject serfdom differing little from the Middle Ages. They did not own their land, could not sell such rights as they had in it without the lord’s consent, and in their Feeples old age might be evicted and replaced by younger and stronger tenants. On the royal Prussian domain, however, the peasants were somewhat better off, and those who had served in the king’s army were granted special privileges. While the German peasants h ad less freedom than the French, those in Prussia, at least, did not suffer so much from the burden of direct state taxes, although the indirect taxes on tools, clothes, sugar, and tobacco were heavy. In Hungary the peasant was little more than a slave for he was land- less and bound to the soil. One complained that he owed four days out of each week to the lord in labor, spent the fifth and sixth in hunting and fishing for him, gave the seventh to God, and hence had nothing left for himself. Looking at Europe as a whole in 1789 it may be said that the peasant farmers were better off in Falancl Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, a few favored parts of Germany and Austria, and northern Italy than they were in France. On the other hand, the peasants in Ireland, Spain, most of Germany, Poland, Hungary, Russia, and cen- tral and southern Italy were in a far worse condition than in France, where, largely emancipated, they felt their bonds to be all the more irksome, and hence welcomed the Revolution. and (3) 3. Rericious CONDITIONS The religions of Europe in 1789 were the Christian, Jewish, and Mohammedan. The Mohammedans, whose Bible was the Koran, were confined to the Ottoman Empire. The Jews were pretty well DUQDUUAEONIUIULDUOULAUSUAATAEAUENUOESUTATERPESESRRADUNCEUPOUURAUD TT CUPUUESROEO TEETER ETRE TTChap. IV] THE OLD REGIME IN EUROPE 67 scattered all over Europe, but lived chiefly in the cities and larger towns, where they were assigned to ‘‘quarters,’’ restricted in their rights and privileges, and forbidden to enter most trades and occupa- tions. Asaresult many of them were forced to become peddlers and money changers. Joseph II of Austria in 1781 permitted them to learn handicrafts, to become farmers, and to enter the universities. An ordinance of the same year enjoined that they be considered as ‘‘fellow-men’”’ and given equal rights ‘‘with the Christian inhabi- tants.’” In England and Holland they were better treated than else- where, and in many other places they had acquired certain privileges either by favor of the crown or by purchase. Under the leadership of Moses Mendelssohn (d. 1786) a certain faction of Jews began to adapt themselves to the conditions of national life among the Christians. Their synagogues were erected in most of the large cities by the close of the eighteenth century. Napoleon in 1807 called a Jewish assembly in Paris, which outlined a policy adopted in France and other coun- tries giving them religious freedom. Christianity was the faith held by most of the people in every country in Europe, even European Turkey. The Christians were divided into three main groups: (2) the Roman Catholics found in Italy, Spain, Portugal, France, Ireland, Austria, Poland, Bel- gium and Germany; (2) the Greek Orthodox in eastern Europe; and (3) the Protestants in northern Europe. The head of the Roman Catholic Church was the pope, chosen by a college of cardinals, and living in his ancient capital Rome. An army of higher and lower clergy helped him rule the church. As God’s direct representative, he claimed jurisdiction over the earth, a claim that was denied by large groups of Christians. To pay its numerous officials and to carry out its many worthy enterprises, the Roman Church did not rely upon voluntary contributions from its members, but enjoyed the revenues from large domains, consisting of possibly one fourth of Catholic Europe, which pious kings, nobles and burghers had from time to time given it. In addition to the income from its lands, the Catholic Church had the right, like the state, to collect a regular tax called the tithe from all persons in Catholic countries whether members of it or not. Of all the institutions in Europe, the Catholic Church had experienced the fewest changes in the past four hundred years. In some countries it still pretended to fine, or imprison, those whom it convicted of heresy or blasphemy. It controlled the schools in Catholic countries and thus brought up the children in the orthodox faith. It conducted the hospitals and asylums for the unfortunate, and registered all births and deaths, while no marriage without its con- sent was legal. The mouasteries were still numerous and rich. For instance a map of Paris in 1789 showed 68 monasteries and 73 nun- neries within its walls. The Roman Catholic clergy were divided into two classes: the ~“Regular’’ or the monks, and the “‘Secular”’ or higher clergy and SeaEE THD Religions of Europe The Jews Christian sects PERERA ARREO TROBE — ee ee Sprhg Rere ip Saat mm se' j iy 1 ThE: val j PUT BS EECRRECE ESTOS ESSE EESER EES SE 68 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. IV Roman Catholic priests. The higher secular clergy included cardinals, archbishops, clergy werea — hishops and abbots who were chosen largely from the noble class. privileged Class - : . : . - : In France the last bishop of the third estate was elected in 1783. The higher clergy lived in palaces like the lords, with a large number of servants and tenants, collected feudal dues, frequented the court of the king, and presided at important ecclesiastical ceremonies. Some of the rulers tried to tax the clergy, but as a rule they were exempt from all direct taxes and thus like the nobles formed a privi- leged class. The lower clergy consisted of the priests, monks and nuns, who were recruited mostly from the common people. They were also a privileged class since they paid no direct taxes, but because of their small salaries they were poor. They had as little love for the higher clergy as the common people had for the lords, and thus the interests and sympathies of these two groups were united throughout Catholic Europe. In Italy, especially in the Papal States, Austria, Spain, and Portugal, the clergy and monastic orders enjoyed more privileges Little religious than in France. But religious freedom, as it is known today, giving freedom a man the right to belong to any church or no church as he pleases and to criticize religion without fear of loss of citizenship or death, was practically unknown in these countries. The Catholic Church was the only one recognized by the state and its rights were defended by state laws. In France prior to 1787 the Protestants had lost their Protestants in civil rights, and those who assembled to worship outside of the near Catholic Church might lose their property, the men being sent to the galleys and the women imprisoned for life. Thus Protestants were outlawed, their children were illegitimate, and they were re- fused burial in Catholic cemeteries. Nor could they legally inherit or bequeath property. Jean Calas, a Protestant, in 1762 had his bones broken on the wheel in France on the charge of having mur- dered his son who was about to join the Catholics. And in 1766 a young nobleman, Chevalier de la Barre, was condemned to death for having insulted a religious procession. Books and pamphlets were carefully censored and any one who Censorship of | wrote, printed, or distributed any work attacking the church or the the press king, could be punished by death. Many such writings, burned by the common hangman, were printed in Geneva, London, or Holland, or secretly printed at home, notwithstanding the severe laws. In Spain and parts of Italy the censorship of the press was still more stringent than in France. It should be added, however, that then as ever, censorship actually suppressed very few books, and merely gave wide advertising to many that were condemned. Clever persons wete able systematically to exploit the censors in this fashion. The Greek Orthodox Church, with many followers in the Turkish Empire and Poland, had its stronghold in Russia. In its organization, Greek Catholic ites and ceremonies, clergy and teachings, it resembled the Roman Oe Catholic Church in many ways, but it was ruled by several patriarchs se EEE oe mz — Sa —— a Te ae Se a Dae bh ae Ss caret DT tate bem ts eee he - rs TTT ETTChap. IV] THE OLD REGIME IN EUROPE 69 instead of one pope, and differed in some other respects. In south- eastern and eastern Europe it played an important role in molding civilization, but had little influence on the west. In Russia it formed a powerful ally of the autocratic government and set its face against all reform measures. The Protestants predominated in north German states, the Scandinavian countries, Switzerland, Holland and Great Britain. They were not united under any common leadership as in the Roman and Greek Churches, but were divided into Lutherans, Calvinists, Anglicans, and other sects. In Germany and the Scandinavian coun- tries the Lutheran Church was in a sense the state church, although some of the German princes recognized the German Reformed Church as official, and since the beginning of the seventeenth century, all religions, Protestant, Catholic and Jewish, had received equal recog- nition from the Prussian government. In England the Anglican Church was the established state church and had retained something of the form of government of the Roman Catholic Church. While both Catholics and Protestants sought to abridge religious freedom in every way possible, and laws were to be found to this effect in most countries, considerable progress towards freedom was being made. Thus in England the ‘‘Dissenters,’’ that is, those who opposed the English Church as established by law, whether Roman Catholics or Protestants or Jews, were legally liable to fines and imprisonment, and in earlier days many of the Protestant ‘‘Dissenters’’ such as the Corgregationalists, Presbyterians, Baptists, and Quakers as well as Romanists suffered severely and fled from England either to the con- tinent or to America to secure greater religious liberty; but after 1689, they were allowed to hold services in their own way, although they were still supposed to be excluded from government offices and could not obtain degrees from the universities. But the laws against the Roman Catholics were as harsh as ever. They were forbidden to enter England, to celebrate mass, and were also excluded from all public offices. As time passed, fortunately less attention was paid to the enforcement of these laws. Church courts still existed in England to try laymen for not attending church, for heresy, and for immoral acts, but they too had fallen into disuse. The press was free in Eng- land and men could write books without obtaining the consent of the government. In Catholic France, likewise, where public opinion was very enlightened and would not have tolerated religious persecu- tion, no serious attempt had been made to enforce the harsh laws for many years. 4. CuLTURAL CONDITIONS The educational institutions of the old régime in Europe were still mediaeval in form, but some progress had been made in their spirit. The educational system was fairly well organized at the top, but poorly at the bottom. In 1789 the universities were numerous DUVEELATRARER DRDO OUTER EEEELS Protestants in northern Europe ‘* Dissenters’’ in England Ne een Sana aairiee Een eee| TE HUTT H ETE i Te TL ee | i pois 70 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. IV and found in every country, even Russia. Many of their graduates were entering the services of the church and state, and constituted the lawyers and doctors, the professors and literary men of the day. Educational The courses of study had not changed much since the Renaissance snstibutions and the Reformation, and the students were almost exclusively the sons of the rich or the noble. There were no free, secular, public secondary schools, but good academies and ‘‘grammar schools’”’ abounded to prepare the children of the aristocrats and the wealthy burghers for the universities. Such elementary schools as existed were attended by the children of the well-to-do, and not by the offspring of the poor. Indeed the masses of the people in every European country were without education and such a thing as a public school system supported by the state to teach all children so that they might grow up as good citizens was unknown. To make matters worse, education, such as it was, was in the hands of the clergy in all Catholic countries and to a considerable degree in the Protestant lands as well. Only a few men like Rousseau, Kant, and Pestalozzi by 1789 had gained the vision of modern educational systems. Art was an educational agency encouraged by kings, nobles, bishops, and wealthy burghers, who patronized artists by bestowing upon them commissions, pensions, and lucrative offices. Fine build- ings — temples, theaters, churches, monasteries, townhalls, castles and palaces — some of them of the period of the Renaissance, others Art going back to feudal days, and still others reaching even to Rome and Greece, were still found in various parts of Europe to be studied and admired by the people. About 1789 Europe was in the midst of what is called the “‘Neo-classic period’’ of art in which there was a literal copying of the art of Greece and Rome without any attempt to show much originality in its use. Churches, public buildings, and homes were built with ancient edifices as models, and the Doric and Ionic columns were attached to many structures with utter disregard of propriety. The Royal Exchange and Bank of England in London; the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin; the Grand Theater in Bordeaux; and the church of Francesco di Paoli in Naples were examples. The same spirit of imitation characterized artists, and especially David of France. Angelica Kauffmann in Germany; Sir Joshua Reynolds, Gainsborough, Romney, Raeburn and Lawrence in England; and Verhagen in Belgium were the most famous painters of this period. In sculpture, Canova of Italy, stands out most conspicuously as the tepresentative of the classical school. His most famous pupil was Thorwaldsen of Denmark. Chaudet, Bosio, and Pradier carried on the work in France. Some noteworthy art galleries and museums were founded in the large cities. A new science was created in Europe by 1789 to counteract much that was mediaeval in ideas and institutions. The foundations of phy- sics, chemistry, astronomy, botany, geology and electromagnetism eae sf Raha 16S ot wee ote ee Bee a rags ss nant ees het = cee arr ALATESTChap. IV | THE OLD REGIME IN EUROPE 71 were laid but little application of them was made to human welfare. People quite generally were keenly alive to the deficiencies of the past and of their own day; and they had faith to believe that things could be made better. The new science opened up this hope for the future by showing how the wisest of the ancients were mistaken about many things, and by pointing the way through patient expert- ment and discovery to almost unbelievable advancement. Wise men like Francis Bacon, Descartes, Sir Isaac Newton, Galileo, Copernicus, and Leibnitz had already changed men’s minds about the earth and the universe by the discovery of certain natural laws. In the eight- eenth century kings and nobles encouraged scientists, as they did poets and artists, with pensions and gifts to continue their work. Galvani and Volta in Italy followed Franklin in electrical experi- ments. Priestley, Lavoisier, and Cavendish labored in the chemical laboratory, discovered oxygen, and first decomposed water into its elements. Hunter and von Haller made important discoveries in surgery. Jenner discovered the process of vaccination for combating the scourge of smallpox. Captain Cook and Louis de Bougainville carried on geographic explorations in the south Pacific. Buffon and Linnaeus made important contributions in the fields of zoology and botany. Observatories with clumsy telescopes were built to study the heavens. Numerous scientific societies were organized to pro- mote the work in these fields, and numerous books and encyclopedias were published giving the results of the experiments and discoveries. Even polite society throughout Europe began to dabble in science and anew group of “‘savants’’ came into fashion. As a result of the new knowledge and new points of view gained, certain groups of thinking men began to believe that science might be used to free the world from vice, disease, ignorance, poverty and superstition, if the state, church, and society were studied with a view to their betterment. This attempt to improve the mind and the lot of man by the use of reason and knowledge was called ‘‘rationalism.’’ The philosophers of the eighteenth century were both ‘‘empirical and rational’’ and believed in ‘‘ progress, justice, toleration, liberty, fraternity, the sovereignty of the people, the rights of man and humanity’’ as within human reach. The fact cannot be too strongly emphasized that the doctrine of progress, which is taken for granted now, was a new thing then. It was this new vision that led nobles like Lafayette, Rochambeau, De Kalb, and Steuben to volunteer to help free the American colonies. Following the work of Englishmen like Francis Bacon, who first proved man’s capacity for development, and Locke, who desired to popularize government, abolish religious superstition, and proclaim toleration, men-like Voltaire, Rousseau, Montesquieu, Diderot and D’Alembert in France attacked the old institutions of their day and became the pioneers of a new order. The American Revolution was not an isolated event but one of world-wide significance. The same ferment which produced it was A LUUEVTTLELELL LETTE Rise of the new sczence Doctrine of progressPUTT ENT ity Te ee 72 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. IV / working in many lands. That the outbreak occurred in the western Liberalism in Colonies of the British Empire was due to favorable conditions. The ele hate middle-class mind in western Europe during the latter ee of the eighteenth century was thinking in terms of liberty, equal ity, and humanity. Much was said about a ‘“‘free humanity;’’ arid cos- mopolit: anism, rather than nationalism and patriotism, engrossed the attention of thoughtful people. Leagues for perpetual peace were proposed by Kant and others. Rousseau and his followers were searching for a form of government which would assure “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Every country in Europe had Middle-class its group of middle-class thinkers, reformers and philanthropists who thinkers were urging the improvement of the lot of mankind by a return to a ‘state of nature.’’ The Physiocrats were demanding liberty in in- dustry as well as freedom in politics. Essentially the same forces Adam Smith which produced the Declaration of Independence in 1776 led Adam Smith in the same year to print his epoch-making book on the Wealth of Nations. As a middle-class Scotchman, who had lived in France in intimate contact with the Physiocrats, he belonged to the “cosmopolitan intelligentsia of the time. He urged free trade as essential to man’s civil liberty. Thus the concept of liberty became The poor economic as well as political, particularly for the middle class, for neglected the poor were scarcely taken into account. It must be remembered, however, that these advocates of the modern political and economic theories were leaders of thought and not leaders of men. In very few instances did they work with their fellows in a practical way to realize their ideals in new institutions. That mission was left to others. The literature of this age was confined largely to the writings of the men mentioned above. Their poems, essays, Pp: amphlets and books criticized the injustices and inequalities of the old régime and pro- voked an insistent demand for reform. In England this was the Literature period of Hume, Goldsmith, Samuel Johnson, Burke, and Gibbon, while Lessing, S Schiller and Goethe were the leading literary men of CHiby The theater, as a source of amusement and instruction, was wide ly used. San Carlo at Naples, La Scala at Milan, and La Fenice in Venice were the finest in Europe, but the theaters of Paris, London, and Vienna were well known and widely patronized by the aristocracy. In England the right to run theaters like Covent Garden and Drury Lane was a monopoly like so many things of the period. In Paris the actors formed a guild. In the w rorld of music this was the age of Bach, Gluck, Haydn, Mozart, and Cherubini. pe ne ee Se a ne a oo 5. Tue INDusTRIAL SYSTEM Towards the close of the eighteenth century the industrial system of Europe was undergoing a pronounced revolution. Large cities like London, Paris, Amsterdam, Hamburg, Frankfort, and Vienna had grown up and the small villages had increased in size until on the oe Pires. boa sy tte tne sars ~ = Fg FTE EN Ee ee Po ee Sram TTELUTTTNMMA HULU UUU LEUVEN PETE TTChap. IV] THE OLD REGIME IN EUROPE 73 continent there were 78 towns with over 10,000 inhabitants in 1787. These cities and towns, nourished by industry and commerce, began to lose their mediaeval character to some extent. Industry was com- ing to mean something more than making clothes and hats, shoes and swords, articles of furniture and implements of agriculture. It became national and international, and meant the production of goods like cloth, clocks, dishes, and weapons on a large scale to supply fat-away markets. The guild system was declining in England, although it was still in active operation on the continent. With improved tools and methods of farming agriculture was revolutionized. The paternal states devoted more attention to the regulation of industry by law. In 1787 it was said that the French rules concerning manufacturing filled eight large volumes. Men eager to establish new industries and open up new fields of trade secured from the king special trading privileges, large grants of money, exemptions from taxation, and other favors. Large companies like the East India Company, the Hudson’s Bay Company, the Dutch East India Company, and the French Company of India still monopolized much of the foreign trade. Under these trading corporations, favored by protective measures, commerce with the Americas, Africa and Asia grew out of all bounds, and enriched the middle class, particularly in France and England. The foreign commerce, which in 1700 amounted to $60,000,000 in England and $40,000,000 in France, had probably increased threefold by 1789. The system of protective tariffs against foreign competition was in operation in the larger states, although internal customs duties and tolls, and poor roads and slow transportation, still hampered trade within the states. That remarkable movement called the Industrial Revolution, which will be studied later, was already under way in England and was destined to transform the world. The improvement in spinning and weaving, the new processes in producing iron, the use of steam and water power to drive machinery, and to transport goods and persons, the changes in the methods of cleaning cotton and of dyeing cloth, and the rise of more practical methods of finance were altering the very foundations of the society of the old régime and marking a departure in world history. They created the “‘capitalist class and the new type of day laborers; they stimulated both national and world trade; they founded colonial empires for world markets and t2w materials; they built large manufacturing cities; they set up new standards of living; and they produced a series of critical social problems. The middle class — the business men, bankers, and pro- fessional men — assumed a new significance and took political leader- ship away from the nobles and clergy, first in England, then in France, and later in other European countries. When the French Revolution broke out, it is not surprising, therefore, that this class took the leadership in the attack on the old régime. Between us and this eighteenth century stands the French Revolu- PVNOTOOOQQQQQ0000011111THULO Growth of cittes and towns Changes in industry Trading com panties The Industrial Revolution — Po ee ee yeSSeS ET Ee Pe bs AN — i — a a ee 5 L = j } i i 74 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. IV tion directed against its injustices and inequalities. Such a movement may easily focus our attention on its evils and shortcomings, but if we consider what has just been said of literature, economics, philoso- phy, science and the beginnings of industry and world commerce, we can realize that it was a truly great century to which we owe much that we think of as the peculiar achievements of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. REFERENCES FOR FURTHER READING Tue Otp R&GIME IN EuROPE A. Hassatxi, The Balance of Power, 1715-1789 (1907); * A. H. JOHNSON, The Age of the Enlightened Despots, 1660-1789 (1910); *H. E. POURNE: The Revolutionary Period in Europe, 1763-1815 (1914); W.E.H. Lecxy, A History of England in the Eighteenth Century, 8 vols. (1878 Le >); W. Hunt, Political Hires of ingland, 1760-1801 (1905); A. L. Cross, History of England and Greater Britain (1914); * E. F. Henperson, A Short History of Germany, 2 ~ole ‘Ig02); W. F. Reppaway, Frederick the Great and the Rise of Prussia (1904); G. M. Prizst, Germany since 1740 (1915); * A. Rampaup, History of Russia, English translation by Leonora B. aes 2 vols. (1878); E. A. B. Hopcerrs, The Life of Catherine the Great of Russia (1914); R. N. Bain, Scandinavia: a Political History from 1513-1900 (1905 ); E. Roce au, Regne de Charles III d’ Espagne, 1759-1788 (1907); M. A.S Home, Spain, its Greatness and Decay, 1479-1788 (1898); * H. W. Van Loon, The Fall of the Dutch Republic (1913); H. D. Traxx and J. S. Mann, (editors) Soctal England, 6 vols. (new edition 1904); * J. A.R. Marriorr and C. G. Rosertson, The Rise of Prussia ( 1918); Bgaztey, Forses, Birxetr, Russia from the e arangians to the Bolsheviks (1920); J. I. THorotp Rocgrs, History of Agriculture and Prices in England, 7 vols. (866-1900) K. BrspERMANN, Deutschland im achtzehnten Jahrhundert, z vols. (1867-1880); J. Mavor, An Economic History of Russia, 2 vols. (1914); G. Despeviszes pu Dezzrt, L’Espagne de l' ancien régime, 3 vols. (1897-1904); F. Nippoxp, The Papacy in the roth encom Trans- lated by L. H. Schwab (1900); W. Watxer, History of the Christian Church (1920); Barry, The Papacy and Modern Times (1911); P. pe Crousaz-Cretet, L’Eglise et L'état, ou les deux puissances au XVIII* sitcle, 1713-1789 (1893); J. H. Overton and F. Retton, A History of the Church of England, 1714-1800 (1906); H. W. Crark, History of English Nonconformity, 2 vols. (1913); F. P. Graves, A Student's History of Education (1920); G. Compayré, Histoire critique des doctrines de l éducation en France, 2 vols. (ad edition 1881); F. Pautsen, Geschichte des gelehrten Unterrichts (1885); J. Jaurks, Histoire socialiste, 12 vols. (1901-1909); W. CunninGHAM, The Growth of English Industry and Commerce in Modern Times, 3 vols. (5th edition 1910-1912); Sir H. T. Woon, Industrial England in the Middle of the Eighteenth Century (1910), G. Martin, La grande sedkiires en France sous le regne de Louis XV (1900); G. SreinHAuSEN, Geschichte der deutschen Kultur (2d ed. 1913); SepGwick and Tyxer, History of Science (1919); R. A. Grecory, Discovery, the Spirit and Service of Science (1916); F. H. Garrison, History of Medicine, (2d edition 1923); *J. B. Bury, The Idea of Progress (1921); A. C. McGrrrgrt, Protestant Thought before Kant (1915). IUUVTHIAUTNTHVUUTLAAEUCUUUIVENUUUHUOUERIBECEUNBEPEUUNHREUUOTRUEVATTOOUERADOOCRUHEOUEUOOU EU UHAOORAROOUCUSOOESUUOU OOOOONUTOOVANUONTOOOLINVO1 bus as ; t , / | F i Hepeabaane Hi i oe +f ee ea ee eee i ean an Sa Sela Ver F R /~ Ber aa A CE Zstirzenl| ZA o LPoy Ie 4 4a, Lear, /> ~ at’ Qe > ar oT ¥ oO Ge) cE GR, Dy.of? PAR | =\KINGDOM, | OF T . * naples IRIES q Malta a eee. 8 as ed ee ve vie é ee Long.West O East of Greenwich Kart ographische Anstalt von F, A. Brockhaus, Leipzig, Germany. LP ALOT Sa EN I BSL HALALPEELE us \ clsingfors () - =“ RY \ ores tau dal ° / See eee i‘ Bukkhagest Danube 0 Sofie TOMAN [SS ed > \ o @ EF MIP \ R E SO = SDP’ Smyrna lthe Sai | yy “s ry - D J { Se al eens Cr e Si EK | A 30 EUROPE In 1789 at outbreak of French Revolution English Miles 0 100 200 300 400 500 Cc oe - — — = ae = as —— 7 a ae “) 440 30 | { 4 7 ; ; ‘ : ‘ : ee I ee es a eae oe nated “ r as naeTUT TRREAARARARUAARAER TEA REA TRT RE RERETT PETER REED TEAEITED ' i & | eeaG' eee ea BIGtER ez Bae! i} ‘Sean Hitt] UT NULL LLUULAUU HUECHAPTER V THE FRENCH REVOLUTION: ITS ON OTHER PEOPLES INFLUENCE 1. THE Otp R&GIME IN FRANCE Durine the latter part of the eighteenth century four significant changes were taking place in world history. The Commercial Revo- lution was undermining the feudal order, forming a powerful middle class, and stimulating the rise of national states. The Industrial Revolution was transforming business and social relations. The American Revolution was experimenting with the first democratic federal Republic, and was the preliminary skirmish of a conflict that was to cover Europe and Latin America. The French Revolution, directed by the middle class, was ending the economic and social remnants of feudalism and replacing irresponsible, royal despotism with constitutional self-government. These forces were hastening the transition of the feudal world to the modern democratic world. The French Revolution differed from the English Revolution of the seventeenth century and the American Revolution in that it was to a greater degree a social as well as a political movement. In Great Britain the middle class by a process of internal assimilation gained political power without forcibly displacing the aristocracy, which was constantly recruited from the best men of the middle class. Indeed the aristocracy itself had become to a degree middle class in its ideals and interests. The American Revolution, having little to destroy, was a demonstration of the right of revolution and a rather suc- cessful experiment in the newer political and social ideals of the eighteenth century. To a considerable extent it was economic as well as political. The men who led it had long enjoyed personal freedom and knew the value of political liberty. It directly concerned only a few millions of people, and they were separated from the Europeans by the Atlantic Ocean. The French Revolution sought to abolish class distinctions based on birth and blood, and special privileges for the few. It stressed equal rights and opportunities for all men. It is called French but its effects have been felt around the globe. It began in France, not because the people there were more oppressed than elsewhere, but because, like the Americans, they were more advanced and better off than any other national group in con- tinental Europe. It covered the period from 1789 to 1799 but its roots run back further and its influences have not yet ceased. Through it the middle class in France gained most in wealth and power at the 75 TURETRRRARRUEN TEU Eke Four changes in world history French Revolution different from English Revolution and American Revolution Nature of French Revolution ee ee een ae ee eee eySe a i ct Ee ee antl Sr ite te ade rs 2 Te tee ee eet ee, be | A Se The absolute monarce hy Monarchy inefficient, unjust, ana extravagant Bureaucracy 76 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. V expense of royalty, the nobility, and the clergy, while the lot of the peasantry was notably improved. A more derailed survey of the institutions of the old régime in France will explain the French Revolution as a force in w orl d history. The French people were ruled by an absolute, hereditary king, responsible for his actions to God alone. The monarch’s will was the source of all law, fees honors, and appointments to office. He could levy taxes and spend the money as he pleased without eee an account to the public. He coul d contract foreign alliances, plunge the nation into war, aa make peace without consulting his subjects. With a stroke of his pen he could imprison any one without a trial. ‘This thing is legal because I wish it,’’ said Louis XVI on one occa- sion, and on another, ‘ The sovereign authority resides exclusively in my person. To me alone belongs the power to make laws. . . . The rights and interests of the nation rest solely in my hands.”’ In short, the entire life of the nation — political, social, industrial, educational and religious — centered in the autocratic monarch. To dazzle the eyes of his subjects, he lived in lavish splendor, surrounded by a host of courtiers and servants, at Versailles, a city of 80,000 people, located twelve miles from Paris. His mammoth palace built by Louis XIV with its endless rooms, costly furniture and decorations, beautiful parks, fountains, and artificial lakes, had cost $100,000,000, a sum wtung from the peoplein taxes. Thecourt consisted of a) 000 persons, including g both the Swiss and French regiments and all civil officials, costing a twelft th of the revenue of the state. Attached to the queen alone were 5oo servants. The royal stables, containing thousands of horses and more than 200 carriages and sleighs, cost $4,000,000 yearly. Louis XVI planned to reduce the number of horses from 6,000 to 1,800. For oe king’s table another $1,500,000 was spent. The total expense of the luxury, pomp, and pageantry of the royal court was probably $20,000,000 a year. Noruler on earth could match the French court in size, costliness and gaiety. Louis XVI and his consort, however, at least set a higher moral standard than the immoral Louis XV. The people might have continued to tolerate the absolute govern- ment with all its extravagances and glittering mockery, had it been really efficient, just, and heedful of their welfare. On the contrary, it was unwieldy and inefficient. Since no country so vast could be ruled by a king alone, he had created five councils to assist him in framing laws, managing finances, and conducting foreign affairs. The privy council of about 100 members was the most important of these bodies and supervised all weighty matters. Since these coun- cils made laws and enforced them in the king’s name, the actual government of France was an autocratic bureaucracy. In theory France was a highly centralized kingdom, but not in reality. The numerous codes of local laws, — nearly three hundred — the different systems of taxation, the varying weights and measures, caused con- flicts, and the overlapping of authority, and threw the government TTTChap. V] THE FRENCH REVOLUTION +7 into a chaos of practices. In central France thirteen provinces had free trade without customs houses, while elsewhere tariffs were collected on goods from other provinces. These irritating local diversities and territorial units showed how many remnants of the Middle Ages had survived in France. The people were not unified into one nation with a common patriotism and 4 common law such as had grown up in England, but regarded themselves as Bretons or Parisians, or Alsatians rather than Frenchmen. The task of creat- ing a national spirit was accomplished by the ‘Fraternity’’ of the French Revolution. France had three types of local government: (1) There were the bishoprics with their own officers and courts. (2) The thirty-eight provinces, remnants of former independent duchies and kingdoms, had been united to form France. Those in central France had no self-gov- ernment, while those on the borders had assemblies of three estates with power to consent to taxation. A governor-general, usually a noble, appointed by the king, ruled over each province. G) The thirty- five generalités, which approximately coincided in territory with the provinces, were ruled by zntendants, for the most part lawyers and men of the middle class, who were also named by the king. They were the real local rulers of France and, as the direct representatives of the abso- lute monarch, played the part of little despots. In the modern sense, local government did not exist, for the pettiest details were determined at Versailles. Ifa stream needed a new bridge, or a church a new roof, petitions had to be approved first by the central authority before the work could be done. This caused annoying delays and stupid in- difference to local needs. The national finances were in a most precarious condition and for half a century or more the nation had been on the verge of bank- ruptcy. Although the government collected millions annually in taxes, and received large sums from the church and from the sale of offices, yet each year closed with a deficit. These deficits were simply added to the national debt. Louis XVI borrowed money until the wealthy bankers and business men became alarmed and refused to make further loans. The financial load was heavy, but France was rich and abundantly able to meet it. The difficulty lay in extrava- gance and in the unscientific handling of funds. There was no public budget, such as modern states provide, and the burden was so un- equally distributed that those most able to pay large taxes either were exempt or evaded their share. Thus the royal princes, who should have paid an income tax of $500,000, managed to reduce it to $40,000. A certain marquis, whose land tax was legally $500, escaped with paying $80, while a middle-class man, who should have paid $14, had to pay $152. The common people, who owned two fifths of the land, paid four fifths of the direct taxes. Careful investigations have indicated that the peasant’s tax might well be about 50 per cent of his total income, which was quite enough to explain why wide- j TaRRAG Conflicting laws No nationality Local Lovernment National fi nance Taxation TLE — <8 as no . Ss a Ra ae alz. EN A ES ee eke SE = Sees a ee ee ae i lan ee ot fn Ve bay out be wets ys hey retin ty hee as ens TPHHHTHNTUAD AT OAVESNESUOOOOOOOOOOO OOO 00000 Direct taxes Indirect taxes Law courts Lettre de cachet Criminal law ae TMT SRaREa EGE BSSees' HTT 78 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. V spread discontent and rebellion were awaiting only the occasion and leadership to overthrow such an unjust system of taxation. The taxes themselves as a whole would not have been so heavy, if equitably distributed. In England the taxes were greater than those in France but more easily paid because better apportioned to the capacity to pay. The state collected two kinds of taxes, direct and indirect. About half of the national income consisted of direct taxes levied on land, personal property and income. From most of these taxes the nobles, clergy and some of the middle class were exempt, hence the load fell heavily upon the common people. The other half of the national income was raised from indirect taxes such as the salt tax, the tobacco tax, the excise on wine and cider, duties on exports, and a stamp tax. The collection of these revenues was so abominable that they were hated as much as the direct taxes. Wealthy speculators, or com- panies, called the farmers of taxes, paid the state a lump sum for the privilege of collecting certain indirect taxes. They expected, of course, to squeeze out of the people large profits in addition to their original outlay. The courts of law consisted of a supreme court at Paris and twelve inferior courts, in different cities, together with numerous local tribunals. The judges inherited or bought their offices, though they included some men of ability. They were selfish and unprogressive, and upheld privileges against the king and reforming ministers under Louis XVI, but the very fact that they opposed the crown gave them great popularity. Since no law was valid until registered by these courts, they insisted, more and more, especially the parlement of Paris, that they had a veto on royal edicts. But the king had the power to force the court to register his edicts. This court in Paris also had the power to seize printed books and if found injurious to public policy to sentence them to be burned. The lower courts were more corrupt, and dispensed justice in the interest of the privileged classes. Bribery was common. The Jettre de cachet, or secret letter, signed by the king, which could not be opened without breaking the royal seal, was the most flagrant abuse of liberty and justice. It ordered the arrest of a certain person, who might be imprisoned without knowing the name of his accuser or the nature of his offense. If poor and without friends, such a victim might spend years in prison without trial. Yet the number thus arrested has been exaggerated. There was an average of sixteen a year under Louis XVI, mostly at the request of relatives. Striking and arbitrary cases of arrest aroused the public wrath. The criminal law was harsh and cruel. Torture was used to force confession of crime. No lawyer was allowed to defend the accused, and the examination of his case was conducted in private. Witnesses were called only after the culprit had testified, and thus he was liable for perjury. The death penalty was common for trivial offenses, and barbarous methods were used to execute criminals. TTT ETT EETChap. V] THE FRENCH REVOLUTION 79 The church was a sort of a state within the state, for it had its gov- ernment and officials. It owned from x per cent to 40 per cent of the land in different sections of France! and collected tithes from all the people. This sum, supplemented by the revenue from its own property and from gifts, gave the church a huge income for its work estimated to have been as high as $100,000,000 yeatly. Although protected by the state in its rights, yet it was free from secular taxation. From time to time the church voted a voluntary contribution to the royal treasury, but that sum fell far short of what would have been paid had the church been taxed on its property and income. Thus the church was a protected, privileged corporation ranking in power next to the state itself. The only justification for collecting tithes from Jews and Protestants, as well as Catholics, was found in the fact that the money was used in part for the support of the poor and unfortu- nate. Since the tithes were paid in farm produce instead of money, they were one cause for the backward condition of agriculture. Had the church discharged its spiritual duties more zealously, managed its own land better and spent more of its income for the wel- fare of the people, it might have held their loyalty to a greatet degree. The higher clergy, numbering perhaps 6,000, included 18 arch- bishops, 117 bishops, and numerous abbots, abbesses, “‘ little abbés,’’ priors, and canons. Although the pope had a veto on the nomina- tions, the king actually appointed the higher clergy mostly from the younger sons of the nobility. Some of them lived in worldly extrava- gance while they neglected obvious duties. The archbishop of Strass- burg had an income of possibly $200,000 to squander on his costly palace and sumptuous court. He entertained lavishly, and his guests at times numbered 200. The abbess of Remiemont in Lorraine held feudal rights over 200 villages and astonished the people with her splendid gowns. Members of her convent must have nine genera- tions of noble blood in their veins. The average income of the arch- bishops and bishops was $35,000, and some of them, like the feudal lords, preferred to reside at Versailles. Hence absenteeism was a cry- ing evil in the church as well as the state. Men of immoral lives and inferior intellects, who cared little for religion, were not uncommon among the higher clergy. ‘‘The archbishop of Paris must at least believe in God,’’ dryly remarked Louis XVI, when he was urged to appoint Brienne to that position. Voltaire urged an atheistic friend to accept an office in the church on the ground that he would have a fat living and yet might believe as he pleased. These condi- tions explain why the Revolution was directed against the existing church as well as against the state. The 120,000 members of the lower clergy came from the common people. The priests numbering about 60,000 lived mostly in the vil- 1 See, La France Economique et Sociale au XVIII® Siecle, thinks that the total posses- . . Ce . sions of the church were about 6 per cent, Rabaut Saint-Etienne estimated them at 20 per cent. The church A privileged body The higher clergy re ee a er ne lint pe mel Le eS—E ee at a ae ors TT a LO as a Se Pee, cnn eee ae a ee St ee — tee = me x7 ees No religious fr I oe iA [re C€40772 Social inequality Sse PSARAETHUUUHUUUHUUTFULUGUUITEVUTUVTHUNIUEGHEASOOGUOIGEUUEUUEUAREAEU HOOT OEE 80 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. V lages, beloved by the people. They conducted the religious services, educated the children, and shared the joys and hardships of their parishioners. Neglected and paid wretched salaries, they hated their superiors. When the Revolution began, they heartily supported the cause of the people against the king, the nobles and the bishops. Although they belonged to the privileged class, since they were ex- empt from direct taxes, nevertheless their sympathies were with the unprivileged class. There was no religious freedom in France. Legally Jews and Protestants were members of the Roman Catholic Church and sub- ject to its control. Moreover, they were excluded from civil offices. At death Catholic relatives might claim their property. Their marriages were illegal, and their children illegitimate. Fortunately, however, as the Revolution approached, these laws were not widely enforced. The last execution for heresy in France took place in 1762 and in 1777 the last prisoner for conscience’s sake was released from the galleys. The liberal men of the day urged freedom of worship, and in 1787 Lafayette proposed the restitution of civil rights to all Protestants. Such a royal edict was drawn up, but the clergy were strong enough to defeat it. Most of the thinkers of the day, clergy as well as laity, no longer accepted the creed of the Catholic Church without question.! A Paris curate, who was asked whether the clergy really believed the doctrines they taught, replied: “‘ There may be four or five who do.’’ At a dinner in Paris the Englishman, Hume, chanced to remark that he had never met an atheist. “‘At the present moment,’ replied his host, “you are sitting at the table with seven- teen of them.” France inherited from the Middle Ages the principle that men are not born free and equal. Hence society was organized on the basis of privilege and inequality. Some were high, others low; some rich, others poor; some noble, others ignoble; some privileged, others unprivileged. The privileged class included the royal family, the nobility, the clergy, and the richer business and professional men. The unprivileged class consisted of the poorer middle class, the arti- sans in the cities, and the peasants in the country, and formed the vast bulk of the nation. Under this antiquated system one person in fifty belonged to the favored few, who reaped most of the rewards and escaped most of the burdens of life. Yet these class distinctions were not so rigid as to prevent a man by some stroke of fortune, or by thrift and ambition, or by the purchase of an office, from climbing from a lower to a higher rank. With these inequalities in mind, one may better understand why the French Revolution took for its watchwords, ‘‘Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity.’’ The nobility, including children, numbered about 140,000 mem- bers, and supplied one noble family for every 800 people.? They 1 Cf. Cath. Encyc. ‘ France, ’’ vi, 184. 2 See gives 80,000 noble families and 400,000 members. HUALHLLUEALU AOACChap. V] THE FRENCH REVOLUTION SI owned perhaps one fourth of the soil of France which varied from 1 to 4o per cent in different localities. If in the United States every lawyer were a nobleman with a huge estate, or an official holding a title of nobility, one would get an idea of the number and power of the nobles in France. The higher clergy and the nobility owned almost one third of the soil of France, had as their tenants a large number of the peasants, and received a fourth of what the people produced. Like the clergy the nobles were divided into two classes — the old and the new nobility. The old “‘nobility of the sword,”’ once the equals of kings, claimed that they paid their taxes with their swords. If sufficiently wealthy, they lived a brilliant life at the king’s court, pulling wires for favors, or if too poor, they resided in the provinces. The new ‘‘nobles of the robe’’ had either bought their titles to nobility, or had received an office carrying with it noble rank. As a source of income, kings sold such offices very much as a modern state raises money by selling bonds. These offices were inheritable and transferable like any other property. The old nobles despised the new nobles, but as the Revolution approached the two groups had begun to be merged by many ad- vailtageous marriages. When the king absorbed the political powers of the nobles, they clung more tenaciously to their social and economic privileges. These consisted of the higher offices in the army, church and state; exemption from certain direct taxes; feudal dues, market and hunting rights; and certain minor local honors and appointments. Most of these privileges were regarded as property rights which could be sold or bequeathed to heirs. Ordinarily the eldest son inherited two thirds of the estate, while the younger heirs received the other third. It was laughingly said that the younger children of poorer nobles re- ceived “part of a pigeon, a rabbit, and a hunting dog.’’ Some of the nobles whose wealth had been swallowed up by absenteeism, debts at Versailles, gambling, and lack of business ability, were jokingly called ‘‘The high and mighty lords of a pigeon-house, a frog pond, and a rabbit pen.’’ Here and there nobles were no better off than their peasants. Arthur Young in his travels through France heard of nobles in the south who had to live on an income of $125 a year. In 1789 several Poitevin nobles went to their electoral assemblies dressed like peasants and without sufficient money to pay their hotel biJls. The chief reason for the unpopularity of the nobles in late eighteenth-century France lay in the fact that by this time they had become practically a nuisance. In the Middle Ages they had possessed real political and juristic as well as economic and social functions. These services had later hecome absorbed by others and before 1750 the nobility was but an irritating and expensive anachronism. The third estate, numbering about 24,500,000 persons, included every layman not a noble of blood or office from the richest banker and the most famous literary man down to the poorest peasant The nobility Privileges of the nobility UQAUVOTUOTA VATU 4 Kosa f i eee oe, SFT ee ere en ale eiPa ar a ee Ee ee ern Se er aa il Naa pin noe aT pak Sa ae rae eee ate Toe GT Third estate M tddle class The fourth estate The town workers The peasants 82 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. V and most miserable beggar. Like the clergy and the nobility, the third estate likewise was divided into two classes: the middle Class, and the town workers and peasants. The middle class comprised all persons not clerics who did not toil with their hands, such as lawyers, physicians, literary men, heads of guilds, merchants, bankers, artists, actors and government officials. They lived in the Cities and towns, included less than 2,000,000 persons, and repre- sented the wealth, brains, and business ability of France. For two centuries they had been exerting more and more influence through their monopoly of commerce, industry, science, literature and phi- losophy. Such public opinion as existed in France was guided by them. They loaned money to the government and to the nobility, held important offices, and had become the actual masters of the destiny of the nation. Although forced to share the burdens of the state and church, yet they had no political rights and were made in many ways to feel their social inferiority. Fearing national bankruptcy, they demanded the right to inspect the king’s accounts and even to regulate his expenditures; and made discontented by existing institutions, they urged social and political reforms. Many books and pamphlets set forth their cause. Quite a few of the estates of the nobility fell into their hands through forced sales. Indeed many a blue-blooded noble was glad to improve his worldly lot by the marriage of a daughter to the son of a wealthy banker or soap- maker. The land owned by the middle class was far from incon- siderable. Thus ability and money were bringing the bourgeoisie to the level of the nobility before the Revolution occurred. When that movement did begin, it was under the leadership of this able group, who guided it through its unsteady course. It must be remem- bered that the middle class under the old order also profited by special privileges, particularly in trade and industry. In Normandy, Flanders, and Picardy the large farmers formed a rural middle class. The fourth estate was made up of the peasants and town workers. The town workers, numbering perhaps 2,500,000, or one person in ten, had little opportunity to improve their lot. Some of the artisans were organized in guilds under rigid rules and sought to monopo- lize certain branches of industry and to curtail freedom of labor. This selfish system had to be broken down before the new order could come in. Outside of the guilds were thousands of persons who did all sorts of odd jobs and hard labor for low wages but were not organized. These workmen, with a hope for better things in their hearts, formed the revolutionary mobs and played an exciting part in the great transformation. The peasants, approximating 20,000,000, or four fifths of the nation, lived in the country villages mostly on the estates of the nobility. Of these possibly 1,000,000 were still serfs, mostly in Alsace and Lorraine, but this number was being gradually reduced by 1789. The rest were legally free to come and go, to buy and sell, and PAMEEAAUTOSAVTUUUUNOQHHAUICUOUGSATUIAAUUUREERAUUNEEVESERIUDODESUENERITENOERSEOULUEEVOGSTEADOSNPCUOGAEORUEUCOUASIATEODESUAOTELEUDOSMGRAT UPPSALAChap. V] THE FRENCH REVOLUTION 83 to control their own lives. By 1789 at least two fifths of the land belonged to these free peasants, and peasant farms were constantly increasing. Some writers even affirm that the number of peasant proprietors was as large in 1789 as today. The peasants who did not own lands lived on the estates of the crown, the nobles and the church. But these free peasants were still saddled with heavy taxes by the state, with vexatious feudal dues by the lords, and with tithes by the church. Not only did they have to support idle bishops and spendthrift nobles, but from their meager earnings they were forced to bear an unfair share of the cost of the state. If the men of the middle class were justified in their insistence upon a new social and political system based on justice and equality, the peasants, who were the burden bearers of the old régime, were trebly justified. Of course their condition varied — some were well-to-do, while others were so poor that a bad harvest caused famine and serious illness entailed misery. In general, however, the peasants in France were freer and more prosperous than most peasants in Europe except those in England, the Netherlands, and northern Italy. Moreover the conditions were gradually growing better rather than worse. The mainmorte was abolished on the royal domain in 1779. Compe- tent observers’ just prior to the outbreak of the Revolution give, on the whole, a favorable account. Jefferson in 1787 reported that the peasants had enough to eat and appeared happy and comfortable. Arthur Young after three extended tours wrote in his diary descrip- tions of prosperity and contentment alternating with wretchedness and destituiion. Dr. Rigby saw ‘‘few of the lower classes in rags, idleness and misery.’’ Voltaire, who knew Europe thoroughly, thought that the French peasants were fairly well situated. Rousseau was constantly praising them for their morality and joyous tural life. Compared with the American farmer of today, the lot of the French farmer before 1789 was certainly bad, but it was not so bad as that of the Russian, Chinese or Japanese farmers even now. The very fact that the peasants were mostly free and were becoming more enlight- ened, caused them to realize the evils and injustices of the old régime. It was not so much misery and oppression, but new ideas and discon- tent, that aroused in them the spirit of revolt. As they became en- lightened, they branded their feudal lords as robbers, and demanded an efficient government to guarantee them equal rights and the pro- tection of the fruits of their own industry. Despite the handicaps under which trade and industry were placed there were some favorable conditions. To encourage internal communication a school of engineering and a corps of trained engineers with a budget of about 7,000,000 francs for bridges and roads were organized. In 1788, 12,000 leagues of highways had been built and that many more laid out. Great thoroughfares ran from Paris to all parts of the kingdom, but they were intended more for military pur- poses than to encourage trade. The smaller roads leading off from Favorable conditions WEVUAEUDOUSU LUE YELL } ia Se a a eae rs, oe PTE e es ar en ns ey A ET es I ET PURE FE TEs ES Oe a he TET DRL Seba ti Trade and industry Beginning of the factor) system DOTEAMMAMITIVUUAULNUUULUEUTELUHSTLEL AEE 84 MODERN WORLD HISTORY (Chap. V the main highways were in a wretched condition, and were the occasion for numerous complaints. After 1770 considerable attention was given to interior navigation of rivers and canals particularly in the north. The means of transportation left much to be desired. It took from 18 to 20 hours to travel by water from Paris to Rouen, and to go by land from Paris to Marseilles consumed eleven days. A letter sent from Lyons to Bordeaux had to be sent by way of Paris and arrived in about eight days. The cost of transportation of merchandise was about three times less by water than by land but was hampered by frequent drawbacks. The seaports were numer- ous and used by little “‘barques’’ of from 50 to 100 tons. Commerce overseas was in a fairly flourishing condition. It was encouraged by banks and the institution of credit. The Council of Commerce tried to encourage trade, and reforms and commercial treaties with other states sought the same end. These favorable treaties stimu- lated trade with other nations, particularly the United States, Eng- land, and Italy. In supplying the Levant with her manufactured articles France held first place. The Company of the Indies was doing a flourishing business, and the colonial trade was considerable. The seaports on the Atlantic were filled with ships but those on the Mediterranean were less prosperous. In 1787 the imports were valued at over 634,000,000 francs and the exports at nearly 439,000,000 francs. In the three quarters of a century before the Revolution French foreign commerce had quadrupled and had exercised a tre- mendous influence on the growth of industry because much of the surplus capital had been invested at home. The Council of Commerce devoted much attention to the stimu- lation of factories in France. The inspectors of business instituted by Colbert were continued to the Revolution. The royal factories of tapestries, porcelains, and other articles were subsidized by state funds, and even by provinces and municipalities. With the rise of the laissez-faire theory the rigid state control of industry was relaxed and in consequence the number of industries increased. What might be called a rural industry sprang up under local capitalists, and when they began to unite, as was true in a number of instances, the foun- dations of the modern industrial system were laid. This transforma- tion was accelerated by the invention of machinery first in the silk mills and then in the manufacture of cottons. English machines were introduced at an early date on a small scale. In the making of paper, notably at Annonay, machinery was substituted for hand labor. The Society du Creusot, established in 1787, and a few other companies were using the modern method of producing iron. In its coal mine in 1789 the Company d’Anzin was employing 4,000 men and 600 horses together with 12 steam engines. However by 1789 the factory system based on machinery was in its infancy in France, and the small industries predominated everywhere. & The government might be despotic and the social system absurd, HTT LE TOSS TUTA TESTA ESOT LTGT CAREER CGH ERSA TREAT ART TERED TEA aaaChap. V] THE FRENCH REVOLUTION 85 yet the industrial system of the old régime had brought greater ma- terial prosperity to France than to any other country in continental Europe. Of the steadily increasing population, four fifths were tilling the soil, and only one tenth was engaged in business. There was a good supply of livestock, and large quantities of grain and grapes were grown. But local duties and export customs on farm products hindered the development of agriculture. The total value of manufactured goods was $212,000,000 annually. The royal restric- tions on industries were greater than those that hindered farming. Although foreign and colonial trade was not so prosperous as in England and Spain, yet the exports amounted to $108,000,000 and the imports $113,000,000 yeatly. Consequently a national budget of $150,000,000 then weighed as heavily as $600,000,000 now, and a public debt of $1,000,000,000 in 1789 was a larger load than $4,000,000,000 in modern France. Trade and manufacturing were hampered by the royal practice of selling monopolies to increase the royal income. The numerous guilds with their special monopolies fettered business, made France a nation of small industries and caused much discontent among the workers, who organized and fomented strikes until the government forbade all combinations of employees. In spite of the hostility of the guilds and of royal edicts which opposed inventions and improvements, factories increased sixfold from Colbert to Necker. In 1789 soap to the value of $2,600,000 and hair powder to the value of $5,000,000 were produced — an interesting commentary on the life of that day. Loud were the outcries against the low wages, against the internal customs and fees, against the export duties on farm produce, and against the monopolies of the guilds. Freedom of industry and free trade with other nations were demanded. The exchange of goods was hampered by an almost infinite variety of weights and measures. The educational system was based on the belief that only those at the top of society should have trained minds. Education for the masses, it was thought, might prove dangerous. Twenty-two uni- versities prepared the chosen few for law, medicine, and theology. There was a college in every city, and a grammar school in nearly every district, for the children of the bourgeoisie, but few primary schools existed. In some places elementary instruction was free and even compulsory, but there was no public school system in the mod- ern sense. Such a thing as an annual state budget for educational purposes was unheard of. Nevertheless, in general, the French were better educated than most of the European peoples. In 1790, 47 per cent of the men and 27 per cent of the women were able to sign their names to the marriage registers. The educational system was in the hands of the clergy who were not over-zealous to improve the intelli- gence of the people. Rousseau wrote much on the training of the young, and Turgot urged Louis XVI to establish a national school system for both sexes, but it was left for the Revolution to introduce TUUTUTUUAULOEAOLOUAULY UU Eko Industrial system Educational systemRe SR a a a ia Ee Cee ee er a ae me See ha ee Ea y IAB Jummary of old regime 86 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. V such a change. No freedom of the press existed, and hence one of the best means of instructing the people was carefully restricted. The number of newspapers increased towards the Revolution, but editors had to be cautious. Books and pamphlets were av ailable, however, in spite of the censorship, and did much to arouse the people to a realization of the new era dawning in the world. The old régime in France may be summarized as follows The government was autocratic and inefficient, and encour- aged injustice and inequality. The king’s will was law, while the people, even the clergy and nobles, had little voice in national affairs. There was neither civil nor political liberty. The rights of free speech, assembly, and the press were denied. Arbitrary arrests were common, jury trial unknown, and no writ of habeas corpus was pet- mitted. The laws lacked unity, uniformity, and were unwisely administered. National taxation was arbitrary, unfairly distributed, and corrupt. National funds were not spent solely for the welfare of the nation. Government officials were oppressive e and open to bribery. Favoritism to the few, extravagance, and vain display characterized royalrule. Attempts were made to crush such traces of local govern- ment as remained under the powerful machinery of absolutism. 2. The church, wealthy and mighty, was closely allied with the autocratic state, and reflected its policies and practices, while its own obvious duties and opportunities were too often neglected. Freedom of worship was denied. Disbelief was rampant more espe- cially among the scholars, higher clergy and nobles. 3. Society was based on the class distinctions and See privi- leges of an outgrown feudalism. The nobles and higher clergy en- joyed their feudal rights and prerogatives without giving adequate services in return. The middle class through its wealth and intell1- gence was emerging as the dominant power in the nation. The common people, having gained their emancipation from serfdom to a large degree, were galled and irritated by the arbitrary acts of the gov- ernment and by the remnants of feudalism associated with the church, society, and the land system. 4. Economic evils accompanied a bad government and a vicious social system, and hindered industrial progress and national pros- perity. Poverty and misery resulted. .The Pers and town workers had to bear the brunt of the hards! hips of the old régime, and the parish priests suffered but little less. 5. National education was sadly neglected, and such as did exist was in the hands of the clergy. The press was closely censored, and books and pamphlets had to secure special permits for publication. 6. In short, the old régime had become but a hollow shell — a system which had come down beyond its time. Against the condi- tions it perpetuated, the murmur of the people increased in volume and vehemence as time passed, until, under the leadership of the middle class, it finally broke forth in the Revolution. SsMLreUT TIF ILUIUETUIUUUUChap. V] THE FRENCH REVOLUTION 87 2. Tue GENEsIs OF THE REVOLUTIONARY Spirit PRioR TO 1789 Conditions as described in the preceeding section were prevalent in all of western Europe during the second half of the eighteenth century: in some countries mediaevalism and feudalism were more firmly intrenched than in others, and conditions varied widely in different parts of the same country; but on the whole, western Euro- pean culture was a unit. At the end of the century a great convulsion spread over Europe which was to put an end to this state of affairs, commonly called the old régime, and to substitute for it the new Europe of the nineteenth century. This Revolution first appeared in France in the last years of the eighteenth century, but in the fol- lowing years it was spread over all of western Europe by the armies of Napoleon. When this military conqueror was finally defeated in 1815, the partisans of the old régime who attempted to re-establish conditions as they had existed twenty-five years earlier, found them- selves completely unable to do so. If the old régime first broke down in France, this was not because the people of that country were worse off than others; in general, they were better off. It was the bankruptcy of the government which brought ruin to the old régime in France. The wars of Louis XIV had dissipated the wealth which that monarch had enjoyed in the early years of his reign; the frivolous and isamoral Louis XV, acting on the theory of ‘‘ after me the deluge,’’ had done nothing to improve the finances of his country, and much to make them worse; and the well-meaning but stupid and lazy Louis XVI inherited a constantly increasing deficit which neither he nor any one else could check. At the same time that the government was thus finding itself unable longer to carry on because of financial difficulties, popular criticism of the government became ever more powerful. Literary men, through their criticism of existing abuses, sent a wave of revo- lutionary ideas over France and the world. Many of their ideas were borrowed from England and America. They compared French insti- tutions with those of other lands, and held up the glaring abuses at home to public scorn. They gave the people a vision of a new heaven and a new earth and fired them with a deep craving for a realization of the magic words ‘‘Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity.’’1 These thinkers gave France at that time the intellectual leadership of the werld: 1. Montesquieu, a nobleman and judge, made an open attack on despotic kings. In his Spirit of Laws, which ran through twenty-two editions, he contended that states were the creation of history and denied the doctrine of the divine right of kings torule. The English government was praised as the best in the world because it guaran- teed liberty to all its citizens. He urged the separation of the execu- tive, legislative and judicial powers of government. The federal 1 This motto was first used during the Revolution. PUUTUUTIUVULPORHEAHVOLOOEOOLOUQUEV OTD Ube Literary men give people a new vision Montesquieu gk el ieee ee mrHEE EEE TLE ADE § MODERN WORLD HISTORY (Chap. V constitution of the United States and the state constitutions embody many of his theories, and France in developing her constitutions was greatly indebted to him. 2. Voltaire, who came from the middle class, knew what it was to spend a year in the hated Bastille and to be beaten almost to death at the instigation of an outraged nobleman. For a time he was the Voltaire favorite of the court, then, a fugitive from the clutches of royal power, he lived in England. He visited the court of Frederick the Great in Prussia. His scorn for the old régime with its injustices and inequalities was deep and scorching. His satire was biting and witty; his invectives lashed the hypocrisies and bigotries of his day; and his versatility made him the most accomplished writer of the age. Feeling that the old order must be swept away before the new régime could start, destruction became his supreme task. Hence he aimed his hardest blows at the Roman Catholic Church and attacked the abuses of the state. He himself caught no vision of democracy, for he said that he would rather be ruled by one lion than by a hundred gutter rats, but he set thousands to think about it. He gave his own name to the period — “‘the Age of Voltaire’? — the best commentary on his influence. 3. Rousseau, the son of a Geneva watchmaker, was the con- structive prophet of the old régime. His contempt for the evils of the ancient order was as great as that of Voltaire, but he urged the com- Rousseau plete reorganization of human society. As an unsuccessful member of the unprivileged middle class, he wandered over Europe poor and discontented but with the conviction that “‘to love God above all things, and your neighbor as yourself, is the sum of the law.’’ He dreamed of a past, when all were free and equal; when all owned the land; and when there were no wars to kill, no taxes to oppress, and no philosophers to mislead. Civilization, he said, brought selfish greed, private property, servitude, and tyranny. These ideas were popularized in a little book called The Social Contract in which, ignor- ing the facts of history, he pictured the state as originating in a voluntary democratic agreement of all the people. Hence he advocated a republic, based on ‘‘popular sovereignty,’ and ruled by the will of a majority, as the best form of government. This idea spread over the world like a new Gospel. It had much to do with the American Revolution and its results, and helped to establish a republic in France fourteen years after his death. 4. Diderot, another influential thinker, associated with him- self the most distinguished scientists and scholars to gather all human knowledge together in an Encyclopedia. This work became the program of the revolutionists in their attack on the political, Diderot ecclesiastical, and social institutions of the old régime and supplied the facts on which men might attempt to reconstruct civilization. It set forth the world point of view. ‘‘All lands of all men,’’ said Diderot, “have become necessary to one another for the exchange of SN ae SE SE Td i 7 ae aan NENTCTTPASUTARUUE AUNAVELAUTUENEREAUONTOOTRRARSN ERE EDUETORUUENUOUEENVROUUUERESTEONITNVITTRNINT BESLOTTPAMAATTHTUIHUNAUUEUIUUIGUUUUUIULUUUUEUABUAEEIEEEU NEUESChap. V] THE FRENCH REVOLUTION 89 the fruits of industry and the products of the soil.’’ Autocracy, intolerance, slavery, the harsh criminal law, unfair taxes, and feudal- ism were all assailed by the Encyclopedists. Quesnay, the bourgeois court physician of Louis XV, gathered about him a group of men known as “‘ Economists ’’ or ‘ Physiocrats, ” to study trade, commerce and finance. They assailed the economic evils and advocated a series of reforms. Believing that agriculture is the only source of national wealth, they urged the removal of all restraints on it. A single tax on land was declared to be the most equitable and scientific mode of taxation. According to their theory, called laissez-faire, the production and distribution of goods should be left to follow the natural laws of supply and demande unhampered by governmental regulations. Free trade, as the basis for national prosperity, was their goal. This new political economy was reflected in England by Adam Smith in his famous book, The Wealth of Nations. Turgot, one of their number, as minister of finance, attempted to put into practice some of their recommendations. Thus, from another standpoint, the Physiocrats were also arousing the spirit of revolt against the industrial and financial system of the old régime. It should not be supposed, however, that any of these men were republicans, revolutionists or radicals. Most of them admired more than anything else the constitutional monarchy of England and all abhorred revolution and violence. But their critical ideas helped to create the unrest and ferment that led to revolution. The success of the American Revolution likewise appeared to many Frenchmen as the realization of those liberal ideas for which they were contending at home. Furthermore thousands of young men had gone to America to help the colonists secure their independence. There they saw those ideas, which had been given to the world by their own daring thinkers, triumph in the new political and social institutions of the American Republic. They returned to France with their minds full of the sentiments of the Declaration of Inde- pendence, and proud of having helped to create a new and a free nation. As they scattered over their own country, boasting of the régime of liberty they had inaugurated across the seas, they could not avoid comparing what they had seen and felt in the New World with what they found in the Old World. All France, in fact, had been watching with deep interest the experiment across the sea. Its success served as a powerful stimulus in inciting the spirit of revolu- tion in France. The ‘‘Enlightened Despots’’ of Europe also studied the schism in the British Empire, read the works of the French reformers, con- ferred with some of them at court, and honestly sought to improve the most flagrant abuses in their realms. Ancient laws were replaced by modern laws. Many of the privileges of the nobility were cur- tailed. The power and wealth of the church were reduced. Facto- ries and commerce were encouraged. But there was no thought of IUMVINOQNQQ0Q0UUUITV 000 Quesnay Influence of the American Revolution Efforts of the ““ enlightened despots’ te ee nn ee ie ete meee Cee ee ieee ereenenee a me sae mnt = * = ae ae ne os to ade OE es ee ree ts = ssw | | } Influence of the British constitution Summary of new forces Comment of Segur 90 MODERN WORLD HISTORY \Chap. V establishing popular, representative government. These few re- forms merely called emphatic attention to the remaining evils, and aroused greater popular discontent. At the same time the changes angered the privileged classes and caused them to cling more tena- ciously to their rights. The example of other European countries reacted on France and further encouraged the spirit of revolt. ‘‘Lib- eralism’’ became a social fad. When, ina popular play, a great noble was told that all he had done to deserve his special privileges was to be born,”’ all the nobles laughed and cheered. They saw the impending storm without appreciating its significance. The British constitution and the absence of feudalism in England challenged the admiration of intelligent Frenchmen. Many of them had travelled, and some had lived for years, in England. Such politi- cal writers as Locke were read by the French thinkers, who were continually pointing out the contrasts between their own country and England, and urging imitation. The popularity of English ideas and institutions was followed by the adoption of English fashions — such as horse-racing, short stirrups, plain clothes, linen dresses, bread and butter, and social clubs. An intellectual revolution, based on the scientific observation of facts, on experimentation, and on the new inventions, was breaking down veneration for the past and leading people to look hopefully to the future for better things. In the face of a hostile church, the scientists boldly studied man, nature, the earth, and the universe. Natural laws were discovered; and thinkers dared to assert that by the use of human reason the state, church, society, and other insti- tutions could be improved. This new hope inspired men to attempt to better existing conditions. The spirit of progress was surely undermining the old forces. The new science, supplementing the bold stand of the law courts, the destructive and constructive criti- cism of the literary men, the example of the American Revolution, and the labors of the enlightened despots, was arousing in France a passion for change. Some were content with reform; others de- sired to sweep away entirely the mediaeval institutions and begin civilization anew on a higher grade. Segur, reflecting on the Revo- lution wrote: ‘We believed that we were entering a golden age of which past centuries gave no idea, and in the future we saw only the good that could be secured for humanity by the reign of reason. We were disciples of new doctrines. Voltaire charmed our intelli- gence and Rousseau touched our hearts.’’ Another contemporary said: “‘The chiefs of the Revolution imagined that they were assem- bled to correct every fault of the past and every error of the human mind, and to secure the happiness of future generations. ’’ In 1774 the young rulers, Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, ascended the French throne — a throne undermined by an intellectual revolution. The new monarch was ignorant of Europe and did not understand France. His ideals were high, but he was irresolute and PMR TUOTUGAHTAOAN VERT VEL TTAT TENT UOT DGV LEAT EGA TTSTERATAAT ESA PORT EEA ROOT PEO OCA EAA TAA EST PGA TT TOOTS AAT AUNT TER aa TTChap. V] THE FRENCH REVOLUTION gt incapable. The queen was vain, frivolous, and indiscreet. She was mocked as a stupid foreigner, and court gossips tried to blacken her character. Under these sovereigns national finances were in the utmost disorder. The people were grumbling about the heavy taxes. At first, the big man among the king’s advisers was Turgot, minister of finance, who sought to save the country from bankruptcy and at the same time equalize the burden of taxation. His reform program included the consolidation of the national debt, a scientific budget, simplification of taxation in the direction of a single tax on land paid by all classes, the abolition of internal customs and substitution of free trade, freedom of the serfs, the overthrow of feudalism, dissolu- tion of the guilds, a new code of criminal law, the restoration of local and national assemblies, freedom of the press, and religious toleration. This remarkable scheme might have saved France from the Revolu- tion, but all those who profited from privileges, pensions, and offices turned their guns against Turgot. “‘Do not forget, Sire,” he cautioned Louis XVI, ‘‘that it was weakness that put the head of Charles I on the block.’’ The vacillating monarch dismissed Turgot saying ‘‘ Alas! there are but two men in the whole nation who really love the people — Monsieur Turgot and myself.” When Voltaire heard the news, he lamented, “‘ Nothing is left for me now but to die.” Necker, a wealthy Swiss banker in Paris, was called to succeed Tut- got. He announced his intention to balance the budget by reforming the methods of; taxation and by borrowing money to restore public confidence. His proposed reforms brought a storm of protests from the nobility and clergy. They denounced him as a foreigner and a Protestant. The queen insisted upon his dismissal. Before leaving office, however, he published a little book called Compte rendu au rot (Report to the King), which revealed the actual state of public finances and proposed certain reforms. Over 80,000 copies of this work were soon in the hands of eager readers, who for the first time saw the inside of the finances of the autocracy. Within seven years Necker was recalled to power. Meanwhile the king entrusted the national finances to Calonne, a dashing courtier, whose foolish policy was to bolster up the embarrassed monarchy by loans. In four years he borrowed $300,000,000. Soon the treasury was empty and no more fools could be found to fill it. Then the spendthrift turned reformer. ‘““Why this is sheer Necker,’’ was the king’s comment on his scheme for reforms. ‘‘It is the best that can be done,’’ blandly answered Calonne. In desperation, the king, in 1787, called the Assembly of Notables, composed of the most prominent persons in the state and church. When the Notables learned from Calonne that the national debt had been increased by $80,000,000, they demanded his recall. At the same time a series of sweeping reforms was recommended. When Lafayette urged the convocation of the States General, the countof Artois, the president of the Notables, cried: “What! Do you PNUOQOQOQONONIANUUOUO 00x Louis XVI and his queen Turgot’ s reforms Necker's reforms Calonne Assembly of Notables epee ae ee ae ee ee NT ae92 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. V demand the calling of the States General?’’ “‘ Yes, Monseigneur,”’ answered Lafayette, ‘‘and even more than that.’’ Bailly remarked that the Notables merely postponed “‘the evils to a greater day.”’ When the king sent the reform decrees to the court of Paris for registration, that body approved of all of them except the land tax # and the stamp tax. It declared that “‘Only the nation assembled in States General the States General can give the consent necessary to the establishment demanded of a permanent tax.’’ It humbly begged the king to summon that body. This was little short of rebellion and recognized as such by the monarch. He exiled the Paris court, thereby causing a popular uproar until the court was recalled after consenting to register a general tax in place of the two objectionable ones. Soon another royal edict, which authorized loans for five years, was protested. In anger the king sent for the minutes of the court and tore out the protest. In 1788 he replaced all the courts with a new judicial system, but a threatened uprising of the people, who regarded the courts as the bulwark of their liberties, forced the monarch to restore them to power. Another victory was won against absolute monarchy. The reform programs proposed before 1789 were excellent. Had Louis XVI possessed the foresight and will to see them enforced, the old régime might have been transformed into the new régime grad- Louis XVI ually and without violence. But he was lacking in courage, if not seealitaieh Bice ie gop fott conviction and gave way to the demands of the privileged classes ASR 0) ; Sane ; = : reforming before anything worth while could be accomplished. Hence it was France left to the gigantic sweep of the Revolution to tear up the evils by the roots and cast them aside in the interest of progress and humanity. Bankruptcy thus brought the old régime in France to ruin. In desperate need of filling his empty treasury, the king was at last driven to accept Necker’s advice and to summon the States General, in the hope that the people of the kingdom, represented in this body, would contribute the funds which the nobility had refused. But the majority of the members of the States General were members of the middle class and were inspired by the idealism of their class and day. They absolutely refused to perform the one service asked of them and dissolve; they insisted, instead, upon extensive reforms in the government of France, and reluctantly the king gave in. When the flood gates had thus once been opened, and reform had swept into the land, no man could close them again until the Revolution had run its course. a 3. THE SUMMONING OF THE STATES GENERAL A a ee BN Se a SE NN See See The States General was an old feudal body which had not been assembled for 175 years. It was composed of three estates, or cham- bers, representing the clergy as the first, the nobility as the second, and States General the rest of the people as the third estate. Necker was too indolent cattsG specifically to exclude the fourth estate, so many of the lower classes voted to elect the representatives of the third estate. This was the —— le a TE ame eR na ree ee UETGd eee TTUTPTLTTTTLITUTOQTTTUTTTTOUGTOOVUQTQOOTIUQOQVQQQOQOTEONTUUINOQITITATTITTTAYTT ETT TTT ETT TET ETT TETChap. V] THE FRENCH REVOLUTION 93 first approximation to universal suffrage in human history. Each estate had one vote, hence the privileged estates might outvote the third estate on every proposed reform. This situation was discussed widely. The leaders of the third estate, differing greatly from those of 1614 who addressed their sovereign on their knees, demanded a reorganization of the methods of representation and voting, while the privileged orders clamored for their sacred rights. When the court of Paris favored the old organization of the States General, it lost all its popularity. Finally Necker who had been recalled to power compromised by giving the first and second estates 300 representa- tives each, and the third estate 600, leaving the method of voting unchanged. During the stirring election of 1200 members of the States General, the king had asked the different orders to draw up lists of abuses needing correction, and of advisable reforms. These docu- ments, called cahiers, of which some 60,000 have been preserved, reflect the ideas and feelings of the people. They show that most of the evils were due to autocratic government, but none of them asked for a republic. Nor was a voice raised for the political enfranchise- ment of the lower classes. Some demanded a constitution with regular meetings of the States General. Some of the cahiers of the privileged order were remarkably liberal. Those of the third estate were most emphatic in demanding the abolition of feudal dues. As a whole they show that the nation was eager for a reformation of the social, economic, and political systems, but gave no hint of a violent upheaval. Dressed in costumes of 1614, which the king had ordered to be worn, the deputies of the States General gathered in one of the royal palaces at Versailles on May 5, 1789 for the opening session. From his throne, with the queen at his side, Louis XVI welcomed them in an address that he had rehearsed like a schoolboy. Necker's message was three hours long. After its delivery, the royal pair left the hall amid cries of ‘‘Vive le roi.”’ Several significant incidents irritated the third estate. In the first place, after being sent into the hall through a back door, they were kept standing until the clergy and nobles were seated. Secondly, the king, after this speech, reseated himself and put on his hat. The nobles and clergy then put on their hats. The commoners started to do the same, when cries of protest arose. In the confusion, the king settled the trouble by removing his het, and all followed his example. Nothing was said about the reforms which the third estate had expected, and the tone of the king was patronizing. Finally, the privileged orders filed out behind the rulers leaving the representatives of the people to find their way out the best they could. Thus a bad impression was given to the third estate at the outset. The nation had been asked for more taxes, but the vital question of voting had not been settled. Over that issue a deadlock of six weeks resulted. At last on June 17, by a vote of 491 to go the third TONUNIONUANONOQ OULU UNTO NUH ELD Representation and voting Cahiers Opening sessionee eS SS = Le PEE a a a en ee at H Victory of Third Estat Le on voting il f aL Fal OT fpe > yy Bastil Le Paris Commune King in Paris ho TH HUH 94 MODERN WORLD HISTORY (Chap. V estate, actually representing 96 per cent of the nation and knowing itself to be the real power in France, declared itself to be the National Assembly of France. That was the first step in the French Revolu- tion. Thesecond step was taken on June 20, when this new Assembly, finding their hall closed to them on a rainy morning by order of the king, rushed into the near-by royal tennis court and took an oath ‘never to separate . . . until the constitution of the kingdom shall be established.’’ A few days later Louis XVI sanctioned the usur- pation of legislative power by the third estate. He ordered the nobles and clergy to join the Assembly and to vote by individuals and not by orders. The first phase of the Revolution had been won by the middle class supported by the nation. The National Assembly now changed its name to National Constituent Assembly, and ap- pointed a committee to frame a new constitution. 4. Ine Nationat CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY The court ‘“‘ring,’’ realizing how much autocracy and privilege had lost, began to plot for the overthrow of the Assembly. German and Swiss troops were located near Paris and Versailles to suppress uprisings in case the Assembly should be dissolved. The immediate withdrawal of these troops was demanded by the Assembly. Alarmed by the danger threatening the Assembly, the people of Paris decided to arm themselves. Seeking arms for this Bes a motley mob attacked and tore down che old Bastille, as this fortress had been one of the state prisons. Their act presently was regarded as a symbol of resistence to tyranny of the old régime. The day, July 14, is still celebrated in France as the great French national holiday. This outbreak in Paris was followed by the creation of a new form of city government, the commune, or municipal council, elected by the wards. At the same time a national guard under General Lafayette was organized to preserve order and to protect the city against royal troops. The king, tired out by a day’s hunting and in bed, when in- formed of w! at had happened in Paris, asked: ‘‘What? Has there been a riote’’ “‘No, Sire,’ replied the courier, a revolution.’ The next day, unattended, he hurried to the Assembly for advice and protection. He promised to recall Necker and to remove the foreign troops. Two days later, after making his will and partaking of the holy sacrament, accompanied by 200 deputies he went to Paris. There he donned the tricolor cockade, and approved all the changes the people had made. A new political régime was emerging, and the king seemed to be giving it his cordial approval. Almost as impor- tant as this revolution, was the sw eeping administrative revolution which came a little later. The ancient and confused local adminis- trative divisions of France were abolished and replaced by the de- partments, districts, cantons and communes which still constitute the basis of French local government. Meantime the country districts by the end of July were swept PEATUA LESTER ARTO NEAT AA LESH UGU CARES TOA LEA ESN TU ETOCS ETE TTT PUT VUETATLENTA LUCHA TPEChap. V] THE FRENCH REVOLUTION 95 by a wave of social revolution. The peasants, gathered in the parish church, or on the village commons, were abolishing the feudal dues. The ‘‘war on the chateaux’’ began and many of the feudal castles were sacked to destroy the records of feudal obligations. A com- mittee of the Assembly reported early in August that in addition to the destruction of castles, millers were hanged, tax-gatherers drowned, watehouses torn down, and salt depots burned. Thus a radical revolution was marching much more rapidly without the Assembly thanwithin. This report opened the eyes of the deputies to the neces- sity for immediate action. Seeing the handwriting on the wall, it was moved, in the famous night session of August 4-5, that feudalism in France be abolished.! This motion carried. The clergy also agreed to surrender their tithes, and the priests and judges their fees. The old game laws were swept away. Exemption from taxes were ‘forever abolished.’’ Offices and honors were opened to all citizens ‘without distinction of birth’’ and all undeserved ** pension, favors, and salaries’? were suppressed. Manorial courts were abolished. Never in the world’s history had such a thing occurred. The altruism and the voluntary nature of the decisions of this famous night session have, however, been greatly exaggerated. The clergy and third estate abolished the feudal dues; and the nobility and third estate abolished the tithes. The man who moved the abolition of the feudal system — the vicomte de Noailles — was a notorious pauper and dead-beat, son of a younger branch of the family, and was popu- larly dubbed ‘‘John Lackland.’’ The duke d’Aiguillon, who seconded the motion was certainly not the richest man in France, or anything like it. Moreover, by these decrees, the nobles lost only what had already been taken from them. Within four months two momentous revolutions had occurred — one, political, destroying absolute monarchy; the other, social, abolishing feudalism. Louis XVI bowed with good grace to the loss of autocratic power. But thousands of nobles and higher clergy outside the Assembly refused to accept the social revolution. Some, like the count d’Artois, the king’s brother, fled to foreign lands after the fateful fall of the Bastille to secure help from the champions of autocracy. Those left in France urged the feeble monarch to veto the decrees of August 4-5. As the months passed without royal approval, and as poor harvests were followed by ugly rumors of royalist counter- plots, the rabble of Paris became active. On October 5 a mob of several thousand women and some men of the lower class set out from Paris to demand bread of the king. Lafayette slowly followed with the national guard, and found the mob camped for the night in front of the huge royal palace at Versailles. Next morning the mob killed some of the royal guards, broke into the palace, and forced the king accompanied by the dauphin and the queen to appear on a balcony before the people and to promise to go to Paris to live. “Bring the 1 On this subject one should consult S. Herbert, The Fall of Feudalism in France (1921). MUTT OOQOQOQQOOVEQUOQQQH00011 Lone Social revolution spreads to the country Feudalism abolished Tithes surrendered Flight of the nobles Paris mob goes to Versailles= rn Ee TARGET ae ee = + AF ASO TS ON Vg ee a es a Funeral procession of the old régime Declaration of the Rights of Man 96 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. V king and the Assembly to Paris,’’ advised one of the journals, “and the price of bread will go down.”’ At one o'clock on October 6 the funeral vas of the old régime began. The royal family dubbed ‘“‘the baker, the baker's wife, and their son,’ AP Re tled by the rabble carrying on their pikes the heads of the slain guards, drove back to Paris, and took up their residence in the Tuileries, virtually prisoners of the Paris- ians. In about two weeks the Assembly held its first session in the capital. Many persons believed that the Revolution was now over. In reality only a new phase had begun. The old States General, summoned to save France from bankruptcy, had transformed itself into a modern legislative body. The representatives of the third estate, under the lead of the middle class, had forced a new method of voting in the Assembly by means of which they held the majority of votes. Paris had set up a new type of city government. The peasants had forced the Assembly to abolish 1 feudalism and to equalize taxa- tion. Finally the Paris mob had forced the monarch and Assembly to go to Paris, where the Eee exercised more and more power over them. The transfer of the Assembly from Versailles to Paris marked the beginning of a new era in the Revolution. It meant the gradual but sure dey elopment of violence and mob rule under the growing domination of the Paris masses. The events of October 6 led straight to the excesses of the National Convention and the Jacobins. Meanwhile the committee named to draft a constitution occupied itself with its task. French writers had praised the English constt- tution. Franklin, when minister to France had the American state constitutions translated, and the federal constitution of 1787 was well known. The court of Paris had talked a good deal about “ funda- mental laws,’ the cahiers demanded a constitution as one of the chief tasks of the States General, and in the Tennis Court Oath the third estate had sworn to give the nation a constitution. The committee began its work by first drafting a Declaration of the Rights of Man. In doing so they had the advice of the author of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, then in Paris as the American minis- ter to France. Just before the storming of the Bastille, Lafayette, who was familiar with the American bills of rights, introduced into the Assembly a draft of such a document. Another deputy urged the adoption of ‘‘the noble idea of the Declaration, conceived in another hemisphere.”’ It was not until August 26, however, that the Declaration was completed. The tragic events of October 5-6 forced the king to sanction it. The chief provisions of the document were: (1) ‘All men are born free, and equal in rights.’” (@) The purpose of government is to preserve the ‘‘natural rights of man. (3) The nation alone is sovereign. 4) - ‘Liberty consists in the power to do anything that does not injure others.’’ (5) ‘Law 1s the expression of the general will.’ (6) ‘‘Every man is presumed BUVPPAMREEAATATAVELEVTITOVAVEVEREVEVEVOTOVEQEGYAVAVEVESTOREQEGTONERAOAUNOVATAVEO TOV EVTRES EVERIO PON EVEVTRESHONEQUOESVAVTRNOPON ES TOUUEOV EG PST ORD UREN TOESERO TAT EA UE TY EET ELT ieChap. V] THE FRENCH REVOLUTION 97 innocent until he has been pronounced guilty.’’ (7) Freedom ot conscience, speech, and the press is guaranteed so long as it does ‘‘not derange the public order.’’ (8) All public officials are account- able to the people. (9) Property is a “sacred and inviolable right.”’ (10) Taxes should be paid by all in proportion to their ability to pay. Setting forth the principles of modern, democratic government, this Declaration, to the present time, is a part of the fundamental political beliefs of the French people. This statement of principles formed the preamble of the new constitution which was slowly elaborated from 1789 to 1791. Like IVOUTVOQVTV DONT OONV NUH LLE the constitution of the United States, it was a compromise between The the conservative and liberal forces, and was based on two ideas: (1) the sovereignty of the people, and (2) the separation of govern- mental powers. It created an hereditary, constitutional monarchy similar to that of England. The ‘King of the French,’ whose person was ‘‘sacred,’’ was subjected to the laws of the nation. He could appoint and dismiss his ministers, but they were required to report their expenditures to the legislature. He had a “‘suspensive veto,”” by which a law not approved by him remained inoperative unless passed by three successive legislatures. He conducted foreign affairs, and was the head of the army, but could neither declare wat nor make peace. He was the servant of the people’s will but had no share in forming this will. The legislature was a single house of 745 members elected for two years by all male citizens who paid taxes equal to three days’ labor. By this provision about 3,000,000 men were not given the right to vote, and political power was placed in the hands of the middle class. The legislature's functions and powers were very extensive. Judges of every rank were elected by the voters. For purposes of local government, France was divided into 83 departments, which, in turn, were sub- divided into districts, cantons, and communes. “‘ All of the peculiar privileges’’ of the provinces were swept away and replaced by © the laws common to all Frenchmen.’’ All local officers were chosen by the people. The political and social revolutions were accompanied by an ecclesiastical revolution. Many of the cahiers had demanded radical changes in the church. The decrees of August 4-5 had abolished the Con “7 stitution of feudal rights, tithes, and fees of the clergy. The Declaration of Church the Rights of Man established religious freedom, and deprived the revolution church of the right of censorship over the press. On November 2, 1789, the Assembly took the drastic step of confiscating all church property, but agreed to pay the salaries of the clergy and to provide for poor-telief from state funds. This was followed by the dissolu- tion of the monasteries. The confiscated church lands were sold to finance the national government, now in the direst straits for money. The Civil Constitution of the Clergy was adopted on July 12, 1790, to reorganize the propertyless church. The 117 old bishoprics were f a oe pT ALL et pe TISe SE RT ee ee Tee Tai LE eS ET ee a ae : HH HH UTP V IE | ne The ee . ’? non-jurors The assignats and the ruin of the French financial system , Emigrés urged war on Revolution Retaliation of Assembly Flight of the royal family MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. V 98 reduced to 83 to correspond with the departments. The clergy be- came civil officials elected by the people. The nominal headship of the pope at Rome was recognized, but in reality the new French Church had become nationalized. Before taking office the clergy must take an oath, like civil officers, pledging loyalty to the national constitution. Protestants, Jews and atheists might join with loyal Catholics in electing catholic officials. The pope, bishops, priests, and monks openly attacked these changes; thousands of laymen, who had supported other phases of the Revolution, displayed their hostility to these measures. When the Assembly ordered all clergy to take the required oath within a week, only four bishops and one third of the priests did so. The “‘non-jurors’’ were branded as “‘dis- turbers of the peace’’ and treated as having resigned their offices. Hence the clergy joined the dissatisfied nobles and plotted for the overthrow of the Revolution. And the king, who felt that he had violated his conscience in signing the laws, became a more bitter foe of the Assembly. One of the most disastrous policies of the Revolution was in- directly associated with the church reforms, namely, the financial policy to which the confiscation of church property gave rise. Large issues of paper money or assignats were authorized with the expecta- tion that they would be redeemed by the income from the sale of these church lands. But so unpopular was the new ecclesiastical policy that few would buy the land offered for sale, and much of the money derived from the sale was diverted through graft. Hence, the paper money became more and more worthless, and was issued in ever greater quantities. It depreciated even more than the notorious continental currency in our Revolutionary War, and this financial policy for the time being ruined the credit and finances of France and constituted one of the chief problems which had to be met by the Directory and Napoleon. The ‘‘emigration’’ of the nobles was accelerated by the attack on the church. These frightened and despoiled émigrés, living at the courts of neighboring countries and burning with a desire for revenge, were plotting to embroil Europe in war with the new government of France. They urged the king to flee from France and to appeal to his brother monarchs to restore his absolute power. The Assembly retaliated by confiscating the property of the émigrés. It proclaimed them traitors punishable by death, and, as a final blow, abolished all hereditary titles of nobility. As a virtual prisoner in Parts, Louis XVI at last resolved to join the émigrés, hoping to return with an army to crush the Revolution. On the night of June 20, 1791, the queen dressed as a Russian countess and the king disguised as her valet, fled from the Tuileries. At Varennes the king was recognized by his prominent nose, and three members of the Assembly were sent to bring the royal family back to the capital, where they were held prisoners on their own thrones by their own subjects. The king's SAF ATEUUATUCIEUELUEUIITUCUIEEUUAUUEISCUGOOUNHSUHUEDGOURGEOUUSEOTAUU HOU RESIUOCUOSOC TEL UREUOUAGUABS URALChap. V] THE FRENCH REVOLUTION 99 betrayal of the constitution was proved by the royal decree, which he had left behind him, annulling every act of the Assembly since June 23, 1789. Now for the first time the word “‘republic’’ was heard openly on the streets, and a republican party began to form. The Constitutional Assembly adjourned on September 30, 1791, after having passed 2,500 laws, which had transformed France from an absolute to a limited monarchy under the rule of the middle class, reorganized society on the basis of equality, and nationalized the church. 5. THE LreGisLaTiIvE AssEMBLY Meanwhile the election of the Legislative Assembly created by the new constitution was held. Since a self-denying ordinance, passed by the Constituent Assembly in its last days, prevented any of the members of the old National Assembly from taking seats in the new body, the 745 members chosen reflected the wishes of the people but were absolutely without training or experience in self- government. Among them were more politicians and literary men and fewer lawyers, nobles, and clergy. They came mostly from the younger middle class, and were divided into two distinct parties: (1) The Right, or Constitutional Monarchists, who at first had a large majority, felt that the Revolution had gone far enough and that France should begin to live her new life under the constitution of 1791. (2) The Left, or Republicans, were hostile to the monarchy and eager to carry the Revolution a step further. These 240 deputies formed two groups: the Jacobins and the Girondists. The former represented the political clubs of Paris and the provincial cities, and, although few in number, spoke emphatically in favor of a more democratic government. The Girondists, though most of their leaders came from Bordeaux, represented the country districts, hated and feared the Paris mob, and dreamed of an ideal republic. The first problem to attract the attention of the Legislative Assembly was the hostility of the clergy and the nobles. Since the clergy were fomenting insurrection against the public welfare and conspiring with the enemies of the nation, they were ordered to take the oath to obey the constitution or lose their offices and pay, and be liable to imprisonment. The king’s veto of this act aroused a storm of cpposition in the republican ranks. The nobles continued their efforts to overthrow the Revolution. On the German border they had an army of 20,000 ready to invade France. The count of Provence, the brother of Louis XVI, proclaimed himself *‘ Regent of France’ on the ground that the king was a prisoner. Codperating with the clergy the émzgrés induced the peasants of the province of Vendée to rise in revolt. In the face of these menaces, the émigrés were proclaimed guilty of “conspiracy against the fatherland’’ and punishable by death. When the king also vetoed this decree, the Assembly abolished the terms “‘Sire’’ and ‘‘Your Majesty’” in PUOEEAEETUDETO SUEY ESTES Republic now openly urged The Legislative Assembly Parties Progress of revolution under the Legislative Assembly } ' } NNN ade ee a ak ad SS Foe id ages Coe oeTETTTA REAP ESSERE ERELASEOREEOOER APSE RI EEE 100 MODERN WORLD HISTORY (Chap. V addressing him, and proceeded, in defiance of the constitution, to usurp executive power. In the meantime business in France was in a hodgepodge. The paper money, which was issued on the security of confiscated church lands, depreciated in value every day, and the cost of living mounted. Many of the business men said that the Revolution had resulted in more evil than good. From the outbreak of the French Revolution the absolute mon- archs of Europe were alarmed lest the wicked example might spread to their own countries. When Leopold II of Austria, the brother of Alarm of Marie Antoinette, heard of the arrest of the royal pair at Varennes, he European declared that ‘‘the honor of all sovereigns and the security of every monarchs » government’’ were compromised by that illegal act. Hence he sug- gested to his brother monarchs that they combine to restore the liberty and honor of the most Christian King and his family, and place a check upon the dangerous excesses of the French Revolution, the fatal example of which it behooves every government to repress. — Declaration of he king of Prussia alone was won over by this appeal. At the insti- Pillnitz : : ; fone gation of the count of Artois, these two monarchs issued on Aug. 27, 1791, the famous Declaration of Pillnitz. Since the cause of Louis XVI was that of all European rulers, it stated, they were ready to reinstate him in his rights, provided others were willing to join them. As it was certain that England would not then coéperate, this Decla- ration meant nothing, and was drawn up merely to placate the count of Artois; but to the French people it seemed a threat, and therefore made them more suspicious of the king and queen, and led the radi- cals to assert that it was the duty of Frenchmen, who had destroyed tyranny at home, to aid other peoples in securing their liberty. For months the possibility of war with the absolute monarchs of Europe gripped men in France. The fiery Jacobins and eloquent Girondists threw the nation into a patriotic fever. People donned the red cap of liberty, and wore the long trousers of the workingmen as emblems of equality and fraternity. The war spirit, capturing all parties in the Assembly, led to the declaration of war on Austria on Revolutionary April 20, 1792. Only seven men dared to vote against it. Robes- Brance declared pierre said that it would aid only the rich, while the poor would have war on Austria } to bear the brunt of it. These pacifists were howled down by the assertion that this was a war of defense, not conquest; a war against despots, not peoples; and a war to insure the rights of ‘‘a free nation.’’ The war marked a new phase in the French Revolution. It was a clash between the new régime in France and the old régime in Europe; between ‘‘Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity’’ and privi- leges, injustices, and inequalities. It resulted in the destruction of the monarchy and the creation of a republic in France. It spread the ideas of the French Revolution all over Europe. At the same time it began a generation of wars that ended in Napoleon and the restora- tion. Prussia now joined Austria ‘‘to put an end to anarchy. * The invasion of France by two monarchical enemies produced an a el aa ee ae eg FO RE ST eT ee NT ek ea Ca ae EN OF DET a ES a de eet ween bata eines Sees =F an > ———— LUN ETVHPMAAUANUATAVEAUUNAVUOEAUREGUUDEGNIVOQTGADUUAAUOENAATEGAEUAI ESS OTOAT VERA OTART NGAI EOGAN TOSI ANAT VER EROOSTOOOATROST EONAR OTC Ee eT nTTHE FRENCH REVOLUTION IOI Chap. V] immediate reaction. The Assembly ordered the non-juring clergy deported to the penal colonies, and sold the estates of the émzgres. The nation was called to arms to drive out the invaders. The Paris commune, under the direction of the dynamic Danton, incited a mob to attack the royal palace on August 10, and the next day forced the Assembly to suspend the king from office and call a new Constitu- tional Convention to be elected by universal manhood suffrage — the first example in modern history. Danton was made the head of a provisional executive council. The king and queen were imprisoned, and a number of suspected persons were arrested. Marat’s newspaper, “The Friend of the People’’ urged the death of all “‘enemies of the state.’ The Paris commune usurped the powers of the national government and brutally massacred 1,200 of the 3,000 prisoners — priests, aristocrats, and bourgeoisie. We march upon the enemy, but leave behind no brigands to slaughter our wives and children ’’ was the explanation made to the rest of France. The lie was given to all those noble sentiments of the Revolution about the rights of man, liberty, and freedom of opinion. To the credit of the more humane members of the commune, it should be said that they sent a letter to the country repudiating the massacre. Under these stern measures the French military line stiffened, the foreign foe was checked one hundred miles from Paris, and within a month driven off French soil. 6. Tue NationaL CONVENTION The National Convention met September 20, 1792 with the Girondists and Jacobins in control. Of the 782 members 89 had been members of the States General and 181 had sat in the Legislative Assembly. Of the three parties in the Convention the Girondists, representing the bourgeoisie and the rural districts, had 165 members, but no effective leadership. They believed that the Revolution should be worked out in a strictly legal manner, and hence disapproved of the recent massacres in Paris and feared the commune under the control of the Jacobins. They wanted a federal republic based on the 83 depart- ments. The Jacobins or the Mountain, who drew their strength from Paris and other large cities, defended the dictatorship of the commune, and advocated a strongly centralized republic to preserve order and liberty. They were well organized, ably led by Danton, Robespierre and Marat, and supported by the lower classes of Paris. Between these two groups sat the Plain, which, by voting with one side or the other, was able to determine the majority. In the contest for con- trol in the Convention the Jacobins won and the Girondists went down to defeat and death. The first act of the Convention was to vote unanimously “that monarchy is abolished in France’’ and to decree that “the French Republic is one and indivisible.” Thus within three years France had been transformed from an absolute monarchy into the First TUVOQINEQOTIUOTNUQONINOQ0N 0011 Cuba France invaded by Austria and Prussia Massacre of “enemies of the State’’ Girondists and Jacobins Creation of the First Republic ———————————— nes alka A a eeSa ae ae et — = ee er i LL AFT TEES EN ET ee ek are + r - — War with Euro pe Creation of strong £9 vernment Fall of the Girondists PTTL 102 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. V French Republic. The trial of “‘ Louis Capet © for conspiracy against the nation follow ed as a “logical necessity.’’ ‘The kings of Europe challenge us,’ thundered Danton. Let us hurl the ‘‘head of the king’’ at their feet as our challenge. Out of 721 votes 387 were for death. The conviction was made easy by the discovery of a secret casket containing treasonable corresponde nce between the royal family and the éwz Br’ and foreign princes. On January 21, 1793, Louis XVI mounted the scaffold s aying, io my blood assure the happiness of France.’’ The rulers of Europe promptly accepted the challenge of the Republic, and England, Spain, Holland, and the smaller states of Germany and Italy allied themselves with Austria and Prussia to punish “‘this democratic firebrand, which threatens to set Europe aflame.’’ Republicanism was arrayed against autoc- racy, and had to conquer on the field of battle to live. A wave of crusading zeal surged over France. The Convention voted to aid all oppressed peoples to overthrow their rulers. Other peoples were to have the liberties which the French had come to possess. A crusade to free the world from monarchical absolutism was widely discussed. The greedy allies secretly discussed the partition of France. For over twenty years this terrific struggle went on, in one w ay or another, until in 1815 a British ship carried Napoleon Bonaparte to his island prison. To meet the enemies of the Republic at home and abroad, the Convention on January 4, 1793, formed the Committee of General Security with subcommittees throughout the nation. As conditions grew worse, the first Committee of Public Safety was appointed on April 6 to “establish the despotism of liberty in order to crush the despotism of kings.’’ A Revolutionary Tribunal was created with power to punish those who were disloyal to the Revolution. Such was the strong, despotic machinery devised to safeguard the Republic. In the hands of the extreme Jacobins, it led directly to the Reign of Terror. Universal military service was decreed. Frantic efforts were made to secure foreign allies both in Europe and America, but in vain. Single-handed, France was forced to meet her foes. Inspired by a new militant nationalism, the republicans began to talk, in the language of Louis XIV, about their ‘‘ natural boundaries”’ — the Alps and the Rhine River. Hence the conquered districts in Belgium and Germany were annexed to the Republic after the people had given their approval, and transformed by the new political and social ideas. When the Girondists, as advocates of law and order, sought to block the impetuosity of the Jacobins, the Paris mob forced the Convention to vote the expulsion and arrest of their leaders. The rabble of the capital had usurped the sovereign power of the na- tion and left the Jacobins supreme in the Convention. Outside of Paris, however, there was so much hostility to Jacobin rule that civil war was threatened, and meanwhile the foreign invaders once more had come within a hundred miles of Paris. Never did men in control TTT POLAT AAT ATTA TEER AChap. V | THE FRENCH REVOLUTION 103 of a national government exhibit more marvelous energy in meeting a menacing situation. The Convention had been called to draft a new constitution for the Republic on a representative basis but radical in content. This so-called constitution of 1793 asserted that government is instituted to guarantee equality, liberty, security and property; and the free- dom of employment, speech, press, assembly and worship. Liberty means ‘‘Do not do to another that which you do not wish should be done to you.’” The state should provide for the jobless and unfor- tunate. ‘‘Let any person who usurps the sovereignty’’ of the people ‘“be put to death.’’ Education should be placed *‘ at the door of every citizen.’’ Each generation should be permitted to make its own constitution. When governments violate the rights of the people, they may exercise their sacred right of revolution. This constitution was intended to placate the hostile departments by safeguarding their rights against the dictatorship of the Parisians. Apparently it accomplished its purpose, for the people almost unanimously ratt- fied it. But it was never actually put into operation, because the war emergencies demanded guidance by a strong hand. The Convention under the Jacobins now assumed dictatorial power to save the Revolution from defeat at the hands of the Euro- pean monarchs. The instruments used to strike terror and fear in the hearts of its opponents were more despotic than any used by the Bourbon monarchy: 1. The Committee of Public Safety composed of twelve men, exercised supreme legislative and executive power. Located in the king’s palace, with insane energy it issued countless decrees, sent thousands to the guillotine, fired the patriot-army to repel the foreign invaders, and bullied the masses into enthusiastic submission. The committee acted in the name of liberty, but its weapons were tyranny, injustice, force, fear, and terror. 2. The Committee of General Security was a group of twenty-one men whose duty it was to maintain order throughout France. It arrested suspected persons, and threw them into prison, or haled them before the courts. 3. The Revolutionary Tribunal served as a special criminal court for the speedy trial of traitors and conspirators. Its judges, whose decisions were final, were appointed by the Committee of Public Safety. The trials became so numerous that the judges were divided into four courts, and all were overcrowded with work. 4. The Representatives on Mission, chosen by the Committee of Public Safety from the members of the Convention, were sent out to the departments and armies as little tsars to administer the laws and to intimidate the people. 5. Local Jacobin Clubs and committees of surveillance were used TUNVUUITOQOOLOQV EAN AAV OO UH Loe New Consittution Government by Terror Committee of Public Safety Committee of General Security Revolutionary Tribunal Representatives on Mission by the Committee of Public Safety to terrorize every nook and corner Jacobin Clubs of France. i H a Past ie le ad eel ree et eee ets o a ae ase asa > A A CEE ETE TA PO EE TI TE I | SS SSSI naan - “= = rr ne en — so ee *: _ . Po SAS a ee a TT NT SA i a RE ET ET a ee The Reign of Terror Radical and fantastic changes Worship of Reason aL TALE 104 MODERN WORLD HISTORY (Chap. V This arbitrary governmental machinery was devised to meet a serious national crisis. It was but an example of the inevitable tightening up of a social system in the face of a crisis — a mobiliza- tion of national sentiment for war. To prevent the loss of all that had been gained through the Revolution, it was thought that stern measures were necessary. This system was soon perverted from its original, national aims, and employed to satisfy personal spites, and to carry out the whims of men greedy for power, thirsty for blood, and insane from fear and jealousy. In justification of the Reign of Terror, tireless leaders like Danton, Robespierre, and Carnot could point to the defeat of the counter-revolution within France, and to the huge citizen army of 750,000 men, which had checked the invading foreign foe. The famous law of “‘suspects’’ of September 17, 1793, was sO sweeping that every person who had “‘done nothing for liberty,’’ as well as those who had openly committed treasonable acts, might be hurried to the guillotine. Terror became the watch- word of the day. Lyons, Toulon, Marseilles and other cities were condemned to destruction. The province of Vendée was treated with special severity. For weeks guillotines were kept busy cutting off the heads of émigrés, priests, generals, rich business and professional men, and the Girondists. Well might Madame Roland exclaim as she mounted the scaffold, ‘‘O Liberty! What crimes are committed in thy name!’’ Many of the leaders of the Legislative Assembly met tragic ends, their bodies being found in forests gnawed by dogs. The Paris commune, gaining control over the Committee of Public Safety and the Convention, hoped to complete the Revolution by forcing through the latter a series of radical changes. A new re- publican calendar was created, making the “‘Year One’’ begin on September 21, 1792. The year was divided into twelve equal months, with such names as Fog and Frost, Snow and Rain, Flower and Meadow, Heat and Fruit. The month was made up of three weeks of ten days each, the tenth day being a holiday. Each day had ten hours instead of twenty-four. The holidays were no longer dedicated to saints but to the cow, the grape, the onion, the pitchfork, and the sickle. The Christian religion was abolished and replaced by the worship of Reason. Church bells were melted into coins. Heaven and Hell were eliminated and death was declared to be “‘but an eternal sleep.’’ Churches became ‘‘Temples of Reason’’ and were used for theatrical performances on rest days. Old terms of address such as Monsieur and Madame gave way to ‘‘Citizen’’ and “'Citi- zeness.'’ The names of towns, streets, public squares, and even fami- lies were changed. Monsieur Rolet became Citizen Fall of the Bastille, and Madame Jounot took the name of Citizeness August Fourth. New fashions in shoes, trousers, caps and dresses; and in meals, drinks, jewelery and dishes, were introduced to conform to democratic simplicity. Among other changes were: the metric system; the regulation of the prices of fuel, food and clothing; the abolition of trea tiie tai iia ATT PONTO TVET ELATED LOTTE TREE eT TPEChap. V | slavery in the colonies; and heavy taxes on the rich to equalize wealth. Even the butchers were denounced as ‘‘an intolerable aristocracy. When the first danger of invasion was safely passed, the revolu- tionary leaders took to quarreling among themselves. Danton, who had heartily supported the Terror to save the Republic, now urged the return to legal methods of government, and his enemies took advantage of his speeches to send him to the scaffold. For four months Robespierre, in supreme control of the revolutionary ma- chinery, ruled as a dictator. He opened the Christian churches for worship saying, ‘If God does not exist, we shall have to invent Him.’’ He decreed a system of universal public education. In short he dreamed of a new civilization for France, but the means to realize it was the Terror. Executions increased until they numbered 200 a week. The slightest criticism of the government was made punish- able by death, and soon under the “‘ great Terror’’ 150 were sent to the block in a single day. It is one of the great ironies of history that this monster should have regarded himself as the true apostle of that mild and timid philosopher, Jean Jacques Rousseau. The Terror under Robespierre accomplished its own destruction. His associates, fearing for their own lives, conspired against him and on July 27, 1794, the Convention, shouting “Death to the Terror’ voted his arrest. His own execution quickly followed. Within a few months moderate republicans were in control of France. For three momentous years the Convention had ruled France. It had proclaimed the First Republic and had drawn up two constitu- tions. It had put the king and queen to death, and instituted the Terror, which has made thousands of men suspicious of democratic government. It had abolished privilege and proclaimed equality, and it had refashioned religion and announced toleration in faith. It was carried away by lofty dreams of an ideal society, and went through an orgy of ridiculous changes. Much of the bad it did per- ished with it; and much of the good it accomplished remains as the heritage of these days. Some of the visions held by its leaders were realized later. Danton declared that ‘‘next to bread, education is the first need of the people.’’ A splendid scheme for primary and secondary schools was drawn up but not carried out for lack of funds. The Republic was saved from both its internal foes and external enemizs. Its ideals provoked advocates and denunciators all over Europe. If one shudders at the horrors of the Reign of Terror, he should remember the constructive work of the Convention. The constitution of 1795, the third formed within six years, was the work of the moderate group of middle-class men in the Convention. Experience taught them the necessity of adding a list of duties to the Declaration of the Rights of Man. Suffrage was limited, as in 1791, by a tax qualification. The democratic legislature consisted of two houses: the Council of Elders, and the Council of THE FRENCH REVOLUTION IO5 Dictatorship of Robes pierre Summary of work of the Revolution a ee ' Se a RrPUTT AEHAAERE SURAT iit eeeee - 106 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. V The Five Hundred — the latter to enact laws, the former with the power eee to veto them. As executive a president like that of the United States of 1795 was proposed, but France was auspicious of one-man rule and hence created a Directory of five members, elected by the Gece and each in turn to be president for three Hons! Those who formed this dour- geois government, based on property, to prevent the return of either monarchy or anarchy, decreed that two thirds of both houses must be chosen from members of the Convention. The new constitution was approved by an overwhelming vote. Both radical democrats and royalists were dissatisfied, however, and consequently incited an insurrection against the Convention. General Barras, charged with the defense of the government, turned the real work over to a young artillery officer named Napoleon Bon: aparte, then twenty-five years of age. With a ‘whiff of grapeshot’’ he scattered the insur- gents, killing more seuple than were slain on August 10, 1792, when the monarchy was overthrown. The Convention dissolved itself on October 26, 1795, and made way for the Directory. 7. THE D1RECTORY The first problem which demanded the attention of the new government was the war with Europe. During the summer of 1795 Prussia, Spain, and Holland had made peace with the Convention, but hostilities still continued with England, Austria, Piedmont, and the lesser German states. France was in a strong military position. Directory forced Her ring of foes was broken. The republican army of France was de ce war probably the best in Europe. France was in possession of the Aus- in Europe z : = , : trian Netherlands (Belgium), occupied the west bank of the Rhine, and held Nice and Savoy. Holland had been changed into the de- pendent Batavian Republic . Since Austria was the most menacing enemy, the Directory planned to defeat her by two invasions — one through southern Germ any under Generals Jourdan and Moreau, and another through degiier Italy under General Napoleon Bona- parte. Soon the eyes of all Europe were centered upon the brilliant General Italian campaign of General Bonaparte. The king of Piedmont was Bonaparte easily defeated, and forced to cede Nice and Savoy to France. Then the Austrians were beaten, and General Bonaparte started for Vienna, but when within eighty miles of that capital, the Austrian emperor sued for peace. The treaty signed at Campio Formio was typical of eighteenth-century diplomacy. It stipulated that Austria should cede what is now Belgium to France and aid her in securing the west bank of the Rhine. The small states of northern Italy were organized as the Cisalpine Republic under the “‘protection’’ of France. In return for these concessions, Austria was given the ancient Republic of Venice, which General Bonaparte had seized on the flimsiest pretext — an act that can be compared only with the diabolical partitions of Poland by the greedy despots of Europe. In sharp contrast to these triumphs, Jourdan and Moreau had been defeated — The reorganization of Germany and Italy lution of the Holy MODERN WORLD HISTORY (Chap. VI eee and the disso- generations for the creation of the new German and Itali States. many a later revolt against tyrannical rulers. The social revolution also marked a distinct stage in the progress of mankind, because it laid the foundations for much of what we call modern society. The Roman Bape prepared the way after a few ian national Finally the proclamation of the right of revolution inspired Revolution proved that progress can be accelerated but the disorderly violence, which at times accompanied anathema to men who believed in it, made the word “' peaceable, orderly evolution. easily secured. was quite as important as the political. the changes in government does not comprehend tl Revolution. Equality is just as essential to human welfare as liberty. revolution — Since 1789 social reforms have been more It should be remembered that the social revolution Indeed one who sees only ~ IC abolition of serfdom and the overthrow of feudalism, ulated the rest ¢ democracy, disappeared. changes in the people. 9 Euro pe The c real French The which inoc- and the world with the virus of social would alone have justified the Revolution. close of the nineteenth century slavery Before the and serfdom had generally alterations in land ownership produced great The sale of the estates of the king, nobility and clergy augmented the number of | bourgeois and ae pro- ea who now owned their property in fee simple buy, sel and bequeath it as they pleased. tails were abolished. and could Primogeniture and en- The caste system was broken down. tional opportunities were within the reach of a widened circle Educa- The outcome of these changes was that the alert middle class came into power in France, and after a time elsewhere on the continent, while nobles and bishops largely lost their political control. The common people, conscious of a new freedom, with more opportuni- ties for advancement, and masters of their own property and labor began to © gradually oned with in national and local politics. ast theoretically, on merit, ability and wealth replaced and bl ood and give rise to a new social de- based, at le those of office, mocracy. France with a new flag around w hich to rally. count for something.” With the ballot in their h ands they bettered their lot and became a force that had to be reck- The ° birth ‘people-nation ” New social standards emerged as a dominating force in Nationalism, en- couraged by Napoleon, helped to overthrow him when it spread to other nations. The radical advocates of social revolution in France became the pioneers of all sorts of dreams and schemes for recon- structing society. Institutions sanctified by time and sentiment crumbled before the onslaught and inspired Utopians to preach so- cialism, anarchism, syndicalism and bolshevism in the days ahead. The Revolution broke the shackles of industry by the guilds and by removing the numerous annoying internal re- | : ifio7 4 . ) 1! mean TT a) th abolishing LU TTTTTTT |ee = TUTTVCVVTTTTVUUTRAUTUCUUUHHTTUIUU LVR | | ttt) | k ; ; i Chap. VI] THE NAPOLEONIC ERA 123 strictions on trade and business. Royal monopolies in manufacturing disappeared. The principles of Jassseg-faire and free trade were advocated to encourage the production and marketing of goods. A capitalist class emerged and France commenced to feel the thrill of the Industrial Revolution which was already under headway in England. The working classes were free to sell their labor wherever they wished and eventually to organize for their own protection. Although England was left mistress of the seas after the Napoleonic wars, still France soon revived a lucrative overseas trade and sold her manufactured articles through the numerous contacts made on the Economic continent. These changes were producing a new set of economic and “anges social problems for the years ahead. Twenty-four years of almost continuous war produced its usual economic effects. All European countries were deeply in debt, and the burden was passed on to the people in heavier taxes and higher prices. Those industries con- nected with war needs seemed to be in a flourishing condition, but others suffered and in some instances were ruined. In France and toa certain degree in French dependencies agriculture, which had be- come more intensive and consequently more lucrative after the people gained more land, was the basis of a solid prosperity and did not seem to be retarded by the draft of the war on man power. It was this new source of wealth which explains why France almost single-handed was able to fight Europe for so long a period without being bankrupt. It should be remembered likewise that the French were not shedding their blood to keep Napoleon on the imperial throne but to prevent the return of the lords and bishops who would deprive them of their newly acquired rights and possessions. With a new conception of the functions of the democratic state and of a society founded on equality, came the proclamation of the theory of public education for all children. This idea born in the Revolution was adopted by Napoleon, and served as a model for vatious types of national education in other lands. Under Stein in Prussia a state system of both elementary and secondary schools was adopted. The universities of Berlin and Breslau were founded. The Educational University of France was copied in the University of the State of 8 New York and in London University. Modern science was encour- aged. The literature of the period, saturated with politics, econom- ics, and social reconstruction, voiced the spirit of protest and innova- tion. It inspired later writers like Hugo and Lamartine in France; A new Byron and Shelley in Great Britain; and Heine in Germany, to speak /#¢rature the discontent of those who longed to make the world a better place in which to live. The Revolution overthrew the Roman Catholic Church as a part of the old régime in France. The church res.ored by Napoleon was as different as the state restored by Louis XVIII. Freedom of conscience and worship slowly spread over the world. Religious The separation of church and state decreed by the Revolution was °4"8°s undone by Napoleon, but was revived in France a century later (1905 )SSS See - oe NN ne 8 e mie ag NP ie A ETS a ee General results Reaction on autocratic Europe I24 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. VI and meanwhile had been adopted by other lands. The critical atti- tude of men towards the church and the Bible was followed by more intelligent and constructive criticism in the century to follow. The destructive atheism of the ‘“Age of Reason’’ supplied arguments to skeptical minds in the years ahead. The leaders of Christianity began to take a deeper interest in the social welfare of the people. In conclusion it may be said that this period witnessed a world move- ment with political, social, intellectual, economic, and religious aspects, which supplied the outlines and some of the materials of modern civilization. The realization of legal equality in France produced in Europe a ‘revolution in property rights and business relations.’’ Under the old régime the law protected the owners of large estates or of lucra- tive offices in the Se against ambitious persons among the unprivileged class. Usually the eldest son held the family property intact, while the younger children were provided with positions in the state and church. The ruling middle class in the city republics safeguarded their rights in the same manner. Even in the trade guilds a few families monopolized the advantages. This system of privilege prevented those above from falling into the ranks of those below in the social scale. The principle of equality under the law opened offices to any person, gave all children an equal share of property, made the courts free to rich and poor alike, and proclaimed the freedom of industry. As a result society as a whole was revolu- tionized. France became a nation of prosperous Peer proprietors instead of a nation where the many worked for the few. An oppor- tunity for the display of ability and talent was given to every man no matter how poor, and the nation was thereby immeasurably en- riched. The future history of France and of much of the world differed greatly from the past, largely because of the realization of the principle of legal equality, first in the evolution of the United States of America and, secondly, in the creation of the First French Republic. Napoleon helped to establish this principle over a large portion of Europe. The royal and eas masters of Europe had disposed of the illegitimate ruler, Napoleon. But had they destroyed, or even checked the republican revolutionary movement, w hich they feared and hated? The ruling classes were forced to make a serious survey of the ideas and events of the world during the previous half century. In interpreting the American and French Revolutions they were con- vinced that there was a close connection between these republican movements and the “‘Enlightened Despotism’’ of the eighteenth century. They professed to see a causal connection between the well- meaning reforms of the absolute rulers, on the one hand, and the substitutions of republics for monarchies, the proclamation of legal equality, the abolition ate privileged classes, and the confiscation of property, on the other. Furthermore they were convinced that the HTT TTTChap. VI] THE NAPOLEONIC ERA 125 ‘Enlightened Despots,’’ in turn, had been the dupes of that coterie of intellectuals whom they had invited to their courts and patronized. Feeling their own thrones shaken by the revolutionary earthquake, the rulers consciously formulated a policy of conservatism. Advo- cates of reforms were no longer welcomed at the courts of princes and pressure was used to curtail the activities of the intellectuals. On the ground that it was for the general good, Christian orthodoxy was upheld. Such culture as was not connected with dangerous social and political ideas was encouraged. Hence the fine arts, which showed a preference for the forms of the past, prospered; and science was approved so long as it improved the instruments of war and in- dustry and did not attack the dogmas of religion. Thrown into a panicky fear by the French Revolution, the monarchs stubbornly shut their ears to all suggestions of reforms. They took as their guide for the ship of state the fixed principles of legitimacy and stability. Despite all their precautions, however, the rising tide of human progress was to sweep over their mossy granite dykes. REFERENCES FOR FURTHER STUDY Toe NapoLteonic EMPIRE * J. H. Rosr, The Life of Napoleon I, 2 vols. in 1, ed. 1907; H. A. L. Fisner, Napoleon (1912); * A. Fournter, Napoléon I, 4th German edition (1922); English translations by E. G. Bourne (editor), and A. E. Adams; H. A. Taine, The Modern Régime, 2 vols. (1894-1896), English translation by J. Durand; E. Driaurr, Napoléon et 1 Europe: I. La Politique Extérieure du Premier Consul (1910), I. Austerlitz, la Fin du Saint Empire (1912), IIL. Tilsét, la Rivalitié de la France et la Russie (1917); E. F. Hecxsuer, The Continental System: an Economic Interpretation (1922); E. F. Henperson, Short Hestory of Germany, 2 vols. (1902); H. von Trerrscuxe, Deutsche Geschichte im neunzebnten Jabr- hundert, 5 vols. (1890-1896), English translation (1915); H. A. L. Fisoer, Studies in Napoleonic Statesmanship: Germany (1903); J. R. Szetey, Life and Times of Stein, 2 vols. (1879); *G. S. Forp, Stein and the Era of Reform in Prussia, 1807-1515 (r922.);'G. .C. Broperick and J. K. FornerrncuaM, Political History of England, 1801-1837 (1906); J. H. Ross, William Pitt and the Great War (1911); A. Ramsaup, Hzstozre de la Russte (1878); A. Kornitoyv, Modern Russian History, 2 vols. (1917); H. Apams, History of the United States of America during the Administrations of Jefferson and Madison, 9 vols. (1889- 1891). ULLAL 11 ee ~~ pe er ee eed Pe oe eee anati es; | } | ‘ } 1 ioe i | } ' i a | pe ‘ '| | r } a ‘eae ] i '} =—=_ = eS Te ae Ss eS Saran RESETS mY SIF ANP TIE STE EAN ee Aa ussryPOMMAEAUATUATTOAHITOAHUTOTIEEOTINOURIUGNAITOVINGSUINGAT EREATEGEASEGANUOUSIUOOOINAVIAHAUNOGATONIULFARESESRAESAITUOTIELADUEGT HIMAIAGRI TAMU SET OOS EOE ELALOOEANHEEL EEE EET i og ; Wit NAH it } We } Si va a OP EL a ee a a ee PART tii SYSTEM OF REACTION AFTER 1815HA EAAa SH PERURRERSEESDEEEROE | | a SE ee ee Hi aaa MAssyTPOMMAUATTTNUTIAUUUUASUACULUAUOUSUASUULINUIUOGUOVERIRERAOUUCOAROUUNUU EUR ATOOO UT RRROMAMUETU EURO F ; nee TTCHIACR TER: Veh RESTORATION AND REACTION UNDER INTERNATIONAL CONSERVATISM 1. EuROpPE IN 1814 Tur war aims of the various states allied against the French, from 1792 to 1815, differed widely in detail, but one purpose was set forth from first to last: to crush the international revolutionary movement. The French Revolution aroused the spirit of nationalism and spread liberalism over Europe. The allies sought to check the growth of nationalism and to restore absolutism and legitimacy. A return to the old régime, which was based on dynastic and class interests, seemed to promise so many advantages that Great Britain, which was already in possession of some of the fruits of the revolutionary wave in France, and Prussia, which was at least thrilled by it, did not hesitate to join Austria and Russia in defense of the established order. The downfall of Napoleon, however, did not defeat the revolu- tionary movement either within or outside of France. It had won too many victories and had gained too much momentum to be crushed by mere military defeat. The champions of the old order saw pretty clearly that the dangers of an international revolution must be offset by the perpetuation of the international conservatism for which the European alliance stood. There must be a “ mutual insurance against revolutionary fires’’ during the decades ahead. Another reason for perpetuating the war coalition in time of peace was to protect the victorious powers in their spoils of war. All of the allies had emerged from the Napoleonic wars with considerable enlargement of territory, partly at the expense of France but mostly by the absorp- tion of small states, and consequently felt that joint action alone would safeguard their gains. And, finally, the Great Powers sin- cerely desired peace after a generation of costly fighting and believed that codperative conservatism would be most likely to preserve it. The counterpatt of political reaction, in the realm of arts and letters was ‘‘Romanticism,’’ which represented the revolt of the mind of intellectual Europe against the levelling and rationalistic tendencies of the Revolution. Romanticism was founded on emotion TUVTVATUATTATTNTTHATOGLORTUALUGT LAT UH Uo | Reasons for perpetuating the coalition ‘* Romanti- cism’’ asa reactionary and an idealized history. It sought to revive in religion, literature force and art ideals that had disappeared. It produced an enthusiastic revival of the Roman Catholic faith; a restoration of the Gothic style in building; and a ‘‘Christian’’ school of painting and sculp- ture. In social and political life itemphasized the idea of tradition and continuity in natural development; it defended the benefits of feudal- I29 pee eea eeeteenemeeiad -* Pepa “he = parse = aes eT 3 a tt a a a) Rena ets tr a rr eT ae CN a NT Ba Prince Metternich ** Metternich- ism’ 130 MODERN WORLD HISTORY (Chap. VII ism and privilege, glorified the doctrine of the divine right of kings, and stimulated the new enthusiasm for nationality. “‘Legitimacy’’ was accepted as the true principle for the resettlement of Europe and the holy union of the “‘altar and the throne’’ was proclaimed. Chateaubriand and de Maistre propped up the crumbling power of the Papacy, while Pope Pius VII issued a bull reinstating the Order of the Jesuits. 2. MerTTERNICH AND His PRINCIPLES The dominant forces of this period of reaction and restoration under international control found an able leader in Prince Metternich of Austria. His political ideals reflected the sentiments found quite generally in the government circles of Europe after the overthrow of Napoleon. Born of an old aristocratic family at Coblenz on the Rhine in 1773, young Metternich grew up in the atmosphere of the privileged class. As a university student he heard the stories of the French émigrés and became a violent opponent of the Revolution. Nor did the seizure of his family estates by Napoleon serve to lessen his hatred. Marriage into the family of the Austrian chancellor brought him wealth and a high social standing. Entering the Austrian diplomatic service, he became acquainted with all the rulers of Europe during the Napoleonic Era. Called to head the Austrian ministry in 1809, he held that office for nearly forty years. Through- out his life revolution was denounced ‘‘as the disease that must be cured, the volcano which must be extinguished, the gangrene which must be burned out with the hot iron, the hydra-headed monster with jaws open to swallow up the social order.’’ ‘‘Sovereigns alone are entitled to guide the destinies of their peoples,’’ he said, ‘‘and they are responsible to none but God.’’ As the self-appointed ‘Apostle of God”’ he proclaimed that ‘‘ What the European peoples want is not liberty but peace,’” and that it was his mission to “‘prop up the decaying structure’’ of society. With the fall of Napoleon, Austria was for some years the domi- nant power on the continent. This afforded Metternich an opportu- nity to play a leading role in international affairs. He was wise enough to see that Europe would never consent to return to conditions before 1789, hence he promulgated his ‘‘modern policy’’ which was ~ Neither to innovate nor to go back, but to keep things as they are.’’ Like “‘a spider spinning a vast web,’’ he planned to unite the great powers of Europe into a strong alliance to carry out his policy of ~fepose.”’ Public questions in war-sick Europe were to be settled through international congresses. All efforts of the people to gain more rights and a greater share in government were to be resisted, peaceably if possible, otherwise by forcible intervention. There were to be no more republics with parliaments and constitutions. ‘‘France and England,”’ as limited monarchies, were sneered at as ‘‘ countries without a government.’’ This method of repression through the BA TVORAALAAATTUUFHTITUFHUUOEAUHUOSHUHTESSHHDUASHTINGHUISEONURISOIRISENAUIUHORIITENUTIESSTINURIATAVUANINEGMAURUEAMATUEOSELGSM EU UCAMIOLESATD OCALA ERLE ESAUERIT LOCERLALChap. VII] RESTORATION AND REACTION 131 combined diplomatic and military powers of the big states was known as the ‘‘Metternich system.’’ Devised to rule Europe and the world, it was quite generally successful until 1830 as long as the desire for repose and the feeling of exhaustion were really prevalent in Europe. After that it was restricted to central and eastern Europe where it flourished for another score of years. The Revolution of 1848 at last forced Metternich to flee for safety to Great Britain, the land ‘‘ with- out a government,”’ and his system of international repression crashed to the ground under the onslaught of the forces of liberalism and nationalism. 3. THe Concress OF VIENNA After Napoleon had been exiled to Elba, the allies on May 30, 1814, had signed with Louis XVIII the treaty of Paris, which began the work of readjustment in Europe. It recognized the restored Bourbon house in France; reduced the territorial limits of France to those of January 1, 1792; and returned all her colonies held at that date. From the Napoleonic Empire was erected a larger Holland which included modern Belgium under the restored House of Orange; a federated Germany; an independent Switzerland; and an Italy under the heel of Austria and her satellites. To a “future congress ’’ was left the further work of reconstructing territorial and dynastic problems. Finally a “‘just balance of power’’ founded upon a “just repartition of force’’ was to be established to insure “a permanent peace.’’ The statesmen of that day were confronted by many all- absorbing questions. Ancient states had disappeared and new ones had been created. Old laws and institutions; old titles and offices; old systems of land-holding and methods of business; old class distinctions and modes of education, had either disappeared or had been greatly altered. To what extent should this transformation in the civilization of Europe be made permanent? What measures should be devised to prevent the spread of revolutionary tendencies, or the rise of a new Napoleon? How should France and her allies be pun- ished? What alterations in International Law were desirable? How could the civilization of Europe be stabilized so as to insure peace for the future? Answers to these questions were left to the forth- coming Congress of Vienna. The European congress was held at Vienna from September, 1814 to June, 1815. It was one of the most important international gath- erings in recent world history. Optimists talked grandly of “the reconstruction of the moral order,’’ of the “‘regeneration of the political system,’’ and of ‘‘enduring peace.’’ Every country in Europe except Turkey was represented. persons’’ were there. Among the ninety sovereigns and fifty-three representatives of princes in attendance were Emperor Francis I of Austria, who with Metternich acted as the polite hosts of the con- gress; Tsar Alexander, the Russian ruler, with Nesselrode and the TOVTUATUATOGTAATUTUATUVEATTEAPUALATTN Lee saan Problems confronting Europe after the overthrow of Napoleon Expectations ‘All the most illustrious /” *¢ Congress of Vienna l ™"E 5 } eee =e ee ea TTS = = SOL eeort ee ee eee =e = ha Poh oe SR eT reef, Sa Ns in oT Sie bela alae oe aS en Composition of the Congress How the Congress conducted tts business Control by the ‘ Big Four’’ Talleyrand' s work LOTTA TULLE TULLE 132 MODERN WORLD HISTORY (Chap. VII German Stein as his advisers; the lethargic Frederick William III, king of Prussia, accompanied by Hardenberg and von Humboldt; Castlereagh and the duke of Wellington, the representatives of Great Britain; the lynx-eyed and oily-tongued Talleyrand from France; and Cardinal Gonsalvi, the pope’s delegate. Such an exhibition of lace, gold buttons, impressive uniforms, and long titles had never been seen even under the old régime. The Austrian government almost became bankrupt in entertaining the congress with a contin- uous round of balls, banquets, theatrical performances, musicals, drives, and hunting tournaments. The great Beethoven, and dancers and actors from all over the continent, exercised their talents to delight the visitors. There was little in the way of formal organization and no fixed rules of procedure. No officers were elected, and in the few plenary sessions of the congress no motions were made and no votes taken. “At a ball,’’ wrote a contemporary, “‘kingdoms were enlarged or sliced up— at a dinner an indemnity granted — a constitution sketched while hunting; occasionally a bon mot, or a witty idea, brought an agreement where conferences and notes failed.’’ This is, of course, a gross exaggeration. A great deal of hard work was accomplished by committees, though these were never really repre- sentative of all Europe. But the fact remains that the decisions were made by a small group of leading statesmen, and that the congress was the classic example of the old, eighteenth-century diplomacy in action. The fate of the congress was in the hands of the strongest and the shrewdest. So far as there was a presiding officer, Metternich performed that function, and an official secretary was employed, but no general sessions were held for debates. The ‘‘ Big Four,’’ Austria, Great Britain, Russia and Prussia, had secretly agreed to decide all questions among themselves before pre- senting them to the other members of the congress. The rights of the weak states were ignored as completely as under Napoleon. But Talleyrand of France posed as the champion of the small powers and aimed the first blow at the dictatorship of the ‘‘ Big Four.’’ He in- sisted that the congress should proceed according to International Law. ‘Might is right,’ gruffly replied the Prussian von Humboldt; ‘‘we do not recognize the law of nations to which you have ap- pealed.’’ Nevertheless, Talleyrand, by taking advantage of every disa- greement among the ‘‘Big Four’”’ insinuated himself into the inner circle and later managed to bring Spain, Portugal and Sweden, into the conferences. Further, he offered Great Britain and Austria the support of France in a secret treaty opposing the territorial ambi- tions of Russia and Prussia. This was the treaty which, upon his return to Paris, Napoleon found upon the desk of Louis XVIII and at once sent to Tsar Alexander. In general the work of the congress was to undo, so far as that was wise and possible, the changes made since 1789. (1) The territorial TTT TEChap. VII} RESTORATION AND REACTION 133 problems had to do with the disposal of Belgium, Holland, the Con- federation of the Rhine, the kingdom of Italy, the grand duchy of Warsaw, and Switzerland. (2) The political questions included the elimination of the new rulers and the restoration of the old dynasties. (3) The assurance of “‘security’’ against France was an important part of the settlement. (4) The final task was the punishment of the states that had remained loyal to Napoleon. A simple solution of these problems was made difficult by the greed of the powers. The tsar wanted all of Poland; the king of Prussia, all of Saxony. Austria hoped to rule a weak Germany and Italy. Great Britain expected to retain the most valuable parts of the colo- nial empire she had won, control of the seas, and the balance of power in Europe. France was ambitious to regain her old power without loss of any sort. The smaller states had their own schemes to reap rewards ot to escape penalties. ‘To divide the spoils of the con- quered among the conquerors’’ seemed to be the purpose of the con- gress. ‘‘Legitimacy’’ and “‘compensation’’ were the two principles upon which the settlements were made. The former meant the restoration of all rulers, whose rights ran back of the Revolution, and of all institutions of the old régime. Since it was found impos- sible to restore all the former boundary lines, the doctrine of *‘com- pensation’ was invented, under which bits of land were handed about here and there, without any regard to the wishes of the people, to satisfy territorial claims, or given away as rewards or punishments. This meant, of course, that the sentiment of nationality was com- pletely ignored, but it must be remembered that this sentiment was still new and inarticulate, the product of an abnormal crisis, which, it was hoped, was now over. The principal territorial and dynastic changes were the fol- lowing: 1. Of the French conquests, Belgium and Luxemburg were given to the restored House of Orange in Holland. Switzerland, enlarged by the addition of three French-speaking cantons and neutralized by the European powers, was revived as an independent confederated republic of an aristocratic type. The Bourbons recovered their throne and France proper was spared from serious spoliation. Indeed, she was allowed to retain both Alsace and German Lorraine. 2. Some of the loyal German princes recovered their titles and possessions, but the claims of several hundred petty ecclesiastical and city states were ignored. No effort was made to revive the Holy Roman Empire dissolved by Napoleon. A new Germanic Conted- eration of 38 states was created under a constitution which provided for a diet of delegates or representatives of the rulers and gave Austria the presidency. Prussia was enlarged by receiving the west bank of the Rhine which had been conquered by France, western Pomerania from Sweden, two fifths of Saxony, whose king was thus penalized for his loyalty to Napoleon, and a part of Poland, | TUVHTVNT TNT THAT VGH TUALOGLEULUGT LATIN be Problems Principles followed Chief settlements France Germany Sa &oe Le “ts = wa goers ae rs ere ee es) Tat eee A RESALE ate Ita ly Sweden Poland England S pain Other acts Blunders of the Congress Work of Congress undone ae TUT 134 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. VII 3. The Bourbons were restored in Naples; the Papal States were returned to the pope; and the king of Piedmont recovered his throne with permission to annex the republic of Genoa. As “‘compensation’”’ for the loss of Belgium, the rest of Italy was left under either the direct or the indirect rule of Austria. 4. Sweden was forced to cede Finland formally to Russia and western Pomerania to Germany, but as ‘“‘compensation’”’ received Norway from Denmark, because of the latter’s friendship for Napoleon. 5. Ihe shameful dismemberment of Poland was legalized on the ground of “‘legitimacy.’’ The lion’s share, including Warsaw, went to Russia; Posen, Thorn and Danzig went to Prussia; Austria os received southern Galicia; and Cracow became a free state. 6. Great Britain enlarged her colonial empire by obtaining from France the islands of Malta, St. Lucia, Tobago, and Mauritius; from Spain, Trinidad and Honduras; and from Holland, Ceylon, part of Guiana, and Cape Colony. 7. Ihe Bourbon house was restored in Spain. The slave trade was abolished, but the enforcement of the act was left to each state. A code of International Law to regulate the navigation of European rivers and the methods of international diplomacy was drawn up. On June 2, 1815, a few days before the battle of Waterloo, all the separate treaties were incorporated in a Final Act and signed by the different powers. This aristocratic congress ignored the new forces of liberalism and nationalism, which had been born in Europe. Gentz remarked that it had “‘resulted in nothing but restorations.’’ A few lordly masters remade the map of Europe, trading off peoples as if they were still serfs. The patriotic feelings of the Belgians, Norwegians, Finns, Poles, Germans, and Italians were outraged by the enforcement of the practices of eighteenth-century despots. Even the doctrine of legitimacy ’ was not rigidly adhered to, for Bernadotte, the Napo- leonic marshal, heir to the throne of Sweden, was not deposed because he had deserted his master and been faithful to the cause of the Allies. It is said that every ruler left Vienna dissatisfied. All over Europe people were grumbling at the short-sighted settlements. Even the old general, Blticher, denounced the congress as ‘‘an annual cattle fait. Much of the history of Europe long after 1815 was taken up with undoing this “‘auction of nations.’’ Within fifteen years, Belgium separated from Holland. The settlements of Italy and Germany survived scarcely fifty years. The union of Norway and Sweden was undone in ninety years. The World War restored Poland and gave Italy her “‘natural’’ boundaries on the northeast. The vicious practice of trampling on the rights of small states has been replaced by the principle of “‘self-determination.’’ To guard against another outbreak from France, she was surrounded by a chain of petty states UTA LAUHUVBVEUUALETAVUAUIAOSUASAYANORESUITCORUIOSEEVOAULGNTESAAEAIIPAATILVTRRSHONNIOENIUAIUUGSU ENT TUMANEOSUI TART ESET ELA UOTEPhitil i RORGRROERGSGRES. WTITTTTTTTTTTTTTTTGHOTOLNUUUTUIIIT oe — ceoT eee —— } pee area eRe STEEL a ee a ™ i as a TT ¥ Irjopic « 4 T . z a3 , ee + : at ee ys? lolry yd LOULS V by = UALE TP h SPATE) = Paw ota Tt: ie, «° \t -_— — — — — | — — - a ~was{ t Seo arenes aa Peo r = a ot OES eee TT ame een mab aaa peel weten be Pas WO Ses See PTTL UET TTL 'WEST INDIES sae } t Garibblean JS Ca * Kartographische Anstalt von F. A. Brockhaus, Leipzig, Germany. LLEUUTULLYPHA La — ee ee pee rg, Franz ae Ld N | Ale a ee Ceealbe LO ( IN | ; ee | + | | | NONE New Siberian G2 — (Ki 8 Zemlya ¢ = 4, mi ng ep ETN TIE aL Te ei ae 1 2 4 o | | sOr) -*. iP ) art eo ~ Kamtcha vA rr a e@a* 14 | hairs | “EX aM ji | 40) 20 \Laccailives \ Maldives : : A A jk Rodriguez 20 Maw tius 2 +- ee 0 a Mada sea . ; Las S : Qi Ga Ae aN mio i ill sianimcoraieal a : : (es Ti / j par - }WORLD POWERS IN 1815 [SS zritsh FS Spaush (era Portuguese |) Russian ee ee a . — 460 | [) French LJ Danish WS) Dutch | mG OCHAN | | | Seale of Miles along Equator | ites |S ee ee ee Oo 1000). 2 2000____—__— 3000 4000 __5000 P| I 2 gv RT a from 40 Greenw. 60 80 100 120 140 160 180Hh i i ee es <= er Re I, ee Th oe 5 f MES oo a Dac a ane eT ae eB MT Tio ETHTEEC ETL TOE EO TEwae wane TUaaaaeanaee. } | } | PaReel bitteah Beeeae eae eal Chap. VII] | RESTORATION AND REACTION 135 which were to act as buffers. Excepting Holland, only the “Big Four’’ gained in power, lands and population. Europe was filled with “‘sore spots’’ for the future. The doctrine of “‘legitimacy”’ was to be applied to religion, education, and even science, philosophy and literature. Against these blunders of the congress, must be placed some positive gains. “If ever the powers meet again to establish a political system by which wars of conquest would be rendered impossible and the rights of all guaranteed,’’ said a shrewd observer, ‘‘ the Congress of Vienna, as a preparatory assembly, will not have been without use.”’ In the first place, Europe was given some years of badly needed peace. Secondly, the settlement of the affairs of the continent in one docu- ment, signed by all the states, meant progress in international rela- tions. Finally, it was some positive gain to have the people imbued Positive gains with the hope of ‘“‘an all-embracing reform of the political system of *¢ Congress of Europe,’ even though it was not realized. ‘‘The ground was prepared,’’ wrote the official secretary, Gentz, ‘‘for building up a better social structure.’’ The return of Napoleon to France in the midst of the wranglings of the congress forced the diplomats to hurry up their work. Talleyrand hastened to Carlsbad, wittily saying: The first duty of a diplomat after a congress is to take care of his liver.’’ 4. Treaties, ALLIANCE AND CONGRESSES TO PRESERVE PEACE After Napoleon, the ‘‘ Black Demon,”’ had fallen, the most spec- tacular ruler in Europe was Tsar Alexander I. Converted in Switzer- land by a German mystic, Baroness von Krtidener, he was eager to further his “‘Gospel of Christian Peace’’ in a war-wearied Europe. Hence, on September 26, 1815, he drew up the ‘‘Holy Alliance,’’ The Holy by which he intended to restore Christian patriarchal principles of 4/46 government. The king of Prussia and emperor of Austria signed it, and other rulers were invited to accept it as International Law. Only Great Britain, the sultan, who was not invited, and the pope refused to do so. To thinking men, who recalled the work of the Congress of Vienna, this document seemed like blatant hypocrisy. Metternich called it a “‘sonorous nothiag’’ and Castlereagh said it was ‘‘non- Its criticism sense.’ ‘The suspicious liberals denounced it as a diabolical scheme to crush the rights of man. The common people confused it with ‘’Metternichism,’’ and for a generation it stood in their minds as synonymous with repression. Not the Holy Alliance, but the Quadruple Alliance of the ‘‘ Big Four,’’ fortaally renewed on November 20, 1815, two months later, became the real basis for regulating European affairs until it dropped Quadruple to pieces a decade later and was destroyed at last by the Revolution 4/##¢ of 1848. This “‘mutual insurance society of sovereigns’’ was signed on the same day as the Second Treaty of Paris, which reduced France to the boundaries of 1790, levied on her an indemnity of $140,000,000, NN ae — ona aot coe eee il ee Sarasa een: Dae al ate Satear SCI, PE Oe ee ee ee a a a Se eS ea a eS Se ae a ES LF 4 Fa T s IES OM EVI ae es | ne ' Concert’’ of Europe Congress of Aix-la-Cha pe lle Congress of Troppau Congress of Laibach Congress of Verona Menace of the '* concert’ 136 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. VII and penalized her with military occupation for a period of five years. To guarantee “the peace of other countries,’’ the members of the Quadruple Alliance agreed to crush the “revolutionary principles”’ in France and elsewhere and to exclude the Napoleonic family ‘“forever’’ from the French throne or any other European throne. This “‘concert of Europe,’’ as the alliance was called, was planned to extend the strong hand of international conservatism to every cornet of the continent. All signs of discontent on the part of the people were to be watched and every threatened outbreak was to be put down with celerity. Further the ‘‘concert’’ arranged to hold a series of international conferences to provide for “ the repose and prosperity of nations.’ The first congress held to adjust European problems was that of Aix-la-Chapelle in 1818, in which only the states of Austria, Prussia, Russia and Great Britain had a vote. Since repentant France was ready to pay her indemnity in full, the foreign troops were with- drawn and she was now rather reluctantly admitted to the “concert, © which became the ‘‘ Big Five,’’ though the Quadruple Alliance con- tinued in effect. A great variety of questions was considered, and the small states affected were ‘‘consulted’’ in the adjustments. The second congress was that of Troppau, called in 1820 to deal with the revolutions in Spain and Naples. Austria, Prussia, and Russia drew up the famous “‘doctrine of intervention’’ asserting their right to interfere in cases where governments were changed by revolutions. Great Britain and France opposed the declaration on the ground that it was the primary duty of all governments to combat the danger of revolt, wherever it might appear, and refused to sign the protocol. At a third congress held at Laibach in 1821, the three autocratic powers authorized Austria to suppress a revolution in Naples, while the tsar of Russia notified the revolutionists in Greece of his disapproval of their uprising against Turkey. The congress of Verona convened in 1822 was confronted by a revolution in Spain and in her American colonies. Austria was left free to deal with a revolutionary outbreak in Piedmont; Austria and Russia with the revolution in Greece; and France with that in Spain. The congress favored forcing the Spanish colonies to submit to the motherland, but the opposition of the United States and Great Britain prevented such a course. The purpose of the ‘“‘concert’’ to preserve peace was unquestion- ably sincere, but the determination of the three autocratic members of the ‘‘concert’’ to use armed force to prevent peoples from disturb- ing the established order revealed the menace of the system to political progress. The ‘‘concert’’ was a league of reactionary rulers and not of nations. The four congresses clearly revealed its purposes and methods. When it changed from a high court of justice to an alliance to perpetuate absolutism in the name of security, forces both within and without the ‘‘concert’’ began to destroy its power. The stand taken by Great Britain in refusing to accept the doctrine of Troppau, ALAEUTUUUOUUUHHUUUUAUUUCTECONINUDIUINUUUCUUOUUSREAUATURLOTOUESOOTAROAOLERCOUOUUARADDLAUERUUMUOUUURRUEULALETUATAORU ECU UAEOOS ELE ESC PSECUChap. VII RESTORATION AND REACTION 137 the American Monroe Doctrine, and liberal revolutions on the conti- nent of Europe brought about its defeat. As early as 1827 Metternich wrote: ‘‘The union known by the name of the Alliance has been for some time little more than a pretense.’’ Yet in 1833 in a secret treaty Austria, Prussia, and Russia reaffirmed the principles. 5. REsTORATIONS IN FRANCE, SPAIN, PorTUGAL AND ITALY Twice did the armies of the allies put Louis XVIII, brother of the unfortunate victim of the Revolution, upon his ancestral throne. Allied soldiers were stationed in France to “‘royalize’’ the people. Although an old man of PNT TUTUL UVLO Forces against the ‘* concert ’’ sixty, who had spent nearly a quarter of a Louis XVIII century in exile, Louis XVIII was sensible enough to see that the old 84” Charter régime had gone from France forever. Hence he granted a constitu- tion known as the charter of 1814, which limited the royal power, provided for a legislature of two houses like that of Great Britain, and granted the right to vote to men above thirty years of age who paid a direct tax of $60 a year. The government was not democratic but aristocratic, based on property. Still France had a more liberal government under Louis XVIII than under Napoleon. had no more power than that bestowed by the Revolution in I791 upon Louis XVI. The French government was one of the most liberal on the continent. Equality before the law, freedom from arbitrary arrest, free speech, a free press, and liberty of worship were guaranteed. The Roman Catholic Church was recognized under the Concordat of 1801 as the state religion. The revolutionary titles to the confiscated lands of the church and nobility were declared inviolable and no attempt was made to undo the work of the social revolution. Feudalism was not restored, and the old restrictions on industry were not revived. The new France had come to stay, and in fact nowhere in Europe was there so little ‘‘restoration ” of the old régime. The émigrés and clergy returned to France in poverty and with bitterness in their hearts, determined to remain loyal to the spirit of The king France under the Charter the old régime and to recover what they had lost. They gathered Ultra-royalist about the Bourbon dynasty and formed a political party known as the Ultra-royalists, who declared war to the death on the champions of the Revolution. The old court ceremonies, etiquette, and dress were partly revived, together with former decorations and titles. The white flag of the old régime again floated over France. The Ultra-royalists wanted to obliterate all work of the Revolution, clamored for compensation for their losses, and demanded the sup- pression of the charter. sought to accomplish their aims by riots and bloodshed, known as the ‘‘ White Terror,’ but failed to secure much more than the banish- ment or death of leading Frenchmen, who had been loyal to Napoleon. King Louis XVIII stood squarely between these firebrands and their opponents and honestly sought to steer a moderate middle course. party Terror For several months after Waterloo, they The White ——" i i OL aeTe ee eel SE Be - et EE TR MT SS SSS ee Se So ate intern lg eeoe Ls Ft Sake i be RL kt te Rel airs base eS Se EE OO — = Sa Ultra-royalists Return of the Ultra-royalists (1824-1830) Spain under Ferdinand VII 138 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. VIL The contest between the Liberals and the Royalists was now trans- ferred to the election of the new Chamber of Deputies. The Ultra- royalists won a majority, under the restricted franchise, and imme- diately began to pass laws to shackle the press, to try traitors in special courts, and to repeal the divorce laws. Fearing that these measures would drive the people to revolt and force him to “‘ go on his travels ' again, the fat old monarch dissolved the Chamber and ot- dered new elections. In the new elections of 1816 the moderate Royalists and the Liberals gained a majority which they held until 1820. During that period France settled down to its new life, ex- tended the right to vote, and organized an army of 240,000 men on a popular basis. In 1820 the murder of the king’s nephew and the wave of revolution in southern Europe produced a reaction against the Liberals, which swept the Ultra-royalists once more into power. As champions of the system of Metternich, they at once suspended the guarantees of personal liberty in the charter; muzzled the press; turned education over to the Catholic clergy; again limited the suffrage; suppressed the various groups of revolutionists; and in 1823 sent an army into Spain to restore the Bourbon king. When Louis XVIII died in 1824 France was cordially coéperating with the autocratic powers of Europe in the “‘concert.’’ For the next six years the French throne was occupied by Charles X, another brother of Louis XVI. As the count of Artois, he had stubbornly fought the Revolution for thirty-five years. He hated and cursed Napoleon. He belonged to the Middle Ages and not to the nineteenth century. To him civilization meant a divine-right king, an intolerant church, and a feudal aristocracy. At sixty-seven, he could not readjust his views. His spectacular coronation amused some and disgusted others, as he was anointed on seven parts of his body with “‘holy oil’’ preserved through the intervention of God from the time of Clovis. In his frantic efforts to hold back the floodtide of progress, Charles X outdid Metternich. His tyrannical acts alienated all the French people except a small group of the Ultra-royalists. As the result of a revolution which he provoked in 1830, he was forced to flee to Great Britain. He died six years later in Austria, under the conviction that he was going to join the saints whom he loved and believed he had served. When restored to power in 1814 by his own loyal subjects with the aid of the duke of Wellington, Ferdinand VII found Spain im- bued with a new national spirit and enjoying the liberal constitu- tion of 1812. Urged on by the nobles and clergy, he abolished the constitution and the Cortes or national assembly. Absolute govern- ment was restored, and the privileges of the nobility and clergy were reaffirmed. Individual liberties were taken away from the people, and the Liberals were banished or imprisoned. The Jesuits were recalled and the Inquisition reéstablished. The Metternich system was put into operation, and all progress checked. This cruel TTT OTChap. VII] RESTORATION AND REACTION 139 and inefficient monarch ignored the people’s rights, hampered busi- ness, and squandered the wealth of the country on his court favorites. He incited the Spanish-American colonies to revolt, and then in vain tried to crush them by force. So unwise was his policy that even Metternich urged him to a more moderate course. As might be ex- pected, the rule of Ferdinand VII brought Spain to a sad plight. Scandals and abuses multiplied. The national treasury was bankrupt. Education was neglected. When in 1820 a storm of revolution swept over the country, he begged his fellow autocrats in Europe to save his crown. In 1823 a French army of 95,000 men restored him to power. He ruled Spain as an autocrat until 1838, and left behind him a backward and ruined country, which under different political and economic conditions might have ranked high among the peoples of Europe. After driving the French out of Portugal in 1813, Great Britain set up a regency and through it ruled that state almost as if it were part of the British Empire. By 1820 the nationalistic party was strong enough to overthrow the regency and draw up a constitution like that of 1812 in Spain. The Congress of Vienna left Italy disrupted — a “‘ geographical expression’’ — and chiefly under the domination of Austria. The Bourbon king of Naples, Ferdinand IV, was restored to power on promising to make no foreign alliances and to give no liberties to his subjects without Austria’s consent. The king of Piedmont like- wise came back to his throne, and restored the privileges of the nobility and clergy. All Italy was ruled autocratically, burdened with taxation, harassed by spies, curbed in industrial progress, and ruled as a conquered province. Political constitutions, and even gaslight and vaccination, were swept away because introduced by the French. In Turin the French plants and vines were torn up in the Botanic Gardens, and the French furniture in the royal palace was destroyed. Education was again turned over to the clergy. Liberals were watched and imprisoned on the slightest suspicion. Like Spain, Italy began to move backwards. 6. Reaction In Great Britain UNDER THE OLp ToRrIEs 1815-1832 In the eighteenth century British political institutions were more progressive than those on the continent, but were in no real sense democratic. After 1789 France and other parts of Europe had gone further than Great Britain on the path of self-government. Even a ‘liberal’’ like Burke wrote: ‘‘Our representation has been found perfectly adequate to all of the purposes for which a representation of the people can be desired or devised. I defy the enemies of our constitution to show the contrary.’’ The French Revolution had engendered a fear of all remedial agencies for political reform. At the same time the Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars, which had TUTVTUVTVTVTOTUTOTORTAUAEOVOLEVUGLA TT The Portugal Italy England reactionary under the Old Toriesor a RN ae <7 Te c= =A rene ae | i! | y | A en Old Tories liberal in foreign policy but conservative at home Inclosure acts The state church 140 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. VII cost Great Britain the enormous sum of $5,000,000,000, left her loaded with the heaviest public debt ever incurred by any nation up to this time, and produced a series of financial crises that caused British leaders to dread popular uprisings. The Old Tories, then in power, hated the French Revolution and were just as determined as Metternich to resist changes. Ignorance of the real significance of the French Revolution led some English Whigs, who had sympathized with the American Revolution and lauded men like George Washing- ton, Benjamin Franklin and John Adams as allies in the cause of liberty, to see nothing in the French revolt but ‘‘a carnival of blood- shed and horror.’’ There was no ‘‘restoration’’ in Great Britain because there had been no revolution. The Tory success in over- throwing Napoleon helped to continue them in power. At their head, as a stout champion of autocracy, stood King George IV (1820-1830), who had been regent from 1811 for the sightless and insane George III. From 1812 to 1822 he was ably assisted by a second Metternich, Castlereagh, as foreign secretary. The blunt soldier, the duke of Wellington, who became prime minister in 1828, carried on the same policy. The ruling aristocracy, frightened by the excesses of the experi- ments in France, not only remained unmoved by French political propaganda, but used all their force to crush it. The doctrine of nationalism was distasteful to the English, who relied on the Scotch, Irish and Welsh to support the state. Their attitude was typified in the abolition of the Irish Parliament in 1800. Yet on the continent these British leaders encouraged nationalism and held up English constitutional liberty as superior to Napoleon’s “‘cosmopolitan despotism.’’ At home the Old Tories passed laws to increase the prosperity of the landed aristocracy. The “‘enclosure’’ acts permitted great landlords to drive small farmers off the lands which they had long occupied and to add these lands to their own estates. The reason given was to improve agriculture, but the real purpose was to enable the landlords to make more money in the new capitalistic farming, and to give the rich merchants the social prestige which went with landholding. Under George III, 3,209 such acts ‘en- closed’’ over 6,250,000 acres. As a result the number of small land- Owners was greatly diminished, while the wealth and power of the nobility were increased. The ‘‘corn laws’’ put high duties on imported wheat, and thus raised the cost of living for the poor in the cities and industrial centers. In 1821, as an outcome of these measures, and an unwise system of poor relief, there were 2,500,000 ‘assisted poor’’ in the country. The Anglican Church was the state church in England, Wales, and Ireland, similar to the Roman Catholic Church in France before 1789. Its clergy formed a privileged class. Officially protected and endowed, this state church had vast wealth and received special tithes from all landholders. Its courts had jurisdiction over divorce, HEUTE LT Deen e:paid ehaaeee WOVETATRRUEURTTETEARTATATRRRAAU ANON TEU Gbamen IN Se Chap. VII] RESTORATION AND REACTION I4I Sea aha 5 pee ns a ee ee marriage and wills, as well as distinctively church matters, and its clergy alone could perform marriages and registet births and deaths. The higher clergy sat in the House of Lords. The Anglican Church worked hand in glove with the landed aristocracy, and warmly supported their measures. Since 1689 Dissenters such as Quakers, Baptists, Presbyterians and Methodists, as well as Catholics and Dissenters Jews, by sufferance had had freedom of worship, but all of them were still deprived of many privileges enjoyed by Anglicans. Dissenters might vote and enter Parliament, but were disqualified from holding high public offices and from receiving degrees from the universities of Oxford and Cambridge. Catholics and Jews were barred entirely from Parliament and from political and military offices. The laws pert- mitted them to be fined for not attending church; forced them to pay the church taxes; and forbade their inheritance of land. Roman Catholic priests might be thrown into prison. Such harsh measures raised a cry of protest from the victims, and elicited sympathy among liberal Anglicans. The Church of Scotland was Presbyterian, and had its own laws, clergy, right of discipline, and tithes. At this time Great Britain was not a democracy but a land of the ‘‘old régime.’’ The inequalities in the state, church, and society were strongly defended by the nobility and clergy, who controlled the national Parliament. The House of Lords, composed of these classes, formed the bulwark of the old order. The House of Com- Howse of Lords mons, supposed to represent the common people, was also controlled #4 770" by the aristocracy through corruption and unfair distribution of seats. It was little more than an assemblage of landlords and wealthy men, or their representatives. The men who executed the laws, and the judges likewise, were selected by processes which excluded the nation at large. Large counties and boroughs often had fewer repre- sentatives in the Commons than the small places. Little towns like Buckingham with thirteen voters, Gatton with five, and Old Sarum with none, still had two members, as many as were returned for Manchester, Birmingham, or Leeds. These little hamlets were called Representation ‘‘rotten boroughs,’’ and were in the hands of a neighboring noble- man, who controlled the seats and might even sell them. It was said that out of 634 seats in the House of Commons prior to 1832 487 were chosen by “‘patrons.’’ These conditions make it clear that Great Britain was an oligarchy. The right to vote was not regarded as one of the rights of man, but a privilege attached to property. In the counties, only free-holders with an income of about $50 or more could vote for members of Par- liament. Hence, since the small landholders had almost disappeared, the number of voters was small, possibly only 5 per cent of adult Franchise males. The county of Bute with 14,000 people had but 21 voters. On One occasion, it was said, a single voter attended the meeting to elect a member to the House of Commons. He called the meeting to order, appointed himself chairman, nominated himself for the office, calledTEREUAROREeaaaa. Tiane PERREEREEAEE n NH pL oee 142 MODERN WORLD HISTORY (Chap. VII the roll of voters, and announced the unanimous election of himself to Parliament. Bribery was notoriously common, and candidates sometimes openly advertised the price they would pay for votes. In 1829 the duke of Newcastle dispossessed 587 of his tenants for having dared to vote against his candidate. When his right to do this was questioned in the House of Commons, the irate duke asked: ~ Have I not the right to do as I wish with my own?’’ Under such a system the House of Lords had no difficulty in controlling the makeup of the House of Commons. Well might it be said that before 1832 Great Britain had a “government of the people, by the landlords and for the landlords.’’ The barbarous criminal laws, remnants of mediaevalism and despotism, were still in force. About 250 minor offenses such as Harsh criminal pocket-picking, shop-lifting, and poaching, were punishable by laws death. Only the sense of justice of British juries and judges saved men and boys from the gallows for petty crimes. Many criminals were deported to Australia instead of being hanged. The prisons were foul holes with brutal keepers, in which men, women, and children were herded with the foulest criminals. When riots broke out against these and other evils, instead of remedying the causes, the government put down the rioters by force, and the leaders were shot. Secret societies, like those on the continent, were formed to preach democracy and justice. When an attack was made on the prince regent in 1817, the writ of habeas corpus was suspended for a year, and arbitrary arrests authorized. The freedom of the press was suppressed. Many prominent radicals and agitators like the editor, William Cobbett, fled to America or the continent to escape pun- ishment. The “Six Acts"’ of 1819 marked the high crest of reaction in Great Britain. They forbade military exercise without permission; per- The Six Acts mitted local justices to issue warrants to search houses for arms; curtailed the right of free assembly; authorized the seizure of sedi- tious writings; and put a stamp tax on pamphlets like that already existing for newspapers. Such were the measures designed by the oligarchy in Great Britain to stifle political and social progress. Forces were at work, however, that could not be crushed. Within a few years Great Britain was to pass by peaceable reform from reac- tion to liberal leadership among the nations of the Old World. During the generation following the fall of Napoleon, although the home policy of Great Britain was reactionary, the foreign policy Foreign policy was enlightened. Castlereagh was inclined to accept Metternich’s system of curbing all popular discontent by force, and hence Great Britain joined the “‘concert’’ to keep peace in Europe. When the actual test came in dealing with revolution in Naples in 1820, while he was not against intervention by Austria to protect her own interests, he did oppose the Troppau proclamation of the right of intervention as a ‘principle’’ of International Law. This led to a SS Sn et ee iS SST 2 TAR eS EET OT ee a '] ] TTT TTT PT EDT ossChap. VII] | RESTORATION AND REACTION 143 rift in the ‘‘concert,’’ which grew wider until at length it went to pieces. The man who persuaded Castlereagh to change his policy was George Canning, whom Metternich called “‘the malevolent meteor hurled by an angry Providence upon Europe.’’ Under his guidance the Quadruple Alliance was repudiated, and the doctrine of non-intervention in the internal affairs of nations was set up against Metternich’s policy of interference. Thus Great Britain indirectly became the virtual supporter of the liberal movements in such countries as Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece, and the Latin-American colonies. Canning also persuaded Great Britain to suggest and champion the Monroe Doctrine, which prevented European powers from forcing the Latin-American republics to return to their allegiance to Spain and Portugal. ‘‘I called the New World into existence to redress the balance of the Old,’’ he boasted as he urged Parliament to recognize the independence of the Spanish-American states in 1825. A Whig ministry under Earl Grey succeeded Wellington in 1830. REFERENCES FOR FURTHER STUDY 1. CONTINENTAL EvuRopPE E. Bourczois, Manuel historique de politique étrangére, Vol. II, 1789-1830, 4th edition (1909); W. A. Puriurps, The Confederation of Europe, 2d edition (1919); C. K. Wessrter, The Congress of Vienna, 1814-1815 (1918); C. D. Hazen, W. R. Tuayer, and R. H. Lorp, Three Peace Congresses of the Nineteenth Century (1917); J. S. Basserr, The Lost Fruits of Waterloo (1918); C. Rocer, Etude sur les origines de la Sainte-Alliance (1888); A. SorgL, Essais d'histoire et de critique, 1rth edition (1884); C. pz Mazapg, Un Chancelier d' ancien régime: le regne diplomatique de M. de Metternich (1889); G. B. Maureson, Life of Prince Metternich (1895); R. Merrernicu (editor), Memoirs of Prince Clemens Metternich, English translation by Mrs. A. Napier, 8 vols. (4881-1882); C. M. pz TaLLeyRAND-PERIGORD, Memoirs, 5 vols. (1891-1892); G. Patuarn, (editor) Correspondance inédite de Talleyrand et du roi Louis XVIII pendant le congrds de Vienne, 3d edition (1881); W. P. Cresson, The Holy Alliance (1922); G. L. Dickinson, Revolution and Reaction in Modern France (1892); E. Bourcsots, Modern France, 2 vols. (1919); G. Weiti, La France sous la monarchie cons- titutionelle (1912); H. Houssaye, 181s, 3, vols. (1896-1895); L. Micuon, Le gouvernement parlementaire sous la restauration (1905); J. JAUREs (editor) Histoire socialiste, Vol. VU, La restauration, by R. Viviani (1906); P. Rain, L’Exrope et la restauration des Bourbons (1908); J. R. Hatz, The Bourbon Restoration (1910); G. Husparn, Hestoire Contemporaine de l’Espagne, 6 vols. (1869-1883); C. E. Caapman, A History of Spain (1919); F. L. Paxson, The Independence of the South American Republics (1903); W.R. SHepuern, Latin America (1914); W.S. Rosertson, Hisiury of the Latin-American Nations (1922); B. Kine, A History of Italian Unity, 2 vols. (1899); R. M. Jounston, The Napoleonic Empire in Southern Italy and the Rise of the Secret Societies, 2 vols. (1904). 2. Great BritTAIN G. C. Bropericx and J. K. Fornerirncuam, The Political History of England: 1801-1837 (1906); J. A. R..Marriorr, England since Waterloo (1913); A. L. Cross, Shorter History of England and Greater Britain (1914); G. M. Treveryan, British History in the Nineteenth Century (1782-1901) (1922); E. and E. G. Porrirr, The Unreformed House of Commons, 2 vols. (1907, new edition 1909); T. E. Kepner, History of Toryism (1886); C. B. R. Kent, The English Radicals (1899); W. L. Breasz, A Short History of English Liberalism (1913); W.E. H. Lecxy, Leaders of Public Opinion in Ireland, 2 vols. (new edition 1903); B. Warp, The Dawn of the Catholic Revival, 1781-1803 (1909); The Eve of Catholic Emancipa- TTT ee144 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. VII tion, 3 vols. (1912); H. W. Crarx, Hestory of English Nonconformity, 2 vols. (1913); - ; E. Jenxs, A Short History of the English Law (1912); Sir J. F. Srepnens, History of the Criminal Law of England, 3 vols. (1883); R. M. Garnigr, History of the English Landed Gentry (1893); Sir G. Nicnouts, A History of the English Poor Law, new edition, 2 vols. (1898), Vol. III by T. Mackay (1899); J. S. Nicnorson, The History of the English Corn Laws (1904); G. Suater, The English Peasantry and the Inclosure of the Common Fields (1907); E. C. K. Gonner, Common Lands and Inclosure (1912); Sir H. Maxwetz, The Life of Wellington, 2 vols., 3d edition (1900); J. A. R. Marriott, George Canning (1903); H. W. V. Temperey, George Canning (1905); E. I. Cartyxe, William Cobbett (1904). : , | | at a ee SAUUATRORAMAAUUTH ATUL VULASUAEARULUUUECUUBUAUERUELEU UPAR IVUAITULNUUUORSSEUQUHSHERUUUALAUEGUEDUUAUOURRISERIRAIAS USSR LSU SCOOT DLCHAPTER VIII ABANDONMENT OF LIBERALISM IN RUSSIA AND THE MAINTENANCE OF AUTOCRACY IN CENTRAL EUROPE 1. RussIA UNDER ALEXANDER | AND Nicno as I Russta, with a population of 45,000,000 under Tsar Alexander I, and not Great Britain, strange to say, was the least loyal to “" Metter- nichism.’’ Alexander I had received a large part of his education from a Swiss liberal named La Harpe, whose teachings continued to exert a great influence over him. He was impressed by the French Revolu- tion and worshipped at the feet of Napoleon. Indeed, as the “ Little Father’’ of his people, he dreamed of making Russia a free country. As a lover of peace and a religious enthusiast, he labored to unite all European peoples into one Christian family. He thought of having his conglomerate Empire supplant France as the champion of con- stitutional liberty. He advised Louis XVIII to give France the charter. The state rights of Finland were confirmed. The Poles were granted a liberal constitution guaranteeing them self-government. At the Congress of Vienna, he codperated with Stein to regenerate the German nation, and with Great Britain to abolish the slave trade. Intelligent reforms were made in Russia; the abolition of serfdom was contemplated; and great schemes for popular and higher educa- tion were discussed. The formation of a written constitution was seriously considered. Had circumstances been more favorable and Alexander more determined, he might have prevented a century of autocracy in Russia. But Alexander lacked firmness and was easily swayed. With all his liberal inclinations he never really overcame his thirst for power and the belief in his own divine mission to rule. By 1820 Alexander at the age of 43 had fallen into Metternich’s “spider-web.”’ An insignificant mutiny had occurred in one of his regiments and he allowed himself to be persuaded that it was part of a general revolutionary movement; that liberalism was a foe to established government and religion; and that the best way to obtain Christian peace in the world was to check all these dangerous forms of progress. A series of conspiracies, assassinations and revolutions, fomented by secret societies in Russia and Europe, frightened the tsar and convinced him that liberalism inevitably resulted in revolution and terror. At the Congress of Troppau in 1820 Alexander said to Metternich: ‘‘Today I deplore all I said and did between the years 145 TUVTVVTVONTVAT TAT OGTEGTLOAUOSNIT Ue ry Liberal policy of Alexander I Alexander I becomes conservative Cae at Re mam we 08 Page pn, ie ;146 MODERN WORLD HISTORY (Chap. VIII 1815 and 1818. . . . You have correctly judged the state of affairs. Tell me what you wish me to do, and I will do it.’”’ Thus Alexander became a willing tool in the hands of the champion of reaction and offered to place his troops at Metternich’s command to curb all revo- lutionary movements in the Old World and the New. At home he ceased to talk of constitutions and reforms, and drove the liberals to employ secret means to secure their rights. These secret societies were composed almost entirely of young nobles, officers in the army who had served in France and who had returned home converted to the revolutionary doctrines of the west. When Alexander died in 1825 they attempted to take advantage of complications connected with the succession, and effected a rising in St. Petersburg the object of which was to place Constantine instead of Nicholas, on the throne. How little they represented the masses is shown by the fact that the population at large hardly stirred. Indeed, it is said that the ‘*Con- stitution’’ for which they cried was believed by the people to be the wife of Constantine. The rising was suppressed with little difficulty and the ringleaders shot. Nicholas I was no less reactionary than Charles X and Ferdi- nand VII, though he was a man of greater ability. He opposed all reforms, and during his autocratic reign of thirty years nearly every new institution and progressive idea brought into Russia disappeared. The iron arm of autocracy reached everywhere and held all in sub- jection by force and terror. Reaction as a system was carried to per- fection and as a result Russia became one of the most benighted countries in Europe. A conscious policy of cultural isolation was fostered. 2. THE AustTRIA OF Francis | In spite of the series of defeats at the hands of Napoleon, Austria had emerged in 1815 stronger, larger, and more populous than ever. The Austrian With her 30,000,000 people, she soon became the dominant power on Empire the continent. But within the Austrian Empire were serious menaces which were to lead eventually to her destruction. She was a medley of races, states, tongues, religions, and institutions, without national, racial, or social unity. Germans in the west, Magyars in the central east, Italians in the south, and Slavs and Rumanians around the northern, eastern and southern borders, lacked the inspiration of a common history, patriotism, and rights. The Empire was held to- gether only by the autocratic Hapsburg government supported by a Hapsburgers loyal nobility and an extensive bureaucracy. The Hapsburgs were a German house, and the Germans were a minority in the Empire. The Congress of Vienna had placed Italy under the iron heel of the Hapsburg rulers and had given Austria the presidency in the Germanic Confederation. The political, social and educational institutions of Austria were those of the old régime. The autocratic emperor ruled with the aid of ministers and councils, like Louis XVI in France before a = - oe ee ee eee eee eee s o Sa ea ade a ote Be te ree ae) ee Tee A a A ‘R HUNGUGTREAUATAVOTATAANEVEVEAIAUAVEREYOATOAREQEVEOTOLEROOSTOTOODAURTEAOVHVEVEVEREAVEOEIAAYOTOLETOERTENOPATOCOLSTUPOEE CEES PERT TEChap. VIII] AUTOCRACY IN EUROPE AFTER 1815 LAT 1789. classes. Feudalism persisted, and the nobles were free from military service, held their own courts, and were exempt from many of the taxes. They monopolized the offices in the church and state, and owned most of the land. The middle class was small and of no im- portance. The peasants were in effect wretched serfs with little hope of relief from their galling burdens. The domestic policy of the Austrian government was the special domain of Emperor Francis I, who, like so many of his contem- poraries, had learned nothing from experience and who carried the idea of stagnation so far that even Metternich disapproved. To pre- vent racial independence from growing, he sent Hungarians to watch Italians; Italians to guard Slavs; ANNUITY Society was divided into the privileged and unprivileged Institutions Germans to occupy Bohemia; Home policy of Czechs to defend Austria; and Slavs to terrify Hungary. To keep out Francis I dangerous revolutionary ideas from abroad, a cordon of tariffs and censors was placed on the borders of the Empire. Mail was opened and travelers were stopped on the frontiers and rigidly searched. The press was not free but formed a department of the government; education was in the hands of the clergy; and textbooks were selected by the imperial authorities. The theater, and even art and music were censored. Foreigners were closely watched. The police reported all books read by professors and students in the libraries. All kinds of associations were strictly forbidden. A friend of Metter- nich congratulated him for keeping the study of science and history out of the schools. Only half as many children were in receipt of elementary education as in Prussia. A copy of Copernicus, On rhe Revolution of the Celestial Bodies, was confiscated on the ground that it taught ‘‘revolution.’’ Bible reading among the masses was not en- couraged. The whole country was overrun with spies to keep civilization ‘‘frozen.’’ The Catholic Church was the state church, and Protestant students could not receive a degree from a university. This was the system of Francis I in practical operation, which its author wished to extend to Europe. “‘Govern and change nothing”’ was urged in the will of Emperor Francis I. Austria, with the exception of Russia, was the strongest power on the continent after 1815, and occupied a commanding position in the rn = on set ane ee — Sore i ee Seoperestmarer peers NLT kr Seo heart of Europe. Italy was a dependency, as were most of the German states, except Prussia. Austria’s aim was to build up a union of the great powers of Europe under her own leadership. Through this league, based on force, the continent was to be protected against a new outburst of revolution and its horrors. Unfortunately, no dis- tinction was made between the moderate demands of liberalism and the agitation of radicals. All opponents of the existing order were classed as ‘‘dangerous.’’ Metternich regarded himself as the police- man of the continent and under his influence Austria threw her full force against constitutional development. It seemed to bode ill for the future of Europe and the world that the center of political power Foreign policy of Francis and Metternich Sr Es —=Sen oes tae oR ew abe et ome ee TT ae oe rea nas a era, beers, eee 2h ee Reforms in Prussia Lack of unity King becomes conservative iT i Le ae aT 148 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. VIII in Europe was at the same time the center of opposition to political and intellectual advancement. 3. PRussIA UNDER FREDERICK WILLIAM III, 1797-1840 Napoleon reduced Prussia to a third-rate state. This humiliation led patriots like Hardenberg and Stein to demand the modernization of the nation as the only method of recovering its position. ‘‘Pa- triots cannot be made out of serfs,’’ said Stein, so serfdom was abol- ished, and the king rejoiced that he was not “the king of slaves, but of free men.’’ Class distinctions were removed from the civil code. The government was reformed, and Scharnhorst reorganized the military system on the basis of universal service. Humboldt intro- duced a new system of education for the people, which soon made Prussia one of the most intelligent states in the world. These reforms came not from the people, as in France, but from the king. Never- theless they were enthusiastically accepted and sent a thrill of patriot- ism throughout the nation. In the readjustments of the Congress of Vienna, Prussia emerged with her boundaries enlarged and her territory more unified, although Hanover still split the country into two parts. The government was an absolute monarchy like Austria. The population in 1815 numbered 10,500,000 and included a good many Poles in the east. Both nationally and economically Prussia was not yet a unity, and religiously the people were divided between Protestants and Catholics. The eastern portion of the monarchy was aristocratic with 15,000 noble (Junker) estates; the western half, much more prosperous and enjoying the commerce of the Rhine basin, had been affected by the French Revolution and was more democratic and industrial, with a rich middle class. The nobility were clamoring for the restoration of the old régime, but the liberals wanted a constitution and a parliamentary government. Frederick William III, like Tsar Alexander I, thought of giving Prussia a constitution, but the powerful landlords, or ‘‘Junkers,’’ whom Stein called ‘‘heartless, wooden and half-educated,”’ bitterly opposed such a step. The revolutionary writers and the outbreaks of students in some of the smaller German states caused the king to hesitate. Already in 1819 Prussia had codperated with Austria in promulgating the Carlsbad Decrees, which subjected the universities to supervision and muzzled the press. When the revolutions occurred in Spain and Italy, Metternich persuaded him to abandon all thought of a constitution. Prussia now openly took her place beside Austria and Russia as a champion of autocracy and “‘an orgy of reaction set in.’’ Prussian police were sent ‘‘demagogue hunting’; popular heroes like Jahn and Arndt were imprisoned; college professors and military officers suspected of liberalism were dismissed; and the whole country was overrun with spies. Paternal despotism in Prus- sia, unlike Austria, was wise enough, however, to see the advantages of a system of universal, compulsory education; a scientific financial LTE ETChap. VIII] AUTOCRACY IN EUROPE AFTER 1815 149 system; an intelligent control of the church; and a new customs union with other German states. 4. Tue GEeRMANIC CONFEDERATION What to do with the numerous German states was one of the most perplexing questions before the Congress of Vienna, which Blucher called a ‘council of thrice-accursed constables and lazy-bones.”’ A crowd of German princelings had flocked to the congress demanding the restoration of their estates. Patriots, on the other hand, pressed for a federal constitution. Stein’s sensible proposal to create a strong German nation was opposed both by the jealous small states and by the greedy large states, Austria and Prussia, neither of which was willing to submit to the leadership of the other. As a result the congress, under the direction of the two large powers, organized a weak Confederation of 38 sovereign states under the direction of Austria — an organization that resembled the loose union of the American states under the Articles of Confederation. The Diet, which was provided, was merely a “permanent assembly of ambassa- dors’’ meeting at Frankfort to consider general policies. All Europe joked about this ‘‘center of inertia’’ in which delay was easier than action. One small state had the power to veto the wishes of all the others in any question involving a change in the Federal Act. Even the right of petition was censored. The execution of the laws enacted was left to the local rulers, and they enforced them only when they pleased. Germany was at the mercy of a union of jealous, selfish princes. Since Metternich had regarded a united German nation as an ‘‘infamous object,’’ he now held a divided Germany under his thumb. The Confederation was to do for Germany what the Quadru- ple Alliance was to do for Europe, namely, preserve the existing social and political institutions unchanged. Article 13 of the treaty drawn up at Vienna promised that a con- stitution would be established in all the states of the Confederation. A few of the south German states were granted charters by their rulers, in imitation of France, but some of these were soon with- drawn. A notable exception was the grand duchy of Saxe-Weimar whose ruler, the patron of Goethe and Schiller, established a modern type of government. In the other states all the people received was ‘a prophecy’’ and “an unlimited right of expectation.’ Absolu- tism generally prevailed, and Metternich grinned in mockery at the disappointment of the liberals. Progressive newspapers and societies were suppressed, and even the display of the black-red-gold national emblem was proscribed. The surest way to be thrown into prison was to appear in the streets in a black coat, red vest, and a straw hat. With the triumph of autocracy, the German people increased their efforts to overthrow it. The middle class demanded a share in the government and the common people clamored for social reforms. The universities became centers of national patriotism, where the students WRRLRLEEERGGeGcE” HEHE EEE EE TUNTUVTOTTUTTNTOTLOTHATOHUOAPAOTT hes The Germanic Confederation Weakness Des potism in small states “mt SS eee oth anchtend aeRO ST ETL ars a att esa EE el eS a To ATE A ET ee ee ae ASSIA a ] th hy Hh | Opposition to autocracy in Germany Wartburg Festival Carlsbad Decrees iti / } 150 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. VIII formed secret fraternities, sang of a united fatherland, and broke out in noisy demonstrations for self-government. To arouse the German people, one of these secret brotherhoods, called the Burschenschafr, held a national celebration on October 18, 1817, at the Wartburg castle, famous in the life of Luther. About 200 professors and stu- dents rar sixteen universities attended. Patriotic songs were sung the fiery orators denounced Metternich, and on the closing ev ening some of the symbols of military tyranny — a pigtail, a corset, a corporal’s cane, the Prussian police code : eee Kotzebue’s History of the German Empire Luther's — were thrown into a bonfire in imitation of burning of the papal bull three centuries earlier. Reports of these boyish pranks soon reached the ears of the German rulers and Caused great consternation. Austria and Prussia demanded that the grand duke of Saxe-Weimar, who had permitted the outrage, should make an investigation. He did so, and reported that the scidente had committed no grave offense. The Prussian minister of police was not satisfied and insisted that the ‘‘band of demoralized professors and corrupted students’’ be punished. Metternich professed to see in the incident positive proof of a wide-spread conspiracy to repeat the French Revolution. This conviction was strengthened when the author, Kotzebue, a Russian spy, was assassinated at Mannheim in 1819 by Karl Sand, a half-crazed Bavarian student. As a result of the Wartburg festival, Metternich met Frederick William III and persuaded him to ee in issuing the Carlsbad Decrees which had been formulated by eight frig] htened princes, to repress all liberal movements. The servile Diet procl: aimed the Decrees as law and thus assured the triumph of the Metternich system in Germany. Student societies were suppressed. Special officers were sent to all the universities to supervise the conduct and expressions of students and teachers. Any professor guilty of spreading revolutionary ideas was to be dismissed and refused appointment elsewhere. Expelled students could not enter any other university. Suspected ‘‘demo- crats were subjected to the rigors of a vindictive police law. The display of the new national flag was forbidden, and freedom of dis- cussion was checked by a rigid censorship of the press. A mild reign of terror, which persecuted the ‘‘demagogues’”’ into silence, resulted. One collegian was imprisoned for having drawn a cartoon showing the devil | devouring aking. So brutally were these measures aed out that Castlereagh denounced them as a menace to the liberties of Europe, while even Tsar Alexander I publicly called them “* pretensions of absolute power.’’ Humboldt protested against them as “shameful, unnational, and provocative for a thinking people.’’ Nevertheless they continued in force for nearly twenty years. After 1815 the fundamental problem confronting Europe was whether the old régime or the new should triumph. Absolute monarchy, feudal society, a fettered industry, education for the privileged few, and compulsion in religious belief were battling for absurd TTT TTT TTT EDT HNGHUTSGAUYGAUTATOAUFFRRSRUEUNLAEVHOTTENTIU AAT ELLAILESSSTOTAEEChap. VIII] AUTOCRACY IN EUROPE AFTER 1815 151 victory against self-government, equality, nationalism, freedom of trade, popular education, and liberty of worship. On the surface of things, for some years after the fall of Napoleon, it looked as if the reactionary forces had won. The enforcement of the Metternich system seemed to be a victory for the old order and the ancient insti- tutions. Looking backward now, however, it is clear that the auto- cratic and privileged type of society was being undermined by a spirit of progress. The new ideas and institutions produced by the French Revolution, and spread over Europe by the conquering troops of Napoleon, were held in abeyance, it is true, by a Charles X, a George IV, a Ferdinand VII, a Nicholas I, or a Francis I, but they were not crushed out. They continued to grow and to spread in secret. Louis XVIII found it necessary to compromise with the new régime, and rulers over Europe generally had the same experience. Even Metternich was shrewd enough not to want to go back, for he knew that to be impossible, and only insisted upon standing still. Europe could never again be what it had been. The new hopes that had been born expressed themselves in a thousand different ways — in secret societies, and in songs, art, and literature. They were discussed in the fields, shops and drawing rooms, as well as in parliaments, congresses and royal courts. The Metternich system was doomed to failure because it was founded upon obscurantism, autocracy, force, injustice, and inequality. The time was not far off when the peoples of Europe would destroy it, legally if possible, forcibly if necessary. REFERENCES FOR FURTHER STUDY A. Rampaup, History of Russia, English translation 3 vols. (1881); A. Kornitov, Modern Russian History, 2 vols. English translation by A. S. Kaun (1917); A. Czar- toryski1, Memoirs and Correspondence with Alexander I, 2 vols. (1888); N. MrxHaILovirTcH, L’ Empereur Alexandre I", 2 vols. (1913); T. SCHIEMANN, Geschichte Russlands unter Kaiser Nikolaus I, 4 vols. (1904-1919); H. von Sybex, Dee Begrindung des Deutschen Retches durch Wilhelm I, 7 vols. (1890-1898), English translation by M. L. Perrin and G. Bradford (1890-1898); H. von TREITSCHKE, Deutsche Geschichte im neurnzehnten Jahrhundert, 5 vols. (1890-1896), English translation (1915); P. M. Lecer, Héstozre de I’ Austrie- Hongrie, depuis ves Origines jusqu'a Ll année 1878 (1879), English translation by Mrs. N. Hill, (4889); H. von Z.WIRDENECK-SUDENHORST, Deutsche Geschichte von der Auflosung des alten bis zur Errichtung des neuen Kaiserreiches (1806-1871), 3 vols. (1897-1906); M. L. Deventer, Cinguante années de V'histoire fédérale de l’ Allemagne (1875); A. W. Warp, Germany, 3 vols. (1916-18); V. Bist, Der Zerfall Ocsterreschs, Vol. I, (1922). TeaRaaaae ERESE . Fundamental problem confronting Europe TN TTVTTATILATAA LATENT NATO Le f Pea ae ek eed Se ee ee EeeS Te Ee — i} a ; } i | } ] | i i Sle —— eS, SERED SS ea IS a ee —— eS a A PE Te AUTUVEPITAAUTVOESEVALUTVEAOVELUERAU PRADO UTRESUTERERGAV RDEV ERUGAU VDT PLOCODSHODHVOER ERT RSET DUOC EAPPVUUOTVUOVOTRUOOCDESOHEESO 011 Dea PART = AV THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION AND THE GROWTH OF CONSTITUTIONAL SELF- GOVERNMENTt iF a aa a ee eee sooeneee eee ae reece emer =" MALFLCENTOMMARU LAAT AATUACHHAAT EAU UATAUOHTAA VON UA UAT UAUOEUATEADER CO ER PERCU TOO TOU ERRATA ESTOANEOAT OAT UA TOES CGR CAESAR TTT eTCHAPTER IX THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION t. THe MEANING AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION Tue period of world history from 1815 to 1848 was characterized by four forces that engaged the chief attention of men: (2) the In- dustrial Revolution; (2) the rise of constitutionalism, which came through the various political revolts; @) the growth of nationalism; and (4) the rise of socialism as a protest against the existing economic and social order. The English Revolutions of 1649 and 1689, the’American Revolu- tion and the French Revolution had started the New World and the Old along the road towards political democracy and social equality. At the same time religious toleration and modern ideas of education were slowly growing. But the daily life of the masses of the people was much the same as it had been two thousand years ago. While their ideas in many respects were being modernized, their habits and ways of doing things had not changed a great deal since the time of Colum- bus and Luther. The tools of the farmer — the axe and the plow, the rake and the sickle — and the hammer, auger and chisel of the carpenter, were like those used by the Romans. Household utensils and comforts had undergone few improvements. The industrious mother carried her distaff about with her to make yarn, or sat by the open fire to spin it, or to knit it into stockings and mittens. Cloth was woven on a clumsy loom like that of the Egyptians. Grain was cut with a scythe or sickle and threshed with a flail, or trampled out by oxen as in Bible days. The homes of the people in the villages and cities were similar to those of the Middle Ages. People travelled in clumsy wagons, or on horseback, while goods were carried in squeak- ing carts or crude sailing vessels. It took as long to send a letter from London or Berlin to Naples as in the time of Charlemagne. If a shoe- maker, or a blacksmith, or a stonemason of the days of St. Paul or even Abraham had returned to the world, he would have felt at home, after a little orientation, in the methods of work and ways of living. What a transformation has taken place during the past century and a half! The farmer has a tractor for plowing, a selfbinder for his grain, a thresher for his wheat and oats, and an automobile for his marketing. In modern homes are found stoves, furnaces, steamheat, fireless cookers, sewing machines, electric washing machines, tele- phones, phonographs, radios, and dozens of other devices for saving T55 MINIT IN La Forces in world history Daily life of the people Changes in the last 150 years156 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. IX labor and for adding enjoyment. In like manner the simple tools of the artisans have been largely replaced by machines to make shoes and clothing, to dig ditches and mine coal, to cut wae and quarry stone, to build houses, bridges, and roads, to carry people and goods, and to lighten toil in a thousand Airections. or to get a greater number of products from the same amount of toil. Iron, steam, gasoline, and electricity now do the heavy work on the farm, in the mine, and in the city. A new world has come into existence — a world of science and machinery. Huge cities full of factories have sprung up. Rail- roads now run to all parts of the globe, giant steamships plow the seas, and airships rush swiftly through space over land and water. The telegraph, cable, and telephone make the whole world a neigh- borhood. The printing-press brings to the humblest workman every day the news of the entire earth. This transformation, which began early in the eighteenth century and is still in progress, is known as the Industrial REVLON It came slowly and steadily, not suddenly and violently, but it has produced a new civilization. Germany was the home of tl he religious reformation; England, the United States and France the scene of the Why the political revolutions; and England, the original source of the In- ee: dustrial Revolution. Great Britain was peculiarly fitted for leader- CVoOlhzi ton ; . . came frst in Ship in this movement. She had a strongly centralized and stable England government which fostered business interests. Her powerful navy protected her from inyasion and made her mistress of the seas, while her large merchant marine gave her the commercial leadership of the world. She was blessed with vast supplies of coal and iron ore, and an unequalled quality of wool. She had already built up a world market for her goods as is shown by the fact that between 1700, and 1800 her foreign trade increased sixfold, while her domestic trade was still larger. The small shops, although quite numerous, could not produce goods fast enough to supply the demands. Scientific societies were offering prizes for improved tools, and thus encourag- ing British genius for invention and organization to utilize the large amount of cheap, efficient labor. The surplus wealth made from wool-growing and trade was awaiting investment. The rise of com- merce and ibs al produced the entrepreneur and promoter to organize and guide the new industry. All these factors, which were not so pronounced in other countries, explain why the Industrial Revolution first occurred in Great Britain, and then, like the French Revolution, spread to other lands, and is still reaching out over the world. ee eB = a= =— =" = = 2. THe BACKGROUND AND ANTECEDENTS OF THE a ee ee eee eS a a INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION = The Industrial Revolution was preceded by (2) the Commer- cial Revolution, which resulted from the expansion of Europe, and (2) the agricultural improvements. These movements began in a LT PE PE ES Ee RMAMAAIITTVUVTUUTAVICUUUUUUUEUEVEE4QSOC0Q4NNSHUHNINAITITRAUUTIRESDEOUURONOUEQUOOCUOUEGSOONGRASVONOSHOTARINNENUAAIRULLAEULEOUEUUEUOCOUGUOSUOOUOGESTOOEYRIORIRESAEOIETI LL mEChap. IX] the seventeenth century and lapped over into the nineteenth century. In the eighteenth century Great Britain was predominantly an agri- cultural country. The small farmers played an important role in the economic life until their power was broken by the acquisition of land by the old nobility and the rich tradesmen through purchase and the ‘enclosure’ of the ‘‘commons’’ and waste lands. From 1700 to 1839 over 4000 acts of Parliament enabled these large landlords to secure more than seven million acres. Many of the small farmers also sold their little holdings and went either to the large cities or to the colonies for better opportunities. The passing of the land into the hands of fewer owners resulted in the investment of more capital in agriculture and in better farming. Cultivation became more inten- sive, fallow lands were ‘seeded down,’’ wooded and waste lands were cleared, fertilizers were used, and the increase in flocks and crops made it easier to supply the increasing population with food and clothing. Not until 1792 was Great Britain forced to import grain for foodstuffs. The first signs of a change in agriculture came early in the eight- eenth century, when, by crop-rotation introduced by Charles Town- shend, fallow lands were used to raise clover, beets and turnips, which had been introduced from the continent. This improved the soil, raised more food, and enabled the farmers to keep better breeds of cattle and sheep. Closer attention to scientific stock-raising by Robert Bakewell and others meant richer soil, more beef and mutton, leather and wool. Swamps and marshes were drained, and new grains, grasses, and vegetables were grown. Up to 1750 three fifths of the land was still not ‘‘enclosed,’’ but after that date the process of large-scale farming began to increase rapidly, and was defended on the ground that it was more scientific and economical. In 1789 about one third of the land was “‘unenclosed.’’ An improvement in farm machinery and tools followed the initial work of Jethro Tull. The first crude but successful thrashing machine was invented in 1786 by the Scotchman, Andrew Meikle. Small’s cast-iron plough appeared in 1800, but farmers, fearing that it would “poison” the soil, were slow to use it. The cradle-scythe, patented in 1808 in America, enabled one man to do the work of ten with the old sickle. After 1815 scientific drainage was adopted, and the chemical nature of soil studied. More attention was given to the selection of seeds. In 1838 the Royal Agricultural Society was formed. Arthur Young was the great prophet and promoter of these changes in agriculture. These humble beginnings were a phase of a great world movement which was to usher in ‘‘ modern times.’’ They made it easier to feed and clothe the people of the world. They brought about mighty economic transformations. Manufactured woolens increased between THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION 157 1700 and 1775 from forty to sixty-five million dollars. The ‘““enclos- Beginnings of ures’’ drove thousands to the factory towns to supply an abundance of labor to run the new machinery. Other thousands helped to build TOVTTULATALOPOTOLOTATOT Loe 1 Antecedents Agricultural Revolution a world movement el ee ee eee — STOEz eT Ae te * = ee oe es er NS Te Advance in Science Commercial Revolution STS It j } 158 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. IX up the British Empire. Three classes were left on the soil: (1) the large-scale landlords, (2) the small, independent farmers, and (3) the farm hands working fora wage. In 1876 the ‘‘ New Doomsday Book’’ showed that England had the largest average land holdings and the smallest number of cultivators, who owned their own land. Of the 966,000 landowners outside of London, 263,00 only possessed more more than one acre, while in France there were 5,600,000 landholders and in Belgium 1,000,000. | The invention of the mariner’s compass and fire-arms contributed to the expansion of Europe overseas through exploration, discoveries, and colonization. The printing-press helped to spread a knowledge of the earth and its inhabitants, and greatly accelerated the work of the cartographers. The seventeenth century was preéminently an age of mathematics, physics, and mechanics, which laid the foundations for modern science. In the eighteenth century England was superior in applied science. If a physicist at Marburg, Germany, one Denis Papin, discovered the expansive power of heat, it was Watt who applied it to the steam engine, which bridged the chasm between science and business. While many of the English inventors were men without technical education, still they utilized the scientific principles already discovered. Thus the man of science pointed out the way to the man of tools. In the seventeenth century France and England worked together in promoting the new science, but in the next century France devoted her energies to political and social im- provements while England promoted the Industrial Revolution. England was indebted to the continent for many inventions. In 1700 Manchester adopted from Holland the ‘‘swivel-loom’’ for weaving many narrow ribbons at once. The art of trimming iron plates was taken from Saxony, and perfected in South Wales. Im- proved “‘silk throwing mills’’ were built in England in 1719 on Italian models. Indeed up to 1730 the continent was ahead of England in mechanical technique. England was even indebted to Holland for the plough. The French Revolution and the first steam-propelled cotton-spinning mill are marked by the same date. It was science, therefore, applied to economics and sociology, that prepared the way for the great transformations in industry and commerce. The Indus- trial Revolution, like all mighty movements, was the natural sequel of preceding forces, but its significance was understood only when men began to see the profound changes it wrought in society as a whole. The overseas expansion of Europe and the Commercial Revolution greatly increased the volume of trade by opening up new markets and by creating demands for more European goods. The importance of money as an aid in business received careful study, and improved finan- Cial institutions appeared. Larger and more numerous organizations for trade and commerce responded to the greater opportunities for profit. The increase in population, the rise of higher standards of IUAIMINAUUAUUULAUIAIAIAVURCUUSUESUESUEOUOOUOQOOUORUOASONEGUONATOQUALIGRRSREDULAREUUCUUEUURRUEUTOAUOOGASAUOSORUOROAR ESR TDChap. IX] THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION 159 comfort, and the call for European products in foreign markets, necessitated improvements in the methods of production, which would multiply the output. Necessity and the prospect of gain be- came the parents of inventions. At the same time the emergence of the middle class supplied men who were capable of taking full ad- vantage of the new conditions for themselves and the world in genetal. These factors prepared the way for the Industrial Revolu- tion. The immediate causes of the Industrial Revolution were (1) the discovery of new sources of power in water, coal, steam, gas and electricity; (2) the discovery of new processes in chemistry; and (3) the new mechanical inventions to take the place of manual labor. These new forces were not created by kings and generals, nor even by great philosophers, but by humble scholars and workmen seeking to save time and toil. In world history, the evolution in the manufacture of cloth is more important than the creation of constitutions. The steam engine and printing-press have added more to the freedom and happiness of man than all the wars of conquest with which the pages of history are too often filled. To these causes of power, knowledge and technique should be added the abundance of capital and cheap labor, and the progress already made by the merchant-manufacturer under the old guild and domestic systems. London by 1789 had superseded Amsterdam as the center of money and commerce and was the recognized financial capital of the western world. It was the money made out of business that enabled Great Britain to fight the long series of wars with France, and her monetary primacy was greater than ever after the fall of Napoleon. Many foreign merchants and capitalists, among them Nathan Rothschild, settled in London. Private banks on the Italian model were numerous. Lloyd's marine insurance company, reorganized in 1779, was insuring foreign as well as British vessels. Thousands of skilled workmen from France and Holland had gone to England to join the British laborers, and thus amply supplied the needed man-power. To understand just what industrial and social transformation came through the Industrial Revolution, the life of a country like England under the old economic régime must be clearly visualized. Pic- ture the people living for the most part on their own farms or on the manors of the great lords, feeding themselves with the produce of their own labor, shoeing and clothing themselves with the hides and wool of their own flocks, making their own crude tools, and leading a simple and fairly happy life. The good summer days were devoted to agriculture, and rainy days and the winter months given to mend- ing and making harness, tools, boots, clothing, and other necessities, or to spinning and weaving. The farmers were “Jacks of all trades’’ and not only supplied practically all their own needs at home but also had a surplus of home-made yarn, cloth, and other articles to sell. This was called the ‘‘domestic system.’’ The spinning and TUUTUTATAVTUTTTOTAURELOGEOTRLOU THAT TT EL | Immediate causes of the Industrial Revolution a en, mie | ee ee el Oe nn eeTo a a Se a NR Se LL tL TE A I Te ° ia Sealer teats . nT oe Industrial life under the J a). old régime Changes in spinning anda weaving cotton 160 MODERN WORLD HISTORY (Chap. IX weaving of wool was found as a by-employment all over England as late as 1820, when the power looms began to be applied to the worsted trade. In the hamlets, towns and cities were found the handicrafts- men, such as blacksmiths, wagonmakers, masons, carpenters, and other skilled workmen, who had their own shops and devoted prac- tically all of their time to a specialized business. Such manufacturing as existed was carried on through the domestic system. The guild system had disappeared in England by 1700. Glass, hardware, beer, bricks, tile, pottery and paper, as well as foods, textiles and leather goods, were all made under the domestic plan. There had come into existence under the old economic régime a certain type of a business man who might be called a capitalist. In all western nations — more commonly in England, Belgium and Holland — and even in Russia, in the eighteenth century, there was large-scale mining and manufacturing and also many trades in which capitalists invested money and employed hand-workers. For instance, the ‘‘clothier’’ raised or bought his wool, sent it to the spinners, weavers, dyers, fullers, shearers and dressers, and then sold the finished product wherever he might find a market. A ~ wagoner © with his money invested in wagons and teams hauled goods on con- tract, or managed a system of stage coaches, or served as a letter car- rier. He might also own a series of inns along the route of the stage coach or possess storage warehouses, and thus add another source of profit. The ‘‘broker’’ was another capitalist, who might own his own show rooms, act as a sales agent for the manufacturer, export and import goods, purchase taw materials and finished goods as a jobber, and make money as a ‘middle man.’’ The ship owner was also a capitalist who made wealth out of commerce. Companies, partnerships, and joint stock corporations of all sorts were more numerous than one might think. This expansion of business neces- sitated the establishment of banks, credit systems, and improved methods of accounting. These facts will help to explain how the old economic system in England, through the Industrial Revolution, hastened the transition to the modern economic system. 3. THe TecHNotocicaL REVOLUTION: THE COMING OF THE Empire oF MACHINES It should be seen, from what has been said, that many forces were already transforming the industrial world in preparation for the Industrial Revolution. The mechanical inventions were not the original cause of this change but a result of it, and in turn served to accelerate it. A description of the progress made in the spinning and weaving of cotton will help to make this relationship clear. The lucrative trade with India brought to England large quantities of cotton cloth. Its cheapness, durability and wide use greatly injured the woolen, linen and silk industries. From 1740 to 1770 the imports of cottons trebled, and fortunes were made from their sale. As early TUGDUUTVITUEVVOTVENVNTOAFINHASEVNESONERVANVNERSEVGEINVOERWENNNIVEXOEVOEEVOFINTVANIQOOMNANIIOOVORTOENOERO EN ELUODROUCT TOURER TPE CU TEETERChap. IX] THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION 161 as 1750 cotton exports equalled $250,000. This competition led the makers of other textiles to attempt to restrict the sale of cotton fabrics in England and on the continent. The battle between King Wool and King Cotton was a life and death struggle. The champions of King Cotton turned to new devices and inventions to win their victory. By 1802 the exports of manufactured cotton goods equalled those made of woolens, and soon greatly exceeded them. King Cotton’s triumph not only laid the foundations for a new industry, but it also changed the life and habits of a large part of the world. The importation of raw cotton increased from 1,000,000 pounds in 1760 to 56,000,000 pounds in 1800 and 400,000,000 pounds in 1840, whereas in the last-named year only 200,000,000 pounds of wool was used in England. Between 1820 and £840 wool began to reach Europe from Australia, Cape Colony and the Plate River. With this situation in mind, it is not surprising to find that the early inventions of the Industrial Revolution were mostly connected with cotton manufacture. Next to food comes clothing in the list of man’s elemental needs. For centuries yarn — wool, linen, silk, and cotton — was made by the primitive distaff and spindle. The invention of the spinning wheel, turned at first by hand and then by the foot, increased the output, but still produced only one thread. Kay’s ‘‘flying shuttle,’’ invented in 1733, had put the weavers far ahead of the spinners in efficiency. A weaver at his clumsy loom could use as much yarn or thread as eight or ten spinners could supply. The first spinning mill at Birmingham in 1741 employed ten girls. In 1758 Wyatt and Paul took out a patent for a ‘spinning engine’ which combined rollers with bobbins. So great was the demand for a more rapid method of spiuning that in 1761 the English Society for Encouraging Manufacturers offered a prize for such an invention. In 1764 a weaver named Hargreaves, taking the hint, it is said, from his wife’s overturned spinning wheel, invented a “‘Jenny’’ by which one wheel turned eight spindles at once. Five years later Arkwright, in his early days a hair dyer and wig maker, devised a spinning machine of rollers revolving at different speeds, and ran it by water power instead of by man or horse power. This ‘‘ Water Frame”’ spun cotton into threads rapidly and so firmly that cloth could now be woven entirely from cotton instead of using linen for the warp. The first mill using this device was set up in 1771 at Crawford. Ark- wright’s invention was in use in 150 mills by 1790 and made him a fortune. By the close of the American Revolution 20,000 of Har- greaves’ ‘‘Jennies’’ were in use doing the work of 1,500,000 spinners. In 1779 Crompton combined the ‘‘Jenny”’ and the “Water Frame’ in a new machine called the ‘‘Mule,’’ by which one spinner could spin 200 fine threads at once and thus made possible the weaving of fine muslin. He received but $300 for his invention though he spent his life improving it. In 1792 Kelly invented his self-acting “‘ Mule.” By 1811, 4,500,000 spindles worked by ‘‘Mules’’ were in use. Today TUHTLHTTRARTTRA PERE Mechanical tm provements Spinning machines BOLO om —s ee eee tea a her — Se ie : a AO I Oe TE Ee ee — Improvements ss7 7 7H wWweaviti 6 Cotton gin Bleaching and colored printing New sources of power 162 MODERN WORLD HISTORY (Chap. IX Over 2,000 spindles are carried at once on one machine. New devices for carding alsocame into use. While these improvements in spinning were designed primarily for cotton, they were also soon used for woolens, linens and silks. Now the weavers had too much thread and necessity moved them to improve the loom, which had not been changed since Kay made his shuttle in 1733. Cartwright, a clergyman, patented in 1785 the first power loom in which the shuttle was thrown back and forth auto- matically by water power. With it a child of fifteen could weave as much cloth as several hand-weavers. Cartwright’s original loom was quickly improved by other inventors. A Manchester firm in 1791 called for 400 of these looms, and by 1815, despite the hostility of the weavers who feared the loss of employment, the power loom, at least for cotton weaving, had come into use. Between 1813 and 1833 the power looms increased from 2,300 to 100,000 in number, and after 1815 steam began to replace water as the motive power. Soon the spinners and weavers were crying for more cotton. Pick- ing the little seeds out of the raw cotton by hand was a slow process. In 1792 an American named Eli Whitney invented the “Cotton Gin” with which one slave in one day could clean as much raw cotton as he had done before by hand in a whole year. As a result the export of cotton from the United States increased from 200,000 pounds in 1793 tO 40,000,000 in 1803. The manufacture of cotton cloth cen- tered in Great Britain, thanks to these inventions, and she controlled most of the markets of the world. The discovery of methods of chemical bleaching and of printing colored calicos from inked rollers greatly extended the use of cotton cloth, and made it one of the revolutionizing forces in modern civilization. By 1851 over one third of the workers in Great Britain were engaged in textile industries, whereas before the Industrial Revolution agriculture employed most of the population. , The utilization of new sources of power accompanied the changes already described. The transition from hand to foot power; then to water and steam power; and finally to gasoline and electric power, has been another large factor in the Industrial Revolution. It is estimated that the steam engine alone has added the equivalent of one billion men to industry, and that water power, gas and electricity have doubled that estimate. As early as 1705 Newcomen, by using the principle of the cylinder and piston, constructed a “‘fire engine © to meet the need of pumping water out of the coal mines. It was soon doing the work of fifty horses and greatly multiplied the coal output. Newcomen’s engine and other early types were in reality atmosphere engines rather than ‘“‘steam engines.’’ James Watt, a Scotchman, by 1768, had patented an improved steam engine, and in 1785 hitched it up to spinning machines and looms. The next great improvement in the steam engine came with the invention of the turbine engine about 1890. The improvement of tools, better and cheaper iron, and the TTT TT FAN GVUEAERU TL AREAD TEREST CUR ATAO TTT TUTChap. IX] THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION 163 gradual advance in mechanical technique soon enabled clever men to revolutionize the methods of transportation by land and sea. In time steam was in part replaced by internal combustion engines and electricity. The first improvement in land travel and transportation over the horse and the clumsy ox-cart was the stage coach which came into general use about 1700. Then followed an era of road-building on the continent and in England. About 1670 England began to facilitate travel by building turnpikes and charging toll for their use. Mac- Adam, a Scotchman, devised a new method of road-building, which bears his name to this day. In 1767 iron strips were laid on plank roads by tram companies to facilitate hauling, especially from the coal mines. Englishmen began to talk about the “astonishing changes’’ in transportation. Then the roads were supplemented by canals as early as 1759 and better bridges built over the rivers. The first canal with locks was built in 1761 to carry coal from a mine to Manchester seven miles away. An iron canal boat seventy feet long and seven feet eight inches wide was built in 1787 at Birmingham. Rivers were widened and deepened, harbors improved and docks constructed. By the close of the eighteenth century more rapid transportation than the slow cart and sailboat was demanded to bring taw materials and food, and to carry finished goods to the markets. John Fitch, a poor Ametican carpenter, in 1787 built a boat with side paddles driven by steam, and ran it up and down the river at Phila- delphia. In 1802 a steam tug was operating successfully in the Forth and Clyde canal, and in 1812 Bell’s Comet was sailing on the Clyde. Robert Fulton, in 1807, launched his steamboat, the Cler- mont, with a Watt Engine, on the Hudson River, and ran it at the rate of five miles an hour from New York to Albany. The next year a regular line of steamers plied between the two cities. In 1811 a steamer made its way down the Ohio and Mississippi to New Orleans. In the year of Waterloo a steamer first made passage from London to Glasgow. The Savannah in 1819, with the aid of sails, as well as steam, crossed the Atlantic in twenty-nine days, and the Great Western in 1838 made the voyage in fifteen days. The screw propeller in- vented by Ericsson came into use about the same time. The Cunard Line was organized in 1840, and by 1854 the Atlantic was crossed in nine days. By the middle of the century iron vessels began to re- place wooden ones. The problem of transportation by water was solved. Remarkable improvements in navigation quickly followed these beginnings. Steam had conquered the seas. If steam could drive boats across the ocean, why not carts and coaches on land? Wagons drawn by horses over ‘tramways’ with 7 TUVTTTVTHVTTTRTTUTVOEULOETGEAGAEDU TT Loge Roads Progress in transportation by water wooden, and later iron rails, had long been in use in England and Railroads America. John Stevens in the United States invented a traveling engine, but could get no capital to promote it. In Great Britain in 1801 Richard Trevithich invented the locomotive and in 1804 the rail- ana = — te ee ee ee eee Na ae meeCommunication eee geal ee tT ae bee terrae) aera 164 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. IX way. In 1814 George Stevenson built the “‘ Puffing Billy’ with which coal was hauled from a mine to the nearest canal. By 1825 a pas- senger line twelve miles long was opened in Great Britain. At the first exhibition a man rode on horseback ahead of the engine, which travelled at a speed of twelve miles an hour, to warn people off the track. In 1830 the first train ran from Liverpool to Manchester cover- ing the twenty-seven miles in one hour andahalf. By 1843 there were 1800 miles of finished railroad in England. In 1828 the aged Charles Carroll, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, drove the golden spike that began the construction of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad in the United States. In 1833 passengers were carried from London to Liverpool in ten hours instead of the week taken by the old stage coach. By 1844 the various short lines were consolidated into a sys- tem with a uniform gauge of track. The railroad age had come. Improvements rapidly multiplied. Wooden rails covered with strap iron gave way to iron rails, and the latter to steel rails. A flexible roadbed with ties and gravel ballast was provided. Freight cars, and coaches with diners and sleeping cars replaced the small coaches of an early day. The toy engines of seven tons were followed by iron giants. The speed increased from thirteen to seventy miles an hour. Today the automobile, motor truck, submarine, and air ship are beginning to rival the steamship and locomotive. The communication of ideas to distant points depended upon the speed of travel until the telegraph was perfected in 1832 by Morse and Vail, two Americans. Bells had been used in the Middle Ages to send messages, and signal fires on the tops of mountains served to arouse the countryside to war. Napoleon employed a system of long- distance signalling by means of semaphores or poles with movable arms on them. With the telegraph, however, messages in word- signs were sent over a Copper wire to distant points within a few seconds. The same principle was employed in 1866 in an under-sea cable from America to Europe. The telephone was discovered in 1860 by Philip Reis of Germany and improved by the American, Alexander Graham Bell, for practical use. Finally there came the wireless telegraph, and the wireless telephone or radio. Through these marvelous inventions the business of the world was facilitated and the most distant peoples were brought into constant communica- tion. A business man in Chicago may send a message to Hong Kong in a few minutes. The human voice is carried from New York to Glasgow, and from London to Rome. The earliest machinery to improve spinning and weaving were made mostly out of wood and leather. A wood-cutting lathe was patented in 1790. But wood gradually became scarce as the forests were cut down and used for fuel and for the smelting of iron, and wood was scarcely strong or tough enough for the new machines. Not until 1740 was iron smelted with coal or coke, when 17,000 tons of raw iron was produced. Although England had plenty of iron and HETVPROABALIATUOTVUNTVATTREVONUVREDUETVONTUNVOAVYNIVONTVSTSNENONTANEQUEVURDINEVERVONIVONOOTUNUSNTOATVNNTRRSRUEYREUET DUEL EUUEAN OD UTUUOUEOR OTTERS ROTELChap. IX] THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION coal, yet in 1750 she was importing pig iron from Sweden. The steam engine and locomotive called for more coal and iron. Soon, by the utilization of the new machinery to pump water out of the mines and to carry the coal to market, the production of coal became un- precedented. The slow and costly method of smelting iron was improved in 1760 by the blast furnace, which increased the output of a furnace fourfold by a forced draft and the substitution of coke for coal. This early cast iron was brittle, but the carbon was elimi- nated by Henry Cort’s “‘puddling’’ process in 1784 and a tougher wrought iron resulted which revolutionized the industry. By 1800 England was producing 150,000 tons of iron and by 1815 she was exporting 91,000 tons annually. Nails were still made in black- smith shops from long rods hammered out by hand and cut with chisels. The first screw-cutting lathe was patented in 1800. Expert tool-makers proved to be an important factor in the progress of in- dustry. The Bessemer process in 1856 produced a still harder and better metal called steel, and brought the inventor a large fortune. The steel industry was further forwarded by the ~ open-hearth’’ and the Thomas-Gilchrist’s “‘basic lining’’ processes. Thus by the use of coal and steel the brain of man gave the world the machine, a new slave without nerves to hurt or muscles to tire, which helps to feed and clothe humanity, and annihilates time and space. The thousands of inventions have magnified man’s power many times. The telescope and microscope have enlarged his vision. The telephone enables his voice and ear to speak and hear around the globe. Many machines multiply the strength and reach of his arm and give him a thousand fingers. He travels about the earth by land and sea or through the air with incredible speed. Nothing seems impossible to his inventive genius in applying science to life. The fairy tales and miracles of the past have been surpassed by actual achievements altering the world’s ways of living, of enjoying, and of doing things. Verily the Industrial Revolution has produced a new world. This transformation of the life of the world was due to the appli- cation of the physical sciences, particularly chemistry, physics, and mechanics, to manufacturing processes, to modes of transportation, and to facilities for communication. It involved a transition from the method of handicraft to machine technique, the provision of cheaper and more effective ways of making metal products, and the dissemination of knowledge through cheap, popular newspapers and books. The old system of guild and domestic production, and the personal basis for industrial relations and discipline were displaced by the factory system, impersonal relations in industry, and a strik- ingly different type of industrial discipline. The new technology and the rise of the factory system resulted in innumerable economic changes, new theories of business control, altered social relations, the increase of information, and rapid strides towards political 165 WVTOUOUUTTTVOQUQUUUTATOQUQOQIU VLAN) |. oun — i New methods of smelting iron Other inventions General effects of applied sozence ee neetaeae — es ee hme oeSSS rant =r eee — — a enn nnn EIRENE Increased production The ** domestic system” SEPRALUL ITV OPRARLAL TTA TT ATT 166 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. IX democracy. These results will now be explained in somewhat greater detail. 4. Economic Resutts oF THE INDUsTRIAL REVOLUTION The economic effects of the Industrial Revolution were especially marked in the expansion of industry and the increase in commerce. The new machinery and the improved methods brought a tremendous increase in the output of the factory, mine and farm. English exports grew in value from $65,000,000 in 1782 to $290,000,000 in 1815. To France alone in 1793 were sold goods to the sum of $5,000,000. Within the past one hundred and fifty years the value of British cotton manufacturers has increased six hundred times. If every woman and child on earth were set to spinning with the old fashioned spinning wheel, they could not produce as much thread as is now made by machinery. The 20,000 tons of ore mined in England in 1750 is exceeded five hundredfold today. Improved tools and scientific methods in farming have brought hundreds of thousands of acres of new land under cultivation, and increased the produce of each acre. A visit to any large department store will reveal the endless variety of things made for man’s use and comfort. Enormous quantities of goods are distributed over the world easily and cheaply. Distant countries exchange their wares as readily as farmers in a single neighborhood did a century ago. New markets have been opened up around the globe. A business man in Boston or London carries on a world trade with as much ease as the country storekeeper used to supply his community. British trade increased fivefold from 1750 to 1830, and seventy times from 1830, to 1910. For the first half of the nineteenth century the commerce of America and Europe increased 800 per cent, and the growth since 1850 has been even greater. The disappearance of the domestic system of labor, if measured in terms of human welfare, was historically one of the most signifi- cant results. Hand-labor gave place to machine-labor, and the in- dependent home-laborer was converted into the paid factory-laborer. In the olden days the farmer and his family engaged in spinning and weaving athome. The cobbler, or the tailor worked in his own shop after he had learned his trade and became a master workman. The blacksmith and wagon-maker had little independent establishments of their own, and took the greatest pride in their output. This was the “domestic system’’ of industry with no overproduction, no panics, little fluctuation in prices, and no serious labor problems. With the exception of the apprentices and hired men, the workers were masters of their own time. Their life was simple, frugal, and hard, it is true, but for the most part they seemed to be fairly happy and contented. The “‘domestic system’’ was gradually crowded out by the rise of a capitalist class and the ‘‘factory system.’’ The new thing in the Industrial Revolution was the importance which capital and the HU OOFHULTTHUITEVVUALIHUCHRUITENOAAUTVERASUOTORITEUEQSOLIUEAOUIEUEAAIUHUUOAUTRESEEE TTTChap. IX] THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION 167 factory came to have. This transition, it must be remembered, did not come suddenly but slowly and covered a long period of time. Under the old system of home-labor and the guilds there arose a class of wealthy men, whe had much to do with the promotion of the Industrial Revolution. They were the “‘clothiers,” — brokers,’ ship owners, ““wagoners, mine owners, and rich merchants, who formed the middle class of ‘‘middle men.’’ At first they imported raw cotton, or purchased wool, flax and silk, and resold them to the spin- ners and weavers. They also bought cloth and sold it in distant markets, or handled it on commission. Under the domestic system the richer master workmen employed outside laborers and ceased working themselves. Their work-rooms were often factories without ma- chinery. In fact hand looms continued to be used in factories well into the nineteenth century. The silk throwing mill of John Lambe in 1719 has been called the first factory. The old system and the new existed side by side, but the factory system eventually replaced the domestic system, although it was not until as late as 1830 that the weaving machines seriously threatened the extinction of the old hand looms. Under the sway of the merchant-capitalists, then, were the beginnings of the capitalist class and the factory organization. With the new inventions many spindles, or looms, or both, were assembled for discipline and economy under one roof thus making a ‘‘factory.”’ With the increase of capital hundreds of these factories for spinning cotton and wool and for weaving all sorts of cloth were built near an abundance of water power or of coal which could be used for steam engines. A good supply of labor was of course just as important as money and power. Men with brains and ability put their wealth into these enter- prises and thereby increased it. Boulton and Holt, for instance, had a manufacturing plant at Soho, which produced everything from buttons, buckles, and watchchains to steam engines, and made them tich. Arkwright, called the ‘‘father of the factory system,’ became a millionaire and was knighted by King George III. At the outset the capitalist millowner was promoter, manager, and salesman. As the business grew, he hired competent men to perform these duties and gradually became merely an investor, who took his profits and invested them in other factories, or mines, oz steamships, or railroads. The rapid growth of industry increased the number of capitalists until they became a powerful factor in national affairs. Commerce and industry were now organized on a world scale, and capital and labor were for the first time thoroughly differentiated. New types of the middle class appeared, such as the trained mechanical engineer, who was soon in great demand on the continent as well as in Europe, the wholesaler, the retailer, the skilled millwright, the efficient me- chanic, and the superintendent, who made it easier for invested capital to obtain satisfactory returns. aah 7. Emergence of factories Capitalists Waeeaanae | TONOOONO TONLE) =" oo at ac een eel ee Se ET icant es a en ne ntREPESERSEESORSS LES 168 MODERN WORLD HISTORY (Chap. IX 5. SocrAL Resutts or THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION A readjustment of society also appeared. Just as the old régime had its nobles and serfs, so the new society produced by the Industrial Revolution had its capitalists and wage-earners. The rich middle class was composed of manufacturers, merchants, traders, mine Social changes Owners, shippers, bankers, and professional men, known on the con- tinent as the bourgeoisie. The wage-earning class made up of the mill workers and factory hands was called the proletariat. Wherever the factory system spread it produced these two classes. The barrier between them, however, was not like that in the old régime because the ablest and shrewdest of the laborers were continually pushing their way into the capitalist class. Nevertheless the gulf between the rich and the poor was greatly widened. With the rise of the factory came the new city and its problems. Between 1760 and 1821 the population of Great Britain grew from 7,000,000 tO 15,000,000. The population of Liverpool increased from 40,000 in 1760 to 228,000 in 1841, and that of Manchester from 45,000 to 300,000. The people of Lancashire in 1760 numbered 166,000, and in 1901 around 4,500,000. London, already the greatest city in the world in 1801, doubled its population in the next forty years. The population quickly shifted from the country to the cities. In Rise of large 1800 there were only eighteen cities in Europe with more than 100,000 epee inhabitants. Today there are ten times as many such cities. In Great Britain three fourths of the people live in the cities, and one fifth of the population live in the single city of London. The growth of the cities brought with it innumerable changes in housing, food, clothing, recreations, and education. The complex city differed in a hundred ways from the simple life of the country or the little ham- let. The changes resulted in both good and evil. On the whole, city life was, perhaps, pleasanter, less laborious and tiresome, and had more opportunities for pleasure and culture. At the same time the Industrial Revolution brought many draw- backs for the working people. While the capitalist became wealthy and independent, the lot of the wage-earners was too often one of dire want. Under the factory system the workman was little more than Sad lot of the a post in a huge plant. Knowledge and ability received small oppor- wage-earners — tunity for advancement, when one spent the whole day feeding hungry machines and repairing them. The factory hand came and went with the blast of the whistle to put in his twelve or even eighteen hours of labor for a low wage. In 1802 the average weekly pay of weavers was if $3.38 and in 1817 only $4.02, and yet wheat cost per bushel in these same years $2.11 and $3. Under the old economic régime the appren- tice system, which permitted master workmen to use paupers, was at times little short of actual white slavery. Under the new régime laborers declared that they were worse off than under the old, hence they protested against the rise of the factories, and broke out again SN ee ~ = ee eh ganas ts rent es Ts tame re en a ag bs ee ie, Sache Leas = ennai ET oe HVVUATAAQOLNTVELVATLATYREAEVETINTAUOIVERTRHUOVUOEREONTVETODRTV EDU ERV ELL OTRESEU ER CULT UO UTER LATER TORTUOUS EeWUVTTVVTTRVUEAA ULAR AUUAOERROULLOUEY FE bae = a PP Chap. IX] THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION 169 ee and again in destructive riots. Too frequently, owing to the monot- ony of their work, they had little honest pride in their toil, and thought only of the pay received. Their labor, through the new machinery, vastly increased wealth, lowered prices, and in general benefited the world, but their own condition was not improved by the transformation until well along in the nineteenth century. Wages were low and workers were so plentiful that the average workman suffered much from poverty. The factories were neither sanitary, nor well-lighted and heated. The workers toiled under harsh and oppressive taskmasters, and, with some exceptions, their condition was one of degradation and misery. After 1840 the supply of un- skilled labor was more than could be absorbed in industry and, consequently, led to serious manifestations of discontent. The factory system, unfortunately, found its worst victims among women and children rather than among the strong men. As soon as it was discovered that women and children could tend the spinning and weaving machines as well or better than men, they were extensively employed in the mills, and even in the coal mines. It is estimated that Women and the factory workers on fine broad cloth from 1781 to 1828, consisted cLELah Ch of about 20 women, 45 children, and only 35 men, out of every 100 workers. In the cotton mills around three fourths of the workers were women and children, and many of the latter were as young as ten years of age. The wages of the women and children were in- credibly low and the hours of labor long. Asa result of this situation, the men were often jobless, and spent their idle hours in the taverns, while women and children became the real bread-winners. A happy home life tended to disappear. Vice and crime increased with Home life poverty and unemployment of the men. Empty stomachs led to riots and the destruction of valuable machinery. The economic system that should have brought more happiness, more comfort, shorter hours, higher wages, more political rights, and a finer type of men and women, seemed at the opening of the last century to be dragging civilization backwards. As late as the coronation of Queen Victoria in 1837 it appears that Io per cent of the people in Manchester, as an example, lived in cellars which were damp and filthy. The traffic in orphans and pauper children might well be compared to human slavery in the southern part of the United States. Since riots and protests failed to remedy the economic and social evils, the common people began to demand civil rights and a greater share in the government. The state regulation of industry practiced under the old régime curtailed the opportunities of the aggressive business man to venture out into new paths. With the French Revolution came the new theory of ‘‘liberty’’ in industry, called the “Leberty” in laissez-faire doctrine, which demanded: (1) free competition, (2) non- SOUS interference by the state except to protect property and to keep order, and (3) the prohibition of labor unions. The ‘‘natural rights’’ of both capitalists and workers were in nowise to be interfered with, Soe Raster oh RSE Sm, resets Mins TE ae ecTk a = 7 a Ss wee. 2 SL ee Ee ea Po litical ] resuits Economic conditions in France 170 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. IX and this idea prevailed during the early part of the nineteenth century in the freest countries — the United States, Great Brit ain, and France. It worked well for the capitalists, but badl ly for the workers. To insure their freedom to make money, the rich and powerful middle class developed an ambition to control the government. They desired to prevent the laboring classes from organizing to force higher wages and shorter hours. They wanted to lower the cost of living by taking the duties off grain. At first they used their money to buy seats in Parliament, and then began to agitate in Parliament and outside for political reforms which would increase their power. In the general election of 1830 the Whigs defeated the Tories and were able to secure the passage of the Great Reform Bill of 1832, which ended the old political regime in Great Britain by doubling the number of voters and by beginning the transfer of political control from the clergy and nobility to the middle class. The reform of municipal government in 1835 gave all tax payers the right to vote for aldermen and mayors. But with these changes, however important, Great Britain was not yet ademocracy. The opportunity of the new class of factory work- ers tO secure representatives of their own in Parliament to protect their interests seemed remote indeed. 6. [THE INDUsTRIAL REVOLUTION IN FRANCE While this epoch-making transformation was taking place in Great Britain, it is difficult to realize how agriculture and industry were shackled on the continent in 1789 by the guild, the manor, feudalism, state monopolies, local tariffs, laws, and even the church. In France, however, some significant changes had occurred before the French Revolution. A better rotation of crops was reducing the extent of fallow lands. More clover and grass were grown, more potatoes were planted, and the cattle and sheep were improved by better breeds. During the period from 1789 to 1815 the French were devoting their energies to political and social reforms, and to Na- poleon’s imperialism. Serfdom was abolished and the social status of the rural population was improved. Although the number of land holders was very great before 1789, the growth of small holdings was accelerated by the sale of the estates of the nobles and of the church. Improved methods of farming, which resulted, increased the supply of food and of materials for manufacturing. Between 1789 and 1848 the yield of wheat increased from 93,000,000 to 152,000,000 bushels of potatoes from 5,000,000 to 275,000,000 bus hels; and of wine from 374,000,000 tO 924,000,000 Pallone From 1818 to 1889 the yield of wheat was increased from 11 to 18 bushels per acre, and the number of cattle doubled. The population of France in 1831 was 29,000,000 of whom 17,500,000 were engaged in agriculture and only 6,200,000 in manufacturing. Today half of the people still live on farms, and over 3,000,000 of them have holdings under twenty-five acres in size. This explains why they are able to export food stuffs in normal times. HUIFSULUHUUITUULNGULINEUUNSULAEOULEUEILUUOEEUEUUAUEUUASUUOGEREN AATChap. IX] After 1817 there was a steady increase in agricultural prosperity. The peasants worked hard and saved their earnings. More corn, tobacco, wool, madder, beets, and potatoes were grown than in the previous century. Agricultural schools were opened, provincial fairs were held, and model farms were established. With the improvement of roads, rivers, canals, and bridges the markets multiplied and the prices increased. But the French peasants were slow to adopt modern machinery. Although there were 100,000 threshing machines in France in 1862, of which 3,000 were operated by steam engines, yet in 1840 horses were still treading out grain and the flail was not dis- carded until 1861. Other labor-saving devices were adopted with equal tardiness. In 1830 fifty-eight beet sugar factories were mak- ing Oveft 14,000,000 pounds of sugar. Not until after the middle of the last century was agriculture modernized. The changes in commerce and manufacturing under the old régime were quite noticeable. Companies under royal patronage for all sorts of enterprises were not uncommon. In 1782 Louis XVI was the chief shareholder in an iron foundry at Creusot, and Marie Antoinette held most of the stock in a glass factory at the same place. In 1787 French exports amounted to $105,000,000, which was $26,000,000 more than in 1817. Yet there was no such Industrial Revolution in France as 1n Great Britain, because France lacked capital, skilled labor, full legal freedom, and political stability. The National Assembly in 1791 sought to destroy the guilds by opening all fields of business to any persons who secured a license. During the French Revolution and the Napoleonic wars the guilds tended to vanish in France and over a large part of Europe, but Napoleon restored some of them in order to regulate the prices and to improve the quality of the goods. In 1801, for instance, the guilds of the bakers and butchers were revived and lived until 1856, while the guild of printers was not abolished until 1862, and a few other guilds lasted until 1870. It was not until 1825, when the high duties on imported machinery were removed, that a transformation like the Industrial Revolution in Great Britain began. In the textile industry, particularly cotton, France lagged far be- hind her neighbor across the Channel. As early as 1770 cotton manu- factoring was introduced in France, and in 1785 the first cotton mill equipped with English machinery was set up. Napoleon encouraged both spinning and weaving, but the old domestic system and the handicrafts prevailed until after 1825. In 1815 some 15,000,000 pounds of raw cotton were made up, and by 1830 this quantity had increased to Overt 64,000,000 pounds, which employed 260,000 per- sons. Here as in England the factory system was organized in con- nection with King Cotton. In all France in 1834 only 5,000 mechani- cal looms were in operation, but a dozen years later this number had increased to 31,000. The factory system in the true sense was cs- tablished at Lille in 1840, at which time the woolen, linen, and silk industries had not yet adopted the power loom. The hand-made silks THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION I71 MUMMTTNVTATHTHNUNNNTIQUUUATINULUI]) 100 French commerce and manufacturing French textiles ey" oy rT Oe etn i a ee olFe Ee a ee ae eee ots Ba 2 er TL es DO a ee > aa French capitalists Railroads Coal and iron TTT 172. MODERN WORLD HISTORY (Chap. IX / and linens were superior to those made in England. The loom for weaving complex patterns of silk was invented at Lyons in 1804, and adopted by the British. French shawls and veils found no equals in the west. In 1830 there were 70,000 silk workers in Lyons and vicinity alone, and 27,000 silk looms and twenty-seven calico estab- lishments in Alsace. About 1820 lace making was introduced. In dyeing and bleaching France surpassed Eng] land. France excelled in industrial chemistry, invented the first oil lamp , and Daguerre in 1829 produced his “‘sun pictures.’’ Wiuth the introduction of steam for power, considerable advance was made in the manufacture of textiles. Other articles made in this early period were paper, leather goods, watches and clocks, jewelery, soap, beer and liquors, glass, locks, and perfumery. After 1817 the economic recovery of France from the drain of a generation of wars was accelerated. Capital was borrowed from the Barings in London, and the Hopes in Amsterdam at a low rate of interest. The National Bank, chartered in 1803 with a capital of $17,000,000, was also active in supplying the needed credit for busi- ness. Joint-stock companies were organized to build canals, to utilize water power for mills, and to operate mines of coal, salt, and precious metals. The bad roads which had hindered the growth of industry were so improved that by 1830 there were 30,000 miles. Over the better main lines coaches “‘in the English sty le’ ’ were draw n, and 1 ‘‘ kind of a chariot”’ carried the mails. As early as 1824 tramways were inuse. The first experiment in railway building in 1832 was fol- lowed by the opening in 1843 of an English-built railway from Paris to Rouen. After 1850 railway construction was rapid. The first stationary steam engine was set up at Cholet in 1779, but coal was too scarce and too dear to operate it. In 1810 sixteen steam engines were in use to pump water. By 1850 there were 5,322 steam engines in the country and ten years later ae number had ees to 14,513 Although 600,000 tons of coal were mined in 1815, this quantity | hed increased by 1829 only 165,000 tons, and 600,000 tons still had to be imported to meet home needs. In 1814 a heavy duty was placed on iron to encourage the home industry. Wood was still used in the forges. About 160,000 tons of iron were used in industry but most of it was imported. Yet France was the first country to construct iron bridges. By 1830 there were 408 blast furnaces producing 100,000 tons of pig iron. Of these 29 used coke and the rest charcoal. Out of the 430 blast furnaces in 1864, 210 were still using charcoal. The first rolled plates of iron were made in 1819. With coal, iron, and the new machines France slowly but gradually forged ahead in the indus- trial world. In 1829 her total hai amounted to $13 33,000,000 and her imports $153,000,000. By 1846 her foreign trade had risen to $523 ,000,000 of which $240,000,000 consisted of exports. In France the Industrial Revolution produced somewhat the same results as in Great Britain, though on a smaller scale. There was an HURTRCOUGTVEVETALAUGTVULEFATSTATANAOTOMEAUOAEOESATAEOTOUOUAUOUEUOUDI ERA TLUVRRESDEOT IOUT OETA SEEvaannae TVTVVTVTUTONTATOTOGURUGLATONUQUODOADOLOLOG) Chap. IX] THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION 173 unprecedented increase in business and money making. The machine largely replaced hand-labor. Two sharply differentiated classes arose — the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The former gathered so much strength that they were able, in the Revolution of 1830, to overthrow Charles X. Under his successor, Louis Philippe, they promoted industrial prosperity, but ignored the rights of the masses, who were suffering through long hours, low wages, and lack of employment. True it is that in 1833 primary schools were established for the children, but municipal reform and the reduc- tion of the tariffs on imports were in the interest of the middle class. When the common people demanded the right to vote in order to redress their wrongs, the premier, Guizot, said: ‘‘ Work and grow rich, and you will become voters.” In both France and Great Britain, therefore, the Industrial Revolution put political power into the hands of the middle class, but left the workers dis- franchised and restless. It was Blanqui, a French professor of eco- nomics, who first characterized this significant transformation as the ‘Industrial Revolution’’ and pointed out its historical consequences. It was compared with the French Revolution as marking a break with the past and as an effort to replace the old régime. It was more than ‘‘the conquest of nature by the machine’’ — 1t meant a new social and economic world. 7. Ture BEGINNINGS OF THE NEw INDUSTRIAL ORDE IN GERMANY Germany in the eighteenth century was broken up into a large number of small states. Nowhere had the people outgrown the guilds and handicrafts of the domestic system. Industry was fettered in a thousand ways as in the Middle Ages. A few improvements were made in agriculture. In western Germany new field crops had come in, and the fallow fields were cultivated. Elsewhere the land was allowed to lie fallow every third year. The persistence of the “com- mon field’’ in Europe generally was a sign of the lack of progress. Before 1800 deep plowing was unknown, and the soil to the depth of three or four inches only was turned up. Most of the land was still held by ‘‘ancient feudal tenure.’’ Although wolves were still found in France as late as 1830, in the extensive forests of Germany there were wild deer, elk, swine, foxes, lynxes, bears, badgers and wolves. At Gotha in 1817 rewards were paid for killing 90,000 field mice. Evidences of poverty are found in the use of goats instead of cows for domestic purposes. Grain, fruits and vegetables were grown to feed the people, and they were clothed from the wool, flax and hemp raised at home. In 1803 in Prussia 73 per cent of the people, and in Germany as a whole 80 per cent, lived on the land as farmers. Of the 13,500,000 inhabitants of Prussia in 1834 three fourths were peasants. ‘‘Personal slavery’’ was not abolished until 1811. In most of the German states serfdom had disappeared by 1820. In Results Conditions in Germany wen i 1 =” — SS ee eee STE a a et mlof German industrics Textiles iy Senta teh ee ee ss = — A a tS et ee atria as sat foe he tee aes) rer ees I ht | Backward state 174 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. IX Germany as in France before the nineteenth century the small holdings had become numerous. This was particularly true in western Ger- many, while in the northeast the holdings tended to increase in size as in England. The number of acres tilled grew oe 23,000,000 in 1816 to 44,000,000 in 1887. By 1850 there existed a large number of free, landless agricultural laborers who might easily be absorbed in industry. The natural resources of Germany were scarcely touched, except the clay for bricks and pottery. Some ‘‘fossil coal’’ was mined: but little was used because wood was so plentiful and cheap. Home in- dustries, in which wooden wares, linens, woolens, cottons, silks, leather, iron, copper utensils, musical instruments, toys, snuff, soap, candles, leather goods, optical and mathematical instruments, paper, and wooden clocks were made, supplied the needs of a frugal people. Frederick the Great had established an iron foundry at Berlin, but in 1830 only “‘2,400,000 hundreds’’ of iron ore were mined to meet the needs of 36,000,000 people, and the forges and blast furnaces were still using charcoal. Little or no iron was exported. In 1856 Ger- many was mining only 7oo pounds of coal per person, while England’s average was 4, 300, and the ratio of pig iron was 30 to 160. When Germany was producing 5,000 tons of steel in 1859 England was ex- porting twice that amount. Not until 1840 was coke used for smelt- ing, and in 1846 half the iron was still made with charcoal. There- after the iron industry developed rapidly until in 1865 the smelted iron amounted in value to $45,000,000. Although the French system of license in industry was adopted in Prussia in 1808, the guilds lost power but were not abolished and, in fact, they continued until the middle of the nineteenth century. For a century before 1848 the num- ber of master craftsmen as compared with the total population scarcely varied. Indeed Germany remained in the eighteenth-century ways of life long after England and Erance had outgrown them. After 1815 the German markets were fairly flooded with British, French and Belgian goods, because Goan lagged so far behind. The marvelous industrialization of Germany did not take place until after 1870, in spite of some important beginnings described below. Inthe textile industries until 1840 the bulk of the wool and flax was spun and woven by hand, and in 1843 one third of the looms were in private homes. The Industrial Revolution did not really begin in Germany until after 1845. Between 1836 and.184o0 about 18,500, 000 pounds of cotton were used annually, aa by 1861 the amount had climbed to 98,000,000 pounds. In 1846 there were 136 cotton mills equipped with British machinery in Prussia; and three linen weaving factories, four cloth factories, and three wool spinning factories, in Berlin — each employing from fourteen to thirty workmen. After 1850 the linen industry forged ahead, and in 1869 over 2,500,000 spindles were in use. In 1830 there were 14,000 watermills, 10,500 windmills, and 1,184 horse-power mills in operation. Although the KUVPOMRALLAAATUATVALNQUTVUEAVEGTEOAVEDUOVOGHIAVUEVIANINOTEGVENNIOUTESHONURUNOENEONINATEOUENUOAUIVIVOVORLSUADUEAUANUNOTERU EAU ISUEAAIOLOO TOO UCR PSECUChap. IX] THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION 175 steam engine had been used in Alsace as early as 1812, and hitched up to power looms in 1823, yet its use spread slowly to Germany and it was scarcely found anywhere before 1840. In 1846 Prussia boasted of engines amounting to 22,000 horse power, and Saxony 2,500. In 1830 Prussia had 300 paper mills and 337 printing-presses, and her mechanics and assistants were given as 509,000. Saxony and Silesia in 1835 set up sugar-beet factories. The industrial development of Germany was handicapped in many ways. Her soil was far less favorable to agriculture than that of France. She had no markets, no colonies, and inferior shipping facilities. Prior to 1848 her capitalists existed only as isolated in- dividuals and did not form a distinct class in society. Further she was not unified politically but divided up into a large number of states. She also had to depend upon France for industrial chemistry, and upon England for technique, inventions and engineers. Not until 1840 did German chemical knowledge surpass that of the British. But the institution of the Zollverein helped to overcome some of these drawbacks. Prussian statesmen saw in the conflicting local tariffs one serious cause of the backward industrial condition of Germany. Prussia alone in 1800 had 67 different tariffs. Consequently in 1818 Prussia created a single uniform tariff for the whole kingdom, and invited other German states to join her in a tariff union. By 1834 the Customs Union included 17 states, and others entered later. Members of this Union could send their goods to markets anywhere within the area covered by the members without any duties or annoying restric- tions. Under this arrangement a new industrial life began to creep over Germany. ‘‘Freedom of trade through unity’’ was the motto, and by 1852 all the German states except Austria, the Mecklenburgs, and the Free Cities, were codperating in the Union. A favorable trade treaty made with England in 1824 helped on the good work in both countries. Free trade was established in the Rhine Valley and in 1831 a rail- road was projected. In 1835 a railroad from Nuremberg to Furth four miles long was built, and in 1839 one ran from Leipzig to Dresden. In 1850 there were 3,633 miles of railroads in Germany, and by 1865 one factory in Berlin was making 142 locomotives in one year. The railroads were supplemented by canals and improved wagon roads, and the institution of an excellent postal system. The removal of internal tariff barriers, and the improvement of transportation and communication, together with applied science, education, and favorable commercial treaties were powerful forces in spreading the Industrial Revolution to Germany. The middle class which emerged was strong enough to fight for a German Republic in 1848. They failed to attain their goal at that time but constituted a powerful factor in the unification of Germany in 1866 and 1870. Shortly after 1870 the presence of Germany as a competitor for world trade began to be felt. WVVUTTVGAUINETIUOQUUUGNINLOQNIUS) Loos er ee Reasons for slow industrial growth The Customs Union Railroads "eat = nt Se ee a al liei ET ne aaa ry 40S ee ea ee eS Industrial changes elsewhere } Ind Hi trial conditions in the United States In other parts of the globe 176 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. IX 8. SPREAD OF THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION Elsewhere on the continent the history of the Industrial Revolu- tion was also felt sooner or later. In Belgium its history paralleled that of France. Between 1830 and 1840 30,000 men were digging more coal than either England or France produced. The Netherlands and Denmark were leading Europe in certain kinds of farming and in dairying. Sweden was one of the principal producers of iron. Spain, Italy, Austria and Russia were almost untouched by the move- ment until the latter part of the nineteenth century and the first part of the twentieth. The Balkan peninsula was wholly an agri- cultural area. The history of the Industrial Revolution in the United States is closely connected with that of England although its effects were felt there somewhat later. With the opening of the nineteenth cen- tury the economic development was pronounced. A new nation had grown out of the Thirteen Colonies in possession of a vast region rich in natural resources. The cotton textile industry sprang up in New England after 1789. The South with its slave labor was devoting all its attention to agriculture, and amassing wealth out of rice, tobacco, sugar cane, and cotton. The great influx of immigrant labor into the north from Europe after 1815 was amovement of world-wide signifi- cance. The like had never before been witnessed in history. From Great Britain alone the number of immigrants to North America steadily increased from 12,000 annually in 1820 to 65,000 in 1834. Not until 1835 did more than 5,000 go elsewhere. The outflow from Germany after 1830 was 15,000 yearly. Before 1840 the immigration from other continental countries was rather light, but it became heavier from Switzerland and Scandinavia in the ’forties. With this labor the North built factories, opened mines, dug canals, con- structed roads, bridges, and railroads, cleared the land, and laid the foundations for the future wealth of America. In New England the cotton industry, ship-building and fisheries flourished. Foreign trade grew steadily and the wealth of the young Republic prospered by leaps and bounds. The near West was opened up by hardy pioneers, and soon turnpikes, canals, and railroads connected the coast states with the interior. On the whole the social and industrial conditions in the United States developed more satisfactorily than in any other part of the world. The sweep of the Industrial Revolution to other parts of the globe can be stated in a few words. Japan has been transformed by it, as have been the self-governing portions of the British Empire. Latin America, India, China, and Egypt are just beginning to feel its in- fluence. The remaining portions of Asia and Africa, and the islands of the seas are still primarily virgin soil. The results of the Indus- trial Revolution in these widely separated regions will be discussed in latter chapters, BTA T TCH TILALA ELE LE TLEChap. IX] THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION REFERENCES FOR FURTHER STUDY A. Toynseze, Lectures on the Industrial Revolution of the Eighteenth Century in England (1884), new edition (1913); W. Somparr, Der Moderne Kapitalismus, 2 vols. (1goz), new edition (1920); H. pe B. Grains, Economic and Industrial Progress of the Century (2903); P. Manroux, La révolution industrielle au XVIII’ sitcle (1906); W. CunNINGHAM, An Essay on Western Civilization in its Economic Aspects, 2 vols. (1900); C. Bearp, The Indus- trial Revolution (1912); J. A. Hopson, The Evolution of Modern Capitalism, new edition (1912); D. H. Maccrecor, The Evolution of Industry (1912); C. GrDE and C. Rist, Hzs- toire des doctrines économiques depuis les Phystocrates (English translation 1915); F. A. Oca, The Economic Development of Modern Europe (1917); Social Progress in Contemporary Europe (1917); L. Brenrano, On the History and Development of Gilds, and the Origin of Trade Unions (1870); G. Unwin, Industrial Organization in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Cen- turies (1904); R. E. Protuero, The Pzoneers and Progress of English Farming (1888); J. E. T. Rocers, A History of Agriculture and Prices in England, (1866-1902); W. H.R. Currier, A Short History of English Agriculture (1909); E. W. Byrn, The Progress of Inven- tion in the Nineteenth Century (1900); E. Baines, Hastory of the Cotton Manufacture in Great Britain (1835); G.J. Frencu, Life and Times of Samuel Crompton (1860); G. VON SCHULTZE- Gavernitz, Der Grossbetrieb: Ein wirthschaftlicher und socialer Fortschritt: Eine Studie auf dem Gebiete der Baumwollindustrie (1892), English translation: The Cotton Trade in England and on the Continent (1895); S. J. Carman, The Lancashire Cotton Industry (1904); The Cotton Industry and Trade (1905); M.S. Woorman and E. B. McGowan, Textiles: a Handbook for the Student and the Consumer (1913); H. Heaton, The Yorkshire Woolen and Worsted Industries from the Earliest Times up to the Industrial Revolution (1920); J. P. Murr- HEAD, The Origin and Progress of the Mechanical Inventions of James Watt, 3 vols. (1854); J. H. Tuurston, A History of the Growth of the Steam Engine (1902); R. L. Gattoway, History of Coal Mining in Great Britain (1882); E. A. Pratt, A History of Inland Trans por- tation and Communication in England (191r); A. W. KirkaLpy and A. D. Evans, The History and Economics of Transport (1913); H. W. Dickinson, Robert Fulton, Engineer and Artist: his Life and Works (1913); H. Fry, History of North Atlantic Steam Navigation, with Some Account of Early Ships and Shipowners (1896); L. Becx, Deze Geschichte des Ezsens in technischer und kulturgeschichtlicher Bexzehung, 5 vols. (1884-1903); R. W. Cooxe-Taytor, The Modern Factory System (1891); A. CrarKe, The Effects of the Factory System (1899); W. Hassacu, A History of the English Agricultural Laborer (1908); F. EncExs, The Condition of the Working-class in England in 1844; L. R. Vitterme, Tableau de I ttat physique et moral des ouvriers employés dans les manufactures de coton, de laine et de soie (1840) 2 vols.; B. Leroy-Brauizu, La question ouvritre au XIX° sidcle (1881); Le travail des femmes au XIX? sitcle (1888); E. Levasseur, La population francaise, 3 vols. (1892-1889); Histoire des classes ouvriores et de l'industrie en France de 1789 a 1870, 2 vols. (1903); S. and B. Wess, History of Trades Unionism (1894); J. L. and B. Hammonn, The Village Laborer, 1760-1832: a Study in the Government of England before the Reform Bill (1911); The Town Laborer (1917); L. Levi, History of British Commerce and of the Economic Progress of the British Nation, 1763- 1870 (1872); E. P. Cazyney, Av Introduction to the Industrial and Social History of England, revised edition (1922); W. CunnincHaM, The Growth of English Industry and Commerce in Modern Times, 3, vols., 5th edition (1910-1912); H. pe B. Gropins, Industry in England, 6th edition (1910); G. T. Warner, Landmarks in English Industrial History, rith edition (1912); A. D. Innes, England's Industrial Development (1912); W. J. Asutey, The Eco- nomic Organization of England (1914); G.H. Perris, The Industrial History of Modern England (1914); E. Lirson, Introduction to the Economic History of England (1915); G. SLATER, The Making of Modern England, new edition (1915); A. E. Brann, P. A. Brown, and R. H. Tawney, English Economic History — Select Documents (1915); A. P. Usuer, An Introduction to the Economic History of England (1917); D. Russet, The Prelude to the Machine Age (1926); A. DEs CILLEULSs, Histoire et régime de la grande industrie en France aux XVIIe et XVILI¢ sidcles (1898); G. Weitt, La France sous la monarchie constitutionelle (1912); J. Jaures, Histoire socialiste (1901); E. Lavisse, Histoire contemporaine (1920-22); J. H. Cuapnam, The Economic Development of France and Germany, 1815-1914 (1920); G. Renarp, Life and Labour in Europe from the Fifteenth to the Eighteenth Century (1925); a PN nee el a i Seapine ag er Pa EEMODERN WORLD HISTORY |Chap. IX W. SomBart, Die Deutsche Volkswirtschaft im Neunzehnten Jahrhundert (1903); W. H. Dawson, The Evolution of Modern Germany (1908); J. Mavor, Economic History of Russia (1914); K. Latourette, The Development of Japan (1918); E. L. Bocarr, Economic History of the United States (1912); I. Lippincott, The Economic Development of the United States (1921); C. D. Wricut, Industrial Evolution of the l Inited States (1920); V. Crarxk, History of Manufactures in the United States (1912); J. R. Commons et al., Hestory of Labour in the United States, 2 vols. (1919); H. U. Fautxner, American Economic History (1924). 4 i | re i} | ae i ne §]| | he nen = ann ae Sn Sah PRE Se a SES eS ae Pn oy Sree een A eR Te ES a he eT EE a pAMLAIHUIFELTHAIINUHEUUSIHUUIGUUAUUUUUUEUGBUNNOUIUUSUUINOLUREOUUUAU ERAGEMVTVTNUQQQQQQQUQHNOVOVIUUUQQQ00NU) UDA er =" i t es ieee eel yok ig ae ee ce oy ee ere en ed | | a tt a _—a Se OE ee SE wie - a — ee a Faas = Saar we a Se : ee 40 > Latin | (3 J | Lees + eee 8 | coe | 7 European Peoples bevy cr ht LILGULs hy Germn ays | Scandaduiavria1s LTH err) , : Dutch Flemish i yy . MaAwLasLs We al | French ee / Pp oy, | OF la|AL AILS Sia aT ty | | oa i WH Ou DILS Spaniards (atalayis Portuguese , , , y ii OUSTUAIILA a) lite (fy LUe an Ther 4 ( OP VAT ALIIULAILS Poles é Z é 4 ALS ‘ )y* Kohemtians Slovaks Slovemes Serbs and Croats a cs oa ah men, Bulgarians c f ts Albanians ILS ILS Mon¢golians Turks Tatar "o €£C Magyars Fuouus. Estlilonzams etc Basques - a +] at ’ Longitude West O East from Greeiwich es ra cera la 6 ere toe Oe Sake enh tags Sh oe tu vemos be tare ewes ting A LH \ } } a) a ’ | } } | i i LTT Kartographische Anstalt-von PF. A. Brockhaus, Leipzig, Germany. if an UL RELLTEL TSTUVVTVUVTVUVUTATETATATAUVULOOLOODAUAUVL) |} bby ________________________________________.,,,,,, er : I Peoples and Languages of EUROPE in the 19th century English Miles 100 200 300 400 S00 Lt Se caee - ror ath wee eye eee r i i | | } ' ai H HT ' ae aa } ie || el | | eae ft | ’ a a | i } mil ae ane Cae ne Mt j | poy SEP Se OEP ee ee na ota ret > Te aie eat a aaa) ee lame Sa RUUUTPOMARLEAALTATOTELIQUATETAGNATELEGAT EN EGUOAANEQEADOROAEOVERUATOMEAAOTROSOOVOOAUOTOERDECOEUGRUD TRESS UOT ODUCT URS ULCHAPTER X THE POLITICAL, REVOLUTIONS, 1820-1848 t. THE SwING AWAY FROM REACTION Wira the overthrow of Napoleon, it appeared to liberal-minded men as if the progress inaugurated in the world by the French Revo- lution had been checked, perhaps crushed. The hopes for an era of constitution-making in Europe were dashed to pieces by the Congress of Vienna. The reactionary system fathered by Metternich and other conservatives was put into operation to prevent the recurrence of another wave of reform or revolt. But the most tenacious forces in world history are ideas, which cannot be killed by bayonets and acts of congresses, or suppressed by legislative measures. It is not a matter of surprise, therefore, that within five years after the dissolu- tion of the very body that was summoned to stabilize Europe, a series of revolutions broke out in the three Latin countries south of France, in Latin America, and in Greece. These insurrections were followed, within a decade, by the Revolution of 1830 in France, which spread over a large part of Europe, and within another generation by the Revolution of 1848, which swept across Europe like a hurricane. The causes and results of these movements, as factors in world history, will now be considered. >. REVOLUTION IN SPAIN AND THE SPANISH-AMERICAN COLONIES The restoration of the absolutist king, Ferdinand VII, and the harsh, drastic measures used by him to reintroduce the old régime in Spain, led to a volcanic explosion of public feeling. The liberals organized secret societies such as the ‘Friends of the Constitution, ’ the Carbonari, and the Freemasons, to carry on a propaganda of revolutionary ideas. The middle class, as well as the artisans and peasants, were determined to resist the restoration of autocratic rule. The soldiers likewise, who had served in the national revolt against Napoleon, and even the officers, were disaffected and took the initia- tive in an insurrection. In 1820 the king’s army, assembled since 1816 at Cadiz awaiting orders to go overseas to crush the rebellious colonists in Spanish America, mutinied, joined the liberals, and forth- with all Spain was ablaze with revolution. To save his throne the frighted Bourbon king restored the constitution of 1812, which was posted in every city, abolished the Inquisition, promised reforms, and hypocritically said to his angry subjects: “‘Let us advance frankly, myself leading the way, along the constitutional path.’’ The 179 ANNCUNOCNOOOOOOCOOOGOO THT SS Re Persistence of liberalism Reaction in Spain under Ferdinand VII aa | err eel ee ee baa oe Ree ee... oeSe A ee eee a —- + 0 ee eee DE a SF aa Se be eee eT Ae eek Sa oS Ae Foreign intervention in J y If f behat} of y t 4BosSolurism Revolt of Spanish- A merican colonies 180 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. X credulous people believed him and the outbreak subsided. Many wholesome reforms were inaugurated, and for two years fear forced him to govern with the aid of a new Cortes and liberal ministers. But during all this time Ferdinand VII was plotting to overthrow the constitutional régime by force. The nobles and clergy gave him their support and, unfortunately, the quarrels among the liberals furthered his scheme. He secretly implored his friend Metternich to intervene. Finally, in the Congress of Verona, the autocratic powers decided to go to his aid, and in 1823 by an ironical arrangement French troops, who had dethroned his ancestor, marched into Spain and restored him to absolute power. Great Britain alone opposed inter- vention. The reign of terror and reaction which followed, disgusted even the king’s rescuers. Ferdinand VII ruled Spain as a despot until 1833, and left behind him a backward and ruined country, which under different political and economic conditions, might have ranked high among the nations of Europe. Compared with the English-speaking colonies of North America, the Spanish colonies of Central and South America had made little progress towards self-government by the close of the eighteenth century. The American Revolution and the creation of a federal Republic, however, had made a deep impression on them. The stirring events of the French Revolution inspired them to action. Spanish rule was harsh and corrupt, and was one of the worst examples of the selfish character of the old colonial system of exploitation. These dependencies were treated as sources of wealth for the mother country, and were exploited by colonial officials and adventurers. Unlike England, Spain learned no lesson from the revolt of the Thirteen Colonies in 1776. Left to shift for themselves during the Napoleonic wars, the Spanish colonies increased their trade relations with the United States and Great Britain and began to agitate for political independence. Patriots like Bolivar had visited Europe and had felt the new thrills of democracy and nationalism; others had visited the young Republic in the north; and many had read the revolution- ary literature of the latter part of the eighteenth century. Between 1804 and 1825 popular uprisings drove out the Spanish governors and defeated the troops sent to subdue them. Most of the colonies, en- couraged by the United States and Great Britain, separated from Spain, set up independent republics, and patterned their political institutions after those of the United States, France, and Spain under the constitution of 1812. For the future of world history the suc- cessful revolts of the Spanish-American colonies attained a sig- nificance second only to the independence of the British-American colonies. The successful revolutions of the Spanish colonies alarmed the despotic rulers of Europe. When they decided to intervene in Spain in 1823, it was generally understood that this policy would be ex- tended to the rebellious colonies as well. Both the permanence and A PRMALENUTYPAGAALLUAATH AU UAVGAUUDLVUSTHAAVULUVEQSHHALAIUOAUSRIGLALOGESNIREUUEUUONSNELIUOUONULLOUEONUGSUUELUGAROIAECLLUAQURUAELUASD NL CCOOM ISSAChap. X| THE POLITICAL REVOLUTIONS, 1820-1845 181 the prestige of the international alliance for conservatism seemed to make such a course of action imperative. But the Spanish-American republics were saved from intervention by opposition from two directions. Great Britain let it be known that she would resist, by arms if necessary, any interference by European powers with the British support free status of the new states. This attitude was due, not so much to the British approval of the liberal institutions set up in Spanish America, as to the lucrative trade which Great Britain had already built up with the people of that region, and which she hoped to increase at the expense of Spain. At all events, the British threat, backed by her control of the seas, caused the European autocracies to halt their plans to aid Spain in crushing the revolts. The United States also desired to extend commerical relations with the new republics to the southward. At the same time there existed a genuine fear that disastrous political effects might grow out of the extension of Metternich’s doctrine of intervention to the New World, and a real pride in seeing republican principles extended to such an extensive area inthe west. Ascearly as 1796 George Washington said: “Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none or a very remote relation.’ Spanish claims to Florida were purchased by the United States in 1819, and in 1822 the independence of Colombia, Chile, Argentina, and Mexico was recognized. Finally in 1823, at the very time French troops were in Spain restoring Ferdinand VII to absolute power, President Monroe, at the indirect suggestion of the English minister, George Canning, presented to Congress the famous statement known as the Monroe Doctrine: ‘‘In the wars of the European powers in matters relating to themselves we have never taken any part, nor does it comport with our policy to do so. It is only when our rights are invaded or seriously menaced that we resent injuries or make preparations for our defense. With the movements in this hem1- sphere we are necessarily more immediately connected, and by causes which must be obvious to all enlightened and impartial observers. The political system of the allied powers is essentially different in this respect from that of America... . We owe it, therefore, to candor to declare that we should consider any attempt to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as danverous to our peace and safety.’ As for the states whose independence was already acknowledged, it was stated, ‘‘we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them or controlling in any other manner their destiny, by any European power, in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition towards the United States.’ Through the Monroe Doctrine the United States threatened to join the Spanish-American republics in resisting the extension of the principle of intervention to the New World. The advocates of res- toration in Europe were warned that the republics of America were of revolution in Latin America The ** Monroeee sy ge ere 2 Smee aT : ae Revolution of 1820 and tts ] res Hi rs 182 MODERN WORLD HISTORY (Chap. X determined to protect their own free institutions. Great Britain, although aristocratic at home, expressed her approval of this policy for America. The conservative powers of the continent of Europe were forced to give up all thought of crushing revolutions across the seas. Spain made little effort to regain her lost colonies, although she waited long before recognizing their independence. The threat of Canning that if France restored autocracy in Spain, “‘it would be Spain without her colonies’’ had borne fruit. Beyond doubt the Monroe Doctrine, as a factor in world history, prevented European powers from devouring the weak and backward republics south of the United States. The ideas of the American Revolution and the French Revolution were spread over a large portion of the globe through the success of the free Spanish-American republics. 2. REVOLUTION IN PORTUGAL The causes of the Portuguese Revolution of 1820 were: (1) the example of the French Revolution a generation before; (2) a patriotic nationalistic movement which took for its watchword “’ Portugal for the Portuguese,’’ and (3) a desire to imitate the Spanish uprising. The British officials, who had continued in office since Napoleon had been driven out of the country, were dismissed. A new constituent assembly suppressed the Inquisition, abolished privileges, declared the press free, proclaimed the equality of all citizens before the law, and drew up a democratic constitution. After thirty years, Portugal seemed to be shaping her political course after the example of revo- lutionary France. The nobles and clergy opposed these changes. The monarchical powers of Europe talked of intervention. Even Great Britain, forgetting that consistency is a jewel, persuaded King Dom John VI of Brazil to return to Portugal to take the throne. Angered at their ruler’s desertion, the Brazilians declared their inde- pendence under Pedro I, the son of John VI. Upon returning to Por- tugal John VI, in 1821, swore to support the new constitution, formed on the model of the Spanish constitution of 1812, but forth- with abrogated it to appease the conservatives. This caused another outbreak, and John was forced to find refuge on a British warship. Then Great Britain induced the other European powers to cooperate in setting him on his throne once more. When John died in 1826, Dom Pedro I of Brazil became Dom Pedro IV of Portugal and sought to quiet the country by granting a charter like that given to France by Louis XVIII. Civil war followed intermittently until 1834, when Great Britain, France and Spain intervened, but this time in favor of the liberal party. The charter was once more proclaimed; tithes, privileges and monopolies abolished; monastic property nationalized; and the Jesuits expelled. Next to France, Portugal had made the great- est progress towards constitutional government. As early as 1799 the reforms of the Portuguese minister Pombal, J the influence of the British colonies in 1776 and the French develop- PROPARLRUITTHVOVEUVEVAVRVAETALOVELOVONOTONOUQNVIVENEQEATCRNINEMESIOOTEQONEVEQOOACUUOCAUOLILUU EIT ILODRORR ESC UOOO TOTO COUOCOD ECORYS ELA LULL }}Chap. X| THE POLITICAL REVOLUTIONS, 1820-1848 183 ments after 1789, had inspired the Brazilians to a futile uprising for independence. Napoleon drove John VI to Brazil in 1808, and in 1815 the colony became a kingdom. The Revolution of 1820 in Por- tugal produced a similar outbreak in Brazil the next year, and forced the king to grant a constitution. In 1822 Brazil declared itself an independent empire, which endured until 1889, when a republic was established. 4. REVOLUTIONS IN ITALY It was in Italy, where the people were placed under the dominion of Austria by the Congress of Vienna, that revolutions next occurred. In no other part of Europe outside of France had the French Revolu- tion created a more favorable reaction or left more positive results. Napoleon, himself a son of Italy, aroused the spirit of unity and nationalism. Furthermore, the glorious traditions of the past kept alive the longing for freedom. Against the restoration of the old régime in 1815 arose the patriotic Carbonari, who had 60,000 mem- bers in 1816, the Freemasons, and other secret societies. In 1820, inspired by the news of the Spanish revolution, the people of Naples, led by the army, forced King Ferdinand VI temporarily to grant a constitution of the Spanish type and to appoint a liberal ministry to rule what was called the ‘‘worst-governed state in Europe.’’ The Sicilians also demanded a charter of their own but failed to get it. Austrian troops speedily suppressed the revolution in Naples and the king calmly abrogated the constitution. No sooner had the outbreak in Naples been put down, than in 1821 another occurred in Piedmont in the north of Italy. Living on the border of France, the Piedmontese were early inoculated by French ideas. They had seen Napoleon sweep across northern Italy with his victorious armies and they rejoiced when he planted the new régime of ‘‘liberty and equality’’ in their country. The revolution- ists in Turin and Milan now adopted the Italian tri-color flag, de- manded the Spanish constitution of 181z, and urged a national war against Austria. King Victor Emanuel I abdicated in favor of his brother, Charles Felix, who easily secured the aid of Austrian and Russian troops to crush the revolution. Yet children born during these troublous times were to see Austria driven out of Italy, and the nation freed and united. 5. [HE GREEK REVOLUTION Of all the Balkan nationalities under Turkish rule, the sturdy, land-locked Serbs were the first to revive a national sentiment and to attempt to ‘‘shake off the oppressive yoke of the infidels.’’ The French Revolution of 1789 inspired patriotic Serbs and Greeks to conspire for joint action against Turkey, but nothing came of the agitation except a spread of the spirit of revolt. Ideas of democracy TETHUVUERRUUTTLA ARTA ONEDLOUEE) Looe HEED : a Brazil becomes a republic Revolution in Naples Revolution in Piedmont 7 | a Parana Fook Maat eck es ee nant ot 2 eemee Te a a a a ree, a ree ee maaan - " = — . : . —_ “ ~ Orizins of Gree k nationalism Western European enthusiasm for Greek inde pende nce 184 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. X and nationalism, which so profoundly affected the peoples of western Europe soon travelled to the south-east, where for centuries the heavy yoke of the Mohammedan Turks had galled the necks of the Christians. Some 15,000 Greeks had joined the standards of the allies in overthrowing Napoleon, and had looked for national deliv- erance through the Congress of Vienna. Disappointed in that quar- ter, the Greeks after 1815 began to work underground through the Association of Friends,’’ an armed secret society organized in 1814, which quickly spread over the Balkans and had 17,000 members in Constantinople alone. It conducted a wide-spread propagandism for independence. In 1817 the Ionian Islands were granted a constitu- tion under a British protectorate. The Serbians in 1820 obtained partial independence, although it was not until 1830 that the sultan recognized the prince of Serbia as autonomous. To the Greek pa- triots the moment seemed ripe to break away from the rule of the tyrannical Ottoman government, and they even talked wildly of restoring the Eastern Empire. ~~ Hellenes, the hour has struck,”’ said Ypsilanti. ‘‘It is time to avenge our religion and our country.”’ Hence, in 1821, the war for Greek independence began and was waged with savage fury until freedom was secured in 1829. In 1822 a constitution was proclaimed for all Greece. To the allies meeting in the Congress of Laibach in 1821 came the news that the Greeks had rebelled against a “‘legitimate ’’ruler. Metternich was disposed to let it ‘“burn itself out beyond the pale of civilization.’’ But after the Greeks had fought heroically alone for six years, public opinion in Europe demanded intervention in behalf of the rebels. Liberals saw their own cause at stake; pious Christians were horrified at Mohammedan atrocities; and educated people insisted upon saving the “mother of civilization.”’ When Athens and the Acropolis fell into the hands of the Turks in 1827, the popular demand for aiding the Greeks could not be resisted. Volun- teers from every land flocked to Greece. Victor Hugo lauded the Greeks; Lord Byron sacrificed his life and his wealth for their cause; Henry Clay urged American recognition and support; and Panhellenic societies appeared everywhere to raise funds and to recruit soldiers. Metternich succeeded in restraining Austria and Prussia, but Russia, France and Great Britain closed their ears to his advice. Their war- ships annihilated the Turco-Egyptian fleet in 1827. When Great Britain, the first power to recognize the Greeks as belligerents, with- drew through fear of endangering her Asiatic possessions by the dismemberment of Turkey, France and Russia continued the war until, by the treaty of Adrianople in 1829, Greece gained her complete inde- pendence. Once more revolution had dealt a hard blow at Metter- nich’s idea of the status guo and at his theory of intervention to crush any effort to overthrow established government however unjust it might be. One of the effects on European politics was the announcement that ‘‘intervention’’ was legitimate when it supported reo THAUHHUUHUILUAUUISEUUELULUEUAEUEE URPTA Chap. X| THE POLITICAL REVOLUTIONS, 1820-1848 185 nationality. This doctrine was to travel far in later times, and find many advocates during the World War. Greece with its 750,000 people was organized in 1832 as a Con- stitutional monarchy, with the eighteen-year-old Otto, a Bavarian prince, as her first king. The first new state after 1815 was added to The the European community of states. Rumania was granted some Nene degree of self-government. Russia gained certain provinces on the independence Black Sea. Russia and France both claimed the right to protect Christians in Turkey — a claim that was to have grave consequences for the future. Liberals rejoiced over the freedom of Greece, and were inspired to hope for better days in their own lands. The outcome of events in the Balkan peninsula also presented to Europe a persistent The rise of the and knotty problem called the ‘‘ Near Eastern Question,’’ which was Oionne to command the attention of European statesmen from that day to this. In 1914 it precipitated the greatest tragedy in history. The other Balkan peoples were fired with an ambition to gain their freedom, and also to affix the title of ‘‘Greater’’ to their names. 6. Tue RevotutTion oF 1830 IN FRANCE No sooner was the attention of the world withdrawn from the little state of Greece than it was centered on the Revolution, which in 1830 broke forth in France and then spread over the greater part of Europe. In a large sense, the Revolution of 1830 was merely the attempt to settle the unsolved problems of the Revolution of 1789. The French people, without being consulted, had been forced to see the Bourbon dynasty, which they had deposed, restored in the person of Louis XVIII, an enemy of the ideals of the Revolution. Meaning of Worn out by a generation of wars, they tolerated the good-natured, the Revolution compromising monarch, but the inspiring hopes of the Revolution Ne had sunk too deeply into their souls and had wrought too many changes in their institutions to permit them to forget. The Revo- lution of 1830 was a protest against the Congress of Vienna and all it stood for, as well as against a tyrannical Bourbon. It was a test of strength between the assumed right of the rulers of Europe to impose a monarch of their own choosing on the French people, on the one hand, and the right of the people to decide their own affairs in their own way, on the other. This principle applied to Belgium, Italy, Germany and Austria with as much force as it did to France. The Revolution of 1830 appeared in France first for two reasons: (1) the unreasonable despotism of the crotchety, old Bourbon, Charles X, and (2) the more active persistence of the earlier revolutionary aspira- tions in France. Charles X, the last Bourbon in the direct line to rule France, had gnashed his teeth in rage at the compromises of Louis XVIII. He vowed that he ‘‘ would prefer to saw wood”’ rather than rule like an English monarch. As a matter of fact he was too old and too ill- Charles X and fitted by nature to perform the duties of either occupation well. 74"eA Overthrow of the last Bourbon in 1530 PUTA LUEL TOA TDA TATA AT 186 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. X Even the restoration seemed too progressive to him. When he became king in 1824, he resolved to do God’s will, not the people’s, and so far as Prine it was his expressed intention to restore both the spirit and the institutions of former days. To undo the ‘‘crimes of the Revolution,’ the nobles were compensated with a grant of $200,000,000, in part at the expense of French bondholders, and the clergy were restored to power and given charge of education. Free speech was denied, and the press was muzzled. By these measures and other repressive acts Charles X encountered all the forces that over- threw Louis XVI in 1792. His unwise policy welded the various elements of discontent into one solid party of opposition. The French Revolution had not died out with the exile of Napoleon, nor had the restoration done more than to check it. Liberals united to preserve their political rights, social equality, and religious freedom from the whims of an aged, despotic Bourbon, whom the mere accident of birth had placed at the head of the French state. These new gains were so deeply rooted in the life of the nation that, if endangered, the people were ready to undertake another revolt to save them. When the people of France returned a Chamber of Deputies hostile to the policies of the monarchy, against the advice of Metternich and the Russian tsar, Charles X resolved to crush the op ENG by a coup d'état. Enraged at the election and doubting the strength of the resistance, he published in the official Moniteur four ordinances: (1) restricting the freedom of the press, (2) dissolving the new Chamber before it had even met, (3) issuing a new electoral law dis- franchising three fourths of the voters, and (4) proclaiming another election of deputies. These “‘ordinances’’ of July 26, 1830, were the occasion for the revolt. Immediately artisan, student, and business man — Bonapartist, Republican, and Constitutional Monarchist — each for reasons of his own — joined the movement to save France from despotism. So little did the ruler suspect an uprising that he spent the day on a hunting trip. Meanwhile the newspapers, influ- enced by the intellectuals with Thiers at their head, incited the people to insurrection. Excited crowds thronged the streets shout- ing, Down with the ministry... ~ Long live the charter.’’ Old soldiers, students and workmen built barricades of paving-stones, wagons, and furniture in the narrow, crooked streets of Paris. The Freemasons, Carbonari, and “‘ Friends of Truth ’’ who had been urging the expulsion of the Bourbons, and the ‘‘Cosmopolitan Alliance’ composed of French liberals like Lafayette, hore openly active in fomenting revolt. A handful of royalist troops half-heartedly tried to put down the rebels, and for three days street-fighting went on. The insurgents held Paris, and Paris meant France. Disaffected regi- ments began to go over to the rebels. Charles X, forced to bow to the national will, abdicated in favor of his ten-year-old grandson, the count of Chambord, and fled to Great. Britain, where he had plenty of time to ‘saw wood,”’ if he still preferred that occupation. HTChap. X| THE POLITICAL REVOLUTIONS, 1820-1848 187 The ghost of divine-right monarchy was temporarily driven out of France by the people. The Republicans, rectuited from the small shop-keepers, the workingmen, and the students, who had really brought about the Revolution, now advocated a republic. The middle class, led by Thiers, declared that ‘‘order’’ as well as “liberty” was important, and hence urged a constitutional monarchy. Lafayette, now an old man and a pioneer in the cause of freedom, brought the two parties together and persuaded the Republicans to accept the plans of the Liberal Monarchists. Hence on August 7 the Chamber of Deputies called to the throne, as ‘“King of the French,’’ Louis Philippe, a member of the younger, or Orleanist, branch of the Bourbon house, who had always posed as a friend of the people. As it turned out, therefore, the Revolution of 1830 was a victory for the bourgeoisze, who had also shaped the early course of the great Revolution of 1789. ‘Legitimacy’? had been firmly disregarded, and the people had selected their own ruler. The international alliance for the repression of liberalism built up by Metternich and his colleagues had been dealt a severe blow as a European system. Metternich shook his head and blustered about ‘‘dangers,’’ but did not openly dare to do anything. Henceforth his system was restricted to the Austrian dominions, and to those of his friends, the tsar of Russia and the king of Prussia. His immediate concern was not to halt revolution in France, but to keep it from spreading to central and eastern Europe. 7. Tue Reicn or Louis Purrippe, 1830-1848 A group of 89 deputies issued a proclamation saying: ‘“French- men, France is free. The absolute power was raising its flag; the heroic people of Paris overthrew it. We reénter into possession of order and liberty.’’ Louis Philippe “‘will respect our rights, for he will hold his own from us.”’ The new constitution, based on the amended charter, was authorized by the two chambers. It assured freedom of the press and assembly. The rigat to vote was given to all men above 25 years of age, who paid a property tax of $40 a year, and to professional men, who paid $20 or more. Thus the middle class, by whom and for whom the earlier Revolution had been made, were given control of France, while the workingmen and peasants were excluded from participation in the government. Although the voters had been about doubled, the Roman Catholic religion was no longer that of the state, and the schools were freed from church supervision, yet democracy still had its battles to win. The new king, now 57 years of age, had fled from France some months before the death of his father in the Terror. An exile for twenty-one years, he had seen much of Europe, spent two years in the United States, and finally settled in Great Britain. After the restora- tion of Louis XVIII, he recovered a large part of his family estate, and in 1821 was said to be worth $40,000,000. He lived in the old TUTTRVTTTVURTHEEAUUAEREOUERPOOUOLULOGUy Ube Se ! ————— CC Louis Philipve and the Orleantst monarchy 7 a ates Nae a at i ee ale cease sete nec ts eg tenet. Rae I a a nell ee re Character of Louts Philippe The bourgeois monarchy Rise of discontent IJUTOLUHEVIISUUAIUALHEUITEUUAUEULEUEAUHLUGEERIUEUAUPLABUOEOUIMERMEEN METER 188 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. X Royal Palace in the heart of Paris and cultivated popularity with the bourgeoisie. He posed as a liberal, promenaded about the streets without a guard, wearing a frock coat and a silk hat, carried a green umbrella under his arm, and made friends with the rich and influen- tial business men. He sent his children to the public schools. He patronized the working classes and the soldiers, and ate and drank with them in the popular restaurants in a friendly manner. He was wise enough to see that wealth and brains had replaced blood and titles as the real power in France, hence he made his palace the center of all sorts of middle-class activities, invested his money in various enterprises to win strong friends, and bided his time. As the champion of the Revolution of 1789, his popularity increased with the people, who believed that he would make an ideal constitutional king. But behind all this democratic display, he was an autocrat at heart and ambitious to become a strong monarch. The masses of France were given a ruler by the middle class. The legitimists, who wanted a real Bourbon, regarded him as a usurper. The Bonapartists and Republicans were his enemies. In the face of this hostility, the policy of Louis Philippe was to use the rich middle class to prop up his throne. France was peaceful, orderly and con- tented for a while. To replace the nobility of the old régime, Napo- leon had formed a new nobility of his military officers. So Louis Philippe began to build up a new nobility of wealthy business men such as bankers, manufacturers, and merchants. The old soldiers and the old nobles were not welcome at court. The workers soon discovered that they had only put their employers in power and had no share in the government themselves. The course followed by the king was the “golden mean’’ — neither too reactionary nor too radical, but moderate and hence stable. The new theory of the state rested on nationalism and capitalism. Taking all things into account, that seemed to be a wise policy. The old régime was gone forever in France; the new régime would be supported by an “‘enlightened Metternichism.”’ The discontented proletariat began to complain that the govern- ment had not been democratized by the Revolution of 1830. They said that the absolutism of Charles X had only been exchanged for an aristocracy of the rich, who were determined to check all progress towards true democracy. These disgruntled laborers formed one secret society after another — the ‘People’s Friends,’’ the society of the “Rights of Man,”’ and the ** Families’’ — ‘*to complete the Revo- lution.’’ Loud were the cries of the workers against the long hours, low pay, unsanitary factories, and the hardships imposed on women and children in industry. These outcries were only answered by laws forbidding the workingmen to organize to improve their lot. The numerous strikes that resulted in the industrial centers were broken up by the government. The silk spinners and weavers in Lyons revolted and marched down the street with a black flag bear-Chap. X] THE POLITICAL REVOLUTIONS, 1820-1848 189 ing the motto, “Live by labor or die fighting.’’ The leaders of the laboring classes demanded not merely universal franchise, but pat- ticularly a ‘‘social change,’’ which would “‘divide the burdens and benefits of society equally.’’ Louis Blanc’s book, The Organization of Labor (1839), became their platform and program. He argued that the fruits of their toil should be divided among the workers so that each would receive ‘‘ according to his services.’’ Heine reported in 1842 that he found the workers in the factories reading cheap edi- tions of Robespierre’s speeches and Marat’s pamphlets, and were wildly singing revolutionary songs. He predicted that a ‘republican outbreak’’ would occur “sooner or later.”’ The Republicans, drawing their strength from the common people and some of the middle class, also felt that the Revolution was a failure. They wanted to see the people educated to rule themselves and insisted that political liberties be granted to all men without regard to wealth. They likewise had secret societies and employed newspapers to carry on an active propagandism. Satire and caricature were used with telling effect. The Tribune pictured the king as a huge pear, or as a juggler tossing balls marked ‘‘Liberty’’ and “Revolution,’’ or as an assassin fleeing after having cut the throat of ‘Miss Liberty.’’ The Republicans did not hesitate to encourage violent demonstrations, but they were lacking in able leaders, and hence accomplished less than would have been done otherwise. The young intellectuals, neglected by the government, threw in their lot with the Republicans and talked and wrote about the “Great Revo- lution,’’ which they believed to be immediately ahead. Instead of removing the causes of discontent, Louis Philippe de- cided to use force, the blind policy of most autocrats. All organiza- tions had to present their constitutions for his approval. The right of assembly was forbidden and societies were broken up by the police. Republican journals were suppressed and their editors fined, imprisoned, and exiled. The editor of the Tribune was prosecuted more than a hundred times within four years ard severely penalized. To criticize the king, or to question the divine right of property, or to defend any other form of government than monarchy, was made a crime. Special courts were created to try persons guilty of violating these laws. Throwing aside his mask of liberalism, Louis Philippe declared that ‘‘the throne was not an empty armchair.’’ Before 1840 there had been ten ministries, but thereafter he had only one — that of Guizot, a renowned historian and great orator, who opposed democracy and believed in the absolute rule of the propertied classes. Louis Philippe accepted the Revolution, but was resolved that it should go no farther. Like Metternich, he wanted to “‘freeze’’ France and prevent all real progress. The chambers were either coerced or bribed into obedience. About 200 out of the 430 deputies held lucrative government offices, and hence were loyal supporters of the throne. To make matters worse, the foreign policy was weak Code eo GE GE EE TUOVOQTONOQVOQUAHONTOAUQUOAEULE HY if Autocratte methods SPRATT TRA TIR Pan ——. ne een a tee4crasdti tii PERO USEAUReSeEE Peta. 190 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. X and severely criticized by the people. In short, the rule of Louis Philippe, which started so well, became so tyrannical that it dis- gusted and aroused the nation. Six attempts were made to assassi- nate him. For years a party of opposition had been growing. The working- men, stronger and better organized than ever, despite the stringent laws, were openly hostile and forming a communist-socialist party. The Republicans were secretly plotting for a change. The legitimists were eager to see the fall of one who had betrayed the Bourbon house. The Bonapartists were hoping by some stroke of fortune to put their own candidate on the throne. The autocracy of Louis Philippe and his arbitrary minister, Guizot, supplied the opportunity for all these parties to unite in the Revolution of 1848, which forced another French king to flee for safety from his own people to Great Britain. 8. SPREAD OF THE REVOLUTION OF 1830 OVER EUROPE When Charles X was driven from France by revolution, Metter- nich thought of forming a coalition against the ‘king of the-barri- cades,’’ as he called Louis Philippe. But the spread of the movement beyond France kept him and his brother autocrats too busy at home to oppose effectively the new French government. After the change in France was accepted in Great Britain, all the powers of Europe were forced, more or less reluctantly, to recognize the ruler enthroned by revolution. The effects of the Revolution of 1830 were felt over the Old World and the New. In Europe it was the signal for upris- ings which everywhere threatened to undo many of the settlements of the Congress of Vienna. Without consulting the wishes of the people, Belgium had been annexed to the state of Holland in 1815 by the Congress of Vienna. Belgium The Belgians differed from the Dutch in speech, religion, and national interests. The Dutch were mostly Protestants, farmers, dairymen and traders, and advocates of free trade. The Belgians were Catholics, engaged in mining, trade and manufacturing, and believed in a pro- tective tariff. The Dutch hated the French; the Belgians loved them. The Dutch king, William I, insulted Belgian patriotic pride by forcing on them a Dutch bank, Dutch laws, and Dutch officials. He angered the Belgian liberals by muzzling the press. He offended the business men by heavy taxes. He alarmed the Catholics by putting Protestant inspectors in their schools. The Belgians with 3,500,000 people had no more representatives in the parliament than Holland with only 2,000,000; and in 1830 only one out of seven ministers was a Belgian. I In fact the Belgians felt that they were treated as a conquered nation i and exploited by the Dutch. Consequently, following the successful revolt of the French, the Belgians on November 18, 1830, declared their independence, drew up a modern constitution, and elected a German prince, Leopold I, as their king. The great powers of Europe, in a conference at London, recognized the new state. In 1839 the inde- Sanath SE SR SS TS LE Oe SSS - a aE es ST a a ee ee ES AP AUCUATANEUORUU ETH RRURDRUTEODE iT TTT] AUPSLUOTONTPMALALSAA TAT UULAV UOT OALAVLEVONTHVEGT EGU EGVAVAGLAVEAIARAHAREGTENEAEGLEARORUATARUOTUOEOO POT UOUET ERA UOTRRESA UAT LAREN UTD SD EUROSTILE EA TPES UR ULETOTAUTLTRUEEEROLELOUULAOOURVOOULVOOL) banmes ee : — Chap. X| THE POLITICAL REVOLUTIONS, 1820-1848 191 pendence and neutrality of Belgium were guaranteed “forever by Great Britain, France, Austria, Russia, and Prussia. This was the “scrap of paper,’’ which Germany, successor to the treaty obligation of Prussia, sought to ignore at the outbreak of the World War in 1914. The separation of Belgium from Holland put another dent in the “«oternal settlement’’ of the Congress of Vienna. All that remained of old Poland, after the three shameless partt- tions, and additional readjustments in the Congress of Vienna, was a comparatively small region about Warsaw, which remained as a dependency of Russia. But the hope of winning back their national freedom never deserted the Poles. The success of the Revolution of Poland 1830 in France and Belgium fired them with a desire to secure their independence. In this attempt, they rose in revolt, and expelled or killed their Russian officials. Public opinion in Germany, France, and Great Britain was sympathetic with the Polish cause, but the governments refused to intervene to save ‘‘nationalism’’ there as had been done in Greece. Alone, under poor leadership, and with scanty supplies, the Poles fought for neatly a year, when the revolt was crushed. Poland ceased to exist as a separate kingdom and became a Russian province. Thousands of Polish patriots were put to death or banished to Siberia. Others fled to America or to western Europe, where they continued to hope for the emancipation of their native land. Poland had to wait for her restoration as an independent nation until the conclusion of the World War. With revolting states to their westward and eastward, the people of the small German states were electrified with a yearning for liberty and national unity. So strongly entrenched were the auto- German states cratic governments of Prussia and Austria, however, that no revolu- tion occurred within their limits. The actual outbreaks were confined to the little members of the Germanic Confederation. In Brunswick, the worst-governed of all the states, Charles I] was expelled, his castle burned, and his successor forced to grant a constitution in 1832. In Saxony, the people drew up a constitution, made some reforms, and compelled the king to recognize the changes. Hanover was granted a constitution in 1833. The elector of Hesse-Cassel, who had caned his subjects and made bread a government monopoly, likewise gave his people a new constitution. At Hambach in Ger- many 30,000 people met, sang songs of freedom, offered toasts to the “United States of Germany’’ and to a “Republican Europe,’” and heard a speaker say, ‘The best king by the grace of God is a traitor -o the human race.”’ At Frankfort soldiers suppressed a meeting of 4oo students, who had assembled and called upon all the German people to unite. Students clubs like the Burschenschaften reappeared ‘> the universities, noisily sang their patriotic songs and urged national unity in the fatherland. Germany was once more flooded with patriotic literature. Leadership for a general revolution was lacking, however, and no concerted outbreak took place. Metternich ia trons Sem treet ee Teo a 5 teeda rs Oa aes i rca a Tee) a oa ee eae aR TT TENSE Sm perermrreees Saren Italy Spain TATE TET UI 192 MODERN WORLD HISTORY (Chap. X was still strong enough to prevent it, and the Diet enacted the reac- tionary laws he demanded. During the reaction which soon set in, the reforms and constitutions were mostly withdrawn. Patriots were imprisoned, or driven to exile. In Prussia twenty-seven students were sentenced to death, but the sentence was commuted to imprisonment. When a nobleman congratulated Emperor Francis of Austria on hav- ing a good physical constitution,’’ he exclaimed, ‘‘What do vou say? A good constitution? Let me never hear that word again. Say my robust health, my strong bodily system, or my good physical condition, but never say my constitution. I have no constitution; and I never will have one. I'd perish first. No one but the devil has a constitution, or has need for any.’’ Metternich explained that all the trouble and discontent arose from the fact that a small ‘‘faction”’ wanted to introduce the dangerous “‘representative system and the modern idea of popular sovereignty.’’ Germany had to wait forty years before unity came, and eighty-eight years before she had a republic. No other people welcomed the Revolution of 1830 with more enthusiasm than the Italians. The liberals and patriotic secret societies became active over the entire peninsula. It was reported that outside aid would come from France and Spain which were going to form a Latin League with Italy against Austria, Prussia, and Russia. A plot was set on foot to induce Napoleon's son, the duke of Reichstadt, to proclaim himself Napoleon II, king of Italy. This time revolution broke out in central Italy. The tyrannical duke of Modena was driven out by his people. A revolt in Parma forced the Duchess Maria Louisa, the second wife of Napoleon I, to flee. Uprisings took place in the Papal States. The tri-color flag stirred a wave of enthusiasm from the Po to the Tiber. Reforms were made and free governments set up. Lafayette promised assist- ance and the two sons of Louis Napoleon offered their services. Louis Philippe boasted that he would not permit the revolution to be crushed, but did little else. The pope and the deposed rulers franti- cally appealed to Metternich for help. Austrian troops were rushed into Italy and the old régime was quickly restored. Far-sighted Italians now clearly saw that only a united Italy, with outside aid, could drive out the hated Austrians. One of these, Mazzini, a young Genoese lawyer, in 1831 organized ‘‘ Young Italy,’’ a secret society which soon had 60,o00 members, mostly of the middle class, who were preparing for the ‘great day’’ of independence and unity only a generation away. Spain, like Italy, was sensitive to the course of events in France, hence in 1831 the liberals again raised the cry for reform, but only to have the old system of terror increased. Spies and the court mar- tial were used to keep down revolution. In Madrid a student was hanged for shouting “‘Hurrah for Liberty.’’ A young woman was put to death for embroidering ‘‘ Liberty, Law, Equality’’ on a flag. 1 ane ; REVAUAURUREAT ORDO ERGNGUORAUODARUOCUUNRMODD URN NNO HEN ED PEAT EDRRU RTA GTA ERATE TSR aD EET HOV TATOTHATEVTEAUUVTAVTAVEOVUOVESTEGENURESUVVOV ESD AGN UOROVTODEESPODUOATONOYUATRERRA ER UUUOY UA PRA PANELED ES TROD EE TEChap. X] THE POLITICAL REVOLUTIONS, 1820-1848 —_193 Yet the liberal party finally gained control of the ministry in 1834 and created a popular type of local government, which still re- mains. A new constitution in 1837, based on that of 1812, gave the Cortes power to vote taxes. Although the franchise was much more restricted than in France, yet some small gain had been made towards democratic government. Spain henceforth was a consti- tutional monarchy. In Switzerland, the period from 1829 to 1837 is called the “ Re- generation.’ After the Revolution of 1830 the people of nearly every canton met to reform their aristocratic governments and to change their systems of justice which were notoriously bad. These objec- tives were attained by the revision of the cantonal constitutions. The reactionary, middle-class Swiss national Diet was denounced by the students and young Swiss, and meetings were held all over the coun- try to discuss desired changes. Under this pressure the Diet gave its approval to local reforms and constitutional amendments, but was still powerful enough to prevent the drafting of a new national constitution, which had to wait until 1848. Great Britain was powerfully influenced by the happenings in France. The Revolution of 1789 found many echoes among the British people. In 1790 Jacobin Clubs were formed and reforms were urged in public meetings. The government employed strong measures to curb all manifestations of discontent, which was particularly pronounced after 1815. Low wages, long hours, high prices, and poor crops exasperated the laboring classes. Mobs in the country burned the grain, and mobs in the cities smashed the machinery. The “Deterloo massacre’’ in 1819 was typical of the excited feelings of both the rulers and the workers. Cobbett and Bentham created a sentiment for parliamentary reform. The government did make some concessions. In 1823 the criminal code was reformed by the removal of the death penalty for about a hundred petty crimes. The permis- sion given to the workers in,1825 to form trade-unions was followed in 1828 by the removal of the political disabilities of Dissenters, and in 1829 by the restoration of political rights to the Catholics. But in 1830 Great Britain was seething with discontent under the autocracy of the Old Tories. Hence both the middle class and the working people rejoiced over the upheaval in France and took heart. When Wellington publicly declared that the system of representation could not ‘‘be improved,” a wave of anger spread among the people. The Whigs, for the first time since 1783, gained control of the government under Earl Grey and in 1831 Lord John Russell introduced the First Reform Bill, but it failed to pass the House of Commons in a test vote. A general parliamentary election was then ordered which resulted in a strong Whig majority. The Second Reform Bill was rejected, however, by the Lords. Monster mass meetings, parades, and even riots, kept the issue alive. At last in 1832, confronted by reform or a swamping of their body by TUNVEIUNOTONOEQUQURORONOONQOQONONOULULOLILI UDO Switzerland Great Britain —~ 4 ey a a ee eee ———————————————_ bs =e s setak apetet a Se a ty tts Sa ET el I a € 194 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. X the creation of new peers, the House of Lords gave way and the Great Reform Bill, which Spencer Walpole called the “‘largest revolution’’ ever attained in a peaceable manner, was passed: (2) Fifty-six rotten boroughs”’ were disfranchised and many others lost part of their representatives, thus releasing 143 seats in Parliament which were redistributed among the more populous counties and Cities. (4 voters were increased from 7 (2) The qualifications for voting were reformed so that the county ‘= 247,000 tO 370,000; and the voters in the boroughs from 188,000 to 286,000. Thus one out of every 22 persons gained a vote. (3) The manner of voting was modi- fied by limiting the time of “‘polling’’ from fifteen to two days, and by providing for the registration of voters. The Reform Bill was a great middle-class victory, for the number of workingmen entitled to vote was actually reduced. The House of Lords emerged from the conflict with its power lessened. The House of Commons was now recognized as the sovereign power of the nation, and in the event of serious disagreement, the Lords had to give way. The crown had been saved by yielding to public opinion, hence no such upheaval occurred as in France. That so important a change could be made in the British constitution without the chaos of revolution and civil Wat was a positive gain for peaceable progress. The old régime had passed forever in Great Britain, but a truly democratic government J had not yet been created. It is not surprising to find that the radicals, who were demanding universal franchise, should bitterly oppose the Great Reform Bill, because it fell far short of their expectation. The Revolution of 1830 was felt even in the United States. A generation had grown up under the new economic and social condi- tions of the young Republic. The west had been filled with a self- United States confident democracy, which, with the aid of the eastern laborers, swept Jackson into the presidency in 1832, for the second time, withan overwhelming vote, as the champion of the people against the banks, corporations, and capitalists. There appeared a new conception of the responsibility of the local and national government for the welfare of the people. Imprisonment for debt was abolished. At- tention was directed to the conditions of child and woman labor. Negro slavery became an acute issue, and about 1,000 abolition so- Cieties with 40,000 members arose in the north to demand the imme- diate freedom of the slaves. As despotism was losing ground in Europe, the people of the United States were growing more sym- pathetic with the poor, the unfortunate, the ignorant, the criminal, and the slave. It was an era of great social and moral reforms. The day when Metternich, or any other advocate of autocracy, could impose his outgrown ideas and institutions on an advancing world by means of such instruments as the Quadruple Alliance, the Concert of Powers, congresses of despotic kings, and the force of arms, was gone forever. The rights of the nation, and of the HuUseHHUTUUUHUIHUUIHUUTUUISUUHEDATELIULTEO TENGEN people making up the nation, had to be taken into account. Abso- | | IU TEESIUSNNUAATDA UU ELAPEUUAT OA ECRESQUQIHDIEEE LOS SREDU LECT EOLPITVNNTOOOQOUOOOOUOLOUOQUU OVC Da LARLAEEEERE el i Chap. X] THE POLITICAL REVOLUTIONS, 1820-1848 — 195 Seema le ee —— a So 2? ah ed 2 UC : lutism and stagnation, as a public policy in Europe, might persist in central and eastern Europe, but it was disappearing 1n western Europe and in the New World. Metternich confessed defeat when in 1832 he persuaded the tsar of Russia and the king of Prussia to form a league to support “‘ divine right’’ against France and Great Britain, the two progressive nations that had the ‘courage to profess aloud re- bellion and the overthrow of all stability.’ The Concert of Europe disappeared almost entirely in the Revolution of 1830. The new system of balance of power began to emerge. cee Re eel pa rae oy ener sna athe REFERENCES FOR FURTHER STUDY Given at end of Chapter XI.a ee - = a —. es een nee ena SS a Sr ICA le eT EE Opposition to Louis Philippe Industrial Revolution in France CHA PER Al TITHE REVOLUTIONS OF 1848 AND THEIR EFFECTS ON TITHE WORLD 1. SCOPE OF THE REVOLUTIONS OF 1848 Tue Revolutions of 1848, speaking generally, grew out of the de- termination to recover the gains of the earlier revolutions, and a conviction that the time was ripe for further progress. It was de- cidedly a European movement and left its impress on the ideas and institutions of all the peoples of the western world. Its two cardinal forces were middle-class liberalism and nationalism. Contrary to common belief, it was in Italy and not in France, that the first assault was made on absolutism in the revolts of 1848. Revolution broke out in Milan and in Sicily, and then spread over the peninsula, but since the movement was so much more spectacular and successful in France, and because the Paris revolt is generally regarded as the pioneer, the course of revolution in France will be explained first. 2. THE REVOLUTION IN FRANCE The Revolution of 1848 in France was so conspicuous for the simple reason that the people were politically more advanced than in any other country on the continent. The French clung to their liberal traditions with a remarkable and tenacious persistence. When their ‘‘Citizen King,’’ called to power by the “ people’ in 1830, betrayed his promises and supporters, and gradually revived the absolutism of the Bourbons, he aroused the protest of the nation. To make matters worse, to tyranny he added shameful corruption. When a ‘‘nation of citizens’’ asked for reforms and the widening of the franchise, the ‘‘vile band of beggars’’ were told that France already had too many voters. Consequently by 1848 an impatient and hostile nation stood helpless to secure their rights in a legal manner before a despotic king and an oligarchy of the middle class. Assassination, the weapon employed by desperate people against a tyrant, was attempted against him in half a dozen instances. The Industrial Revolution had brought about a transformation in France. The multiplication of factories and the general advance in transportation and communication had greatly increased the number of wage-earners, but had not improved their lot. With a new hope in their hearts, they now turned both to socialism and to revolution as a shorter way toabetter world. Patriots and soldiers, who professed to be Republicans, were alienated by the refusal of Louis Philippe to 196 mpasaLEPAMLLETETOHVAALAIHHAUUHUUHAHHHAQSUQGQOGUOQAUUONCUUUUUULLULEUEUADUAUOOODOOLONEAOOAAOOTLUULUVERUUOUURUIUOUOAASEROMUOURTOOLU LN EAL EAT RRULLLLCRUaeChap. XT THE REVOLUTIONS OF 1848 197 aid the Poles, the Germans, and the Italians in their struggles for freedom. Catholics hated Guizot as a Protestant and, of course, held the king responsible for his appointment to the premiership. The Bonapartists and-the legitimists, with special ambitions of their own, willingly joined in the plot for the monarch’s fall. Only the faithful few among the wealthy business men, who had profited by the favors bestowed upon them, remained loyal. The occasion for the revolt was a clash over the right of free assembly. During the winter of 1847 various groups of liberals planned a series of public banquets throughout France for the purpose of preparing a nation-wide petition, in imitation of the Chartists ‘n Great Britain, demanding reforms, particularly the extension of the right to vote. By this public agitation it was also hoped to overthrow the Guizot ministry. At these banquets the Republicans drank to ‘‘the bettering of the lot of the laboring classes,’’ and the liberal and royalist middle classes proposed toasts to the king and to needed reforms. The government condemned this fomentation of ‘hostile and blind passions.’ To test the issue, it was decided to hold a huge banquet in Paris on February 22, 1848, which was Washington’s birthday. The national guard and the students in a showy parade were to escort to the banqueting hall the 87 deputies, who promised to attend. In alarm the government forbade both the parade and the banquet. The deputies protested against this violation of the right of assembly, but decided not to attend the gathering. On the morning of Feb- ruary 22, a large crowd of students and workingmen gathered in the Place de la Concorde and shouted ‘‘Hurrah for reform!”’ They sang the Marseillaise, pillaged the shops, secured guns, and built bonfires at night. Actual revolution was scarcely dreamed of even by the Socialists and republican agitators. The next day the mob built barricades in the industrial sections of the city, fraternized with the national guard, and forced the king to dismiss Guizot and to promise a reform ministry. The outbreak might have ended there, had not the royal troops guarding the home of Guizot fired on the mob killing 23 and wounding 30 more. In anger the mob paraded their martyred comrades in carts through the strects to incite the people. The bells of Paris rang out the doom of the monarchy. The cry for reform was replaced by that of * Long live the Republic!’ By February 24 all Paris was in arms with 1,500 barricades thrown up to abolish despotism. The walls were covered with placards announcing: “‘Louis Philippe massacres us as did Charles X; let him go to join Charles X!’’ The king summoned Thiers to head the ministry and at the same time ordered the soldiers to crush the Revo- lution, but they refused to shoot down their comrades. Multitudes pressed towards the Tuileries, and fired at the windows. With the rattle of musketry in his ears, Louis Philippe hurriedly abdicated in favor of his grandson, the count of Paris, and, disguised as © Dr. TUUTEROOOAUEOSUOOOUEEROOOELEERUUENDSS February Revolution m8 Sp den oat peta eer a De ab a NN Tae ser = aFANE EE EET Ga SSIES a Se Ne ER SSS ee Seen oe a National workshops The “‘ June ‘? Days LETT HAMA 198 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XI Smith,’’ fled to Great Britain. His favorite minister, Guizot, soon followed him. In the afternoon the mob broke into the royal palace, destroyed the furniture, and burned the throne, shouting, ‘* Down with royalty! The Republic forever!’’ The shortest and the least bloody of all the French revolutions was completely successful. The Socialist Republicans with the red flag and a program of social democracy met in the Hétel de Ville in eastern Paris and announced that the government had fled ‘‘ leaving behind it a trail of blood that forbids it ever to retrace its steps.’ In the name of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity,’’ they proclaimed a Republic, and promised to ‘‘ guarantee labor to all citizens’’ and the right to form labor unions. The moderate Republicans, at the same time, with the red-white-and-blue flag, met in the chamber of deputies in western Paris and declared that ‘‘Royalty is abolished,’’ and that ~The Republic is proclaimed.’’ Then the two groups joined and established a provisional government to organize ‘‘the national victory.’ On March 5 the people of France were asked to elect by direct, secret, manhood suffrage a National Constituent Assembly to draw up a new constitution. By this act France obtained complete political equality. The Revolution made in Paris was accepted with- out question by the rest of the nation. To appease the working classes, the provisional government on February 26 decreed *‘ the immediate establishment of national work- shops’’ and Louis Blanc became ‘‘the minister of public works’’ to organize them. But the scheme was started under fata! handicaps with the definite object of discrediting it. All sorts of unemployed men were formed into a ‘‘workshop army,”’ as a part of the national guard, and set to digging trenches at forty cents a day. The working day was reduced to ten hours in Paris and to eleven hours ‘‘in the country. By May 100,000 men in Paris were given employment. In vain did Louis Blanc protest against this unwise method of solving the labor problem. Soon the working days were reduced to two out of each week. Early in May the total abolition of the national workshops was ordered by the Assembly. Many thousands were on the verge of starvation and, feeling themselves betrayed by the very government they had helped to create, again flew to arms and built barricades. Four days (June 23-26) of fearful Carnage fe- sulted. Some 10,000 were killed, 11,000 taken prisoners, the leaders shot, and 4,000 deported. There was far more bloodshed than in the earlier ‘Reign of Terror.’’ Socialist newspapers to the number of thirty-two were suppressed. France was left divided into two hostile camps — the poor working classes, and the bourgeois Repub- licans determined to keep down the ‘‘ vile mob.”’ Meanwhile the 9,000,000 voters had elected 900 members to the National Constituent Assembly. The peasants united with the mod- erate Republicans in electing about 800 representatives bitterly opposed to socialism in every form. Among the first acts of the new ULCUUCVUUASVHNNTAUDAVUEUVELESHSOMERIAUDLEOUUGDOGHMORIUDAUUUCUUOUERAUOAOIAUITRERUEOUEAUAYAOOR LURE OOGOOOORD URLS } , ] i a oe nt ‘ , ’ “Chap. XI] THE REVOLUTIONS OF 1848 199 body was the abolition of the ‘national workshops,’’ which had never been scientifically or efficiently organized, as © an abomination of abominations.’’ The idle workingmen were given the alternative of joining the army, or of working on public improvements in the country. ‘Socialism is dead,” said one of the Socialists; to men- tion it is to pronounce its funeral oration.’’ The Assembly, standing for ‘‘the rights of property and public order,’ after repudiating so- cialism, abolished slavery, the censorship of the press, and capital punishment for political crimes. Provision was also made for pri- mary education. The Republic was officially proclaimed on May 4, 1848, and the new constitution, modeled partly after that of the United States, was promulgated on November 4. It provided for a president, elected for four years by universal male franchise, with the right to choose his own cabinet. The council of state, selected by the lower house, served as sort of a senate presided over by a vice- president. The Assembly of 750 members, chosen for three years by the people, was clothed with full power of legislation. All of the substantial gains of the previous revolutions were reafirmed. The machinery of the Second French Republic was now ready to be put into operation. The question still confronting France was, Who would be elected president? A motion to disqualify members of former reigning houses for the office had been lost in the Assembly. The Republicans divided their strength by setting up two rival candidates. In the Assembly sat a man, elected by five different departments, whose name was to make him the first and only president of the Second Republic — Louis Napoleon, nephew of Napoleon J. In the election for president on December 10, 1848, Louis Napoleon received 5,400,000 votes, while the three other candidates combined had less than 2,000,c00. Ten days later, he took an oath to remain ‘‘faithful to the democratic- republic,’’ and as president said: ‘‘I shall regard as enemies of the country all those who endeavor to change by illegal means that which France has established.’’ How he carried out his promise will appear later. The people of Europe had been more or less liberalized by (2) the gradual growth of intelligence; (2) the Industrial Revolution; and (3) the series of political and social revolutions since 1776. The persistence of remnants of the old regime in various parts of Europe, and the efforts of autocratic rulers to curb progress, resulted in a new determination to get rid of them. Hence in 1848 Europe was more ripe for revolutionary propaganda than evet before. The Revolution of 1848 in France seemed to set Europe on fire with a spirit of emu- lation. The greatest and most widespread wave of disturbance of the nineteenth century swept across Europe from Britain to Italy, and from Spain to Russia. The entire system of reaction built upon the victory of Waterloo, the Congress of Vienna, and the international concert which followed, went tumbling to the ground about the POVEUOTOOSEUAREEED USSU ELUTE EERE = a The Republic proclaimed Election of Louis Napoleon Bonaparte as president of France ee eree epee map Sa SEM eT acca TS ESee SET en — = ee Se eS ot Se Saaee ms =e -- = Seer ss age ee ee e _ Aa. ne Ee EE Prussia Prussian con- stitution of 1850 LUT 2.00 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XI head of its chief archite he had controlled so toh , Metternich, who deserted the continent 3. Tne Revoitution 1n GERMANY Prussia, like Austria, had scarcely been touched by the Revolution of 1830. But immediately} ’ fol llowing the February revolt of 1848 in Paris, the contagion spread to the Rhine \ ‘alley and to Poland, and soon Berlin, the seat of the proud Hohenzollerns, was ablaze with revolution. Led by agitators from the Rhine Valley and Poland, huge mass meetings of workmen and students wete held in the parks and beer halls of Berlin. Tumults and street fighting, amidst shouts of ‘Liberty and Equality ’’ scared the king into grant- ing reforms and calling a provisional diet to discuss a constitution for Prussia. News of the recent overthrow of Metternich in Vienna reached Berlin on March 13 and encouraged the people to stand more firmly for their rights. When on March 19 a crowd gathered in front of the royal palace to thank the king for the concession he had granted, hot-headed republicans began to incite them to violence. The king ordered the square cleared, and an accidental shot caused a wild fight with shouts of ‘Treachery! Murder! To arms! The barri- cades!’” In a few hours the capital was an armed encampment of rebels. Horrified at this uprising, the king Peay to remove the troops, to redress all the grievances of the people, and to take the lead in unifying the whole German nation. When the martyrs, about 200 who had been killed in the revolt, were borne in solemn proces- sion to the royal palace, the king was called out to view the victims of his troops. He appeared on an upper balcony and the angry rabble shouted ‘‘Take off your hat!’’ The quaking despot removed it. Come down!”’ the people yelled. Down he went, expressing his regrets at the death of his subjects, and bowing in grief before the dead. Meanwhile Crown Prince William, the future leader of German unification, fled for safety to Great Britain. The whole city was draped in mourning for several days by royal order as an expression of sorrow for the massacre. On May 28, 1848, the Constitutional ae met in Berlin. A constitution omitting the title ‘‘ King by the grace of God,”’ and pro- viding for a legislature of two houses, universal franchise, jury trial, and Berson tights, was laid before the Assembly, but was voted down at once by the conservative ‘‘Junkers.’’ Then the king dis- missed the Assembly. In 1850 he granted Prussia a constitution, which was more liberal than might have been expected. It guaran- teed many personal liberties, established a parliament with two branches, and introduced the undemocratic system of voting by Classes. The king said that the constitution was so modern that it made his stomach ache.’’ It was soon replaced by another, which increased the rights of the crown and retained the special voting TTT HUVLELVEN TI TLAVELALINTRTO UST USS TACTTHE REVOLUTIONS OF 1848 2OL Chap. XI] strength of the wealthier classes. This remained in force from 1850 until the Revolution of 1918. Like an electric spark the Revolution of 1848 spread over the smaller German states. Within a few weeks nearly all of them had secured more democratic constitutional governments. So frightened was the ruler of Prussia that he asked Great Britain to join the central and eastern powers on the continent in confining the revolution to France. The people in the small German states, particularly in South Germany, demanded not only local reforms, but also a united, liberalized German national state. Some bold spirits openly advo- cated a republic. The old federal Diet at Frankfort flew into a panic and revoked every objectionable measure it had passed. Then it granted freedom of the press, fan up the outlawed revolutionary flag, and appointed a committee to modernize the constitution of the Confederation. Meanwhile the German liberals, ignoring the Diet, took the ini- tiative into their own hands and elected a national Constitutional Convention by universal male franchise. This inexperienced body of 568 delegates, representing the patriotic hopes of the German people for a free, united country, met at Frankfort on May 17, 1848. “We are here to create a constitution for Germany, ” said the president, von Gagern. ‘‘Our call to the work and the authority to proceed have their origin in the sovereignty of the people.’’ All the proceed- ings were ordered printed so as to let the nation know what was being done. One party in the Convention wanted a democratic em- pire; another a federal republic. The popular Archduke John of Austria was elected temporary “‘ Administrator of Germany’”’ to the disappointment of Prussia. Then the work of creating a constitution for the new German state began. Months were consumed in dis- cussing the ‘rights of the German man’? although rapid action and agreement were necessary if the movement was to succeed at all. Every day of delay was exploited by the reactionaries. It was decided to include in the new state only the German portion of Austria, which made Austria unalterably opposed to the Convention. Finally, the Convention voted to call the unified Germany an ‘‘Empire,’’ and 28 out of the 35 states offered the office of ‘‘Emperor of the Germans’ to King Frederick William IV of Prussia. But, encouraged by the reactionaries and threatened by Austria, he indignantly rejected the honor saying, Ilwanta king’s crown, not one picked up in the gutter like that of Louis Philippe.’” When Austria joined Prussia in repu- diating the constitution, it was quite evident that the day of unifica- tion and freedom for Germany had not yet come. The liberals in the Convention now advocated a violent revolu- tion to save the constitution, while the conservative members de- manded a new election to measure public opinion. In some of the small states like Saxony, Baden, and the Palatinate, the people broke out in violent demonstrations in favor of the constitution, but i Lesser German states The Frankfort Parliament _ wt acta ne en an oak ee ee ean aoe ye a = ret ree aEFaslure of liberalism and unification gee ene ee = =: CSP St wf ar DASE is Oe Austria 90 ns . nee RTT TTT 202 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XI Prussian troops suppressed them. When the Convention censored Prussia for arbitrary acts, she withdrew her delegates. Other states then followed Prussia’s example. The remaining 105 radicals re- moved the Convention to Stuttgart and voted 5,000,000 thalers to finance a revolution. At last, on June 18, 1849, the king of Wiirttem- berg ordered his troops to disperse this remnant of the Convention. After thirteen months of vain effort, the Convention had done little more than to make it easier for the next generation, under Prussian leadership, to realize the dream of national unity. Reaction set in once more over all Germany. By 1850 the old authorities were again in control, most of the reforms were withdrawn, and the old régime was restored. The Diet resumed its power, and the Germanic Confederation, created at the Congress of Vienna, continued under Austrian guidance. Everywhere the liberals were persecuted. Tens of thousands of republicans left Germany, and men like Carl Schurz, Franz Sigel, and Dr. Jacoby fled to the United States. 4. Ine Revotution In THE HapssurG DomINIoNs The Hapsburg dominions included Austria, Hungary, Bohemia, and a large portion of Italy. The Revolution of 1848, which swept over these regions like a forest fire, was a rather unique mixture of liberal hopes and nationalistic ambitions. The result was a condition of utter chaos in which it appeared for a time as if the Austrian Empire would fall to pieces. The Austrians, Hungarians, Slavs and Italians all wanted liberty, equality, and representative constitu- tional government, but the last three groups also demanded inde- pendence of Austrian rule. In fact, they wanted separation so much that they sacrificed the coGperation necessary to the success of a joint revolution and, consequently, in the end, lost both liberalism and nationalism. News of the uprising in France early reached Vienna, the home of Metternich, which at last became the storm center of a violent revo- lution, that caused the Empire to totter to its foundations. Politi- cally, Austria was the very embodiment of the spirit of absolutism. Economically, she lagged far behind Great Britain, France and Prussia. A few silver and gold mines were in Operation, and the mining of salt was a paying industry, but the transportation was so poor that no coal was produced until after 1830, and then only in small quantities. Agriculture, which claimed the attention of most of the people, was backward. Woolens, linens, cottons, and hard- ware were made on a small scale under the domestic system. Bohemia was famous for its fine glassware. Socially, the people complained of the continuance of serfdom, inequality, privilege, and injustice. The eight universities had only 7,000 students, and there were but seven academies and thirty high schools in the whole Empire. In the cities a middle class was just beginning to emerge. In short the despotism, ignorance, and lack of progress of Austria, as compared with the — nae ’ TUREUEUNESAE SULT AANOOU RAAT UU RRO ES eae TT aay I ait | HVEVATUTALA TEE ADE LALA DALAT TEVERO APT TETHE REVOLUTIONS OF 1848 Chap. XI] 2.03 nations of western Europe, supplied the best material for a flame of Metternich early scented danger and said: “T am an old know how to discriminate between curable and This one is fatal; here we hold on as long as we can; but I despair of the issue.’ On March 13, 1848, crowds of students and workingmen, shouting ~ Down with Metternich!’’, surrounded his house. The white-haired old prince, now past seventy, resigned his office because he had lost ‘‘the confidence of the people,” and fled in disguise to Great Britain, where he was warmly welcomed by his good friend, the duke of Wellington. All Vienna celebrated his departure. Ihe emperor promised reforms and called a Constitutional Convention. The old régime of spies, cen- sorship, and feudalism was abolished. A new constitution, modelled after that of Belgium and granted to Austria on the emperor's birth- day, April 25, was as liberal as any on the continent. But pressed too hard by the revolutionists for further changes, the feeble old emperor fled from Vienna to Innsbruck. In the emperor’s absence the Constitutional Convention, elected by universal male franchise, met on July 22 at Vienna. It represented all parts of the Empire except Hungary and was a Babel of tongues and aces. The liberals were in a majority and even the peasants had 92 delegates. Timewas fatally wasted in festivities and in idle discussion, however, instead of being devoted to the formation of an imperial constitution. Feudal dues were abolished everywhere and social equality proclaimed. The emperor was invited to return, and in August reéntered his capital. But by this time a medley of national- ‘stic revolutions had broken out in Hungary, Bohemia, Croatia, and Italy. When the imperial government ordered Austrian troops to march against the Hungarian rebels, the people of Vienna once more became violent. Barricades were built and the minister of war was hanged to a lamp-post. A second time the emperor fan away but ordered his generals to crush the Revolution. An imperial army captured the capital city of Vienna on October 31. A score of the leaders were executed, and the Austrian Revolution came to an inglorious end. The Convention was removed to Moravia, but before its work was completed, an imperial constitution was pfo- claimed, and the Convention disappeared. For some years before 1848 the Hungarians, led by the patriots Kossuth and Deak, had demanded reforms and a separation from Austria. No country in Europe was more mediaeval than Hungary. The revolt in Vienna gave the Magyars their opportunity. Ina patriotic outbreak, they demanded their own national government and an independent ministry. The old emperor was forced to grant these concessions. Kossuth and Deak were made members of the new Hungarian government. Thena diet, elected by the people, met and abolished the privileges of the nobles and the feudal dues of the peasants. Hungary was modernized and made self-governing, with revolt. practitioner, and I incurable diseases. The Constitu- tional Conven- tion Hungary MVVONUUOQQVNNINNQOQOQQQIVIOUODRE ea eal woes F 7 PP eeeh a Ee _ Se ee SWEET Portaie ta eet COT are Lees a wear 2 a) a Bohemia 204 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XI its own flag, army, money, and diplomatic agents to foreign coun- tries. Ihe new constitution, which was drawn up, granted freedom of the press and religion, and trial by jury. The only tie that bound the Hungarians to Austria was a common ruler, and even that slender thread was broken when Emperor Ferdinand abdicated on December 2, 1848, in favor of his nephew, Francis Joseph I. The situation in Hungary was complicated by the fact that under Hungarian rule were Croats, Serbs, Slovaks, and Rumanians, who also wanted their independence and complained that the new consti- tution did not give them their rights. The imperial government at Vienna encouraged these separatist movements for the purpose of weakening Hungary, and went so far as to appoint Baron Jellachich as ban, or governor, of Croatia with the expectation that he would organize the rebellious Slavs as an independent nation directly under the emperor. Encouraged in this manner, the Slavs declared their independence of Hungary, and then joined the Austrians in a war to defeat the Magyars. Incensed at these maneuvers, Hungary pro- claimed her complete independence of Austria and appointed Kossuth as president. Tsar Nicholas of Russia was induced by Austria to join her in a war against Hungary. By the fall of 1849 Hungary was defeated on the battle field and became once more a mere province of Austria. Kossuth fled to Turkey, and then proceeded to Great Britain and the United States, where he made passionate appeals for the restoration of his country. His last days were spent in Italy hoping in vain for Hungarian freedom, which he did not live to see fully realized (d. 1894). Other leaders were put to death or im- prisoned. The emperor withdrew the right of self-government, and annulled many of the reforms. For another generation Hungary felt the displeasure of the autocratic house of Hapsburg. In Bohemia, as in Hungary, there had been a nationalistic revival before 1848, but Metternich had held it firmly in hand. During the Revolution of 1848 the Bohemians petitioned the emperor for reforms including a popularly elected diet of their own, and the right to use their own language in public offices. He promised equality of rights and called an assembly to form a constitution for Bohemia. The assembly was elected, but never actually met, because meanwhile during a pan-Slavic congress held in Prague there arose a bitter con- flict between the Germans and the Czechs, which gave the Austrian military commander, General Windischgratz, whose wife was slain by the mob, an excuse for bombarding the city of Prague into sub- mission. By the end of 1849 all constitutional government in Bo- hemia ceased. The German language was again officially used in the schools and public offices. All Bohemian newspapers were suppressed. Bohemia had to wait until the World War to secure her independence. Since 1815 Italy had suffered impatiently under the Austrian yoke. Lombardo-Venetia was ruled directly from Vienna, and Austrian princes sat on the thrones of Tuscany, Lucca, Modena, and Parma. GFFATANVVONSQNITACUVUQSHVAULIUUNEGAUUIEUUUORAAUTIVESUOGANIGDAUERYAOUUDUEOUEOUAAD PON PLAUARROOCONEOOAROI UL ELAOSU TEU TORRA RCCChap. XI} THE REVOLUTIONS OF 1848 205 The hope of emancipation was kept alive by memories of the earlier revolutions; by Mazzini’s Young Italy’’ and the Carbonar1, whose membets wanted a republic; by the clericals who wished a federa- tion under the pope; and by wiser heads, who looked to Charles Albert, the liberal king of Piedmont, to create a constitutional mon- archy. News of the flight of Metternich from Vienna fired the Italians once more with the spirit of revolt — first in Milan, then all over northern and central Italy. But, unfortunately, united action was lacking. Pope Pius 1X repudiated the movement for independence. The king of Naples withdrew his troops from the north. Tuscany also deserted the national cause. Piedmont, Lombardo-Venetia, Parma, and Modena were left to carry on the struggle against Austria alone. Under the leadership of Charles Albert they made a desperate but vain stand against the fresh troops that were rushed down from Austria. Charles Albert, defeated in battle, abdicated in favor of his son, Victor Emanuel II, the future unifier and first king of modern Italy. By making a timely peace he saved his throne and also the constitution, which a decade later was adopted by the entire nation. All of the new Italian republics, which had been proclaimed, were overthrown and the Hapsburg régime restored. Mazzini, Cavour, Garibaldi, and Victor Emanuel U had learned valuable lessons for the future. The democratic Revolution of 1848 in the Austrian Empire was defeated by the various independent, national revolts. The imperial government used one against the other, and in the end defeated them all. Had the revolutionists firmly united against autocracy, the out- come might have been quite different. The constitution granted to the whole Empire and abrogated in 1851, was never really put into operation. Reaction and clericalism triumphed. Yet certain posi- tive gains came out of the movement. For one thing feudalism was abolished. Taxes were more equitably levied thereafter. The middle class and the workingmen gained more confidence in their own strength. The people came to know something of the meaning of legislative bodies and constitutions, and were better prepared for the regeneration and modernization of the Empire a generation later. Italy’s liberation was postponed only ten years. On the shaky imperial throne sat a new, vigorous, young ruler, Francis Joseph I, who had restored absolutism but was to live to see his work undone. Though he lost Italy some years later, he was able to hold together the remainder of the motley Empire, until it crumbled to pieces in 1918 under the shock of the World War, in the midst of which he himself died. 5. Tue CxHartist MOvEMENT IN GREAT BRITAIN The Great Reform Bill of 1832 satisfied the middle class, who through their power in the House of Commons were soon in control of Great Britain. But they showed little disposition to extend the Italy UYU ONOOQONOUVOQUOUOOOURLRETEATI EEG Results fi —— nani ern re ae pe ee nial bast a a‘ ee ee eee. 1 nen --— hears ae eae - a eeieinesnniniadl a British Reforms, 1500-1840 Continued discontent Ree 206 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XI benefits of political liberty to the masses of the people, who thus neglected began to develop a program of action. The legal sanction of trade-unions in 1825 had awakened a new sense of class solidarity among the working people. This stir among the wage-earners pro- duced some progressive measures. A series of factory laws were passed beginning in 1802. In 1833 slavery in the British colonies was abolished, the first grant of public money for elementary education was made, and an act was passed to regulate the hours and conditions of labor in the textile industry. The Poor Law of 1834 was a Compro- mise measure of the Whigs designed to correct some abuses of the earlier relief acts and practices without a complete adoption of a constructive policy in dealing with the poor, the needy and the aged. Relief for all able-bodied persons was abolished. A central board of three commissioners was given authority over all the more or less aristocratic local officials in the distribution of aid to those adults who were physically unfit, in the provision for the support and edu- cation of the poor children, and in ‘‘the government of the work- houses.’’ For the more efficient administration of the problem of relief, the commissioners were empowered to unite single parishes into ‘“‘unions’’ under a “‘Board of Guardians of the poor’’ elected by the local ratepayers. While this arrangement was more economi- cal and an improvement over the old system of the distribution of relief through arbitrary overseers, yet it was far from satisfactory to the common people. The aged and the poor were sent off to the prison-like workhouses. The description of the hardships of the working classes in Dickens’s Oliver Twist and Hard Times were true to life. The Poor Law of 1834 was extended to Ireland in 1836 and to Scotland in 1845. The discontented wage-earners, feeling that the Poor Law was intolerably oppressive and inadequate, inaugurated an organized protest against it. To protect their own interests, they formed organizations such as the “‘National Consolidated Trade Union,”’ which advocated an eight-hour day and a ‘‘new moral world.’’ A general strike was suggested as the best means of forcing Parlia- ment to grant workers their rights. The manufacturers answered this labor agitation by a mutual agreement to exclude all members of these workingmen’s associations from their employment, and induced the government to brand the trade-union as an ‘‘unlawful conspiracy’’ and even to condemn several of the most active labor leaders to deportation. The poorly-paid workers could not cope with the powerful government, of course, and the proposed strike failed. Intellectuals and philanthropists now took up the cause of the workers, and under their leadership the scene of combat was changed from the economic field to the political arena. At the same time discontent among the laboring classes was augmented by several years of bad harvests and a shortage of food, and by an economic depression, which shut down the factories and caused widespread HOTYOSPARATHHAAUEQCUUUNUUUUUEQASUUUUULUNUUHNENANVENECADIGEOSOUESOOULUORAGEROUUUUNEAVASUOOUUUULRSRAOAUOUETNR CLEANSE eTChap. XI] THE REVOLUTIONS OF 1848 207 unemployment. A comparatively small group centering in London started the Chartist movement in 1838. They urged a series of polit- ‘cal reforms to enable the working people to improve their lot through legislation-in a peaceable manner. In imitation of Magna Charta, the Chartists drew up the ‘People’s Charter,” written by Francis Place, which demanded universal male franchise, secret ballot, equal one-man districts for parliamentary elections, yearly parliaments, the abolition of all property qualifications for seats in the House of Commons, and salaries for all members. The ‘‘ Work- ingmen’s Parliament’” 1n London in 1839 presented a petition, signed by 1,200,000 names, to Parliament asking for the enactment of the provisions of the ‘‘Charter’’ into law, but it was not even dis- cussed in the House of Commons. Clubs, newspapers, and mass- meetings continued the agitation throughout the nation. A second petition with 3,000,000 names, many of them unfortunately “faked,” was presented in 1842 but had no better success. After the repeal of the Corn Laws and the extension of free trade, accompanied by a decline in the cost of living and a revival of employment, the agita- tion subsided somewhat. The Revolution of 1848 in France almost precipitated a revolution across the English Channel. That winter happened to be one of great suffering among the working people. The 500 Chartist societies with 50,ooo0 members became intensively active. Huge gatherings were held in all the industrial centers and in the large cities. The labor world was tremendously stirred. An enormous Peoples's Par- liament of 500,000 people was called to meet in London on April ro to present to Parliament a third petition signed, it was said, by neatly 6,000,000 names. Never had the whole nation been more excited, or alarmed. Wellington forbade the proposed procession, and stationed 170,000 special constables from the middle class throughout London to keep the peace. But the expected half million dwindled to 50,000. Falling into the hands of incompetent and indiscreet leaders, the movement was discredited. The monster peti- tion, which filled six carriages, was duly presented to Parliament, and was found to contain such fictitious names as “ Pug Nose ™ and “Wellington’’ added to swell the number. Although nothing was done by Parliament, yet revolution did not result as on the conti- nent. The British people move slowly towards reforms, and are not easily stampeded into hasty action. The objects of the Chartist movement were gradually achieved in the advances made towards a democracy in the years to follow. After 1848 trade-unions and coéperative societies occupied the minds of the lower classes. 6. Errecrs or THE REVOLUTION oF 1848 IN OTHER COUNTRIES There was scarcely a civilized country in the world that was not affected in some way by the Revolution of 1848. King William Il of Holland was forced to name a commission to revise the Dutch wOaee ae aa The Chartist movenient Chartist agitation TECEARDUADADRUOOUDEROUEO OLDias a en eel ee er aes and ae : Sania ea te cppenee RAE nd oe ee TaePer at totale eS cae a Oe Patan eer ae wage TE Or rar Holland Switzerland Denmark Spain Poland Ireland MT TPL i | li MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XI constitution, which changed the government from an autocracy toa limited monarchy. The States General was called to adopt it and in November it was promulgated. The crown was made hereditary in both the male and female branches of the house of Orange. The upper house was chosen by the provinces and not by the monarch: the lower house was elected by the direct vote of the taxpayers. The ministry was made responsible to the parliament for the king's acts. Freedom of worship was guaranteed, and primary education was placed under state control. Provinces and communes had their local rights guaranteed. With this constitution, Holland became a modern, constitutional state, which has continued with few changes to the present time. In Belgium the number of voters was greatly increased by a reduction of the property qualification for voting. Modern Switzerland, like Holland, dates from 1848, and its crea- tion was instigated by the Revolution in France. The federal consti- tution of that year, modelled after that of the United States in many respects, still endures. In the central legislature, the Council of State has two members from each sovereign canton, while the National Council is elected by universal manhood suffrage. The executive consists of the Federal Council of seven members chosen for three years by the legislature, and one of them is selected as president. The year 1848 was followed in Switzerland by an era of rematkable prosperity. A new constitution was secured in Denmark in 1849, which forced the king to share his political power with the legislature of two houses. Although the revolutionary fire had burned out in Spain in the earlier uprisings, yet agitation forced some liberal changes to be made in the constitution in 1855. The movement in Poland did not gather sufficient momentum for an outbreak until 1863. In Russia the Crimean War diverted the attention of the people away from the Revolution in western and central Europe. A revolu- tionary wave could not roll across the continent without touching Ireland. A rebellion broke out there in 1848, but it was poorly or- ganized and easily suppressed. In the United States the European struggles for freedom led to an increase in the agitation for the sup- pression of Negro slavery and for further social and humanitarian legislation. ) The Revolution of 1848, which raged across Europe like a hurri- cane, incited no less than fifteen separate revolts. More than half the monarchs were either deposed or compelled to grant reforms. France, Prussia, Piedmont, Holland, Denmark, and Switzerland re- ceived new constitutions. The reform movements in Great Britain and in central Europe were thwarted by the forces of conservatism. Thousands of liberals were forced to flee from the latter to freer countries. Still there were permanent gains for liberalism and nationalism in nearly every land. The middle class gained more power, and although the peasants and workingmen secured few political concessions, nevertheless, their economic position was bet- TTT TTT STChap. XT] THE REVOLUTIONS OF 1848 209 tered in many places. Henceforth absolutism, where it still survived, was usually on the defensive. REFERENCES FOR FURTHER STUDY Tue PoxitricaAL REVOLUTIONS 1. France J. Jaures, Histozre socialiste, Vol. VII, La restauration, by R. Viviani (1906); Vol. VIII, La régne de Louis Philippe, by J. E. Fourniére (1906); Vol. IX, La république de 1848, by G. Renard; G. Wet, La France sous la monarchie Constitutionelle, new edition (1912); Histoire du parti républicain en France de 1814 2 1870 (1900); P. Taurzau-Dancin, Histoire de la monarchie de juillet, 2d edition, 7 vols. (1888-1892); L. Branc, Histoire des dix ans, 1830-1840, English translation, 2 vols. (1844-1845); J. Tcuernorr, Le partz républicain sous la monarchie de juillet; formation et tvolution de la doctrine républicaine (1901); L. von Srein, Geschichte der soxialen Bewegung in Frankreich, 3 vols. (1850); O. Fesry, Le mouve- ment ouvrier au debut de la monarchie de juillet, 2 vols. (1908); A. Biangut, Des classes ouvrieres en France pendant l’ année 1848, 2 vols. (1849); A. Cremizux, La révolution de fev- rier: ttude critique sur les journtes de 21, 22, 23 et 24 fevrzer, 1848 (1912); J. A. R. Marriort, editor, The Revolution of 1848 im tts Economic Aspects, 2 vols. (1913); P. pg La Gorcg, Histoire de la seconde république francaise, 7th edition, 2 vols. (1914); C. Mazave, Thrers, (1884); A. Barpoux, Guizot (1894); H. R. Wurrenouse, The Life of Lamartine, 2 vols. (1918). 2. England W._N. Moteswortn, The History of England, 1830-1874, 3 vols. (1874); J. McCartTxy, The Epoch of Reform, 1830-1850 (1897); J. R. Rosz, The Rise and Growth of Democracy in Great Britain (1898); Sir SPENSER Warpote, History of England since 1815, © vols. (revised edition, 1902-1905); G. C. Bropricx and J. FoTHERINGHAM, Political His- tory of England, 1801-1837 (1906); S. Low and L. C. Sanpers, Political History of Eng- land, 1837-1901 (1907); J. A. R. Marriorr, England since Waterloo (1913); G. Statzr, The Making of Modern England (new edition, 1915); G. M. TREVELYAN, British History in the Nineteenth Century, (1782-1901), (1922); W. J. AMHERST, The History of Catholic Eman- cipation, 1771-1820, 2 vols. (1886); B. Warp, The Sequel to Catholic Emancipation, 1830- 1850, 2 vols.; Sir T. E. May, Constitutional History of England since the Accession of George III, Edited and continued by F. Holland, 3 vols. (1912); J. R. M. Butuer, The Passing of the Great Reform Bill (1914); Sir G. NicHo.ts, A History of the English Poor Law, new edi- tion (1898), 2 vols., Vol. II by T. Mackay (1899); S. and B. Wess, English Local Govern- ment, 1688-1835, 3, vols. (1906); B. L. Hurcains and A. Harrison, A History of Factory Legislation (1904, 191 1); B. H. Horzanp, The Fall of Protection, 1840-1850 (1913); R.G. Gammace, History of Chartism (1854, 1894); E. DoLtzans, Le chartisme, r vols. (1913); P. W. Srosson, The Decline of the Chartist Movement (1917); M. Hove tt, The Chartist Movement (1918); Sir L. StepHEn, The English Utilttarians (1900); A. V. Dicey, Lectures on the Relation between Law and Public Opinion in England during the Nineteenth Century (2d edition, 1914); W. L. Davipson, Political Thought in England: the Utilitarians from Bentham to J. S. Mill (ag15); Sir G. O. TREVELYAN, The Life and Letters of Lord Macaulay, 2 vols. (1876); S. Watpoxe, Life of Lord John Russell, 2 vols. (1879); J. Moruey, Lefe of Richard Cobden (1881); G. Wattas, Life of Francis Place (1898); Earl of RosEpery, Sir Robert Peel (1899); Sir H. Maxwexi, The Life of Wellington, 2 vols. @d edition 1900); GIBBINS, English Social Reformers (1902); C. M. ATKINSON, Life of Jeremy Bentham (1905); G. M. Trevetyan, The Life of John Bright (1913); Lord Grey of the Reform Bill (1920). 3. Germany and Austria-Hungary H. von Treitscuxe, Deutsche Geschichte im neunzehnten Jahrhundert, 5 vols. (1890- 1896), English translation (1915); A. W. Warp, Germany, 1815-1870, 3 vols. (1916-1919); C. E. Maurice, The Revolutionary Movement of 1848-1849 in Italy, Austria-Hungary, and Germany (1887); K. Marx, Revolution and Counter Revolution, or, Germany in 1545, edited HEtitt THALUARRADRRGUAUERO ROLE "i f “wat SE SNe ooh ta Sa ae ae= nO Ee ee ae Se aa rae Utetads tT carter ne outa Led eee et eat ATE 210 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. by E. M. Aveling (1896); H. Bum, Dée deutsche Revolution, 18 48-1849 (1897); P. Marrer, La Prusse et la révolution de 1548 \ 1903); G. Lu pERS, D te democratische Bewegung in Beles im Oktober 1848 (1909); F. Bancrorr and W. A. DuNNING, The Reminiscences of Carl Schurz, 2 vols. (1907); H. Friedjung, Oesterreich von 1848 bis 1860, 2 vols. (1908-1912); J. A. Hevrert, Die Ocesterreichische Revolution, 4 herdic 1869-1889), (Enc. Brit.); C. M. KNATCHBULL-HuGEssEN, The Political Evolution of the Hungarian Nation, 2 vols. (1908); C. Sproxton, Palmerston and the Hungarian Revolution (1919). 4. Spain, Latin America and the United States G. Hussarp, Histoire contemporaine de 1’ Espagne, 6 vols. (1869-1883); C. E. Crap- MAN, A History of Spain (1919); B. Mitre, The Emancipation of South America (1893); i ZAG LAWSON, The Relation of British Policy to the Declaration of the Monroe Doctrine (1922); W. S. Ropertson, The Rise of the Spanish American Republics; History of the Latin American Nations 1922. - W. F. Reppaway, The Monroe Doctrine ( 1898, 1906); J. H. Larang, The United States and Latin America (1920); F. J. Turner, The Rise of the New West (1906); W.Macponarp, Jacksonian Democracy (1906); E. CHANNING, His- tory of the United States, Vol. V (1920); J. R. Commons, History of Labour in the United States, 2 vols. 1910 ~~ | —, ~~ a ‘So W. R. Tuayer, Dawn of Italian Independence, 2 vols. (1893); W.J. Stituman, The Union of Italy, 1815-1895 (1898); G. Pepe, Héstoire des révolutions et des guerres d' Italie 1847-1849 (1850); L. C. Farini, The Roman State, from 1815 to 1850, English fanelation by W. E. Gladstone, 4 vols. (1851-1854); A. PouGegois, Histoire de Pie LX et de son pontificat, 6 vols. ae R.M Jounston, [he Roman Theocracy and the Republic 1846-1849 (1go1); G. M. Trevetyan, Gartbaldi's Defense of the Roman Republic (x907); Manin and the Spe toae Re public (1923); Boxron Kine, Joseph Mazzini (1902); H.R. Wairtenouse, The Collapse of the Kingdom of Naples (1899). 6. Holland, Belgium and Switzerland P. J. Brox, Hiéstory of the People of the Netherlands, English translation by Ruth Put- nam and others, 5 vols. (1898-1912); H. W. Van Loon, The Rise of the Dutch Kingdom, 1795-1813 (1915); R. C. K. Ensor, Belgium (1915); L. vAN DER Essen, A Short History of Belgium (1916); P. Serpper, La Suisse au dixneuvitme siecle, 3 vols. (1899-1903); W. D. McCracken, Rise of the Swiss Republic (2d edition, 1901); W. Oxcnsii, Geschichte der Schweiz im meee ebaten WV abrlaades (1903-1913); Huzstory of Switzerland, 1499-1914, Eng- lish translation by E. and A. Paul (1922). 7. Poland and the Balkans T. ScureMANnNn, Geschichte Russlands unter Kaiser Nikolaus I, 4 vols. (1904-1919); W.A. Puiturps, Poland (1915); E. H. Lewinsxi-Corwin, The Political History of Poland (1917); W. Mitugr, The Ottoman Empire, 1801-1913 (1913), new. edition, 1922; F. ScueviLt, The History of the Balkan Peninsula from the Earliest Times to the Present Day (1922); L. Serceant, Greece in the Nineteenth Century (1897); W. Mirrer, Héstory of Greece in the Nineteenth Century (1920); G. Finuay, Héstory of the Greek Revolution (1877); W. A. Puivurps, The Greek War of Independence (1897) ); R. W. Seron-Watson, The Rise of Nationality in the Balkans (1917); H. W. V. Temperuey, History of Serbia (1917). ST TTT TTT TTT TET PTEMTTTTTTTTTTUCUUNTUOUIN Iam — | — CHAPTER XII POLITICAL AND SOCIAL TRENDS AND ACHIEVEMENTS TO _ 1850 I. THE LEADING ForcEs AND ASPIRATIONS Amonc the most important results of the revolutions in science, technology, politics and society in the century from 1750 to 1850 were the growing ascendency of the middle class, which gradually triumphed over the old agrarian aristocracy, and the slow rise of the industrial proletariat which came to challenge the dominion of the business Classes or capitalists. It was natural that both of these classes should turn to the state and political action to advance their interests. The capitalists were most successful in the earlier phases of this proc- ess. They first demanded written constitutions, so that political institutions might be made more certain and permanent, industry and commerce protected against arbitrary invasion and confiscation by absolute monarchs, and the right of property made absolute and secure against the envious desires and aspirations of the lower classes. They were in large part successful insecuring such constitutions, which in most cases embodied the ideals of the propertied and business groups. Once governments were established in accordance with these concepts, the middle class proceeded to abolish the older legislation which restricted the freedom of business enterprise, and then vigot- ously opposed any positive legislation designed to better the lot of the workers. No sooner was constitutional and parliamentary government established than the proletariat also saw in this an opportunity to improve their status and conditions. They began to agitate for laws which would improve conditions of labor in factories, shorten the working-day, provide insurance against sickness, accidents and other incidents of industrial life, and give the workers ever greater part and power in public affairs. In many cases the landlords, par- tially out of hatred for the business classes, joined the proletariat in this struggle for social and economic justice. In England it was primarily the landlords, led by Lord Ashley, who put through the first great series of laws regulating labor in factories and mines. Some of the more radical of the proletarians became convinced that the contest for their rights and interests could never be carried on effectively within the restraints imposed by a state dominated by the capitalist or landlord classes. Hence, they demanded through socialism a political order controlled solely by the workers, or in 2ILae a ha TS en ee Pe eras een a Ee i TT a rt aa i ide Origins of modern constitutions Written constitutions in America ay MODERN WORLD HISTORY (Chap. XII anarchism sought proletarian supremacy in a non-political, codpera- tive commonwealth. 2. AN ERA oF CONSTITUTION-MAKING One cannot study the history of the civilized world for the period of seventy years from the American Revolution to the Revolution of 1848, without being impressed with the fact that it was preéminently an era of written constitutions. These constitutions reflected the spirit of the age, and every popular upheaval had a constitution as a part of its program. Lord Morley said on one occasion that over 300 constitutions had been created between 1800 and 1880 in Europe alone but that their value depended upon “‘the forces behind them.”’ So it was that the more democratic constitutions came from the hearts of the people, while others, granted by despotic rulers, like that of Prussia, meant little more than stingy concessions to stop the cry for greater reforms. By 1850 there was not a single state in the Old World, except Russia and Turkey, and none in the New World, in which a constitution had not either been granted or considered. In the long conflict of the people with autocratic rule the constitution stood as a landmark of victory in political and social progress. In public opinion it was both a safeguard against governmental tyranny and a guarantee of the protection of the people in their rights. Eng- land was the first nation in the modern world to develop a consti- tution, and her example was followed not alone in the English- speaking colonies but also in other enlightened states. In a period like the eighteenth century, when people everywhere felt the strong hand of political despotism, it seemed to be an absolute necessity that there should be written down in a fundamental document those sacred “rights of man’’ to which people clung so tenaciously. The first example of a written constitution in the eighteenth cen- tury came from the New World. About two months before the Decla- ration of Independence, the Continental Congress advised the colonies to create new governments. Within a year seven states drew up new constitutions — two of them, Virginia and New Jersey, before July 4, 1776. Connecticut and Rhode Island continued to use their old char- ters. The Constitution of Massachusetts, in 1780, was the first one in the world submitted to the people for ratification. These constitu- tions merely adapted the old political machinery of the colonial period to new needs, and included the rights for which the people were fight- ing England. They formed the basis for the federal constitution of 1787, and were widely known in France and Latin America. The Articles of Confederation served as a model for other nations where state jeal- Ousies prevented strong central governments. The federal constitu- tion of 1787, born of compromise and ratified with difficulty by the suspicious commonwealths, is the oldest written national constitu- tion on earth. It has served the needs of a growing nation and, with a few amendments, has survived the shocks of wars and panics. It «soe eauava4aq UNOU4C Ty CQGQQT TY UTCQTUTTTTVOGNATTTUGOIRATETTONUTERTUTENBNVTITTOQUANYTETOQARITT TONRATIYTUTBNANTHHUTBNY HV EACGSSID EST EOUAN LOSER ELEC ETAL CEE TTT Te ee ee etChap. XII] POLITICAL AND SOCIAL TRENDS TO 1850 213 has been copied or imitated in the New World and the Old. Under it has been developed one of the greatest democratic republics on the globe. In the Old-World the British constitutional government, with authority limited by law and controlled by public opinion, stood forth as a unique exception to what was found on the continent, where absolute types of government generally prevailed. The British constitution is not a written document drawn up at a Certain time, like that of the United States. It has grown up through the centuries out of the political thought and experience of the nation. feus.a © living! thing)’ +2the “child of wisdom and chance’ — which meets the needs of Englishmen. It is partly written and partly practice and custom. The British Parliament is the oldest legislative body in existence. In theory, at least, the House of Commons may change the constitution at will. The American constitutions were deeply indebted to the British model, as of course was natural. While the nations of the world have copied many features of the written constitution of the United States, still the influence of British political institutions has been strongly felt in nearly every democratic state. The most important constitutional changes in Great Britain in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries have had to do with the right to vote and the curtailment of the power of the House of Lords. The Reform Bill of 1832 extended the franchise to the wealthier middle class. The Municipal Reform Act of 1835 gave 2,000,000 more men the right to vote for town councillors. Later acts gradually widened the privilege of voting, as in tne United States, until the ballot finally was put into the hands of all men and women. And these modifica- tions were made without violent upheavals. Lord Durham's ‘Magna Charta of the colonies,’’ recommending home rule for English-speak- ing dependencies, was successfully applied to Canada 1n 1847 and later to other white colonies in the Empire. In recent years the ten- dency in Great Britain has been to increase the power of the prime minister, and to decrease the authority of the upper house. Greatly influenced by both England and the United States, the French National Assembly issued the famous Declaration of the Rights of Man in 1791 and transformed the government from an absolute to a constitutional monarchy. During the sixty years fol- lowing the Revolution of 1789, no less than eight constitutions were made in France. Those of 1791, 1814, and 1830 established limited monarchies. The two Napoleons set up 4 despotism under the screen of constitutional democracy. The constitutions of 1793, 1795 and 1848 created republics. That of 1793 was the most extreme example of democracy, but never went into effect. That of 1848 added to the rights of man, the rights of nations, and the rights of the laborer. Each of these documents 1s of great historical significance as a guidepost on the path of French political progress. On the con- tinent France became the pioneer in political liberty and constitu- TUTTVTUTUTTVTATNTUTTATGTOLOGUOUAVOVOUOANOUH) Ub ives) The constitutions of England French constitutions = ee bt Pa a aom ainsi ee ee = ~ a nn ee — — es on = - _ _ _ ee eee ee eee a Ca leita SRS TE eG ERT = - Fe ee eg re a a = salience smh Constitutions in other Latin Countrri¢cs Central and castern Euro pe 214 MODERN WORLD HISTORY (Chap. XII tional government. Her laws and civic institutions were copied more or less in all the other countries. Since she was in close touch with Latin America, her influence was also felt in the creation of the young republics that sprang up there. In Spain and Portugal the Spanish constitution of 1812, based on that of 1791 in France, laid the foundations for whatever of consti- tutional government developed. This famous constitution was more liberal in its fundamental ideas than either that of the United States in 1787 or that of France in1791. Ina preamble the ancient ‘‘ funda- mental laws’’ of Spain are enumerated. Then follows the assertion that ‘Sovereignty is vested essentially in the nation, which has the exclusive right to make laws.’’ The legislature consisted of one house called the Cortes, chosen every two years by the indirect vote of all men. The executive was nominally a king, who had a suspensive veto over the laws passed by the Cortes, but actually Spain was administered by a ministry. Political liberty and legal equality were guaranteed. The courts, the army, taxation, and education were modernized. Ample provision was made for liberal local self-government. Although the Roman Catholic Church was declared to be the ‘ only true Church’’ of the Spanish nation, still the property of the church was secularized and the Inquisition was suppressed. This document was the creation of Spaniards imbued with the ideas of the French Revolution and they hoped that it would entirely discard the old regime. With every upheaval in Spain, as in 1820 and 1834, some form of the constitution of 1812 was adopted. Portugal was affected in like manner, although the constitution of 1852 was influenced by the British model. Latin America was especially affected by the constitution of 1812 in forming republican governments. In Italy, likewise, in the various revolts from 1820 to 1848, the people clamored for its adoption. When Charles Albert of Piedmont granted his state a comstitution, which later became the fundamental law of the united kingdom of Italy, he incorporated into it many features of the Span- ish instrument. The same thing was true of the constitution of the new Greece. In short, all the countries of southern Europe were influenced in their political growth more or less by the Spanish con- stitution of 1812. A notable exception was Sicily, whose constitu- tion in 1812 was the first on the continent to be modelled after that of Great Britain, but it survived only two years. In central and eastern Europe, where autocracy was still en- throned, the written constitution played a less significant role. The constitution formed in 1814 at the Congress of Vienna for the Ger- manic Confederation was designed to safeguard the right of the princes and not the German people. It lasted until 1867, although it was almost discarded in 1848. Loosely speaking, it resembled the American Articles of Confederation. During the revolutionary waves of 1830, and 1848, some of the lesser German rulers gave their people constitutions, but most of them were only temporary, disap- HVNAVVVEEQCUUVOUUEUUTHHRUOGHOUULLUEEUCLUUHOMAAGUUERRESLLUUCLLAAAA REALEwae ‘eheeeees Chap. XII] POLITICAL AND SOCIAL TRENDS TO 1850 215 pearing in waves of reaction. In Prussia, Frederick William Il romised to gtant a constitution, but he never did so. Huis son, Frederick William IV, boasted that he never would allow ‘*4 blotted parchment’ to come between ‘‘God Almighty in heaven and this land.’ Yet the Revolution of 1848 forced him to call a constitutional convention which drew up a modern constitution. The king re- jected it, but in 1850 he himself proclaimed a constitution that left no -ooin for the intrusion of democracy and that continued down to the close of the World War. Austria under Metternich was almost untouched by any move for a constitution, except in Italy, until the Revolution of 1848 produced several constitutions. The imperial constitution formed by a popular convention was never put into operation. That granted by Emperor Francis I for the whole empire was almost immediately withdrawn. The movement for a national constitution in Bohemia never materialized. The Hungarians, after declaring their independence of Austria, drew up a model constitu- tion, but it disappeared before the victorious Austrian troops aided by Russia. After 1850 all of the Austrian Empire was more com- pletely under the autocratic sway of the Hapsburg house than before. Before coming under the influence of Metternich, Tsar Alexander I of Russia had a vision of constitutional government for his Empire, but it vanished completely after 1820. The constitution which he granted to Poland was lost in the unsuccessful revolt in 1830. In the small states bordering on France and Germany, permanent constitutions of a more or less democratic character were secured during the upheavals in 1830 and 1848. Belgium secured hers in 1831 through a national congress. The Dutch formed a constitution in 1848. The British constitution served as a guide for both these countries. In 1348 Switzerland established a federal republic with a constitution like that of the United States. Denmark entered the list of constitutional states in 1849. Riots in the streets of Stockholm, Sweden, caused the king to propose parliamentary reforms, but the old-fashioned Riksdag refused to vote them and the matter dropped. Between 1776 and 1850 well on towards a hundred written con- stitutions were created throughout the world. For the most part they represented political victories won by the people for democracy and nationality. Many of them stood as protests against the oppres- sion of a motherland, such as the new American states against Great Britain, Spain, and Portugal. Others embodied hostility to control by other lands, as Belgium against Holland, Greece against Turkey, and Italy and Hungary against Austria. Some stood as revolts against tyrannical rulers as in France, Spain, Germany, and Austria. Others incorporated internal demands for reform asin Switzerland and Holland. Taking these documents as a whole, they measure the decline of absolutism and mark the progress of the world in liberty and equality. France formulated more constitutions during this period than any other nation, but none of them endured for a very MUVTTTVTTVTTOTTUTTAUEVATRURADULAOEIT Poo | SES aee. i} Pak a / J —- " 1 Varieties of these constitutions 2a ’a > — 2 =: aa meet ane a f } Arétrti JUL &dee }:} } 42007 AL1SI72 Nature of Uto pzan So0cia Li S772 1 216 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XII long time. Many of these fundamental laws were merely temporaty and represented a transitional phase of history. None of them have lasted to the present time without any modifications, and not more than half a dozen even with modifications have endured to our day. Wherever democratic institutions have been most advanced and hence most stable, as in Great Britain and in the United States, the fewest constitutional changes have occurred. 3. THE Germs or SOCIALISM Socialism, in various forms, was another force that appeared in the world before 1850 as a foe not only of the evils inherited from the old régime, but also of the abuses of middle-class rule under the new régime of constitutional government. The roots of socialism ran back at least to the American Revolution and the French Revolution of 1789, which had given an impetus to all sorts of schemes for recon- structing society. It was asserted that society as it was organized after the overthrow of Bourbon absolutism denied to the poor both justice and the right of economic existence. As early as 1794 Noél Babeuf said: “‘When I see the poor without the clothing and shoes, which they themselves are engaged in making, and contemplate the small minority who do not work and yet want for nothing, I am convinced that government is still the old conspiracy of the few against the many, only it takes a new form.’’ Hence he advocated the compulsory nationalization of wealth, social equality, and the abolli- tion of poverty. This was to be brought about gradually by the state s assumption of all property on the death of the owners. His newspaper and the popular songs he wrote spread his ideas far and wide. Reports of an uprising against the Directory led to his arrest in 1796 and to his execution the next year. To him has been applied the term ‘Father of French socialism.’’ 4. Tse “Utopian SoctrA.ists’’ The word “‘socialist’’ was probably used for the first time by Robert Owen in 1835 in a newspaper letter in Great Britain. It quickly sprang into popularity with a certain group of reformers, and by 1838 had spread to France. With idealists like Saint-Simon, Owen, and Fourier “‘Utopian Socialism,’’ named after Sir Thomas More’s Utopia, began to attract attention. These men advocated the forma- tion of social groups, who should live together in common some- what like a large family. Profit-sharing enterprises, and codpera- tive industries and stores, are modern survivals of this idea. The scheme did not wholly succeed, and later socialists were rather dis- posed to disclaim it. Since that day socialism has become a factor of world-wide significance, and it will prove advantageous io under- stand the ideas of these pioneers. One of the earliest Utopians was Henri Saint-Simon (1760-1825), a wealthy, well-educated French nobleman, who fought for the free- Se ee ee si HgeReNeeae aun i iy nth if Hii} Freee TTT TTT ee ee eae ar TRILL aChap. XII} POLITICAL AND SOCIAL TRENDS TO 1850 217 dom of America under Washington. He took no active part in the French Revolution, although he was probably in sympathy with the moderate party. During the Terror he was imprisoned, and later through land speculation he accumulated a fortune. His interest in social experiments cost him his fortune so that by 1800 at the age of forty he was in want and glad to accept a place paying him $200 a year, froma former valet, and a small allowance from his family. In 1817 he began to write books setting forth his socialistic ideas. Per- haps the most important of his writings was The New Christianity, which was left unfinished at his death. He insisted upon a reorgani- vation of society for the emancipation of the masses of the poor people. The social system — the golden age of humanity ’ — which he urged, would have created a common ownership in all land and capital and hence would have abolished individual owner- ship and the practice of inheritance. This change was to be accom- lished not by a violent revolution but by a scientifically managed ‘ndustrial state. Consequently, he appealed to Louis XVIII to start a new eta in which men of science and the industrial leaders should advise on national policies in both politics and industry. ‘From each according to his capacity and to each according to his need” was his slogan. He was a thinker rather than a practical leader, and had only a few followers, whose devotion to his ideas laid the foun- dations for modern French socialism. Another Frenchman, Fourier (1772-1837), of the bourgeois class, the son of a cloth merchant, who served in the revolutionary army, worked out a plan for a new society in which all would live in harmony.’’ The people were to be divided into small industrial communities, called phalanges, ot around 1800 persons each. Of the earnings of the group, after each citizen received a fixed sum, labor was to receive five parts of the remainder, capital four, and talent three. The members were to live and work in common — free, happy, and peacefully. During the last ten years of his life, it 1s said that he waited daily in his home at noon for the coming of some rich person, who would carry out his plan. He had a few readers and disciples in France and elsewhere. An experimental community was set up in 1832 near Versailles but ‘t soon failed. Another at Guise still exists. After his death, a phalange was planted in America in the Brook Farm Colony in Massachusetts, and thirty-three others were at- tempted, but without success. Sich men as Horace Greeley, Charles A. Dana, and Nathaniel Hawthorne were interested in the experiment. The founder of British socialism was Robert Owen (1771-1859)- By his own ability and a fortunate marriage, he became manager an part-owner of some cotton mills at New Lanark, Scotland. There he built up a model community, where good wages were paid, factory conditions were improved, homes were erected for the workers, schools were organized for the children, and a common store was opened to sell goods to the people at cost. All profits beyond 5 per eé MVOVVTTTCNTITUGTATOQUAIUQUIUONINULUANUN]) oben Henri de Saint-Simon Charles Fourier Robert Owen = . —— Ce sora en aa ee alee ae a ee _———— 5 r———— woe = nr SS ————————— cet pe een a = See — ~—<~ SETA re ae me i Christian socialism 218 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XII cent went to improve the community. This experiment, which was based on a careful study of the prevailing evils of the factory system, won Owen great fame as a social reformer. For thirty years in New Lanark there was no crime, no poverty, no drunkenness, and no te- ligious bigotry. “‘ We reduced the hours of labor,’’ Owen said, ‘‘edu- cated all the children from infancy, greatly improved the condition of the adults, diminished their daily labor, paid interest on capital, and cleared upwards of $1,500,000.’ He devoted his life and his fortune to the cause of social betterment, and hoped, in the first place, to organize these communities everywhere and then to unite them into a world republic. In 1825 he went to the United States and at New Harmony, Indiana, with his own means established a colony, which proved unsuccessful. In 1828 he settled in London to spend the rest of his days advocating his peculiar socialistic views. To him is usually given the credit of coining the word ‘‘socialism.’’ One of the results of his work was the establishment of cooperative societies among the workers of Great Britain and her colonies, and elsewhere in the world. Although the Utopian Socialists had comparatively little influ- ence on the wage-earners, nevertheless their peaceful, philanthropic, and humanitarian efforts set the people to thinking about social reforms, and called the attention of observing statesmen to the need of solving the grave problems growing out of the Industrial Revolu- tion. Ihe Utopians, for the most part, opposed the belief that the state should keep its hands off all social and industrial questions and let natural laws”’ settle them. Saint-Simon wanted either the state or the church to do the reform work. Fourier ignored the state and desired each community to manage its own affairs. Owen had the same idea, but remained on friendly terms with the British rulers. With the decline of ‘‘Owenism’’ in Great Britain, the Christian socialists,’’ led by men like Charles Kingsley, flourished for several years. Kingsley’s novels explained the evils of the com- petitive industrial system and maintained that socialism, rightly understood, was only Christianity applied to social reform. All these men were looked upon as dreamers and fanatics. Their ideas failed and were repudiated for the reason that they were regarded as an attack on Christianity, the sanctity of family life, and the sacred freedom of business. Not many years passed by before the germs of Utopianism reappeared in the new theories of communism and, later, in scientific socialism, which was to find millions of ardent adherents all around the globe. ~ 5. Louis BLanc AND FrENcH SocIALISM France, it must be remembered, after the Revolution of 1830, like Great Britain after the Reform Bill of 1832, and other countries as well, was in the hands of the powerful middle class. The exclusion of the proletariat from political power led to a sharp breach between an sal = j 5 | } vn Reeaae: i | | 'Chap. XII} POLITICAL AND SOCIAL TRENDS TO 1850 219 the two classes that had united in opposition to the evils of the old régime, and to the autocracy of the conservative system of control advocated by Metternich and his royal friends. The bourgeorsve, swept ‘nto authority under Louis Philippe, became conservative; the labor- ing Classes, deprived of the franchise which might have been used to right their wrongs, became revolutionary. Saint-Simon and Fourier had won followers among the educated; the new socialism made its appeal directly to the wage-catners. It was Louis Blanc (1811-1882) who gave socialism in France a new meaning, which won the workers. Born in Spain of French parents, he studied law in Paris, established a journal called The Review of Progress, and began a study of the labor problem. Con- vinced that the competitive system of industry sacrificed the weaker members of society, he demanded the equalization of wages, and the organization of © social workshops’’ in which the workmen of each branch of industry should share in the profits. His book on The Organization of Labor, in 1839, captivated the working people. He said that political reforms were simply a means of securing social changes, hence he wanted the workers to gain control of the govern- ment, the courts, and the army so as to be able to use them to fevo- lutionize industry and society. He advocated a democratic state that would act as ‘‘the banker of the poor’ by replacing private industries with national workshops. After the state had successfully organized these workshops out of national funds and under national officials, the workers would gradually take them over, choose their own officers, develop the ‘industries, and divide the earnings. Pri- vate capital, invited to invest in these enterprises, would be assured a fair rate of interest until the collective capital accumulated out of the business could replace it. At first wages were to be paid accord- ing to ability, but as education improved men, wages would become equal. Blanc’s scheme appealed to the workers as a gospel of a new age. Tens of thousands of recruits in the large industrial centers soon began to talk about the ‘‘right to vote,’ the ‘right to work’’ and the ‘crime of private property’ in revolutionary tones. Blanc, on the contrary, was moderate both in the reforms suggested and in the means of realizing them. Changes should come, he said, not through violence, but through the ballot in the hands of the people. When the Revolution of 1848 established universal male franchise and the new government declared that the cause of the workers was the supreme concern, victory seemed assured. Although Blanc was given a place in the provisional government and public funds were supplied to employ idle workers, still the hour geotsze, supported by the peasants, held the upper hand and never put into operation the plan for national workshops. Indeed the socialistic movement was soon discredited, and the appropriation of public money to allay unem- ployment stopped altogether. The outbreak of the disappointed TUTOTETUVUVNVTATOTAOLOTOLOGEAUAUALOLG TRO i ASE | Transition in socialist theory National workshops Louis Blanc and the Revolution of 1848TTI TTT Ferdinand Lassalle and the origins of socialism in politics 220 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XII workingmen in Paris was suppressed with an iron hand. Blanc fled to London in despair. When he returned to France soon after Napoleon II's deposition in 1870, he declared that he was no longer a socialist,’’ but a republican. 6. LassALLE, Marx, AND GERMAN SOCIALISM The socialist movement subsided in Great Britain and France by 1850 without leaving any visible permanent results. But it was revived in Germany by Ferdinand Lassalle, Frederick Engels, and Karl Marx. Early in the nineteenth century Fichte, the philosopher, in his pamphlet, The Closed Trading State, had advocated state regula- tion of the production and distribution of goods, but with little effect. Weitling and Rodbertus had both preached certain doctrines that were socialistic. After the Revolution of 1830 Biichner in Hesse founded the secret society called ‘‘The Rights of Man,’’ which de- manded a social revolution and addressed a pamphlet to the peasants beginning, “Peace to the cottages. War on the palaces!’’ In Paris German workmen and refugees in 1836 organized the “‘League of the Just, which soon had branch clubs in Germany, Switzerland, Great Britain and Belgium. The purpose was to study and to discuss social and economic questions. A prominent place in the membership was held by Jews, among whom were Marx and Engels. The earliest conspicuous champion of socialism in Germany was Ferdinand Lassalle (1825-1864), a college-trained, prosperous Jewish merchant. While living in Paris, he became acquainted with the socialistic movement led by Blanc. During the Revolution of 1848, he joined Engels and Marx in fomenting a social revolution in the crowded Rhine Valley. He was imprisoned for six months for resist- ing the authorities, but that experience only made him more active as a propagandist. With an income of $3,000 from a befriended widow, and an inheritance from his father, he lived in luxury himself, while he posed as the friend of the poor and aided every democratic move- ment. Like Blanc, he pleaded for universal suffrage as the medium through which the social-democracy was to be realized, and he accepted Blanc’s plan for national workshops. The state, he held, was not merely a policeman to prevent robbery and to protect property, but an instrument through which the highest welfare of humanity was to be attained. At Leipzig in 1863 he organized a “Universal German Workingmen’s Association’ and was its first president. His life wascut short bya fatal duel thenext year. Lassalle was the real founder both of German socialism as a national move- ment and of the socialist party as a great political force. Like Lassalle, Karl Marx (1818-1878) was a German Jew, whose family had accepted Christianity. In the university he studied law, but his heart was in history and philosophy. At the age of twenty- four he became editor of the Rhine Gazette through which he made a bitter attack on Prussian despotism. In 1843 he married into the = | TTT Hl iill PTT TTT TEChap. XII] POLITICAL AND SOCIAL TRENDS TO 1850 221 Prussian lower nobility, but the young couple were not destined to spend their lives in peace and plenty. Going to Paris to study French socialism, he met Engels and Heine, the poet, both his countrymen, and came into close touch with the French socialists, who quickly converted him to the cause. Exiled from one countty to another, he finally settled in London, a poverty-stricken student of world betterment, forced to support himself with his pen. Among his writings was a series of articles for the New York Tribune on topics of the day. In January, 1845, with Engels, Marx published the classic Communist Manifesto, which set forth the following revolutionary and international socialistic principles: 1. ‘‘The history of all society hitherto has been the history of class struggles.’’ One class gains wealth, and then obtains political ower by ousting another class. This process will go on until the middle class will inevitably be succeeded by the working class. Just as the middle class in the Revolution of 1789 destroyed feudal prop- erty, so the wage-earners would destroy middle-class private prop- erty, free trade, religion, and the family. >. These changes would be brought about by the confiscation of land rent; direct taxes; the abolition of inheritance; a state bank; public ownership of all means of transportation and communication; national factories and land-cultivation; compulsory labor; the redis- tribution of the people between the country and the towns; and free public education. In the new Coéperative Commonwealth, workers, both mental and physical, would receive the full value of all their labor — and hence the class struggle would disappear. This change was written in the very nature of human progress, and would come either peace- ably by law, or through force. Socialist ‘‘comrades’’ were urged to put class interests above all national interests. The workingmen of all countries should unite for the international union of peace and fraternity, and publicly proclaim their aims. “Tet the ruling classes tremble at a commu- nistic revolution. The proletariat have nothing to lose but their chains; they have a world to gain. Proletarians of all countries, unite!’ This Manifesto, it should be remembered, was drawn up in 1847 by two young Jews 1n exile, as the first expression of what might be called an international workingmen's congress held in London, and based on the ‘‘League of the Just.’’ It must be viewed as a by-product of the political upheavals raging in Europe in 1848 which resulted fom the decade of falling wages, unemployment, and degradation of the working people of Europe after the panic of 1837. It is pre- eminently a document of world history because it has “‘ made the tour of the earth,’ and has been translated into almost every known language. At the outbreak of the Revolution of 1848 in Germany, Marx WVMTTHTHTVHUVUNWINNNUIUUUQUUUOLUUQUL00000) hy Karl Marx Marxian or * sczentific socialism”’ — — aS ye Neen ree reees ag a ae re eteee PR STR om = : oes --_—_—_—— -- cere a areca pe oes S See ate ee eee ee | eileen Growth of SOCIGLLS92 Anarchism versus socialism MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XII hastened home to lend his aid. With En gels and Wolf he i ished The Rhenish Journal, a radical socialist paper. After the revolt failed, he was tried for inciting a rebellion, and exiled. In London his com- pleted socialist scheme was set forth in his book, Capital — the Bible of German social democracy’’ — in 1867. The ‘‘ International Association of Laborers’’ was organized in 1864 by an international committee of fifty members to spread socialist ideas. It soon had branches in various parts of the world, its activities were supervised by a standing council, and its work was discussed in annual con- gtesses, the first of which was held in 1866 at Geneva. From this time onward socialism spread 1 rapidly among the working classes, and socialist political parties were formed in many countries to work for the completion of the democratic revolution. The Marxians rejected the doctrine of equality, and the social order and nationalism of the middle class. They believed that it was only a matter of time until the workingmen would rule and that internationalism on class lines would prevail. They also rejected State socialism as urged by Louis Blanc and Lassalle along with middle-class democracy. Viewed historically, Marxian socialism was a revolt against those vague promises of 1789 to give political freedom to man, which instead put the middle class in power. This resulted, it was believed, in the economic vassalage of the great masses of people in the industrial states and the rise of a new class of unenfranchised laborers, who were denied both political liberty and social equality. It was the aim of Marx and his followers to complete the revolution for this uneducated and unorganized group until it became the dominant force in the state. Marx and ] his followers believed it unwise to cooperate with the capitalistic state in securing social and economic reforms, as these would only weaken the socialistic c Case against capitalistic society. The revolutionary parties before 1848, representing democracy, socialism, and communism, were small groups in the cities, ignored and scorned by the general public, and hounded to secrecy by the police. The Revolution of 1848, fomented to a considerable degree by these parties, aroused the hopes of all radicals. 7. ANARCHISM The term “‘anarchist’’ was invented by the Frenchman, Proudhon Shaan a contemporary of Blanc and Marx. Asa poor printer in Paris, he became deeply interested in the lot of the factory hands. ~ What is Property?”’ he asked in his first important book. His answer, property is theft,’’ attracted wide attention. His second work on The Philosophy of Poverty, an extreme anarchistic treatise, led Marx to reply in his Poverty of Philosophy. Proudhon wanted every man to be free and a law unto himself. ‘‘Government of man by man in every form is oppression,’’ he said. He dreamed of a society based on justice, liberty, and equality, with property enjoyed by all but UAMEQUUUSREQUUAREUULUALAPUEHUAROUASL ELLA ATL tit IEVSITEEUUAESNU ESSN PASACOUEO LEChap. XII] POLITICAL AND SOCIAL TRENDS MO ws so! 2:23 owned’? by nobody. The Golden Rule was to form the constitu- tion of the world. His ideal was a federation of voluntary groups of laborers and farmers with little political government. A Russian nobleman, Bakunin (1814-1878), educated in Germany and living in Paris, joined the radical workingmen and took part in the Revolution of 1848. The next year he was arrested in Dresden, handed over to Russia, and exiled to Siberta. Escaping to the United States, he went from there to Great Britain, and then back to the continent. Like Proudhon, he rejected all kinds of government, but unlike him, he became the apostle of terrorism and ‘‘ universal revo- lution’’ to secure the “‘liberty of man.’’ When he joined the social- ists, the Marxians expelled him in 1872. He died an exile in Switzer- land. Later advocates of anarchism have been Kropotkin and Reclus. 8. SociaL, Economic, RELIGIOUS AND EpUCATIONAL REFORMS The British government after 1815, to offset the discontent en- gendered by the forces set loose by the upheavals in the New World and the Old and by the Industrial Revolution, was induced to enact a few reforms. In 1819 Peel and Owen secured the passage of an act which excluded children under nine from working in cotton mills, and forbade the employment of children under sixteen for more than twelve hours a day. This reform grew out of an official report show- ing that children from three yeats up were working sixteen hours a day. The act of 1819 was extended in 1825 and 1831. Between 1815 and 1840 the condition of the workers in their homes and in the fac- tories was more unsatisfactory than ever before or since. The Factory Act of 1833 forbade the employment of children under ten in mills and factories and limited their working day to eight hours. No persons under eighteen could be employed at night, and such work was fe- stricted to twelve hours. In 1833 some 56,000 children were employed in 3,000 factories; and in 1838 the number was reduced to 29,000 in 4,000 mills. The hours of labor were further reduced by the acts of 1844, 1847, and 1850, and the reforms applied to other than textile ‘ndustries. The act of 1847 limited the day of women and children to ten hours. The Mines Act of 1842 forbade the employment of women in mines and collieries, and of boys under ten years of age. Barbarous criminal laws still existed in Great Britain, but in 1821 the death penalty for about one hundred petty crimes was replaced by milder punishments. In 1524 the law of 1800, which forbade workingmen to organize for their own protection through the fear of political conspiracy, was repealed. The workers were now pet- mitted by law to “‘enter into any combination to obtain an advance or to fix the rate of wages, or to lessen or alter the hours or duration of the time of working, or to decrease the quantity of work,’ or to quit work, or to induce others to do the same, without being subjected to punishment under law. At the same time employers were given PIUNNIUIUUNIIO LOU 0N 000 eo Michael Bakunin Factory condt- tions improved in England Workers per- mitted to organize aa ee —— <“s~ amr —ScEtpare ee ee —— = a . soon " a as See ar eee ees ene SSeS a eT A ES ee oe oa I Rt Tina AE ot scarica Trade-unions Other social reforms Continental Europe MMLINAUHLNUONNVUAHUVOUTEUUAUUULOUATEUIALUAU UAE AE 224 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XII full liberty to change wages, hours, and the quantity of work. But violent strikes and boycotts by the workers were forbidden under threats of imprisonment at | vard Jabor for not more than two months. There was no opportunity under this act to introduce “‘ closed shops.”’ The next year a supplementary act forbade the use of ‘‘force’’ or ‘threats’ against ‘the person or property of another.’’ In case after case the courts decided that interference by workers with the free course of oe was criminal. After 1824, however, trade-unions multiplied, and 1 Ae the “‘Grand National Consolidated Trades Union’’ Jae 500,000 members, but it was soon destroyed by an adverse attitude of fa courts. W orkers in particular industries were active in forming larger organizations after 1840. A ‘‘tradecouncil’’ was organized as early as 1848 in Liverpool, and the first “‘ Parliament of Labor’’ was held in 1868 in Manchester. Not until 1871, however, were trade-unions given a satisfactory status. The growth of trade- unionism, for a oer or more following the issuance of the Communist Manifesto, helped to undermine its doctrines among wage- earners, vition vere gaining by direct bargaining with the capitalist system one valuable concession after another. The laws against Dissenters and Catholics were repealed in 182 8- 9, but the Jews had to wait until 1858 before they secured full political rights. After the passage of the Reform Bill of 1832, a whole series of reforms was enacted. Some 750,000 black slaves in the British colo- nies were freed by the act of 1833 and the sum of $100,000,000 was paid to their owners. The Poor ie was reformed in 1834 to encour- age thrift and economy. Able-bodied paupers were set to work, and money for the poor was spent more efficiently. Boards of health promoted sanitation and prevented disease. Civil officials took over from the clergy the registration of births, marriages, and deaths. Prisons were improved, and the pillory and whipping post were discarded. The penny post came in 1840. The repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846 lowered the cost of living for the working classes. The Factory Act of 1833 required the chil Idren in the mills and factories to ‘‘attend some school,’’ and the $100,000 voted for education in that year increased gradually until in 1863 it amounted to $4,000,000. In 1844 attendance at school was made compulsory. Little attention was given to the problem of housing until 1867, although in 1864 factories were required by law to provide better ventilation. These measures Clearly show that the middle class saw the necessity of improving the lot of the working masses in their living and working conditions even if the vote was still ere them. On the continent no country by 1850 could show such a record of reforms for the general w elfare fe the common people as in Great Britain. France had made some progress, and some changes had occurred in other countries, but reaction and autocracy thwarted most efforts to aid the working classes. Such reforms as were secured came through great national upheavals, and were incorporated in new PTT TTT OTTChap. XII} POLITICAL AND SOCIAL TRENDS TO 1850 225 constitutions. In Great Britain, on the contrary, the reforms came gradually as the sense of governmental responsibility grew. But both in Great Britain and on the continent reforms came too slowly and the people, in consequence, were left in a state of chronic dis- content. The protection of French workers in the factory system was begun by a series of laws passed in 1803, 1806, 1813, 1514, 1841, and 1848. Of these the law of 1841 was the most important. In France in 1833 primary schools were established in the communes, and under Louis Philippe school attendance was stimulated. Of the 6,961 persons tried for crime in France in 1830, 1,354 of them were women, 114 were children under 16, and 1,161 between 16 and 21. Of the whole number tried, 4,319 could neither read nor write, and only 129 had a good education. The Prussian laws of 1839 and 1853 were even more enlightened and comprehensive than the similar English legislation. In Prussia, in 1819, compulsory attendance at school for children between the ages of seven and fourteen was required. An elementary school was organized in every parish, and each town had a ‘‘burger school.” A public school of commerce was instituted in 1829, there were 33 great normal schools in 1831, and 2,225,000 children were in school by 1834. A special department of education was in operation as early as 1819. Throughout Germany in 1830 there were 16,000 students in the 19 ufliversities. In the United States by 1850 a new democracy, extending from the Atlantic sea-board to the middle west had developed. The north Atlantic states, supplied with an abundance of immigrant labor, was feeling the Industrial Revolution. The northwest, with free labor, was devoted to farming, trapping, and lumbering, while the South was agricultural and witn slave labor less progressive. A strong wave of humanitarian feeling was sweeping overt the Republic. Pri- vate societies and state institutions cared for the sick, blind, deaf, dumb, insane, crippled, impoverished, and aged. New types of pris- ons, clean hospitals, well-kept poorhouses, and attractive asylums began to appear. In 1824 the first reformatory was founded in New York City. As late as 1829 it was estimated that there were 3,000 prisoners for debt in Massachusetts, 10,000 in New York, 7,000 in Pennsylvania, and 2,000 in Maryland, but between 1521 and 1845 the laws permitting debtors to be sent to prison were repealed. Temperance societies were organized about 1840 and grew rapidly in number. The numerous abolition societies and their newspapers kept alive the agitation over Negro slavery, which was soon to be settled by a civil wat. With the advance in American democracy came the awakening of labor. The introduction of the factory system created a large class of workingmen living on their wages. Pay was low and the hours were long, often about fifteen a day. In some states the workers, with others, were still taxed for religion. Child labor was abused and MTVTUVULUTHTTAVET RUA UEAUOETOLAULI UL Oboe The United States —_ x a | f ET En rm ppuapras at Oe Te Te a a Se a es aa ee - ——eEaor a ee Se ae rt on eae eer a eta his See ene ae . ¥ mre 226 MODERN WORLD HISTORY (Chap. XII children had few opportunities for schooling. ‘‘Women and children were urged on with the cowhide.’’ ‘“Mechanics’ Associations ' were early organized to protect the interests of the workingmen, but labor unions were regarded by good people as ‘iniquitous.’ Strikers were arrested and punished for “‘conspiracy.’’ Not until 1842 did the courts of any state decide that workers had the right of organization and collective bargaining. The first labor paper, The Workingmen's Advocate, was printed in New York in 1825 by British immigrants. From that time on labor unions multiplied and trades-associations were formed in the large cities. In 1834 a national ‘‘republic of labor’’ was instituted with yearly conventions. By this time labor became active in politics and began to work for its own interests through the ballot. As early as 1830 the Workingmen’s Party was organized in Syracuse, N.Y., but its candidate for governor received only 3,000 votes. Soon many states had such parties. By political pressure and by strikes, the ten-hour day was secured in some Cities, and in 1840 President Van Buren established it as the standard for all government employees. Laws to protect women and children also appeared in some of the states. All of these measures were signs of a growing humanitarianism in the New World. This period was one of intense religious activity in America. The Congregational church was disestablished in New England. New sects like the Shakers and Mormons were born. Some of the older denominations split over the question of slavery, or doctrinal issues. Missionary societies were formed to work among the Indians and foreign pagans. Interest in education was growing, and much was said about ‘‘Woman’s rights.’’ Girls were admitted first to the public schools; then to the special academies established for them; and in 1835 Oberlin College was opened to women. Labor organiza- tions early demanded the substitution of free public schools for the ‘“nauper schools.’’ Horace Mann secured the opening of the first normal school in 1839. Under Mann and Barnard, New England improved her system of free common schools. With national grants of land, the western states took the lead in creating free public school systems. The old colleges adopted higher standards, and new col- leges and state universities were founded. Newspapers of all sorts were started in the cities and towns. The New York Sun was the first paper to sell for one cent in 1833. Libraries were opened, and lyceums and lecture courses both informed and amused the people. The mail service was improved and the postage stamp came into use. All these agencies were helping to develop a splendid type of intelligent citi- zens in the New World. 9. ACHIEVEMENTS TO 1850 A review of the century preceding 1850 shows that four mighty forces were transforming the civilization of the western world from mediaeval to modern: (1) the political and social revolutions, begin- RET TE ee eee ee ee ee ra eeChap. XII} POLITICAL AND SOCIAL TRENDS TO 1850 227 ning with that of 1776 in America and ending with that of 1848 in Europe, produced a new type of government and a new society (2) the intellectual revolution gave a new conception of man and his ‘astitutions, and of the earth on which he lives; (3) the Industrial Revolution changed the work, transportation, communication, an ways of living in the world: and (4) the humanitarian changes were improving the lot of millions of the poorer and less fortunate human beings. In western Europe the middle class, constituting pet- haps less than 20 per cent of the people, had almost completely dis- laced the aristocracy as the source of political power. Through their ability, brains, and wealth, they were moulding the civilization of the world. But after destroying the privileges of the nobles and the clergy, they built up privileges of their own, and through the Indus- rial Revolution and their control of government, they amassed large fortunes. The day laborer and the farmer had beyond question 1m- proved their lot by uniting with the middle class to secure political, social, and industrial changes. Toa limited extent the right to vote, and through the ballot to share in government, had been extended to them in the more progressive states. But the inadequacy and fu- tility of the fine words about liberty and equality led them to feel that the complete democracy for which they had struggled had not yet been realized. Even in the United States, where democracy ad- vanced more rapidly than elsewhere, it was not until about 1850 that the last state gave all white men the right to vote. In Europe it was only after a long and bitter struggle that the common people secured the right of self-government. By 1850 this right was only partially enjoyed in a few countries. The socialist movement, with all its fantastic ideas, led by dreamers and followed by the working classes, must be viewed historically as a democratic effort. If it accomplished no more by 1850, it at least forced the middle-class governments to begin a series of badly needed social, economic, and educational reforms. REFERENCES FOR FURTHER STUDY C. Borcraup, The Adoption and Amendment of Constitutions in Europe and America (1895); W. A. Dunnine, 4 History of Political Theortes, 3 vols. (1905-1920); C. GiDE and C. Rust, Histoire des doctrines économiques depuis les Physiocrates jusqu'a nos jours, trans- lated, History of Economic Doctrines (1915); L. H. Haney, History of Economic Thought (2d edition, 1920); F. A. Ose, Social Progress in Contemporary Europe (1912); W. D. GuTHRIE, Socialism before the French Revolution (1907); G. IsamBerT, Les Idées socialistes en France de 1815 2 1848 (1905); R. T. Ey, French and German Socialism in Modern Times (1898); J. Raz, Contemporary Socialism (new edition, 1908); T. Kirxup, History of Socialism (re- vised edition, 1913); W. SoMBaRT, Socialism and the Socialist Movement, English transla- tion by M. Epstein (1909); J. R. MacponaLp, The Socialist Movement (1911); S. P. OrtH, Socialism and Democracy in Europe (1913); J. Loncuer, Le Mouvement socialist international (1913); B. RussELL, Proposed Roads to Freedom (1918); F. S. Nittt, Catholic Socialism; English translation (1890); P. T. Moon, The Labor Problem and the Social Catholic Move- ment in France (1921); J. S. PENMAN, The Irresistible Movement of Democracy (1923)3 C. Raven, Christian Socialism Gxg22') (C2 Wi: Srusps, Charles Kingsley and the Christian ae wERGRReneee i THUTTTTVANAUURTRRARA OEE Social progress in the early nineteenth century IANIIINTT th —~s + — NS rae ee sates Sa ele ane on rene peanSar ee. ne an lh dT i a a eee ens pa nh ee — Pre a a ae OE Se no viet i ‘ Sethe Eaves A 2 pe eI SM om Pawn ameaaer er Ee he 228 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XII Social Movement (1900); F. Merino, Geschichte der deutschen Sozialdemocratie (1904); M. Beer, Geschichte des Sozialismus in England (1913), English version by the author, A History of British Socialism, 2 vols. (1919-1920); G. Waitt, Histozre du mouvement soctal en France, 1852-1910 (2d edition, 1910); M. Hitieurr, History of Socialism in the United States (new edition, 1910); E. V. Zenxer, Anarchism: a Criticism and History of the Anarchist Theory . English translation (1898); B. R. Tucker, Instead of a Book (1897); K. Marx, Capital: a Critique of Political Economy, English translation, 3 vols. (1909- 1916); F. ENGELS. Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, English translation by E. Aveling, 3d edition (1911); J. Sparco, Socialism: a Summary and Interp retation of Socialist Principles, revised edition, 1909); R. C.K. see Modern Socialism, as set forth by Socialists in their Speeches, Writings, and Wrepronme |G 3d edition, 1910); J. T. Sroppart, The New Socialism, an Impartial Inquiry ( 1909); Paris ee DHON, What Is Property? English translation by B. R. Tucker, 2 vols. (1902); E. D. Bax, Babeuf : the Last Episode of the French Revolution (1911); F. Popmore, Robert Owen, a Biography, 2 vols. (1906); J. Sparco, Karl Marx, his Life and Work (1910); J. TcHerNnorr, Louis Blanc (1904); W. H. Dawson, German Socialism and Ferdinand Lassalle(1899); G. Branves, Ferdinand Lassalle (1911); ONcCKEN, Lassalle; L. T. Hosnouss, The Labour Movement (3d edition, 1912); S. and B. Wess, History of Trades Unionism, \acw edition, 1911); G. J. Hotyoaxe, The History of Cooperation in England: its Literature and its Advocates, 2 vols. (revised edition, 1906 ); J.R. Commons, editor, Documentary History of American Industrial Society, 10 vols. (1911); W. A. Hinps, American Communities and Cooperative Colonies (revised edition, 1908); J. R. Commons and others, History of Labour in the United States, 2 vols. (a918); H. pg B. Grssins, English Social Reformers (1902); B. L. Hutcuins and A. Harrison, A History of Factory Legislation (1911); - ScHIRMACHER, The Modern Woman's Rights Movement, English translation by on C. Eckhardt (1912); W. L. Bueasz, The Emancipation of English Women (1910) E. R. Hecker, A Short History of Women's Rights (agi0o); The Encyclopadia Britannica, new eae 30, 31, 32; Ne - A. L. Lowe xx, Governments and Parties in Continental Europe, 2 vols. (1897); The Governments of France, Ital ly, and Germany (1915); F. A. Oae, Social Progress in Contemporary ae (1912); The Governments of Europe (1920); The Economic Development of Modern Europe (1917); W. B. Munro, The ns ent of European 19 Cities (1909); W =i: Des. Modern Constitutions ( ee - H. A. L. Fisngr, The Republican Tradition in Europe (1911); S. P. Ortn, Soc Te and Democracy in Europe (1913); Lord gI1); ; Bryce, Modern Democracies, 2 vols. (1920); H. A. Gissons, An Introduction to World Politics (1922). HVAT VATUTUTAT ALATA ETA NAR TER ERA EETTUVTUTTTTVTUTVVTVTOGUAVOLOAEHRGUALULUD LY en - ed — eed Te Dn eh eee aT 2 we " nani = — —————— ——— — SS ' ' | | | | ee teen aa aeee ee — ae st She a rho +! ae MCMIan eS ee = - aa 1U Long me Wes! Gb) +t trom Greenwich Kartographische Anstalt von F. A. Brockhaus, Leipzig, Germany.Trad WeREAUEWUnaneaal TUVTVRETARERTEL UHH EA OROEARaROnaaanee HRURURERHRARUNRUUGREGRRneaeae TURUNUHEERHRDRRUERORGRRGaE THLATAPRTAGA AGRE em ime me yolog d ~O LITHUANIA: ** 4) } * LA ae LO . Smolensk fina aN (i (7 Oe \. we Pyvinsk . x 7 rot ® \ AON a NU, 8 prasthitorsk & A = DACN D) 24 ‘ ~ / / Co er Bier" Lemberg / Ze ’ \ ef b— \ oF ae be Se est ' Q ia : i 5 Se , —. CoTe ! ] T1Z a C k gnome -: a e Six Rus chuuk ~ ae B | c ets x XVarnea gle ghi CBULGARIA | lst a ad 2; ae Yi aie, re y AN Angora -* é +. fo > * T) x Oe B usa - | ‘ \ Sy o* ~ G7 = 5 1 M \ pera, 7 Kj AS** EUROPE pe me | . Ors. eee ae \ , Gddesmyr4 | NE in 20th Century rw \ ot ON ) PO oN! u Lae \ |) Cnief Industrial Districts [aes Coalfields x s | i’ edocs 8 v \ he a : ‘3° mGeee 6 | Chief Industries: / ‘ 9 ; | ~ ~ ‘ ~ ° a ie / —— “A ROO x Wool e Cotton aLlinen @ Silk ualron * Machinery 20 — “ 5 leacaal . ~~ 5 / L__} Agricultare and Stock TRATIMNG _ Fishing =~ = rete aS N | ; y Vv ~~ 3 $ ES. iN ___ Principal Ratlways __ Steamship Limes Sg Ne Viera English Miles Sets Nc Sms ( | pa ~S yo A llexcang, > 5 A £7 mk . Fr NG Suez Caral 40 50 7 ——— Rea AN A p : Fem op paro nist ot q $ p vast a $n rN es oppo! ANON pe it eee neiees nara mer eres | 7 ! | | res pen ae EE = ae ame. ER <= rs SeHe : y UPR enMVTVTOVOCQUQCUQQUCQUOUUUOUOOUOITUTTTVQQQONAQQQQNQQQQQ000000000011101)} Laas ~— PARSE aay THE DEVELOPMENT OF NATIONALISM AFTER 1850HATUTLECA UE LAASARLALES LETH GES HEANOE OENEEEEN Oe DANES PER ER EUR REN EARSD ESR UEUOEEU OU LERNER ELLY ERORRUESOUDTO POUL ADDL REAR RR AREIVTANAVOUINOQQOQ00000000QHOURRETEEUIATOTESEEOOUUS0(} oppo GHAR TE Rs XTi NATIONALISTIC STRIVINGS. BEFORE 1850 1. Oricins oF NATIONALISM From, the earliest times there has been a tendency among the inhabitants of the earth to group themselves into nations based on a common descent, a common language, a common set of ideals, and common institutions. When such a nation occupies a definite terri- tory and organizes its own government, it becomes a nation-state. The product of this process may be called nationalism, which has been and still is one of the greatest creative forces in modern world history. With the break-up of the Empire of Charlemagne nation- states such as England, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain began to appear. But for centuries the unifying force of imperialism and of the Medizval Church, on the one hand, and the disintegrating power of feudalism, on the other, hindered the growth of nationality. With the decay of the political power of the feudal lords and the decline of the idea of a universal church and empire, these nation- states under despotic kings began to emerge as the dominant forces in world civilization. By 1789 only one such state had come into being in the New World, China and Japan were living their own pecu- liar life in Asia largely shut off from the rest of the world, and six powerful states dominated Europe. England, France and Spain were true nation-states, while Prussia, Austria, and Russia included various nationalities. There were nine petty states in Italy and over three hundred in Germany under the weak bond of the Holy Roman Empire. Thus the vast area of middle and southeastern Europe was still unnationalized. The smaller states such as Portugal, Holland, Denmark, and Sweden played an inferior rdle in world affairs. Nationalism, as a popular idea, began with the American and French Revolutions, which emphasized political liberty, social equality, fraternity, and patriotism. Out of these movements grew the belief that a group of people with a common history, mutual sym- pathies, joint hopes, and the same institutions, had a right to govern themselves. The Americans were the first people to create a nation- state founded upon these ideas. Through the Revolution of 1789 the French became the pioneers of this concept on the continent of Europe. Upon learning that Louis XVI had fled from Paris, a Frenchman said: ‘‘ Well, if the king has escaped, the nation remains.’ Rousseau declared: ‘‘It is the men who constitute the state.’ The Third Estate in searching for a new name to replace the States General 231 Origin of the national state =ees A or ee ae ee SN Ri TT IE SSL NE EE RE S50 ae ee eee R 4 ri )} nationa 7, ( ners f New nation-states EN UPLAR ERNE RO EA ROE SERURED TREN Sa 2 MODERN WORLD HISTORY |Chap. XIII adopted the significant title © National Assembly.’’ The Declaration of the Rights of Man asserted that sovereignty resided “in the na- tion. In the rural districts the people s shou cee: ‘We are not prov incials: we are Frenchmen,’’ and all over Franc ‘Vive la Na- tion.’’ resounded. The ‘federations ~ Seen ee ctimed ail union of re for the ‘‘Nation, King, and Law.’ It was an armed nation’ that went forth to combat autocratic Europe. Un- fortunately } enc nationalism soon degenerated into an aggressive, militant impulse, and lost its earlier high idealism. The N:z :poleonic wars swept away old boundary lines in Europe and gave a new impulse to national patriotism everywhere. Napoleon was the first European statesman to ere the power of n atonal sentiment, and he used it not only in France, but also in Poland, Germany, Italy and Spain. In fact in every conquest he urged the people to rise against their des- potic masters and to assert their own rights as a free nation. After producing this great national awakening throughout Europe, he ee) overrode it to attain his ambition for world dominion. Strangely enou; Bi it was this new force that accom :plished the over- aoe of Napoleonic eae e ‘*The Battle of the Nations’ heralded the coming of an unconquerable foe before which Napo- leon’s unstable empire ae led to the dust. The teacher of nation- alism was repudiated although his teaching was accepted. as 2. NATIONALISM AFTER I8I5 The opportunity to reconstruct Europe on national lines faced the Congress of Vienna. Instead of profiting by the new spirit to lay lasting foundations for the peace and security of the peoples of Eu- rope, the principle of nationality was ignored. The autocratic rulers of Europe were hostile to this new popular passion and deliberately refused to take it into account. Asaresult, a large part of the history of Europe after 1815 was taken up with the undoing of the grave blunders of the Congress of Vienna. Nationalism in the hands of the middle class became the greatest force in world history after 1815. To secure the reality of national unity and independence was set forth as the supreme ambition of national groups in both the New World and the Old. Men felt that it was just as important to belong to a nation as to be members of a family — perhaps more so. The sense of nationality developed in intensity as self-government grew in the world. With a religious fervor all energies were directed to increase the power, wealth, and greatness of the nation-state. The series of revolutions in Europe and in Latin America up to 1850 were all patriotic efforts to rez alize national unity, inde ep yendence, and de- mocracy. It has already been seen how minor uprisings occurred in 1820 in Spain, Portugal, and Italy; how the revolutionary wave of 1830 found echoes in many lands; and how the great Revolution of 1848 shook the entire world. As a result of these nationalistic strivings, new nation-states like Belgium, Greece, and the Latin- PTTETTG TeV tee ele eee EE ETT eee eee APPR aeChap. XIII] NATIONALISTIC STRIVINGS BEFORE 1850 233 American republics were created, and a new national spirit was awakened in Germany, Italy, Bohemia, Hungary, Poland, and the Balkans that was to find realization in the coming years. The nationalistic spirit produced a new patriotic literature all over Europe, wherever the iron heel of absolutism did not crush the free- dom of speech and of the press. In Great Britain Shelley, Keats, Byron, and Coleridge fired the English-speaking peoples with their writings on liberty and nationality. The modest Wordsworth in thinking of the French Revolution, which as a young man he saw first-hand, wrote of ‘‘ human nature seeming born again,’’ and preached Rousseau’s ‘‘back to nature’’ democracy. Shelley was in continual rebellion against the repressive policies of his day. Byron denounced the accepted ideas and institutions of the age, and aroused British indignation by ignoring social usages. Both these writers lived in voluntary exile during their later years, and Byron gave his life to make the Greeks free. By contrasting Great Britain at that time with the feudal period, Scott enabled his countrymen to appreciate the meaning of progress. English literature made passionate appeals for political and soctal reforms. Froude eulogized the origins of English nationalism under the Tudors. Macaulay wrote impressive history to praise the Whigs and to discredit the Tories. Carlyle distrusted democracy, but he assailed the industrial régime that made a ‘‘swine’s trough’’ of civilization by holding up money as the standard for judging a mans worth. Dickens, who has been called the ‘‘social-reform novelist,’’ caused the English to laugh and weep over his attacks on the charity schools, the law courts, the insane asylums, the workhouses, and the impoverished wage-earners. The keen satire of Thackeray portrayed the weaknesses of the nobility and of the ruling middle class. George Eliot pointed out the ethical shams of the period. Many of Mrs. Browning's pocms were inspired by the Italian nationalistic romanticism. In Germany the tyranny of Napoleon gave rise to a remarkable series of pamphlets, poems, and songs. Fichte’s Addresses to the German Nation preached a holy type of national patriotism through education. Kérner sang: ‘‘In the North breaks the dawn of Free- dom.’’ Arndt praised the fatherland in “What is the German Fatherland2’’ Schenkendorf in his poems, ‘“Freedom,’’ © Mother Tongue,” and “Andreas Hofer’’ kept the patriotic fires burning. Pfizer said, ‘‘Nationality is the first condition of humanity as the body is the condition of the soul.’’ Such was the patriotic literature which Metternich denounced as ‘‘immoral’’ and sought to suppress through the Carlsbad Decrees. Poets like Fritz Reuter paid for their liberalism with imprisonment. Goethe, the cosmopolitan man of letters, said that at Valmy in 1792 a new epoch in world history had opened. Five years later in Hermann and Dorothea, however, he spoke of the ‘‘terrible Revolution’? which had gone astray. Faust was completed during the troubled times of the Revolution of 1830. TRUUTTVTTUUTHNUELUETR OLA OUAOOUDOUUDOOAVONIG| pbounam ae ie eee nena aay ae ee a rn en eaeeS i ’ a eT eS Se See —.—* aa PTT SLE Se sr Vi in France r } lfaly tor Hugo ther patriots 234 MODERN WORLD HISTORY (Chap. XIII Schiller in his play, The Robbers. and in his historical works, revealed ps if his interest in the downfall of tyranny and in the progress of mankind. Still like Goethe and Lessing he was more of a cosmopolitan than a nationalist. Although his Wilhelm Tell was a “national drama,’ yet he believed that “the most powerful nation is but a fragment.”’ It was Hegel, the philosopher, who glorified the n ation-state and said that world unity would be secured through it. A keen interest was taken in collecting historical documents showing the Ets life of the German people. A small band of professors of history in 1847 es- tablished The German Newspaper to urg Cc Varn LO WIIte Ch e national reforms and unity. e history of the world in a scientific manner. Jacob Grimm devoted himself to a study of the (se lan language. \ oung Wwermany, a SOCICTY composed of 1) os rT \ eT) tA h of Loh for lem one “UV tA a th >i Wer \ , + 217 e > i >} rcaQd LO S1xXTcen Un1LY CESITICS, Its purpose was to secure a free, united German nation. lIhese two so- Cieties took an active part in the revolutions of 1830 and 1848. A. OrHer Forces PROMOTING NATIONALISM A study of the first half of the nineteenth century makes it clear that various factors were combining to make nationalism a widely } 7 ™ a Cc -* . a > = = . contagious and effective force in European life. In most states middle- ! } class democracy and nationalism wa nace together as natur: il allies. att There was this difference, however: democracy was the program of a particular class or party, while Be ie aliens was a ean that united all classes and parties. There was an exception in Austria, where in 1848 nationalism among the different racial groups was so strong that it defeated both unity and democracy. August Comte was formulating the middle-class theory of the national state by insisting upon law as its basis. He held that laws govern social phenomena just as really as they govern nature. J.S. Mill in England set forth his utilitarian theory to Ju fu the part played in society by the middle class as champions of natio nalism. The Industrial Revolution, and the changes it wrought, played no small role in the national unification of various countries. The steam engine was a valuable ally of nationalism. Its application to ships in the second and to Pilroads in the third decade of the last century worked for political unity. Between 1830 and 1840 Great Britain, France, Belgium, and the United States began to construct railways. From 1842 to 1853 Austria, Prussia, Spain, Russia, and Portugal subsidized railroad building. Large scale industry was stimulated by the rapid transportation by land and sea. From 18 35 to 1848 coal | and iron were sources of wealth which forced statesmen to think in new terms. The extension of the franchise to the men who ran the ae and engines, who dug the coal and created the steel, united the interests of the masses with the new economic- pol litical HAUPRUMNAAW LEMAR RMEN EON UHRRUOREOS SN CUUREEN SUPER ENDER ESRC UORENODOREOEAUREUDRREON DERM P OUP ERP RO ERSES RARER ED PIPETTE P Eenwena biddids Chap. XIII] NATIONALISTIC STRIVINGS BEFORE 1850 237 age. The telegraph, cable, telephone, and newspapers served to give both unity and wide distribution to news calculated to arouse national pride and international hatreds, and enabled governments to create and spread patriotic propaganda designed to inflame citizens against their neighboring states. It was these new methods of communica- tion which laid a permanent basis for national psychical and cultural solidarity. In the period from 1848 to 1871 Europeans seemed to care less for political liberties and constitutions than for nation-building. Na- tionalism, therefore, became the predominant issue, and helped to make Europe what it is today. Men fought for nationalism as they earlier fought for freedom and equality. Up to 1849 nationalism was sporadic; after 1850 it became better organized, allied itself with militarism, created new nations like Italy, Germany, and the Balkan states, and by taking on an exaggerated character prepared the way for the World War in 1914. REFERENCES FOR FURTHER STUDY E. Kreusizet, Nationalism, War and Society (1916); J. H. Rosz, Nationality in Modern History (1916); R. Mutr, Nationalism and Internationalism (1917); S. Herbert, National- ity and Its Problems (1921); J. F. Scott, Patriots in the Making (1916); G. P. Goocn, History and Historians in the Nineteenth Century (1913); G. E. Partripcg, The Psychology of Nations (1919); W. B. Pitespury, The Psychology of Nationality and Internationalismn (1919). UTUAOAUOVONOQUAUONOVUNLALOUONOQUOUONOQN0 |} bh I) «| H Nationalism a dominant issue ~ 52s aE Pace lt se . Near Oe rn —— ea EE eer ee —— aed Se ememmermmmmemncrmmrerrer se NSTa sn es mee ee B | ee a ae os Pr are ae 23 = me 1 tet ad a aie ors at oo Te eran mad ry — a a : President o the Second ry J Pren » ij Repu Dh IC Policy of President Napoteon Sa Ar Lek ALY FRANCE UNDER LOUIS NAPOLEON BONAPARTE 15845-1871 r. LHe Risk or Louis NAPOLEON BONAPARTE - : - 1, ) 7) } . t j f { ‘7 *% . - - es Tue Second French Republic had lasted just four vears when Louis 1 1 \ Y . N apoleon, aac of Napoicon he was elected president by the MaVic of ai histor iC TAC. Born in the palace of the Lulleries 1n 1808 and exiled from Ree in 1816, he passed his youth in Switzerland anc | o Ss -_—_ + ous so - 5 c ( cc Germany, where he was wel In 1832 at the death of the yn of Nap leon [, Louis Napoleon became the [he Poles offered to make him their king, and he gained more fame > Napo yleonic heir. ; : } : 7 by joining aN, national uprising in the Papal States. For sixteen eS years he waited and plotted to rule France. With his pen he kept himself before the eyes of France as the champion of the Revolution of 1789, and the standard bearer of nationalism. When the bones of Napoleon I were brought back to Paris in 1840, Louis Napoleon reaped the benefit of the wave of patriotic and nationalistic enthusi- asm that swept over the land. When imprisoned by Louis Philippe in the fortress of Ham, he posed as a martyr of French nationalism, and tried to win both wage-earners and oars to his cause. Escaping from prison in the guise 2 a workman, he fled to London in 1846, wee he remained until t € Re olution a 1848 opened the way for his return to France. Be different depart1 ments elected him to the Aol Assembly, and he eae diaicls became the leading andidate for the presidency of the Second French Republic. He tepped into power by the will of the nation as the guarantor of social justice, law, order, and nationalism ne The chief concern of President Bonaparte was to build up about him a powerful personal party. The Ber eee were won by professions of sympathy with their aims, by adulation, and by such ). Education was put into the hands of the clergy, soldiers were sent to Rome to protect the pope’s temporal power, and the loyalty of the Catholics was won by favorable laws. The middle class was pleased with the protection given to business and the enforcement of order. In 1850 the Assembly, controlled by the bourgeoisie, passed a law limiting the right to vote measures as voluntary old age pensions ( 185 to men who paid taxes in the commune where they voted. Thus bout 3,000,000 floating laborers were disfranchised, and naturally they raised an uproar. When the Assembly refused to amend the constitution in order to make President Napole -on eligible for re- 238 RUPAP LAAN DAN LIDS A AP AERO DORR UU DEAE STOR OEE SS ROE ea VEREETURESS EAN ASSMAN RES LEGO RUN ELEE RRGRM MES CODEN UND RU REND USD ERENU ESR ERM ERED RUOR RRO RTOESREE ARTO UDEChap. XIV| FRANCE UNDER LOUIS NAPOLEON 239 election, he decided to overthrow it, appeal to the people, and take power into his own hands. A coup d'état was carefully planned for December 2, 1851, the anniversary of both the coronation of Na- poleon I and the battle of Austerlitz. President Napoleon's trusted friends were put in command of the army. On the morning of Decem- ber 2 the Parisians read huge placards saying that the Assembly was dissolved and that universal franchise was restored. The people were asked to entrust the “‘ Prince-President’’ with the revision of the constitution to save the Republic. About 27,000 prominent Republi- cans were either arrested or exiled, some 10,000 being sent to Algeria and Cayenne. When some of the workers of Paris, who resented this usurpation of authority, rebelled, they were suppressed by force after 150 of them had been killed. Louis Napoleon, following the foot- steps of his illustrious uncle, was master of France. On December 21 by a vote of 7,500,000 to 650,000 the people abdicated their sover- eignty and delegated to the new Caesar the power to form a new constitution modelled after that of the Year VIII under Napoleon I. The victory was celebrated at Notre Dame on New Year's day. The new constitution, proclaimed in January, 1852, extended the term of President Napoleon for a period of ten years and empowered him to name his own cabinet. The legislature consisted of three bodies: (1) the Council of State, appointed by the president, to prepare laws; (2) the Legislative Body of 250 members, elected by universal male franchise, to discuss and vote on laws; and @) the Senate, whose members were appointed for life by the president, to serve as the guardian of the constitution. Under this government, France was only a veiled dictatorship, for practically all power was in the hands of the ‘‘ Prince-President.’’ Nationalism flourished, but democracy was paralyzed under Louis Napoleon’s “‘ reign of liberty.’’ 2. Tue SECOND NAPOLEONIC EMPIRE AT ITS HEIGHT The next ambition of Louis Napoleon, now 44 years of age, was to assume the title of emperor. Shrewd maneuvering paved the way for the transition. The profile of the new Napoleon appeared on the coins, and the Napoleonic eagles once more became emblems in the army. He toured the country accompanied by loyal newspaper men, who reported how the people greeted him with spontaneous shouts of ‘‘Long live the Emperor!’’ He knew the right words to say to socialists, republicans, and monarchists — to peasants, laborers, and capitalists — to clericals and anti-clericals. When it was thought that the moment was ripe, the Senate on December 1, 1852, pro- claimed the ‘‘Prince-President’’ as Napoleon IJJ, emperor of the French. Nearly 8,000,000 votes approved the change from a republic to an imperial dynasty, and his coronation followed. The ‘‘repub- lican’’ constitution with a few alterations became the fundamental law of the Empire, which was destined to endure for eighteen years. The imperial throne during that period was upheld by bayonets. MUQOTITONIOQATUQALSOQUUAKIUOQOUOQVDUQUUIN(| OU “Ss = Usurps power by coup d'état of 18st Act approved by the people The new constitution Prince- President becomes Napoleon Ill Popular approval of the changea a a a a a es a a eT eT a Ned ae — TL ee PE ie PE ee =" Home policy Pro sperity anda contentment 240 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XIV Popular approval of the transformation of the democratic Republic into the autocratic Empire was due primarily to two conditions: (1) the fear of property owners that socialism would destroy private property; and (2) the desire of the workingmen to see the middle class thrust Out of power. Under the home policy of Napoleon III from 1852 to 1860 France seemed to be more stable and more prosperous than she had been for seventy-five years. A display of democracy, even though 1t was a sham as revealed in the strict supervision of the press, won the radi- cals and the liberals. A brilliant court satisfied the conservatives and apparently did not displease the common people. The encouragment of business in many directions placated the middle class. Banks were opened, saving institutions were established, and money was freely used to exploit the natural resources. In 1855 through telegraph service to Crimea was in operation, postage was reduced, steamship lines were run to America and Asia, and in 1860 there were 5,500 “Tt } miles of railroads in use. The value of exports had climbed to over $2 and speculators on the Paris bourse spoke of the 4 i © ‘Golden Age of business.’’ Favorable trade treaties were made with Great Britain and Prussia. The workers were encouraged to organize cooperative societies, and the cost of living was kept down. Trade-unions were legalized, guilds were suppressed, and the right to strike was recognized. State insurance against death and injury was guaranteed. Many citizens were employed in building wagon roads and railways, in improving harbors. rivers, and canals, in constructing bridges and public build- ings, and in planting forests and draining swamps. Paris with 1.297.000 inhabitants was transformed into a beautiful, modern city with large parks and fine boulevards. Agriculture was encouraged by the sale of common lands to small farmers, by the organization of boards of agriculture, by the creation of elementary agricultural schools, and by the offer of prizes for the best grains, fruits, and stock. In 1860 France was growing 235,000,000 bushels of wheat, while Russia was producing only 227,000,000 bushels and the United States but 142,000,000 bushels. The 336 beet refineries were turning Out over 228,000,000 pounds of sugar. Asa result of this rural prosperity, the poor huts of the people were replaced by comfortable houses and large barns. The international expositions held in Paris in 1855 and 1867 greatly stimulated trade and industry. In the midst of all this activity Emperor Napoleon kept in touch with the people by visiting country fairs, riding in railway engine cabs, inspecting factories and mines, meeting the workers in banquets, and encouraging the use of his title of “‘ Emperor of the workmen.’’ His pious wife, Empress Eugenie, aided all kinds of charity, and was popular with the masses. The clergy were molli- fied with their control of education and with the continuance of French troops in Rome to safeguard the rights of the supreme pontiff, MERU REPRE we This SEER O RED i} i ) 0 Pee PA eee TeePULeS EC eee lees SE BRORD Tee Wi SUPRAChap. XIV] FRANCE UNDER LOUIS NAPOLEON 241 Indeed, the French people were kept too busy making money to think of the loss of their liberty. Perhaps never before had so many mil- lionaires appeared in France in so short a time. While the country enjoyed this material prosperity, little intellectual freedom was tolerated. The press and freedom of speech were rigidly controlled. Many professorships of history and philosophy in the universities were abolished. Through a system of spies all gatherings were watched and nearly 2,000 persons were arrested for criticizing the government. 3. THe DECLINE OF THE SECOND EMPIRE The foreign policy of Napoleon III, like that of Napoleon I, caused his downfall. The ‘‘ Napoleonic idea’’ required the oblitera- tion of the treaties of 1815, and dread of such a course caused Europe to become suspicious. While he posed as a pacifist in Europe and the friend of oppressed nationalities, yet this attitude awakened distrust. Although French law required all citizens to serve in the army for seven years, nevertheless the army was a military display rather than an efficient war machine and the officers were corrupt and incom- petent. To meet the clamor of the business men for markets and raw materials, overseas colonial possessions were acquired. Algeria had already been won (1830) and New Caledonia was secured in the Pacific. To these beginnings of a new colonial empire, Cochin China and Annam were added in 1858, commercial concessions were secured from China in 1860, and a protectorate was established over Cam- bodia in 1863. While the United States was engaged in the Civil War, Napoleon III planned to extend his colonial empire to the New World. He induced Great Britain and Spain to join him in 1862 in seizing the customs houses of Mexico in order to collect debts due their citizens. Within four months the claims of the other two powers had been paid and they withdrew, but Napoleon III sent over an army of 30,000 men, set up an empire in Mexico, and put Maxi- milian, the brother of Francis Joseph of Austria, on the throne. The resistance of the Mexicans, and the insistence of the United States upon the enforcement of the Monroe Doctrine, caused Napoleon to withdraw his troops. But his dupe, Maximilian, was shot, and Austria was angered at the failure of the project. At home French capitalists were disgruntled at the useless expense; the Catholics were disappointed; and the workingmen were incensed at the loss of life and high taxes. The throne of Napoleon III had received its first shock, and the “‘black shadows’’ which he feared began to appear. On the continent of Europe the foreign policy of Napoleon III was scarcely more successful. With Great Britain and Sardinia, he supported Turkey in the Crimean War against Russia in 1854-6. Russia was defeated, it is true, but at a cost to France of 75,000 lives HUVUVUVOQTUONIVONIOOAUEONAVOQEUOSHULUAITN | Lui ~~ Foreign policy Colonial empire Mexico Results Napoleon's relations to EuropeAT » iN con , ; i rcR S —a Preparations for war with Prussia Uj ee ne ener ee are care Ses arr neg a ee er ee a a. Few pacifists ee at eed a eet eine tae sea vee eae ee MODER XIV ‘\ ind $400, . About the only satisfaction Napoleon received was the honor of holding the peace conference in his c: ap ital. In 1859 he joined Sardinia in the effort to drive Austria out of northern Italy | Again victory tavore 1 the French arms, but Napoleon withdrev w from the war before Italy was freed and united. Although he received for his aid Nice and Save y and annexed them to France, yet the French liberals and the Italians denounced him as a traitor, and he had made an enemy of Austria. His aid revolutionists and liberals alienated the conservatives. Converted to the national px licv of free trade. Napoleon Ill made a co! ercial treaty with Great Britain, which - mr he a R ’ 7 ] nd L -rebv “< ‘17 ari he ' TEQUuUCCU CoC GuUubices ritisn goods, ana tTNerepy aroused coe ili- dignation of the commercial classes in France, w ho complained that ee a ahetcaved The next problem that ene lt] thei PiLCitCs Le Cit Elia yer . enc. pri Diem cLnat Cuysasy FEC tne sean ca ot Napoleon Ill was the unification of Germany onder the leadership of Prussia. There he committed his final blunder. Napoleon was stran ely blind to Bismarck’s plans to drive Austria out of Germany and to create the new German Empire. In the short war against Austria, Bismarck urged him to a policy of eutrality, and Napoleon cons nted, believing that the war would exhaust both powers and thus strengthen France. When the victory of Prussia opened his eyes, he demanded that the South German States be omitted from the North German Unt Bismarck yielded, but when Napoleon asked for the cession of sie Rhenish Palatinate to France, Bismarck merely shrugged his shoulders and showed the note to Bavaria to whom the land belonged. This request of Napoleon threw Bavaria into the arms of Prussia. When Napoleon yon the right to annex Belgium, Bi smarck shook his then insisted uj intorn head and soon ned the British government, which was inclined to preserve the independence of Belgium. When, as a last resort, Napoleon begged for the grand-duchy of Luxemburg, Bismarck had - Hubbard, Oa rd : ; under the powers neutralize that territory. Like old ! Moth Napoleon had not secured even a bone in the di iplom atic aa At last Napoleon saw the drift of affairs bey« ynd the Rhine single, strong German state the master plotter. The prospect of a ruled by Prussia stared him in the face and frightened him. He permitted the slogan © Revenge for Sadowa,”’ the battle that gave Prussia the victory over Austria, to spread over France. The French irmy was reorganized, and Napoleon frantically bid for allies in the struggle which events seemed to forecast. But Russia remembered the Crimean War: Austria, the Italian War; Italy, Nice and Sa Great Britain, Belgium; the South German States, the Palatinate; the United States, Mexico. The press in both countries, France and Prussia. hurled taunts, insults, and false charges against each other. ‘‘Chauvinists’’ in France and ‘‘Jingos’’ in Germany talked of the superiority of race, blood, institutions, and civilization. Only a small group of republicans in France and socialists in Germany The Empress Eugenie wanted VOY; an d sought to allay the rising war fever. ww eae PUPP UPP CEP Pere Pees PTiTiil itil eh titty ¥ POOR RRA EER ED, Lee E ESTUQTOQTOREONEOTOAVURESU USAGI EATAE boa — = > eS Lp Chap. XIV] FRANCE UNDER LOUIS NAPOLEON 243 war to reéstablish the waning popularity of her husband, and even Napoleon believed that a popular war would “ gratify the military and domineering instincts of France.’’ Bismarck was determined to have war to complete the unification of Germany. The one wanted war to save anempire; the other to create one. With both governments bent on war, any irritating incident would have served as a pretext. It so happened that the Sane throne was vacant at the time through the deposition of Isabella by the liberals, who invited a Catholic cousin of the king of Prussia to Vacant take the crown. Bismarck strongly advised acceptance of the offer. Spanish thror Napoleon, alarmed at the prospect of the union of the two thrones under the Hohenzollern house, notified Prussia that such an arrange- ment would be ground for war. Spain then announced that Prince Leopold had withdrawn his consent to receive the crown. Napoleon, unsatisfied, was persuaded by warlike advisors and ministers to insist that William I of Prussia should promise that a Hohenzollern would never again be a candidate for the Spanish throne. A telegram sent from the Prussian king at a resort known as Ems to Bismarck Berlin, describing the French demands, was deliberately revised a Bismarck so that it would have the effect of a ‘‘red rag upon the The Ems Gallic bull’’ and at the same time lead the Prussians to feel that their /8"” monarch had been insulted. The contents of the revised telegram reached Paris on July 14, 1870, the national holiday, and set France on fire. Napoleon summoned his cabinet and decided on war. Olli- vier, the prime minister, said that he accepted the war “with a light heart.’ The press proudly boasted that this was “the war of the War declared nation.”’ ‘‘To Berlin! To Berlin!’’ shouted the frenzied Parisians. °” 4° Both countries hurriedly mobilized, and the Franco-Prussian War began. Lacking competent generals the French were easily defeated. On September 2, 1870, Napoleon III surrendered himself and 81,000 men at Sedan. When the news reached Paris two days later, a mob rushed into the parliament building shouting, ““Down with the Empire! Long live the Republic!’’ Gambetta, Ferry and Favre from Franco- the Hotel de Ville proclaimed the Third French Republic. Empress Prussian Wat Eugenie fled to Great Britain, where the dethroned emperor later joined her to die in 1873. The Empire upheld by bayonets crumbled Napoleon to the ground when the bayonets were surrendered to a foreign foe. “""4 te TEI ET a” 4. THE CAUSES OF THE COLLAPSE OF THE SECOND EMPIRE In a survey of the eighteen years, during which Napoleon II sought to mould the destiny of the French nation, the forces that Forces causing a to his downfall may be clearly seen: bis downfatt . The veiled despotism of Napoleon’ s Empire, resting on force, was certain to meet defeat at the hands of a people that had passed through the democratic awakening of 1789, 1830, and 1848. Seeing this himself, he tried to save his throne by granting amnesty to the Despotism liberals in 1859; by allowing parliament to criticize the government; {_ —— —- —- — ee SS we ————Sea ee Ohare el eae eS: NE SA 93 ee lela lee x0 oan a F ————— ee ES a re ee, a Gr th of ré pub tIicta ZI S77 Disease 244 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XIV — by permitting the debates to be published; and by relaxing the press laws. The power of the clergy in education was also curtailed. Finally a series of decrees in 1869 changed the constitution so as to give the legislative body full control over legislation. 2. Napoleon's foreign policy, particularly the ill-starred Mexican venture, the betrayal of Italy, and the blind diplomatic dealings with Prussia, brought isolation and defeat. At home he was not strong enough to secure an efficient military system. The soldiers lacked supplies, maps, organization, and mor ale; and the army was cor- rupted by dishonest contractors and politicians. The growth of the republican party was a standing menace. The muzzled press became more hostile, and when the censorship was removed, it took revenge in biting criticism. Suppression of the brainy men of France, such as Lamartine, Guizot, Thiers, Victor Hugo, Jules Simon, Emile Zola, and Anatole France, made them bitter opponents ¢ of the “crowned conspirator.’’ Hating the gaudy court of the ‘imperial charlatan,’’ they were tireless in their demands for liberty, free elections, a free press, free speech, and modern educa- tion. Gambetta was preaching a parliamentary republic, universal franchise, the separation of church and state, and a free public school system. ‘‘Caesarean democracy,”’ he said, *’ is incompatible with the ideals and methods of true democracy. ~ 4. An incurable disease sapped the vitality of Napoleon Ill dur- ing the later years of his reign. He became timid, fearful, indeci- sive, and irritable. The empress and other strong characters about him guided his policy. With his own judgment impaired, he made grave mistakes, and paid the penalty in defeat and disgrace. In attempting to please all parties, he lost the support ofeach. Inruling France as an autocrat, he alienated the friendship of democracy. In trying to build up an empire, he encountered the opposition of French liberals. In his rdle as arbiter of Europe, he alienated all his allies in the hour of need. And finally in an effort to save his throne he lost it. The Empire which rested on force fell with the defeat of the army. 5° ALSACE-LORRAINE AND THE WorRLD WaR There can be no doubt that French nationalism was far more notably stimulated by the defeat of Napoleon II in 1870 than by any positive act of his reign. The loss of Alsace-Lorraine and the humil- iation of defeat stirred the French patriots to an undying aspiration for revenge and glory. Paul Dérouléde and Maurice Barres organized the League of Patri iots, which devoted itself to Pete agitation in the matter of the hatred of Germany and the necessity of the re- covery of the © ‘ravished provinces. The sentiment of rev enge was kept alive by such ceremonials as the draping of the Strassburg statue. Delcassé, and later Poincaré, directed French foreign policy primarily with the end in view of such alliances as would make possible a LUCEPPROPH TET U CEL LOGOUT EUPP TER ODETTE RPE E PTT P EET ita ee) } a THTTETTOPPP TTT TECPULEA ELUATE eet nape mw } rreTTPPPEPetpyyyeTUASVOOTOTUOTUAOOVVAVAOUAUAOUOLODHAONVAUDL) Pook — bee net wom Chap. XIV] FRANCE UNDER LOUIS NAPOLEON 245 successful war against Germany. In many cases the German conduct towards France was such as enabled these French patriotic leaders to play with success upon the pride and courage of their fellow countrymen. There can be no question that the problem of Alsace- Lorraine after 1871 played a greater part than any other single factor in the diplomatic entanglements and intrigues which brought on the World War. . CN nd, id eens eee a ee ae secet. Mat AT aie REFERENCES FOR FURTHER STUDY G. L. Dicxinson, Revolution and Reaction in Modern France (1892); E. Bourceots, Modern France, 2 vols. (1919); H. A. L. Fisner, Bonapartism (1908); A. Guerarn, French Civilization in the Nineteenth Century (1914); E. Lavisse, editor, Histoire contemporaine de la France (1918); P. pz ta Gorce, Histoire de la Seconde République francaise, 2 vols. (7th edition 1914); Histoire du second empire, 7 vols. (4th edition 1913); J. Jaurgs, editor, Hisvoire socialiste, Vol. X, Le second empire by A. Thomas (1907); E. Oxtivier, L’ empire liberal, 17 vols. (1895-1904); P. Guepaxia, The Second Empire (1922); F. A. Simpson, The Rise of Louis Napoleon (1909); Louis Napoleon and the Recovery of France (1923); E. Levasseur, Histoire des classes ouvrieres en France de 1789 4 1870, 2 vols. (1904); G. WEILL, Histoire du parti républicain en France de 1814 @ 1870 (1900); Histoire du mouvement social en France, 1852-1910 (2d edition 1911); P. L. Fournier, Le second empire et la legislation ouvriere (1911); H. Berton, L’évolution constitutionelle du second empire @r900));) PB. FE. Martin, Maximilian in Mexico: the Story of the French Intervention, 1861-1867 (1914); E. C. Corti, Maximilian and Charlotte of Mexico, 2 vols. (1924). a ae ai a at! nt wee i ent i \ iy | : f y | f i | t j ] oo aa a ee FeO ie FES PT ee I Forces preparin the u or ii? ahi f Count Cavour CHAPTER XV THE UNIFICATION OF IIALY 1. PREPARATION For seventy years the Italians had been preparing for national i unity. Inspired by the common traditions of a glorious past, the French Revolution kindled among them a desire for freedom and nationality. Napoleon I, by forming the “Kingdom of Italy,” aroused anew their national hopes. Against the unjust settlements of the Congress of Vienna, the Italians revolted in 1820, in 1830, and in 1848. Iwo parties were working for national unity — one frankly espousing a republic through revolution; the other advocat- ing moderate reform measures. Secret societies like the Freemasons and the Carbonari kept alive faith in Italian emancipation. Maz- zini’'s ‘‘ Young Italy’’ radiated a contagion of national, republican patriotism, and intensified a common hatred for the minions of Metternich who ruled Italy. Gioberti inspired the faithful Catholics with the thought of a federal union under the newly-elected pontiff, Pius IX. The middle class looked to Victor Emmanuel II of Sardinia and Piedmont, the strongest native ruler, to take the lead in expelling Austria and in establishing Italy as a constitutional kingdom. But republicans, clericals, and monarchists all had one goal — the expul- sion of Austria and the national ‘‘resurrection’’ of the motherland. One of the most successful nation-builders of the nineteenth cen- tury was the blonde Italian, Count Cavour, the “ Bismarck of Italy.”’ Born in Piedmont in 1810, he imbibed the liberal ideas of his age and became a foe of absolutism and clericalism. Hating military life, he resigned his command in the army after the unsuccessful Revolution of 1830, and became absorbed in his books and farming. He visited France, Great Britain, and Germany to study the social and economic conditions, and returned to Italy a liberal reformer, suspected and watched by the police. He had no sympathy with socialism, but called himself a “‘ progressive constitutionalist... The British govern- ment was his ideal — a king with his powers curtailed by a constitu- tion, and a legislature of the middle class to guarantee liberty and prosperity. Through his modern newspaper, The Resurrection, he urged the establishment of agricultural societies, mechanics’ insti- tutes, industrial associations, and banks to aid capital and labor. During the Revolution of 1848, he sat in the national parliament at Piedmont and was soon recognized as the foremost liberal nationalist. He took an active part in forming the constitution of that year for 246 PTTTETTUTTTVTUITATOPSE SATE UCTS TEE eee retro dete PPP EPP PLP OP ee EPP epee OPEV E EDD CPE PopeChap. XV) THE UNIFICATION OF ITALY 247 Piedmont — a document that was to become, a decade later, the fundamental law of the new Italy. In 1852, at the age of 42, Cavour, this man of “‘ diabolic energy,’ became prime minister of the cabinet of Victor Emmanuel Il. With an almost uncanny wisdom he saw the problems confronting Italy: (1) that Piedmont must take the lead in ousting Austria and in unify- ing Italy; (2) that somehow the coéperation of all Italian states must Problems to be insured; and (3) that foreign aid must be secured. Henceforth all % 50/4 his strength of body and soul was devoted to the successful solution of these problems. His first concern was to develop the resources of Piedmont for her task ahead. With the aid of the middle class, he favored a policy of free trade, encouraged commerce, stimulated manu- facturing, built railroads, reclaimed idle lands for farming, improved education, and secured larger taxes by a juster distribution. The prosperity of Piedmont shot up by leaps and bounds, and the national finances were soon in a flourishing condition. Since the Catholic Church was opposing unification, he drove out the Jesuits, closed the useless monasteries, and advocated a ‘‘free church in a free state.’’ The army was enlarged, arsenals were built, and the fortresses on the frontiers were modernized. Piedmont was now ready to play her part. To win the hearty codperation of the other Italian states was not an easy task, because their rulers were all hostile to the project of unification. Hence, Cavour, in secret conferences with republicans like Mazzini and revolutionists like Garibaldi, won them to the cause of national unity under constitutional monarchy. ‘‘Independence and CONTA of ‘ other Italian unity’ became his motto in approaching the business men all over the peninsula in many different ways. The intellectuals were easily convinced that his plans were practical. The anti-clericals were in- duced to look to Piedmont for guidance. The powerful secret organt- zations, such as the National Union, Freemasons, Carbonari, and ‘Young Italy,’’ were used to reach the people in the cities and in the country. The second part of the program was thus accomplished. The Italian people were united even if the governments were not. The third part of Cavour’s plan, namely to secure outside mil1- tary aid, required shrewd diplomacy. When Cavour sent 17,000 Sardinian soldiers to fight with France and Great Britain in the Crimean War, he won their friendship, and gained permission in 1856 to plead the cause of Italian unification before the Congress of Paris. Just how to induce Napoleon III to form a military alliance with How foreign Piedmont for the specific purpose of driving Austria out of Italy seemed to be a hard nut to crack. Certain conditions, however, were favorable to Cavour’s project. The emperor of the French was of Italian blood, he had fought as a Carbonaro in 1830 against the pope, and, like Napoleon I, he was eager to substitute French for Austrian influence in Italy. Besides, he posed as the champion of oppressed nationalities. At the same time he had no desire to see a strong Latin PIVOOVNTOONINTOOQUOTTOQUOOUONITUIVON() obo ot Ee oe ern a eee es ———————— en IE—— nes Sk ee Dee Sr ee eT Ce nl a te ae Pe FDO aie Ee as 2 ae eae eS eee Tr CG r : IN@DO ‘ * sr uM eF 8 MODERN WORLD HISTOR a 24 [Chap. XV state created south of the Alps, and he also feared the effect of inter- vention upon the French clerical party. The masterful Cavour in 18<8 met him at Plombiéres in France *‘by accident’’ and persuaded him to agree, secretly: 7) that 2100, French troops woul Id |} help drive Austria out of Lombardy-Venetia, which was then to be annexed to Piedmont; (2) that Parma, Modena, and parts of the Piedmont; (3) that Tuscany 4 Papal States s should also be added to and the rest of the Papal States should be formed into a central king- | 4) th Rome nd . ling c } ld be I f COM; 4 that Ome alla the SUTTOUNQCIDNY COU! 1try Snoulad pe CIC tO the pope, who should become the president of a confederated Italy; and (5) that, as compensation, France should be given Nice and Savoy, and likewise, the sa ead of a marriage of a Bor naparte tr Emmanuel. Napoleon, as a further Austria must be made to appear 1 r ON ter of V1 > pr ince tO the d: Lu! condition, expressl} r stipu Tat that geressor in the coming con flict. >». THe ITALIAN War FOR INDEPENDENCE In 1859 Cavour said “I will now fire the powder’ and adroitly maneuvered to precipitate war with Austria. It was reported that on New Year's day Napoleon had openly insulted the Austrian ambas- sador in Paris. Victor Emmanuel on January 7, announced that he was ready to champion the cause of Italy. A great wave of patriotic enthusiasm swept over the nation. Prince Napoleon, a cousin of Napoleon III, went to Turin on January 13 to claim his bride and the treaty of alliance was thus cemented. The army of Piedmont was reorg ranized on the Prussian model, and disturbances were fomented in Lombardy and Venetia by Cavour s agents. Austria, furious at these events, refused England’s offer of mediation and threatened war. An ultimatum was sent to Piedmont demanding demobilization within three days. Since this was just what Cavour wanted, the ultimatum was rejected, whereupon on April 19, Austria declared war on Piedmont. Italy was ablaze with a spirit of defiance, and prepara- tions for resistence were hurried up everywhere. Public opinion throughout Europe denounced Austria for brutally att acking a small power. French armies with N apoleon at their head poured over the mountain passes to free Italy ‘from the Alps to the Adriatic. © The next parliament, Cavour told the Piedmontese, ‘‘ will be that of the kingdom of Italy.’ In a war lasting about two months, victories at Magenta and Solferino drove the Austrians out of Lombardy into Venetia. Haps- burg princes were dethroned in Tuscany, Parma, and Modena, and the northern part of the Papal States pen auniced the temporal power of the pope. All these peoples demanded union with h Piedmont, and the creation of the new Italy was in full swing. Alarmed at this prospect, and at the reports of the mobilization of Prussia, Napoleon on July 11, without consulting Piedmont, made a separate armistice with Austria. Cavour, ina fit of rage, urg red Victor Emmanuel to continue ow) See eC EC ESR ESChap. XV] THE UNIFICATION OF ITALY 249 the war alone and, when the king refused to follow such a foolish course, resigned his premiership. But within six months he had swallowed his disappointment and was back at his old post. The peace of Ziirich, signed on November 10, 1859, ended the war. It gave Lombardy, but not Venetia, to Piedmont. Much more had been gained, however, for Austria was defeated and Italian unification could not now be checked by either Austria or France. When Na- poleon received Nice and Savoy, after a favorable vote, he had to consent to the annexation of central Italy to Piedmont because of the unanimous demand of the peoples of the small states. In April, 1860, the first Italian parliament was opened by Victor Emmanuel in Turin, but that city was not destined to be the capital. The flame of nationalism had swept the length of the peninsula. 3. COMPLETION OF ITALIAN UNIFICATION The next move in Italian unification was made by the Italians without foreign aid. It brought to the front one of the most striking figures of the war for independence, Guiseppe Garibaldi (1807-82), whose exploits read like the romances of the Middle Ages. Born in Nice in 1807, and trained for the navy, he became an ardent republi- can. For conspiring with Mazzini to set up a republic, he was forced to flee to South America, where for ten years he helped the Latin- American republics to gain their independence. Then he returned to Italy ready to join anybody or any cause to free his native land. First he thought of joining Pope Pius IX in 1847 in a movement for Italianunity. The next year he recruited 3,000 volunteers to help Pied- mont defeat the Austrians. With the failure of the Revolution of 1848, he went to New York, where he made some money as a business man. In 1854 he returned home and bought the small island of Caprera, from which he studied the Italian movement. Won over by Cavout in 1859, he helped to drive the Austrians out of Lombardy with his ‘Hunters of the Alps.’’ The next year, secretly aided by Cavour, with about a thousand soldiers, poorly armed, and wearing red shirts and slouch hats, he left Genoa for Sicily. Within three months he had taken possession of the island of 3,000,000 inhabitants, and proclaimed himself dictator in the name of Victor Emmanuel. With his thousand ‘‘Red Shirts’? now increased to 4,000, he sailed for Naples, where he soon had 50,000 patriots under his command. The city of Naples was easily taken, the Bourbon king, Francis II, fled, and Garibaldi assumed a dictatorship over the entire kingdom of Naples. Meanwhile Victor Emmanuel hurried down to Naples, mak- ing an easy conquest of the Papal States on the way. The Neapolitans at once voted for annexation to the new Kingdom of Italy. On February 18, 1861, the national parliament, representing 22,000,000 Italians, met at Turin, and on March 17 proclaimed Victor Emmanuel king of Italy ‘‘by the grace of God and the will of the people.” Within two years Italy had become a free, united nation. Cavour HITOOVONATEOOQQUOTEOOQOUITOUQTOOTOOSHATIUGNYU] Le — = Napoleon makes separate peace with Austria Unification begun Garthaldt Sicily and Naples conquered Victor Emmanuel King of Italy i , { } : 4) ee er Sa ee ee on tte SO ee< a ee = eee eee ' I oe iC _* — a ees Oe nel a aa eer a ad i ea eT een Se Sne ST a aae eee ns Venetia Trentis Trie fF secured ‘orld Vu in U ; 1 TAC secured 3 a] ar PELE REETE Eee 250 MODERN WORLD HISTORY |\Chap. XV polska later but with joy in his heart. feeling that his services were not ade- retired to his ri ocky island home. died of exhaustion four Garibaldi in a bitter mooc quately rewarded, The third step in national unity was taken five years later, when, Austro-Prussian Wat ally with Although the Italians were severely defeated, still the ciently decisive to enable Italy n the Italy joined forces as an Prussia. Prussian victory over Austria was suth which. t} gd om. to secure Venetia, CO the ne y kis The fourth step in Italian unification came four years later in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870. From insisted that His successor, Ricasoli, said: “To after a favorable popular vote, was annexed the outset Cavour pun Rome must be the new capital. } aright; it is an rable necessity. It French bayonets upheld Pius [LX as the un- and the pope had ‘ ) > + -4* r 1iImes 70 to Rome tis not merely inexo was a knotty problem. exci ee the l LS p LOP- erty. Repeated attempts of Garibaldi and other patriots to seize Rome were frustrated. When the Franco-Prussian War b soldiers were withdrawn. The real ri voted for ieee SOVCICIZD ol Rome, 4 ( leaders of the new kingdom as ~ Sacrileg 10Ous usur pers — of | roke out, the Rome on The id took Frenc h , | ) . : September 20, 1870, and the Romans annexation. y 7 = foe. - , ‘ temporal power of the pope, which had endured for over a thousand : a =p A T 5 on vears. came abruptly to an end. In vain did he hurl bulls of excom- and call upon faithful Catholics to cing and pa 7 } munication against the invaders 7 I his assistance. lhe pital. i rush to rliament now removed to Rome as the national ca A dream that reached back to Dante had come true The final step in the unification of Italy the World War in 1915. Trentino, Iriest, were secured, together with over Napoleon I prophesied: “Italy, isc I aries. is destined to form a great and powertul nation. came with her entry into In the settlement of territorial boundaries, and portions of the eastern shores of the Adriatic 1,000,000 people. On St. Helena ylated between her natural bound- Italy unity of language, customs, and literature, must within a is one nation period more or less distant, unite her people under one sole govern- ment. And Rome will, without the slightest doubt, be chosen by the Italians as their capital.’’ His prediction was fulfilled within a little more than a generation after his death. A new nation took its place among the powers of Europe henceforth to play an important role in world affairs. Once more the work of the Congress of Vienna was undone. FURTHER STUDY of the Italian People (1920); B. Kino, A History of Italian Unity, 1814-1871, 2 vols. (1899); Joseph Mazzini (xG02)) ae). A: A: Manzrorr, Makers of Modern Italy (1889); R.S. Hotvann, Builders of United Teal ly (19 E. Mas! , JO ’ Il Résorzgimento Italiano, z vols. (1918); R. pg Gis ane: The Last Dz ys of Papal Bas , 18s50- 70, English translation by H Gopvkin, Life of Victor REFERENCES FOR ake TrREVELYAN, A Short History . Zimmern (1909); G. S. Emman- 0 DRG EO RE ee WERRESS CUO CRUE P PARE SSChap. XV] THE UNIFICATION OF ITALY 251 uel II, First King of Italy, 2 vols. (1879); E. MARTINENGO-CEsARESCO, Cavour (1898); W. R. Tuaver, The Life and Times of Cavour, 2 vols. (1911); P. Orsi, Cavour and the Making of Modern Italy, 1810-1861 (1914); G. GaRIBALDI, Autobiography of Guiseppe Garibaldi, English translation by A. Werner, 3 vols. (1889); G. M. TreveLyan, Gart- baldi and the Thousand (1909); Garibaldi and the Making of Italy (1911); Garibaldi’'s De- fence of the Roman Republic (1907). a ET LN a St te TT i at | : a |aE Ee ar ne Te SS Se * Uj ATLAS as AO ee Early pre paral fons for German “unity Prussia supersedes Austria in German affairs CHAPIER AVI THE CREATION OF THE NEW GERMAN EMPIRE tr. GrowTH OF NATIONALISM Tue Germans in the Rhine Valley, bordering on France, and in the small states, were early inoculated with the spirit of the French Revolution. The reorganization of Germany by Napoleon hastened the spread of French ideas of democracy and nationalism. In 1815 patriots like Stein urged the Congress of Vienna to create a united German nation. But that body, through the influence of Metternich, solved the problem by forming the weak Germanic Confederation, u which checked national growth for half a century. It satisfied the princes, but not the people, who kept alive the dream of a free, unt- fied fatherland through patriotic plays, sermons, poems, songs, secret societies, and the universities. The revolutions of 1830 and 1848 sous T a ht in vain to realize the hope of German nationalism, but they kept the idea alive. The tragic failure of the Frankfort Parlia- ment to create a constitutional German state left in its wake dire results. Absolutism, instead of democracy, triumphed in Germany until overthrown by the Revolution of 1918. Had Germany succeeded in establishing a republic in 1848, or a constitutional monarchy, the whole subsequent history of Europe might have taken a different course. It must be remembered, likewise, that the Customs Union, formed between 1818 and 1853 under the direction of Prussia, unified the German states in their business interests, and thus laid the foun- dation for later political unity. The Industrial Revolution produced an intelligent, wealthy middle class that sought to break down despo- tism and to gain a share in government. The industrial classes, at- tracted to Marxian socialism, became the foes of the remnants of the absolutism of the old régime. All these forces made the national unification of Germany a generation later easier. For thirty-five years after the Congress of Vienna, Austria, as the dominant power in Germany, resisted the growth of democracy and nationalism. After 1848, however, Prussia gradually gained an ascendancy over Austria in German affairs both industrially and politically. The German people saw clearly that Austria, with her non-German nationalities, was unsuited for German leadership. With the successful unification of Italy under the guidance of the king of the largest Italian state, the conviction grew in Germany that Prussia should be entrusted with the same task. Patriotic Germans 7 ©¢4 2.52TOWUAENUQUOHONONOVONUAUAUOUAVONONONQLUVOOUVUOUONOU00) | Roan Chap. XVI] CREATION OF THE GERMAN EMPIRE 253 felt that their problem, like that of the Italians, was (1) to get rid of Austria, and (2) to unite all the strictly German states into one strong nation under Prussian guidance. >. BISMARCK’S PLANS FOR THE UNIFICATION OF GERMANY In 1861 William I, at the advanced age of 63, came to the Prussian throne. He had served in the campaign of 1814 against Napoleon I, and had spent his whole life in the service of the army to which he was deeply attached. The destiny of Prussia, he was convinced, rested with the army, and in 1849 he wrote: ‘‘Whoever wishes to rule Germany must conquer it.’’ With a slow, methodical mind, he was a well-meaning man of few but forceful words. Deeply reli- gious, he believed in the divine right of kings, and thought that a benevolent despotism was the best form of government for Prussia. He was honest, industrious, level-headed, kind, and wise in choosing able advisers. To Generals von Roon and von Moltke he entrusted the reorganization of the army. When the Landtag, controlled by the progressive party, refused to increase the army from a war footing of 215,000 to 450,000 men, he appointed Bismarck as prime minister in 1862 to solve the problem. For twenty-eight years, Bismarck, one of the ablest men of his day, moulded the history of Germany and influenced the affairs of Europe. He was born in Prussia when the Congress of Vienna was in session, and hence at the time of his elevation to the premiership he was 47 years of age. He was a typical representative of the landed aristocracy, known as the ‘‘Junkers,’’ who believed that the people were incapable of ruling themselves. As a university student, he gave more attention to beer-drinking and duelling than to his courses inlaw. Dismissed from the civil service for “‘ deficiency in regularity and discipline,’’ he lived the happy life of a Prussian landlord, mar- ried a devoted wife, and occasionally visited Berlin. In 1847 he was elected to the Prussian diet, and soon gained fame for his contempt of parliamentary institutions. A flimsy “sheet of paper,” called a constitution, he said, should never be allowed to come between God’s chosen ruler and his subjects. Liberals were foolish dreamers, who would ruin the state, if not held in check. A House of Commons might suit the British, but it never would the Prussians. Interrupted by hoots and hisses while making a tirade against popular govern- ment, this huge, blonde giant calmly pulled a newspaper out of his pocket and continued to read it until the disturbance subsided, then went on with his defiant speech. More absolutist than the king him- self, in 1848 he raised a troop of farmers to save the monarch from the Berlin mob. He danced with glee, when the parliamentary move- ment failed at Frankfort in 1848 and Prussia refused to enter a ‘’ shame- ful union with democracy.’’ Sent as a Prussian delegate to the re- vived Diet at Frankfort in 1851, he served in that body for eight years carefully studying the problem of German unity. As early as 1853 Problem before Germany William I Bismarck SO a en ts se ee en etsU a eee — Pt a SE a RE es a de Ss rcet fo aie des mare ee Tue) be Ss ieee ae Se oe ot ae Bismarck i ry becomes Prime ¢ Manister of Prussia Autocracy of Bismarck Bismarck's p 0 li t j cal philosophy Plans for the unification of Germany under Prussia 254 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XV1 he declared that there was not enough room ‘n Germany for both Austria and Prussia, and thereafter one finds him speaking more and more as a German and less as a Prussian. To let him ‘‘cool off’’ he was sent as ambassador to Russia in 1859, where he became familiar with the Russian tongue, and gained the tsar’s friendship. Three years later, his ambassadorship was shifted to France, where he came to know Napoleon III, whom he called ‘‘a great unrecognized incapacity.’’ By 1862, when he was recalled to be the prime minister of Prussia, he was an accomplished diplomat, well-acquainted with European politics, and well under- stood the value of an oily tongue, or a vinegar face — ofa lie or blunt frankness — to gain his point. His promotion by William I was a | greeted with a storm of disapproval by the liberals throughout Germany. Called to head the Prussian cabinet for the purpose of forc- ing the Landtag to pass a favorable army bill, this man of clear vision and iron will sought by threats and compromises to secure the de- sired legislation, but all in vain. During four years of open conilict, in violation of the Prussian constitution, but with the king s consent and the approval of the house of lords, he decided to rule Prussia as a dictator without a budget and in defiance of the popular branch of the legislature. Giving “‘state necessity’’ as an excuse, he collected taxes without parliamentary sanction and reformed the army. Ihe liberals fumed and threatened him with impeachment. The queen, and the crown prince and his English wife, declared that his arbitrary acts would provoke insurrection. To the hesitating king, Bismarck said: ‘‘Death on the scaffold, under certain circumstances, 1s as honorable as death on the battlefield.”’ His boldness, in the end, terrorized his opponents into silence. The goal of Prussian policy, as Bismarck saw it, was first to drive Austria out of Germany and then to unify the separate states into one German nation under Prussian leadership. Since a powerful army was necessary to accomplish this purpose, he refused to allow even the constitution and the parliament to block his course. “Germany does not look to Prussia’s liberalism, but to her military power, he asserted. ‘‘The great questions of the day are not to be decided by speeches and majority resolutions - -therein lay the weakness of 1848 and 1849 — but by blood and iron.’’ Hence he bowled over all opposition and followed his own arbitrary course under the convic- tion that Prussia was divinely called to create a new German nation. To him was given a holy commission to realize the plans which his masterful brain had formulated: (1) An unconquerable fighting machine must be created in Prussia. (2) Through military force, Prussia’s political power and territory were to be increased. (3) At the right moment Austria must be driven out of German politics by a successful war. (4) Then Prussia would unite all the German states under her rule. (5) Finally the new Germany, militarized and é Prussianized, would become a dominant power in Europe. es ea ee eeMUUVOGNTANOONOOQQUONUOQIONOOONOTUOQRIQUGQAUOUAQEOUOOHIILELYU) Suis Chap. XVI] CREATION OF THE GERMAN EMPIRE 255 2. Tue First Step — WAR WITH DENMARK Within a short time, under the genius of Roon and Moltke, Prussia had the best trained army on earth, and Bismarck was ready to strike the first blow. It came ina war on little Denmark over the Schleswig- Holstein question. These two duchies formed the slender neck of the Danish peninsula. Holstein had a German population of 500,000; Schleswig, 250,000 Germans and 250,000 Danes. Although the duke of Schleswig-Holstein had inherited the throne of Denmark, yet the duchies were not a part of Denmark proper. Holstein belonged to the German Confederation; Schleswig did not. During the nineteenth century, nationalism had struck root in Denmark, as elsewhere. The patriotic party, known as Eider-Danes, demanded the incorporation of the duchies. A number of attempts to accomplish this aim had been frustrated by opposition of the Germans in the duchies and in Germany itself. In 1863 Christian IX, the new king, was forced to yield to the nationalists and proclaim a constitution which involved the incorporation of Schleswig, but not of Holstein. This was con- trary to a promise given to Austria and Prussia in 1851. Seeing a chance to add rich territory, which contained the fine Kiel harbor, to Prussia, Bismarck asked Austria to join in settling the question of ownership. On the understanding that the fate of the duchies should be settled by mutual agreement, Austria consented, without any regard to public opinion within the duchies, to a joint ultima- tum demanding the abrogation of the new constitution. When the ultimatum was rejected, these two German powers in 1864 waged a brief war against Denmark and forced her to surrender both duchies, together with the duchy of Lauenburg. In the disposition of the spoils of war, Austria and the people of the small German states wanted the duchies admitted to the Con- federation as another state. Bismarck, on the contrary, was deter- mined by hook or crook to annex them to Prussia. Since such a course meant wat with Austria, for which he was not quite ready, he signed the treaty of Gastein in 1865 by which (2) Prussia purchased Lauenburg outright from Austria; (2) Prussia administered Schles- wig with the right to dig the Kiel canal; and@) Austria administered Holstein. But Bismarck regarded this settlement as only temporary until he could insure the neutrality of Europe and then draw his doomed rival into his spider’s web. 4. Tue Szeconp Step — THE AusTRO-PRUSSIAN WaR In coolly plotting war against Austria, Bismarck first wished either to secure allies, or at least to pledge the powers of Europe to neutrality. Great Britain would hardly intervene. Bismarck’s friendship with Tsar Alexander II, and the offer of Prussian troops to put down the Polish revolt in 1863, assured him of Russian neutral- ity. The Russians had never forgiven the Austrian attitude during War with Denmark Treaty of Gastein ~, + -—-.— — 4 ee e ELE ST a aE T RTT ee Se a A aa ed 1. ee a gS — Fs 4 See relies Be Sinn oe Serre tae Se War on Austria the second sep , ’ Pretext for the war Prussian triumph Results 256 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XV1 the Crimean War. France was more uncertain, however, so Bis- marck Seas visited Napoleon III, urged the cause of national- ism, which Napoleon professed to champion, and fed his vanity with vague suggestions of “compensations’’ in Belgium, or in the Rhine Valley — such remuneration as Napoleon had received from Pied- mont for aid in the war against Austria. Feeling that Prussia might be defeated, or at least be drawn into a long, weakening conflict, Napoleon agreed not to help Austria. To offset the power of the small German states, which he believed would join Austria, Bismarck secured an offensive alliance with Italy by promising her Venetia. Thus the plot was adroitly aid, and both Prussia and Italy began to arm for the encounter with a common foe. With the mailed fist and the shining armor ey with Europe pledged to neutrality and Italy an active ally, some plausible excuse for Peerorag Austria into war was the next move. There was not room enough for both Prussia and Austria in Germany, and only a successful war would give Prussia the supreme position. Ihe Schleswig-Holstein settlement was used as a pretext for war. lo win the German liberals, the “‘Parliament tamer’ now proposed to re- organize the Confederation on the basis of universal suffrage and Prussian control in north Germany, two conditions which Austria could not accept. Then he accused Austria of violating the conven- tion of Gastein by favoring the formation of a single state out of the two duchies. Austria replied by bringing the question before the Diet of the Confederation. On the ground that the treaty of Gastein was broken by Austria, Prussia rushed an army into Holstein to drive out the Austrians, and proceeded to exclude Austria from the Con- federation. The Diet, by a small majority, ordered the federal troops to uphold Austria's claims to Holstein. Prussia then promptly with- drew from the Confederation, and the Austro-Prussian War began. The Seven Weeks’ War, with Prussia and Italy on one side, and Austria and the small German states on the other, was decided on July 3, 1866, in the great Prussian victory at Sadowa (K6niggratz). Superior training, the needle gun (a new ie of breech-loading rifle), the railroad and telegraph, and the generalship of Moltke, won the battle that was to reorganize central Europe and to affect the whole world. Meanwhile the hostile German states were overrun. Italian troops, although defeated, had contributed to Prussia’s triumph by dividing Austria’s forces. William I and the military leaders were determined to humiliate Austria by entering Vienna and there levy- ing a huge war indemnity. But Bismarck, with other plans in his head, objected and even threatened suicide, before the stubborn king consented to the moderate peace — the “‘sour apple’’ — proposed by the empire-builder. The treaty of Prague on August 23 (1) dis- solved the German Confederation and autl Honea a new state which excluded Austria; (2) gave Schleswig-Holstein to Prussia; @,) be- stowed Venetia upon Italy; and (4) levied on Austria a lig ght war oOMMUUTNQOQOQHAONONOQQQQOQOTONINUOQQQQQNQQILAUQQOQEQUOUIUILU() Magy Chap. XVI] CREATION OF THE GERMAN EMPIRE 257 indemnity. Prussia’s leniency later won Austria as a friend and ally. It proved one of the master-strokes in Bismarck’s diplomacy. The commanding position enjoyed in Germany and Europe by Austria under Metternich now passed to Prussia under Bismarck. S\. THE Tuirp Step — THE NortH GERMAN FEDERATION The defeat of Austria gave Bismarck the opportunity for which he had been waiting to increase the size, population, resources, and strategic position of Prussia. The addition of Schleswig-Holstein to the Hohenzollern possessions carried with it the valuable naval sta- tion at Kiel, and a chance to construct the great ship canal later. Furthermore Hanover, Hesse-Cassel, Nassau, and Frankfort, the old capital, were all added to Prussia. As a result of these changes, territory as large as two Hollands, more than five millions of people, and vast natural resources fell to Prussia, which now comprised two thirds of the land and two thirds of the inhabitants of Germany. The realm of the lordly Hohenzollerns was now a connected territory with a population of 25,000,000 stretching from Russia to France, and one of the great powers in Europe and the world. All these annexations were made without consulting the wishes of the peoples concerned. ‘‘Our right,’’ explained Bismarck, ‘‘is the right of the German nation to exist.”’ Bismarck next turned his attention to the political reorganization of Germany. After abolishing the German Confederation, which for so many years had been an obstacle to national progress, the twenty-one little states north of the river Main were induced to join Prussia in 1867 in a new union called the North German Federation. The new constitution for this Federation extended the Prussian sys- tem of government to all of north Germany, and it was accepted at first by the princes and later by the people. The king of Prussia was made hereditary president with power to choose the federal chancel- lor, but the parliamentary system was deliberately avoided. The legislature consisted of two houses: (1) the Federal Council (Bundes- rat), representing the sovereign princes of the various states; and (2) the Reichstag, elected by universal manhood suffrage. The rec- ognition of a general franchise was about the only way in which the new constitution differed from the Prussian system of government. Even Bismarck, the foe of constitutional government, was forced at last to recognize the democratic forces of the modern world. This constitution, like that of Piedmont in Italy, was adopted four years later for the new German Empire. At the insistence of Napoleon III, Bismarck had recognized the “‘international independent existence ’’ of the four states — Bavaria, Wiirttemberg, Baden, and Hesse- Darmstadt — but these states were bound to Prussia by a secret ‘‘ offensive and defensive alliance.’’ The next move of Bismarck was to extend the Prussianized North German Federation over these four South German States. To accomplish this purpose, he devoted his << Creation of the North German Confederation Popular approval of Bismarck’ s MASUTES Government South German Statesee : Fundamental Causes The occasion for the war 258 MODERN WORLD HISTORY (Chap. XVI energy to the consolidation of the political and military institution of the new federal state in the north and to preparations for the last of his series of wars. 6. Tue Fourtu Step — THE FRANCO-PRussIAN WAR The Franco-Prussian War was perhaps a needless, a worse than use- less, conflict. It added nothing to the progress of humanity and little to the civilization of the world. It gave birth to the new German Empire and the Third French Republic, it is true, but the gain was offset by the annexation of Alsace-Lorraine and by the humiliation of a proud, mutilated nation burning with a desire for revenge. Furthermore it helped, more than any other single incident, to lay the foundations for the World War of 1914. The fundamental causes of the conflict were: (1) the ambition of Bismarck to use the enthusiasm engendered by a patriotic war for the of the French empress and her supporters, by a popular victory, to stop dangerous discontent at home, to insure the permanency of the purpose of uniting Germany under Prussian leadership; (2) the desire Napoleonic dynasty, and to curb the growth of a dangerous rival; (3) the indiscretion and foolhardiness of the duke of Gramont, the French foreign minister in 1870; and (4) the jealousy, hatreds, and misunderstandings of two arrogant peoples, swept off their feet by an exaggerated patriotism which had been incited by their governments. Believing that war with France “‘lay in the logic of history,” Bis- marck welcomed it to further his imperial plans by putting on the cap-sheaf of German unity. Smarting with chagrin over the failure to receive ‘“compensations’’ to match Prussia’s expansion, and viewing with alarm the rise of a powerful neighbor across the Rhine, Napoleon III was determined to check Prussia s further disruption of the balance of power on the continent. The press, pulpit, schools, and armies were used by both governments to arouse a militant patriotism. Bismarck’s “ reptile fund’’ and paid journalists filled the European newspapers with inspired reports; and preachers, teachers, and officials were instructed what ideas to spread among the people. The same policy was employed in France. A few level-headed people in both countries denounced the coming struggle as indefenst- ble. France frantically but ineffectually sought allies; Prussia looked only for assurances of neutrality, and gained them. The occasion for the war was skilfully manipulated by Bismarck to make France appear as the aggressor. When he encouraged the Spanish political leaders in offering the vacant Spanish throne to a relative of King William I, France was in an uproar over the ‘* dis- turbance of the European balance of power.’’ The newly elected king, Leopold, resigned the crown of Spain, but Empress Eugenie, a Spaniard, and the French war party persuaded Napoleon to insist that William I should promise never to permit a Hohenzollern to occupy the Spanish throne. Benedetti, the French ambassador, presented ae oiChap. XVI] CREATION OF THE GERMAN EMPIRE 259 this somewhat insulting demand to William I, who refused to make the promise. From Ems the king telegraphed Bismarck a calm ac- count of the incident. Assured by Moltke and Roon that they were prepared for the war, Bismarck revised and shortened the telegram so as to make it appear to the Prussians that Benedetti had insulted William I, and to the French that the Prussian king had slandered France. He then gave it to the newspapers to be sent over the world. It produced the desired effect: excited mobs marched up and down the streets of Paris shouting “To Berlin! To Berlin!’’; and angry Germans answered ‘‘To Paris! To Paris!’’ Mobilization began in both countries. The French minister of war told the emperor that the army was prepared ‘‘down to the last button on the last gaiter of the last soldier.’’ On July 19, 1870, the French parliament, with only ten dissenting votes, declared war, but against Prussia alone. Within two weeks a million men were under arms in Germany, north and south. Through Prussian spies, German officers knew more about the geog- taphy of France than the French themselves. Everything was arranged for the comfort and efficiency of the soldiers from food and beer to stockings and toothpicks. The German military machine Comparison of began a hurried advance towards France. The French were prepared the two armies in spirit but not in military equipment. Their army was poorly organized, badly led, and in chaos looking for the “last button.”’ Officers had lost their poor maps; soldiers had lost their officers; horses had lost their harnesses; guns had lost their ammunition; and, worst of all, France had lost the sympathy of the world. The newspapers of that day quite generally sympathized with the Ger- mans. Americans remembered Mexico; Great Britain was still in- censed at Napoleon’s project to annex Belgium; Russia had not forgotten the Crimean War; Italy recalled her betrayal, and Austria her losses, in 1859. Napoleon’s declaration of war on a neighbor, it was said, was a violation of the spirit of the French Revolution and of his own fine words about nationalism and peace. Today, however, historians, as a rule, are of the opinion that while the war was not unwelcome to Napoleon, it was really engineered by Bismarck. The German generals quickly defeated the French armies at Metz and Strassburg, the two fortresses which guarded the entrance into France, and then captured Paris. Metz was surrounded, and on September 2, Napoleon and 81,000 men were taken at Sedan. After French defeat abolishing the French Empire, the provisional government under Gambetta proclaimed a levy on the whole nation to repel the in- vader. At last the Germans reached the gates of Paris, and never was a more courageous defense made. The people laughed at starvation and ate cats, dogs, birds, and rats, and even the wild beasts in the ‘‘animal park.’’ Gambetta fled in a balloon to Bordeaux, where Siege of Paris with fiery words he sought to incite the country people to rescue Paris. On October 27 Metz with 173,000 men surrendered, and a TOOTOOUCOOTEOUTOGT EREVAN ERASE ESTE EAT} f | rl } | 5 Ov oi ae OE a er rn le eS SS a eee —_ Se teesTreaty of I rankfort Resu ltrs Creation of German Empire at V7 CTS AtLLiCs Treaty of Paris in 1919 260 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [\Chap. XVI month later Strassburg with 19,000. Paris, subdued by starvation and the cold, accepted an armistice on January 28, 1871. The final treaty of Frankfort, May to, 1871, 1) levied on France a war in- demnity of $1,000,000,000; (2) provided for the occupation of northern France by a German army until the sum was paid; and (3) gave Alsace-Lorraine not to Prussia but to Germany. The militarists were bent on destroying France. “Ihe enemy must be destroyed and under our feet: a Bliicher, with his hatred of France, is lacking,’ said one of them. Had Bismarck had his own way, it 1s probable that Lorraine might not have been taken. ‘I do not like the idea of having so many Frenchmen in our house against their will.’’ he remarked. He agreed to buy the railroads in the ceded districts for $65,000,000 but insisted upon trade concessions, which in France were called the ‘‘industrial Sedan.’ Germany won a great military triumph, but at a terrific cost. She got unity, Money, tefri- tory, and glory, but she also received the undying hatred of a dis- membered nation. Within fifty years, in the World War, France had her revenge, and Germany in 1918 paid in defeat for her victory in 1871. 7. Tue FounNDATION OF THE GERMAN EMPIRE While the German armies were overwhelming France, Bismarck took advantage of the psychological moment to complete the unifica- tion of the German nation. He concluded treaties with the four South German States by which they entered the North German Confederation under special concessions in postal and military matters. Ihe name of the Federation was changed to the German Empire, and its presi- dent, the king of Prussia, became the German emperor. Ten days before Paris surrendered, in the hall of mirrors of the royal palace at Versailles, so memorable in the life of the Bourbon despots and the French Revolution, occurred an historic ceremony. King William I of Prussia, on a raised dais, in the presence of the kings, princes, and generals of Germany, was offered the imperial crown by a representative of the king of Bavaria in the name of his fellow monarchs. Bismarck read the imperial proclamation, which com- pleted the first part of his life-work. For miles around Paris the booming of guns and the cheers of German soldiers announced the birth of the German Empire. In 1919 another event of historic 1m- portance occurred at Versailles. There the envoys of the German nation, whose emperor, William II, the grandson of William I, had been forced to abdicate by military defeat and internal revolution, signed a humiliating treaty of peace restoring Alsace-Lorraine to France and agreed to pay a war indemnity about fifty times as large as that levied on France in 1871. The constitution of the North German Federation of 1867, slightly modified, was adopted as the imperial constitution April 14, 1871, and it lasted until overthrown by the Revolution of 1918. pettttngAPRRARONERGRORTEG Chap. XVI] CREATION OF THE GERMAN EMPIRE r ON o Bismarck became the chancellor of the Empire. Now that Germany Imperial was unified, he felt that his next task was to Prussianize it. This done, his next ambition was to assure the leadership of Germany in the international affairs of Europe. To Germany the consequences of the victorious war were greater than she foresaw. The annexation of the territory of a neighboring state left the troublesome “‘ Alsatian question’ on her hands — a problem that soon assumed in principle an international significance. ‘‘Think of it always,’’ said Gambetta, ‘and never speak of it.”’ The war gave Germany an indisputable hegemony in European politics. It completed Italian unity and abolished the pope’s claim to temporal power. It definitely shut Austria out of all German affairs, turned her attention towards the Balkans, and made her an ally of Germany. It ended the neutrality of the Black Sea and reopened the Near Eastern Question. It destroyed the Napoleonic Empire like a second Waterloo and created in France the Third Republic. REFERENCES FOR FURTHER STUDY H. von TreitscuKe, Deutsche Geschichte im neunzehnten Jahrhundert, English transla- tion, 7 vols. (1915-1919); W. H. Dawson, The German Empire: 1867-1914, 2 vols. (1919); A. Warp, Germany, 1815-1914 (1919); H. von Sysex, Die Begrtindung des deutschen Reiches durch Wilhelm I, 7 vols., English translation by M. L. Perrin and G. Bradford (1890- 1898); W. Oncxen, Das Zeitalter des Kaisers Wilhelm, 2 vols. (1890-1892); E. Denis, Le fondation de Ll empire allemagne, 1852-1871 (1906); G. B. Matueson, The Refounding of the German Empire, 1848-1914, new edition (1914); F. Scuevityt, The Making of Modern Germany (1916); E. Marcxs, Kaiser Wilhelm I, 5th edition (1905); Bismarck: eine Biogra- phie, Vol. 1 (2909); Otto von Bismarck, ein Lebensbild (1918); M. Buscu, Bismarck — Some Secret Pages from his History, English translation, 2 vols. (1898); J. W. Hzapiam, Bis- marck and the Foundation of the German Empire (1899); M. Smitu, Bismarck and German Unity, 2d edition revised, (1910); P. Matrer, Bismarck et son temps, new edition, 3 vols. (1914); C. G. Rosertson, Bismarck (1919); E. Branpensurc, Die Reichsgrtindung, 2 vols. 2d ed. (1922); R. H. Lorn, The Origins of the War of 1870 (1924); J. H. Ross, The Development of the European Nations, 1870-1900, 2 vols. (1905); E. Ottivier, The Franco-Prussian War and its Hidden Causes, English translation by G. B. Ives (1912); H. Devsrick, Der Ursprung des Krieges von 1870 (1893); H. von Motrke, Geschichte des deutschen-franzosischen Krieges von 1870-71, English translation by C. Bell and H. W. Fischer, 2 vols. (1891); A. Sorex, Histoire diplomatique de la guerre franco-allemande, 2 vols. (1875); A. Cuuquet, La guerre de 1870-1871 (1895); J. JauRES, Histoire socialiste, Vol. XI, La guerre franco-allemande, by Jaurés (1908); E. Pavat (P. Lenautcourt), Les origines de la guerre de 1870: la candidature Hohenzollern, 1868-1870 (1912); Histoire de la guerre de 1870, 7 vols. (1901-1908); Gwerre de 1870, 2 vols. (1910); J. Favre, Le gouvernement de la défense nationale, 1871-1872, 3, vols. (1871-1875); G. May, Le traité de Francfort(1909); R. Fsster, Die Genesis der Emser Depesche (1915). PUPVENTOHOTOVONNAVAUAUONOLOOOCUVUDUILOLIE) | Mohit Alsace-Lerraine aA Pe . a te Pe te nS er te eeF a a ee Se ere ee Sea = ra ST Dt as a one a Oe se oat pee a es eRe SR ———. . r National and cultural diversity of Austria- Hungary Reform after the defeat of 1866 CHAPTER XVII FORMATION OF THE DUAL MONARCHY OF AUSTRIA-HUNGARY 1. OBSTACLES TO A CENTRALIZED EMPIRE Tue Austrian Empire, in its racial makeup, had the most composite character of any country in Europe except perhaps Turkey and Russia. The majority of the population was Slavic — Czechs, Slovaks, Poles, Ruthenians. Slovenes, and Serbo-Croats — forming a fringe around the Empire from Bohemia to the Adriatic. They differed greatly both in customs and speech. In the center of this Slavic sea were the Hungarians, and to the southwest the Italians. The German Austrians in the west, forming less than a third of the total inhabi- tants of the Empire, in practice ruled all the others. There was no national unity, of course, and also very little imperial patriotism. On the contrary the nationalism of the various racial groups tended strongly towards disunion. The motley Empire was held together by force and loyalty to the Hapsburg house, whose representative after 1848 was Francis Joseph, an unsympathetic and despotic, but just, ruler. When Italy in 1859 wrested Lombardy away from Austria, the eyes of Francis Joseph were opened to the need of reform. Hence the worst ‘‘hereditary abuses’’ were swept away, grievances were redressed. the local diets were restored, and in 1861 a new constitu- tion was given to the whole Empire establishing a centralized form of government. This document provided for an imperial parliament with two houses meeting annually. The Chamber of Lords was composed of hereditary lords and dignitaries appointed by the em- peror. The lower house was chosen by the local diets. Thus, two years after the death of Metternich (1859), Austria abandoned absolutism, and became a constitutional monarchy. In the face of the reactionary policy of Bismarck in Prussia, Austria now became popular with the small German states. But the subject nationalities became more discontented than ever. A new chapter in the history of Austria began with her defeat in 1866 at the hands of Prussia. She was forced to surrender her leadership in Germany, which had been held for so many centuries, to the rival Hohenzollerns. Over 8,000,000 German Austrians were cut off from national union with their blood relatives. Henceforth they had to be content with ruling the polyglot Austrian Empire and with expansion farther and farther into the Balkans. At the same time Venetia was ceded to the Italian kingdom, and Austria was driven out of Italy as she was out of Germany. Furthermore defeat 262Chap. XVII] FORMATION OF THE DUAL MONARCHY 2.63 at the hands of Prussia, encouraged the elements of discontent within the Empire to raise their voices. The people denounced the constitu- tion of 1861, as putting political power into the hands of the landed nobility and the wealthy middle class. The Bohemians and Hun- garians repudiated it because it treated them as provinces instead of separate, equal nations. Other groups assumed equally threatening attitudes. 2. THE COMPROMISE OF 1867 The intensely nationalistic Hungarians said that Hungary had always been an independent state, joined to Austria only by a common monarch, who was the king of Hungary after he took an oath to respect their constitution and received the ancient crown of St. Ste- phen. If allowed to live their own national life, they said, they would codperate with Austria in matters of common interest. But they wanted their own constitution of 1848, and not that of 1861 which deprived them of self-government. They refused to send representatives to the imperial parliament, and repeatedly threatened revolution between 1861 and 1866. The Austrian defeat in 1866 forced the emperor to give way. ‘‘What does Hungary want?”’ asked Francis Joseph of Francis Deak, the Hungarian patriot. “Only what she wanted before Sadowa,”’ Deak replied. Emperor Francis Joseph sought to settle the Hungarian problem by abrogating the constitution of 1861 and consenting to the new constitution of 1867, known as the Compromise (Ausgleich), which was drawn up with the advice of both Austrians and Hungarians. It formed an odd kind of a state called the Dual Monarchy, composed of the ‘‘Lands and Territories represented in the Parliament’’ (Aus- tria) and the Kingdom of Hungary. In this new Austria-Hungary, each state had its own constitution, ministry, courts, officials, capt- tal, and official language. But the two states had a common flag, foreign service, army, and ruler; and, in addition to three joint minis- ters, the ‘‘delegations’’ from the Austrian and Hungarian parliaments which sat alternately at Vienna and Budapest. The three joint ministers conducted foreign affairs, war and common finance. The ‘“delegations’’ settled such matters as tariffs, trade, public debt, and railways for ten-year periods and voted the budget for foreign affairs and the army. Under the Compromise each state was liberal but not democratic, for universal franchise had not yet been won. Magyar nationality had at last secured the recognition of indepen- dence. The Dual Monarchy endured under Francis Joseph until it was broken up into four states by the World War. 3. ProGress or AusTRIA-HUNGARY AFTER 1867 The Empire of Austria under the modified constitution of 1861, now included Germans, Slavs, and Italians, and formed a thick, ir- regular border around all of Hungary except in the east. It was HVOOATIUQQUTOOQETUGOAIUOOOTIOOHUITUWTT Aa Terms of the Ausgleich _ ne es ere ee ee ee ba, Pia a Leen eee eee ee ee Se’ —— poe te —— et eae. eT Be rs aaa eee > et ae ees ee 4 Tae veeee SNe ete RES a Assttia Slat 1c restlessness 264 MODERN WORLD HISTORY |\Chap. XVII governed by the Reichsrat of two houses — the House of Lords made up of hereditar y and life nobles, and bishops; and the lower chamber elected by the seventeen local diets under a restricted franchise. The ministry was responsible to the legislature. The kingdom of Hun- gary was a solid block of Hungarians , Rumanians, Slavs. and a small number of Germans. Its constitution was that of 1848 modified e meet the changed conditions. The legislature consisted of t aristocratic Table of Magnates, composed of 800 nobles and cee clergy; and the Chamber of Deputies chosen by a rigidly limited vote. Here, too, the ministry was responsible to the parli lament. In local government Austria granted home-rule to all of her seventeen provinces through popularly elected diets; but Hungary was not so liberal. Among the Slavs, who constituted so large a portion of the popu- lation of both Austria and Hungary, there was deep-seated discon- tent. How to: ippease them so as to hold them loyal was a difficult problem. Ihe C zechs of Bohemia, the most progressive of the Slavic groups in 1868, demanded the same sort of independence as that accorded to the Hungarians. They claimed that they were also a separate nation, oles to Austria under a common ruler. Hence they insisted that the Kingdom of Bohemia be recognized as inde- pendent and that Frat pee reee sh be coronated at their capital, Prague. To avert revolution, Fras icis Joseph in 1871 admitted these claims of the Bohemians, and promised d to place Bohemia on the same basis as Austria and Hungary, thus changing the Du: 11 Monarchy into a Triple Monarchy. But the hatred and fear of the Germans and Hungarians for the Sia vs was so pronounced that the promise was not fulfilled. The Germans, as the ruling minority in the Dual Monarchy, were afraid of losing their power; the Hungarians thought that an in- dependent Bohemia would only lead other Slavs to demand autonomy; and both groups dreaded the comp slications of foreign affairs under a Triple Monarchy. Consequently, when the Italians also began to agitate for separation, the Dual Monarchy suppressed both the Bohemian and the Italian movements. As a result Slavic self- government rem: ined the burning question in Austria- Hungary from 1867 down to the close of the World War. Indeed the Dual Mon- archy was able to survive only through racial divisions and hatreds, which gave the governments the opportunity to play off one faction against another. The southern Slav problem, centering in Serbia, becathe an ever more active and menacing issue until in 1914 It produced the W orld War which ended the Dual Monarchy. In Austria during the ten years following the formation of the Compromise in 1867, the German liberals in control of the govern- ment tried to ‘‘Germanize’’ the Slavs and the Italians. The schools were secularized, and in 1869 the German language was made com- pulsory in all elementary public instruction. Marriage under the civil law was allowed, and equal political rights were granted to bothTORRRRAORALGRORenaceaanaan a PRURURDRETRORRERIEGE Chap. XVII] FORMATION OF THE DUAL MONARCHY 265 Catholics and non-Catholics. The pope characterized these laws as ‘‘damnable and abominable.’’ The socialists and the ~ Young Czechs’’ raised a cry for the extension of the right to vote and also for social reforms. In 1873 the direct election of members to the lower house of parliament was permitted, but the former system of separat- ing voters into four classes remained unchanged. Not until 1907 was an equal vote given to all men in Austria. In Hungary the Magyars, who constituted barely half of the population (8% million out of 164 million in 1900), sought to © Mag- yarize’’ the Slavs, Rumanians, and Germans. Their newspapers were persecuted, the Hungarian language was compulsory in the state schools, and ancient names of cities and districts were replaced by Hungarian names. All sorts of devices were used to prevent the non- Magyar groups from sending a majority of members to the Chamber of Deputies. Attempts to separate Hungary completely from Austria were checked by the threats of the emperor-king to proclaim unt- versal franchise in Hungary, which would have turned the govern- ment over to the non-Magyars and to the lower classes. Further, the fear of a pan-Slavic peril under the leadership of Russia prevented the separation. As the World War approached, Austria and Hungary forgot their differences and presented a united front to the “dread power of the north.’’ In the growth of political liberty and social reform, while there was some advance in Austria, Hungary lagged far behind the more progressive nations of the world. Hungary, like Russia, remained an archaic agricultural autocracy. Although Austria-Hungary possessed rich natural resources, such as coal, iron, and oil, with good inland waterways and railways, and plenty of cheap labor, still the Industrial Revolution made slow head- way. Agriculture was the predominant occupation, particularly in Hungary, where trade and commerce were mostly in the hands of the Germans and the Jews. The exports consisted chiefly of farm products, glass, earthenware, and beer. Sufficient advance was made, however, in industries and mining, to produce in Austria a middle class of wealth and power, and also an active city proletariat. Shut out of both Germany and Italy, Austria-Hungary began to look towards the Near East. The Balkan states seemed to be a fruit- ful field for expansion. In that region the foreign policy of the Dual Monarchy was (1) to uphold the integrity of Turkey; (2) to en- courage the small states to stand on their own feet and look to Austria rather than to Russia for guidance; (3,) to place every obstacle in the way of Russian political or economic expansion, and (4) to develop the resources of the Balkans for the advantage of Austria- Hungary. The consequences of this policy will be discussed later. REFERENCES FOR FURTHER STUDY J. A. von Herrert, Geschichte Ocsterreichs vom Ausgange des Wiener October Ausstandes 1848, 4 vols. (1869-1886); H. M. Hozizr, The Seven Weeks’ War, 2 vols. (1867); L. E1sen- Hungary Austtia- Hungary and the Balkans DATEERUTESEESOOTTV TEETER ea er eter Sy i el ee ee Ne ee a ara treedDt ee etl oes Se 66 MODERN WORLD HISTORY (Chap. XVII MANN, Le Compris austro-hongrois de 1867, étude sur le dualisme (1904); C. M. KNaATCHBULL- Hucessen, The Political Evolution of the Hungarian Nation, 2 vols. (1908); A. DB BEeRTHA, La Hongrie Moderne, 1849-1901 (1901); La constitution hongrotse (1898); R. W. Seton-Wart- son, Racial Problems in Austria-Hungary (1908); Corruption and Ref R. - 7 ; + ; , , r ' y iy f “ of hs und Zolleinheit: Die Geschichte der oesterreichisch-ungarischen Zwischenzoll-Linie (1915); rm in Hungary (1911); The Southern Slav Question and the Hapsburg Monarchy (1911); SIEGHART, Zolltrennung E. Denis, La Bohéme depuis la Montagne Blanche, 2 vols. (1903); T. von SosNosxy, Dee > \ Balkanpolitik Ocesterreich-Ungarns seit 1866, 2 vols. (1913-1914); R. P. Manarry, Frances Jo ‘ tp i, ie Hi 5 I tte a nda Ti 710 f , a ’ E . Say in p 0 litics oeVv r ¢ d i t 100, I Of 5 Js Lou Is LEG ER . A History of Austria-Hungary (1896). SS ARE SS a 1 i {i i t| it “ees Se ———E See Ree act a ge ee a Ad a ee AS o 7CHAPTER XVIII THE CONSOLIDATION OF RUSSIA 1. THE DespotismM OF Tsar Nicuo.as | Tsar Nicholas I (1825~-1855.), who succeeded Alexander I, was a devout champion of an intense, narrow nationalism. A man of striking personal appearance, by nature and experience a soldier, and happy in the midst of his army, he ruled “Holy Russia “ as a military camp in which disobedience was treason and a desire for liberty, sedition. He loved Russia with a mad passion, and planned to make her great and famous, not by imitating the dangerous western democracies but by developing her own peculiar institutions through a process of ‘‘Russification.’’ Her unique role in world history was to be played under the guidance of autocratic government and the Russian Orthodox Church. The Russian people were inspired to patriotism by a stirring national anthem, amused by a strictly Rus- sian national opera; educated in national schools with a limited course of study; and encouraged to perpetuate their own ancient social and economic customs and practices. Hence, a high wall had to be built up against all pestilential ideas from liberal countries. Tsar Nicholas out-Metterniched Metternich in stopping travellers at the frontiers and in ordering all books carefully examined before being admitted to the country. Nor could Russians go abroad for business, pleasure, or study without permission. The press, music, the thea- ters, and the universities were all censored and watched by paid spies to prevent their inculcation of dangerous western doctrines. Out of 50,000,000 people in 1853, only 3,000 students were attending the universities. An army of secret police, called the ‘‘ Third Section,’’ authorized to make arbitrary arrests and to inflict punishments at will, preserved and perpetuated the autocratic régime. The treatment of subject racial groups was exemplified by the case of Poland, which was blotted from the map of Europe, its diet abolished, and 45,000 families scattered over Russia. The Orthodox Church was simply one of the strong arms of the autocratic state, and, consequently, efforts to win converts from that church to another faith were severely punished. Roman Catholics, Jews, and Protestants lived under harsh restrictions, were watched by the government police, and punished on the slightest pretext. The Orthodox clergy, like the army, were an instrument in the tsar’s hands to enforce his will in keeping Russia ‘‘frozen.’’ As the rule of Nicholas I neared its close, when he saw the floodtide of western 267 TIVUVOVOQONATANUQQOOQHOHONTLULUA}) UA nits Nicholas I and Russification | 1 t | t ft tL ) ote ET ee ee teatCharacter of Alexander II 268 MODERN WORLD HISTORY (Chap. XVIII freedom sweeping into Russia in spite of his efforts to keep it out, he said: ‘‘My successor may do as he pleases, but I cannot change. © In foreign affairs Nicholas I followed the policy of expansion which both his predecessors and his successors pursued. In the so- called ‘‘ will’’ of Peter the Great, now generally regarded as spurious, that monarch was madetosay: “ Neglect nothing to give the Russian nation European forms and customs. . . . Extend by every possible means towards the north along the Baltic, and towards the south and by continually advancing reach out to Se ee ale. The forger of this document, however, certainly i Btcopietes clearly the policy of the Romanoff house during the eighteenth and nine- teenth centuries. Nicholas I obeyed this injunction by adding Georgia in 1829 and other provinces in the Caucasus, and by estab- lishing “ a virtua! protectorate over Rumania. ee an ae Prussia and Austria as the defenders of absolutism, he had no thought of waging war art them, and indeed in 1849 he helped Rist a to crush the Hungarian revolt. Regarding Napoleon CI as a usurper, the tsar i to address him as eS Brother.’’ With Great Britain he attempted to arrange a friendly agreement by which they would divide the empire nf eye" Sick Man of the East,’ but the proposal was reft sed. By 1850 Nic! holas I clearly revealed an ambition to play the role of “big brother ‘ to the little Balkan national groups so that he might eventually absorb them, and “‘protector’’ to the Greek Catholics in the Turkish Empire so that he might use them to obtain possession 1 of Constantinople. Turkey under British and French pres- sure rejected the Russian demand to be given the right to protect the Orthodox Christians, and in 1853 Russia broke off diplomatic relations with The Porte. The same year Turkey declared war on Russia, and four months afterwards Great Britain and France did the same. A year later Piedmont sent 17,000 soldiers to co6perate with the allies, and Austria was prevented from a similar course only by the hostility of Prussia. Defeated in the Crimean War by the western powers he despised, the soldier-tsar died in 1855, leaving to his son and successor, Alexander IJ, the task of making peace. 2. Tsar ALEXANDER II 1855-1881 Alexander II ascended the Russian throne at a time when the people were loudly blaming the military bureaucrats for the humiliat- ing defeat in foreign policy and war, and were clamoring for liberal institutions and reforms. He himself professed to see the dawn of a new day in Russia and was resolved to follow a moderate policy like that of the eighteenth-century enlightened despots. He was sensible, level-headed, humane, and had the wisdom to select intelligent min- isters. His reign was devoted to an honest attempt to remedy the evils of his country, and the problems confronting him were not unlike those which Louis XVI had to meet in France. To attain his goal, he tried to keep in touch with the progress of the west andMPMUVUTUQUQQONOTTNTQQQQQOTONONOQOQOQONNINIUOOQQQOQONUVUUOQOVQOIOIILN00U){MAMagaay = Chap. XVIII] THE CONSOLIDATION OF RUSSIA 269 abandoned the negative policy of isolation. The gigantic Empire over which he ruled embraced the greater part of Europe, stretched across northern Asia, and included Alaska in North America. The population, which was 59,000,000 in 1836 rapidly increased in the next twenty years. Yet, as late as 1860, Russia, in spite of its size ana wealth, was one of the most backward countries in agriculture, industry, and education in all Europe. The most far-reaching reform instituted by Alexander II was the abolition of serfdom. While there were many free peasants, yet in 1836 a contemporary writer estimated the serfs on the crown lands at 12,000,000 and the “‘slaves’’ on the estates of the nobles at 23,000,000. A Russian lord ‘‘reckons the value of his property, not by the annual income of his estate, but by the number of souls, that is, of male peasants upon it. An estate is said to be worth so many souls instead Alexander's of so many roubles per annum.’ By 1860 some 47,000,000 serfs lived "sors either on the tsar’s lands or on the large estates of the 100,000 noble families. In Russia alone of all Europe serfdom remained. About go per cent of the farm lands was owned by the state, the princes, and the nobility. These estates were separated into two portions — the crops of one part belonging to the aristocratic possessor, the other to the village peasants. The lot of the crown serfs was not so deplor- able, because their farms were larger, and their dues and services were lighter than those on private estates, being money dues or “‘ obrok, © rather than onerous labor dues. But all serfs were bound to the soil, and were sold with the land like buildings and cattle. For the use of their little farms, they paid the lord dues in money or services in labor, as a rule three days a week. If the lord had no work, he might send his serfs to work in the mines or factories, or in the cities, and, of course, he took a certain percentage of their earnings. A day’s labor of a serf included that of his wife and of his horse, if he had one. About 2,000,000 serfs were servants in the homes of the lords and were totally landless. Not only could the master sell his serfs, but he could also flog them, or send them to Siberia, ot loan them to the tsar as soldiers. To be sure there were kind-hearted masters, who treated their serfs as children, but too often their overseers were cruel and heartless. Frequently the abused serfs retaliated in robberies, arson, and even murder, and many thousands ran away to become vagabonds. The law, such as it was, protected the serfs in their meager rights, but since the nobles themselves were the local judges, ‘ts enforcement was uncertain and often unjust. Turgeniev s Sports- man’s Tales gives one of the best descriptions of the life of the serfs and their relations to their owners. In America the black man was the slave of the white man, in Russia the serf had the same blood as the owner. The Russians were conscious of the injustice of serfdom as a blot on their national honor, and ever since the French Revolution liberal patriots had urged eman- Abolition of cipation. In northern Russia, particularly in Poland and along the serfdom nn re a re aa a ea — rae ee no See ee eer De Cs gh ete a ad bo ede eee Oe ads 3 eee weeds Are Some Naar es =~) 270 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XVIII Baltic, serfdom had been quite generally abolished, and even in the south there were many settlements of free Cossacks. But it was left to Alexander II to play the role of Abraham Lincoln in Russia. First, in 1858 and 1859, he freed the serfs belonging to the imperial family, and then, in 1861, he celebrated the sixth year of his rule by issuing the Emancipation Law declaring serfdom totally abolished. The crown serfs were either made tenants on a long lease, or became free peasants with the privilege of paying for their lands on easy install- ments. Those working in the cities had only their freedom and became independent wage-earners. The lands of the nobles were divided into two parts, one remaining in possession of the lords and the other going to the peasants in the murs, or villages, as common property. The mrs in turn parcelled out the land to the individual farmers for a given period, which by the law of 1893 had to be at least twelve years. The peasants had to pay the lords for these lands, but by agreement with the landlord the state supplied 80 per cent of the funds for these payments. These were regarded as payment in full and were distributed over a long period of time, to be collected in annual installments from the peasants. In 1863 the serfs in domestic service were freed and in 1866 the crown serfs were emancipated. About half of the arable land in Russia passed into the hands of the former serfs, and the remainder continued in the form of large estates until they were swept away by the Bolshevist Revolution. To pay the nobles for the loss of their lands required a large amount of money. The state had advanced most of it, and now sought to collect it through taxes levied annually on the freed serfs “ for forty-nine years. This led to much discontent among the peasants, who complained that they were given the poorest sections of land, and were unjustly forced to purchase their own freedom. They grumbled about heavy taxes, and grew restless under the harsh tax- gatherers and tyrannical police. They talked much about the need of a ‘‘second emancipation’’ to give them their rights. Uprisings occurred in many places, but were put down by the strong arm of the paternal government. The mir, consisting of the heads of the family, determined the time to begin plowing, to plant the crops, and to reap them. No person could leave his land, even for a few days, without the mir’s consent, unless he risked the forfeiture of his allotment of land. Asa result of these harsh conditions, many peasants ran away and became factory hands in the cities, or laborers in the mines and forests. Once freed, the peasants were clamorous for more rights and privileges. These conditions must be taken into account to under- stand how the younger generation came to play such an important role in the upheavals of 1905 and 1917. A whole series of excellent reforms accompanied the emancipation of the serfs. A new judicial system based on western models was decreed in 1863, and the next year a new code of laws, patterned after other European countries, was drawn up. The system of courts nowChap. XVIII] THE CONSOLIDATION OF RUSSIA 271 extended from local justices of the peace elected by the zemstvos to a court of last appeal. Court proceedings were open to the public and jury trial was provided for criminal cases, but political criminals were still tried secretly in the tsar’s courts. A more modern system of local government was instituted by which the méirs were put under the control of assemblies composed of the heads of families. Above them district and provincial assemblies, called zemstvos, composed of repre- sentatives of the nobles, clergy, and mérs, levied local taxes and exercised rather wide legislative and administrative functions. These bodies were excellent training schools for self-government, and took an important part in the final overthrow of autocracy. Some attention was also given to the establishment of primary schools and technical education. The universities were allowed more liberty and more money, and the number of students increased rapidly. The press was granted a certain degree of freedom, and people were per- mitted to travel abroad. Steps were taken to utilize the enormous sources of natural wealth in the empire. The prospects seemed bright for a modernized Russia. The untimely and badly organized Polish revolt in 1863 aroused the hatred of the Russian nationalists, and was easily crushed by the tsar’s troops without the aid of the Prussian soldiers offered by Bismarck. The Polish nobles suffered most, and the Roman Catholic clergy, who, it was believed, instigated the outbreak, were deprived of their ecclesiastical independence. The lands of the nobility were seized and given to the peasants without compensation to the former ownets. The Roman Catholic monasteries were suppressed and their lands confiscated. Henceforth the Roman Catholic Church in Poland was tuled from St. Petersburg. Poland became the ‘Department of the Vistula’ and disappeared from the map of Europe for more than half a century, while Lithuania was incorporated with Russia and renamed the ‘‘Department of the Northwest. © One of the most unfortunate results of the Polish insurrection was the change it produced in Alexander II. Statesmen of the old régime played on his fears, very much as Metternich influenced Alexander I until the humane tsar was convinced that a liberal policy fomented revolution instead of allaying it. Several attempts on his life, and the spread of radical ideas, caused him to revert to the harsh policy of Nicholas I. The zemstvos were deprived of much of their freedom and subjected to imperial authority. The press was again closely censored, and the schools and universities were carefully watched by spies. The hateful ‘Third Section” was revived and soon terrorized the whole country. Thousands of polit- ical suspects were arrested, and imprisoned or hurried off without trial to Siberia. Modern science and the social studies were rigidly excluded from the schools as dangerous. The army was “reformed ’’ on the Prussian model and in 1874 compulsory service was required. These measures carried Russia backward instead of forward. TOUUUTOSRADOOYT VOSA TAGAATSA SUEUR ee > Other reforms Polish revolt in 1863 Alexander converted to reaction at pace = a ae RT a a a hace a aan cane ae ae ee neem! LT —— I a —— St eerste TT aat Sear A SG SE PE ee EE Sa ONE ES O a Per Seene Se See SON et as Pe re a en abe 5 ay Sal Sas ier ray rrr | Se, 272 MODERN WORLD HISTORY (Chap. XVIII The foreign policy of Alexander II was centered in the desire to gain possession of Constantinople. To this end the tsar encouraged rebellion in Crete in 1865, and in 1870 aided the Bulgarians in securing independence in church matters. Taking advantage of the fall of Napoleon III, Russian rights on the Black Sea were enlarged, a Dany was built, and Seb: astopol was refortified;in 1871. This policy led to the Russo-Turkish War in 1877-8, for the outbreak of which the tsar’s attempted justification was the Turkish massacre of Christians t in the Baie Tl his time the western powers did not interfere, and Turkey was easily defeated. In the treaty of San Stefano (2878), Russia secured terms favorable to herself, besides speci: 11 concessions to the Balkan states, but the European powers, in the Congress of Berlin in 1878. robbed Russia of most of the fruits of her victory. As a result of the change of Alexander II from liberalism to ab- durin lutionary movement. Many intellectual radicals in the solutism the latter part of his reign, there appeared an organ- ized revo universities and among the professional men, wished to abolish the mediaeval régime in Russia and to westernize the institutions of the countrv. Thev wanted a brand new Russia, and believed it could be created through education. When they were openly persecuted by the government, they organized secretly to spread their new gospel among the Pe Many were forced to flee to Switzerland and to Great Britain. Herzen, a refugee in London, edited the Bell (Kolokol), which was widely read in Russia. Clubs were organized to study rons industrial problems, and social conditions with the purpose of eee x Russia from an autocratic to a democratic nation. Propagat ea such as is described in Turgeniev’s Virgin Soil, was carried on among the peasants and city workers to prepare them for the new order which was foreseen. A second group was composed of anarchistic socialists, inspired by the work and writings of Bakunin, who urged the destruction of the existing state, church, and family. Their recruits came from the workingmen and the ignorant peas- ints. Since peaceful means were denied them, they used bombs and assassinations. When balked in their propagandist efforts by the police, the majority of the revolutionists turned to terrorism. They formed a secret organization, which sought to frighten officials, nobles, and clergy into granting reforms, and had their own printing presses, system of spies, and laboratories for making deadly bombs. Members took an oath of implicit obedience to carry out all orders of the society’s national committee. Within a short time six of the tsar’s officers and nine government spies fell as the victims of their wrath. The terrorists were ferreted out and executed without mercy. At last, early in 1881, Alexander II was induced to authorize a special board to prepare a new series of reforms, but the decision was too tardy, for on March 13 a bomb ended his career. The ian movement gave rise to the first great contr ibution made by Russia to the world’s literature. Her novelists, historians, pocts a eeeChap. XVIII] THE CONSOLIDATION OF RUSSIA 273 and dramatists, through their native force and originality, and their deep moral earnestness in dealing with modern life, have aroused enthusiastic admirers in democratic countries. Gogol, the first novelist of original talent, in his Dead Souls, satirized all classes of society. Turgeniev, who spent many years in France and Germany, in his Sportsman's Tales, pictured the sad lot of the serf and did much to pave the way for his emancipation. His Fathers and Sons, pointing out the conflict between the old régime of autocracy and the new régime of democracy, inspired young Russians to new endeavors to modernize their country. Pushkin, the greatest Russian poet, sang paeans to liberty. Dostoievsky, sentenced to die for treason but instead exiled to Siberia, devoted his poverty-stricken life to explain- ing to the world the mind and heart of Russia. With his pen he painted the lot of the “‘ humbled and injured’’ in the cities, the life of saint and sinner, the aristocrat and outcast, in all their human emo- tions. Leo Tolstoy, nobleman, novelist, and reformer, became a world-famous figure. His historical novel, War and Peace, caused people around the globe to think. In Anna Karenina he showed how true joy blesses those who practice the Golden Rule. He attacked injustice in government and society, and advocated non-resistance as the only moral weapon. Believing that the common peasant had achieved the most ideal life, he gave his estate to his wife, labored in the fields as a peasant, and ate the food of a humble farmer. So great was his influence that the government dared not lay hands on him. He delivered a powerful blow at autocracy and inspired millions to work for the dawn of a new day. Russian art depicted human suffer- ing and human injustice, while Russian music was founded upon an inexhaustible wealth of unique folk-lore and its accompanying emotions. REFERENCES FOR FURTHER STUDY A. Rampaup, Histoire de la Russie depuis les origines jusqu'a nos jours, 6th edition completed to 1913; English translation, 3 vols. (1881); R. Beazuey, N. Forszs, G. A. Birxert, Russia, from the Varangians to the Bolsheviks (1918); A. KorwniLov, Modern Russian History, 2 vols. (1917), (new edition 1924); T. ScHIEMANN, Geschichte Russlands unter Kaiser Nikolaus I, 4 vols. (1904-1919); M. Kova.evsky, Russian Political Institu- tions (1902); J. Mavor, An Economic History of Russia, 2 vols. (1914); A. THuNs, Ge- schichte der revolutionaéren Bewegungen in Russland (1883); S. Srepniak (S. M. Krarcuin- ski1), Underground Russia (1883); L. Kuxczycx1, Geschichte der russischen Revolution, Ger- man translation from the Polish, 3 vols. (1910-1914); P. Kroporkin, Memoirs of a Revolutionist (1899); Russian Literature, Ideals, and Realities (1915); A. Bruckner, A Literary History of Russia, English translation by H. Havelock (1908); W. L. PHetps, Essays on Russian Novelists (edition 1916); A.J. Beveripce, The Russian Advance (1903); F. H. Sxrine, The Expansion of Russia (3d edition 1915); BERNARD Pargs, A History of Russia (1925); S. A. Korer, The Foreign Relations of Russia (1922); Autocracy and Revolu- tion in Russia (1923). TUNNATOQAUUOQUVOQUCOQUOOQOQOQNIVOGNVOOVOOQUUOQOVOGULORIOLYEITLIIIG Lyi a}ht : | literature ana i ee ee eS Fe a oS ee ee eee eres a SanteeSe cS we EE ver tow oe ee SOS Se ————————————— arrest Snr we IE LAG ee ee Progress of A? r ; Separatism in early nineteenth century GHAPTER ALA THE UNIFICATION OF THE UNITED STATES t. THe Lack or Nationat UNitTy Wuite the settlements of the Congress of Vienna were falling to pieces before the onslaughts of democracy and nationalism in Europe, the Republic of the United States was expanding across the American continent. By 1860, through purchase and conquest, the nation extended over an area about as large as all Europe, and included a population of 31,500, This vast region was being rapidly cemented together by a network of highways, railroads, and canals. With the opening of mines and the building of factories the exploita- tion of the matchless natural resources of the country began. The establishment of schools and colleges was quite as marked as the raising of cotton and the creation of steamboats. Social reforms kept pace with the most progressive nations of the Old World. For the white race political democracy was farther advanced than anywhere else on earth. Excepting for the evil of Negro slavery, there were no privileged classes and no feudal system. Autocratic government was unknown, and the people as a whole were happy, prosperous, and proud of their native or adopted land. But the problem of complete national unity remained unsolved. To be sure, there was one constitution and one flag, but state rights and sectionalism had not yet been outgrown. So strong were the local loyalties that men regarded their status as New Yorkers or Virginians as of more consequence than that of Americans, while New Englanders, southerners, and westerners took more pride in their localities than in national citizenship. Washington foresaw the danger of sectionalism and warned the people against it. DeWitt Clinton resigned his seat in the Senate of the United States to be mayor of New York City. In the War of 1812 some of the states refused to permit their militia to fight outside of their territorial limits, and in 1814 the New England Federalists threatened to withdraw from the Union. The differences and jealousies between the North and the South became more and more accentuated as the years passed so that as new states were admitted, great care was taken to keep political power in Congress pretty evenly balanced between the states above, and those below, the ‘‘ Mason Dixon line.’’ For a time both sections were satisfied with the Missouri Compromise of 1820 — the Dirty Bargain’’ — which made the line of 36° 30’ the division between free and slave territory in the Louisiana Purchase. When Congress passed a tariff in 1832, South Carolina voted the Ordinance of a 2.74 /PTE EEE EE ae , t | ee | eae | eee ’ rt 2 Chap. XIX] UNIFICATION OF THE UNITED STATES 275 Nullification, and forced a modification of the tariff law. The same year Georgia set aside a decision of the national Supreme Court, and even repudiated a treaty made by the federal government. And so the dispute between state and national sovereignty went on until settled by a gigantic civil war. 2. THe Civit WaR The controversy over slavery further separated the North and the South. The doctrine of liberty as set forth during the American Revolution resulted in the abolition of slavery in many of the north- ern states, where it was of little economic value. The federal con- stitution provided that after a period of twenty years (1808) the im- portation of Negro slaves to the United States should cease. After the Missouri Compromise in 1820, the slave states became more aggressive in defending slavery as an economic necessity and as a moral good for both the slave and the master. The reaction on the North was the rise of the abolition movement. Lundy and Garrison, through their newspapers; Wendell Phillips, the orator; Whittier, the Quaker poet; Parker, the preacher; and Lowell, the essayist, all took up the cause of the freedom of the blacks. Reviled and even mobbed in the north, these advocates of human justice and democracy soon spoke to multitudes, and aroused public opinion until among the Northerners Negro servitude became a burning issue. The Liberty party was formed in 1840 to limit slavery by all constitutional means. Meanwhile the free discussion of the slavery problem vanished in the south. In 1845 Texas was annexed as a slave state, and the Mexican War afforded further opportunity for sectional strife in Congress. The uproar over the admission of California as a /sisee state’’ ended in the Compromise of 1850, which, however, satisfied neither the North nor the South. The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 permitted the question of slavery in those two territories to be settled on the principle of ‘‘squatter sovereignty.’’ Both sections rushed settlers into the region to control the vote and local warfare resulted. Out of that controversy was born the Republican party, which in 1856 polled 1,314,264 votes. When in 1857, in the Dred Scott decision, the Supreme Court decided that the national govern- ment could not prevent the introduction of slavery into a territory of the United States, the Republicans assailed it as ©‘ unconstitu- tional.’ Men like Lowell said that the question could be settled by wat alone. Lincoln became the champion of a new nationalism in the north, while John Brown’s fanatical raid convinced the South that slavery, to live, must be nationalized. Many thousands among the Northerners were won over to the abolitionists’ views. The presidential election of 1860 was a crisis in the history of the Republic. Four days after the election of Lincoln as President, the South Carolina legislature called a secession convention, which on Decem- ber 20, 1860, declared that the state was no longer a member of the Y Slavery and SCCOSSZON PUVLHVUUIVGLLULAEVAEIIT ELT tt if = eye fae ag fee T4 TP De 9) Ee Se Se os - a ee— oi ee FE PE ee ENE Policy of Li i] CC [ 43 Abolition of slavery 2.76 MODERN WORLD HISTORY (Chap. XIX , — ay . Z Z ] -T- : = 5 Union. By February 1, 1861, six more states seceded. These seven states then summoned a constitutional convention, formed a “ pro- visional constitution, and elected Davis and Stephens as president and vice president of the ‘Cont federate States of America.’ Further efforts at compromise failed. The North refused to accept the deci- sion of the Supreme Court on the slavery question as final; the South insisted that the dictum of that august tribunal should not be ques- tioned. On this issue neither section would yield. Thousands in the north believed that the South should be permitted to secede, and President Buchanan argued that there was no way by which the national government could “‘coerce a state.’ When a ship Carrying the American flag, went to provision federal troops in Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor, she was fired on by a South Carolinian battery, January 9, 1861, nia the war between nationalism and sectionalism began. In his inaugural address on March 4, , Lincoln held that “the Union’’ was “perpetual, ’ and ee that the laws of the nation would “be ay executed in all the states.’’ When Fort Sumter was captured by South Carolinian soldiers on April 14, President Lincoln se aediatcli called for 75,000 volunteer troops. Four more southern states at once seceded, and both sides prepared in grim earnestness for the gigantic conflict that was to decide the question of American nationalism. The North with 22,000,000 people, of whom 3,500,000 were foreign-born, raised 2,500,000 soldiers. The South with 9,000,00c ae ints, of whom 23,500,000 were slaves, 150,000 free negroes, and 300,0 ) foreigners, recruited 1,230,000 men for war. The naval superiority a the North enabled her to cut off the South from outside sup plies, and in her factories and war materials the North also had an advantage. Still the South held out through four long years of heroic struggle, and surrendered only when no longer able to raise men and means of warfare. The unity of the nation was won at a tremendous cost. The North lost 360,000 men; the South 258,000, or a total of 618,000 lives. The United States spent $3,660,000,000; the Confederacy, $1,500,000,000. The destruc- tion of northern merchant vessels amounted to $ 9,000,000. The North suffered small loss in property; the South was almost ruined commercially, and estimated its loss in slaves alone at $2,000,000,000. This conflict. called the ‘‘ War of the States’’ in the south and the ‘Great Rebellion’’ in the north was a triumph for the nationalists. The doctrine of state sovereignty received its death blow, and hence- forth, after a controversy that had lasted since 1787, the full sover- eignty of the federal government was recognized. In 1862 Congress freed 3,000 slaves in the District of Columbia and paid their masters $200 for each slave. Slavery was also abolished, but without com- pensation, in all the territories. Ihe property of rebels was likewise confiscated, and this included slaves, who were set free. Public opinion in the north finally induced ssident Lincoln in 1863 toaeeaGeanana | ae eeeee UNIFICATION OF THE UNITED STATES Chap. XIX] 277 issue the Emancipation Proclamation which affected the status of more than 3,000,000 slaves. Just two years before, Tsar Alexander II had broken the shackles of millions of serfs in Russia. In Europe the humanitarian wave which accompanied the French Revolution had as one of its planks the abolition of human slavery. Many of the conservatives joined the liberals in support of this demand, at least in countries occupied by whites. During the first half of the nineteenth century, therefore, the more enlightened states of Europe regarded it as a world disgrace that the United States should still tolerate slavery. Logically such states as Great Britain and France should have rejoiced over the outbreak of the Civil War and should have given their moral support to the anti-slavery side. One of the reasons why this did not occur was because the progress- ive forces, which had caused the outbreak of a series of revolutions, were all hostile to slavery. Consequently the conservatives, in a natural reaction, upheld the slave-owners, and attempted to give material assistance to the southern states. Following the example of the British government’s proclamation of neutrality, other Euro- pean and the Latin-American states declared their neutrality during the Civil War. Gladstone said: ‘‘Jefferson Davis and other leaders of the south have made an army; they are making, it appears, a navy; and they have made, which 1s more important than either, a nation.’’ Hence the southern Confederacy was recognized as a bel- ligerent power. When the southern commissioners, Mason and Slidell, started for Great Britain on a British ship to obtain recogni- tion of the Confederacy as an independent nation, a northern war- ship seized them. Great Britain threatened war, unless they were released, but Lincoln had taken a position which would justify the United States in freeing them without appearing to act under a threat from England. Great Britain, hard-hit by the blockade, which cut off her cotton supply, and Napoleon HI, who was seeking the con- quest of Mexico, were considering mediation to end the war, when Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation put the war on a higher moral plane. Prominent Englishmen like Bright and Forster, and even Queen Victoria, were friendly to the North. Palmerston and Gladstone, however, viewed the war as an attempt of the more powerful North to coerce an unwilling community to obedience. Throughout the war Russia, Prussia, Denmark, and Italy were friendly to the North. After four years of fighting, it took eight more years to restore the Union, disrupted by secession. The most prominent leaders of the south were excluded from national offices, but not one of them was tried for treason. It was thought that the Negro question was solved by three amendments to the national constitution: the thirteenth amendment abolishing slavery in 1865; the fourteenth making Ne- groes Citizens in 1868; and the fifteenth giving them the right to vote in 1870. Not until 1870 were all the seceding states readmitted to the LATTHT POTUENNTOOUN OOO OUOOHDOOQUOONEITL Piiie ; Reconstruction policies and problems TULLE a Savas — ra TTA ae ac rn i Te ne i a RE I RNS ARREST a od pn — eee ae ae ————————Pa if ane } a aid ae FT ie mae ad Cpu: - oer al Eee ° - Pa ~~ 278 MODERN WORLD HISTORY |\Chap. XIX Union. To care for the millions of freed but homeless black people, Congress created the Freedman’s Bureau in 1865. The assassination of Lincoln in that year made the problem of reconstruction much more difficult. The Supreme Court by its decisions sought to create an indestructible union of indestructible states.’’ The military officers sent down to govern the southern states vetoed laws, removed } civil officials, dismissed legislatures, and issued decrees like despots instead of acting like the representatives of a democratic government. Southern Republicans and northern Carpet-baggers — controlled the Negro vote and inaugurated a régime of corruption and extrava- gance past all belief. In self-protection the southern men joined the Democratic partv and formed the ‘‘solid South’’ in national politics. i . | q ro An Amnesty Act in 1872 restored all but approximately 300 Con- tederate leaders CO full political rignts. and special iaws SOOM Tréeln- Lic } 4 ' Stated many or these to their rormer statuS as CItizens. [he ouprel ' 7 yo ! ] r L, : ere ) yk ‘7. j - t in . Court in 187s declared the Civil Rights Act unconstitutional, anc thus permitted the southern states to discriminate against the Negro in hotels and on railway trains. [The Ku-Klux-Klan sought to a a 7" 7 a h } ; =F anil ~L : 2 + 7* & r } ~ f° _* % » ey * . y ln Qo r cerrorizZe tne DlaCKS ana CTHNUS TCStOTre ana preserve White aSCcendadancy. [he dark-skinned Americans secured freedom, but as yet they enjoy neither fuli CIVIL TILNCTS NOT SOClal ACimnocracy. SocrAL, EcoNomMIc, AND EpuUCATIONAL PROGRESS The emancipation of several millions of black people from a state of servitude was the greatest social change that had ever oc- curred in the life of the nation. Hundreds of thousands of Negroes went north to form a section in nearly every village and city. Much was done to relieve their needs and to supply them with employment. Meantime the white population was spreading from the east into the middle and far west. The old towns were expanding into ugly, clumsy cities, and new Cities were springing up to the westward. These cities were poorly-lighted, inadequately drained, badly policed, and most of them without paved streets. New York City in 1857 had the first uniformed and disciplined body of policemen. Washington was an unpaved bog in time of rains, and pigs and cows roamed through the streets. Adequate systems to supply fresh water were just being constructed. Village greens were common, but Central Park laid out in New York City in 1857 was the first large city park. After 1854 horse cars were rather widely used. From 1845 to 1855 more than a million Irish immigrants found homes in the New World, and the series of European wars from 1848 to 1871 resulted in the coming of hundreds of thousands from the continent to America. Even Chinese and Japanese began to cross the Pacific to labor in California and Oregon. The natural resources of the nation were opened up on a greater scale through the large supply of cheap labor. Lumbering developec into a paying industry. The first oil wells were sunk in 1859, and Sect he oe eo ee eeeeoaSeE SEY: HTT TTT TEE THOTUUTOTTUTUTVTNTVUTRETOULUTAUUAOTOEVOUULAO OD Lome bs ~ tiiteee? nes Ty ee raed Chap. XIX] UNIFICATION OF THE UNITED STATES 279 soon methods of refining crude oil gave the world kerosene and other products. Natural gas was discovered and widely used for lighting, heating, and manufacturing. Mining was developed by leaps and Industrial bounds. Agriculture, horticulture, and stock raising spread across GiveLOPIBEEES the continent. In 1860 the South exported cotton to the value of $191,000,000, and after the Civil War this lucrative business was revived. Express companies were organized, and in 1851 letter post- age was reduced to three cents. Mills and factories multiplied in the north. The iron industry was revolutionized by the Bessemer proc- ess. The telegraph was supplemented by the first cable across the Atlantic in 1866. Free delivery of mail (2863), money orders, and mail cars (1864) expedited business. The enactment of a homestead law in 1862 and the completion of telegraph and railroad communi- cation with the Pacific coast by 1869 facilitated the settlement of post-war problems and gave impetus to the settlement of the west. Hundreds of new inventions put the United States among the leading industrial countries of the world. New corporations, banks, and insurance companies appeared. Labor became better organized and through strikes and boycotts sought higher wages and shorter hours. In the economic life of the world, the United States, particularly for the period following the Civil War, began to occupy a more con- spicuous place. The educational progress of the nation was seen in the general spread of education through the free public schools and the attention given to grading and supervision. About 1850 superintendents were appointed to oversee the grade schools in the cities. At the same time Cultural efforts were made to improve the secondary schools and colleges, changes while true universities were appearing here and there. The Uni- versity of lowa in 1856 admitted women to all departments. The press, library, platform, and pulpit spread knowledge among the people. The churches were becoming national until the Civil War created a schism in some of them. Whittier, Longfellow, Emerson, Hawthorne and other writers were creating a new national literature. Such journals as the North American Review, Harper's, and the Arlantic Monthly, made their appearance. Historians like Bancroft and Pres- cott were followed by Motley and Parkman. The South could point to Poe and Simms as literary stars. iets eel ee =! << pen aera Sm LAD Sa NS 4. Tur ACHIEVEMENTS OF NATIONALISM TO 1880 As one surveys the period of world history from 1820 to 1880 it stands out in strong relief as preéminently an age of nationalism. Most of the insurrections were nationalistic in character, and the doctrine of the mission of the national state, preached as fervently as a religious creed by all groups of people, was a decisive factor in moulding the course of human events. In Greece, Latin America and Belgium national states were created before 1848, while the spirit of nationalism led to needed reforms in Great Britain, Francea ] at em a SP a RE " " re aPC eT I et ae ee =e an = ——— Development ; 0] Atmocracy iRo MODERN WORLD HISTORY (Chap. XIX and the United States. Everywhere, in the Old World and the New, this nationalistic awakening inspired peoples to new impulses and ambitions. Oppressed peoples, such as the Poles, Itz = ans, Hun- garians, Slavs, Germans, Irish were dreaming atid planning for the day of national emancipation. The thirty years from 1848 to 1878 was one of a ODE realization. Three great worl ld powers — Italy, Germany and Japan — were created; and four smaller states — Serbia, Rumania, Bulgaria and Montenegro — gained an independent status. Hungary secured all the rights of a self-coverning state, as lly of the Austrian Empire. The Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, ind Jugo-Slavs were defeated 1n their eee itions for separate political organization. The national integrity of the United States was saved ONLY by Lilt ( ivil \\ Le La live V¥ ao once LOTTE tr ansfor med into a \ } - lL, f "|, 7 =) = ~ | 5 , > , ' Tt ; - ‘ 5 r O ay TE DUDILIC, LUC This d. \ nicn has end Ll ed L© the present ELIE. By Lo 8 i I ; oy of ; . : ce cate Na hea oa Picea ahs : the political reorgraphy oO! Europe Was simplified and clarified. Lhe sore spots resulting from the failure of nationalism to attain its goal, | : Als: ine, Poland, the groups in Austria- Hungary, Norway, Italia Irredenta, the Balkans, and Ireland were to cause disturbances for the next forty years For thirty years after 1820 there occurred in Europe and in Latin America a relatively large number of liberal insurrections in existing political organizations, hicl 1e overthrow of autocratic rule and the attainment of a greater degree of self-government. For the thirty he ese yen of the small outbreaks in Poland and Greece in 1863, the secession of the South in the United States, and the bloody frenzy 2) U 1€ pane Commune in 1871, the states of the world were remarkably e from internal upheavals. With the attainment ot ee Came a develop! nent of the institu- years following 1848, with p» tions of self-government far more remarkable than during the epoch of liberal revolutions. By 1878 most of the Barone Cana nd American states possessed constitutions and systems of modernized govern- ments, which were to Beeye fairly stable and enduring. After 1878, with the exception of the Balkans, there were in Europe compara- tively few major political changes of much significance until the World War. The devel ie. ment of nationalism was accompanied by the growth of pol ‘gical democracy and constitutional government. Among the different raci: Hi groups in Austria-Hungary the two forces, nationalism and democracy, continued to thwart each other. Elsew Here: national unity aided the establishment of popular government to a greater or lesser degree. In Germany and Italy the cause of the people was identified with the ambitions of the government, and hence hostility to the ruling powers tended to disappear as concessions of more liberal institutions were made. Reformers planned to advance pro- gressive measures through parliamentary bodies chosen by an ex- tended franchise rather than by revolution. Certainly a distinct gainChap. XIX] UNIFICATION OF THE UNITED STATES 281 was made for civilization when peaceable progress became the watch- cry of the democratic national state. Two forces, socialism and autocratic imperialism, were the ene- mies of nationalism. Socialism in one form or another sought to ignore national boundaries and institute a class-wat against the capitalists in all countries. To accomplish their goal, they formed political parties and thus sought to gain control of the government. In 1868 the Social Democratic party, under Bebel’s leadership in Germany, was organized to labor for the realization of the Marxian program. Had its ideals been realized fully, the socialist movement would have destroyed national unity everywhere. But it failed be- cause the workingmen were largely loyal to the new national ideal, and because the national governments were sufficiently strong to prevent its triumph. Autocratic imperialism successfully thwarted the realization of nationalism in central and eastern Europe. In Germany the people of Alsace-Lorraine, Posen, and Schleswig were compelled to remain subject to Prussia. In Austria-Hungary, the Slavic and Italian groups were ruled by Austrians and Hungarians. In Russia, the Poles, Lithuanians, Letts, Esthonians and Finns were denied autonomy. In the Balkans, Turkey tyrannized over the sub- jected Christian nationalities. And in the United Kingdom, Ireland did not enjoy self-government. The effects of the growth of nationalism on world civilization were both good and bad. On the whole it encouraged democracy and helped to extend the right of the people to participate in govern- ment. It tended to reduce the power of kings and emperors by es- tablishing popular legislatures, and by creating systems of free, national education. It reduced the danger of disruption through internal revolution, and assured the triumph of law, liberty, private property, and orderly progress. On the other hand, nationalism tended to a narrowing of ideals and sympathies; to an intolerance of everything ‘‘foreign’’; to a selfish and bigoted type of patriotism; to an undue praise of national history, art, literature, language, music, and institutions. Consequently it bred dangerous rivalries and animosities among nations, and led to alliances of one group of nations against another group. It brought the policies and “‘ vital interests’? of one nation into conflict with those of another. Each nation sought to become entirely self-supporting by securing new territory and the control of new markets. Distrust and hatred grew apace until, finally, to realize national ideals, the nation-state felt it imperative to build a formidable navy and to possess a powerful stand- ing army. Europe became an armed camp in defense of nationalism, the result of which was the World War in 1914. REFERENCES FOR FURTHER STUDY J. S. Basserr, A Short History of the United States (2d edition 1921); J. F. Ruopgs, History of the United States from the Compromise of 1850, 7 vols. (1892-1906); The Civil War PUCCUUNATTTVOGATTTONOREA OSEAN posi Socialism and imperialism Nationalism, culture and civilization eet ed — aaa —— - ne oe a ee Seng apte LET se eee a oT eee 7A sete - = Sart—- ali ne Se al IES $2 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XIX 1918): W.E. Dopp, Expansion and Conflict (1915); Ibe Cotton Kingdom (1921); W.M. GARRISON, Westward Extension (1906); T. C. Smitu, Parties and Slavery (1906); A. JOHN- son, Stephen A. Dougtas IgOo ia G. NicoLay 1 JOHN Hay, Abrat yt n,aH bory, I ys. C189 I. M. Tarbert, Life of Abraham I In, 2 vols : Lord CHaRN- a SE SE ven Sa i Veward. 2 N. W. SrepHenson, /[ ¢ Confederacy (192 Wel : Dopp, Life of Jefferson D 07); H. U. Fat imerican I History (1924 W. A. Dunnineo, Reconstruction, P 8): P. L. Hawortn, The | nifted Stat Our Ou | C Z 2 i ( M NS €T H r I r qn fhe | pref \rare 2. Os > ( Kt L NX ) , he {| Yj 7? 192 [ | Paxson. Recent History of the | 2 iol } H the United St |. Lipprnco The ie [ j 192 Buss Perry. [he American Spirit in Literature (1921 E. E. Stosson, The American Spirit yn Education (1921): C. F. Tawine, History of Higher Educat n America (1906); E.G. Dexter. History of Education in the United States (1904); A.M. Scuiesincsr, A Political and Social History of the United States, 1829-1925 (1925); L. B. Suipper, Recent American History (1924); D. S. Muzzey, The United States of America, 2 vols. (1924). OD eee ) HI il ee . rf ee a Ser ee A Ee Et ee, 5 rBARN) NATIONAL CONSOLIDATION INDUSTRIAL AND WORLD POWERS PVNUQQQQQOQQOQQQ 000000000 00000 0VUUETERUOLOOOOUOEITUTAITHT is —— See) STL a a ETI LTCHAPTER XX GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND 1. NEUTRALITY AND FOREIGN RELATIONS Arter the elimination of Napoleon from the public life of Europe in 1815, Great Britain enjoyed a long interval of peace, until, about the middle of the nineteenth century, her imperial interests led to a series of foreign wars: (1) She joined in the Crimean War against Russia to preserve the integrity of Turkey. (2) In 1857 all north- MPMVVVTHTUNNNUUUQQQVOQOQQTAONUNUOLIUOULQUNA])UoDbenen) ern India rose in the Sepoy revolt against British rule. With the Foreign war aid of loyal native troops from other sections, and fresh soldiers from home, the British were able to put down the insurrection. The mutinous native troops were punished and all who were suspected of instigating the massacre were sent to death, oftimes with the greatest cruelty. () Three wars occurred with China — the Opium War of 1839-40, the war of 1857-60, and that of 1860 — which secured for the British valuable trading rights. (4) In 1862 there was a short war with Japan. (5) Similar petty conflicts took place in Ashantee, Abyssinia, Burma, Can Reb (1837), Tasmania (1830), Afghanistan (1839, 1842), New Zealand, and with the Kaffirs (1819, 1834, 1846, 1850), Boers (1848), Basutos (1851), Zulus and Kafirs in South Africa. As a result the British Empire was ex- tended and British commerce considerably increased. The Civil War in the United States won friends for the South among the conservative upper classes, and champions for the North among the common people. The blockade of southern ports shut out British goods and closed the textile mills by cutting off the supply of cotton. Idle workers, the high cost of living, and anger at the seizure of Mason and Slidell from a British ship, caused the English government to send troops to Canada preparatory to a declaration of Great Britain war on the North. But Lincoln’s apology for the capture of the two Confederate commissioners averted a conflict. Great Britain declared neutrality, but secretly favored the South by permitting cruisers to be built in British shipyards. In the case of the “‘Alabama’’ and several other cruisers, the guilt of Great Britain was so evident that the Geneva Tribunal, ten years later, awarded $15,000,000 in damages to the United States. On the whole, however, the British govern- ment preserved its neutrality faithfully in the face of much pressure at home and provocation abroad. 2. PoxrricAL REFORMS Since 1832 there had been no extension of the franchise and no change in the distribution of seats in the House of Commons. Agita- 285 and the United States aa ~~ pan para Ss wt ES Se SS ce — Dar be ors To te 7 a . ——r pao ape Se ee Sa ree eS Sth “ = rae TRMES IIT. SL Woman suffrage 286 MODERN WORLD HISTORY |Chap. XX tion for the granting of the right to vote to all Englishmen cul- minated in the Chartist movement, which, however, accomplished nothing directly. When Gladstone in 1866 led the movement for the extension of suffrage, only one man in six 1n Great Britain ses a vote. To win the support of the pec ople, Disraeli secured the € passag e of the Reform Bill of 1867, which ee the numbe ‘r of Be irliamentary seats in 46 towns and gave them to the larger cities and more populous counties. At the same time the right to vote was rag to all men who paid a small sum in taxes or rent, so that now at least two thirds of the men voted for members of the House of Commons. Only the Ps yor farm laborers and the poorest workingmen in the cities See lisfran tose The elections of 1868 swept the Liberals into power with Gladstone as prime minister. The Ballot Act of 1872 introduced the acter of secret voting in British elections. When the farm laborers struck for better wages and demanded the right to vote, Gladstone became their champion and, against much opposition, secured the passage of the Reform Bill of 1884, which increased the voters from 2,000,000 to over 5,c00,000. The next year more than a hundred of the smaller towns were made parts of the counties in which they lay, and their representatives were given to the larger cities and thickly settled counties. At the same time a electoral districts were equalized all over the kingdom. Gladstone now } boasted that the people were arrayed in “’ one solid, vee stare mass around the ancient throne, which it had loved so well, and around a constitution now to be more than ever powerful, and more than ever free.’ The middle class was enfranchised in 1832; the workingmen in the towns and cities in 1867; and the Lees people in the rural districts in 1884. The next year representation was a djusted to the population, and the members of ie House of Commons increased from 658 to 670, with 72 for Reneiund. 103 for Ireland, and 495 for England and Wales. These conditions c ntinued unchanged until 1918. Since a man voted, not as a natural right but as an owner of user of property, some 2,000,000 Men were still d leprived of the right to vote for members of Papement Further, since a man voted in every district where he met the property qualif ifications, nearly s25,000 men were plural voters, some having as many as twenty votes. Consequently the cry, one man, one vote,’ arose, and com- plaints were made that, since the popul: ation had again shifted to the industrial centers, the earlier apportionment of seats was no longer equitable. For instance, in 1912 an English borough with 56,000 voters and an Irish borough with only 1,700 voters had the same number of members in the House of Commons. Finally, women taxpayers who in 1869 were given the right to vote in municipal elections, began to demand the right to vote for members of Parlia- ment. Their claim to this privilege was greatly strengthened by the demonstration during the World War of their ability to share in theHITT PUVOTT NTT TOTUNVTUNACATONIVATAUANVOOTOGTOGTIVALUQAIUGLONOUOALORTOONUNUIN DORR | fy = y hi Chap. XX] GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND 287 difficult tasks confronting the nation. To meet these new condi- tions, the People’s Act of 1918 was passed (1) giving a vote to all males without regard to taxes or property; (2) limiting the number of votes that an elector could cast to two; @) permitting absent soldiers and sailors to vote by mail, and lowering their age limit to nineteen years; and (4) granting to every woman over thirty the right to vote, provided she occupied a home or owned property worth £5 a year, or if her husband met such requirements. The franchise was thus extended to 2,000,000 men and to 8,000,000 women. Another important political reform occurred in connection with local government, when in 1882 the right to vote for city officers was extended to all inhabitants, whether property holders or not. The acts of 1888 and 1894 created representative councils in the coun- ties and parishes chosen by both men and women. To these bodies was given authority over such matters as education, health, and the poor. In this way the British people have come to rule themselves by the will of the majority in both local and national affairs. While local government, the House of Commons, and the cabinet were now democratic, the House of Lords remained as the bulwark of class privilege. For a century the ‘mending or ending”’ of the Lords was a burning issue in British politics. When in 1909 Lloyd George proposed a heavy income tax and other burdens on the rich, the Lords, by a vote of 350 to 75, rejected his budget. Since for a long time it was assumed that the Lords had no control over money matters, the House of Commons voted that this rejection by the Lords was a ‘breach of the constitution and a usurpation of the rights of the House of Commons.’ Supported by the nation, the House of Com- mons passed the Parliament Act of 1911 and the angry Lords were obliged to sanction it. This measure provided that any law dealing with the financial matters of the nation, passed by the Commons and refused by the Lords, should after one month be sent to the king and, with his signature, become law. Other bills rejected by the Lords, if passed by the Commons in three successive sessions, also became law. Provision was made, however, that two years must clapse between the second reading of the bill in the first session and its third passage. Asa result of the curtailment of the authority of the House of Lords, it has less power today than the Senate of the United States. The legal term of Parliament was lowered from seven to five years in order to insure more frequent national elections. With the Lords’ loss of all veto power over money bills and the retention of only a suspensive veto over other laws, the House of Commons is now the unquestioned sovereign power of the nation. 3. [HE GOVERNMENT OF GREAT BRITAIN The British government differs from that of the United States in six impertant ways: (2) It has a flexible and only partly written rather than a rigid, written constitution. (2) It places much more Local government reforms Decline of House of Lords on n> ahd ee sae gees arte eee ae SASSER OO RET oe al AEHa — a ES AT nS EN, ER cee See SES = A S wee ee ee oo Sst Le Ie EL ~ G wernment of England ana United States The king The ministry 288 MODERN WORLD HISTORY (Chap. X power in the lower house of the national legislature. Cr) tats centralized and not federalized. (4) It uses the cabinet as the real executive, which reflects the will of the majority in the Commons. ‘s) The governmental powers are united and not separated, and are continually changing. The constitution is made up of many docu- ments, legal precedents, written laws, and unwritten practices — the product of fifteen centuries of political growth — and it has not yet reached a final form. Parliament has the power to alter the con- stitution at will, and by the common processes of law making. 6) There is no ee court to decide on the constitutionality of legislation. To an American, the British ae system seems at once “royal, aristocratic, and democratic.’ Prior to 1832 the aristocracy were in control; then the mic ‘le class came into power; and with more recent extensions of the franchise and the dim of the veto power of the Lords, the government 1s on a truly democra- tic basis. Yet both the king and the Lords remain and perform valu- able services in the British system. To an onlooker the king seems to play an important role. He lives in splendid palaces, owns large estates, enjoys personal im- munity, and cannot be arrested or called to account for his private conduct in any court of law. On his accession, George V was voted an annual income of $2,300,000. He sets oe exam ple in all social circles, occupies the center « E the stage in all official ceremonies, and reigns ‘by the grace of God.’’ Viewed more 7 ysely, however, he 1s little more than a national ee and the right to warn.’’ Like the Union Jack, he stands symbolically for the unity and permanency of the Empire, and for the majesty of the law. ‘The king reigns, but does not rule,’’ and the crown” is no longer the king, but ceil ‘‘a convenient working hypothesis. — Laws are passed and enforced. and court decisions ma di e. in the name e-post W ith the © ‘right tO encourage of the ‘“‘crown,’’ yet the real executive, or crown, 1s) not toe monarch but the ministry, which is directly cooe to the majority in the House of Commons. The ministry is composed of about sixty of the highest executive heads, nominally appointed by the king, but in reality selected by the prime minister, who reflects the will of the party in power. In theory custom obligates these ministers to resign at once, if the House of Commons expresses a decided disapproval of their policy. About twenty of these ministers, who fill the most important posi- tions. form an inner circle known as the cabinet, which shapes the policy of the government. Although the most powerful factor in the British system, the cabinet until recently was wholly unknown to law. In 1906 this office for the first time was recognized by law. The head of the cabinet is the prime minister, w ho is alw ays the acknowledged leader of the majority party. The prime minister chooses his own associates, and serves as the connecting link be- tween the king and Parliament; with other cabinet members he sitsMVMONONONOEUUUOIOINVUUIHIIN)) Wea | ! Chap. XX] GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND 289 in the House of Commons to explain all important acts and bills. The cabinet exercises administrative powers, directs legislation, and continues in office as lopg as it enjoys the confidence of the House of Commons. When an adverse vote is passed by the Commons, one of three things may occur — either the cabinet immediately resigns, or it may bow to the will of the majority as the Ramsay MacDonald cabinet did on half a dozen occasions, or else the House may be dissolved and a new election held. Should the new House support the cabinet’s policy, it remains in office; if it does not, then the leader of the “‘opposition’’ is asked to form a cabinet. In the British government the cabinet is the ‘‘ keystone of the arch,’’ and has so notably proved its success as an agency of the people’s will that it has been generally copied over the world. The strain of the World War forced some significant changes in the cabinet system. Many new departments were created to meet the abnormal situation. In 1915 a ‘‘coalition’’ cabinet was formed of representatives of all parties, but it soon proved too cumbersome to conduct business for the efficient direction of the war. Hence the next year a ‘‘war cabinet’’ of five members, with Lloyd George as prime minister, was formed, to which a sixth member was added later. This ‘‘war cabinet’’ continued in power after peace was made, Imperial until the election of 1922 returned the conservative Unionists to °4##m power with sufficient strength to restore the pre-war cabinet system. In 1917 and again in 1918 the prime ministers of the self-governing British colonies were asked to attend a series of special meetings of the cabinet in order to secure more effective codperation in waging the war. It is one of the peculiarities of British political procedure that these variations occurred without any formal authorization by Parliament. The British Parliament, constitutionally, is made up of two houses: the Lords and Commons. The House of Lords is composed of hereditary peers, bishops, and peers created by the king. The Commons by the act of 1918 included 707 members elected by the people for a term of five years, unless Parliament is dissolved sooner. Any British voter is eligible for a seat. As the prime organ of the people’s will, the House is virtually Parliament, and is commonly so designated as the source of sovereignty. In the United States elections occur at fixed periods; in Great Britain they may take place Parliament at any time the prime minister wishes to appeal to the people, and must be held at least every five years. The law of 1918 fixed the amount any candidate may spend on elections at about fourteen cents for each voter in the county electoral district and ten cents for each voter in the borough district. The House elects its own pre- siding officer, called the ‘‘speaker,’’ who is supplied with a home and a stipend of $25,000 yearly. Such officers as the clerk and ser- geant-at-arms ate named for life by the king. This powerful body, without a written constitution to limit its actions, without a su- STL el ke TT — te mi2.90 MODERN: WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XX preme court to declare its acts unconstitutional, and without a veto by the Lords or king to nullify its measures, governs the country with wisdom and sanity. Through a long historical process the Commons has acquired powers that once belonged to the king and the Lords. Since 1919 there has been much discussion of the “‘ devo- lution’’ of the government of Great Britain, which would give England, Scotland, and Wales subordinate legislatures, called crown councils. to relieve Parliament of a multitude of purely local prob- lems with which it is at present swamped. There has also been con- siderable discussion of the further reform of the House of Lords. A. PoLITICAL PARTIES England was the first modern country to develop the system of political parties, which today prevails in all democratic nations. After the seventeenth century the two-party organization emerged and became an integral part of the government. The political arena witnessed a Clash between the Whigs and Tories, or the Liberals and Conservatives as they were called after 1850. The Tories were in hich, with the exception of a few brief controlled the government until 1874. power prior to 1830, afte } 1 liberty, stressed free trade, sought to i tibet | w periods, the Whigs or ral The Liberals stood for individual | | break down the rule of the la ided aristocracy and hereditary privi- S lege, W ished to curtail the power of the state church, urged equality before the law, and championed Irish home rule, the extension of suffrage, the betterment of the lot of the workingmen, and democratic ideals. From 1874 to 1905, except for nine years of Liberal rule, the Conservatives were in power. Their earlier slogan for the Crown, the Church, and the Constitution was considerably altered by the ‘eresistible march of events. They accepted certain democratic re- forms. which were well safeguarded against excesses, and showed an eagerness to redress grievances growing out of competition in in- dustry. Their imperialistic policy culminated in the South African War (1899-1902). They stood before the nation as the guaran- tors of law, order, and property. In 1886 Gladstone's first bill for home rule in Ireland led a large section of the Liberals under Cham- berlain to secede to the Conservatives, who thereupon adopted the name of Unionists. In 1905 the Liberals returned to power and governed Great Britain until 1915, when the coalition cabinet was formed for the better prosecution of the World War. Each of these two great parties was strong enough to restrain the other, and yet one of them always ruled in the House of Commons. ‘“His Mayesty s Government’’ is the victorious party; ‘“His Ma- jesty’s Opposition ’’ is the defeated party. Both parties are so broadly national in their policies that notwithstanding heated debates and apparent differences, many broad-minded men find it easy to change from one to the other. In general the Unionists opposed Irish home rule. and favored an aggressive foreign policy, tariff reform in the oo| UVTUTUATUTTUTUVT ONT NTT ATUATGTCGTURUQYOOEUONOQNOVEAUONOVENRUGNOQUAVUAUSOVONUALAINN) 0 Oburt Chap. XX] | GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND 291 direction of protection, moderate social legislation, and reasonable land reform. To check the supremacy of the House of Commons, they urged a popular referendum on all important laws about which the two houses disagreed. They represented the landlords, farmers, the clergy of the state church and many men of wealth in industry. The Liberals championed Irish self-government, free trade, radical Party social legislation, restriction of the liquor traffic, the abolition of ?rsrams plural voting, and the supremacy of the House of Commons. Prior to the World War their leader was Lloyd George, who advocated a sweeping program of social democracy. Their strength came from the middle class and the laboring classes in the industrial centers, where human welfare was bound up with coal, iron, and commerce. Two minor political parties appeared in recent years. The Irish Nationalists, localized in Ireland before a self-governing status was obtained by the Irish, sought either home rule or complete inde- pendence, and often held the balance of power in the House of Commons. The Laborites, organized about the end of the last cen- tury by the trade-unions, and composed of workers and sympathetic intellectuals, desired in general to promote the welfare of the laboring masses. Before the World War neither of these two parties was strong enough to play any important role alone. After 1906, how- ever, by uniting with the Liberals, they exercised a profound influence on legislation. The Labor party in that year had 29 seats in the House of Commons, and by 1914 the number had been increased to 42. Early in 1918 the Labor party adopted a national democratic organ- ization and appealed for support to all who worked * by hand or brain.’’ Since the World War the Laborites have increased their membership greatly, and have set forth a comprehensive program of social and economic reconstruction in British industries. In the elec- tions of 1922 they won 142 seats, and in the elections of December, 1923, succeeded in winning control of Parliament with rgr seats. It remains to be seen whether the Labor party will become one of the great parties, by absorbing the Liberals, or whether it will be swal- lowed up by the Liberals. 5. SocraL REFoRMs In recent years it has been felt that the two most pressing social problems are: (2) the unequal distribution of wealth; and (2) the ownership of land by a few persons. Industries, mines, railways, _and ships are in the possession of capitalists, who have the means to enjoy life, while their hired workers, who constitute a vast majority of the men and women and children of the nation, have neither suffi- cient leisure for recreation, nor adequate pay for food and clothing, nor comfortable homes in which to rear their families. Crime, dis- ease, overwork, ignorance, and deprivation continually confront the working people. The workers in the congested industrial centers early in the nineteenth century formed “‘labor unions’’ througheae a a AN a a eet fogs: See emer Se 292 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XX bor which by collective bargaining they hoped to obtain higher wages emer are and shorter hours. When Parliament forbade these organizations and sent men to jail for violating the law, the workers formed secret unions. Public opinion became so strong in support of the labor unions that in 1824 the prohibition was partly removed, and a dec- ade later under Robert Owen a ‘‘ Grand Consolidated Trades Union " came into existence. The ‘‘strike’’ as a weapon to secure reforms was regarded by the government as a conspiracy against legal bust- ness, and punishable by the criminal code. Not until 1871 were labor unions fully legalized, strikes permitted, and collective bargaining freely allowed. British labor unions now increased rapidly and set an example for skilled wage-earners in other countries. After the successful dockers’ strike in 1889, the unionization of unskilled la- bor made much headway. The railway men of the Taff Vale Railway in Wales struck and “‘picketed’’ the road to prevent the company from using non-union men. Ihe railroad company then brought action in court against the union and in Igor it was found guilty by the House of Lords and sentenced to make good the losses to the railway company. As a result the labor unions in the nation were so aroused that they joined the Liberals in enacting the Trades Dispute Act of 1906, which permitted ** picketing, © and forbade suits against trade-unions for compensation on the ground of violation of agreement. The workers now advanced their interests through both the union and the Labor party. In each election new victories were won. The Lords in 1909 decided that the funds of unions could not be spent for political purposes. The House, however, in 1911 voted to pay each of its members a salary of $2,000 a year, which enabled the Labor members to devote all their time to their duties, and after- wards enacted a law permitting unions to use their money for party needs, if approved by a majority vote of their members. Serious labor troubles and strikes from 1911 to 1914 caused general alarm. Meanwhile labor unions were uniting in larger and more powerful organizations until in 1914 the Miners’ Federation, the National Union of Railwaymen, and the Transport Workers’ Federation, included more The British than 1,500,000 members. In 1920 about 60 per cent of the manual Labor Party workers were in trade-unions, and they had 70 members in Parliament. Largely as a result of the idealism of the World War, the Labor party demanded the nationalization of the coal mines and the means of transportation, and the settlement of world problems on the basis of genuine democracy. The bad conditions among the workers led tosome salutary reforms. In 1878 the previous laws regulating labor in industry were united into a single code, and provisions were made for the inspection and sanitation of factories and mills. This code was revised in 1902, when the minimum age of child workers was raised to twelve years, and the general working conditions improved. In 1908 the Mines CodeUVITVQOAIOQINUGATOOOANOOQUFUOQUOQQUNGOAUGNIVUQATIOQAUOOOVOOADUQAUINE) Louie i Chap. XX] | GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND 293 extended these regulations to the mines. Two years later an eight- hour day for miners, and in 1912 a minimum wage, were created. The Workman’s Compensation Act of 1906 required employers to pay their workers for accident or sickness. Pensions of $1.25 a week were provided in 1908 for poor workers over seventy. In1g914o0vera million old people were drawing this pension. In London alone 100,000 tenants were housed in modern homes built by the govern- ment. An effort was made to give every laborer ‘a garden patch.”’ Labor exchanges were established to find employment for the idle workers. Wage boards representing the workers, the employers, and the government were organized to adjust wages on a fair scale. Finally the government provided insurance against illness, injury and unemployment. These measures were based on the theory that all society should bear the burdens of the working classes for the general welfare of the nation. Loud were the complaints in Great Britain because the land was in the possession of a few rich landlords. As in feudal days, less than 5,000 persons held the greater part of the soil of the nation. In England proper 27 noblemen had come into the ownership of about ro per cent of all the fields and forests, while in Scotland 1,700 persons laid claim to go per cent of the territory. Further, quite a number of the largest estates in the nation were ‘“entailed,’’ that ts, they went from the father to the eldest son and could not be sold or broken up. Thus it was that these landed aristocrats, without manual toil, collected from their tenants annually in rents millions of dollars. The land problem was so serious that statesmen became greatly alarmed over the situation. The tenant farmers and farm “ hands’’ were dwindling, and farming declined until the crops fell far short of feeding the population. The landlords paid taxes only on that part of their lands directly used by themselves, while the tenants paid taxes on all the remainder. Before 1909 the lands reserved for game and gardens were also exempt from taxation, and the game wardens alone increased in half a century from 9,000 to 23,000. In that year Lloyd George cited the case of a Welsh tailor who was assessed $4,700 on 800 square yards of land, while a near-by marquis was assessed only $4,600 on 500,000 square yards. Vast sections were reserved for hunting instead of being cultivated to feed the people. Between 1889 and 1909 about 1,500,000 acres of tillable soil were withdrawn from cultivation. During the World War most of this idle land was plowed up and planted to crops, and it will never be given up again to idle users. Since the leases of tenants were for short periods, they took no pains either to enrich the soil or to make improvements. Increased rents caused much discontent, and the hard work, low pay and long hours induced thousands of farm laborers to flock to the cities or to leave for the colonies. More than half of the farm laborers were getting less than $4.50 a week for their toil. The situation was serious, and it was felt that land reforms must Land problems in Great Britain i | | t| 25a RA ene on Sa es aT a i aeSS Se ee eta r ——————— ae some. a ee Ce ens ae — ee mi a or? ca sciineedithcininnaiinenGiparnsngipiaiansnsieidiimntneta TENS. Backwa oO; Diu ; taucatto 294 MODERN WORLD HISTORY — [C ha P DES be made. To remedy the evils in the rural districts, over 56,000 farm cottages were declared unsuitable for families to live in, and a government commission was named to study the farm prob slems. In 1913-14 it recommended: 1) a living minimum wage for all farm hands; (2) the erection at public cost of modern homes for the farmers; (3) repayment for such improvements as the tenants made; (4) the prohibition of the “sporting tenant ; (5) radical changes in the game laws; (6) an increase in the number of small, independ- the creation of a land court to settle all ques- tions growing out of agricultural conditions. The outbreak of the Work 1 Wa they serve as an er towards 6 per cent of the people are engaged in ent farmers: and r pre’ vented the immediate realization of these reforms, but which the government is working. Today in Great Britain only agriculture, while in le aly the number is 35 per cent, in France 4o per 7 cent, in Russia 72 per cent, and in Jugo-Slavia 0 per Cent. 6. EpucaTIONAL CHANGES AND Rericious REFORMS The education of the children in Great Britain was delayed by the hostility of the nobility and the clergy, who feared that knowl- edge for the common people would make them restless, atheistical ae nee nists. ares and order, they argued, were preferable to intelligence and disorder. The church, and not the state, they said, should supervise edu 1850 averaged about 4o per cent among adults. Prior to 1870 perhaps cation. As a result of these ideas illiteracy in | - a majority of the children received no adequate training in schools, and such schools as did exist were under the control of the church or private organizations. But the conviction gradually prevailed that an enlightened democracy must replace an uneducated one. Men like Bentham, Blackstone, Owen, and Adam Smith were advocates of universal education, enforced attendance, and a national system of schools. The social changes under the Industrial Revolution began ‘o favor better educational advantages. It is necessary ‘to induce our future masters to learn their letters, & RepusBLtic or MONARCHY? The most important question confronting France was: Should the new government be a republic or a monarchyr The various monar- chical groups unde ‘ Piya. the R ep HOLE Stet J oe 6 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XXI 20 failed to win the elect they did gain in influence in succeeding rHNIMICIts The next disaster, which threatened the Republic, was the Dreyfus affair. For a decade it shook France to the foundations, and attracted wide comment. Inthe midst of the excitement over the assassination of President Sadi-Carnot, the resignation of President Casmir-Perter, and the election of President Félix-Faure in 1894, came the arrest of Alfred Dre} Fi a Jewish captain of artillery serving on the General | vith selling valuable military secrets to Germanv. After trial before a secret court martial. he was publicly 5 aa aad ol . ree " - : deprived of his stripes and sword, expelled from the army, and ‘mprisoned for life. Although denying his guilt and affirming his love of France, he was sent to Devil's Island off the northern coast of South America. The French people, incited by an antt- Jewish cru- sade, approved his punishment as a traitor. The Monarchists de- nounced the Republic as ‘‘ bourgeois and Jewish’’ and sought to Drevfus case for their own advantage. The Catholics | . * ] hr ‘x? / . - cy? % i f L, 4 mr) el 4a ic ‘ 44 fe slamed the Jews for the growth of atheism and socialism in France. Meantime Colonel Picquart, an honest republican officer in charge of ' ] ¥ 7 1 4 “~ (™ military secrets, by examining the documents in question, was Con- vinced that it was not Dreytus but a disreputable and boastful mon- 1ist major, named Esterhazy, who was guilty. But when he reported his discovery to uC minister of war, he was ordered to be silent, and was soon replaced by ¢ olonel Henry. The Monarchists, militarists, and icitals with a large following among the masses, now ees a new party called the Nationalists. They began an open attack on the Soci: lists, the anti-militarists, the anti-clericals, the Jews, and the Republic. At first the pro- Dreyfus party was composed « of literary men, teachers, and artists, but soon he Socialists and Sy} rndicalist (or ee nder the le: idership of t Jean Jaurés took up ‘the cause of the condem: es Jewish captain, and finally the Repul sae demanded a fair trial. Of course the Jews also left no stone unturned to vindicate the innocence of a member of their race. Galodel siete believing that Dreyfus was the scape- ~] cl chists in the army, worked with all his S— * <> might for a new trial. Emile Zola, the great 10velist, wrote to President Félix Faure his famous open letter. ‘‘I Accuse, © which was ment announced that the case yoat ofa conspiracy of Monar read around the globe. The govern was ‘‘closed.’’ At length Colonel Henry confessed that he had reed one of the documents in the Case, and committed ene fajor Esterhazy also: admitted that he had forged another of the documents on the evidence of which Dreyfus had been convicted, and fled to London. President Loubet ordered the supreme court of But it was not until 1 E908 that Dreyfus was ‘my, and decor: ated with the France to review the Case. com ipletely exonerated, promoted 1 in the: Legion of Honor. Colonel Picquart ne became minister of war, and the remains of Zola were buried with great pomp and pr ide in theeeeanean geen) Chap. XXI] FRANCE UNDER THE THIRD REPUBLIC 307 Panthéon. The Monarchists and militarists suffered a crushing de- feat. All types of Republicans were united, and the Third Republic emerged more triumphant than ever. The threatened disaster had proved a blessing in disguise. 4. SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE As a Catholic country, France had numerous powerful religious orders or ‘“‘congregations’’ which had greatly increased in numbers and wealth since 1870. For instance, there were 14,000 nuns in 1870 and 75,000 in 1900, while the monks in the latter year numbered 190,000. The wealth of these orders multiplied from $2,000,000 in 1850 to $200,000,000 iN 1900. Premier Waldeck-Rousseau pointed out that these monastic societies, because of their hostility to repub- lican institutions, were a national peril. Hence in 1901 there was enacted a law which abolished all religious “congregations ’ except those authorized by the government, and forbade the members of the few authorized orders to teach in the public schools. As a result many orders were exiled from France and some 10,000 church schools were closed. Another law in 1904 was intended to deprive monks and nuns of the right to teach in private as well as state schools during the next ten years. By 1913 over 4,500,000 children were being taught republican ideals in the public schools, while only 500,000 were attending church schools. In 1905 the Concordat of 1801 was abrogated, and the com- plete separation of church and state decreed. The state neither ap- pointed the clergy to office nor paid their salaries. Pensions to the older clergy, however, were continued, and grants to others were extended during the period of readjustment. The members of all religious sects were treated alike and authorized to form societies of laymen to manage their affairs. To these societies were to be turned over all buildings used for worship and for housing the clergy, but other church property was to be retained by the Republic. Gifts and legacies to the churches were restricted. In case the lay assocta- tions did not act within a given time, even the church buildings were to pass to the state. The clergy and pious Catholic laymen denounced these measures as acts of spite and spoliation. Nevertheless the French bishops had finally decided to accept the situation and organ- ize the lay associations when Pope Pius X proclaimed the whole Separation Law invalid, and called on French Catholics to disregard it. Two years of turmoil followed; riots broke out, and some men prophesied civil war. However in 1907, thanks to the skull of Aristide Briand, a working compromise was reached by which (1) the clergy could make arrangements with the local mayors for the use and maintenance of the churches for worship; and (2) they could manage their church affairs as they pleased. Much ecclesiastical property was turned over to charitable organizations. In this man- ner, through its opposition to the Third Republic, the Catholic DUQOUURTTTOCUAN TATTOOS ERA Toei French Catholicism in 1900 Separation of Church and State od a stn , SS ee a ee Re ee eel (— a PP mRERS EO Ape Se ed eternal ee eee fi reer ob eS af yt,Ce eee eee eee eee ee ae Se SES ar ie ee Re a Te ————s on TE SEE Se = 23 Set ee a et a i a a hs Origins ¢ f Frenct lonial C77 frre fe pet & rs . y Im peri1alism under the Third Repub lic 08 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XXI Church in France lost most of its property, financial support from the state. the control of education, and even exemption from military service and taxation. This new status forced the clergy to become champions of the very principles they had fought, namely, freedom of worship, assembly, speech, and the press. The separation of church and state was a reality, and both powers have slowly adapted them- The church has full independence in , o€ lves to the changed relation. religion; the state in government, and both have prospered. Vic- tory, however, was W ith the Republic. In 1921 diplomatic relations were resumed with the Papacy. >. Tue New IMPERIALISM While firmly establishing the Republic on the ruins of monarch- h | ‘sm. militarism, and clericalism, French statesmen were also turning their attention to imperialism. They remembered the great French empire of the earlier centuries, which after 1815 had shrunk to a few ‘clands and coast towns in India, Africa, and South At 1erica. Ihe rebuilding of a new colonial empire had begun with the conquest of Algeria. Under Napoleon Ill the Senegal valley in Africa, and Cochin China in Asia, were acquired, together with some islands in Oceania and a protectorate over Cambodia. Thus by 1870 France had staked out a large colonial empire, which was tO sefve as a beginning of greater overseas expansion. Under the Third Republic, this colonial empire was extended and consolidated until it became the second largest in the world. More than three fourths of this empire was secured between 1875 and 1914. Tunis, coveted by Italy, was made a French protectorate in 1881 to safeguard the eastern border of Algeria. This led to ill-feeling be- tween France and Italy for a generation. Agreement with Great Britain in 1904, and later adjustments with Germany and Spain, gave France a free hand in Morocco. Thus French authority was extended over nearly all of northwestern Africa from Algiers to the Congo — a solid block eight times the size of France with almost a third of her population. In this vast region railroads have been built, auto- routes constructed, air-services established and many other modern changes effected. In Asia, Annam in 1883 and Tonkin in 1884, were secured. and later united with Cochin China under the name Indo- China. In 1907 parts of Siam were added to this new colonial unit. Madagascar in 1905 became a French protectorate. The defeat of Germany in the World War added a portion of her African possessions to France. Through all these overseas acquisitions, France owned in 1923 a colonial empire twenty times her own size with a native population of 60,000,000. The annual trade with her colonies in- creased from $70,000,000 in 1879 to $400,000,000 in 1914 and to about $600,000,000 in 1924. French capitalists invested millions in colonial enterprises. The Catholics approved of imperialism because it gave them new fields for missionary work. Patriots took pride in seeingPETE i D SESEGREeeUoe Chap. XXI] FRANCE UNDER THE THIRD REPUBLIC = 309 the French flag floating around the globe. Republicans saw no in- consistency in imposing their civilization on “inferior” peoples in other parts of the earth. In spite of initial failures and discourage- ments, the French have accomplished wonders in steadily transtorm- ing their African and Asiatic colonies agriculturally and economically into wealth-producing regions and finally creating lucrative markets for home products. 6. Soc1ALISM For two decades after the suppression of the Paris Commune in 1870, socialism did not noticeably reappear in France. A party of ““seformist’’ Socialists was organized in 1893 by Jaurés and Miller- and, who, contrary to the teachings of Karl Marx, held that the instruments of production could be taken gradually and legally out of the hands of individuals by society. Jules Guesde organized the Marxian Social-Democrats to combat the bourgeois Republic. These two parties in 1893 polled 500,000 votes and elected 40 deputies. In 1905 all the socialist factions except a few ‘“Independents’’ united to form the Unified Socialist party, whose strength increased until in 1914 they polled 1,500,000 votes and elected 102 deputies. In 1919, as a result of the introduction of a modified form of proportional representation, their parliamentary contingent dropped to 68; but in May, 1924, with the ‘‘Leftward”’ swing of the pendulum, it rose to 101 in a Chamber whose total membership was now reduced to 584. More or less akin to the Unified Socialists were the 39 Independ- ents and the 29 Communists. All the Socialists had stood staunchly for the separation of church and state, and advocated progressive social legislation. One of their former ‘‘ comrades, ” Aristide Briand, was premier in 1909-10 and, when the World War broke out, Viviant, an Independent Socialist, was premier, while the Unified Socialists, Guesde and Sembat, entered the war cabinet. However, France had been outdistanced by both Germany and Great Britain in passing social legislation. Fewer people were en- gaged in industry in France, and hence the problem of the workers was not so pressing. Further, republican statesmen wete so absorbed in the conflicts with the Monarchists and the Catholic Church that they overlooked the needs of the laboring classes. The lot of the factory hands and miners was far from ideal. The legal right to strike had been recognized as early as 1864, and industrial workers were permitted to form unions in 1868, but most of the labor unions were suppressed after 1870. Not until 1884 did the “charter of lib- erties’’ restore these rights, after which the unions or “‘syndicats”’ increased until in 1894 they numbered over two thousand. In 1914 there were more than 12,000 unions with 2,000,coo members. In 1895 the General Confederation of Labor was organized to lead the struggle for greater economic freedom. Local chambers of labor were formed in the industrial centers, and in 1902 these bodies joined the French soctalism Social legislatson TUNVOVEVTTUTUAHOAVONUATOGENALOTOQVODOSVUOUUSVATUOT UL Doub — = a } as 3 is ene eee ners eral ear eee re en pk TST Ia ee es ee SS aa ——— " = oo ee aeae PSS a, Se ee fob YL gs LS OM LP ae SARL = 7 , * 7 Railroads Military policies 310 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XXI General Conf Seer . ‘To! secure’ an Sean day and other concessions, the Confederation declared a series of general strikes. The sovernment forbade public employees to join the Confederation or to strike, and the independent-socialist premier, Briand, broke up a general railroad strike in 1910 by calling the strikers to the colors’’ as soldiers and then forcing them to act as strike-breakers. Fear of socialism and organized labor compelled republican states- men to seek to content the workers with social legislation. Their ¥ Tere > { ‘ rrr r af" Tt ~ > votes V\ SUG LICC Wit also CO p WJtCVUL tis I The Great Act of 1892 raised the legal age at which children could be pha from its internal foes. . 1 Ady ; Let een esr ccenhk| ] ] ; LA BY acevo on Le d; se CMpioy ed ELC) GIEEPiGGcil Cal, eCstaDliSnead a ten-nour V\ OrKiINn?g Ly as |, "1 4 +) ae ; el ] » I" are ¢ TA? Lele ' Q) awe iT) 1 ss 1 Che maximu Lis rorbadé uni! CCeSssalry VOTK OD Sunday a ana Te ot latec aie ; ] ws Tha nav ne Lary rT fs ioe by | nd work in the mines. Ihe next year laws provided for the hea ihe safety of workers, and gave tree medical Care tO WV rkmen and their families. In 1907 the working day for miners was een to eight ‘ ne oe erin ¢ art las ft xe reel : hours. All workers WCIC guaranteed one day of rest cacn W eek. The t government set up machinery for the voluntary arbitration of labor disputes (1892). Compensation for accidents in industry (1898), compulsory insurance (1910), and old age pensions 191 11) were provided. In 1918 nearly 10, 5¢ ee were regi stered under the old age pension law. The crimin: ee law was made more humane. Better ethical instruction in the schools was provided for children. The pov er of the father over his family was reduced, and divorce, which had been legalized by the Revolution, regulated by the Code Nar léon, and suppressed by the restoration, was reéstablished by the es of 1884. The railroads in France were built by private companies, but the government guaranteed a 4 per cent eee on the capital invested. As early as 1878 the government spent $100,000,000 1n extending some of the smaller and less remunerative pee The Western Railroad with 2,700 miles was taken over by the government in 1909 to protect its loan to the company. The railroz ids of the six great lines of France would girdle the globe one and a quarter times. - Q 7. ForREIGN AFFAIRS To regain her prestige among the European powers a after the Franco-Prussian War, France adopted universal military service. In 1905 it was reduced to two years. Ihe increas e of the German army in 1913, alarmed France, because her popul: ation was so much smaller than that of Germany. The birth-rate after 1870 had fallen so low that in 43 years there was a gain of only 4,000,000 inhabitants — and over a million of these were foreigners, chiefly Italians, Spa iniards and Belgians. ‘‘Every year we win a battle against France,’ boasted General von Moltke. Hence France, in 1913, restored the three-year term of military service, and thus added 170,000 men and officers to her standing army of 607,000. The French military bill was actually introduced in the Chamber of Deputies before the German army billHAMTHMTTHTHNUTECUOQOQTOTTTINNTTUUUUQQOQOQQOONTATTINNQOQUOQQQQQOQQOQNOTHIALUINOQLOQOOQNOHOH0NVOIUIILL Gyan Chap. XXI| FRANCE UNDER THE THIRD REPUBLIC 311 had been presented to the German parliament. Both grew chiefly out of the anxiety produced by the Balkan troubles. The Socialists protested and Jaurés proposed a popular militia as a substitute. But now that the army had been republicanized, the Republicans de- votedly defended it. Great activity was displayed during this year (1913) in equipping the army, and in strengthening the forts along the German border. At the same time the navy was brought up to fourth place among the navies of the world. When the World War broke out France, although inadequately prepared, was not taken com- pletely by surprise. Her active army was slightly larger than that of Germany. After the War, military service was reduced to eighteen months. The law of 1922 provided for a standing army of 520,000 Frenchmen and 205,000 natives of the French colonies. Further reductions were promised as soon as the general European situation would permit. The army was closely associated in the mind of French Nationalists and Conservatives with the recovery of Alsace-Lorraine. From 1870 until the Boulanger crisis, the ‘‘War of Revenge’’ had been dinned into the ears of the people through oratory, poetry, music, and the press, until it became an obsession. The old statue of the lost city of Strassburg in the great Place de la Concorde in Paris was kept covered with flowers and trimmed in mourning by noisy, patriotic demonstrations. During the next two decades pacifism, socialism and anticlericalism were the dominant movements in France, but the Agadir affair of 1911 aroused national feeling again. Almost alone the Socialists thought that the provinces might be recovered by negotiation. As late as May, 1913, French and German Socialists arranged a conference at Berne to discuss problems of mutual interest. The 150 French Socialists and Socialist-Radicals expected to meet a like number from Germany, but found only about 55 present. One of the German Social-Democrats said: ‘‘Every German, from the highest to the lowest, considers that the Alsace-Lorraine question can be opened only on the battlefield. Let the French have no delu- sions on that head.’’ Every stupid blunder made by Germany in Alsace-Lorraine, such as the suppression of the pro-French news- papers and the violence of the military leaders in the town of Zabern, awakened patriotic resentment in France. The first international problem to which French statesmen gave their attention after 1870 was how to gain friends in Europe against their enemy. It was hoped to form an alliance with Austria-Hungary, or, that failing, with Russia. But Bismarck shrewdly checked that move by creating the Three Emperors’ League, and thus kept France isolated, irritated, and thirsting for revenge. No French statesman, who did not include the recovery of Alsace-Lorraine in his program, could long remain in office. At the time there seemed little likelihood of a close friendship with Great Britain; and in 1882 France withdrew from their joint occupation of Egypt and left Great Britain in control. Alsace-Lorraine and revenge for 1871 = SO cone one 5 eee ness — ae a rt ror ra a a a ThE NAAer ne ar es a aoe Ter SE rene Se — 92 ba OTE FTES ee, EN = : Pz Origins of the . J Triple Entente 117. MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XXI In the previous year she had been given a free hand by Bismarck and Britain to create a protectorate over Tunis. This act, however, of- fended Italy by thwarting her own ambitions, and led her to enter the Triple Alliance with Germany and Austria-Hungary. For some years, on the other hand, Franco-Russian relations had been growing more cordial. Russia attributed her defeat in the Congress of Berlin in 1878 to the support given to Great Britain by Germany and Austria-Hungary, and consequently turned a more friendly face towards an alliance with France. The Dual Alliance of 1891 to offset the Triple Alliance was the result. The Russian loan in France was over-subscribed eight times. The navies exchanged visits, and Tsar Nicholas II and the tsarina were the first royal personages to set foot on French soil since the departure of William I of Germany. Their visit to Paris brought a welcome sense of support and security to the majority of Frenchmen. In 1897 the French president returned the visit. The Socialists and many other extreme democrats in France ‘on™ denounced this (‘‘Mezentian union’’) alliance with an autocracy. However, with the backing of Russia, official France became more aggressive in world affairs. There was some talk about making the Mediterranean a ‘‘French lake,’’ while serious plans were laid for expansion in Africa and elsewhere. The Dual Alliance was not pleasing to Great Britain, since it united France with Russia, now regarded as her greatest foe. Both the British and the French were eager to control the Upper Nile region. In 1896 the British government sent General Kitchener to Khartoum. Meanwhile the French government had ordered Captain Marchand to march across Africa to take possession of that territory. In 1898 these two imperial agents met at Fashoda. Both nations were excited and many persons thought that war was inevitable. But, thanks largely to Delcassé, the eminent foreign minister, wiser counsel prevailed and satisfactory boundary lines were fixed. Un- fortunately the offensive attitude of the British press during the Panama scandal and the Dreyfus affair was now imitated by the French press in criticizing the Boer War. Not until 1903, when King Edward VII and President Loubet exchanged visits, did both countries begin to express a friendlier attitude. IJIhe next year a convention was signed, which settled all outstanding conflicts. France recognized British rights in Egypt and surrendered certain fishing privileges in Newfoundland; and in return Great Britain acknowledged French claims in Morocco and made further adjust- ments in Africa. The momentous Entente Cordiale had come into being. Already (Dec., 1900), acknowledgement of Italy's rights in Tripoli had secured her recognition of French claims in Morocco. All these arrangements strengthened the prestige of France in Europe. To further offset the dangers of the Triple Alliance, Delcasse began the task of bringing France, Russia and Great Britain together in awider EntenteCordiale. A common fear and suspicion of Germanyaa Chap. XXI] FRANCE UNDER THE THIRD REPUBLIC ar% made this step an easy one, and the Anglo-French understanding of 1904 was followed in 1907 by the Anglo-Russian agreement. These two atrangements, together with the Dual Alliance, paved the way for the Triple Entente as a counter-coalition against the Triple Alli- ance. No formal treaty was signed, but since all disagreements were eliminated, these powers — with Japan as a possible fourth member — were ready to consolidate their interests into an actual alliance at the first threat of common danger. The first test of these friendly un- derstandings came in 1911, in the Agadir incident arising out of French rights in Morocco. Germany felt obliged to recognize a French pro- tectorate over Morocco in exchange for a promise of the open door policy in trade and the cession of part of the French Congo. But a clash had been averted only through the conciliatory statesmanship of Caillaux. New national antipathies had been stirred up which had hardly subsided before the second test came in the World War, when the Triple Entente formed a solid block against the Central Powers. 8 THe French GOVERNMENT AND POo.iTIcAL INSTITUTIONS The French government, in form, is republican like the United States; in operation, it is parliamentary like Great Britain. Supreme authority is located in a Senate and a Chamber of Deputies which make laws, direct their execution, and amend the constitution. There is no such division of governmental powers as in America. France is a highly centralized, and not a federal Republic. The cabinet system is in use. The constitution consists of several fundamental laws enacted by the Chamber and Senate, has no “Declaration of Rights,”’ says nothing about the “‘sovereignty of the people,’’ and does not even make provision for annual budgets or a judiciary. These omis- sions have been remedied by subsequent legislation and ministerial decrees. The president is chosen for seven years by the two houses meeting together at Versailles as a National Assembly. Accordingly there are no great presidential campaigns as in the United States. Members of the old royal families are excluded from the office. The president receives a salary of $240,000 a year and is supplied with two official residences. For treasonable acts he may be impeached or even put to death. He sees that laws are enforced, appoints certain officials, receives foreign representatives, makes treaties with the consent of parliament, acts as the nominal head of the army and navy, and has the power of pardon. He cannot legally declare war without the vote of both chambers. He neither reigns like a king nor governs like the president of the United States. His acts must all be counter- signed by a member of the ministry. Huis veto may be set aside by a bare majority in parliament. Not since 1877 has he dissolved the Chamber of Deputies. There is no vice-president. In case of the Centralization President TUNVQQTITNOQQQIVOOQQATUCOQAUOUUOQHIOUOOVTUT OL URuRaas =i ete ee RE ED aha ee ee IFN es —————— =) Sy ae Por apSE ——— oe ——— — — “ OAL ee LE he Pe EE, SENT Mi nistTy - } t 7 Parliament 314 MODERN WORLD HISTORY |Chap. XXI president's death or resignation, the National Assembly meets 1m- mediately to elect his successor. As in Great Britain the ministry is the real executive and re- sponsible to parliament. The ministry, not the president, really makes decisions, formulates policies, appoints officials, enforces law, concludes treaties, and manages the army and navy. The president presides over formal meetings of the cabinet, which consists of twelve departments. In forming a new ministry, the president first selects a premier, who in turn chooses associates having the confidence of a majority in the Chamber of Deputies. The premier then takes the portfolio he desires, and assigns the others. The ministers, whether deputies or senators, have a right to attend all sessions in either chamber and to take part in debates. When defeated by the Deputies on an important measure, the ministry resigns in a body. Owing to the large number of groups in the Chamber, changes are frequent, as is shown by the fact that in Great Britain from 1873 to 1914 there were II Ministries, whereas in France there were 50. But while the ministries are unstable, government is stable, and policy is reasonably steady. Although the surface often looks stormy, France has made commendable progress in its political life. The controlling political power in France is the parliament, which changes slowly. The Senate, whose 300 members are chosen indi- rectly for nine years, one-third retiring every three years, somewhat resembles that of the United States before 1913. It is a dignified body containing many of the ablest men in the nation. Although it may initiate legislation other than money bills, its main work con- sists in serving as a check on the popular house in revising and occasionally defeating its bills. The Chamber of Deputies consists since 1924 of 584 members elected for four years by manhood suffrage according to population. Fourteen of these deputies are from the colonies. In 1919 a bill to extend the right to vote to women passed the lower house but was defeated in the Senate. The chief reason was the fear of republican anti-clericals that the church might regain authority through the women voters. The lower house lives out its full term of office, as in the United States. Both deputies and senators receive $3,000 a year. The committee system is widely used. The French parliament has three functions: (1) to elect a president; (2) to make laws; and G@) to amend the constitution. Money bills must originate in the popular chamber. Until 1876 the French were divided into two great political groups, each with several factions: (1) the Monarchists, composed of Bonapartists, Orleanists, and Bourbons; and (2) the Republicans, divided into moderates and radicals. Since 1876 these parties have undergone many changes. The voters in France rally around some inspiring leader, who represents some political policy. Parties are organized in parliament after elections rather than before, and hence are continually altering, although certain policies endure. TheChap. XXI] FRANCE UNDER THE THIRD REPUBLIC 315 party groups, omitting the 14 colonial deputies in the Chamber of Deputies elected in 1924, stood thus: (1) 11 Conservative Royalist who were anti-republican, and represented the old noblesse and reac- tionary clergy; (2) the Republican Entente (437) composed of the Liberal Action party (Republicans, who wished to protect the Cath- olic Church), as well as of Progressives (moderate Republicans who represented the rich bourgeoisie and opposed too rapid social changes); (3) 126 National Radicals and Republicans, who placed the security of the Republic above every other consideration but who had formed part of the National bloc led by Poincaré and Millerand; (4) the 127 Socialist-Radicals and 39 Independent Socialists following Herriot and holding to a program of international peace and domestic reform; and (5) the 130 Communists and Socialists who represented the working classes and strove for social and economic transforma- tion. These last three groups were anti-clerical. 9. MATERIAL PROSPERITY During the period from the Franco-Prussian War to the World War a sum greater than the indemnity paid to Germany was spent on works of peace. A net-work of highways, about 2,000 miles of canals, and over 32,000 miles of railways aided transportation. Tolls were abolished, the rivers were made navigable, old harbors were improved and new ones built. The merchant marine made com- mendable progress, although it was still far behind that of Great Britain. Of the 23,000 vessels entering French ports in 1921 only 8.000 were French. With an area equal to Ohio, Indiana, [llinots, Kentucky, and Tennessee, France is an agricultural state; and in spite of the exodus to the cities of the hired laborers, 44 per cent of the 40,000,000 were still living in the country in rg11. It is a nation of small farmers, although large estates are numerous around Paris and inthe west. To prevent the revival of a landed aristocracy, the Revolutionary and Napoleonic law of inheritance requires the almost equal distribution of a man’s property among his children. This tends to break up great estates, and the number of small proprietors has slowly risen to nearly 2,500,000. The peasants are hard-working, thrifty, and economical. The old implements of agriculture are disappearing, especially since the World War, and are being replaced by labor-saving machinery, often bought codperatively. The soil is fertile and tilled with care. The government supervises and en- courages wine-growing, and the production of silk, flax, hemp, and horses. Codperative stores, insurance companies, markets, and land- banks are managed by the farmers. Agricultural schools keep steadily introducing improvements. Grains and beet sugar are protected by tariffs. As a result of these aids, agricultural products doubled in value between 1860 and 1913; and France remains one of the most famous countries in the world for the production of raw silk and the cultivation of the vine, AVOVTUTUQHICOOTUCWTIOQITIGOQINOQTTTOQTNNUQONNQQQNOOQONOCQANUOQNVUQQNNUGAATOOOA0U0N0NI000010) ena Political s parties and the group system Economtc conditions Agriculture asl Ty Ses le aan ae ee OEE RPS alr ee eal bees etc Se. SD RE ETE aeear Dri a aEaE mae or Eee sane eT a TT GES oe Et oe a ad == =ae ome a Soe eee ae ee i Sa Piet ee a Manufacturing, commerce, banking French progress since 1789 316 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XX1 Remarkable industrial progress has also been made under the Third Republic. The loss of Alsace-Lorraine robbed France of valuable deposits of iron ore. Although her production of coal and lignite increased more than threefold from 1871 to 1912, still this was not enough to meet her needs, and a third of her coal supply had to be imported. With the restoration of Alsace-Lorraine, and the acquisi- tion of the Saar Valley, for at least 15 years, from Germany at the close of the World War, France will be able ultimately to export vast quantities of iron. In 1914 France ranked fourth among the powers in the production of iron and steel; today she 1s the greatest metallur- gical nation in Europe. Even before the War the huge steel mills at Le Creusot were a powerful rival of the Krupps in Germany. Between 1870 and 1914 French factories increased threefold, and the horse- power nearly tenfold. A surplus of about 25 per cent of the factory products was exported in 1914, but, largely owing to her income from foreign investments, the value of imports slightly exceeded the exports. The French banking system was one of the finest in the world in 1914, and played an important role in international finance. Before the World War, in proportion to her population, France was looked upon as one of the richest nations in the world. In 1922 as a result of the World War her public debt was given as nearly 3 17,000,000,000 francs. Just before the French Revolution broke out in 1789, Arthur Young, an English country squire, made three tours through France and left his impressions in his book on Travels in France. Exactly a century later, Miss Betham-Edwards made a similar journey and recorded the changes she saw in her book, France of Today. The trans- formation in that hundred years is almost unbelievable. The advance in material prosperity is striking, but the changes in the soul and brain of her people are still more conspicuous. France has passed from one of the most autocratic to one of the most democratic countries in Europe. Not nobles and bishops, but farmers, small shop-keepers, artisans, scholars, and capitalists are the rulers. Political problems are usually discussed from the standpoint of national welfare. The press claims to reflect the interests of the common citizen, although unhappily some papers with a great circulation are controlled by the counting-house and privileged interests. The government is very sensitive to public opinion; hence it is trusted by the mass of the peo- ple. When an effort was made in 1906 to select, by a newspaper pleb- iscite, the greatest Frenchman of the past century, the people chose not a statesman, not a general, not a churchman, but a scientist, Louis Pasteur, because he had performed the greatest service for the people. Napoleon Bonaparte stood fourth in the list. Yet when the World War came, it found France united to wage the greatest and most costly struggle in her national existence. Since 1792 the Republicans have seized the government four times — three times by revolutions. The first three republics wereChap. XXI] FRANCE UNDER THE THIRD REPUBLIC B27 followed by monarchial restorations. Throughout all these changes France has developed politically towards democratic government and socially towards equality. France stands today as the joint product of republicanism and imperialism. The centralized administration, the judicial system, the Legion of Honor, the University of France, and the revenue system are bequests of the Empire. The city gov- ernment, the military system, the public schools, the right of the workers to organize, and the separation of the church and state, were established under the republics. Hence, France is governed on a democratic basis, but is administered under a bureaucracy. REFERENCES FOR FURTHER STUDY E. Bourcgors, Modern France, 2 vols. (1919); W.S. Davis, Héstory of France (1919); G. Hanoraux, Contemporary France, English translation by J. C. Tarver, 4 vols. (2903- 1909); P. pz Cousertin, The Evolution of France under the Third Republic, English transla- tion by I. F. Hapgood (1897); J. Jaurzs, editor, Hzstozre Socialiste, Vol. XII by J. Labus- quiere, La troisieme ré publique, 1870-1900 (1909); C. H.C. Wricut, The History of the Third French Republic (1916); J. C. Bracg, France under the Republic (1gt0o); W. C. BRowNneELL, French Traits (edition 1902); B. Wenpetx, The France of Today (1907); A. Titiey, Modern France (1915); A. L. Guerarp, French Civilization in the Nineteenth Century (1914); E. Lavisse, editor, Histoire de France Contemporaine, 4 vols. (1920-1921); E. Lepevierier, Histoire de la commune de 1871, 2 vols. (1911-1912); J. Simon, Le gouvernement de M. Thiers, 7 février 1871-24 mai 1873, 2 vols. (1879); A. Bertranp, Les origines de la troisitme ré- publique, 1871-1876 (1911); J. Reinacu, Histoire de lV’ affaire Dreyfus, 7 vols. (1898-1911); A. Deprpour, L’église catholique et l'état sous la troisitme république, 2 vols. (1909); A. Brianb, La s¢paration des églises de l'état (1905); P. Sasatier, Disestablishment in France (1906); L. Levine, Syndicalism in France (1912); M. Dvsois and A. Terrier, Un siecle d' expansion coloniale, 1800-1900 (edition 1902), E. Dimnet, France Herself Again (1913); E. Tuery, Les progres économiques de la France (1909); E. Levasseur, Questions ouvriéres et industrielles en France sous la troisitme république (1907); W. M. Stoaneg, Greater France in Africa (1924); G. Wertx, Histoire du mouvement social en France, 1852-1910 (roi); Re FiGHierA, La protection legale des travailleurs en France (1913); P. T. Moon, The Labor Problem and the Social Catholic Movement in France (1920); L. Levine, The Labor Movement in France (1912); A. Bourson, Le soctalisme en France depuis 1871 (1908); Le syndicalisme contemporain (1911); P. Louis, Histoire du mouvement syndical en France (2d edition 1911); A. Tarpigu, La France et les Alliances (1904, English trans. 1908); R. Prnon, France et Allemagne, 1870-1913 (1913); G. H. Stewart, French Foreign Policies (3921); R. Porn- cart, How France Is Governed, English trans. (1914); E. M. Sarr, Government ana Politics of France (1918); Noewx, L’ administration de la France (1911); L. Jacquss, Les parties politiques sous la troisidme république (1913); A. Ramsaup, Juses Ferry (1903); C. Daw- BARN, Makers of New France (1915), P. DescHaNeL, Gambetta (1919); H. M. HynpMan, Clemenceau (1919); S. Huppugsron, Poincaré (1924); A. Fasre-Lucr, La Victoire (1925). : aaa al ti) al sanae nal wena AURUEEEE Republicanism ana bureaucracy INTO een —— ee ST Te ee i et en ere te o> ah tek be a ee aT TT aeCr serine ienmenaatiad ot ae eR SP? Le ES ET ee a Sate D = 3 The Co mst burt on The Emperor Parliament CHAPTER XAII THE GERMAN EMPIRE AFTER 1871 1. LHE GOVERNMENT Arrrr the defeat of France in 1871, the North German Confed- eration, joined by the four southern states of Baden, Bavaria, Hesse, and Wurttemberg, was changed into the German Empire. The con- stitution of 1867 was continued, with minor alterations, as the fundamental law of the new state, which was a federal union of twenty-five states resembling somewhat the United States. The satel a tera rena ee ll create ever cri xTe@t lar ; . 1 ; : indi 1duai SLALLS YYNLL o1Vven Lar Pe pow ecTs, but Cne imperial SOV- “ro 7 ° Tr Lh , 4 i; 1 Tr) ,iTerTr . ic . Qs 7 ~ 4 ~~ ‘ “ 4 ; s rc ernment had jurisdiction over industrial combinations, railways, social welfare, the civil and criminal codes and foreign affairs. The officials of the individual states, supervised by the central govern- ent. enforced the federal laws. Thus the German Empire was limited, representative, and federal — partly democratic and partly monarchic; partly elective and partly hereditary. The constitution made the hereditary king of Prussia, who was Been of the Federation, emperor with power to preserve his indepen dence of the legislature. Any act that menaced his authority he might declare to be an amendment to the constitution, and then defeat it by his control over the Prussian votes in the Federal Council (Bundesrat ) Although he had no veto over laws passed by parlia- ment, yet through Prussia’s control of military affairs and federal taxes. he could exercise that right to a limited degree. He called 1 and dissolv : the national legislature, and held the balance of political power in his own hands. The chancellor was his servant, and as- sumed al responsibility for all official acts of the emperor, who was personally inviolable and officially irresponsible The imperial legislature consisted of the Bundesrat and the Reichstag. The Bundesrat, clotl hed with more power than any body in the Empire, helped to make laws, and acted as a special court. Its members were appointed by the rulers of the 25 different states with an unequal distribution of the 61 members. Thus Prussia had 17 members; Bavaria 6; Saxony and Wiirttemberg 4 each; and the other states from 1 to 3 each. The delegates voted as state groups under instructions from their governments. The Bundesrat could not only initiate laws, but could even pass or dinances with the force of law. It could approve or reject cert ain federal officers. In inter-state quarrels, it Hae as a final court. Although amendments to the con- yet only 14 votes in stitution had to originate in the lower house, 318Chap. XXII] THE GERMAN EMPIRE AFTER 1871 319 the Bundesrat could defeat them. Hence one state, Prussia, with 17 votes, could prevent any changes in the fundamental law. Like the old Diet of Frankfort, the Bundesrat was undemocratic, the bul- wark of monarchy and privilege, and the most powerful factor in the government. The Reichstag, with 397 members elected for five years by unt- versal male franchise, was the most democratic part of the national government. It did not often use its right to initiate laws — that was left to the Bundesrat — but contented itself with discussing, amending, and accepting or rejecting them. Since its chief function was to give advice and to criticize, the government used it as a ther- mometer of the feelings of the nation. It exercised far less power in shaping legislation than the lower houses in the United States, Great Britain, and France. Since the apportionment of seats was not changed after 1870, in later years it did not truly represent the Ger- man people. For example, Berlin with a population of 600,000 in 1870 had six members and that number was not increased when the inhabitants grew to Over 2,000,000. On the other hand, East Prussia, with a rural population equal to that of Berlin had seventeen repre- sentatives. In 1912 about 2,000,000 voters elected 74 conservative members, while 4,250,000 Social Democrats chose only 110 members. All clamors for a change were denied because the old system of apportionment gave the advantage to the advocates of conservatism. Thus while progressive countries throughout the world were becoming more and more democratic, Germany remained strongly monarchical until the Empire was overthrown in the Revolution of 1918. The reasons for the persistence of political conservatism in Ger- many may be briefly summarized: 1. The overtowering power of Prussia, covering two thirds of the Empire and having 40,000,000 out of the 67,000,000 people in 1914, prevented liberal changes in the motley union of monarchies and city republics of unequal size and with constitutions and legislatures more ot less democratic. In both branches of the imperial parliament, Prussia had a controlling voice, and her king was the German em- peror. In the Bundesrat, Prussian delegates were chairmen of all standing committees except that on foreign affairs. Indeed the Empire was formed, it might be said, by the extension of Prussian authority over the smaller states. In the aristocratic government of Prussia, the House of Lords was composed of 300 landed nobles, and the lower house consisted of 443 members elected by the famous, indirect, three-class system of voting. In each electoral district the voters were divided into (1) the few wealthy men, about 3 per cent, who paid a third of the direct taxes; (2) a larger group of the mod- erately rich, about 10 per cent, who paid another third; and (3) the common people, about 87 per cent, who paid the last third. Each of these three classes chose a third of the delegates to the district elec- toral college, which then selected the representatives. This device, Persistence of conservatism in the German Empire MUTT TTTTURTUFALTVATTTTELELEREEATEOUTET UU OU UAERUTOALAPEAAREADERRDEORUEGORODODED TETTTETTUTANTTVUTATTTVATAUELOSTROETAUUOTT Lege 1 eae! | BOSOGEE: oo eeee. t gee! BeOS eT! nae o i / | ‘BORRUR SORE eoeeoe ESE) te f os es oy Pry es er NO re ae eee nao a eee —" ae oe were eee ae ee - en Se ee aoyaeoearre oe pratt on een: oe — RNR ey ee ae 320 MODERN WORLD HISTORY \Chap. XXII which permitted property, not men, to vote, was invented to prevent government by the people. 2. The autocratic emperor was in nowise subject to legislative control, as was the case in the progressive states of Europe. There was no cabinet system, and the chancellor, as the arm of the Emperor, no matter how often his measures were voted down by the parliament, continued in office as the emperor’s spokesman until removed by him. Since the chancellor was usually also the prime minister of Prussia and acted as chairman of the Bundesrat, he initiated most of the im- perial legislation, and moulded the policy of Germany both at home and abroad. ‘The king governs; the ministers do not,’’ said Bis- marck, the ‘‘Iron Chancellor.’’ The emperor employed the ma- chinery of the chancellorship to entrench autocratic rule throughout the nation. 3. Militarism was a third factor in promoting and perpetuating absolute power. The Empire was created by ~ blood and iron,’ and the military class made that policy the bedrock of German power. An uprising to force liberal concessions would have been crushed by the Prussian military machine that had defeated Austria and France. The schools, the pulpit, and the press were used to teach the people the duty of obedience, and to make them believe that the safety and prosperity of the fatherland depended upon a strong army and navy. Consequ uently, the large majority o yf the people dle patriotic ally supp sorted the military autocracy under the delusion that it was ‘enlightened, economical, and efficient. 4. The middle class and the workingmen, although they formed an overwhelming majority of the nation, refused to unite, as in France and Great Britain, to overthrow autocracy and privilege which were perpetuated by the ruling minority of militarists and landed aristocracy, called the ‘‘Junkers.’’ The middle class feared that the workers, who were largely socialistic, would establish a socialistic republic. The wage-carners, on the other hand, refused to permit political power to pass into the hands of the capitalists. With its opponents divided into two hostile camps, the conservative minority ruled Germany from 1871 to 1918, when defeat in the World War caused their power to crumble before a popular revolution. 5s. There were no true political parties, as in Great Britain and the United States, because the government was above parties. In the Reichstag, usually followin ¢ elections, certain 2 groups were organized, not on broa dly nz tional lines, but on race, section, religion, class and economic interest. At the outbreak of the World War there were five major divisions: (1) The Conservatives, centering in Prussia, were champions of strong cov ernment, militar: ism and an aggressive en policy. () The Roman Catholic or ‘‘Center’ party included al classes, defended its church interests, combatted socialism, and as a rule voted with the Conservatives but favored many social reform projects. (3) The National Liberals represented the middle class,TUSTTTVUATRETAATETUTETEVUTEHTAUUHTTAUEURRRUAROGITD TATTLE ETT ee Chap. XXII} THE GERMAN EMPIRE AFTER 1871 321 supported protectionism, militarism, and a colonial empire; and yet advocated governmental reforms in opposition to the “Junkers.” (4) The Progressives were another middle-class party of more radical inclinations which favored a revision of national representation, a responsible ministry, the curtailment of militarism, the separation of church and state, and free trade. (5) The Social Democrats alone were organized both nationally and locally, held nominating con- ventions, and had a regular platform. Their strength came from the industrial centers. They stood for the abolition of class government and of the exploitation of labor, the destruction of capitalism, and a socialistic state. By playing off one party against another, and by relying upon the pretty consistent support of the ‘‘Blue-Black”’ bloc, the autocratic government was able to perpetuate its power. 2. THe CHANCELLORSHIP OF BisMARCK 1871-1890 After creating the German Empire with the sword, there remained the no less difficult problem of unifying and nationalizing it. Bis- marck, as architect and master-builder, set about this task with his characteristic boldness and keen understanding. His powerful friend and ally was Emperor William I, who at his coronation as king of Prussia took the crown from the communion table and placed it on his own head saying: ‘‘The crown comes only from God, and I have received it from His hands.’’ Later he reminded all imperial officers that their oath also included “‘supporting the policy of the govern- ment at the elections.’’ Bismarck relied principally upon the National Liberals and later the Conservatives and the army to carry out his policy. Other parties had to codperate or be crushed. He threw consistency to the winds and shaped his plans to the needs of the hour, but always the supreme goal he had in mind was a fatherland united, strong, and great. Germany’s success on the battle field had left one half of Europe uneasy, the other half hostile. The war-maker must remove all suspicions by becoming the peace-maker. Bismarck, “‘satisfied’’ with the commanding position Germany had won by 1871, set about to insure the permanency of his nation’s place in European affairs. To placate France for the loss of Alsace-Lorraine, he suggested that she should seek compensation in northern Africa, and to prevent united action by the French, he encouraged the Republicans and in this way kept alive the constitutional conflict. To isolate her and thus avoid war, he formed the Three Emperors’ League with Russia and Austria, and induced Italy to enter the German group in 1882 in the historic Triple Alliance. In a speech in the Reichstag in 1888 Bis- marck explained the reasons for his foreign policy thus: “God has placed us where we are prevented, thanks to our neighbors, from growing lazy and dull.’’ The French, “‘the most warlike and restless of all nations’’ are on one side, and Russia, with ‘military inclina- tions,’ on the other. “‘The Franco-Russian vise within which we are Political parties Bismarck’ s methods Foreign policy —_ ~<= a a — ed ne ae ee oo A TE eS PN SE haa a ie eax Se fe, ae Oe ae ar a ; Centralization Kulturkampti Surrender of Bismarck 22 MODERN WORLD HISTORY |Chap. XXII ~ ap squeezed compels us to hold together’’ and to form a close alliance with Austria. ‘‘We are situated in the heart of Europe, and have at least three fronts open to attack.’’ Hence the secret treaty of alliance with Austria in 1879 provided for ~ reciprocal aid’’ in case of attack by Russia or by another power supported by Russia. To foster national unity at home, Bismarck combatted the dangers of state rights by increasing the power of the central government. The various state banks were unified under an imperial bank for financial stability. New coins, decorated with the Emperor's image, and the imperial arms, spread the new German nationalism. The diverse commercial, civil, and criminal laws were unified into a new national code with national law courts. An imperial bureau took charge of the state railroads, the telephone and the telegraph lines. These acts, and many others, were intended to create national patri- otism and solidarity. The Kulturkampf, a contest between the Empire and the Roman Catholic Church, was viewed by Bismarck as a phase of the struggle for German unity. In the elections of 1871 the German Catholics, most of them resident in non-Prussian territory or in the Polish prov- inces. sent 62 members to the Reichstag, as champions of (1) Pius IX's Syllabus of Modern Errors (1864), which denied religious freedom to other creeds, denounced modern civilization, and asserted the complete independence of the church from the state; 2) the dogmas of papal universality and infallibility decreed in 1870 by the Vatican Council: and (3) the restoration of the popes temporal power. German Protestants and even some German Catholics, who called themselves ‘‘Old Catholics,’’ opposed these claims. As a result the Old Catholics were driven from the Catholic schools, dismissed from ecclesiastical offices, and excommunicated. Then the orthodox Catholic bishops demanded that the government dismiss the Old Catholics from the state universities and public schools. Prussia and other states refused to do so. This led the orthodox Catholic clergy to attack the German government, and a bitter religious war resulted. The first imperial parliament made it a penal offense for the Catholic clergy to assail the government, and forbade religious orders to engage inteaching. The Jesuits were next expelled from Germany. Then Prussia passed the May Laws in 1873-5, which required civil marriage, cut off all appropriations for the Catholic Church, and forced young priests to be educated in the state schools. Bismarck approved these measures on the ground that the Catholics were threatening the unity of the Empire. Ihe pope, on the other hand, pronounced them illegal, and ordered the clergy to disregard them. Germany was soon in an uproar. Bismarck, backed by the Protes- tants and the 50,000 Old Catholics, sought to enforce the laws by fines, imprisonment, and dismissals. ‘We shall not go to Canossa, — defiantly boasted the Iron Chancellor, who proceeded to close Cath-Peep dey eb c. i / Chap. XXII] THE GERMAN EMPIRE AFTER 1871 > olic churches and seize their property. “‘The Diocletian persecution " united the Catholics, who in 1877 returned 92 members to the Reichs- tag. By this time even non-Catholics began to denounce the harsh laws as a violation of religious liberty. Bismarck was wise enough to see his mistake, and began to retreat. He was further impelled towards peace with the Catholics because he desired Catholic support for the program of social legislation designed to weaken the Social Democrats. With the election of Pope Leo XIII, a prelate of concil- iatory nature, in 1878 Bismarck deemed it wise to make peace — to go to Canossa after all —and the most objectionable laws were repealed. Asa reward for his surrender, he had the support of the Catholic party in solving the grave social and economic questions confronting him. In 1870 Germany was a country of 40,000,000 people employed chiefly in handicrafts and farming. This comparatively poor nation of ‘‘ poets and philosophers’’ had made little progress in manufactur- ing and mining. The imports greatly exceeded the exports, and free trade prevailed down to 1879. More than 100,000 emigrants left Germany each year. About two thirds of the people lived in the country, and only eight cities had more than 100,000 inhabitants. Within five years after the creation of the Empire, with governmental financial support, a surprising change began to occur in industry. Factories sprang up by the hundreds, millions of peasants moved from the villages to the manufacturing towns, mines were opened, railroads were built, and ships were sent over the world laden with German goods. The whole country was “‘booming”’ with a new industrial spirit. But soon hard times struck Germany: business failures occurred, factories and mills closed, the construction of railroads and ships stopped, and both capitalists and wage-earners suffered in consequence. Then Bismarck turned to a protective tariff for relief: ‘‘to preserve the German market for German industry.’ With the aid of the Conservatives and Catholics, in 1879 he put a duty on farm products and manufactures, restricted German Ccoastwise trade to German ships, and improved docking facilities. The laws of 1881-5 put a high tariff on practically all imports except raw materials. Commercial treaties with foreign countries opened new markets for German goods. This new policy brought such an unprec- edented expansion to German industries that foreign trade in 1880 amounted to three times what it had been 1n 1850. The next problem attacked by Bismarck was socialism, or “red internationalism,’’ which he regarded as a greater danger than ‘‘black internationalism,’ as Catholicism was designated. The Socialists had opposed the Franco-Prussian War and the conquest of Alsace-Lorraine. They denounced the autocratic Empire, and openly championed a popular government, together with an improved social and economic system. Bismarck hated their type of democ- racy, feared their influence among the workers, and denounced them WOHTEVAAHOURAR EAGER OUDARGRRROnOn TOR ' ESSEES Pare i } MUTTOOOTTTTITTUVVATTNTCUGHTATIUUUHNUTILIVN4) uber The Industrial Revolution in Germany a = ey ee as ey ee ee ee Ne ak eal ee ee ag Neen eee eee ee ee ee eee ee ee ea nan seen raeneeenentnarnae eee le Sea es oe ae 5 tS Ba ES gh ar a oe ror net . a — ————a Eg SEE TS ER DRA pee eee emo rane me teenie 5 ee eS SEE SP EN pet ANTS i. TL ; } The struggle avainst Socialism “eS Socialist gains onan Sac i = leg PESt lati on 324 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XXII as ungrateful traitors to law, or der, and the Empire. When radicals twice aK to assassinate the popular old Emperor Will1 a I, Bis- marck found an excuse for a series of laws that forbade all organiza- tions, ass ae and newspapers for the purpose of overthrowing the social order’’ or of spreading “socialistic tendencies. Ihe Ee lice were emp eed to arrest Socialists, and expel them from the country without recourse to the ordinary courts. Ihese measures, passed in 1878, remained in force twelve years. Over a thousand ple ications were suppressed, 1,500 persons imprisoned, and goo banished. One is reminded of the steps taken half a century earlier by Me ‘tternich to keep ahi from thinking. These persecutions had the usual result of spreading instead of curbing socialistic propa- gandism. The Socialists led the police by gathering under the disguise of singing societies, athletic asso Ciations, bowling unions, and social clubs. Their newspapers were printed in Switzerland and t see ae ore and their conventions were held in Holland and elsewhere. So steadily did the party grow that in 1890 it polled 1.<00.000 votes and sent 35 members to the Reichstag. In that year Bismarck was dismissed and the new emperor, conscious of defeat, Nee most of the obnoxious laws to lapse. Realizing that force and repression were insufficient, Bismarck had decided to win the workers away from socialism by social re- forms enacted by the state. This, he thought, would convince them that the Empire was their real be nefactor. He saw clearly that in an industrial society the working classes must be kept contented if social peace and natiot nal power were to be assured. Hence he announced that a Christian state must give heed to the “‘rights’’ of the unpro- tected masses. ‘‘A few drops of social oil’’ by autocratic paternalism would safeguard both capital and labor. He dwelt a good deal on ‘the duty of humanity and Christianity, ~ and the necessity of bring- ing the ‘‘non-propertied class to regard the state as a friend and not anenemy. To the Reichstag he said: let the workingman have work when well. care for him when sick, and insure him against poverty when old. Then he will not rush to join the Socialists, but will trust the government. When the middle class complained that this was sheer socialism, Bismarck replied: “If you believe that you can frighten anyone, or call up specters w ith the word socialism, you take an attitude which I have abandoned.’’ Social legislation w ould give the state better soldiers, better citizens, and better workers. Hence Bismarck became a pioneer in state ee by providing: (1) 1n- surance against sickness and accident; ( ) protection for children and females; and (3) old age and aoa pension for the poor workers It is worth while to look at the effects of the laws of this greatest scientific social reformer.’’ Laborers, who earned under $500 a year, were compelled to carry sickness insurance. Employ ers bore two thirds, and the workers one-third, of the cost. In the event of illness,aChap. XXII] THE GERMAN EMPIRE AFTER 1871 325 workingman received half his pay for 26 weeks, and free medical care. If he died, the funeral expenses were supplied from the same fund. No fewer than 14,500,009 persons were insured and $107,000,000 paid in claims in 1913. Those engaged in industry were forced to carry accident insurance, the cost of which was paid by the employ- ers. Incase of death from accident, the family of the insured worker received 20 per cent of his annual wage. By 1913 about 26,000,000 were insured under this law and $51,000,000 in benefits had been paid. Old age insurance was required of all workers who received annually in wages less than $400 and the fund was contributed to by the em- ployers, laborers, and the nation. At the age of 65 the insured was given a pension varying from $30 to $60 a year according to his own payments to the fund. In 1913 some 16,500,000 persons were insured and $52,000,000 had been paid in pensions. The loud complaints of employers about these measures ceased after they saw the efficiency of the employees improved and the industrial output multiplied. But Bismarck’s prophesy that social insurance would kill socialism was not fulfilled, for in 1914 the Socialists were stronger thanever. How- ever, it was a far different sort of socialism from that of Karl Marx. Not until the close of his political career did Bismarck become actively interested in the beginnings of a colonial empire. Some German commercial cities in 1859 made a treaty with the sultan of Zanzibar, but in 1871 Germany, never a colonizing power, refused to accept French colonies instead of Alsace-Lorraine. While unifying the Empire, Bismarck had no thought of risking fresh conflicts with European powers over worthless colonies. In fact the Prussian con- ception of rule was ill-fitted to govern distant lands. But the remark- able transformation of Germany from an agricultural to an indus- trial state, the increase in population and the general scramble for colonies converted Bismarck from an opponent to an advocate of a moderate colonial policy. His memoirs clearly show, however, that he launched out in this new enterprise with hesitation and mis- givings. The Samoan Islands were ruled jointly with Great Britain and the United States from 1889 until they were divided in 1900. Enterprising German merchants had already established trading posts in Africa, Asia, and the islands of the Pacific, where they exchanged their goods for cocoa, coffee, rubber, and spices. They organized a Colonial Society, and began to agitate for an overseas imperial policy. Heeding the call of the capitalists, the missionaries, and the patriots, Bismarck, with characteristic vigor, in 1884-5 proclaimed protecto- rates over 60 trading posts and roo missionary stations along the coast of Africa, which laid the foundations for Togoland, the Cam- eroons, German Southwest Africa, and German East Africa. New Guinea was divided between Germany, Great Britain, and Holland in 1886. Imperial funds were granted to establish steamship lines between these distant regions and the fatherland. The dominions of the sultan of Zanzibar were divided among Germany, Italy and TETTTTEARLRAARRROORERAEARGR Wit TUVUTOAUOTATVAAOTALUGUOEOUOODODODAULIT ALOE Results of Bismarckian soctal reform The rise of the German colonial empire rs im || iY pewereperyeee A om aml Pun 5>=> chat tena OR pee at at ee ee ome Be oa Be 2 Me DowSS pa wet A. CE eee ee eee RS net Ft ge Oe FREE ES el ee SS as Character of William Il 326 MODERN WORLD HISTORY |Chap. XXII Great Britain until the British government in 1890 established a protectorate over the island and appeased Germany by ceding to het Heligoland. Before Bismarck’s resignation in that year a definite policy of colonial expansion was under way. Bismarck not only founded the German Empire, but established it on a firm basis. By the end of his career, in 1890, the Empire had become a reality, and particularism had largely died out. To be sure, this end had been reached at the expense of democracy, butthe German people as a whole were well-satisfied with the existing strong gov- ernment and regarded the military machine as an indispensable guar- antee of security. In the economic sphere Bismarck had established industry and commerce on a sound foundation and had laid the basis for Germany's colonial empire. In Europe, Germany had become the dominating power, protected by a far-flung system of alliances which appeared impregnable, and above it all, directing everything, Bis- marck stood as a powerful personality, recognized generally as the greatest statesman since Napoleon. 3. THe Reign or Emperor WittiaM II 1888-1918 Emperor William I died in 1888, at the age of 91,and wassucceeded by his son Frederick III, who was married to a daughter of Queen Victoria and was well-known for his liberal inclinations. But the new emperor was mortally ill when he ascended the throne, and lived only three months more. Upon his death William Il assumed the imperial crown. He was a young man of 29, and proved to be one of the most extraordinary personalities who have wielded royal power in modern times. His youth had been very unhappy, and his training, despite a university career, had been largely of a military nature. An eager, receptive, versatile type, he had fallen under the influence of his officer companions, who instilled in his mind the traditions of aristocratic conservatism. No man had a loftier idea of his mission, greater confidence in himself and deeper faith in the glorious future awaiting his fatherland. And yet William II, with the best intentions, proved anything but a blessing to his country. Though well-informed he was superficial, showy and arrogant, a man of spasmodic temperament and quickly changing moods. To the world he appeared as a poseur, an incarnation of the spirit of mili- tarism, and an independable neurotic whose never-ending travels and visits and whose high-sounding, ill-considered speeches and theatrical actions were an element of uncertainty and danger. No man did more to cultivate an exaggerated sense of Germany's importance among his own people and to bring his fatherland into ill-repute abroad. He was, as Edward VII once put it, ‘“the most brilliant failure in his- tory. It was inevitable that a young man of such pronounced person- ality would soon come into conflict with Bismarck, who had grown more and more autocratic and uncompromising with advancing age.7 aE Chap. XXII] THE GERMAN EMPIRE AFTER 1871 By) Bismarck had predicted that when Crown Prince William became emperor, he would be his own chancellor. A conflict of wills soon appeared, and in 1890 the Jron Chancellor, who had guided the ship of state through stormy waters, was dismissed. He died in 1898 requesting that these words be carved on his tomb: “Here lies Prince Bismarck, a faithful servant of William I.’’ After “dropping the pilot,’’ the young emperor said: ‘The course remains unchanged. Full steam ahead.’ The growth of German industries and commerce under William II was without parallel in recent world history. With rapid strides Germany became a dangerous trade rival of Great Britain and the United States. By 1914 she was the third coal-producing country on earth; and in pig-iron surpassed the British and ranked next to the United States. Her steel output was double that of Great Britain, and her exports of machinery in twenty-five years increased twelve- fold. In 1888 German ships were built in British shipyards; when the World War broke out she had a merchant marine of 5,000,000 tonnage nearly all of which was constructed at home. Her largest steamship lines such as the Hamburg American and the North Ger- man Lloyd, had the finest passenger and freight ships afloat. German electrical and chemical industries held a commanding place; German exports of dye-stuffs amounted to about 80 per cent of the world’s supply; and German artificial perfumery, indigo, extracts, and medicinal products like camphor, were sold abroad in large quantities. At the same time agriculture and forestry were scientifically developed. Foreign trade was cultivated so persistently that it increased from one to five billion dollars betwen 1870 and 1914, although it fell far short of that of Great Britain. William II accepted Bismarck’s theory of state socialism, and hoped to conciliate the Socialists by social and economic reforms. He declared that it was the duty of the state ‘to protect the weaker classes of society and to aid them to a higher economic and moral development.’’ With the increase of the number of the Socialists, he became alarmed and began to denounce them as “‘ vermin which gnaw at the roots of the imperial oak’’ and ‘‘foes unworthy of the name of Germans.’’ Without success he tried to have a harsher law than Bismarck’s enacted, and to have the Socialists in the Reichstag tried for treason because they refused to stand and cheer him. He told the army that he might call upon them to shoot down their brothers and fathers. But in the face of this imperial hostility, the Socialists continued to grow until in 1912 they had more representatives in the Reichstag than any other party. Gradually most of the liberal ele- ments rallied to their banner, and the party itself became more and more moderate in its program. The platform called for universal franchise; the initiative and referendum; equal electoral districts; the payment of members of the Reichstag; a responsible ministry; guarantees for free speech, assembly, and press; a militia instead of a woEae HEE yh) BRUGES AORES DER RRR RES MUTTUTUNUOQUVVTTOTITTUUOQOONOHIUIILNVOC] Lope ee | Dismissal of Bismarck Economic progress under William II William II and social legislation ————————— aggrecan Gi a TE ie a ae ti ee ee eeSS ea - - eras ~ i a ™ eee — a eh Sh are ne re ee 4 OE Nee Soctalist strength Munic pal SOCLALISIN The Army SVS bem 328 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XXII standing army; the right of labor unions to organize; and social and economic reforms. They opposed the law of 1913, which raised the standing army from 656,000 to 878,000 at a cost of $250,000,000 until the government consented to raise the money in direct taxes on the incomes and estates of the rich. When the World War broke out, with the exception of a small group, they supported it on the plea that they saw in the triumph of Russia a victory of barbarism over a higher civilization. On August 4 all the Social Democrats voted for the first war credit. The German cities were not merely political units, but intelli- gent agencies for scientific social welfare. The large industrial cities were free from slums, sanitary, and beautified with fine streets, parks, and squares, while adequate sewer and water systems were built. Special sections were set aside for homes, hospitals, museums, schools, public baths, and factories. Public utilities such as gas and electric plants, street cars. theaters, loan societies, and even dairies, slaughter- houses, breweries and bakeries were owned and operated by some of the city governments. With dishonesty and local politics largely eliminated, German municipal government was held up as a model in other states. Just as France a century earlier hoped to capture the world through ‘‘Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity, so Germany sought to dominate with Science, Organization and Skill.” Every- thing was carefully worked out in advance, and nothing was left to the blind goddess of luck. Experts were set to work to improve old methods, to eliminate waste, to anticipate trouble, and to systematize methods of production and distribution. Farming, manufacturing, commerce, the national budget and public debt, transportation, communication, education, philanthropy, public health, recreation, and military and naval preparedness were all subjected to scientific study by imperial commissions. The Prussian system of universal military service, extended to the entire Empire by Bismarck, reached its height under William Il. Every young man at the age of seventeen was subject to call to military duty for three years, which were reduced to two years in 1893 for the infantry. After this initial service, a soldier went into various grades of the reserve until the completion of his forty-fifth year. Men with a certain standard of education escaped with one year of service and supplied the officers for the reserve forces. In 1914 Germany had 4,000,000 trained soldiers subject to call to duty. The emperor, as head of the army, appointed the General Staff to provide for all contingencies in the event of war. The officers formed a wealthy, noble caste of great power and high social standing, with its own code of ethics and manners. So thorough was the military drill in discipline, courage, and obedience that the common sol- diers did not dare to murmur. Military service formed the basis for civic virtue, and the position of the soldier was exalted above other callings.Chap. XXII] THE GERMAN EMPIRE AFTER 1871 329 Militarism became the blighting curse of the German Empire, as of continental Europe in general. It bred paternalism and fed on autocracy. It made the profession of arms the highest national ideal. William II boasted that he was first a soldier and then a citi- zen; that his ‘‘most important heritage’’ was the army and navy; that they and not the parliament were the “foundation of the state’; and that ‘‘blind obedience’’ was the highest form of patriotism. When the emperor was seen in ‘‘six different uniforms on the same day, but never once in civilian uniform,’’ militarism was exalted above civil life. Eminent statesmen like Bismarck and von Bilow were raised to the rank of general as the highest mark of honor. The soldier was everything; the civilian nothing. Scholars, judges, manufacturers, and civil officials were prouder of their uniforms in the reserve army than of their university degrees and their achievements in civil life. Soldiers were seen everywhere — on the streets, in the cafés, in church, and at the universities. Every occasion was taken to point out that the German Empire was created by the army and the future of Germany’s greatness depended upon it. Officers suspec- ted of liberal ideas lost their commissions. Any officer, who “ wishes to follow his own conscience,’ said the minister of war, ‘must take his discharge.’ The barracks were schools of despotism, grossness, and cruelty, but the outcries against the barbarities were silenced with court-martials and penal servitude. The Zabern incident in 1913 was characteristic of the brutal and swaggering German military régime. In the little Alsatian town of Zabern the officers had so irritated the people that they were hooted in the streets. Asaresult, martial law was proclaimed, and a number of persons were arrested. The civil authorities protested. During the disturbance, a fiery young lieutenant struck with his sword a lame shoemaker, who had laughed at him. A wave of indignation swept over the nation. The major in command of the garrison was tried in court but acquitted on the ground that he ‘‘did not know that he had acted illegally.’ The Reichstag by a vote of 293 to 54 censured the government for permitting the affair to occur, and the chancellor had to admit that the officer had “‘transgressed the limits of the law.” The crown prince telegraphed his congratulations to the colonel, who received the Prussian Order, while the governor of Alsace- Lorraine was recalled. The incident showed, nevertheless, that the country at large was decidedly out of sympathy with the attitude of the ruling class. As the foremost military state in the world, the military officers, capitalists, advocates of a colonial empire, and Pan-Germanists began to clamor for a more powerful navy. The construction of railway lines to the eastern and western frontiers for military defense was followed by the completion in 1896 of the Kaiser Wilhelm Canal 61 miles long connecting the North Sea with the Baltic, and the projec- tion of a gigantic inland water-way system. The German Navy PUTOQOOTTTNQOOUUONUUNOQUUNU abou a | * Abuses of militarism Zabern Incident pe as ae Ne ls ie —— 7 el ee ee eee i i TI rs == — a —————~ Ee —— a ——— Sa a cea ead Ted a in ae a —— The rise of German navalism Foreign policy and imperialism Morocco crises 330 MODERN WORLD HISTORY \Chap. XXII League now aroused patriotic popular support for a huge naval proj- ect. Emperor William II never tired of telling his subjects that “the ocean is essential to Germany's greatness’’ and was convinced that Germany's extensive commerce required a formidable navy to protect it. Heligoland, obtained from Great Britain in 1890, gave Germany an island naval base at the mouth of the river Elbe. The Naval Acts of 1898 and 1900 began a big program of shipbuilding, which soon ranked Germany as a naval power next to Great Britain, and caused the latter to make desperate efforts to keep her naval strength at twice that of Germany. Germany's wealth, population, industrial interests, and powerful army and navy, enabled her to pursue a vigorous foreign policy. Chancellor von Biilow, a Prussian landlord of wide diplomatic ex- perience, came to the front as the champion of the new German imperialism. He reflected the views of the emperor and of those classes, who wanted to see Germany become a great world power. Under his leadership Germany made herself economically the domi- nating power in Turkey. German officers reorganized the Turkish army and young Turkish officers were sent to the German military schools. Emperor William II made two visits to the sultan and pro- claimed himself the mighty friend of all Mohammedans. German statesmen replaced the British in directing the foreign policies of the porte. Austro-Hungarian expansion in the Balkans was supported, while Russian designs were blocked. German scientists studied the economic possibilities of the Balkans and more especially of Turkey. German capitalists secured concessions to build the Constantinople- Bagdad railroad, which some of the more imaginative expansionists said would be the spinal column of a powerful German Empire em- bracing ‘‘Middle Europe and the Turkish Empire and extending from the North Sea to the Persian Gulf. Talk of this sort aroused the hostility of France, Russia, and Great Britain. In 1904 Great Britain secretly recognized the “special " interests of France in Morocco in exchange for French recognition of England's position in Egypt. Each nation promised to defend the rights of the other diplomatically. Suspecting this arrangement, William Il in 1905 suddenly appeared at Tangier, saluted the sultan’s representative as the spokesman of an independent power, and praised the German business pioneers, who “‘in a free land’’ were keeping alive “the interests of the fatherland.’’ The French and British both interpreted this visit as a German challenge for a share in the trade and political control of Morocco, as indeed it was intended to be. To adjust the problem without war, the conference of Algeciras was held in 1906, and attended by representatives of the chief European powers, the United States, and Morocco. Germany stood for an independent Morocco and an open door for trade as laid down by the Madrid Con- vention of 1880. France and Spain insisted upon the recognition of their special treaty rights, and in the end they secured control of the ee: i} | H PPPIVNTTNTPYTEC QUANT TATONENECN TTTTONOQONOO VII TTOQOVOQUQONUNOUVOQNOQQQOQUOOOQQQQQOUUUNUNEHQOQQOQUUOOCSUH04V00011 Lappe Chap. XXII] THE GERMAN EMPIRE AFTER 1871 331 police force in the country, though the Moroccan bank was to be an international enterprise. This settlement, however, soon proved un- satisfactory to all parties concerned. Another crisis was precipitated in 1908 by an incident at Casa- blanca in Morocco. Six soldiers, three of whom were Germans, fled from the French Foreign Legion, an armed force policing the country, to the German consulate, where they were protected and given pass- ports to embark on a German ship. While going to the ship with German agents, they were arrested by French officers. Germany demanded their release but France refused and proposed to refer the case to the Hague Tribunal. The decision of that body was accepted. Three years later came the Agadir affair. With her soldiers in Morocco, France was in complete control. Realizing this, Germany demanded ‘‘compensations’’ from France in exchange for a (free hand’? but met with a rebuff. To protect German interests and the open door in trade, the Panther, a German gun-boat, was sent to Agadir. For some weeks war threatened. Lloyd George made it clear that his country would support France but disclaimed any threat of war. In the end it was agreed: (1) that France should estab- lish a protectorate over Morocco; (2) that Germany should be given a part of the French Congo as compensation; and @) that the open door policy should be continued. This settlement like- wise satished no one. The French felt that Germany by politi- cal blackmail had taken a portion of her African territory, and, certain of English backing, felt that a stronger attitude should have been taken. The Germans were alarmed at the firmness of France and the attitude of England, and there was a distinct feeling that Germany had not received her due. Germany’s answer to these diplomatic defeats was the increase of the imperial army in 1913. By this time Africa was so completely divided up among the European powers that no country could extend its possessions except at the expense of some other power. That Germany was planning to expand in the Dark Continent at the expense of France seems to be indicated by the fact that at the outbreak of the World War the German government de- clined to give Great Britain any assurance of the integrity of the French colonies in the event of war. The Pan-German League, organized in 1894, soon became a noisy though small group preaching an enlarged Germany. The term “German’’ was interpreted to include Holland, the Flemish part of Belgium, Norway, Sweden, Austria, and parts of Russia and Switzer- land. The most patriotic Pan-Germans openly asserted that sooner or later, by war or peace, these portions of Europe would form a part of Pan-German ‘Greater Germany.’’ By 1908 this League carried on an extensive “6 agitation through its newspapers, a large fund, and able speakers. Though it never exerted any great political influence it codperated with the Navy League, the Defense Association, and other patriotic— rn a Sy NS ee $2.4 FS A IP I ST Nee J PS nh seer lmopr VENTE] German 32 MODERN WORLD HISTORY = [Chap. XXII We societies. By 1911 its original purpose was merged with the larger ambition to make Germany ‘‘a dominant ee in the history of the le world.’’ Fortunately the League had little influence on the government. Carefully pl anned propaganda was set on foot to hold the loyalty of Germans in all parts of the earth. In 1913, the cen- tenary of the War of Liberation, the League joined twenty other w hx patriotic organizations in a great “‘drive’’ to strengthen “national feeling’’ in support of the increase of the army. Even Bebel said the Socialists would “‘fight to the last gasp in defense of the fatherland.”’ Though not actually so intended, i enthusiasm aroused in that year had much to do with the general support of the war in 1914. In the years preceding 1914 Germany felt more and more keenly that the world was turning against her, and she was struggling to ee her interests and her position. German-Austrian influence in the Balkans and Turkey had aroused the Russians, on the one hand; and interference in Morocco had angered the Bacchi on the other. The British ne controlling the sheik of Koweit had checked the ynstruction of the Bagdad railway to the Persian Gulf; and through 1eir influence in Persia had prevented the extension of the road atime Ae farther into Asia. Blocked in this manner, Germany in 1913 reached a preliminary agreement with Great Britain, which @) recoenined German railway and economic rights as far as Bagdad; (@) planned for the extension of the line as far as Bassora under international control: and reserved to the British the right to build the road Sp the remaining 85 miles to Koweit. Negotiations for a triple treaty with Turkey and Great Britain were proceeding s atisfactorily, when the European crisis of 1914 arose. Friendly notes were likewise exchanged between Germany and Great Britain over increases in the navy program, when stopped by the threat of war. REFERENCES FOR FURTHER STUDY W. H. Dawson, The Evolution of Modern Germany (1907, 1919); The German Empire, 1867-1914, 2 vols. (1919); Bismarck and State Socialism (1891); Protection in Germany (1904); The German Workman (1906); Social Insurance in Germany, 1883-1911 (1912); Municipal Life and Government in Germany (1914); A. Warp, Germany (agig); H. Licn- TENBERGER, Germany and its Evolution in Modern Times (1913); K. Lamprecut, Deutsche Gescichte der jungsten Vergangenheit und Gegenwart, 2 vols. (1912-1913); O. Bismarck, Gedanken und Erinnerungen (2 vols., 1898, Vol. III, 1919), English translation of I and II 1899); G. Gorau, Bismarck et l'église: le Culturkampf, 1870-1887, 4 vols. (ag11-1913); B. von Bistow, Imperial Germany (1914); J. E. Barxer, Modern Germany (1905, 1919); B. E. Howarp, The German Empire (1906); P. Lasanp, Deutsches Reichstaatsrecht (6th edition 1912); F. K. Krusgcgr, Government and Politics of the German Empire (1915); O. Srituicu, Die politischen Parteien in Deutschland, 2 vols. (1908-1911); H. G. James, Principles of Prussian Administration (1913); C. pe LesTrapg, Les monarchies de l empire allemand (1914); O. Hammann, Der Missverstan dene Bismarck oe W. SomBarT, Deutsche Volkswirtschaft im neunzebnten Jahrhundert (19¢ 93); F. C. Howsg, Socialized Ger- many (1915); T. B. Vesien, Imperial Germany an d rhe Industrial Revolution (1915); K. HeLrrericu, Germany's Boonie Progress and National Wealth, 1888-1913 (1913); W. P. Paterson, German Culture: the Contribution of the Germans to Knowledge, Literature, Art, ana Life (1915); A. Guitranp, Modern Germany and her Historians (1915); P. Rowreacu,POGUHUAHURVHOHRRURDRUARURERORRRNOUUED Chap. XXII] THE GERMAN EMPIRE AFTER 1871 333 German World Policies, English translation by E. von Mach (1g15); A. Horn and H. Castie, German Sea Power, its Rise, Progress, and Economic Basis (1913); A. ZIMMERMANN, Geschichte der Deutschen Kolonialpolitik (1914); E. Lewin, The Germans and Africa (1915); R. H. Fire, The German Empire between Two Wars (1917); F. Hartune, Deutschland unter Wilhelm II (1918); W.F. Massow, Deutschlands Innere Geschichte unter Wilhelm II (1920); BE. Reventiow, Deutschlands Auswartige Politik (1911); E. Branpensure, Von Bis- marck zum Weltkrieg (1922); W. VaLentin, Deutschlands Aussenpolitik, 1890-1918 (1921); M. E. Townsenn, Origins of Modern German Colonialism, 1871-1885 (1921); M. Wert- HEIMER, The Pan-German League (1925). PUNVOQANNOQQQONOQQQINOQQQONOQQTAULOVONUGRNOOUQUIIUGL Aone — ie perpen Sg a Ia ee ee Selene ak ae aliens yews it it \ iDua J 7 ; - Povernrnicinis Cc Ethn 1c Situation CHAPTER AXIII tine DUAE MONARCHY OF AUSTRIA-HUNGARY t. [HE DuaL GOVERNMENT Tue Austro-Hungarian Empire was unique among the states of Europe. The political machinery set up in 1867 by the Compro- mise (Ausgleich), endured until the disastrous defeat in the World War dissolved the unnatural union of nationalities. In the throne room of the Hapsburgs at Vienna were the gilt letters AEIOU, meaning “‘Austria rules the world,’ (Austriae est imperare in orbe universo), adopted by Emperor Frederick in 1443 as the emblem of the invincibility of Austrian rule. But in 1918 the proud Hapsburg house, like the Hohenzollerns and Romanovs, crumbled to dust. The Compromise lasted half a century. It created, not national unity, but a dual imperial rule under a monarch who commanded the army and navy, appointed joint ministers, promulgated the laws, and had a veto over the acts of the delegations as well as of the two parlia- ments. The delegations, chosen annually, sat in separate national chambers to settle common problems for ten-year periods and to vote the budget for the army and foreign service. In case of disagreement, they met together and voted as one body. This system caused delays, confusion, and national jealousies. Hence it was predicted quite generally that the first serious shock would dissolve this political patchwork. This polyglot Empire in 1914 contained about 50,000,000 people representing a dozen different races and four religions, and was re- garded as one of the ‘danger zones’’ of Europe. (1) The Germans, numbering about 12,000,000 or a quarter of the total population, represented the wealthiest, best-educated, and ruling element. In the past they had hoped to ‘‘Germanize’’ the whole Empire but in the last 25 years they were struggling merely to maintain their posi- tion. They were centered in Austria, but were also scattered through- out the rest of the Empire. (2) The Hungarians formed a solid block of nearly 10,000,000 surrounded by Germans, Slavs and Rumanians. For a thousand years they had preserved their national existence and had kept their weaker Slavic neighbors under an iron heel. (G) Ihe Slavs, including 25,000,000 or half the entire population, constituted the largest group, but were divided by dialects, customs, and location. In the north were 8,500,000 Czecho-Slovaks in Bohemia, Moravia, Silesia, and Hungary; 5,000,000 Poles in Silesia and Galicia; and 334CAEL EEE EEE TUTAUUTOTOTOTAVTURUTUTAVALAOOTAEAUAUOVOT EE boe le Chap. XXIII] THE DUAL MONARCHY 335 4,000,000 Ruthenians in Galicia and Bukowina. In the south were 1,250,000 Slovenes in Styria and Carniola; 5,500,000 Serbo-Croats in Croatia, Slavonia, Bosnia, and Dalmatia. Excepting the Czechs and the Croats, the Slavs were backward in education and in economic progress. (4) The Latins numbered 4,000,000 and were divided be- tween the 1,000,000 Italians north of Italy and around the Adriatic, and the 3,000,000 Rumanians in Transylvania and Bukowina. Con- fronted by this complex racial situation, the Hapsburg rulers were forced to follow one of two courses—either to federalize the Empire, or to crush national autonomy and assert their control over all the non-German nationalities. Unfortunately the latter alternative was chosen, and the Dual Monarchy was regarded as only a temporary arrangement until complete Austrian domination could be established. 2. THe AUSTRIAN EMPIRE The Austrian constitution of the year 1867 contained a modern bill of rights, and provided for a fairly liberal parliamentary govern- ment. The emperor, who was ‘sacred, inviolable, and irrespon- sible,’’ retained all powers not expressly taken away from him. The cabinet as in Germany was practically subject to his will. The Reichsrat was divided into two houses — an aristocratic House of Lords, and a House of Representatives elected every six years. The electoral law of 1907 abolished class voting and in its place estab- lished direct manhood suffrage. The large number of political fac- tions interfered greatly with smoothly-running political machinery and made it impossible for the parliament to assert its control over the ministers; to this difficulty were added serious racial and religious differences. Out of a total population of 30,000,000 under Austrian rule, only about 4o per cent was German. Half of the population was Slavic, eager for an independent status like that of Hungary. In Bohemia the Germans and Czechs were engaged in a bitter feud. The Poles, enjoying self-government, were disposed to support the Hapsburg régime, especially since the Ruthenian peasants were left pretty much to the mercies of their Polish landlords. The southern Slavs were treated with less consideration. To counteract the desire of the Italians for annexation to Italy, Slavs were encouraged to settle in their regions. Thus one group was played off against another until fear forced them to accept protection from imperial hands. But this settlement was no settlement at all, and only stored up trouble for the future. These national groups became more insistent upon the recognition of their own languages, schools, and local political institutions, in a federalized state. Only the necessity of standing together for defense, affection for the old ruler, Franz Joseph, and common economic interests held the dis- cordant groups together. Riots were common, but were put down by force. The extension of the right to vote to the Slavs allayed the Austrian £0 vernment Problems of nationality SEE a an le et ET a en ee pana nt cs — ee ones oan caretena Pe er SRS sas es I Nata tet ae ae ree ie ieee maak re ts) De eas s r a areas rovernmeins Mag yarization 33.6 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XXIII controversy, but did not settle it. In 1913 the Bohemian diet was suspended and Bohemia was ruled from Vienna. The final settlement came in 1918 with the collapse of Austria-Hungary in the World War. Austria passed some laws to improve the lot of the common peo- ple. In 1884-5 there were established a ten-hour day for workers in the mines and an eleven-hour day for the factories. Sunday labor was prohibited, and the use of women and children in industry was re- stricted. The insurance of laborers against sickness or accident was made obligatory in 1888. Trade-unions were given a legal status. State ownership of railways was begun. The Industrial Revolution was slowly transforming the country, but Austria was sti ll predomi- nantly an agricultural state. 3. THe Kincpom or HuNGARY When Hungary became an independent Kingdom in 1867, the con- stitution of 1848 was patched up to meet her cede Although the emperor of Austria was recognized as the king of Hungary, his power was greatly restricted. The parliament consisted of two houses — the Table of Magnates representing the privileged classes, and the Chamber of Deputies chosen by a complicated and narrow franchise, which enabled the Magyar gentry to retain complete con- trol. In 1914 out of a population of 21,000,000 there were only 1,100,000 voters. The numerous political factions and racial groups enabled the ministers to evade their responsibility to the people with the result that the parliamentary government system worked little better than in Austria. The Magyars constituted scarcely half of the total population, yet they dominated the social, economic, and political life of the country. They occupied the best portions of the kingdom and pur- sued a ruthless ‘‘ Magyarization’’ of the 5,500,000 Slavs, the 3,000,000 Rumanians, re the 2,000,000 Germans. The 1,000,000 Jews readily adopted the Magyar speech. Of the subject peoples, the inhabitan ts of Croatia-Slavonia alone had their own local government and used their own language. Elsewhere every effort was made to prevent the non-Magyars from electing their own nationals to office. In 1910 only ten members of the Chamber were not Magyars. Under this oppression, the ele looked to union with Serbia or Rumania for the realization of their national freedom. Between 1896 and 1910 more than a million people emigrated to other lands, chiefly to the United States. The poorer people suffered not only from the auto- cratic government, but also from the aristoctr atic system of land- holding. By 1914 some attention was paid to popular education and to the improv ement of agriculture, but Hungary was commonly re- garded as one of the most feudal countries in Europe. Its industries were chiefly agriculture and flour-milling. To the 76 per cent of the disfranchised men the extension of the right to vote was a burning question.TUTSATEATREAUERTERRR TRAP REAR TRUROHAURORUORRRORORIOE 28 Chap. XXIIT] THE DUAL MONARCHY 337 Many of the Magyars loyally supported the Dual Monarchy only because they thought that it gave them protection in the event of war. The nationalists, however, desired to see the tie weakened, or broken altogether. Strong men like Count Tisza and Deak were champions of dualism, but others like Francis Kossuth, the son of the earlier revolutionist, led a party for complete separation. Every ten years, when the joint agreements were renewed, the coun- try was in anuproar. Franz Joseph evaded difficulties by threatening to proclaim universal franchise in Hungary and thus turn the rule over to the non-Magyars and lower classes. The conflict was an irrepres- sible one, and would have led to separation sooner or later, had not the World War settled the problem. When that storm broke out, the party of independence, through fear of Russia, heartily supported Vienna, until the collapse came. 4. FOREIGN RELATIONS It was dread of Russia that threw Austria-Hungary into the arms of Bismarck in 1879, when the Dual Alliance was formed. The ten- sion between Russia and Austria-Hungary was somewhat relaxed in 1881, when in a secret treaty the latter power agreed to the union of Bulgaria and Rumelia in exchange for permission to annex Bosnia and Herzegovina. At the same time a friendly understanding was reached with Serbia that she should not make any foreign treaty without the consent of Austria-Hungary. Looking for support for her Mediterranean policy against France, Italy asked to be taken into the Triple Alliance in 1882. Austria-Hungary thought that this arrangement would stop the cry for Italia Irredenta, and relieve her of an enemy in the rear. For years it was the ambition of Austria-Hungary to become the dominant power in the Balkans, which lay just to the southeast of her, either as conqueror or as dictator over a ‘‘sphere of influence,’ although it was well-known that this meant the implacable hostility of Russia and of other European powers. The Congress of Berlin in 1878 authorized her to ‘‘administer’’ Bosnia and Herzegovina, with the general understanding that in due time these provinces would be annexed. Meanwhile little Serbia began an intense propaganda to secure them, and thus open for herself a way to the sea. In 1908 the Dual Monarchy, at the suggestion of Russia, and to forestall the de- mands of the Young Turks for their restoration, annexed them. This act precipitated a crisis in European diplomacy. But, befriended by Germany, Austria-Hungary weathered the storm of protest, and in 1909 the Turkish parliament recognized the annexation in return for an indemnity of $12,500,000. The crisis passed without war, but it left the seeds of bitterness, which bore fruit in 1914. Serbia felt her- self frustrated and disgraced; Russia was chagrined, because she did not receive the Straits as compensation for annexation of Slavic states; and France and Great Britain were balked in their effort to uphold OVQRTOOVATOOUATVOGRTTOAAT ESOS OSTA TT LMM ea Hungarian aspirations for independence Triple alliance The Balkan issuea ale aoe : a a el A a — San SE fe EE ES te en es eee eee Lat 4, | i | ) } | | i ; 1 i i Ot a aT i 5 oer Ta a ag a a Sor oe viene Aa 8 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XXIII hd oe the treaty of Berlin. Austria-Hungary, aided by her powerful ally, Germany, emerged with heightened prestige and increased territory. Indirectly the murder of the Archduke Francis Ferdinand and his wife in 1914 at Sarajevo, the capital of Bosnia, the immediate occasion for the outbreak of the World War, was caused by this annexation. REFERENCES FOR FURTHER STUDY H. W. Streep, W. A. Puicuips, and D. A. Hannay, Short History of Austria-Hungary and Poland (1914); The Hapsburg Monarchy (2d edition 1914); B. Auversacn, Les races et ry } Tt es nationalités en Autriche-Hongrie (1898); A. R. and E. M. C. Cotogunon, The Whirlpool - ~ ‘ I i at Glan ap i J gl CT ode ein aan = f etee " 7 . Curope, AustTia ridngary aid tre Habs ures 19 ; ly Dr AGE, Austria-Hungary 1909 “ » \V/ : rr r_\V/ ' - ) f ) LL} . ; LJ ” en snhF , ? ot > R VV . SETON- \\ ,TSON . Natidi Pr At bC77175 £7) Li Neary LQ S . ( THI biO7] a na Reform in a 4 / MAO ATA oe \ al ; flesactens A ! CT ot chosen 4 4 - 5): Hungary LO] I i pe 5 ii 8: Silat (Juesti if Gihitkk ti € fig DSi ure Mz NaTrcCPpy IOILI , o . 4 ? ~~ . é ? D. S. Koyitcu, L' annexation de la Bosnie-Herzegovine et le droit international (1912); F. Scamp, l die Herzes iter der Verwaltung Oesterreich-Ungarns (1914); P. Terexi, The Evolution of Hungary and its Place in European History (1921); V.Gaypeg, Modern Austria: : T) ber Racial and Social Problems (1915); A. Hevesy, Nationalities in Hungary (1919); A. F. Pripram, [he Secret Treaties of Austria-Hungary (1922).CHARTER: XoXhV, THE EXPANSION OF THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE 1. EXPANSION IN ASIA TuwartTep in her drive for Constantinople by the Crimean War Russia then turned her attention to the Far East. Fifty years before the reign of Peter the Great, restless bands of Russians had crossed Siberia and reached the Pacific. From that time onward for three hundred years, Russia had had aneyeon Asia. After the middle of the nineteenth century, the conquest of Siberia became a fixed policy, although it must be said that Russia had no need to find free soil for a surplus population. Into that vast region went adventurers, merchants, brave men in search of gold, trappers, political exiles, and runaway setfs. By 1860 the Amur valley and the seacoast south to Valadivostock were secured from China. Alaska was sold to the United States in 1867 and Sakhalin island was acquired in 1875 from Japan. From the point of view of world history, Russia greatly extended European rule into Asia and also demonstrated that Asiatic empires could not resist the invasion of European powers unless they adopted the technical improvements of the western world. Important commercial privileges were secured from China. To open up the rich resources of Siberia and to connect European Russia with the Pacific, the Trans-Siberian railroad was begun in 1891 with funds borrowed from France. It was completed about ten years later and was the longest railroad on earth running over five thousand miles eastward from Moscow. The consent of China was secured to run the line more than a thousand miles across Manchuria, and to build a branch line southward from Harbin to Port Arthur, which was leased to Russia in 1898 for a period of twenty-five years. Russian troops were poured into Manchuria to protect Russian interests, and Port Arthur, an ice-free port — ‘‘a window on the Pacific’’ — was strongly fortified. Siberia now began to fill up with immigrants, and the products of the mines, farms and forests, as well as the silks and tea of China, could be transported cheaply to the markets of Europe. The largest territorial gains made by Russia in Asia were not in Siberia, but in central Asia and the Caucasus, where a drive was made for an opening on the Indian Ocean. Gradually the tribes of Turkestan were conquered and the whole territory from the Caspian Sea to China was annexed. Russian agents were sent into Afghanistan and Baluchistan to the southward. Three important railroads were built across Turkestan, and one of these extended to Herat in Afghan- istan. Russian expansion towards the Indian Ocean was stopped by 339 PUNWUANOLONOUOUVUNONOLOUAOOUOEONVOLQOTD()) Looe —— 1 Russian movement eastward parse] Pa eehane ees eet TTS ? 2 Pal ee ee Dai ra a 2 nmnnnmamn anere a eee Oe A a EEL PE a Da Sen ee eee ae os siden al iii let A Reactionary , Gila J GUICG , : , pr WthPOCAS ; fz j ric ‘ ifs 340 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XXIV the Anglo-Russian agreement of 1907, which made Afghanistan a At the same time Persia was ~~ buffer state under British control. a Russian zone in the north; (2) a neutral zone in divided into (1) a British zone in the south. The reform of Per- the middle; and (a, sian finances was undertaken by the two countries jointly. When the Persians revolted against this interference, deposed the Shah, and called in an American financial adviser, Russia and Great Britain forced his dismissal, and continued their ‘‘ peaceful penetration.” By 1914 Russia had won an empire in Asia almost twice as large as all Europe, with which regions a lucrative trade was carried on. » MaINTENANCE OF AUTOCRACY UNDER ALEXANDER III — At the time of his father’s death in 1881, Alexander III was thirty-six years old, a physical giant, a soldier like his grandfather, Nicholas I, strong-willed, and intensely patriotic. He told his sub- “Voice of God"’ “the autocratic ‘“ good of the people. ” him to abandon absolutism as a national menace and said that the bade him preserve jects that the The revolutionists advised power — for the harshest punishments would not thwart their efforts for a free, modern They boldly told the tsar that he must either call a national In reply to these threats, Russia. : assembly or face a bloody revolution. : Alexander III called upon his loyal subjects to crush this heinous agitation.’ He had no thought of imitating the more advanced states of Europe by giving his people education and civil liberty. As confidential adviser, Alexander III selected Pobiedonostsev, his old teacher, a man who despised democracy as a trick of the wealthy middle class to fool the poor; who said that an unfettered who declared that freedom of worship press only spread falsehoods; and who contended led to insurrection against the church and state; that representative parliaments were sources of corruption and selfish- ness. All liberals and radicals were pitilessly hunted down, their organizations broken up, and their leaders jailed, or exiled. Thou- sands were sent to the wilderness of Siberia; and thousands of others fled to western Europe and America. Secret police and spies terror- ized the country. The peasants, so far as possible, were subjected to the control of the lords. In 1886 a breach of contract by a working- man was made acrime. Local magistrates were superseded in 1889 by ‘‘land captains’’ named by the governors, and they were given judicial and administrative control over the peasants. The zemstvos and the city dumas were placed in the hands of the upper classes. By force all subject racial groups were to be ‘‘Russified”’ under the motto, ‘‘One Russia, one creed, one tsar.’’ The Jews, particularly, were persecuted and driven to flight. A small but influential group of Russians urged the isolation of the Slavs from the contaminating influences of western civilization. They said that the unique mission of the Russians was to preserve ‘‘benevolent autocracy,’’ the Orthodox Church, and the mer in com-UOTRNOANEESHORUSOOUOURORERERRRE EDD U OVER : | — Chap. XXIV] EXPANSION OF THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE 341 munal life. It was Russia’s duty, they held, to extend the helping hand of a ‘‘ big brother’’ to other Slavic peoples in Germany, Austtia- Pan-Slavism Hungary, and the Balkans, and perhaps eventually to unite them all in one great Slavic empire. At the same time they sought to improve the lot of the poor peasant, as the true and typical Russian, by ex- tending to him government aid through the remission of taxes, a peasant’s bank, and instruction in agriculture. To curtail the sale of liquor to the peasants, in 1894 it was made a state monopoly. The government, naturally, gave its hearty support to the Pan-Slavic movement. While the Industrial Revolution was transforming western Europe, Russia with its rich natural resources and abundance of cheap labor, was untouched. This was due to the lack of capital and bust- ness initiative, and to the reactionary government. The change came Witte and under Alexander III. The father of the Russian Industrial Revolution ‘4ustrializa- was Serge J. Witte (1849-1915). After graduating from college, he a became first a newspaper man and later an expert railroad official. In 1892 he was made minister of communications, and the next year minister of finance, which post he held for a decade. In 1905 he went to the United States to negotiate peace with Japan. To develop Russian industries, by a magic touch he secured foreign capital, and by 1900 there were many thousands of factories employing several millions of workers. Soon the output of iron exceeded that of France or Austria-Hungary. Telegraph lines and railroads were extended in every direction over the Empire. The gold standard was adopted, and the exports doubled in ten years. The same effects appeared in Russia as in other industrial countries. A wave of prosperity swept over the Empire, and a well-to-do middle class began to emerge. The factories, mines, and oil fields drew a stream of peasants from the farms. The standard of living improved, prices increased, and the burden fell upon the workers. The wage-earners organized unions and instituted strikes for better conditions. The government de- clared these unions illegal and suppressed the strikers by force. Witte, however, was wise enough to secure laws to regulate factory conditions. His dismissal from office unfortunately put an end to these efforts to avert impending disaster. Upon taking the throne Alexander HI said: ‘‘The foreign policy of the tsar will be entirely pacific.’’ Hence he sought to remain on friendly terms with all European countries, but in 1889 he complained that Russia, among the powers, had “‘only one true and sincere friend — little Montenegro.’’ He distrusted the Triple Alliance, Foreign which cut Russia off from the rest of Europe. Asia was full of con- policy and the Ae Oe alliance with flicts with Great Britain. Consequently the friendly advances of France France in 1891 were cordially received. The two countries had noth- ing in common except their fear of Great Britain and Germany. France needed an ally; Russia needed credit. The Dual Alliance was the result. Upon the death of Alexander HI, France sent 5,000 ts yh Sy Co EY ee RE RED ae ee as aa ieee = SeSSSeeeee! Plehve and repression i Increase of opposttion to tsardom 342 MODERN WORLD HISTORY — [Chap. XXII wreaths and 19,000 bunches of artificial flowers tied with crepe and the tricolor. and ticketed with cece of the tsar and ia dent Carnot bearing the words: ‘United in sentiment and death. 3. Nicxoxras Il — Ture Last Tsar Nicholas II. the last tsar, succeeded his father in 1894. He was only 26 years Of age, well-educated, and in | C y . ' ‘ 1 1 zt cf 1 : 1 7 ; 7 Danish mother than his giant father. He took his turn in the army if 1 1 7 > vx)" ) . {{ 17 LI a L, + tT - ] . and was acquainted with State altalls. ric had travelled rathet i ets Ne ee rl 2 Sete Pe ee el ey es V\ LadC1L) OVCEI the world. and liperalis | ed (nat ne would ademocratize . } } Russia. In his first pr cclamation from the throne. he vowed to make his ‘sole aim the peaceful development « tf the power and glory of our . > I. an tat a Sef sey ree hina ca) ee beloved Russia and the happiness of all our faithful subject A little later he said: “I shall preserve the principles “ autocracy. This meant peace abroad. but “‘Russification.’’ Pan-Slavism. and repression at home. When a committee of zemstvos urged him to ee Sada . iy Ne eee aa ee ye re i Prant a CONSTITUTION ana a parliament, ne scolded them fot such 7 . Cl Ne ITE ms. If Nicholas II inherited autocracy from his iron-willed father, he also inherited a wide-spread hostility to it. The middle and profes- sional classes, and workingmen were determined to secure sweeping reforms and kept up an incessant agitation. Thinking the discontent was due to the intellectual classes, a bitter attack was made on the teachers, literary men, and students. College professors were dis- missed, and spies were sent into the classrooms and libraries to spot the dangerous liberals. The police were set on the tracks of students and writers, and all who were suspected of revolutionary ideas were hurried off to Siberia without a fair t rial. Books on den 1ocracy and progress were forbidden to be eal The notorious Plehve devoted all his energy to crushing the revolutionary party. His dragnet of spies and secret police was drawn across Russia to gather in the suspects from the factories, universities, banks, shops, clubs, public bureaus, army, and church. Many thousands were arrested, hanged, impris- oned, or exiled. Racial and religious hatreds were stirred up to turn the people’s minds away from reforms. “Leagues of True Russians’’ were formed against ne Jews, Poles, Finns, and others. At last Plehve, the author of all this savagery, himself fell a victim of a bomb thrown by a student. This wanton persecution resulted in the formation of groups hostile to autocratic rule: (1) The landed classes, both peasants and large landowners, resented the encouragement of business to the neglect of their interests. Although watched and hampered by the police, over 400 of the 700 zemstvos, or local governn nents, demanded agricultural reforms, a na tional parliament, « . free press, and civil and political liberty. (2) The wage-earners were bitterly op posed to autocratic institutions, and took up as a panacea Marxian socialism. In 1898 a '’ Workmen's Social Democratic Party’ was formed, whichChap. XXIV] EXPANSION OF THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE 343 fomented strikes, and spread socialistic teachings among hundreds of thousands. The intellectual groups in touch with the peasants organized the “‘Socialist Revolutionary Party,’’ which demanded the division of large estates, advocated violence, and grew more rapidly after 1904 than the Social Democrats in the cities. (3) The middle class, who represented the brains, wealth, and ability of Russia, resented their exclusion from the imperial government. Many of them had visited the more enlightened countries and believed that the parliamentary system would better protect their rights. In 1904 they organized a party called the “‘Union of Liberation.’ The hostility of these class groups was supplemented by the op- position of the submerged nationalities, which resented “ Russifica- tion’ and religious intolerance: (1) The Poles, Slavic in blood and Roman Catholic in faith, numbering about 8,000,000, remembered how after 1863 Poland became the “‘Department of the Vistula.” Their language was forbidden, their church ruled from St. Petersburg, and their nobles robbed of their estates. Intensely nationalistic, they resisted ‘‘Russification,’’ religious oppression, and the loss of their freedom, and joined the various revolutionary parties to obtain a constitutional régime. (2) The Baltic provinces of Esthonia, Livonia, and Courland, where the peasants were mostly Esths and Letts and the upper classes Germans, opposed the efforts to make the Russian tongue official, to deprive them of their local rights, and to “ Rus- sify’’ the German university at Dorpat. @)) The Finns, consisting of 3,000,000 under a ruling Swedish upper class, were furious over the loss of their independence in 1899, when their diet was put under the jurisdiction of the imperial government, their army incorporated in the Russian army, and the Russian language forced upon them as official. They proclaimed a day of mourning, petitioned the tsar to restore their liberties, organized patriotic clubs to resist autocracy, and in 1904 assassinated the Russian governor-general. (4) The 5,000,000 Jews, living mostly in western Russia, with their own reli- gion and language, were forced to live within the ‘‘Pale,’’ were barred from all professions except that of army physician, could not own land, and could not gain control of business corporations. Only a small percentage of Jews were allowed to attend the high schools and universities. They had no vote in the local governments, and yet had to pay taxes and serve in the army. Outlawed by the govern- ment, they evaded the laws, welcomed any sign of revolution, and opened their ears to the promises of socialism. Pobiedonostsev pro- posed a simple solution of the Jewish problem — let one-third emi- grate from Russia; let another third die of hunger ; and convert the remaining third to the Orthodox Church. Plehve encouraged the ‘Black Hundreds’’to plunder and massacre them in the “‘ pogroms, which aroused the indignation of the whole world. AUVOOUENECOELONEUVONTOUQOUAOUQOONONIOUUNN|)} POD The minority peoples in Russia = eet eoatt Dm ete re hie a a eee meena Fi Sea SE ARs ss eer eater ed wee eo‘ti eee ema te ee ee ee SS ee I et ae i Se Fo i rere ales ee, efter rye Serer 344 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [\Chap. XXIV 4. Ine Russo-JAPANESE WAR AND THE REVOLUTION OF 1905 The Russo-Japanese War was a product of Russian imperialism, which collided ane che aspirations of Japan. The lease of Port Arthur and its conversion into a strongly fortified naval base was Sowa to keep Japan out of Korea and Manchuria and indeed to cut off all her connections with China. But Japan, in close alliance with Get Britain and as thoroughly militarized as any western mation, demanded that Russia should evacuate both Korea and War with Manchuria. Russia returned evasive answers, and Japan, without a formal declaration of war, in February, 1904, began the eighteen months conflict with a naval attack at Port Arthur. Nicholas Il issued a stirring appeal to his subjects entreating them to save the Empire from foes within and the enemy without. The militarists, imperialists, and Orthodox priests, wat supported the war. But the masses of the people cared more for internal reforms than they did for the addition of territory in the Far Ea The war, from the Russian ae was po one managed. The high- est officials, including some members of the imperial family, made fortunes out of war contracts, and even Red Cross funds were stolen. The compte defeat of Russia by a non-European power weakened the prestige of the nation both at home and ened Russia surrendered Defeat of the one yan Port Arthur, the southern half of the island of Sakhalin, and Russians a protectorate over Korea; 1 agreed to give Manchuria back to China. Taking advantage of this military collapse, all classes and parties and nationalities hostile to autocracy renewed their attacks, and merged into a powerful revolutionary party. Mobs of patriots paraded the streets of Warsaw, Moscow, Kiev, and St. Toca yelling, Below absolutism!’’, ‘‘End the war!’’, and ‘‘Reforms or revolution!’’ After Plehve was assassinated, a few sops had been thrown out to the people. Whipping peasants was forbidden, their back taxes were remitted, partial freedom of the press and speech was permitted, and further reforms were promised. An informal congress of the leading men of the zemstvos and the local councils met in St. Petersburg in 1904 and asked the tsar to establish modern representative government. Similar petitions poured in from all over Russia. Asa result the tsar agreed to make further changes but said that he would not permit the lessenin ig of his imperial authority. To deal with the threatened outbreak, he appointed General Trepoff, the champion of despotism, as head of the police. The various revolutionary groups now urged rebellion and Sassination to force the government to yield. Among the victims was Grand Duke Sergius, who said that the people should be given a ‘‘stick’’ and not a ballot. The professional classes held banquets and heard revolutionary speeches. The peasants attacked the nobles, burned their castles, and stole their Pie The Poles, Lithuani- ans, Germans, Finns, and even tribes on the frontiers of the EmpireChap. XXIV} EXPANSION OF THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE 345 rose in rebellion. Workingmen in the cities went on strike. With a foreign war on her hands, Russia was also confronted with a revolu- tion at home. General Trepoff used his power to arbitrarily crush these outbreaks. The universities were closed; the railroads were put under martial law; and thousands of men and women were beaten, imprisoned, tortured, exiled, and executed without even the pretense of a legal trial. Cossacks in wanton carnage Cut down the peasants. But all in vain — conditions grew worse from day to day. The workers organized the National Council of Workingmen’s Delegates in 1905. When, unarmed and led by Father Gapon, they paraded through the streets of St. Petersburg, to petition the © Little Father’ for a redressing of their grievances they were shot down in their tracks. This was the ‘‘Red Sunday,’’ which shocked the world, and changed the peaceful movement into revolution. Wild with rage, the people built barricades in the streets of the capital. A mob of 200,000 excited patriots marched through the streets of Warsaw with Polish flags demanding independence. Finland declared a general strike for freedom. The peasants of the Baltic provinces tobbed the homes of their German landlords and proclaimed a Baltic republic at Riga. The Armenians and Georgians took up arms. The Jews organized to combat the ‘‘ Black Hundreds.’’ The middle class and liberal nobles used their influence to force autocracy to bend to the people’s will. The workers tied up the country by a railway strike. At last the tsar to save his tottering throne, granted concessions. He proclaimed religious freedom; permitted the use of national languages; cancelled the back taxes of the peasants; and ordered a civil trial for political crimes. Pobiedonostsev, Trepoff, and other tyrannical ministers, were dismissed, and Witte was asked to form a new reform cabinet. The unpopular war was ended by a treaty with Japan. These concessions were followed on October 30, 1905, by the famous Manifesto of Nicholas II, which marked the transition of Russia from an autocracy to a limited, constitutional monarchy. It promised (1) that all laws must have the consent of the national Duma; (2) that acts of officials should reflect the popular will; (3) that freedom of speech and assembly were guaranteed; and (4) that the national Duma should be elected by popular franchise. Another decree, a few months later, changed the Council of State into an upper house representing the privileged classes. With these victories, the revolution subsided, and the nation turned its attention to the reconstruction of Russia. 5. RussIA UNDER THE NATIONAL Dumas The elections to the first national Duma brought into existence the following political groups, or parties: (1) The “‘Octobrists,”’ representing the progressive nobles and the zemstvos, wanted a govern- ment similar to that of Prussia, in which the Duma should have HUOUAUAOANAHEUEEROQOOSUAEONERUOSOSSUERETT GT Y Utbbee ee The reaction of foreign defeat on home policies and problems Constitutiona government promised J ¥ =~"Parties in the » ' f Revolution o} Ig0§ The first Duma 346 MODERN WORLD HISTORY |Chap. XXIV f power to modify autocratic rule but not to displace it. (2) The ' ? Constitutional Democrats,’’ or “‘Cadets,’’ made up of the middle and professional classes, regarded Great Britain as a more suitable model for government than Prussia. They wanted a constitutional. federal empire based on popular sovereignty, with a responsible ministry, and urged the division of the large estates among the peasants. (3) Ihe Social Democrats, composed of the intellectuals » | > 7 ryelr ae . t " > - > er a+ } g~ I - . ] 4 and cne workers in the GLEILCS. ACCC] ted the revolution as merely the _ t , ' cr ] } ¥ »+) “¥ . rr , ] - first step in establishing an ideal socialistic state in the hands of the proletariat. Chey believed It TO be cneir Mission to Instruct and CO - yo Tf > 4 ~ <> f - . wei Ly Te —. anq* af + . 7 , . organize the masses for the work ahead. (4) The Social Revolution- 1 ists. wanted to overthrow the tsar at once and proclaim a socialistic Som, ee Sh i - l. : . : - : A : 1 aE ~ state. Thev looked to the peasants for support, and hence urged the d i confiscation of all private lands. The mur. as the unit of the new ae steers - ~ - ‘T° ee = rs 1} : democracy , Was TO be Presery ed. lerro! 1sm of all SOrTts was advo- a = Se .] - 7 ~ oh = ‘ 7 po ; dt : cated to accomplish their aims. (5) [he Peasants’ Union’’ was a wide-spread organization of tarmers, whose platform consisted of th cry: “The whole land for all the people.’’ They were closely allied eS . . ) “7 } ry . ( “Th > > 1 __ 7 ae = . . ' f . A with the Social Revolutionists. 6) The autocratic party, loosely reanized. included the nobles. the armv officer he ] fo ge eee Or PpaniZed, included the nopies, the army o7cers, the 11gne! clergy Lo nwreanecr Ps “Anceriw dative mn at the ms? “4 > | CLHNe bureaucrats. and COTSETI \ altlVE nen Or Lie middle class. TI ' me L, Llacie Linh @ ey pa i vi ¢ eh ~] . stood for all the policies of the old régime, and fought all the changes ot the revi lution. | hey Ff ( ‘med the = Union of the Russian People, Shortly before the meeting of the first Duma, the government to forestall the Duma from becoming a constitutional convention published a fundamental law or constitution. The first Russian Duma, which met May 19, 1906, included among its 524 members, 40 Octobrists, 185 Cadets, 100 Social Democrats, 14 Social Revolu- tionists, and 85 representatives of various religious groups. The tsar opened this historic Duma by urging it to strive for the improvement of Russia's “moral outlook and for the reincarnation of her best powers.’ The Duma, inexperienced and visionary, soon discovered that liberty proclaimed was not liberty gained. It demanded amnesty for all political prisoners, but only a few were released. Commissions were named to investigate reports of corruption in the war with apan, and the pogroms against the Jews. When the ministry was Ja] pO} ; criticized, it refused to resign. When the Duma insisted upon a responsible ministry and proceeded to frame a radical agrarian law, the tsar dissolved it, and ordered a new election. Over 200 members protested, but were disfranchised and prosecuted for conspiracy. Out of this first session of the Duma, which lasted just a little more than two months, one noteworthy reform resulted by way of a counter-reformation by the government: the peasants were permitted to own their own farms as private property. The second Duma, which convened March 5, 1907 and lasted over four months, was more hostile to autocracy than the first body. ~ThePPNNUAUNONONONQEAOLSUANOUUVONQOOEAUAUN0) ELoueue =" Chap. XXIV] EXPANSION OF THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE 54/ revolutionary parties which had boycotted the election to the first Duma, now were heavily represented. On the other hand, there was also an important reactionary faction, which represented the country rather than the cities, for St. Petersburg had only 6 and Moscow 5 members. This Duma demanded the confiscation of all large estates, Second Duma the abolition of courts martial, and a responsible ministry. When it refused to surrender the inflammatory Social Democratic members to be tried for treason, the tsar dissolved it, resumed his autocratic power to make laws, and put the right to vote on a Class and property basis. The members of the Duma were reduced to 442 and the seats were so distributed as to insure the election of a majority friendly to the government. The third Duma, which began its sessions on November 14, 1907 and endured over five years, had a vast majority of conservative land- holders and merchants with only a few Cadets and Socialists. Docile and subservient, it sat idly by while Stolypin, who had been prime minister since the dissolution of the first Duma, attempted to crush every trace of revolution. The schools and universities were placed under police surveillance. Deprived of their right to work for re- forms through a representative assembly, the Terrorists had recourse to violence. They killed or wounded 4,131 officials and members of Third Duma the police force in 1907 and 1,009 in 1908. Stolypin retaliated with the execution of 1,800 “‘traitors’’ in 1907, and 800 in 1908, while 14,000 were exiled. The “‘Black Hundreds’’ were once more turned loose against the Jews. Finland lost its independence, and was put under the stringent control of the Empire. The hated Stolypin was assas- sinated in rg1r at Kiev. The voiceless Duma lived out its term of five years, and all that can be said to its credit is that it permitted individual instead of joint land ownership of the mirs; passed a law to inaugurate insurance for the laborers; reformed local justice; extended common school education under the supervision of the Orthodox Church; and kept alive the idea of constitutional gov- ernment. The fourth Duma, which met November 28, 1912 and also sat for five years, was still more conservative than its predecessor. The group hostile to autocracy was reduced to 80 members. This Duma helped to reorganize the army and navy; favored a stricter control of the liquor traffic; approved of ‘‘Russification’’ and Pan-Slavism; and aided the government to stifle the voice of the people. The last days of its history will be told in connection with the Revolution of 1917. The Revolution of 1905 failed to secure genuine constitutional, democratic government. The autocratic throne of the tsar was still upheld by a huge standing army, the clergy, the bureaucrats, and the nobility. Foreign bankers, mostly French, supported the tsar’s government. The German government had extended its moral aid in crushing Revolution. The vastness of the Empire made it difficult Fourth Duma = ~—-_ 4 ore oak a a eek a, ae ares me RR pr a ar eo hae nes OO eee ee Sees tee “est enn m= ee i TL TE aS TET ET NSA ee Pe RRR SG Or OR ee EE ee es a ee FeO aa aS re we Fe Dae ere ed ag ee Sen wen he Successes ane }é ( : Revolution oF 348 MODERN WORLD HISTORY = [Chap. XXIV for the foes of autocracy to organize effective, united resistance. Be- sides racial and religious differences separated them, and enabled the government to use one against the other. And finally, their leaders were either killed off or driven to exile. When the World War broke out in 1914, the spirit of revolution seemed to be reviving. For the first time in seven years the capital was in the grip of a mass strike, but the war enthusiasm infected even the strikers. Within three years, all anti-autocratic forces were to unite to overthrow the Romanov house. Certain positive reforms had been gained by the Revolution of 1905. About 1,500,000 peasant householders became private land- owners — an economic and social revolution that was to bear fruit later. The cities were full of wage-earners clamoring for their rights. The Duma, though stripped of all its power, was still the emblem and hope of popular government in the minds of the people. Finally, the Revolution brought about the moral overthrow of the “Little Father.’’ The people saw that he was a tyrant, and that government ht was fundamentally cruel and predominantly selfish. by divine rig Autocracy might be victorious for a time, but it had lost its power to perpetuate itself through the love and the support of the people. This, the World War was to prove. REFERENCES FOR FURTHER STUDY A. Rampaup. Histoire de la Russie, completed to 1913 by E. Haumant (1914); J. Mavor, An Economic History of Russia, 2 vols. (1914); A. KorniLov, Modern Russian History, 2 vols. (1917) (new edition 1924); R. Beaziey, N. Forses, G. A. Brrxerr, Russia (1918); G. Drace, Russian Affairs (1904); D. M. Wartace, Russia (new edition 1908); M. Barine, The Russian People (2d edition 1911); G. Avexinsky, Modern Russia (1913); H. W. Witurams, Russia of the Russians (1914); J D. Durr, editor, Russian } p Realities and Problems (1917); G. Kennan, Siberia and the Exile System, x vols. (4th edi- tion 1897); H. G. S. von HIMMELSTJIERNA, Russia under Alexander III and in the Preceding Period, English translation by J. Morrison (1893); C. Lowe, Alexander III (1895); K. P. Posreponostsgv, Reflections of a Russian Statesman (1898); S. J. Witte, Memoirs (1921); V. Berarp, The Russian Empire and Czarism (1905), English translation; J. R. Fisher, Finland and the Tsars, 1809-1899 (1899); W. A. Puirutrs, Po land (1915); I. FRIEDLANDER, The Jews of Russia and Poland (1915); N. Hiwx, Poland and the Polish Question (1915); P. Mitiuxov, Russia and its Crists (ago5); M. Kovarevsxy, Russian Political Institutions (1902); La crise russe: motes ef tmpresstons dun témoin (1906); B. Pares, Russia and Reform (1907); S. N. Harper, The New Electoral Law for the Russian Duma (1908); M. J. Orain, The Soul of the Russian Revolution (1918); F. H. Sxrine, The Expansion of Russia (3d edition 1915); A. J. Bevertpce, The Russian Advance (1903 G. F. Wricut, Asiatic Russia, 2 vols. (1903); M. M. SHopmaxer, The Great Siberian Railway (1903); K. Asakawa, The Russo-Japanese Conflict (1904); A. N. KuropatkIn, The Russian Army and the Japanese War,.r vols. partly translated by A. B. Lindsay (1909); A. HepenstroM, Geschichte Russlands, 1878-1918 (1922); S. A. Korrr, Autocracy ana Revolution in Russia (1923); A.L. P. Dennis, The Foreign Relations of Sovset Russia (1924); S. F. Puatonov, History of Russia (rev. ed. 1925).CHAPTER XXV GROWTH OF THE KINGDOM OF ITALY AND THE MINOR POWERS OF WESTERN EUROPE t. PotiticAL INSTITUTIONS OF ITALY From eight separate states Cavour and Victor Emmanuel Il created a unified, hereditary monarchy like Great Britain rather than a federalized monarchy like Germany. The Statuto, granted to his subjects by the king of Piedmont in 1848, with only slight modifica- tions, was continued as the constitution of Italy. It contained a bill of rights guaranteeing equality, a free press, taxation only by parlia- mentary consent, and right of assembly. The first king was Victor Emmanuel II, who was succeeded by his son, Humbert, in 1878. After King Humbert’s assassination 1n 1900, Victor Emmanuel III mounted the throne. As in France and Great Britain, the ministry formed the working executive, was responsible to the lower house, and thus left the monarch only ornamental functions. Parliament consisted of the Senate with 385 senators appointed for life by the king from eminent Italians, and the Chamber of 508 deputies chosen by the people for a period of five years. So frequently was the Chamber dissolved that it seldom lived out its term. After 1912 the deputies were paid $1,200 yeatly. The real government of Italy was in the hands of the Cham- ber, which was increased by the electoral law of 1919 to 535 members. The position of the Papacy in Italy was unique. Down to 1870 the pope was an Italian sovereign as well as the head of the Roman Catholic Church. The states over which he ruled lay in central Italy between Rome and Venice. Victor Emmanuel II by conquest seized the Papal States, and made Rome his capital. The church was not divorced from the state, for the Italian government still paid the salaries of the clergy, approved the nomination of bishops, and had religion taught in the public schools. The pope was recognized as a sovereign and assured personal inviolability, and granted the privilege of receiving and sending foreign ambassadors. His own flag floated over the Lateran, the ‘‘ Leonine City,’’ and the castle Gandolfo near Rome. To repay him for the loss of his territory, he was given the free use of the Italian telegraph lines, railroads, and post offices, and an annual grant of $645,000 from the national treasury. Pius [X and his successors refused either to accept this settlement or to recognize the legality of the Italian Kingdom. The subsidies continue to ac- cumulate in the national treasury untouched. The popes have se- cluded themselves in the Vatican as “‘ prisoners’’ and called upon the faithful Catholic rulers to restore their temporal authority and pos- 349 Italian government Problem of the Papacy PUOUOUUGNENESSNEONUANUEREEAERDSEOOOUUUONUQUUNUTNE| | puuane =—" 7 | ene pene pe ner FO oe a ahr eB ee eee ee ee eee Sa ESS. JH AY7: Kionae@lisii MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XXV ] sessions. Until recently the pope advised the Italian Catholics to refuse to vote or to accept public offices. In the later elections, how- ever, the clerical Ee showed great activity. Before 1882 vot was restricted by property and educational per cent of the P opulation elected the deputies. In that year, however, by lowering the property qualification and by nN tests so that only 2 , } | extending the suffrage to all males who could read and write, the 1 c Fe { number of voters was increased from 628,000 to over 2,000,000, chiefly in the cities. Agitation for universal male franchise con tinued until in 1912 all property qualifications were removed for mal Over twenty years of age, and all literacy tests for males over ae This raised the voters to about 9,000,000 out of a population of eG fs 35,000,000. The electoral law of 1920 ec for universal suffrage of all men and women 21 years of age. Until 1876 conservative groups eh n northern and central Italy were in control of the Chamber of Deputies and were disposed to show a distrust of democracy. Then for twenty years the liberal groups from southern Italy predominated with a bolder foreign policy and more democratic ideals. Since 1896 party groups, based on strong personalities rather than on great political issues, have become numerous. Towards 1914 stable national groups began to form, and in 1921 the Constitutionalists elected 275 members, the Socialists 122, the Catholics 107, the Communists 16, the Republicans 7, Germans 4, and Slavs 4. 2. ProspLtemMs CONFRONTING ITALY AFTER UNIFICATION ‘Italy is made. Now let us make Italians,’’ said D’Azeglio, an Italian Pay For so many years had the people regarded them- selves as Tuscans, Romans, Venetians, Neapolitans, and Piedmontese, that it was dif i eerie to ay ange aS leir provincial loyalties for a na- tional patriotism. Wars against a common foe had taught them coéperation and had given them a solidarity of interest. But when political unity was won, the old state rights feelings revived. Patience, wise laws, and the blessings of the new union gradually developed a spirit of nationalism. Sharp contrasts divided the north and the south. In the north, where industry had made more progress, a well-to-do middle class and a more independent working class have developed. Large and fairly prosperous cities are more numerous. There is a larger number of inde pendent farmers, who till the soil profitably and live in con- tentment. Greater attention is given to art, literature, and education. South of Tuscany, on the contrary, there are few large cities, and the land is mostly in the hands of landlords but cultivated by half- starved, discontented peasants. Large sections are desolated regions, uncultivated and sparsely settled. There are few industries and little wealth. The people in 1870 were so illiterate that about 70 per centChap. XXV| GROWTH OF THE KINGDOM OF ITALY 351 of them could neither read nor write. Public letter writers were common sights on the street corners. Centuries of misrule under the Bourbons in Naples had produced a contempt for law and order. Secret criminal bands, like the Mafia in Sicily and the Camorra in Naples, were responsible for a state of anarchy and dagger warfare. Rome and Naples were filled with thieves, criminals, and beggars. Brigandage was a respectable occupation for the bold and daring. These conditions the new government faced, and with energy and wisdom law and order were established. Local government was centralized on the French model. Compulsory service in the army was introduced, and a national police instituted. Brigandage was sup- pressed and the dangerous secret societies broken up. In 1913 the leaders of the Camorra were tried and convicted. As industry im- proved, and the means of communication increased, Italy was trans- formed into a more orderly state. [literacy was a blot on the new kingdom keenly felt by patriots. Hence in 1877 elementary education was made free and compulsory for all children up to nine. Schools were few, however, the teachers poorly prepared and badly paid, and the middle class objected to pay- ing taxes for the education of the masses. Nevertheless such progress was made that by 1gor illiteracy had dropped to 58 per cent — 28 per cent in the north, 51 per cent in the center, and 69 per cent in the south. In 1904 every commune was required to provide at least one school, and arragements were made for 5,000 night and Sunday schools for illiterate adults. Soldiers were compelled to attend. Two years later 3,000 schoolhouses were ordered built. By 1914 illiteracy had declined to25 per cent. The 21 universities had 25,000 students, and other special higher schools 5,ooo more. The budget for national education amounted to $35,000,000. Newspapers and magazines multiplied, and over 1,800 libraries were established. In all these ways Italy was developing an educated, democratic people. The problem of paying for her progress was one of the gravest facing the nation. The national debt in 1914 was the fourth largest in Europe, and three and a half times that of the United States. An enormous annual budget was needed to pay the interest on the national debt, to run the government, to support the army and navy, to make public improvements, and to further education. To raise this money taxes were placed on business documents, tickets, lands and buildings, inheritances, incomes, bread, sugar, cheese, tobacco, salt, quinine, andimports. The burden fell heaviest on the poor who were least able to pay. So badly were national finances managed that up to 1906 the country was on the verge of bankruptcy. After that time there was such marked improvement that by 1914 the budget was balanced without a deficit. Asa result of the World War by 1920 the national debt had been increased seven times. How Italy, with the billions added to her national debt by the World War, would survive economically was a perplexing question but during the past few educational problems Financial problems PEPE es a 8 wn = pai Pate ei ak de TL ee mS See — oe crear CEE eA Seeders netiiete te. te-aeraeied teaE migration to the Neu , J World National resources 352 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XXV years commendable progress has been made in solving the financial prob lem. As a result of the heavy taxes and the bad economic conditions, millions of Italians have gone to other lands. From 1870 to 1914 the po pul: ition increased from 25,000,000 tO 37,000,000; and the officiai estimate in 1924 added 4,000,000 to that number. But this growth in numbers was not equalled by the increase in opportunities to eart a living. The exodus, which began shortly after unification, in- creased from 96,000 in 1878 to 788,000 in 1906, when a decline was noticeable, but in 1913 it was still 450,000. It was estimated in 1910 that there were 6,000,000 Italians abroad — half of them in the United States; the rest in Europe, Africa, and South America. Cheap transportation made them the common laborers of the western in- dustrial world. Most of them went from the small towns in southern Italy, some of which lost 20 per cent of their population. Amalf, which had a population of 10,000 in 1890, h ad only 3,000 in 1914. Io the visiting premier, the mayor of one af the towns said: ‘I welcome you in the name of 8.000 inhabitants — of whom 3,000 have just left for America, and the other 5,000 are at home preparing to follow.”’ Among the benefits of enfigration to Italy were these: (1) It relieved the overcrowded population and enab led those remaining to secure higher wages. (2) It opened new markets for Italian goods. (2) It enabled emigrants to send home $75,000,000 annually. (4) About two thirds returned home with new eae a new self confidence, and money in their pockets. On the other hand, the state was injured in the following ways: (1) Millions of able-bodied men and women helped to 11 ncrease the wealth and industries of other lands 4 instead of their own. (2) Italy was weakened in a military way. (2) The agricultural regions of f the south were left without adequate labor, and hence suffered losses. (4) The state was deprived of large sums in taxes. (5) Serious discontent was engendered at home by comparing poverty- -stricken Italy with richer countries. Italian statesmen were not slow in recognizing the menace of emigration to other nations, and sought to borrow capital to build up their own industries so that the people might be kept at home occupied and contented. In some respects few countries have more natural advantages than Italy. By location, she holds a favorable position in the Mediter- ranean world. The climate is fine, the harbors are excellent, the soil is fertile. there is an abundance of water power, labor 1s plentiful, and the country is fairly rich im certain natural resources. Yet in 1914 Italy was poor and lived, as it were, from hand to mouth. She ought to have fed herself and had farm produce and fruit to ex- port, but agriculture, employing over one third of her people , lagged far behind France and Germany. Considerable e progress was made in draining marshes, in reclaiming waste lands, and in reforesting the hills and mountains. Agricultural schools were opened, and codpera-Chap. XXV] GROWTH OF THE KINGDOM OF ITALY 353 tive societies and rural banks established. A beginning was made to break up the large estates in the south into little farms like those in the north. Many mines and quarries were operated, but the methods and machinery were old-fashioned. Forced to import most of her coal and iron, Italy was handicapped in developing factories, but was securing capital from France and Germany for that purpose. Her steel mills employed 100,000 men, the textile industry had a good start, and her silk mills produced more than half of the silk thread in the world. Yet raw silk was exported to the value of $119,000,000 instead of being made up at home, and the large quantities of flax and hemp were sent out of the country. The exports between 1897 and 1914 trebled but still fell short of the imports. There has been much talk of utilizing the large water power to supply ‘‘white coal’’ in the form of electricity for power, light and heat, and of exploiting the vast beds of aluminum clay to produce a metal that is lighter and tougher than iron. The unfortunate condition of the industrial worker in Italy was scarcely equalled anywhere in western Europe, although the government sought to remedy these conditions by improving the factories, and by forbidding the employment of women and children of tender years in the mines and at night. Employers were obliged to provide for their workers in case of accident. Provision was also made for volun- taty insurance in the event of sickness, and for old age pensions. In 1908 one rest day in each week was decreed for all industrial workers. Maternity insurance was made compulsory for working women. In 1912 life insurance was nationalized. Municipalities were encour- aged to control their own public utilities. Trade-unions might be legally organized, and their finances and rights were safeguarded. Co6perative societies began in 1900 and by 1920 numbered 7,500 with nearly a million members. Few countries have been so disturbed by labor troubles in recent years as Italy. Dire poverty and high taxes won many among the wage-earners, farm laborers, and even the middle classes, to socialism and anarchism. Labor riots in the country and cities of southern Italy, especially in Sicily, had to be put down by government troops. ‘Bread riots’’ in the industrial north were common. An uprising of workers in Milan in 1898 threatening a social revolution, was suppressed only after fierce street-fighting, and the imprisonment of the leaders. King Humbert in 1900 was killed by an anarchist. Under Victor Emmanuel III and Premier Giolitti, the government sought to placate the workers by industrial reforms and the extension of the right to vote, but without much effect. A series of strikes and boycotts kept the nation in a constant turmoil. Each election sent more Socialists to the Chamber of Deputies. Syndicalism, imported from France, attracted many supporters. “‘Chambers of Labor’’ were formed. The strike of 1904, which covered all northern industries, closed the mills and factories, and frightened the conservatives. Industrial conditions Condition of labor Labor and radical agitation TUQUREANNDOSAUUEONLONUAOESOUGNORVOOUNOOUOONOONUOO() on =o Sinn | Smee me aS at eke OE RE eS oki here os. i cae ee 2 a ee “ee 7 ane a ee LN TTCee ranean ae I ET MES SUR, a EEE —r ee te rent sey ee NE OE Ee —eeee——eEeeEeEeEeEeEeEeEeEeEeE——eeeeeeee tate See Imperialism 354 MODERN WORLD HISTORY (Chap. XXV Peace was made with the Roman Catholic Church in 1905 to win its support against the radicals, who were seeking to overthrow the social and political order. In 1913 the Socialists brought their representatives in parliament up to 196. The General Federation of Labor in 1914 declared a nation-wide strike to show disapproval of the death of a laborer at the hands of the police. For two days all business life in the nation stood still. Then the workers went back to their jobs. The government was too frightened to take action. The settlement of these economic problems was postponed by the World War, but when it ended the workers were in a worse condition than before. As a result in 1920 no fewer than 1,782,000 workmen went on strike. Industrial conditions were disorganized and in 1921 ibout 145,000 men were deniplayed, and 200,000 more were working short hours. Matters were made worse by the inflated paper money and the greatly increased cost of living. More recently unemploy- ment has been reduced and in 1925 less than 100,000 were affected. 3. FOREIGN Poticy OF ITALY The foreign policy of Italy was concerned with (1) the recovery of ‘‘unredeemed Italy’’; (2) the establishment of 2 colonial empire; and (3) the commercial penetration of the Balkans and the Near East. By 1870 eight Italian states, with an area about two and a quarter times the size of the state of New York, were united under the House ae avoy. But outside the new kingdom were a million Ital- ians under foreign rule. Nice, Savoy, and Corsica belonged to France. Ticino was a part of Switzerland. Trentino, Triest, Fiume and Dal- matia were ruled by Austria-Hungary. Malta belonged to Great Britain. The Pan-Italians hoped sooner or later, by war or peace, to incorporate these regions into a greater Italy. Italia Irredenta was a Cry raised in every politic al campaign, and a party known as the Irredentists kept the nation in a state of agitation for the “‘re- demption’’ of these Italian-speaking regions. In the World War Italy secured an area of 8,900 square miles with 1,600,000 people Mazzini, an siastie in Paris sixty years ago, said: “‘“North Africa will belong to Italy From that day onw: ard, Italians dreamed of a new Punic conquest. But her weakness and poverty forced Italy to remain inactive, while France and Great Britain gobbled up that eer region. When France seized Tunis, Italy was thrown into the arms of Germany and Austria-Hungary in the Triple Alliance. In 1893 Italy under Crispi felt the urge of j imperialism so strongly that she was re: ady to make a beginning of a colonial empire. Tunis was lost but Eritrea, larger than Pennsylvania, and Somaliland, as big as Italy plus Denmark, were secured in Africa. As early as 1570 Assab on the Red Sea had been purchased. The further effort to take Abyssinia, in which a little Italian colony had been planted in 1885, resulted in the defeat of the army and caused the fall of the Crisp ministry. Italy had to recognize the independence of Abyssinia. AsTUSTUAVRUUUNELUREAVOUEEEREVADUODRUERESEVOUUERLUDEROOUOULELUN VQ Oae Chap. XXV] GROWTH OF THE KINGDOM OF ITALY 355 early as 1901 France and Italy had mutually agreed to recognize each other’s interests in northern Africa. Through a war of conquest in 1911, Tripoli, equal in extent to two Germanies, was taken from Turkey and renamed Lybia. At the same time the Dodekanese islands and Rhodes off the coast of Asia Minor were occupied, and in 1915 Italian possession was recognized by Great Britain, France and Russia. A concession of seventeen square miles in China was secured at Tientsin in 1900 as a result of the Boxer rebellion. Italy’s colonial empire, including the additions from the World War, is six times the size of the mother country, contains over 2,000,000 people, and ranks fourth among the colonial empires of the world. It was se- cured at an enormous cost, but up to date has not been a source of much profit. Of far more importance to Italy than her own dependencies, are the “‘colonies’’ established under other flags in the United States, Brazil, and Argentina, where they have planted Italian civilization and opened markets for Italian goods. In 1914 the exports of Italy fell considerably short of her imports and in 1924 the imports ex- ceeded the exports by $221,000,000. The exports went mostly to France, Germany, the United States, the Balkans, and the Turkish Empire. Trade with South America has been going forth by leaps and bounds, and fine steamers run from Italian ports directly to Argentina, where large numbers of Italians are found. With Aus- tria-Hungary, Germany, and Russia excluded from the Balkans by the results of the World War, Italy has been ambitious to secure control of that field for commercial purposes. It is largely for this reason that she has been so eager to obtain possession of the Adriatic coast and of Adalia in Asia Minor. Indeed Italy entered the World War deliberately to advance the cause of Irredentism, colonial ex- pansion, and opportunities for foreign commerce. 4. THe Spanish Kincpom After the Hohenzollern prince, Leopold, declined the Spanish throne in 1870, Prince Amadeo, the second son of Victor Emman- uel If of Italy, was chosen king by the militarists in control of Spain. The Carlists and Republicans both denounced him as a foreign intruder and plotted his overthrow. Hence within two years, in disgust, he resigned the unstable crown. Then in 1873, the Repub- licans, backed by the army, proclaimed a republic. Some of them wanted a centralized republic like France; others, a communistic republic. When in the confusion President Castelar assumed a dic- tatorship, the republican militarists by force seated Marshal Serrano in the presidential chair. He in turn was soon set aside in 1875 for the restoration of the throne under King Alfonso XII. This popular young monarch ruled Spain until his death in 1885. Lawlessness and disorder were suppressed. The rebellion in Cuba was checked by the abolition of slavery in 1886. A revised constitution = Emigration and commerce a = _— 7 —— & i esa bs = = 2 ee Se Pre ae ye ae eam SL aner —-- =: ieee Sessa trainin dieeteibeetearetoaeat _ Spanish- A eT i an War 15 x O 56 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XXV 3 was adopted in 1876, which still serves the nation. It reduced the power of the king to that of a British monarch, and placed the real executive authority in the hands of a ministry reflecting the will of the lower house of the Cortes, which was elected at first by a limited franchise but since 1890 by all males. The Senate consisted of mem- bers who held their seats partly by right of birth or office, partly by appointment, and partly by provincial elections. The act of 1907 made voting compulsory as in Belgium. Local government resembled —é that of France. Prime Minister Canovas improved the finances, reorganized the army, promoted agriculture, married the king to an Austrian archduchess, cultivated the friendship of Germany, and came to a friendly understanding with the Roman Catholic Church. Six months after the death of Alfonso XII, his son and heir, hs Alfonso SULT Christina, ruled as queen-regent. She called to her aid two able statesmen. Canovas, the conservative, and Sagasta, the liberal, who was born. For seventeen years his mother, Maria worked together in harmony to control elections and to share patron- age. They held the Republicans at bay, and won the support ot the 4 . clericals. Foreign relations were managed with skill. The sultan of Morocco was forced to make a new treaty of peace and to pay Spain an indemnity of $4,000,000. Ihe Cuban revolt, which had broken out again in 1895, proved to be a thorny problem. The island was overrun with Spanish troops under General Weyler, who employed barbarous methods to gain control of about two thirds of the island. An indignant protest from the United States, whose capitalists had large investments in Cuba, forced his recall. General Blanco was sent over to Cuba with instructions to give the Cubans self-government. But meanwhile public opinion in the United States demanded intervention on humanitarian grounds and for the protec- tion of commercial interests. This demand rapidly developed into a cry for war to secure the complete independence of Cuba. Spain promised autonomy and equal trading privileges. In February, 1898, the Maine, an American battleship, sent to Havana harbor, was mysteriously blown up with the loss of 260 men. This horrible deed was charged up to Spain by the excited Americans and precipitated a crisis. In vain Spain appealed to the pope and to the European states for mediation. In April the United States declared war on Spain. A Spanish squadron was destroyed outside Santiago harbor, and American troops soon had possession of the island. In the Far East another Spanish fleet was defeated by Admiral Dewey, and Manila, the capital of the Philippine Islands, was captured. By August the war was over. Spain sued for peace; Cuba was set free; and to the United States were ceded Porto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines. For the latter Spain received $20,000,000, and two years later an additional $100,000 for a few outlying islands. The Caro- lines and the Pelew Islands were sold by Spain to Germany for $4,000,000. Thus the Spanish colonial empire was completely lost,; WOURGRGRaeeene riidiet) HEE Chap. XXV|] GROWTH OF THE KINGDOM OF ITALY 357 except the Balearic and Canary islands, and some holdings in Africa. Alfonso XIII in 1902, at the age of sixteen, assumed the crown, and four years later married a niece of Edward VII of England. The birth of a male heir in 1907 assured the perpetuation of the Bourbon dynasty. The ability of Alfonso XIII and his attachment to the constitution, have made him popular with the people. Although anarchists have several times attempted to assassinate him, his rule on the whole has been stable and fairly prosperous. The system of taxation has been modernized. The power of the Roman Catholic Church in political and educational affairs has been curtailed, and there has been much talk of secularizing education and of separating the church and state, but thus far the clericals have been strong enough to prevent such changes. The law of 1902 granted state aid to primary schools, and that of 1909 made attendance compulsory. All private schools must be authorized by the state. The institutions of higher learning are backward as compared with others in western Europe. In 1910 about $9 per cent of the people, and in 1920 only 45 per cent, were reported as illiterate. Universal military service was not adopted in Spain, and thus the country was spared the crushing burden of militarism, but service 1s now compulsory. There are strong tendencies towards socialism on the one hand, and towards state rights and federalism, on the other. In 1925 a military dictatorship was set up and the Cortes was dissolved. In economic development, Spain lags far behind the other coun- tries of western Europe. Industrial progress is slow, but grows more promising every year. With a population of 22,000,000, Spain 1s distinctly an agricultural state, although notably unprogressive. Half of the land, for lack of irrigation, is unfit for cultivation. The other half is partly in the hands of large proprietors and cultivated by poor tenants. The mineral resources are rich and varied, and there 1s an abundance of coal and iron ore. The output of the mines in 1914 amounted to $40,000,000. The Industrial Revolution is just creeping over the country, and was greatly aided by the neutrality of Spain during the World War. Factories are growing but do not yet pro- duce enough goods to supply the home markets. The factory hands ate poorly housed and badly paid. Hence thousands of the people (87,000 in 1924) emigrate yearly, chiefly to South America; and in 1925 half a million Spaniards were working in France. The seaports are excellent, and in 1924 over 10,000 miles of railroads covered the country. Commerce has had a healthy growth, and the exports are far in excess of the imports. Between 1912 and 1917 the general trade of Spain increased only 25 per cent, but she made much money during the World War. Foreign capital 1s going into the country, and the future looks much brighter than the immediate past. Alfonso XIII Religion and education Economic conditions TURVUAUUNEVUULUUUAEORESUALVOULHOGDVONLVONT NO) Loppers tn Saba haat ae Og es EY ese Oe MRO EE Ro ak rte bees ant eee ee ed —————————————— a asuemanenams eet Poa anes aLE EE I eet Sent eae ae Tas 78 per cent could not read. To remedy this condi- tion, free public scl aHGols were established with compulsory attend- ance. The government was in the hands of the middle class, who seemed to care little for social and economic reforms, and had no interest in improving the lot of the common people. Hence the new Republic was disturbed by strikes and riots, which were suppressed by bayonets and martial law. In 1917 President Machado was over- thrown by an uprising. Much remains to be done in Portugal to modernize the country and to educate the people. The system of landholding is mediaeval, and agriculture is a century behind the times. The Industrial Revo- lution has scarcely touched the country. In 1914 the imports were double the exports, but the World War in which Portugal took the side of the Western Allies, added much to her material prosperity. Portugal still owns a colonial empire, in 1800 ranking next to that of Great Britain and Spain, but now consisting of a few islands and settlements in Asia, and large sections of Africa. It is a costly burden rather than an asset. In 1919 Portugal granted autonomy to her colonies.HOTTER Chap. XXV] GROWTH OF THE KINGDOM OF ITALY 359 6. HoLLAND The kingdom of the Netherlands, after the loss of Belgium in 1830, was left with an area about one third the size of Portugal. Throughout the long reign of the well-meaning William III (1849- 1890), the liberals were in control. They bettered the government, widened the franchise, and made many public improvements. In 1890 William III was succeeded by his daughter, Wilhelmina. Her marriage in 1901 to a German, Prince Henry, made many Dutch people fear that their country might be brought under German rule, but the birth of an heiress in 1909 quieted this alarm. The government rests upon the constitution of 1848, which provides for a parliament of two houses, and a responsible ministry. The right to vote has been gradually extended until the law of 1918 granted the franchise to all adult men and women. The eleven provinces have a large degree of self-government. The national government aids both public and private schools, and since compulsory school attendance was rfe- quired in 1900 illiteracy has almost disappeared. Compulsory mili- tary service on the Swiss model was introduced, and the law of 1913 provided for an enlargement of the navy and for stronger fortifications at the chief seaports. Roads, railways, dykes, and canals form a vast network of transportation over the flat country. Holland declared her neutrality in the World War and prepared to offer every resistance to any attempt to violate her territory. The Dutch people, numbering over 7,000,000, are devoted to commerce, dairy farming, the growing of flowers and shrubs, ship- building, and fishing. A third of the land is in pasture. The exports in 1924 amounted to $666,000,000; and the imports to $280,000,000 more. The Dutch merchant marine does business in all parts of the world. Lacking an adequate supply of coal and iron, small attention has been paid to manufacturing. Holland is a free-trade country, de- pending upon the peace and goodwill of the nations of earth for her prosperity. She was selected as the seat of the two famous peace conferences in 1899 and 1907, and is now the home of the International Court of Justice. Like Switzerland, she has been a haven for political refugees and exiles. To Holland fled Paul Kruger atter the Boer War, and the ex-Emperor, William I] and the ex-Crown Prince William, of Germany, after the World War. The colonial empire of Holland, which is all in the tropics, 1s sixty times her own size and has a population about seven times greater than the homeland. The Dutch govern their colonies in a business-like manner and make them a source of much wealth to the mother country. Large quantities of coffee, tea, sugar, spices, hemp, vegetable oil, rubber, tobacco, and indigo are sold to other countries. The exports from the East Indies almost equal those of the mother- land. The island of Java is the most densely populated land area on the globe. Government of the Nether! and. S Economic conditions LHL EO Te =" eed] beeen NN + so Nae ek ee eR aR eer Rea adie 8 tee CT ee eee <= Swe om a—— — — — _ a cS - a = a a ee ae 6 re DT De ok ee gO in he one ieee Sere Races Government Py litica b progress Industry 50 MODERN WORLD HISTORY (Chap. XXV 7. BELGIUM Smaller than Holland, Belgium in 1920 had a population of over 7,500,000, OF 652 to the Square mile, and was the most densely peopled country in Europe. Pennsylvania with an area four times that of Belgium had the same population. The people are divided into two different racial groups: t) The Flemings in the north, numbering A, 900, are of Teutonic origin and speech. They are mostly farm- er seth ardent Roman Catholics, and are conservative in politics and opposed to free public schools. (2) oe Walloons in the south, numbering 3,500,000, are of Celtic ori _ liberal Roman Catholics in faith, and French in language, institutions, and ideals. They wish to separate the church and state, to secularize the schools, and to create a modernized industrial state. These two factions, after securing their independence in 1830, formed a new constitution, which provided for a king, two houses, and a responsible ministry. It declared that “‘all powers emanate from the people’’ and established freedom of speech, press, worship, ees and assembly. The king might initiate legislation. In 839 the leading powers of Europe © neutralized’’ Belgium — an act at was to become a world issue in 1914. With the consent of Great Bei and France, a German prince, Leopold of Saxe-Coburg, who had married the daughter of Louis Philippe of France, was invited ) become king. The rulers of this house have been enlightened and progressive, and the country has made astonishing progress in many directions, particularly under Leopold U (1865-1909) and Albert | L909 ), the present monarch. Until 1893, the right to vote was limited by property qualifica- tions. Then every Belgian above twenty-five was given a vote, but at the same time the system of plural voting was introduced. Mar- ried voters, if taxpayers, received an additional vote. Educated men, high officials, and owners of property, were given two extra votes, but no man might have more than three votes. Voting was also made compulsory. Women were granted suffrage in 1919. The system of plural voting was dev ised to permit the conservative rural districts ia outvote the radical working classes in the cities. In 1912 the elections showed that 18 per cent of the electorate cast three votes; 24 per cent two votes; and 58 per cent one vote. The Socialists at once raised the cry‘‘one man, one vote.’’ To offset the evils of plural voting, and to insure the representation of minorities, in 1899 the system of proportional representation was introduced for the first time in the history of Europe. It has given general satisfaction, although it 1s op posed by the Socialists. So much attention was given to education after 1880 that illiteracy dropped from 42 per cent to 13 per cent. A far- sighted factory code was framed. Trade-unions were legalized and cuarded i in their rights. Old age pensions, housing laws, and other measures were enactedTeaneneuae TAPATAUARRRRDUEAARGRAEADE a J C J ae! 3B: ae | i Chap. XXV| GROWTH OF THE KINGDOM OF PR AIGYS | 368 for the material welfare of the working classes. Farming was made profitable through scientific methods and machinery. With an abundance of iron, coal and oil, Belgium became the “‘bee-hive of Europe.’’ Immigration exceeded emigration. As an economic power, she ranked next to the large industrial nations and in 1910 was the third greatest manufacturing power on the continent. Her foreign trade in 1913 was larger than that of Russia, and four times that of Spain. As early as 1878 the Belgian king sent Stanley, the American explorer, to Africa to lay the foundations for the Belgian Congo Free State. The natives, who were practically enslaved, were forced to gather rubber and ivory, and thus pile up fortunes for Leopold I and his friends. Protests against this world scandal ended with re- forms and the annexation of the Congo Free State, with an area about one fourth that of Europe, to Belgium. This vast region with 6,000 whites and 15,000,000 blacks, is now ably ruled and is being scien- tifically developed. In the World War, Belgium secured Ruand and Urundi, formerly a part of German East Africa, including 18,000 square miles. Fearing the violation of her neutrality, Belgium in 1912 instituted compulsory military training. Strong fortifications were built along the German frontier, since the greatest danger seemed to lie in that direction. This fear was amply justified by the German invasion in 1914. The appalling loss of life, the barbarous treatment of the people, the destruction of towns, and the general paralysis of her industries, which resulted from the World War, made Belgium the saddest victim. Her resistance to the invader won the admiration of the world. The revival of Belgium after the conflict was remark- able. Within a year her railroads were restored, roads rebuilt, and canals cleared. By 1920 her industries were producing 80 per cent of the pre-war output. In 1919 over 18,500,000 tons of coal were mined. The war added about 64,000 square miles to Belgian terri- tory to strengthen her eastern frontier. Perhaps one of the most significant results of the war was the declaration that Belgium, by the abrogation of the treaty of 1839, was a free, sovereign state. 8. SwITZERLAND The Swiss people are composed of three races — German in 15 cantons, French in 5, and Italian in 3 — and of two religions, Protes- tant and Catholic. From 1874 to 1914 the history of Switzerland was characterized by (1) the encroachment of the national government on ‘state rights’’; (2) radical political experiments in both federal and cantonal government; and (3) the industrial growth of the republic. In some parts of the country the men meet each year in open air assemblies. By a show of hands they elect officers, levy taxes, and make laws. The larger cantons have representative assemblies, but Imperialism in Africa PUVAUEUTNTONAOEOODONOOHOUQOUOUDOOVUNNUVON | Luubi =|Oe a SS fe Sa a RES te eter le arti eee Seer kre eo ae Se OOP i ed ETE re ee a ee nS ee ee. Go I verninent ; st er lat ds ry 262. MODERN WORLD HISTORY Chap. XXV the people exercise control over them through the referendum and all laws are submitted to the peopl e for adoption or rejection; in others, this may be done by petition. At the same time, a certain number of voters may propose laws, which This is called the initiative. These processes of law-making are also applied to the federal govern- initiative. in some Cantons must be submitted to a popular vote. * a } r mente both tor ordinary laws and tor constitutional amendments. They create government of the people, by the p eople, and for the people. - Crane American states tive and referendum in order to bring the government nearer the d in 1919 for the Na- opted by most of the cantons. and CLELCS hay C adopted the initia- Proportional representation was adopte tional Council and has now been a per pl a The Swiss military system is distinctive and thoroughly demo- cratic. Ihe powers of Europe in 1815 ae the neutrality of Switzerland. Fearing the violation of her neutrality in case of the outbreak of a European war, a national militia was organized in 1907. Compulsory military serivce is required of all men ae the age of 20 and 48. The first training lasts only a few months, and This system provides an army thereafter but a few days each vear. of 300, men, but does not take men out of business for a long period of time and is comparatively inexpensive. speak German, 23 per cent the Italians Of the 4,000,000 Swiss, 65 per cent French, and 12 per cent Italian. Between 1880 and 1910 t increased from 41,000 to 203,000. There is little racial keeling: and ial prob- | party divisions are based on religious, and soc lems. The people are remarkably well-educated, and illiteracy is educational. almost unknown. Thrift and economy characterize the nation. The north is agricultural; the mountainous regions are anes to grazing and mining. The Gok of coal and iron is a disadvantage, but water power is utilized to create electricity, which runs 250,000 1n- dustries. Textiles, gloves, laces, watches, clocks, cheese, and milk choc- olate are sepelucetl The exports in 1916 amounted to $472,000,000. Tens of thousands of tourists flock to Switzerland to enjoy the un- The country is famous for the numerous international societies meeting there. It is the home of the International Postal Union, the International Red Cross So- ciety, and Geneva has been selected as the official seat of the League of Nations. For more than a century this land has been a haven of refuge for patriots and monarchs fleeing from their own countries. When the World War broke out, Switzerland declared her neutrality, ground for propa- surpassed scenery and luxurious hotels. and was forced to serve as a common mecting gandists of both belligerents. 9. DENMARK After losing Norway in 1814, the importance of Denmark declined. As a result of the Revolution of 1848, the Danes forced their ue to grant them a constitution, which provided for an upper housChap. XXV| GROWTH OF THE KINGDOM OF AIRY 33163 named by the monarch, and a lower house elected by the property owners. Today all citizens, male and female, elect the lower house directly and the upper house indirectly. Public opinion forced the monarch to accept the cabinet system of government in 1901, so that the king and his ministers now codperate with the Rigsdag in making laws. Minority parties are insured representation. In 1864 Denmark was forced to give up all claim to the duchies of Schleswig and Holstein, and this loss left Denmark one of the smallest states in Europe. Through the defeat of Germany in the World War, however, Denmark in 1920 by a favorable plebiscite recovered northern Schles- wig. Down to 1857 Denmark collected dues on all cargoes passing through the ‘‘sound”’ to the north of her, despite many protests, but at last relinquished this right for an indemnity of $20,000,000. Under the rule of her wise kings, Denmark has made commendable progress. The population is now about 3,200,000 and the people are mostly engaged in farming and dairying. The law forbids the union of little farms into large estates. Great quantities of butter, cheese, and eggs are sold to Great Britain and Germany. The fish- eries in 1915 yielded a value of $7,000,000. Without coal and iron, industries have not been far developed. Like Holland, Denmark catries on a large world commerce. About half of the railroads belong to the state, and public utilities are quite generally in the hands of the government. The national militia resembles the Swiss. The established church is Lutheran. School attendance has been compulsory since 1814 and illiteracy is almost extinct. Efficient poor relief, old age pensions, and aid to widows with children, show a thoughtful concern for the welfare of the working people. Socialists hold 32 out of the 140 seats in the Folkething. For a small country, about the size of Switzerland, Denmark has a large colonial empire. Iceland which is as big as the state of Ohio, with 85,000 people, was granted home rule in 1874, when it celebrated its thousandth anniversary, and in 1918 was made nominally inde- pendent of the Danish king. It is ruled by the Althing with 40 mem- bers chosen by the people. Its exports to Denmark amount to $2,500,000 a yeat. Greenland is nearly the size of the state of New York, has a population of 14,000, and its trade is a Danish monopoly. The Danish West Indies were sold to the United States in 1917 for $25,000,000 and renamed the Virgin Islands. In return the United States relinquished certain vague rights in Greenland due to discov- eries by Greely and Peary. 10. SWEDEN AND Norway The Congress of Vienna compensated Sweden for the loss of Fin- land to Russia by giving her Norway. Bernadotte, one of Napo- leon’s marshals, was permitted to ascend the Swedish throne in 1818 as Charles XIV (1818-1844), and his house still reigns. a Norwegian rebellion, Norway was given home rule under the To quiet PHATE NTL Government Economic and social conditions =" eee eee nn ee emma —— aoe a et a A re Neen er aerate car eae erreelSete ee oe ee ei Pee eae Sete ta oS act al a No ot ak Ed ak Sa) Ae AY. arari Norway fr Jt i Norway Government of Sweden Economic conditions 364 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XXV Swedish king. Thus the two kingdoms had a common monarch, but separate constitutions, ministries, and laws. Norway was democratic; Sweden, aristocratic and feudal. The Norwegians had a parliament elected by a general franchise; the Swedes, a diet of four houses representing classes. The union was not a happy one, and led to bitter quarrels. The Swedes looked upon Norway as a dependency, which the Norwegians resented. The breach reached its crisis in 1905, when the king vetoed a law passed by the Norwe- gians to create their own consular service. The Norwegian Storthing voted unanimously “‘that the Union with Sweden under one king has ceased,’’ and a vote of the people almost unanimously confirmed this action. Sweden then quite sensibly recognized Norway as a separate nation with the understanding: (1) that future differences be settled by the Hague Tribunal; and (2) that no fortifications be built by either state along the common frontier. Thus the blunder of the Congress of Vienna was undone. There was nel sentiment in Norway for a republic, but a Danish prince was chosen as Ku x Hakon VII. The new government is one of the most democratic in rE urope. The king merely reigns, and has no veto. His cabinet lve ules subject to the will of the democratic legislature. Norway was one of the first countries in the world to give women equal rights with men and to permit them to sit in the national parliament. In 1907 Great Britain, France, Germany, and Russia guaranteed the neutrality of Norwegian territory. In the World War Norway was neutral, but lost 2,000 sailors and 800 ships with over a million tonnage, which caused her mercantile marine to drop from the fourth to the sixth place. The earlier Reg kings were inclined to autocracy. In 1866 the progressive forces abolished the antiquated diet and created modern parliament of two houses, but the franchise remained limited to property owners. Under Gustav V (1907- ) the lower house was elected directly and the upper house indirectly by universal male eee cera representation was also introduced, but all efforts to extend the vote to women failed. The Socialists made rapic progress, and in 1911 elected 64 Be es to the popular house. Fear of Russia developed a sentiment in favor of compulsory military service and in 1918 a st anding army of 85,000 was created. The state church 1s unas an, although cess is complete religious freedom. Elementary education is free and compulsory, and a high degree of intelligence prevails. The economic development of these two countries has not been marked. Norway’s wealth is in her fine forests and, like Sweden, she exports large quantities of wood pulp, lumber, and wooden wares. In Norway with a population of 2,400,000 only 3 per cent of the area of the country is under cultivation, while in Sweden half of the 5,600,000 people are engaged in agriculture. Both countries Carry on mining rather extensively, and Sweden is one of the largestHPNNUPOTVONYONTONTCOTUOIUGATOQNQONUOANOQNOQNUQQNOONOQDOOQUOANUOTOONNUAOAUUQUOOOOVUOGUUNVLO LOOM! a Chap. XXV] GROWTH OF THE KINGDOM OF ITALY 365 producers of iron ore in Europe. In Norway fishing furnishes lucra- tive employment for many persons. Both countries have to import coal for industrial purposes, but electrical power is being used. The two peoples are industrious, frugal, and fairly prosperous. Social legislation in both these states has gone far to protect women and children, and the workers generally. Socialism has made steady gains. Possibly a million emigrants have gone to America during the past seventy years. Both countries remained neutral in the World War, and thereby increased their wealth. Sweden secured the Aland Islands in the eastern Baltic Sea. In foreign relations Norway looked to Great Britain and France, while Sweden, fearing Russia, was in close relations with Germany. REFERENCES FOR FURTHER STUDY P. L. Ors, L’ Italia Moderna, 2d edition (1902); B. Kine and T. Oxey, Italy Today 2d edition (1909); W. R. Tuayver, Italica (1908); F. M. UNDERwoop, United Italy (1912); E. Lemonon, L’ Italie Economique et Sociale, 1861-1912 (1913); A. Prncuap, L' Italie depuis 1870 (1915); W. K. Wattace, Greater Italy (1917); T. Trrront, Modern Italy (1922); W. J. Stizuman, Francesco Crispi (1899); Memoirs of Francesco Crispt, 3 vols. (1912-1914); M. A. S. Hume, Modern Spain, 1788-1898 (1900); C. E. Caapman, History of Spain (1918); E. H. Strong, The Spanish Revolution, 1868-1875 (1898); J. L.M. Corry, Constitutional Government in Spain (1899); D. Hannay, Don Emilio Castelar (1896); Y. Guyot, La évolution politique et sociale de l Espagne (1899); A. Marvaup, La question sociale en Espagne (1910); L’ Espagne au XX° sidcle (1913); Le Portugal et ses colonies (1912); G. Youne, Portugal Old and Young (1917); P. J. Brox, History of the People of the Nether- lands, English translation by R. Putnam, § vols. (1898-1912); C. Day, The Policy and Administration of the Dutch in Java (1904); R. C. K. Ensor, Belgium (1915); L. VAN DER Essen, A Short History of Belgium (1916); L. Bortranp, Histoire de la Democratic et du socialisme en Belgique depuis 1839, 2 vols. (1906-1907); B. S. Rowntrex, Land and Labour: Lessons from Belgium (1910); J. BartueLemy, L’ organization du suffrage et L’ experience Belge (1912); W.H. Dawson, Social Switzerland (1897); P. SEIpPEL, editor, La Suisse au XIX? sitcle, 3 vols. (4899-1901); H. D. Luoyp and J. A. Hosson, A Sovereign People: a Study of Swiss Democracy (1907); R. C. Brooxs, Government and Politics in Switzerland (1918); W. Oxcust1, History of Switzerland, 1499-1914, English translation (1922); R.N. Barn, Scandinavia, A Political History of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden from 1513 to 1900 (1905); P. DracumMann, The Industrial Development aad Commercial Policies of the Three Scandinavian Countries (1915); J. Carusen, H. Oxrix, and C. N. Srarxe, Le Dane- marck (1900); P. Faunuseckx, La constitution suedoise et le parlementarisme moderne (1905); K. Gyerset, History of the Norwegian People, 2 vols. (1915).EE ——————————————E———e So = ee > SS = _ apse = a = =e a SE Ee eee See aa Reet, tg Tore Sets Pata aa ae ae a tt FT od rs Es Se , Territ Tidi a f fe Turkey fv Tors Racia ! situation in Turkey GHAPILER AAV I ? TURKEY AND IHE BALKAN STATES, 1815-1914 1. LURKEY AT THE OPENING OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY Turkey still bulked large on the map of Europe, Asia, and Africa in 1815. Although for over a century and a quarter she had been quite consistently losing territory, particularly to her powerful NCiPvmpD< cS Russia aAliG \ustria. Slit remained WI1tTnD T of Russia the most extensive European state. Her northernmost boundaries included within their limits the broad plains of Moldavia and Wallachia stretching eastward and southward from the Car- pathian Mou: tains to the Pruth and Danube rivers. Farther south within her boundaries was almost the whole of the Balkan peninsula. Indeed within the peninsula, which extends from the Danube and Save to the Mediterranean and lies between the Adriatic Sea on the — -1, Yaya ee ts o A ae wea oe : ee i ae he ate West and Lone Black 9¢€a and the straits revy1on OD the Cast, only the Dalmatian coast along the eastern shore of the Adriatic and Monte- negro in the mountainous region to the southeast could boast of com- plete freedom from Turkish rule. Beyond the limits of Europe, Turkey held sway over the whole of Asia Minor, the true homeland of the Ottoman Turks in modern times, as well as over the Armenian and Kurdish highlands. Astride the Arabian desert the sultan’s domin- ions extended through Mesopotamia in the valleys of the Tigris and Euphrates to the east and through Syria, Palestine, and the region of the Mohammedan Holy Cities to the west. Finally in Africa, Turkish overlordship was recognized — in a very nominal sense it is true — from Egypt on westward as far as Algiers. Within these extensive territories still a part of the Turkish em- pire at the opening of the nineteenth century, there was one of the most complex racial situations that has ever existed anywhere. Only in Asia Minor did the Turks, the ruling race, constitute an over- whelming majority of the population. In northern Africa the bulk of the natives were either of Arabic or Berber extraction. In the Arabian peninsula and the so-called Fertile Crescent region en- circling its northern limits they were predominantly Arabic in stock, although along with the Arabs there were in certain quarters minori- ties of other peoples — particularly Kurds and Persians in the northeast and Jews along the Syrian coast. In the region of the Taurus Mountains, between Arabia and Asia Minor, the chief in- habitants were Armenians and Kurds, the former most numerous in the north and in the southwest and the latter in the southeast, but both being scattered generally, living together or among Turks, ina 366MVTOTTUCETOTUTUTTOTRTTETETOTOTOUVETUTOTUNVONUNGTONRUGNTOUAEAOROLOUOTONVUVOLOEATAOQOQOQONDOVOUONULINTOTLOOUNR — ‘er a eet Chap. XXVI] TURKEY AND THE BALKAN STATES 3,67 way that was most confusing. In addition to Turks in Asia Minor there were some Armenians scattered throughout the inland regions and numerous Greeks grouped particularly in the cities along the coast. Most complicated of all, however, was the situation in the Balkans where Spanish Jews, wandering gypsies, and others in com- paratively small numbers as well as six numerous racial groups — Albanians, Greeks, Jugo-Slavs or Serbs, Bulgars, Vlachs or Rumanians, and Turks — were all very complexly crowded together. Perhaps the oldest of the Balkan peoples in point of residence were the Albanians dwelling for the most part in the mountainous region northwest of Greece. Just how numerous these people were or are now is not known. One authority estimated in 1893 that they numbered about 1,500,000 of whom some 200,000 were under Greece and nearly 100,000 under Italy. Others of the race, it is well to note, are scattered through Serbia, particularly in northern Macedonia. There is a theory that these people are descendants of the ancient Illyrians and are of pure Alpine stock, but since we know there has been much racial intermixture in the Balkan peninsula in medieval and modern times it seems doubtful if we can put much trust in sucl an assertion. There are important physical variations among them The Albanians — different shaped skulls, differences of complexion, and the like as well as marked variations of dialect. Still they possess charac- teristics which distinguish them as a distinct people. They are for the most part tall and powerfully built, have either black, brown, or fair hair, are noted for their courage, and have revealed considerable intellectual capacity when they have been given educational oppor- tunities. They have always enjoyed considerable local independence but have permitted local quarrels to develop into very bitter blood feuds. Travellers who visited their country late in the nineteenth century mention houses built of stone with loopholes instead of windows and describe how they maintain “‘peace paths’’ along which a sort of ‘‘Truce of God”’ is recognized. ‘The blood feuds,”’ one traveller informs us, “‘ affect the whole life deeply in that not only single families, but whole villages and clans live in a constant ven- detta. For this reason intercourse is almost null, the cultivation of the land is limited to the immediate neighborhood of the hamlets, and a state of war between the different communes is the rule.”’ Another people who have inhabited the Balkans since ancient times are the Greeks. However the modern Greeks who number about 9,000,000 ate by no means pure descendants of the ancient Greeks. There has been much racial intermingling in Greece as in other Balkan areas, notably in the Medieval period, when a con- siderable Slavic element was assimilated. Beyond the Greek penin- sula and the coast line of Asia Minor, as mentioned above, the Greeks have occupied practically all the islands of the eastern Medi- terranean and most of the coast area of the Balkan peninsula except- ing only that of Dalmatia. They have been the sea-faring commercial SPER eI ee a a ks ee TTI LeneEEE ' = ; ear - re ay vee = eee we Rees a NS ee ee a Ne! st ae Pai ae aie Sra as Fos ade ee aa ge eres) A tos were seer a ee fd The Greeks The Vilachs ? , or Rumanians 2 68 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XXVI people of the Near East. On the mainland of Greece some have become shepherds and gardeners but they have never revealed a par- ticular aptitude for eieulfies Their products have been fruits and luxuries rather than the staple cereals. They have remained generally a city-dwelling people and have been looked upon by westerners as alert, acute, and subtle. Some westerners who have visited them have been quite critical, charging the Greeks with cruelty, covetousness, and questionable commercial dealings. Others, it is true, are ready to defend them. ‘The Greeks are inclined to public speaking and the press, all of which are hateful to the Ottoman Government,’’ writes one, ‘“‘and therefore they are regarded with disfavor; but in all the learned professions their intelligence and ambition secure them preéminence, and in the most trying circum- ‘It is not that the Greeks cheat more than other commercial nations,’ writes another, stances they manage to lead a busy life.’’ ‘it is merely that they make more money on the same amount of cheating. A third Balkan people of ancient stock are the Vlachs; they claim as their ancestors the soldiers and colonists who settled north of the Danube in the Roman province of Dacia by the aggressive Em- peror Trajan. These people, numbering at least 12,000,000, speak a language which reveals a marked Latin influence but it cannot be supposed that their stock could have remained pure throughout the centuries while Gothic, Slavic, and Tartar waves of migration swept repeatedly through their homeland. In modern times they have oc- cupied the Be of Moldavia and Wallachia, the district of Buko- wina to the north of Moldavia, most of Transylvania in and beyond the Carpathian area, and, to the east, parts of the lowlands of Bess- arabia. Some in addition have been scattered through southern Russia and in various parts of the Balkan peninsula including the barren Dobrudja region between the lower Danube and the Black Sea. Vlachs have also inhabited the heart of the Balkans extending from northeastern Serbia southward to the extremity of Greece. In the latter area they have in the fiat constituted a migratory Py 4. | element living with their flocks along the upper mountain slopes 1n summer and finding shelter in the plains — particularly those ot Thessaly and southern Macedonia — in winter. At the opening of the nineteenth century these wandering V lachs alone numbered about a half million but in more recent times the breaking up of the Balkans into hostile national states has curtailed their activities causing many to migrate away permanently or to lose their identity among some one of the other Balkan peoples. In 1913 it was estimated that they numbered between 150,000 and 160,000. Among the three peoples who entered the Balkan peninsula after the close of the ancient period, the Jugo- Slavs (South-Slavs) perhaps came first. According to Slav historians they, along with other Slavic peoples, inhabited the northern Carpathian region atVORITENTTENIVONT UOT VOTICOUAPONIVONIGGTUQTUNONUQOSNOQONOQTOOQNIOONUOQNUQAAVOQUOOVVOONTOQIVUNOOUNS Chap. XXVI| TURKEY AND THE BALKAN STATES 369 the opening of the medieval period. From here during the sixth and early seventh centuries they invaded the Balkans in company with and probably under the leadership of Avars, a Tartar people f-om central Asia. The Avars eventually moved out of the peninsula but the Slavs remained, settling throughout the inland country and in the west, occupying even the Dalmatian coast. These Slavs unlike the Greeks took readily to agriculture and, along with the Bulgars, soon gained virtually a monopoly over peasant farming in the numerous fertile basins scattered throughout the Balkans. Close on the heels of the Jugo-Slavs came the Bulgars. They, like the Avars, it is believed were once natives of central Asia. Before the close of the fifth century a.p. they had established themselves in southern Russia from the Volga valley westward over the steppes north of the Black Sea. There is some question as to just when and how they moved on from here to the region south of the Danube but it is quite certain that at least by the close of the seventh century a comparatively small number of them had established themselves among the Slavs in the eastern Balkan area. Here they soon mingled with the older population and lost their identity as Asiatics. Even their language was given up. Modern Bulgarian contains some words of Turkish origin introduced during the period of Ottoman rule but it is otherwise a pure Slavic tongue. Some authorities believe that the Bulgarians have shown greater virility, cohesion, and driving power than their cousins the Serbians. Others claim that they are more energetic and are more easily influenced by western ideas while the Serbs, though less efficient, take life more lightly and are more attractive. Be that as it may, it is certain that the two peoples in spite of bitter hatreds for each other have differed so slightly that it has been possible for members of the same family to claim either nationality.* The last people to enter the Balkan peninsula were the Ottoman Turks who came in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries as con- querors and feudal lords. They like Avars and Bulgars came from central Asia but they came by way of Persia and Asia Minor instead of through southern Russia. They settled at least in small numbers in almost every part of the peninsula, their most numerous European settlements being in Thrace, eastern Bulgaria, and Macedonia.” The Turks have uniformly held themselves aloof from the subject peoples but they have always admitted to their ranks all who have been will- ing to accept the Mohammedan religion and to speak the Turkish language. Consequently the Turkish stock of recent times has been far from pure Turanian. The Turk has often been accused of indolence and indeed he has usually been either a landlord depending for his 1 Today the Serbo-Croats (Jugo-Slavs) number over 8,000,000 while the Bulgars number about 5,500,000. 2 The Turks in the Near East number over 10,000,000. Most of them are located in Asia Minor. The Serbs or Jugo-Slavs The Bulgars The Turks os eee eee we eet Pe aes ee oe ea cece reeeeh Ma red a a i ee aS SA din meh ES nn - i - ane es pr eg eer ee ane nae eS nena a’ Re Ms Sif ua f in Lu 5 Mohammedan law and tts application 370 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XXVI ee livelihood upon the exploitation of subject natives or he has been a member of the poor ignorant lower class. Nevertheless westerners who have lived for some time in the Near East have often gained a greater respect for him than for other nationals located there. A Turk will prevaricate sometimes if necessary, wrote an American ‘WIC diplomat in 1836, ‘‘and is skillful as a diplomatist and negotiator, in which character he endeavors to gain every advantage, is always covetous, and perhaps sometimes may be corrupted, but in general } } ] . . amare no one respects truth more than he does, or holds it more sacred or ; ] 1 . at : cD : inviolate: ... Lerh: ) people im any part of the world are gen- 1] i | Lps erally so regardless of tru neh as the Franks [westerners] and Rayahs isub dject Christians] of '’ Still there is some truth in the exp slanation offered evi others that the long continued position of unquestioned superiority which the Turk has e1 njoyed has conduced to develop in him those qualities which in the wo yrds of an English historian constitute ‘‘the theme of uniform admiration with for- eigners who have been dwellers in the Ottoman Empire.’ The pesicus ituation as well as the racial was most compli- cated in the vast Turkish cunnpite at the opening of the nineteenth century. Ihe dominant Turks were Sunnite (Orthodox) Mohammed- cluding Kurds and various Arabic groups outside Europe, numerous Albanians, and lesser minorities among other Bal- kan peoples, were of the same faith. and Roe beliets, | but within the Mohammedan fold, were the unor- thodox Druses of Syria and the puritanical Wahabites of the Arabian desert. Outside of the Moslem fold were Jews, present in small numbers in both the European and Asiatic portions of the Empire. Most aoe int of all, however, were the millions of subject Chris- tians — mainly Greek Orthodox, Gregorian (Armenian), and Roman eemalee - aah constituted a great majority of the inhabitants in is as well Among those accepting distinct the Balkan peninsula and the eastern Mediterranean island as an important minority in Asia Minor, Armenia, and Syria. These latter people were looked upon by Mohammedans as giaours (infidels). They were ‘‘cattle’’ — rayahs — fit only to obey and serve their masters, ‘‘the faithful.’’ It is easy to understand this situation when one remembers that the Mohammedan point of view although tolerant to a degree was still extremely narrow and fanatical, something like that of western European Christians in the Middle Ages. The sheri (sacred law) bound even the sultan theoretically and was applied in courts under the control of cadi (judges) and mufti (anterpreters of the law) who were in reality religious officials. Education was limited to religious matters. Schools were confined to the mosques. Dervishes (monas- tics) were numerous and enjoyed prestige generally. The Turkish government, upholding this narrow religious point Ae view, removed its Christian and Jew ish subjects from the jurisdiction of the ordinary legal and administrative agencies. Each sect was organized as aAVANT POT TOUTONICATOUQO Ven TEAT VENTURE OIATOTIONTVOQYOQNONNOOTOANUOQIOONOOTAUONIQGUOQNOOANOONNOOOTNONOQANOQIOAQUOOOUGHVUOILUGIVESLO OM aed ) Chap. XXVI] TURKEY AND THE BALKAN STATES 371 separate millet presided over by its patriarch, bishop, or other eccle- The millets siastical head. Most important of these, particularly in the European parts of the Empire, was that of the Greek Orthodox Church under control of the patriarch at Constantinople. His authority extended over all affiliated with the Greek Church regardless of nationality or location so long as they were Turkish subjects, covered the col- lection of the sultan’s military tax as well as church taxes, and tes eS Pane Saal pk nT a ee a ee included control over marriage, divorce, certain matters of inherit- ance, etc. The patriarch, appointed by the sultan and residing in Constantinople, could be counted on ordinarily to further the interests of Turkey. The organization of the millet nevertheless served as a powerful instrument to preserve the traditions of the past, to spread Greek culture, and thus to prepare the way for future independence. Economic conditions in Turkey were likewise very discouraging. The Turks, who were the landlords generally, took very little interest in the development of their estates, which were cultivated usually by exploited rayah peasants. ‘‘ Where the Turk plants his foot the grass never grows again,’ soranasaying. The more mountainous sections Economic were limited largely to grazing, while even the fertile basins of Cee Bulgaria, Serbia, and Macedonia were under only partial cultivation. Th tae Lands after having produced grain for two or three years were left fallow often for a term of years and sometimes even were allowed to become overgrown with brushwood. Implements were scarce and crude. Mixing of crops, for instance the sowing of wheat with barley or rye in the same field, was by no means uncommon. One observer maintains that quite recently in Bosnia at the northwestern end of the Balkan peninsula cultivation was often carried on entirely with the hoe, and he ventures to state that weeds frequently const1- tuted ten per cent of the crop. Trade and commerce remained either in the hands of rayahs, particularly Greeks and Armenians, or in those of foreigners. In the case of the former there was never complete security from being plundered by government tax-farmers or by bands of fanatical Mohammedans. The latter, on the other hand, uniformly enjoyed a special favored position under the so-called capitulation system. This system, based on a treaty signed between France and Turkey in 1535, embodied capitulations or articles assur- The capitula- ing to French citizens freedom of trade throughout Turkish ter- 4” stem ritory and, along with the right of trial in French consular courts, immunity from the operation of Ottoman laws. In the period be- tween 1535 and 1815 these privileges were frequently renewed and at least once, in 1740, considerably extended. Furthermore in the same period almost all of the other western states gained similar privileges for their nationals. In addition to being handicapped by racial, religious, and eco- nomic factors Turkey was confronted by a most serious political situation. The sultan’s government was without question the weak- est and most corrupt of any among the major states of Europe. In NN ee teat Se oe TyPe A ata as a es Fk , ; } 7 The Turkish a@daministrarive Sy¥Sttm Corruption in the Ottoman government 372 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XXVI theory it was centralized and absolute. The sultan in addition to being the padishah, *‘ King of Kings,’’ was the khalif or supreme eccle- siastical head of the orthodox Mohammedan world. His adminis- trative officials, including even the grand vizier (prime minister) and the members of the divan (council of ministers), as well as his soldiers, the janissaries, were merely his kus or slaves. In early modern times when Turkey was the most powerful state in Europe they had been slaves in fact as well as in name. They were recruited almost entirely from among the rayahs in the Balkans and elsewhere. Every five years commissioners of the sultan collected children in the Christian villages. These children were usually so young that they soon forgot about their origin, became good Mohammedans, and, not being permitted to marry, looked forward solely to careers as professional soldiers or as the favored administrators of the govern- ment. Long before the nineteenth century this system became cor- rupted. The practice of levying tribute children was abandoned between 1640 and 1676 when the last levy on record was made. Thereafter both the army and the hierarchy of officials became truly a sort of privileged aristocracy. The janissaries even became hereditary in part. They were permitted to marry and introduce their children into the ranks. The sultan, secluding himself in the serai (royal harem), withdrew largely from active participation in governmental and military affairs. He ceased attending meetings of the divan and seldom accompanied the army when engaged in foreign wars. Palace intrigues, as one would expect under such circum- stances, became numerous. Grand viziers and lesser ministers rose and fell according to the whims and jealousies of the sultan's favorite ‘‘slave’’ wives who often practically ruled the country. Even more serious disturbances, perpetrated particularly by unruly janissaries, developed at times and threatened the position of the sultan himself. Within the two centuries preceding 1815 no fewer than seven pa- dishahs were either deposed or murdered. Along with the decline of the power of the sultan came a very startling growth of corruption. Offices of all grades both civil and military were arbitrarily sold by those in control of appointment. Incidentally the sultan and the ladies of the harem took their full share of the plunder. To make matters worse officers held appoint- ment at the will of those who had appointed them. Naturally if they were to profit by their appointments they had to make hay while the sun shone, recouping themselves by exactions on those below them and on the people in their districts. Not only were ofhices sold in the most shameless fashion but also bribery — baksheesh — was universally required for the services of the government. The cadi or judges even were bribed, often by both parties to a dispute, and it may be ventured with considerable certainty that they could usually be depended upon to give their judgments to those who con- tributed of their funds most freely.UPVC LTTE EET eee Chap. XXVI] TURKEY AND THE BALKAN STATES 373 Internal weakness and corruption began bearing bitter fruit for Turkey long before 1815. In the period between 1683 and 1718, she was humbled on two occasions in struggles with Austria; losing to the latter by the Treaty of Carlowitz (2699) all the Turkish posses- sions in Hungary except the Banat, and by the Treaty of Passarowitz (1718) the latter area, western Wallachia, and northern Serbia in- cluding the important city of Belgrade. It is true that later after a more successful struggle ending with the Treaty of Belgrade (2739), she regained the portions of Wallachia and Serbia lost in 1718. Nevertheless in a series of three disastrous wars which soon followed with Russia she lost all of her territorial possessions north of the Black Sea from the mouth of the Danube to that of the Kuban. Furthermore by the important Treaty of Kuchuk-Kainarji (1774) she was forced to concede to her Muscovite enemy, (2) freedom of com- merce in the Black Sea and through the straits of the Bosphorus and Dardanelles, (2) trading privileges as enjoyed by the French and others throughout Turkey, G) a virtual protectorate over Moldavia and Wallachia, (4) the right to protect certain Orthodox churches in Constantinople, and (5) a promise to obstruct in no manner the free exercise of the Christian religion. Also alarming for Turkey was the threatened breakup of the Empire from within. Pashas (governors) and other local authorities quite generally carried on secret negotiations with each other, intrigued against the sultan’s ministers, and in some cases boldly defied the central government.) Asia Minor was virtually ruled by petty derebeys (valley lords). Pasvan Oglu, a bandit who had seized the important fortress of Vidin and forced the sultan to recognize him as its pasha, governed until his death (4807) an important part of northern Bulgaria. Ali Pasha of Janina established himself similarly in a large section of northern Greece. Others did likewise in Asia at Bagdad and Acre. Most famous of all perhaps was the enterprising Albanian Mehemet Ali who succeeded in establishing himself in Egypt (1805) where he exterminated the rival Mameluke Turkish nobility, took over control of the land and of industry, and with the aid of French experts built up a military and naval force more powet- ful than that of the sultan. Indeed so critical did the position of Turkey become by the opening of the nineteenth century that west- erners began to speculate as to how soon the Empire would collapse. Turks as well as westerners realized the danger confronting their country. “‘I come back more convinced than ever that if we do not hurry to imitate Europe, we shall resign ourselves to go back to Asia,’ declared a prominent Turk in 1830 after having visited Russia. The first sultan to reach a similar conclusion was Selim III, 1789-1807. He outlined an elaborate program of reform calling for (1) the sweep- ing away of feudalism, (2) the curtailment of the authority of the pashas, (3) the restricting of the powers of the grand vizier, (4) the reorganization of the divan, (5) the abolition of tax farming, (6) Territorial losses of Turkey in the eighteenth century Treaty of Kuchuk- Kainarjt, 1774 Breakdown of local government in Turkey iene 4 TS LL ee TT Sr[ r771$ Oo] = \¢itm ill Re ry7is Ma I $4 Why reform failed in Turkey 374 MODERN WORLD HISTORY = [Chap. XXVI the establishment of permanent embassies to western European states, and (7 the reorganization of sie army on a western model. He failed, however, to carry his paoetan into effect. The janissaries, aroused by the threatened loss of their privileged position, rose in revolt, first deposing and later murdering the unfortunate padishah to protect their interests. The cause of reform was next taken up by Sultan Mahmoud II, 1808-1839. His program, carefully concealed for some time after his accession, included both the revival and the extension of Selim’s ] reforms. He proposed judicial as well as adn inistrative reforms, revived the practice of the sultan's attend ing r regular meetings of the | anbnentianizeditheamperial houschold : co GQivVati, rCOrPaniZcec che limperia LLOUSCIIC Li, ner duced western mMan- =e - ; oe . eae a a ae ners and methods of dress, and most ea reas nt of all exterminated the janissaries (1826), substituting an army organized after the western fashion. For a time it appeared as though he might succeed. ‘Very great has been the improvement in the nation in every rfe- spect,’ wrote the American minister to Turkey; they scarcely ap- pear any longer the same people.’’ Perhaps the chief difficulty with Mahmoud's reforms — and the same criticism may be directed against those of Selim was that they were too pretentious. Even the army reforms, in spite of the fact that western officers were employed to drill the troops, were most unsatisfactory. ~ It is very apparent, © the American wrote in 1833 after witnessing the review of 10,000 new troops, that there was not one among the higher officers, who was qualified to command the combined operations of an army. Every regiment appeared to act independently and without any concert with the rest . . . the Seraskier, the commander in chief, limiting his attention to ordering the maneuvers of one regiment. The great aim appeared to be as much motion and noise as possible, without any definite design, or other result, than waste of powder and fatigue of men.” At the close of the reign, Mahmoud was Creasy outclassed by his powerful vassal Mehemet Ali, and Turkey, defeated in a civil war, lay helpless before the latter's victorious army. Her de- fense depended entirely upon the intervention of the great powers. Still to do justice to the sincere sultan it must be admitted that the following most serious handicaps over which he had no con- trol hampered and at times even blocked the success of his work: (1) there was the inherent conservatism of the Mohammedan reli- gion and the Turkish tradition; (2) the determined opposition of the ‘Old Turk’’ party which demanded a return to the principles and standards of the great sultans at the opening of the modern period; (3) the awakening of national feeling leading to revolt among the subject peoples in the Balkans; and (4) the almost total lack of sympathy from governments and peoples outside of Turkey. These obstacles were sufficient to nullify any reform program,TURDAUETHUETERURADOUEUUAUENERDUAAEOOTEDOD MITUTTETTV TATA UTOTOTATATOTA TATA NANT UTOTACUTATAAEVUROVOEUFOTOVOUONONRERUVEAOTOOOCOUOLONDLVUVEVLOne at Chap. XXVI] TURKEY AND THE BALKAN STATES Ly ™~ wn 2. THe AWAKENING oF NATIONALISM IN THE BALKANS The awakening of national feeling in the Balkans had its be- ginning in the eighteenth century. Among the factors contributing directly to it were (2) the geographical barriers in the Balkan peninsula, inviting provincialism and the survival of old national traditions, (2) the failure of the Turks with their superior point of view and system of millets to assimilate conquered peoples, @,) the decline of Turkish power, bringing with it corruption, lawlessness, and tyranny of local officials, (4) the propaganda of outside powers — particularly Russia — wishing to derive selfish profits therefrom in the form of protectorates and perhaps eventual annexations, and (5) the influence of nationalism, developed in western Europe in the time of the French Revolution and Napoleon. At the opening of the eighteenth century Danilo, the bishop of Cettinje (1696-1735) aroused the Jugo-Slav inhabitants of moun- tainous Montenegro and successfully defied the Turks. He allied himself with Russia (1711), enlarged the territories held by his people, and succeeded in making his position with the title of vladzka (prince) hereditary, the succession going as a rule from the bishop- prince to one of his nephews. After failing to conquer the country the Turks finally conceded Montenegrin independence in 1799. Approximately five years later (February, 1804) brother Jugo- Slavs in Serbia rose inrevolt. The leader of their revolt, Kara (Black) George Petrovich, was a typical Serb pig dealer who had the merit of possessing great energy and qualities of leadership although his record branded him as being little more than an ordinary bandit. At first the rising which he headed was directed against tyrannical janis- saries who had defied the sultan and had committed shocking excesses throughout the country. Indeed they had murdered even the popu- lar governor of Belgrade, Mustapha Pasha, a Turk whom the Serbs fondly termed their ‘‘mother.’’ Later, however, after the janissaries had been crushed and the sultan refused to meet the rebel demands for an extension of local rights, the rising developed into a movement for independence. For almost a decade this movement gave promise of success. The rebellious Serbs defeated the armies which the porte (Turkish government) sent against them; they effectively cleared their country of the enemy; they organized a provisional govern- ment; and they formed an alliance with Russia. But in 1812, when Turkey was freed from intermittent war with the Muscovites and when Russia temporarily ceased to remember her obligations as Serbia's ally, the sultan brought more pressure to bear against them. A “holy war’’ was proclaimed. Fresh armies were despatched to attack the rebellious subjects. Within a year, in fact, the crushing of the revolt was assured. Kara George, obviously suffering from an attack of nerves, fled across the Austrian border leaving his defense- less land to be occupied by triumphant Moslem troops. Causes of national awakenin ig in the Balkans Montenegro gains independence, I799 The Serb revolt of 1804 aa at ne EEE — a ee = CD a a ae ae agen nie As etre eT ae eS The Serb revolt of Id alent : Serbs gain ’ 4 ) Git OT0T77Y Origin of Rumanian nationalism I§ 376 MODERN WORLD HISTORY = [Chap. XXVI Although the Turkish triumph over these revolting Jugo-Slavs » be short lived. The sultan’s followers were unable to refrain eon indulging their appetites for revenge, the result being that a fresh uprising was provoked (April, 1815) led this time by Milosh Obrenovich a well-known kez or native lord. Milosh, in addition to ee many of Kara George's qualities of leadership, was a CO mmate diplomat. Through shrewd negotiations he secured a etek with Turkey in 1817, seemed complete it was destined t whereby the Serbs, in return for acknowledging themselves as the sultan’s vassals, eained the right to retain their arms and the privi- lege of sharing in the control of their own local administration. In a similar way and during the same year Milosh secured as a reward for himself a formal vote of his fellow knezes selecting him as their supreme chief. Russian intervention was largely responsible for the next steps taken in furthering Jugo-Slav freedom. oe the Convention of Akerman, which the tsar forced upon the padishah in 1826, the latter agreed that within eighteen months he would draw up a settlement with his troublesome Serb subjects ceding to them autonomy, the right to choose their own chiefs, and the control over six Serbian districts which had been held by Kara George but had not joined in the revolt under Milosh. It is true the porte promptly ignored the arrangement but by the Peace of Adrianople (1829) con cluded after Russia had intervened against Turkey to further the cause of Greek independence, the sultan was forced to renew his promises and permit the establishment of a Russian protectorate. Thereupon the way was prepared for the virtual emancipation of Serbia from Turkish rule. Within half a decade her autonomy was formally granted, Milosh was named hereditary prince, the ties with the Greek church were cut, thus nationalizing the church of Serbia, the six districts were acquired, and finally provision was made for the withdrawal from the country of all Turks except those in Belgrade and other garrison towns. Nationalism, stimulated by diverse factors, likewise made prog- ress at an early date in the Rumanian provinces of Moldavia and Wallachia. The people of these provinces, unlike the Serbs — and also unlike the Greeks and Bulgars — could not look back to a great age in the past when their princes had ruled most of the Balkans. Nevertheless tradition played a part in their national awakening, just as it did in that of each of the other Balkan peoples, for they took great pride in their supposed Roman origin. A second factor con- tributing directly to their awakening was the attempt of Turkey in the eighteenth century to strengthen her hold over them. In Ru- mania the Turks had never replaced the native doyars or nobles as lords of the land, and for two centuries after the completion of the Turkish conquest these boyars remained practically the only local political agents of the porte. But in 1711 the sultan, justly suspiciousIVATOENUTUOTHOTHUNSOUTOOENOVIONNONTQONVONNOSUOUIOEUONNONIQNNONTYORIUSONIOENOOARUAIONTONEONEL PUUATVAVEATVUATATANATATANOTUTOVOLOVORUAOTOLOVOLOQOODOVONONUNUSLOoUbens Chap. XXVI| TURKEY AND THE BALKAN STATES TT of the loyalty of the native lords and covetous of the sums he might gain through the sale of new offices, inaugurated the practice of sending Phanariotes (rich Greeks from Constantinople) as governors to the two provinces. The incumbents of the governorships were invested with extensive powers, especially financial, and were exalted with the princely title of hospodar. Consequently the office was much sought after and dearly bought. All of which meant that very heavy exactions were continually wrung from the poor Rumani- ans to fill the empty purses of their oppressors. Western influence, a third factor furthering the national cause, came almost exclusively from France, and it came mainly through Russia, whose government, as has been mentioned formerly, gained a sort of protectorate over Moldavia and Wallachia in 1774. Before the close of the eighteenth century a small patriotic Rumanian party arose. At an early date also students began careful study of the national language with an eye to eliminating Slavic words and making it conform more closely to Latin, vernacular literature was developed, schools were founded, and even a nationalist newspaper made its appearance. The actual steps in the freeing of Rumania were taken almost simultaneously with those for the liberation of Serbia: (1) In 1802, thanks to Russian influence, it was arranged that the Phanariote hospodars should be appointed for a definite period of seven years. (2) Twenty years later, at an early date during the Greek struggle for independence, the practice of appointing Greeks as hospodars was abandoned. Thereafter selection was confined to the native boyars. (3) By the Convention of Akerman the Russian protectorate was strengthened, it was provided that the princes should be elected for their term of seven years from among the native lords, and it was promised that they should draw up a scheme of administrative reform for their much vexed principalities. (4) Finally by the Peace of Adrianople provision was made for the election of the hospodars for life, and the sultan’s connection with the provinces was reduced practically to the claim of a fixed annual tribute. Most extensive and most successful of all the early national move- ments within Turkish territory was the one among the Greeks. It was the first in which there were developed secret societies, exten- sive propaganda, and an intense national spirit such as was common in similar movements in the west. It was the first also to attract wide attention abroad leading to international intervention. Fur- thermore it was the only early movement in the Balkans outside of mountainous Montenegro which was sufficiently successful to assure complete independence for part of its adherents. Very important among the special influences encouraging the growth of the movement were the geographical location of the Greeks, their nearness to the sea, and their economic advantages as the commercial people of the Neat East. These influences not only facilitated the exchange of ideas and sentiments between Greeks but also brought them in direct touch The Danubian provinces gain autonomy at ey ee La Re LT Nee ee ee RE ih ear eee ake nn re een ne ee aN x ae ee eee ae SSS aSe as a bl . 378 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XXVI with the revolutionary feelings and political theories of western Europe. Also important were other special influences including the rich cultural past of the Greeks, their strong tradition of former greatness, their control over the Orthodox church, the political advantages which they held among the rayahs, and the semi-inde- pendent position which they enjoyed in their homeland in the Greek peninsula and the islands of the eastern Mediterranean. Evidence of the growth of Greek nationalism was apparent long before the flames of revolt burst forth. In the latter part of the eighteenth century there was an important expansion of Greek com- merce stimulated in the beginning by the terms of the Peace of Kuchuk-Kainarji. These terms enabled Greek traders to sail their vessels under th | e tsar's flag claiming for their goods all privileges and immunities enjoyed by Russians. The expansion became most significant during the period of the French Revolution and Napoleon when Greeks, being neutrals, gained a virtual monopoly of the Medi- terranean trade. In addition to increasing their wealth, they enlarged their merchant marine and equipped it with cannon for defense against pirates, thus providing themselves with a potential war fleet for the future. Also in the latter part of the eighteenth century there was a remarkable intellectual revival connected with the restoration and purification of the Greek language. Korais, a scholar, was very successful in his efforts to purify the language of the people sufficiently to make the classics accessible to the living generation. Rhigas, a young poet, succeeded in writing a Greek version of the Marseillaise, in publishing Greek translations of numerous foreign works, and in drawing up a popular collection of national songs. Early in the nineteenth century there was a political awakening among the Greeks. It found most successful expression in the de- velopment of secret societies which eagerly championed the notion of a national war of liberation. Most formidable of the societies was the so-called Philike Hetairia, or Association of Friends, with its headquarters at Odessa in southern Russia and with its branches in all parts of Turkey where there were numerous patriotic Grecks. By 1820 the Hetairia claimed 80,000 members and it boasted of the military support of Russia. It had collected considerable sums of money, had purchased arms, and waited only for a favorable oppor- tunity to begin an insurrection against the Turks. It is convenient to divide the Greek War of Independence into three periods. First that in which the insurrection, kindled by the Hetairia, spread throughout Greece (1821-1824). The period opened with a futile invasion of the Danubian provinces led by the Hetazrist chief Alexander Ypsilanti operating from his base in southern Russia. It was marked by most brutal atrocities on both sides. When the Greeks rose in revolt they butchered the Turkish officials and resi1- dents in their midst. The Turks responded by murdering the patri- arch at Constantinople and by massacring thousands of Greeks onTUCTPAECUNTEUONUERULUNAUNOUVAUNUAHERUONUNEONERDORODENNOOUERED Chap. XXVI] TURKEY AND THE BALKAN STATES 379 the island of Chios and elsewhere through the Empire. The second period, 1824-1827, ushered in after Sultan Mahmoud had exhausted every means within his power to stamp out the rising, may well be termed the period of the Egyptian intervention. In order to secure the assistance of the trained forces of Mehemet Ali, pasha of Egypt, the sultan was forced to offer huge concessions, among them the promise of the governorship of the Morea in southern Greece for Mehemet’s son Ibrahim. During the period the Egyptian army com- manded by Ibrahim swept through the island of Crete and over the mainland of Greece threatening to turn the tide completely in favor of Turkey. However, the ruthless suppression of the Greek rebels attracted wide attention abroad. In the west there developed a strong philhellenic or pro-Greeck movement. Through it both sym- pathy and substantial aid were extended to the would-be worthy descendants of the ancient Greeks. In Russia there was a similar movement, influenced mainly by ties of a common religion. At last in 1827 public opinion in the different countries became so strong that the governments of England, France, and Russia consented col- lectively by a Treaty of London to demand an immediate cessation of hostilities in the Near East, and they agreed to secure autonomy for Greece under the sultan’s over-lordship. This marked the opening of the third or international period of the struggle. Two years elapsed before Turkey agreed to meet the demands of the allies. In the meantime a European fleet destroyed that of the Turks and Egyptians in the bay of Navarino at Ibrahim’s base of operations in the Morea, and Russia, declaring war on the porte, sent an army over the Balkan mountains almost to the gates of Constantinople. At the close of the struggle for Greek independence Russia re- warded herself in the Peace of Adrianople. In addition to strength- ening her influence in Serbia and the Danubian provinces, she secured an extension of her commercial privileges in Turkish waters and gained minor accessions of territory at the mouth of the Danube and in the Caucasus area. It was not until 1833 that the status of Greece was definitely es- tablished. Then after long drawn out negotiations the great powers decided, and Turkey agreed, that she should receive complete inde- pendence but that her limits should be confined to the central and southern portions of the Greek peninsula including only those islands of the Greek Archipelago which were immediately along the Euro- pean shore. Along with the settlement of boundaries the protecting powers established a form of government for the new state. Greece herself had tried out a republic but it had proved unsuccessful. Civil dissension had developed and in 1831 the president, Capo d'Istria, had been murdered. The powers declared that Greece should be a monatchical state. After experiencing some difficulty in finding a suitable monarch they placed the crown on the head of the youth- ful Prince Otto of Bavaria. The Greek Revolution, 1821-1829 Peace of Adrianople, 1829 Greeks gain independence and a king, 1833 TPERUETARRORERDRUPRODUNRORORENOOQEROOODARUMORERED TRIVEHUUTTVNTLVO THRU TTRUGTLO UHH OHTOUELI GUTH Looe = cbeat one” HE mann ——~ segs ee Selita Ae lt OT a8 a te eeST — SA PS 5 ue FE Sa SS SS a eae ees a ee MODERN WORLD HISTORY |\Chap. XXVI 2% Tue DEVELOPMENT OF INTERNATIONAL RIVALRY IN THE Near East, 1832-1856 During the period from the close of the Greek War of Inde- pendence to 1856, international rivalry developed between the great powers — particularly Great Britain, France, and Russia — over the problem of what to do with Turkey. Russia, eager to secure Constantinople because its possession would assure her of an outlet to the Mediterranean and give her control over the traditional religious center of the Greek Orthodox church, obviously favored a partitioning of the Ottoman Empire among the great powers. Great Britain, fearing that if Russia should gain her objective in the Straits region she would disturb the European balance of power and challenge British commercial interests in the eastern Mediterranean, championed the strengthening of Turkey as a bulwark in the Near Fast against Russia. On one occasion France seemed to favor the replacing of the decadent Empire of the sultan by a new virile state headed by M aaa met Ali, Pasha of Egypt. At other times she sup- ported Britain in championing Turkey. Within the Ottoman Empire the weakness i the sultan a ind the national awakening among Chris- tian peoples in the Balkans served continually to invite foreign inter- vention and to keep before the powers the problem of what to do with Turkey. Outside the Ottoman Empire two factors which de- veloped soon after international rivalry over Near Eastern affairs became acute, added greatly in the eyes of E uropeans to the importance of what should be done with Turkish territory. These factors, fan- ning the flames of international rivalry, were largely responsible for making agreement among the powers for a solution of the prob dlem impossib yle. One of them was the growth of the territorial interests of the three powers in areas near the frontiers of Turkey; in other words it was the growth of British influence in India and Afghan- istan, of Russian control over parts of central Asia and the Caucasus region, and of French authority in north Africa. The second element influencing the solution of the international problem in the Near East was the revival of western European interest in the Suez route to the Orient, a revival brought about by the development of steam naviga- tion which opened up possibilities for regular periodic communica- tions through Egypt to India, China, and other eastern areas. International rivalry in the Near East, developing after the awakening of nationalism, had only slight beginnings in the eight- 1 The Suez canal was not opened until 1869, but over 30 years earlier steam communi- cation between west and east was successfully established through Egypt and the Red Sea. Steamers ran periodically from English and other European ports to Alexandria. Goods, passengers, and letters were transported from here, mainly by caravan, to Suez where other steamers were in waiting to take them on to the east. Before the de- velopment of steam navigation it was impossible to maintain such communications because monsoon winds and other natural forces prevented sailing vessels from navi- gating regularly in the Red Sea. weTrTaTOTTTTOTTATATTITNTTTTAT NT TTT TTNTTGT TTA TOTUTTVTNTTATATEVTNTOTEOTOQUTIOTONEALOTCQTOTOGHONUGNOEONOQTOTUGVOVERUONOQUAVOQOOUOREONVINUNIULonbran Mi ti J J J i ae) Mi J Bae. Ee! ! ie See. tit a! a ; —— Chap. XXVI] TURKEY AND THE BALKAN STATES 381 eenth century. During that century, Turkey was looked upon by the great powers largely as a pawn which might be made incidental to their rivalry with each other elsewhere. France posed as the friend of Turkey because it was convenient to enlist Turkish support in her struggles with Austria. Great Britain attempted to employ the Turks in similar ways but was less successful than her neighbor. It appears that not until the time of the younger Pitt in the last decades of the century did a British statesman think seriously of bolstering up Turkey as a bulwark against Russia. Throughout the century Russia and Austria were frank partners in despoiling the Turks. There is slight indication that they were at all jealous of each other although it is true that Austria in 1775 insisted on getting the dis- Origin of trict of Bukowina as compensation for what Russia had gained a eee year earlier by the Peace of Kuchuk Kainarji. In fact Turkish affairs Neor East did not become a major source of difference between European powers until the decade following the Greek War of Independence. Then for the first time there was serious danger of a general European war as a result solely of rivalry in the Near East. A quarrel between the sultan and his powerful vassal Mehemet Ali provided the occasion for the development of the first marked international rivalry over Turkish affairs. The padishah, maintain- ing that he had not profited by Egyptian intervention in Greece, refused to grant all the concessions he had promised to his vassal. The first Turco- Mehemet responded by sending an army into Syria, the governorship neon ee CEEaSs of which he claimed as a part of his reward. Mahmoud attempted mer to coerce his unruly subject, but his forces were disastrously beaten (1832), and the triumphant Egyptians pushed over the Taurus Moun- tains threatening the destruction of the Ottoman Empire. The sultan, deprived of all adequate means of defense, appealed urgently to Great Britain, France, and Russia for assistance. The western powers, being occupied with other problems, hesitated to send aid to the Turks. Only Russia responded favorably. Acting on the theory that her interests in Turkey could be furthered as well through befriending the sultan as by using force and intimidation against him, she dispatched both military and naval assistance to the defense of Constantinople. The appearance of Russian forces on the Bosphorus (February 1833) served as the signal for the breaking of the storm of inter- national rivalry. Both Great Britain and France, whose suspicions of Russian policy had been growing during the period of European intervention in Greece, were now thoroughly alarmed. They pro- Russian tested vigorously against the establishment of the Russians near the Pe Ottoman capital and, with the aim of removing the excuse for their Th, Treaty — presence there, took steps to secure a settlement between the Turks of Unkéar and the Egyptians. Such a settlement was negotiated but at the Sete zee expense of the sovereign power of the sultan. Syria and also the strategic district of Adana at the southeastern corner of Asia Minor ee ele Oe ee RS ae abe pa cor eS eenensteeasenciinteminasae memcoeers ae mt —_ot a Naa ua ea at ot Pe soa mee ee A Se Sete sae r r 7 ays Anglo-French ; : di cFristy f y : hy ! Rua [Siar Port ‘ tn the Aleae Each Near Lows oa . The Second Turco-Egyptian crisis, 1839 International intervention in Turkey, 1539-40 382 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XXVI had to be surrendered to Mehemet Ali. Moreover before the Russian troops and ships were withdrawn from Turkey, Mahmoud was forced to sign a treaty greatly strengthening the influence of Russia within his domains. The tsar gained by this arrangement, known as the Treaty of Unkiar Skelessi, two very important concessions. First he secured recognition as an ally of the sultan with the right to furnish substantial aid to him if an enemy should again threaten Turkey, and second he obtaine ‘do an understanding whereby the Straits of the Bosphorus ee Dat elles were opened to the war- ships of Russia but closed to those « 5 ah yther foreign nations. When Great Britain and France learned Re the terms agreed upon at Unkiar Skelessi, their hostility to Russia was almost unbounded. Threatening articles appeared in the press, formal and identical notes announcing a determination to ignore the provisions of the treaty were presented at the Russian as well as the Turkish capital, and even a combined fleet was dispatched to cruise in the waters of the eastern Mediterranean. Russia replied similarly defying her western opponents. Indeed for a considerable period of time war appeared as gravelyimminent. © With Russia we are just as we were, snarling at each other, but neither wishing for war,’’ declared Lord Palmerston, the British minister of foreign affairs in 1834. ‘‘ Their last communication on Eastern affairs is anything but satisfactory. However there is nothing at present done by us, because there is no danger of anything being done by them Our policy as to the Levant is to remain quiet but remain prepared.”’ Thus the situation remained with but slight abatement until almost the close of the decade; then a fresh crisis arose in the Near East. Mahmoud, far from being reconciled to the loss of Syria and Adana, made extensive preparations for a renewal of the struggle with his dangerous vassal. At last in 1839, ignoring the warnings of representatives of the European powers, he judg red the time oppor- tune for success na ordered his forces to advance into Syria. On this occasion the Turks were defeated even more decisively than in 1832. The army was routed, the fleet surrendered without attempting a fight, the sultan died in the midst of the crisis, and the only thing that saved Turkey was the promise of collective intervention on the part of the great powers. All Europe was aroused during the second Turco-Egyptian crisis. At first many westerners feared that Russia would act independently under the terms of her treaty of alliance with Turkey. However the tsar realized that if he attempted so to intervene he would inevitably encounter the armed resistance of Great Britain and France, and he might encounter that of Austria also. Having no appetite for such an adventure he hastened to make it clear that Russia would not intervene under any circumstances without the codperation of the other powers. Then another question arose. France, claiming that Russia could not be trusted, urged that liberal terms be granted towOGnna eaee Chap. XXVI| TURKEY AND THE BALKAN STATES 383 Mehemet Ali and that chief attention be given to the negotiation of a convention guaranteeing the independence and territorial integrity of the Ottoman Empire. Great Britain, Austria, and Prussia, on the other hand, were willing to credit the professions of Russia, and, being distrustful of French interests in Egypt, were eager to force severe terms upon the ambitious pasha. When Russia realized that in diplomacy there was an opportunity to separate the two western powers, she quickly brought her policy into harmony with that of Great Britain, even conceding that the troublesome Treaty of Unkiar Skelessi might be abandoned. Consequently France became isolated, and the other four powers, ignoring her, drew up a treaty at London (1840) providing for the coercion of Mehemet Ali. A European crisis which was very serious for a time followed the concluding of the Treaty of London. France, eager to prevent the execution of the treaty, threatened to support the pasha in waging wat against Turkey and her allies. She enrolled new regiments, strengthened her fleet, and set about building fortifications for the city of Paris. With similar spirit the four powers, refusing to prom- ise concessions which might conciliate the French, developed and firmly pursued plans for the driving of the Egyptians from Syria. Thus for three months the crisis continued to be most acute. Then fortunately it began to recede with considerable rapidity. The resistance of the sultan’s vassal collapsed and, as the allies refrained from entirely dispossessing him, the French abandoned their threat to join in the struggle. Thereupon resentment on all sides subsided, removing the immediate danger of a European war. Eventually France resumed negotiations with the other four powers and in 1841, after allied influence had induced the Turks to grant to Mehemet Ali the hereditary possession of his Egyptian territories, the five states wete reunited in signing the Straits Convention which pro- claimed the Straits of the Bosphorus and Dardanelles closed to the warships of all nations except Turkey. After the signing of the Straits Convention there was comparative calm in the Near East for a few years; then once more the question of Russian advance against Turkey, destined at last to lead to a destruc- tive European struggle, became a paramount issue. Most significant in this period of renewed international rivalry was the evolution in Anglo-Russian relations. It should be remembered that the tsar had abandoned the privileges he enjoyed under the terms of the Treaty of Unkiar Skelessi chiefly because he gained thereby a temporary under- standing with the British relative to the affairs of the Near East. The temporary understanding he was eager to develop into a per- manent one. He not only believed that the eastern policies of Great Britain and Russia could be reconciled but in addition dreamed of a formal alliance and of an agreement relative to the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire. Few possibilities could have been farther removed from the thoughts of Englishmen. They wished to see the TOV ETACATA PARAL ARAVA RE RRRGH UT AAAUARREOROUORGA URED The European crisis of 1840 The Straits Convention of 1841 Renewal of international rivalry over Russian policy in the Near East THUTTOTTUTVLLVUTRTTAHTATTOUAGEROTHUTOTA OED uebpen 8 TT a nL TTS ET a ET tT a lc aa aaa aa —Russia presents wn ultimatum a fo Tur Rey . March, 1853 384 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XXVI limitation of Russian influence at Constantinople equal at least to the limitation of French influence in Egypt. Hence when the tsar visited England in 1844, with the idea of cau tiously feeling out opinion his remarks about the ‘Sick Man” of Europe Still he did not despair of approached the subject more mbassador at St. Petersburg. Al- it would be a misfortune slip away,’ especially before all Nicholas, was quite have Crete and Egypt as her share of the spoils. All he desired for himself was the privilege of ** occu- pying’’ Constantinople and of acting as the protector of autonomous Christian states in the Balkans. Such suggestions were shocking to British ears. They w pron mptly re Great Britain again becoming thx alarmed lest Russia alone should renew Similarly regarding his schemes, (Turkey) were given a cool reception. ultimate success. In Taney ay he this time to the British ; Mi he see that “if one of these days he | should izgements had been made. He, boldly, luding to the “Sick necessary atffal willing that Great Britain should ere of course jected ) yrroughly the relations of France ch in reality had not been cordial since before 1830, became Only a spark - — a quarrel between Roman Catholic ie Greek Orthodox monks in the Holy Land — was needed to set the nd plunge Europe into the useless Crimean Wat The Crimean War like the crisis of 1840 of extensive negotiations between the powers. impatient of his fail partitioning of Turkey and eel by the French sae piCasEtp of the cause of the Roman Catholic monks in the Holy Land, an ultimatum which he forwarded to Constantinople in March, 1853, by a special envoy, Prince Menshikoy. The ultimatum involved two demands: first that the dispute relative to the Holy Places should be settled immediately in favor of the Greeks, and secondly that the tsar be recognized as the protector of a// Greek Christians residing in Turkey. Menshikov, army officer rather than a dip natin. was totally unable to cope successfully with the able British ambassador to Turkey, Lord Stratford de Rede liffe. Lord Stratford, popularly known among the Turks as the © Great Ambas- sador,’’ tactfully induced the porte to separate he two Russian de~- mands, conceding the first but rejecting the second, and thus to place the responsibility for aggression on Russia. Hence t he prince, unable to accept the Turkish reply as satisfactory, was forced to withdraw from the Ottoman capital as abruptly as he had come. Later Vienna became the center of prolonged and gic negotiations in the but to no avail. In July, 1853, the tsar ordered his troops to occupy the Danubian provinces. Three months later a combined Anglo-French fleet entered the Dardanelles, and finally in March, 1854, after hostilities had begun between Russia and Turkey, the allies presented the tsar with a formal declaration of war. her aggressions against Turkey. and Russia, wht ore: itly estran ged. Near East aflame a was preceded by a period The tsar, ‘e to win British support for because drew up who proved to be an overbearing interest of peace,TENONUUTRCUNONDOQUONNOSUOROUNNUNEOPROLESREOSOO REORDER Chap. XXVI] TURKEY AND THE BALKAN STATES 385 The war dragged on for almost two years. The losses on both sides were enormous but the accomplishments were slight. In spite of the fact that over half a million lives were lost and about two billion dollars were spent neither side gained a decisive military advantage. It is true that the Russians were driven from the Danu- bian provinces and after a protracted siege were forced to surrender their great Black Sea naval base at Sebastopol on the southern end of the Crimean peninsula. Yet their vast inland territory was not threatened and their troops won some success, capturing particularly the important Turkish fortress of Kars in the Caucasus area. It was not until January, 1856, almost a year after the death of Tsar Nicholas I, the Russian perhaps most interested in the struggle, that the new tsar, Alexander II, with comparatively slight interest in the conflict, agreed to petition formally for peace. France and Great Britain, weary of the war, did not hesitate to embrace the opportunity for adjustment, and through the mediation of Austria it was arranged that a Congress of Europe should be assembled at Paris to negotiate a settlement. During the negotiations at the Congress of Paris the idea of rejuvenating Turkey, as well as that of providing against possible future aggression of Russia in the Near East, triumphed. By the treaty signed March 30, 1856, Turkey was recognized as a member of the ‘‘Congress of Europe’’ equal in standing with all others. Among the adjustments safeguarding her interests and limiting Russia five were of particular importance: (2) The powers collectively guaran teed the independence and the territorial integrity of the Ottoman Empire. (2) They renounced the right to intervene either collec- tively or separately in the internal affairs of Turkey. (3) The Black Sea was neutralized; warships were not to be maintained on its waters nor were arsenals to be built along its coast. (4) Russia renounced her exclusive protectorates over the Danubian provinces and Serbia, and the powers collectively undertook to guarantee the special privileges of those areas. And (5) Russia ceded southern Bessarabia to Moldavia, thus abandoning all control of shipping at the mouth of the Danube. No longer could Russia, claiming to be the special protector of Greek Christian subjects of the sultan, legally exercise influence within Ottoman territory. For the moment it appeared as though Great Britain’s idea of bolstering up Turkey as a bulwark against Russia had triumphed. 4. FAILURE OF THE INTERNATIONAL ATTEMPT TO REJUVENATE TurKEY, 1856-1878 The excuse which westerners offered in 1856 for depriving Russia and other powers outside the Ottoman Empire of the privilege of protecting the rayahs was that the porte if freed from the danger of foreign intervention would bring about reforms safeguarding the rights of all peoples within Turkey. ‘‘As to the Turkish Empire, © PODUDEOUCEUODOUUEOCOOENOSOAONAUUEVOOUDOURODEROAIOE Teeeaaa. The Crimean War, 1854-56 Treaty of Paris, 1856 MMNVONNOIUOQOQOQUOUUNNOQOUQUU UT dotoeae amon SRA ane tk po TS a ot ae Dae oy erengeytgmeeencte: ES tae pares a ee ce ee mmnnmnm anaes a aOS ST Pe ES ORE EE + oe = 2 ee -_ a ee ee a SS Se Se Se! = TT Re eae a a TO The idea of resi 4fine Turkey Turkey embarrassed by financial troubles after 1556 286 MODERN WORLD HISTORY (Chap. XXVI the English Lord Palmerston once declared, ‘‘if we can procure for it ten years of peace under the joint protection of the five powers, and if those years are profitably employed in reorganizing the internal system of the Empire, there 1s no reason whatever why it should not become again a respectable power.’’ Eager to strengthen such con- victions the porte on two occasions, in 1839 and in February 1856 on the eve of the assembling of diplomats at Paris, issued organic statutes — the Tanzimat of 1839 and the Hattz Humayun of 1856 — proclaiming its intention to secure equality before the law ae all Turkish subjects. Turkey's promises were in reality far-sweeping concessions to the Christians; the reforms she actually carried into effect were very limited. Between 1839 and the date of the opening of the Crimean War the army was reors ee and feeble attempts were made to extend the reforms of Mahmoud II, to improve the administration, to introduce western ccnem ideas, and to secularize education, but the essential thing, equality before the law for all the sultan’s subjects, remained ungranted. Likewise after 1856, although Ali ind Fuad Pashas, two very prominent ministers of the sultan, were acknowledged reformers, little serious attempt was made to secure the execution of the organic statutes. Indeed there was not even a serious attempt to stamp out corruption in government affairs. In 1871 an English consul complaining of “‘ the open bribery and corrup- tion, the invariable and unjust favor shown to Mussulmans in ae cases between Turks and Christians,’ estimated that ‘‘of all cases — of justice [in Bosnia], . . . ninety out of a hundred’’ were settled by bribery alone. Under the circumstances certainly it was inevitable that the idea of rejuvenating Turkey should fail. Evidence of the failure of the idea accumulated alarmingly in the period between 1856 and 1878. Sultan Abdul Medjid and also Abdul Aziz who succeeded him in 1861 were spendthrifts. They borrowed large sums in the west, particularly at Paris and London, claiming that the money would be used for internal improvements within their domains. On the contrary most of the funds secured were squandered on huge commissions to financiers, bribes to Turkish officials, new palaces, and court pleasures. As the debt mounted, funds were Boeroered| to pay interest on former borrowings. At last during a period of financial stringency, which developed in 1873 throughout the world, the sultan’s ae awoke to a realization of the true situation in Turkey and called a halt. Turkey, unable to meet her obligations which amounted to nearly a billion dollars, was forced to declare herself b: ankrupt ( (1875), and to ) agree to theestablish- ment of an international commission to administer the Ottoman debt (1881). While these occurrences, threatening to weaken western European friendship for Turkey, were taking place in the sultan’s capital, disturbances destined to destroy much of his authority at home were developing in outlying provinces of the Empire. InHP TreTTG TT UTTTT TTT TTTT TUTTE TEU AT ONT OTOONE VTPOTTOINO TTT OOOOOONTOOOOUONOOOOOOQOQOUOQONOUOVOOQEUAQOOOOUQOIO0U OG Chap. XXVI| TURKEY AND THE BALKAN STATES 387 1860 serious strife broke out between Mohammedan Druses and Christian Maronites in the Mount Lebanon area in Syria. The Mohammedans quickly gained the upper hand and, as the sultan seemed helpless and unable to protect the Christians, France, passively supported by Britain, sent troops to their defense. Thus just four years after the signing of the Treaty of Paris the powers most inter- ested in guaranteeing the independence of Turkey were the first to ignore their pledges to her and to challenge her freedom. In 1866 a more serious disturbance occurred on the island of Crete. It developed into a bloody civil war which raged there for two years between Turks and native Greeks,with the latter succeeding generally in holding their ground. In both the Lebanon area and Crete the porte was induced by the “‘advice ™ of the powers to make con- cessions. In 1865 a special régime administered under a Christian governor was established in Lebanon and in 1868 an organic statute was proclaimed conceding extensive local autonomy to Crete. Still more significant of the failure of the idea of rejuvenating Turkey in the period between 1856 and 1878, were certain developments in the Balkans. Three of the Christian peoples in that part of the Empire —Rumanians, Bulgars, and Serbs — made important progress in preparation for their complete independence. In fact, at the close of the period Rumanians and Serbs, who had secured autonomy a half century earlier, gained independence, and the Bulgars, who had been without special liberties, gained autonomy. The Rumanians were first among the three Balkan peoples to secure advances toward independence after 1856. By the Treaty of Paris they gained freedom from Russian ‘“protection’’ but were de- nied the right to form a united nation. In 1858, after elections in Rumania had made apparent the fact that the people desired union, the powers still hesitated to concede to them more than a mere sug- gestion of unity implied in the name ‘*United Principalities..’ Ac- cording to this arrangement the two provinces, Moldavia and Wal- lachia, were to have separate princes, separate national assemblies, and separate governments. Nevertheless the Rumanians, stayed by national enthusiasm, were not to be reckoned with so easily as the diplomatic agents of the powers imagined. Early in the year 1859, though deprived of the right to elect one prince, representative bodies of the two states elected the same prince, Alexander John Cuza. Late in 1859 they formally adopted the name ‘Rumania.’ Two years thereafter the sultan at the suggestion of the powers grudgingly gave his consent to the ingeniously arranged union. Finally, in 1862, the last step in the uniting of the provinces was taken through the establishment of a single ministry and a single assembly. Thence- forward Rumania, completely autonomous, awaited only the formal pronouncement of independence. Far more threatening to Turkish power in the Balkans were de- velopments in Bulgaria. An intellectual awakening made progress Disturbances in Syria, 1860-64, and Crete, 1866-68 Union of the Danubian provinces aceon ee — ae Be ae oa renee Eee ee ee eee sspears coer Soro SSIES Nee me eee - Se as es ee es et Sea en 6 hg) ern ho SRE fal)AE ED NEN, TPE SP rE OS ES EEN, ye a ee Ee MNES a Sete aennnprone Pe a re a Prince Michael Obrenovich Ill SECHTrES advanta Pes for Serbia OO 388 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XXVI1 there in the first half of the nineteenth century. After a long sleep during which they had been the rayahs who were most deeply sub- merged under the Ottoman system, the Bulgars began falteringly to follow in the footsteps of Serbs, Rumanians, and Greeks. In 1829 a Bulgar published at Moscow a history of his country and in 1835 the first Bulgarian school was founded. From these modest be- ginnings an educational movement grew until in 1876 the Bulgarians with 1,479 schools had the best developed system of education of any people in Ottoman territory. American missionaries also con- tributed something to this intellectual awakening. They estab- lished schools, such as the ‘‘American Collegiate and Theological Institute’’ founded at Samokovin 1860, and while Bulgarianeducation was still in its infancy helped to prepare textbooks written in the native language. During the period following 1856, much attention in the movement for national regeneration was diverted to the freeing of the Bulgarian church from Greek control. In 1860 Bul- garians refused any longer to recognize the patriarch of Constanti- nople, and ten years later, after anti-Greek agitation in Bulgaria had grown to alarming proportions, the sultan agreed to the establish- ment of an independent national church under an exarch residing at Constantinople. Still more ominous to the Turks was the growth of revolutionary outbursts. These outbursts, lacking general en- thusiastic support in Bulgaria at first, were put down by the porte with great rigor but, being fostered by secret committees located in places like Odessa and Bucharest, they steadily increased in number. Hence in 1875, on the eve of revolution elsewhere in the Balkans, ground was prepared for the instituting of a Bulgarian insurrection of a fairly national scope. Jugo-Slavs also prepared for a reckoning with the Turks under the leadership of Prince Michael Obrenovich III of Serbia, the ablest Jugo-Slav prince who reigned during the nineteenth century. On his accession to the Serb throne in 1860 he secured the abolition of a law by which the porte enjoyed the privilege of approving the appointment of his councilors; he initiated impor- tant political and economic reforms; and he set about building up an eficient army to be employed in obtaining for his state complete independence from Turkish rule. Also he initiated a successful foreign policy. In 1862, after the Turkish commandant of Belgrade had rashly ordered his troops to bombard the city, Michael secured, through the intervention of the powers, an agreement whereby the entire civilian Turkish population of Serbia had to quit the country. Five years later without the aid of the powers he induced the porte to withdraw its garrisons from his territories, thus freeing Serbia almost completely from Ottoman influence. At the time of his assassination, in 1868, he was planning a union of Jugo-Slavs and Bulgars in preparation for an irresistible national uprising that would sweep Ottoman power out of Europe.HUSHERHUORSUERUNUEEE Chap. XXVI] TURKEY AND THE BALKAN STATES 389 A final day of reckoning for Turkey in most of her European territory came as the result of insurrections which broke out in July, 1875, among Jugo-Slavs in Bosnia and Herzegovina. These insur- rections were brought about by exactions of Turkish tax-farmers (which were particularly burdensome in 1875 after a year of poor harvests), by the tyranny of local beys or lords, and by tsarist propa- ganda. They spread quickly from the places of their origin in Herze- govina northward over most of Bosnia. Serbians and Montenegrins, wishing to aid in the movement, openly proclaimed their sympathy for the rebel cause and secretly sent military supplies or went as volunteers into the disaffected area. After winning preliminary successes over Turkish garrisons within the country, the rebels ap- pealed to the powers demanding the adoption of one of three very practical alternative arrangements which would safeguard their interests: either (1) a place in some Christian state into which they could migrate, or (2) autonomy under a foreign Christian prince, or (@) temporary occupation of their land by foreign troops. Fearing the spread of the insurrection throughout the Balkans, the powers agreed to intervene though not to accept one of the three demands. At the close of the year 1875 they endorsed a docu- ment drawn up by the Austrian chancellor, Count Andrassy, and known as the Andrassy note, outlining five demands to the porte for religious and economic reform. The porte agreed to comply with four of the five demands, but the insurgents, holding to their practical ideas about reform, refused to lay down their arms without securing more substantial guarantees. In May, 1876, three of the powers, Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Russia, made a second feeble attempt to intervene in the Balkans but it also failed. Consequently Serbia and Montenegro, seething with national enthusiasm and eager to champion the cause of their fellow Jugo-Slavs, declared war on the porte at the close of June, 1876. Meanwhile Bulgarians, profiting by the embarrassment of the Turks, had risen in revolt (April-May, 1876). The Turks, irritated by the conduct of their subjects and regarding the Bulgarian rising as less dangerous than that among the Jugo-Slavs, sought to suppress it with only a small force of regular troops and a host of irregulars known as Bashi-Bazuks. The latter lacked organization and were under no restraint whatsoever. They swept through the country perpetrating upon unarmed peasants one of those horrible massacres which unfortunately were destined to take place in the Near East several times during the following half century. A member of the British embassy at Constantinople, who made first-hand investiga- tions on the occasion of the Bulgarian “‘atrocities,’’ described what had taken place as “‘ perhaps the most heinous crime’’ of the century. According to report sixty villages were burned and about twelve thousand men, women, and children were massacred. TOOT OIVITUVETOTOTOTONUAVENUFARONUTOT ALU UGNNOSNANINTOEANAOONAUOVALONONOUOUVONOVOVONOLOLAUIOTOOUNOQOEOHONTORUN ODED SRS aRe Insurrections in Bosnia and Herzegovina, 1875 Attempts of the powers to intervene collectively in the Balkans, 1875-76 The Bulgarian rising and atrocities’ of 1876 TUVALA ~ et ST a en i tl se pe iene NA pe os Goa MUR Yo ee Pa a TS EE - Sebel oe ao es erra8 ne Teen ae i che ee ee aS pes Nae . - Consequences of events in + t Bulgaria, you h\— 77 I657¢ : The Russo- Turkish war of 1877-78, and the Treaty of San Stefano, 1576 390 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XXVI The events in Bulgaria were destined to have very important consequences. For a moment the Turks gained a political advantage. The Bulgarian insurrection collapsed and the Serbs, forced to bear the full force of Ottoman attack, were driven back far into their own territory. It even appeared as though the sultan might succeed in forcibly restoring order in his distracted Empire. Then public opinion in Great Britain and other countries shocked by the events in Bulgaria, which were vividly described in the press, began exer- Cising a more marked influence than formerly upon Balkan affairs. In fact, it soon became apparent that European opinion would not permit the complete restoration of Ottoman authority over the in- surgent Christians of the Balkans. In England the eminent statesman, Mr. Gladstone, wrote a pamphlet sharply condemning what he termed the “‘horrors’’ of Bulgaria, and at public meetings held in every part of the country sympathy was expressed enthusiastically for the Christian cause in Turkey. At Constantinople representatives of the powers formed a conference through which they made a final effort to force concessions from the porte. They demanded that Serbia and Rumania as well as Montenegro be recognized as inde- pendent and that Bulgaria, Bosnia, and Herzegovina be given a degree of autonomy. When the porte rejected these demands, the conference broke up, and Russia, seeing that public opinion would not permit the western states to stand in her way, prepared for war, which she declared against Turkey, April 24, 1877. During the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-78 a Russian army ad- vanced to the village of San Stefano on the Sea of Marmora within sight of the city of Constantinople, but because of the hostility of Austria-Hungary and Great Britain, aroused at last in favor of de- fending Turkey, it did not dare to progress farther. There represent- atives of the tsar negotiated with the Turks a settlement known as the Treaty of San Stefano (1878). By this settlement it was arranged that: (1) Rumania, Serbia, and Montenegro were to be declared independent states and were to receive additions of territory. (>) . large autonomous Bulgaria including territory extending from th Danube to the A’gean and from the Black Sea to Albania was to k created. (3) Sweeping reforms were to be carried out in Bosni: Herzegovina, and also Armenia. (4) Russia was to receive, in add: tion to a considerable money indemnity, certain territories in north ern Armenia, and the Dobrudja region which she planned to exchang with Rumania for Bessarabia. And (5) the Turkish fortresses c the Danube were to be destroyed. When this settlement was pu lished it at once caused great consternation in Europe. A cris developed. Great Britain and Austria-Hungary, fearing that *‘B: Bulgaria’’ was an instrument through which Russia hoped to dot inate the Balkans, practically forced the submission of the trea to a congress of the powers for revision. Russia resisted for a tin but finding herself endangered by isolation she finally backed dovPTT ane DEM aaRbEa wana TURKEY AND THE BALKAN STATES Chap. XXVT] 391 and consented to the negotiation of a new atrangement for Balkan affairs at a European congress scheduled to meet at Berlin. At the Congress of Berlin the opponents of Russia attempted to save something from the wreckage of the Ottoman Empire. Big Bulgaria, as projected by the Treaty of San Stefano, was chopped into three sections. The small strip of territory between the Danube and the Balkan Mountains was left autonomous with no obligation to che sultan other than the payment of tribute; a district south of the Balkan range known as Eastern Rumelia was given a lesser degree of autonomy with the right to administration under a Christian governor; and the remainder of the former Bulgarian area, including the important region of Macedonia, was restored to Turkey. Never- theless the idea of rejuvenating the Ottoman Empire was crowded into the background. The European statesmen who assembled at Berlin were disillusioned as regards the ability of Turks to transform their state into a ‘‘respectable power.’ By the Treaty of Berlin they forced the porte to promise solemnly that it would undertake extensive reforms in Crete, Macedonia, and Armenia, the most important Christian territories remaining directly under Turkish control. Not only was the idea of rejuvenating Turkey discredited but also it was to a considerable extent superseded by that of parti- tioning the domains of the sultan. Russia managed to gain prac- tically all the territories she had sought to acquire through the Treaty of San Stefano. Rumania was forced to give up southern Bessarabia to Russia but she was given ‘“‘compensation”’ in the Do- brudja region and together with Serbia and Montenegro secured a formal proclamation of her complete independence. The additions of territory promised to Serbia and Montenegro at San Stefano were rearranged leaving the district of Novibazar as a wedge between the frontiers of the two states. Austria-Hungary gained the right to ‘occupy and administer’’ Bosnia and Herzegovina and also the privilege of garrisoning Novibazar. Great Britain took her share of the spoils in a special convention with Turkey whereby she gained the right to assume administration of the important island of Cyprus off the coast of Syria so long as Russia held Kars and Batoum in northern Armenia. Even Greece eventually received an award. At the Congress of Berlin she was promised an increase of territory to be adjusted later, and accordingly in 1881 she was authorized to annex Thessaly and a part of Epirus along her northern frontier. Thus ended the Balkan and general European crises provoked by the insurrections of 1875. ‘‘I bring you peace with honor, © declared British Prime Minister Disraeli to his fellow countrymen upon his return from Berlin. Waiving the question as to what he may have brought Great Britain, the opinion can now safely be ventured that the European statesmen in 1878 brought neither peace nor honor to the states of the Near East. TUNVHNNONTATTAUNUDERTEL Pied } | TUTTI The Congress and Treaty of Berlin, 1878 HUNOOUTUNUTHULuoe ——, at a ee OE nara oh ok eee oe eee Pace i as Desai yarn are ee ures areas eeEEEN omenee ro Sig = inp a ss nb IIE a ELISE LP NEL PITTI 5 IRR os The récime of d 4 bdu / I lam I d ll, 16706-1906 392 MODERN WORLD HISTORY — [Chap. XXVI 5. NaTIONAL PROBLEMS IN TURKEY AND THE BALKAN STATES, 1878-1908 In 1876, when the failure of the porte to crush the Jugo-Slav insurrections in Bosnia and Herzegovina became apparent, two sultans, Abdul Aziz and Murad V, were deposed in quick succession and a new party with democratic and nationalist sympathies secured temporary control of the government. This liberal or ‘‘ Young Turk”’ party under the leadership of Midhat Pasha forced upon Murad’s successor, Sultan Abdul Hamid II, a constitution modeled after those of democratic western states. It theoretically established individual, political, and civil liberty for all subjects of Turkey; it proclaimed equality before the law and eligibility of all citizens to hold office; it abolished distinctive national names other than the general name “‘Ottomans’’; and it provided for the creation of a parliamentary system including a chamber of deputies, a senate, and responsible ministers. Unfortunately the constitution, which would have transformed the autocratic Ottoman Empire into a liberal monarchy if it had been observed loyally, did not gain permanent adoption. Abdul Hamid accepted it merely to gain time. Three months after its promulga- tion, he drove the Young Turks from power and dissolved the two chambers of the new parliament ordering their members to leave the capital and return home. Thereafter for over a quarter of a century the sultan himself was master of political affairs in Turkey. He em- ployed ministers, councilors, and other advisers simply to conceal the reality of his personal power. Establishing his residence in a secluded park (the Yz/diz Kiosk) on a hilltop near Constantinople he kept in touch with all parts of the Empire through an extensive spy system, directed the affairs of his ministers by correspondence, and resorted to terrorist means to defeat the aims of his enemies. He promoted the building of telegraph lines and railways — particularly the Hedjaz railway for travel from Syria and Asia Minor to the Mohammedan Holy Cities, and other lines important for military purposes — but in the main he was absolutely opposed to western influence and the introduction of western ideas. Convinced that the rivalry of the powers alone prevented their attempting to partition all his domains he employed every means within his power to en- courage their differences. Turkey’s hope, he believed, lay in her championing Pan-Islamism—the uniting of all Mohammedan peoples. Only through a conservative Pan-Islamic policy could she hold the powers at bay and prevent further dislocations of Ottoman territory. Following such a policy he succeeded in retaining through- out his long reign most of the territory remaining to Turkey after 1878, but in succeeding thus he failed to prevent the growth of national problems which were destined eventually to destroy the Ottoman Empire.PPETO nT THVTVOvere INTTTONOCOV UT TTTQOCTIUUNTQONOQUOQUTNVONOQOOQUQQUOOOQOQOQQUUNNUHQQIQOUUUQLLOOOL Cou Chap. XXVI] TURKEY AND THE BALKAN STATES 393 The national problem within Ottoman domains which attracted attention first after 1878 was that of the unification of Bulgaria. Bulgarians then, like Rumanians after 1856, were eager to over turn the arrangement made by European statesmen separating their territories into two autonomous principalities. In 1879 an assembly of notables in northern Bulgaria, summoned by a Russian commissar who provisionally ruled the principality, drafted a liberal constitu- tion providing for a Sobranje or unicameral legislative body and an hereditary prince. Grateful to Russia for giving military aid to their national cause in 1877-78, they selected as their prince Alexander of Battenberg, a nephew of the reigning tsar. For four years thts prince slavishly followed the dictates of Russia. In 1881, upon the suggestion of Muscovite advisers, he even suspended the constitution. However in 1883, feeling the tutelage of the tsar to be irksome and finding his subjects almost unanimously opposed to the Russian brand of absolutism, he reversed his policy and restored the instru- ment which he had recently suspended. Two years later he openly defied his august relative by endorsing a popular rising in Eastern Rumelia in favor of the union of the two Bulgarian principalities. After nationalists in the southern principality had deposed their governor, Alexander triumphantly proclaimed himself ‘Prince of North and South Bulgaria.’’ In taking this bold step he braved the wrath of Russia and also of Serbia. The latter, jealously desirous of securing ‘‘ territorial compensation’”’ to match the strengthening of her neighbor, revealed her resentment by sending troops across the Bulgarian frontier. In the war that followed, although Russia with- drew her officers, Bulgaria was victorious and, although Austtia shielded Serbia from being punished, the victory assured Bulgarians of the ultimate triumph of unification. Great Britain, believing that a strong Bulgaria hostile to Russia would be friendly to her interests, became a champion of the Bulgarian national cause and succeeded in restraining opposition to it on the part of its most dangerous enemics, Russia and Turkey. Yet almost a decade elapsed before the fait accompli was formally recognized by the great powers. In the meantime dramatic events occurred in Bulgaria. In 1886 Prince Alexander was kidnapped and hustled out of the country by enemies who forced him to sign his abdication. Nationalist defenders of the prince, headed by the noted leader, Stambulov, gained control of the government, but Alex- ander, embarrassed by the hostility of the tsar to his resumption of power, made his abdication permanent. After a delay of almost a year, the Bulgarians chose as his successor Ferdinand of Saxe-Coburg. Then during a period of seven years governmental affairs were left almost entirely in the hands of Stambulov, ‘the Bulgarian Bis- marck,’’ who as prime minister pursued an aggressive anti-Russian policy. Finally in 1894, the new prince, forcing his imperious min- ister to resign and asserting his own control over the government, 1. The problem of Bulgarian untfication The union of Bulgaria and Eastern Rumelia The powers recognize united Bulgaria ie pean -_—- = pepe - ase ge ae poe 5a gw oe STS EN eee ia LDot an er we Ser eS REE Ae EN T_T Soe S30 SET Sh aS EL Pa RS ee ee RR y Development } ; Bulgaria into m10atcT Nn State of what to y with Armenia at 7 i4 y}) sé ' a. The proble 394 MODERN WORLD HISTORY |Chap. XXVI initiated more friendly relations with Russia, and gained, in 1896, official recognition from the powers and Turkey for his régime in united Bulgaria. In spite of foreign dangers and heavy military burdens at home, Bulgaria developed rapidly into a modern state in the latter part of the nineteenth century. Between 1878 and 1908 she improved her agriculture, developed her coal mining industry, extended her rail- way and telegraph systems, and more than trebled the value of her foreign trade. Soon after the triumph of the movement for Bulgarian unification, a very troublesome national problem developed in Armenia along the eastern border of Asia Minor. Armenians generally were loyal to the Turks before 1878. After that date, largely as a result of the sultan’s failure to concede reforms he had promised to grant, a nationalist movement developed among them, and a minority of aggressive young Armenians organized secret societies, incited revolutionary agitation, and even connived at the idea of encourag- ing the Turks to massacre some of their Christian countrymen. The aggressive elements believed that after such a massacre European public opinion would exert pressure upon the powers and force them to intervene in Turkey to secure independence for Armenia. The Turks were greatly alarmed by this growth of Armenian nationalism for two reasons. First, it should be remembered, the Armenians were scattered over a wide area in Turkey in no part of which they constituted more than about half of the population. Hence if they should gain their independence, they would undoubtedly not only free themselves but also destroy the sultan’s authority over hundreds of thousands of loyal Mohammedan subjects. Furthermore most of the Armenian settlements were between the Sea of Alexandretta at the extreme northeastern corner of the Mediterranean and the eastern end of the Black Sea. If an independent state should be created to include all territory between these two points it would cut the Otto- man Empire in Asia into two sections. This would strike the most decisive single blow that had ever been struck at the territorial in- tegrity of the Empire. Therefore Abdul Hamid concluded that Arme- nian nationalism must be stamped out root and branch. In the summer of 1894, taking a disturbance between Kurds and Armenians as his excuse, he inaugurated a series of massacres which continued during a period of two years, broke out on one occasion in Constan- tinople, and resulted in a loss of lives estimated to number at least 26,000. Under the leadership of Great Britain the powers presented to the sultan a scheme for administrative reform in Armenia but jealousy among them prevented their forcing him to carry it into effect. Consequently his ruthless policy triumphed completely. Nevertheless the problem of what to do with Armenians in Turkey + Some writers estimate that the Turks massacred over 50,000 Armenians between 1894 and 1896.THTHUNTATEANCHUATEUAGROAVURRNTANORUEOUDRORENDAORORORODE HUTTE Chap. XXVI] TURKEY AND THE BALKAN STATES 395 was not permanently solved. Armenian nationalism was merely checked. Armenian revolutionary societies continued to carry on their propaganda after 1896 much the same as they had carried it on before the beginning of the tragic occurrences of the preceding two years. Fresh outbreaks and additional massacres occurred in central Armenia in 1904 and 1908, in lesser or southern Armenia in 1909, and finally in all parts of the country during the World War when the bitter vendetta between the two peoples culminated logically in an attempt on the part of the Turks to deport all Armenian nation- als from Armenia and virtually to destroy their race. A third national problem which developed in the Near East during the reign of Abdul Hamid II was that of the disposal of more than 2,500,000 Greeks — particularly those on the island of Crete — who owed allegiance to the sultan. Independent Greece, enticed by nationalists who advanced the ‘‘Great Idea’’ of a Greater Greece, dreamed of a day when she would annex the territories which these Hellenes (Greeks) inhabited. Truly the record of Greece in the nineteenth century scarcely entitled her to aspire thus to the attainment of a pretentious national program. During the period between the close of the Greek War of Independence and the time when Thessaly was ceded to Greece “the kingdom of Hellas,’’ as an English authority has exclaimed, “seemed to have failed in its mission altogether.’’ Athens was rebuilt, educa- tion was extended to a part of the masses,‘ and a national university was founded (1837), but brigandage and the threat of bankruptcy ‘chronically incapacitated’’ the government. In 1843 revolution- aries forced King Otto to grant a constitution, and in 1862 they drove him from the throne. Greeks then tendered their crown to a Danish prince who assumed the title George I, and in 1864 issued a new constitution by which the entire legislative power was vested in a Boulé or single representative chamber of 184 members. Thereafter bitter strife between native political leaders, particularly Trikoupes who urged domestic reform and Delyannes who was interested in furthering a chauvinist foreign policy, was added to the woes of Greece. Not until a period following 1881, in fact, did even Greek material development, thanks to the work of Trikoupes, become appreciable through the building of railways and wagon roads, the opening of mines, and the expansion of commerce. When Greeks became relatively more prosperous than they had been formerly, they also became relatively more insistent that they should realize their dream of a Greater Greece. Foreigners who visited them were impressed by their growing national zeal. ‘When will the oppressed majority of our race escape the Turkish yoke?’’ one westerner believes the Greeks were continually in- quiring. ‘‘If the Ottoman dominion is destroyed, what redistribu- tion of its provinces will follow? Shall we then achieve our national 1 Even as late as 1910, 30 per cent of the army recruits in Greece were illiterate. ATUNTROTOAGROROSOQOQOUSOO00000ECETTTT EERE AU ga 3. The problem of a Greater Greece Greece in the nineteenth century —— ns tee aah IER PUSS TUE AM Ria ELSE RO Setar Pag Da Tm ee td SR DERE easThe Thirty Days War between OCU é + ¥ | lt me rx Turk Js A Greece y , 7 4. The provitem I , . } + . 7? a C wPdl , i ith Ma CG } Bulgarian J propaganda Macedonia, 1575-1595 Wid in 396 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XXVI unity, or will our Balkan neighbors encroach upon the inheritance which 1s justly ours? In 1896 an insurrection (by no means the first) against the Turks broke out on the island of Crete and a year later Greek nationalism forced the Hellenic king to send aid to the insurgents. The powers intervened to stop fighting on the island but they were unable to prevent Greece and Turkey from fighting a brief though bitter national struggle on the continent of Europe. In the struggle Turkey won decisively. Nevertheless the powers induced Abdul Hamid, Ghazi (the conqueror) as he proudly styled himself for winning the war, to be satisfied with the cession of a small strip of Greek territory in Thessaly, and they forced him to pay liberal compensation for it to the cause of a Greater Greece by proclaiming the autonomy of Crete. In 1905 Cretans led by Eleutherios Venize- los, a statesman who later played a leading role in founding Greater Greece, declared for union between their island and the independent Hellenic state. The powers intervened again and on this occasion upheld the sovereignty of Turkey, but in 1906, after further disturb- hat the king of Greece should appoint a high rete and that Greek officers should reorganize Formal annexation of the island by Greece Meanwhile the king of the Greeks, finding his state bankrupt as a consequence of the war of 1897 with Turkey, called Venizelos to Athens (1909) to put the Hellenic house in order. The Cretan leader at once proved himself He suppressed brigandage, reformed government finance, reorganized the army and navy, and through diplomacy made sure that in the next offensive against Turkey, Greece would not fight alone as she had fought hopelessly in 1897. Closely related to the problem of the disposal of territory in- habited by Greeks in Turkey was that of what to do with Mace- donia. Macedonia, it is well to note, is the area of rolling hills and rich agricultural basins which occupies a central location in the It constitutes there, as an American authority ances, they conceded [ commissioner to rule (€ the Cretan military units. was delayed for seven more years until 1913. worthy of the roval confidence. Balkan peninsula. has correctly stated, ‘‘the natural focus of the whole Balkan world.”’ During modern times it has contained a residuum of all racial groups in the Balkans. Bulgars, Greeks, and Serbs especially have been well represented within its limits. Before 1878 Turks misruled and ex- ploited the inhabitants seemingly without fear of molestation. Soon after that date, however, Christian Balkan peoples with strong ethnological claims to Macedonia bid, one after another, for its possession. Bulgars with perhaps the strongest ethnological claims to Macedonia were naturally first among the Balkan Christians to give serious attention after 1878 to the problem of winning the country. In the beginning their policy was one of peaceful penetra- tion. Bulgarian churchmen, taking advantage of the sultan’s decree of 1870 which permitted residents of districts in Turkey to secureMRDVOAUORTUOAHOUUNANVOUOUOEAUOOUOLUNUQUOGRNNONOOERUINOOSNNONNOO0S00R HVOTITENTTUOVTCONIVOTIVONUUUGTIVONIUONUCOATIUOTLOGHIOGTONOQTUUONUOGRIOALANICOOOUOOTONNIIVHIDLupbr gs Chap. XXVI| TURKEY AND THE BALKAN STATES 397 through petition their transfer from the jurisdiction of the patriarch to that of the exarch, quickly won over to their faith most of the Christians in central Macedonia, secured the expulsion of Greek churchmen there, and installed their own priests and bishops 1n the places left vacant after the departure of the Greeks. Moreover they aided in founding schools to teach the children of the peasants the Bulgarian language and national history. Within the decade follow- ing the time when Bulgaria and Eastern Rumelia were united 885), this furthering of Bulgarian propaganda proved so successful that Greeks and Serbians became alarmed lest it should destroy all hope of their gaining advantages in Macedonia. Accordingly they spread counter-propaganda throughout the country to check the influence of their Balkan neighbors. Directly, the rivalry of the three peoples ceased to be one of words and became one of deeds. Bulgarians again took the lead. In 1895 they formed a ‘Supreme Macedo-Adrianopolitan Committee “ which busied itself by encouraging the organization of armed bands to raid the Macedonian area. The aim of the committee in so busying itself was to overawe Turkish officials and rival Balkan agents. Greeks and Serbs soon followed the example of the Bulgars. Turks, in turn, unable to apprehend the raiders, retaliated by punishing Macedonians whom they suspected to be in league with the enemy nationalists. Consequently life in Macedonia became almost intolerable. An Austro-Russian agreement of 1897 committed the European powers to long inaction, through fear of disastrous consequences by disturbance of the status quo. At last in 1903 the powers in- tervened and forced upon the sultan the well-known Murzsteg Program, a program of reforms drawn up by representatives of Austria-Hungary and Russia. It provided that (2) Austrian and Russian civil agents should supervise the work of Turkey’s ad- ministrative officials in Macedonia; (2) an Italian general and officers from all the great European states except Germany should reorganize and command the local gendarmerie or police force; G) after pacification was secured, Turkey should modify the boundaries of her administrative units in Macedonia with a view to a mote regular grouping of nationalities; (4) mixed commissions made up of an equal number of Christians and Moslems should enquire into the recent crimes; and (5) Turkey should pay reparations to those of her subjects who had suffered as a result of the disturbances. Unfortunately the reform program of the powers proved to be only a temporary remedy for the ills of Macedonia. In 1908 it was abandoned entirely, soon anarchy resumed its sway in the heart of the Balkans, and in 1912-13 the latter area became the chief bone of contention in wars in which every Balkan state was at one time or another actively involved. A fifth national problem which developed in the Near East at the close of the nineteenth century bore a direct relation to the Brigandage in Macedonta, 1895-1903 The Marzsteg Program, 1903 The failure of reform in Macedonia, 1908-13 eee eet a el eeennen nee nr eg eee eR RRP karma aa heaaees 5 pee De marae | ee a teas aa— ee rs Sn NF a PT a oe i ik ar bn pol ne it ae a bes RIE 398 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XXVI on ey origin of the World War; it was the problem of Jugo-Slav unification. During most of the nineteenth century, it is true, the prospect for a union of Jugo-Slav territories was by no means bright. Serbia, the state to which nationalists looked for leadership, freed her peasants of feudal obligations so early as 1833, but she rem a eae in other respects and seem ingly was incapable of aSSuUTINE SUCCESS for an aggressive nationalist program. Perhaps the most Hiecout raging thing in her record was ae one to escape from tragic domestic rife which centered in a blood feud between the ear Obren- ovich and Petrovich ain lie S. There Eo 1 of this feud dated back to 1817 when Kara George Petrovich, returning home from abroad, was murdered and Milosh Obrenovich was accused of having prompted the deed. tor the ensuing century. - was at least partly 1 sb isible for three Its influence threw a shadow over Serbian history changes of dynasty, the assassination of Prince Michael in 1868, and the wiping out of the only surviving direct ich of the Obren- ovich family in 1903. While Serbians delayed the furthering of a program real -Slav unification, Montenegrins adopted measures which threatened _ CO transform their ancient theocracy into a permanent enue State organized after a western fashion. Peter II (1830-51) introduced administrative reforms and created an elective senate. Danilo II 15S 1-60 div ested himself f Cettinje, established the principle of primogeniture for the inheritance | his religious functions as bishop of of the princeship, made the senate « ippointive instead of elective, and effected judicial and military reforms. Indeed not until the close of the World War was pd consideration given to the idea of a union between the two self-governing Jugo-Slav states. Nevertheless soon after 1878 Jugo- Slav nationalism became a potent force in the Balkans. It was without question the chief influence which prompted Serbia to attack Bulgaria in fy to peadopt an aggressive policy in Macedonia at a later date, and to assume a hostile policy towards Austria-Hungary early in the tw Sel cen- tury. In 1903 its triumph over opposing influences in Serbia was signalized when nationalist partisans of the Petrovich family placed Peter I upon the throne. After that event Serbians aggressively ex- tended preparations for an expansion of their state into a Greater Serbia or Jugo-Slavia. They zealously continued to look after Serb- ian interests in Macedonia and, defying the powerful dual monar- chy, flooded Bosnia and Herzegovina with propaganda, hoping, almost without an obvious cause to hope, that somehow it would pre- pare the way for Serbia's eventual annexation of those two Jugo-Slav districts. In 1908 when Austrians announced a permanent uniting of the districts with Austria-Hungary, Serbian resentment was so intense that it provoked a serious international crisis. Six years later, Jugo-Slav nationalism struck down the Austrian, Archduke Francis Ferdinand, and the World War ensued.—— el a MUATOUTERUNUAWUINEVOOSUUOVONOULUAEONEROONTNUOOEANONCAUONASNOOLUNONENNIOTINOGHUNNDNARENED TOVTVOATATOTETOTUTUATAIAUUTATOTOAURORUGTONOUOTOTOAOAUVUAUAUOVOUONNNVOLELOoUbanes Chap. XXVI] TURKEY AND THE BALKAN STATES 399 Another important national problem which developed in the Near East at the close of the nineteenth century was that of the expansion of Rumania to include all territories in which Rumanian inhabitants were predominant. As in Greece and Serbia, domestic 6. The problem difficulties within the Danubian provinces prevented Rumanians ste giving much attention to the problem until after 1878. During the tn period when Alexander Cuza was 1n power (1859-66) the state severed its connections with the Greek Orthodox Church, confiscated the property of the Rumanian monasteries, abolished feudal obligations, and allotted to about 400,000 peasant proprietors approximately 4,000,000 acres of the nobles’ land at low prices fixed by government agents. Furthermore Cuza initiated legislation for the founding of universities at Jassy and Bucharest, introduced the telegraph into his Domestic countty, improved the coinage, and encouraged the growth of cities. co tes Still the idea of reform was not popular with the nobles or beyars who Ronan constituted the most powerful political element in the country. 185978 They effectively prevented the extension of a governmental system of universal education,! insisted upon a policy of anti-semitism, and even procured the abdication (1866) of their zealous though overbearing prince and reformer. With Cuza out of the way, a Ger- man prince, Charles (Carol) of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, was invited to ascend the throne and a constitution providing for a bicameral legislature was adopted. An idea of the way in which many foreigners regarded Rumania at the time of Prince Charles’ accession may be gained from the following remark of the Austrian ambassador at Constantinople: ‘‘If Prince Carol manages to pull through without outside help, and make Rumania governable, it will be the greatest tour de force I have ever witnessed in my diplomatic career of more than half a century. It will be nothing less than a conjuring trick.” After 1878 Rumanians continued to neglect popular education, to ignore demands for an extension of agrarian reform, and to per- secute the Jews, but they succeeded at least in furthering the material development of their country. Railways, something which did not Material exist in Rumania before 1869, were rapidly constructed until, in eae i in 1913, 2,100 miles of government-owned tracks traversed virtually Bpenits every district within the state. Likewise water transportation was developed. Besides river services on the Danube, the government established lines of sea-going vessels plying from the Black Sea port of Constantsa to Constantinople and beyond. Also it fostered private development of industries, coal mines, and oil wells. Finally, in spite of Rumania’s unprogressive agrarian policy — her failure to adopt remedial legislation satisfactory to the small landholders re- sulted in no less than five peasants’ risings between 1866 and SN et ae EE ET ee el ears es cee eee 1 An American authority estimates that as late as the opening of the twentieth century ‘‘sixty per cent of the Rumanian population above seven years of age was still illiterate.”NTT eee Ft SR Ee Oe NE EK ae eee ‘ait Cau ces gnternarty Mga rivalry i ast Near E f IF II) . after 155 ¢ 7 i r A 400 MODERN WORLD HISTOR‘ Chap. XXV1 1907! — agriculture was improved to such an extent that at the opening of the twentieth century the little Danubian state ranked third among the grain-growing countries of the world. Along with material development in Rumania, as in Greece, came the growth of aggressive nationalism. The problem of Ru- manian expansion dated really from the year 1878 when Russia, 7 | at the close of the war in which Rumania had aided her to defeat Turkey, ungratefully forced her ally to exch Aa the fertile southern Thereafter | forward to eh day when they would y dreamed also of procur- part of Bessarabia for the Paes Dobrudja region. Rumanians continually | Oke regain their lost province. In iia time th ing the other parts of Bessarabia, Bu oe ind Transylvania — in fact all the areas inhabited predominanely by brother Rumantians. Nationalism influenced the policy of their government as it did that of all other Balkan states. It even Pc Rumania to take interest in Macedonian affairs. Three times in 1905, 1906, and 1910 — rivalry over the persecution by Greek raiders of wandering Vlachs in Macedonia led to Rumania’s breaking off diplomatic relations with SiEEES In 1913 nationalism led Rut ia to enter the second Balkan Wa iilarly in 1916 it led her to place her exist- ence at stake by casting her lot with the Entente Allies in the World Wat 6. INTERNATIONAL RIVALRY IN THE NEAR EAST AT THE CLOSE OF THE NINETEENTH Neowin The Treaty of Paris which was signed at the close of the Crimean War failed to serve as an instrument for the preventiot n of future inter- national rivalry in the Near East. Several important influences, in iddition to the native inability of the Turks to rejuvenate their state and the development of national problems in the Near East, contrib- uted to its failure. First, Russia never really gave up her ambition to gain Constantinople, and since she did not abandon it her Nea with Great Britain continued. Russians, it is true, accepted the provisions of the Paris treaty which prov ided for the i eaCnee of Russian power in the Black Sea area. Nevertheless their pledge,) given under duress, was of little value, for at the time it was given,they re- solved to renounce these provisions when a favorable occasion te, do so appeared. Accordingly in 1871, when France was defeatdd 4n,the Franco-Prussian War, they boldly flouted British opinion by aanounc- ing that Russia would no longer respect the neutralizdtion of ;the Black Sea. Not only Russia but also Austria-Hungary, ,ex¢luded frem both Germany and Italy after 1866, prepared to resume an aggitessine 1 The chief agrarian difficulty in Rumania was due to the smallness of the peasant holdings. Even after the state domains (the former church lands amjoppting to, ndarly one third of the total land area of Rumania) were sold to the peasants, under, the provisions of the land act of 1889, the great majority of holdings included less than twenty-five acres. About half of the Ceara lands of Rumania, remained in the hands of a few thousand large | landowners.ERRRRURRER TUAVURRVAURSORERNUPUELUADDRRONDAGRAGRROAODRRRREAORG MURR GH RUM ReUuaanee, Chap. XXVI] TURKEY AND THE BALKAN STATES 401 policy against Turkey. Even more important as causes for continued intern national rivalry in the Near East after 1856 were two economic factors. The construction of the Suez Canal was one of these. The canal was dug between 1854 and 1869 by a French company which was assisted financially by the Egyptian government; yet it was of more concern to Great Britain than to any other power because it was a vital link on the most direct route from England to India and the British Australasian colonies. Its construction prepared the way for international rivalry over the control of Egypt as well as over the control of the isthmus which it spanned. The second economic factor was the growth of European commerce and investment, in other words, western ‘‘economic penetration,’ in Turkey. Although all of the powers shared in Turkey’s trade, Great Britain, France, and Germany were the states most interested in it. Germany, entering the international scramble for raw materials, markets, and colonies later than her two leading rivals, staked out extensive economic claims in Asia Minor. In so doing she provoked serious rivalry with them and also with Russia. The continuance of international rivalry over Turkish affairs became abundantly evident after insurrections broke out in the Balkans in 1875. In 1875-76 rivalry among the powers contributed materially to the defeat of international intervention designed to end the Balkan insurrections. Later, as has been suggested heretofore, it forced the tsar to permit a revising of the Treaty of San Stefano at the European Congress of Berlin G 878), it led to Anglo-Russian com- plications when the question of Bulgarian unification was raised (1885), and between 1894 and 1896 it neutralized lamentably inter- national pressure to terminate Turkish massacres in Armenia. In Egypt international rivalry was limited almost entirely to competition between Great Britain and France, and it resulted in the establishment of British ascendancy over the country. It devel- oped in this manner. In 1875 the Egyptian government, menaced by bankruptcy, offered its shares of Suez canal stock for sale. They were purchased immediately by agents of the British government, thus assuring to the latter important financial interests in the Egyp- tian region. A year later the khedive (the ruler of Egypt had assumed that title in 1867), unable to stave off financial difficulties longer, was forced to yield dual control of his finances to Britain and France. Between 1876 and 1881 the two receivers worked harmoniously together but at the close of that period an event occurred which was destined to occasion a serious misunderstanding between them. It was an insurrection of Arab soldiers led by a native Egyptian, Colonel Ahmed Arabi Pasha, who aimed to destroy the influence of foreigners in Egypt. Regardless of the French government's unwillingness to act because of the emergency, the British promptly sent troops into Egypt to crush the rising. After the troops had accomplished their purpose (1882), the British assured to themselves control over the TURUUTRVGRRATURATEROS DEERE MVNOVIONOOUOSOOUHOOONTUUU TO SLU Evidence of international rivalry over Turkish affairs after 1875 Anglo-French rivalry in Egypt, 1882- 1904 = os Tabla een ata ds | aS Nr Oa ae ee ed ee402 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XXVI country by establishing there an English financial “adviser” to replace the former dual administration. Henceforth for over two decades Great Britain and France quarreled over the ultimate disposal of Egypt. British statesmen persistently claimed their ‘‘occupation’’ was not permanent but they refused to comply with French demands that they set a time when they would withdraw. Not until their fear of German power became pressing did the two powers consent to compromise their differences in North Africa (1904). Then at last France recognized British supremacy in Egypt and Britain agreed to support French interests in Algiers, [unis (which the French had eee in 1881), and Morocco. The most serious international riv alt -y in the Near East at the close of the nineteenth creel owed its origin to the development of German interests in Turkey. Bismarck once stated that he never took the trouble “‘even to open the mail bag from Constantinople. According to his opinion the whole of the “Balkans was not worth ‘‘the bones of a sing Pomeranian grenadier.”’ Far different however were the views of William II and numerous other Germans. They, ot after 1878, like He se ish at an earlier date, were eager because of political as well as economic reasons to strengthen Turkey and to assure her territorial integrity. Germans would contribute “not a penny for a weak Turkey, a prominent German writer declared (1903), ‘but for a strong Turkey’’ they would contribute everything they could ee In 1883 Bismarck, even, consented to the appoint- ment of a military mission ut ider General von der Goltz to reorganize the Turkis ‘my as a sort of insurance that if anti-German elements should gain ste ascendancy at the court of the tsar, Russia would not dare to attack Germany. In 1889 and again in 1898, the kaiser paid visits to the sultan and Eo. nally demonstrated his friendship for his fellow sovereign. On the second occasion he delivered an address at Damascus declaring that the 300,000,000 Mohammedans dispersed throughout the East might rest assured that at all times the German emperor would be their friend. During the period from 1897 to 1912, when the waning of British friendship for Turkey became very apparent, the capable German ambassador at Constantinople, Baron Marschall von Bieberstein, won Turkish confidence almost com- pletely in the intentions of Germany in the Near East. He succeeded in winning the favor of the Young Turks after they gained control of the Ottoman government (1908) as he had won earlier the favor of their predecessors. The reason for his success can readily be seen. ‘“Germany,’’ Turkish leaders believed on the eve of the World War, ‘‘. . . was the only Power which desired to see Turkey strong. Germany’s interests could be secured by the strengthening of Turkey, and that alone. Germany could not lay hands on Turkey as if she were a colony, for neither the geographic. al position nor her resources made that possib sle. The result was that Germany regarded Turkey as a link in the commercial and trading chain, and thus became her NSSeUOTOUeRaane yeeene Tae Daeaee Taaenn } / TTUUTTOTT NOU AVEO WUE UETIVOUUAUUEAUOEEOOTLVOAHRUNTQOONNGENEAUNVSONERIELVOEEIUOUOVOUNIONRDEOVAONNDONTRORUORRUROOREORED TUPUTUAVATOPUTORERTATAUEEREO EA DUTATGT Moai Chap. XXVI| TURKEY AND THE BALKAN STATES 403 stoutest champion against the Entente governments [Britain, France, and Russia] which wanted to dismember her, particularly as the eli- mination of Turkey would mean the final ‘encirclement’ of Ger- many. } The chief question over which Germany and her rivals quarreled in the Near East was that of the building of railways. In 1866 British capitalists opened a road in Asia Minor extending from the important port of Smyrna southeastward to Aidin. Later French capitalists Railway opened a line from Smyrna, northeast to Cassaba. In 1888, ata time ere when Frenchmen gained rights to build additional lines in Syria, the j Germans gained their first concession for railway building in Turkey. It was for a road to connect Constantinople with Angora, a city in the heart of Asia Minor. The Germans proved to be very efficient builders. They completed the construction of their road Gor miles The Berlin- in length) by January, 1893, and promptly were awarded the right Bia: ; Bagaae to build a branch line planned to run from Eski Shehr, about midway Rgilway along the Constantinople-Angora road, southeastward 276 miles to Konia. This was the line, completed in 1896, which was finally (1899) projected on towards the southeast, crossing the Taurus Mountains and extending into Mesopotamia through Bagdad to the head of the Persian Gulf, to become a link of the famous “B.B.B.” (Berlin-Byzantium-Bagdad) Railway. As soon as it was projected thus Englishmen became alarmed lest it should endanger their inter- ests in Mesopotamia, Persia, and India. The formal granting of the concession for the Bagdad line (1903) served as the signal for inter- national rivalry — particularly between Britain and Germany — perhaps as bitter as the great powers have ever indulged in without immediately resorting to armed conflict. In spite of their bitter misunderstanding over the building of the Bagdad railway the powers eventually adjusted the matter. In 1599 after Germans had been awarded the preliminary concession for the Bagdad line they made an agreement with Frenchmen whereby the lat- ter, abandoning a rival railway scheme, gained the right to purchase a 40 per cent interest in the German project. In 1903 the British government refused to grant permission for British capitalists to make a similar agreement. Nevertheless between 1910 and I914 The powers Germany and her rivals adjusted all important questions over which “gre divide they disagreed relative to railway building in Turkey: () In 1910 See. the kaiser and the tsar met at Potsdam where they agreed that in spheres of return for Russian recognition of German rights in the Bagdad system ee Germany should recognize Russian interests in Persia. (2) In Feb- Be ruary, 1914, German and French financiers drew up an agreement which they induced their governments to accept; it provided that 1 The statement quoted above was made by the noted Young Turk leader D’jemal Pasha in memoirs which he wrote after the close of the World War. On August 2, 1914, it is interesting to note, the Turks and the Germans signed a secret treaty of alliance. According to the opinion of D’jemal the treaty was “‘ an excellent compact between two independent governments on the basis of equality of rights.”’a Se ee re eee rn ers a oie Rr a aie eT de ee sete 4 re een Bs oe * ea Th c Yo li 0 Turk mot *x cmentg 404 MODERN WORLD HISTORY = (Chap. XXVI northern Asia Minor and Syria should be recognized as French spheres of economic influence (for b nuilding railways, etc.), that the region through which the Bagdad : cepted as a similar German sphere, and that the Germans should re- ilway was being built should be ac- purchase the shares of the Bagdad line which Frenchmen had secured under the agreement of 1899. ) Finally in June, 1914, British and German diplomats, prompted from behind the scenes by capitalists of the two countries, negotiated a treaty by which British economic interests in Mesopotamia were safeguarded to compensate Great Brit- ain for ve recognizing German control of the eastern section of the ‘‘B.B.B.’’ Thus a powers assured to the eae the protection of their interests in Turkey. But, what had t the interests of Turkey? The real purpose of the treaties, according to the statement of a prominent German diplomat ‘was to divide Asia Minor into spheres of interest, although this expression was anxiously avoided, out of regard for the rights of the sultan.’’ Truly, Turkey's territorial integrity was intact; still she was bound, bound comp sletely and subject to the dictates of the powers in an economic sense. hey done to safeguard 7. THe YouNG Turk REVOLUTION AND THE BALKAN Wars Before European financiers had completed their plans to divide the Ottoman Empire into spheres of economic influence a day of final reckoning came for the reactionary political regime of Sultan Abdul Hamid IJ. The reckoning came as a logical result of the failure of the sultan to obtain a solution for the troublesome national and inter- national problems which grew alarmingly within his domains after 1878, but it was occasioned immediately by the activities of an organization known as the Party of Union and Pr rogress. The mem- bers of the party, the so-called Young Turks, fav ored constitutional government in Turkey. Many of them were men young in years who had been educated in western Europe where they had gained admira- tion for, and a veneer of, European culture. They were ardent nation- alists as well as political liberals. They aimed to revive the consti- tution of 1876, to westernize Turkey, to abolish all inequalities and also all special privileges such as the ones enjoyed by foreigners under the capitulation system and the exemption of the rayahs from military service in the Ottoman Empire, and to make all subjects of the sultan Ottomans. They perfected their organization gradually during the first decade of the twentieth century. Working at first from head- quarters outside of Turkey, they permeated their native country and scattered propaganda after a manner similar to the way in which Greeks and Bulgars had spread their separ atist agitation at earlier dates. In July, 1908, with their preparations for revolt complete and even with the assurance of the support of the Turkish army, the Young Turks struck a decisive blow to guarantee the success of their movement. At Salonica in southern Macedonia they proclaimed thePURI TEAUUTOUAVUUATOTOA UO RUA USER WET TOLUUOUSSURESENOUNANUNHASNDSUUNUDOUNERSVRODOONIDOUOREEOOLD TURKEY AND THE BALKAN STATES Chap. XXVT] 405 constitution of 1876, and two army corps supporting their cause threatened to march on Constantinople if the sultan refused to recog- nize the proclamation. Deserted by his army, Abdul Hamid did not attempt in July, 1908, to resist his enemies. Instead he hastily gave official sanction for the restoration of the constitution, dismissed his corrupt ministers and appointed others approved by the central com- mittee of the Party of Union and Progress, issued a decree abolishing the system of espionage (which had cost Turkey about $6,000,000 yearly), and published a writ summoning a national Parliament. Soon, in fact, the triumph of the Young Turks became complete. In 1909, when Abdul Hamid did attempt to resist them and to head a counter-revolution, their armed forces occupied the capital; there- upon the national Parliament supported the cause of the Young Turks and deposed the reactionary sultan. Although the triumph of the Young Turks was complete, they failed to carry into effect their lofty aims for the improvement of Turkey. It is true that in 1908 an era of good feeling seemed momen- tarily to have begun in the Ottoman Empire. Even in the Macedonian region strife ceased between the rival nationalist factions. Never- theless before many months had passed the emotional enthusiasm which the revolution had aroused subsided, and the new administra- tion found itself confronted by insurmountable difficulties in widely separated parts of the Empire. The non-Ottoman races in those area resented particularly the ‘‘Turkification”’ policy of the Party of Union and Progress which the “‘young men in a hurry’’ — an ob- server of the revolution gave that appellation to the Young Turks — evolved in a practical way soon after their initial triumph through the adoption of measures, (1) to make the Turkish language the official language of the Empire, (2) to standardize education, and (3) to exact rigorously taxes and military service from all subjects of the sultan. The subject racial elements of Turkey had hailed the downfall of Abdul Hamid because they expected to gain fresh privi- leges from the new régime and not because they shared to the slight- est extent the desire of the Young Turks to see all peoples in the Em- pire become Ottomans. Consequently they promptly renounced their friendship for the new administration. The insurgent bands reappeared in Macedonia, a serious nationalist revolt flared up in Albania (1910), and disturbances, almost equally serious, developed in Arabia, Armenia, and Kurdistan. Unfortunately the young men in a hurry,’’ impatient with opposition, adopted anew the familiar despotic methods of their predecessors. They used bribery and violence to influence elections, forbade public meetings and anti- Ottoman agitation, disarmed the people of Macedonia, planted new Moslem colonies among them, and, as was suggested above, permitted the renewal of Armenian massacres in Cilicia (southern Armenia). Balkan and western states, taking advantage of the porte while it was embarrassed thus by domestic troubles after the Young Turk TUGUTTOAAEVOHIOEGT TUVTUTTOTUNTUTARTOTAOEOUARUAOUT ULV OE Aube a The Young Turk rising of July 1908 The Young Turks depose Sultan Abdul Hamid II, 1909 Consequences of the Young Turk Revolution in Turkey ae aT SE a EA ARN a AN SSA EIN ares - eS eae ee SS a ae rt ho eS os cal " rer to TIerg iT Teehepeeseee™ Wi Se Sk eee ea Ketase teers Delay a ta cae c= as . aent, forevre bets 406 MODERN WORLD HISTORY = [Chap. XXVI Revolution, profited extel sively at Turkish expense. First, on October 5, 1908, Ferdinand of Bulgaria proclaimed his state entirely independ- ent of Turkey and decl fed himself tsar of the Bulgarian people. Two days later the Austro-Hu ingarian formal annexation of Bosnia government announced its and Herzegovina. The Turks recognized arrangements though they derived from the small inde these arbitrary slight satisfaction mnities which they received as compensation from the two offending states.! In ae ltaly oe profited at the expense of Turkey; she struck a sudden unpro yvoked blow to destroy Turkish ee in Tripoli. The de ai ipted desperately to defend its interests against the aggressions of the Italians, but it was too weak to challenge Italian control of che sea, and eventually, in October, 1912, when even more serious dangers threatened Turkey in a quarter nearer the heart of the Empire, the Turkish ministers reluctantly to the ne : 1 sett] Rome. By the Treaty of nce ries gained had to consent rotation of ; ement with the government at signed October 18, 1912, Italy right to hold tem- These islands — a Clear title to Tripoli and obtained the porarily a number of islands in the fEgean Sea. Rhodes, Patmos, and the Dodekanese group had been occupied by Italian the Turco-Italian War. Unfortunately, at least it was unfortunate from the Turkish point of view, the settle- ment with Italy did not for threatened Turkey anes the signing of the Treaty of Lausan Montenegro united at last 1gnorit forces during estall the more serious dangers which nearer home almost simultaneously with , Bulgaria, Greece, Serbia, and the Turks from Europe and, ig the warning of the great powers that they would not admit at the end of the conflict “‘any mx quo in European Turkey,’ During the month and LO ASS ification in the territorial status declared war upon the sultan. a half following the outbreak of the first Balkan War, contrary to the expectations of many western military authorities, the Balkan alli the lurks) she Greeks swept the Turks from the Aegean Sea area and occupied important territories in Epirus and southern Macedonia where they captured the important city of Salonica. The Montenegrins confined their military operations to the vicinity of Scutari, a strategic town along the southern frontier of Montenegro. The Serbs defeated the Turks in the battle of Kumanovo, overran northern and central Macedonia, captured the Turkish stronghold of Monastir, and after crossing Albania reached the Adriatic at Durazzo. The Bulgarians attained the successes which contributed most to the triumph of the Balkan allies. Because of the location of their country they had to bear the brunt of the fighting against the Turks. Within a fortnight after the beginning of their offensive operations they won brilliant victories in eastern Thrace at Kirk Kilisse and Lule Burgas; these forma lly es won decisively over ' Austria-Hungary agreed to evacuate Novibazar and to pay an indemnity of $11,000,000. Bulgaria consented to pay $24,000,000; to be applied, however, towards the indemnity debt of 1878 to Russia.TUUUAUNOOUOCEODUNAVLOREAUNOQOSUGUEUERADEANNODERODESEE Chap. XXVI] TURKEY AND THE BALKAN STATES 407 victories prepared the way for a Bulgarian advance to the Chataldja line of fortifications which was only about twenty miles west of Constantinople. In December, 1912, after the Turks had appealed to the great powers for mediation, an armistice was signed between Turkey, Bulgaria, and Serbia. Under the terms of this armistice the belliger- ents dispatched representatives to London to negotiate peace. Only the three fortified towns of Adrianople, Janina, and Scutari remained under Turkish control beyond the Chataldja line; yet the porte’s delegates who defended Ottoman interests at the Congress of London would not admit that the military situation confronting their coun- try was a hopeless one. Persistently, they refused to concede demands which the representatives of the Balkan allies insisted that the porte must grant before the Balkan peoples would consent to lay down their arms. The Ottoman delegates refused particularly to promise the ceding of Adrianople to Bulgaria and the ceding of the Megean islands to Greece. For several weeks the negotiations dragged along tediously. Then, early in the year 1913, every hope of securing an immediate settlement in the Balkans was blasted. Through a coup d état, January 23, a Young Turk party of action headed by Enver Bey and favoring ‘‘no surrender’’ gained control of the government at Constantinople. Soon thereafter the Congress of London was dis- banded and, on February 3, the war between Turkey and the Balkan league was renewed. After the renewal of hostilities in February, 1913, the Balkan allies confined most of their attention to besieging the three strong- holds beyond the Chataldja line which still remained under Turkish control. On April 23, Scutari, the last of the three to be surrendered, fell to the Montenegrins. Even before it fell the Turks, who had been unable to break the enemy lines threatening their capital, finally abandoned all hope of winning in the struggle and appealed a second time for the mediation of the great powers. The Congress of London reassembled promptly and on May 30, 1913, representatives of the Balkan states and Turkey signed a peace which ended the first Balkan War. In a secret treaty drawn up with Russian approbation! by Bulgarian and Serbian ministers (March, 1912) before the opening of the war, bargains had been made whereby most of Macedonia wasallotted to Bulgaria. At that time the Serbians and Greeks expected to gain extensive territories in the Albanian area. However after victory was assured to the Balkan allies the Greeks emphatically announced that they intended to share in the Mace- donian spoils and the great powers, led by Austria-Hungary and Italy, interposed to prevent Greece and Serbia’s gaining what they desired in Albania. Hence at the Congress of London no agreement could be reached relative to a partitioning of the territories abandoned 1 The Russian ministers to Serbia and Bulgaria, Hartwig and Nekludov, helped directly to bring about a Balkan league in 1912. VATA AGET TITTTTATUTTTLATATHATURTUTTRRUATAUAHROTTRRUTEROREEE PUTVTTUTUUTUTATATATATANHUAOOTOOVOTOLAUI I Luouranas The armistice of December, 1912—-February, 1913, in the Balkans The closing period of the first Balkan War, 1913 The Treaty of London, May 30, 1913 ss), ieee reer oes a eda Re Sa RTT at ead ae Pepe Fg Fe em Moet Nagy Neer eee ee eee a eee eee eee, et ee a wal —————————————a EE ET EE Ss eS eee ee eee = teeter iat 408 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XXVI by the Turks. By the treaty which the belligerents signed on May 30, these difficult questions concerning Balkan affairs were merely avoided. (1) Turkey gave up all of eh possessio1 is in Europe b eyond a line extending from Midia on the Black Sea coast across Thrace to Enos at the northeastern corner of the Agean. (2) An independent Albania was created but its organization vand boundaries were not defined; those matters were reserved for decision b by the great Powers. 3) The remainder of the territory w hich Tu see r gave up on the mainland of Europe was oe without its being t sartitioned to the Balkan allies. a ick key definitely confirmed the ceding of Crete to Greece. (5) Finally, the status of the A2gean islands and the question of oe and redistribution of debts were left, as were the Alban matters, to be ee by the great powers.! Even ‘ efore the Treaty of London was signed a quarrel that was destined to have fatal co; Isequences es velop ed between eupatis and her allies over the partitioning of the territ< ory which they had con- sree tf from mee v. lhe Bulgarians. who presumptuc ously remem- bered their brilliant victories in Thrace, demanded that the terms of the aa secret treaty of March, 1912, should be rigidly carried into effect. If the terms had been so carried into effect Bul- garia would have received most of Macedonia. besides large gains in the direction of Co istantinople. The Serbs, di isappointed because the interposing of the powers to create an independent Albania had prevented Serbia’s gaining access to the Adriatic, insisted upon a new apportionment of the spoils. ‘All those with whom I have spoken,’ the Rumanian minister to Serbia declared so early ; 1s March, 1913, ‘tell me that from the general to the last soldier, the Ser- bians eae arms refuse to abandon Monastir and the other towns claimed by the Bul pails ns in virtue of the treaty of alliance, and would rather be killed by Savoff [the Bulgarian acting commander- in-chief | abies give ip Ww hat ee have conquered.’ The Greeks were aroused similarly by the demands of the Bulgars and the prop- aganda of their own leaders and on May 29, 1913, just a day be- fore the Treaty of London was signed, Greek and Serb representatives concluded a secret treaty by which their governments were pledged to work together to prevent the attaining of Bulgaria’s aims in Macedonia. The Geeels and the Serbs not only agreed thus to oppose the aims of the Bulgars but also actively prep sared to draw other Bal- kan peoples — the Montenegrins, the Rumanians, and even the Turks — into a coalition against their Bulgarian neighbors. * Late in 1913 the great powers selected the German, Prince William of Wied, to be the first prince or mpret of Albania. In March, 1914, the prince attempted to set up a government in his new realm but his turbulent subjects immediately rose in revolt and soon after the outbreak of the World War forced him to flee from the country. Also in 1914 the great powers agreed that Greece should keep all the Aigean islands which she had seized during the first Balkan War except Imbros and Tenedos. The question of indemnities and the Ottoman debt went over to be liquidated along with a new group after the World War.TUNEHUTUUENGUURAUDSHUDHEARUCENTEDUNINOOUTOURDONEOOAENEOOOOD FITTTTUTONTATUTETTOT ET TTT EV EATATOTUMTOTEATOTUNTNINNCGTOAUALOTUNVGTOREAVOVLVLOVOOOVVOVUINONUILI Luby i Chap. XXVI] TURKEY AND THE BALKAN STATES 409 Late in June, 1913, King Ferdinand and the Bulgarian military leaders, seemingly unaware that their action would invite the inter- vention of a Balkan league against their country, issued orders for a surprise attack upon the Serbian forces in Macedonia. These orders, issued regardless of the lack of a previous declaration of war, were unknown to the Bulgarian cabinet; they precipitated the second Balkan War during which Bulgaria, opposed by Serbia, Greece, Montenegro, Rumania, and Turkey was decisively beaten and forced to sue for peace. At the close of the second Balkan War, Bulgaria was obliged to accept terms which were dictated to her by her enemies. She settled with the Christian enemy states at a congress which was held in Bucharest, the capital of Rumania. By the settlement negotiated there, and signed August 10, 1913, Rumania, whose troops had won the most decisive successes in the brief struggle with Bulgaria, gained a strip of Bulgarian territory in the southern part of the Dobrudja region. Serbia retained practically all the territory her armies had conquered in Macedonia during the first Balkan War. Montenegro received compensation in Novibazar. Greece shared southern Macedonia with Serbia and obtained control of the Aégean coast to a point as far east as the mouth of the Mesta River. Bulgaria and Turkey adjusted their differences by a treaty signed at Constanti- nople, September 29, 1913. By that treaty the Bulgarians ceded back to the Turks eastern Thrace including the city of Adrianople which Turkish troops had reoccupied during the second Balkan War. Only a small part of the Turkish spoils of the first Balkan conflict, in fact less than 10,000 square miles of territory, remained under Bulgarian control. Moreover most of Bulgaria’s new territory was mountainous and sparsely populated. The Bulgarians gained a port on the Aigean at Dedeagatch but mountains near the coast almost completely cut off access to it from the hinterland. Although the Treaties of Bucharest and Constantinople restored peace to the distracted lands of Turkey and the Balkan states they failed completely to solve the troublesome national problems of the Near East. Bulgaria refused to be reconciled to her losses. Her people were firmly convinced that Rumanians, Serbs, and Greeks had deliberately played them false, and her statesmen, looking forward to a renewal of war in the Balkans, proposed promptly after the sign- ing of the treaties to negotiate an offensive and defensive alliance with the Turks. A treaty, providing in principle that if “‘one of the contracting parties were attacked by one or two Balkan states the other contracting party engaged unconditionally to assist it with all its forces,’’ was actually drawn up by representatives of Bulgaria and Turkey but it was never ratified. Turks also looked forward to a renewal of war in the Balkans. Their political leaders made stren- uous efforts to provide Turkey with a navy because they regarded a seafaring people, the Greeks, as their chief opponents of the future. The second Balkan War, I913 The Peace of Bucharest, August 10, T9I3 The Peace of Constantinople, September 29, T9I3 Turkey and the Balkan states prepare for new wars, I9I3-I4 Seana — c TT ee LS i eae a ara ere a Neen emmnremnrnenrndta anid a am (Te his— a eS a oe ~— 7 a | ' | Sr eh pee a nt a err Vee a gee 410 MODERN WORLD HISTORY \Chap. XXVI They let contracts for the building of two cruisers and a dreadnaught in England, they ordered destroyers, submarines, and sea-planes in France, they purchased military supplies in Germany as well as in the two western states, and they invited a German military mission headed by General Liman von Sanders to reorganize the Ottoman army. In view of all this activity,’’ a prominent member of the Young Turk cabinet in 1913-14 wrote, ‘‘it will at once be admitted that our one object in life was to make our fleet superior to the Greek fleet at the first possible moment.’’ Likewise Greeks, Serbs, Montenegrins, and Rumanians foresaw and prepared for future en- counters. In reality the Balkan settlements of 1913 were mere truces, and the Balkan Wars were just preludes of a far more terrible struggle which started in the Balkans within a year after the signing of the Treaty of Bucharest and then spread rapidly until it engulfed almost the whole of the ‘‘civilized’’ world. REFERENCES FOR FURTHER STUDY L. Vituarti, editor, The Balkan Question: the Present Condition of the Balkans and of Euro- pean Responsibilities (1905); H. N. Braitsrorp, Macedonia: its Races and their Future (1906); J. G. ScnourMaANn, The Balkan Wars, 1912-1913 (1914); L. E. Guerscuorr, The Balkan League (1915); G. Younc, Nationalism and War in the Near East rors); iR. W.. SETON-W aTsON, [he Southern Slav Question and the Habsburg Monarchy (1911); The Balkans, Italy i the Adri. 1915); Lhe Rise of Nationality in the Balkans (1918); H. A. Gis- BONS, Lhe New Map of Europe (1914); Venizelos (1920); G. F. Asport, Turkey in Transi- t 1909 C. R. Buxton, Turkey in Revolution 1909 R. Prnon, L Europe er Ll’ Empire 5 ‘ er ; ‘ le lpese he ‘ ' ‘ZL . / ] . SP Ort Wati LYO9 /), I Cxrope ¢f ia jeune Lurqui¢e IOI); L Eur De €F £4 leune uUrdute. bes FA ‘ 4 ~ 4 . - 4 ~ 4 hs . * ‘ei ae j - ‘4 ne ;* ’ . . ; ~ j . ot > es a aspects nouveaux ae la question a Orient (1911); L’ Europe et l empire ottoman (1913); B. G. ‘ ~ s 4 * -# Baxger, Ihe Passing of the Turkish Empire in Europe (1913); E. Pgars, Abdul Hamid (1916); Forty Years in Constantinople (1918); F. Scuevitt, History of the Balkan Penin- swia (1922); Lorp Everstey, and Sir V. Cuiroxt, The Turkish Empire (1923); W. Mitier, The Balkans (1908); The Ottoman Empire, 1801-1913 (1913); VICOMTE DB LA JoNQuiERB, Histoire de l’ Empire Ottoman, 2 vols. (1914); N. Joroa, Geschichte des | lkes rimanischen V« 2 vols. (1905); Histoire des Etats Balcaniques (1925); Peo ORY Marriott, Ihe Eastern Question (1924); N. Fores, and others, The Balkans (1915); M. I. Ngewaicin, Geographical Aspects of Balkan Problems (1915); L. W. Lyng, and Lieut.-Col. A. F. Mocxier-FerrymMan, A Military Geography of the Balkan Peninsula (1905); Sir E. Pgars, Léfe of Abdul Hamid (1907); Turkey and its People (1911); sir C. N. E. Eviot, Turkey in Europe (1908); A. H. Lypyger, Government of the Ottoman Empire in the Time of Suleiman the Magnificent (1913); H. W. V. Temperury, History of Serbia (1917); J. SAMUELSON, Roumania, Past and Present (1882); Bulgaria, Past and Present (1888); G. Finuay, Héstory of Greece, 2 vols. (1861); Sir A. W. Warp, and G. P. Goocu, (ed.), The Cambridge History of British Foreign Policy, 3 vols. (1923); F.S. Ropxgry, The Turco-Egyptian Question (1925); S. Gortainow, Le Bo sphore et les Dardanelles (1910); S. Lane-Poore, The Life of the Right Honourable Stratford Canning, 2 vols. (1888); Sir E. Dicey, The Peasant State (1894); Eart or Cromer, Modern Eg ypt(1916); E. M. Eartg, Turkey, the Great Powers, and the Bagdad Railway (1923).IVOOUTTUATUTURT VAN TVCNTTVOTITVNAUONIAOTIIOORITONNVUGUINOGATOGANUOAOIUGALAUQQTOGQADOOVOUOOAUUNNII UL Oya if — wi UVUOUOATADNAUOUDINEUOSUNGUUNADOUNERUORNNOORVAMEREDEOSEREGREE PART Wil NATIONAL IMPERIALISM AND THE SPREAD OF EUROPEAN CIVILIZATION OVER THE WORLDi} nL vin ai rae {4 | i i re fll Hl ae i van en ry 7 nouns ~ormees a ee Se ee renePVAUEEUOENOONNYONOAUUOAUOUHNOONOGONOORNO ORONO OINOQEAVONAVOOUONUERIONCAUESIEER CHAPTER XXVIII THE OLD AND THE NEW IMPERIALISM 1. THE DECLINE OF THE OLp IMPERIALISM For three centuries before the American and French Revolutions, Spain, England, France, Holland, and Portugal had sought to build up rival colonial empires. Three principal motives, which led them to make a conquest of non-European regions and to plant colonies in them, were widely held in those days: (1) The belief prevailed that colonies would supply the home country with such raw materials as would make her economically independent of foreign powers. (2) It was expected that the possession of colonies would develop new matkets for the sale of surplus goods from the motherland. (3) These new contacts with the outer world enabled the pious to realize their desire to spread the Christian faith among pagan peoples. WTTTTTUQUTTHTATTTTIUUUUUUT HH ooo PUVTVETUETETUULUENTVATOET ULV ATOTHOTAUVAUROTAOTAUVONROVEOROER The predominant theory that colonies should contribute solely to Mercantilism the power and prosperity of the mother country was called the ‘“mercantile doctrine.’’ It took little thought of the “rights or of the welfare of the colonists, who were forbidden to establish manufactures of their own, and were forced to buy all their goods of the home merchants. By navigation laws and special tariffs, colonial industry and trade were controlled for the selfish interest of the home government. Although the expansion of Europe to the overseas continents was so pronounced from the sixteenth to the nineteenth century, yet by 1800 about four-fifths of the land area of the earth had not been opened to Europeans through exploration. The ‘‘mercantile doctrine’ was shattered by three new world forces: (1) the political and social revolutions in North and South America and in Europe; (2) the Industrial Revolution; and (@) the laissez-faire theory of industry and commerce. Towards the end of the eighteenth century, economists like Adam Smith in England and the Physiocrats and Turgot in France proved the false basis of the ‘“mercantile doctrine’’ and urged the inauguration of a general policy of complete freedom of trade. This new Jasssex-fasre theory grew rapidly until Great Britain, in 1849, abolished the ancient customs duties, and proclaimed free trade. Men like Ricardo, John Stuart Mill, and Malthus taught that a country was most prosperous when it bought in the cheapest market and sold in the dearest. The In- dustrial Revolution, which made Great Britain the “‘workshop of the world,’’ forced her to care more for the new customers for her wares than for the small trade of her colonies. Further, the successful revolt of the colonies in North and South America from the political 413 ane a4 ae cK Mg pee es ee Noe eR sues heed eee se aeraLRT ST. cme RTP a SRST Sk LR SSeS SS ee ea ae Se ce a ae oD Pe jer tka oo a + Fe a ok ae a a ae = : as Ria sa ee . } Free-trade ? ailii- , 71 pervi ais i The dec] De Gecitie 1, the older CoL1oniai empires ail j 4 0 : f A414 MODERN WORLD HISTORY = [Chap. XXVII control of the European motherlands caused European statesmen to conclude that it was both unwise and unprofitable to spend blood and gold in acquiring new colonies, or in holding old ones. Cobden, Bright, and even Gladstone were disposed to take this view. Fur- thermore the French Revolution and later insurrections on the continent set forth the idea of the right of self-determination for submerged nationalities, which naturally was extended to colonies. Consequently, by the middle of the nineteenth century, after the pronounced decline of the power of the conservative alliance created after 1815 by the absolute powers of Europe, old imperialism as a national policy seemed to be generally discredited as disadvantageous. It was commonly said by economists and statesmen that overseas possessions were only a costly burden’’ to the homeland with no rewarding compensations. By 1850, therefore, only remnants of the old colonial empires were in existence. Of the vast colonial possessions of Spain, nothing remained but Cuba and Porto Rico in the New World, vague claims in Africa, and the Philippines in the Pacific; and before the close of the century all of these were lost except the African regions. The Dutch had lost New Amsterdam in North America and Cape Colony in Africa, but still held Dutch Guiana in South America and impor- tant portions of the East Indies. France had lost all her colonial empire in the New World except French Guiana, and Guadeloupe and Martinique in the West Indies; and in India retained nothing except five trading-posts. Portugal had lost Brazil, but like Spain and France, had a loose title to certain parts of Africa. Great Britain had lost her Thirteen Colonies in North America, but had profited by the misfortunes of France and Holland. Throughout the world she had laid the foundations of a colossal empire, and was the foremost colonial and maritime power on earth. In Europe she held the strategic points of Gibraltar, Heligoland, and Malta. The United States had spread across the continent. Russia owned Alaska in North America, Siberia in northern Asia, and was forcing her way into the regions about the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea, while in Europe, Finland and Poland were parts of her gigantic Empire. China and Japan were not yet opened to European exploitation. The interior of Africa had not been penetrated, and large portions of North and South America were as yet unexplored. 2. Risk or MopERN NATIONAL AND ECONOMIC IMPERIALISM About 1871 there began in world history a new period of national imperialism, which during the past fifty years has progressed with giant strides and is unabated today. At that time perhaps half of the habitable surface of the globe still awaited the conquest of Europeans, Americans, and Asiatics. This new movement to Euro- peanize the world is one of the most significant factors in modernWaeeae Chap. XXVII] OLD AND NEW IMPERIALISM ATS civilization and needs to be studied with more care than has been given to it hitherto. , Four fundamental causes help to explain this renewed and un- precedented interest in imperialism: (1) A powerful and able middle class had gained control of the governments of the states of the west- ern world through the earlier political revolutions and the economic changes. Representing wealth and business interests, they demanded colonial expansion overseas not only to secure adequate supplies of raw materials for home industries and new markets for the sale of their goods, but also for opportunities to invest surplus capital profitably. (2) The newer Industrial Revolution with its inventive genius, its technical skill, and its capacity for world organization, coupled with improved methods of finance, transformed manufac- turing, transportation, and communication. As a result factories produced enormous quantities of goods for export. Railways and steamships made it easy to send them to the most distant markets. The telegraph, telephone, and cable made it possible to transact business on a world scale. Modern banking institutions provided easy and safe systems of credit, and insurance companies took much of the risk out of business. With fortunes awaiting venturous in- vestors in distant regions, governments were urged to increase their colonial possessions. (3) The missionary spirit of western Chris- tianity, with the desire to add to the glory of Christendom and to save the precious souls of countless heathen from eternal torment, has ever been a most potent force in the dynamics of European expan- sion. (4) The new nationalism aroused an ambition in the various national groups to secure more power in world affairs, to increase the national wealth, to expand the national domain, and to open up new fields for all kinds of national enterprises — political, reli- gious, and educational. Hence came the popular clamor for the an- nexation of the backward parts of the world and the scramble for ‘spheres of influence.’’ The belief was commonly expressed that in the event of war conquered subjects might be drilled and used as soldiers, and that the possession of regions overseas, suitable for colonization and for supplying food to the home people, was a necessity for a great industrial state. After 1871 the industrial life of most of Europe and of much of North America was completely changed, while this newer Industrial Revolution was spreading over all the civilized portions of the whole earth. Industry was organized economically on a world basis not only in the exchange of goods but also in the dependence of the European nations upon food and raw materials from overseas. The advances made in chemistry and other physical sciences worked mod- ern miracles. Scientific organization and management led to the creation of large business concerns in which vast sums were invested and thousands of workers were employed. These huge plants with their own expert scientists and laboratories flooded the world with TUOUATUOUNTOONUDANTLGHTUVAHUUGALUGAIUNTUINHI VAR ’ 7 i: pibidday eanauea | i} UAUNVONTANONNUAONFONUAOQUANOVUONOSHANUNUOEUAUOUUAVONUAUONUAUUAHOOOVOQUAHOIUOLOEUR Causes of the new imperialism eet aed] ny ee NT NN a ae ee er ae NE. onSl Nat Re cieT ee sri == In du trial Ret uti On 416 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XXVII their finished products. It has been estimated that within a century the world’s commerce has increased a thousand per cent. handle this gigantic business trunk railways with lateral branches were — built across the continents of America, Europe, and even Asia, form- ing a veritable network of steel roads to carry freight and passengers. At the same time ocean liners carrying at a low rate thousands of tons of goods and five thousand passengers were crossing all the oceans in a few days. Newspapers, the post office, the cables and wireless, and the banks enabled business men of New York, Liver- pool, or Hong Kong to conduct a world business as easily as a City eee could cover a county fifty years ago. Coal, iron and electricity have revolutionized all sorts of industries. Ihe Suez and Panama canals have shortened shipping by thousands of miles. It was under the improved conditions of this ney r Industrial Revolu- tion that national and economic imperialism Hevalepeal Since the captains of industry in the industrial states were producing more goods and amassing more capital than could be consumed at home, they turned their attention to the hundreds of millions of people in the non-industrial sections like Latin America, Russia, Turkey, China, and Africa. Protective tariffs and keen competition also made the markets of other industrial states less ee Up to 1871 the large-scale textile and steel 11 idustries of Great Britain were without a rival in the world. The products of France were superior in artistic design, but gave her neighbor across the channel no uneasiness in the world’s markets. These two countries had utilized all the earlier discoveries and inventions and led all other nations in industrial technique. But after 1871 the United States and Germany began to compete with England and France through the standardization of manufactured goods and large-scale production. The advance of Germany particularly, owing to the fostering of industry by the state, began to be felt. In 1850 Great Britain mined six times as much coal, and made five times as much pig iron, as Germany; and nine years later the British exports of ~ 4 steel were still double the German exports. Then came the unification and industrialization of Germany under Bismarck, and soon the best men of the middle class were devoting all their intelligence and energy to the Industrial Revolution. They had the encouragement of the government and also all the discoveries already made in other countries to start with, and hence their progress was more marked than in other lands. No other state codperated so enthusiastically and intelligently with the merchant classes as did Germany. After 1870 Italy, like Germany, wanted to share in the division of the over- seas world. These two powers felt themselves handicapped in the race for empire, and began to look about frantically to see where there might be colonies not already appropriated by their more lucky rivals. Since practically all territory suitable for colonization by whites was occupied, they cast their eyes on parts of Africa, Asia,| i aaa i. TaGaeaee With aane eae va eee eee WETTRHVAURRUROAR RAAT OREEE TSTHTRTARUAPA GERD nae Chap. XXVIII] OLD AND NEW IMPERIALISM AI7 earlier than to push her and Oceania. Italy developed a “‘colonial sense’ Germany but lacked the military power and money projects to so successful an issue. The overcrowded population of Europe is a factor oftimes disregarded in the consideration of the growth of imperialism. Most of the industrialized nations witnessed an unprecedented increase in the number of their inhabitants during the nineteenth century. For instance, between 1800 and 1900 the population of Great Britain grew from 16,000,000 to 41,000,000; that of Germany from 21,000,000 to 56,000,000; that of Italy from 18,000,000 to 32,000,000; that of Austria-Hungary from 23,000,000 to 45,000,000; that of European Russia from 39,000,000 to 111,000,000; and that of all Europe from 180,000,000 to about 400,000,000. As a result of this rapid multi- plication of the inhabitants, Europe found it more and more difficult on | 1 H eOntAaE \ | Bbg2eeS to live on the food raised at home. The large emigration of Euro- Population peans to all parts of the world tended to relieve the congestion in the ?*/°# homelands, and it was natural that the motherlands should wish to retain control of these nationals as they spread overseas. Largely owing to recruits from Europe, the population of the United States increased from 5,000,000 in 1800 to 77,000,000 in 1900. These new communities of whites in various parts of the world helped to supply Europe with food. Towards the close of the last century, however, the new states formed by the expansion of Europe became so popu- lous that they could no longer export such large quantities of the products of the soil because they were needed at home. In the United States, for instance, all vacant lands were occupied. This new situation tended to make the necessities of life dearer in Europe, led to a keener competition for foreign markets, and induced European nations to reach out after colonies as new sources of food as well as raw materials for their home industries. The early Industrial Revo- lution was confronted by the simple problem of the exportation of goods. The newer Industrial Revolution was face to face with the question of obtaining means on which to live and materials with which to work. This change, in large part, accounted for the rise of economic imperialism. It was soon realized that the best way to monopolize the business of an undeveloped region of the world, like Africa or Asia, was to establish a “‘sphere of influence’’ which, at a favorable opportunity, might be transformed into a protectorate, or annexed outright. Along with the export of manufactured articles for sale went the export of capital and capacity for organization to develop the natural resources of the backward parts of the earth. Factories were erected; railroads projected; banks opened; mines operated; steamship lines started; and loans made to overseas rulers. Thus the rubber groves of the Malay Peninsula, the oil wells of Persia and Mexico, the “Spheres of copper mines of Morocco and the Congo, the gold and diamond mines //wence™ of the Transvaal, the wheat fields of Russia and Argentina, and the ie ice eee —— ey rere £8 gr Net Se Oe ae ee a Pee aed a eenenes ~~pate eer ae i SLA a Sg 3 . Cs 418 MODERN WORLD HISTORY = [Chap. XXVII coffee plantations of Brazil, drew hundreds of millions of surplus wealth from the rich industrial states. Thousands of trained young men were sent out to manage these business enterprises. Con- cessions and special privileges were secured for all sorts of ventures, and the home governments were called upon to protect such business enterprises. Again and again defaulted payments, broken contracts, assassinated missionaries, the mistreatment of government officials, or some insult to the flag, was made an excuse for gaining a new colony. And thus the imperial game was played over the earth by most of the European powers, and not by individuals or commercial companies. The new national imperialism must not be viewed as merely the extension of military dominion over weaker peoples. Rather it was the extension of European civilization over the world, but more particularly in the eastern hemisphere. To the partly civilized peo- ples, who occupied such vast portions of the globe, it brought law and justice, and the beginnings of liberty. To the more highly civi- < lized groups, who had secured for themselves a mode of political organization, which gave them security, order and legal equality, it brought many obvious advantages. The great nation-states like Great Britain, France, Germany, Russia and Italy became also great imperial states. Austria-Hungary, which was never a nation-state, never became a great colonizing power. The history of the world after the Congress of Berlin in 1878 has been the history of world- states. Since that date, practically all of the unexploited regions of earth have been brought either under the jurisdiction of one or another of the mighty western powers, or have been driven to adopt the modes of organization of the west. As a result, the entire globe has been revolutionized within the past half century through science, industry, and imperialism. Africa has been explored and divided among the powers. Australia and Oceania are occupied. Europe and the United States have established an economic hegemony in Latin America. In this manner have the powers interpreted their ‘‘civilizing mission’’ and the “‘white man’s burden.” Out of this race for overseas possessions grew Clashes and sharp rivalries, which in turn determined home policies and political events. But it must be said that world public opinion has forced modern national impert- alism to carry on its work on a somewhat higher moral level than was true of the old imperialism. Missions AND EUROPEAN EXPANSION We This unparalleled extension of European political authority around the globe, the overflow of European blood and institutions to distant lands, and the creation of a world trade centering in Europe, were the products of a series of impulses from the sixteenth to the twentieth century. One of the earliest and strongest motives for overseas activity was the desire of the European Christians to con-STRAT aa F WRRRRAH aaa WEAR RUEAAHOUHCRGRneeennanan WOUTRAUARAGTAAGAEOT URE ; WOUHUTURGHUTHTTRETARAURATA OED MVAVOTVUTTRTATUUTTTVNVUUAUETVUOPETREANOERTELTVOUUULAPREDUAENEGUUGEUEAHVVOGOULNNNADOERERVADOONNAESINGOED HA HTL PUVLHTL HALAL WA ipiiili SEER ER! Chap. XXVIII] OLD AND NEW IMPERIALISM 419 vert the heathen, and rescue untold millions from imminent danger. Christianity, originating in western Asia, naturally spread over that region and thence to northern Africa and to southern Europe. When Rome became the most powerful center of the Christian Church, the missionary zeal of the early church was continued. Missionaries were sent to the Moslems in Asia and Africa, and in the thirteenth century the Roman pontiff sent Dominicans and Franciscans to Persia and Tartary. Two learned Dominicans accompanied Marco Polo to the court of Kublai-Khan, and early in the fourteenth century two Franciscans visited Pekin, even translating the New Testament into the Tartar language and training youths for a native ministry. The overseas discoveries of the fifteenth century opened up a new world to missionary enterprise for the churches of Spain and Portugal. The mendicants, who were sent to Mexico and Peru, sought to spread Christian principles among the natives, but too frequently those who refused to renounce their heathen ways were either massacred ot enslaved. By 1520 five bishoprics had been established, and the Aztec worship was banished from the Spanish settlements. The Portuguese labored in India, and the Jesuit, Francis Xavier, met with singular success, extending his work from Goa in India around the coast of Asia to Japan and to some outlying islands of China, where he died in 1552. Other Jesuits continued his work in Asia, and some opened a new field in Paraguay, South America. With the French settlement at Quebec went Jesuit missionaries to work among the In- dians of the region of the Great Lakes and the Mississippi valley. By the end of the sixteenth century a committee of cardinals was appointed to unify missionary work, and later a missionary college was founded to train both Europeans and natives for missionary activities. The French Huguenots sent a body of devoted men to Rio Janeiro to form a Christian colony, but the Protestant churches were for a long time indifferent to foreign missions. English colonizers were not unmindful of their duty to convert the natives, and this was encouraged by the state church. Religious persecution drove forth Catholics, Quakers, and Puritans from England; Huguenots from France; and Protestants from Germany, to seek homes in the New World, where they might worship in peace. Many representatives of these groups in America took a keen interest in the spiritual wel- fare of the Indians and won many converts. Meanwhile young Dutch and German missionaries were devoting their lives to the conversion of the heathen in Abyssinia, Java, the Moluccas, Formosa, and Ceylon. An Austrian baron, von Welz, went as an evangelical missionary to Dutch Guiana, and King Frederick IV of Denmark founded a mission in India. The Moravians labored in North and South America, Greenland, and Africa. In 1792, Carey, a self-edu- cated cobbler of the Baptist faith, wrote an epoch-making book on Means for the Conversion of the Heathen. Asa result, the first society for Early Catholic MISSIONS Rise of Protestant MAisSSLONS em See I omen ek th TTT = ee —————— ee -aeenee a ret eee pee e eineeT ae Seema ae = oe Se Ee er ee Te ee | - ore nr ak ee == zs pee LIE ee LES Ee Le Oe ae a 2 ee 7 = 7 L 420 MODERN WORLD HISTORY ([Chap. XXVII ere work was created, and three years later the London Missionary Society was organized as an interdenominational organ. About $5. ),000 was raised and 29 missionaries were sent to Tahiti in the South Sea Islands. Societies were formed to promote missions 1 Africa. A new era of associated work had begun. Between 1792 and 1892 in Great Britain thirty-five associations were organized, and in the United States twenty-two. During the past century millions of dollars have been raised to further missionary efforts, and thousands of men and women have gone to all parts of the globe to advance the cause. Bible societies, medical missions, and mission schools have supplemented the older type of work. When David Livingstone died in Africa, and the ‘Cambridge seven,’’ of whom one was the stroke-oar of the univer- eS sity eight, and BE hee captain of the university eleven, went to China in 1885, the imagination of the British people was profoundly stirred. The university graduates entered the mission field in large numbers, and soon 3,000 volunteers were ready to go to the foreign fields. The interest of the British self-governing colonies in mission endeavor was abreast of that of the mother country. The United States has been particularly active, and thousands of college men and women are devoting ge lives to the service. The German, Danish, Scandinavian, Dutch, an ee ch Protestant societies have taken a prominent part in the spre ad of the Christian peek over the globe. The Rotiian Catholic missions in the nineteenth century have Car- ried on and extended the work of earlier centuries. The Institution of the Propagation of the Faith’’ established at Lyons in 1822 has an income of $1,500,000 for missions. The work carried on by the various religious orders and societies is well-organized and economically man- aged. The majority of the missionaries are French — over 7,000 — and most of the money is raised in France. It was estimated that in 1918 there were 3,000 Catholic teachers, 8,000 priests, and 20,000 sisters from Europe in mission work among non-Catholics, while the native priests numbered 4,000, and the members about 17,000,000. The Greek Catholic Church established missions in central Asia, Siberia, China, Japan and Alaska, and the Russian church spent about $150,000 annually. Protestants in 1908 raised $25,000,000 for mis- sions and claimed that they had in the foreign field 6,000 ordained missionaries, 2,800 laymen, 4,500 unmarried women, Over 5,000 or- dained natives, 29,000 schools, and about 5,000,000 members. In China alone in 1918 there were 12,000 Saar ies teachers and physicians. In India and Ceylon 14,000 mission schools were edu- cating 650,000 pupils. Similar work was done in other fields. In 1920 the Church World Movement of the United States proposed to raise $104,000,000 and to send out 3,500 new missionary workers. This brief survey of the pieantic work accomplis! hed through the various Christian missionary agencies will make clear to w hat an extent they were instrumental in spreading western civilizationee ee i THUR GRRHR ERR eeeeeneaae TRRORGeeee Waaneaaeane ] } PUTOTATUTETERTNTATHYUTOTETOTETENUAUNUGUNERINTUNNTOROTEROTNVNGUOLONOUAEOTUUOVOEONAUNNOEATONOVOTONOQUOLONIQONODOEORALERE TOTUTUTTTVUTUT TAT TUTA TOR ouGL HUTT eet OLD AND NEW IMPERIALISM ALI Chap. XXVIII] over the globe. There has always been a close relationship between the governments of the west and missions. Until the beginning of the nineteenth century, missionary labors were largely under the supervision of the states. Repeatedly the deep solicitude for the con- version of ‘‘the benighted heathen’’ was taken as a pretext for seizing backward parts of the earth and the extension of European rule. The murder of missionaries, or the destruction of mission property, sup- plied an excuse for the establishment of a protectorate, or the carving out of a ‘‘sphere of influence,’ or the opening of trading ports. At the same time the natives were made acquainted with European forms of government, with western concepts of law and justice, and were taught the meaning of self-government. Asa result, much of the non- European world was organized more or less after the political models of the west. In this way the foundations were laid for a closer polit- ical codperation in the world and for a better international under- standing. Although the missionaries were engaged in an unworldly under- taking, they were not unmindful of the material advantages that might accrue to their homelands from their labors. The natural re- sources and native products, which they reported, attracted both capital for investment and business agents cager to make money. Employment was given to the natives to open mines, gather rubber and ivory, build railroads and factories, and construct harbors and wharves for steamship lines. Markets were opened for home goods. The natives were brought into touch with new systems of finance, banking, and credit; with the inventions of the west; and with a new business world. Too frequently they were also introduced to the engines of modern warfare and made the victims. Their eyes were opened to the marvels of modern science, and their knowledge of other peoples and other lands was widened. Schools and even universities were planted in regions where illiteracy, ignorance, and superstition had prevailed. Languages only spoken hitherto were written with an invented alphabet, and thus a native literature be- gan to develop. Western medical knowledge and hospitals replaced the medicine man, and brought the alleviation of pain and the cure of disease. The missionaries introduced new types of home life, with modern conveniences, books and music, with different kinds of foods and drinks, and with strange habits and customs. Thus in a thou- sand ways the life of the savage, the barbarian, and even the cul- tured Hindu and Chinese was altered by the invasion of the mission- ary from the west. The reaction of missionary work on the peoples of the west was felt in many ways. It brought about the interpretation of Chris- tianity in terms of humanity, widened the horizon of Christian thought in the homelands, and aroused a greater spirit of philan- thropy and self-sacrifice. It gave a new conception of the geography, the wealth, and the inhabitants of the earth. It brought to light an- Missions and impertalism Missions and the spread of European culture eee met ee ED bh ee alte aes eee ae a rtiree ng ee LEE ye 5 A ene Pa ——— ee __ asseeeneenne Siiee nea at ae rs a Tame St NT aa Te er et ae —_ rTj ii aace' European expansion into i : ¥ j the colonies The new colonial movement after 1550 22 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XXVII cient literatures and founded the science of comparative religions. It resulted in the education of thousands of young men and women from overseas in western institutions of learning. A new sense of unity in knowledge, and a new responsibility for the betterment of the human race arose. 4. NATIONALISM. POLITICAL EXPANSION AND THE New CoLoniALIsM Political and economic motives supplemented the waves of religious endeavor. The sixteenth century witnessed a mad scramble to seize the backward parts of the non-European world under the belief that colonies were necessary to increase the wealth and power of the homelands; and this race for overseas possessions with many a war among the rivals continued through the following centuries more or less intermittently to the present time. Settlements were encouraged at advantageous spots, and charters were granted to trading corporations giving them large tracts of lands and special business privileges. These companies, in turn, offered various in- ducements to emigrants to go to the colonies. The British, Dutch, and French gave more attention to active colonization than did the Spanish and Portuguese, who were concerned chiefly with exploita- tion. The love of adventure and the hope of material reward from dame fortune sent many thousands of Europeans overseas to the newly discovered areas. This motive kept up a steady stream of individuals and groups from the Old World to the newer parts of the earth throughout the succeeding centuries. Among them were men, women, and children; the rich and poor; the educated and ignorant; the skilled workman and the bond servant. By the close of the eighteenth century the two Americas had been largely explored and partially settled at advantageous points along the coasts, and here and there inland, by the British, Irish, Scotch, Dutch, Swedes, French, Germans, Spanish, and Portuguese. Somewhat less than four millions of Europeans and their descendants were living in the New World under ideas and institutions trans- planted from the Old World. The Dutch and French Huguenots had gone to South Africa. The Danes were in Iceland and Greenland. In Asia the British, Dutch, French, Portuguese, Spanish, and Russians had trading posts and some settlements, and a profitable exchange of goods was under way. Great Britain was sending undesirable crimt- nals to Australia, and Russia had a few trading posts in Alaska. Thus European civilization had been firmly planted in North and South America, and in South Africa and northern Asia. At the same time some points of contact had been established with the native peoples of America, Africa, and Asia through conquests and commerce. But in all the continents outside of Europe vast stretches of territory were still unexplored by Europeans. With the loss of the Thirteen Colo- nies and the Latin-American colonies, however, the European states,al TAVEVUEVEAVOUOVEREANOUTEUTTONUODEDIAUOUUNANNANORRNNANOOUDRUDNOUEDNADNRAUORRREOY Chap. XXVIII] OLD AND NEW IMPERIALISM 423, for a time, lost interest in colonies as profitable investments. ‘“Col- onies are like fruits,’’ said Turgot, “they cling to the mother-tree only until they are ripe.” The half century following the overthrow of Napoleon formed a transitional period between the old and the new colonial movement. The expansion of European civilization to other parts of the world, in spite of the pronounced indifference, was more remarkable than in any previous century. France, undeterred by the loss of her earlier colonial empire in America and India, and exhausted by twenty-five yeats of war, had interfered in Egypt and planted her flag in Algeria within fifteen years after the fall of Napoleon. Drawn on by the necessity of protecting her commerce from the Barbary pirates, France at first only occupied a few seaports, but between 1830 and 1848 her authority was extended by conquest over all of Algeria. Not since the days of Rome had that region been brought under the reign of law and developed economically. The few posts held on the west coast of Africa about the mouth of the Senegal, as remnants of her old empire, were enlarged, and Frenchmen began to dream of an empire in north Africa. In Asia, France still held several cities in India and China. The maltreatment of missionaries in Annam led to war in 1858 and 1862 the result of which was the cession of Cochin China to France. In the Pacific and Indian oceans, France also claimed Mada- gascar and obtained control over Tahiti and the Marquesas Islands in 1842, and New Caledonia in 1855. These were the substantial beginnings of the new French colonial empire. Meanwhile Russia cast greedy eyes on European Turkey and was pushing her empire into Asia in three directions: (1) over the Caucasus towards Persia, which was reached by 1825; (2) into west central Asia, where Afghanistan, Bokhara, and the Kirghiz deserts were penetrated by 1848; and (3) into the Far East, where in 1858- 60 the Amur provinces with the port of Valadivostok on the Pacific ocean were secured from China. Thus Russia made one of the first impacts against the Mohammedan civilization and became both a Mohammedan and a Pacific power. In 1875 Japan was forced to cede to Russsia the southern half of Sakalin island. These acquisitions brought Russia into the full stream of world politics and gave her the greatest Continuous empire of any nation on earth. Austria, driven out of both Germany and Italy, turned her attention towards the Balkans and the eastern Mediterranean. The opening of China and Japan to intercourse with the western states not only gave a tre- mendous impetus to world trade but also encouraged some of the western powers to attempt to secure control over rich ports and ‘spheres of influence”’ in the Far East. In the New World, the United States had added to Louisiana and Florida, Texas and the southwestern portion of her present area. Treaties with England gave her possession of the regions of Oregon and Washington. Alaska was purchased from Russia in 1867 and Liberia was established TVOOQATUONATUOSTOVOOATUQQNTIUOQAQIOQQOONUOQAIIOOQADILL TTT France Russia Saat ) RD L Tae L al e T wero — oe SpenT AUREUS ISLER Ec See Te BET es a LES ae Se De pene semen ll Srna at TON iE NO ose - sce ecerer oer einerrens ETr SS = : ae ee eee A 5 is Ee a Sy Oe RS Toa 424 MODERN WORLD HISTORY = [Chap. XXVII in Africa. Thus the spirit of imperialism was working as powerfully in the young Republic of the New World as in the monarchies of the Old World. The new American empire stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific was next in continuous extent only to that of Russia, and far richer in natural resources. Into this area poured a mighty flood of immigrants from Europe until by 1878 the population was 50,000,000, exceeding that of any European state except Russia. It was left to Great Britain, however, to play the leading rdle in empire-building during this period. She was mistress of the seas and in a sense without a rival in the world. The Industrial Revolu- tion had brought her wealth and the necessity of having world markets. Ihe empire which she possessed in 1815, already the largest on earth, was extended and added to during the next half century. More than any other nation she was expanding Kuropean civilization over the globe, opening up new continents, and giving the word empire anew meaning. But her expansion seemed to be haphazard and without fixed policy. Her statesmen did not want further over- seas expansion, but her commerce forced it, and the flag followed trade. Her harsh penal code made the transportation of criminals to distant lands necessary. Restless adventurers and zealous mission- aries became unofficial agents of imperialism. The Russian menace in western Asia forced Great Britain to extend the frontier of India northward. Rebellions in Burma led to the conquest of that region. In South Africa, Kaffir wars and quarrels with the Boers resulted in the annexation of Natal, Orange River territory, and the Transvaal. Australia and New Zealand were added to the empire. In this way political necessity caused the colossal empire to become still more colossal, until by 1878 it was the largest the world had ever known. Further, the triumph of free trade, and its extension to the colonies, opened this vast empire to commerce with all nations, and left the British the sole function of keeping peace and enforcing law as a trustee of civilization. The governmental authority exercised over this mighty area with its pronounced diversity of race, religion, and civilization, was loose and indifferent. Defenders of imperialism in the mother country asserted that the empire would furnish oppor- tunities for trade with the motherland, would drain off the surplus population, would open fields for missionary endeavor, and would enable the British to civilize the backward peoples. Opponents of imperialism called it unwise and an “‘immoral product of brute force, regardless of the rights of the conquered peoples.”’ 5. [He New Impertaistic Spirit After nearly a century of comparative indifference to colonization Overseas, there began about 1878 a revival of interest that soon be- came contagious. This new colonial movement sought to European- ize the peoples of the earth and, during the past half century, has been one of the most potent forces in world history. The entire globeaWiadhadi i MITTTAAHA TAT TTRH TERT TE HETTTTLTT MVOTATTATTTUTAUTVNTVECVATUETUONYENTOCUOCONTOUNUUNAUTKORTORYONOUVUUEURERAFONEOEAUONOUEVRTOALONQONDIUNONDURIDLIOLIOUOROUE HVVHUVELIVELIVL ERT ey | Chap. XXVII] OLD AND NEW IMPERIALSM 425 from pole to pole has been explored and divided among the more aggressive nations. The great continents of Africa and Asia have been mapped and carved up into colonies, “spheres of influence, © protectorates, and mandates. Great Britain, Russia, France, Hol- land, Portugal and the United States extended their colonial empires. Germany, Italy, Japan, and Belgium acquired new overseas empires. Spain lost all her colonies except those in Africa. To the barbarous and backward peoples was carried a new wave of western civilization — languages, institutions, laws, justice, fashions, foods, manu- factures, opportunities for trade, education, and the Christian faith. Unfortunately, the peaceful penetration of missionaries, teachers, and business men was too frequently preceded or followed by wars of conquests. In the face of protests from the conquered peoples, who desired to live their own lives in their own way, and from anti- imperialists at home, who denounced “‘the invasion of the sacred rights of free men’’ as unjust, the march of western civilization swept across the earth. This recent manifestation of imperialism was more than merely a revival of the old forces and motives. The religious and political incentives of the earlier centuries were still active, it is true, but industrialism, nationalism, and science, late products of the west, now became fundamental factors in the movement. The Industrial Revolution produced a surplus of goods, money, and energy for the exploitation of Latin America, Africa and Asia. The railroad, tele- graph, and printing-press facilitated the work. The needs of the modern industrial states forced them to look not only for better markets and more lucrative opportunities for investment, but also for larger sources of food, clothing, and raw materials. Soon mil- lions of dollars were invested abroad in mines, oil wells, factories, transportation lines, banks, and plantations. Tens of thousands of enterprising men were sent out to manage these investments, new colonies were planted, and centers of western civilization established. The economic changes led to the scientific development of old colo- nies and to a keen scramble for new ones. The inventions and dis- coveries; labor-saving machinery; better business organization, and a greater supply of trained workers, which developed the mighty industrial states, were quickly reflected in altered world relations. Free trade gave way to high tariffs for the protection of industries, and world trade developed by leaps and bounds. The more highly industrialized states found themselves depending to a greater degree than ever before upon all parts of the globe not only for markets but also for supplies of various kinds to keep their factories running and to feed their workers. The French Revolution, followed by political upheavals in other countries, placed government in the hands of the middle class. The patriotic nationalism, which was aroused, gloried in the increase of the power and territory of the state. Every new conquest, every Irresistible march of empire The nature of the new imperialism =! — + — a Yaa a wr nes ke I SSS ae ee426 MODERN WORLD HISTORY = [Chap. XXVII acquisition of an additional “‘sphere of influence,’’ and every gain in Nationalism world trade was applauded. The intense nationalism, which ap- oe seared after the unification of Italy and Germany, gave popul ar sup- mpe ai ¢5971 : | port to the policy of expansion. The praise of the national state as the highest type of political organization, produced the conviction that it was the supreme duty of the nation to grow until it became the largest, strongest, and richest group on earth. Statesmen inspired their people to believe in the nation’s “divine mission’’ and right to a) eplace Anicthe suns “God has assigned the German people a place in the world,’’ said a German chancellor. “‘The Anglo-Saxon race is infallibly destined to be the predominant force in the history and civilization of the world,’’ boasted the Englishman, Chamberlain. ‘Colonization is for France a question of life and death,”’ said Leroy- Beaulieu. ‘“‘We must play a great part in the world,’’ urged Roose- velt. Hence every time the red, green, yellow, and blue spots on the map of the world were enlarged, the home people applauded the spread of their institutions and civilization The = unhealthy spirit of pride in mere dominion’’ found a pow- erful ally in the new science and technology, which brought the forces of nature under its control and made the organized conquest of the earth an easy task almost within one generation. Trans sportation, communication, the deadly firearms, and modern engineering were powerful aids. The progress in medical science conquered many diseases and enabled the white man to live in the tropics. Cold de it possible to carry fruits, meats and other foodstuffs from the hot to the colder piiaree The improved science of finance and credit facilitated the most distant undertakings. Far-away peoples were brought within a few days of Europe or America. Na- tions needed no longer to be self-supporting because they could easily replenish their needs from all parts of the globe. Thus in many different ways science helped to spread western civilization to all storage Ma ~~ corners of the earth. Christian workers, as sort of an advance guard of western civilization, were materially aided by this scientific progress. They opened schools and universities, founded hos pitals taught law and medicine, and spread the scientific knowledge and arts of the western world to pagan peoples around the globe. Modern economics, politics, science and religion have enabled the more aggressive nations to lay the rest of the world under tribute. Every square mile of the backward regions of the earth has been staked off for administrative control. A steady stream of merchan- dise and of people has gone from the highly civilized nations to the Triumph of the less highly civilized groups. Most important of all has been the i aia spread of machine technology from Europe and America to other a9 parts of the world. At the same time, the products of the retarded areas have been carried home to meet the wants of the industrial states. Thousands of young men and women from Asia and Africa have been educated in the western institutions of learning. In allj WHR EaRaUaeae i Weaanea Ween Weeneaae MPTVTTTTTTPATUTRETHRUEUNTATTTRDUREUNTTEERONUUNTRENOOEUUTVVRDURRRURVARDROOURRBRARROEGE WURARAGAE dane Chap. XXVIII] OLD AND NEW IMPERIALISM 427 these ways the civilization of Europe, which first expanded to North and South America, has spread until its influence is felt to a greater or lesser degree among all peoples in Asia, Africa, and the islands of the seas. The results have been both good and evil. Whiskey, opium, and guns too frequently accompanied Bibles to heathen lands. The countries, which defended national freedom at home, too often became the destroyers of national freedom in Africa and Asia. Even the most democratic governments were slow to extend democratic institutions to their black, red, yellow, and brown colonies. Along with the spread of western civilization went the creation of misunderstandings, hatreds, ‘sore spots,’’ and ‘‘ arenas of friction,’ which left the world in 1914 1n a critical condition. If the overseas expansion of Europe was an epoch-making move- ment of world-wide significance to non-European peoples, the reac- tion on the west was almost as important. The introduction of new commodities changed the life and habits of Europe and America. Rubber, petroleum, copra, nitrate of soda, fruits, rice, cocoa, tea, spices, oriental rugs, and articles of dress and adornment from India, China and Japan left their effects. Gold from Australia and South Africa increased the volume of money and altered the technique of credit and banking. Western industry was stimulated and surplus capital accumulated. The autocratic rule of colonials abroad, it was said, weakened democratic institutions athome. Imperialism used up the national funds for gigantic armaments by land and sea, and thus augmented taxes and increased the cost of living athome. Thou- sands of young men were given a valuable training in colonial ad- ministration. Political experiments were made in the colonial laboratories. Great Britain and the United States followed the practice of colonial autonomy, while France in Algeria adopted the principle of assimilation. The world became a laboratory for the natural sciences, and the new data which was accumulated was utilized in geography, cartography, geology, biology, astronomy, zodlogy, botany, forestry, chemistry, and medicine. Men like Darwin and Huxley were enabled to set forth the theory of evolution. The so- cial sciences were advanced by the accumulated information concern- ing different peoples and their cultures. Anthropology, ethnology, comparative philology and religion, law, sociology, the evolution of politics, and economics were all aided. Philosophy, literature, the drama, music, and art were enriched. Perhaps the greatest single result may be summed up in the increased knowledge of man. REFERENCES FOR FURTHER STUDY L. Wooxr, Economic Imperialism (1922); J. A. Hosson, Imperialism: a Study (1902); S. P. Ortu, The Imperial Impulse (1916); P. S. Reinscu, World Politics at the End of the Nineteenth Century (1900); Colonial Government (1902); Colonial Administration (1904); A. ZIMMERMAN, Die europaischen Kolonien, 5 vols. (1896-1903); V. Cuirox, Orient and Occident (1924); H. C. Morris, The History of Colonization, 2 vols. (1908); P. Lgroy- ACTORS a Effect of overseas expansion on European culture28 MODERN WORLD HISTORY |\Chap. XXVII ; Beau tizev, De la colonization chez les peuples m odernes, 6th i dition, 2 vols. (1908); P. 1’E. J € DE LA LRAMERYE, The World-Stri gel ‘or Oil [924 ),; J »: DENNIS, Protestant Misstons and ctal Progress, vols. (1897-1906 C. H. Patron, The Business of Missions 1924 5 R. E. Spzer, Missions and Modern History, a Study of Some of the Missionary Aspects of Som { cr , T y of the Great iN MACDONALD, Irade INd C , “ A . . 7 "7 \/7 oe oi . ’ } - Cc | Be tu Politi J: and C/ rr (tid im Ory? : : ; Ale Vid ce 5 7 ) Macy : I OI 5 ‘ O A . J . man. The New Worla 922): he Expansion of Europe (1916); E. A. Pratt of Rail-Power in War and Conquest, 1833-1914 (1916); E. M. Earte, Turkey, th mre) > The Kise - Modern Europe (1917); Ole d of Histor} - H. A. Grssons, An , » » , — . . y > ? } - ~ . rn ; sent 7 i FAnlahar ~ Introduct: if Ui VbsP ies \ a ‘ pee oes fet t oT is ber Cover d/ \~7 iv nT HEE MUVTATRTTOTATTUTV TUT VUUTHAT ETAT UTANTALV TANT AUT OEVETOPADTOTVATOEDURGEAOAUEGEUOLAUVONVEROEONUONDEQOLUOTINEVONAOUOLE CHAPTER XXVIII THE OLD WORLD IN THE NEW t. EKuROPE IN AMERICA Tue history of North and South America is merely an expansion and an extension of European history. The American republics are largely nations of immigrants. American civilization 1s European Civ- ilization, transplanted and developed by several centuries of growth undera freer environment. All Europe today is the homeland of white Americans. The early settlements resulted from efforts of six Euro- pean nations to establish overseas colonial empires. During the sixteenth century the Europeans, who actually colonized the New World, were Spaniards and Portuguese, Catholic in religion and Latin in race. In the seventeenth century came the Teutonic groups from northern Europe — British, Dutch, Swedes, and Germans, who were mostly Protestants; and the Celtic Irish and Latin French, who were largely Catholics. The eighteenth and nineteenth centuries saw these earlier colonists increased by the arrival of hundreds of thou- sands of newcomers from the motherlands. About 1890 there began an influx of immigrants from southern and eastern Europe, which continued until the outbreak of the World War. From first to last the total number of Europeans who settled in the New World ap- proximated 75,000,000 persons. The following sections of the New World were originally claimed and settled by Old World political groups: (1) Spain held Florida, California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Mexico, Central America, Cuba, Santo Domingo, Porto Rico, and most of the northern, west- ern and southern portions of South America. (2) Portugal restricted her claim to the vast domain of Brazil. (@) France staked off as her portion the St. Lawrence basin, the region of the Great Lakes, and the Mississippi valley. (4) Great Britain took possession of most of the Atlantic coast from Newfoundland to Florida, and laid claim to the regions westward to the Pacific. (5) Sweden seized the Delaware river valley. (6) Holland acquired the site of New York City and the Hudson river region, and Dutch Guiana. (7) Russia secured Alaska. The great European wars of the seventeenth century, and particu- larly of the eighteenth, were fought, in part at least, over colonial empires in America. With the sale of Louisiana to the United States in 1803, France lost all her colonies in the New World except Haiti, French Guiana, and a few small islands. In 1867 Russia sold Alaska to the United States. With the independence of the Spanish-American 429 | Colonial empires in the Americas PEUUEOANUAEOEETUETAREST EAT i eg ga eT. ee ee ee aes ere ell as be eed Leen ee Se. ela ieee ment REE nee nm ; = Nee, rae ae _ 2 Se pr a ae aSe a a ce et Bein ods — " a nena eeEDeeaeS sweet Te aCe SS = Ee ee Pt a A arg Sg cr Date ee ge a ee teens tein a eee Cultures of th € fwo Americas j MODERN WORLD HISTORY Chap. XXVIII lics, Spain surrendered control over her vast colonial empire in the New World except in Cuba and Porto Rico, taken from her in the Spanish-American War in 1898. Brazil in 1822 declared her separation from Portugal. Great Britain had to ac- knowledge the freedom of her Thirteen Colonies in 1783, but she still holds Canada, which was taken from France by war, Newfoundland, and Labrador in North America: British Honduras in Central America; British Guiana in South America: and the Se Iva, which were also islands of Bermuda, Bahamas Ragose Turks, Jamaica, Windward. Leeward Trinidad, and eeeps . Ihe American portion of the British Empire covers 4,00¢ square miles, and has a population of 11,000,000 people. Fallin a stil] owns Du tch Gut lana ae JO ,O000 inhabitants. oe sold the West Islands to the Unite ates, which also ecured jurisdiction over Florida, Texas. and ee southwestern part of the country — al] ee parts of the Spanish colonial empire. Today all of America is compos a of free and sovereign states, with the exception of the small] he yidings of Holland and France, and of the larger possessions of Great Rate on. Canada, however, manages her Own affairs almost as soa as any other American state. The institutions of America above the M exican border have come to be predominantly Anglo-Saxon. The early Spanish, Dutch, Swedes, Germans, and French except those about Montreal and Quebec, have ~ ve been assimilated by the English-speaking colonists, and have taken their institutions and modes of life. The language 1 customs are chiefly English, the laws and political forms are Anglo-Saxon, and the religion is mostly Protestant. Below the Mexican border, the Central and South American institutions and ideals are predomina < Latin. The language is Spanish, except in Brazil, where it is Po yrtuguese, and in Haiti, where it is French. The laws and machinery of government are mostly Latin, although some of the constitutions are modelled after that of the Uni ited States. The religion is Roman Catholic. The music. art. literature, culture, and social usages are copied after the Romance countries of Europe. Although it is quite apparent everywhere that the life and civiliza- tion of the New World was transplanted from the Old World, never- theless a different environment in a new country necessitated many changes and readjustments. Class differences, for instance, tended to disappear, and a more pronounced democratic spirit prevailed. Progress towards a higher civilization for all the people was more rapid. The struggle with the wilderness developed resourcefulness, self-reliance, initiative, and independence, hence it was much easier to break with the old ways and traditions. Left to shift for them- selves by the home governments, the first Americans gradually de- veloped a civilization which, while fund. amentally European, tended more and more to become char: acteristically American. If there was less refinement, there was at the same time more earnest- ness and more self-sufficiency. As a result two new racial groups andMTTTTTTTVTRATTTiiTTiilT TUTTVTVTTTTTTTTTNTTATUTTETTTTTT ATTA TTL , Teena anne TE UNTTTNTTOTTVTTTOTTANT TTY TONTUNTUGTOATOVVINGTUGUEATAUATVGTTGATUGTIVAIENTUGEODOE LH Le RROReeaReeneananae HEUER TEED EE } ae PEPUTPUERT ETP Seana ae - ey cen Se im vis a el ee ee Oe RTS be aie a Chap. XXVIII] THE OLD WORLD IN THE NEW 431 2 appeared — in the north, American Anglo-Saxons; in the south, Rise of American Latins. Both groups in some ways resembled Europeans ee. and in other ways differed from the people of the Old World. ee One of the most conspicuous results of the gradual divergence of America from Europe in ideas, institutions, and modes of life was the movement for political independence, first in the north and then in the south. The more progressive English colonies, which enjoyed a measure of self-government from the outset, slowly became con- scious of a conflict between their own rights and interests, on the one hand, and the policy of the mother country, on the other. When British statesmen sought to increase their control over the colonies and to force them to bear a just share of the burdens of imperial government, the colonists first boldly protested the invasion of their liberties, then rebelled, and finally declared their complete independ- ence. The Thirteen Colonies organized themselves as the United States with jurisdiction over a region stretching from Canada to Florida and from the Atlantic to the Mississippi. The successful example of the northern Republic, led the Latin-American colonies to revolt against Spain, Portugal, and France. By 1830 ten Latin- American nations were established — Haiti, Mexico, the Central American Federation, Great Colombia, Peru, Bolivia, the Empire of Brazil, Paraguay, Chile, and Argentina. In spite of the creation of these independent states in the New World, the relationships with the Old World have in a great many ways grown more intimate. during the past century than they were before. This fact, which is of much significance in world history, Relations with has been due to the following influences: (2) the persistence of Ferope sentimental, racial, and cultural ties; (2) the advance in trans- portation, communication, and the printing-press; (3) the unprece- dented development of international trade and finance; (4) the constant stream of immigrants flowing from the Old World into the New; and (5) the numerous travellers coming and going between America and Europe. Through these various processes America was being continually Europeanized, and the change is still going on. Millions of Europeans brought to the new nations overseas their home ideas, habits, customs, and institutions, and incorporated them into the new Americanized European life, which they found awaiting them. It has been estimated that in 1776 about half of the people of the Thirteen Colonies were non-English, although only 20 per cent of them could not speak the British tongue. Since 1776 possibly 40,000,000 immigrants have come to the United States alone. The number coming each year has increased from 8,000 in 1820 to more than 1,200,000 in 1914. Prior to the Civil War most of the recent arrivals came from northern Europe, driven out by famine or reyo- lution, or secking better economic opportunities. Most of them European were persons with a fairly high degree of intelligence, who brought he est some wealth with them, and were widely distributed over the eS ek Pao re See ng SE peer Br 3 a a en a nS a al seat ere rae a tisTepee? SS eres Sa habs Sacha pea eesan pier Srepenieanten-teeettic oestnemanneer oS — ama ath eee Face al Ba SO aD de gam emai Ys A ame Aah rien te Weer ee as a OS _* ¥ 432 MODERN WORLD HISTORY (Chap. XXVIII Ve nation and hence readily assimilated. They were welcomed in the factories, mines, and forests; and employed to work on the farms, railroads, and canals. After the Civil War, immigration from north- ern Europe decreased and that from southern and eastern Europe increased. From 1820 to 1920 there had come to the United States alone from: Austria-Hungary, 4,000,000; Belgium, over 100,000; Scandinavia, 2,000,000; France, 524,000; Germany, 6,000,000; Greece, 383,000; Holland, 215,000; Italy, 4,000,000; Poland, P »7Ro C00: WN 5 ortugal, 160,000; Rumania, 76,000; Russia, 3,000,000; Switzerland, 257,000; and Great Britain and Ireland, 8,000,000. In addition to these arrivals directly from Europe, a secondary inva- sion has come from Canada and Latin America. In 1921-2 there were 6,500 foreign students in the institutions of higher learning in the United States. They came from all parts of the globe and 761 of them were women. These students were widely distributed over the coun- try and were studying all sorts of subjects. As a result of this influx of Europeans, about 15 per cent of the entire population is foreign- born. In some states such as Rhode Island, Connecticut, Massa- chusetts, and New York, the aliens make up a third or more of the people. In many of tl outnumber the native-born. With the comin: (Fy -~ 1e large cities of the north, the foreign-born of 6,000,000 of the Latin race and 4,000,000 Slavs, the Anglo-Saxon character of the United States is undergoing marked modifications. While the immigration from Europe to Latin America during the past century has been chiefly from the Latin nations, still the Teu- tonic and Slavic stocks have found their way into that part of the world and are leaving an impression on Latin-American civilization. To Argentina, for example, between 1857 and 1915 went 4,709,000 foreigners, among whom were 2,300,000 Italians, 1,500,000 Span- iards, 215,000 French, 162,000 Russians, 87,000 Austrians, 62,000 Germans, 56,000 British, 33,000 Swiss, 27,000 Portuguese, 13,000 Greeks, 9,000 Danes, 8,000 Dutch, and 7,000 North Americans. To Brazil between 1820 and 1915 went 3,364,000 immigrants, mostly Portuguese, with a few Spaniards, Italians and Germans. Most of the 26,000 immigrants to Chile from 1904 to 1914 were Spaniards. Of the 117,000 foreigners in Mexico in 1910 about 30,000 were Span- iards, 29,000 North Americans, and 50,000 Latin Americans. In Paraguay of the 60,000 foreigners in 1916 about 29,000 were Argen- tines, and the rest Italians, Germans, Spaniards, and French in the order named. Uruguay in 1908 had 181,000 foreigners of whom the Italians were the most numerous, and the Spaniards, Brazilians, Argentines, and French coming next in number. Immigration to most of the other Latin-American republics has been comparatively small. For the past century perhaps not over 15,000,000 European immigrants have gone to Latin America. The invasion of America, from Canada to Argentina, during the past hundred and fifty years by 70,000,000 immigrants from all theChap. XXVIII] THE OLD WORLD IN THE NEW 433 European countries has colored and modified the civilization of the New World in a hundred different ways. During that same period hundreds of thousands of native-born North and South Americans have gone to Europe for business, travel, and study, and have car- ried back to their homes in America European influences that helped to mould the life and thought of their native countries. At the same time many Europeans have gone to America, not as settlers, but as visitors, sightseers, business agents, students, and lecturers, and thus helped to interpret Europe to Americans. European capitalists have invested billions of dollars in the New World. London, Berlin, Paris, Rome, Madrid, Vienna, and Lisbon have set the standards for dress, art, music, recreation, and education. The printing-press, cheap communication and transportation, and commerce have helped to create a common public opinion and a community of interest on both sides of the Atlantic. The fundamental standards and values of life are today much the same in Europe and America. As a result of the manifold forces enumerated, it is apparent that in world history America is the offshoot of Europe with the same blood, the same religion, the same general concepts of education, the same kinds of homes and dress, the same industries, the same means of sport and enjoyment, the same legal institutions, and the same customs and modes of living. A Scotchman feels at home in Chile, a Brazilian in Sweden, and a Canadian in Greece. Young ladies from both New York and Rio de Janeiro shop in London and Paris. Artists and medical students from Chicago and Santiago study in Berlin and Rome. American college graduates continue their studies in European universities. America might well be called the New Europe, in some respects more advanced and in others less. Europe is more ancient, on the whole more conservative, more prone to respect blood and privilege, more aristocratic, more imperialistic, more militaristic, with less material prosperity, and fewer opportunities for the com- mon man. America, four and a half times the size of Europe, has only half the number of people. In Europe one state, Russia, 1s larger than all the others combined; in America three states — Canada, the United States, and Brazil — are each larger than all the other states united. In Europe each state has its own language; in America, English prevails north of the Mexican border, and Span- ish and Portuguese south. On the whole life in America is fuller, freer, and less conventional, and material prosperity is more pro- nounced for a larger proportion of the people. 2. AFRICA AND ASIA IN AMERICA The coming of the white peoples from Europe to the New World was followed almost immediately by the bringing of Negroes from Africa. As early as 1502 Negro slaves were taken to Haiti by the Spaniards. The Dutch first carried black slaves to Virginia in 1619, while the Spanish and Portuguese took them to Latin America. ADTTUTINIOUUCUUOOOT UTI ape European and American culture Sonat aoe” sa eer ey i ate a a eee Se ee EL TTS Akt tk hace sees ee asesanrentaanx anes Grane eee eeea I ae ee SEE Set = Une “ = ae - a ete ale - \ hon betrse—e re a ar Fa ae rl PT ha sa ea ea is ty ; # el & 434 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XXVIII Between 1680 and 1786 over 2,130,000 black slaves were imported to British colonies in America. From 1700 to 1786 as many as 610,000 were transported to Jamaica alone. In the single year of 1790 the English, French, Spanish, Dutch, Danes, and Portuguese carried 74,000 slaves to the New World. Of the 700,000 Negroes in the United States in that year all but 40.000 were in the south. In 1838 it was estimated that there were 4, whom half were in the United States. During the nineteenth century the Negroes in the United States increased ninefold. Today there are 11,000,000 Negroes in the United States and Canada, and one fourth Negroes in America of of them have white blood in their veins. In Mississippi and South Carolina they constitute a majority of the population, while in four other southern states they fall short of the number of whites by only a few hundred thousand. In much of Latin America, where inter- marriage of the whites with the blacks is common, the Negroes are so numerous that they have darkened the skin of the entire popula- tion. In Cuba, Santo Domingo, Haiti, and some of the states of Central America and Brazil, the Negroes constitute the greater part of the population. In Chile and Argentina the Negro has practically disappeared. Perhaps not less than 6,000,000 Negroes exist today in all Latin America. The total number of persons in all America today with African blood in their veins is around 17,000,000, or nearly one tenth of the entire population. It took several centuries for the conviction to grip the Christian whites in Europe and America that the enslavement of the black man was wrong. Early in the eighteenth century the Quakers denounced the practice and later organized a society ‘‘for the relief and liberation of the Negro slaves.’’ In 1776 it was moved in the British House of Commons that the “‘slave trade was contrary to the laws of God and the rights of man,’’ but the motion failed. During the nineteenth century the importation of slaves was gradually prohibited, and finally slavery itself was abolished in all the American states. During the French Revolution “‘ persons of color’’ born of free parents in the colonies were freed. In 1833 slavery in the British“ colonies was abolished, and the owners were compensated. The French Assembly in 1848 freed the slaves in the French colonies. In 1865 slavery was abolished in the United States. Most of the Latin-American republics emancipated the slaves upon securing their political independence. In 1870 Spain passed a law for the gradual freedom of 500,000 slaves in her colonies and fifteen years later the institution had disappeared. In 1871 Brazil freed the slaves owned by the government, and in 1888 abolished slavery entirely, some 700,000 being set free. The African contribution to American civilization was largely in the field of industry as slaves in the rice fields, in cotton growing, on sugar cane and tobacco plantations, and in domestic service. After emancipation they supplied a large part of the paid labor, more particularly in the warmer climates. Their contribution to the cul-He TAVTVAVUAERTAVUTETRUTERRONARTRAUODETISWAUEEROEELATE MTTUVLVURVVARGUHUVAVARTOUERINUUTIORSERORSRRIAD ATTRA GaE Chap. XXVIII] THE OLD WORLD IN THE NEW 435 ture of the whites was negligible except in the crude folk songs and tales. They readily adopted the language, religion, habits, and customs of their masters, but in both North and South America, next to the Indian, they form the most illiterate and least progressive part of the population. The Negroes of the United States are the most civilized and most progressive group of the black race in the world. Their rate of increase in number is relatively only two thirds that of the whites. In recent years they have been leavi ing the south for the industrial centers of the north and west. It has been estimated that the Negroes in the United States own property valued at $300,000,000. Illiteracy is gradually disappearing among them through the various educational agencies established for them, while immorality and crime are slowly receding. In the Latin-American republics where the blacks predominate, there are continual disorders and unstable governments. In some of the states the Indian, Negro, and European have intermarried to such an extent that almost a new race has been created. The presence of such a large group of blacks in a region of the earth which is likely to remain predominantly white pre- sents many grave social, economic, and political problems for the future. In recent years an Asiatic invasion of America has set in. Geo- graphically North America is more closely connected with Asia than with Europe. Hawaii, Samoa, and the Philippines, the United States has become an Asiatic power. Meanwhile about the middle of the last century China and Japan were opened up to trade with the west. Silks, tea, firecrackers, and chinaware found a ready market in the New World. Soon Chinese immigrants began to go to the United States, and be- tween 1850 and 1860 they increased from 10,000 to 40,000. In the next decade or so many additional thousands were employed to build the trans-continental railroads and to work in the western mines. American labor organizations protested against the influx of these Chinese “‘coolies,’’ and in 1882 Congress exelnded Chinese laborers for a period of ten years. The law has been renewed every decade since, but it has not prevented thousands of Chinese merchants, students, and travellers from coming to the United States without molestation. Of the 288,000 Chinese who reached the United States prior to 1883, many of them settled on the Pacific coast, while others were scattered in small groups all over the country. In 1910 there were 72,000 Chinese in the United States, and 46,000 were located in the Pacific states. The census of 1920 showed a decline of about 10,000. This indicates that more than three fourths of the Chinese returned to their native land. In 1908 there were 17,000 Chinese in Canada and three years later the number exceeded 27,000. Following the example of the United States, Canada has also sought to exclude Chinese immigration. Barred from the United States and Canada, the Chinese began to go to Latin America. In 1910 there were 13,000 With the purchase of Alaska, and the annexation of The Mongolian F in America Chinese DURGA Uy — my -————, gereeepeygay te Fe aan mea aaa Nn ip ee ae ae Bee Pn Dan ent eT SSSA EE sae eea See ma Se Fe, —— = — = i Ee ae RE eae alate at i a pee arta oo ween a las > a _ Danese i ther AeaA? Astal Ics Japanese are under contract on the coffee plantations. 436 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XXVIII Chinese in Mexico, 3,500 in the Panama Canal Zone, and similar num- bers in ies states. If to the foreign-born Chinese there be added th American-born, the total number in the New World would probably approximate 200,000. The Japanese began to come to the United States about 1893, and by 1920 they numbered 111,000, of whom over 93,000 were located on the Pacific coast. By the so-called ‘‘gentleman’s agreement”’ in 1908, President Roosevelt sought to che ck the coming of the Japa- nese. In 1924 Congress passed an act provi din a for complete ean of the Japanese. They have found a welcome in Latin America. In Peru 2 per cent of the population is Asiatic, working on the sugar plantations nd 60,000 Japanese are Brazil offered to Japan a grant of 122,500 acres of | and in San P aula with the privilege of buying more, and free transportation to Japanese emigrants. Probab sly 30,000 Mexico and Chile have made overtures to them, and a sprinkling is found in most of the other states. Although the Hindus have been kept out of Canada and the United States, there are more than 100,000 immigrants from India and the East Indies in British and Dutch Guiana. Within the past quarter of a century 311,000 immigrants from Asiatic Turkey, mostly Syrians, Armenians and Turks, have come to the United States: while over 100,000 have found their way to Latin America. Argen- tina alone has 87,000 Syrians and Turks, Mexico 4,500 Turks and Arabs, and other states many more. All told, probably less than a million Asiatics have gone to the New World during the past seventy- five years, and about half of that number have made their homes in Latin America. Like the Negroes, the cultural contributions of the Mongolians and Hindus to America have been slight. In the field of industry they have supplied labor to build the railroads, to work the mines, to raise fruit, coffee and sugar cane, toman the fisheries of the north P acific, and to do the truck farming. In 1920 the Japanese were tilling 463,000 acres and the Chinese 57,000 acres in the United States alone. Many of these orientals are engaged in business enterprises of their own, and have their own banking institutions. Thrifty and industrious, with a remarkable capacity for imitation, they are slowly being assimilated by western civilization. Japanese steamship lines run to both North and South America and c: imry On a tremendous commerce between the Orient and America. The western Asiatics, particularly the Syrians and the Armenians, find as little difficulty in adapting themselves to the ways of their new home as do the Europeans. Although the lower classes of the orientals mingle freely with the Indians and Negroes, yet the higher classes cultivate association with the whites, and intermarriages are not uncommon. Despite these contacts of the civilization of the New World with the native Indians, the Africans, and the Negroes, it has remained European in character as in origin, and yet at the same time it has been modified to meet7 pif , | we th een Weaeeaae TEUeROaenae | ean ;3) Peeper meaner reer TTT TTOTTETTT TET TT TMT TTOSTOTEVTTYOVUTTFPOTTVVTUTOVAUTVENUN VERTU TOVONTOGTIEQACTOOTOOGAOUGTITOGNTCQTINUGNTIUOQTIUOAAUUOQTAOQITOVOTUVGNILVOAONQSQOLOSHIUON0IN00)})youpiaa ii SN a eet, Chap. XXVIII] THE OLD WORLD IN THE NEW 437 altered conditions. It has spread over the two continents, and has been adopted largely by the black, red, and yellow races. REFERENCES FOR FURTHER STUDY J. R. Commons, Races and Immigrants in America (1905); 1. Hourwics, Immigration and Labor (1913), new edition (1925); E. A. Sreiner, The Immigrant Tide (1909); P. Davis, Immigration and Americanization (1920); P. Berne, L’immigration Europtenne en Argentine (1915); A. B. Faust, The German Element in the United States, 2 vols. (1909); H. J. Forp, The Scotch-Irish in America (1915); Grace Assott, Immigration: Select Docu- ments and Reading (1924); H. P. Fatrcuixp, Greek Immigration to the United States (1911); G. T. From, A History of Norwegian Immigration to the United States (1909); J. Davis, The Russian Immigrant (1923); T. Carex, The Cechs (Bohemians) in America (1920); E. G. Batcu, Our Slavic Fellow Citizens (1910); E. Lorn, J. J. D. Trenor, and S. J. Bar- rows, The Italian in America (1905); W. J. THomas, The Polish Peasant in Europe and America, 4 vols. (1917-1923); B. G. Brawxey, A Short History of the Negro in America (1919, 2d ed.); A Social History of the American Negro (1921); U. B. Puiturps, American Negro Slavery (1918); W.E. B. Dusois, The Suppression of the African Slave Trade (1896); Scorr and Stowe, Booker T. Washington (1916); M. R. Cooripce, Chinese Immigration (1909); L. Guticx, The American Japanese Problem (1914); W. B. Pitkin, Must We Fight Japan? (1919); K. K. Kawakami, Asia at the Door (1914); H. A. Mixts, The Japanese Problem in the United States (1915); T. Ivenaca and K. Sato, Japan and the California Problem (1921). TT ae a een tk TSsHAPT ER ZAALA THE UNITED STATES BECOMES A WORLD POWER 1. TERRITORIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION By the time the Civil War broke out in the United mace the L times, making the country one territory had doubled two and a half of the largest on earth. Meanwhile the Industrial Revolution brought wealth and prosperity. The patents for mechanical inven- tions increased from 80 in 1812 to §,000 in 1860, and included, among 7 others, the reaper, threshing machine, planing mull, revolver, cook- stove. matches, the steam hammer, sewing machine, and rotary printing-press. About 28,000 miles of railroads covered the nation east of Omaha. Ocean liners were crossing the Atlantic in nine days, and the American merchant marine was eres than that of Great Britain. ne of corporations were engaged in shipping, mining, and manufacturing. The exports exceeded the imports by $12,000,000. Many thousands of immigrants were drawn from northern Europe to take their places in industry and to fill the un- occupied lands of the middle west. The war between the North and the South, however, neces | industrial progress for a decade or more. Following the Civil War the South, after the : ro ylition of slave labor, gradu aly adapted it elf to new industrial conditions, and in addition to an improvement in agriculture also developed iron and coal mines, lumbering, fruit growing, and cotton mills. In the north there was a rush to the fertile lands of the west; the lumber industry flourished; and factories of all kinds multiplied with the investment of capital in thousands of new enterprises. In the entire nation the number of manufacturing establishments in 1919 numbered more than 290,000 and were employing over 9,000,000 workers. The value of their products exceeded Be hs O00, while the exports rose above $8,000,000,000. The total horsepower used in manufacturing between 1869 and 1919 multiplied fifteen times, and electricity, gaso- line, and oil were rapidly replacing water, wind and steam as the sources of power. The total national w ealth increased from $16,000,- 000,000 in 1860 to $350,000,000,000 in 1920. The quantity of coal ee laced has increased 97 times, pig iron 71, wheat 9, cotton 6, and corns. There are around 40,000 patents issued in a single year. The first trans-continental railroad was completed in 1869 and fifty years later the railways in the United States would girdle the globe more than tentimes. These evidences of unparalleled material growth help 438ae 4 an Th MVUUUATEAUOUAATARAREORATUUARORAORUATAORDORRET: HEEL NCL eee MUTA TOTTI TUAVATAUTELAAUGUTANCOEOUEAUONENEOUUERTOOUNTRUOOCEVOAUUEAVAVOUELASODDELIGORUUDEOODNTIOGUENNVOUUESTIOGEAILOMUUNREOALADID AUPTRUUTTLURUTPUATAERRAAEROREREOEAAOOUTAROEEE HOA we sa — 4 STEGER eee ae ener it a a TT ee ee pa a ae pe pe Be 2 Bs aa ee een LE ann —: f i)iM iy } ie ie ni | it il | Newly», Hebrides”) — he 4 }—__—4- News, "ey Caledomay ° Cr ar ae NS es ee a a {v/il Lw4t : ) —7 Zealand UWreenw. =< a Kartopgraphischenar re rriitiiend) vit WATAURVATTATTUTETERETARRUERRA OO TATRORORUET AERP RT EEL WUVTTTTOATTUTERERUTATTOOTRETRTRUULTNTUNTTERVORVERATOVUROVEQETETROGUERUDNURINDRGUURDREOUISREDRTANERORURARROIUENED SRaDAGaneeaaae ERROR ER PRGRRaUeuad i HH] a 135 120 kO5 ee ee a ee en PTE al et oa — Hudson \ B a V ‘ . = - \ 1 < \ Win eS —<— Ti \ ‘ \ \ V7 \ ‘ \ \ G A g : \ y , . \ uipeg ere A \ D A \ f + New \ ia SN er ~ te ‘ = \ Sa Lede, Fo mal d 50 | \ LL fi 70is —\ | (0 r S Fj \eae \ rr. \ \ (Vucarqo & eanewXork \ i wa ps S , : + 2 Salt Lake CY \ ee Para. N QO 43. ; | Ty, app i. \ mo 40 San PT anc1s co | F WD Praladelphia \ it aa _Tropke of Cancer { te | ek ame aa || i a . > | - ‘ rHorniduras <2 / - Pe aaa} hn | Y | y | rT JSOTRAL. Hal i ‘ . | _- | ( i A : NN yr < = 4 : aeal re | | b \2 fi , Cambiean Sea % aa uate ao Nicaragua | - | | = = > English Miles iV LUALa oO TOO 600 i200 1600 2000 | Sen ee — ene aed, LE ——— 3 } Soren aPeete tat ee i. ? ¥ rt wees EE PE } Wt vee fi : | | | , ! i | | i} | | | | i a Se Nas Dl pera ares ag ee Tere ae enn renee‘whe PEE EEE EEE EEE | | tye i A9 (1912); E. A. Ross, South of Panama (1915 Caribbean (1920); P. Denis, Brazil in the XX* Centur 1910); Ihe Argentine Republi . ‘ . . ) oo . sane of p . ; ma » a . a f . gn 7 1922); P. Berne, L tmmigration européenne en Argentina (1915): G. F. S. Exruror. GC (1909); P. J]. Eper, Colombia (1913); P. F. Martin, Mexico of the Twentieth ( entury (1907); E. D. TrowsripGe, Mexico Today and Tomorrow (1919); |]. Barretr, The Pan-American Union 1911); R. B. Merriman, The Rise of the Spanish Empi the New, Vol. III (1925); J. F. Rippy, The United States and Mexico, 1821-1924 (1926).MUTEATATUTIVUGTOTIOVONUAUOTOT OO NT UUANIONNTQQAONNNOONONOOVANONOAEONONONQOUOAUNNQLONQQUONOIUOUOTONUAUOUUIVOI eT . it VOTE RHOUERRRURRURHRORUURUROOUROUER } i neat 3 60 T i —— ee ramnmnnnasinc natal alana aaa SH aOwugue | Fr) a T \ | poeah | 3 "| Barbados (Br) | | | C a rl b | & * o | Pal | ” £3 Tmvidad (Brit.) | Srapes hese iit oy Og and OT en OME BROS sess Roald rt a Rit = nent ee —_ = r 7y aS eS Te > 3 EY JA | \10 Lin’ «# co — (allao es | \ O Matto Gr ols SSO f } YU 1 / } i | Y i \ a | Titicaca. | ) ; o CLy aba oe 0 ai | 2 Pesan | C | Arey, 6 Sucre | ye / t “AricaX ae fee ate | | ) —_ a ea : | ; 1 male a oF” Preeti, | 20} | fe i | ap | --¢ \? 1 | 7 } ( ricorm ee | | - tropic. of wr 2 eee ener wer marr _ Oe — —— -i sea ae aia Nae we Ps te a as — = British intervention Cecil Rhodes Jameson raid 460 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XX XI British, the Boers in 1836 began the ‘Grand Trek’’ into the wilder- ness. Oncrude carts drawn by oxen, and loaded with their household goods and farming tools, about 10,000 of them journeyed northward into the interior. Some stopped in Natal; others settled in the Orange River valley. When the British caught up with them there, many of them © ‘trekked’’ northward into the Transvaal, where they set a the South African Republic, whose independence was recog- nized by Great Britain in 1852. The freedom of the Orange Free State, which had become subordinate to the British in 1848, was acknowl- edged in 1854. For a quarter of a century thereafter these two frontier Dutch republics mete in security and isolation. The Natal colony was annexed to the British Empire in 1843. Diamonds were ae ea in 1867, and this greatly increased the British interest in that area. Under the imperialistic rule of Lord Beaconsfield in 1877 the Transvaal was seized under the excuse that the Boers had treated the blacks so cruelly that they were incited to rebellion against all the whites. The Boers eee with arms, this loss of their freedom, and in 1884 Gladstone recognized their self- government on condition (1) that all Bites be permitted to live within the territory without any discriminations, and (2) that foreign treaties be made only with the consent of the British govern- ment. Meantime the discovery of gold in 1884 brought thousands of British adventurers into the country. The small vi ill: age of Johan- mene ieee grew into a busy city of 100,000, and soon the Uitl rs,’ or foreigners, outnumbered the Dutch. The sturdy, atesareesive Boers were determined to retain control of their gov- ernment, and Sa passed a law which made it extremely difficult for a foreigner to gain citizenship. The British residents re- sented the imposition of taxes and m1 ilitary service, when they were not allowed to vote, and called upon their home government to protect them in their rights. The leader of the British party in South Africa was Cecil Rhodes, who became a multi-millionaire by developing valuable gold and diamond mines. He had gone to South Africa in 1871 and dreamed of bringing under British control all of southern and eastern Africa, which was then to be traversed by a railroad from Cairo to the Cape. \ business man of exceptional shrewdness and an adventurous states- man, he awaited a favorable opportunity to overthrow the Boer rule. This empire-builder, as prime minister of the Cape, played the part of a benevolent despot and in 1895 helped to instigate the “Jameson raid.’’ With 500 troopers Dr. Jameson entered the Transvaal to over- throw the Boer government, but the effort failed. Rhodes resigned his premiership and died in 1902 leaving his vast fortune to promote the welfare of the British Empire and through it the peace of the world. Associated with him in his imperial scheme was the British statesman, Joseph Chamberlain, who accused the Boers of treating the British as ‘‘helots’’ and with plotting to destroy Anglo-SaxonHVT EEE HTT ETE Chap. XX XI] THE BRITISH EMPIRE 461 institutions in South Africa. The British government, under his influence, insisted that the ‘‘Uitlanders’’ be given a vote and other rights, but the demands were refused by the Boers. The most conspicuous leader of the Boers was Paul Kruger, prest- dent of the Transvaal. As a lad of ten he had gone with his parents on the ‘‘Grand Trek,’ and had grown up as a rough frontiersman with hatred in his heart for the British. As president of the Trans- vaal, he said to the foreigners: “‘This is my country; these are my laws. Those who do not like to obey my laws may leave the coun- try.’’ His obstinate, narrow policy, and the greedy imperialism of Chamberlain, plunged the little republic into war with the British Empire in 1899, and the Orange Free State took up arms with her sister republic. The war was not popular in Great Britain. Huge mass meetings were held to protest against an attack on an inoffen- sive people in South Africa in the interest of South African cap- italists and British imperialists. At first the British armies met with severe defeats, but larger forces under Lord Roberts and Kitchener brought the war to a victorious end in 1902. The Trans- vaal Republic and the Orange Free State became British colonies on terms so liberal that they tended to remove the sting of defeat. The liberality was carried a step further when the two recently conquered Dutch states were granted responsible self-government within seven years after the war closed. In 1909 the four colonies of South Africa drafted a constitution for the Union of South Africa, which was approved by the British Parliament. A federal government patterned after that of Canada was created under which the provinces retained home rule, the national power was placed in the hands of two houses, a cabinet responsible to the popular branch was created, and the governor-general was ap- pointed by the king. To appease both the Dutch and the English, the executive is located at Pretoria in the north, while the legislature sits at Cape Town, and both languages are recognized as legal. Since the Boers were in the majority, General Louis Botha becatne the first prime minister. Arrangements were made to include Rhodesia as a member of the Union. The population of the Union includes only 1,500,000 whites and about 5,600,000 blacks. In 1914 the same men, who a few years before had struggled so heroically to detach South Africa from the British Empire, now fought to prevent Germany from doing the same thing. In 1921 German South West Africa was put under the mandate of the Union of South Africa. The Union 1s re- markably prosperous, but ts confronted by serious racial problems in connection with the Negroes and the Hindus. There are about four blacks to one white, and the black proportion 1s increasing, as a result of the higher birth rate among the Negroes. More than 150,000 Indians have located there and in order to prevent their increase an act in 1919 forbade granting licenses to them for new business enter- prises. It is said that the number of ‘* poor whites”’ is increasing. TEE Boer War Union of South Africa WRARERRARTRARAARDD POVOAUGAEOGRTT TOGA} TCE SDT TE TS Sa i Fah Snr alc ch aT es meena anne ares ee LL ee aetna ae Fae TL eat ae re ea aoS SE ee - = ~ Sk meee ek ee ee er ae ass = tee ed a Sao tec ee wipe le Na tua ane E> oes Ss bs ay oe A a A nti- ( lontalism 462 MODERN WORLD HISTORY — [Chap. XXXI 6. IMPERIAL FEDERATION The imperial federation of these independent commonwealths with the mother country is a question that has been much discussed during the past generation. The gigantic British Empire was built up partly by accident and partly by intention. For three centuries Englishmen have gone to live in new regions overseas and thus carried the British flag and institutions to every part of the globe. Until | -y, Great Britain followed the common practice of making the colonies add to the wealth and power of the motherland. After the loss of the Thirteen Colonies. | there developed a pronounced towards the close of the eighteenth centut change in her attitude which cul- minated in Lord Durham's revolutionary proposals. Thereafter the colonies were left to rule themselves and to develop their own in- h but slight control from home. The new economics stitutions wit led the British government to develop trade with other countries, rather than with her own colonies. simply because it was more profitable. Indeed colonial possessions were viewed indifferently as more of a liability than an advantage, because the homeland was burdened with the cost of a large army and navy to protect them without receiving any adequate financial return. In short it was be- lieved that imperialism did not pay. Liberal statesmen were wont to say with Turgot that a colony was like a pear, which, when ripe, fell from the tree; and hence it should be permitted to become a sovereign state with the blessing of the parent country. Indeed so self-sufficient did the colonies appear to be and of such small value to Great Britain that the office of colonial secretary in the British cabinet was considered of little consequence. In fact, there was no distinct colonial secretary until 1854. On the other hand, the Conserv- atives, more interested than the Liberals in welding the Empire to- gether, charged them with being “‘little Englanders.’’ Fortunately for the British Empire, there was a party that took a sane middle ground. They were led by Edward Gibbon Wakefield, Charles Buller, and Lord Durham. They desired to preserve the Empire, but also to promote local autonomy and self-government. Strange to say, the colonies were more eager than Great Britain to preserve the Empire, for dreading capture by another power, they appreciated the protec- tion she gave them. Thus the bonds of loyalty, affection, and a com- mon civilization helped to preserve the British Empire during the fore part of the nineteenth century. The new imperialism stimulated a fresh attachment between the colonies and the motherland. Popular statesmen like Disraeli aroused the pride of Englishmen everywhere in the wealth and powers of their overseas possessions. Imperialistic organizations, missionary socie- ties, newspapers, lectures, sermons, and books created a revived in- terestinthe Empire. Poets like Kipling urged Great Britain to ‘‘take up the white man’s burden”’ in spreading a higher civilization to theanne aaa Chap. XXXI] THE BRITISH EMPIRE 463 ‘‘lesser breeds’’ throughout the world. At the ‘Diamond Jubilee ”’ held in 1897 to celebrate Queen Victoria’s sixtieth year of rule, there were present, not only the sons of Britain scattered over the earth, but also Chinese, Hindus, Negroes, Malays, Indians, Egyptians, Frenchmen from Canada, and Dutch from South Africa, to emphasize both the solidarity and the complexity of the mighty Empire, which seemed to be born anew. Statesmen and capitalists invested millions in mines, factories, steamships, railroads, and other facilities for developing the resources of the regions overseas. New markets for British goods were opened, and trade with the colonies began to sur- pass that with foreign countries. During the thirty years prior to the outbreak of the World War, British colonial exports almost trebled, as did also the food imports from the colonies. Many thousands of persons in both the home country and the colonies, who had come to think and feel in terms of world trade, reaped the benefit of this new era of business prosperity, and posed as ardent champions of the new economic imperialism. Mindful of these opportunities, the British government sent forth a large group of skilled “‘ empire- builders’’ to hold strategic positions throughout the Empire. Following the Franco-Prussian War, the great powers of con- tinental Europe were divided into two mighty rival alliances, which left Great Britain in a condition of ‘splendid isolation.’’ This dis- quieting situation forced her to inquire what aid her colonies might give her in time of war. The answer came in the Boer War, when Canada, Australia, and New Zealand sent their sons to South Africa to die for the unity and expansion of the Empire. Joseph Chamberlain now labored unceasingly to win the support of Britons at home to the plan for a closer imperial federation. He proposed to unite the Dominions to the motherland in a stronger organization for the good of all. After three imperial conferences, covering a period of twenty years, provision was made in 1902 for meetings of the prime ministers of Great Britain and the self-governing colonies every four years to improve imperial relations in general, and ultimately, per- haps, to perfect the project for a federal union with an imperial par- liament. Trade, likewise, was to be encouraged throughout the Empire by special tariffs. Hence Canada lowered the duties on British goods a third; Australia 30 per cent, and New Zealand 50 per cent, with the expectation that Great Britain would reciprocate in giving preference to colonial goods. In 1919 an act of Parliament applied new preferential duties to all British Dominions, India, and the protectorates, with the hope that such favoritism would greatly stimulate inter-imperial trade. An army and navy supported by all parts of the Empire was also proposed, and in fact for some years the colonies voted contributions for an imperial navy, but about 1900 Australia and Canada demanded the right to create their own navies. The World War revealed the wisdom of the effort to knit the Empire more closely together on the basis of mutual interests. All — j 7 TORU TLAUeeEe | wan aaan WUMRUHTRTANUERUAOTATATUA TRA RRERRPRRNSURORGRNORERANRHARDRRAGBOREDE ECTUTTATTT ELLE CECE EEE Nationalism, commerce and the new imperialisin Movement for imperial federation PUNTEUNLOOEU LT hia ond io ieee ae to be ee a ie ae Nee eae =| ) 7 eeneeeenral464 MODERN WORLD HISTORY = [Chap. XXXI parts of the Empire gave men, money, and materials without stint to the motherland in her hour of need. The war made a Greater British Empire a reality in spirit and common destiny, but it hindered rather than helped imperial federation. A British imperial constitution at present seems to be in abeyance. The Dominions seem to prefer the existing ‘‘indefinite status,’’ which gives them complete independ- ence in everything but name. They exercise even some control over foreign affairs. Canada sends her own representative to the United States, though she never has seen fit to do so before. As self-governing nations they regulate immigration from other lands. Earlier, when Queensland in Australia wanted to take New Guinea and when New Zealand desired to annex an unoccupied island in the Pacific, the British government disallowed the wishes of both. But in the World War Australia and New Zealand were encouraged to seize German possessions in the south Pacific. The right to make war and peace seems to be about the only one of her former imperial rights still re- tained by the British government. In the Paris Peace Conference and in the League of Nations the British Dominions sat and voted as the equals of Great Britain. The new status won by southern Ireland has given the Irish Free State something of the same standing as the other Dominions now enjoy. ; > QOrnrner BritTisH COLONIES The other British overseas possessions include (1) the crown colonies, (2) Egypt, and @) the Empire of India. In population these colonies outnumber the white inhabitants of the rest of the Empire more than sevenfold. Ihe crown colonies, which are scat- tered over Asia, Africa, America, and the islands of the seas differ from the self-governing Dominions in having (1) a small number of British people; (2) seldom any representative legislatures; and (3) a location near or in the tropics. Some of them, like those in the West Indies, are in the condition of the royal colonies in America prior to the Revolution. The higher type of crown colonies such as the Bermudas. Barbados, and Malta, have representative legislatures. The keynote is responsibility not representation. The prevailing type of government, however, is a legislative council named by the crown in part or altogether. Other colonies are ruled by royal commis- sioners. The small islands and coaling stations are in the hands of governors with absolute powers. North Borneo is under the jurisdiction of chartered companies. In Africa and Asia some of the protectorates have native rulers advised by a resident British com- missioner. Thus Great Britain has wisely adapted her form of rule over these backward peoples to local needs and circumstances. Egypt, after the Napoleonic invasion, became a semi-independent state under the able pasha, Mehemet Ali, and was subject to Turkey only by the slenderest ties. He sought to introduce European civiliza- - tion, chiefly French, and made many improvements. His successorsMTTTTTATTTTTTTTTTTTTTVTTTTTAVTTTOLTTPTTATTTVTTTOTTTUTTRODTETTA TTETTITTUTTTVUTTVTAUTTUTUTTVTTATTVTHVTTOTTOTTVTTAEET TRA ETVETVETAUTAOTHETAUTRONAOEAOEVOEDUULULYO) Pooee ft u dl i a8 LU i ti it ee! 2! | i | eae: z U ee iz) ime) i i im! J ! b L J Lu A A\ SES |) Chap. XXXT] THE BRITISH EMPIRE 465 took the title of khedive. With the digging of the Suez Canal be- tween 1859 and 1869, France and Great Britain cast their eyes on Egypt as a field for colonial expansion. The British government had said that for the safety of India it would be forced to seize the canal in case it was built. Its completion greatly stimulated Mediterranean trade. The spendthrift khedive, Ismail I, contracted huge loans from British and French bankers in order to ‘‘improve the country’’ and to purchase complete freedom from Turkey. Sorely pressed by his European creditors, the bankrupt khedive in 1875 sold his 176,000 shares of stock in the canal to the British government. This money was quickly spent, and France and Great Britain had to intervene to straighten out the financial tangle. Financial control led to military occupation and an attempt at internal reforms. But the people re- volted against foreign control crying, ‘Egypt for the Egyptians.” France, although strongly urged by Gambetta’s party, declined to join Great Britain in suppressing the insurrection, so the British did italone. The French sought to hinder the British but only succeeded in forcing the neutralization of the canal. The tension engendered between the two countries lasted for fifteen years. Good feeling was not restored until after the Fashoda incident of 1898. After restoring the khedive to power, the British army remained and British officials assumed control. They paid the debts, reorganized the taxes and courts, abolished forced labor, built railroads along the Nile, constructed the Assuan Dam, and reclaimed millions of acres from the desert by irrigation. Peace, justice, prosperity, and new opportunities were given to the people. But these improvements only increased the demand of the natives for independence. Uprisings and assassinations followed. In the turmoil France and Great Britain almost came to an armed clash at Fashoda on the Upper Nile in 1898, but reason prevailed and Fashoda was rechristened on the map as ‘Kodok.’’ At last in 1913 a representative government was set up. When Germany was joined by Turkey in the World War in 1914, Egypt was annexed to the British Empire as a protectorate. At the close of the war, a British commission to Egypt reported that, the people were unanimous in their desire for independence and advised that it should be granted. This was done in 1920 with a treaty reser- vation that (1) British troops should be left in control of the Suez Canal; and (2) British interests in Egypt’s foreign affairs should be safeguarded. In 1922 the British protectorate came to an end and Fuad I was proclaimed king of Egypt, though events since 1922 have proved that Egypt is still a veiled protectorate. This new kingdom is almost as large as the German Republic and Spain combined and has a population of over 14,000,000. 8. Tue Emprre or INDIA The Empire of India contains 80 per cent of the inhabitants of the British colonies, and its annual trade with Great Britain exceeds Egypt . aes — ma a aaa ee1 Poe ye ope ete eon ee ~ TEE ener eo ald ce ins tie a tn PsN Cate pe Rb = a Sepoy mutiny 16 §7 J 466 MODERN WORLD HISTORY |\Chap. XXXI $6<0.000,000. In contrast to the 47,000,000 people in the United Kingdom, India has 319,000,000, which is somewhat less than the total population ot all Europe. Less than 10 per cent of the people ‘s urban. and outside of Calcutta and Bombay with over a million each, there are only thirty cities above 100,000. The United States with but a third of the population of tna 100.000. It would take nearly fifteen Great | The Indian Ocean ‘‘has become a British lake. Asa result of the ia has 68 cities above sritains to cover India. grave charges made against the East Indis Company's rule in India, the government was put ‘nto the hands of commissioners selected by the British Parliament (1784-1858). Despite efforts at reform, Brit- ish dominion in India was threatened in 1857 ee the Sepoy Mutiny. The natives, forgetting the blessings that had come to India from British control, were angered at the exploitation of their country by a few Europeans. Among the reforms a interfered with the natives’ social and religious customs and hence uced were some that were denounced by the Indians. »Deposed princes wanted to recover their independence. [he occ: sion for the outbreak was the use of a bullet encased in greased paper, SIhiEh had to be torn off with the teeth before it could be put into the rifle. The Sepoys, Hu idus and Mohammedans alike, expressed horror at the idea of polluting their lips with the fat of animals, because it was contrary to their religious beliefs. Infuriated by this insult to their faith, 250,000 of these native soldiers rose in rebellion. Ma ny white civilians and soldiers at Cawn- pore were slain ; nd the British fortress at Lucknow was attacked by a howling mob. The 40,000 British troops, with some loyal natives, held out until feet troops from Great Britain helped to crush the insurrection. The aged Mogul, who at first directed the uprising from Delhi, was captured and sent as a prisoner to Rangoon; and his sons were shot. Some of the rebels were fired from the mouths of cannon. and hundreds were executed. As an outcome of this costly experience, the East India Company, after lasting 258 years, was dissolved and its rule of India was trans- ferred entirely to the crown. The secretary of state for India, aided by a council appointed by the government, both residing in Great Britain, took charge. In India a viceroy, and two councils — one executive, the other legislative, but both named in London — ad- ministered public affairs. Many of the 600 native princes with resi- dent British counsellors ruled their own provinces. Queen Victoria in 1877 assumed the title of “Empress of India.’’ Later, to appease the native discontent, Indians were appointed to places on both the London and the Indian council. The capital of India was removed in 1912 from Calcutta, a city of 1,263,000 inhabitants to Delhi, a city of 303,000. Led by young Indians educated in western countries, a strong nationalistic movement has spread over India in recent years Through newspapers, congresses and secret societies the youngWUAVUUANEATAVAVUASEROREDRDRUARDRARUED | Chap. XXXT] THE BRITISH EMPIRE 467 patriots denounced British rule as a travesty on democracy. When the British government restricted the freedom of the press, censored the mails, and prohibited public gatherings, Hindus joined Moham- medans in outbreaks, boycotts, intimidations, and murders to force concessions in self-government. The coronation of George V as Emperor of India in the famous ‘Durbar’ of 1911 took place without accident, but the next year an unsuccessful attempt was made to kill Viceroy Hardinge and his wife. In the World War discontent seemed to be smothered in outbursts of loyal devotion. The native rulers made ‘‘ prodigal offers of their lives and their resources in the cause of the Realm.’’ The secretary of state for India said that 700 native states offered their resources to defend the empire. Thousands of Hindus and Mohammedans died on the battlefields of France. In the end, however, the war only increased the movement for national independence, and the rebellion which ensued had to be crushed by At last Great Britain has seen the wisdom of giving India a ke laws, force. national Legislative Assembly and a Council of State to ma subject, however, toa British veto. The move for political independ- ence has not abated, but on the contrary has increased under the leadership of Gandhi, who advocates peaceful (non-coéperation ) instead of forceful resistance. The country will not be pacified until it has as much political freedom as the othet self-governing Domin- ions. But with 45 races, 2,400 Castes and tribes, speaking 170 lan- guages, and differing greatly in religious beliefs, the problem of political freedom is a tremendous one. There has been much progress in the last fifteen years. The India Councils Act of 1909 enlarged the council of the viceroy and added many more natives to the administration. In 1917 the British govern- ment said it was favorable to the development of gradual self-govern- ment inIndia. In 191g the India Bill provided: (1) The eight major provinces were to have governors and ministers, the latter with power over local matters. (2) Governors were to be appointed by the viceroy or crown assisted by an executive council, one of whom was to be an Indian. (3) The ministers were to be chosen from elected members of the legislative council of whom only 20 per cent might be British. (4) Three seats on the viceroy’s council were to be held by Indians. (5) An Indian Parliament consisting of a Council of State and a Legislative Assembly was created. (6) The Council of State was to be elected by popular vote, about 5,000,000 voters ~~ formerly only 33,000. Still the Indian leaders were as a rule dissatisfied with the progress made towards self-government. This remarkable land of beautiful temples and palaces, fine rugs and silk shawls, carved ivory and articles of gold and silver, precious stones, fertile valleys and arid plains, poverty and famine, has been transformed by the Industrial Revolution to a greater degree than any other country in Asia except Japan. The factory, foundry, mill, railroad, telegraph, electric light, and automobile have ushered in a APLONTOOTAVONNVONIVONIVOTIOGQUUOANVONLUQAIUAAIUOAEOQANUGET Hu AVA Rise of young India il HA PTL itl — j ra 1 Cg ed ee OO ere ho ie a lheaeee oad eae eel ot Se atmeabooetl Nee SSS —— - Ea pe ‘ abate ee ee ea we a, Tal ein SS ee Teastee ae a eee Sa a a eh rt me de et eed a oes ain, By ltd: tw gy or Sew = . . se Economic conditions 468 MODERN WORLD HISTORY (Chap. XXX] new régime. A system of 55,000 miles of railroads and 150,000 miles of highways cover the country. In 1923, 333 cotton mills employing 347,000 persons were clothing the people. About 22,000,000 tons of coal are mined yearly and the output in 1919 was valued at $50,000,- ooo. Great systems of irrigation and improved farm machinery have multiplied the products of the soil many fold to relieve famine and to give employment to 70 per cent of the people. Foreign commerce in seventy-five years has increased 500 per cent, and in 1920-1 exports and imports each exceeded a billion dollars. Thus India has been started on the road towards a modernized and industrialized nation. The elimination of widow-suicide (‘‘suttee’’), the curtailment of infanticide, the formation of law codes, the lessening of famine, the encouragement of sanitation, and the establishment of schools are positive gains. But the Indian patriots point out that all these im- provements are controlled by British capitalists; that native indus- tries have been killed by British goods; that each year $100,000,000 is spent on the army and only $30,000,000 on education; and that 94 per cent of the people are illiterate. REFERENCES FOR FURTHER STUDY J. R. Segrey, The Expansion if England (edition of 1911); A. F. Potzarp, editor, The British Empire: its Past, its Present, and its Future (1909); W.H. Woopwarp, A Short History of the Expansion of the British Empire, 1500-10911 1912); J P. BuLKELEY. The British Empire: A Short History (1921); H. Rosinson, The Development of the British Empire (1922); ' - - ° . r r ; ‘ TY} P H_ E. Ecerton. A Short History of British Colonial Policy (5th ed. 1919); The Origin and Growth of Greater Britain (1920); British Colonial Policy in the Twentieth Century (1922); - - " Federations and Unions within the British Empire (1911); A. J. Herpertson and O. J. R. Howartu, The Oxford Survey of the British Empire, 12 vols. 1914); C. P. Lucas, Historical Geography of the British Colonies, 6 vols. (1922); The British Empire (1915); W. J. ASHLEY, editor. British Dominions: Their Present Commercial and Industrial Conditions (1911); C. J. Fucus, The Trade Policy of Great Britain and Her Colonies since 1860, English translation by C. Archibald (1905); R. Japs, Studies in Colonial Nationalism (1905); The Imperial Conference, 2 vols. (1911); A. B. Kerra, Responsible Government in the Dominions, 3 vols. | Imperial Unity and the Dominions (1916); L. Curtis, The Commonwealth of Nations IOI2Z } 4 (1916); The Problem of the Commonwealth (1916); E. Jenxs, The Government of the British Empire (1918); A History of the Australasian Colonies | [912); H. D. Hatt, The British Commonwealth of Nations (1920); O. D. Sxgrton, The Canadian Dominion (1919); A. H.V. Cotqguuon, The Fathers of Confederation (1916); E. Porritt, Evolution of the Dominion of Canada, Its Government and its Policies (1918); W. P. M. Kennepy, The Constitution of Canada: an Introduction to its Development and Law (1922); E. Scorr, A Short History of Australia (1916); H. G. Turner, The First Decade of the Australian Commonwealth: a Study in Contemporary Politics, 1901-1910 (191 1); V.G. Crarx, The Labor Movement in Austral- asia: a Study in Social Democracy (1906); B. Wittrams, Cecil Rhodes (1921); J. A. Hosson, The War in South Africa, its Cause and its Effects (1900); R. H. Brann, The Union of South Africa (1909); W. B. Worsrotp, The Union of South Africa (1912); Eart or Cromer, Modern Egypt, 2 vols. (new edition 1916); V. Curror, The Egyptian Problem (1920); yr > oe i Indian Unrest (1910); India Old and New (1921); P. G. Excoop, Egypt and the Army (1922); T. W. Hotpsgrness, Peoples and Problems of India (1912); V. A. Smits, Oxford History of India (edition 1920); T. Morison, The Economic Transition in India (1911); Laypait Rat, Young India, an Interpretation and a History of the Nationalist Movement from Within (1916); England's Debt to India (1917).' j ’ j | MURRERnaanaeea aahae Teehean Thana naa Way) th ea mi MUATHTTAUTEOTAUANEUANNAUEAUTANTSUEQUTSOPOOOONTNOUQOOVSNOOOGNOEROESONTONUODQOODOEVOSUGUONIEONODOTORRIVGOLHAUGORRRHOOERE TUVUUHTVENNTUGQUTTOOGUETUOONUUOGRRIVOGHTIVOGATEOOSHLOSEOAONHTS HHH DY yf wR ears —— Lea ee a ii ai , i ae at1O ash i or wa ene” ( 12 P — eee eed Sse _|\PENETRATION OF ASIA C Comore | . OT Y> i>, Kut }e ind T | , can i’ovwers ea ee 7 Colombo Lala, Oy ees Se heen te JU Kartographische Anstalt yon F, A. Brockhaus, Leipzig, Germany. Ce at Relate ane aor]PTET ITP TPE OEE TOTO ITTV TOVETOTOTOOOOOOOT OOOO OUOOONTOCUT LUAU UL EUV at | East » Cape {4 == 100 120 140 @& 160 170 \re— © & = << > - > —. i ‘© “a ; age Deas = ——— Rg J SS =y =F ea meet G + ma = NA: S a eo = Z we Pe % if ee /: PE ne a eee Ce OE AT ek ieee note St pees cee weeny preg wee 8 i he ae RR So tk ST ET a a ae ae = SL a of Bassezn al Darele \ Ach cm Et Pas & 'y — OS 90 of Greerwich 100 Balay ar '2 cea yu teetptceeeMUTTTUTTTOTTUTUEVETGTTET ATT OLOUTEVEAULOUANTKOTONTOANEAUCONNOSTINENOULOLAONOEVOTOUFOLOUQOUONUOUOOOUDOUONIONOORUHOR HUULUUHLUVI ATT ELTT ] — tinea | ) | |. Ng ae ie CHAPTER XXXII EUROPE AND AMERICA IN ASIA, AFRICA AND OCEANIA 1. LuHE INTRUSION OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION IN THE ORIENT Tue civilization of Europe and America originated in western Asia from which was gained a knowledge of the domestic animals and plants, the alphabet and writing, science and art, trade and com- merce, and religion and law. The Greeks and Romans, in close touch politically and economically with the peoples of that region, were the first Europeans to impress their institutions on Asia. This close relationship between western Asia and southern Europe continued, with interruptions of course, until during the crusades all western Early contacts Europe, in several successive waves of invasion, sought in vain to pi and wrest the holy places in the Near East from the Mohammedan Turks. Historians have had much to say about the effects of these contacts with Asia upon European civilization, but less attention has been given to their results which were quite as pronounced in the modifi- cation of Asiatic civilization. Spasmodic contacts with India and the Far East were made over- land by ardent missionaries, daring merchants, and hardy travellers, among whom was the famous Marco Polo of Venice. From the end of the fifteenth century onward, however, Asia was opened to Euro- pean influences by (1) explorations, wars, and conquests; (2) mis- sionary efforts; and (3) trade. By 1683 the Russians had planted scattered colonies across Siberia to the Pacific, and had won territory around the Caspian Sea. Then came the contest in the eighteenth century between France and England for the possession of India, in which the British won. About the middle of the nineteetnh century China and Japan were “‘opened’’ for more effective commercial and missionary efforts, and for political control. Within the past three quarters of a century, with the exception of Japan, almost the whole of continental and insular Asia has been subjected to an economic or governmental vassalage of the western world. Just as European civilization overflowed into the two Americas and there left an indelible imprint, so in turn, Europeans and Ameri- cans spread their institutions to Asia. The footholds gained on the continent at an earlier time by Russia, Great Britain, and France were used as bases from which to secure more territory. The Portuguese alone neglected their opportunity to create an Asiatic empire, while the Dutch and Spanish were content to exploit their island possessions in the Far East. Among the later claimants to a share in the division 469NS ee ee oe a at et es ee i on sy a rr. 3 : 5 sf E uropean smperialism in Asta 470 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XXXII of Asia were Germany, which secured Shantung, and the United States, which took the Philippines from Spain. The scramble for markets, raw materials, concessions, and opportunities for invest- ment, resulted in the partition of Asia into colonies, protectorates, and “spheres of influence’’ by the nations of the west. They had the energy, machinery, capital, and, above all, military power, with which to impose their authority upon the weak and backward hordes of Asiatics. All sorts of pretexts were used for intervention. Inter- vention usually meant military occupation. Military occupation was followed by a protectorate. And a protectorate too often ended in annexation as a colony. Bankers, traders, explorers, consuls, diplo- mats, missionaries, and capitalists were all active in one way of an- other in creating colonial empires. The only independent states remaining in Asia today are the Japanese Empire, the Chinese Republic, the Kingdom of Siam, Turkey and Persia all together constituting about one third of c> the continent. Afghanistan, Armenia, Hedjaz, Palestine. Iraq, and Syria are semi-independent states more or less under the control of Great Britain, Russia, or France. Great Britain includes within the Asiatic portion of her Empire, India, the Straits Settlements, the Malay States, Burma, Hong Kong, Wei-hai-wei, Aden, the islands of Cyprus, Ceylon, and the northern part of Borneo. These posses- sions would make nearly twenty states as large as Great Britain and contain seven times as many inhabitants. The Soviet Republic of Russia owns all of northern Asia, which is four times the size of European Russia with one fifth the number of people. France owns a colonial domain in Asia, which is a third larger than her own ex- tent with over half as many people. Holland has an island empire in the East Indies three times larger than the state of Texas with seven times her own population. Italy has a small concession in China at Tientsin, and also possesses a few islands off the coast of Asia Minor. Portugal owns Goa in India; and Damao, Timor and Macao in China, forming an area as large as Maryland with a million peo- ple. Germany and Spain have lost all their Asiatic possessions — the former to Japan, and the latter to the United States which exer- cises authority over a group of Asiatic islands with a land area as large as Italy and nearly 11,000,000 inhabitants. Thus approximately two thirds of Asia are under either the direct or indirect control of western powers. 2. WerEsTERN INTERVENTION IN ASIA In sharp contrast with the two Americas, few attempts have been made to plant European settlements in Asia. Russia alone of all the western nations has carried out a systematic system of colonization in Siberia, where 10,000,000 Russians have established their homes. Omsk, Tomsk, Irkutsk, and Valadivostok on the Pacific are modern European cities of the frontier type. The civilization of Siberia isPE TTTTrnTTTTTTTTTTTiTTCeTTaTT TTeTTTITTCQTITTITECTTO TIN VTCTINTV TTOGHINNTOGVONITUQQOTTNQIUOQOTONIUOQOQNTINUCQONITINOQQOONNQNOQQNONONUOQQQQNANVOOQEAIIUOLONHII01 0) Chap. XXXII] EUROPE AND AMERICA IN ASIA 471 thoroughly Russian already, and has probably set the standards for centuries ahead. To a certain degree the Russians have also pene- trated west-central Asia. For a great many years the Greeks have had settlements on the western shores of Asia Minor and have sought in war and peace to project their influence farther into the interior. This ambition met a serious set-back in the Greco-Turkish War of 1922-3. In the rest of the great yellow continent, no serious attempt on a large scale has been made by the western peoples to colonize any regions. The British are fairly numerous in India, Burma, the Malay States, and China. Cities like Hong Kong, Shanghai, Singapore, Calcutta, Madras, and Bombay all have sections that are thoroughly European apart from the Asiatic portions. Indeed one might say that English has become almost the international tongue in Asia, for it 1s spoken by millions from Constantinople around to Port Arthur. Dozens of English newspapers are printed in China and India. Under the Americans in the Philippines, English is spreading rapidly as the common language of the people. It is taught in schools over much of Asia. Toa lesser degree the French, Portuguese, Germans, Spaniards, and Greeks have left their national impress on certain groups of Asi- atics. The Dutch have largely moulded the life of the East Indies. It is difficult to estimate the total number of Americans and Euro- peans, other than Russians, in Asia, but counting soldiers, civil officials, business men, missionaries, educators, and others, it does not exceed half a million. For instance in 1921 there were 176,000 inhabitants from the west in India, 25,000 in Japan in 1916 and 285,000 in China in 1925. With the exception of Siberia, the western invasion of Asia has been not so much by peoples as by ideas and institutions, which have produced startling changes during the past seventy-five years. West- ern inventions are transforming the continent. India is as well sup- plied with railroads as many European countries. One may soon travel by rail across Siberia, through China and India, and back again to Europe. Markets have been opened for thousands of the products of the west, and shops filled with American and European goods are found in all the large cities. Millions of people have accepted Chris- tianity from foreign missionaries. In China alone in 1918 over 130,000 elementary schools were teaching 4,000,000 pupils western learning. Colleges, and schools of law, medicine, and engineering are preparing young men and women with western knowledge for a more useful life. Factories in Japan, China, and India, built on western models, are transforming the industrial life, and show more advance than some of the Latin-American countries. Large numbers of young people go to Europe and America to complete their educa- tion, and return home to work for the new life that is slowly creeping over Asia. Political constitutions, military and naval organizations, modern science, and economic systems of the west are being gradu- ally adapted to oriental needs. As a result of all these forces, the European culture and politics in the Orient 20 EES aa ae ens PLS ASSIS enone aoeOriental ¢tmigration 472 MODERN WORLD HISTORY ([Chap. XXXII civilization of the west is rolling over the east. Asia, to a considera- ble degree, has become Europeanized. In recent years a tide of emigration from Japan, China, India, and Turkey has set in to other parts of the world. The population i in the first three countries is so dense and the struggle for existense so keen, that the class has been encouraged to seek new homes in the less thickly settled areas of the world. With the abolition of slave labor in the western countries, the importation of Asiatic labor began. The British encouraged Hindus to go to South Africa to do the hard work. and control most of the farms and shops. ‘coolie’’ Today in Natal the Hindus outnumber the whites, ~ Coolies’’ were early taken to Australia, but when the Commonwealth was formed, among the first laws were two to exclude the immigration of Hindus, Chinese, and Japanese. Canada has attempted, with some success, to exclude the Orientals, who have rushed into British Columbia by the thousands. After the Civil War, Chinese coolies were employed in large numbers in building the first trans-continental railroads in the United States, but strong opposition to this practice soon arose. Since 1882 the United States has tried, by laws and agreements, to keep out undesirable Asiatics. Latin America, on the contrary, has welcomed them. Alarmists in Europe and America speak of the Yellow Peril’’ and urge the formation of a Pan-Aryan Association against the 900,000,000 Asiatics. They say that the Orientals should Stay in Asia, w while the white race exp sloits the earth, and forget that Europe and America already have political possession of two thirds of the continent of Asia. They proclaim an ' in the rest of the world. fore, that the Asiatics raise the counter-cry of ' demand the recognition of racial equality. “open door’’ in Asia It is no wonder, there- ‘White Peril’’ and and a ‘closed door’ 2. Toe AWAKENING OF CHINA The Empire of China, the oldest state in the world, was larger in size than the United States, or all Europe. Its population was more than three times that of the United States, and somewhat less than that of Europe. For forty centuries these sturdy, black-eyed, good-natured, yellow-skinned people dle had lived apart fron the western world, dev eloping a high and unique civilization of theirown. Their cities were numerous, and their industries were carried on by hand in little shops as in the days of Greece and Rome. They had made re- markable progress in science, art, and literature, although their manners and institutions differed widel ly from the west. There was no caste, and the people were pe: aceful and industrious. Proud of their own accomplishments, and content with their own ways of living, they despised other peoples as barbarians and had no desire to be contaminated by them. The mass of people, however, were ‘ignorant and impotent.”’ The Chinese Empire consisted of China proper, which was dividedCOMET MUUTETTNTATUTUTUTUNTATUTOTONUTENEGTOTUNOVUVENTETOTOTNAEOLOUONOVERIONNNOOVONUOEOUOLOLOUONINGNONOVOQUANOLORL Chap. XXXII] EUROPE AND AMERICA IN ASIA 473 into eighteen provinces, and the outlying districts of Manchuria, Mongolia, Tibet, and Sin-Kiang, Korea, Burma, Siam, Cambodia, and Annam formed a still wider outer ring under Chinese suzerainty. The imperial government of the ‘Celestial Empire’’ was an absolute monarchy under the rule of the ‘‘Sun of Heaven.’’ He was assisted by public officials called mandarins, selected after passing a strict exam- ination in the sacred books. They took the place of an hereditary nobility and were divided into nine classes distinguished by the buttons on their caps. In the seventeenth century China had been conquered by the Manchus, a Tartar tribe from the north, who forced the natives to wear a queue, or “‘pigtail,’’ as a sign of subjugation. Corruption and bribery were common in public service. The laws of China were based on the family as a unit. If a man committed a crime and could not be found, the whole family was punished. If a man became bankrupt, the entire family had to pay his debts. The emperor was the high priest and performed the great religious ceremonies each year at the ‘‘ Altar of Heaven”’ in Pekin. Confucian- ism was the state religion, but it had no priesthood, and consisted in observing the moral precepts of the holy man, Confucius. Buddhism, which had an elaborate ritual and a powerful priesthood, was the faith of the majority of the people. Most of the Chinese, except the Mohammedans, who numbered only 10,000,000, had no difficulty in accepting at the same time Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism, which ranked next to Buddhism in popularity. The old educational system was confined to a study of the classics, or ancient literature, and training for government service. There were few schools for the common people; and the rich employed private tutors for their children. After memorizing the classics, written in clumsy characters, for several years, writing and easy composition followed. Public examinations, on which great stress was laid, consisted of original poems and essays. Scholars were highly honored and held up as models for the young. From movable type, the Chinese had printed an extensive literature. One of their encyclo- pedias alone filled over 5,000 volumes. The movements of the heavenly bodies were studied with the use of astronomical instru- ments; the compass was employed for navigation; huge walls, dykes, canals and bridges were constructed by great engineers, and gunpowder, paper, and other useful articles were invented or dis- covered long before they were known to the western world. In the cities, colleges were supported at public expense. To the west, China for centuries was the land of wonders and mysteries. Apparently the first Europeans known to have visited China were some Franciscan missionaries. Marco Polowith his father and uncle, in the thirteenth century, made the route overland. Three centuries later with the advance of navigation, Portuguese merchants in 1557 opened a trading station at Macao just south of Canton. Then followed Dutch and British traders. Meanwhile the Russians, cross- PUVOCATVUUTUUUUQOUUAQEUUQOLUHTUNHIN| Pauper | i | =—~" Er The old China European intrusion in China CDs eet ee ew ere ake ead a a en ne Et iee aaa ST ee = La Sele —— eR aES ee Sa... Ce —— A -_ ed Sa a ae A EE Opium War Missions in China 474 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XXXII ing Siberia, came into contact with the Chinese on the north. But all these “‘foreign devils’’ were suspected of evil designs, subjected to heavy taxes, and their lives often endangered. In 1815 Japan was still inaccessible to the westerners, while the Chinese door had been opened only by a crack. Foreign ships might touch only at the one port of Canton. There was no travel i nland, the trade with China was relatively sere and there was no thought of intervening by force. For the period 1830-40 only 23 British ships cleared for China, and a 44 ships of all nationalities entered British ports from China. Indeed it seems unbelievable that only within the past seventy-five years have China and Japan been opened up to western influences by merchants, missionaries, diplomats, and travellers. Perhaps credit should be given to Russia for first coming into closer contact with the Far East. But it was the British, who first used force to secure trading privileges with China. In 1823 Burma was separated from China, and in 1886 it became a full British rae endency. The ae India ae ny had developed a trade with the Chinese through the port of Canton which by 1829 was bringing an annual profit of $5.6 00,000 by exchanging opium for teas and silks. The Chinese government, seeing the evils of opium smoking: forbade the importation oe opium, and thus threatened to ruin the lucrative trade of the East India Company. By evading the laws through smuggling and connivance with avaricious Chinese merchants, the British merchants continued to develop the opium trade and by 1839 were selling 30,000 chests to the natives. Considerable wrangling ensued, and finally the British government in 1840-2 waged war against China and forced five ports to be opened for trade. Hong Kong was ceded to Great Britain and a war indemnity of $21,000,000 paid. But the Chinese government itself permitted the opium traffic to con- tinue under certain regulations. The United States, France, Holland, Belgium, and Prussia then rushed in to secure similar privileges. For several centuries prior to this, Roman Catholic missionaries had established mission posts in China and had won many converts. Protestant missions began in 1807, when a field of work was opened at Canton. American missionaries arrived first in 1830, and Russian missionaries were at work in the north. Russia was the first nation to force China to sign a treaty guaranteeing the toleration of Chris- tian missions and forbidding the persecution of native converts, and the United States, Great Britain and F rance obtained similar prom- ises in 1858. Nevertheless the missionaries encountered great difficulties in carrying on their labors, which supplied the western powers with excuses for intervention. The death of a French mis- sionary and the seizure of a British ship by Chinese pirates, led these two powers to make war on China in which Tientsin and Pekin were captured and the Imperial Summer Palace was burned. As a result six more ports were opened for trade, protection to missionaries was further guaranteed, the opium trade was legalized, and another largewean Hanae THTPTATAUTTVTA TERA RT AU PATA NARHA TT UNTO UATRAURVRORUORTEOUORD PROBE RUUR RES Hanae ae DOSRRREDE! Pryde he tie , CORR ERROR REE! Chap. XXXII] EUROPE AND AMERICA IN ASIA 475 indemnity paid (1860). France, Great Britain, and Russia estab- lished permanent legations at Pekin in 1861, and the United States the next year. These concessions to the foreigners led to the Taiping Rebellion (1856-64) against the Manchu ruler, but with the aid of a British officer, Charles George Gordon, it was put down. 4. THREATENED PARTITION OF CHINA Not content with opening China for peaceable trade and mission- ary work, the European powers, incited by “* greed and cupidity,’’ now began to seize territory and to force special concessions by diplomacy, subtle intrigue, bribery, threats of war, and actual combat. The rival world policies have been potent influences for evil in China. Russia annexed the coast south of the Amur River (1863). France took Cambodia (1863), and added Annam and Tonkin G885). Burma was appropriated by Great Britain (2886). By this time Japan was sufficiently ‘‘Europeanized’’ to take part in the game of partition, and by wat against China secured the island of Formosa, and the Liao-tung peninsula. The military impotence of China was demon- strated. Russia, however, secured the aid of France and Germany to force Japan to relinquish control of the Liao-tung peninsula. The European governments stumbled over each others heels in professing friendship for China. Russia loaned her money to pay a war 1n- demnity to Japan, and in return secured permission to build the Trans-Siberian railroad across Manchuria, and the secret promise of Port Arthur. France obtained the Mekong valley together with railway and mining privileges. Great Britain protested, and was appeased by the extension of the boundaries of Burma. To ‘avenge’ the murder of two Catholic missionaries in 1897, Germany obtained a lease of Kiao-chau and certain transportation and mining rights in Shantung. To offset the German treaty, Russia in 1898 was given a lease of Port Arthur for twenty-five years, and at once connected it with the Trans-Siberian railroad. She now regarded Manchuria, Korea, and the Liao-tung peninsula as her “‘sphere of influence.” France in like mannet obtained possession of Kwang-chow-wan. Not to be outdone in this race for spoils by her rivals, Great Britain de- manded the port of Wei-hai-wei and got it. The Russo-Japanese War enabled Japan to replace Russia in her “‘sphere of influence,’’ al- though Manchuria was nominally returned to China. Japan an- nexed Korea (1910) and Outer Mongolia was virtually seized by Russia (1913). France’ extended her ‘‘sphere’’ northward into Indo-China, while Great Britain claimed as her “‘sphere’’ the rich Yangtze valley and extended the boundaries of India until they included Tibet. In 1921 seventy-five “‘treaty ports’’ were open in China. Such was the sad story of how China became the victim of western imperialism. Following the scramble for territory, went hordes of capitalists, promoters, business agents, and engincers from the west to secure LULL Economtc partition of China [Peet ma ee tan ee eee ee ad Sine aa UT we AT) oh ee pa net meee cea ei ihe a Tae La nine476 MODERN WORLD HISTORY = [Chap. XXXII railway, mining, and factory concessions; to open up markets for European ; und American goods; and to exploit the immense wealth and efficient labor of China. ae first steam railroad at Woosung, built : 1875-6, was torn up by the enraged people. But within a decade another was c ren Ai and by 1925 over 7,500 miles — mostly government-owned — were in use and 2,300 miles more under development. About 55,000 miles of telegraph lines covered the ] country. The law of 1911 provided that eventually all the railways and telegraph lines would revert to the state. Modern steamers ply up and down the great wa erways. Mills grind wheat and rice; actories make cotton, silk, and steel. Coal, tin, and copper mines are in operation. The total foreign trade increased fivefold within thirty years and in 1920 amounted to $1,000,000,000, with imports somewhat higher than A The Industrial Revolution i is slowly transforming the nation, and China may aca me one of the greatest industrial states on ie earth. A few provinces, including Shantung, are already highly industrialized. Unfortunately there are no great y oO wagon roads covering the whole country, but the system of canals ‘ . rs” o> Ty : ry * . = RY . _ tere jf } ' ~* rT | * ] , {> . , 74 is excellent. One cable connects China with the United States, but excellent wireless stations supplement the cable. A i ~ ) 1 oe | . TT. J a | "vs ny T T . Ty T 2 T AT *. REFORMS AND POLITICAL CHANGES IN CHINA A ee secret society of the “‘Harmonious Fists’’ stirred up anti-foreign out cake to drive out the Christian missionaries, who . . E 7 were winning “ike hic ple away from their ancient beliefs, and to get rid of the business men, he, were running railroads through their sacred cemeteries and “‘lacerating China like tigers.’’ This “‘ Boxer”’ uprising was encouraged by the dowager empress, Tzu-hsi (1898- “‘Boxer'’ Revolt 1908), who proclaimed ‘‘war to the knife’’ against all foreigners. Over 250 missionaries, teachers, and business men in the country dis- tricts lost their lives. Others fled to their legations in Pekin, where they were besieged for several months by infuriated mobs. The German ambassador was assassinated in Pekin. China became the center of world interest. An international army of Europeans, Ameri- cans, and Japanese, was rushed to Pekin, and the imperial court fled from the capital. After relieving the legations, the temples and im- perial palaces were looted, many of the natives killed, and shameful outrages committed by soldiers who acted without authority. China was penalized by being forced (1) to grant further commercial con- cessions, (2) to suppress the *‘ Boxers’’ and punish their leaders, and Le i oe (3) to pay within 39 years an indemnity of $337,500,000. An im- perial prince went to Berlin to apologize for he slaying of Baron von Ketteler. Leaving guards to protect the legations, Pekin was evacuated in 1901, and the next year the imperial court returned. The Christian powers took advantage of the situation to press their individual interests in China and to thwart each other's plans. When Russia secured exclusive rights in Manchuria, Great Britain pro- eTee r F aeeeEe i, | | a : } ‘ RRReee 1] at j TEU PTTTTTUTTTATTTTVTUTEATTTVATVTATOTERTRLAT OTN ATEN TV ET EA VT OT EATHNOTOREATOTONEATITOTONUGLOGUNLOLOVNNUONOVUINOTODENUOHOVOONOPOQEAD PTT UAE ERRATA Le 2 Chap. XXXII] EUROPE AND AMERICA IN ASIA 477 tested. When Great Britain enlarged her advantages in the Yangtze valley, Germany protested. As creditors for large war indemnities, Japan and the European states sought further economic concessions. The United States by 1925 had returned $24,168,000 or about three fourths of her portion of the indemnity, which, out of gratitude, was set aside by China to send students to be educated in America. Other countries have followed the example of the United States. Mean- while in 1899 John Hay, the American secretary of state, invited the other nations to join the United States in assuring China that they had no designs on her territorial integrity, but desired only an ‘open door’’ and equality of treatment for all in business. After becoming an Asiatic power through the acquisition of the Philip- pines, American statesmen sought to save China from partition at the hands of European and Japanese imperialism. The principle of the ‘‘open door,” set forth in a treaty with China in 1903, was ad- vocated thereafter as an American policy. Contact with the west, and the example of Japan, opened the way for reforms in China. The young men who had studied abroad were convinced that China must either imitate the civilization of the western peoples, or fall a prey to the foreigners. Hence they organ- ized the ‘‘Reform Party.’’ English was eagerly studied, and foreign books widely read. China's Only Hope, a book by a writer who ad- vocated radical changes, was sold to the number of a million copies ina short time. The young emperor was persuaded to study western ideas, and in 1898 he issued a series of reform edicts, which were intended (1) to modernize the educational system; (2) to encourage the Industrial Revolution; and (@) to improve the system of govern- ment. The defeat of the ‘‘Boxers’’ accelerated the awakening of China. The Chinese educational system, which was flourishing when the culture of Greece and Rome was just beginning, survived until 1905. The mission schools had been gradually undermining the ancient practices until an imperial decree abolished the old examinations and introduced modern methods of teaching. Later laws provided for primary schools with compulsory attendance under the supervision of the local governments, and for higher schools under a national board of education with a minister at its head. Plans were laid for four great universities, and for professional, technical, and normal schools. While some of the institutions of higher learning have been created, the lack of funds has held back the project for primary schools. In 1924 there were 167,000 elementary schools with 5 ,800,- ooo pupils, and about 500 high schools. In the 7,000 primary schools of the Protestant missions there were 1,200 foreign teachers, 11,000 native teachers, and 205,000 pupils; and the Catholics were teaching 145,000 pupils in 3,000 schools. The national University of Pekin in 1925 had 2,000 students. In 1924 there were over 1,000 daily, weekly and monthly newspapers printed. But the colossal task still before aaa Recent reforms in China Education Sm — 9 ee Pe ewret 3h Paes al eee eee ee seseneeepeeetemetimrenmetmmmmrrmrseseer Sr BS SoS SD TaSSS ot SSE. ~s es | sree seal eneetr ——s —eEE aie er neneitees a wees meet eer on LA PE ELD Aa OT ae Pe ee ee : o a Government (i } 1 ne Sé > yy Republec 478 MODERN WORLD HISTORY = [Chap. XXXII China may be seen in the fact that perhaps go per cent of the people are Classed as illiterate. It must be remembered, however, that illit- eracy is not a fair test of the intelligence and abilities of a people who are backward but not decadent. These educational reforms were not sweeping enough to satisfy the “Reform Party,’ which now reorganized itself as the “‘ Young China Party,’’ and sought to replace the autocratic Manchu dynasty with a democratic republic. The Manchus had failed to prevent the decay of China before te onslaughts of western forces, and now ‘Young China”’ hoped to arouse a national consciousness that would save China from European imperialism. The first evidence of a change came with the introduction of the European military system 1 } into China. Military drill was requ ired in the schools. and the sons of princes and nobles were encouraged to enlist in the large army that was recruited in 1906. The Chinese army numbered 360,000 men in [912 and in 1925 was reported to include five times that number. Then followed, the same year, administrative, financial, and social reforms. Confucius was raised to the same rank as ‘“‘heaven’’ and ‘‘earth.’’ A friendly ‘‘China for Chinese’’ movement arose and it was felt that only a representative, eee et government could carry out that policy. Ihe most conspicuous leader of the reform party was Sun Yat-sen, a Christian physician, who inspired his fol- lowers with a hatred of the corrupt and inefficient Manchus. To head off the threatened revolution, the Manchu government called an imperial assembly in 1910 and, on its advice, promised a consti- tution and a national p atic iment by 1 913. Angered at this procras- tination, and at the signing of new concessions to Russia and Great Britain, the reform party broke out in an armed revolt, set up a pro- visional republic at Nanking with Dr. Sun Yat-sen as president, and in 1912 forced the boy emperor, Pu-yi, to abdicate. Before surrendering his authority the youthful monarch signed a decree creating a constitutional Republic. The premier Yuan-Shih-Kat was ordered to create a provisional government by the representatives of seventeen provinces, and, at the same time, the western calendar was adopted. In March, 1912, Yuan-Shih-Kai was inaugurated as the first president of China, and several weeks later Dr. Sun Yat-sen acknowledged him as the executive of all China. While the public opinion of the world applauded the transformation of the oldest monarchy into the newest Republic of the world, yet European diplomats in the Far East opposed the change because they knew it meant the curtailment of their exploitation of China. With the ex- ception of the United States, the great powers refused to recognize the new Republic. They sought to force China to make her foreign loans through a banking group of six powers, and to prevent her from or- ganizing a large army to defend her rights. The first moe parliament of 596 members met at Pekin in April, 1913. With the aid of an American adviser, a constitution was framed, but only that; ae ius i | an wanna aah aaa Sanaa neananeen MUTUTENTATUT FAT UT ETO VOTUNTOTOTTATOTORUTFOCONEGTNEOTUNTGTOVENOOUOUOQOOTOTOVNOCOTGVLAOVOSUOUOVOGUAVOUDEAHIVOVUDEONOVUOLONOVUDEOLOVAVROUOSUNESNAVOQUOOUE Chap. XXXIT| EUROPE AND AMERICA IN ASIA 479 portion relating to the presidency became law. A new flag was adopted and the first trial by jury took place. Meanwhile the republican revolutionists of the Yangtze valley, led by Dr. Sun Yat-sen, rebelled against the Pekin government. To get money torun the government, Yuan-Shih-Kai was forced to accept a loan from a consortium of banks of the western powers on humiltat- ing conditions. The new revolt was suppressed, and a national election chose him for president for a term of five years. When the parliament attempted to limit his powers as president, he declared vacant the seats of the southern revolutionary party, and on January 11, 1914, he dissolved parliament. Then he named a committee to complete the constitution, and it proposed a one-chamber parliament and a secretary of state responsible to the president alone. When the World War broke out Yuan-Shih-Kai was virtual dictator of China. He had to resist the machinations of the imperialistic European na- tions, and the famous twenty-one demands of Japan after she had taken the Shantung peninsula from Germany. In 1915, in the face of the disapproval of the western Allies, the council of state, after a farcical referendum to the provinces, asked Yuan-Shih-Kai to become emperor. This was an excuse for a new revolt in the south, and seven provinces seceded from the Pekin government. Before Yuan-Shih-Kai could be inaugurated as emperor, he conveniently died in the summer of 1916, and thus saved the Republic but did not bring peace to the nation. The vice-president, Li Yuan Hung, succeeded to the presi- dency, recalled the old parliament, and temporarily restored unity. The north and south remained divided on national policies. The southern leaders were liberals and wanted a federalized republic. The northern leaders were militarists, who wanted a large army and a strongly centralized republic, or constitutional monarchy. The Chinese, who felt themselves sacrificed to the imperialistic greed of all the European powers, were indifferent to the issues of the World War. Japan and Russia were violating the same principles in China that they were combating Germany for violating in Europe. France and Great Britain were known to have one standard of morality for Europe and another for Asia. Although China declared neutrality, she was ready to join the Entente in order to thwart Japanese designs in Shantung. Japan knew this and consequently tried to keep China out of the war. But President Wilson’s words seemed to speak for the wrongs of China as well as for Europe, and hence when China was formally invited by the United States to enter the war, she broke off diplomatic relations with Germany at once. The actual declaration of war was delayed by the outbreak of war in south China in August, 1917, and the secession of the southern provinces. This condition, however, did not prevent the two sections from presenting a united front in the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 and in the Washington Conference in 1921. Since 1924 China has been in a serious state of internal disorder and civil war. Sectionalism aN De a ee SO Gk eee acre noms ata ee eae nce inenneeenea oecaer = wee So ee osm — = 0 ae ta? a Ss Ps Eur pean ‘7 age Contacts wrti Japan 480 MODERN WORLD HISTORY |\Chap. XXXIT If the Chine: e Republic is to endure, there must be built up a national consciousness, a solidarity of interests, and a common patriotism. There is no language spoken and understood by all the people. Ofttimes those of one province cannot talk with those of another, although the written language is the same over all China and the Mandarin dialect is spoken by the educated classes and about three fifths of the people. Plans are on foot to have it taught in all the schools. An intelligent citizenship alone will insure stability to the Republic. The people must be freed from the grip of superstition, which dominates their social and family life. They must be imbued th both the desire and the determination to outgrow their old life and institutions, not by slavishly adopting foreign ways but by adapting fe to their own modes of life. With an abundance of natural resources and cheap labor, China must create her own wealth and make herself financially and economically independent of other states. 6. Ine First WestTeErRN VISITORS TO JAPAN To the east of Asia lies the fair-sized island Empire of Japan, whose modernization, nationalization, and democratization have startled the abl Japan proper, is somewhat larger than the state of Montana or Great Britain, and has 60,000,000 people. This race of wide-awake, polite, small-statured Mongolians rapidly awoke to a realization of the advantages of European civi ees easily and quickly adapted the strong points of the west to their own life, and became a rival and an eagerly sought ally, instead of the victim, like China, of European powers. In intimate touch with the Chinese for centuries, the Japanese borrowed much of their art, literature, in- dustries, and ways of living from them and the Koreans. Their progress, intelligence, and civilization have won the admiration of western scholars. The Buddhist religion became the predominant faith among them, and filled the country with beautiful temples. The government was an absolute monarchy like China under a mi- kado, but the shogun, or tycoon, — sort of an hereditary prime minister, — had usurped royal authority and ruled the country in the mikado’s name. The land was divided among feudal princes, called daimios, and the masses of the people lived as serfs. The warriors, called samurai, formed a professional class numbering about 400,000. Like China, Japan was a hermit nation, and regarded the western peoples as inferior barbarians with whom she had no wish to have dealings. In 1542 three Portuguese navigators were accidentally blown ashore on one of the small Japanese islands. They were hospitab sly received, and two of their arquebuses were purch: ased by the feudal lords. A brisk trade with the Portuguese followed, and within seven years Francis Xavier and a small company of Jesuits began to convert the natives. After a generation or so, seventy-five Jesuit fathers wereVATU TATU THATTUA UAT | wee a HURTUERAPAHURHAT ORO TRTROARTOOHN AnD PUTUUNONUTHTTOAUTUVAUNNULOVOTONVNVONODAUTONQUAUCOUNOROTONONTOCUEADOONESAUORVONOHONAUUONONQORONOAEREONONQOQONSONONO | ———s Sy APRRURGREHURDDOARGORRURORGOURRED HVVVQOVUQUUUULUTATHHVONUUU Labbe aise Chap. XXXII| EUROPE AND AMERICA IN ASIA 481 ministering to the needs of 150,000 converts and several hundred churches were built. In 1582 four Japanese boys were sent to be edu- cated in Spain and Rome. About this time the mikado ordered all missionaries to leave Japan under *‘ pain of death.’’ Soon the profes- sion of Christianity was made a capital offense and thousands of con- verts were slain. By the year 1638 Christianity was almost blotted out in Japan. The Portuguese and Spanish traders were expelled in the seventeenth century, and an imperial edict forbade Japanese going abroad. For two centuries this policy of exclusion was fol- lowed by the *‘ Empire of the Rising Sun,’’ although an exception was made in the case of the Dutch. About the middle of the nineteenth century, American whaling ships began to visit the waters of Japan, but all efforts to reopen trade were refused. In 1853 Commodore Perry, with four warships Commodore and 560 men, was sent to secure a commercial treaty with Japan, be- Pen, 1853 cause the United States was thinking of establishing a line of steamers between America and China and wanted to include Japan on the route. He took with him numerous gifts, including a sewing machine and a miniature railroad. The Japanese were greatly astonished by these wonders of the west. When he returned the next year with six men- of-war and 2,000 soldiers, a treaty was concluded, which provided for American sailors shipwrecked on the Japanese coast and allowed American ships to trade in two ports. Russia, Holland, France, and Great Britain soon secured similar treaties from the shogun. An American consul was sent out, a new and more favorable commercial treaty was signed, and a brisk trade between the two countries followed. The conservative party in Japan opposed these relations with the foreigners. The murder of a British subject led to the bombardment of Kagoshima by British warships. When in 1864 one of the nobles fired on some foreign vessels, a combined British, French, Dutch, and American fleet bombarded Shimonoseki and levied a fine of $3,000,000 on the nobleman. This resulted in the compulsion of still more favorable treaties. Ree ee ETE oh coder nes pee ee je ATR aia 7. THE PoxiticAL AND INDUsTRIAL REVOLUTIONS Meanwhile a nationalistic party, composed of the feudal lords and advocates of progress, overthrew the shogunate for assuming authority to treat with foreigners, and restored the puppet mikado to imperial power. This is known in Japanese history as the Revolution of 1868. The feudal lords then surrendered their political power to Political and the mikado, for compensation in money and government offices, and ”#étary feudalism was abolished. The peasants now became the owners of ”7”8 e p € Owners oO the land and paid taxes to the state. Shintoism was revived as the state religion in 1868 but disestablished a decade later. Compulsory military service was established to take the place of the samurai, and soon Japan had an army and navy based on western models. At Tokio the mikado now received the representatives of foreign powers, rer ———— ee —————my a } * a 1austrial > ; stenn VOLKNIionN 482 MODERN WORLD HISTORY = [Chap. XXXII and made treaties with them. Hundreds of students were sent to the western countries to learn their institutions and new ways. Official commissions were dispatched to other nations to report on advisable changes. A university was founded, and English was taught in the schools. In 1918 about 98 per cent of the children were in schools. Religious freedom was granted in 1871. Foreigners were call led in to revise the law codes, to build railroads, to supervise education, and to PRDEESS agriculture. Beefsteak. shoes, soda water, knives and forks, and silk hats came into use, although the old customs and habits were not abandoned. The institutions and inventions, which made the western nations superior, were merely adapted to the Japanese needs. Just a century after the United States adopted the federal constitu- tion, Japan framed a constitution, patterned after that of Prussia, transforming the absolute state into a limite¢ lmonarchy. The mikado left in possession of large awe resembling those exercised by the “Get man emperor. With the consent of parliament he made law, and of course executed it. The cabinet was appointed by him and responsible to him alone. A Pee council of ‘‘elder statesmen ~ tte The national parliament con- advised him on important n Bee ceuatiees —an aristocratic and a 1a sisted of the Peers and the R popular house. The franchise was restricted to males above twenty- four years who paid a land tax of about $7.50 and in 1925 property qualifications for males over thirty were removed. Local gov ernment was centralized and bureaucratic like that of France. The national government was neither parliamentary nor democratic, but in control of the old conservative forces. Yet when one remembers that ancient Japan believed that the mikado was descended from the gods, and that feudalism had endured so long, the revolution must be regarded as remarkably significant. Public opinion gained more and more power, however, and was soon strong enough to secure some liberal reforms. The Industrial Revolution made greater headway in Japan than the democratic political revolution. Nature has surrounded Japan with the ocean, like Great Britain, and she has an ample supply of coal though but little iron. There is an abundance of energetic laborers willing to work for a low wage. The industrial | leaders are resourceful, self-reliant, and possess a high capacity for organization. With these favorable pee factories were quickly established, and in 1920 were employing nearly two and a half million persons of whom 800,000 were women and children. Large quantities of cottons, silks, paper, matches, earthenware, lacquered ware, mat- ting, leather, trinkets, and oil products are made for sale abroad. The exports in 1918 exceeded the imports by about $150,000,000. Since 1872, when the first railroad was built, more than 9,000 miles have been constructed and are mostly state-controlled. Subsidized steamship lines run to all parts of the earth. The land of which onlyTAMEEHUROURUOUEOUNDOUENUNREOUUCUURNDONDERROSORERON Chap. XXXII] EUROPE AND AMERICA IN ASIA 483 14 per cent is arable, is carefully cultivated in little farms; and the masses of the poor people (74 per cent) are dependent upon the crops of rice, barley, wheat, and tea which they grow. The Industrial Rey- olution has produced only a small wealthy middle class, as compared with the western countries. Militarism and industrialism have raised the cost of living greatly, and the discontented, over-worked wage- earners have resorted to strikes, boycotts, trade-unions, and socialism, as in other industrial states. Slum districts, unknown to old Japan, have appeared in the factory centers. These attempts to force the government to provide social legislation to improve the lot of the workers have as yet produced few results. Since the Great War there have been repeated attempts, some of which have reached the point of threatening revolution, to liberalize the franchise. 8. JAPANESE IMPERIALISM Modernized by contacts with the west, with a population almost as overcrowded as that of Holland and Belgium — nearly 4oo to the square mile — with a wealth that has trebled in the last decade, and with capitalists clamoring for raw materials and markets, Japan has become aggressively imperialistic like her European teachers. Korea, China, and Siberia offered near-by opportunities. The first step was to create a powerful army and a formidable navy. With a large noble class to supply officers and with enforced universal military service, these weapons of modern imperialism were soon equal to those of any other land. Since the European powers were carving out ‘spheres of influence in the Far East,’’ Japan saw no reason why she should not make a similar experiment in Korea. First Korea was recognized as independent; then an effort was made to subject her to Japanese influence. China, however, claimed Korea as a part of her Empire and sent 2,000 soldiers to protect the Koreans. To safeguard her “‘inter- ests’ Japan rushed 12,000 soldiers to Korea, and on August 1, 1894, the Chino-Japanese War, which opened a new era in the Far East, commenced. With her Europeanized army and aavy, Japan won a brilliant victory. China acknowledged the independence of Korea under Japanese suzerainty. Japan secured Formosa, the Pescadores, and the Liao-tung peninsula, together with commercial privileges and an indemnity of $158,000,000. With comparative ease Japan had demonstrated that she was a modern military power. Alarmed at Japan’s success, Russia asked the great powers to join her in preserving the balance of power in the Far East. France and Germany expressed a willingness, but Great Britain was too suspi- cious of Russia's intentions. Hence the three powers, as defenders of Chinese integrity, by threat of war, forced Japan to surrender the conquests on the mainland and content herself with the islands and an additional war indemnity of $22,000,000. The real motive of Russia was evident, when she secured possession of the Liao-tung peninsula for herself on a ninety-nine year lease and fortified Port , ’ iid] aeRnOUn HHT MUAUUVAHOVOARIANTANOQTAVOOQUOOQTITQONTNGQNIOQQQNOQODOVQQONIUQQONUOQUTUOGYAQUOQHOVUNTOIEOOQOIDE Defeat of China, 1894 || TOUT eae =F ih 7 eae emmy meen ok 2 vr ae ae PTL ST SEY EN Sanaa nee = —E ~—— TT he . ———oTe i ee Ts Bt. A Ss - 2 - ; Great Britain j rT J ’ ; sv + @nad japan - i Japan and the World War 484 MODERN WORLD HISTORY = [Chap. XXXII Arthur, and also gained railroad concessions in Manchuria. At the same time Russia helped China float a foreign loan to pay off the first installment of the Japanese indemnity. The next decade was devoted by Japan to a deliberate preparation for the inevitable struggle with Russia for primacy in northeastern China. When the war came in 1904, it looked like a fight between a giant and a pigmy, but the Japanese soldiers won victory after victory. Port Arthur surrendered with 40,000 men, and the Russian navy was annihilated. Both countries agreed to evacuate Manchuria and return it toChina. Japan obtained Port Arthur and the Liao-tung peninsula, and was recog- nized as having a paramount influence in Korea. No war indemnity Japan emerged from the war as one of the eight great world powers, and the dominant influence in the Far East. In 1910 The Koreans ap- pealed in vain to the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 and to the Washington Disarmament Conference of 1921 for a restoration of their independence. Korea is about twice the size of New York state and has a population of 18,000,000. It has proven to be a rich field for The whole Japanese Empire was was paid. Korea was annexed to Japan and renamed Chosen. Japanese commercial expansion. now about the size of the state of Texas and embraced over 80,000,000 people in 1925. Great Britain was the first among the strong nations to welcome this newcomer among the world powers, and in 1902 formed the Anglo-Japanese Alliance, which (1) promised the integrity and in- dependence of China, and (2) declared for equal trading opportunities for all. It was extended in 1905 and 1g11 to include guarantees of peace in eastern Asia and in India, and continued in force until 1921. The easy triumph of Japan over Russia led to an ‘awakening’ among the orientals who began to say that if they were armed and trained like the westerners, European control in the Far East might be thrown ~~ off entirely. As a result, the term ‘‘yellow peril’’ was coined, and men began to speculate as to what would happen in case the yellow race, militarized and led by Japan, should inaugurate a world war against the white nations of the west. The World War furnished Japan with an opportunity to secure another piece of Chinese territory. After declaring war on Germany, at Great Britain’s invitation, Japan seized Kiao-chau and the province of Shantung with a promise of the eventual restoration of the same to China. Shortly after this conquest Japan presented China with her twenty-one demands, which would have virtually reduced China to a Japanese dependency. China protested and appealed to the powers, but receiving no support was forced to sign an agreement to employ Japanese advisers in political, financial and military affairs’; to permit the Japanese to police certain important places in China; to give Japan the right to construct certain railroads; and to consult Japan about foreign loans. In secret treaties Russia, Great Britain, France, and Italy agreed to give Shantung and the German IslandsMERERPREOUEDRUORNUERULWUEORRONOUNEORONDORUE LULL LEY Chap. XXXII] EUROPE AND AMERICA IN ASIA 485 in the Pacific north of the equator to Japan. At the same time Russia and Japan in 1916 secretly formed an offensive and defensive alliance against ‘any third power’’ that might attack their vested positions in China. In 1922, 1n accordance with the agreement at the Washing- ton Disarmament Conference of 1921, Japan made good her promise to restore the Shantung province to China. In recent years Japan has gradually developed what has been called an “‘ Asiatic Monroe Doctrine.’’ In the face of the aggressions of the white man’s world, the Japanese feel themselves justified in making provisions for their future security and prosperity. To them China Aad Japan form a single economic unit. Hence their foreign policy aims to establish: (2) the primacy of Japan in eastern Asia; (2) the exclusion of the western powers from positions in the Far East which threaten Japanese supremacy; () the recognition of Japan’s right to an equitable opportunity in the colonizing parts of the globe; and (4) the absolute equality of Asiatics with Europeans not only in Asia, but also in Africa and elsewhere. 9. Europe AND AMERICA IN AFRICA The huge Dark Continent of Africa, three times the size of either the United States or Europe with 11,462,000 square miles, still re- mains the most backward of all the grand divisions of the earth. Until comparatively recently, this vast area, except the northern and southern extremities, was peopled by savage tribes of blacks living amidst the most primitive conditions, and almost wholly cut off from the outside world. The backwardness of Africa was due, in part, to geographical conditions. The long, regular coast line is inhospitable, has few good harbors to encourage trade, is swampy and excessively hot, and breeds disease. Tall mountain ranges form a vast rim about the coast and thus make communication between the sea and the high and healthier interior difficult. A mighty desert stretches across the northern portion; the central part under the equator is a dense jungle burnt by the direct rays of the sun; and a rainless tableland covers the south. Four great rivers drain the continent, but until recently navigation has been impeded by rapids and waterfalls near their mouths. It is not surprising, in consequence, that until the middle of the last century the word “‘Unknown’’ was marked across the interior of the maps of Africa. Although this continent was the first after Europe to be mapped by Europeans, it was the last to be brought under their civilization. The northern coast has a history running back into antiquity. Egypt and Carthage played a conspicuous part in the rise of civilization. The study of human society begins in the Nile valley. From the seventh century onward Mohammedans from Asia overran northern Africa, and sent missionaries, traders, and slave-hunters into the in- terior. From the close of the fifteenth century to the beginning of the nineteenth century, the Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch, British, and PUMATHTHMUTUUOUQQQQGQOQQOTOROOUUATIUITOQULOQQQ0QNOQHNIQIIAD eanenaal HUEY ‘* Darkest Africa’’ ATTN TTITT tue PRS Reeeeeee” s SEPSESEIAL a 1 aeration’ corn Sw weaSe a Cs ee eres = 3 ~~ . Pa a a eT air rs SD i pe a eras 7=~ Seen ae = The slave trade 486 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XXXII French established trading posts along the coasts of Africa and did a thriving business in ivory, gold, gum, and human slaves. But with the exception of the Dutch in South Africa, Europeans made no effort to establish settlements in Africa. In 1815 Egypt, Tripoli, Tunis, and Algeria were ruled by tribal chiefs subject to the sultan of Turkey. Morocco had its own sultan as an independent state. The Dutch colony of 12,000 farmers in Cape Colony had passed to Great Britain. Until about 1865, only the French in Algeria and the British in Cape Colony, and the Boers, who had fled northward, had extended their rule into the interior. The darkest and most cruel chapter in African history was the capture and sale of the black peoples as slaves by the Christian nations of Europe and the New England Puritan sailors. These brutal white bullies seized the Negroes, packed them in the holds of ships, and sold them in North and South America. Millions of them were the victims of this inhuman, though lucrative, traffic. The Ameri- cans, instead of opposing this wicked business, welcomed the op- portunity to secure cheap labor and so increase their wealth and comfort. Christians justified slavery as a divinely sanctioned institu- tion, and argued that the slaves were being civilized and Christian- ized. In 1775 Great Britain alone had 192 ships with a capacity of 47,000 slaves engaged in this business. In 1791 there were 4o slave stations on the African coast 15 Dutch, 14 British, 4 Portuguese, 4 Danish, and 3 French. With the American and French Revolu- tion, the conviction grew that human slavery was contrary to the laws of God and the rights of man.’ Lord Mansfield ruled that as soon as a Slave set foot on the British Isles, he became a free man. The Quakers began an active campaign against slavery. Wilberforce and others persuaded the British Parliament in 1807 to prohibit the slave trade. The Congress of Vienna in 1814 decreed the abolition of this traffic, but left the details of the execution of the decree to each individual nation. The exportation of slaves to America stopped the forepart of the nineteenth century, but the trade in African slaves flourished both in Asia and within Africa until through international agreements it has practically disappeared. The League of Nations has sought to end it completely in regions like Abyssinia. Agitation for the abolition of Negro slavery served likewise as a stimulus for missionary work among the black peoples of Africa. Roman Catholic and Protestant missions began in the seventeenth century and became especially active in the nineteenth century. The marvelous reports of the traders and missionaries about the odd wild animals, the unusual plants, and the tribes of strange people, aroused the curiosity of the explorer, adventurer, and scientist. As early as 1788 a society was established in London to encourage *‘ men of enter- prise to explore the African continent.’’ After numerous attempts to reach the interior, Mungo Park with government aid and 36 European companions in 1805 reached Timbuktu but was killed on the NigerChap. XXXII] EUROPE AND AMERICA IN ASIA 487 river. An expedition sent out by the British government in 1816 to explore the Congo, under the erroneous belief that the Niger and Congo were “‘the same river,’’ ascended the latter 280 miles until stopped by the rapids which bar the way to the interior. A Swiss explorer named Burckhardt, after devoting several years to learning the language and customs of the natives, explored the Abyssinian countries and died in Cairo in 1817. In 1823 three Englishmen reached Lake Chad from Tripoli and were the first to report flourishing cities of semi-civilized natives in the inner regions. For the next quarter of a century the French and British were quite active in explorations; and in 1848-9 two German missionaries discovered the snow-clad peaks of Kilimanjaro. The most famous man connected with the opening up of Africa was David Livingstone, a Scotch missionary. From 1840 until his death in 1873, he spent almost all his time in the dangerous and difficult task of investigating the interior of Africa. He worked north of the Orange river, crossed the Kalahari desert to Lake Ngami, and in 1851-6 traversed the continent from east to west discovering the Upper Zambezi and the famous Victoria Falls. Then he explored the lower Zambezi and Lake Nyassa. In 1866 he began his last great tour of the Upper Congo from Zanzibar. Seven years later this brave man died a lonely death in the heart of Africa, and his devoted followers carried his body and papers back to Zanzibar from which his remains were borne to England and there deposited in Westminster Abbey. No explorer did so much as Livingstone, through his travels and writings, to acquaint the outside world with the Dark Continent. His activities aroused a tremendous interest among Europeans and Americans in the peoples and resources of Africa. Next to Livingstone, Henry M. Stanley deserved most credit for his work in Africa. Born in Wales, at the age of seventeen he went to the United States, where he saw service in the Civil War, and subse- quently became a newspaper reporter. After some exciting adven- tures in Asia, in the Indian wars of the western part of the United States, in Abyssinia, and in Europe, he was commissioned by the New York Herald in 1871 to discover Livingstone, who was generally believed to have died in central Africa. Leaving Zanzibar, after a forced march of nine months, he found Livingstone at Ujiji, supplied him with food and medicines, and spent several months with him exploring Lake Tanganyika. In 1872 he carried Livingstone’s journal to England and wrote a picturesque book, How I Found Living- stone. The next year he accompanied British troops to Ashanti as a wart correspondent. In 1874 the New York Herald and London Daily Telegraph financed an Anglo-American expedition to Africa under Stanley’s command. Starting from the east coast, he spent three years in crossing the continent and reached the ocean at the mouth of the Congo. His experiences were told in Through the Dark Continent ee Whahal MAAUHATHET EAGT WEMTAAHTHT MUSA AHHH OeanueE: WHOURRURTORRARHGGRORE HGTUTTTTHTTTTUTTTTHTTTUHTTTTTTTPHTUMTTITI TV UCSUOUOQQQQUUECOQOUOQOOTONOOOQOOOOVOQQONRORUNOQOUUCUVANNILUUOQOQQQQQ0Q0QQQCCQOQOQNOONGRNOORROQAOOTOOUULAL AAALUOTENA RESRERRUROOEES: Livingstone Stanley } H ILA eae 2‘hi ‘ 488 MODERN WORLD HISTORY |\Chap. XXXII in 1878 and showed that he had accomplished more than any other single ex pediti ion. Politically his journey laid the foundations for the Congo State, and for the scramble of the western nations of Europe for the partition ak the untaken parts of Africa. His call for mis- sionaries met with an immediate response, which served as the first step in placing the headwaters of the Nile under British control. Commercially, he made known the rich natural resources of the inte- rior of the continent. Failing to interest British merchants in the wealth of the Congo, Stanley codperated with Leopold II, king of Belgium, in organizing the International Association of the Congo. In 1879 Stanley went to the Congo as an agent of the Association, made treaties with the natives, established trading stations along the Congo as far as Stanley Falls, built a road around the cataracts, and over it carried four small steamers to the river above them. After five years devoted to these projects, Stanley returned to Europe but in 1887 in the employ of the British East Africa Company he spent two more years 11 nes CUTE around Albert Nyanza, gaining valuable concessions for his employers. a account of this adven- ture was given in 1890 in his Darkest Africa. No other explorer Om ee more in geographical it eries than this remarkable man, whose name was honored throughout the world. Henceforth the African map ceased to be marked ‘“‘Unknown,”’ but was filled in with charted rivers, lakes, and mountains. Prior eo 1878 only three European powers — Great Britain, France, and Portugal held large colonies in Africa. Although a tide of Br itish immigration began after South Africa was seized from the Dutch, yet so annoying were the troubles with the Boers and the natives | that in 1865 the British House of Commons unanimously that all further extension of territory . . . would be inex- pedient."’ Nevertheless Great Britain, in addition to South Africa, staked out vague claims on the Gold Coast, on Zanzibar, and at a few other points. Portugal claimed portions of the coast of both east and west Africa, and in 1875 secured possession of Delagoa Bay. France had annexed Algeria in 1830, had a settlement on the Senegal river, held some posts on the upper Guinea coast, used the estuary of the Gabun for a naval st: ition, and in 1862 secured Obok at the south- ern entrance to the Red Sea. The French had constructed the Suez Canal, which was opened to traffic in 1869. Thus by 1878 European powers owned roughly, only one tenth of the whole continent. The Orange River State and the Transvaal were free Dutch republics. Sierra Leone and Liberia had been established as communities of freed slaves. After 1878, following the remarkable explorations of Livingstone, Stanley and others s, Africa became the theater for European expansion. The causes were found in the economic and political rivalries of the nations of western Europe, and in the advance made in science. The partition of the entire continent soon followed. Railroads penetrated VOTte d PRS SOE SER E N Se eee ee ee 22a ee Se ee — Sa aPrreeeeeeT TTT TTT HTHTTTTTTTITTTATOTTTOTOTOVOOTTUTUNVTTT ITT QNTTATITITIQRTTOQONGQQOQQQQQQQQQQUTUNUUUUUUUUOUUTTOQAQOGNNGQOQNOOQUQUQUQQUUUUUVURDEQEOELENSUVE] DA Veen Chap. XXXII] EUROPE AND AMERICA IN ASIA 489 the interior; vast regions were opened for exploitation; and Africa began to take its place in world history. The Industrial Revolution, with its quest for raw materials and new markets, led the powers to lay greedy hands on the territory. Bankers, manufacturers, capti- talists, traders, and missionaries saw new El Dorados in the Dark Continent and encouraged their governments to take part in the appropriation of the territory. Private individuals and corporations joined in the mad scramble. It has been seen how King Leopold II of Belgium with Cardinal Lavigerie of Africa organized an association to exploit the wealth of the Congo and to suppress the slave trade, and sent out Stanley to supervise the work. A conference of the powers in Berlin in 1884-5 dissolved the association, agreed to sup- press the slave trade, and recognized the ‘Congo Free State’’ under the personal ownership of Leopold Il. The United States and twelve European states gave their consent to this arrangement on condition that the ‘“‘open door’’ policy be guaranteed to all nations. The Congo was at once occupied with troops, and the natives, reduced to a condition of slavery, were kept at work gathering rubber, ivory, and gums to enrich the owner. The public opinion of the world was aroused by this cruel exploitation, reforms were adopted, and in 1908 the Belgian government annexed the Congo Free State. Jt 1s now a model colony, eighty times larger than Belgium, with 10,000,- 000 blacks and 10,000 Europeans. About 600 missionaries are work- ing in that region alone. The exports amount to nearly $60,000,000; steamers run up and down the Congo; telegraph lines and wireless stations cover the country; and 1,200 miles of railroads and 650 miles of roads are in operation. The deposits of copper, which are reported to be the richest in the world, are worked by the most modern machinery, and tin, gold and diamonds are found. About 1890 began the ‘‘Great African Hunt”’ for colonies, which lasted until the end of the World War. As a result Turkey lost all her African dependencies, and the two Dutch republics ceased to be independent states. The rest of the continent, except Abyssinia and little Liberia, was carved up into European colonies without regard to the rights or wishes of the natives. At the outbreak of the World War in 1914, Africa was divided among the western powers as follows: 1. Portugal, the earliest colonizer in Africa, owned an empire twenty-one times her own size with 8,000,000 people. Although a possible source of great wealth, Portugal, not being an industrial state, had found her colonies to be a liability rather than an asset. It was reported in 1913 that Great Britain and Germany offered to pur- chase them, and Belgium and South Africa were eager to secure at least portions of them. In 1919 a greater degree of autonomy was granted the colonies and administrative reforms were promised to allay local discontent. The colonies consisted of Angola, Mozambique, Guinea and the Cape Verde and a few other islands. Exropean intruston Europe in Africa, 1914 — a segeerene saree neers mmesmrrrerr1 eal NR a 7 De et OO ak Re re pe em Ta Sa tenet wiv ie Tae ee ee era a — = m1 - wise : 490 MODERN WORLD HISTORY = [Chap. XXXII 2. France had built up a colonial empire in Africa rivalling that lost in America. It covered an area larger than all Europe and had a population of 31,000,000. It was made up of Algeria, four times the size of France, with a population of 4,750,000 natives, and 800,000 whites, and exports valued at $250,000,000; Tunis, larger than . Portugal with over two million inhabitants, and quite backward; Morocco, larger than France with 6,000,000 people and rich in resources; the huge Sahara, which some day may be a paradise; Senegal, Niger, Guinea, Ivory Coast, Dahomey, Mauritania, Congo, th 110N, art oF Somaliland, and the island of Madagascar. 3. Great Britain’s African possessions constituted a third of the continent with 56,000,000 inhabitants. They included the Sudan, British Somaliland, East Africa, Uganda and the islands off the coast, the South A Fae in Union, Rhodesia, Becuanaland, Basutoland, Nyassa- land, Nigeria, Gold Coast, Sierra Leone, and Gambia. A considerable hold over Earp also continued. The British colonies were the most favorably located, the wealthiest, and the most thickly populated with whites. The civilization of South Africa compared favorably with that of any other portion of the globe. 4. Germany, a later rival for an African empire, secured the third largest area, epntieand of territory almost five times her own size with 12,000,000 subjects. It comprised Togoland, Cameroon, South- west Africa, and East Africa, which were won in the face of active British, French, and Portuguese NPE CE ie best Se was East Africa with 8,000,000 natives, 15,000 Indians, and 5,300 whites, and rich in natural resources. 5. Italy, the latest candidate for territory on the Dark Continent, obtained within a dozen years an empire five times her own size with 1,600,000 people. It embraced Eritrea, a portion of Somaliland, and Lybia, all in northeastern Africa. Thus far these colonies have not proved to be sources of profit. 6. Spain controlled Rio de Oro, Adrar, Guinea, and the Rif in northern Morocco, with an area less than half her own, and 250,000 inhabitants. 7. The United States exercised a friendly protectorate over the Negro Republic of Liberia, a colony that was founded in 1816 for freed American slaves. In 1847 they declared their independence and drew up aconstitution. The state is about as large as Ohio, and has a population of 2,000,000 of whom only 12,000 are of American origin and 50,000 civilized. Not until 1893 were the boundaries fixed. In 1910 with the consent of Great Britain, Germany and France, the United States took control of the finances, the military organization, and the economic development of this black Republic. In 1914 every foot of Africa, except Abyssinia, a native inde- pendent state as large as two Germanies with 8 6,000,000 peop ple, Was preempted by some foreign power. About three fourths of the continent was possessed by two powers — Great Britain and France| WTGHGWRnAy rida WEDRARUERUURMURCRHOOHCRAURAniE CTT MUUTOUHOTHNTOTUUTVEANUEAUUHUAOETOVOLAUCANOEDOVOEAUTONVONONNULORVOOVONULVONENLOEOEOEE Hihk eee | t ANON ; seepage i ees ae a ee ere +c LA Sse) Ce aenneeret ==Insala LOMGAML * es et /l a Tyonpith hu tg es n a (iA PRE N CH AAVEe s —~ SE 7 eR A Ken ! . I ry f ; # A 4 mando i ; a . Py ITUILCL S r LU , tk y q/ ] ig fi a ot m is ‘ VONTIUL > U " — i HOTTLAS oO Armohon i M : ~ 41 e 10 T of we + S* Helena PARTITION OF AFRIC A P ae by E Luropean Powers 1920 a ny Ss re : r ; i oe a> | ; Mt Wida;res hy, leperde Tit | Leeann \ Stares : ee SSF. — — ae ; ' rT, | . =, =— : S > | Capé L it : —— 4 40 30 cO 10 Long. Wer st 0 East of Greer 10 C.of = te —— sad a REL COETADEISCHE Anstalt von F, A. Brockhaus, Leipzig, Germany.TUTTTTRRHED ARH UEUERRREOHURRUURDROEDOREOUROUURURNOUNBOMEUDRER TE HH REARS | Weeau ana te pEPELTTTU TATE VVUAHHAHT INO 30 Veiase +rtlyr eE-Z iS ae a Ce rs ae vam chpruseS \ utfo ? DOAK Cus Beir Vee S. eA é \ Pong. alein Alexa, Sarg OJerusé L ' renaicai SAR LS, x \iL ee i i ae ae ae Cair : NS Lez *. \ | J 7 i N | \ CEN A ie E 2G AC PNT Zan Libya: "ol ~ > vw | lasts 2 r (Brit. F poyector) ( 2\! "Kira v De Se7 Se « = Se eee ae Ae aS - co gr ee rans slr [ wh LL Ob } Le “. 4, Kodok(? Se WE os x + ‘i. Rouriemns HODESIA\ ia a (alahayi Des, rd DL. OTe O eee Be Ea fo? . Tw (Cha GL Pre etor ia} Jo hari eS Be 4 ‘aS oY Lornadon ANGLO|-EGYP/NANS | jars 2 “TANGANYIKASS ~ Tabora TERRITORY. (Brit. Mand.) Q LOUPCLCO Mat ups De Lagoa hay lo SOUTH AFRICA | | Berber yh few ER a \Uassaz Al a1 * . 7 ee » - ‘ Sis <> SOKOTE = babe So al \ 6, N re q) ‘CLangn . 255 QAhia Kx ie \ ce | 4 pPemba 1. a 4anzibar Dar-es-SQlaam 4 aria I. Arnaz antes Aldaoyra / (ArjJ 2. A COMOR o]* ao Mozam buque y Yayuiga beak: eft NV lanariy in uU1ve ho ov | Maharantsoa Sa MmeN lear UZ acy | TPIINAT UZ DUP g | | ‘Durban ~* qe Dieg » SLANT CZ _— — ~ a — — —< Seychelics [| = f 5 re 2 Uaartiins S Vay “eurion 7 7 AO £2 Uqez J f. > —__ ——420 SSS | nl / | al WEST A TRA Ce ed en SE a hea nas ees ee hee et A a a a Serr NSS Neen eee Lada eel mas ano eS Se eres ee ae a a oe ——- & a r 4) u4 if j { | j a ' f | ‘ | u rae f ' i iD i ti | 7 ni | . Heal i | ] aa {| Ny ‘a | ] i a } Se cert ene eet Ue arte Es lithe aaaa TEaeeanean WHREURaUUnnaane: THUR HEREHRGUnne woeene a an TURAN AAW Onn ean ae TUNUATUNUTEAUAHQTOTONUREONOEOTOQUQENEOTONOUGEOLOVOVOUUOUOUONENUNAOUURAOORUOUGROCOROROOER LAS AAOD Ht WOVRUSeaTNReADRAAnaG | HVLTOVTVTAEROT i Chap. XXXII] EUROPE AND AMERICA IN ASIA 491 The remainder was controlled by six others — Germany, Belgium, Italy, Portugal, Spain, and the United States. As a result of the World War, Great Britain seized German East and Southwest Africa, which almost doubled her holdings and gave her a continuous stretch of territory from the Cape to Cairo overt which to complete the continuous route by rail and water now lacking only a few links. Ruanda, the northwestern corner of German East Africa was ceded to Belgium and added to the Congo Free State. The Cameroon was divided between France and Great Britain, the former gaining the major portion. Togoland was likewise divided between these two powers by a line running north and south. Ina secret treaty France and Great Britain in r915 promised Italy ‘‘ compensation in Africa in case they should obtain the German colonies. She has set claim to an extension of Libya southward to Lake Chad and of Somaliland west- watd. The boundaries were fixed definitely in January 1924. During the World War the black men of Africa fought loyally for their white masters both at home and in Europe. In 1920 Great Britain owned 38 per cent of Africa; France 37 per cent, Portugal 7 per cent; Bel- gium 8 per cent; Italy 5% per cent, Spain 13 per cent; and only 3 per cent was independent. Through many different agencies the institutions and ideals of Europe and the United States have spread rapidly over Africa. The whole of South Africa is dominated by European whites, and every other section of the continent has felt their influence. Famines have been relieved; tribal wars have been stopped; huge irrigation plants have been erected; western wares flood the continent; roads and railroads thread the country; steamships navigate the rivers and lakes; machines have been installed in mines and factories; and com- munication has been improved. Thousands of missionaries are teaching the natives Christianity, the languages, science, mechanical arts, and ways of the whites. Slowly in some parts and rapidly in others, the whole civilization is changing to the European type. The idea of ‘‘self-determination’’ has awakened a sense of nation- alism and ‘‘race consciousness,’ which has produced revolts in Egypt, Libya, Portuguese East Africa and South Africa. Every year, thousands of Europeans pout into Africa which now has a white population, chiefly in the north and south, of 2,500,000. Efforts have been made to curtail the liquor trafic and to abolish slavery. The 120,000,000 of the black race are gradually adopting the civilization of their conquerors. The next century will undoubt- edly see undreamed-of developments in Africa. 10. THE EUROPEANIZATION OF AUSTRALASIA AND OcEANIA The civilization of Australia, the smallest of the six continents, is, like that of America, merely the overflow of Europe. It is chiefly British, moulded and modified by local conditions. Of the 5,000,000 whites all but a little over 3 per cent are either British or of British WH iti European civilization in Africa TATA WURRORRER DORE TAR | Moa ee eee — ee ne eee Dias CT a ip mel a Re SS ark - a el ——————— ee ame a a Pag Oe a ee eed Sa a — =a edee ee a RR Ak OE > a tT ag tae ae Ea a ie PSS eT A SS ————— aa P hai ene OPULGION a ; Australia Oceania of 492 MODERN WORLD HISTORY |Chap. XXXII descent. It is estimated that the 50,000 aborigines are less numerous than when the country was first colonized. So far as they have been civilized, they have adopted the institutions and customs of the whites. The blood and culture of the island of Tasmania reflect the influence of Australia. The population of New Zealand is predomi- nantly British. The natives number 62,000, the Chinese 3,000, the half-castes about the same, and the non eGriLich whites 12,000. In } recent years more than 4o immigrants, principally from the British Isles, have gone annually tothat land. Atthe same time there has been an exodus of 35,000 yearly. The language, institutions, and ideals of New Zealand, from Great Britain. These have been more progressive in making social, economic, educational, those of Australia, were transplanted newer portions of the British Empire and political experiments, consequently their civilization 1s of a most advanced type. Oceania is a term applied to the islands of the Pacific Ocean. Most of those south of the equator now belong to Great Britain. Among them are the Solomon, Santa Cruz, Fiji, Ellice, Phoenix, Tokelau, Tonga, Manihika, Cook, Kermadec, Avon, Chatham, and the eastern portion of New Guinea. North of the equator North Borneo, the Gilbert, Palmyra, W a0 ston, Fanning, Christmas, and Hong Kong belong to the eee Bi mpire. Germany in 1914 owned in the south Pacific Wilhelmsland in New Guinea, the Ad- miralty, Bismarck, New Mecklet - ree pe of the Samoan group; and in the north Pacific, the Pelew, the Caroline, and the Marshall islands. These were lost in the World War, however, the former going to the British Empire and the latter to Japan. France controls the New Hebrides, New Ca econia Loyalty, Society, Faumotu, Tuhat, and Marquesas islands all below the equator. In addition to the islands captured from Germany, Tie holds Formosa, the Liu-Kiu- Luchu, and Kurile islands, and the southern part of Sakhalin. The United States has secured possession of the Philippines, Guam, How- land. Hawaii, and Aleutian islands in the north Pacific, and some of the Samoan group in the south P acific. Holland owns most of the East Indies forming a connecting link between Asia and Australia. The total population of Oceania approximates 70,000,000 of whom the brown and yellow races constitute the vast majority. The whites, who are the owners and rulers, number only a few hundred thousand. Many of the natives are still in a state of savagry and barbarism. Through trade relations, the work of missionaries and teachers, and political control, western civilization is slowly penetrating these out- of-the-way places either directly, or indirectly through European- ized powers like Japan. In the Indian Ocean, France owns Madagascar and Reunion, and all the rest of the felands belong to Great Britain. In the south Atlantic, St. Helena, Ascension, Tristran, Gough, Sandwich, South Georgia, South Orkney, South Shetland, and Falkland islands arenT PePeeTTTTTTTTTTTTTOTTTATOTNTRTATTTTTATAUTETUOTATITATATATTVTTEVOTOTOTOTTTITOH NGG HiT PUNTOvUT TUT MATHMOTOSTUHTONTONOGEOUOONUOEONOOOOQUCUUUUUURLUNGQUQCOUUUUUEREEAOAQOUOUURLHIHHGAL TUUUUUUAYRRIELLVVOLLAHHHHH i THTAVAURRATRAHEGRART DART WTA Hit Chap. XXXII] EUROPE AND AMERICA IN ASIA 493 parts of the British Empire. In the north Atlantic control of the 1s- lands is more widely distributed, although Great Britain possesses the Orkney, Shetland, Newfoundland, Bahamas, Jamaica, Bermudas, and the Lesser Antilles. Portugal owns the Azores, Cape Verde, Madeira, St. Thomas, and Prince. Spain retains the Canary and Annobon islands. Denmark rules Greenland, Iceland, and the Faroe islands. The United States owns Porto Rico, the Virgin islands, and exercises a protectorate over Cuba, Santo Domingo, and Haiti. In all these island regions western civilization has been firmly planted. The native population is much smaller than in the Pacific, and the white population larger. 11. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS Looking at the world as a whole today, it is astonishing to see to what extent the civilization of Europe has spread over the six continents and the islands of the seas. This remarkable result has been accomplished in many different ways during the past four centu- ries. Early explorers, navigators, adventurers, traders, missionaries, and military leaders laid the first foundations. Then colonists went forth of their own accord, or were sent out by their governments or by corporations, to settle along the coasts or up the navigable streams. In this manner European political, religious, social, educational, and economic institutions and ideals were planted in North and South America; in Siberia; in South Africa; and in Australia and New Zealand. This process of the direct expansion of European influences to other parts of the world has continued down to the present day. During the past century, particularly, there has been an unprecedented movement of European peoples into every quarter of the globe. With the doubling of the population of Europe in the nineteenth century, and the consequent overcrowding and competition at home, millions of emigrants have crossed the seas to new regions, where land was cheap, wages high, opportunities for advancement greater, and the government more democratic. This new — Migration of the nations ” still continues. To the United States alone since 1776 have gone 40,000,000 people from European lands. Other millions have found homes in Canada, Latin America, Australasia, Asia, and the islands of the seas. While some have returned home, the vast majority have remained in their adopted countries. These recent waves of emigra- tion have carried European civilization to all corners of the earth. These direct settlements of Europeans, in turn, set in motion secondary immigration movements that spread European civilization over the more backward parts of the world. Thus the settlers of the eastern coast of North America gradually forged their way westward until they crossed the continent to the Pacific. The Latin Americans penetrated the interior of the continent. South Africans worked their way northward; the Russians eastward across Asia; the Aus- tralians took possession of a continent. In this way the natives of End of European and American isolation Can nee OE \ an ee eee ee sa Bm ee ee ea ee alae emg acute —————E oe a eeEffect of t World W. Euro pean @aScCen das in the a ar roaay 7 j 494 MODERN WORLD HISTORY = (Chap. XXXII America, Africa, Asia, and Australasia were brought into touch with European influences. The millions of blacks who were carried to the New World from Africa soon forgot their own language and customs and adopted those of their white masters. The hundreds of thou- sands of Asiatics, who have gone to other parts of the world ruled by the whites, have imitated their clothes, foods, speech, manner of living, and ways of doing thin gs. The thousands of students, who have gone from Asia and Africa to Europe and America for a higher education, have carried home with them a knowledge of western history, inventions, government, art, industry, literature, and religion. Numerous missionaries, teachers, and physicians have given western Civilization to the non-Christian peoples. Western civil and military officials have produced similar results. Business men have opened up all parts of the world to the products of western mills and factories. Countries like Turkey, Persia, China, Japan, and Liberia have invited specialists from the west to sive advice about finance, politics, education and industry. In all these ways non-European countries have been modernized and westernized. As a result of the World War, distant peop sles were brought into closer touch with Europe. Hund lreds of thousands of coloni J troops from Asia and Africa saw ‘military service un der: the banners of Great Britain and France. Large numbers of Chinese “‘coolies ’ were employed as laborers in France and Belgium and Russia. The Fil1- pinos raised regiments to serve under the stars and Stripes. Japan for the first time joined her western allies in a great international conflict in Europe. Thus a knowledge of Europe was spread more deeply among the non-European peoples. Even in America, through the millions of soldiers and civilians sent to France, Belgium and Italy, new contacts were established between the Old World and the New, and a different set of ideas and impressions of the European peoples was Carried back to America. The colonials from the self-governing colonies of Great Britain had the same experience. No fact in world history stands out more clearly today than the general predominance of Europeans and their descendants throughout the earth. Their steamships carry the world’s freight and passengers across all the seas. Their r ailroads girdle the globe. Their airships fly across the oceans and continents. Their telegr aph lines, cables, wireless stations, and telephones bring all parts of the world into communication. Their electrical inventions light the cities and supply heat and power. Their agricultural implements, household utensils, and machinery are used in Africa and Asia. The products of their factories supply the needs of distant peoples. Their type of houses and public buildings is found in India, China, Japan, and Egypt. Their kerosene lamps, gasoline engines, sewing machines, the phonograph, the radio, moving pictures, photography, matches, watches, firearms, typewriter, fountain pen, clothing, tobacco, alcoholic drinks, and patent medicines are used among the blacks,TNT HVTNTHHAT ARHERRROAEE i \| 1] a! a ——— 4 a et eee ee eee Chap. XXXII] EUROPE AND AMERICA IN ASIA 495 reds, yellows and browns of every land and clime. China is remodel- ling her political institutions after those of the United States. Japan and Turkey fashion their governments and train their armies after the example of European states. India is copying the laws and in- dustries of Great Britain. The English tongue has become almost a world language, although French, German, Spanish and Italian are also widely diffused. The Christian faith has spread among the Eskimos of the frozen north, the Negroes of equatorial Africa, the Indians of America, Mohammedans, Buddhists, and Confucians. Western schools planted in Asia and Africa teach the arts, sciences, languages, morals, and manners. Physicians and surgeons from the west are giving their lives to cure the sick and crippled in distant lands. Millions of dollars are contributed by western peoples for these worthy purposes. In all these ways the blessings of western civilization are spreading around the globe. pu pente Mai Nett nt ee ee TT ae Iz. THE WorxLpD oF 1800 AND TopAY COMPARED At the beginning of the past century, half of the landed surface of the earth was still unmapped. Canada, Alaska, and the region west of the Mississippi were so little known that a geography of that date omitted all indication of the Rocky Mountains. The vast interior of Asia was unknown, and Africa was labelled ‘The Unex- plored Continent.’’ Only a few settlements were made on the coast of Australia. The Arctic regions had scarcely been discovered, and the Antarctic realm had barely been touched. The known world was restricted to Europe, the eastern part of North America, and the coastal borders of Latin America, Africa, and Asia. The expedition of Lewis and Clark in 1804-5 opened up the Louisiana territory. Alexander von Humbolt in 1799-1804 began the systematic explora- tion of South America, but it was not until 1913 that Roosevelt went up the Amazon to its headwaters. The past century has seen the geographical conquest of the globe by many hardy and heroic explorers and scientists. Africa was penetrated by brave men, who traced the great rivers, located the Completion of mountains, mapped the interior, and described the people, and animal explorations and plant life. In Asia the headwaters of the Indus and Ganges were reached, the high peaks of the Himalayas climbed and measured, the mysteries of Tibet and central Asia photographed, and the veil of ignorance shrouding Farther India, China, Korea, and Japan lifted. Inner Australia was crossed from north to south. Many fruitless efforts were made to discover the northwest passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific, but the task was finally accomplished in 1903-6 by Amundsen. To reach the North Pole, Nansen, a Norwegian scien- tist, in 1892-5, drifted across the polar sea in his ship, the Fram, and reached a point 272 miles from the Pole. A few years later an Italian expedition attained a point still farther north. The honor of actually discovering the North Pole belongs to Robert E. Peary, an American,Se a a ee — Sa — See —_ Sd ne anetama mer tae a amie area eS Te a Se ae ————— 496 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XXXII who on April 7, oo ceaeDes it over rough ice after months of hardships with a dog-sledge, a Negro servant, and several Eskimos. Nansen and Perry eagedl: that there is no land in the north polar basin, but only ice over a sea of great but unknown depth. On the contrary, the south polar region is a continent of vast dimensions, which many brave men from Captain Cook onward have attempted to explore. A British expedition nndee the leadership of Shackleton in 1907-9 proceeded toa point 97n miles fro ntheSouth Pole. The honor of discovering it belongs to Amundsen, a Norwegian, who reached it on December 16, I9g1I. Captain’ Scott, an Englishman, found it on January 18, cgn2, only to discover that Amundsen had won the prize. On their return, Scott and his companions perished from expos- ure in the terrific cold. Although the entire surface of the earth is now known, yet large areas remain to be investigated more scien- tifically. The expansion of European civilization brought an impact with two distinct areas: one inhabited by uncivilized peoples such as the Negroes of Africa; the other peopled —— the Indians of America anc by civilized groups such as the Hindus, Chinese, and Japanese. Asa result the entire world has become largely Europeanized, and Europe is now only a part of this ‘‘Greater Europe.’’ The east and west, so ong separated, have been united, and each has come to appreciate SC the other. on ames from Europe and the United States have been le — sprinkled all over the earth, and those of Asia and Africa are found in Barats America. Action and reaction have been going on for over four hundred years, and yet one may say that the process has just begun. The next century will witness a more pronounced inter- dependence of Europe on the rest of the w orld, and of other peoples on Europeans than has yet appe: ired. Already there has developed on the globe an economic unity, which is the basis of material prosperity in all nations. The needs of the industrialized powers have led them to attempt to organize the world politically. Much has been written about the effect of the expansion of Europe upon other portions of the earth, but entirely too little attention has been given to the reaction of this expansion upon European ideas, institutions, and modes of living. Perhaps it would not be too much to say that Europe has been revolutionized in revolutionizing the rest of the world. 13. RESULTS OF THE New AGE OF IMPERIALISM A general survey of the fifty years following the Franco-Prussian War reveals certain striking characteristics and results: 1. It was an era of benevolent bourgeois tule. The leading states- men, with some exceptions such as Bismarck and Cavour, came from the middle class. Rich traders, bi »ig merchants, wealthy mz anufacturers, and “‘captain of industry’ generally, bel longed to this group. Their triumph was due as much to the Industrial Revolution as to the series7 MEGTETARTTAVERASEAL VTRHEGGGAT 7 ARN EAH WORATARAR TUTE G HAART GRAD UAT RURAURAROaGT Prrevereer TTT TTTHTHTTTOTECVTTTTUUVITTTWTITATINGTENTEUCUOUUUUUUUUUUUUTOTAGNEQQGUULCQUUULUCLUTTEVORGQAQORROQRLALEE ALLURE Chap. XXXII] EUROPE AND AMERICA IN ASIA 497 of political revolutions, by which power and privilege passed from the hands of the land-owning aristocracy and the clergy into the hands of the business and professional men. Noblemen now found it rofitable to enter finance and industry; they sat with the bourgeoisie on boards of directors of banks, factories, railroads, steamship lines, and mines; and they joined the middle class in politics. Thus it was that the lawyers, doctors, bankers, teachers, engineers, journalists, and capitalists absorbed the nobility, on the one hand, and the men of genius and ability, who rose from the common people, on the other, until they became the ruling political power throughout the world. Here was a factor of great significance in world history. >. A new type of nationalism, based on an intense patriotism, grew up during this period. Ten continental European states — the German Empire, the Third French Republic, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Kingdom of Italy, the five Balkan states, and Norway — emerged as sovereign powers. At the same time the ‘submerged nationalities’ like the Finns, Poles, Czechs, and Irish, were clam- oring for free self-determination. The national unity of the American Republic had just been decided by a bloody civil conflict. Japan was modernized, and China awakened. Everywhere an intense nation- alism tevealed itself in more democratic institutions and social reforms. The franchise was extended in most nations. Slaves and serfs were freed. The ‘‘pan’’ movement attempted to build up a closer political and cultural union of the various groups having the same blood and origin, and it met with general acceptance. There was af increase in national order and security, and in national wealth and prosperity. National laws protected private property, favored business, and even subsidized commercial undertakings. Tariffs were revised to protect industries as well as to secure more revenues for the state. In Great Britain, however, the policy of free trade was regarded as most favorable to the industrial class. National taxation was changed so as to weigh as lightly as possible on big business. Most of the nations began to develop merchant marines to carry their imports and exports. For national protection, this new nationalism led to the building of larger navies and the organization of stronger armies. Patriotic support was given to militarism. Free public schools were provided, and attendance made compulsory. Higher institutions of learning were endowed by the rich, or supported by the state. Applied science was fostered in a hundred different fields. And, finally, the well-being of the working classes was cared for by unprecedented social and economic legisla- tion. 3. All over the world constitutions became the basis for the modernized states. Those of an earlier period were amended to meet new needs. Many fresh constitutions were framed by both republics and monarchies to guarantee individual rights and to sub- ject all the processes of government to law. Many acts of Parliament CAAT ES a ie ee aa ae —— TE a ee a eRrer ee eran — SMT a sere a eee ake ere ra ore rs Ray See Sota Be == > 4 ~ 198 MODERN WORLD HISTORY = [Chap. XXXII ) altered the British constitution. The United States after the Civil War adopted seven amendments. Austria-Hungary drew up a new constitution in 1867, which lasted until the end of the World War. The Italian constitution adopted in 1848 is still in operation. The German constitution of 1871 lasted till dissolved in the Revolution of 1918. Switzerland revised her constitution in 1874, France formu- lated hers in 1875, and the next year those of Spain and Turkey appeared. The constitution of Rumania was secured in 1884, Hol- land in 1887, and Japan in 1889. Serbia framed a constitution 1n 1903, Sweden in 1909, Portugal, Bulgaria and Greece in 1911, Den- mark in 1915, and Russia in 1917. Between 1566 and 1917 all the Latin-American republics, except Peru, Uruguay, and Chile, obtained new constitutions. Out of the World War came at least a dozen new constitutions in Europe. Thus it will be seen that the period of national imperialism was one of continued progress 1n constitu, | 4. The type of government which prevails today throughout the world is the republican. Excluding the few European dependencies, ublics — twenty- all the states in North and South America are rept fore 1914 France, two of them counting Canada. In Europe bef Switzerland, and Portugal were republics; and since the World War eight more have been added to the list. The vast Chinese Empire was transformed into a republic, thus with Russia, Germany, France and the United States, completing the mighty belt of republics around the globe. Of course Australia, South Africa, and New Zea- he list. In addition, it should be remem- land should be added to t bered. that most of the monarchies like Great Britain, Italy, Belgium, Denmark, and Norway, are almost as truly democratic as the repub- lics. Everywhere royal power is declining and popular government increasing. About two thirds of the people of the earth now live under republics. >. The peasants, artisans, and day laborers, who constitute the bulk of the population of all nations, were, for the most part, willing to accept the leadership and ideals of the middle class. Since the bourgeoisie posed as the champions of ‘‘liberty, which guaranteed private property, individual rights, and democratic government; of “equality of opportunity and legal protection; and of ‘‘fra- ternity’’ in a vigorous national patriotism, the proletariat was persuaded to, follow them. The thrifty workers invested their sav- ings in stocks and bonds and thus, like the nobles, identified their interests with the capitalistic system. Ihey favored any state policy that increased their dividends. Peasants were lured from the farms to the cities by better economic inducements. The wage-earners were taught to believe that their employment, wages, and livelihood depended upon the perpetuity and prosperity of the captains of indus- try. A healthy business condition was set forth as one of the funda- mental aims of national patriotism, and the working classes wereieee” i\} a | ] : aa Wanaauanah HHI aay WRVVTTTAVORHTTARORAUATTUERRORTOGD HOT EVUAVTLEL TVET ET DUMP TTEOTUHCITTITEV UATE UOTOONIUOQOOOONVOUQUNNQEGQUNARETUUUNENELEU LERNER EHEG AMMAN | Chap. XXXII} EUROPE AND AMERICA IN ASIA 499 impressed with the necessity of promoting industry and trade as their primary duty. The growing number who refused to accept the “divine right’’ of middle-class rule, formed labor unions, and incited strikes and lockouts, or became the champions of socialism and syndicalism. 6. Out of these conditions arose the new national imperialism, which sought colonies, raw materials, markets, new fields for in- vestments, concessions in backward countries, and virgin areas for missionary and educational work. There was much talk about ©’ mani- fest destiny,’ and the ‘“‘white man’s burden.’’ In the mad scramble for the partition of Africa, Asia, and the islands of the seas, the European countries took the lead. The United States and Japan followed with a policy of expansion. World history took on a new meaning. Between 1871 and 1925 more was done to spread the civilization of Europe and America over the globe than had been done in all previous centuries. This new imperialism grew out of the new nationalism, and rested upon a new patriotism backed up by industrialism and militarism. These were the modern forces that were moulding the destiny of the human race. 7. Under these conditions, as the nations were organized and guided, a clash of rival imperialistic and commercial interests over the earth was inevitable. As a result, nations sought to gain ad- vantages through favorable treaties and alliances. Secret diplomacy was employed to secure agreements. Reciprocal understandings were used to obtain advantages. This keen rivalry was intensified by the advance in transportation and communication. Capable business promoters were sent over the earth to get concessions, contracts, and material bargains for the various national groups. Serious ‘oternational crises arose. Most of them were settled by diplomacy and compromise, but again and again war was narrowly averted. Between 1871 and 1918 imperialism was either directly or indirectly responsible for the Russo-Turkish War of 1878, the Chino-Japanese War of 1894-5, the Spanish-American War of 1898, the Boer War of 1899, the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-5, the Italo-Turkish War of rgit, the Balkan Wars of 1912-13, and the World War of 1914-18. REFERENCES FOR FURTHER STUDY V. Carrot, The Occident and the Orient (192-4); H. Wesster, History of the Far East (1923); E. Drrautr, La question d'extréme Orient (1908); P. Reinscx, Intellectual and Political Currents in the Far East (1911); L. Lawron, Empares of the Far East, 2 vols. (1912); R. K. Douetas, Europe and the Far East, 1506-1912 (1913); S. K. HorNBEcK, Contemporary Politics in the Far East (1916); H. A. Grssons, The New Map of Asia (1919); The New Map of Africa (1916); H. M. HynpMan, The Awakening of Asia (1919); K.S. Latourette, The Development of China (1918); The Development of Japan (1916); H. A. Grugs, China and the Chinese (1902); The Civilization of China (1911); China and the Manchus (1912); G. Maspgre, La Chine (1918); P. H. CLements, The Boxer Rebellion (1915); P. H. Kent, The Passing of the Manchus (1912); B. L. PurnaM-WEate, The Fight for the Republic in China (1918); H. M. Vinacxe, Modern Constitutional Development in China (1920); H. Corpter, Histoire des relations de la Chine avec les Puissances occidentales, 1860-1902 (1902); er es SS ee oroey ee Sass500 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XXXII M. T. Z. Tyau, Treaty Relations between China and other States (1917); H. B. Morsz, The International Relations of the Chinese Empire, 3 vols. (1g10-1918); N. J. Bau, The Foreign Relations of China (1921); The Open Door Doctrine in Relation to China (1923); T. W. Over- Lach. Foreign Financial Control in China (1919); G. Z. Woon, The Shantung Question (1922); Sun Yat-sen, The International Development of China (1922); Paut LINEBARGER, Sun Yat-Sen and the Chinese Republic (1925); F. Brinxuey and Baron Kixucat, A History of the Japanese People from the Earliest Times to the End of the Meiji Era (1915); Count Oxuma, editor. Fifty Years of New Japan, 2 vols. (1909), English translation by M. B. Huish; GE. Uvenara, The Political Development of Japan: 1567-1909 1910), W. W. McLaren, A Political History of Japan (1916); R. K. Porter, Japan, the Rise of a Modern Power (1918 ); a ; , . } } H LOoNt ;FORD, | a Dan I j24 . I (yOLLIER, hissat sur tes institutions poliliques atu lapbon Pi ; Cay , f fy 791 ' I 4 D le 1 r-7 "hy ) - . tc eae ol 2 / j 1902 K. Kawakami, Japan in Worla Polstics (1917); The Recent Aims and Political } . hee : AS y Tw l ohne od vk T Tose } pater - > a ; Devel prnent Weal aij 19223 . I [Rt AT, [@Dail ana She Uniitea States, Ié6¢7-I9021 IQO21 /, / ‘ . i 7 ~ A ’ A. S. Hersuey, Modern Japan (1919); T. F. Mitrarp, The Conflict of Polictes in Asta (1924); Tl. Dennett. Americans in Eastern Asta . Americans in Eastern Asia (1922); R. L. Bug... The Washington Conference (1922); F M. ANpeRSON and A. S. Hersugy, Handbook for the Diplomatic Histor) of Europe, Asta, and Africa, 1870-1914 (1918); 1. Bowman, The Vorld Problems in Political Geography (1921); L. Stopparp, The Rising Tide of Color (1970): The New World of Islam (1922); D. G. Hocarts, The Nearer East (1902); > + EM. Earze. Turkey, the Great Powers and the Bagdad Railway (1923); W. M. SHusTER, The Strangling of Persia (1912); P. M. Syxes, A Héstory of Persia, 2 vols. (1915); E. G. Browne. The Persian Revolution of rg0s-1g09 (1910); A. VAMBERY, Western Culture in Eastern Lands (1906); M. J. Pr American Policies (1916); A. IRELAND, The Far Eastern Tropics (1905); A. CABATON, Java and the Dutch East Inass (191 1): G. H. Scnorerietp, The Pacific: Its Past and Its 1919); M. Karaw, Se/f Government in the Philippine Islands (1919); E. Hertsxer, cz. Stberia (1912); F. Appotr, ]apanese Expansion and + + ~ i i The Map of Africa by Treaty, 3 vols. (edition 1909); J. S. Kextie, Te Partition of Africa 1 ed. 1895); N. D. Harris, lntervention and Colonization in Africa (1914); L. Wootr, Empire and Commerce in Africa (1920); H. H. JoHNston, British Central Africa (1897); Liberia. 2 vols. (1906); George Grenfell ana the Congo, 2 vols. (1908); The Opening Up of Africa (1911); A History of the Colonization of Africa by Alien Races (1913); C. H. StiGanp, Administration in Tropical Africa (1914); H. QuENEUIL, La Conférence de Bruxelles et ses Resultats (1907); D. LivinGcsTong, Missionary Travels and Researches in South Africa 1860); Last Journals in Central Africa (1875); H. M. Srantey, How I Found Livingstone 1872); Autobiography (1909, edited by D. Stanley ); E. VaNDERVELDE, La Belgique et la Congo (1911); W. C. Wittovucusy, Race Problems in New Africa (T0723), 5 0: KRITH; j The Belzian Congo and the Berlin Act (1918); A. F. Carver, The German African Empire 1916); W. Evereicu, Southwest Africa 1915); A. B. Wrxpg, Modern Abyssinia (1901); T. Barctay, The Turco-Italian War and its Problems (1912); W. K. McCuvreg, Italy in North Africa (1913); V. Piquzt, La colonization francaise dans I’ Afrique du nord (1912); G. W. Euus, Negro Culture in West Africa (1914); A. GaisMAN, L’euvre de la France au Tonkin (1906); F. Srarr, Liberia (1913); G. L. Begr, African Problems at the Paris Peace Conference (1923).i ’ aan in TURRTHAHANHG WUAVNCUARURANURGRRAUARTUAOREOE ae WORM Raan eee an aa Tannen t Wan TUTTUTVATVTTG TAHA FOV THT NTVOTTRTTONTOVAUATUONUNLUNTQOTUGNUOTOTVGALORUOAUUAUAKUGURAUGYNOOUGHUGRUOTUOTUGREOUERDEGALOONOTNNOVOARAQRODRUOUSRUGKEGUUGKEASROLUGUVGAAAARARESRTSRIEE"® EERE nn eras Li ote inlet as de an T Fe ee Mae vba. naan ae PRS LN AEN " Cee cane PAR® Vit INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND THE WORLD WAR| Baan ta j 7 . wea aha euunae aha | WeaUeRneAna ve ane nae WOUREHRDRAARORRAGE ih aunh Wane WYRTVTTTTNTTTVTTTENTITVTUVNUTUGNTTFATCQUTURTTTVRIIUONLCGTAUUATULGNLGGTAUATIVOOARONIDUGUAVOQDI HUVUHATUEARORURALELALOVOOREAEOHOTE CHAPTER XXXIII INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 1. INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND DIPLOMACY TO THE RETIREMENT OF BISMARCK Aurnoucnu from the earliest times treaties of alliance were made between peoples, it may be said that international relations, in the sense in which the term is applied at present, date from the period of the rise of modern states like Spain, France and England. The existence of a ‘‘Society of Nations’’ was recognized by the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 and Grotius, the Father of International Law,” among others, laid the foundations of the modern rules which regulate the conclusion of treaties and alliances, the conduct of war and the making of peace. In the eighteenth century, amid the ‘‘din of arms,’’ men like Voltaire, Montesquieu, and Rousseau in France, Adam Smith and the younger Pitt in England, Franklin in America, and Lessing and Kant in Germany preached “' pacific aspt- rations’’ and a cosmopolitan humanitarianism. Economists urged the transformation of the European States into friendly economic units under a comity of nations. The American and French Revolutions marked a new epoch in ‘nternational relations. The former created a new state, composed of thirteen independent colonies bound together by a federal consti- tution. The latter at first renounced all ‘‘wars of conquest’ but offered ‘‘aid to all peoples who wished to recover their liberty — and soon found itself on the defensive against a coalition of monar- chical powers who regarded the Revolution as a menace to the European order. The period of the revolutionary and Napoleonic wats saw the formation of one alliance after another, to which France and especially Napoleon, replied by other alliances, until in the end, most of the European powers joined the league which finally led to his overthrow. In the period between 1815 and 1848 numerous attempts were made to effect a ‘‘concert of Europe’’ to prevent a recrudescence of revolution and to reconstruct Europe. The backbone of this system was the Quadruple Alliance, consisting of the four great powers The “Concert which had defeated Napoleon, France herself being informally admitted as a fifth in 1818. The powers held periodic conferences to settle problems arising from the peace treaties and to take action against incipient revolutions. But in a few years the concert split on the doctrine of intervention, England and France refusing to admit that the powers had the right to interfere in the domestic affairs of 593 TT ee ee Coenen eee ee ras a= International carly modern fi i a | Tec puree ee ieee FO on a Ae ee a ae LE ATA “B . uaa nae ae ene ee - Si ares, Cl caieen se en El ahhh? eee Sas a atieeeeemren rer a LS ieee Ry ess Ss Sor, See So See rin SE a a aaa = 5 Fr Nationalism a na th c 6 ; f J * 914// Vi / alitances Bismarckian diplomacy 504 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XXXIII other states. Nevertheless the concert continued as a shadowy European organization, and at times accomplished useful work, notably in the questions of Greek and Belgian independence and in the Near Eastern crisis of 1839-1841. After 1848 the growing spirit of nationalism made it increasingly difficult for the powers to act in unison on any question. The diver- gent interests of the various nations rather than the community of European states were emphasized. It was a period of war following an era of peace, and, as in the past, numerous alliances were formed for the duration of armed conflicts — the league of England, France ind Piedmont to oppose Russia in 1854-1856, the alliance between France and Piedmont to drive Austria out of Italy in 1859, the Austro-Prussian coalition to defeat Denmark in 1864, and the Prus- sian-Italian agreement to drive Austria out of Germany and Venetia in 1866. From this time on the system of alliances became permanent. The concert of Europe continued to function periodically to settle questions of common interest or to give its ap proval to changes in agreements concluded by the powers jointly on earlier occasions. The most notable cases of such international action between 1870 and 1914 were the Pontus Conference of 1871 which recognized the abrogation of the Black Sea clauses of the Treaty of Paris (1856), the Congress of Berlin which settled the questions arising from the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878, the Berlin conference of 1885 which established the Congo Free State and regulated other African problems, the Algeciras Conference of 1906 which decided disputed questions concerning Morocco, and the London Conference of 1913 which attempted to bring about peace between the Balkan states and Turkey. In this same category belong the two Hague Peace Conferences (1899, 1907), summoned at the instance of Russia. The first of these established a Permanent Court of Arbitration, while the second discussed the introduction of compulsory arbitration and the limitation of armaments. These spasmodic attempts to establish international codperation were, however, of secondary importance as compared with great systems of alliance which originated after 1870 and which were of a semi-permanent nature, differing radically in this respect from the earlier war treaties. These systems originated in the bulw ark of alliances erected by Bismarck tos afeguard the nen of Germany and to tsolate France. Germany was, to be sure, the dominant power on the continent after her victory over France in 1870-1871, but the unification of Italy followed closely by that of Gente had badl y shaken the balance of power in Europe. The whole central belt, hitherto a congeries of weak little states, had been consolidated into two new national states, one of which was the strongest military power on the conti- nent. This far-reaching change had been brought about at theoe SOTTCECAT INV FET TERG ITT (41 " Tht VTE] HATHA Looe HOO TE LTTE THTVAVUTTARUEUHTATAPATTVVORLTLVAUORAED NEE AVVATRUAUHUTEURTATRATRERRERERORRUNOORRORERRONIE VARURRRRTADRORILOAR: URNA NH ! NN) —_ ET Chap. XXXIII] INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 505 expense of Austria and France, and it was to be expected that both these powers would seek to undo the events of the preceding decade. France especially was noted for her national pride, and the Germans regarded the spirit of revenge as a standing menace to their new Empire. But the other powers also realized that their position had been shaken. The Germanophil sentiment in England had begun to turn even before the war was over, and England, though she maintained her ‘splendid isolation’’ for many years more, felt forced to take a keener interest in continental affairs in order to retain her position. In the east was Russia, which had also pursued a policy friendly to Germany prior to 1870. The Russians were not slow to realize that they had not gained by the substitution of a strong Ger- man Empire for the weak German Confederation on their borders, and they were even then determined to oppose any further dislocation of the balance in Germany's favor. In order to prevent France from finding supporters for her schemes of revenge Bismarck determined to draw as many of the powers as possible to his side and to exploit international rivalries for the advantage of Germany. Austria and Italy were both weak, and of secondary importance, but an alliance between France and England and especially between France and Russia would have been an almost intolerable menace. Of course these powers were all rivals, one of the other, but there was no knowing when they might find it profitable to liquidate their differences and conclude an agreement directed against Germany. Bismarck’s object, then, was to maintain friendly relations with both England and Russia and thus to hold the balance between these two traditional antagonists, the ‘‘ Whale” and the ‘‘Elephant.’’ In the first years of the Empire he made no attempt to conclude hard and fast agreements. There was little prospect of close friendship with England so long as the liberal Gladstone ministry was in power, and consequently the German chancellor contented himself with the revival of the Quadruple Alliance in the shape of an informal League of the Three Emperors Three (Germany, Russia, and Austria) concluded in 1872-1873, the chief Breese: object of which was to erect a ‘‘triangulac rampart © against ‘revolu- on tionary’’ France and prevent her from finding allies on the continent. But the acute tension subsisting between Germany and France which ended in the ‘‘ War-Scare’’ of 1875 and led to the intervention of both Russia and England in behalf of France brought Bismarck to a realization of the dangers, while the severe Near Eastern crisis of 1875-1878 reopened the antagonism between Russia and Austria in the Balkans and led to the collapse of the Three Emperors’ League. Bismarck, whose primary aim after 1870 was always to maintain the peace and to avoid jeopardizing the gains made in 1864-1870, attempted to mediate between the two rivals, but the Russians con- sidered this inadequate remuneration for their benevolent neutrality in the 1860’s and became more and more hostile to Germany. A et peepee hay a ae ee i ee a ——— _——aes a a rete mn Siero Sa Jae a —— Pree Fn Pre hem er a eI) eer eee od pe A a ne s Fr bismarcr Russia y and 506 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XXXIII group of ultra-nationalists, known as Pan-Slavs, believed that Russia must act as the protector of the Slavic states of the Balkans and must take up the struggle with all those who opposed her. Where pre- viously the slogan had been: ‘‘The road to Constantinople leads through Vienna it soon became: ‘The road to Constantinople lies through Berlin.’’ It was this hostile attitude on the part of the Russians that drove Bismarck further and further into codpera- tion with Austria and with England, whose interests largely coin- cided with those of Austria. Jo be sure Bismarck did not openly espouse the Austrian cause; indeed, it was only through his media- tion that a conflict between England and Austria on the one hand and Russia on the other, theless it was during these years that he cultivated friendly relations was avoided in the spring of 1878. Never- with Austria and even suggested to England the conclusion of an alliance. It can hardly be doubted that he would have openly joined definite agreement be- tween themselves and had there been a definite assurance that E ngl land y would CO her ‘> } > ’ : ; Russia’s enemies had they been able to reach a ire. The Russians were, in a sense, right w hen they h:; spoke of the Berlin Congress as a Eirecean coalition under Bis- | marck's | aders] lip to Oppose Russia. The ill-f Berlin a the tsar himself fell entirely under the influence of the Pan-Slav group, which advocated, among other things an alliance with France. By the summer of 1 feeling in Russia continued unabated after the Congress of { 879 Bismarck regarded it expedient to take protective measures. His idea appears to have been to ef ffect a coalition between England, Germany, and Austria. Lord Beacons- field, however, showed little 1 sees to commit his country to the policy of meddli 1g in continental affairs, and Bismarck contented himself with the cor Saeion of a ae Teak en Austria in October, 1879. Each of the two powers srotiised to support the other with all its forces in case either were attacked by Russia. This agreement be- came the corner-stone of Bismarck’s system, and continued in force until the general collapse in 1918. It will be noted that it was strictly defensive, and that it did not SET involve German support of Austrian policy in the Balkan But Bismarck was not content with this one ‘‘insurance policy.’ He did not intend to antagonize Russia, especially as he saw no possible gain for Germany even in a victorious wart against her east- ern neighbor. When the Russians realized the mistake they had made and reopened friendly negotiations with Berlin, Bismarck welcomed them and expressed his readiness to conclude an agreement, provided, however. that Austria be included. These discussions resulted in the conclusion of a second and more formal Three Emperors League in June, 1881. Under its terms the three powers each promised to maintain neutrality if any one of them were attacked by a fourth power. It was provided that this clause should apply to a war with Turkey only after previous agreement as to the peace terms. Besides,MUTT TTT UNTNNOCNVUNNUNUTNAUNOEUToa WATKURTARGHEE TRUUEHGnhn MVAUTONTTRVANTERUPRRRTANUDRORNGNTORORGORAED APONI NTH VENI OAD OOH QANTOADONAVONIOUQINENVOQNLOGUONAUNATUUATEOSSUQATUNAUUQSNEGORUGANUOUSOOOREOTOOLUGSEROARUGADEOAOMARLUGE | i] * eg Chap. XXXII] INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 507 there was to be no change in the existing situation in European Turkey without common agreement. The principle that the Straits at Constantinople should be closed to foreign warships was to be maintained. Austria reserved the right to annex Bosnia and Herze- govina, which she had been administering since 1878, and all three of the contracting powers promised not to oppose the union of Bulgaria and Eastern Rumelia if this question should come up “‘by force of circumstances.’ The treaty was to last three years, but was renewed in 1884 for another three years. It was an extremely profitable ar- rangement for all three powers. Austria secured important advan- tages in the Balkans, while Russia was assured of protection on the German and Austrian frontiers in case she became involved in war with England in Asia. Germany, finally, received a tacit guarantee that Russia would not seek an alliance with France. In the following year the Bismarckian system was enlarged by the addition of Italy. This development was as much the result of accident as of calculation. Neither Bismarck nor his Austrian friends had any sympathy for the Italians, who were constantly flirting with France and carrying on a vigorous anti-Austrian agitation aiming at the acquisition of Italia Irredenta, the provinces of Trentino and Trieste which were largely Italian-speaking. Bismarck, conse- quently, had purposely crossed the Italians, going so far as to support The Triple French colonial policy at their expense. His theory was that the sacs LEE French Republic, which had become firmly established in 1879, must be encouraged by some success in foreign policy. If France were involved in colonial conflicts her position in Europe would be weakened and her attention diverted from ‘‘the hole in the Vosges”’ (Alsace-Lorraine). He therefore encouraged the English to occupy Egypt, knowing that this would lead to a permanent conflict. with France. At the same time he assured the French of his sympathy and support if they were to take Tunis, on which Italy had long cast her eyes. The French finally took the decisive step in May, 1881, much to the chagrin and anger of Italians. The government at Rome soon realized that its policy had been a mistaken one. The acute tension in Franco-Italian relations made the Italian government fear an attack at any moment. Entirely isolated, it began to look about for friends. The English showed little incli- nation to champion the part of Italy, and the other powers were all members of the Bismarckian group. Bismarck himself refused to consider an alliance unless Austria were also a member, so that finally the Italians were forced to make an agreement with their arch-enemy. The Triple Alliance, signed in May, 1882, was also a defensive agreement, though it was not so specifically directed against any one power as was the Austro-German Treaty of 1879. Germany and Austria promised to aid Italy if she were attacked by France, and Italy agreed to aid Germany if the latter were so assailed. If any one member were menaced by two or more powers, the other two ——— ee edae Se eae = <= SE Se SN ee : a —— ed Ac Serene wb ert eae a awa be cet aoe ae Tat Pet te era ag a Ee ey 508 MODERN WORLD HISTORY § [Chap. XXXIII members were likewise to give fall support. Each member was to remain neutral if one of the others ‘‘ became involved”’ in war with (that is, attacked) a fourth power. The term was fixed at five years, and the treaty was renewed four times, coming to an end only with the defection of Italy in 1915. It should be particularly noted that the Triple Alliance was not an extension of the Austro-German Alliance. Both existed side by side until after 1914. So far as Germany and Italy were concerned the Triple Alliance was meant as a protective measure against France. But it must not be supposed that Bismarck entertained plans of aggression against that power. Indeed, relations were more friendly during the period from 1878-1885 than they were at any other time between 1870 and 1914. Bismarck utilized the antagonism between France and Eng- land and the friendship with France to bring pressure on England to compel her to make concessions to Germany in the colonial field. It was by this adroit method of playing off one power against the other that Bismarck was able to acquire South-West Africa, the Cameroons, East Africa, German New Guinea and other possessions in spite of English opposition and of the fact that Germany possessed no sea power. It may be said that from 1883-1885 Bismarck was at the zenith of his power. Russia, Austria, and Italy were his allies, with agree- ments criss-crossing among them. Austria had, in addition, con- cluded an alliance with Serbia in 1881 which made the latter power practically a vassal of the Danubian monarchy. In 1883 Austria Bismarck' s had concluded a protective alliance with Rumania directed, like Ee at the Austro-German Treaty, against Russia. To this Germany : acceded. In addition good relations existed with France, and Eng- land, at odds with both France and Russia, was dependent on German goodwill. Her isolation could hardly be called ‘“splendid,”’ nor could it be said that she still held the balance of power. The favorable situation came to an abrupt end in 1885. In France Clemenceau led a revolt against the prime minister, Ferry, who had codperated with Bismarck in the colonial field. There followed a decade of instability and a recrudescence of the revanche movement which threatened the peace of western Europe and be- came personified in General Boulanger. Immediately after, the Near Eastern question once more entered a critical phase as a result of the Bulgarian Revolution and the union of Bulgaria and Eastern Rumelia. This led to a new period of Austro-Russian antagonism in the Balkans and resulted in the disruption of the Second League of the Three Emperors. The year 1887 may be said to mark the most acute stage in the crisis. It seemed that Russia might at any moment invade Bulgaria and that war would be the inevitable outcome. At the same time the anti-German movement in France reached its peak, and in the famous Schnaebele incident war was barely avoided. If the conflagration were to break out in the east and the west it would beae , HUTTUPLV ETHEL TTTTVVTTUANUVAHRRATTTERUATRRVNAT FIMUUEUTHUULUTUUUAUVOEETVOGUEASR SAE Wt ae HLA MHTHTEAHRERUUAATATT TT LRRUAURUNTANTEAGE WOUUTARVUUNDHARRUAAODRIET PPT MUTT TPCT UIATTTOVOUUUUUUTAWOCUCUUCOUEVGNETUOUUUUAGGGUUUUOOLUEQNQUQUURLUTAUOQOURALAGHHHAMRRLD ne QU eee ie — a sa Chap. XXXIII] INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 509 ee TS Oe impossible for Germany to prevent a union of Russia and France or a war on two fronts. Bismarck did not desire war with France and Bulgaria did not seem to him to be worth “‘the bones of a Pom- Diplomatic eranian Grenadier.’’ He was determined to maintain the peace if Sey and possible, but to take preventive measures for every emergency. A br aera new army bill increased the German forces very considerably, but this was a precaution intended as a warning. Bismarck hoped that the German army would not need to march, and that the inter- national situation could be so manipulated that the disturbing elements would be checkmated. Not having any direct interest in the Near Eastern question, and yet realizing that Austria must be maintained as a great power in the interests of the European balance, the German chancellor had once more turned to England, with the object of enlisting her sup- port for Austria. It was due to his intercession and encouragement that the so-called First Mediterranean Agreement was concluded between England and Italy on February 12, 1887, and joined by Austria on March 24. It aimed at the maintenance of the existing situation in the Mediterranean and Black Seas, and enlisted English support for Italy in her north African policy. Not only was it the first stone in the construction of a coalition to hold Russia in check; it was also the first step in a policy which aimed at drawing England into the Triple Alliance. The latter alliance was just about to expire, and in its renewed form (February 20, 1887) it secured for Italy the support of Germany against French aggression in North Africa. This concession on Germany’s part was, of course, largely illusory, since it was unlikely that France would undertake any active policy so long as England was on the side of Italy. But to make doubly sure Bismarck encouraged negotiations to draw Spain into the great league, the discussions finally resulting in an exchange of notes between Italy and Spain on May 4, 1887. Austria acceded shortly after and England expressed sympathy. At the same time discussions were catried on with Turkey, which at this period stood very close to the Triple Alliance. In this way Bismarck had surrounded France with a network of agreements designed to preserve the existing situation. France was never more effectively isolated. There was, of course, still danger that Russia might seek an al- liance with France. The Three Emperors’ League was about to expire in June, 1887 and the Russians had indicated their determination not to reénter any agreement with Austria. They were, however, ready to make a separate agreement with Germany. In Berlin there was no inclination to estrange Russia and drive her into the arms of France merely on account of the Austro-Russian conflict. Indeed, Bismarck felt that he would be serving Austria herself if he main- tained an influence over Russian policy. In any case, on June 18, The 1887 he concluded a separate and very secret agreement with Russia, Areas known as the Reinsurance Treaty. Each party agreed to maintain ela Det ra ee eee = eS.ace CS - 3 ee a EE. ee re ree — rn oe Benne ae Be Caen rest bon Peres eee mera eT ees aa PIN Apparent success of Bismarckian y y aiplomacy a a 510 MODERN WORLD HISTORY (Chap. XXXIII neutrality if the other became involved in war with a third party, but this clause was not to apply to a conflict resulting from a Russian attack on Austria or a German attack on France. Germany further recognized Russia’s historical rights in the Balkans and her claim to a preponderant and decisive influence in Bulgaria. The principle of closure of the Straits was to be maintained and a secret protocol stated that Germany would help Russia establish a legal government in Bulgaria as well as lend support in any measures the tsar might find it necessary to take to guard the “‘Key to his Empire’’ (the Straits). The treaty was concluded for three years and served as reinsurance for Russia against German attack, should Russia be- come involved in war with England. At the same time it reassured Bismarck that no Franco-Russian alliance would be concluded and that in any case Russia would remain neutral if France attacked Germany. Ostensibly Germany had made great concessions to Russia, and had almost betrayed the interests of Austria in the Near East. Asa matter of fact, Bismarck never expected to fulfil his promises, be- cause he believed that England, Austria, and Italy would make it impossible for the Ru ssians to realize their ambitions. The Second Mediterranean Agreement of December 12, 1887, also sponsored by the German chancellor, bound England, Austria, and Italy to oppose any disturbance of the situation in the Near East, to defend the independence of Turkey against all preponderating influence, and to prevent Turkey from ceding her rights in Bulgaria or the Straits to any other power. Ruecia was as effectively checkmated as was France, and therewith Bismarck’s great alliance system reached its utmost extent. Austria, Italy, Russia, England, Rumania, Serbia, Spain and to all intents and purposes Turkey, were in one way or another, directly or indirectly, formally or informally connected with Germany. No statesman had ever constructed so formidable and imposing a coalition to preserve the general peace and to assure the security of his country. No nation could create a disturbance without finding itself | blocked. It is natural that under these con- ditions the situation in western as in eastern Europe should gradu- ally have calmed down. When Bismarck was dismissed in March, 1890 there seemed to be no cloud on the political horizon. Every eventuality had been provided for. >. INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AFTER BIsMARCK S DISMISSAL Bismarck’s successor, General von Caprivi, (4890-1894), was a man entirely inexperienced in foreign policy. Apparently he was never meant to be more than a stop-gap. The young kaiser hoped to direct foreign affairs himself. As a matter of fact the real control lay in the h: fee of one of the counsellors of the foreign office, Baron Fritz von Holstein, long a collaborator of Bismarck, but one who hadie Hh i i ret mT TUTTATATITOTUTETTVTATATATOTEVUAVVTOTATOTOELUAETLOTOLO VOTO UL oounnne PTTUTTUVTTVTOTATTVTTUTUTUTATTATAUTOTAETRELOTOUEAEGOTOAVOLDALOREEROLVORVELOLOLEE TUTTUHTUUTAPDULEOHUUCONDDARONUOLORATORUORORRONIOERE HAUUNTHAAN ul LANE " RU = Si Picncainaeti nance ELE en mt —=———== Chap. XXXIII] INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 511 turned against him. Holstein’s position was practically undisputed The diplomacy until the time of his dismissal in 1906. For some time before March, 1890 the kaiser had been dissatisfied with Bismarck’s policy. Apparently he never fully understood the working of the chancellor's system. He suspected the Russians of aggressive schemes and felt that Bismarck, by the Reinsurance Treaty, had taken the first step in abandoning Austria and the Triple Alliance in favor of the tsarist Empire. In his opinion, and he was strength- ened in it by the military men, war was inevitable, and it was Ger- many’s duty to stand loyally by her ally, Austria. A Russian advance in the Near East would lead to a conflict in which Germany would be compelled to take sides. It was in her interest to protect Austria's position as a great power and not to support Russia at the expense of the friendship of Austria, England, and Italy. These considera- tions, urged by Holstein, led to the rejection of the Reinsurance Treaty, which was due to expire in June, 1890, and the renewal of which the Russians had suggested. It was the first and perhaps the most fatal step taken in the field of foreign policy during the reign of William II. The tsar was naturally very much surprised at this change in Germany’s attitude. He had long since realized that the concessions made to Russia in the protocol of the famous treaty were hardly worth the paper they were written on, but the agreement had at least given him a guarantee that the Germans would not attack him in the rear if he became involved in war with England, and had seemed like an assurance that Germany would not openly join the Mediterranean coalition in an aggressive policy towards Russia. The Russians would have been willing to renew the treaty even without the protocol, and finally they almost begged for a mere scrap of paper saying that the Germans would not alter their past attitude. But the Germans not only refused to consider any written promises, they went even further and increased the tsar’s suspicions by attempting to draw more closely to England. In June, 1890, they concluded the famous Heligoland Treaty, in which they made extensive con- cessions to England in the colonial field in return for the island of Heligoland, off the mouths of the Weser and the Elbe. At that time the island was hardly more than a sand-bank and it appeared that the Germans had given away a new pair of breeches for an old sus- pender button, as the explorer Stanley put it. The kaiser then paid a visit to England, a custom which he followed in the succeeding years.. In the spring of 1891 the Triple Alliance was renewed far ahead of time and there was much discussion in the European press of England’s joining the continental group. As a matter of fact, the Germans and Austrians had promised the Italians to do their utmost to draw England into the combination. Though these hopes were never realized it appeared to the tsar that attempts were being made to isolate Russia, The French, who of William II and Caprivi Germany and England enn ene dads ant ee Om ia iad nS ome Pe re 5 TS Te et ee er IT erat t 2 or a = Rea eee aei a a er tS EA ee te eet et ea Sa ee) foe area en ee IT EE NET, ts a The Franco- Ru sSian Alliance, 1893 512 MODERN WORLD HISTORY ([Chap. XXXIII had reorganized their army and who felt less timid since the disap- pearance of Bismarck from the scene, had for some time been making advances to the Russians. These had been rejected, because the tsar had no sympathy for republican France and because the Russians were in dread lest they be drawn into a war of revenge waged for Alsace and Lorraine, in which they had no interest. Indeed, their enemy was not Germany, but England, the leader of the anti-Russian coalition in the Near East and the rival of Russia in central and eastern Asia. Only the renewal of the Triple Alliance and the apparent accession of England to the German group finally convinced the tsar that an alliance must be made with France for defensive purposes. In July, 1891, a French squadron visited Cronstadt and was accorded a very hearty reception. Immediately after an agreement was reached between the two powers. They promised to codperate in all questions which threatened the peace and to take counsel as to military measures to be taken in case either were menaced. It was a very vague agreement and did not by any means satisfy the French statesmen. What they desired was a concrete military agreement which would take effect immediately after any hostile move were made by the central powers. Negotiations were opened for the con- clusion of such an engagement, but because Germany had identified herself with the anti-Russian group the Russians refused to consider it until they were convinced that improved relations with Germany were impossible. The military convention was finally concluded in December, 1893, and provided that both powers would mobilize immediately and simultaneously as soon as the Triple Alliance or one of its members mobilized. Therewith the Franco-Russian Al- liance became a reality. The period of Germany’s hegemony in Europe had already come to an end, and the kaiser, who had hoped to draw England into the Triple Alliance found that he had ex- changed the sparrow in the hand for the pigeon on the roof. His desertion of Russia had not brought him any nearer to England; it had only led to the formation of an alliance which, though de- fensive, was to serve as the foundation of an anti-German coalition hemming Germany in on both sides. The great Bismarckian system had been replaced by two systems of alliance rivalling one another. The preponderance of Germany had ended in the reéstablishment of a balance of power in Europe. For many years the Franco-Russian Alliance hardly functioned, and Germany’s position did not appear worse than it had been. This was due in part to the determination of the Russians not to lend their support to a French policy of revenge, but even more to the diversion of the European powers to colonial fields. The war between China and Japan over Korea had broken out in 1894 and had led to the com- plete victory of Japan in the spring of 1895. The result came as a total surprise to the great powers, who nevertheless realized that Japan must henceforth be reckoned with in Far Eastern affairs.eemerreraTTTTVOVTUTTaTENVATTTERVTRATTTNTUNTTTREURNTTTOLVORTTRTATUOATNREROOOTRUTIVORUTE i ve HVOVTVTTUVURUTATEROTRTOTOTRUGEOEAEVURNAUAULULOLONGHOVAUAEANTORE ATTTVGVATTUUGWTTATUGVHTLVEOHRRALLUNATUULAHT AEE Chap. XXXIII] INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 513 Hitherto the Russians had been the aggressors in Eastern Asia, while the English had been the champions of China’s integrity. Now the leading nations were all compelled to revise their policies. England, appreciating the weakness of China, suddenly deserted her and drew closer to Japan, which had the same interest in blocking the Russian advance. Russia, on the other hand, began to regard Japan as the chief obstacle to expansion, while Germany, which up to this time had played but an insignificant part in Asian affairs, began to take an interest and to hope for some acquisition if China went to pieces. It was a great turning point in European foreign politics, and marks the transition from the strictly European phase to the World phase. For many years things remained quiet on the continent while the powers were buffeting each other in Asia, Africa, and the Pacific. German commerce had been expanding at an unprecedented rate and the dearth of markets and of sources for raw materials was very keenly felt. It was in the hope of acquiring an influence in the Far Germany and East and a foothold for further action that Germany joined Russia in protesting against the Treaty of Shimonoseki, concluded by Japan and China in April, 1895. The French likewise took part, but by their participation the Germans had prevented the new Dual Alliance from common action, while by supporting Russia the Germans encouraged them in their Far Eastern policy and so diverted them from Europe. Japan was compelled to yield and to retrocede to China all territory which they had claimed on the mainland. During the following ten years the Far Eastern question passed through an acute phase, until brought to a temporary end by the defeat of Russia by Japan in 1905. The Germans consistently sup- ported the tsar’s government and shared in the spoils. In 1897 the port of Kiao-chau was acquired and with it came economic control of the rich Shantung province. The Russians seized Port Arthur, and the English took Wei-hai-wei. During the famous Boxer rebellion the powers intervened jointly against the rebels and for a moment it seemed as though the Chinese Empire was about to be partitioned. Only the codperation of England and the United States saved the situation. The proclamation of the open door policy in China set up the principle of equal opportunity for all and the integrity of the Chinese Empire. Germany's support of Russia against England in the Far East necessarily led to an estrangement of the two powers which had been on such good terms ever since 1885. Indeed, the kaiser returned to Bismarck’s policy with a vengeance. He went further than Bis- marck had ever gone in antagonizing England, just as he had gone far beyond Bismarck in his attempts to court England. The source of friction here, too, lay in colonial rivalry, and the Germans went so far as to codperate with the French in opposing English policy in Africa. At times the kaiser even dreamed of constructing an entirely new coalition, a continental combination including France and LULU Russia German estrangement of England nth it oy Falta natea po ee SS ee eT A ern ar ena eT ee = ek AT Sa SEO at ee nae on ee ek i a = _ ¥ 514 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XXXIII opposed to England. There is no evidence that he ever considered war against England, but he hoped to be able to brin ke large concessions in Africa and g sufficient pressure to force the English to ma the Pacific. This was the plan which underlay the new German policy in South Africa, where England was in conflict with the Boer republics. At the time of the famous Jameson raid in 1896 an at- tempt was made to mobilize the continental powers against England, and the Germans came out openly on the side of the Boers in the Kruger telegram congratulating the president of the Transvaal on hav- ing turned back the raid without the assistance of a foreign power. From this time dates the estrangement between England and Ger- many, which had begun in a mild form a year or two before. Ger- many, to be sure, failed to carry out her scheme and practically was compelled to desert the Boers, but the kaiser and his advisers had become convinced that in order to follow a firm policy abroad Germany must have a strong fleet — one sufficiently strong not only to protect German commerce and colonies, but also to make an attack by England unadvisable if not impossible. The basis for this new departure was laid by the appointment of Admiral von Tirpitz as secretary of the navy in 1897 and by the first and second navy bills of 1898 and 1900. The second provided a building program extending over the years 1900 to 1917 and for the construction of a battle fleet as well as of cruisers and other light vessels. For a few years at the turn of the century it seemed as though Germany had recovered the balance of power. The Triple Alliance no longer played an important role since the activities of the powers were centering in places outside of Europe. Italy had been badly defeated by the Abyssinians at Adowa in 1896 and the Austro-Hun- garian Empire was passing through so acute a domestic crisis that the government had welcomed the opportunity of concluding with Russia an agreement which assured the maintenance of the existing conditions in the Balkans at least for the time being (24897). But in spite of the weakness of the Triple Alliance and Germany's 1m- potence at sea, she was able not only to hold her own in Europe, but to make positive gains abroad. This advantageous position was almost entirely due to the international situation, not to the brilliance of German diplomacy. For England was hardly able to offer effective opposition to Russia in the Middle and Far East; she was also embroiled with France in Africa, and relations were so tense that when the two powers came into conflict on the upper Nile (Fashoda crisis, 1898) war was barely avoided. Had France been able to depend on Russian aid it is hardly likely that peace could have been maintained. At the same time England was tied up in South Africa, where the dispute with the Boers resulted in war (1899-1902). Russia, on the other hand, was so deeply involved in the Far East that she had, for the time being, at least, given up all thought of antagonizing the Germans to please the French; she was,Tana dl 7; whan aunenal wae Ay } an eenee aah a 7 naboe Wah aa a aa a Wee ia! TiRidil al TOVUVUUUTEUOUAAHAUOUUNENOOUUPAOONEAVUQUEEHDDOGUENEQOOEAAAUUEUESAIOOOEARRUOANNEARGODNDERIOOEERRDNESHEUIOE MUVCHATHATRNTUTVUHATTTTATTATT ALLA Chap. XXXIII] INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 515 indeed, dependent on German goodwill in order to further her own policy against England and Japan. As for France, she too had diverted her attention to extra-European fields and was engrossed in extending her colonial empire in Africa. There could be no idea of pursuing an anti-German policy; the desire for revenge had, in fact, almost entirely died out. The German policy during these years was to keep two irons in the fire, to support now the Russians against the English, or the French against the English, and at another time to stand by the English against their enemies, in the expectation that either side could be made to pay dearly for German support. It was a natural policy, a policy of systematic exploitation which had been initiated by Bismarck. The only difference was that Bismarck had known where to draw the line. He had always avoided driving any power to despair and had always offered at least something substantial in return for concessions. Besides, he had always taken the precaution of keeping the road open for a definite agreement and had clearly stipulated the terms of his support. His successors on the other hand, acted in the belief that the favorable situation of the moment was unalterable. They failed to consider the feelings of the others and switched from one side to the other with a levity that soon gained them the reputation of being undependable. They felt so confident in the strength of their position that their demands went beyond all bounds, and soon they were spoken of as incurable land- grabbers. Time and again during this period approaches were made by both sides. The Russians suggested that Germany join in interven- tion against England during the Boer War. It was a rare opportunity for the realization of the Continental Coalition of which the kaiser dreamed, for France would have been willing to take part. But the Germans believed it more advantageous to sell their neutrality to England. When the British repeatedly made advances and even pro- posed an alliance the Germans assumed the same attitude towards them. The price they asked was so high that the English could not consider it, and the kaiser, who in previous years had worked so hard to bring England into the Triple Alliance, now allowed the oppor- tunity to pass, firm in the conviction that England would eventually be forced to pay the price. Meanwhile in smaller matters, the Germans sided now with the one, now with the other, the result being that they managed to acquire various extensions of their colonial empire. But most of these acquisitions were isolated and scattered. Not one of them could compare in value with the colonies originally obtained by Bismarck. In reality they only added more territory which would be difficult to defend in time of war. The English had warned the Germans that isolation was no longer practicable, and that in case of rejection of their offers they would be forced to seek an arrangement with their enemies. This had been Germany and the balance of power nn raat 2 aera nee Sheead pA aes ae ee RS ak i a eyone - SS a ea Te rool a ee STS SEN See tars ~~ a a 5 r : , Encland and France drau together 516 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XXXIII regarded as mere talk in Berlin. Holstein especially declared an agreement between England on the one hand and France or Russia on the other as absolutely inconceivable and impossible. These nations had been rivals for too long a time and the points of con- flict between them were too numerous. But very soon the Germans were to learn that they had badly miscalculated. In January, 1902, England concluded with Japan an alliance obviously directed against Russia. Each party was to support the other if it were attacked by two or more powers and each was to maintain neutrality in case either were attacked by one power. In this way England enlisted the help of Japan in holding Russia in check in the Far East. Even more important was the famous colonial settlement effected between England and France in April, 1904. This was in no sense an alliance, but by clearing away all sources of conflict it paved the way for real friendship. Long standing disputes, like those in Madagascar, Newfoundland, Siam, and central Africa were settled by compro- mise. But above all, the fundamental Egyptian question, which had poisoned the relations between the two nations ever since 1882, was finally adjusted. France acknowledged England’s position in Egypt, and in return England agreed to recognize Frances special interests in Morocco, and to lend France diplomatic support in fur- thering those interests. The Germans began to see that the situation was once more changing to their disadvantage. Not only had England established friendly relations with Germany’s arch-enemy, France, but Italy had already shown the way. In1g900and in 1902 she had made agreements with France which amounted to an exchange of promises of support in Tripoli and Morocco respectively. Spain followed suit, and in November, 1904, signed a treaty with France by which Morocco was divided into a French and a Spanish sphere of influence. In the question of Morocco, at least, the Germans, who had believed that no question could be settled without consulting them, had been almost ostentatiously ignored. The powers were finding 1t more profitable to make agreements which were expensive but at least netted some gain, than to pay Germany for support which could not be relied upon. Such was the situation when the war between Russia and Japan broke out in February, 1904. The Germans had encouraged the Russians in their forward policy in China and they now believed that, with England and Japan unfriendly, their own position in the Far East would be endangered if Russia were to be defeated. They consistently aided the Russians, and their neutrality went beyond what is generally known as benevolent. The Russian Baltic fleet, which was sent to the Far East in the autumn of 1904 was coaled by German companies. To this the Japanese objected, and the English supported their ally. It was at this time that the English were beginning to feel alarm at the growth of the German fleet and for; ij ae SOUR ROUHORU LAU ERRnnn waniee TUVUVERARATTRRAATAUVVETORTRDUORPRROREOOTO RED. a SESESD! Chap. XXXII] INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 517 the first time the danger of an actual armed conflict between the two powers appeared on the political horizon. In Berlin it seemed clear that something must be done to prevent Germany’s position from becoming worse. The kaiser hoped that Russia, in her hour of need, would be willing to make an agreement with Germany such as he himself had dropped in 1890. This alliance, it was thought, the French would be compelled to join if placed squarely before the alternatives of English friendship and isolation on the continent. A draft for a continental coalition was drawn up by the kaiser in November, 1904, but the Russians refused to sign unless France should first be invited to accede. To this procedure the Germans objected, because they knew that to bring France in would be hopeless unless Germany and Russia reached an agreement first. The negotiations therefore lapsed, and the Germans began to consider other means of breaking up the new friendship between England and France. In order to accomplish their purpose the Germans raised the Moroccan question. They had no interests there, excepting commer- The Morocco cial ones, but they had not been consulted in the settlements made among England, France, and Spain, and legally they could insist that nothing should be done to impair the sovereignty or infringe the integrity of Morocco, the status of which had been fixed by the Madrid Conference in 1880. It must be remembered that the Germans were less intent on obtaining a share in Morocco than in breaking up the Anglo-French Entente and showing France that she was depend- ent on Germany’s goodwill; the desire for compensation was of secondary importance. The first Moroccan crisis, which initiated the series of crises between 1905 and 1914, began in March, 1905 when the kaiser landed at Tangiers and declared his adherence to the principles of the Madrid Convention. It was hoped that in this way the French, realizing the weakness of their position legally and militarily, would yield to the German demand for an international conference at which France could be outvoted and shown that English friendship was of no value. As a matter of fact the French were badly frightened. Rouvier, the prime minister, immediately offered to make com- pensation and soon after dismissed Delcassé, who had concluded the agreement with England and who was responsible for not having consulted Germany. Had the statesmen in Berlin merely wanted compensation they could have had it and the crisis would have developed no further. But they insisted that France agree to an international conference and in that way admit her error. While negotiations between France and Germany were still in progress, the kaiser made a second attempt to effect an agreement with Russia and to detach France from her connection with England by drawing her into the continental group. Russia had been defeated by Japan and was very angry at England. At Bj6rk6, off the Finnish coast, the kaiser met the tsar and on July 24, 1905 induced him to Crises OTA MANE Hf : es ee ee etremnpenrens eer Ta aa aaa ad eel a ee——ae a eS a ee hs — Se Cra ak Sena ay noe eee I a AS German Gi lvances to Russi a Algeciras C onference Anglo-Russian Agreement, 1907 518 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XXXIII sign a treaty under the terms of which each power promised the other its support in case it were attacked by any other European state. The treaty was to become effective upon the conclusion of peace between Russia and Japan, and Russia was to make its terms known to France and to invite her to join as anally. There can be no doubt that the tsar really believed the pact desirable, but the Russian statesmen appreci ated the fact that, since their country’s defeat in the Far East, Germany’s friendship was no longer of supreme impor- tance. Soundings taken in Paris made it perfectly clear that there was no ee ect whatsoever of France joining the coalition after the unfriendly policy pursued by Germany in the Moroccan question. The Russian statesmen therefore bent their energies to evading their obligations under the pact, and refused to recognize it unless France agreed to join. In the end the treaty died a natural death. It had been an utopian idea from the beginning, an + im 4 d one which was so entirely in contradiction to Germany's attitu ide on the Moroccan question that there could be no hope of success. The French had finally agreed to an international conference after they were practically assured that England, Russia, and the United States would side with them. Italy and Spain were bound to support the French view by the agreements of 1902 and 1904. At the Congress held at Algeciras in the early months of 1906 the Ger- mans, instead of isolating France, found themselves ysolaESs Only Austria voted on their side, and that but half-heartedly. It was obvious that the whole Moroccan policy had | an egregious blunder. Far from forcing the French to give B Aeneses and far from breaking up the entente between France and England, it had led to a French victory and had driven the English to support the French even beyond the point to which they had originally intended to go. Just before the opening of the conference the French had asked for a definite promise of support if matters should result in a conflict, and though the new English foreign minister, Sir Edward Grey, had refused to give so binding an assurance he did say that in his opinion the English people would, in a crisis, demand that the government stand by France even to the extent of lending mili- tary support. Ihe entente of 1904, originally h ardly more than a colonial agreement, had assumed some of the characteristics of an alliance. Now that Russia had been defeated in Asia she was no longer so dangerous a rival for England. The Russian statesmen realized that they must once more concentrate their attention on European affairs and atte! npt to expand in central Asia and in the Near East. It would be impossible to accomplish anything against the opposition of England, especially as Russia was just emerging from revolution and was entirely unfitted to embark on military adventures. It was obviously the part of wisdom to reach an agreement w ith Eng] land, a thing w hich the French had ur ged for some time and for w hich thenl AHHH +4 ‘ iid} 7 iii aa ee | eau aan ) ; i an ane HV] ERE wane | itt] aha eae ae TAeaaeaaE: \ | THUTURTTTREARATTTTTTONARTTRAD RAN URRTATRRTTAEEED WAVAVUATROERPAUARTRADURANEORVTREPUNGRDRRRRONMORAPRNDSPQURAMURDRRReam: PELL e AIAN —— rs > oie ar a ——— ae ae Chap. XXXIII] INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 519 English themselves had expressed a desire. After prolonged negotia- tions a partial agreement was reached in August, 1907. It was by no means as extensive as the settlement between England and France in 1904, and really eliminated only one group of disputes, those in central Asia. England recognized northern Persia as a Russian sphere of influence, while Russia recognized England’s preponderant interests in southeastern Persia. Central Persia was left a neutral zone, and the integrity and independence of Persia as a whole was recognized as a principle. Russia furthermore declared Afghanistan to be outside her sphere and recognized England’s special position in the Persian Gulf. Tibet was asserted to be part of the Chinese Empire, and neither side was to attempt to seize control there. Like the Anglo-French agreement this treaty was neither one of alliance, nor was it directed against Germany. But it did remove one more of the antagonisms which Germany had been exploiting in the past and it did lay the basis for a coalition surrounding Ger- many on three sides. Germany was, in a way, encircled, though the new league, rivalling the Triple Alliance, was a very loose one, the members of which still had many divergent interests. The one aspect of the so-called Triple Entente which disturbed the Germans most was its extra-European aspect. Japan had been drawn in by special agreements concluded with France and with Russia in 1907. These agreements all aimed at the maintenance of the existing situation in the Far East. The central Asian questions The Triple had been settled by England and Russia on the basis of a partition of EMICAES spheres of influence. In Africa it was unlikely that Germany could make any gains in the face of the opposition of England and France. South America was protected by the Monroe Doctrine. There was only one remaining field in which Germany could hope to find her share in the scramble for colonies, and that was in the Near East. German policy had been very active in Turkey for the preceding dec- ade and had, to all intents and purposes, attained a decisive influence there. Following the kaiser’s second visit to the sultan in 1898, the Germans had obtained the concession for the Bagdad railway, which was the essential condition for the economic exploitation of Asia Minor. The construction of the railway, however, soon became an international question, for England felt her position on the Persian Gulf menaced and believed that India would be endan- gered if the shortest road to the East were under the control of some The Bagdad other power. In the same way, the French were anxious for their Aeee and position in Syria, and the Russians regarded their prospects in ea northern Persia threatened. All three powers had offered opposition problem to the German project and progress had been slow. But it is obvious that the Germans had now acquited a real interest in the Near East, and particularly in the future of Turkey. With the conclusion of the Anglo-Russian agreement in August, 1907, they became more and more anxious to develop their position in this part of the world.Sa eee was neers a See ee a. ae A e i Isvolsksz's diplomacy 520 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XXXIII Bismarck had always taken the stand that Germany had no immediate interest in the Near East, and that she must support Austria only to the extent necessary to protect the latter's position as a great power. The new orientation of German policy, however, made it natural that she should desire an active Austrian policy in the Near East, even though this involved entanglement in the Austro-Russian rivalry. From 1908 on, the Balkans became the center of interest in European politics. The decade of greatest colonial activity and conflict was over, and most of the world was divided among the powers. Rivalries once more focused on the continent. Austria, under the leadership of Baron Aehrenthal (foreign minister from 1906-1912), emerged from her apathy and embarked on new schemes of expansion which aimed at bringing the western Balkans under her economic domination and at placing a check on the Serbian plans of aggrandizement. The first indication of this new departure was the announcement that Austria would build a railway from Bosnia through the Sanjak Novibazar, down the valley of the Vardar river to Saloniki. This project was not illegal under International Law and Austria had secured the consent of the Turkish government. Nevertheless the announcement of the plan led to great anxiety, not only in Serbia, but in Russia, where it was felt that the new railway was meant as the first link in a great system connected with the Constantinople-Bagdad-Persian Gulf trunk line which would cut across central Europe and Asia Minor and bar Serbia and the other Slavic states from the sea. The apprehensions of the Russians were increased by the fact that the Germans gave the Austrians unquestioning support in defending their position. A crisis was avoided, but it had become evident to the Russians that something must be done to protect Russian interests in the Near Fast. Russian policy was at this time directed by Alexander Isvolsk1, a man of moderate liberal tendencies who had advocated the agree- ment with England and who was convinced that the immediate aim of Russia must be to secure free passage of the Straits at Constantti- nople for her warships. There was reason to suppose that not only England, but even France, would object to such a radical change in the existing arrangements, and no support was to be expected from the Central Powers unless suitable concessions were made. Consequently, when Achrenthal suggested that the Young Turk Revolution which had broken out in July, 1908, made consultation desirable, Isvolski immediately paid a visit to the Austrian foreign minister at Buchlau in Moravia (September 16, 1908). There it was agreed that Russia would not object to the annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina by Austria and that Austria would lend her support should Russia apply to the powers for a modification of the Straits agreements. It cannot be said that the Russians showed much con- sideration for the Serbs in this matter, but Isvolski felt that freedom| n j | MTMTM TE nTOTTIPUNUUNTOTOENGOUETEUCOAUGUALUALOLUU LULU OOUHOEGES SESE —_— er Chap. XXXIII] INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 521 of passage through the Straits was of such supreme importance that all other arguments were secondary. It was still necessary for him to obtain the consent of the other powers to his project. The Ger- mans hinted that they would not oppose him if Germany were offered suitable concessions elsewhere. He then went on to Italy, France, and England. Meanwhile, on October 5, the annexation of the two provinces by Austria was announced. The decisive step had been taken somewhat earlier because the Bulgarians had declared their independence. The Serbians thereupon broke out in open protest. They had themselves hoped to obtain Bosnia and Herzegovina, and now they saw their prospects of expansion in this direction thwarted. The annexation was certainly illegal, in so far as it was a violation of the Treaty of Berlin, which had been signed by all the powers, although it should be remembered that Austria insisted that in 1878 it was understood that ‘‘occupation’’ meant eventual annexation. But it does not follow that the action of Austria necessarily precipt- tated a crisis. Had Isvolski been able to obtain the consent of France and England to his Straits project he would very likely have lived up to his agreement with Aehrenthal, despite the outcry in Serbia and Serbia’s appeal to Russia for support. But it so happened that Isvolski found both the French and the English exceedingly irritated at the thought that he had made such a far-reaching agree- ment with Austria without consulting his friends. England declared that the moment was inopportune for raising the question of the Straits, and this was tantamount to a refusal to give consent or support. It was from this moment that Isvolski changed his tactics. He realized that he had miscalculated in the Bosnian strategy and that there was no prospect of gaining his end by this line of attack. He began to maintain that he had been deceived by Achrenthal and began to encourage the Serbs in their attitude of hostility. Together with England, the Russians demanded that a European congress be summoned to examine Austria’s action. This suggestion the Aus- trians rejected. They refused to attend a congress unless the powers would promise in advance to approve Austria’s action. In this stand they were fortified by the Germans, who not only believed that the Austrians were justified, but felt the expediency of winning a diplomatic victory and so regaining their place in Europe. The crisis dragged on all through the winter of 1908-1909 and at times it seemed as though war were inevitable. In reality the general peace was not seriously threatened, because Russia was in no condition to fight and her ally, France, showed no inclination to take part in a conflict arising from a question in which she was not directly inter- ested and in which she had not been consulted. Indeed, when the Germans suggested a new agreement regarding Morocco the French welcomed the proposal and promptly concluded the treaty of Feb- ruary, 1909, by which France recognized the independence and integ- ee a enSS See ee oe — —— - — — a ries) eer ~ IT ara ere en ee ciara a ee a . ¥ 522 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XXXIII rity of Morocco and guaranteed equal economic opportunity for all nations, while the Germans recognized France's special position in the country. But while there was no serious danger of a general European war in the winter of 1908-1909 there was constant danger of an Austro- Serbian conflict. The military men in Vienna believed that the moment of Russia's weakness was most auspicious for an attack on Serbia which would once and for all remove the danger of hostile propaganda on that side. Had the crisis been further prolonged it is hard to see how the Austrian government could have resisted t] breach and in a famous note to Russia (March 21, 1909) demanded 1is argument. But in the last minute the eer mans stepp sed into the that Russia give her promise to recognize the annexation if Austria requested the 7a ra of the powers. In case of Russian refusal, Germany would allow matters to take their course, which was the same as saying that a nany would not oppose an Austrian ulti- matum and war on Serbia. There was nothing the Russians could do but to yield, and therewith the crisis was brought to a close. The Serbians were obliged not only to recognize the annexation, but to declare that it was not detrimental to their interests. They further- more promised not to carry on propaganda hostile to Austria. The so-called Bosnian annexation crisis had ended in a resounding victory for the Austro-German group. It was perfectly evident that on the continent, at least, they were the stronger, even if only for the moment. And yet the whole incident left a heritage of ill-feeling ind hate. Austria and Serbia were implacable foes, and the antago- nism between Austria and Russia had reached a stage where it could hardly be patched over for long. Austria had appeared before the world as the violator of international agreements, and the Germans, by sup porting Austria, had drawn upon themselves the hostility of the rival powers. It was perfectly obvious that Russia and Serbia at least would not forget their humiliation and that they would bend every effort to preparation for the struggle which they regarded as inevitable. On the other hand, the crisis had not served to strengthen the Entente Cordiale. Both France and England had been estranged by Isvolski’s inconsiderate action and neither government was willing to shed the blood of its people in a Balkan War by which there was nothing to gain. In the following years the members of the Entente went their own ways. Russia attempted, in the Potsdam Agreement of November 5, 1910, to detach Germany from Austria by giving up opposition to the Bagdad railway, w hile England, further estr anged from Russia by the latter's agressive policy in Persia, attempted to negotiate an agreement with Germany. It was hoped that some arrangement could be made by which the German naval program could be reduced or at least postponed, and by which the question of the Bagdad railway could be satisfactorily settled. The Germansoe MTTTNTTATTTTNTTATTNTTATTVTHT TUNTTVTUATTAVTNUTNATOUTOU HAV EGT OAT HELE PVVTUTTCVOTITTTTVAVTTITOGNATTIVUGGHATIUVGHTTANUGUQHAAIVEQNOAQLUL PITTI CUO AC BEE wae ae wane i ae ne | IUTOYSNONTOOAA SUOMI VQNVUOOAIOOALUQOROGURUOAOOAORLE MH ———— eee eee aera ee -- Chap. XX XIII] INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 523 were unwilling to consider any change of their navy plans unless England would consent to a far-reaching political agreement which would have substituted an Anglo-German combination for the Entente Cordiale. The English were naturally hesitant about taking so radical a step, but negotiations were still in progress when the comparative calm was broken by the third and last Moroccan crisis, the so-called Agadir incident. Ever since 1906, and especially since 1909, the French had been trying to gain control of Morocco. They had taken advantage of every local disorder to send more troops, and in the spring of 1911 they decided to send a column up to the capital, Fez. It seemed to the Germans that this would mean the end of Moroccan independence as agreed to by the Algeciras Conference and by the special agreement Third Moroccan of February, 1909. They therefore determined to take advantage of the favorable international situation to obtain compensation before they gave up all their rights under the previous agreements. It was expected that France would be only too glad to buy them off and would not make trouble about ceding some of her colonies in Africa. In any case, it was decided from the beginning that if the French raised objections a gunboat should be sent to Morocco in order to impress them with the seriousness of Germany's purpose. As a matter of fact, the French recognized Germany’s right to compensation, but expected that Germany would make definite demands. This the Germans refused to do. They insisted that it was France’s business to make the offers. When negotiations made no progress the gunboat Panther was sent to Agadir on the Atlantic coast of southern Morocco. There is no evidence that the German government hoped to acquire part of Morocco, though the imperial- istic Pan-Germans made such demands, and it cannot be denied that the government’s action encouraged such hopes. In any case the step was a fatal one, for England, which had up to this time British support expressed satisfaction at the prospect of a definite settlement of °f ‘rane the Moroccan question and which raised no objection to an enlarge- ment of the German colonial empire in central Africa, now took alarm, and, having no knowledge of Germany’s intentions, feared that her object was to acquire southwestern Morocco, a development which would endanger English communication with South Africa. On July 21, 1911, Lloyd George made his famous speech at the Man- sion House, in which he declared that England could not allow her- self to be excluded from discussions on subjects which touched her vital interests. Peace at that price would be an intolerable humilia- tion. This famous address cannot be said to have conduced to a satis- factory agreement between France and Germany. The French re- gatded it as an assurance of English sympathy and support, and consequently became less ready to make concessions. The Germans, on the other hand, regarded the speech as a threat before which they Cr1S15 — Agadir incident = ae nar pala eer "s anette SIT Nae igi eam te alent les Te ‘ nae tne ne re © ae eeeSn ee eR EE | rh. . Pr°} i . r y C. pe S. pe FrEYcINET, Souvenirs, 14 1893 (1913); I. Barcray, [hirty Years of Anglo- Ee G. Diercxs. Die Marokkofrage und die Konferenz von Algeciras (1906); G. Morer, Mora in Diplomacy (Ten Years of Secret Diplomacy 1912); A. Larprgu, La « nference d' Algeciras ' 912); G. P. Goocn, Franco-German Relations (1923); J. V. Fuurer, Besmare ks Diplomacy at tts Zenith (1922); M. SMITH, Militarism and Statecraft (1918); E. Reventitow, Deutschlands Auswartige Politth, 1888-1913 (1914, 1918): G. W. Protrnero, German Policy before the War (1916); F. Naumann, Central nr) / a l ; . mie ppl fmm ot fmt Fi" cs ao Europe (1917); C. ANDLER, Pan-Germanism (1915); B. E. Scumitt, Englana ana Germany, 1740-1914 (1916); R. Pinon, France et ¢ Allemagne, 1870-1913 (1913); H. M. EcerTon, British Foreign Policy in Europe (1917); G. Ceci, Robert Cecil, Marquts of Salisbury (1921); G. Murray. The Foreien Policy of Sir Edward Grey, 1906-1915 (1915); G. H. Perris, Our mn } re 7 rf ’ rATs r lap Viiktal,, “pp Foreicn Policy and Sir Edward Grey's Fatlure (191); R. Miuuet, Notre politique exterieure J - - D wo ’ Dd 4 po pry |” we } ln nek ~ve \e de 1898-1905 (19 - G. Reynaxp, La diplomatic francaise, [ euvre de M. Delcassé (191 5 05 ; | 915); ¢ C. Scuerer. D'une guerre a l'autre, 1871-1914 (1920); J. Larmerovux, La polstique térieure de |’ Autriche-Hongrie (1875-1914), 2 vols. (1918); J. B. Moore, Princz ples of American Diplomacy (1918 W. F. Tounson. America’s Foreign Relations, 2 vols. (1918); J. H. ti 7 ’ a ) > 2 ; e LATANE. From Isolation to Leadership (1918); M. W. WiLxiaMs, Ang lo- American Isthmian Diplomacy, 1815-1 2] (1916); S. A. Korrr, Russia's Foreign Relations during the Last Half Century (1922); — rs (1916): W. A. Dunnineo, The British Empire and the United States F. Racuraue, Deutschland und die Weltpolitik, 1870-1914 (1923); E. BRANDENBURG, Von Bismark zum Weltkriege (1925) English translation.MMM MAE TN A eg REY ae RT Pe oe es ——— I il it Hf eat | 1 He cai eg Se of. vn a ae aT et le140 PE, oe eR aE Se ace = ee Ta S“ Georgia | Seats ee ee raed $9 = fore Si are malt 180 160 140 120 100 ees 7. + 4 . a | Kart ographische Anstalt von F. A. Brockhaus, Leipzig, Germany.11h] aaa HTH anh Seana ——) yagrowwre=qqarene— = ed Pi pa ghtr et Te Par we 779 ube Geet bak cmt ee cet ince ng ia Tx RES a bd Biss Se " } A e \ S ' 1” ~ ‘ n OU at” X ! . e : s / ae ‘ * Marianne I) Marshal \ + ** , Caroline IS * Gilde ;aomor Is Madagasc a =A \ a Tasman (Crozet IS Kergquele WORLD MAP SHOWING ECONOMIC RESOURCES 1914. @@ eo (oal Ow Tron Rubber ee ead are ____. Principal Railvays Se EEUUcipal. Steamslup Lives _._._. Caravan Routes Scale of Miles sone, Equator o 1000 2000 ; » 4900 —— a ST QO from 40 Greerw. 60 80 100 120 a — A ee = Oe| | | J | | ) ' i uy ' ) | ‘at fe ui i] 7 ia } i ! aa ea 1 i] aoe a ae ae if] oh aa | ) q | hae a a ae | i aitt ane B i i} } ‘| He i an al , eae a rane a tai hy "I ee i L | HI ne | iWURPRRRATH HAH RARUORTOGT MUTUVETOTATPRRTARATATTUNTRUTRRTTANOTN TC RORO ONT WAMARRAGAARAE vat Hl MTTTTTTTTTnnTiiT TervTiTITTUNVATIVTTTIVGTRTIITUTTCVTATITTUCGGHAUTIACAGVAHILLVUGGVTRRURLOCURAAQAUUANOQNAOORUOL HATTER TTT ee Rane i ARB, CHAPTER XXXIV THE CAUSES OF THE WORLD WAR io914-1918 1. CONTRIBUTARY FACTORS A KNOWLEDGE of world history for the past century and a half is necessary to explain the World War. One who has comprehended the clash of political, economic, and social interests and forces during that period, as shown in this volume, will understand that an armed conflict in Europe was almost inevitable. Before 1789, on the continent of Europe, princes, kings, emperors, and little oligar- chies, ruled by divine right without much regard to the will of their subjects. In Great Britain, and in the Thirteen Colonies in America alone, were found the beginnings of democratic political institutions. The cruel partitions of Poland; the harsh treatment of Venice by Napoleon; and the unwise settlements of the Congress of Vienna, illustrated the low public morality a century or more ago. An autocratic system of government persisted in central and eastern Europe, both nationally and internationally, largely under the influence of Metternich, until the middle of the nineteenth century. Bismarck, in a political sense, became the heir of Metternich. As an enemy of liberalism, until forced to compromise with it, he fought constitutionalism and sought to perpetuate autocratic rule. His weapons were: a powerful army, diplomacy, and secret alliances. The spirit of strong rule became incarnate in the tsar of Russia, Emperor Franz Joseph of Austria, and William Il of Germany. This persistence of autocracy in central and eastern Europe, led indirectly to the World War. Just as Europe before 1789 was ruled politically by divine right monarchs, so Europe was controlled socially by a powerful nobility, and economically by the middle class. These privileged classes, immune from most of the taxes, owned the greater portion of the land, monopolized the best offices in the church and the state, and clung tenaciously to their feudal rights. They opposed a new order and resisted every effort of the common people to better their lot. The unprivileged classes dug the ditches, built the roads, and tilled Hitt } \ Hitt TT | ae Autocracy and international relations the fields to feed the nation. They paid most of the taxes to sup- Economic dis- port the government and the clergy. They fought the wars for their °”7” monarchs. Many of them were still serfs, as in the Middle Ages. In Switzerland and America alone there were no nobility and no serfs. Long after serfdom disappeared in Great Britain and France, it continued in central and eastern Europe. It was also true that for economic reasons Negro slavery flourished in the United States, 529 | Ht it I} eae | Oe ne aed ae iad aa as530 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XXXIV | atin America. and some of the colonies of the European countries for years after it was abolished in the Old World. The persistence of these social and economic inequalities made it easier to maintain autocracy, and thus helped to set the stage for the World War. At the same time the cost of living in Europe began to increase greatly about 1905 because production was not sufficient to meet the needs of the enlarged population. Econo! mic discontent left Europe in a state of ferment and on the verge of a social een One hundred and fifty years ago the masses of Europe, without RS litical and civil rights, denied the opportunities of intellectual and naterial advancement, began to regard themselves as the victims ae an unjust political, social, and economic or der. They became a gruntled over the injustices and discriminations, and accepted tl writings of Voltaire, Rousseau, Thomas Paine, fhe Encyclope ee Adam Smith, as the gospel of a new freedom. As a result there br Bie out a gigantic conflict in the New World and the Old between diaeval and modern civilization, between the privileged and un- privileged classes, and between autocracy and democracy. Absolu- tism, clericalism, Napoleonism, Metternichism, tsarism, and kai- serism, on the one side, were arrayed 5 ae liberty, equality, en- lightenment, progress, and self-government, on the other. The American Revolution and the French Revolution were followed in rapid succession by the revolutions of 1820 in southern Europe; the liberation of the Latin-American republics; the independ Greece: the Revolution of 1830 and the Great Reform Bill; the Chart- ist movement and the R evolution of 1848; the unification of Italy and ence of Germany; the emancipation of serfdom and slavery; the series of social and economic reforms; the overthrow of the Shogunate in Japan and the Manchu dynasty in China; and the First Balkan War. The World War was tween these two sets of forces, or at least such was the belief of in large measure, merely the latest clash be- > hundreds of millions of people. pco} te UNDERLYING CAusEs: NATIONALISM, MILITARISM, CAPITALISM, IMPERIALISM, SECRET DIPLOMACY The spirit of nationality, by the opening of the twentieth cen- tury, had created in the world f fifty-odd states. Some were large and strong, others were small and weak, but each was proud of its own tongue, its literature, its history, and its institutions. Nation- alism led to new conquests in arts and letters, science and inventions, popular educational and political programs, and social betterment. In these ways it was a blessing to the peoples of the world. But nationalism also became an exaggerated form of organized selfish- ness, inflated with egotism, and dangerously aggressive. When it stressed not the common good, but the things peculiar to itself, it too often became a world menace. It encouraged the powerful nationAPEUANINU EMU TTCUUETOLEU ANON RETA Chap. XXXIV] THE CAUSES OF THE WORLD WAR 531 to become still more powerful, and made the weak nation ambi- tious to develop into a great power. It taught the superiority of its own civilization and the inferiority of that of all “foreigners.” It produced Pan-Germanism, Pan-Slavism, Pan-Islamism, Italia Irredenta, Greater Serbia, Greater Bulgaria, Greater Greece, the de- mand for the recovery of Alsace-Lorraine, and the unrest of the sub- merged nationalities. Some of these ambitions sought to right old wrongs, but others were due to nationalistic greed. Land-locked states wanted openings on the sea. Germany talked of breaking through to the English Channel. Russia coveted Constantinople, Port Arthur, and aroute to the Indian Ocean. Austria held Triest and Fiume, which both Italy and Serbia wished to secure. Austria, Greece, and Bulgaria all had their eyes on Salonika. As a result Europe was full of “‘sore spots,’ “arenas of friction,’’ misunder- standings, hatreds, lies, suspicions, plots, and counterplots. Exaggerated nationalism popularized the new imperialism. In feverish haste the backward parts of the earth were brought under the economic or political control of the European powers, while the United States was beginning to travel the same course. Great Brit- ain’s vast empire belted the globe. Russia possessed about half of Asia. France was the first state in the nineteenth century to de- liberately plan a great colonial empire in Africa and Asia. Little Holland, Belgium, Portugal, and Denmark had empires many times their own size. Germany and Italy were the latest European states to launch a colonial program. Seeing the best portions of the earth taken by her rivals, Germany rushed over the globe to secure her ‘‘place in the sun.’’ Soon islands were obtained in the Pacific, large areas of Africa were annexed, and Kiau-chau in China secured. The most promising field for exploitation, however, was the Near East, where valuable concessions were given to her by Turkey. In 1914 Italy had won a colonial empire in Africa six times her own extent and was looking for further opportunities in the eastern Mediterranean. Austria-Hungary began effectively to forge her way into the Balkans. The United States and Japan established colonial empires. Thus by 1914 the eight great powers and four of the small states had practically divided the globe among them. This imperialistic scram- ble for colonies filled the world with rivalries, jealousies, conflicts, and threats of war. The new imperialism, inspired by nationalism and industrialism, led to the rapid growth in rival armaments. Gigantic armies and navies, such as had never been known before in history, covered the earth. The mad race for militarism was begun by Germany in 1862 and tenaciously pursued down to 1914. The example set by Germany was followed by the other powers, large and small. The actual standing army of France in 1914 was larger than that of Germany (910,000 to 870,000). Compulsory military service was a rather general practice and loudly lauded. Europe was an armed camp WUUHAPee RARER a ee Nationalism Imperialism AATEC ESP el ome oe a er ae a NN ses ——En ee ene % ae a Fl a a son rs DT Fee ern tee pt te Rs te Saree went EASES ES - == Maulitarism The war cult $32 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XXXIV with fortresses lining the frontiers. Military life was idealized as the highest civic service, and the u 1iform set the social standards. States were spending as much as 85 per cent of their total national incomes for past and future wars, leaving only 15 per cent to run the government, to educate the people, and to aid general welfare. During the four decades following the Franco-Prussian War, the na- alf billion dollars for military and naval armaments, or an average ¢ of a billion dollars a year. The Boer War cost Great Britain one and Russo-Japanese War was quite as expensive. This enormous sum of tions of Europe spent forty and a h a ‘hird billion dollars; and the money was spent by Europe because it was feared that sooner or later the continent would flame into war. France, Great Britain, Russia, Germany, Italy, and Austria-Hungary, in the order named, appropriated the largest sums for military purposes. The $550,000,- ooo spent by Europe in 1873 had incre ae he L913, to $1,894,000,000. Such is the terrible European story of preparedness for an “armed peace.’ The German Army Act of 1913 i pereaeed the standing army from eee to 870,000 ae ae ‘ovided an unprecedented budget of $225,000,000. France paralleled this action by reviving the three- year term of military service in order to enlarge her army. The French bill was actually introduced before the German act, though the German act became law first. Russia, and even little Belgium, took the precaution to multiply their soldiers. The Russian army was much larger than that of France or Germany. The same rivalry existed in the construction of navies and all the deadly engines of warfare. The “‘greatness’’ of a ‘‘power’’ was judged by the size of its army and navy. Thus Italy and France were “ great powers,’ but China and Brazil were not. All the strong states boasted that their large armies and navies were intended to secure peace and not to make war. As long as heavy armaments secured concessions from other states, they seemed to be worth while however costly they might be. The World War was the logical outgrowth of this ‘armed peace.’ Philosophy, literature, political science, history, and education were employed to vindicate militarism. The militarists naturally glorified war as a divinely sanctioned institution. They held that, because of human nature, war is inevitable among men as is shown by the fact that in the past there has been one year of peace to every thirteen years of fighting. They contended that armed conflict exerts a wholesome moral influence on nations; stimulates culture; pre- serves physical virility; and aids progress. ~The army and the navy,’ said Roosevelt, ‘‘ are the sword and shield which this nation must carry if she is to do her duty among the nations of the earth — if she is not to stand merely as the China of the western hemi- phere.’’ Similar ideas were uttered in all nations, except, perhaps, China. The Young German League, corresponding to the Boy Scouts, boasted: ‘‘ War is the noblest and holiest expression of human- eer EERE T TARA HATTA wen whan OnHAWRaaea wea: WUARU Ren a HiT Wil | ARERUGD AVIVONNTIVYVQQTATANVQOQIATIOQQNATIVUOQUHARIVOQGATALUCQQOCALLVUGNESRVVUGNYEANLAGGVONOURSGAUAVERGAOTEGUQOQOLOQGGREEEEOQOSERIUCOQGQUULENES9E UATE —— > - a Te TT I =e Ue ree Chap. XXXIV] THE CAUSES OF THE WORLD WAR 533 activity. For us, too, the glad hour of battle will strike. Still and deep in the German heart must live the joy of combat, and the longing for it. Let us ridicule to the utmost the old women in breeches, who fear war and deplore it as cruel and revolting. No! War is beautiful!’’ ‘‘The time is near,’’ wrote Wirth, ‘when the earth must be conquered by the Germans.’’ Nietzsche asserted: ‘A good war hallows every cause’; Bernhardi, ‘‘ War is a political necessity’’; and Treitschke, ‘War is a part of the divinely appointed order.’’ “‘ Might is the supreme right, and what is right is decided by war.’ Active societies among most peoples labored strenuously for ‘‘preparedness.’’ With the big powers armed to the teeth and ready for instant war, there was Constant danger that some minor friction in any corner of the globe might precipitate a world conflict. Exaggerated nationalism and militarism created a partisan patriotism with all the fervor of an earlier religious intolerance. All foreigners were regarded as inferiors, while the dealings of the home government with other peoples were applauded as right. Decatur’s toast, ‘Our’ country right or wrong’’ was the sentiment of this kind of patriotism. A higher type was expressed by Carl Schurz: ‘‘Our country! When right to be kept right, when wrong to be put right.’’ The press, pulpit, legislative hall, and school were used to instil in the minds of each national group a belief in the superiority of its people and institutions. ‘“God has assigned to the German people a place in the world and a role in history,’’ said Chancellor von Bethmann-Hollweg. ‘‘God has called us to civilize the world,’’ William II told his subjects. ‘‘I contend that the British Obsessed race is the finest which history has yet produced,’’ wrote Cecil Rhodes patriotism in his will. ‘‘The Anglo-Saxon race is infallibly destined to be the predominant force in the history and civilization of the world,” asserted Chamberlain. ‘‘Chauvinists’’ and ‘‘Jingoists’’ filled the yellow journals with war-scares, canards, and falsehoods. Fears, hatreds, and misrepresentations abounded. The west spoke of the “Yellow peril’; the French and British dreaded the “German menace’’; the Germans were fed on the “Slav peril’’; and the orien- tals spoke of the “White peril.’ These psychological conditions made it easy for the war party to gain popular support, and kept the world in a nervous state, suspicious, and frightened at every scare- crow. The spread of the Industrial Revolution produced the age of big business, alert and competitive. The captains of industry preached the gospel of ‘‘ power through wealth and wealth through power.’ The remarkable expansion of world trade after 1870 produced “‘ arenas of friction’’ all over the earth, which repeatedly threatened war. The business men of each nation relied for security upon the armies Capitalism and and navies of their home governments rather than upon the code Ones of International Law. Free trade, and the “‘open door’’ policy, CE were replaced generally by high tariffs and special commercial AEN I en i ct cl ET nee Leen enaus ee Sane a rr aPot SD a ee a ee EE ane ee teeny Sant ae ee Sg he eee Te erate eer mit ag eT aie See ets SESE yn ee Te Re i 8 ee = eS _ a ¥ I “ ack of z71T¢ rnational agencr1es 534 MODERN WORLD HISTORY |[Chap. XXXIV treaties. When the national flag followed trade and investments over the earth. national rivalries were increased and Me business became a standing cause of war. When the Mannesmann Brothers in Morocco were backed by the German government, an interna- tional crisis threatening war arose. American investors in Mexico attempted to involve the United States in war with Mexico. Pri- vate interests in Persia, China, Turkey, and Latin America precipt- tated conflicts. National pre este re became identified with railroad concessions, mines, banking, and trade. Economic victories abroad aroused keen pride at home. ae supported a “strong foreign policy’’ because it meant both greater wealth and more power. As a result, economic rivalry over the seats of production, channels of J - ae , . oon ee ; " e trade. markets, and sources of coal, oil, cotton, iron, and manganese, “ : oy 1 “ z : ‘ : E i . . — - bred ill-will. fear, and resentment, and carried withit the threat of States sought to protect their interests and gain new advantages through favorable alliances. To retain the war loot of the Franco- Prussian War. Germany formed a series of alliances, which culmi- nated in the T[riple Alliance. Austria-Hungary we ‘“omed these alliances to further her Balkan policies. Italy entered the Triple be iron Nel \ Ir iv : against France and to obtain backing for Mediterranean projects. Fear of the Triple Alliance spurred France on to form the Dual Alliance with Russia. To safeguard her Asiatic interests against Russia, Great Britain formed an alliance with Japan. The menace of Germany induced Great Britain to settle her differences with France and Russia, and to enter the Triple Entente to offset the Triple Alliance. And thus it was, that for a quarter of a century before the outbreak of the World War, Europe was divided between two hostile and competitive groups, each armed and ready for instant war. The lesser states swung in the orbits of one or the other of these two major unions. So jealously was this balance of alliances guarded, that the slightest move in foreign policy, or imcrease in military strength, in one group produced a counter-move in the other. Indeed. one trivial incident after another almost precipitated a clash of arms. The cumulative effects of these recurring crises made a mighty international war a sta! nding possibility. Furthermore secret diplomacy, secret treaties and Blever systems of spying, were employed, as in the days of divine- right monarchies, to gain na- tional advantages and to imperil the peace of the world. Had there been adequate international machinery, these crises might have been averted ina peaceable manner without the danger of war. But with a lack of common authority to regulate world inter- ests, each of the fifty-odd sovereign states took its own self-interest as its supreme guide. Ihe concept of ‘‘national honor’’; the na- tional schemes for ‘‘ vital interests’’ in colonies, trade, and power; and the various © pan’ movements, prevented the federation of the nations of Europe, to say nothing of the world, for mutual coopera--- eee TTTTTTTTTTVETTCHTTTTTTTTTTVVNTTATRTTTRVURHTATATTRRDRRUTATUTTE TAURASAAAURRAUAEREGRORUOOHUAD ATUUTTUGRTOGRTOGTVATEVARTUGTLGWT TVG RAGT AAA EUGVEA ARTY nae it} BEeERe. i einen Chap. XXXIV] THE CAUSES OF THE WORLD WAR 535 tion and security. National good was placed above the good of mankind. Within the separate nations, government, law, and justice were highly developed, but anarchy prevailed in international, political relations. In the fields of science, education, religion, banking, communication, and transportation, the world was largely organized internationally in both theory and practice. In the realm of politics, on the contrary, little progress had been made towards effective inter-state activity. The national state, on a militaristic basis, remained the unit of political civilization. The efforts of the Hague Peace Conferences to curtail war burdens in time of peace and to reduce the dangers of militarism were blocked by the opposition of Germany. The attempts to set up an efficient world court of justice were defeated by national jealousies. Only a few states, in separate treaties, agreed to submit all disputes to the newly organized Hague Tribunal. Thus it was that by the summer of 1914 the stage was set for the great tragedy, and the actors were more or less conscious of the parts they were to play. Of the eight great powers, Germany, Austria-Hun- gary, Russia, and Japan were autocratically organized; France and the United States were republics; and Great Britain and Italy were dem- ocratic, constitutional monarchies. These powers virtually dictated the policies that regulated the rest of the world. Imbued with an intense nationalism, most of them were militaristic and imperialistic. All of them were competitors for world trade. Several of them were in open conflict over colonies. Some of them held in subjugation alien peoples. Their relations were maintained with one another by treaties and alliances. The destinies of the three continents of the Old World hung in the balance held by two powerful groups: (2) the Triple Alliance and (2) the Triple Entente with Japan as a possible fourth member. Not only Europe but also Asia and Africa were covered with clashing interests, delicate “‘situations,’’ and sources of ‘‘friction.’’ Every international crisis threatened to disrupt the ‘‘armed peace’? and kept the two groups of allies in a state of nervous, suspicious hostility. The mines were laid for the explosion, and only a match was necessary to shake the earth. 3. Tue Immepiate Causes or THE WortD War The Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated at Sarajevo in Bosnia on June 28, 1914. But any attempt to understand even the immediate causes of the World War must go back for at least two years and review the major phases of the diplomatic situation with respect to the Balkans and the growing closeness of diplomatic relations between France and Russia. In this study of the imme- diate causes, the investigators are uniquely fortunate as to source material. For the first time in the history of mankind the same generation of scholars that witnessed a great European conflict have at their disposal the contents of the archives of the more im- New evidence on war guilt TUUTUVCERGV ESV Deas Seaananamt Ds at ee ae ee a ae nee [el ee a Pd Reena neresesess te— os Set en ET EE ——— : — ee ee eer arene rere apres epee ara < ee I Oe r’ Importance 0 536 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XXXIV portant governments which participated. The Socialist govern- ments which assumed charge of ey and Austria following the World War quickly made public the diplomatic negotiations of the earlier régime in the hope that such a procedure would help to dis- credit the previous capitalistic and monarchical governments. In this way there is adequate information concerning the diplomatic negotiations of the Central Powers. F r the same general reasons the Bolshevik government in Russia at once opened the archives at Petrograd to scholars, though, even earlier, De Siebert, the sec- retary of the Russian embassy at London, had published a large collection of communications which had passed between London and St. Petersburg during the period from 1908 to 1914. Inas- much as Russia was allied with France and England, the Russian archives revealed much of the pertinent information with respect to the negotiations, relations and codperation between the Entente Powers in the period preceding the outbreak of the war. Now even England is to allow two reputable scholars, George Pe: ibody Gooch and Harold Temperley, to See two volumes of communications on Brel diplomacy in 1914 and the years immediately preceding. Because of these circumstances, honest historical scholars are now able to eliminate well-nigh entirely the grotesque mythology con- cerning war origins which was spread by the various powers during the period of the great conflict, and may handle the subject upon the basis of fact, truth, and candor. An effort will be made in these few pages to summarize briefly and clearly the consensus of historical experts who have thoroughly and c arefully analyzed the source material mentioned above. Any such collection oft competent stu- dents of contemporary diplomati Seo yw oe certainly include the following names: G. P. Gooch, 5S. B. Fay, B. Schmitt, V. Va lentin, M. Montgelas, P. Renouvin, M. oe irdt, A. Babee: Luce, G. Frantz, W. L. Langer, John S. Ewart, and Corrado B. irbagallo. The period from L912 to 1914 is very significant in the diplomatic history of Europe: (1) because of the developments during this time in the way of strengthening the Franco- Russian Alliance; and (2) on account of growing and decisive hostility between Serbia and Austria, the latter of which was unquestionably intensif fied by the Russian encouragement of the Serbian nz itionalistic aspirations. While there is no doubt that some of the aggressiveness in the Austro- Serbian situation must be assigned to Austria, it is certainly true that these two major diplomatic developments mentioned above were closely interrelated. The closer collusion between France and Russia promoted the increase of Russian ambitions in regard to Con- stantinople and the Straits and, consequently, led toa notable increase of Russian activity in Balkan problems anc 1 issues. This intensifica- tion of Russian concern in regard to the Balkan area took the specific form of encouraging the Serbian nationalists, while it was but natural that the propaganda and activity of these patriots shouldMTT oeeeevee PTTL UULERT LCE EEEEUTTE TEETER EEE EEE EET ET ET PrarrrreeCCUTCTUUUCUUNTUTTTHTTHTTTTTTTTATOTTTGNNONNNGQQQQUAUUCUQQUUQVUCULUULLRUERLLUALUUCURITIAAHAOHHHANE AOTC Chap. XXXIV] THE CAUSES OF THE WORLD WAR 537 arouse the suspicion and antipathy of Austria, and increase her already unfriendly and somewhat aggressive attitude towards her troublesome little Balkan neighbor. The Franco-Russian Alliance goes back to about 1892, but during most of the twenty years following that time it had been looked upon by the participating powers as primarily a defensive alliance against the triple union of Germany, Austria, and Italy. About 1908, a transition set in. The century-old Russian desire for Constantinople The Franco- began to assert itself with a new intensity. The Russian suggestion in 1908 that Austria annex Bosnia and Herzegovina had been based upon the assumption that Russia would receive as compensation the opening of the Straits to Russian war vessels. Having been frustrated in this ambition by the disapproval of England, Russia, after the failure of direct negotiations with Turkey and of the Balkan League, turned her interest to the only other probable means of securing con- trol of the Straits, namely, a European war which would make tt possible for the Russians to seize Constantinople and realize the Russia and ambition of Russian generals, statesmen, and diplomats since the time the Straits of Catherine the Great. While many members of the Russian court and diplomatic circle were extremely favorable to this policy, its leader was unquestionably Isvolski, who became the Russian foreign minister and later ambassador to Paris. It was quite obvious, how- ever, that no such policy as this would prove successful unless Russia could count upon the support of France and, if possible, that of England as well. About 1912 the French situation became more favorable to Russian policy than it had been during most of the time in the previous generation. There was arising to power in France a new and more aggressive group of militant Republicans, led by Raymond Poincaré and Poincaré. Poincaré had been born in Lorraine, and since childhood had entertained an all-dominating passion to rescue his fatherland from what he sincerely believed to be the unjustifiable and humili- ating seizure by Germany. As there was little probability that Germany would ever voluntarily cede Lorraine to France, because, among other reasons, of the valuable iron-ore deposits in this area, Poincaré well understood that Alsace-Lorraine could presumably be restored to France only as an incident of the favorable outcome of a general European war. Hence, with the rise of the Poincaré party to power in France, Isvolski found in Paris a cordial interest in his proposal that France and Russia should draw more closely together for the furtherance of their mutual ambitions, which could be realized jointly and solely through a Franco-Russian victory in a general European conflict. From this time on the Franco-Russtan Alliance became a positive and powerful factor in European diplomacy. To bring this about, it would, of course, be necessary to secure the support of the mass of the people in France. Russia being an au- Russian Alliance Alsace- Lorraine Paid b eeraeet eet — SII See ek ied enn esheets tate = Bye Pe op bat SRa TT Sd ee SS eae = ans : = me oy :— Sere 5 weennener Petet ae rata A ert Po te SPF Ae cam TED gymomencliaoen oa y > med i lite ry ; , J are ' zi he Lenict pre : C Co France Gina Ru [Sid itn the Balkans MODERN WORLD HISTORY ([Chap. XXXIV [ tocracy, there was likely to be little difficulty in that country, for military and diplomatic affairs were thoroughly controlled by an irresponsible monarch and his court, ministry, and general staff. In France the situation was far different, because, theoretically at least, the ultimate control of foreign affairs rested with the Chamber of Deputies. Hence, it was necessary to carry on a long se effective Campaign of propaganda in the press which would culminate in the conversion of the mass of the French people from a pacifically inclined population, to one which believed Germany likely to attack France at any time and was convinced that the Austrian and German policies in the Balkans were diametrically opposed to the peace and safety of France. To bring about this transformation of French opinion, Isvolski obtained from Russia large sums of money which were adroitly distributed with the advice of Poincaré, to the French newspapers of every description and class bias. There was thus executed a generally successful process of bribery of these French eer so that they changed their editorial and news Be irkedly in the direction of emphasizing the indispensable alue to the French of the closer arrangement with Russia, and stress- ing the ee which faced France in the alleged aggression of Ger- many and Austria. Many of Poincaré’s henchmen, such as Tardieu, also contributed extensive articles to these Rae sharply criticizing Austro-German policy in the Balkans and warning Frenchmen of the grave menace to their interests and safety fie to reside therein. The net result was the growing conviction of the French people that Balkan affairs were of vital 1 impot yrtance to the country. The Franco- Russian Alliance was, thus, ‘‘Balkanized.’’ When in 1913 Poincaré became a candidate for the French presidency, Russian pecuniary aid also played a part in defraying his campaign expenses. This intensification of the Franco-Russian Alliance produced spe- cific results in the negotiations between thesestates. On November 17, 1912, Poincaré, in conference with Isvolski, gave Russia a free hand in the Balkans, promising unconditional French support if she were attacked by Austria or Germany. The one stipulation was that Poincaré or his successors should have a general supervisory control over Russian acts in the Balkans, lest these might on some occasion take a form or course not designed to redound to the specific interest of France or the furtherance of those aims of the Franco-Russian AI- liance in which Poincaré was interested. The years 1912-14 aug- nented the Russian interest and restlessness 1n regard to the Straits. The Balkan wars appeared to have resulted rather unfavorably to Austro-German ambitions and interests in the Balkan area, particu- larly in the increased power and prestige of Serbia, and Austria as- sumed a progressively more menacing attitude towards Serbia. Russia was likewise disappointed by the failure of the Balkan League in advancing her struggle for the Straits. By December, 1913, even Sazonov was convinced that the Straits could be secured only by a| riTTTET LU WAUNEAHERTVNUUD AOU ARAE WVWQVUCUUTUURITTGNEVEQUUUUUUCUTTTAAWAQUALUUULEETTGRGRAGRRLLAD VATA VVATHTTTTETTTV ATL TVTVTUNHUUTUTUTVOUHLUUWETLEUALOL TAAL Chap. XXXIV] THE CAUSES OF THE WORLD WAR 539 European war. The Russian impatience took on a significant form in February, 1914, when a secret Crown Council was held at St. Peters- burg to decide as to whether it would be wisest to strike suddenly and unaided against Turkey and seize Constantinople and the Straits, or to await a probable European war which would give Russia the advantage of the aid of the British and French fleets in holding in check the naval forces of Germany and Austria. It was deemed best to accept the latter alternative. In the meantime, the encouraging Russian attitude towards Serbian nationalism was helping to create a situation which promised to aid notably in producing a crisis that might actually serve to precipitate the desired war. It has often been asserted that this aggressive action of France and Russia after 1912 was not the result of deliberate and independent planning on their part, but a program of defense into which they were forced by the increase of German aggression and militarism at this time, in particular the German military bill of 1913. This position has little substantial basis in fact. The combined Franco-Russian military forces in 1910 were far greater than those of Germany and Austria, and after the Grey-Cambon correspondence of 1912 it was practically certain that the support of England could be counted upon. It should be remembered that, while the German military law of 1913 was passed before that of the French, the French army bill was introduced in the parliament first; the military and naval increases of 1913-14 grew out of the general European alarm over the Balkan situation of 1912-13, which threatened to produce a crisis at almost any time. The nationalistic movement in Serbia had been strong for more than a generation, and had been notably forwarded by what the Serbs regarded as the aggressive and utterly unjustifiable annexa- tion of Bosnia and Herzegovina by Austria in 1908. Serbian officials did not know that this annexation had actually been suggested by Serbia’s supposed protector, Russia. Throughout the period from 1912 to 1914 Austria became more active and aggressive in regard to the Balkans, and during the Balkan crises of 1912-14 assumed a threatening attitude towards Serbia, adding specific causes of irri- tation in such incidents as the ‘‘Pig War.’’ The patriotic and unt- fication movements in the latter state were therefore enormously stimulated from a defensive point of view. In her aggression towards Serbia at this time, Austria had acted without the instigation or encouragement of Germany; in fact, Germany had on two occasions moved to restrain Austria. It should be pointed out, however, that about this time Germany had secured what seemed to be a very thorough-going control over Turkish foreign policy, and was bring- ing to completion her negotiations and activities in regard to the Bagdad railroad. Hence Germany was not likely to view with equanimity any increase of Russian activity in the Balkans, to say nothing of the Russian desire to obtain control of Constantinople ; " et eaerd ee a The military increases of IgI3 The Jugo-Slav movement in Serbia | Ae } on = oe al ae meee SST presse—s Ls nr or ee a Sk Ser ene a ae OT he eaten ee ee ee aa haa A aT a at Soo Se yom 540 MODERN WORLD HISTORY § [Chap. XXXIV and the Straits. Likewise, Sazonov was greatly alarmed at the growth of German influence over the a ae ime porte. The antagonism between Austria and Serbia tended to becomeacute in the spring of 1914. In the spring a Hat year a notorious Serbian plotter and assassin. Dragutin Dimitrievitch, who was at this time chief of the intelligence division of the Serbian general staff, decided in company with a number of Serbian plotters in the notorious patri- otic society, the Black Hand, that the Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir apparent to the Austrian throne, must be assassinated before he could institute reforms in Austria which would be a serious obstacle to the Greater Serbia program. A number of courageous young Bosnian adventurers were enlisted in the plot, trained in pistol marksmanship and the throwing of bombs by 9 serbian military au- thorities and then sent, with the connivance of the Serbian authort- ties. to Sarajevo in Bosnia, where they awaited aye impending visit of the archduke. It is stated that Dimitrievitch lost his nerve, as the time for the visit of the archduke ae and attempted to call off the plot when it was too late. Whether this is true, cannot ye determined with certainty, but there is no doubt about the origin and planning df the plot. When this information concerning the comp licity of Dimitrie- vitch was first made public ie a cari ke historian, Stanojevic, in 1923, it was believed that while the Serbian military authorities may have been cognizant of the plot, the Serbian civil government was innocent of this ee ee But the exuberance at the tenth anniversary of the outbreak of the World War has proved too much for the discretion of certain a in officials, and L. Jovanovitch, a member of the Serbian cabinet in 1914, has exultantly boasted that the Serbian civil government was likewise in full possession of the facts regarding the plot nearly a month b efore the assassination was consummated. There is some evidence that the Serbian minister to Vienna in 1914 passed a hint of the imp ending assassination to Bi- linski. who was at that time minister of finance and administration in Bosnia. but Bilinski, who was out of favor at the Austrian court, never handed on this warning if he actually received it. The Serbian sovernment, hoping that the secret in regard to the collusion of the Serbian military and civil auth orities in the plot for the assassination of the archduke might die with its author, attempted during the wart to secure the assassination of Dimitrievitch, and, failing in this, was able in 1917 to execute him on a trumped- up charge of treason. In the light of the fact that the Serbian premier, Pashitch, was aware of the assassinatiot 1 plot at least three weeks before the murder of fine: 28> ic is se TemR A to remember his ardent and repeated insistence upon his complete ignorance of the plot in July, 1914. Austria entertained at the time of the assassination the strong con- viction of the direct participation of the Serbian government in this plot, and acted on this supposition, though as an actual matter ofrh { va TaRaaae } aa "| ie HEAR i. wana Heit ae! i] WT PROTOTUQTIVHUSUOCDUUTONDOUROVOUAULUEOLQELOHOOAEROORVRAOMIOESUUUNRSURROEAOUEUEOEQOVOEVBMEOEERRE HAL Chap. XXXIV] THE CAUSES OF THE WORLD WAR 541 fact the Austrian committee of investigation was unable in July, 1914, to find any convincing evidence supporting this contention, beyond such broad and general considerations as the arming of the assassins in Serbia, the treachery of the frontier guards, and the exuberant attitude of the Serbian press and patriotic societies in regard to the assassination and the assassins. The assassination of the archduke on June 28, 1914, shocked and startled the various European chancelleries. The tension had been high in the international situation in the spring of 1914, and the murder of the Austrian heir was recognized by most foreign offices as likely to create a serious crisis in diplomatic affairs. In general, there was a fairly common feeling throughout Europe that the assas- sination had been an atrocious affair, and that Austria would be justified in taking rather a severe attitude towards Serbia. Poincaré and Isvolski, though they probably did not know of the actual de- tails of the plot to assassinate the archduke, recognized at once the significance of the episode for the policy which they had been planning during the previous two or three years. Sometime earlier Poincaré had arranged for a visit to Russia in July, 1914, and this trip was executed as planned, though it was to involve a discussion of far more momentous and immediate issues than had earlier been contemplated. Many of the ultra-severe critics of Poincaré have alleged that this trip was planned solely to encourage the aspiring but cowardly and hesitant Russian militarists. It is definitely known, however, that the trip had been fully provided for a considerable time before the assassination. This fact does not, however, in any way affect the thesis that Poincaré exploited the visit primarily for the purpose of stiffening the Russian determination to prevent any strong Austrian action in the Serbian crisis, and hoped to use the Balkan controversy as the basis for precipitating the World War which would lead to the Russian seizure of the Straits and the French recovery of Alsace-Lorraine. It is known upon authentic information that Poincaré was most enthusiastically welcomed at St. Petersburg, that he did everything possible to strengthen practically and symbolically the Franco- Russian Alliance, and that he urged the Russians to be firm in their attitude towards the Serbian situation. He also assumed a somewhat menacing attitude towards the Austrian ambassador to St. Petersburg. Poincaré’s visit to St. Petersburg took place before either he or the Russians had any complete knowledge of the specific nature of the impending Austrianultimatum to Serbia. Yet the long postponement of a definite statement of the presumably punitive action in regard to Serbia had aroused the suspicion of both the French and the Russians that something ominous was imminent. But one must not fail to point out that at this early date Poincare gave Russia a free hand to act in the Serbian crisis, and promised full French aid in any event be- fore either he or Sazonov knew the specific terms of the Austrian ul- UAT seamen se arenes The crisis after Sarajevo Poincaré's visit to St. Petersburg, July, 1914 ITN af eS ee et panne ? ce Oe eae i ae i rae ro “ pe meee a " Een ee De at -ee ETN n oe ; Se Dia Se eee = oe at = n= EY le = we Berns ba coe BoA ————— pe Te IS Oe . a 542 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XXXIV timatum to Serbia. ‘he kaiser has been frequently, and not unju CO yndemn L' d for justly, giving Austria a blank check in regard to Set -bia. But it should be indicated in frankness and candor that this was exactly what Poincaré did during his St. Petersburg visit with respect to the Russian attitude and policy in regard to Austria. Largely asa result of Poincaré’s visit the Russian militarists thoroughly gained the upper hand over the pacific party at the court. Gene cal Russian preparations for the war began July 24, and we may most certainly accept as accurate the conclusion of the schol: ay Frenchman, Alfred Fabre-Luce, to the effect that after poe: S VISIE tO St. Petersburg there was only a very slight chance that a European Wal could be averted. It was generally contended by the Entente propagandists during the World War that ae was a particularly fortunate date for such a conflict from the standpoint of the Central Powers, and an especially unfortunate one from the point of view of the Entente. Exactly the Opposite was the case. There was no specific reason why Germany and Austria should have considered 1914 advantageous for a Euro- general one that the longer the Co pean | contict, and only the nebulous conflict was delayed, the greater would become the disproportionate malts streng ch of Russia and France. Then, it must be remembered that all of Austria’s plans for the Balkans and most of Germany s foreign re were likely to be wrecked by a European war. On the other hand, 1914 was a cruci ally important date for a European war from the standpoint of the interests of Russia and France. With- out ie British navy Russia and France would have been gravely | in a war against Germany and Austria. In June, 1914, core and Germany had settled in a satisfactory manner their out- standing difficulties in international relations, IPL: their disputes over Mesopotamia and the Bagdad railroad, and were get- ting on better terms than during any other period in the previous eighteen years. Hence, in another year it would be highly doubtful if Great Britain could be induced to undertake warlike action on behalf of France and Russia. In the same way that this Anglo-Ger- man rapprochement created a greater necessity for war in 1914 on the part of the French and Russians, so it decreased the occasion for any German war against Great Britain at this moment. It also gave the Germans greater assurance of probable British neutrality. At the same time Russia was faced with a social revolution in 1914 and France feared lest the radicals might secure the repeal of the three- year service act of 1913. A war would remove both dangers. The Austrian court and military circles had for some years before 1914 become alarmed at the Serbian nationalistic agitation and its encouragement by the Russians. It seemed to them the most men- acing movement then directed against the integrity of the Dual Monarchy. If successful, it would lead to the immediate loss of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and would constitute an invitation toMENT TTT TETTVTTUACTVVUVUGUCUATULATAUAVAVUL ESATA aeanaannG Ht Mannan Chap. XXXIV] THE CAUSES OF THE WORLD WAR 543 revolution and secession on the part of the other minority nation- alities within the polyglot Empire. Up to the time of the assassina- tion of the archduke, active Austrian intervention in Serbian affairs had been prevented by the opposition of the moderates in the Austro- Hungarian ministry, particularly Count Tisza, the Hungarian premier, and by the adverse attitude of Germany towards any open aggression against Serbia. The assassination of the archduke brought the mat- ter to a crisis by enormously strengthening the activity and deter- mination of the interventionists, and by helping to silence or weaken the opposition to such a policy. The Vienna authorities, civil and military, quickly came to the decision that the Serbian menace could no longer be ignored, and Count Tisza was soon won over to the policy of forcible intervention which was to follow diplomatic pressure. The attitude of Germany in the crisis had, of course, to be as- certained by the Austrians, and on July 5 a letter from Franz Josef was delivered to the kaiser, setting forth the Austrian grievances against Serbia and stressing the fact that the Austrian Empire could not be kept intact without immediate and vigorous action against this south Slavic state. The kaiser, who had earlier been frequently accused by Austro-Hungarian ministers of special partiality and friendliness towards Serbia, was now alarmed about the future of Austria-Hungary, with which the destinies of the German Empire were so Closely linked. He was also personally shocked and doubt- less somewhat frightened by the assassination of the archduke, with whom he was personally friendly, and whose dynastic fortunes were so closely related to the house of Hohenzollern. Consequently, after consultation with his chancellor and the foreign office on July 5, the kaiser made the following momentous decision: “Austria may judge what is to be done to clear up her relation with Serbia; whatever Austria’s decision may turn out to be, Austria can count with certainty upon it that Germany will stand behind her as an ally and a friend.’’ The kaiser recognized at the time the possibility that this decision might lead to war, but he believed it highly im- probable, because he felt that the tsar, like himself, would be so shocked at the assassination as to eliminate any considerable proba- bility of Russian opposition to the proper punishment of Serbia. And, in any event, he believed Russia insufficiently prepared, and he staked too much on the assumption of British neutrality. During the latter part of the World War there developed a luxu- riant myth concerning an alleged “‘Potsdam Conference,’’ said to have been held on July 5, 1914, at which the kaiser was claimed to have met the leading German and Austrian officials, as well as prominent members of the financial and industrial world in the Central Empires, to have revealed to them his determination to precipitate a general European war, and to have warned them that they would have only about three weeks to prepare for its outbreak. Mm AURA ANAL sy ' ep ee Ee Austrian policy after the assassination Germany's first reaction to the Austrian punttive policy il ilk ASHE Mi a —— TT TN a —— errs Se Ce eeerer ree NTSr Ee Te Se - ioe ser 3s SS ———— aT aeons Ba has Pn EERIE a a DT a al 5 bs 544 MODERN WORLD HISTORY ([Chap. XXXIV It is now known that there is not the slightest shred of evidence to support this fabrication, which was published immediately through- out the Allied world by Henry Morgenthau, who was during the war the American minister at Constantinople. There was no such confer- ence whatever: the kaiser at that time had only the slightest anticipa- tion that a European war was to come, and was distinctly opposed to any general clash of arms over the Serbian issue. He and his chancel- i 21 lor can. however, be accused of grave indiscretion in giving Austria this blank check. But they repented of this folly later, and would unquestionably have made satisfactory amends for it had not the pre- mature Russian mobilization frustrated the really earnest German efforts to restrain Austrian aggression when the latter seemed likely to bring on a general European conflict. There is no evidence that Poincaré ever repented of his grant of a free hand to Russia or made any effort to curb Russian aggression. The Austrians delaved the sending of their ultimatum to Serbia until July 23. This was once believed to be due to the fact that it had been decided at the ‘‘Potsdam Conference’’ on July 5 that sev- eral weeks would be required to put the Central Empires into shape for a continental war. It is now known that the delay was due to the necessity of converting Tisza to the war policy, the desire to delay the ultimatum until Poincaré had left Russia, and the effort to secure proof of official Serbian complicity in the assassination as the result of a study of the facts by an Austrian committee of investigation. This committee was unable to find much evidence of that official govern- mental responsibility of Serbia which has been subsequently so thoroughly established. But the general attitude of the Serbian government, the conduct of the Serbian press, and other symptoms, only demonstrated still further the already well-known fact that the Serbian state was countenancing the nationalistic and the patriotic movements which had produced the assassination. The Austrian government resolved that this time they would thoroughly dispose of the Serbian nuisance, whatever the consequences. The Austrian army was partially mobilized on the Serbian boundary on July 25, but not until six hours after the Serbian mobilization order had been issued. In spite of the fact that even the German officials regarded the Serbian reply as quite satisfactory, Austria declared war on Serbia on July 28. That the Serbians, encouraged by the Russian attitude. were as stubborn and recalcitrant as the Austrians is proved by the fact that the Serbian army was ordered mobilized some three hours before the Serbian reply to the ultimatum had been sent to the Austrian officials. There can be no doubt that the Austrians were determined upon a punitive expedition into Serbia, but Germany was willing to see this policy carried out only on condition that it did not bring with it the strong probability of a general European wat. The German civil government distinctly wanted the conflict localized, and limitedanna WUUNTVOTROTATOTRTTTTTERTARTTTTAT TVVVTTHTOUUTHVONTATUOOPTROVEERIOUTE HPAL TPR ELLY TANT WAT wena Chap. XXXIV] THE CAUSES OF THE WORLD WAR 545 to a punishment of Serbia. This is in sharp contrast to the policy of Poincaré and the Russians, which was clearly based upon the desire to bring about a general European war, without which the Franco-Russian ambitions could not have been in any way satisfied. The distinction between the type of war contemplated by Austria and that envisaged by France and Russia is of the utmost importance in assessing the relative responsibility of these various powers for the general cataclysm which began during the first week in August, 1914. While every friend of peace might well wish that Austria had accepted the terms of the Serbian reply to her ultimatum, yet no one can with any propriety criticize her for not doing so. In 1898 Spain made a far more complete surrender to the terms of the American ultimatum than did Serbia to the Austrian demands. Yet President McKinley kept the Spanish reply secret and urged Conyress to declare war. Certainly no one could contend that American interests in Cuba in 1898 were in any way as urgent or direct as those of Austria in the Serbian crisis of 1914. But a better analogy can be found by asking what would the United States have done if on July 4, 1go1, Vice-President Roosevelt and his wife had been assassinated at El Paso, Texas, by members of a notorious Mexican secret society given over to plotting against the United States and whose murder of Mr. Roosevelt had been immediately proclaimed in the Mexican papers as a noble and laudable patriotic act? It is to be hoped that there is no reader naive enough to suspect that Americans would even have waited for any diplomatic exchanges whatever before rushing soldiers into Mexico! The action of Russia following the Austrian ultimatum to Serbia was prompt and decisive, though it cannot be too strongly empha- sized that Russia had little moral ground either expressed or implied for interfering with Austria’s plan to punish Serbia. Russia had urged the Serbian plotters to continue their intrigues against Austria, and had even furnished the Serbians with munitions for the impending conflict. Hence, Russia was herself culpable in regard to the Serbian plot to assassinate the archduke, and in a general way was fully aware of the Serbian guilt. The Russian militarists, after the impe- tus and advantage they had gained from Poincaré’s visit and encour- agement, were in full command of the situation at St. Petersburg, and they had a most enthusiastic and aggressive aide in Isvolski at the French capital who, in these crucial days, presided over the negoti- ations between St. Petersburg and Paris. The Austrian ultimatum to Serbia seemed likely to present an admirable occasion for the precipi- tation of that world war which the crown council had foreseen and longed for in the previous February. The Russian military prepara- tions for a European war had been in process of development for more than a year previous. They had been still further increased follow- ing February, 1914, and real activity had been initiated as soon as the AUTTAAAAAALALLA a Austria opposed to a European war What would the United States have done in 1914? Russia seizes the opportunity or War ANON oa ee hehe sisi CSI a Oe r eeee - rs - =. ese bye EE aA Del ae abet ain a ree Tet tere ere areas se tee Russia brings on the World W ar 546 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XXXIV news of the assassination of the archduke reached St. Petersburg. When the court and military circles were informed of the terms of the Austrian ultimatum, military preparations on a large scale began in dead earnest. Widespread preparatory military measures were ordered on as y 24, the day that Russia learned the nature of the ultimatun A partial mobilization was begun on the 26th, and general 1 ok ‘lization ordered on the 30th. All of this came before eee ae been any evidence of German or Austrian military activity anticipating a world war, and when diplomatic negotiations were in full swing. As it had been frankly admitted and assumed by French, Russian, and English military ees for a generation that a general Ru ssian mobilization would ineviti ibly mean a European war, there can bse no question that the Russian militarists were as determined to bring about a general phones conflict as was Austria to invade Serbia. The tsar was unquestionably a well-intentioned ruler, but unintelligent, vacillating, and confused before the impending Ca- lamity. Grand Duke Nicholas and the strongest element in the court group were extremely enthusiastic for war, as in general were the military circles, though there seems some probability that the minister of war, Sukhomlinov, lost his nerve in the face of the crisis. It was for a considerable time believed by scholars that the Russian foreign minister, Sazonov, was really in favor of mediation, and was brought around to the war v 1ew only by full realization of the menace of Austrian policy to Russian ambitions in the Near East. More thorough investigation, p articularly the marshalling of the evi- dence in the recent book by Professor Frantz and in Baron : Schilling’ S diary, has established the fact unquestionably that Sazonovha d, by the time of Poincaré’s departure from St. Petersburg, become thoroughly converted to the aggressive attitude and throughout the crucial period Oo of the last two weeks in July was aligned with the military party in the Russian capital. It need not be further emp yhasized at this point that among all the prominent Russians of the time the zeal of Isvol- ski in Paris for a European war was matched only by that of the Grand Duke Nicholas at home. Much has been made, by Poincare and others, of the fact that Germany was the first country technically to declare war, but this assertion is entirely misleading. Russia was the first country to take steps which inevitz ibly led to war, with the Russians fully conscious that their acts would unavoidably produce a general European war. The Russian general mobilization order was sent out July 30 at 6 P.M. The Russians themselves recognized that this actually and technical meant the beginning of the war. General Dobrorolski, chief of the mobilization division of the Russian army in 1914, has himself written: ‘This once fixed (the mobilization order) there 1s no way back- wards. This step settles automatically the beginning of war. IheHy i} We Hh HUMANLY HA wh eres DUOUSEATOTORASUANREATATORUAEAVURSTORORE AUER Chap. XXXIV| THE CAUSES OF THE WORLD WAR 547 affair had now begun irretrievably. The order was already well known in all the larger cities of our huge country. No change was possible. The prologue of the great historic drama had begun.”’ The World War, then, actually began on July 30 at 6 p.m. This was forty-seven hours before Germany ordered general mobiliza- tion on August 1 at 5 p.m. Inthe same way that Russia was the first country to take the step which made war unavoidable, France was the first country actually to declare herself for war. Ati a.m. on the morning of August 1 Isvolski telegraphed to St. Peters- burg that ‘‘the French war minister has informed me, in hearty high spirits, that the government is firmly determined upon war.”’ This was sixteen hours before Germany declared war on Russia and two and a half days before Germany, as a mere formality, declared wart on France. Inasmuch as Poincaré had probably been the chief factor and influence in leading the Russians to determine upon an immediate and actively aggressive policy in July, 1914, it was scarcely to be expected that France would vigorously oppose the Russian prepara- tory and mobilization measures, even though French authorities knew that once they were started in real earnest, there was absolutely no possibility of preventing a general European war. Most of the dispatches exchanged between the French government and the Russian government at St. Petersburg on the subject of the military measures are now available. There is not a single telegram in this collection which reveals any serious French effort to restrain the Russian military activity. Ata secret meeting on the night of July 29, the French authorities decided to support the Russian mobilization. In fact, the most important telegram was one sent by Isvolski on July 30, stating that the French minister of war had suggested that French secretly the Russians might well speed up their military preparations, but UTNE il a French the first to declare for war encourage Russian should beas secretive about this activity as possible, so that More tiMe gesression might be gained upon Germany, no open incitement or excuse be given to the Germans for counter-mobilization on their part, and no cause for alarm be presented to England. In a number of important telegrams Isvolski described to his home government the high enthu- siasm of the French government and military circles with respect to the impending war. As shown above on August 1, Isvolski telegraphed home that the French ministry had revealed to him their great exuberance and enthusiasm over the final decision for war, and asked him to request the Russian government to direct their military activities against Germany rather than Austria. And at this same time Isvolski was joyously and enthusiastically admitting his part by openly boasting: “C'est ma guerre.”’ During the war the French persistently called attention to a certain phase of their pre-war military activity as a definite proof of their pacific intent. This was the famous French order of July 30, directing the withdrawal of the frontier troops in certain sections AAAI NU} yy | a a ant tt eeeeneh cael = corre Seoeek Pia ee ee ae Fk tal ree wee ea ee oS nell a a SaPoincaré personally ble f responsi0le jor French action in 1914 MODERN WORLD HISTORY 548 [Chap. XXXIV to a line about six miles back of the boundary. As the French patrols were left at the border posts, so that they could detect any aggressive advances on the part of Germany, who in fact had not yet mobilized at all, this movement of troops did not in any way whatever reduce the military efficiency of the French defenses against German inva- sion. The patrols were in a position to report any advance move- ment of German troops, and the French armies could have been marched over the intervening six miles in an hour. As a matter of fact. this withdrawal was a positive aid to French military preparations, as they back of the screen of the six-mile line. egically necessary to withdraw the troops 1n order to get them out We now know that the whole carried on extensive preparatory activities In some sectors it was stfa- of the way of defensive shell-fire. thing was primarily a picturesque gesture to aid Sir Edward Grey and the ‘‘strong’’ members of the English cabinet in duping the English Parliament and people by convincing them of the pacific and defensive attitude of France. The French authorities recognized clearly, as the dispatches of the time indicate, that if the English people had any serious suspicions of aggressive Franco-Russian ac- tion. there would be the greatest difficulty in getting the English nation enthusiastically into the war on the side of France and Russia, and it might even be very difficult to get the English cabinet to on war. It is also mecessary to remember that the with- decide up drawal gesture was further designed to produce a favorable opinion of French official action in the minds of the French and Italian people, in order that the French might rally loyally and the Italians refuse to join Austria and Germany. There is, thus, no substantial evidence that the group in charge of French policy in July, 1914, took any significant steps whatever to avert the great catastrophe, and there is an overwhelming body of proof to support the position that they did everything possible to make the war inevitable. The French authorities would probably have encountered some difficulty in carrying out this policy if they had gone through the usual constitutional process of putting up the matter of the declara- Chamber of Deputies, but this Poincare and his associates carefully avoided; the ministry itself determined inde- pendently upon war, and, after its precipitation, endeavored with success to justify their acts to the Chamber. It needs to be pointed out here that France went beyond the terms of the Franco-Russian military convention. This promised French aid only in the event of a prior Austrian or German general mobilization against Russia, where- as in 1914 Russia had ordered full mobilization before either Germany or Austria had ordered mobilization against Russia. France was not technically obligated to aid Russia under the terms of the military convention: what bound her was Poincaré’s blank check given dur- ing his visit to St. Petersburg. This fact probably made Poincare all the more loath to put the matter of the declaration of war before tion of war to they TUR EAGHUUATAGHEAUnode HEHE TTA anUauee nea ane it] TONTAUUUHAVONGHEONUATAUUREVUOURUVAODEDLUORESUUENRDRUGRRRVOUERIUENRROUOEA RS TUVAVT AVAL VAGA VARIANT OUTTA TAINAN OOO NES SN Chap. XXXIV] THE CAUSES OF THE WORLD WAR 549 the Chamber of Deputies. The one great Frenchman living at the time who might have exposed Poincaré and his policy and aligned the majority of sane French pacific opinion against such a foolhardy determination for war, was the socialist leader, Jean Jaures. But he was assassinated by a militant, patriotic and fanatical supporter of the Poincaré policy before he could take any effective steps in this direction. As soon as Germany discovered that Austria was determined to go ahead with the Serbian campaign regardless of consequences, and discerned that these consequences, due to the Franco-Russian pro- cedure, would be likely to bring on a general European war, the Berlin authorities began a feverish, but unfortunately belated, effort to put pressure upon those at Vienna in order to restrain Austrian activity and secure some settlement of the situation which would prevent involving all the great powers in war. There is little reason to feel that the German authorities, while they may have regarded the Austrian ultimatum as too severe, were inclined to be at all worried about the vigorous Austrian policy in Serbia, provided this should not bring on a general conflict. There is, on the other hand, but little evidence that they were willing to have a European wart precipitated over the Balkans, if the Austro-Serbian conflict could possibly be localized. The activities of the German government from July 27 to 29 were concentrated upon the effort to delay the Russians in the matter of intervention in the Austro-Serbian affair, and upon discriminating codperation with Sir Edward Grey with the aim of bringing about discussions and negotiations between Russia and Austria. Both efforts failed. The Russian military group, now in undisputed control of Russia, refused to be turned aside from their determination upon war. Likewise the Austrian authorities, equally set upon going ahead with the punishment of Serbia, refused to heed the kaiser’s admonitions, and even declined to answer his telegrams containing the suggestion and offer of mediation. By July 30 the Berlin authorities became highly alarmed at the prospect of war, and Bethmann-Hollweg sent in- sistent telegrams, warning Austria that unless she delayed or abated her policy in Serbia the responsibility for a European war might be laid upon her shoulders. On the same day the kaiser exclaimed in exasperation that he and his chancellor had been asses to put their necks into a noose through the blank check given to Austria on July 6. That the German militarists were, however, in sympathy and collusion with the Austrian war party is apparent from tele- grams sent by von Moltke to Hétzendorf at the height of the crisis, urging Conrad to stand firm in his aggressive attitude in spite of the pressure for mediation and peace by the kaiser and Bethmann- Hollweg. It is now known that the Austrian authorities viewed this Ger- man intercession for peace and mediation with great levity, and were German efforts to restrain Austria and avert a European war sper op aed ae Ry TD ak al heat werk Rac a nt TT ee = —————— Ce nies ———— a ee a Cane es SO. ——SE mooree eee ke LS TRA SCC SS SSS = cre ee, ee SS eee Pes RT an a ert aa kat ee Toe - lustria (yer , pre i? English groups and the war Spirit 550 MODERN WORLD ‘HISTORY [Chap. XXXIV 7 1 1 1 . e thoroughly decided that nothing should turn them aside from the long-awaited opportunity to discipline Serbia and get the Balkan situation under control. What Germany might have done still further time the Russian mobilization had been ordered. As soon as this had in the way of attempting to restrain Austria cannot be said. as by this been discovered by the Germans, the only feasible German strategic policy was to warn Russia that the continuation of Russian mobiliza- tion must be followed by a German declaration of war, a thing which the Russians from the beginning had known would be the cz ise. One of the chief myths embodied in the Entente propagan da during the war was the allegation that at the close of July, 1 showing signs of weakening in her I Austria w as yi { Ay AY PTCSSIVC pi | ICy and o f willingness to accept the Entente proposals of mediation, when Germany, fearing lest she should lose the opportunity to Pt Sate a world war, rushed nto the breach and brutally ae vantonly declared war against Russia. Nothing could be further ee the actual facts in the cir- cumstances. Up to July 31, Austria never was in the slightest diverted from her original aggressive determination, and until Germany was confronted ot the Russian mobilization, she made sincere efforts to avert any general European conflict over the Serbian episode. Some have argued that Germany should have contented herself with mere counter-mobilization against Russia. But every European military expert of any competence whatever has fully recognized that this policy would have been fatal for Germany, surrov inded on both sides by powerful foes, and having as her chief security against the greater Russian numbers her superior mobility and power to strike with rapidity. Ihe Franco- Russian authorities had fully reckoned with this fact, as it had been a basic consideration in their strategy to recognize that oe Russian mobilization would in- evitably be follow ed by a speedy German declaration of war. The kaiser’s rapid and definite effort to avert the Russian general mobiliza- tion stands out in sharp contrast to the complete absence of any such attempt on the part of Baicare. Also the admitted perturbation, if not dismay, of the kaiser in signing the war orders was something far different from the exuberance and enthusiasm of Izvolski and of Poincaré and his associates when they recognized that the war was on at last. As to England, it seems certain that, along with Germany, she was one of the two great powers involv ed in active conflict in August, 1914, which desired to preserve peace in the crisis. She was unques- tionably definitely committed to France and Russia in what was for all practical purposes a defensive alliance, although Asquith 1 and Sir Edward Grey had repeatedly denied this when questioned in the House of Commons. There is, however, nothing to lead to the belief that, if he had not been bound by fatal agreements with France and Russia, Sir Edward Grey himself would have preferred war to peaceTTUTUTETOTOVUTTATOTOTOCUTEAVATATHTVTOOOTENTVATALOTOTATATERATRGRALOTGE Chap. XXXIV] THE CAUSES OF THE WORLD WAR 552 in July, 1914, though unquestionably Winston Churchill and certain of the naval clique, together with Bonar Law, Maxse and the con- servative nationalists were ready for war. It must also be remembered that Grey had been forced into the unpopular agreement with Russia and France chiefly by the sinister influence of Holstein in leading Biilow to reject the British advances towards a better understanding with Germany, and by the foolish and menacing naval policy of Von Tirpitz. If Germany had not invaded Belgium, but had merely defended herself on the western front against French invasion, it is possible that the English cabinet would not have been able to enter the war on the side of France and Russia; indeed, it is likely that if they had done so, popular opposition would have paralyzed their efforts. It is true that Sir Edward Grey offered several suggestions as to mediation, but his policy throughout the crisis was vacillating and weak. His evasions and hesitancy encouraged both groups to hasty action. Having sown the wind between 1910 and rg14, he found it difficult to avoid reaping the whirlwind in 1914. His chief potential trump cards which he might have played at the time would have been a declaration of neutrality or an early warning to Germany that an aggressive campaign on her part in the west, and particularly an invasion of Belgium, would certainly bring about English inter- vention on the side of the Dual Alliance. A declaration of neu- trality would have had a sobering influence on France and Russia. If he had issued a warning to Germany in decisive terms around July 25 or 26, it is probable that Germany would, even earlier than she did, have taken such steps as would have still further restrained Austria and made it more difficult for France and Russia to enlist the aid of England. But the most damaging indictment against Sir Edward Grey is that he did not put any effective restraint upon Russia or France in their aggressive action following Poincaré’s visit to St. Petersburg, and actually seems to have had a strong positive influence upon the final decision of the Russians to go ahead with the fatal general mobilization. In spite of the fact that Buchanan, the English ambas- sador at St. Petersburg, was urging caution on the Russians, Grey, as early as July 25, told Benckendorff, the Russian ambassador at London, that he believed that the nature of the Austrian ultimatum to Serbia would make it necessary for Russia to mobilize against Austria. This led Sazonov and the Russians to feel at this early date that they could surely count on English as well as French support in their projected military measures which they knew would inevitably bring on a European war. No fair-minded historian can well doubt that Sir Edward Grey had worked earnestly if unintelligently for some pacific adjustment of European difficulties in the period follow- ing t908. At the same time, no one who has consulted the works of Loreburn, Morel, Henderson and Ewart can well maintain that he Weak and vacillating policy of Sir Edward Grey Grey encourages Russian mobilization AN nn nena —— =~ — ee Te epee le ee TT hi ee Sr ba Maer NS [Is etSe en SES SS Sat a ee a a a ee D iE vhs ee i eT entry into war 552 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XXXIV behaved as a sincere, devoted and astute champion of peace in the crisis of the early summer of 1914. He must now be included as second only to the French, Russian and Austrian diplomats in degree of actual and immediate responsibility for the world conflict. [It must also, of course, be recognized that Grey was rather ignorant of the details of foreign policy and diplomatic problems. Like Berch- told, he was wont to rely for advice upon his under-secretaries. Of these, Sir Arthur Nicolson, former ambassador at St. Petersburg, a favorite of the tsar, and a traditional diplomat and militarist, was the most important. Grey admitted that Nicolson had been made under-secretary in 1910 in order to strengthen the ties between Eng- land and Russia. There is little doubt that Grey was as much influenced by Nicolson in his decisions of July, 1914, as was Berchtold by Forgach, Hoyos and others. That Grey did, however, take credit personally for bringing England into the war is apparent from the following telegram of Benckendorff to Sazonov Cn the Italian archives. ‘‘Let me add for your most personal information that there is a feeling that Grey carries about almost incessantly, and one which is well founded up to a certain point; namely, that at the moment of indecision of the British public and of the whole ministry, Grey it was, more than anyone, who dragged England into the war, and for that reason he always feels a sense of the deepest responsibility, apart from that of the cabinet. Still I don’t see any symptoms that his energy of decision is affected by ita In his memoirs Grey admits that he would have resigned if he had not been able to swing England for war. The delicate and embarrassing situation in which the imminence of war placed the British cabinet, some of the most eminent members of which resigned rather than participate in any declaration of war, was suddenly removed by what was for Asquith and Grey the heaven- sent episode of the German invasion of Belgium. It is highly prob- able that the British cabinet would have tried to force the country into war irrespective of the invasion of Belgium, but the actual invasion saved them from a crisis by arousing British indignation, and it put the country rather solidly behind the government in sup- port of active intervention in behalf of the Entente. It should be pointed out, however, that there was no particular ground for ultra- sensitiveness in the British conscience with respect to the German invasion of Belgium. On two earlier occasions, namely, in 1870 and 1887, the British government and British opinion had repudiated any idea of a treaty obligation of Great Britain to protect the existing neutrality of Belgium. England had also, in the decade before the war, made repeated, if futile, efforts to secure Belgian consent to the landing of British troops on Belgian soil in the event of war between the Triple Entente and the Triple Alliance. Further, Grey coldly rejected the German proposal to keep out of Belgium ifTAMAUERURNUUTRTTADOTANURDORDIUTAD He HAUTE Win it | AMON a en 1 Chap. XXXIV] THE CAUSES OF THE WORLD WAR 553 England would remain neutral. It should also be emphasized that the Great Britain, conduct of Great Britain during the World War was scarcely in line with what would naturally have been expected of a country which entered the conflict primarily to sanctify the cause of neutral rights, International Law and international obligations. She coerced Greece into the war by methods comparable to those used by Germany in Belgium, and her procedure with respect to the International Law of blockade, contraband and continuous voyage was such as to constitute most flagrant violations of International Law in these fields. The British assaults upon neutral rights during the war are among the darkest of the blots upon the Entente conduct during this period. Italy, along with Belgium, may be freed of any responsibility whatsoever for the outbreak of the war. Italy, after the war had actually started, quite naturally and properly considered which group of combatants seemed likely to offer the most favorable opportuni- ties and results from aid and intervention, and joined the Entente because she felt she had the most to gain thereby. Nevertheless, in the crisis of July, 1914, she was distinctly favorable to peace and, as Morhardt has shown, offered the most attractive and feasible plan of mediation and arbitration of the Serbian issue set forth by any great European power. It has been charged frequently that, whatever the other facts in the circumstances connected with the outbreak of the World War in 1914, certainly Germany and Austria were the most stubborn and determined in rejecting arbitration and mediation. This is no more correct than the other phases of the earlier opinion of war responsi- bility. It is true that Austria rejected all schemes for arbitration which looked to any intervention of other powers in her treat- ment of Serbia, but it is equally true that the Russians were as deter- mined and precipitate in regard to their mobilization in defense of Serbia. Sazonov categorically announced at the outset that Rus- sia would tolerate no restraint in her policy towards Austria and Serbia. And if Germany declined to accept one of Sir Edward Grey’s earlier plans for a conference on the Serbian controversy which was disapproved by her ally, Austria, an equally damaging indict- ment can be made of the Entente for its refusal to consider seriously the very attractive Italian plan for a satisfactory arbitration of the Balkan dispute. And France and Russia refused Grey’s proposal to submit the Austro-Russian dispute to mediation. Germany actually accepted Grey’s two latest proposals which he admitted were better than his original conference plan. It has been held to be a difficult thing to state with any mathe- matical precision the order of responsibility attaching to the various European powers for the outbreak of the World War, but it would seem that the evidence is so clear and the information so adequate that one can now scarcely err in this respect. It would appear that France and Russia must unquestionably be regarded as tied for OVATE a Belgium and neutral rights Italy and Belgium guiltlessee nueratee anes SS eee te ee ESR ee Re i at a ees > — ee - ve f r rf VW ar 554 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XXXIV first place, with Austria, Germany and England following in the order named. Of course, if one desired to include the lesser powers as well, the first place in the immediate responsibility for the war would have to be assigned to Serbia, though her action in producin g the assassination of the archduke would have had little European significance without the aggressive intervention of Russia encour- ' oincareé. But fully as important as the individual responsibility of nations militarism and imperialism. Far from being a guarantee of peace, the balance of power in Europe, as represented by the ] i d I+ } ) f° ) 5 L, Afe- | > | ~~ ¢ + ’ D b= : - a = ‘ Lriple Alliance and the Tri ic ELILCLILG. Was, aa Professot Schmitt h 1 5 7% ) 5 - ] TY 5 ' 5 tT T “ + “ ~ 4 nas so cle i \ S| WO 1 OuaTantee t 1iImMmoOSsST INeV\ ital le War as SOOD coalitions in sharp and active conflict. Significant as the system of militarism and secret alliances may ] ; ] . .] hare a . 3 os have been in making possible the Wot ld War, one must not, however, ACCC pt tne fatalistic thesis of t} CS evitability Of the conflict. The same ‘‘system’’ had existed for a generation before 1914, and it had not produced war in any of the earlier crises, however close war may have been at these other times. Ihe system was so manipulated by ific individuals in 1914 as to bring on the great calamity of the four succeeding years, with its disastrous aftermath. It is a recog- nition of this fact which justifies the above analysis of the manipula- tion and direction of the European situation in the crisis of 1914. Any hope of permanent peace must involve an elimination both of international systems which invite duplicity, aggression and force, and of leaders so minded as to wish to exploit this favorable oppor- tunity in the direction of the spirit and practices of war and mili- tarism. REFERENCES FOR FURTHER STUDY J. BAKELEss, The Economic Causes of Modern War (1921); H. N. Braitsrorp, The War of Steel and Gold (1914); E. A. Pratt, The Rise of Rail Power in War and Conquest, 1833-1914 (1916); J. T. W. Newsoxtp, How Europe Armed for War (1916); E. F. HeNpDERsON, Ger- many s Fight Machine (1914 C. VON DER GOL1 iN n Arms (1915, translated by F. A. Ashworth G. F. Nicoxrar, The Biolog) War (1918, translated 1919 \ East (1915); H. C. Woops, The Cradle of the War The Near East and Pan-Germanism (1918); M. Jastrow, The War and t be Bagdad Railway (1917); A. von Fiscuex, Der Pan-slavismus bis zum Weltkrieg (1919); C. ANDLER, Pan-Germanism (1915 ); M. Mayr, Der italienische Irredentismus (2d ed. 1917); G. Borrpon, The German Enigma (1913, English trans- lation): P. Rourspacu, Germany's Isolation (1914, English translation); H. ANDRILLON, L ; f “Da nNSLOTN de bz {/ ‘cma p Ne l y I 4 ; F . VON B ERNHARDI . G C977; an ié nd th C Next | 1 ar I Ol I ; translated 1912, A. H. Powle); W. H. Dawson, What Is Wrong with Germany (1915); J. A. Cramps, The Origins and Destiny of Imperial Britain and Nineteenth Century Europe C1915 ed.): L. M. Lecer, Panslavisme (1917); Collected Diplomatic Documents Relating to the Outbreak of the European War (1914); Lorp Loresurn, How the War Came (1919); E. Von M ACH, Official Diplomat Documents Relating fo the Outbreak of the E uropean W ar (1 916 : iy B. Scott, Diplomatic Documents Relating to the Outbreak of the Eu ropean Vi ar, 2 vols. (1916); K. Kautsxy, editor, Die deutschen Documente zum Kriegsausbruch, 4 vols.} a : | | . Than wae vith nan a WT er HVT PT ETE ET IIIT EU EUUCUUUUTUETACTUAUTUTUR UU IU LOUUA OL EAU AUUTEDEN RATS ERR PEPUTTT TELE Se 7 a Chap. XXXIV] THE CAUSES OF THE WORLD WAR 555 (1919), English translation; R. Goos, Diplomatische Aktenstucke Zur Vorgeschicte des Krieges, 1914, 3 vols. (1919) English translation; Das Wiener Kabinet und die Entstehung des Weltkrieges (1919); R. Marcwanp, Un liore noir: diplomatie d' avant-guerre d apres les documents des archives russes, 1910-1914, 2 vols. (1922-1923); B. Dz SIEBERT and G. A. ScHREINER, Entente Diplomacy and the World, 1909-1914 (1921); B. Rompere, The Falsi- fications of the Russtan Orange Book (1923); E. C. Stowe 1, The Diplomacy of the War of 1914 (1915); Y. Guyor, Causes and Consequences of the War (1916); J. H. Rosz, The Origins of the War (2914); W. S. Davis, The Roots of the War (1918); J. W. Heapiam, The History of Twelve Days (1915); The German Chancellor and the Outbreak of the War (2917); Lorp Haupane, Before the War (1917); G. von Jacow, Ursachen und Ausbruch des Welt- krieges (1919); MetneckEe, ONCKEN, and others, Modern Germany in Relation to the Great War (1916), translated by W. W. Wuitetock; M. Monrtecetas, Leitfaden zur Kriegsschuldfrage (1923), English translation, The Case for the Central Powers; M. Moruarpt, Les Preuves (1924); J. S. Ewart, The Roots and Causes of the Wars, 1914- 1918, 2 vols. (1925); C. BARBAGALLO, Come si scateno la guerra mondiale (1924); H. E. Barnes, The Genesis of the World War (1926); R. Poincaré, The Origins of the War (1921); Aw Service de la France, 9 vols. (1926—), English translation; H. H. AsquitH, Genesis of the War (1923); W. CHURCHILL, The World Crisis, 2 vols. (1921, 1927.); A. Fasre-Luce, The Limitations of Victory (1926); P. Renouvin, Les orzgins immédiates de la guerre (1925); E. Durnam, The Sarajevo Crime (1925 ); G. L. Dicxinson, [he Interna- tional Anarchy, 1904-14 (1926); G. DEMaRTIAL, L’Evangile du Quai d Orsay. Ma an Tr a ee aR ns aaa aaa STALE OF ea em en len Se eeasmeca Poteet tars oe— 5 — . ad — — — Seg nS Sa =a =: - ee pens, hoon ae nee Pd err eet Trace ak ne “ eer perme eT German military plans and the invasion of af Belgium CHAPTER AXAAV HOW IHE EUROPEAN WAR BECAME A WORLD WAR 1. GERMAN VIOLATION OF BELGIAN NEUTRALITY For years European states had formed military plans for the event- uality of just such a war. Germany's strategy consisted of @) a swift display of her major force to crush France before unwieldy Russia could attack from the east; and (2) with France beaten the transfer of her strength to the eastern front to defeat Russia. German military leaders were confident that this plan would insure a speedy victory. The quickest and easiest way to reach Paris was through Belgium. There can be no doubt that, from the outset, the German general staff contemplated the violation of the neutrality of Luxemburg and Belgium. It would also seem that the French plans embodied a similar move. On August 2, before a formal declaration of war was made against France, German troops were moved towards the French frontier on the Belgian-Luxemburg line, and not against the strong French fortresses at Verdun, Toul, and Belfort. The little duchy of Luxemburg, neutralized in 1867 by the powers of Europe, was occupied on August 2 in the face of protests from the grand-duchess. The same day, the German government demanded of Belgium permission to move troops across that country into France. Promise was made to respect the territory and sovereignty of Belgium, and to pay an indemnity for all losses incurred. But in case of refusal or resistance, Belgium would be treated as an enemy and the ‘‘declaration of arms’’ would determine the future relations of the two countries. Since her neutrality had been solemnly guar- anteed by the large states, including Prussia, little Belgium stood heroically on her incontestable rights. King Albert, in reply to the German ultimatum, refused to “‘sacrifice the honor of the nation and betray its duty towards Europe.’’ He reminded Germany of her own pledge and said that the Belgians were resolved to repel every ‘attack upon their rights.’’ France assured Belgium on August 1 that she would ‘“‘respect the neutrality of Belgium,’ although the action of Germany might force her to modify this attitude. King Albert appealed to Great Britain ‘‘to safeguard the integrity of Belgium’”’ and was assured on August 3 that in case of an attack by Germany “it means war with Germany. — To maintain one or two small states on the continent across the English Channel from London, had been for centuries a fundamental principle in British foreign policy, though in 1887 she had repudiated 556POUVPT TATA RT ANURATHAHRER RTT HATORHORHURRRaGE aOane We Ataa3a CTT WA RARARRORAEAE Chap. XXXV] EUROPEAN WAR BECOMES WORLD WAR 557 responsibility for Belgian neutrality. Hence Great Britain made it clear, though too late to influence the invaders, that she would fight to preserve Belgian neutrality. On August 4 Germany committed the unpardonable diplomatic blunder of invading Belgian soil, a flagrant violation of International Law. In his famous speech to the German Reichstag, Chancellor von Bethmann-Hollweg defended the act in these words: ‘‘ We are now acting in self-defense. Necessity knows no law. This is a breach of International Law, but we shall try to make good the injustice as soon as our military goal has been reached.’’ The German emperor explained to President Wilson that Belgian neutrality ‘‘had to be violated by Germany on strategic grounds.’’ To the British ambassador at Berlin, the chancellor in anger regretted that Great Britain was about to wage wart on a kindred nation merely for ‘‘a scrap of paper,’’ as he called the neu- trality treaty. The violation of the neutrality of Luxemburg and Belgium had serious consequences for Germany. In the first place, it arrayed the Belgians with their resources and indomitable courage, against her, and thus delayed her progress until the mighty fighting machine of France could be massed in the path of her conquering troops. In the second place, it aroused the moral indignation of the entire world, outside of her own allies, against Germany. In the third place, it brought the powerful British Empire with all its military and naval strength, and material resources, into the war against her. It seems quite probable that Great Britain would have entered the war on the side of France and Russia, even if Belgium had not been invaded, but the delay of her entrance would have been distinctly to the ad- vantage of the Central Powers. 2. Rapip SPREAD OF THE WAR AREA On August 4 Austria-Hungary was officially at war with Serbia; and Germany, with Russia, France, and Great Britain. Quickly the wart area spread until it covered much of the six continents and the five oceans. On August 5, Austria-Hungary declared war on Russia. The next day Montenegro joined Serbia, and three days later Germany proclaimed war on both of them. On August 12, Great Britain is- sued a formal proclamation of war against Austria-Hungary. Thus within a fortnight the war had become a clear-cut alignment between two hostile groups, based on the balance of alliances, and each mem- ber was pledged not to make peace without the consent of its allies. The group led by Germany was called the Central Powers, ot the Germanic Allies; the other was known as the Entente Allies. Through the colonial possessions of the belligerents, the war had already spread over the world. On August 23, Japan declared war on Germany, and became a party to the Entente Pact of London. Turkey, fearing Russia, espoused the cause of the Central Powers, and hence the Entente Allies declared war on her on November 3-5, PEELE AP — aan ae Consequence of the invasion of Belgium ia Seaton ——} eens ents om eae eee Ta yl nat Se TT rod aa nee ete a a aes ett558 MODERN WORLD HISTORY (Chap. XXXV he sultan then proclaimed a “Holy War,’’ or Jihad, whereupon t against all ‘‘the enemies of Islam’’ and ordered the Mohammedans to exterminate them. Meanwhile both groups of belligerents were using promises of reward and threats of punishment to win the support of Italy, Bulgaria, Rumania, and Greece. On April 8, 1915, Italy demanded from Austria-Hungary, as the price of her continued neutrality, the Austrian portions of Italia Irredenta. Austria-Hungary made many concessions, and Germany offered “guarantees ’’ that the Italian demands would be met when the war was won. The Entente Allies were more generous in offering what did not belong to them, and on April 26 concluded a secret treaty with Italy, promising practically everything that Italy had asked of Austria-Hungary, and, in addition, twelve Greek-speaking islands in the Aigean, Adalia in Asia Minor, more territory in Africa, and the exclusion of the Holy See from the war settlements. With such allurements, the rising tide of Italian patriotism a war on her on May 23, thus forcing the Central Powers to face an- gainst the ancient oppressor, Austria, led Italy to declare other fighting front. On October 14 Bulgaria, abandoned by the Entente to Austro-German pressure, attacked Serbia, with the result that the Entente Allies declared war on her. Portugal, on March 9, 1916, through her alliance with Great Britain, was drawn into the conflict. Rumania, after much wavering, made common cause with the Entente Allies on August 27, when she declared war on Austria-Hungary. And Greece on June 29, 1917, under some pres- sure, joined the Entente Allies. Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Hol- land, Switzerland, and Spain remained neutral throughout the entire war. 3. Tue Unitep States ENTERS THE WAR AGAINST THE CENTRAL POWERS At the outbreak of the World War, public opinion in the United States was confused on the merits and issues involved. The war had the appearance of a strictly European conflict. The disputes between Austria-Hungary and Serbia, the Slavs and the Teutons, and over Alsace-Lorraine. colonies, and world trade, seemed to involve the New World only indirectly. Neutrals generally suspected English- men, Frenchmen, and Italians along with Germans, Austrians, Russians, and Japanese of imperialistic designs. Ihey found it difficult, therefore, to interpret the struggle as one for liberty and democracy against autocracy and militarism so long as autocratic Russia and Japan were the powerful allies of Great Britain, France, and Italy. Many persons sincerely doubted whether an Entente victory would mean greater world peace and security than a triumph of the Central Powers. It was felt that each one of the Entente Allies had entered the war to serve its own national ambitions, and that beyond defeating Germany they had no common Cause. If the swordTUTUVOTUUAUAUUEAEAUALAVATVEAVALOLULOLAVUEOLORUVONOROLIVOKY ONTO Chap. XXXV| EUROPEAN WAR BECOMES WORLD WAR 559 wielded for world empire were struck from the hand of Germany, only to be placed in the hand of a powerful Russia, or an aggressive Japan, where would be the gain? American historical traditions and geographical location were also factors. For more than a century Washington’s warning against “entangling alliances’’ with Euro- pean states had been rather closely followed. The Monroe Doctrine had accentuated the aloofness of the New World from Old World affairs. With a vast, uncrowded territory, and a lavish supply of natural resources, the United States was economically independent — a condition that made her political isolation easter. American sentiment was complicated further by the fact that the people were connected by ties of kinship with the various European countries. A large part of the 40,000,000 immigrants from 1776 to 1914 had arrived after 1900. When the war broke out 14,000,000 of the inhabitants of the United States were foreign-born — 31 per cent German, 19 per cent Irish, 8 per cent British, 7 per cent Russian, 7 per cent Italian, and 4 per cent Swede. Most of these persons of foreign birth still retained deep attachments for their motherlands, and hence it was natural that they should be divided in their sym- pathies. The Germans, Austrians, Magyars, and Bulgarians were vociferous in defense of the Central Powers. The German govern- ment, particularly, had taken pains before the war to cultivate a strong sentiment for the fatherland among German-Americans, who now revealed a ‘‘Pro-German”’ spirit and were aided with literature and agents from Germany. The Irish immigrants denounced Great Britain. The British and French sought to arouse “‘Pro-Ally”’ sympathy. In general, however, from the outset many Americans supported the cause of the Entente Allies, because, through the domination of Entente propaganda, they felt that Germany stood for military might against law and democracy; and that she repre- sented international anarchy in her determination “‘to rule or ruin.”’ It was also quite generally believed that Germany had provoked the war. Though England also ‘‘ruthlessly’’ violated American neutral rights through her blockade and contraband procedure, the Pro-British attitude of the ambassador of the United States at London, Walter Hines Page, brought to naught the efforts of the state depart- ment to protect the rights of Americans as neutrals. At the outset President Wilson issued an appeal for neutrality to the American people, who are “‘ drawn from many nations, and chiefly from the nations now at war. It is natural and inevitable that there should be the utmost variety of sympathy and desire among them with regard to the issues and circumstances of the conflict.’’ He feared that they would become “involved in the war itself in impulse and opinion, if not in action.’’ Hence he said that the United States “must be neutral in fact as well as in name during these days that try men’s souls.”’ But the course of events drew the United States irresistibly into the maelstrom, Americans soon became conscious WT PUW TTR GA NOOO Oe DORR R RRR America and the War German and English violations of neutral rights bt as > et ee ered ah aad da bere Deanne eee teat eee SS ae 7 en SaSe oe a AE = eer dane re oe eee ate ae See ee Ta ant ama rae te eran a ae a Ta a es Se 560 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XXXV of the fact that a thous: ao forces had made the world one in interest and welfare. The conflict, which at first seemed European, quickly disturbed conditions ene and it was found impossible to follow a policy of aloofness and fancied security. The storm of hostility against Germany and her allies gathered with each inci- dent of the war. Thousands of young Americans found their way into the military service of France and Great Britain. The invasion of Belgium oa a wave of indignation across America, and active sympathy for the Belgians was expre essed through the relief work un- der Herbert Saas er. Bx: iggerated stories of German atrocities in Bel- gium still further enraged the Americans. The charge of the German government that America was acting in an unneutral manner in supplying munitions of war to the Entente Allies, wounded the national pride. V oa problems about trade. contraband, mails, and blockades forced President Wilson to protest repeatedly against un- warranted interference with American rights by both belligerents. The sinking of the great, unarmed ‘British steamer, Lusitania, which carried some munitions of war in her cargo, by a German submarine, with a loss of 1,252 lives, of whom 114 were American Citizens. some of them innocent women and children, sent a thrill of horror throughout the United States. This ruthless outrage, like the invasion of Belgium, made Germany appear as a lawless nation that would commit any act to gain victory. Pro-Ally sympathizers clamored for intervention; Pro-Germans defended the deed. After a ‘‘war of notes,’’ Germany promised not to sink merchant vessels without warning. Then followed revelations of the activity of German agents in the nite’ States a in Latin America, and more vessels were sunk with the loss of American lives. Finally, Dr. Dumba, the Austro-Hungarian ieoudte was recalled at the re- quest of the American government, and certain members of the German embassy were sent home. Pro-Ally sympathizers made the most of these incidents to inflame Americans into a war spirit against Germany, and these efforts were supplemented by an effective propa- ganda by the Entente Allies, who cut off communication with the Central Powers and flooded the United States with their literature. Eminent Englishmen and Frenchmen imitated the Germans in mak- ing lecturing tours, and secret-service agents a ind journalists were em- ployed to influence public opinion. After his reélection on a peace platform in 1916, President Wilson interpreted his victory as a wafrant to preserve neutrality and to strive for international amity. ‘When the present war is OV er.’’ he said, ‘‘it will be the duty of America to join with other nations of the world in some kind of league for the maintenance of peace. " The occasion for America s entrance into the war was the proc- lamation, on January 31, 1917, of Germany s or der for unrestricted submarine warfare in retaliation against the British blockade of the German coast. Wide war zones were marked off around the British‘ ; { wae waneaue Wyit wane aa eee j | i | | || PETE TUTTE Chap. XXXV] EUROPEAN WAR BECOMES WORLD WAR 561 Isles, and along the coasts of France and Italy. Notice was given that all vessels within these zones, but outside the safety lanes specified, would be sunk at sight. This violation of the ‘freedom of the seas, " for which America had always stood, proved to be the last straw. All the emotions of fear, hatred, and resentment, which had been mounting higher and higher, now demanded war. Diplomatic re- lations were severed with Germany, and after more American ships were sunk, President Wilson called Congress and asked for a dec- laration of wat on Germany. On April 4, 1917, it was voted in the Senate 82 to 6 and two days later in the House by 373 to 50. ~The world must be made safe for democracy,’ said President Wilson. ‘““We desire no conquest. We are but the champions of the rights of mankind. ... We shall fight... for democracy for the rights and liberties of small nations, for such a concert of free peoples as shall bring peace and safety to all nations and make the world itself at last free.’ Seven months later war was also declared on Austria-Hungary. 4. RELATIVE STRENGTH, RESOURCES, AND IDEALS OF THE BELLIGERENTS The area of the World War rapidly widened until it covered the greater part of the civilized and uncivilized peoples of the globe. Never in all history had there been such a colossal conflict. All the great powers on earth with their far-flung colonial empires, and Efreen of the smaller states, were directly involved. The remaining states were in one way or another indirectly affected. The Central Powers totaled in geographical area 2,225,000 square miles; 1n pop- ulation, 158,000,000; and in annual revenues about $4,000,000,000. The Entente Powers with all their allies covered 37,267,000 square miles: numbered 1,392,000,000 people; and had a yearly income of $6,.881,000,000. Thus all races, all religions, and all degrees of civi- lization were involved in the struggle. Germany and Austria-Hun- gary started the war with 1,306,000 troops ready for action, and Bulgaria and Turkey added 240,000 more. The reserved forces of the Central Powers numbered 10,600,000 while the unorganized, available strength was 17,600,000. The German colonial army had only 11,000 men. The standing armies of the Triple Entente totaled 2,312,000 soldiers, and their total war strength was 13,380,000, while the available unorganized troops numbered 39,000,000. To these figures Japan added a war strength of 1,500,000 men; Italy 3,380,000; Portugal 1,260,000; Rumania 580,000; Greece 450,000; and the United States an active army of 132,000 soldiers, a national guard of 144,000, and an unorganized militia of 20,000,000. France also had a colonial army of 134,000; Great Britain 118,000; Italy 22,000; and Portugal 8,000. The other allies of the Entente contributed nothing to the fighting forces. All the armies in the so-called “* fif- HET eee a Unrestricted submarine warfare Po pulation and resources a ae aon a ee a ~ — nou TE SS ee ae Spe prone tS Sea eee ai ©. —————— ———— ———a ae NS 5 = = ee Pee OTe ie 562 MODERN WORLD HISTORY |Chap. XXXV teen decisive battles of the world’’ would not e qui ul in number the soldiers who fought in a single campaign o € this World War This comparison ol the actual and poten ial gee of the two —— sides seemed to give the Entente Allies a great advantage in both active troops and reserves. But this was larg oe offset by the fact that the Russian soldiers were poorly trait 1ed a a ipp ed, and of inferior intelligence. Further the standing armies of Great Britain and the United States were small and it took many months to bring the enlisted and drafted men into good fighting form. On the contrary, Germany h & devel yped war into an exact science. so that all the resources of the nation could be mobilized for immediate use. : - ; a Soy ape - —— She had one of the best-prepar« d armies on earth. and took the greatest pains to insure an adequate supply of war munitions. The geography of Europe was shown on carefully prepared military maps. All that science and invention could discover was used to increase military efficiency. Railroads for use in war were built to the western and eastern fronts, with great trunk lines over which large armies could be shifted back and forth like a shuttle, thus dou- bling their striking power. Germany’s strong strategic position di- vided the forces of her foes and thus gave her an advantage. Her effective spy system gathered exhaustive knowledge about other countries. and enabled her to reduce war to what seemed to be a mathematical certainty. All of the large European states had systems of secret service, but none of them were superior to the German in extent and shrewdness. Finally, the civilians and all material! resources were C: ireful ly studied to see how they might con- tribute to winning the war. Germany s suRenOriey on land was offset by the supremacy of the Entente Allies on the ocean. The British navy, effectively mobilized in the opening days of the war, swept the German merchantmen from the high seas, and penned up the German fighting fleet 1n home harbors. When the British naval strength was supplemented by that of France, Russia, Japan, Italy, and the United States, the Cen- tral Powers realized that victory was possible only on land. To overcome this handicap, the Germans developed the submarine, or U-boat, as a new type of ocean warship. If the war was to be decided by military power alone within a comparatively brief period of fierce fighting, the advantage lay with the Central Powers. On the other hand, if it were to become a test of wealth. natural resources, reserved man power, endurance, and morale, covering a long period of time, then the odds were greatly in favor of a triumph of the Entente Allies. The combined wealth of the Central Powers did not exceed $110,000,000,000, and et two-thirds of that sum was in Germany alone. The wealth of the British Empire and of the United States each exceeded that of the Central Powers by many billions. The total wealth of those two states, plus that of France, Russia, Italy, Japan, Belgium, and Por-BrorPreTTTT TTT OTT TTTUTTVTTATTTTTATTTUTTOTTOTTVTTUTTNTHNEEAUTUTVOTAUVTAUTAURODTONTRUTINNT: TETUATEVGHLAUEUUERONTROUDRONVGUNTROURUUURERE HUHVUTAVOTOTATHTOTAHATRELPAUTE MAU AVUROARORRRERONDOD ANIA ys anna ith MRARAne Chap. XXXV] EUROPEAN WAR BECOMES WORLD WAR 563 tugal, was four times that of the Central Powers. In natural re- sources, such as minerals, coal, rubber, food, and clothing, the difference was even greater. Besides, Great Britain, France, and the United States, as great manufacturing states, had excellent ship- ping facilities, and easily turned their factories into plants for war supplies. Furthermore the sources of raw materials were open to them and closed in large measure to the Central Powers. From the standpoint of civilization, the two warring groups had many resemblances and also many differences. The Germans were regarded as one of the most progressive nations on earth, ranking with the leading western powers, but Austria-Hungary was not so advanced, Bulgaria still less, and the Turks were looked upon as a stagnant, backward people. The German emperor declared: “The German people will be the granite block on which the good God will build and complete his civilization of the world.’’ The Central Powers all had constitutions, and parliaments with popularly elected lower houses, but they were in spirit and practice autocratic. The Entente Allies were composed of four of the most democratic states on earth — Great Britain, France, the United States, and Italy; of two autocratic powers — Russia and Japan; and of a number of lesser powers all with popular governments. With the withdrawal of Russia from the war in 1917, the leadership of the Entente cause passed into the hands of the democratic states. Whatever the war may have been in the beginning, it ended in the opinion of the people of the Entente side as a contest between autocracy and democracy. The major powers of the two sides were Christians — some Protes- tants, others Catholic. With both camps were Jews and Mohamme- dans: and with the Entente Allies fought adherents of all the faiths of Asia. As a whole, perhaps, the moral standards of the Entente Allies were higher than those of the Central Powers. No such stain as the Armenian massacres sullied the hands of the former. Both groups violated International Law. When the Entente pointed the accusing finger to Luxemburg and Belgium, the Central Powers called attention to Shantung and Greece. In the realm of education, art, industrial and social progress, and domestic life, Germany bore an enviable reputation. Her scien- tists, artists, musicians, writers, professors, and inventors had won high fame. Among the Entente Allies, Russia, most of the Latin- American republics, China, and many of the colonies, lagged far behind in the race for intellectual and economic development, but the leading powers were among the most alert and advanced nations on earth. The conflict was one between two sets of ideas and two standards of culture — Teutonic, on the one hand; and Anglo- American and Latin, on the other. FLTEV ELE EEC EDU ea —— Culture and civilization ——————— eer ee et ee ae—— ms — ca es a earns = = S RO TOFS Sea T I ee ee E oe a PE EE oe me poaest _ —_ —— oe es es i iy HiT ae ae 564 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XXXV REFERENCES FOR FURTHER STUDY L R ENAULT, Farst V solations f Internati nal Lau by Germany, Luxeml ure ana Belgium 1917); C. DE VisscHER, Belgium's Case 1 Juridictal Enquiry (1916); C. SAROLEA, Hou Belgium Saved Europe (1915); L. vAN DER Essen, The Invasion and the War in Belgium 1917); K. A. Fuenr, The Neutrality of Belgium (1915); C. P. SANGER and H. J. F. Nor- ron, England's Guarantee to Belgium ana Luxembourg (1915); E. P. Barxer and others Why We Are at War: Great Britain's Case(1914); H. A. L.\Fismer, [he War, Its Causes ana ‘ , Its Issues (1914); R. Murr, Britain's Case against Germany (1914); E. J. Ditton, A Scrap of Paver (1914): From the Triple to the Oua iruple Allszance (1915); F. C. Cocks, [he Secret Treaties (1918); W.K. Watwace, Greater ltaly (1917 R. W. Seron-WatTson, Austria, lta ly anda the Adriatic IOIS a R L7iania Gali q the Gr W ar IOIS )- BALKANICUS, The - a Aspirations of Bulgaria (1915); P. Hispen, Constantine I and the Greek People (1917 - ; } - eet ey Te ss mn cee ae 2 7 enal ~~ i B SCOTT. Dip: matic Correspondence btfween fhe (United States ana Germany) , 7914-191 1919): President Wilson s Foreign Policy \1915); L. Rocers. America s Case against Ger- 2 2 . * Z , 17471) TOI7 VON BERNSTOREFFE. My lhree Y cars in Amrica 192 : A. VON TirPITZ, y L\i J J y ; My Memoirs. 2 vols. (1919); J. B. McMaster, The Unitea States in the World War, 2 vols. (1918); J. S. Basserr, Our War with Germany (1919); J. K. Turner, Shall It K. Henpricx, The Life and Letters of Walter Hines Page, 2 vols.a aaeeeaee. Beeeal a WE HVVITT TE DOS WVU ETE AL CHAPTER XXXVI THE LEADING MILITARY EVENTS WORLD WAR, 1914-1918 OF THE 1. [He First YEAR Durinec the first few days of August, 1914, two millions of men were mobilized by land and sea with clock-like precision to strike the first blow in the World War. Nineteen German corps grouped in seven mighty armies overran Luxemburg, invaded Belgium, and captured one city after another from Liege to Brussels. After making their last important stand at Louvain, the Belgians were joined by the British and French, who, however, were defeated and driven back until within a month the conquering Germans crossed the Marne river and were threatening Paris only fifteen miles away. In terror the French withdrew their capital to Bordeaux. In this crisis General Joffre said: “‘The hour has come to hold at all cost, and to die rather than give way.’’ In the first Battle of the Marne on September 6-10 the German line, which had advanced too rapidly to be able to consolidate its gains, was shattered and forced to retreat to trenches along the Aisne river. Paris was not taken. One of the decisive battles of the World War was won by the Entente Allies. The Germans next made a drive for the Channel ports. Antwerp was taken, but at Ypres the Allies, with the aid of warships at sea and the flooding of the country, held the Germans in check. The gigantic movements in the west now came to a standstill, and both sides settled down in fortified lines that ran from the North Sea to Switzerland. Germany was in possession of nearly all of Belgium and northeastern France including the chief supply of coal and iron. Little Belgium was the chief victim of the frightful struggle. Her cities were put under tribute and ruined; her farms and villages were devastated; her factories were dismantled; her chief citizens were taken prisoners and some of them executed; the ancient library of the University of Louvain was burned; and the country was treated as a conquered province. The old cathedral of Rheims in France was bombarded and almost destroyed. Meanwhile Russia, mobilizing more rapidly than was expected, sent one army into East Prussia and another into Galicia. General von Hindenburg in the Battle of Tannenberg dealt the Russians a ia! OAC ONAC TUTTE " a First Battle of the Marne severe blow and forced them out of Germany. In Galicia, however, Battle of the Russians were masters of the whole region until General von 14mnenberg Hindenburg’s capture of Warsaw and counter-offensive against Petrograd weakened the Russian line in Galicia and enabled the 565 PLETE Et eat — 7 Ce NTC ead alia aa te \ Pag ———————Hl na P66 MODERN WORLD HISTORY (Chap. XXXVI Austro-Hungarians, with the help of General von Mackensen, to drive the Russians out of their country. The eastern battle front was now formed on a line running from Riga in the north to Czernowitz yn the Rumanian border, While these ae ngs were transpiring, the Entente Allies undertook the daring and dangerous project o yf seizing Constantinople, which, it was thought, would induce the eo B alkan states to enter the war on their side and thus permit another attack on Austria-Hungary from the south and also open a path for sending ammunition into Russia. Early in February, 1915, a combined fleet of British and Gallipoli French men of war forced the entrance to the eT In the narrows’ a f peaeemeD ensued between Turkish forces on land and the battleships. After the Merci of several of the best warships, the fleet was forced to give a the attack. An unsuc- cessful attempt was made to take Gallipolt | y land. By December, 1915, the effort to capture ¢ onstantinople had p sroved to be so costly that the forces were withdrawn. Ihe disappointment over this campaign was offset, however, by the entrance of Italy into the war, thus estab TENSE a southern fighting front a forcing Austria- Hungary to divide her forces to defend it. >. THe SECOND YEAR OF THE WAR At the beginning of the second year of the World War, the ad- vantage, as a whole, seemed to lie with the Germanic Allies. They held both the western and eastern fronts far outside of their own German borders. Ihe Entente me could point to the Marne victory Ae to aavantages#n = the acquisition of the aid of Italy. The western front during the ye was characterized by tre! ae W: att are along the front of 600 milo a distance equal to a line from New York to Chicago. No note- worthy gains were made on either side. The German effort to crush the French line at Verdun, which lasted six months and cost the lives of half a million men, was defeated by the stubborn resistance of the French, buoyed up by the cry, ‘They shall not pass,’ and an Allied attack on the Somme. In the east, Russia under General Brusilov made a second drive towards Galicia. The Teutonic line was bent back, but not eae and hence little was accomplished. The Balkan situation was changed in October, 1915, w hen Bulgaria joined the Central BRe ers. The Serbians and Montenegrins, who had driven the Austro-Hungarians out of their countries and even invaded the Dual Monarchy, were now attacked by General von Mackensen on the north and by Bulgarians on the east. Hence by the close of 1915 Serbia was w holly eliminated as a fighting unit and Montenegro and Albania were overrun. An open passage was made by the Central Powers to the Ottoman B me Still hoping to save something from the Balkan disasters, an Anglo-French force landed at Salonika in the face of strong 2 eRition from Greece because of the violation of her territory. The Entente Allies justi- a SS 3 ne ere =" Pra ta onied Peter ta ae eet vas gk ee Aa tne Rt Seer nanan peill SSS RENT UO Ta POET Chap. XXXVI] MILITARY EVENTS OF WORLD WAR _ 567 fied their action on the ground of an invitation from the party led by Venizelos, previously prime minister, who was hostile to the neutral attitude taken by King Constantine. An effort to move north- ward to relieve the Serbians failed. War was also declared on little Portugal by Germany for having seized her interned ships, and Portugal sent a small army to the western front. The year ended with few important changes on either side. 2 Tue Tuirp YEAR OF THE WAR After the Battle of the Somme, the Germans on the western front, in March, 1917, withdrew to the Hindenburg line over a stretch one hundred miles long, completely devastating the 1,000 square miles they evacuated. Encouraged by this retirement, the Entente Allies at- Battle of the tempted two great offensives — one on the British section to retake Mikes Lens and St. Quentin; the other on the French section at Laon. Both movements failed to reach their objectives and the entrenched deadlock went on. In the Balkans the situation was changed by the decision of Rumania in August, 1916, to join the Entente Allies. After penetrat- ing Transylvania in Hungary, her army was driven back by General Conquest of von Mackensen, who took Bucharest, and in three weeks conquered Rumania the entire country. With the Rumanian disaster before his eyes, the king of Greece persisted in preserving the neutrality of his realm until deposed by the Entente Allies and replaced by his second son, Alexander, with Venizelos restored as prime minister. Then in June, 1917, under the armed threats of Great Britain, Greece cast in her lot with the Allies. Resistance to the Central Powers on the eastern front was broken in March, 1917, by the Russian Revolution. Kerensky, as head of the government, inspired a new drive into Galicia in July, but after Russia some minor successes it collapsed completely. On November 7 eet the Kerensky was succeeded by the Bolsheviki under the leadership of Bi Lenine and Trotsky, who demobilized the armies, and signed the peace treaty of Brest-Litovsk in February, 1918. Russia dropped out of the war, and the Germans were free to devote all their energies to the western and southern foes. The loss of Russia was offset by the entry of the United States in April, 1917. Germany calculated that with unrestricted sub- marine warfare and the concentration of all her force on the western front, she could win the war before American participation could count for much. America’s first contribution was in the form of badly needed supplies and money. After mobilizing the navy and the small army, President Wilson was authorized to increase the regular army by enlistments, and to raise 10,000,000 men by selective draft. In July 625,000 men were drawn, the National Guard was summoned for service, and by September the new army was sent into training. By October Congress had appropriated nearly $18,000,- PUTT TTT TRU —— oie | —— EE nen mY = - ogee er age ee a a Sv te er a ae ant Neen aes oe une ———— = : erat ar EO SO el Shona ee . aEn RESO = —— —— r a Th ; [talian reverses The y ‘ Z net c Alil Kio yj of tank wartare The final i German ef, Fo rt 568 MODERN WORLD HISTORY § [Chap. XXXVI oo, taken over the railroads, and set thousands of factories to work producing war supplies. General Pershing hurried to Paris in June with a few troops, and on October 27 the first American shots were fired in France. In December 250,000 American troops landed in France, and a month later they were occupying a ‘certain sector © of the front-line trenches. For months the navy had been codperating with the Entente fleets. 4. THe Fourth YEAR OF THE WAR The example of the United States was followed by some of the Latin-American republics, China, Liberia, and Siam. But in the fall of 1917, the Entente cause received a serious shock in the Italian disaster. The Russian peace enabled the Central Powers to plan an overwhelming blow against Italy. In a spectacular attack, the Italians were driven back to the Piave river. Entente troops were hurried over the Alps, General Cadorna replaced General Diaz, and the route was checked. This setback resulted in the creation of an Allied general staff and various other boards “to supervise the general conduct of the war.’’ To counteract the Italian defeat, the British General, Byng, made an unexpected drive at the German line on the western front in the direction of Cambrai. With the aid of ‘‘tanks.’’ the German line was broken from Arras to St. Quentin, but before the gains could be adequately defended, a German counter- attack regained over half the territory lost. But this attack by the Allies heralded the break-through and open warfare of the coming spring. Meanwhile the British successes in the Near East served further to equalize the Italian disaster. The Arabs of Hedjaz were en- couraged to declare their independence of Turkey and to set up the sherif of Mecca as sultan. A British force under General Allenby, starting from Cairo, invaded Palestine and by December, 1917, forced the surrender of Jerusalem. The small British force which had been slowly working its way up the Mesopotamian valley succeeded in March, 1917, under General Maude in taking Bagdad, the key to that region. In the spring of 1918 Generals Ludendorff and von Hindenburg planned a colossal offensive drive on three fronts. The Bulgarians were to strike the Entente forces in Macedonia. The Austro-Hun- garians were to attack Italy. And all the other available troops were to crush the French and British on the western front and thus win a decision before the Americans could send their full man power across seas. Unlimited submarine warfare was to help win the vic- tory, which was predicted before autumn. Seven mighty armies were massed to strike the fatal blow at the joint of the British and French forces in the Somme valley. Emperor William II went to the general headquarters at Spa to announce the triumph to the nation. lhe first onslaught in March divided the British from the French. The(UU AMMAN Te WOatGE aOaAae MARGRROARAMBARAATE i SSS Hit Hilt Rue WE HH AV aa neue Hi WE UU EEE EE OL Ui a a Chap. XXXVI| MILITARY EVENTS OF WORLD WAR _ 569 next month a terrific blow was aimed at the British, while the world held its breath, and Field Marshal Haig told his soldiers that they were fighting with their “‘ backs to the wall’’ and that “every posti- tion must be held to the last man,’’ because the ‘‘freedom of mankind depends alike upon the conduct of each one of us.’’ The shortened American British lines, aided by French reserves, held. Germany won 800 Leen aa square miles at a cost of half a million men. In May a third offensive Tojerry was begun against the French which by June reached Chateau- Thierry, only 43 miles from Paris. There it slowed down. The promised victory had not come. At Chateau-Thierry and Belleau Wood American troops took a conspicuous part. For a month the mighty armed camps faced each other. Then in July the Germans made a last desperate push in the second Battle of the Marne. It failed, and the French and Americans took the offen- sive. The German reserves were exhausted; their munitions were now of inferior quality; their air service had passed its zenith; their Second Battle generals were discredited; and discontent arose athome. The United % Me Mare States by November 11, 1918 had 2,500,000 men in the field. The aad German armies continued to retreat, fighting as they went, until by September they were back on the Hindenberg line. All through October the Teutonic front from Belgium to Sedan was broken and pressed back. The Americans took St. Mihiel, the Argonne Forest, and Sedan. Finally on November 11, 1918, at five o’clock in the morning, the terms of the armistice were signed. 5. [HE War IN AsIA AND AFRICA The possessions of the European belligerents in Asia would have catried the war into that continent had not the Asiatic countries like Japan, China, Siam, and Turkey become active participants. As it was, practically the whole of Asia was involved. Japan, after declaring war on Germany, blockaded the harbor of Kiau-chau, and with the aid of British Indian troops captured Tsing-tau and seized the whole Shantung peninsula. The German islands in the Pacific Ocean north of the equator, were also taken by Japan, while the Australians and New Zealanders took those in the southern Pacific. During the conflict China sent 150,000 “‘coolies’’ to France as war laborers. Men from Siberia, India, and other parts of Asia fought on European soil. In western Asia, the British and French conquered valuable portions of the Turkish Empire, and the Russians in 1916 invaded Turkish Armenia. In Africa, during the first years of the war, Anglo-French forces took Togoland from Germany, and troops from South Africa invaded German Southwest Africa. The next year General Botha completed the conquest of the latter colony, and the Cameroons came under Anglo- French control. Parts of Southeast Africa were conquered by Gen- eral Smuts in 1916, but it was not until the close of the war that the British gained possession of the entire region. Egypt was made sso See Re eB) ea TRRUHRARA LU GHR OREO H ONO P ROO O RE eeea | - 3) 570 MODERN WORLD HISTORY (Chap. XXXVI | a British protectorate. African troops, white and black, shed their blood on the European battlefields. 6. Toe War ON THE SEAS From the outset of the war, it was understood among the Entente Powers that France and Russia would check Germany and Austria- Hungary on land, while Great Britain would defeat them on the sea. The mobilization of the British navy was quite as spectacular and Blockade of effective as the mobilization of the German army. Control of the } sea was absolutely vital to the life of Great Britain; to Germany it was a matter of secondary importance. British warships almost immediately blockaded the German coast, tied up the German battle- ships in their harbors, kept the paths of the seas open for supplies and the movement of troops, and stood between Germany and her dream of world power. The German Far Eastern squadron of eight cruisers escaped fro! n Kiau-chau. Five of them defeated a British squadron off Chile in 1914, but four of them were sunk and the fifth wrecked. The other three cruisers turned commerce raiders and inflicted much damage on Entente shipping before they were de- stroyed. Within a week after the outbreak of the war, German commerce was driven from the oceans into home and neutral ports. Germany's reaction to this early defeat on the water and the blockade of her ports was the declaration of a counter-blockade of the British and French coasts. Her sie means of enforcing this blockade was the submarine, or U-l This new type of war vessel was improved until it had a radius nor action of 5,000 miles. All the powers had submarines, but their use was advantageous only to the Central Powers, who hoped to have the benevolent neutrality of the United States in attacking the navy of Great Britain. During the early stages of the war, America was in serious disagreement with the British over contraband, the blockade, and the mails, Submarine and sent many strong notes of protest to the British government. Caml are When Germany placed all food supplies under governmental control, the British extended contr: aband to include all food stuffs. Germany retaliated by declaring a “‘ war zone © around the British Isles, threat- ened to destroy every enemy merchantman found in the “‘zone,’’ and warned neutrals of the d: anget of entet ing it. This novel naval vessel, which was used to patrol the zone, oh: ad not yet been given a legal status under International Law, which required that merchantmen must first be warned before being searched for contraband. If they resisted, they might be sunk; otherwise they must be taken to port, or if for good reasons sunk, the safety of the passengers and crew must be assured. The undersea boat could not meet these require- ments, because it was unsafe to give warnings, and there was no space to care for the passengers and crew of vessels destroyed. The submarine had to act quickly and secretly The American govern- ment informed the German government that it would be held to — Se - TE ES OT ee ser ae -ieee! mnt Army THVT TEAY MATATTTATTOTATVTATIVATVORTTOTNTNTATATOTOTOTATATVTTATNT OVSVEOTOTAVOOUOQUTOQIUUQUUHWUCUOVERNGLULURCESURLUULESAGESEOEEGAAOEEOSOOUEEAGEEEESEOGUEERAREEEAD LEE AA Chap. XXXVI] MILITARY EVENTS OF WORLD WAR 571 “strict accountability’’ for its illegal acts on the sea. The British government replied to the German blockade by refusing to permit any vessels to sail to German ports and by confiscating all goods destined for the Central Powers. The sinking of the Lusitania in 1915 by a submarine made it clear that Germany could not count on the United States to help her to break the British blockade, but the German U-boat campaign came dangerously near to success. Disputes ovet the use of the U-boats grew more aggravating until the order for their unrestricted use after February 1, 1917, helped to draw the United States into the war. Upto January, 1918, the total losses of the Entente and neutral shipping was 11,800,000 gross toms with an estimated value of $8,000,000,000. New methods of meeting the submarine led to a per- ceptable decline in the sinkings. Furthermore, to offset the losses, up to that date some 6,600,000 tons of new vessels were built. After that date the new vessels exceeded those destroyed. Thus the German submarine was not only a great blunder; it was a failure. Of the 441 submarines, which Germany had built by November, 1918, 343 had been either captured or destroyed. Besides the activity of the submarines, the only other operations of the Central Powers on the sea were the sowing of mines, the destructive work of an occasional raider, and the bombardment of English coast towns. Only once did the German high-seas fleet venture out for battle. The resulting Battle of Jutland in the North Sea was the only gigantic naval engagement of the entire war. Both sides lost heavily, and both sides laid claim to the victory. Great Britain’s position as mistress of the sea, however, was not shaken. 7. THe War IN THE AIR The World War differed from all previous conflicts in the unpre- cedented number of airships used. Only six years previous to its outbreak had power-driven flight through the air developed into a reality, but by r914 it had become one of the most spectacular intet- national sports. During the first year the one-man airplane was employed as the eyes of the armies. When tn the second year a 1,000 pound weight was dropped from an airship, effective bombing from the skies became common. Specialized two-seaters of incredible speed operated by day and night, as spies, scouts, guides for artillery, ‘“bombers,’” and photographers. By 1916 flying became organized into regular squads and large formations, and air battles became fa- mous. The feats of daring attracted the attention of the whole world and produced a new class of heroes. The British used large flying-boats to attack the submarines. When the war ended, this weapon of warfare had developed into one of the decisive factors. Thousands were in use along the fighting fronts on land and over wide areas of the sea. The art of flying had been advanced through ‘looping,’ ‘‘turns,’’ “rolling,” and ‘‘spinning.’’ Inventions and PE CoA aae ) at ETA Mines — Battle of Jutland ANP - ean) Ne ee ey eet eke OR SOD ah Se ee ee a aoe Baas Deeee el I me ee et SS eS ret pn nn ek ee eae Ce em ee ea | ' | —=—— 2 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XXXVI scientific discoveries enabled this machine to perform feats that taxed the imagination. The Zeppelin type of airship was used by the leading belligerents for bombing and patrol duty. War in the air was the only branch of military service that seemed to perpetuate the earlier type of chivalry in warfare. C. J. H. Hayes, A Brief History of the Great War (1920); A. F. Potiarp, A Short H. F. Hermuotrt, Der Weltkriezg Cagis); H STEGEMANN. Geschichte des Krieges, Vols. I III (1917-1919); The Encyclopadia Britannica, new Vols. XXX-—XXAXII (1922.); AMERICAN AssOcIATION FOR INTERNATIONAL CONCILIATION, Déulietins (1914-20 ); P. AZAN, lbe War- FALKENHAYN, General Headquarters and its Critical Decisions (1919); E. LupENDoRFr?, My) War Memories, 2 vols. (1919); Lorp Frencn, 1914 (1919); J. H. Boraston, editor, Jr Douglas Haig's Dtspatche 1919); L. Mapeguin, Le victoire de la Marne (1916 BAUMGARTEN-CRusius, Die Marneschlacht (1919); E. Rousset, La bataille de l’ Aisne Europe (1916); S. WaAsHBURN, The Russian Campaign (1915); B. Gourxo, War and Revolution in Russia, 1914-1917 (1918); E. H. Powe tt, Italy at War (1917); S. Low, Italy in the War (1917); J. Masgrietp, Gallipols (1916); H. W. Nevinson, Ihe Darda- . c 5 . — rr n e , ; al ye 7 ‘ y _ A 1 : = . FIELLES ( is] pair I9106 . fA | I \ | KN « j Dardda Wier Fbpe Bru [ f IO! , Admiral ]ELLICOR, De / . . = A I f (rf 4 LQ } 5 \ ) I ‘I IN@t U r ‘ ¥ \ > “I ae. -1924 ; ; , C. DoMVILLE, 3 marines ana Sta-P r\Igig L. Persit Der Seekri [919 ); 1. VON rT A j . ! P . Af Tirpitz, My M rs, 2 vols. Ug W.S. Sims, The Victor) fea (192 The America ' Invented (1917); J. F. C. Funuer, Tanks in the Great War (1920); J. B. McMaster, Ihe United States in the World War, u vols. (1918-1919); J. S. Bassett, Our War with Germany (1919); C. Seymour, Woodrow Wilson ana the World War (1921); F. PALMER, America in France (1918); DE CHAMBRUN and pE MARENCHES, L' armée américaine dans le conflit européen, 2 vols. (1919); H. P. Davison, The American Red Cross in the Great War (1919); P. GIBBs, Now It Can Be Told (1920); J. W. Gerarp, My Four Years in Germany (1915); H. Mor- GENTHAU. Ambassador Morgenthau's Story (1919); B. Wuittockx, Belgium: a Personal Narrative, 2 vols. (1919); A. ToynBEE, [he German Terror in Belgium (1917); H. L. Gray, War Time Control of Industry (1918); G. B. Crarxson, Industrial America in the World War (1923); C. E. Fayue, Sea-Borne Trade, 3 vols. (1923); F. Wauuinc, The Socialists and the 4 War (1915); P. W. Kettoce and A. H. Guzason, British Labor and the War (1919).UU A ee GHAPTER XxX XV EL MAKING PEACE 1. First Peace Drive OF THE CENTRAL POWERS Next in importance to the responsibility for starting the war is the responsibility for prolonging it unnecessarily. After the war had lasted a year and a half when they had given up any hope of an easy or certain victory, the Central Powers believed the psychological moment had come to make a drive for peace. Hence they asked the neutral powers and the pope to consult the Entente Allies about ‘‘an appropriate basis for the establishment of a lasting peace.” Replying to the proposal, the tsar of Russia said that the time was not ripe for peace since Russia’s war aims — Constantinople and a free Poland — had not been realized. Italy, France, Great Britain, and nine Allied states, declared that ‘‘no peace is possible so long as the Allies have not secured reparation for violated rights and lib- erties; recognition of the principle of nationality; and the free existence of small states.’’ Speaking for the neutrals, President Wilson next asked both bel- ligerents to state their war aims in plain terms, hoping: “It may be that peace is nearer than we know.”’ He proposed a “’ peace without victory,’’ which would recognize: (2) a free Poland; (2) security for all people; (3) free access to the seas for all states; (4) the limi- tation of armaments; and (5) the adoption of the Monroe Doctrine for the whole world. But the declaration of war on Germany four months later put a stop to all peace talk in the United States except among the pacifists and Pro-Germans. In the Entente countries, however, President Wilson’s suggestion for a ‘‘negotiated peace”’ was urged by (1) liberals, who feared Germany might gain pos- session of Russian man power and thus prolong the war indefi- nitely; (2) capitalists, who dreaded a wave of post-war revolutions; (@) pacifists, who denounced the war as immoral and futile; (4) Christians, who disliked to see the followers of Christ killing one another; and (5) old-time diplomats, who believed that more could be accomplished through intrigue than by fighting. The sev- eral German chancellors encouraged these pacific efforts in other countries because there was a genuine desire for peace in the Central Empires. Lloyd George, Poincaré, Clemenceau, and others, bent on crushing Germany, would hear nothing of peace. >. PEACE PRoposALs OF Pope BENEDICT XV The head of the Roman Catholic Church, Pope Benedict XV, who was installed into office a few weeks after the war began, suggested 573 WRRVTAORT HAAN N CANIN NUD DONOR D RRR ED EN RRR Gy — Wilson's peace plans ————— ee ett i ti ee atte te cs Sat Se UHHU(UNLS Lt a Ce el iia are Pa Wag a ~ ee ae Nee aaa - = SaaS ee ee ——a a ae 5 oe a ee Z Se toca, RA eee — ee et ecg etreens Cee re et De Di adie en eee a ad - The ' Fourteen Points’ 574 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XXXVII on August 1, 1917, to both sides the following peace terms: (1) the 4 substitution of moral for military force in international affairs: (2) a mutual disarmament; @) freedom of the seas; (4) arbitra- tion; (5) ‘‘self-determination”’ for territorial disputes; (6) no in- demnities:; and (7) the restoration of all occupied regions. President Wilson answered the pope’s proposals for the Entente Allies by draw- ing a sharp line between the autocratic German government and the German people; and by declaring that negotiations for peace with the former were out of the question. Hence he called upon the German people to repudiate their rulers. Six months later President Wilson presented to Congress © The program of the world’s peace’’ in his famous Fourteen Points — (1) the abolition of secret diplomacy and treaties; (2) removal of economic barriers: (3) freedom of the seas; (4) reduction of arma- ments; (5) adjustment of colonial claims in the interest of the people concerned; (6) aid to Russia to rehabilitate her national life; (7) restoration of Belgium; (8) evacuation of France and the return of Alsace-Lorraine; (9) readjustment of Italy’s frontiers; (10) au- tonomy for subject nationalities in Austria-Hungary; (11) restora- tion of the Balkan states; (12) self-government for non-Turkish nationalities and the freedom of the Dardanelles for all ships; (13) an independent Poland; and (14) a League of Nations. These items, elaborated by President Wilson in subsequent addresses, formed the program of the Entente war aims during the latter part of the struggle and by the terms of the armistice were to serve as the basis for peac I a ; x I f ~ fo ) e. In stating the British war aims Lloyd George accepted (7) >) (12), and (14) of the ‘Fourteen Points’’ and added the ‘* reconsider- ation’’ of the Alsace-Lorraine question and the disposal of the German colonies in accordance with the desire of the natives. The Central Powers, in answer to the pope s peace plea, announced that they were in favor of the substitution of moral for physical force, the reduction of armaments, and the freedom of the seas. In reply to President Wilson’s ‘‘Fourteen Points’’ and the British war aims, they accepted most of them, but made it clear that Germany was to retain most of Alsace-Lorraine, and that the frontiers of Russia, Italy, and the Balkan states were to be settled by local agreement. The Belgian problem and northern France were to be left to the peace conference. 2 Russta’s PEACE EFFORTS After the Russian Revolution in March, 1917, the All-Russian Congress of Soviets in Moscow conditioned their support of the war upon the formula of ‘‘no annexations and no indemnities.’’ The provisional government asked the Entente Allies to assent to this provision, but the request was refused. Prime Minister Kerensky met with no better success in begging the Entente Allies to restate their war aims in order to hold Russia in the war. The radicals| . dest HTT NTA IENQUOSTAUOQONAUUQUATIUUGONLIVUGHAAVCOUUARLEQOAERUOOGEERUNGOIE NA , Chap. XXXVI} MAKING PEACE 575 then began to say that there was no difference between the purposes of the two warring groups. When the Bolshevists seized the govern- ment, they telegraphed all the belligerents proposing a three months’ armistice to discuss peace terms. Receiving no answer, the famous ‘secret treaties’? showing the imperialistic aims of the Entente Allies were made public. Then Russia formed an armistice with the Central Powers and proposed fifteen articles of peace: (2) self-gov- ernment for Poland, Lithuania, and the Letts; (2) autonomy for Armenia; (3) a plebiscite for Alsace-Lorraine; (4) restoration of Belgium by an international indemnity; (5) access to the sea for Serbia and autonomy for Bosnia-Herzegovina; (6) plebiscites for contested Balkan and (7) Italian territories; (8) restoration of Rumania, and (9) Persia and Greece; (io) return of the German colonies; (11) neutralization of all waterways; (12) no indemnities; (13) prohibition of economic boycotts; (14) a peace congress chosen by the legislatures of the states, and abolition of all secret treaties; and (15) general disarmament and the substitution of militia for standing armies. The Entente Allies refused to have anything to do with these peace proposals; and the Central Powers also ignored them in forcing upon Russia humiliating terms of peace. 4. Peace TERMS IN THE ARMISTICE It became apparent by the spring of 1918, that nothing short of a military decision would bring peace. The Central Powers cast all their stakes on one final effort in the west, and lost. Since Germany was no longer able to give adequate defense to her weaker allies, they fell one by one. Bulgaria, with her lines broken and Sofia threatened, on September 30, 1918, surrendered unconditionally, and her tsar, Ferdinand, abdicated. Turkey, isolated from her partners, collapsed and agreed to an armistice the next month. The Austro- Hungarians, after a feeble attack on Italy, were swept back in one of the greatest disasters of the war and on November 4 surrendered. President Wilson’s diplomacy and Marshal Foch’s military leadership forced Germany to bow to the inevitable. Chancellor Prince Maxi- milian appealed directly to President Wilson for a cessation of hos- tilities. Mutinies in the German navy and among the soldiers at the front, caused General Ludendorff to resign. Revolution was growing behind the lines among the German people. On November 5, Presi- dent Wilson notified Germany that Marshal Foch was empowered to conclude an armistice in accord with the “Fourteen Points,’ excepting (1) freedom of the seas, to which Great Britain objected, and (2) compensation to the Entente for civilian losses. The hard terms of the armistice were signed on November 11: (1) the evacua- tion of Belgium, France, and Luxemburg within two weeks; (2) the evacuation of all territory west of the Rhine within one month; (3) Entente occupation of the west bank of the Rhine and the chief crossings; (4) renunciation of the German treaties with Russia and LEE ee a alt | | SS ee AMANO Pen ae E ar == te ne = 0 Re DE ie TT EN 4 - T [ NE ENEE act sfenwn J } irations i The secret treaties Central powers excluded 76 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XXXVII 7) Rumania; (5) the surrender of German submarines and warships, together with 5,000 locomotives, 5,000 motor lorries, and 150 railway cars: and (6) continuance of the economic blockade. The armistice was renewed from time to time until the Treaty of Versailles was signed several months later. Within a few weeks Alsace-Lorraine was giving a frenzied welcome to a French army, and by December the Entente troops were in possession of the Rhine valley. >. THe Paris PEACE CONFERENCE Having by revolution ranged herself amon YQ the democratic republics, Germany hoped that the terms of peace, which were to be in accord with the ‘‘ Fourteen Points,’’ would be reasonably mod- erate. But the victory of the Entente Allies was so complete that they were tempted to think more of their selfish national ambitions than of an ideal justice and the future welfare of the world. The peoples of the earth were led to believe that after the autocratic powers were defeated, the peace conference w ould lay the foundations for a new world order of democracy, peace, and security. But the statesmen of the Entente states, while professing adherence to these roseate dreams, had to face hard, practical facts: ‘r) The hatred aroused against Germany demanded a crushing punishment and the Most of the +ntente Allies i 4 substitution of vengeance for justice. had specific wrongs to be righted, or ambitious “vital interests to be realized. France was determined to recover Alsace-Lorraine and to secure guarantees against future German attacks. Great Britain desired to protect her Empire by destroying German rivalry on the high seas. Italy thought of Italia Irredenta and the control of the Adriatic. Japan had her eyes on the Shantung peninsula. Serbia dreamed of an outlet to the sea. (3) Submerged nationalities like Poland, Finland, Ireland, Egypt, and the Slavs in Austria-Hungary wanted political independence. (4) Ihe Entente Alliance had been built up in part by secret treaties, which guaranteed to individual members certain territories and other concessions. For instance, Russia was promised Constantinople and all of Poland; France was to extend her territory to the Rhine; Great Britain was to have the bulk of the German colonies; and Italy was promised adequate ‘compensations.’ Naturally the fulfillment of these engagements was now demanded. The United States was the only great power among the Allies that did not have any selfish ambitions to gratify. She had not been a party to the secret commitments — in fact, it seems that she was kept in ignorance of their real significance until the war was won. The first of the ‘‘Fourteen Points,’ which Germany had accepted as the basis for peace, insisted upon “‘open covenants. But a wide chasm soon appeared between the altruistic expectations of an intelligent public opinion in the world, and the concrete, secret obligations made by the Entente governments under the stress of| ii SOAUTEOOEEUTAEAEAT ETAT APOE Chap. XXXVI] MAKING PEACE 577 war. To make matters worse, national divergences began to appear among the victors. To insure harmony, it was decided to exclude the Central Powers from the Peace Conference altogether until final terms were drawn up. Out of deference to the heroic part played by France in defeating the foe, Paris was selected for the Conference. President Wilson sailed for Europe in December, 1918, and in a hasty tour through Great Britain, France, and Italy explained the “ Four- teen Points,’ predicting a new era to the enthusiastic and hopeful multitudes. The Paris Peace Conference on January 18, 1919, held its first session. The leading statesmen, generals and diplomats of the Entente states were present — about 70 all told — of whom the most important were Clemenceau and Marshal Foch of France; Lloyd George and Balfour of Great Britain; Wilson and Lansing of the United States; Orlando and Sonnino of Italy; and Saionji of Japan. A host of experts, secretaries, reporters, moving picture men, and representatives of all kinds of “‘causes’’ overcrowded Paris. The press reported the proceedings to an expectant world. The Inter- Allied Supreme War Council and the Informal Conference of the five great Entente Powers — Great Britain, France, Italy, Japan, and the United States — created the following machinery to draw up the treaty of peace: 1. The Supreme Council consisting of two representatives from the five great ‘Powers with special interests,’ formulated all pro- posals, heard all claims, and made all rules of procedure. It was known as the ‘Big Five’’ and the “‘Council of Ten,’’ and was pat- terned after the Congress of Vienna held in 1815. It was soon re- duced to President Wilson and the four premiers. Then Japan was dropped, and the ‘‘ Big Four’’ determined all questions. In the end Italy withdrew and the ‘‘ Big Three’’ — Wilson, Lloyd George, and Clemenceau — settled the remaining problems. All the sessions were secret. 2. Special committees, appointed by the Supreme Council, studied the particular, important issues and reported back to it. 3. Sub-committees of specialists and experts investigated all sorts of disputes and proposed changes and made recommendations to the special committees. 4. The General Congress composed of from one to five repre- sentatives of the 32 Entente and Associated Powers, each with but one vote, in plenary session heard the recommendations of the Supreme Council and ratified them. After four months of effort, under high pressure and amidst much wrangling, in which the “‘ Fourteen Points’’ were compromised with nationalistic ambitions, the treaty with Germany, containing 1,000 articles and about 80,000 words — “‘an epitome of the affairs of the world’’ — was accepted on May 6 by the General Congress. Portugal, France, China, and Italy made reservations. The next day Pee TaD a a WHRanA Gee The nature of the Paris Conference Organization am ———. itl DATTA | oa ri => ee re ee eeee ee NS a aa SDeSOeeeRaaanaT aaa Se Ra te a Te ar ase anal f so] 5 1enine : fhe Treaty DY Germany Territ ridt Military and fi ge naval terms 578 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XXXVII sf 1 i the Germans were handed the treaty. For six weeks they tried to secure a modification of the stringent terms, and presented counter- proposals in 60,000 words. The Supreme Council made some minor concessions, answered the objections, and demanded acceptance or refusal before June 23. On that date the German National Assembly by a vote of 237 to 138 accepted the treaty unconditionally. The last dramatic act in the tragedy occurred on June 28 in the hall of mirrors in the palace of Versailles, where in 1871 the German Empire had been created. There the Peace of Versailles was signed by Germany and 30 of the Entente Allies, China alone refusing. On July 9 the German National Assembly by a vote of 208 to 115 ratified h in so many ways undid the work of the Iron j j the treaty, whic Chancellor. Bismarck. and his masters, the Hohenzollerns, and also remade the map of Europe and the w rid. The territorial changes made by the treaty deprived Germany of I a IV per cent of her European territory, 1o per cent of her population, and all her colonies. She ceded Alsace-Lorraine free of debt to France; Eupen, Malmedy, and part of Moresnet to Belgium; Memel to Lith- uania: most of West Prussia and East Silesia to Poland; a portion of Upper Silesia to Czecho-Slovakia; and Danzig to the Entente Allies. Other sections, like the Saar Basin, Schleswig, and certain portions of East and West Poland and Upper Silesia were to be settled by popular vote. Asaresult, North Schleswig went to Denmark. Upper Silesia went to Poland by vote of the League of Nations, but was later divided. The plebiscite in the Saar Basin will not be held until 1934. German leases and rights in China, together with her islands in the north Pacific went to Japan. Her other colonial possessions went to Great Britain, France, and Belgium, and she was forbidden to annex Austria. Thus millions of German citizens were transferred to alien rule. By the political terms of the treaty, the Entente Allies were given a free hand in dealing with Russia, Turkey, Bulgaria, and Austria-Hungary. The complete sovereignty of Belgium, Austria, Czecho-Slovakia, and Poland was recognized. The military power of Germany was broken by the surrender of her navy, the abolition of compulsory military service, the reduction of her army to 100,000 men, the limitation of factories for war materials and aircraft, and the destruction of all forts on the Rhine and on the island of Heli- goland. The Kiel Canal was opened to all nations. Finally pro- vision was made for the trial of Emperor William U and other German leaders for the violation of International Law — a provision that was never catried out. The west bank of the Rhine and the bridgeheads were to be held by the Entente troops to enforce the terms of the treaty. By the economic clauses of the treaty Germany lost the greater part of her coal and iron mines, yet for ten years she was to supply France with 7,000,000 tons of coal annually, and Belgium and ItalyFACET In HN HA AAI Wa Nl We i itil! an HLTH LAAT eee Chap. XXXVIT] MAKING PEACE 579 ee re Fl td eg ee each with a total of 8,000,000 tons of coal yearly. In 1920 the total Economic for all was reduced to 2,000,000 tons monthly, with the privilege phases of #e of money payments instead. Germany accepted responsibility for ae all damages to civilians in the war, and agreed to pay an indemnity which was fixed in 1921 at approximately $33,000,000,000 of which $5 000,000,000 was to be paid by May of that year. The payments were later reduced to $500,000,000 annually. Germany surrendered all her large merchantmen, half her small merchant ships, and a part of her fishing boats and river craft — nearly two million tons gross. She was required to reconstruct the devastated areas with her own live stock, machinery, and materials. She had to pay the costs of the armies of occupation. No tariff discriminations were to be made against any Allied nation for a period of five years, and certain German rivers were to be opened for free navigation. To deal with social and economic unrest throughout the world, the treaty provided for an annual International Labor Organization and a permanent International Labor Office. Each state, however, was left free to accept the recommendations of these bodies. The following principles were recognized: (2) labor is not a commodity; (2) employers and employees have the right to organize; @) equal treatment of workers; and (4) the protection and education of children. Between 1919 and 1923 four international conferences were held at which a large number of measures were adopted to promote social welfare. Albert Thomas of France was appointed the director of the Labor Office at Geneva, and had 300 persons representing 28 nations on his staff. There are now 55 members of the Organization, which publishes weekly and monthly papers, and special reports. Before the close of the year 1919, most of the signatories had ratified the Treaty of V ersailles. China accepted it with reservations concerning Shantung. The American Senate refused to approve it without important changes. After waiting for the United States until January 10, 1920, the ratifying powers deposited their certifi- cates at Paris, and it went into immediate effect. Fourteen of the hostile nations resumed friendly relations with Germany. The United States remained technically at war with her until a separate treaty of peace was negotiated with Germany October 18, 1921. The Treaty of Versailles which should have pacified Europe proved illusory. Its harsh terms were due to Allied distrust of Germany and to lack of trust in their own principles. It was a treaty of penalties, not of peace and amity — “‘a peace for which there was no prece- dent.’’ General Smuts, after signing the treaty, said that it did not contain a real peace, but that the machinery it created for amending the treaty would bring peace after war passions had died out. PEED EE a ENR SSS aa ee Leen ee, eee ee ee a ee STEEN IAS a ILS Latte en ~ a ee ae ee ae a = NE —— SS SS = eens a et oe eter a ee oe ————— ase en ER ETF ne PE SP MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XXXVII 6. THe LEAGUE OF NATIONS The treaty created The League of Nations, which was said to be one of the purposes of the World War. Its object was to promote international codperation, peace and security. — The first members were increased in number until there were 55 in 1925, leaving only nine states on earth which were not members. By 1923 Germany, Russia, Turkey, and the United States were coOperating with the League in one way or another. The governmental machinery of the League consists of (1) the Assembly which is composed of from one to three representatives from each state. Thus far it has met annually, its sessions are public, and it has helped to solve many international problems. (2) Ihe Council consisted of nine mem- bers originally — the ‘Big Five and four others chosen by the Assembly. Since the United States refused to join the League, the number of members remained eight until 1923, when it was increased toten. Upto 1923, 24 sessions were held at which 815 decisions were made. many of which settled ugly disputes that might have ended in war. 3) The permanent Secretariat at Geneva under the leader- ship of the Englishman, Sir Eric Drummond, with a large staff of 200 assistants, representing 36 nationalities, has been exceptionally 2 2 busy in looking after the business of the League. (4) The Permanent “~ Court of International Justice with eleven judges and four deputy judges held its first session in 1922. It has already settled several important cases, and given its opinions on half a dozen disputed questions. Forty-seven states were members in 1925. The League of Nations came into existence primarily to enforce the terms of the treaties of peace, to bring about a reduction of arma- ments, and to prevent war. Its members promised to protect each other's territory and independence against outside attack. 'All treaties inconsistent with the objects of the League were to be abro- gated, and future treaties were to be registered with the Secretariat. By 1923 Over 300 international engagements were filed and printed. The Monroe Doctrine was recognized as a means of keeping the peace. Although severely criticized for its defects, yet the League was one of the best results of the war and, on the whole, the most constructive work accomplished by the Paris Peace Conference. It settled disputes over the Aaland islands, between Poland and Lith- uania, and over Upper Silesia, Albania, and Eastern Galicia. It prepared a plan for the financial reconstruction of Austria and Hungary. It formulated an international treaty to abolish the evils of the opium traffic and other dangerous drugs. It averted a threatened war of Italy against Greece. It has taken steps to stop the white slave traffic, to prevent epidemics, and to safeguard! public health. It has proposed means for improving international commu- nication and transit. It appointed committees on intellectual co- operation, and on international economics and finance. It supervisedORT EE MMNRUR HNO EAG naeaH nae: ae Hit : TUReeneenaaenene WOGRueenuaneaaee WRT ERREAnMORn wenn 1}! MOTDSUO TUT TRTCWOTONOCQECUUUTHOAQSQOQQQUOOUUEUCLETEVAVAAAVUESRULAE | s HE. i | — ere eet eaeas eat teen eet Chap. XXXVII] MAKING PEACE 581 the new system of colonial control through mandates, and sought to protect minorities in their rights. With these auspicious beginnings, the supporters of the League believe that it will develop into one of the most useful agencies for the advancement of the civilization of the earth. ne a ne ene nya = hereto SoeuaSeaes" Past 7, TREATIES OF PEACE WITH AUSTRIA-HUNGARY, BULGARIA AND [TURKEY After much delay the treaty of peace with Austria was signed on September 10, 1919, and ratified the next month by the Austrian National Assembly. It forced her to recognize the independence of Hungary, Poland, Czecho-Slovakia, and Jugo-Slavia. Thus Austria was left as a small independent Republic with an area smaller than Austria Ireland and consisting of the poorest part of the Empire at that, a population under 7,000,000, an army of 30,000 volunteers, and no seaport. A war indemnity of a “reasonable sum’’ was to be paid before May 1, 1921. The economic penalties were similar to those inflicted on Germany. Thus Austria — ‘‘the fragment of a nation” — was left ina most desperate condition. After several years of chaos the League of Nations agreed to stabilize her finances in order that she might live. The principle of self-determination was denied her by an order that she could not join Germany. The treaty of Neuilly made with Bulgaria on November 27, 1919, gave the Dobrudja to Rumania, Thrace to Greece, and most of Macedonia to Serbia. Thus all the Bulgarian gains in the Balkan Wars were lost and she was deprived of a seacoast, leaving her about Bulgaria as large as the state of Ohio with 4,500,000 inhabitants. Her army was restricted to 20,000 men, an indemnity of $445,000,000 was assessed against her payable in 37 years, and severe economic penalties were laid on her. The treatment of Bulgaria was most unwise and unjust, and will keep the Balkan problem unsettled. The conclusion of a treaty of peace with Hungary was delayed by the creation of a Soviet Republic under Bela Kun. But Rumanian troops drove him from power. After a National Assembly was elected in 1920, a treaty of peace was signed at the Trianon June 4. Hungary was deprived of all her non-Magyar regions — Slovakia went to Czecho-Slovakia, Transylvania to Rumania, Croatia to Hungary Jugo-Slavia, and the Banat was divided between the last two powers. In all cases of doubt or dispute, Hungary lost out in regard to the fix- ation of boundaries. She was left with an area of about half that of Finland, 10,000,000 people, and completely cut off from the sea. She was saddled with a large war indemnity, and onerous economic exactions were imposed. Her army was limited to 30,000 soldiers. Count Apponyi, the liberal leader, denounced the treaty as a rag of iniquity.” The settlement of questions concerning the Ottoman Empire were perplexing and difficult, largely because of the secret treaties concern- Sr eee —— a THRVRAHHAR POUT OOO UON DUR DUDUR MER RD TTERRS RS Rear ae=a" aaa =f ae ete a are aa ln are et Pa erika en aaa kee ee inn —— i i ft = Turkey 582 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XXXVI] ing the partition of the country and the subject Jewish and Christian nationalities. It was not until August 10, 1920 that the Turkish delegates signed the treaty of Sevres. By the treaty, Turkey ceded Thrace and the Aégean islands to Greece; Smyrna was put under Greek administration with the right to annex it in five years if fa- vored by a SE Bicite Italy secured the Do ydekanese islands, Rhodes and jurisdiction over Adalia; and Mesopotamia, Palecnne: Syria, Armenia, and Hedjaz became independent — the first two under British mandate, and the third under a French mandate. Kurliscal also became autonomous, and the British protectorate over Egypt and annexation of Cyprus were confirmed. Constantinople was to remain the capital but the Straits were neutralized under an interna- tional commission. Thus Turkey lost 440,000 square miles of land g an area somewhat less than nT 8: ooo inhabitants. Turkish >) finances were put into the hands of Great Britain, France, and Italy. and nearly 12,000,000 subjects, leavin; the new German Repub] The army was reduced to 50,000 men and the navy was abolished. Although the sultan continued to reside in Constantinople, he lost his Belicia and military control over it. The Christian dream of the expulsion of the Turks from Europe seemed to be almost a reality. The jealousy and distrust among the Entente Powers, however, prevented its realization. G. L. Dickinson, Documents and Statements Relating to Peace Proposals and War Aims, r916—1918 (1919); H. W. V. Tempercey, editor, A History of the Peace Conference, 6 vols. (1920-1924); The Second Year of the League of Nations (1922); C. H. Hasxins and R. H. Lorp, Some Problems of the Peace Conference (1920); C. T. THompson, Ihe Peace Conference Day by Day (1920); H. Hanson, The Adventures of the Fourteen Points (1919); H. W. Harris, The Peace in the Making (1919); E. M. Housg and C. Seymour, What Really Happened at Paris (1921); R. S. Baxer, Woodrow Wilson and World Settlement, 3 vols. (1922); R. Lanstnc, The Peace Negotiations: A Personal Narrative (1921); The Big Four and Others of the Peace Conference (1921); A. Tarpigvu, Ihe I ruth about the Treaty ee A. P. Scorr, An Introduction to the Peace Treaties (1920); J. M. Keynes, The E¢ c Con- S¢quences 0 f the Peace I QI 9); + f Ret 151071 O f the Treaty I 922 . B. B AR UC The é i ve RING a the Reparations and Economic Sections of the Treaty 1920); J. L. Garvin, The Econom i « ’ a Foundations of Peace (1919); P. B. Potts: Test luction to the Study of International Drganate tion (1922); G. Butrrer, A Handbook to the , League of Nations (1919); F. Po tock, The League of Nations (1919); W.H. Tarr, Pa; n the League of Nations (1920); S. P. Duc- GAN, Lhe League of Nations: the Principle and os Practise (1919); G. G. WiLson, The First Year of the League of Nations (1921); C. H. Levermore, Year-Book of the League of Nations 1919); H. A. Gissons, Exrope Since 1918 (1924); W. E. Dopp, Woodrow Wilson and bis Work (1920); E. M. House, Intimate Papers, 2 vols. (1926onetinana ———— ey & ———————— sa ets rata eget AANA é . : ae ICHAT WaHUAVAG: { WIIRTNT TATE TUeHT TANGA ne ni Hi su AUNT UU UL MN : f 1 | : i i f i ft ioe ee ~——= a ‘ Hamburg | © 3.“ Berhi i} | ! | a ae. At 1 } LEWD ST: U4 Qo; 7 ~ oss ‘D7 Le Dresde) 0 6, ° n Lrark fore _ | od ee Vurte-}, ‘ RASO* ? Berne 9 a oO we Oo J —SWITZERY een Xx > > f - Messina Tonial / Long West O East from Greenwich Kart ographische Anstalt von F. A. Brockhaus, Leipzig, Germany.u Ta SQOANTOQUTUUGNIAUOQDICOOATUOONAT ONG VOGHR TAN CN MINNIE a ae ad Ee me — r a ae 2 rr ne FS pa ae ee lead FO ere ah ten eee ae oo -) ee oe » 7 Vue 7 , il Whi te ne fominsk\\ .e Ne LRruss iva: \ : . Brest itovsk AND Ss BULGARIA 9° — | Lt, Op. /, oA: a ™ of. iy eee i tka EUROPE in 1920 showing Territorial Changes in World Var cae es _ International Boundaries u uw 1914 Engh sh Miles 200 300 400 500 =r meal TUTPU TART O ARN RR ER RUE alAATCC NNT TVATTTVTETTTATOTELTATTOTUA TAT NY Hit TPLAALATLAL Hiatt A OT it CHAPTER XX XV DDT RESULTS OF THE WORLD WAR 1. LossEs IN LIFE AND PROPERTY Or all the sovereign states on earth only 14 preserved neutrality during the war — 6 in Europe, 7 in Latin America, and 1 in Africa. Against the 4 Central Powers were ranged 32 states — 15 in open warfare on all of them; 12 against one or more of them; and 5 with severed diplomatic relations. Never in all history, ancient or modern, had there been assembled such an aggregate of man power for human combat. The Central Powers officially mobilized nearly 20,000,000 men; and the Entente Allies over 40,000,000 — making a grand total of 60,000,000. In addition, the neutral powers of Europe, for defense, kept their own armies mobilized to war strength. Furthermore the belligerents utilized the entire civilian population for such work as was necessary to wage a successful war, and also appropriated all the material resources for the same purpose. Of the 60,000,000 men mobilized, over 13 per cent, or about 8,000,000 were killed in action or died of wounds. The wounded numbered more than 19,000,000, of whom 6,000,000 became total wrecks. The Central Powers lost 3,000,000 dead and 8,000,000 wounded; the Entente 5,000,000 dead and 11,000,000 wounded. Russia, Germany, France, Austria-Hungary, the British Empire, Italy, Serbia, and Belgium, in the order named, lost the most men by death. Over 7,000,000 were reported prisoners or “‘missing.’’ The total casualties were slightly under 32,000,000. To these numbers should be added the civilian victims on land and sea — those who were drowned or slain by engines of war, or who died from famine, disease, grief, and massacre. For instance: 692 Americans and 20,620 British were killed on the sea; 1,270 British men, women and children were killed by air raids and bombardments; 4,000,000 Christians and Jews were massacred or starved by the Turks; and 4,000,000 above normal died fromepidemics. These deaths of civilians would bring the total toll of human life up to 17,000,000. Nor did the death roll stop with the armistices, because the years following witnessed a death-rate, due either directly or indirectly to the war, almost as high as during the conflict. These losses will be reflected in the coming generations. The soldiers and sailors killed were the best youth of the race; and the civilians who perished were largely women and children. The birth-rate in European countries declined during the war. In France and Germany it fell 50 per cent, and no doubt the same results occurred in other states. The consequences of 583 Losses of life aren —— ae | or i nines i TI I ee a oh a a ty etsA re a eS ee pe Se ti —— a ee == ee La a mr) me rer means og ake Pies Sao Te Property losses 584 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XXXVIII these losses have been felt in the decreased agricultural and industrial output; in the loss of inventive genius; in lowered scholarship and scientific investigation; and in the retardation of progress. Econ- omists have estimated that the capitalized value of the men who fell or were crippled during the war was the colossal sum of $33,551,000,- 000 — an amount equal to the whole wealth of the United States in 1875. Asimilar value was placed upon the loss of civilian lives. T would bring the total monetary worth of the life lost in the war to a sum comparable to the entire wealth of the United States 1n 1890. The total loss of life measured in dollars was exceeded by the destruction of wealth. The total direct cost of the first vear of the war was $19,000,000,000; the second year, $3 3 000,000,000; the third year, $40,000,000,000 and the fourth year, $94,000,000,000 — or a grand total of $186,000,000,000. This colossal sum just about equalled all the wealth of the United States in 1918, or the combined wealth of the British Empire and Austria-Hungary, or the entire wealth of Germany, France and Russia in 1914. The Entente Allies spent $126.000,000,000 and the (¢ entral Powers $60,000,000,000. The average daily cost of the war was $123,000,000, and in 1918 it rose to $10.000,000 an hour. The expense bore heaviest on the chief belligerents in the following order: Great Britain, France, the United States, Germany, Russia, Austria-Hungary, and Italy. France spent 30 per cent of her pre-war wealth, Great Britain 28 per cent, Italy 16 per cent and Russia 13 percent. The total public debts of the leading participants on both sides increased from $26,000,000,000 in 1914 to $130,000,000,000 iN 1915; of the world from $40,000,000,000 to $260.000,000,000. The United States, Great Britain, and France loaned to their allies a total of $20,000,000,000; Germany to her allies $2.000,000,000. In addition to the losses of life and wealth spent in waging the war, there were property losses on land of $30,000,000,000; shipping and cargoes, $7,000,000,000; and wat relief and loss to neutrals, $2,000,000,000, OF a total of $39,000,000,- 000. This made a grand total of war cost, directly and indirectly, of $338,000,000,000, or a sum equal to the combined wealth of the United States, the British Empire, and Italy, or approximately of all Europe in 1914. To put the total cost of the war in another form: it was about ten times greater than all the gold and silver taken from the earth from the earliest times down to 1923. Everywhere the world’s productive industry was crippled. The value of money dropped as a result of inflated paper currency, the price of labor and the cost of living began to mount, and business was seriously dis- turbed. The peoples everywhere were burdened with heavy taxes, and the resources of the entire earth were mortgaged for years to come to pay for the war. To the Old World, particularly, was left a hert- tage of economic chaos and misery. In France, for example, pensions cost $117,000,000 annually and the interest on her debt an additional $1,767,000,000.| | vs cvuryvan vaUTat tat TT EU UATE TETCTT TT TU TUTE CUT UTU TUTTLE TATE VTE MT TTT VTITUUUTUUUTUTUUGUUTUUVOUGUUGULVUUUUUILAWUALOUARUAA ESR SRE Chap. XXXVIII] RESULTS OF WORLD WAR 585 2. Tue PoxriticAL RESULTS The political results of the World War were so far-reaching that the great cataclysm will be spoken of by future generations as the Great Revolution of 1914. More significant, perhaps, than even the French Revolution of 1789, it closed one era of human history and began another. It will have to recede in time somewhat before its greatest effects will stand out in strong relief. Because the peoples of the world were stirred so deeply, the civilization of the earth of the future will differ in many fundamental particulars from that before 1914. Much of the old order continues, of course, and many of the apparent changes are proving to be but temporary, but the transformations have been sufficiently sweeping to designate them as landmarks of a new efa. The greatest immediate result was the overthrow of the auto- cratic and militaristic powers of Europe — Russia, Austria-Hungary, and Germany. The proud Romanovs were driven from their throne by their own subjects. The ancient throne of the Hapsburgs crashed to pieces in a disrupted Empire. The lordly Hohenzollerns, who by brandishing the sword had kept Europe in a state of fear for two generations, fell by the very weapon they used for their own self- agerandizement. ‘‘ World power or downfall,’’ boasted Bernhardi, and downfall was the fate of Prussianism. With the Hohenzollerns and the Hapsburgers fell their allies, Turkey in disruption, and Bulgaria in disgrace. A host of lesser dynasties were driven from power by their emancipated peoples, eight more independent states were created out of these old empires, and Ireland became a “Free State.’’ About two thousand miles of new boundary lines appeared inEurope. The remnants of autocratic government in the states of the Entente Allies were severely criticized, and in many instances changed. Another major political result was the growth of republicanism. Popular government had been making a conquest through parlia- ments, but for several generations it had not attacked thrones except in the case of little Portugal. The keen interest in economic problems had drawn attention away from the overthrow of monarchies, and the newer imperialism used monarchy as a unifying cement. At the same time to many persons in Europe republicanism seemed to make civil institutions insecure. In 1814 there was but one republic in Europe and in 1914 there were only three of any consequence — France, Switzerland, and Portugal. But after 1914 a republican form of government appeared in Russia, Germany, Austria, Poland, Czecho-Slovakia, Lithuania, Latvia, Esthonia, Finland, and Ukrania. New republics To the 21 republics of the New World were now added those of Europe; China, the Far Eastern Republic, Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan in Asia; and Liberia in Africa. Except in Turkey and Japan divine-right monarchies disappeared from the earth — and in 1925 the Republic of Turkey was proclaimed. Even liberal monar- PEE eee a AE End of autocracy Sees |) eereee eerie te arte Dr a eh ee aah Ah eat aed Sa ati esr er or geen — Nene nae emeinrmnmnmee es tTReaction GCiiocr acy 586 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XXXVIII chies, like Great Britain and eae were becoming more democratic in response to the suggestions for their overthrow. In imitation of the forepart of the nineteenth century there appeared a new crop of popular constitutions, based partly upon the experience of France and the United States and partly upon the discussions of enlightened political scientists throughout the earth. At the same time numerous 1mendments were made to the old constitutions to make government more responsive to public opinion. The franchise was widened in Russia, Germany, Austria, Great Britain, the United States and else- where to include women. Other measures such as the redistribution of seats in the legislature, the payment of legislators, proportional representation, the abolition of plural voting, ‘ oo I I representation of ‘*functional’’ bodies. and ministerial responsibility were quite gen- ] 5 | erally adopted. Personal and civil liberties were more adequately guaranteed. Thus, beyond doubt, the war resulted in the triumph of more democratic political institutions. One of the accc ea of the war was ‘an impatience with popular government. Democractic governments under the stress of conflict ul 1po a cdl ee the autocratic practices, which they » loudly denounced in their adversaries, 1 n order to suppress criti- cism and to use all the national resources to win. Among the Entente Allies political democracy was supplanted by a ‘‘bureaucracy of experts,’’ and by cabinets and executives with dictatorial power. Legislatures were deprived of their normal functions and received ‘orders’’ from the heads of the government. Even neutral countries like Holland and Switzerland resorted to these arbitrary methods. The press was censored; freedom of speech and association was denied; minorities not in sympathy with the war were treated with intolerance and severely punished; and liberty came to mean abject obedience to the will of those in political control. Passion and hysteria supplanted justice and reason in many instances. These conditions continued for several years following the armistice, but with the coming of peace they began gradually to disappear in the more stable states. But a complete return to the political practices of 1914 seemed as difficult as the reversion to economic normalcy Italy lapsed into a dictatorship under Mussolini and the Fascisti. In Spain King Alfonso XIII dissolved the Cortes and turned the govern- ment over to a military dictatorship in 1923. These examples in Italy and Spain were followed in some of the smaller states to curb radicalism. Exaggerated nationalism was one of the fundamental causes of the World War. One of the war aims set forth by the Entente Allies was to curb this world menace and to give all nations, large and small, the right to security and peaceable progress. Nationalism was the most potent force in the conflict, for it was a © War of Nations, or groups of nations, and both sides appealed to it for victory. Much was said about the deliverance of ‘‘submerged nationalities, andi mUgaL TATE SWATH PINTO ON TNT MAN NATO ACOA Chap. XXXVIII| RESULTS OF WORLD WAR 587 this principle was back of the territorial punishment of Germany and the dissolution of Russia, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey. The Paris Peace Conference attempted to resettle Europe on the basis of nationalism, and eight new states appeared on the map of Europe, which seemed to reverse the previous tendency towards larger politi- cal units. It was hoped that a saner and safer type of nationalism would prevail in Europe after the defeat of the Central Powers. Old wrongs of previous wars and congresses, which ignored nationalism, were tighted. In the British Empire the right of the Dominions to exercise control over their own foreign affairs was recognized. But unfortunately the nationalistic spirit was intensified to dangerous proportions as an aftermath of the struggle. Some of the states sought to extend their boundaries at the expense of other nationali- ties, which left ale full of hatreds, fears, and wranglings. In central Europe and the Balkans the ov etlapping territorial claims — the ‘‘gray zones”’ and ‘‘ twilight areas’’ — were difficult to settle satisfactorily and had in them the germs of trouble for the future. Although the Peace Conference sought to adjust problems on the basis of nationality, such questions as Albania, Ireland, Shantung, Korea, Egypt, India, and the Philippines still remained to be settled. Their ‘‘right of self-determination’’ was no longer questioned, and it was expected that the League of Nations would work out a solution of these knotty conflicts. In world history the most significant result of the World War was the organization of the League of Nations. It was seen that within the states generally there was peace, law, order, and a high moral standard, but that among the states there was anarchy, low moral standards, and wars. Christianity taught universal brother- hood, and socialism advocated the obliteration of state lines and the unification of the world on economic class lines. The international- ists, on the contrary, took the nation as a unit and sought to federate the nations for world peace. This effort to use nationalism as the basis for a new political organization of the peoples of earth was called internationalism. The League of Nations was intended to promulgate this peas codperation. Ifit succeeds in accomplishing even a part of what was hoped from it, it will prove to be an epoch- making departure in public world affairs. If the new system of internationalism prevails, with the abolition of secret treaties and the democratization of diplomacy, no national state will assume to set up its own selfish interests against those of mankind. But should the old forces of 1914 triumph, then nationalism may once more be- come a world menace and the causes, which it was hoped had been outgrown, may again deluge the earth with an Armageddon. The World War destroyed the imperialistic ambitions of the Central Powers and Russia. On the other hand, it increased the im- perialism of some of the Entente Allies. Great Britain not only remained the greatest colonial power on earth, but to her also fell Stimulation of national spirit League of Nations —— ae , Set eet one ee eee Saree ee et Pe te ee a a eal rat SS a eae i a ee ee —— esae eee ———— a i _ oe pe eee re eo a em be er raat mae ote satan eae tg ole Pee) So eee eae WK Fail Lure prot €awar against militarism 588 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XXXVIII the largest share of the German colonies and parts of the Turkish Empire. France reg zained Alsace-Lorraine, used the non-payment of German reparations as an excuse for remaining in the Rhine valley and for seizing the Ruhr basin, and, by winning Poland, Czecho- Slovakia, and other small states as her satellites, became the ascendant military power on the continent of Europe. Beyond Europe, with the addition of her portion of the German colonies and the Turkish Empire, she has become the second largest colonial and imperialistic power in the world. Italy not only secured a large part of Italia irredenta but won control of the Adriatic, gained a toothol d in Albania and Asia Minor, and was srlitised ‘compensation’ in Africa to offset the British and French share of German colonial spoils. Belgium like- wise made territorial gains in Africa. The United States secured from Europe a definite recognition of the Monroe Doctrine, departed from her policy of isolation, and took her place among the great world powers. Japan shared with Great Britain the German islands in the Pacific, strengthened her grip on China, and cast greedy eyes on eastern Siberia. A forward step was taken at Paris, however, when the treaty provided for the establishment of ‘“mandates’’ over the German colonies and other backward parts of the globe. This was a recogni- tion of ‘‘the international rather than the national character’’ of imperialism and set up a guardianship under the League of Nations. The Entente Allies characterized the struggle as ‘‘a war to end war.’ Germany and her confederates, it was charged, had wor- shipped force as the best means of attaining their nationalistic ambi- tions. To defeat them the Entente Allies mobilized their military power and employed ‘‘force to the utmost, force without stint or limit’’ forfour long years. Prussian militarism fell by the very thing itchampioned. The peace treaties reduced the military equipment of the Central Powers by land and sea to the minimum necessities of internal police and abolished enforced military service, with the hope that the revival of militarism by them was made impossible. France, however, emerged from the war as the strongest military power on earth, capable of cutting like a knife through any part of Europe. Great Britain still possessed the most powerful navy on the globe. All the Entente Allies, and even the neutrals, to a certain degree, were militarized. In 1922 France was reported to have a standing army of 770,000 men, Russia 1,300,000, Poland 290,000, Italy 250,000, Spain 217,000, Greece 250,000, and Belgium 113,000. Many of the newly created states also supported very large armies. For several years following the conclusion of peace, minor clashes of arms occurred in Europe and Asia as reverberations of the World War. The dangers of Russian Bolshevism perpetuated a state of uneasiness. The Entente Allies kept troops in the Rhine valley. To France the cost of the days of peace was almost as great as the days of war. Europe continued to be pretty much a military c camp with over 4,000,- ooo men under arms.Chap. XXXVIII] RESULTS OF WORLD WAR 589 The vaunted boast of militarism that it preserved the peace of the world was exploded. People now saw that it was the curse of the oldorder, crushing the life out of humanity with heavy taxes, robbing nations of funds for human welfare, and engendering hate, fear, and suspicion in all quarters of the globe. To the Council of the League of Nations, therefore, was entrusted the important task of forming plans for some decisive reduction in armaments, which arrangement was to be revised every ten years. Although the United States had refused to join the League of Nations, still in r921 the national government was in sympathy with the purposes of the League. Con- sequently President Harding in that year invited Great Britain, France, Italy, and Japan to send delegates to attend the Washington Atms Conference. After a remarkable session of several months, it resulted in a general reduction of the navies of the British, the Americans and the Japanese, which were to follow the proportion of 5$:5:3. The relative strength of France and Italy was placed at 1g. As a result of these agreements, billions were saved, the dangerous rivalry of sea armaments was lessened, and the threat of war minimized. The Conference also agreed that poisonous gasses should not be used in future wars, nor were submarines to be employed to sink mer- chant vessels. Since disarmament was closely connected with Pacific problems, China, Portugal, Belgium and Holland were invited to join the other states in (1) agreeing to respect Chinese independence and the ‘‘open door”’ policy; (2) adopting a self-denying understanding that would prevent outside powers from gaining ‘‘special privileges in China; and (3) forbidding the further fortification of the mandated areas of the Pacific. At the same time the Pacific powers pledged each other support in the maintenance of their insular possessions in the Pacific and the use of arbitration to settle disputes over them. The Anglo-Japanese Alliance was replaced by the Four-Power Treaty. Japan agreed to restore Kiao-chau to China and to sell her the Shan- tung railway. These settlements did much to replace international tivalry by coéperation and friendly understanding, and thus elimi- nated enmities and reduced the causes of armed conflict. 3. THe Economic anp SociAL REsuLTs The economic results of the World War were almost as revolu- tionary as the political. Indeed many persons interpreted the conflict as one for industrial supremacy, for world trade and markets, for colonies, and for control of the sources of coal, iron, rubber, oil, and food supplies. ‘‘Economic imperialism’’ was the term applied to the struggle. The defeat of the Central Powers left these material ad- vantages in the hands of the Entente Allies. Then there reappeared in the Entente camp the old rivalries over the division of the spoils of war both within and beyond Europe, which carried with them at times the threat of war. France thought mainly of crushing the economic life of her old foe by depriving her of her iron and coal CELA EET PEA eae ae Washington Conference, 1921 a TUNA NOVO S eee " — sense agers fee eee Sai ae ae a I" Ee CS i See —_——_ - = a teeters = mer =—- " ee —— —————————Re Ne a sae es ed + Genoa Conference ? Ig22 590 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XXXVIII supplies. Italy wish« d to possess the eastern shore of the Adriatic in order to hold the gateways of trade into the Balkans. The British were chiefly concerned with a recovery of the lost trade with Germany and Russia. Landlocked states were seeking ports. In writing the peace treaty the Entente Allies gave little heed to the financial and industrial rehabilitation of Europe, to the stabilization of the new states, to the preservation of economic solidarity among the victors, or to a solution of the chaos in Russia, Germany, Austria, and Italy. Europe was left prostrate, starving, and disintegrating. Reparations were imposed on the defeated powers as punishments and handicaps impossible of fulfillment rather than as measures for restoration. In July, 1919, Mr. Hoover repx yrted that there were 15,000,000 families receiving unemployment allowances. The coal production of the continent declined 30 per cent. The produce of the soil in some of the countries of central and eastern Europe dropped from 50 per cent to 75 per cent of normal. The breakdown of the systems of transpor- tation made matters worse. The debauchery of the currency through the Process of infl impoverished the well-to-do classes and imposed hardships on the Mullions turned their eyes hopefully towards Bolshevism for relief, and the i ation with paper money secretly and arbitrarily workingmen, while it enriched a few shrewd “ profiteers.' whole political, social, and economic system of Europe was threat- ubversion. And so intimately was the life of Europe related to other parts of the globe that everywhere the tremors of the European earthquake were felt. O} In this critical condition, men acquainted with world affairs turned their attention to the herculean task of finding remedies. It was pri yposed: (1) to revise the Treaty of Versailles through either a new conference or the League of Nations; (2) to reduce the repara- tions assessed upon the defeated powers to reasonable sums w hich they could pay in money and materials annually over a long period of time; (3) to pool the inter-Allied debt and apportion it to each mem- ber in proportion to the capacity to meet it, or to cancel it by having the richer members assume the burden; and (4) to raise an inter- national loan for the economic and financial restoration of the states of central and eastern Europe. But the hatreds, fears, and national selfishness aroused by the war were so pronounced that the govern- ments of the world found it impossible to make much headway with these suggestions. Finally, in April, 1922, nearly four years after the conclusion of the World War, Premier Lloyd George of Great Britain called the Genoa Economic Conference. Its purpose was to bring about a solution of Europe’s alarming economic condition. All the European states were invited to attend, and Bolshevist Russia and the German Republic were treated for the first time as members of the society of nations rather than as outlawed states. France sent repre- sentatives only on the understanding that reparations and the Treaty of Versailles should not be changed and that the Russian debt toEA TTT OTN AN ATTAIN TATOO HONOURS POUUATEUTUTUES NEN TERTULTERVPERATORGRAUROERMTOESOLONREDOAOROUDOOONOUTE : anvenae aa ue BURR RR Chap. XXXVIII] RESULTS OF WORLD WAR 591 France should not be questioned. It was estimated that, counting the delegates and assistants of the 34 states, 1,500 persons were in attendance. In his opening address Lloyd George called the con- ference ‘‘the greatest gathering of European nations which has ever assembled on this continent’’ and said that it should make a “ com- mon effort to repair the devastation wrought by the most destructive war ever waged.’ He urged peace as the fundamental need and accused the French of keeping up the “‘snarling’’ and “‘canine clamor,’’ which destroyed confidence and “‘rattled the nerves.’’ He appealed to ‘‘the common statesmanship of Europe’ to save © the cradle of the great civilization which during the last 500 years has spread across the globe.’’ The efforts of the British to bring about an agreement on Russian finances were frustrated by Belgium and France, and the unexpected signing of a Russo-German treaty of alliance spread consternation among the Entente Allies. In the end little was accomplished and the complicated problems were left for future conferences to settle. Under the old era of business, banking, commerce, mining, rail- roading, communication, manufacturing and many other agencies of production, distribution, and finance were left to the initiative of private individuals and corporations. Before the World War, how- ever, governments had begun to regulate business in many ways. In some of the European countries railroads, telegraphs, and express companies had already been taken over by the governments. Social- ists and labor groups had long clamored for the extension of this process. But the war carried forward codperation in industry to a far greater degree than had ever been known before. Governments quite generally took over the means of transportation and communi- cation; controlled or subsidized mines, mills, and factories; inter- vened in labor disputes; regulated the hours of labor, wages, output, consumption, profits, and prices; and operated some of the war in- dustries. After the war ended, it was demanded, chiefly by labor organizations, that these experiments in state socialism, which had been made as war necessities, should be made permanent. Although most of the industries were returned to private hands after the war, still some of the results of the innovations endured. The colossal venture in socialization and nationalization made it easier, should the occasion arise, to repeat the process of conscripting property as well as life for general welfare. ‘Labor won the war’’ was acry heard in industrial centers. With the fighting men at the front, leaving a scarcity of manual workers at home, the importance of labor increased. The rise in wages pro- duced a corresponding increase in the comforts of life. Labor bore its share in the war loyally, but it also perfected its organization, and demanded higher pay, shorter hours, and better working conditions. The war and state socialism When peace came, labor was so strong that it could not only main- War and tain war scales of wages but even increased them. Hence, with the Le atl labor ots ows = ee ete aaa i ad aa as SS —————— — rem! ae as aS a = —— ae LeFO ae art CT Pert Te ees eee ee r War and women International finance 592 MODERN WORLD HISTORY ([Chap. XXXVIII post-war decline in the price of products, the world was disturbed with a contagion of strikes and unemployment during the period of economic reconstruction. One of the results of the war was the de- crease in the number of skilled workers through death, injury, and disease. Another result was the employment of large numbers of women in labor formerly performed by men alone. And still another result was that labor began to demand a larger share in the responsi- bilities of industry. The new status of labor was reflected in politics by the organization of labor parties, by the widening of the franchise, and by the governmental recognition of the rights of labor. The Paris Peace Conference recognized this new status of labor in creating the International Labor Organization already mentioned. The war also stressed the primary importance of agriculture in modern life and the value of having a large number of small peasant farmers. In Russia. Prussia, Austria, Poland, and elsewhere, the large estates wete divided among the people. In Great Britain the large landlords, in many instances, voluntarily divided their huge holdings among the tillers of the soil. As a consequence of this economic revolution, the rural districts in some countries in Europe have gained a preponder- ance over the cities. The world will be the gainer undoubtedly by these changes. The mobilization of the industrial life of the world for a mighty international purpose brought multitudes of women and children into many new fields of human activity. Indeed there was great danger that the pressure for output to win the wat would be taken as an excuse for breaking down all the safeguards that had been built up to protect them against industrial abuses. The demonstrated ability of woman in the work of the world, and her right to equal pay with man, were recognized. In the munition factories of France, for in- stance, women ran heavy lathes and drills, and operated forges and trip-hammers. In some kinds of work they revealed a dexterity and skill superior to men. It was a recognition of the new status of woman that led the more progressive nations to extend the privilege of voting to them. During the war, money played as powerful a role as soldiers, food. and labor. Bankers and financiers gained a new significance. Never had international loans and credits been carried out on so gigantic a scale. National systems of finance had to be reorganized, new taxes devised, billions of dollars worth of bonds sold, and mil- lions raised for charitable work in caring for the sick and wounded, and in saving the starving. Opportunities were given, likewise, for profiteering, and millionaires were created on an unprecedented scale. Paper currency flooded Europe to an unheard of degree, prices soared, and the value of money declined until at the close of the conflict European countries were on the verge of bankruptcy. The whole earth was left in more or less economic chaos, showing how the normal standards of life may be disturbed by a great modern wat.N THTTATUATATATTARTATATORURRT AUTRE RRP URROAORRUGD | TUUAVUEANAR NDR CETTE OGTTEVGHVTUGATATGATLVVATTEOGYOVAHTAVGHE SHMTUCTT TAN TN UNIMON NOONAN NSP Beal 5 aeen ul Chap. XXXVIII] RESULTS OF WORLD WAR 593 Out of these conditions came a tremendous impetus to all sorts of socialism. The radical Socialists, called Communists or Bolshevists, gained control of Russia, where they created a Soviet Republic, crushed all counter-revolutions, and attempted to reorganize the whole life of the nation. They made peace with the Central Powers, and carried on propaganda among neighboring peoples and even in distant lands, where harsh measures were used against them. In some countries, notably, Great Britain gild-socialism appeared as a counter-tendency to secure industrial democracy through profit- sharing, shop stewards, and joint management without the aid of the state. Trade-unions, including members in all kinds of occupa- tions from farmers to government officials, covered nearly all parts of the globe and sought to improve the lot of the workers and to gain control of industry through legal means. Germany, Great Britain, Russia, the United States, and France, in the order named, had the largest membership. The International Federation of Trade Unions with headquarters in Amsterdam in 1921 had 24,000,000 members. After the World War every industrial country on earth had one, and some of them several, Socialist parties, the divisions being caused largely by their attitude towards the World War. After the Russian Revolution of 1917 Communist parties appeared in most of the ad- vanced states of Europe and the world, and in some countries like Germany and Italy their ranks were split by factions. Socialists and Communists in general disagree as to methods rather than ultimate ideals. All of them agree that industry for private profit produces anti-social results, but they differ widely as to the form the socialist society should take and as to the means to be employed to attain their goal. Their programs have been gradually widening until they now include all spheres of both national and international policy. Asa result of the renewed interest in socialism, there was planted in the minds of millions the conviction that economic reforms and social readjustments were imperatively needed, and that competition must give way to cooperation. The lessons of codperation — local, national, and international — enforced by the World War were not lost. A new conception of the character and purpose of human society was gained. ‘The suc- cessful experiments in democratic conscription for military and in- dustrial service revealed the startling possibilities of what might be accomplished for the common good in time of peace. The war re- vealed a tendency towards the confiscation of great fortunes for the welfare of the state, and the consequent equalization of wealth. After seeing billions of dollars and millions of lives wasted in war, men asked why similar energy, brains, and wealth might not be devoted to the solution of the problems of civilization. Humanity was stressed as superior to both the individual and the nation, and a new sense of social values was created. The codperative methods of raising money for slaughter gave people a better conception of PO EEE EEE at War and socialism a nee ees ar oe eon reno —— = m See ee. a ieee ie ee seesee ee A A a ee ES ————— ee Se ree Si Lee ea The war and the races 594 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XXXVIII what might be done to eradicate human disease, to spread intelli- gence, and to abolish poverty. THe RELIGIOUS AND EDUCATIONAL RESULTS OF THE WAR The war was not a religious conflict. Men of all faiths and of no faith were found fighting on both sides. Nationelitue: racial, and economic motives, not religious, controlled men. Both groups called their cause righteous and prayed to the same God for victory. The war, with its lies and deceptions, its coarsening and brutalizing nfluences. its hatreds and crimes, its barbarities sh massacres, its 11 sacrifice of life and devilish cruelty, was a travesty on the - fundamental teachings of Christianity. Yet it must be rememb sa that the vari- ous religious societies sou tht in every Pi way to mitigate the horrors and cruelties; to “id the sick and wounded and to care for the dying; and to provide comforts aa wholesome recreation for the soldiers in the trenches. For these worthy purposes millions of dollars were generously contributed. Never before on so large a scale had Christians, Jews, Mohammedans, Hindus, and Confucians 1 more harmoniously wae two warring groups. In America, Christian churches anc 1 Je Wee synagogues pooled their charitable work, while the Y M.< Y.W.C.A., Knights of Co- lumbus, the Salvation Army, and 7 ish Welfare Board united to keep up the morale of the soldiers on the fighting lines. The Inter- national Red Cross was conspicuous for its humanitarian work. The entrance into the long sleep of so many brave youths led to an ex- traordinary interest in spiritualism and occult mysteries. Ihe Papacy and other religious organizations made futile efforts to secure peace by negotiation. Ihe Orthodox Church in Russia was quite seriously disrupted. As a result of the sentiment engendered by the war, the Protestant bodies of the United States through the Inter-Church World Movement sought to unite all denominations in a mighty codperative effort to carry the Gospel and Christian civilization more effectively to all parts of the globe. Millions of men white, red, black, yellow, and brown — from the corners of the earth rushed to the Europe: in battlefields. The war was an intermingling of the races and nations of earth. Nothing in the world’s history — neither the w: anderings of the barbarians in the early days nor the crusades of the Middle Ages — could compare ~ with this national, racial, and religious mingling in the war. Mens minds were broadened and their sympathies enlarged by travel to new lands, strange peoples, and foreign institutions. While it meant death and suffering to many, to others it brought knowledge, ex- perience, education, and new contacts. The colored races Came tO have less fear of their white masters, and gained a self-confident expectation that through the principle of ‘‘self-determination’’ they might become masters of their own destinies. In Europe the first effect of the war on education was seen in themn TARAARAEG EAT THAT TOTAAL Hi CTT DANTON 0a Chap. XXXVIII] RESULTS OF WORLD WAR S95 desertion of the halls of higher learning by both students and pro- fessors. The same thing occurred among the older boys and the teachers of the secondary schools. Efforts were made, however, to keep the processes of education running normally for the younger pupils, but the call of the male teachers to service and the appropria- tion of the school buildings for war needs, together with the em- ployment of children in industry, largely defeated these intentions. Steps were taken, however, through “continuation schools’’ and “adult education’’ to provide educational facilities for those who were in military service, and the various armies became in a sense popular universities.’ Special means were taken to instruct the civilians in the war aims through the use of the press, pulpit, plat- form, music, and the movies as shoth official and unofficial mediums of propaganda. Most countries had assigned the direction of propa- ganda to responsible national bodies like the Committee of Public Information in the United States, the British Department of Informa- tion, and the German Press Department of the Foreign Office. The knowledge of the history and geography of the world was greatly increased. Conscription revealed an astonishingly large percentage of those who were illiterate and physically unfit, which resulted in placing a stronger emphasis on the training of the body as well as the education of the mind and morals. After the war ended, in the first enthusiasm over reconstruction, the world was going to be made over through education. In England the Act of 1918 made attendance at school up to the age of 14 obliga: tory, and gave local boards power to care for the health of the pupils and to provide for the defectives. Young persons between 14 and 18 were required to attend continuation schools for at least 320 hours a year. In Scotland similar measures were taken, but the educational authority was centralized in the hands of about 40 boards. In Russia and the new states of Europe occurred the greatest changes in popular education. In most of the war-wrecked countries of Europe, as the black days followed the waste of resources and wealth, programs of educational progress were suspended. The war left in its wake piti- ful problems of cultural reconstruction. Art, music, and literature were dealt a stunning blow. And yet a new thirst for learning imbued the youths of the world and the schools and colleges were crowded beyond their capacity. In the field of experimental science and its application, there was marvelous advance. One needs only think of the improvements and inventions in artillery, machine guns, explosives, gases, tanks, air- planes, submarines, wireless communication, and navigation to com- prehend the impetus supplied by the war. Many of these agencies of destructive warfare were converted to the uses of peace after the con- flict ended. Both groups of belligerents were forced to create many things which in pre-war days they bought from each other. | Tana BRAURO RRR — The war and education Thus The war and Great Britain and the United States developed their own chemical 7” Fah herent Date sh Lo Tae Se a ee ee OCsTie iy Vite EaaEe pict ee 596 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XXXVIII and dyeing establishments, an industry which Germany practically monopolized before 1914. In surgery, sanitation, preventive medi- cine, antiseptics, and dentistry the experience gained in the war will be serviceable in the years ahead. New methods of detecting and cur- ing mental disorders were discovered. Vocational education for dis- abled soldiers was so successful that governments are applying it to industry. The gains made in scientific knowledge are being applied to agriculture and all forms of business. Perhaps the greatest single lesson learned from the war was that of co6peration in a competitive world. It was coOperation among the Entente Allies that enabled them to defeat the Central Powers. It was coOperation within the national groups that gave efficiency to the members of the two warring alliances. It was clearly demon- The war and strated that no single nation can any longer set its own interests above mene mal —_ those of the rest of the world. No autocratic monarch can put his ee a ai will above that of the people. No social class, whether wage-earners or Capitalists, can dominate an entire social group. No individual can ignore his obligations to his fellow man. Political codperation is the prerequisite of a better state. International codperation means a cessation of world anarchy. Industrial codperation will apply democ- racy to trade and industry. Religious cooperation will spread higher moral standards more effectively over the earth. Educational co- operation will abolish ignorance and superstition, and advance man to a higher plane of civilization. Is 1t too much to hope that against the old order of competitive nationalism, competitive patriotism, competitive armaments, competitive alliances, competitive systems of culture, competitive industry, competitive colonial empires, and competitive ambitions to dominate the world, there will evolve, eventually, a new world order of codperation, friendly international understanding, mutual goodwill, security, and peace? REFERENCES FOR FURTHER STUDY E. L. Bocart, Direct and Indirect Costs of the Great War | 1919); H. A. GrsBons, Introduction to World Politics (1922); O. Spencer, Der Untergang des Abendlandes (1917); F. A. VanpberupP, What Happened to Europe (1919); What Next in Europe (1922); F. «& Hicxs, The New World Order (1920); N. ANGELL, The Fruits of Victory (1921); A. Dp- MANGEON, Le declin de l'Europe (English translation, America and the Race for World Dominion) (1921); F. Nuri, Europe u ithout Peace (1922); The Decadence of Europe ( 1923 ); F. A. Occ and C. A. Brarp, National Governments and the World War (1919); D. C. Macmurtigz, The Disabled Soldier 1919); F. A. CLEVELAND and J. Scuarer, Democracy and Reconstruction (1920); B. RussgiLL, Proposed Roads to Freedom (1919); A. GLEason, What the Workers Want (1919); J. A. Hosson, The New Protectionism (1917); W.S. Cut- BERTSON, Commercial Policy in War Time and After (1919); T. F. Mitiarp, Democracy and the Eastern Question (1919); B. L P Weare. The Truth about China and Japan (1919); : R. L. Bugty, The Washington Conference (1922); D. W. Morrow, Lhe Society of Free States (1919); J. W. HucHan, International Government (1923); M. E. Ravacg, The Malady of Europe (1923). Dl Te ds ot. .ee — ‘ UU ANNAN AON AM MN ND Saat Ph eee eT ce ty erent cep te — eT i i} f ! 1 i} PUVAGTRRL TULA N TORRE ERE ERE ee aerase —— ~ es en ern ee ae Sees ene ek ae | | 4 ae eee * a | Sal : | _- 140 120 20 West — as . : 2 ee Kartographische Anstalt von FP. A. Brockhaus, Leipzig, Germany. Pee ade corer ham wa Som Peers Aa Sao Sot ieee ray ceLU ANTONIOU POGLESATTTUESATOOATR TENET RTA ens ae ates oases” Se nee aa ae De ere he a Brrr ey amen Novara Ze my a Rie | Qy i pw tS i ——— | Ld ; } 7 i le = + 2 = | 2 Ja « ° 2 AO es 6F.2~ « Ss i i) =~ pac. ae _— = = 4) i i i a iim | — a me | —— — = — — — — 7 20 *: Marianne IF : : ae - ». Marshall JS eaital SNime sales eta eE . \ on Is e- * (aro Ute . Ss z \ o, Clbgtl 0 | ’ , pes & “s mn * 7 i} ~~ <—, * sD : os i MT = Saomorn I$ : | Seem te / Noe : .t . ~ / i ai es eS nut fet —--4-- ~ . saat cae Oil 9; Ree eS et ea - : | sbi. - Cale Madagascay Brisb r / / Be ‘ la—coT “NI ae \ =o yan Wie poe ig Pas lea AA 4 OF Auckl. ~ i 7 i a“ r i lena ~ + ean fe é New 40 | ; + —- Thsmaua Bs Zeelan wall. a dl y ‘ a =e Le Ne y 7 Crozet Is Kerguelen [§ > : Ne cm MAP OF WORLD SHOWING FOOD STUFFS 1914 i Ex ») Wheat and Rve Barley and Oats doce Fruits | | | | Meat oT an Le ea ee SS = =a oe —_—. Principal Railways Se Principal Steamslup Lines _._._. Caravan Roules Scale of Miles along Equator 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 a= __ ET — 4 epuapeepenenaneaaseaseen : eee ee Lee So L 1s 1 lL lL . 20 from 40 Greelw. 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 = a ——————— eed a ee rs ‘b. ae * : ) TATAUHT TAU A NRA AA OR OR RUST RCT Re PELE Ee —i ‘ o H ‘ Ml a) ia0 if ; i f Hitt ne ae ' | ei / ae oe ae | oF nl a ; | | i | ae Ht 1} | eae ; i i a ee eee aed ——e eee ee — —————— eet re reno eee+} aa an aul weauea ae WERWNRRRHOAAE ay iit] Be TTA MVVUTeVHTITTVTUVTTITUTVGGTATTTUUONATIUUUGHTATAUUCGHRTTUUUGVGATLOVUGNTANVUGNYORAUOQQQSTOTEOQQOORILL ANTON OACUASO i CHAPTER XXXIX EUROPEAN REVOLUTIONS SINCE 1914 AND THE CREATION OF NEW STATES t. THe Russtan REVOLUTION One of the most interesting historical outgrowths of the World Wart was the Russian Revolution, which abolished the autocracy of the tsar and apparently started Russia on the path of political and industrial democracy. When the epoch-making event occurred in March, 1917, the democratic peoples of the globe rejoiced exceed- ingly. No longer did the Entente Allies have to apologize for a despotic partner, since Russia now took her place among other free countries. But the control of the Revolution soon passed from the hands of the liberals and democrats into the hands of the communistic Bolsheviki. This change caused wide-spread alarm and fear. Just as the radical measures and frightful excesses of the French Revolu- tion of 1789 frightened conservative contemporaries and blinded French and them to many of the constructive effects of that movement, so the tyranny, bloodshed, folly, and novel experiments of the Bolsheviki have aroused the suspicion and hostility of the more stable demo- cratic governments of today. Yet Russia, like a young giant, stag- gering under a mighty burden, is groping for light and freedom. A century hence, when many of the events of the World War that loom large now will have faded in importance, the Russian expert- ment may stand out in strong relief as one of the greatest products of the conflict. The Russian Empire in 1914 was the largest continuous empire on earth. It included one sixth of the landed surface of the globe and had 180,000,000 people. In civilization, it was the most backward of all the great powers. Its position astride two continents, its gigantic military machine, and its vast natural wealth, gave it a prominent place in international affairs. Tsar Nicholas II, as auto- crat of all the Russias, was the most powerful ruler in the world. In his hands and those of his advisers was vested all imperial power, although, since the Revolution of 1905, a national parliament called Russia the Duma had exercised a shadowy authority. Local government was managed by the zemstvos dating from 1864. Socially, the people were divided into classes very much as in France under the old régime. The Industrial Revolution, since 1900, had been making rapid head- way. The masses of the people were illiterate and unprogressive. The Orthodox Church was a close ally of the state in controlling the people. A friendly understanding with Great Britain and Japan, 597 PET T UTTAR ASTUTE etl sae a pa BS ea: a, wee 5 mae te tel ps Pe - an eens at rr aa ore)+ So PR ee EE ESN = oA IE ees a oe te WF a ee Oe PLATS eT Ee ES TS oe RD Sas scr f Au Tid aii ; the war er 614 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XXXIX ~ ~ ~ 1919, on the basis « f universal franchise, with the Social Democrat: and Christian Socialists in a large majority. Thi s body, which met March 4, after concluding the treaty ace St. Germain with the Entente Allies on September 10, proceeded to draw up the permanent consti- tution. which went into effect on ete [,, 1920: It declared Austria to be a federal, democratic Republic, composed of eight autonomous states. peter citizenship was based on state citizenship. “Privileges, based upot birth, rank, class, or religious belief’’ were abolis ae The powers of the “Federal State were more extensive than those of the national government in the United States. In addition to the ordinary functions of government, pro- vision was made for a ‘‘ labor law’’ to protect the workers, for social and contract insurance, for public health, for the control of food- stuffs. for the care of the unfortunates, for land reforms, and for pop- ular education. The Federal Legislature consisted of two houses: the Nationalrat, elected by all the people according to the principle of proportional representation for a four-year term; and the Bundes- rat, chosen by the Landtags of the eight States. As in France, these two houses ‘‘in a joint public sitting © selected the federal presi dent by secret ballot for a term of four years, with the p srivilege of reélec- tion. The federal ministry exercised the “highest administrative functions, and was elected by and resp sonsible to the Nationalrat The administration of justice was prescribed by federal law, and capital punishment was abolished, but a Supreme Constitutional 1 Court was established by the constitution. Of all the new constitu- iL tions growing out oO f the post-war conditions, that of Austria was the most elaborate document. On October 17, 1920, at the first elections under the new consti- tution. the Christian Socialists and Social Democrats won a large majority, and on December 9 the two houses elected Dr. Michael Hainisch as the first preside nt. The new cabinet represented the Christian Socialists. The Republic of Austria had an area less than that of Portugal and a population of 6,500,000, of whom 2,000,000 lived in the capital city of Vienna alone. On the verge of financial bankruptcy, and cut off from the sea, the plight of Austria was pitiable. The peace treaty took away from Austria her most valuable mines and industries, and reduced her army tO 30,000 men. Lack of employment and food brought the people to the brink of starva- tion. The sentiment of the people was in favor of annexation to Germany but that was expressly forbidden by the Paris Peace Con- ference. The terrible conditions in Austria induced the League of Nations to take up the economic rehabilitation of the nation in ozs, An ‘nternational loan of $130,000,000, based on Austrian railroads and custom receipts and guaranteed by some of the European powers was authorized. Since 1922 conditions have been gradually improvi ing although the comp slete recovery of the country still appears distant.a MT NNO MTONANON ONCE eee eRe | aan nae ij PETVEUTUTTTETAUTTANTAUNTRURTVORLOORVUOATOERWERROUKLY WL 5 = i Chap. XXXIX] EUROPEAN REVOLUTIONS SINCE 1914 615 King Charles abdicated the Hungarian throne in November, 1918, and the revolutionary forces proclaimed Hungary an independent People’s Republic with Count Karolyi as provisional president. A Provisional National Assembly, elected by universal suffrage, replaced the old legislature. An attempt was made in 1919 to win over the support of the peasants by a law to divide up among them all estates Hungary above 900 acres. In March of that year, however, the Communists ‘” 1978 overthrew the rule of Count Karolyi and set up a Soviet Republic under Bela Kun, who had been trained at Moscow in Bolshevist propaganda. An era of terror was instituted, and a complete eco- nomic revolution resulted. Private property was taken by the state; trade became a national monopoly; factories were taken over by councils of workmen; and all land was confiscated. Encouraged by the Entente Allies, Rumanian troops invaded the country, over- threw the Bolshevist régime, and plundered the land most shamefully from peasant’s hut to palace. When they withdrew, the Hungarian National Assembly in 1920 made Admiral Horthy regent. TR een TET Set ine ena eee 4. THe War AND THE New Nartionat Srates oF NoRTHERN AND CENTRAL EUROPE A. Introductory One of the most important results of the World War was the political emergence and independence of several new national states which had previously been suppressed or denied a separate political existence or the full realization of their national aspirations. These new national states include the Finnish peoples of Finland, Esthonia and northern Livonia; the Letts and Lithuanians of the Baltic provinces of southern Livonia, Courland and their hinterland; the Poles of former Russia, Prussia and Austria; the Ruthenians of the Ukraine, and the Czecho-Slovaks of Bohemia and Moravia. B. The Finnish Peoples The northernmost of these suppressed national groups were the peoples of Finland, Esthonia and northern Livonia. For six cen- turies Finland was an integral part of the Swedish Kingdom. In 1809 Sweden ceded all of Finland to Russia. During the six centuries Union with of union with Sweden, the country had been subjected to a social, Sen political and economic development which had made it an integral part of the Scandinavian group of states. By 1809 Finland enjoyed practically independent political life and institutions, although the country was naturally governed by the laws common to the Swedish kingdom. Upon becoming united to Russia, Finland was given guarantees of complete internal political and cultural autonomy. The Diet was granted complete independence in governing the country according to existing laws; no attempt was made to incorporate the country yen SE a etnies 3 <= OO ——_— ee a EEE Ea WAVis m a een iit PeSLUELAAEa ALTA Peete aT ae ly 616 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XXXIX Acquisition politically in the Russian Empire, except as regards the sphere of by Kussia foreign relations. The autonomy thus established continued, gen- erally speaking, till the eighteen-nineties, when the advocates of Pan-Slavism and Russification induced Nicholas IL to extend these policies to Finland. An imperial ukase was issued in February, 1899, whereby the Finnish constitution was swept aside. The passive Finland under tesistance to this and kindred measures which appeared had no other ee effect upon the policy of Russification than the persecution of leading Finns, many of whom were compelled to leave their country for other lands, whence they continued to labor for the defeat of the policies of Plehve. Bobrikov and other Russian officials. On the eve of the Russo-Japanese War it seemed that Governor-General Bobrikov would succeed in getting dictatorial powers which would have enabled him to disregard completely the Finnish constitution and Diet. But the outbreak of the war with Japan and the subsequent revolution in Russia compelled the tsar to restore the constitution and to consent to the many liberal political reforms proposed by the Finns. Among these was the establishment, in 1906, of a single cham- ber Diet of 200 members in place of the antiquated Parliament in which representation by estates had prevailed, and the granting of the right to vote to women as well as men. However, a revival of Russification after 1908 precipitated new difficulties and a disregard of the rights of Finland which seemed to suggest, at the time of the outbreak of the World War, that no distant future would witness a complete abrogation of the constitution and a final political amal- gamation of the country with the Russian Empire. The World War brought with it martial law and the practical ces- sation of ordinary governmental agencies. The high-handed rule of the Russian gendarmes and military officials was checked only in 1917 Finland during when the Russian Revolution broke out. The Russian Provisional te war Government withdrew most of the more important officials from Fin- land in March. During the spring and summer months the whole government was purged of its Russian elements and on December 6, 1917, the Finnish declaration of independence was issued by the Provisional Government. The Bolshevist government recognized the independence of Finland on December 27, and Sweden, France and Germany did likewise in the following month. Other recognitions followed later. Even before the declaration of independence was issued, it was becoming evident that internal difficulties were brewing in the country. Certain extreme radicals considered the time ripe for the establishment, in close codperation with the Russian Bolshevik government, of a Socialist Republic on the Russian pattern. Taking Movement for advantage of the presence of tens of thousands of Russian soldiers Independence who had refused to leave the country after the March Revolution, and receiving guns and munitions from Russia, resistance by force was offered by the radical elements to the Svinhufvud government. - TE eT i “: fet : art Pert MITT aTHT | MITTIN iar MNT ONORRES aa Chap. XXXIX] EUROPEAN REVOLUTIONS ‘SINCE 1914 617 The civil war which ensued broke out in January, 1918. Most of southern Finland fell into the hands of the revolutionaries, while the northern part of the country gave effective assistance to General G. Mannerheim, a former Finnish officer in the Russian Army who had undertaken the suppression of the rebellion. The difficulty of saving south Finland from destruction at the hands of the revolu- tionaries led to negotiations for foreign aid. Sweden was approached but refused to act, partly because of English pressure. Germany, however, was induced to send an expedition under the command of General Riidiger von der Goltz, who landed in Hango on March tr. The German troops ousted the revolutionaries from Helsingfors on March 13, and by the middle of April the frightful Civil War was brought to a close by the combined efforts of the Finnish and German soldiers. The latter were withdrawn in December, upon the defeat of the Central Powers and the conclusion of the armistice. The first regular elections were held in March, 1919. The com- position of the Diet, which was to make provision for a permanent government, was as follows: 80 Social Democrats, 42 Agtarians, 28 Coalitionists, 26 Progressives, 22 Swedish Nationalists, and 2 Repre- sentatives of the Christian Workers’ Party. It assembled on April 1 Government and framed a new democratic, republican constitution which was of es put into operation on July 17. The constitution vested the sovereign “ power in the people and subordinated the president, who is chosen by indirect election for a term of six years, to the Diet by denying him the veto power. The Diet is elected for three years by universal, direct and equal suffrage. The constitution included special pro- visions for the benefit of the Swedish speaking population of the country (who constitute about ten per cent of the population) by establishing Finnish and Swedish as the national languages of the Republic. It also guaranteed individual liberties and established ministerial responsibility. The first president, K. J. Stahlberg, chosen by the Diet on July 15, 1919, was succeeded by the present incumbent in office, L. K. Relander, in February 1925. The area of the Republic is 145,000 square miles and its population, 3,360,000, of whom more than 95 per cent are Lutherans. Since 1919, Finland has added greatly to the body of social and economic legislation which was considerable even before the war. The agrarian problem was partly solved by the enactment of a law in 1918 for the redemption of leasehold properties, whereby about 50,000 independent freehold properties had been created by 1922. It was supplemented by additional legislation in 1921 and by “Lex Kallio,’ passed in October, 1922. By the latter law in particular, the agrarian question seems to be satisfactorily solved. In the field of foreign relations, Finland has been able to avoid clashes with her neighbors, especially since 1921. The war with Russia was brought to a close by the Peace of Dorpat on November 14, 1920 whereby Russia recognized Finland’s independence while rn 5 pn eee ee aes — re EET eee atlSVT apapeaaee™ ’ r ae! Rennes re 618 MODERN WORLD HISTORY ([Chap. XXXIX the latter had to renounce all claims to East Carelia; the district was granted local autonomy. A revolt broke out in East Carelia in the fall of 1921 because of Russia’s failure to fulfill the treaty provisions relative to that region. Finland sympathized with the Carelians and appealed to the League of Nations which submitted the question to the Permanent Court of International Justice in April, 1923. Russia being a non-member of the League refused to recognize the competency Foreign of the Court, and the Court refused to submit an opinion in the case. relations The Carelian problem, while at present unsolved, is not likely to disturb seriously the relations between the two states. Relations with Sweden were temporarily marred by the controversy overt the Aland islands which Sweden claimed in 1918. The difficulty was finally settled by the League of Nations in 1921. Finland's sovet- eignty over the islands was recognized and Finland undertook to Vis A lemilitarize the archipelago. Since 1921, relations with Sweden, Denmark and Norway have served to bring the four states of northern Europe into effective friendly codperation, as is suggested by the numerous official and non-official inter-Scandinavian conferences which have been held every year, and more especially, by the arb1- tration treaties concluded by these states in 1924. The history of the Esthonians prior to the World War is a long ppression by foreigners. The collapse of ~ story of conquest and sup} : Sweden’s power in the eighteenth century enabled Peter the Great to History of take possession of the Baltic provinces, and by the Peace of Nystad, Esthonta Esthonia was ceded to Russia. Under Russian rule the condition of y became worse, and despite prolonged efforts to ed reforms, it was not till 1819 that serfdom was the people rapid] effect much need nominally abolished in Esthonia and Livonia. By the close of the nineteenth century, however, some improvement had been brought about despite the opposition both of the aristocratic Baltic barons, the Russian government. who constituted the upper class, and of The provinces broke out in revolt during the Russian Revolution of 1905, but nothing was gained thereby, for the Russian punitive expeditions had little difficulty in putting down the uprising. The World War and the Russian Revolution in 1917 brought unex- pected relief. The Russian Provisional Government sanctioned, on March 30, 1917, the convocation of an Esthonian Diet and thus vir- tually granted Esthonia the right of self-government. The Diet assembled in July and declared itself the supreme power in the country until the convocation of a Constituent Assembly. At its last meeting on November 28, 1917, the Diet created an Executive Committee | which was entrusted with full powers to deal with the situation in the country. The Committee declared Esthonia an independent state on February 24, 1918. This independence was hardly more Independence than nominal for several months, for the cessation of hostilities on the Eastern front enabled the Germans to occupy the country by the close of February. Only after the Allied victory was the EsthonianWUTC UOAA Hy ne Chap. XXXIX] EUROPEAN REVOLUTIONS SINCE 1914 619 Provisional Government able to assume control, in November. Its first task was to defend the country against the Bolsheviks who began an offensive against Esthonia in the closing days of November, 1918. The war lasted for about a year and peace was finally made on Feb- ruary 2, 1920, whereby Esthonia’s independence was recognized. Simultaneously a war was fought against the German Landwehr who were ousted with the aid of the Allies in July, 1919. During these struggles, a Constituent Assembly met on April 23, 1919. Its labors were completed June 15, 1920, when it passed a new constitution which established the Republic of Esthonia. The single chamber Diet (Riigikogu) consists of roo members, elected for three years by universal, direct, equal, and secret suffrage. The Government president, who is called the ‘Head of the State’’ is subordinated 44 parties to the Diet and has no veto power. He is elected for no specific term, and remains in office only while enjoying the confidence of the Diet. The supreme judicial power is vested in the State Court of Justice elected by the Diet. The present government, elected in August, 1923, has experienced great difficulties in dealing with the existing dozen or more political parties. The chief parties obtained in 1923 the following representation in the Diet: Socialists 15, Labor 12, People’s Party 8, Agrarians 23. The area of the Republic is 18,354 square miles and the population, according to the census of 1922, 1,107,393. Esthonia’s foreign policy has enabled the country to maintain peaceful relations with her neighbors. Since 1920, Esthonia has been active in lending support to the establishment of an alliance between Finland and the three Baltic states, Lithuania, Latvia and Esthonia. In March, 1922 these states (except Lithuania) and Poland concluded Foreign policy in Warsaw a defensive alliance, designed to weld the participants into a workable political unit in respect to their foreign policies. The treaty was ratified by all the states except Finland which thus prevented the realization of the alliance. However, Esthonia con- cluded a treaty with Latvia on November 1, 1923 which provided for a customs union and established a defensive alliance. In general, the relations between these two states have brought them into close cooperation along many lines of economic and political action. C. The Letts and Lithuanians Living next to the Esthonians are the Letts and the Lithuanians who inhabit the Baltic provinces of southern Livonia and Courland and their hinterland. The Letts dwell in the Baltic coast region and the Lithuanians in the adjacent inland districts. and Lithuanians are physically identical and linguistically and cul- turally closely allied, their history has been at least slightly different. By the Treaty of Nystad in 1721 Livonia was ceded by Sweden to Russia and Courland was obtained by the third partition of Poland. Lithuania constituted the major portion of Poland which went to SUA REAURN RB al While the Letts Early history a PE Dae Sreregee edd man ew or ee [eras — ———— —————————Re SS A Le a at SS es. Re a ae | TL eS ES > Ps shsia Lai VIG 620 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XXXIX Russia in the partitions from 1772 to 1795. Until 1876 it was allowed a considerable amount of cultural autonomy, but after that date the Russification policy was pursued with the usual result of only increasing the national sentiment of the Lithuanians. Racially the Letts and Lithuanians are identical, both being branches of the same primordial Nordic race from which the Teutons and Finns were also differentiated. The Lithuanian language 1s one of the most interesting in Europe, being the best preserved repre- sentative of the so-called “Aryan type. ; The history of the area included in contemporary Latvia, with the exception of Latgallia, 1s characterized by the same general develop- Witt TOT 1 ioe a {TO ' he . a i. | . h ' A Simila le le ¢ raat ment noted above 1n The Case of Esthonia. oimilarly, aiso, Latvia S independence was made possible by the World War and its results. 1 Most of the country was occupicd Dj the Germans from [915 tO I9I6. The defeat of the Central Powers saved the Letts from the results of an attempt to include them in the contemplated Baltic principality un- der German control, although troubles with the Germans came to an end only in 1919. The Russian Revolution created additional difficul- ties, culminating in a war between Latvia and the Bolsheviks which was brought to a close by the Peace of Riga in August, 1920, whereby Russia recognized Latvia’s independence. While these chaotic conditions prevailed there appeared, with Allied and Esthonian help, the Provisional Government headed by K. Ulmanis. The Latvian Republic was proclaimed by a national council on November 18, 1918. The Latvian Constituent Assembly adopted a constitution for the Republic on February 15, 1922 which became operative on November 7 of the same year. It provided for a single chamber Diet (the Saeima) of 100 representatives, chosen by universal secret and proportional] suffrage, for a period of three years. The president, elected by the Diet for a term of three year, 1s denied the veto power and is thus subordinated to the representatives of the people. The population of the republic is about 1,550,000 of whom more than one half are Lutherans. The area of the country is approximately 25,000 square miles or the size of the state of West Virginia, and the pop- ulation in 1924 was about 2,000,000. Perhaps the most important aspect of the internal development of Latvia is the Land Act of September 16, 1920. It provided for the transfer of all large estates to the state; Management by the state of some 3,500,000 acres of forest land; and liquidation of the large agricultural enterprises. Ihe Act made possible the allotment of about 100,000 family holdings on tillable land to landless agricultural laborers and other needy persons. No compensation was awarded to the former landowners who were left with a maximum of 50 hectares: but a small indemnity was granted them in 1923 for live stock and implements. Having become a part of Russia as the result of the partitions of Poland in the eighteenth century, Lithuania became subjected to a! UY Ml ———— | I i} | | {i | Tanah he me agg UAL AONE } Se a a hn neal BR Ph oT we. Chap. XXXIX] EUROPEAN REVOLUTIONS SINCE 1914 621 vigorous policy of Russification in the nineteenth. Russian law was introduced in 1840; the University of Vilna and most secondary schools were closed; and in 1864, at the very time when serfdom was Russification abolished, the publication of Lithuanian books and newspapers was of Lithuania forbidden. The Russian Revolution of 1905 brought temporary relief. Freedom of the press was once more restored and individual liberties guaranteed, but these concessions were nullified by the renewed Russification policy after 1908. The World War had barely com- menced when the movement for Lithuanian independence was begun. Lithuanians abroad met at various conferences for the purpose of propagating the idea, and after the downfall of Russia, German attempts to subordinate Lithuanian agitations to a scheme for the creation of a Lithuanian principality only stimulated these efforts. The Lithuanian representatives in the Russian Duma adopted a resolution demanding independence on February 21, 1917. In No- Independence vember the Supreme Lithuanian Council demanded a free, independ- ent Lithuania, which was formally declared on February 16, 1918. Difficulties with the Poles, who attempted to include Lithuania in the new state of Poland, prevented the establishment of stable gov- ernment until 1920, when a Constituent Assembly convened on May 15 to draft a constitution. M. Stulginskis was elected temporary president of Lithuania in June of that year, and was elected president for another term in February, 1923. The new constitution was adopted on August 1, 1922. It provided for a single chamber Parliament (the Seimas), elected for three years by universal, direct and secret suffrage. The Seimas elects the president whose term is three years and who has merely a suspensive veto upon legislation. The population of the country is about 2,250,000 and its area approx- imately 20,000 square miles. The acquisition of Memel and the Vilna controversy with Poland were the two outstanding items in Lithuania’s foreign relations after 1920. Vilna, the ancient capital of the new state, was occupied by the Poles in 1920. This forcible seizure and retention by Poland of Foreign the capital led to interminable trouble between the two states, and relations up to the present time (1926) the Lithuanians have refused to ac- knowledge the legality of Poland’s actions, although a decision of the Council of Ambassadors on March 15, 1922, confirmed Poland's rights to Vilna and its district. Memel, on the other hand, was desired by the Lithuanians because it afforded their only outlet to the Baltic sea. Germany had surrendered the city to the Allies in accordance with the provisions of the treaty of Versailles. The Allies had promised to hand the city over to Lithuania but failed to do so despite Lithuania’s repeated requests. Acting in the Polish manner, the Lithuanians took possession of Memel by armed force, in 1923, leaving it to the powers to recognize the accomplished fact. The seizure was later recognized by the Allies with certain reserva- tions in favor of Polish trade. NT a: te aed EEE NRA RA ODUM ERESURRN MO aee ee eee SESS = a i See iS = eee Sa Pot tg te ren Beare ete I he ce er te ed A oe: TLL Wwe 622 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XXXIX Bea? ee } Lithuania also has enacted important land legislation. The 1 land reform was accomplished by the law passed on February 15, TL : : ; ee : ; : ; Ni a : 1972.) (ine act afiecten 23500; acres and 3,000 landowners and = : . 1] a s : - : ie nT contemplated the establishment of some 245,000 new holdings. [he maximum amount of land retained by the landowners was fixed 5 ror : A m4 . fre ner _T% t ] Tre ra OK LA) AGG. provision Was made LO! COmpcnsation, DUT al pre-w ar Of the nations freed by the war Poland can, perhaps, claim the most notable and romantic past. Aside from non-Polish elements, it once included Russian Poland, Posen, East and West Prussia, Silesia, S| ' t “~o ‘ . + : ) ] , TTY / cy (Fy do ! " 7 t 7 [The first partition of Poland among Prussia, Austria, and Russia in 1772, while unjustified on the part of the partitioning powers, can stir little sympathy, but not so with the second and third par- CitioOnNS 1n L793 and L795. In the t CYy- OT) - YCars that had inter- vened, the Poles had eliminated many of i fatal economic and political weaknesses that had previously endangered their national existence ae had given promising evidence of being on the eve of a far-reaching political renaissance, but the avaricious tsarina, Cath- erine II, would tolerate no strong Slav ic state obstructing Russian contact with the west and she arranged the partitions of 1793 and 1795 which terminated the political independence of Poland. The | hopes of the Poles were temporarily revived by Napoleon s creation of the Grand Duchy of Warsaw, in 1807. Still more prom- ising was the establishment, in November of 1815, of a Kingdom of Poland by the then heels tsar, Alexander I. This embraced much of the old Kingdom of Poland and was favored with the most liberal political constitution then in existence in Europe, but the Poles desired complete political independence and coul ld not resist the con- tagion of the eee movement that swept over Europe 1 1830. Their revolt was speedily suppressed and the short-lived King- dom was united with Russia. Encouraged by the growth of nation- alism in Germany and Italy and by the attitude of Napoleon III, the Poles made one last desperate attempt in 1863 to obtain their freedom. This rebellion was crushed with even greater ease than the revolt of thirty-three years earlier, and a most brutal and thorough-going punishment was meted out to the gallant rebels. That policy of Russification then began, by means of which the Russians tried with- out avail to crush the national aspir ations of their Polish subjects. The one extenuating compensation which the P ape enjoyed after 1863 was the fact that the coming of the Industrial Revolution to Russia made Poland the center of Russia’s economic life. That part of the Polish nation which was included within the Kingdom of Prussia a part of upper Silesia, Posen, West Prussia and the Masu- rian district of East Prussia — met with op pression only less severehe Be i THAT WT ji i) PVTTUUFEATORIUOTUATTONEONIVGUUGTLOAUORUOLUNAUUGREOTE TAAL TAAAAU i \ HL it IAAL CAAA | ‘ i a = —- = ie ee ne ent Chap. XXXIX] EUROPEAN REVOLUTIONS SINCE 1914 623 than that which their kinsmen received from Russia. But the rigo- rous religious, educational, and agrarian policy of Bismarck and Bulow only served to stir the resentment of the Poles and to reanimate their national spirit. Only in Austrian Galicia were the Poles accorded that degree of autonomy and liberal treatment which made them partially satisfied to dwell in political subjection to another state. The Poles are a branch of the Slavic division of the Alpine race, but are less broad-headed than their Czech and Slovak neighbors on the south, or even the Russians to the east. Their contact with so many different peoples has caused a considerable prevalence of racial intermixture. Their language is a distinct western Slavic dialect. In religion over three fourths of the Poles are Roman Catholic. The only notable exception is to be found in the three hundred thousand Protestants in the Masurian Lakes district of East Prussia. The plight of the Poles prior to 1914 has been suggested above. At the outbreak of the World War, only Austrian Galicia enjoyed self-government. Nevertheless the Poles tenaciously clung to their language and customs, and continued to hope that their nation might Poland during recover its political liberty and territorial integrity. During the war ”* ¥ the country suffered frightfully from both Russians and Germans. In 1914 Grand Duke Nicholas announced that one of the war aims of Russia was to secure the autonomy of the reunited Polish territories under the Romanov house. In 1916 the Central Powers proclaimed the creation of a Polish Kingdom, including the Polish regions under Russian rule, to be one of their war aims. Hencea Polish Provisional Council of State was created in that year and in 1917 a Council of Regency was established. After the armistice, General Pilsudski assumed supreme power over the ‘Polish Republic’’ and called a Constituent Assembly, but the unsettled conditions prevented the adoption of a new constitution until March 17, 1921. The Treaty of Versailles recognized the independence of the new Polish Republic. Paderewski, the famous pianist, became prime Minister in 1919. The Constituent Assembly elected by both men and women in that year returned a large non-Socialist majority. Bitter Independence quarrels over boundary lines led to the resignation of Paderewski, and to the outbreak of three wars. Two of them, with Ukrainia over Galicia and with Czecho-Slovakia over Teschen were soon settled. The third and most important war with the Bolsheviks, in which the Poles flew to arms to extend their eastern boundary lines, was waged throughout 1919-20. The Poles soon had half a million men in the field and forged their way eastward as far as Kiev. The Bolsheviks drove them back, however, until Warsaw was threatened. But the Capital was saved by a brilliant counter-attack, and on October 12, 1920 a treaty of peace was signed rather favorable on the whole, to Poland. Disputes with the Free City of Danzig and with Lithuania Over Vilna were at length adjusted, although Lithuania has refused - — ae wr ey a a aa ers 2 a CEE Ee eee atForeign relations 624 MODERN WORLD HISTORY § [Chap. XXXIX to recognize as legal the Polish seizure of the territory. The new Republic emerged from these conflicts with a territory of 149,933 square miles and a popul: tion of 28.000,000. The constitution of the Republic of Pola ind placed sovereign power in the nation and created a strongly centralized state. The national legislature consists of two houses: the Sejm composed of paid mem- bers chosen by universal vote for five years upon a system of propor- tional representation; and the Senate elected by senatorial districts. } The president is chosen for seven years by the two houses united in a National Assembly. Among his numerous powers 1s that of appoint- ing judges, although justices of the peace are elected by the people. The list of ‘‘General Rights and Duties of ( itizens’’ included in the constitution, is unusually long. On December 9, 1922, the National Assembly elected Gabriel Narutowicz as the first president of the Republic. He was assassinate’ a week after assuming the duties of his office, and on December the National Assembly chose as his successor M. Stanislas Woyeiech Ws Poland has had a most difficult task in stabilizing her r crippled finances, and in recovering from the pitiab with the encouragement of ee Entente Allies and the financial e economic condition in which the war left her. But backing of France considerable progress has been made in recent years. Poland has assumed her place among the seven largest states in Europe, and enjoys the privilege of an outlet to the sea through the neutralized port of Danzig Poland’s internal political tranc qu uillity has been disturbed by several Bo the outstanding being that of land reform. Agra- rian reform was badly needed in a country So per cent agi ricultural and with an illiterate and unskilled peasantry cultivating lands of which 4o per cent is owned by some 15,000 large landed proprietors. A Land Reform Bill was passed even before the promulgation of the constitution, but it has not been put into operation as yet because of the opposition of the landowners. The problem of land reform still remains to be solved. The country has also been considerably disturbed by the presence of numerous at nd strong racial minorities. However, the difficulty seems to have been met at least in part by the Minority Bill, passed on July 9, 1924, which conceded complete freedom in tte use of the Ukrainian, W ie Russian, Ruthenian, and Lithuanian languages in the schools and before the courts and administrative authorities. The foreign relations of Poland have been conducted along lines which have brought about close coOperation with France and the Little Entente. The Little Entente and Poland have been brought within the orbit of French influence in eastern Europe not only by treaty relations, but even more effectively by military loans, granted by France to her eastern Allies. In 1923 milit. ry loans to the amount of over $100,000,000 were made by France to Poland and the Little Entente for the promotion of military defense. All these states areLAVLANAHAIAY Hn Mit Sr WHT i} Wy } | Ti HY UTUUUTUVGTUSVVHNVVTUUUAT ETAT HVAT TUVALA Chap. XXXIX] EUROPEAN REVOLUTIONS SINCE 1914 625 primarily interested in maintaining unchanged the Versailles settle- ment; hence the close alliances between Czecho-Slovakia and France and Poland and the excessive military loans mentioned. Poland has attempted to promote the formation of a Baltic alliance uniting to Poland the Baltic states and Finland. These efforts have failed mainly because of the alleged militarism of Poland, but also because of the unwillingness of Lithuania to forget the Polish seizure of Vilna. E. The Czecho-Slovaks South and west of the home of the Poles and Ruthenians is found the land of the Czechs of Bohemia and Moravia and of the Slovaks of northwestern Hungary. Like the Poles, these peoples have a distinguished past. In the Thirty Years’ War, Bohemia lost its 1n- dependence and there began under Hapsburg rule a period of ruthless Germanization and forcible conversion to Catholicism which for neatly two centuries seemed to have crushed out the national life of the Czechs. In the first half of the nineteenth century, however, this was rekindled by the reaction of the nationalistic aspects of the Napole- onic period upon Bohemia and by the arousing of Czech interest in their national culture and history by a number of brilliant scholars, among them the linguist and philologist Dobrovsky, the philoso- pher Kollar, the archeologist Safarik, and, above all, the historian Palacky. The national movement in the spring and early summer of 1848 was brought to a speedy and tragic end, but after 1868 the Czechs maintained a steady campaign for the recognition of their national rights and aspirations by Vienna, the old Czech party demanding that Emperor Franz Joseph be formally crowned king of Bohemia at Prague, and the Young Czech party looking forward to the more ageressive and ambitious program of uniting with the Slovaks, Ruthenians, and Jugo-Slavs in the attempt to make the Dual-Monar- chy a Slavic state. Racially the Czechs are Slavs, being taller and more broad-headed than the Poles and, to a lesser degree, than the Ruthenians. In Bohemia and Moravia, however, there are large minorities of Ger- mans which constitute about 30 per cent of the total population in Bohemia and 25 per cent in Moravia. Czechs and Slovaks use the Slavonic dialect of the Czechs as their national literary language. In religion the great majority of the Czechs are Roman Catholic, while the Slovaks are fairly evenly divided between Catholics and Protestants. At the outbreak of the World War, the Czechs displayed unex- pected loyalty to the Austro-Hungarian Empire. In October, 1914, the Czech Union in Bohemia declared that “‘we have opposed this or that Government, but we have never opposed the State,’’ and similar pronouncements were issued by the Czechs in Moravia in November. HLH POUT >< Cd AOU ONTO AT ee Past history Rise of Bohemian Nationalism Hat tenement a re TTS ah al a ha a bi a er a) eer eae a 2 won —— ore = . osa Sa A A A Ge a eS ES etn ne ene eee Se OE Dz rye the War > rf Reforms I orel y 1} relations 626 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XXXIX But this loyalty was dissipated by the war largely because of propa- ganda and the activities of Czech leaders at home and abroad. On January 16, 1918, a manifesto was issued at Prague demanding inde- pendence for Bohemia. Moravia, and Silesia. About six months ] me: a British declaration was issued and confirmed by Japan and United States in September which showed clearly that the pe also were contemplating the establishment of an cieue ependent Czecho- Slovak state. On October 14, 1918, the Czecho-Slovak National Council. established at Paris early 1n the war, was C nstituted as the Provisional Government of Czecho-Slovakia and was recognized as such by the Allies. From its seat in Paris it issued the declaration of independence on October 18. The new state of Czecho-Slovakia, about the area of the state of New York, including (according to the census of 1921) 8,760, Czecho-Slovaks. 2,122,000 Germans, 75,800 Poles, 1ADs0es Magyars and 461,000 Ruthenians, or a total population of about 13,611,000, was created in October, Bae when the National Assembly at Prague proclaimed a Republic, promu lsated a provisional democratic con- stitution, and chose Professor Masaryk as temporary president. The new constitution, adopted on February 29, 1920, provided for an elected president, a Chamber of Dee uties chosen for six years, and a Senate renewed every eight years. The two houses in joint session aes Masaryk as president for seven years. Ihe president may declare war without the consent of the national legislature. He appoints all the higher officials in the state. The franchise is open to all citizens over 21 years of age without distinctions of sex, and all citizens over 30 are eligible to hold public office. The people of this state. about one fourth of the size of France, are engaged 1 farming and manufacturing. In possession of half of the coal and ‘ron mines of former Austria-Hungary, Czecho-Slovakia is one of the most promising of the new states in central Europe. Its financial recovery from the effects of EAS World War has been marked. All large estates have been divided up and sold to the people, and the serious problem of agrarian reform has thus been solved. As regards foreign 1 relations, Czecho-Slovakia has established close relations with the ‘‘Succession States ~ and France. France is at present the powerful prop of Czecho-Slovakia; the army is drilled by French officers and many high army officers are Frenchmen. U aes French influence was formed the Little Entente in 1920-1921, an alliance between Czecho-Slovakia, Jugo-Slavia, and Rumania, for fie purpose of preventing the reéstablishment of the Hapsburgs. A treaty of alliance between C zecho-Slovakia and France was concluded on meee 25, 1924. The allies undertook ‘‘to concert their action 1 all matters of foreign policy which may threaten their security or which may tend to subvert the situation created by the Treaties of Peace.’’ The terms of the treaty are directed towards diplomatic coOperation in defense of the peace settlement, s specifically againstme | VRaWaaaea aa ) : nae j iit Hit 1} eee Me TMNT ANTM MONONA NNO SS i EASUURVAUEADOADPSOONERUREVUONEUUSNTRSORHEROONANUGADROBUEANOGRNUUONREOESHUAUUHODSUUDEAEHLIGEEOAEEERLEEEDESSSSSN ee ; he { POOR esEs a = =— =" ee —————_ SS Chap. XXXIX] EUROPEAN REVOLUTIONS SINCE 1914 627 Hungary, as well as against attempts to restore the Hohenzollerns in Germany. In May, 1924, a treaty was concluded with Italy whereby the two states agreed to codperate in maintaining the peace treaties. eee ee ee eee RPE ak Beak ad eSavthtsc cate rei % F. The Ruthenians Stretching from southeastern Poland to the Sea of Azov is the district of the Ukraine, eastern Galicia, and part of Bukowina, the home of the Little Russians and Ruthenians. Roughly this is the re- gion included between the Dniester and Dnieper Rivers and coin- Tp“ uz cides with the fertile ‘‘black-earth’’ district of Russia, the most productive cereal growing region in Europe. The Little Russians and Ruthenians of the Ukraine have had a most varied history. In the middle of the seventeenth century an unsuccessful rebellion of the Ukraine led to the placing of the eastern portion under the suze- rainty of Russia, but most of it remained with the Polish-Lithu- anian Kingdom until the partitions. Austria obtained the Ruthe- nians of eastern Galicia by the first partition in 1772, and Russia Its past secured the remaining portion by the partitions of 1793 and 1795. ’?” Within the last forty years there developed a determined Ukrain- ian movement for independence from Russia which was greatly stim- ulated by the same Russification policy that was applied to the Finns, Letts, Lithuanians, and Poles. Racially the Ruthenians are the purest of the Russian Slavs and the best Russian exemplification of the Alpine race. They speak the purest of the Slavic dialects. Most of the inhabitants of the western Race and Ukraine adhere to the curious Uniate Church. This was created "#0" in 1595 by the Union of Brest-Litovsk, according to the terms of which the Ukrainians of the Polish-Lithuanian kingdom were made to accept the supremacy of the Roman pontiff, while at the same time they were allowed to retain their Greek orthodox liturgy, ritual, ceremonial, and organization. Further east the Ruthenians are di- vided between the Uniate and the Orthodox Churches. Liberal esti- mates place the total number of Ruthenians at about thirty millions, of whom some three and a half millions reside in Galicia, seven hun- dred thousand in the Carpathian district of Hungary and about fifty thousand in Bukowina. Ukrainian separatism, while it existed even prior to 1914, was greatly stimulated by the World War. In Galicia, Ukrainians de- manded, shortly after the outbreak of the war, an administrative Independence division separating them from the purely Polish parts of the district, and already on November 4, 1916, the Austrian government promised Galicia’s independence ‘‘in the fullest measure that does not conflict with its allegiance to the State as a whole.’’ Later, the internal disintegration of Austria-Hungary created a favorable opportunity for the assertion of Ukrainian nationalist aspirations. Shortly after the proclamation of the imperial manifesto of October 16, 1918, a = ,? YA11€ HEE >a Si ee Es a = ee Pala betabe eet sare Bas te tae cere Dra Bae x i Struccles wstl Jani os / foliana Union with Soviet Russia 628 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XXXIX which held out the hope of transformation of the Empire into a confederacy of free nationalities, a Ukrainian National Council was set up in Lemberg. In the meantime the Ukrainians of Russia were busy asserting their claims. The March Revolution provided the needed oppor- tunity. Early in April, 1917, a Ukrainian National Congress as- sembled at Kiev and declared for autonomy within the Russian Re- public. The Congress elected a Council (Rada) which demanded recognition of Ukrainian autonomy by the Russian Provisional Government. No immediate eee reply to this demand having been received, the Council issued a manifesto on June 26, declaring that the Ukrainians would manage heih own affairs. Thereupon the Provisional Government gave way and recognized the temporary government of Ukrainia. Ihe . Bolshevist coup d'état in November hastened the proclamation on Neceinier 20, of a Ukrainian People's Republic. In February, 1918, Ukr. inia made peace with the Central Powers by signing the Brest- Litovsk Treaty. The Germans thereupon entered Ukrainia as allies, but soon turned against the Ukrainians and in April they arrested the government and set up a dictatorship headed by General Skoropadsky, an avowed pro-German. Ihe defeat of the Central Powers in the fall of 1918 removed the German menace, and the Ukrainians proceeded to unite with their kinsmen in Galicia. But the Poles, unwilling to recognize the national claims of the Austrian Ukrainians, embarked upon a war of conquest of which eastern Galicia and chiefly its ca pic Lemberg was the objective. The war ended in a victory for the Poles, and Galicia was formally awarded to Poland by the Supreme Council at Paris in De- cember, 1919, under a mandate for twenty-five years. A subsequent modification of the decision gave Poland control inde finitely. A union of the Austrian and Russian Ukrainians was thus prev ented. The Ukrainian Republic subseq uently became one of the federated states of Soviet Russia. On ecibet 30, 1922, a treaty of alliance was formally confirmed at Moscow by represent: atives of the Soviet government and the republics of Ukraine, White Russia, and Trans- caucasia. By the terms of the treaty the four were united into one state, the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics. In this Union, each contracting state retains its individual freedom and institutions, except that foreign affairs, army, navy, tax: ition, etc. are controlled by the central government at Moscow. ‘The area of the Ukrainian Republic : is 174,510 square miles and its population, 26,001,000. 5: TuRKEY AND THE BALKAN STATES SINCE 1918 A. The Near East and the World War Between 1914 and 1917 practically the whole of the Near East became involved in the World War. Most of the Balkan states were drawn into the struggle through secret alliances or ‘bargainsSPLAUUETTTVIVTITIVTIL HTH MTT a GEESE ARR Secor : ———— Chap. XXXIX] EUROPEAN REVOLUTIONS SINCE 1914 629 with one or more of the great powers. Montenegro joined Serbia immediately after war was declared at the close of July, 1914, be- cause of nationalist bonds between the two states. Turkey entered the conflict in October, 1914, because she was bound by a secret agree- ment with Germany. Bulgaria hesitated until October of the follow- ing year to choose the side she was willing to aid; then, finding that the Central Powers were ready to promise to her the best bargain for territorial gains in Macedonia, she threw her lot in with theirs. Rumania delayed reaching a decision for almost another year for she desired to secure lel sts territories from the great powers on each side in the conflict. At last in August, 1916, after Russia had won brilliant successes over Austria-Hungary, Rumania, accepting Entente promises of a rich reward in Transylvania, joined Russia and her allies. Greece officially remained out of the war until 1917. In June of that year, after Franco-British forces had occupied the Greek capital, had dethroned King Constantine, and had established the pro-Entente statesman Venizelos in control of the government at Athens, she declared war upon the Central Powers. Less direct though equally effective means were employed by British and French fepresentatives to stir up serious opposition to the Turks in Syria, Palestine, and Arabia. Prominent Englishmen and Frenchmen prom- ised on different occasions that at the close of the World War, their countries would champion the establishment of independent national states for the inhabitants of those areas. ‘“His [Britannic] majesty’s government,’ declared Arthur J. Balfour on November 22, 1917, “views with favor the establishment in Palestine of a National Home for the Jewish people and will use its best endeavors to facilt- tate the achievement of this object, oye wher Syriansisars declared Sir Mark Sykes a month later, “‘are about to possess in Syria a régime which will allow the people to develop the country in peace and establish their own civilization without becoming the prey of tyrants, either economically or militarily.”’ While British and also French representatives were making prom- ises to win the support of a majority of the Near Eastern peoples, the Entente governments were negotiating secret treaties among themselves to secure territorial adjustments in the Balkans and Turkey which could not be reconciled with some of the promises of their agents. (1) In March, 1915, Great Britain and France agreed that Russia should have Constantinople and the Straits region. (2) By the secret Treaty of London, signed April 26, 1915, Italy was to gain important parts of the Dalmatian coast and a share of the spoils in southern Asia Minor if Turkey should be partitioned. G,) By Franco-Russian and Anglo-French agreements of April and May, 1916, Russia was promised northern Armenia, France was as- sured important interests in Syria and Cilicia, and Great Britain was conceded the right to establish control over lower Mesopotamia and parts of Arabia and Palestine. >? HU eee (Os SS Turkey and the Balkan states are drawn into the World War The Entente Allies agree to partition parts of Turkey and the Balkan states: 3 Sie eel te een ieee onan rere (OCS ie eee el al es era: D ee —a — - = See ee a ' fi 4 | i | | f : dt sputes of the new Jugo-Slav 630 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XXXIX Consequently numerous difficulties arose at the Paris Peace Conference relative to the disposal of Near Eastern territories. Presi- dent Wilson, favoring the principle of self-determination, urged that Allied commissions be sent to Asiatic Turkey to discover what politi- cal adjustments were favored by the emancipated subjects of the sultan. An American commission was actually dispatched to the East for that purpose but its findings were ign red by those who drew up the Paris settlements. President Wilson also urged that Italy should abandon her claims to the Dalmatian coast on the sround that it belonged rightfully to the Jugo-Slavs. This question involved par- ticularly the disposing of the Adriatic port of Fiume. Disagreement over the disposition of the port led on one occasion, through the temporary W ithdrawal of the Italian representatives from Paris, to a threatened breakup of the Conference. Other questions, for example those involving the disposal of the Banat in southern Hungary and the status of the Straits, also occasioned heated controversies and delays in the proceedings at the French capital. In fact the problem of securing settlements for the Near East proved so difficult that the signing of peace treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary, and Turkey was delaved for months after similar treaties were signed with Germany ind Austria. f a B. T/ C K Lt odo Wl O f f } é ] ugo-§ la One of the most extensive Balkan states to emerge finally from the Paris Conference was the Jugo-Slav ‘“Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes.’ In 1917 representatives of the three important South Slav peoples met on the island of Corfu and formulated a program for union between Serbia and the Jugo-Slav territories of Hungary. In November, 1918, a Jugo-Slav National Council of Za- greb formally proclaimed a similar program to unite territories of the former Dual Monarchy under its control with Serbia and Monte- negro. At the Paris Peace Conference these programs were endorsed and the Kingdom of the Serbs. Croats, and Slovenes under the king of Serbia was created to include practically all the territory in the western part of the Balkan peninsula north of Greece and Albania. The new state thus created extended over an area slightly larger than that of the American states of Illinois and Indiana combined and was inhabited by a population of over 11,000,000 people. Although Jugo-Slav nationalism triumphed completely at the close of the World War, numerous difficulties continued thereafter to cause trouble for the new South Slav Kingdom. One group of its difficulties arose in the form of boundary disputes with neighbor states. With Rumanians the Jugo-Slavs contested for a time the possession of the Banat, but in 1920, after the latter area had been divided between the two peoples, Rumania and Jugo-Slavia joined forces and with Czecho-Slovakia formed the Little Entente. A far more serious controversy developed between Jugo-Slavs and Ital-PINE AAT CMT Hy ie TEESE TGA HE ane i a eed Chap. XXXIX]| EUROPEAN REVOLUTIONS SINCE 1914 631 ians over control of the important port of Fiume. Indeed for almost five years — from April, 1919, to January, 1924 — this troublesome question persistently threatened to bring war between Italy and Jugo-Slavia. In November, 1920, representatives of the two states drew up a treaty at Rapallo whereby Fiume was proclaimed a free city. However Italians did not abandon their claims to the city and cordial international relations were not established in the Adriatic until after January 27, ae when by a new arrangement signed at Rome it was provided that Italy should govern Fiume but that Jugo-Slavs should have free access to the port for commercial pur- poses. A third boundary dispute developed between Jugo-Slavia and Albania; it was settled in August, 1925, not by the interested parties themselves but through arbitration by the Allied Council of Ambassadors. Equally serious difficulties arose in internal affairs among the Jugo-Slavs. The most serious internal trouble which confronted Jugo-Slavia immediately after the establishment of the new kingdom centered in the organization of the government. One party, led by the political Réval programs veteran, M. Pashitch, favored the establishment of a centralized type je fas sesonne of organization copied after that of France. Numerous other parties Tape one urged the adoption of a federal organization like that of Switzerland. Many Croatians and Slovenes were in favor of a republican type of government and some Montenegrins even were opposed to the inclu- sion of their former state in the Jugo-Slav union.' In 1921 the idea of centralization triumphed in Jugo-Slavia and was embodied in a constitution drawn ue by a Constituent Assembly which had been elected in November of the preceding year. The new constitution, modeled after the Serbian constitutions adopted in 1889 The Jugo-Slav and 1903, provided for government by ministers responsible to a one- ene house Skupshtina or parliament. Moreover it provided that the G Skupshtina should be elected by universal suffrage on the basis of proportional representation. During a period following the adoption of the constitution bitter political strife prevailed throughout the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes. In December, 1924, while a wave of anti- Bolshevist sentiment was sweeping over the country, the govern- ment, under the leadership of Premier Pashitch, decreed the dissolu- Bitter tion of the Croatian Peasant’s party and ordered the arrest of its po/#ical vas leaders including the noted M. Raditch. Raditch was aan dashed imprisoned for over six months; yet before the close of the year 1925, he was released and was invited by his former enemies to help form a coalition ministry in which he became minister of education. Sa ae pe ee ee el ae at 1 Differences of religion and culture have contributed greatly to the development of political troubles among the Jugo-Slavs in recent times. The majority of the Croa- tians and Slovenes are Roman Catholics. For centuries they have been under western cultural influences. Most of the Serbs, on the other hand, are Greek Orthodox Chris- tians and have been under eastern (Greek) cultural influences. TET Cs =oI EE teed a SSR PEN ee eS ow eenenree et, 7 Problems confronting 7) : 7 Kuk Manta, 1920-1925 632 MODERN WORLD HISTORY ([Chap. XXXIX C. Greater Rumania Rumania. another Balkan state which gained extensive territories at the close of the World War, did not wait for the sanction of the On ts at Paris before she seized the districts that she coveted. In April, 1918, a National Council’’ in Bessarabia declared for union wit h Ru umania. In November and December of the same year general congresses ne Bukivs vina and Transylvania issued similar declarations. Taking advantage of these proceedings, Rumanian King Ferdi- nand pron a ‘‘accepted”’ administrative control over the coveted territories. In 1919 Rumanians threatened to occupy the whole of the Banat; in the pene year they actually overran a large part of Hungary and pillaged the Hungarian cap ital, Budapest. The Peace Conference w et the Rumanian government against the pursuit of an aggressive policy in Hungary and Bessarabia but finding itself faced by a fait accompli in the greater part of those areas tardi ly acknowledge practically a of Rumania s eet claims. In October, 1920, Great Britain, France, Italy and Japan even signed a treaty with Rumania eae otcane her control over Bessara- bia. Hence Greater Rumania with an area over one and one fourth times as reat as that of Jugo-Slavia and with a population of over 17,000,000 — a state about which Rumanian n ationalists had dreamed before the World War — became a reality. Numerous problems, many of them similar to those which trou- bled Jugo-Slavia during the same period, ee Rumania after the Peace Conference had recognized her extended frontiers. She engaged in a long drawn out boundary dispute with Soviet Russia, encountered opposition from the League of Nations in June, 1925, because of the expropriation of lands of Hungarian farmers in Tran- sylvania, and antagonized western states thro yugh the adoption of legislation to restrict the activ ities of foreign corporations operating on Rumanian soil. Also bitter political controversies and govern- mental financial troubles developed within Rum: inia, as in fact they developed within every Balkan state at the close of the World War. So late as April, 1923, serious rioting occurred in Bucharest, and a year later commut nist unrest led to numerous arrests and the estab- lishment of martial law in Bessarabia. Furthermore, during 1925 the government continu ued to remain under a virtual dictatorship of the Bratiano brothers — Premier Jean Bratiano and Finance Minister Vintilo Bratiano — a dictatorship which dz ited from soon after the time when Greater Rumania was created. Nevertheless between 1917 and 1925 Rumanians successfully int1- tiated important measures to strengthen their state and to make it more like those of western Europe. Beginning in 1917 they adopted agrarian reforms by which all large estates of arable land were broken up for distribution in small plots among the peasants. The state assumed 35 per cent of the burden of payment and the peasantsSAT EAM CTO MATTOON OMOEA DELERESERES ROR EESERD eee ee ae STTULATTTNT TART AA TTTVTARORRVOAATAVNRGR ONO RE UU ORONO NOAH TOUUPUHVUTATETATEAVATALUTOOATVVATOTOGUAUNLATATATEGRALUAT i a Chap. XXXIX] EUROPEAN REVOLUTIONS SINCE 1914 633 were given a long term of years in which to pay the remaining 65 per cent. In 1922 the Rumanians adopted a new constitution which assured to all classes, even including the Jews,! a share in the suffrage and provided for the establishment of a centralized government like that of Jugo-Slavia. Under the new constitution the national coun- cils of Bessarabia, Transylvania, and Bukowina were dissolved; the entire dominion was divided into departments to be administered by prefects appointed directly by the cabinet at Bucharest. D. The Eclipse of Bulgaria Bulgaria emerged from the Peace Conference with restricted frontiers, heavy financial obligations, and serious domestic problems. In November, 1919, she was induced to sign the Treaty of Neuilly by which she (1) conceded to Jugo-Slavia three bits of territory inhab- ited entirely by Bulgarians along her western frontier, (2) abandoned her territory in Thrace to Greece, G) agreed to pay an indemnity of almost a half billion of dollars, and (4) promised to limit her army to 33,000 men. Under the terms of this settlement Bulgaria was limited to an area of about 40,650 square miles, an area slightly larger than that of Bulgaria before the Balkan Wars and inhabited by approximately 4,800,000 people. During a period of over three and a half years following the conclusion of the treaty, Alexander Stambulisky, leader of the Bulgarian Peasant’s party, retained control of the government; following a pacifistic anti-urban and anti-capi- talist policy, be granted powers over the revenues of his state to the Reparations Commission, strove to establish friendly relations with Jugo-Slavia and the Entente, and obtained the adoption by the Sobranje of a law to impose a period of forced labor on all classes in Bulgaria. Naturally his program aroused a storm of opposition in bourgeois and nationalist circles. In June, 1923, a party resembling the Italian Fascisti arose and, after it had brought about the downfall and even the murder of Stambulisky, established a dictatorship under Professor Tsankov of the University of Sofia. Henceforth for almost two and a half years a virtual reign of terror existed throughout Bulgaria. Communists and other discontented elements, recruited particularly from among the 400,000 Macedonian refugees within the country, employed terrorist means to exterminate government ofh- cials; the government, employing similar means, arbitrarily arrested and condemned scores of suspects. On different occasions during the same period strained relations developed between Bulgaria, and Jugo- Slavia and Greece because of the activities of Bulgarian sympathizers in Macedonia. Fortunately at the close of 1925, however, the situa- tion in Bulgaria began to show signs of improvement. The crops of the year were bountiful, in October a state of martial law was ter- 1 In spite of these constitutional guarantees Jewish and other minority peoples have suffered harsh treatment in Rumania since 1922. OVVVUEUVEQUUUEUUTIANUVOMIUGRICAAAY CEASE SIO J > Economic and political reforms adopted in Rumania between 1917 and 1925 Terms imposed upon Bulgaria hy the Treaty of Neuilly, Tee, November, 1919 Problems confronting Bulgaria, 1919-1925 bie ort eee carer a - 634 MODERN WORLD HISTORY ([Chap. XXXIX minated. and. in the same month, when Greece attacked the country, the League of Nations intervened. The League on this occasion not only brought about a prompt withdrawal of the Greek troops which had invaded Bulgarian territory but also forced Greece to pay an indemnity to her neighbor. E. Albania Both during and after the World War mountainous Albania, a state with perhaps 850,000 inhabitants, suffered from almost con- tinuous anarchy. At the close of the world conflict the chances for her survival even seemed doubtful. Italy, Jugo-Slavia, and Greece each aspired to gain portions « yf her 17,000 square miles of territory. Truly in 1920 the ieee aerate effectively to defend their country. They defeated the foreign troops stationed on their soil, gained outside recognition of their independence, and during January, r921, secured the formal admission of Albania into the League of Nations. In January, 1925, the Albanian government, consisting of four ‘‘regents.’’ a ministry, and a National Assembly chosen through indirect election, announced that Albania was to be a republic. Yet at the close of the year ‘‘murder, loot, and rapine were rife through- out the country; reports indicated that the government had lost such popularity as it once possessed and that a fresh coup d état was Caslly pOssipic. F. Greece Greece. like the other Balkan states which joined the Entente Allies during the World War, received favorable treatment in 1919- 1920 at the peace Cc ynference. but soon thereafter she lost most of her new possessions. By the settlements of 1919-1920 she obtained a right to extend her control over all of Thrace except a limited area nn which Constantinople 1s located, over an important district in western Asia Minor that included the valuable port of Smyrna, and over the Dodekanese islands which Italy had held since the Turco- Italian War of 1911-1912. These additions of territory were to in- crease the area of the new Hellas from 41,933 square miles to almost 70,000; in other words they were to tf ansform the Greece of 1913- 1918, a state about the size of Ohio, into a Greater Greece, a state somewhat larger than Ohio and West Virginia combined. Also they g were to add approximately 2,000,000 inhabitants to the population of Greece. Eager to obtain undisputed possession of the new terri- tories the Greeks attempted to force the Turks to abandon their claims to Thrace and the Smyrna region. This proved to be too difh- cult an undertaking for the Greeks. In1 1921 Greek forces advanced far into the interior of Asia Minor but a year later the Turks, freshly supplied with munitions obtained from the French and the Italians, swept the advancing forces back into the AEgean. By the Treaty of Lausanne (1923) Greece not only ceded to Turkey t the right to con-sat UUHTUUUTULUTULUTUTVVTTVTTLSV LTTE ATL mn I Chap. XXX EUROPEAN REVOLUTIONS SINCE 1914 635 trol the Smyrna region, eastern Thrace to the Maritza river, and Im- bros and Tenedos at the mouth of the Dardanelles, but also lost to Italy the claims to the Dodekanese islands which Italy earlier had resigned to Greece. Indeed the former Bulgarian territories in west- ern Thrace were almost the only territorial gains which the Greeks retained as a reward for the aid they had given to the Allies during the World War. Serious political complications developed within Greece during and after the time when the country was being drained of its resources to support aggressive military operations in Asia Minor. In Novem- ber, 1920, Venizelos, who had just returned from Paris where as the official representative of Greece he had exercised great influence to obtain a legal title to the extensive territories claimed by his countrymen, was beaten 1n a general election and forced to withdraw from office. He promptly left Greece and on December 5, 1920, the Greeks voted almost unanimously to recall King Constantine. In September, 1922, after the Greek army had been expelled from Asia Minor, Constantine, again, was compelled to abdicate. Henceforth through the year 1922 politics at Athens remained in a very troubled condition. Late in November, 1922, the new government, a revo- lutionary régime which had placed Crown Prince George nominally upon the throne, shocked the world by the execution of three former premiers and other prominent persons whom the revolutionaries regarded as responsible for the disasters in Asia Minor. Throughout the year 1923 the government, aided nobly by the western Near East Relief organization, struggled with the problem of providing shelter, food, clothing, bedding, Bad medical attention for the hundreds of thousands of refugees who had fled from Asia Minor and eastern Thrace to Greek soil at the close of the Greco-Turkish War of 1921- 1922, or who were later evicted from their homes in Turkey under the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne providing for the exchange of populations between Greece and Turkey. Early in 1924, after King George had been ordered to leave Greece, the veteran Venizelos attempted to bring order out of the chaos in Greek politics but after a futile effort he went into voluntary exile a second time. In a plebiscite held April 13, 1924, the Greek electorate confirmed the establishment of a Republic in new Hellas.’ Finally in the summer of 1925, General Pangalos deliberately employed military and naval forces to seize control of the government and to establish a dictator- ship. G. The Disposition of Turkey The signing of a peace settlement with Turkey at the close of the World War was delayed until August 10, 1920; the delay was due chiefly to international rivalry among the Entente Powers. Great Britain and France quarreled over war should be done with Syria, Constantinople, and the Straits region. Similarly Italy and Greece OVVAVTTATTTTUUTTCUUAGHVTULULUUTUCLCTISUERANUANAIIIURERU SOOM A A Cs > UU ENN ft cn Political troubles in Greece, 1920-1925 International rivalry delays a settlement with Turkey ASCE Te ea ie at TET FS OS Ss NN a ea aye i en ee a ee pe! re eS TN a er aa Le erecta =r ee ee[Turkey is 5 7 partitioned DY the Treaty of Sevres, August? 10, 1920 Turkish nationalists under Mustapha Kemal prepare to resume hostilities 63,6 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XXXIX disputed about questions which involved the disposing of parts of Albania, some of the 4Zgean islands, and portions of Asia Minor. By the Treaty of Sévres which the powers ultimately presented to the sultan, provision was made for the virtual destruction of the Ottoman Empire. The Treaty provided, as has been suggested: (1) that Greece should gain Turkish territories in eastern Thrace and the Smyrna region;! (2) that a “‘Zone of the Straits © including a narrow strip of territory along each side of the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles should be internationalized; Greece and Turkey should possess rights of local administration in their respective portions of the zone but an international commission should perform all the functions necessary to keep the channel of the Straits open on equal terms to the ships of all nations; @) that Turkey should abandon her claims to Arabia, Mesopotamia, Syria, and Armenia whose boundary in northeastern Asia Minor was to be determined through arbitration by President Wilson; (4) that Cilicia in southeastern Asia Minor should be recognized as a French “‘sphere of influence,’’ and southern Anatolia including the port of Adalia should be recognized as a similar Italian ‘‘sphere;’’ (5) that Kurdistan should be given a degree of local autonomy; and (6) that Turkey should submit to foreign control of her finances and should pay a heavy indemnity to the En- tente Allies. If this treaty had been carried into effect it would have reduced Turkey to a small national state hopelessly bound and sub- ject to the political as well as to the economic dictates of the powers. Even before the Treaty of Sévres was drawn up the Turks ac- tively prepared to resume hostilities against their enemies. The occupation of Adalia by the Italians and of Smyrna by the Greeks in the spring of 1919 — steps which at least violated the spirit of the armistice terms of October 30, 1918, between the Entente Allies and Turkey — prompted them thus to prepare. They profited by the leadership of Mustapha Kemal Pasha, an able army commander who had won distinction during the World War. Encouraged by the inability of the Allies to reach an agreement promptly relative to Near Eastern affairs, the Kemalists drew up a ‘National Pact, a program listing the “irreducible minimum’’ of concessions which they were willing to accept. Promulgating this pact as a sort of declaration of independence from foreign control, they aggressively sought and quickly obtained a numerous following in every part of Turkey. The sultan, who was under close surveillance of Entente representatives at Constantinople, condemned the movement, but the Kemalists, ignoring his ban, established a government of their own at Angora in the heart of Asia Minor. Steadily Mustapha Kemal and his nationalist followers overcame Opposition to their program until in the fall of 1922 the ultimate triumph of practically all of their demands was assured. They over- 1 Also by the Treaty of Sévres Greece was promised the right to control the fEgean islands of Imbros and Tenedos.TUNUP MAA SS a Chap. XXXIX] EUROPEAN REVOLUTIONS SINCE 1914 637 ran Armenia. In March, 1921, they concluded a treaty with Soviet The Turkish Russia by which the Russians endorsed the Turkish National Pact nationalists ° . Win numerous and ceded the important frontier post of Kars to the Turks. About gyccesses, the same time Turkish forces drove the French from Cilicia and a 1920-1922 Turkish representative at London signed a secret treaty with Italy whereby all Italian troops in Turkey were to be withdrawn. As a reward of the recognition of Italian economic rights in Turkey, the Italian government agreed to support the Kemalists against the Greeks in the Smyrna area and eastern Thrace. By a treaty signed at Angora, October 20, 1921, France was pledged to give Cilicia and a strip of territory in northern Syria to the nationalists; in return for extensive economic concessions the French, jealous of British influ- ence in Greece and following the example set by the Italians, promised to aid the Turks against the Greeks. Finally at the close of the Greco-Turkish War of 1921-1922, during which partisans on each side in the conflict perpetrated horrible massacres of helpless non- combatants, Great Britain even consented to scrap the Treaty of Sevres and to negotiate with the Turkish nationalists a new settle- ment for the Near East at a congress scheduled to meet at Lausanne in southwestern Switzerland. By the treaty which was signed at Lausanne July 24, 1923, after long drawn out negotiations in which rivalry among the powers as well as disagreements between the powers and Turkey played a major réle, the Turks regained extensive territories that had been taken from them by the Treaty of Sévres, escaped the obligation to pay a considerable portion of the indemnity assessed against Turkey Turkey in 1920, and obtained the abrogation of most of the privileges that is by the westerners had enjoyed in the Ottoman Empire under the capitula- ey tions. The new Turkish government agreed to demilitarize the Bos- Jy 24, 1923 phorus and Dardanelles area and to accept the principle of the freedom of the Straits but only on condition that the international commission provided for in 1920 should be abolished. One question, that of fixing the boundary between Iraq under British control and Kurdistan completely restored to Turkish overlordship, was left open to be settled at a later date. After protracted debates between the British and the Turks had failed to produce an understanding, a settlement favoring Iraq was proposed in December, 1925, by the League of Nations, which the two parties had at length called to act as arbiter. ‘The Ottoman Empire is dead. Long live Turkey !"" This was the cry of the new régime which after the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne held sway over an area one sixth as large as that of the United States of America and over a population estimated by the Turkish department of public health (1924) to number over 13,000,- ooo. When the Turkish nationalists triumphed over the Greeks in 1922, Sultan Mohammed VI fled from Turkish soil; in October, 1923, the Grand National Assembly at Angora unanimously proclaimed Turkey a Republic and elected the Ghazz, Mustapha Kemal Pasha, wa ipa eee TS Pe F RSS. : ek os PR Se Se DS Pe errs Y Fy. [8 SE ~W EST END 1ES zU 4 > ] es 7 Dstt ar ALP (-® De Fey d BR Claes : Ho nd Haiti 6 iu a ide y ~ ann Ka dos d oe : P 4 ( Ji fi i ( CENTR Tran a4 a) - ado ft pn en nee AAAS a i) AMERICA fA x I f a C erare . ‘ 31e cRiR » PrL“sUr j oe ~~ . ¥ : L\B id o CEE eds Equatin = , —— | Goa () =. c 2 rs ‘ ralo{ / 2 ee — ’ 5 . X yh — x OML4AL p? lanasaAs 1. Mar gues as i? \ ‘Dp | As cers - - ‘ Ft his #7 D Samo It IOI > as ne el | QMILo a Paumoti , Ss < 2h 20+ “ be t 7 T Ey / HC Ay ces * Tonga f Dokd 1° 1 r opi i Woric pp —/| } ye a 5 is i Zi aT al Us : i . z y vn Faste 7 . hdd tA \ Kermadec i> L7UStat gs. i Lon - — + + ot —" OF | sal Co Qatham [® 4 Vela I? >» Canraia Or 20 é Gia . | “> Nierra : | del Fue 0 ' Sauais Fe /) I . ——————+———— ¢6¢0--— pa + uth CUT ASL ¢ ‘ ey ¥ ‘yy ) ry {) ( A i ] 1 AK ( | Antarch« Circle Lo Spe tL \ a | : 3 ce z eT See ee Penta a 2 it) 20 Wes | 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 2 = — — fi eee: abe esis payee as eee ae — Kart ographische / Anstalt von F. A. Brockhaus, Leipzig, Germany.J “1 CHUUNIN nM SPER ieee ene it ee aie en haha TTS LE ce 5 20 40 60 80 109 120 140 160 iS0.unnna| eC | WES SSB _Hic holas IL \ | | : PR / Franz Josef 1% | a 4 | ee uA i Dee ! > : 4 ATI i Be ke clr arile - he oa ! 6 3 New Siber anf) | it | ts] ey | A : Novaya. | “ PZ Is \ | | = | Q S | : . Zemlya te AG | : i | ni al £2) | Nh 34 ' f | Pe On aca al he ew wae eae me eee Macao anh | Es adrones TS i = 20 | (1 nO) C E A N wav IS ‘euam AGS.) Marshall AY “ % : A) Pale {1a Japan Oh ee d aes Ss eg 9 eS = ie Bismanck oar 38 qrelles I: : 15 d7°C) ear as PR ue : rs; Solo ne S$ dqucpnde is Onaoe dus aust saan NE ey Lite’ i 5 < Samo : if NV D | [ fOr 1 New ah Fyji Ts mrkee or dagasqar : Hebrides “i om chy F : = = a het | 5 Mlle Ne a PSICME re gh aS __ Vers: wee rd Tong al << Se : : Ail C gledo na Is | Austral. ! South |i uf ; Austr. |} ; i: Kerrhadec iy New A msterdamnL | | New "S& Pra J, | 1 | : | 3 vy 4O Tasmania oO Zealand . Prkhkdword I. aa CAdhiiamn ID : Gozel I, | fenguctk /. | | . ‘ - ese | [PIRES OF THE WORLD IN 192< COLONIAL EMPIRES Ol ORLD IN 1924 | = + — ——— | ESS Great PBritan B= Spaw GAP) Belguun [“) Onited States | eres sa asic | | le ) France [eae] Portugal (ZA Denmark a a] Japan 60 | ererea| [taly (sear) Holland L) Russia ee Scale of Miles along Equator — > = | — a 0 1000 2000 mee 4000 5000 =r —S —— = Same ee ee a al 1 l eecenesenanit o =m J i dL i —— i ig 20 of 40 Greenw. 60 80 100 120 14.0 160 180 mame TUCATTEATCURCCTER RTECS bti} ae | i] : il Hi He | iy HY te } Si eeWOUTAHNPAH AGE Wanneanae i Pit THVTPARURATAAMUARH UAE ETT TUTTI UCU TOUTE TUR TU THUGUUUUUU RACE ASEARE | ) as ae ™ Sa ———— Somer Datepr ar pearaumcte eet Mas Done TS ee ey VIPS Te” Pe AGRei 1px A SURVEY OF CONTEMPORARY CIVILI- ZATION AND INSTITUTIONS Eee eee bttn ) o ea ei a} 'eT AANA i i Ne a i CHAP TE RS Xor POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS 1. NATURE OF POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS A review of the history of the world for the past century and a half reveals the fact that the greatest single force in human society has been and is today the national, sovereign state. Humanity, asa whole, is divided into a number of permanent groups of people, who are politically organized, occupy a definite territory, and are rela- tively free from external control. The powers of the state extend to all persons and organizations within its jurisdiction. Its purposes are: to maintain law, order, liberty, equality of opportunity, prop- erty rights, and those conditions necessary to individual and social well-being. Legally, the state is indivisible, immutable, and possesses the right to employ force to execute its will. Its authority is su- preme and unlimited. It may tax its citizens to the last penny for general welfare; it may draft them for national service and even compel them to sacrifice their lives; and it may regulate their con- duct. The church, the school, the industrial institutions, and social usages must bow to the will of the state in case of conflict with it. The machinery employed by the state to carry out its will is called the government. The form and functions of the government are commonly determined today by an instrument called a constitution, which is created by the state. The persons who enact laws and ad- minister them are known as public officials. The whole body of individuals who constitute the state are “‘the people,’’ or ‘the nation,’’ whose members have surrendered their wills to the collec- tive will of the state. Within the state men are not free to act as they please, but their rules of conduct and manner of living are determined by law. Yet through this very restraint comes to the individual greater freedom, more personal liberty, and more security than could be obtained otherwise. It should be born in mind clearly that behind the laws are the public officials, who constitute the government; that back of the government is the constitution, which determines its character; that back of the constitution is the state, which creates it and has the power to change it; and that back of the state are the people, who constitute it as the source of final authority. Centuries ago Aristotle classified states into monarchies, aris- tocracies, and democracies — a division which many persons still accept. When the character of governments is taken into account, however, modern political groups become (1) republican or monar- chical, according to the nature of the executive; (2) national or im- perial, according to the territory and peoples over which the rule 643 TOTHASAURLATAMURRAA TATA ORRAA POU UM PEMD UOED ED OREM ALE TAD AT RETA RARER PAR eee et State and government cuoemanqunassns Somes OSES EPO STD oo aT i 4 | : Fo aad xa en . OFFICIAL INTERNATIONAL AGENCIES The greatest single force in the world during the past century or It captivated the heart and mind By esti iblishing constitutions and two has been a ateeaet. groups of men around the globe. free government; by fostering popular education; and by encourag- ing economic development, it helped to produce a high civilization. At the same time, in its exaggerated form, it bu rdened the peoples of earth with a crushing ey cultivated an aggressive im- perialism; ¢ ncouraged a false type « yf patriotism; an d produced a crop of quarrels and wats. While statesmen recognized the construc- tive service of nationalism in domestic affairs, many of them were appalled by the immorality, injustice, and anarchy in international relations. International Law lagged far behind the needs of the world for peace and justice. There was no permanent international legisla- ture to enact laws to meet inter-state problems as state legislatures met national needs. Congresses were held not so much to prevent con- flicts as to adjust them after they occurred. The network of treaties guaranteed national security and power rather than international ] order and Alliances assured the predominance of certain protection groups of nations instead of preserving the rights of all peoples. Disputes within states were settled in stable courts of law, but differ- ences between states had to be adjusted by diplomacy, arbitration, or war. Meanwhile three principal influences, among many others, were stimulating the growth of internationalism: (1) [he improvements in transportation and communication gave the world a new sense of unity by bringing distant peoples into closer touch with each other. (2) The growth of world business cultivated mutual confidence and ead of Christianity more intimate inter-state relations. (@) The spr through many agencies tended to create a common civilization among the different peoples of the earth. These forces were breaking down the old barriers and prejudices that separated different races and nationalities, and were teaching the modern spirit of codperation and Hermit nations ceased to exist, and a community of About 750 unofficial brotherhood. interest and world public opinion emerged. and voluntary international organizations were formed for all sorts In addition to these bodies, official agencies were created: (1) International Law received more consideration as a body of pais wile carrying definite duties and ob ligations, and was accepted by all civ ‘lized states as binding on them. (2) International treaties were multiplied to regulate international relations, and thus restricted the contracting powers freedom of action while stressing a general w elfare. (3) International congresses became more numerf- ous in settling w orl affairs, which otherwise might have led to of jee ate; NMOS ee: ene Chap. XLI] GROWTH OF INTERNATIONALISM 653 tis ST gg ye ~~ — 7 armed conflicts. (4) The League of Nations was created in 1919, with two houses having some of the functions of an international government, as the latest experiment in official organization to manage international affairs in such a way as to avoid wat. In addition to these general agencies working for the betterment of world conditions, numerous special, public, international organ- izations have been established to handle specific problems. The most important examples of these are the following: (2) The Uni- versal Postal Union, formed in 1878, and now including every civil- ized state, has its official bureau at Berne, Switzerland. Through it International uniformity of postal laws was secured, remarkably low rates were 6°” obtained, and the delivery of international mail became speedy and certain. In 1910 over 905,000,000 letters, 278,000,000 postcards, 29,000,000 money orders, and packages equal in number to all the people on earth, were sent through the Union. (2) Patterned in many particulars after the Postal Union are the Telegraph Union, the Union for the Protection of Industrial Property (patents, trademarks etc.), the Metric Union, the European Union of Railway Freight Trans- portation, the Union for the Protection of Submarine Cables and the Union for the Repression of the White Slave Trade. (3) A number of River Commissions have successfully controlled international rivers like the Rhine, Danube, and Congo. (4) Special boards have been created at various times to govern regions like Albania, Fiume, Dantzig, Constantinople, the New Hebrides, and the Samoan Islands. (5) The International Sanitary Commission formed in 1903 deals with dangerous epidemics, such as cholera and the bubonic plague, ana seeks to prevent their spread. In 1914 the “Central Office of Inter- national Institutions’’ at Brussels in a public list of interstate or- ganizations enumerated thirty-two that dealt exclusively with “‘in- ternational science.’’ The International Research Council was formed in 1919 at Brussels and had 19 nation-members within two years. (6) The International Suez Canal Commission was created to keep the canal ‘‘free and open in time of war as in time of peace.’’ (7) The Permanent Sugar Commission was organized by fourteen states in 1902 to establish free trade in sugar, while the International In- stitute of Agriculture, with headquarters at Rome, seeks to promote agriculture. (8) The International Labor Organization, created in 1919, attempts to establish social peace based on social justice, by bringing about a codperation of the state, capital and labor in the sphere of industry. Two world conferences were held by represent- atives of 48 states, one at Washington in 1919 and the other at Genoa in 1922, and a permanent International Labor Office was located in Geneva. In general, wars both create and destroy a more intimate relation among nations. The World War, in its immediate effect, divided the peoples of earth into two bitterly hostile groups based upon the rival Triple Alliance and Triple Entente in Europe, but within each warring ee AEE WE GE WUE UUEEEDI URLS SSD At dS »RSE TN i a ee aan 5 ere pa Se 8 ——————————— ee a Le eran By NaF ore wr tS ORES fd a ll a anee aa a eee SD eh ee The m td orl a £7] Peri + ake Zii z+ fy “4h y id efi} ; basis : ie eb 654 MODERN WORLD HISTORY ‘Chap. XLI group there was a closer military, economic, and political codperation than had ever been known. Germany dominated one side, and France and Great Britain led the other. The Allied and Associate Powers created certain international executive commissions, which had much to do with winning he conflict. These included such bodies as the Supreme Wa Cuan the Allied Naval Council, the Inter-Allied Cou sate on War Purchases and Finance, the Allied Mari- time Iransport ¢ ouncil. the Food Council, and the Munitions Coun- cil. which enabled the victorious Allies to utilize their common efforts more effectively COW ards thi Clr ONC objective ; After the de fe; it of the Central Powers, the Allied states sought to ca p) ritalize the spirit of codperation by creating the League « f Nations for the purpose of enforcing the terms f the Treaty of Versailles and of perce future wars. The League of Nations, in turn, made number of internationa commissions to deal with problems growing out of the - World Wat The past century saw the birth of a new world — a world largely Cc pl rovision for h many kcal uniform in its manners and ideals. Economically, nations were no | ndent, but vitally dependent upon the products and resources of each other. The growth of world business led to the ex- change of goods and raw materials on a wide scale. The industrial nations scoured the earth for markets, and ac out thousands of ers of (Great j ars in their agents to sell their wares. The capitalists and | ban nk Britain, France and Germany 1n\ ested billions of dol colonies, and in foreign lands. Inter national credit and exchange facilitated world business by cultivating mutual confidence. So- cially, peoples were no more isolated units, but consciously inter- depet ndent and striving to advance humanity to a higher plane of ition, the pr Pie the well-being. Science, travel, commun standards physician, the missionary, and the te eae were raising the s of living in the backward parts of the world. Buiter ally, nations freely exchang ed their ideas, learning, inventions, and discoveries. In the midst of the keen national rivalries and of class and industrial competitions in mo dern society, there was emerging a new watch- word, namely, codperation. Thousands of agencies were ministering to the international needs of the new age. Thousands of forw ard- looking men and women were fostering an intef1 national spirit, not merely by paying lip-service to Ca tch-words like ‘‘the brotherhood of man’ or by seekit ig to revive the shadowy and eee idealism of Rousseau, but I dy beginning practically and prosaically to demon- strate that there are more ties, economic, social, and human, which ‘bind nations together”’ than there are conflicting interests and an- tagonisms which separate them. Hence it was in the course of prog- ress that men should talk about the next step in the pol itical and economic organization of m: ankind to eliminate the causes of inter- national strife and misunderstanding. Propos: als for the federation f the nations of the world became more insistent as the decades of thSUCSUTVSTUTAATUSTERVETATUGEGHEGATL TAAL —— ATALANTA AA nu HUNAN nM nn ATA AA AATEC Ha mo Chap. XLI] GROWTH OF INTERNATIONALISM 655 last century passed by, and their discussion was accelerated by the outbreak of the World War. 3. Projects ror Woritp PEACE AND THE FEDERATION OF THE WORLD The United States in 1789 gave the world the first successful ex- periment of a stable, democratic federation of independent common- wealths — a task almost as difficult for that day as the federation of the self-governing states of the world in this day. Meanwhile the Industrial Revolution was laying the economic foundations for political internationalism. While the French Revolution was raging Kant in 1795, Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher, wrote his treatise, On Perpetual Peace, in which he urged (1) the establishment of popular government; (2) the ‘“‘universal,Union’’ of free republican states under the “‘reign of right’’; () the doctrine of non-interference; and (4) the surrender of national liberty to international control. After the overthrow of Napoleon, who also dreamed of a congress to settle Europe under his power, the autocratic states of Europe formed the Holy Alliance “‘to protect Religion, Peace and Justice.”’ ‘‘In- ternational conservatism’’, organized in the Concert of Europe as an alliance against revolutionary tendencies, sought to control world affairs, but autocratic rulers could not create a durable union of European states because its “morality was based on bayonets.”’ Mazzini, the Italian patriot, in 1831 attempted to organize a ‘Young Proposals for Europe’’ movement under the control of a “‘College of intellectuals’? /4repean located in Switzerland as an advisory body. With the rise of social- ee ism about the middle of the nineteenth century, there resulted the In- ternational Working Men’s Association, commonly called ‘The First International,’’ which was formed in 1864 at London for the purpose of uniting the workers of all nations. After holding several international congresses, its power waned, but in 1889 ‘‘The Second International’’ was revived at Paris and lasted until disrupted by the World War. In 1910, the Socialists’ Congress at Copenhagen rejected James Keir Hardie’s motion for the declaration of a general strike of all workers in case of war by a vote of 131 to 51. Among those who voted with the majority were 20 Germans, 18 Austrians, 15 Italians, and 14 Americans. In the minority were 20 Englishmen, 12 Frenchmen, 7 Russians and 5 Poles. Both the vote and the allign- ment of the delegates were significant. In 1913 the German Socialists grumbled about the Zabern affair, but took no effective action. On July 28, 1914, when the outbreak of war seemed certain, the German Socialists held 28 public meetings in Berlin alone to protest against war. The next day in a great gathering of Socialists at Brussels, the German Socialist, Haase, declared that the demands of Austria on Serbia were a provocation of war, and said that Germany should not intervene even if Russia did. It was decided to hold a great International Congress in Paris on August 9 to prevent the out- wae EET WVAAE it a TOU eee SS ee sere See age tnd a en en ad ae iad aad 5 ee i ee essen + es TET aa a eTa a La a a “28 ras = ee SE ar ee Tet Py he 2 ess sentra pare Smee Nae ers OER Ae The Church and peace 656 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XLI break of a general war. The Socialist newspaper Vorwarts protested against both the war and the barbarities committed by the army in it. Liebknecht asserted that the war was imperialistic and capital- ‘ctic. and intended for the conquest of the markets of the world. In the Reichstag 16 of his comrades joined him. The attitude of British workers was seen in the fact that in 1915, 698 strikes occurred. Ihe attempt of the Bolsheviki in Russia to create ‘“The Third Interna- ‘in 1919 found the Socialists of the world split into numerous , tional hostile factions —a condition which has continued to 1926. The ‘‘Peace Movement’’ was organized in many different societies and had diverse programs during the past century _and was distinctly a form of propagandism that covered the world. The first society was formed in 1815 in New York City, and was soon followed by others in the chief American cities. In Europe, a peace society was estab- lished in London in 1816 and at Geneva in 1828. From these begin- nings, similar associations increased until in 1914 there were 55 in Italy; 36in France; 22 1n Great Britain; 17 in the United States; 8 each in Austria and Sweden; 7 in Latin America; 4 in Australia; 3 each in Hungary, Norway, Russia, Spain, Japan, and Denmark, and 1 in Canada — a total of 160 organizations with many branches and an enormous membership. Out of these local peace societies grew in- ternational peace congresses, the first being held in 1843 at London and attended by 337 delegates. At the third international peace congress convened in Paris in 1849, Victor Hugo read his epoch- marking address on “ The United States of Europe.’’ After 1889 such congresses met annually and in 1891 the © Permanent International Bureau of Peace’’ was established at Berne. A powerful sentiment for universal peace was engendered by these agencies through the publication of newspapers, tracts, and books and large endowments of money were secured to advance the cause. The Swedish chemist, Alfred Nobel; the Scotch-American, Andrew Carnegie; the French publicist, Baron D’Estournelles de Constant; the Russian novelist, Count Leo Tolstoy; and other eminent men and women became ardent champions of the movement. Thousands of pacifists throughout the world denounced war as a relic of barbarism, a contradiction of Christianity, subversive of modern culture, dangerous to business prosperity, and destructive of political democracy. A\s the twentieth century approached, they argued that the international bankers and capitalists would prevent that the working classes would not sup- wars to save investments; 1 conflicts because they would be the port their governments in armec chief sufferers: that socialism had become sufficiently strong to pre- by force; that the intellectual classes vent the settlement of disputes justment of international con- were powerful enough to secure the ad flicts without human slaughter; and, finally, that the Christian churches would exert their tremendous influence against wars between ° eae ° —_ . . . ace 1 civilized nations. To give official recognition to the peace idea,ANUNCIO Chap. XLI] GROWTH OF INTERNATIONALISM 657 Great Britain and France in 1889 invited other states to join The Interparliamentary Union, which in 1912 had 3640 members with headquarters at Brussels. The First Pan-American Congress was held in 1889 to promote friendly relations among the American republics. The most progressive pacifists ceased to be emotional, and took up the scientific study of history, politics, law, and psychology to dis- cover the causes of wart. They challenged the supposed benefits of war, and pointed out its economic, moral, and biological evils. They revealed the collapse of International Law before an aggressive nationalism. They proclaimed the dangerous consequences of huge armaments both to national groups and to the human race. And out of all this discussion, they presented constructive plans for a new world order based on law, reason, and justice. Arbitration of inter-state disputes was one of the first practical measures proposed to avoid war. The United States took the initia- tive in this means of adjusting international conflicts. In 1835 the senate of Massachusetts favored such a method, and in 1853 the Senate of the United States took similar action. By 1873 nine na- tional states had adopted the principle. The Pan-American Con- gresses and the two Hague Peace Conferences sought to perfect the machinery necessary for the successful employment of arbitration. Between 1821 and 1909 about 300 treaties providing for arbitration were formed, of which 80 made arbitration compulsory. From 1800 to 1914 perhaps 250 disputes over all sorts of problems were arbi- trated. In 1899 the First Hague Peace Conference created the Perma- nent Court of Arbitration and 18 important cases and numerous minor ones were settled up to 1914 by the process prescribed. The Second Hague Peace Conference in 1907 favored compulsory arbitration, but disagreement over the selection of judges prevented the institution of such a court, and actually established an International Prize Court. In the same year the Central American Court of Justice was set up to adjudicate ‘‘all controversies’? at home and abroad. Finally the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 provided for a Permanent Court of Inter- national Justice, which was organized in 1921 by 26 nations and is in successful operation with 48 nation-members (1925). It con- sists of 11 judges and 4 deputy-judges elected by the League of Nations for a period of nine years. The Court frames its own rules, elects its own officers, and resides at The Hague. It is empowered to hear ‘‘suits between states’’ on written application and cases are decided by a ‘“‘majority of the judges’ present.’’ The decision ‘is final and without appeal’’ although new facts may permit “‘an appli- cation for revision of a judgment’’ after the lapse of five years. Numerous proposals were made to create adequate machinery — legislative, executive, and judicial — to meet international needs. International Law presupposed the existence of a loose ‘Society of Nations,’ but the new super-state world organization proposed was called by such high-sounding titles as the “‘World State,’’ “ The PUTTVTUTTOTTOTERTEUTGTNGUGNUGTEGTANANERU ESI ONIGNUREAMOMN CMAN ONAN OUR aN Arbitration PINT MOANA ON a “i ; ae Se a a SSSRT Re ee a ae ee ae er SS Pe eat A SS es SE an Laatste ea rkrt] a eta pened 8 ae PR a aL OO sane es a 6<8 MODERN WORLD HISTORY (Chap. XLI Parliament of Man,.’’ and ‘‘The United States of the World.’’ The federationists suggested a genuine codperative union of the sovereign states. with the nation as a basis, but with sufficient power to secure peace, order and the reign of law throughout the earth. They con- tended that just as the individual with his selfish impulse cannot live without working with and for his fellow-men, so the self-centered nation cannot exist without codperating with other nations. Inter- nationalism, rightly understood, does not mean the destruction of the — nation with all its virtues and fine impulses, but its complement, the ‘“ pooling of the spiritual resources of all nations ‘‘to bring mankind to a higher level of happiness and culture. They urged the develop- ment of a world point of view aS a supplementary corrective of the narrower national standpoint. The cosmopolitan and the Socialists, on the other hand, were disposed to urge the obliteration of all na- tional boundaries in order to create a genuine world government and a world citizenship. Organizations advocating the ideas of both the federated and the unified world state were found in nearly if not all of the advanced nations of the globe. Perhaps the most conmspicu- ous movement towards world organization was that ol the League to Enforce Peace, formed at Philadelphia in 1915, which proposed: (1) to submit all questions involving law to an international judicial tribunal: (2) to submit all other disputes to a council for conciliation; (3) to employ both economic and military force against any nation ) that refused to negotiate before going to war; and (4) to hold inter- national conferences to formulate International Law to meet new world conditions. This drive in the United States, which was sup- ported by many of the ablest men tn the nation, found a counter-part ‘n Great Britain, France, Italy, and other countries, and had much to do with the creation of the League of Nations. The outbreak of the World War had the immediate effect of inten- + . sifying the peace efforts, more especially, of course, in the neutral countries. But as one nation after another was drawn into the con- flict, the pacifists divided into two camps: (2) the irreconcilables and ‘conscientious objectors,’ who denounced the war as an evil from which no possible good could come, and suffered vilification and im- prisonment for their convictions: and (2) the compromisers, who believed that the struggle was a ‘War to end War’’ and a crusade against Prussian militarism, and consequently gave it either whole- hearted or half-hearted support. With the defeat of the Central Powers, the forces working for universal peace were undoubtedly strengthened, but many obstacles to its realization still survived. Many of the pacifists hailed the League of Nations as the goal of all their hopes, because they believed that it would bring about dis- armament, provide adequate legislative, judicial, and administrative machinery to settle disputes, and possess sufficient authority to en- force its will. Other pacifists of the groups of irreconcilables de- nounced the League as merely a means of perpetuating the selfish1} Lt ane ee Ne ee PIVUUVLVUVUU TEA TEEN HEHE AT Chap. XLI] GROWTH OF INTERNATIONALISM 659 nationalism and imperialism of the victorious Allies. From the standpoint of world history, however, the results of the World War may measurably advance the cause of peace and friendly understand- ing among the nations of earth. REFERENCES FOR FURTHER STUDY J. Bryce, International Relations (1922); A. J. Grant, A. GREENWOOD, and others, An Introduction to the Study of International Relations (1916); A. S. Hersuey, Elements of International Public Law (1912); L. OppENHEIM, International Law, 2 vols. Qd edition 1921); E. C. Sroweix and H. C. Munro, International Cases, 2 vols. (1916); J. W. Fos- TER, Practise of Diplomacy (1906); E. Satow, Guide to Diplomatic Practise (1917); P. B. Porter, Introduction to the Study of International Organization (1922); A. Ponsonsy, Democ- racy and Diplomacy (1915); F. Nettscn, How Diplomats Make War (1916); G. Youna, Diplomacy Old and New (1921); P. S. Rernscu, Secret Diplomacy (1922); International Public Unions (1911); A. L. Kennepy, O/d Diplomacy and New, 1876-1922 (x92'3));, J. M: Martuews, The Conduct of American Foreign Relations (1922); E. S. Corwin, The President's Control of American Foreign Relations (1917); Q. WRIGHT, Control of American Foreign Rela- tions (1922); G. Hunt, The Department of State (1914); D. P. Heater, Diplomacy and the Study of International Relations (1923); E. Satow, International Congresses and Confer- ences (1921); C. Duputs, Principe de l' equilibries et de concert européen (1909); W. A. Puit- Lips, The Confederation of Europe (1914); E. Krensie1, Nationalism, War, and Society (1916); R. Muir, Nationalism and Internationalism (1917); G. M. Fisxg, International Commercial Policies (1907); N.M. Burter, The International Mind (1912); J. C. Fartgs, Rése of Inter- nationalism (1915); P. M. Brown, International Society, its Nature and Interests (1922); W. P. Merritt, Christian Internationalism (1919); F. B. Sayre, Experiments tn Inter- national Administration (1919); J. B. Scorr, The Hague Peace Conferences (1909); W. I. Hui, The Two Hague Peace Conferences (1908); The New Peace Movement (1912); J. H. Cuoate, The Two Hague Conferences (1913); W. Scuucxine and H. Wensere, The Work of the Hague, 2 vols. (1918); P. M. Ocitvir, International Waterways (1920); B. E. Lowg, International Protection of Labor (1921); R. W. PostGarte, The Workers’ International (1921); H. Davis, Among the World's Peacemakers (1907); A. H. Friep, Die moderne Friedens- bewegung in Deutschland und Frankreich (1918); J. Morirzen, The Peace Movement in Amer- ica (1912); N. Ancexy, The Great Illusion (1910); F. C. Howz, Why War? (1916); C. C. Cotun, War against War (1917); B. A. W. Russert, Why Men Fight (1917); T. B. Vesren, The Nature of Peace (1917); O. T. Crossy, International War; its Causes and its Cure (1919); G. L. Dickinson, The Causes of International War (1921); B. F. TRug- BLOOD, Federation of the World (1899); J. Novixov, Fedération de I’ Europe (ago); R. L. BripcMan, World Organization (1905); C. E. Hooprr, The Need of the Nations, an Inter- national Parliament (1907); R. L. Jongs, International Arbitration as a Substitute for War (1908); J. A. Hosson, Toward International Government (1916); H. N. Braitsrorp, A League of Nations (2d ed. 1917); R. Goxpsmitu, A League to Enforce Peace (1917); E. Barker, A Confederation of Nations (1918); R. C. Minor, A Republic of Nations (1918); A. F. Pottarp, League of Nations in History (1918); F. C. Hicxs, The New World Order (1920); G. N. Crarxe, Unifying the World (1921). UVTVVTURTTUTUCTUGHTVVGNUGQUEQUVAIUGUEOUENNEANIORGRIMIOAUCAN OANA ERAUUUCES UU > OAT OCT SPSU ——— a ene Se ee OT eS ES ah ik al ara ae A ane ra | wg te rent eee at ms ——— ee Ltrr a SES Industrializa- tion and rise a —— eA A ES CHAPTER XLII SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC INSTITUTIONS 1. THe INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION AND MODERN SociAL CONDITIONS THE present social and economic conditions of the earth have been determined largely by the rapid expansion of the Industrial Revolu- tion over the globe. Perhaps more than any other force, it has modernized the world and made it different from the past. The factory system changed pie mode of living and the conduct of busi- ness in a thousand different ways. [he new means of travel by land, sea, and air ob liter ated the Rerriers of space and opened markets everywhere. An improved mail service, the telegraph, cable, tele- phone, and wireless Buen the most distant peoples into intimate relationships, and made all humanity one great neighborhood. Many factors were busy transforming this neighborhood into a brotherhood. Innumerable inventions, discoveries, and new processes multiplied the joys and comforts of life. Thus within the lifetime of men and women still living, a new civilization appeared on earth. It attained its highest perfection in western Europe and in the United States, and from those two centers spread to southern and eastern Europe, to Latin America, to Asia, to Africa, and to the islands of the seas. Large areas of the backward regions still remain industrially un- developed, but the awakening is making giant strides. In general the effects of the newer Industrial Revolution have been both beneficial and detrimental. It has stimulated democracy socially , politically, and industrially. It led first to the rise of a pow erful middle class to a commanding position of wealth and polit- ical authority. Then came the eradual enfranchisement of the male workers, followed by the extension of suffrage to the women. Polit- ical democracy, in turn, encouraged the workers and reformers to advocate the democratization of industry. Numerous experiments ‘n that direction were made in America and Europe; and were in operation for some years in Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. Men and women were called from the farms and villages to live together in more intimate relationships in the great industrial centers. Forty-five years ago (1880) 75 per cent of the people of the United States lived in the country; now less than half live in rural communities. Old nations like the British and French ceased to be provincial in speech, social usages, and laws, and built up a national solidarity unknown in the earlier days. The new industrial classes, both capitalists and wage-earners, became the champions of a strong 660_—— ae — AANA NMA MOTORS HE ANAT i i a ea Chap. XLII] SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC INSTITUTIONS 661 nationalism — the capitalists, because they needed a strong govern- ment to protect their business interests at home and their investments abroad; the workers, because they believed that their prosperity depended upon industrial success. Common economic interests developed nationalistic aspirations in divided countries like Italy and Germany. In the United States, a great Civil War not only abolished slavery but also killed the doctrine of states rights, and stressed national sovereignty. Thus everywhere peoples took patri- otic pride in seeing their nations increase in wealth, advance in power, and become ‘‘great’’ among other nations. Capital increased tre- mendously, even billionaires appeared, and thousands of new busi- ness enterprises were started. More coal, petroleum and iron ore were produced in the decade from 1911-1921 than in the whole of the nineteenth century. The same forces that encouraged the growth of nationalism like- wise applauded the rise of national imperialism. The annihilation of distance, the need of new markets for surplus manufactures, the de- mand for fresh sources of raw materials and food supplies, the desire for opportunities to invest accumulated capital in paying enterprises, and pride in seeing the map of the country grow larger and larger, produced national imperialism — one of the most significant features of modern world history. This new national imperialism soon be- came contagious among the leading powers and found champions among business men, patriots, and religious zealots. The exchange of goods among the different nations also led to the exchange of ideas. Foreign travel increased at a tremendous rate, and immigration set tn on a gigantic scale. Peoples came to understand each other as never before. Thousands of students left their homes to study in foreign lands. Numerous movements sought to bring about a friendlier understanding among the nations and to lay the foundations for world peace. Arbitration treaties became common, and international societies of all sorts were seeking to create a coOperative spirit in the world. 2. GROWTH OF COMMERCE During the century following 1819, when the first steamship crossed the Atlantic, the total value of the trade of the world multt- plied sixty times or from $2 to $37 for every person living on the eatth. For a long time Great Britain has stood first among the com- mercial countries, and British maritime supremacy is still acknowl- edged. The British Empire controls half of the gold mined, a third of the wool and coal, a fourth of the cotton, a fifth of the wheat, and a sixth of the pig iron of the world. Great Britain imports most of her foodstuffs and raw materials and pays for them out of her exports of textiles, machinery, leather goods, cutlery, chemicals and pottery. In 1914 Germany ranked next to Great Britain as a commercial power, but the World War left her industries disorganized, her foreign trade PTHTT UAC CAA LULU UTU TATA WV OTT TT LUT OO ee Ltt tina 7 Ne Toy otek et eee ot! eee eee) eu ai heat Bare oe us Ge — Imperialism ers ces a pap BENG a ee a nail ’ ce tiaaoe Ew: ee SS aan ——————— SS a ot Sethe ee a SE Bs TS a ae " ee e M lern International finance 662 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XLII ruined, and her merchant marine destroyed. By 1925, however, Germany's recovery was pronounced. In the volume of foreign trade, France now takes second place among the nations. The French excel in producing millinery, laces, gloves, silks, wines, and china, which are exported. Th e Frenc ~*h merchant marine, i icccrelig is not extensive. In proportion to her wealth and population, t the foreign trade of the United States has been small. This country is more inde- pendent, industrially, than any other great state, prod ices nearly all of the necessities of life and owns most of its own raw materials. Within the past twenty years, foreign markets have been eagerly aoe ut for the products of the farms, mines, and factories. Before 1914 only 10 per cent of the foreign commerce was carried under the d War greatly increased the merchant marine. Japan likewise has been making giant strides in world > & . 4 - ae ae ‘oo hor metten flags. but the Wot commerce and her merchant fleet in 1925 exceeded that of France. Today world business is so thoroughly organized that there is a steady stream of commoditie s from og oducers to consumers through wholesalers Sea StS, M eh of the world’s business is carried on by the great exchanges dealing in wheat, corn, cotton, wool, sugar, stocks, and bonds. Although producers are thus saved from ruit 10us fluctuations. nevertheless such evils as ‘“‘corners’’ and ~ SquceZes grow out of speculation on the stock exchanges. The organization of insurance companies to guarantee business men against losses by hail, wind, water, fire and theft takes the risk out of most commercial enterprises. Banks also aid business men with loans, and a conven- ient system of checks, drafts, and foreign bills of exchange. Govern- ments nL Re -harter or own mighty banking institutions. The Bank of England. the Bank of France, and the Federal Reserve Bank of the aetie States serve to stabilize the financial system. Commercial banks are supplemented by savings banks and trust companies. Most of the nations of the world have now adopted gold as the standard of all business transactions. Mexico made the change in 1918, thus leaving China as the only state of industrial importance that retains silver as a basis. The years following the W orld War left Europe unsettled economically by t the flood of paper currency. The growth of world business necessitated the development of ‘nternational finance. In normal times the system of credits and for- eign bills of exchange en: ibled men in one country to engage with ease and safety in business all over the world. Enormous loans of money were made by the richer countries to the poorer ones. Capitalists in progressive lands invested billions in backward parts of the earth, and in other countries. In 1914 it was estimated that British capital- ists had $20.000,000,000 invested abroad — half of it in the c colonies and the rest in foreign countries. French agestinonts abroad totalled $10,000,000,000. Those of Germany were also high. The United States, prior to the World War was a debtor nation, but after that conflict Europe owed her about $11,000,000,000. New York, ratherMMMM OTP Chap. XLII] SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC INSTITUTIONS 663 than London, Paris or Berlin became the center of international finance. The total debt of the world, it is estimated increased during the past ten years from forty to four hundred billion dollars. With the gradual increase in the gold supply there has been a steady increase in the price of commodities. The abundance of gold has supplied more money with which to buy goods. With the greater demand for goods, the supply of goods grows scarcer and the prices become higher. With the scarcity of goods and higher prices, 1n- dustry expands to meet the need. This means more work and higher Business cycles wages for the laborers. Since salaries rise more slowly than wages, the salaried workers have benefited less during a period of high prices. In like manner those who depend upon incomes from stocks and bonds suffer. When bad banking, or the over-issue of cheap paper money, or speculation, or overexpansion in business, or unwise investments, or crop failures, produce an unsettled and nervous con- dition, a financial crisis results. Bankers refuse to lend money; met- chants cancel their orders or refuse to buy; factories are closed; bankruptcies result; and hard times come. Prices fall, wages are lowered, unemployment follows, and suffering is general. After a time confidence returns, a wave of prosperity begins, and times are ‘‘so0d’’ once more. Economists and financiers are studying methods to stabilize prices and to avert panics. The first great modern nation to adopt the policy of free trade was Great Britain. She removed restrictions on exports and exacted im- port duties on such articles as coffee, tea, tobacco, liquors, and sugar merely to secure arevenue. “‘To buy in the cheapest market and sell in Free trade the dearest,’’ was her trade motto. Other powerful industrial states, however, adopted the protective system, which sought, by high tariffs on competing imports, to build up “‘infant industries’’ until they became self-supporting and able to compete in world markets. This policy was the logical outgrowth of an intense nationalism. The United States, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and other states were the champions of protectionism. Many political economists were disposed to contend that free trade was the ideal goal towards which nations should direct their efforts. In recent years there has also been much talk about the freedom of the seas. In time of peace, the seas are open to all nations alike. In time of war, however, the Suez Protectionism and Panama canals observe this rule, but the navies of the belliger- ents, through the use of the blockade, close portions of the high seas to neutral shipping. Under the League of Nations it is hoped that a freer commercial intercourse may develop and that the complete freedom of the seas may be assured to neutrals in time of armed con- flict. DUTP LP ot et ie Led TTT tered es net - a ee 3. THE War on Poverty The Industrial Revolution produced a class consciousness between the wage-earners and the capitalists. In the past the poor had been = ——— oe " —— TVVTVTORTCERUQCENUATOVIGUEVURTEQTOVEWUANUQOUN INN ERNGIEN EN UAIQIORORNORCMUUUAUURUAUUMUU RGR ee stS | 17 : , | . rer in f ~ Th f Serrs | Lile ¢ iL) & & . Ne tac- i id . ; 4 * | x 7 ry ft t x rl L . PLS. a4 Ss i ; ‘ . i AG) .G. al ‘ ' , | Tf f { | ; ¢ C C Ly c . \ . . . y i A \ ] ] ‘ ; ~ 7 , ’ + f re ‘ c [ re KCC i . . Ma Pa | , ' CT 1 = ] I [ » , - . e ~ i Db [ , 4 4 | f 4 s ‘ . i i | . . | ro 4 . ¢ : s — <- en : | c C ! c Min = , } ) a ; ‘ e 7% ‘ . } 1 } - Ol CI \ i ‘ \ . ec ¢ ( } - ¥ C 1 Ola C } O - ‘ r ‘ . ( , : 7 | c ipe S + ’ r * - = ‘ .. 7 r .. bs kh 4 y J | ¢ r T T r \ \ ne u \ \ — Y - | 7 \. = an a i > . P J - I I I Gt ie | - ; VN ae \ | I SS ! } 1 . Of t wee { I ; . CU ‘ 1 | I ial [ cs ¢ I ) S °t- | ¢ ence t : S SI | | i ’ 4 i. , I \ . ran ran: / 4 : | | Hi [ C S | eG C inve rac iT I P re nips ae I t } | ‘ | . r eh Ht he | I V . ~ it iw : ‘ | 4 7} | ‘ ! L¢ I he I } Hie \ » } . i : } } a day ‘ ' ( a , t K ¢ His : c f ; * i In cl | | t] ie LI \ oy > i 5 v it SLO A \ S that Hae . ‘ f 4 ich HH L .. L \. . XY a | } S ’ iw 2a '% 4 } ] ; ) i } Ht I Wil . . . LO [ . \ . } I | > s > \ iL} wit | ] t | ; f | ] y Tr i of Wealt va C COC! Mi LLC . wil ae 7 ite bes 8 He ' r } 7 r { eT i -} . ' “x 1 r i+ } . ¢ ' j x iaACcl A gh » \ »>LUEL LCT . {J is Y > io Lies tt A i ‘ » = . ii eal . H ] ] | » ~ | t } ‘ —_ ( 1 SC} ’ Ite [ 1é VW Ol K | rmen TT TT) Gate C L} i} “ \ i ~ c | SSE ‘ t Pa } ] i i“ . ] ) | the two classes became more and more conscious of the tf dividing i. vy Ht : che J ft d T one ’ ’ e | ‘ eric ¢ rr ote? ¢ . ] oi x 1 ! t ial i () PAVERLE L . i 1LS £Li\ ] LL IL OLS i] . . - i » Lge i \ 1 | yy 1 } * ~b . —— ~* tr hy r 1 er > } + 12 “ke : LNese Un1loOl » Wecrc forbidde J | ’ \ i MOY eTnmel LE DULL a> Che W OI Cis ! < = ae Pe ao Ae ts cained politica! DOWEI alic AWark ned Sympatny, tney forced the ———— } poet : tee TT arr ee “curre - , Labor unions legalization or the trad “—Un1LONS. [his recognition occurred first 1n ees q other industrial countries. The British a J — ; ¢ . pa c+ — nel — ro r ue * —_ ate pest e rc ¢c —_ i trade-unions by 1921 enrolled over 6,500,000 members and served asa . A ' j - : s po ue . af © ' : = rT? es model for labor organizations in other parts of the world. lThey elected their representatives to Parliament. and exercised much 1n- fluence in securing labor legislation. They have numerous coopefa- tive societies, which include retail shops, wholesale houses, factories, and even banks, for the purpose of reducing the cost of living for theSOCAN TMCS ] PEASE RE a ene a es Chap. XLII] SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC INSTITUTIONS — 665 workers. On the continent of Europe the workers have trade-unions and codperative societies, but they are not so powerful as in Great Britain. Germany had 8,000,000 members in 1921; Italy 2,600,000; France 1,500,000; Austria 1,000,000; Belgium 700,000; Poland 950,000; Spain 800,000; Mexico 500,000; Australia 630,000. In the United States the skilled workmen are organized in trade-unions, but they constitute only 15 per cent or over 4,000,000 of the male wage- earners. In 1925, 107 of the unions were affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, which was started in 1886. With the exception of mutual life insurance companies and building and loan associations, the codperative movement has made comparatively little progress in America. The International Federation of Trade Unions, consisting of 19 countries and 7,500,000 members before the World War, had increased by 1921 to include 24 countries and 24,000,000 members. The total number of organized workers in the world in 1925 was given at 41,000,000. In Great Britain during the past century wages have increased two and one half times; and in the United States they have advanced 116 per cent since 1910. In spite of the wonderful increase in wealth and the advance in invention, science and education, and in the face of laudable efforts of governments to improve the lot of the working classes, a large portion of the population of even the most highly civilized nations spend their lives in poverty and wretchedness. Economically speak- ing, poverty does not mean starvation and beggary, but a condition Poverty that prevents a man from living in a decent, sanitary home with modern comforts; that makes the clothing and proper education of his children difficult; and that leaves neither leisure nor funds for suitable recreation and recuperative vacations. The causes of this state of affairs are chiefly low wages, uncertain employment, over- crowding in the great cities, sickness, intemperance, thriftlessness, and lack of ambition on the part of the workers. Booth’s survey in London revealed the startling fact that in the East End of that city one third of the families were forced to live on $5.15, or less, a week; that 42 per cent of the families earned from $5.50 to $7.50 a week; and that only 13 per cent of the families enjoyed a weekly income above $7.50. The investigation revealed a frightfully congested situation in the overcrowded, badly-lighted, unsanitary, and poorly ventilated tenement houses. The alarming conclusion was reached that fully 33 per cent of the people of London lived in a state of poverty. Similar conditions were found in other British cities and on the continent. The slums of New York and Chicago are notorious. These conditions breed vice, disease, immorality, and crime, and are now generally recognized as a menace to the nation. Only a few years ago it was assumed that poverty is inevitable. Today, however, forward-looking persons in all classes believe that it is possible to abolish poverty. “‘Some remedy,’’ said Pope Leo XIII, ‘‘must be found, and that quickly, for the misery and wretchedness Snape ars ne acer an nde od aaa i; i it eS ee re 8) ee ee, ed aide soe ae ed BUTT TTUTTUTUTITTIGTUTHTUTETUGEUUNTUAUNNGLUNUUINVUINOIEUUUURGUOAUEAUUUAGRASUUAUAO OOOO666 MODERN WORLD HISTORY Chap. XLII . ( | Dress ~f) [ I ) . Ty 7 C [ lat ve ’ } 7 C\ | r 9 | iy : . R Leo t em | | eng lt thot . } ‘ LU . . LL ev’ i 4 . [ ‘ | l { . y [ I LW ot ‘ - i Ss O! . l Pa @ Lece ; ’ ’ ' >] ; ’ > ‘ 1) et ii LO | ~ | : oe i . - ‘ | ae 7 \ ~ ' J » fae. L | | 7 | | i : l | \\ ' Wh \ . - ) S \ a) | L c \. LX \ .. bes . ic 4 ih Ll | \ + j vi S 2 4 Ly - a at ! Cc { | ne i | Hl \ ? t : C | cies such as the | | 5, 1 r ™ = he + ‘ T . r 2 t | r e . ( ( 7 € | ' ” . | ae r 1 ; | 7 : : = y iN ~ ) Pe ot \ [ = C C7 1S- i] | ‘ ’ i 7 . r c | | 1 i 4 = i L he . ee. ‘ i | { f im j X : X — \} c | . E ( x € i ( ‘ : | t , f ‘ i | . . | » ( . Hi } | ‘ y one i 7 I . \ \ » i . ae ' E j | ! | | > } . 2 ~ I l LS Ul ire DC YSLOTIS a en ; ae { } ' c ' ae ’ ‘ : tr ' t q ii Lei god. L L . i ‘ { Or WoOrTrkK ] i ' Vh +s ¥ 4 ' } x ] ) rae ’ = X 7 \ i La . > . \ ’ \ A \ i \ { i| } ef | 4 ‘ ) a } 7 ¢ 7 Y t tah ry . y © . 2s . A \ \ i | wd \ + . 5s | +» Ss 4 | as ] \ 7 | ILC i . Me i] | [ eae eae He |; ] ae ion ‘ .X Lei | en Cl i T | L ef ‘ t roblems 4 \4 i LG « ay —& U [ v § kN © el | J CMS 4 } * r ¥ . aa ] tT * t \ . . » ' \ \ . 7 \ yone I Pett - ul Sacie + SOLS” Ft : — I » Ol L) OCT WV IT 2 ( Le i AI eS ACh I S tO SOCICTY) [he ae nat etl el a ’ T r +} | | i T | } y 5 Ty 1 i Cal Lil S Ia ' StL : Ew ( LIIC SUSLCIIALICE | | } T | " f ’ r t r?’ th . -h " ! iil \ ic i> ‘ oa A oe (}i = = . La ia an L . Liv i clo i h | 1d | of [ — ( 1) a Ll .. oO » Sire » cee] il = WI1TnN ITC. s] OuIa Led Al Lalas | y ~ ' - Y - y ” " ’ i SU} ' i) i] ii) \ LA. I I \) 1 " \ \ \ Li] = to! LY hum Lidl DC] 12 on he globe. The gigantic fot | the vast supplies of iron, coal tne C CY intic rorests 1 1 TNE Vast SUPpiles O ITO! Ct ’ L ' | sind 1A o1] | CICCTLTICITY are SUTICICNT TO use Mankind and tO Neal and the soil, work the mines. run the mills and factories, cut the timber, and manage Communication. transportation and distribution, there is no longer a — ly reason why people everywhere should not live inCETTE UTTER UU IHR IOTOCe tet een aet = o Chap. XLII] SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC INSTITUTIONS — 667 comfort and happiness. It is a disgrace to modern civilization that hundreds of thousands of men and women in India, or China, or Europe, should die of famine, when the rest of the world has a super- abundance of food. It is a disgrace to western civilization that millions of adults and children should live and perish in the squalor and wretchedness of the slums of its large cities, while others live in luxury and idleness. The World War demonstrated clearly what might be done through scientific charity, altruistic codperation, and the efficient distribution of food, clothing, and other human necessi- ties, in saving a starving Belgium and central Europe, in rebuilding the ruined homes of northern France, and in caring for the millions of victims of the conflict. The lessons learned in saving human life in time of war must be utilized for times of peace. A new social and industrial age is dawning — an age in which human welfare is paramount and humanitarian activities are engaging the attention of the world’s leaders. The provision of farms for the poor, and homes for the orphans, deaf, dumb, blind, insane, and aged, who are unable to take care of themselves, reveals a new sense of Humani- social responsibility. Laws to prevent unfair prices and rates, to ‘msm forestall the private monopoly of natural resources which should be conserved for the common good, to regulate business in the interest of all the people, to curtail vice and immorality, to solve the liquor problem, to reform the criminal classes, to improve city government so as to afford adequate protection against crime, disease, ignorance and poverty, and to tax large fortunes for the general good, all reveal a public opinion aroused to the necessity of solving these vital prob- lems. A better world is gradually emerging as a result. Perhaps no tendency of the new age is more significant than the wat on disease — human, animal, and plant. Governments and rich men afe appropriating millions of dollars to enable thousands of trained experts to discover the causes of diseases in order to abolish them. Human life has taken on a new value, and medicine, surgery, sanitation, new instruments and devices, and antiseptics are all used to lower the death-rate. Lister, Pasteur, and Semmelweiss are looked War on disease upon as saviors of the human race. At the beginning of the nine- teenth century infant mortality in some countries like Russia exceeded 27 per cent; today it is under 10 per cent in the most advanced states. Hospitals, sanitoriums, and free clinics now cover large portions of the globe. The number of physicians, surgeons, and nurses has multiplied. Asa result of these various agencies many lives are saved annually; mothers are preserved for their children; and wage- earners ate spared for their families. Periods of enforced idleness on account of sickness are greatly reduced. The maimed and crippled ate repaired and sent back to work. The human race is improved physically to the profit of society and industry. At the same time the scientific attention devoted to diseases of animals and plants tends to augment the food and clothing supply of the world. Quarantine, yl ey eT ee eee eR SE ok here noes. Sl ee ee 7 "ts Saenger ay asad BT 2 wo os ; 1} i > i il i J mec a Sa we TT nee ne eo ) Wanaes| oo ennee, A ul er eet tttahs ——— = la ae See na . s ¥ a HII a | Sas es Be OO Se < “~* : } wth OLE DO ANNAN SA YK | | } 7 ¢ 4 4 | ' . Cc ‘ . Livy it | \ i l i (i 4 ' 1 } , 5 5 * _ ; 1 ( Ce it Ms | f .) } he le Y<. . > } C1 | sal vais yf sca \JI i =a : . \ Ll { { | * { 7% | r 7 4 ] 5 7 1 \ . \ . .. p/ y Of I 1 ; i. * . 7 , a . \ I he ~~ > { LJ) = — \ 4 = } i i; 1’ 4 C : }, mr \ » ~ ; ‘ - — A = I ‘ tr 17 t 7 | TY [ S \ lt = ~ - I LU = VV ' } } | 1 * ’ ; . - c > + . r \ = = 4 7. — ; = . Yo oUt! LT 4 ee a ’ A nl ‘ ‘“~y A a ‘ | | , t \\ ‘ b~ | ” c ' rr 7 r ] c ¢ «ls - . | . s i . A — ch L y ) M4 ) + vr ' | t ’ . y ] . ‘ ‘ «44 » \ \ — 4 im o 7% , ‘ | - . .. . ’ 4 . iva — ' x ‘ + lL. f ry c 7 : . . L ‘ . = — { { } ‘ “ . { | . . \ . a . 4 . { | io ! 1] 4 ‘ ' at . { ’ “A ( i ‘ .. .. ) =. | NJ i i TC } ' c ‘ ' \ ) 4 = } 4 \ . i ~~ . } + . I — .. — v Lov : ' + ‘ ¢ * f ’ rr 7 h ' ‘ SULA 4 } CAAL [ 3 . ] ] | ] ’ a t Li coe ee| CI ‘ a » VAX 4 Si] L 1 4 Vi it ¢ ™~ ' f ricf | were } : Ty ~ i . Ae i rn . s { » | \ L . Lo i iA ' y e ’ 4 7 X L i ] ‘ I » Vit . Ki AILS i Ot LJ _ uta [ il SI | LI [ ‘ 2 pa CCTS y » i ] tt [ | f ti} ric tol wer wl ) is Li » ad RL ae I ‘ > i . . Li iS \ 4 Li) » , }5 7 ; ‘ , . - c ‘% } 7 . + j ‘ VM Tf ‘ c 1 fT ‘ \ JX. ‘ _ it \ } wv , « R VELL ¥ i i J ‘ +» : . ' ] 4 1] - 1 r i * ’ ft 1 Tr 1 | ‘x \ LUI i ‘ Liv . Lo accept » . | i Lo LVclw » Lo \ x — v¥ 1 ’ \ ] _ ~ t ’ ~ ‘ T a 'D } ) - V\ \ } WV ~ l . l } . { LX [ = VA \) I I ~ 2 | 3 | ‘ — , | ee ‘ L, . ' | r , » s IStS ct >} So. [ rep j XX Cl . } Kok \ » \ i ()] ) | . ‘ ft yy | - 7* + | yy -_ > oe . \ ~~ { f ‘ eco! CyTT) C SvSstc ) 1x Lich) rc isScd ()T} 1] C () % L} ot i ‘ ! v th | titior industry They claim that, whl VY 4 Lil J) oe ~~ it IL 4 iw y Ss il iL 1 bi SAnite tae mnulapiied many told: the udsses’ of the people still live \ a [ i > I] uit } . \ iv I] iSoSC \ oo ' Lit LVC in dire poverty, comparatively speaking, because many workers pro- | 1 distribute the profits. They say that the social and industrial reforms are good so far as they go, but that they do not remedy the fundamental evils. Hence they advocate the overthrow of the present industrial system, which exploits the workingman, who is really not free but must sell his labor at the price offered or starve. Many of them do not stop there but go on to attack established institutions of all kinds religion, property, marriage, nationalism, and patriotism. Their objective 1s the Cooperative Commonwealth, in which all means of production and distributionSe MMMM OOOO ones nenart me, 4 Chap. XLII] SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC INSTITUTIONS — 669 of wealth will be by public authority under one vast civil service, graded and paid according to ability. People will still continue to possess private personal property such as clothes, homes, furniture, and books, but not industrial property such as mines, mills, railways and land. Under this scheme it is hoped to abolish poverty and misery, and usher in a golden age of justice and human happiness. The Socialists do not present a united front throughout the world, nor indeed are they unified in any one country. One group desires forthwith to create a ready-made and complete socialistic state, either by peaceable means or by force. Another group is willing to accept the socialization of industry under the present democratic Varieties of state. Still another group believes that the socialistic era will come SOChabiStE by a gradual evolution of the present system of society. Some want the national or the international state to become the source of authority; others look to commune of municipality as the unit of final power. These various sects are known as the Utopians, the Marxians, the Christian Socialists, the State Socialists, the Social Catholics, the Guild Socialists and the Communists. The various types of socialism were stimulated by the World War. When rail- roads, steamship lines, mines, and factories were taken over by the governments, it was pointed out that state socialism had in- creased to an unbelievable degree, and that old, private ownership would never be fully restored. Guild socialism also received a new impetus, when the workers were taken into partnership in the management of industries. But it was Marxian socialism that felt the greatest stimulus. In Russia, the radical wing of the Marx- ians, known as the Bolsheviki, by the Revolution of 1917, gained control of the government and set up the Soviet Republic. Private ownership of land and factories was abolished. For democracy, they substituted a “dictatorship of the workers.’ In Germany, Austria, Hungary, and some of the new states created by the war, similar groups played prominent roles in overturning monarchical government. In Italy, France, Great Britain and the United States, they made considerable noise, but accomplished little. There re- mained in the popular mind the world over, however, the convic- tion that social reforms and readjustments of a sweeping character were imperative, and that somehow codperation must be substi- tuted for competition. The British Labor Party in 1918 expressed the sentiment thus: ‘“‘The individualistic system of capitalistic | ; a: i | SSS eT ea PN Pars production . . . may, we hope, have received a death-blow. With it must go the political system and ideas in which it naturally found expression. . . . If we are to escape the decay of civilization itself, we must insure that what is to be presently built up is a new social order, based not on fighting, but on fraternity, — not on the com- petitive struggle for the means of bare life, but on a deliberately planned codperation in production and distribution for the benefit of al BAT ATTCTTUUCUTUUTTUUTVHSENEQUUEVURUTUTVUHNEQENECOUSUOUUIVHNGRUMEETENUNNUUUNOWOAEAOUUNOOUOONREROOROUTOOOOODUOULOOOOUUOOCOCIRCOLCCDDUOUAGUAUCRLLLCULCLLCOUCTT LULLi LJ ! i ; ] + i« | 5 1 : r ~ \ > I ~ i } . 0 L1¢S i ] { 1€ tact Lt) [ [ | ~ ¢ ' ' ‘ 7 rn | T } . } Litadi CL ; | se of the poot before { F | @ee . 4 = ' Ss = ' f ¥ * ¥ 4 ? y i } rT 7 ts ; | ~~ r . . . AT. ‘ . ‘ i i ke ; I | o > i | 4 \ io | \ » \ ce + ( f B | + . L . = \ 1 4 + 4 ' ‘ | } 4 Ts ; Y C | i \ |) ] | .\ \ . 4 f | T | | ; | ’ r \ \ ‘ | } ‘ , \ \ 3 , i , ‘ 4 . A J \ i 7 { ; ; . J] " bs . i . , 1 ; ' \ > h es } = ‘ ~ . \ > t ' i . \. 7 . » . ‘ ~AA ‘ . 1 j 1 } ; : - ‘ r ; ; A | E C I } ; ' , ' | ' : ' i .. \ ~ \ \ : } } } . 8 | ' a c ' - ri) , ; i} ~ = s . ' . i = ‘ ae i r] hold th | e] r ~ ‘ ae 4 oe t . » Loi I SU [ Mis Lat | y ” a } , - o 1, ' (| ce ( [ C K ( | ec rnat Hi | | | vena . , ; r ' i the well Classes t the ers es ¢ \, Pi ‘ i | . ' \ | th r tT i ) } ‘ lL, ~ it Lé« . > . \ . 4 ‘ .. V( > . LLU cae i | ' T} aS | ? + 7 ‘ ‘ 1 ; aa pills | the present orade C CCuseé L OOC 5 j ! r a , . t r » ’ = | 1" ‘ 1 rey | | eae 4 = = » .. J | iSLS \ . i .. A i A = " } I i a : ' 1 | | + - y | ] ; 4 + tf ’ 7 tT * 1 . 7 1 . | i » \ j . Yi . iLO Or Strl — i A . i a 1 ¥ l i. i, i howl = i f ‘ ' | \! ' ' ‘ ' ; r | . ] ] iT rnyris = } [| ‘ r ‘ rh | A \ \ . \ tVY¥YUA «tl Jk J = Liv ¥ \ u \ Lili ey 9 ee r a" / rc f a i . ps tf ¢ =) o— * at ~~ — Ss . c c = / j ~~ f jn a f ¢ — ‘ . a —_/ | t } ] ] : | . \ i pions of the old order and the new are thus in hot conflict, and the CTT = ry ) * \TA? 1] g ’ 7 4 ] ‘ Th iT TT) is in th a f : . 4 » ' i ( ¥ . ~\ YL y \ ¥ Liw LWULL' . Lili. i} . Hi + ‘ -} FY h . of . . I Itu L rl “ a a" ry r | ’ ' } . ms ; ,f ] ! ‘ | 7 \ 1; | nn LLLLOT) l w I L Ct¢ WLICLILS e) SOC LIIST] Lic L . radical ; ‘ | — | + r + | ‘~*~ } r \ ] » tx it] y ' ’ ind i WO - . 4 Li? wae —(e Lili \ Gk LLiSt IiCaUc » YV it ] 11iS =e ity aAll¢ | : ] t . ” % tr yy my - ] | ] 2; ~*~ irTrTy | . ™ x ] ry ra | my ye | ‘ ‘ - a 1 Caa a new movement Calica OvynaicalismM. C appeared rst 10 1e1 Darts ol the W orld. it aCCepts mei 1 T 1T) 14) TY | rt ry , ] > tr lL, hi 1 > é VALITISL LGuUuUStTla SPULILLY. Dut GOcs not WULLIC VO in parliamentary action to advance the welfare of the working classes. ' Direct action 1s the policy of the Syndicalists. The trade-union Std oe ae Bh rn ete es of re -CECT TEU TUEETU UU TUTTO TOU Chap. XLII} SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC INSTITUTIONS 671 is their unit of organization, and the strike and “‘sabotage’’ are their weapons. They hope to organize all workers, skilled and unskilled, into one gigantic union, so that a strike will prostrate the industrial life of anation. They declare that a relentless warfare exists between capitalists and laborers, and that this will continue until all factories, mines, mills, and means of transportation have passed into the hands of the industrial union, which in turn will replace the present state. They urge an immediate, violent and revolutionary attack on the capitalists. In the United States the Syndicalists are organized as the “Industrial Workers of the World,’’ and have won many converts from socialism. In 1919 their number was estimated to be about 70,000 and in 1925 only half that number. Closely allied with syn- dicalism is revolutionary anarchy, which is likewise an offshoot of socialism. It advocated secret conspiracy, terrorism, bombs, fire and murder against tyrannical governments, but has not been very active outside of Russia. In 1917 there were over 4,000 strikes in the United States. The Socialists and Syndicalists prior to 1914 were foes of militar- ism. They contended that standing armies and navies were employed to uphold the capitalistic governments, and advocated the substitu- tion of international arbitration for them. In 1907 and again in 1910 the Socialists in their international congresses proposed a general strike of all labor in the event of the declaration of a general war. German delegates, however, defeated the resolution. While the French Socialists consistently refused to vote for a restoration of the three-year term of compulsory military service, the German Socialists at length gave way and voted for the huge military budget of 1913. When the World War threatened to break out, the Socialists in every country organized peace demonstrations. Jaurés in a great speech at Brussels threatened Europe with a gigantic general strike, but fell a victim to his pacifism. When the German and Austrian Socialists under pressure voted for war, the power of the Socialists for peace was broken. The Socialists of the Entente countries, for the most part, likewise ardently supported their nations in the conflict. National- ism proved to be stronger than socialism. Those who refused to sup- port the nationalistic war aims were imprisoned. Since 1850, historically speaking, despite the growth of socialism, the capitalistic system has been stabilized by the following forces: (1) The general incorporation laws, which have made it easy for the concentration of capital to promote business, have widened ownership to include many thousands of small investors. (2) Social and labor legislation has removed many of the evils of an earlier day. (3) The trade-union by dealing directly with capital has obtained one con- cession after another to improve the lot of the wage-earner and thus to lessen the clash between capital and labor. (4) The common law of society or custom, as a rule, tends to establish good practices in place of bad and to improve the industrial system. STINT ea ae a TT Te RE IF a eect htt nt erect beers i | i i epee we map ra wea: MUARRAAGHnAA Pe reece ees- SL SE hee oe ie a TK a ——— — Se ere — | it} ne We Le / j Sin coe Poe MODERN WORLD HISTORY (Chap. XLII + , ; Tor Woman s MOvEMENT { | , ; | r ™ ' f ‘ t ; \ " ‘ } l he . ‘ Y¥ ao a I] iT) > Vi , | t ' y rT r ~ t a Re te 5 ins € t to emancipate | elf ’ t \ ‘7 ' r ? t { ‘ = VV ~ rs | . i . I — pl >A uy 1 ‘. 7 , T Y } ’ 4 7% LAN h S - = h iw A : X r . r i ' ' ‘7 Vd rT ' ‘Tf ” bes = _ . : y} ' \ i L oO + i 1 - T 5 : + ' rt ryt ‘ — ~~. “ } . X 4 ~ A ) ‘ ‘ | ¢ ‘ F \ 5 = . ~ ~ } ou Lé ‘ v CI 1 \ , } | ~~ } + ¢ 7 . ’ ‘ , * r \ ; ey ‘ , i Lia m YK ‘ . bch 1 + r ’ | . t r ; r } > | | [ » . . \ oO Ls OLLI OI . ' ; ~~ i ol ‘ ’ ' rT? 7 < . ‘ ie a |e A ee iv | \ .. = L J » = s ¥ } 1 | { e~ - c ‘ rr ‘ ; ; * ’ ~ ‘ “% . v. | Y 4 _ | » ul 1 . 4 / ty fa re . t ' } 7 oon j 4 : ; : * ‘ = ’ e ~ t I J c « _ r . ; | . c »>PU 5c ror i } , lf ¢ ‘ rer t ‘ tr} rc h \ \. . \ A = he u — . } A L \ ha A ' ’ } | | ‘ c% ' + Cc ’ ‘ ‘ f rf? ‘ hus s held 1 Lges 5 1 CO’ C tted the t 7 1 \ oe ’ 4 r y r ‘ . + 1 | l i . \ A i ] oo s 1 ’ . ; 4 y | \ ; , . 7 ’ 1 ; ~~ rr rr r tn 3 \ = . ' \ he '&F Lii J \ . . | | + } 1 ] ] ‘ * . c + mr r 1 ' reur \ 4 4 A ~ 4 SUL . i .\ = i A , Liv. Li CaguUaliLly ‘ ) r . i \ { by | I r4 ' ‘ ’ 7 a * rir) \ . : CI . . Yl XK J » 4 j iW } iat) 1 ’ 1 } 1 ’ ' | y ’ } ' ley ¢ rry 7 7 re r —" : ‘ ‘ i | oe i = * | . aS av ¥ \ uA & he a ee A a == | | 4 \) } rT t + | \ f f cx \ il LilVU ov \ Yoo fo ¥ A ’ \\ ; at ~ i il Ly ¢ Vin} VV io ' | | } ] ; c ' ry f f + ; CF % ; «x +> so 4 5a Diyvlia Wr Valo [ “ i iit CLUuUa LY LU WOMan \\ } } ‘ — + ‘ r Y Ly ore r ‘ . ' ’ ‘ , ; > ** Y ili J don il Fra LCS yy = a. Ss Tl \ i Av AX Va Lill — vy 1] i] > 1 ‘ 1 | } 7 ] ] ® . ¢ L +e » rr ' ‘ rT 7 ‘ 4 } ry ¥ , % ‘ -~ - - Tip S Li Lok BAG uStT il KEVOLUTLO OM1C C¥all tO C IMOT LOl ' 1 | } 1] ] ] ‘ r ‘ ' Tod rr Th 4 r - ce ' 1 > ‘s | | A \ } K HA 4 i % Jil S I = . 7a tii Ll\y SOLULA a LiLLiSOs } L } \ } : } ] ] 1 j ' : { nor ‘4 y i ( )} , ‘7 “ AY cx rh l = ic i 4 } ress 2. » () \ i] ( - Y \ I \) ill | ia» at ¥¥ i> \ = | } * - ¢ ¥ ‘ ro . Ty ry In rx AM | | T 1 1 , i cSt Lt) I \ Ua LL 4 VV bihighilse o> ( Juec » \ Saw So Me ’ aod < Lil i \. iil ~ }2 T 1 7 5 ¥ + Lr } ' } r BI 1] . ry } } ‘ ; {x »i i (,reat DT it il LOC L\ LX YOu! v¥ U Cll 1 wm Lid JIACK WCIilL Was 7 eraduated from Geneva (N. Y.) Medical College in 1849 as the first ate , whew - . La SAT 5 ever? nse Anantterew — Wollatn Nysician. In ISOI the Stuay ot Surgery anda GQCntcilstry Wadas } ; ' ne tT eh, [ ’ : Opel S| CO VV ( Ine ill Sweden VV \) YCalIs ite Lic I LVETSIL or } a piel a :. pee 7iirich admitted women to all its departments. Dr. Elizabeth rett in 1586S was the first woman to receive a medical diploma in (sreat 4 » nr 4 = Britain. Miss Antoinette Browne was craduated from Oberlin [heo- * ICtOlI vy | ‘ , '% ' ! ‘ ' ‘ _ : . \\ met ( ~ 25 Ps H | \ L | Cee ot LA ae ’ \ ul Dc OMe . e rury ; | ‘ * . | | , fT ’ r , r * nr th - ry ~*% \ \ + | | i . ~ . = i = . ¥ i A . Lil gf i . : 1 4 ; \\ ' r _ es ri rr ry TY) ’ ry ! r \+ ( c ‘4 c ~ t . ¥ he be ma i Ne ‘ ! ! 4 ' C + iT ba C i . ki . ' . CilatTitapvpit L \ ’ i 7 ’ Pad t ) . } rr? A a ~~ r : . 6 . A’ . = eae i T ~~ 7 1 > I C \. 5 . LA ~il LLLIIUCTICG , ; . ’ I ‘ . . \ 1 e “ 1 ( | © [ r \, y ¢ ‘ E ‘ 1) 1S [ cy ) | | 4 : ~ r , , HH t + | t Misa \ of ‘ 1 rce TT y ( ‘ ’ iT L j . I . he & lat ; ! . ¢ ‘ | ° ! ae . G | of [() ? ; ; ' ‘ ' E 1 Yr 2 ry ’ h . ’ . 4 .. ee lake 1 ' ‘ ; ‘ ’ 1 y ‘ari? r bes | ' i X % = he b = a. 7~y & - ] ] » . x +* t ey : ‘ ' | . J i »¥ 5 _ ’ . | \ = J AOU VY re ‘ SUL | i Y . , ' ’ r ‘ ‘ , } ‘4 » LV \ bots ) J SL Vo . iS ia ILO. | ] ) | i r . L : } AX Ne ee > Ia Ics | | hool ‘ ra r ; 17 ; rT r rs ry 1 f T¢ \ \ , L/S 2 ) 4 h .. A . . l \. / We = SL LOU > - 1 } ' ? 2 coe : ‘ I} : h ‘ | b wice ‘ ' 1 ‘ ! Cy . E . : { i] ~ . | iase 1¢) C COOUSC “ 1 1 } + * ‘ i rr ] recy c T} sri % C ar ;7 . Ctl » » i s 1 \ AX A =a | Livi. Oe . y¥ a i yY\ I 1 ~ ; ; i 4 f rr F c >, 5 j te a 4 1 \ . e 4 ‘ i * { i L i » L .. ‘ > Aid 4 iv sieges ; } e ’ cr c% t ‘ tr ri ry) 2 A I stry \ ' rcss _ i -» © KUL ‘ > Al Nnestic ; 1] | e | broror ' } 4 e — . -¥ f re lut Will hay mn society Of the future remains t e sccu | WW i . ’ » ' T ; ) % EFERENCES FOR FURTHER STUDY all | 11 ‘ Y } \\ ’ Pr 2 L. Ma aL, Readings f LA ) ! 7 : r / ' \ \ i ) ; + ri ify? + rr CF. \ ed ; ! ; I l ‘ ( I) a nerce ’ VN i [ ™ ry [ aa F + ’ ! f ~ r r ij ut er ; | Vr.) \A y i | ‘5 vy { | [ r I A L¥. YE i icr LriGéhMyd=- i , ; ) , it fy 4 € i 1 { ) | , 4 lL Jeve ren) A err H| \ I , fi 1 r 7 rr r ‘ rary r e , I iE] i > AJ 4ST Ia t ' | \ [ Cis , *JIT , fF Kae * r A } r ; 11 > \\ \SHLE j NOT } 7 J ena 1IQO14 ), r ' 1} “T | i | , 9 iby oo? * , | 9 ” \ a 4 W IT I c | fe ( 7f7 Ui ‘ : . J bn i 7 : ne \ 11 J ) i? . Y iC Py r J r a \\ NK VV LLA if a r i . | a. \ \ E ld \ «! r ‘ | r r - 1 j R listory Doctr [ L. Hansy, Hestory of Economic I bought (1920); ‘ ] 4 : y l ene f AT, 4 gid 1 t i ; ut r 4 er? \ ‘ r ! ! € r iS 4 i’ 4 4 ie . —-+ } ) — eher { Hy * “ f —- ‘ ont ry sete \? fs 7 sar ion IOI I \ \LOMMONS, and Others, A lgsiory LG 4F £71 PE Na Jt@its, & j ) | : j — ’ | ’ / -+? : H{ f , vols. (1918): R. H. Hoxiz, Trade Unionism in the United States (1919); H. Gaston, The Non-Partisan League (1919): S. and B. Wess, Industrial Democracy (1911); History Trade-Unionism (ed. 1920); The Decay of Capitalist Civilization (1923); G. D. H. Cots, NT eater tae Sars Ne wd a S bdBAN CUNTACUQESATETUOVGRTATOGGGAEATOOAGGEATDUOGGEA TORT TOGA Ann oe ~ On ay aes Bi Sy A MT ete Me RE ESE Blanes nn 2 see eee Lene _ oe Chap. XLII] SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC INSTITUTIONS — 675 The World of Labour (1913); Self-Government in Industry (1918); Guild Socialism Re- stated (1920); A. Greason, What the Workers Want (1920); Nites Carpenter, Guild Socialism (1923); C. H. Douctas, Economic Democracy (1921); N. ANGELL, The British Revolution and the American Democracy (1919); J. G. Brooxs, Labor's Challenge to the Social Order (1920); T. Kirxup, History of Socialism (1913); H. W. Larwwier, Socialism in Thought and Action (1920); W.E. Wauuine, Socialism of Today (1916); B. L. W. Russet, Pro- posed Roads to Freedom (1918); Bolshevism— Its Practise and Theory (1920); M. Hitieuir, Socialism in Theory and Practise (1909); R.H. Hunter, Violence and the Labour Movement (1914); J. Sparco, Soctalism (1910); SY MAtCaLSSTA, Industrial Unionism and Socialism (1920); L. Levine, Syndicalism in France (1912); E. Bernstein, Evolutionary Socialism (1909); R. W. Posteate, The Bolshevik Theory (1920); P. W. Brissenpen, The 1.W.W.: @ Study in American Syndicalism (1919); J. Hucuan, American Socialism of the Present Day (1911); C. P. Girman, Women and Economics (1910); O. Scureiner, Women and Labour (1911); B. L. Hutrcuins, Women in Modern Industry (1915); R. Hecxer, Short History of Woman's Rights (1910); K. AntHony, Feminism in Germany and Scandinavia (1915); M. G. Fawcett, Woman's Suffrage (1912); The Woman's Victory and After (1920); C. C. Catr and N. R. SHurer, Woman Suffrage and Politics (1922). etter ——— se tt EE rt i ay ah iI at ee rr rer eee errSee eet aati asieeeniteentnesdtitesetrecaeeees a a ct pe SE eat y= 2S a aE: a mm | Hi | i al 5 tere lS aS EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS | Iw (yROWTH O! INFORM ATION AND LITER ACY - 7 y ‘ - Tue dissemination of enlightenment over the world is one of the : = : A ] } ] ~¥ r wT ry ry)‘ fT ryyT, - oy 7% + | 7 r ry \ y ‘ - TT tT , . 7 : -_ : . i. i / | rv id ‘ I CAJLILULLILA al ’ i i d ALION. \ LciivVnw ca 4 Lili PCO} iL > j | } | } | j ‘ 1] ' « : ~ c 1) ‘x rarnor ,r cr 2 Ty + ° “4 ewe Oo + ) if eo 7 * i iN . | 7 SLLUI VY » vv i ci 4 igi l a i Ai ‘ = 5 ' YwNA SA ‘ aot alCadas atc Stl j ‘ ; ° rh ‘* a cr t + . : . 7 .* V4 rm mks eco ry 7 r | . ‘7 VY | — . : a otalO UL sa Var y « I A «i L/ «fh ISIT], OL al east in} a LU) VY we + vrs ‘9 * rm 4 Ty 18 . - i } “cry - = -r 4 + eb s 4 1m” .+ race . Ji ULViLI“ZACLAS hi \ I 7 es @-4« ea Lil Jl Sea Numan racc, A ’ ? z ‘ ° . * . ' } ] x . a4 4 4 7 r ites 7 y . | ‘“1) ~} ~ . al KL LUI VV Os wt ol to hii' m@iity | i V all. i. ucn ‘ | ! ' | \ rr - 7 ‘ . vc ‘ ' + ry ? - _ NIT ’ mh white 5» ~ ¥ . . i. ‘ aX . ~~ J . s i CadUCALIO! ci Lao nA i ' il \ NCIY crne id | TT F +] h tl ht | lled high! 74 e ‘ ( ~ Fr rr . or rT rr * Ty i rma Ff re j ' i} ; , re “YT ° . ’ 1*7 = vy { LN « pL SC Liai to I \ IY Wek thd Adee ' bBLiLOLAL LN Wee iV A LLixvils y Cl yi LLU aad ri rT ! tT \ ’ . rr; = ] ** CT rr | 7, ~~ eh ¥ L, r . af" r) f i= chi \ J As Wadd tt) VLALILIG ci i Yy¥YU WALI Lik ' 7 5 Lili. tity SCCTIONUS () | \ i ‘ + ae I British Empire, the United States and Japan. Vhile commenda « > SS educat has bee le in Latin America, eastern an S Ope l GC) la F C ert! eless LT} it] these reg ; e preat 1 f the people, numbe > about three i S I C | nts I the o| ) Cal i¢ the r¢ inor Ww c ind C SC ly | v | C aDOl let L¢ it1ON, OF ¢ ther | eoples or the «¢ . on which thev live. The major portions of the great continents of Afric: | Asia are steeped in intellectual darkness and exist in an atmosphere of semi-civilization The most highly civilized peoples of earth number about 4 - which is less than one fourth of the total population of the globe. Even in these countries illiteracy is a serious problem For instance, in Italy in 1911 about 37 per cent of the pop lation above ten years of age were illiterate; in Hungary over 33 per cent above 6 years of age; and in Austria 14 per cent beyond 11 years. With all her fine institutions for education, 14 out of every 100 persons in France al - 10 years of age in 1906 could neither read nor write; in Ince ADOVC Belgium 13 per cent were illiterate; and in the United States almost 8 per cent, although in some of the southern states illiteracy ran as high as 29 per cent. In the British Empire, the illiterates of Scotland numbered 1.6 per cent, Ireland g per cent, England somewhere between the two, Canada 11 per cent, Australia 1.8 per cent, and New Zealand only .g per cent. In Holland but .8 per cent of the army recruits are illiterate, in Switzerland .3 per cent, in Sweden and Norway .2 per cent, and in the German Empire .o5 per cent. Among the less highly civilized peoples illiteracy is alarmingly high. Thus1n Latin America it ranges from 54 per cent in Argentina to 85 per cent in Brazil. In Europe it is 60 per cent in Bulgaria; 57 per cent in Greece; 69 per cent in Portugal; 60 per cent in Rumania; 70 per cent in Russia; 78 per 079eee! Chap. XLII] | EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS 677 cent in Serbia; and 46 per cent in Spain. In Asta the illiterates are estimated at 87 per cent in Siberia; 92 per cent in India; 55 per cent in the Philippine Islands; and 95 per cent in China. In Africa they number 92 per cent in Egypt; 70 per cent in the Union of South Africa; and in other parts nearly 100 per cent. These figures reveal to any thoughtful person the gigantic proportions of the educational problems confronting modern civilization. To improve these conditions, numerous agencies are at work. The more progressive states provide free education at public expense, and make school attendance compulsory for all children. Special schools meet the needs of adults. The newspaper and library encour- age all persons to read. The church, platform, the moving picture, and innumerable organizations of all sorts spread intelligence. In- dustry more and more encourages education by making promotion depend upon intellectual ability. The less progressive countries are making commendable efforts to imitate the more progressive com- munities. Although handicapped both for funds and for efficient teachers, they are introducing free public schools, and opening their doors to all helpful educational influences. The church is manifest- ing unprecedented activity in educational and missionary work in foreign lands. Organizations like the Y.M.C.A. and the Y.W.C.A. have spread to distant places with their programs of a higher morality and better cultural facilities. The printing-press is carrying knowl- edge around the globe. The postal system, telegraph, and cable bring all parts of the earth into easy communication with one another. Foreign travel and study are acquainting the people of each land with the ideas and institutions of others. The new imperialism is sending civil and military officials and business agents to the back- ward parts of the earth to spread the news of a higher civilization. Internationalism in a hundred different ways is drawing the nations of the world into closer relationships. The forward-looking peoples are developing a greater sense of responsibility towards the backward groups. And as a result of all these forces a higher civilization is gradually spreading over the world. 2. EDUCATION THE CORNER STONE OF CIVILIZATION Contemporary civilization regards education as a necessity for a realization of the highest life of the human race both collectively and individually. Education teaches the young what man has ac- complished, and induces them to transmit what they receive, together with such additions as they are able to make, to those who follow them. Thus the thing called society is continued through the con- sciousness of the individuals who are educated to play their parts in it. The function of the school is to direct and guide, as well as to in- struct, the youth in the role he should play in his social group. Hence education means a growth in capacity, ability, power, and knowl- edge — in habits, thought, and initiative — in preparation, ma- OUT UTUTUUUUVIIIUUIUIUUUU NEUEN ANTI ITUU UT UTEV UU AOC Progress of free public education Sons ee be DETR race a ee as i Te aad Sedan oneal on aa es Se ee£9 MODERN WORLD HISTORY Chap. XLIII no ry { . ‘ f 1 ' f | } 4 ry 5 -_ ‘ racy GT y | \ : ' | wd Lil LLIVUI C} Ss 5 Uy ( Tt} i } 1 ¢ ‘ i 1 ' . f rr im? rv ry . , ¢ = \ \ 4 i. Lil = a s ‘» ‘ ~~ j ’ ~*~ f r | ‘rT? iT ry r ‘ i . ’ ‘ I ; ‘ a ‘ is >' Cl Lt a 4 } | i ; i ' = . y y ' I = > ' = st \. sw f I 1 C r of cit ‘ . ‘ \ : ; ~ . : —, + Ne j } ] ’ . r t ° \ \. . nN \ e x . } Lv 6 » *% | L a S _. ae .\ ' . he ~ ¥ he Li ran ae } | ] * ? ' ' | : C I : A ‘ { ' fr \ \ .. h 4 \ i ae ; + f ' . 7 tr ~ ~~ YS > i i. H j ] rT) j I . \ ‘ . Ki cl 1 i | : ’ + ' | ;=_ a i ! . \ , i ~j I i } 1 ' ‘ ' ' I i N\ - ' . ‘ ~ \ : ’ as ' } | ; ] f ‘ . j i Ij | | - | : \ \ = = u . Ah i : | ] ] | 4 4 1% ‘ i | . i > \ . .. \ ‘ Ras he = \ . . >. PLS ‘ 4 , ; t 2 : j ~ . ; h | ‘ \ . \ — 4 . \ o> iS SULI > J ir } , ry \ ‘| I - » 4 . > L Lt | Fe re ea ee \ ~ — ~~ ~~ 4 r ry } \ ) j ee , ~ C ¢ c ") , ‘ ’ , Fre at a ‘ . oO VJ] . iS : } ' } } | ti € rr A ! ~ SS? ~ Mf fe né CI x f 1] uy i ] ] ] | ' + Ty T C ‘ 5 Irec Lak puis ( teachers. | t time to | | } 7 ° . 7 ’ tr ’ y ‘ 1 ry rT | \ Dresen \ . . . \ t ¥ OLA » KX . J . Lil Midas i } y } - } ; ¢ = * . t * ‘yy ‘ cc | A > LILIA Poe & } . ys oO! LL oO >t Lid I Wd Vc Li at > a ch R rid ae le WOTIQd cae 1 = | fo l | . ~ } cr ¢ | ‘ . ' ve in It Was Py oO [ LG AS. l rn < { Lv .. L i » © La L (ye! } ; | . ] Ty \, I , f a t f 1 } \ * i ~ —y rr a I . VEL. | hm Ae eae Soi \ \ A i L ~. wot } i mili ‘aan | ' j } ! '% 7 ! 1 ] 7 / } C is | 1 | ) } ] l ' rie { wat Xv 2 — ‘ — . ‘ > \ 4 } ~~. : Mik u — ~~ & Ha A Hi | + ] + ; * r ' ; 7% | rt \ 5 4 i s Lu _O] ’ > . catLtN . to 4 TCC ; rs ; ' ] } ] ! ee tr r - ‘ : ‘ ’ t r ‘ ¢ 1 t + r y as STITUTLE AG cA: ct CiCiInCciital YY CUUCdatL ic og ee A Rae | * ] . ; : = p t Ty ; ] a. Cerman) al nation LAs \rter Ic U! be UuSSI ] SYStTCIT VN Lo CALC \ \ LO \ LC EI but put under the exclusive control of the separate states } . \ I \ ul . PAL & v SI ee fo LI ©) \ 4 s SC] ALL Lc LL, | } ho] ll had th hoo] Ithoug! PI estants, Catne CS al CWS ii Na Ccheir own SCNOOIS, aithnougn \ 7 t ] ' T) Fee ot ane 7 TY) ¢ 5 ~ | CI ~ ¥ ‘ X — > | ie IsScd yy Li . L460, CTnm it [ GCI i\ ( Ck idl] Ne] ul L1© AL L ] 1 | } } } ] | | } } { > yr loa* ; , * ry cne Si i SYStCIM Was Datlo LIZC ind Secula ed, alithougn some concessions were made to denominational schools. Educational in- stitutions were all made public with uniformly trained teachers and State SUpPerV1S10ON and Inspection. Special Drovision Was made CO have L A the children taught citizenship, handicrafts, and religion. Attend- ance at the elementary school for four years was made compulsory for all children: anc provision was made for abnormal children and or-ae TTT Chap. XLIII] EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS 679 phans. Parents’ Advisory Councils were created in connection with the schools. An educational movement among the workers sought to establish particular “‘Academies of Labor’’ to train a new class of leaders to meet the industrial problems. The republican educa- tional system went into operation in 1921. Following the example of France and Germany, all the states of continental Europe now provide for free, secular, compulsory education. Unfortunately, the provision is not enforced in southern and eastern Europe. Switzerland affords, perhaps, the best type of a democratic system of education under local control. Belgium and Holland still have a large number of private religious schools receiv- ing state aid. The Soviet Republic of Russia promulgated a compre- hensive system of popular education, which sought to train all the children “through the various forms and stages of application of Russia human energy to productive work.’’ From the age of 8 to 17 they were to be prepared for a life in which manual work was honored and not despised. The course of study reproduced the cultural history of mankind and was supposed to prepare the pupils for any tasks successfully and intelligently. The management of the school should be an introduction to civil life by placing the administration of the school in the hands of the older pupils, the teachers, and the repre- sentatives of the workers of the commune. The new states created by the World War all made liberal provisions for free public schools, but the chaotic conditions following the wat have prevented much progress. British education, like the British constitution, is the product of many historical forces. Not until 1832 did Parliament grant aid for elementary schools under religious control. About the middle of the last century agitation began for a national system of public schools. The Elementary Education Act of 1870 only filled the gaps Great Britain in the “voluntary system.’’ In 1880 under Gladstone a system of general, compulsory school attendance was put into operation, and for the first time Great Britain had a national system of elementary education. In 1891 the elementary schools were made free, but church schools still formed a part of the system. In 1915 there were 8,604 public schools and 12,042 ‘‘voluntary’’ or church schools. The World War brought about a movement to break down the powerful aristocratic and religious influence in education and to create a genuine system of popular education under government control. The Educa- tion Act of 1918 aimed at the creation of a ‘national system of public education available for all persons capable of profiting thereby.’ In Scotland “‘burgh’’ schools with compulsory attendance were established in 1872 and they were made free twenty years later. An act of 1918 centralized the entire Scotch system. The self-governing British colonies all have model systems of free public schools. In the United States neither the Declaration of Independence nor the constitution of 1789 made any reference to education. The TT TT TTTUTUTFTUVITTUTOTITGTINEUUFECUNUURESTEUNTENGGRCREUUNENOGUUAENGUUEGECREUUAUUIGUUAOUUAEUOAUUEUUAUAUE UOCa ee te net ea eS ee i i ' } oa t | ane ' ane ae } HI! ae Bil} i i i ER. tS EY iterarfure 6 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XLIII f | se oT } ; lL, 1, oa he ] Z } ~ , ' ine | alied thi schools should be left to the local communities than to the national government. The Ordinance of the x } \ \ \ | oqge¢ i > 4 : 7, =, -_~ ‘ : | ¥ Ty t > ~T f ] ] North-West Territory in 1787 set aside generous portions of land in 1 ] 1 ] a it [ C | Ol La J) Si) it] tO . Gk be encouraged. : ; | tx } ‘y eT 1] | i -~ L, 5 I ee > ! ' At we > itCS q LILC tClicla y 1} LSO6 Lie | . ; ~ =e kl I . I L Deva LU) Pp! Pp 1ate lands ti a gs yt ves O} : a ' - - C f | C C ircts [he C1O Bureau of | lucati r 17 (TC 1 y 7 | Kj CULIS LULL Ss ol the states all p () le rO r ) a } ’ } ( f free 1 ( Is. New York in 1826 laid the foundations _ te it lementarvy schools. and by 18 e northern . : a | rT i ] x7 7 5 | ’ } er states ha rally adopted the principle. Ihe southe : © | = tates, CC t of t Negro, were not friendly to free schools - ‘ . Sta > I [ u X Th} [oo Sh | | i ei age = public ) ay i C I Ili SCC i C l | l L S CAISL but iS a Tuic ' oI ~ e not open 1 Si of the European states lade ] on ——) on ] \ i\ Lo © To i X | Lv tl = pl ete Pas \ [ } | i RL « relatively litt! a etn » = . . ‘ ee = 4 ck 4b .. o ALLAN \ Lt tito pul . } iS CCI SYS or compuls \ ele nentary , ] ; . . \ ( I I | ad . . Cation itter WCSUCTII Lt) PCs | nr ‘ ne ‘ y ~ 53 5 | wh lt in LI \ . LL PO LIOT of \Sia = len | Y I \ . 52 it¢ ain JS \ N \ ] ] ] j } ‘ Su] c ry sc hicl ct the masses of the | ; C sec y sc S iny of which as private . 1 tc } r 5 1] hI }y ] l » [ i . \ x / } il SL > XV } me & ’ ¥ . I CSta ilS A \ ) i 1 } ' ‘ 4 ' : th: ‘ rT) r 1 ‘ea } 5 ir Y ‘ * 7 ' { y ” i. nr d - : I - rout \ ic VV Tid. | he " PLY¥C DOY » atid VPITIS aud ValLIcCctc trTalninyv - ; ; | wwnat ‘ ; aryl . for industrial and professional life, and prepare them for college. | ’ | } i ry . : ] y ry | 1 mat = ; ; . ryT + Ff & rir y ' ;% th y ) 5 ] ete LiL ‘Lew cLiini unIVersltiecs, NUuUTDCTILI oad apout a L rPoOusanad ' throughout the world, to which young men and women of ambition intellectual promise 7O to prepare themselves for a more useful career, are found in nearly every state. The United States alone has ore than 600 institutions of higher education with nearly 726,000 students in attendance. In France, Germany, Italy, and some other } countries these higher educational institutions are under the juris- diction of the government; elsewhere many of them are controlled Industrial, technical, and professional schools are 1n- creasing so rapidly that probably they are more widely patronized than the colleges. (4) Public and private libraries, museums, and art galleries are now quite generally located in large centers of pop- ulation. (5) The press, theater, moving pictures, and the church ex- tend their influences around the globe as educational agencies. The rise of democratic political institutions; the Industrial Revolution; and the progress of science, reacted powerfully upon th« literature and art of the world during the past century. They have ceased largely to be national and, like science, are cosmopolitan. In Great Britain Sir Walter Scott popularized the historical novel;AN NTT TOTO OU OU begs taieer 4 t = neeeten nee eee TT pas iw Chap. XLIIT] EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS 681 Conese Dickens and Thackeray forced reforms by holding up the shams of contemporary life; Byron was a foe of the nationalism of his day; Shelley was a critic of his times and an apostle of political anarchy. The names of Keats, Lamb, De Quincey, Carlyle, Macaulay, Kingsley, and Ruskin made that nation famous in the field of letters during the early Victorian period. The literary output of the past fifty years has been too voluminous to even catalogue here. Literature had devel- oped into a profession. The successful essayists, editors, novelists, and poets find readers all over the globe. On the European continent the four men who have attained greatest fame are: the Frenchman, Victor Hugo; the Norwegian, Ibsen; the Russian, Tolstoy, and the Pole, Sienkiewicz. Among American authors, who were widely known outside of their own country were: Irving, Holmes, Haw- thorne, Cooper, Whittier, Longfellow, Poe, and Mark Twain. The theater as a source of instruction and amusement has come into wide popularity all over the world. In France it is regarded as a branch of public education. In many countries state theaters, pat- ronized by the rich and poor alike, are established. The spread of Theater the moving picture is something extraordinary. Music has come to take a prominent place in modern life as both a national and an international force, and is now commonly taught in the public schools. Of all the fine arts it attained perhaps the highest develop- ment in the nineteenth century. The names of Bach, Handel, Bee- thoven, Schubert, Mendelssohn, Schumann, Wagner, Rubenstein, Music Liszt, Grieg, MacDowell, Rossint, and Verdi, to mention only a few, will make the period famous. Like music, sculpture and painting represent the internationalism of art. The four greatest sculptors of the last century were: the Dane, Thorwaldsen; the Italian, Canova; the Frenchman, Rodin; and the American, St. Gaudens. The first two were strictly classical, and sought to express beauty in form. Rodin drew his inspiration from nature, and aimed at true expression without regard to elegance Art or form. The last reproduced the pure Greek spirit and had a power- ful influence in the development of art in the New World. In painting, France excelled with David and Ingres as representatives of the classical school; Delacroix and Delatoche, the romanticists; Corot and Rousseau, the landscape painters; Rosa Bonheur, the painter of animals; Millet, the artist of peasant life; and Manet, the impres- sionist. Tadema in Belgium; Overbeck, Kaulbach and Lenbach in Germany; Maiullais, Hunt, Burne-Jones, and Watts in Great Britain; and West, Trumbell, Stuart, Sargent and Whistler in America con- stituted a galaxy of great names. No period in world history has been more active in building churches, city halls, court houses, theaters, schools and colleges, capitols, business houses, and private homes. But there has been little creative genius and originality shown in anything but the materials used and methods of construction employed. The models Engineering ee eel oe a ee | er eee ummenmnren ame oa oe = 3 raat ear es 2 Be d 4) ' i ! | DPPC NTCUUUUTTUTTUVFGRTUUCHTUUUNUHVEGTUNUNEETUNUTNGTUUNLURERENUUNGUUENUAAYUEROROGOOURUOUOUULUAOO ONL LUOOUOUGOOOUCOO OOOO62> MODERN WORLD HISTORY i . 1 . i agy ; \\ ith rr iT roe? . tT) ci i] } A LIC UALS. At | ‘ = Uo ( VW ' LILEULL a wt '* } ‘ . “1? t »4% ryt 7 ' Ww ST | LS oo / > AVE a} Jw oh i as a iiw ¥¥ ‘ . L 4 Get! ‘ ‘ . - , * 4 ‘ ' ~~ ¥ - ‘ si + ao = Lit yt » 2s ‘ — \ ~ : r } \ ’ rr) | { a8 1 J ~ ! vr. . ~ ! ~ LU : ’ AL . YA , ‘ ' < rT? . , 4 ’ | ‘ ‘< i . ALi SLILLULO ‘ ‘ be . I . } | ‘ ' ; : + c \ , \. > 4 LW t = I i on » ‘ ] ‘ ’ " . “ 7 | 7 + ‘ ‘ iow ; 4 . ' . he — } \ i ) , h oat te : re ratua .. A ‘ i \ ‘ ~ A = < ‘ ; ’ ' * ' " r c Y I L . I ' i [ . he a i fl : LX » & . . - : \ * ‘ ’ 7 4 i . PLULO Lids | y ‘ ul I 7 . Lot ; ‘ if t . ¢ , l ' ‘ [ » Lf) \ . ial «ay LV A { L ~~ Wi . \ LA 4 . i : ‘ . a $ ‘ rT ’ 7 I r | i ~ ~ at — ' 4 \. A ' = , % hi Ne i \ * ¥ . ' . * . “x cr \ “ > i \ i = — Y A 2 A . Y yy \ — i + ‘ b ~ r | ' : » a I | . x - ! YLON i d I i AA | i éiae i vi r 4 > [ ri 5 ivi | . t I Ly ( 1 ; r j 4 ! 5 H He f r d 4 r j ivi | : : \ ' : | tae > Phys Z ? i w f i | | 2 : : f : i f [ a af ” ’ [ Ges y a 7 r ‘ f ih \ \ . , - - boa . vA vVLACUON I Lt 4 | ; \ LA , . © , , Phe C)rre aa ‘ | . i \ | ‘yy 4 4 ‘ Pn 14 i i 1 I te - } \\ 1? MAN l ‘ H | eTide \ r Ad yc i + It i | K.H | 22 faye de racy a , 1. K. Hart Hi - ' ‘ AA f I R 12 oF : \ I + r og ? 4 DAY { r > | s j 4 pert ( DD, | 4 . , * r re Ahi Xj ‘ \ + a , i . | } r © { r ly S ATW i H for’ ia a HI =." a “ @ ) . - ‘ + ! Sure ? A. HENDI N r ’wamattsi 2 i © ‘ , y Sonat | sterature K. FRANCKE, A 1 ry German Literatur ' a4 ; i ' T (4 Ht tory VI) or j bas sO M ~ AN } A) I pe iri , a re Na Ce wee Nee aeDE TOTO TOUT OOO OCS Slit eee eae Ean Y CHAPTER XLIV THE NEW SCIENCE = . TSS El aes a SM i tn a tT ns Fe 1. THE THEORY oF EVOLUTION Peruaps nothing in the entire realm of human knowledge is more significant in modern world history, or more indicative of contem- porary civilization than the new science. It touches every phase of human life and thought — the earth on which man lives, man him- self in all his relationships, and the universe of which man and the earth are only particles. The scientist, in his laboratory, or digging Science in in his library, or roaming over the globe, or scouring the heavens Ce with his telescope, or study’ ing the ruins of an ancient people, or delv- ing into the mysteries of the human mind, and publishing the fruits of his investigations, does not impress the people like the dashing soldier, or the able statesman, or the successful business man. Never- theless his work has more influence in shaping present civilization than military victories, the accumulation of a fortune, or fervid oratory. Science belongs to all men, and its goal is additional knowl- edge and truth. In its scientific output, no age can match the past century, although the beginnings run back into previous periods. For centuries Jewish and Christian people accepted the Bible story of the creation of Adam and Eve, as the first parents of the human race. It was even figured out by the pious Archbishop Usher that that momentus event occurred in the Garden of Eden 4004 B.c. — the date printed in the King James version of the Bible. According The Creation to this theory, man’s life on earth spanned a period of about 6,000 277 ™ yeats. Hence the early peoples from the Egyptians and the Baby- lonians to the Greeks and Romans were called “‘ancients’’ in con- trast with the ‘‘moderns.’’ At the same time, until the nineteenth century, it was believed that the earth on which man lives and all the animals and plants, together with the sun, moon, and stats, had been created by omnipotent God in six days. After this colossal task, He rested on the seventh day, and thus made it a sacred day of rest for His creatures. This account was given in the Bible in the first book called Genesis. This explanation of the origin of the earth, of man, and of the many forms of life with which the globe abounds, was challenged by the thinkers of the eighteenth century. When in 1795 the Scotch geologist, James Hutton, announced that so far as he had studied the earth, he found ‘‘no traces of a beginning and no prospect of an end,”’ he raised a storm of protest among the theologians. The new theory 683 Cee eee eee eas en seer la te ae Ee rT a Hi ‘| iI fF i H at SA RNR NS si AVVHUHALLTATVT ATTRA TET E FU QUININESS } ie He | ae 1 ty iy a I ; i j } ; | | . fe | rnc yT | Tt ‘ re he Vi\ (rT V1 YY VV iS NTst : . oe it : r | 1} “> J I [ > A ’ . i < » I Lc ics = | 4 I 4 i ve. a I > i, ‘ } } tL La eful StUC) of VOICanIOCsS, ! i Ley yf | nr 1 - F ' : [ . | I ~o i > VI = t t ur lf eonctantc ‘ ‘ . 7 C i \ \ } ( () Sta [it 2 oe res - ' r = y= ; r ; ’ . ne contraction of tne h . | . l ) , | ry e val - \ S W CT ( = = = ’ , ts r ' S | | . 1ec MT DOSsE rhe ‘ : Cd eC COaI WCW S c C . C VY WETICE Sli VY ( C ; 363 Lyell pub- ~ - i / { 4 / } Via He » urcnt LO p ef e disc if e 5 lements in the lo p = i ed . Ss VCAITS He al | 1 slow! loped. and tt. i \ .. ‘ . . a | er J \ . r Wit [ i l a I i HH s c lisplaced il] oth 5 qu enerall | today Buffon. the French sted - ( of the eart | fe { ( bserva f the family resem b] : t C ePC1eS | ed hi to conclude that : > evol | al { from one original! ~ % A . Y — © \ } } ) } ] , + + [ < h rr C fe “a | C f AT. VT} os il i ‘\ } L os } . or CLiic rot eo . ~~ iW ~ \ = I 1 } | } ‘ . 4 + r ' ! | t rT > | } ) > . ca it Lo " — ~ ‘ . . ‘ » I \ ’ t I cr} Li DJL ’ ] a x , A et t a ’ f cr ry ia _ | [ [ I L } J S O1 I | y wl pcr} \ . , i “* \ as . . i . } s ittent to the fact that the individuals of a given species cat Lt reatly. Some are fleeter of foot and more cunning; others have sharper claws and teeth; still others are color 1 to escape atten- t nd still others have heavier f which e s them to with- tand the cold. Moreove inimals 1 plants multiply so rapidly that if left undisturbed their members would shortly overcrowd the earth. For instance, if unmolested, a single pair of hawks would multiply to more than 10, in ten years; ora single pair of rats | anger the food supply of the world. But accidents, disease, the lack of food and drink. cold and heat, rain and drouth, the preying of one kind on another destroy millions of forms of js lf” Al} = -7- y sari Fra f oayewviwsa life. Thus there is a continual struggle for existence and survival. By the process of ‘‘ natural SE survive. By heredity the qualities of the fittest are continually per- petuated. In this way the species is constantly changing in color, innn PELE I TUTUTUOEETEUUUEAUAUATUUATOEU TREO UUAU AOU CUO : TS | eee tee lcs soneteeten. 4 amet a_i Chap. XLIV |] THE NEW SCIENCE 685 form, in size, in anatomy, and in other characteristics. According to the Darwinian theory man himself sprang from the lower forms of animal life and attained his high estate through variation, selection, and heredity. “‘Prehistoric’’ archeology and anthropology soon proved the antiquity of man by uncovering human skeletons which date back at least 150,000 years. There are a large number with an antiquity of 50,000 years. Darwinism created a storm of bitter discussion and called forth a host of opponents, chiefly theologians, who feared that it would undermine the Christian faith. Among its defenders in Great Britain was Wallace, who in 1870 published bids Natural Selection, which set forth the theory more convincingly than Darwin had done. It was left to Huxley, however, to become the ablest expounder of evolution. Herbert Spencer, in his Synthetic Pee extended the doctrine of evolution to psychology, sociology, and ethics. He popularized the terms ‘‘ growth,’’ ‘‘development,”’ and “' progress,’ ’ and first used the Evolution phrase ‘‘survival of the fittest.”’ He held that everything organic and inorganic — the universe, the earth, and all forms of life on the earth — had been evolved out of a more simple state. In Holland the naturalist, Hugo de Vries, attempted to prove that new species sprang from existing forms, not by small variations, but by sudden and pronounced Se In Germany the biologist, Haeckel, became the apostle of evolution. He worked out a diagram showing the descent of man through twenty-six stages from protoplasm to the chimpanzee. In America, the botanist, Asa Gray, and the historian, John Fiske, used their gifted pens to defend the new ideas. In France, Ernest Renan applied the theory to comparative religions, and reached the conclusion that the Bible and the Christian theology were but an evolution of primitive religious ideas. This revolutionary con- ception of evolution soon came to be accepted by an overwhelming majority of scientists as confidently as the law of gravitation. The fiery assaults of the clergy did not quickly subside. Pope Pius IX declared that Darwin’s theory was the product of a depraved nature and a silly effort to make a monkey out of man. Others asserted that Darwin might accept the ape as his ancestor, but that they would not. But the opponents of evolution gradually decreased until today the leading Protestants, and not a few Roman Catholics, accept it as supplying a higher conception of God’s purposes than the older ideas. During the past fifty years intense researches in the field of em- bryology, heredity, variation, and selection have tended, on the whole, to confirm evolution as a fundamental principle. Mendel’s interesting experiment in crossing different varieties of peas has opened the way for many observations by later scientists. As yet, however, the process by which evolution has come to pass has not been wholly discovered. p peat bet ee ee RE EE a ane ee a) | i, Hi i i 1 | 4 | : I Po et Te ete Ee ee ey eteaanteaeee’ eos TR es PIVOT NTO UTUTUUIGTUTEUTFENEGUUNUTTECUAGUOETSNUUTOUURENCEETUNVUAEUNGUOGUUOEUGERAOUAUAOUIAUUOEUOACUAOUOO AYU686 MODERN WORLD HISTORY Chap. XLIV ’ iC p y, CALC GH StS, DNYSI- : j . 1 r eb l, Ty 7. ‘ ‘ j | < » < we % oe .. LUWLIVoO, } 7 ‘ * | ¢ r rf? ‘ m - : é ; l LouGLce§ | ic | C suc i ' ; : \ [ . 1 j ; CT \ — = ‘ - ' , > ; “a . ° 5 bale Si LL VV al [ ’ a : 4 f . r t* f y (| i ¢ E c | VV ALC LLC da | ’ 4 r ‘ : y% Lal A ‘8 Aw ELsAAS y O! : ‘ - ‘ ~ . r rm . : iT 4 Lillis { } nd ‘ A A .. A ‘\ ; ' i t . ‘ + + , ‘ ' : i »¥ .. .. — ie . , Ll ‘ \ . » bes 4 a , * ‘ tf the erent | : . . Ih t t ' h haw Ye \ s A + | 4 ™/~F ‘ ‘ { ’ : c \ } ) / + | ¢ + r ¢ ' ~~ ~ *% - ~~ ! Ty { J \ . i \ i > ' ' ' ‘ \ ‘ ' ‘ lf a ; ’ a — ' ~~ — \ » , os = + 7 4 + | j ‘ C 7 ] ( . - 4 bs ; .. oo | . : .. Ras Ye ) , : + . if . “4° = \ ’ ~~ i . a — i 1 , t , ; — * : \\ Tr Ff ry .. . . — > s . =" ~~ = . ’ Lil [ iv : ; ’ } 4 7 fr 71% r , lL :o \ . . i . . he 5 ’ i 5 ee ek io am Wut : . - r _ . t . 7 fw & \. . = 7 ' i { r \A | 1 ] y { 1H | } ry ] = i ry . » y¥ U * iv 1 J . iV ct ‘ }} } , r 4 v% \ . f 4 a BB f . H { 7 I » . v . v’ . VLilLAa LL Ai | . Lil r¢ . ied | 1 Y | 1 1 ; ; : >» ' } t 7 y | (Ty i} i WA } o> PI . Sie bAdLiV A wd . Ut, Hi f | { ‘ ‘ ' th je VA J) \ hee te Titties y ww § . | | rf ; ‘ ; ’ ; ‘ ; ! ~} x . t ; \ if) > ‘ SL ‘ I \ ~ \ ! > Oe I » Vl \ S tu 4 SC oan 4 t | | H 4 | r ‘ f ; ? f * r< ; + . 7 a | 1 . — LS » — 4 CC] > > : 1 ~ 2 it LL ann ! 1 eal ae t 4 “ ' y - ‘y } ‘x ; ’ ' t . Tt ! . rane » .}} c Cil¢ L , Ce ) 1 y Pa LLC LIC ol } ‘ ' ' ] 1 4 ! | r r { ‘ TY ' . + ’ t 1 r hy i | * } SI] oO me \ & Lt 1 i » WC’ } .. i LOCOS 4 } cne ve : | ! \ 1 1 ‘ t b v% 1 t rr ty . + , r ae oO. r¢ [ . . i NS & = tii IC] A , { \ I A ( Cll » J Hi! ; } | : r ¢ 1. ; / ] 1. | t t ld if y rd I 2. ‘< : ~ H i i A} , w Bi \ X I LI \ i N \ [ “ y¥Y U . \ 7 A LiL Lie ae i ie : i } : SoS | Towards the close of the eighteenth century, two Italians, Galvani i| and Volta, discovered the electric battery The Englishman, Davy, pro luced bright light fr two points of rbon by using an ( electric battery, and thus laid the foundations for the use of the arc lamp. He also employed the battery to decompose potash and dis- Ee lectri thy COVCICG a HCW meta] called DOTtTaSSIUM. The Dane, Oersted, showed the connection between electricity and magnetism by moving a magnetic needle with an electric current. The Frenchmen, Ampere and Arago, proved that electricity could produce magnetism. These experiments gave the world the telegraph, the cable, the telephone, wireless, electric lighting, and other devices. After Faraday in- Ra eta a rN er seta re BT a er en ha eeSNE TTT TOTO TUONO AT Chap. XLIV] THE NEW SCIENCE 687 vented the dynamo to generate electricity, the way was paved for the utilization of electric power to run street cars, trains, elevators, and all kinds of machinery. Improved batteries now supply the ignition, light, and even power to propel automobiles. Electricity has become one of the most important forces in modern civilization. It has helped to solve the servant problem in the home by performing much of the hard drudgery of earlier days. It is man’s swift messenger to carry information over the globe. It lightens the labor of the farmer and is indispensable in business. It helps to clean the cities and to il- luminate them by night. And the uses to which it may be put for man’s comfort and happiness have just begun. It is now believed that light and radiant heat are transmitted by minute waves in the ether, a medium which exists throughout the universe and sends light to the earth from the sun and the most distant stars. Light is supposed to consist of electric forces emanating from the luminous body through this ether. In 1887 the “ Hertzian waves,’ ot the electro-magnetic vibrations in the ether, were dis- covered. This led to wireless telegraphy, telephony, and the radio. In. 1895 the German, R6ntgen, discovered the “‘X-rays’’ now so widely used in surgery and medicine. Three years later the French- man, Curie, and his talented Polish wife, obtained from pitchblende a new element called radium, which has mysterious powers, produces an intense X-ray, and yet seems almost indestructible. The infinitely small “‘alpha’’ particles thrown off by radium have been counted. Physicists have discovered also that many other substances are radioactive. Since radium gives out heat and light without materi- ally diminishing its own substance, some optimistic scientists believe Physics that it will be eventually the source of light, heat, and power on earth. The German, Mayer, and the Englishman, Joule, have proved that energy cannot be annihilated; and Lord Kelvin’s researches have resulted in the revolutionary theory of “the conservation of energy.’’ The idea has been advanced that all matter, whether solid, liquid or gaseous, is one, and that its difference in form depends upon the degree of heat to which it has been subjected. The astronomers, in scouring the heavens, have discovered a new planet, Neptune, and added new moons to other planets. The dis- tances of the fixed stars and even their diameters have been measured. The first star ever measured was Betelgeuse in 1920 with a diameter 32;000 times larger than that of the earth. The gigantic task of Astronomy photographing and cataloguing the billions of suns that form the universe is under way. In 1910 Boss published a list of 6,188 stars and the Greenwich catalogue contained 12,368 stars. The period of rota- tion of Uranus around its axis has been determined. Several new stars have been discovered. Einstein’s epoch-making theory of gravitation, known as ‘‘relativity,’’ was advanced in 1915. The spectroscope determines the substance of the sun and the stars. Powerful telescopes are used by learned men to discover the very 7 i ‘ a BY} H il iH j | 1 4 —_ —E— SS ee. BPE TTTTUUTVEUTTTHGUUUHEUUUTHERUUTHUURUGGEDUENUTUNUHGUUOAETUUENENTNUAERONAAEUNGASRRTAUUNAUORUUYLCOAUOOUEUOUAUUROATRR LOCUSTee ale ae aT ae er ee ee rere SR) a a ie aE Be tn a nel aa So baie ee a — j j | Bel ] i ee ] ne! ae ) f, a} a | ae i | a ] ] a at an | i al 1 a | ' —— ERS Cell theory Pasteur Bacteriology 688 MODERN WORLD HISTORY (Chap. XLIV foundations of the universe. The Hooker telescope put into service at the Mount Wilson observatory in 1919 was the most powerful instrument in the world, having a lens weighing over four tons. 3. MeEpIcINE AND SURGERY Among the startling results of biological researches, in 1838 the Germans, Schleiden and Schwann, reached the conclusion that all living things are composed of minute bodies called cells, which von Mohl in 1846 called protoplasm. In this protoplasm all life seems to have its origin. The cell in living things corresponds to the molecule in inorganic matter. Indeed many forms of life, as for instance the bacteria, consist of a single cell. The human body is composed of about 26,000,000 cells, like bricks in a brick wall bound together by a thick mortar. This cell theory now underlies the science of biology, helps to explain many diseases, and points the way to remedies. The term bacteria came into use in 1863. They consist of minute plants of various shapes so small that 4,000 of the larger ones put end to end would make only an inch, while it would take 400,000 of the smallest ones to cover the same space. The air, water, soil, and all plant and animal life are filled with them. The Frenchman, Pasteur (1822-1895), devoted his life to a study of bacteria. He first gained international fame as a chemist by prov- ing that of the two tartaric acids deposited from wine-lees one was sensitive to a ray of polarized light while the other was not, and that the latter action was due to the presence of a new imactive acid. After much difficulty he succeeded in producing this inactive form of the acid by artificial means, and showed that in certain forms of mould it had the power to destroy the sensitive acid. He next turned his atten- tion to the diseases of beer and wine. Happening to visit a brewery, he examined the good and stale beer with his microscope and found that the former had round bacteria while the latter had an elongated type. Turning his attention to fermentation, he demonstrated that it was caused by the presence of minute organisms called ferments. The notion of spontaneous generation was exploded. The discovery of the ‘‘germ’’ was at first of great commercial valuc to brewers and wine makers. In 1865 Pasteur studied the disease of the silk worm, which threatend to destroy the silk industry in France, discovered the germ, and destroyed the plague. Then he discovered a cure for chicken cholera and for anthrax in cattle. Next he turned his atten- tion to man and after much experimentation with dogs found a remedy for hydrophobia. With the methods of technique devised by Pasteur and later by Koch bacteriology became an exact science. The character, habits, and results of bacteria have become better known. The fermentation industries are dependent upon this knowledge. The productivity of the soil has been increased. Sewage and waste have been disposed of and rendered harmless. Drinking water and milk have been purified.—=-—\ 7 Sateen peel x een eel SOOT ONUU TROUT ONION ONO — 4 Chap. XLIV] THE NEW SCIENCE 689 Ce se ee eked ee ee a ee | Many diseases of plants have been eliminated. Much has been done to improve sanitation and to safeguard public health. Biology, embryology, chemistry, bacteriology, and physics have revolutionized medicine and surgery, and led to more progress in the past fifty years than in the previous twenty centuries. Since 1880 the ‘‘serm theory’’ has been generally accepted to account for many Germ theory diseases, such as cholera, influenza, pneumonia, typhoid, scarlet of disease fever, tuberculosis, and common colds. These germs, or bacteria, enter the body through food, drink, and the air in countless numbers. If the body is healthy, the germs are rendered harmless. The Russian, Metschnikoff, proved that the white corpuscles in the blood kept up a constant warfare on the germs that enter the blood and tissue, and that disease may be averted by increasing these white friends. If the body is unhealthy, the germs multiply with great rapidity, and form poisons called toxins, which cause illness and death. It is estimated that a single bacillus would by division amount to 17,000,000 in a single day and night. The German physician, Dr. Koch, in 1882 dis- Koch covered the germ of tuberculosis, and since that time the germs of other diseases have been isolated. While the white corpuscles devour the germs in some diseases, in others the germs themselves generate a substance called anti-toxins, or antidotes, which strange to say tend to counteract the power of the toxins. This knowledge led to a new treatment called serum-therapy, which consists of taking anti-toxins from persons or animals sick with the same disease to inject into the patient to build up his resistance to the poisons. Pasteur first suc- cessfully employed this treatment for anthrax and hydrophobta. The German, von Behring, in 1892 discovered an anti-toxin for diphtheria, and today this treatment is used for many of the germ diseases. The germ theory has encouraged preventive and hygienic measures to wage war on disease. Water and milk are boiled to kill dangerous germs. Ice and heat are used to keep bacteria out of food. Spitting in public places is forbidden because it spreads germs from the dry sputum. Sewage and garbage are destroyed. Sanitary sur- roundings are required by law. Much attention is given to ventila- tion of homes, public buildings, and factories. Public drinking cups are abolished. In many ways people are being educated to give more Hygiene and attention to diet, exercise, and normal living. Better medical col- SCE aL EU leges, clinics, hospitals, research laboratories, and devoted physicians and nurses are gradually solving the great world problem of the elimination of human disease, and also the diseases of animals and plants. The methods of diagnosis have been greatly improved by the invention of instruments such as the clinical thermometer, the steth- oscope, the test tube, and the microscope. In 1800 the majority of persons were pitted with smallpox; today many physicians have never seen acase. Yellow fever and typhoid have almost disappeared, and the dread of other terrible maladies and plagues with thousands = ae Ba er bs Teresa p i 1] eee i f } uJ } — WVOTFTTTITTTUTUUVUIVUUUTGRNUGUUUNGUUTHEUUTOVONGCUTAUVUGEONHEUUUTAUUUGTOONARULIGUUISERNCUUAOUAOUIOUOAOUUIOUULIOCLLAS RUCSurgery Psychiatry afi Me cae i] — Sein sane anes Os. Oe eee Le Dae ore # a bonnes Mercantilism ane ee ees ot ae Fen te bos Paros ROE TR eae at ee ihc 690 MODERN WORLD HISTORY — [Chap. XLIV of victims has been allayed. The discovery of the germ which causes syphilis by Schaudinn in 1905, together with the development of several prophylaxes, seems likely to abolish the plague of venereal disease. Erlich in Germany has discovered an effective remedy for syphilis. Pain has been relieved and life prolonged by the revolution in modern surgery. In 1846 the American, Dr. Warren, by the use of ether, performed a painless operation, and the next year chloroform was employed in Edinburgh. Prior to this innovation an operation was an agonizing procedure for both the patient and the surgeon. In a Boston hospital, before Dr. Warren made his successful experi- ment, only 37 persons in a year were brave enough to risk an opera- tion. Fifty years later in a single year 3,700 persons submitted to the ordeal. Today an operation may be delayed an hour or more, while limbs are amputated, the abdomen opened to repair or remove the organs, the eye given better vision, or the brain relieved. Indeed the miracles of modern surgery are scarcely believable. The discovery of antisepsis in 1876 by Lister was as epoch-making as anaesthesia. By sterilization and antiseptics the danger of infection was removed, and the germs that might poison the blood were killed. With im- proved surgical instruments skilled surgeons now perform the most dificult operations. The X-ray enables the surgeon to locate the presence of foreign substances in the body, the fracture of bones, and the condition of internal organs. The skilled work of the oculist and the dentist supplement the labors of the physician and surgeon to increase the efficiency of the human machine. Infant mortality is decreasing, life in general is prolonged, and the capacity of man for work and for happiness has been greatly increased. The work of the brilliant Viennese psychiatrist, Sigmund Freud (1856-), and his followers has revolutionized medical psychology and made possible the successful treatment of hitherto incurable forms of insanity and nervous disease. His work ranks with that of Koch, Pasteur, and Lister. 4. Tur New Soctat ScrENcEs The new physical sciences resulted, in turn, in directing attention to the study of human society. Asa result there appeared the newer social sciences — political economy, political science, sociology, pragmatic philosophy, psychology, and the new history. From the sixteenth to the latter part of the eighteenth century the ‘‘mercantile system’’ prevailed throughout the western world. It sought to augment the wealth and power of the state as a whole by (1) increasing the nation’s supply of precious metals; (2) holding a favorable balance of trade; @,) exploiting the colonies for the benefit of the home country; (4) multiplying the population; (5) fostering manufacturing even at the expense of agriculture; and (6) supervising the whole system by paternalistic laws. About theSANTONIO ONION TOUGHT OOOO wee ee dase Chap. XLIV] THE NEW SCIENCE 691 ee re en eee time of the American and French Revolutions, the Physiocrats in France and Adam Smith in Scotland led a reaction against mercantil- Physiocrats ism. They set forth the Jaissez-faire, or non-interference theory, which (1) urged the application of natural laws instead of state laws to industry; (2) stressed agriculture as the source of wealth; (3) made ‘consumption the end and purpose of production’’; and (4) laid the foundations for free trade and cosmopolitanism in industry. These individualists of Smith’s day were followed during the first half of the nineteenth century by the ‘‘classical school,’’ which set forth economic principles as} fixed as the laws of physical science. Mal- thus, a graduate of Cambridge University, asserted that the popula- Malehus tion in most countries tended to increase faster than the food supply and was checked only by disease, famine, and the limitation of off- spring. This idea had something to do with the development of Darwin’s theory of natural selection. Ricardo, an Englishman descended from a Portuguese Jewish family, sought to solve the problem of the distribution of wealth. Bentham worked out the Bentham theory of the greatest happiness for the greatest number as the true ideal of society. John Stuart Mill, called the “‘father of political Jobn Stuart economy,”’ advocated the diffusion of property through the taxation Msi of inheritances, the confiscation of the future “‘unearned increment ’”’ of land by the state, and stressed the distinction between the laws of production and distribution. Mill called himself a Socialist of a con- servative type. The rise of socialism was a protest against the laissez-faire doctrine and private property with an idealistic, middle-class spirit. Godwin, Saint-Simon, and Fourier led the attack, which was followed up by Owen, Louis Blanc, and others. The ‘‘scientific’’ socialism of Marx Socialism made a revolutionary assault on the social order upheld by the clas- sical school by emphasizing the theory of social evolution and the class struggle. Asa proletarian movement, it had a marked influence on the growth of political economy. Rodbertus and Lassalle were ‘state socialists’’; Marx and Engels, ‘‘international socialists.’’ Comte insisted that economics could not be divorced from history, and laid the foundations for the ‘‘ historical school,’’ which denied the existence of universal laws, and stressed the inductive method of study. The Ricardian and the Malthusian theories were opened to doubt. Later Socialists such as Bernstein in Germany and the “Fa- bians’’ in England, called “‘revisionists,’’ rejected the materialistic interpretation of history. The socialistic conceptions of political economy were bitterly assailed and the existing order defended by orthodox economists who favored free trade in Great Britain and protection in the United States, France, and Germany. Economic thought today is broadly eclectic. Economists employ any theory, any method, and any facts that may help to solve the mighty problems of this industrial age. Thousands of trained econ- omists are at work in libraries and laboratories to improve the lot of ete ee ee ee Taeeee, +, are ape, ee. i H a i) ae i i } | i o] | i 4 | 1 7 a ee PP ee PVP TPTOFTUUUGUUTVUUUTOENUGTUVRGUNTHENUAGTINGTUUTGNVTGENNREUNUNUNUNGUUINENUROUUAEOROGUOROONAEUUOCOMUUOTUACUOUUUOULUOUR LUCA a—————— Seal ee en hee ht ] ! | { | a ea Ai ih a ; a a ae I ae) ae aan naan i vean Lee Th we el AE Lk ee LS Oa A ae es eee = Economics Sociology 692 MODERN WORLD HISTORY — [Chap. XLIV man. Never has such a large number of economic laws and principles been so widely accepted. The science of economics has become more exact. The recent period of world history has seen a revival of pa- ternalistic and nationalistic mercantilism. Governments encourage corporations to develop export trade. Business men are forming associations ‘‘more and more guild-like in character.’ Against the present economic organization of the world the most significant protest after the World War came from the British Labor Party: “The individualist system of capitalist production, based on the private ownership and competitive administration of land and capital, with its reckless ‘profiteering’ and wage-slavery; with its glorification of the unhampered struggle for the means of life and its hypocritical pretense of the ‘survival of the fittest’; with the monstrous inequality of circumstances which it produces and the degradation and brutalization, both moral and spiritual, resulting therefrom, may, we hope, indeed have received a death blow. With it must go the political system and ideas in which it naturally found expression. . . . What has to be reconstructed is . . . not this or that piece of social machinery; but society itself.”’ Just as biology takes life for its field of study, so the new sociology seeks to understand society as a whole. The term was first used by Comte in 1839 and is now generally accepted. The goal of sociol- ogy is to understand the principles of human society in the process of evolution. Herbert Spencer, more than any other single person, opened up the possibilities of sociology by extending the principle of evolution to the ‘‘social organism’’ — to government, religion, law, language, customs, industry, and education. Sociology seeks to ascertain the laws of social progress, the sense of human respon- sibility, the standards of social efficiency in modern civilization, and therefore claims to rank as the “master science.’’ The field is so broad and the science is so new, that it is not surprising to find many divergent schools. Meantime applied sociology through many agencies, public and private, is seeking to improve humanity in a scientific fashion. The new science of politics devotes itself to the study of the political institutions of the world past and present. By employing the comparative method, it points out the significance of the differ- ences in governments and tries to find the best forms. It seeks to have peoples realize the basic principles upon which governments rest. It aims to set forth all sides of every political and legal issue in order that citizens may think intelligently and come to sane con- clusions about political problems in their own and foreign coun- tries. It concerns itself with questions about local government, the national state, and the international organization of the world. Spencer’s ten volumes of Synthetic Philosophy in which he sought to explain the universe as a whole from the molecule to the distant stars and from the cell to man, laid the foundations for the newPIU TI ICO UC UOT VUITTON : | OT Chap. XLIV} THE NEW SCIENCE 693 philosophy. Pragmatic philosophy, seeking to be of practical service to man, has for its central question, ‘‘What is truth and how 1s it to be distinguished from error?’’ The new psychology is delving deeply into the mental process of both man and the lower animals, and now has its own laboratory for experimentation. Applied psychology seeks to aid business, to help develop standards of education, and to explain human actions in terms of the mind. The new ethics is shedding more light on the problem of conduct, and the questions of right and wrong. Among the epoch-making forces of the nineteenth century was the new history. Until fifty years ago, historians concerned them- selves largely with the political side of man’s life. The pages of history were filled with the exploits of kings, queens, noblemen and ladies, generals and statesmen, and popes and bishops. The tise of democratic governments broadened the scope of history. The History of Industrial Revolution, the rise of socialism, internationalism, and ##/ation the new science have made history mean something more than mere civic and military happenings. Today history includes every- thing man has done, felt, said, and been throughout his whole life on earth. It comprehends his social, intellectual, industrial, and religious, as well as his political life. It includes the savage as well as the civilized man. There are no longer any “‘ pre-historic’’ peoples. The Darwinian theory of evolution and the germ theory of disease are perhaps more important historical forces than Magna Charta and the Declaration of Independence. Great scientists, eminent educators, inventors, explorers, business men, and writers deserve recognition as well as great generals and prominent rulers. In 1906, when a French newspaper asked its readers to vote for a list of great French- men, the name of Pasteur came first and that of Napoleon I fourth. The new history accepts the conception of the evolution of human life, and attempts to visualize the whole story of man for the past 250,000 years as One continuous whole, although the remains of his civilization reach back only a mere 7,000 years. The new history not only stresses the continuity of civilization through institutional growth but also emphasizes its unity. 5. ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE New ScIENCE Science has made the past half century preéminently a period of experimentation, of exploration, of invention, and of discovery. At an early stage in man’s development, he learned to supplement his hands, feet, back, teeth, and nails by inventing and using crude tools and machinery. The axe, hammer, knife, and spear point were first made of stone or bone. Baskets were formed of reeds and twigs, and clothing fashioned from skins. The discovery of fire and metal Slow progress led to great advances. The earlier sun-dried pottery was now hard- °% ‘<#me ened and glazed by heat; metal implements devised; and food eee ie 4 hi i | } { 1 i | PUTTTVUUVENGUUAVIAUIGUNEUGEUGUOGUIGUTAUUGUUGUREOOUUOUGOOAUIGUUGUUASOUOOTAGAUN AUTOS ACRUATLU TEeke Coes eee! ee eS mat EX es Toe er eee Ee | H | | if { a r i { j | i ‘ | i | { | i F, hs re Fe ie at eT ee be ae ness 2 bai eee me Sa ec are See aT de) Contemporary ScLence 694 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XLIV cooked. The use of wedges, rollers, and levers marked progress. Buildings were erected and adorned. The horse and cow were domesti- cated. The bow and arrow, the sling, the lasso, and the machines for hurling stones at enemies were employed. The soil was tilled with crude plows; fish caught with nets; the cart used for travel and transportation by land and boats propelled by paddles and sails on water; and the distaff, spindle, and hand-loom made linen and woolen cloth. These early inventions were improved by the Greeks and Romans, but not materially increased. Not until the close of the Middle Ages, when the manufacture of paper, the mariner's compass, and the printing-press came in, was notable advance made over the ancient inventions. The sixteenth and seventeenth cen- turies produced the telescope, microscope, clocks run by weights, watches, sawmills driven by water, the windmill, and the wheel- batrow. The eighteenth and nineteenth centuries were epoch- making in the inventions that led to the Industrial Revolution. It took Sir Francis Drake two years and ten months in the six- teenth century to travel around the earth. Columbus was 70 days in crossing the Atlantic; and the Pilgrims 66 days. When George Washington in 1789 went from his home at Mount Vernon to New York to assume his duties as the first president of the United States, it took him twelve long days by horseback to make the journey. At Philadelphia he might have changed to the slow, jolting stage- coach, but he stuck to his horse because he was ina hurry. Today the same journey may be taken in a comfortable hotel on wheels in a single night. In less than ten days one may travel from San Fran- cisco to London by train and steamer. In twelve days it is possible to go from Berlin to Pekin, China, in a luxurious passenger coach. Space has been almost annihilated. A complete circuit of the globe was made by land and sea in 36 days in 1913. It is said that the jour- ney could be made now by air ina week. Commodities are shipped all over the earth with equal dispatch and ease. Man power was sup- plemented first by the ox and horse, then by the wind and water, then by steam, and now by gas and electricity. These new forces are applied to locomotives, steamers, street Cars, elevators, auto- mobiles, tractors, and airplanes. In 1924 over 22,500,000 motor vehicles were in use throughout the world. Of this number 80 per cent were in the United States; 70,000 wefe in India; 11,000 in China; 128,000 in Argentina; 13,000 in Egypt; and 4oo in Iceland. The factory, mill, mine, farm, and home use these new slaves of man. Two British aviators, Alcock and Brown,. in June, 1919, made the first non-stop flight across the Atlantic Ocean from Newfoundland to Ireland in less than sixteen hours. The British Zeppelin, R-34, on July 2-6, with a crew and passengers crossed from Scotland to Long Island, a distance of 3,200 miles, in 108 hours, and made the return trip in three days. In 1925 the Zepplin Los Angeles made the passage from Germany to the United States in a little over 81 hours. Today aTUTTO UNTO OOOO ONTO OOOO UOC OOo Sao Bg a et tet ee ORE RAS ok ae adda eet. i 1) a iH: i f i] A : Be MOP TTTTITITITTUITTFUUINVUIRVIUUUULITITOIVATUIUUUTOULTUUUON UGCA UA| 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 AO 20) | | | a iz + ee | ae | | (i bd | : nt rN : tO 7 | Ys & 4 Jan Mar | Ss | | Arctic Grcle oy aa } eee Iceland.__--~. = f0 4 th bso a BR -_+~ 7 yebec eo =a ro] KE Liv’ mao — é . Newfounfland Ao Seas H > Ne Sy EC ki— - ae ere ‘st iene ee ee eee a} & a = | | crori 3 Ves of oe aan NW Sis, 4O eee = io ime Eas — ———— — name ey) aie ese Xe SS) SS -,- Gi pT; ~S yo Ne * Azores Ts L Yokoh. to San fr2 ACISCO 7 / t I La Af Yor ke 2 bo CG 58 Oi -—f- y Jy \0) fader ak y . _A Y m4 ‘ ! x ' ‘ o) of” 7 Ae 7 : y -" i 0 Ly : Sx. Of ce 7 : eN Vs, Batya I x a) pasa =. eval oe sy aA —((_“e ” AMERICA nian e Ne SAU alae OAC : j {2 Sa— ; , ‘A Lgiert ao : et Z / ® Outsunas t i \ ‘I | 0 ~ ~ eee } Proayels 3 x We tees Mt | = : / ‘ ° ‘ iS | 7 okelau TP ee |, Marguesas ly ; ie P eT: | | “ 3 . A: \ Wea? | pane te ike egy > 99%" Radia x! CF | ei Ole. S JAR® v \ it - 7 . ie Patna at ls / is SS St, Heleze t | a a —— EE — a : t = : be e Tonga, __ fGen TS Oy | ee Eitropic onl Capricom lS ee ae ~ . “ Pe - Ht | Austral i 27 ~ 3 + 79 ~ at FJ £4 Cope r } ee hatte Srp ty cos Easter I; Q ES wae . : Piucanil, ee AC Nf me ] | jermadee ear mY } . it = Tristar da GC y Ta i O C EL A W et ee a ae: er At 4&0 7 ~ pa | Coughl H Chatham IS ~ > ~~~ _ ‘ i | Yellington yy | fend a Z “Spe Ho, a | | ae | South Georgia | \. a | ma i = ; . i : & « Sandwich Is ai 60 —— a, : | | 7 | Je 2 South Orkney ls | T Y 5 | ‘yY Y t* + E ACN, OTP A ae he Cama Gk Antarctic Cikcle Ke Xu _ aA = ee Tee ee ee ae ee [pe = r : ae Ta lS a ee Scale of | ¢: braham L¢ | 0 1000 = | E - ao | a. —_ f oa | —— a el 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 ZO West an a8 shinee oi peste rat a sain aes Bama ____ Kartographische Anstalt von P. A. Brockhaus, Leipzig, Germany. TE ED Ot LL Oe PSPm DATUM TMAH Set deg na aa = 20 4O 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 : > SY aa ia 5 T . \ Fie CF J OF Nicholas Il SI ie : setae | HR / Franz Josef Ld ree ‘ | 1 80 | ( ¢ A WA. Deets | | ; | \ ( ef # Rk Cf |‘ F TT ee te bk TT md, So ot No vaya Se oe | | ; | ; } Mongolfra . me Reber Utes. Lal Sty : ' wa | PLANE Seer! al Oo F C | N P pea 'T Yokoh. fo Victor! 4. —— . Ce! ( eee ad | atone AT: . Ty l b et > < SZ, ls - =- ee = = Saeed ehemmey aerator Ske sCN\ Ching - ot ys ~P_A | Zi F fé C a | Ze ee = | ve, ~ AL a ee , . ‘ 00h Hy a unm yr HOM (Ane es een ia ee ee ete ea | Se y ] ; ee Nea cay E OPMwsa Ladrones. a 20 ! q I * f * ep yr = - : 5 ! ae « To Japaru | f\i poe . Fron | \ A * yen h pp ne ( Te vara O (’ k A A | 4 ‘Mat 7 fad. | in | Ca e [ ANS: we 'Cuam | Mars hall S f rere\ Tordhe! ' 7 , ite fe : OL = 4- Lace a 1 Jest Aras «(To Japan) [Fe Reta eae: i 7 [~~ 7~=-3 MN cefion. ba Lh edgae te a)” 3 CloJagan) oy op «Maldive <: a ve 5 = 3 “"Oline [> - =, | : ao” 4 ‘ J es. ‘ = bo ‘ * > 2s ‘ ae ZN ‘ pect 7 ‘ ere Z 0 aa oa ~Q ei ee : 4 Je, Pa aN ? S675 ~<# PAT, Star 5 OP) Ly Le meh '>4CTo mC oP hbenLr ~ Suma? i eY SM» Solomon vy, I> Bs dustrabady 7/5 Ellice: “a * \e ys: i make is r Se kK i" i ie | / Samal SA Ss Vex .« we 7S ys’? “SE NSS Hebrides, *Y? 4 ae SoM Z pA ae 120 ate ~ : w\" * ons . S <— . . oy es a r ' Soave Ti: nei = _ wee a nme ae seine at =p wn LOLI DY es ~ ¥ “a . / ! Is = “+ j 3 7 VE eet bee Tf, : oh aeweee | J 4 " OF » sy T : \ i é .* == _ KFRICA OG A, A _} 7 — ' : -~--~—--~_Kermaiiec hy Ly yg i a ent Mag ron adler sit LY -— Gepet. to Fremantle New AmsterdanL. ~ Lr @ E rt nbs na Q Ney ‘ Sea ‘S48 Pad I. Be ero he ee y Pl, oe KO } Laie [ | iat” zéaland/ | e105 Aires fo Sytney FE RT ele ae food en ote are CE eg ais Jah Tasmeé ia Zealanc / Pr Edward I. a | eee eee ZF 3 Gozet Tl, Kerguelpr 1. a 7 a | i a era a NAT i rN. T, A FY = YT ~ . .\T 7 4 a / THT oe ry hf INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE AND COMMUNICATIONS | a 4 4 Ne Ae d J Ly d4 4 \ ABs) Lok) S 4 / dh 4h 4 1YW | [~ ] REGIS al present engaged im fare i Seas oper to Navigation roughout \ | [ee Irhlepnational Commriterce eer | the. year t a ee sy Pe ; a - 4 ¢ i a «(| | Kegions capable of Commercial Development | Seas filled with Ice ut Winter and 60 y ____} but at present undeveloped L | only oper to Navigation ue Summoner ; * ‘] | | Regions open to Commercial Enterprise Ae J L__J only during Summer Months Steamship Lines } Equator i | Barren and Desert Reguonis Dueapable ae m9000" __4000 \___} of Commercial Development Prowipad Railways | 20) oF 40 Greenw. 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 mT = : = ese Ce ee a; | ae ] } ve YBa i | | ae mild eae eel aa aii ' ' a tt i ve a f \ i Sa ee ee oa Pe Late ame it EE Ee aes el eT ein tS PS EYa 2eeee peace he ee Chap. XLIV] THE NEW SCIENCE 695 regular air service is found between the largest cities in Europe and America. The submarine came into prominence during the World War and demonstrated its ability to cross the ocean under the water. Thus man has by his inventive genius shown himself master of the land, sea, and air. As a boy Abraham Lincoln knew no better artificial light than the pine-knot and tallow candle. Not until 1802 was it demonstrated that gas made from coal could be used for lighting purposes. By 1816 gas lighting was beginning in London. Natural gas from the earth was used for light in 1821 at Fredonia, N. Y. The first oil Applied science well was sunk in Pennsylvania in 1859. Today tens of thousands of oil wells in the United States, Mexico, Russia, Burmah, and other parts of the globe produce millions of barrels of oil. In America alone in 1918 more than 413,000,000 barrels of oil were used — a quantity equal to the water pouring over Niagara Falls for three hours. Oil and its numerous by-products are utilized for a hundred different purposes. It is rapidly displacing coal as a fuel on ships and locomotives. Gasoline runs engines, automobiles, and airplanes. In country districts and in backward countries like China oil is still the chief source of light. Coal, as the source of heat and power, is now supplemented by gas, oil, and electricity. The diplomats who sat in the Congress of Vienna never dreamed of the telegraph, telephone, and wireless as means of communicating ideas. The ancients had only a vague idea of the mysterious force of electricity. Gilbert in 1600 experimented with electricity, and Ben- jamin Franklin first identified lightning with the electric spark. Volta in 1799 produced the first electric current. A host of scientists Communication took up the study of this new force, and soon it was serving man's needs in many different ways. Morse invented the first telegraph; the Brett brothers laid the first cable across the English Channel in 1845; and twenty-two years later a cable was stretched across the Atlantic’s bottom. The first dynamo to produce electric light was put on the market in 1867 and a dozen years later Edison invented the first incandescent lamp, which was soon used in New York and London. Bell devised the first speaking telephone in 1876 and soon telephone exchanges sprang up in America, Europe, and the rest of the world. The first electric street car appeared in 1881 in Paris, and in 1891 it was proved that electricity could be transmitted over long distances. By 1904 railways began to exchange steam for electric power, and electro-chemistry was transforming industry. Marconi sent a wireless message from France to England in 1899 and across the Atlantic in 1907. Today electricity brings the peoples of the world into almost instant touch, and is a source of light, power, and heat to perform thousands of tasks. There seems to be no limit either to its quantity or its usefulness. If our great grandfathers could return to earth, they would rub their eyes in surprise at the spread of democratic institutions and at Sete aed et r we ae re a ET Zh he, ow en = il nk ie ert a i} i Ht | I eager eee PPPUTITTATUIFTUVTUHTTUUFUUGTIITTVUTTUGVIUETVUGUOAULWREGTTUAUNGONATEGURELGERATULNELAUAOOEUAUSCO UAC~se ret ini eal _ ae oe a a ee Fane Sao beeear ae ee ee ee ee ae Hl HH 5 SLIP PLL OT EL The Empire of machines’ Importance of social science 696 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XLIV the transformation of life and industry through multitudinous applications of science. A net-work of railroads girdles the conti- nents over which giants of steel draw millions of tons of freight and hundreds of thousands of passengers. Ocean greyhounds nearly a thousand feet long plow across the oceans in a few days carrying many passengers and huge cargoes of goods. The automobile whirls along the roads and the hum of the airplane is heard in the sky. The heavens are darkened by the smoke of factories, and mining has been improved by hundreds of inventions. Steel is used for a thousand pur- poses, from a hair spring to bridges spanning the Mississippi. It would take a large volume to catalogue the recent inventions, discov- eries, and new processes such as printing and book-making; cheap paper and electrotyping; radio, phonograph, stereopticon and moy- ing pictures; sewing machines and electric washers; the vacuum cleaner and dishwasher; the steam and hot-air furnaces, and refrigera- tors; the typewriter and multigraph; the fountain pen and books for the blind; photography and improved firearms; concrete construc- tions and asphalt streets and shingles; devices to fight fire, burn sew- age, and clean streets; matches and india-rubber atticles; safety appliances and automatic restaurants: lawn mowers and combined reapers and threshers; cheap watches and instruments for the deaf; incubators and safety razors; piano-players and sanitary drinking fountains; patent medicines and artificial eyes and limbs; steel fishing rods and luring artificial bait; and false teeth and the thermos bottle. These and innumerable other devices aid man in work and pleasure, in sickness and health, on the farm and in the city, in the mine and in the mill, in the home and in the store, to live a larger, happier, and more useful life. What we have yet to learn is to be able to live together in a peaceful, codperative, and efficient manner in the ex- ploitation of the new technique of science and engineering. To teach us this indispensable lesson is the task of social science. REFERENCES FOR FURTHER STUDY J. A. Tuomson, editor, The Outline of Sczence, 5 vols. (1920); W. T. Sepewick, and H. W. Tyzer, A Short History of Modern Science (1917); A.D. Wut, A History of the War- fare of Science with Theology, 2 vols. (1895); W. Lipsy, An Introduction to the History of Science (1917); A. R. Wauxace, Progress of the Century (1901); J. T. Merz, A History of European Thought in the Nineteenth Century, 4 vols. (1896-1914); J. W. N. Suttivan, Aspects of Science (1925); A. Denpy, editor, Problems of Modern Science (1922); O. W. Catpwe.t and E. E. Stosson, Science Remaking the World (1923); E. E. SLosson, Creative Chemistry (1921); Easy Lessons in Einstein (1923); Keeping up with Science (1924); W.C. Curtis, Science and Human Affairs (1922); W. A. Locy, Biology and its Makers (ed. 1915); J. W. Jupp, The Coming of Evolution (ag10); H. F. Osporn, From the Greeks to Darwin (1894); G. J. Romanes, Darwin and after Darwin, 3 vols. (1906-1916); W. BaTESON, Mendel’s Principles of Heredity (1909); F. Darwin, editor, Lfe ana Letters of Charles Dar- win, 2 vols. (1887); H. Dincie, Modern Astrophysics (1925); G. N. Nasmyts, Social Science and the Darwinian Theory (1909); J. Dewny, The Influence of Darwin on Philosophy (1910); Reconstruction in Philosophy (1919); A. W. Benn, The Héstory of English Rational- ism in the Nineteenth Century, 2 vols. (1906); F.S. Marvin, Sczence and Civilization (1924);ANT TUITE UOT OULU AOU | a} / Chap. XLIV | THE NEW SCIENCE 697 (editor) Recent Developments in European Thought (1920); A. C. Happon, A History of An- thropology (1912); R. Eucken, Main Currents of Modern Thought (1912); E. Furrer, Geschichte der neueren Historiographie (1911); G. P. Goocu, History and Historians in the Nineteenth Century (1913); J. H. Rosrnson, The New History (1912); The Mind in the Making (1921); J.T. SHotwex, The History of History (1922); H. E. Barnes, The New History and the Social Studies (1925); (editor) The History and Prospects of the Social Sciences (1925); E. C. Hayes, editor, Recent Development in the Social Sciences (1926); W. F. Ocpurn and A. A. GotpenweiseR, editors, The Social Sciences (1925 ). ‘ — Re eo ee ade ee ee OE EE hee lee nee, le eee Ce | ! ‘ i { ! ——— Ne ee rr rrr i CdiP i ai Bl | ' j | rae i} ea} ae an if Ba ye ; K i at Al ae Hi : i i fe (2 LE PON Ste tae a et a a ee a) Sy ne Eas Variety of world religions GHAR BIR: eXL. RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS 1. RELIGIONS OF THE WORLD NotwiTHsTANDING the primacy of the modern, democratic, national state, the power of industry, the spread of education, and the revela- tions of science, religion has continued to be one of the most powerful factors in world civilization. All peoples, from the most primitive to the most advanced, believe in a higher power called God or gods, whom they worship, and love or fear. The conduct of individuals and groups has been determined in large measure by their religious beliefs, and the course of civilization itself has been shaped by this force. The 1,700,000,000 people on earth are divided into distinct reli- gious groups. The Christians include more than one-third of the human race, and number 576,000,000 of whom 274,000,000 are Roman Catholics, 122,000,000 eastern Orthodox, and 180,000,000 Protestants. In numbers the Confucianists and Taoists rank next to the Christians, with 310,000,000. Then come the Mohammedans with 229,000,000 adherents. The Hindus have 215,000,000 members and the Buddhists 140,000,000, while the Shintoists claim only 25,000,000 and the Animists 161,000,000. Of all the great religions the Jews make the poorest numerical showing, with their 16,000,000 followers. The remaining 30,000,000 people are devotees of various primitive reli- gions. Europe and America are predominantly Christian, and the various Christian churches claim 47,000,oc00 members in Asia and 19,000,000 in Africa. The Roman Catholics predominate in Europe, in Latin America, and in Australasia; the Protestants in North America and Africa: and the eastern Orthodox in Asia. The Confucianists and Taoists outrank all other religions in Asia and have about a million members outside of that continent. The Mohammedans ate strongest in Asia, where they have 145,000,000 adherents, and in Africa, where 52,000,000 exist. About 28,000,000 Mohammedans live in Austral- asia, 4,000,000 in Europe and 40,000 in the New World. The Bud- dhists are restricted almost entirely to Asia, with only 47,000 elsewhere. The Hindus, likewise, with the exception of 325,000 in Africa, 150,000 in the New World, and 35,000 in Australasia, all live in Asia. The Animists have 99,000,000 in Africa, 43,000,000 in Asia, 18,000,- ooo in Australasia, and 1,250,000 in South America. The Jews have Over 10,000,000 in Europe, 5,000,000 in the New World, 550,000 in 698SMT HT TET TTI TIO TTT ETUC ee Chap. XLV] RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS 699 Asia, and 350,000 in Africa. Of the 1,116,000,000 non-Christians in the entire world, 17,000,000 live in Europe; 14,000,000 in America; 45,000,000 in Australasia; 152,000,000 in Africa, and 888,000,000 in Asia. Of these world religions only the Mohammedans and the Christians carry on aggressive missionary work to win converts. Mohammedanism is both a religious force and a political power. Islam makes many converts among low-grade peoples such as are found in central Africa. Ff ! ; | ) 2. CHRISTIANITY AND MopERN LIFE Like western civilization, Christanity is alert and aggressive. It makes itself felt as a world force, and because it stresses human brotherhood and equality, it isa powerful factor in democratic prog- ress. It permeates modern law and government and poses as the champion of peace and justice for all men and all groups of men. It advocates arbitration to settle disputes and warmly befriends the Christianity cause of internationalism in seeking to eliminate wars. No other One ee religion has given such a stimulus to liberty and free political in- a stitutions. Renan said: ‘‘The Gospels are the Democratic Book par excellence.’’ Christianity opposes tyranny, whether by kings or by peoples, and objects to license, disorder, and aimless revolution, as it does to despotism. It stands for orderly progress, and takes a prominent part in promoting education. Until recent times the in- struction of the young was in the hands of the clergy in most of the European countries, and the church still controls thousands of pri- mary and secondary schools, colleges and universities, and theological seminaries all over the world. In most Protestant countries today, however, the tendency is towards the secularization of education; in Catholic countries this trend is stubbornly resisted, but headway is being made even there. Many institutions like the Young Men's and Young Woman’s Christian Associations devote much of their time and means to education. Numerous religious clubs and societies seek to improve society in divers ways. The first examples of the separation of the church and state oc- curred under Roger Williams and William Penn in the New World. This principle was incorporated in the federal constitution of the United States. Canada, Mexico, Brazil, and some other Latin- Separation of American republics have followed this example, as have Australia, ares oe South Africa, Ireland, and Wales. France, after a long struggle, sepa- rated the church and state. As a result of the World War, Russia, Germany, Poland, Czecho-Slovakia, and some of the other newer European states have incorporated this provision in their constitu- tions and the idea is rapidly spreading. The Protestant Revolt of the sixteenth century produced in north- ern Europe three great major churches — the Lutheran, Presbyterian, and Anglican —and many minor sects such as the Anabaptists, Zwinglians, and Quakers. This tendency towards division and mul- ATA HHLLL TATTUTTUATASHATA CTT CT TOUR HATTA ATTEN UR Tee | cst Te Ht lt th ae pet Sa e ee eo i Tes Rg Si i OE ee EE aoe a A gE LOLS OLA LEAL OE a Ry +i Protestant S¢ckhS Efforts on Christian union Roman Catholicism 700 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XLV tiplication of the Christian denominations has continued down to the present time and has produced about 4oo different groups. Among the most interesting of these movements were: Methodism founded by John and Charles Wesley in a great religious revival in England during the latter part of the eighteenth century; Unitarianism resulting from a secession from the Church of England in 1773 under Theophilus Lindsey; Mormonism established in 1830 in the state of New York by Joseph Smith Jr. on alleged revelations directly from heaven; Spiritualism originating in the same state in the family of J. D. Fox from certain ‘‘rappings’’ which were interpreted as messages from the dead: and Christian Science based on the writings of Mrs. Mary Baker G. Eddy in 1866. The last few decades have witnessed various efforts to reunite the Protestant churches. Various organizations like the Christian Associations, the Salvation Army, and missionary boards have sought to secure the codperation of the various sects. The Church of England in the Lambeth Conference of 1920 issued an ** Appeal to all Christian People’ calling for a series of conferences to realize ‘‘a reunited Catholic Church.’’ A better understanding was arrived at with the Swedish Church, and the Orthodox Eastern Churches. The Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America, was established in 1908 and now represents officially thirty Protestant denominations. Through special commissions the Council 1s studying such world problems as evangelism, social service, international goodwill and justice, church unity, the church and the race problem, relief, educa- tion, temperance, and so on. The World Missionary Conference held in Edinburgh in 1910 powerfully stimulated codperation in foreign missions. The Interchurch World Movement of North America was organized by representatives of Protestant mission boards in 1918 to meet post-war opportunities. It made a remarkable world survey of religious, educational, and social needs, and sought to raise enormous sums of money to cafry out its gigantic program. This movement revealed the possibilities of codperation, but it failed largely because of unbusiness-like financial operations. In 1918 the Council of Organic Union with 19 Protestant denominations repre- sented, drew up a project for a federal union, and held a second confer- ence in 1920. These beginnings will, it seems reasonable to believe, result in greater ecclesiastical unity. The Greek Orthodox Catholic Church, and other eastern Christian sects have looked with some favor upon the proposition for amalga- mation. The Roman Catholic Church, having retained its unity without serious division since the Protestant Revolt, has been less favorable to the idea of union. In recent years, however, negotia- tions have been carried on for the incorporation of groups of eastern Christians with Rome. The expansion of the Roman Catholic Church is seen in the fact that for the decade 1910-20 alone 71 new dioceses have been created. A missionary army of perhaps 35,000 priests,RT TM TMM TOTO UTI MITOTIC OOOO VOUT UOMO OU Chap. XLV] RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS 7OI monks, and nuns is scattered over the globe to care for the needs of 17,000,000 members and to manage the 1,700 schools with 800,000 pupils. Meantime in recent years administrative reforms have been enacted. In 1908 Pius X reorganized the Roman Curia, or the ruling body of the Papacy, in the interest of greater efficiency and prompti- tude. The Court of the Rota, which during the Middle Ages was the Court of Final Appeal, was restored to much of its former power. Special measures were enacted to care for the welfare of the 34,000,000 Roman Catholics in the English-speaking world. The “monstrous errors’’ and heresies of ‘‘modernism’’ have been condemned. A large commission of scholars made a new ‘‘Codex’’ of Canon Law, which was promulgated in 1917 by Benedict XV. Another commission of experts issued a revised Roman breviary for use in church service. In r912 there was opened in Rome the Biblical Institute for research in the Bible. The new science with its revolutionary theories about man and the earth at first encountered the open hostility of theological dog- matism. In Catholic countries, the opposition was most pronounced. Pope Pius IX took up the cudgel against the new heresies. Lutherans, Calvinists, and Anglicans, fearing that the new science would under- mine the Bible’s authority, upon which they relied, denounced its findings. But slowly the Protestants came to see that they might use the “right of private judgment,’’ which the Reformation stressed, to revise their opinions about the Bible. The majority reconciled science with the Christian faith, and accepted the findings of the evolutionists. In Great Britain the Oxford movement was, in part, a protest against the advanced ideas, but it went to pieces when Newman and others joined the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Cath- olics either refused to accept the conclusions of scientific investiga- tions, or explained them as pertaining to material things and not to the Deity and man’s soul. Copernicanism and geology won notable triumphs, and evolution has had many powerful Christian champions, whose attitude may be stated in Tennyson’s poetical summary, ‘‘one God, one law, one element, and one far-off divine event.’’ The famous Vatican Library and archives were thrown open to scholars. Pope Leo XIII set up an astronomical observatory in the Vatican garden, and congratulated eminent Catholic scientists like Pasteur and Mendel upon their epoch-making discoveries. But Pius X and Benedict XV refused to endorse the extreme teachings of the new science. As a force for social reform, Christianity has played a noteworthy role. It put the emancipation of the black slaves in America and the white serfs in Russia on a moral basis. It developed and supported charitable institutions until taken over in most instances by the state, and still manages many private charitable enterprises. Since 1900 the money spent for charities in Great Britain has multiplied eight times. Organizations like the Salvation Army and Sisters of yey Hitt \ Ut i Science and religion FUNVVTREUTUGGUUOTGEEVOTHUUTTNAUOROGENTUGNUUOUMAETOUATUNUGAUONOAGERLTAUENORETOOATO DATO AERO UATUCAOU UAE ee and ees wanes aera ane ee re - wa SSS TET LTT ne ve. ort EaTY ens et eed OL nn a eee cael| All| Til | i i i i ba : i we OE PI te SALE oP LS Oe ee a eS el Christianity and soctal reform Christian M14SSLONS 702 MODERN WORLD HISTORY [Chap. XLV Charity worked among the poor, in jails among the criminals, and in hospitals and homes among the sick. The church sought to im- prove the lot of women and children; to minimize divorce; to prevent prostitution; to abolish intemperence; and to produce a strong, clean, happy, human race. The Federal Council of the Churches has recently set forth the ‘Social Creed of the Churches’’ and a similar program was drawn up by the American Federation of Catholic Societies. Most of the larger denominations have special departments to carry out this work in many different ways. The churches have sought to solve the present industrial problems, and have proposed various remedies for the evils afflicting the workers. Christian Socialists opposed the materialism and class hatred of the Marxian Socialists, but denounced the present economic system as both unjust and unchristian. Pope Leo XIII wished to apply Christian principles to the relations between capital and labor; approved factory legisla- tion and social reforms; and denounced socialism as a possible remedy. He was called the “‘Workingman’s Pope’’ and was popular with Catholic workers everywhere. It is difficult to realize that religious toleration is a product of recent times. Compulsion in religion is now generally abandoned. Men of different beliefs live peaceably side by side in the same community, and respect one another's convictions. The Christian Church in modern times has felt the call to carry Christian civilization to all parts of the globe. The goal is the con- version, not by the sword but by persuasion and education, of the 150,000,000 heathens and the still larger number of non-Christians scattered over the earth. Among the Roman Catholic missionary agencies the Society for the Propagation of the Faith, founded in 1822, has collected over $100,000,000 and has sent out 12,000 mis- sionaries to Asia, Africa, America, and Australasia. The missionary work of the Protestants has been accomplished largely since the open- ing of the last century through many organizations. Millions of dollars have been contributed to this work and thousands of devoted men and women have gone out to foreign fields to spread the Gospel and to plant the seeds of a new life. From the United States and Canada alone for the decade following 1910 the foreign missionaries increased from 617 to 1,686 annually. Along with the missionary have gone the teacher, the physician, and the social worker to scatter the fruits of western civilization. Not only have mission churches been built, but also schools, hospitals, and sanitary stations have been established. A better knowledge of farming and industry has been taught. The sciences, arts, discoveries, and inventions of Europe and America have been introduced. Superstitions and barbarous prac- tices have been eliminated, or reduced. Many of the natives are now employed to carry on the uplifting work among their fellows. Thus the backward peoples of the world are being elevated gradually to take their place among the progressive nations in the commonEO NNT OOONN OOOO TOMA OOOO TOC = mats Sa Chap. XLV] RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS 703 brotherhood. The most colossal scheme ever undertaken was launched in America by the Interchurch World Movement in 1918 to raise $326,000,000 in 1920 and $1,320,000,000 within five years to evangelize the world. The movement was not entirely successful, but it indicated the vision of the religious leaders of today. The problems confronting the Christian Church at the present time are numerous and serious. The church, like the state and the school, must make its thoughts and activities conform to the higher needs of man. It must become the exponent of democracy both by precept and example. It must learn the lessons of efficiency and co- Problems of operation, and cease to waste its substance and strength through Cre ay senseless duplication. It must learn to work with the state and other ion agencies to accomplish the most for the race. It must stand for the fullest religious freedom and genuine toleration for all persons in- dividually and collectively. It must recruit the ablest leaders of the day to manage its affairs in performing its great mission. It must modernize itself in spirit, creed, and methods of work in order to wield the leadership of the world and successfully spread the message of Jesus to all peoples. To intelligence it must add the new ethics as the standard of human conduct and the capacity of living well. On i TI ae fee ba ers i i , + Hl I REFERENCES FOR FURTHER STUDY J. MacCarrray, History of the Catholic Church in the Nineteenth Century, 2 vols. (ag10); W. Barry, The Papacy and Modern Times (1911); J. McCartuy, Pope Leo XIII (1896); P. Sapatier, Modernism (1908); A. Lotsy, My Duel with the Vatican (1924); J. H. Ryan and J. Husstern, The Church and Labor (1920); F. W. Cornisu, A History of the Church of England in the Nineteenth Century (1910); S. L. Ottarn, A Short Hestory of the Oxford Move- ment (1915); A.C. McGurrert, The Rise of Modern Religious Ideas (1915); J. M. Rosgrrt- son, A Short History of Free Thought (3d ed. 1915); W. Cunnincuam, Christianity and Social Questions (1910); Christianity and Politics (1915); S. Matuews, The Church and the Changing Order (1907); R. S. Baxur, The Spiritual Unrest (1910); J. S. SHOTWELL, The Religious Revolution of Today (1913); S. Ngarina, Social Religion (1913); W.S. RauscHEn- BuscH, Christianity and the Social Crisis (1914); C. A. Ettwoop, The Reconstruction of Religion (1921); H. C. Vepper, The Gospel of Jesus and the Social Problem (1914); C. S. McFarLanp, Christian Service and the Modern World (1916); L. Parxs, The Crisis of the Churches (1922); E. B. Sanrorp, History of the Federal Council of Churches (1916); A. S. Crapsey, The Last of the Heretics (1924); S. L. Gunicx and C. S. McFaruanp, The Church and International Relations, 3 vols. (1917); D. Purtirson, The Reform Movement in Judaism (1907); R. J. H. Gorrnem, Zionism (1914); H. M. Karen, Zionism (1922); S. G. Wiz- son, Modern Movements among Moslems (1916); J. N. Farquyar, Modern Religious Move- ments in India (1915);\J. S. Dennis, Christian Missions and Social Progress (1897), 3 vols.; W. O. Carver, Missions and Modern Thought (agio); W. R, Lamsuts, Medical Missions (1920). yeaa hay AVR LL ee ee ee te] i » ' ‘| ' } | : A ‘ ; ie eae ae ie 1h} el ee \ ahi an a rae Mt a ana | | a ae Sa Sta ea Ss = ne — eee a eer ws wom dad A Na a Re a a rt NT ee ae ae alrINDEX ee ere er ee rrr pEry cr _ RE ee ah eae a ae SS ea eee ses, | } | | i it Bay ' \ } | i [ t cE. ee eee ere ee a mei owns eeNy | | fii i [ | | H } if | { | Ht i | At ti iil at ae ] rome Fe os piePTT TTT TTT TUT TTT UTCTTE TU UUOETU ELUTE UAV ACOOCU TAU e INDEX Abdul Aziz, 386, 392 Abdul Hamid II, 392, 393, 395, 396, 404, 405 Abdul Medjid, 386 Abraham, 155 Abyssinia, 285, 354, 419, 486, 489, 644 ‘Academies of Labor’’ (Germany), 679 Academy of Sciences, Belles-Lettres, and Arts (Lyons), 19 Acre, defeat of Napoleon at, 108, 373 Acropolis, 184 Act of Union and Security (Sweden), 57 Adalia (Asia Minor), 355, 558, 582, 636 Adam and Eve, 683 Adams, John, 25, 43, 140 Adams, Samuel, 26, 28, 35 Adana (Asia Minor), 381, 382 Aden (Arabia), 470 AdmiraJty Islands, 492 Adowa (Abyssinia), 514 Adrar, 490 Adrianople, Treaty of (1829), 184, 376, 377, 379, 407 Adriatic Sea, 53, 250, 262, 335, 366, 406, 576 Aegean Islands, 407, 408, 582, 636 Aegean Sea, 390, 406 Aehrenthal, Baron, 519 Afghanistan, 285, 339, 340, 423, 470, 519, 605, 607, 644 Airica 3, A, (9; 133 15; 18, 385 10) 1789,1443 308; 312; imperialism in, 361; 414, 416, 419, 425, 426, 485, 569, 660, 677, 698 African Association (London), 45 African Negroes, 9, 18; in United States (1790), 38; 44; 434 Agadir incident, 311, 313, 331, 523, 524 Agassiz (Louis), 449 Agricultural Institute, 444 Agricultural Revolution, 157 Agriculture (France), 315 Aguinaldo, 439 Ahmed Arabi Pasha, 4o1r Aidin (Turkey), 403 Aisne River, 565 Aix-la-Chapelle, congress of, 136 Akermann, Convention of, 376, 377 Alabama (state of), 43 Alabama (S.S.), 285, 443 Aland Islands, 365, 580, 618 WAHT Alaska, 269, 339, 414, 420, 422, 423, 429, 435, 439, 449, 495 Alaskan Canal, 443 Albania, 390, 405-408, 527, 566, 580, 587, 588, 630, 631, 634, 636, 653 Albanians, 367, 370 Albert I (Belgium), 360, 556 Alberta, 457 Alcock (aviator), 694 Aleutian Islands, 492 Alexander, King (Greece), 567 Alexander I (Russia), 115, 131, 132, 135; liberal policy of, 145; 146, 148, 150, 215, 23S) 267. 277. 62.2 Alexander II (Russia), 255; character of, 268; 2.693 2:70; 2.702.722.7972 385 Alexander III (Russia), 340, 341 Alexander of Battenberg, 393 Alexander the Great, 13, 107 Alexandretta, Sea of, 393 Alexandria, 107 Alfieri (Vittorio), 54 Alfonso XII (Spain), 355, 356 Alfonso XIII (Spain), 356, 357, 586 Alfred, King, 7 Algeciras, 330, 443; conference of, 504, 518, 523 Algeria, 239, 241, 308, 423, 427, 486, 488, 490 Algiers, 308, 366, 402 Ali Pasha of Janina, 373, 386 Alleghanies, 23 Allenby, General, 568 Allied Council of Ambassadors, 631 Allied Maritime Transport Council, 654 Allied Naval Council, 654 All-Russian Central Executive Committee, 605 All-Russian Congress of Soviets, 574, 600, 602 Alps, 66, 102, 110, 112, 119, 568 Alsace, 42, 82, 133, 171, 175, 512 Alsace-Lorraine, 244, 245, 258, 260, 261, 280, 281, 302, 311, 316, 321, 323, 507, 531, 537, $41, 574, 575» 576, 578, 587 Alsatians, 77 Althing Cceland), 363 Althusius, 15 Amadeo, Prince, 355 Amalfi (Italy), 352 Amazon River, 448, 495 America, new economic régime in, 39 797 OUTTTTUTUUUIUUTIUNULUIUIAUUUUUUUELUUUAUAAUUUIAa Sh el 7. ne enw a Yr’ ! | | | ' | / ae Le j ae a ! : ae) i Fl t Ta | i | Baa ee eS TIL Ona Se ae RE a ett eT 708 INDEX American Collegiate and Theological Institute, 388 American constitution of 1787, 37, 97 American Federation of Catholic Societies, 702 American Federation of Labor, 665 American Institute of International Law, 441 American Republic, 4, 5, 38, 89 American Revolution, 3, 4, 6, 7, 18, 28, 31; ¢x- planation of the, 32; 37, 38, 40, 41, 71, 75, 88; influence of the, 89; 121, 124, 140, 155, 180, 182, 211, 216, 275, 297, $30, 645 Amiens, Treaty of, 110, 114 Amnesty Act of 1872 (U.S. ), 278 Ampere, 686 Amsterdam, 72, 159, 593 Amundsen, 496 Amur Valley, 339, 475 Anabaptists, 699 Anarchism, 122, 222 Anatolia, 636 Andes, 454 Andrassy, Count, 389 Anglican Church, 69, 140, 141, 296, 699 Anglicans, 69, 141, 701 Anglo-French Entente, 517 Anglo-Japanese Alliance, 484, 589 Anglo-Russian agreement (1907 ), 519 Angola, 489 Angora, 403; Treaty of, 637 Animists, 698 Annam, 241, 308, 423, 473, 475 Annapolis, 34 Annobon Islands, 493 Annonay, 84 ‘* Anti-Federalists’’ (U.S. ), 36 Antilles, 450, 451; Lesser, 493 ‘‘ Antiquity of Man, The”’ (Lyell), 684 Appalachian Mountains, 38 Apponyi, Count, 581 Arabia, 405, 629, 636, 638 Arabian Desert, 366 Arabs, 13, 366, 436 Arago (D.F.), 686 Arawaks, 452 Arbitration, 657 Archangel, 604 Archduke John of Austria, 201 Architecture, 70, 682 Argentina, 676, 694 Argonne Forest, 569 Aristotle, 643 Arizona (state of), 429, 445 Arkwright (Sir Richard), 161, 167 Armenia, 390, 391, 394, 395» 405 469, 575» 582: 603, 636, 637, 650 Armenians, 345, 366, 367, 394, 395» 436 Arndt, 148 Arras, 568 Arriago, President (Portugal), 358 Art, in Europe (1789), 70; 681 Articles of Confederation (U.S.), 30, 34, 35, 149, 2I2, 214 Artois, count of, 91, 100, 138 Asbury, Francis, 40 Ascension Island, 492 Ashantee (West Africa), 285 Ashley, Lord, 211 Asia, 3, 4, 13, 15, 18; in 1789, 45; 416, 420, 425, 526, 588, 660, 677, 698 Asia Minor, 355, 366, 373, 381, 392, 401, 404, 471, 519, 629, 635 ‘* Asiatic Monroe Doctrine,’ 485 Asquith, 550, 552 Assab, 354 Assembly of Notables (France), 91 Assignats, 98 Association of Friends (Greece), 184, 378 Assuan Dam, 465 Astor, John Jacob, 38 Astor, Viscountess, 645 Astronomy, recent progress in, 687 Athens, 184, 395, 635 Atlantic Ocean, 15, 75, 163, 455, 661, 694, 695 Ausgleich Compromise of 1867, 263, 334 Austerlitz, battle of, 114, 239 Australasia, 698 Australia, 4, 13, 18, 32, 37, 45, 161, 418, 422, 424, 427, 455, 458, 463, 464, 491, 645, 646, 660, 676, 699; Commonwealth of, 457, 458, 472 Austria, illiteracy in, 676; imperialism in, 53; political reforms in, 53; religious reforms in, 53; social reforms in, 53; Revolution of 1848 in, 202; under Joseph II, 52; under Maria Theresa, 52; Republic of, 614 Austria-Hungary, ethic situation in, 334 Austrian Empire, foreign policy of (under Metter- nich), 147; home policy of (under Francis 1), 147; institutions of, 147; problems of nation- ality in, 335; social legislation in, 336 Austrian Kingdom, 54 Austrian Netherlands, 53 Austrian Revolution (1848), 203 Austrian ultimatum to Serbia, 545, 546 Austro-German Alliance, 508 Austro-German Treaty of 1879, §07, 508 Austro-Hungarian Empire, 334, 497, 514 Austro-Prussian War, 250, 255, 256 Avars, 369 Avogardo, 686 Avon Island, 492 Azerbaijan (Persia), 585 Azores, 493 Azov, Sea of, 627IMEI OTUUUUUUEU EEUU TAUHUAUUUTTU UATE AO INDEX Babeuf, Noél, 216 Bach, 72, 681 Bacon, Francis, 71 Bacteriology, 688 Baden, 115, 201, 257, 318, 611 Bagdad, 332, 373, 403, 568; Railway, 332, 403, 404, 519, 522, 539, 542 Bahamas, 430, 493 Bailly GJ. S.), 92 Bakewell, Robert, 157 Bakunin (Michael), 223 Balance of power, Germany and the, 515 Balbo (Cesare), 234 Balearic Islands, 357 Balfour, 577, 629 Balkan League, 525, 527, 537, 538 Balkan States, 6, 49 Balkan War (First), 406, 407, 530; (Second), 400, 409, 526; 499, 525 Ballot Act of 1872 (England), 286 Baltic Sea, 55, 56, 329, 365, 621 Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, 164 Baluchistan, 339 Balzac, 235 Banat, the, 373, 581, 630, 632 Bancroft (George), 279 Bank of England, 70, 662 Bank of France, 112, 172, 662 Banks, Joseph, 458 Baptists, 41, 69, 141 Barbados, 464 Barbagallo, Corrado, 536 Barings (bankers), 172 Barnard (Henry), 226 Barras, General, 106, 107 Barrés, Maurice, 244 Bashi-Bazuks, 389 Bassora, 332 Bastille, 88; fall of the, 94, 96 Basutoland, 490 Basutos, 285 Batavian Republic, 106, 115 Batoum, 391 ‘Battalion of Death,’’ 673 ‘Battle of the Nations,’’ 118, 232 Bautzen, battle of, 118 Bavaria, 50, 53, 115, 242, 257, 318 Beaconsfield, Lord, 460, 506 Beard, Charles A., 36 Beauharnais, General, 107 Bebel CF. A.), 281, 332 Beccaria, $4 Becuanaland, 490 Beethoven, 132 Bela Kun, 581, 615 Belfort, fortress of, 556 Belgian Congo Free State, 361 709 Belgium, 6, 8, 49, 111, 133, 134; establishment of independence of, 190; 215, 232; nationalism in, 235; 242, 279, 360, 556, 557, 563, 575» 588; 650; illiteracy in, 676; 679 Belgrade, Treaty of, 373 Bell, Alexander Graham, 164, 695 Bell, Henry (Bell’s Comer), 163 Belleau Wood, 569 Benckendorff, 551, 552 Benedetti, 258, 259 Benedict XV, 573, 701 Bentham, 193, 294, 691 Bentham-Edwards, 316 Berchtold, 552 Berlin, 62, 115, 155, 200, 319, 433, 452, 509, 682. Berlin, Congress of, 272, 312, 337, 391, 40%, 418, 504, 506 Berlin Decree, 116 Berlin, Treaty of, 391, 521 Berlin, University of, 123 Bermuda, 430, 464, 493 Bernadotte, 116, 134, 363 Berne, 58, 311 Bernhardt, 533 Bernstein, 691 Bernstorff, 57 Berzelius, 686 Bessarabia, 368, 385, 390, 391, 400, 632, 633 Bessemer process, 165, 279 Betelgeuse, 687 Bible, 683, 685, 701 Biblical Institute (Rome), 7o1 Big business, era of, 441 Bilinski, 540 Bill of Rights (England), 18 Birmingham (England), 62, 116, 163 Bismarck, 242, 243, 253-261, 311, 312, 320-329, 4or, 496, 504-510, 520, 529, 578, 623 Bismarck Island, 492 Bjork6 (Finland), 517 **Black Hundreds,”’ 343, 345, 347 Black Sea, 53, 55, 185, 261, 272, 366, 368, 369, 373, 385, 390, 393» 399, 400, 414, 509 Blackstone, 294 Blackwell, Dr. Elizabeth, 672 Blaine, James G., 453 Blanc, Louis, 189, 198, 218, 219, 220, 222, 691 Blanco, General, 356 Blanqui (J. A.), 173 Bliicher, General, 119, 134, 149 Board of Education (England), 295 Bobrikov, Governor-General, 616 Bodin, 15 Boers, 285, 424, 456, 459, 460, 461, 486, 514 Boer War, 312, 359, 461, 463, 499, 515, 532 161, I4I, Te ee ee ree ied a Pe ee a ree ok ree eee eee Oe Py er el aes aD lay Oia Ae os RL ne ] ' ' ' | } | a i ; , A ee aes ae Sa r= rt a Smee aa eta re cee aT a Ta Les ol ea i j | Bal i i : ane f } van | ‘en a ae aue P | ' i , | 710 INDEX Bohemia, 53, 147, 202, 203, 204; Revolution of 1848 in, 204; 215, 233, 262, 264, 334, 335, 336; 615, 625, 626 Bohemians, 52, 204, 263, 264 Bokhara, 423 Bolivar, 453 Bolivia, 431, 448, 449, 450 Bolshevik government, 536 Bolsheviki (Bolshevists), 567, $75, 593, 597, 60I- 604, 619, 620, 623, 656, 669 Bolshevism, 122, 588, 590 Bolshevist Revolution of 1916, 270, 601, 607 Bombay, 466, 471 Bonaparte, Jerome, I15 Bonaparte, Joseph, 107, 115, 117 Bonaparte, Louis, 116 Bonaparte, President, 238 Bonapartists, 188, 190, 197, 314 Bonheur, Rosa, 681 Boone, Daniel, 39 Bordeaux, 70, 84, 99, 259, 301, 565 Borne, 234 Borneo, 470 Bosio, 70 Bosnia, 335, 337, 338, 371, 389-391, 398, 406, 507, 520, 521, 537, 53 Bosphorus, 373, 38 Boss (Lewis), 687 Boston, 25, 26, 42, 166, 682 ‘“Boston Massacre, 26 ‘Boston Tea Party, 26, 27 Botany Bay, 45, 458 Botha, General Louis, 461, 569 Boulanger, General, 305, 311, 508 Boulogne, 114 Boulton and Holt, 167 Bourbon house, 119, 131, 134 Bourbon monarchy, 103, 121 Bourbons, 110, 112, 113, 133, 134, 186, 314 Bourgeoisie, 7; in France, 82, 101; 103, 168 Boxer Rebellion, 355, 444, 476, $13 Boy Scouts, 532 Brandenburg, 51 Brandenburg Gate (Berlin), 70 Bratiano, Jean, 632 Bratiano, Vintilo, 632 Brazil, 9, 15, 43, 182, 183, 355, 414, 418, 429, 430, 434, 441, 448, 449, 644, 676, 699 Bremen, 610 Breslau, University of, 123 Brest-Litovsk, Treaty of, 567, 604, 607, 628 Brest-Litovsk, Union of (1595), 627 Bretons, 77 Brett brothers, 695 Briand, Aristide, 307, 309, 310 Brienne, count of, 79 Bright (John), 277, 414 British Columbia, 472, 646 British constitution, influence of the, 90 British East Africa Company, 488 British Empire, 4, 5, 21, 31, 32, 72, 661 British Guiana, 430, 436, 443 British Honduras, 430 British Somaliland, 490 Brook Farm Colony, 217 Brooklyn, 448 Brown (aviator), 694 Brown University, 42 Browne, Miss Antoinette, 672 Browning, Mrs., 233 Brunswick, 191 Brusilov, General, 566 Brussels, 119, 565 Buchanan, 551 Buchanan, President, 276 Bucharest, 388, 567, 633 Bucharest, Treaty of, 409, 410, 527 Bucharest, University of, 399 Buchlau (Moravia), 520 Biichner (George), 22 Budapest, 263, 632 Buddhism, 14, 473 Buddhists, 698 Buffon, 71, 684 Bukowina, 335, 368, 381, 400, 627, 632, 63 Bulgaria, 280, 394, 406, 496, 507, 508, 52 575> 629, 633, 676 Bulgarian Revolution, 508 Bulgars, 367, 369, 387, 396, 408 Buller, Charles, 462 Bundesrat (Germany), 257, 318, 319, 320; (Aus- tria), 614 Burckhardt (J. L.), 487 Bureaucracy (France), 76 Burke, 35 275 42, 503 725 139 Burma, 45, 285, 424, 470, 471, 473, 475» 695 Burne-Jones, 681 Burschenschaft, 150, 236 Business cycles, 663 Byng, General, 568 Byron, Lord, 123, 184, 233, 681 1 We , 566, Cabral, 15 ‘‘Cadets’’ (Russia), 346, 347 Cadiz, 179 Cadorna, General, 568 Caesar, Julius, 7, 113 Cahiers (France), 93, 97 Caicos Island, 430 Caillaux, 313, 524, 526 Cairo, 108, 460, 490, 569 Calas, Jean, 68 Calcutta, 466, 471 California, 275, 278, 429ST TTT TUTTI TTT TT TT TTT ETE UTEP EOC OURO UG OS INDEX Caliphate, 638 Calles, President, 451 Calonne, 91 Calvin, 3, 13 Calvinists, 69, 701 Cambodia, 308, 473, 475 Cambrai, 568 Cambridge, University of, 141, 295, 691 Cameroon, 490, 491, 524 Cameroons, the, 325, 508, 569 Camorra (Naples), 351 Campo Formio, Treaty of, 106, 110 Canada, 22, 23, 24, 37, 43, 213, 439 434) 435) 445> origins of, 456; Dominion of, 463; 464, 472, 493, 495, 645, 676, 699 Canadian National Railway, 457 Canadian Pacific Railroad, 457 Canary Islands, 357, 493 Cannes, 119 Canning, George, 143, 181, 182 Canova, Antonio, 70, 681 Canovas, Prime Minister, 356 Can Reb, 285 Canton, 473, 474 Cape Colony, 134, 161, 414, 486 Cape Horn, 440, 448 Cape Town, 461 Cape Trafalgar, 114 Cape Verde, 489, 493 Capitalism, 664 Capitulation System (Turkey ), 371 Capo d'Istria, 379 Caprera Island, 249 Caprivi, 511 Carbonari, 179, 183, 186, 205, 235, 246, 247 Carducci, 234 Carey (William), 419 Caribbean Sea, 440, 443, 452 Caribs, 452 Carlists (Spain), 355 Carlos I (Portugal), 358 Carlowitz, Treaty of, 373 Carlsbad Decrees, 148, 150, 233 Carlyle, 233, 681 Carnegie, Andrew, 656 Carnot CL. N. M.), 104 Carnot, President, 343 Caroline Islands, 356, 492 Carolingians, 113 Carpathian Mountains, 366 ‘‘Carpet-baggers, ' 278 Carranza, General, 441, 451 Carroll, Charles, 164 Carson, Sir Edward, 298 Carthage, 485 Carthaginians, 44 Cartwright, 162 EEE 711 Casablanca (Morocco), 331 Casement, Sir Roger, 299 Casmir-Perier, President, 306 Caspian Sea, 339, 414, 469 Cassaba (Asia Minor), 403 Castelar, President, 355 Castlereagh, 132, 135, 140, 142, 150 Catherine II (the Great), 54, 55, 58, 537» 622 Catholics (see Roman Catholics) Catt, Mrs. Carrie C., 646 Caucasus, 55, 268, 339, 379, 423 Cavendish, 71 Cavour, Count, 205, 246, 247, 248, 250, 349, 496 Cawnpore, 466 Cayenne, 239 Cell theory, 688 Celts, 296 Central America, 37, 429, 430, 434, 440, 459, 451 Central American Court of Justice, 657 Central American Federation (Union), 431, 451 Central Powers, 313, 542, 557> 558» 561, 563, 566, 567 570s 571s $73» 575» 577» 583» 587» 589, 596 598, 620, 623, 629 Cettinje, bishop of, 398 Ceylon, 111, 134, 419, 420, 470 Chad, Lake, 487, 491 Chamber of Deputies (France), 138, 187, 305, 310, 537, 548, 549, 669; CItaly), 350, 353, 6515 (Hungary), 264, 265, 313, 314, 315, 336 Chamber of Lords (Austria), 262 Chamberlain, 290, 426, 460, 461, 463, 533 Chambord, count of, 186 Charlemagne, 155 Charles Albert (Sardinia), 205, 214 Charles, Emperor (Austria), 613 Charles Felix, 183 Charles, King (Hungary), 615 Charles I (England), 18, 91 Charles II, 191 Charles III (Spain), 54, 55 Charles IV (Spain), 55 Charles X (France), 138, 146, 151, 173, 185, 186, 187, 190, 197, 234 Charles XIV (Sweden), 363 Charles (Carol) of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, 399 Charles the Great, 7, 107, 113 Charleston harbor, 276 Charter of 1814 (France), 137 Chartist movement (England), 207 Chartists, 197, 207, 286 Chataldja line, 407 Chateaubriand, 130, 234 Chateau-Thierry, battle of, 569 Chatham Island, 492 Chaudet (A. D.), 70 Cheidze, 600 Chemistry, recent progress in, 686 Bob bon tp BERT pot | —s ' { ‘ ! i { i i } ' } HH eee at pa ano 2 peer — a ced ee ee ee eee Se ooo —— ~vee / ae ' r } A Vaan P| } \ La 4 in ae f | 5 | Hit se & | i th i PI Te } ii a j ; can ! 712 INDEX Cherubini, 72 Chicago, 164, 433, 444, 682 Children’s Welfare Act of 1908 (England), 295 Chile, 181, 431, 434, 436, 441, 449, 453, 498, 57° Chilperic, 113 China, 4, 18, 38, 45, 339, 414, 420, 423, 426, 435, 444, 469, 471, 472; Missions in, 474; 476-480, 494, 495, 512, 568, 682 Chinese, 13, 18, 278, 435 Chinese Republic, 478, 480 Chino-Japanese War, 483, 499 Chios, 379 Cholet, 172 Chosen (Korea), 484 Christian VII (Denmark), 57 Christian IX (Denmark), 255 Christian Federation, 11 Christian Missions, 420-421, 702 Christian Science, 700 Christian Socialism, 218 Christian Socialists, 218, 669, 702 Christianity, 11, 14, 40, 67, 117, 124, 419, 481, 587; and modern culture, 699; 700, 701, 702 Christians, number of, 698 Christmas Island, 492 Church and state, separation of, 699 Church of England, 700 Church of Scotland, 141 Church World Movement in the United States, 420 Churchill, Winston, 551 Cicero, 13 Cilicia, 405, 629, 636, 637 Cisalpine Republic, 106 Civil Constitution of the Clergy (France), 97 Civil Rights Act (U.S.), 278 Civil War (American), 241, 277, 279, 280, 285, 431, 432, 438, 442, 445, 472, 661 Civilization, history of, 693 Clay, Henry, 184 Clemenceau, 305, 508, §73, 577 Clermont (S.S.), 163 Cleveland, Grover, 439, 443 Cleves, provinces of, 66 Clinton, George, 35 Clovis, 138 Clyde River, 163 Cobbett, William, 142, 193 Cobden, 414 Coblenz, 130 Cochin China, 241, 308, 423 Code Napoléon, 111, 120, 121, 310 ‘““Codex’’ of Canon Law, 7o1 Coke, Thomas, 40 Colbert, 84, 85 Coleridge, 233 Collins, Michael, 299 Cologne, 613 Colombia, 181, 440, 448, 450 Colonial Society (Germany), 325 Colonial trade, prosperity of, 22 Columbia, District of, 276 Columbia River, 43 Columbia University, 42 Columbus, Christopher, 13, 15, 155, 694 Columbus Library, 453 Commercial Revolution, 3, 16, 21, 75, 156, 158 Committee of General Security (France), 102, 103 Committee of Public Information (U.S.), 595 Committee of Public Safety (France), 102, 103, 104 Communard movement (France), 301 Communards (France), 301, 302 Communication, 164, 695 Communist Manifesto, 221, 224 Communists, 302, 309, 593, 669; in Italy, 350; in Hungary, 615 Company d’Anzin, 84 Company of the Indies (France), 84 Compromise of 1850 (U.S.), 275 Compromise (Ausgleich) of 1867, 263, 334 Comte, August, 236, 691, 692 “Concert of Europe,’’ 136, 655; after 1815, 503 ‘Concert of Powers,’’ 194 Concord, battle of, 28 Concordat of 1801, 111, 137, 307 Confederacy (U.S.), 276, 277 ‘“Confederate States of America,’’ 276 Confederation of the Rhine, 115, 118, 133 Confucianism, 14, 473 Confucianists, 698 Confucius, 473, 478 Congo, 308, 417, 487, 488 Congo Free State, 489, 490, 504 Congregational Church, 226 Congregationalists (U.S.), 34; (England), 69 Congress of Vienna, 6, 119, 131; blunders of the, 134; 135, 139, 145, 146, 148, 149, 179, 183-185, 190, 191, 199, 202, 214, 232, 246, 250, 252, 274, 363, 364, 459, 486, 529, 577, 650, 695 Congress of Workers’ Councils (Germany), 609 Connecticut, 29, 36, 38, 212, 432 Conservative Royalists (France), 315, 549 Constantine (Russia), 146 Constantine, King (Greece), 567, 629, 635 Constantinople, 55, 118, 184, 268, 272, 339, 372, 373, 378, 380, 384, 399, 400, 403, 471, 506, 526, 531, 537» 566, 576, 582, 635; Treaty of, 409 Constantinople-Bagdad Railway, 330 Constantsa, 399 Constituent Assembly (Latvia), 620 Constitution of 1791 (France), 97 Constitution of 1795 (France), 106 Constitution of the Year VIII (France), 110 Constitution of 1850 (Prussia), 200, 678 Constitution of 1876 (Turkey), 392TTT ET TT TT TET ETTOCUA CUTE VATU UU INDEX Constitutional Assembly (Berlin), 200 Constitutional Convention of 1787 CUS.), 34, 35, IOI Constitutional Convention of 1848 (Austria), 203 Constitutional Democrats (Russia), 346, 600, 604 Constitutionalists (Italy), 350 Constitutions, creation of, 4; modern, 212; Consulate (France), 108, 113 Continental Coalition, 515 Continental Congress, First, 27; Second, 28, 34, LID Continental System, 116 Cook Island, 492 Cook, Captain, 45, 71, 457, 496 Cooper (J. F.), 681 ‘‘ Cooperative Commonwealth,’’ 668 Copernicus, 71, 147 Corfu, 630 Corn Laws (England), 207, 224 Corot, 681 Corsica, 107, 354 Cort, Henry, 165 Cortes (Spain), 49, 138, 180, 193, 314, 356, 357, 586 ‘‘Cosmopolitan Alliance”’ (France), 186 Cossacks, 56, 118, 270, 345 Costa Rica, 451 ‘“Cotton Gin,’ 162 Council of Commerce (France), 84 Council of Elders (France), 105 Council of Five Hundred (France), 105-106 Council of Nations (Russia), 605 Council of Organic Union, 700 Council of Peoples’ Commissioners (Russia), 602, 603; (Germany), 608 Council of Regency (Poland), 623 Council of States (France), 110, 239; 467; (Russia), 345; (Switzerland), 208 Council of Workmen’s and Soldiers’ Deputies (Russia), 599, 600 Councils Act of 1909 CIndia), 467 Courland, 343, 603, 615, 619 Court of Final Appeal (R.C.C.), 7o1 Court of the Rota (R.C.C.), 701 Covent Garden, 72 Cracow, 134 Crawford (England), 161 Crete, 272, 379, 384, 387; 391, 395, 396 Creusot (France), 171 Crimea, 55, 240 Crimean War, 208, 241, 247, 256, 259, 268, 281, 339, 384, 385, 386, 400 Criminal law, recent changes in, 5, 78, 142 Crispi, 354 Croatia, 203, 204, 335, 581 mew, 121, 647; (India), 733 Croats, 204, 335, 631 Crompton, 161 Cromwell, 18 Cronstadt, 512 Crown Council (Russia), 527, 539 Crown Prince William (Prussia), 200, 327 Crusades, 14 Cuba, 355, 356, 414, 429, 439, 434, 439. 449 4525 453, 493, 545, 644 Cumberland, 39 Cunard Line, 163 Curie, 687 Customs Union (Germany), 175 Cuza, John Alexander, 387, 399 Cyprus, 391, 470, 582 Czecho-Slovakia, 578, 581, 586, 588, 613, 623, 625, 626, 630, 647, 650, 699 Czecho-Slovaks, 280, 334, 625 Czechs, 147, 204, 262, 264, 335, 625 Czernowitz (Rumania), 566 Dacia, 368 Daguerre, 171 Dahomey (Africa), 490 Dail Eirann, 299 D’ Alambert, 71 Dalmatia, 114, 335, 354, 367 Dalton, John, 686 Damao (China), 470 Damascus, 402 Dana, Charles A., 217 Danilo (Bishop of Cettinje), 375, 398 Danilo IJ (Rumania), 398 Danish West Indies, 363 Dante, 250 Danton, IOI, I02, 103, 104, 105 Danube River, 118, 366, 369, 373, 385 Danubian provinces, union of, 387 Danzig, 134, 578, 623, 624, 653 Dardanelles, 373, 382, 383, 384, 566, 635, 636, 637, 674 Dartmouth College, 42 Darwin, Charles, 427, 670, 684, 685, 691 Darwinism, 685 David (J. L.), 70, 681 Davis, Jefferson, 276, 277 Davy (Sir Humphrey), 686 Dawes Committee, 612 Dawes Plan, 612, 613 d’Azeglio, 234, 350 Deak, Francis, 203, 263, 337 Deane, Silas, 42, 43 de Bougainville, Louis, 7x Decaen, General, 112 Decatur, 533 Declaration of Independence, 6, 9, 28; principles in the, 29, 35, 42, 72, 89, 96, 212, 679 Feet Ee eee en : a ee a pa Bt Ta Pye = ron pe = oe Tee i ee i i es Te | i | : I |— ) ] HW ae 1h i ae a i HII Fe | iF ! f ] t I i ee ee a Se a a | pee rs FOE ELLE AB ALE I LOTR TRIN LEG tN ae ag > 714 ‘‘Declaration of the Rights of Man’’ (France), 9, 96, 97, 105, 213, 231, 679, 692 “Declaration of the Rights of Nations”’ American Union), 441 Dedeagatch, 409 Defense Association (Germany ), 331 De Kalb, 71 de la Barre, Chevalier, 68 Delacroix, 681 Delagoa Bay, 488 Delatoche, 681 Delaware River, 39, 429 Delaware (state of), 36 Delcassé, 244, 312, 517 de Lesseps, 305 Delhi, 466 Delyannes, 395 de Maistre, 130 Denikin, General, 604 Denmark, 6, 9, 49, 57, 134; Revolution of 1848 in, 208; 215, 231, 255, 362, 430, 439, 498, 558, 578, 618 De Quincey, 681 Dérouléde, Paul, 244 Descartes, 71 De Siebert, 536 Despotism, in small states, 149; of Louis Napol- eon, 243 D’Estournelles de Constant, Baron, 656 de Valera, Eamon, 299 Devil’s Island, 306 de Vries, Hugo, 685 Dewey, Admiral, 356 DeWitt Clinton, 274 ‘Diamond Jubilee,’ 463 Diaz, General, 451, 568 Dickens, Charles, 206, 233, 681 Dickinson, John, 30 Dictatorship of the Councils (Germany ), 609 Diderot, 55, 71, 88 Dimitrievitch, Dragutin, 540 Directory (France), 98, 106, 107, 108, 216 Disease, war on, 667; germ theory of, 689 Disraeli, 286, 391, 462 ‘‘Dissenters,’’ 69, 141, 193, 224 “Divine Right,’ 4 Dnieper River, 55, 627 Dniester River, 55, 627 Dobrorolski, General, 546 Dobrovsky, 625 Dobrudja, 368, 390, 391, 401, 409, §27, 581 Dodekanese Isiands, 355, 406, 582, 634, 635 ‘“Domestic System,’ 159, 166 Dominicans, 419 Don John VI (Brazil), 182 Don Pedro I (Brazil), 182 Don Pedro IV (Portugal), 182 (Pan- INDEX Dorpat, 343; Peace of, 617 Dostoievsky, 273 Drake, Sir Francis, 694 Dred Scott (decision), 275 Dresden, 223 Dreyfus, Alfred, 306, 312 Drummond, Sir Eric, 580 Drury Lane, 72 Druses (Syria), 370, 387, 638 Dual Alliance of 1891, 312, 313, 337, 341, 513, 534; 552 Dual Monarchy, 263, 264, 335, 337, $42, 566, 613, 625 Dublin, 297, 299 Duke d’Aiguillon, 95 Duke d’Enghien, 112, 114 Duma (First), 345, 346; (Second), 346; (Third), 347; (Fourth), 347, 598 Dumba, Dr., 560 Dunkards, 41 Durazzo, 406 ‘““Durbar’’ of 1911, 467 Durham, Lord, 213, 456, 462 Duruy, 678 Dutch, 15, 38, 44, 45, 215, 414 Dutch East India Company, 73 Dutch Guiana, 414, 419, 429, 430, 436 Dutch Reformed Church, 40 East Africa, 490, 508 East Carelia, 617 East India Company, 26, 73, 466, 474 East Indies, 15, 45, 112, 359, 414, 436, 471, 492 East Prussia, 319, 565, 622 East Silesia, 578 ‘“Eastern Question, ’ 185 Ebert, Frederick, 608, 609, 613 Economic Council of the Commonwealth (Ger- many), 610 Economics, science of, 692 Ecuador, 448, 450 Eddy, Mrs. Mary Baker G., 700 Edinburgh, 690, 700 Edison, 695 Education, improvements in, 9-10; in United States (1790), 41; 69-70; in France, 85-86; in France under Napoleon, 112; 123; in Italy, 139; in England, 294; in Italy, 351; in Spain, 3573; 676-680 Education Act of 1918 (England), 295, 679 Edward VII, 312, 326, 357, 651 Egypt, 107, 111, 176, 311, 312, 330, 366, 383, 4o1, 4or, 422, 464, 485, 486, 490, 516, 569, 576, 587, 677, 694 Egyptians, 44, 155 Eider-Danes, 255 Fiffel, 305OTN TTT I TIO OC INDEX Einstein, 687 Elba, return of Napoleon from, 119; 131 Elbe River, 66, 330, 511 Eldorados, 489 Electricity, recent progress in, 686 Elementary Education Act of 1870 (England), 679 Eliot, George, 233 Ellice Island, 492 Emancipation Law (Russia), 270 Emancipation Proclamation (U.S.), 9, 276 Emerald Isle, 296 Emerson, 279 Emigration, oriental, 472 Emigrés (France), 98, 101, 102, 104, I1I, 130, 137 Empress of China (S.S.), 38 Ems telegram, 243, 269 Encyclopedists, 89, 530 Engels, Frederick, 8, 220, 221, 222, 691 Engineering, 681 England, nobility in, 60; middle class in, 61; peasants in, 65; ‘‘dissenters’’ in, 69; constitu- tions of, 213 English Channel, 207, 531, 556, 695 English Revolution, 21, 27, 75, 155 English Society for Encouraging Manufacturers, 161 ‘“Enlightened Despotism,”’ 124 ‘“Enlightened Despots,”’ 55, 89, 125 Enos, 408 Entente Allies, 557-563, 566, 567, 573-578, 583, 586-589, 596-600, 604, 611, 636, 646 Entente Cordiale, 312, 522, 523 Entente Pact of London, 557 Enver Bey, 407 Epirus, 391, 406 Episcopalians CU.S.), 34 Erasmus, 3 Ericsson, 163 Erie Canal, 39 Eritrea (Africa), 354, 490 Erlich, Dr., 690 Eski Shehr, 403 Esterhazy, Major, 306 Esthonia, 585, 604, 615, 618; Republic of, 619, 647, 650 Esthonians, 281, 343, 619 Eugénie, Empress, 240, 242, 243, 258 Eupen, 578 Euphrates River, 366 Evolution, theory of, 683, 685, 693 Ewart, John S., 536, 551 Eylau, battle of, 115 ‘““Fabians’’ (England), 691 Fabre-Luce, Alfred, 536, 542 Factories, emergence of, 167 Factory Act of 1833 (England), 223, 224 AAA 7 Factory System, 7; beginnings of the, 84; 166 Factory Workers’ Councils (Germany), 610, 613 Falkland Islands, 492 ‘Family Compact’’ (Spain), 55 Fanning Island, 492 Faraday, 686 Far East, 32, 339, 344, 356, 423, 444, 469, 474, 519 Far Eastern Republic, 585, 605 Farm Loan Bureau (U:S.), 445 Faroe Islands, 493 Farther India, 495 Fascisti, 586, 633 Fashoda, 312, 465, 514 Faumotu Island, 492 Faure, Félix President, 306 Favre (J. A.), 243 Fay (. B.), 2.43 February Revolution (France), 197 Federal Council (Switzerland), 208; (Germany), 318; (Russia), 605 Federal Council of the Churches of Christ (Amer- ica), 700, 702 Federal Land Banks (U.S.), 445 Federal Legislature (Austria), 614 Federal Reserve Bank (U:S.), 445, 662 Federal Trade Commission (U.S.), 445 ‘*Federalists’’ CU.S.), 36, 274 Feisal, King CIraq), 638 Ferdinand (Bulgaria), 406, 409 Ferdinand (Rumania), 632 Ferdinand IV (Naples), 139 Ferdinand VI (Naples), 183 Ferdinand VII (Spain), 138, 139, 146, 151, 179, 180, 181 Ferdinand of Saxe-Coburg, 392 Ferry (J. F.), 243, 508 Ferry Laws (France), 678 Feudalism, abolished in France, 95 Fez (Morocco), 523 Fichte, 220, 233 Fiji Islands, 492 Filipinos, 439, 494 Finland, 49, 116, 117, 118, 134, 145, 345, 347, 363, 414, 576, 585, 603, 604, 615, 616, 617, 618, 647, 650 Finns, 281, 343, 344, 627 First Continental Congress (Philadelphia), 27 First French Republic, to1—-102, 105, 113, 124 First International, 655 First Reform Bill (England), 193 Fiske, John, 685, 701 Fitch, John, 39, 163 Fiume, 354, 531, 630, 631, 653 ‘*Five Intolerable Acts,’ 27 Flanders, 82 Flemings (Belgium), 360 Florida, 22, 23, 43, 55, 181, 423, 429, 430 DTUNTUAUUNUUUUUNUUTUHUUUUUUUE UU— at ma A } \ J \ ! | ae 4 ' Me en Hi om a, +i es US es OTP rk IP FO OAS 716 INDEX Foch, Marshal, 575, 577 Folkething (Denmark), 363 Fonseca Bay, 440 Food Council of Allied Powers, 654 Foreign Office (Germany), 595 Forgach, 552 Formosa, 419, 475, 483, 492 Forster, 277 Forster Act (England), 294 Forth and Clyde Canal, 163 Fort Sumter, 276 Fourier, Charles, 216, 217, 219, 691 Four-Power Treaty, 589 “Fourteen Points, 574-577 Fourth Estate (France), 82 Roxi(Gi] 425.50 Fox (J. D.), 700 France, absolute monarchy in, 76; agriculture in, 315; bureaucracy in, 76; business in, 112; capitalists in, 172; Catholicism in (1900), 307; centralization of government in, 313; church in, 79, 97; clergy in, 79-80; coal and iron in, 172; colonial empire of, 308; commerce and manufacturing of, 171, 316; Communard move- ment in, 302; constitutions of, 213; criminal law in, 78; despotism in, 243; disease in, 244; economic changes in, 123; economic conditions in, 170, 315; factory system in, 84; fourth estate in, 82; illiteracy in, 676; imperialism in, 308; Industrial Revolution in, 196; industrial system of, 85; internal reforms in, 111; land ownership in, 122; local government in, 77; military policies of, 310; national finance in, 77; national workshops in, 198, 219; nobility in, 60, 81; Parliament in, 314; peasants in, 65, 82; Protestants in, 68; political changes in, 115; political parties in, 99, 137, 315; public improvements in, 112; religious conditions in, 80, 123; religious reforms in, 308; rdle of the ministry, 314; rdle of the President, 313; rail- roads in, 172, 310; republicanism in, 244, 303- 304; social conditions in, 80; socialism in, 216, 218-220, 309; social legislation in, 309; social revolution in, 95, 113, 122; taxation in, 77-78; textiles in, 171; third estate in, 82; town workers in, 82; trade and industry in, 84; under the charter of Louis VIII, 137 France, Anatole, 244 Francesco di Paoli, Church of (Naples), 70 Francis I (Austria), 131, 146, 147, 151, 192, 215 Francis II (Austria), 115, 249 Francis Ferdinand, Archduke, 338, 398, 535, $40, 5412 Francis Joseph I, 204, 205, 235, 262, 263, 264, 335, 337, 529; 542, 625 Francis Xavier, 419, 480 Franciscans, 419 Franco, Prime Minister (Portugal), 358 Franco-Prussian War, 243, 250, 258, 310, 315, 323, 400, 463, 496, 531, 534 Franco-Russian Alliance, 512, 536, 537, 538, $41 Frankfort, 72, 149, 191, 201, 253, 257; Treaty of, 260; Peace of, 301 Frankfort Parliament, 201, 252 Franklin, Benjamin, 30, 31, 32, 35, 41, 42, 43, 71, 96, 140, 503, 695 Franz, G., 536, 546 Fraudamental Law (Russia), 346 Frederick, Crown Prince (Denmark), 57 Frederick II (the Great), 13, 16, 31, §1, §2, $3, 58, 59, 88, 115, 174 Frederick II] (Germany), 326 Frederick IV (Denmark), 419 Frederick William II (Prussia), 51 Frederick William III (Prussia), 132, 148, 150, 215 Frederick William IV (Prussia), 201, 215 Freedman’s Bureau (U.S.), 278 Freemasons, 179, 183, 186, 235, 246, 247 Free Trade, 89, 414, 663 French Academy, 19 French and Indian War, 50 French Congo, 313, 331, 524 French Company of India, 73 French Foreign Legion, 331 French Guiana, 414, 429 French Panama Company, 440 French Revolution, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 18, 43, 49, 54, 55> 57> 61, 73, 75> 76, 80, 94, 95, 96, 100, 119, 120-124, 129, 139, 148, 151, 155, 156, 171, 179, 180, 182, 193, 216, 246, 297, 316, 414, 530, 585, 607, 645, 678 Freud, Sigmund, 690 Friedland, battle of, 115 ‘Friends of the Constitution’’ (Spain), 179 ‘‘Friends of Truth’’ (France), 186 Froude, 233 Fuad I (Egypt), 465 Fuad Pasha (Turkey), 386 Fulton, Robert, 114, 163 Gabun River, 488 Gainsborough, Thomas, 70 Galicia, 134, 334, 3355 565, 567, 580, 622, 623, 627 Galileo, 71 Gallipoli, 566 Galvani, 71, 686 Gambetta, 243, 244, 259, 261, 301, 465 Gambia (Africa), 490 Gambia River, 44 Gandolfo Castle, 349 Ganges, 495 Gapon, Father, 345 Garden of Eden, 683 Garibaldi, 205, 234, 247, 249, 250A HT IE IT TUITE AHO INDEX Garrett, Dr. Elizabeth, 672 Garrison, 275 Gaspte (S.S.), 26 Gastein, Treaty of, 255, 256 General Confederation of Labor (France), 309 General Federation of Labor CItaly), 353 Genesis, story of Creation in, 683 Geneva, 68, 222, 362 Geneva Economic Conference, 590, 605 Geneva Medical College,762 Geneva Tribunal, 285, 443 Genoa, 49, 54, 134, 249 Genoa Economic Conference (1922), 590 Gentz, F. von, 134, 135 George, Crown Prince (Greece), 635 George I (Greece), 395 George III (England), 13, 23, 26, 28, 29, 32, 49, 50, 140, 167, 457 George IV (England), 140, 151 George V (England), 288, 296, 467 Georgia (state of), 26, 36, 275 Georgia (Russia), 268, 585, 604 Georgians (Russia), 345 German Army Act of 1913, §32, 539 German Commonwealth, 609 German Confederation, 255, 257 German Constitution, the new, 609 German East Africa, 325, 361, 491 German Empire, army system in, 328; centraliza- tion of government in, 322; education in, 678; foreign policy of, 321; imperialism in, 330; Industrial Revolution in, 323; Kw/turkampf in, 322; militarism in, 329; navalism in, 330; political parties in, 321; rise of colonial empire of, 325; socialism in, 324, 327, 328; social legislation in, 324, 327 German Navy League, 329-330 German Reformed Church, 69 German Republic, 465, 582, 590, 605, 609 German Southwest Africa, 325, 461, 491, 508, 569 Germanic Confederation, 149, 191, 202, 214, 252 Germany, and Russia, 513; army system in, 328; conditions in, 173; Industrial Revolution in, 174; industry in, 174; militarism in, 329; nationalism in, 233; Opposition to autocracy in, 150; peasants in (1789), 66; 133; railroads in, 175; Revolution of 1830 in, 174; rise of colonial empire of, 325; socialism in, 220; tex- tiles in, 174 Gerry, E., 36 Ghandi, 467 Gibbon, 32, 58, 72 Gibraltar, 55, 414 Gilbert, 695 Gilbert Islands, 492 Gioberti, 234, 246 Giolitti, Premier, 353 AAALAC 727 Girondists, 99, 100, IOI, 102, 104, III Gladstone, 277, 286, 290, 294, 298, 340, 414, 460, 679 Glasgow, 163, 164 Gluck, 72 Goa (India), 419, 470 Godwin, Mary Wollstonecraft, 645, 672 Godwin, William, 691 Goethe, 72, 149, 233, 234 Gogol, 273 Gold Coast, 488, 490 Goldsmith, 72 Gonsalvi, Cardinal, 132 Gooch, G. P., 536 Gordon, C. G., 474 Gotha, 173 Gough Island, 492 Government of Ireland Act of 1920, 299 ‘Government of National Defense’’ (France), 301 Government of National Safety (Russia), 600 Government of Northern Ireland, 299 Gramont, duke of, 258 Grand Army (of Napoleon), 118 ‘‘Grand Empire’’ (of Napoleon), 118 Grand National Assembly (Turkey), 637 Grand National Consolidated Trades Union (Eng- land), 224, 292 Grand Theater (Bordeaux), 70 ‘“Grand Trek’’ (Boers), 460, 461 Gray, Asa, 685 Great Act of 1892 (France), 310 Great Britain, agrarian reforms in, 294; Chartist movement in, 207; commerce of, 661; “‘dis- senters’’ in, 141; extension of suffrage in, 286; foreign policy of, 142; franchise in, 141; Labor Party in, 292; labor unionism in, 292; land problems in, 293; local government re- forms in, 287; Parliament in, 289; political parties in, 290; public education in, 294; re- forms of 1800-1840 in, 260; representation in, 141; religious liberty in, 296; rdle of the king in, 288; rdle of the ministry in, 288; socialism in, 216-217; state Church in, 140; under the Old Tories, 139; woman suffrage in, 288 Great Columbia, 431 Greater Bulgaria, 531 “Greater Europe,’ 19 Greater Greece, 395, 396, 531, 634 Greater Rumania, 399, 632 Greater Serbia, 398, 531, 540 Great Lakes (U.S.), 39, 419, 429 Great Reform Bill of 1832 (England), 170, 194, 205, 213, 224, 530 Great Revolution of 1914, 585 Great Western (S.S.), 163 Greco-Turkish War, 396, 471, 635, 637 Te oe EE mem -- Y aR RE May ad ARG ee Mh fg PY et ad RE Ars oe nee et. ls ee ee aS RR a A ES A eee | | 1 | | : | | |oe ha an i} iy | F ; | kD ee Se A al CR oe FR Loa ene ed ge Se a SE a eet tae et an ee, 718 INDEX Greece (ancient), 14 Greece, 70, 179; origin or nationalism in, 186; 232; nationalism in, 235; 279, 396, 406, 409, 472, 498, 558, 563, 575> 581, 582, 29, 630, 633, 635; illiteracy in, 676 Greek Archipelago, 379 Greek Catholics, 268 Greek Orthodox (Catholic) Church, 11, 55, 67, 340, 343, 380, 399, 594, 597> 598, 700 Greek Revolution (1821-1829), 379 Greek War of Independence, 378, 380, 381, 395 Greeks, 6, 13, 183, 367, 368, 396, 408, 469, 700 Greeley, Horace, 217 Greely (explorer), 363 Greenland, 363, 419, 422, 493 Gregory VII, 3 Grévy, President (France), 305 Grey, Earl, 143, 193 Grey, Sir Edward, 518, 524, 548, 549, 551, 552» 553 Grey-Cambon correspondence, 539 Grieg, 681 Grotius, 15, 503 Guadeloupe, 414 Guam, 356, 439, 492 Guatemala, 450 Guesde, Jules, 309 Guiana, 134 Guild Socialism, 669 Guild Socialists, 669 Guild System, in England, 63, 73 Guinea, 489, 490 Guise (France), 217 Guizot, 173, 189, 190, 197, 244, 678 Gustavus III (Sweden), 57 Gustavus V (Sweden), 364 Gutzkow CK. F.), 234, $99 Haase (F. G.), 655 Haeckel, 685 Hague Court (Tribunal), 331, 364, 443, 535 Hague Peace Conferences, 443, 504, 535; 649, 657 Hague, The, 657 Haig, General, 569 Hainisch, Dr. Michael, 614 Haiti, 112, 429, 430, 433, 434, 440, 448, 452, 457, 493 Hakon VII (Norway), 364 Haldane, Lord, 524 Ham, fortress of, 238 Hambach, 191 Hamburg, 72, 610 Hamburg-American Line, 327 Hamilton, Alexander, 27, 34, 35, 36 Hancock, John, 36 Handel, 681 Hango (port of), 617 Hanover, 50, 114, 148, 191, 257 Hapsburg dominions, 202 Hapsburgs, 52, 146, 215, 262, 334, 585, 613 Harbin, 339 Hardenberg, 132, 148 Hardie, James Keir, 655 Harding, President, 441, 589 Hardinge, Viceroy, 467 Hargreaves, 161 Harvard University, 42 Havana, 356 Hawaii, 435, 439, 492 Hawthorne, Nathaniel, 217, 279, 681 Hay, John, 477 Haydn, 72 Hay-Pauncefote Treaty, 443 Hebrews, 13 Hedjaz, 470, 568, 582, 638, 644, 650 Hedjaz Railway, 392 Hegel, 234 Heine, 123, 189, 221, 234 Heligoland, 326, 330, 414; Treaty, 511 Helsingfors, 617 Henderson CE. F.), 551 Henry, Colonel, 306 Henry, Prince, 359 ‘““Hertzian waves, 687 Herzegovina, 337, 389, 390, 391, 398, 406, 507, 520, 521, 537, 539, 54%) 575 Herzen, Alexander, 272 Hesse, 318 Hesse-Cassel, 191, 257 Hesse-Darmstadt, 257 High Court (Australia), 458 Himalayas, 495 Hindenburg line, 567, 569 Hindus, 13, 18, 436, 461, 463, 466, 467, 472, 496, 594, 698 Hobbes’ Leviathan, 16 Hohenzollerns, 51, 200, 243, 257, 262, 334, $42, 578, 585, 613, 627 Holland, 6, 42, 45, 49, 57> 61, 67, 68, 106, 111, 116, 133, 134, 158; Revolution of 1848 in, 208, 231, 359, 430, 459, 470, 498, 558, 585, 644, 650; 676, 679 Holmes, 681 Holstein, 255, 363 ‘Holy Alliance,”’ 135, 655 Holy Roman Empire, 49, 50, 52, 60, 61, 122, 133, 231 Holy See, 558 Home Rule, movement for in Ireland, 298 Home Rule Bill (Ireland), 298 Honduras, 134, 440, 451, 452 Hong Kong, 164, 416, 470, 471, 474 Hooker telescope, 688 Hoover, Herbert, 560, 590err TOTTI TTT TTT TETEUUTUTTUTTTEUTETOTCTU CATA ENOCTOOOUTUCTTUOUUCOUOOUU SC INDEX Hopes (bankers), 172 Hétel de Ville, 198, 243 Hottentots, 459 Hoétzendorf, 549 House of Commons, 141, 142, 193, 205, 207, 213, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 291, 298, 434, 550, 669, 673 House of Lords (Austria), 335 House of Lords (England), 60, 141, 142, 194, 213; decline of the, 287; 289, 292, 673 House of Representatives (U.S.), 35; (Australia), 458; (Austria), 335; CNew Zealand), 459 Howland Islands, 492 Hoyos (J. L.), 552 Hudson River, 39, 163, 429 Hudson’s Bay Company, 73, 456 Huguenots, 38, 419, 422, 459 Humanitarianism, 667 Humbert, King, 349, 353 Hume, 72, 80 Hungarians, 52, 147, 215, 263, 279 Hunt, J., 681 Hunter, John, 71 Hus, John, 13 Hussein, King (Hedjaz), 638 Hutton, James, 683 Huxley, 427, 685 Ibrahim (Egypt), 379 Ibsen, 681 Iceland, 363, 422, 493, 694 Illiteracy, 676 Imbros, 635 Immigration (America), 431 Imperial University (France), 678 Imperialism, of Joseph II, 53; of Napoleon I, 112; in United States, 281; in France under Third Republic, 308; in Italy, 354; in Africa, 361; 413, 414, 415, 425, 426, 496, 531, 661, 678 Inclosure Acts (England), 140 Independents (France), 309 Independent Socialists (Germany ), 607 India, 15, 18, 38, 44, 45, 107, 176, 308, 401, 403, 414, 420, 423, 436, 465, 466, 469, 470, 471, 472, 569, 587, 605, 677, 682, 694 India Bill of 1919, 467 Indian Ocean, 339, 423, 455, 466, 492, 53] Indians (North America), 18; trade with the, 23 Indo-China, 308, 475 Indus, 495 Industrial Revolution, 3; effects of the, 7; social and political results of the, 17; 39, 64, 73, 75, 116, 123, 155, 156-160, 165, 174; spread of the, 196; 226; in Germany, 323; 336, 341, 357, 413, 416, 417, 424, 438, 475, 482; in Japan, 482; 597, 598, 645, 660, 663 Industrial System (France), 85 iI teat TATE 719 Industrial Workers of the World CU.S.), 671 Ingres, 681 Innsbruck, 203 Inquisition, 55, 138, 179, 182, 214 ‘Institution of the Propagation of the Faith”’ CR°E-E;); 420 Intellectual Revolt, 9 Inter-Allied Council Finance, 654 Inter-Allied Supreme War Council, 577, 578, 654 Inter-Church World Movement, 594, 700, 703 International agencies, 653 International Association of Laborers, 222 International Association of the Congo, 488 International Bureau of American Republics, 441 International Court of Justice, 359 International Federation of Trade Unions, 593, 665 International finance, 662 International Institute of Agriculture, 653 International Labor Office, 579, 653 International Labor Organization, 579, 592 International Law, 15, 131, 132, 134, 135, 142, 520, 533, 5532 557> 563, 57 578, 652, 657, 658 International Postal Union, 362, 444 International Prize Court, 657 International Red Cross Sotviety, 362, 594 International Research Council, 653 International Suez Canal Commission, 653 International Workingmen’s Association, 655 Internationalism, appearance of, 7; 678, 693 Interparliamentary Union (Brussels), 657 Ionian Islands, 184 Iraq, Kingdom of, 470, 637, 650 Ireland, 4, 32, 66, 140, 206, 208, 279, 280, 281, 286, 296, 576, 587, 676, 694, 699 Irish Catholics, 296 Irish Free State, 299, 464 Irish Land League of 1875, 298 Irish Parliament, 140, 297, 298 Irish Question, 296, 297 Irkutsk, 470 Irredentism, 354, 355 Irredentists, 354 Irving, Washington, 681 Isabella, Queen, 243 Islam, 699 Ismail I (Egypt), 465 Istria, 114 Isvolski, Alexander, 520, 521, 525-527, 537, 538; 541, 54575472 55° Italia Irredenta, 280, 337, 354, 507, 531, 558, 579 588 Italian Campaign (of Napoleon), 107 Italo-Turkish War, 499 on War Purchases and cate sg ee ot ees SS aes ae ey ee SE ere ees newt pee ee es ed hy : i 1} | | ! : Fm| He a8 ve all Tie H a iH Ht ET | | & || ie t i 710 INDEX Italy, conditions in (1789), 54; education in, 354; emigration from, 352, 355; financial problems of, 351; government of, 349; illiteracy in, 351, 676; imperialism in, 354; industrial conditions in, 353; Irredentism in, 354; labor ini 8353's national resources of, 352; nationalism in, 234 ; nobility in (1789), 61; progress toward de- mocracy in, 350; Revolution of 1830 in, 192; Revolution of 1848 in, 205; religious freedom in, 68; sectionalism in, 350; unification of, 246-250 Ivory Coast, 490 Jackson, Andrew, 194, 445 Jacobin Clubs, 102, 103 Jacobins, 96, 99, 100-103, 108, III, 112 Jacoby, Dr., 202 Jahn CF. L.), 148 Jamaica Island, 430, 434, 452, 646 James II (England), 18 ‘Jameson Raid,’ 460, 514 Janiaa, 407 Japan, 4, 9, 18, 45, 176, 285, 344, 414, 420, 423, 426, 435, 436, 444, 469, 471, 472, 474, 480, 494 495, 498, 512, 557, 569, 576, 662, 682 Japanese, 19, 278, 436 Jassy, University of, 399 Jaurés, Jean, 306, 309, 311, 549, 671 Java, 359, 419 Jay, John, 36 Jefferson, Thomas, 3, 30, 37, 40, 41, 43, 83, 96 Jellachich, Baron, 204 Jena, battle of, 115; 236 Jenner, 71 “Jenny, 161 Jerusalem, 568 Jesuits, 51, 52, 55» 138, 234, 322, 419, 480; Order of the, 130 Jewish Welfare Board, 594 Jews, 41, 53, 56, 66, 67, 79, 80, 98, 141, 220, 267, 2.96, 306, 343, 345, 366, 563, 594, 698 Jihad (‘Holy War’’), 558 Joffre, General, 565 Johannesburg, 460 John Brown, 275 Johnson, Samuel, 72 ‘Joint Council’’ Ireland), 299 Joseph II (Austria), 52, 53> 54, 67 Josephine, Empress, 117 Joule (J. P.), 687 Jourdan, General, 106 Judaism, 14 Jugo-Slavia, 294, 581, 613, 626, 631, 633, 647, 650 Jugo-Slav movement in Serbia, 539 Jugo-Slavs, 280, 367, 369, 388, 625, 630 “June Days’’ (France), 198 “‘Junkers,’’ 148, 200, 253, 320, 321, 611 Justinian, 113 Jutland, battle of, 571 Kaffirs, 285, 424 Kagoshima, 481 Kaiser Wilhelm Canal, 329 Kalahari Desert, 487 Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, 275 Kant, Immanuel, 70, 72, 503, 655 Kara George Petrovich, 375, 376 Karolyi, Count, 615 Kars, fortress of, 385, 391, 637 Kauffmann, Angelica, 70 Kaulbach, 681 Kay, 161 Keats, 233, 681 Kelly, 161 Kelvin, Lord, 687 Kemalists, 636, 637 Kerensky, 567, 574, 600, 601, 602 Kermadec Island, 492 Khartoum (Africa), 312 Kiao-chau, 475, 484, 513, 531, 569, 579, 589 Kiel, 255, 257, 608; Canal, 578 Kiev, 344, 347, 623, 628 Kilimanjaro, 487 Kingsley, Charles, 218, 681 Kipling, 462 Kirghiz, 423 Kirk Kilisse, 406 Kitchener, General, 312, 461 Knights of Columbus, 594 Koch, Dr., 688, 689, 690 ‘““Kodok,’’ 465 Kolchak, 604 Kollar, 625 Konia, 403 K6niggratz, battle of, 256 Korais, 378 Koran, 66 Korea, 344, 473, 475» 483, 484, 495, 5125 587 Korner, 233 Kornilov, 600 Kosciusko, 56 Kossuth (F. L.), 203, 204 Kossuth, Francis, 337 Kotzebue, 150 Koweit, Sheik of, 332 Kropotkin, 223 Kruger, Paul, 359, 461 Kruger telegram, 514 Krupps, 316 Krylenko, 602 Kuban River, 373 Kublai-Khan, Emperor, 419 Kuchuk-Kainarji, Treaty of, 373, 378, 382STITT TTT TT TTI TH TTT TTEUTUUEUTTUTTUTUTCUGUUTIVUUTIAUUTUTUITGTAVUOUUOAUAOO OUT UCNU UENO iH INDEX 721 Ku Klux Klan, 278 Kulturkampf, 322 Kumanovo, battle of, 406 Kurdistan, 405, 582, 636, 637 Kurds, 366, 370, 393 Kurile Islands, 492 K wang-chow-wan (province of), 475 Labor Party (England), 291, 292, 669, 692 Laborites (England), 291 Labor Unionism (England), 292; 664 Labrador, 430 Lafayette, 71, 80, 91-96, 120, 186, 187, 192 La Fenice Theater (Venice), 72 La Harpe, 145 Laibach, congress of, 136, 184 Lamarck, 684 Lamartine, 123, 234, 244 Lamb, Charles, 681 Lambeth Conference (1920), 645, 700 Lancashire, 168 Land Act of 1920 (Latvia), 620 Land Acts of 1881, 1891, and 1896 (ireland), 298 Landtag (Prussia), 253, 611 Langer, W. L., 536 Lansing, Robert, 577 Lansing-Ishi agreement, 444 La Scala Theater (Milan), 72 Lassalle, Ferdinand, 220, 691 Lateran, 349 Latgallia, 620 Latin America, 4, 6, 29; extent of in 1789, 43, 75, 176, 179, 212, 214, 232, 277, 279, 280, 418, 425, 432, 433, 435, 440, 448, 449, 459 451, 452, 472, 493, 660, 676, 698 Latin League, 192 Latvia, 585, 619, 620, 650 Latvian Republic, 620 Lauenburg, Duchy of, 255 Lausanne Conference, 605, 637 Lausanne, Treaty of, 406, 634, 635, 637 Lavigerie, Cardinal, 489 Lavoisier, 71, 686 Law, Bonar, 551 Law of Nations, 7 Lawrence (Sir Thomas), 70 League of Nations, 7, 262, 464, 486, 574, 578, 580, 581, 587-590, 614, 632, 633, 637, 646, 649, 652-654, 658, 663 ‘‘ League of Patriots’’ (France), 244 “League of the Just’’ (France), 220, 221 League to Enforce Peace (U.S.), 658 ‘Leagues of True Russians,’ 342 Lebanon, Mount, 387 Leclerc, 112 Le Creusot (France), 316 Ce teri Lee, Arthur, 43 Leeds, 141 Leeward Island, 430 Legion of Honor (France), 111, 305, 317 Legislative Assembly (France), 99, 101, 104; Cindia), 467 Leibnitz, 71 Leipsic-Dresden Railway, 175 Leipzig, 172; battle of, 118; 220 Lemberg, 628 Lenbach, 681 Lenine, Nicolai, 567, 601, 603, 606, 682 Lens, 567 Leo XIII, 323, 665, 701, 702 Leopardi, 234 Leopold I (Belgium), 190 Leopold, Prince (Tuscany), 54 Leopold II (Austria), 100 Leopold II (Belgium), 360, 361, 488, 489 Leopold of Saxe-Coburg, 360 Leopold (Spain), 243, 258, 355 Leroy-Beaulieu, 426 Lessing, 72, 234, 503 Lettre de cachet (France), 78 Letts, 281, 343, 575, 615, 619, 620, 627 Levant, 15, 45, 84 Leviathan, 16 Lewis and Clark Expedition, 495 ‘Lex Kallio’’ (Finland), 617 Lexington, battle of, 28 Liao-tung peninsula, 45, 475, 483, 484 Libby, Professor, 36 Liberal Action Party (France), 315 Liberalism, 72; persistence of, 179; failure of in Germany, 202; social liberalism,216; autocracy versus, 530 Liberal Monarchists (France), 187, 301 Liberals (England), 290, 291, 294, 298; (France), 138; (Spain), 138 Liberia, 423, 488, 490, 494, 568, 644 Liberty Party (U.S.), 275 Liebknecht, Karl, 607, 656 Liége, 565 Lille, 171 Lincoln, Abraham, 275, 276, 277, 285, 695 Lindsey, Theophilus, 700 Linnzus, 71 Lisbon, 433 Lister, 667, 690 Liszt, 681 Literature, 72, 123, 680-681 Lithuania, 271, 575, 578, 580, 585, 604, 619, 621- 623, 650 Lithuanians, 56, 281, 344, 615, 619, 620, 621, 627 Little Entente, 624, 626 Little Russians, 627 ee en Boe ob ie SE es et anes mS rs a snare a re i ts | TT | " ¢ fl I j: ' | \ i i a /Ne eee eee ae a one een ee it ih : ' | | a t ; ) | Ht i a ae i ws ope So a [ Ae at adhere ieeninanenenertantinsetenertt edeenenatanitamaaaenmemanmnesiaaisti ek 722. INDEX Liu-Kiu Luchu Islands, 492 Liverpool, 164, 168, 416 Livingstone, David, 420, 487, 488 Livonia, 343, 604, 615, 618, 619 Li Yuan Hung, 479 Lloyd George, 287, 289, 291, 293, 299, 331, 523, 573> 5742 5772 59% 59% Lloyd’s Marine Insurance Comp any, 159 Local government ( (France), 77 Locke, John, 15, 27, 71, 9° Lombardo-Venetia, 204, 205, 245 Lombardy, 54, 248, 249, 262 London, 62, 72, 1595 656, 695; ee of, 407 Treaty of (1913), 407; University of, Longfellow, 279, 681 Long Island, 694 Loreburn, Lord, 551 Lorraine, 82, 133, 260, 512 Loubet, President, 306, 312 Louis XIV, 3, 51, 76, 87, 102, 119 Louis XV, 76, 87, 89 Louis XVI, 42, 76-79, 85, 87, 90-95» 98, 100, 102, 119, 137, 146, 171, 186, 231, 265 Louis XVIII, 119, 123, 131, 182, 185, 187, 217 ‘‘Louis Capet, 102 Louisiana, 43, 112, 423, 429; Purchase, 274 Louis Napoleon, 116, 192, 199, 238, 239, 240 Louis Philippe, 173, 18 character of, 188; 189, 190, 192; Opposition to, 196; 197, 219, 225, 238, 360 Louisville (Ky.), 38 Louvain, University of, 565 Lowe, Robert, 294 Lowell, 275 Loyalists (America), 27, 32, 38; (Canada), 456 Loyalty Island, 204 Loyola, 13 Liibeck, 610 Lucca (duchy of), 204 Lucknow, 466 Ludendorff, 568, 575 Lule Burgas, battle of, 406 Lundy, 275 Lunéville, Treaty of, 110, 111 Lusitania (S.S.), 560, 571 Luther, 3, 150, 155 Lutheran Church, 69, 699 Lutherans, 41, 69, 701 Lutzen, battle of, 118 Luxemburg, 133, 242, 556, 557» 563) 5&5» 575: 644 Luzon, 439 Lvov, Prince, 599, 600 Lybia, 355, 49% 491 Lyell, Sir Charles, 684 Lyons, 62, 84, 104, 172, 188, 420 ) o 122, 1375, 1397 X525 MacAdam, 163 Macao (China), 470, 473 Macaulay, 233, 681 MacDowell, 681 Macedonia, 367, 368, 369, 391, 396, 397, 406, 497, 498, 568, Bx, 629 Machado, President (Portugal), 358 Machiav ellie 15 Madagascar, 308, 423, 490, 492, 516 Madeira, 493 Madison, James, 34, 35, 36 Madras, 471 Madrid, 60, 192, 433; Convention of 1880, 330; Conference e 1880, 517 Mafia (Sicily), 351 Magellan, 15, Magenta, battle of, 248 Magna Carta, 207, 693 Magyars, 146, 203, 204, 265, 336, 337, 559> 626 Mahmoud II (Turkey), 374, 379, 381, 382, 386 Mainmorte, 83 Main River, ay Maine (S.S.), 356 Majority Soci: alists (Germany ), 607 Malay Peninsula, 417; race, 439; states, 470, 47! Malmedy, 578 Malta, 111, 134, 354, 414, 464 Malthus, 413, 691 Manchester (England), 62, 116, 141, 158, 163, 164, 168, 22 Manchuria, 339, 344, 473> 475» 476 484 Manchus, 473, 478 Mandarin dialect, 480 Manet, 681 Manihika Island, 492 Manila, 356 Manitoba, 457 Mann, Horace, 22 Mannerheim, General, 617 Mannesmann Brothers, 534 Mannheim, 150 Mansfield, Lord, 26, 486 Mansfield, Miss Belle, 672. Manuel II (Portugal), 358 Manzoni, 234 Maori, 459 Marat, 101, 189 Marburg, 158 Marchand, C aptain, 312 March Revolution (Russia, 1917), 599 Marconi, 695 Marco Polo, 419, 469, 473 Maria Christina, 356 Maria Louisa, 117, 192 Maria Theresa, 51, 52 Marie Antoinette, 90, 100, 17! Maritza River, 635TTI UAE TUT ET EU EETUETTEUUTUTUOE OUI TTUCUOCUU TSP INDEX 723 Mark, province of, 66 Mark Twain, 681 Marmora, Sea of, 390 Marne, battle of the, 565, 569 Marne River, 565 Maronites, 387 Marquesas Islands, 423 Marseillaise, 197 Marseilles, 84, 104 Marshall, John, 34 Martin, Luther, 35, 36 Martinique, 414 Marx, Karl, 8, 220-222, 301, 309, 325, 691 Marxian Social Democrats (France), 309 Marxian Socialism, 8, 222, 252 Marxian Socialists, 669, 702 Maryland, 26, 34, 36, 225 Masaryk, 626 Mason (G.), 277, 285 Mason-Dixon Line, 274 Massachusetts, 26, 28, 29, 36, 225, 432; Constitu- tion of, 212 Masurian Lakes, 623 Maude, General, 568 Mauritania, 490 Mauritius Island, 134 Max, Prince (Baden), 608 Maximilian (Mexico), 241 Maximilian, Prince, 575 Maxse, 551 Mayer (J. T.), 687 May Laws of 1873-75 (Russia), 322 Mazzini, 192, 205, 234, 235, 236, 246, 247, 249, 354, 655 MacDonald, Ramsay, 289 McKinley, William, 545 Mediterranean Agreement (First), 509; (Second), 510 Mediterranean Sea, 84, 312 Mehemet Ali, 373, 374, 379, 380, 381, 382, 383, 464 Meikle, Andrew, 157 Mekong Valley, 475 Memel, 578, 621 Mendel, 685, 7ox Mendelssohn, Moses, 67, 681 Mennonites, 41 Mensheviki, 601 Menshikoy, Prince, 384 Mercantilism, 16, 32, 413, 690, 691 Mesopotamia, 366, 403, 404, 542, 582, 629, 636, 638 Mesta River, 409 Methodism, 700 Methodist (Episcopal) Church, 4o Methodists (U.S.), 34, 141 Metric Union, 653 J Metschnikoff, 689 Metternich, 130, 131, 135-140, 143, 147-151, 179, 180, 184, 187, 189, 190, 192, 200, 204, 215, 219, 233, 235, 236, 252, 324, 529 ~ Metternich System,’’ 131, 138, 150, 151 Metz, 259 Mexican Revolution, 441 Mexico, 181, 241, 277, 417, 419, 429, 431, 436, 440, 441, 448-453, 662, 695, 699 Meyer, Eduard, 644 ~ Mezentian Union,”’ 312 Middle class, in Europe (1789), 61-62; in France, 82 Midhat Pasha, 392 Midia, 408 Midway Island, 439 Migrations of Peoples, 494, Milan, 183, 196, 205, 353; Milan Decree, 116 Militarism, 532 Military Revolutionary Committee (Russia), 602 Mill, J. S., 236, 413, 645, 691 Millais, 681 Millerand, 309, 315 Millet, 681 Milosh, Obrenovich, 376, 398 Milyukov, Professor, 599 Mindanao, 439 Miners’ Federation (England), 292 Mines Act of 1842 (England), 223 Mines Code (England), 292 Minorca, 55 Mirabeau, 3 _ Mirs’’ (Russia), 270, 271, 340, 346, 347, 598 Missions, 419, 420, 421; in China, 474; Christian, 702 Mississippi River, 23, 43, 163, 448 Mississippi (state of), 434 Missouri Compromise, 274, 275 Modena, 54, 204, 205, 248; Duke of, 192 Mohammed VI, 637 Mohammedanism, 14, 699 Mohammedans, 11, 66, 330, 370, 372, 387, 466, 467, 473, 558, 594, 698, 699 Moldavia, 366, 368, 373, 376, 377, 385, 387 Moluccas, the, 419 Mommsen, 234 Monaco, 644 Monarchists (France), 99, 302, 305-309, 314 Monastir, 406, 408 Mongolia, 473 Mongolians, 436, 480 Mongols, 54 Moniteur (France), 186 Monongahela River, 39 Monroe, 181 Monroe Doctrine, 137, 143, 181, 182, 241, 440, 441-443, 453, 519, 559, 573, 580, 588 PUP ATO UTETTUVENUVHUNTVETUNUENUAEUUNENUAGURINEUONETYUAEMRACONAROAA ASOTi A ee ee eee ' J | i i f Mt } t } te } | | i \ i 1 ti he Be We a] i | Pea aa ea fi) tae ae eae ae aa io Fae EL LR PE TR a oa INDEX Montenegro, 280, 341, 366, 375, 390, 406, 409, 557> 566, 629, 650 Montesquieu, 15, 71, 87, 503 Montevideo, 450 Montgelas (Max), 536 Montreal, 430 Moravia, 203, 334, 520, 525, 615, 626 Moravians, 41, 419 More, Sir Thomas, 216 Morea, 379 Moreau, General, 106, 110 Morel, 551 Moresnet (province of), 578 Morgenthau, Henry, 544 Morhardt (M.), 536, 553 Morley, Lord, 212 Mormonism, 700 Mormons, 226 Morocco, 308, 312, 313; Crises (Germany), 330; 356, 402, 417, 486, 490, 504, 516; crises, 517; 925 Morse, 164, 695 Moscow, 60, 118, 339, 344, 347, 607, 628 Motley (J. L.), 279 Mountain, the (Jacobins), 101 Mount Vernon, 34, 694 Mount Wilson Observatory, 688 Mozambique, 489 Mozart, 72 mMule veer Or Municipal Reform Act of 1835, 213 Munitions Council, 654 Murad V (Turkey), 392 Miirzsteg Program, 397 Muscovites, 375 Music, 681 Mussolini, 586 Mustapha Pasha, 375 Mustapha Kemal Pasha, 636, 637 Nanking, 478 Nansen, 495, 496 Naples, 155; revolution in, 183; 249 Naples, Bourbon house of, 115, 134 Napoleon, 4, 6, 59, 67, 87, 98, 102, 106-124, 131, 132, 147, 171, 232, 236, 241, 246, 250, 316, §29, 678, 693 Napoleon III, 220, 234, 239-244, 248, 254-258, 268, 277, 301, 442 Napoleon, Prince, 248 Napoleonic Empire, 117 Napoleonic Wars, 9, 123, 129, 139, 171, 232 ‘“Napoleonism,’’ 118 Narragansett Bay, 26 Narutowicz, Gabriel, 624 Nassau (province of), 257 Natal, 424, 460, 472 National Assembly (Austria), 581; (Costa Rica), 451; (France), 94, 171, 231, 238, 301, 302, 313, 314; (Germany), 578, 608, 609 National Consolidated Trade Union (England), 206 National Constituent Assembly (France), 94 National Convention (France), 96, 101 National Council (Czecho-Slovakia), 626; (Switzerland), 208 National Council of Workingmen’s Delegates (Russia), 345 National Economic Council (Germany), 613 National Guard (Paris), 301; (United States), 567 Nationalists (France), 306, 311; Cireland), 291 Nationalism, spread of, 6; results of, 7; in Greece, 184; origins of, 231; in Italy, 234; democracy and, 235; in United States, 281; in Greece, 378; in Serbia, 398; in Rumania, 400, 420, 426; in South Africa, 463, 504, 531; in Bohemia, 625 National Liberals (Germany ), 320, 321 National Pact (Turkey), 636, 637 National Radicals (France), 315 Nationalrat (Austria), 614 National state, origin of, 231 National Union (Italy), 247 National Union of Railwaymen (England), 292 National Woman's Suffrage Association (U.S.), 646 National Workshops (France), 198, 219 Naval Acts of 1898 and 1900 (Germany), 330 Navarino, bay of, 379 Navy League (Germany), 331 Near East, 45; problem of the, 55; 354, 368, 3693 causes of international rivalry in, 380-381; 383, 389, 395, 397> 399-403, 469, 510, 512, 519, 520, 568 Near East Relief, 635 Near Eastern Question, 185, 261, 508, 509 Necker, 85; reforms of, 91; 92, 93, 94 Nelson, Admiral, 107, 114 Neptune (planet), 687 Nesselrode, 131 Netherlands, 6, 15, 52, 83, 176, 358; government of the, 359 Neuilly, Treaty of, 581, 633 New Amsterdam, 414 New Brunswick, 456 New Caledonia, 241, 423, 492 Newcomen (T.), 162 ‘‘New Doomsday Book,”’ 158 New England, 27, 38, 41, 176 Newfoundland, 312, 429, 430, 455, 456 457, 493) 516, 694 New Guinea, 325, 464, 492, 508 New Hampshire, 33, 34, 37TIVITIV UE TUITE UU TECUU ECU TUTOR LULU ALOU INDEX New Harmony (Indiana), 218 New Hebrides CIslands), 492, 653 New Jersey, 36, 212 New Lanark (Scotland), 217 Newman, Cardinal, 7o1 New Mecklenburg, 492 New Mexico, 429 New Orleans, 163 New Pan-Americanism, 441 New South Wales, 457, 458 Newton, Sir Isaac, 71 New World, contributory factors in, 21; an ex- tension of the Old World, 42 New York (City), 38, 274, 278, 416, 429, 433, 440, 448, 452, 680, 682, 695 New York (State), 26, 37, 41, 164, 225, 249, 432 New York Sun, 226 New Zealand, 285, 424, 455, 457, 458, 459, 463, 464, 492, 645, 646, 660, 676 Ngami, Lake, 487 Niagara Falls, 695 Nicaragua, 440, 451 Nice, 106, 242, 248, 249, 354 Nicholas I (Russia), 146, 151, 204, 267; foreign policy of, 268; 340, 384, 385 Nicholas II (Russia), 312, 342, 344, 345, 597, 599, 616; Manifesto of, 345 Nicholas, Grand Duke (Russia), 546, 623 Nicolson, Sir Arthur, 552 Nietzsche, 533 Niger, 490 Niger River, 45, 486 Nile River, 465, 485 Noalles, Vicomte de, 95 Nobel, Alfred, 656 Nobility, in Europe (1789), 59; (1789), 60; in France (1789), 60 Nobles’ Congress (Russia), 598 Non-conformists, 295 Norfolk (England), 63 Normandy, 82 North, Lord, 26, 50 North Africa, 354, 509 North America, 9, 13, 15, 21, 37, 43, 429 North Borneo, 464, 492 North Carolina, 26, 28, 37; University of, 42 North German Confederation, 257, 260, 318 North German Lloyd, 327 North German Union, 242 North Pole, 495 North Sea, 329, 330, §27, §65, §71 Norway, 6, 49, 57, 61, 77, 134, 280, 362, 363, 364, 558, 615, 644, 646, 650, 676 Norwich (England), 63 Notre Dame (cathedral of), 113, 239 Nova Scotia, 456 in England AANA 7~5 Novibazar, 391, 409, 520 Nuremburg-Furth Railway (Germany), 175 Nyanza, Albert, 488 Nyassa, Lake, 487 Nyassaland, 490 Nystad, Peace of, 618, 619 Oberlin College, 226, 672 Oberlin Theological Seminary, 672 Obok, 488 Obregon, General, 451 Obrenovich, Prince Michael, 388, 398 Oceania, 43, 45, 308, 416, 418, 492 O'Connell, 297 ‘“Octobrists’’ (Russia), 345, 346 Odessa, 378, 388, 604 Oersted (H. C.), 686 Ohio River, 24, 26, 33, 163 ‘Old Catholics’’ (Germany), 322 ‘‘Old Tories’’ (England), 140, 193 Ollivier (O. E.), 243 Olney, 443, 453 Omaha, 438 Omsk, 470 Opium War of 1839-40, 285, 474 Orange, House of, 131, 133, 208 Orange Free State, 460, 461 Orange River, 424, 460, 487, 488 Ordinance of 1787 (U.S.), 37 Ordinance of Nullification (South Carolina), 274 Ordinance of the North-west Territory (U.S.), 680 Oregon, 278, 423 Origin of Species, The (Darwin), 684 Orkney Islands, 493 Orlando, 577 Orleanists (France), 314 Otto, King (Greece), 185, 395; (Bavaria), 379 Ottoman Empire, 55, 66, 370, 380, 381, 383, 385, 391, 392, 404, 405, 566, 581, 636, 637 Ottoman Porte, 9 Ottoman Turks, 366, 369 Outer Mongolia, 475 Overbeck (J. F.), 681 Overseas Expansion, motives for, 17; reaction of on West, 19 Owen, Robert, 216, 217, 218, 223, 292, 294, 691 ‘“Owenism,’’ 218 Oxford University, 141, 295, 296, 645 Otto, Prince Paderewsk1i, 623 Page, Walter Hines, 559 Paine, Thomas, 28, 34, 43, 530 Palacky, 625 Palatinate, 201 Palestine, 366, 470, 568, 582, 629, 638 Palmerston, Lord, 277, 386 I WUTTITTUUUUUUUCTTUTTUUTUUUU Te Sets Aa he to oe eeemed LWhss ba ree At, EE et ae EO ee eee coal aie enn i 1 { hg 4 if I} | | | | { 1 ia baa tt sted 1 ! { 1 F | a i wii ii | | ry aa u r , i eae RG TER aE IA Re a en ee = = wueeinees > rea — nena —_es — a = a ll 726 INDEX / Palmyra, 492 Panama, province of, 440; Canal, 416, 440, 443, 452, 663; Canal Zone, 436, 440, 4535 Company (France), 305; Republic, 440, 450, 644; ‘* Pan- ama Scandal’’ (France), 305 Pan-American Congress, 657 Pan-Americanism, 453 Pan-American relations, 440 Pan-American Union, 453; Bureau of the, 441 Pan-Aryan Association, 472 Pangalos, General, 635 Pan-Germanism, 7, 531 Pan-Germanists, 329 Pan-German League, 331 Pan-Hellenism, 7 Pan-Islamism, 392, 531 Pan-Italians, 354 Pankhurst, Mrs. Emmeline, 645 Pan-Slavism; 7, 341, 342, 347, 531, 598, 616 Pan-Slavs, 506 Papacy, 14, 130, 349, 594, 79% Papal States, 49, 54, 68, 116, 134, 192, 238, 248, 249, 349 Papin, Denis, 158 Paraguay, 419, 431, 448, 450 Parents’ Advisory Councils (Germany ), 679 Paris, 59, 62, 67, 72, 83; 84, 96, III, 112, 119; siege of, 259; 301, 302; Congress of, 247, 385; 386, 433, 452, 565, 682, 695 Waris Commune, 94, 101, 104, 280, 301, 309 Paris Revolt, 196 Parisians, 77, 96, 103 Paris Peace Conference, 299, 464, 479, 484, 577> 580, 587, 592, 614, 630 Paris-Rouen Railway, 172 Paris, Treaty of, 131, 135, 260, 385, 387, 400, 504 Park, Mungo, 45, 486 Parker (F.), 275 Parkman (T.), 279 Parlement, 78 Parliament (England), 18, 22-28, 49, 141, 286, 287, 289, 292; (France), 314 Parliament of Labor (England), 224 ‘Parliament of Man,’’ 658 Parliamentary System, growth of, 5 Parma, 54, 192, 204, 205, 248 Parnell (T.), 298 Party of Union and Progress (Turkey), 404 Pashitch, Premier, 540, 631 Passarowitz, Treaty of, 373 Pasteur, Louis, 316, 667, 688, 690, 693, 701 Pasvan Oglu, 373 Patmos, Island of, 406 Patrick Henry, 35, 36 Patterson, 35 Paul, 161 Pavia, University of, 235 Pawtucket, 39 Peace Movement, 656 Peary, Robert E., 363, 495, 496 Peasants, in Europe (1789), 64; in France, 82; in Ireland, 298 ‘Peasants’ Union’’ (Russia), 346 Pedro I (Brazil), 182 Peel (R.), 223 Pekin, 419, 473, 474, 475; University of, 477 Pelew Islands, 356, 492 Penn, William, 699 Pennsylvania, 36, 41, 225, 439, 6953 University of, 42. People’s Act of 1918, 287 ‘‘People’s Charter” (England), 207 ‘‘People’s Parliament © (England), 207 Permanent Court of Arbitration, 504, 657 Permanent Court of International Justice, 580, 617, 657 Permanent International Bureau of Peace, 656 Permanent Sugar Commission, 653 Perry, Commodore, 481 Pershing, General, 568 Persia, 332, 340, 403, 417, 419, 423, 469, 494, S19, 575» 605, 607, 644 Persian Gulf, 330, 332, 403, 519 Persians, 366 Peru, 419, 431, 436, 448, 450, 498 Pescadores, 483 Pestalozzi, 70 Peter I (the Great), 54, 55, 268, 339, 398, 604, 618 Peter II, 398 Peter Ill, 54 ‘‘Peterloo Massacre,’ 193 Petition of Right of 1628 (England), 18 Petrograd, 536, 565, 599, 600, 602 Petrovich families (Serbia), 398 Pfizer, 233 Phanariotes, 377 Philadelphia, 34, 38, 39, 41, 42, 163, 694 Philippines, 45, 356, 414 435» 439» 444» 479 475; 477 4925 587, 677 Phillips, Wendell, 275 Phillips Academy (Andover), 41; (Exeter), 41 Phoenix, 492 Physics, recent progress in, 687 Physiocrats, 72, 89, 413, 691 Piave River, 568 Picardy, 82 Picquart, Colonel, 306 Piedmont, 54, 106, 134, 136, 139; Revolution in, 183; 205, 246-249, 268, 349, 504 Pilgrims, 694 Pillnitz, Declaration of, 100 Pilsudski, General, 623 Pinckney, Charles, 35 Pitt, 26, 27, 42, §O, 110, 114CT TTT TICU TUTOR UII OUUU TT eS INDEX 727 Pitt (the younger), 381, 503 Pittsburgh, 39 Pius VII, 115, 130 Pius IX, 205, 246, 249, 259, 322, 349, 685, 701 Pius X, 307, 701 Place de la Concorde, 197, 311 Place, Francis, 207 Plain, the, 1o1 Plate River, 161 Plehve, 342, 343, 344, 616 Plombiéres, 248 Pobiedonostsev, 340, 343, 345 Poe, 279, 681 Poincaré, Raymond, 244, 315, 526, 527, 537, 538; 542-5525 554 573 Poitevin, 81 Poland, 6, 42, 49, 51, 52, $5; Partition of, 56; 59, 66, 68, 118, 133, 134; Revolution of 1830 in, 191; 200; Revolution of 1848 in, 208; 215, 233; nationalism in, 235; 271, 343, 414, $757 581, 604, 622-625, 646, 647, 699 Poles, 52, 56, 238, 262, 280, 281, 344, 622, 673 Polish Republic, 623 Polish Revolt (1863), 271 Political Parties, origin of, 6; in England, 290; in France, 99, 315; in Germany, 321 Pombal, Minister (Portugal), 182 Pomerania, 133, 134 Pontus Conference, 504 Poor Law of 1834 (England), 206 Po River, 192 Port Arthur, 339, 344, 471, 475, 483, 484, 513, 531 Porte, The, 268, 330 Port Jackson (Australia), 45 Porto Rico, 356, 414, 429, 430, 439, 440, 452, 453, 493 Portugal, 6, 15, 43, 44, 49, 68, 116, 139; Revolu- tion of 1820 in, 182, 214, 231; nationalism in, 235, 3583 414, 429, 430, 470, 498, 557, 567, 676 Portuguese, 44, 45, 116 Portuguese East Africa, 491 Portuguese Republic, establishment of the, 358 Portuguese Revolution of 1820, 182 Posen, 134, 281, 622 Potomac River, 34, 39 Potsdam, 403; Agreement, 522; Conference, 542; 544 Poverty, 665-666 Pradier (James), 70 Prague, 204, 625; Treaty of, 256 Presbyterian Church (Scotland), 296; 699 Presbyterians, 34, 69, 141 Prescott, 279 Pressburg, Treaty of, 114 Pretoria, 461 Priestly, 71 Prince Edward Island, 456, 457 EET RU Prince Henry (Portugal), 15 Prince Islands, 493 Princeton University, 42 Progressives (France), 315; (Germany), 321 Proletariat, 7, 25, 168, 188, 218 Protectionism, 663 Protectorate, 18 Protestant Episcopal Church (U.S.), 40 Protestant Revolt, 14, 699, 700 Protestants, 11, 53, 67; 1m France, 68, 69; 79, 80, 98, 117, 118, 148, 296; number of, 698, 701 Proudhon, 222, 223, 301 Provence, count of, 99 Provisional Council of State (Poland), 623 Provisional Government (Russia), 599, 600, 601, 618 Prussia, 6, 17, 42, 49, 50; Kingdom of, 51; 56, 59, 64, 115, 117, 133; under Frederick William III, 148, 173; Constitution of 1850, 200; 318, 611, 678 Pruth River, 366 Pskov (Russia), 599 Psychiatry, 690 Pufendorf, 15 Puritan Commonwealth (England), 18 Puritanism, 18 Puritans, 419 Pushkin, 273 Pu-yi, Emperor, 478 Pyrennes, 119 Quadruple Alliance, 135, 136, 143, 149, 193, 503, 505 Quakers, 9, 41, 69, 141, 419, 434, 486, 699 Quartering Act (England), 24 Quebec, 26, 419, 430 Quebec Act of 1774, 24 Queen’s College (England), 672 Queensland, 458, 464 Queen Victoria, 169, 277, 326, 463, 466, 651 Quesnay, 89 Rada (the Ukraine), 628 Raditch, 631 Raeburn (Sir Henry), 70 Railroads, 163; in France, 171, 318; in Germany, 175 Rangoon, 466 Rapallo, Treaty of, 631 Rebellion of 1837 (Canada), 456 ‘‘Red Guards’’ (Russia), 602, 604 Redmond, John, 298 Red Sea, 488, 638 ‘Red Sunday,” 345 ‘Red Terror’’ (Russia), 604 Reformation, 11, 14, 15, 21, 70, 7OI Reform Bill of 1884 (England), 286 oh i i , —_— ne Same Saas en ne ee ereooo Ln... ene eee ne a Ee he i j ’ } | rth al ; } j a a i } ail ae ae | i } wee 4 i te eae en . nan es ON ge OPTED tal ATA RS TS EES = 728 INDEX Reform Bill of 1887 (England), 286 Reform Party (China), 477, 478 Reichsrat (Austria), 264, 335; (Germany), 609 Reichstadt, duke of, 192 Reichstag (Germany), 257, 318, 319, 321, 327; 329, 524, 609, 612 Reign of Terror (France), 102, 104, 105, 198 Reinsurance Treaty, 509, 511 Reis, Philip, 164 Relander, L. K., 617 Religion, 10-11, 14, 40-41; in Europe (1789), 66, 67, 68-69; in France, 79-80, 123, 307; in England, 296; in Spain, 357; problems of con- temporary, 703; science and, 7o1 Remiemont, abbess, of, 79 Renaissance, 14, 15, 70 Renan, Ernest, 685, 699 Renouvin, Pierre, 536 Reparations Commission, 611, 633 Representatives on Mission (France), 103 Republican Entente (France), 315 Republicanism (France), 303-304, 317 Republican Party (U.S.), 275, 445 Republicans (France), 187, 189, 190, 196, 301, 305, 311; (Spain), 355 Reunion Island, 490, 492 Reuter, Fritz, 233 Reventlow, §7 Revolution of 1688, 18 Revolution of 1830, 173, 185, 187, 188, 190, 192, 194, 233 Revolution of 1848, 8, 131, 135, 179, 190, 196, LOI, 202, 204, 207, 2II, 215, 221, 232, 362, 530 Revolution of 1868 (Japan), 481 Revolution of 1905 (Russia), 347, 348, 598, 601 Revolution of 1917 (Russia), 669 Revolution of 1918, 201, 252, 256, 260, 319, 498, 613 Revolutionary Tribunal (France), 102, 103; (Rus- sia), 604 Reynolds, Sir Joshua, 70 Rheims, cathedral of, 565 Rhenish Palatinate, 242 Rhigas, C., 378 Rhine River, 102, 110, 118, 119, 148 Rhode Island, 28, 29, 34, 36, 37, 432 Rhodes, Cecil, 460, $33 Rhodes, Island of, 355, 406, 582 Rhodesia, 461, 490, 646 Ricardo, 413, 691 Ricasoli, 250 Richelieu, 3 Rif, the, 490 Riga, 345, 566, 601; Peace of, 620 Rigby, Dr., 83 “Rights of Man, The”’ (Germany ), 220 Riigikogou (Esthonia), 619 Riksdag (Sweden), 57, 215, 363 Rio de Janeiro, 419, 433, 682 Rio de Oro, 490 Roads, 163 Roberts, Lord, 461 Robespierre, 100, 101, 104, 105, 189 Rochambeau, 71 Rochefort, harbor of, 120 Rockefeller, John D., 441, 666 Rocky Mountains, 495 Rodbertus, 220, 691 Rodin, 681 Roland, Madame, 104 Roman Catholic Church, 11; clergy of, 67; 68, 80, 88, III, 123, 137, 140, 214, 235, 247, 271; 354, 356, 357s 573» 70> 70% Roman Catholics, 11; in Canada, 24; 32, 34, 40, 53, 67, 69, 79, 98, 141, 148, 224, 267, 296, 308; number of, 698; 701 Roman Curia, 7o1 Romanoff, House of, 268 Romanovs, 334, 585, $99 Romans, 13, 14, 155, 469 Romanticism, 129 Rome, 14, §9, 67, 70, 117, 164, 250, 433, 472, 682 Romney, George, 70 Rontgen, 686 Roosevelt, 426, 436, 440, 442, 443, 445, 453, 495> 5325 545, 646 Rossini, 681 Rothschild, Nathan, 159 Rouen, 84 Rousseau, 70, 71, 72, 83, 85, 88, 90, 105, 113, 231; 233, 234, 503, 529, 646, 654, 651 Rouvier (M.), 517 Royal Agricultural Society (England), 157 Royal Exchange and Bank of England (London), 70 Royalists (France), 112, 138 Ruand, 361 Rubenstein, 681 Ruhr Basin, 588, 611 Rumania, 185, 268, 279, 390, 399, 400, 409, 498; 527, 558, 575> 581; 626, 629, 632, 676 Rumanians, 146, 204, 334, 367, 387, 400 Rumelia, 337, 391, 397, 5°7 Rumsey, James, 39 Ruskin, 681 Russell, Lord John, 193 Russia (Russian Empire), abolition of serfdom in, 269; absolutism in, 340; condition of (1789), 54; illiteracy in, 676; minority peoples in, 343; nobility in, 61; movement eastward of, 3393 oil in, 695; Pan-Slavism in, 341; Opposition to tsardom in, 342; reforms in, 271; Revolution of 1905 in, 348; reaction and terrorism in, 272; under Alexander I, 145; under Nicholas I, 268; under Alexander II, 268ITIP TPT ETL TUE ETUC TUES CE INDEX Russian Orthodox Church, 267 Russian Revolution, 567, 574, $97, 621, 645 Russian Slavs, 54 Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic, 602 Russo-Japanese War, 344, 475, 499, 532, 616 Russo-Lurkish War (1877-78), 272, 390, 499, 504 Ruthenians, 56, 262, 335, 615, 625, 627 Saar Valley, 316; Basin, 578 Sadi-Carnot, President, 305 Sadowa, battle of, 256, 263 Safarik CP. J.), 625 Sahara Desert, 490 Saint Dominic, 3 Saint Gaudens, 681 Saint Germain, Treaty of, 614 Saint Helena, Napoleon’s exile to, 120; 250, 492 Saint Lawrence River, 429 Saint Lucia Island, 134 Saint Mihiel, 569 Saint Paul, 155 Saint Peter’s (Rome), 117 St. Petersburg, 146, 271, 343, 344, 345, 347, 353; 536, 539, 541, 5425 545> 546 Saint Quentin, 567 Saint-Simon, Henri, 216, 217, 219, 691 Saint Stephen, Hungarian crown of, 53, 263 Saint Thomas, Island of, 493 Saionji (Marquess), §77 Sakhalin Island, 339, 344, 423, 492 Salonica, 404, 406, 566 Saloniki, 520, 531 Salvador, 451 Salvation Army, 594, 700, 701 Samoa, 435, 439 Samoan Islands, 325, 653 Samokov (Bulgaria), 388 San Carlo Theater (Naples), 72 Sand, George, 234 Sand, Karl, 150 Sandwich Islands, 492 San Francisco, 440, 682 Sanjak, 520 San Paulo, 436 San Stefano, Treaty af, 272, 390, 391, 401 Santa Cruz, 492 Santiago (Chile), 433; (Cuba), 356 Santo Domingo, 429, 434, 440, 453, 493 Sarajevo, 338, 535, 540 541 Sardinia, 241, 242 Sargent, 681 Saskatchewan, 457 Savannah, 163 Savoff (General), 408 Savoy, 106, 242, 248, 249; House of, 354 Saxe-Weimar, 149, 150 Saxony, 50, 115, 133, 158, 175, 191, 201, 318 HHT 729 Sazonov, 526, 538, 540, 541, 546, 551, 552. $53 Scandinavian countries, 56 Scharnhorst, 148 Schaudinn (Dr.), 690 Scheidemann, 609 Schenkendorf (M. von), 233 Schiller, 72, 149, 234 Schilling, Baron, 546 Schleiden CM. J.), 688 Schleswig, 255, 281, 363, 578 Schleswig-Holstein, 255-257 Schmitt, Beradotte, 536, 554 Schnaebele incident (France), 508 Schubert, 681 Schumann, 681 Schurz, Carl, 202, 533 Schwann, Dr., 688 Science, advance in, 158; in modern civilization, 683; slow progress of to 1800, 693; contem- porary, 694; applied, 165, 695 Scientific thought, growth of, 10 Scotland, 206, 286, 290, 293, 595, 676, 679, 694 Scotland, Church of, 141 Scott, Captain, 496 Scott, Sir Walter, 233, 680 Sculpture, 70 Scutari, 406, 407 Seabury, Samuel, 40 Sebastopol, 272, 385 Second Continental Congress (America), 28 Second (French) Empire, decline of, 241; ovet- throw of, 301 Second International, 655 Second Reform Bill (England), 193 Second Soviet Congress (Russia), 605 Secret diplomacy, 534 Secular state, rise of, 14 Sedan, 569; battle of, 243, 259, 301 Segur, 90 Seimas (Lithuania), 621 Self-government, rise of, 4 Selim III (Turkey), 373, 374 Sembat, 309 Semmelweiss, 667 Senegal, 490; river, 44, 423; valley, 308, 488 Separation Law (France), 307 Sepoy mutiny (1857), 285, 466 Sepoys, 466 Serbia, 280, 337, 390, 406, 409, 498, 525, 542-546, 575» 576 650, 677 Serbo-Croats, 262, 335 Serbs, 183, 205, 367, 369, 396, 408 Serfdom, abolition of, 9, 17, 57; in Russia, 269 Sergius, Grand Duke, 344 Serrano, Marshal, 355 Seven Weeks’ War, 256 Sévres, Treaty of, 582, 636, 637, 638 INANE Tae 7 ye cnr nem Se ee ae — at iy Oe et 7 eed eet: SS FS Se ren AE RE TERT tA NR SS iene EEE a enemas seers FE ae fl | i | ; | Hl | | } { | | oeay il ne i i i ; ; ti 73,0 INDEX Sex Disqualification Removal Act (England), 645 Shackleton, 496 Shakers, 41, 226 Shakespeare, 13 Shanghai, 471 Shantung, 444, 470, 476, 479, 484, 485, 563, 569; 576, 579, 587, 589 Shays’ Rebellion (U.S.), 33 Sheffield, 63 Shelley, 123, 233, 681 Sherman Anti-Trust Act (U.S.), 442 Sherman, Roger, 35 Shetland Islands, 493 Shimonoseki, Treaty of, 481, 513 Shintoism, 481 Shintoists, 698 Shogunate (Japan), 530 Shotwell, James T., 116 Siam, 45, 308, 470, 473, 516, 568, 569 Siberia, 19, 223, 269, 339, 414, 420, 470, 471, 483, 569, 588, 677 Sicily, 196, 214, 249 Sienkiewicz, 681 Sierra Leone, 488, 490 Sieyés, I1O Sigel, Franz, 202 Silesia, 16, 51, 52, 59, 175, 334, 622, 626 Simms (W. G.), 279 Simon, Jules, 244 Singapore, 471 Sin-Kiang (district of), 473 Sinn Fein, 298 Sinn Feiners, 299 ‘Sisters of Charity’’ (England), 701-702 ‘Six Acts’’ of 1819 (England), 142 Skoropadsky, General, 628 Skupshtina, 631 Slavery, abolition of, 9; (U.S.), 276 Slavs, 146, 147, 204, 279, 334, 335» 336 69, 627 Slidell, 277, 285 Slovakia, 581 Slovaks, 204, 262, 625 Slovenes, 262, 335, 631 Smith, Adam, 16, 72, 89, 294, 413, 503, 530, 691 Smith, Joseph, 700 Smuts, General, 569, 579 Smyrna, 403, 582, 634, 636, 637 Social Catholics, 669 ‘‘Social Contract, The’’ (Rousseau), 88 Social Democrats (Germany), 281, 319, 321, 323, 328; (Russia), 346, 600, 601 Socialism, appearance of, 8; 122; germs of 122: Utopian, 216; Christian, 218; growth of, 222; Municipal (Germany), 328; in United States, 281; in France, 309; in Germany, 324; 593; basis of, 668; varieties of, 669, 691; 693 Socialistic Commonwealth, 8 Socialist Republicans (France), 198 Social liberalism, 216 Social Revolution, significance of (France), 121 Social Revolutionists (Russia), 346, 600, 601 Social Science, importance of, 696 Socialists (France), 301, 311; 670, (Germany), 323-327, 670; (Italy), 350, 670; (Russia), 347, 593 Society de Creusot (France), 84 Society for the Propagation of the Faith (R.C.C.), 702 Society Island, 492 Sociology, 692 Socrates, 13 Sofia, University of, 633 Soho, 167 Solferino, battle of, 248 Solomon Islands, 492 Somaliland, 354, 490, 491 Somme, battle of the, 567 Sonnino, §77 ‘Sons of Liberty’’ CU.S.), 2 South Africa, 18, 37, 422, 424, 427, 498, 514, 660, 699; Union of, 677 South African Republic, 460 South African War, 290 South America, 3, 9, 13, 18, 37, 43, 308, 355> 3572 429, 519, 682 South Australia, 458 South Carolina, 26, 28, 37, 274 Southern Confederacy (U.S.), 4 South Georgia Islands, 492 South Orkney Islands, 492 South Pole, 496 South Sea Islands, 420 South Shetland Islands, 492 South Wales, 158 Soviet Republic of Russia, 470, 593, 606 Soviets, 600, 601, 603 Spa, 568 Spain, nationalism in, 6; 15, 42, 49; under Charles III and Charles IV, 55; religious freedom in, 68; under Ferdinand VI, 138; Revolution in, 179; Revolution of 1830 in, 179; Revolution of 1848 in, 208; nationalism in, 235; political conditions in, 356; illiteracy in, 677 Spaniards, 44 Spanish-American colonies, revolt of, 180 Spanish-American War, 356, 430, 439, 449 443> 444, 499 Sparticists (Germany), 608, 609 Spencer, Herbert, 685, 692 ‘Spheres of influence,’ 417 Spirit of Laws (Montesquieu), 87 Spiritualism, 700 Staatsrat (Prussia), 610 275» 434 42. 3Mc a INDEX Stahlberg, K. J., 617 Stambulisky, Alexander, 633 Stambulov, 393 Stamp Act Congress (U.S.), 25, 35 Stamp Act of 1765 (England), 24, 25 Standard Oil Company, 441 Stanley, 361, 487, 488, 511 Stanley Falls, 488 Stanojevic, 540 State Churches, 11; in Great Britain, 140 State Socialism, 591 State Socialists, 669 States General (France), 49, 91-93, 96, 101, 231; (Holland), 57, 208 Stein, 3; educational gains under, 123; 132, 145, 148, 149, 252 Stephens, 276 Steuben, 71 Stevens, John, 163 Stevenson, George, 164 Stockholm, 215 Stolypin, 347 Storthing (Norway), 364 Straits Convention of 1841, 383 Straits Settlements, 470 Strassburg, archbishop of, 79; 259, 260, 302, 311 Stratford de Redcliffe, Lord, 384 Stuart (G.), 681 Stuart monarchy, 18 Stulginskis (M.), 621 Stuttgart, 202 Styria, 335 Sudan, 490 Suez Canal, 4or, 416, 465, 488, 663 Sugar Act of 1764 (England), 24, 25 Sugar Duties (U.S.), 24 Sukhomlinov, 546 Sun Yat-Sen, 478, 479 Sunnite Mohammedans, 370 Supreme Council of National Economy (Russia), 603 Supreme Council (Lithuania), 621 Supreme Court (U.S.), 275, 276, 278, 442; 458; (Russia), 605 Supreme Macedo-Adrianopolitan Committee, 397 Supreme War Council, 654 Surgery, recent progress in, 690 Svinhufvud government (Finland), 616 Sweden, 6, 49; in 1789, 56; 57, 61, 66, 116, 134, 176, 231, 363, 364, 498, 558, 646, 650, 676 Swedish Church, 700 Switzerland, 49, 57, 58, 61, 66, 131, 133; Revolu- tion of 1830 in, 193; Revolution of 1848 in, 208; 215, 361, 362, 498, 558, 565, 585, 676, 679 Sykes, Sir Mark, 629 Syndicalism, 122, 670 Syndicalists, 670, 671 HT MATA NT TMT MT TTT Le ‘Synthetic Philosophy "’ (Spencer), 685, 692 Syracuse (N.Y.), 226 Syria, 366, 381, 382, 387, 392, 403, 404, 436, 470, 519, 582, 629, 635; 636, 637, 638 Table of Magnates (Hungary), 264, 336 Tadema, 681 Taff Vale Railway (Wales), 292 Tahiti, 420, 423 Talleyrand, 132, 135, 645 Tanganyika, Lake, 487 Tangiers, 330, 517 Tannenberg, battle of, 565 Taoism, 473 Taoists, 698 Tardieu, 538 Tartary, 419 Tasmania, 285, 458, 492 Taurus Mountains, 366, 381, 403 Tchitcherin (Commissar), 603 Telegraph Union (U.S.), 444, 653 Temperley, Harold, 536 ‘Temples of Reason’’ (France), 104 Tenedos, 635 Tennis Court Oath (France), 96 Tennyson, 701 Terestchenko, 599 ‘““Terrorists’’ (Russia), 347 Teschen (province of), 623 Teutons, 620 Texas, 245, 423, 429, 430, 453 Thackeray, 233, 681 Thessaly, 368, 391, 395, 396 Thiers, 186, 187, 244, 301, 302 Third Estate, 82-83, 94, 231 Third French Republic, 243, 258, 261, 305, 307, 308, 316, 678 Third International, The, 605, 656 Thirteen Colonies (America), 414, 422, 430, 431, 456, 462, 529 Thirty Years’ War, 625 Thomas, Albert, 579 Thorn, 134 Thorwaldson, 70, 681 Thrace, 369, 406, 408, 581, 582, 633, 634, 637 Three Emperors’ League, 311, 321, 505; 506, 509 Tiber River, 192 Tibet, 473, 495, 519 Ticino, 354 Tientsin, 355, 47°, 474 Tigris River, 366 Tilsit, Treaty of, 115 Timbuktu, 486 Timor, 470 Tisza, Count, 337, 542, 544 Tobago Island, 134, 430 Togoland, 325, 499, 491; 569 Aa | il ae i th ‘ | : " | 7 }a se a eee 260, 301, 313; Palace of, 578, 649; Treaty of, 576-579, 599 611, 621, 623, 654, 657 Vicomte de Noailles, 95 Victor Emmanuel I, 183 Victor Emmanuel II, 205, 246, 247, 248, 249, 349, 355 Victor Emmanuel III, 349, 353 Victor Hugo, 128, 184, 234, 244, 656, 674, 681 Victoria (Australia), 458 Victoria Falls, 487 Vidin, fortress of, 373 Vienna, 53, 62, 72, 114, 119, 134, 203, 256, 433; 506, 682 Vienna, Peace of (1809), 117 Villa (Pancho), 441 Vilna, 621, 623; University of, 621, 625 Virgin Islands, 363, 430, 439, 440, 453, 493 Virginia (state of), 26, 28, 34, 37, 41, 212 Viviani, 309 Vlachs, 367, 368, 400 Vladivostok, 339, 423, 470, 604 Volga, 369 Volta, 54, 71, 686, 695 Voltaire, 13, §1, 58, 71, 79, 83; 88, 90, 91, 593, 530 von Behring, 689 von Bethmann-Hollweg, $33, 549, 557 von Bieberstein, 402 von Bulow, 329, 330, 351, 623 HV Le et von Caprivi, 510 von der Goltz, 402, 617 von Gagen, 201 von Haller, 71 von Hindenburg, 565, 568, 613 von Holstein, 510, 516, 551 von Humboldt, 132, 148, 150, 495 von Ketteler, 476 von Kriidener, Baroness, 135 von Liebig, 686 von Mackensen, 566, 567 von Moltke, 253, 255, 256, 259, 319, 549 von Ranke, 234 von Roon, General, 253, 254, 259 von Sanders, 410 von Tirpitz, 514, §§1 von Welz, Baron, 419 Wagner, 681 Wagram, battle of, 117 Wahabites, 370, 638 Wake Island, 439 Wakefield, Edward G., 462 Waldeck-Rousseau, Premier, 307 Wales, 62, 140, 286, 290, 699 Wallace, 685 Wallachia, 366, 368, 373, 376, 377, 387 Walloons, 360 Walpole, Spencer, 194 Waltham (Mass.), 39 War of 1812, 274 Warren, Dr., 690 Warsaw, I15, 134, 191, 344, 565, 619 Warsaw, Grand Duchy of, 115, 133, 622 Wartburg Festival, 150 Washington (Disarmament) Conference, 444, 479, 485, 589 Washington (D.C.), 278, 453, 682 Washington, George, 13, 28, 34, 35, 140 1 SI, 213, 274, 559» 694 Washington Island, 492 Washington, state of, 423, 449 ‘Water Frame’ (Arkwright’s), 161 Waterloo, battle of, 116, 120, 134, 199 Watt, James, 162, 457 Watts (T.), 681 Wealth of Nations, The (Adam Smith), 17, 72, 89 Webster, Pelatiah, 34 Wei-Hai-Wei (China), 444, 470, 475, 513 Weimar, 608 Weitling, 220 Wellington, Duke of, 119, 132, 138, 140, 143, 193, 203, 207 Weser River, 511 Wesley, John and Charles, 700 West, 681 Western Railroad (France), 310 > epee se aR NSE De ' / qt i ‘Be ii i! f iu | ! ti | . #1] ' te eee ied) gr re, pe be eehd ae ee eeeyr SO a a iT eA FS he i a a be ee inne Sarl | Cae ae y i i 1] | ri 73,4 INDEX West Indies, 414, 440, 443, 451, 464 Westminster Abbey, 487 Westphalia, 115, 118; Treaty of, 503 West Prussia, 578, 622 Weyler, General, 356 Whigs, 27, 42, 49, 140, 170, 193, 206, 233 Whistler, 681 White Book (The German), 611 White Russia, 605, 628 White Slave Traffic, 580 “White Terror’’ (France), 137, 604 Whitney, Eli, 162 Whittier, 275, 279, 681 Wilberforce, 486 ‘“ Wilderness Road’’ (U.S.), 39 Wilhelmina, Queen, 359 Wilhelmsland (New Guinea), 492 William and Mary, College of, 42 William, Crown Prince (Germany), 359 William I (Holland), 190 William II (Holland), 207 William III (Holland), 359 William V (Holland), 57 William I (Prussia), 243, 253, 254, 256, 258, 259, 21603, 3112) 221, 324513216 William II (Prussia), 260; character of, 326; 327, 328, 329, 330, 359, 402; diplomacy of, 511; 529, 533, 568, 578 Williams, Roger, 699 Wilson, James, 35 Wilson, Mount, 688 Wilson, Woodrow, 441, 445, 479, 557 559» 560; 561, 567, 573-577» 599» 630, 636 Windischgratz, General, 204 Windward Island, 430 Wintringham, Mrs. George, 645 Witte, Serge J., 341, 345, 602 Wobhler, 686 Wolf, 222 Woman's Movement, progress of the, 673 Woman's Social and Political Union, 645 Woman Suffrage (England), 286; 645 Woman’s Suffrage Convention (U.S.), 646 Woosung (China), 476 Wordsworth, 233 ‘“Workingmen’s Parliament’’ (England), 207 Workingmen’s Party (U:S.), 226 Workman’s Compensation Act (England), 293 Workmen's Social Democratic Party (Russia), 342 World History, forces in, 155 World Missionary Conference, 700 World State, 657 World War, 4, 6, 116, 134, 185, 191, 205, 215, 237, 245, 250, 258, 265, 281, 286, 289, 291, 293, 297, 309, 311, 315, 334, 347, 354, 358, 361, 398, 444, 463, 479, 484, 530, 542, $47, 647, 667, 673 World Wealth, increase in, 8 World’s Columbian Exposition, 444 Woyciechowski, Stanislas, 624 Wrangle, General, 604 Wright, Francis, 672 Wiirttemberg, 50; Duke of, 115; 202, 257, 318, 611 Wyatt (J.), 161 X-rays,’’ 687, 690 Yale University, 42 Yangtze Valley, 475, 476 Yellow Continent, 45 Young, Arthur, 62, 81, 83, 157, 316 Young China Party, 478 Young Communists (Russia), 605 Young Czechs, 265 Young Europe, 236 Young German League, 532 Young Germany, 234 Young Hungary, 236 Young Italy, 192, 205, 235, 246, 247 Young Ireland, 236 Young Men’s Christian Association, 594, 677, 699 Young Poland, 236 Young Turks, 337, 392, 402, 404, 405 Young Turk Revolution, 405-406, 520 Young Women’s Christian Association, 594, 677, 699 Yovanovitch, L., 540 Ypres, $65 Ypsilanti, Alexander, 184, 378 Yuan-Shih-Kai, President, 478, 479 Yudenich, General, 604 Zabern incident, 311, 329, 655 Zanzibar, Sultan of, 325 Zambezi, 487 ‘*Zemstvos’’ (Russia), 271, 340, 342, 344, $97, 598; Union of, 599 Zeppelin, 694 Zola, Emile, 244, 306 Zollverein, 175 Zulus, 285 Ziirich, Peace of, 249; University of, 672 Zwinglians, 699SHC UNA ONUMTCTN TMM NITION OOO UMUC OOOO 22 re ee eee ease eT et et ne PFT AEE Ae ACE ALAS SN A LT RA ATEN SIR ST ee — ene ee EOE TEoe i: = et ieee iba a Se | ta nH ‘ang 35 at WT] atLUNN WAU A ULL Uae rel as ba = —————— | | ' | i | | ———— nena rate i plan nal CELE I a Fr a a ae ae EnEEreneS a A a a Pee aan pee _ i| i i 5 a 7 e fj j } | ] 7 ; 7 RA: ARMIN TTEO TEETH UVTI ROTC Oe i | i | eat ah i fd ie re } a ee U_E_LL eee ee Seti tineHh i D ' : i + os i P F ie Fit ud j 8 Ke KI a 8 i ae Pott 2 ator SG ae oe TEE LS EE EAI 2 AO OTE I shit nm==. SEAN TMAH U Ue POEUN Asa pa a ST ern | | | | | | Cee raat i